FOCUS

NEW YORK TIMES –
KASHMIR & IDEA OF INDIA

It was not exactly, the famed Latin couplet Veni Vidi Vici. He came, he saw but did not quite conquer. Indians, at least most of them liked U.S. President Obama, since he is like one of them, a brownie, besides his oratorial skill and concern for the disadvantaged. He may still be the most liked U.S. President in India, but could have left the shore of India, post Republic Day celebrations in New Delhi, in a blaze of glory. But his parting remarks about secular credentials of India did leave an eminently avoidable jarring note in an otherwise a very successful journey to the world’s largest democracy. Then he followed it up in the U.S., at a meeting where he shared the podium with Tibetan spiritual leader Dalai Lama by mouthing similar unsolicited remarks. Of course, Dalai Lama, the spiritual head of Tibetans living in India, who has a first hand experience with the accommodation of exiled Tibetans across the country, ever since they left Tibet, post Chinese occupation of their mother land, did not join the issue to prove Barack Obama wrong. That was rather strange.

Coming to the remarks by President Obama, it may be, he was not very serious of what he was saying about the failure of secularism in India, unlike the New York Times (NYT) which published an Editorial comment. He, as it was largely believed in India, was only addressing the concern of a small interested section of Americans.

Coming to the NYT, it is important that, we need to reproduce the editorial of 6th Feb. 2015 for our readers to know, what the paper was harping on. NYT writes under the title – ‘Modi’s Dangerous Silence’ – “What will it take for Prime Minister Narendra Modi to speak out about the mounting violence against India’s religious minorities? Attacks at Christian places of worship have prompted no response from the man elected to represent and to protect   all of India’s citizens. Nor has he addressed the mass conversion to Hinduism of Christians and Muslims who have been coerced or promised money. 

Mr. Modi’s continued silence before such troubling intolerance increasingly gives the impression that he either cannot or does not wish to control the fringe elements of the Hindu nationalist right.

Recently, a number of Christian churches in India have been burned and ransacked. Last  December, St.Sebastian’s Church in East Delhi was engulfed in fire. Its pastor reported a strong smell of kerosene after the blaze was put out. On 2nd Feb., St. Alphonsa’s Church in New Delhi was vandalized. Ceremonial   vessels were taken, yet collection boxes full of cash were untouched. Alarmed by the attacks, the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of India has urged the government to uphold the secular nature of India and to assure its Christians they are “protected and secure” in their own country. 

 There is also concern about the mass conversions. Last December, about 200 Muslims were converted to Hinduism in Agra. In January, up to 100 Christians in West Bengal “reconverted” to Hinduism. Hard-line Hindu nationalist groups, like the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) and the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), make no secret of their support for a “homecoming” campaign designed to “return” non-Hindus to the fold. More than 80 per cent of Indians are Hindu, but Pravin Togadia of the VHP says his organisation’s goal is a country that is 100 per cent Hindu. The only way to achieve that is to deny religious minorities their faith.

The VHP is reportedly planning a mass conversion of 3,000 Muslims in Ayodhya this month. The destruction of the Babri Mosque there in 1992 by Hindu militants touched off riots between Hindus and Muslims across India that left more than 2,000 people dead. The VHP knows it is playing with fire.

 Mr.Modi has promised an ambitious agenda for India’s development. But, as President Obama observed in a speech in New Delhi last month: ‘India will succeed so long as it is not splintered along the lines of religious faith.’ Mr. Modi needs to break his deafening silence on religious intolerance.”  

From the above editorial, there are a few things which appear clear as somewhat agenda driven. There are any number of media houses, both print and electronic, who make a living out of catering to a section of its readers. Their main objective is not to serve the larger purpose of educating the readers with the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth. While reporting as truth, they invariably end up interpreting the events to serve its agenda. In the ultimate analysis they succeed to a good measure, in keeping the society divided and not united. NYT is not the only paper, there are any number of Indian news papers, in both English and other Indian languages, who fish in the troubled waters to muddy it further, as much as it can. The purpose is, ‘it sells’.

