IF the idlib operation is implemented without any problems or comebacks, involving American or Turkish intervention, it is certain that this will be the last major battle of the Syrian civil war.

Idlib Province is the largest Al-Qaeda safe haven since 9/11,” said Brett McGurk, Special Presidential Envoy for the Global Coalition to Counter the Islamic State (IS), so you wouldn’t think that the United States would object to the Syrian Government reconquering it. Especially since US forces in Syria have no way of reaching Idlib, in the country’s northwestern corner, and neither do America’s Kurdish allies.

But you might be wrong about the US stance, because the Syrian regime’s troops attacking Idlib would have Russian bombers helping them. Turkey might also object as President Recep Tayyip Erdogan was surreptitiously helping Al Qaeda rebels in Syria earlier in the war and had already posted Turkish troops at ‘observation posts’ inside Idlib Province to protect the status quo.

We’re going to find out which way Turkey and the US jump quite soon, because Idlib is next on the list. Over the past two years, Bashar al-Assad’s Syrian regime has recaptured first the rebel-held part of Aleppo, Syria’s biggest city and then the eastern outskirts of Damascus, the capital, and most recently the areas down south near Israel and Jordan where the rebellion began. Idlib is next. It has to be Idlib because that is where all the jihadi fighters, who surrendered after those other defeats, were sent.

The influx of Islamist fighters and their families has virtually doubled the Province’s population to two million in the past two years. Assad will want to finish the job while the Russian Air Force is still in Syria, so the offensive will probably start next month. It will require intense bombing, as the Syrian Army is short of ground troops, and there are bound to be anguished international protests about civilian casualties in the crowded Province. That would provide an excuse for either Washington or Ankara to intervene and stop the attack if they want, but would they?

Erdogan would have to pull the Turkish troops out of Idlib if he wants to avoid a clash with the Syrian Army, which would be rather embarrassing, and he hates being embarrassed. He is already having to eat a good deal of humble pie in the financial crisis that is crippling the Turkish economy at home, and this would be a second helping.

On the other hand, Erdogan has already had to change his line once and accept that Assad will survive as Syria’s dictator. That makes it kind of hard for him to argue now that Syria cannot be allowed to take Idlib back, especially since the real power in Idlib is Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham, the many-times-renamed Syrian branch of Al-Qaeda.

Logically, Erdogan should not be getting involved in a foreign war when he is already in a shouting match with US President Donald Trump and the Turkish economy is in a nose-dive. But he is erratic, emotional and over-confident and hence, he might just dig his heels in. As for Trump’s own decision on Idlib, national interest decrees that he should just sit back and let it happen. What’s not to love about an event that destroys Al-Qaeda’s only territorial base in the Middle East at no cost in American money or lives?

But if Trump doesn’t intervene, America’s hard Right will complain that he is allowing a further expansion of Russian power in the Middle East, while his Israeli allies will protest again at the use of ‘Iranian troops’ (really mostly Iraqi, Afghan and Syrian mercenaries paid by Iran) in the battle. And Trump, too, is erratic, emotional and overconfident.

If the Idlib operation goes off without a major hitch involving Turkish or American military intervention, it will be the last major battle of the Syrian civil war. There would remain the task of persuading the Turkish and American troops to leave the country but that should not involve fighting.

At that point, it will be all about the Syrian Kurds. Turkey wants to be sure that they do not get enough independence to set an example for its own Kurdish minority just across the border. It is especially concerned that an autonomous Kurdish region in Syria could become a base for attacks across the border by the Kurdistan Workers’ Party , the banned terrorist organisation that seeks independence for Turkey’s Kurds.

The United States, on the other hand, has made the Syrian Kurds its main instrument for fighting ‘Islamic State’ in the eastern third of Syria. IS has been beaten by this alliance and the US Army now effectively controls eastern Syria. It is reluctant to just hand over the huge, sparsely populated region to Assad, and it doesn’t want to abandon its Kurdish allies to the tender mercies of the Turks either.

There is a deal that could work. Both the Turkish and the US Armies pull out of Syria, and the Syrian Army replaces them to ensure that there is no comeback by IS and there is no base there for Kurdish separatists seeking to break away from Turkey. The Syrian Kurds are rewarded with limited self-Government including control over education, language and local spending. And the Russians go home too, since Assad no longer needs their help. That would be the sensible thing to do. But this is the Middle East. So, nobody knows what will really happen.

(The writer is an independent journalist)

Writer: Gwynne Dyer

Courtesy: The Pioneer

Instead of being arrogant and immature, it is high time the Government sees the act of UAE as a friendly gesture, as they aid to flood-affected Kerala victims.

What was feared the most has happened in Kerala. Even as the State is yet to recover from the disaster caused by floods, the CPI-M Government there has jumped the gun with allegations of alleged step-motherly treatment by the Centre, focussing on New Delhi’s apparent reluctance to accept foreign aid from the UAE — where millions of Malayali expats live — to the tune of Rs 700 crore. Except, it now transpires that not only has no amount been promised by the Government of the UAE but even the offer of help welcomed by both Thiruvananthapuram and New Delhi was not made officially but through a businessman based in the Gulf state. The century’s most devastating floods in Kerala have created a crisis of such magnitude that it not only raised the consciousness of people at home, who contributed generously in cash and kind and by volunteering their services for their fellow citizens in the southern State, but also received global attention. Several countries, including the UAE and Maldives, spoke immediately, and in general terms, of helping in any way possible. But matters got out of hand when Kerala Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan and a couple of his ministers and CPI-M leaders started blaming the Union Government of having refused a Rs 700 crore aid package from the UAE without having checked the authenticity of the claims made on behalf of the UAE. It was then later revealed that the UAE had never made any such offer and that all the ruckus was much ado about nothing. Truly, this is deeply embarrassing. Vijayan’s statements have only underlined the sad reality that in our country even a tragedy of such proportions cannot be isolated from partisan politics. Before the UAE cleared the air, much had transpired — a needless controversy was generated when the focus of all Indians should have been on rehabilitation measures for the flood-ravaged. Others from the Opposition too could not resist the temptation to milk the issue. The Congress, for example, in an attempt to corner the Centre, promptly asked to declare the Kerala floods a “national disaster” despite knowing the rules and protocols governing national calamities not allowing for such unilateral declarations. Kerala’s Finance Minister Thomas Isaac, on the other hand, classified the Union Government’s policy — in place since 2004 — of not in the normal course of things accepting foreign aid to a “dog in the manger” attitude. Others too did not fail to point fingers at the Government for being allegedly tight-fisted in releasing funds, which in turn prompted the Centre to issue a lengthy clarification explaining all that has been and will continue to be done to bring succour to the State.

