India Foundation

Buddhist Economics of Compassion and Communion

It is universally felt that all is not well with the present day thoughts and practices in the sphere of economics engulfing the entire world in a severe crisis and therefore this calls for serious thinking as to what ails the prevailing states of affair and how to rectify the root causes of the problems facing the humankind. In view of urgency of the situation apparent symptoms are to be attended and curative measures are to be adopted. But it is imperative to go to the root causes and undertake preventive and positive measures This necessitates rethinking about economic principles, policies, planning and programs.

This paper has limited concerns and stems from the disillusionment with the dichotomous, exclusivist and lopsided economic situations that obtain in the modern world and outlines a brief sketch of economic system as per the Indian Buddhist approach to structure and manage economy at the national and global levels. It is hoped that the classical Indian thought can possibly offer an effective and more beneficial alternative to the present day individualistic-materialistic-consumerist-profit seeking-competitive-exploitative economy which is bereft of welfare contents, sustainability of economic resources and spiritual orientation.

The motivating factor in presenting this paper is that if we possess something which may prove helpful and useful to world peace, progress and plenitude, we should not hesitate in sharing it with the world at large. Rather than being burden to the world or being idle spectator to the universal suffering or feeling shy in sharing cultural heritage with others, we should attempt to partake in cooperative endeavor to resolve the problems of the world and creatively reconsider what our ancient culture, civilization and traditions can contribute to the present world for a bright future, as Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru always emphasized.

There should be no denial of the fact that the inquisitive mind is looking for a redeeming knowledge. The western economic thought seems to have reached a point of saturation resulting in a global economic turmoil. Therefore it calls for a bold initiative for paradigm shift for which some directions can come from the classical Buddhist thought. The Buddhist approach is that of a moderate economy based on ‘Buddhist Middle Path’ which is sustainable both in production and consumption that are the two aspects of economic planning and development. The Buddhist way is an economy of balanced development, balancing different pairs like production and consumption, individual and society, nation and universe, physical and spiritual, present and future and so forth. It is holistic and integral approach to economic issues from micro and macro perspectives, which measures development in terms of prosperity, health and happiness of the present and the future generations in terms of intra-generational and inter-generational justice. It provides for a cosmos-friendly economy in which instrumental and intrinsic goods are put in a symmetrical and balanced harmony. It is an economy of compassion and communion, of peace and non-violence. Full details can be worked out on the basis of the seminal ideas presented here, as only a blueprint is provided at this juncture for perusal of concerned and interested scholars.

Buddhism is both a view of reality and a way of life seeking to realize the summum bonum of existence. It has therefore an all comprehensive perspective on all facets of reality and life. Its understanding of economic aspect of our life has something fresh, unique and of great contemporary relevance and may serve the need for a desirable alternative model at the national and global levels. It attends to all the four drivers of economic development, viz., human resources, natural resources, capital resources and innovative technology. Though it has not been presented very systematically in the classical Buddhist literature, it can be reconstructed from the discourses of the Buddha with rulers of his times contained in the early Buddhist literature supplementing this with other classical literature and given a coherent shape. Buddhist Economy is based on and can be derived from the teachings of Lord Buddha in the well known Dhammacakkapavattanasutta in which the ‘Four Noble Truths’ and the ‘Eight-fold Noble Path’ contained in them are propagated. But in the Pali texts we get sufficient material for constructing an economic theory.

Buddhist Economy is essentially characterized by love and compassion, benevolence and altruism, interdependence and interrelation, mutual openness and reciprocity, fellowship and participation, plenitude and happiness, giving and renouncing, caring and sharing. The four noble virtues for ideal human conduct named as Brahmaviharas (global virtues) of universal friendship and amity (maitta), universal compassion (karuna), universal responsibility making others happy (mudita) and indifference to narrow self-interest (upeksha) are the guiding principles on which economic thought and planning and economic behavior of individual and society are to be based. It is an integral and organic approach which is holistic and non-divisive and takes into its purview well being of the entire cosmos (lokanukampaya). Morality and universal responsibility are the very heart of Buddhism and therefore Buddhist economics is dharmic (ethical) being guided by virtuous mind (kusala citta). It can be described as dharma-oriented and dharma-based economy. Its motto is morality first, money thereafter. Morality is not a policy but a principle of life and existence. There are three facets of dharma; it is sustaining, it is regulating and it is instrumental for good. Prajna(wisdom) and Sila (morality) as karuna (compassion) are the two foundations on which it rests. Economics like other human pursuits are only the means and its ultimate goal is cosmic well-being and happiness (bahujana hitaya, bahujana sukhaya) leading to realization of summum bonum of life (nirvana).

One of the most significant implications of the Buddhist non-substantiality view (Anatmavada) of Reality is that the cosmos, rather the cosmic process, is a totality of fleeting occurrences and not of things. It is a highly complex, complicated and intricate but planned and purposive networking of events and not a mechanistic arrangement of preexistent entities. Every worldly existence has a dependent origination out of a causal collocation characterized by mutuality and openness, interrelatedness and reciprocity. Each one depending upon ones nature has a specific nature, place, role and function in the cosmic setup as determined in the scheme of the universe. Human existence is not in isolation with the rest of the universe. It is not in the form of just “I’ but also ‘we’. In the economic functioning every one has to contribute according to ones ability. The cosmos is a network of relationship of interdependence giving rise to organic collective living (samgha jivana) like that of an organism. As Hua-yen Buddhism puts it,

In one is all, in many is one

One is identical to all, many is identical to one.

The natural implications of such a view point are non-individualism, non-isolationism, non-selfishness etc. in negative terms and mutual dependence, collective living and corporate functioning in positive language. The model of a living organism is best suited to explain this position. A living organism is a dynamic totality of multiple organs at once holistic and integral, centrifugal and centripetal, collective and individual. Here whole lives for the parts and parts live for the whole. There is mutuality and reciprocity in a natural way, a sort of pre-established harmony. Every one discharges ones duties and obligations without caring for ones rights. It is duty-oriented rather than rights-oriented. There is coordination and cooperation which is generally smooth and if it gets disturbed the result is sickness and ailment and possible decay. The ideal requirement is maintenance of harmony. Harmony is natural and to be preserved, and imbalance is unnatural, to be avoided. This organic approach which is holistic and integral has some elements of ‘panpsychism’.

