Obsession with Nehru will only magnify the first prime minister of India

 Nehru remains India's first democratically elected prime minister and none can snatch that title from him

Vidya Bhushan Rawat

The American forces attacked Indian sailers killing several of them in the Persian Gulf yet the government of India and its prime time loudspeakers and 'devotees' have remained completely silent. There is not even a word of condemnation of the US government. Rather, we are being told about the 'international law' and 'legality' of the issue. Ironically, Iran has condemned this act and called US as international pirate.

Actually, India is 'reinventing' varnashramdharma at the moment. The government does not bother about the things which concern people. It is more focussed on temple hopping, name changing, renovating Ghats and demolishing historical buildings so that everything in India can be painted and rebuild in the saffron of Gujarat style. They haave converted the entire beautiful Lutyen's Zone into obscene Gujarati style structure. Yes, each stone in India everywhere right from our historical places at Badrinath, Kedarnath, Kashi Vishwanath or historical buildings in Delhi must now have a Gujarati imprint. And obviously, all this is not free of cost. Huge funds have been provided for demolition and then a separate fund will be made available for construction everywhere. This is the government, which create news to manage things. It might not have created any 'employment' but it finds ways and means to create 'opportunities' and 'employment' for the 'cronies'.

Now, three days have passed yet there is no condemnation of the US action. The tame press release by the Ministry of External Affairs show how this government function. It is the Varna order or what Baba Saheb Ambedkar said ascending order of reverence and descending order of contempt. It means that behave spinelessly before the powerful adversary but become a lion or tiger if the adversary is deemed to be not so powerful. If this was a case of Pakistan, Bangladesh etc, these loudspeakers would have made a 'speakrfod' performance on their prime time but they remain shamelessly silent.

But that is the compulsion of all this and one must understand how capitalism and imperialism function. Most of our opinion makers, our politicians, bureacrates, militarymen, lawyers or judges, business leaders have their wards or families studying or working/living in the USA and other western countries. That is the reason that they are habitual of looking everything around us from a western perspective. The hyper active Bhakts are silent and unable to condemn the absolutely unlawful American attack on Indian citizens. The Bhakts are ignorant about international politics like their Gurus and hence are desperate to keep their 'Greencard' safe from the wrath of Trump administration.

Donald Trump 'congratulated' Narendra Modi for becoming the 'largest serving' 'democratically elected' prime minister. Now, Modi and his government was busy celebrating the biggest 'achievement' of becoming India's largest serving prime minister. I felt that Narendra Modi will have to be the prime minister of India beyond 2031 to cross over the 17 years stint of Jawahar Lal Nehru and till 2030 to pass through the almost 16 years period of Mrs Indira Gandhi. Narendra Modi is not satisfied with merely that. He want all the memories and historical facts about Nehru be erased.

But what about media. This is the month of June and we will have a rituals of 'remembering' 'emergency'. Ramanath Goenka's bravery will be 'celebrated' along with others vastly ignoring the dirty reality that Indian Express today is nothing but a propaganda paper of the government in Power and spread the lies of the government.

Why is the BJP and its shameless promoters denigrading the historical nationalist movement ? A Constituent Assembly of Indian came into being from the vast mandate of the people. It was not merely Nehru who got elected here. Sardar Patel, Dr Ambedkar, M L Jayakar, Syama Prasad Mukherjee, Maulana Azad, Dr Rajendra Prasad, C Rajagopalachari, Rajkumari Amrit Kaur and many more leaders got elected for the constituent assembly. It was a people's mandate to make a decide a Constitution for India which was drafted by Baba Saheb Ambedkar taking into account all those intricacies in debates and discussion which happened in the Constituent Assembly. Does the BJP want to tell us that this Constitution was not made by the people of India and was gifted to us by the British ? In the Nehru cabinet, which has wider representation from across the political parties. Sardar Patel was the deputy Prime Minister and among the non Congress stalwarts were Syama Prasad Mukherje, Dr Baba Saheb Ambedkar, Sardar Baldev Singh, R K Shanmukham Chetty, John M Matthai. This representation was meant to make the cabinet look wider and inclusive. So Hindu Mahasabha, Scheduled Caste Federation, Justice Party, Akali Dal and independent candidate formed part of the first Cabinet on August 15, 1947 apart from Congress Party which has a huge presence because of the largest number of elected representatives.

One may have differences of opinion with leaders. Nehru is not beyond criticism and for that matter nobody is above criticism. We must understand that the process of political democracy and devising a system is an ongoing process. That was the time, when things were just taking shape and Constituent Assembly guided the fate of India. The first Lok Sabha elections were held between October 25th, 1951 till February 21st, 1952 and Congress won with a huge mandate with 45% vote and 364 seats. Unfortunately, Sardar Patel has passed away on December 15th, 1950 so he could not become part of the election campaign or new government but he will always be called India's first Deputy Prime Minister and to say that he was not elected is a blatant lie and mean disgracing our national leaders of the freedom movement. The process of election might have been different that time as democratic system was still evolving and we must give credit to our constitutional forefathers for evolving a system which fuctioned efficiently till date to make us the biggest democracy of the world though assault on that system has now taken place systematically.

It is equally important to understand that numbers dont make a person great. Gandhi ji did not held any position yet he was much bigger than any Prime Minister of India like Periyar in Tamilnadu was much more powerful and bigger than the chief ministers of the state. Second, prime minister such as V P Singh remained in power for a very short period but he made history by his actions and deeds. Whenever history of social justice and political empowerment of the marginalised will be written, VP Singh will remain the greatest prime minister of India from a social justice narrative or perspective.

