A bench consisting of Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan was hearing three petitions seeking a court-monitored investigation into the controversy surrounding Tirupati laddus. The said issue surrounding the use erupted during September mid, after Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister N. Chandrababu Naidu claimed that the world renowned consecrated sweet Tirupati laddus contain “beef tallow, fish oil” and other substandard ingredients. The purported lab report that was being replied upon by CM Naidu also claimed the presence of “lard” (relating to pig fat) in the samples. Notably, the samples of the Tirupati laddu were sent to a Gujarat-based livestock laboratory, and the sample receipt date was July 9, 2024 and the lab report was dated July 16.

In its order, the bench highlighted the significance of the case, stating that it involves the religious sentiments of millions worldwide. The bench noted that the Chief Minister went public on September 18, accusing the previous government of using adulterated ghee with animal fat in the laddus. However, the Chief Executive Officer of the Tirupati Tirumala Devasthanam (TTD) had denied these claims, stating that such ghee was never used. The petitions filed sought an independent investigation and regulation of the manufacturing of prasadam at religious trusts.

Brief about the petitions:

So far, five petitions have been filed seeking various reliefs, including a Court-monitored investigation into allegations regarding the adulteration of ghee used in the preparation of Tirupati laddus and greater accountability in Hindu temples managed by government bodies.

1. Petition by Suresh Khanderao Chavhanke

Suresh Khanderao Chavhanke, Editor of Sudarshan News TV, has filed a petition seeking an investigation by a committee led by a retired Supreme Court judge or a retired High Court Chief Justice into the issue. He has argued that using non-vegetarian ingredients in the prasadam violates the fundamental religious rights of devotees under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution, which protect the freedom of religion and the right of religious groups to manage their affairs. Chavhanke has also requested the appointment of a retired judge to oversee the management of temples to ensure transparency and adherence to religious customs.

2. Petition by Surjit Singh Yadav

Surjit Singh Yadav, President of Hindu Sena, has filed a second petition seeking an investigation by a Special Investigation Team (SIT) into the alleged use of adulterated ghee in the laddus. Yadav claims that the use of animal fat in the prasadam deeply hurt the sentiments of Hindu devotees of Tirupati Balaji.

3. Petition by Dr. Subramanian Swamy

Senior BJP leader Subramanian Swamy has also filed a petition, seeking an investigation monitored by the Court. He has advocated for the formation of a committee to look into the matter and has requested a detailed forensic report on the ghee samples tested by the lab, including information on their source. Swamy argues that the issue should have remained within the confines of the Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams (TTD) but was politicised, causing emotional distress to millions of devotees. He has posed several specific questions in his petition, including:

• How was the ghee sample procured by the lab?
• Was the ghee sample taken from what was used in offerings or from rejected lots?
• Who supplied the adulterated ghee?
• Could the lab report have been a false positive?
• Was there political interference in releasing the report?

4. Petition by YV Subba Reddy

Rajya Sabha MP and former TTD Chairman YV Subba Reddy has also filed a petition seeking an independent investigation by a Court-monitored committee or a retired judge with domain experts. Reddy has requested a detailed report on the forensic analysis of the ghee samples, including the procurement process. He highlights that standard operating procedures at Tirumala involve testing ghee upon arrival at the temple premises, and any non-compliant ghee is rejected. He argues that claims about adulterated ghee being used in prasadam are false. Reddy also criticises Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister Chandrababu Naidu’s remarks, which he claims have caused distress to many devotees of Lord Venkateswara. His petition notes discrepancies between the statements of the TTD and the Chief Minister, particularly questioning the silence of the state government for two months after the lab report was obtained in July 2024.

5. Petition by Dr. Vikram Sampath and Dushyanth Sridhar

Historian Dr. Vikram Sampath and spiritual speaker Dushyanth Sridhar have jointly filed the fifth petition, calling for the removal of government and bureaucratic control over Hindu temples. They are advocating for the establishment of accountability in temples managed by government bodies.

Out of these five petitions, three—filed by Subramanian Swamy, YV Subba Reddy, and Vikram Sampath—were listed today for hearing before the bench of Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan.

