FOR GOD'S SAKE SPARE THE GOD!!!!!!!!
The Amarnath shrine land issue,is unnecessarily being blamed as the bone of contention,between the Hindus and Muslims of the valley or rather between Kashmir and India!The shrine is just being made a scapegoat by the Kashmiri Muslims to went their undying desire of freedom from India!! This is probably the last nail in the coffin of relationship between,India and Kashmir,and this very statement sounds as if Kashmir is not a part of the country. The issue however,is nether the land,nor the Hindu shrine,but AZADI !
And this azadi is,less as a freedom from the so called step treatment of unfair India,but more of an overambitious desire to live independently.The root cause of this cannot be identified or pin pointed,as there are three processes working simultaneously towards a so called similar goal.Firstly the Pakistani forces,which are still thirsty for the revenge of partition and want to acquire Kashmir back.Secondly Pakistan again trying to break Kashmir away from India,as a revenge of Indias role in the independence of Bangladesh,and thirdly the struggle of Kashmiris who want to be azad from India.
These two agencies are working hand and glove.The local population may be helping the outside terrorists in their attacks,and the outsiders are be sustaining the struggle for kashmiris in their battle of independence.But,surprisingly the goals are different,Pakistan may have the distant dream of taking kashmir,but most of kashmir has the determinant desire of being independent,and may be even acquire back the POK,and such sleeping with the enemy situations are eventually self destructive and fatal!!!!!!!!!!!!.
While Kashmiris,considering themselves Indians may be counted on finger tips,the number keen to attain Pakistani citizenship,is not bigger either.Majority of the Kashmiri is just a Kashmiri at heart
The normal life of a civil war or local insurgency is usually a decade,but in Kashmir the fire is alive since almost two decades.It was 18th Nov 1989,when the insurgency started in Kashmir,and since then the snow clad mountains of the most beautiful land of the world,have been painted red by the blood of innumerable people,mostly innocent and including a large number of woman and children.The Khalistan movement was as bad and strong,if not worse,but died its natural death,since the masses were not with the agitators,but here it is a movement of the complete Kashmir
Having spent almost four years,in the valley,in the thick of insurgency,treating the casualties,I have had the opportunity to interact with the Pakistani terrorist,foreign missionaries,local agitators and the common kashmiri,The Pakistani terrorist is in a trance in the name of Jihad,the missionaries are on a payrole,the local kashmiri militant a freedom fighter and the common man just fed up.
But it is this fed up common man,who is playing the strongest silent role in keeping this battle alive.The common man neither wants India to win,nor Pakistan to succeed,but wants a free Kashmir
The threat to become part of Pakistan and the march to Muzzafarabad are just kiddish acts,as in school we would often exchange tiffins with our best friends enemy,just to tease him,when we were not on good terms,temporarily or permanently.And the green flags are again no indicators of love for our dear neighbor,but the show of Islam against Hinduism(read Kashmir against India)
What has been the cause for this,one cannot say.Weather it is the mistake of partition,the poor governance of center,the support of Pakistan,the demographic barrier,the exploitation of the poor Muslim craftsmen by the rich Kashmiri pundits,the will of separatists or the over confidence of belief in to be able to survive independently. The geographical bottle neck of Jawahar Tunnel has proved to be a great culprit,preventing the Kashmiris to mingle with the rest of India.Kashmiris generally form the least number of friends , neighbors and collogues we can think of,compared to those from any other state,and may be even from Nepal or foreign countries.This scenario has isolated the Kashmiri, physically and emotionally forcing him to think of only AZAD KASHMIR!
And this too,when Kashmir in spite of all allegations,still is one of the most and the only privileged state,where,with the support of the central and state government,there are no beggars,no one without a house,no house without electricity and even subsidized electricity and food.
Letting Kashmir go,besides being painful emotionally,would mean loss of tourist destinations and fruit orchards,but the later are available at other states too.It may give impetus to freedom struggle of the eastern states and may re kindle the fire of Khalistan movement,but all these may be handled.but to keep the bodies of people by force under the tricolor ,when their heart,mind and soul is yearning for freedom,or is already free,would not only be difficult,but even impossible and may be unfair ! So we should just let Kashmir go! Free it from India,and lets give it a chance to fly and feed and fend for itself,if it can,without India,whose years of support has failed to win their hearts,or of Pakistan which cannot sustain itself !!
I say this with a heavy heart,just as I often take the hated decision,as a surgeon,of amputing a dead or dying part of the body of my patient,where the cruel kindness of my knife may save a life,by sacrificing a limb
Dr Sanjay Kapoor lucknow
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
25 comments:
But won't it unleash an anti-muslim sentiment with Sangh Parivaar having every reason to shout do (kill) or die?
If India can hold on to Kashmir for 50+ years, can it not correct its biased policies not only in Kashmir but elsewhere too?
Kashmir's Azadi comes in handy as they have a geographic and demographic advantage. Mainstream muslims seek Azadi from biased government and the poison of Hindu intolerance. So do Hindus. Lets all of us fight for the real Azadi.
Thanks for your comments Zias!
the issue in the valley is not Hindu verses muslim,but Kashmiris verses India!(Its a differant matter that majority kashmiris may be muslims)
India hs become to vast and diversified to met the requirements of all castes and religions or socio demographic groups.
And one cannot have eveyone happy at all times!!!!!!!!!!
From
Dr Ashwani Agarwal,Dallas
This bring me to your explicit views on Kashmir. Remember, Hindu fundamentalist and extremists are as dangerous as muslim imams and Christian padri preaching hatred. I recently read a book, 'The new golden Age' by Ravi Batra. Ravi is a personal friend and prof. of economics at 'Southern Methodist Univ' here at Dallas and has witten 12 books some of these are bestsellers. In his predictions about economy and stock markets he is like any other economist ; right about 50% times. This book written after 9/11 is a little different and he has dedicated couple of chapters on Muslim fundamentalism. I think he is rihgt on the money in his analysis. He says that muslims are going through the same struggle that Christians went thru in 17th and 18th century when there was a rift between church and intellect and the State. Church was alll powerful and now they are appolozising for what they did to Galileo and others. It took them 200 yrs. Ravi thinks that muslims are beginning to realize and people are coming out in open criticism and one example is ' Salman Rushdie' and now there are so many more. Wheter it is kashmir or Pakistan, Afghanistan or middle east, you can see a common denominator. Please do not treat kashmir or for that matter andy other region as a dead or a necrotic body part waiting to be surgically amputated. Like you said in your blog, native kashimiris are indifferent. Most people even muslims are common and ordinary people like me or you who want good family life, educated kids, peace and happiness. They just need a true and honest leadership and junta who can determine what is right and what is wrong. This is a limitation of democracy when you give voting rights to so many illiterates that breeds ignorance. How many surgical strikes can you do or are willing to do? Like you said- khalistan, mizoram, leh etc. etc.
good luck, sanjay and keep writing
Ashwani
.
