Reporters, particularly foreign reporters, covering the current Kashmir crisis take as their starting point a nebulous reference to British India’s partition in August 1947 into the States of India and Pakistan and the apparently mysterious emergence of a viral dispute on Kashmir between them. It simply happened, they say. If, in the telling of World War II, no mention was made of the events that led to the conflagration, such as the Munich settlement of September 1938 between Nazi Germany, Britain and France, followed subsequently by the invasion of Czechoslovakia and the occupation of Prague by Hitler’s legions. Then came the Nazi assault on Poland, all these developments analysed in depth by historians, and rightly so. The background to present-day Kashmir requires, surely, similar exposure.
Let us begin with its genesis i.e. the Partition story. It took place on the canvas of what was directly-ruled territory of British India from Whitehall and New Delhi. The Princely States of the Subcontinent were governed by local potentates, with a government agent from Delhi keeping a watchful eye on peace and stability. At Partition the rulers of these Princely States were given the freedom to choose between union with India or Pakistan, the preferred option usually determined by the religion of the ruler and that of that of the bulk of his subjects. The State of Jammu and Kashmir [a single constitutional entity] proved an exception to this paradigm. The people of Jammu were mainly Hindu. The ruler of Jammu and Kashmir was Hari Singh, was a Dogra Hindu, while the Kashmir Valley was populated by a Muslim majority and a Hindu minority called Pandits, whose ancestral homeland the valley also happened to be. High up in the Himalayan uplands was thinly populated Buddhist Ladakh, conjoined for administrative convenience to the Princely State of Jammu and Kashmir.
Maharaja Hari Singh was uncertain as to his choice: India or Pakistan? The Governments of India and Pakistan came to a ‘Standstill Agreement’ to give him time to make up his mind. V.P. Menon, Home Minister Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel’s principal aide, in his magisterial work, The Integration of the Princely States (p 413) wrote that India ‘had no territorial ambitions in Kashmir...I can say in the face of any contradiction that the Government of India would have left Kashmir alone.’
It was the first of a litany of misjudgements that have plagued Pakistan down the years, when , Led by Mohammed Ali Jinnah, the Government of Pakistan decided on force majeure, dispatching into the valley in October 1947 a horde of inflamed Pathan tribesmen, who murdered, raped and looted their way to the outskirts of the capital, Srinagar, where they were resisted by the first contingent of the Indian Army [See Lt General L.P. Sen, Slender was the Thread], following Hari Singh’s hurried signature accepting Kashmir’s accession to the Union of India.
It became a different ball game thereafter. A military conflict had been thrust upon India by Jinnah, Pakistan’s founder, in a bid to humiliate despised ‘Hindu’ India. A reflective V.P. Menon was to write later: ‘When I recommended to the Government of India the acceptance of the accession of the Maharaja of Kashmir, I had in mind one consideration and one consideration alone, viz, that the invasion of Kashmir by the raiders was a grave threat to the integrity of India. Ever since the time of Mahmud Ghaznavi, that is to say, for nearly eight centuries...India has been subjected to periodic invasions from the north-west...And within less than ten weeks of the establishment of the State of Pakistan, its very first act was to let loose a tribal invasion through the north- west. Srinagar today, Delhi tomorrow. A nation that forgets its geography and history does so at its peril.’
Kashmir’s Hurriyat leaders, in the late 1980s, acquiesced in the ethnic cleansing of its Hindu Pandit population from the valley, aided and abetted by terrorist groups from across the border in Pakistan. The Pandits fled their ancestral homeland as internally displaced refugees in parts of India. The calculation, wrote a reporter of the Financial Times in London, being that if the Soviet Superpower could collapse, so could Third World India. Glib references are routinely made to UN resolutions calling for a plebiscite in the State, but the devil in the detail is as routinely ignored. The UN instructed Pakistan withdraw its forces from those parts of Kashmir under its occupation, which it ritually refused to do. Sir Owen Dixon, a former Chief Justice of Australia’s highest court, was appointed UN mediator on Kashmir. He failed to provide a solution acceptable to both parties, but his report specifically branded Pakistan as the aggressor.
India has been subjected to numerous terrorist attacks from Pakistan most notably on Mumbai in November 2008, in which 167 innocent people were killed. The export of terrorism as an instrument of statecraft is novel but has recoiled on the progenitor. The wars of 1965, 1971, plus the Kargil conflict of 1999 failed to deliver the prize viz Kashmir. They simply quickened the pace of India’s transformation from soft to hard state.
Amit Shah back tracks – wisely
Home Minister Amit Shah, having set the cat among the pigeons, with his peremptory demand that the Hindi language be adopted as the guarantor of Indian ‘identity’ and ‘unity, ’ was visibly shaken by uproar that followed in India’s South, and the unease in Bengal and elsewhere. Mr Shah’s retraction was accompanied by the bland excuse that he had been misquoted by the media and by political opponents – the familiar ploy of politicians in distress. Mr Shah said lamely that he had merely suggested non-Hindi speakers learn Hindi as a second language, with no question of any imposition, and hence wondered what the fuss was all about.
