Focus Theme: National Seminar on Cultural Nationalism : The Indian Perspective
Rakhine (Myanmar) to Bodh Gaya (India)- Understanding Muslim Buddhist Conflict
The discussion on the Muslim Buddhist conflict was organized by India Foundation on 18th July, 2013 to provide a platform where eminent speakers shared and put forth their concerns regarding the recent events in Myanmar and Bodh-Gaya and their impact on India in particular and the world in general.
The speakers at the event were Dr. Tint Swe, Former MP (NLD), Burma Center Delhi (BCD) and Shri Bhaskar Mitra, IFS (Retd.), Former Ambassador to Myanmar. Dr. Chandan Mitra, MP (Rajya Sabha) and Director-India Foundation chaired the event.
Dr. Chandan Mitra started the discussion by pointing out that the situation in Myanmar has spilt over to a large part of the subcontinent. It is a well planned move by Islamist groups to mobilize in the name of Umma and cause turmoil through the Indian subcontinent. He said it is very unfortunate and surprising that considering the close association between India and Burma historically (pointing out that Burma derived its name from Brahmadesh), India and Burma post independence have drifted apart for inexplicable reasons. Burma has gone through a long period of turmoil, particularly due to the military dictatorship Burma drew close to China although some leaders were in this period in contact with India. But the issue of today’s discussion of the conflict between the Islamists and the Burmese people particularly the Buddhists and how this has spread to parts of India (mentioning the rally which took place in Mumbai as a protest against the Rohingya Muslims in Burma and how the morphed pictures were used against the people of North East causing widespread disturbance across the nation). The motive of these activities is to create disturbances in India and thereby expand the role of Islamist groups by bringing them under one radical banner so that it serves their purpose eventually to radicalize Muslim communities
in India.
It is now clear that Lashkar-e-Taiba has been training the Rohingya insurgents to unleash massive anti-Buddhist and anti-Hindu violence in India. This is a problem which India shares with the democratic Myanmar and there is a need to discuss and highlight this issue.
Dr. Tint Swe started by saying that his perspectives were those of a Burmese Buddhist and may be biased. For the serial blasts at Bodh Gaya he tendered an apology to India in particular and the Buddhist community around the world in general. He deeply regretted the death and causalities of non-Buddhist community He felt that it was wise that India was finding out whether Bodh Gaya attacks had any linkage with communal riots in Myanmar.
Dr. Swe pointed that recently there has been a lot of pressure from the international community on Mynamar regarding the Rohingyas. According to him ‘Burmese Muslims’ have been living peacefully for hundreds of years and have had no problems with the Buddhist majority. They constitute about 4% of the Myanmar’s population which is predominantly Buddhist (90%). It was important to differentiate between ‘those who just want to be called Rohingyas’ and ‘those who are militants’ as described in the websites of the extremists. The title, ‘Rohingya’ is extremely popular outside the country while it is not uttered inside Burma. The government’s official stand repeatedly states: this population is officially called ‘Bangali Muslims’. Foreigners including UN are asking to amend the citizenship law of Burma. He said he was ignorant if there any country in the world was asked for such amendment
He pointed out the unprecedented and disproportionate response of international community to the violence in northern Arakan in mid-2012. The situation arose when an Arakanese woman was gang raped and killed by local Muslim men. Unlike the Delhi rape this incident failed to attract world’s attention. His Holiness denounced violence. Other Buddhist population nations across the world were quiet. There were few to take the case of the Buddhist population. On the other hand when the violence of retaliation broke out causing 170 deaths foreign assistance flowed in hundred of millions of dollars particularly from Gulf nations. Compare this to the devastating Cyclone Nargis which hit costal lower Burma on May 2, 2008 in which 130,000 Burmese died. The combined international help was less than USD 50MM.
This he believed was because the Islamic world is well organized, thanks to OIC (57 countries, 5 observers and 7 organizations) and the UN (196 nations). “The Secretary General of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), Professor Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu tasked the Government of Myanmar to assume its responsibility to eradicate all forms of discrimination against Muslims and not allow Buddhist extremists to incite against any section of the community. He noted that this discrimination includes the 2005 law which imposes on all Rohingya Muslim families the policy limiting them to only two children in Buthidaung and Maundaw cities in Arakan State. He described this law a violation of all human rights standards.”
Common Burmese are curious to know what did task mean. It is not a usual diplomatic language such as urge, call for or appeal. He spoke at the Arakan Rohingya Union Congress held in Jeddah from 7 – 8 July 2013. On the same day on July 7, two Buddhist monks were injured in a string of bombings at Bihar’s 1,500-year old Mahabodhi temple in Bodh Gaya in India where the Buddha attained enlightenment.
He pointed that the world community fails to take the entire issue in perspective and the biased reporting often leads to certain wrong perceptions. The pushing factor for communal riots since the last one year in Burma is rooted in migration from outside. Unless this is checked problem will not go away. Also the biased help to a particular community and not to others also fuels greater and wider dissent. He shared the Buddhist perspective on this issue. One Burmese author recently wrote an article which says, “Anger and anxiety in multi-ethnic Myanmar”. The arguments are interesting.
1. Threat perception in Buddhist Communities
2. Name and Shame strategy does not work
3. Assertive leadership required
Dr. Swe sincerely wished India and neighbouring countries escape from collateral damages of this conflict
Shri Bhaskar Mitra said that the reaction of the international community on the issue in Myanmar has been very unfortunate. This he said was because the Burmese government has always failed to put across their own views and failed to put across the situation as they see it in a more persuasive manner. They just let it slide.
Shri Mitra got into the genesis of the problem. The first Muslims who went in Myanmar was in 1430 when the then King Narameikhla restored his kingdom with the help of the Sultanate of Bengal. They were small in number.
The term Rohingya itself doesn’t exist anywhere either as an ethinc group or as any other group and the Government of Myanmar has consistently refused to accept that there is any ethnic group as Rohingya. The first time this word, which was written by a local journalist in a local paper The Guardian, Rangoon where they sought a political identity. Although Muslims had been moving there in small numbers since 1430 it basically increased after the conquest of the Arakan by the British around 1820. The British like all over the world created a major problem here. They wanted the good farming land and increased paddy production so they bought Muslims over from India. Hence unchecked migration took place there. In 20 years, the population had jumped over 300%. This became a problem politically, socially and economically vis-a-vis the local people.
The situation continued right up to 1942 when the Japanese invaded Burma. General Aung San allied with the Japanese initially. British thought that since there was a difference with the Muslim community so they armed the Muslim community in the Arakan asking them to fight the Japanese and promised them a national area of their own. Fortunately for the British and unfortunately for everybody else in Myanmar, the Muslim population used those weapons not against the Japanese but to wipe out the Arakanese Buddhists. 20,000 people are recorded killed. First seeds of real violence were sown at that time.
In 1946, well before the time of independence of Myanmar, when of course a great deal of talk of independence was going on and Mr. Jinnah was speaking loud and far. The Muslim leaders who have gone under various names like Rohingya Patriotic Group, Rohingya Liberation Front etc approached Jinnah and asked for a separate region, adjacent to Bangladesh, to be joined with the then Pakistan. Not much came of it but thereafter continuously illegal immigration continued and demand on part of Muslim population of joining Bangladesh started. In 1952, Myanmar government carried out the Mayu operation and in 1954, they carried out Operation Monsoon. The major centres of the Mujahids were captured and by 1957 they had surrendered. The Mujahids surrendered to Brigadier Aung Gyi once they realized that there was no longer any hope for their rebellion due to negotiations between Burma and Pakistani governments on handling of the rebels on border areas.
From 1962 when General Ne Win took over, who was a very strong administrator, things were very quiet. Then came the 1971 war, where Bangladesh fought for independence and naturally there was lot of flow of arms in the region. At the end of that, many of the Muslim groups of Arakan got hold of substantial number of arms. They started this party called the Rohingya Liberation Party which was a very aggressive party and it started operation against the Burmese Army in 1974. This in one form or the other continued. In 1978 General Win carried out Operation King Dragon which was a very major operation and large number of persons fled Myanmar. In the early 1980s, more radical elements broke away from the Rohingya Patriotic Front (RPF) and formed the Rohingya Solidarity Organisation (RSO). RSO was based only on religious lines unlike others who also had a political front. In 1991, Myanmar government again carried out a massive operation against Rohingyas and over 250,000 fled. It is interesting to note that at that point of time, Saudi Defence Minister Prince Khaled Sultan Abdul Aziz happened to visit Bangladesh and it is there on record that he advised the Bangladesh Government to go against Burma like Operation Desert Storm.
This situation continued till Gen Win stepped down in 1988. After democracy waves started and student’s movement, there was a situation of confusion, an uneasy situation in Myanmar so the Rohingyas again went on the offensive. The monks have a very significant hold over the army. In 1988 when the students demonstrated for democracy, the senior most monks lend their support to this movement. When some of the soldiers had orders to shoot down the monks, some of the monks in Mandalay who are most active monks, immediately passed a fatwa against the Generals saying that they will not attend their marriages, funerals and so on. Within hours the Generals were on their knees and apologized to the monks. It is not entirely correct to talk of Muslim-Buddhist conflict as such because unlike the Muslims pushing the religious factor very far the Buddhist monks have till now played a very dormant role. Theravada Buddhism, predominant in Myanmar, is that branch of Buddhism where the monks do take very active part in politics as we have seen in Vietnam, Thailand and also in Burma from time to time. However in Myanmar there intervention has been very limited till now. If you take this entire picture into mind it leaves us with no doubt that the Myanmar government is doing very best under very trying circumstances. How long this patience will last is yet to be seen
Dr. Chandan Mitra thanked the speakers for putting the problem in perspective.
have gone after this entire conflict on the religious basis and they have enormous support from Muslim groups in the country and outside the county. It is not entirely correct to talk of Muslim-Buddhist conflict as such because in addition to Muslims pushing the religious factor very far the Buddhist monks have up till now played a very low role. I really don’t see them out in a militant mood like in the past. Theravada Buddhism is that branch of Buddhism where the monks do take very active part in politics as we have seen in Vietnam, Thailand and also in Burma from time to time but certainly not on this issue. As regards the recent riots in 2012, foreign minister of Bangladesh Deepu Moni, herself said that the Jamat in Bangladesh was actively helping these people. If you take this entire picture into mind it leaves us with no doubt that the Myanmar government is doing very best under very trying circumstances. I would really love to see how the west which is so critical of Myanmar would have dealt with a situation like this if it happened in their own country.
Dr. Chandan Mitra thanked Shri Bhaskar Mitra for putting the problem in perspective.
uuu
The Tyranny of Hyphens
The debate on these pages on February 13 was, as I see it, a good attempt to widen an ongoing online debate. The issues raised by Harsh Gupta and Rajeev Mantri (‘One versus group’, IE) are critical for two reasons. Through 65 years of our independence, we saw citizenship rights being increasingly coloured and muddled by identity politics. Newer interpretations of constitutional principles and goals are being offered. Periodically, actions enforced either through the executive or the legislature hit at the basic structure of the Constitution “we, the people” have given ourselves. Second, during this period, and even today to an extent, public discourse is stifled by a section of the intelligentsia who set its framework and terminology. Others questioning either the terminology or the substance are rejected and ridiculed. This suited the establishment that had adopted the socialist model of delivering democracy to the people. Now, with socialism itself tempered down, the inaccuracy of their jargon stands out. It is time to conduct debates with greater openness both on issues and on terminology.
In his response (‘Why India must allow hyphens’, IE, February 13), Ashutosh Varshney has chosen to remain in the good old world with all its definitions. He has missed an opportunity to look afresh at the aspirational generation that hopes to contribute to a strong and emerging India. Much like in Varshney’s hyphenated United States, hyphenated communities in India are looking for opportunities to learn, perform and better themselves. The Tamil-Indian or the Muslim-Indian from Uttar Pradesh or Bihar is looking for English medium schools, skills to make themselves employable and to live with their families in a safe and secure environment. However, Varshney’s impression that America allows minorities to flourish on the grounds that Diwali is celebrated in the White House is simplistic. A few years ago, the struggle and campaign carried out by American-Hindus to have errors about their religion removed from school curriculum was well publicised. Varshney may have missed this.
That a large section of blacks and hispanics are yet not part of the voter list is also news that perhaps did not reach Varshney. Americans will allow minorities to flourish, indeed, if they allow the Hindu undivided family for all purposes of definition or even personal laws on civil issues, as we do for our minorities in India.
Varshney has reduced this entire debate to discuss Modi. He portrays the Modi of 2002 as a fascist. Gujarat pre-Modi, Indira Gandhi’s Nellie, Meerut, Moradabad and Bhagalpur, and anti-Sikh riots in Delhi, do not exist for him, even for the sake of reference. If, by clever wordplay, it is Modi’s support base that is being compared to European fascists, how would Varshney describe the support bases of Labour in the UK in 1945, the swing to the right during Ronald Reagan’s tenure as US president, Indira Gandhi in 1972 or even that of Barack Obama ?
