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/  

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.

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!

Two Cities, Shared History

I just finished reading and relishing the book Tales of Two Cities (2008, edited by David Page, published by Roli Books under the series Cross Border Talks).

The book is about the journey of two prominent South Asians – Kuldip Nayar from India and Asif Noorani from Pakistan. Theirs are not simply stories of travel but voyages – physical, emotional and spiritual – deeply embedded in the history of partition of the British India. This book, hence, is a narrative of history of India and Pakistan – the birth pangs of the two nations, the role of religion in history making and also about an integrated identity and onslaughts on it. Equally importantly, this book is not only about tragedies of Nayar and Noorani but also about tragedies of millions of Indians and Pakistanis, who crossed the abruptly created border, suffered and died.

Nayar recounts his days in Sialkot and how he was active in friend circles, leading a peace committee to fight communal hatred that was gaining momentum in the wake of the partition. He talks about his Muslim friends and how at the wish of his best friend, Shafquat, he tattooed the Islamic insignia – the crescent and star – on his right arm. His father was a dentist in the town and popular among the local populace. The fever of partition was going high and along with the hatred among the Hindus and the Muslims. Nayar argues that the partition of the subcontinent on religious basis fostered the hatred and provided much of its rationale. He raises this issue before the founder of Pakistan, Muhammad Ali Jinnah, who visited Lahore College before three years of the partition. Nayar that time was a Law student in the college. To his question, how would he ensure that the Muslims and the Hindus live together once Pakistan is created, Jinnah replied that once the states are created Pakistan and India would remain as friends as France and Britain after many years of war.

“The few weeks of madness (during the partition) on both sides of the border embittered relations between the two countries for generations to come…Fear and mistrust of each other made even trivial matters major issues”, Nayar writes.

He remains nostalgic about his native place. He describes in detail the surrounding of his house and the town. Though a Hindu, Nayar describes how his family was worshipping a Pir (a Muslim Saint) in the backyard of his house and how the Hindus and the Muslims were sharing each others’ joy and sorrow, only to be sullied by the communal hatred and violence. He tells how his father, then 65, was hurled a brick by a Muslim boy (whom he had cured from typhoid few weeks back) while returning back from office on a tonga. The boy named Bashir, accompanied by his parents, came to Nayar’s house next day to seek forgiveness for his act. Nayar argues that the arrival of the Muslim refugees from India who had tragic experiences at the hands of the Hindus and the Sikhs further spurred the communal violence. Those refugees encouraged and actively engaged in violence.

Nayar is also critical about the Indian leadership during partition. He believes that some Indian leaders were apathetic towards the conditions of the Muslims as they believed that the Muslims got a separate state as they wanted. He also mentions India not transferring the agreed upon assets to Pakistan, which furthered the bitterness. Nayar, however, speaks highly of India’s Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, and argues he was a thorough secularist. Nehru went to the streets of Delhi with kurta and pajama with a stick in hand to stop communal violence. He points out as most of the Muslim leadership shifted to Pakistan the remaining Muslims in India looked to Maulana Abul Kalam Azad for leadership. Azad in one of his speeches at Lahore College had argued that the partition would not serve the cause of peace in the subcontinent.

Though the wounds of the partition are deep, Nayar believes, they can be healed through friendship and cooperation. He is active in promoting peace between the two countries. He is also an advocate of friendly relationship between the two Punjabs in India and Pakistan.

Asif Noorani – a journalist, film critic, columnist, is adept in combining humor and hard fact with subtle messages. Like Nayar, he was born in an affluent family in Bombay and went to school and befriended kids from different religions. As a child he believed all are Muslims and a Hindu must be a Shia or Sunni! This is pure simplicity which we also experience in different ways in childhood. Noorani describes his childhood in a multicultural and multiethnic setting in Bombay, and remembers some of the gory scenes of communal violence. One needs to remember that Bombay was not as affected by partition-related violence as Punjab.

