Of Rites and Rights: An Interview with Asma Jahangir

Asma Jehangir says (from the interview):

“But where India fails us is their own domestic policies of promoting intolerance towards the religious minorities. It would be foolish to say that what happened in Gujarat doesn’t leave a bad taste in the mouth here. It is their country and it is their domestic affair, but it just shows that there is this bitterness in the region and it will be looked at in an emotional way in Pakistan. And it’s not necessary that because you’re a Muslim you’re looking at it in that way but the fact that this is what is happening to religious minorities in India, which prides itself in being secular, it gives a set back to secularists in our country…”

Whatever Asma Jehangir’s stature, the attitude she espouses here is wrong.

If India does not act in good faith to protect its law-abiding citizens from violence, irrespective of their religion or any other attributes – and does not act effectively to forestall or punish law-breakers and perpetrators of violence, irrespective of what group they might belong to – it is Indians’ collective national funeral.

Equal protection of all Indian citizens is something that Indians owe themselves, for their own good. It is not something due to Pakistan or Pakistanis. Pakistan is a separate sovereign nation, to whom India and Indians owe nothing. What Pakistanis do to each other on their own soil is their own affair and should not be used as a reference point or justification for any actions by Indians in India. And the same ought to hold for Pakistan and all other countries.

I reproduce my earlier post on the report by Anwar Ali. A must read for the ignorant Paki Islamists.
Kashmir and Indian Muslims
By Anwar Ali
A seminar was organized in Saharanpur recently by the local branch of ‘Milli Talimi Trust’. The topic of the seminar was ‘Role of Ulama in the War of Independence’. Many good speeches were delivered and crusading spirit and high moral characters of ulama of the past were emphasized.

But an important question that arises is ‘Will the ulama of the present day, specially those invited for this seminar and other prominent ulama whose names were included in the invitation follow the examples of previous ulama?’

Among the ulama of the past, two are great generals of the war of independence viz Maulana Abul Kalam Azad and Maulana Husain Ahmad Madani. For the present and under the existing circumstances the two most important problems for the future of Muslims are Hindu-Muslim problem and Kashmir problem and for both these problems the thoughts and activities of these great ulama are very important.

Maulana Azad wrote in his paper Al-Hilal in 1912 and subsequently said in his presidential address in the Khilafat conference at Agra in 1921 about Hindu Muslim problem and ‘the problem of nationality.

‘Hindu-Muslim unity is essential for India’s deliverance or freedom and also for Muslims to give their best performance in India. This is my belief which I have already declared in 1912 in the first issue of Al-Hilal. It is the religious duty of Indian Muslims to forge the bond of love in all sincerity with Hindus of India and become one nation along with them. They should mix up with twenty-two crore Hindus of India in such a way as to become one nation of India. Muslims of India will give their best performance when they will become one with Hindus’. (Ref. Khutbat-e Khilafat, pp. 87-88 ‘Marsia’ Prof. Mahmood Ilahi, Publisher: Urdu Academy, Lucknow).

In this way the late Maulana Azad induced Muslims in order to adopt the political principle of ‘Indian United Nationality’. This political belief of his is as important even now as it was during the days of Khilafat movement.

Sheikhul Islam Maulana Husain Ahmad Madani has described in detail this principle of ‘United Nationality of India’ in his famous work ‘United Nationality and Islam’. The political theory presented by him in this book in brief is: ‘Nations are built with motherland not with religion. This is to say, the basis of nationality is motherland. The Indian peninsula, with the Himalayas in the north, Indian Ocean in the South, Bay of Bengal and Arakan hills in the east and surrounded by Arabian Sea in the west is a geographical national unit, and its inhabitants, Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs and Christians form one ‘United Indian nation’. This principle of united nationality or nationhood is the basis of Constitution of India and the soul of the principle of secularism.

Qaid-e-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah was formerly, during a major part of his political career, was a believer in this principle and took pride in calling himself a disciple of Gokhle. Later on (after 1934) he became a standard bearer and champion of separate nationality and two-nation theory. The hero of Sarojini Naidu and the ‘ambassador of Hindi-Muslim unity’ got the country partitioned. But in his first speech of 14 August 1947, which he delivered in the inaugural session of Pakistan’s Legislative Assembly. He abandoned the two-nation theory and openly presented the theory of United Pakistan Nationhood’. He presented a blueprint of a secular, democratic and progressive Pakistan where in all Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs and Christians will be free and independent Pakistani citizens.

In short, the basis of a bright future of India (including Pakistan and Bangladesh as well) is the theory of united nationhood. Same was the theory or concept of the crusading ulama of freedom as well.