Dear ashwani
Your reply was really very apt and thought provoking
Would only like to add a few lines.
The battle in Kashmir is not Muslim verses Hindus, but Kashmir verses India.
its just a co-incidence that most Kashmir is are Muslims, and this agitation happens to be at the same time, when the Muslims are agitating all over the world
the Hindus are no good and the Kashmiri pandits are probably the beggest culprits in precipitating this crisis
the key words to the issue are ,jawahar tunnel ,Pundits, common man in Kashmir, governance and Azadi
The jawahar Tunnel has been a real culprit, the demographic bottle neck which prevented the mingling of people beyond it with the rest of the country. This was augmented by special laws preventing people to buy land and settle in srinagar,further isolating the common kashmiris. these common men were then exploited by the rich pandits ,who siphoned money outside Kashmir to metros in India and even abroad, with their next generation settling outside Kashmir.
The common man always welcome a tourist ,but almost as a foreigner.-Aap Hindustan se aaye hein,hamare mehmaan hai!
The common man never realized that he was a Indian, he lived and died a kashmiri. Its now, when the government wants to adopt them, they are unwilling, and may be right in doing so.
They are neither bad, nor anti hindues its just that their soul is not Indian, so isn’t it unfair to keep the bodies when the soul cannot be yours!
Regards
sanjay
Article by vir sanghvi
Think the Unthinkable
Have you been reading the news coming out of Kashmir with a mounting sense of despair? I know I have. It's clear now that the optimism of the last few months — all those articles telling us that normalcy had returned to Kashmir — was misplaced. Nothing has really changed since the 1990s. A single spark — such as the dispute over Amarnath land — can set the whole valley on fire, so deep is the resentment, anger and the extent of secessionist feeling. Indian forces are treated as an army of occupation. New Delhi is seen as the oppressor. There is no engagement with the Indian mainstream. And even the major political parties do not hesitate to play the Pakistan card — Mehbooba Mufti is quite willing to march to the Line of Control.
At one level, the current crisis in Kashmir is a consequence of a series of actions by the Indian establishment. New Delhi let the situation fester until it was too late. The state administration veered between inaction and over-reaction. The Sangh Parivar played politics with Hindu sentiment in Jammu, raising the confrontation to a new level.
But we need to look at the Kashmir situation in a deeper way. We can no longer treat it on a case-by-case basis: solve this crisis, and then wait and see how things turn out in the future. If the experience of the last two decades has taught us anything, it is that the situation never really returns to normal. Even when we see the outward symptoms of peace, we miss the alienation and resentment within. No matter what we do, things never get better, for very long.
It's not as though the Indian state has no experience of dealing with secessionist movements. Almost from the time we became independent 61 years ago, we have been faced with calls for secession from nearly every corner of India: from Nagaland, Assam and Mizoram, from Tamil Nadu, from Punjab etc.
In every single case, democracy has provided the solution. We have followed a three-pronged approach: strong, almost brutal, police or army action against those engaging in violence, a call to the secessionist leaders to join the democratic process and then, generous central assistance for the rebuilding of the state. It is an approach that has worked brilliantly. Even in, say, Mizoram, where alienation was at its height in the 1970s, the new generation sees itself as Indian. The Nagas now concentrate their demands on a redrawing of state boundaries (to take in part of Manipur), not on a threat to the integrity of India. In Tamil Nadu, the Hindi agitation is forgotten and in Punjab, Khalistan is a distant memory.
The exception to this trend has been Kashmir. Contrary to what many Kashmiris claim, we have tried everything. Even today, the state enjoys a special status. Under Article 370 of our Constitution, with the exception of defence, foreign policy, and communication, no law enacted by parliament has any legitimacy in Kashmir unless the state government gives its consent. The state is the only one in India to have its own Constitution and the President of India cannot issue directions to the state government in exercise of the executive power of the Union as he can in every other state. Kashmiri are Indian citizens but Indians are not necessarily Kashmiri citizens. We cannot vote for elections to their assembly or own any property in Kashmir.
Then, there is the money. Bihar gets per capita central assistance of Rs 876 per year. Kashmir gets over ten times more: Rs 9,754 per year. While in Bihar and other states, this assistance is mainly in the forms of loans to the state, in Kashmir 90 per cent is an outright grant. Kashmir's entire Five Year Plan expenditure is met by the Indian taxpayer. In addition, New Delhi keeps throwing more and more money at the state: in 2004, the Prime Minister gave Kashmir another $ 5 billion for development.
Kashmiris are happy to take the money and the special rights but they argue that India has been unfair to them because no free political process has developed. And, it is true that we have rigged elections in Kashmir. But, it is now nearly a decade since any rigging was alleged. Nobody disputes that the last election was fair. Moreover, even though the Congress got more seats than the PDP, the Chief Ministership went to Mufti Mohammad Sayeed as a gesture.
Given that Kashmir has the best deal of any Indian state, is there anything more we can do? Kashmiris talk about more autonomy. But I don't see a) what more we can give them and b) how much difference it will make.
If you step back and think about it, the real question is not 'how do we solve this month's crisis'? It is: what does the Centre get in return for the special favours and the billions of dollars?
The short answer is: damn all.
As the current agitation demonstrates, far from gratitude, there is active hatred of India. Pakistan, a small, second-rate country that has been left far behind by India, suddenly acts as though it is on par with us, lecturing India in human rights and threatening to further internationalise the present crisis.
The world looks at us with dismay. If we are the largest democracy on the planet then how can we hang on to a people who have no desire to be part of India?
The other cost of Kashmir is military. Many terrorist acts, from the hijacking of IC 814 to the attack on parliament have Kashmir links. Our response to the parliament attack was Operation Parakram, which cost, in ten months, Rs 6,500 crore and 800 army lives? (Kargil cost us 474 lives.) Each day, our troops and paramilitary forces are subjected to terrorists's attacks, stress, and ridicule.
So, here's my question: why are we still hanging on to Kashmir if the Kashmiris don't want to have anything to do with us?
The answer is machismo. We have been conned into believing that it would diminish India if Kashmir seceded. And so, as we lose lives and billions of dollars, the Kashmiris revel in calling us names knowing that we will never have the guts to let them go.
But would India really be diminished? One argument is that offering Kashmiris the right to self-determination would encourage every other secessionist group. But would it? Isn't there already a sense in which we treat Kashmir as a special case? No other secessionist group gets Article 370 or so much extra consideration. Besides, if you take this line, then no solution (autonomy, soft borders etc.) is possible because you could argue that everybody else would want it too.
A second objection is that Indian secularism would be damaged by the secession of Kashmir. This is clearly not true. As history has shown, Indian Muslims feel no special kinship with Kashmir. They would not feel less Indian if some Kashmiris departed.