His family travelled to Karachi in 1950, three years after the partition. It was more an economic factor than political and communal that pushed his family to leave Bombay. His father had suffered losses in Bombay as his partner in the medical store had shifted to Pakistan and the new partner was not cooperative. Noorani’s description of Lahore, particularly the model town locality where his family initially settled, is vivid. This locality was mostly developed by the Hindus and Sikhs before the partition, and Noorani tells us how some of the houses have Hindu names engraved in the marble plaques.

Later his family migrated to Karachi. He describes how families migrating from different parts of India had settled in the city. These refugees had not forgotten their native places in India. They named their new habitations as per their old places in India. So there were Benaras colony, Kokan society, Bihar colony and Dilli colony in Karachi! Here, it is important to observe how the identity of the people remained with them despite their dislocation. Not only that, the migrant people, particularly the women preferred to call each other in the name of the locality they belonged to in India. So, his mother was Bumbai wali behan. There was also a Jhansi ki Rani, the lady who migrated from the Indian town Jhansi!

Noorani’s narration of the 1965 war and his confinement to Bombay is heartrending. Though he was worried about possible internment or possibility of being a prisoner of war, he remained composed throughout. During his Bombay days he had a brief interaction with the noted Bollywood actor Dilip Kumar. His encounters with the Indian officials including one Takle were a mixture of tribulation and humor. It shows how the officials despite the conflict between the two countries were not in the same mold. While some preferred to be rigid like the official who did not send his passport to Delhi for the stamp, others like Takle showed the humane side and offered Noorani tea and biscuits and shared jokes.

Noorani tells us the multiethnic and pluralistic culture of Karachi. It is the city in Pakistan which has the maximum number of minorities. He tells how on one occasion when communal frenzy was at high, Prime Minister Liaqat Ali Khan rushed to the Burnes Road with kurta and pajama to stop the violence.

Noorani and Nayar also recount the story of their respective cities which they called their homes after the partition. They cast a balanced picture of the cities of Karachi and Delhi. Though these cities have grown manifold and become cosmopolitan, they have increasingly encountered problems such as environment pollution, overcrowding, unemployment, etc. Both Noorani and Nayar are optimists. That optimism has motivated them to pursue their life-long goal – peace between India and Pakistan. Theirs is a shared story, shared history, identity and culture, which the border created in 1947 could not rupture.

(Published in Transcend Media Weekly, 12-18 May 2014)

Music as a Tool of Conflict Transformation?

“I have waited and dreamt of this moment for years…We only want to do good. Music must go out from here to all our friends everywhere… To all Kashmiris,” said world renowned conductor, Zubin Mehta on 7 September 2013 while leading the orchestra in the famed Mughal Garden in the heart of Srinagar, the summer capital of Jammu and Kashmir on the Indian side.

The concert, organized by the German embassy in New Delhi, was perhaps the first of its kind in the troubled Kashmir, in which the famous Bavarian State Orchestra of Germany played Beethoven, Haydn and Tchaikovsky. The orchestra also played Kashmiri music in conjunction with a Kashmiri ensemble, led by Abhay Sopori. The concert titled Ehsaas-e-Kashmir (the feel of Kashmir) can be watched here.

Expectedly, the music program received opposition from separatist leaders, who called for protests against it. Some opposition groups organized a parallel concert titled Haqeeqat-e-Kashmir (the reality of Kashmir) in the city. The good thing that can be observed is that the protests took the shape of another music concert, not violent demonstrations and bloodshed.

Can music be an instrument of conflict transformation? Putting it in another way, can music like other forms of art such as dance and drama, literary fests, etc. play an effective role in changing the mind of leaders and their followers who seek resolution of conflicts through violent methods? Particularly in the case of Kashmir, which has a rich Sufi culture and various musical traditions, how far can such an occasion can be a catalyst in moderating the violent positions of the parties?

Before the start of the program, German Ambassador John Steiner told the audience that the concert is a tribute to the people of Kashmir and their culture. In his words, “The distance between Munich and Srinagar is 7,756-km. Today, the distance reduces to zero. German and European cultural heritage bow to Kashmir, to its history, to its beauty and to its difficult reality and journey.”

