PAKISTAN HAS NOT CREATED ANY GOOD ATMOSPHERE IN KASHMIR

At a time when militants have struck the valley, leading to deaths of local policemen (many of them Muslims), but nonetheless, our minister General VK Singh graced a Pakistan Day function, and when a certain section of Kashmiri Muslims is violently protesting against the return of those from the Hindu minority displaced from the valley (though there is also a vocal section of Kashmiri Muslims, including some I know personally, opposing such communalists in their midst), it becomes necessary to reflect on the statement of the current chief minister Mufti Muhammad Sayeed as to whether Pakistan and the militants created a good atmosphere in the valley during the latest state elections. In fact, this piece seeks not only to rebut what Mufti specifically said, but to debunk the notion that Pakistan has ever played any positive role in the resolution of the Kashmir issue, except perhaps on some very rare occasions, but even on those occasions, the Pakistani state was never a monolith in this regard. No, I am not attempting at engaging in anti-Pakistan hate-mongering, but to clear the historical record, and my stand on how Indians should view Pakistan has been spelled out in some detail in this article, and that is not the focus here. I may also clarify that India hasn’t been fully clean when it comes to the Kashmir issue, as I have discussed in this article, but that is not the focus here.

Let us begin the story from when the “Kashmir issue”, as we know it, began. To start with, it was the Pakistani establishment that tried to coercively capture the erstwhile princely state of Jammu and Kashmir, which had been a part of Britain’s Chamber of Princes in undivided India (unlike Nepal, Bhutan and Balochistan), and the Pakistani tribesmen and soldiers raped and plundered people of all faiths, though the Hindu minority of Kashmir was particularly targeted. The claim of the Pakistani and pro-Pakistan propagandists that the invasion was legitimate, for Jammu and Kashmir was a Muslim-majority province with a Hindu ruler, with the Muslim majority unanimously desirous of joining Pakistan, to start with, is dubious. Why do I say so? To examine this, let me cite certain passages from a book Kashmir: The Unwritten History by Australian strategic analyst Christopher Snedden, which is, by no means, pro-India on the whole and has been hailed by many Kashmiri separatists (some of the excerpts are lengthy but definitely make an interesting read and are highly relevant to the topic)-

“despite the fact that J&K had a Muslim-majority population, the political inclinations of the people of J&K were far more complex and uncertain” (page 10)

“neither India nor Pakistan was guaranteed majority popular support” (page 12)

“J&K was politically disunited by forces that had strong- and differing- post-British desires for the princely state's status.” (page 27)

“Despite J&K’s inherent disunity, Hari Singh’s accession would have been much simpler had Muslims in J&K been united in their desire for the state’s future status. Indeed, Muslim disunity is one of the most significant explanations of why the so-called Kashmir dispute began – and continues.” (page 35)

“…the core of the problem in J&K was its people. They were ethnically, religiously and culturally diverse, diffuse and different; they lacked religious and political unity; they were divided in their aspirations for J&K’s future international status.” (pages 35, 36)

“An important trait evident among Kashmiris partially explains why Kashmiri Muslims were ambivalent about Pakistan in 1947. Called ‘Kashmiriness’ or ‘Kashmiriyat’, a newer term with Perso-Arabic roots, this trait was a fundamental and apparently long-held part of Kashmiri identity and culture. Kashmiriness emphasises ‘the acceptance and tolerance of all religions among Kashmiris’. It is ‘manifested in the solidarity of different faiths and ethnic groups in the state’. The concept was apparently epitomized by the patron saint of Kashmir, Sheikh Noor-ud-Din, a Muslim born in 1375 of a Hindu convert to Islam. Popularly known as Nund Rishi, he repeatedly poses a question in a poem; ‘How can members of the same family jeer at one another?’ The answer is the essence of Kashmiriness; Kashmiris, whoever they are and whatever their religious backgrounds and practices, are all members of one indivisible Kashmir Valley ‘family’. It is a recipe – or even a requirement – for tolerance.

One significant consequence of Kashmiriness was that, compared with Hindus and Muslims in Jammu or northern India, Kashmiri Muslims and Kashmiri Hindus (Pandits) had relatively few social divisions or antagonisms. While they nevertheless had disputes and rivalries, the two groups generally were more liberal and more tolerant and, in many cases, had amicable, even close relations. This harmony arose because both shared the same ethnicity, language and geographical region and the same recent history under repressive rulers comprising Muslim Afghans (Durranis), Punjabi Sikhs (Ranjit Singh’s empire) and Jammu Hindus (Dogras), although the latter was less repressive for Pandits. It was important that Kashmiri Muslims and Kashmiri Pandits also enjoyed a similar culture, including revering each other’s religious figures and festivals, eating halal mutton instead of beef or pork (even though Pandits were of the Brahmin or priestly caste that elsewhere usually practised vegetarianism), and not being particular about ‘defilement or pollution by touch’. As a leading Pandit put it, ‘Racially, culturally and linguistically the Hindus and Muslims living in Kashmir [were] practically one’. That said, Kashmiri Pandits also enjoyed greater influence and economic wellbeing than Kashmiri Muslims. This was due to the Pandits’ position as Hindu subjects of a Hindu ruler, from which flowed benefits such as being landowners and their numerically large involvement as state employees. Nevertheless, relations between Kashmiri Muslims and Kashmiri Pandits generally were far more amicable than the relations between Hindu and Muslims in Jammu Province.

One significant result of the concept of Kashmiriness was that Kashmiris may have been naturally attracted to secular thinking. This was partly because they were apparently nor afflicted by the ‘majority-minority complex’ that was evident among Muslims in other parts of the subcontinent, and partly because they were ‘a deeply religious people who abhor[red] politically exploitation of their faith. Hence, the pro-Pakistan stance of the major pro-Pakistan party in J&K, the Muslim Conference, and its Pakistan ally the Muslim League was not automatically popular with Kashmiri Muslims. To join Pakistan simply because it would be a Muslim homeland was an insufficient reason.” (pages 18-20)

“A further factor that caused Kashmiris to be ambivalent about Pakistan was the significant role played in 1947 by Sheikh Abdullah and the political party that he dominated, the National Conference. Abdullah’s role in J&K is very important. For over fifty years (1931-82), he was Muslim Kashmiris’ most popular politician, whether in power or denied it. (Abdullah was jailed for long periods by the Maharaja, by Bakshi Ghulam Mohammed, his successor as Prime Minister in J&K, and by the Indian Government). According to his autobiography, Abdullah’s political career began as early as 1926, when he joined the ‘relentless struggle between the oppressor and the oppressed’ and, desiring the become the people’s savior, began to oppose the Maharaja’s regime and its practices on an individual basis. He disliked a number of the Maharaja’s practices, including discrimination on religious grounds, exploitation of the people through taxation, corruption, the inequitable land system, and the people’s lack of political freedom. Abdullah sprang to prominence in 1931 during the major anti-Maharaja agitation in Srinagar, and event of ‘seminal importance’ that temporarily – but severely – challenged Hari Singh’s rule. Indeed, it was due to Abdullah’s bold part in this uprising that he became known as the Lion of Kashmir. A further consequence of this major uprising was that, as a result of the Glancy Commission formed in order to investigate the uprising’s causes, the Maharaja allowed the formation of the first political party in J&K. In October 1932, the All J&K Muslim Conference was formed in order to safeguard Muslim interest in J&K. Abdullah, a Muslim, later remained this party the All J&K National Conference. Espousing secularism, it would later play a significant role in delivering a large part of J&K to India and in ending the Maharaja’s rule.

