As the memory of the massacre at Dhaka recedes, examples of bravery are coming to the fore. One of them is that of Faraaz Hossain. He was on a vacation at Dhaka from his college in the US where he was pursuing higher studies. He spent less time at home but used the opportunity to meet his friends from foreign climes at Gulshan's famous Spanish restaurant, the Holey Artisan Bakery.

When ISIS terrorists struck, Faraaz was having food with his friends at the restaurant. The ISIS killers were singling out and separating Bangladeshis from the others before using their weapons. They came to the table where Faraaz was sitting. Then they asked him whether he was a Bangladeshi and, when he said yes, they pushed him aside before asking others about their nationalities.

When all except Faraaz said that they were non-Bangladeshis, they opened fire from the only gun they had among them. Faraaz protested and told them that he was a part of his friends' group and would not like to be treated separately. The terrorists then told him that he too would be killed if he did not want to stand aside. Faraaz preferred to stand with and by his foreign friends. And he knew that the price he would pay could be his possible death. The terrorists showed no mercy and killed all of them.

Today when the massacre at Dhaka is recalled, people talk about the courage of Faraaz. Probably, this is the only compensation for his parents and grandparents whom I know well. In fact, I have had dinner at their house at Dhaka. They lead a simple and austere life.

I met Faraaz at his grandparents' house. I recall exchanging notes with him about America where I had gone to the North Western University to earn an MSC in journalism. He was raw in his attitude but steadfast in his views, even though he belonged to a very wealthy family. There were no airs about him. He was curious to know about India, which he said he would visit at leisure. He was impressed by our composite culture, something which he wanted Bangladesh to cherish because it too had a large number of Hindus, nearly 12 million, making Bangladesh the third largest Hindu state in the world after India and Nepal.

I have tried to pick up every detail about the killings. There is no doubt that Faraaz sacrificed his life for his foreign friends who were the real targets of the terrorists. This does not make amends for the brutal killing, but it does tell a saga of unbelievable bravery. True, he is mentioned with great respect in every Bangla-deshi home and cited as an example of courage, but distraught parents and grandparents can never be consoled. A promising child has been lost from their family.

Such examples of self-sacrifice are by no means unique in the East. They are typical of the value-systems in the East that do not weigh individuals on the scale of wealth as is the case in the West. Mahatma Gandhi is an example. He preferred to be called a naked faqir, as he was characterised by the West, rather than be known for either wealth or erudition even though he had access to both.

The West cannot understand or appreciate the non-violent movement of Gandhi. Hundreds of volunteers went to the sea at Dandi to break the law by making salt and they suffered police lathi charges but never hit back because of the ideals of their movement.

Faraaz may not have been a Gandhi follower but he did represent his spirit and discipline. In India, wherever Faraaz's name has been mentioned, people bring in Gandhi's name. Had Gandhi been living today, I have no doubt that he would have travelled to terror-stricken Dhaka, just as he went to Noakhali after the fierce riots between Hindus and Muslims in Calcutta. And he would have lauded a person like Faraaz who really upheld noble ideals, and represented the values of decency and self-sacrifice.

Just as statues of Bhagat Singh have been erected all over India, Faraaz‘s statues should come up everywhere and he should also be remembered in the entire subcontinent; and I am confident that people would name their sons after him, not only in Bangladesh but also in India and elsewhere in this region.

At least school textbooks should have a chapter on him, not for the purpose of accelerating the idea of Hindu-Muslim unity, but for making the youth feel proud about Faraaz. They should be able to tell the elders that a person like Faraaz has given an example of the true spirit of the youth, as well as a demonstration of the East's culture and its value-system.

I wonder how his non-Bangladeshi friends are recalling his memory. They should propagate the example of Faraaz in their own countries so that people of different religions and races feel proud of how an ordinary young man stood by his companions when he could have easily escaped from death.

This has nothing to do with a particular religion to which you belong, but represents the core of every religion: faith in the people to rise above parochial considerations and think of humanity as a whole. Unfortunately India, instead of rising above petty parochial appeals and serving as an example to the world, has become a prey to the propaganda of the fanatic fringe.

Since the advent of Prime Minister Narendra Modi's regime, the fringe party is trying to represent the whole. Taslima Nasrin, who was ousted from Bangladesh for having written the story of oppression of women, has asked the followers of Islam to introspect and find out how they have strayed from the real content of the religion. Faraaz would have approved such an approach.

Come to think of it, this is the only approach that is cogent, logical and human. The fanatic fringe among Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs and Christians should be made to realise that India is a tolerant country and those who are trying to disturb the equation among the communities are disfiguring India and all that it stands for.

The author is a veteran journalist renowned not only in this country but also in our neighbouring states of Pakistan and Bangladesh where his columns are widely read. His website is www.kuldipnayar.com

As the entire world grows increasingly concerned about the rising toll of many-sided violence, three regions have emerged as the biggest areas of concern—West Asia, North Africa and South Asia. In all these three areas, the existing violence is very troubling but the potential of escalation is even more worrying.

Another common factor in these three regions is that while several peace efforts have been made, the overall impact appears to be of one step forward, two steps backward. So some refreshingly new approaches, which can go beyond the previous efforts, are badly needed.

More specifically, two possibilities need careful attention. First, we badly need strong and broad-based citizens' peace movements which must operate on a continuing basis (and not just during crisis periods). These need to get some recognition and support from the region's governments while retaining their autonomy and freedom, and they need some recognition and support from the various agencies of the United Nations as well, again without sacrificing their freedom.

Secondly, various countries of these regions need to draw up Unions of Nations and all or most countries of the region can become members of these nations on the basis of equality of all member-nations as well as acceptance of equality and equal rights of all citizens of these nations.

The formation of a Union of Nations should be based on a guarantee that there'll be no war among these nations and no nation will incite or initiate any violence in any other member-country. However, help for reducing violence will be available. Secondly, all nations will cooperate to reduce all kinds of narrow sectarian violence based on religious or ethnic identities, while initiating joint efforts to promote social harmony at all levels. Thirdly, all nations will cooperate to reduce poverty, deprivation, ecological ruin and disaster-related distress, while promoting decentralised development initiatives in all areas including the most remote and neglected ones.

The formation of such unions will help to overcome the long-festering problems created by previous colonial regimes which formed artificial boundaries and divided people on the basis of various narrow identities.

The peace efforts initiated so far appear to have missed the big issues while spending a lot of time on endeavours to tackle the symptoms rather than the basic causes. New, fresh approaches are needed before it is too late. The increasing threats of climate change, various disasters and proliferation of most destructive weapons have increased greatly the imperative need for peace and stability.

Bharat Dogra is a free-lance journalist who has been involved with several social initiatives and movements.

EDITORIAL

The BJP is clearly on the backfoot. Attacks on minorities and Dalits have recorded a steep rise ever since the BJP-led NDA Government (wherein the BJP enjoys absolute majority) was formed at the Centre in May 2014. Of late Dalits are on the march especially in Gujarat where members of a Dalit family were mercilessly flogged and paraded in Una for skinning a dead cow—the Gujarat bandh, called by Dalit groups to protest against such action by the cow vigilante outfits associated with the Sangh Parivar, was near total yesterday: as the news reports disclosed, “protesters forced closure of shops and establishments, halted rail and road traffic and attacked public transport,” according to The Indian Express.

The same newspaper further informed:

As the protests gathered momentum, another nine Dalits attempted suicide in Saurashtra since Tuesday (July 19) night—there have been 17 suicide bids so far.

In the wake of such an incident—this is not an isolated one but comes alongwith other similar incidents in the recent past—the Dalit psyche has been deeply hurt by the highly objectionable derogatory remarks by the BJP Vice-President in UP against BSP chief Mayawati. Speaking at a meeting in Mau where he was being felicitated by BJP workers, the person in question, Dayashankar Singh, while accusing the party supremo of selling BSP tickets, questioned Mayawati's character and went on to say that her behaviour today was worse than that of a prostitute—which is why the followers of Kanshi Ram were deserting her.

Ek vaishya se bhi badtar charitra ki aaj Mayawatiji ho gayi hain. Isi liye Kanshi Ram ke karyakarta unke saath chhod kar ja rahe hain aur BSP samapt ho rahi hai.