But our polity remains transfixed on pettiness and the complete lack of trust between Centre and State even during such sensitive times is an ominous sign for the future. We can only join the rest of the country in wishing a very happy Onam to all in Kerala and urging our leaders to sop embarrassing our country with manufactured rows that serve no productive purpose.

Writer and Courtesy: The Pioneer

A different story will be around the corner when it comes to the Rs. 700- crore aid that was reportedly offered to Kerala by the United Arab Emirates Government for reconstruction and other flood relief problems. But, a policy dating back to 2004 shuns all foreign aid for any natural disasters.

Thereafter, and quite predictably, a political storm erupted with the Left Democratic Front Government of Kerala demanding that the Narendra Modi Government was being wilfully discriminatory towards the people of Kerala. Some other proponents of federal politics went a step further and claimed that the whole of South India was being discriminated by a North India-dominated Delhi Establishment. Finally, just when things threatened to get out of hand and divert focus from the massive relief and reconstruction work ahead in Kerala, the UAE Embassy in Delhi clarified that no such massive aid had been offered in the first place. This in turn led to finger pointing and charges of fake news being disseminated.

The true story of what exactly happened and whether there was a genuine misunderstanding or a mid-course correction by the UAE authorities will probably take some time to emerge. Whatever the real facts, the entire incident led to spirited and even ugly battles being fought in the social media.

On the one hand were those who accused the Modi Government of callousness because the BJP had limited political stakes in Kerala. It was suggested that the BJP, being a North Indian and Hindi-speaking party, could never feel the pain of the Kerala people. At the other end of the spectrum were those who cited national self-respect as the main reason why India has shunned all foreign aid since 2004. The more conspiracy-minded of the aid sceptics even detected a hidden religious angle to the UAE’s apparent generosity.

By next week, this particular controversy will have been forgotten and the gaze will shift to issues such as the contention that the problem of heavy rain was compounded by environmental neglect and shoddy water management by a neighbouring State Government. In time, as invariably happens, there will be some furore over the distribution of relief and compensation, not to mention the sectarian dimension that is never absent from Kerala.

However, it is worth dwelling a little over the UAE aid kerfuffle for what it reveals about the state of political discourse in pre-election India. In particular, it is worth studying the controversy for what it reveals of the nature of the opposition to the Modi Government. There were, it would seem, three distinct strands of Modi-baiting.

First, and the perhaps the most relevant but alas the most insignificant issue to be raised centred on the existing prohibition against aid assistance. This was an issue that agitated ‘concerned’ foreigners in the main. Accustomed to a culture of international mobilisation for disaster relief — from the Tsunami in Sri Lanka to the cyclone in Haiti — there was genuine consternation that India believed it could manage the R&R from its own resources. Predictably, this was attributed to the xenophobic underpinnings of the Modi Government, a Government that the Western liberal intelligentsia now loves to hate.

Secondly, the controversy witnessed a concerted — and I may say, cynical — attempt to pit Kerala and even South India as a whole against both the Centre and the rest of India. There was a spurious argument that the Gujarat earthquake of 2000 saw a massive injection of foreign assistance, including by Governments overseas. It was therefore contended that Modi was comfortable with foreign money when it came to his home State and squeamish when it came to Kerala. Of course, the crucial fact of the ban on foreign aid coming into play in 2004 was conveniently left out.

Equally insidious was the attempt to create a North-South divide using the argument of federalism. It was made out that the South was being constantly short-changed by the Hindi belt whose chief representative was Modi. This line of thinking wasn’t confined to Kerala alone. It found an echo even in distant West Bengal where the opposition to the BJP and Modi is steadily taking on a distinctly parochial complexion. Whether this growing anti-Hindi tirade has the formal blessings of the architect of the Federal Front is a matter of conjecture. However, it is undeniably true that the 2019 election will witness attempts to use language and ethnicity to break any form Hindu consolidation. The Kerala controversy provided a foretaste.

Finally, what is significant about the furore over UAE aid in Kerala was that the chief instigators of the anti-Modi rhetoric were media professionals, with a significant section employed in the English language media. While politicians were quite restrained, not least because their priority was to be present in helping out distressed people, the pot of discord was being stirred by those who have emerged as the proxy warriors for the anti-Modi front. Neutrality — always elusive at the best of times — has long been discarded by the media and, in recent times, so has restraint. What is becoming increasingly clear is that a significant section of the media establishment — particularly those based in Delhi — now see their principal mission next year as the defeat of Modi and his replacement by anyone else, but preferably Rahul Gandhi. This is not to suggest there are no partisan voices for Modi. Of course there are. But the weight of media consensus is weighed heavily against the Prime Minister. During the election campaign he must be prepared for a barrage of adverse publicity. The media will become an important mobilising tool for the anti-Modi forces.

What is interesting is that the Prime Minister remains unfazed by these controversies. He seems to be steadfast in sticking to his central narrative of performance, hope and leadership. The election will be a test between the big Indian picture and what Burke once dubbed the chirping of grasshoppers.

Writer: Swapan Dasgupta

Courtesy: The Pioneer

India relation with Latin America are in a state of unconcern. As both civilizations have huge scope and so many things in common, India must join hands and made efforts with the continent by playing up its advantages.

India has made serious efforts to improve its economic and political relationships with various parts of the world, but one region which has not figured adequately in its priorities for developing commercial and economic linkages with is the large expanse of Latin America. It was about three years ago that this issue was discussed by some scholars and analysts and reasons put forward for India to develop closer relationships with Latin America. Unfortunately, however, perhaps because of several recent problems in the Latin American and Caribbean region itself, not much has really happened in terms of advancing India’s relationship with that region and for India to work closely with it for mutual economic gain. It is important to look at the prospects for Latin America and the Caribbean region and assess the World Bank’s recent projections on economic output for that combined region.

Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC) region recorded an estimated 0.9 per cent growth in 2017, according to the World Bank, following two years of contraction. Brazil was able to establish stronger than expected growth during the year, but this was of course negated by very serious recession in Venezuela and sluggish growth in some other countries. It appears that private consumption has been the main contributor to economic activity in the region, and with shrinking investments, prospects for growth did not appear very attractive and promising in the previous two years. It is now estimated that Brazil has grown by one per cent during the last year after its deep two-year long recession. This growth again took place essentially due to recovery in private consumption and greater consumer confidence. It appears that retail trade and industrial production growth in Brazil had also picked up, even though there was a contraction in construction.  However, the positive elements in the Brazilian situation are that consumer confidence has remained stable and the labour market has certainly improved. At the same time, Argentina has recovered from recession and expanded at a much healthier rate of 2.7 per cent, essentially driven by increased investment and rising private consumption.