Two areas, the NYT editorial stress, are the alleged attacks on Christian place of worship and the alleged conversion of Christians and Muslims into Hindu faith. It gives two instances of attacks on churches, but makes no mention, fortunately, of any attack on Masjids or mosques. Then it elaborately writes on the alleged conversion of Christians and Muslims. In fact, in the little over 400 words editorial, more than 250 words are spent on this alleged ‘conversion’ business of Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) or Rashtriya Swayam Sevak Sangh (RSS). Thus, more than the attack on churches, it was the so-called conversion that NYT appeared to have got worked up. Clearly, for NYT it was not a national priority of human rights. They appeared to be addressing ‘someone else’ concerns. If human rights violation is the only issue, then right inside their United States of America, it’s a daily happening, whether it is the white policeman inflicting it to a non-white or black or it is the whites only jury returning the verdict of ‘not guilty’ on those white policemen, or those innumerable attacks on blacks, Indians, and others by whites of U.S.A. Or look at the record of Guantanamo Bay tortures, or those black inmates of jails, being subjected to medical trials by injecting virus first into their body including HIV viruses and try medicine or conduct medical trials on them. The list of human right violation is endless across the breadth and length of United States of America. The recent publication of the heart rending story of a 14 year old black boy sent to the electric chair is a case in point (See Box). After over 70 years “Teenager executed in 1944 held innocent” was the print media news, date lined Columbia in South Carolina U.S.A.

NYT, you are naked. And, the very fact, that weak and vulnerable are exposed to violent discrimination by the police and the jury, is the most heinous form of human right violations. In a society where weak and vulnerable are not protected, what right it has of being called civilized? Indeed you have forfeited your right to sermonise India.

India is a country with 1300 million people. Covering a geographical area of 3,287,263 sq. kms with thousands of churches from Kashmir and Kanya Kumari, from Kutch to Kohima. NYT could site only two instances. Yes indeed, even two should not have happened, but then, the whole world need to recognise, that India is the most complex country in the world, and you ask any European traveller, he will vouch for it. In a country, with some ½ a dozen religions, 23 official languages, over 1600 dialects, the level of tolerance across the national spectrum is fascinatingly credible. It is to be seen to be believed. But the fact of the matter is, like in all human habitations, consisting of religious or ethnic diversity, there is bound to be a small section of idiots in all groups, be it Hindu, be it Muslim or be it Christian, up to some mischiefs.  Sometime they can be even diabolic, where Hindus cause attack on Hindu shrines, so that Muslims can be blamed. Similarly Muslims can desecrate a Mosque, so that Hindus can be blamed. Similarly Christian youths could stone their church so that Hindu boys can be blamed. It’s an ongoing one-up manship. There are vested interest, keeping such divisive elements alive & kicking. But look at the bigger picture. Listen to Prof. Mathew Ninan, a practicing Christian, Principal of well known Little Rock institutions in Coastal Karnataka. “We live in a pluralistic society. India is a country of diversity, a rich tapestry of colour, caste, culture, community, religion and language. It is the envy of the whole world. To live and let live in such a society is the best thing that can happen. People of all faiths, co-existing like brothers and sisters, is the very picture of a fairy tale land of milk and honey. The common man, even to this day, has no prejudice against anyone. He is law abiding, peace loving, helpful and friendly. He is a good neighbour and a great friend in need. Our country is full of such men, who belong to all sections of society. They are real patriots”, he had written while commenting on the infamous ‘Amnesia Pub Attack’ in Mangalore some years ago. Then you have this Dr Khalil Ahmed, managing trustee of Karnataka Zakaath & Charitable Trust, an educational support initiative for Muslims. While distributing scholarship to Muslim students, he had stated “There is no country comparable to India, when it comes to individual freedom. Only after travelling in these western countries including USA and Arab countries and see for yourself the reality, that one will understand the real meaning of Indian democracy. Look at neighbour Pakistan, where the state of minorities is terrible”. These are contemporary observations and there are any number of them including M J Akbar, George Fernandese and others. History is replete with westerners, like Friedrich Max Muller, the German Indologist, Dr Arnold Toynbee, the global historian, John Keay a Scott and a regular traveller to India, then our very own Sikandar Bhakt, a former Industry Minister with NDA, who had glowing description of India and Indians.  Hence India or Indians certainly do not need any lessons from NYT and their ilk. If an overactive, but at times, divisive media, do not indulge in muck raking, these passing shows of apparent intolerance shall pass too, and then there was no need for NYT to term Prime Minister Narendra Modi non-response as “Modi’s Dangerous silence”. And as expected our media and the opposition politicians, ever on the lookout for a reason to attack the ruling combine, latched on to the NYT barb, as if that was a certificate. Of course it is also true that wherever and whenever BJP comes to power, their unruly fringe take advantage of the political power to cause unease among Muslims, may be even Christians. There is this perception, and this perception, to a large extent, is not wrong. Hence, Modi and his handpicked Amith Shah has to take the call to rein in these stupid elements within the ranks and files of Sangh Pariwar. After all India belongs to Indians of all hues, not just RSS and its followers. Besides, it needs to be clearly understood, that VHP or RSS represent only about 1/4 of Hindus in India and not the majority of Hindus. However it is also true that, these organizations may have divisive agenda but they are not violent.