Because Sheikh Abdullah had a strong aversion to autocracy, he regarded the concept of Pakistan negatively. Abdullah disliked the Maharaja absolutism. The United States’ Consul in Lahore agreed: saying, ‘according to all disinterested informants [the Maharaja] has never displayed the slightest interest in the welfare of the people over whom he has maintained an autocratic rule. For Sheikh Abdullah, both Jinnah and the Islamic Pakistan that the autocratic Muslim League leader envisaged establishing were also unappealing. The influential Kashmiri leader considered that Pakistan was the result of an emotional Muslim reaction of Hindu communalism and ‘an escapist device’. Abdullah and his colleagues, many of whom were Muslims, also received (correctly) that Pakistan would be dominated by feudal elements, as well as being a society in which Kashmiris and their reform agenda would have little power: ‘Chains of slavery will keep us in their continuous strangehold. Conversely, Abdullah considered that secular India would be different. I would have people and parties, including India’s major party, the Indian National Congress, whose views largely coincided with Abdullah and his party. India also represented an option that would accept the National Conference’s enlightened and progressive ideas’. It embraced more democracy that either Pakistan or the Jinnah-dominated Muslim League, ‘whose leader had a very high opinion of himself’.” (page 21)

Speaking of the pro-Pakistan Muslim Conference formed in 1941, Snedden says-

“…the Muslim Conference faced a major challenge in the numerically and politically important Kashmir Valley; it lacked a charismatic Kashmiri-speaking politician who could rival Sheikh Abdullah and his coterie of Kashmiri colleagues. The Muslim Conference’s stance also was unpopular elsewhere, especially among the non-Muslim majority in eastern Jammu, as its killings of Muslims were clearly showing.” (page 24)

“Although Jinnah (falsely) believed that J&K would fall into Pakistan’s ‘lap like a ripe fruit’ once the Maharaja realized his and the people’s interests and acceded to Pakistan, and although he was prepared to allow the Maharaja’s ‘autocratic government’ to continue, support for independence enabled pro-Pakistan forces to woo the decision maker rather than the people. This approach was pragmatic. However, it also made the Muslim Conference appear keen to gain the Maharaja’s support at any cost. And although this tactic adhered to Jinnah’s statement in July 1947 that princely rulers were free to join Pakistan, India or remain independent, many Muslin Conference members wanted their party’s support for independence reversed. Also, by allowing the ruler to decide the issue, the Muslim Conference enabled its National Conference rival to advance the populist – and eminently mire ‘sellable’ – view that the people should be given self-government so that, ‘armed with authority and responsibility, [they] could decide for themselves where their interests lay’. Apart from advancing its own popularity, the National Conference’s stance also served to reveal the Muslim Conference as simply an appendage or surrogate of the Muslim League – as it was.

The Muslim Conference’s pragmatic approach towards the Maharaja built on a previous stance Jinnah instigated during the National Conference’s ‘Quit Kashmir’ campaign that started on 20 May 1946 with the aim of ridding J&K of Dogra rule. This campaign was significant between the positions of Jinnah and Nehru on J&K. Jinnah opposed Quit Kashmir as a movement ‘engineered by some malcontents’. This stance, coupled with his lack of criticism of J&K’s unpopular ruler, particularly when compared with criticisms made by Nehru and the Indian National Congress, made Jinnah appear pro-Maharaja. This lost the Muslim League leader support among Kashmiri Muslims, especially among the ‘malcontents’, most of whom were National Conference members. Indeed, one such National Conference member, Mir Qasim (who later became the Chief Minister of Indian J&K), believed that Jinnah’s unpopular and insensitive attitude ‘killed the chances of Kashmir going to Pakistan’. The Muslim Conference lost credibility because it did not initially oppose the Maharaja when Quit Kashmir commenced in May 1946 – a policy Jinnah ordered because he believed that the party would do better working through constitutional channels.” (page 26)

“…the Muslim Conference appeared to be steadily lose support, certainly in the Kashmir Valley, owing to poor leadership and increased factionalism; conversely, support for the National Conference increased because it was united and had strong leadership.” (page 27)

I may add to this that Jinnah, in his visit to Kashmir in 1941, received much hostility from sections of Kashmiri Muslims and conceded that he did not get unanimous support. To add to that, when he sent an envoy to Kashmir in 1943 to assess whether Kashmiris would be willing to join Pakistan, his envoy gave him a response, which, to use the language of acclaimed historian Alex von Tunzelmann, was "disheartening" (The Indian Summer, p. 284). Jinnah tried to play his own politics in Kashmir, using the minister Ramchandra Kak, a Kashmiri Hindu, as a Trojan horse, but failed, and you can read about the same here.

It may be added that Shaikh Abdullah continued to be popular with Kashmiri Muslims after his having taken a stand in favour of India and after the Dogra monarchy was displaced, Abdullah ensured that land reforms were carried out by abolishing landlordism and giving peasants ownership over land, which won him tremendous affection from the people of the valley. Pakistan had retained the feudal system of landlordism, as it still has, and many Kashmiri Muslims realized that the land reforms in Kashmir were possible owing to Kashmir being a part of India rather than Pakistan. To quote the noted scholar Michael Brecher from his book The Struggle for Kashmir-

“The vast majority of Kashmiris have benefited from these reforms and many of those interviewed by the author expressed the feat that in Pakistan, where no comparable land reforms have taken place, the land recently given to them might be returned to the landlords or, in any event, that further implementation of the 'New Kashmir' programme will be impossible.” (cited in the 2002 paperback edition of MJ Akbar's book Kashmir - Beyond the Vale on page 139)

Abdullah had clearly stated in the context of Pakistan-

“The most powerful argument which can be advanced in her favour is that Pakistan is a Muslim State, and, a big majority of our people being Muslims the State must accede to Pakistan. This claim of being a Muslim State is of course only a camouflage. It is a screen to dupe the common man, so that he may not see clearly that Pakistan is a feudal state in which a clique is trying by these methods to maintain itself in power...” (cited in the 2002 paperback edition of MJ Akbar's book Kashmir - Beyond the Vale on page 139)

Even today, there are Kashmiri Muslims, including those who want their region to be an independent country, who acknowledge that back then, Abdullah had made the right decision by opting for India. As one such person has articulated-

“The first question that comes to mind is would the Pakistani establishment quash the Feudal or Zamindari systems in Kashmir handing the land over to the tillers? Do keep in mind that even today Pakistan is a feudal society with most of the land in the hands of the Punjabi Chaudhrys. I mean all that the Kashmiri Hindus and Dogra land owners had to do was convert to Islam and just like the Punjabi Chaudhrys of Pakistan continue with the feudal system.”

He further says-

“Now picture yourself as a common Kashmiri filling the chillum of a Punjabi Pakistani Chaudhry or that of a Kashmiri Hindu/Dogra Feudal lord with tobacco and ask yourself this question.............how smart was Sheikh Mohammed Abdullah?”

And by the way, Islam as a religion emphasizes socioeconomic egalitarianism and the first land reforms in world history were carried out by the caliph Hazrat Umar Bin Khattab, and so, it is particularly shameful that Pakistan, calling itself an Islamic state, still has an institutionalized zamindari system, as Pakistani liberal Hasan Nisar points out!

However, coming back to Kashmir, the pointers raised as justifications for Pakistan’s armed actions either take the form of whataboutism with respect to India’s stand on the Muslim-ruled, Hindu-majority Hyderabad and Junagadh, or cite the pro-Pakistan rebellion in Poonch before the Pathan tribal raid (the latter point became popular to cite after Snedden’s book mentioned it). 

