 |
|
|
KASHMIR POLICY |
 |
Erasure to parity to |
 |
||
EDITORIAL While addressing members of the Consultative Committee of the External Affairs Ministry, Prime Minister AB Vajpayee has reiterated that there is no change in Kashmir policy. Some misleading interpretations had been forthcoming from the ongoing Indo-Pak dialogue in as much as Kashmir was discussed as an 'issue' for the first time. There were also statements to the effect that move was foot to suggest LoC as the de facto border. Pakistan media and official circles were delighted and fully exploited that at long last India recognised Kashmir to be the disputed territory and thus amenable to discussion and negotiation. All this and much more did cause concern to the Consultative Committee MPs which hail from all the national parties. Prime Minister Vajpayee has set at rest all varying interpretations by candidly repeating that Parliament's Resolution on Jammu and Kashmir is the last word and that this State was, is and shall ever remain integral part of India. This is the unanimous resolution passed by Parliament and no Government worth its salt can bypass the same or dilute it even marginally. Major players of international intrigues have been working overtime to ditch India on J&K by fishing in troubled waters of Jhelum every now and then by issuing statements like 'accession' not recognised, UN resolutions of 1948-49 concerning plebiscite and third party mediation to resolve the contentious issue. Former Home Minister S B Chavan had blasted America for gross interference in India's internal affairs and bluntly told them to keep off Kashmir. The policy of the present BJP Government however did create some ambiguities on various counts. First, India for the first time agreed to talk about resolving Kashmir imbroglio through bilateral talks, the first round at Secretary level already held and the second round slated for discussion during first half of February next. Second, in the wake of Pokhran-II nuclear tests, Opposition parties in India had accused the Government of internationalising Kashmir issue and providing enough of fodder to 'world opinion makers' to lash India so much so that hitherto purely non-proliferation issues have been linked to resolve of Kashmir issue which has been projected as the prospective flash-point for nuclear holocaust in the sub-continent. Third, Pakistan even while discussing Kashmir and other issues has intensified firing from across the border in J&K, increased ISI nefarious acts and given fresh boost to terrorism sponsorship in J&K. This makes the ongoing process of talks questionable in the by MPs from various parties who have every right to seek clarifications from Prime Minister who also holds External Affairs protfolio. Prime Minister Vajpayee now removes all such distortions and ambiguities that have crept in MPs mind. He thus makes three aspects very clear. There is no question of issuing ultimatum to Pakistan to stop sponsorship of terrorism in J&K due to obvious international ramifications and enlarging the scope for big powers interference. At least two big powers back up Pakistan to the hilt militarily and politically i.e.-America and China who are ever ready to bail out Pakistan on its sinner's role as sponsor of global terrorism. India on the other hand has only Russia backing it up but short of active involvement in any warlike situation. Third, India needs more time to revamp, recondition and re-orient its armed forces with formidable nuclear deterrent and to that extent she can ill afford to respond proportionately or aggressively to all provocative acts of Pakistan backed up by both America and China. The second aspect relates to reiteration of remaining steadfast and unflinching as regards Kashmir policy contained in unanimous Resolution of Parliament. Dialogue pertains only to vacation of Pak aggression from POK and asking Pakistan to stop sponsorship of terrorism in J&K. The third aspect is the message to Pakistan as also those who back them up that only Shimla Accord of 1972 forms the basis for resolving any contentious issues and that there is simply no scope for third party mediation. If yet they want to keep the Kashmir on the boil, India has the resources and resilience to neutralise their machinations. There is thus no chance in Kashmir policy. If anything there is the renewed determination for taking on Pakistan's sponsored mercenaries and other ruthlessly until terrorism is totally wiped out from our soil. Despite objections and warning from the Dragon, Uncle Sam has gone ahead in according rousing welcome to exiled Tibetan leader Dalai Lama. Not only that. USA President Bill Clinton has personally met him to the annoyance of China which continues to treat Tibet as its internal issue. As if receiving Dalai Lama is not enough, intention of American President