Secularism or conversions

May 31, 1999

Adoption of a new faith is one thing, converting someone to it is quite another

Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee has given a timely call for a national debate on conversions as they are one
of the basic causes of communal tension in the country. The opposition parties have, as usual, opposed this call and have in stead demanded, as Congress spokesperson Girija Vyas has put it, a national debate on preserving the secular character of the Indian republic.

In fact, the two are two sides of the same problem. Let us therefore consider the so–called secular character of our Republic first.

The Preamble of the Constitution declares India to be a secular State and Article 25 spells out its content thus: “all persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right to freely profess, practise and propagate religion.” However, the next part of the Article makes discrimination between Hindus and non–Hindus by excluding the latter from the reformatory authority of the State. Furthermore, article 30 of the Constitution gives religious minorities “the right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice.” Religious minorities, therefore, enjoy more freedom in managing their educational institutions than others. These provisions clearly constitute infringement of the principle of equal entitlement enshrined in Article 25. They make the Constitution and our republic pseudo–secular.

Granted that these exceptions to the principle of equal entitlement to religious freedom were made with the best of intentions, namely, to dispel apprehensions, if any, from the minds of India’s religious minorities about any domination by the majority community so that they would, of their own free will, join the national mainstream and promote national integration. That, however, does not absolve the Constitution and the republic from being pseudo–secular.

What is the most regrettable is that the said best of intentions did not pave the desired way. On the contrary, the greater freedoms granted to the religious minorities are being abused by them to protect, project and strengthen their separatism under the garb of separate identities. And the appeasement policies of the non–BJP–Sena political parties nourish that separatism. Thus, the Constitution and the republic that are already pseudo–secular in form, have actually become anti–secular in practice.

A word about the right to propagate religion would be proper here. According to the Supreme Court judgement of 1977 (Stainislaus v/s State of MP), “The right to propagate one’s religion means the right to communicate a person’s belief to another person or to expose the tenets of that faith, but would not include the right to ‘convert’ another person to the former’s faith.” But, Christian missionaries claim conversion to be their fundamental right and their appeasers support them. This goes against the secularism envisaged by our constitution.

So far, we have considered the question of secularism and conversions from the point of view of the provisions of our Constitution. But it can also be considered in the light of the theories of secularism.

The classical theory of secularism comes from the West, where conflict between the State and the Church regarding jurisdiction over human life led to the division between temporal and sacredotal functions and the giving of all secular functions, including secular education, to the State and all spiritual functions to the Church. This, in its full form, means separation of the school from the Church and of the Church from the State. To give religious minorities the right to establish educational institutions and to give them greater autonomy in their administration than permissible to the majority community, which is what Article 30 (1) does, is against the ideal of secularism as explained above. And when these educational institutions are used, overtly or covertly, to convert people of other faiths, it is bound to become a serious cause of inter–religious conflicts.

It is alleged, not without reason, that through conversions, separatist tendencies are fostered among the converts. This was the finding of the Niyogi Committee in the past and of the study undertaken by the Indian Institute of Public Administration (IIPA), Delhi, recently in 1992–93, which recorded that the curriculum followed in minority–managed educational institutions “was oriented to a culture of isolation of the community.”
This is direct intervention by religion in the political sphere of the state and flagrant violation of the principle of secularism. As per the aforesaid theory, religious organisations should be banned from running educational institutions. If anyone wants to do humanitarian or welfare work, he may do it totally independently of religious organisation. That would be the real test of his motive also. Article 26 of the constitution gives every religious denomination the right to establish and maintain institutions for religious purposes. Whatever religious preaching it proposes to do, should be done only from there. Educational institutions should not be used for the purpose. Article 30 of the constitution is unnecessary, anti–secular and quite often anti–national too.

The western theory of secularism has been modified in India to suit its ethos and needs. Accordingly, secularism as implied in the Indian constitution means, firstly, that there would be no state religion and, secondly, that all religions would get equal treatment and respect. Mutual tolerance is the very basis of this secularism, while the basis of induced or forced conversion is invariably intolerance of the other religions, born out of the feeling of superiority of one’s own religion and denial that all religions, as so many paths to the same destination, deserve equal respect. It means my god is the only true god; yours is the false one and so you give up your god and worship mine!

Thus the attempt to convert is the expression of the worst form of intolerance which hits at the very root of Indian secularism. Intolerance breeds intolerance and conversion leads to re–conversion and even more conversions by all parties. Inter–religious hatred and strife bedevil national amity and unity. Thus, conversion is the very antithesis of secularism and should have no place in India.

Adoption of a new faith is one thing, converting someone to it is quite another. Even the adoption, to be genuine and valid, must be strictly based on an adequate understanding of the philosophy and practice of the other faith and on no other considerations. In fact, there should be religious courts to annul conversions which are not based strictly on these premises, in order to end conversion controversies forever. Conversions, to say the least, are un–religious acts. And when force, deceit or allurement is used for conversion, it unmistakably becomes an anti–religious act.

Regarding practitioners of deceit, the Bible says, “You outwardly appear righteous to men, but inside you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness,” and asks, “How can you escape the condemnation of hell?” (Mathew 23:28,33). Similarly, the Quran declares that there can be no compulsion in matters of religion, condemns hypocrites and pronounces, “Woe to those that deal in fraud” (Sura 63:1 and 83:1). Perfect matching of means with ends is nowhere so very imperative as in the realm of religion. Their mismatch is the very definition of an anti–religious act. Surely, missionaries constitute a bunch of misguided zealots who, as per aforesaid prescriptions of their own religions, are not going to get any spiritual gain from induced or forced conversions.

Dr. Manmohan Singh has recently stated that the twenty–first century would be Mahatma Gandhi’s century. It would, therefore, be pertinent to note what Mahatma Gandhi had to say about conversions. “I hold,” wrote Gandhiji, “that proselytising under the cloak of humanitarian work is, to the least, unhealthy….. Conversions have now–a–days become a matter of business like any other.” Further he asks, “How can the conversion achieved through such unethical means be called religious in the true sense?” (Politics of Conversion, editor Devendra Swarup; Pp.337–8). Charity is no charity if it desires something in return; it is just a tacit bargain, an irreligious act.
Development of knowledge, both scientific and spiritual, has made it amply clear that some of the religious concepts and practices held dear in the past are no longer valid in modern times. They are, therefore, either being dropped or reinterpreted. The Church, for example, has dropped the concept of the flatness of the earth and exonerated Galileo (or itself?). It also recently accepted the validity of all religions as “different paths to the truth”, though rather reluctantly and not in full measure. Practice of idolatry, though condemned by Christianity and Islam, is today prevalent in the followers of both the religions in some form or the other, such as idols of Mary and Jesus, Kaaba, dargahs etc. Music, paintings of living beings etc. are now prevalent among Muslims too. Above all, by its relentless pursuit of knowledge in all spheres, the Christian world has practically given up the concept of original sin and replaced it, so to say, by the Hindu concept of original boon — Dnyanadev tu kaivalyam: Bliss through knowledge. It is also gradually dawning on people of different religions that all religions are different paths leading to the same destination and, therefore, they should practice tolerance and mutual respect.

It is true that there are some prescriptions in Christianity and Islam in pursuance of which conversion activities are resorted to. But there are some other prescriptions also which indicate the validity of all religions and the need to practice tolerance and mutual respect. Jesus Christ, for example, had said that he had come “to fulfil and not destroy” and that, “In my father’s house are many mansions.” (Politics of Conversion, p.126; quoted by V.V. John.). According to Islam, too, Allah himself sent different prophets to different lands and gave them different books. Further, Prophet Muhammad unequivocally announced to all non–Muslims: “I shall never worship what you worship, nor will you ever worship what I worship. You have your own religion, and I have mine.” (Sura 109:1–6). Where then is the need or tenability of conversion?

Modern times demand that the aforesaid liberal principles prevail over the other illiberal and fundamentalist principles of Christianity and Islam that allegedly favour conversion; allegedly because reinterpretation of most of the latter will make them compatible with the former. Jihad, for example, is now interpreted by many enlightened Muslim scholars to mean war against the enemy within, such as greed, selfishness etc, and not against the enemy without. Conversion, likewise, can mean self–transformation into a better person. In any case, the concepts of Jihad, crusade, conversion, religious exclusiveness, fundamentalism, orthodoxy and the like are remnants of the past narrow feudal culture, which need to be abandoned or reinterpreted to fit them into the requirements of the modern period of liberalisation and globalisation.