The Muslim mind projected by Maulana Azad and Rafi Ahmad Qidwai about the Kashmir problem was the same concept of united nationhood. Having faith in the same concept Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah was a strong champion of Kashmir’s accession to India and he described the accession as final.

And now, voices are being raised that the Kashmir Valley should be declared an independent territory and the Kashmir problem should be solved in this way. The Sangh ‘Parivar’, which believes and is working for a ‘separate nation of Hindus’ in accordance with the political ideology of Hindu Mahasabha and Jan Sangh calls Muslims as ‘they’ and Hindus as ‘we’. If Kashmir is divided and this problem is proposed to be solved by declaring Jammu (Hindu), Laddakh (Buddhist) and Kashmir Valley (Muslim) as regional units, this solution will have an adverse effect on the future of Muslims of India. Ismat Jahangir, head of Pakistan’s Human Rights Commission, in an interview to The Times of India correspondent expressed the fear that such a solution may result in Hindu backlash and even the security forces will not be able to control their feelings of ‘Hindutva’.

It is now the need of the hour that the ulama associated with Jamiat Ulama-e-Hind following in the footsteps of their predecessors and other ulama associated with Milli Council, Muslim Personal Law Board, Imam Bokhari, Sayed Shahabuddin and other intellectuals and important personalities should come forward to lead the Muslims. They should take practical steps following those of Maulana Azad and Rafi Ahmad Qidwai and in support of Sheikh Abdullah’s stand. They should also declare in loud and clear words that Muslims should also be included in any talks regarding Kashmir problem and that no solution of Kashmir problems will be acceptable without inclusion of Indian Muslims and that the problem of Kashmir should be solved on the basis of united Indian nationhood.

Let us hope that the organizers, ulama and others participating in the Saharanpur seminar will issue statements in detail and impress upon their central leaders to leave aside their political and other differences and unanimously declare that Indian Muslims believe in ‘united Indian nationhood’ of their founding predecessors and that solution of Kashmir problem will not be acceptable at the cost of ‘United Indian nationhood’. (Translated from Urdu) 
http://www.milligazette.com/Archives/01082002/01082002049.htm

Regarding #55 by HisExcellency on September 24, 2003 9:05am PT

``the Pakistani elites are the worst enemies of Indian Muslims....``
Oh! I forgot to add that the Pakistani elites are the worst enemies of their own people as well.
The General and his military elites have ensured that they remain relevant to the US by raising the spectare of Nuclear conflagration, war, terrorism and to the Pakistani public by making Kashmir the central and core issue to Pakistan`s nationhood (the unfinished business of two nation theory). He has ensured his survival for another decade and I doubt anyone will be able to unthrone him now. Pakistan will always remain under the tinpot despots for quite some time.

Regarding most of the immigrants becoming successful business people (perhaps dukandaars) is to taken with a pich of salt. In fact, most of the second generation Pakistanis care two hoots for Pakistan.

````To the contrary, Pakistan is highlighting the atrocities commited against Indian Muslims.......``

By what right Pakistan is speaking for the Indian muslims ?- this political ploy has been rejected by India muslims- they want Pakistan to mind its own muslims (if they can do it competently) and should not incite Indian muslims by recruiting the ignorant through ISI to kill its own bretheren. The Indian muslims do not want Pakistan to create an impression that they support the two nation theorists and re-affirm that they want to stay and adopt a secular Indian Constitution rathar than a fantasy land whose constitution itself is under dispute.

``That`s a confusing statement. ...``
I thought the conclusion was evident- ``Buzz - off`` and think about your own dismal future in your Pure-Land than try to pontificate on my problems in India.

Read on this report for a better understanding of Indian Muslim`s viewpoint than trying to speak for them without invitation:


````MPs` team sees change in mindset

By B. Muralidhar Reddy

ISLAMABAD June 24. The first Indian parliamentary delegation to visit Pakistan after the Kargil conflict is returning home with impressions of ``fundamental changes`` in the mindset of various sections of Pakistani society vis-a-vis India.

......................................
Mr. Siddiqui said he was intrigued by the people`s apathy towards jehad.

``
``In the past, whenever I mentioned Indian Muslims I was not allowed to speak. This time not only people are listening but they are also appreciating my point that Indian Muslims are a crucial part of the Indian secular fabric. And the Indian secular fabric is inextricably linked to a solution to the Kashmir issue``, he said.

He said in private people admitted that Pakistan cannot ignore the interests of the 18-crore Muslims of India for the sake of one-crore Kashmiri Muslims.
.............................
``.
http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/2003/06/25/stories/2003062505681200.htm

Stuka #106

{{The first shows the Jhelum and the second shows the Chenab and the Indus. The first two originate from Jammu and the Indus actually originates in Himachal.