The basic concepts underlying the Buddhist approach to economics are middle path (madhyama marga), right living (samyag ajivaka), collective living (samgha Jivana), interdependence and interrelation of all phenomena (pratitya samutpada), preservation, conservation and consolidation of all resources (ksema), enhancement and revitalization of all existing resources (yoga), non-profiteering and non-deprivation of others ensuring intra-generational justice (asteya), safeguarding and preserving the resources for the posterities as intergenerational justice (aparigraha), management of end, means and modalities in a planned, purposive and efficacious manner (upaya kausala), and self-reliance (purusartha). In his discourses on economic issues, on agriculture, trade, commerce and industry, on business enterprises, on monetary transactions and the like Buddha has expounded these ideas very clearly and the Tripitakas (Buddhist sacred literature) are replete with them. Sometimes he explains them directly, and sometimes through stories and parables.

The non-substantial approach has deep and tremendous impact in shaping the Buddhist economy. Since it advocates egoless-ness it avoids individualism and all its corollaries. No individual is isolated existence. Every individual depends on the other. There is supportive mutualism. Individual-centeredness degenerates into narrow individualism which breeds all sorts of economic offences, conflicts and deprivations. It leads to consumerism and profiteering, unlawful practices and alienation. Buddhist economy respects individual and individual freedom, personal initiative, preferences, choices and actions but also calls for universal responsibilities. It believes that pursuit of individualistic goods at the cost of others is counterproductive in the ultimate analysis. Since every existence is interdependent and interrelated Buddhism advocates holistic and integral understanding of the nature of reality in general and of economic reality in particular. It is feeling of oneness and selfsameness with all. This is the meaning of spirituality in Indian context. Santideva in Bodhicaryavatara, eighth chapter, uses two poignant words paratmasamata (feeling of selfsameness with others) and paratmaparivartana (transforming oneself as others, a sort of empathy) for this. This also finds expression in the famous four Brahmaviharas of Maitri (fellowship), Karuna (compassion), Mudita (rejoicing at the happiness of others) and Upeksa (indifference to self-interest) referred to earlier.

Buddhist economy is based on the doctrine of middle path avoiding the extremes of materialism and idealism, capitalism and communism, individualism and totalitarianism, poverty and affluence, self-negation and self-indulgence. It ensures consumption without consumerism. It accepts profit without profiteering. Profit is not to be used solely for personal purposes. It is to be utilized for growth and development, for helping the needy and for benevolent purposes like education. Buddhist economy emphasizes social component with the ultimate goal of cosmic well-being. As Lord Buddha exhorted his disciples,

“O Monks! Move around for the well-being of every one, for the happiness of every one, showering compassion on the entire world; for the good, for the welfare of divine and human.” (Vinaya Pitaka I.23)

In the present day economic mode people are first induced to desire and use things which are produced or to be produced. This is consumerism. In consumerism demand follows production. More and more consumption is sought through inducements of various types so that sales increase and profit accrues. Whatever is produced must be sold and consumed and profit generated. As far as possible disposable goods should be produced so that they can soon be discarded and newer production may be facilitated. Newer demands are created by producing more attractive and enticing goods. This also leads to competition among the producers and sellers. The entire management of economic planning, production and distribution is geared towards this goal. Those who can help in doing so are termed as ‘management gurus’. In the Buddhist system the scenario should be just the opposite. Human being is not born to consume whatever is produced. Production is for human being and human being is not for production. Production should be only for meeting the demands and as far as possible demands are to be curbed and not increased. Since production follows demand and since demands should be reduced to minimum, production has to be need-based. Any sort of cross materialism is not in keeping with Buddhist view point. Economic enterprise is only to meet the legitimate needs and necessities, and not to cater to greed. Thus, in contrast to the individualistic-consumerist, profit-oriented economy of the present times based on the culture of ‘having’, of acquisition and possession, of extravagant consumption and excessive indulgence, Buddhism offers an alternative model of the culture of ‘giving’, of sacrifice, of renunciation, of peace, harmony and cooperation, of lawfulness and of respect to environment. It calls for fulfillment of needs but not to cater to greed. It repudiates competitive economy and calls for cooperative economy. The Buddhist economy can therefore offer a new approach, fresh insights, deeper intuitions and a new rationality for a paradigm shift, a shift which is natural as human fulfillment lies only in the alternative set of values. In this shift the focal point of economy is not profit but service, not exploitation but judicious employment of resources. Digganikaya (III.p.168) gives the example of a bee which gathers honey without damaging flower and spares honey for consumptions by others. This cares for ecological purity and balance, justice and fair play. It is conducive to holistic growth, human and cosmic.

The culture of ‘giving’ is not motivated by selfish considerations of getting name and fame, or power and prestige. Greatness of a person depends not in amassing wealth or in showing it off for charity. It depends on character of benevolence. It is not ego-satisfaction or for seeking return- favors. It is for cosmic well-being (bahujanahitaya). It is selfless giving. It is giving for social and cosmic peace, prosperity and plenitude. It is giving with joy and for joy. It is sharing of material and spiritual goods. It is an economy in which need of everyone is taken care of but greed of none is catered to. It is not an economy of extravagance, spendthrift-ness and wastefulness. This calls for the role of wisdom and compassion in economics. In a discourse with king Pasenadi in the Suttanipata Buddha tells him that a person who acquires wealth and does not use it for the wellbeing of himself and others is not praiseworthy.

