Pakistan: Goodbye & Good Luck

Source: http://www.newslaundry.com/2013/05/pakistan-goodbye-good-luck/

Human beings cut off ties with one another all the time. This not only prevents a fight-unto-death scenario, it also allows the adversaries to cool off and move on – go their separate ways.

The time has come for India to cut off all diplomatic, economic, cinematic and other ties with Pakistan. In perpetuity. Good luck and goodbye, Pakistan. May you prosper and may your people find peace.

I say this with a degree of conviction and moral certitude that our forefathers, barring perhaps Mahatma Gandhi, would have approved of. Let me explain.

Pakistan has a pathological hatred of India and the idea of India.

It was a nation created because of it. The creators of Pakistan abhorred India’s plurality. They disbelieved the assertion of many – including Gandhi – that Hindus and Muslims can stay as brothers. They doubted India’s assertion of secularism. No, they said, a time will come when our people will be under the boot of the majority. We want a separate land for our people.

The first speech Mr Jinnah gave in the newly created Pakistan was astonishing in its effrontery. He talked of how he wanted Pakistan to be a secular state! That’s right – you can’t bear to live as one in a secular state, but now that you’ve created your own nation – based solely on a religious conviction and unfounded fear of the majority – you are happy to believe that your newly-turned majority desires nothing else but a secular state where all minorities shall live in peace. Well, we know what came of it, the experiment that was Pakistan.

Pakistan has never been able to reconcile with the fact that an overwhelming majority of Muslims – whom Pakistan’s founders were supposedly fighting for in the first place – decided to stay back in India. This is a thorn that pricks Pakistan daily and will continue to do so.

Those who doubt the sincerity of Indian Muslims and forever taunt them and address them as “they”, forget this simplest of facts. A huge piece of land was created especially for them – “Come all ye brothers, to our promised land where you will never live under fear of the majority” – and then, when the time came, these very people, the Indian Muslims, ignored the call. Can anything else be more telling of the idea of India?

Pakistan has a pathological hatred of India because millions of Muslims decided to stay back.

The hatred became acute when Pakistan broke into two, of its own internal stress. A nation that was based on religion could not keep itself together to even celebrate its silver jubilee.

All history – right from the time of Herodotus – is contemporary when you factor in the fact that we read, assess and describe a few thousand years on a timeline of 13.8 billion years. What monumental folly! No wonder we cannot trust history and we fail to learn from it.

The cutting off of economic ties will not hurt India. It may hurt Pakistan, but if they believe it won’t then so be it. Our bilateral trade is minuscule compared to our trade with other countries.

It is, however, the cutting off of ALL ties, meaning people-to-people mostly, that divides opinion in our country, to the extent that we begin to label people as hawks and doves. We somehow believe it is not morally right.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

For all the unimaginable work that Bapu did for us, and the path he showed us, there were some blunders he committed that went on to condition us. The Mahatma, we must understand, had an unrivalled moral compass, more so if you notice the decades he was active in – Hitler, Churchill, Stalin, Mao, and Mussolini were his contemporaries.

I believe he was wrong in demanding that India pay Pakistan a chunk of money we owed them Rs 55 crore ($ 78.5 million today) even though it was certain that Pakistan would use it against India, in buying arms and expanding its skirmishes and not-so-contained battles over Kashmir. In any case, the two nations were at war when Gandhi demanded we make this payment.

The only man who stood up to Gandhi was Sardar Patel. I don’t know how to say this, and pardon my ignorance of history, but I am yet to find a blunder that Patel committed in all the years that he served India’s cause. I love Bapu and I like Nehru, but it is inescapable that the two made some astonishing mistakes. If anyone can list a single blunder of Patel, I’d be the wiser.

Those who say he was a right-wing fanatic know nothing! Patel exhibited the goodness of Gandhi but crucially, he did not let it – like Nehru did every time – cloud his exemplary realpolitik wisdom. In essence, Patel was an incredible student of history. People forget how close he was to Bapu – many a time Bapu told him to keep Nehru in check for he worried Nehru was getting too close to the Communists.

Patel was forthright in his objection to handing Pakistan the money. He went to Gandhi and told him so in as many words. But what can anyone do if the man he loves and admires decides to go on a fast-unto-death over the issue? What does a son do when the father blackmails? The awful dilemma of Patel – realpolitik versus Gandhi’s moral compass – is described in many books (Alex Von Tunzelmann’s Indian Summer comes to mind immediately). But the most objective description is in Joseph Lelyveld’s Great Soul: Mahatma Gandhi and his struggle with India. What does one do when the person you love asks something from you that you don’t want to give? In the end Patel backed out.

That was the first occasion when Pakistanis knew Indians are emotional people, that their every judgment from thereon would be clouded by emotion and the desire to feel good about taking the high moral ground.

We have suffered ever since at the hands of Pakistan. Not a day has passed when it hasn’t desired the destruction of India. Those who are old enough to remember the 1980s would recall how, when Pakistan was clearly fomenting trouble in Punjab, we gushed at Zia-ul-Haq’s arrival at the Jaipur test match. Even though we saw Pakistan’s intentions we wanted to embrace her, we wanted to take the high moral ground. This continued all through the 90s and continues to this day. The release of the Kandahar terrorists and their rapturous welcome in the streets of Pakistan; the 26/11 massacre; the LOC beheadings; the murder of Sarabjit…nothing will stir us into cutting all ties with Pakistan. Why? Because we think it’s not ethical and moral to do so.

But this is where we are so wrong!

India was one of the few countries which were unequivocal in cutting all relations with the apartheid South Africa. Those who say sports and politics shouldn’t be mixed forget that for decades we as Indians didn’t want anything to do with South Africa. It was even written in our passports, for crying out loud! Can any right-thinking person say that it was wrong on our part to do so?

Those who say that the overwhelming majority of Pakistanis are like us, good people, nice friendly people – why do they forget that the same held true for a large number of white south Africans, too? Were Nadine Gordimer and Dr Christiaan Barnard racist? But nations don’t behave like how their well-meaning people would like them to behave.

Apartheid continued for 50 years. The South African economy, based on diamonds, and gold, and mining and agro products, was one of the largest in the world during the time of apartheid, so much so that those who call themselves the upholders of morality and ethics now – the Western world – continued to trade with South Africa until as late as 1989!

But we were steadfast. And I am proud of that, proud that we can look Mandela and Tutu and Biko (if he was alive) in the eyes and say we stood with you, brothers, we were there right beside you.

We could have benefited a great deal from trading with the apartheid regime but we stood up for principles. Not all white South Africans were racist pigs. But despite that we wanted nothing to do with South Africa.

Why can’t we realise that the situation with Pakistan is exactly the same? Come what may, no matter how many Pakistanis think well of India, the pathological hatred that was the basis of their nation’s creation will make sure that Pakistan will use any opportunity to humiliate India, to bring her down, to break her.

I have nothing personal against Pakistanis. The majority of them are fine people and I have many of them as friends. But this is about our people, their continued suffering. It is time we took a stand, like we did against the apartheid South Africa despite losing out on economic trade and other ties.

We must cut all ties with Pakistan and be in no hurry to resume them until we are certain that the leopard has changed its spots. We must not worry about Pakistanis not being able to come and play cricket here. Did we lament when Gavaskar and Chandra and Amarnath couldn’t play with the South Africans? On the contrary, we were proud of them. Not so the case with the few West Indians who went on a rebel tour to South Africa in the 80s. They are derided to this day in the West Indies for selling out.

No, it’s much more than sports or Bollywood or literary contacts. It’s about two brothers realising reconciliation is impossible if one of them fails to confront the truth.

Pakistan, we wish you luck. Goodbye

Your’s Sincerely
Diljit C Shah
N. Gopaldas & Co.,
36, Chinnakadai Street.,P.O. Box 328,
Tiruchirapalli – 620 002. India
email: diljitshah@yahoo.co.in

Miss India 2009 – Pooja Chopra

Neera Chopra is her mother. This is her story.

Neera Chopra lived through abuse, poverty and some tough choices to make her once-unwanted girl child, Pooja Chopra.

“I don’t know where to begin… they were terrible times. My husband was well-placed, but the marriage had begun to sink almost as soon as it began. Like most women do, I tried to work against all the odds .