In the just-concluded elections in Gujarat, Muslims came out to vote in large numbers. Twenty-five constituencies having over 20 per cent Muslim voters witnessed 70.8 per cent voting on average, in line with the state average. The BJP won the two most Muslim-dominated constituencies of the state (having around 60 per cent Muslim population) — Surat East by around 16,000 votes and Jamalpur-Khadia by 6,000 votes. Jam Salaya Nagarpalika, which has 90 per cent Muslim voters, is a BJP-ruled body. Other than those online, these too form Modi’s support base. Would Varshney call them fascist too?
Varshney sounds confused when he says, “Hindu nationalists have always sought the former [nationhood built on uniformity]; Gandhi and Nehru whose ideas won out and were finally enshrined in the Constitution, thought accommodation of diversities would make minorities secure”. The directive principles in the Constitution describe the destination that the republic should reach, and that includes a uniform civil code for all citizens. It includes stopping cow slaughter and so on. Constitution-makers hoped that every step taken by the executive or legislature would lead towards this ideal state. How long this should take is obviously unsaid. Hence, by inference, the position as of 1947 or 2013 is interim, or being on the way to that ideal state as envisaged in the directive principles. So when Varshney states, “In India, undifferentiated citizenship is an ideologue’s or a philosopher’s pipe dream with ghastly real-world implications”, he is not in sync with the Constitution itself. “Haven’t we learned from the violent tragedies of Europe in the first half of the 20th century,” he asks? The Constitution was drafted well after those tragedies, Professor. Do you underestimate the great men and women who sat in the Constituent Assembly?
“The accommodation of diversities” that the Constitution allows for by implication is to allow a community to be ready for the changes in law that should govern them on the road to the ideal state. Speaking in May 1955 on the Hindu code bills, Acharya J.B. Kripalani said, “If we are a democratic state, we must make laws for not one community alone. Today, the Hindu community is not as much prepared for divorce as the Muslim community is for monogamy… I charge you with communalism because you are bringing forward a law about monogamy only for the Hindu community. You must bring it also for the Muslim community. Take it from me that the Muslim community is prepared to have it but you are not brave enough to do it.” Surely, Kripalani was no Hindu nationalist. And later, when the Congress reversed a Supreme Court judgment, otherwise a step forward for women in this journey towards the ideal state, they were again not being brave enough. They “assist in slowing this natural evolution to a composite, dynamic melting pot.” Importantly, to bring to Varshney’s notice, Modi was nowhere in the scene.
Varshney continues, “Modi has by now become the poster boy of the markets, though Manmohan Singh gave birth to the new economic era… Liberals like me find markets necessary, but not sufficient… the government’s welfare, regulatory and public-goods function remain.” Manmohan Singh may have launched the new economic era in 1991, but from 2004 till date under his leadership, nothing can explain the economic muddle we are in. In contrast, whether it is agriculture, industry, infrastructure or energy, Modi’s performance is there for all to see. For liberals like Varshney, Modi has ensured that Gujarat ranked first in implementing the 20 Point Poverty Alleviation programme. Gujarat has consistently received “good” status under the PM’s 15 Point Programme for minorities. The Sagarkhedu Yojana for the comprehensive development of the coastal belt has a major share of Muslim fishermen as beneficiaries. Rs 11,000 crore was spent on this over the last five years and a new package of Rs 21,000 crore has been declared this year. The Bakshi Panch community welfare programmes cover as many as 50 Muslim communities. Districts Bharuch and Kutch (with approximately 21 per cent Muslim populations each) are among the fastest developing districts in India.
Varshney is incorrect when he refers to Vivekananda. The swami certainly wanted a Hindu mind in a Muslim body, and hence the reference to biceps and the Bhagavad Gita. However, his reference to beef as quoted by Varshney is nowhere to be found. Nehru and Gandhi did not disregard him. Varshney’s pitting of Vivekananda’s masculinity against Gandhi and Nehru’s feminine and soft India is unacceptable as their contexts are different. Even so, Shakti is a vigorous and not at all soft form of female power. The eminent professor has squandered the opportunity for a dispassionate debate.
(The article was originally published in The Indian Express on February 20, 2013. http://www.indianexpress.com/news/the-tyranny-of-hyphens/1076577/0)
Chinese Aggression – India’s Response
The Chinese had come in, pitched their tents for almost three weeks well inside the Indian territory – initially it was said that they had come in some 10 KMs inside and later announced that it was 19 KMs – and after three futile flag meetings they themselves have withdrawn, as per the latest media reports. These three weeks have seen a flurry of activity in India. The Government, the Opposition, the Army, the media and the intellectuals – everybody was seen reacting to the blatant violation of Indian sovereignty by the Chinese Army in their respective ways.
As usual, the Government response has been lacklustre and devoid of any commitment to or vision for India’s territorial integrity. It appeared clueless as to how to handle this blatant and belligerent aggression of China and waiting with fingers crossed for the miracle of the Chinese’ withdrawal. Rather than reassuring the nation about its commitment and ability to protect Bharat’s territorial integrity the Government betrayed only confusion, rhetoric and a very political attitude of trying to underplay things with a view to misleading the nation.
The Prime Minister called it a ‘localised issue’ while the Foreign Minister repeated the same old myth that the boundary between the two countries has not been demarcated so far. It is a myth because the Chinese side has not deliberately supplied the border maps for last twenty years in spite of the understanding for exchange of the same. That we have clearly demarcated LAC and that has been violated by the Chinese, and this violation is not a lone incident and it has happened more than a thousand times in last three years …… all these facts have been suppressed from the countrymen. In stead our Foreign Minister is repeating the same argument that the Chinese Foreign Minister had made a couple of days ago, that there was a ‘perceptional difference over the boundary line’.
This kind of self-deception would be suicidal for the nation. The Government’s attitude amply demonstrates that after 50 years of the 1962 Chinese Invasion we have not learnt any lessons about our preparedness nor have we understood the Chinese machinations. We are committing the same follies that Pt. Nehru had committed, of trying to appease the aggressors, downplaying the possible consequences and betraying the laughable innocence that everything can be settled through talks.
We are in the 50th year of the disastrous Sino-Indian War. There is nothing to celebrate. But it certainly is a time for the Government to revisit the 1962 experience, learn lessons and show maturity and courage in handling the impending situation. As part of his obsession with Panchsheel Prime Minister Nehru used to often talk about the principle of ‘Peaceful Coexistence’ between neighbours India and China. In a tactical and timely response to that, Chairman Mao had famously observed in 1961 that what India and China should learn is ‘Armed Coexistence’. It was too late for India to understand the import of Mao’s observation and the ’62 War resulted in a humiliating defeat because of our unpreparedness. In fact that was a war that India had never fought. Time has come for us to understand the rules of engagement with China.
It is pertinent here to refer to a Resolution that was passed by the RSS at its Akhil Bharatiya Pratinidhi Sabha (ABPS) in March 2011.
“The Akhil Bharatiya Pratinidhi Sabha expresses serious concern over the growing multi-dimensional threat from China and the lackluster response of the Government of Bharat to its aggressive and intimidator tactics. Casual attitude and perpetual denial of our Government in describing gross border violations by the Chinese People’s Liberation Army as a case of ‘lack of common perception on the LAC’, attempts to underplay the severe strategic dissonance between the two countries and failure to expose the expansionist and imperialist manouvers of China can prove fatal to our national interests”, the resolution warned.
It made the following recommendations to the Government with regard to India’s relations with China.
“1. Reiterate the Parliament’s unanimous resolution of 1962 to get back the territory acquired by China to the last inch.
2.Take effective measures for rapid modernization and upgradation of our military infrastructure. Special focus should be on building infrastructure in the border areas. Towards that, constitution of a Border Region Development Agency should be considered which would help prevent the migration of the people from the border villages.
3.Use aggressive diplomacy to expose the Chinese’ designs globally. Use all fora including ASEAN, UN etc for mobilizing global opinion.
4.Disallow Chinese manufacturing industry free run in our markets. Prohibit Chinese products like toys, mobiles, electronic and electrical goods etc. Illegal trade being carried out through the border passes must be curbed with iron hand.
5.Follow strict Visa norms and maintain strict vigil on the Chinese nationals working in Bharat.
6.Restrict the entry of Chinese companies in strategic sectors and sensitive locations.
7.Mobilize the lower riparian states like Myanmar, Bangladesh etc to tell China to stop their illegal diversion of river waters.”
All these suggestions are very important. But how far the Government can show the determination to take on the aggressive neighbour is a big question. China has cancelled the meeting of the Finance Ministers of Japan, S Korea and China as a mark of protest to the visit of some Japanese Parliamentarians to the controversial Yasukuni Shrine in Tokyo where the graves of the World War 2 Generals of Japanese Army are situated. That is how swiftly China reacts to any insult to its sovereignty even if it happens on a foreign territory. The unwillingness of our Government to announce the cancellation of the visit of our Foreign Minister to China later this month is baffling. In fact we should also unilaterally call off the forthcoming visit of the Chinese Premier Li Keqing towards the end of May.
Bilateral economic relations also must be reviewed from the national security angle. Our Government underplays the fact that we share a huge trade deficit in bilateral trade with China with $ 60 billion imports and $ 10 billion exports. We must drastically curtail this trade to protect our economy from being sucked in by China, even if that meant tightening our belts and spending some extra dollars for imports from other countries.
Lastly, and most importantly, we must not repeat the mistake of 1962 by thinking that it was a ‘localised problem’ borne out of ‘perceptional differences’ over ‘un-demarcated’ boundary. It is unfortunate that some intellectuals were seen trying to minimise the import of the Chinese aggression by claiming that the internal politics in China and troubles in leadership transition were responsible for the Chinese’ actions. Some of them even tried to indirectly blame Bharat claiming that our border infrastructure building activity must have been the provocation for the Chinese actions. Our Government should not be influenced by such misleading ‘expert opinion’. Any complacency in addressing the challenge thrown by China through this open aggression will prove very costly.
Our Government must pursue the policy of strengthening border infrastructure on Indo-Tibetan border with much more vigour and perseverance. Special attention should be paid to the borders in Arunachal Pradesh like the Tawang region anticipating surprise aggression by China.
Bharat has historically practised the principle of world peace. However, it should not forget the dictum that ‘to be prepared for war is the best way of ensuring peace’.
Hyderabad, Not At Ease
The city of pearls, of palaces, the fort city that was once home to the world famous Koh-i-Noor and nearly two hundred lakes, is still called Hyderabad Deccan by the Indian Railways. This is to distinguish our Hyderabad from another Hyderabad on the planet, Hyderabad Sind. Remembering that Hyderabad sits on the harsh Deccan plateau helps. It lends an altogether different perspective to our understanding of the city. Since it became the seat of power in the Deccan more than four centuries ago, its political and economic fortunes were decided as much by snakes as by ladders. By ups and downs. Moments and epochs of glory and fame were relentlessly snapped at the heels by episodes of strife and disgrace.
In this city magic and poison snuggle into easy cohabitation. Modern Hyderabad is not unfamiliar to growth and hope. And not unknown to shame and anxiety.
Capital of one of the biggest Princely States in the pre-independence India, it did not meet the same fate as the capitals of other princely states like Mysore, Gwalior, Junagadh, or Jodhpur. When it lost Kannada and Marathi speaking regions, it did not remain the capital of a shrunken province. Fortunately it became the capital of a much larger and prosperous state. It became the beneficiary of enormous investment in the public sector: Pharma, Defense, Nuclear, R&D establishments funded by the Union Government did not let it face the decline that other capitals of native states suffered. The physical infrastructure, human resources and skills that the old public sector economy nurtured eventually paved the way to the massive inflow of new economy investments into Hyderabad.
There’s no prominent corporate of the globalised new economy that is not present in Hyderabad: IBM, Microsoft, Facebook, Google, Wellsfargo, Franklin Templeton, Reuters, Infosys, Wipro, Mahindra Satyam are only a few examples. Dozens of engineering colleges in and around the city, new age business schools, the new IIT all prepare thousands of starry eyed young people for purposeful careers. Hyderabad bubbles with energy, exudes new confidence and hope.
Communal clashes, stabbings, blasts, hate speeches, arrests, allegations of fake encounters, police brutality, bloody fights among land grabbers and real estate mafia, uneducated youth duped by unscrupulous agents promising gainful employment in the gulf countries, woes of the illegal migrants to West Asia, unsuspecting young brides married away to supposedly prosperous octogenarian Arab men, adoption rackets trading in Lambada infants show the dark and shameful side of the city, its soft underbelly.
It has always been that: a mix of glory and misery; of progress and obscurantism; of outsiders and natives; of opportunity and hopelessness; and of kite festival and communal clashes.
While the Nawabs, nobles and their feudal vassals lived in luxury their subjects in the old Hyderabad Deccan hardly stood with their spines erect. Commoners paid rapacious rates of taxation. While the rich and the noble had the benefit of modern education in the Madarsa-e-Aizza and Madarsa-e-Aliya, the commoners had hardly any schools to go. The general literacy was as low as 2.3 per cent among Hindus and 5.9 among the Muslims. While Jamia Osmania (Osmania University) celebrated the architectural taste of the rulers, its educational benefits were limited to Urdu speakers to the exclusion of Telugu, Marathi, and Kannada speakers. The rulers distrusted locals. Talent was brought in from Calcutta, Bombay and Madras Presidencies and other parts of India, or even abroad.