An article some years ago published in the Forbes magazine highlighted the fact that there are historical reasons why India and Latin America should logically come closer together. Firstly, both regions were colonies of European powers that later had to deal with a set of very serious developmental challenges, which also involved the creation of new institutions after independence. Also, it is interesting to observe that in the post-World War era, both India and Latin America adopted policies that were essentially socialist in character. Of course, subsequent developments and realistic compulsions have required both India and the Latin American region to liberalise their policies, but this is not necessarily a permanent condition because it is entirely possible that there could be a reversal in some of these policies, particularly in the case of Mexico, a country with which India must build much stronger ties.

It would be useful to look at the political situation in Mexico, given the fact that the country has elected a new President by a massive landslide, an experienced leader by the name of AM Lopez Obrador, popularly referred to as AMLO, which is the acronym of his name.  AMLO has been very radical in his views and is known to be a staunchly committed socialist, and this would create intriguing prospects for Mexico’s dealings with the US. However, in recent weeks, it appears that AMLO has been modifying his position possibly on account of advice received from some of his own supporters but more importantly because of the concern that Mexican business and industry appear to have expressed on the threat that they see to economic stability in Mexico, given the fact that AMLO has been voicing a number of beliefs and convictions that make business and industry quite nervous.

Lopez Obrador is an enigmatic politician and has been elected by a protest vote.  Essentially, Lopez Obrador, who has run for the presidency twice on earlier occasions, has convinced the people of his country that he would be able to bring about change for the better from Mexico’s large-scale killing and the vicious power of the drug lords. People have also placed faith in AMLO’s ability to curb the rampant corruption in Government and on the part of politicians, which the public is totally disgusted with and deeply resentful of.

Mexico, however, is a country with huge assets in the form of enormous talent and skills, a very positive entrepreneurial spirit among its people and culture and tradition which are totally akin to what India possesses. The two societies have much in common, and under stable and strong leadership Mexico is poised to become a major economic power in South America. At any rate, the LAC region has a combined GDP of over five trillion dollar, a population of over 600 million, of which almost half is below the age of 30 years. Mexico City and its surrounding metropolitan area, for instance, have an average age of only 31 years. The region is rich in mineral resources. Bolivia, for instance, is often described as the Saudi Arabia of lithium, a mineral which is essential for production of lithium-ion rechargeable batteries. India does not even have an embassy in Bolivia.

India would miss enormous economic opportunities in Latin America and the Caribbean region if we continue with the current state of apathy towards that region. It was almost a quarter century ago that Chhedi Jagan, who fought for Guyana’s independence from Britain and led its first Government, visited India. On that visit and discussions at The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI), of which this writer was the founding CEO for thirty four years, Jagan asked for help with his country’s energy problems. I visited that country promptly thereafter, and while helping Guyana with its plans for bagasse-based cogeneration, studied the exciting offshore geology of that nation. On return to India, I urged our Government and the Chairman of ONGC to take up exploration for hydrocarbons off-shore in Guyana, a country wherein the largest group of people is of Indian origin. This advice was not heeded, and ExxonMobil has recently found huge reserves of hydrocarbons in the off-shore areas of Guyana. India must start thinking globally if it wants to become relevant globally.

(The writer is former chairman, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2002-15)

Writer: R K Pachauri

Courtesy: The Pioneer

Many people of muslim community in China are concerned as the Chinese Government has decided to wipe out Islam from the country. It is enlightening that petrodollar rich countries are not coming out to denounce Beijing.

There are no human rights in Communist China and it quells all types of protests ruthlessly but the protests related to religion, secession, democracy and terrorism are crushed more brutally. There are reports about oppression of Christians and other religions but the Government-sponsored repression of Muslims all over China especially in Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region (XUAR) is unparalleled.

According to a study conducted by the Pew Research Centre in 2009, there were about 21 million Muslims in China, which is more than 1.6 percent of Chinese population and it is an important minority group in the country. However, analysts claim that Muslim population is much more and it is in between two to three per cent of the total Chinese population.  Out of 55 recognised minority groups in China, 10 groups are of Sunni Muslims. Although significant Muslim populations live in Ningxia, Gansu and Qinghai regions, the biggest concentration of Muslims is in Xinjiang region. Reports suggest that there are only 36,000 religious places for Muslims and about 45,000 imams in the country and their number is fast-depleting. The Pew Research Centre also claims that the Muslim women fertility rate is at a low 1.7. Hence, the Muslim population is plummeting in the country.

Approximately, 11 million Uyghur Muslims live in Xinjiang autonomous region. However, the word, autonomous is misleading and there is no autonomy in the region. Thousands of Muslims are forcibly kept in detention centres and re-education camps. Human Rights Watch mention that 800,000 Muslims are languishing in these detention centres while Uyghur leaders residing out of China claim that more than one million Uyghurs are imprisoned. There were cases where both husband and wife were jailed and children were sent to overcrowded orphanages.

Analysts mention that Government agencies take large number of Uyghur Muslims to these re-education camps and brainwash them against Islam and its teachings. Communist ideologies claim that Muslim masses have to be re-educated as poisonous religious teachings have intoxicated their minds and it is essential to evict those teachings from their thought process. They further claim that re-education is not a punishment, and hence, no judicial procedure is required. Those selected for ‘re-education’ are kept in these camps till their minds are either numbed and/or purged of Islamic teachings and if required they are often sent repeatedly to these camps. Life is difficult in these centres — reports that beatings, torture and the withholding of victuals are commonly used techniques by the authorities to subdue religious-minded Muslims. Human rights activists assert that President Xi Jinping has adopted the repressive policies of Mao Zedong’s Cultural Revolution.

In August 2016, Chen Quanguo, who was party secretary in Tibet from 2011 to 2016, was transferred and posted at XUAR. Chen was by all accounts a contemptible apparatchik and suppressed Tibetans mercilessly. His predecessor in XUAR Zhang Chunxian Was considered ‘too polite’. After his appointment, Chen started the repression of Kazakhs, Uyghurs and other minorities. He constructed numerous extrajudicial imprisonment camps and enhanced surveillance of Muslims through advanced technology including using the national DNA database and biometrics of persons in the age group 12-65. The number of police stations were increased and stringent regulations were enforced under which religious freedom was restricted. Chen started implementation of the “Strike Hard” policy, initiated by the Government in 2014 but was inactive in XUAR. Chen also issued a draconian “de-extremification” ordinance in April 2017.