Arguments raised during the hearing:

Senior Advocate Siddarth Luthra, representing Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam, informed the bench today that ghee samples supplied in June and until July 4 had not been tested. However, ghee received on July 6 and 12 was sent for analysis to the National Dairy Development Board (NDDB), where all four samples were found to be adulterated.  It was argued by them that the ghee supplied in June and early July had already been used in producing the laddus. The State Government had acknowledged the need for an investigation and constituted a Special Investigation Team (SIT) following an FIR lodged on September 25, while the Chief Minister’s public statement preceded these actions.

In Subramanian Swamy’s petition, Senior Advocate Rajashekhar Rao, representing Dr. Swamy, argued that Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister N. Chandrababu Naidu made an unfounded claim that the ghee used in the preparation of Tirupati laddus was adulterated. However, the Executive Officer of the TTD contradicted this statement, asserting that such ghee was never used. Rao emphasised that when high-ranking officials make such statements without sufficient evidence, it can have serious consequences and disrupt social harmony.

Rao further stated, “Those in responsible positions are expected to verify facts before making definitive claims. The CM’s statement, which has been disputed by TTD, requires oversight. If the prasadam of the deity is being questioned, it must be thoroughly examined. The CM’s public statement raises concerns about the potential for a free and fair inquiry.”

In response, Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, representing the State of Andhra Pradesh, argued that Swamy’s petition lacked sincerity and was politically motivated, intended to support the previous YSRCP (Yuvajana Sramika Rythu Congress Party) government. Rohatgi further claimed that Swamy’s petition was nearly identical to one filed by former TTD Chairman YV Subba Reddy.

Additionally, Senior Advocate Sonia Mathur, representing Suresh Chavhanke, supported the call for an independent investigation into the matter.

Observations of the Supreme Court:

The Supreme Court was concerned about the propriety of the Chief Minister’s statement, questioning whether it was appropriate for such a high-ranking official to comment on a matter that could affect the sentiments of millions while an investigation was still underway. The Court questioned whether the SIT investigation should continue or if an independent agency should take over.

During the hearing, the Court raised several pointed questions to the State Government and TTD officials. Justice Viswanathan remarked that the lab report seemed to test rejected ghee, and it was unclear whether the ghee in question was actually used to make the laddus. Justice Viswanathan also noted that the lab report itself contained some disclaimers. According to LiveLaw, Justice Viswanathan said that “There are some disclaimers in the lab report. It is not clear, and it is prima facie indicating that it was rejected ghee, which was subjected to test. If you yourself have ordered investigation, what was the need to go to press,” 

The Court expressed frustration over the Chief Minister’s decision to go public, with Justice Viswanathan asking Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, representing Andhra Pradesh, “If you ordered an investigation, what was the need to go to the press?”

Justice Gavai further raised concerns about the timing of the public statement, asking why the Chief Minister would make such a claim on September 18 when the investigation was still in progress. Justice Gavai pointedly questioned “When you have ordered an investigation through the SIT, what was the necessity to go to the press?” 

The bench emphasised that as a constitutional authority, the Chief Minister should not have involved religious matters in political statements. “When you hold a constitutional office… We expect the Gods to be kept away from the politicians,” Justice Gavai remarked as per LiveLaw.

The bench questioned whether the contaminated ghee was ever used in the preparation of the laddus, with Justice Viswanathan emphasising the need for caution before making public statements about religious offerings. The Court also expressed dissatisfaction with the lack of a second opinion on the lab results and stressed the importance of prudence in such sensitive matters.

“This report prima facie indicates that this is not the material which was used in the preparation of the laddus,” Justice Viswanathan observed.

He further stated that “When somebody gives a report like you, does not prudence dictate that you take a second opinion? First of all, there is no proof that this ghee was used. And there is no second opinion.”

The hearing concluded with the Court suggesting that while an investigation was necessary, the key question was whether the SIT formed by the State should continue or if an independent probe was required. Justice Gavai also requested Luthra to obtain a clearer statement from TTD regarding the alleged use of the adulterated ghee. The case was adjourned pending further instructions from the Union Government. The Court asked Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta to seek instructions from the Union Government on whether a central investigation is required.