The city not only witnessed the unashamed coexistence of misery and luxury. It also saw its streets turned into battlegrounds between modern and progressive political philosophies on the one hand and obscurantist creeds on the other. While the celebrated poet Maqdoom Mohiuddin repeated Inquilab Zindabad (Long Live Revolution) as his mantra, Kasim Rizvi exhorted his brethren to fight for the doctrine of An-al-Malik (We are Kings and people of other religions are our subjects). The State and the Society also clashed. While Andhra Mahasabha raised the slogan of peoples’ democracy, the Nizam proclaimed Gasthi Nishan Tirpan (Section 53) which restricted public meetings and and required prior submission of contents of speeches. Anjuman Tabligul Islam converted poor Hindus to Islam. Arya Samaj reconverted them through purification rites. Seeds of communal disharmony and divide were sown.
Today, it looks a settled fact that a Muslim wins as MP from Hyderabad and a Hindu from the Secunderabad seat. However, that has not always been the case. For the first seven elections, until the mid eighties, Hyderabad sent a Hindu and Secunderabad elected a Muslim to the Lok Sabha, with unbroken regularity. Today it looks inconceivable. It sharply brings out the unacceptable communal divide.
Politics did not strengthen Maqdoom Mohiuddins. Nor did it weaken the Kasim Rizvis. They cohabit. It did not build bridges between the glittering crust and the soft underside of the city. They coexist. Politicians did not mediate between the walled city and the hi-tech city. They live side by side. Hyderabad Deccan and Cyberabad Deccan cohabit. Uneasily most of the time.
(This was published in Outlook Magazine. http://outlookindia.com/article.aspx?284104)
PoJK & Northern Areas: Status and Way Forward
On February 22, 1994, a unanimous resolution was passed by the Indian Parliament. This resolution declared that, “(a) The State of Jammu & Kashmir has been, is and shall be an integral part of India and any attempts to separate it from the rest of the country will be resisted by all necessary means; (b) India has the will and capacity to firmly counter all designs against its unity, sovereignty and territorial integrity; and demands that – (c) Pakistan must vacate the areas of the Indian State of Jammu and Kashmir,which they have occupied through aggression; and resolves that – (d) all attempts to interfere in the internal affairs of India will be met resolutely.”
It is widely argued that much has not been done in keeping with this Resolution of February 1994. Huge territory of the Jammu & Kashmir state of India still remains under the illegal occupation of Pakistan. It is called the Pakistan occupied Jammu & Kashmir (PoJK). Pakistan has divided that PoJK region into two parts –Azad Jammu & Kashmir and Northern Areas in 1970. Azad Jammu and Kashmir is a self-governing State under Pakistan control with a President, Prime Minister and a Legislative Assembly. However the Northern Areas that include Gilgit and Baltistan regions have been made into an autonomous selfgoverning body under Pakistan control called Gilgit-Baltistan. Unlike Azad J&K, Gilgit-Baltistan has a Governor appointed from Islamabad and a Chief Minister.
Under Pakistan control these regions of the PoJK have suffered enormously. Sectarian violence, lack of or no development of civic infrastructure and amenities, denial of fundamental rights, oppression by Islamabad-based political establishment mark the history of the last 6 decades of this region. Democratic voices of dissent get ruthlessly crushed and their political rights cruelly trampled upon. Shias of Gilgit-Baltistan have been facing extreme forms of oppression like brutal killings, arrests and torture. Besides, a systematic campaign to unsettle the demographic order in the Shia-majority region is underway by encouraging large scale migrations from the neighbouring Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa province. What is shocking is that these gross violations of the human rights of millions of people of PoJK go completely unnoticed and unattended.
With a view to highlighting the prevailing situation in this region, which legally and constitutionally belonged to India and also to refresh the public memory about the solemn resolution passed and forgotten about this region by the Indian Parliament in 1994, the India Foundation has started organising conferences on this issue since 2012 AD.
The first PoJK Conference was held in Delhi on 22 February 2012. It was attended by scholars, diplomats, security and strategic studies experts, refugee leaders and political activists from Jammu and Kashmir and rest of India. It had as special attraction two senior leaders from Gilgit-Baltistan region living in exile in US and Canada.The second PoJK Conference was held in Jammu on 22-23 February 2013. Like the first Conference, the second one also attracted wide attention and participation.
This publication presents the summary of the speeches made by various representatives at the first Conference held in 2012 at Delhi. A short report of the second Conference held in 2013 at Jammu is also included.
You can read the document here.
Border Speaks: Untold story of the Indo-Tibetan Border
India shares large borders with its neighbor China in the North-East and Northern parts. These borders have not been stable since the time of independence and there have been continuous Chinese incursions in the Indian Territory. Border Speaks was a seminar organized by India Foundation to get to know the truth of the Chinese incursions in the Ladhak area from people’s representatives in Ladhak. It also provided them a platform to share their livelihood issues and day to day problems.
The speakers at the seminar were Shri Thupstan Chhewang, Former MP, Leh. Shri Rigzin Tangey, Sarpanch, Kyul (Demchok), Ladhak and Shri Nawang Narboo, Ex-Councillor, Nyoma. Lt. General Arvind Sharma, Retd. chaired the seminar.
Lt. Gen Arvind Sharma began his address by stating that the seminar was a consequence of the intrusion by Peoples Liberation Army Patrol in the northern area of Ladhak, to be precise in the south of the Karakoram pass. The intrusion was for a period of three weeks and was vacated on 5th of May, 2013. How and why the intrusion took place, the reactions and how it was resolved has left the majority befuddled. He said that information relating to this intrusion has left more questions unanswered than having been answered. Timing of the intrusion creates a doubt in the mind as it was preceding the visit of the Chinese Premiere Le Keqiang. Lt. Gen Sharma (Retd.) questioned the motivation of the intrusion. He said it was talked of as a localized affair. But Chinese don’t do things in a knee-jerk manner. It is a well thought out plan and it was done to achieve certain aims. A lot of speculation and discussion has taken place regarding the aims, a lot of analysis has been done by strategic thinkers. According to Lt. Gen Sharma (Retd.), the aim was twofold. One was strategic and the other was an assessment of India’s standing on the issue.
As per Lt. Gen Sharma (Retd.) only once in 2010 an intrusion took place in the area of Daulat Beg Oldi which is south of the Karakoram Pass. Karakoram Pass has been accepted as one of the points, south of which is the area of India. Similarly Demchok which is in the south east was the other point. Why this area? It was the first time PLA came with definitive plans to stay put. Patrols don’t carry tents, they come, look around and assess the situation. Come up to where they want to and wait for a reaction by Indian patrols. When nothing happens for a considerable period of time they settle down. This is what happened at Daulat Beg Oldi. According to Lt. Gen Sharma (Retd.) it wasn’t another Kargil, but it was something similar. The strategic part of this incursion was that Karakoram Pass has to its West and North-West the area of Shaksgam valley which was ceded to China by Pakistan in 1963. On going further West of Shaksgam pass is the area of Gilgit Baltistan. The area of Gilgit Baltistan is now virtually under control of the PLA. There are around 3000-4000 troops of the PLA working in that area. And that area links to the Karakoram Corridor. Lt. Gen Sharma (Retd.) said he is calling the Karakoram Corridor deliberately as a corridor because today there is a highway there, very soon there is going to be a pipeline and railways are going to come there and so that corridor gets linked up. In the early 50’s when the Aksai Chin road was being made, we never knew about it. And when Chinese came in and claimed areas, they claimed areas so that security was provided to this Karakoram highway. We couldn’t even look into that area. If the Chinese want to link up via the Shaksgam valley, which is a possibility, which people might call a difficult terrain, we must not forget that at one point of time even Siachen was a difficult terrain. To give certain amount of depth to this road they have to have this sort of area, that is why for the first time they have come down to this area.
The second reason is to see how well we are located in that area and what is our response to it. Since 2010 the border responsibility in that area is of Indo-Tibetan Border Police (ITBP) which is under Ministry of Home Affairs and operating under their control. Army is located in that area but the responsibility is of ITBP and their deployment of troops is there itself. Their method of functioning and their communication links are that they will have a link with one of their senior officers sitting in Leh, then the communication goes directly to Delhi and the MHD controls it here. So anything that has to happen happens after the clearance of the MHD which takes time. And ipso facto today the responsibility of the Chinese borders is with the Ministry of Home Affairs. Appears rather strange but the fact of the matter is that. And with these troops there (pardon my saying this) they aren’t very well trained and aren’t very well equipped. They aren’t actually capable of doing this job. Lt. Gen Sharma (Retd.) said he is saying this not because he is an army man, but because in the difficult terrain it’s not possible. A lot of the resources of these forces unfortunately remain utilized by the Ministry under whom they are. And to that extent on ground the troop strength which are supposed to be there are not there. When the army requested the change of this policy, there was an absolute immediate ‘No’ from the Ministry of Home Affairs. Intrusion in these areas have been taking place except in the area of Daulat Beg Oldi. If you go further towards the East towards the Depsang plains there is an area called Track Junction, intrusions have taken place there time and again. You go further towards South towards Pangong Tso, Pangong Tso lake per se North and South of it, intrusions have taken place. Further South in areas of Demchok etc. intrusions have taken place. Even further South towards Chumar intrusions have taken place. Initially during 2003-04 the Chinese used to come on horseback upto the LAC, which was well behind and used to go back. Offlate they have even had helicopters coming in that area and troops also physically being present well inside the Chumar area. The natives from Demchok will be in a better position to share the real situation of the incursions and how we are handling with these situations.
Shri Thupstan Chhewang said his fellow natives from Demchok,Ladhak have been living with China in their neighborhood. They have been experiencing this politically, socially and morally and will today share their firsthand experiences with the audience and how it has impacted their livelihood. He told that Daulat Beg Oldi is the only place where there is no habitation of ours. The last village is Shayog and initially we didn’t even have the road connectivity. Shyog is almost 150 kilometres away from Daulat Beg Oldi. Shri Chhewang said that it was his earnest desire to come to the national capital and that too before the proposed visit of the Chinese Premiere. He said they wanted to warn the people of our country and the Government of India about the importance of the demarcation of borders with China and the attitude the Government must keep while dealing with them. He said that with the support of intellectuals and the intelligentsia they wanted to mount pressure on the Government so that it takes this issue seriously. The people of Ladhak have always had good relationship with the Army. Shri Chhewang told that since independence i.e. from 1948 onwards all the battles that India has fought have been fought on the land of Ladhak and the people of Ladhak have always supported the Indian Army. He said that people of Ladhak have always fulfilled their duties towards the motherland and shall also fulfill them in future. But the people of our nation too need to know their part of the story and their contributions to the nation. Shri Chhewang told that Chinese have built their colonies very near to the borders and have pushed the grasslands where the cattle used to feed. He explained the ground realities with a few pictures.
This is a vehicle of the PLA of China. PLA keeps a constant eye on the borders and as soon as any person from our part even nears the border they reach there. Such sights are very frequent in the border areas and incidences have increased recently.
This is again in Demchok. The double storey houses have been built by Chinese and the houses in front are ours. Initially there was no human population there, but the Chinese have brought and settled people there. Before 1962, they never even used to come to this place. Their army base was way far back. There was no civilian population. They had no habitation, neither did their cattle come for grazing here. They have strategically chosen various points to settle population. We have been constantly moving backwards.
This digging has been done under a central sponsored scheme by the locals, but the Chinese object to this digging claiming it to be their land. In reality this land belongs to India. ITBP didn’t allow us to dig here. This shows the Chinese influence in the internal matters of our country.
PLA interferes in the local matters of the people and scares them away if they come to the border.
The King of Jammu annexed Ladhak, till 1836 Ladhak was a free nation. He crossed Ladhak to go upto Tibet. There was an agreement between Jammu and Tibet in presence of a Chinese representative and borders were demarcated at that time. China claims Tibet, so accordingly the borders should have been according to the signed treaty. After the 1962 war ceasefire, an understanding was reached between India and China that until the borders aren’t demarcated we shall respect the territories and stay where ever we are. A protocol was signed in case any incursion happens a banner shall be shown to display protest.
The Chinese paint “China” in their language and in English and claim lands.
This is the police station of Chinese where there is habitation (double storey buildings shown above). Our police station is in Leh/Nyoma.
This is Busanala, which is patrolling base camp for India. Since we have mutually decided that we shall be 30 kilometers behind the LAC, hence our post is 30 kilometers behind. Busanala is strategically very important point. Here we had our temporary structure. 2 years before Chinese had brought JCB and destroyed the temporary structure. Chinese entered 19 kilometers inside our boundary, the question is how can they enter so easily inside. Such incidents are very frequent and remind us of Kargil. The Chinese were able to achieve what they wanted to achieve by this incursion. They had problems with our bunker in the Chumur sector. When we agreed not to build that bunker only then did the Chinese go back. The Chinese have entered inside our border inch by inch and have taken hold of thousands of kilometers of land. The incursion in Chumur sector in 2011, when two Chinese helicopters landed in our area, around 20 PLA soldiers got down and went inside our area for around two kilometers. There was this slope which had a series of Indian bunkers, and a portrait of Bharat Mata from white stones. The Indian post was around 10 kilometers behind. They shattered the bunkers and the portrait and went back.
