The Jahajis’ social contract and the Jammu and Kashmir conflict

I have dealt with various dimensions of the Jammu and Kashmir conflict elsewhere, here my goal is to draw attention of the readers to historical developments far away from the Indian subcontinent, as the developments there are instructive for the conflict. I argue that the historical development in the Caribbean islands thousands of miles away hold lessons for the current leaders of Jammu and Kashmir to address the conflict peacefully, while fighting for rights and justice.

In the mid-19th century hundreds of Indians, mostly from U.P. and Bihar, were taken to Caribbean islands as indentured laborers. Known as jahaji (as they were transported through ship or jahaj in Hindi), these gullible people were promised great things before transported to the islands. Their long and arduous journey and life aftermath belied those promises. Their months long journey had no privacy, they were not given proper meals, some of them died on board and some of them jumped from the ship to inevitable death, and even some produced offspring while confined to open spaces in the ship. Depicted well in recent documentaries on these laborers and their harsh life in foreign lands, the stories of the jahajis bring forth the struggle for survival, and despite hardship how these people adapted and thrived.

But more interesting, and which is perhaps less researched, is that these Indians despite their religious differences shared the same destiny and enjoyed and suffered together. The jahajis included both Hindus and Muslims, and they had an unwritten understanding or social contract that they would live together despite all the travails.

They seldom fought against each other, but they fought together against their colonial exploiters. There are stories in which they protected each other against the colonial exploitation, and even protected women, irrespective of religious identities, against sexual exploitation by the colonial masters at the risk of their lives. As I interacted here in Florida with many of the descendants of these jahajis, who later migrated to the United States and Canada, that spirit of communal harmony persisted those days and even persists today. Hindus and Muslims lived and live together and share happiness and sorrow by taking part in each other’s festivities. There are instances even when male members belonging to one religion died because of exploitation or killed by the colonial exploiters, their vulnerable family members were taken care of by people from the other religion. And that communal harmony survived since the 19th century.

The story of the jahajis is certainly instructive for Jammu and Kashmir conflict. The violence in Jammu and Kashmir became severe when it took a radical religious turn. The conflict persisted since the last seven decades, but became violent in the last three decades as it enmeshed more deeply into the discourse of two nation – Hindus and Muslims – as if they are born enemies, or as if their coexistence is something anathema to peace and harmony. That was the narrative promoted by hardline religious elements, termed as spoilers in conflict resolution literature, and when these elements were supported by Pakistani state machinery actively, the problem became nastier, leading to massive exodus of minorities from the valley. The turn of the political conflict into an identity conflict or religious identity conflict proved dangerous. The region of Jammu and Kashmir became a pawn in the larger radical religious matrix, which further pushed the conflict into a dead end of violence, killing, and darkness.

Hence, when the leaders from the valley emphasize that India must talk to Pakistan to address the conflict, one should not have dispute on this had they also, in the same vein, like the jahajis in the Caribbean talk about the minorities within the valley and the whole of Jammu and Kashmir.

It is true that the Muslims in Jammu and Kashmir are minorities in the larger Indian context, but they are majority community within Jammu and Kashmir. How do the leaders of Jammu and Kashmir fare when the issue of exploitation of minorities within the valley comes to picture? It is perfectly alright when they articulate about their marginalization, but they seldom articulate the concerns of minority communities within their society, or the minorities who have fled persecution in Pakistani side of Jammu and Kashmir or from Pakistan.

They have not, at least I have not come across in my research, raised the exploitation of minorities within Pakistani side of Kashmir with the Pakistani establishment or during their engagement with Pakistani leaders in India. Keeping this picture in mind, the argument of Kashmiri leaders that in an independent Kashmir the minorities will be taken care of, and India does not need to worry about the minorities in Kashmir, falls flat on its face as their current action speak louder than their proclamations.

My goal here is not to vilify any leader or group or religion. My goal is to explore pathways for peaceful resolution of the conflict. But a peace process that ignores or undermines the realities will not succeed. While the leaders from the valley have genuine concerns which need to be addressed, their concerns must not be viewed as my group-your group or my religion-your religion prisms as it will defeat the very purpose of conflict resolution and the goal of realizing a peaceful Jammu and Kashmir. Did not B. R. Ambedkar counter the two-nation theory, and articulated that “Isn’t there enough that is common to both Hindus and Musalmans, which if developed, is capable of moulding them into one people? Nobody can deny that there are many modes, manners, rites and customs which are common to both. Nobody can deny that there are rites, customs and usages based on religion which do divide Hindus and Musalmans. The question is, which of these should be emphasized…If the Hindus and Musalmans agree to emphasize the things that bind them and forget those that separate them, there is no reason why in course of time they should not grow into a nation…”

This vision of communal peace as envisioned by Ambedkar must dawn on the leaders of Jammu and Kashmir. It was the same vision that inspired the jahajis in the Caribbean islands. It is up to the leaders of Jammu and Kashmir, and also up to the leaders of India and Pakistan, whether they want to be guided by a vision of inclusive of peace, in which all religions and groups live and thrive peacefully, or a vision of exclusive peace in which one group survives and prospers at the cost of the other group. In this direction, the leaders of Jammu and Kashmir need to do soul searching.

(This blog was published earlier in Times of India blogs: https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/blogs/periscope/the-jahajis-social-contract-and-the-jammu-and-kashmir-conflict/)

Kabuliwala: Reflections on India-Afghanistan

Recently the US President, Joe Biden, announced the withdrawal of the US troops from Afghanistan by 9/11, typically reminding the day when the attack on the World Trade Center in New York happened two decades ago. The president visited Arlington crematory and pointed to the stone marks around and lamented that so many lives were lost in the past. The major goal of the US – the end of Osama bin Laden and decimation of Al Qaeda – is now realized, the US has no reason to sacrifice the lives of more Americans, the administration reasoned. The announcement expectedly received mixed reactions. While the democrats in the US and many of the US allies support it, some of the republican leaders at home are skeptical that the withdrawal would help the US goal of peace and stability in Afghanistan. Secretary of State, Anthony Blinken, was in Kabul recently to engage the Afghan leaders for the withdrawal process and for assuring them of the US support after the withdrawal.

The announcement has sent jitters across the region. Fear of the rise of Taliban, and its support to forces like Al Qaeda and Islamic State, and Islamic extremist groups from all over the world including from Pakistan, has gained ground. Pakistan has a major influence in Afghan politics, due to its geographic proximity, religious and ethnic affinity, and it is known to use these forces as strategic tools against India. The withdrawal of the Soviet forces led to rise of terrorism in Kashmir as Pakistan mobilized these forces to destabilize India, and those memories are still fresh in the mind of the Indian leaders and strategic thinkers. General Rawat’s concern that the withdrawal will give a boost to the ‘disruptors’ makes sense in this context.

But the India of 21st century is not the India of the 20th century. India must play its cards astutely. India’s Foreign Minister, S. Jaishankar, said at the ‘Heart of Asia’ Conference in Tajikistan recently, probably anticipating the withdrawal, that “India has been supportive of all the efforts being made to accelerate the dialogue between the Afghan government and the Taliban, including intra-Afghan negotiations.” During the visit of Afghan foreign minister to New Delhi last month, India’s foreign ministry emphasized “on peaceful, sovereign, stable and inclusive Afghanistan”, which could be realized through “democratic constitutional framework.” India needs to use its rising economic and military clout in the region, and its soft power to gain a leverage in Afghanistan. And this can be possible through astute diplomacy and engaging India’s neighbors Pakistan and Afghanistan and ally Russia. India has contributed to Afghanistan’s development, and it can play a creative role to adjust to the new reality.

It is not that India will not face challenges while initiating peace measures in Afghanistan. Pakistan will play all its cards including Kashmir and Islam to undermine India’s initiatives. It has been established many times in the past how Pakistan inspired terrorist groups target Indian facilities in Afghanistan. China will try to ensure that it fills the vacuum left by the US, and as a major economic and military power, it will try its best to keep democratic India out of the equation. Pakistan, inspired by political Islam, and authoritarian China will not feel comfortable to welcome democratic India’s aspirations in Afghanistan.

But that is not and should not be the end of the tunnel. India’s foreign policy establishment needs to navigate through this complex scenario and explore all possible diplomatic options to engage both China and Pakistan to have its due place in Afghan peace process. Besides engaging these states, India also needs to engage Taliban. As a pragmatic policy, it needs to engage Taliban leaders and motivate them for a peaceful solution of the conflict. Contrary to some beliefs, Taliban would likely be more amenable to India’s soft power attractions. In contrast to Pakistan hard core anti-India policy, it is possible that Taliban, a majorly Pashtun community group, will be interested to develop closer relations with India. Such a scenario will not be easy as Pakistan will play all tricks to keep the Taliban away from India, but India needs to use its hard and soft diplomacy to win Afghan Taliban to its side.