My in-laws insisted everything would be alright if I had a son. My first child was a daughter, and that didn’t do me any good… but I couldn’t walk out. I had lost my father, my brother was in a not-so-senior position in Bata. I didn’t want to be a burden on my family and continued to live in my marital home in Kolkata.

I looked after my mother-inlaw, who was suffering from cancer, and while bathing her, I would tell myself she would bless me and put things right.

I don’t know how I tolerated it all. The least a man can do, if he must philander, is to not flaunt his women in his wife’s face. Then began the manhandling. I still wanted my marriage to survive. I was a pure vegetarian and learnt to cook non-vegetarian delicacies thinking it would please him.

Then, I was pregnant again. When Pooja was eight months in my womb, my husband brought a girl to the house and announced he would marry her. I thought of killing myself. I hung on the slight hope that if the baby was a boy, my marriage could be saved.

When Pooja was born a girl, for three days, nobody came to the hospital. There was a squadron leader’s wife on the opposite bed, who was kind enough to give me baby clothes for Pooja to wear. When she was 20 days old, I had to make a choice. I left the house with my girls ‘ Pooja and Shubra, who was seven then. I haven’t seen my husband since. I promised myself, even if we had just one roti, we would share it, but together.

I began life in Mumbai with the support of my mother, brother, who was by then married. It wasn’t the ideal situation, especially when he had children – space, money, everything was short. I began work at the Taj Colaba and got my own place. How did I manage? Truth be told, I would put a chatai on the floor, leave two glasses of milk and some food, and bolt the door from outside before going to work. I would leave the key with the neighbours and tell the kids to shout out to them when it was time to leave for school.

Their tiny hands would do homework on their own, feed themselves on days that I worked late. My elder daughter Shubhra would make Pooja do her corrections… This is how they grew up. At a birthday party, Pooja would not eat her piece of cake, but pack it and bring it home to share with her sister. When Shubhra started working, she would skip lunch and pack a chicken sandwich that she would slip in her sister’s lunchbox the next day.

I used to pray, ‘God, punish me for my karma, but not my innocent little kids. Please let me provide them the basics.’ I used to struggle for shoes, socks, uniforms. I was living in Bangur Nagar, Goregaon. Pooja would walk four bus stops down to the St Thomas
Academy . Then, too little to cross the road, she would ask a passerby to help her. I had to save the bus money to be able to put some milk in their bodies.

Life began to change when I got a job for Rs 6,000 at the then Goa Penta. Mr Chhabra, the owner, and his wife, were kind enough to provide a loan for me. I sent my daughters to my sister’s house in Pune, with my mother as support. I spent four years working in Goa while I saved to buy a small one-bedroom house in Pune (where the family still lives). I would work 16-18 hours a day, not even taking weekly offs to accumulate leave and visit my daughters three or four times a year.

Once I bought my house and found a job in Pune, life began to settle. I worked in Hotel Blue Diamond for a year and then finally joined Mainland China ‘ which changed my life. The consideration of the team and management brought me the stability to bring them up, despite late hours and the travelling a hotelier must do.

Shubhra got a job in Hotel Blue Diamond, being the youngest employee there while still in college, and managed to finish her Masters in commerce and her BBM. Today, she is married to a sweet Catholic boy who is in the Merchant Navy and has a sweet daughter.

I continue to finish my day job and come home and take tuitions, as I have done for all these years. I also do all my household chores myself.

Through the years, Shubhra has been my anchor and Pooja, the rock. Pooja’s tiny hands have wiped away my tears when I broke down. She has stood up for me, when I couldn’t speak for myself. Academically brilliant, she participated in all extra-curricular activities. When she needed high heels to model in, she did odd shows and bought them for herself.

When I saw Pooja give her speech on TV, I knew it came from her heart. I could see the twinkle in her eye. And I thought to myself as she won ‘My God, this is my little girl.’ God was trying to tell me something.

Today, I’ve no regrets. I believe every cloud has a silver lining. As a mother, I’ve done nothing great.”

Pantaloons Femina Miss India Pooja Chopra’s mother promised, ‘One day, this girl will make me proud’.

Pooja speaks on fulfilling that promise… “When I was 20 days old, my mother was asked to make a choice. It was either me, a girl child, or her husband. She chose me. As she walked out she turned around and told her husband, ‘One day, this girl will make me proud’. That day has come. Her husband went on to marry a woman who gave him two sons. Today, as I stand here a Miss India, I don’t even know if my father knows that it is me, his daughter, who has set out to conquer the world, a crown on my head. 

“Our lives have not been easy, least so for my mother. Financially, emotionally, she struggled to stay afloat, to keep her job and yet allow us to be the best that we could be. I was given only one condition when I started modelling ‘ my grades wouldn’t drop.

“All the girls in the pageant worked hard, but my edge was my mother’s sacrifice, her karma. Today, when people call to congratulate me, it’s not me they pay tribute to, but to her life and her struggle. She’s the true Woman of Substance. She is my light, my mentor, my driving force.”

Padma Rao Sundarji Says Tamils Better-off Now in Sri Lanka Than Before

Across the Palk Strait, concern for Sri Lanka’s Tamils is being expressed through competitive aggression: there’s been a furore over the perceived weakness of a US-sponsored UNHRC resolution slamming Sri Lanka for rights violations and failure to rehabilitate its war-battered Tamils; Sri Lankan Buddhist monks visiting Tamil Nadu have been attacked; Lankan cricketers have been banned from IPL matches in Chennai; and last week, the Tamil Nadu assembly adopted a resolution (one sponsored by chief minister J. Jayalalitha) that India press the UN Security Council to seek a referendum in northern Sri Lanka over the creation of a Tamil Eelam. The vocal 9 lakh-strong Sri Lankan Tamil diaspora has been at work too: the US-sponsored resolution was backed by their wes­tern hosts who had granted them asylum with the vague notion of a faraway ‘freedom struggle’ and allowed money transfers that gave the LTTE claws and teeth.

Colombo, like India over Kashmir, has strongly objected to such external meddling. Sri Lanka’s foreign minister G.L. Peiris speaks of how much has been done in the Tamil-dominated northern and northeastern parts of the island, where over 2 lakh people had been killed in three decades of civil war. “Thousands of Tamils, including 595 LTTE child-soldiers, have been reintegrated. Demining is almost over,” he says. “In which country of former conflict have you seen something comparable within four years of the end of war?” In fact, a trip through the Tamil areas—where, during the conflict, highways lay mine-ridden, houses stood skeletal and palms crownless, and where dazed civilians would stumble about like tear-streaked wraiths, silently holding up pictures of missing children—throws up some surprises.

Yes, the Sri Lankan army is still an overwhelming presence, but, it must be conceded, without a dubious special law like India’s AFSPA. And anyone who has witnessed the conflict—one of Asia’s bloodiest—may well accept that the army cannot yet be withdrawn from an area liberated from terrorists who suicide-bombed with impunity and used child-soldiers as human shields for the leadership.

As visible and present as the army is change. Construction is on everywhere. Houses are being built in large numbers, the railway lines and highways could put the best in India to shame, the tin-roofed war-refugee shelters have almost vanished. Almost every second Tamil in gainful employment is a former Tiger. Killinochchi, once a dismal village of huge graveyards, is now a town bustling with hotels, supermarkets, small and big businesses. Internet connections are spe­­edy. Much of this owes to investment by Sinhalas, but also by well-meaning overseas Tamils. Last week, this former ‘capital’ of the LTTE saw an unusual parade: the graduation of 20 female ex-LTTE cadres who had voluntarily joined the Sri Lankan army. “The UNHRC has been highly selective,” says Peiris, “but we invited its chief, Navanethem Pillay, to see for herself. She promised to come. We are still waiting.”

In Visuwamadu and Mullaithivu, some sombre relics of a bloody conflict still remain: LTTE chief V. Prabhakaran’s air-conditioned bunker; arsenals of weapons; aircraft, submarines, suicide boats and vests. Evidence also stands of wilful destruction wreaked by fleeing LTTE cadres, leaving thousands of Tamils destitute.

Few Tamils in Sri Lanka care for the blood-brotherly breast-beating in Tamil Nadu. “Empty noise,” says former LTTE spokesman Daya Master, speaking from Jaffna. “We want harmony and reconciliation with Sinhalas. Elections are due in September, and we’ll find a solution wit­hin Sri Lanka. These bleeding hearts should leave us alone.” Construction workers, shopkeepers, former LTTE cadres—across class and background, they say Chennai’s politicians have done nothing for them. The cacophony is mere political play. Sri Lanka is on the mend: Tamil Nadu and the Tamil diaspora should help the process or leave them alone.

