Introduction

Perhaps no two political figures in modern Indian history have been considered more antithetical to one another than Jawaharlal Nehru and Vinayak Damodar Savarkar. The self-professed admirer of socialism, Nehru, the first prime minister of India, is seen as an emblem of pluralism while Savarkar, with his sectarian fusing of Hindu religion with nationalism, is considered parochial and divisive.

This essay analyses two seminal texts, Nehru’s The Discovery of India (1946), and Savarkar’s Hindutva (1923), both composed when the writers were imprisoned by the British government for participating in the freedom movement, to show how, while these two leaders built differing, even antagonistic political projects, the ideas they used in conceptualising an independent homeland contained areas of significant convergence.

The founding principles of the India that the two men, trained in law in England, dreamt of, and the vocabulary they used – whether quoting Yeats (‘balanced all, brought all to mind’, Nehru 1946: 22) or Shakespeare (‘What’s in a name?’ Savarkar 1969: 1) – placed them in a “nationalist-collaborator” role (Hussain 1974: 1) simultaneously playing freedom fighter and consummate intermediary with access to the culture of the rulers. Nehru declared that he was “the last Englishman to rule India^[i]”, while Savarkar promised “to be the staunchest advocate of constitutional progress and loyalty to the English government which is the foremost condition of that progress”^[ii].

Through this essay I shall chart out four primary areas of confluence in the way Nehru and Savarkar framed the notion of India – (a) construction of a common “sacred geography” (Eck 2011) in which they find their “hidden heart of national identity” (Schama 1995: 56); (b) the shared narrative of masculinity; (c) framing through “Eastern nationalism” (Plamenatz 1973) the lens where they feel compelled to contest a sense of cultural inadequacy; (d) and though both of them avow a moral rejection of a caste-based social structure, they cannot escape its use, even covert defence, as an inherent part of the body polity.

The comparison between The Discovery of India and Hindutva shall show us how the modern Indian nation was created through an ideological tussle whose dispute is well-documented but commonality at origin is often ignored.

Methodology

What bridges the vision of Nehru and Savarkar in The Discovery of India and Hindutva is a permeating sense of devotion, a language of piety, to a spatial topography which they imbibe with metaphysical meaning. For two men who declare aesthetical disinterest in religion, neither can construct the idea of a nation without theological tropes.

“I wandered over Himalayas, which are closely connected to old myth and legend… the mighty rivers of India that flow from this great mountain barrier into the plains of India… The Indus or Sifidhu from which our country came to be called India or Hindustan…” says The Discovery of India (Nehru 1946: 51), echoing Savarkar’s, “…the great Indus was known as Hindu to the original inhabitants of our land and owing to the vocal peculiarity of the Aryans it got changed into Sindhu…” (Savarkar 1969: 12). The ancients, argued Savarkar, were looking to find a word “… comprehensive enough… to express the vast synthesis that embraced the whole continent from the Indus to the sea and aimed to weld it into a nation” (Ibid.).

If nationalism is made up of “cultural artefacts of a particular kind” (Anderson 2006: 4), then these artefacts are to be found, for both Nehru and Savarkar, in geography. If for one, “The story of the Ganges, from her source to the sea, from old times to new, is the story of India’s civilisation and culture” (Nehru 1946: 51), for the other, the sense of the nation is created “out of their gratitude to the genial and perennial network of waterways that ran through the land like a system of nerve threads and wove them into a Being” (Savarkar 1969: 5).

Both men emphasise the interweave of co-related geographies, a mountain range here, a river there, all of them in conversation with one another, using the idea that “geography is a science of relationships” (Huntington 1928).

Their imagined communities (Anderson 2006) are plotted in scriptural terms with Nehru pointing to “vast numbers of common folk were continually travelling to the numerous places of pilgrimage… All this going to and fro and meeting people from different parts of the country must have intensified the conception of a common land and a common culture…” (Nehru 1946: 191) and Savarkar claiming to quote from the ancient Vishnu Purana, “The land which is to the north of the sea and to the south of the Himalaya mountain is named Bharata^[iii]”.

But using this shared conception, they arrive at divergent destinations. Nehru talks of an India built as an “ancient palimpsest on which layer upon layer of thought and reverie had been inscribed, and yet no succeeding layer had completely hidden or erased what had been written previously” (Nehru 1946: 59). But for Savarkar, assimilation (and not coexisting layering) is the key to nationhood, for instance for Muslims, he wants “worship as heroes our ten great avatars only adding Muhammad as the eleventh” (Savarkar 1969: 101) as the criterion for entry into the embrace of nationhood. This difference is stark, for instance, in describing the invasion of Mahmud of Ghazni upon India. “Mahmud was far more a warrior than a man of faith and like many other conquerors he used and exploited the name of religion for his conquests… He enrolled an army in India and placed it under one of his noted generals, Tilak by name, who was an Indian and a Hindu. This army he used against his own co-religionists in central Asia” (Nehru: 1946: 235), while “…where religion is goaded by rapine and rapine serves as a handmaid to religion… such were the forces, overwhelmingly furious, that took India by surprise the day Mohammad crossed the Indus and invaded her” (Savarkar 1969: 44) – while they can agree with why their homeland is glorious, Nehru and Savarkar part ways in defining the enemies of India and their attributes.

In Nehru’s imagination of India, there is no defined ‘other’ whereas the ‘other’ for Savarkar is acutely established. For Savarkar, India is defined by influences that it must repel, while for Nehru, even in the most repellent of experiences, India is constructed of that which it absorbs—even from those that attack it.

In their imagining of India, there is also a shared sense between Nehru and Savarkar of “Eastern nationalism” (Plamenatz 1973). The Plamenatz model talks of two kinds of nationalism – Western and Eastern. Western nationalism, according to Plamenatz, is seen among Western countries which may have gone into decline but are sure of their cultural apparatus, whereas Eastern nationalism in places like Asia and Africa comes from “peoples recently drawn into a civilisation hitherto alien to them” (Plamenatz 1973: 25) and deals with a feeling of cultural inadequacy.

The Discovery of India has tracts of the questioning of such alien culture with undertones of a pushback against the inadequacy of the native culture. “Ancient Greece is supposed to be the fountainhead of European civilisation, and much has been written about the Orient and the Occident. I do not understand this… India, it is said, is religious, philosophical, speculative, metaphysical, unconcerned with this world, and lost in dreams of the beyond… So we are told, and perhaps those who tell us so would like India to remain plunged in thought… so that they might possess this world…” (Nehru 1946: 152). Savarkar has even more emotive fare: “The Indians saw that the cherished ideals of their race… were trampled underfoot, the holy land of their love devastated and sacked by hordes of barbarians” (Savarkar 1969: 21).

Nehru disagreed with poet Matthew Arnold’s description of the East (“The East bow’d low before the blast; In patient, deep disdain; She let the legions thunder past; And plunged in thought again^[iv]”) in The Discovery of India, writing, “But it is not true that India has ever bowed patiently before the blast or been indifferent to the passage of foreign legions. Always she has resisted them, often successfully, sometimes unsuccessfully, and even when she failed for the time being, she has remembered and prepared herself for the next attempt.” (Nehru 1946: 142). Savarkar makes a similar point of forgotten valour, when attacked, he argued, “… the enlightened would perhaps remain as unaffected as ever… But the rest of the Hindus could not then drink with equanimity this cup of bitterness and political servitude at the hands of those whose barbarous violence could still be soothed by the mealy-mouthed formulas of ahimsa (non-violence)” (Savarkar 1969: 19).

Unmistakably, there is a streak of “nationalism is paranoia” (Kis 1966) in this. In fact, the reinforcement of the vision of nationalism based on “an ancient civilisational entity” (Oomen 1999) is consistently used as a counterbalance to the cultural inadequacy, Nehru and Savarkar seem to sense around them. Perhaps it is because of this feeling of insufficiency that both men seep into their description of India, strong undertones of masculinity.

Underlining both texts, there is a sense of romanticist masculinity, a portrayal of adventure – theoretically this is their journey to become “men of consequence” (Ruddiman 2014). Nehru has an effusive description of the moon from his jail room in the beginning of The Discovery of India, “The moon, ever a companion to me in prison, has grown more friendly… a reminder of the loveliness of this world…” (Nehru 1946: 15). His portrayal of prison life as a romantic ideal started early and stayed on. “Nehru thrilled in jail-going, and there is, in his letters and diaries of the early twenties, the glow of virginal suffering and self-indulgent sacrifice.” (Gopal 1976). In The Discovery of India, Nehru brags about how he bravely spurned an invitation to meet Mussolini despite being on a visit to Rome and immense diplomatic pressure (Nehru 1946: 47). On his part, Savarkar’s self-imagery and positioning is lucid. He mentions, “Forty centuries, if not more” have gone by to as “prophets and poets, lawyers and law-givers, heroes and historians, have thought, lived, fought and died” establish the legitimacy of the word Hindutva (Savarkar 1969: 3). There is no confusion about his self-placement in that pantheon – Savarkar is, in his own assessment, the latest in the list of historical figures battling to establish the credentials of Hindutva.

There is a difference, though, in the tonality of their masculinity. Nehru develops a voice of “avuncular masculinity” (Krishnamurti 2014), a derivative of the Gandhian “Satyagraha… has been conceived as the weapon of the strongest” (Gandhi 1938). For instance, for all the talk of non-violence, Nehru hastens to explain in The Discovery of India that non-violence did not prevent the Congress from formulating the creation of a military or police force in independent India (Nehru 1946: 444). Savarkar has a more militant ideology and displays an “anxious Hindu masculinity” (Gupta 2011) as he pushes forth the idea of sangathan (organisation), “The numerical strength of our race is an asset that cannot be too highly prized” (Savarkar 1969: 134), and in his worldview every enemy of India is defined in terms of “bitter haters of Hindus” (Savarkar 1969: 59) and every hero as “you are the restorer of the Hindu religion and the destroyer of the Mlechhas (foreigners)” (Ibid.).

Nehru and Savarkar also denounced caste in the personal and public but failed to escape putting forth its relevance, even defence, in the making of India as they saw it. India may have had caste discrimination, but this was better than the slave labour in ancient Greece, argues Nehru. “Within each caste there was equality… each caste was occupational and applied itself to its own particular work. This led to a high degree of specialisation and skill…” (Nehru 1946: 216). Savarkar is more strident, “… pull down the barriers that have survived their utility… of castes and customs… Let this ancient and noble stream of Hindu blood flow from vein to vein” (Savarkar 1969: 129). Savarkar could only “pull down” dated customs, never completely remove caste as there is always a lurking sense that Hindu unity would be lost without caste.

Conclusion

This essay, for reasons of brevity, does not make a claim to depict in its entirety, the ideological roots and commonality between Nehru and Savarkar. But it does aim to succinctly show that even though contemporary imagination pitches them as irreconcilable adversaries, the men were products of their class and milieu. It is conceivably Nehru’s exposure to socialism and Gandhian pacifism that enables him to construct a multicultural teleology (Guttman 2003). Savarkar’s early rejection of “mealy-mouthed ahimsa” leads to a more radical path including an accusation in the assassination of Gandhi^[v]. That the two men differed in their conclusions, and Nehru’s subsequent leadership of independent India, established his vision of a mosaic society in India. But it is because of the early commonalities that Savarkar’s monochromatic viewpoint never disappeared and, as the rise of Hindu nationalism has shown, may yet be strong enough to mount a sustained challenge as a legitimate and potent political force.

Author Brief Bio: Shri Hindol Sengupta is Vice-President & Head of Research at Invest India. He is a multiple award-winning author of nine books. He has been a Knight Bagehot Fellow at Columbia University, and a Chevening Scholar at Worcester College, Oxford.

References:

Anderson, Benedict (2006), Imagined Communities, London: Verso Books

Eck, Diana (2012), India: A Sacred Geography, New York: Three Rivers Press

Gandhi, Mohandas Karamchand (1938), Pune: Harijan

Gopal, Sarvepalli (1976), The Formative Ideology of Jawaharlal Nehru, Bombay: Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 11, No. 21

Gupta, Charu (2011), Anxious Hindu Masculinities in North India: Shuddhi and Sangathan Movements, New York: CrossCurrents, Vol. 61, No. 4

Guttman, Anna (2003), Compromise and contradiction in Jawaharlal Nehru’s multicultural nation-state: constructing national history in The Discovery of India, Purdue: Clio

Husain, Arif (1974), The Educated Elite: Collaborators, Assailants, Nationalists, Lagos: Journal of the Historical Society of Nigeria

Huntington, C. C. (1928), Geography as a Social Science, London: Social Science, Vol. 3, No. 3

Kis, Danilo (1996), On Nationalism, Massachusetts: Performing Arts Journal Vol. 18, No. 2

Krishnamurti, Sailaja (2014), Uncles of the Nation: Avuncular Masculinity in Partition-era Politics, South Asian History and Culture, Volume 5, Issue 4

Nehru, Jawaharlal (1985), The Discovery of India, New Delhi: Oxford University Press

Oomen, T. K. (1999), Conceptualising Nation and Nationality in India, Bombay: Sociological Bulletin, Indian Sociological Society, Vol. 48, No. ½

Plamenatz, John (1976), ‘Two Types of Nationalism’ in Eugene Kamenka, ed., Nationalism: The Nature and Evolution of an Idea, London: Edward Arnold

Ruddiman, John A. (2014), Becoming Men of Some Consequence: Youth and Military Service in the Revolutionary War, Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press

Savarkar, Vinayak Damodar (1969, fifth ed.), Hindutva, Bombay: Veer Savarkar Prakashan

Schama, Simon (1995), Landscape and Memory, Toronto: Random House Canada

^[i] Venugopal, Arun, ‘It was India’s good fortune to be a British colony’: Interview with John Kenneth Galbraith (2001), New Delhi: Outlook

^[ii] Majumdar, R. C., Penal Settlements in the Andamans (1975), New Delhi: Department of Culture, Government of India

^[iii] Used here synonymously to India but charting a territory covering most of modern South Asia

^[iv] Arnold, Matthew, Obermann Once Again, PoetryFoundation.org

^[v] The accusation could not be proved before the law and was subsequently withdrawn.

Year 1992 was momentous in the history of the Indo-Pacific. In February that year, the Chinese legislature passed a resolution innocuously named as the ‘Law Concerning Territorial Waters and Adjacent Regions’. This resolution was the starting point of China’s ambitious and aggressive maritime adventures in Nanhai or Nanyang – the Chinese name for the South China Sea and the Southern Ocean. This came as a culmination of the Southern tour of the supreme leader Deng Xiaoping. Armed with the new law, the Chinese started making new maritime claims in the Western Pacific right upto the Malacca Straits. It also started enforcing claims based on the unilaterally pronounced Nine Dash Line – an imaginary maritime boundary causing serious consternation to the maritime states in the region like Indonesia, Malaysia, Vietnam and Philippines.

This sudden ascendency of China in the Western Pacific was followed by another important geo-strategic development in the region nine months later. In November 1992, the Americans had announced the closure of an important naval base at the Subic Bay in Philippines. The base had been under the US control since the time of victory of the US Forces in the Spanish-American War of 1898. The base played a pivotal role in US’ naval adventures in the Western Pacific during the Cold War years as the “service station and supermarket” for the US Seventh Fleet. In June 1991, Mount Pinatubo, a volcanic mountain in the region, had erupted causing severe damage to the base and a nearby US Air Force base at Clark. Rising nationalism in the Philippines and the collapse of the Soviet Union too contributed to the US decision of vacating the Bay.

Although unconnected, these two developments in 1992 – the new Chinese maritime laws and the US’ withdrawal from Philippines – were to signify a major strategic shift about to begin in the Indo-Pacific region – the ascendency of China and the erosion of the US influence.

Thirty years later, this asymmetry is glaring before the countries in the region as well as the world at large. China has today emerged as a major maritime power, ambitiously exerting its authority in the seas to the South and East. It shed what President Hu Jintao described in 2003 as its “Malacca Dilemma” under President Xi Jinping and embarked on the program of “great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation” in the Southern oceanic region. It occupied shoals, built artificial islands, constructed airstrips on them, erected radars, deployed massive fleet of vessels to constantly guard the waters and violated boundaries of maritime neighbours with impunity.

China’s Indo-Pacific adventurism is an important dimension of the “China Dream” of Xi Jinping. The Chinese had always felt claustrophobic of being surrounded by big powers like Russia, India and Japan. Their relatively underdeveloped Naval strength had left them handicapped in the only major opening that they had in the South through the Indo-Pacific sea lanes. As the country prospered, its dependence on the Indo-Pacific has also increased manifold. Malacca Straits became its lifeline with over 80 percent of its energy supplies coming through that route.

Additionally, the global power axis has shifted to the Indo-Pacific region with the advent of the new century. This region has emerged as the busiest sea-route with over 50 percent of the container tonnage passing through it. It is here that the fastest growing new economies are located. It is here that major defence spending is happening. It is here that populations with purchasing power creating potential markets exist.

Both China and the US have realised the growing importance of the Indo-Pacific region in the 21st century. President Xi Jinping’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) – that included both land and maritime linkages – was essentially intended to gain greater dominance over Eurasia in general and the Indo-Pacific in particular. In a hard-hitting speech against the West, delivered in February 2013 and released to the public six years later, Xi Jinping came down heavily against what he perceived as America’s ‘containment policy’ against China in the region. The BRI was conceived as an antidote to America’s intended re-domination of the region.

President Obama’s years in the White House saw enhanced attention towards the Indo-Pacific region. His policy of ‘Asian Pivot’ or ‘Asian Rebalancing’ was a major shift from the earlier US focus on West Asia and Western Europe. Although Bill Clinton and George Bush showed some interest in the shifting power balance in the world, their focus largely remained limited to Guam and Western Pacific besides of course the ‘war on terror’ in West and Central Asia. With a view to achieving balance in the Indo-Pacific region and containing China’s growing muscle, Obama initiated ‘Trans-Pacific Partnership’ (TPP) dialogue with the nations on the periphery of the Indo-Pacific, while enhancing bilateral ties with ASEAN member states and other regional powers.