At few places de-radicalisation and re-education centres are camouflaged as vocational training centres and even as educational institutions. A US-based non-profit organisation claims that the Chinese Government maintains the profiles of minorities and persecutes them on mere suspicion. Several ethnic minorities are prohibited to go abroad. Muslims are not allowed to eat halal meat. Storekeepers are instructed to mix non-halal meat in halal meat and if anybody asks specifically about halal meat, s/he is imprisoned. Muslims are prohibited to keep beards, mosques are being closed, keeping a fast during Ramzan is effectively a crime and in some well-documented cases Muslims are reportedly being compelled to sell liquor. Beijing’s critics allege the Chinese Government has surpassed the world’s most repressive regimes in putting restrictions on a religious group. The de-radicalisation camps and re-education centres are being compared by activists the world over to ‘concentration camps’. Mosques in Ningxia region are also prohibited the azaan (calls for prayer) and selling Islamic books is also banned; domes/minarets top of mosques are being removed and Arabic schools and religious teachings in mosques is barred.

The Chinese Government has also started a new practice from December 2017, which calls for Government officials to stay for five consecutive days in the houses of Muslim families every two months. During the five-day stays, officials ask questions about and closely observe the daily routine, religious practices and political views of the family. Officials also compel the residents to learn Mandarin, sing the National Anthem and ‘appreciate’ Communism. The five-day homestay programme is part of a larger policy under which the XUAR Government has sent 200,000 cadres to the houses of Muslim citizens to observe and make efforts to assimilate them into Han culture.

Chen’s solution to the problem seems to be to either ensure secessionist elements are either eliminated or forced to change their religious and political beliefs to accept the Government line. Chen has the full support of the Communist Party of China and President Xi who introduced a Sinicization policy in 2015 under which minorities were compelled to adopt Han Chinese culture. The policy will change every aspect of life of the minorities, including food, education, language, lifestyle, politics, religion, philosophy, culture, science and technology and even their value system.

Xi intends to integrate diverse nationalities and enforce a pan-China Han identity. This policy intends to obliterate racial, cultural and linguistic diversity. China, which is an ancient civilisation, has more than 290 non-Mandarin languages and it will be difficult to integrate all but the effort is on. ‘Sinicization’ includes assimilation and integration which critics allege is the cultural imperialism of China which it intends to impose not only within the country but also in other East and South East Asian countries under their dominance.

Religious minorities, especially Muslims, are apprehensive that Xi is determined to wipe out anything must state-approved Islam from China. It is interesting to note that petrodollar rich Islamic countries, which are the first to criticise democratic, inclusive states for their alleged discrimination against minorities, are neither criticising or condemning these moves by the Chinese Government. Muslim majority countries like Indonesia and Turkey are also observing silence. Pakistan, an Islamic country which claims that its Army is “a follower of none but Allah”, does not react to these developments either. Why doesn’t Islamabad, instead of wasting time on raising the Kashmir issue at various international fora, raise its voice against Chinese oppression of Muslims in that country?

The democratic world needs to come together and think of a sanctions regime against China so it is compelled to stop these inhuman policies towards its minority communities. Why are Muslim countries, usually so vocal on issues of the rights of their co-religionists, unwilling to criticise China? For starters, the Organisation of Islamic Countries (OIC) should pass resolution to force China to restore the human rights of Muslims in China, and if China does not respond, the OIC countries should stop trade with China. Beijing is committing atrocities on its Muslim communities in the name of curbing terrorism but the Chinese Government should punish only terrorists and not all Muslims. The world community should adopt a long-term strategy to deal with China and its hegemonic ambitions which apparently extend to establishing cultural hegemony.

(The writer is member, United Services Institute of India, and Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses)

Writer: Jai Kumar Verma

Courtesy: The Pioneer

Finally, the Captain is in duty, as Prime Minister of Pakistan.

The umpire — in this situation the Army Chief — as always in Pakistan doubles up as the 12th man

and Imran Khan has selected, his full Cabinet or squad of 21 which has been duly anointed. Prime Minister Narendra Modi has welcomed the culmination of the democratic process in our neighbouring country and sent off a letter to his newly elected counterpart, a necessary diplomatic formality, in which he has iterated India’s desire for peace with Pakistan albeit in an atmosphere conducive for dialogue sans the menacing presence of (Islamic) terrorism emanating from that country’s soil. The background noise is the usual tune played when a new incumbent takes over in Pakistan — if India takes the first step Pakistan will take two steps etc ad nauseum. In sum, that’s about how far matters will go for the time being on the Indo-Pak front and anybody hoping for anything more from the cricketer-turned-politician and his backers in the Pakistan Army would be well-advised to contain their enthusiasm.

It is worth noting that 12 of the 21 members of Imran’s squad have served in key posts under General and later self-appointed President Pervez Musharraf. The crucial appointment from India’s point of view is that of Shah Mehmood Qureshi as the Foreign Minister. Qureshi, considered an intellectual lightweight despite flaunting a Master’s from Cambridge University, is a fully paid-up member of Pakistan’s political elite. He has also shown great flexibility in his political career having held high positions in both the PML(N) and PPP which appointed him Foreign Minister in 2008 till he had to quit over a conflict-of-interest scandal in 2011 and jumped into the welcoming embrace of Imran who needed a pedigreed in his team. While the chattering classes both sides of the Wagah Border have cast Qureshi as a peacenik, there is no eliding the reality that his first utterances after being appointed Foreign Minister for the second time in his career included both the K-word and the N-word.

Indeed, it would be safe to say that Imran knows that relations with India, on which anyway neither he nor his Cabinet can make a move without the Army’s okay, are a distant priority. For now, as long as New Delhi doesn’t get proactive militarily, it suits him just fine to focus on domestic issues ranging from health to infrastructure and education, and above all the economy, as he mentioned in his maiden speech as PM. His Cabinet comprises experts in these fields and reflects this priority as Pakistan needs a 12-18 billion USD bail-out to not become completely dysfunctional.

Writer: Pioneer

Courtesy: The Pioneer

Muslim community in Jammu & Kashmir has decided not to permit the separatist demand as mentioned in Article 370. Now, it’s time to stop the non-permanent nature of Article 370 through a Presidential notification.

