Ayodhya verdict and India's secular ethos (Part 2)

Unfortunately, as much as we may pride ourselves for having bucked the subcontinental trend and chosen to tread the secular path, the fact remains that Indian secularism has not gone uncontested or remained free of controversy. Especially in recent times, more so against the backdrop of the rath yatra undertaken by L.K. Advani, as a part of the Ram Janmabhoomi movement, India's secularism, or least as it has been practised, has been called into question.

The Sangh Parivar has dubbed it “pseudo-secularism” and accused the Congress of using it as a pretext to what they have derisively referred to as “appeasement of minorities”. The BJP has gone to town painting the Congress black over what it has perceived to be cultivating minority vote banks by the party, which was once in the forefront of the Indian national movement. The Shah Bano case only reinforced this view. It created considerable debate and controversy all over the country about the extent of having different civil codes for different religions, especially for Muslims in India.

The Rajiv Gandhi government made matters worse by passing the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, which diluted the secular judgment of the Supreme Court and, in reality, denied even utterly destitute Muslim divorcees the right to alimony from their former husbands. It was against this background that Advani cast his Ram Janmabhoomi movement. He felt the public pulse. He understood the popular mood. He sensed a national disenchantment with the Congress government at the time, which was already embroiled in several scandals that were being exposed by the print media.

The situation was ripe for the BJP to cash in on, and Advani, an astute politician that he was, made the most of it. As communal passions were aroused over the issue and reasoned debate became increasingly difficult, fate dealt a blow of another kind. Rajiv Gandhi was assassinated bang in the middle of elections. A semi-retired, Telugu brahmin, P.V. Narasimha Rao, who had just undergone bypass surgery at that time, was suddenly catapulted to the position of the prime minister of the country. Unfortunately, despite all his obvious intellectual abilities, Rao was an indecisive man who allowed the situation to drift to a point of no return.

There was a rapid buildup of kar sevaks at Ayodhya from all over the country. Aggressive Hindu organisations like the VHP and political outfits like the Shiv Sena went into overdrive. Their cadres also headed for Ayodhya, and were ultimately, in no small measure, actually responsible for the demolition of the mosque. While the central government vacillated over its course of action, these determined groups had already whipped up passions to a frenzy at ground zero on that fateful day. And, while Narasimha Rao was having his customary afternoon siesta, the main dome of the mosque had already come crushing down. And, with it, India's reputation as a secular nation also took a body blow.

* Concluded...

Ayodhya verdict and India's secular ethos (Part 1)

The verdict of the Allahabad High Court in the contentious Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid case in a sense reflected India's secular ethos. The three-judge panel exceeded its brief. The judges did not go entirely by cold logic or hard evidence. They sought to offer a way forward — a way towards reconciliation between the two communities. Their much-awaited verdict read like a manifesto of Indian secularism. Peaceful coexistence seemed to have been the motivating factor.

Indian secularism based on the lofty ideals of “sarva dharma samabhava” is unique in many ways. First of all, India is the only country in the subcontinent that consciously chose to cast itself in the mould of a secular nation. All other countries in India's immediate neighbourhood have a state religion or an official political ideology. Pakistan and Bangladesh are Islamic republics. Hinduism is the official religion of Nepal and Buddhism the state religion of Sri Lanka. China has communism, which is nothing but a godless religion, as the all-pervading ideology that has shaped its national identity.

Hence, it would seem that India went against the very grain of subcontinental culture by opting to go the secular way. To think of it, after theocratic Pakistan was carved out of the erstwhile British India, there was a case for declaring India as Hindustan — a Hindu rashtra. With Hindus comprising more than 80% of its population, it would have seemed the most logical thing to do. In fact, Jinnah had actually suggested something to this effect himself. He wanted all of British India to be called India, and the two nations that would emerge after partition to be named Hindustan and Pakistan. However, Sardar Patel shot down that idea no sooner than it had been mooted by Jinnah.

Just imagine. About 13% of the population in the areas that now constitute Pakistan and Bangladesh were non-Muslims. Now, less than 2% of the population of Pakistan comprises non-Muslims. That is because most non-Muslims chose to mass-migrate to the east. They must have felt they would not be safe in a theocratic state as they belonged to minority communities. On the other hand, most Indian Muslims chose to stay back in India. More than 90% of those who migrated to Pakistan were from UP and Bihar. Hardly anybody, for instance, from Kerala went to Pakistan. And, Kerala has two entire districts that are Muslim-majority areas — more than 20% of its current population.

That India should have chosen to remain secular had much to do with Gandhi and his protege, Nehru. Had it not been for these men, Muslims may well have panicked and many more would have opted to migrate to Pakistan. The calming influence of the Mahatma, an apostle of non-violence, coupled with the assurances of India's first prime minister, the westernised secularist, Nehru, brought an end to the post-partition communal carnage on this side of the border much sooner than it would have seemed at the time. In stark contrast, Jinnah and Liaqat Ali Khan did not go out of their way to make non-Muslims feel safe in Pakistan, although they did not actively endorse or encourage any ethno-religious cleansing of minorities. 

* To be continued...

Allahabad High Court verdict — a path to reconciliation?

In some ways the verdict of the Allahabad High Court in the Ram Jamnabhoomi–Babri Masjid case came as a bit of an anticlimax. Most people expected the verdict to go decisively in favour of either the plaintiff or the defendant. The central government had geared up to meet any challenge to the law and order situation with its security apparatus fully activated and on high alert. Even bulk SMSes were banned. Prominent leaders cutting across the entire political spectrum appealed for calm. It was almost as if the nation expected a backlash from one community or the other. The world watched with bated breath, given the sensitivity of the highly contentious issue.

But, India stood still. Much blood had already been shed. The nation had grown weary of the issue that had defied a solution for six decades. Political parties had failed to rise above sectarian ideologies or vote-bank considerations. The parties to the dispute had failed to arrive at an amicable, out-of-court settlement. The onus was now on the legal process of the land. The high court was deemed the final arbiter of justice in our secular, democratic republic. And, what was truly gratifying was that when the verdict was finally pronounced, it did not lead to communal tension, leave alone violence. Indian democracy seemed to have come a long way.

The verdict of the Allahabad High Court itself, has met with mixed reactions from all quarters. Constitutional expert, Rakesh Dhawan dismissed it as “panchayati-style justice”. Former attorney general of India, Soli Sorabjee, however, welcomed the verdict and applauded the judges for their courage in going beyond what was expected of them. Ravi Shankar Prasad, a spokesperson of the BJP, who was also the counsel for one of the Hindu groups in the trial, saw the verdict as a tacit endorsement of their position.

 

The chief of the RSS sounded a sober note and opined it was not a victory or loss for anybody and grandiosely called for national integration. L K Advani, the man behind the movement, went public to say that the way had been cleared for the construction of a grand Ram temple at Ayodhya. The Sunni Waqf Board, meanwhile, announced its decision to appeal to the Supreme Court as it found the verdict and the recommendations of the honourable justices of the bench of the Allahabad High Court unacceptable. It is opposed to “bartering” of the disputed land in a three-way split. They have claimed the entire disputed structure as a mosque.

So, the saga continues. The matter will now be taken up by the Supreme Court. Status quo will be maintained for three months. The apex court can either uphold the judgement of the Allahabad High Court or come up with an entirely new judgement. The litigants have time to study the high court verdict and explore the prospect of a possible out-of-court settlement. This then, is not the final chapter of this painful story. But, what is heartening is that the country seems to have moved on. As of now, the average age of India is 26. The youth, naturally, consider everyday bread-and-butter issues more important than where a temple or mosque should be built. That is what makes the possibility of reconciliation a lingering hope. I, for one, hope so any way... 

Will Indo-Pak relations ever be good? (Part 9)

People-to-people contact is all very well. Cultural exchanges and sporting encounters are fine. But, expecting them to improve ties in a major way would be downright naive. All these measures have been tried a number of times. They have at best created fleeting bonhomie between the peoples of both countries given our shared history and culture. However, they have invariably been held hostage to political developments on the ground.

The former national security adviser, J.N. Dixit, had an interesting story to tell once on a TV channel. He narrated an incident that occurred when he was India's ambassador to Pakistan. Dixit said he was once invited to dinner by a Pakistani diplomat who picked him up and drove him to his house. Upon arrival, they were greeted by the aging diplomat's granddaughter who was just about three or fours old at the time. When Dixit's Pakistani host told his grandchild he had brought along with him an Indian guest, the child ran into the house shouting, “Hindustani kutta, Hindustani kutta”.

Children imitate their elders. They are privy to many a conversation by adults at home. Their impressionable minds are moulded by the prejudices of family members whom they live and interact with. Hence, what the little girl said cannot be taken at its face value and dismissed as the innocent banter of a child. It reflected just how Pakistanis thought and spoke of Indians. When this was the case in a diplomat's home that supposedly had educated people living in it, what can we expect from large multitudes of ill-informed masses who are easily swayed by anti-India religious and political propaganda?