In an important article in the Foreign Policy magazine titled ‘America’s Pacific Century’, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton wrote that “Strategically, maintaining peace and security across the Asia-Pacific is increasingly crucial to global progress, whether through defending freedom of navigation in the South China Sea, countering the nuclear proliferation efforts of North Korea, or ensuring transparency in the military activities of the region’s key players”. She enumerated six action points for the policy of ‘Asian Pivot’: strengthening bilateral security alliances; deepening America’s relationships with rising powers, including China; engaging with regional multilateral institutions; expanding trade and investment; forging a broad-based military presence; and advancing democracy and human rights.

End of Obama presidency coincided with consolidation of Xi Jinping’s position in China. President Donald Trump’s reckless adventurism met with Xi Jinping’s ‘great power autism’ – inability to hear about the concerns of others. In his Indo-Pacific policy address, Trump articulated his aim in so many words as targeting China. While Obama’s Asian Pivot policy was inclusive at least ostensibly, Trump didn’t display any such pretences. His Indo-Pacific policy clearly excluded China and his Secretary of State Mike Pompeo missed no opportunity to attack the Chinese Communist Party as the quintessential evil.

The American hyper-power and the Chinese growing power are on an ominous collision course in the Indo-Pacific. Mutual suspicion is conspicuous in many of the initiatives that both countries take in the region. The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) that President Obama initiated in 2012 excluded China. Similarly, the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) that China initiated a year later excluded America. This obviously puts pressure on the regional stakeholders. “The strategic choices that the United States and China make will shape the contours of the emerging global order. It is natural for big powers to compete. But it is their capacity for cooperation that is the true test of statecraft”, wrote Prime Minister of Singapore Lee Hsien Loong in a recent article in The Foreign Affairs journal, which extensively dealt with the raging acrimony between the two big powers. “The Asia-Pacific countries do not wish to be forced to choose between the United States and China. They want to cultivate good relations with both”, he added. No less-important regional powers like India, Japan and Australia, together with their ASEAN neighbours, must watch the unfolding rivalry carefully and closely.

The economic and security heft of the United States is critical to what President Obama termed as the ‘Asian Rebalance’. Without the American reassurance, nuclear threshold countries like Japan and South Korea may be tempted to cross that threshold, thus jeopardising regional security further. On its part, China has to rewind its policy by twenty years to Jiang Zemin’s time when the Chinese leadership was sincerely reassuring its Asian neighbours – the ‘Near Abroad’ as the Chinese describe it – and the rest of the world about its intentions of a ‘peaceful rise’. That had earned China a smooth entry into the World Trade Organisation (WTO) in 1999 and allowed it an opportunity to exploit global markets. In just two decades time China emerged as the world’s largest economy in terms of its GDP on purchasing power parity (PPP) and second largest in nominal GDP.

Xi Jinping wants regional powers in Asia to take control of the affairs of the region. As a principle it sounds logical. However, given the experience of several countries in the region with China in the past, it actually echoes China’s Tianxia worldview in which the Chinese emperor, sitting in the Zhongguo – Middle Kingdom – would rule over “all people under heaven”. The regional powers want their relationship with China on the basis of ‘sovereign equality’. Decades ago, when this was being challenged, the South East Asian countries came together and formed the ASEAN to deal with a bigger and mightier China. As China grew even bigger, it is imperative for all the important regional powers to come together ensuring that the region doesn’t become a battlefield for a new Cold War on one hand and one dominated by China on the other. Regional collaborative initiatives that include all major powers like India, Japan, ASEAN and Australia are crucial to the peaceful management of this most happening region of the century.

India is an important power in this region. Just as the centrality of the ASEAN to the Indo-Pacific cannot be overlooked, centrality of India to the Indian Ocean too cannot be underplayed. India has a stated policy of Act East from the time of Prime Minister Narasimha Rao’s regime in early 1990s. However, it doesn’t seem to fully realise the potential and significance awaiting it to the East of its geography. Indian approach still remains largely Westward ho. Indian system should appreciate the fact that what France and Germany are to it today, Vietnam and Indonesia will be tomorrow.

Indian diplomacy has to pull its socks up to play a greater role in the region. Prime Minister Modi laid out his vision at the Shangri La address in 2017. It has to shed its reticence and move in that direction quickly and strategically. Seasoned diplomats easily understand what James Mattis meant when he told the American Congress as the Commander of the U.S. Central Command: “If you don’t fund the State Department fully, then I need to buy more ammunition ultimately.” If diplomacy doesn’t get priority, defence will be forced to. It may be pertinent to recall that India began its global diplomacy with the Asian Relations Conference hosted by Jawahar Lal Nehru in March 1947. It was from there that the policy of non-alignment took roots. These twin principles – proactive engagement with Asian neighbours and non-alignment – remained benchmarks for Indian diplomacy ever since.

There is no better time for India to recommit itself to these benchmarks; and no better opportunity than the Indo-Pacific.

Shri Ram Madhav is an Indian politician, author and thinker. Formerly, he has served as the National General Secretary of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and has also been a member of the National Executive of the Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh (RSS). He also serves as a Member of the Governing Board of India Foundation.

Introduction

Through the Treaty of Amritsar, the British had bestowed the Kashmir Valley and other territories on Maharaja Gulab Singh who was the ruler of the Jammu region. With the merger of these territories, the Maharaja established the state of Jammu and Kashmir. This included Ladakh and present day Gilgit Baltistan. The Jammu and Kashmir State thus created by the Dogra Rulers was one of the largest States under the British paramountcy in India^[i]. It had an area of 2,22,236 sq. km. including those areas which are presently under the illegal occupation of Pakistan and China^[ii].

British concern over Russian expansionism led to the establishment in 1877 of the Gilgit Agency. This was re-established in 1935 under the control of the British Resident in Jammu and Kashmir and was given on lease for a period of 60 years commencing from 29 March 1935.^[iii] Maharaja Hari Singh, who ascended the throne of Jammu and Kashmir in 1925, was concerned about the conduct of certain British officials in building huts in Gulmarg region of Kashmir. He had also expressed his anti-British stance on several occasions, at times even in the meetings of the Chamber of Princes. This became the main cause of contention between the British officers and the Maharaja. To protect his State from the British in the year 1925, Maharaja Hari Singh issued an order that Indian subjects will be given more relaxations over British subjects in building huts in Gulmarg region of Kashmir. British Government openly protested this differentiation and communicated it via a series of telegrams through its Foreign and Political Department.

To prevent the British residents from buying the properties in J&K for their own permanent settlement and depriving the poor local population of J&K of their land and opportunities, Maharaja Hari Singh issued the State Subject Definition Notification on 20 April 1927.^[iv] The notification classified the State Subjects as also companies which had been registered in the state. Vide the above notification; the Mulkis (Hereditary State subjects) were given preference in employment in the Government services. It also instructed that grants of land for building and other purposes were to go to the ‘Hereditary State subjects’ and permitted the selling or transferring of such land to Hereditary State subjects only. With respect to contracts, it decreed that the claims of State subjects should have priority over those of non-State Subjects. It was this State Subject Notification (1927) which the valley politicians used post 1947 to bring in Article 35A under the protection of Article 370 of the Indian Constitution. However, they made some convenient deletions to suit their political agenda and maintain their political control over J&K State.

Accession of J&K State to India

The instrument of Accession signed by Maharaja Hari Singh was the same as was executed by the rulers of other princely states that acceded to India. The British Government could not have questioned this act of accession as it was made directly under the enactments of the British Parliament. Further, the Legal Advisor to the United Nations Commission also concluded that the State’s accession to India was legal and could not be questioned.

However, while accepting the Instrument of Accession, Lord Mountbatten, the then Governor General of India, did state his views in a letter addressed to the ruler of the State that as soon as law and order was restored and J&K State is cleared of the invaders, it was his Government’s wish, in conformity with their policy in case of disputed accession, that “the question of State’s accession should be settled by a reference to the people”. This statement was not a part of the Instrument of Accession; therefore it does not affect the legality of the accession in anyway.^[v] However it was Pandit Nehru‘s statement on 2^nd November 1947 about holding a plebiscite in J&K that opened the gates for Sheikh Abdullah to further his personal ambition of being ‘Sultan of J&K’ and he used Article 370 to bully and manipulate the Central Government.

Mehr Chand Mahajan has said:

“The Indian Independence Act did not envisage the conditional accession. It could not envisage such a situation, as it would be outside the Parliament’s policy. It wanted to keep no Indian State in a state of suspense. It conferred on the rulers of Indian States absolute power in their discretion to accede to either of the two Dominions. The Dominions Governor General had the power to accept the accession or reject the offer but he had no power to keep the question open or attach conditions to it, as the act of accession made the Dominion Government responsible for defence, communication and external affairs of the acceding State”.

The J&K State’s Instrument of Accession and its acceptance were similar to all the other Indian States and was unconditional, voluntary and absolute. It bound the State of Jammu & Kashmir to India both legally and constitutionally^[vi]. The accession was no doubt prompted by Pakistan’s attack on J&K on 22 October 1947. This attack, dubbed as Operation Gulmarg was the brainchild of the Pakistan military and was supported by the Pakistan government. 20 lashkar’s, each compressing of 1000 Pashtun tribals, were raised by the Pakistani army. Besides being given weapons and equipment and provided logistic support, they were also led by officers from the Pakistan army. Indeed, the Pakistan army, with the complete backing of the ruling Pakistani dispensation, carried out the entire planning and execution of this operation.

On commencement of Constitution of India and by virtue of its own language of Article 370, only Article 1 and Article 370 were made applicable to the State of Jammu & Kashmir. Article 1 (1) declares, “India, that is Bharat, shall be a Union of States” Article 1 is a solemn declaration of the People of India that the Union of States is an indestructible Union of States. Therefore, no state has any power to secede from the Union. Thus, the issue of accession of the States stands settled politically and constitutionally.

India’s Complaint to the United Nations

Despite Sardar Patel’s reservations on the subject, Pandit Nehru, under pressure from Mountbatten and his own misplaced faith in the newly established United Nations (UN), took the Pakistani invasion to the United Nations Security Council under Chapter V1 and Article 35 on 1 January 1948. The war between India and Pakistan was finally suspended on 1 January 1949. By then, a large part of the J&K State territory had not been liberated and still remains occupied by Pakistan. The India-Pakistan war along with the ‘Great Game’ played by western powers encouraged the ambitious Sheikh Abdullah to negotiate inclusion of Article 370 in the Indian Constitution by which he retained political power over the State and its people and eventually led to the dynasty politics in J&K.

Article 370

While revisiting the 17 October 1949 discussion in the ‘Indian Constituent Assembly’ it is clear that there was strong opposition, both by Congressmen and other party leaders to the proposal by Gopalaswamy Ayyangar to include Draft Article 306 A^[vii] in the Constitution of India. Maulana Hasrat Mohani protested against the inclusion of this Article in the main draft of the Constitution and asked Gopalaswamy Ayyangar, “Why this discrimination, please?”^[viii]

Ayyangar’s reply was, “situation is not normal in the State of Jammu and Kashmir. A big territory of State is under enemy’s illegal occupation, we are at war with Pakistan, thus in this situation State’s administration should be handled in special manner. Secondly, we are entangled in the United Nations over this issue and it can’t be said, how long it will take to settle the situation”. He further added, “Till a Constituent Assembly comes into being, only an interim arrangement is possible and not an arrangement which could at once be brought into line with the arrangement that exists in the case of the other States”.^[ix]

Finally, the motion was passed and draft Article 306A became Article 370 of the Indian Constitution under Part XII with its marginal heading categorically stating, “Temporary and Transitional Provisions”. J&K Constitution was brought into force on 26th January 1957 and technically, J&K Constituent Assembly should have abrogated article 370 then, but it continued to linger on for more than six decades in the main text of India’s Constitution. In the later years, when members of Parliament objected to its continuation, Pt. Nehru in his Lok Sabha speech reaffirmed that Article 370 has been eroded to a large extent and whatever has remained will erode out automatically. “Yeh Dhara Ghiste Ghiste Ghis Jaayegi”^[x]

Under Article 370, power to apply the Constitution of India to the State of Jammu & Kashmir was granted to the President of India along with the powers of exceptions and modifications with either the concurrence or in consultation with the J&K State Legislative Assembly. The residuary powers under Article 248 in contrast to the Constitutional scheme for all other States (under an amendment to Article 248) were granted to J&K State. This differential treatment to the erstwhile State of J&K irked many, even within the Congress party itself.^[xi]

Article 370: A Constitutional Harakiri on Development, Progress and People of J&K State

The Indian Constitution guarantees rule of law, equal rights and equal opportunities for all its citizens. At the time of accession of over 550 princely States, India was a complex multi-ethnic, multi-lingual and multi-religious pluralistic country, stricken with underdevelopment, mass poverty and illiteracy. To help all the acceded States to address their inequalities and dissimilarities, the Indian Constitution included Chapter XX1, which addressed these issues of inequality through concessional treatments via 25 Articles for almost 15 States of India, and Article 370 is one of these 25 articles for J&K State. 

Though, Article 370 was inserted in Indian Constitution as a ‘Temporary & Transitional’ arrangement,^[xii] it remained as a part of the Constitution for decades, and each dynast politician in J&K misused it for gaining and retaining power in the state and for distributing largesse to their cronies. The authority given to the J&K State under Article 370 to bring about progress and development for its people was used in the establishment of an oligarchic domination over the minorities, weaker sections and exploitation of local populace of the State.

Article 35A:  A Constitutional Fraud and Challenge to Fundamental Rights

It was in the year 1954 that Article 35-A was inserted in the Constitution of India, as applicable to the State of Jammu & Kashmir, through the Constitution Order 1954, along with a slew of other provisions of the Indian Constitution. The addition of 35A in Part III of the Indian Constitution dealing with Fundamental Rights of citizens and individuals, circumvented Article 13 of the Indian Constitution, which declares any law inconsistent with or in derogation of the fundamental rights to be void. This rendered the most sacrosanct feature of ‘Judicial Review’ (which subsequently has been declared as a part of the inalienable basic structure of the Indian Constitution) redundant, when it came to protecting a gamut of fundamental rights of the residents of the then State of J&K.

Article 35A further enacted Section 6 of the “Constitution of J&K” to create a class of “permanent residents”. The category of ‘Permanent Residents’ was arbitrarily frozen to the cut off year 1944, using the State Notification No. 1-L/84 dated 20th April, 1927^[xiii], read with State Notification No. 13/L dated 27th June, 1932^[xiv] as the justification of its existence. However, unlike these notifications, Sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 6 of the State Constitution did not apparently make any provision for acquisition of status of permanent residents of the descendants of the permanent residents of the State.

Article 35A led to the following:

• Gender discrimination in J&K State.
• Discrimination against the Valmiki community, Gorkhas, West Pak refugees, Border displaced people
• No rights for non-permanent residents to seek admission for higher education in State Universities.
• No rights to acquire and hold even a limited immovable property to built a home for own shelter under Article 19(1)(e) read with 19(1) (f) by non permanent resident
• No right to be considered for employment by non permanent residents in the State Services or State Instrumentalities guaranteed under Article 14 and 16
• No right to purchase and acquire limited property to start a small business for non permanent residents
• Denial of remedy of judicial review under Article 35A violated the right to life and liberty guaranteed under Article 21 read with Article 32 of the Constitution of India for two generations of the above mentioned Indian citizens living in J&K.
• There was no ST reservation and the SC reserved seats were not rotated as was required under the law.

Accordingly, with the abrogation of Article 35A, the following benefits accrued automatically to the aggrieved population:

• The Right of Equality and equal protection of law under Article 14 for all domiciles of Union Territory J&K
• Right to opportunity for higher education in the State funded institutes under Article 14 and article 15 for all domiciles of Union Territory J&K
• Right of employment in the State Services and Public Sector Institutions under Article 16 for all domiciles of Union Territory J&K
• Right to reside and settle in any part of India (right to shelter) under Article 19(1)(e) and
• Right to life under Article 21 (are the human rights conferred under a constitutional scheme, by the people of India upon themselves, for the proper development as a human being)

All the above such rights are held to be part of Basic Structure of the Indian Constitution. The J&K State also used ancestry as a racial definition and for racial purpose and emphasised the explicit tie to race. The ancestral enquiry of the citizens is forbidden under Articles 14 and 15(1) for the further reasons that using racial classification is corruptive of the whole legal order Part III seeks to preserve, but Section 6 enacted by the State legislature of J&K threw the scheme of these Articles to the wind.

Article 370 gave the President the power to take the Indian Constitution to J&K with modification and exceptions but no way does it give the President the power to amend or interfere with the Basic structure of the Indian Constitution. Also, when the President passes an ordinance, then under Article 123 of Indian Constitution, it has to be ratified by the parliament within 6 weeks, once the Parliament sits /starts which was not done in case of Article 35A.

Impact

Seventy years of mis-governance, corruption, terrorism, youth taking to drugs and the gun-toting culture, genocide of the Kashmiri Hindus, the human rights violation of Valmikis, gender discrimination and security threat to the region and rest of the country, finally forced the Government of India in August 2019 to take a major step in the National interest of decommissioning Article 370, following due legal and constitutional process. After this Constitutional Order 2019, all the provisions of Indian Constitution as well as the amendments are now applicable to both the Union Territory of J&K and the Union Territory of Ladakh.

The Hon’ble President of India, vide Constitutional Orders 272 and 273 made on 5 and 6 August 2019 respectively, ended this gross imbalance of guarantees of fundamental rights among the residents of Union Territory of J&K and the Union Territory of Ladakh. Article 13 was effectively brought back to life in both these Unions in all its glory and sanctity. Moreover, the entire Constitution of India was made applicable to the previously existing State of Jammu & Kashmir and all its residents, whether or not falling into the ‘Permanent Residents’ category, were handed over the power to exercise all the fundamental rights in Part III of the Indian Constitution, which citizens in rest of the Country could exercise.

Interestingly, the upheld precedence set in 1965, invoked Article 370 to make itself inoperative. Subsequently, a resolution was also presented for Reorganisation of State of Jammu & Kashmir. Ladakh was made a separate Union Territory without a legislature while the Jammu and Kashmir was made a Union Territory with a legislature.