It is the impact of the modern way of liberal and global thinking that has rightfully led to the demand of amends of apologies from the Pope for the atrocities committed in the past in the name of religion such as inquisitions of the 15th century. In India, both Christians and Muslims committed untold atrocities on Hindus in the past and they should, in all fairness, offer apologies and amends and stop all induced and forced conversions. That is the only just and honourable way to put the dismal past behind us and march jointly into the 21st century.

It is the eternal glory of Hinduism that it always believed in and practised religious tolerance and co–existence. Its cardinal principle is: “the Ultimate Reality, i.e., God, is one; only the learned men describe it differently.” (Ekam sat vipra bahudha vadanti). All religions, therefore, are different paths that lead to the same destination and hence should be treated with equal respect and tolerance. It distinguishes between Dharma and religion (panth). Dharma is universal and consists of ethical codes and modes essential for the sustenance of society (Samaj–Dharana). Religion or panth on the other hand, is the path to salvation. Dharma being universal is sovereign, but religion and state are totally separated from each other. Its secularism means: “Oneness of all Dharma and equal regard for all religions.” (Sarva Dharma Eka–bhav, Sarva Pantha Sama–bhav). The concepts have stood the test of time and are most relevant for and in keeping with the demands of the modern times.

Hindu tolerance is universally praised by non–Hindus but hardly reciprocated by them. They seem to hold: “You should ever practise tolerance because that is your principle; we would never practice it because it is not our principle.” This one–sided practice of tolerance has always put Hindu society at the receiving end; consequently, in the course of its history it lost vast chunks of its territory, population and even independence. It has, therefore, recently learnt the bitter lesson that it should not tolerate intolerance as tolerance of intolerance does not win over the intolerant to the side of tolerance but the latter invariably falls a prey to the predatory moves of the former. This realisation is at the root of the present–day aggressive stance of the Hindus. For this the reported move of the Church to resort to proselytisation in India in a big way to celebrate the year 2000, has provided a strong and immediate provocation. So, in order to re–establish cordiality, Christianity and Islam need to give up their intolerance.

Modern times also demand that all religions give up their exclusiveness, absorb what is good in all religions and function under an umbrella of universal Dharma.

Sonia Gandhi has recently praised Hinduism for its tradition of tolerance, which has sustained secularism in this country. If these words are genuine, her next logical step should be to call upon Christians and others to emulate Hinduism and give up attempts for religious conversion, which reflects the worse type of intolerance.

Religious conversions have another angle, a political one. As pointed out by the Niyogi Committee, they seem to be intended to create a state within a state. Foreign missionaries and foreign funds are suspect from this point of view and so they should either be totally banned or strictly regulated.

Conversions have no place in our march to the 21st century. We are at the cross–roads and have to choose between clash of civilisations, which is an inevitable outcome of mutual intolerance and synthesis of and harmony between civilisations, for which universal spread and practice of the Hindu tradition of tolerance and mutual respect is necessary.
(We are carrying this piece by the author in the interest of debate though we do not agree with its contents. — Editors)

Archived from Communalism Combat, June 1999. Year 6 No. 54, Debate

Khalistan within India?

May 31, 1999

The Punjab government is functioning as if Sikhism were the official religion of the state, with no opposition from the complicit BJP or the electorally opportunistic Congress

The leadership of the Congress in Punjab has appointed a dis ciplinary committee to recom mend action against Brahm Mohindra, a senior leader of the party — a former Punjab minister and a member of the AICC. Mohindra had publicly opposed the decision that the Congress would celebrate the tercentenary of the birth of Khalsa (and take out a deg, teg, fateh procession). His allegation that this important decision was not taken by the executive of the party but by the president himself has been refuted.

By and large, the matter is an internal affair of the Congress. That, however, is no reason why those outside the Congress should not express their opinion about the merit or otherwise of the decision, because it concerns public and political life as a whole.

In our opinion, the decision is clearly wrong and harmful. In the words of the Supreme Court, a party should either be a political party or a religious one. The Akali party has been functioning as a political as well as a religious party. The Congress has been generally criticising the Akalis for that. It has strongly been opposing the Akali thesis that as far as the Sikhs are concerned, religion and politics cannot be separated. However, for opportunist electoral considerations it has been compromising its principles, including secularism and anti–communalism. The late Rajiv Gandhi did so in relation to the Babri Masjid–Ram Mandir issue. His calculation that it would help the Congress proved utterly wrong. It helped the BJP. In Punjab, the late Giani Zail Singh as the chief minister did the same. He hoped to weaken the Akalis by fighting against them on their own turf. Laying of the Guru Gobind Singh Marg was a part of this strategy. Speaking on this issue, this writer (then a MLA) had publicly warned that the attempt would prove counter–productive and strengthen not the Congress but the Akalis. Subsequent developments proved this assessment to be correct.

The government headed by Sardar Prakash Singh Badal took the initiative and decided to observe the tercentenary of the birthday of the Khalsa officially. A top Congress leader, who is now demanding action against Mohindra, was the first to criticise the government’s decision. His argument was that to observe such religious landmarks was not the job of a secular government. This could be done by some religious organisation. Congress president Amrinder Singh and other leaders sharing his views, however, thought otherwise. The decision referred to above was thus taken. No convincing argument in support of it has been forthcoming. The mere fact that Sonia Gandhi has approved this decision does not prove it to be correct.

Punjab is inhabited not only by Sikhs, though the Sikhs are in a majority. Hindus are a big minority, Buddhists and Jains too inhabit Punjab. Will the Punjab government and Congress observe the major occassions of these religions too? No clear answer has been given to this very valid question. Some have argued that Sikhism stands on a different footing: In what way? True, unlike Islam and Christianity, it was born on Indian soil — but so were Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism. In any case, to make any distinction on this ground goes against the Indian tradition and can only lead to the disintegration of the country.

The fact is that the Congress calculated that chief minister Badal’s decision was motivated by a hope of political gain and the Congress decided to do the same. Once again, this will prove counter–productive. It will strengthen not the Congress but the Akalis.

Besides, there is also the fact that Congress leaders did not realise the Akali game. The decision taken by Badal was not merely on account of electoral considerations. His not–so–hidden second motive was to beat down Gurcharan Singh Tohra in the factional fight between the two. Undoubtedly, there is even more to the Punjab government’s decision. This government, in which Akalis are the senior partners (having gained a large majority on their own in the Assembly), has been functioning as if Sikhism was the official religion of the state. Here are a few examples:

In government offices, in hospitals, etc. you will find photos of only Sikh Gurus and none of even the national leaders.In government schools, besides the National Anthem (Jana Gana Mana), Deh Shiv Var Mohe ihe, Shubh Karman se Kabhoon na Daron, is increasingly becoming compulsory. These shabads of the tenth Guru are indeed very inspiring and excellent. But the Saraswati Vandana, too, is said to be excellent. Incidentally, these shabads were sung on government functions too — on the occasion of August 15, 1997 as well as on Independence Day last year (at least in functions held at Amritsar). Will the Punjab government introduce such songs from every religion in government schools in Punjab and in other government organisations? In Amritsar at least, on more than one occasion, this writer saw on working days practically none on duty in almost all the district level government offices and district courts even on working days. The reason? There was an Akhand Path going on on the premises of the district courts. What will happen if Hindu employees start Akhand Paths of Ramayana, Gita etc., on working days? Incidentally, in the district courts at Amritsar, I found very few employees at the Akhand Path, most were just enjoying themselves in one manner or another.

There have been Akhand Paths and Gurmat Chetna camps on the premises of the municipal corporation of Amritsar too. At least once some Hindu employees wanted to start a parallel Akhand Path of Ramayana. They were wisely persuaded by some BJP leaders not to do so. Some government schools have started holding Akhand Paths on the eve of examinations. (It is believed that this would help students to pass/do well in the examinations.) More examples can be given, but that is not necessary. It is sufficient to recall one fact. Simranjit Singh Mann’s criticism that the Akali Dal (Badal) after coming to power, had given up its goal of the Anandpur Sahib Resolution. The reply given by one top leader of the Akali Dal (Badal) was that the Resolution was being implemented (slowly but steadily). The Resolution stands for a Sikh theocratic state though within India. The decision of chief minister Badal that the Punjab government officially celebrate the 300th birthday of Khalsa is also a part of the ongoing effort to have a Sikh theocratic state in Punjab. Many out of sheer opportunism may not like or may fear to say so, but the fact is not difficult to see. It cannot but have very negative effects for the country in the long run.