The idea is not to demonise the people of Pakistan. To be fair, Pakistani diplomats may have a similar tale or two to tell after a stint in India. The point I am trying to make is that mutual prejudice and suspicion run deep in the psyche of the two ill-fated peoples. Consider the recent spot fixing controversy three Pakistani cricketers find themselves in. The Pakistani High Commissioner to the UK, no less, openly claimed it was a frame-up and hinted at an Indian hand, when all the available evidence seemed to indicate otherwise. It is another matter that the man mellowed soon afterwards and began to sound more like a diplomat that is he supposed to be, as evidence mounted, and more skeletons tumbled out of the closets of Pakistani cricketers.

The problem is quite simply this: the core of the ideology that gave birth to Pakistan represents everything that is the complete antithesis of what India is and stands for. A theocratic nation state carved out for the Muslim community in the subcontinent is the very opposite of a secular and democratic India that has more Muslims in it than the entire population of Pakistan put together. Add to that the evil agenda of anti-India terror groups that operate from Pakistani soil whose avowed purpose is to fight the idol-worshipping kafirs of India to defeat and subjugate them.

What we have is an extremely complex situation from which there is no easy way out. In view of everything I have stated in this nine-part article, I am sorry to say, at least I for one am not very optimistic about the future of Indo-Pak relations. But then, this is one thing about which I would be glad to be proved wrong. Whether that happens or not, only time will tell.

* Concluded...

Will Indo-Pak relations ever be good? (Part 8)

Kashmir is not the only bone of contention between the neighbours. The Siachen glacier and Sir Creek are other territorial disputes between India and Pakistan that have defied a solution over the years. While the former was captured during military conflict, the latter is a boundary dispute due to differences of perception. Thanks to strategic and geopolitical reasons, India is not keen on vacating the Siachen glacier, the world’s highest battlefield. Its continued occupation gives India a distinct military edge although it has been at a huge cost in terms of the money spent to hold it and the lives of our soldiers that are regularly lost due to the extreme weather conditions prevalent up there.

Sir Creek is a marshland that separates the Kutch region in Gujarat from Sindh in Pakistan. Demarcating a maritime boundary in the 60-mile long estuary in the desert of Kutch has been a problem. India has always asserted that the Sir Creek boundary lies in the middle of the channel whereas Pakistan claims that it is on the east bank. These mutually incompatible positions have made it difficult to find common ground and resolve the longstanding dispute. And, such issues are constant irritants in all official discourse and dialogue between the two countries.

Other than these territorial disputes, there are certain obstacles that emanate from the Pakistani establishment itself that make peace with India difficult to attain. The political setup of Pakistan is very different from that of India. Its democracy is a sham. Its political leaders are weak and generally occupy positions of power only so long as they keep the army in good humour. Every democratically elected leader who became too powerful for the army to handle has been ousted in a military coup. External affairs and the nuclear doctrine of Pakistan are shaped and driven exclusively by the Pakistani army. The elected representatives of the people of Pakistan have absolutely no say.

The military establishment of Pakistan is totally hostile to India. It has continued to perpetuate a self-serving myth that India has not accepted partition and continues to pose a threat to the very existence of Pakistan. This makes it extremely difficult for the political class to build bridges with India. This was best demonstrated during the Nawaz Sharif regime when Vajpayee undertook that famous bus journey to Lahore from Amritsar. Despite that successful tour to Pakistan and all the bonhomie that was witnessed between the two leaders, Kargil happened. And, let us not forget Musharraf was busy planning the Kargil invasion while our prime minister was still on Pakistani soil and being feted by his own prime minister.


* To be continued...

Will Indo-Pak relations ever be good? (Part 7)

Kashmir has kept the wounds of partition from healing. The princely state of Jammu and Kashmir acceded to the Indian Union when its Hindu king, Maharaja Hari Singh, signed the Instrument of Accession with the Indian Government headed by Jawaharlal Nehru, and under the watchful eyes of Lord Mountbatten who was still around at the time. The Maharaja had initially entertained the thought of retaining the independence of his state and transforming it into some kind of a “Switzerland of the East”. Meanwhile, Jinnah felt that the state had to be integrated into the new nation of Pakistan as it had a Muslim majority.

Jinnah had watched how Sardar Patel had got more than 500 princely states in the Indian subcontinent to become a part of the Indian republic. These included Hyderabad and Junagadh, which were Muslim-majority states. In any case, these states could not have become a part of Pakistan because they were small in size and were not geographically contiguous with the new Islamic nation that had been carved out of British India. However, the case of Jammu and Kashmir was different. According to the partition plan, it had been decided that all geographically contiguous areas that had Muslim-majority populations would be grouped together to constitute the new nation of Pakistan.

Kashmir met both these conditions. And yet, it had acceded to India, felt Pakistan, entirely due to the whim of its Hindu king, and the guiles of Nehru and Mountbatten who had enticed him into doing it. One must not forget Kashmir forms a vital part of the very idea of Pakistan. In fact the letter ‘K’ in the name Pakistan stands for Kashmir. Yes. Rahmat Ali, a student at Oxford, had first mooted the idea of a separate homeland for the Muslims of the Indian subcontinent through pamphlets that were widely circulated in Britain. He had suggested a name for the new nation. He called it PAKSTAN. It did not have the ‘I’ in it then, which was added later. P stood for Punjab, A for the Afghan province (Northwest Frontier Province) K stood for Kashmir, S for Sindh and TAN were taken from Baluchistan.

Hence, there is no way Pakistan will ever give up its claim on Kashmir. It considers the entire state as disputed territory and its accession to India illegal. If Pakistan ever accepts the state of Jammu and Kashmir as a part of India, it would amount to surrendering the very raison d'être for its existence, which it can never do. That is why despite its much smaller size and military inferiority vis-à-vis India, Pakistan has dared to engage India in three wars over Kashmir. Meanwhile, India cannot afford to surrender Kashmir to Pakistan either for its own ideological and geo-political reasons.

Kashmir is a test of Indian democracy and its secular credentials. India does not have an official state religion like other countries in its immediate neighbourhood do. The Indian Constitution guarantees to all its citizens equality of status before the law and the freedom to profess, practise and propagate their religion. Article 370 of the Indian Constitution accords the state of Jammu and Kashmir special status within the Indian Union. This was done to accommodate the legitimate, democratic aspirations of this Muslim-majority state and allay the fears of some who thought they would be unsafe in Hindu-majority India. It is another matter that despite such extraordinary Constitutional safeguards, Kashmiris have felt alienated and the insurgency in the Valley has continued unabated. Perhaps, successive governments at the Centre have failed to integrate the state with the rest of India.

* To be continued...

Will Indo-Pak relations ever be good? (Part 6)

Even Jinnah did not expect to see the creation of Pakistan during his lifetime. However, after World War II circumstances changed rapidly. Churchill lost the elections in Britain and Clement Atlee became the new resident of 10, Downing Street. Atlee was favourably predisposed to granting India independence and sent Lord Mountbatten to New Delhi with the specific purpose of expediting the transfer of power. Mountbatten held last-minute parleys with leaders of the Congress and the Muslim League to explore the possibility of averting partition. However, irreconcilable differences between the two parties coupled with the lack of feasibility of the alternatives he presented made partition ultimately inevitable.

Dividing British India along communal lines was not at all easy. There were Hindus and Muslims in every city, in every village of India. So, Muslim-majority areas were demarcated to constitute the new state that was proposed. Even this proposition presented its own problems. Muslim-majority states were at two opposite ends of the geographical expanse in the north of India. However, Jinnah was adamant. He insisted on his Pakistan, no matter what. Even a last-ditch attempt to make him the prime minister of an undivided India by Gandhi failed. In any case, Nehru and Patel were also totally opposed to any such move. They felt they could not trust Jinnah and feared they would not be able to work with him. Further, in their opinion the move would be very unpopular among the people who had stood solidly behind the Congress.

The Radcliffe Line became the border between India and Pakistan on 17th August 1947. The line was decided by the Border Commission chaired by Sir Cyril Radcliffe, who was to divide equitably 1,75,000 square miles of territory with 88 million people dwelling in it at the time. It was a stupendous task that the man was called upon to execute at very short notice. Naturally, everybody was not pleased with the outcome. Jinnah labelled the Pakistan he got as a “truncated and moth-eaten Pakistan”. Actually, Jinnah had dreamed of getting the whole of Punjab and both East and West Bengal. Furthermore, he also eyed Assam although the region did not have a Muslim majority in it. Besides, he assumed that the princely state of Jammu and Kashmir would fall into his lap eventually, any way, given its demographics.