There are opinions favouring and against the procedures followed, for the ReorganisSation of the State of Jammu & Kashmir, and also for decommissioning of Article 370. Some constitutional experts, rather than debating the legality of the Government’s move are trying to trace the political motive behind it. However other constitutional legal experts are of the opinion that the legal and constitutional procedures were followed.

One of the objections to the Decommission of Article 370 is the absence of the Constituent Assembly in J&K. The counter argument is that absence of CA can be interpreted in three ways:

• Absence of CA means 370 sub clause 3 itself becomes defunct
• Absence CA the proviso becomes defunct
• Absence CA can be construed as its successor.

Legal experts are of the opinion that if Article 370 had gone to the extent of stating that in the absence of the Constituent Assembly, the proviso renders the whole provision defunct; only then could the decommissioning not be possible. Other experts argue that the words ‘President may by notification cease / modify Article 370’ gives the express power to the President to decommission Article 370, and the absence of this phrase in Article 370 would have been an inherent limitation to do so. There is also a view that the decommissioning of Article 370 under Presidential Order 2019 is in conflict with the basic Structure of the Indian Constitution. Others opine to the contrary and argue that article 370 itself created exception to Fundamental Rights of Indians both inside the State of J&K and in the rest of the country and now Presidential Order 2019 has given full play to Fundamental Rights in Jammu & Kashmir thus strengthening the basic structure of the Indian Constitution. There are also arguments that views of the people through their representatives were not considered due to the absence of the J&K State Legislative Assembly. But the counter argument is that even if the views were taken, the Government was not bound by those views.

When 370 was being framed in its sub article (3), the framers of the Indian Constitution used the word ‘cease to operate’ thus contemplating a situation that it could be decommissioned or abrogated without amending the Indian Constitution. The argument in favour of the procedure of using 370 Clause 1(d) provisions to de-operationalise Article 370 itself (through Article 367 which is about definitions and interpretations) is that there is an Upheld Precedence to it as the same route was followed in 1965 to replace Sadr-e-Riyasat with Governor & Wazir-e-Azam with Chief Minister.

Conclusion

5 August 2020 marked the first Anniversary of Decommissioning of Article 370 and Reorganisation of the State of Jammu & Kashmir into two Union Territories—the Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir and Union Territory of Ladakh. The two Constitutional orders ended the constitutional isolation of the northernmost State of India and also put an end to the shameful, discriminatory and undemocratic policies and practices in that region, securing the rights and privileges denied to the economically and socially backward populace of the region, and bringing them at par with the rest of the citizens all over the India. After the amendment of Article 370, Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir and the Union Territory of Ladakh fully come under the umbrella of Indian Constitution with the expectation that the long delayed peace and development will now take precedence over terrorism and radicalisation in the region.

(Shakti Munshi is Director, C-Tech Labs, Pvt. Ltd. An entrepreneur and social activist, she is also the Secretary, Jammu Kashmir Study Centre, Mumbai. Legal inputs for this article were provided by Divya Roy, Advocate Supreme Court and Pankaj Jamtani.)

^[i] A Handbook of Jammu and Kashmir State 1 (The Ranbir Government Press, Jammu, 3^rd Edition, 1947).

^[ii] Majid Hussain, Geography of Jammu and Kashmir 3 (Rajesh Publication, New Delhi, 1987).

^[iii] Arjan Nath Chaku & Inder K Chaku, The Kashmir Story through the ages, Vitasta Publishing, New Delhi, p 27-28

^[iv] A copy of the notification is available at https://www.satp.org/satporgtp/countries/india/states/jandk/documents/actsandordinances/State_Subject_Rules.htm

^[v] Adarsh Sein Anand, “Accession of Jammu and Kashmir State – Historical and Legal Perspectives”, Journal of the Indian Law Institute, October-December 2001, Volume 43, Number 4, available at http://14.139.60.114:8080/jspui/bitstream/123456789/12505/1/012_Accession%20of%20Jammu%20and%20Kashmir%20State%20-%20Historical%20and%20Legal%20Prespectives%20%28455-468%29.pdf

^[vi] A.S. Anand, Constitution of Jammu & Kashmir – Its Development & Comments  66 (Universal Publishing, 8th edn., 2016)

^[vii] Draft Article 306A later renumbered as Article 370  when Constitution of India was finally drafted. Article 370 (before 2019 amendment) states:

“370. Temporary provisions with respect to the State of Jammu and Kashmir

(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Constitution,—

(a) the provisions of Article 238 shall not apply now in relation to the state of Jammu and Kashmir;[a]

^[viii] Constituent Assembly Debates, 17 October 1949

^[ix] Constituent Assembly Debates, 17 October 1949

^[x] Pt. Nehru in his Lok Sabha Speech on “Closer Integration of Jammu and Kashmir with India” in the year 1963

^[xi] M.S. Ratnaparkhi, Kashmir Problem and its Solution, 77 (Atlantic Publishers, Delhi, 2011)

^{[xii]  Marginal note of Art. 370 under Part XXI of COI.}

^[xiii] Jammu and Kashmir Permanent Residents (Disqualification) Bill, 2004 as Unconstitutional by Justice G.D. Sharma (2004) 6 SCC (Jour) 23.

^{[xiv] Justice G. D. Sharma, Supra note 8}

A year down the line, Ladakh without Article 370 looks fully empowered

It has been one year now, since Ladakh became a Union Territory (UT) and its is time to reflect on what this means for the region. Certainly, August 5, 2019, the day of the abrogation of Article 370 and Article 35A was a watershed moment—popularly dubbed as “historical blunder being corrected in one stroke,” and a new “tryst with destiny”. It was the day when all the intricate and difficult knots that strangulated J&K for decades stood untied. It was also the day when the state was split and formed into two Union Territories (UT)—The UT of Ladakh and the UT of Jammu & Kashmir. Both came into existence on 31 October 2019.

Abrogation of Article 370 was the best political exposition of the BJP led NDA government so far—a bid to bring Kashmir out of the vortex of terror and to fully integrate it with the rest of the country. Of course, credit must be given where credit is due. It received the widest political endorsement in the country. The cynics obviously cried foul—ranging from the killing of a democratic polity, recommitting a historical blunder, a betrayal, to a sinister ploy to alter Kashmir’s demography, and so on and so forth. But it was a monumental step taken by the Modi government. In one stroke, it removed all the ills of Kashmir misfortune, boosted national domestic confidence, struck a deadly blow to Pakistan’s ‘bleeding India’ game and even called out China’s bluff.

For the BJP, it was also about fulfilling its long-promised political agenda. It meant ending the reign of terror, death, destruction, loot and rape being perpetuated in the Valley since 1948. As it is, history has often been unkind to Kashmir. The people were killed like “insects in the fire” by Turkic warriors. The Mughals did nothing except build gardens of joy in the Valley. The Afghans let loose a reign of terror, murder, loot and rape during their 67 years’ rule.

Abrogation of Article 370 meant rationalising the territorial reality of J&K. The fact was that 82 percent of J&K was neither Jammu, nor Kashmir; it was Ladakh and Gilgit-Baltistan. It was a flawed arrangement where 15 percent people ruled the rest of 85 percent population of the state. The removal of Article 370 also meant changing the Kashmir narrative, its duplicitous political culture of intrigue and blackmail, perpetually played and exploited by a few corrupt Kashmiri elite. It meant busting the deep nexus between local political structures and Pakistani agencies. The separatist kingpin Syed Ali Shah Geelani and his Pakistani network of agents are almost dismantled. It means reenactment of Kashmir’s dignity, removing distrust, restoring stability, removing its backwardness and inequality. It is about making a million aspirations and opportunities.

A year down the line, J&K and Ladakh without Article 370 is peaceful. All the prophecies of a doomsday scenario, bloodbath and violence haven’t come true. Sporadic terrorist incidents do take place, but separatist rhetoric is down. External detractors were amazed and started resorting to internationalising the issue. China has even hurriedly plotted military aggression in Ladakh over the change in Kashmir status. It is too early to assess the reality on the ground, but changes are afoot in Kashmir.

As the UTs of Ladakh and J&K start on their new journey, there are obviously the initial hiccups and teething problems of transition. The new UT administration seems to be facing monumental tasks in rebuilding a region that was hopelessly backward as a result of chaos created by separatists. Industry was non-existent, and the state was living on subsidies and loan waivers. In fact, the entire re-organisation, restructuring and overhauling of the entire legal and administrative framework must have been a mammoth task. Implementing the bifurcation and splitting the state administration, its employees, assets and finance into two Union Territories would have been quite an effort. And there were problems of legal procedures to be streamlined.

Fixing the old issues riddled with inherent contradictions is not easy, especially when it is no longer about viewing J&K only through the prism of the Valley. Finding ways to smoothen them would take time. However, the two UT administrations are now gearing up to implement big-ticket economic projects, ramping up infrastructure, investment and employment issues. In a big jump, the Centre allocated a separate fund of Rs 30,757 crore for J&K and Rs 5,958 crore for Ladakh for fiscal 2020-21.^[1] While the nation waits for greater triumphs and achievements in the future, the government would be celebrating its achievements so far before grasping new opportunities. Clearly, a year down the line, Article 370 is already history and it no longer appears to be existing in people’s consciousness or in their daily conversation — except that it still lingers in the minds of political brokers and blackmailers.

Empowering the Region: The Ladakh Viewpoint

The abrogation of Article 370 and bifurcation of J&K was a dream come true for the people of Ladakh as they had been struggling for UT status since 1947. It was a watershed moment for Ladakh to have its long history of coercion and discrimination under J&K, corrected in one stroke. It meant restoration of the identity and dignity of Ladakh as a formidable Western Himalayan region of India, like Sikkim and Arunachal Pradesh.

Since independence, the people of Ladakh have persistently resisted being a part of the unitary framework of J&K. But Jawaharlal Nehru refused to heed to the Ladakhi demand and left the people of the region to the mercy of Kashmiris, despite its territorial incompatibility. Nehru’s decision was based on his own wistful familial links with the Valley that not only undercut Ladakh’s interests but also the interests of the nation in several poignant ways.

For the past seven decades, Ladakh was virtually kept hostage to the likes of J&K, its instability, and to the mercy of the leadership in the Valley, where the Abdullah’s and Mufti’s held sway but had no emotional links whatsoever with Ladakh. The region remained neglected and exploited, despite its strategic importance and contribution of its people to the country’s defence. Josef Korbel (then UN staff representative in Kashmir and father of former US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright) in his book “Danger Kashmir” (1951) detailed how Sheikh Abdullah fully exploited Kushok Bakula’s political ignorance and tricked the Lamas to surrender while frightening them of the threats coming from the Soviets and Chinese to their religion. Despite Kashmir’s dire record of tricks and mischief, Nehru and others continued to appease the Valley. In the late 1970s, Sheikh Abdullah even launched a nefarious “Greater Kashmir” concept to obliterate the identity of Ladakh. Now, with the UT status of Ladakh, the political marginalisation, neglect and apathy to which the people of the region were subjected, stands addressed.

Article 370 had allowed the Valley leadership to apply their well-known ploys while exploiting the simplicity and fragility of Ladakh, played on the local fault-lines i.e., splintering Ladakh along communal lines (Kargil versus Leh), pitting Muslims against Buddhists, causing dissension and factionalism within the Buddhists and Muslims, skilfully crushing people’s aspiration by assiduously co-opting ambitious local leaders into the Darbar in Srinagar. Therefore, politically, the August 5 development meant reversal of Nehru’s policy that supplemented Ladakh to Kashmir.

Article 370 also kept Ladakh backward and impeded its development. Despite its accounting for almost 60 percent of State’s territorial size, it suffered blatant economic and administrative discriminations. The disparity and discrimination against Ladakh finds mention in several State Commission Reports such as the Gajendragadkar (1967-68), Sikri (1979-80), Wazir (1982-83), and Singhal (1998) etc. The most convenient alibi cited for denying justice to Ladakh was its demographic deficiency. This flawed thinking led to Ladakh’s economic potentials not just being unrealised, but sadly, not even thought of. Nothing was done to harness the colossal Indus water resources of Zanskar, Suru, Dras and Shyok tributaries, the waters of which only benefited Pakistani farmers in Punjab and Sind. Only 5 percent of Ladakh’s arid land was irrigated. Article 370 impeded outside investments and tourism, the only viable source of income for the locals remained hostage to instability in the Valley. Poor connectivity, in any case, limited the flow of tourists to Ladakh. Poor connectivity also meant that Ladakh remained isolated; its vast borderland with scant population was left vulnerable to encroachment by external adversaries. The Kashmir-centric government displayed myopic leadership when it came to issues that concerned Ladakh, and they failed to check both China and Pakistan from eating into the state’s territory. Over 55 percent of the state’s 222,236 sq. km remain occupied either by China or Pakistan.

New Delhi’s tagging of Ladakh to J&K also underscored its lack of strategic clarity. The fact remains that the constitutional arrangement sought for J&K under Article 370 and Article 35A had essentially contained the seeds needed for India’s own destruction. The cumulative impact of those missteps has been getting clearer by the day. Ladakh is critical for India’s national security as without Ladakh, China’s People’s Liberation Army (PLA) would be sitting on the southern foothills of the Himalayas. It has hurt India’s strategic interests to have ignored Ladakh thus far, even failing to underpin its strategic value for India to gain direct access to the Tarim Basin and the Tibetan Plateau. It has cost the nation heavily, while keeping such a vast strategic frontier area in the hands of separatist-oriented Valley leadership.

Strategic Imperatives

Reordering J&K was not so much a choice as it was a strategic imperative. The Chinese forays into Gilgit-Baltistan, albeit under the China–Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) pretext, may not be without its historical claim over the region since the Tang Dynasty. China’s eventual control over Pakistan occupied Kashmir (POK) would have had immediate consequences for Ladakh. Ladakh’s unique geographical location should now offer the country a huge counter-offensive potential in terms of leveraging connectivity to the Eurasian region and to China. In any case, India needed to blunt the CPEC and to counter the Chinese Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). Therefore, it was essential to alter existing equations and provide growing opportunities for uplifting the Western Himalayan region of Ladakh in terms of integrating it with the national mainstream, promoting sustainable economy and tourism, besides environmental protection was paramount.

The myth of J&K as a unitary state had also long outlived its historical inviolability. It was never a functional state and has cost the country dearly. In any case, with Kashmir having bogged down in separatist mode, Ladakh risked sliding into disarray amid simmering anger among the people. The situation had become untenable in the post-Burhan Wani incident in July 2016 due to pro-azadi protests, hartals and shutdowns, which spread to other parts of the state.

Problems of Transition

UT was a long-time demand of Ladakh, predating even the Telangana movement, but no government at the Centre heeded to Ladakhi cause. Now, with Ladakh finally getting UT status, the people are upbeat and their confidence stands boosted. The decision has struck a deadly blow to Pakistan and has also called out China’s bluff, which has for long been eying Ladakh’s abundant land. As Ladakh celebrates the first anniversary of its separation from J&K, the people are jubilant. But there will be the inevitable teething problems of transition, and changes are afoot to address them despite multiple constraints. Some of the major challenges of transition are:

• This vast high-altitude region was hopelessly left behind due to long years of neglect. Industry here is non-existent and people lived on subsistence farming and government subsidies.
• The reorganisation of the State since October 2019 seemed to have taken enormous time to complete. The State bifurcation process involved an arduous task of dividing employees, assets from finance to buildings between the two UTs. And, there were problems of legal procedures to be streamlined.
• The formation of UT was followed by a long spell of harsh winter. Before it receded, the Covid-19 outbreak and prolonged lockdown played a sure spoilsport to start any development activity.
• The challenge now, is to put in place an effective administration in this climatically most hostile region. For example, arrangement of staffing and logistic seems a nightmare. Very few officials and professional seem to be opting for postings in Ladakh despite impressive packages of salaries and allowances offered by the government. As an interim measure some 118 officials from J&K have been brought on deputation to Ladakh to fill up the staff shortages.

As Ladakh remains cut off from the rest of the country for five to six months, fulfilling the basic needs of the people is never an easy task. In an interview given on the first anniversary of UT status, Shri RK Mathur, the Lieutenant Governor of Ladakh, RK Mathur said that the new UT administration had a daunting task during the winter months, but it resolutely addressed the challenges as under:^[2]

• Steady power supply was maintained and from February 2020, 24×7 power supply has been ensured. DG set (58) availability in remote unconnected areas was increased by about 6 to 8 hrs per day.
• Large no of additional water tankers were arranged to give the best ever drinking water supply of about 3.5 lac litres per day during winters.
• With the help of Indian Air Force, 415 MT of fresh vegetables and essential commodities were airlifted.
• A total of 2125 passengers and patients were moved in and out of Ladakh, primarily from Kargil, by the IAF during the Corona lockdown period as well as winters.
• About 1000 pilgrims who had gone to Iran/Iraq and were stranded there due to lockdown were brought back with the help of Govt. of India.
• 18 satellite phones were placed in different areas which get cut off during winters to ensure communication for evacuation of patients and availability of essential supplies.
• The Leh-Srinagar Highway (Zojila-pass) was opened on 11 April by BRO, almost one month before the normal time, giving great relief to the people. Similarly, Manali-Leh Highway was opened on 18 May by BRO one month ahead of schedule.
• Early opening of internal roads viz. Khaltsi-Lingshed, Kargil-Padum (Zanskar) etc. was ensured.

The LG further added that Covid-19 also severely impacted Ladakh, forcing the administration to devote substantial energy to tackle the pandemic. Two dedicate hospitals were set up and two RT-PCR machines were installed to increase testing. In addition, the administration had ensured that the repatriation process of the people of Ladakh after unlocking was seamless and quick and they are now working to contain the spread of the pandemic, while simultaneously taking up development activities.

Achievements of UT Ladakh

All Central Laws along with the required modifications and amendments are being aligned for UT Ladakh in order to ensure its smooth transition. The immediate challenge for the administration was to create a new administrative structure in Ladakh. This include UT Administration, a new Revenue Division, two Ladakh Autonomous Hill Development Councils (LAHDC) with substantially increased powers (through an amendment originally done by J&K government and subsequently approved by the Parliament), and Panchayati Raj institutions at block and village levels. The challenge was to bring in synergy between these institutions so that they work harmoniously.