Article 370 is a peculiar Article in the Indian Constitution. Its peculiarity doesn’t lie in the objective it seeks, powers it bestows or duties it casts. Its peculiarity is by virtue of being the only Article in the Indian Constitution which has the word “temporary” attached to it, making it the only Article incorporated for a limited time period. It states: “Temporary provisions with respect to the State of Jammu & Kashmir.” When the Constitution was being drafted, the chief architect of the Constitution, BR Ambedkar, was opposed to the said provision and refused to commit such treachery and stated: “You wish India should protect your borders, it should build roads in your area, it should supply you food grains, and Kashmir should get equal status as India. But the Government of India should have only limited powers and Indian people should have no rights in Kashmir. To give consent to this proposal would be a treacherous thing against the interests of India and I, as the Law Minister of India, will never do it.”

Due to pressure of the then Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, the framers of the Constitution had to incorporate it but did try to safeguard India’s interest by making it a “temporary” provision as it was never envisaged that a territory of India will be partly governed by laws of the country and not wholly governed by it. Post-independence, through tireless labour and valour, the Republic of India integrated more than 500 Princely States under the leadership of Sardar Vallabhbhai  Patel to form a union. An Instrument of Accession was signed by all Princely States, which stated that they form an undisputed and integral part of the Indian territory and governance. The very same Instrument of Accession was signed by Maharaja Hari Singh of Kashmir on October 26, 1947. No Princely State had been given individual powers or a separate Constitution like Jammu & Kashmir has at present.

The Constitution of India provides for modern fundamental and equitable rights to its citizens. The Constitution provides for fundamental rights of freedom and equality, rights of minorities, and duties of individuals towards the country and their fellow  citizens of different race, ethnicity, sex et al.

Because of the allowance by Article 370, the State of Jammu & Kashmir has its own Constitution, which doesn’t render full protection of fundamental rights, and has no mention of minority, which is a fraud on the Indian citizens of Kashmir. There is a lot of discrimination on the basis of gender in property rights, where the women are deprived of an equal right to property. Besides, if a woman marries a non-Kashmiri resident, she is deprived of any entitlement to any property in Kashmir. Many more of such disastrously demeaning laws could be cited as examples of undermining the rights of Indians by Kashmir’s Constitution.

On December 4, 1964,  Congress Home Minister, GL Nanda, stated that Article 370 is a “tunnel in the power”. It was presupposed that the Centre’s power would slowly increase till Jammu & Kashmir became like any other State where the Centre had powers as per the Constitution. As opposed to that era, it is now unfortunate to see that driven by mere reasons of vote-bank politics, the Congress has taken a stand against the integrity of India.

The dominion of Article 370 with regard to the Indian Constitution is undisputed and has been reasserted by the Indian nation-state time and again — such that on November 21, 1964, the Head of the State, elected by the State Legislature, was replaced by a Governor, nominated by the Centre. Article 356 was applied despite the State’s Constitution already having provisions of the Governor’s rule. Again on November 24, 1966, the Governor replaced the Sardar-i-Riyasat after the amendment of the State’s Constitution, which was in violation of Section 147 of the same despite it being immune to amendments. This appointment was also upheld by the Supreme Court in Mohd Maqbool Damnoo vs State of Jammu and Kashmir. And then there were the years of 1990-1996, when mere executive orders enabled Presidential Rule to be imposed in Kashmir during the Congress regime.

There is also an argument that states that if Article 370 is repealed then Jammu & Kashmir will also cease to be a part of India, which is a baseless contention raised to misinform and create confusion. Article 1 of the Indian Constitution, which defines the territory of the country; and Article 3 of Jammu & Kashmir Constitution, which states Kashmir’s accession to India, iterates the fact that there is no debate regarding Kashmir’s alliance. The Constituent Assembly of Jammu & Kashmir was dissolved after the framing of the State’s Constitution. Post dissolution, an argument was made that now no modification or extension of Centre’s powers was possible. This was totally rejected by the Supreme Court in Sampat Prakash v. State of Jammu and Kashmir, wherein it upheld the Centre’s power to make orders despite the fact that the State’s Constituent Assembly ceased to exist.

The court laid down: “We must give the widest effect to the meaning of the word ‘modification’ used in Article 370(1).” This goes on to exhibit the overwhelming and unfettered power the Centre enjoys in the governance of the State of Kashmir. As a nation, we cannot allow this separatist demand and let this provision persist. It is time to pursue the intent of the Constitution and give finality to the temporary nature of this provision, which can be done by straight forward Presidential Notification under Sub Clause 3 of Article 370. The past application of the Presidential Rule for six years, the decisions of the Supreme Court, current non-operation of the Constituent Assembly and the temporary nature of this law permit a Presidential Notification to abolish Article 370. There’s never a wrong time to do the right thing. Now is the right time to abolish Article 370.

(The writer is advocate in Supreme Court of India)

Writer: Ishkaran Singh Bhandari

Courtesy: The Pioneer

It looks doubtful that General Bajwa can change the slogan of the Pakistan Army, which is to fight for

Cricketer-turned-politician Navjot Singh Sidhu is in the eye of a controversy for hugging Pakistan Army Chief Qamar Javed Bajwa at the swearing-in ceremony of Imran Khan in Islamabad. The overture, to be honest, was from the side of General Bajwa. But the General being in his uniform, Sidhu possibly could not have been ignorant of his identity. The General reportedly stated that they desired peace and made his reverence for Baba Nanak (Guru Nanak Dev) obvious.

Sidhu is being criticised because he hugged the Chief of an Army, whose hands are stained with the blood of Indian soldiers. Cross-LoC terrorism in Jammu & Kashmir could not have been organised without active support of the Pakistan Army. Infiltrators have always been the advanced guard of the Pakistan Army even during the India-Pakistan wars of 1948, 1965 and 1999. Punjab Chief Minister Captain Amarinder Singh (Retd), who served as a Captain in the Indian Army during the 1965 war, is miffed with his Cabinet colleague’s behaviour.

A Pakistani Army Chief beseeching peace to a Punjab Minister is a climb down, semantically at least. General Pervez Musharraf, in the aftermath of the 1999 coup, notwithstanding the Kargil fiasco, was still offering India war if it wanted war, and peace if it wanted peace.

If General Bajwa desires peace, Pakistan can surely have it at no extra cost and with no extra effort. All it has to do is to do nothing; not organise infiltration of terrorist, not target Indian Army post across the LoC and international border. Pakistan is trying to wrest the Kashmir Valley through proxy war. India is not trying to wrest Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK).