Moreover, too much is made of the size of Kashmir. Actually secessionist feeling is concentrated in the Valley, an area with a population of 4 million that is 98 per cent Muslim. (The Hindus either left or were driven out). Neither Jammu nor Ladakh want to secede. So, is the future of India to be held hostage to a population less than half the size of the population of Delhi?
I reckon we should hold a referendum in the Valley. Let the Kashmiris determine their own destiny. If they want to stay in India, they are welcome. But if they don't, then we have no moral right to force them to remain. If they vote for integration with Pakistan, all this will mean is that Azad Kashmir will gain a little more territory. If they opt for independence, they will last for about 15 minutes without the billions that India has showered on them. But it will be their decision.
Whatever happens, how can India lose? If you believe in democracy, then giving Kashmiris the right to self-determination is the correct thing to do. And even if you don't, surely we will be better off being rid of this constant, painful strain on our resources, our lives, and our honour as a nation?
This is India's century. We have the world to conquer — and the means to do it. Kashmir is a 20th century problem. We cannot let it drag us down and bleed us as we assume our rightful place in the world.
It's time to think the unthinkable
I AGREE WITH HIM
i cudnt agree more
and thats what i had said too
thanks budhau
cooper(My nick name)
sanjay kapoor
This is like saying that we should kick out our kids if they do not listen to us. I bet not many ordinary folks in Kashmir know what is article 370, let alone what is in it. We must do everything to integrate them. They need to know that their fate is linked to rest of India.They need to know that they will have equal representation in govt., jobs, higher education etc. etc. It was thrilling to see how the whole country seemed to have united behind Indian Idol from Assam to Darjeeling to south and west.( This was the most wtched progrm in Pakistan.) But the politicians will never let this happen and we all know why.
Dr Ashwani K Agarwal
The cry for the abolition of the Article 370 of the Indian constitution, which confers great autonomy on Jammu & Kashmir, is a misplaced one – the cry instead should be for its extension to the whole of India.
Article 370, unwittingly perhaps considering its historical circumstances, may be the brightest glint of federal expression in the Indian constitution, which otherwise remains largely unitary in character. Large sections of the Indian population (and regions that contain them) thus feel increasingly marginalized from the ‘mainstream’, and seemingly disparate phenomenon like recent disturbances in the northeast, the girding of heartland India by naxalites, the trivialization of the parliamentary process, and paradoxically enough, the continuing impasse in Jammu & Kashmir, may well be said to spring from the centralized nature of governance in India which concentrates power in the hands of a few organized interest groups and leaves the average citizen with only symbols of democratic participation like ritualized elections and awe-inspiring, monumental edifices where elected representatives apparently serve the people. Article 370, minus its current imperfections, may well be the harbinger of a ‘new India.’
Before getting ahead with the story however, a look backwards at what Article 370 is, and its motivations. The article was a byproduct of Kashmir’s accession to India after independence, and was designed to ensure that Kashmiri aspirations were well served by the government of India, and critically, that Kashmiris would have a vital say in the manner their state was governed. In its broadest contours, the article gave the central government primacy in defense, foreign affairs, and communication, while the state government assumed greater control over other laws (including those of property, citizenship, and fundamental rights) and the daily lives of its citizenry. The article was conceived under what may be termed as extraordinary circumstances, when the threat of Kashmir slipping from India’s then tenuous grip was a distinct possibility, and was certainly politically expedient – it was thus originally conceived as an ‘interim’ measure but like many other ‘temporary’ features in the Indian constitution, it has now assumed a permanent air and we currently talk about it mostly as a vexing issue that nobody is ever likely to do anything about.
As things stand, the battle lines for and against the article are clearly drawn – its supporters see the article as a vital cog in the preservation of the Indian union, an instrument that honors a promise that the government of India made to the people of Kashmir at the time of accession, a vehicle to assure citizens of India’s only Muslim-majority state about India’s secular credentials, and as a mechanism to safeguard Kashmir’s culture (or Kashmiriyat, as it is often described). The article’s supporters see in Kashmir’s unique personal and property laws an expression of the will of the people of Kashmir and reckon Kashmir’s interests are best left to the people of Kashmir themselves (especially if it helps maintain the integrity of the Indian union). The opponents of the article however see it as fundamentally flawed – to them Article 370 is a tool of appeasement, one that gives special leeway to Muslims even though they are a majority in the state (at the cost of the ‘real minorities’ in the state – the Pandits, the Laddakhis, etc.), they view it as a discriminatory tool that provides preferential treatment to one state over all others in the country on account of ‘historical blunders’ made after the Kashmir raids of 1948, and they decry it as another hole in the ‘pseudo-secular’ fabric of India which owes its continued existence to the twisted logic of electoral politics rather than to national interest.
It is not my purpose in this article to favor one argument over another (suffice to say that the motives of both sides are suspect to a degree and ideology rather than common logic takes precedence in many of their assertions) but to shift the focus of the debate – rather than keep Jammu & Kashmir at the center of the argument about Article 370, it may be time to view the article in a larger national context. Does the article offer any guidelines to the governing system in the rest of India? Is there greater merit in the rest of India adopting some of the salient features of the article than in denouncing it largely on the grounds of ‘we don’t have it, so shouldn’t she’? Should we choose to be frogs in a well pulling each other down, or is it time to climb out of the holes we have dug for ourselves, and take a look at the larger world around?
Let’s take a look at the article stripped of its historical baggage, and ignore for a moment that it only applies to Jammu & Kashmir in its current guise – all it proposes is greater autonomy in the running of a state than is the norm in the Indian constitution. The article recognizes that India is a diverse country and that a region may have special needs which may or may not be in consonance with the needs of the rest of the country. It thus leaves discretionary powers with the state and subjects all central laws/amendments to state approval before they can be implemented in a state. It transfers accountability and power to the state government in virtually all matters except those that deal with the integrity of the Indian union, and its international relationships. The idea is that only local governance can truly protect the identity and interests of a state and that central participation in governance should be limited to only larger and ‘national’ issues.
Viewed under this lens, there is little that is objectionable about the article and little that is not valid for all other states too – almost all Indian states have distinct cultural traditions, ethos, and practices, which are worth special attention, each state has needs, people, and circumstances that are unique to it and which are difficult to club with a national consensus. Unfortunately however, the Indian body-politick, with a few exceptions, chooses to treat the entire country as an unvariegated whole when framing laws and states have no choice but to both accept and enforce them, regardless of any reservations they may have about the applicability of the law to their local needs. There is quite often little ability amongst states to even tweak or ‘customize’ a law for its state-specific needs – one size, bloated enough, fits all. The result thus is a mode of governance, in which states, despite being in the frontline of administration, have little input into laws, and are squeezed between an unyielding center and an increasingly disenchanted populace. And worst of all, states always have an escape door when implementing unpopular laws – it isn’t their fault! The population is thereby left to fend for itself – it has little access to the central government, and the local government more often than not, finds it easy to wash its hands off any measures that excite debate and disagreement among the governed.