Coming to Kashmir, a Muslim majority state in India has a history of unrest and disquiet, almost for all the 68 years of free India. According to the available history until 1320, when it was ravaged by Chengez Khan and his men, it was a Hindu Kingdom with Hindu population. Being ruled by Muslim ruler, in later years demographic composition changed and kept changing to make it Muslim majority. There is no recorded history of Hindus converting non-Hindus to Hinduism. The Muslim majority continued, despite the change in rulers. After about 600 years of Muslim rule in Kashmir, it became a part of Ranjit Singh empire and then Dogra dynasty. However composition remained. The failure of Hindu monarchy to give welfare oriented kingdom, unrest led to people’s movement under Sheikh Abdullah, whose ancestors were Hindus. It is a fact, that unlike Hindus and Christians, Muslims by nature are more assertive, and slowly peoples’ movement became pronounced. India became a free country from the colonial yoke. In all fairness Sheikh Abduallah could have been the elected Chief Minister of Kashmir. But, because of powerless monarchy and Congress party politics, they succeeded in dividing Muslim leadership and this machination continued for all the following decades. Sheikh Abdullah passed away. He was a good man, but his ambivalence of being uncertain, whether to go with India for good or to opt for Pakistan did dent his relationship with Delhi. Of course 1951 election, got all seats to Sheikh Abdullah’s National Conference. When Jawaharlal Nehru, the then India’s Prime Minister, visited Kashmir to congratulate the Kashmiri people for their new found freedom, Sheikh Abdullah and his people hailed “Kashmir will go with Nehru and India forever”. Sheikh Abudullah always wanted to be with India, since Kashmir had already a first hand experience of 22nd Oct. 1947 ‘tribal’ attack from Pakistani side. Thus he had no trust in Pakistani leadership. Yet, his uncertainty about going all out with India remained a thorn in his relationship with India. Power hunger of the powerless monarchy with alleged blessings of New Delhi, political polarization led to the birth of different movements in Kashmir and it continued even to this day, with active help and participation from Pakistan.