The cultural relations between India and Afghanistan are deep. Unlike Pakistan, Afghanistan as a state has no history of hostility and rivalry with India. Kautilya’s Mandala theory would aptly describe Afghanistan as a natural ally of India. Tagore’s story of Kabuliwala, in which Abdul Rehman Khan from Afghanistan sees his daughter in Mini in Calcutta is not just a creation of the Nobel Laureate’s mind, but a true reflection of deep sociocultural and historical ties between the two countries. Besides reviving these ties, India must capitalize the withdrawal of the US forces to increase its presence in Afghanistan. In this, the US and Russia can support India’s aspiration, and India, with Pakistan and China, can be part of a multilateral and multinational process for peace and stability in the region. The withdrawal is portrayed as a challenge for India, but it can be an opportunity.

This article of mine was published in TOI blogs:

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/blogs/periscope/kabuliwala-reflections-on-india-afghanistan/  

Why India needs to watch the US presidential elections

The United States is the most powerful country in the world. It is also the oldest democracy. India as a major power and the largest democracy cannot detach itself from the developments there. A change in the administration after the November elections may witness a shift in the relations between the two countries. Also, the increasing volatility in the neighborhood, an uncertain world order afflicted by COVID-19 and rising Chinese assertiveness make it further crucial for India to observe foreign policy directions from the US.

On the economic front a change in administration may not impact the current relationship. In a shrunken global economy, the US is more likely to focus on the domestic economic recovery. There are predictions that in a global world order plagued by COVID-19, the focus would be more on domestic recovery and growth of regionalism as the pandemic has restricted global exchanges. The bilateral economic relations are not at their best now. And the coming year may not witness a significant change. India’s ‘Make in India’ policy, emphasizing domestic entrepreneurship and creativity, has reflected its aspiration to be a producer than a consumer. Such a policy will likely remold bilateral economic relations. The recent withdrawal of Harley-Davidson, a US based company, from the Indian market and issues related to tariff, are indications in this direction. And this trend will likely continue whether the administration changes or not. There is, however, a possibility in the growth of defense partnership. Last month, India announced a plan to purchase military supplies from the US. This trend in the area of defense may continue to increase, keeping in view the volatility at India’s borders.

The relationships in the domains of conflict, security, and human rights, and in the areas of Asia-Pacific may take a different turn if the administration in Washington, D.C. changes. In 2009 President Obama during his visit to China had issued a joint statement with his Chinese counterpart on security and stability in South Asia. The joint statement had emphasized that “the two sides are ready to strengthen communication, dialogue and cooperation on issues related to South Asia and work together to promote peace, stability and development in that region.” India, irrespective of political parties ruling in New Delhi, has traditionally viewed external involvement in South Asian conflicts with suspicion. Such involvements have usually tended to see India and Pakistan, the rivals in the region, on equal footing, and secondly, they have challenged some of India’s positions on the contentious issues in the region. A Democratic administration will likely follow the Obama policy and pressure conflict parties in South Asia for dialogue to address contentious issues. Such an approach might be at odds with Indian establishment particularly keeping in view the heated atmosphere in the subcontinent and the recent flare ups at its borders.

Regarding the India-China border conflict, the officials in the current administration have called China a ‘bully’ and refuted Chinese position on Arunachal Pradesh. In a reference to China and its increasing assertiveness in the South China Sea and the Himalayas, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said, “You can’t go make claims for maritime regions that you have no lawful claim to. You can’t threaten countries and bully them in the Himalayas.” Regarding Arunachal Pradesh, a State Department official stated, “For nearly six decades, the US has recognized that Arunachal Pradesh is Indian territory. We strongly oppose any unilateral attempts to advance territorial claims by incursions, by military or civilian incursions across the established LAC.” LAC or line of actual control refers to the current border between India and China.

A change in administration may not witness a shift in this policy, but it may witness a moderation in the tone of the US support. The new administration may adopt a moderate approach and call for dialogue to address the conflicts. Indian and Chinese officials have met multiple times before and after the recent border standoff, but it seems the realist politics has shaped the bilateral relations. A change in administration may also witness a push for a peace process in Kashmir. President Trump offered mediation but did not push for it. A change in administration may see a change in policy.

A change in administration may also witness a shift in the US policy towards religious freedom and human rights issues in South Asia. Some of the Democratic lawmakers have expressed concern at India’s policy towards minorities and its approach to human rights. Such concerns may be expressed through state policy if the administration changes. However, on visa and immigration issues, a change in administration may witness a policy shift in liberal direction.

Towards Asia-Pacific, now increasingly termed Indo-Pacific, a change in administration may see a shift in policy. President Obama had launched pivot to Asia policy as a move to buttress the US engagement in the region. The current administration has continued this policy but takes a realist approach in countering Chinese assertions by cultivating India as an ally in its balance of power calculus. It has also focused on strengthening forums like democratic quad. A Democratic administration may take a liberal approach emphasizing multilateralism, trade, etc. and adopt a moderate approach towards China’s policies in the region. How such an approach will match India’s interests is difficult to say.

There may not be dramatic changes in bilateral relations. The US and India have moved farther from their Cold War relationships, and their post-Cold War relations are not vulnerable to change in governments in Washington, D.C. It may witness some policy changes and adjustments, but their long-range interests will remain unchanged. However, Indian policy makers need to watch the elections and gear their policy machinery to adapt to possible change.

The article was published in a slightly modified version in the Times of India blogs on October 5, 2020: https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/blogs/periscope/why-india-needs-to-watch-the-us-presidential-elections/

Resolving Conflict on the Himalayas

The Himalayas, known as the rooftop of the world and considered an ecological wonder, are also a contested geopolitical landscape hosting three nuclear-weapon states. Conflicts involving China, India, and Pakistan are not new, but as the recent developments demonstrate they have assumed new forms with far-reaching implications.

Take, for example, the case of Kashmir. The erstwhile princely state got embroiled in a conflict between India and Pakistan after their independence in 1947. Pakistan considered the Muslim majority state a part of its Islamic identity and India considered it a part of its multiethnic identity. The conflict led the two neighbors to three wars, a limited war, and myriad border skirmishes. It got murkier in the 1980s with the support of Pakistan to militant movements within the Indian side of Kashmir. The internal violence led to the killing of thousands of people. As both countries acquired nuclear weapons in the late 1990s, a fear of a nuclear war grappled the region. China took control of a part of Kashmir during its war with India in 1962 and Pakistan handed over a part of its controlled Kashmir as a gesture of friendship in 1963.

Moving fast forward, the surgical strikes by India in recent years to destroy terrorist camps in Pakistan side of Kashmir and the withdrawal of special status accorded to the troubled region have been challenged by Pakistan, which in turn announced a new map declaring whole Kashmir as its part. This is a departure from its traditional position. While India has claimed whole Kashmir as its integral part from the beginning, Pakistan while controlling a part of it claimed it supported the right of Kashmiris to self-determination. The saber-rattling has intensified from both sides. Some analysts fear that the protracted conflict may witness a two-front war involving the two countries with China playing an active role. Early this month China raised the issue of Kashmir at the UN Security Council to internationalize it, but the move was opposed by the other members of the Council including the United States.

The proliferation of radical networks such as the Taliban, Haqqani Network, Lashkar-e-Toiba, and Jaish-e-Mohammad makes the situation further volatile. These networks with bases in the fragile border areas of Pakistan shape regional politics by acting spoilers of peace.

Like the border between India and Pakistan, the border between India and China is disputed since the drawing of the McMohan Line in 1914. The signing of Panchsheel or the five principles of coexistence, in 1954, which emphasized on territorial integrity and non-interference in internal politics, generated hopes for peace. The hopes, however, remained short-lived, as the two countries fought a war in 1962. China expresses discontent as India provides shelter to the Tibetan leader, Dalai Lama. India views with concern the increasing bonhomie between China and Pakistan. However, despite the continued border conflict and uneasy bilateral relations, India and China refrained from major violent engagement since the 1962 war, but until recently. In June 2020, while the world was busy with the COVID-19 pandemic, the soldiers of the two countries clashed at Galwan river valley, resulting in the death of 20 Indian soldiers. The clash drew international attention. In reference to China, the US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said, “You can't threaten countries and bully them in the Himalayas.”