A relevant question is: Why does the BJP not object? In fact, the BJP welcomes this because it will help it to realise the objective of a Hindu Rashtra which the RSS has openly declared and refused to give up more than once. There seems to be an unwritten agreement between the BJP and the Akalis that the latter would not object to the Hindu Raj at Delhi and the BJP will not object to Sikh Raj in Punjab, that is, Khalistan within India. After all, the BJP, which strongly opposed the “religion and politics cannot be separated” thesis of the Akalis when Khalistani terrorists had their headquarters in the Golden Temple, are now ardent champions of the same thesis.
The Left must oppose this dangerous game as well as the Congress’ opportunism. At least the Left must not allow the long–term interests of the country to be sacrificed for some narrow electoral gains. In India everyone must have the right to profess the religion of his/her choice and also to worship according to it. However, neither the government of India nor the government of any state should have any religion. State and religion as well as politics and religion must be kept apart.

It is time to have a national debate as to whether religion–based parties should be allowed to take part in elections. Also, whether candidates for elections should also be required to sign a declaration that they don’t believe in theocracy. Coming back to Punjab, Amrinder Singh and others would have been perfectly correct had they set up a non–party committee to celebrate the tercentenary in suitable ways, for example, by running a mass campaign and taking out massive demonstrations against the caste system and in support of such other teachings of the Sikh Gurus which are relevant even today.

Archived from Communalism Combat, June 1999. Year 6 No. 54, Comment

A matter of origin — nationalism or racism?

May 31, 1999

The recent manifestation of the right–wing onslaught on citizenship has taken the form of an attack on Sonia Gandhi for being Italian. This contention, supported even by senior Congress ranks, constitutes outright racism.

Aremarkable feature of the political values of south Asian elites has been their contempt for the legal and
ethical underpinnings of the institutions of governance. They have been able to combine this with skilful public relations, but the consequences are difficult to hide. Sri Lanka is in the throes of civil war, Pakistan broke up in 1971 and is gripped by a prolonged political and financial crisis, Bangladesh continues to suffer from economic disparities, political flux and environmental disasters. A close examination of each situation will reveal an incapacity or unwillingness on the part of the privileged classes of the post–colonial period to adhere to democratic proprieties such as respect for the rule of law, the freedom of speech and association, the tolerance of dissent. Thanks to the Gandhian legacy of non–violence, and the grass–roots mass organisation of the Congress, India was able to stave off this degeneration for a little longer than its neighbours.

Over the past two decades however, it has become clear that sections of the Indian middle classes, bureaucracy and political leadership, have thrown scruple to the winds in the mad scramble to accumulate power, money and patronage. The criminalisation of politics, the shameless misuse of public office for personal or partisan gain, the incompetence of ministers, the manipulation of legal processes, caste and communal biases in administration — all these phenomena have contributed to the decline in public standards. The social groups responsible for this denounce "endemic corruption" — by which they mean financial embezzlement. But they ignore and even contribute to the dismantling of India’s democratic institutions by the politics of communal hatred. (The Congress contributed to this by making concessions to communalists in the Shah Bano case and over Babri Masjid, by allowing some of its leaders to get away with murder in the aftermath of the 1984 massacre and by presiding over the Bombay riots of 1993). This politics undermines the principle of equality of all citizens before the law, by suggesting that some citizens are more "Indian", more patriotic than others, by virtue of their identity. By justifying violence against communally defined "enemies of the Nation", it upholds that most iniquitous of Brahmanical values — the notion that crime and punishment be graded according to the status of the wrong–doer, rather than the nature of the crime. It attempts to spread bias and prejudice in the judiciary and dereliction of duty in the bureaucracy.

Most of all, it seeks to undermine the most basic of these institutions, viz, that of citizenship, without which the idea of democracy becomes meaningless. Certain constitutions pretend to be democratic, but their application of provisions which discriminate between persons on grounds of race (as in South Africa under apartheid), or community (as in the Islamic Republic of Pakistan), negates the very spirit of democracy namely, human equality. It needs to be stated quite plainly that communal politics is akin to apartheid in this respect, and with the latest outcry against the "foreign" origins of Sonia Gandhi, the communalists have come even closer to it. There is no such thing as "reverse racism". Racism is discrimination based on ethnicity and race, whatever be the origin, skin colour and ethnic identity of the person or group being discriminated against. If there is one thing in common between apartheid, communalism, fascism and racism, it is the practice and culture of authoritarianism, in the realm both of party and state. The Congress leadership ought to seriously reflect on the decline of democratic values in its organisational functioning and among its rank and file. It also ought to make amends for its failure to implement the law of the land when the communalists were defying section 153 IPC in the matter of instigating communal hatred, for protecting the likes of H.K.L. Bhagat and Sajjan Kumar, and for allowing Salman Khurshid to dabble in the politics of Jamia Millia Islamia when a section of students were targeting Professor Mushirul Hasan on the Rushdie issue.

Despite its appeasement of communal forces however, (a charge which could be laid at the leftists’ door as well), the Congress retains a popular mass organisation and a constitution committed to secularism and democracy. It also has a nation–wide structure, unlike most of the opponents of the BJP/RSS. For this reason, it is seen by the latter as their most potent enemy. For their part, the current rulers of India have demonstrated their complete disrespect for legal and constitutional proprieties in their short spell of power. The Supreme Court’s annulment of Thackeray’s voting rights has yet to be implemented. The Masjid demolition case has been stalled by the Home Ministry headed by a chief accused — a clear case of conflict of interest, which ought to have made the BJP desist from appointing Advani to the post. After the vandalisation of the BCCI office in Mumbai, chief minister Joshi publicly announced that there was no need for prosecution, since "everything is all right". The murder of a leprosy doctor by a man known to be close to the Bajrang Dal prompted the Home Minister of India to give that organisation a certificate of good conduct before any investigations had been carried out. A big song and dance is being raised by the RSS about "conversions", despite the fact that the Constitution gives all citizens the right to practice a religion of their choice. It is evident that the extreme right wing end of the political spectrum believes most fervently in the doctrine of the end justifying the means. They think nothing of instigating the cruelest of human passions, regardless of the impact this will have on the polity. When they are out of power, they mobilise themselves to conduct violent communal out–breaks, destroy mosques, etc. In power, they enable their front organisations to run amuck, as has happened in Gujarat, UP and Orissa, and gain control over the education system, the police and paramilitary. (Something stated years ago by the Home ministry under Sardar Patel, which banned the RSS on February 4, 1948, for contributing to the climate of violence which took Mahatma Gandhi’s life).

The most recent manifestation of the right–wing onslaught on citizenship has been the attack on Sonia Gandhi for being Italian. Questions are being aired about the rights of similarly placed persons in Italy or the USA, questions which are pathetic in their whining ascription of all virtue to "the West". Rather than be proud of the fact that the Indian Constitution is more consistently democratic than the constitutions of Italy and the USA, our dollar–worshipping middle classes want our system to take a step backwards. They make a racket out of their much vaunted commitment to "tradition", but tradition has it that a bahu takes on the identity of her husband. They make high–sounding noises about the national interest, conveniently forgetting that the national interest requires that the Constitution and the rule of law be upheld.

Confronted with the incontrovertible fact that Sonia is a citizen and that all citizens are eligible to stand for Parliament, the Pawar–Sangma–Tariq trio have resorted to outright racism. They demand that the constitution be amended in a most reactionary manner to discriminate between Indian citizens on ground of place of birth. From this position to the idea that religions born outside India ought to have no place here, is but one short step. It is the same state of mind that produced Hedgewar’s theories, along with those of the Ku Klux Klan and the Nazis. The trio say that citizens under 18 aren’t allowed to vote, so there is a precedent for discrimination. How clever! Age barriers to voting evaporate with the passage of time — at what stage will these patriots allow Sonia to stand for election? (That is the only point at issue, because we do not elect Prime Ministers, only MPs). Neither on ground of tradition nor of law do the RSS/BJP, Pawar, Mulayam etc., have a leg to stand on.

The political vacuity and unscrupulousness of our political elite is once again on display. A discriminatory amendment to the Constitution may be found violative of its basic structure, and could be struck down. The fact that this issue has been raised will give rise to racist propaganda during the elections, which would arguably be a violation of section 153 IPC. Opposition to the Congress, or to its leadership could have been based on criticisms of its past record, its style of functioning today and its programme. Criticisms of Sonia could have focussed on her lack of political experience, understanding of Indian society or on similar issues. Pawar could simply have said that he wanted to be the Prime Minister. But to attack a bona–fide citizen for being born outside India is symptomatic of ideological bankruptcy. This bankruptcy will be manifested in their incitement of that ancient sentiment, the hatred of the Outsider, of the person or group which looks different. For decades the communalists have made political capital out of this sentiment. (It is significant that such ideas have been lurking within senior ranks of the Congress organisation — something more for its leadership to think about, apart from the violent behaviour of its cadres during the period of Sonia’s resignation). India shall soon be witness to a vicious election campaign with nothing to support it but xenophobia. I am reminded of a tired old proverb — "Empty vessels make most noise." How true.

