Finally the Ministry Of Minority Affairs has won its battle to gain control of the proposed Equal Opportunity Commission (EOC). The Group of Ministers (GoM) presided over by Defence Minister AK Antony concluded last Tuesday that the proposed commission should be under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Minority Affairs.

The tussle for control of the commission was mere eyewash to fool the public. From its very conception the commission's fate was sealed. It had to be under the minority affairs ministry. That was the entire purpose of setting it up.

The curious provisions under which the commission will function made clear that the whole purpose of the exercise was to offer Muslims the right to reservation through the back door.

The Constitution forbids reservation to be granted on the basis of religion.

So what did our canny government with a keen eye cocked at its perceived vote bank do? It proposed that EOC will not entertain applications from any individual but only from groups. Nobody has explained why this should be so. The following facts make clear why it should be so.

There are already commissions to address problems of the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes. In addition there is also a Minority Affairs Commission to serve groups that do not fall under these categories.

In its deliberations last Tuesday the GoM decided to take steps to ensure that any issues being considered by the existing commissions will not be taken up by the EOC. In other words, since no individual can appear before the EOC, and no problems affecting SC, ST or OBC can be taken up by EOC, that leaves only Muslims with opportunity to apply.

So, if the Constitution has slammed the reservation front door to Muslims, why not open the back door?

The last shred of the fig leaf behind which the government hid was removed when GoM decided to let the minority affairs ministry act as the nodal administrative body to oversee the EOC’s functioning. This was to be expected. The Madhav Menon Committee was appointed to work out the structure of the EOC. Who appointed this committee? Why, the ministry of minority affairs of course. That completed the circle.

According to one media report "taking the proposed commission away from the minority ministry would send a wrong signal to Muslims". If Minority Affairs Minister Salman Khurshid is patting himself on the back for taking control of EOC, he should stop kidding himself. That decision had been taken from day one.

The irony is that in the prevailing context the Muslims fully deserve reservation. Why not give it to them by allowing entry through the front door even if that entails amending the Constitution?

Backwardness cannot be determined by religion. If scavengers or sweepers change their religion do they change their standing? Should we differentiate a scavenger by his name - whether he is Jaichand, John or Javed? To recognize backwardness one does not require information about religion or caste.

Consider how the reservation policy has evolved over the years. When the Constitution was framed reservation was given to the Scheduled Castes for only ten years during which time it was expected that a proper foundation for their advancement would be laid. This was a necessary step. The Dalits suffered not just from backwardness but were subjected even to the inhuman practice of untouchability. This was the most extreme and unique form of discrimination practiced anywhere in the world. Even the black slaves in America were not untouchables. Black nannies cuddled and brought up white children.

However, reservation continues after six decades to override the original prescription of ten years. The necessary policies required to uplift Dalits, such as education, were never adequately addressed. Even today very often there are posts reserved for Dalits in Delhi which remain unfilled because there are no applicants sufficiently qualified. After six decades of reservation are Dalits satisfied with their condition? The answer will be a resounding no. Clearly the policy did not serve the purpose for which it was framed. A new approach was required.

Instead of seeking a new approach the government expanded the flawed reservation policy by subverting the Constitution.

It ignored Article 16(2) of the Constitution which forbids reservation on the basis of religion, caste, or place of birth. It included backward castes by appointing the Mandal Commission for Other Backward Classes which mixed caste with class. The SC erroneously endorsed this. This suited the politicians who got quick-fix vote banks from their castes. The politicians did succeed in empowering their respective caste members politically. But this did not help the public. The empowered politicians had a vested interest in the backwardness of their respective castes. They had merely to exercise very marginal patronage to consolidate their vote banks. The masses lived on crumbs and false promises. The politicians themselves, regardless to which caste they belonged, were co-opted in the life style of existing leaders. They continued to represent their respective castes only in name. They were in fact members of a new corrupt and venal class. It was the ruling class.

The cancer of reservation continues to spread. This was inevitable because of the absurdities and inconsistencies of the Mandal formula. Banias are backward in Bihar but forward in Delhi . Yadavs are backward in UP but forward in Haryana. If the same caste can be forward and backward in different places how can it serve as a criterion for backwardness? There are 3000 castes in India . Inevitably demands for reservation proliferated. Jats in Haryana demand reservation to catch up with their Yadav rivals who can take advantage through their relatives in UP who are deemed backward. Bihar is discovering the Maha-Dalits as a new vote bank target. Ground realities reveal that Yadavs have hogged advantages of reservation among the OBCs and the Chamars among the SC.

If the present trend continues one day surely the Brahmins and the Rajputs will also demand reservation. Surely one day the Ayyangar Brahmins and Iyer Brahmins will demand separate reservation. Surely India will divide and subdivide into thousands of competing mutually hostile groups without dispensing any economic or social advantage to the deprived poor. So do not grant reservation just to the Muslims. Grant it also to Shias and Sunnis, Sheikhs and Ansaris. When will this madness end?

India needs to scrap caste based reservation and rely on economic criteria.

It needs policies for education and social development at the macro level.

 

The SAARC summit is postponed. Home Minister Chidambaram has delayed visiting Pakistan to discuss 26/11.

Meanwhile India 's Foreign Secretary Nirupama Rao had contacted her Pakistani counterpart for a foreign secretary-level meeting. That meeting later this month will precede the SAARC summit. It is a good sign.

Substantive issues need to be cleared before tackling terror. Quite possibly US urging to both governments behind the curtain has been at work. Even as Delhi and Islamabad were finalizing dates for the talks, Kashmir militants held a televised conference in Pakistan Occupied Kashmir (POK) propagating jihad against India until Kashmir was liberated. Pakistan Foreign Minister Quraishi blandly claimed ignorance about any such conference. Despite such brazen conduct India is proceeding with talks.

Critics would justifiably carp over these developments. But there would be no harm in talking provided India makes this its final attempt. It is time to end fruitless interaction with Islamabad that refuses to lead anywhere. Therefore, first of all India should recognize Pakistan ’s minimum precondition for a substantive dialogue.

The POK meeting of militants propagating jihad to liberate Kashmir was in all likelihood a calibrated ploy by Islamabad to send a message: No progress can occur unless the Kashmir issue is resolved . This message was reinforced by Pakistan ’s military Chief General Kayani. According to Karachi ’s Dawn he said that the Pakistani Army will remain "India-centric" until the Kashmir issue and water disputes are resolved.

The first question that New Delhi must address before resuming any serious talks therefore is whether it is ready to alter the status quo to resolve the Kashmir dispute.

It is futile to pander to sections in India that claim that there is no Kashmir dispute. The dispute is undeniable when Pakistan claims all Kashmir , India claims all Kashmir, Kashmir remains divided, and there is continuing cross-border terrorism.

The question is what should be India ’s minimum preconditions before an agreed solution can emerge. It is with regard to this that India must be blunt and candid.

The formula for a Kashmir solution can wait. President Musharraf and PM Manmohan Singh had reached near agreement on a formula involving autonomy for both sides of Kashmir, free movement that renders borders irrelevant and joint management of Kashmir by New Delhi and Islamabad .

The formula was bound to fail. How could it be implemented unless there was complete trust between New Delhi and Islamabad ? How could there be trust between both governments unless there was total trust between their two armies?

Clearly, for such trust to be created Pakistan 's civilian government must first be capable of exercising full authority over its army.

Because before the Kashmir issue can be resolved India must insist on a joint security system with Pakistan as a precondition. For starters joint security may be accepted only in principle for its full implementation in a phased manner by a prescribed date. Obviously, before that date terrorism would have to end. But the commitment must be public and immediate.

That this commitment would inevitably lead to a broader arrangement encompassing trade and tariffs is obvious. Only in the light of such a committed sub-continental arrangement could India take a radical view about a formula to resolve the Kashmir dispute.

The implications of such an arrangement would be clear. And New Delhi should not hesitate to elaborate on them during talks with Pakistan .

By entering into joint security with India , Pakistan would have to sever its defence ties with China .

There would be no point beating about the bush. New Delhi would have to tell Islamabad that complete trust between India and Pakistan could be achieved only if relations between both nations are so special that no third power - not China, America, Russia or Europe - could become as close to either of both nations.

Pakistan has excellent relations with China . Most likely it will balk at the suggestion of severing defence ties with Beijing in favor of joint security with India . It must be explained to Pakistan that China ’s trade and security relations with the whole of South Asia operating as one block would be more stable and friendly than at present. It must be stressed that only under such an arrangement would undue interference by any world power in the affairs of both India and Pakistan be checked.

It must be pointed out that if Pandit Nehru erred in refusing the joint defence offer by President Ayub Khan because of his concern about relations with China, Pakistan will err if it refuses joint security between the two South Asian nuclear powers because of similar concern about relations with China.

