1971 in 2000
Salman Akhtar August 20, 2000
#184 Posted by bahmad on August 28, 2000 4:38:11 am
In response to macgupta (Reply # 152)
Dear Arun:
Is BJP a fascist party? In answering this question, you wrote: “The BJP is not a fascist party. . . .” Your statement was based on the view that Fascism is “any program for setting up a centralized autocratic national regime with severely nationalistic policies, exercising regimentation of industry, commerce, and finance, rigid censorship, and forcible suppression of opposition``. In my normal search of material, I came across a piece by Partha Banerjee that seems to argue that RSS (Sangh Parivar) is a fascist organization. Banerjee writes:
“Is RSS really fascist?
Why is the RSS labeled as fascist by some circles and how much justification is there? Why call anybody a fascist? Before RSS or BJP is called fascist, we need to describe their ideas. Let`s explain what fascism is, and compare these ideas with what the ``Sangh Parivar`` practices. [Note: Also read, Achin Vanaik, Communalism Contested, Vistaar Publications, New Delhi, 1997. Vanaik prefers to call the Sangh Parivar a ``pre- or potentially fascist`` group. p. 279.]
The word ``fascism`` describes a set of overlapping and sometimes contradictory beliefs that first became fashionable in continental Europe in the 1920s. According to Dr. Mark Trisch of Johannes Gutenberg Universitaet, Germany [Note: Per Indology mailing list discussions on the Internet, December 1995], the following set of ideas (in varying combinations) fostered by a party or organization would brand it fascist:
(1) Calling for a return to the ``ancient traditions of the race``
(2) A hierarchical, militaristic, corporate social organization
(3) A cult of leadership
(4) Calls for national self-reliance
(5) Calling for ``full employment``
(6) Aggressively nationalistic foreign policy.
According to Dr. Trisch, although it is the combination of all these that makes for trouble, the first three seem to be the most important.
Do the RSS, and its sister organizations such as the BJP or VHP foster these ideas? Unfortunately, they do. A return to the ancient so-called ``glorified Bharatiya traditions`` of the Hindu race is their number one creed. Every single day, RSS, in its militaristic shakhas or gatherings, preaches to its workers and sympathizers that the ``oldest nation of Bharatvarsha`` was the ``greatest`` on earth and that its inhabitants were ``happy, prosperous, and religious``. The Sangh leaders never forget to mention that all the ills of India began when, due to the ``disunity of the Hindu race``, Muslim and then British aggressors invaded and took over this ``holy land``. The long term goal of the Sangh Parivar is of course to bring back that ``past era of glory`` by creating an ``Akhand Bharat`` (i.e., an Undivided India ranging from ``Himalaya to Kanyakumari`` and ``Gandhar to Brahmadesh`` (i.e., from Tibet in the north to the southern tip of India, and from Afghanistan in the west to South East Asia including Burma, Laos, Thailand, and Cambodia)-culturally and politically. This dream of ``unity`` is to be reached by organizing Hindus from all around the globe.
The RSS is indeed a hierarchical, militaristic organization that actively practices regimentation [Note: 28 See Chapter 2 on the activities of a Sangh shakha]. Moreover, RSS and BJP have also been linked with Ranabir Sena, a private army for big landowners that has most recently been responsible for the killing of sixty-one poor people in Lakshmanpur-Bathe village of Bihar`s Jehanabad district on Dec. 1, 97. The angry people in the village recently did not allow Vajpayee to visit the killing fields]. RSS has a ``Sarsanghchalak`` (Supreme Leader) who is never elected (for that matter, no other leaders are elected-there is no system of internal elections in the organization)-the supreme leader`s commands are obeyed without question. Further, Dr. Keshavrao Baliramrao Hedgewar, the founder of the Sangh and Madhavrao Sadasivrao Golwalkar, the second and most well-known supreme leader of RSS, are remembered in Sangh circles with a sense of divinity and admiration that reaches the level of God-worshipping. Indeed, these two men are officially given the status of Avatars (reincarnation of God) by the RSS. Pictures of these two Sarsanghchalaks are distributed and sold by RSS offices and bookstores and decorate walls of workers` homes. Stories, often exaggerated, about their lives are discussed at RSS camps and gatherings on a regular basis, essays are written on their lives and works and the best ones are awarded prizes [Note: I too was once awarded a first-prize for an essay I wrote about the founder of the Sangh. The prize was another biography of Dr. Hedgewar! Recently, in an interview carried in the Panchjanya, a magazine with close RSS connections, Ms Uma Bharati, the BJP MP from Khajuraho and president of the party`s Yuva Morcha, has quoted the RSS chief, Professor Rajendra Singh, to say that despite the number of police stations in the country, and thousands of policemen, Muslims cannot be safe if they have enmity with the Hindus. Source: The Hindu, January 18, 1998]. Portraits of the present Sarsanghchalak Rajendra Singh (``Rajju Bhaiya``) is now promptly posted on RSS` Internet homepage by active workers in the USA [Note: A meeting of prominent RSS workers was held on November 9 and 10, 1929. It decided against the `cumbersome clap-trap of internal democracy` and opted for a centralized authority-based structure... The principle was called ``Ek Chalak Anuvartitva`` (following one leader) and was explained to the swayamsevaks by V. V. Kelkar who told them that it was on the lines of the traditional Hindu joint family system and was most appropriate for an organization wedded to reviving and rejuvenating the Hindu way of life. It is rather difficult to distinguish this arrangement from what has been called the ``Fuehrer Principle`` followed by the Fascists in Italy and Nazis in Germany in the decade leading up to WWII. Quoted from D. R. Goyal: Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh . Radha Krishna Prakashan, New Delhi. 1979]. Similarly, Shiv Sena`s new official homepage, on its title page, now has the picture of its supremo, Balasaheb Thackeray.
This is what the Shiv Sena homepage declares about its leader: ``People from all parts of Hindustan have only one hope. ``Hon`ble Shivsenapramukh Shri Balasaheb Thackeray is our only hope. He is our national Leader`` they say.``
National self-reliance is preached by the RSS: the Sangh has now actively taken up the issue of self-reliance and put forth a program called the ``Swadeshi Jagaran Manch``-a platform to champion the idea of total economic self-reliance. They decry the US investments in India and pro-US fiscal treaties such as the GATT and NAFTA-RSS` opposition to American investment might well have been a headache for the US government (and the) CIA in deciding between the faltering Congress or rising BJP to be covertly pushed as the next ruling party of India. [Note: To know more about RSS` fiscal policies, see Chapter 3. 31].
But the international investors can now breathe a sigh of relief as this call for national self-reliance has proved to be just a politically expedient move without any real will behind it as evident by what the BJP in fact did vis-à-vis the multinational Enron power project.
Full employment for labor (but without any real power or control over the workplace) has been a centerpiece of RSS and BJP actions implemented through the activities of Bharatiya Mazdoor Sangh or BMS, one of the largest labor organizations in India. BJP`s ultra-right ally Shiv Sena has come up with plans to support the Hindu labor force in the state of Maharashtra. The irony here is that the Shiv Sena was originally floated by national and international vested-interest groups to crush the once-powerful trade unions of Bombay back in the 1980`s and has operated a protection racket ever since. In recent months, American pop-singer Michael Jackson and eminent Indian film playback singer Lata Mangeshkar and actor Dilip Kumar participated in huge Shiv Udyog Sena sponsored concerts purportedly to raise funds for the Hindu laborers of Bombay [Note: 32 Shiv Udyog Sena is the commerce front of the Shiv Sena].
An aggressively nationalistic foreign policy has always been at the forefront of RSS propaganda. Much toned-down by the BJP now, during the Jana Sangh days, it was much more overt. America was never well-liked by Sangh members-the United States has always been portrayed as the very image of immorality and profanity on earth. However, a previous Jana Sangh president and one of its most famous orators Balraj Madhok was an ardent pro-American who had a small but powerful following in his days. But he could not make RSS, and consequently Jana Sangh, openly pro-American. This was largely due to the opposition of the all-powerful Golwalkar and leaders like Vajpayee the latter being a supporter of non-alignment with a less vociferous objection against the then USSR (this was however a strategy for them to internationally undermine and isolate China-the Sangh`s one main enemy). RSS` and Jana Sangh`s (and now BJP`s) foreign policy stands on the dictum of anti-Pakistan and anti-China hatred-and for that matter, hatred against any Islamic or socialist countries or alliances. George Fernandez, an important minister in the current BJP government, has proclaimed China to be India`s number one enemy (May 1998). Israel now has become a hot favorite of the Sangh Parivar-Vajpayee, Advani, and other BJP leaders have frequented the country to show their support for the ferociously anti-Arab nation. Attempts have often been made, allegedly, to iron out the Sangh`s previously bitter relationships with USA via the mediation of Israel. Note the irony here-a Hitler-admiring organization is having a mutual love-fest with the one nation that has the most reason on earth to despise anything that even remotely seeks of Hitler and the Nazi party.”
Bilal’s Conclusion: If RSS is a fascist body and the BJP is somehow under RSS influence, then BJP is also likely to have some element of Fascism built into it. Is Fascism really bad? I leave this matter to invidividual Chowkwallas to decide.
Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad
Dear Arun:
Is BJP a fascist party? In answering this question, you wrote: “The BJP is not a fascist party. . . .” Your statement was based on the view that Fascism is “any program for setting up a centralized autocratic national regime with severely nationalistic policies, exercising regimentation of industry, commerce, and finance, rigid censorship, and forcible suppression of opposition``. In my normal search of material, I came across a piece by Partha Banerjee that seems to argue that RSS (Sangh Parivar) is a fascist organization. Banerjee writes:
“Is RSS really fascist?
Why is the RSS labeled as fascist by some circles and how much justification is there? Why call anybody a fascist? Before RSS or BJP is called fascist, we need to describe their ideas. Let`s explain what fascism is, and compare these ideas with what the ``Sangh Parivar`` practices. [Note: Also read, Achin Vanaik, Communalism Contested, Vistaar Publications, New Delhi, 1997. Vanaik prefers to call the Sangh Parivar a ``pre- or potentially fascist`` group. p. 279.]
The word ``fascism`` describes a set of overlapping and sometimes contradictory beliefs that first became fashionable in continental Europe in the 1920s. According to Dr. Mark Trisch of Johannes Gutenberg Universitaet, Germany [Note: Per Indology mailing list discussions on the Internet, December 1995], the following set of ideas (in varying combinations) fostered by a party or organization would brand it fascist:
(1) Calling for a return to the ``ancient traditions of the race``
(2) A hierarchical, militaristic, corporate social organization
(3) A cult of leadership
(4) Calls for national self-reliance
(5) Calling for ``full employment``
(6) Aggressively nationalistic foreign policy.
According to Dr. Trisch, although it is the combination of all these that makes for trouble, the first three seem to be the most important.
Do the RSS, and its sister organizations such as the BJP or VHP foster these ideas? Unfortunately, they do. A return to the ancient so-called ``glorified Bharatiya traditions`` of the Hindu race is their number one creed. Every single day, RSS, in its militaristic shakhas or gatherings, preaches to its workers and sympathizers that the ``oldest nation of Bharatvarsha`` was the ``greatest`` on earth and that its inhabitants were ``happy, prosperous, and religious``. The Sangh leaders never forget to mention that all the ills of India began when, due to the ``disunity of the Hindu race``, Muslim and then British aggressors invaded and took over this ``holy land``. The long term goal of the Sangh Parivar is of course to bring back that ``past era of glory`` by creating an ``Akhand Bharat`` (i.e., an Undivided India ranging from ``Himalaya to Kanyakumari`` and ``Gandhar to Brahmadesh`` (i.e., from Tibet in the north to the southern tip of India, and from Afghanistan in the west to South East Asia including Burma, Laos, Thailand, and Cambodia)-culturally and politically. This dream of ``unity`` is to be reached by organizing Hindus from all around the globe.
The RSS is indeed a hierarchical, militaristic organization that actively practices regimentation [Note: 28 See Chapter 2 on the activities of a Sangh shakha]. Moreover, RSS and BJP have also been linked with Ranabir Sena, a private army for big landowners that has most recently been responsible for the killing of sixty-one poor people in Lakshmanpur-Bathe village of Bihar`s Jehanabad district on Dec. 1, 97. The angry people in the village recently did not allow Vajpayee to visit the killing fields]. RSS has a ``Sarsanghchalak`` (Supreme Leader) who is never elected (for that matter, no other leaders are elected-there is no system of internal elections in the organization)-the supreme leader`s commands are obeyed without question. Further, Dr. Keshavrao Baliramrao Hedgewar, the founder of the Sangh and Madhavrao Sadasivrao Golwalkar, the second and most well-known supreme leader of RSS, are remembered in Sangh circles with a sense of divinity and admiration that reaches the level of God-worshipping. Indeed, these two men are officially given the status of Avatars (reincarnation of God) by the RSS. Pictures of these two Sarsanghchalaks are distributed and sold by RSS offices and bookstores and decorate walls of workers` homes. Stories, often exaggerated, about their lives are discussed at RSS camps and gatherings on a regular basis, essays are written on their lives and works and the best ones are awarded prizes [Note: I too was once awarded a first-prize for an essay I wrote about the founder of the Sangh. The prize was another biography of Dr. Hedgewar! Recently, in an interview carried in the Panchjanya, a magazine with close RSS connections, Ms Uma Bharati, the BJP MP from Khajuraho and president of the party`s Yuva Morcha, has quoted the RSS chief, Professor Rajendra Singh, to say that despite the number of police stations in the country, and thousands of policemen, Muslims cannot be safe if they have enmity with the Hindus. Source: The Hindu, January 18, 1998]. Portraits of the present Sarsanghchalak Rajendra Singh (``Rajju Bhaiya``) is now promptly posted on RSS` Internet homepage by active workers in the USA [Note: A meeting of prominent RSS workers was held on November 9 and 10, 1929. It decided against the `cumbersome clap-trap of internal democracy` and opted for a centralized authority-based structure... The principle was called ``Ek Chalak Anuvartitva`` (following one leader) and was explained to the swayamsevaks by V. V. Kelkar who told them that it was on the lines of the traditional Hindu joint family system and was most appropriate for an organization wedded to reviving and rejuvenating the Hindu way of life. It is rather difficult to distinguish this arrangement from what has been called the ``Fuehrer Principle`` followed by the Fascists in Italy and Nazis in Germany in the decade leading up to WWII. Quoted from D. R. Goyal: Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh . Radha Krishna Prakashan, New Delhi. 1979]. Similarly, Shiv Sena`s new official homepage, on its title page, now has the picture of its supremo, Balasaheb Thackeray.
This is what the Shiv Sena homepage declares about its leader: ``People from all parts of Hindustan have only one hope. ``Hon`ble Shivsenapramukh Shri Balasaheb Thackeray is our only hope. He is our national Leader`` they say.``
National self-reliance is preached by the RSS: the Sangh has now actively taken up the issue of self-reliance and put forth a program called the ``Swadeshi Jagaran Manch``-a platform to champion the idea of total economic self-reliance. They decry the US investments in India and pro-US fiscal treaties such as the GATT and NAFTA-RSS` opposition to American investment might well have been a headache for the US government (and the) CIA in deciding between the faltering Congress or rising BJP to be covertly pushed as the next ruling party of India. [Note: To know more about RSS` fiscal policies, see Chapter 3. 31].
But the international investors can now breathe a sigh of relief as this call for national self-reliance has proved to be just a politically expedient move without any real will behind it as evident by what the BJP in fact did vis-à-vis the multinational Enron power project.
Full employment for labor (but without any real power or control over the workplace) has been a centerpiece of RSS and BJP actions implemented through the activities of Bharatiya Mazdoor Sangh or BMS, one of the largest labor organizations in India. BJP`s ultra-right ally Shiv Sena has come up with plans to support the Hindu labor force in the state of Maharashtra. The irony here is that the Shiv Sena was originally floated by national and international vested-interest groups to crush the once-powerful trade unions of Bombay back in the 1980`s and has operated a protection racket ever since. In recent months, American pop-singer Michael Jackson and eminent Indian film playback singer Lata Mangeshkar and actor Dilip Kumar participated in huge Shiv Udyog Sena sponsored concerts purportedly to raise funds for the Hindu laborers of Bombay [Note: 32 Shiv Udyog Sena is the commerce front of the Shiv Sena].
An aggressively nationalistic foreign policy has always been at the forefront of RSS propaganda. Much toned-down by the BJP now, during the Jana Sangh days, it was much more overt. America was never well-liked by Sangh members-the United States has always been portrayed as the very image of immorality and profanity on earth. However, a previous Jana Sangh president and one of its most famous orators Balraj Madhok was an ardent pro-American who had a small but powerful following in his days. But he could not make RSS, and consequently Jana Sangh, openly pro-American. This was largely due to the opposition of the all-powerful Golwalkar and leaders like Vajpayee the latter being a supporter of non-alignment with a less vociferous objection against the then USSR (this was however a strategy for them to internationally undermine and isolate China-the Sangh`s one main enemy). RSS` and Jana Sangh`s (and now BJP`s) foreign policy stands on the dictum of anti-Pakistan and anti-China hatred-and for that matter, hatred against any Islamic or socialist countries or alliances. George Fernandez, an important minister in the current BJP government, has proclaimed China to be India`s number one enemy (May 1998). Israel now has become a hot favorite of the Sangh Parivar-Vajpayee, Advani, and other BJP leaders have frequented the country to show their support for the ferociously anti-Arab nation. Attempts have often been made, allegedly, to iron out the Sangh`s previously bitter relationships with USA via the mediation of Israel. Note the irony here-a Hitler-admiring organization is having a mutual love-fest with the one nation that has the most reason on earth to despise anything that even remotely seeks of Hitler and the Nazi party.”
Bilal’s Conclusion: If RSS is a fascist body and the BJP is somehow under RSS influence, then BJP is also likely to have some element of Fascism built into it. Is Fascism really bad? I leave this matter to invidividual Chowkwallas to decide.
Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad
reply to this interact
write a new interact
add to favorites
flag objectionable content
#183 Posted by contemplative on August 28, 2000 1:13:57 am
Re: Shankar # 170
I respect your personal feelings at the desolation in the Refugee camps of the East Pakistanis. But once again we have to go to sources other than personal experience to look at the bigger picture.
The book being quoted on this thread by Sisson and Rose (sp?) for example states that the UN offered to help the refugees and the USA offered to bear their entire expense, but India refused - first to exarcerbate the situation and second, because it feared that UN or American observers would spy on India`s clandestine activities in support of the Mukhti Bahini.
India also chose to invest a large amount in training and arming the Mukhti Bahini to undertake terrorism within East Pakistan. (one man`s terrorist is another man`s freedom fighter)
Therefore the causes for the refugees state are not all that simple.
As for the state of the refugees in Azad Kashmir, I really do not know. I do know that Kashmiris have scattered into the length and breadth of Pakistan (like the Afghan refugees) and have become well integrated. Very few choose to live in refugee camps.
I respect your personal feelings at the desolation in the Refugee camps of the East Pakistanis. But once again we have to go to sources other than personal experience to look at the bigger picture.
The book being quoted on this thread by Sisson and Rose (sp?) for example states that the UN offered to help the refugees and the USA offered to bear their entire expense, but India refused - first to exarcerbate the situation and second, because it feared that UN or American observers would spy on India`s clandestine activities in support of the Mukhti Bahini.
India also chose to invest a large amount in training and arming the Mukhti Bahini to undertake terrorism within East Pakistan. (one man`s terrorist is another man`s freedom fighter)
Therefore the causes for the refugees state are not all that simple.
As for the state of the refugees in Azad Kashmir, I really do not know. I do know that Kashmiris have scattered into the length and breadth of Pakistan (like the Afghan refugees) and have become well integrated. Very few choose to live in refugee camps.
#182 Posted by krashid on August 28, 2000 1:13:57 am
Shankar!
There is a Pakistan India friendship forum. I know of a very prominent politician Mubasshir Hasan a part of it.
About a year back BJP propaganda was such that Indian counterparts were swaying with it. And their Pakistani counterparts were appealing to them.
Any way I hope some sanity prevails.
War is going to breed destruction to India`s nascent but rising prosperity and Pakistan`s step into recovery.
As one Indian wrote Pakistan will be decapitated. I responded that if one will be decapitated other will lose the limb. Nobody will benefit.
There is a Pakistan India friendship forum. I know of a very prominent politician Mubasshir Hasan a part of it.
About a year back BJP propaganda was such that Indian counterparts were swaying with it. And their Pakistani counterparts were appealing to them.
Any way I hope some sanity prevails.
War is going to breed destruction to India`s nascent but rising prosperity and Pakistan`s step into recovery.
As one Indian wrote Pakistan will be decapitated. I responded that if one will be decapitated other will lose the limb. Nobody will benefit.
#181 Posted by krashid on August 28, 2000 1:13:57 am
Satyawadi #156
You not only need sleep, but very heavy sleep, so that when you wake up all these things get out of your mind.
So you think, Punjabi, Sindhi and Mohajir are victims of Arab Baluch and Arab Pakhtuns.)):::
Thank God we have BJP and their think tank in India. Blessing in disguise.
You not only need sleep, but very heavy sleep, so that when you wake up all these things get out of your mind.
So you think, Punjabi, Sindhi and Mohajir are victims of Arab Baluch and Arab Pakhtuns.)):::
Thank God we have BJP and their think tank in India. Blessing in disguise.
#180 Posted by krashid on August 28, 2000 1:13:57 am
Jay #159
Pakistan`s stand with China is purely political and has nothing to do with goodwill or bad will.
As India`s partnership with Arab world was and is now in the lap of Israel has nothing to do with their regards for Arab world or otherwise.
At least you should look into mirror to find out, this sudden volteface, rather than preaching us.
Pakistan`s stand with China is purely political and has nothing to do with goodwill or bad will.
As India`s partnership with Arab world was and is now in the lap of Israel has nothing to do with their regards for Arab world or otherwise.
At least you should look into mirror to find out, this sudden volteface, rather than preaching us.
#179 Posted by krashid on August 28, 2000 1:13:57 am
Shankar #161
I regret that, the words of mine hurt you.
I don`t have good words for anyone who justifies atrocities in any name. I am also very least appealed by biases.
Whether it is mafia war by Altaf Hussain in Karachi, or Jamat-e-Islami imposing ITS WILL in the name of God. I have vehemently opposed that.
The same with regards to People`s party, Muslim league or Pervez Musharraf.
What they are doing is important. Like the recent promulgation of law to have political party leaders free from any DISEASE is worst form of Hypocrisy by Pervez Musharraf regime and is going to back fire. While if his plan for local Government correctly implemented, and given power and constitutional cover might bring a positive change in life.
So it is important to see what is being done, rather than judging on the basis of who is doing this.
As I have this criteria, I can somehow guess (and my guess may be wrong) that based on economics, North and South India will part their ways with different economic priorities. That is the most important phenomenon which is in the process of making in India. Only solution to this and other problems of India is secularism and democracy and investment in infrastructure, which may in the short run might not be beneficial to all communities, but in the long run is going to evenly distribute its fruits, and will be beneficial to surrounding countries also. With Hinduvta, as a potential danger, now to Kashmir and North India (for economic reasons) if it spreads to whole India and particularly if it manifests in suppression of rights of state (which is possible) it will be disaster for India as well as its neighbouring countries.
I regret that, the words of mine hurt you.
I don`t have good words for anyone who justifies atrocities in any name. I am also very least appealed by biases.
Whether it is mafia war by Altaf Hussain in Karachi, or Jamat-e-Islami imposing ITS WILL in the name of God. I have vehemently opposed that.
The same with regards to People`s party, Muslim league or Pervez Musharraf.
What they are doing is important. Like the recent promulgation of law to have political party leaders free from any DISEASE is worst form of Hypocrisy by Pervez Musharraf regime and is going to back fire. While if his plan for local Government correctly implemented, and given power and constitutional cover might bring a positive change in life.
So it is important to see what is being done, rather than judging on the basis of who is doing this.
As I have this criteria, I can somehow guess (and my guess may be wrong) that based on economics, North and South India will part their ways with different economic priorities. That is the most important phenomenon which is in the process of making in India. Only solution to this and other problems of India is secularism and democracy and investment in infrastructure, which may in the short run might not be beneficial to all communities, but in the long run is going to evenly distribute its fruits, and will be beneficial to surrounding countries also. With Hinduvta, as a potential danger, now to Kashmir and North India (for economic reasons) if it spreads to whole India and particularly if it manifests in suppression of rights of state (which is possible) it will be disaster for India as well as its neighbouring countries.
#178 Posted by Umairr on August 28, 2000 1:13:57 am
corrections for #173:
para 7: ``however as an independent group would be more than happy to enter into economic partnerships.`` should read, ``however as an independent Kashmir would be more than happy to enter into economic partnerships.``
para 9: ``as Pakistan made in Pakistan.`` should read, ``as West Pakistan made in East Pakistan.``
para 7: ``however as an independent group would be more than happy to enter into economic partnerships.`` should read, ``however as an independent Kashmir would be more than happy to enter into economic partnerships.``
para 9: ``as Pakistan made in Pakistan.`` should read, ``as West Pakistan made in East Pakistan.``
#177 Posted by Pardesi on August 28, 2000 1:13:57 am
shankar # 165
Shankar, if most of Indians and Pakistanis become as empathetic as you are, 90% of our problems will go away. Excellent post.
To add insult to injury, no government since 1984 has conducted formal inquiry because Sikhs do not have any political muscle due to a tiny 2% population. Wonderful sense of accountability and justice we have. In fact, Congress government resisted even the idea of current Punjabi based Punjab until 1965 and agreed in principle to it, if my memory serves me right, just 2-3 days before Indian army moved towards Lahore (Sept 6?) and therefore Sikh loyalty was some thing nice to have.
Brutal suppression of Sikhs has already hurt India. If Rajiv and his buddies would not have developed this sense of “victory” over Sikhs (and rewarded by greatest victory at polls), they probably would have thought twice before manipulating Kashmiri political system in 1989 as discussed by various Chowkwallahs on these threads.
Sensible Indians, including those whose relatives were butchered, will keep wondering:
a)Will our leaders ever develop sense of accountability
b)Have we, the proud people of an old and great civilization, yet developed basic morality so that we treat others like we want to be treated and if not what’s wrong with our cultural and religious upbringing?
c)Finally, if we do not fix this “problem”, will we ever, in RSaxena’s words, be able to provide decent minimum living standards for ALL of our people?
Therefore my friends, Sikh butchering was not an isolated incidence. It is a symptom of our deeper sub-continental weakness (i.e., lower morality standards). As Veeresh pointed out in his recent post, no matter how many countries we chop our sub-continent into, we seem to be stuck at lower gear as for as most of the people are concerned. IMHO, lack of moral character will haunt us for long time. Lots of introspection is required from all of us.
Shankar, if most of Indians and Pakistanis become as empathetic as you are, 90% of our problems will go away. Excellent post.
