Sinhales, Tamilians and Bhattas of Kashmir
Men, Matters & Memories

By M L Kotru

Going through a recently published book on the ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka I am not sure why my thoughts turned to Kashmir and the life and times of Kashmiri Brahmins, now called Kashmiri Pandits. The Sinhalese and the Tamilians who migrated to Sri Lanka close on each other's heels hundreds of years ago as Avtar Singh Bhasin, author or ''India and Sri Lanka- Between the Lion and the Tigers''-informs us, were plagued from the beginning by mutual distrust and hatred. Unlike these two ethnic entities the Kashmiri Brahmins, Bhattas, if memory serves right is what they were called, were native to the land. You may even call them the Kashmiri aborigines. From the little I know of the history of Kashmir and its Bhattas, they did rule the roast in Kashmir long before things changed for them. The Buddhists were among the first to conquer/vanquish them, followed by assorted other dynasties until finally came the Muslim invasions. A series of Muslim adventurers were followed by a number of Sultans and even by governors appointed by rulers living in lands as distant as Afghanistan. Mass conversions and migration to the plains saw the Bhattas or Pandits reduced to the fringes, although many stayed back to adorn the courts of successive Sultans. The Pandits became a miniscule community in subsequent years, even more so during the last 15 years. Forget the few who flourished under the alien rulers or the Dogras, Some others had established a near monopoly on jobs in royal courts or later in Government departments, schools etc. But unlike the Tamilians or the Sinhalas they never, not even once, in the post-Muslim era, ever thought of asserting themselves. Their numbers, or the lack of these, perhaps, taught them to stay contented, believers in karma as they perhaps were. That reminds me of my grandmother's tale who died in 1944 at the age of 93 and she in turn had heard it form her grandmother which must take us to the time of Afghan conquerors. As she put it the Afghan invasion left just eleven Pandit households in the Valley. Some two centuries later about four lakh of them were forced to migrate all over again in the trail of the terrorist strikes. So much for their ethnicity. But I must return to Bhasin and his book. Avtar Singh Bhasin is a man of many parts, a student of history, an archaeologist, a bureaucrat and a diplomatist. Post retirement he has devoted himself to the study of the South Asian region and the book on Sri Lanka is his latest--an extension in fact of an earlier five-volume study confined to Sri Lanka. His present effort concentrates on the ethnic conflict and Indian involvement in it ''with all its ramifications''.The book is a study of the majoritarian politics of the Sinhalas denying the Tamil minority its cultural, political and economic rights. This becomes all the more galling when it is realized that both the Sinhalese and the Tamils migrated to the Island from India almost simultaneously before the advent of the Christian era. Interestingly the two communities existed on the Island for more than two millennia, apart from each other and more as adversaries than as an integrated community with Sri Lankan culture and ethos. Over the centuries, the Sinhalese developed a new language for themselves and accepted Buddhism as their religion. The Tamils on the other hand, continued to speak much the same language, follow the same religion in the same form and stick to much the same social customs as they came with, but with some local flavours to create a distinct Sri Lankan Tamil culture. In recent years the Muslims among the Tamils have distanced themselves from the larger Tamil constituency to form a third force on an anti-Tamil platform.The book for the first time studies the ethnic problem from its very inception. The Tamils had expressed apprehensions of their being dominated by the majority community as soon it became apparent that the British were preparing to withdraw from the Island. Majorities are perceived to be oppressive and tyrannical and minorities always dread and fear them and look for safeguards. The Tamils too tried for safeguards but the British were not willing to oblige to the extent the Tamils desired. This lack of trust of the majority by the minority from the very inception cast its shadow on the future relationship between the two communities.

Having said so, the fact remains that few nations today are socially and culturally wholly homogenous. They are an amalgam of historical communities with fairly clear sense of separate identities. Break up of such states by the application of homogeneity principle could only spell disaster. It is essential that the state provided enough space to each community to adjust its sub-nationalism with the broader concept of nationhood. In the case of Sri Lanka it was this failure to provide a decent space to its Tamil minority to fulfill its distinctive linguistic and cultural aspirations that bled the state white during the five decades of it existence as an independent State.

The ensuing between the two communities unleashed violence on an unprecedented scale, which took a heavy toll of human life and property. India in pursuit of her domestic and strategic interests got sucked into it politically and militarily. Bhasin succinctly points that in pursuing her agenda India failed to learn from the experience of other states that interventionist policies in today's world could create a backlash of such intensity that military victories became a distinct dream. As it happened in Sri Lanka, to India's regret her intervention unleashed antagonistic forces that pitched her in an adversorial role against the very people for and on whose behalf India chose to jump into the quagmire. What makes heartening reading is that India, once driven out of Sri Lanka, did not take too long to realize that there were more powerful instruments available to it to produce more enduring links with Sri Lanka. The economic and cultural mechanisms that India brought into play as an alternative to military intervention soon found India welcomed in Colombo. Once again both LTTE and the Government of Sri Lanka have more than once represented to New Delhi that without its good offices, the ethnic problem has little chance of being resolved. But once bitten twice shy. What is important is that India, without wanting to be directly involved in the ethnic imbroglio, has set the perimeters for a solution. The recalcitrant LTTE have been warned that India would not accept a solution which is not inclusive and impinges on Sri Lanka's territorial integrity or sovereignty. Indirectly India has rejected the LTTE proposed ''Internal Self Governing Authority'' (ISGL) as an interim solution. India's refusal to relent on the question of ban on the LTTE, removal of Sri Lanka from the negative list for the supply of military hardware, suggests that New Delhi may not be averse to signing a defence agreement with Colombo. There area are enough signals emanating from New Delhi that the LTTE should not be under the illusion that it has a free run of the place.