The Poonch rebellion does go to show that the Dogra king was unpopular among his subjects, but that is something already acknowledged by Indians and Pakistanis alike. From the Indian point of view, Jawaharlal Nehru’s trips to Kashmir in which he peacefully took on the monarchy and even faced arrest in the princely state are well-known. But when he assumed the role of India’s prime minister, Nehru did not engage in such adventures and did not interfere, at least blatantly, in the internal affairs of Jammu and Kashmir, which would amount to disrespecting sovereignty.

It may have very well been legitimate for the pro-Pakistan Muslims of Poonch to rise in armed revolt against their king, just as it may have been legitimate for the pro-India Shaikh Abdullah to lead peaceful movements against the monarchy in the valley (and Shaikh Abdullah’s mass struggle had a history predating the Poonch rebellion in 1947), but how do these become the starting point of what we conventionally understand as the “Kashmir issue” involving India, Pakistan and the people of the (now erstwhile) princely state? And if the Poonch rebellion is indeed taken as the starting point, it can only be on two grounds - the first being that these rebels wanted accession to Pakistan [in Snedden’s words-“The only way the Maharaja could possibly appease Poonch Muslims would be to accede to Pakistan; they would not have settled for anything less.” (page 32)] and the second being that there were elements in Pakistan that supported the rebellion. To quote from Snedden’s interview given to Tehelka correspondent Baba Umar (who is a Kashmiri separatist and happens to be an acquaintance of mine)-“there was some degree of support from the Pakistan government”. 

Let us examine both points one by one. As regards Poonch Muslims wanting accession to Pakistan, this hardly goes very far in suggesting that the majority of the populace in the whole of the erstwhile princely state of Jammu and Kashmir favoured accession to Pakistan, as the excerpts from not only Snedden’s book but even other sources stated above, demonstrate. 

So, even if the Muslims of Poonch were united in the demand for the accession of Jammu and Kashmir to Pakistan, the people (even Muslims) of the entire princely state were not, and indeed, it has been no one’s case that there wasn’t a pro-Pakistan section among the people of the erstwhile princely state, but Snedden himself concedes that it cannot be said with certainty as to what the aspirations of the majority of the populace were. Hence, Pakistan’s case for claiming Jammu and Kashmir solely on the basis of its Muslim majority falls flat, as opposed to India’s case for a majority of people in the princely states of Hyderabad and Junagadh desiring to join India, which was proved by subsequent plebiscites. The hurdle in the plebiscite in Jammu and Kashmir came not from India, which had already promised the Kashmiris a plebiscite, but Pakistan, which, in violation of the 1948 UN resolution, refused to withdraw its troops from the part of the erstwhile princely state it had occupied in the 1947-48 war following the Pashtun tribal raid, which, as per the resolution, was a precursor to the plebiscite. Nehru had, in fact, gone on record even later to say that he was willing to follow the UN resolution (i.e. conduct the plebiscite) in the whole of the erstwhile princely state if Pakistan complied with the precondition of withdrawing its troops, as can be seen from this video (watch 1:58 onwards). Now, it must be mentioned that many Kashmiri separatists who haven’t read the UN resolution and just know that it calls for a plebiscite often invoke the UN resolution, but when made to realize that the resolution is not exactly what they claim it to be, their entire stance changes to ridiculing international law itself being irrelevant and a conspiracy of Western powers, a stance diametrically opposite to the one they took before learning of what the resolution entailed! 

However, if they support self-determination as an absolute right, which is to say that any part of any country should be unilaterally allowed to secede at will, would they support any household declaring itself as a separate country and not paying taxes, desiring to have diplomatic relations with their country, or any district of the independent Jammu and Kashmir they envisage to secede at will? Pray, quite the contrary, their leaders do not wish to give Hindu-majority Jammu and Buddhist-majority Ladakh that right in the independent country they envisage! And speaking of Pakistanis and those who are pro-Pakistan, given the secessionist voices in Sindh and the secessionist or pro-Afghanistan voices in Khyber Pakhtoonwa, are they willing to conduct plebiscites in these particular provinces?

Also, when Shaikh Abdullah had later started vacillating in the 1950s between Kashmir being a part of India with some autonomy, and being an independent country altogether (Pakistan was still not an option for him, and a reason for vacillating from his firm pro-India stance was his concern over Hindu majoritarianism in India, which had manifested itself even in the killing of Mahatma Gandhi), and Nehru had him imprisoned, Nehru did, on the other hand, again offer Pakistan a plebiscite! To be quote the eminent writer MJ Akbar on this point, from his highly acclaimed book Kashmir – Behind the Vale (2002 paperback edition)-

“Within a fortnight of arresting Abdullah for asking too much of Delhi, Jawaharlal Nehru completely reversed India’s position and offered Pakistan a plebiscite!

The Prime Minister of Pakistan, now Mohammad Ali, came to Delhi on an official visit. In the talks Nehru suggested that after the two Prime Ministers had finalized the preliminary issues, a plebiscite administrator could be named by April 1954. He even told Mohammad Ali that voting could be done in the whole state rather than separate Hindu & Muslim regions, and if this meant the loss of the whole Valley, he was prepared for it! The offer was confirmed in a letter to Mohammad Ali on 3 September.” (page 154)

“The only condition Nehru placed was that the American UN nominee Admiral Nimitz be replaced ad Plebiscite Administrator by someone form a smaller country. Deeply suspicious of the US, he did not want this superpower’s hand in the plebiscite.” (page 154)

“If there were any doubts about Nehru’s sincerity in those years about the plebiscite commitment, then surely they should have ended with this proposal.” (page 154)

Akbar further mentions how Pakistan’s insistence on the US admiral led Nehru to withdraw the offer. For more on how Pakistan sought to avoid a plebiscite, see this.

In fact, Pakistan's stand was always to go purely by the will of the ruler, by virtue of which it had sought to engage Hindu-majority princely states like Hyderabad, Junagadh, and even Jodhpur and Jaisalmer (in Jodhpur and Jaisalmer, even the rulers were Hindu, unlike Hyderabad and Junagadh) to join it. It had never basically adopted the principle of a plebiscite, to begin with. 

Speaking of the second point of how the Pakistani state machinery supported or at least allowed non-state actors to support an armed rebellion in Poonch, does acknowledging this help Pakistan’s case? Certainly not, as it would amount to blatant disregard for international law! It is already embarassing for the Pakistani state to admit that its non-state actors (Pashtuns) had infiltrated into another territory! And on this point, we may delve a little more into the legal status of the erstwhile princely state following India’s independence. The princely states were, after the British government taking control over India from the British East India Company, following the Revolt of 1857, no longer the subsidiary but sovereign powers they were prior to that but subordinated officially to the British Crown, as Queen Victoria proclaiming herself to be the Empress of India, demonstrated as also the Chamber of Princes in New Delhi. However, once the British left India, the princely states re-emerged as sovereign entities, with the lapse of British paramountcy as becomes clear from Section 2 of the Indian Independence Act, 1947, meeting all the four criteria established under Article 1 of the Montevideo Convention on Rights and Duties of States, which are stated hereunder verbatim-

(a) a permanent population; 

(b) a defined territory; 

(c) government; 

and

(d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.

As regards the first three clauses, little explanation is required. But if there’s any ambiguity about the last one, mention may be made of the standstill agreements many of the princely states entered into with India and Pakistan, which they were authorized to do by the British. In this connection, those who understand Hindi can watch this video (from 11:12 to 13:06).