At a hotel in Mannar, Kamal (name changed), a 21-year-old bellhop, asks me fearfully if Prabhakaran is alive in Tamil Nadu. His father had died a Tiger, and he and his brother were forcibly recruited by the LTTE. Videos of “Prabhakaran alive”, supposedly shot in Chennai, have left many young Tamils like him, struggling to begin anew, frightened. He is happy working for a Sinhala proprietor, has “a good room and a good salary” and says “samadhanam (peace) is the best thing”. Over the week, he has made acquaintance with Malinga, a taxi driver who fought as a Sri Lankan soldier. Malinga is on his first trip to the north after the last days of the conflict, in which he saw many of his mates die. At parting, Kamal and Malinga shake hands, slap each other’s backs, and—just a trifle awkwardly—embrace.

 

Price for Surrendering in India

Claims, Counter-Claims

• Syed Liaqat Shah was arrested from the Sanauli checkpost on the India-Nepal border on March 20 by the Delhi police
• They say he was a Hizbul Mujahideen man, on his way to Delhi as part of a ‘Holi terror plot’
• The Jammu and Kashmir police refutes this. They say Liaqat was a former militant on his way to his Kashmir home from PoK. According to them, he was a beneficiary of the state’s rehabilitaion policy for former militants.
• The Centre has asked the National Investigation Agency to probe and resolve the dispute
• It has now been decided to deploy J&K police, along with the Sashastra Seema Bal, on the Indo-Nepal border to streamline the surrender of ex-militants

Withering words. “I won’t think twice if the government allows us to return to Pakistan,” says Akhtar-un-Nisa, the second wife of Syed Liaqat Shah who was arrested by the Delhi police as a “conspirator of a terror plot” to launch fidayeen attacks in the capital on Holi.

Akhtar, 47, is the best person to hear the story from: “We were among the 10 people returning from Pakistan to India via Nepal. Seven people were received by their relatives, no one came to receive us. They (special cell of the Delhi police) arrested us near the Indo-Nepal border and took us to Gorakhpur. They didn’t recover any objectionable item from us. We pleaded that we were going to Kash­mir under the rehabilitation policy ann­ounced by the Jammu and Kashmir government for militants who want to surrender, but they didn’t listen to us. I was later released in New Delhi.”

It’s become a full-blown controversy  that ref­uses to die down. Even in the face of criticism, the Delhi police is sticking to its claim that Liaqat is a Hizbul Muj­ah­ideen operative. The Jammu and Kash­mir police is firm in its position that he was a PoK-based ex-militant on his way to Kas­hmir for state-sponsored rehabilitation. At the very least, the affair exposes the lack of com­munication between the police of the two states, especially on the issue of sur­render and rehabilitation.

The J&K government has reason to be upset. It says its rehabilitation policy—which has the overt backing of the Union home ministry—has attracted over 1,000 applications, and has enabled 241 former militants to return to J&K from Pakistan in the past two years. One source of this  row is the route of return. Ex-militants are officially all­owed to return through four entry poi­nts—Poonch-Rawalakote, Uri-Muz­affarabad, Wagah (Punjab) and the igi airport, Delhi. However, none of the former militants, including Liaqat, chose to travel through these designated routes. They preferred the Nepal route—ostensibly because Pakistan (for obvious reasons) created hurdles in the policy’s implementation. The J&K government reluctantly allowed this for the sake of its pet policy. Of the men who have returned to start on a clean slate, including 113 who have brought their families along, several arrived in India via Kathmandu, after flying there on Pakistani passports.

Akhtar says she had travelled to Pak­istan on a valid passport in 2001 after her first husband died in an encounter with the army in 1995. Her physically chall­enged teenage daughter, Jabeena, who accompanied her to Pakistan and back, was from her first marriage. “In 2006, I married Liaqat, who ran a grocery shop at Muzaffarabad (capital of PoK)…he had abandoned militancy long back. We wanted to return to our roots to lead a happy life, but the Delhi police has played spoilsport. Now I won’t think again if they allow us to return,” a visibly shaken and disappointed Akhtar says.

The J&K government and the state police have confirmed that Liaqat was slated for the rehabilitation policy meant for ex-militants in Pakistan who had ren­ounced violence and wanted to ret­urn home. Liaquat’s first wife, Ameena Bano, submitted the required documents on Feb­ruary 5, 2011, in the deputy commissioner’s office in Kupwara, the town nea­­rest to Liaqat’s village, Dardpora, in north Kashmir. As the Kupwara police had no criminal case against Liaqat, it approved the application and forwarded it to the CID and other departments. Lia­­qat’s family duly informed the police about his probable date of return after he left Pakistan with his family.

“When the state government announ­ced that militants who had crossed the LoC will be allowed to return, we urged him to return along with his second wife and step-daughter,” says Ameena, who lives with her two sons. “My brother never participated in any militant activity in Kashmir,” says Liaqat’s brother, Syed Kar­amat Shah. “He was coming here to sur­render, and we were jubilant that he was returning after 18 years.”

The J&K government fears that Liaqat’s arrest might be a “big setback” to its sho­wpiece rehabilitation policy. “Other Kashmiris who want to come back to their homes under it will be discouraged,” says chief minister Omar Abd­ullah. Already there are reports that 15 former militants, all of them from Dar­d­pora, have second thoughts about ret­urning to the Valley after seeing what  Lia­qat is going through. “This includes two of Liaqat’s relatives. They have decided to reconsider their decision,” says local MLA Abdul Haq Khan.

Meanwhile, the Delhi police has bec­ome a figure of ridicule in the milita­ncy-hardened Kashmir valley—its credibility barely there after taking Liaqat (who is in his early 50s) for a ‘dreaded fidayeen’. Among those who picked holes in the Delhi police story is CM Omar Abd­ullah himself. “I have yet to see a fidayeen who returned holding the hands of his wife and daughter. Had he been a fidayeen, he would have grenades and guns in his hands,” Omar told the assembly in one of his rare broadsides against New Delhi.

Expectedly, the media in the Valley too has been rather scathing in its censure. A Kashmir Times editorial titled Fiction of Holi-terror plot had this to say, “The incident again highlights the misuse of authority and abuse of power by men in uniform, an obvious bid to win promotions and gallantry awa­rds or for someone’s political convenience.” A journalist wrote on Facebook: “My 12-year-old cousin on Liaqat’s arr­est: ‘This old man can’t handle a pis­tol, how would he have carried out a fidayeen attack?’”  Alluding to the Delhi police linking Liaqat to the recovery of arms and ammunition from a city guest house, he added: “Certainly, when India wants to implicate Kash­miris, guns grow even on trees”.

Mehbooba Mufti, president of the PDP, agrees. “Liaqat Shah’s arrest in Delhi indicates that the old industry of falsely implicating Kashmiri youth for sake of rewards and medals is thriving. Kashmiri youth have become a fodder for Con­gress-BJP electoral politics.”

In the past, around twelve Kashmiris, all arrested by the Delhi police on terror charges, had been declared innocent by the courts. Tragically, for the accused the clean chit came late; they had had to spend the prime of their life in prison.

No wonder everyone’s hoping for caution, maturity and restraint from New Delhi. A storm of protests in Kashmir—on the street and in the assembly—has forced the Union home ministry to ask the National Inve­stigation Agency to get to the bottom of the Liaqat affair, and check the circumstances of his arrest and the veracity  of the Delhi and J&K police’s opposing claims. Greater crises have blown over Kashmir. But they often have their origins in smaller bunglings.

Narendra Modi Should be Behind Bars Rather Than Ruling a State

From Hermitude To Holography

This excerpt from a forthcoming ‘authorised-turned-unauthorised’ biography of the BJP’s man of the season, Gujarat chief minister Narendra Modi by Nilanjan Mukhopadhyay

If there is any phase of Narendra Modi’s life about which there are no definitive accounts, it is from teenage to adulthood.  Existing literature on Modi’s life that has been endorsed or authorised by him is full of glaring contradictions; personal accounts of childhood friends, teachers, immediate kin and acquaintances contain different stories. The years from 1967 to 1971 in  Modi’s life are somewhat “mysterious”, and despite my pointed questions, he chose not to shed any light on it—save one, a confirmation that the out point in his life had been 1967 and the return point was in 1971. Modi told me: “A lot of people ask me, but I do not want to say anything about that period because at some point in my life I would like to write about this period—what I did, where all did I go…. But it started in 1967 and there were variations about the periods when I was away (from home)—at times I was away for about 15 months, then I stayed away for six months and then even lesser—and I came back. I kept coming and going….”