This led to allround condemnation of the BJP leader in Parliament thereby compelling the Leader of the Rajya Sabha, Finance Minister Arun Jaitley, to not merely express regrets over his party colleague's remarks but also promise adequate steps against him. Thus Singh was removed from all the party posts he was holding in the State and even sacked, that is, expelled from the party. While Mayawati said she was satisfied in general with these steps by the ruling party at the Centre, she also added that it would have been better if the BJP would have gone to the extent of lodging an FIR against Singh under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. That was left to the BSP members to file.

A discussion on the issue in the Rajya Sabha today further recorded unanimous denunciation from all parties of Singh's observations. The discussion also brought into focus the anti-Dalit sentiments voiced by leading figures in the BJP including a Union Minister who had equated Dalits with dogs (but for which no action was taken against him by the BJP High Command).

Alongside these incidents one was distressed to learn of the attempted demolition of the Ambedkar Bhavan (which came up in 1944) in Mumbai. Leading Dalit activists, including Babasaheb's close relatives, were appalled as such a move coincided with the other anti-Dalit measures taken by both the party in power at the Centre as well as the BJP-led government in Maharashtra, not to speak of the reprehensible activities by the fringe elements linked to the party like the cow vigilantes in the various States (that resulted in the latest brutalities on those skinning cows in Gujarat besides the killing of Mohammad Akhlaq at Dadri for having allegedly stored beef in his fridge). As we go to press, news has come that obviously prodded by the BJP's central leadership and stalwarts of the Union Government, the Maharashtra CM has categorically stated that the Ambedkar Bhavan will not be demolished.

Howsoever much the BJP leaders try to engage in damage control, the harm has already been done. As Mayawati thundered to the acute embarrassment of the Treasury Benches in the Rajya Sabha, the nation won't forgive the BJP for its anti-Dalit stance. And Congress Vice-President Rahul Gandhi airdashed to Gujarat today to meet the victims of the latest attack on Dalits in Una to assure them of every possible help from his party to ensure that the Dalits get justice and the perpetrators of atrocities on them are brought to book.

These developments are bound to have far-reaching implications on the outcome of the UP Assembly elections due in a few months time. Already reports from the State indicate that Mayawati is on a strong wicket there. And the massive protests against the BJP by BSP activists in defence of their party chief in Lucknow today have underscored the complete isolation of the ruling party at the Centre.

July 21 S.C.

BOOK REVIEW

New Songs of the Survivors: The Exodus of Indians from Burma by Yvonne Vaz Ezdani; Speaking Tiger, New Delhi; 2016; price: Rs 350 (paperback).

Human memory of any important incident or event has now become a major source of history. There are pitfalls. Memories may fail. Memories may get clouded by other events thereby distorting memories of the events. In fact, in earlier days history depended entirely on written and/or archeological evidence, references in literature, epics and the like.

But in recent times “Oral History” has become a major source of recording an important event. In India we are not in the habit of writing out individual experiences of participating in any notable incident. Thus, one of the main sources of history does get lost.

Yvonne Vaz Ezdan's book, New Songs of the Survivors; The Exodus of Indians from Burma, is a remarkable piece of literature based very largely on human memories. Amitava Ghosh in his introduction rightly said: “It is, so far as I know, the first attempt to write an oral history of the forgotten long march drawing on the recollections of survivors and their descendents. Indeed the book is much more than an oral history. The manner of writing is such as to allow the reader to witness the events as they unfolded giving the narrative the vividness and momentum of a novel.”

The accounts of human suffering are rarely pleasant reading. The author's father, Lucio Alexandar Vaz, writes: “And on that difficult walk with hunger, they did not even have the strength to pull the grass from the ground to eat. Instead they had to lie down and eat the grass off the ground like cattle.”

The author is fully aware of the weakness of any oral history: “Many factual stories remain only in oral tradition: they are passed from generation to generation and each telling distorting them a little. Some simply die with the passing of those who lived through them. And so, I began making rough notes of the stories I was told.” The author carries the story to a higher plain when he writes: “While recapturing the memories of a generation that is advancing in age, New Songs of the Survivors also seeks to record little known tales of determination of survivors that are relevant not only to the period of history in Burma and India, but to the human spirit everywhere.”

The British colonial masters discriminated against Goans even though they wore European clothes and spoke the Portuguese language. They were not allowed to be members of the British Gymkhana Club. Though they distinguished themselves from other Indians, the Britishers treated them as shabbily as any colonial person. Goans did not have any particular skill nor were they highly educated, but by the sheer sincerity and hard work they acquired wealth and respectability. The colonial masters valued their services and often promoted them out of turn. That way they thought that they were a cut above the other Indians.

As described earlier during the recollections from the survivors and their descendents, this book is an excellent story of the forgotten “Long March”, one of the biggest and most harrowing mass migrations in recent history.

The author has succinctly put it as follows: “While recapturing the memories of a generation that is advancing in age, New Songs of the Survivors also seeks to record little known facts of determination and survival that are relevant not only to that period of the history in Burma and India, but to the human spirit everywhere! The progress of human civilisation had been from the stage of migrating and hunting-gathering occupation to settled life through agriculture, formation of villages, towns, cities and the associated activities therewith. Mass migration of human being is both a colossal mass tragedy and undoing of the entire process of history. Agony and suffering of the participants cannot be understood by us living in settled and peaceful civilised society.”

This book is a major contribution to the portrayal of the massive tragedy of human beings in recent times. This is worth keeping in one's own private collection.

The reviewer, an erstwhile administrator and expert on land issues, is currently a Rajya Sabha member representing the Trinamul Congress.

by Sanjal Shastri

“Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or Leave the European Union?” While the answer to this question is a mere yes or no, the issues this question throws up are not as straightforward. The referendum challenges the very idea of British national identity. What are the larger social issues the Brexit vote has exposed? How would these issues play out in the months/ years to come? These are the questions this commentary would try to address.

The ‘Remain' campaign constantly stressed on economic interdependency and the economic costs of a possible exit from the EU. Economically their argument has sound logical reasoning. Europe is the UK's single largest international market. Being a member of the EU gave access to a single market through which the UK was able to reap dividends. London is viewed as the financial gateway to Europe. This explains the presence of several international banks in London. Once the referendum results were pointing towards a win for the ‘Leave' camp, the Pound Sterling took a severe beating, falling to levels it had not reached in the last thirty years. Looking at this, the economic argument put forth by the ‘Remain' campaign made perfect sense. Had the referendum been fought purely over the economic issues, the ‘Remain' campaign would have managed a comfortable victory. The victory of the ‘Leave' campaign tells us that this referendum was not fought merely over the economic arguments of being a part of the EU or not. The verdict highlights important social and political factors that played a crucial role.

Rhetorics like “Taking my country back” and “June 23, 2016 as independence day” have been the dominating narrative of the ‘Leave' campaign. They have successfully tapped into the anti-immigration sentiment amongst a large section of the population. On the face of it the anti-immigration sentiment seems to have been built upon the idea that immigrants take over jobs and unfairly enjoy social benefits. A closer analysis of this idea, however, would reveal that immigrants in fact do not put a strain onto the social benefits and on the contrary they pay taxes and bring in expertise that help the economy.

The anti-immigrant rhetoric has been fuelled by what one section of the population views the British national identity to be. Openness and cultural plurality have been a crucial part of the British national identity. Under this national vision, the UK witnessed influx of immigrants from various parts of the world (primarily the Commonwealth countries) from the 1950s. With the creation of the EU, the UK started viewing itself as a part of the ‘European Project'. As a member of the EU, people from across Europe were able to come and work in the UK. In 2016, the idea of the UK as a multi-cultural nation, a nation that is a part of the ‘European Project', is being questioned.

There has been a 57 per cent increase in racially motivated hate crime since the referendum results have been announced. From painting a graffiti outside the Polish Cultural Centre to placing placards outside the houses of European immigrants, there are signs that a section of the population views the British national identity through a different lens. The issue also goes far beyond immigration from the EU. The past few days have also shown a rise in racially motivated attacks (verbal and physical) on Muslims and South Asians. Muslims, South Asians and migrants from outside the EU should not have been a factor in the referendum. Yet Muslims and South Asian nationals have been targeted. These attacks have been accompanied by slogans such as ‘Britain for the Whites'. Ideas such as these have shaped the anti-immigration rhetoric.