Related:

Despite legal promises, hate speech prosecutions in Maharashtra remain paralysed

Hygiene or Harassment? Fears of profiling arise as UP government, once again, mandate name displays at food establishments; HP govt follows

BJP-ruled states account for highest Dalit violence cases, UP on top, MP records highest reported crimes against STs

Karnataka’s draft law for welfare of gig workers, an insufficient tokenism?

“Leaked Intelligence report” on alleged Kuki militants entering Manipur from Myanmar sparks panic, later retracted by authorities

The post Supreme Court pulls up Andhra CM for making unsubstantiated public remarks on Tirupati laddu ghee, which led to controversy appeared first on SabrangIndia.

लेकिन आज नोटबंदी के 42 दिन बाद भी जब समस्याएं जस की तस बनी हैं और लोगों का मरना जारी है तो लोगों के सब्र का बांध टूट रहा है। नोटबंदी को लेकर मोदी सरकार की तारीफ करने वाले आंध्र प्रदेश के मुख्यमंत्री चंद्रबाबू नायडू ने भी अब अपना रुख बदल लिया है।
 
चंद्र बाबू नायडू का अब कहना है कि नोटबंदी से जैसी उम्मीद थी वो पूरी नहीं हुई। चंद्रबाबू नायडू का ये भी कहना है कि नोटबंदी के चालीस दिन गुजर जाने के बाद भी समस्या का कोई हल नहीं दिख रहा है। नोटबंदी पर अपनी राय बदलते हुए चंद्रबाबू नायडू ने कहा, “इतने दिन बाद भी समस्या बरकरार है। समस्या सुलझाने वाले काबिल नहीं हैं और फिलहाल इसका हल नहीं दिख रहा है।”
 
आपको बता दें कि चंद्रबाबू नायडू केंद्र सरकार की तरफ से बनाई गई उस 13 सदस्दीय कमेटी के चेयरमैन हैं जिसके पास नोटबंदी से पैदा हुई समस्याओं को देखने की जिम्मेदारी है। चंद्रबाबू नायडू ने सरकार को चेतावनी दी है कि अगर फौरी तौर पर सुधार के कदम नहीं उठाए गए तो लोगों की परेशानी लंबे समय तक बनी रही सकती है।
 
चंद्रबाबू नायडू ने कहा, “जैसी खुशफहमी मुझे थी, नोटबंदी वैसा नहीं रहा। नोटबंदी के 40 दिन बाद भी लोगों को भारी परेशानी का सामना है और अभी इसका कोई हल भी नहीं दिख रहा है।” आंध्र के सीएम ने कहा, “नोटबंदी अब भी संवदेशनशील और जटिल परेशानी है।”
 
चंद्रबाबू नायडू का कहना है कि वो हर रोज दो घंटे नोटबंदी से पैदा हुई परेशानी को कम करने में लगाते हैं, अपना दिमाग खपाते हैं, लेकिन वो कोई हल निकालने में नाकाम रहते हैं। उन्होंने आगे कहा, “हमने 30 दिन में अगस्त संकट (1984 में पार्टी के भीतर हुए तख्तापलट) का हल निकाल लिया था, लेकिन नोटबंदी अब भी परेशान कर रही है।” उन्होंने कहा कि नोटबंदी और डिजिटल ट्रांजेक्शन के लिए लिए बैंक तैयार नहीं थे।

Courtesy: National Dastak

The post मोदी के दोस्त चंद्रबाबू नायडू ने निकाली भड़ास, कहा- काबिल नहीं है सरकार appeared first on SabrangIndia.

It was an embarrassing moment for many secularists in India watching Bihar’s Laloo Prasad Yadav’s response on Star TV, prime time, as election results from his state pronounced the near rout of his party in Bihar. “Mr Yadav, do you think this is due to the voters’ disenchantment with the government for lack of any development in the state”. “No”, replied Yadav bravely, “the issue in the election was secularism, not development”.

 Can secularism ever be a one–point agenda unrelated to other concerns of people?  
In the midst of the election campaign in August, a Muslim petty trader, Rehman, was burnt alive at a village market in Orissa. One of the eyewitnesses told the police that Dara Singh — the man charged with the torching alive of Graham Staines and his two sons, in the same state earlier this year — was the man responsible for the latest incident. A week later, a Christian priest, Fr. Arul Doss, too, was done to death in the same state. 