To add insult to injury, no government since 1984 has conducted formal inquiry because Sikhs do not have any political muscle due to a tiny 2% population. Wonderful sense of accountability and justice we have. In fact, Congress government resisted even the idea of current Punjabi based Punjab until 1965 and agreed in principle to it, if my memory serves me right, just 2-3 days before Indian army moved towards Lahore (Sept 6?) and therefore Sikh loyalty was some thing nice to have.
Brutal suppression of Sikhs has already hurt India. If Rajiv and his buddies would not have developed this sense of “victory” over Sikhs (and rewarded by greatest victory at polls), they probably would have thought twice before manipulating Kashmiri political system in 1989 as discussed by various Chowkwallahs on these threads.
Sensible Indians, including those whose relatives were butchered, will keep wondering:
a)Will our leaders ever develop sense of accountability
b)Have we, the proud people of an old and great civilization, yet developed basic morality so that we treat others like we want to be treated and if not what’s wrong with our cultural and religious upbringing?
c)Finally, if we do not fix this “problem”, will we ever, in RSaxena’s words, be able to provide decent minimum living standards for ALL of our people?
Therefore my friends, Sikh butchering was not an isolated incidence. It is a symptom of our deeper sub-continental weakness (i.e., lower morality standards). As Veeresh pointed out in his recent post, no matter how many countries we chop our sub-continent into, we seem to be stuck at lower gear as for as most of the people are concerned. IMHO, lack of moral character will haunt us for long time. Lots of introspection is required from all of us.
#176 Posted by bahmad on August 27, 2000 10:03:13 pm
In response to satyavadi (Reply # 154)
Dear Satyavadi:
Your statement: “I DO NOT grieve for that dilapidated building which was called the Babri Masjid, in honour, of an INVADER.”
Comment: The destruction of Babri Masjid was a violent action. Invasions are also overwhelmingly violent in nature. Violence breeds violence. You may hate/dislike Baber for his invasion of a part of India (which of course was violence against his adversaries–peaceful or otherwise). Unfortunately, the Indian history is full of such violent actions. How about the Indo-Ayran invasion of the Vedic Era (1500 BC to 1000 BC)? Do you hate (presumably) your own part-ancestors for invading India?
By the way, I also don’t grieve for the destruction of a dilapidated building, particularly if it leads to such insane actions that took place in Ayodhya. No building “should” be more sacred than the life of human being (my personal idealism).
Your statement: “Muslims could have been a bit magnanimous [sic] and offered to shift the mosque to somewhere in the vicinity with legislation to preclude any other such demands.”
Comment: I agree with your position. This is what I also said during the Ayodhya crisis to a visiting (Hindu) Indian Professor. He disagreed with me. He maintained that the Ayodhya crisis was a part of a systematic anti-Muslim campaign. Around that time, people like Advani were threatening to convert some 3,000 mosques, all over India, into temples.
Your statement: “I do resent, condemn and strongly disapprove of the way the mosque was pulled down, in complete disregard of the law of the land.”
Comment: If you really “condemn” (a very strong word), then what is the purpose of your post? Do you see some sort of RSSness in your position when you said: “Nevertheless, it is a measure of Hindu tolerance or meekness (take your pick) that the mosque existed for more than 500 years and more significantly for 50 years after independence and a bloody partition insisted upon by a segment of Muslims, that purged the Northwest of erstwhile India of Hindus.” Are you sure that your position is based on the good values on which the Indian political system was initially structured?
Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad
Dear Satyavadi:
Your statement: “I DO NOT grieve for that dilapidated building which was called the Babri Masjid, in honour, of an INVADER.”
Comment: The destruction of Babri Masjid was a violent action. Invasions are also overwhelmingly violent in nature. Violence breeds violence. You may hate/dislike Baber for his invasion of a part of India (which of course was violence against his adversaries–peaceful or otherwise). Unfortunately, the Indian history is full of such violent actions. How about the Indo-Ayran invasion of the Vedic Era (1500 BC to 1000 BC)? Do you hate (presumably) your own part-ancestors for invading India?
By the way, I also don’t grieve for the destruction of a dilapidated building, particularly if it leads to such insane actions that took place in Ayodhya. No building “should” be more sacred than the life of human being (my personal idealism).
Your statement: “Muslims could have been a bit magnanimous [sic] and offered to shift the mosque to somewhere in the vicinity with legislation to preclude any other such demands.”
Comment: I agree with your position. This is what I also said during the Ayodhya crisis to a visiting (Hindu) Indian Professor. He disagreed with me. He maintained that the Ayodhya crisis was a part of a systematic anti-Muslim campaign. Around that time, people like Advani were threatening to convert some 3,000 mosques, all over India, into temples.
Your statement: “I do resent, condemn and strongly disapprove of the way the mosque was pulled down, in complete disregard of the law of the land.”
Comment: If you really “condemn” (a very strong word), then what is the purpose of your post? Do you see some sort of RSSness in your position when you said: “Nevertheless, it is a measure of Hindu tolerance or meekness (take your pick) that the mosque existed for more than 500 years and more significantly for 50 years after independence and a bloody partition insisted upon by a segment of Muslims, that purged the Northwest of erstwhile India of Hindus.” Are you sure that your position is based on the good values on which the Indian political system was initially structured?
Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad
#175 Posted by bd on August 27, 2000 8:56:37 pm
Macgupta #152
You are absolutely correct in saying that the BJP is NOT a fascist party at all, not per classical political theory definitions at all. I suspect the national and international worry is the very close links to the Bajrang Dal, Vishva Hindu Parishad, Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, Akil Bhartiya Vidhyarthi Parishad, Trade Unions etc. You would agree that most of the BJP party apparatchiks are or have deep links with the Sangh Parivar. Let us take a look at the 3 levels of party ideology and manifesto`s which concern us. First is the NDA ideology and manifesto, second is the BJP ideology and manifesto and last is the VHP/RSS/ABVP ideology and manifesto. If you start drilling down, you would notice the distinct divergence between the oft stated NDA ideology/manifesto and down to the RSS/VHP/ABVP level. I would leave it to you to determine how close it is to the defination of ``fascism``. A more pertinent question would be, how divergent are these ideologies/manifestos from the Constitution and the Original National Ideology of India?. I suspect you will find that the divergence is dramatic and drastic.
For example, the proposal for replacing the Rajya Sabha with a Guru Sabha having pre-eminent responsibility for developing and suggesting policy and the Lok Sabha/Executive only responsible for implementation/execution is an interesting example. The Guru Sabha will be populated with nominated (or elected - this point wasn`t clear) teachers and professors. We, with our instinctive respect and adoration of teachers and education, would instinctively agree and support this proposal. The questions which arise on later contemplation, why a Guru Sabha? What is wrong with the current system of the Rajya Sabha and Lok Sabha? Why has the ABVP suggested it? Why the ABVP? Where does the judiciary fit into this proposal? Why is there a whiff of separate electorates within this proposal? Why was the first draft, which mentioned secular teachers/professors, redrafted to say just teachers/professors? Who were the authors of this proposal and what is their background? Does this form a basis for a theocratic state? why is a university based organization interested in state institutional reform? why now - specially since its history suggests that the ABVP is oriented towards generating student power within universities and providing training grounds for future BJP leaders (amongst other unsavoury objectives)?
I would strongly suggest that people get an opportunity to hear Uma Bharti or Sadhwi Rithambara (sp?). The Sadhwi is on her way to the NY religious meet (at which the Dalai lama was not invited due to Chinese pressure) and hopefully people in NY would be able to hear her. It is also possible to get tapes of her speeches. I am sure, people will recognize these two ladies (names at least) and would also know their crowd pulling power within MP, UP, Gujarat, Haryana, Bihar and Maharashtra (specially during the BM issue and the Lok Sabha Elections). I can promise an extremely interesting experience. I, for one, worry about the credentials of the BJP and the Sangh Parivar given such antecedents and personnel (direct or indirectly associated). One saving grace is the fact that there are still sufficiently secular and educated Indian people who make sure that this kind of rabidity is kept under check by coalition pressures.
Sincerely
bd
You are absolutely correct in saying that the BJP is NOT a fascist party at all, not per classical political theory definitions at all. I suspect the national and international worry is the very close links to the Bajrang Dal, Vishva Hindu Parishad, Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, Akil Bhartiya Vidhyarthi Parishad, Trade Unions etc. You would agree that most of the BJP party apparatchiks are or have deep links with the Sangh Parivar. Let us take a look at the 3 levels of party ideology and manifesto`s which concern us. First is the NDA ideology and manifesto, second is the BJP ideology and manifesto and last is the VHP/RSS/ABVP ideology and manifesto. If you start drilling down, you would notice the distinct divergence between the oft stated NDA ideology/manifesto and down to the RSS/VHP/ABVP level. I would leave it to you to determine how close it is to the defination of ``fascism``. A more pertinent question would be, how divergent are these ideologies/manifestos from the Constitution and the Original National Ideology of India?. I suspect you will find that the divergence is dramatic and drastic.