Therefore, water is not the issue because Pakistan has been hankering after the valley and that still leaves India in possession of the original points of all rivers….}}

I suspect this reasoning is simplistic. A great river may have a designated source – typically in a glacier or glacial lake, if snow-fed – but it invariably has multiple tributaries and drains water from its entire catchment area, whether obtained from snowmelt or rainfall. For instance, I would guess that, although the Brahmaputra originates in Tibet, the majority of its flow is obtained from rainfall in India’s North-East, on our side of the Himalayas.

It would be necessary to determine the exact contributions of various sources and geographical areas of the Indus basin to the cumulative flow through the system. What is clear is that physical possession by Pakistan of Indian Jammu, Kashmir and Ladakh would absolutely deny India the ability to divert any portion of the flow originating in those areas. Perhaps (I am speculating in absence of a detailed knowledge of the topography) possession of a much smaller section – such as the valley and environs - would suffice for this purpose because of the technical infeasibility of diverting flow south from Ladakh.

HE #96

{{In all 3 cases (Junagadh, Kashmir, Hyderabad), the Indian case was constructed after a military invasion, not before it.}}

There is ample evidence that relatively insignificant Junagadh was a cunning trap laid by Jinnah to facilitate the accession of the far greater prizes of either Hyderabad or Kashmir. Thus the ‘fortuitous’ placement of Muslim League politician Shahnawaz Bhutto as Junagadh Dewan in May 1947. And hence Junagadh going into play on August 15th 1947 with its accession to Pakistan, in order to establish precedent one way or other.

As to military invasions, it is significant that the first such invasion was of Pakistani raiders led by Pakistani officers into Kashmir on 24th October 1947. Hari Singh acceded to India within the next two days and Indian troops were in Srinagar by 27th October. Indian troops did not move into Junagadh until November 9th 1947, at the express request of Dewan Shahnawaz Bhutto. The Hyderabad Police Action action came later in 1948

{{ However, the invasion of Junagadh and Hyderabad by Indian Army (on Patel`s orders) and refusal to accept verdict of princely rulers only highlights that India applied self-serving and inconsistent criteria to each state.}}

Yeah … and so did Pakistan. Don’t tell me the Junagadh ploy was anything but disingenuous and self-serving.

The difference is that India won, Pakistan mostly lost except for Indian land grabbed in Kashmir and Gilgit. Most of Pakistan’s sly schemes collapsed.

The outcome could have been predicted given the difference in resources between the two then dominions. And that is how matters stand today. Reconcile to it and get on with life.

{{Failure to find a solution will hurt both India and Pakistan (although some interactors here naively believe otherwise).}}

We’re already playing a zero-sum game at Pakistan’s insistence. Pakistan continues to bleed disproportionately and sink further into irrelevance compared with India. That is perfectly fine with me … it can continue indefinitely.

............ this dang kashmir issue is getting on my nerves......... all this talk about who is right and who is wrong is pure kaka .......... the only thing that matters is that india has posession which, as they say, is ninety nine percent of the law, and there is not a darn thing pakistan can do about it ........so there is no point in getting a hernia over some silly ``principles`` .......... if the pakistan army had the gonads to march onto srinagar without getting their tails kicked again, i would be all for it - after all, armies are paid to fight wars and not to check electricity meters or make corn flakes .............. but since this army is only capable of conquering islamabad, i would suggest that all pakis on chowk and elsewhere just shut up and get on with their miserable lives before they get into more trouble ............it just ain`t worth it .......... what if the horrible hindoos get all upset and decide to march onto muzaffarabad?......... and don`t tell me one jihadi equals ten vegetarians - that math has been proven wrong .............

............ and if our darned principles are really right, then sooner or later kashmir will be reunited, just like taiwan and china, north and south korea and the two germanies.......... it might take a hundred years, but what is the big hurry?............

Waisey, as a general comment, we have rehashed history a million times. It is better to look at present and future, rather than interpret history biased towards where we were born.

HE

``India applied self-serving and inconsistent criteria to each state. ``

True. So did Pakistan. In fact Patel offered a deal to Pakistan offering to exchange part of Kashmir for Hyderabad (Pakistan dropiing its claim) and Jinnah turned it down. Also, Indian Army went to Hyderabad only AFTER the Nizam broke the stand still agreement.

HE:

``I am glad to hear that at least some Indians are not afraid of the ``P`` word. ``

Sorry to dissapoint you. Sigalph is Bangladeshi, hence his previous discussion with you over 1971.