Make no mistake; Article 370 was not formed to lay down the principles of center-state relationships or to directly solve the problem described above. It isn’t thus either exhaustive enough or extensive enough to cover the gamut of issues that go into center-state relations. It however does provide the springboard necessary to begin questioning the unitary model we have chosen to adopt in the whole country, bar Kashmir. And if it can work in Kashmir, why can it not work in the rest of the country too?
There are many obvious problems, and the first ineluctably is the state of Kashmir itself – a state that is quite possibly, with the contentious exception of Bihar, the least peaceful in the country. To make matters worse – the violence in Kashmir does not stem from general lawlessness, as it does in Bihar, but from a disregard of central authority, an attitude that is often blamed, among many other things, on Article 370 (except by the extremists themselves, who believe it doesn’t go far enough!). Is there thus a real risk that extending the article to other states in the country will further fan secessionist flames in the northeast, and other states like Punjab and Andhra Pradesh which have flirted with incipient secessionism in the past? Will Article 370 be the spur that finally breaks India apart?
A more pertinent concern is perhaps the ability of the states to do justice to increased power, and handle it responsibly. Unfortunately, recent Indian constitutional history isn’t exactly littered with examples of farsightedness shown by states – their record is patchy at best, and downright shoddy in reality. In fact, a case may be made that but for central intervention and guidance, most Indian states, driven by narrow, parochial concerns, would have descended into anarchy a long time ago. Possibly the worst record in this regard is that of the Jammu & Kashmir legislature itself, which has shown a remarkable ability to shoot itself in the foot consistently. The recently proposed bill debarring Kashmiri women from property rights on marriage to ‘outsiders’, the legislature’s refusal to accept the amendment limiting the size of state ministries to 15% of the total elected strength, and its long standing refusal to recognize Anglo-Indians and other minorities in the state are just three examples of legislation which persistently refuses to look beyond the state. What guarantees are there that other states shan’t do the same, and perhaps worse?
The answer to both questions lies in the inchoate nature of Article 370, and in its flawed, single-state focused implementation. As stated earlier, the article is not designed to guide center-state relations, but in the case of Jammu & Kashmir, it does just that. Limiting the article to one state however produces one very significant consequence – it allows Jammu & Kashmir to create discriminatory legislation without fear of consequence (as no other state is in a position to answer it in the same coin). It is extremely likely, though by no means guaranteed in the short-term, that Jammu & Kashmir may loosen its property laws that preclude ‘outsiders’ from buying property in the state, and also employment laws that virtually exclude all outsiders as well as a large section of Kashmiris themselves, if other states ever decided to resort to quid pro quo, and excluded Kashmiris from property and employment rights in their states. Right now, this is a non-issue for Kashmiris, but give other states similar rights, and egalitarian values are likely to hit home soon. There’s of course always the chance that allowing such powers to all states may result in a race towards the bottom with each state keen to emphasize its ‘exclusive’ nature but the affliction is likely to be limited to only a few states and that too only for a short time, as some states demonstrate the benefits of inclusive polity and economy. The measure is unlikely to stir any more instability than already exists, and by making states responsible for their actions and overall condition, is likely to curtail any imprudent adventurism.
The other more fundamental problem with Article 370 is its state-centric, monolithic view of autonomy and local governance. In keeping with the overall unitary spirit of the constitution, the article does little to promote grassroots governance and concentrates all significant powers in the hands of the state government. The version of autonomy it thus creates is in essence a majoritarian one – it cloaks a centralized mode of governance under the garb of an autonomous one. Kashmir can thus never be truly autonomous unless it itself allows power to percolate downwards to the people. In its current avatar, Article 370 is largely a sham, and its fundamental centralizing proclivities must be given a thorough makeover before the article can truly become a template for other states.
All this of course is perhaps asking too much of an article that was conceived in a specific historical context and designed to gradually fade away as the force of those historical forces diminished – there are probably more implications for the constitution here than for this specific article. There also exist several other similar articles for which a similar case may be made (variants of Article 371 the most prominent among them). Article 370 however is as good a place as any to start as it is an existing constitutional provision, and one that already contains germs of what true federalism may eventually be like in India. Expanding it to the whole country will signal willingness on part of the government to start unshackling the states and also permanently bring Kashmir on par with other states in the country without compromising any of its aspirations or the means to achieve them. Article 370 may have been born out of all the wrong questions, but it may inadvertently have led us to a slew of right answers.
At the end however, the question about India’s secular fabric will remain – will expanding the article to the entire country send wrong signals to minority communities in India? This is the most morally challenging part of the debate because like it or not, religion and religious emotions are inextricably tied to the history of the question. Needless to say, the government must be steadfastly secular in its implementation of federalism in India, and religious leaders must indubitably play an important part in the process, but there are no easy answers to the question. The time may however have come to move away from the politics of easy answers.
DR(CAPTAIN) RAJEEV RANJAN
CONSULTANT ORTHOPEDICS
HARSH HOSPITAL
B2/25 JANKIPURAM RING ROAD
LUCKNOW (UP) INDIA
CELL-+919335260439
posted by Dr Rajeev ranjan
The cry for the abolition of the Article 370 of the Indian constitution, which confers great autonomy on Jammu & Kashmir, is a misplaced one – the cry instead should be for its extension to the whole of India.
Article 370, unwittingly perhaps considering its historical circumstances, may be the brightest glint of federal expression in the Indian constitution, which otherwise remains largely unitary in character. Large sections of the Indian population (and regions that contain them) thus feel increasingly marginalized from the ‘mainstream’, and seemingly disparate phenomenon like recent disturbances in the northeast, the girding of heartland India by naxalites, the trivialization of the parliamentary process, and paradoxically enough, the continuing impasse in Jammu & Kashmir, may well be said to spring from the centralized nature of governance in India which concentrates power in the hands of a few organized interest groups and leaves the average citizen with only symbols of democratic participation like ritualized elections and awe-inspiring, monumental edifices where elected representatives apparently serve the people. Article 370, minus its current imperfections, may well be the harbinger of a ‘new India.’
Before getting ahead with the story however, a look backwards at what Article 370 is, and its motivations. The article was a byproduct of Kashmir’s accession to India after independence, and was designed to ensure that Kashmiri aspirations were well served by the government of India, and critically, that Kashmiris would have a vital say in the manner their state was governed. In its broadest contours, the article gave the central government primacy in defense, foreign affairs, and communication, while the state government assumed greater control over other laws (including those of property, citizenship, and fundamental rights) and the daily lives of its citizenry. The article was conceived under what may be termed as extraordinary circumstances, when the threat of Kashmir slipping from India’s then tenuous grip was a distinct possibility, and was certainly politically expedient – it was thus originally conceived as an ‘interim’ measure but like many other ‘temporary’ features in the Indian constitution, it has now assumed a permanent air and we currently talk about it mostly as a vexing issue that nobody is ever likely to do anything about.