Such a program also took place in 1955 when the Soviet leaders Khrushchev and Bulganin visited the valley. However, in the 1990s the separatism took a violent turn with support from across the border and also with repressive measures by the Indian security forces. The violence led a whole generation of Kashmiris, who were born and brought up in those years, to question the very status of Kashmir and turn towards violence under the guidance of radical leaders.

But one can notice that even the separatist leaders were divided on this concert. Some of them questioned the very organization of the program by Germany in a disputed territory and called the move a ploy to showcase that everything is normal in Kashmir. While some others described the expensive event as a waste of resources which could be diverted for poverty eradication or development purposes. The Nawaz Sharif government of Pakistan, a party to the conflict, remained muted concerning the concert. This indicated the moderate approach of the newly elected government to the conflict, and its interest in cultivating friendly relations with India.

Music, which is not essentially religious, has often been a victim of radicalism in Kashmir. Radical groups in Kashmir like Lashkar-e-Toiba, Dukhteren-e-Millat, Jaish-e-Mohammad, etc. perceive music as antithetical to religion. Besides music, they perceive freedom of expression and gender equality in the same way. In that sense, they share same values and ideas with other radical groups like the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Pragaash, an all-girl rock band in Kashmir, which was getting popular in the region due to its avant-garde music, had to vanish within months of its emergence due to threats from these radical groups. In contrast, another girl of Kashmir origin in Pakistani city of Karachi, Maha Ali Kazmi has become popular due to her romantic song Nazar, which can be watched here.

Any observer with having a sense of reality of the Kashmir conflict, and an understanding of the reality of national, regional and global politics in the post-cold war globalized world will be comfortable in arguing that neither the rigid positions of India and Pakistan, nor the separatists are going to be realized. The official Indian position that undivided Kashmir is an integral part of India, and Pakistan’s official position of supporting Kashmir’s right to self-determination (with the hope that it will merge with Pakistan), are matters of the past. This was realized in the early 2000s when both countries decided to make the border flexible, allow people- to- people contacts and commence cross-border trade. I have argued in my monograph ‘ Making Kashmir Borderless‘ that a borderless Kashmir with free flow of goods, ideas and people across the border (while retaining the symbolic division to satisfy national egos) will perhaps be the most feasible solution to the protracted conflict.

The South Asian subcontinent, which includes India, Pakistan and the undivided Kashmir, shared a common history and many aspects of culture. This is no truer than in case of music and drama. Noted Bollywood actors like Balraj Sahni, Dev Ananad, Dilip Kumar, Sunil Dutt, Kapoors and a host of others hailed from Pakistan, while noted Pakistani singers like Mehdi Hassan, Munni Begum, Reshma and many others hailed from India. The history of cross-cultural linkages is indeed legendary. The famous Sikh shrine Nankana, the birth place of Sikh religion founder Nanak, lies in Pakistan, while the famous Sufi shrine in the name of Chisti, frequented by Pakistani Muslims, lies in India. As a friend from Pakistan told me, it is the vested interests that create most of the problems. Common people, busy in the daily routines of life, want to live in peace and enjoy themselves. The concert early this month sends this message. More such events should be organized in both parts of Kashmir with support from New Delhi and Islamabad.

Published in http://blogs.umb.edu/paxblog/ on 29 September 2013

Reading Speeches

I watched three events in youtube yesterday: the speeches of three successive Indian prime ministers: Jawaharlal Nehru, Lal Bahadur Shastri, and Indira Gandhi. All the three speeches were incidentally related to Kashmir conflict. I watched these video clips to divert my attention from hectic schedule, but found myself involved thinking about the speeches and related dimensions: what the leaders spoke, their style of speaking, their tonal expressions and implications. All these I have referred in this piece reading speeches. I am aware that I am a novice in this disciple, and many universities have special departments to study and analyze speeches. But there is nothing, I suppose, in hazarding this analysis in a blog, which for me an open space to express myself. In this adventure, I do not mind considerations of specialization, expertise, and all those stuff.