Modi told me that he continued with an annual ritual that he termed “meet myself programme”. When I asked him what he meant by this, he said that he spent time only with himself and went away to remote places without informing anyone about his whereabouts. “I used to go away during Diwali. When people celebrated, I would be somewhere away in a remote place, far away from any person—all by myself. I went alone, and only went to places where I would not find another human being—places like a jungle or some barren or abandoned place. I carried only a little to eat—some snacks to last for three to five days—I just chose a place where I could get water to drink. I carried only a little food—only the bare necessities—so that I did not feel that I had not eaten anything.” I asked Modi about the kind of places he used for his getaways: “Any kind—completely unknown places that I did not know. I never decided my address and did not tell anyone where I was going.” Naturally, I was curious because this was a potential headline-making story: ‘Modi disappears, aides clueless, but assure supporters of his safety’.  I asked him when was the last time he went to meet himself and where was the venue? “That was in 1995-96, I was still in Gujarat (meaning that he had not yet been shunted out from the state unit of the BJP.) I went to the Gir forest and stayed where there were no humans. I went around and found an old temple where I could sleep, where no one could disturb me. No one came.” Perplexing though, it was getting interesting and I could not resist myself. What did he do? “I did nothing. That is what I did—nothing. Just think.” And then came my final question—what about now? “Now it is not in my destiny (naseeb nahi raha.) I do not know why people debate loneliness so much­—I actually enjoy loneliness. People debate outside a lot—that Modi is a loner—I am not a loner in any way. But yes, I do not enjoy too much of a crowd.”

Halfway into my first interview with Modi, I gingerly approached the question which I feared may put an end to the writing of this book. I had played this scene in my mind’s eye several times and owed it to myself to ask the most forbidden question in the context of the man: there were two clear chapters in his political career—pre-Godhra and post-Godhra. Did he agree? He reacted predictably, by now set in his reactions whenever probed on such matters, and insulating himself deftly, cut me short and informed me with more than a hint of gruffness: “All this is available—you would be able to get the complete record. The SIT in its report has documented all this minute-to-minute—everything is available on the net…. And since it is authentic and has been done under the supervision of the Supreme Court, then you should go by that version only—why take my version? Then you may consult the Nanavati Commission report on Godhra.”

My hunch was right on both counts. First, in the way he skirted the issue, and second, in his referring to what was already part of judicial records. Not one to give up, I also asked around. Several sources corroborated my sense on this: Modi did not want to provide any fresh information which could be used against him in courts and also arm his detractors with more ammunition. The two voluminous reports that Modi mentioned have agreed with the claim of Modi and his political clan: that the attack on the Sabarmati Express on the morning of February 27, 2002, was not an accidental fire but a coordinated attack and that Modi was not guilty of any allegations levelled against him either by relatives of those who died in the post-Godhra violence or by groups of “concerned citizens”. One person I spoke to said Modi’s stonewalling tactics owed to the fact that he did not wish anyone a peep into his psyche at that time and also did not wish to add anything which may be used as evidence against him and his associates in any of the several pending legal cases.

For more than a decade since 2002, Modi’s public image has been shaped by two contrasting viewpoints. The first one is one based on belief, hearsay statements and oral assertions of people claiming to be eyewitnesses to events.The second is based on opinions and findings chiselled by inquiry committees and commissions that have reached their conclusions after relatively underplaying information and affirmations not backed by direct evidence. Both opinions have backers who have first taken an ideologically driven position and then gone on to use facts while buttressing their opinion. While the first opinion has led to extreme assessments of Modi being likened to a fascist or a mass murderer, the other school considers that painting Modi’s image in that hue is part of pseudo-secular propaganda and that he is actually a paragon of virtue and dedication.

***

I asked him about the boundaries of existence his political clan has enforced on non-Hindus and the need for them to accept Hindu ideas and ideals as their own. Modi replied: “Yes, that was the basic argument (in the course of the Ayodhya agitation, that Muslims also must accept Lord Ram as the symbol of national identity), the main philosophy—that he also was a mahapurush (great man) of this country. And that everyone in this country should believe in this—those who led this agitation campaigned for this.” At this point of the interview, it becomes evident that Modi strongly believes that if minorities wished to coexist and feel safe in the state governed by him, it was mandatory for them to abide by the beliefs and value systems of the majority community.

Meanwhile, I prodded on as Modi was opening up, and this was my best chance to get to the core of Modi’s understanding of Hindutva and I asked him: “India has a composite culture. There is tremendous social diversity. How do you look at inter-community relationships and the relationship of different social and religious groups with the State?”

Modi did not answer my question explicitly but said: “People can have different forms of puja and rituals can also be different—but that does not mean that the country, the traditions of the land can become different. Look at it this way—who is a Hindu? Those who believe in God are called Hindus and even those who do not believe in God. People also consider those who believe in idol worship as Hindus and even those who campaign against idol worship. Those who deify nature are termed Hindus and those who do not do so are also called Hindus. The truth is that Hindus do not have any real concern with the manner and processes of paying obeisance to God. Hindus have no problems if someone performs the namaz or goes to a church and reads the Bible to reach God. Hindus have no problem with this. We have no problems with the religious practices of people. We have no problems if anyone wants to retain religious identity—but the country, the traditions.”

Modi’s first hurdle after he became chief minister in 2001 was to find a safe seat and become member of the state assembly within the mandatory six-month period. But this was not easy for two reasons: Modi had never contested any election in his political career, and secondly, with the BJP traversing a rough terrain, finding a safe seat was difficult. As we have seen, Modi did not have a political home. He had been mostly Ahmedabad-based since joining the RSS in the early 1970s and ideally wanted to contest from a city seat—where he would personally know party workers—vacated by a party colleague. But an easy entry to the state assembly proved difficult for Modi because Haren Pandya, whose seat Modi wanted, did not oblige.

If such provocation was not enough, Pandya courted further trouble in the aftermath of the 2002 riots when he appeared before the Concerned Citizens Tribunal headed by former Supreme Court judge Justice Krishna Iyer in May 2002. The deposition was made on an understanding that he would not be named. However, Modi’s intelligence wing, which an unnamed source says was fine-tuned after he became chief minister because Modi had been inspired by “Shivaji’s spy network” and wanted to develop an intelligence web like that, kept track of Pandya’s movements. Even his mobile phone was tapped—media reports claimed—as a result of which Modi got to know about Pandya’s deposition in almost real-time in May 2002.

Modi, however, was not satisfied at easing Pandya out of his government. In assembly elections, held in November-December 2002, the friend-turned-foe was not nominated by the party even after the intervention of stalwarts such as Advani and Vajpayee. The media reported gleefully that in order to avoid being pressurised into nominating Pandya, Modi checked into a hospital and stopped taking phone calls from New Delhi. After this, Pandya receded from the limelight and lived a quiet life till March 26,  2003, when everything was over for him. On that dreadful morning, an unknown assassin’s gun silenced Pandya when he was returning from a morning walk in the sprawling Law Garden, a public park in Ahmedabad.

The Haren Pandya murder case became the first of the several high-profile non-2002-riots court cases in Gujarat that cast a shadow over Modi’s regime. In police parlance, the Pandya murder case was termed a cut-out murder,  where the chain from the conspirator or instigator to the eventual victim is impossible to establish. A police contact explained it like this: “A wants to murder Z and instructs B to execute the order. B tells C who does not know that A is the instigator. Instructions are passed in this manner from C to D and then to E and it goes down all the way. The final contract killer does not know where the order originated from. If investigations turns nasty, then all A has to do is to make any of the people in the chain a cut-out—take him out by beginning another chain.”

Markandey Katju: Pakistan is a Fake & Artificial Country’

‘I do not believe that there are two nations, there is only one nation, that is India, and Pakistan is part of India. Pakistan was created in pursuance of the wicked British policy of divide and rule and the bogus Two Nation Theory’

Retired Justice Markandey Katju’s remarks about Pakistan generated lot of publicity for him which probably he desired all along.