The plain truth is that lack of trust between India and Pakistan renders both nations vulnerable. It harms the interests of both.

Despite this reasoning Pakistan may remain obdurate because of rigid dislike for India . In that case not only should effort for a dialogue with Pakistan be abandoned, New Delhi ’s entire approach to relations with Islamabad and to the SAARC Conference should be revised. There are alternate policies and strategies that can be successfully pursued.

Enough time has been wasted on the so-called peace process. It is time to end it one way or the other. It is time to move on. 

 

The Shiv Sena is brazenly flouting the law through its policy of intimidation while favouring the Marathi speaking population.

The official spokesman of the Shiv Sena described actor Shah Rukh Khan as a traitor because he is a Muslim named Khan.

This is open to a defamation case. It is a different matter that no such case may be registered given a judicial system that renders such litigation a futile decade's long exercise.

Worse, by openly targeting North Indians the Shiv Sena violated Section 153-A of the Indian Penal Code by causing disaffection among communities. Its leaders can be prosecuted and sent to prison for three years. No such prosecution will occur of course.

The government is watching this ugly spectacle with quiet satisfaction as opposition votes get divided to give it electoral advantage. Never mind if Mumbai celebrities, including film stars, succumb to the Sena's quiet unspoken terror to fall in line with its dictate.

     However, the RSS has reacted.

RSS Chief Mohan Bhagwat has unambiguously opposed the Shiv Sena. He said: "Mumbai is for all Indians. Whole of India is for all Indians."

The RSS went further to ask its volunteers to protect North Indians.

The BJP, which is a political ally of the Shiv Sena, is prevaricating. Its President, Nitin Gadkari, who periodically states that he was not nominated by the RSS, is mulling over the situation. He says he will consult the RSS before coming to a decision. Does it require consultation with anyone to know that terror and threats violate law and need to be opposed?

     So, was the RSS statement just hot air or it meant something? The RSS has cadres. If Mohan Bhagwat means business he must put his muscle where his mouth is.

RSS cadres have been used in the past to protect civil society. During the 1962 hostilities with China the RSS cadres policed the streets to aid the government. Today there is no such external attack.

A Chinese think tank has prepared a policy paper suggesting how India can be Balkanised. But there is no need for China to intervene in any fashion to implement it. The Thackeray clan is doing the job.

Why cannot the RSS intervene to boost the morale of those targeted by the Shiv Sena?

     Mohan Bhagwat can direct 100 or 200 RSS volunteers to guard the residence of Shah Rukh Khan. This act will speak louder than any words. It will convey a message loud and clear to the Shiv Sena and all the divisive forces in the nation. It will convey that national integrity is more important than any political electoral alliance; that in democracy the rule of law must prevail; and that the observance of law is the surest guarantee of true secularism.

     The RSS is on trial. How will it acquit itself?

 

REASONS FOR PAST FAILURES

Democracy is considered healthy when there are two national parties. India has no national party. It has two unstable coalitions that compete for power. The major ruling party is faltering. The major opposition party is crumbling.

Rahul Gandhi is attempting to reinvent the Congress to its pristine strength. If he succeeds it will take care of one power pole. One hopes he succeeds. It is the other power pole that needs attention.

          Recent history indicates that the Sangh Parivar’s earlier approach has failed. The Jayaprakash Narain approach was a success. To appreciate this one must understand why the Janata Party failed and why the BJP today is in crisis.   After the Janata Party split in 1980 the BJP was created. After its nationwide exposure as a powerful faction of the Janata government the Sangh Parivar sought to occupy the Janata Party's space with its own united organization and pro-Hindu ideology.

          After its creation in 1980 the BJP had unfettered access to its core beliefs. The Ram Mandir Rath Yatra reached the pinnacle of Hindutva aspiration. But in truth, of little avail. The BJP could not emerge as a single nationwide entity. It rose to greater heights only after pre-poll seat adjustment with VP Singh and other regional parties. Subsequently it existed in uneasy coalitions with regional partners that distanced themselves from the RSS and Hindutva. Gradually the Ram Mandir issue became stale. The load of Hindutva became too heavy. The compromised alliance with reluctant coalition partners became too exposed. The excesses of the fired up Hindutva elements such as the VHP and Bajrang Dal became too embarrassing. Eventually the unacknowledged realization dawned that the traditional exclusivist BJP ideology had failed. The attempt to reinvent the BJP has commenced. It is being done without openly acknowledging that its pro-Hindu mantra and exclusivist approach has failed. This transition is what RSS leader Mohan Bhagwat seems to be attempting.

          Bhagwat is now talking of promoting Hindustanis and not just Hindus. He is talking about reunification of the subcontinent in some arrangement, although he has not specified as yet the South Asian Union modeled on the European Union. But he has referred to the example of erstwhile rivals Germany and France uniting in common purpose. He has affirmed that regardless of religious belief the people of South Asia by and large share a common DNA. He has stressed that ethnically they are the same. He has openly warned China against meddling in the affairs of the subcontinent. He has expressed the eventual common purpose between India and even Afghanistan. He has criticized the divisive and anti-national approach of the Shiv Sena factions. In short, he is conforming to the approach of Jayaprakash Narain. He has recognized that an exclusivist Hindutva approach has little future.

          However, JP’s creation, the Janata Party, also failed. To avoid the pitfalls of Janata Party, reasons for its failures must be understood. If the BJP failed because of a failed ideology, the Janata Party failed because of a flawed organizational structure that was incompatible with its ideological impulse. The Congress which has ruled India for most of the time since Independence reflects centripetal tendencies. Centralization of power is sometimes healthy and necessary for a large multi-lingual, multi-religious nation like India. But this is not true all the time. Centrifugal tendencies need equal expression depending upon the conditions prevalent at any time. The natural polarization of the Indian polity is not between Left and Right as they are commonly understood in the West. The natural polarization in India is between the forces of centralization and decentralization. The ebb and flow between centralization and liberalism has characterized Indian history. Ashoka the liberal was followed by Chandragupta the centralist. Akbar the liberal was followed by Aurangzeb the centralist. Nehru the liberal was balanced by Sardar Patel the centralist. JP the liberal challenged Indira Gandhi the centralist. So, why did the Janata Party fail?

          The Janata Party failed because it took birth in extraordinary circumstances occasioned by the Emergency. It was a hasty cut and paste job under the shadow of a crisis. The party was led mainly by former Congressmen whose main claim was that they were better Congressmen than Indira Gandhi. Their mindset was incompatible with the demands of a genuine alternative to the Congress. Those who had fought all their lives the Congress to create the foundation of a genuine alternative were marginalized by events. And Ram Manohar Lohia was dead. Instead of forming a federal party to reflect the liberal forces of decentralization the Janata Party leaders attempted to replicate the Congress of Nehru and Patel when organizational ground realities precluded that possibility.

          This is not the wisdom of hindsight. Before the Emergency, by when JP had resolved to challenge Indira Gandhi electorally, this scribe wrote an article for JP's weekly magazine, Everyman's. The article was entitled "The Alternative". From the first preparatory meeting JP tried to unify all the opposition parties to create a national alternative. The meeting was held on November 25, 1974. JP circulated the article to all delegates present at the meeting. The following extracts quoted from that article are worth recalling.

          The article written in autumn of 1974 said: "A little after her last meeting with JP the Prime Minister observed that if JP and his supporters had any grievance they could test their strength at the next general election, which was not too far away. If this was intended to be a veiled taunt, Mrs Gandhi may have to rue her words. JP has accepted the challenge.. The people's efforts to paralyze and remove from office corrupt Congress regimes will now be supplemented by the attempt to create an organization capable of winning the next election.. The issue that will catch the imagination of the people all over the country is the issue of decentralized planning and administration, and of greater power for the States to identify their own problems, set out their own priorities, formulate their own solutions, and themselves execute policies. In short, more self-rule for the people... the most formidable electoral challenge to the Congress has come from regional parties.. these factors are not, as some Congressmen have perversely argued, the signs of national disintegration. These reflect the essence of democracy – the urge among people for greater participation in policy making and government… At the State level a federation of the various parties, retaining their separate identities might be perfectly compatible with merger at the national level, leading to one-party candidates for the Lok Sabha. This would imply at the first stage of the evolution of the new party a common symbol, common candidates to the Lok Sabha, and a federal alliance in each state, with the parties retaining their separate identities but ensuring that the federal alliance puts up one candidate in each assembly constituency..."   