China’s Belt and Road Initiative has emerged as a point of major contention between the two countries. The proposed road passes through the disputed Kashmir. While China has emphasized that the project is a vector of its ‘peaceful rise’ and aims at regional economic integration, India has viewed it as a strategy for hegemony. India’s non-participation in the project is viewed as a challenge by the Chinese leadership. India also views the recent assertiveness of its neighbors such as Nepal as a Chinese ploy to undermine India’s influence in South Asia.

The conflict on the Himalayas has global implications. The democratic ‘quad’, comprising the US, India, Australia, and Japan, has expressed concern at the rise of authoritarianism and aggressive foreign policy in Asia. The United States has in the past decade changed its policy focus in the Asia-Pacific and termed the region Indo-Pacific, emphasizing the role of India in its Asia pivot. The conflict that has emerged at the rooftop of the world will have a spillover effect unless it is addressed through a spirit of democracy and dialogue. Violent conflict in the region has the potential to unleash humanitarian and ecological disaster beyond the Himalayas.

(Another version of this article of mine was published in Orlando Sentinel on August 25, 2020. https://www.orlandosentinel.com/opinion/guest-commentary/os-op-india-pakistan-china-conflicts-20200815-ltrch3rpkrbjtdfbticbweg5py-story.html)

Two-Nation Theory Reexamined, and a Few Reflections on Citizenship (Amendment) Bill

Recently, Asaduddin Owaisi, a member of the Indian Parliament, argued that the Citizenship (Amendment) Bill (CAB) would revive the two-nation theory. The two-nation theory (TNT) implied Hindus and Muslims are two different nations, hence they cannot stay together. They need two different territories to have their nation-states. The architects of this theory were Muhammad Ali Jinnah and Muhammad Iqbal, and on the basis of this theory British India was partitioned into India and Pakistan.

Pakistan’s founder, Jinnah and its ideological brain, Iqbal were not advocates of TNT in the beginning. Iqbal wrote Sare Jahan Se Accha Hindu Sita Hamara. But, later as he traveled to the Middle East, his ideas and writings were colored in religious terms. The philosopher who once sang ‘Sare Jahan Se Accha’ later propounded the idea of a religious state, Pakistan. Jinnah who was once called an ambassador of religious harmony too bought this ideology. He articulated: “it is a dream that the Hindus and Muslims can ever evolve a common nationality, and this misconception of one Indian nation has troubles and will lead (undivided) India to destruction if we fail to revise our notions in time. The Hindus and Muslims belong to two different religious philosophies, social customs, and literatures…To yoke together two such nations under a single state, one as a numerical minority and the other as a majority, must lead to growing discontent and final destruction of any fabric that may be so built for the government of such a state.” Such an approach completely undermined centuries of coexistence between Hindus and Muslims, and also led to the partition of India and killed millions of people in the Indian subcontinent.

TNT or the idea of a religious state is foreign to the Indian spirit. Many religions – almost all non-Abrahamic religions - emerged in India. Persecuted religious minorities from all over the world found a place in India. The argument that the recent law will revive TNT and turn India into a religious state is an argument from Jinnah and Iqbal book. It is true that India is a Hindu majority state, and about 80 percent of Indians are Hindus. It is also undeniable that it is because the majority of the people of India are Hindus, the culture of pluralism – which Nehru famously termed unity in diversity - thrives. This culture of pluralism is much older than any political party or ideology, it thrives since millennia. None of the great Indian scholars or leaders, including Swami Vivekananda, Sri Aurobindo, Mahatma Gandhi and Lokmanya Tilak, envisioned a religious state in India. Had India been a majority Muslim state, it could have been a religious state for long. And Owaisi would perhaps not disagree with me on this. In fact, this happened to Bangladesh. Bangladesh which emerged as a counterpoise to the very idea of TNT as it separated from Pakistan showed signs of pluralism in the beginning. But it gradually got radicalized and particularly after the 8^th amendment to its constitution, which declared Islam as the state religion, the radicalization of the country happened rapidly.

I have argued how untenable the ideas of religious states are: https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/multiethnic-and-pluralist-states-here-to-stay/. As the distances between individuals, states and societies decrease, and all are more connected, it appears anachronistic to think in terms of religious states.

Hence, the political leaders and intellectuals who argue that the current policies would turn India into a Hindu state are buying a very fallacious idea. They are ignorant of India’s rich heritage and culture. India’s gene does not have a religious state in it. Some religious-fanatic rulers in the past wanted to impose their religion on Indian people but failed. Second, the politicians are developing their stories and do not mind to play majority-minority politics so that they can have electoral gains.

It is true that religious minorities are persecuted in India’s neighborhood. Jinnah’s progressive outlook as he seemed to display during the foundation of Pakistan vanished quickly. He had promised the religious minorities of Pakistan that they will be free to practice their religion. He said, “in course of time (in free Pakistan) Hindus would cease to be Hindus and Muslims would cease to be Muslims, not in the religious sense, because that is the personal faith of each individual, but in the political sense as citizens of the State.” But we know the reality. One article in the Guardian in April 2008 estimated that the percentage of Hindus in Pakistan has dwindled to 2 percent, which was 15 percent at the time of partition. The article further notes that the prejudice against the minorities in Pakistan persists both at cultural and legal levels. This, the article argues, is “a travesty for a state that was created with the intended purpose of protecting minorities”.  The case of Asia Bibi is well known. Asia, a Christian woman, was charged with blasphemy and spent eight years on death row.  The blasphemy law was passed in the 1980s under dictator Zia to radicalize Pakistan. A New York Times article of May 30, 2019 quoted a lawmaker from Sindh, “episodes of intolerance toward the Hindu community had been increasing in Sindh, including abductions, forced conversions to Islam, and coerced marriages of Hindu girls”. Pakistan’s noted newspaper, Dawn, wrote on December 25, 2018, “the truth is that minorities in Pakistan do not feel safe …and the state has done little to rein in those who spew venom on adherents of a faith not their own. It has simply stood by as various minority communities have for years been relentlessly targeted by hardline groups.”

The case of Bangladesh is no different. A Human Rights Watch Report of 2003 wrote, “attacks against Hindus in Bangladesh escalated dramatically following the October 2001 general election that brought the Bangladesh National Party (BNP) to power in coalition with hard-line Islamic parties.  Christians, Buddhists, and dissenting Muslims were targeted as well…Hindu homes were looted, vandalized, and burned and Hindu temples and sacred sites were destroyed.  Scores of Hindu women and girls were raped.  In some cases, they were gang raped in front of their male relatives.  Hindus were also assaulted on the streets, in their homes, and at their workplaces.  Systematic attacks resulted in a mass migration of Hindus to India...  The government did little to prosecute or investigate the violence.” The same year the noted magazine The Economist published a report titled, “Bangladesh’s religious minorities: Safe only in the departure lounge.” The Islamization of Bangladesh is well established and a search of the internet would amply demonstrate how radical organizations have deep inroads into its social fabric.

I won’t comment on legal niceties of CAB as I am not a legal expert. But if this bill has the provision to provide asylum or citizenship to persecuted religious minorities in the neighboring countries, it should be welcome. When the partition happened no one imagined the poison of TNT would run so deep and protracted. While the minorities in India flourished and multiplied, the minorities in Pakistan and Bangladesh dwindled. It is but common sense that in a religious state – whether Pakistan or Bangladesh or for that matter any religious state – individuals professing the majoritarian religion would not be persecuted on the basis of their faith. It is a different debate whether religion should be the only criterion to consider whether an individual is persecuted or not, and whether India should include other criteria to provide asylum to foreign nationals. But it is undeniable that religious minorities are persecuted in India’s neighborhood.

To argue that the current law would goad India towards a religious state is a myth or even a political project. Jinnah and Iqbal must be smiling in their graves as their TNT idea gets new adherents, and Gandhi must be turning in pain.

A New Low in Kashmiri Extremism and Lessons for Kashmiris

Shujaat Bukhari was gunned down by the militants on June 14, 2018. Bukhari was a well-known journalist in Kashmir due to his fearless views on Kashmir politics. He worked for the Indian newspaper The Hindu, before starting his newspaper Rising Kashmir. Not that he toed the line of the Indian state or the militants. He was at odds with both.

