A Kerala institution’s decision to prohibit women from wearing niqab is about right interpretation of texts
The decision by the Kerala-based Muslim Educational Society (MES), prohibiting female students from wearing veils in its institutions across the country, is not only about keeping to its reformist legacy but more about challenging the theological discourse set by powerful revisionist groups, who control mosques and madrasas. It is a brave attempt to uphold the true spirit of the holy texts and the Prophet amid a sea of interpretations by variant scholars, some of which have set the rigid template of Islam in our perception. It is about reinstating the position of women in Islam as it was intended and not circumscribing them by patriarchal interventions and culture constructs of the later years. At a time when Islamophobia has overpowered a true understanding of the religion, such voices are needed to dispel mistruths and begin where it is needed most, in education. The group runs 35 colleges, 72 schools and has around one lakh students, the future generation which MES president PA Fazal Ghafoor believes should be mainstreamed rather than feared, feel respected rather than reviled. In its circular, the MES even quoted a Kerala High Court order from December 2018, which dismissed a plea filed by two female students of Christ Nagar Senior Secondary School in Thiruvananthapuram, seeking to wear headscarves. The rationale being that the disadvantages of being marked out narrow down the advantages of maintaining parity. Although it would appear that the IS-operated blasts in Sri Lanka and the resultant swoop in South India may have set a precautionary context, Ghafoor has been consistent in his stand against veiling for far longer, saying it was un-Islamic and a cultural import. He had also said that wearing the niqab continuously can cause Vitamin D deficiency in Muslim women. Most importantly, such a move would actually uphold the identity of women as the misuse of the veil as a subterfuge has cost the community, the latest suicide bombers turning what should be a matter of choice to a matter of concern. Many purist scholars, too, maintain that the Quran does not specifically mention the burqa or tell women to wear confining clothes and cover their faces. Instead, it instructs men and women to dress and behave modestly in society and lower their gaze when interacting with each other. Much of the legitimacy of the burqa is drawn from the Hadith or traditions of life in the days of Prophet Muhammad and are, therefore, attributed to him. These have been conflated to embody the very idea of religiosity. However, he himself had always professed followers to go by the Quran. Besides, women in his times were progressive, were allowed to work unveiled and even today, they are not allowed to cover their faces during Haj, the idea being there should be no barrier between the devotee and her experience of divinity.
Of course, one must understand that in the backdrop of a growing Islamophobia, the veil has returned as an identity marker of the revivalist fervour of the times. This has resulted in the veil being politicised and tokenized as a tool for impact. Little wonder then that the extreme rightists at home raised the issue of banning the veil given its misuse by terrorists in Lanka. So long as it continues to be a power tool to perpetuate the politics of religion, the veil can only generate controversies and be used for point-scoring. Real victory is when women themselves are comfortable about choosing or shunning it.
Writer & Courtesy: The Pioneer
Now that the UN has tagged the Jaish chief a global terrorist, it is a diplomatic coup for India and its standing in the world
This is closure at so many levels, the UN declaration of Jaish-e-Mohammad (JeM) chief Masood Azhar as a global terrorist. For common Indians, this is comeuppance for a series of terror attacks that began with the Kandahar hijacking besides the brutal blasts and suicide squads that we have lived with for two decades. Besides costing us human lives, they have also hurt our institutional pride by attacking the Indian Parliament no less. It’s a big win for Indian diplomacy, which has been in lobby wars from the Capitol Hill to the UN, to convince the world that Pakistan-exported terrorism was not just a byproduct of regional conflicts but a sub-set of global terrorism and that the West had as much of a common cause as us. It’s also the first time that India at least painted China into a corner with world opinion on its side, though it had to concede ground on the wording of the ban order, making it look equidistant from both India and Pakistan. Finally, though the final resolution did not mention the Pulwama attacks, the fact that the global ban follows the worst terrorist attack in Kashmir, that, too, on security forces, is acknowledgement enough of the context and Pakistan’s hand in fomenting terrorism in Kashmir. Of course, the biggest political capital has been claimed by the Narendra Modi government, during whose tenure the impossible task of proscribing Azhar has been achieved. In the middle of the Lok Sabha elections, this only lends credence to the ruling BJP’s twin planks of muscular nationalism and national security. It silences the criticism of Balakot being a misadventure, shows that Pakistan can be brought to book by staying well under the nuclear threshold and demonstrates to the world that a usually pacifist India will no longer be a pushover. As for Modi himself, who has already arrogated to himself the task of protecting the nation’s interests, the US-led move posits him as a tall leader the world wants to do business with. Regardless of what concessions that superpower extracts from us, maybe a quid pro quo on Iran.
Getting China on board was the biggest obstacle despite India working with international allies relentlessly. Beijing had put a technical hold on the Azhar ban in the Security Council’s 1267 Al Qaeda Sanctions Committee not once but four times. Given the strategic depth of the Sino-Pak friendship, one that is often reiterated by President Xi Jinping, it seemed unlikely that China would ever give in. Particularly considering Pakistan was whole-heartedly participating in its Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and ensuring no IS activity was directed its way. But when the US pushed for an independent Security Council resolution, where China would have had to explain its veto and risk being tagged a pariah, the latter agreed to the ban albeit with conditions, prime among them being no mention of Pulwama or Kashmir. Besides, both India and the US also approved China’s presidentship of the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) that caps terror funding and it did look the other way when Pakistan was put on the grey list. The US-India-China equation was calibrated so well that each side could factor in sensitivities of the other and accommodate each other without appearing to have cut a compromise. Given India’s intransigence on BRI, China has already worked out an alternative space through the Wuhan dialogues. Even before the UN meeting, Indian Foreign Secretary Vijay Gokhale went to Beijing, held talks with Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi and shared evidence of JeM’s involvement in the Pulwama terror attack. In fact, France, which spearheaded the UN resolution, was the only one which mentioned Pulwama as the last straw on the camel’s back. “For many years now, French diplomacy has been relentlessly pleading for sanctioning Azhar, head of the terrorist group responsible, notably, for the Pulwama attack last February,” it said.