For example, the proposal for replacing the Rajya Sabha with a Guru Sabha having pre-eminent responsibility for developing and suggesting policy and the Lok Sabha/Executive only responsible for implementation/execution is an interesting example. The Guru Sabha will be populated with nominated (or elected - this point wasn`t clear) teachers and professors. We, with our instinctive respect and adoration of teachers and education, would instinctively agree and support this proposal. The questions which arise on later contemplation, why a Guru Sabha? What is wrong with the current system of the Rajya Sabha and Lok Sabha? Why has the ABVP suggested it? Why the ABVP? Where does the judiciary fit into this proposal? Why is there a whiff of separate electorates within this proposal? Why was the first draft, which mentioned secular teachers/professors, redrafted to say just teachers/professors? Who were the authors of this proposal and what is their background? Does this form a basis for a theocratic state? why is a university based organization interested in state institutional reform? why now - specially since its history suggests that the ABVP is oriented towards generating student power within universities and providing training grounds for future BJP leaders (amongst other unsavoury objectives)?
I would strongly suggest that people get an opportunity to hear Uma Bharti or Sadhwi Rithambara (sp?). The Sadhwi is on her way to the NY religious meet (at which the Dalai lama was not invited due to Chinese pressure) and hopefully people in NY would be able to hear her. It is also possible to get tapes of her speeches. I am sure, people will recognize these two ladies (names at least) and would also know their crowd pulling power within MP, UP, Gujarat, Haryana, Bihar and Maharashtra (specially during the BM issue and the Lok Sabha Elections). I can promise an extremely interesting experience. I, for one, worry about the credentials of the BJP and the Sangh Parivar given such antecedents and personnel (direct or indirectly associated). One saving grace is the fact that there are still sufficiently secular and educated Indian people who make sure that this kind of rabidity is kept under check by coalition pressures.
Sincerely
bd
#174 Posted by bd on August 27, 2000 8:56:37 pm
nameless #137
Re: Your questions and your suggested answers. I would like to suggest the involvement of foreign intelligence agencies within Pakistan and the requirement by certain western powers to keep things in balance or to clip the political ``wings`` of the armed forces. Foreign Intelligence Agencies and the media have long formed a somewhat symbiotic relationship (in both countries). Instead of looking internally into the causes/people/reasons for release of the report, you may find it more conducive to explore and wonder at the foreign ``hand`` angle.
Bahmad #151
Bilal Saheb, I strongly agree with your statement that there is a difference between Hindutva and Hinduism. Somebody also mentioned that it was the rise in ``Islamic fundamentalism`` within Pakistan which was the main reason behind the rise of ``Hindutva``. I would respectfully disagree on this statement. That is, IMHO, a too simple explanation to cater for a myriad of sociological developments within India. Within history, whenever a third party is blamed for one`s own problems, the chances are extremely high that the problems like within ourselves rather than others. Given what humans are, they find it easier to blame ``others`` than to carry out a introspection exercise. Dilip D`Souza has raised a crucial point about the moral weakness of the country`s leaders. I need not re-hash the arguments given in his column, simply emphasise one crucial point. Given the total if not minimal objective of ``public service``, lining one`s pockets takes precedence over lining the countrymen`s pockets, and to the devil with good governance. Simply speaking, the sheer mass of the country introduces a huge inertia of rest (and motion). This has its bad points as well as good points. The bad points are that mistakes made by political leaders are usually submerged in the vast mass of the country and because policy made by these leaders have a very long lead time for the conclusion. This allows them off the hook. The ignorance and apathy of the population plays into their hands, since they do not or can not undertake a proper analysis of policy decisions and hold leaders accountable. In the few instances that events happen which require immediate ``command`` decisions, it comes a cropper. During these points, the leaders would find it easier to blame somebody else than to investigate internally. The fact that internal causes gave rise to the problems and an outside force took advantage of that internal cause is a distinction that is never or rarely made. This situation is not restricted to political problems but to economic ones as well. For example, I am still unable to understand why Mr. Arun Shourie had to setup a second disinvestment commission, when the first disinvestment commission`s report is gathering dust. The first commission recommended outright disposal of 80 PSU`s and after 8 years, ONE unit, MODERN BREADS (I just fail to understand the strategic implications of the public sector investing in bread manufacturing) has been disinvested, and now it looks like the disinvestment is not going to happen for another 8 years.
I have to admit that this situation is changing, Indian people are getting economically better and educationally qualified. The IT boom HAS spread across India, with the result that even small towns have mushrooming IT schools and colleges. The other relevant factor is that the Indian software industry is outward looking and international in scope/vision. This, (un)fortunately, has brought a waft of international news/opinion/economics into the lower reaches of the middle class, making them conscious of the international and national economic opportunities available, the threats to this new found economic status and the worry about wealth. This, at the bottom level, makes the 18-40 generation considerably outgoing as well as nervous about the threats, specially for a nation which was previously inward looking. In addition, let us not forget the generational change happening on the decision making level. The current crop of national leaders belong to the 1960`s or earlier generation, and most of them either grew up post independence or non-ex-congress. They do not have the familiar foundation of the independence fight underneath them or the walls of moral rectitude of the secularists around them. Consequently, they are exposed to the buffeting winds of massive economic change as well as the glare of a international press/internet/transparency upon them. This makes them as well as the Indian public (not all, but mostly in the north and east region) highly susceptible to using religious issues as well as a third party hand accusations to explain and try to contain perceived or real threats.
Which brings us to the Hindutva card. The quoted reason that ``Hinduism is in danger`` is so preposterous that it doesn`t bear repeating or even analysing. The sheer concept that if few adivasis are converted to Christianity or the Muslims want to control India, the entire religion is in danger is deeply flawed. Another major issue is the fact that this Hindutva issue is restricted to the north and west, that too within certain particular areas and economic / education level classes. The Hindutva issue was not able to find roots anywhere in the east or south indicates that there are many significant fault lines within this concept. In the east, the preponderance of, for example, the Ramakrishna / Vedanta Philosophy and down south (many more philosophies - mainly oriented towards Narayan) has negated the concept. Higher educational levels in both the south and east also have lots to do with the negation of Hindutva. Historical revisionism is also rife in the north/west rather than south/east. If you look at the list of temples built over mosques, you would find that they are (surprisingly enough) spread almost equally all over India, but the religious agitations were only successful in only some states, UP , Gujarat and to a lesser extent Rajasthan and MP. Bilal Saheb, hopefully that will reinforce your view that Hindutva is different from Hinduism and Hinduism different from India. My strong hope is that economic upliftment will get rid of these rogues and fascists. A strong beginning has been made and it is attaining momentum or my aforementioned inertia of motion. For example, note a recent world bank project initiated within the Power sector in UP. The UPEB used to have an efficiency level of 30% at the POS. What was fascinating was that the public sector employees went on strike protesting against the privatisation of the state electricity board, and it turned out, during the strike period, the efficiency actually went UP (no pun intended). Unfortunately, the national capital is in New Delhi, if the location had been different, things may have turned out much different :)
In conclusion, one hopes (with reason - hopefully) that economic progress and rising educational levels would draw this poison out of the Indian society. As for as Pakistan understanding this distinction, Bilal Saheb, I have my doubts about this, its difficult enough for ordinary Indians themselves to make the distinction, to have Pakistani`s make the distinction may be asking too much.
Sincerely
bd
Re: Your questions and your suggested answers. I would like to suggest the involvement of foreign intelligence agencies within Pakistan and the requirement by certain western powers to keep things in balance or to clip the political ``wings`` of the armed forces. Foreign Intelligence Agencies and the media have long formed a somewhat symbiotic relationship (in both countries). Instead of looking internally into the causes/people/reasons for release of the report, you may find it more conducive to explore and wonder at the foreign ``hand`` angle.
Bahmad #151
Bilal Saheb, I strongly agree with your statement that there is a difference between Hindutva and Hinduism. Somebody also mentioned that it was the rise in ``Islamic fundamentalism`` within Pakistan which was the main reason behind the rise of ``Hindutva``. I would respectfully disagree on this statement. That is, IMHO, a too simple explanation to cater for a myriad of sociological developments within India. Within history, whenever a third party is blamed for one`s own problems, the chances are extremely high that the problems like within ourselves rather than others. Given what humans are, they find it easier to blame ``others`` than to carry out a introspection exercise. Dilip D`Souza has raised a crucial point about the moral weakness of the country`s leaders. I need not re-hash the arguments given in his column, simply emphasise one crucial point. Given the total if not minimal objective of ``public service``, lining one`s pockets takes precedence over lining the countrymen`s pockets, and to the devil with good governance. Simply speaking, the sheer mass of the country introduces a huge inertia of rest (and motion). This has its bad points as well as good points. The bad points are that mistakes made by political leaders are usually submerged in the vast mass of the country and because policy made by these leaders have a very long lead time for the conclusion. This allows them off the hook. The ignorance and apathy of the population plays into their hands, since they do not or can not undertake a proper analysis of policy decisions and hold leaders accountable. In the few instances that events happen which require immediate ``command`` decisions, it comes a cropper. During these points, the leaders would find it easier to blame somebody else than to investigate internally. The fact that internal causes gave rise to the problems and an outside force took advantage of that internal cause is a distinction that is never or rarely made. This situation is not restricted to political problems but to economic ones as well. For example, I am still unable to understand why Mr. Arun Shourie had to setup a second disinvestment commission, when the first disinvestment commission`s report is gathering dust. The first commission recommended outright disposal of 80 PSU`s and after 8 years, ONE unit, MODERN BREADS (I just fail to understand the strategic implications of the public sector investing in bread manufacturing) has been disinvested, and now it looks like the disinvestment is not going to happen for another 8 years.