The referendum has exposed the divide between two sides that view the British identity very differently. One side sees the UK as a multi-cultural society, a part of the ‘European Project'. The other side believes that the idea of being British is restricted to a particular section of individuals. The latter group is hostile to immigrants and backed Brexit. The close finish in the referendum suggests a very strong regional, racial and generational divide between the two camps. While England and Wales backed Brexit, Scotland and Northern Ireland voted to remain. The city of London voted to remain. There was much stronger support for Brexit amongst the older section of the society while the younger generation voted to remain. Along with the battle between leave versus remain, the referendum also exposed more important battles between young and old and Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland.

The referendum will not settle the battle between the various groups regarding the nature of the British national identity. Over the coming months and years along with the negotiations regarding Article 50, one must also keep an eye on the battle within the UK. The 57 per cent increase in racially motivated attacks could be the beginning of a much larger battle over what it does really mean to be British. The projected post-Brexit scenario is that of doom, but there does seem to be light at the end of the tunnel. Several people across the UK have expressed their solidarity with migrants who have been subjected to racial abuse. The swift response of David Cameron and several Conservative party leaders does show that there is some hope.

The ‘remain' campaign's economic arguments against Brexit made perfect sense. The referendum, however, was not fought over the economic mentis or demerits of leaving the EU. It was a much larger battle within the UK over what does the British identity really entail. Is the UK a multi-cultural country, a part of the larger European integration programme or is the term British restricted to a particular set of individuals? The battle-lines reflect more serious regional and generational divide. The battle between the contrasting views of the British identity is likely to carry on for the coming months and years. Despite the rise in racially motivated attacks over the last few days, the strong public and political reaction against the violence is a positive sign. In the coming months while everyone will have an eye on Britain's exit negations in the EU, the development of this domestic debate would also be crucial.

Sanjal Shastri is an Academic Associate at the Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad. He can be reached on sshastri93@gmail.com. The views expressed are solely that of the author and do not reflect views of the institution he is currently with.

The Left parties did not do very well in the Assembly elections in West Bengal. Sections among the CPI-M who did not favour any alliance or understanding with the Congress in West Bengal have been quick to blame the debacle on the electoral strategy adopted by the West Bengal unit of the party to strike a ground-level seat-sharing coordination with the Congress. It is widely known that the local unit of the party and the local leadership of the Congress had been keen on such coordination in response both to the brutal challenge offered by the Trinamul and to the opinion of the cadres in both camps. It had become obvious that the party leadership found itself in a bind of a new kind: namely, whether to accede to the grassroots sentiment in West Bengal or to thrust the political/tactical line arrived at in the 21st Party Congress which forbade any alliance or understanding with the Congress.

I have before me the CC Comminique of the CPI-M, dated June 20, which states the decisions arrived at by the party at its recent Central Committee meeting on June 18.

The Comminique in the section on West Bengal sets out in gruesome detail the mayhem unleashed by the Trinamul Congress during the course of the elections. Subsequently, it goes on to make two formulations. In one instance it underlines the fact that “the electoral tactics adopted in West Bengal was not in consonance with the CC decision not to have an alliance or understanding with the Congress. This should be rectified and the CC stressed the importance of adhering to the political and tactical line adopted at the 21st Congress of the Party.” It enjoined on the PB to implement the rectification “in consultation with the state unit of the Party”.

At another point the Communique says the following: “The strength of the broadest people's resistance is the answer to meet this unprecedented unleashing of violence.”

Writing as a very long-time apparatchik of the Left, here is the conundrum I and many others like me are invited to deal with in the face of these formulations which for now seem clearly at loggerheads with one another: how is “the broadest people's resistance” achieved without striking any understanding with democratic forces that, ideological divergences notwith-standing, are willing to be partners in the larger politics of beating back fascistic (if not fully fascist) forces in any concrete situation? And, can it not be argued that the decision of the State unit of the party in West Bengal to obtain such a “resistance” on the “broadest” scale could have logically led their deference to the popular “people's” sentiment on the ground? Is it a persuasive argument that, adhering to the decision of the previous CC and of the 21st Party Congress, the CPI-M might have fought these forces and the “unprecedented violence unleashed” by them better in taking on the Congress as well separately? Would such a course have multiplied or diminished and mitigated the violence, one may ask? Additionally, if now the error of the tactical line adopted by the State unit of the Party in West Bengal is to be rectified “in consultation with the state unit of the Party”, how might that injunction pan out, given that the State unit in the first place made the decision that it did in the Assembly elections? How real is this process of “consultation” then likely to be? Or, is it at bottom a gentle way of saying “fall in line or otherwise”? And, what might that otherwise entail? Already one hears voices, now muted and cautious, that were the central leadership of the Party to force its hand, a schism may result. It is conceivable that some puritan stalwarts in the Party might welcome such a schism as an event that would only lead to a further purification of the Party organisation and the ideological line. Others might wonder what Comrade Dimitrov would have said.

Here is the problemaltic as we see it: can ideological purity fill in the setbacks suffered by the Indian Left because of its political diminution? Had the Indian Left been by now a truly united force and a major player on its own in the political life of the Republic, its well-wishers should have been the last to persuade it to suffer mitigation by allying with merely democratic forces. The wretched fact is that such is not the case, and wishes are not horses. If this is conceded, one of two things must needs be done; indeed both simultaneously: to build Left unity towards the goal of achieving a single Communist Party, and two, coterminously, to engage with democratic forces inimical to fascism to obtain the “broadest people's resistance” on the ground. In either project, nothing would be more fatal for the Left than to be exclusively self-regarding of its pocket boroughs to the neglect of the Republic and of the constitutional schema on which it enables the Left to further expand and intensify democracy, however gaspingly. This stipulation can find acceptance, one must qualify, only if in the first instance the Left does recognize the dimensions of the meltdown confronting the Republic.

And there is little time to lose.

(Courtesy: The Indian Express)

The author, who taught English literature at the University of Delhi for over four decades and is now retired, is a prominent writer and poet. A well-known commentator on politics, culture and society, he wrote the much acclaimed Dickens and the Dialectic of Growth. His latest book, The Underside of Things—India and the World: A Citizen's Miscellany, 2006-2011, came out in August 2012.

by S.N. Sahu

The new National Policy on Education begins its Introduction by referring to the Gurukul System of Education of ancient India which never permitted development of an atmosphere for asking questions and which permitted only a chosen few to get access to education. The Gurukul system smacked of an authoritarian approach where learning was imposed from above without any emphasis on critical enquiry. Therefore, it is not at all appropriate to hark back to the Gurkul system of yore to reflect on an education policy for the twentyfirst century India.

Caste System arrested Progress of Education

The Report appreciates the ancient system of education and refers to the low level of literacy of India (12 per cent) at the time of independence. Nowhere does the report mention that India failed in the field of education throughout its history because of the caste system which permitted only the high castes to have access to education. Swami Vivekananda wrote that monopolisation of education and intelligence by a few led to the decline of India. He particularly referred to the pitiable condition of the pariahs who were excluded from the any scheme of education. The Report on the National Policy on Education should have referred to these points to understand the issue in the proper perspective.

The low rate of literacy among the backward castes is because of the monopolisation of education by the upper castes. It is the caste system which remained a source of exclusion and deprivation for the lower castes. The historic Dravidan Movement, launched in Tamil Nadu, attacked the caste system and provided opportunities for the lower castes and minorities to have access to education. There is no reference to such historic movements in this Report. We need to understand the present-day inequalities in the field of education by referring to the inequalities created by the caste system to deny oppor-tunities to the deprived sections of society to have access to education. Ambedkar described caste as anti-national. The Dravidan Movement, by attacking the caste system, was proving its credentials as a nationalistic movement for equality and equal opportunity for all people.

There is no reference in the draft National Policy on Education even to Dr Ambedkar who had said that “We would forgo material benefits but not our right to education” and demanded education in science, technology and literature for the poor and oppressed sections to reclaim the human personality.