His correspondence with former Pakistani foreign secretary Shamsad Ahmed, reproduced below, provide the necessary background into his views about Pakistan and his article published in the Pakistani newspaper articulates his thoughts on the future ahead for the two countries.

Correspondence with Mr Shamshad Ahmed and Editor of ‘The Nation’:

1. Email to Editor of The Nation

Dear Sir,

I am a retired judge of the Supreme Court of India and, presently, am the Chairman of the Press Council of India. I understand that you are the publisher/editor of the newspaper The Nation. I read online an article in your esteemed newspaper entitled “May You Live Long, Katju!” by Mr Shamshad Ahmed, former Foreign Secretary of Pakistan, criticising my views expressed in a speech given by me some time back in a function in New Delhi.

In that speech, I said that Pakistan is a fake and artificial country created by the British and their agents in pursuance of the wicked British policy of divide and rule and the bogus Two Nation Theory (i.e. Hindus and Muslims are two nations). In reality, there is no such thing as Pakistan; there is Punjab, Sindh, Balochistan and NWFP, all of which are really part of India.

The purpose of partitioning the country and creating Pakistan was to make Hindus and Muslims keep fighting with each other even after the British withdraw from the subcontinent so that India (of which I regard Pakistan as a part) may remain weak.

When I meet my Pakistani friends, we talk in Hindustani and we feel no different from each other.

In my opinion, India and Pakistan will reunite in the next 20 years or so under a strong secular modern minded government, which will not tolerate religious extremism, whether Hindu or Muslim, and crush it with an iron hand.

I would like to send you my rejoinder to Mr Shamshad Ahmed’s article, if you are willing to publish it. I know it may require courage to publish my article, but the time has come when the truth must be told to people.

Regards,
Justice Katju

2. Email to Mr Shamshad Ahmed (former Foreign Secretary of Pakistan) :

Dear Mr Shamshad Ahmed,

I read your article in TheNation (February 26th issue) on my views about Pakistan being a fake and artificial nation created by the British on the basis of the bogus Two Nation Theory in pursuance of their wicked policy of divide and rule.

I would like to write and get published my rejoinder. In my opinion, India and Pakistan are really one nation temporarily divided, but which is bound to reunite in the next 20 years or so under a strong, secular modern minded government, which does not tolerate religious extremism and bigotry, whether Hindu or Muslim, and crushes it with an iron hand. 

Regards,

Justice Katju

3. Mr Shamshad Ahmed’s Reply:

Dear Justice Katju,

I just saw your message.

Let me tell you, difference of outlook on nationhood aside, I am one of your admirers. I was telling this to Shahid Malik, who is a good friend of mine.

In my view, you will serve your ’cause’ well by focusing more on bringing the two countries closer on their outstanding issues. On my part, like several of my Indian counterparts, I remain engaged with them on Track Two for reducing India-Pakistan tensions and helping them resolve their outstanding problems. I am proud of co-authoring the ‘Composite Dialogue’ with my Indian counterpart Salman Haider in June 1997, a process that in my view must continue purposefully to bring the two estranged countries together.

I am not sure if The Nation will publish your article. The media freedom is only a farce, not only in our countries, but also in West’s champions of free press.

I have been sending articles critical of American global policies and overbearing power-based agenda to Western newspapers. None was accepted. Even The New York Times and Washington Post are allergic to anyone else writing against American policies. More than anyone else, you know better the reality of ‘free media’ today. With more and more corporate conglomerates owning the news outlets, the media is becoming a commercial enterprise. They print what sells. This is the story all around.

I am not sure any newspaper in Pakistan will print anything questioning Pakistan’s raison d’etre. But you may try.

Do let me know if there is anything else I can do for you.

My best regards and good wishes to you.
Shamshad

4. Email to Mr Shamshad Ahmed:

Dear Shamshad Sahib,

There is no question of bringing two countries together when there is, in fact, a single country, India.

Pakistan is a fake country, artificially created by the British in pursuance of their nefarious policy of divide and rule and the bogus Two Nation Theory. Pakistan is, in fact, a part of India, and we will be reunited, maybe in 20 years or so, under a strong, secular, modern minded government, which does not tolerate religious extremism, whether Hindu or Muslim, and crushes it with an iron hand.

Your ‘Quaid’ was just a British agent, who was shamelessly furthering the wicked British divide and rule policy. The whole game of the British was that even after they withdraw from India (and Pakistan is part of India), our country should remain weak, for which it was necessary to divide us on religious lines and make us keep fighting with each other. It is time someone spoke the truth and, perhaps, it is for me to bell the cat.

When I meet my Pakistani friends, we speak in Hindustani, we look like each other and feel no difference between ourselves.

We were befooled by the Britishers into thinking that we are each others’ enemies, but how much longer must we remain befooled? I do not care whether my article (which I am working on) is published or not, but I will not deviate from what I believe is the truth. In Sanskrit, there is a saying: “Satyamev Jayate”, which means “ultimately truth wins”.

Regards,
Justice Katju

5. And finally, on Saturday, 2 March 2013, The Nation published Justice Katju’s article titled:

The truth about Pakistan

“Dekho mujhe jo deeda-e-ibrat nigah ho,
Meri suno jo gosh-e-naseehat niyosh hai.”

— Mirza Ghalib

According to reports, Pakistani cities— Karachi, Quetta, Peshawar, etc – are rapidly becoming killing fields, with bomb blasts and gun firing a regular occurrence, and ethnic violence between Sunnis and Shias, and persecution of minorities escalating. Nobody knows that when he steps out into the streets of these cities whether or not he will return alive. A beautiful metropolitan city like Karachi is becoming, if it has not already become, a Jurassic Park.

Mr Shamshad Ahmed, in his article, entitled “May You Live Long, Katju!”, published in The Nation on February 26, 2013, has said that the present situation in Pakistan is due to “a failure of governance, not of the nationhood.” I respectfully beg to differ.

In my opinion, the present violent strifes and disturbances in Pakistan are the logical and inevitable result of creating a theocratic state in this subcontinent and, hence, the only solution is the reunification of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh under a strong, secular, modern minded government, which does not tolerate religious extremism and bigotry, whether Hindu or Muslim, and crushes it with an iron hand.

To explain my point, I have to delve into history. As explained in my article, “What is India”, in my blog: justicekatju.blogspot.in (as well as in the video on the website: kgfindia.com), India (in which I include Pakistan) is broadly a country of immigrants like North America. The ancestors of 92 to 93 percent people living today in our subcontinent were not the original inhabitants here, but came from outside, mainly from the northwest (the original inhabitants being the pre-Dravidian tribals). People migrate from uncomfortable areas to comfortable areas, and India was a paradise for agriculture, with level land, fertile soil, plenty of water for irrigation, etc. It is for this reason that India has so much diversity— so many religions, castes, languages, ethnic groups, etc because each group of immigrants brought their own language, religion and customs.

Hence, the only policy that can work in our subcontinent is secularism and equal respect to all communities and sects. This was the policy of the great Emperor Akbar, whom I regard (along with Ashoka) as the greatest ruler the world has ever seen. At a time when the Europeans were massacring each other in the name of religion (Catholics massacring Protestants and vice versa), Akbar, who was far ahead of his times, declared his policy of Suleh-e-Kul, i.e. universal toleration of all religions, and it is because of this policy that the Mughal Empire lasted so long. It was Emperor Akbar who laid the foundation on which the Indian nation is still standing, his policy being continued by Jawaharlal Nehru and his colleagues who gave India a secular constitution.

Up to 1857, there were no communal problems in India; all communal riots and animosity began after 1857. No doubt even before 1857, there were differences between Hindus and Muslims, the Hindus going to temples and the Muslims going to mosques, but there was no animosity. In fact, the Hindus and Muslims used to help each other; Hindus used to participate in Eid celebrations, and Muslims in Holi and Diwali. The Muslim rulers like the Mughals, Nawab of Awadh and Murshidabad, Tipu Sultan, etc were totally secular; they organised Ramlilas, participated in Holi, Diwali, etc. Ghalib’s affectionate letters to his Hindu friends like Munshi Shiv Naraln Aram, Har Gopal Tofta, etc attest to the affection between Hindus and Muslims at that time

In 1857, the ‘Great Mutiny’ broke out in which the Hindus and Muslims jointly fought against the British. This shocked the British government so much that after suppressing the Mutiny, they decided to start the policy of divide and rule (see online “History in the Service of Imperialism” by B.N. Pande). All communal riots began after 1857, artificially engineered by the British authorities. The British collector would secretly call the Hindu Pandit, pay him money, and tell him to speak against Muslims, and similarly he would secretly call the Maulvi, pay him money, and tell him to speak against Hindus. This communal poison was injected into our body politic year after year and decade after decade.