Archived from Communalism Combat, June 1999. Year 6 No. 54, Opinion

Wages of divorce

May 31, 1999

The Mumbai High Court ruling in early May that a Muslim male is liable to provide for his divorced wife beyond the iddat period, revives the over decade–old controversy

Shah Bano died over a dozen years ago. But the issue that she raised and which made her a housej
hold name in India — a divorced Muslim woman’s right to maintenance from her former husband — refuses to fade away. It’s now 13 years since the then Prime Minister, Rajiv Gandhi, buckled under the pressure of Muslim men to enact a special law for Muslim women — Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986. The new Act gave the impression to most Muslims and even others that through their countrywide agitation they had successfully established the ‘Islamic’ principle that since marriage is only a civil contract, once a Muslim male divorces his wife, he is not liable to pay her any maintenance beyond the three–month iddat period.

To begin with, several petitions filed by secular individuals and groups challenging the very constitutional validity of the 1986 act are pending before the Supreme Court. Secondly, divorced Muslim women with nowhere else to turn to, despite the pious promises of the orthodoxy, have continued to plead for justice from the courts. In the last few years, some high courts have interpreted the same 1986 law to mean that the former husband is obliged to provide for his divorced wife beyond the iddat period. The latest such ruling to refocus attention on the issue has been the verdict of a division bench of Mumbai High Court delivered in early May.

Zaitunbi Mubarak Shaikh of Satara district in Maharashtra was deserted by her husband, Mubarak Fakhruddin Shaikh, in 1980. In response to an application filed by her under Section 125 CrPC, the local magistrate ruled in June 1981 that her husband pay her Rs.60 per month for maintenance. Then on October 6, 1986, Zaitunbi filed an application for enhancement of the maintenance sum to Rs.500 p.m. She prayed that she had not been keeping good health and the amount of Rs.60 was not even enough to pay for her medical bills and also that her husband who had a stable job could easily afford the enhanced amount.

Unfortunately for Zaitunbi, the Muslim Women’s Act, had been passed six months before her application. Taking recourse to the same, Mubarak informed the court on November 11, 1986 that he had divorced his wife (by registered post!) on October 29 (that is, 23 days after his deserted wife’s application), paid her the mehr amount of Rs.125 and Rs.150 towards maintenance for the iddat period. And so, according to the new Act, he was not obliged to pay any further maintenance. The petition came before the division bench after the sessions court, Satara, had ruled in Mubarak’s favour.

Section 3 (1) of the Muslim Women’s Act says a divorced woman shall be entitled to:

a) a reasonable and fair provision and maintenance to be made and paid to her within the iddat period by her former husband;

b) where she herself maintains the children born to her before or after her divorce, a reasonable and fair provision and maintenance to be made and paid by her former husband for a period of two years from the respective dates of birth of such children;

c) an amount equal to the sum of mehr or dower amount agreed to be paid to her at the time of her marriage according to Muslim law; and

d) all the properties given to her before or at the time of her marriage by her relatives or friends or the husband or any relatives of the husband or his friends.

It is the first of these clauses pertaining to "reasonable and fair provision and maintenance" which has tended to be interpreted differently by different high courts in the country.

The very first judgement under the amended Act was given by the Lucknow magistrate, Ms. Rekha Dixit. She awarded Rs. 68,000 to a divorced Muslim wife in a final settlement of all dues. In more recent years, the Gujarat, Kerala and now Mumbai high courts have interpreted the clause to mean the wife is entitled to payment from her former husband even beyond the iddat period. On the other hand, by a majority of two to one, a full bench of the Andhra Pradesh high court has ruled that the Act does not envisage any payment of maintenance beyond the iddat period.

Having looked up the separate dictionary meanings of the words provision and maintenance, Justices A.V. Savant and T.K. Chandrashekhara Das of the Mumbai high court have concluded that while passing the new law, the legislative intent — an important consideration while interpreting any law — was to provide for a woman beyond the iddat period.

Clearly, the ball now lies with the Supreme Court of India. For now, women’s organisations and other secular groups have welcomed the Mumbai court’s ruling, but there is some apprehension whether the basis on which the judges have arrived at their ruling — intention of the legislature while framing the law — will stand scrutiny in the Supreme Court. After all, wasn’t the frenzy of the Muslim clergy the political backdrop to appease whom Rajiv Gandhi piloted the new bill? On the other hand, stands a ruling of the Dacca high court of 1995, which argues entirely within the confines of Islam that the Quran very clearly enjoins upon Muslims to pay maintenance to their divorced wives until such time as they remarry. (See accompanying excerpts). In most other Muslim majority countries today, the former husband is obliged to pay maintenance to the former wife for different lengths of time beyond the iddat period. The Muslim male in India, in other words, demands privileges from secular India which are denied to his counterparts even in most states that claim to be run according to Islamic principles.

Archived from Communalism Combat, June 1999. Year 6 No. 54, Special Report

A hero defamed

May 31, 1999

The saffron brigade’s claim that he was an ‘anti–Hindu fanatic’, results in the ‘postponement’ of the celebration of the 200th death anniversary of ‘martyr’ Tipu Sultan by the Karnataka government

British imperialists had entered the Indian sub–continent through the innocuous channels of trade
and commerce during the early part of the 17th century. Once they had set their feet firmly on the Indian soil under the protection and patronage of the Mogul emperors, it did not take them long to manifest their real political ambitions and sinister objectives of colonising India, taking fullest advantage of the political anarchy that prevailed in the country following the decline and disintegration of the Mogul power after emperor Aurangzeb.

In playing the subtle game of exploiting the age–old and intrinsic racial, communal and religious differences of different sections of the Indian people, the British excelled all the other European nations, such as the French, Dutch and Portuguese, who were also competing greedily with the British for establishing their own spheres of political power and influence in India. The British ultimately won, because of their superior strategy of "Divide and Rule", which throughout the colonial history of the British in India, they used very skilfully, ruthlessly and most unscrupulously in all their dealings with their opponents in the Indian sub–continent.

In the adventurous career of establishing their political hegemony throughout India, the British had encountered real challenges to their power only twice before the so–called ‘sepoy mutiny’ or the Indian rebellion (also described at times as India’s first war of Independence) against the British in 1857.

The first challenge was posed by Nawab Sirajuddaula of Bengal, who was eliminated without much difficulty by Clive in the battle of Plassey fought in 1757. Clive had, of course, succeeded through the intrigues and high treason of Mir Jaffar.

The second challenge, which was much more formidable than the first one, had come to the British from Tipu Sultan and his father Nawab Hyder Ali Khan of Mysore, whose kingdom at one time stretched over a vast area in Deccan, comprising not only the whole territory of the present day state of Karnataka, but also included sizeable portions of Tamil Nadu, Kerala and Andhra states.

Apart from fighting numerous battles with their other enemies, Tipu and his father fought four major wars against the British and their allies. So great were the military exploits and victories of Tipu and Hyder, and so crushing and humiliating were the defeats suffered by the British in the first two Mysore wars, that the British considered this Deccan Sultanate as a poisonous thorn in their side and spared no effort through treachery, intrigues and subversion to bring about the downfall of this Sultanate — an objective which they had failed to achieve on the battle fields otherwise.

To the national misfortune of India, the British succeeded in their efforts to kindle selfish ambitions and envy in the hearts of the Maratha rulers and the Nizam of Hyderabad; so much so, that they had joined with the British in forming an unholy common alliance against the Sultan. Encouraged by the British, the Maratha rulers and the Nizam suffered from illusions of false grandeur and glory and imagined themselves to be the legal heirs to the Mogul empire in India.

The courage and chivalry of Tipu Sultan on the battlefields earned from his friends and foes the title of the ‘Tiger of Mysore’ for the Sultan. It is said that the British feared Tipu so much — not only in India but also in England — that mothers used to frighten their children just by using the name of Sultan.

There are different versions about the role of Tipu Sultan in fighting the British in India. In some books of history pertaining to Tipu Sultan, written either by the British authors or other writers influenced by the British, the Sultan has been depicted as a Muslim religious fanatic, who was intolerant of other religions and persecuted their followers. It is alleged that hundreds and thousands of Hindus and Christians were either massacred or forcibly converted to Islam on the orders of the Sultan. Tipu is also alleged to have destroyed in his religious frenzy, scores of temples and churches.