Minority Educational Institutions should be Safeguarded

While giving a catalogue of constitutional and legal provisions concerning the rights of minorities in the field of education, the Report makes a recommendation that Minority Educational Institutions should have larger national obligations to meet the rights of the economically weaker sections under the Right to Education. This has been mentioned in Para 6.6.13 of the National Policy on Education. This might adversely affect the status of minority educational institutions which has been guaranteed by the Constitution.

Already the many National Level Minority Institutions are apprehending that their minority status might be snatched away. There is an atmosphere of fear and anxiety in the whole country on account of the majoritarian policies. There are reports in the press that the status of the Aligarh Muslim University as a minority institution might be taken away. In such a scenario there is anxiety in the whole country that minority educational institutions would not remain safe. The National Educational Policy must dispel this fear.

Regional History must find place in National Curricula

In our educational syllabus prepared for the country, we never read about regional history. We talk of national integration and we do not teach our children about the histories of other States and historical figures of other States. We do not know anything about a leader like Jana Neta Iravat Singh of Manipur, who spearheaded a movement in that State in the early 1940s for introduction of representative institutions and democracy. We do not know the movement launched by the women of Manipur in the pre-independent period for democracy and access to food. This educational policy is silent on the issue of regional history and makes tall claims about national integration. In this context let me refer to one incident. A statue of Saint Thiruvalluvar was to be installed in Haridwar. The statue is lying there for several months. And there is opposition to install it in a central location. People in the north hardly know about him. Therefore, we need to have regional history in national education to widen the nationalistic consciousness of students and make them more tolerant and broad-minded.

Sanskrit Education

In this Report on National Education Policy there is emphasis on Sanskrit education which should not be at all problematic. But it cannot be imposed. It is important for all of us to reflect on the modern significance of Sanskrit. As part of our ancient and classical heritage, Sanskrit is the very basis of our identity. While it was extremely important during the ancient period of our country, it is of great significance in the modern age of the twentieth and twentyfirst centuries. On January 17, 2014 Professor Amartya Sen, while delivering his keynote address at the Jaipur Literary Festival, regretted that “Classical education in language, literature, music and the arts are being seriously neglected in India” and painfully observed: ”Very few people study Sanskrit anymore. Nor do they study ancient Persian, or Latin, or Greek, or Arabic, or Hebrew, or Old Tamil.” He then added that “We need serious cultivation of classical studies for a balanced education. In India's increasingly business-oriented society, there is generally far less room today for the humanities, and that is surely a problem.” Certainly the emphasis of a Nobel Laureate in Economics on the study of classical education in language, literature, music and arts drives home the enormous importance of such education for the market-driven society of the twentyfirst century world. However, it cannot be done in a manner which would promote majoritarianism and offend the sensibilities of people professing diverse faiths. We get such an impression because of some recent efforts to teach science and technology-related knowledge enshrined in Sanskrit in the Indian Institutes of Technology.

Professor Amartya Sen, while stressing on imparting Sanskrit education, also stressed on imparting education in classical music, Old Tamil and Arabic and Latin. So why this National Policy on Education is giving emphasis on Sanskrit only? Now the Government of India has accorded Tamil the status of a classical language. Even Odia has been declared as a classical language. We should focus attention on all such languages to make our vision more inclusive and all-encompassing.

Music Education

In this National Policy on Education there is not a single line on music education. Mahatma Gandhi stressed on music education right from the school level. He defined music in broad terms and observed that music meant rhythm, harmony and order and regretted that in the public life of India rhythm, harmony and order were missing and, therefore, music should find place in the educational curricula as a compulsory subject from the primary level onwards for the purpose of restoring order and concord in the collective life of our nation.

Even as Mahatma Gandhi had elementary knowledge of music, he had extraordinary love for it and brilliantly expounded its far-reaching significance for individual, social and national life. While explaining its abiding place in the realm of spirituality and religion, he passionately wrote about its therapeutic value in overcoming anger and ensuring peace and tranquillity of mind. Above all, he splendidly enlightened the whole nation about its fundamental role in serving the cause of India's independence from foreign rule. As early as in 1926, he boldly declared: “There can be no Swaraj where there is no harmony, no music.” Such an articulation from the Father of our Nation is expressive of his fundamental understanding that music in the true sense synchronises diverse notes and promotes unity, concord and oneness. He wanted our national life to resonate with these enduring values for channelising the energy of our people for the larger goals of unchaining India both from colonial rule and the bondages of our own society and civilisation stifling our people to give their best. One discerns the point that music aided Mahatma Gandhi to remain in tune with Truth which he called God and pursue Non-violence to achieve our indepen-dence and, above all, to save the planet earth from the monstrous greed of modern civilisation based on incessant multiplication of wants and desires and reckless exploitation of nature.

In several volumes of his Collected Works, we find his exceptionally in-depth understanding of music which went beyond the conventional notion of playing an instrument, singing a song or modulating the voice and fine-tuning the vocal cord. He enlarged the scope of music to link it with the larger life. An outstanding leader and communicator, he was tuned to the dumb millions of our country and put forth the lasting proposition that music is as essential for the well-off and privileged as for the common people.

Mahatma Gandhi was one of the greatest architects of the unity of our people by employing the method of non-violence. His achievements in this regard were no less musical than the lilting tune of the finest musicians. He poetically stated: “... true music is created only when life is attuned to a single tune and a single time beat.”“The experiment with music,” he further added, “will be regarded as a successful one when the crores of people in the entire country will start speaking the same words.” He was one of the finest exponents of that “true music” composed around the theme of unity of India and through which crores of people of our country rose as one person demanding in one voice the freedom for our country.

A man ever tuned to truth, he had the finer sensitivity to yearn for music in every aspect of life. In his own words, “... if we put a broad interpretation of music, i.e., if we mean it by union, concord, mutual help, it may be said that in no department of life can you dispense with it.” He could hear music in the working of a spinning wheel, in Hindu-Muslim unity, in the scheme for ensuring good governance, in the struggle for abolishing untouchability, removing filth and squalor from our surroundings and uplifting millions of people from suffering and exploitation. Therefore, he wanted the children of our country to learn music and wrote: “If many more send their children to the music class it will be part of their contribution to national uplift.” His wonderful interpretation outlined his breadth of vision in linking the spread of music with nation-building.

Such a man with an elevated consciousness and an approach to locate music in the wider context of life, society and nation, stressed on revival of our soul-stirring music and demanded inclusion of music in the course curriculum right from the primary stages of learning. However, his love for music was little under-stood and many even wrongly thought that he, with his ascetic life-style, was opposed to it. He himself exclaimed at such a misper-ception and expressed surprise in 1924 by saying: “I, opposed to arts like music! Then, why, I cannot even conceive of an evolution of the religious life of India without music. I do say I am a lover of music as well as the other arts.”

India is acknowledged as a superpower in the field of soft power. Music is our soft power. This Education Policy does not talk about harnessing the soft power of India through education. While hard power refers to coercion, compulsion and force, soft power refers to the ability to persuade and attract on the basis of the strength of the qualities and character. At the global level the idea of soft power was coined by Professor Joseph Nye Jr. in 1980 and it is being invoked extensively to shape diplomacy and foreign policy for serving the cause of national interest. Mrs Hilary Clinton increasingly talked of soft power to shape American Foreign Policy. We need to use our education to harness our rich soft power so that the elements of coercion and compulsion are minimised in our life and decisions are taken based on consultation, persuasion and dialogue. In this manner we can reduce violence. And music education can help us to calm the mind and neutralise aggressive and belligerent thoughts and tendencies which often actuate people to inflict violence on others. In the UK there is a National Plan for Music Education. In that report there are two beautiful quotations. One is that of Plato who said: “Music is a moral law. It gives soul to the universe, wings to the mind, and life to everything... Without music, life would be an error.” and the other is that of Aristotle who said: “Music has a power of forming the character and should therefore be introduced into the education of the young.” We, in India, should be mindful of such aspects to impart music education to our students.