People dont become big or small by the position they uphold but it is important to see them from their actions and facts. Narendra Modi can be great and he has been elected by the people of India but for that he does not need to compare with Nehru. You cant get away from the fact that Jawahar Lal Nehru was independent India's first prime minister. Ofcourse, if you want to communicate that Nehru was elected prime minister of India only after 1952 then you should not call Sardar Patel as India's duly elected Deputy Prime minister as he could not participated in 1951-52 general elections.

History is brutal. It will not get reflected today when one is in power. It haunt when you are not there. It brings facts and the facts may not be rosy all the time. The spineless propagandists calling themselves as 'media' are nothing but a big farce and have lost whatever little credibility they had. Nobody can deny the fact that Nehru was India's first Prime minister duly elected by the people of India. It will better for the current regime to foccus on the issues confronting the nation. The more you target Nehru, the bigger will be the interest of people on searching more about the political climate of India in the late 1940s when RSS and Hindu Mahasabha were just chanting Hindu Muslim and terming British as their friend while other nationalists were seeking complete independence and going to jail. Nehru will always remain 'Hind ke Jawahar' for powerfully propagating for the idea of an inclusive, secular and liberal India which is needed so that we are heard globally with respect and admiration.

Russia India Relationship on solid rock foundation

 

Vidya Bhushan Rawat

The grand welcome given to Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modis' in Russia has not been taken kindly in the Western capitals because of various reasons. Many in India too are commenting it in contempt without knowing the warm relationship between the two countries. Indian leaders always received a rousing reception in the Soviet Union. Jawahar Lal Nehru and Indira Gandhi are highly popular names in Russia and all the CIS countries even today. One is the timing of it when NATO allies were meeting in Washington to celebrate 75 years of its formation. The question is why should India bother about it and why is the Western world expecting too much from India. India has been a traditional ally of Russia for long and it is not a government imposed thing but people of both the countries understand it. Fact of the matter is that India's right wing was never comfortable with our ties with Russia. The Gujarat lobby particularly the business one felt that their interests are well built in maintaining relationships with the western world. Then there are liberals who are promoted by various American 'policy organizations' to promote their interests in the name of 'democracy'. Just think of a time when Indira Gandhi was taking Indo Russia friendship to a new level in 1971, she nationalised the Banks, Insurance companies, withdrew all the privy purses given to former crowns of different Riyasats and imposed Land Ceiling laws, redistributed land, strengthened Public sector undertakings and implemented reservation for scheduled castes and tribes. Who opposed all these measures ? The corporate lobby, supported by Morarji Desai, Neelam Sanjeeva Reddy and others.

While western liberals were crying foul against Communist Soviet Union, the same governments were promoting China as a counter force to the Soviets on one side and Taliban and Islamic fanatics in Pakistan on the other side. It is a fact that the entire global south opted to be part of the Non Aligned Movement to save itself from the American bullying and standing with Soviet Russia.

The 1990s were the most crucial phase of world politics. In August 1991 there was a coup against Mikhail Gorbachev, the Secretary General of the Communist Party of Soviet Union. That failed but soon there were revolts in many other republics who ceded from the Soviet Union. The western world rejoiced that their betenoir is now crushed. They started promoting their interest in smaller countries and ignored all these so called independent countries that were part of the former Soviet Union and were nursed by them but the west wanted to make them hostile against Russia. The fact is that the Russian Federation was still worlds' largest country and powerful but everyone enjoyed the 'fall of the Communist Empire. Indian liberals too were happy as they felt the Indian establishment would be tilting more towards the United States and other Western countries. Most of them were speaking about Russia as if there are people dying of hunger and malnutrition. Western commentators rejoice in mocking Russia when speaking about that country but those who have seen Moscow and other places can vouch that a metro in Moscow is far superior to that in New York. Moscow is truly a beautiful city.

Vladimir Putin may be termed as dictator and undemocratic but there is no doubt in saying that he has brought glory to Russia like a phoenix. It is a country full of confidence and prosperity. Russia's actions against Ukraine were based on its national interest and to protect Russian speaking people from what it alleged were the Nazis there. The fact that NATO has been trying to encircle Russia is a well known fact. How can Indians forget that they did the same. Supporting China and then promoting Pakistan's anti India rhetoric was part of that attempt to encircle India too. Today, the west wants us to believe that Russia is a junior partner of China. In their hatred and contempt for Russia they can go to any length even not asking for elections in Ukraine. How is Zelensky being allowed as leader of Ukraine when the man has arrested all the dissenters and political opponents. Russia tried to negotiate and withdrew its forces from Kiev but that was considered a weakness and now it seems NATO is preparing for a final showdown with Russia which will be dangerous and only take us to World War III. The world can't afford it but then you can not bring peace by humiliating Russia which is growing more powerful and has bigger acceptance globally right from Africa to Asia and Latin America.

Unfortunately in India, we all suffer from amnesia of the western media propaganda about the word left and socialism and its relation with Russia. Even when the tide is turning in a different direction in Europe after the recent elections in France. In Britain too left socialist forces will get strengthened in future. In India, we somehow have become victims of the Western Propaganda as far as Russia is concerned. Narendra Modi just finished his trip to Russia. As usual, Russia gave him a huge welcome. Both the countries are playing their politics. Some for their domestic constituency while for Russia it is addressing to the global elite that Russia or Vladimir Putin is not a pariah. Frankly speaking, many of the comments in India about Russia suffer from the hatred towards the left. Some of these experts feel as if Russia is suffering after the Americans and Europeans have put their sanctions on them. Well, these sanctions don't even work for a country like North Korea. Every country has its own strategy and North Korea too may be a matter of joke for us but look at their capital city Pyongyang which is beautiful and only show that we should not make our opinion based on the Western media narrative.

The Western World defines communities, societies and people as per its own conveniences and we have just been following it. Russia has been a global power and the world owes to them to defeat the Nazi forces Hitler during the second world war.

