Focus Theme: An Israeli Perspective on the Iranian Nuclear Deal
India Foundation Issue January 2014
Focus: Sardar Patel – The Man and His Views on Indian Nationalism
India Foundation Journal May 2014
Focus Theme: A New Growth Paradigm for India
India’s 29th state
http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/indian-states-union-territories-creation-of-states-states-reorganisation-act-telangana-kcr/1/364853.html
India Foundation Journal November 2013
Focus Theme: India’s Borders: A Comprehensive Review.
2nd International Conference on Dharma-Dhamma
Center for Study of Religion & Society (CSRS) of India Foundation organised the 2nd International Conference on Dharma- Dhamma in collaboration with the Sanchi University of Buddhist-Indic Studies (SUBIS). The Conference was held from 28 February to 2 March, 2014 at the Madhya Pradesh Council of Science & Technology (MAPCOST), Bhopal. The Central Theme of this year’s Conference was Nature, Source and Relevance of Dharma-Dhamma Traditions. The Conference was inaugurated by Her Royal Highness Princess of Bhutan Ashi Sonam Dechan Wangchuck in the august presence of Honorable Chief Minister of Madhya Pradesh Shri Shivraj Singh Chouhan, His Excellency the Governor of Madhya Pradesh Shri Ram Naresh Yadav, Dr. Sarath Amunugama, Hon’ble Senior Minister, International Economic Cooperation, Govt. of Sri Lanka Honorable Minister of State, Culture and Tourism Shri Surendra Patwa, His Holiness Sitagu Sayadaw Dr. Ashin Nyannissara, Chancellor of Sitagu Buddhist Academies, Chairman of the Board of Director, Myanmar, Ven. Samdhong Rinpoche, Chancellor of SUBIS, Ven. Banagla Upatissa Nayaka Thero, President, Mahabodhi Society of Sri Lanka and various renowned Hindu and Buddhist scholars.
The Conference was attended by more than 200 delegates from 10 countries. The inaugural session of the Conference was also a platform for the announcement of Courses by the SUBIS, which is going to start its courses from the Academic year 2014. The courses were announced by Prof. Shashi Prabha Kumar, Chairperson, Special Center for Sanskrit Studies, Jawahar Lal Nehru University. The first copy of the Course booklet was handed over by Dr. Ashin Nyannissara to Dr. Sarath Amunugama. The Key Note Address was also delivered by Dr. Nyannissara.
Several noted Hindu and Buddhist academicians from USA, Canada, Bangladesh, Nepal, S. Korea, Sri Lanka, Vietnam, Myanmar and London enlightened the delegates with their thoughts based on years of research and expertise. Paper presentation sessions were conducted on all the three days as parallel sessions where various academicians and students presented their research papers based on 5 different themes -i) Historical Growth of Buddhist Cannons, ii) Hindu and Buddhist Eschatology iii) Faith
and Mindfulness, iv) Hindu-Bauddha Dharma Traditions and v) Yoga, Spirituality and Health Care.
Academicians and students from colleges/institutions in and around Bhopal took active part to make the Conference a huge success.
India Economic Convention
India Foundation Journal September 2013
Focus Theme: Afghanistan and the Region: Security,
Stability and Prosperity
India Foundation Journal July 2013
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)