Unfortunately, things did not go as he had hoped, and perhaps, even calculated. The states of Punjab and Bengal got divided on the basis of religious identities, and the Hindu-majority areas remained with India. What is more, eventually, even Kashmir acceded to India. In the runup to partition, Jinnah had tried to carve out a much bigger Pakistan than we see today on the map of the globe. He had even tried to weave together a larger coalition of all non-Hindu populations in the Indian subcontinent to make this dream come true. With this in mind, he had even reached out to the Akalis. However, despite his obvious intellectual ability, Jinnah betrayed a shallow knowledge of history. Sikhism had originated as a bulwark against the march of Islam, and avowedly to "protect" and "purify" Hinduism. With the result, there was no way, the Sikhs would have preferred the Islamic Republic of Pakistan over a secular India.

From the outset, from the time Pakistan came into existence, Jinnah was an unhappy and bitter man. He blamed everybody from Mountbatten to Gandhi to Nehru. He did not even attend Gandhi's funeral and chose to stay put in Karachi, which was initially the capital of Pakistan. He merely sent a condolence message to the Indian Government stating rather caustically that “India had lost a great 'Hindu' leader”. The atmosphere was further vitiated by the large-scale communal carnage that ripped apart the very fabric of the Indian subcontinent. The ill-will that was generated during those turbulent times kept many a wound festering. The psychological scars left indelible marks in the minds of people on both sides of the divide.

* To be continued...

Will Indo-Pak relations ever be good? (Part 5)

Pakistan was created as a safe haven for the Muslims of the Indian subcontinent, more specifically, those who were inhabitants of British India. This is what Pakistani historians, intellectuals and journalists pointed out to Rafique Zakaria who had come up with a biography of their Quaid-e-Azam, Mohammed Ali Jinnah. Zakaria had sought to expose Jinnah for never having been a practising Muslim for a better part of his life. It is a well-known fact that the Oxford-educated barrister ate pork and drank liquor.

It may not be so well known that the man was an agnostic till he began to identify himself with Islam and the Musalmans of British India as the leader of the Muslim League because it was politically expedient to do so. Anyway, Zakaria’s biography raised serious questions about Jinnah’s locus standi in taking up the cause of Islam when the man was, for the most part, hardly a practising Muslim himself. This was, prima facie, a perfectly logical argument. However, the Pakistanis were up in arms and quick to point out that Jinnah did not create Pakistan as he thought Islam was in danger, but to protect the Muslims of the Indian subcontinent.

It was another matter altogether that the most vociferous demand for Pakistan came from the Muslims of Muslim-minority states of the erstwhile British India. However, ironically, it was precisely these Muslims who were left out of the orbit of Pakistan when it came into existence. And, that is what triggered the mass exodus of Muslims from this side of the border northwestwards after partition, which vitiated the communal atmosphere irrevocably and resulted in the bloodbath that followed. So, the very birth of Pakistan was a difficult one. It left indelible scars on the psyche of people on both sides of the border even though the wounds healed with time.

These scars have never allowed the people of both countries to forget the horrors of partition. While Jinnah got demonised in India and the separatist movement he so ably spearheaded consistently denounced in the history text books succeeding generations have read in India, Pakistani historians have not lagged behind in blaming the Indian National Congress and its ‘Hindu’ leaders for making Pakistan necessary. This one-sided, tendentious account of historical events on both sides has ensured that every succeeding generation in both countries is bred on suspicion and hatred of the other. Is it any wonder that even a stalwart like L.K. Advani had to pay a political price for praising Jinnah in Pakistan? Is it any wonder that Jaswant Singh was even expelled from a national party for his book on the founder of Pakistan?

* To be continued...

Will Indo-Pak relations ever be good (Part 4)

With the ground realities in Afghanistan changing and changing really fast in favour of Pakistan, the establishment need not be accommodating towards India any more. What is worse for India is that the US administration now seems to be at its most vulnerable vis-à-vis its relations with Pakistan and its involvement in the Afghan conflict. Is it any wonder that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton seemed more than keen to humour her Pakistani hosts on her recent visit to that country? She even offered to help Pakistan sell its mangoes! Is it any wonder that the Americans reacted to the WikiLeaks controversy the way they have?

More than 92,000 classified documents pertaining to the war in Afghanistan were suddenly placed in the public domain. What do these leaks reveal? Nothing new. Nothing that India and Afghanistan haven’t known all along. They expose the nexus between the Pakistani military establishment and the ISI on the one hand and terror groups on the other. However, what has now become abundantly clear is that the Americans knew this all along but chose to look the other way. This is something the Indian intelligence community had long suspected any way, but always stopped short of going public about to avoid embarrassing their political masters.

So, as things stand now, the dice is heavily loaded in favour of Pakistan. With Hamid Karzai at the helm of affairs in Afghanistan who is favourably predisposed towards India, our strategists had tried to influence the course of events in that country. But, with Karzai’s own writ not running beyond Kabul, and with Indian nationals engaged in diplomatic and humanitarian activity in Afghanistan being attacked and eliminated ruthlessly, India is very much on the back foot. Meanwhile, the US is far too preoccupied with its own troubles at present to be interested in furthering India’s strategic interests in the region. That is what makes Pakistan feel invincible as things stand now. That is what makes its leaders so belligerent and unreasonable in their interaction with India.

However, these are all relatively recent events in the sad saga of Indo-Pak relations, which is the topic of this and earlier posts. The question I have tried to consider is “Will Indo-Pak relations ever be good?” The answer is neither short nor simple. It is far too complex and has a long history to it. In fact, it goes all the way back to the creation of Pakistan itself. And, that is what we shall dwell on in my next post.

* To be continued...

Will Indo-Pak relations ever be good? (Part 3)

Afghanistan has always been central to Pakistan’s strategic interests in the region. Its military planners have often referred to what they call “strategic depth” that a pro-Pakistan regime in Afghanistan would offer them vis-à-vis India. What precisely this so-called “strategic depth” implies in terms of geo-political advantages remains open to debate. Anyway, with Shiite Iran to the northwest of Aghanistan, which is not exactly an ally of predominantly Sunni Pakistan, Afghanistan is more than just a handy buffer. It also offers a strategic advantage to Pakistan in its attempt to control the trade routes with Central Asian republics.

Afghanistan has also been more than useful to Pakistan’s strategists in dealing with the US. Ever since 9/11, the US has had its gaze transfixed on Afghanistan. The presence of Osama bin Laden and his benefactors, the Taliban, in the Af-Pak region along the porous borders in the Pashtun-dominated areas has remained a cause of concern for the US. That is why every US administration has sought to link its economic and military aid to Pakistan to the latter’s active cooperation in capturing the top leadership of Al-Qaeda and neutralising its cadres, other than suppressing the Taliban in Afghanistan. For Pakistan to be able to do this, it has had to move much of its armed forces to its western borders.

Many in the Pakistani army and the ISI have never been happy about fighting the Taliban. They have played an active role in nurturing the Taliban since the days of the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. They have armed them to the teeth and indoctrinated them with radical, jehadi ideology. And, with the collapse of the Soviet Union, the end of the cold war, and the withdrawal of Russian forces from Afghanistan, the Taliban has been a useful weapon in the hands of the Pakistani army and the ISI in its covert, low-intensity war with India in Kashmir. So, destroying its own creation has never found acceptance in the Pakistani security establishment.

These geo-political compulsions dictated by foreign policy hawks within the Pakistani establishment have resulted in a duplicitous double game that Pakistan has played to perfection. Every time its armed forces make gains against the Taliban or Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, there is a terror strike in India. This makes the Indian government react with anger that is followed by the usual sabre-rattling that accompanies it to appease the Indian public. The attack on the Indian parliament when Atal Behari Vajpayee was the prime minister is a typical case in point, which best demonstrates the efficacy of this long-standing strategy of Pakistan.

After that attack on the Indian parliament, public opinion was very much in favour of some kind of action against Pakistan. What exactly this ought to have been was hazy and difficult to determine at the time. Vajpayee decided to rattle the Pakistani establishment. He ordered an unprecedented military buildup along the Indo-Pak border. His speeches began to talk of retribution. “Do do hath ho hi jaye”, he thundered. This made Pakistan respond by relocating its own armed forces to its border with India. The establishment moved its troops bordering Afghanistan in the northwest to its eastern frontier with its traditional foe, India. This it portrayed, to its benefactors like the US, as being defensive action. And, the Americans fell for it. The noose that had begun to tighten around the necks of the Afghan Taliban and the Al-Qaeda was loosened. These forces got a badly-needed reprieve.

* To be continued...