The election of President Putin became a butt of jokes for everyone including political leaders. They forgot that Russia, even when it was the Soviet Union, never had the governance structure as followed by the West. China too had a similar pattern for their governance structure. They have their critique about Western democracy, which is a fast turning right controlled by the big bag corporations. Democracy or no is an internal matter of Russia and they will deal with it but the fact is that Russia is the fastest growing economy and the world bank itself has put it among the High Income Countries.

The fact is that Russia is a powerful country with enormous energy resources. It has no issue about land mass. It knows what is good for us. Most importantly, it has stood with India through thick and thin. India Russia friendship started immediately after our independence. Even during independence, a large number of freedom fighters got support from Russia.

Prime Minister Jawahar Lal Nehru was highly impressed with the Soviet Union and Indira Gandhi gave it a new height. We all know how the Americans and Brits created a hostile environment in 1971 and it was the Soviet Union that came in open support of India during the War with Pakistan and the result was creation of Bangladesh.

What I wish to state here is that the Indo Russia relationship is time tested. Ofcourse, after the 1990s event when many republics broke away from Russia, the Western world and much of India felt that Russia is a gone case but Vladimir Putin has brought it back to new heights. Today, Russia is not isolated but helping create a multipolar world. With Mali-Niger-Burkina Faso throwing the French American forces out of their soil, we are witnessing a new wave of anti colonial movement in Africa and Latin America. One can not ignore how the peoples' résistance in Bolivia foiled a coup attempt by the military there against the President.

People of the global south now realise how in the name of democracy, western world created unrest in various countries and intervened. The issues of India will be resolved by people of India and those trying to find its solution in Brussels or Washington will not succeed as it is the people in our states, in Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Bengal, Tamilnadu elsewhere will decide what is good or bad for India. Let us not mock Russia and its support to India which is based on a historic relationship with two people. Don't forget Raj Kapoor's immortal 'mera juta hai jaapani, ye patloon englistani, sar pe laal topi rusi, fir bhi dil hai hindustani' still reverberating in the air in Russia. Awara hoon is one of the most popular songs there. Russian literature has been hugely popular in India. So, this relationship is not merely based on military alliance but also cultural one. Except for the Western dependent Indian urban elite, Russia remain in the heart of rest of working class Indians who enjoyed the pro people policies and programmes of the government.

Countries have the right to decide about their foreign policies. India is as much independent as Russia and both countries today are redefining their relationship. I am sure even if the governments change here and there this relationship will remain the same and grow further. It is similar to the Western World. The first visit of a British Prime Minister, normally, is to visit White House, whether she is a Tory or a Labour. Let India and Russia celebrate their historic relationship which stands on rock solid foundations. Let us not mock it for our petty political considerations.

Celebrate the Indo Russian friendship.

UK Elections : Democracy turning 'right' in liberal world

 

Labour as Conservative is the New Ruling Party in UK

Vidya Bhushan Rawat

 

The smooth and quick transfer of power in UK speak volume on the great democratic tradition in that country. Election results came out during the day and by the afternoon outgoing Prime Minister Rishi Sunak went to Buckingham Palace to tender his resignation. By the time, he stepped out, Labour leader Keir Starmer was appointed the Prime Minister by the King and within minutes he addresses the nation at the historic entrance of No 10-downing street. The Prime minister paid tribute to his predecessor Rishi Sunak and acknowledged his contribution to Britain. With-in hours, the Prime Minister announced his cabinet and the transfer of power was completed without any pomp and show. Britain, that way, is a great example unlike United States where the new President takes oath nearly two months after the results are out in November in a great pomp and show though both the forms of governments are based on majoritarianism and revolve around the white power elite of these countries.  

The outcome of result might sound music to many who might dance on hearing the word ‘labour’ as in most of the world, the term is almost deleted in the ‘vocabulary’ of political discourse. In the United States, there is no Labour. There is the fight between two parties of white ruling elite dominated by the corporate interest with little interest for the common person. Now, Labour party returned to power after 14 years and with massive majority but are the Conservatives decimated in UK?  Has the Labour anything to do with the left politics? What brought Labour to power in UK?

The fact is that the historical route of Conservative Party does not indicate the growth of ‘left wing’ political forces in Britain. The fact is this landslide to Labour party is more to do with the faulty electoral system that UK has been following termed as First Past the Post System which result in huge gap between the vote share and the number of seat got. FPTP can be useful if there are only two to three parties as well as a high voter turnout. In the absence of it, the mandate can always be haunting though at the end of the day, it does not matter, how much is the vote share, it is the number of seats that matter.

Turning 'Right'

The fact of the matter is that out of 650 seats, Labour Party has won 412 seats which is almost 65% of seats though the vote share was merely 34%. Its rival Conservative Party with 24% vote share acquired 121 seats. Liberals got 71 seats with 12% votes. Another right wing under the name Reformist Party, though, only got 4 seats but with 14% vote share. Led by Nigel Farage, Reformists are being blamed for the route of the Tory government. Conservative, Liberals and Reformists mostly hail from the same variety of political ideology of right wing. Their combine vote share is much powerful than that of Labour. The left leaning groups are mostly independent and Green Party.  Interestingly, Labour could only increase its vote share of about 2% from 2019 when it fought under the leadership of Jeremy Corbyn who contested as an independent candidate and won from Islington North constituency by over 7,000 votes defeating the nearest Labour Party rival. Corbyn has been representing this constituency since 1983 and has won for a record 11 times.