What does it mean for Azhar and other terror networks in Pakistan? Yes, there will be an arms and funds freeze as well as a travel ban and confinement. But when it comes to Jaish and the Lashkar before it, they mutate in hibernation and cadres emerge with a new face, style and identity. By the time they are circled out, much damage is done. So clamping down on Pakistan’s hydra-headed terror networks is still quite a bit.
Writer & Courtesy: The Pioneer
The Election Commission has been under scrutiny for not taking action against those who violate the Model Code of Conduct. It is now faced with the task of regaining moral authority
Last week, I read an excellent article in the New York Times by SY Quraishi, who was India’s Chief Election Commissioner between 2010 and 2012. In this article, Quraishi shared a number of fascinating nibbles about the Election Commission of India (ECI). A particularly interesting fact highlighted by him was the sheer size of the Indian election and the poll panel’s massive responsibility to ensure that each vote counts. He illustrated a lovely example of this task by narrating how Election Commissioners set up a polling booth in the Gir Forest National Park in Gujarat for the only living voter in the area: A Hindu priest.
The Indian election is remarkable. As the Constitutional watchdog of the voting process, the EC plays an important role to ensure free and fair polls. It is fully empowered to take any action for upholding the legitimacy of a democratic process. While each election is crucial, the ongoing edition requires the electoral body to demand more from itself. No other election was filled with as much misinformation, as much hatred, and as clear a blatant abdication of any form of responsible conduct than the 2019 Lok Sabha polls. This is especially evident from the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party’s (BJP’s) conduct and transgressions in the ongoing elections. However, the EC has unfortunately been disappointingly silent through this most trying period.
One way through which the electoral body tries to ensure free and fair polls is by issuing guidelines for Model Code of Conduct, which come into force the day the election schedule is announced. This code is not a law. Instead, it is in the form of a moral code and the electoral body expects the politicians to adhere to the terms set by it. Crucially, it believes that leaders will have the integrity to adhere to such a code. Unfortunately, over the past few weeks, the moral authority of the EC and the Model Code of Conduct has been brazenly undermined by the Prime Minister, who has shown reckless disregard.
Take, for example, the directives of the Election Commission. On March 19, the electoral body issued a general advisory saying that “political parties/candidates are advised that their campaigners/candidates should desist, as part of their campaigning, from indulging in any political propaganda involving activities of the defence forces.”
The order was aimed at curbing actions by political parties who claim votes in the name of the military because after all, India’s armed forces are not owned by any political party. Therefore, one expects that any decent political party will not ask for votes in the name of its martyrs. However, in this election, we have campaigners like Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath, who termed the Army as “Modiji ki Sena.”
The Prime Minister, too, during an election speech on April 9 said: “I wish to ask my first-time voters, can you dedicate your first vote to the brave martyrs of Pulwama”? Did Prime Minister Modi not get the memo or was he absolutely unafraid of any repercussions? Since it is evident that the Prime Minister will not voluntarily subject himself to any authority, let alone a moral one, it is incumbent on the enforcers of the Model Code of Conduct to come down hard against such brazen violation of diktats of the institution.
However, the EC has been found terribly wanting. While it heard numerous complaints and representations against various leaders, till last week, it took no action against the various representations by Opposition parties against the comments and conduct of Prime Minister Modi. This forced the Congress to approach the Supreme Court in the hope that such an action would provide some explanation as to why numerous blatant violations by the Prime Minister were not examined and acted upon by the EC.
Ironically, the Commission was prompt in dealing with complaints against other candidates, but failed to display the same promptness in dealing with objections raised against the Prime Minister and BJP chief Amit Shah. Since then, we have seen Prime Minister Modi not being cautioned for several parts of his speech against Congress chief Rahul Gandhi, who is contesting from Wayanad, and the April 9 speech where the Prime Minister explicitly asked the voters to dedicate their vote to Pulwama martyrs. If this isn’t “political propaganda involving activities of the defence forces,” I am not sure what is.
Even after an inexhaustible delay, when it did choose to probe these charges and act, the EC cleared the Prime Minister on two counts. Even when his remarks were not that veiled and quite specific.
Other than this, there have been several instances like “no pending complaint against Prime Minister Modi” appearing on the poll panel’s portal, despite the fact that several complaints have been lodged. The official defence is that there has to be a prima facie violation of the Model Code of Conduct. That means the violation should be obvious on the face of it. A look at some of the comments on social media and by wide sections of the political establishment will show that this basic standard has been met.
Similarly, the fact that the EC suspended an IAS officer, who searched Modi’s chopper, and that this action of the electoral body was stayed by the Central Administrative Tribunal does not reflect well on it either.
Mahatma Gandhi had once said, “Moral authority is never retained by any attempt to hold on to it. It comes without seeking and is retained without effort.” The Indian elections are a magnificent testimony to our commitment to democracy. However, it needs a strong moral authority to ensure that it remains so. Unfortunately, going by events of the past few weeks, the EC will need to put immense effort to regain its moral authority and fulfil the role it was meant to. And its office-bearers will at some point have to think about the sacredness of their jobs over political expediency.