The Bajrang Dal, the RSS and the BJP were quick to condemn such brutal killing of minorities in Congress–ruled Orissa. The Vishwa Hindu Parishad even issued a press statement, maintaining that whoever was responsible behind such killings “could not be a Hindu”. But, ironically, the Congress party — the party that swears by secularism, the only party capable of challenging Hindutva on a national plane, the party that depends crucially on minority votes — maintained a deathly silence. 

Is secularism a mere mantra  — to be enshrined in the party manifesto and chanted reverentially on convenient occasions — which has nothing to do with issues like the security of life and property of all citizens, irrespective of their faith? 

Was secularism an issue at all in the Lok Sabha polls of 1999? To begin with, what does one mean by secularism — not in the academic sense but in terms of how it relates to the lived experience of people?
In the 1991 polls, with the Shiv Sena as its only ally, the BJP secured 120 Lok Sabha seats. With three more allies on its side in 1996, the Akali Dal in Punjab, the George Fernandes–led Samta party in Bihar and the Haryana Vikas Parishad (HVP) in Haryana, the BJP’s tally climbed up to 161. Having emerged as the single largest party, the BJP was invited to form the government and given two weeks to prove its majority in the Lok Sabha. 

But it was still a different India three years ago where the BJP was a political untouchable for most politicians. In the 13 days that his government lasted, Atal Behari Vajpayee and the rest of the saffron stalwarts were unable to win over even a single MP to their side. Leave alone party politicians, even those who had fought and won as independents were unwilling to shake hands with the party whose manifesto contained ‘contentious issues’ — 

Ø Building of a Ram Mandir where the Babri Masjid once stood in Ayodhya; 

ØRemoval of article 370 from the Indian Constitution which grants a special status to the state of Jammu and Kashmir;

Ø Introducing a Uniform Civil Code (to replace the different existing personal laws for different religious communities).

Until the BJP’s electoral drubbing in the Assembly elections in UP and elsewhere in late 1993, then BJP president, L.K. Advani, used to revel in the ‘majestic isolation’ of his party. But the acute isolation of 1996 confronted the BJP and its sangh parivar with a difficult choice: retain ‘ideological purity’, remain a political untouchable and make a solo bid to power by hard–selling Hindutva. Alternatively, adopt tactical flexibility and put ‘contentious issues’ on the backburner so as to break out of political isolation.

Since the prospects of coming to power on the strength of its own divisive agenda seemed remote, at least in the current scenario, the BJP and its parivar deviously chose the latter. And reaped rich dividends in the elections of 1998 and 1999. 

The BJP entered the electoral arena for the Lok Sabha polls in February 1998 with 18 allies. Thanks to the alliances, the party improved on its own tally of seats — from 161 in 1996 to 182 in 1998 — and, more importantly, headed a coalition government. But the wafer–thin majority of the BJP–led coalition made Vajpayee hostage to some of his mercurial allies — Jayalalitha being the most obvious. 

On the eve of the 1999 polls, the BJP made yet another quantum leap. In June this year, the Janata Dal, which formed the core of the ‘Third Front’ (the Congress and the BJP being the first two), disintegrated with virtually the entire bulk of the party choosing to ally with the BJP. Leaders like Ram Vilas Paswan and Sharad Yadav, who for years had shouted themselves hoarse at the communalism of the BJP, suddenly had no qualms rallying behind the saffron bandwagon. 

The acceptance of the BJP by virtually the entire political spectrum today is as comprehensive as its political isolation was stark in 1996. If it was Jayalalitha’s AIADMK which teamed up with the BJP in 1998, this time it’s the DMK in Tamil Nadu. If Farooq Abdullah’s National Conference decided to extend support from the outside to the Vajpayee–led government in 1998, this time it fought elections as part of the NDA and is now a part of the government at the Centre. The Telugu Desam Party’s Chandrababu Naidu fought against the BJP in the 1998 polls, agreeing to extend support to the Vajpayee government from the outside only subsequently. This time, the TDP and the BJP jointly fought the Congress in Andhra.

The BJP, which led an 18 party alliance in 1998, now counts on 24 allies. In theory, it now has to lean on many more parties to stay in power. But in practice it also means there are over 300 MPs behind Vajpayee in the Lok Sabha against the precarious figure of 273 in a House of 544. 