This is the border, this side of the river is India, and on the other side is China. This is of strategic importance to India. If India gets this point, there will be a road yearlong between Leh and Delhi. Our strategy in Ladhak has been we don’t make roads, as they might of use to the Chinese. Such is our Government’s attitude. We must make effort to take this point. Our stand as regards borders has been defensive.
This is the Zorawar fort, where Chinese have built their tower now.
Concluding his address Shri Chhewang said that the military incursion which takes place by China does happen but simultaneously they are trying lure our people. They are trying to do a cultural invasion. China had first installed television tower across the border then we did on creating repeated pressure. They tailor made programs so that the people living here get lured. They have hydroelectric power, 24 hour electricity supply while we live in darkness. They have made mobile phone in Tibeti language and are giving it to our people. The most important thing to discuss and to be worried about is how they are trying to influence our people. We too need be more careful about the needs and necessities of the people of Ladhak. We need to develop grazing lands and for that we need funds towards which our governments need to be careful.
Shri Rigzin Tangey said there have been Chinese activities going on alongside the border right from 1947 till date. He told the Chinese have captured the Zorawar fort and have now converted it to fulfill their purposes. First it was part of India now the Chinese have captured it. Shri Rigzin said that if we fear the Chinese, if we bow to them they will surely keep moving inside our borders. Chinese are building infrastructure like roads on the border which is of threat to integrity of our nation. China by using the slogan “Hindi-Chini bhai bhai” entered inside, we trusted them but they betrayed us. China claims any piece of land if finds suitable. There is no one to contest it claims. Whenever such incident take place, our government is usually on the defensive side. One of the foundations which we had built was broken by the Chinese and they even took away 12 sacks of cement along with them. Whenever we do any activity related to Dalai Lamaji, then too Chinese cause some instability on the border. In North Ladhak there is no habitation, but in areas such as Demchok Chinese have made living very tough. Shri Rigzin was very annoyed with the attitude of the Government. He said Chinese are right in claiming that the land is theirs as our own Government has put in Inner line permits for its own citizens. Whereas there is no requirement of any visa or permit to go inside China. Chinese are also providing ration cards to Indian citizens. The Chinese use language of Tibet in their areas, whereas on our side our forces speak English or Hindi which we people aren’t very comfortable with. They should speak language of Tibet or Ladhak. Government should consult locals before taking decisions. He concluded by saying that Inner line permit should be banned.
Shri Nawang Narboo said that since he has been the councilor of the border areas, he is well aware of the ground realities. He told that the livelihood in Ladhak area is solely dependent on cattle, there is no farming. All the grasslands have been captured by the Chinese. These grasslands shouldn’t have been captured. If the Government or the Army or the ITBP would have assisted we could have not allowed them to be captured. Chinese don’t enter blindly, they assess and only then enter in places which aren’t under surveillance. During 70’s around 50 Chinese army men came on horses, gathered the locals who had taken their cattle to graze and told them that this is Chinese land and you can’t bring your cattle here. When we complained some armed personnel came along with us and the Chinese ran away. So if we allow them to capture our lands, they will definitely incur. Our country is afraid of the Chinese, because when we tried to lay the foundation and Chinese stopped us we complained to the ITBP and they just kept passing our request from one point to another.
Shri Narboo was very frustrated with the Government attitude and said that the Government didn’t care how they lived. It didn’t matter how they are struggling for survival. He said we have no proper water supplies. For four months we drink water by melting ice. The temperatures go as down as -45° C. He said that he and his generation have lived and helped the Army or the ITBP whenever required. We used to carry ration, oil and other important things. But now when the forces have access to such amenities, nobody even asks us or cares for us. If any adverse situation arises the forces will have to depend on us, so they should try and strengthen relations with us. Shri Narboo said that when locals bring ration from Leh, ITBP personnel create problems for them by checking. They ask questions as to how we got these things. We need permission to even travel inside. The Chinese propaganda is true. We have no resources, no employment opportunities we can atleast be exempted from things like inner- line permits. We also have the right to earn money. Today I am 69, I have lived my entire life here so has my son but the coming generations don’t feel the same way. They see the development on the other side of the border and say how well the Chinese are doing. The loyalty of this generation won’t take much time to change. Everyone needs basic necessities like TV or mobile, if we don’t get such things people will either go to cities or move in China. It is because of our presence that the Chinese aren’t entering inside. Once nobody is there who will stop them. Government needs to boost our morale. There is no primary education no primary healthcare. We have got no choice but to run away.
(Compiled by Aaditya Tiwari, Research Associate at the India Foundation)
India & Bangladesh Land Border Agreement 1974
This document deals with the problems of the Indira Mujib Accord, especially with regard to the Enclaves in both India and Bangladesh.
The document can be downloaded here.
Discussion on State and Non-State Actors of Global Terror
The discussion on state and non-state actors of global terror was an effort by the India Foundation to bring on a common platform people who have been relentlessly fighting this demon and have them share their views.
The speakers at the event were Shri Tarek Fatah, Canadian writer, broadcaster and an activist. He has authored books like Chasing a Mirage: The Tragic Illusion of an Islamic State and The Jew Is Not My Enemy: Unveiling the Myths that Fuel Muslim Anti-Semitism. Shri M J Akbar, leading Indian journalist and author. He has written several non-fiction books, including Byline , Nehru: The Making of India, Kashmir: Behind the Vale etc. and Dr. Chandan Mitra- MP (RS) and Director, India Foundation. Also present to share her vast experience was Dr. Najma Heptulla- MP(RS) and Vice President (Bhartiya Janta Party).
Explaining her commitment to the anti-terror campaign, Dr. Najma Heptulla told the audience how her Grandfather Shri Maulana Abul Kalam Azad was strictly against partition and more so partition on the basis of religion. She said that Maulana Azad had the foresight to see that nation’s partition on the basis of religion would put a bad precedence in place. In 1947 India got divided, in 1948 Palestine and this way a movement started. Whether it is Bosnia, Chechnya, South Sudan or East Timor, the movement seems to attack all multi-religious societies.
Dr. Heptulla also expressed her worries and reservations with regard to Pakistan, especially after withdrawal of NATO forces from Afghanistan.
Shri Tarek Fatah started his address by mentioning about his book ‘Jinnah’s Orphans’. He said a lot of blame of the blame lay on the victims of terrorism, who are reluctant to call spade a spade. Terrorism by its very nature is not new. 19th century was full of terrorism in Europe by anarchists; French revolution was filled with the massacres of the French Nobility; then there was Subhash Chandra Bose’s ideas of fighting for revolution; Parliament at Lahore was attacked; Bhagat Singh and many others. He points out that the difference is that all these instances, whether we agree with their purpose or not, had the program of establishing something for an idea or a nation-state.
He reiterated that terrorism is not new, but that what has happened, and what is different is now is that there is Islamic Terrorism. There is a reluctance to call it that, and therefore he said, we lose our ability to address the problem. He further argued that if a Kashmiri wants separation, he is demanding, whether you like it or not, an independent Kashmiri state. If somebody is fighting for the liberation of India whether it is Bhagat Singh, he is giving his life for something. Today we are facing scourge in which objective is mere death itself. While stating that most instances of terrorism over the past twenty years have had their roots in Pakistan, Mr. Fatah pointed out the need to then address the question as to why such roots of terror are not unearthed ined in Iran or Turkey or Indonesia; “Are they less of Muslims?” he asked. He continued, “I haven’t heard of others, in fact the first Palestinian that I have of in international terrorism is the Toronto guy. These fellows are pursuing a political ideology which, I am afraid is a death cult.” He firmly states that unless we address it specifically instead of going through the route of asking the question as regards the roots of such terror. He said that if Obama has the audacity to say “we are trying to understand what is its root cause” then Obama himself is complicit in the act of terror; the inability to speak the truth with clarity at a time of war is an act of betrayal.
Further, he went on to call the 2008 attack on Mumbai as an act of war, and not an act of terrorism. He stressed especially that the attack of the Indian Parliament was an act of war by the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. He stated that it is the inability of India to respond is what is fuelling this terrorism.
There is an inability, he felt, to stand up and speak the truth for fear of being called Right Wing or a member of the RSS or the BJP and for simply saying that the attack on Mumbai is act of war.
Mr. Fatah further elaborated that in Pakistan today there is the Baluchistan war, which is never read about in the Indian press, whether it is in the Right wing or Left wing; “I don’t even hear about it as if that part of the world was never part of India…There seems to be concerned only about General Musharraf and Imran Khan, not for the North West Frontier Province which is Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, which is where Khan Abdul Gaffar Khan came from, that’s where the Congress won and that’s where people are being assassinated everyday by the Taliban and that is where the forthcoming elections will be determined. Not what happens in Pakistan but if the secular nationalist government of Awami National Party is stopped over there. What happens in the elections at Baluchistan, 10,000 guerrilla fighters under an urban middle class Dr. Allah Nazar fighting and we have the port of Gwadar sold to the Government of China.”
The problem then, he stated is that in a democracy where one can speak, nobody speaks that the Ambassador of High Commission of India in Bangladesh was attacked. If the American Ambassador to Bangladesh had been attacked, it would get worldwide coverage!
Further along the discussion, Mr. Fatah referred to the Shahbhag protests, asking the audience as to where the people of Shahbag and Dhaka would go when they go around and look war criminals walking across. He answered in exclamation that the only place they can look for is India and in Kolkata you have 50,000 people coming out to support the Jamaat-e-Islami. Where is Jyoti Basu and his thirty year old communist regime, while all this is happening, he wondered.
Acts of terror are, he felt, being committed by not non-state actors. They are being funded by the United States of America somehow knowingly or unknowingly; there’s billions of dollars pouring into such activities in Pakistan, he said. He highlighted that if the ANP loses in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, the Taliban will be running the government in Kabul in 2014. If the secular nationalist ANP manages to retain power then there is some hope – “If Ataullah Mengal’s son, Sardar Akhtar Mengal wins an election with compromises in Balochistan then you have some sense of hope. If it doesn’t happen then you have an act of war going on in a very sensitive part of the world, a huge area, very rich and right on the mouth of the Strait of Hormuz, with the port, with submarine bases which are in the hands of China, not Pakistan,” he concluded.
Next, Shri M J Akbarji took stage. As a slight amendment to what Mr. Fatah had said, Mr. Akbar pointed out that the Muslim League won everything in 1946 but lost in 1937. And the reason why the Muslim League won in 1946 is the fundamental source of the problems that we face today. He asked the audience to ponder as to why Pakistan was created? He said “I am an Indian Muslim and let me put it very bluntly, Pakistan was created not by the British — the British helped in the process. Pakistan was created by Indian Muslims. I have called it in “India: The Siege Within” [his book], the longest suicide note written in history. It was essentially created and sold to Muslims as this going to be the sanctuary for security.” However, ironically he pointed out that more Muslims are killed every day in Pakistan than in the whole Muslim world put together? “There are no Hindus, there are no Sikhs there, who is doing the killing? Muslims are killing Muslims.”
In 1947 Pakistan had 20% minorities, (Non-Muslims). Now, however, there are less 2%. “Is this admission of the largest silent genocide in history?!’ he asked. In 1947 Indian Muslims were maybe 12%, today they are 14%. The number of Muslims in secular India has gone up. India does not take pride in elimination of populations. When there are riots we grieve, we find out means and methodologies by which we can correct ourselves. Mr. Akbar highlighted that after the Babri event (and with the Godhra event seen as a consequence of Babri), there has been no major riot in India.
“Now what happened and why has Pakistan sunk into a cesspool of tremendous violence. Let me ask a second question what is the difference between Indians and Pakistanis? When you meet them you find this remarkable fact that there is no difference, we are the same people, we have the same likes, same dislikes, same emotional reaction to events. So why has Pakistan sunk into a quagmire and why is India at least finding some way towards an economic horizon of prosperity and a shared life. The answer exists and the answer is that the idea of India is stronger than the Indian and the idea of Pakistan is weaker than the Pakistani. What is the idea of Pakistan? Idea of Pakistan is based on the fancy notion which has no history, which has no resonance or echo in the history of the Muslims. There’s really nothing called the history of Islam. It’s the history of Muslims. There has never been, this is what Maulana Abdul Kalam Azad used to argue all the time, he said when in the history of Muslims has religion ever been the basis of Nationalism.”
He argued that if this were not true, there would not be 22 Arab countries, but only one. HE pointed out that Pakistan was not born over breakfast, but was born out of set of false fears, and that falsification began with the creation of one word: “minority”. When did Muslims become a minority, he asked. “Were Muslims a minority when the Mughal were in power, were the Hyderabad Muslims a minority when the Nizam of Hyderabad in power. Muslims have always been demographically in a minority, they were in a minority when Mohammad Ghori turned up, and they were in a minority when Jinnah turned up. But did they see themselves as a minority and the answer is NO! No one thinks of himself as a minority if he is in power. So the battle here which is what democracy offers to Indian Muslims is the chance of empowerment. And therefore the elimination of this word is extremely important to the discourse.”