I don`t think you will find a single INDIAN who is okay with a plesbicite :)

HE:

``what do you think of the sudden challenge raised by Wesley Clark to George Bush? Opinion polls suggest a 3% lead for Clark just 1 week after his announcement to enter Presidential race! ``

I think Bush is going to be in deep political trouble. The only chance of his being reelected is if there is another major terrorist attack from now to Nov 2004. However, from a foreign policy issue, a Demcrat president will be bad news for India and Pakistan (establishments)

ArjunM:

``First of all, the major rivers run through Indian Kashmir..second of all, its the paki armies gravy train...How else would you explain el-presidents saying a piece of land they never held runs in their blood while a piece of land they ruled till 1971 was given away tamely...clearly Kashmir is about strategic importance(read rivers) and not about ideology... ``

Does not hold up to scrutiny. Check out these links carefully...

http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/middle_east_and_asia/kashmir_area.jpg

http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/middle_east_and_asia/kashmir_disputed_2003.pdf

The first shows the Jhelum and the second shows the Chenab and the Indus. The first two originate from Jammu and the Indus actually originates in Himachal.

Therefore, water is not the issue because Pakistan has been hankering after the valley and that still leaves India in possession of the original points of all rivers. Also, the river sharing agreement was signed after the Indo Pak dispute started on Kashmir and has carried on. There have been differences of opinion at times but the Treaty has withstood the test of time.

Internally, I agree that Pak Army has a stake in the Kashmir conflict. However, there is no guarentee that [ak Army will stop seeing India as an adversary and promoting that image in order to continue an advantageous position in its internal polity.

TAhmed: You are taking the narrow view of land as economic resource only. You are ignoring the impact of reorgainizing borders on a country`s internal body politic.

re:#56 by HisExcellency
Asma Jehangir`s thoughts have crystallised into present form after years of struggle and seeing the ``reality``. She says (and rightly) that trade and prosperity in the region should not be contingent on ``solving the Kashmir problem``.
Some day (hopefully) Pak would learn to throw all miltary dictators into the Arabian Sea and learn to elect ``popular leaders`` as rulers. When that happens, one hopes people like Asma Jehangir finds a place in the governance. She can do more ``good`` than all the military dictators have done for Pak so far.
Pak has squandered much wealth and opportunity by tying its fate with fate of Kashmir and allowing military rulers to determine how the country is to be governed. Pak needs trade because it is profitable and in a few years time it will be forced (by WTO rules) to grant India an MFN status. Trade is inevitable. The big question is : is Pak ready for it? By creating a constituency of hatred against everything ``indian``, trade with India is viewed in Pak as something ``undesirable``. Why? Nobody seems to know.
In this regard, Pak may learn something from the way India has forged ahead with trading with its bitterest enemy viz China.
http://straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/commentary/story/0,4386,211400,00.html
Excerpts:
``As far as some in India are concerned, the Chinese strategy of encirclement is betrayed not just in Beijing`s military ties with Islamabad, but with other budding alliances on India`s border. Foremost among these is Burma, whose ruling generals are dependent on China for most of their military hardware, diplomatic support and trade.

In addition, China is trying to build up a `free trade area` between itself and the 10 members of Asean - a grouping that excludes India.

India`s response to this fear of encirclement is threefold. First, it is aggressively boosting economic ties with China. Trade between the two has risen from US$100 million a decade ago to an expected US$10 billion by the end of next year. `We are not saying that trade with China will solve our border dispute,` said a senior Delhi official. `But it will help to put it in its proper perspective.`

Second, it is placing greater emphasis on its relations with the US. Third, it is stepping up ties with other Asian countries to counter China`s growing commercial reach. New Delhi is in talks with Thailand, Singapore and Asean to create free-trade agreements.``
Sridhar

re:#56 by HisExcellency
Asma Jehangir`s thoughts have crystallised into present form after years of struggle and seeing the ``reality``. She says (and rightly) that trade and prosperity in the region should not be contingent on ``solving the Kashmir problem``.
Some day (hopefully) Pak would learn to throw all miltary dictators into the Arabian Sea and learn to elect ``popular leaders`` as rulers. When that happens, one hopes people like Asma Jehangir finds a place in the governance. She can do more ``good`` than all the military dictators have done for Pak so far.
Pak has squandered much wealth and opportunity by tying its fate with fate of Kashmir and allowing military rulers to determine how the country is to be governed. Pak needs trade because it is profitable and in a few years time it will be forced (by WTO rules) to grant India an MFN status. Trade is inevitable. The big question is : is Pak ready for it? By creating a constituency of hatred against everything ``indian``, trade with India is viewed in Pak as something ``undesirable``. Why? Nobody seems to know.
In this regard, Pak may learn something from the way India has forged ahead with trading with its bitterest enemy viz China.
http://straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/commentary/story/0,4386,211400,00.html
Excerpts:
``As far as some in India are concerned, the Chinese strategy of encirclement is betrayed not just in Beijing`s military ties with Islamabad, but with other budding alliances on India`s border. Foremost among these is Burma, whose ruling generals are dependent on China for most of their military hardware, diplomatic support and trade.