Many people might be happy to see return of a ‘Labour’ government after one and a half decade but is it really so. Leave aside the ‘vote share and seat got’ issue, the fact is most of the western electoral system particularly influence by British and American models are already captured by the right-wing capitalist forces. The quality of the ‘western democratic model’ is in its propaganda and comparison with the Russian and Chinese system despite the fact that both the countries are today a power house and rising high economically. Look at the rise of other powerful groups in UK like Liberal Democrats and Reformists both ideologically close to Conservatives but is ‘Labour’ truly dedicated to left or the working classes. The problem with the ‘liberal democracies’ in the world is their hypocrisy on human rights issues. If Labour Party was truly dedicated to the idea as its name suggest then how come powerful leaders like Jeremy Corbyn thrown away from the party. Is it because he was considered more radical and a threat to the Empire and its elite. How is the current leadership of Labour different than the Conservative. The brazen shamelessness of Kier Stramer in refusing to condemn the Israeli brutalities and assault on Gaza shocked all those who filled the Streets of United Kingdom demanding a complete ceasefire in Gaza. It was Kier responsible for humiliating and ousting Jeremy Corbyn and other left leaning leaders from Labour Party. Most of these leaders fought independently won with a handsome margin and defeated their nearest Labour rivals. The poll result suggest that British electorate are swinging between different conservative forces and Labour got acceptability because it threw away radical left forces led by Jeremy Corbyn. So essentially, British political system is highly dominated and controlled by the Conservatives who may not be Conservative Party but also Labour, Liberal and Reformists.

The Crisis of Electoral System

The British model of electoral system or simply FPTP is not reflective of the real verdict of the people. It is basically manipulative of the power elite and therefore most of the time legitimize a ‘minority’ government as ‘majority. All the colonies of the ‘Empire’ has this system which is used by the power elite of those countries using or misusing the contradiction among different groups. The difference between vote share and seat won is too high. The Labour got nearly 34% of total vote polled out of 60% votes that were polled during these elections. Which simply mean 40% people did not vote during the election. Now, in terms of seat, the party got 412 seats out of 650 which is nearly 64%. Under the Proportional Electorate System, Labour with 34% vote share would have just got 221 seats much below the majority mark. Conservatives with 21% vote share would have got 156 instead of 121 which they have at the moment. Liberal with 12% vote share got 71 seats while Reformists with 14% vote share got just 4 seats. Under the Proportionate system, Liberals could have got 78 and Reformists 91. Even a 4 seat Green Party with 7% vote would have got nearly 46 seats.

How credible is the electoral system where party getting 34% votes which also mean 66% votes that were polled did vote against you. Interestingly, a party with 14% vote share get just 4seat while that with 12% vote share 71 seats. Now, how can such a system be justified as ‘democratic’. We all have the same crisis and the result is that the ruling parties and government actually rarely listen to people’s’ voices. The amount of massive street protests that London witnessed in support of Palestine was always looked down upon by the power elite and the media. The governments these days speak through the power elite and opposition leader spoke the language of the prime minister when he openly supported the previous government’s stand on Palestine.

 

No change in Foreign Policy

Actually, western democracies are liberal to the large extent related to individual freedom, right to faith, criticism of the government and allowing protests in the streets but at the same point of time we need to understand why a leader like Jeremy Corbyn was ousted from Labour ? Why he has been a persona non grata for the ‘liberal’ circles. A similar thing happened in United States where Bernie Sanders is despised by the ruling elite. The liberal democracies can’t accept Julian Assange and felt him the biggest threat. It needs to be understood why these democracies do not listen to the voices of protests in the streets.

Broadly, the western democracy will remain pro capitalist and market driven and nothing much is expected to change on the foreign policy matters though the new Prime Minister as already rescinded the Rwanda policy for refugees which is a great step in right direction. The Tory government wanted to privatise the prestigious National Health Services but could not do so. The railway network is already in distress. Will the new government take initiatives to strengthen these services or will it be the same government that was headed by Tony Blair ? 

The issue of minorities and immigrants are extremely important and resulted in victory of four independent candidates who defeated Labour candidates. The party has to see whether it will follow the ‘right tilt of Tony Blair or really work differently particularly on the issue of Palestine. It needs to understand that the combine vote share of the right-wing parties is much higher than it and if it ignore wider concern of minorities and immigrants then it might loses the support of progressive forces as well as ethnic minorities then Britain might see rise of radical left forces in the coming years. Unlike the United States, Britain still has got space for minorities and immigrants in the political structure. Will Jeremy Corbyn and other leaders emerge more powerful in the coming years or the pressure of capitalist forces including a hostile media make them politically insignificant? 

Lesson for India

A democracy is successful when its institutions are robust. Britain has a powerful legacy in that regard. The election process is extremely simple and voting opens at 7 am and continue till 10 pm. The parliament still is responsible and debates there are worth watching. Prime Minister’s Question hour with leader of opposition is extremely fascinating but then we cant have that in India.

The New Parliament has 23 Muslim members (A big country like India has just 24) and over 60% of the members belong to ethnic minorities reflecting Britain’s diversity. One thing need to be clarified. A criticism of the British system does not mean we are better than them. They have a robust system and more over basic curtsies among the political class there remain far superior than us. The swiftness with which the new government took charge with in a day remain remarkable. Everything was done without any chest thumping or ‘victory’ speeches. It is also important to understand the difference of ‘right wing’ or Conservatives in Britain, Europe and India. The Conservatives or Right Wing there are mostly against immigration policies of the government but none of them have ventured inside the personal lives of people. Right wing in India and its neighbors are basically religious fanatics who have issues with your personal choices whether food, faith or marriage. There are no hate speeches and diversity of representation is always a plus point for political parties.

Britain’s elections have big lessons for us and our political class. That elections in vibrant democracies today is on ballot paper and not through EVMs is a reality. Secondly, we did not hear any complaints of electoral malfunctioning or fraud. The counting and declaration process was simple and Prepoll surveys or Exit polls were not hyped. The prime minister did not take time in vacating his official bungalow and gone to submit his resignation to the King when results were just coming in and he conceded his defeat gracefully. The transfer of power was so swift and meticulous that there was no time for any confusion and uncertainty.  Yes, electoral system has issues of representation\ and vibrant democracies find their own solution. Britain will certainly have to look into it as this might become a major issue in the coming days.