Tipu and his father Hyder Ali have also been shown in some books as usurpers, who in their greed for power had deprived the legitimate Hindu Raja of Mysore of his throne and his kingdom. It is pointed out that with the fall of Srirangapatnam, the capital of the Sultanate, and the death of Tipu on the battle–field in the fourth war of Mysore in 1799, when the British bestowed the throne of Mysore to the Hindu Raja, the British acted most justly; in fact, they undid an act of grave "injustice" and "tyranny" perpetrated on the Raja and his Hindu subjects by Tipu Sultan and his father.

Taking into consideration the factors mentioned in the above paragraphs, it should be quite obvious that the various charges levelled against Tipu Sultan were totally baseless and were concocted by the British to fit into their strategy of ‘Divide and Rule’, with particular reference to the two major religious communities of India. It would, nevertheless, be necessary to establish the real truth on the basis of pure historical facts.

Late Mahmood Khan Mahmood of Bangalore, in his much celebrated biographical book on the history and times of Tipu Sultan, entitled Sultanate–e–Khudabad, after much painstaking research, with reference to both Hindu and foreign historians and writers, had with documentary evidence and proof refuted the allegations against Tipu as based on untruth. Modern historical research of the period has also shown the various allegations to be "historical myths" and fiction invented by the British and their henchmen to malign the Sultan with an avowed objective of sowing seeds of discord and hatred between Hindus and Muslims in order to strengthen and perpetuate the British Raj in India.

Tipu was undoubtedly a very pious and God fearing Muslim. It is recorded in his biography that when the construction of the great Jami Mosque at Srirangapatnam was completed, it was proposed by the learned scholars that the first inaugural prayers should be led by a pious person who had not missed even a single prayer since attaining the age of puberty. While there was reluctance and even some sort of consternation amongst the distinguished scholars and noblemen gathered on the great occasion for complying with his condition, one person stepped forward to lead the prayers, as required. This pious person was none other than the Sultan himself.

But Tipu Sultan’s religious nature and piety, as stated, did not prevent him from being kind, just and considerate to his non–Muslim subjects. In fact, he was liberal and generous to them as illustrated by the following events.

Even to this day, there are numerous Hindu temples in the Deccan which are enjoying the benefits of jagirs granted by the Sultan. It is noteworthy that once, in a war with the Marathas, the Maratha army had laid siege to the Sultan’s capital city of Srirangapatnam. Angered by their defeat, the Maratha troops, before their retreat, ransacked not only the populated suburbs of the capital, but also looted the famous temple of Sri Ranga in the vicinity of the city on the banks of river Cauvery. When this sad story of plunder of the temple reached the Sultan, he not only got the damage repaired, but also restored to the temple the equivalent of the wealth carried away by the invaders. His Hindu subjects gratefully acknowledged this act of generosity and liberalism on the part of Tipu. The holy temple itself is a standing monument to this day to Sultan’s religious liberalism and benevolence.

Tipu Sultan’s great respect and regard for the Shankaracharya of the famous Sringeri Mutt and his several munificent grants for this Mutt situated in his kingdom are well known.

Dr S. Radhakrishnan in his book, Present Crisis of Faiths, wrote:

"Tipu on many occasions requested the Sringeri Shankaracharya to offer prayers to God. Once, he expressed great pleasure at the Sahasra Chandi Japa performed under the guidance of the Shankaracharya for the welfare of his kingdom".

It is nothing but slanderous to attribute to Tipu Sultan, a man of such broad–minded religious liberalism and catholic out–look, narrow–minded religious fanaticism. Similarly, stories of mass conversions and massacres of non–Muslims are also without any foundation whatsoever.

The various battles fought by the Sultan were of political rather than religious nature. He fought not only against the Marathas and British but also against the Nizam of Hyderabad and Nawab of Arcot. Of course, the Sultan had to suppress with an iron hand, rebellions by sections of people, who included not only Hindus and Christians, but also Muslims. All this was done in the business of ruling the kingdom and was not done as persecution of non–Muslims.

It may be mentioned here that when the Sultan saw that some Christian converts were often being used by the British missionaries as fifth columnists and agents of the British imperialists to subvert his kingdom, he took suitable punitive action against such agents of the enemy in the interests of his state. It is meaningless to characterise the Sultan’s action as "religious persecution".

As for the charge of usurping the throne and kingdom of the Hindu Raja, it would be relevant to narrate that before the advent of Hyder Ali Khan on the scene, the ‘Raja’ and his ‘Kingdom’ existed only nominally. After the disintegration of the Vijayanagar Empire, the ‘Raja’ who was a vassal of the Vijayanagar rulers had declared his ‘independence’. The Raja’s ‘kingdom’ comprised the town of Mysore and some 33 villages around it. Hyder Ali Khan, whose ancestors had migrated to the south from Bijapur, had joined the service of the Raja of Mysore, and risen to the rank of army commander. Tired and disgusted by the intrigues of his scheming courtiers, the Raja himself had handed over power to Hyder Ali Khan. It was Hyder Ali Khan, who, through his military genius and statesmanship, extended the frontiers of this tiny and obscure ‘kingdom’ to a great Sultanate of national and international reputation. Even after becoming a Nawab, Hyder Ali Khan, and later his son, Tipu Sultan, continued to give full protection to the Raja and his family and granted privy purses and allowances for their maintenance with honour and dignity befitting their royal status. This development was given a mischievous Hindu–Muslim communal twist by the British in order to gain their selfish political ends in India.

Coming to the positive side of the role played by Tipu Sultan, he may aptly be ranked amongst the first and foremost of the national heroes and martyrs of India, who laid down their lives so that their country and countrymen may live in freedom with dignity and honour.

It was Tipu, who with his rare far–sightedness had planned for the development and progress of ‘swadeshi’ trade and industry (particularly cottage industries). He also made pioneering efforts for developing agriculture through a well–developed irrigation system. It may be mentioned here that when the foundation for the present Krishnaraja Sagar dam near the city of Mysore on the river Cauvery was laid, during the early part of this century, engineers were surprised to find at the site a stone tablet, which indicated that the Sultan had already laid the foundation of an irrigation dam on the same site over a century ago!

It was Tipu Sultan, who for the first time in Indian history, had realised that Indians could not hope to survive as a free people, if they relied solely on their old and traditional methods of warfare for facing the challenge posed by the British. He tried, therefore, to modernise his armed forces with the help of the French, which struck terror into the hearts of the British. To Tipu Sultan again goes the credit of discovering another unique truth that the secret of the British might lay in their naval power. In order to combat this foreign menace, Tipu had tried to build up a strong Indian naval force at Bhatkal and Mangalore on the Arabian coast in his kingdom. Realising the national and international aspects of the menace posed by the British imperialists in India, Tipu had even tried to enlist the cooperation and collaboration of the Caliph of Turkey and Napoleon Bonaparte of France. It was unfortunate that intrigues and subversion engineered by the British and their agents thwarted the efforts of the Sultan.

Amongst those who had betrayed Tipu Sultan, Mir Sadiq and Poorniah top the list. Mir Sadiq and Poorniah, who were the Prime Minister and Dewan of the Sultan respectively, had conspired with the British in destroying the Sultanate of Tipu.

Poorniah’s appointment by Tipu as his trusted Dewan — a post next in importance only to Prime Ministership — was another example of the Sultan’s benevolence and communal generosity towards his Hindu subjects.

Referring to the treachery of Poorniah, Mahatma Gandhi had once written that he felt ashamed that Poorniah, who had betrayed the Sultan, was a Hindu.

Poet Iqbal had condemned the treacherous role of Mir Jaffar and Mir Sadiq as follows:

"Mir Jaffar–e–Bengal, o Mir Sadiq–e–Deccan

Nang–e–Adam, Nang–e–Deen, Nange–Watan"

(Mir Jaffar of Bengal and Mir Sadiq of Deccan, they are a disgrace to mankind, disgrace to their religion and disgrace to their country!)

It is recorded in his biography that during the fourth Mysore war, when he was fighting the last and most fateful battle of his life, Mir Sadiq had approached the Sultan with the advice that he should come to terms with the British. Tipu Sultan is said to have retorted that it was better to live like a tiger for one day than live like a jackal for a hundred years.

By laying down his life for the freedom of his country, Tipu had exemplified by his supreme sacrifice what could be the best and most glorious in India’s history and national traditions of service and sacrifice.

It is rather unfortunate, and in fact a national tragedy, that notwithstanding his supreme sacrifices, the role of Tipu Sultan as one of the first and foremost national heroes, patriots and freedom fighters of India is yet to be recognised and appreciated in full by his country and country men.