(The writer is Jharkhand PCC president, former MP and IPS officer. Views are personal)
Writer: Ajoy Kumar
Courtesy: The Pioneer
Woman alleging sexual harassment against CJI walks out of inquiry, fuels more speculation
The sexual harassment allegations against Chief Justice of India (CJI) Ranjan Gogoi by a former Supreme Court staffer turned murkier when she withdrew from a three-judge panel looking into the case, citing procedural flaws that she felt compromised neutrality. The stakes in the case, that could stigmatise the highest court of the land, just became higher. For there are two interpretations of the story, even before investigations have reached their logical end. One assumption being that the complainant was part of a larger coercive attack on an institution, as had been suggested by the CJI himself, to “deactivate” a position that is tasked with fair dissemination of justice. The other being that of a junior, whose fears, anxieties and the very act of speaking up are of consequence simply because there is no legal framework within the top court’s rulebook whereby a CJI could be investigated on allegations such as these, his removal being only possible through parliamentary impeachment. And her charge is the first of its kind. Neither theory can be taken lightly. The three-judge committee duly took note of the “frame-up by honey-trap” allegation, questioning a lawyer who claimed he was offered money for concocting charges, and involving top police and investigative agencies to look into the veracity of his claims. Similarly, the court has to be equally delicate and proper about hearing out the complainant, lest any move is interpreted as inimical to working women’s rights in a society where they are subjected to cultural innuendos and suppositions. There were initial stutters that got the Bar association and many lawyers rallying behind the woman, too. Neither did the CJI’s special hearing in court include the complainant, though remarks were passed about her and her faulty legal record. Nor did the court check the backstory of the judges on the panel till the complainant pointed out one of them was a friend of the CJI. He recused himself thereafter. Considering the case is based on highly unequal circumstances — a junior employee versus the CJI — the investigation and assessment should appear non-intimidating and trustworthy. Let’s look at the complainant’s concerns — she wanted the presence of her lawyer or any support person so that she didn’t feel too overwhelmed by the topmost judges, she insisted on an audio-video recording of the committee proceedings and a copy of her statements as recorded on two sessions for the sake of fair play and cross-questioning. The present Supreme Court Internal Complaints Committee mechanism is inadequate for an inquiry into the alleged misconduct by the CJI himself. So her request for an external observer is not too far out, in keeping with the spirit of the Vishakha guidelines and the Prevention of Sexual Harassment Against Women at the Workplace Act, none of which can be applied in this case. The court, which is rightfully conducting the matter in secrecy, could actually keep a significant other, be it her counsel or perhaps someone like the National Commission for Women (NCW) chief during proceedings for the sake of balance. Nobody doubts the wisdom and maturity of the three Justices but perhaps certain sensitivities could be considered to prevent this one from being another “he said, she said” battle.
The Supreme Court is being tested most severely in an unprecedented case and how it upholds the law and treads its way without fear or favour is being watched keenly. At no point can it look one-sided without meaning to be so. The court, which has given judgements empowering women, should unravel the truth through procedural propriety for the sake of all women out there. For if the accuser is guilty of fabrication, coercion and mala fide motives, the judges should not let her get away. If not, the court should be seen as acting justly in matters concerning its own women employees. By walking out of the inquiry panel, the accuser has set off enough speculation if this was just another case of silence by intimidation or if she was guilty of a frame-up. Therefore, the panel should create a foolproof atmosphere, one she cannot exit on grounds of “feeling insecure.” This needs a closure without leaving an iota of doubt.
Writer & Courtesy: The Pioneer
Did an Indian Army expedition team indeed spot the mythical creature’s imprints?
The Indian Army posted a strange update on its Twitter handle recently where it claimed that an Army mountaineering team in Nepal, which was scaling Mount Makalu south-east of Everest, found some large footprints. These impressions, measuring 32 inches by 15 inches, were clearly too large for a human. So the Army concluded that the footsteps were possibly those of the mythical creature called the Yeti. So called by local Gurkhas and the “Abominable Snowman” by Europeans, the rare entity has an interesting legend. Rumours of its existence have swirled around the Himalayas for centuries, a giant humanoid creature, which has attacked mountaineering expeditions and local villages alike.
Humanity has long been fascinated by gigantism. The legend of the Yeti is similar to those related to Bigfoot in the vast forests of North America from where several supposed sightings and “footsteps” have been reported. The Yeti’s footprints, similar to those seen by the Indian Army team, have been seen in the past too, headed in a clear direction. Even if we go beyond just land creatures, humans have been captivated by stories of untameable monsters, the Loch Ness being the most legendary alongside the Chinese Dragon, since time immemorial. Every native culture has legends and myths of such creatures, many even built into their ancient texts. The legend of the Yeti, as we know it today, was built up in a large part by Belgian comic creator Herge, whose character, the eternally young journalist TinTin, interacted with the Yeti in the legendary TinTin in Tibet graphic novel. That was the character’s only visit to India. Delhi, in particular, occurred in that same book.
And while seeing is believing, we all know that footprints will not stand up to scientific scrutiny. In an ideal situation, the mountaineering team should have had a naturalist among them. Even if someone is dispatched today, the melting snow would have wiped out any trace of these footprints. At the same time, a bit of prudence by the Indian Army’s public information department would have served it well. It would be unscientific to throw out the possibility that the Indian Army team did find something strange, may not be the Yeti but some other natural curiosity, without some cross-checks. After all we continue to discover new species all the time. A more thought-out investigation away from the public glare would have made more sense instead of putting information out on a medium where many people are professionally outraged all the time. Even in these times where people and institutions constantly ‘over share’ thoughts, a bit of silence can do wonders.