Buddhism recognizes importance of wealth for happy and contended worldly life. In Buddhist economy wealth is a means and not an end. The means must be pure and conducive to end which also has to be pure. This is samyak ajivaka. The end is not hedonistic pleasure but moral and spiritual uplift. Wealth is neither an evil nor it is a final end. It is to be acquired in a dharmic (pious and righteous) way, with legitimate limits and restraints. This is known as utthanasampada. In the Andhasutta of Anguttaranikaya Buddha says that a person who is poverty stricken is like a blind. One who tries to acquire wealth but does not care about the righteousness of means of acquisition is like one-eyed person. The two-eye person is one who distinguishes between good and bad. Ethical and spiritual orientation is the key note of Buddhist economy. Wealth and virtue should go hand in hand. Buddhism calls for balancing of wants and consumption, of labour and leisure, of income and expenditure. This moderation is technically known as samajivita. (Anguttaranikaya, IV. P.281). This balancing is possible by cultivation of apramada (vigilant attitude). In following the middle path there should be neither poverty nor affluence, neither austerity nor excessive indulgence. Life should be neither stringent nor extravagant. There should be neither misuse of wealth nor enslavement to wealth. One should not feel elated when wealth comes nor should one be miserable and depressed when wealth departs. This sort of indifference is best suited to mental peace. The attainment of given end with minimum means is upayakausala (skillful employment of means). It is a symbiosis of end, means and modalities. It is maximum output with minimum input, maximum realization with minimum possession and consumption. Buddhism recons with ‘will to exist’, and ‘to exist in a moderately good way’ ensuring quality of life. Buddhist economy cares for quality of life and good standard of living but this is to be measured qualitatively and not quantitatively. Moreover, Buddhist economy is economy of non-violence, non-violence to ones own self, non-violence to others and to the total cosmos. For Buddhist way of life economic behavior is purposeful in gathering tangible wealth for balanced material consumption and for accumulating merits for future life. It provides a basis to worldly life and also to moral and spiritual life. Buddha realized the need and importance of wealth. With empty stomach one can not get wisdom nor can one teach wisdom. Buddha, therefore, did not preach to hungry persons. With poverty all evils come, economic offences are generated and social institutions are disrupted and destroyed. With economic growth social order and peace are established. It is advocacy of mixed economy with individual initiative and state control. This message is clearly conveyed in the Cakkvatthisimhanadasutta and Katadantasutta.

Buddhist economy has both micro and macro dimensions. It attends to all facets of economy agriculture, industry, trade and commerce, business and fiscal policies. It deals with employment, production, distribution, consumption and development of economy. It explicitly states what is to be produced, how to be produced, how much is to be produced and for whom it is to be produced. The same applies to consumption as well. Economy is to be evaluated depending upon the way it is produced and consumed. Care is to taken that there is no violence or harm to self and to other living beings and to nature. As stated earlier, non-violence is at the center stage of Buddhist economy. The doctrine of karma comes as a guiding principle in structuring the economic system in so far as it emphasizes rational action and intentionality coupled with universal responsibility. One must possess pious mind for righteous livelihood.

Humane development is the keynote of Buddhist Economy. Development is for human being and not that human being is for development. But it is sustainable development of the entire cosmos and not just human development. It involves seven factors, viz., human agency, human motivation, material resources, monetary system, technological support, management at different levels, and market for distribution. The development and management of economy in the Buddhist framework touches all the three phases of production, distribution and consumption keeping in view the law of demand and supply. The motivating factor is not first production and then creation of demand; rather it stands for production only for satisfaction of legitimate demand. Economic planning comes under Upaya kausal (skillful and efficacious employment of means). It has two stages. One is management of action and the other is management of the results of action. It is emphasized that we must know what is to act, why to act, and how to act. We must act in most skillful manner so as to realize the desired result. Management of result is to be guided by intra-generational and intergenerational justice. Our wants are unlimited but resources are limited and exhaustible though renewable to some extent. Our wants are increasing day by day; our desires remain in-satiated. Consumerism has led to more and more hankering after sensuous pleasures and desire for fulfillment of carnal appetites. Strictly speaking our needs are limited but wants are becoming unlimited. So we have to set limits to our wants and cease to be ‘ever-wanting storehouse’. We wrongly think that nature has infinite resources or that all resources should be geared for our benefits only. According to Buddha the problem of scarcity leads to unjust distribution and consequent poverty. Wealth can generate resources but cannot remove scarcity. So we have to control our wants and desires (tanha) making a distinction between need and greed.

Buddhism as a school of thought and a way of life is at once both ancient and modern. It proved useful in the past and could spread all over Asia, not by force but by conviction and usefulness. In modern times also it has attracted the minds of the elites all over the world. But ramifications of its seminal ideas are yet to be worked out in different fields of human and cosmic life as per the modern needs and aspirations. Buddha was a practical and pragmatic person and he had genuine concern for human and cosmic wellbeing. It is high time that Buddha’s teachings are made to out step the confinements of religious or academic enterprises, though they are also useful, and other dimensions are also attended to. It is revisiting Buddhism with fresh insights and innovative ideas and creative reinterpretations. Perhaps a collective thinking and multidisciplinary team work may be more helpful. It is hoped that the Buddhist alternative will be reconstructed and given a fair trial to ameliorate the human miseries, as was the objective of the Buddha.

Note: This paper can be red ignoring Sanskrit words, the English equivalents of which are given in bracket.

International Conspiracies Behind the J&K Imbroglio

Churchill called Hindus beastly people with a beastly religion. In a meeting with Mountbatten, he described Muslims as Britain’s allies and accused him of planning and organizing ‘the first victory of Hindustan (He refused to call it India) against Pakistan by sending British trained soldiers and British equipment to crush and oppress the Muslims in Kashmir and that it was an act of gross betrayal” (1)

British intention was to put in place a very week federal structure of India which will break in to many nations in due course of time. Mountbatten wanted to set up independent Hyderabad in the belly of India, also wanted Maharaja of Kashmir to accede to Pakistan. But he was helpless at the hands of Sardar Patel who will not let his machinations work and could tell him bluntly on his face. Western powers also wanted to appease and are even now appeasing the Muslim Umma by placating Pakistan on Kashmir. This article will delineate all such designs right from 1947 onwards.