Let us hope new government will fulfill the aspirations of the people but expecting a different perspective on Ukraine and Israel will be next to impossible as foreign policy matters in these countries are mostly static and fixed with United States. A change in its Ukraine or Palestine policy will need Jeremy Corbyn at the helm of affair which does not seem a possibility in the near future.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

How can we keep Indo-Pak relations free from prejudices

Reproducing from my archive in the interest of a positive India-Pakistan relationship.


Review Article

A Khakhi version of Indo-Pak relations

Vidya Bhushan Rawat

Indo-Pak relations have been subject of intense discussion for many in the subcontinent including the ‘security hawks’ and hate mongering foreign ministry experts. General K.M.Arif held important positions in the Pakistan army under different presidents and was particularly closer to General Zia-ul-Haq. Like many Pakistanis he also think that the stories on the Indo-Pak wars had been a one sided affair so far as only Indian versions have come out and Pakistan government has unnecessarily put restrictions on such publication. This is a lament by no less than a general that Pakistan should be an open society and that military should better concentrate on its professional duties rather then meddling into the political affairs of the country on the regular basis. This will, he argues, affect military capability to fight the external enemy i.e. India.

It is interesting to note the different intrigues that Pakistan polity face and the reasons sited by the General to justify military rule in Pakistan, though he must be complimented to put the internal security situation in Pakistan in a very clear perspective but the general has really been parochial and conventionalist when writing about India. His entire thesis on India shows how military in Pakistan and India both the countries have prejudices and bias about each other. The Pakistan army therefore does not hide its communal leaning in terming India as a Hindu state while Pakistan as a Muslim country. The general terms Nehru as a Hindu leader who had a vision for the country while Pakistan after the first round of leadership of the likes of M.A.Jinnah, Liaqat Ali Khan lacked a second ranking leadership. We sitting in India when analyse the Pakistan situation and its reason of military leadership lack the understanding of internal intrigues of Pakistan army and so-called democracy.

The general says that the 1965 Indo-Pak war was an unintended war in which ‘each side reacted disproportionately to the perceived provocation by the other and in the end lost control’. But he nevertheless blames India for the aggression quoting an known Jansangh leader Mr U.M.Trivedi in the Lok Sabha that the Indian army must go to ‘ right up to Lahore to bring Pakistan to its senses.’ Even the socialist leader Ram Manohar Lohia wanted India to over run Pakistan. Of course, many in Indian think the same way as the general says but such opinion exist the other side of the border and it would be better for saner people not to give legitimacy and justification to such rhetoric. The General then pat the novice Pakistan leadership under Ayub Khan and quotes him as saying: If Pakistan wanted to commit aggression it would have chosen a better area than the mud flats and also a better time when the Indian forces were on the run after their defeat at the hands of China.

The author then goes on comment on the crisis that erupted in East Pakistan now known as Bangladesh. Though unlike many other Pakistanis he admit the fault of Punjabi dominated bureaucracy and leadership to ignore the claims of Bengalis in Pakistan’s national-political life. He says that since most of the Punjabi’s and Sindhies were educated enough hence they had a major share in bureaucracy but unfortunately Bengalis did not have the ‘ trained manpower’ and most importantly they were culturally dominated by Hindus who had a grudge against Pakistan. There was a slanderous campaign about uneven treatment given to East Pakistanis. And according to General Khan, Pakistani leadership should have acted in a much-matured fashion to diffuse the crisis. It is interesting to note that the general blames the illiteracy and untrained Bengali leadership for their under representation in the services and leadership and feel that it was overreacted by the Awami League president Sheikh Mujeeb who was conspiring against the Pakistanis with clear support from the Indian ruling establishment.

The process of Bangladesh was very old and began with the opposition of Urdu language in East Bengal where students were adamant that Bangla should be their mother tongue. Here the learned General supports Jinnah for supporting Urdu as the link language of the country and relates Bengali as a clearly Hindu dominated language, which un-necessarily swayed the Bangla Muslims. In the 1970 elections held for Pakistan’s National Assembly, Awami League won 160 seats out of 162 reserved for East Pakistan while Pakistan People’s Party of Z.A.Bhutto won 81 seats from West Pakistan out of 138 seats reserved for them. Clear enough Awami League should have been allowed to form the government but larger than life ego of Bhutto never really allowed this to succeed. According to the General, since both the parties were regional hence they should have formed the government jointly but he did not say that if there was no consensus than the democratically elected largest political party i.e. Awami League should have been invited to form the government in Pakistan. But then the general only justified this by his earlier saying that though East Bengal has a majority of seats and population, it did not have a ‘merit’ like the Punjabis and Sindhies and hence could not be filled in the respective quota. This itself is an argument which many of our upper caste fellows in India gives regarding the Dalits on the grounds that they don’t have required merit and hence they should not be allowed to come up with the general category boys. The argument regarding Urdu language is the same as that we face here in India regarding Hindi when states like Tamilnadu could go the extent of threatening to secede from India but then Nehru has a greater vision to run India and the foundation of Pakistan was on a very dangerous precedent. If Islam were the only thing that united all the Muslims of the subcontinent then Pakistan would not have so many internal problems for which blame is given not to Indian establishment but Hindus. This is a dangerous theory like Islam being presented globally as a religion of sword. The fact presented here reflects clearly that every community wants to preserve its culture and language. Nothing could be far from the truth when we say that religion decide culture. The proximity between Bengali Muslim and Bengali Hindu is much more than a Bengali Muslim and a Punjabi Muslim. It is true for all other cases.