Measures initiated to make the administrative structure more effective pertain to empowering the LAHDCs, Empowering Blocks & Panchayats and through Development Drive/Initiatives. These are discussed below:

Empowering LAHDCs

LAHDC Act and its 2018 amendments was ratified by Parliament and continued. The Councils have executive powers over subjects such as science & technology, promotion and development of traditional Amchi System of Medicine, food, civil supplies and public distribution, rural development and power development etc. The post of Deputy Chairman was also created to be elected by its elected members from amongst themselves.

LAHDC in Leh and Kargil have been allocated highest ever budget of Rs. 232.41 crore each. In addition, funds amounting to Rs 2.5 crore to LAHDC Leh and Rs 3.5 crore to LAHDC Kargil were placed at their disposal for evacuation of stranded people during the corona lockdown period. The LAHDCs were authorised to identify beneficiaries under various schemes outside the District Plan, fill up vacant posts of Block Development Officers and also of technical staff of their engineering departments. A total of 188 engineers were outsourced and placed at the disposal of executing agencies of LAHDCs. The Assistant Commissioners Development and Block Development Officers of Rural Development Department have also been empowered to call tenders.

Empowering Blocks & Panchayats

In a major step towards empowering local self-government, the Administration of the UT ordered enhancement of monthly honorarium of Sarpanch(s) and fixation of monthly honorarium and allowances for the newly elected Chairpersons of Block Development Councils. Training capsules were also conducted for the Sarpanches, BDOs and MIS operators of Leh district regarding online payment systems and training programme for newly elected chairpersons of BDC was organised at National Institute of Rural Development at Hyderabad.

Administration of UT

Major administrative decisions and developmental initiatives encompassing a wide range of administrative activities such as licensing, regulation of real estate, census, wildlife, etc were constituted and notified. Proposal for constitution of Ladakh Administrative Service, Ladakh Police (Gazetted) Service, Ladakh Forest (Gazetted) Service have been finalised and 154 State Laws and 44 Central laws have been examined in detail and proposals for their adaptation have been sent to MHA. Ladakh Police has been separated from the erstwhile J&K police and has started functioning independently. Structural changes are also being carried out by the UT in industries, power sector, tourism, and police departments.

Development Initiatives and Achievement

Ladakh is no longer an ignored region. In a big jump, the Centre has allocated highest-ever budgetary allocation of Rs. 5,154 crores during 2019-20, followed by an allocation of Rs. 5,958 crores in 2020-21. In addition, the highest-ever non-lapsable budgetary allocation of Rs. 232.41 crore each has been made to the Hill Councils of Leh and Kargil.

As per the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019, the Government of India has announced a Special Development Package of about Rs. 50,000 crores. According to the LG, the UT of Ladakh has submitted its proposals for inclusion under Special Development Package. They focus primarily on development of infrastructure i.e. Health care facilities, roads, tunnels, transmission lines, higher education institutions and economic activities etc. Effective implementation of this package is expected to give a major boost to the prosperity of UT

The new UT administration seems now fully gearing up to implement the big-ticket economic projects, ramping up infrastructure, investment and addressing the employment issues, with the active support of the Centre. The Prime Minister has given an important direction for development, namely vision of Ladakh as a Carbon Neutral UT. In line with this vision, the UT is working with the Central Government on a number of initiatives in the fields of health care, traditional medicine, education, skilling, tourism, infrastructure development, development of indigenous industries in the agro sector, setting up polycarbonate green houses and a host of other schemes.

The UT administration’s initiatives have already seen great progress. Rs. 1000 per beneficiary as ex-gratia under Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Yojana (PMGKY) has been disbursed to 6625 existing and newly sanctioned beneficiaries under NSAP. Under the Prime Minister Garib Kalyan Anna Yojna (PMGKAY), a total of 2158.41 MT Rice and 87.65 MT Pulses were distributed. In addition, 950 quintal of rice has been distributed as dry ration under mid-day meal scheme to students during lockdown period. Implementation of ‘Atmanirbhar Bharat’ package has also started, and 786 MSME units have been sanctioned Rs. 25.4 crores of subsidised bank loans.

The list of achievements is long. Administration is now gearing up to launch a slew of development projects including those lying in limbo for decades. The Centre has made an allocation of Rs 80.69 crore for public works, Rs 54.07 crore for power, Rs 47.50 crore for tourism sector and Rs 52 crore for civil aviation among others. There are other key sectors which are getting a makeover to smoothen the transition. For the first year since transition, these are important milestones that call for celebration.

Future Prospects

In the years ahead UT Ladakh has to explore its economic potentials. Ladakh has vast vacant arid land. Leh district alone has 45,167 hectare of reporting area, out of which only 10,614 hectare (23%) is being brought under cultivation. The government has allocated Rs 83.38 crore this year for rural development. This should enable the administration to bring more areas under agriculture.

The region has colossal water resources that can be harnessed for agriculture and power generation.  The Indus water resources of Zanskar, Suru, Dras, Shyok, Galwan, Chip-Chap, Chang-Chemo and other tributaries — thus far benefited only by Pakistani farmers in Punjab and Sind. Ladakh need not opt for the industrial path. Its varied agro-climatic conditions should open up prospects for horticulture and floriculture industries, to grow organic apple, apricot and pear, walnuts, almond, grapes and temperate vine fruits. Ladakh is known for its organic vegetables due to high alluvial soil availability. Investors should jump for commercial farming of high-value items like lavender, saffron and vine fruits.

The region’s myriad medicinal herbs can be opened for both grinding and extraction. The fruit residue of sea-buckthorn, rich in protein and amino acids, is known for making juice. Prospects are high for setting up mineral water plants, anti-ageing, antioxidant drinks plants. Of course, fixing the old issues of environmental and legal challenges is never easy. Finding ways to smoothen them would take time.

Leh district has 1.2 lakh livestock population and over 35,000 Pashmina goats and sheep. Nomadic farming could be expanded. Better technological intervention could make the local wool and woven fabric a world-class product.

Boosting tourism could be a way forward to improve the local cash economy. According to the administration, tourism has made a significant contribution to Ladakh’s economy with a turnover of nearly Rs. 600 crore that benefits about 70 percent of Ladakh’s population. Tourist figures initially went up from a meagre 527 in 1974 to 3.27 lakh in 2018. But in 2019, a slide of over 50 percent in flow was witnessed. Like Kashmir, Ladakh too lost its tourism season this year. The COVID-19 pandemic and the Indo-China border tension has had a negative impact on Ladakh’s tourism industry.

Tourism remains unpredictable, conditioned to the security environment. The uncontrolled flow of visitors also hasn’t proved sustainable due to the fragile ecosystem. However, the Ladakh Tourism Department has been allocated a budget of Rs. 247 crore for the financial year 2020-21 under the Special Development Package of UT Ladakh. Besides, the Centre has approved Rs 52 crore for developing the airport terminal in Leh.

The administration seems all set revive the tourism industry once things start to normalise in the aftermath of the pandemic. Under Atma Nirbhar Bharat Package announced by Government of India, the administration is encouraging all hotels and other services industries to register as MSMEs. This has already assisted many of the worst affected to get moratorium and subsidised additional loans.

The UT administration is also exploring other options besides tourism. It is working on strengthening alternative livelihoods especially in agriculture and allied sectors that can make Ladakh self-sustainable, revitalising Ladakh’s traditional wisdom and practices related to agriculture, tapping the latent potential of sectors such horticulture, as well as medicinal and aromatic plants and bolster them with technological interventions. Focus is also being laid on developing animal resources, particularly pashmina goats. The intention is to develop the full value chain, from the harvesting of pashmina wool to the sale of pashmina products.

Industrialising Ladakh

The government is planning industrialising Ladakh in the renewable energy sector. According to the National Institute of Wind Energy (NIWE), Ladakh’s wind power potential is immense at 100,000 megawatt (Mw). According to NIWE, Ladakh’s temporal variation holds an estimated potential of 5,311 Megawatt at a hub height of 50 meters. For example, at this height the wind speeds measured between 3.12 metre per second (Diskit site) to 6.60 mps (Chushul site). The potential goes up to 100,000 Mw at a height of 120 meters. A high level meeting was held in Leh in December 2019 that was attended by the Ministry of New and Renewable Energy, the Army, the Border Roads Organisation, the Ladakh Renewable Energy Development Agency and the National Institute of Wind Energy (NIWE).

A study of the NIWE suggests that region holds tremendous promise for setting up commercial scale wind energy projects.^[3] The Ministry of New and Renewable Energy (MNRE) is exploring the possibilities of setting up Wind Power projects in Ladakh including setting up of wind masts for validation of wind resource and other issues.^[4] The potential areas of setting up wind masts are found in Chushul (Eastern Ladakh), Nubra and in Kargil. The Ministry is soon expected to invite the wind industry to put up wind farms in Ladakh.

Wind Solar Hybrid Industry

Ladakh has extremely high solar potential as well. Because of the clear air and more albedo, the potentials for power generation from solar plants is tremendous. The government has announced a mega protect of Rs 50,000 crore grid-connected solar photo-voltaic project to harness 7,500 MW of solar power. The proposed transmission corridor will transmit power from Pang in Ladakh to Kaithal in Haryana. In fact, the Ministry is envisaging promoting a combination of solar and wind plants in Ladakh that would optimise the transmission system. The solar power project is to be executed by SECI. Bid submission for the project is underway and site visits for the prospective bidders have been conducted.

The next focus should be on exploiting Ladakh’s huge hydro-power potentials within the provisions of the Indus Water Treaty (IWT). Of the 1,000-MW power potential identified, very little has been exploited so far.

Connecting Ladakh

Due to high altitude terrain climatic condition the road and communication connectivity always remains a challenge in Ladakh. Recently, the Prime Minister inaugurated the ultra-modern 9.02 km long Atal Tunnel at Rohtang Pass, which provides all weather connectivity from Manali in Himachal Pradesh to Leh and reduces travel time by about five hours.^[5] The tunnel will spur economic activities of Ladakh, especially boost tourism and strengthen India’s border infrastructure.

After Rohtang, the government is focusing on building a 13.5 km-long tunnel at Shinku La that will provide the shortest, safer and the third alternative corridor to connect Ladakh with rest of the country. This is necessary because after Rohtang Pass the 475 – km-long Manali-Leh roads gets further blocked by Shinku La and three other passes. The alternative third connectivity is to build a road from Keylong to Leh via Darcha in Zanskar Valley – a distance of some 170 km from Manali. From Darcha, the road will have to cut across the Shinku La to reach Padum in Zanskar to move further towards Leh. This 444-km long Manali-Darcha-Padum-Nimmu-Leh road has been identified as the third strategic alternative to Ladakh in wake of the threat from Pakistan and China.

The BRO is now studying the feasibility of constructing a tunnel beneath the 13.5-km-long snow avalanche-prone Shinku La that will reduce the distance between Manali and Leh. A team led by the Managing Director (MD) of National Highway and Infrastructure Development Corporation limited (NHIDCL) has just visited Zanskar to inspect the progress of Shinku La tunnel work. The double lane road is under construction and likely to be completed by 2023.^[6] This is top priority of the government and the construction will be completed on a war footing. On completion of the Shinku La tunnel, the Manali-Kargil highway will remain open throughout the year, the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways said in a statement last week.^[7] Another blockbuster connectivity project is the construction of a 14.15-km bi-directional tunnel across Zoji-la that will provide all-year connectivity between Leh and Srinagar. The Centre has already envisaged a plan to connect Leh by rail. The 498-km line from Bilaspur to Leh via Manali is expected to cost Rs 22,831 crore.

More Aspirations – Demand for 6^th Schedule

A year down the line, Article 370 and association with J&K has already become a history in Ladakh. But now there are apprehension about the UT status coming without legal safeguards. Like in J&K, protection is an emotive issue in Ladakh as well. The key issues pertain to environmental protection, developmental challenges, identity, land and job protection. The expectation was that Ladakh will be covered under the 6^th Schedule, as applied to other ‘tribal areas’ in the Northeast. But that would have pushed Ladakh towards further isolation and underdevelopment. But the local population does fear getting marginalised, if outsiders seeking opportunities move into this peaceful Himalayan region. People are also fearful of losing jobs to outsiders.

Against this anxiety, some Ladakhi veteran leaders, on the eve of the first anniversary of the UT formation, have launched a People’s Movement for the 6^th Schedule for Ladakh. A delegation of its apex body recently met Home Minister Amit Shah and put forward their demand for constitutional safeguards to protect their land, jobs and culture. How such safeguards will materialise, remains to be seen.

Linked to this is the contentious issue of the status of the pre-existing governance body, the Ladakh Autonomous Hill Development Council (LAHDC)-Kargil and LAHDC-Leh that functioned as a legislative body with financial powers to micromanage local planning. Even though the roles and powers of the two LAHDCs are clearly defined by law and leave no ambiguity, a clarification is needed with respect to their functioning and business rules under the new UT system. The polls for the council in Leh are due in October 2020.

Conclusion

The division of J&K was a political necessity because the status-quo had become untenable and was against the democratic aspirations of the people. Addressing the Ladakh issue therefore was to be taken purely on strategic consideration especially for laying the platform for long-term solution for Kashmir crisis as well as for nurturing the strategic utility of Ladakh for India’s national interest. The UT for Ladakh is a strategic move and could even become the kernel for boundary solution with China.

Clearly, Ladakh is on the path of getting empowered in every sense of its polity and economic development. In fact, the UT administration, it seems already has a draft vision document titled ‘Ladakh 2050’ ready. Among other things, the document aspires to make Ladakh the renewable energy capital of India. Similarly, through the development strategy, it aspires to achieve a carbon-neutral Ladakh. The empowerment of Ladakh is clearly underway and is geared to fulfil the rising expectations and aspirations of youth in Ladakh.

(Stobdan is former Indian ambassador to Kyrgyzstan and founder of the Ladakh International Centre. He is on the Advisory Council of Oxus Society for Central Asian Affairs.)

^[1] https://www.businesstoday.in/union-budget-2020/news/budget-2020-sitharaman-allocates-rs-30757-crore-to-jk–rs-5958-crore-to-ladakh/story/395262.html

^[2] “Tourism is unpredictable, need to explore other sectors in Ladakh: RK Mathur”, August 6, 2020 at https://jknewsline.com/tourism-is-unpredictable-need-to-explore-other-sectors-in-ladakh-rk-mathur/Jknewsline 

^[3] “Ladakh has wind energy potential of 100,000 MW”, December 17, 2019 at https://www.evwind.es/2019/12/17/ladakh-has-wind-energy-potential-of-100000-mw/72557

^[4] “Govt invites wind industry to Ladakh”, December 13, 2019 at https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/economy/policy/govt-invites-wind-industry-to-ladakh/article

^[5] “A peek inside the Atal Rohtang Tunnel, India Today Insight”,  August 24, 2020

^[6] “After Rohtang, focus now on Shinku La tunnel amid tension in Himalayas”, Times of India, September 28, 2020, https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/after-rohtang-focus-now-on-shinku-la-tunnel-amid-tension-in-himalayas/articleshow/78346269.cms

^[7] https://www.business-standard.com/article/current-affairs/after-rohtang-focus-shifts-to-shinku-la-tunnel-between-ladakh-and-lahaul-120092700426_1.html

The decision of 5 August 2019, to abrogate Article 35-A and revoke the provisions of Article 370 have proven to be really empowering for the Jammu region. This happened first and foremost because Article 35-A discriminated against a certain group of people and with its abrogation, the inequity inherent in the said Article was done away with. With the revocation of special status, the Indian Constitution came into force, replacing the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir, 1956. The rights and privileges available to all Indian citizens, thus became applicable also to the people of the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir.

Of the people who suffered from the discriminatory aspects of Article 35A, about 99 per cent lived in the Jammu Division of the erstwhile state. These groups of people were the West Pakistan Refugees (WPRs), Valmikis, Gorkhas and the women of the state who married outside J&K. Article 35A prohibited the above groups of people from becoming domiciles of the state and consequently, they were denied all the benefits that were available to the rest of the state subjects. In addition, Panchayati Raj Institutions (PRIs) and Urban Local Bodies (ULBs), though constituted, were powerless. Ironically, the Panchayati Raj Act, 1989, which had been enacted by the State of J&K, was the instrument used to disempower panchayats.^[1] With the state becoming a Union Territory, the provisions of the Indian Constitution became applicable to the newly constituted Union Territory and PRIs and ULBs now became empowered instruments of grassroots democracy, in line with the rest of the country.

Article 35A

Article 35 A was added to the Constitution of India by a Presidential Order of 14 May 1954.^[2] This amendment to the Indian Constitution was carried out without the approval of Parliament and without following procedures mentioned in Article 368. Unlike other amendments, it appears in the Constitution as an appendix and was not listed in the list of amendments either. Article 35A empowered the state of J&K to define who could be deemed a permanent resident of the state, and it further stated that no such law as enacted by the government of J&K shall be void on the grounds that it is inconsistent with or takes away or abridges any rights conferred on other citizens of India. Consequently, through Part III (6) of the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir, 1956,^[3] the permanent resident of the state was defined as under:

“Every person who is, or is deemed to be, a citizen of India under the provisions of the Constitution of India shall be a permanent resident of the State, if on the fourteenth day of May, 1954, (a) he was a state subject of class I or of class II, or (b) having lawfully acquired immovable property in the State, he has been ordinarily resident in the State for not less than ten years prior to this date” and (II) “any person who, before the fourteenth day of May, 1954 was a State Subject of class I or of class II and who, having migrated after the first day of March, 1947, to the territory – now included in Pakistan, returns to state under a permit for resettlement in the State or for permanent return issued by or under the authority of any law made by the State Legislature shall on such return be a permanent resident of the State”

Section 8 of the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir, 1956 gave the State Legislature the right to define Permanent Residents and Section 9 empowered the State Legislature to alter the definition of Permanent Residents. And this was used to discriminate against certain classes of people.^[4]

West Pakistan Refugees

The West Pakistan Refugees were those hapless Hindus, Sikhs, and Christians, who had come to J&K, after escaping from Sialkot and neighbouring areas of what became Pakistan in 1947. As stated earlier, Part III (6) of the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir defined a state citizen as a person who on the fourteenth day of May, 1954, was a state subject and has been ordinarily resident in the State for not less than ten years prior to this date. This clause was deliberately included to leave out those ill-fated people, who had to leave their homes due to the riots that had broken out post the partition of the country. By arbitrarily imposing a cut off date of entry to the state as 14 May 1944, all the refugees who streamed into the state post partition, were denied domicile status. It bears mention here, that all such refugees who came to Punjab and other states of India, were made domiciles of the respective states that they had settled in. Thus, a gross injustice was done to those people who were forced out of their homes due to the post partition riots and who moved to the state of J&K.