We start with Edwina Mountbatten. Lady Pamela Hicks, daughter of late Viceroy has said in her book and later corroborated it in an interview to Karan Thapar that “it could have been possible that Jawaharlal Nehru took the decision to refer Kashmir to the United Nations under the advice of Mountbatten and that later used Edwina Mountbatten’s emotional influence on Pandit ji for getting it through” (2)

“Gilgit agency had been acquired by the British from an extremely reluctant Maharaja Hari Singh on 60 years lease basis in 1935. But towards the end of July 1947, it was returned to him. Then there was a revolt against the Maharaja by Gilgit scouts led by a Scotsman Major Brown. Christopher Thomas an eminent journalist and a writer of the time has said “It is entirely possible that the British incited the revolt to ensure that this strategically vital region came under Pakistan’s jurisdiction in the expectation that Pakistan would cooperate in the Western defence pacts to block Russian ambitions” (3)

General Ismay Chief of staff to Mountbatten as also Field Marshal Lord Montgomery were of the view that “British strategy required the use of bases in the sub continent and that the relations with the whole Mussalman block had to be considered” C.Das Gupta, an illustrious diplomat has further said “By August 1947, the British authorities had determined that their strategic interests in the subcontinent lay primarily in Pakistan. This was buttressed by the view that Britain’s relations with the ‘whole Mussulman bloc’ would be jeopardised in the absence of close ties with Pakistan”(4)

Lt. General L.P.Sen, the then Brigade Commander who led the first counter offensive against the Pak forces had this to say on the empathy of British Commanders of Pak army for the Pakistani cause that “Major General Akbar Khan who led the Pak tribals, was a regular officer of the Pakistan army and had established his HQrs at Rawalpindi in the same building where Pak army Hqrs had been located. How was it that the British C-in-C of Pak army was not aware of it?”(5) Bias is apparent from what Philip Ziegler, an official biographer of Lord Mountbatten commented on the issue of J&K’s accession to India that “Secretary of state for Commonwealth Relations while spelling out the British approach observed “It would have been natural for Kashmir to eventually have acceded to Pakistan on agreed terms, because of her predominantly Muslim population” (6)

What happened after a reference was made to the U.N? As per H.V.Hodson, an eminent British historian, Pt Nehru said “He was shocked to find that power politics and not the ethics were ruling the United Nations and was convinced that the United Nations organization was being completely run by the Americans and that Senator Warren Austin, the American representative had made no bones of his sympathy for the Pakistan cause. Similarly Mr Noel Baker, the secretary of state for common wealth relations and leader of the United Kingdom’s Delegation had been as hostile to India as Warren Austin. The belief spread was that the United Kingdom wished to please the cause of Muslim solidarity in the Middle East and that the United states wished to rehabilitate their position visa-vis the Arabs after their advocacy of partition of Palestine.” (7)

Sardar Patel had always been opposed to any reference to the Security Council. Indirectly hinting on the role of Mountbatten, Gen. Ismay and some others, Patel told Arthur Henderson, British Under Secretary of state “Unfortunately, it is my experience that the attitude of an average Englishman in India is instinctively against us….We should never have gone to the UNO…At the UNO, not only has the dispute been prolonged but the merits of our case have been completely lost in the interaction of power politics….We were terribly disappointed at the attitude of your delegation….it was we maintain, the attitude of Noel Baker that tilted the balance against us. But for his lead, I doubt if The USA and some other powers would have gone against us” (8)

In 1953, Mr Adlai Stevenson the then Governor of Illinois (USA) met Sheikh Abdullah in Sri Nagar. Commenting on this meeting, Manchester Guardian disclosed in August 1953, that he (Mr Stevenson) “seems to have listened to suggestions that the best status for Kashmir could be independence from both India and Pakistan” and that Sheikh Abdullah had been encouraged by Adlai Stevenson. “Sheikh was suspected of planning a session of the constituent Assembly which instead of ratifying the accession to India, would declare the vale of Kashmir, independent.” According to New York Times July, 1953 “Kashmir valley would gain independence, possibly guaranteed by both countries and the rest of the state would be partitioned between them roughly along the present cease-fire line. It was said that John Foster Dulles, U.S Secretary of State supported a solution of this nature”

According to Ex-US ambassador Dennis Klux, in 1953 U.S. President Truman endorsed the UN Commission suggestion of arbitration to solve Indo-Pak differences on Kashmir. Pt. Nehru rejected it though in his meeting with John Foster Dulles, he agreed that partition might be a better way to solve the problem than the plebiscite” (9) Again in 1957-58, South Asia specialists of the U.S.State Deptt, put major sources of India-Pak tensions–Kashmir, Indus water and arms race in to a single negotiating basket for working out the solutions for all these problems. President Dwight Eisenhower reacted enthusiastically to the proposal. Pt Nehru however did not give a positive response.

Later John F. Kennedy, the then US President decided to send a team headed by Averall Harriman to the sub-continent. The British dispatched a parallel mission headed by Common Wealth Relations Secretary Duncan Sandys. Nehru scuttled the negotiations and wrote back “To give up valley to Pakistan or to countenance its internationalization, poses political and strategic problems for India which render such solutions impossible”

U.S. State Department experts outlined yet another solution, that is, joint India-Pakistan presence in the valley and partition of the rest of Jammu and Kashmir and sought President’s approval to step up U.S involvement. Kennedy agreed and proposed former World Bank President Eugene Black to serve as the mediator. Nehru however rejected the proposal.

Admittedly under pressure from the United States, talks were held with Pakistan in 1962-63. Indian delegation led by Sardar Sawaran Singh proposed modification of the cease-fire line in favour of Pakistan. Six rounds of talks were held but yielded no result. However in 1963, Kennedy approved the release of US-UK paper outlining elements of settlement which were as follows:

• Giving both India and Pakistan a substantial position in the vale

• Ensuring India’s access through the vale for defense of Ladakh.

• Ensuring Pakistan’s interest in the head waters of Chenab River.

• Ensuring some local self rule in the vale and free movement of people to India and Pakistan and enhancing economic development.

In April 1963 Ambassador Galbraith raised the Kashmir issue twice with Pt. Nehru. Prime Minister took a hard line against the partition of the valley and wrote to Kennedy that “I am convinced that these ill considered and ill conceived initiatives, however well intentioned they may be, have at least for the present made it impossible to reach any settlement on this rather involved and complicated question”

Stephen Philip Cohen, an expert on South Asia gives the glimpses of the US strategy that “American officials now seem to accept facilitation as a legitimate and a useful role. The formula to deal with such issues is not to wait until they are ripe for resolution or turn away or to search for a definitive solution when none is available” (10)

Strobe Talbot, then a senior diplomat in the US foreign office has referred to his talks with Sh. Jaswant Singh the then Foreign Minister of India that “The first full cast session of the US-Indian dialogue took place in July 1998 at Frankfurt airport. Jaswant was prepared to talk about his Govt. converting the line of control in to an international boundary” (11)

Now let us talk about one much discussed personality viz., Farooq Kathwari, a member of the influential US Council on Foreign Relations. He is the chairman of the Kashmir Study Group which he founded in 1996. Its members are all well up in the policy making higher echelons of the US Govt. It published a report, titled ‘Livingston Proposal: Kashmir, A Way Forward’ Also known as the Farooq Kathwari report, the document aims at diluting Indian sovereignty in the State of Jammu and Kashmir, envisages creation of two Kashmir entities – one each on either side of the LOC and each with its own government, constitution or a single Kashmiri entity with its own constitutional framework and Government. Indirectly, it is the US vision of settling the Kashmir dispute.