In 1909, the ‘Minto-Morley Reforms’ introduced separate electorates for Hindus and Muslims. The idea was propagated that Hindi is the language of Hindus, while Urdu of Muslims (although Urdu was the common language of all educated people, whether Hindu, Muslim or Sikh up to 1947). All this vicious propaganda resulted in the partition of 1947, which created a fake, artificial theocratic nation called Pakistan.

Nation states arose in Europe around the 15th century because of the rise of modern industry. Modern industry, unlike feudal handicraft industry, requires a big market for its goods and a large area from where it can get raw materials.

The creation of a state based on religion destroys the very basis of a nation, because it cuts off industries from markets and raw materials. British imperialism created India as a big administrative unit. The British policy was to prohibit the growth of heavy industry in India; otherwise, the Indian industry, with its cheap labour, would have become a powerful rival to British industry.

When the British left India, they divided us so that we may remain backward and weak, and not emerge as a modern powerful industrial state (for which we have all the potential). This was the real reason for creating Pakistan.

I submit that Pakistan was doomed from its very inception; firstly, because there is such tremendous diversity in our subcontinent that only secularism can work here and secondly, because a modern nation cannot be based on religion (because this will cut it off from its markets and raw materials).
Mr Shamshad Ahmed has written in an email to me that I should try to bring the two countries closer, instead of challenging the very raison d’etre of Pakistan. I replied that I do not believe that there are two nations, there is only one nation, that is India, and Pakistan is part of India. Pakistan was created in pursuance of the wicked British policy of divide and rule and the bogus Two Nation Theory, whose whole aim was to make Hindus and Muslims fight with each other. I am confident that with time people, both in India and Pakistan, will realise the truth in what I am saying, and India and Pakistan will reunite under a strong, secular government that deals with religious extremism, whether Hindu or Muslim, with an iron hand.

Secularism does not mean that one cannot practice his religion. It means that religion is a private affair, unconnected with the state that will have no religion.

When I meet my Pakistani friends (and I have lots of them), we speak in Hindustani, we look like each other, and feel no difference between ourselves. We were befooled by the Britishers into thinking that we are enemies, but how much longer must we remain befooled? How much longer must blood flow in religious violence in Quetta, Karachi, Gujarat, etc.

Mr Shamshad Ahmed wrote in his email to me that he doubted whether any Pakistani newspaper would publish my article challenging the very existence of Pakistan. I replied that I did not care whether it would be published or not, but I will not deviate from what I believe is the truth. In Sanskrit, there is a saying, “Satyamev Jayate”, which means “truth ultimately triumphs”. And as Nietzsche said in Thus Spake Zarathustra: “What matter about thyself, Zarathustra! Say thy word and break into pieces!”

---

All text courtesy Justice Katju’s blog Satyam Bruyat

Iqbal: ‘India is the Greatest Muslim Country in the World’

Mohammed Iqbal was arguably the finest poet of his time.

But the man who wrote the immortal Saare Jaan Se Accha Hindustan Hamara is often reviled in India for championing the cause of Pakistan.

In this fascinating extract from his much acclaimed biography of the poet, Iqbal Singh explores Iqbal’s association with the genesis of Pakistan.

Before 1930 Pakistan was not even a name or, if it was, nobody had heard of it in public. In that year Iqbal presided at the annual session of the All-India Muslim League held in Allahabad. As is customary on such occasion, he read a lengthy address at the opening session in which he made a tour de horizon of the general political situation in the country with specific attention to the problem of Muslim interests.

His address is somewhat different from the usual generalities and platitudes which are the stock-in-trade of presidential addresses. It has seriousness, an intellectual gravity, and a dignity which never failed him when he really directed his mind to any particular problem. There is good deal in that is parochial and polemical, but it also has passage of remarkably lucid prose.

He begins by denying that he has any special political axe to grind:

“I lead no party; I follow no leader. I have given the best part of my life to a careful study of Islam, its law and polity, its culture, its history and literature. This constant contact with the Spirit of Islam, as it unfolds itself in time, has, I think, given me a kind of insight into its significance as a world-fact. It is in the light of this insight, whatever its value, that, while assuming that the Muslims of India are determined to remain true to the Spirit of Islam, I propose, not to guide you in your decisions, but to attempt the humbler task of bringing clearly to your consciousness the main principle which, in my opinion, should determine the general character of those decisions.”

He then proceeds to develop the argument so dear to his heart regarding the true nature of Islam. It is not, he contends just another religion among many religions, but a unique world-view embracing the whole sphere of human activity; a total philosophy if you like, which cannot be reconciled with narrow nationalistic ideals.

It differs, moreover, from other religions like Christianity, for example, in that it is not other-worldly, but accepts the world of time and space and believes in a Kingdom that is of the earth. As the whole argument is fundamental to Iqbal’s position and is here stated with greater clarity than anywhere else by him, it deserves to be quoted at some length:

“It cannot be denied that Islam, regarded as an ethical ideal plus a certain kind of polity by which expression I mean a social structure, regulated by a legal system and animated by a specific ethical ideal — has been the chief formative factor in the life-history of the Muslims of India. It has furnished those basic emotions and loyalties which gradually unify scattered individuals and groups, and finally transform them into a well-defined people, possessing a moral consciousness of their own. Indeed it is no exaggeration to suggest that India is perhaps the only country where Islam, as a people building force, has worked at its best. In India, as elsewhere, the structure of Islam as a society is almost entirely due to the working of Islam as a culture inspired by a specific ethical ideal. What I mean to say is that Muslim society, with its remarkable homogeneity and inner unity, has grown to be what it is, under the pressure of the laws and institutions associated with the culture of Islam.

“The ideals set free by European political thinking, however, are now rapidly changing the outlook of the present generation of Muslims both in India and outside India. Our younger men inspired by these ideas, are anxious to see them as living force in their own countries, without any critical appreciation of the facts which have determined their evolution in Europe. In Europe Christianity was understood to be a purely monastic order which gradually developed into a church-organisation. The protest of Luther was directed against the church-organisation, not against any system of polity of a secular nature, for the obvious reason that there was no such polity associated with Christianity. And Luther was perfectly justified in rising in revolt against this organisation, though, I think, he did not realise that in the peculiar condition which obtained in Europe, his revolt would eventually mean the displacement of the universal ethics of Jesus by the growth of a plurality of national and hence narrower systems of ethics. Thus the upshot of the intellectual movement initiated by such men as Luther and Rousseau was the break-up of the One into a mutually ill-adjusted many, the transformation of a human into a national outlook, requiring a more realistic foundation, such as the notion of country, and finding expression through varying systems of polity evolved on national lines, on lines which recognise territory as the only principle of political solidarity.

“…The universal ethics of Jesus is displaced by national systems of polity and ethics. The conclusion to which Europe is consequently driven is that religion is a private affair of the individual and has nothing to do with, what is called man’s temporal life. Islam does not bifurcate the unity of man into an irreconcilable duality of spirit and matter. In Islam God and the universe, spirit and matter, church and state, are organic to each other. Man is not the citizen of a profane world to be renounced in the interests of a world of spirit situated elsewhere. To Islam matter is spirit realising itself in space and time… A Luther in the world of Islam is an impossible phenomenon; for here there is no church-organisation, similar to that of Christianity in the Middle Ages, inviting a destroyer. In the world of Islam we have a universal polity whose fundamentals are believed to have been revealed, but whose structure, owing to our legist’ want of contact with the modern world, stands today indeed of renewed power by fresh adjustments. I do not know what will be the final fate of the national idea in the world of Islam. Whether Islam will assimilate and transform it, as it has transformed and assimilated before many ideas expressive of a different spirit, or allow a radical transformation of its own structure by the force of this idea, is hard to predict… At the preset moment the national idea is reclaiming the outlook of Muslims, and thus materially counteracting the humanising task of Islam… I hope you will pardon me for this apparently academic discussion. To address this session of the All India Muslim League you have selected a man who has not despaired of Islam as a living force for freeing the outlook of men from its geographical limitations, who believes that religion is a power of the utmost importance in the life of individuals as well as states, and finally who believes that Islam is itself Destiny and will not suffer a destiny…”

After this bold declaration, Iqbal descends to more mundane regions — to the problem of reconciling the various groups and their interest in India. He repeats the unexceptionable platitude that ‘the unity of an Indian nation, therefore, must be sought, not in the negation, but in the mutual harmony and co-operation of the many… And it is one the discovery of Indian unity in this direction that the fate of India as well as of Asia really depends….’