Will Indo-Pak relations ever be good? (Part 2)

As it turns out, our much-maligned home secretary’s remarks to The Indian Express were not off-the-cuff personal opinions after all. G.K. Pillai was only stating what had come to light during the interrogation of David Coleman Headley in the United States. It has now become abundantly clear that Pakistan’s ISI did not just have a peripheral role in the 26/11 carnage in Mumbai. They actively planned and executed the entire operation.

If that is indeed the case, it is not just a random act of terror by “non-state actors”, a term the Pakistani establishment is particularly fond of using, but a carefully calibrated act by the Pakistani state itself against India. And, if that is indeed well established, then in perhaps any other country of the world it would have been construed to have been an act of war. So then, is the Opposition unjustified in demanding an explanation from the UPA Government? Are they wrong when they object to talking with Pakistan?

The question is what has made Pakistan so belligerent in recent times? What has made even super powers like the United States, on whose economic and military aid Pakistan heavily relies, totally ineffective in reining in an adventurist Pakistani army? The answer lies in the turn of events across the Durand Line in Afghanistan. Thanks to increasing domestic pressure, coupled with the responsibility of having to honour his election pledge, Obama seeks a speedy withdrawal of the US forces from Afghan soil. The thinking among his NATO allies is not entirely dissimilar.

Meanwhile, the ground realities in Afghanistan have turned much to Pakistan’s strategic advantage. They know the western armed forces are weary of war in a theatre of conflict in which they see no direct stake. They are more than keen in handing over charge to a fledgling Afghan army and police force by 2014, a decision at least Obama has taken for the US forces. In the mean time, the Afghan Taliban have regrouped and look stronger now than in the recent past, especially in the Pashtun areas adjoining Pakistan.

The Pakistani establishment, particularly its army, has always patronised the Afghan Taliban even as it has sought to crush its counterpart within its frontiers. Pakistan sees itself holding all the aces at present. No withdrawal of the allied forces can take place without some kind of a deal with the Taliban in Afghanistan. Even the Hamid Karzai government in Kabul seems to have reconciled itself to this fact. Any future administration in Afghanistan which is propped up by the Taliban is bound to be favourably predisposed towards Pakistan and inimical to Indian interests in the region.

Pakistan has played its Afghan card brilliantly. More, in my next post…

* To be continued...

Will Indo-Pak relations ever be good?

Yet another attempt at kick-starting the dialogue process with Pakistan has come a cropper. Viewing the televised Qureshi-Krishna joint press conference live from Islamabad was as amusing as it was upsetting. Shah Mehmood Qureshi, the foreign minister of Pakistan snubbed his Indian counterpart in his characteristically arrogant fashion. And, our external affairs minister, the meek-as-a-mouse S.M. Krishna sat next to him looking quite out of depth in the arena of international diplomacy. Perhaps, he would have been better off crossing swords with the likes of Deve Gowda in his native Kannada in the Vidhan Soudha in Bangalore. He seemed totally ill-equipped to match his wits with Qureshi, the hawkish, India-baiting, feudal from Pakistani Punjab.

It was not an anti-climax that the contrived bonhomie between the two interlocutors evaporated as quickly as rainwater in a desert. The press conference soon degenerated into a public display of the complexities and contradictions that plague Indo-Pak relations. It became clear that the talks had failed to make much headway. Shah Mehmood Qureshi’s public pronouncements only added fuel to fire. While his Indian counterpart was still on Pakistani soil, Qureshi queered the pitch further by claiming that Krishna did not have a clear mandate and that he kept taking phone calls from New Delhi. He, of course, retracted a part of that statement subsequently, by clarifying that he had not meant to say Krishna himself took calls, but much damage had already been done by then.

Obviously, talks progressed well when proceedings commenced. A joint press statement acceptable to both sides and addressing each other’s core concerns seemed a certainty. However, somewhere along the way, things seemed to have gone horribly wrong. General Kayani latched on to the opportunity provided by our indiscreet home secretary, G.K. Pillai. In an open interaction with The Indian Express on the eve of the talks, Pillai had blamed the ISI for masterminding and controlling the entire 26/11 operation in Mumbai. General Kayani met President Zardari and Prime Minister Gilani before S.M. Krishna could be granted an audience with them. Whatever transpired between the Pakistani general and Pakistan's civilian leadership at that time, the atmosphere became irreversibly vitiated after that.

Expectedly, our opposition parties back home in India cried foul and wasted no time in denouncing the government for having bent over backwards to talk with an intransigent Pakistan. Qureshi was dubbed “uncouth” and accused of being somebody who was “lacking in diplomatic etiquette”. This was not entirely unjustified, given the man’s penchant for giving a go-by to diplomatic niceties when it comes to expressing his views on India and Indian leaders. The outcome of these parleys was perhaps made to look even worse than it actually was due to the media hype that built up quickly over them.

So then, has nothing been gained from this latest round of talks between the two countries? Are we back to square one? Is there a way forward? Can we break the deadlock? Is peace possible? Can Indo-Pak relations ever be good? I will be considering these questions in the next few posts…

A poem penned while at college...

This poem, which I wrote when I was 20 years old, is special to me for several reasons. First, it was my first serious attempt at poetry. Second, it was published in my college magazine. I went to Fergusson College. And third, it was appreciated by my professors of English, some of who told me personally how much they had liked it.   

The poem has been written in "free verse" and dwells on a common human experience. Read on...   

Three hours and a quarter after dusk
When oft-times I retire
To enjoy a well-earned rest
After a laborious day
And, when my back meets my bed
In a tight embrace
My flesh frail, dormant lays
As if it were a body
That was from its soul divorced!
But, my mind refuses to go my body’s way
And, rises like mist to meet a deep dark sky
Over valleys deep and mountains high
Where sweet dreams and fleeting fantasies
Like a magnificent bird fly
Across my imagination’s airspace...
My mind, much like a busy bee
Flits across with youthful energy
After courting every fantasy’s flower
Its sweet nectar to suck
Returns to its temple
Wherein to prepare
Sweet honey of deep sleep
To preserve me for another day!

All those of you who appreciate poetry, do let me know what you make of it. Thank you.

Remembering MJ — one year on...

It is just over a year now that the world on this side of the Atlantic woke up to the chilling news. I still remember those disturbing pictures on CNN. I had just got out of bed and was having a shave. As my gaze alternated between my stubble-ridden chin and the TV screen, my heart missed a beat or two. Still pictures of attempts to revive Michael Jackson, in the ambulance that drove him to the hospital, will remain etched in my memory forever. As news trickled in and his death was confirmed, my mind raced back in time…

I was still a teenager when a young singer shot into fame. He was young and innocent, and still black. Money and fame had not tainted him yet. He was still known as one of the 'Jackson 5', when not many music lovers outside America knew him. But, that state of bliss was soon to be over, never to return. He won award after award and his chartbusting music broke every record there was to break. Fame and money became his constant companions and the world of music was at his feet. He became the presiding deity in the pantheon of demi-gods of pop music. Life was never the same again.

Michael shocked the world by the way he died, just as he had shocked the world by the way he lived. His obsession with cosmetic surgery and skin bleaching agents, his addiction to prescription drugs, his controversial marriage and the manner in which he chose to have his children, all of it kept the paparazzi busy. Add to that child molestation charges and allegations of paedophilia and paederasty, and his life was the stuff of a best-selling novel. Reviled as much as he was adored, the beleaguered celebrity withdrew into a shell. And, that was the beginning of the end.

He became increasingly paranoid of the outside world and converted his own home into a fortress. He surrounded himself by paid henchmen who gradually took complete control of his life. As he sank into depression and began to suffer from myriad forms of psychosomatic illnesses, he turned to prescription drugs, an overdose of which finally cut short his life. A deadly cocktail of anti-depressants, pain-killers and anti-anxiety medication proved too much for his frail and much-abused body to handle. The writing was on the wall. What happened had to happen. It was just a matter of time.

What pains me and many others is the hypocrisy of the world. When the man was alive they wouldn’t leave him alone and give him his space. He was harassed and hounded, reviled and persecuted. Once in the wake of the child molestation allegations, some investigating police officials who raided his mansion humiliated him by going so far as taking pictures of his private parts! The media carried on a vilification campaign against him. Imagine the mental state of a lonely celebrity under such extenuating circumstances. The deadly drugs that killed him eventually, only drove the final nail into his coffin.

The moment he died, though, he regained his crown of King of Pop. He was hailed as a legend. All his faults and foibles were whitewashed by crocodile tears shed by a fawning media. Now that he had become “late”, automatically, he seemed to have become “great”. MJ was not the first celebrity to have been treated this way, and will probably not be the last. Does it have to be this way? Must we kill people for their sins, and then elevate them to the status of demi-gods to wash away our own?