Educate Men to Share Household Work with Women

Another important aspect is that we need to use education as a tool to remove gender stereo-types. The Father of our Nation, Mahatma Gandhi, tried to alter the mindset and the well- entrenched thoughts that only women will do the household work. It sprang from his conviction of non-violence which remained central to our struggle for independence. As early as in 1922 he wrote a book in Gujarati language called Bal Pothi which was supposed to be a textbook for school children. This small book, containing only eight pages, has tiny chapters running into small paragraphs. It teaches children to get up early, brush their teeth, offer prayers, do exercise, develop the habit of spinning, maintain cleanliness and hygiene, answer the call of nature in a reasonably distant place and cover the excreta with soil and use village fields to grow more vegetables and fruits. Mahatma Gandhi wanted children to learn all these valuable lessons through that book.

The last chapter of the book on ‘House Work' merits serious attention. It conveyed the notion of gender equality right within the frontier of the family. Through an imaginary dialogue among sister, brother and mother within the household, he tried to teach children that house work is a joint responsibility of both men and women and boy and girl who stay together under one roof and share unbreakable kinship. This book containing the chapter on ‘House Work' is of enormous significance for the 21st century world marked by women's struggle for achieving gender justice and their empower-ment.

The chapter begins with the instruction of the mother to her son that he should do the house work in the manner in which his sister does. The son, being brought up with a mental-frame that house work is done by ladies only, refuses to go by the instruction of his mother on the ground that a boy plays and studies and a girl in the family performs her role to take the burden of house work. His sister protests by saying: “Do we not also wish to play and study?” The brother answers her by saying that possibly while playing and studying, she would like also to work at home. The mother asks her son by putting a question: “Shouldn't boys work then?” Answering that question, the son states that in general boys remain attentive to their studies to take up responsibility of life as and when they grow up as adults and earn living for the family. Hearing such a reply from her son the mother teaches him that such an idea is entirely wrong and there is much to learn in house work. She explains that a child, whether a boy or a girl, can receive a lot of education by sweeping the house, cooking the food and cleaning clothes and utensils. She goes into details of such work and tells her son that domestic chores involve use of eyes, hands and brain without much effort. She educates him by saying that such activities in the family consti-tuted true education through experience. The mother gives the valuable lesson to her son by saying that engagement with house work leads to acquisition of greater skill, building up one's muscles and bodies, and developing a sense of independence. She concludes by saying that the boy has to learn and do house work as much as a girl does in the family.

This book Bal Pothi, teaching children to do household work regardless of the gender, constitutes a vital lesson serving the cause of gender justice and women's empowerment. The British Government did not permit Mahatma Gandhi to publish it. Even many of the colleagues and associates of Mahatma Gandhi expressed the opinion that Bal Pothi would bring about rebellion in the family. However, Mahatma Gandhi maintained that he wanted to create a good society by reducing the load of household work on women and making them free to avail of other opportunities beyond family.

I had the privilege of visiting Japan in 2008. In every prefecture of that country a Gender Equality Centre has been established. One such centre, set up in the Kochi Prefecture, has prepared a text for children to teach them the idea that everybody in the family, be it men or women or boy or girl, has to share household work. This idea is not only confined to the textbook but also getting adequate coverage in the electronic and print media to bring about a change in the minds of citizens who grow up with the view that it is entirely the responsibility of women to perform the duties of cooking, cleaning and washing clothes at home. It is due to such efforts that the Japanese people are slowly changing their mindset and now men have come forward to join womenfolk in the family for doing household work. After I saw that book, I conveyed to the authorities of that Gender Equality Centre that what the Japanese society is doing now was recommended by Mahatma Gandhi in the beginning of the second decade of the twentieth century. They were astonished to know that Mahatma Gandhi had written a book for school children to educate them about the value of household work and the necessity of both men and women in the family sharing it.

It was stated earlier that the erstwhile British Government in India did not allow Mahatma Gandhi to publish Bal Pothi which taught men and women to do household work. But it is interesting to note that in twentyfirst century Britain the idea of Bal Pothi is catching up with the British people. In March 2013, the UK-based Institute for Public Policy Research published a fascinating report on women's empowerment called “Great Expectations: Exploring Promises of Gender Equality”. It referred to household work done by women and described it as unpaid work and observed: “Many women's working lives are put under further pressure by the fact that they are still overwhelmingly responsible for unpaid work in the home, despite their growing importance in the paid workforce.” In other words, due to the heavy load of household work on women they are not able to discharge their responsibilities outside their homes, which fetch income for their families. However, the report observes that more educated men in the UK are now sharing the household work with women. It revealed that “the average time men spend on housework and particularly childcare has risen since the 1970s, but this has occurred mostly among men with higher levels of education”. It is certainly a heartening trend. This means that with better spread of education and liberalisation of outlook, the attitude is changing and more men are behaving as true partners at home by sharing household and childcare work which are considered the exclusive preserve of women. Such changes, observed in Britain, bring out the relevance of Mahatma Gandhi's vision so eloquently and convincingly articulated in the beginning of the second decade of the twentieth century.

Late Shrimati Usha Narayanan, wife of late K.R. Narayanan, the President of India, delivered a speech on women on March 7, 2000 as the First Lady of India in the UN office in New Delhi. In that speech she referred to Bal Pothi and gave a detailed narrative of the text. After a few days the Hindustan Times carried a box item under the caption Bal Pothi and wrote about its contents. Professor Madhu Dandavate read the story and wrote a letter to the then Human Resource Development Minister, Murli Monahar Joshi, to introduce Bal Pothi in the educational syllabus of all States of our country for character-building and education of our children. Now that the National Policy Education is being framed for our country we should introduce Bal Pothi in our educational curricula for the whole country.

We need to have education which will foster a secular outlook and celebrate the idea of India and not any other narrow vision of our diverse and pluralistic society. Our education should not be determined by the market. It should be determined by our people and society. Because of the predominance of the market in the globalised world, education in humanities is getting lesser importance than education in technology and engineering. The National Policy on Education must address this problem. Therefore, we need to pay heed to our age-old philosophy which emphasised on a broad outlook and constructive vision. If education cannot foster that broad vision, then it is no education.

The author was an Officer on Special Duty and Press Secretary the late K.R. Narayanan, the erstwhile President of India. He also served as the Director in the Prime Minister's Office. He is now serving as a Joint Secretary in the Rajya Sabha Secretariat. The views expressed here are personal and have nothing to do with the Rajya Sabha Secretariat.

When the Prime Minister of the country makes a request to the Law Commission to examine the case of uniform civil code, like many others I wonder whether there are ulterior motives given his commitment to a definite ideology. Modi is a representation and he represents a definite school of thought. When he decides to request the Law Commission to provide him with inputs on the uniform civil code, he may have reasons or a hidden agenda. In the past there have been people with a liberal outlook who have made a plea for uniform civil code so that the laws of the country are premised on universal principles of human rights irrespective of caste, creed and gender. There were concerned people, concerned about justice to women, irrespective of religion. Their position was deeply respected. In the Indian society various kinds of discrimination exists. While caste discrimination is rampant in the country, gender discrimination is no less. Minorities too are targeted and there are discriminatory practices even among them. Their concern was to provide justice to all beyond religion. Secular in outlook, their desire was to provide equal dignity and honour to every citizen. There was no questioning of their motives.

The other group that has been consistently demanding a uniform civil code comprises the proponents of Hindutva to which the Prime Minister belongs. For the most part, their attack has been on the Muslim personal law. They have questioned the right of Muslim men to marry four women and the right to divorce by uttering the word “talaq” three times. The country has been told that if these practices are not stopped, the Muslims will one day take over the country. The uniform civil code, for the Hindutva brigade, is to attack the Muslim community for narrow political gains by making use of stereotypes. Truth does not matter when the group desires to benefit. The fact is that given the sex ratio of 922 women for 1000 men, Muslims cannot afford to get even one wife. And yet the propaganda against the community persists.

Uniform Laws for All

When we talk about a uniform civil code, we are talking about uniform laws for all. In fact most laws in the country are uniform. Laws pertaining to crimes and punishment, trade and commerce, taxation and education, laws relating to evidence are uniform. There are laws all citizens are expected to follow that pertain to governance. The Indian Constitution, however, has permitted family affairs like marriage, divorce, inheritance, guardianship and adoption to be governed by customs or rules applicable to the persons and their community. It is a very small area. Why was it done? It was done because it was thought to be wise not to disturb the social and religious diversity of communities. After all, the framers of the Constitution did not desire an India of unity in uniformity but an India of unity in diversity.