I have to admit that this situation is changing, Indian people are getting economically better and educationally qualified. The IT boom HAS spread across India, with the result that even small towns have mushrooming IT schools and colleges. The other relevant factor is that the Indian software industry is outward looking and international in scope/vision. This, (un)fortunately, has brought a waft of international news/opinion/economics into the lower reaches of the middle class, making them conscious of the international and national economic opportunities available, the threats to this new found economic status and the worry about wealth. This, at the bottom level, makes the 18-40 generation considerably outgoing as well as nervous about the threats, specially for a nation which was previously inward looking. In addition, let us not forget the generational change happening on the decision making level. The current crop of national leaders belong to the 1960`s or earlier generation, and most of them either grew up post independence or non-ex-congress. They do not have the familiar foundation of the independence fight underneath them or the walls of moral rectitude of the secularists around them. Consequently, they are exposed to the buffeting winds of massive economic change as well as the glare of a international press/internet/transparency upon them. This makes them as well as the Indian public (not all, but mostly in the north and east region) highly susceptible to using religious issues as well as a third party hand accusations to explain and try to contain perceived or real threats.
Which brings us to the Hindutva card. The quoted reason that ``Hinduism is in danger`` is so preposterous that it doesn`t bear repeating or even analysing. The sheer concept that if few adivasis are converted to Christianity or the Muslims want to control India, the entire religion is in danger is deeply flawed. Another major issue is the fact that this Hindutva issue is restricted to the north and west, that too within certain particular areas and economic / education level classes. The Hindutva issue was not able to find roots anywhere in the east or south indicates that there are many significant fault lines within this concept. In the east, the preponderance of, for example, the Ramakrishna / Vedanta Philosophy and down south (many more philosophies - mainly oriented towards Narayan) has negated the concept. Higher educational levels in both the south and east also have lots to do with the negation of Hindutva. Historical revisionism is also rife in the north/west rather than south/east. If you look at the list of temples built over mosques, you would find that they are (surprisingly enough) spread almost equally all over India, but the religious agitations were only successful in only some states, UP , Gujarat and to a lesser extent Rajasthan and MP. Bilal Saheb, hopefully that will reinforce your view that Hindutva is different from Hinduism and Hinduism different from India. My strong hope is that economic upliftment will get rid of these rogues and fascists. A strong beginning has been made and it is attaining momentum or my aforementioned inertia of motion. For example, note a recent world bank project initiated within the Power sector in UP. The UPEB used to have an efficiency level of 30% at the POS. What was fascinating was that the public sector employees went on strike protesting against the privatisation of the state electricity board, and it turned out, during the strike period, the efficiency actually went UP (no pun intended). Unfortunately, the national capital is in New Delhi, if the location had been different, things may have turned out much different :)
In conclusion, one hopes (with reason - hopefully) that economic progress and rising educational levels would draw this poison out of the Indian society. As for as Pakistan understanding this distinction, Bilal Saheb, I have my doubts about this, its difficult enough for ordinary Indians themselves to make the distinction, to have Pakistani`s make the distinction may be asking too much.
Sincerely
bd
#173 Posted by Umairr on August 27, 2000 8:56:37 pm
shankar #165: Very nicely stated.
One of the few reasons I continue to have hope in India and Pakistan eventually making peace is because there are people with your views who are still present in India. Very few of them show up on Chowk, for some reason.
I think people from India and Pakistan have to first of all establish some sort of a principle on which they base their arguments. They have to then apply that priciple uniformally across all conflicts, disagreements, wars, etc. that have occurred in South Asia. This priciple could be based on, ``might is right,`` or ``right is might,`` or nationalism or anything else. In my opinion, the ideal principle should be based on human rights and self-determination.
Once people (whether Indian, Pakistani, Hindu, Muslim etc.) have established their principles, they need to apply it evenly and fairly. They cannot only apply the principle when it suits them, their country, their religion etc. And not apply it when it doesn`t. That is hypocrisy.
I believe the only time a person has a right to kill another is in self-defence. The only time a nation has a right to go to war against another, is for self-defence. Not to broaden its borders, nor to forcefully keep dissenting groups within its borders. That is why, on principle, I oppose the conquests of Muslim rulers over India, I support the creation of Pakistan, I oppose the actions taken by West Pakistan in East Pakistan, and I oppose the actions of India in Kashmir. All of these stands are based on a priciple of people living the way they want to live (self-determination). A person can either support all the above, or oppose all the above, based on his/her principle. One cannot support some of the above, and oppose the others.
I have never been able to figure out why one human being (or one group of people) would want to dominate another, just to fulfill the former`s desires. It is this desire that leads to the most awful suppressions, genocides, and holocausts. The global village, will eventually reach a stage where geographical boundries will disappear in the economic melting pot. There is an open border between the USA and Canada. There are open borders within Europe, and they are now moving towards being a united economic entity. So while each tiny Europoean country is ruled by the govt. of its choice, economically speaking they are (or soon will be) somewhat of a cohesive group. That is what needs to happen in South Asia.
However for the above to happen, each small groups desires have to be respected. This desire could be anything from wearing a certain type of clothing to demanding a separate country. In an ideal scenario, all of South Asia would be one naiton, like the USA. However, that usually happens if the whole area was one group to begin with. Since, South Asia has a history of being a tossed salad of so many different groups, the European model is probably a closer equivalent. Any group in South Asia that wants to govern itself should be allowed to do so (like Europe). Currently, every group that desperately wanted to achieve independence (India, Pakistan, Bangladesh etc.) has done so, except Kashmir. Once the above occures, there will be peace in the region. At that point, the independent groups will automatically turn to each other economically.
Take the example of West Pakistan and East Pakistan. Ideally speaking, they should have been one happy family. However, that did not occur due to various reasons. Now suppose West Pakistan would have been able to keep control of East Pakistan militarily till today, like India is doing in Kashmir. Would that have actually benefited West Pakistan? Would it have been easier for a West Pakistani to enter East Pakistan in that scenario, or is it easier for a Pakistani to enter Bangladesh now? I think the obvious answer is the later. Similarly, is it easier for an Indian to enter a militarily controlled Kashmir now, or would it be easier for an Indian to enter an independent Kashmir? East Pakistanis hated West Pakistanis with a passion, however now I do not think Bangladeshis hate Pakistanis, and would probably be more than happy to enter into economic partnerships. Kashmiris hate Indians with a passion currently, however as an independent group would be more than happy to enter into economic partnerships.
I am quite glad that East Pakistan and West Pakistan did not have a common border. Had their been a common border, like India and Kashmir, West Pakistan would have been able to control East Pakistan militarily, like India is currently controlling Kashmir. This would have led to a 50 year Kashmir-like sitution in Pakistan. Situations like that do not benefit anyone.
Any independence movement that has the following three ingredients is bound to succeed: support of the general population of the area, support of a third country with a common border, a core group of people (militants/freedom figthers/terrorists; call them whatever you want) willing to die for independence. East Pakistan had all three, and thus achieved independence. Had Pakistan realized this early on, all the violence could have avoided. And the end result would have been the same, i.e. an indpendent Bangladesh. Kashmir has the above mentioned three ingredients also (it also has a few extra ones like the UN Resolution etc.). So, sooner or later, it will separate from India also. Unfortunately, India has made the same mistakes in Kashmir, as Pakistan made in Pakistan. India still has a chance that Pakistan never got, i.e. a chance to redeem itself. However, for that to happen, Indians need to base their arguments on principles and not on self-aggrandizement.
Regardless of India`s motives, interests and involvements (and despite the actions of Mukti Bahni etc.), I support the independence of East Pakistan. I apply the same principle to it that I apply to the creation of Pakistan; the desire of one group to live the way they want to live, not how someone else wants to live. Your post, which is contradictory to almost all the posts from Indians on this site, gives me some hope that their are people in India who share the same principles.
One of the few reasons I continue to have hope in India and Pakistan eventually making peace is because there are people with your views who are still present in India. Very few of them show up on Chowk, for some reason.
I think people from India and Pakistan have to first of all establish some sort of a principle on which they base their arguments. They have to then apply that priciple uniformally across all conflicts, disagreements, wars, etc. that have occurred in South Asia. This priciple could be based on, ``might is right,`` or ``right is might,`` or nationalism or anything else. In my opinion, the ideal principle should be based on human rights and self-determination.
Once people (whether Indian, Pakistani, Hindu, Muslim etc.) have established their principles, they need to apply it evenly and fairly. They cannot only apply the principle when it suits them, their country, their religion etc. And not apply it when it doesn`t. That is hypocrisy.
I believe the only time a person has a right to kill another is in self-defence. The only time a nation has a right to go to war against another, is for self-defence. Not to broaden its borders, nor to forcefully keep dissenting groups within its borders. That is why, on principle, I oppose the conquests of Muslim rulers over India, I support the creation of Pakistan, I oppose the actions taken by West Pakistan in East Pakistan, and I oppose the actions of India in Kashmir. All of these stands are based on a priciple of people living the way they want to live (self-determination). A person can either support all the above, or oppose all the above, based on his/her principle. One cannot support some of the above, and oppose the others.