But will General Bajwa be able to change the creed of the Pakistani Army? Its creed is to fight for Allah Rather than the nation. This is not an allegation, but a self-declaration. One has to merely visit the website of the Pakistan Army to find out what the institution has to state about itself. I request readers to kindly visit the section ‘Motto of Pakistan Army’ from side navigation menu of ‘Pakistan Army’ on the left hand bar of Pakistan Army’s official portal www.pakistanarmy.gov.pk

The motto features a poster containing Tariq’s prayer. Who is this Tariq, by the way? Tariq Ibn Ziyad (670-718 AD) was the commander of the Arab-Berber Muslim Army, which in 711 AD, invaded Spain from Morocco across the Strait of Gibraltar. He used the rock of Gibraltar as his launching pad. In fact, the word Gibraltar is Spanish derivation of the Arabic name Jabal-Tariq or the mountain of Tariq.

Tariq’s military campaign was offensive in nature in the cause of Islam. The prayer, as quoted, reads: “These Ghazis, these devoted souls of Your Lordship/Whom you have blessed with zeal of Your worship,/Their legions overcame deserts and river,/And trample mountain to dust with fervor/They care not for world’s pleasures/The love of the Lord are their treasures,/The mission and aim of Momin is martyrdom,/Not the booty of war, nor crave for a kingdom.”

Tariq was neither a Pakistani, nor a figure from South Asian history. He carried the crescent banner of Islam to Europe. Any guess why should he be an ideal for the Pakistan Army? This because, in the heart of hearts, the Pakistan Army believes in Tariq’s mission of Islamic military conquest.

The motto of Pakistan’s Army seems to be an exposition of theological principles. The section on Jihad-fi-Sabilillah is instructive. “The real objective of Islam is to shift the lordship of man over man to the lordship of Allah on the earth and to stake one’s life and everything else to achieve this sacred purpose. The Arabic word ‘jihad’ means to struggle ‘or’ to strive. In as much as ‘jihad’ is a struggle, it is a struggle against all that is perceived as evil in the cause of that which is perceived good, a cosmic and epic struggle spanning time and all dimensions of human thought and action, and transcending the physical universe.”

Shifting the lordship of man-over-man to lordship of Allah on the earth, spoken in the context military, is a very political rather than philosophical goal. It means a land, which is not under the political control of Muslim, must be conquered by them for the sake of Allah. This is exactly what Tariq did.

The section on Jihad-fi-Sabilillah, however, cautions that Muslims should not be aggressor, cruel or revengeful while fighting. Fighting has to be done under certain rules, as prescribed by the Quran. But Tariq was an aggressor. So were Mahmud of Ghazni and Ahmed Shah Abdali et al — after whom Pakistan had named its missiles.

The motto of the Pakistan Army has everything to do with religion and little to do with national security. Patriotism is not one of the virtues the Pakistan Army is actuated by, according to its motto. It would not be wrong to call it Army of Islam rather than Pakistan Army.

Now compare this with the ideals of the Indian Army. The corresponding section in the Indian Army’s official website: https://indianarmy.nic.in  is ‘The Ethos’ under ‘About Us’. The ethos of the Indian Army as given on its website::

i) Spirit of comradeship and brotherhood of the brave, regardless of caste, creed or religion. The motto is “One for all and all for One.”

ii) To do and die for “Ns” ie Naam (honour of the unit/Army/Nation), “Namak” (loyalty) and “Nishan” insignia or flag or the unit/regiment/army/nation.

iii) Non-discrimination on account of caste, creed or religion; a soldier is solider first and anything else later.

General Bajwa, despite his grooming in the Pakistan Army, might be sincerely desirous of peace. But it seems unlikely he can alter the motto of the Pakistan Army. It is this motto that spurs Pakistan to fight for Kashmir  because it is a Muslim-majority Province under the rule of India.

The underlying reasons could be anything else, like securing riverheads in Jammu & Kashmir to meet Pakistan’s ever-increasing demand for water. A recent UNDP study says a looming water scarcity will adversely affect Pakistan’s stability. Pakistan Council of Research in Water Resources (PCRWR) warned that the country may run dry by 2025 if the authorities didn’t take immediate action. Then there is all the more reason to celebrate Tariq. He conquered the water-rich Spain for the Moors of water-scarce northern Africa.

(The writer is an independent researcher based in New Delhi. The views expressed herein are his personal)

Writer: Priyadarshi Dutta

Courtesy: The Pioneer

Atal Bihari Vajpayee and PM Modi both are like a pair of duck swims in a pond. In broad context, both the leaders not just share humble backgrounds but also strong leadership qualities.  There is far better connection than difference between Atal ji and Modi.

When Atal Bihari Vajpayee was finally elected for a full tenure in 1999, his detractors began to acknowledge his virtues (liberal, poet, orator, consensus-builder) and denigrate his party and parent organisation, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS). Yet the slogan, ‘right man in the wrong party’, was inaccurate as Vajpayee founded the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) with LK Advani in 1980, after the Janata Party regime fell on the pretext of the Jan Sangh members’ affiliation with the RSS. From a nadir of two seats in 1984, the duo took the BJP to the top of the political pyramid in little over a decade; Modi led India’s first single party majority Government after 1984.

Vajpayee never wavered in his allegiance to the RSS. Handpicked by Deendayal Upadhyaya, Vajpayee’s potential as a non-Congress Prime Minister was recognised by Jawaharlal Nehru and he was nurtured by the parivar despite differences of perception (not substance) on some issues. Vajpayee may not have relished the forceful reclamation of the Ram Janmabhoomi but he didn’t want Ayodhya to be relinquished either.

After his demise, some critics alluded to grave failings; many praised him while snidely demeaning Prime Minister Narendra Modi. This writer believes that in the broad contours of their leadership, there is far more continuity than difference between Atal Ji and Modi. We need to nail the canard that Vajpayee failed by letting Modi continue after the Gujarat riots. On January 26, 2001, a powerful earthquake struck Kutch district, flattening the town of Bhuj. Seeing Keshubhai Patel’s poor leadership, Narendra Modi was asked to takeover in October and focus on rehabilitation and reconstruction.

The Godhra carnage of February 28, 2002, came out of the blue; the subsequent riots could hardly be called State-sponsored. Vajpayee would have had the sagacity to realise this and the wisdom to be silent through the orchestrated hysteria that has not subsided to this day. The fact that Parliament was attacked in December 2001 also needs to be factored into this equation.

Then, there is the allegation that the RSS’ worldview excludes Muslims. One writer claimed that Vajpayee told Indira Gandhi that the RSS wanted Muslims to “join the mainstream” and wondered what that means. The reply had been given by Narendra Modi: Not pandering to false emotions by wearing a skullcap; encouraging modern education; protecting personal dignity by tackling triple talaq, nikah halala, and female genital mutilation; and respecting Rifleman Aurangzeb’s murder by quitting the debilitating coalition in Jammu & Kashmir.