          This was what eventually transpired. The federal alliance put up common candidates under the common symbol of the Janata Party. For the first and only time in India's post Independence history a single non-Congress party with a single symbol governed India. But within two years the Janata Party disintegrated. The reason was simple. The main leaders of the party - Morarji Desai, Chandrashekhar, Charan Singh and Jagjivan Ram - were all former Congressmen. They were trying to reinvent another centralized Congress Party dominated by each of them respectively. JP’s health was already failing. All the federal alliance parties were prematurely dissolved. They merged with the Janata Party. This went against the phased plan suggested by this scribe’s article that was distributed by JP in his first meeting with leaders.

          The ground realities quickly asserted themselves. In each State four-member committees representing the parties or groups led by Morarji, Charan Singh, Jagjivan Ram and Vajpayee took decisions. The real leaders on the ground were marginalized and became disgruntled. Thus, others apart from Charan Singh's party had no influence in UP. Others apart from Vajpayee’s party had no influence in Delhi. Yet authority was wielded by rootless functionaries. Significantly the discord started from within States. It spread to the top rungs of the central leadership. A federal organization was sought to be run like a centralized unit. Failure was inevitable.

                                                              

FOUR STEPS FOR SUCCESS

             Learning from past experience, what must the Opposition do to win power?

If the BJP is truly trying to reinvent itself and shed narrow Hindutva the task of opposition consolidation becomes easier.

The following steps suggest themselves for uniting the opposition to create a viable and cohesive national party.

          The first step should be to formulate the appropriate national agenda. The agenda presented by JP for total revolution in his movement was flawed. A clutch of intellectuals created a 75-point agenda that had to accommodate all kinds of inputs in order not to ruffle egos. The agenda became irrelevant. The battle cry of a total revolution was all that seemed to matter. What must be avoided in formulating a meaningful agenda is inclusion of self-evident platitudes such as the removal of corruption or delivering social justice. Nobody would dispute these goals. The question is what kind of systemic changes would be required to help achieve these goals. The agenda should be concrete, basic and comprehensible to the masses. The following five goals may be considered. These would likely touch the lives of the greatest number of people across the nation.

              1) South Asian Union: The movement should commit itself to undo the spirit of the Partition and to recreate Hindustan as a confederation of sovereign nations comprising India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal, Bhutan, Sri Lanka and Afghanistan. It should be resolved that a clause in the Directive Principles of the Constitution be introduced to pursue the goal of creating a community of nations having common tariffs, common defence, and no visas among themselves.

            2) Smaller States: There should be constituted a new States Reorganization Commission that would create smaller states for effecting better administration and promoting cultural and ethnic identities. The commission would act according to predetermined norms.

          3) Federal System: There should be created a five-tier system of governance. The five tiers would be federal, state, district, block and primary. We should delimit the present districts so that each district conforms to each parliamentary constituency. Similarly, each block would conform to each assembly constituency. The primary units would be the rural village and the urban colony. The three tiers below the federal and state tiers would each have its own elected council and executive committee. The area MP could preside over the district council, the area MLA over the block council, and the elected headman over the primary urban or rural council. All executive powers related to problems faced solely by those residing in an area would devolve on their own elected body. The elections to all bodies of the five tiers should be simultaneous, mandatory, time-barred, and under the authority of the Central Election Commission. All elected bodies of the five tiers should have fixed five-year terms. The President’s election should coincide with the general election. The presidential candidates should file their nominations at the same time as the candidates for parliament and all assembles. The newly elected MPs and MLAs should elect the new President immediately after their election. In case of any executive head at any of the five tiers losing a simple majority in the house, the whole house would elect the successor who would complete the fixed five-year term.

          4) President’s Role:  While devolution of power will enhance self-rule and liberty for people, an executive President will ensure unity and stability of the Republic. The President should have a role commensurate with his mandate that is the widest held by any individual in our Republic. To this end, we should give constitutional status to newly created bodies, as well as to certain existing bodies, in fields that require autonomous functioning, and make them accountable to the President. The Central Election Commission, CBI, CVC, etcetera, would come under this provision. The President’s relationship with the Prime Minister and the cabinet would need review. Flawed conventions that have no basis in our written Constitution have rendered the President into a ceremonial robot. The Constitution gives the President powers and responsibilities that are never exercised in practice. This must be rectified.

          5) People’s Plan: The Planning Commission should be converted into a Peoples' Planning Commission accountable to the Inter-State Council that would be overseen by the President. This Commission should concentrate on formulating Peoples’ Plans that deploy the bulk of public funds, including those realized from disinvestment, for providing infrastructure to the masses in the spheres of roads, management of drinking and irrigation water, power generation, healthcare and literacy. Public investment in these sectors would expand employment and purchasing power in rural India. In industry there should be created in addition to the public and private sectors a Workers' Sector in which all employees would have a share of profit and ownership, and in floor level management. All board decisions would be transparent to workers.

          The second step should be to circulate the agenda to all likeminded opposition parties, trade unions, farmers' associations, student bodies and non-electoral groups working in the social sector. This alliance of bodies committed to the agenda should elect a national convener aided by a central steering committee.

          The third step should be to launch a nationwide movement to propagate the agenda in all corners of the nation. There should be the attempt to hold mass meetings in every state capital of the country. At the end of each of these meetings a state convener of the movement aided by a state steering committee should be announced. These state conveners in turn should appoint conveners and steering committees in every parliamentary and assembly constituency. The assembly conveners should appoint conveners for each primary unit in their areas comprising a specified number of polling booths. Apart from mass meetings to educate the public about the aims of the movement, there should be established connectivity on a weekly basis between the apex and all state units through the Internet. Weekly talking points should be suggested and feedback from the ground to the apex should be studied.

          The fourth step, after the movement has spread across the nation, should be to announce a political party with a federal constitution. At the first phase existing parties, whether single state or multi-state, may be allowed to retain their respective identities at the state level. Only for parliament should there be common candidates representing the new party and contesting on a common agenda with a single symbol.

After testing the waters in the parliamentary election the existing parties could exercise their option to merge completely with the new party. If all these steps are implemented it is likely that every parliamentary seat would be contested by the new party.

The draft constitution of new party could be prepared within a day's notice. A suitable name could be given to the party. One name that suggests itself is Rashtriya Panchayat. The party's federal nature would be understood from its name at even the village level.

A time comes in the history of nations when a big change becomes inevitable. Change is wrought in two ways. It can come through revolution or through reform.

Revolution denotes change from outside the prevalent political system. It results in upheaval and disruption. Reform allows change from within the system. It makes for orderly transition to better times.

India is poised for change. Change is opposed by powerful voices that benefit from the status quo. But it is doubtful if even these powerful voices can now prevent change.

Paradoxically, while sectors of the economy prosper, governance has declined to breaking point. Governance has declined because of the political class. The political class has deteriorated because its permissive approach over the past decades has made it a helpless prisoner of a flawed and subverted political system.

Consequently, after sixty years of independence India despite its thriving middle class has enormous economic disparity, unbearable poverty for large sections of the people, one of the world's most corrupt political societies, a lawless state, and a nation that has had the world’s largest number of terrorist and insurgent attacks.

While the Indian elite prosper, the Indian nation crumbles.

Something was waiting to happen. It happened. The customary myopic and arbitrary mode of functioning by politicians has created a crisis that may well become the catalyst for big change.

To regain political relevance Chandrashekhara Rao started a fast unto death to revive a forty-year old demand for Telangana state. Several earlier agitations had erupted to fade away as Telangana leaders betrayed their followers after achieving narrow personal gain. For ten days Rao's fast continued. Suddenly doctors claimed that the fasting leader was in critical state. Had he died the violence that had already commenced could have become a raging fire.

The central government belatedly bestirred itself and in panic conceded Telangana state to end the fast. Thereby it opened a Pandora's Box.

The rest of Andhra erupted in violent protest. Andhra legislators resigned en mass, and long pending demands for statehood across the nation threatened agitations. The government amended its decision to avoid a bigger crisis. It is trying to buy time for tempers to abate and the crisis to end. Time has always been a great healer. But will it act as healer this time?

     It is possible that the arbitrary and undemocratic approach that Congress leaders traditionally adopt may prove this time to be the last straw to break the camel's back. It is just possible that Telangana will feel betrayed, Andhra will not be assuaged and the nationwide new statehood agitations having smelt blood will intensify.

India thereby could plunge into chaos so deep that nothing short of an overall reappraisal and reform of the entire system would suffice. Such overall reform is not a prophecy. It is a hope. Unless such reform occurs India cannot play its rightful role as a global power.

     The rot that subverted and virtually destroyed our political system began decades ago when political leaders including Pandit Nehru placed expediency above principle. Nehru had the authority to assert his will. Unfortunately he lacked clarity. He blundered from one wrong decision to another because of political expediency. Because of flawed judgment he opposed linguistic states but he had to succumb when a fasting leader died in protest.

He appointed a States Reorganization Commission (SRC). But he ignored its recommendations for narrow political advantage. Against the SRC he bequeathed Bombay to Maharashtra because of an electoral setback. He did not create Vidharba state as recommended by SRC. He did not create a Hyderabad state comprising all of Telangana as recommended by the SRC.