I have never been able to figure out why one human being (or one group of people) would want to dominate another, just to fulfill the former`s desires. It is this desire that leads to the most awful suppressions, genocides, and holocausts. The global village, will eventually reach a stage where geographical boundries will disappear in the economic melting pot. There is an open border between the USA and Canada. There are open borders within Europe, and they are now moving towards being a united economic entity. So while each tiny Europoean country is ruled by the govt. of its choice, economically speaking they are (or soon will be) somewhat of a cohesive group. That is what needs to happen in South Asia.
However for the above to happen, each small groups desires have to be respected. This desire could be anything from wearing a certain type of clothing to demanding a separate country. In an ideal scenario, all of South Asia would be one naiton, like the USA. However, that usually happens if the whole area was one group to begin with. Since, South Asia has a history of being a tossed salad of so many different groups, the European model is probably a closer equivalent. Any group in South Asia that wants to govern itself should be allowed to do so (like Europe). Currently, every group that desperately wanted to achieve independence (India, Pakistan, Bangladesh etc.) has done so, except Kashmir. Once the above occures, there will be peace in the region. At that point, the independent groups will automatically turn to each other economically.
Take the example of West Pakistan and East Pakistan. Ideally speaking, they should have been one happy family. However, that did not occur due to various reasons. Now suppose West Pakistan would have been able to keep control of East Pakistan militarily till today, like India is doing in Kashmir. Would that have actually benefited West Pakistan? Would it have been easier for a West Pakistani to enter East Pakistan in that scenario, or is it easier for a Pakistani to enter Bangladesh now? I think the obvious answer is the later. Similarly, is it easier for an Indian to enter a militarily controlled Kashmir now, or would it be easier for an Indian to enter an independent Kashmir? East Pakistanis hated West Pakistanis with a passion, however now I do not think Bangladeshis hate Pakistanis, and would probably be more than happy to enter into economic partnerships. Kashmiris hate Indians with a passion currently, however as an independent group would be more than happy to enter into economic partnerships.
I am quite glad that East Pakistan and West Pakistan did not have a common border. Had their been a common border, like India and Kashmir, West Pakistan would have been able to control East Pakistan militarily, like India is currently controlling Kashmir. This would have led to a 50 year Kashmir-like sitution in Pakistan. Situations like that do not benefit anyone.
Any independence movement that has the following three ingredients is bound to succeed: support of the general population of the area, support of a third country with a common border, a core group of people (militants/freedom figthers/terrorists; call them whatever you want) willing to die for independence. East Pakistan had all three, and thus achieved independence. Had Pakistan realized this early on, all the violence could have avoided. And the end result would have been the same, i.e. an indpendent Bangladesh. Kashmir has the above mentioned three ingredients also (it also has a few extra ones like the UN Resolution etc.). So, sooner or later, it will separate from India also. Unfortunately, India has made the same mistakes in Kashmir, as Pakistan made in Pakistan. India still has a chance that Pakistan never got, i.e. a chance to redeem itself. However, for that to happen, Indians need to base their arguments on principles and not on self-aggrandizement.
Regardless of India`s motives, interests and involvements (and despite the actions of Mukti Bahni etc.), I support the independence of East Pakistan. I apply the same principle to it that I apply to the creation of Pakistan; the desire of one group to live the way they want to live, not how someone else wants to live. Your post, which is contradictory to almost all the posts from Indians on this site, gives me some hope that their are people in India who share the same principles.
#172 Posted by shammi on August 27, 2000 8:56:37 pm
First of all, let me lay my credentials and biases on the table – I am an Indian, who has come to admire Jinnah over the past few years (not for his vision, but for his tenacity and willpower). My mother was born in Peshawar (where her family had lived for generation before partition, and my father`s family is from Jhelum, Punjab, Pakistan). I have also (I would like to think!) come to view Indian history from a slightly different perspective than the average Indian. I do not believe that Jinnah was the devil. There are lessons for all of us from our shared history– those who do not learn from history are condemned to repeat it. United we stand, divided we fall.
Many contemporary revisionist historians (led by the eminent Pakistani Ayesha Jalal) believe that even Jinnah doubted the viability of Pakistan as a nation state. They believe, that Jinnah used it as a bargaining chip to ensure greater representation of Muslims in independent India. This is evidenced by the fact that Jinnah agreed to several plans that would have prevented Partition (including the ill-fated Cabinet Mission Plan) only to be rebuffed by the Congress (principally Nehru). There is a lesson for Indians here – a society as heterogeneous and complex as India needs representation of all segments in government to be stable.
Even the former Maharashtra attorney general HM Seervai in his book “Partition of India: Legend and Reality” indicates that the principle of secular government or one-person one-vote could have been sacrificed for the larger cause of preserving Hindu-Muslim unity (as indeed other democracies have – most notably the USA where each state, regardless of population, is given equal representation in the Senate. This was done as a matter of expedience to ensure that the USA came into being).
Why then did Congress and Nehru oppose it? Two reasons can be given – a) sheer lust for power, or b) matter of principle coupled with seeing through Jinnah’s bluff and calling it. There is evidence to support that it was a combination of both factors (too detailed for me to describe here but try reading Stanley Wolpert’s books on Jinnah and Nehru and Seervai’s book on Partition). The consequences are for all to see – skyrocketing defence budgets, destabilization of one regime by the other, and so on.
Sadly, the second reason – calling Jinnah’s bluff (i.e. the viability of Pakistan as a nation state) can no longer be considered mere bluster. There is accumulating evidence that Pakistan may collapse under its own weight. (Read the article http://www.theatlantic.com/cgi-bin/o/issues/2000/09/kaplan.htm where Robert Kaplan states “Pakistan is crumbling fast. The country is a Yugoslavia in the making, but with nuclear weapons.”). Lest the Indians on this message board exult with joy, let me remind them of the consequences of this to our country: greater disorder on India’s border with Pakistan, terrorists roaming not with RDX but with nuclear weapons in major Indian cities, smuggling of contraband, narco-terrorism on a big scale, etc. Such a scenario, if it comes to pass, will be a disaster for Pakistan and India (for the two are joined at the hip).
There is a need for reflection by all Indians (and Pakistanis) to consider how ‘to stand tall and look far’ together over the current morass. I think that Indians need to consider how to reduce Pakistani insecurities regarding India and Pakistanis need to consider how to focus more on nation-building and not be distracted/obsessed by Kashmir and Afghanistan. If the two cannot focus on these issues, then sadly history WILL repeat itself. The subcontinent will become a playground of foreign powers to practice their rivalries for generations to come, as one weak state after another invites foreign help to prop itself up. After all, when Mir Jafar invited the East India Company to invade Siraj-ud-Daula’s Bengal in 1757, is fundamentally, not too different from Pakistan joining the Western alliance in the early 1950s or the invitation extended in the 1990s to foreign ‘jehadis’ in Kashmir (with disastrous results for Indians and Pakistanis alike). Indians and Pakistanis can learn the wrong lesson at their own peril – that ‘Muslims always betray India’, or that ‘a pan-islamic order is the best solution to the subcontinent’s troubles’, or the correct lesson that ‘divided we fall, united we stand’.
Perhaps this paragraph from Kaplan’s article sums it all:
“At the end of my visit to Pakistan, I sat with a group of journalists trying to fathom why Nawaz Sharif, when still Prime Minister, had reportedly turned down an offer of several billion dollars in aid from the United States in return for agreeing not to test nuclear weapons. A Pakistani friend supplied the simple answer: ``India had tested them, so we had to. It would not have mattered who was Prime Minister or what America offered. We have never defined ourselves in our own right -- only in relation to India. That is our tragedy.``
Many contemporary revisionist historians (led by the eminent Pakistani Ayesha Jalal) believe that even Jinnah doubted the viability of Pakistan as a nation state. They believe, that Jinnah used it as a bargaining chip to ensure greater representation of Muslims in independent India. This is evidenced by the fact that Jinnah agreed to several plans that would have prevented Partition (including the ill-fated Cabinet Mission Plan) only to be rebuffed by the Congress (principally Nehru). There is a lesson for Indians here – a society as heterogeneous and complex as India needs representation of all segments in government to be stable.
Even the former Maharashtra attorney general HM Seervai in his book “Partition of India: Legend and Reality” indicates that the principle of secular government or one-person one-vote could have been sacrificed for the larger cause of preserving Hindu-Muslim unity (as indeed other democracies have – most notably the USA where each state, regardless of population, is given equal representation in the Senate. This was done as a matter of expedience to ensure that the USA came into being).
Why then did Congress and Nehru oppose it? Two reasons can be given – a) sheer lust for power, or b) matter of principle coupled with seeing through Jinnah’s bluff and calling it. There is evidence to support that it was a combination of both factors (too detailed for me to describe here but try reading Stanley Wolpert’s books on Jinnah and Nehru and Seervai’s book on Partition). The consequences are for all to see – skyrocketing defence budgets, destabilization of one regime by the other, and so on.