As things stand, the battle lines for and against the article are clearly drawn – its supporters see the article as a vital cog in the preservation of the Indian union, an instrument that honors a promise that the government of India made to the people of Kashmir at the time of accession, a vehicle to assure citizens of India’s only Muslim-majority state about India’s secular credentials, and as a mechanism to safeguard Kashmir’s culture (or Kashmiriyat, as it is often described). The article’s supporters see in Kashmir’s unique personal and property laws an expression of the will of the people of Kashmir and reckon Kashmir’s interests are best left to the people of Kashmir themselves (especially if it helps maintain the integrity of the Indian union). The opponents of the article however see it as fundamentally flawed – to them Article 370 is a tool of appeasement, one that gives special leeway to Muslims even though they are a majority in the state (at the cost of the ‘real minorities’ in the state – the Pandits, the Laddakhis, etc.), they view it as a discriminatory tool that provides preferential treatment to one state over all others in the country on account of ‘historical blunders’ made after the Kashmir raids of 1948, and they decry it as another hole in the ‘pseudo-secular’ fabric of India which owes its continued existence to the twisted logic of electoral politics rather than to national interest.
It is not my purpose in this article to favor one argument over another (suffice to say that the motives of both sides are suspect to a degree and ideology rather than common logic takes precedence in many of their assertions) but to shift the focus of the debate – rather than keep Jammu & Kashmir at the center of the argument about Article 370, it may be time to view the article in a larger national context. Does the article offer any guidelines to the governing system in the rest of India? Is there greater merit in the rest of India adopting some of the salient features of the article than in denouncing it largely on the grounds of ‘we don’t have it, so shouldn’t she’? Should we choose to be frogs in a well pulling each other down, or is it time to climb out of the holes we have dug for ourselves, and take a look at the larger world around?
Let’s take a look at the article stripped of its historical baggage, and ignore for a moment that it only applies to Jammu & Kashmir in its current guise – all it proposes is greater autonomy in the running of a state than is the norm in the Indian constitution. The article recognizes that India is a diverse country and that a region may have special needs which may or may not be in consonance with the needs of the rest of the country. It thus leaves discretionary powers with the state and subjects all central laws/amendments to state approval before they can be implemented in a state. It transfers accountability and power to the state government in virtually all matters except those that deal with the integrity of the Indian union, and its international relationships. The idea is that only local governance can truly protect the identity and interests of a state and that central participation in governance should be limited to only larger and ‘national’ issues.
Viewed under this lens, there is little that is objectionable about the article and little that is not valid for all other states too – almost all Indian states have distinct cultural traditions, ethos, and practices, which are worth special attention, each state has needs, people, and circumstances that are unique to it and which are difficult to club with a national consensus. Unfortunately however, the Indian body-politick, with a few exceptions, chooses to treat the entire country as an unvariegated whole when framing laws and states have no choice but to both accept and enforce them, regardless of any reservations they may have about the applicability of the law to their local needs. There is quite often little ability amongst states to even tweak or ‘customize’ a law for its state-specific needs – one size, bloated enough, fits all. The result thus is a mode of governance, in which states, despite being in the frontline of administration, have little input into laws, and are squeezed between an unyielding center and an increasingly disenchanted populace. And worst of all, states always have an escape door when implementing unpopular laws – it isn’t their fault! The population is thereby left to fend for itself – it has little access to the central government, and the local government more often than not, finds it easy to wash its hands off any measures that excite debate and disagreement among the governed.
Make no mistake; Article 370 was not formed to lay down the principles of center-state relationships or to directly solve the problem described above. It isn’t thus either exhaustive enough or extensive enough to cover the gamut of issues that go into center-state relations. It however does provide the springboard necessary to begin questioning the unitary model we have chosen to adopt in the whole country, bar Kashmir. And if it can work in Kashmir, why can it not work in the rest of the country too?
There are many obvious problems, and the first ineluctably is the state of Kashmir itself – a state that is quite possibly, with the contentious exception of Bihar, the least peaceful in the country. To make matters worse – the violence in Kashmir does not stem from general lawlessness, as it does in Bihar, but from a disregard of central authority, an attitude that is often blamed, among many other things, on Article 370 (except by the extremists themselves, who believe it doesn’t go far enough!). Is there thus a real risk that extending the article to other states in the country will further fan secessionist flames in the northeast, and other states like Punjab and Andhra Pradesh which have flirted with incipient secessionism in the past? Will Article 370 be the spur that finally breaks India apart?
A more pertinent concern is perhaps the ability of the states to do justice to increased power, and handle it responsibly. Unfortunately, recent Indian constitutional history isn’t exactly littered with examples of farsightedness shown by states – their record is patchy at best, and downright shoddy in reality. In fact, a case may be made that but for central intervention and guidance, most Indian states, driven by narrow, parochial concerns, would have descended into anarchy a long time ago. Possibly the worst record in this regard is that of the Jammu & Kashmir legislature itself, which has shown a remarkable ability to shoot itself in the foot consistently. The recently proposed bill debarring Kashmiri women from property rights on marriage to ‘outsiders’, the legislature’s refusal to accept the amendment limiting the size of state ministries to 15% of the total elected strength, and its long standing refusal to recognize Anglo-Indians and other minorities in the state are just three examples of legislation which persistently refuses to look beyond the state. What guarantees are there that other states shan’t do the same, and perhaps worse?
The answer to both questions lies in the inchoate nature of Article 370, and in its flawed, single-state focused implementation. As stated earlier, the article is not designed to guide center-state relations, but in the case of Jammu & Kashmir, it does just that. Limiting the article to one state however produces one very significant consequence – it allows Jammu & Kashmir to create discriminatory legislation without fear of consequence (as no other state is in a position to answer it in the same coin). It is extremely likely, though by no means guaranteed in the short-term, that Jammu & Kashmir may loosen its property laws that preclude ‘outsiders’ from buying property in the state, and also employment laws that virtually exclude all outsiders as well as a large section of Kashmiris themselves, if other states ever decided to resort to quid pro quo, and excluded Kashmiris from property and employment rights in their states. Right now, this is a non-issue for Kashmiris, but give other states similar rights, and egalitarian values are likely to hit home soon. There’s of course always the chance that allowing such powers to all states may result in a race towards the bottom with each state keen to emphasize its ‘exclusive’ nature but the affliction is likely to be limited to only a few states and that too only for a short time, as some states demonstrate the benefits of inclusive polity and economy. The measure is unlikely to stir any more instability than already exists, and by making states responsible for their actions and overall condition, is likely to curtail any imprudent adventurism.