Writer: Pioneer
Courtesy: The Pioneer
The PM’s boast of having 40 TMC MLAs in BJP’s kitty amounts to an endorsement of horse-trading
Frankly, outrageous statements made by political leaders during the ongoing Lok Sabha election are such a flood that temperance is more an exception than the rule. And though the Election Commission (EC) has its hands full signing off ban orders for speeches, the fact is every party is a wilful defaulter, realising that 72 hours of non-appearance would not be able to dim the inflammatory appeal of their momentary virulence. However, nobody expected Prime Minister Narendra Modi to swing so far out in a campaign speech for his party that he not only crossed the decency limits of the office he holds but was irresponsible, unexpected and unethical. Addressing a rally in Serampore, he challenged Bengal Chief Minister and Trinamool Congress (TMC) leader Mamata Banerjee, saying 40 of her MLAs would switch over to the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) after the election results were out. Does this mean he is talking of post-election defections and is endorsing the process of horse-trading as a holder of a Constitutional post? Does this mean that he is hinting at destabilising an elected State Government, hoping that the BJP can pick up a few seats in Bengal while holding on to power at the Centre? Is the threat of breaking the TMC actually a part of psych warfare intended to rattle Didi and push the undecided voter towards his desired outcome? Or is it that the saccharine admission of Didi’s gifts of kurtas and sweets needed to be countered by a bolder political statement? Whatever may be the intention, Modi has ended up challenging public propriety to such an extent that all transgressions by his party speakers, the vitriolic Yogi Adityanath included, seem to have paled in comparison. This is rather unusual for Modi, who has always separated himself from the motormouths in the fringe. Of course, they, too, have been legitimised and mainstreamed to create a polarised discourse for this election. But such desperation isn’t his style. Indeed, if he wants to appear larger than life, the only claimant to a leadership vacuum, then he has to adhere to public morality. He doesn’t need to resort to demagoguery.
Why is Modi so keen on Bengal? Of course, there is the issue of harnessing some extra seats from the eastern States as insurance should there be a BJP slip in the heartland. Bengal has the third largest number of seats in the Lok Sabha at 42, just behind Uttar Pradesh and Maharashtra, and with the Opposition all but decimated, the BJP is hoping to emerge the alternative. But most importantly Modi becomes vituperative about Mamata because she is the key adversary in this election, both as the architect of the Opposition front or mahagathbandhan, as his polar opposite and as a fearless challenger of his persona. Apart from the Hindutva-secularism discourse, Mamata is the only Opposition leader to have taken on Modi head-to-head, be it on the citizenship Bill, the National Register of Citizens (NRC) or the politicisation and manipulation of the administrative machinery for electoral advantages. And she counters his facts with figures. On NRC, she played up how a revision of rolls ended up affecting “22 lakh Hindu Bengalis,” a constituency of which he claims to be a crusader. And while she has risen in national stature, he hasn’t been able to prop up a CM-face from his State unit.
Of course, defections are not new in Bengal. The BJP itself coopted Mamata’s confidant Mukul Roy when he fell out of grace over alleged scams. Roy at one time hived off Left and Congress MLAs to the TMC camp. In fact, ever since the Left regime, there never has been a healthy two-party system in Bengal. Mamata may have defeated the Left after years of chipping it away but once in governance, she didn’t let go of the inherited monolithic aura. Now, the BJP is trying to come up as the TMC’s main challenger and staking claim to that space. There’s nothing wrong with political ambition but for that, it would be more appropriate for Modi’s BJP to wait it out and take on Didi in the Assembly elections of 2021 fair and square rather than settling for half-measures. Bengal has always loved the David versus Goliath story but it would not surely love a flawed David.
Writer & Courtesy: The Pioneer
While people are divided about the developmental works carried out by the Prime Minister in Varanasi, they are sure he has no challenger in this constituency. The only question is about the margin of victory
Prime Minister Narendra Modi has represented Varanasi for the past five years. Has the constituency changed for the better? Has it become cleaner? Has it transformed into another Kyoto as promised by him? Are the weavers better off? Is the air less polluted? Is the Ganga cleaner? Is the infrastructure better? The jury will be out on May 23, when results to the general elections will be declared. Modi filed his nomination on April 26 from Varanasi, seeking a second term. He has stuck to the seat of our civilisational consciousness yet again and the frenzy of supporters was on full play during the mega road show on April 25.
A visit to Varanasi will reveal that Modi has done a lot but it is “work-in-progress” still, as Professor AK Srivastava of the Banaras Hindu University claimed. I found that Varanasi stands divided between those who support Modi’s ambitious developmental push and those who oppose it. In 2014, he had promised a metro, a monorail, six-lane highways, flyovers, satellite towns, 24-hour electricity and water, a clean Ganga, luxury cruises on the holy river, solid waste management plans and other developmental works.
Modi’s supporters point out that he has not only focussed on improving roads but has also improved the overall infrastructure in and around the city. The Multi-Modal Terminal and the Trade Facilitation Centre & Crafts Museum and heritage lights installed across Varanasi are some examples. On paper, Modi has brought about projects worth Rs 30,000 crore in five years.
The first thing that grabbed our attention after landing at the Lal Bahadur Shastri International Airport was the four-lane road to the city with three flyovers. One of the cab drivers, Kamalesh, pointed out that it now takes 45 minutes to reach the city as compared to three hours earlier. A clear view of the Ganga, wider roads, flyovers and bridges welcome you on entering Varanasi. But there were no signs of posters.