Praveen Swami in his article in Frontline referred to the then Chief Minister Farooq Abdullah’s conclave with Farooq Kathwari whom he described as United States based secessionist leader and assessed it as part of a larger U.S. sponsored covert dialogue on Jammu and Kashmir. One can say that as a follow up to this, in March 1999 Indian Foreign Minister Jaswant Singh and his Pakistani counterpart Sartaj Aziz met at Colombo. The tentative agreement, inter alia, suggested plebiscite in Jammu and Kashmir on regional/district basis, division of Jammu province along Chenab River on communal lines, “maximum possible autonomy to Kashmir and its adjoining areas” and “annexation” of the remaining areas of Jammu province and Ladakh region by India. Singh and Aziz were to meet again after a month to give concrete shape to this agreement. However we saw the Kargil invasion. Round about this time, Rand Corporation, considered as the most prominent think tank, influencing the policies of USA published a report elaborating on various options for the settlement of Kashmir.

In his address to the United Nations General Assembly in the autumn of 2002, Secretary General Kofi Annan identified hostility between India and Pakistan as one of the most perilous threats to global peace and security. He ‘gladly’ acknowledged and strongly welcomed efforts made by ‘well placed’ U.N. member-states to persuade the two countries to reduce tension. And that if another confrontation between India and Pakistan threatened to ignite war, Annan warned “the international community might have a role to play” Later a top US official source indicated that during discussion in New York, Annan and US President George W. Bush “had agreed on their hope to move beyond crisis management to real solutions on Kashmir”

The US Embassy in Pakistan had prepared a goal paper in 2002. It had fixed 2005 as the target year for solving the Kashmir issue by achieving (A) Regular movement of civilian traffic across the LOC (B) Kashmir politicians assume prominence in political discourse (C) Evolve a framework for eventual political resolution of the Kashmir problem. In a way, it had started happening with our Prime Minister’s desire to make the borders irrelevant and Musharraf’s plan of demilitarization and joint governance.

What was Musharraf’s formula? He told reporters everywhere that “I came out with a broad outline which included gradual demilitarization of the Line of Control and Kashmiri cities; maximum self-governance on both sides of the Line of Control; a joint governing mechanism for Kashmir; to include Pakistanis, Indians and local Kashmiri leaders and most important a porous Line of Control… I wanted to make the Line of Control irrelevant” This Pakistan-promoted option had the heavy endorsement of Washington.

Again as a follow up to Musharraf’s formula, former US President Bill Clinton suggested a Northern Ire land’s Good Friday Agreement which creates a broadly inclusive power sharing arrangements providing for equal representation in the Govt for the pro-British (Unionists) and pro-Irish (Nationalists) and the cross border institutionalised framework.

The then U.S Commander General David Petraeus had a strategy security review with Ahmed Rashid, an acknowledged authority on Taliban and Afghanistan. Rashid projected his latest proposal, called “grand bargain”, central argument of which draws the same connection between solving terrorism in Afghanistan and solving Kashmir. President Obama has also been advocating that Pakistan would be persuaded to stop supporting terrorism if India can be persuaded to solve Kashmir.

Another dice on the chess board of USA is ‘Go for a Kashmir solution for a ticket to UN Security Council membership and fulfilling your big power aspirations’ This is what Chidanand Rajghatta wrote from Washington in TNN in Sep 2010. That was the broad message of President Barack Obama.

Bob Woodward, an American investigative journalist and non-fiction author. who has written a famous book on US President Obama, gives the clearest insight into Obama’s thinking on the matter. In this book, top US policy makers are shown mulling on defusing the Kashmir situation as part of an exit strategy for US. “Why can’t we have straightforward talks with India on why a stable Pakistan is crucial?” Obama is reported as musing at one meeting. President Obama’s strategy for dealing with Afghanistan and Pakistan always needed a settlement of Kashmir (12)

Bruce Riedel, author of the Obama administration’s Af-Pak strategy, has canvassed the centrality of the Kashmir issue to peace and stability in the region. In fact, the solution Washington has in mind is on the same lines of what Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Pakistan’s deposed military leader Pervez Musharraf had broadly agreed on earlier. Riedel said before the scheduled visit of President Obama to India that he will quietly help Islamabad and New Delhi to get back to the deal, Musharraf and Singh had negotiated.

S. Rajagopalan wrote from Washington in The Pioneer dated April 2010 that “Pentagon has emerged as an active lobbyist for more pressure on India to take Pakistan’s concerns more seriously and that Admiral Mike Mullen, the then Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the US Govenment’s the then prime interlocutor with the powerful Pakistani Army Chief Gen. Ashfaq Kayani, was for “encouraging New Delhi to cooperate more with Pakistan”. Recently another columnist Siddharth Varadarajan wrote from Washington that US had moved from de-hyphenation to dual-hyphenation- “Whether valid or not, Obama administration and the rest of the world see a link between Afghanistan and the India-Pakistan relationship, between the ongoing military instability on the Afghanistan- Pakistan border and the unsettled relationship between New Delhi and Islamabad.

I shall end my presentation with two quotable quotes from our Prime Minister that “Gilani is a man of peace” and that Pak army wants peace with India. Let us keep our fingers crossed. As discussed above, syndicate of Western powers led by USA are determined to foist upon us their diabolic designs on Kashmir. We ought to be more watchful about the intentions of the world powers, build up the military muscle, dominate the world economy, play the diplomatic cards with confidence and with the cleverness of Chanakya otherwise we will lose Kashmir which will open the flood gates of secessionist activities across the country.