This ad hoc arbitrary approach continued. Subsequently Punjab , Haryana and Himachal Pradesh states were formed by Indira Gandhi under duress of agitations. She announced that Chandigarh would be the capital of Punjab and Haryana would build a new capital. The next day she somersaulted to make Chandigarh a Union Territory and capital of both states.

Currently, Pranab Mukherjee has announced that no new states will be formed. Why not? Because acceding to the demand for Gorkhaland will harm his political fortunes?

There is no national vision that informs any political party. It is because there is no national leader. There is no national leader to have emerged from outside India 's independence struggle. That is why we are governed by parochial minions masquerading as national leaders. That is why a dynasty continues to rule India like a grotesque version of royalty.

     The destruction of Indian democracy began from day one. India 's political system does not reflect its written Constitution. Nowhere does the world’s longest written Constitution state that India should follow Britain 's Westminster form of parliamentary system or that India ’s elected President act as titular head like the British Sovereign. Pandit Nehru besotted with British democracy after being educated in England enforced his personal view in violation of the explicitly written Constitution. India 's elite besotted with Pandit Nehru allowed him to do so.

The Constitutional provision for setting up an Inter State Council has never been utilized despite numerous occasions when inter-state disputes warranted its establishment. Crucial directives of state policy such as creating self-sufficient village units through Panchayati Raj, or of creating conditions for industrial workers to participate in management, have never been followed.

With such arrogant and arbitrary political conduct that willfully ignored Constitution and law the subversion of the political system became inevitable. Today we are paying the price.

India sits atop a volcano as its middle class is glued to watching Bollywood, cricket, fashion and other trivia on television.

Therefore the stupidity of the Union government in its handling of the Telangana crisis is welcome.

It just might ignite catalytic events that create opportunity to introduce a fundamental systemic reappraisal and reform.

Fasting Telangana leader Chandrasekhara Rao's condition is critical. If he succumbs there could be chaos. The situation must be defused. How?

The Union government should unequivocally accept the creation of Telangana state in principle. But statehood should only be granted after the findings of a newly appointed Second States Reorganization Commission (SRC) are given.

Smaller states within the same linguistic regions are desirable when history, administrative efficiency, dialect, or any other strong characteristic renders new statehood desirable. Thus, the Nizam's rule in Hyderabad has given the people of Telangana a distinct identity. Portuguese rule in Goa has set it apart from other Marathi speaking areas.

To ignore such differences arising from history would be denying the affirmation of healthy local pride. Up till now official policy on this subject has been unprincipled, ad hoc and arbitrary.

The rot started after the first SRC submitted its report. For one, its decision about Bombay , which has become the private hunting ground of Thackeray clan goons, was ignored because of electoral considerations.

The Union government reluctantly and belatedly has conceded the creation of new states only after agitation, disruption and deaths have taken their toll. This unprincipled and expedient approach must end once and for all.

The demands for smaller states have periodically erupted across India . People agitate, they are quelled, and agitations die to revive again after a while. Vidharbha, Harit Pradesh, Gorkhaland, Mithalanchal Pradesh, Bodoland, Bundelkhand - the list of aspirants for statehood stretch very long.

Any rational reorganization of the nation into smaller states would give India around fifty states. Do small states suffer? Not if one views Punjab , Haryana and Himachal Pradesh.

Certain norms would have to be observed for creating smaller states. As far as possible the new states should be carved out of one large state and not comprise territory cutting across the borders of two large states. Opponents of Telangana state in Andhra argue that the voters rejected Telangana in the last assembly elections. This argument is flawed. People in Andhra legitimately oppose bifurcation of their state in isolation. But if all states -- UP, Bihar , Maharashtra and the rest -- are divided into smaller states, how would voters react?

One suspects that a nationwide referendum would give a very different voter response, including response from voters in Rayalaseema and coastal Andhra.

The reorganization of states throughout India would be a huge task requiring time and patience. But it should be undertaken and accepted in principle immediately. While the proposed Commission undertakes its task other measures regarding a rational division of responsibility between local, district, state and central governments should also be studied. India 's political system requires reappraisal in its entirety. Let the announcement of a second SRC be the starting point.

Let acceptance of a new Telangana state in principle defuse the explosive situation in Andhra.

Recently Chinese troops threatened Indian workers building a road in Ladakh. They enforced stoppage of work. The Chinese themselves are building air strips for strategic purpose on the border.

China curtly dismissed Indian protests. " China has a dispute with India on the border issue. The two sides should work together to ensure peace and stability in the border area until the pending dispute is resolved," China 's foreign ministry spokesman told media. India 's Defence Minister of State MMP Raju told reporters that China was merely building infrastructure, there was nothing to worry. Home Minister Chidambaram advised media that only after studying the Chinese response will "the government take a view".

Can capitulation be more shameless?

The questions are:
Why is China acting in this manner?
Why is China succeeding in having its way?

Let us address both questions in that order. 

The short answer to the first question is that China acts the way it does because of Tibet . Until it obtains total success in achieving its goal in Tibet it will not relent.

Its Tibet policy has served it exceedingly well for six decades. Why should China change it? Tibet is crucial for totalitarian China . The minorities in China are roughly 8 percent of the population. The land mass they occupy is almost one third of China . Tibet and Xingjian are China ’s two largest sparsely populated provinces. China is especially paranoid about retaining Tibet because it forcibly annexed it as recently as 1959. Thereby Tibet ceased to be a buffer between China and India , which is the only Asian state that can potentially balance China .

The annexation of an independent Tibet is irrefutably outlined in Claude Arpi's book, Tibet : The Lost Frontier, which was published last year. Arpi, a Frenchman based in Auroville, is arguably India 's most effective communicator of the Tibetan cause. He displays the research of a scholar and the insight of a strategist. This year he has written a follow-up book, Dharamsala and Beijing : The Negotiations that Never Were, published by Lancer Publishers. The book is an eye opener. It meticulously describes the entire farcical engagement since inception between Beijing and the Dalai Lama's aides. It also exposes the pathetic conduct of America and India that witnessed this dialogue.

In 1947 there was no India-China border. There was only the India-Tibet border. Chinese Premier Zhou Enlai hoodwinked Pandit Nehru. From then up till now the Chinese brazenly lied, indulged in doubletalk and blandly denied self evident truths.

From then up till now India and America lamely accepted such contemptuous treatment. In 1954 India and China signed a treaty for 8 years by which among other things India recognized Tibet to be part of China . Beijing violated the assurances given in that treaty by transgressing the border. A confused Nehru decided to keep Parliament in the dark. He persisted with secrecy about Chinese encroachments during the following years. That was when this reviewer through an article in 1960 demanded Nehru's resignation. As a junior he made this reasonable demand when media doyens critical of Nehru's China policies such as S Mulgaokar and Frank Moraes could not bring themselves to state this. No wonder it took a child to blurt that the Emperor wore no clothes! Zhou told Nehru that he was ignorant about the McMahon Line until he studied the border problem. And today China claims Arunachal Pradesh to be part of China !

Beijing and Tibet broke ice. Beijing allowed fact-finding missions from Dharamsala to visit Tibet and view its progress. The Chinese genuinely thought that better roads and infrastructure had made Tibetans happy. The frenzied reception given to the Dalai Lama's representatives by the Tibetans stunned them. Four succeeding missions were doomed to fail. I think the Chinese fail to empathize with Tibet because Tibetans believe in God. Most Chinese don't. In 2005 former Defence Minister, Army Chief and Vice Chairman of the Central Military Commission, Chi Haotian, said in a speech: "Maybe you have now come to understand why we... promulgate atheism... if we let all Chinese people listen to God and follow God, who will obediently listen to us and follow us?"

Meanwhile many rounds of border talks between India and China were also held. These talks led nowhere. The door to China was opened in February 1976. Indira Gandhi during the Emergency ignored the Parliamentary resolution forbidding dealing with China until it vacated all illegally occupied territory. She established ambassadorial relations with Beijing . Why did she do this with a country that had betrayed her father and humiliated India ? Was it not simply because by that time through Kissinger's exertions America had opened up to China ? The puppeteer could make the puppet somersault. On subsequent contacts Vajpayee, Rajiv Gandhi and Narasimha Rao needlessly kept repeating that Tibet was part of China .

Claude Arpi's book exposes the painful repetitiveness of all contacts between China and Tibet, between China and the rest of the world. Tibet was like a woodpecker trying to penetrate a block of steel. The Chinese refused to countenance the slightest change in Tibet . In 1988 Dalai Lama made the Strasbourg Proposal and adopted the Middle Way , demanding autonomy instead of independence. Beijing kept calling him a 'splitter'. China continued to lie and deceive the world to keep talks going. Only once in 60 years did a senior Chinese official speak the truth. In 1980 CCP General Secretary Hu Yaobang admitted: "Our party has let the Tibetan people down. We feel very bad!" Very soon he had to eat his words and fall in line. The world kept hoping for China to change. It was a futile hope.