The Government of India in 1950 declared that English would remain India’s lingua franca for the next 15 years, after which Hindi would take over. Came 1965, there were riots in the South, especially fierce in Tamil Nadu, and strident calls for secession from the Indian Union. Passions cooled when Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, in 1967, came up with an acceptable three-language formula: English, Hindi and the local State language to co-exist in the national interest. Mr Shah erred egregiously with his ill advised intervention.
India’s Hindi belt may have the numbers but it remains economically, socially and culturally the country most backward region. India’s strength is its ethnic and linguistic diversity. An orchestra provides music as enchanting as solo performers. India must play to its unique strengths, not succumb to beguiling siren calls to disaster.
The BJP lists Swami Vivekenanda as a national icon. Well, when asked by a youth how he could be a good Hindu, the Swami replied, by first learning mathematics and English! Vivekenanda was fulsome in his praise of the British for demonstrating to the world the workings of freedom under the law. Bankim Chandra Chatterjee, famed composer of Bande Mataram advocated the retention of English in parallel to the mother tongue. Shyama Prasad Mookerjee, founder of the Jan Sangh, parent of the BJP, was India’s greatest parliamentarian, a master of the intricacies of Parliamentary procedure, spoke impeccable English in the chamber but addressed audiences in his native Bengal in chaste Bangla (Bengali).
Railways Minister Piyus Goyal struck an appropriate note, pointing to the need to think and act with a global vision. Cricket, hockey, soccer, tennis, badminton are British in origin, the Indian press, the first in Asia, noted Karl Marx, the Indian Constitution and the Indian military have a British parentage, do they not? Let common sense prevail over absurdist bigotry.
Modi Magic takes over the Great White North
Prime Minister Narendra Modi stirred quite the hornet's nest with his visit to the United States. However, I wouldn't say it's unprecedented. With NaMo, he creates his own protocol and he makes his own mark. The leader addressed over 50,000 Indian-Americans in a rousing event that was live-telecast across the globe. As 'Howdy Modi' began at 2 PM on a Sunday, my tiny apartment hosted approximately seven guests- four Indian-Canadians, a Chinese-Canadian, and two French nationals, all nestled together with food and drinks to watch Modi in his glory. The PM's address was our personal little Super Bowl.
'Howdy Modi' was rife with political significance, and US President was quite unrestricted with his affection for man of the hour. Both leaders walked hand in hand (Move over Putin, there's a new BFF in town) and in their speeches showered the other with word dripping with camaraderie and mutual respect. Setting aside the powerful words spoken by Modi, the whole air of the event seemed like a scorching slap in Pakistan's face.
In his speech, Modi bid farewell to a number of things, and spoke about the rise of a New India. He talked about bidding farewell to the controversial Article 370, and he dropped the gauntlet on Islamabad as Trump looked on with a smile. NaMo has had enough. He is not playing games anymore. He needs action and he needs it now.
During a cab ride to the doctor's on Monday, I have the luxury of knowing a Sri Lankan driver. An uninitiated talk on Modi, his work as prime minister and his speech in Houston, by a non-Indian was hint to just how impacting Modi's foreign visits can be. When Modi speaks, the world listens, and listen they did. The New York Times posted an article by Roger Cohen. Titled 'Don't Mess With Modi in Texas', the piece was a sharp-worded summary of the event and from what I read, the writer is an admirer of the Indian Prime Minister.
He concludes his column by writing, "Modi will not turn back from his elimination of Kashmir’s autonomy. That phase of Indian history is over. Trump and Modi are both forceful, media-savvy politicians. But they are not alike. Modi, a self-made man from a poor family, is measured, ascetic, not driven by impulse. Trump was born on third base. He’s erratic, guided by the devouring needs of his ego. I’d bet on Modi to transform India, all of it, including the newly integrated Kashmir region."
The focus was not only on Modi. The customarily bigoted US President spoke highly of Indian-Americans. 'Howdy Modi' was a display of the political power of the Indian diaspora. Prejudiced presidents will come and go, but the Indian community is here to stay and despite best efforts, growing by the day. Indians re-elected Modi in the general elections this year, and Indian-Americans have always been front about maintaining his image on global stage. It was their attention and support that Trump calculated worth relying upon. The US Prez knows for a fact that the communities influential votes are instrumental in the upcoming 2020 elections.
'Howdy Modi' also faced many protests, almost all of which failed to grab media attention. Thousands of protesters gathered outside the stadium. They included anti-Hindu-nationalism demonstrators, Kashmiri Muslims, Sikhs for Khalistan, anti-Trump activists, and members of Black Lives Matter. A white care had the words RSS and Hitler written on one side and "Modi is Terrorist Fascist Killer" covering another. Modi effigies raised their heads amidst the crowds as they cried "AZADI".
Meanwhile, thousands of Indian-Americans gave a deafening welcome to the Indian leader as he arrived hand in hand with the President of the United States.