What does this augur for secular politics in India?  
Even for some secularists, the present political arrangement is not such a bad thing after all. With only 182 seats of its own — exactly the same number that it had in the last Lok Sabha – the BJP depends crucially on people like Chandrababu Naidu, M. Karunanidhi, Mamata Bannerji, Ramvilas Paswan, Ramkrishna Hegde and others. None of them can afford to ignore minorities’ votes in their respective regions and constituencies. The continued dependence of the BJP on these leaders and parties for their continued hold on power also means, according to these secularists, that issues like Ayodhya, article 370 and the Uniform Civil Code continue to be kept in abeyance. Such a grand alliance also means strengthening the ‘moderates’ and the ‘liberals’ and weakening the hold of the hawks within the sangh parivar. 

If Ayodhya, article 370 and the Uniform Civil Code was all that Indian secularism was about, there may have been some merit in such wishful thinking. But the ‘evil genius’ of the sangh parivar lies precisely in its ability to have, for all practical purposes, reduced the issue of India’s secularism to the BJP’s postponed agenda. 
Be it the reporters who raised questions at BJP’s press conferences during the electoral campaign, or TV anchors and even unsympathetic expert commentators who quizzed BJP leaders before and after the election results, or political parties who in their electoral campaign charged the BJP with playing communal politics. Hardly anyone went beyond asking the BJP to state for how long the issues of Ayodhya, article 370 and the Uniform Civil Code would remain postponed. 

Responding to these queries was, at the worst, a little awkward. Being past–masters in the art of double–speak, different leaders of the BJP and different segments of the sangh parivar said different things at the same time; or the same leader said different things at different points of the electoral campaign. The net result of this was Advantage BJP – the statement of one general secretary, Venkaiah Naidu, convinced the ‘liberals’ and the fence sitters that the BJP is turning ‘moderate’; the statements of another party general secretary, K. Govindacharya, reassured the core supporters of Hindutva that the party remains committed as ever to the Hindu Rashtra ideology.  

Neither the avowedly secular political opponents of the BJP, nor the print and electronic media thought it necessary to educate the voter how in the brief tenure of the BJP at the Centre and in states like U.P. and Gujarat —
Ø Life has come to mean endless anxiety, at best, for Christians and Muslims in Gujarat for nearly two years. After several independent fact–finding teams sent by civil liberties organisations and the National Minorities Commission had established numerous instances of attacks on minorities in Gujarat, Prime Minister Vajpayee, the most ‘liberal face’ of the BJP, visited the state only to return with a call for a “national debate on conversions”.  

Ø There is a sustained effort to infiltrate, capture and pack educational and cultural institutions with men and women known primarily for their commitment to RSS ideology. One such RSS leader, who is now going to decide what children should be taught in schools, proudly asserted in his autobiography how he killed a Muslim woman in 1947 because too many Hindus wanted to enslave her for their own lust! (See Pg. 22). 

Ø For the sangh parivar, Kargil became a convenient pretext to communalise the Indian armed forces.

Ø Attacks on minorities have continued before, during and after the present polls in Gujarat, Orissa and Kanyakumari by votaries of Hindu majoritarianism.

Ø It is not for nothing that both in the previous government and yet again, the home ministry (crime and punishment), the human resources development ministry (education and culture) and the information and broadcasting ministry (mass communications) were retained by the BJP at the insistence of the RSS. 
There can be no doubt that through Vajpayee’s earlier tenure as Prime Minister, and now, the saffron project continues to be advanced through other means, even while ‘contentious issues’ have been put on the back–burner — postponed agenda. Avowedly secular parties, political pundits and the print and electronic media have no perspective of building mass campaigns to raise public awareness on these very concrete issues that directly concern people. They could also be used to mount pressure on many of the BJP’s allies who still claim to have nothing in common with saffron politics. Otherwise, secularism will be progressively reduced to a mere chant, while the sangh parivar increases its stranglehold over society, and state. In preparation for the future Hindu Rashtra..

Archived from Communalism Combat, November 1999, Year 7  No. 53, Polls 99 1

The post Secularism: a mere mantra? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

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

The post A foe in need is a friend indeed appeared first on SabrangIndia.