to mediate between Dalai Lama and China for peaceful resolve of the Tibet imbroglio has provoked latter to warn Washington to retract from such dangerous policy. China says bluntly that no power on earth can be allowed to interfere in her internal affairs, Tibet being part and parcel of China. Dalai Lama's stay in Dharamsala has also been an eyesore for China, particularly when he issued statements condemning China for usurping Tibetan identity and destroying its ancient culture. Indian policy however remains that Tibet is part and parcel of China and to that extent there is no dispute between two big neighbours in Asia. But one has to read several meanings in what America says now after playing host to Dalai Lama and giving massive media hype to his visit as also the statements issued thereafter. Clinton now says that America has a strong commitment to 'support preservation of Tibet's unique religious, cultural and linguistic heritage and to protect human rights of Tibetans.' This is a policy with far reaching ramifications as regards relations between China and USA. First, America puts a question remark on China being any challenger to it. Second, Tibet's annexation of China is sought to be reopened for arm-twisting exercise by Uncle Sam. Third, in the broader context, America shows its disapproval of China hobnobbing with Russia and jointly agreeing to checkmate hegemony of America in South Asia. Fourth, it no more views China as the only destination for promotion of America trade interests. Fifth, all this indicates that once it comes to global strategy, America goes about changing its stance with reckless ease. In that scheme Pakistan remains the most pliant American protege while China 'unreliable' partner. As regards India, it is high time that it practises active diplomacy with plenty of flexibility in the emerging scenario not only as regards its Tibetan policy but also relations with other countries. This latest fissure in America-China relations calls for pragmatic approach to address and stress various issues more aggressively. For instance when China hates Uncle Sam's mediation in Tibet and rejects it outrightly, she loses the locus standi and right to back Pakistan on Kashmir as regards similar mediation. Similarly, if offers another opportunity for India to push ahead the idea of formidable China Iran India axis to neutralise American designs in Asia because American tilt towards Pakistan has gained further momentum as manifested by lifting of sanctions which are biased against India. |
||
|
||
Erasure to
parity to absolution Any one who has the slightest acquaintance with the Qur'an, with the Hadis, with the history of Islamic Rule, knows that the separation between believers and non-believers is of the very essence in Islam. The main concern of our eminent historians is to completely absolve Islam of such notions and of campaigns and deeds which flow from them. When they cannot but acknowledge the deeds of Muslim leaders and rulers, they attribute to the foibles or errors of individuals. Next, we have seen, they give elaborate explanations to account for those individuals having taken those steps. Again and again they emphasize that the spur for many of those actions were the deeds and attitudes of the victims themselves. And whenever they just cannot but mention the intolerance or bigotry of Muslim rulers and ulema, they make sure to generalize the matter and slip in allusions to the Hindus also. The history textbook for Class XII published by NCERT, Modern India is by our old friend, the eminent historian, Bipan Chandra. In his Foreword the Director of NCERT records that the earlier version of the textbook was prepared by Bipan Chandra under the auspices of an Editorial Board. The Editorial Board, you will not be surprised to learn, consisted of colleagues-in-eminence-S. Gopal, S. Nurul Hasan, Satish Chandra, and Romila Thapar. The role of Sayyid Ahmad Khan in founding the Aligarh Movement, his strenuous efforts to ensure that Muslims would remain loyal to the British and shun the congress and the nascent National Movement, his role as the originator in modern times of the Two-Nation Theory-these are all recorded. As is the role of the Muslim League. But in both cases elaborate explanations are given which amount in effect to exculpations. Thus we learn in the case of Sayyid Ahmed Khan. "However, towards the end of his life, he began to talk of Hindu domination to prevent his followers from joining the rising national movement. This was unfortunate, though basically he was not a communalist. He only wanted the backwardness of the Muslim middle and upper classes to go. His politics were the result of his firm belief that immediate political progress was not possible because the British Government could not be easily dislodged. On the other hand, any