Sadly, the second reason – calling Jinnah’s bluff (i.e. the viability of Pakistan as a nation state) can no longer be considered mere bluster. There is accumulating evidence that Pakistan may collapse under its own weight. (Read the article http://www.theatlantic.com/cgi-bin/o/issues/2000/09/kaplan.htm where Robert Kaplan states “Pakistan is crumbling fast. The country is a Yugoslavia in the making, but with nuclear weapons.”). Lest the Indians on this message board exult with joy, let me remind them of the consequences of this to our country: greater disorder on India’s border with Pakistan, terrorists roaming not with RDX but with nuclear weapons in major Indian cities, smuggling of contraband, narco-terrorism on a big scale, etc. Such a scenario, if it comes to pass, will be a disaster for Pakistan and India (for the two are joined at the hip).
There is a need for reflection by all Indians (and Pakistanis) to consider how ‘to stand tall and look far’ together over the current morass. I think that Indians need to consider how to reduce Pakistani insecurities regarding India and Pakistanis need to consider how to focus more on nation-building and not be distracted/obsessed by Kashmir and Afghanistan. If the two cannot focus on these issues, then sadly history WILL repeat itself. The subcontinent will become a playground of foreign powers to practice their rivalries for generations to come, as one weak state after another invites foreign help to prop itself up. After all, when Mir Jafar invited the East India Company to invade Siraj-ud-Daula’s Bengal in 1757, is fundamentally, not too different from Pakistan joining the Western alliance in the early 1950s or the invitation extended in the 1990s to foreign ‘jehadis’ in Kashmir (with disastrous results for Indians and Pakistanis alike). Indians and Pakistanis can learn the wrong lesson at their own peril – that ‘Muslims always betray India’, or that ‘a pan-islamic order is the best solution to the subcontinent’s troubles’, or the correct lesson that ‘divided we fall, united we stand’.
Perhaps this paragraph from Kaplan’s article sums it all:
“At the end of my visit to Pakistan, I sat with a group of journalists trying to fathom why Nawaz Sharif, when still Prime Minister, had reportedly turned down an offer of several billion dollars in aid from the United States in return for agreeing not to test nuclear weapons. A Pakistani friend supplied the simple answer: ``India had tested them, so we had to. It would not have mattered who was Prime Minister or what America offered. We have never defined ourselves in our own right -- only in relation to India. That is our tragedy.``
#171 Posted by shammi on August 27, 2000 8:56:37 pm
Re: krashid #126
``Who led India in 1965 and 1971 wars``
India in 1965 and 1971 was led by democratically elected prime ministers (the dimunitive Lal Bahdur Shastri and Indira Gandhi, respectively). (BTW, the 1965 war (all neutral observers agree) was initiated by Ayub`s brainstorm named Operation Gibraltar.)
As regards Hitler, you will (I hope) know that by the time he attacked Poland in 1939, he no longer led a legitimate, constitutional government -- having broken and circumvented many constitutional safeguards by them.
``Who led India in 1965 and 1971 wars``
India in 1965 and 1971 was led by democratically elected prime ministers (the dimunitive Lal Bahdur Shastri and Indira Gandhi, respectively). (BTW, the 1965 war (all neutral observers agree) was initiated by Ayub`s brainstorm named Operation Gibraltar.)
As regards Hitler, you will (I hope) know that by the time he attacked Poland in 1939, he no longer led a legitimate, constitutional government -- having broken and circumvented many constitutional safeguards by them.
#170 Posted by shankar on August 27, 2000 8:56:37 pm
Contemplative,
post #169
I admit the role of the Indian govt in Kashmir is something I`m not proud of. Let me ask you this question? Perhaps it is naive, but I`ll ask it anyway.
What is the status of muslim refugees in Azad Kashmir? I know for a fact that the plight of Kashmiri pandit refugees is deplorable, because one of my friends is a Kashmiri pandit refugee.
I was in the final year in high school in 71. As a member of the Interact club (the high school eqvivalent of the Rotary club), a few students & I volunteered to go to a Bangladeshi refugee camp. The sight of the camp was almost like the refugee camps we see in the Ethiopian famine. Growing up in Bombay, I have seen my share of poverty & squalor. But nothing prepared me for the shock. The vacant cries of orphans whose parents were butchered still haunt me. ``Fortunately`` I came down with severe dysentery in a few days & had to be sent home.
Maybe I was young, idealistic & still not mature. But I felt it was provocation enough for India to intervene. In any case, the reports & pictures in respected journals like Time & Newsweek also bear out the unbearable horror that was bestowed upon the East Pakistanis.
I`m sure the Indian govt wanted to intervene. It was a once in a lifetime opportunity to get back for any perceieved grudges against Pakistan. However, it would have been extremely hard pressed to make the case in the court of world public opinion if it was`nt for the refugees. Even though the Nixon administration tilted towards Pakistan, the American press was totally pro Indian.
In Kissinger`s memoirs, when commenting on the 71 war ,he wistfully talked about how Indian diplomats ``completely outclassed me`` when it came to the press & general public opinion.
In the final analysis, we can argue ad nauseum who provokes who more; or who started the provocation first--its a moot issue. My point was that if India responds to provocation, it shouldnt be called a bully.
post #169
I admit the role of the Indian govt in Kashmir is something I`m not proud of. Let me ask you this question? Perhaps it is naive, but I`ll ask it anyway.
What is the status of muslim refugees in Azad Kashmir? I know for a fact that the plight of Kashmiri pandit refugees is deplorable, because one of my friends is a Kashmiri pandit refugee.
I was in the final year in high school in 71. As a member of the Interact club (the high school eqvivalent of the Rotary club), a few students & I volunteered to go to a Bangladeshi refugee camp. The sight of the camp was almost like the refugee camps we see in the Ethiopian famine. Growing up in Bombay, I have seen my share of poverty & squalor. But nothing prepared me for the shock. The vacant cries of orphans whose parents were butchered still haunt me. ``Fortunately`` I came down with severe dysentery in a few days & had to be sent home.
Maybe I was young, idealistic & still not mature. But I felt it was provocation enough for India to intervene. In any case, the reports & pictures in respected journals like Time & Newsweek also bear out the unbearable horror that was bestowed upon the East Pakistanis.
I`m sure the Indian govt wanted to intervene. It was a once in a lifetime opportunity to get back for any perceieved grudges against Pakistan. However, it would have been extremely hard pressed to make the case in the court of world public opinion if it was`nt for the refugees. Even though the Nixon administration tilted towards Pakistan, the American press was totally pro Indian.
In Kissinger`s memoirs, when commenting on the 71 war ,he wistfully talked about how Indian diplomats ``completely outclassed me`` when it came to the press & general public opinion.
In the final analysis, we can argue ad nauseum who provokes who more; or who started the provocation first--its a moot issue. My point was that if India responds to provocation, it shouldnt be called a bully.
#169 Posted by contemplative on August 27, 2000 2:40:44 pm
Re: Sigalph #235
I think you reasoning and interpretation of history are far from the truth.
Kashmiri groups of all hues have invited Pakistan to invade and take over Kashmir. The only reason you do not have a popularly elected government in Kasmhmir asking the Pakistanis to come in is that Kashmiris have not participated in Indian elections and have consistently rejected these elections as well as Sheikh Abdullah who they percieve as an Indian puppet and who in fact is a non-entity in terms of the current imbroglio.
On the other hand Pakistan conducted a free and fair election with tremendous Bengali participation in 1971. Therefore we had a popularly elected ``alternate`` government to begin with.
Even so, the Kashmiri Parliament asked for autonomy and the Indian Government rejected this demand. If indeed the Indian Government followed the advice of a Bengali alternate government in exile, why not follow the advice of a Kashmiri state government that India recognizes and helped get elected?
I think you reasoning and interpretation of history are far from the truth.
Kashmiri groups of all hues have invited Pakistan to invade and take over Kashmir. The only reason you do not have a popularly elected government in Kasmhmir asking the Pakistanis to come in is that Kashmiris have not participated in Indian elections and have consistently rejected these elections as well as Sheikh Abdullah who they percieve as an Indian puppet and who in fact is a non-entity in terms of the current imbroglio.
On the other hand Pakistan conducted a free and fair election with tremendous Bengali participation in 1971. Therefore we had a popularly elected ``alternate`` government to begin with.
Even so, the Kashmiri Parliament asked for autonomy and the Indian Government rejected this demand. If indeed the Indian Government followed the advice of a Bengali alternate government in exile, why not follow the advice of a Kashmiri state government that India recognizes and helped get elected?
Interact Index
Latest Interacts
- masadi: Venga writes "HP, this... There is no ‘honour’
- masadi: Here is an article... There is no ‘honour’
- masadi: HP writes "were large... There is no ‘honour’
- tahmed32: #72 hamidm: i grew... Why Zardari Should Be
- hamidm2: Re: # 70 tahmed, .... so... Why Zardari Should Be
- tahmed32: hamidm: actually, i think... Why Zardari Should Be
- tahmed32: hamidm: as for "falling... Why Zardari Should Be
- tahmed32: hamidm: i am neither... Why Zardari Should Be