But why has it been impossible to discover this principle of harmony and co-operation?

Iqbal has his diagnosis; not a very brilliant diagnosis, but certainly a revealing one. We have failed because, he observes, ‘we suspect each other’s intentions and inwardly aim at dominating each other. Perhaps in the higher interest of mutual co-operation we cannot afford to part with monopolies which circumstances have placed in our hands…’

The passage is significant. After the sublime flight into the sphere of the ideals of Islam which is ‘a Destiny and will not suffer a destiny’ we are pulled down by the force of gravity into the not so heroic realm of economic exigencies. The real reason why Indian unity has been impossible to achieve, according to Iqbal, is because certain groups (presumably, the Hindus) having established monopolies in various economic fields are not prepared to share them with their Muslim counterparts.

This is not a very original analysis of the origin of Hindu-Muslim conflict in India, thought it happens within limits, to be a correct analysis. It might have been furnished by any mediocre middle class politician. But coming from the Poet of Islam it has a unique significance.

Excerpted from The Ardent Pilgrim, An Introduction to the Life and Works of Mohammed Iqbal by Iqbal Singh, Oxford University Press, 1997, Rs 295, with the publisher’s permission. Readers in the US may secure a copy of the book from Oxford University Press Inc USA, 198, Madison Avenue, New York, New York 10016, USA. Tel: 212-726-6000. Fax: 212-726-6440.

 

Wisdom Behind Eating with Your Hands

Eating food with the hands in today’s Western society can sometimes be perceived as being unhygienic, bad mannered and primitive.

However within Indian culture there is an old saying that,

” Eating food with your hands feeds not only the body but also the mind and the spirit”.

In the Big Brother series some years back, an English participant complained about an Indian participants use of her hands during food preparations and her eating habits, “They eat with their hands in India, don’t they? Or is that China? You don’t know where those hands have been.” 

Within many Indian households nowadays, the practice of eating food with the hands has been replaced with the use of cutlery.

Have you ever thought of why previous generations in India ate with the hands? There is a reason for their this. 

The practice of eating with the hands originated within Ayurvedic teachings. The Vedic people knew the power held in the hand.

The ancient native tradition of eating food with the hands is derived from the mudra practice.

Mudras are used during mediation and are prominent within the many classical forms of dance, such as Bharatnatyam\.

Our hands and feet are said to be the conduits of the five elements.

The Ayurvedic texts teach that each finger is an extension of one of the five elements. The thumb is agni (fire) (you might have seen children sucking their thumb, this is nature’s way of aiding the digestion in children at an age when they are unable to do an physical activity to aid the digestion), the forefinger is vayu (air), the middle finger is akash (ether – the tiny intercellular spaces in the human body), the ring finger is prithvi (earth) and the little finger is jal (water).

Each finger aids in the transformation of food, before it passes on to internal digestion.

Gathering the fingertips as they touch the food stimulates the five elements and invites Agni to bring forth the digestive juices.

As well as improving digestion the person becomes more conscious of the tastes, textures and smells of the foods they are eating, which all adds to the pleasure of eating.

You may have noticed that elders in the family hardly ever use utensils to measure all the different type of masala, and would instead prefer to use their hands to measure the quantity instead. As each handful is tailored to provide a suitable amount for the own body. Overall there are 6 main documented forms that the hands take when obtaining a measurement a certain type of food ranging from solid food to seeds, and flour.

Arvind Kejriwal Goes Bust

My Fellow Indian,

Under Anna’s leadership, India came on streets against corruption.

The people demanded a strong anti-corruption law. The government did not agree. None of the parties agreed. Obviously, they couldn’t have agreed because if they passed a strong Jan Lokpal Bill, most of the politicians would be in jail and their properties would be confiscated.

My friend, our entire political system has become rotten.

Most of today’s problems are due to corrupt politics. Unless it is cleansed, nothing would improve. That’s why we entered politics – we realized that staying away will not work. We have now formed the AAM AADMI PARTY. This party does not seek to capture power; it seeks to restore power back to the people.

Gandhiji said that politics devoid of honesty and spirituality is disastrous for the country. We have to change the politics of this country. I am confident that together, we can.

I seek your time and money in this mission as we are all working towards a common cause. Most parties are funded by big corporates for something in return but this will not happen in Aam Aadmi Party.

This party would be funded by Aam Aadmi and Aam Aurat of this country. That would be the beginning of an honest and transparent politics, unfortunately which runs on black money today

Whatever amount you contribute – small or big – is not important.

Every paisa matters because it is honest, and will go a long way in redefining the politics. In the interest of financial transparency, we publish the names of all the donors every week on our website.

You can donate online through national or international debit or credit cards or internet banking OR send a DD or cheque in favour of “Aam Aadmi Party” at the following address:
A-119, Kaushambi, Ghaziabad – 201010, UP.

Do not hesitate to write to us at contact@aamaadmiparty.org, if you have any questions or suggestions. You may also like to call Akash at 09717460029 for further queries.

Kindly forward this mail as widely as possible. Every effort helps, in the fight against corruption.

Jai Hind.

Warm regards,
Arvind Kejriwal

The Registration number of the Party is “56/145/2012/PPS-I”
“The Donation given to AAP is exempt under Income Tax Act 1961, u/s 80GGB/80GGC”

 

The fact that Anna Hazare is no longer on the list of the most powerful shows that people are more sober today and sceptical of tall claims made by so-called crusaders

The weekly, India Today, has just published its annual compilation of the most powerful people in India. Such lists inevitably contain some degree of arbitrariness as well as an element of subjectivity. But in the capital city which gets its kicks on gossip and patronage, such listings are sacred rites of reaffirmation. These yearly snapshots give a reasonable idea of how power is deemed to be shared among the prominenti. What is most astonishing about this year’s Power List is that social activist Anna Hazare, judged the most powerful person in India in 2012, does not find a place at all. The man who a year ago was declared the mightiest public presence has been reduced to a big nothing. Even Arvind Kejriwal, that energetic major domo in the Anna clique, who figured prominently at no. 47 last year, does not make the cut this time.

FASCINATING SUBJECT

The exclusion of Anna Hazare should be a fascinating phenomenon to every student of Indian political sociology. Was his canonisation last year totally misplaced or is his exclusion this year a reflection of a distorted notion of “power” and “powerful”? After all, only 12 months ago, the man was serenaded as our saviour for his anti-corruption campaign — a man who inspired millions of fellow Indians to raise their voice against a flawed system. It cannot be anybody’s case that India has become significantly free of “corruption” within a space of 12 months, or at least has become so much better that we no longer need the Anna Hazare ministrations. Or, have those who responded to Anna Hazare’s call to come out to the streets seen through the game, have become wiser, even a bit cynical?

Or, have those who promoted him in the first place and crafted a halo around him, given up on him, having achieved whatever elbow room they were looking for themselves? Has the “political” class beaten back an honest crusader or has the democratic legitimacy of the political system finally prevailed? What has changed in India that the man who was hailed as leading us to our “second war of Independence” is almost forgotten as a fallen hero?

All these are troubling questions and there are no easy answers. And the absence of easy answers points, once again, to the complicatedness of our collective woes, as also to the inescapable unpleasantness inherent in maintaining and sustaining a state order, in this exacting age of borderless capital and borderless terror.

Admittedly, the story is yet to be told of who decided that Anna Hazare be pitch-forked on to the national stage. All these years, the Gandhian activist was content to play the role of a minor nuisance to Maharashtra’s highly contaminated politicians and bureaucracy, that too with only patchy results. He never did set Mumbai on fire, yet he was now pencilled in for the role of a prime time insurgent. The powerful people with motives and resources who bankrolled the “movement” too were cognisant of his limited mind space. His only asset was that he was perhaps the only one around who still donned a Gandhi cap.