Archived from Communalism Combat, June 1999.Year 6 No. 54, Forum

A foe in need is a friend indeed

May 31, 1999

With elections not so far away in India and Nawaz Sharif embroiled in a series of domestic skirmishes, Atal Behari Vajpayee’s friend from Lahore could not have done the BJP and himself a bigger favour than opening the Kargil front

The Dilli–Lahore goodwill bus had been cruising along comfortably — in the right direction if not at the desired speed. The reception which the most important passenger on that peace route — Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee — received in February during his brief journey across the Wagah, and the response the visiting Pakistani cricket team got from spectators in India a little earlier — both when they won (Chennai) and when they lost (New Delhi) — made it evident that the Jamaat–e–Islami and the Bal Thackerays notwithstanding, amity was the prevailing mood on both sides of the divide. Who then is to be blamed for hijacking the peace process to the chilling Kargil heights?

When investigating a murder case, the first thing any crime investigation agency looks for is motive: Who stands to benefit? An analysis of how things have so quickly, and apparently inexplicably, degenerated from friendship talks to a ‘war–like’ situation can similarly benefit from asking the elementary question: Who benefits from the ominous developments on the border?

From the Indian ‘nationalistic’ perspective, Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif is the obvious villain of the piece. Why should Sharif invite Vajpayee to Lahore in February and then up the ante in less than 100 days? The explanation is that the Pakistani Prime Minister, embroiled into an increasing number of difficulties on the domestic front, badly needed a scapegoat to divert public attention.

In early 1997, Nawaz Sharif was returned to power with a massive mandate. Barely two years later, his popularity is on a nosedive. Economically, Pakistan is in a shambles, forex reserves are down to a mere one billion dollars (as against India’s reserves of over 33 billion) and the Karachi Stock Exchange in an acute state of depression.

Politically, there is increasing talk within the country today of Pakistan being a “failed state”. Sharif’s only response to the deepening crisis has been to damage or dismantle any institution that could act as a forum for the articulation of censure, dissent or mass discontent. The Pakistani Prime Minister has ensured that a person of his choice heads the army, the courts have virtually been turned into “handmaidens to the executive”, the free press is under constant assault, the country’s independent Human Rights Commission has been ordered to cease publishing its newsletter and a witch–hunt is now being conducted against all “anti–state” non–governmental organisations (NGOs). Not surprisingly, the highly influential Economist published from London has recently advised the World Bank not to bail out Pakistan since, with the institutions of democracy being attacked and undermined one after another, there will be little accountability left in Pakistani society.

In the face of mounting problems and criticism, inside Pakistan and globally, one option before the beleaguered Sharif was to do what U.S. President Bill Clinton, the former U.K. Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and many other international leaders did to lift their sagging political fortune — raise the bogey of the external enemy, rouse nationalist fervour and rally people behind yourself. Fortuitously for Sharif, with only a caretaker government in charge in neighbouring New Delhi and with snow melting in the Himalayas, the political and natural climate was just right to play the Kashmir card.

In short, the easy answer to whodunnit question is, Nawaz Sharif.
But from the Pakistani ‘nationalistic’ perspective, the blame is to be heaped entirely on India’s door. Faced with a fresh challenge from ‘freedom fighters’, the Indian state has chosen to pretend it is dealing with Pakistani army–backed infiltrators. Besides, with elections round the corner, the BJP hopes to reap in extra votes by raising the Pakistan bogey.

Until a few weeks ago, indications were that the outcome of the polls due in the next few months will not be very different from the results of the last Lok Sabha elections in held in early 1998. The BJP–led alliance was hoping to score over its main political rival, the Congress, by raising a hue and cry over the fact that the latter’s prime ministerial candidate is a foreigner by origin. However, there are two problems with the ‘foreigner card’: firstly, the result of recent opinion polls indicate that the electorate is not particularly perturbed with Sonia’s Italian origin; secondly, with Sharad Pawar having revolted on the same issue and with other potential constituents of the new Third Front in–the–making — Mulayam Singh Yadav (U.P.), Chandrababu Naidu (Andhra), Karnataka’s chief minister, J. H. Patel, segments of the Left Front — also bent on playing the same card, the BJP and its allies are unsure about how much dividend the ‘foreign card’ will yield.

But an Italian–born Prime Minister at a time when the country faces a grave threat from across the border? Surely, the ‘nation in danger’ and ‘foreigner as PM’ mix makes for a much more potent cocktail?

Thus, theoretically speaking, irrespective of their present posturing, continued tension on the Kargil front suits the political needs of both Nawaz Sharif and Atal Behari Vajpayee. Factually speaking, the U.S. and the British response to the Kargil crisis, as also reports in The New York Times and The Independent (London), indicate that they agree with India that Pakistan is the guilty party. Besides, India also claims to have conclusive proof, in the form of dead bodies of Pakistani soldiers, that what it is dealing with in the Himalayan heights is not ‘freedom fighters’ from Kashmir but infiltrators from across the border backed with equipment and personnel of the Pakistani armed forces. But nothing debunks the ‘freedom fighters’ thesis more than the fact that after a gap of nearly 10 years, Kashmir is overflowing with tourists from the rest of India. Surely, it is not guns in the hands of the Indian jawans that are keeping the houseboat owners on the Dal Lake from reaching for the tourists’ throats?
Even if one assumes this to be the facts of the case, there remains a mystery on the Indian side on what is presently being passed off by different analysts and opposition parties as ‘intelligence failure’, ‘lack of co–ordination between the intelligence and the Indian armed forces’, ‘failure of the defence ministry and the Indian government’ to respond with alacrity to the security threat. Should not a more specific clarification be sought on the timing of the action initiated at Kargil, an action that (coincidentally?) suits the caretaker government facing an election better than resting on the laurels of a newly–initiated peace process? A point being made, in private, by several senior retired army personnel would support this contention: Pakistan’s crossing of the LOC in the Kargil heights is nothing new; what is new is the decision of the caretaker government to challenge the intrusion.

The question, in other words, is: had the Vajpayee government not fallen in April leading to the imperative of fresh elections, would India and Pakistan still be talking peace, never mind the violations 18,000 feet above sea level?

We reproduce in the following pages an article by a senior journalist from Pakistan (See page 13) who argues that the need for an external enemy — India — is written into the very logic of the direction in which the Pakistani state is moving. On the Indian side, what the caretaker government’s game–plan is for now will become clearer as we get closer to the polls. But beyond the immediate, Teesta Setalvad’s article (see page 16) highlights the fact that in the continuing battle between India and Pakistan over Kashmir, the people of Kashmir barely figure in the discourse on either side.

Archived from Communalism Combat, June 1999, Year 6 No. 54, Cover Story 1

“India and Pakistan will play the war game indefinitely”

May 31, 1999

India and Pakistan will play the war game indefinitely

— Pervez Hoodbhoy
(Professor of physics at Quaid–e–Azam University, Islamabad)

There are many Kargils to come, I fear. Nuclear weapons have made brinksmanship possible, meaning that one hopes to get as close to war as possible without actually having war. India and Pakistan shall keep playing this game indefinitely until such time as a tragic error or miscalculation rules out further play. Pakistan is totally serious about Kashmir. Call it an obsession if you will, but facts are facts, and all indications are that its support for the militants will increase in times to come. This was the essential content of the speech by the chief of army staff, General Pervez Musharraf, in Karachi on April 10 this year.

Presently there is much jubilation here in Pakistan about Indian planes and helicopters being downed. Sadly, most people don’t realise how close this pushes us to the brink, and have no idea of how total and final a fall would be. They also do not understand the immense cost which Pakistani civil society has paid for supporting insurgency in Kashmir.

One should never have had illusions about the Lahore Declaration; it was a mere consequence of international pressure, particularly from the US, for the two prime ministers to look as if they are serious about peace. Even so, it was a good thing and every attempt to reduce enmity and tensions is to be welcomed. The bus service is still doing well, after all. I feel that we must welcome negotiations at all levels even if the results are marginal.

We must, however, also recognise that the basics have not changed, and probably will not change unless something very major happens. If that “something” is less than war, we shall be very fortunate. India and Pakistan are likely to make it past Kargil this time, and to the end of this millenium, with high probability. But unless there is a radical departure from past behaviour, I doubt that we will make it past the next few decades ahead.

Adopt a dual strategy
— Praful Bidwai
(A senior journalist and founder member of Movement in India on Nuclear Disarmament)

The peace movement in both countries should not assume it knows the answer. Rather, it should adopt a dual strategy: advocate normalisation and progress in all areas, independently of Kashmir; and call for a modest beginning at coming to grips with the Kashmir issue while the general relationship improves.