According to Anand Chaube, a staunch Modi supporter, improvements include gas pipeline, the Ring Road, bridges over the Ganga and the Varuna. But Modi’s critics pointed out that roads had been dug up for laying underground cables. The city was dotted with filth, bumpy roads, potholes and crumbling bridges as a result. Congress candidate Ajay Rai noted that sanitation had improved but poor drainage system was still a problem. Rai was critical of a dedicated Viswanath corridor to the temple. The project involves a 50 feet wide pathway after demolishing around 250 structures, some built in the 17th century. The Rs 600 crore project will create 45,000 square metres of prime space.
During a recent visit, this writer found that some of the residents from whom the houses were bought were not happy. Some religious leaders, too, opposed the project, saying the project was trampling “Kashi’s soul.” Mufti Maulana Abdul Batin Nomani was concerned about the security of the masjid adjacent to the temple. RSS leader Ramesh and VHP leader Divakar claimed that pilgrims were now able to move about freely. Incidentally, a visit to the temple proved that the pilgrims welcomed this corridor.
The boatmen, who row the guests around the 90 ghats, are Modi bhakts. Showing the installation of lights on the riverfront, our boatman, Mahesh Saini, was proud of the improvements. “Modiji ne bahut kaam kiya” he said. There is a visible difference in Assi, Dashashwamedh and other ghats. The Alaknanda, the 60-seater luxury vessel floated by Nordic Cruise Line, offers breathtaking rides on the Ganga.
But Samajwadi Party candidate Shalini Yadav noted that not far away from the Assi ghat, most of Varanasi’s waste spills into the Ganga. More than three-fourth of the total sewage generated in the city is dumped in the Ganga through Assi and other drains. Varanasi is also faced with a severe pollution problem. Vishwambhar Nath Mishra, the mahant of Sankatmochan temple, was the most vocal voice on the lack of a sewage system and Ganga cleaning. Modi had announced a Rs 21, 000 crore plan to clean up the river with Rs 600 crore allotted for Varanasi.
Haji Habibullah, a Muslim weaver, pointed out that the famous Banarasi silk industry is almost on the verge of a collapse because of mass production of garments and Chinese competition. There are about six lakh weavers in the city, most of them Muslims, and many have abandoned their profession because it was no longer profitable. Modi’s Mudra loan schemes have helped them but the number of beneficiaries is falling. Besides, they face the difficulty of filling forms for GST as most weavers are illiterate.
Modi has no challenger in Varanasi. So the BJP and RSS workers are complacent. Ajay Rai and Shalini Yadav are weak candidates. Had Congress’ Priyanka Gandhi contested, there would have been some excitement. The only debate now is the margin of victory. Modi had won with over 580,000 votes in 2014. He told his supporters after filing the nomination: “Mother Ganga will take care of me.”
(The writer is a senior political commentator and syndicated columnist)
Writer: Kalyani Shankar
Courtesy: The Pioneer
Notwithstanding its strategic and geographical significance, this region has not received the attention it deserves. Ladakhis have genuine demands. And the Government must act, now
The trans-Himalayan region of Ladakh with Zanskar ranges in the south and Karakoram ranges in the north, bordering both Pakistan and China, is strategically important and vital for India’s national security. At the time of Partition, it formed a part of the princely State of Jammu & Kashmir, which acceded to India in October 1947 after the State was attacked by Pakistan-supported tribal raiders. Large parts of the region, including the strategic Gilgit, which during the Maharaja’s rule formed the Frontier district and Frontier ilaqas, remain under illegal occupation of Pakistan. Islamabad has divorced these areas from Pakistan-occupied Jammu & Kashmir and refers to them as Gilgit-Baltistan (former Northern Areas), which are administered directly by the federal Government over there. A portion of the area, including the Aksai Chin, has been illegally ceded by Pakistan to China. The famous China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), Beijing’s most important strategic initiative in this region, also runs through areas under illegal occupation of Pakistan. It is a land-locked area comprising the trans-Himalayan ranges, mainly the ranges of Zanskar, Ladakh, Pangong and Karakoram.
Siachen Glacier, the world’s highest battlefield with Saltoro Ridge as the vital ground, is a part of this region. This further enhances the strategic importance of the area; the occupation of Siachen has provided the Indian Army a strategic advantage. The Saltoro Ridge, an extension of the Karakoram Range, which dominates the glaciated region, is in complete command of the Army. Despite many desperate attempts, the Pakistan Army has not been able to secure even a toe-hold on the Ridge. Its occupation enables the Indian Army dominate the ambitious CPEC, whose strategic and military exploitation by China and Pakistan is a cause of concern for the nation. It also prevents the possibility of a pincer move by combined forces of Pakistan and China to cut off the Nubra Valley and subsequent capture of Ladakh. The strategic significance of Kargil area is well-known.
Ladakh is are a very proud race, who take pride in being nationalists. They consider themselves to be the guardians of India’s northern frontiers. They have been resisting Kashmiri hegemony from the time the administration of the State was transferred from the Maharaja to Sheikh Abdullah in 1949. In the first reorganisation of the State, Ladakh was made a district of the Kashmir Division, ignoring its ethnic, linguistic and cultural differences. Ladakhis felt that they had been made an appendage of Kashmir, which gradually proved true. Sheikh Abdullah’s first Cabinet did not have any representative from Ladakh. The Sheikh abhorred the Opposition and, hence, the National Conference was the sole political party comprising mainly of Kashmiri Muslims. Ladakh had only two seats in the State Assembly. Thus, “majority rule” virtually became “Kashmiri Rule.” Land reforms initiated by the Sheikh did not exclude the Gompas and drew strong opposition from Buddhist monks, who enjoyed a considerable clout. It was at the intervention of Prime Minister Nehru that the Gompas were exempted from the provisions of the Land Reforms Act.