Why have the Chinese succeeded in bringing the rest of the world to its knees? It is because the world is dominated by what I described in 2004 as the Real Axis of Evil comprising corporate America and China .

Arpi's book recalls the closed door dialogues between the Americans and Deng Xiaoping when relations were thawing. The contemptuous references to India was what bonded the two sides. Kissinger was nauseatingly cloying as he sucked up to the Chinese. President Gerald Ford, not the brightest President, intervened in the talks with no impact. Ridiculing him Lyndon Johnson once said: "Ford needs both hands to find his ass!"

The architect of the evil axis on the American side was Henry Kissinger, once described widely as a war criminal but ending up as a Nobel Peace Prize laureate. A little after Sino-American trade blossomed following Deng's reforms, Kissinger Associates Inc. took birth. It was a consultancy that acted as facilitator of deals between China and corporate America . Kissinger became the central adviser for the Business Coalition for US-China Trade which has 1000 of the largest American corporations as its members. Kissinger helped set up China International Investment Corporation (CITIC), the Chinese government's banking merchant for doing business with the US . Kissinger Associates roped in top level former officials including Alexander Haig, former National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft, former Secretary of State Lawrence Eagleburger, international economist Alan Stoga, and investment banker T. Jefferson Cunningham III. No wonder fierce public protest blocked Bush from appointing Kissinger to head the 9/11 Commission. Kissinger was forced to back out. CNN's Wolf Blitzer asked Kissinger: "Kissinger Associates… has not… detailed the work it does. There is the possibility of a conflict of interest?"

Kissinger replied: "No law firm discloses its clients. I will discuss my clients fully with the counsel of the White House…" Kissinger was comfortable with the White House regardless of which administration governed America . For instance, President Obama's trusted Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner worked for three years with Kissinger Associates before occupying his current post. Over the years Kissinger Associates has grown exponentially with a reach in all continents. Among other giants the American International Group (AIG), condemned for squandering millions as executive bonuses, is a strategic partner with Kissinger Associates. Kissinger is reputed to be one of the key benefactors of the stimulus bailout after the recent economic meltdown. Kissinger Associates is the shadowy centerpiece of corporate America and business partner of China . Totalitarian China is opaque for foreigners. But it has free access to democratic nations. It creates strong vested interest in their biggest business firms. In democracies big business influences politics. Ergo, China influences policy in democratic nations. With a five to one adverse balance of trade with China , with trillions of dollars held as US Treasury bills by China , is America in any position to confront Beijing ? Why, the US dare not confront even China 's proxy, Pakistan !

Claude Arpi at the conclusion of his book expresses hope that China will change. He points to individuals in China who speak the truth about Tibet , such as Phunwang, the Tibetan communist who led Chinese troops into Tibet . Subsequently he spent years in jail because he tried to faithfully follow Marxism. He was released and was invited to administer Tibet . He refused. He knew how that would end. He stayed on in mainland China . There are Chinese intellectuals like Zhang Boshu and Wang Lixiong who speak objectively and constructively about Tibet .

One begs to differ with Arpi.

China will not change unless it is compelled.

Given the Axis of Evil little hope might be placed on America . Only if India summons the will to detach itself from the coattails of Uncle Sam can China be compelled.

After 1962 only once did India assert itself against China . In 1986 Chinese troops encroached into Sumdorong Chu in NEFA, now Arunachal Pradesh. Army Chief General Sundarji airlifted an entire brigade in what was called Operation Falcon to counter the Chinese. Deng Xiaoping warned that China would "teach India a lesson". War seemed imminent. Sundarji was criticized The General stood firm and was prepared to quit. The government buttoned its lip. The Chinese backed down. Today there are effective ways of calling China ’s bluff to enforce its climb down without resort to military action.

Next week Prime Minister Manmohan Singh accompanied by Mrs. Sonia Gandhi is expected to visit Kashmir .

The visit should further the peace initiative of Home Minister Chidambaram. Recently Chidambaram announced intention to initiate a quiet dialogue for a Kashmir solution with all shades of opinion in that state. His suggestion was widely welcomed by various Kashmir leaders. Only the Hurriyat’s hard-line proponent Syed Ali Shah Geelani debunked the offer.

"The statement of Chidambaram is meaningless unless India publicly admits the disputed nature of Kashmir and agrees on the tripartite talks aimed at giving right of self-determination to the people of Jammu and Kashmir ," he said. He added that all the three parties - India , Pakistan and Kashmiris - should participate in the talks. They should aim to finalize implementation of the UN resolutions guaranteeing the right of self-determination to the people of Jammu and Kashmir .

Earlier on July 26th Geelani had said that if not UN resolutions the government should come forward with an "alternate solution" to the dispute that reflects the aspirations of the Kashmiri people. "The bottom line for a solution to the Kashmir solution is the United Nations resolutions but if New Delhi suggests an alternate solution that goes as per the wishes of the people, Kashmiris may consider it." He urged Pakistan to stick to its stand regarding implementation of the UN resolutions as these were "the pillars of our case."  

Geelani’s views deserve attention. Not only is he the most candid separatist leader who puts his cards on the table, he is also the biggest hurdle to achieving consensus among the separatist leaders.

What Geelani has said makes sense. One is not sure though if he realizes why what he has said makes sense. His criticism of the Indian government for periodically parroting the statement that there existed no Kashmir dispute is unexceptionable. It is rather ridiculous to claim that there is no Kashmir dispute when half the territory claimed by the Indian government is occupied by another nation which also claims the entire territory to be its own.

However it is the government's stand on the UN resolutions on the Kashmir plebiscite that is most mystifying. The UN resolutions are the lynchpin of Geelani's approach.

For over half a century the Indian government has adopted a negative and defensive posture on UN resolutions on the Kashmir plebiscite. Why? Nothing could be more favorable to India than these UN resolutions.

There have been 14 UN resolutions on Kashmir . The first was on 17 January, 1948 and the last on 21 December, 1971 . Despite the periodic updating the core provisions of the original resolution remained intact. They are:

All Pakistani troops and personnel must vacate the entire territory of Jammu and Kashmir ;

The state must revert to its original status before hostilities started;

Indian troops may operate in the entire state until a state of normalcy is restored;

After which Indian troops must also withdraw leaving only a token Indian force sufficient to maintain law and order;

Then, and only then, would a free and fair plebiscite be held under the aegis of the UN Commission appointed for the purpose;

In that said plebiscite the people of the state might vote for either joining India or Pakistan .

In August 2006 Kofi Annan, then UN Secretary General, clarified while visiting Pakistan that UN resolutions on Kashmir were not under Chapter 7 of the UN charter and therefore not self-enforcing as they were on East Timor and Iraq. The UN Kashmir resolutions required the cooperation of both India and Pakistan for implementation.

Thus if in the future UN resolutions were to be implemented and a plebiscite was to be held according to its terms the following events would have to take place.

First, all Pakistani troops would have to vacate Pakistan Occupied Kashmir.

Secondly, Indian troops would have to occupy the whole of Kashmir until terrorism ends.

Thirdly, China would have to vacate the territory illegally ceded to it by Pakistan in order for Kashmir to revert to its original status before hostilities started in 1948.

Fourthly, if all these conditions get fulfilled the bulk of Indian troops would withdraw except for a token force to maintain law and order.

Fifthly, the plebiscite organized by the UN Commission would allow Kashmiris to choose joining either India or Pakistan . The option to choose independence would be denied to them.

Does anyone in his senses believe that Pakistan could fulfill even one precondition of the UN plebiscite without its government being overthrown by its own people? And yet, India through all these years has stoutly opposed these UN resolutions! Was this due to deliberate subversion or monumental stupidity?

However, Geelani has also welcomed any alternate solution by the government which reflects the aspirations of Kashmir people. What could that solution be except what I have been suggesting for decades?

Let the different areas of Kashmir be allowed self determination giving voters the right to choose India , Pakistan or independence. In order to avoid a repeat of aggression and war over Kashmir this would have to be accompanied by the precondition that India , Pakistan and Kashmir , whatever the status of Kashmir 's different parts, must be joined in a common community. Former President Musharraf had suggested something vaguely similar in spirit except for the all important provision that India and Pakistan must be members of a joint community. Minus this provision Musharraf's plan became a non-starter. Today Pakistan grapples terrorism. It faces an identity crisis. It might be open to a more radical approach.