My verdict on 'Rajneeti'

These are my personal views. You may or may not endorse them. If you don't see eye to eye with me, let's just agree to disagree. As an avid cinegoer, I have never blindly lapped up everything Bollywood has dished out. Besides, I am not swayed easily by the hype and hoopla generated by a well-oiled PR machine filmmakers have at their disposal these days, which often predisposes impressionable minds towards accepting and applauding their efforts on celluloid. Prakash Jha's 'Rajneeti' failed to impress me. I would not put it in the same league as 'Rang De Basanti' or 'Black' or '3 Idiots' or even 'Taare Zameen Par'. I thought it was a pretty average film.

I would like to qualify my criticism, however, by highlighting some obvious plusses. Prakash Jha is a reasonably good filmmaker. Along with Madhur Bhandarkar, Jha is perhaps the only other filmmaker in Bollywood in this day and age who has successfully bridged the gap between "art" and "commercial" cinema. Nobody in Bollywood is better at making films on current realities as these two men are. And, I am a fan of both of them. Furthermore, nobody is better qualified, in my opinion, to make a film like 'Rajneeti' than Jha is. Having been in active politics and even contested an election in his native Bihar, Jha has the benefit of an insider's view of electoral politics in the hinterland of India.

Coming back to 'Rajneeti', there was nothing original about the story. Jha tried to create a heady mix of elements drawn from the Mahabharata and The Godfather with incidents thrown in from the lives of individuals belonging to India's first political family. Thanks to a taut script, the first half, I thought, was much more engaging. The second half, though, didn't work for me. It became quite a drag. Parts of it were exaggerated and unrealistic. For instance, prominent politicians firing gunshots at each other, openly and in broad daylight, during the climax was stretching things a bit too far. 'Rajneeti' reinforces stereotypes pertaining to Indian politics and politicians in the public psyche. Any young man or woman who harbours political ambitions is bound to encounter stiff resistance from his family if they are to base their judgement of the Indian political scenario on films like 'Rajneeti'. 

As far as perfomances were concerned, the only individual who shone for me was Manoj Bajpai. Nana Patekar was too subdued for my liking. Perhaps the script did not offer him much scope to display any of his usual histrionics. Ajay Devgan—a Jha favourite—had bagged a crucial role, but couldn't make the most of it as he came up with an altogether uninspiring performance. Perhaps a younger actor may have been a better choice to play the part Naseeruddin Shah was made to play, who looked half-embarrassed getting wet in the rain and getting cosy with a girl half his age, not to mention impregnating her in a single sexual encounter, when he clearly seems to be past his prime!

The suave Arjun Rampal looked a thorough misfit playing a second-rung, regional politician mouthing dialogues that sounded too laboured for comfort. As for Ranbir Kapoor, his was a complex, multi-layered role that should have gone to a more mature and intense actor—someone cast in the Aamir mould. To play a self-styled, mafia don-like politician who also happens to be a doctoral research student abroad was not an easy task. In my opinion, Ranbir did not suit the part. He is better off playing light-hearted roles like the ones he played in 'Bachna Ae Haseeno' or 'Rocket Singh—Salesman of the Year' at this stage in his career.

Ranbir's dialogue delivery in English was flat and devoid of expression. Perhaps, Jha should have roped in someone like Sabira Merchant or Shernaz Patel to help him hone his dialogue delivery skills in English. Shahid Kapoor spent quite some time with an ENT specialist before shooting for 'Kameeney' to understand how and why a man stutters. Ranbir also looked distinctly uncomfortable in intimate scenes and even his liplocks seemed like coy pecks of an adolescent on his first date. Perhaps, he should watch his dad smooch aunty Dimple in 'Sagar'. Some have predicted that Ranbir will be the next superstar, the next "number one" after Shah Rukh. But, that is what they all said about Vivek Oberoi, Hritik Roshan and even Shahid Kapoor. In any case, even if he gets there some day—and I wish him luck—he may become the biggest star like SRK is today, but perhaps Shahid will still be the better actor, much like Aamir is today. Let's see. Time will tell...     

The emasculating effect of ahimsa (Part 9)

I am not anti-ahimsa per se. Non-violence as a way of life adhered to by an individual is creditable and praiseworthy. I have no quarrels with it. If individuals embrace the creed of ahimsa and practice it faithfully, society as a whole will automatically become more peaceful. After all, social change cannot be brought about successfully without changing the individual. When the individual undergoes an inner transformation, his perspectives, attitudes and conduct change. It is this individual metamorphosis that triggers social ferment leading to progress. That is how civilizations have marched on. That is how cultures have evolved and become more refined.

However, the state cannot afford to embrace ahimsa as its policy. It must be prepared to act decisively and wield the stick whenever and wherever required. It must not shirk from its underlying responsibility to activate its own coercive mechanisms to maintain law and order within its own frontiers. Or, for that matter, mobilise its armed forces to counter external aggression to safeguard its own vital interests. And sometimes, offence is the best form of defence. The state cannot afford to cushion its resolve in idealistic notions of ahimsa that paralyse it into inaction. Unfortunately, that is precisely how India seems to have become. It has degenerated into a soft state with weak and indecisive leaders. Countries that are inimical to India’s interests like Pakistan have exploited this to the hilt and got away with it. They know very well that no matter what they do India will not cause them any harm.

India will make the usual noises. There will be a sudden chill in diplomatic relations. India will suspend all dialogue on contentious issues—its so-called “composite” dialogue. It will try to mobilise world opinion against Pakistan. It will just go into a sulk. That is all. Finally, after some time, there will be a thaw in relations once again. It seems like an old soap opera playing itself out for the umpteenth time. Sadly, the Indian populace, its viewers, have still not got bored of it. So, why blame the establishment? Why blame our leadership? And, why blame Pakistan if they refer to us as “banyaon ka mulk” and have the temerity to ask, “woh hamara kya ukhad lenge?” If we continue being as docile as we are as a nation ever since our independence, I wouldn’t be surprised if the Pakistanis finally start referring to us as “hijron ka mulk”!

*** Concluded

The emasculating effect of ahimsa (Part 8)

Allow me to quote the inimitable and irrepressible Meghnad Desai. He has commented on the way the Indian authorities dealt with Union Carbide and the callous and conniving manner in which the government of the day allowed Warren Anderson to get away scot-free.

This is what he has stated in his weekly column that was published in The Indian Express on Sunday, 20 June, 2010.

"Just compare this superior Indian way of conducting our affairs with the way in which the US President Barak Obama is conducting his campaign against BP where only a dozen or so people have died. We believe in ahimsa and we follow Gandhiji's teachings. We don't abuse our guests even if they have caused severe environmental damage and caused the death of 15,000 people. BP has to create a fund to compensate Americans who have suffered economic damage due to the oil spill. BP CEO Tony Hayward had to appear before Congressional Committees and even face some harsh words from the President. But, that's not our way. No harsh words, no parliamentary investigation. We are not like the US. We are a Secular, Socialist, Democratic, Republic." Telling comment! Actually, many more than that number perished. 

Any way, I agree with the point Megnad Desai has made. Secular, socialist, democratic, republic? Yes. And, the common thread that runs through them all... You guessed it! Gandhian ahimsa. This philosophy of Bapu has permeated every area of Indian statehood. India's secularism, its socialism, its democracy and the very fabric of its republic. Is it any surprise that we have become a soft state? Is it any surprise that those who plot and scheme the dismemberment and destruction of India and everything that this country stands for in Pakistan, have no real fear of possible reprisal in their hearts? Is it any surprise that China should claim an entire Indian state (Arunachal Pradesh) as its own territory and object to even the Indian prime minister's visit to that state?

Looking inwards, is it any surprise that Kashmiris burn the Indian flag and get away with it? Is it any surprise that the naxals control vast swathes of Indian territory with impunity and cock a snook at the Indian state? Is it any surprise that the common man on the street has lost faith in the ability of the Indian state to act decisively in matters that count, in matters that by default presuppose courage? Is it any surprise that the Pakistanis scoff at us as "banyaon ka mulk" and have the audacity to ask, "woh hamara kya ukhad lenge"? Is it?   

*** to be continued

The emasculating effect of ahimsa (Part 7)

Earlier, Indira Gandhi's father, our very own Chacha Nehru had raised the slogan of "Hindi-Chini bhai-bhai". His guru's ideals of ahimsa and universal brotherhood made him reach out to the Chinese going more than half way to meet them. It was another matter that the Chinese did not harbour any such brotherly affection for us. They stunned Nehru and India by the 1962 war in which they inflicted a humiliating defeat on India. Nehru's idealism derived from Bapu made him incapable of perceiving China as a potential threat given its geo-political ambitions and natural rivalry with India.