And Jammu and Kashmir had entered into a standstill agreement with Pakistan (something that Snedden mentions in his book on page 9), which was violated by the latter during the 1947 aggression. The very fact that the princely states could voluntarily accede to any country again reflects their sovereign character. However, the British had made it clear unofficially that the princely states must opt for India or Pakistan. To quote Snedden on this point-

“Powerbrokers in 1947 also were influenced by the method used to decolonize Princely India (as against British-controlled India), whereby each ruler was deemed to have the power – and, indeed, was expected – to accede to either India or Pakistan. Princely states therefore were considered to be indivisible and without any independent future. Neither the departing British nor the future leaders of India and Pakistan sought partition of any princely state along religious lines, nor would they countenance independence for any of them. Instead, the British encouraged each princely ruler to consider geographical factors and the will of his subjects in deciding his accession. Even though the accession would clearly impact on all of the prince’s subjects, nevertheless there were no legal requirements or popular pressures for the ruler to consider either factor. He alone would decide the accession. And, once it was decided, the expectation was that all of his princely state would, along with the ruler, join the new dominion of his choice.” (page 7)

While the British did convey to the princes that they must opt for India or Pakistan [this is testified by great Indian nationalist leader Maulana Azad’s account in his autobiography India Wins Freedom that as early as in 1942, Sir Stafford Cripps, a British politician representing his government, on a visit to India, “told the Maharaja of Kashmir that the future of the States was with India”, that “(n)o prince should for a moment think that the British Crown would come to his help if he decided to opt out” and that “(t)he princes must therefore look up to the Indian Government and not the British Crown for their future” (page 61 of the 2009 reprint) – the demand for Pakistan wasn’t being seriously considered then; if Lord Mountbatten's account as narrated to Larry Collins and Domique Lapierre in their book Freedom at Midnight is true, then Mountbatten had also tried hard to convice Raja Hari Singh to not entertain fancies of independence], there was no legal obligation upon them to do so. Thus, legally, it was for the ruler to decide and in this case, he opted for India, and Alistair Lamb’s contention that the instrument of accession did not exist on paper has now been disproved with the document being brought out in the public domain. If the counterargument is made to run that popular support ought to have been the basis, as was the case in Hyderabad and Junagadh, then the rebuttal to that has already been stated above (i.e. that Pakistan did not withdraw its troops, and having to do so was a precursor to the plebiscite), and it may be added that Pakistan did not conduct any plebiscite while getting the ruler of Balochistan, which, like Nepal and Bhutan, was not even legally a part of India, to coercively sign the instrument of accession in its favour.

Thus, with all the emphasis given by Snedden to the Poonch rebellion, his contention that it would suit Pakistan to highlight the same or that it, in any way, tilts the narrative in its favour, is a flawed conclusion, even in the light of much of what he has said in that very book! In fact, on the other hand, the Pakistani narrative so far had only stressed the atrocities of the king's army in Poonch (to justify the Pashtun tribal raid), trying to overlook that they were armed rebels backed by the Pakistani state, and this fact exposed by Snedden only makes Pakistan guilty of violating sovereignty, which is the cornerstone of international law! 

Other than the Poonch rebellion, Snedden has also highlighted that in Jammu, there were communal riots in 1947-1948 as a result of the partition of India, in which both Hindus and Muslims lost their lives (though Kashmir was largely free from such violence), but again, that only goes to show that there was a section of pro-Pakistan Muslims in the erstwhile princely state, and as we have discussed above, that is something no one denies and doesn’t take us very far. However, moving on from here, obviously, any sincere attempt at resolving the Kashmir issue would mean respecting the Line of Control as a de facto border, as India and Pakistan have officially agreed to, and seeking the path of negotiation for conflict resolution.

Next, let us take a further leap in history to 1965. When Operation Gibraltar was launched by Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, sending ISI agents to instigate an armed rebellion in Kashmir, that can certainly not be taken to be contributing to a conducive atmosphere, and that nefarious design failed. Likewise, the incursion by Pakistani soldiers in regions like Kargil in 1999, leading to a full-blown war, is something that cannot be appreciated either. In fact, while the Indo-Pak war of 1971 is cited by Pakistanis as an Indian attempt to partition their country, the fact is that even in that war was initiated by Pakistan on India’s western front in Rajasthan (remember the Battle of Longawala, shown in the movie ‘Border’?), as is conceded by Pakistani analysts themselves. And yes, after the creation of Bangladesh, the Bihari and other non-Bengali Muslims were not and still have not been given citizens’ rights in that country (though Bengali Hindus and Christians in Bangladesh do have citizens’ rights), and Pakistan has not accepted those people identifying themselves as Pakistanis as its citizens either, but wants to have Kashmir!

In fact, in the late 1960s, when a Kashmiri Muslim by the name of Maqbool Bhat who wanted an independent Jammu and Kashmir, including the part occupied by Pakistan, crossed the border and sought Pakistan’s help for an armed rebellion he wished to engineer, they refused it, saying that he must support the whole of the erstwhile princely state joining Pakistan, and tortured him to that end, but he refused to accept that Kashmir should be a part of a country under de facto military rule. When they failed to convince him, they sent him to India, where he was subsequently hanged! Here's a piece on Bhat in a liberal Pakistani newspaper - http://blogs.tribune.com.pk/story/20991/maqbool-butt-kashmir-doesnt-want-any-of-it-no-indian-rulers-and-no-pakistani-generals/. (However, his death sentence in India came only after some of his comrades killed an Indian diplomat in Europe, and that murder must obviously be condemned in the strongest terms.) So much for Pakistan genuinely respecting the wishes of the Kashmiri people! While Maqbool Bhat is hailed as a hero by most Kashmiri Muslims today, they would be surprised to learn that the strongly pro-Pakistan section among them back then abhorred him so much that the pro-Pakistan Jamaat-e-Islami in Kashmir expelled one of its members for protesting against Bhat’s hanging! Here's an interview of one off Bhat's associates about torture by the Pakistani establishment for desiring an independent Kashmir, rather than Kashmir as a part of Pakistan - http://mayatoday.com/inner.php?id=5407. 

Since 1989, Pakistan has been encouraging militancy in Kashmir and used the Hizbul Mujahidin, which supports Pakistan’s stance, to fight the JKLF fighters who were desirous of an independent Kashmir and were also fighting the Indian state. This excerpt from an interview of someone who was earlier in the Hizbul Mujahidin and has now taken to electoral politics under the Indian constitution is worth citing-

“Just before I left for India, there was a ferocious showdown over the course of events, with an ISI officer whom we knew as General Liaqat Ali. I was then the vice-chairman of the council of 15 groups active in Jammu and Kashmir. At a meeting in Rawalpindi, I asked him point- blank what Pakistan wanted to do about this aimless war of attrition. He replied that our job was to prick India just enough to make it bleed, but not enough to make it bite back. I became very angry, since we were the ones who were doing the bleeding, not India. Nine of us walked out, and came back only after a great deal of persuasion. I now knew that we were fighting a war for Pakistan, not for Jammu and Kashmir. I just wish that more of the nine people who were with me that day had the courage to take the course I have taken.

But of the future, who knows? Abdul Majid Dar is making some efforts to bring about some change in the Hizbul Mujahideen. The Hurriyat's Abdul Ghani Lone, I know, is committed to peace. I worked with him for many years, and I know where his heart lies.

As for me, I have other things on my mind. While I was in Dhaka, a student asked me where my village, Groora, was. "Don't you know," I joked, "it's the greatest tourist country of the world!''