One cannot sell fear to a community which has no history of fear. It was an idea that was artificially created for the protection, and service of elite which manipulated the masses. He pointed out that the elections of 1937 included only 10% of the electorate; there were no universal adult franchise elections. The poor could not vote in them.
Mr Akbar said that Jinnah’s concerns earlier were that of the security of Muslims. However, he switched it to something that had actually arisen during the Khilafat movement. Thus, from “Muslims in danger” he turned it to “Islam in danger.” And that was when the marriage between Islam and politics was fused. This is when areas such as Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, which had a tremendous history of Abdul Gaffar Khan and the Congress party also succumbed. Jinnah thought that he could play games with both people and ideas. He didn’t realize that this is one idea that would swallow him and defeat him.
Mr. Akbar said that perhaps the monstrous consequences of Partition were not fathomed by leaders like Jinnah, especially considering that there was no concept of post colonial state because there wasn’t any in existence. “Nobody knew what this all would be and what this animal called democracy, how it would function.” Mr. Akbar pointed out that “Pakistan is the first Islamic state in the world. There is no state before which was Islamic, because states were Umayyad, they were Fatimid– they were whatever might have been the dynasty. Who created a state in the name of Islam?”
Turning his attention to Bangladesh as did the Mr. Fatah, Mr. Akbar said, “I admire Bangladesh, because Bangladesh has consciously rejected Islam as the basis of nationalism and there is a battle going on in Bangladesh right now which we are not giving due attention to…I may not agree with a ethnic linguistic state as a cause for separation but at least it is a rational idea, it is not an irrational idea… Here is Pakistan which doesn’t even have the 60 crores which India owed them and what is very first thing that they do, the very first decision made by the government of Pakistan, is Jihad. Why? And it is made by Jinnah’s concurrence and Liaqat’s concurrence, and it is made because, what is the two nation theory? Two nation theory essentially means that I, a Muslim and Chandan a Hindu, can’t sit in the same room without killing each other. It is one of the biggest and one of the most vile nonsense that has ever been injected into the Political discourse.”
Mr. Akbar went on to highlight that between Delhi and Morocco there are perhaps only three governments left: Delhi, Tehran and Israel. If one enters Iraq through the Baluchistan area, Pakistan doesn’t have a government left, “it has some sort of pretend authority hanging around in Islamabad”. Then there is the Government in Iran (Tehran). However in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Egypt and Tunisia he said there is “nothing”. “Politics abhors a vacuum,” he stated “just as nature does.” When there is no government, then he said, malicious and shadow forces some acting in the name of Islam and others in the name of tribal bandings, some others in whatever name come in. Mr. Akbar pointed out that, “what is common in these otherwise very disparate realities — and this is the great danger before the world – is that they are essentially anti-stability. If they see a stable region, they will attack it. And that is the mounting danger before India….[One] can’t really insulate Ganges from the Nile, you can pretend to but you can’t insulate it. Chinese might think they have insulated Heuer, they have not.”
Mr. Akbar said that the reason why India remains a thriving idea is because the idea of India is essentially a modern idea. “It is very easy to use the world modernity but you have to define it. And modernity in my definition means, one democracy – and democracy means not the right to speak sense but the right to speak non-sense. Number two, it means equality, actually all the four things are equality. Equality of faith, Equality of language, Equality of gender (none of these things exist in Pakistan because it is a theocracy) and fourth there is nothing called economic equality but economic equity. That’s our last challenge and I think in the next decade we will get there.”
He expressly highlighted in conclusion that, “the relationship between India and Pakistan is not simply a nation to nation relationship but is an ideology to ideology relationship. Unless we understand it we will never understand how to deal with it.”
(Report compiled by Aaditya Tiwari, and edited by Vangmayi Parakala, Research Assistants at India Foundation)
Kashmiris and the Idea of Pakistan
Some time back, I read an article by Randeep Singh Nandal of TNN, titled ‘Fault line in Kashmir makes people root for Afridi and vote in polls’. It is a sharp and incisive article on the psyche of the people of Kashmir valley. Here are brief excerpts:
“Like rest of the subcontinent, Srinagar shut down for the semi-final clash between India and Pakistan. But, the team they cheered for wasn’t the men in blue. In hotels and homes, at roadside stalls and in Srinagar’s downtown sprawl, in villages and small mohallas, Kashmir was rooting for Shahid Afridi and his team. This support for Pakistan appeared to cut across caste and class, united mainstream politicians and separatists, and brought together prosperous businessmen who live half the year in Delhi and the shikarawalas who ceaselessly circle the Dal Lake. Most people who cheered for Afridi’s team have no love lost for Pakistan with its failing economy and daily violence. The reality of Pakistan has done what the Indian state could not for years: made “Kashmir banega Pakistan” vanish from all protests”.
“All that the Kashmiris have done is separate the reality of Pakistan from the idea of Pakistan “There is a connectedness, in the emotional sense, in the hearts of Kashmiris. We don’t bleed blue, we bleed green,” said Abid Hussein, a young professional. The Kashmiri politicians and businessmen are firm in their knowledge that India is the way forward for Kashmir. They shake their heads at every blast in Pakistan. But once it comes to anything that represents the idea of Pakistan, like the Pakistani cricket team, they remember their love for it.
It makes them admire India, its plurality, its progress and its strength; and resent it for these very reasons”
Why do the Kashmiris have such an ‘emotional feeling’ for Pakistan as brought out in the article above? Christopher Thomas, a renowned analyst of the events of the sub continent said way back in 1950s that the “Kashmiri Muslim mind had been indifferent to non-Kashmiri forms of Islam practised beyond the mountains of their natural fortress. The philosophy of Kashmir is the synthesis of Shaivism and Sufism.” He further said that “[T]he Muslims of the valley were long considered to be Hindus at heart. Shaivism is one of the most highly developed school of Indian philosophy and had profoundly impacted the Islamic thought in the valley” 1
What has changed since the 1950s then to bring about this transformation, especially considering tribal invasion in 1947, an invasion that brutally plundered, murdered and raped in the Kashmir valley? There was so much revulsion against the Pakistanis at that time that Jinnah just did not want to talk of plebiscite, as the memories of the horror trail left behind by the tribes were fresh in the minds of Kashmiris; they would have never opted for Pakistan. However, such feelings had also crept into their psyche even about India, because of the continuous and systematic failure of the Indian leadership in integrating the valley in the Indian national main stream. The political class then seemed to be too beholden to Sheikh Abdullah and did everything at his bidding, keeping the valley aloof from the ‘idea of India.’
Let us discuss how. The first deliberate omission was that of keeping the national identity of the Kashmiris (as Indians or not) in suspense. What was the mind set of Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah in 1950? This can be gauged from what he said in an interview to a reputed journalist Michael Davidson.
“Accession to either side cannot bring peace, he [Sheikh Abdullah] declared “we want to live in friendship with both the Dominions. Perhaps a middle path between them, with economic cooperation with each, will be the only way of doing it. But an independent Kashmir must be guaranteed not only by India and Pakistan but also by Britain, the United States and other members of the United Nations…Yes Independence – guaranteed by the United Nations –may be the only solution 2
Owen Bennet Jones who was a BBC correspondent in Pakistan between 1998 and 2001 has said, “In September 1950, for example he [Sheikh Abdullah] told the US ambassador to India, Loy Henderson that he favoured Kashmiri independence.” 3 If Sheikh Abdullah was clear about this, then why was the Indian leadership still batting for him?
When the state of Jammu & Kashmir was attacked by the Pakistani regular forces and the tribes on 26 October 1947, Maharaja Hari Singh sought the help of India and signed an instrument of accession to India. This was similar to the one signed by the rulers of the other states. However the Government of India adopted a different stance in this case. Christopher Thomas wrote,
“Mountbatten wrote to Maharaja after receiving the signed instrument of accession: ‘In the special circumstances mentioned by your Highness, my Government has decided to accept the accession of the Kashmir state to the dominion of India. Consistently with their policy that in the case of any state where the issue of accession should be decided in accordance with the wishes of the people of the state, it is my Government’s wish that as soon as the law and order has been restored in Kashmir and her soil cleared of the invaders, the question of the state’s accession should be settled by a reference to the people.” 4
There was no need for all this when under the Indian Independence Act of 1935 there was no provision of referendum in the Princely States.
Alan Campbell-Johnson, the Viceroy’s press secretary noted that Jinnah had insisted that it was up to every Indian Prince, including Hari Singh to make his own decision on which nation to join. 5 “It is open”, Jinnah said in a policy statement on his Muslim League’s position towards the Indian Princely States “to [the Princes to] join the Hindustan Constituent Assembly or the Pakistan Constituent Assembly or decide to remain independent” 6
Alastair Lamb, a diplomatic Historian and author of several works on international relations said, “Jinnah did not like the plebiscite idea at all, largely because he was convinced that its result would be determined by Sheikh Abdullah. Thus Jinnah was not prepared to run the risk of confirming Sheikh Abdullah in power” 7
Justice Mehar Chand Mahajan, the then Prime Minister of Jammu & Kashmir, and later the Chief Justice of India observed, “Plebiscite in my view had no meaning after the Maharaja had acceded to India in terms of the Indian Independence Act. This act of accession was complete and conclusive…The Indian Independence Act did not envisage conditional accession. It wanted to keep no Indian state in a state of suspense. It conferred on the rulers of Indian states absolute power to accede to either of the two dominions. The dominion’s 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. I fail to understand from what Constitutional provision the Indian Government derives this power to say to the Pakistan that it will re-decide the question of accession of Kashmir by holding a plebiscite in the state of Kashmir after Pakistan’s aggression has been withdrawn. The document of accession does not give it this power. Maharaja never accepted this position” 8
Another factor that is responsible for this alienation was the reference to the United Nations Security council. Mountbatten pressurized Nehru. H. V. Hodson, the Constitutional adviser to the Viceroy of India in 1941-42, had observed,
Lord Mountbatten now bent his efforts to getting the idea of reference to the United Nations accepted. Pandit Nehru was first adamantly opposed. Under what article of the charter he asked, could any reference to the United Nations be made? How did Pakistan come in to picture at all? He insisted that the first step was to drive out the raiders. However he gradually came round and on 20th December Indian cabinet finally decided that India should appeal to the United Nations, accusing Pakistan of helping raiders.” 9
India’s application to the Security Council was sent on 1st January 1948. “Mountbatten’s haste avoided prior consultation with Patel, who happened to be on a short tour of Assam and returned to Delhi two days after the reference had been made. Had Mountbatten and Nehru waited, Patel they feared would have come in the Mountbatten’s way as he had earlier been in the case of Junagadh when Patel did not allow a reference to be made to UNO.” 10
Patel’s unofficial comment on India going to UN was, “Even a District Court pleader will not go as a complainant” 11 The Times, London quoted Patel’s long held contemptuous view of the Security Council as ‘Insecurity Council and a disturber of peace’ 12
Pandit Nehru had accepted in the first week of January 1948, that the “Kashmir issue has been raised to an international level by our reference to the Security Council of UN and most of the great powers are intensely interested in what happens in Kashmir” 13 A month later he said that the Kashmir issue ‘has given us a great trouble…the attitude of [the] great powers has been astonishing. Some of them have shown active partnership with Pakistan.” 14 In May he again said, “We feel that we have not been given a fair deal” 15
What kept the Kashmir valley terribly aloof from the Indian mainstream was the incorporation of Article 370 in the Constitution of India. Nehru had agreed to Sheikh Abdullah’s having a separate constitution for Jammu & Kashmir. Here the sensitivity of Pandit Nehru to the international opinion took precedence over the practicality of the situation. “Even President Rajendra Prasad was ‘taken a back’ when Abdullah conveyed to him Nehru’s acceptance of such a proposal”. 16 It was said to be a temporary provision inserted till the accession was ratified by the constituent Assembly of J&K. It was transitional in nature. Mr G. Ayyangar the then minister of Kashmir Affairs expressed hope that “In due course Jammu and Kashmir will become ripe for the same sort of integration as has taken place in case of other states.” Prior to its legislation, the article had to have the approval of the Congress Parliamentary Board. At the party meeting, the issue raised a storm of angry protests from all sides and Ayyangar found himself a lone defender. 17
The other compulsion was probably that of the holding of a plebiscite. Security Council passed a resolution on April 21, 1948 recommending to the Government of Pakistan to withdraw tribes and Pakistani nationals from Kashmir. Subsequently, the Government of India was to carry out a progressive withdrawal of the Indian forces to limit it to the minimum strength required for the maintenance of law and order. The resolution also envisaged the appointment of a plebiscite administrator with adequate powers to prepare and conduct the plebiscite. Dr. Karan Singh has rightly pointed out that “Maharaja deeply resented the manner in which Jawaharlal had made his handing over the power to Sheikh, a virtual condition for extending military aid to save the state from Pakistani occupation….Plebiscite being the watch word at that time, this became the trump card in the hands of Sheikh Abdullah. As the man who was supposed to win the plebiscite for India, he could demand his pound of flesh….The offer became a main source of trouble and difficulty later” 18
Sheikh Abdullah’s views had to be accepted and Article 370 was inserted in the constitution as he wanted it to be. It stipulated that no law enacted by the Government of India would be applicable to the State of Jammu & Kashmir until it was so approved by the State Legislature. There is dual citizenship; Indians do not become automatically the citizens of Jammy & Kashmir. The state has separate Constitution and a separate flag. Constituent Assembly approved the accession in February 1956 but this specific provision was not deleted. Article 370 has been misused by the political elite of the valley for building their empires. It is a vicious strategy to keep the state aloof from the national mainstream. ‘It militates against the concept of one India’ and encourages the Two Nation Theory. It has continued to fan the fissiparous tendencies in the valley and has been source of anguish and unending pain for the people of Jammu and Ladakh who for long had been wishing for the final and total assimilation of the state in the national mainstream.