The first strategy is minimalist and worth pursuing regardless of the second. There is simply no reason why the grotesque conflict at Siachen, which has killed 10,000 and costs Rs. 3 crores a day, should not be resolved or the Wular, Sir Creek and trade issues should remain undecided even though Kashmir is not settled. But this needs a much deeper commitment than was shown at Lahore. “Bus diplomacy” was symbolically welcome, but substantively very thin. The Lahore accords were not even about arms control, only about limited transparency. India and Pakistan didn’t even agree to slow down nuclear and missile development or to stop testing. Lahore didn’t mark a real breakthrough. We still need one.

As for Kashmir, it is vitally important that a process of discussion begins. But this must be defined and enunciated, first and foremost, by the Kashmiri people themselves.

Fortunately, a beginning seems to have been made. At the Hague Appeal for Peace conference last month, a cross–border dialogue took place among Kashmiris from different political tendencies, from the JKLF and the Hurriyat to Pannun Kashmir. This needs to be built upon.

Durable peace requires Kashmir solution and more
— Zia Mian
(Scientist of Pakistani origin teaching at MIT, USA)

There can be no doubt that both Indians and Pakistanis, must talk about Kashmir, with the Kashmiris, and find a solution. Unless there is a settlement over Kashmir, that the Kashmiris feel reflects their aspirations, any peace between India and Pakistan may not thrive or survive. Until it is erased from the maps and from people’s minds, the Line of Control will always be a place for Lack of Control, especially for demagogues and would be heroes.
At the same time, it may be un–reasonable to assume that a settlement of the Kashmir issue would in itself create lasting peace. One of the lessons of the end of the Cold War was that even though the Soviet Union is no more, its nuclear weapons remain (about 10,000 are operational), as do those of the United States (about 8,000 are operational). Both are still prepared to fight a thermonuclear war against each other, and in the process obliterate themselves and the rest of us. The Cold War has led to a bitter, resentful, grudging, nuclear armed Cold Peace. At times it is hard to tell the difference between the two.

Both these aspects must be kept in mind. A durable peace in the region needs a solution to Kashmir, but it requires far more. This requires that we rid ourselves of nuclear weapons. We must overcome nationalism as an ideology, transform the state as a political institution, and bring justice within society.

In the situation we are now in, with fighting along the Line of Control and nuclear weapons casting their terrible shadow over the region, there has to be movement towards peace no matter what. If nothing else, it can be narrow and focussed on tiny steps forward, for example restraining nuclear weapons development and deployment, loosening the restrictions on people’s travel across the border, increasing trade and so on. But unless Kashmir is addressed there is always the danger that it will be the kind of movement where for every one step forward there shall be two steps backward.

This is what seems to have happened with the Lahore Declaration.
There should however not be too many illusions about the Lahore Declaration. It was the same two leaders who talked peace in Lahore who earlier had ordered the nuclear weapons tests. It was expedient, given international opinion, for them to stop fighting (at least for a while) and make up. Once the world moved on to other issues, the battle was resumed.

Track two has a limited objective
— J.N. Dixit
(Former Indian foreign secretary)

The thing to remember is that track–two diplomacy has been going on, through various initiatives, for the last ten years. What has been most significantly observed about such intiatives is that they have no impact on government policy at all. On either side, in Pakistan or in India, the power structures of the two governments do not take into account either what is discussed at these fora or the recommendations made. So while track–two diplomacy may be broadly useful, the immediate impact is not noticeable.

What happens at a time when we are faced with a situation like we presently are in at Kargil? Even those individuals who are committed to peace and rational thinking on such issues get disappointed and wonder how to carry on because, when a territorial dispute arises, popular resentment and national feelings are aroused. Even the people who are committed to the improvement of relations between the two neighbours are faced with a wider public opinion that becomes antagonistic.

In Pakistan, newspapers, television and radio report news of the bombing of “our schools and the killing of our children”. In India, the heavy casualties, the violation of the sanctity of an international agreement — the incursion beyond the LOC seven–ten miles into our territory — all in the face of Pakistan claiming not to have made any mistake raises temperatures.

I do believe that for at least one year, even government–level talks are not going to make serious headway. The foreign ministers may meet several times over — so that the world cannot tell us that we are being unreasonable — but the inner impulses on either side will not contribute to coming to any reasonable compromises on either side.

Track one diplomacy gets vitiated by such developments such as the current situation in Kargil. And track two efforts serve a limited objective: they keep alive trends in public opinion and are important at that level but are limited in their impact and reach. Unfortunately, what is a forgone conclusion today is that even if there was earlier some possibility of imminent solutions, these have been irretrievably delayed further.

The situation will defuse soon
— Dr. Mubashir Hasan
(Former finance minister, Pakistan)

The process started by both the prime ministers, Nawaz Sharif and Atal Behari Vajpayee envisaged clearly talking on all issues including Kashmir. Unfortunately this unique intitiative, the first of its kind in fifty years, was first put off, or delayed by the dissolution of the Indian Lok Sabha and has now been stalled by the recent operations in Kargil. I foresee that grim though the situation in Kargil today seems, it will defuse within ten–fifteen days time.

We must also remember that whenever the two governments come close to resolving issues or making a beginning even, something occurs to put a spoke in the wheel. It could be much–publicised news of USA supplying F16s to Pakistan that makes the Indians angry or it could be the news of a big explosion on Pakistani soil that makes the Pakistanis angry! These are the considered machinations of those international powers who do not want regional peace in South Asia. The Sharif–Vajpayee governments were for the first time in the process of co–relating their nuclear policies. An identical nuclear policy is in the interest of both Pakistan and India. This is not what vested international powers want.

Await more stable governments
— Nirmal Mukherjee
(Former Indian cabinet secretary and governor, Punjab)

I don’t believe that the doings of peace groups are undone. I believe the urge for peace remains unchanged. The current situation in Kargil is illustrative of the games regimes play. My own view is that India is going through a situation of political flux (as our former prime minister, V.P. Singh has been saying) except that I feel that the results of the next election will be another pre–final. Until the voice of the oppressed, the vast majority, gets finally heard. In the midst of this flux, with weak governments at the helm, peace activists cannot do too much. They must hold their fire, conserve their energy, remain in touch, gather as many facts, and as much information about each other, as possible. And await a political climax over the next decade when the moves for peace find receptive listeners in government.

Peace pressure must continue
— B.M. Kutty
(Convenor, Pakistan Peace Coalition; also secretary, Sind province committee of Pak–India People’s Forum for Peace and Democracy)

It is true that the situation presently looks very bleak and frustrating. Something like the recent developments in Kargil appear to undermine by months and years the efforts put in by pro–peace organisations and individuals on both sides. But peace groups cannot afford to give up in either country. The argument for people to people contact, the need for increased interaction, remains as valid today as it was before. So, irrespective of what happens at the government level, we should go on pressing for further contacts.

Also peace groups cannot close their eyes to the fact that Kashmir remains a very sensitive issue between the two countries and a resolution of this issue is essential for durable peace. It has acquired a hydra–headed character that cannot be pushed under the carpet. We, therefore, will have to evolve perspectives for a resolution of the problem and thereafter mount pressure on the government on both sides to act on them.

To begin with, a few things are very clear. The Kashmir problem cannot be solved militarily — neither by India’s military action nor by Pakistan’s intervention through support to this or that group. Both the governments have to agree that the people of Kashmir also count — no agreement will work unless it enjoys the confidence of the Kashmiri people.

I personally believe that unless people of Kashmir on both sides are given an absolutely free choice, with no Indian troops present and without any Pakistani involvement, there will be no solution possible.

Kashmir’s accession to India is final
— Vishnu Bhagwat
(Former Chief of the Indian Navy)

In my mind, there can be no question of any moves towards lasting peace within the region being at all feasible with Pakistan insisting on intervention in Kashmir. This is true not only in the context of the recent infiltration in Kargil but in the context of Jammu and Kashmir as a whole. For India and for me, the question of Kashmir and its accession are final through the instrument of accession and no Indian government has any right to indulge in any kind of bargaining so far as the question of the status of Jammu and Kashmir within the Indian union is concerned. This is because, in more ways than one, Kashmir is not only the symbol of Indian secularism but the sine qua non of both the secular Indian constitution and the secular India state. It is literally the head of the body that is India. The will of the people of Kashmir was behind the accession of Kashmir to India as opposed to the rulers of not just Kashmir but Hyderabad, Junagadh and Jaipur who wanted independent status, their treaties with the British having lapsed. Under no circumstances can any state of the Indian union, be it Punjab, Kashmir or a government at the centre be encouraged or permitted to take on a non–secular, theocratic garb.