Many admire Vajpayee’s leadership during the Kargil intrusion, especially his decision to confine the conflict to the Line of Control. Yet Vajpayee stood by the Air Force’s shooting down Pakistan’s surveillance aircraft, Atlantique, over the Rann of Kutch on August 10, 1999, soon after the War. The then Congress president Sonia Gandhi had scoffed that Kargil was not a victory of the leadership (of BJP, Vajpayee). Time had made her more circumspect; the leader, who did not allow the body of former Prime Minister PV Narasimha Rao into the party headquarters for public darshan, came to pay respects to Atalji; Rahul Gandhi attended the funeral.

Post-Kargil, despite anger with Gen Pervez Musharraf for the Kargil conflict, the October 1999 coup, continued sponsorship of cross-border terrorism and patronage of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan that humiliated India in the episode of the IC 814 hijacking (December 24-31, 1999), Vajpayee made a grand gesture for peace by hosting Gen Musharraf at Agra in July 2001.

One reason was that in 1998, Vajpayee had undertaken a series of nuclear tests to which Islamabad responded with copycat tests. Hence, there was need to lower temperatures. Indeed, this likely influenced Vajpayee’s decision to meet the then Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif at Lahore in 1999, the potential of which was undone by Gen Musharraf. Anyway, the Agra summit ended in failure and in December, when Parliament was attacked, Vajpayee found the world far more responsive to the grim reality of cross-border terrorism against India.

Modi, too, has made grand gestures for peace, beginning his innings with an invitation to all heads of SAARC countries, plus Maldives, to attend his swearing-in ceremony, and attending Prime Minister Sharif’s grand daughter’s wedding. But the military establishment did not allow any initiative to succeed. Oddly, Atal Ji and Modi have some mistakes in common, viz the unreciprocated Ramzan ceasefire of November 2000 and 2018 in Kashmir. Both men strove for an understanding with Beijing despite hiccups; China invaded Vietnam when Vajpayee made his maiden visit as a Foreign Minister. However, as a Prime Minister, he established the Special Representative mechanism to cool border tensions.

Vajpayee got the diaspora to support the economy in the wake of American sanctions after the nuclear explosions; Modi has made the diaspora a pillar of his foreign policy. Both men have invested in relations with Washington, Moscow, and the neighbourhood. Atalji reached out to the military regime in Myanmar and also Bangladesh, and got insurgent camps shut down in both countries. Our ‘Neighbourhood First’ and ‘Act East’ policies are an extension of the ‘Look East’ policy. Above all, Vajpayee upgraded diplomatic ties with Israel, which have blossomed  under Modi.

Surprisingly, even critics acknowledge that Atalji’s economic initiatives paved the way for India to experience eight per cent growth; the Fiscal Responsibility and Budget Management Act 2003 laid the basis for macroeconomic responsibility; disinvestment happened in redundant or losing enterprises; the mobile revolution took off; and the three-tier VAT that replaced excise duties was the precursor of the current GST regime. Moreover, the Modi Government is continuing Vajpayee’s highly successful programme of road connectivity, port connectivity and all weather rural roads. Despite sincere efforts, both regimes have failed to assuage the plight of farmers, largely due to reliance on urban ‘experts’ with little connection to village India and traditional farming methods.

Vajpayee overcame a humble background (his father was a school teacher) and became a popular leader on the strength of an organisation that has been vilified for decades by the Lutyens elite. Serving stalwarts like Syama Prasad Mookerjee and Deendayal Upadhyaya, he rose through the ranks, ultimately leading India from the turn of the century into the 21st century. Modi’s origins are humbler (his father sold tea on a railway platform); his caste miniscule and virtually unknown. Rising without godfathers, he needed more grit and tenacity than charm and grace.

(The writer is Senior Fellow, Nehru Memorial Museum and Library; the views expressed are personal)

Writer: Sandhya Jain

Courtesy: The Pioneer

The State and Central both need to join their hands to help Kerala get back on its feet.

While the rains in Kerala have gradually abated and flood waters are receding, the real task of preventing the outbreak of epidemics and providing relief and comprehensive rehabilitation begins now. The flood-ravaged State is making efforts to inch towards normalcy but the fact is that large swathes of Kerala have been laid waste even as rescue operations are still ongoing in an effort to reach the remotest areas. The rains that hit Kerala were certainly unprecedented. Beginning this month, the State has received 2344.84 mm of rainfall, which is over 42 per cent in excess, which along with the accompanying storms, have had devastating consequences. Roads now resemble Venetian canals; submerged in these waterways are debris from cars and two-wheelers, waste and animal carcasses. More than 300 people have died. Lakhs of people, who were displaced, have been moved to safer places but this only means that their lives have been saved. The major task ahead is to rehabilitate them and get the economy going again. The NDRF, the Armed Forces and the State and Union Governments have been engaged in round-the clock-in rescue operations — not just evacuating people to safer locations but also being proactive in the distribution of relief materials and medical care but that phase is now coming to an end. As flood waters have begun to recede the scale of the devastation is becoming apparent. The immediate aid from the Centre to the tune of some Rs 600 crore and contributions from various other State Governments as well as civil society groups and individuals while welcome, will not be enough. The loss to the State has been humongous. Close to Rs 19,000 crore is the initial loss estimate and this will go up. Infrastructure — including roads, bridges, power-generating units and transmission lines, healthcare facilities, educational institutions, potable water lines and small businesses, not to mention tourism and industries — will have to be rebuilt virtually from scratch in large parts of the State. And this, after the initial clean up and disinfection process which will have to be undertaken with a thoroughness not usually associated with India if epidemics have to be prevented. Even as relief measures are on, the threat of air and water-borne diseases needs to be tackled simultaneously. An outbreak and/or of the spread of such diseases has the potential to kill more people than the floods themselves.

When God’s Own Country gets added to the list of States where extreme weather events are becoming commonplace it is a reminder about the very real — and deadly — impact of climate change which is human-made. Extreme rainfall events have been recurring in Kerala, Uttarakhand, Bihar, Jammu & Kashmir and the North-East States. Yet, nobody is fully prepared for the disaster, which includes prevention measures such as restricting if not completely banning mining, preventing building near rivers and keeping floodplains free of all encroachments. Ultimately, it is the State Government that has the authority and must show the will sort this out. Now that rebuilding has been forced upon Kerala, it would be apt if policies are formulated based on ecologically smart strategies and better infrastructure planning. Promoting haphazard development amounts to playing with precious human lives.