References:

1) Indian Summer by Alex Von Tunzelmann

2) India Remembered: A Personal Account of the Mountbattens During the Transfer of Power by Pamela Mountbatten

3) Faultline: Kashmir by Christopher Thomas

4) C.Das Gupta says in War & Diplomacy in Kashmir

5) Slender was the Thread by Lt. General L.P.Sen

6) Mountbatten- The Official Biography by Philip Ziegler

7) The Great Divide by H.V.Hodson

8) Sardar Patel’s correspondence-Vol. VI, page 387

9) Disenchanted Allies by Ex-US Ambassador Dennis Klux

10) The Idea of Pakistan by Stephen Philip Cohen

11) Engaging India by Strobe Talbot

12) Obama’s War by Bob Woodward

Interaction with the Israeli Ambassador to India

The Ambassador of Israel to India, Mr. Alon Ushpiz addressed and interacted with a select group of invited journalists, intellectuals and former diplomats on the recent conflict in West Asia over the Gaza strip developments. This session was held at the India International Centre Annexe in New Delhi on the 10th of January, 2013.

The Sino Indian Border Dispute

The Sino Indian Border Dispute was published by the India Foundation in December, 2012. The document that was reproduced in this publication was originally a document prepared as a top secret report by the CIA in May 1964, and was declassified only in May 2007. On the occasion of the 50th anniversary of the Indo-China War, this document, the only known official report that exists (other than the still classified Henderson Brooks-Bhagat Report) was acquired and published by the India Foundation.

While a many of the observations in this report may be not acceptable, the report provides invaluable insight into the events that led up to the War of 1962, and the viewpoints of various nations on the same.

Click here to download the document.

Western and Indic Perspectives of Human Rights

A Round Table discussion on Western and Indic Perspectives of Human Rights had taken place on December 19, 2012 at the IIC Annexe, New Delhi with Prof. Arvind Sharma, McGill University, Canada as the key note speaker. He was joined by two discussants Mr. Come Carpentier and Mr. Arif Mohammad khan, who shared their views on Christian and Islamic perspectives on Human Rights respectively.

The event opened with a general consensus as to how much has been discussed about the concept of Human Rights but as to how the notion was never really understood. Firstly, the welcome note by the Chair, Dr. Vinay Sahasrabuddhe highlighted how there exists a perception that the idea of Human Rights has been the creation of the West – India, or the East in general did not have such a notion in any context in their history.

Secondly, the Keynote Speaker, Prof. Arvind Sharma took stage next, and began by informing the gathering about how the concept of human rights from December 10, 1948 started evolving into 3 different stages: (a) civil and political rights, (b) social and economic rights, and (c) environmental rights. He went on to say that in the Indic context, and especially in Hindu thought there seems to be no single word for the notion of ‘Rights’, as such. There is however, the sense of ‘Duty’ that every individual is taught to live with. In the Indic context, he further elaborated, that one starts from the cosmic and comes down to the individual (from outward, in) as opposed to in the Western, where society is studied starting from the individual (from inward, out). This indicated the basic concept of a macro perspective versus a micro perspective. This trend therefore makes the Indic perspective rely heavily on ‘Duty’, which when followed meets similar goals as do ‘Rights’, he contended.

This was highlighted when an audience member supplied an anecdote to the gathering. He recalled what he was taught growing up – not harming anyone, and living by your own Dharma. This, he suggested met the same goals the Western concept of Human Rights, which tend to guarantee to each individual the right to his/her own person, opinions and speech, albeit with certain restrictions.

Thirdly, Mr. Come Carpentier brought to the gathering’s attention that most Rights Documents are essentially war documents. The French and the United States Declaration of Rights are both reactions to war, to safeguard the nation and its citizens. Therefore, he suggested, they are not really those that grant Rights per se, but ones that serve to merely protect one’s own nation against the many fall outs of war. He also touched upon how the Catholic Church would have been slightly apprehensive or uncomfortable with the declaration and/or the concept of Human Rights as it would have been at odds with their idea of ‘The Divine Right of Kings’. He appreciated what Prof Arvind Sharma had to say about ‘Dharma’ as Rights, and suggested that Human Rights as a concept had certain discrepancies within it, for example between freedom and liberty, and so on.

Lastly, Mr. Arif Mohammad Khan gave to the audience a wide range of anecdotal narratives. He spoke of incidents that pertained to Shri Shankaracharya Swamy and those of Maula Ali. He suggested that religions ought to be personal, and that one has to be cautious of any form of institutionalized religion; he said that all religions and their texts are fine in their entirety, but emphasized that as those who interpret it are only human, these interpretations are bound to be driven by various agendas. This, he said will affect the intrinsic inclination towards the principle of Human Rights that is prevalent in all religions of the world.

Concisely summing up all the speeches and ideas, Prof. Arvind Sharma stressed the importance of differentiating between Religion and Ideology. He suggested that in today’s scenario, these two concepts tend to be easily confused and substituted for each other. Expanding upon Mr. Khan’s point, Prof. Sharma talked of an Iranian scholar, Abdolkarim Souroush’s thesis titled Expansion and Contraction of Shari’a that separates religion per se, from religious knowledge. In the same vein he also suggested how the word ‘conversion’ can impose a problem, considering the ambiguity of language. On the one hand, it might mean exercising one’s right to change one’s religion out of one’s free will, but on the other hand it could also mean somebody’s right to ask/force one to convert. While the former does not need to be qualified, the latter has to be. Therefore, this fact is obfuscated as the word or term ‘conversion’ can be used in both contexts.

This is also similar to what Abdolkarim Souroush, the aforementioned scholar had referred to in distinguishing between religious ‘freedom’ versus religious ‘faith’. As was suggested by Souroush in an interview, “True believers must embrace their faith of their own free will – not because it was imposed, or inherited, or part of the dominant local culture. To become a believer under pressure or coercion isn’t true belief”¹

Members of the audience interjected that in addition to ensuring that no community is marginalized, was the need for Secularism. Prof. Sharma responded to this by summing up that in the United States of America, one sees ‘truly’ neutral Secularism. However, he added, what is needed in India is ‘positive’ Secularism, for instance teaching the basics of all religions in Indian schools, as opposed to ‘negative’ Secularism of rejecting all religion and running away from it. The problems that the Indian societal fabric faces as regards Secular practices cannot be done away with by denying that religion is and will continue to remain a reality in this society. Prof. Sharma suggested that debates arising from being acquainted with basics of all religions that exist today in the Indian context will indeed be healthier than conflicts arising out of ignorance.