hostility by the officials might prove dangerous to the educational effort which he saw as the need of the hour. He believed that only when Indians had become as modern in their thinking and actions as the English were, could they hope to successfully challenge foreign rule. He, therefore, advised all Indians and particularly the educationally backward Muslims to remain aloof from politics for sometime to come. The time for politics. he said, had not yet come. In fact, he had become so committed to his college and the cause of education that he was willing to sacrifice all other interests to them. Consequently, to prevent the orthodox Muslims from opposing his college, he virtually gave up his agitation in favour of religious reform. For the same reason, he would not do anything to offend the Government and, on the other hand, encouraged communalism and separatism. This was of course, a serious political error, which was to have harmful consequences in later years. Moreover, some of his followers deviated from his broad-mindedness and tended later to glorify Islam and its past while criticizing other religions.'' In other words, just a "political error''-and an error for which there were the highest reasons! Similarly, in the case of the Muslim League, while its rank opportunism, its toeing the British line, its use of religion to instigate the ignorant masses, are all enumerated, its politics is put to British instigation and the point is emphasized repeatedly that it gained strength from the activities of "Hindu communalists.'' Thus we are told: "The Muslim League propaganda gained by the existence of such communal bodies among the Hindus as the Hindu Mahasabha. The Hindu communalists echoed the Muslim communalists by declaring that the Hindus were a distinct nation and that India was the land of the Hindus. Thus they too accepted the two nation theory. They actively opposed the policy giving adequate safeguards to the minorities so as to remove their fears of domination by the majority.'' Not only that, Bipan Chandra ensures that the two communalisms he has identified are put at par in one breath, and , in the next, he stresses made that actually Hindu communalism was ''even less justified'' and, therefore, even more responsible for the outcome. This is how Bipan Chandra puts the matter. ''In one respect, Hindu communalism had even less justification. In every country, the religious or linguistic or national minorities have, because of their numerical position, felt at one time or the other that their social and cultural interests might suffer. But when the majority has by word and deed given proof that these fears are groundless the fears of the minorities have disappeared, but if a section of the people belonging to the majority becomes communal or sectional and starts talking and working against the minorities, the minorities tend to feel unsafe. Communal or sectional leadership of the minorities is then strengthened. For example, during the 1930s the Muslim League was strong only in areas where the Muslims were in a minority. On the other hand, in such areas as the North-West Frontier Province, the Punjab, the Sindh and Bengal, where the Muslims were in a majority and, therefore, felt relatively securer (sic), the Muslim League remained weak. Interestingly enough, the communal groups- Hindu as wellas Muslim-did not hesitate to join hands against the Congress. In the North-West Frontier Province, the Punjab, Sindh and Bengal, the Hindu communalists helped the Muslim League and other communal groups to form ministries which opposed the Congress. Another characteristic the various communal groups shared was their tendency to adopt pro-Government political attitudes. It is to be noted that none of the communal groups and parties, which talked of Hindu and Muslim nationalism, took active part in the struggle against foreign rule. They saw the people belonging to other religions and the nationalist leaders as their real enemies. ''The communal groups and parties also shied away from the social and economic demands of the common people which, as we have seen above, were being increasingly taken up by the nationalist movement.''' Indeed, the nature of the nationalist movement, Bipan Chandra emphasises repeatedly, itself alienated the Muslims and it was because of that character of the National Struggle that the overwhelming majority of Muslims stayed away from the National Movement and in the end backed the Muslim League. Therefore, once again it is the Hindu who are to be bloamed! Bipan Chandra notes Sayyid Ahmed Khan's propaganda: that the Hindus and Muslim were two different nations, that their interests would not coincide, that Muslims would be swamped by Hindus, that their interest lay in siding with the British - Bipan Chandra recalls these and pronounces, "these views were, of