Writer: Pioneer

Courtesy: The Pioneer

All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen chief Asaduddin Owaisi and Nasir-ul-islam must reconsider past records before raking up the matter of under-representation of Muslims in the Armed Forces. They must discontinue generating communal tensions.

Last month, All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen chief Asaduddin Owaisi demanded to know the number of Muslims in the Armed Forces. Earlier, he had asked for Darul Qazas (Sharia courts) in every district to be recognised by the Government. Soon thereafter, Deputy Grand Mufti of Srinagar, Nasir-ul-Islam, insisted on the same facility of Darul Qazas. He went on to say that if they were not granted, Muslims would be justified in asking a separate homeland, which means another Pakistan. This has caused a great deal of apprehension in the rest of India.

When the Indian Penal Code and the Criminal Procedure Code were introduced in the 19th century, the British rulers had abolished the Qazas. A resurrection of these communal courts will damage the country’s secular fabric. Moreover, the Qazas would be tantamount to being Islamic enclaves within the Indian republic, a state within a state. In other words, India would become a half sovereign state.

The question of representation of respective communities in the Armed Forces was thoroughly examined by BR Ambedkar on the morrow of March 1940, when at Lahore, the League passed the Pakistan Resolution. His findings and comments merit careful reading even today:

“Hindus have a difficult choice to make: To have a safe Army or a safe border? Is it in their interest to insist that Muslim India should remain part of India so that they may have a safe border, or is it in their interest to welcome its separation from India so that they may have a safe Army? Which is better for the Hindus? Should the musalmans be without and against or should they be within and against? If the question is asked of any prudent man, there will be only one answer, namely, that if the  musalmans are to be against the Hindus, it is better that they should be without and against, rather than within and against. Indeed, it is a consummation devoutly to be wished that the Muslims should be without. That is the only way of getting rid of the Muslim preponderance in the Indian Army.”

“How can it be brought about? Here again, there is only one way to bring it about and that is to support the scheme for creating Pakistan. Once Pakistan is created, Hindustan, having ample resources of men and money, can have an Army which it can call its own and there will be nobody to dictate as to how it should be used and against whom it should be used. The defence of Hindustan, far from being weakened by the creation of Pakistan, will be infinitely improved by it. The Pakistan area, which is the main recruiting ground of the present Indian Army, contributes very little to the central exchequer.” (Pakistan or The Partition of India, reprinted by the Government of Maharashtra, 1990).

One of the committees appointed by former Prime Minister Manmohan Singh was the one headed by Justice Rajinder Sachar; he had asked for the same information and the Government was willing to provide for it. But the Chiefs of Staff of the three services refused to do so on grounds of national security. Even in the British era, once recruited, there was no counting as to who is a Hindu or Sikh or a Muslim. How can sectarian soldiers fight in the face of the enemy? That tradition has been consistently sustained in post-independent Indian Armed Forces.

It would be relevant to recall here that the Khilafat Committee formed on the morrow of World War I in 1919, and presided over by Mahatma Gandhi, to save the Caliph on his throne, endorsed that Muslim soldiers would not fight if India was invaded by a Muslim Army, say from Afghanistan. The Muslim League headed by MA Jinnah further endorsed this contention. It is to the credit of our Army after the Independence to have abolished such communal ideas. Does Owaisi for his unsavoury political motives want to reawaken the obsolete Khilafat sentiments?

Owaisi must appreciate that independent India has been large-hearted enough to accommodate his party founded by Kasim Rizvi and subsequently led by Abdul Rasheed, the grandfather of Asaduddin. Their muscle men, who were thousands in number, were called Razakars. Their single point programme was to take Nizam’s Hyderabad State into Pakistan. They failed to do so only because Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel had the will to send a force led by Major General JN Raychaudhuri into Hyderabad.

As for Mufti Nasir-ul-Islam’s abdominal demand for another Pakistan, it needs to be mentioned that India is yet to implement the logical corollaries of Partition that took place in 1947. This is what Justice GD Khosla recorded in his book, Stern Reckoning: A Survey of the Events leading up to and following the Partition of India (Oxford University Press). “The Muslim League demand for Pakistan was based on the hypothesis that Hindus and Muslims constitute two separate nations, each entitled to a separate and exclusive homeland where they would be free to develop their culture, tradition, religion and polity. On any other ground, the partition of the country and the setting up of a separate independent State for the Muslims would have been indefensible. But the two-nation theory brought the problem of minorities into greater prominence than ever before, and the Partition, instead of offering a solution, made it even more difficult and complicated. No matter where the line of demarcation was drawn, there would be Hindus, Muslims and Sikhs on either side of it, in a majority or in a substantial minority, and whatever the geographical boundaries of Pakistan, large numbers of Hindus and Sikhs would overnight become aliens and foreigners in their own homes.”

“Jinnah made desperate efforts to evade the issue by promising protection and rights of citizenship to the minorities, but the nature of his demand was wholly inconsistent with these promises. How could millions of foreigners acquire rights of citizenship and equal status with, the nationals of Pakistan; and if they could, why divide India, why not let Muslims continue as nationals of India? Jinnah could find no answer to these questions and he was finally compelled to suggest an exchange of population. On November 25, 1946, Jinnah, addressing a Press conference at Karachi expressed the opinion that the authorities, both Central and Provincial, should take up immediately the question of exchange of population.”

For now, Mufti deserves to be exiled and not allowed to return to India. For MA Jinnah, along with his seven senior colleagues named Sir Feroz Khan Noon, Nawab of Mamdot, Mohammed Ismail, Pir ILLahi Bux, II Chundrigar, Raja Ghazanfar Ali Khan, Ghulam Hussain Hidayatullah wanted an exchange of populations. They were keen for all Muslims to migrate and gather in Pakistan and for all non-Muslims to go to Hindustan. They had all made public statements which appeared in the Dawn in 1946, a daily founded by MA Jinnah. In response to this proposal, Rajendra Prasad, our first Rashtrapati for two terms, had suggested in his book, India Divided, that those Muslims who could not emigrate should be allowed to reside in India, but as aliens with visas issued by New Delhi. Jinnah agreed with this suggestion. What is tragic is that Pakistan did implement an envisaged exchange, but India did not.

Owaisi should realise that had Jawaharlal Nehru allowed this idea exchange to be implemented, he would have either been a Pakistani or an alien in India without any voting rights. Let him, therefore, not be a party to generate communal tensions in general, and in the Armed Forces, in particular.

(The writer is a well-known columnist and an author)

Writer: Prafull Garodia

Courtesy: The Pioneer