This diversity, however, is not merely for the minorities. Even in the Hindu Marriage Act there is exemption of certain clauses where custom or usage governing each of the parties is permitted. If one is married under the Hindu Marriage Act, the law applicable for divorce would be Hindu law. Similarly, the legality of marriages involving cousins prevalent in certain groups of Hindus belonging to South India is protected by this exemption. Courts have recognised certain tribal customs as ‘other laws' thereby exempting the members of certain tribes from the applicability of the Hindu Marriage Act. That means, even Hindu Marriage Act is not uniform for all Hindus covered by the Act. With the tribal self-rule law, tribals are exempted from local self-government laws and permitted to have recourse to their customary laws. The tribals of the North-East own property collectively and there is no provision for private property there. In a plural country, laws have to be plural. Why then this obsession for uniform civil code?

Freedom of Conscience and Uniform Civil Code

The Indian Parliament did enact a secular law for marriages back in 1954. And yet the numbers of marriages that take place under this system are few. Why don't people adopt this uniform law? The answer is simple. Communities have their own customs and traditions that they do not want to give up. Marriage is a community celebration and as long as communities are different, they will have different customs and traditions. It is not easy therefore to adopt a uniform civil code since communities are all guided by their religious, social and customary laws. If a set of rules that violate the customary and religious laws are forced on the commu-nities by the state, that would amount to the denial of the basic right of freedom of conscience. Democracies have to learn to respect both individual and community rights of people. That is why there is a need to broaden the debate of uniform civil code beyond four wives and three talaqs to caste discrimination, honour killings, khap panchayat and devadasi system still prevalent in spite of their abolition. These are major concerns for the country than uniform civil code. We are a multi-cultural society and the country needs to be tolerant about all communities. Sadly instead of reforming the majority community on child marriages, temple prostitution, human trafficking, bonded labour, dowry and other discriminatory practices making use of the uniform civil code as a tool for minority bashing is not right.

Of course, Ravi Shankar Prasad, the Union Law Minister, has said the decision of the government to refer the issue of implementation of a uniform civil code in the country to the Law Commission should not be linked to the Assembly elections in Uttar Pradesh due next year. He has said that Article 44 of the Constitution talks about it, the Supreme Court on various occasions has made observations on it and it is in his party's election manifesto and there is a need for a “wider consultation” on the issue before arriving at a decision as was suggested by the Supreme Court. The Court had called for a wider debate before taking a decision on the constitutional validity of ‘triple talaq', which many complain is abused by Muslim men to arbitrarily divorce their wives. Ravi Shankar is a BJP politician and every word in his statement is politics. There are a number of other issues that need urgent attention and the Supreme Court has called for action. More than once the courts have spoken about maintaining the secular character of the country. Yet the party has not called for a wider debate on the issue or discussions on how to strengthen the secular fabric of the nation. The country is experiencing various kinds of violence and it needs immediate response. However that is not a priority for the party in power.

Given the problems of discrimination, corruption, communalisation and increasing poverty in the vulnerable sections, at this point of politics we may not really require a discussion on a uniform civil code. There are no major problems with personal laws since in practice religious communities have come to bestow greater respect to women. Much of the propa-ganda is for political purposes. Majoritarian communalism that is at the root in highlighting this issue is not the way of addressing it. If the law is imposed from above, it is an attack on democracy. Communities may not be fully open to accept secular laws especially because of the coercion from the BJP and its affiliates. In the context it is not right to force communities to obey laws that they do not think are important at this juncture. The country has thousands of other problems of food, clothing and shelter, employment and education. They should be concerns that the government has to address. As for personal laws, let us wait for communities to bring about their own reforms. The triple talaq is not as much a problem as the large number of divorces and separations in every community. Given the skewed sex-ratio among the Muslims with fewer women than men, it is not possible to misuse talaq as is made out. There could be a small section that abuses a law in every community. Besides, people do change. One example is the Muslim law allowing a Muslim man to marry four wives. The official statistics of the Indian state says that there are more Hindu men with more than one wife than Muslims. There is no meaning therefore in attacking the Muslim community on this score.

What we need is deep respect to all traditions. Once respect is offered, the dialogue is possible. It is this respect for the minorities that the party in power lacks. This is not to oppose uniform civil law. Can we make people to adopt it voluntarily? There are already people who are opting out from their personal laws. What is important is to encourage such individuals to adopt secular laws so that we contribute to a secular India rather than use it as a political tool.

Dr Ambrose Pinto SJ is the Principal of St. Aloysius Degree College, Bangalore.

by Aparupa Bhattacherjee

Do the recent attacks in Bangladesh (by seven young men in a Dhaka café killing several foreigners and the subsequent bomb blast on the day of Eid) signify the tip of a far larger iceberg? Worse, are they the tips of different icebergs that are coming to form a perfect storm?

Are the radicalisation of the youth, attacks on minority communities and violence against liberals in Bangladesh symbolising a deeper problem? Do the recent commentaries on the subject focus primarily on the symptoms and not the disease?

There are at least three major icebergs in Bangladesh whose tips are getting exposed in the recent attacks: youth radicalisation, decline of liberal Islam or/and the ascendancy of a radical ideology, and the failure of the state to address all these issues.

Revisiting the Dhaka Attack

The terrorist attack on July 1, 2016 in Bangla-desh will have an impact for not only Bangladesh, but also the South Asian region. For Bangaldesh, this was not a lone attack during this year; there has been a series of attacks during the past eighteen months resulting in deaths of more than forty people. Many analysts, both inside and outside Bangladesh, have been warning of the prevailing situation; unfortunately, the government did not take the right measures. Worse, the government failed even to acknowledge that there is a problem. Of course no one could have anticipated the new facets of terrorism; the carnage that took place in the posh restaurant in Dhaka should be regarded as a new beginning and a watershed event.

The involvement of educated, radicalised youth as the perpetrators of the carnage is a new face of terrorism in Bangladesh. Second, one has to impartially analyse the rise of a more radical and intolerant society in Bangladesh. Third, there should also be a realistic assessment and debate on the presence and support of the Islamic State militants in Bangladesh and also in its neighbourhood. This commentary looks into these three issues

Youth Radicalisation

In Bangladesh, there were evidences in the past on the role of poverty and illiteracy playing a pivotal part in the youth being galvanized into various activities of violence. Furthermore, college students owing allegiance to political parties have clashed with each other resulting in street violence.

But the new trend, where educated youth from well-off families are more willingly choosing to participate in terrorist activities in the name of religion, is new in Bangladesh. The Dhaka attack on July 1 highlights this trend. All the perpetrators were young, in their early twenties and belonged to the higher strata in the Dhaka society having had education from the most elitist schools. Their background has shocked the entire nation, all these youth went missing from their houses since February 2016. Even more shocking was the published picture in the IS magazine Dabiq—with gun in their hands, smile on their faces and the IS flag as the picture's backdrop.

This forces one to ponder over the query: what went worng? Why do the educated youth from a comfortable lifestyle choose to kill people in the name of religion? According to reports and the Facebook pages of these youth, a self-proclaimed Indian religious preacher, Zakir Naik, and his radical preaching through his Peace TV was blamed to have incited these youth to radicalise. Hence on July 10, 2016 the Bangladesh Government banned the Peace TV Bangla and also requested the Imams around the nation to preach the rights and wrongs in Islam in order to stop the youth from getting radicalised.

But the question is: are these precautions sufficient enough to stop the youth to deviate from their bright future to become killers for sake of their disbeliefs? Interestingly, Bangladesh is not a stand-alone example of this trend, there are several young persons from South and South-East Asia—including several educated youth from India's Kerala and West Bengal—who have been reported have joined the IS. Is it just some radical preaching that has led to this development or is there something funda-mentally wrong with the society around these young people that leads them to believe and act in accordance with these preachings?