Reference:

^1.Wright, Robin, Dreams and Shadows : the Future of the Middle East, Penguin Press, 2008, p.268

India and China: After 5 Decades of the 1962 War

A Conference on India and China: After 5 Decades of the 1962 War was held at the IIC, New Delhi on November 19, 2012 to discuss on how India has been tackling issues with China after the 1962 War. Gen. V.P.Malik, Former Chief of Army Staff, Air Chief Marshal Anil Tipnis and Shri Claude Arpi, eminent author and Tibetologist participated as speakers in the Conference which was chaired by Prof. Srikanth Kondapalli, Chairman of the Centre for East Asian Studies, JNU, New Delhi.
Similar Conferences with the same topic were also held in Chandigarh and Bangalore on November 25, 2012. Former Chief of Army Staff Gen. V.P.Malik, Research Professor from Centre for Policy Research Shri Bharat Karnad, Former High Commissioner of India to Pakistan Shri G. Parthasarathy and Security Analyst Shri Ram Madhav gave their presentations on the Subject while Air Chief Marshal Anil Tipnis presided over the Conference.

Below are the pictures from the Delhi session of November 19, 2012.

Below are the clips from the Chandigarh event of November 25, 2012:

Air Cheif Marshal Anil Tipnis speaking:

[embed_youtube src=”http://www.youtube.com/embed/9TCkHPWQ4yE” width=”470″ height=”295″ id=”thisid”]

Shri P.C. Dogra speaking:

[embed_youtube src=”http://www.youtube.com/embed/mCLKjVfK9g8″ width=”470″ height=”295″ id=”thisid”]

Shri Bharat Karnad speaking:

[embed_youtube src=”http://www.youtube.com/embed/MRhKjhIwNig” width=”470″ height=”295″ id=”thisid”]

Shri G Parthasarathy speaking:

[embed_youtube src=”http://www.youtube.com/embed/HTRIkRMQP6c” width=”470″ height=”295″ id=”thisid”]

Shri Ram Madhav speaking:

[embed_youtube src=”http://www.youtube.com/embed/t696xPm2QFA” width=”470″ height=”295″ id=”thisid”]

Gen. V.P. Malik speaking:

[embed_youtube src=”http://www.youtube.com/embed/WfrRISCQCd8″ width=”470″ height=”295″ id=”thisid”]

Session:

[embed_youtube src=”http://www.youtube.com/embed/zdKdrq65iyM” width=”470″ height=”295″ id=”thisid”]

Cultural Nationalism: The Indian Perspective

Cultural Nationalism: The Indian Perspective was a two day national seminar organized by the CSRS of the India Foundation on 9 and 10 of November, 2012. It was held at the IIC in New Delhi. Prof. Pralay Kanungo¸ Chairperson, Centre for Political Studies, School of Social Sciences, Jawaharlal Nehru University and Prof. Balagangadhara Rao, Professor, Department of Comparative Sciences of Culture, Ghent University were the Keynote speakers over the two days. Over these two days, 25 scholars presented their papers. The valedictory speech was given by Dr. Krishna Gopal.


Day 1



Day 2

Evangelism: Impact on the Indigenous Tribes of India

Evangelism: Impact on Faith, Culture, Economy and Life of Indigenous Tribes of India is a detailed report by journalist Bhavdeep Kang, on a tribunal that was organised by the India Foundation a year before the publication of the report. The tribunal invited tribes from all over India to bring forth and talk about the everyday problems they faced in the wake of Evangelists and their agendas of forcibly converting the former into Christianity. This publication contains the detailed transcript of the events as they took place at the Tribunal with the Jury’s (KPS Gill, P.C. Dogra, Swami Atmananda and Suresh Soni) comments also given.

Click here to download the document.

International Conference on Dharma-Dhamma, Bhopal

International Conference on Dharma-Dhamma saw participation from Hindu and Buddhist scholars from over 19 countries and presented papers. The Conference was held over two days on September 22-23, 2012 in Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh in which the inaugural address was given by Dr. Prakash Ambedkar, President, Bharipa Bahujan Mahasangh, Mumbai and Dr. Kapil Kapoor, Professor of English (Retd.), Centre for Linguistics & English, JNU, New Delhi. Dr. Anand Guruge, Dean of Academic Affairs, University of the West, Los Angeles County, California gave the Keynote address. The valedictory speech was given by Former Union Minister Dr. Murli Manohar Joshi and renowned scholar Pandit Vamadeva Shastri (Dr. David Frawley). Honorable Chief Minister of Madhya Pradesh Shri Shivraj Singh Chouhan had graced the occasion as Chief Guest.

The Andhra Mess

Boards with the words “Andhra Mess” scrawled on them are invariably found in the gullies and mohallas of most towns and cities in Andhra Pradesh.