The situation became grave when Urdu was made a compulsory language for the Ladakhis. The grant-in-aid given by Dogra rulers to three primary schools run by Shias, Buddhists and Sunnis was unilaterally withdrawn. No allocation was made for Ladakh in the annual Budget. In fact, separate allocation for the region began only in 1961. Biased and discriminatory policies of Kashmiri leaders pushed the Ladakhis to the wall and they started demanding separation from Kashmir to ensure development of their backward areas and preserve their religion and cultural identity.
One of the main reasons of the under development of the area was the flawed policy of the Nehru Government, which continued to treat the border regions as frontier areas. The Government of the day failed to recognise the difference between the two. While frontier regions were supposed to be dynamic, temporary and a buffer zone subject to give and take; border regions, defined by a boundary line, are fixed, sacrosanct and static. While the latter looks inwards, the former looked outwards. Since India had no expansionist designs, it should have concentrated on developing its border regions rather than keeping them under-developed under the false pretext of denying readymade road axis to a potential aggressor. Thus, neither the Union Government nor the State Government paid much heed to the development of infrastructure in this remote trans-Himalayan region, leading to anger and alienation among the people.
Growing alienation initially led to the demand of a Central administrator followed by the call for internal autonomy, regional autonomy and direct Central administration, as was done for a year after 1962 and finally veered around the demand for a separate divisional status for the region. The onset of secessionist activities in the Kashmir Valley once again rang alarm bells for the Ladakhis and a demand for a Union Territory gained popularity since the late 1980s under the banner of the Ladakh Buddhist Association (LBA). An agreement was reached in October 1989 for the formation of an Autonomous Hill Council on the pattern of the Darjeeling Hill Council. The Kashmir-centric State Government was not in favour of the same. After much dilly-dallying, the Ladakh Autonomous Hill Development Council Act was enacted by the Union Government in May 1995, granting an Autonomous Hill Council each for Leh and Kargil.
Despite the formation of the Hill Councils, empowerment remained a bone of contention between the Ladakhis and subsequent Kashmir-centric State Governments. Suspicious of the intent of Kashmiri leaders, LBA once again raised the demand of a separate Union Territory. Coupled with this is the growing resentment in Zanskar against the step-motherly treatment to Kargil district administration and gerrymandering of the Assembly constituency of Zanskar.
It goes to the credit of the Modi Government that the long-pending demand of empowering the autonomous hill councils was conceded when the Governor’s administration approved the Ladakh Hill Development Council (Amendment) Bill, 2018, making the councils much stronger administratively as well as financially. It was followed by the establishment of a cluster university to give impetus to better education. Finally, in February this year, the Government also conceded the demand for a separate division for Ladakh, making it a separate administrative region like the Kashmir and Jammu regions.
As has been said earlier, the region is very important for national security due to its strategic location. Therefore, it is essential that the people inhabiting the border areas are kept happy and satisfied by the Government so that they play their role well as the guardians of the nation’s borders. Ladakhis have a few genuine demands which need attention and cannot be ignored as disgruntlement among locals can endanger national security as well. Population in the border areas forms an important centre of gravity, which always remains in an adversary’s radar, who would always prefer dissension and trouble in these areas. Such dissension can be exploited by the adversary to threaten vulnerable lines of communication in case of conflict. The people of Kargil contributed and supported immensely in evicting the Pakistan Army, leading to the Kargil victory as acknowledged by the Indian Army.
Apart from holistic development of the entire region with particular preference to border areas, there’s a need to improve connectivity through building a direct rail link, road network, including the much-delayed Darcha-Padum-Neemo-Leh road and an airfield at Kargil. A strategic road linking Jammu region with Leh via Kishtwar is also needed. Widening and macadamisation of Kargil-Zanskar road and the opening of the Panikhar-Pahalgam road should also be completed on priority. The Zozila tunnel is a strategic necessity.
The establishment of professional colleges and higher education institutions, including a separate cluster university for Kargil, should be a priority. Inclusion of Bhoti language in the Eighth Schedule is a long pending demand. Both Kargil and Leh should be developed as centres of excellence for religious research and education. The discrimination in recruitment of Ladakhis in the civil secretariat and Government offices also needs to be looked into. The attempt to disturb the demographic balance in Leh needs to be aborted. Instead, emphasis must be laid on developing communal harmony. The Kashmir-centric leadership in the past has depended on the formula of divide and rule by pitting Kargil against Leh. The hardship faced by the people of the region, especially during harsh winter months, needs to be understood and addressed. The tendency of successive Kashmir-centric Governments to treat the people as second class citizens needs to end.
Ladakh was opened to tourists in 1974. Initially, tourism was limited to mountaineering and trekking. Gradually, with the Valley being disturbed, Ladakh has grown into a major tourist attraction centre. While modernisation of tourism industry, including the development of tourist infrastructure, is required for the improvement of the local economy, the aspect of environmental degradation also needs to be kept in mind. The region has tremendous hydro-electric potential which needs to be exploited.
(The writer is a Jammu-based political commentator, columnist and strategic analyst. The views expressed here are personal)
Writer: Anil Gupta
Courtesy: The Pioneer
Priyanka was inducted into the party to revitalise the moribund organisation. But she frittered away her advantages with juvenile antics about challenging the Prime Minister in Varanasi
In the rough and tumble of the country’s longest election season, politicians often make statements for mileage. Congress president Rahul Gandhi’s exaggerated claims of benefits accruing to industrialist Anil Ambani from the Rafale deal, his inability to stick to one figure for the corporate loans allegedly written off by the Narendra Modi Government and his immature attempt to attribute his opinions about the Prime Minister to the Supreme Court (which was not amused) can be taken as par for the course.