Death of Nehru, in May 1964, became a watershed in New Delhi’s relationship with Kashmir. Shaikh Abdullah and Kashmir had lost a good friend. In early 1965, Sheikh Abdullah travels aboard on an Indian passport, with nationality mentioned as ‘Kashmiri Muslim’. Was this not an assertion? How was this cleared without the intervention of PMO? Delhi patriots had a point. For all that India did to him and his state, including fighting a war on their behalf, when it came to nationality, he didn’t want to be called Indian. While being abroad, Sheikh Abdullah did the most unthinkable. He met and spoke to Chou-en-lai, the visiting Chinese premier, in Algiers. This was seen as hostile act and his passport was cancelled. Waiting for the opportunity Zulfikar Ali Bhutto offered him Pakistani passport. Ignoring the Bhutto generosity Sheikh Abdullah returned home to India in mid-May. But the birth of Bangladesh in 1971 convinced him that Pakistan cannot be trusted at all. Instinctively Sheikh Abdullah realised that he and his Kashmir shall go with India. However he didn’t live long enough to see that happen conclusively. 1975 Feb., saw him back in power with the Congress help. But June, 1975 he was out of office due to emergency. 1977, Janatha experiment helped him comeback. He remained in office until his death on 8th Sept. 1982. The whole of Kashmir had gathered at Srinagar polo ground to say good bye to the soul of their revered leader. Laid in state, the body of Lion of Kashmir was draped in Indian tricolour. Yes, at last Sheikh Abdullah had died as an Indian and reportedly Pakistan had no comment to offer.

Looking back, it is clear that different leadership in India did not disturb the Muslim character of the state by not enforcing anything contrary to what was agreed in the accession treaty, including article 370.

Party politics continued to vitiate the politics of Kashmir. But there was an entirely unexpected development in Kashmir. Almost immediately after the installation of V.P.Singh government in Delhi, where PDP leader Mufti Mohd. Sayeed was made the home minister, his daughter Dr Rubaiya Sayeed was kidnapped in Srinagar by four militants, demanding the release of 5 terrorists held in jail. Farooq Abdullah the then state Chief Minister was firm – no surrender to militants. 1989 Kashmir was different, like most parts of the world. Islam did not condone terrorists and kidnapping. The release of Dr Rubaiya was therefore not impossible, felt Farooq Abdullah. But Mufti, as home minister advised the Prime Minister to release 5 terrorists. Within 5 days of kidnapping, 5 terrorists were released, who reportedly left for POK after the release. This one act of indiscretion on the part of VP Singh was the single most important factor that caused most damage to the body politic of Kashmir. Was Mufti, a disgruntled ambitious Kashmiri, who was a pain to three Abdullahs (Shaikh, Farooq & Omar) planning some long term coup? Was he playing a dangerous and diabolic game to promote himself and his family?

Come 2015, the big moment came for Mufti. His party PDP got the largest number of seats, followed by BJP. To the national amazement, they both formed the government. Before the election, an idea was allowed to go round, can there be a Hindu Chief Minister in Kashmir? Whole of Kashmir valley came to vote, only to restrain Hindu BJP from getting the majority. It is sad, that Kashmiris still see the issue as Hindu Vs Muslim. Of course this time round, PDP was the larger partner hence CM had to be from PDP. But in 2002 Congress and PDP formed the government in Kashmir, but PDP had insisted on its Chief Ministership, despite Congress having more number of seats. Arrangement then, allowed Mufti’s daughter Mehbooba larger role in state politics. Beginning with the release of terrorists for the release of Mufti’s younger daughter Dr Rubaiya, in 1989, the hobnobbing with separatists had been on the increase. The 2002 arrangement opened the door for increased activity. 2015 is the culmination, which led to controversial remarks by Mufti on Pakistani & separatists' co-operation for the smooth election, to the release of hard core separatist Mussarat Alam, there appears to be a design. 

Secular India, despite its 68 years of impeccable credentials, despite Pakistan being, what it was and what it is, Kashmiri mindset sadly did not undergo the desired metamorphosis.  The problem with the problem is the way we look at the problem. It is the reluctance of Muslim majority in Kashmir, that is at the centre of the problem, to go separate or wanting to go with Pakistan and not remain united with the Hindu majority India.

J.SHRIYAN