It's heading that way. We've planted trees over 30,000 kanals of land, for which each person in the village pays Rs.10 a month. We have ducks and even bear in the area now. I've spent Rs.20 lakhs on a school for the area's children. In the next election, I'm going to tell the people I can't solve the Kashmir dispute, but I can make a difference to their lives. After these years of pain and bloodshed, I think that is more important than anything else."

The militancy sponsored by Pakistani establishment is what has led the Indian state to have its troops stationed even in civilian areas in Kashmir, and life became worse for the common Kashmiri. More and more Kashmiri Muslims are convinced that joining Pakistan would not be a good idea (something acknowledged by Western analysts and even Pakistani analysts), sensing the instability of that country and the rise of terrorism, the terrorists being those who were earlier to be utilized against India. The terrorism has not been confined to the Kashmir valley alone, where it has taken a toll on the Hindu minority, most of which has had to leave its homeland (an Indian Muslim acquaintance of mine wrote a powerful piece for the Pakistani media on this issue, and going by what he has to say, the media house changed the title of his piece; the first comment by a Kashmiri Muslim is also worth a read) , but even many Kashmiri Muslims with a pro-India political posturing, many of whom were also killed, and many of whom also left the valley (as also Kashmiri Muslims running radio stations and cinema halls, for the militants saw music and cinema as un-Islamic), but also elsewhere in India, such as the 26/11 Mumbai attacks, at the behest of the ISI, which apparently made it impossible to have a genuine resolution of the Kashmir issue, which democratic governments on both sides of the border were aiming at (which is why I said that the Pakistani establishment, even if having well-meaning elements, has never acted as a monolith on this score). Even until recently, village headmen in the valley were killed for contesting elections under the Indian constitutional setup! And so much for Mufti’s expression of gratitude, there were indeed instances of militancy during the latest state elections in J&K too, that took the lives of Kashmiri policemen and civilians (it is noteworthy that local Kashmiri Muslim policemen have played a crucial role in the fight against militancy, which must be acknowledged and even appreciated) and thereafter as well. Not too long ago, in October 2014, we had Musharraf, someone with political aspirations and who is credited with having lowered militant infiltration during his tenure, say that Pakistan is ready for war with India over Kashmir!

Next, it may be useful to examine what some rational Pakistanis themselves make of the “Kashmir obsession” of some of their countrymen. These articles/videos - https://www.facebook.com/iconoclast999/posts/10153181468487873?fref=nf, http://nation.com.pk/blogs/21-Feb-2015/why-do-pakistanis-love-kashmir, http://nation.com.pk/blogs/06-Feb-2015/kashmir-is-not-pakistan-s-jugular-vein and http://tribune.com.pk/story/202209/time-to-forget-kashmir/, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=17B5e9s_zZc, are worth a read/watch in this context.

This article would be incomplete without acknowledging the problems of people in POK, which can be read about in these articles - http://www.jammu-kashmir.com/insights/insight990902.html , http://www.weeklyvoice.com/south-asian-news/pakistani-kashmiris-struggle-under-islamabads-azad-kashmir/, http://www.pressforpeace.org.uk/Gilgit-Baltistan/Baba-Jan and http://www.lfpress.com/2013/06/13/fatah-west-must-wake-up-to-aggressive-sino-pak-partnership.

As I stated at the outset, this piece was meant to make a summary of the historical record, and I hope that it has served that purpose well.

Karmanye Thadani

POVERTY

Poverty is denial of choices and opportunities, a violation of human dignity. Where the persons lacks the basic capacity needed to participate in a society effectively. This is how a person, who does not have enough to clothe himself or his family, or go to a school or afford  medical assistance, or to grow or buy his own food, exists. Insecurity, powerlessness and exclusion are common factors of poverty. The denial of access to clean water and sanitation is one of the most bleak aspects of the fragile environment of a poverty ridden person.

Some of the many factors that lead to the socio-economic issue of poverty are lack of education and sanitation, cultural and religious discrimination, unemployment, corruption, overpopulation etc. According to a report by UNICEF, 22,000 children die every day due to poverty.

There are mainly two regions in the world which are severely affected by poverty - South Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa.

Understanding the intensity of the problem, various governments across the globe are taking actions to eradicate extreme poverty.

Also in order to curb the problem of poverty, the Global Poverty Project was founded by Hugh Evas and Simon Moss with an aim to increase the number of people who would help eradicate poverty.

They have envisioned a poverty-free generation and have made efforts in this direction by following two strategies:

      •         They campaign for government, business and consumer action to create a change in the conditions of the poor.

      •           They have helped build a movement which encourages education and self help techniques amongst the poor.

Their activities since the commencement of the project include

      •           1.4 billion reasons

      •           Live below the line

      •           The End of polio

      •           Global Citizen

      •           Global Citizen Festival

Poverty Reduction is one of the Millennium Development Goals of the United Nations and the targets include:

            •           Halving the proportion of people who have income that is less than $1.25 a day.

            •           Achieving full and productive employment and work for all women and young people.

            •           A Reduction to half in the proportion of people who suffer from hunger.

The United Nations has taken effective measures and we are on our journey to eradicate poverty at a global level. However a lot has to be done during this journey to attain the final goal .

 AVANTIKA SARDANA

IN THE NAME OF ALLAH

_{The ideology of Islam is to create brotherhood and spread peace all around the world. Sadly, this beautiful message has not been done justice by an Islamist jihadi group, ISIS, who claims that the group represents the restoration of the Caliphate of early Islam, with all the political, religious and eschatological ramifications that this would imply.}

_{ISIS is an extremist rebel group controlling territory in Iraq and Syria. The group proclaimed itself to be a worldwide caliphate with Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi being named its caliph. Since its formation in 1999, ISIS is now increasingly being viewed as a militia rather than a terrorist group. But what brought them to the world's attention was the activities undertaken by them in the name of Allah. The slaughter of the common people is carried out by ISIS militia without a flicker of shame or guilt. Driven by what this group sees as divine command and devastation only thought possible in films, the Islamic militant group has pushed the definition of terrorism and barbarism to a whole new and scary level.}

_{The shocking fact is these hideous act are executed by the people who claim to be devout Muslims. They also claim that they are merely ‘following’ their holy scripture 'Quran' and that they are the true followers of Prophet Mohammed. The militants go about their business by beheading innocent people and only minutes later, they all go and join each other in a humble prayer to god. This demonstration has to be seen to be believed about how religion, an institution that should unite humans in peace, can turn into a license for lawless slaughter. Written thousands years back, Quran narrates stories relating to daily life of that time. ISIS believes in literally adopting the sayings by heart and applying them in current life and affairs. ISIS flag shows the Seal of Muhammad within a white circle, with the phrase above it, “There is no God but Allah.” The ISIS has attracted extremists from different parts of the world by promoting the image of a holy war.}

_{ISIS could be a peril to Islam’s reputation and future around the world. If the group of people claiming themselves to be the ‘true devotees of Allah’ have the driven passion to spread Caliphate in the world and kill Non-Muslims in the most barbaric ways possible, imagine the impression these same people are giving about their Holy Book Quran and its teachings to the rest of the world. The acts will grievously hamper the reputation of global peace across religions and Islam. Islam will be looked down upon because of few nitwits who have misinterpreted the true meaning of the verses of the Quran and are causing havoc round the world. This gives rise to the need for a serious change of perception which needs to be undertaken by high profile Muslim scholars to at least purify Hadith (sayings) from tons of controversies and avoiding any more Islamist groups coming up.}

_{The task of dismantling the ISIS' bad ideas and dangerous misunderstandings of ‘divine command’ is the vital battle that should be fought by the entire human race, standing as one power.}

_{Monica Yashleen}

INDO-PAK RELATIONS AND INDIA’S PEACE-MONGERS: A NON-JINGOISTIC, CENTRIST STANDPOINT

Let me state at the very outset that I am not an anti-Pakistan hate-monger. I have written about the very many liberal Muslim intellectuals in Pakistan, how the religious minorities there, though certainly under perennial threat, are not in as bad a shape as many of us imagine and I have even written articles for one of their leading media houses, including one condemning an attack on innocent Pakistani student Ali Hassan Raza in India. I have had friendly interactions with Pakistanis in my travels abroad, and both my parents have visited that country, recounting pleasant experiences. Pakistanis have also visited my school and college for competitions and exchange programmes, and I have had nice exchanges with them.