All these three clips hardly continued more than 20 minutes. These clips were random selections. As I was thinking of ways of comforting myself, a random thought appeared that I should listen to Shastri’s speech. And when I watched the video of Tashkent summit and his brief speech there, I could come across other video clips in the same webpage containing speeches of father-daughter duo – Nehru and Indira. To my amusement all the speeches were related to Kashmir conflict. Nehru was speaking at the UN and at a press conference in New Delhi and Indira was speaking to press during her whirlwind world tour during Indo-Pak crisis in 1971.

Let me start with Indira Gandhi. She was visibly tense during interviews. I could fathom her visible frustration. While speaking at the Panos show, or at other interviews, mainly in the UK, her face was stiff, at time contorted, as she was confronting barrage of questions from journalists. Journalists were perhaps delighted to see India’s prime minister in such a tense posture. And they bombarded with questions: will India attack Pakistan? Will India initiate a dialogue with Pakistan to bring peace in West Pakistan? Will India support Mukti Bahini of Shiekh Mujibur Rehman in its war against Pakistan? Indira was visibly upset, and trying to articulate Indian position that India has nothing to do with Pakistan crisis. But what about millions of refugees crossing over to Indian territory, she asked journalists? What about if Pakistan in order to persecute Mukti Bahini crossed international border and follow the refugees, she argued? My point is she could have articulated this point without displaying her frustration at non-support from the Western powers to her diplomacy. At one point she said, Kashmir is not our problem; it is created by Pakistan.

Shastri at Tashkent was forthcoming. I saw in video clip that he displayed at the same time a child-like innocence and statesmanlike demeanor. The meeting was organized by the Soviet Premier Alexi Kosygin, who introduced Shastri and Ayub Khan at the round table. As I could identify Shastri was accompanied by Sardar Swaran Singh, then Foreign Minister of India, and Jagjivan Ram, and Ayub was accompanied by Zulfikar Ali Bhutto. Shastri read out the printed speech, it was clear and audible. His manner was straightforward, without any trace of gullibility, and simple. He was wearing dhoti and kurta. His small physical stature was sufficiently compensated by his demeanor. After the summit, he went to an educational center and glimpsed over some of the old texts and talked to the staff of the institute. It was a great opportunity to see Shastri walking and talking. The government dominated public media display speeches of Nehru and Indira, but I have never come across Shastri’s speeches, not even on his birthday which falls on the same day as that of Mahatma Gandhi. This video was created by the Soviet government.

Coming back to Nehru he appeared articulate and at ease while speaking to journalists or while speaking at the UN. His long years of experience during freedom struggle and also in post-independent politics must have been assets for him. While speaking to journalists in Delhi, in the context of Kashmir, he said Kashmir has acceded to India. It is Pakistan which should withdraw its forces, and make peace with India. He argued that he went to the United Nations because he wanted to tell the world the aggression of Pakistan. He squarely blamed Pakistan, and said the onus lies on Pakistan how to make peace in the region. He said India has not occupied Kashmir illegally; rather Pakistan has occupied parts of it by invading it. Indira too echoed her father during one of her interviews with a journalist named Chris Panos. Nehru, I think, can be graded the best speaker among the three. His foreign upbringing, his mastery over language, and his casual approach are his assets. In case of Shastri, it is his straightforwardness that can be considered his asset. He had not upbringing as that of Nehru, he rose from the grassroots. Perhaps he was the most upright politician India ever witnessed in its post-independent history. In case of Indira, she was perhaps not that astute in political affairs by that time (1971) as was her father in early 1960s. She was known as a ‘mute’ politician in her early political career (one socialist thinker Rammanohar Lohia described her as ‘ghunghi gudiya’). She might have unsurpassed shrewdness as a politician, but she was less articulate in comparison to her father and Shastri. I have not seen clips of her later speeches, which, I am sure, must be better in terms of composure.