On all other issues like trade and business, people–to–people links, cultural exchanges these are welcome since we are basically the same people. But I strongly feel that Kashmir cannot be a part of these levels of exchanges. Here I would like to quote the example of Abraham Lincoln who held the American union together at the cost of a civil war knowing full well the implications of such a war. Secession was something that was never entertained as a possibility let alone an eventuality.

Archived from Communalism Combat, June 1999, Year 6 No. 54, Cover Story 2

What ails Pakistan?

May 31, 1999

The problem with Pakistan is that the citizen is alienated from the State and considers it his enemy, but the State wants to convince the people that it is India which is the real threat to their security of life

Who is alienated in the State of Pakistan? If reconciliation is needed, between whom is it needed? The apparent great rift is between the Pakistan Muslim League and Pakistan Peoples Party. They form the two political poles in Pakistan and since 1988 they have formed factions that revenge themselves regularly on each other. Will it be enough to reconcile the two? Will that remove the national alienation? The other alienated party is the MQM which needs to be reconciled to the State. Will this reconciliation bind the wounds of the State?

Most of the political actors in Pakistan are of the same category. Their alienation in fact does not affect the State. Pakistani people are indifferent to their fate. The real alienation exists elsewhere. In the federation the alienation is between the majority province Punjab and the smaller provinces. It has been formalised by democracy through the parliament where Punjab forms a ready–made two–thirds majority. Whatever Punjab thinks becomes the doctrine of the State. All institutions of the State are dominated by Punjabis, including the armed forces, including even the navy, where the coastal population should have dominated.

Beyond the inter–provincial alienation, a deeper alienation has been caused by the ideology of the State itself. This goes back to the crucial ideological decisions taken at the beginning. An Islamic state has been moving steadily towards its theocratic destination, making the politicians progressively irrelevant. A very large section of the population follows the clerical leadership which wants a revolution as a means of establishing theocracy in Pakistan. The corruption of the political parties has deepened the estrangement of the common man in Pakistan. Erosion of State institutions has forced him to seek protection from the clerical organisations.

Reconciliation is needed between the political parties and their voters. They want good governance from them which the parties simply cannot provide. Can there be a reconciliation between the masses and the leaders who get voted into power repeatedly? The very nature of leadership in Pakistan is an obstacle to this reconciliation. The politician relies on the very rhetoric the clergy uses against them. If the clergy wants Shariat, the politician, too, wants it. Only, after the politician has enforced Shariat, the morality of the State sinks even further. This convinces the common man that Shariat can be properly implemented only by the clergy.

That Shariat is the monopoly of the clergy is a historical fact. The Quran can be interpreted only by the ulema, not by the parliament. The ijma (consensus) demanded by Islamic jurisprudence is not the ijma of the parliament but the ijma of the ulema. Why should the ulema surrender this historical right to the politician when the politician doesn’t even claim this right? After the Iranian Revolution, the Iranian ulema agreed to an Islamic constitution under the government of politicians. The Bazargan government accepted the constitution in 1979 on the assumption that the people of Iran would be represented through an elected sovereign government. But in 1978, the dominant clergy realised that Iran could only have a theocracy, not an elected government.

In Pakistan the clergy is deeply divided. It cannot form itself into a single party or an alliance of parties supported by the people. Unlike the people of Iran, the people of Pakistan prefer to award political mandate only to political parties. Divided along confessional fissures, they seek a unified electorate through support to political parties. But they remain alienated because the textbook prescribes the Shariat and the political parties are not ‘qualified’ to enforce it. When they enforce it, problems of reconciliation of the Quranic law to modern times fore–ordain its failure. Alienation is built into this situation.

The State leans in favour of Islamic governance, a utopian construct on which it can’t deliver. The State is sensitive to the growing power of the religious organisations. Civil society and the armed forces are under their influence. Armed religious organisations are a factor to reckon with. Political parties, no longer able to rally people, now lean on them to gather people for a show of strength. Many opportunists now pin their hope on the ultimate handing over of the State to an imaginary ‘confederacy’ of armed religious organisations. A ‘national’ reconciliation between them and the elected government is not possible. One is the ‘alternative’ of the other, not a democratic choice.

All Islamic states find themselves unable to reconcile to the minorities. The idea of the zimmi is so deeply embedded in the Islamic mind that it barely tolerates the presence of a population not of the religion represented by the State. You only have to look at the evolution of the idea of the rights of the minorities protected in the Objectives Resolution in 1949 and the version of it inserted into the Constitution by General Zia to realise how impossible it is for an evolving Islamic state to reconcile with its religious minorities.

The alienation between the sunni majority population and the minority shia population has been caused by the armed religious organisations tacitly supported by the ulema. The objective of the ulema is to convert the shia Muslim population into a non–Muslim minority, after which the State can start treating them as it treats the other non–Muslim minorities or zimmis.

Can there be a reconciliation between the shia and sunni communities? Once again the doctrine of the State that only the ulema can interpret the Islamic law hamstrings it. If the ulema are responsible for the alienation, how can they remove it?

The shia–sunni alienation is embedded in Islamic history. History is interpreted by the two communities separately. Historical events are known and understood by the two in a manner that the two versions cannot be reconciled. Pakistan is an Islamic state, but if you look closely at its law–making processes, it is in fact a sunni state. Laws emanate as much from the Quran as from hadith, but hadith is differently compiled and understood by the two communities. No shia–sunni reconciliation within the Islamic state is possible unless the historical documents are re–examined.

No one in Pakistan will agree to examine these documents. But in a State that the Quaid had envisaged this reconciliation was possible; indeed this alienation would not have taken place at all. The Arab–Iranian stand–off epitomises this difficulty. Because of the dominance of a fundamentalist mind–set on both sides of the divide, no reconciliation has so far been possible. Had there been a secular state in Iran, the pragmatist kingdoms of the Gulf would have made a deal with it, ignoring the militant Islamic storm arising in a partially democratic Egypt.

Historically, the rise of the Islamic state has immediately been engulfed by the sectarian problem.
No reconciliation is more difficult than the one meant to bind the ethnic alienation. Whether we acknowledge it or not, the ethnic problem is alive and kicking in Sindh and Balochistan. In both the provinces, large injections of external populations have been made. This is not to say that provinces have to be ethnically pure. Balochistan has been traditionally an admixture of the Baloch and the Pakhtun. Indeed the two ethnic–linguistic communities have a record of political co–operation in the face of Punjabi dominance in the federation.

Sindhi cities have been traditionally more cosmopolitan than those in Punjab. Its Sindhi population has been predominantly rural, living under a very tough feudal system which has prevented it from graduating to an urban identity. The large repeated injections of alien populations from within Pakistan and from Bangladesh after the 1971 war have been far beyond the economic capacity of the province to absorb them. The same kind of thing has happened with Balochistan during and after the Afghan war. Good governance, a rather stringent observance of the rule of law, and steady economic development can resolve the ethnic divisions over the long term.

But these very elements are missing in Pakistan.
The State wants to convince the people that the real alienation is external, that it is India which is the real threat to their security of life. As internal threats increase and intensify, the State turns more determinedly to the raising of the external threat. It also tells the people that it wants to reconcile with India as the enemy country next door, but India will not allow it, or will allow it in a way that is dishonourable. If the threat is external and cannot be removed through reconciliation, what are the people to do? The expectation of the State is that external threat will unite them and make them forget the internal threat.

The real threat comes from internal alienation. This has to be recognised. It comes from the erosion of the institutions of the State no longer able to ensure the rights of the citizen. The citizen is alienated from the State and considers it his enemy. This is true of all populations but more true of people living in the smaller provinces because they see the majority province Punjab presiding over the State institutions. The most crucially defective aspect of the State is the provision of law and order and justice.

Can the State reconcile the citizen to itself when its real expectation is that external threat alone should reconcile them? Instead of producing an effective structure of law and order, it produces nuclear devices and test–fires missiles over the head of the people. Its budgets no longer serve the people. It makes budgets to pay off debts, spend on defence, and buy more weapons. The ideology of the State and its doctrines of defence are too inflexible to provide the conditions needed for national reconciliation. That which is inflexible withstands pressure for some time, but it breaks when the pressure passes a certain point. After that, solutions become possible.

Archived from Communalism Combat, June 1999, Year 6 No. 54, Cover Story 3

1...2,6902,6912,692...2,698 Page 2,691 of 2,698

Secularism or conversions

Khalistan within India?

A matter of origin — nationalism or racism?

Wages of divorce

A hero defamed

A foe in need is a friend indeed

“India and Pakistan will play the war game indefinitely”

India and Pakistan will play the war game indefinitely

What ails Pakistan?

JOIN OUR MAILING LIST

JOIN OUR MAILING LIST

Important Links

Other Links

CONNECT