Post the partitioning of the country, 5,764 families had been registered in 1947 in the state of J&K. They had the right to vote in the national elections as citizens of India, but they could not vote in the state elections as they were not granted state domicile status. The same discrimination carried over to their progeny. They were thus deprived of all the privileges that accrued to state domicile subjects which resulted in discrimination in education, employment, land ownership and in many other areas. With the abrogation of special status, all these people, have now become domiciles of J&K overnight. As a large number of such people belonged to the weaker sections of society, with at least 75% of them being Scheduled Castes (SCs), they now also have access to all central government schemes which provides for their welfare.

Valmikis

The story of the Valmikis also points to the great degree of discrimination and humiliation heaped upon this group of people. In 1957, following a strike by the sanitation workers in the state of J&K, more than 277 families of Valmikis were brought in from Gurdaspur and Amritsar districts of neighbouring Punjab, to work in the state. They were brought in by the government of that time, with a promise that they would be made state domiciles. However, they were eligible only for jobs of safai karamcharis and were not given Permanently Resident (PR), despite being in J&K for 62 years. While the children of these safai karamcharis could get admission in government run colleges and professional institutes, they could only apply for jobs as sweepers. Now, such discriminatory procedures have been done away with. The Valmikis can now apply for state domicile certificates and the same will be given to all the applicants. A 71 year old lady of the community, Ms Deepoo Devi became the first recipient of the domicile certificate in July 2020. The J&K administration is speeding up the process to grant such certificates to all eligible persons, thus meeting the long pending demand of the people.^[5] With this, the Valmikis are now empowered.

Gorkhas

The valiant Gorkhas had been living in J&K for generations, fighting as soldiers in the state forces organised by successive Dogra Maharajas. Despite that, they were denied any rights in J&K but all that stands changed now. Many of them have got domicile certificate made and for others these are in the pipeline.

Gender Equality

Article 35-A was interpreted and implemented in a blatantly gender discriminatory manner in J&K, clearly against the spirit embodied in the Preamble of the Indian Constitution. It also militated against various gender equality clauses of this supreme law of the land. Once Permanent Resident (PR) women got married outside J&K, their rights were severely curtailed. All this has now changed and women across the Union Territory will have the same rights as their male counterparts. This is truly liberating and a major step towards gender parity in J&K.

Grassroots Democracy

The PRIs stood disempowered as they were denied funds for carrying out development activities. This is evident from the fact that for the period 2011 to 2016, the panchayats received just Rs 1 lakh as a one time grant. This translated into Rs 20,000 per panchayat per annum. In contrast, in October 2020, each panchayat received a sum of Rs 10 lakh. The Panchayats and other institutions will now be receiving yearly grants to carry out development activities. A new phase of B2V (Back To Village) programme was also started on October 2, the birthday of Mahatma Gandhi.

For the very first time, elections have been held to the Block Development Councils (BDCs), and this has thrown up a new crop of leaders. The fact that the MLAs of the erstwhile state had little respect for the Panchayats is indicated by the fact that while the Legislative Assembly had a tenure of six years, the panchayats had a tenure of only five years. The panchayats were, in fact, treated merely as “necessary evils” to get funds from the Centre under rural development head. The same can be said for the ULBs. Decentralisation of political power in a tiered fashion, as envisaged in the Indian Constitution, was something that was missing altogether. Now, grassroots democracy has started taking wings.

Genesis of Disempowerment and Fragmentation of Kashmir Politics

If we want to discuss empowerment of the Jammu region, we should perhaps go to the root cause of disempowerment of the region. This disempowerment can be traced back to Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah getting formal command of J&K on 5 March 1948, when he was made “Interim Administrator” by Maharaja Hari Singh. After that day, the Sheikh did everything possible to undermine the Maharaja and end the role of the monarch in the new set-up. Instead of seeking accommodation and power-sharing, Sheikh virtually became despotic because of the unstinted support of Jawaharlal Nehru. Since then, the top executive post has always been held by a person from the Kashmir Division, except for a brief period from 2 November 2005 to 7 July 2008, when Ghulam Nabi Azad, who hails from Doda district of the Jammu region, was the Chief Minister of J&K. This indicates the hegemony exercised by Kashmir over the rest of the state.

On 2 November 2002, Mufti Mohammad Sayeed of the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) with only 16/87 MLAs became the CM of the state. He headed a coalition government in which the Congress had 20 MLAs. Besides, several independent legislators also supported this government. Out of these 20, a majority, 15, belonged to the Jammu region. With many legislators hailing from Jammu, it became imperative to give them some weightage in the power structures. Some of them were made ministers, while some others were adjusted in government-controlled corporations. This happened mainly because of the fragmentation of the Kashmir polity.  The PDP ended the unchallenged hegemony of the National Conference (NC) in 2002. After that, the results of the assembly elections in 2008 and 2014 also led to coalition governments.

In 2014, when the assembly elections were held, the BJP got 25/37 seats in the Jammu region. A rebel BJP candidate, Pawan Gupta from Udhampur, also pledged support to it, besides two MLAs of the Sajad Lone-led People’s Conference (PC). Overall, it thus had 28 MLAs on its side, Incidentally the same number of legislators, 28, which the PDP had. Despite that, somehow an unequal power-sharing arrangement was finalised by the PDP and the BJP.

Intriguing as it seems now, rotational CM-ship, which had a precedent in the 2002 coming together of the PDP and the Congress, was not worked out between the new coalition partners. Under the deal they finalised, Mufti was to remain CM for all six years of this government. That was not to be as Mufti’s death, due to illness in January 2016, drove a wedge deeper between the two parties. Mehbooba Mufti succeeded her father some months later and the coalition partners kept drifting apart. In June 2018, the coalition government of Mehbooba came to an end when the BJP withdrew support.

Drifting Apart and Unfair Delimitation of Constituencies

Since March 1846 Amritsar Treaty, Jammu and Kashmir have remained together as a political unit. The two regions however lack organic unity as they are geographically, culturally and socially poles apart. From March 1846 to August 1947, the power remained with the Hindu Dogra rulers from Jammu. In fact, Ladakh was conquered by the Dogra king Gulab Singh much earlier than Kashmir became a part of his empire. After August 1947, Kashmir fast emerged in a pivotal position and became the power centre in the state which had three distinct geographical regions; Jammu, Kashmir and Ladakh. Kashmir became so powerful that it marginalised the other two regions in all spheres of life, often by use of less than fair means.

The most fundamental reason for the political hegemony that Kashmir had over Jammu and Ladakh regions was the unfair delimitation of constituencies. Both Legislative Assembly constituencies, as also the Lok Sabha segments, were carved out in a manner to undermine both Jammu and Ladakh. The dice was loaded in favour of Kashmir leading to its victory in the political domain. In the Legislative Assembly of the state of Jammu and Kashmir, out of 87 segments, 46 were located in Kashmir, 37 in Jammu and 4 in Ladakh. The constituencies were carved out on the basis of the Representation of People’s Act, 1951, both for the Legislative Assembly and for the Lok Sabha. Major yardsticks used were (i) Population (ii) Geographical Compactness (iii) Nature of Terrain (iv) Facilities of Communication and such like considerations.

An analysis based on the above factors indicates that the delimitation was not correctly carried out. Let us examine data based on population and area in respect of Jammu and Kashmir divisions. In terms of area, Jammu with a spread of 26,292 sq. km is 1.648 times larger than Kashmir, which has an area of 15, 948 sq. km. In terms of the electorate, there seems to be a balance. During 2008 assembly elections, there were 6,345,380 voters in J&K (excluding Ladakh region). Of these, 3,084,717 were in Jammu and 3,260,663 in Kashmir. Thus, population wise, the electorate was nearly equal, with Kashmir having 51.38 percent and Jammu having 48.62 percent of the electorate.

Perhaps we need to understand the concepts of gerrymandering (American) and rotten boroughs (British) more thoroughly in the context of J&K to get an insight into how Kashmir’s hegemony was created and how it has continued for several decades. Gandhinagar of Jammu district having 1,52,100 voters was the largest assembly segment in 2008. In Kashmir, the largest assembly segment was Batmaloo of Srinagar district with just 1,02,759 voters, a whopping 49,341 voters lesser than Gandhinagar. During 2008 elections, the smallest assembly segment in the Jammu region was Bani in Kathua district having 37,197 voters. In the Kashmir region, the smallest segment was Gurez having only 15,330 voters. The comparative data of most assembly elections held in J&K of 1983, 1987, 1996, 2002, 2008 and of 2014, is readily available. The data of even earlier elections is available and the results are almost always identical.

It stands to reason then, that both the Jammu and Kashmir regions should have had an equal number of seats in the legislative assembly. By giving Kashmir 46 assembly segments and Jammu only 37, great injustice was done to the latter in terms of political representation. The allotment was totally disproportionate, grossly unfair and deliberately skewed in favour of Kashmir. This needs to be corrected now.   

 

   

 

 

 

Lok Sabha Segments

The statistical comparisons of Lok Sabha segments of the Jammu region with those located in Kashmir, also yield similar results as seen in the segments in case of Legislative Assembly constituencies. It seems different yardsticks were used for carving out the Lok Sabha segments in the two regions, much as if the two regions were not part of the same state! Incidentally, the Lok Sabha segments in J&K were not delimited by the Justice Kuldeep Singh Commission for delimitation which was constituted in 2002. As analysed above for the assembly segments, it follows then that both Kashmir and Jammy regions of the state should have had equal representation in the Lok Sabha segments. But Kashmir was given three Lok Sabha seats and Jammu only two. This was discriminatory.

Conclusion

 The above few paragraphs clearly demonstrate that the voters of the Jammu region have been treated unequally when compared to voters in the Kashmir region. Such treatment is contrary to the mandate of Articles 81 and 82 of the Constitution of India and has led to the voters in the Jammu region being severely under-represented. It is apparent that artificial disparities were created deliberately to give political hegemony to the Kashmir region. All this is founded on no intelligible criteria save bias against the Jammu region. In addition, the fact that no delimitation of the Lok Sabha segments of J&K was done whenever this happened all over India indicates that this was meant to perpetuate the disparities.

A fresh delimitation of the constituencies needs to be done in an equal and equitable manner to address the above disparities. Towards this end, in February 2020, the Centre has begun the process of delimitation of assembly segments in J&K, and the process once completed is expected to pave the way for Assembly Elections in the Union Territory. ^[6] 

As of now, the Union Law Ministry has constituted the Delimitation Commission which is headed by former Supreme Court judge, Justice Ranjana Prakash Desai. The Commission is mandated to redraw Lok Sabha and assembly constituencies of the Union territory of Jammu and Kashmir. All five Lok Sabha MPs from the Union Territory have been nominated as Associate Members. Consequently, the Delimitation Commission has sought information from all the 20 district commissioners in the Union Territory, ^[7] which indicates that the process is underway.

It will be in the fitness of things that Jammu gets its legitimate share in power structures at all levels. Be it panchayats and urban local bodies (ULBs), or the Legislative Assembly, or representation in the Lok Sabha, things seem destined to change, and change for the better.

(Sant Kumar Sharma is a Senior Journalist based in Jammu. He has written books on Article 370, Delimitation and on Indus Waters Treaty.)

The Justice and Development Party (AKP) led by President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan ostensibly moved closer to realising their dream of heading a new Islamic Caliphate with the Turkish parliament’s decision on July 10, 2020 to reconvert Hagia Sophia into a mosque.^[i] The aim is to preside over a Grand Turkey, reminiscent of Ottoman glory, by 2023, the centenary of the establishment of the Turkish Republic by Mustafa Kemal Pasha (Ataturk). The latter, ironically, crafted a secular State and turned Hagia Sophia (and other prominent churches that had been converted into mosques) into a museum in 1934. Hagia Sophia was built by the Orthodox Church in the fourth century, after razing a temple of the Classical Greek faith that was then dominant in the region. In 1453, the Ottomans conquered Constantinople (now Istanbul) and Sultan Mehmet II changed Hagia Sophia into a mosque.

The quest to head a caliphate began when Ataturk abolished the caliphate and exiled the last Ottoman Caliph in 1924. The early contenders were King Fuad of Egypt and the tribal leader Ibn Saud. Then, Pakistan entered the race with Prime Minister Liaquat Ali Khan hosting a World Muslim Conference in 1951. However, in 1952, Gamal Abdel Nasser staged a coup in Egypt and became the inspirational leader of the Muslim world when he nationalised the Suez Canal in 1956 and staved off a British-Israeli attack; but Egyptian ambitions collapsed when Israel routed the Egyptian and Syrian armies in 1967. Finally, the Saudi King Faisal won the leadership round, thanks to the financial bonanza that followed the oil crisis of 1973. But, by the twenty-first century, the turmoil in most Muslim nations refuelled Turkey’s desire to head a caliphate, comprising mostly of non-Arab Muslim nations.^[ii]

It remains to be seen if Erdoğan will pursue the unfulfilled Ottoman dream to capture Jerusalem; his quest to dominate the Middle East has already begun. On a visit to Pakistan in February 2020, Erdoğan attacked US President Donald Trump’s peace plan for Jerusalem as a “plan of annexation, occupation and demolition”.^[iii] The proposal included a two-state solution to end the Palestine-Israel conflict, and was tilted in favour of Israel. Erdoğan asserted, “Jerusalem is our red line… we will not leave Haram al-Sharif (Al Aqsa mosque) to the mercy of the occupying Israeli administration”.^[iv]

The move caused dismay in Russia (Orthodox). Sergey Gavrilov, head of Russia’s State Duma Committee for the Development of Civil Society, Public Issues and Religious Associations, urged Moscow to negotiate with Turkey for control of at least seven churches that once belonged to the Orthodox Church. In fact, Duma members demanded that Moscow seek control of Orthodox farms, pilgrim centres, and hotels, which were “built by Russians and belonged to [Russia] before the revolution”. Officially, the Kremlin said that the former cathedral “has sacred meaning to all Orthodox believers,” but its status is “an internal affair of Turkey”.^[v] However, on August 21, 2020, the Byzantine-era Chora church (declared a museum in 1945) was reconverted into the Kariye Mosque. There is anxiety over the fate of its icons after Hagia Sophia installed curtains to screen an image of Mary and infant Jesus.^[vi]

Muslim Brotherhood 

Syrian President Bashar al Assad, speaking to Russia-24 TV in March 2020, revealed Erdoğan’s links with the Muslim Brotherhood: “At a point in time, the United States decided that secular governments in the region were no longer able to implement the plans and roles designated to them… They decided to replace these regimes with Muslim Brotherhood regimes that use religion to lead the public… This process of “replacement” started with the so-called Arab Spring. Of course, at the time, the only Muslim Brotherhood-led country in the region was Turkey, through Erdoğan himself and his Brotherhood affiliation”.^[vii]

To understand the dangers posed by the Muslim Brotherhood, it is pertinent to review its origins and quest for Islamic Caliphate, its rabidly anti-Jewish theology and links with Nazi Germany, a relationship that the United States and the West glossed over while pursuing their post-World War II agenda for global dominance.

The Muslim Brotherhood was founded in 1928 by Hassan al-Banna (born October 14, 1906, in Egypt), son of a local imam. Launched just four years after Kemal Ataturk abolished the Caliphate, the Brotherhood focused on indoctrination of its recruits. It professed charity and social service, but its inner agenda was to seek power and reestablish the Caliphate and Islamic rule over Egypt and the entire Muslim world. It taught that, “Allah is our goal; The Prophet is our Leader; The Qur’an is our Constitution; Jihad is our Way; Death in the service of Allah is the loftiest of our wishes”.^[viii]Hassan al-Banna was a Freemason; British intelligence possibly had a role in creating the Brotherhood.

Hassan Al-Banna revived the Assassins Cult (hashshāshīn) of the twelfth century Crusades, and called it, “Art of Death” (fann al-mawt) or “Death is Art” (al-mawt fann), a martyrdom to be revered, based on the Qur’an. From the 1990s, this cult inspired all Sunni Islamic terrorist organizations, especially Al Qaeda and Hamas. Al-Banna borrowed much of his philosophy from Adolf Hitler, whom the Brotherhood contacted in the 1930s. Hitler’s autobiography, Mein Kampf(My Struggle), was translated into Arabic and published under the title My Jihad. Al-Banna had copies of the Nazi anti-Semitic newspaper, Der Sturmer, adapted to the Arab world. The Brotherhood’s assassination bureau (al-jihaz al-sirri) was headed by Hassan’s brother, Abd Al-Rahman Al-Banna, and trained and funded by Nazi agents from Germany.

Haj Amin el-Husseini, top Brotherhood leader in Palestine, was born in Ottoman Jerusalem in 1893, and is regarded as the father of Arab terrorism. On joining the Ottoman army, he was assigned to the Forty-Seventh Brigade in the city of Smyrna and participated in the Armenian genocide in which 1.5 million Christians were massacred by Turkish troops. He became a staunch advocate of Islamic Caliphate.^[ix] The Palestinian gained importance because of the Balfour Declaration of 1917. On January 3, 1919, Zionist leader Chaim Weizmann and Arab leader Emir Feisal, son of the King of Hejaz, agreed to execute the Balfour Declaration that mooted “the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people”, while protecting non-Jewish communities. After the accord was signed in 1920, riots broke out between Jews and Arabs; 47 Jews died and dozens were injured. Al-Husseini was sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment in absentia, and fled to Syria. He was pardoned by British High Commissioner Herbert Samuel and made Grand Mufti of Jerusalem in 1921.