As I work on Kashmir issue since last two decades, I am aware of Bukhari’s work. In my research, I referred to many of his news pieces from The Hindu. During my research at JNU, New Delhi, and at Jammu University, Jammu and Kashmir, I closely followed his work, and referred to some of his views on Kashmir conflict and peace prospects. During my recent visits to border areas to study cross-border roads and their implications, I too followed his writings on the subject.

A journalist as we envision speaks truth, and speaks truth to power. He is free and fearless. We know press is the fourth estate of democracy, and for a smooth functioning of a democracy, it is necessary that press is free, there is no interference, and no killing. Killing a journalist, silencing a voice forever, is nothing but an act of cowardice. The people opposing the views of Bukhari could have opposed him in a democratic way, perhaps protesting against him, writing articles against him, or even filing a police case, if they think that is a proper action. Killing him is nothing but anti-religious, anti-peace, and anti-human. The killers or Bukhari are insane of the highest order, and any means adopted to bring them to justice must be welcome.

The killing of Bukhari reminds me the killing of another sane voice of Kashmir some 16 years ago, in 2002. Abdul Ghani Lone was a peaceful voice of protest in Kashmir. The only fault he had, and for which he paid with his life, was he advocated that Kashmiri people should take part in elections. His main argument was that let Kashmiris take part in elections, and bring their issues, including the voice of dissent and human rights issue to the legislature. A fine voice in Kashmir, he was silenced by the militants.

The same thing happened with Bukhari. An independent minded Kashmiri, a Kashmir-loving journalist was silenced, by the extremist Kashmiris. The loss of Bukhari was not only a loss of journalism, but also a loss of very Kashmiris. There are many instances in which Bukhari opposed Indian state’s policies in Kashmir. He could have an effective voice for the Kashmiris. The militants, who were brain-washed, who believed only in the power of the gun, did not hesitate to kill one of their fellow Kashmiris, who was wielding pen. They did not know that pen is much more powerful than gun.

The message is clear. That unless Kashmiris Rise (to imitate the title of Bukhari’s newspaper, Rising Kashmir), the senseless killings in Kashmir would continue. Pakistan might have sharpened its terror machinery and been getting ever ready to supply those machines to Kashmir, but those machines could not have been active with the support of very Kashmiris, whom the machines intended to kill. It is unfortunate that many Kashmiris do not see that they are killing their own brothers and sisters. Unless they realize that they are mere puppets in the hand of the puppeteers across the border, unless they realize that the gun they wield is meant to destroy their own beautiful Kashmir, the violence would continue.

I hope that the Kashmiris, particularly the militants of Kashmir and their supporters, would realize the futility of killings and counter killings. It would never solve the problem. They may have guns, and hide and kill sane voices like Shujaat Bukhari, but by doing they weaken their cause. The Kashmiri problem is partly due to the mistaken belief on part of the militant Kashmiris that they can solve the problem by guns, by killing people, and Pakistan is the big daddy across the border, who will take care of them. They do not need to go far to know the reality. They just look across the border on the Kashmir in Pakistan side. That will provide enough information to dismantle their mistaken belief,  and how Pakistan has treated Kashmiris in its side of the border. It is called so called Azad (free) Jammu and Kashmir, but its constitution says Kashmir Banega (will be) Pakistan (translating the whole thing into plain English – The constitution of free Kashmir says it will be part of Pakistan). An individual in that side can not get a government job unless he professes the ideology of Pakistan. The Kashmiris in that side are treated as second class citizens.

The sooner the Kashmiris, I particularly mean the Kashmiris of the Valley, understand and realize this, the better for peace and development. Religion is a matter of practice, but it is not a policy. Arguing that majority Kashmiris are Muslims and they must be part of Pakistan defies very logic. There are more Muslims in India than in Kashmir and probably more than in Pakistan. The idea of creating purely a Muslim state goes against the very idea of India, in which pluralism thrives. Living together is the idea of modern democratic state. Monotheistic states are not a practicable reality, particularly where people of multiple faiths live for hundreds of years together.

Admitting the reality helps. Despite all the problems, all the bad things, minorities in India are far better than minorities, say in Pakistan or Bangladesh. Look at what Jinnah of Pakistan had said in 1948. He promised that all people will have freedom to practice their religion. But we know what had actually happened. Few days back Charanjit Singh, a Sikh in Peshawar, was killed by Taliban. His fault – he was a Sikh, and active in society. The number of Sikhs and Hindus have radically dwindled in Pakistan. From about 20 percent of population of Pakistan at the time of the partition, now they are about 2 per cent. Look at India – each population has grown, irrespective of religions. There is no suppression of minorities, there is no religious law, as proclaimed by Zia, there is no invocation to Kashmiris to radicalize and to take up arms as was done by Benazir Bhutto in 1987. These are all for anybody to verify. This is the fact. The more the people of Kashmir go deeper into this, the better.

I am not saying that Indian state has no fault in Kashmir. It has committed many mistakes. I have articulated this in my book Conflict Management in Kashmir, available at www.cambridge.org/9781108423892. But most violence is cyclic. The militants and military are engaged in violence. Who would argue that the army suppressed Kashmiris before 1980s? Even before 1980s India had comparatively strong army, but there was no massive deployment of armed forces in Kashmir. But, why after 1980s, there was massive deployment of forces? The rational minds in Kashmir must think about it. Who kidnapped Rubiyya Sayed, and Why? Who created the militant organizations and supported them? Who used illegal ways like Hawala to supply money to militants and their leaders in Kashmir? Who orchestrated killings of moderate voices like Lone and Bukhari of Kashmir? Who suffered? The people of Kashmir. The Kashmir was shattered. The minorities of Kashmir were tortured and killed. Kashmiris – Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs died.

Why was all this done? It is the mistaken belief that Kashmir can be wrested by force that contributed to this mayhem. It is the mistaken belief that by massively radicalizing impressionable youth Kashmir can be wrested. It is the mistaken belief that by blasting bombs, throwing grenades, killing people, Kashmir can be wrested. The more the violence, the more the destruction in Kashmir. And that is the net result. The families of the militants who die suffer, and also suffer the families of the soldiers and members of paramilitary forces who die.

Kashmir was not like that three or four decades ego. There are stories that the very Kashmiris nabbed spies from Pakistan and surrendered them to Indian authorities during the 1965 war. The situation changed later. Pakistan failing to defeat India directly in the war, used proxy war, armed the youth of Kashmir, radicalized them with the poison of religion. And the youth fell into the trap. Now Al Qaeda, Islamic State, Lashkar e Toiba, Jaish e Mohammad, are players in the Kashmir conflict. How could they play a role in this conflict? Certainly many of the members of these organizations are not Kashmiris. Certainly, they do not represent Kashmiris. How come they became so important in Kashmir?

The moment the Kashmiris of the valley withdraw their support to these militant organizations, peace will dawn in Kashmir. The army will be redundant. The moment the youth of the Kashmir realize that they are puppets in the hand of Pakistan, and they are not masters of their destiny, the problem will be resolved. The moment the Kashmiris think rationally, separate religion from politics, the problem will be resolved.

Religion is no doubt a strong bond. Everybody loves his or her religion. There is no problem in it, and there should be no problem in it. But religion can not be politicized and radicalized as in Kashmir. That will invite disaster. Kashmir can not be a religious state as is Pakistan. Kashmir has its own identity – that is Kashmiriyat. Let Kashmiris realize this Kashmiriyat and revive this spirit. Let the Kashmiris know that one of their ancestors was called Noor-ud-din by Muslims and Nund Rishi by Hindus. Let Kashmiris study Kalhana’s Rajtaringini, and know their history. Let Kashmiris know how their history witnessed confluence of religions and cultures, and how Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam and Sikhism all flourished in Kashmir. Let them know how in the Shankaracharya mountain, the Hindu saint Adi Shankara meditated, before the onset of Islam in the valley. Let them know about Lalitaditya, Zainul Abidin, Lal Ded, Sufism, Ranjit Singh, and the deep history and culture of Kashmir.

It is foolish if religious radicals think they can erase this pluralistic identity of Kashmir. If the militants think that with the support of Pakistan, they can mute whole Jammu and Kashmir, they can defeat Indian state, they are in illusion. Yes, they can silence sane voices like Bukhari, and kill innocent civilians, tourists or pilgrims, or some state officials. But their killing will also be retaliated by the state. This is already going on for more than two decades. There are already thousands of killings. I hope better sense will prevail on the militants, and also on their leaders and their supporters.

Let the sacrifice made by Shujaat Bukhari not go in vain.