Having said that, I may point out that there is a left-liberal section of Indians who tend to equate India and Pakistan in terms of pinning the blame when it comes to belligerence between the two countries (equating the victim and the perpetrator, for India can't be blamed for defending its borders, and the dialogue in the movie 'Lakshya' - "SHUT UP... JUST SHUT UP! Tumko aman aur shanti chahiye....humko bhi aman aur shanti chahiye... to kya karein? Hath par hath rakhkar khade ho jayen... thali pe paros dein apna mulk? hawale kar de unke", implying that while peace is indeed desirable, it is necessary to defend the sovereignty of one’s country if it is attacked, is relevant in this context), as also when it comes to religious majoritarianism in both the countries. These “peace-mongers” (as distinct from those engaging in meaningful peace activism), entertaining a superiority complex of being liberal and looking down upon the supposedly illiberal Indian masses (those supposedly illiberal folks, by the way, are also full of fans of Ali Zafar, Atif Aslam, Fahad Khan and Rahat Fateh Ali Khan, to know well enough that all Pakistanis are not terrorists, and while it goes without saying that these Pakistani artists are appreciated for their artistic talent rather than just being Pakistani, as should be the case, it goes to show how Indians are willing to appreciate Pakistani artists to the extent of adoring them, without their being Pakistani coming in the way), seem to believe that merely chanting slogans of peace from their rooftops and Indo-Pak cultural programmes can, by themselves, resolve the Kashmir issue! They, unlike intellectually honest Pakistani liberals (for whom I have the highest regard), even tend to shy away from frankly discussing the terror factory in Pakistan, trying to dodge it by way of whataboutism. The whataboutism takes the form of speaking of Hindu communalism in India, which, in spite of all its anti-Pakistan rhetoric, has not translated itself into a factory of well-trained terrorists crossing the border to kill innocent civilians there (though it has translated itself into horrendous riots against innocent Muslims and Christians in India, which must be condemned in the strongest terms, but is an internal Indian matter, and though India needs to do more to ensure communal harmony, Pakistan is certainly no better on this front). Alternatively or as a supplement, the whataboutism of India’s peace-mongers takes the form of pointing to how Pakistanis are also victims of terrorism, their slogan being "terrorism has no nationality" as though we need to tell aliens from outer space to solve the problem, and as though Pakistanis dying in terror attacks reduces the accountability of the Pakistani state to nip the terror factory in its bud, though logically, it should only increase that sense of responsibility in the government of Pakistan, and with all due respect to humanitarian concern for Pakistani victims of terrorism, it's only normal for Indians to be more concerned about what directly threatens them, and no, the Indian government has not orchestrated any Kargil war or Operation Gibraltar, all the Indo-Pak wars actually having been initiated by Pakistan, and if an Indian states these facts, as many Pakistani liberals do, it doesn't mean that he/she is biased (supporting your own side can’t automatically be presumed to be bias, if one has a rational basis, and this is not to say that one should be blinded by nationalist bias to consider the morality of the Indian state in foreign policy, or even engagement with secessionist forces, to be axiomatic, but that doesn’t mean writing off genuine contentions where the Indian state has an upper hand), and no, the Indian media doesn’t invite to its studios those promoting bizarre, baseless conspiracy theories, the way some media houses in Pakistan invite Zaid Hamid (who goes to the extent of taking pride in the killings of Hindus in Afghanistan, and laments that it has been long since it was repeated by the Pakistani establishment!). The Pakistani establishment, as Pakistani liberals point out, is responsible for having created terrorists in the first place, some of whom have turned against their erstwhile master, and that is, by no means, India’s fault.

Some among the peace-mongers even try to suggest that so much as raising the issue of terrorism emanating from Pakistan implies an anti-Muslim sentiment (yes, in a debate in Jesus and Mary College, Delhi, I once attended, I remember a girl interjecting someone to the effect whether that person was communal because that person had talked about terrorism in India emanating from Pakistan), which is the biggest insult to Muslims, for this misplaced logic unintentionally equates all Muslims as being somewhat associated with the terror factory! Islamophobia in India is a real problem (I have written an e-book, available for free download, trying to logically address and dispel the same, and I would request all readers with even the mildest sense of anti-Muslim resentment to peruse that book with an open mind, not skim through it judging it by preconceived notions, and equally, I would assert that there is much exaggeration of Muslim victimhood in India, which I have discussed at some length in this article), but it cannot be checked by brushing the facts about Muslim extremism under the carpet, for facts cannot be hidden forever and combating extremism under any banner cannot be effective until we understand how that banner is being invoked to ideologically, or even strategically, counter the same (if some Muslims are resorting to extremism in the name of Islam, we need to counter their version of Islam and the prejudices they hold about whoever they are against, and I have discussed how to do so in this article; just chanting the mantra of peace, without addressing real or perceived grievances or countering regressive ideologies in specific cases, is no solution ever).

And yes, India doesn't have discriminatory laws against its religious minorities like the blasphemy law in Pakistan or the law that restricts the Ahmedias' civil liberties and religious freedoms in Pakistan, nor have the religious minorities here faced any systematic ethnic cleansing that has reduced their percentage in the Indian population (as is the case with the Hindus of Pakistan, and sections of the minority communities of Pakistan have almost never been involved in rioting or terrorism, the scenario in India being different, given the Khalistanis, Indian Mujahidin and some terror groups in India’s northeast invoking Christianity), nor did the saffronized textbooks of the previous NDA government present such blatantly biased and distorted versions of history as we see in Pakistan, and to use the logic of whataboutism employed by the peace-mongers, more Muslims have been dying at the hands of Muslim extremists in Pakistan than Muslims at the hands of Hindu extremists in India over the last few years. Indeed, prejudices about "the other" exist among many people, to varying degrees, on both sides of the border, and need to be dispelled, and people-to-people contact can help in creating a good climate, but till both sides have a frank discussion of political narratives (people-to-people contact has usually just meant exchanging pleasantries, but just mention ‘Kashmir’ and the average Indian and the average Pakistani, if really compelled to discuss the same, will be a hardcore jingoist) and shed their chauvinistic versions of nationalism (but this does not mean, in the Indian context, shying away from acknowledging the dismal scenario in Pakistan for what it is), long-term Indo-Pak peace is not possible, and while there are those with vested interests in perpetuating the conflict in both India and Pakistan, the biggest stumbling block is the Pakistani army, which always actually seeks to derive its political legitimacy and huge budgetary share from the anti-India bogey!