Increasingly, such boards are popping up in several other cities too — Bengaluru, Thiruvananthapuram, Pune, Mumbai, Delhi and so on, inviting diners to small eateries serving the typical spicy cuisine of Andhra Pradesh with colourful chutneys, a range of curry powders, ghee and rice. Most often, the clientele of these eateries, notwithstanding their unpretentious ambience, return happy from a sumptuous treat for a reasonable price. A win-win situation for all.
In another sense, however, the words “Andhra mess” are portentous. A no-win situation for all those involved. The voters of Andhra Pradesh, who preferred the Congress in the elections of 2004 and 2009, are unhappy and some recent developments forecast more gloom. Though for the voters in Andhra Pradesh, the “Andhra mess” is not devoid of spice and flavour, they are the unhappy losers. The people of Andhra Pradesh are being taken for a ride, their patience is being tested and they are being denied even an iota of governance.
What a sad fall it has been for Andhra Pradesh! From the point where the state was becoming the preferred destination for investors in information technology, even giving Bengaluru, Pune and Gurgaon a tough fight, it is today in a mess of the typically Andhra kind. Urban renewal, self-help groups (SHGs) and a few other governance milestones are recalled with some cheer even today. But agriculture remained then and continues even today as a deeply depressing story.
Entrepreneurs and political observers had then referred to Andhra Pradesh as a “happening place”. Over the last two years, it has become a happening place again, but for all the wrong reasons. The liquor mafia, the land mafia, the mining mafia, the contractor-builder-politician nexus — very much like it is in the Congress-ruled Maharashtra — have flourished. Diversion of funds allotted for the Jalayagnam irrigation project was a shocking scandal that rocked the state’s stability. Yet the Congress kept looking the other way. Its only response was to change chief ministers, two in as many years.
The liquor scam is estimated at Rs. 5,000 crore. For every licensed liquor retail outlet, there are over 200 unauthorised, perhaps even mobile outlets called “belt shops”. Activists fighting the powerful liquor mafia claim that nearly eight ministers and several MLAs, together with some excise department officials, are involved in the scam. The Congress kept denying all allegations till the excise minister, Mopidevi Venkata Ramana Rao, was sent to judicial custody. The Anti-Corruption Bureau, too, refrained from taking names as “big names” were involved. Over the past few days a few more MLAs have been taken into custody.
The disproportionate assets case for which YSR Congress leader Jagan Mohan Reddy has been arrested too has wider connotations. These “disproportionate assets” are not like those of any ordinary citizen; huge wealth has been amassed and the case is against the son of a former chief minister, Y.S. Rajasekhar Reddy, a Congressman. YSR was the chief minister of Andhra Pradesh till his tragic death in September 2009. The funds which were invested in the commercial operations of the prodigal son amount to, according to the claims of the CBI in court, Rs. 1,200 crore. The CBI has said that at a personal level the son profited by over `300 crore. In essence, a comprehensive loot of the well-endowed state was going on during the Congress rule, from 2004 to 2009.
Evidence is slowly emerging, making it clear that the state was being looted with the active cooperation of several ministers who would issue government orders to benefit not the common man but YSR’s son or his business or the party. In this connection, nearly 26 government orders are subject of judicial scrutiny as the motives behind passing such orders are being questioned. The CBI is investigating the case at its own pace. But the impression is that many other powerful people who are involved are not being touched. The Congress’ response is to again distance itself from the matter as the CBI is functioning under the high court’s orders. But can the party deny that this entire episode relates to the Congress reign? A reign that continues even today.
On Telangana, the Congress-led UPA’s flip-flop together with the state Congress’ failure to take a decision had led to paralysis of administration in 10 districts. The coastal and Rayalaseema areas were left directionless. The state Congress spoke in multiple voices. Congress members of Parliament, particularly those from the Telangana region, failed to convince their high command on the election promise made since 2004. They feared losing their ground support, and so they protested in the Lok Sabha as the session was on and got reprimanded by the House, in the process. Some would say that these are just the dynamics of political decision-making. However, their impact on the ground has led to instability, neglect, suffering and stalling of growth.
It was, after all, the Congress in 2004, in alliance with the Telangana Rashtra Samithi (TRS), which had promised to build a consensus on Telangana. After winning the election and having accommodated the TRS in the Cabinet, the Congress forgot about Telangana. And in 2009, when it won the Assembly elections without the TRS, it felt it had no obligation to build a consensus on the issue. On the contrary, wishing to draw political mileage, a hurried midnight statement and a speedier withdrawal of the same made by the Union home minister pushed the entire state into a veritable cauldron of maladministration.
The Congress has failed the people of Andhra Pradesh. A steadily progressing state has been brought to a grinding halt. Uncertainty prevails on every issue. Elections to local bodies, municipalities and some corporations are overdue. The Andhra Pradesh Congress party, too, is in a mess and unfortunately, Rahul Gandhi has no time for it. Byelections to one Parliament and 18 Assembly seats are in the process of completion. As if conceding defeat, the party has claimed that these byelections are no referendum on the Congress government.

(This article was originally published in the Asian Age on June 11, 2012)

Indian Economy: Roadmap to Recovery, Mumbai

A seminar titled Indian Economy: Roadmap to Recovery was held In the Walchand Hirachand Hall of the Indian Merchants’ Chamber, Mumbai in collaboration with the Indian Merchants’ Chamber. Shri Yashwant Sinha, former Union Minister for Finance had presided over this Seminar as the Chief Guest. Shri Arun Shourie (former Union Minister for Disinvestment, Communication and Information Technology) and Shri Suresh Prabhu (former Union Minister for Power) also spoke at this Seminar that was held on 13^th September, 2012.

Discussion on the Interlocutor’s Report on Jammu and Kashmir

A discussion on the Interlocutor’s Report on Jammu and Kashmir was held by India Foundation and was Chaired by Director Nirmala Sitharaman. The eminent panelists were Shri Arun Jaitley (Leader of Opposition in the Rajya Sabha), Shri Arif Mohd. Khan (Former Union Minister), Shri Dileep Padgonkar (Chairman, Interlocutors’ Group) and Dr. Jitendra Singh (Spokesperson off the BJP in Jammu). This pramme was held at the Indian International Cente in New Delhi on the 21^stof July 2012.

Maoism: The Red Terror – Release and Screening

India Foundation’s Documentary, Maoism: The Red Terror was released and screened on the 28^th of June, 2012 with G.K. Pillai, former Union Home Secretary gracing the occasion as the Chief Guest. Shri. Vishwa Ranjan, Director General of the Chhattisgarh Police also spoke on the occasion. This event was held at India International Centre.

The documentaries can be viewed here.

Maoism: The Red Terror

This documentary was made in Hindi as well as in English.

HINDI VERSION

[embed_youtube src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/l3TwmYiesKQ"  width="470" height="295" id="thisid"]

ENGLISH VERSION

[embed_youtube src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/lp2D1id1SJ0"  width="470" height="295" id="thisid"]

Hinduism in the Twenty-First Century

This is a compilation of speeches made by Dr. David Frawley (Pandit Vamadeva Shastri). Requested by India Foundation, Dr. Frawley had agreed to speak in four different cities of India: Bengaluru, Hyderabad, Kolkata and Pune. He spoke to different sorts of audiences in the four cities and addressed each gathering on different topics regarding Hinduism. In Hyderabad, his speech was titled ‘Hinduism and its New Expansion in the Global Context’. In Bengaluru he spoke on ‘Hinduism and Sanatana Dharma’. In Kolkata his speech explored the meaning of religion itself and in Pune he spoke about the role of religion in the modern world.

These four speeches with one more final address expanding upon the challenges and opportunities faced by Hinduism in the 21st Century are detailed in this May 2012 publication.

Click here to download the document.