course, unscientific and without any basis in reality." Muslims and Hindus of the same class and region were closer to each other than they were to co-religionists from other classes and other regions, he notes. He then explain the rise of separatist thinking among Muslims in terms of their backwardness in education, and in trade and industry, and thereby to the dominance among them of "reactionary big landlords". Then follows the usual string of propositions. First, he says, "the manner in which Indian history was taught in schools and colleges in those days also contributed to the growth of communal feelings among the educated Hindus and Muslims". And the flaw in the contents of these histories was that they did not subscribe to the secular line which these eminences have since made obligatory! To recall our historian's verdict. "They failed to bring out the fact that ancient and medieval politics in India, as politics everywhere else, were based on economic and political interests and not on religious considerations. Rulers as well as rebels used religious appeals as an outer colouring to disguise the play of material interests and ambitions. Moreover, the British and communal historians attacked the notion of a composite culture in India." But from the very next sentence the responsibility is loaded, as usual, on to the Hindus. Bipan Chandra writes: "The Hindus communal view of history also relied on the myth that Indian society and culture had reached great, ideal heights in the ancient period from which they fell into permanent and continuous decay during the medieval period because of 'Muslim' rule and domination. The basic contribution of the medieval period to the development of Indian economy and technology, religion and philosophy, arts and literature, culture and society, and fruits, vegetables and dress was denied." Notice that there is not a word about Muslim historians and what they has written about India. Those history books were the triumphalist literature of the community as were the writings of influential figures such as Shah Waliullah and Sheikh Ahmad Sarhindi. There is not a word about the volumes upon volumes of those who really governed and moulded Muslim thought in late 19th and early 20th century - for instance, of persons like Maulana Ahmad Riza Khan. Three paragraph later Bipan Chandra sets his guns not just at some unnamed Hindu communalist historians, but at the character of the entire National Movement and of its greatest leaders. This is how he assess them: "Unfortunately, while militant nationalism was a great step forward in every other respect, it was to some extent a step back in respect of the growth of national unity. The speeches and writings of some of the militants nationalists had a strong religious and Hindu tinge. They emphasised ancient Indian culture to the exclusion of medieval Indian culture. They identified Indian culture and the Indian nation with the Hindu religion and Hindus. They tried to abandon elements of composite culture. For examle, Tilak's propagation of the Shivaji and Ganapati festivals, Aurobindo Ghose's semi-mystical concept of India as mother and nationalism as a religion, the terrorists' oaths before goddess Kali, and the initiation of the Anti-Partition agitation with dips in the Ganga could hardly appeal to the Muslims. In fact, such actions were against the spirit of their religion, and they could not be expected as Muslims to associate with these and other similar activities. Nor could Muslims be expected to respond for their historical roles but also as 'national' leaders who fought against the 'foreigners'. By no definition could Akbar or Aurangzeb be declared a foreigner, unless being a Muslim was made the ground for declaring one a foreigner. In reality, the struggle between Pratap and Akbar or Shivaji and Aurangzeb had to be viewed as a political struggle in its particular historical setting. To declare Akbar or Aurangzeb a 'foreigner' and Pratap or Shivaji a 'national' hero was to project into past history the communal outlook of 20 century India. This was not only bad history; it was also a blow to national unity." He swiftly hems, and he swiftly haws: "This does not mean that militant nationalists were anti-Muslims or wholly communal," he says. "Far from it," he says. Most of them, he says, including Tilak, favoured Hindu Muslim unity. To most of them, he says, the motherland or Bharatmata was a modern nation "being in no way linked with religion": the exact opposite of what Bharat was to them -- an ancient, eternal nation one which had at its core the Hindu religion. On our historian's reckoning, they were almost secularists! But only for this caveat, as we shall see. [ARUN SHOURIE's new book, Eminent Hostorians, Their technology, Their line, Their fraud, has just been published] |
||
|
|||||||