MOMENT OF FRUSTRATION

But for a while the Anna show was a great hit because the moment was ripe. It would be totally unimaginative to negate the national mood that provided the backdrop to the Anna Hazare movement. It was a moment of national frustration. A strange sense of helplessness and paralysis was visible to the vocal middle classes, who needed to have someone to blame for their globally induced economic miseries. So much so that a leading intellectual even allowed himself to suggest that Anna Hazare’s rambling speech at Ram Lila Maidan was more inspiring than Jawaharlal Nehru’s “Tryst with Destiny” oration. Such was the middle classes’ desperation and disenchantment with the A K. Antony rate of decision-making in UPA-II. As far as the middle classes were concerned a “Jan Lok Pal” was the abracadabra to make all the corruption go away and with it their miseries.

NOT A ‘MOVEMENT’

The Anna campaign was never a “movement” and it petered out because the very process that made it a “movement” lacked the integrity and moral stamina for a long-distance journey. To begin with, the TRP-jihadists saw a potential in Anna Hazare and adopted him as a long lost cousin. As it were, a number of media personalities came to invest heavily in the Hazare phenomenon. Some of them wrote fawning books, some cheerfully strategised with the India against Corruption crowd. They joyfully crossed the thin line between journalism and political partisanship.

For a while, corporate advertising support was available for this jugal bandi. The same telecom giants who figured dishonourably in the “2G” scam were in the forefront of providing the requisite advertising help to this “revolt of the masses.”

But then all good things do come to an end. And the media barons are not without greed. The eager-beavers who were leading the anti-corruption crusade were themselves caught on camera cutting deals with the “corrupt” corporate personalities. The spell was broken. A year later, the citizen is today much more sceptical of tall claims made by crusading matadors on the nightly shows.

Quest for good governance is a noble aspiration among citizens, not just in India but all over the democratic world. In response to this aspiration, the Manmohan Singh government has taken a few baby-steps towards instituting a new accountability structure. The Prime Minister had the wisdom and the humility to acknowledge and salute Anna Hazare, only to be greeted with arrogance and hubris of petty politicians. But thinking citizens do understand the soundness of the constitutional scheme of things. The Anna Hazare-backed solutions were located outside this constitutional arrangement. And if he is a forgotten man it is because the great institutional equilibrium is in the process of recovering its centeredness. It was only in the fitness of things that the judiciary as an institution should have become alarmed at the excessive extra-judicial vigilantism among its ranks. And, when the government gathered the courage to seek a Presidential Reference in the 2G matter, the judiciary grabbed the opportunity to undertake a course correction. An errant Comptroller and Auditor-General, who whetted our appetite for conspiracies and corruption, lost his bite as he increasingly painted himself in a partisan corner. No institutional functionary can be effective if he chooses to give an impression that he believes that all the bad men and all the badness are located on one side of the political divide. Partisanship begets partisanship, and the institution loses its respect and prestige.

The energy and anger that sustained Anna Hazare have not dissipated. But the Indian citizen is much more sober today than he was a year ago. Indeed, the Hazare sales-pitch was predicated on our weakness for the myth of a single man as a solution to all our collective ills.

MANUFACTURED CULT

This is essentially a Bollywood-isation of national imagination. Too often a determined clique is able to manufacture a halo around a man, promising to set things right, and then all the self-styled defenders of democratic values and democratic space effortlessly rush in to enlist in manufacturing a personality cult. At the height of the India Against Corruption crescendo, Kiran Bedi used to argue, as if in a trance, that “Anna has never failed.” The same infallibility and inevitability is now being chanted about another entrant to the Power List, a certain Chief Minister from Gujarat. The same players and strategy that were in play during the Anna “movement” are furiously at work again. But India is wiser today and has moved beyond the Anna Hazare temptation precisely because it can see through false prophets, and the sales-pitch made by them and on their behalf.

Harish Khare is a veteran commentator and political analyst, and former media adviser to PM Singh

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Pakistan Cannot Afford to Compete with India Whose Economy is 9 Times Bigger

An Aesopian nuclear competition is under way between Pakistan and India.

Pakistan, whose economy and domestic cohesion are steadily worsening, is the hare, racing to devote scarce resources to compete with a country whose economy is nine times as great. India is the tortoise: Its nuclear program is moving steadily forward without great exertion.

The tortoise will win this race, and could quicken its pace. But the hare continues to run fast, because nuclear weapons are a sign of strength amid domestic weaknesses and because it can’t keep up with the growth of India’s conventional military programs.

At present, there is rough nuclear parity between India and Pakistan, with Pakistan having a larger arsenal and India having more advanced air- and sea-based capabilities. Both countries are expanding their capacity to produce bomb-making material, adding cruise missiles to their arsenals and planning to send nuclear weapons to sea. Pakistan’s arsenal now exceeds 100 warheads. India is not too far behind.

India, like China, has adopted a relaxed approach to nuclear deterrence. In both countries, national security is equated with strong economies and domestic cohesion. Indian and Chinese leaders value nuclear weapons as expressions of national will and power, rather than as military instruments.

As befitting the home of Mahatma Gandhi, Indian political leaders have great ambivalence about nuclear weapons. They seek the moral high ground while attending to national security imperatives. No other country has waited 24 years between testing its first and second nuclear devices.

In Pakistan, the situation is starkly different. Economic growth is hobbled, foreign reserves are dwindling and the country is plagued by bloodletting. Decisions about nuclear requirements are made by a few generals who view these weapons as a military necessity as well as a political instrument. In Pakistan, political leaders take their guidance from generals. In India, the requests of military leaders often land on deaf ears.

Pakistan’s nuclear requirements were set high initially, and grew higher still after the George W. Bush administration agreed to cooperate with India to build nuclear power plants. This civil-nuclear agreement has languished, while Pakistan’s military-nuclear programs have ramped up.

After testing nuclear weapons in 1998, Indian and Pakistani authorities embraced a doctrine of minimal, credible deterrence. Now the word “minimal” applies less and less, as their stockpiles have doubled over the past decade. There is little chance that Pakistan and India will end fissile material production for bombs anytime soon.

Pakistan’s nuclear weapons can be used to warn India not to advance on Pakistani territory. Its military doctrine has recently embraced short-range, tactical nuclear weapons to counter India’s conventional military advantages. At the high end of the targeting spectrum, Pakistan’s military appears intent to deny India victory in warfare and to destroy it as a functioning society in the event of a complete breakdown in deterrence.

Slowing this trajectory will be difficult. Nuclear weapons are widely perceived in Pakistan as the nation’s crown jewels. Most Pakistanis begrudge governmental corruption and incompetence, but not money spent on The Bomb, which has been imbued with great powers, including the power to keep India at bay and to lift Pakistan onto the world’s stage.

Finding stability in this competition will be difficult, in part because China weighs heavily in Indian calculations and because civil-military relations in Pakistan are so unbalanced. Fifteen years and two major crises have passed since India and Pakistan tested nuclear weapons in 1998 — and they still haven’t engaged in serious, sustained nuclear risk-reduction talks.

What might change Pakistan’s calculation that more nuclear weapons equates to more security? One way is for New Delhi to take dramatic steps to improve relations and to “take away the enemy image,” similar to what Mikhail Gorbachev accomplished when he was leader of the Soviet Union in his dealings with the United States.

There is, however, little appetite within India for bold steps to reinforce the obvious need of the Pakistani Army to focus on internal security threats. Another potential game changer is severe perturbations in Pakistan’s economy. Economic upheavals would, however, create even more domestic instability without changing the Pakistan military’s dependency on The Bomb.

The safest route to reduce nuclear dangers on the subcontinent is through concerted efforts to improve relations between Pakistan and India. The surest way to do so is by greatly increasing cross-border trade. Leaders in both countries have endorsed this course of action, but underlings are moving slowly ahead of national elections. Even modest progress can be stopped short by another mass-casualty attack on Indian soil designed to disrupt improved ties.

A nuclear arsenal built on very weak economic foundations is inherently unstable, which is reason enough for India to pursue sustained and accelerated trade and investment opportunities with Pakistan. These methods, which have dampened tensions between China and Taiwan, could also serve a similar purpose on the subcontinent.

Michael Krepon is co-founder of the Stimson Center, a think tank, and director of its South Asia and Space Security Programs.