Another factor that kept the Kashmiris alienated from the Indian nation was the Nehru-Sheikh Accord of 1952. Joseph Corbel, the then Chairman of the U.N. Observers Commission has written that,
“On July 24, 1952 Jawahar Lal announced in the Parliament, the signing of an agreement with Sheikh Abdullah. It gave to Kashmir, special rights which other princely states never had like….’Hereditary ruler to be replaced by a Head of state to be elected by the constituent Assembly/state assembly for a term of 5 years however subject to ratification by the President of India.’”
Secondly fundamental rights that are guaranteed by the Constitution of India will apply to Jammu & Kashmir, subject to the provision that they will not be applicable to the programme of land reforms including the expropriation of land without compensation, nor they should adversely affect the security measures undertaken by the state Government
Thirdly the Kashmir legislature shall have the power to define and regulate the rights and privileges of the permanent residents of the state, more especially in regard to the acquisition of immovable property, appointments to services and like matters.
Fourthly the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of India was to be limited as regards Kashmir, to interstate disputes, to the fundamental rights applicable to the state and to matters of defence, Foreign Affairs and Communications. The Government of India wanted the Supreme Court to be the final Court of Appeal in civil and criminal cases. But the Sheikh did not agree, and had left it open.
The national flag of India was accepted to be the supreme but the Kashmir state flag was also to be maintained. In financial matters, the Govt of India wanted integration but the Sheikh got it postponed.
The most important provision of the agreement was the emergency powers of the President of India. According to Article 352 of the Indian Constitution, President has the power to declare emergency in case of invasion, external danger or internal disturbance. But as per agreement in case of internal disturbance, emergency can only be declared at the request or the concurrence of the Government of the state” 19
There was a lot of criticism about this agreement in the country. There were angry demonstrations in Jammu. Kushak Bakola, the then Head Lama of Ladakh said in an interview “It should be clear…that there shall be no place for us in a virtually independent Kashmir.” However there was no change in the stance of Jenab Sheikh Abdullah. “Even when the Delhi Accord had been ratified by the State constituent Assembly, Sheikh Abdullah said immediately thereafter on July 10, 1953 ‘A time will come when I will bid them goodbye.’” 20
Krishna Menon took a correct stand at the United Nations when he said that,
“Kashmir’s accession was valid and final, that the Kashmiri people had expressed their desire in the elections of October 1951, and that these elections ended India’s obligations in the matter of a plebiscite—a plebiscite to which India had never been actually committed by a binding treaty.”
He further said “Once the merger of Kashmir with India was consummated, it could not be revoked because the Indian Constitution did not recognize the right of secession” 21 Then why has the Indian leadership continued to remain befuddled and ambivalent?
In the end I would like to quote V. Shanker, Secretary to Sardar Patel who had his reservations on Sardar Patel agreeing to Pandit Nehru on Article 370. “Sardar Patel had remarked then ‘neither Sheikh Abdullah nor Gopalaswamy is permanent. The future would depend upon the strength and guts of the Indian Government and if we cannot have confidence in our strength, we do not deserve to exist as a nation.’” 23
___________________________________________________________________
References:
1) Faultline: Kashmir by Christopher Thomas
2) …published in The Scotsman
3) Pakistan –Eye of the Storm by Owen Bennet Jones
4) Faultline: Kashmir by Christopher Thomas
5) Diary of October 28, 1947 by Alan Campbell Johnson
6) Indian Annual Register, 1947
7) Crisis in Kashmir: 1947-1966 by Alastair Lamb
8) Looking Back by Meher Chand Mahajan
9) The Great Divide—Britain-India-Pakistan by H.V.Hodson
10) Sardar Vallabh Bhai Patel by B Krishna
11) Mission with Mountbatten by Campbell-Johnson pp-262-263.
12 The Times, London October 2, 1948
13) Letters to Chief Ministers by Jawahar Lal Nehru Vol. 1, page 43.
14) Ibid, 61
15) Ibid, 119
16) Valmiki, ibid,p 298
17) My Reminiscences of Sardar Patel Vol. II, p-61 by V. Shanker, Secretary to Sardar Patel
18) Heir Apparent: Autobiography by Dr Karan Singh
19) Danger in Kashmir by Joseph Corbel
20) Heir Apparent: Autobiography by Dr Karan Singh
21) Danger in Kashmir by Josef Corbel
22) Danger in Kashmir by Josef Corbel
23) My reminiscences of Sardar Patel by V. Shanker Secretary to Sardar Patel
The Crusade Behind Conversions
Christians are thoroughly muddled over the business of conversion. They don’t want to quit this field of clover. However, think for a moment. Do they really want their Hindu and Muslim friends to join the churches? Listen in at their Pastorate Committee meetings. Quarrels over who is to be the next bishop, principal or secretary? What’s so wonderful about Christians that they should appeal to others to leave their traditions and come to Christian camps? Christians, who are neither fish, flesh nor good red herring? Do they really take the teachings of Christ seriously?
Christians’ morals are no better than others. Don’t they take and give bribes, tell lies like anyone else? As to violence, they don’t need to learn anything. They have in the past set fire to a bishop and his wife. The bishop survived and the wife died. That happened in the late 1970s. The bishop was none other than Bishop Anantha Rao Samuel who later became the Moderator of the Church of South India. I ask my Christian brethren: wasn’t there anything else we could burn — paper, cigarettes, fireworks?
What is more — Jesus was not a Christian. He was a Jew and he remained one. He did not found Christian religion. That was done by organisation-loving men. He showed the Christians a way, which was he himself. But he was a daredevil all right, and used pretty strong language when it came to telling the priests and leaders where to get off. He even called them “whited sepulchres” [isn’t that a lovely phrase?]. The Jews despised the Samaritans, somewhat like the way Dalits have been despised in our country for centuries or the Blacks in the US. But Jesus was always telling them stories about how much better as human beings the Samaritans were.
When the traveller fell among thieves the priest and the upper-castes passed him by, but the Dalit bound his wounds and took him to an inn. Ten lepers were healed. Only one returned to give thanks to God and he was a Dalit.
One day Jesus was found talking to a Dalit woman — a woman, believe it or not. Jews never spoke to women and even his disciples were shocked at his atrocious behaviour. Added to it, the woman had had five husbands. To top it all, he asked her for a drink of water. As bad as a Brahmin asking a Dalit in some parts of Tamil Nadu for water from an out-caste well. No wonder the priests wanted to do him in. They waited around corners to slosh him on the head. Finally, they got him crucified with two thieves.
No one can deny that genuine conversions do take place through the influence of one individual. A lovely Canadian girl came to India [Bangalore] on a Government of India scholarship to learn Bharatnatyam in the 1970s. Like so many of her generation she was an agnostic. She was U.S. Krishna Rao’s star pupil and made her debut in six months. One day she met Mother Teresa. She fell under her spell. She abandoned dance and donned the robes of a nun. “You are a born artiste. How dare you become a nun?” Krishna Rao raged in vain. She went to Kolkata and later to Mexico where she was working in a slum when we last heard about her. No one can quarrel with such a conversion. But when a well-organised body financed by foreign money begins to shift a whole herd of people from one caste to another, one begins to suspect their motives.
A brilliant Danish professor, Dr Kaaj Baago, in the United Theological College, Bangalore, made history when he said in the 1960s: “Hindus, Muslims and Buddhists should never give up their religion to join the Christian Church.” On the other hand, the Church should humble itself and find ways of identifying itself with other groups, taking Christ with them. Christ, he said, was not the chairman of the Christian party. If God is the Lord of the universe he will work through every culture and religion. We must give up the crusading spirit of the colonial era and stop singing weird hymns like “Onward Christian soldiers marching as to war”. This will lead to Hindu Christianity or Buddhist Christianity. It must involve the disappearance of the Indian Christian community, but he reminded us: “A grain of wheat remains a solitary grain unless it falls to the ground and dies.”
Needless to say, Indian Christians were furious. He left the College, the Church and the mission and took refuge with the Danish Foreign Service. He later returned to India as his country’s Ambassador and died in harness in 1988.
One last story. About 150 years ago, the Church of England was sending out a very important Anglican Church dignitary as Metropolitan of Calcutta. The Brahmin priests got wind of it. This foreign religion might become a threat to their own traditions. They must investigate. So they sent one of their men to investigate. He wandered around the city till he came to the Bishop’s residence. It was a vast, sprawling opulent mansion. As he stood at the gate the great man walked down the steps, arrayed in his magnificent robes. He stepped into the waiting carriage drawn by two horses with a postillion sitting at the rear.
The spy returned to his friends. “Have no fears,” he said: “this is not a religion we need fear.” The priests were relieved, and rightly relieved, for the pomp and splendour of organised Christianity holds no appeal for any genuine seeker after truth.
Jammu and Kashmir Interlocutors’ Report: My Views
It is not a very radical report. The interlocutors tried to placate the separatists, main stream political parties of the valley and also tried to keep the peaceniks of the PM inclination on the right side by addressing Pak Occupied Kashmir as a Pakistan administered Kashmir. But at the same time, they could not totally offend the national sentiments in the country. So while suggesting the review of the central Laws extended to the state of J&K after 1953, they had to say that “We believe that retaining many of the Central laws made applicable to the State over the past six decades should not give rise to any strong objections and that the clock can not be set back” Again while recommending the setting up of the Constitutional Committee, they suggest that its members should enjoy the confidence of the people of Jammu and Kashmir and the people of India as a whole and that “The Constitutional Committee should be future-oriented in that it should conduct its review solely on the basis of the powers the State needs to address the political, economic, social and cultural interests, concerns, grievances and aspirations of the people in all the three regions of the State – Jammu, Kashmir and Ladakh – and all its sub-regions and communities”
However we should oppose:
- Replacing the word ‘temporary’ with ‘Special’ under the article 370.
- Continuity of the dual character of the people of J&K ie State Subject and the Indian Citizen.
- Setting up of constitutional Committee to review all the laws extended to the state post 1953
- Reduction of the quota of All India Services.
- Review of AFSPA
As the Interlocutors have strongly supported the continuation of J&K as one entity, and we are not in a position to get the separate state for the people of Jammu and the Union territory status for the people of Leh and Ladakh and I am not hopeful that we will get it ever, we should support its recommendation of setting up the elected Regional councils separately for Jammu and Ladakh but with adequate financial and legal powers and the required administrative infrastructure. There must be adequate delegation of financial powers and reasonable share of the revenues of the state. We should also insist that the central grants should be proportionately sent direct to the Regional Councils by the Govt. Of India and that the regional Councils should be elected bodies with its Ministers having a proper constitutional status. In this respect, the recommendations of the Gajendragadkar Commission (1967) should be followed in toto. Its observations need a recall that “there would still be a measure of discontent unless the political aspirations of the different regions of the State were satisfied” and that “In fact… the main cause of irritations and tensions is the feeling of political neglect and discrimination, real or imagined, from which certain regions of the State suffer
There is an imperative need for launching the campaign for the abrogation of Article 370. Once RSS takes a firm view, we should go all out on the All India basis for the revocation of Article 370.
—
Panel Discussion on Human Rights Violation in Bangladesh and Pakistan
Religious intolerance in our neighboring countries today has led to various atrocities against minorities including Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Christians as well as against other factions within Islam itself. The idea behind organizing this panel discussion was to discuss and bring light on Human Rights violations in Bangladesh and Pakistan. This was held on 10th April, 2013 under the aegis of India Foundation to voice the concerns of those genuinely moved by the plight of the minorities. The conference also provided a platform to those who have suffered such atrocities.
The speakers at the event were Dr. Chandan Mitra-MP (RS) & Director, India Foundation and Shri G. Parthasarthy- Former High Commissioner to Pakistan. There were also two persons from Hyderabad of Sindh province in Pakistan to share their experiences with the audience.