New Delhi is quite conscious, Bhasin concludes, that ''as a leading country in South Asia, other countries are watching her moves carefully. If India without being interventionist succeeds in stabilizing the Sri Lanka situations, she would have established her credibility in the region.'' This appears to be the bottom line and acid test for India's Sri Lanka policy.

Reform the government, not the society

By Dr Bharat Jhunjhunwala

It is unquestionable that the government has not been able to meet the basic needs of the people such as clean drinking water and all-weather roads though huge amounts are being spent on these heads since Independence. Unemployment is increasing and the educated are feeling increasingly frustrated. Many religiously inclined and pro-people leaders have been in power during the last fifty years including those from the Shiv Sena, Left and Dalits yet the situation of the common man leaves much to be desired.

What is the way out of this stalemate? Some religious leaders hold the view that changing the government will be of little use because governance has become corrupt beyond repair. Religious organizations should get involved in social work directly instead of trying to reform the government. Ramakrishna Mission was established by Swami Vivekananda with such a mission.

He wanted the monks to remove illiteracy from the face of the country. Panduranga Shastri Athwale organized the fishermen into cooperatives. Sai Baba has built a water supply system for the city of Anathapur. Many religious organizations are running hospitals and schools. Undoubtedly these works have had a positive effect on the society.

Indeed, it has been the tradition of our country not to leave the matters in the hands of the politicians. The society met its needs of drinking water by good management of the water tank. But these systems were created and managed by the 'society' not the religious organizations. It is good for the society to manage its affairs without waiting for the government to act. But the question here is whether the religious organizations should involve in such social reform or they should, in the main, focus on reforming the government?

Problems such as unemployment and poverty-which are central for securing human welfare-cannot be solved by leaving the government policies unattended.

On the one hand wrong policies of the government will continue to create these problems and on the other hand religious organizations would be firefighting the consequences. Cancer cannot be cured by taking steroids or analgesics. The society is inflicted with the cancer of bad governance. The first role of the religious organizations is to cure the patient of cancer. Treating him with analgesics only allows the cancer to deepen. In fact, it distracts the attention of the patient from seeking a true cure of the disease.

This is not to say that immediate problems should be ignored. Tulsidas has rightly said that one cannot sing bhajans on an empty stomach. Thus a way has to be found that the disease is cured and also immediate relief is got.

The running of schools, hospitals, water supply schemes and cooperatives does not lead to the solution of the disease hence is unacceptable. Christian missionaries have been engaged in such activities for the last fifty years. That did not solve the problems of the country. In fact, the missionary activities supported the continuation of India's impoverishment and exploitation. Social work by religious organizations does the same today.

Another problem is that religious organizations have to compromise with the corrupt in the effort to built huge social work institutions. Swami Muktanand had been invited for dinner at the home of a noted industrialist of Indore. He blessed the industrialist. Next day he happened to see a liquor factory in the city. He was told that the factory belonged to the industrialist he had blessed the previous day. Swamiji went back to the industrialist and demanded that the liquor factory be closed otherwise he would take back his blessings. The industrialist ultimately accepted to disassociate him from the factory within six months.

Such harsh demand could be made by Swamiji because he had not accepted a big donation from the industrialist.

The head of a religious organization was elated that they had got 50 acre land from a state government to build an orphanage. It would be difficult for her to criticize the government policies sitting on land donated by the government. That silence works as a willing acquiescence to the wrong policies. The religious organization becomes a party to the wrong policies the consequences of which it seeks to ameliorate. When religious organizations get engaged in social work in a big way it leaves the basic disease unattended and their role becomes merely that of firefighting. There is no escape from reform of the government for securing cure of the diseases from which the society is suffering. True, the problems have not been solved by thee government in the last fifty years. But that does not mean that we ignore the role of the government. Taking digestives is not the solution of the water-borne diseases contracted due to dirty water for the last fifty years. The water supply will have to be set right f the patient has to be cured. Similarly, the wrong policies of the government will have to be set right. The provision of free health, education and nutritional supplements while closing ones eyes towards the government policies actually perpetuates unemployment and locks the beneficiary into long term poverty.

In fact, the failure of the government in the last fifty years is a failure of the religious organizations. They failed to give direction to the government and got entangled in securing free land, tax exemptions and other benefits form the government. They did not speak out against the wrong policies of the government. I do not know of a white paper made by religious organization on unemployment. This silence of the religious organizations is a proof that they have entered into an unsaid agreement with the government-they will not attack the wrong policies in return of political patronage.

Gandhiji had told the Constructive Workers to guide the government through the voters. They were required to remain free of government for their livelihood.

But our Gandhians made huge institutions like Khadi and Village Industries Commission taking large funds from the government. Indira Gandhi established the Kudal Commission to inquire into the alleged misuse of government funds by these institutions when some Gandhians opposed the Emergency. The Gandhians almost wilted under the pressure. This is just one example how the making of a large institution makes one vulnerable to government ire and is a proof that the institution's independence has been pawned to government largesse. Thus religious organizations should make institutions of small size. They should force the government to put an end to wrong economic policies just as Swami Muktanand forced the liquor businessman into closing his factory. They should encourage the society to manage its drinking water without waiting for the government but not take on that responsibility on their own shoulders.