Ascendancy of Radical Ideology

Although there were traces of radicalisation in Bangladesh, abuse of religion never gained prominence until recently. Religion remained moderate and liberal in Bangladesh; the credit for this mainly goes to the fact that Islam in this region had mainly grown out of the Sufi school of thought. Bangladesh, though a Muslim majority country, has always been liberal in terms of Islamic rules and customs in comparison with other Islamic majority countries. Additionally for Bangladesh, due to its foundational history, Bengali culture has always gained predominance over the religious community. Therefore one could question: are these attacks indicators of a shift in Bengali society from Sufism to a more radical religious approach such as Wahhabism? Or is it the unstable polity and repercussion of bad governance which has resulted in the populace choosing religious fundamentalism as their sole identity?

This in fact is providing terrorist groups, such as the Islamic State (IS) and Al-Qaeda in the Indian Subcontinent (ASIS), to make inroads inside the society. Most of these attacks in Bangladesh have been claimed by IS or ASIS; however the government led by the Awami League has been claiming these to be the work of the Opposition. The July 1 event, if as claimed, is an IS attack, then it could be considered as the first major strike that has been anticipated and warned about by several security analysts. Though the veracity of the claim is being questioned, nobody can deny at least the covert linkages of these perpetrators with the IS. According to SITE, Amaq, the IS news agency, has published the pictures of the carnage while claiming the attack and Dabiq, the IS magazine, published pictures of the perpetrators which were definitely taken before the attack. However, one cannot be definite as similar to the IS even the AQIS has recently published in Resurgence (the AQIS magazine) the attacks on Hindus in Bangladesh.

Failure of the State

The issue is also of the government's response. The denial mode of the government is making the situation worse. Although it was claimed by the Awami League in 2007-2009 that most of the terrorists have been arrested or killed, it seems these groups have reorganised, re-recruited and strengthened themselves in these years. Several security analysts have also claimed that there were reports, such as mentioned in Dabiq's 2014 September edition, that the JMB has formed linkages with the IS. There are reports of training of Jaamat-ul-Mujahideen Bangladesh (JMB) and Ansarullah Bangla Team members in India's east and North-East. This came to the forefront with the bomb blast in 2014, while a group of terrorists were making bombs in a rented house in the Bardhhaman district of West Bengal. Reportedly there are several training camps in different districts of West Bengal, especially in the Murshidabad district, which shares a long border with Bangladesh.

The lack of political stability and political violence, corruption, unrest have provided a fertile ground for the ice to turn the iceberg. In Bangladesh both the Awami League and Bangladesh Nationalist Party have always used the state structure such as legislature, judiciary, and also the religious radical groups for their political benefits. The result is a defunct political structure with rampant corruption and the rise of strong radical groups. As aforementioned, although massive steps were taken since 2005 onwards to eradicate terrorism from the country and the outcome of these measure jubilantly announced, it seems that was not a victory. The political clashes and violence, especially before and after the 2014 elections in Bangladesh, have given the space and time to these terrorist groups to reorganise themselves.

All these reasons and the constant denial by the government, which seems to refuse to acknowledge the elephant in the room, will further make the condition worse. This is the tip of the iceberg and if precaution is not taken the effect will be massive and will be felt not only in Bangladesh but also in India and Myanmar.

The author is a Researcher, National Institute of Advanced Studies (NIAS), Indian Institute of Science Campus, Bangalore.

by Avik Saha

Today, farmers and farming are in crisis. Farming has become a loss-making proposition. Although input costs of farming are continuously increasing and cost of living is also rising, prices of agricultural produce are not. One calamity like drought, hailstorm, flood and the farmer's backbone is broken. Wallowing in debt, the farmer is forced to commit suicide.

The reason for this condition of farmers is not fate, vagaries of nature or machinations of the market economy. At the root of the agrarian crisis are games of politics and the cruel hand of the government. The discriminatory and exploitative policies and systems of governments are looting farmers.

If this continues, farmers will not survive—they will lose their livelihoods, be compelled to sell off their land and drown in debt. Farmlands will be ruined and villages destroyed.

There is only one way to save farmers and farming. Farmers have to themselves rise up and engage in struggle. But how will this struggle be organised? Today, farmers need farmers' movements more than ever before. However, never before have farmers' movements been as weak as they are today. Farmers of the north are separated from farmers of the south. Farmers producing wheat think differently from farmers producing sugarcane. Big farmers and small farmers are separated by a chasm and farm workers are completely cut off from both big and small farmers. After suffering torture in the hands of governments for five years together, when the time to vote comes, farmers get divided on lines of caste and creed. Taking full advantage of this division among farmers, leaders rule.

To organise farmers of all sizes and classi-fications, a strong national alliance of farmers' organisations and unions is the need of the hour. It is now a question of survival of farmers and all petty and minor differences have to be buried. All organisations and unions, small, medium and big, need to come together on one platform with a common minimum programme. Without losing their identity, they need to fight as one coalesced force, deriving power from numbers and tactical edge of pooled intellectual and strategic thinking.



The single point demand should be that farmers should get full value of their hard work by way of guarantee of minimum income so that they can live a life of dignity. The thinking must be beyond the next crop; it should be for the next generation of farmers.

Amongst others, the proposed alliance could focus on these issues:

• Water, forests and land belong to local communities and hence all land-grabbing laws, that take away farmland without consent and without giving fair compensation, should be withdrawn.

• Every hardworking farming family should be guaranteed such income that enables them to live a life of dignity and honour at the same level as those in business and service. Governments have to acknowledge that farmers are soldiers who protect the nation's food sovereignty and security and hence it is the duty of the government to guarantee that the farmers live a life of dignity.

• All farmers should get full and timely compensation for crop-loss, which should be determined fairly. When crops are damaged, instead of arbitrary and whimsical grants, farmers should get compensation at fair and pre-determined rates so that the income of farmers does not fall below the guarantee-line.

• The government should give each landless agricultural family at least two acres of land and assistance to increase productivity of the land. Landless families, who have already received deeds to lands, should be given possession of their lands.

• Laws should be made to ensure that all rural families get homestead land.

• Rights of adivasi farmers, contract farmers, sharecroppers and women farmers should be protected.

• While negotiating the terms of WTO or other trade arrangements, the nation's food sovereignty and the livelihood of farmers should be given top priority and all treaties that are against the interests of farmers should be immediately scrapped.

• The traditional right of farmers to conserve, improve and distribute seeds should be protected and the monopoly of companies on seeds should not be permitted.

• Permission should not be given to GM seeds till scientists and farmers are satisfied about their impact on environment and health.

• Farmers should be progressively freed from the present method of farming which requires expensive inputs and external dependence and which have proved to be dangerous and are destroying soil and ground water and poisoning food, water and farmlands. The government should give a lot of support to low cost and ecologically sustainable agriculture so that within ten years, farmers are freed from the poisonous farming techniques now being used.

• In dry-land areas, large-scale irrigation arrangements should be made. Investigation should be done with regard to shortcomings, delay and corruption in irrigation projects. Greater attention should be given to tank and canal-type minor irrigation projects and conservation of ground water. To encourage dry-land agriculture, low-water-requiring crops, fodder crops and animal husbandry should be encouraged.

• Farmers should be given bank loans upto rupees one lakh, free of interest and without mortgage of land. Such loans should also be given to sharecroppers, contract farmers and women farmers.

• Loans reserved on priority for agriculture should be given only to farmers and not corporates in the name of agriculture. Prohibition on mortgage of land for loans given for agricultural inputs should be strongly enforced.

• Just like corporates, outstanding loans of farmers should be re-structured and arrange-ments should be made for transfer of loans taken by farmers from private moneylenders, to banks.

• Public distribution system and purchase of crops by the government for such system should not be removed; instead it should be decentralised and made stronger.

• Rural people engaged in animal husbandry, dairy farming, fishery and poultry farming should be treated as farmers and should be assured the minimum guaranteed income demanded for farmers.

• Milk and egg etc. should be protected by systems like minimum support price. Milk cooperatives should be promoted and prices paid by private companies should be regulated.

• Poultry farming should be given the status of cottage industry and protected from the onslaught of large corporates.

• Outstanding payments due to sugarcane farmers should be immediately paid and for this government assistance should not be given to mill owners but instead directly to farmers.

Jai Kisan Andolan gives this call and invites all farmers' organisations and unions to come together and work together for the survival of farmers and food security of the nation.