Gandhi is fighting for survival against a very astute politician. Sister Priyanka Gandhi Vadra was inducted into the Congress and given charge of half of the critical State of Uttar Pradesh to revitalise the moribund organisation and bring voters back to the grand old party. Projected by an adoring media as a charismatic trump card and serious game-changer, she frittered away her advantages with juvenile antics about challenging the Prime Minister in Varanasi and then disappeared like the proverbial horns of a donkey.
Vadra’s sense of entitlement can be gauged from the fact that till the time of writing, she has felt no need to explain her conduct, either to the media that she used to create a false buzz around herself or to the party, whose workers looked up to her with so much expectation. Her contribution to the Congress’ tally will match this attitude.
Diehard Congress fans see her flight from Varanasi as extremely damaging. Far from energising the party, she has inadvertently exposed deep fissures within. Thus, confidants of Rahul Gandhi explained the decision on one ground; the faction aligned with her explained it on another. This is a grave political error. During his long apprenticeship under Sonia Gandhi, Rahul never once presumed to overtake or overshadow his mother and kept his nascent camp under tight control. Similarly, Sonia Gandhi has been careful never to take the limelight away from Rahul after he became party president. By unilaterally proposing herself for Varanasi on multiple occasions, Priyanka breached this red line. Her retreat could be imposition of party discipline.
Anyway, Priyanka could regard Smriti Irani with scorn in 2014, but in 2019, Irani forced Rahul to seek a safety net in Kerala. So, did Priyanka really believe (even if she dared to contest and give details of her and husband Robert Vadra’s assets in a sworn affidavit, along with five years of income tax returns) that she was strong enough to face Modi? Informed sources say she is also shy of revealing her educational qualifications.
One wonders why Priyanka did not focus on helping the party to win Amethi. If the famously secretive family has privately conceded Amethi to Irani and the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), how did she imagine that tossing a half-baked dare at the Prime Minister was going to yield electoral dividends? Now the reverse has happened, to the dismay of the loyal glitterati.
The crux of the matter is that Varanasi is not merely a constituency. It is the beating heart of Hindu civilisation and Narendra Modi chose it consciously for this reason in 2014. His obeisance to Pt Madan Mohan Malaviya, who built the university to cater to every aspect of knowledge from traditional to modern, was part of a subtle quest to align the BJP with the soul of India. By seeking refuge in a constituency dominated by the Indian Union Muslim League, Rahul Gandhi unintentionally made the Congress-BJP contest a civilisational battle. The temple-hopping sacred thread-wearing (jeneu-dhari) Kashyap gotra (clan) Brahmin persona evaporated in an instant. This truth will not escape the Indian voter.
Modi alluded to the civilisational aspect when he said that the Congress president had sought safety in a minority-dominated seat. This Nehruvian legacy — of making the Muslim community a core vote bank and winning elections by adding some caste votes — is now under serious challenge. This is what the BJP sought when it espoused the Ram Janmabhumi movement and spoke of “justice for all, appeasement of none.”
Perhaps the vision needed more time or a new leader with an aspirational message linking the past with the future. This also sums up Modi’s developmental work in Varanasi — grand roads, new institutions, cleaning the Ganga and the ghats and recovering hidden temples on the path from Kashi Vishwanath temple to the river. Modi alone has had the courage to venture into the spiritual heartland without the benefit of family, caste or regional roots. Kashi welcomes such wanderers. The Gandhi family lacks roots on this civilisational firmament. Priyanka blundered to think she could meet Modi on this terrain. When apprised of the reality, she should have retreated gracefully. Instead, she fed the frenzy. Later, the Congress announced the candidature of Ajay Rai the very day Modi filed his nomination and left the poor scapegoat to field the questions.
The media and intellectuals, who lionised Priyanka and invented the mystique of her political acumen, must feel disenchanted. Some of the eulogies accompanying her entry into the Congress on January 23 are telling. One headline gushed, “Priyanka Gandhi is already a social media star despite not having Twitter or FB account”. Her entry was described as a “bombshell.” A prominent intellectual tried to evoke a supernatural link between Swami Vivekananda and the lady, for sharing the same birthday and posed the question: “Will Priyanka be the X-factor that tilts the scales in favour of the Congress this crucial election year?” Well, the answer is blowing in the wind.
A highly respected columnist made a hugely embarrassing prognosis, “The message is loud and clear. East Uttar Pradesh means Varanasi and Varanasi equals Narendra Modi. Giving Priyanka charge of Eastern Uttar Pradesh is tantamount to taking on the opponent on his turf.… Given her charisma, ability to think on her feet and come up with instant ripostes, and her resemblance to Indira Gandhi, the battle could become a Modi versus Priyanka fight in 2019, without her being declared as the prime ministerial candidate of the Congress or of the Opposition.” It has taken just three months to shatter that illusion. This brings us to the real mystery of 2019. Was Sonia Gandhi trying to avert sibling rivalry from spilling into the open when she decided to contest from Rae Bareli? Can a post-election split in the Congress be avoided or is it inevitable?
(The writer is Senior Fellow, Nehru Memorial Museum and Library; the views expressed are personal)
Writer: Sandhya Jain
Courtesy: The Pioneer
The fresh new flavours that Chef Massimiliano Sperli has curated for Sorrento transport Saimi Sattar to balmy Italy. I was excited, almost giddy-headed, for this was the closest that I got to my Masterchef moment for even though I am an avid follower of the Australian version. I have never met Gary Mehigan and George Calombaris even though they have visited India several times, for one reason or another. No, I had not created a dish which could put a Cordon Bleu chef to shame, rather I along with a group of 10 others was guessing the ingredients of a dish. Blindfolded. I was at Sorrento at Shangri-La’s Eros Hotel where Chef Massimiliano Sperli was cooking for us.