Restoring Peace in Kashmir

More than forty people were killed in Kashmir in exchange of violence between Indian security forces and Kashmiri people, after Indian forces killed the Hizbul Mujahideen commander, Burhan Wani early this month. Wani had emerged a youth icon and used social network sites to recruit fellow Kashmiris to fight against the Indian rule. Perhaps this is the most violent situation that Kashmir experienced after the 2010 upsurge during which about 100 people were killed.

The ongoing violence, unless addressed fast, may descend into a terrible chaos of the 1990s type during which Indian forces and Pakistan backed militants engaged in cycles of violence leading to killing of thousands of Kashmiris. Unless the current violence is contained, it may escalate and plunge the whole region into deadly cycle of violence with loss of civilian life and consequent economic destruction. The violence would help neither India nor Pakistan nor the people of Kashmir. It would only help the states to score some brownie points. Pakistan’s Prime Minister, Nawaz Sharif called Burhan Wani, “a leader of Kashmir.” Wani represented Hizbul Mujahideen in Kashmir. The terrorist organization was banned by many countries and organizations including the European Union. There is evidence that Wani was involved in violent activities in Indian part of Kashmir, and played a key role in recruiting youth to the terrorist organization. According to one report he recruited at least 30 youths to Hizbul Mujahideen.

During my visit to the Kashmir valley in July and August last year, I could see it brimming with enthusiasm with tourists from across the world flocking the beautiful city of Srinagar and Dal Lake. As I visited the border areas of Uri for my research on cross-border exchange, I could witness a similar picture. The local traders engaged in cross-border exchanges were brimming with confidence that flexible border would not only accrue economic benefits to two parts of Kashmir but eventually help make Kashmir borderless. Unless the violence is contained, all the positive capital of the past decade whether in terms of cross-border opening, meeting of divided families and decline in cross-border firing will be nullified, and Kashmir will be exposed to another cycle of violence, consequences of which may be difficult to comprehend.

The spoilers will benefit from the current turmoil. The spoilers – that include the terrorist organizations such as Lashkar-e-Toiba, Hizbul Mujahideen, Jaish-e-Mohammed, the hard line separatist leaders, the hard line political leaders, the international terrorist organizations such as the Islamic State and the Al Qaeda – would seize the opportunity. For the spoilers conflict is ‘normal’ and any attempt towards peace creates a ‘crisis.’ Hence, they work hard to derail peace process and create a ‘new normal.’ The Islamic State’s fledgling presence in the valley will be further strengthened. During my visit last year, I came across the youth in the outskirts of Srinagar city holding Islamic State flags. The dreaded organization may further exploit this volatile situation to its advantage. It may not be a surprise that the radical organizations across the border use their proximity to army and intelligence agencies to provoke large scale conflict. Furthermore a nuclear conflagration – the worst nightmare not only for the South Asian community but for the whole world – may not be ruled out. Such a catastrophe may help bring a cold, negative, stone-age peace. But, would that restore real peace to Kashmir?

In negotiation lexicon, there is an acronym BATNA – Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement. Parties to a negotiation weigh their BATNA, and if they find they have a better alternative than to the negotiated agreement, they prefer to break away from negotiation. In case of India and Pakistan, BATNA for each is worse. They have to negotiate. In fact, the past wars between them ended after the leaders of both the countries came to the negotiation table. Again to use the negotiation language, they have to expand their pie, implying they have to be flexible, in order to have a peaceful settlement of the Kashmir issue.

Spoilers must be discouraged, and the gainers must be encouraged. Terrorist organizations such as Hizbul Mujahideen and Lashkar-e-Toiba must be deprived of patronage and resources. Historically the method of war and violence was usually applied by a strong state against a weak state. But in case of nuclear weapon states, this old method fails. Secondly, in the age of global connectivity and active international institutions, acts of war, or promoting proxy wars, are equally antithetical to international norms of peace and security. If past is any indication, violence has always failed to reach a solution in case of the Kashmir conflict. So, while discouraging spoilers, India and Pakistan must promote the gainers – the gainers are those who gain from engagement. For example, the opening of border in Kashmir helped thousands of people. Divided families met, the local traders gained. This constituency of gainers needs to be strengthened towards a durable and positive peace.

India and Pakistan must revive the peace process. The more they procrastinate, the more the stalemate would be hardened. The more they dry the channels of bilateral communication, the more it will be opportune for the spoilers to exploit the volatile situation. There were some movements in this direction, but it seems dead weight of animosity nullifies these attempts. Despite Indian Prime Minister Modi and Pakistani Prime Minister Sharif developing personal rapport, the state to state relations could not move forward. In case of Pakistan, army is a more powerful driver than the civilian government in determining the relations with India. Unless the two countries continuously engage constructively, they will fail to appreciate each other’s apparent position. But, for a full-fledged effective dialogue, it is necessary that spoilers must be contained. It is difficult to simultaneously continue dialogue and promote the spoilers.

One of the major lacuna of Modi’s policy in Kashmir is lack of engagement with the discontented people including the separatists. Modi’s mentor, Vajpayee had initiated talks with the separatists and their leaders had talks with high Indian officials and leaders including Vajpayee’s deputy, L. K. Advani. Not talking to separatist is not a better policy option than talking to them. The primary reason is that not engaging them further contributes to the alienation in the valley. The separatists’ influence might be confined to the valley, but even then it is not a small influence as the valley has millions of people and it is the place where alienation is sustaining. Like Vajpayee, his immediate successor, Manmohan Singh too had engaged the separatists and organized ‘Round Tables’ to engage the discontented people. Modi needs to engage the moderate separatists, and encourage them to play active messengers of peace.

Deprivation, and particularly the sense of deprivation, plays a major role in a conflict situation. It is not deprivation per se, but the perception of deprivation – that the ruling power deliberately undermines the group’s identity and culture – plays a major role in generating and sustaining conflict. Some of the marks of this deprivation, in the context of Kashmir, are presence of security forces, lack of trust between people and government, and arbitrary laws. India needs to craft a sensitive policy to address all these issues. And Pakistan needs to support the peace efforts, while simultaneously containing, along with India, the spoilers active in any part of Kashmir.

Modi Addressed the US Congress

Indian Prime Minister, Narendra Modi addressed the joint session of the US Congress last week. It was Modi’s fourth visit to the US and his second bilateral visit after being the PM. Modi had developed a personal rapport with Obama, who became the first US President to visit India twice while in office. Their chae pe charcha in New Delhi in 2015 was covered widely by the media. 

Modi talked about the commonality between the two countries. While the US is the oldest democracy, India is the largest. Both are diverse countries. Both have stakes in a world free from terrorism and religious extremism. Perhaps unlike his predecessors, Modi is keen to display India’s soft power, and also use it as a leverage to promote India's interests. While addressing the Congress, Modi pointed out how Yoga is practiced by 30 million people in the USA, but India, where it originated, did not patent it! He also mentioned the historical connections between the two countries. Swami Vivekananda came to Chicago in 1893 to deliver the historic speech at the World Parliament of Religions. The relatively unknown Swami became world famous after Chicago. It is said that one of the great contributions of the US to India was Swami Vivekananda. Modi also mentioned B. R. Ambedkar, who studied at Columbia University, and how he was influenced by the US constitution, and applied it to the Indian situation as the Chair of the Drafting Committee of the Indian Constitution. The US also played a role in the Indian independence. Some of the Indian freedom fighters were based in the USA, and some of the US leaders were sympathetic to Indian freedom struggle. Modi also mentioned how Martin Luther King. Jr was influenced by Mahatma Gandhi. He struck an emotional chord with the Indian diaspora by arguing how the demography played a key role in the growth of the US, and how the Indian-American teenagers were winning spelling bee competition.

The speech received mixed reviews, some terming it full of ‘cliché,’ some terming it marking the dawn of a new era, and others maintaining a middle position. The strategic commentators differ on the actual depth of the relationship, and also on the actual outcome. Some of them argue that the US still hesitates to consider India as an equal partner, and they refer to defense talks and outcomes and argue that the US wants to use India to fulfil its objectives in countering China and strengthen its strategic position in the Asia-Pacific. Some others argue that the two countries have come out of their ‘history of hesitation’ and become ‘natural allies’. They point out that the US is one of the largest trading partners of India, and there is a growing defense partnership between the two countries. Some of them also refer to the Indian diaspora in the US and their bridge-building role.