In addition, China is trying to build up a `free trade area` between itself and the 10 members of Asean - a grouping that excludes India.

India`s response to this fear of encirclement is threefold. First, it is aggressively boosting economic ties with China. Trade between the two has risen from US$100 million a decade ago to an expected US$10 billion by the end of next year. `We are not saying that trade with China will solve our border dispute,` said a senior Delhi official. `But it will help to put it in its proper perspective.`

Second, it is placing greater emphasis on its relations with the US. Third, it is stepping up ties with other Asian countries to counter China`s growing commercial reach. New Delhi is in talks with Thailand, Singapore and Asean to create free-trade agreements.``
Sridhar

re:#61 by HisExcellency
There is a saying in Tamil, which when translated, means `` a frog, living in a well, thinks that the whole world is dark``.
That pretty much sums up the mindset of people like you.
You seem to be in your own little world, not aware of what is happening around you. Do you know why there was a bill introduced in the US Congress to ``monitor`` the training camps in Pak? President Bush has to certify yearly that Pak is making progress before the sum of $ 3 billion can be disbursed. Would this happen if everything was hunky-dory in ``the land of pure``?
http://www.sulekha.com/redirectnh.asp?cid=317796
``... the India Caucus, led by Eni Faleomavaega (D-AK), sponsored an amendment titled ``Section 708. Report On Actions Taken By Pakistan``, which was adopted. Accordingly, for the next two years, the president is required to prepare and transmit to Congress a report describing the extent to which the government of Pakistan has closed all known terrorist training camps operating in Pakistan and Pakistan-held Kashmir, has established serious and identifiable measures to prohibit the infiltration of Islamic extremists across the Line of Control (LoC) into India, and has ceased the transfer of weapons of mass destruction, including any associated technologies, to any third country or terrorist organization. ``
Sridhar

Ref arjun_m #78

[++
Kashmiri Muslims are in a majority in J&K. Under the India Independence Act
++

Umm...It was left to the ruler to decide and the hindu ruler decided in India`s favor...IF you have any dispute, it should be over hyderabad...we can hold a plebiscite there if you want..]

Actually, Hyderabad acceded to India just like Kashmir did, though it took its own sweet time about it. It is Junagadh that acceded to Pakistan due to the machinations of Jinnah and Shah Nawaz Bhutto (yes, the father of Zulfie Bhutto!) who was the Dewan of Junagadh. After the Nawab fled to Pakistan, the Dewan himself asked that the accession be revoked and a plebiscite was held in Junagadh which overwhelmingly supported accession to India.

End of history lesson.

Ref HisExcellency #86

[There is no definition of terrorism. One man`s terrorist is another man`s freedom fighter. So why get into the business of arbitrary definitions of terrorism? Every definition of terrorism is essentially a subjective one.

Take your own definition for example. How can proclaiming a dress code make you a terrorist?? Conservative Muslims have a dress code. Hasaddic Jews have it. Catholics bishops, nuns and pastors have it. So do Hindu saadhus and Buddhist monks. Just because you have a prejudice against burqas and hijab doesn`t mean that you can call it an act of terrorism.]

Hasidic Jews, Catholic bishops and nuns, Hindu sadhus and Buddhist monks do not throw acid on the faces of people who do not obey their dress codes. Also, all these people (with the exception of the Hasidim) voluntarily chose to accept these restrictions when they became members of the communities and the Hasidim have the choice of leaving Hasidic practices behind and joining any other Jewish groups or even other religions.

On the other hand, NOT ONE PERSON ON EARTH has ever VOLUNTARILY embraced Islam. You are either born into it or were coerced into it and trying to leave Islam is punishable by death. Thus throwing acid on the faces of women who violate the Islamic dress code -- which is NOT the shuttlecock burqa, I would like you to show me where exactly in Life`s Little Instruction Book According To Prophet Muhammad it says it is indeed the shuttlecock burqa that Allah has ordained that women should wear -- is in fact terrorism.

End of Logic Lesson #1.