Writing about Mohajir problem in Pakistan the author makes these points: “These people had settled in Pakistan but could not emotionally disengage themselves from the Ganga-Jamuni culture. Instead of merging themselves with the social and cultural environment of Sindh to create a new and enriched blend of distinticitve identity for Pakistan, they endeavored to practice their UP culture in the desert of Sindh and hoped that their cultural identity would also be adopted by the old Sindhis. This attitude brought them in conflict with the local nationalists power centers who were themselves no less possessive and proud of their own ancient language, distintictive dress and rich cultural heritage.” Interestingly, the general does not say that Pakistan itself became a victim of its own identity problem and that Muslim League a party of rich peasantry and migrants from UP had to ultimately bow to the pressure of local ethnic identities, though he suggest that Military interventions in Pakistan came because of a virtually corrupt and defunct political leadership and army being a nationalist organizations could not have allowed the country to go like this. Appreciably, the general still points out that Army is not the final answer for Pakistan’s problems but it is the democracy which will make Pakistan a strong nation and he lament how the vision of a democratic, plural and progressive Pakistan was lost due to the lure of power by the powerful feudal elite in Pakistan who usurped everything in the name of democracy. He says, “ Military dictators were not the sole spoilers of the democratic order. Many elected leaders in the country were in fact only democratic in name but autocratic in their conduct and behavior. They promoted a brand of sham democracy to further their personal interests and for reasons of political expediency. Such persons contributed no less in eroding Pakistan’s nascent democratic order.”

Paying tribute to Nehru as a great visionary, the General has made a post-mortem of Pakistan’s various military juntas who ruled the country under the pretext of democracy. In a remarkable show of clarity and sobriety he says: “ In their respective tenures in office Ayub, Yahya, Bhutto and Zia wore two hats each, one, that of the Chief martial law administrator, and the second, of the President of Pakistan. It was an administrative, legal and diplomatic requirement for the country to have a head of the state. However, in the spirit of law, this designation was misnomer. The four presidents of Pakistan were in reality about absolute military rulers who did not derive their authority either from the constitution, which was abrogated or suspended, or from the Parliament, which did not exist. They ruled by the gun and wielded absolute power without any institutional system of accountability.”

The author must be complimented for bringing out the most intriguing factors of Pakistan polity and its armed forces and he no doubt admits that in the power game it was West Pakistan, which dominated despite East Pakistan’s majority. Terming Z.A.Bhutto, former Pakistan prime minister as ‘ a feudal by birth, a socialist by his own declaration, but a capitalist at heart’, he says that Bhutto’s downfall was ultimately his own creation. The democratic institutions were considerably weakened during his period. That was a fact also in the cased of Nawaz Sharief which paved way for the intervention of army under General Parvez Musharraf. The general gives version of what Musharraf gave to Pakistan and does not try to give the other side of the story. He says that since the Institution of army was under threat hence Musharraf had to intervene. In an interesting inner revelation, the general says that General Zia was not interested to step in when Bhutto’s personalized cult touched a nadir in Pakistan. It was Bhutto, who wanted to divide the army and the army declined to fire on the protesters against the Bhutto administration which Zia feared would divide the only saved institution of Pakistan and that’s why he unwillingly imposed Martial Law in Pakistan. He however could not hide his military bias when he says that it was not military which gave death sentence to Bhutto but the courts and that Zia ultimately gave his consent for final hanging under public pressure. Given the cult of Bhutto in Pakistan, even today, one can only laugh at this that the president did not give pardon to a former prime minister because the people welcomed his persecution. The fact is that Zia went against a very large number of international appeals for an amnesty to Bhutto and hanged him so that he could rule Pakistan uninterruptedly because after Bhutto’s death Pakistan was plunged into a political crisis.


In the Epilogue of the book, the author speak about the Kargil war and how the ‘freedom fighters’ occupied the Kargil-Drass sector and surprised India’s military command. However, if this was the case of ‘freedom fighters’, then one wonder as the why the author is petting the Pakistan army for giving a run to India and finally Pakistan submitted because of the American Pressure.

This book has an interesting narration and many new things for the students of south Asian politics and army interventions in Pakistan. Perhaps, this is for the first time that a Pakistani general has openly given his viewpoint on the polity of the country. It is also good that a general of his caliber support democratic set up in the country and want the army to be out of the day-to-day politics of the country. However, there are many things which need to be introspected by the Indians and Pakistanis both, which is about our shared history and culture. It is here where the army men need more concentration, otherwise how could one justify comment from General Arif about Mohajir’s practicing
‘Ganga Jamuni’ culture in Pakistan was against the new identity of Pakistan. Why the general think that everything that Indian is dangerous for the identity of Pakistan. How could those who created Pakistan ( Mohazirs were in the forefront of it), forget about their culture and language. After all, the same general justify Urdu language as being declared as the national language of Pakistan despite the fact that it was not a language of any province in Pakistan. After all, Urdu itself is a ‘Gangajamnui’ language and has a great cultural legacy. Pakistan and India are two sovereign nation and have to remain neighbor for ever and it is therefore necessary as both work together to achieve peace and prosperity in the region and for this shared cultural legacy must be brought forward, rather than creating a fear psychosis of alien culture in the minds of our people which our political-military leadership had been doing in India and Pakistan. Ganga-Jamuni culture is not a bad culture and would definitely do better for Pakistan society than any other culture, which has divided the society. The hegimonistic Hindu India or Muslim evil Pakistan, as our army men would make us believe should now become a matter of past. This book must be read by all particularly Indians as it gives the ‘other’ side of story. It is an informative work and gives us ample scope to introspect and the author has full marks when he repeatedly speaks of a viable democracy in Pakistan free from religious fanaticism. Such thought gives us hope that military leadership in Pakistan will one day realize that ultimately it is democracy, which will bring laurels to Pakistan and not the army.