Shri G Parthasarthy started his address by sharing his experience as a High Commissioner in Pakistan. He stated that during his tenure, he was very clear in his suggestion that any member from a minority community who was aggrieved should not be denied visa into India. He shared the experience during 1980s, giving visa to the Baha’i community which was highly aggrieved during those times. He was instructed not to grant visa to Baha’i people who had come as migrants from Iran. Still he granted them visa and today the contribution of the Baha’i community in nation’s capital stands tall in the form of Lotus Temple. Shri Parthasarthy stressed that the power of granting visa should be given to the relevant authorities, especially in cases relating to those from exploited minorities or aggrieved populace. He mentioned that India has always given refuge to the exploited and we must never forget this tradition. He wondered that why there was a problem in giving visa aggrieved people when even after attacks large-scale terrorist attacks in Mumbai, Pakistan’s Prime Minister and cricket team are invited by our Government. He said, more than being about human rights, this issue is concerned with that of humanity. All exploited and distressed people must be helped and the issue should be raised at the highest platforms by politicians including before our Prime Minister. If still no action is taken, then the government must be shamed publicly. Shri Parthasarthy said that the plight of Hindus along with other minorities in Pakistan has been discussed at various platforms including the Indian Parliament. The need now is to think about what should be done to help the exploited. He mentioned that different approaches should be taken to deal with the atrocities in Pakistan and Bangladesh and no common approach shall help.
First talking of Pakistan, he explored the reasons of formation of Pakistan, which were religious. Jinnah, who is considered as the father of nation for Pakistan, was never really a religious person himself. This is even clear from his biography. Jinnah said after partition that regardless of Hindu or Muslim, all are equal citizens of Pakistan and can coexist peacefully. But the fundamental question which arises is that if people from both religions can coexist, then why create Pakistan in the first place? There has always been this conflict in Pakistan’s ideology.
The first error which Jinnah made was to make Urdu, an alien language to both East and West Pakistan, their national language. East Pakistan is a region which takes special pride in its own language and culture, be it poetry or art. Their love for the culture and language goes beyond the boundaries of religion. So the historical error of making Urdu the national language had paved the path of a separate Bangladesh. The credit of the creation of Bangladesh goes majorly to its people with support of India. The people of Bangladesh refused Jinnah’s two nation theory based on religion. The people of Bangladesh believed that apart from religion, history, culture and civilization too are important foundations for forming a nation.
Coming back to Pakistan, Shri Parthasarthy mentioned that sections 62 and 63 of the Constitution of Pakistan, introduced during the tenure of Mr Zia-ul-Haq, makes mandatory the knowledge of Islam to contest an election and the individual contesting the elections, must be a true Muslim. Also he must believe in the ideology of Pakistan and should have complete faith in it. These clauses give any returning officer the power to reject any candidate’s application. Now the question rose of what exactly Pakistan’s ideology was, to which Zia-ul-Haq said it’s Islam. This gave rise to the ideological clash between Shia and Sunni, considering their interpretations of the larger sense of Islam differ. Saudi Arab claimed that Shia’s were Kafir and sponsored formation of organizations like Jamat-ud-Dawa. This caused an internal war within Pakistan amongst various factions of Islam. The Ahmadiyya community was declared non-Muslim and hardliners started to exploit them by digging their graves: they were asked not to have the same mosques as those belonging to the ‘Muslims’. In doing this, Pakistan forgot the significant contributions by citizens belonging to the Ahmadiyya community. The chain of events which happened caused hatred and today the most exploited community within Pakistan is the Shia community. This hatred between Shia and Sunni has become a global phenomenon. There has been a constant effort within Pakistan to silence the moderate voices. Today the war within Pakistan in not only between Muslims and non-Muslims but also amongst various sects which have emerged within Islam. Describing the gravity of the situation, Shri Parthasarthy told that today not even a single Shia doctor resides in a metropolitan city like Karachi.
Shri Parthasarthy elaborated on the deplorable situation of the Hindus and Christians in Pakistan explained how a legislation called Blasphemy Law was being used as a tool to exploit them. Nobody in Pakistan has the audacity to change these laws introduced by Zia-ul-Haq. People like Governor of Punjab, Mr. Salman Taseer, who voice their opinion about changing such laws get murdered. All these factors are responsible for the rise of fundamentalism in Pakistan. Shri Parthasarthy also voiced his concern over various lay citizens of India visiting Pakistan trying to downplay this rising fundamentalism.
He placed the data of a poll conducted amongst the youth of Pakistan about who should be ruling over their country. The results were startling with 29% voting in favour of Democracy, 32% voting in favour of military and 39% voting in favour of Islamic Sharia. This is indicative of societal change occurring in Pakistan.
Suggesting necessary steps to bring to forefront the grave human rights violation situation in Pakistan, Shri Parthasarthy said:
- Firstly, the Prime Minister of India should along with his counterpart in Pakistan work towards easing the Visa regulations.
- Secondly, non resident Indians across the world should form an alliance with the Christian missionaries and organizations working for Pakistani Christians and raise the issue at all relevant Human Rights platforms.
Next, as regards Bangladesh, Shri Parthasarthy said that there is an internal war within the country, between those who are in favour of its own language and culture on the one side and those who wish to bring Islamic Sharia on the other. The latter are being sponsored by Saudi Arab and Pakistan. Here our government, instead of interfering openly must help against those who wish to bring the Sharia. In Bangladesh we must support those who support India and are not hardliners.
Shri Parthasarthy while concluding, cautioned that if Islamic fundamentalism reaches the eastern boundaries of India, it would impact South-East Asian countries like Indonesia and this would have grave implications around the world. He asked the politicians to rise above the politics of vote-bank and selfish interests and raise such issues boldly. He also said that the government should be proactive in dealing with such situations.
After Shri Parthasarthy, the Hindu refugees from Pakistan narrated their plight to the audience. Shri Hanuman, a refugee and his uncle were handcuffed and his aunt was raped before their eyes. He also explained that Hindu girls of young age are abducted and there are forcibly converted into Islam. Sharing a recent phenomenon, he said that during cricket matches if Pakistan loses to India, all Hindus have to hide to save their lives from Fundamentalists. Further he said that Hindu leaders are mere pawns in the hands of fundamentalists and there is no one to listen to their plights in Pakistan. He said Hindus living in Pakistan were never really given an option during the time of partition and that they consider themselves Hindustanis and given a chance can even die for India.
The other refugee, a lady, shared her experience of leaving her 3 day old child back with her mother in Pakistan since the child was not given a visa. This was also done in order to save the lives of her other children. She also exclaimed that never in her entire life has she been able to celebrate a single Hindu festival.
Dr. Chandan Mitra moved by the previous narrations started his address by comparing the plight of minorities in Pakistan to those suffered by Jews in the Nazi Germany. He said government has turned a blind eye towards the suffering of such people. He said that today Pakistan has become a laboratory of fundamentalism and in this all minorities like Hindu, Sikh and Christians along with sects within Islam like the Shia, Ahmadiyya are suffering. There is a constant effort to convert or eradicate non-Muslims and simultaneously bring uniformity within Islam. Dr Mitra said that the plight which non Muslims face today in Pakistan is primarily because of the mistakes committed during Partition. Minorities didn’t stay back in Pakistan because they wanted to. The truth is they never really were given an option. Majority migration happened only in the border areas. In places like Uttar Pradesh where the leaders were flag bearers of the demand of Pakistan, majority Muslims stayed back. Dr. Mitra said that no major political party today wants to raise the issue of human rights violation in our neighboring countries due to vote bank politics. He mentioned the rising fundamentalism in India, citing examples of AUDF in Assam and MIM in Hyderabad. Explaining this he said that all communities and religions in India enjoy their freedom of expression and are free to exercise it, which is not true in Pakistan. This freedom is being misused and our government is sitting as a lame duck. Dr. Mitra said that India must be straightforward while talking to Pakistan and should not fear as the minorities here live as equal citizens with the rest of India.
Dr Mitra then raised the issue of poor treatment of refugees here in India. He sarcastically wondered that when Kashmiri Pandits, who are very much a part of this country are not being given equal rights, how could one expect good treatment for the minorities from another country, seeking refuge here? Same is the treatment with the minorities of Bangladesh with the exception that Muslims from Bangladesh are definitely being granted citizenship and other rights. This two faced attitude of the government of India – this pseudo secularism – is being left unchallenged by our vibrant media and civil society. When some MP’s raise this issue on the floor of the parliament what the government does is shed “crocodile tears” and nothing else. Going back to history, Dr. Mitra said that at the time of independence the percentage of minorities in Pakistan was around 20% which has come down today to less than 2%. In such scenario why would any minority like to go back? Whenever they get visa, like for pilgrimage to religious places or meeting their relatives, minorities and majorly Hindus come to India and then stay back. Minorities today in Pakistan have lost all love for their motherland and no more want to live there. In 2011, around five thousand Hindus came to India and 1248 of them didn’t go back even after the expiry of their visas. Such people are then exploited by our police. Around 18,185 Pakistani residents today are living in Rajasthan on long term visa. Dr. Mitra said that this issue needs to be raised at all forums including the Parliament and those who can’t go back shouldn’t be pushed back to leave. He said that fundamentalism is on steep rise in Pakistan. Girls are being abducted and forcibly being married to Muslim boys. Forcible religious conversions are on the rise and even to the extent that there are TV programs showing such conversions. Hindus including doctors are being shot dead across Pakistan. This shows the backing of the government of Pakistan.
Dr. Mitra then discussing about the situation in Bangladesh said that the conditions there weren’t bad initially but have been gradually deteriorating. In 1950, the Nehru-Liaqat pact was signed. This was after one round of rioting. It was decided that there will be no transfer of population from East Pakistan to India and vice versa and the rights of all the citizens shall be protected on either sides of the border. India stuck to its promise but there were constant riots in East Pakistan and Hindus were killed in large numbers. This caused ever growing migration of Hindus to India. Around one crore Hindus crossed the borders to come to India during Bangaldesh’s freedom struggle. It was assured that with the formation of Bangladesh all Hindus could go back to their homes. Many went back, most did not. Here sharing his personal experience, Dr. Mitra told that those who did go back to Pakistan initially found that they had lost all their property and land and the Pakistan army had given it to the locals there. The Hindus were left with no farms, cattle, houses or even huts. According to government estimates around 60 lac Hindus came to India from East Pakistan to during 1947 to 1974. Zia-ul- Rehman passed a legislation according to which the property of a person of minority community leaving the country even temporarily for pilgrimage is liable to be abducted. Only now has the Sheikh Hasina government brought some changes in that legislation. Dr. Mitra referred to research done by Dr. Abu Barkat of the Department of Economics, Dhaka University in which he found that on an average around 400-500 Hindu families migrate daily from Bangladesh to India. He prophesized that in 25 years there will be no Hindus left in Bangladesh, if migration continues at this rate. During 1947 there were around 28% Hindus in Bangladesh and today only about 9% of the population is Hindu. The condition of Buddhists is also same as that of Hindus. Buddhists are being beaten and asked to leave Bangladesh in areas of Chittagong; same is the situation of Chakma refugees who have come to areas of Himachal Pradesh & Manipur.
This intolerance towards anyone but Sunni Muslims in Bangladesh & Pakistan is causing large scale migration to India and grave human rights violations in these areas. Dr. Mitra said that this is a diabolical plot to convert all Muslims to hardcore fundamentalists. Adding to this, Dr. Mitra cautioned that this does not mean that all Muslims should be seen as the same, that there are nationalist Muslims present in huge numbers in India today. Such people should be taken into confidence and they should be asked to spread awareness against fundamentalism.
Sharing the recent experience of his travel to Bangladesh, Dr. Mitra told how Hindus were being targeted and their Gods and temples were being destroyed and vandalized during a two day closure called by the Jamat and BNP, the leading opposition parties. Hindus were asked to leave Bangladesh and go to India. But the reaction of the government of Bangladesh was proactive and the Prime Minister assured that the guilty would be brought to trial. This is a primary difference between Bangladesh and Pakistan. Another positive sign which was to be seen during his recent visit to Bangladesh was the mobilization of youth, called Shahbag protesters, against fundamentalism. There were even incidents were the villagers saved Hindus of their villagers against vandalism. This difference in culture distinguishes Bangladesh from Pakistan.
Concluding his suggestion on how to deal with the situation in Bangladesh, Dr. Mitra said:
- Sheikh Hasina, who is a secular leader, and the youth protesting against the rising fundamentalism should be supported.
- We need to distinguish between the exploited refugee and the illegal migrants. The exploited refugees should be helped. To help them is India’s moral binding.
- Create awareness about rising atrocities against minorities in Bangladesh and Pakistan.
The day ended after this, with the audience raising questions of clarification to Shri. Parthasarathy and Dr. Chandan Mitra, in addition to commenting on the lack of political will in India to act on this issue of violation of Human Rights in Bangladesh and Pakistan. Dr. Mitra also assured that he would raise this issue in political circles and in his party and try and help the 480 other refugees from Pakistan in all possible manners in which he can.
Violence Against Minorities in Pakistan
This publication focuses on the human rights violations faced by alarge portion of minority communities in Pakistan, especially with relation to the Hindus and the Sikhs, and especially with regard to the influx of these peoples from Pakistan into India.
The issue of normalization of relations between Pakistan and India and how this may, or may not be at odds with the many human rights violations against minorities which seem to be prevalent in Pakistan was taken up in the Parliament of India, and the debate therein is published in this document.
The full publication can be downloaded here.