I do not agree that Modi's speech was replete with cliché. Without commitment to shared goals, it is difficult to build strong relations. Democratic polity and liberal values of the two countries inspired many countries, and still inspire many others. Though during the Cold War the relations were marked by hostility due to ideological differences, the post-Cold War era witnessed growth in the relations. To forge a strong relationship, both India and the US need to come forward and shed old differences and approaches. The US needs to address India’s concerns on the issue of terrorism from India’s neighbourhood, or on sharing of defense technology, dispelling Indian concerns on stability in Eurasia and other areas. India also needs to be pro-active, and be more willing to play leadership role in troubled regions of the world, and address the US concerns. There are immense potentials for India-US cooperation. The major areas include strategic cooperation; energy and climate change, education and development; economy, trade and agriculture; science and technology; and health and innovation. As Asia-Pacific is becoming increasingly unstable, both can jointly play a role to make it stable by collaborating with the neighboring countries. 

The invitation to Modi to address the Congress was a reflection of the US seriousness to engage India. Modi’s words reflected India’s seriousness to do business with the US. With the baggage of hesitation and misunderstanding going away, both the countries are set to realize common goals. There is nothing to lose, but to gain, from the cooperation. The cost of non-cooperation are certainly high than the cost of cooperation. The leadership of both the countries appear to realize this. A lot will depend on how the next US government views India. I hope, whichever party wins the next elections, the drivers guiding the relations remain the same, if not change for better.    

In Search of Cultural Roots

Early this month I attended a cultural event at Chelmsford, Massachusetts. The festival was organized by Odisha Society of New England (OSNE). OSNE is a cultural group of Odia people, who originated from India’s eastern state of Odisha, in New England region of USA. It started functioning in 1983 in Boston. It is part of the larger Odisha Society of America, the body representing Odias all over USA.

I am an Odia, but I am not parochial. One can come cross parochial people in parts of India, who are closed to other cultures and ideas, and protest migration of people from other areas as they are afraid of losing job and other opportunities. This parochial mentality prevails not only in India, but also in many other countries. I do not bracket myself in this category. I am an Odia, and at the same time an Indian. Both these identities do not contradict each other. Rather my larger Indian identity embraces my Odia identity. When I rise higher, I consider myself not only as an Indian, but also a member of the globe, a global citizen. To put in a different way, there are diverse identities of one person, and they are not necessarily contradictory. In one direction, this identity may start with oneself identifying with his or her village or town, then expanding to province, country and even the world. Drawing from Sri Aurobindo’s philosophy, I am a human being, and my identity does not stop at my village or closed community as it expands further towards an ideal human unity encompassing whole world. Hence, when I say I am proud to be an Odia – this does not contradict or undermine my other identities.

I got an email from OSNE that there is a regional drama festival organized in the first week of June 2015. I was prevaricating as to whether I should attend the event or not as the place was far from my place, and I did not have a suitable transport system to reach the place. But when I talked to the association president, an energetic and affable person, he suggested that I should come and enjoy the event. He offered to arrange my travel after I use public transport to a certain point. From the red line Savin Hill train stop I took train to Alewife, and from there I took a bus to Burlington Mall. The president picked me up from there in his car, and drove around 15 to 20 minutes to reach the festival venue. When I reached the event, the key members of the association were busy arranging various items for the event. I tried to help them. One lady told me to bring a small table from the outside of the auditorium to the dais. She placed on it a beautiful wooden statue of Lord Jagannath. I was very happy to see the statue. I would not dwell here about Lord Jagannath as one can come across huge material in Internet. Lord Jagannath is the reigning deity of Odisha, and every Odia prays Him. Puri, the city where the Jagannath temple is located, is considered one among the four holiest places for the Hindus. In Odisha, I have seen people remembering the Lord before starting any new venture. I have also seen people touching the ground and uttering His name before embarking on any journey.

Before the program started at 4 PM, there were refreshments. I could see the number of Odias swelling as the time moved ahead. I interacted with some of the kids, who came with their parents to participate in the event and/or enjoy the event. While enjoying the delicious refreshments – particularly the chat and masala – I started chatting with two young boys. I asked them what they wanted to be in future, what are their career goals, etc. One of them – the elder one – said that he wants to be a mathematician. I asked whether he knows Srinivasa Ramanujan, the mathematics legend from India, he replied yes. The other boy replied he does not know what he wants to be. I interacted with some other Odias.

There were very few known faces; hence I was almost a stranger. But I could develop quick rapport with some Odias and started chatting with them. I started talking to a couple, siting next to me. Their daughter participated in the program. I asked the lady whether she misses Odisha. She replied, ‘there is no time to miss Odisha. The life is so busy here – taking care of daughter, managing family and job – all these leave no time to think about other things, including Odisha’. Perhaps that was a true confession. The people are so busy here that they do not have time to devote to other things. But, I took solace in thinking that despite their busy schedules they could organize this event, and prepare their kids to participate in the event, and devote time and energy for it, and this is not a small thing. That itself shows that their hearts and minds are embedded in the Odia culture.

I found the programs that night not only entertaining but also educative. The Odissi and Sambalpuri dances I watched after a long time. I liked the children’s drama Hari Darshana, literally meaning the sight of Hari (the Hindu God, considered to be one among the supreme trinity in Hindu pantheon – Brahma, Vishnu, also known as Hari, and Brahma). The theme of the story is this: the son of demon king Hirankashyapu, Prahlada did not relent in praying Lord Vishnu, despite pressure and ploys to kill him. Finally, the Lord emerges from a pillar as a testimony of faith of Prahlada and kills the king. The morale of the story: a true devotion to God can save from pitfalls. I also liked the dramas – Gopal 60, Muktidana and Elo Elo Mo Boulo. All of them drew from Odia narratives. In Muktidana, a girl fights against patriarchal system; in Gopal 60, three friends search and find their father-figure and mentor; and Elo Elo Mo Boulo reflects a deeper sense of humanity in a member from LGBT community. Some other programs like Bollywood dance, band and karaoke were equally heart-touching.

The message I came across was that despite being far from their native place, the Odia people love their culture, and work hard to retain their cultural memory in their daily lives. The organization of such events reflected this. The first generation Odias are strongly rooted in their culture, and are eager to impart it to their children. While I was watching the children’s drama, I could see many of them born and brought up here speaking native Odia. Only few of them had Americanized Odia. I commend the efforts of the first generation Odias who work hard to retain their culture roots, and impart the culture to the next generation. I also commend the efforts of the second generation Odias, who are American citizens by birth, to learn their parents’ language and culture. As I mentioned in the beginning, different cultures and different identities can survive, or rather prosper together, in same person. Hence, for me it is an amazing experience to see how these children navigate through their American identity and Odia identity, and how they are reconciling these two identities.

After the cultural program, we had a lavish dinner. It was a good experience to see so many people, about 150, from the same community. One Odia professor who teaches at a university in Boston gave me and another Odia ride back to our homes. We had a lively discussion in her car. The professor lamented that some Odias prefer to speak in English  with another Odia even though they know Odia language very well. She was not against the English language, and we all agreed that English is a necessary language, and is considered a global lingua franca, but when one is comfortable in his native tongue, why not use that? When I reached my home, it was late night. I was still relishing the cultural event and reflecting on Odia culture and language, but my eyelids were heavy and soon I fell asleep.

PM's Independence Day Speech

I listened to Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s speech on India’s 68^th Independence Day. Here I elaborate some of the points in the speech which I find inspiring for India’s growth. Modi’s emphasis on Shastra instead of Shastra (both words can be written same in English but their pronunciation and meaning in Sanskrit and Hindi – in which Modi delivered his speech – will be different: one is, for the sake of differentiation, Shaastra – meaning broadly book of knowledge and wisdom and the other is Shastra – meaning weapons) is the need of the time. Not only India and other countries in South Asia, but also most parts of the world, are affected by violence. Whether it is militancy and terrorism in India, or the Maoist problem in its east and south, or the problems in Afghanistan, or West Asia, or former Soviet space – all are marked by bloodshed. Geo-strategies and power politics have further contributed to bloodshed. The wisdom from the great books can guide us towards peace. It is time to give up guns and cultivate the inner virtues of human beings.

The replacement of a gun by a plough on the shoulder of a militant will cause much good to India, Modi believes. I believe in this too. We have seen many guns, wars, fear of guns, and their consequences. Guns have not resolved conflicts, not provided food and not brought peace and security to a nation-state or the globe. Now the time is for peace and economic development without the aid of a gun. I hope Modi will follow this principle while making decisions and implementing them.