The other more fundamental problem with Article 370 is its state-centric, monolithic view of autonomy and local governance. In keeping with the overall unitary spirit of the constitution, the article does little to promote grassroots governance and concentrates all significant powers in the hands of the state government. The version of autonomy it thus creates is in essence a majoritarian one – it cloaks a centralized mode of governance under the garb of an autonomous one. Kashmir can thus never be truly autonomous unless it itself allows power to percolate downwards to the people. In its current avatar, Article 370 is largely a sham, and its fundamental centralizing proclivities must be given a thorough makeover before the article can truly become a template for other states.
All this of course is perhaps asking too much of an article that was conceived in a specific historical context and designed to gradually fade away as the force of those historical forces diminished – there are probably more implications for the constitution here than for this specific article. There also exist several other similar articles for which a similar case may be made (variants of Article 371 the most prominent among them). Article 370 however is as good a place as any to start as it is an existing constitutional provision, and one that already contains germs of what true federalism may eventually be like in India. Expanding it to the whole country will signal willingness on part of the government to start unshackling the states and also permanently bring Kashmir on par with other states in the country without compromising any of its aspirations or the means to achieve them. Article 370 may have been born out of all the wrong questions, but it may inadvertently have led us to a slew of right answers.At the end however, the question about India’s secular fabric will remain – will expanding the article to the entire country send wrong signals to minority communities in India? This is the most morally challenging part of the debate because like it or not, religion and religious emotions are inextricably tied to the history of the question. Needless to say, the government must be steadfastly secular in its implementation of federalism in India, and religious leaders must indubitably play an important part in the process, but there are no easy answers to the question. The time may however have come to move away from the politics of easy answers.
Chilling!!!!!!!!!!! Too much truth.
Dr Ashwani K Agarwal
Whoohoo!!! What a lesson on article 370.
Dr Ashwani K agarwal
Your mail exposed my ignorance on the subject about which we all read/hear everyday-
so i blissfully decided to improve upon my ignorance
Dr Rajeev Ranjan
If you come across a book by Arvind lavakare "Trusth about Article 370" you must read it. It is an eyeopener just as your article is. So also check out Youtube for Ashok Pandit's movies on plight of Kashmiri Pandits
Will moveyou to tears
DR K K Ram
Did read some parts of ' truth about article 370'. You tube movie by Ashok pundit is deplorable and outright pathetic to say the least. This just underscores the point that how low the politicians can stoop and why Benazir was exterminated, after all the same terrorists have to find a job.
The question is what happens next or what is right? Strangulating kashmir by cutting off from India is not an answer and definitely not a solution. People asking for Azad Kasmir are just petty politicians and the public is following them either by coercion or ignorance. We may not able to predict the outcome of the current crisis and the future of article 370, but we can predict the future of Azad Kashmir. There is no way it can survive adn it will be another Afghanistan or Pakistan breeding trrorist and suicide bombers. This will be a very isolated place without a sea port , a decent airport , industry or education. There will be more death and disease without medical help and starvation. Yoou cannot build an economy by sellin apples and carpets. To me this sounds like the kashmiris are cutting the branch they are sitting on and someone just needs to show them the light. We are all willing to help a blind man cross a street when we see one but here we are loosing patience and faith and ready to severe kashmir and make sure that every child either blows himself up or dies a miserable death! Some food for thought. Azad Kashmir is a death sentence for millions of kashmiris for sure.
ashwani,you a absolutely correct
i may be sounding contradictory
but it is not so
kashmiris cannot survive alone
because of socio,economucl and geographical reasons
but all these days,they have failed to value the indespensable support they have been getting fom India
they hav ben blinded by their ignorance
to believe taht they are kashmiris
and can survive without India
This is not a cry of the politician
politian wants this on paper
but a kashmiri has never accepted being an Indian from heart
so we hav to let them go
even if tempororily
so that at least they will understand the value of India
and the short comings of kashmir
sanjay
PS: On another note:
There have been a lot of emails flying around about Article 370, Muslim-this, Kashmiri-that, Pakistan-this and terrorist-that, so I thought I would throw that last question out there. Let me preface this by saying that I am not religious in any way. In fact, I am an athiest. But when we start seeing ourselves as Hindus and Muslims and Christians etc, we lose sight of the fact that we are all human beings. Rampant nationalism is only one step away from Nazi-ism. All this flag waving and Jai-Hind stuff is all emblematic of false jingo-istic pride and we should get our own house in order before seeking solace in sloganeering. The recent massacre of Christians in Orrisa, Muslims in Godra and Ayodhya and Sikhs in Delhi(which I witnessed from Holy Family Hospital and treated the victims) after Indira Gandhi's assassination, were all done by rampaging Hindu mobs, so when I see power point presentations extolling the virtues of a tolerant Hindu majority, it rings a little hollow!
Dr Rishad Faruqui
my only comment is: mobs are mobs: and the product of breakdown in
society. Not restricted to any religion or caste, but a result of lack
of education and poverty, and lack of societal/judicial consequences
for breaking the law: Mobs in New Orleans after Katrina did more
damage than the hurricane itself (no Hindus there). Muslim mob: burns
a carrriage carrying hindus, hindus retaliate: Recent attacks on and
by Maoists or christians? Basically it is the poor, the helpless, and
the uneducated who are both predators and prey.
There is good in all of us, but sadly a lot of wickedness as well.
If one is a Hindu: one must live according to the Gita. If one is a
christian: turning the other cheek is important.
Unfortunately this does not happen.
But given all the issues, I still believe that India is very much more
tolerant than Pakistan ( would there ever be a Hindu president in
pakistan?). America is up in arms because a woman is running for VP
and Horrors: she has kids!!!
we live in a confused world...
revati
Dr Revati Srinivas
I appreciate your views Revati
we ARE a confused lot
Dr Rajeen Ranjan
and regardind your comment on the religions,I cudnt agree more,that whenever fanatism is mixed with religion,we all beome the same-INHUMAN
sanjay
There are too many castes and creeds and religion
and the greed for power
political,financial and religious
and once we get under that greed
we can do anything
and empotionally blackmail poeple in the name of religion
and as you correctly said
we are confused.greedy and insane!
sanjay
Sample this - A leading news anchor while discussing the Supreme Court's Mumbai Blasts judgments asked a common Muslim man - Do you think the law is sentencing only Muslims? If it had been the judgment for the Mumbai "riots", this question would have been a fair one. But for the Mumbai blasts, was anyone else supposed to be sentenced? Think of the plight of that innocent Muslim guy - no matter what he answers, he was bound to ignite hatred and divide.