In July 1922, the League of Nations unilaterally approved the British Mandate over Palestine, to create a Jewish homeland, as promised in the Balfour Declaration. After the Arab Revolt in 1936, al-Husseini raised armed militias to attack the Jews, who retaliated, forcing the British to deploy troops to restore order. Al-Husseini was removed from office in late 1937; fearing arrest, he escaped to Lebanon and finally went to Germany.

In meeting with Hitler in November 1941, he said the Arabs and Nazis had common enemies: Jews, English, and Russians. At Schutzstaffel commander Heinrich Himmler’s suggestion, Hitler asked him to recruit Bosnian Muslims; the 20,000-strong 13th Waffen Mountain Division became first non-German SS division.^[x] Hitler tweaked the Nazi dogma of racial purity to accommodate the Brotherhood by declaring al-Husseini an honorary Aryan and Bosnian Muslims as pure Aryan. Muslim Brotherhood leaders in Berlin worked directly with Himmler to create militias to execute Jews and other enemies of the Reich. In the 1950’s, the CIA “discovered” the Brotherhood’s anti-communist leanings and began a long relationship, initially supported by the Saudi Monarchy. Osama bin Laden belonged to the Muslim Brotherhood.^[xi]

The Brotherhood fought the Communist resistance forces in Bosnia and in seven other Nazi campaigns in the Balkans. They helped to decimate the Bosnian Jews; 12,000 of the 14,000-strong community were murdered. The surviving members of the Division surrendered to the British in May 1945; ten were executed for war crimes. At the Nuremberg trials, Adolf Eichmann’s deputy, Dieter Wisliceny, testified that al-Husseini was one of the main actors in the Holocaust.^[xii]However, al-Husseini returned unmolested to Cairo in 1946.

Historian Mehnaz M. Afridi notes that the involvement of Muslims in the genocide of Jews affected Algeria, Tunisia, Morocco, and Libya under the fascist, Nazi, and Vichy regimes, though Jews and Muslims also cooperated in this traumatic era. Algerian writer Boualem Sansal (The German Mujahid, 2009) studied the complexity of the Holocaust and Islamic fundamentalism, including stories of Muslim saviours.^[xiii] There is historical documentation of Muslims saving Jews in Albania, Morocco, Turkey, Iran, Kosovo, Sarajevo, and Tangiers. In fact, Albania (70 percent Muslim and 30 percent Christian) saved all its Jewish citizens during the Holocaust; Turkey rescued Jews who were citizens of the Ottoman Empire.

The Balfour Declaration and Nazi propaganda fuelled anti-Semitism in Arab lands during World War II. In 1950, Sayyid Qutb, who would emerge as the Brotherhood’s leading ideologue, accused Jews of “evil-doing) (Our Struggle with the Jews). He was executed in 1966.^[xiv] From the 1950s to the 1980s, the wars with Israel and migration of Arab Jews to Europe, the United States, and Israel increased tensions, and an era of Holocaust denial began. Many Arabs saw the Holocaust as a war-time event that was exaggerated to gain sympathy for Israel, as it took place in Europe, by Europeans, while the Palestinians paid the price.^[xv]

Hamas was created in December 1987, as the Brotherhood’s armed wing in Palestine. The Hamas Covenant of 1988 blames Jews for causing World War I and II and repeats European anti-Semitic theories. Its Article Eleven states, “the land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf consecrated for future Moslem generations until Judgment Day. It, or any part of it, should not be squandered: it, or any part of it, should not be given up.” The contemporary Muslim Brotherhood has not disowned the anti-Semitic views of past leaders or dissociated from Hamas. Addressing huge crowds in Tahrir Square on February 23, 2011, Sheik Yusuf al-Qaradawi exhorted capturing Al Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem and urged the Egyptian military to open Rafah border with the Hamas-ruled Gaza Strip to provide aid to the Palestinians.^[xvi] Al-Qaeda, Islamic Jihad and ISIS also derive from the Brotherhood.

The Muslim Brotherhood’s Mohammed Morsi was sworn in as Egypt’s first democratically elected president on June 30, 2012. However, neglecting the country’s economic crisis, Morsi pushed through a new constitution that gave him absolute powers, allowed clerics to interfere in the law-making process, and took away the legal rights of minority groups. Protests broke out in July 2013, and finally the army intervened under General Abdel Fattah el-Sisi …^[xvii]

Erdoğan: Islamist Ataturk

Erdoğan, who ruled Turkey as Prime Minister from 2003 to 2014 and as president since 2014, is seeking recognition as an “Islamist Atatürk”. His political views were shaped by Necmettin Erbakan (1926–2011), founder of many Turkish Islamist parties and author of an Islamist manifesto Millî Görüş (“National Vision”, 1969). Erbakan was briefly Prime Minister of Turkey in 1996-7. Once he felt that the quest for full membership of the European Union was futile, Erdoğan became overt in his ambition to resurrect the glory of the Ottoman Empire and be recognised as the caliph, or a caliph, of the Muslim world. The European Union declared Turkey as a candidate country in 1999, but sustained obstacles irked Erdoğan even as regional developments diminished his desire for Western acceptance and Riyadh’s falling economic stature boosted his ambitions.

The lure of the Caliphate can be understood from Turkey’s national flag: when the Muslim Turkic armies of Central Asia conquered Anatolia, they added the latter’s crescent and star to their plain red flags. The Turkish flag adopted in 1936 is simply the 1844 Ottoman flag. No other Islamic country has the crescent and star; in 1947, Pakistan emulated the Turkish flag, using a green background.

A schism is discernible between the Arab States formally led by Saudi Arabia and the non-Arab States led by Turkey. Erdoğan had welcomed the victory of Mohamed Morsi in Egypt in 2012 and was upset when Morsi was overthrown. Gen. Abdel Fattah el-Sisi banned the Muslim Brotherhood and executed several leaders; many fled to Turkey. As Saudi Arabia, UAE, Kuwait, Jordan and Bahrain also banned the Muslim Brotherhood for trying to overthrow their monarchies, a geopolitical fault line emerged in the Arab world. Turkey is supported by Malaysia, Pakistan, Qatar, and a beleaguered Iran.

Despite having cordial relations with Assad, Erdoğan supported the Sunnis against Assad in the civil war, and ruined relations with Egypt, Israel and other states in the Middle East and Europe. By February 2018, he asserted, “The Republic of Turkey is a continuation of the Ottoman Empire… Of course, the borders have changed. Forms of government have changed… But the essence is the same, soul is the same, even many institutions are the same”. Admirers already see him as a ‘caliph’ (“successor” in Arabic, to the Prophet) and shadow of God on Earth.^[xviii]

As rotating president of the OIC, he led the protest against Israel’s killing of Palestinian activists in 2018. In October 2018, the murder of Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi in the Saudi consulate in Istanbul provided an opportunity to embarrass Riyadh, and Ankara slowly released evidence that Khashoggi was killed and dismembered by a hit team sent by Riyadh.

In November 2018, Erdoğan’s close advisors hosted a meeting in Istanbul of Islamists from 28 countries (including Russia, India, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Sudan, Nigeria, Malaysia and Kazakhstan) to promote the idea of an Islamic grouping led by the Turkish president by 2023. The Muslim Brotherhood’s international network was tapped to create proxies across the world.^[xix] Erdoğan’s close confidant Nureddin Nebati said the real purpose of the “Islamic Union Congress” was to convey to the Islamic world that Turkey is offering Erdoğan as imam to lead all Muslims. He compared the Turkish president to the lead bead in the Islamic tespih (prayer beads used by Muslims to recite and count their prayers).

At the end of a three-day marathon, the conclave announced that it aims to create a super Islamic Bloc encompassing 60 countries and 1.6 billion Muslims with 12.8 per cent of the world’s land. It would control 55.5 per cent of the world’s oil reserves and 64.1 per cent of natural gas resources. The conclave was partnered by the International Union of Muslim Scholars (IUMS), a Muslim Brotherhood-linked body and brainchild of Yusuf al-Qaradawi; its general secretary, Ali Muhiuddin Qara Daghi, addressed the meeting. The IUMS is listed as a terrorist group by Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Egypt and Bahrain.

Erdoğan revealed his caliphate ambitions in October 2014, but the failed coup of July 15, 2016 and referendum of April 16, 2017, gave him the opening he needed. Erdoğan was warned about the coup by Russian President Vladimir Putin and not by his own intelligence service or military, or NATO’s Communications and Information Agency, or even the US Intelligence agencies. As forces loyal to him scrambled to defeat the coup, Erdoğan sent text messages to Turkish cellphone users to come to the streets to defend their nation. Three hundred Turks died that night.^[xx]

Erdoğan blamed Sunni spiritual leader Fethullah Gülen (based in Pennsylvania, US) for the coup, and ties with Washington became strained when the United States refused to extradite him. Intelligence sources said that if Gülen had been involved, the NSA would have picked up some signs. However, Erdoğan declared a state of emergency and assumed the power to rule by decree. Later, the referendum allowed him Erdoğan to stay in office until 2029, or longer, due to a loophole in the constitutional amendments, and gave him enormous powers.

Ankara and Tehran sent food and essential supplies to Qatar in June 2017 after Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Egypt, and Bahrain, blockaded the country for funding terrorism and the Muslim Brotherhood. Riyadh demanded that Qatar expel Turkey from its air force base.

Erdoğan’s moves have complicated matters in the Islamic world. Washington, Moscow and Beijing have interests in the Middle East. Turkey is still a NATO State, and the only NATO member in the Middle East and Asia. Though Erdoğan professes concern for all Muslim causes (Palestine, Yemen, Kashmir, Rohingya, and Uighur), his focus is on non-Arab countries (Iran, Afghanistan, Malaysia, Indonesia, Pakistan) and Muslims of non-Arab nations (India, Myanmar). India’s radical cleric Sheikh Salman Nadwi, who supported late Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi and Zakir Naik, has often been fêted in Turkey. However, the need for closer economic ties with Beijing led Ankara to agree to extradite Enver Turdi, a Uighur who fled Xinjiang in 2014, and quietly deporting several Uighurs.^[xxi]

Libya

The Muslim Brotherhood lost two nations after Mohamed Morsi was overthrown in Egypt (July 2013) and Omar al-Bashir in Sudan (April 2019). To establish himself as regional hegemon, Erdoğan in December 2019 signed a military cooperation pact with the UN-recognised regime of Fayez Mustafa al-Sarraj in Tripoli (Government of National Accord or GNA), to ward off the challenge by Gen. Haftar’s Libyan National Army (LNA), based in oil-rich Tobruk. Libya has been ravaged by tribal wars since the assassination of Muammar al-Qaddafi in October, 2011. Gen. Haftar is seeking to end the division of the country, backed by Russia, UAE and Jordan.

In May 2020, Turkey helped the GNA destroy LNA’s Watiya air base, including a Russian Pantsir-1 battery, and takeover the strategic base. When Russia moved six warplanes from Syria to Libya, Erdoğan threatened to bring Turkish warplanes to bomb Haftar’s troops. Simultaneously, he urged Algeria’s newly-elected president Abdelmadjid Tebboune (who depends on unofficial backing from the Algerian Muslim Brotherhood) to sign a defence pact with the GNA regime.

On June 7, 2020, a Tanzanian-flagged cargo ship, Cirkin, sailed from Turkey to the Libyan port of Misrata, accompanied by three Turkish warships. Fearing that arms were being smuggled to help al-Sarraj in violation of a UN arms embargo, a Greek (NATO) helicopter tried to board Cirkin, but was denied permission by the Turkish warships. A French (NATO) frigate, Courbet, was also rebuffed and the Cirkin landed in Libya.

On the weekend of July 18, 2020, Turkey’s Defence Minister Hulusi Akar met Qatari Emir, Prince Tamim Bin Hamad Al Thani, to discuss moving Qatar-trained Somali jihadist fighters to Libya, for an attack on Sirte. Erdoğan sent Turkish troops with drones, military vehicles, and thousands of Syrian mercenaries from Faylak al-Sham (The Syrian Legion), a Muslim Brotherhood affiliate, to strengthen al-Sarraj. Should Algeria join al-Sarraj, Erdoğan would have tilted the balance of power in the region, creating insecurity in North African nations, especially Egypt. This will also affect European, especially southern European, navigation in the Mediterranean and offshore oil projects in between.

Angered at Turkey signing a maritime delimitation agreement with the al-Sarraj regime, thereby intensifying disputes over potential offshore oil and gas fields in the eastern Mediterranean, Egypt and Greece signed an agreement on August 6, 2020, defining an exclusive economic zone between the two countries.^[xxii] Interestingly, Palestine has indicated a desire to cooperate with Ankara in developing the Gaza marine gas deposit, 36 km off the Gaza coast and believed to have reserves of 31 billion cubic meters, which has not been explored due to persistent Israeli-Palestinian clashes.^[xxiii]

Previously, in May 2020, at a virtual meeting with the foreign ministers of Greece, Cyprus, UAE and France, Egypt launched an alliance to confront Turkish moves in Libya and the Mediterranean. The alliance said it would challenge Turkish moves in Cyprus’s territorial waters, where Turkey has been carrying out “illegal” drilling operations. Berating Turkey’s military pact with al-Sarraj, it urged Ankara to stop sending foreign fighters from Syria to Libya.^[xxiv] France’s role in the alliance will be critical as it is a member of the European Union and can help in imposing sanctions on Turkey to protect Cyprus. Prof Tariq Fahmy, Cairo University, observed that being a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council, France can also veto any decision in favour of Turkish moves in Libya. French President Emmanuel Macron supported Gen. Haftar when they met on March 9, 2020, in Paris.

Malaysia

The then Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad hosted a four-day summit of Muslim leaders in Kuala Lumpur (December 18-21, 2019), to discuss problems facing the Muslim world.^[xxv] The Emir of Qatar, Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and Iranian President Hassan Rouhani, attended. Indonesian vice president Dr. Ma’ruf Amin and Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan dropped out at the last minute, in deference to Saudi wishes.

The Emir of Qatar, Sheikh Tamim, criticised “armed militias that commit terrorist acts,” and “the use of methods of force, blockade, starvation and dictation of opinions,” a reference to the Saudi role in the Yemeni civil war and the Saudi-led land, sea and air blockade against Qatar from 2017. President Erdoğan said the UN Security Council had no Muslim presence and is “way past its expiry date” as the world is larger than its five permanent members. He urged Muslim countries to trade in their own currencies, a suggestion backed by Mahathir, who mooted a return to the gold standard.

Mahathir said the Islamic world is plagued with “fratricidal wars, civil wars, failed governments and many other catastrophes”. Many nations are accused of authoritarianism and disregard for human rights, and not a single Muslim nation ranks as a developed country despite immense wealth. The summit, to be called the Perdana Dialogue from 2020, was exploratory and discussed broad issues of governance, culture, security, trade (gold and barter trade to avoid economic sanctions), and technology; its evolution merits watching.

The summit avoided the Rohingya crisis in Myanmar, Islamic State, Kashmir, Uighur’s in Xinjiang, the strife in Syria and Yemen. However, Malaysia continues to host the radical Islamist preacher, Zakir Naik, and has given him permanent resident status.

Iranian President Rouhani urged Muslim nations to enter preferential trade agreements using local currencies and to create a special mechanism for banking and financial cooperation. Reeling from US sanctions that make it difficult to get Western insurers to cover Iranian exports, including oil, Rouhani proposed a transport insurance mechanism exclusively for Muslim nations: “The Muslim world should be designing measures to save it from the domination of the United States dollar and the American financial regime”.^[xxvi] Entrepreneur and artificial intelligence expert Igor Ashmanov said Russia being neither Eastern nor Western could offer Muslim nations lessons in technology and cyber-security.

Pakistan

Pakistan hosts a plethora of jihadi groups to pursue its domestic and foreign policy objectives. Since 2012 at least, the ISI has been laundering money from a small Italian town, Brescia.^[xxvii] The Finance Police in Udine, Italy, uncovered a money laundering system (hawala) behind a defunct internet point. The money was mainly sent to Afghanistan and Pakistan by citizens of those countries, but those citizens did not have any ‘official’ source of income, and the owners of the ‘ghost’ internet point were Pakistanis.^[xxviii] The probe exposed a network of money transfers often linked with shops unconnected to financial exchanges (hairdressers or grocery stores).

The value of the irregular transactions was over €8 million. The suspects included the head of the Madina Trading agency in Corso Garibaldi, Brescia, where cell phones used in the 2008 Mumbai bombings were activated and money sent to India. Interestingly, the number of Pakistani immigrants in Brescia rose from 135 people in 1991 to 3,738 (January 1, 2019), making them the largest immigrant community in Brescia.

The Janjua brothers, who own Madina Center, moved the shop but remained in the business, even after Italian police discovered that between 20 September and 25 December 2008, they had sent more than €400,000 to Pakistanis being watched for terrorism, and later sent money for Uri, Jammu and Kashmir, India. The detectives monitored several ‘Pakistani Islamic cultural centres’ in Brescia, and uncovered a network of al Ummah Italia, al Noor, Masjid Ennour Onlus, Arahma Onlus and Tabligh Islamic Center of Beidzzole, all linked to a ‘Society of Propaganda’ that engaged in door-to-door evangelism to convert non-believers or ‘bad’ Muslims.

Brescia town hosts Brescia Middle East, owned by Lebanon-native, Tony Abi Saab, an international arms dealer company that supplies terrorist groups with high-tech guns and ammunition. All deals are strictly cash; Brescia Middle East also launders money via a banker friend and shell companies.^[xxix] US Army reports say Tony’s company, Brixia, made spare parts for weapons and smuggled them across the Middle East for re-assembly and sales. He reportedly sold pistols and machine guns to Daesh through Turkey. Aided by the CIA and FBI, the US Army arrested Tony in Afghanistan, but a sharp legal defence saw him released with only a small fine; his shell companies (Tactica Ltd Afghanistan, K5 Global, Bennet-Fouch and SIMAINT) continue operating in the Middle East.