The prime minister vigorously pitched for a India which has all means for economic development. He specially appealed to the youth of India. Here, it was the pro-business, pro-development, Modi was at his best. Modi is known for using new slogans. For the development of India, for increasing its exports, he gave a two-fold slogan ‘zero-defect, zero effect.’ He called the entrepreneurs, including the young entrepreneurs of India, to bring India’s name to the front not as an importer but as an exporter of qualitative goods. Zero defect implies that goods must be produced without any defect; they should be of best quality. This will ensure India’s global prestige as a quality goods producer. Any defect will bring bad name to India. Similarly, Modi called for production and export of goods which have least negative effect on environment. They should not prove environmental hazards.

As a tech-savvy politician, who uses social media for publicity of his policies and actions, Modi gave the call for transforming India into a ‘digital India.’ A digital India will cure many of the evils from which the Indian political system suffers. The idea of digital India also includes the idea of e-governance, which for the prime minister not only implies easy governance but also good governance. I agree with the prime minister that much of the red-tapism, which haunts India’s governance system, will go away if digital governance is practiced. India has required technological expertise to usher in digital governance. It has perhaps the largest number of IT professionals than any other country in the world. Hence, it is absolutely possible to embark on e-governance, which will cater to the needs of the people without the aid of the middlemen.

To fight the menace of middlemen, the prime minister announced a program under which money from government will directly reach the needy. Without such a provision there is rampant corruption in welfare programs launched by the government. Go to any village and talk to the people below poverty line, they will tell you clearly how they have suffered in the hands of the middlemen. Whether is rural employment guarantee scheme, or old age pension, Indira Awas Yojana (in fact there are many welfare programs, which were certainly initiated with the aim of helping the poor), the hapless victims are the rural poor who have no recourse to justice against corrupt middlemen. Under the new program announced by Modi, a recipient of welfare benefits will have a bank account to which government will send money directly. The recipient will have a debit card to withdraw money easily. The prime minister rightly pointed out an irony that there are people in India who have mobile phones but not bank accounts. The governor of India’s central bank, Reserve Bank of India, has also made a resolve to fight crony capitalism. The new program will help fulfill this resolve.

About gender insensitivity and discrimination against women, the prime minister made a strong pitch for gender equality in all walks of life. Drawing from the tradition, he urged the parents to give moral education to their children. He rightly pointed out the rapist is somebody’s son. I agree with him that moral education by parents can help develop the character of a child and make him a responsible citizen of the country. Modi argued against female feticide and cited the recent Commonwealth Games in UK in which women got a good number of medals. Women and men are equal and there should be no discrimination on the basis of gender, the prime minister appealed to the people of India.

Modi also pointed out other evils that eat into the vitals of an emerging India. The main among them include communalism and casteism. He appealed to the people of India to rise above these evils and fight them collectively. He cited a Sanskrit hymn that we should walk together. It is when we think and work collectively as a nation that many of the problems we confront will wither away. He applied the same yardstick to other evils such as corruption. Selfishness is the main mover of corruption. One should not only think about his ‘self’ but also the ‘self’ of the society, of India as a whole. Here comes to my mind the Gandhian dictum: the nature has for everybody’s need but not for anybody’s greed. The famous Gandhian talisman read: when an individual is in confusion as to whether he should take a particular action, he should think about the most miserable person on the earth he has seen and think whether the action he is confused about will help that person. If the answer is yes, he should initiate that action otherwise not. Perhaps Modi has in his mind this talisman when he urged the people of India to think of India as a whole, as one family. 

Modi also evoked the spirit of Gandhi when he was talking about cleanliness. India is one of the dirty countries in the world. Go to any city, town or public places, or to India’s rivers, the sight says it all. Modi said, we are going to celebrate Gandhi’s 150^th birth anniversary in near future, but we must remember Gandhi’s emphasis on hygiene. He rightly pointed out that government will not be able to carry out this mission without the support of the citizens. He is right in this. Government is of the people and for the people and by the people. Without the support of citizens, the government efforts will be vain. The people must take care of their house and make it clean, and the same logic they need to apply to their neighborhood, and public spaces like parks, markets, tanks and rivers. Unless this happens, India will remain dirty and dispel the investor who wants to invest in India, dispel a person who wants to be an India lover and wants to say India is my home.

Besides Gandhi, Modi also evoked the names of Maharshi Aurobindo and Swami Vivekananda. In his message on India’s first Independence Day in 1947 Maharshi Aurobindo had elaborated his five dreams. Among them included a strong and vibrant India, and emergence of India not only as a developed and harmonious nation-state but also as a teacher (Guru) of the world. Swami Vivekananda gave the call to the youth of India to march ceaselessly till the goal is reached. It may not be an exaggeration to say that Modi drew heavily from India’s rich cultural and spiritual heritage while speaking from the Red Fort. 

Will Modi and Sharif revive Lahore?

Pakistan’s Prime Minister, Nawaz Sharif was one of the first leaders to congratulate Narendra Modi when his Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) won the elections in May 2014. Modi invited Sharif to attend the swearing in ceremony at the forecourt of Indian Presidential palace in New Delhi on 26 May 2014. The national and international media widely covered the interactions between the two prime ministers.

Fifteen years ago, in 1999, Indian Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee had visited Lahore, the cultural capital of Pakistan, on the invitation of Prime Minister Sharif. During the visit both the leaders had signed the Lahore Declaration to promote bilateral relations. Sharif and Vajpayee shared a vision of peaceful and stable South Asia, only to be scuttled few months later due to the Kargil war and the military coup in Pakistan.

Will Modi and Sharif revive the spirit of Lahore?

Modi and Sharif share many common traits. Sharif is a businessman turned politician and Modi is known for his pro-business policies during his twelve year-old rule in the Western India state of Gujarat. Sharif returned to power after a gap of 14 years in 2013. Modi’s political party, BJP will be in power after a gap of 10 years. Both Sharif and Modi are in their early 60s. They are young, dynamic and perceived effective. Their support base differs from their previous regimes – the rule of Pakistan People’s Party suffered from bickering and opacity and the rule of Indian National Congress led United Progressive Alliance suffered from lethargy. Modi and Sharif enjoy a strong support base with an absolute majority in their legislatures and are capable of taking strong decisions.

But Modi is not Vajpayee. While Vajpayee was popular in Pakistan for his peace overtures, Modi is known for the communal riots that took place in Gujarat in 2002 during his rule. The riots killed more Muslims than Hindus. Though Indian courts have not found any evidence to convict him, he continues to be perceived anti-Muslim by sections of people. Modi throughout his electoral campaign stayed away from invoking religion and mainly won on a plank of development. His party gained 282 seats in 543-member lower house, a feat no party achieved since 1984. If his electoral utterances are taken seriously, Modi as Prime Minister of India will take an inclusive approach towards development and towards developing relations with Pakistan.

During an interview early this month to an Indian TV channel Modi argued that Pakistan must rein in extremist networks to revive the peace process. The hardliners in Pakistan dislike Modi and will use every opportunity to create havoc in Indo-Pak relations. It will be no surprise if the extremists in Pakistan repeat a 2008 Mumbai style attack to invoke a hard line response from the new government. Unlike his mentor, Vajpayee, who during the Kargil War of 1999, ordered the troops not to cross the Line of Control (the de facto border between India and Pakistan in Kashmir), Modi may react differently. Any hijacking of foreign policy by the hardliners in India and Pakistan brings to mind the horrors of war between the two nuclear weapon powered nations.

Modi and Sharif will prefer to cooperate than to conflict as the initial exchange between the two leaders indicates. In his reply to Sharif’s wishes, Modi talked about poverty, a common problem in the region, and his resolve to fight it. Both are known for pro-business and pro-development policies and this can be a common ground for developing bilateral relations. Modi during his rule in Gujarat made high profile invitations to business houses for investment. Some of the top Indian business houses invested in Gujarat during his rule. When Tata’s famous low cost car Nano’s proposed factory was stalled in the eastern state of West Bengal, Modi invited the industrial unit to Gujarat.

The businessman turned politician Sharif will be interested to cultivate the shared interest in bilateral trade. Pakistan in December 2013 postponed the granting of most favored nation status to India. Sharif may now consider the time ripe for granting the status. This can be a welcome gesture to start with. Before India’s elections, Sharif in February had made the case for flexible cross-border trade. Hence, it is likely that economics will dominate the relations between the two neighbors with eventual easing of tensions in areas of conflict such as Kashmir.

The lack of bilateral trust is a major roadblock against peace. Modi and Sharif can address the deficit. It is generally during election times that politicians ratchet up religious and nationalistic passions to win the electorate. As both the leaders are well ensconced in power, they can use the opportunity to nurture close relations.