The servers placed the dish in a spoon and helpfully guided our hands towards it since a beautiful turquoise silk scarf was tied over my eyes. I put the portion in my mouth and the flavours started to reveal themselves and starting making a mental note — tomato, egg, flour, cheese, Italian seasoning (oregano, parsley, basil and rosemary) and then — I was flummoxed.
The blindfold was removed, white paper sheets placed before us and I dutifully noted all of these down. But I can see the others are still at it and their lists are much longer. Reminiscent of an exam day, our sheets are collected and after a few moments the Chef Neeraj Tyagi comes back to tell us that the Ravioli Caprese that we were served had pasta dough, egg, farina flour, semolina and was stuffed with lemon zest, ricotta cheese, salt, pepper and tomato sauce. So, yes, I did have some of them right. But while all I could say was cheese, my companion zeroed down on the variety and that too correctly. A round of applause immediately went around for her for guessing it. But surprisingly, she wasn’t the one to name the maximum ingredients. That honour went to another one.
With the novelty factor over, we settled down for an authentic Italian meal and Chef Massimiliano did not disappoint. For antipasti, I decided to opt for the vegetarian option as a fresh green salad felt just right given the spiralling mercury. I had Gli orti sopra il golfo di Sorrento which translates as the gardens above the gulf of Sorrento. It consisted grilled and roasted vegetables tossed with cold pressed extra virgin olive oil and lemon, baby gem, rocket, sorrel, Taggiasche black olive, orange segments, almonds flakes, homemade dried tomato foam which was flavoured with a fennel reduction. While the vegetables were crunchy, it was the fennel reduction which added an element freshness and elevated the salad to make it just the thing for a summer day.
For the pasta, I chose I gioielli sotto il terreno or the jewels under the field which was homemade tortellini filled with potato, ricotta cheese and rosemary. It also had sautéd beetroot, steamed baby carrot, summer black truffle and celeriac sauce.
Coming to the dessert section and my penchant for tilting towards the sweet things in life, I shared two and loved them both. The Se non c’e la vuoi!!! or If there is not, you want!!! which was passion fruit Pannacotta served with white chocolate and cardamom sauce, Cantucci cookies crumble and cold press extra virgin olive oil ice cream. The flavour was citrusy and the cookie crumble gave it a bit of a crunch which presented a great contrast to the the smooth pannacotta.
However, it was the Una dolce serenata d’amore or a sweet serenade of love which had “Semifreddo” (semi-frozen) Gianduia chocolate, orange and pistachio ganache heart, coconut praline, star anise tuiles and pure mango emulsion that certainly took my heart and blew away my gastronomical senses. It was the slightly toasted pistachios which not only added a bite to the chocolate but also gave it the heavenly nutty flavour that made it so flavoursome. A more than perfect end to a really memorable meal.
Writer: Saimi Sattar
Courtesy: The Pioneer
Maruti withdrew from diesel car sales following Volkswagen’s emissions scandal. A few years ago, automotive writers were talking of the emergence of ‘clean diesel.’ With technologies such as high-pressure injection, diesel engines had after all moved from being seen as the dirty, smoke-belching fuel that we remembered two decades ago to being a clean, and heaven forbid, an environmentally-friendly option. As technologies made diesel engines more efficient, in many cases offering half as much fuel economy, some considered them a carbon-friendly alternative to petrol. Given similar engine sizes and cars, diesel models burnt much less carbon thanks to their efficiency. At the same time, these machines were not the old plodding engines of the past. Modern turbochargers and stored energy systems made diesel engines powerful as well and, thus, fun to drive. In countries like India, where diesel’s reputation as the fuel that transporters used and its subsidisation for what were believed to be lower-income buyers, made it even more popular, despite similar diesel-powered cars costing a lakh of rupees more on average than petrol. The extra efficiency coupled with the lower cost of fuel meant that an average user driving a thousand kilometres a month would make his or her money back in three years and earn a pretty profit after the lifetime of the car. As a result almost half the cars sold in 2012 in India were diesels.
But all of that was a lie. Volkswagen, the largest car-making conglomerate in the world, was caught cheating in emission tests when the cars being probed went into a ‘test’ mode giving better results. Far too good it emerged. Not only were diesel cars burning more fuel, they were emitting a dangerous cocktail of greenhouse gases such as nitrogen oxides and particulate matter. As a result of this, and Delhi’s deadly winter air, the Supreme Court first banned the sale of all high-capacity diesel cars and followed that up with a directive that diesel cars can only be registered in Delhi for 10 years. This had an immediate impact on diesel car sales in the biggest car-buying region of India. In 2018, these models accounted for under a quarter of sales and that number continued to fall, so much so that even luxury manufacturers, 90 percent of whose sales used to be diesel, started to launch a rash of petrol models even on large SUVs. The new Bharat Stage VI (BS-VI) emissions norms moved up rapidly from BS-IV as a result of the emission crisis, and would additionally make small diesels much more expensive as well. Maruti’s announcement that it will stop selling all diesel models by April 1, 2020, is a direct consequence of these events. While a quarter of Maruti’s sales are still diesel, the company sees the future as being reminiscent of the past where it becomes the choice of fuel for trucks and trains. That said, this is a bold step by the country’s largest carmaker, and while shareholders might be angry, it shows that Maruti, like Porsche, has seen the future. And the future has no diesel.
Writer & Courtesy: The Pioneer
FREE Download
OPINION EXPRESS MAGAZINE
Offer of the Month