Another Sample - A leading newspaper often comes up with a one-liner - Why are minorities always targeted after every bomb blast? Because as Aamir Khan said in Sarfarosh - kuch chand musalmano ki wajah se poori kaum ko badnam hona padta hain. It is like indians in US start shouting - why are we always selected for the special screenings at the airport? Simply because few of the brown skinned people committed a heinous act and since we happen to be part of that large set, we will be looked at with suspicion. But should we feel targeted? Certainly not as it is for the safety of each innocent individual because when a blast occurs, it does not distinguish between Hindus and Muslims. It just kills innocents.
Unfortunately, in the past few months it is the media and the government who have done the most harm in dividing the communities. It is easy to immediately blame the BJP - a self proclaimed Hindu Nationalist party for the stalemate. However, it is actually the government and the media who have helped the BJP to regain its lost ideology. BJP was all but dead at the national stage, when one fine day our government told the courts that "Ram Sethu never existed" and few months later "Ram destroyed the Ram Sethu". Compare this with the government's act of revoking the land transfer just because separatists in Kashmir started their agitation. How shameful of the government to provide security to these anti-nationals who openly threaten to do business with Pakistan. And what more, just because a separatist was killed during police firing, the government transferred the CRPF chief on their demands. Doesn't this smell of bias or pusillanimity on the part of the government?
And the media? They claim they always show the real picture. And hence, when they showed thousands of Hindus in Jammu holding saffron and national flags, it was indeed the real picture. However, this is just one side of the story. Why is the media not showing the images of the separatist activists in Kashmir holding the Pakistani flags at Lal Chowk? Trust me, any real Indian - a Hindu or a Muslim would have felt aghast if those images were shown. But then, all along it has been made to believe that Kashmir is burning and innocents are being tortured. Is it really the truth when separatists are all along siding with the POK? It is easy to show a CRPF policeman beating up a man in Kashmir and media claiming that individual to be "innocent". He might be, but if that innocent is out on the streets during a curfew, I am not sure if indeed he was innocent. Such stories create Hindu-Muslim divide.
So is there no "divide" between the two communities? Certainly not. Yes, Hindus feel agitated when time and again the Congress government appeases minorities to the point of ridiculing themselves. In the same vein, Muslims also will be agitated when they see BJP pouncing on Hindu agenda. Hindus get agitated when few Muslims blatantly support Pakistan in cricket matches, when they support fundamentalism of the Shahi Imams. This is but human nature. And hence, it is time that educated people from both sides come up and speak against all this. Especially it is high time that educated Muslims come up and speak against fundamentalism and terrorism because, I agree, it is definitely not a good feeling to be looked at with suspicion. Do not trust any current political party to be your savior. They will create hatred because it is how they earn their living.
I often wonder if media had not reported the Gujarat and J&K in a one sided manner, there would have been lesser causalities. More importantly, by doing all this, media is giving rise to a greater divide between the two communities. Reading the comments posted by readers all across the web, it is very clear that such stories are instigating people who are spitting out venom against each other. And this is where media has to own the responsibility to bridge this gap rather than widening it. Any government will only look for vote bank politics, so media's role becomes all the more important.
So while Hindus decode the chaos theory in their cosmos, it is time the media and the government give up the bias theory in their cosmos - because peace and unity in the Indian cosmos is what matters the most.
Vande Mataram
Dr Rajeev ranjan
Revati
I completely agree with you that a mob is a mob and that the exploitation of the poor, uneducated masses for political gain is what leads people who have no stake in society, to do horrific things to fellow human beings. What I was objecting to was the hypocrisy of labelling minorities in a negative manner, while using the power of selective memory in extolling the virtues of tolerance in "Hindu" India, which has its own proverbial skeletons in the closet. I merely pointed out some of the obvious examples.
As far as using Pakistan as a yardstick for comparisons of tolerance goes; that's setting the bar pretty low isn't it? Why are we obsessing about a virtually failed state and taking solace at being better than them? We should be striving for something better. Yes, I would say that India is a more tolerant society than Pakistan, but so what? No, they would not have a Hindu president. But before patting ourselves on the back, we need to remember that the President in India is not an elected position, it is an appointed one. The comment would be much more powerful if we had a Muslim Prime Minister or a Muslim Chief of ARMY staff. Do you think that will ever happen?
Don't get me wrong. Having grown up in India, with a muslim name, I have not felt any sense of discrimination for the most part, other than on a few occasions. But I was fortunate to have grown up in a relatively "elite"(for lack of a better word), environment. Despite this, I have distinct memories as a child of 5 years of age, in boarding school (Welham Prep in Dehra Dun), being ashamed of having a muslim name and responding to questions about my religion, by stating that I was a Hindu!! It's funny now to think about it, saying that my name was Rishad Faruqi and that I am a Hindu!! A little like Saimbhi proxy-ing for me in class in 4th term and standing up to say that he was Rishad Mahmud Faruqi!! But it is also a little sad, now that I have a 4-1/2 year old boy myself, to envision someone of that age being ashamed of his name. That sense of shame did not come from my parents but from the other kids in school, who had obviously been brainwashed by their parents, who presumably were educated individuals. And this was in an elite school like Welhams. Can you imagine what it probably was elsewhere? So even though I am an athiest now and cannot call myself a mulsim, I am a little sensitized to the muslim-bashing that tends to occur in Indian society, with a raging obsession about Pakistan. If you scratch the veneer of tolerance, you will find the bigotry even in the educated elite, hence the question "would they feel comfortable if their child married a shudra or a muslim with the same education level and values as their child?" To me that is the true test. I have some relatives in Pakistan and they seem to be just as bigoted and obsessed with India, its more powerful and richer neighbour and I have the same arguments with them.
As far as the US being "up in arms" because a woman is on the VP ticket, I have to disagree. For a start, she is not the first woman to be on a presidential ticket. Geraldine Ferrarro was the first, more that 20 years ago. They are up in arms not because she is a "woman...with kids" as you state. They are up in arms because she has misrepresented herself as an "agent of change and fiscal responsibility" as in:
1-Sold the Governor's plane on eBay-False
2-Fired the chef at the Governor's mansion-False; She reassigned him to another position, but still had him cook for her family!
3-Fought against earmarks in legsilation-False. Actually fought for $27 Million for Alaska in earmarks.
4-Was against the "Bridge to nowhere"-False; Actually actively canvassed for it till she realized that it was already dead in the water and unpopular, so changed her tune.
5-She has charged the government of Alaska over $17,000 for per diem expenses, while she was living AT HOME! So much for fiscal responsilbility. Additionally, she has charged the government of Alaska for travel expenses for her husband and children, when they have accompanied her on official trips. Can you do that in your work? Is this considered fiscally responsible?
6-She has tried to have books removed from the public library that she felt were against Christian values and then had the librarian fired when she refused to do so. She has also tried to get her brother-in-law fired as a state trooper because her was going through a messy divorce with her sister. When the chief law enforcement official refused to fire the brother-in-law, she forced his resignation. This is abuse of power, which she railed against in her gubernatorial campaign.