It is possible that Geelani and other Hurriyat leaders might also accept this plan. Geelani held a negative and rigid view when I suggested this plan to him in the company of Abdul Ghani Bhatt and Abbas Ansari over a decade ago in a Sundernagar guest house in New Delhi . Perhaps the implications of the UN resolutions had not dawned on him. Perhaps subsequent events after that meeting have led him to believe that the bulk of the people in the Valley would prefer independence to joining Pakistan . Whatever.

The time for the Hurriyat leaders to come out of their closets and speak boldly and frankly has arrived. If they reflect they have little choice except this plan if they seek self determination.

The Hurriyat leaders might recall that before he died Pandit Nehru with the help of Sheikh Abdullah attempted to make Kashmir the bridge between India and Pakistan .

 

Beijing objected to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's visit to Arunachal Pradesh because it claimed that Indian state to be part of China . The Indian government responded with the following statement:

"We express our disappointment and concern over the statement made by the Official Spokesman of the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs since this does not help the process of ongoing negotiations between the two Governments on the Boundary Question."

What a pathetic response!

The Chinese statement was not only impertinent, it was stupid. Beijing objected to the PM's visit to Arunachal Pradesh but did not utter a peep about recent elections in that state in which 72 percent electorate cast their votes. Perhaps Beijing does not like to be reminded of democratic elections that are conspicuously absent in China . 

The truth is that China is becoming a bore and a nuisance. Its economic and military prowess has given its government a bloated idea about its importance. Beijing 's attitude with its warlord mentality is frozen in the nineteenth century. But the world has changed. People are interdependent and informed. Big powers can bomb nations and humiliate them. They cannot subjugate them.

The 21st century man can fulfill Ernest Hemingway's 20th century comment: "Man can be destroyed, not defeated."

America is more powerful than China . Iraq and Afghanistan are teaching America this painful lesson.

One hopes that the abject approach of the UPA government does not lead China to make a dangerous miscalculation. The UPA government is not permanent. It in no way reflects the temper of the Indian people.

Beijing should wake up to some hard truths. In 1954 Pandit Nehru signed a Treaty of Friendship with China by which India recognized Tibet to be part of China . By signing that treaty Nehru thought that the boundary question with China was settled. It was a piece of thoughtless cynicism to buy peace with his "bhai" in Beijing at the cost of the Tibetan people. Successive Indian governments have behaved like prisoners of this treaty.

However Article VI of the 1954 Treaty states:

"The present agreement shall come into effect upon ratification by both Governments and shall remain in force for eight years. Extension of the present agreement may be negotiated by the two parties if either party requests for it six months prior to the expiry of the agreement and the request is agreed to by the other party."

The Treaty was neither renegotiated nor extended. It lapsed. India is under no legal constraint to consider Tibet to be part of China .

The uncivilized approach by the Beijing government in dealing with Tibet has brought to the fore the dispute regarding the status of Tibet . His Holiness the Dalai Lama with his idealistic commitment to peace had stated that Tibet could be considered as an autonomous region of China . Beijing refused to respond. It is unlikely that even the Dalai Lama’s offer would be accepted by future generations of young Tibetans. Tibet is culturally and historically not a part of China . Tibetans want independence. It is not for India to take sides in this dispute. The Indian government should state unambiguously that the status of Tibet is disputed and India cannot recognize it as part of China until such time as Beijing can reach agreement with credible representatives of the Tibetan people.

The Ching dynasty of the Manchus had conquered China like the Mongols before them. They conquered the adjacent territories of the Mongols and the Uighurs. They annexed Tibet and Nepal to make them protectorates. In 1911-12 the Chinese revolted and overthrew the Ching dynasty to win independence. After the overthrow of the Manchus Tibet may be considered as much part of China as Myanmar would be Indian because Burma was part of the British Empire .

In 1959 the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) met in Geneva to study the status of Tibet . The Commission after extensive research and study concluded: "The important point which emerges as an historical fact at this time is the ineffectiveness of the supposed Chinese authority in Tibet ." Not surprisingly, the Jurists affirmed: "Personal allegiance of the Dalai Lama towards the Manchu Emperor came to an end. Tibet 's expulsion of the Chinese in 1912 can fairly be described as one of de facto independence and there are, as explained, strong legal grounds for thinking that any form of legal subservience to China had vanished."

Beijing therefore should stop being obsessed with Arunachal Pradesh. It should focus on Tibet and Xingjian. Both are disputed territories. The disputes pertaining to their status need to be resolved amicably through dialogue. India has a dispute on Kashmir which is half occupied by Pakistan . The Indian government's efforts to resolve the issue are unsatisfactory. But New Delhi is at least recognizing the problem and trying to defuse it through dialogue.

Beijing on the other hand is frozen in an unrelenting and rigid mindset. So is its favorite proxy in South Asia , Pakistan . Right now Pakistan Prime Minister Yousaf Gilani is in China . The militant organizations in Pakistan are waging a war against their former patrons, the Pakistan army. The Al Qaeda has urged a jihad against China for its repression in Xingjian. One deplores terrorism.

This is my personal interpretation of Mahatma Gandhi's response to the Partition based on the consideration of his words and deeds at different times.

Gandhi had earlier said that India could be partitioned only over his dead body. The Partition occurred but Gandhi remained alive. When sceptics taunted Gandhi about this his former secretary and biographer, Peareylal, recorded that Gandhi would angrily lash out at his critics and say should he kill himself just to satisfy others? Even Gandhi’s most trenchant critics cannot deny his courage. He was not afraid of death. Then why did he not redeem his pledge?

My interpretation: For Gandhi the fight to keep India and Pakistan united was not ended. He was still struggling for his goal. He was following that old adage: Those who fight and run away, live to fight another day!

This view is reinforced by earlier events. When the Congress Working Committee (CWC) was to pass its formal resolution to accept Partition on 3 June, 1947 Gandhi observed his day of silence. Why?

My interpretation: Gandhi had realised that he had been outsmarted by the British. They had successfully isolated him from Nehru and Patel. Only young firebrands Jayaprakash Narain and Ram Manohar  Lohia  supported Gandhi’s view in the CWC. To retain the option of opposing the CWC resolution later Gandhi refrained from any personal endorsement of the resolution. He did this by observing a day of silence.

On 2 June, one day before the Partition resolution was to be passed by the CWC, Lord Mountbatten visited Gandhi to seek reassurance that Gandhi would not create hurdles. "Mr Gandhi," Lord Mountbatten asked. "I hope you will not oppose my (Mountbatten Plan to partition India ) plan?" Gandhi on his day of silence wrote on a scrap of paper: "Have I ever opposed you?"

My interpretation: As a lawyer Gandhi chose his words with care. He did not write that he would not oppose Mountbatten. He put the counter question whether he had ever opposed Mountbatten. 

After the Partition Gandhi's actions revealed his resolve to keep trying for total Indo-Pakistan reconciliation. He went on a fast to compel the Indian government to pay Pakistan adequate compensation. This strengthened his credibility with Pakistan . It pleased Mountbatten. But Gandhi’s subsequent actions could not have pleased the British  authorities.

Gandhi wrote to Jinnah seeking permission to settle down in Pakistan in order to work for Indo-Pakistan unity. Jinnah concurred. He invited Gandhi to Karachi . Gandhi sought permission to settle down in Lahore with 50 Punjabi refugee families then settled in Delhi 's Purana Quila camp.

 

One member of the Punjabi families that had volunteered to accompany Gandhi in his march to Lahore was historian KK Khullar, then 16 years old. The plan to start the march on 14 February, 1948 was finalised.

On 30 January Nathuram Godse killed Gandhi.

There are several unanswered questions about Gandhi’s murder. Godse travelled from Bombay to Delhi to kill Gandhi. In Bombay he stayed in a house under strict surveillance of the Intelligence Bureau because its occupant was known to possess illegal firearms. There had been five attempts on Gandhi’s life before Godse killed him.

Yet Godse was not apprehended. Was he manipulated as, some theorists claim, was President Kennedy’s assassin, Lee Harvey Oswald, decades later?

That aspect deserves a separate article. But suffice to say that after Gandhi’s murder Jayaprakash Narain accused the home ministry of criminal negligence, hinting at complicity, in the murder of Gandhi.
Did Gandhi have premonition of his death?

Writing his last will and testament by which he sought the dissolution of the Congress as a political party on the very day of his assassination was a striking coincidence.

It may be seen that Gandhi might have erred in his tactics. His realisation about Mountbatten's intentions came too late. Mountbatten arrived in February 1947. By March tension had been created in the Punjab by riots that killed 1,000 people. That was seized by the CWC to partition the Punjab Assembly between West and East Punjab in March itself.

This was even before the Congress had consented in June to Partition the country! It should have alerted Gandhi to what was about to happen.