Years later, another prime minister displayed similar tendencies. Interestingly, he was not a Congressman. In fact, he was schooled in the strident Hindutva ideology of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh — Atal Behari Vajpayee. Incidentally, when Nehru first heard a fiery young Vajpayee speak in the Lok Sabha, he had predicted that he will become the prime minister of India one day! Vajpayee was seen to be a moderate by people cutting across the political spectrum. Govindacharya even famously referred to him as a "mukhauta", a mask, once when he first came within striking distance of the PM's gaddi. The poor party ideologue had to pay for it politically because he was completely sidelined and shunned after that off-the-cuff remark.

Any way, Vajpayee also displayed the same tendency towards ahimsa that sycophantic Congressman always did. He undertook the famous bus journey to Lahore and hugged a reticent Nawaz Sharif who hardly seemed warm and friendly when he received him. And, what is worse, while all this pappi-jhappi was on, Pakistan's army general, Pervez Musharraf was busy planning the Kargil incursion. In fact, he refused to show up at Lahore along with the air force and navy chiefs saying he did not wish to be seen saluting the prime minister of an enemy nation. Vajpayee, on the other hand, went to town displaying his oratorial skills to the Pakistani elite and making symbolic gestures that had little meaning in real politik after more than 50 years that Pakistan had been in existence.

Not only did the Pakistani army infiltrate into Kargil in Kashmir, but later, during Vajpayee's tenure as the PM of India, Pakistani terrorists even attacked the Indian parliament. And, what happened as a consequence? What did India do? Did it make Pakistan pay for it? Did it put the fear of the devil in the hearts of its leaders? Beyond all the sabre-rattling and an unprecedented military buildup alongside the border adjoining Pakistan, what did India do? It turned out to be just another bark. There was no bite in it! Pakistan did not feel any pain. They got away scot-free, yet again. Is it any wonder they refer to India as "Banyaon ka mulk"? Does it surprise you that they have the cheek to ask, "Woh hamara kya ukhad lenge"?

*** to be continued
  

The emasculating effect of ahimsa (Part 6)

Our very own "Iron Lady", whom even her political rival, Atal Behari Vajpayee, famously referred to as, "Durga Ma", after the Bangladesh war, had another chance during her 17-year (overall) stint as the prime minister of India. It was rumoured in the corridors of power then in New Delhi that Israel had once sent a secret emissary to India with an irresistible proposal. This was at the height of the Cold War. Israel proposed to launch a joint air strike with India on the nuclear installations of Pakistan. Yes, that's right.

During the Cold War, Pakistan was an ally of the United States, and India enjoyed the unstinted support of the erstwhile USSR. However, Israel was the most important ally of the US and meant much more to the Americans than Pakistan did. Pakistan had its own strategic significance to the US as the bulwark against the spread of Communism and Soviet imperial expansionism. And, when the Soviets took control of Afghanistan and installed their own puppet, President Najibullah, in that high office, Pakistan became a very important ally. In fact, that was when the US started pumping in sophisticated military hardware and millions of dollars into Pakistan.

They claimed it was meant to wage war against Communism for them. It is another matter that all the military and economic aid Pakistan received from the US was invariably used against India. If Mrs. Gandhi really cared about the strategic long-term interests of India, Israel's secret offer would have been more than welcome to her. If India would have undertaken a joint air strike along with Israel on the nuclear installations of Pakistan, the US would have remained neutral since Israel was involved, and the USSR was on India's side any way. Just imagine the opportunity we lost.

It would have pegged back Pakistan's nuclear programme by decades. That country would not have been able to build its nuclear arsenal to present-day levels, totally nullifying India's edge over it in conventional weapons. However, Indira Gandhi turned down the offer without even considering it. She had been blowing the trumpet of India's non-violence before the world all along. She had been strutting across the global stage to reinforce a carefully-crafted image of herself as a responsible world leader. There was no way she was going to undo all that. Good old values of Gandhian ahimsa were at play yet again. India was packaged and presented to the big wide world as the country of Bapu that had won its freedom by non-violent methods.

It was almost as if the onus was on India, then as it is now, to remain non-violent at all times, even in the face of serious provocation. After all, the reputation of the "father of our nation" seemed to be at stake. How could we bring a bad name to Gandhiji who taught us ahimsa? Is it any wonder that the Pakistanis think of us as "banyaon ka mulk"? Is it any wonder that they have the temerity to ask, "woh hamara kya ukhad lenge"?

*** to be continued  

The emasculating effect of ahimsa (Part 5)

It is this Gandhian ahimsa that has influenced state policy in India ever since it gained independence from British rule. When the princely state of Jammu and Kashmir had still not acceeded to either India or Pakistan, Jinnah tried to annex it militarily. Pakistani army regulars dressed as tribesmen raided Kashmir and were knocking on the doors of Srinagar after having captured one-third of the state. When Hari Singh, the king of Jammu and Kashmir, signed the Instrument of Accession with India and merged his state with the Indian Union, Nehru sent the Indian army into Kashmir. But, what the army did was prevent Pakistan from capturing all of Jammu and Kashmir. It did not retrieve from Pakistan what that country had already gained control over by stealth and brute force.

The Indian army was ready to take back Pakistan occupied Kashmir there and then, but Nehru refused them permission. He wanted to flaunt his democratic credentials before the watching world. He did not have the stomach for war. His thinking was clouded by his guru's ahimsa. Nehru's daughter, the Iron Lady of India, the one who was conferred with the Bharat Ratna after the Bangladesh war was not much different, tactically. During the Bangladesh war, when East Pakistan became a separate, sovereign nation, Bangladesh, the Indian army had captured large portions of West Pakistani territory.

After the war ended and India had inflicted a humiliating defeat on Pakistan, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto flew down to Simla to meet Prime Minister Indira Gandhi. He came as the vanquished leader of an enemy country. He had no bargaining chip up his sleeve. Yet, he proved a better negotiator than Mrs. Gandhi. When she asked him to choose between the thousands of Pakistani prisoners of war that India had captured on the one hand and Pakistani territory under Indian control on the other, he chose territory. He knew India would treat the prisoners of war well. Ultimately, it would become a human rights issue. International human rights watchdog agencies would pressurise India into releasing the POWs. And, that is exactly what happened, eventually. 

Indira Gandhi could have demanded Pakistan occupied Kashmir as a quid pro quo for Pakistani territory captured by India. She didn't. The wily Bhutto convinced her that anything remotely close to such a prospect would amount to a sellout to India, and he would not have been able to justify it to his own people back home. Our own "iron lady" appeared nervous during the negotiations and relented. She opted for the easy way out. What was at work here? You guessed it. It was good old ahimsa of our beloved Bapu. Is it any surprise that the Pakistanis think of us as "banyaon ka mulk" and defiantly ask, "woh hamara kya ukhad lenge"? I would be surprised, if you are surprised!

*** to be continued 

The emasculating effect of ahimsa (Part 4)

Bapu was much influenced by Jain philosophy and the life of Jesus Christ who was the ultimate pacifist. Much of Gandhi's ascetic ways, including celibacy, could be traced back to Jain doctrines. His pacifism was a refection of Christ's teaching who insisted on turning the other cheek. It had nothing to do with Hinduism even though Bapu always invoked Hindu symbols and spoke of establishing "Ram rajya". At best, it only meant an ideal state. It had nothing to do with the Hindu way of life as such.

Oddly enough, it is the use of such expressions that made the elitist Jinnah, who was an agnostic at the time, become suspicious of Bapu. Pakistani historians have always claimed Bapu wanted to establish a Hindu rashtra and their "Quaid-e-azam" Mohammed Ali Jinnah created Pakistan as a safe haven for the Musalmans of the Indian subcontinent. Jinnah who was once the President of the Indian National Congress withdrew from this pan-India political outfit to head the blatantly sectarian Muslim League, which ultimately divided British India. "I detest the man's methods", Jinnah had said about Bapu's satyagraha. 

Gandhi is still considered the tallest leader of our freedom struggle. There were so many great men and women who struggled all their lives to liberate India from British rule. Many of them made the ultimate sacrifice—they paid with their lives. However, Gandhi alone has been accorded the status of "father of the nation". Successive Congress governments at the Centre have spared no effort in perpetuating Bapu's legacy. Even the Indian Rupee carries his picture. The Gandhi topi and khadi kurta-pyjamas have come to be accepted as the uniform of politicians in India.

Unfortunately, Gandhi's ahimsa also got institutionalised along the way. It became an inviolable creed. Is it any wonder that the UPA government headed by the Congress even today has qualms over using force against naxals? Is it any wonder that India has been unable to make a terrorist think twice before entering India? Is it any wonder that those who aid and abet such enemies of the Indian state have no fear of reprisal in their heart? Banyaon ka mulk hai. Woh hamara kya ukhad lenge?