National Seminar on Pakistan Occupied Jammu and Kashmir: Present Status, Concerns, Issues
On 22 February, 1994 a unanimous resolution was passed in both Houses of the Indian Parliament which reiterated and emphasized that the whole of Jammu and Kashmir is unquestionably an integral part of India. The only outstanding issue between India and Pakistan therefore is the return of the regions occupied illegally by Pakistan since the year 1948, to India. In order to keep this alive in national memory, Centre for Security and Strategy (CSS), in collaboration with the Jammu-Kashmir Study Centre has initiated a series of Conferences on the issues central to Pakistan occupied Jammu and Kashmir (PoJK). This year, the Conference was held in the Jammu Club in Jammu, on 22 February, 2013, marking the date on which the resolution was passed in the Indian Parliament.
The Keynote address was given by Shri. P.C. Dogra, Former Director General of Police, Punjab followed by an address by Prof. K. Warikoo, the Director of the Central Asian Studies Programme in the School of International Studies of JNU.
Shri. P.C. Dogra’s opened his keynote address with the mention of the bomb blasts that took place the previous evening in the southern city of Hyderabad. He highlighted how even after many repeated attacks such as these, India still seems to come off as a nation without a will strong enough to counter or stop such instances from happening again and again. The attack on the Indian Parliament in December 2001 and the attack in Mumbai in November 2008 in addition to all other such events of terror are all, according to him, to be seen as severe attacks to weaken the Nation. Just to counterbalance for the sake of votes, he said, India seems to give a political colour to terrorists, thereby not showing enough political will to seriously curtail further such events. He read out an excerpt of a letter from Sardar Vallabhai Patel to Jawaharlal Nehru in 1950, in which the former had warned Nehru of the threat that the Chinese pose in light of the “disappearance of Tibet as we know it”, with China expanding its borders. The significance of this, he said is seen in today’s PoJK situation, with China playing an active role in empowering Pakistan with its support, as well as having designs of its own as regards the occupation of the Northern Areas.
Therefore he stressed that “we have not been listening to our leaders”. He further emphasised that only by being aware of such forewarnings of the current situation, can the security of India be safeguarded without compromise. India being a wide and vast nation will become hard to keep safe, otherwise, he concluded.
Professor K. Warikoo spoke on the geo-strategic importance of Pakistan occupied Jammu and Kashmir. He disagreed with the claim that the Frontier Area did not belong to India. He claimed that these areas are inherently a part of Indian history since the Kanishka and Kushana times and this is very much supported by physical evidences as found in sculptures, artwork and other building architecture as found in these areas itself. With the support of slides of pictures that were taken during his visit to Gilgit and Baltistan, late last year he showed evidence of the same. In addition, he stated that till the 1950s, the area was still directly under Indian administration for the purposes of trade.
In the following session, Shri. JL Kaul, President of Jammu-Kashmir Study Centre addressed the audience on the present situation of Jammu Kashmir. He gave a brief background to the atrocities that are being committed on the people living there- the near suspension of human and political rights to the people living in these regions and the very desperate economic and social situation that seems to be the everyday reality there. He claimed that while most of population in these areas is Shia. Earlier it was more than 90% Shia in population, however now, with a pro-Sunni Pakistan having all operative control of the administration, one sees maybe even less than 50% of the population remains Shia, today.
Captain Alok Bansal, a Senior Research Fellow at Centre for Land and Warfare Studies (CLAWS) later took stage to talk about the human rights violations that are taking place in the Gilgit-Baltistan area. He stressed on how the power does not seem to lie with the many councils that were created and ordinances passed by the Pakistani Government. He stated that the actual power as regards these areas lies in the hands of a council called the ‘Kashmir (Gilgit-Blatistan) Council’. More than half of the members of this council are nominated from Islamabad, he said.
In light of the above claims he showed a couple of pictures that highlighted the intensity of protests that are taking place against the Pakistani administration, even as latest as 18th February, 2013. It only reflects the sentiments of the people and the larger conscience of the civil society in Gilgit-Baltistan, he stated. If India was to follow up on the political resolution passed on the 22nd of February 1994, it will serve in the interest of Indian political powers that be to understand the aspirations and the psyche, of the people of these areas, he said. To this effect, Captain Bansal split the problems of Gilgit-Baltistan into quick pointers for easy reference and understanding of the audience. To summarise the same, the problems faced there are as below—
Absence of political rights of the people.
Most of the decisions that are taken usually seem to come straight from Islamabad. Even the judiciary for Giglt-Baltistan is appointed from Pakistan.
Ethnic marginalization.
In 1998, the population of these regions was about 8 lakh-odd.Today the population of these regions stands at 14 lakh-odd. A rise of 40% population in just 14 years indicates large illegal migration into these areas. this migration primarily occurs from the neighbouring Khyber-Phaktunwa province. Because of this, a demographic change is taking place, leading to ethnic marginalization. The rich local cultures and practices are getting wiped out with the extent of migration into the existing population. For instance, in Giglit which is the centre of all trade and markets, he states that Pathans and Pashtuns have gained control. The sectarian violence that is taking place in Giglit-Baltistan is essentially a part of the sectarian violence that is taking place in Pakistan.
Lack of representation in Governance
The main sources of employment in the G-B area are in tourism or from recruitment into the Gilgit-Scouts. Even in this is a marked decrease in the number of native people employed. For instance, the Gilgit-Scouts has gone from having only natives in its ranks, to having less than 50% of its members from the regions of Gilgit-Blatistan. This is leading to a lot of discontent amongst the people of these areas.
Economic exploitation
He states that this region, being not only rich with rivers, is also rich in minerals and gems. The construction of the Karakoram Highway facilitates billions of dollars worth of trade that takes place in these regions, but the profits of this do not serve these regions. One can see the lack of development and infrastructure here. In addition to this, even the establishment of a University here seems to be incomplete: the staff is never fully present. This helps the flourishing of Madarsas and other religious institutions in bits and pieces all over the region.
This by extension has led to the erasure of pre-Islamic languages and cultures. He provides the example of Burushaski, a language that is spoken almost exclusively in these areas, but is slowly disappearing. Stating the very same unanimous resolution that was passed in February 1994 in the Parliament of India, many people from these regions demand for reservations in the highest educational institutions of India.
The next most important point that Captain Bansal provided is that of the influence of China in the Gilgit-Baltistan areas. China has started planning inroads in addition to the already existing pipelines. As of today, China has around 32- 36 projects that are operating in Gilgit-Baltistan. In this sense, Captain Bansal concluded that the Government of India, needs to act in such a way as to assure the people here that they will be given support from the Government of India, whose Parliamentary resolutions plan to claim these territories back as their own.
Next, with Dr. Narender Singh came a group of migrants and refugees from various parts of Pakistan occupied Jammu and Kashmir. Each had a story of strife to contribute, to make the audience understand the situation in these areas better. Some of them had firsthand experience of the events that had taken place as the Pakistan administration started taking over their areas, and some others had issues of displacement and the effect on their family and familial dynamics to share with the audience.
One of the key issues that the audience could take away from this particular session was that of the issues that the migrants had faced in the form of ‘registration’ that was done with their and other migrant families in order to enroll them for state benefits. Some claim that hardly any compassion was shown to people who were separated from their families. Many such people were turned away from being registered, as the rules apparently needed the head of the family to be present with any person who wanted to be registered as a ‘migrant’. The other rules were that, if any person whose income was above Rs. 3000 at the time of displacement, they were not to be registered. If they are displaced and have lost their jobs, how is this 3000 rupee income, also something that they have now lost, going to help in being a qualifier in order to be registered for benefits, they ask. Another flaw that was pointed out was that the Government had set a stipulated period for taking migration into account. This period was from 1947-1957. After this, no one who came or wanted to come into India was treated as a migrant, nor was s/he registered as one.
A few other speakers claimed that since they were not put under the category of ‘migrant’, they do not have any access to basic amenities. Another issue is that the Indian Government did not even question the construction of the Mangala Dam. This was constructed on the lands of many Hindus and Sikh refugees. A lot of the refugee families are only just coming to terms with fact that their lands or homes are almost inaccessible to them today. With no formal registration as refugees till today, these families are neither here, nor there. They state that there are almost 39 existing refugee camps, to this day in these Northern Areas, and hence wonder if this isn’t a human rights violation. For the last so many decades, people have been living in refugee camps with nowhere to go; why is this not taken up as a human rights issue in various international forums they ask.
In the next session, Captain Alok Bansal’s book was released. This book shows the relationship between Gilgit-Baltistan and India through a historical context, dismissing the theories from the Pakistan administration that say otherwise. He spoke briefly about legends like Maharaja Lalitaditya, and even the Emperors Akbar and Jahangir who have always had relationships with Gilgit-Baltistan. The economic exploitation of these regions today and the sectarian and ethnic marginalization of the people here are also explored in this book.
Sajjad Hussain Kargili, a social activist and freelance journalist, started off his address to the audience by passionately wondering whether to condemn Pakistan for the atrocities that their administration has been committing in the G-B areas, or whether to blame the India Government for the indifference that they have so conveniently shown towards the same. He said it is regrettable that while Indian civil society in India is aware of the 200 billion dollars spent in Afghanistan, for what cause and the names of influential leaders in Afghanistan, they are not aware of the situation and the aspirations of the people of Gilgit-Baltistan. The Indian administration has not acted in any way whatsoever so as to claim these places as belonging to India. He said, while the Indian political society seems to readily speak out against the atrocities committed in Palestine, or in any other part of the world, they are silent when everyday such atrocities take place in Gilgit-Baltistan by either the Pakistan administration, or by the Taliban, or the fact that a common man does not even have the power to vote in these areas. He mentioned that even commercial flights cannot be operated in these regions, and that for more than 6 months in a year, the region remains almost cut-off from the rest of the country. It seems sad that the Government of India does not seem to be interested in understanding the demographic and the complications in these Northern Regions, he exclaimed.
As Mr. G Parthasarathy, Former High Commissioner of India to Pakistan took stage he stressed that the strife that is going on in the GB area is not limited to these Northern regions, and took the example of the killings of Hazaras in Quetta. He stressed that the complexion of the population in the Northern regions is fast changing thanks to Pakistani designs, just as China is doing in Xinjiang and in Tibet. He also stated that the Indian Government, while in talks with Pakistan never seems to take up these issues into discussion. He highlighted that it seems ridiculous that the Indian administration does not seem to be courageous enough to take up an issue that is so clearly elaborated via a unanimous resolution of the Indian Parliament. While outfits like Lashkar-e-Tayyaba seem to openly declare the fact that their aim is to weaken India and subsequently make it an Islamic nation, the Indian Government does not seem to have a befitting reply to threats that go so openly against the non-exclusivist and secular credentials of this country. The developments in Afghanistan are definitely related to and will have an influence on the security situation in India.
The other problem he highlighted was that of the Chinese one. He said that according to the New York Times, 12-17 thousand of Chinese forces have been deployed in the Giglit-Baltistan area. He also brought the audience’s attention to the fact that there are highways and inroads being constructed by the Chinese, especially from Lhasa to Central Asia- The Western Highway. He spoke about at least 4,000 square kilometers of land that was given to the Chinese on lease by Pakistan: India has not claimed this territory and the Chinese have explicitly said, according to him, that there can be talks as regards this leased out territory only after the already-existing disputes between Pakistan and India are sorted, as this by way of dispute, belongs to Pakistan. However, he said that this meant that all this means that China will only extend this all the way to Gilgit and Chinese influence will only spread, as it has already started doing so with the numerous projects that are already put in the pipeline by the Chinese. Their aim is to make rail-lines till Wadar-Kot. He believes that there is no doubt that soon in the coming years, the Chinese navy will be given bunker facilities in these regions.
In his speech he narrated that in 2003, when China’s then PM went to Pakistan, an understanding was arrived at between the two countries. Elaborating on this, he says that right after that Pervez Musharraf gave a speech in the Pakistan Institute of Strategic Studies after which he called upon the Navy Chief and said to him, that if there is a war with India, it will not just be the Navy of Pakistan, but also that of China. He highlighted that this increasing friendship between China and Pakistan should worry India. Most nuclear facilities that are prevalent in Pakistan actually belong to China, he said.
China’s military engineers, he brought to the audience’s notice, are making tunnels in the regions of Gilgit-Blatistan. This has undercurrents not only as regards their desire to spread their influence into these territories, but is a cause of security concern in case of war-situations as missiles and high intensity explosives can be deployed via these tunnels.
Mr. Parthsarathy said that the historical context in which the resolution of 22 February, 1994 was passed is important: the Indian economy was in a major slump and so were our foreign exchange reserves. The Hurriyat and the Separatists had the support of agencies from the USA and the Clinton Government. Therefore the fact that this a resolution was passed at such a turbulent time is something that one must remember today. Only after the year 1994, he highlighted, did all terrorist organizations like Jaish-e-Mohammad or Laskhar-e-Tayyaba, start gaining foothold in India. Therefore, he concluded the situation in the northern areas is fast deteriorating. However, if the Indian administration keeps its own house happy first, and encourages economic growth, with patience and perseverance, he concluded that India will be able to tackle not just China or Pakistan individually, but also if the two countries do join forces.
This was followed by questions to Shri. Parthasarathy, in addition to the discussions and comments. These largely focused on the lack of political will in India to act on issues as regards the illegal occupation of these territories by Pakistan.
(Prepared by a Research Associate at the India Foundation)