In fact, I would even go to the extent of asserting that till such time as Pakistan doesn’t liberate its democracy from the mullah-military nexus (here’s a piece on that nexus by a Pakistani liberal), peace with India is impossible, and hence, we should always have the best degree of preparedness when it comes to war and terrorism. As eminent Indian police officer KPS Gill has aptly stated-


"There is... one general principle that must guide our explorations, perspectives, plans and projections: The primary and most effective strategy to avoid war is to prepare for it. It is one of the ironies of the human condition that, if you love peace, you must be ready and willing to fight for it. The weak, the vulnerable, the unprepared and the irresolute will always tempt the world and call misfortune and ruin upon themselves. This is tragic, but it is the inexorable lesson of history. It is strength that secures respect and dignity; conciliation, appeasement, and a desperation to avoid confrontation at all costs - these will only bring contempt and aggression in their dower."
Stern measures like suspending trade with Pakistan, which strengthens their economy much more than ours, may not be a bad idea, and trying to have talks is impossible if there are repeated terrorist attacks from their end.



Our left-liberal chorus that wants India to severe trade ties with Israel (an idea I do not support) should not logically have any objections to this proposal, given the sponsorship of terrorism by the Pakistani establishment not only in India* but even in Iran and Afghanistan, as also Pakistan’s poor human rights record with the Baloch people who have been deprived of self-determination (theirs was an independent country like Nepal or Bhutan, invaded by Pakistan, and those who suggest that it is the same vis-à-vis India and Kashmir should read

this article) and subjected to aerial bombings. On the other hand, however, we must equally not stereotype the Pakistani populace in a negative fashion, not only because it’s fundamentally wrong and may incite more violence from their end, but because keeping an open mind is necessary for us to resolve issues with Pakistan if it ever gets out of the mess it is in, for long-term peace and stability, which will only be in our interest, and jingoism perpetuating conflict is not. We must indeed, with an open mind, understand the multiple narratives of the Kashmir issue (no, it is really not as oversimplified as many of us imagine) and work towards a compromise that ensures an end to conflict, for no other avenue is possible with a fellow nuclear power. Indeed, to explain this with an analogy, Nehru was not overly trusting of or generous to the Chinese as many imagine, but in fact, a little too aggressive and tried to unilaterally impose the Indian position on the Sino-Indian borders, on the Chinese (his infamous “Forward Policy” among those who know of it), ignoring the advice of military officers like Thimayya asking him to not provoke the Chinese, and rejecting the very fair and pragmatic Chinese offer of a swap of Indian and Chinese claims over Aksai Chin and Arunachal Pradesh respectively (kindly study the history of the Sino-Indian border dispute carefully and with an open mind before calling me anti-national), and even resorting to the threat of force, leading to the war of 1962 disastrous for India, and the conflict has only perpetuated, and so, if and when Pakistan liberates itself from the mullah-military nexus (the likelihood of which seems very low), we should be in a position to arrive at a lasting solution. There are some people circulating saffron maps (possibly inspired by green maps of a proposed Islamic caliphate, even including parts of India, a very ridiculous idea) online, showing Myanmar (not a part of India in Mauryan or Mughal times) and several other neighbouring countries (including obviously Pakistan) as a part of the proposed to-be larger India. While many would dismiss this as childish, it only worsens the image of India among neighbouring countries, where, barring Afghanistan and Bhutan, India is seen as a hegemonic power (and this negative image only works to the strategic advantage of India’s adversaries). Some international observers have even unfortunately and erroneously taken this seriously as translating into the BJP having a territorial expansionist ideology, as you can see here. Also, gone are the days when the size of a country solely determined its status (that way, India is larger than England and way larger than Singapore!), and trying to accommodate unwilling citizens (like Pakistanis), who are bound to raise the banner of revolt, is not a good idea! Also, being a developing nation wherein very many Indians suffer from poverty and illiteracy, solving these problems within our borders should be our primary focus.

Not being a hawk doesn’t mean acting like a perennial dove, and your having met some very nice and friendly Pakistani individuals, in no way, changes the security threat India faces. We must commemorate all those innocent civilians, irrespective of religion or nationality, who died in all the terrible terrorist attacks on our soil, the sacrifices of all those Indian security personnel, irrespective of religion, who fought Pakistani soldiers and terrorists risking their lives, some dying martyrs (and among many others, the names of Brigadier Mohammad Usman and Hawaldar Abdul Hamid of the Indian Army will remain enshrined in golden letters) and the Muslims of Mumbai refusing to bury the bodies of the nine terrorists who were killed in the wake of 26/11, calling their activities un-Islamic (indeed, there is no dearth of Indian Muslims who very well understand that Islamic theology is not at loggerheads with Indian nationalism). Let our humanitarian concern for the victims of terrorism in Pakistan not come in the way of devising a strong policy against those across the border who sponsor terror against our people, and such a policy can include, if the need be, covert intelligence operations against terrorists who threaten or have threatened us, and even creating a ruckus in the United Nations about the biased and distorted history taught in Pakistan, and that too ensuring that such a curriculum is not taught at any grade (it is noteworthy that there were huge demonstrations in China against Japanese textbooks they believed were biased against the Chinese). Expecting the Pakistani judiciary to take action against terrorists threatening us is totally futile, given that the judge who issued a death sentence for the killer of provincial governor Salman Taseer (Taseer was killed for raising his voice against the misuse of Pakistan’s blasphemy law against Pakistani Christians) has had to leave Pakistan, and the sentence has not been carried out in several years now. In contrast, Nathuram Godse who killed Mahatma Gandhi (for the mahatma had raised his voice for riot-affected Muslims) was hanged, and hundreds have been convicted in connection with the anti-Muslim riots in Gujarat in 2002 (some of the infamous massacres for which convictions have taken place were at the Best Bakery, Naroda Patiya, Ode and Sardarpura), and many convictions have taken place even for the anti-Christian riots in the Kandhamal district of Odisha in 2008 (including of politicians like Manoj Pradhan) and the anti-Sikh riots in 1984 (though some prominent politicians in connection with the anti-Sikh riots in 1984 are yet to be convicted).

We rightly mourned the killings of innocent children of military personnel in Peshawar, but do we remember the massacre in Kaluchak in 2002 in which children of our soldiers perished at the hands of Pakistani terrorists, after which Omar Abdullah said that India should retaliate strongly in the face of such an inhuman event? And it’s not about bearing endless grudges, but about the fact that we, Indians, irrespective of religion, are all still potential victims of terrorism from or sponsored from across the border, as the terrorist attacks in Kathua and Samba in J&K in March 2015 have demonstrated, as also the terrorist attacks in Kashmir during the elections, in which Kashmiri Muslim policemen and civilians died (no, there was no attempt by militants to create any good atmosphere in the valley) and even the blasts in Burdhwan, West Bengal, in October 2014 (the Bangladeshi Muslims resorting to terrorism, all have their affinity to Pakistan, unlike the Bangladeshi Muslims rejecting theocracy who were responsible for the Shahbag protests), in Bangalore in December 2014 and the attack on the police station in Gurdaspur, Punjab, in July 2015. We don’t have to and shouldn’t turn ourselves into irrational hate-mongers or jingoistic nationalists with bloodlust or irredentist tendencies, and that would eventually harm us too, especially while dealing with a nuclear-armed neighbouring country, but we can’t take the very real threat of terrorism lying down either.