*** to be continued 

The emasculating effect of ahimsa (Part 3)

None other than the Dalai Lama himself said recently, “When dealing with terrorists, with whom we cannot reason, and who are bent upon violence, we cannot continue to be non-violent as a matter of policy”, or something to that effect. This was highlighted publicly by none other than our current Home Minister P. Chidambaram, who said, “It’s a sad conclusion that the Dalai Lama had drawn, but the right conclusion”. Wonder if the destruction of the historic Bamiyan Buddhas in Afghanistan not-so-long ago by the Taliban in Afghanistan was in his mind when His Holiness made that startling remark.

The question is, is ahimsa synonymous with Indian culture and political philosophy as it has been made out to be ever since Gandhi emerged on the scene? Has ahimsa always been the bedrock of Indian statecraft? Is it our dharma to be avowedly non-violent at all times? Does our karma have to be shaped by this age-old choice? If that is the case, what about Kshatriya dharma? What about the significance of weapons in the life of a Kshatriya? What about ‘raj dharma’, which includes protecting the lives of the subjects of a kingdom or citizens of a nation?

What do our shastras say? What do our epics teach us? What about that celestial song, the Bhagwad Gita? Where does ahimsa fit into its rich and varied tapestry of Indian philosophy at its loftiest? What did Lord Krishna tell Arjuna on the battlefield of Kurukshetra? Did he preach ahimsa to him? Did he forbid him from shedding blood? Did he counsel him to retreat from the arena to a life of contemplation? Did he propose a non-violent solution to what was an intractable problem? No!

Lord Krishna urged Arjuna to be true to his Kshatriya dharma. He asked him to pick up his weapons and fight. He reminded him that nothing was higher than dharma. He cautioned him against emotionalism associated with his clan and kindred. He explained the meaning of life to him and the imperishability of the atman. He soothed his frayed nerves saying that if Arjuna killed even his close relatives on the battlefied in the interests of dharma, it was not wrong, it was not murder. It was "vadh", not "hatya". Interestingly, that is exactly what Nathuram Godse said after he assassinated Bapu!

*** to be continued

The emasculating effect of ahimsa (Part 2)

If Gandhi had resisted Jinnah’s call for the partitioning of India, even if it meant plunging the country into civil war, who knows, India may not have got divided, Pakistan may not have got created. Another great leader of a great nation across the Atlantic, who was no less non-violent in approach and temperament, was faced with the same dilemma centuries ago. But, he chose civil war to the partitioning of his country. If Abraham Lincoln, idealistic though he was, would have allowed himself to be unnerved by the prospect of large-scale loss of life, today there would have been two countries, viz. the United States of America and the Confederate States of America.

Gandhi made a creed of ahimsa. And, like any other creed it could never be called into question. This was not lost on Jinnah and the new state of Pakistan. The emerging establishment had cleverly gauged India’s weakness. Is it any wonder then that a much smaller and less militarily powerful country like Pakistan has dared to wage war against India, not once but four times? Is it any wonder that Pakistan has blatantly supported secessionist movements in India and trained, equipped and infiltrated terrorists into this country?

Baniyaon ka mulk hai! Woh hamara kya ukhad lenge? So what if our tactics did not work in Punjab? So what if we were unable to midwife the birth of Khalistan and avenge Bangladesh? We can merrily continue to meddle in Kashmir. We can claim non-state actors did it, when brainwashed madmen bred on jehadi ideology, but trained by us, are unleashed with AF-47s in hand into the commercial capital of India, to kill as many innocents as they can. Of course we can… and get away with it. We can attack the very Parliament of India, the symbol of Indian nationhood. And, get away with it. Woh hamara kya ukhad lenge? Aakhir, banyaon ka mulk jo hai!

*** to be continued

The emasculating effect of ahimsa! (Part 1)

"Banyaon ka mulk hai. Woh log hamara kya ukhad lenge?" This is how people in the upper echelons of power in Pakistan speak about India, according to Brajesh Mishra, the former National Security Advisor. He stated this without so much as batting an eyelid on a popular TV show. Lest you wonder why our not-so-friendly neighbours from the north-west have referred to us as 'baniyas', well, the thinly veiled reference, obviously, is to the caste of the father of our nation. 

Bapu has been accorded demi-god status in our country and a pre-eminent position in the pantheon of Indian leaders. So, the automatic implication and extension of this nationalistic metaphor is that all Indians are Bapu's children. Hence, we are all Baniyas. No, this is no laughing matter. You would miss the point completely if you think the Pakistanis were scoffing at Bapu's caste and grafting it on to the rest of the Indian populace, Manu and his social stratification notwithstanding. If that had really been the case, we could comfortably have dismissed it as a rank bad joke of an inebriated mind somewhere in the secretive cocktail circuit of Pakistan.

The implications, sadly, of this comment are deeper and far more telling. They reflect a Pakistani conviction based on dealing with the Indian state ever since independence, not to speak of the baggage of partition they continue to carry. In fact, it goes way back. It goes all the way back to Bapu himself. Gandhi made a creed out of ahimsa, around which he wove his entire political philosophy. Indian historians sympathetic to the Indian National Congress, and its leadership and politics, have harped on the non-violent nature of our national movement. They display selective amnesia, though, when they underplay the communal carnage that engulfed the subcontinent, triggering a mass exodus of populations, which was unparalled in human history.    

Gandhi's ahimsa seemed to have failed. His sermonising seemed to have fallen on deaf ears of blood-thirsty rioters on a rampage of rape and pillage. Thousands of innocent men, women and children—Hindus, Muslims and Sikhs—lost their lives or livelihood, uprooted as they were from their soil, alienated from their home. When Jinnah threatened civil war if India was not partitioned, Bapu developed cold feet. His ahimsa prevented him from accepting Jinnah's open challenge to wage war. In the end, what went on for days and weeks was nothing short of civil war, any way. What is worse, we had already paid the price of partition.

*** to be continued

Amazing how precarious life can be!

My heart goes out to the 14-year-old south-Indian boy schooling in Dubai who lost his entire family in the air crash at the Mangalore airport. What is worse, he was able to identify the body of only his mother. The bodies of his father and two younger siblings remain unidentified. The bodies of all those who died in the accident are charred beyond recognition, making DNA testing necessary to zero in on their identities. To compound the woes of this hapless adolescent, trying desperately to cope with a tragedy the enormity of which has still to hit him, they were not able to find matching bodies of the ages of his younger siblings.

When this boy bade farewell to his family at the airport and saw his kid sister wave goodbye to him as they entered the travellers-only zone, little did he realise at that time that he would never see any of them again. Even the thought must not have occurred to him that in a matter of hours his entire world would come crumbling down. That he will be orphaned with no siblings for company along life's unpredictable pathway. He would never have imagined any of this in his wildest dreams. I cannot help remembering little Moshe whose entire family was mercilessly killed by terrorists at Nariman House in Mumbai on 26/11. In a matter of a couple of days, people nearest and dearest to this toddler had left him alone to fend for himself in this cruel world.

Well friends, that is how precarious life can be. I lost my brother-in-law in a road accident four years ago. He was 28 years old at the time and had been married for barely two years. He was returning home from work on his mobike when he was knocked down by a speeding truck, and died on the spot. He was a bright young man who aspired to make it big in life. He had everything going for him when his life was snuffed out in an instant. My friend lost his father in the most bizarre manner. He stood atop a stool to clean the glass window pane of his sixth floor apartment one morning, lost his balance and fell out of the window! Isn't it amazing how precarious life can be?

Cricketing Nostalgia!

T20 cricket continues to hold fort on the world stage. Its glitz and glamour continue to dazzle our eyes although the performance of our boys brings tears to them. The ICC will gear up to conduct the World Cup of its 50-over sibling in 2011. That means, barring brief interludes of some serious test cricket, our senses will continue to be oppressed by slam-bang versions of the supposedly gentleman's game.

I can't help looking down memory lane nostalgically at a bygone era when as a school kid I caught some glimpses of cricketing legends in black and white on Doordarshan. Oh, how I long to relive some of that action. I yearn to watch Gavaskar's exquisite straight drive off the front foot past the bowler. I yearn to watch on screen the lazy elegance of David Gower stroking the ball through the covers, or the stodgy defence of Allan Border. Oh how I long to watch the vicious hook shot played by Gordon Greenidge and the superb cover drive by his equally gifted opening partner, Desmond Haynes. I still remember, vividly, the disdainful lofted drive over long on by Viv Richards and the precise sweep shot by Clive Lloyd. I remember how much I enjoyed Javed Miandad's antics on the field, especially his cheeky singles.

As for the bowlers, I really miss the scorching pace of Marshall, the incredible accuracy of Hadlee, Kapil's amazing swinging yorkers and Imran's deadly in-dippers. I miss the swing and cut of the wily Botham and Holding's sheer variety. I long to see Garner's bounce even on dead tracks and Willis' wicket-taking outswingers. I miss watching Lillie and Thompson hunt as a pair giving batsmen absolutely no respite. I miss it all. I miss it all...