Barring the 2002 scar, Modi’s image in India is that of a transparent and strong leader. Similarly, Sharif’s image in Pakistan is not sullied as that of some of his predecessors. Though adorned the post of prime minister for a decade, Modi’s predecessor Singh did not possess the actual power of the office as it was concentrated outside. Modi will not suffer from that handicap. He will be able to take decisions and implement them. During his election campaigns Modi harped on his vision of taking along all Indians to build a strong and developed India. If Modi is guided by this inclusive vision, it will be on expected lines that India-Pakistan relations will gain meat, and Modi will follow in footsteps of his mentor. But, if Modi cavorts to hard line tunes of sections of his party, the bilateral relations may plunge further low. The new mandate provides Modi the opportunity to bring on track the derailed relations between India and Pakistan. In this peace tango, Sharif can be his matching partner.

(Published in eposweb.org) 

New Dispensation in New Delhi

The absolute majority of Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), under the leadership of Narendra Damodar Modi, in the lower house of Indian parliament has made international news. It is the first time since 1947 when India got independence that a political party other than the Congress secured absolute majority in the lower house.

The media mostly reminds Modi, the Prime Minister-designate, of the 2002 riots and offers advice. Some of the writings have expressed doubt whether Modi will rise above his association with a Hindu organization, Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), and put India before his religion and party.

Modi emerged from a humble background. His father was a tea seller. He does not speak British or American English, and not a regular in Delhi elite circles. He was a RSS pracharak. But the membership of RSS does not make one fundamentalist. RSS is guided by Hindu philosophy, which is eclectic. Also, one can not club all RSS members into same mould. Modi’s mentors, Vajapyee and Advani, are known for their association with the RSS. Vajpayee is known as a moderate in politics. The point is association with RSS does not make one fundamentalist.

Barring the scar of 2002, Modi has no taint. Though sections of people believe his complicity in the communal riots in Gujarat when he was the chief minister, the judicial system in India has not found fault with him.

Modi has strong views, unlike Manmohan Singh who preferred to remain silent on many crucial issues. Whether Telecom scam or Commonwealth Games scam, Singh did not exercise his power his office bestowed on him. It was but natural as he had not the real command. The party high command had the baton of power. Modi will not have that handicap. The elections were fought under his leadership. Manmohan Singh did not rise as a politician from the grassroots; rather the prime ministership was thrust on him, while in case of Modi it is different. Manmohan Singh, a celebrated economist known as father of India’s economic reforms left office of PM in ignominy. This is sad for his political legacy, but certainly he will be remembered as one of India’s best brains, which could have been used more effectively.

I remember the famous debate between the two well known economists – Amartya Sen and Jagdish Bhagwati. Bhagwati was a protagonist of Gujarat model of development, while Sen was not. The first one prioritized rapid industrialization and private sector development, while Sen’s model focused on a society-oriented inclusive economic growth. Both models have their merits and demerits. The point is that Congress government under Singh followed Sen’s advice and launched welfare programs (marred by massive corruption), but the electorate of India preferred to vote for Modi.

It is yet to be seen how Modi will replicate the Gujarat model for the country. The people of India, particularly the youth, have high hopes on him.

Some of the great Indian leaders like Mahatma Gandhi and Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel were from Gujarat, the home state of Modi. Some of the great saints like Narsinh Mehta, who wrote famous Vaishnav Jana to Tene Kahiye (Gandhi’s favorite) were from Gujarat. Mehta and another saint-poet Kavi Jayachandra, also from Gujarat, had influenced Gandhi and shaped his life philosophy.  Modi particularly talks about Patel, and is apparently influenced by him. Patel was known as Iron Man of India as he played a key role in assimilating disparate regions of India into one single federal union during early years of India’s independence. Will Modi follow Patel’s footsteps?

As Prime Minister, Modi will lead India, not a particular community or religion. Hence, he is not only a leader of Hindu, but also of Muslim or of any other community in India. Pessimists will always bring back the specter of Godhra and paint him black. But, I am not in a hurry to see Modi in that way. I am an optimist, and will prefer to wait and watch.

Modi has the advantages which some of his predecessors lacked. He does not have a dynasty to promote, or not an immediate family to bestow largesse. In that sense, he will be more like Vajpayee who once commented that it is good that he has no family. He said this as a retort to corrupt politicians who put family before the country. Modi will not fill the seats of his official aero plane a la Deve Gowda who flew whole family with him during some of his official trips. Modi will not have to pay bribes to parliamentarians to support his party during no confidence motions as he enjoys absolute majority in the lower house of the parliament, the decisive body for no confidence. He will not have to indulge in horse-trading (a code name for breaking other parties to win majority), nor he will have the need to engage in scams and forgeries.

Modi is known as an effective administrator in Gujarat. One hopes that he will be an effective administrator in New Delhi. His lack of aristocratic mien will be to his advantage.

Modi’s years in New Delhi will be challenging. Any Mumbai style attack coordinated by hardliners from Pakistan will be a big headache for him. While his Pak counterpart, businessman-turned politician, Nawaz Sharif will prefer to work with him, the hardliners in Pakistan will do everything to scuttle the process. They will plan to orchestrate terrorist attacks to generate a violent response from Modi to further paint him anti-Muslim.

As Prime Minister, Modi will have to take decisive actions on matters home as well as abroad. He should not only be acting above religious bias, but also needs to be seen so. Perhaps he needs to be apprised by his officials the messages from The Prince, written by Machiavelli. The key message – the King (read the person in power) must not only be benevolent towards his subjects, he must also be seen benevolent. Already the Godhra aligned with him, any utterance of M word, will be interpreted differently. To address this, he may have to be innovative. He may have a ministry on communal harmony led by Muqtar Abbas Naqvi, or a cell in his office on it led by religious leaders of all communities. Learning from other models may be useful. Akbar’s Din-E-Elahi is perhaps a good model. Modi can take a cue from it. Even otherwise, there is ample guidance from Sanskrit texts: Sarva Dharma Sambhava and Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam are two messages which any leader wishing to rule multiethnic and pluralistic societies needs to learn.

India has poverty, unemployment, environmental pollution, population explosion, rising Maoism, communal violence, extremism and terrorism, women insecurity and many other problems. Modi knows all these problems, and has promised to address them. It will take time. It is naive to expect that he will successfully address all these problems in one month. One important thing that Modi needs to do is to appoint persons of merit and vision, not sycophants nor corrupt, to high offices. There is no lack of talent in India, and Modi will be able to find enough merit in India to assist him in the mission to raise India to new heights.

Here, I remember the Indian philosopher Sri Aurobindo who on the eve of India’s independence in 1947 had articulated his five dreams. The fourth dream was India’s role as moral and spiritual conscience of the world. Sri Aurobindo had in his mind the cultural and spiritual capital of India and its transformative power to reshape the human society. It needs emphasis this cultural and spiritual capital is not purely Hindu or purely Muslim, but Indian, rising from thousands of years of India’s rich historical and cultural heritage despite all its deformities. Modi may take a leaf from Bal Gangadhar Tilak and Swami Vivekananda. Both had argued India is a pluralistic society, and emphasized on synthesis. One of them had talked about the need of Hindu intellect and Muslim valor.

Modi can also prove Maulana Azad and Nehru right. Jinnah argued that Hindus and Muslims are different nations; hence they need to have different nation-states. Nehru and Azad had argued differently. They had strongly argued that India is a multicultural and pluralistic country in which Hindus and Muslims can stay together. Modi’s policies need to reflect this pluralistic ethos. During his electoral campaigns Modi promised to take all Indians together along with him. And he needs to fulfill that promise while in office.

Whether dealing with internal or external challenges, Modi will have to tread cautiously. Pakistan will be a big challenge. China will be another one. China-Pakistan nexus has not always proved beneficial for India, and Modi has to keep in mind that. While Russia has proved a traditional friend of India, Modi has to devise strategies to balance relations with Russia with that of the USA. Though the USA denied visa to Modi earlier, now it will be interested to deal with Modi, the leader of the largest democracy and also of one of the fastest rising economies. He may also revive the campaign for India’s claim for permanent membership at the United Nations Security Council, the highest and most powerful international body.

Modi will have a better tool in his hand to lift the nation from the morass of poverty and unemployment – two biggest internal challenges. With a strong determination, and by combining the visions of Patel, Shastri and Vajpayee, Modi will be able to trudge through difficult terrains while keeping his mission high.

I wish Modi good luck!