Gandhi's judgment may be questioned. His integrity was unimpeachable. He never wavered in his commitment to the agenda of uniting Hindus and Muslims even after Pakistan had been formed. In the end he was defeated. The forces arraigned against him were too powerful.

But has his agenda been defeated? This scribe believes that history’s final verdict on that is still not out.

 

 

Jaswant Singh's book on Mohammed Ali Jinnah, which has become a talking point across India, has revived the old debate about Partition. Time for a reality check before we decide on heroes and villains

Jaswant Singh, former cabinet minister, has written a book on Mohammad Ali Jinnah which has become a talking point across India . I have not read the book. I have heard Jaswant Singh on TV expounding his views.

The main thrust of his work seems to be:

1) Jinnah has been unnecessarily demonised. He was a great man and not wholly responsible for the Partition of the Sub Continent.

2) Pandit Nehru was primarily responsible for the Partition because he believed in a centralized India which left no space for the Muslims to protect themselves against Hindu domination.

3) Mahatma Gandhi, and other Congress leaders were opposed to the Partition and would not have allowed it if it were not for Nehru.

 

WHO ACTUALLY PARTITIONED INDIA ?

The view about Nehru's role in the Partition is not new. This scribe wrote about it in a book of just 107 text pages, not over 600 pages, which were published 20 ago. Others, such as former ADC to Lord Mountbatten and later India ’s ambassador abroad, Narendra Singh Sarila, wrote on the subject of the Partition at greater length. 

Let us consider the three main postulates of Jaswant Singh’s views outlined above.

1) Jinnah was not a "great" man. He was articulate, highly intelligent and focused. He missed greatness by a wide margin because he willingly colluded with the British to create a Pakistan about which he had not even determined boundaries or shape. He mainly fulfilled British goals while satisfying his own vanity.

Independence came first; the boundaries of the divided nations came later. The British had decided on Partition to serve their own strategic ends. On 29 March 1945 , after Viceroy Lord Wavell met Prime Minister Churchill in London he recorded: "He (Churchill) seems to favour partition of India into Pakistan , Hindustan and Princestan." 

Sir Martin Gilbert, the British biographer of Winston Churchill revealed that Churchill had asked Jinnah to dispatch secret letters to him by addressing them to a lady, Elizabeth Giliat, who had been Churchill's secretary. This secret interaction continued for years. Jinnah's key decisions between 1940 and 1946, including the demand for Pakistan in 1940, were taken after getting the nod from Churchill or Lord Linlithgow and Wavell, both Churchill's admirers. 

Jinnah admitted during the Simla Conference in 1945 that he was receiving advice from London .

In other words, Jinnah was as much a British puppet on a string as were the top Indian leaders.

2) Yes, Pandit Nehru was primarily responsible for the Partition.

This was not because he was emotionally committed to a centralised India but because he too was thoroughly programmed by the British since his school days. His proximity to Lord Mountbatten has been recorded by Maulana Abul Kalam Azad and historian Shashi Joshi among others. Even before Mountbatten's arrival in India Lord Wavell had complained that Nehru was often informed by Whitehall before he was!

3) Mahatma Gandhi and other Congress leaders may have been unhappy about the Partition. They did not oppose it. When the resolution to accept Partition was taken by the Congress on June 3, 1947 Gandhi observed his day of silence. He assured Mountbatten on June 2 that he would not oppose Partition. 

It can be nobody's case that Nehru was so powerful that he could override Gandhi and the rest.

The truth was that Gandhi lacked the gumption to oppose Partition when it came to the crunch because he knew that his adversary was not Nehru but Britain . At Mountbatten’s bidding he could undertake a fast unto death to compel the Indian government to pay adequate compensation to Pakistan . He made no such protest when his life’s work of creating a united independent India was being destroyed. 

Gandhi's belated attempt to undo his mistake by wanting to settle in Pakistan and by demanding the dissolution of the Congress in his last will and testament was aborted by his assassination.

CONCLUSION

These judgments may appear cruel. Truth is seldom kind.

Any assessment about the causes that led to the Partition of India would be flawed unless the central role of the British in creating it, and the compliant role of the Indian and Pakistani leaders in accepting it, are recognized. 

The most clinching evidence of this is provided by the recorded views of Christopher Beaumont who was private secretary to Sir Cyril Radclif, Chairman of the Indo-Pakistan Boundary Commission. His private papers were recently released by his son, Robert Beaumont.

The elder Beaumont wrote in 1947: 

"The viceroy, Mountbatten, must take the blame - though not the sole blame - for the massacres in the Punjab in which between 500,000 to a million men, women and children perished…The handover of power was done too quickly."

Christopher Beaumont was most scathing about how partition affected the Punjab . He wrote: 

"The Punjab partition was a disaster.. Geography, canals, railways and roads all argued against dismemberment.. The trouble was that Muslims, Hindus and Sikhs were an integrated population so that it was impossible to make a frontier without widespread dislocation.. Thousands of people died or were uprooted from their homes in what was in effect a civil war.. By the end of 1947 there were virtually no Hindus or Sikhs living in west Punjab - now part of Pakistan - and no Muslims in the Indian east.. The British government and Mountbatten must bear a large part of the blame for this tragedy."

A few Britons are beginning to confront the truth.

Sharif compared his recent protest to 1947. Thereby he diminished his followers.

In 1947, present-day Pakistan did little to earn independence.

The Muslim League lost the 1946 election in Punjab. The Unionist Party, committed against Partition, won. Its leader Sikander Hayat Khan said that if Pakistan meant partitioning Punjab, he opposed Pakistan.

Balochistan, for a full year after 1947, remained independent. Jinnah had argued before the British for Baloch independence. After his death, Pakistan forcibly annexed Balochistan. The most powerful NWFP leader, Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan, opposed the formation of Pakistan.

The politics of two feuding lawyers, Gandhi and Jinnah, and two UP elitists, Nehru and Liaquat Ali, created Pakistan. None of them knew the ground realities of the territories in Pakistan-its boundaries were actually determined after its creation! The first prime minister, Liaquat Ali, was assassinated in 1951. He was succeeded by six prime ministers in the next seven years. In 1956, General Iskander Mirza took over as president. In 1958, General Ayub Khan replaced him and declared martial law. Pakistan soon became a piece of land owned by its army.

Pakistanis should recall these facts, and be realistic. The participants of Sharif's Long March acquitted themselves with honour. They earned justice through genuine struggle. They will now cherish freedom. They will fight to retain it. Thanks to terrorism and US pressure, General Kayani displayed restraint. Will army restraint continue? Much will depend on how politicians act.

Military action against the Taliban will succeed only if accompanied by a peace formula acceptable to Pashtuns. That implies Pashtun consolidation across the Pakistan-Afghanistan border. The Pashtun Taliban might settle for legitimised self-governance which has eluded them for centuries. In exchange, they could dump Al Qaeda. One doubts if Pashtuns would then insist on Islamic law for the rest of Pakistan. The Punjabi Taliban comprises Pashtuns settled in Punjab for generations. They seem committed to Al Qaeda and global jehad. But Punjab’s civil society is against them. Already Pakistan has conceded two different legal systems within one country. That is half way towards two nations. The Durand Line Treaty which lapsed in 1993 ceded certain Pashtun areas of NWFP to Afghanistan.

Only a South Asian confederation might ensure survival of present international borders. Otherwise Pakistan could balkanise.

On July 2, 1998, in an open letter to Nawaz Sharif, this scribe had predicted this. That prediction stands.

This year should indicate whether history will vindicate or falsify it.

 

Even while US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton pursues her five-day visit to India , an event has occurred in the USA that could conceivably snowball into a major controversy to cut short President Obama's tenure.

Article 2, Section 1 of the US Constitution states: "No person except a US born citizen… shall be eligible to the office of President.""

During the last US campaign a controversy arose about Obama's birthplace. Critics were unsure if he was born in the USA or Kenya . Obama's campaign committee released a Hawaiian birth certificate on 13 June, 2008. Sceptics alleged that it had signs of forgery.

Obama maintained he was born in Hawaii . One hospital, Honolulu 's Kapi'olani Medical Center for Women and Children, claims it received a letter from the President declaring his birth there. But White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs refused to authenticate the letter. For nearly six months the hospital proudly declared Obama was born at its facility to create poll hype. Later it covered up and refused to confirm if the letter actually existed. The letter was purportedly signed by Barak Obama. If the signature was forged it was a most serious offence. Was any action taken against the Hospital?

This week the controversy about Obama's birthplace resurfaced dramatically.

A US Army Reserve, Major Stefan Frederick Cook, scheduled for deployment to Afghanistan , refused to serve claiming that the order was illegal because the American President was not legitimate. He argued that he should not be required to serve under a President who has not proven his eligibility for office.