Caliphate and India

Turkey is emerging as a new hub for anti-India activities after the tweaking of Article 370. This goes far beyond its traditional support to Pakistan at the OIC.^[xxx] The Institute of Strategic Thinking and Lahore Centre for Peace Research organised a conference on Kashmir (November 21, 2019), in Ankara, where the Indian action was condemned. The invitees included Pakistan Senator Sherry Rahman, former diplomat and chairman of the Lahore Centre for Peace Research Shamshad Ahmad Khan and UK-based Kashmiri lobbyist Lord Nazir Ahmad.^[xxxi] Turkey supported Pakistan in the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) and UN General Assembly where Erdoğan said the world has not paid proper attention to Kashmir, and the issue has to be resolved through “dialogue on the basis of justice, equity, and not through collision”.^[xxxii] (September 25, 2019)

Turkey has universal jurisdiction laws as part of its domestic laws that Khalistani separatists tried to invoke to embarrass India. In October 2018, Sikhs For Justice (SFJ) filed a case against Punjab Chief Minister Capt. Amarinder Singh when he visited Turkey to pay homage at Gallipoli to soldiers from the First Patiala Infantry Regiment (now 15 Punjab) on the centenary of the War. The Captain served in this regiment in the Indian army. SFJ alleged torture of activists detained in Punjab for canvassing for the separatist Khalistan ‘Referendum 2020’. Gurpatwant Singh Pannun, legal advisor to SFJ, filed the complaint on October 28 with the Office of Public Prosecutor of Gallipoli, and sought the Captain’s arrest.^[xxxiii] He told the media that Article 13 of the Turkish Penal Code provides that Turkish law shall apply to “inter alia the offences of genocide, crimes against humanity and torture committed in a foreign country whether or not committed by a citizen or non-citizen of Turkey”.^[xxxiv] However, Amarinder Singh visited the World War I Helles Memorial unmolested, and dismissed the SFJ threats as “publicity seeking stunts”.^[xxxv]

Shah Faesal, who resigned from the IAS and founded a political party, the J&K Peoples Movement, was detained at Delhi airport while trying to take a flight to Turkey in August 2019. An unnamed official of his party told media that Faesal was going to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) to file a case against India for revoking Article 370 in Jammu and Kashmir when he was arrested and sent back to Srinagar.^[xxxvi]

Experts believe that like Pannun, he hoped to use Turkey’s laws as individuals cannot file cases in The Hague; possibly Islamabad would then use that to take the Jammu and Kashmir issue to the ICJ. Pakistan Prime Minister Imran Khan tweeted on August 15, 2019: “Will world silently witness another Srebrenica-type massacre & ethnic cleansing of Muslims in IOK? I want to warn international community if it allows this to happen, it will have severe repercussions & reactions in the Muslim world setting off radicalisation & cycles of violence”. Srebrenica witnessed the 1995 genocide of over 8,000 Bosnians by the Bosnian Serb army. There has been no massacre of Kashmiri Muslims in India, but the tweet suggests a possible ISI hand in the aborted Turkish escapade. India will have to keep a close watch on the 21st century incarnation of the caliphate.

The one thing that can checkmate Erdoğan’s caliphate dream is the sinking Turkish economy, with the Lira falling 20 per cent against the US dollar. Erdoğan attributed the decline to the Coronavirus pandemic and the devastating explosions in Beirut, but the fact is that Turkey’s economy was in doldrums long before the pandemic arrived. Its central bank has exhausted nearly one-third of its foreign exchange reserves; the wars in Libya and Syria have further crippled economic recovery. In an ominous development for Erdoğan, the AKP lost major municipalities in 2019, including Ankara and Istanbul, and the opposition parties have made economic development and corruption in the AKP their principal electoral planks. Given the regime’s claims of presiding over a “strong economy”, recourse to the IMF is ruled out.^[xxxvii]

(Sandhya Jain is a political analyst, independent researcher, and author of multiple books. She is also editor of the platform Vijayvaani)

^[i] Asian Warrior, Hagia Sophia: Ottoman Revival, July 13, 2020. https://www.asianwarrior.com/2020/07/hagia-sophia-ottoman-rvival-erdogan.html

^[ii] Dawn, Who is the leader of the Muslim world?, Nadeem Paracha, August 23, 2020. https://www.dawn.com/news/1575905/smokers-corner-who-is-the-leader-of-the-muslim-world

^[iii] WION Web Team, Turkey President Erdogan rakes up Kashmir issue in Pakistan Parliament, Feb 14, 2020 https://www.wionews.com/south-asia/news-update-breaking-Turkey-President-Erdogan-rakes-up-Kashmir-issue-in-Pakistan-Parliament

^[iv] Dawn, ‘No difference between Gallipoli and occupied Kashmir’: Erdogan stands by Pakistan in Parliament speech, Javed Hussain, February 14, 2020. https://www.dawn.com/news/1534429/no-difference-between-gallipoli-and-occupied-kashmir-erdogan-stands-by-pakistan-in-parliament-speech

^[v] RT, Following Hagia Sophia’s conversion to mosque, Russian MPs want Turkey’s disused Orthodox churches under Moscow’s control, Jonny Tickle, July 16, 2020. https://www.rt.com/russia/494970-russian-mp-turkeys-disused-churches-moscow/

^[vi] Reuters, After Hagia Sophia, Erdogan reconverts Turkey’s historic Chora church to mosque, Aug 22, 2020. https://m.hindustantimes.com/world-news/after-hagia-sophia-erdogan-reconverts-turkey-s-historic-chora-church-to-mosque/story-aE0YyGSM57oSED7iqPvc2J_amp.html?__twitter_impression=true&s=03

^[vii] Engdahl, F. William, Turkey’s Erdogan From Haga Sophia to the Shores of Tripoli and Beyond, July 30, 2020. https://journal-neo.org/2020/07/30/turkey-s-erdogan-from-haga-sophia-to-the-shores-of-tripoli-and-beyond/

^[viii] Engdahl, F. William, Turkey’s Erdogan From Haga Sophia to the Shores of Tripoli and Beyond, July 30, 2020. https://journal-neo.org/2020/07/30/turkey-s-erdogan-from-haga-sophia-to-the-shores-of-tripoli-and-beyond/

^[ix] Al Arabiya, ANALYSIS: The Nazi roots of Muslim Brotherhood, Tony Duheaume, June 27, 2018. https://english.alarabiya.net/en/features/2018/06/27/ANALYSIS-The-Nazi-roots-of-Muslim-Brotherhood

^[x] Timeline, The Nazis, with the help of an Arab cleric, used Islamic extremists as a tool, Louis Anslow, Apr 7, 2017. https://timeline.com/nazis-muslim-extremists-ss-6824aee281d2

^[xi] Engdahl, F. William, Turkey’s Erdogan From Haga Sophia to the Shores of Tripoli and Beyond, July 30, 2020. https://journal-neo.org/2020/07/30/turkey-s-erdogan-from-haga-sophia-to-the-shores-of-tripoli-and-beyond/

^[xii] Al Arabiya, ANALYSIS: The Nazi roots of Muslim Brotherhood, Tony Duheaume, June 27, 2018. https://english.alarabiya.net/en/features/2018/06/27/ANALYSIS-The-Nazi-roots-of-Muslim-Brotherhood

^[xiii] See Norman Gershan, Besa: Muslims Who Rescued Jews during World War II, 2006; Fariborz Mokhtari, In the Lion’s Shadow: The Iranian Schindler and His Homeland in the Second World War, 2012; Robert Satloff, Among the Righteous, 2006; Karen Gray Ruelle and Deborah Durland Desai, The Grand Mosque of Paris: A Story of How Muslims Rescued Jews During the Holocaust, 2012; Joëlle Allouche-Benayoun, Perceptions of the Holocaust in Europe and Muslim Communities: Sources, Comparisons and Educational Challenges, 2013, and Michael Laskier, North African Jewry in the Twentieth Century: The Jews of Morocco, Tunisia, and Algeria, 1997.

^[xiv] New Republic, Muslim Brotherhood and Nazi Germany, Jeffrey Herf, May 12, 2011. https://newrepublic.com/article/88104/muslim-brotherhood-anti-semitism-israel-egypt

^[xv] The Role of Muslims and the Holocaust, Mehnaz M. Afridi, Aug 2014 https://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199935420.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780199935420-e-005

^[xvi] New Republic, Muslim Brotherhood and Nazi Germany, Jeffrey Herf, May 12, 2011. https://newrepublic.com/article/88104/muslim-brotherhood-anti-semitism-israel-egypt

^[xvii] Al Arabiya, ANALYSIS: The Nazi roots of Muslim Brotherhood, Tony Duheaume, June 27, 2018. https://english.alarabiya.net/en/features/2018/06/27/ANALYSIS-The-Nazi-roots-of-Muslim-Brotherhood

^[xviii] Erdoğan’s Ambition for the Caliphate and the Failure of Turkish Democracy, Aydogan Vatandas, June 25, 2018. https://consortiumnews.com/2018/06/25/Erdoğans-ambition-for-the-caliphate-and-the-failure-of-turkish-democracy/

^[xix] Erdoğan’s caliphate dream put in motion in Turkey, Abdullah Bozkurt, November 27, 2018 https://stockholmcf.org/commentary-Erdoğans-caliphate-dream-put-in-motion-in-turkey/

^[xx] Erdoğan: Self-Proclaimed Caliphate?, Cynthia Lardner, June 29, 2017 https://intpolicydigest.org/2017/06/29/Erdoğan-self-proclaimed-caliphate/

^[xxi] Ahval News, Turkey accepted China’s extradition request for Uighur man – report, May 20, 2020 https://ahvalnews.com/turkey-china/turkey-accepted-chinas-extradition-request-uighur-man-report

^[xxii] RT, Greece & Egypt sign deal on exclusive economic zone amid tensions with Turkey, August 6, 2020 https://www.rt.com/newsline/497297-greece-egypt-economic-turkey/

^[xxiii] Dorsey, James M., Palestine plays regional power politics with proposed energy deal, July 14, 2020 https://mideastsoccer.blogspot.com/2020/07/palestine-plays-regional-power-politics.html

^[xxiv] Al-monitor, Egypt announces international anti-Turkey alliance, George Mikhail, May 31, 2020. https://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2020/05/egypt-anti-turkey-alliance-libya-mediterranean-waters.amp.html?skipWem=1&__twitter_impression=true&s=09

^[xxv] Malaysia kicks off Islamic summit with PM Mahathir denying talk of new Islamic bloc, December 19, 2019. https://www.straitstimes.com/asia/se-asia/malaysia-kicks-off-islamic-summit-with-non-saudi-aligned-countries-in-attendance

^[xxvi] Progress of non-Muslims ‘left us in lurch’, Malaysia tells Islamic summit, Joseph Sipalan, Rozanna Latiff, December 19,2019 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-malaysia-muslimalliance/progress-of-non-muslims-left-us-in-lurch-malaysia-tells-islamic-summit-idUSKBN1YN0EU

^[xxvii] Italy arrests network accused of money laundering and financing jihadists, Anti-Corruption Digest, May 11, 2018. https://anticorruptiondigest.com/2018/05/11/italy-arrests-network-accused-of-money-laundering-and-financing-jihadists/#axzz6CP8TiGCe

^[xxviii] Pakistan-Italy Terror Funding Link: Why Shady Dealings in Brescia?, Francesca Marino, November 22, 2019. https://www.thequint.com/news/world/hawala-terror-funding-jihad-networks-italy-brescia-pakistan-immigrants

^[xxix] How Brescia Middle East is laundering crime money collected from selling weapons to terrorists, Lebanon 247 News, January, 24 2019. http://news.lebanon247news.com/Lebanon_247_News/Politics_Law_Society/Chief_Editor/24_01_2019/24_01_2019_06_25_00.html

^[xxx] Erdogan’s Kashmir Activism Stems From Islamist Ambitions, Abhinav Pandya, February 10, 2020. https://swarajyamag.com/politics/erdogans-kashmir-activism-stems-from-islamist-ambitions

^[xxxi] Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s recent activism on Kashmir is motivated by Turkey president’s Caliphate dreams, Abhinav Pandya, November 25, 2019. https://www.firstpost.com/world/recep-tayyip-Erdoğans-recent-activism-on-kashmir-is-motivated-by-turkey-presidents-caliphate-dreams-7695671.html

^[xxxii] Erdogan support for Pakistan on Kashmir at UN an outcome of downswing in India-Turkey ties, Nayanima Basu, September 26, 2019 https://theprint.in/diplomacy/erdogan-support-for-pakistan-on-kashmir-at-un-an-outcome-of-downswing-in-india-turkey-ties/297376/

^[xxxiii] Indian Express, SFJ files complaint against Captain Amarinder Singh in Turkey, to seek arrest warrant, October 30, 2018. https://indianexpress.com/article/cities/chandigarh/sfj-files-complaint-against-captain-amarinder-singh-in-turkey-to-seek-arrest-warrant-5424315/

^[xxxiv] See Articles 76 and 77: https://www.legislationline.org/download/id/6453/file/Turkey_CC_2004_am2016_en.pdf

^[xxxv] Indian Express, Found no trace of SFJ at Gallipoli: Punjab CM Amarinder Singh, October 31, 2018. https://indianexpress.com/article/cities/chandigarh/found-no-trace-of-sfj-at-gallipoli-punjab-cm-amarinder-singh-5426259/

^[xxxvi] New Indian Express, Shah Faesal planned to take Kashmir issue to ICJ: Sources, August 17, 2020 https://www.newindianexpress.com/nation/2019/aug/17/faesal-planned-to-file-case-at-icj-2020114.html.

^[xxxvii] New Eastern Outlook, Turkey: The Political Economy of Hagia Sophia, Salman Rafi Sheikh, August 13, 2020 https://journal-neo.org/2020/08/13/turkey-the-political-economy-of-hagia-sophia/

Fashionable topics are obscure. The information available on fashionable topics is often more by factors than the information supplied. Means, a lot of information is concocted on the go. Who does not want to be associated with something that is considered important? Cryptos are today in thousands with Bitcoins and XRPs leading the way. Through this article we will examine all different aspects of cryptos.

Technology

Usually cryptocurrencies are created using a technology called blockchain, though not all cryptocurrencies are blockchain-based. So, what is a blockchain? It is a mechanism of generating 256 bit crypto-keys (an alphanumeric code) from the collective data submitted, and then including this key generated in previous sessions as part of the data submitted in every next session. Entry is made in a commonly available ledger, which makes such entries immutable and hence safe. There is no limit on the volume of data, and each submission process includes the previous key.

The Blockchain carries none of the data, which may be left with anyone including the initial owner. Only the block keys are noted in the Blockchain. Each blockchain entry every few minutes or seconds is shared amongst and machine-accepted by all the participants of the main blockchain participants, called nodes.

In bitcoin, the data that forms the bitcoin is ‘mined’ (discovered by solving a mathematical computational problem), which keeps on getting more and more tedious, difficult, hence time & energy consuming, constantly enhancing the cost of the mining of bitcoin. Other cryptos have different mechanisms.

Is Blockchain and Cryptocurrency one and the same thing?

Not really. Blockchain is a technology that can be used for any purpose. Indeed, it is being used today for invoicing, legal documents, notary stamp papers, for smart contracts (discussed ahead), and even software creation. The applications are myriad. Within so-called cryptos, there is Bitcoin, which is a full-fledged cryptocurrency and beyond any legality or illegality as it has no promoter, no operator, no server and is collectively managed by the people who own it. ‘XRP’ of Ripple Labs, which is also cryptocurrency is completely legal and is used for international inter-bank payment settlements (prospective competitor to SWIFT) at less than 50% of the current costs. Hence, a large number of banks globally (300+) are subscribers to their service. XRP operates completely legally as a software-based settlement system amongst banks and at last count had a market cap of USD 11.35 billion.

Furthermore, there are more and more crypto-based products, which are not currencies. With varied alterations in the underlying blockchain technology, they are ending up in the market almost at the rate of few numbers a week. Therefore, it is important that in the context of this article, Blockchain refers to a technology, Crypto refers to any class of digital asset or instrument financial, legal or other, while Crypto-currency refers to a blockchain based money or money equivalent.

To unravel the conundrum that crypto and the information haze around it represent, let’s go back to first principles.

What is Money? 

Believe it or not there are different schools of thought on what is money. There are classical schools and now there is Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) and another labyrinth of ideas as to what is money. To avoid drowning my readers in this ontic ocean which has as much economic theory as history in it, I draw upon the current simple and superficial definition. “Money is an obligation undertaken by the Reserve Bank of India to exchange a submitted currency note for another one of the same number.” The INR100 note, if brought to the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) will be exchanged for another INR100 note. That is all that RBI undertakes as an obligation. You don’t get gold or USD or sacks of wheat. Just another note for the one you submitted back. A currency note, therefore is an undated promissory note (debt obligation) of the exchequer.

What backs the fiat? 

Nothing other than the revenues of Government, which most often are less than their expenditure in most nations.

So am I holding shares of a loss making enterprise?

Thematically, yes. But in practise it is slightly different, especially with a monopoly like a Government. They can afford to run losses and be credible.

Why can’t (don’t) Governments run proficits (Govt with revenues exceeding expenditure) rather than deficits?

This has nothing to do with economics. It is more about politics and social theory that a nation adopts. Proficits are run by only two types of nations: (a) Some relatively small and extremely rich European nations (not touched by the two world wars of the last century) with colonial resources left over from 300 years of plunder of Asia, Africa and South America and with high per capita income along with lowest standard deviation in per capita income can afford to be proficit states (they need little public welfare); (b) Those whose equity (treasury obligations of the sovereign) on the international debt markets takes a major hit and in a bid to shore up their reputation, they become like a big company for some time. Russia is one of few such examples after the sovereign debt default on 17 August 1998 by the Sergei Kirienko Government.