The paradox that Pakistan is (Part 3)

Ironically, Muslims from Muslim-minority provinces of British India were the most vociferous supporters of the idea of Pakistan. And, they were the ones who were left out of its orbit, eventually. That is why Maulana Abul Kalam Azad remarked with a tinge of sadness, immediately after partition, "The creation of Pakistan has reduced Indian Muslims to the status of outsiders in their own land!" That was how tragic the creation of Pakistan was even for the Muslims themselves.

The last 60 years of continual strife with Pakistan—we have fought four wars—has benefitted neither country. They are uncomfortable with a big, united, militarily powerful, secular India. We are uncomfortable with an increasingly strident, radicalised, disunited, nuclear-armed Pakistan that sees India as its enemy number 1. If partition had not occurred, or India and Pakistan had learned to co-exist peacefully like the US and Canada, just imagine the extent of economic benefits both countries could have reaped.

Kashmir contines to remain a festering wound. But then, Pakistan will never give up its claim on Kashmir. It is the lone Muslim-majority state in India. So, according to the logic of partition, it ought to belong to Pakistan. That is their contention any way. Kashmir figures in the very name of Pakistan. The idea of Pakistan was first mooted by a young student at Cambridge University called Rehmat Ali who distributed some pamphlets to popularise his ideas in Britain. At that time, even Jinnah dismissed his suggestions as "an impracticable students' scheme".

Rehmat Ali coined the name of what he hoped would be a new, sovereign, Islamic state that would be carved out of British India as 'PAKSTAN'. Note that the name is without the letter 'i', which was added later. P stood for Punjab, A for the Afghan province (Northwest Frontier Province), K stood for Kashmir! Yes. S stood for Sindh and 'tan' was taken from Baluchistan. So, Kashmir is tied into the very idea of Pakistan, its very identity. They have fought four wars with India over Kashmir, and continue to bleed us "through a 1,000 cuts" through terrorism, as one of their military strategists had glibly remarked.

Is there a way out? It's not at all easy given the complexity of the problem. People have come up with a variety of ideas as possible solutions to the Kashmir imbroglio. Well-meaning individuals have hoped that resolving the issue will dramatically improve Indo-Pak relations. Sad to say, I am not all that optimistic. Let's see. Time will tell. I would be really glad to be wrong on this one.

The paradox that Pakistan is (Part 2)

Mohajirs have often complained of discrimination at the hands of the Punjabi dominated elite in the Pakistani establishment, not to mention similar sentiments being expressed by Sindhis, Baluchis and even Pathans. The feudal landowning elite, the top brass in the Pakistani army and the ISI, the bureaucracy and even Pakistan's judiciary have generally been dominated by Punjabis.
It is only after a charimatic Sindhi leader, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, emerged on the scene that Sindhi nationalism was assuaged. Before that, secessionism was brewing in Sindh as a reaction to perceived discrimation. Secessionists like G.M. Sayyed wanted Sindh to secede from Pakistan and become a sovereign nation that he wanted to call Sindhudesh. He even hinted at Sindhudesh forming a confederation with India! So much for subcontinental Muslim unity under the banner of one pan-Islamic nation.
Wonder, though, if the creation of Pakistan was inevitable. Why is it that Gandhi and Jinnah—both Gujratis, both barristers—could not work together? Was it an ideological clash that kept them apart? Was it a class divide that became an insurmountable obstacle in the path to cooperation? Or, was it simply an ego clash between the two titans that drove a wedge between them? These are all very interesting aspects to delve into for any serious student of modern Indian history.
What made the poet Iqbal who wrote, "saare jahan se achha, Hindostan hamaara", go on to become one of the staunchest advocates of a separate homeland for the Muslims of the Indian subcontinent? In fact, he went on to write the national anthem of Pakistan subsequently! What made Jinnah whom Balgangadhar Tilak called "an apostle of Hindu-Muslim unity" espouse the cause of separatism that eventually partitioned India?
*** To be continued...

The paradox that Pakistan is (Part 1)

It is more than 60 years now that undivided British India was partitioned along religious lines. A new state of Pakistan—an Islamic republic—was carved out. Pakistan broke up further in 1971 and split into two, with the emergence of Bangladesh, which was East Pakistan to begin with. Until then, Pakistan had claimed that all the Muslims of the subcontinent could live unitedly as one people, one nation. Indeed, that is what the founder of Pakistan, Mohammed Ali Jinnah, had postulated all along. When East Pakistan seceded to become an independent nation, Pakistan's bubble burst.
In any case, the state of Pakistan is quite a paradox. It was ostensibly created for the Muslims of undivided British India and the princely states adjoining it, but to date, there are more Muslims in India than the entire population of Pakistan put together. The man who championed the cause of Pakistan, Jinnah, whom they call Quaid-e-Azam (leader of leaders) was himself not a practising Muslim. This Oxford-educated barrister, ate pork and drank liquor—two practices that are "haraam" in Islam. In fact, he was an agnostic in the early days and never prayed.
Furthermore, Jinnah was a Khoja (Ismaeli) Muslim—a Shia—and Sunni Islam is the official religion of the "Islamic Republic of Pakistan", in which while the Shias are tolerated, the Ahmaddiyas are persecuted. Jinnah was more comfortable speaking English and his native Gujrati than Urdu. What is more, he was a poor public speaker although he was excellent when arguing a case in English in the law courts.
The national or official language of Pakistan is Urdu, which happens to be the mother tongue of Muslims who migrated to the new state of Pakistan from UP and Bihar soon after partition. The provincial languages spoken in Pakistan are Punjabi, Sindhi, Pushtu and Baluch. These migrants or refugees are still referred to as Mohajirs in Pakistan. The word, 'Mohajir' means refugee. On the other hand, the Sindhis and Punjabis—mainly Hindus and Sikhs—who migrated to this side of the border never attained such a permanent status—of "refugees".
*** To be continued...

I hate Dan Brown!

Bertrand Russel and Dan Brown have both attacked traditional Christianity. Russel's 'Why I am not a Christian', became a classic of sorts. Brown churned out, 'Da Vinci Code', which became a bestseller. But, while I admire Russel, I abhor Dan Brown. What's the difference between the two? Dan Brown, to my mind, lacked intellectual honesty, which Russel had in plenty. Intellectual honesty and the courage to even say towards the end of his life, "philosophy has been a washout for me".
When Russel attacked Christianity, he used logic and reason. He relied on authentic historical information. He did not weave a magic of words and create fictitious characters who would mouth his own prejudices, assumptions and beliefs as if they were all incontrovertible historical facts. He did not blur the line between fact and fiction and take his readers for a ride. He did not make false claims, which have since been refuted—thankfully. That is the difference between the two men. That is why while I like one of them, I can't stand the other.
No, I am not a Christian fundamentalist. I am not even a Roman Catholic who seeks to hold a brief for the Vatican. I have issues with Catholicism myself. So, what am I? Well, I am a liberal Protestant, a "progessive Christian". To know what we believe in, log on to http://www.tcpc.org/. That is if you would like to know where I stand with regard to matters pertaining to my own religious tradition—the one into which I was born.
So much of what Dan Brown says in Da Vinci Code is inconsequential to me any way. Even if Jesus Christ would have been married—like any other young Jewish man of his time—that would not have lessened my admiration and respect for him. It does not matter to me if he travelled to India or died in Kashmir much after the crucifixion, as some claim. For that matter, even if it should be conclusively established some time in the future, by means of reliable historical evidence, that Jesus never really existed, it would still not have a bearing on my basic faith that stems from the ideology that is enshrined in the Bible. However, this ideology is not some kind of blind belief, but a rational appreciation of my tradition in light of logic, reason and the latest scientific discoveries.
I don't take the Bible literally like fundamentalists do. I am not a literalist. The Bible is a collection of writings over two millennia that faithfully records the spiritual experiences and evolving religious identity of the Jewish people and later Gentile converts to the new faith during the Christian movement in 1st century Palestine. The Christian movement itself was many-sided with three major groups competing for supremacy during the time.
My problem with Dan Brown is his intellectual dishonesty. He is a clever novelist who for commercial considerations created a controversy that contributed hugely to making his novel a bestseller and sent the unscrupulous fellow laughing all the way to the bank. That is what upsets me. The claims he has made are nothing new. His arguments don't hold much historical water. They have been torn to shreds by those who have called his bluff and exposed his half-baked knowedge of history and metaphysics. How I wish those who go ga-ga over his novels would care to read the other side of the argument before they make up their minds.
After all, he makes a poor judge who pays heed to just one side of the argument.