"As an officer in the armed forces of the United States , it is my duty to gain clarification on any order we may believe illegal. With that said, if President Obama is found not to be a 'natural-born citizen,' he is not eligible to be commander-in-chief," Major Cook said. "Then any order coming out of the presidency or his chain of command is illegal. Should I deploy, I would essentially be following an illegal order. If I happened to be captured by the enemy in a foreign land, I would not be privy to the Geneva Convention protections."

The military created shock waves by revoking the deployment order without giving any reasons. Thereby it evaded a reply to Major Cook's objection and implicitly acknowledged that it could offer no proof of President Obama's birth in the USA . If the military cannot vouch for President Obama's legitimacy the implications can be very far-reaching.

 

Major Cook's case is being heard in the court of US District Judge David O Carter. The judge told the plaintiffs to fix their paperwork and that he would listen to "the merits" of their case. The date of the hearing was fixed for 16 July.

It is unlikely that the US mainstream media will highlight the event. But regardless of the judge's verdict, will the issue die? If it snowballs into a crisis America could face a cruel choice.

President Hu Jintao's decision to cut short his visit to the G-8 summit in Italy and rush back home to address the Uighur unrest in Xingjian is significant given the Chinese passion for always keeping face.

The aborted visit is admission of a crisis more severe than is recognised by the global media.

It is surprising that the Xingjian crisis erupted so late. During the run-up to the Beijing Olympics this scribe had predicted that Xingjian Uighurs would create a more violent backlash than Tibetan monks could ever muster.

If Islamist terrorism confronts China it deserves little sympathy.

Beijing seeks to crush all diversity by enforcing regimentation. It ruthlessly seeks stability through changing the demographic balance by settling Hans in minority regions.

And worst of all, Beijing never hesitated to foment Islamist terrorism to destabilise other nations while striking unholy bargains with Al Qaida to protect its own turf.

In this regard it is worth recalling this scribe's comment published in these columns on October 25, 2008 .
Policy shift
"Readers might recall that this scribe for over a year has ventured through these columns the view that a major policy shift in China could be under way... the change began with the transfer of power to President Hu Jintao from Jiang Zemin. It was during Jiang's tenure that the negative policies pursued by China reached their zenith. Domestically corruption escalated. Disparity between illegally enriched party cadres and peasants in rural China widened to an alarming degree. Economic imbalance between the southern coastland and the north grew. State Owned Enterprises (SOEs) were allowed to deteriorate dangerously close to bankruptcy. Chinese banks were in a mess. They were forced to continually give bad loans to keep alive SOEs that employ 60 percent of China 's urban population. All this occurred during China 's stupendous rate of growth achieved through foreign capital and virtually enslaved Chinese labour. "The Shanghai group loyal to Jiang Zemin accomplished this. It was during this time that the PLA provided arms aid to Islamist terrorists in South-east Asia , and through them to India 's North-east insurgents, as well as to ISI directed jihadis. It was during this time that China unleashed nuclear proliferation to rogue nations through Pakistan 's Dr AQ Khan. It was during this time that China colluded with the Taliban and Osama bin Laden. These facts are confirmed by credible authorities. "President Hu Jintao and Premier Wen Jiabao did not belong to this group. They came from peasant stock. After Jiang Zemin was forced to resign from chairmanship of the Central Military Commission which overlooked the PLA, Hu Jintao tried to root out corruption. He did not hesitate to punish senior party leaders who were Jiang loyalists. There was a covert power struggle. The contours of the struggle were blurred by the role of a third party in the struggle, the PLA. Unlike Deng Xiaoping, who had participated in the Long March, neither Jiang nor Hu exercised full authority over the PLA. As a result of this shadowy struggle foreign analysts were confused. They found it difficult to fathom who was winning and who was not. There were mixed signals from Beijing . There were contradictory signals during the North Korean nuclear crisis. There were contradictory signals in relation to confidence building measures with India .

"For example, the timing of Beijing 's reiterated claim to Arunachal evaporated the good vibes created by Premier Wen Jiabao's meetings with the PM. It could not be determined whether this double faced approach reflected Beijing 's diabolical duplicity, the impediments created by Jiang's loyalists still exercising influence, or by the intervention of the PLA... 

"Earlier China used the threat of Xingjian separatism as a fig leaf to cover its covert collusion with terrorists. Some years ago Beijing sought information from Islamabad about certain Uighurs training in Pakistani camps. This indicated full awareness of Uighur participation in terrorist activity. Pakistan trained Uighur terrorists eventually were expected to go to Chechnya . Osama had guaranteed the PLA cooperation in Xingjian in exchange for telecom aid to Afghanistan during Taliban rule. The situation has dramatically altered.
Arms supply

" Beijing supplied arms to Iranian backed Shiite jihadis. This help most likely was motivated not by the desire to aid terrorism but to please Iran . China 's energy needs were desperate and supplies from Iran were crucial. Alas, the Iranian aided Shiite jihadis were in direct conflict with the Al Qaida Sunni terrorists who until then had a cozy relationship with China . Pakistan 's jihadis guided by Al Qaida's Zawahiri started targeting Chinese in Islamabad and Baluchistan . The Al Qaida-Beijing truce over Xingjian seems to have collapsed. That is why Beijing now has developed new interest against terrorism. That is why it is currently coming down heavily against Islamic mosques in Xingjian by interfering even with religious practice."

Analysts and China watchers are confident that iron fisted Chinese repression will succeed in crushing all Uighur dissent. They could be right.

But for how long and how often can Beijing do that unless it addresses the central problem of minorities seeking to preserve their cultural identities?

After sowing the wind, China may well have to reap the whirlwind.

According to media reports the Liberhan Commission has absolved LK Advani of direct complicity in the conspiracy to demolish the Babari Masjid but has indicted him for the Rath Yatra and for creating an environment to encourage the demolition.

The Commission has accused Murli Manohar Joshi and other BJP leaders of supporting the Ram Janambhoomi agitation. It has indicted Uma Bharathi of encouraging the mob to demolish the Mosque. It has indicted former PM the late Narasimha Rao of not doing enough to stop the demolition.

Ms Bharathi in a forthright statement acknowledged that she had wanted the Mosque to be demolished and was glad that it fell, but she had no prior knowledge of the demolition. She claimed that neither did the senior BJP leaders have prior knowledge. She accepted constructive responsibility for the demolition. Her statement appeared to be direct and candid.
Assuming that the senior leaders of the BJP lacked foreknowledge of the demolition, how did it occur?

Was it through spontaneous action by the demonstrators or was it preplanned?

If it was preplanned who planned it?

In September 1997 the late KR Malkani, then Vice-President of the BJP, stated that ISI provocateurs had infiltrated the kar sevaks to carry out the demolition. To many this claim appeared outlandish. Was it?

Malkani was a senior journalist and former editor.

Why did he say this five years after the demolition?

For sake of argument let us give a fair hearing to Malkani’s allegation. Consider some facts.

Incontrovertible Fact One:

One year before the Babari demolition the Jain Hawala diaries were seized. According to them big politicians including top leaders of the BJP received hawala funds prior to the general election. The payments were distributed in Delhi by Moolchand Shah who was an aide of Dawood Ibrahim.

Because big politicians were involved this TADA case was converted into a corruption case and Moolchand Shah was quietly let off the hook.

Incontrovertible Fact Two:

The largest contingent of kar sevaks who demolished the Babari Masjid was led by Brij Bhushan Saran Singh, then BJP MP from Gonda.

Subsequently, appearing in another TADA case he admitted to the court that he had links with Dawood Ibrahim. While he was in detention in a TADA case the BJP fielded his wife in his Lok Sabha constituency. At present he is an MP representing the Samajwadi Party.

Incontrovertible Fact Three:

In the Mumbai bomb blasts and the riots that followed the demolition of the Babari Masjid the police arrested and convicted Dawood’s aide Moolchand Shah for distributing funds to those who perpetrated the bomb blasts. Indian Intelligence agencies have claimed that Dawood Ibrahim has close links with the ISI and has carried out operations at its behest.
Incontrovertible Fact Four: In the recent Malegaon terrorist blast investigation the police have claimed that the ISI has infiltrated and funded sections of the Sangh Parivar. 

If true, was such ISI infiltration in the Sangh Parivar new or did it have a history?

It should be noted that when leaders of separatist or extremist organisations are caught napping by some violent act perpetrated by their purported followers they invariably react to defend the acts whatever their private reservations. This tendency is inevitably exploited by subversive hostile forces.

If the Babari demolition was indeed carried out by a hostile foreign force it does not absolve the BJP. 

It makes the indictment against it more severe. Not only was the party pursuing a communal agenda, it was doing so stupidly and inefficiently.

As a porous organization it allowed infiltration, subversion and manipulation by hostile forces.