Name of the Book: Khaki Shadows: Pakistan (1947-1997)
Author: General K.M.Arif
Published by: Oxford University Press, Karachi
Year: 2001
Price: not mentioned
Pages: 450

Know thyself

Debating discrimination, differences and dissent in our part of the world

By Vidya Bhushan Rawat

The issue of racial discrimination has been in the news for quite some time. Some Indian pretended that they have been discriminated against in Britain while rarely speaking that India does not have its own house in order. Despite 60 years of independence India has not been able to transformed into a modern state, in terms of freedom, dissent and life of the common men. Though it may be a great satisfaction for some of us that India surrounded by autocratic military dictators still managed to strive the political democracy but instead of basking on the glory of ‘successful democracy’, we need to introspect our persistent failures of social life. If democracy has not reached the last man as envisaged by Gandhi or if social life does not convert into a social democracy as envisaged by Dr Ambedkar, Indians all over the world need to investigate that without empowering common man, India can neither claim a powerful nation nor an intellectual giant which many of the commentators do not stop claiming all the time. Pakistan has the same problem though it is not a democratic state yet its ruler claims a secular army and a working democracy on various occasions. Question is democracy is thwarted by the identity politics and undemocratic caste Panchayats. They are a threat but these caste panchayats are now being modernized in the name of new identity assertion among every one from the non-resident Indians to urban Indians under various shades and names. This assertion reinforces and justifies the age-old traditions in the name of culture. It jump on the bogey of victimization as soon as an elite of its own class face discrimination as in the case of Shilpa Shetty but remain conspicuously silent on the issue of its own contradictions and discriminations. Hence the Indians, Pakistanis and the other South Asians would rarely speak on their own track record of discrimination against ethnic, religious and linguistic minorities in their own country. Oppression of women is always justified in the name of culture and vigorously defended.

A few days ago, I was reading the horrible tale of Mukhtar Mai who faced tyranny of the caste Panchayat called as Jirga in the North West Frontier Province, in Pakistan, which ordered her rape for a crime allegedly committed by her minor brother. Mukhtar Mai has become a legend in her own life times. Fighting against the feudal lords of the notorious North West Frontier Province, Mukhtari Mai showed how the village women in the Indian subcontinent have the courage to challenge the system. That, this system degrades and humiliates the victim is a well- established fact. And based on this principal, the rural women suffer in utter humiliation and indignity. Mukhtar Mai is not alone in such cases. Things are same in India, though a bit sophisticated here. It is important that a woman like Phoolan Devi would not have born if she had not shown the courage to fight against the humiliation. Rather than surrendering to the whims of the local powerful caste groups, these women stood up. Some chose the constitutional path while other decided to avenge it according to their own way. While Bhanwari Bai had to face the humiliation even inside the court where the judge in the Jaipur court released the accused establishing that an upper caste person would rarely rape a woman.

In her wonderful memoirs ‘ In the name of honor’, Mukhtar Mai, now symbolizing as an assertive woman protesting against the man made rules, says,’ police are directly controlled by the upper castes. Policemen act as the fierce guardians of traditions, allied with the tribal authorities. Whatever decision a jirga (caste Panchayat) makes will be accepted and backed up by the police. It is impossible to charge an influential family with a crime if the police consider the matter a village affair, especially if the victim is a woman’.

What Mukhtar Mai is saying reflect the farce in our system. As propagandists of family virtues, we, the South Asian have been at the height of hypocrisy blaming the west for every fault of their own. I am sure one would agree that these feudal values, the Manus law are not the invention of the wild west which our commentators often describe. The recent issue of race relation in Britain where a B grade Bombay film heroine earned huge amount of money, the South Asian communities are being presented as if everything has been imposed upon them and are being victimized. Ofcourse, the same South Asian would not like to be reminded about the growing number of honored killing in UK among the South Asian Communities. Shocking it may sound, but the fact is, that South Asians have more racial contours than their British counterparts. A study in UK showed how the Indians still are confined to their caste identities and how to get marry, every Indian boy come to India to look for an ‘ideal’ ‘ cultured’ and ‘fare’ color girl. Will we tell the world that we are more colours conscious than the British or European? That our boys are deeply intoxicated in the idea of varna and colour and that dogs can enter our temples and urinate over the gods but when the Dalits want to enter there the Gods become angry and their followers on earth goes on rampage.

Human life is not equal in this part of the world. Honored killing are not happening in Britton and Pakistan only but are very much part of our traditions. After all, all our marriages are not meant for the bride and the groom but for the parents of the both. Reputation is the biggest thing in these marriages.

A boy from the Valmiki family is still facing threat to his life for felling love with a girl from a Jaat family. Jaats are the peasant community and their men dominate the Delhi police hence when I visited along with other friends to the Assistant police commissioner some three years back, to provide security to this young boy, the officer said ‘. You see organizations like your should come forward and train the policemen, after all they too are human being and family. How do you expect them to change over night.’ I told the officer: Do you want to justify police negligence in the name of tradition.’ No, he said, but see how the society is changing. The girls move out in the evening without any escorts. How can police resolve every crisis that the society faces? I was aghast at this answer by the police officer that proudly claimed a JNU background. The officer certainly was not interested in telling that the police had failed to protect the victim and that such things should be stopped. I still remember how a younger sister of a girl who was slaughtered by her family and entire village community along with her husband, was happy and said that those who goes against social norms would meet the same fate.