In fact, a large section of our secularists, by choosing to act as peace-mongering jokers, have ceded the legitimate space for the demand for a tough stand against the Pakistani establishment to the Hindu rightists, thus strengthening the latter, though the extreme Hindu rightists actually have nothing meaningful to offer in this respect but for empty, crass and even counterproductive sloganeering. Lal Bahadur Shastri and Indira Gandhi, who can’t in the least be accused of anti-Muslim bias in their governance within India (leave aside what Pakistani conspiracy theorist loonies have to say!) have been the toughest on Pakistan among our prime ministers, even more than Vajpayee, who neglected more than 40 intelligence reports suggesting cross-LoC infiltration and still went ahead with the Delhi-Lahore bus service (I made this point in a televised debate on Times Now sitting right next to a BJP spokesman, whom I personally respect), or so far, even Modi, as the eminent strategic analyst Sushant Sareen points out in this article, and the recent incident of VK Singh, a minister, attending a Pakistani High Commission event on Pakistan Day (23^rd March, also the anniversary of the martyrdom of Bhagat Singh, Rajguru and Sukhdev in 1931, as also the assassination of 24 Kashmiri Hindus in the village of Nandimarg in 2003) in the wake of the then very recent terrorist attacks in Kathua and Samba in J&K (and no minister having visited the kin of the victims of terrorism) only reinforces that stand, though on a different note, Modi has not in the least been found wanting when it comes to goodwill gestures with Pakistan, be it offering assistance for flood relief in POK, releasing Pakistani fishermen during Ramzan, having Indian schools observe silence for the terrorist attack in Peshawar, wishing Pakistan luck for the cricket world cup or offering financial assistance to the Pakistani hockey federation. An effective foreign policy is actually about incisive planning, not an image of being a religious hardliner or just offering powerful oratory in election rallies or strong tweets before elections! This is not to say that I am advocating support for the Congress, which I am also very disappointed with on many fronts, including its Pakistan policy, such as resuming talks with Pakistan after having suspended them in the wake of 26/11, but the blind belief of many people to the effect that the BJP, given its Hindu rightist image, is the best bet for national security, is highly misplaced. Other than the facts I have mentioned earlier in this paragraph, it may also be added that it was during the tenure of the previous Vajpayee-led NDA regime that a senior political leader, Bangaru Lakshman, was caught on camera taking a bribe compromising national security, and during that very tenure did the Kargil coffin scam take place and following the attack on parliament (by the way, the BJP being in power in the centre or the states has never been a guarantee against terrorist attacks), in the Indo-Pak border skirmishes, more of our soldiers lost their lives on account of not being supplied bulletproof vests and other protective gear!

And indeed, at any rate, we cannot allow India to become another Pakistan in terms of civil liberties (religious freedom being one of them). Dehumanizing a minority (I would again refer the readers to my e-book aimed at addressing and dispelling anti-Muslim prejudices in the Indian context) and accepting an exclusionary brand of nationalism, especially with blind hero-worship of a political leader, can, in the long run, pave the way for a breakdown of democracy, eventually proving to be violative of everyone’s human rights, for one goes down a slippery slope. We saw that in Germany, for example, and Pastor Martin’s following quote about the Nazis is famous in that regard-

“First they came for the Jews and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew. Then they came for the Communists and I did not speak out because I was not a Communist. Then they came for the trade unionists and I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me.”

Likewise, in Pakistan, Muslim extremists initially only targeted Pakistani Hindus, Christians, Jews and those they regarded as following deviant sects of Islam, but now, the average Pakistani Sunni going to a mosque or market too faces the threat of being bombed! Similarly, the elements in India that wish to promote undemocratic ideas like the prohibition of apostasy from Hinduism, prohibition of inter-religious marriages (for them, every instance of a marriage between a Muslim man and a Hindu woman amounts to “love jihad”, overlooking how very many Muslim women have married Hindu men and changed their religion and name, prominent examples being sitarist Roshanara Khan, model Nayyara Mirza and actress Nakhat Khan, who on getting married, changed their names to Annapurna Devi, Nalini Patel and Khushboo Sundar respectively), seek to impose their version of history on us, and often have an aversion to the English language and other cultures, should be kept in check. But the secularists who want to keep them in check cannot do so if they act as peace-mongering clowns when it comes to our hostile western neighbour, thus strengthening the Hindu right that is then seen as tough.

*Pakistan-sponsored terrorism also led to the exodus of most of the Kashmiri Hindus from their homeland in 1989-1990, and those resorting to conspiracy theories to deny the same or to give left-liberal class struggle rationalizations for the same should read this article; also, that the pain of the Kashmiri Hindus is misused by some to dehumanize Muslims is no valid reason to overlook their pain, and for those Hindus who believe that Hindus must shy away from talking about Muslim communalism to not strengthen Hindu communalism, I ask – according to them, should Muslims, by the same logic, also shy away from talking about Hindu communalism to not strenghten Muslim communalism, that has manifested itself in vterror attacks by the Indian Mujahidin?



Karmanye Thadani

THE CLASS DISCONNECT

The clean sweep of the Bharatiya Janata Party in India’s 2014 general elections and in the subsequent state elections has generated a fair amount of curiosity and incredulity among people. While many believed the anti-incumbency feelings, the need for change and the ‘business as usual’ attitude of the UPA government would bring a new government into power, the decisiveness with which the electorate voted for the BJP (rather Narendra Modi) is quite astonishing. An important section of the electorate that largely fuelled this result was the Indian Middle Class. Among his many strategies, NarendraModi’s approach towards the middle class has proved to be particularly successful. His words and actions have been able to strike the right chord with this aspirational class of India.

The past few years have seen many working class uprisings around the world, like the Umbrella movement in Hong Kong, Pro-democracy protests in Thailand, Anti-government protests in Brazil etc. The middle class here too has kept its pace with the rest of the world by unleashing its political potential and power to influence through collective movements like Anna Hazare led anti-corruption movement and the agitation and protests after the Dec 16 Delhi gang rape, albeit they were spontaneous and fleeting compared to other movements across the globe. With growing numbers and economic muscle, this class has been able to create its own unique position in the Indian political arena. And just like the poor, they too have become an important social section for the political parties looking for electoral gains. However, here it is important to observe that unlike in countries like Singapore, Thailand and Indonesia, the Indian middle class further has its own sub-groups and strata. These sub-groups can be classified on many parameters like the rural-urban households, high-caste and low-caste families, people engaged in primary, secondary and tertiary sectors etc. Each of these groups has its own reason for claiming to be middle class which could be the place they live in, their life styles, their job profiles, their income or any other similar scale. However, what is unfortunate is that these sub-groups have very little similarities with the other sub-groups. For example, the urban white-collared 9-5 working middle class that resides in metropolitans and uses smartphones and social media is totally unaware of the other middle class group in small towns with conservative bringing up and totally different aspirations.

This so-called English speaking and mall-cultured community is definitely the most dominant of all. With its greater reach to the media and the world, this section is seemingly defining the overall Indian middle class ideals, although these could be unrepresentative and limited. It is this section that is broadly being termed as ‘aspirational’ by social scientists, mainly because the youth of this section ‘aspires’. The most common aspirations being getting professional education, owning a car and a house, travelling abroad, access to world-class healthcare and of course, a luxurious lifestyle. Plus, all these need to be accompanied by safety for their women, easy employment and hassle free government. It was to these expectations that Narendra Modi squarely appealed to the most.

But an important aspect comes across from these aspirations, which is that they seem to be ignorant of the predicaments of other sub-groups and classes of the Indian society, to be specific, the lower class. The younger generations of the middle class families are being brought up in a manner that they are forever blinded from the grass-root social problems. What they think to be the greatest evils of the Indian society (like corruption, violence against women etc.) is just the tip of the iceberg. It is important that these households expose their youth to the deeper matrix in which all these problems are entwined. This class can’t go ahead pursuing its own aspirations while staying ignorant to the issues bothering the other sections of the society. Only when the middle class accepts the problems of the rest of the sections and strata ofIndia as its own that it can truly unleash its potential of altering the Indian social sphere and bring about the change it wants to see in India. And it will be only then that their uprisings won’t just be spontaneous and fleeting but rather prudent and impactful.

C. Krishna Priya