7-She is an ardent, right-wing, born-again, Christian conservative, that believes in Creation-ism and wants it taught in schools as an alternative to Evolution. Shades of George W. Bush! After having a Christian fundamentalist buffoon in the White House for 8 years and being the laughing stock of the world, do we really want/need another?
8-She does not believe in sex education for teenagers, other than "abstinence only" programs but then her 17 year old is 5 months pregnant! Talk about failed policies!!
9-She wants to outlaw abortions, in the country for unwanted pregnancies, including for victims of rape and incest (at least she's consistent here), but when her daughter gets pregnant, it was her "choice" to make and a private family matter!! Hypocrisy rules! If she is in the White House, she will probably be involved in the selection of not one but two Supreme Court justices. Do you think Roe V Wade will survive?
10-She has passed legislation to make rape victims pay for their own "Rape detection kits"! This in a state with the highest rape and incest cases on a population basis in the nation.
11-She professes foreign policy experience because Alaska is located close to Russia!
12-She claims that she is qualified to be VP because she is a "Hockey-mom"! Do you seriously believe that that is the right qualification for the job. When she was introduced at the RNC convention, her achievements noted by the introducin Gov of Hawaii were that she was the basket ball captain of her girls BB team in High school, that she was Miss Wasilla (population 9000 now and probably less then) and runner up for the Miss Alaska Beauty pageant!! This is no different from people voting for GWB because he was a "C" student, a "regular guy" and the "kind of guy you can have a beer with"! Look where that approach got this country. I would want an extraordinary guy, of superior intellect to run this country. Is it not an extraordinary achievement to come from humble beginnings, as an African American in this country, to get to Harvard Law School and be the first African American to be the editor of the Harvard Law Review, a highly prestigious publication?? Since when has having "an Ivy League education" become a disqualifier?? Would most parents not be proud, if their child went to Harvard?
After my diatribe in support of women's education and emancipation, do you really think that I would object to her because she was a woman? I am actually surprised that women are not more insulted that McCain and his cohorts feel that women are dumb enough to support her just because she has XX chromosomal make-up, when she stands for almost everything else against women's rights.
Rishad
Rishad M. Faruqi MBBS, FRCS(Eng), FRCS(Ed)
Department of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery
Kaiser Permanente Medical Center
710 Lawrence Expressway.
Santa Clara CA 95051 (USA)
Phone: (408)851-2315
Fax: (408)851-2406
Sample this - A leading news anchor while discussing the Supreme Court's Mumbai Blasts judgments asked a common Muslim man - Do you think the law is sentencing only Muslims? If it had been the judgment for the Mumbai "riots", this question would have been a fair one. But for the Mumbai blasts, was anyone else supposed to be sentenced? Think of the plight of that innocent Muslim guy - no matter what he answers, he was bound to ignite hatred and divide.
Another Sample - A leading newspaper often comes up with a one-liner - Why are minorities always targeted after every bomb blast? Because as Aamir Khan said in Sarfarosh - kuch chand musalmano ki wajah se poori kaum ko badnam hona padta hain. It is like indians in US start shouting - why are we always selected for the special screenings at the airport? Simply because few of the brown skinned people committed a heinous act and since we happen to be part of that large set, we will be looked at with suspicion. But should we feel targeted? Certainly not as it is for the safety of each innocent individual because when a blast occurs, it does not distinguish between Hindus and Muslims. It just kills innocents.
Unfortunately, in the past few months it is the media and the government who have done the most harm in dividing the communities. It is easy to immediately blame the BJP - a self proclaimed Hindu Nationalist party for the stalemate. However, it is actually the government and the media who have helped the BJP to regain its lost ideology. BJP was all but dead at the national stage, when one fine day our government told the courts that "Ram Sethu never existed" and few months later "Ram destroyed the Ram Sethu". Compare this with the government's act of revoking the land transfer just because separatists in Kashmir started their agitation. How shameful of the government to provide security to these anti-nationals who openly threaten to do business with Pakistan. And what more, just because a separatist was killed during police firing, the government transferred the CRPF chief on their demands. Doesn't this smell of bias or pusillanimity on the part of the government?
And the media? They claim they always show the real picture. And hence, when they showed thousands of Hindus in Jammu holding saffron and national flags, it was indeed the real picture. However, this is just one side of the story. Why is the media not showing the images of the separatist activists in Kashmir holding the Pakistani flags at Lal Chowk? Trust me, any real Indian - a Hindu or a Muslim would have felt aghast if those images were shown. But then, all along it has been made to believe that Kashmir is burning and innocents are being tortured. Is it really the truth when separatists are all along siding with the POK? It is easy to show a CRPF policeman beating up a man in Kashmir and media claiming that individual to be "innocent". He might be, but if that innocent is out on the streets during a curfew, I am not sure if indeed he was innocent. Such stories create Hindu-Muslim divide.
So is there no "divide" between the two communities? Certainly not. Yes, Hindus feel agitated when time and again the Congress government appeases minorities to the point of ridiculing themselves. In the same vein, Muslims also will be agitated when they see BJP pouncing on Hindu agenda. Hindus get agitated when few Muslims blatantly support Pakistan in cricket matches, when they support fundamentalism of the Shahi Imams. This is but human nature. And hence, it is time that educated people from both sides come up and speak against all this. Especially it is high time that educated Muslims come up and speak against fundamentalism and terrorism because, I agree, it is definitely not a good feeling to be looked at with suspicion. Do not trust any current political party to be your savior. They will create hatred because it is how they earn their living.
I often wonder if media had not reported the Gujarat and J&K in a one sided manner, there would have been lesser causalities. More importantly, by doing all this, media is giving rise to a greater divide between the two communities. Reading the comments posted by readers all across the web, it is very clear that such stories are instigating people who are spitting out venom against each other. And this is where media has to own the responsibility to bridge this gap rather than widening it. Any government will only look for vote bank politics, so media's role becomes all the more important.
So while Hindus decode the chaos theory in their cosmos, it is time the media and the government give up the bias theory in their cosmos - because peace and unity in the Indian cosmos is what matters the most.
Vande Mataram
DR(CAPTAIN) RAJEEV RANJAN
CONSULTANT ORTHOPEDICS
HARSH HOSPITAL
B2/25 JANKIPURAM RING ROAD
LUCKNOW (UP) INDIA
CELL-+919335260439
There are no statistics to prove anything- what cooper is referring to is
happening-MAYBE- in as you call the ELITE class- the majority of women in india still suffer indignation in all respects everyday & that includes the upper crust of the society for divorce is still a taboo here ,divorced men are thought to be monsters n women as easy game for evrybody...
Dr Rajeev Ranjan
no matter where in the world
a married person,man or woman is generally happy
so ,one should try to get married,setled,have a family
and work,in the realtionship constantly to give respect to each other,and remain happily married!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
cooper
Post a Comment