Yes, the South Asian would not like to speak about the horrible culture of moral policing that they have developed without any change. The paradox of this is that they all enjoy best of multiculturalism in Europe and America but are highly paranoid of granting minority rights or space to dissent. For instance, Gujaratis world-over, have enjoyed the hospitality of multiculturalism. United States, United Kingdom and South Africa were their hunting ground. They build up huge empire. And see what is happening their native Gujarat? Most of the Non Resident Gujarati’s are financing the Babas, and the right wing elements. Narendra Modi might call Gujarat a vibrant state but it remains totally out of bound for the non-Gujaratis particularly Muslims and Chrisitians. During a trip to Gujarat last year, I put this question to a friendly Gujarati as why do they not want to keep Muslims in Gujarat. And the cryptic answer that this businessman was that the outsiders are creating problems in Gujarat. Gujarati’s are peace-loving people but it is the Biharis and others who created havoc in the aftermath of Godhara. It is tragic that India’s new vibrant culture is very much in tone with what is happening in Gujarat. There is no freedom in the air. The darkness in the noon is visible in Gujarat. The only thing is that you need to go and see beyond what is visible. The dangerous aspect of this newly immerging India is the growing middle class of upper caste Hindus which clearly want to look exclusive. Hence Dalits, Adivasis and others who are at odd with the current economic social set up feel suffocated and completely isolated. The government at the center is interested to placate this elite class and has launched another India shining campaign without including the poor people.

South Asian therefore needs to speak more vigorously against their own value system. That very few people stood up with both Mukthar Mai and Bhanwari Bai is reflection of our mindset. While Shilpa Shetty has detracted from her statement regarding racial discrimination, it is painful how the British upper caste Hindus and other upper South Asian elite made this a racial issue. Did they ever protest against the merciless treatment meted out to disabled in the Bombay films? How many of South Asian stood up and say that the depiction of the blacks in the Hindi films is most racial in nature. They are laughed. Our fascination for the fair color is well known. A dark skinned woman in India will hardly find a partner of her choice. Women’s skin her biggest ability or disability. Another disability in India is the physical disability, which is visible. One will rarely find a physically disable woman getting married to a ‘normal’ man because such things are not ever thought off. She will find a man in a ‘disabled’ person only. The girls born ‘Mangalik’ would be very difficult to get marry. And see, how our superstar icon Mr Amitabh Bachchan is behaving? One needs to see his discomfiture with a Manglik daughter in law. He goes from one temple to other temple to perform Yjnas and Pujas so that the evil spirit get off from the world queen Aishwarya Rai. More shocking is the fact as alleged in the media that the poor woman was asked to marry the tree to rectify the misfortunate. What these signals. Rather than becoming enlightened and accepting the person as she is or he is, Indian’s or South Asians still think in terms of his birth sign, physical appearance, cast and clans. Can we launch a movement against it or not. How long should we blame that the onslaught of the global powers have destroyed our culture and values.

It is not that people do not oppose it. Yes, those who oppose it live on the margin thoroughly isolated and dejected. But the grave danger comes from those forces who feel great in glorifying these customs. A well-known Gandhian activist has been promoting the idea of the caste panchayats. He would say, how great these Panchayats were in resolving the village problems. But going by the nature of these Panchayats, I a sure every saner person in the world would say demolish and destroy these caste Panchayats. Not only they have been anti people but also almost all of their decisions are against the basic tenets of civilization. Whether it is Jirga which gave decision to rape Mukhtar Mai or some disgruntled Panchayats in western Uttar-Pradesh which asked Imrana, a Muslim woman who was raped by her father in law, to marry him, these caste Panchayats are a blot to civilization and individual freedom and liberty. They promote fanaticism, parochial values and patriarchy. It is important that any glorification of these Panchayats need to be questioned. These Panchayats have authorized the goons to kill lovers, rape women, and exterminate families, which do not follow their dictates. In this hour of identity politics in India, these caste Panchayats are mushrooming very fast. Identity itself is patriarchical in terms and therefore there is very little that a woman can get out of it. That Mukhtar Mai in Pakistan came from a backward Gujar community does not means that this does not happen in that community. Only question is that she was a woman and her community was at the receiving end. The Gujjars in India are no better. Fully coated in the brahmanical stigmas, they do not allow their women to venture out.

Indians need to fight against such atrocious social behavior and practices. Unfortunately, rather than taking a strong action against the same, we are always put on the flimsy ground the issue of racial discrimination. One must question the upper caste Hindus as how many of them mix up with the Scheduled Castes in United States and UK. Not many years ago when I traveled to Bolivia to participate in a conference, a Kenyan friend questioned Gandhi and his intentions in Africa. ‘ You people have always claimed that Gandhi fought for our rights but where was the fight? None of the Indians ever want to share the issues with the blacks in Uganda and other part of the world. The situation is not much different in UK and USA where Indians do not want to be clubbed with Pakistanis.” Shilpa Shetty felt very bad when an in house lady called her Paki. This superiority complex has been injected in our heart and minds from the very beginning and the sooner we understand that the world has changed and going to be more civilized, would be better for us.

As I finish this, the news comes that the parents of the missing Children of Nithari say that the role of Noida Police was very fine in the act. They appreciated the state government and particularly the ruling political party of the state which lodged them in the five star hotels, gave them land and promised every member of the family a government job. I think nothing comes more shocking then this. This culture of considering people, as purchasable commodity is very much in existence in our part of the world. A majority of the missing children were Dalits and the upper castes in nearby localities said that it was not their problem.

British people gave a resounding verdict in favour a failed Indian star but will the South Asian communities be as mature enough to respect dissent, differences with in their own communities. One hope they would do so for the betterment of their own communities and their own country. I would like to finish with a Bangladeshi cab driver in London who was working with a new agency and took me to London Metro station when he said how happy his children were in London and that they do not wish to go back to Dhaka simply when they see violence in the name of culture and tradition. The simple driver had two houses in London and appreciated the multiculturalism in UK. There are other stories as well. While all written above does not mean to exonerate the western power for what they did through their imperialist agendas but then every one of us has this in our blood, it is only who is smarter enough then others. We all have at some point of time exploited the lesser powerful and marginalized communities. Now, in the 21st century, such discrimination and justifications in the name of identity, region, religion and language must be discarded and rejected.