Sensible, good-health States are those that ensure zero proficit. This is sensible as any good state with its means to raise money anytime from the domestic and international markets or print its own, should ideally run like a not-for-profit venture. Welfare states are different. They believe that current inequality in availability of resources among their population and the resources that they require to run themselves (the Govt.) and build infrastructure and defence, should not be extracted back as taxes from the rich and affluent, but should be extracted as Treasury Bonds from the rich so that it keeps on lying on their balance sheets as an asset. Please know that every individual who has even INR 100 deposited in a bank, has Government assets on his personal or organisational balance sheet. It’s just that he does not know about it (it happens through Banks, who are bound to buy T-Bills and maintain SLRs). In venture investment business, there is a simple mechanism to evaluate anything, anytime. It is called, “see the exit value”. If the Govt. of a nation goes belly up (it happens all the time, in one or other country in the world, so it is not a Black Swan event), what is the value of the T-Bills? Actually, little.

Back to the modern welfare state, it replaces high taxes with the Govt. obligations, thereby giving a win-win, feel good effect. For purposes of altruism, I concede running some fiscal deficit is okay. Let the poor be assisted without harming the rich (that is the motto of fiscal deficits). But it should be within sensible limits. I desist from recommending those limits as that is not the subject matter of this article. But one ratio that no one ever publishes is the proportion of fiscal deficit caused by Govt.’s expenditure on sustaining itself. Here I have problems, because if this ratio is high, it is nothing but a Venture which has raised angel investment and is spending money not on the business that generates revenues, but on high salaries and fancy cars.

How are Govt bonds different from those issued by large corporations?

Just as the Govt. can never default on payments in national currency, they can tap on a computer a few times and generate as much money as required to honour the bonds. But the question remains: what will the money mean to the bond holders, if it is devalued? This brings us to a very critical juncture; what are the bond holders wanting? Is it Money (irrespective of what that money stands for) or Value? This question is relatively difficult to understand and answer. Because the bond holders are investing to avoid devaluation of their holdings. But in case the yield on a bond is fully compensated by inflation, the bond holder is actually reducing the worth of his money. Therefore, bonds of a very well managed corporation are safer than poorly managed Government. This brings us to the other painful incongruence that exists—Credit Ratings. Credit ratings of a legal entity cannot exceed the sovereign credit rating of the jurisdiction. This principle is followed by most rating agencies. This sounds theoretically sensible but has proven to be wrong in innumerable cases the world over. Currently, there are innumerable corporations in Spain and Italy, whose credit rating should be better than the corresponding Governments. This is a typical case of an insurance event, when emotion is let to govern the rational. Governments tend to provide a sense of security from the legislative and authoritative powers they possess.

What are limbic and cerebral markets?

Limbic economies are those where demand precedes and triggers supply. Cerebral economies, conversely, are supply-initiated demand triggered.

Modern Market Theory & the need for all powerful sovereign

The foundations of the theory that Governments are all powerful printers of currency, are flimsy. Indeed, the fact that firms can be more credible then the Governments in certain circumstances (I again quote Italy & Turkey as an example, where some Credit Rating Agencies decided to place companies ahead of countries) is itself a proof of this theory’s faultiness. In reality, in today’s globalised world, governments are economic agents like corporates. Yes, they are more powerful and in monetary economics, power = capability to manipulate or better said, power = capability of harmlessly-managed for oneself deviation by induction, from the spontaneous.

To finally come to the crypto and its logic, it is important to understand debt, which is of two kinds: Sustainable [maintains economic balance] and Unsustainable [promotes economic dis-balance].

In an informationally-transparent-market, ‘sustainable debt’ is the difference between demand and supply. Please note; it is the difference, irrespective of whether supply exceeds demand or vice-versa. The gap, whatsoever, among the two is sustainable debt without causing inflation or deflation (major change in prices). It is important to note that these gaps occur simultaneously in economies. In certain sectors, demand exceeds supply; in others, supply exceeds demand. ‘Sustainability’ manifests itself in the stability of the value of money.

When supply is more, either the prices will fall (unsustainability) or people have to be provided debt to buy more + their consumption habits have to be ramped up substantially. Since the situation highlighted in the previous image is unsustainable, therefore one of the below mentioned two cases are chosen, depending on whether one is a deflating non-growth cerebral economy or a non-deflating growing cerebral economy.

If demand is more than supply, one of the below mentioned are chosen. The 2nd on foresees providing debt to firms to ramp up production.

It is important to note that the complexity in an economy happens owing to simultaneous occurrence of all four mechanisms concomitantly, when specific sectors are a combination of cerebral/limbic, inflationary/deflationary/non-inflating in an economy. The complexity is a gaussian curve. Completely underdeveloped (usually limbic markets) and highly developed (usually cerebral markets) have clear choices. It is indeed the ones in the middle that face high-complexity choices and ideally very sector focused approach in policy making, which, if absent, will leave desired high growth a pipe-dream.

Conclusively, it is only social habits on one side and the innovative capabilities of the firms on the other that are constraints to growth. It is important to underline that demand (includes that which is domestic in origin as well as that generated by exports) and supply too is for both domestic market as well as imports.

Debt is growth, not money. When either supply or demand exceed the other, it leads to either people getting debt to buy more (with sustainable inflation in supply excess), or firms getting debt to produce more (in case of excess demand). “Money on the contrary is just another financial commodity and nothing more. It is subject to the same equilibrium economics as wheat or rice are.”

Modern Monetary Theory (MMT), often referred to as Post-Keynesian Economics, assumes that Government’s money printing capability is the compensatory mechanism, keeping Government as a superseding mechanism over and above the economic agents—almost like a puppeteer. The fact however is that owing to legal and judicial parity that is available in India and most democracies between Govt. and non-Govt. entities in eyes of law; Govt. is just another economic agent, though with additional powers like emission of currency. The proponents of MMT especially in the United States are advocates of a superseding and unquestionable powers of the Govt. Worse, they believe in collective rationality and aptitude of Government. The latter is the most challenging and, in some cases, dangerous assumption, as systems like those of Government do not follow rationality, they create their own rationality and are hence, subject to the most irrational owing to cultural frames of operations to which they are subjected.

It is interesting that Bitcoin & Cryptocurrencies usually lie out of the purview of MMT. Proponents like Randall Wray, Mathew Forstater and Stephanie Kelton speak little on crypto or reject it as non-serious phenomena. I furthermore believe it is purposefully propped as it provides US Govt and extraordinary capability to manipulate & manoeuvre at the cost of others. MMT lends more economic credibility & authority to the US Govt than that, which is true.

Crypto and the New Economy 

All the aforementioned were important to be understood by first principles for the understanding of Crypto’s role in making a new economy happen. Bitcoins are beyond the patience of most traditional economists. And they might be partly right in saying that once bitcoin is treated as a digital asset, its behaviour shall be no different from other similar asset forms. The major caveat that is unaddressed is the information plane. Information is the medium and milieu of all economic theories. If the information milieu changes dramatically, one might have a completely new set of substantially altered economic equations.

Bitcoin is excellent electronic money that finishes the rigging capability of individual states. It does exactly the same job as money, but the other way round: the total issued bitcoins are limited to 21 million. Therefore, if the entire world shifts to bitcoins, one will need no more economists as the growth of the world economy will be the growth in the rate of bitcoins—as simple as that!

For ease of use, Bitcoin can be endlessly reduced in denomination. It already has satoshi (The smallest bitcoin currency); then it will be milli-satoshi, micro-satoshi and so on, as technology allows for constant reduction of this denomination as per need and rise of the value of bitcoins. It will be an ideal capitalist, competitive economic model. Furthermore, while it will give a major startup advantage to the US, Europe and Japan; it will be a level playing field for the future. Because he who produces more of the needed and desired will win, irrespective of its location. In future, it will tilt in favour of those nations, which are less costly for production. It will therefore be a self-balancing mechanism, based on unemotional merit-based capitalism. This is quite in contrast to the superseding sovereign that MMT proposes.

What is so exciting about Cryptos?

The development quotient of a nation can indeed be estimated from the higher proportion of electronic payments vis-à-vis paperback. Electronic money clearly identifies the payee and the payer, making it relatively difficult to evade taxes, making money cleaner. Most transactions in North America, Europe and developed East Asia are electronic. Nevertheless, crypto-currency is very different from all existing electronic money transactions. It is important to observe that crypto currency is not one uniform lot in terms of technology. There are innumerable different technologies that are used for creating crypto currencies. Therefore, we focus on the minimum common denominator which is invariably available in every type of crypto currency. Following are the crucial features of crypto currency qua electronic money:

1. Electronic transaction ledger rests with everyone. There is nothing to steal. And at the current level of computing technology, the ledger is immutable.
2. Block chain does not require any central agency, authentication or trust centre (like banks) that authorises or underwrites a transaction and charges a commission on the same. Since a common ledger of entries is available, changes, if any made, are available for everyone. A simple analogue would be sharing a Google spreadsheet, such that each participant can make changes in the spreadsheet, but the changes are validated only when each participant agrees to the proposed change.
3. Crypto-currency can be issued in lots, such that different lots are governed by different rules. Therefore, it is possible to create multiple currency types pretty quickly.
4. If required, the issuer can exert control over the currency even after it is issued.
5. Crypto currency can be created to be completely opaque or completely transparent along with automated reporting of various types of transactions including those which could tantamount to corruption.
6. Critically, crypto-currency when programmed as a smart contract has the capability to work on its own without any action required to be triggered by the owner. It technically could become the Letter of Credit of the 21st century.
7. Open electronic marketplaces make it extremely easy for the end user to transfer or exchange this currency globally, as all it needs is an internet connection to be accessed or used.
8. Offline transfer of cryptos is possible. Indeed, it is even possible to print cryptos as tangible cards or tokens for easy offline interactions, which are accounted for once the transaction jumps over from offline back to online.
9. Very importantly cryptos can(not) be made traceable. Traceability could bring in a new dawn of new economics, as lots of theories that economists have devised are actually for predicting behaviours to ultimately understand the flow of money in an economy. Crypto can provide economists and data analysts instantaneous understanding of currency vis-a-vis hundreds of markers, including the capability to see which sector has how much monetary gravity and what is the sector-wise rate of monetary circulation. This could, therefore, open the tummy of economics for relationship dynamics and knowledge. Relationship dynamics means the capability to see how, which relationships and dependencies are changing and by how much.

Aforementioned are pretty much the most gravitational changes that block chain brings to money vis-à-vis existing electronic money.

Need of a smartphone for carrying crypto-currency is a misnomer amongst the masses. It is only partly true. All crypto money is computed, binary money. A computing device is required only for transactions, especially those where one is a sender (not a recipient) of crypto-currency, quite like existing electronic money. Secondly, there is a possibility of creating very cheap electronic-wallet devices or cards that connect electronically and independently or parasitically (when in proximity or connected to a terminal, without its own display, like cards). These wallets can be produced so cheap that they can be provided free of cost by Governments to all its citizens. Pretty much like the Banks give away debit cards along with account opening.

Launch of DigiYuan and its repercussions on the World 

#COVID-19 has eclipsed another momentous event—China launched its crypto-currency in May 2020. An official crypto-fiat built around block-chain is very different from cash or electronic money that exists today in mobile wallets and bank accounts. Through this article, we first understand the disparity between existing electronic money and block chain based crypto-currency, followed by the impact that Chinese DigiYuan could potentially have on China and the world.

In context of all the aforementioned, China’s launch of its crypto-Yuan is very significant. China achieved the status of an upper middle-income nation through prudent use of its inexpensive work force, making itself into the factory of the world and through financial policies that let it grow at an astronomical pace. It now clearly sees that depending on export for the next push in growth is not possible. Concurrently, One-Belt-One-Road has had an undulating beginning. China therefore, knows it needs to now grow its domestic market. Secondly, it needs a performance spurt. Weeding out corruption is a major efficiency exercise. It can easily add 1-2% points to growth annually. Besides which, it will have a cascading impact on a number of other aspects of economic, social, cultural and political life. It could also create a renewed interest in China as a great clean large market to invest and do business.

China is a single party authoritarian regime. Such a regime has complete control over national resources and can legally draw resources for its sustenance. The Party is the Government and hence everything belonging to the Government belongs to the Party. Therefore, institutional corruption, which in democracies exists through business-political quid-pro-quo for politicians to access resources for electioneering is not required. Corruption in such ‘institutionalised authoritarian’ nations is a result of an individual human’s propensity to monetise power for richer living or for accumulating further additional power. The word ‘institutionalised authoritarianism’ stands for one in which the public and the ruler are in an equilibrium that is discovered through decades long struggle amongst them, such that the endurance and reliability of such regime is as high as that of democracies, while those aspects of living, which free societies term as ‘absence of freedom’, are so deeply impregnated into the cultural fabric of the nation that they no more seems authoritarian. “Socio-political freedom has no absolutist existence or features, it is a bargain within the cultural context of a nation.”

By slowly replacing paper money with a crypto currency, China will be able to gradually weed out close to all individual corruption, technologically. This could lead to a much better performance, better economic efficiency and better image of China. Furthermore, a stable China with easily available Digi-Yuan for international transactions, could in no time become an international transaction currency, though it might never become a reserve currency for the same political reasons of opaqueness and authoritarianism. This will grossly impact the current status of US Dollar as the world money (currency of exchange and transaction) as well as the reserve currency. While the US Dollar will still retain the status of reserve currency; but the world money status might quickly decouple itself from the US and agglutinate to China. As mentioned above, a clean and transparent China will also attract attention and a second wave of investment. Where does it leave us in India, Russia, Europe, the US & others?

Remember the 70s? The US and China built a seller-buyer relationship that thrived for almost four decades. China will now build one with the developing nations of Asia, Africa, South Europe and South America. These nations will become the projections of Chinese power and rich in DigiYuans. Quite like China became rich in US Dollars and only now understands that it was fooled for exchanging its natural resources for a song and four trillion American promises. In this, India has been much more intelligent than Chinese; we exploited resources for ourselves, China ravaged them for the US!

Russia faces a lot of internal challenges, most crucially lack of ideology. Socio-culturally, Russians are very different from both Asians and Westerners. They operate most efficiently when provided a common clearly identifiable by most ideals. Happiness and prosperity for all has not really cut ice with Russia, notwithstanding repeated propositions of President Putin, who has dominated the Russian mind space for the last two decades. China has two very large neighbours—India in the South and Russia in the North. It is clear that China has learnt to deal with both adeptly. Russia is treated with equity and respect, something Europe and America failed to provide Russia. Russia with its large pool of resources and a sensible size economy will be major target markets for DigiYuan as the world money (transaction currency). Reasons are simple and straight: Euro, does not want to be one, Ruble cannot be one, so what is left is the US dollar that Russia dislikes and Digi-Yuan, which it will perhaps adopt and accept.

Africa, some parts of Asia (Iran, Pakistan etc.), S. America and all those being supported by China will have little issues with use of DigiYuan. Europe is orphaned, with identity lost to America, a lukewarm European United Front and contradictions within. They surely do not stand to compete with China. And individually, not collectively, (as EU) will subscribe to DigiYuan as a transaction currency. Having said the aforementioned, Europe will have a positive, but cautious approach rather than a camaraderie with China.

The US might subsequently be left with only India and the Middle East (till the monarchies don’t die along with oil, which though not immediate, but is now apparently declining on the horizon). Australia, Canada and the UK are too small and inconsequential separately, while their colonial past will never let them unite together. India is seen to be of no bother currently, as the democratic contradictions within India are seen as a safety valve that will never make India a threat for China. Assisted by the US, brooded by Europe and politically no more a push-over, could India gain from the current COVID crisis by being the other large market for sourcing, manufacturing, selling and exporting?

A popular Digi-Yuan will force other nations including India and the US to issue their own crypto-currency. With all crypto-currencies freely available on the internet, transferred without intermediary and state control, coupled with a very high level of universal awareness and connectedness amongst people of the world, the globe is poised to be more dynamic than ever. So brace for the change.

With Digi-money issued as a smart contract, the role of banks as medium of trust will be annulled completely. Would all money be crypto money, the role of banks will be reduced to asset management companies. Furthermore, with ever expanding role of relatively better algorithmic scrutiny and rating along with an easily analysable record of crypto-money, the role of Asset Management by Banks might also completely shift to data analytics and an AI system, which rates and assesses debtors, and provides the depositors to choose risk-return for themselves; in other words, a new era of crypto-bonds is visible on the horizon. This will be an end to banking as we know it now. Each of the aforementioned elements are individually already evolving.

Another major impact of gradual introduction and dominance of crypto-currency in China will be birth of new economics. Most Economics Nobel Laureates (including Abhijit Bannerjee) would have spent their life gathering monetary and other data from the economic limbs of a society—individual citizens—to see the impact of money, its distribution, its circulation speed etc, to verify the causes of trickle-down effect, if one exists. With complete traceability in crypto (one can, in one click, trace all the owners of each and every single Digi-Yuan from the day it was issued/mined to the present day), along with identification of the holder, most of these economic theories will be facts, rather than hypothesis in flux. What trickles down, what does not will be transparently visible and will cease being a matter of expert guesses and debates. This will enable a completely new type of development economics to be born in China. Akin to shooting a guided-missile, bang on target, then hurling tens of unguided projectiles, this development economics will be highly directed for the target population (directly or indirectly). Pilferage shall be marginal. Upliftment of underprivileged will be dramatically catalysed. And China will be driven into a new unmatched league of its own. And all this seems happening with their decisiveness. So brace for it.

So, will India rise to the occasion? The tone of the answer, like in any other democracy, will be decided by the people of India, the tenor by its leaders. India has always been more American than America. The best team work most Indians are capable of is when playing alone. Therefore, in some sense we are opposites of Russians. Russians have immense capability to unify around an idea but are lacking great unifying ideas. India has great unifying ideas but lacks any desire in its people to be in unison. “Constructive Union is a tendency of people to make an idea happen, Diversionary Union on the other hand is the one that happens when people unite to avert a calamity brought on them by nature or internal or external forces. Such unions are nothing but acts of collective survival. They are instinctive, not strategic.” There will be other outcomes of Crypto introduction, which includes automation of economics and a major replacement of economists by data analysts.

Deepak Loomba is Chairman of De Core Nanosemiconductors Limited, Gandhinagar, Gujarat.