Avik Saha is the Co-Convenor, Jai Kisan Andolan of the Swaraj Abhiyan.

by Vinita Chandra

Swaraj Abhiyan arose out of a historic split in the AAP, a party which itself was the product of a ‘split' in opinions among the leaders of the India Against Corruption movement. Answers to the following two questions may bring insights for understanding the nature of Indian politics—What do these two splits signify? And what makes these two splits historic?

The first split was effected due to a divergence of opinions between Anna Hazare and Arvind Kejriwal. While Anna wished the IAC to remain ‘politically unaligned', Kejriwal believed that direct involvement in politics was necessary as nothing could be achieved by way of agitation and talks regarding the Jan Lokpal Bill. In the wake of irreconcilable difference of opinion regarding their role in politics, Anna and Arvind parted ways. Arvind declared the formation of the Aam Aadmi Party on November 26, 2012, the day on which party's Constitution was adopted in Delhi. India Against Corruption fizzled out with this, Anna having declared the formation of Jantantra Morcha. Big questions loomed large on the horizon of Indian politics; fading away, however, with what seemed as the dawn of new hopes in the form of AAP. The questions remained ignored, although they have retained their significance. Making inroads into the Legislature was considered the only remaining option, after the movement by way of agitation on the roads seemed to fail. However, the trajectory of AAP while making way from ‘Road to Legislature' signifies a metamorphosis of AAP itself.

It was during this metamorphosis that the second split was effected. This metamorphosis also brings one back to Anna's inhibitions in acceding for a political turn, that is, it would be difficult for activists to contest in elections which require huge expenditure without com-promising on their values. Two questions need answers here. One, should it mean that the capacity of movements to effectively intervene in politics in India has been exhausted by now? Two, does it imply that the nature of politics in contemporary India is such that it cannot be carried out without being corrupt? We will come back to these questions later.

The reasons for the second split, that is, the split between the leaders of AAP, may be traced to tensions between notions of ‘pragmatic politics' and ‘alternative politics', welfarism and complete overhaul of the political system, a ‘short-cut strategy' and a ‘long-term approach'. It were these shifts to the former from the latter which prepared the base for the split. Short-term political gains could only be made through pragmatic politics. This also accounted for sidelining of the previous members of AAP who were still grounded in idealism and wished to pursue alternative politics, while making way for new entrants into AAP. The former included those like Prashant Bhushan, Yogendra Yadav and Anand Kumar, and the latter included those like Ashutosh and Ashish Khetan. Pragmatic politics (the phrase used by Ashutosh) may not only demand compromises, but also seek to justify them on grounds of pragmatism.

AAP succumbed to the inherent pressures of pragmatic politics aimed at making political gains in a short time, and in the Delhi elections of 2015, parachute dropping of candidates was rampant. These included candidates who had questionable political backgrounds. In a bid to protect itself from charges of internal corruption, AAP did away with its own Lokpal along with the idealists. Pragmatic politics also demanded taking up newer issues for election like distributing freebies (water and electricity) at the cost of substantial issues like corruption, and in due course work for electoral, judicial, educational and economic reforms. The reports of 27 committees formed to research on these and other issues were quickly thrown into the cold storage.

Also, an important role was played by the tensions existing on the Indian socio-political scene since colonial times like that of the ideological divide between the Left and Right, defined in terms of binaryism instead of an ideological spectrum. Although the AAP professed to be neither Left nor Right, gradually Arvind seemed to wish to part with the Left, which echoed in his conversations as well as actions.

Being an ‘insider to AAP', I know by way of personal interactions with Arvind that he was caught in another dilemma. This was regarding the role of ‘work on ground', and ‘theoretical work' in politics. Arvind seemed convinced that those who work for him on ground (I believe people in AAP started believing that it is only sadak which forms the ground), who are his ‘real workers'. In this illusion, he very easily wished away those who defined ‘ground' alternatively, or provided the ideological ground to AAP. He seemed to forget that both the brains and hands are important organs of the body. Similarly in the making of a building, the role of architects is no less significant than those who actually build it. Arvind seemed to be swayed away by the conviction that he no more needed intellectuals in the party. He only needed ‘ground workers' and contractors like those of Sanjay Singh. This resulted in doing away with the brains of the party—those who were behind the drafting of the Constitution and Vision Document of the party, those who provided AAP with a design that could have made it a vehicle suitable for carrying out alternative politics in India.

The mindless and heartless departure of AAP from the path of alternative politics grounded in idealism and values, was perhaps the precondition for its entry into mainstream politics. This was the cost Arvind was ready to pay. Or perhaps it seemed no cost to Arvind at all. The body of AAP, however, was devoid of the functional brain and heart, and leftover for predators and parasites to thrive on it. Even though AAP may seem to be thriving, I could see the shadow of decay on its face.

The nation, however, had a much bigger cost to pay. The faith of millions in politics was shaken, and many hearts were broken. The indiscriminate throwing away of some of the founder-members from AAP, meant a final departure from politics for multitudes of people who had dared to enter politics with hopes for a ‘new politics' where they could find a place. This also meant a very unhappy divorce from a marriage marked by complementarity. AAP united was a force to reckon with on the Indian political scene. AAP divided lost its halo, becoming just one of the many parties in India, instead of being a political party ‘with a difference'. Arvind's hasty departures both the times, from the Anna Movement, and then from the path of alternative politics; swept many off the ground.

Restoring the Ground: Swaraj Abhiyan

The leftovers gathered up, taking up issues that were abandoned by AAP...

While AAP hastily dropped the word ‘Swaraj' from its website, the very term became the founding ideal of the Swaraj Abhiyan. Dropping of the ideal of Swaraj by AAP signified the ‘arajakta' that had deeply penetrated AAP. However, taking up of the ideal of Swaraj by Swaraj Abhiyan not only symbolises the persistent zeal of those who survived the aftermath; but also symbolises the persistent appeal of the ideal of Swaraj.

Swaraj Abhiyan, since its inception, has shown commitment to fulfil the agenda left incomplete by AAP. Accordingly, the issues taken up by Swaraj Abhiyan include—the question of ‘the Indian farmer', the question of the youth of India rendered directionless because of a corrupt education system, the question of extremism in India. These have culminated in the ‘Jai Kisan Andolan', the movement for ‘Shiksha Swaraj', and the formation of the ‘Umbrella of Peace'—Aman Chain ki Chhatri.

Having suffered abandonment themselves, the leaders of Swaraj Abhiyan spent no time in espousing the cause of the Indian farmer, who seemed to be abandoned by all the others. The movement for Shiksha Swaraj is premised on the idea that while education in India needs to be based on the ideal of Swaraj, Swaraj itself cannot be achieved without the expansion of education in India. While the ‘Umbrella of Peace' is an inter-organisational initiative, Swaraj Abhiyan has its own definition of Aman, which is an important means of realisation of Swaraj.

Taking sure and steady strides, the Swaraj Abhiyan has raised hopes for the path of alternative politics in India.

Dr Vinita Chandra is an Assistant Professor and Assistant Director, Centre for the Study of Social Exclusion and Inclusive Policy, Faculty of Social Sciences, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi.

Swaraj Abhiyan, launched by anti-corruption activists on April 14, 2015 as a platform for participatory democracy through alternative politics, is organising its Second National Convention at New Delhi on July 30-31, 2016. In the last 15 months, it has taken five major initiatives towards its goal— (a) Jai Kisan Andolan for kisan and rural India; (b) Shiksha Swaraj about issues of education and youth employment; (c) Anti-Corruption Team to support RTI activists and PIL to fight corruption; (d) Aman Committee and Umbrella of Peace to promote inter-faith harmony and prevent social violence against weaker sections; and (e) Swaraj Kendra for social service, leadership building and community level work. It has established membership-based elected committees in more than 120 districts and seven States. On the occasion of the Second National Convention of Swaraj Abhiyan, we are publishing the following interview and articles for the benefit of our readers.

The following is the interview of eminent Supreme Court lawyer, human rights activist and anti-corruption

crusader Prashant Bhushan by Dr Sant Prakash Singh.

Q. You are one of the anti-corruption crusaders of India and also involved in a political formation with a view to promoting alternative politics. Why have you taken this step?

See, during the anti-corruption campaign, we realised that despite a lot of public pressure, the entrenched political parties who control Parlia-ment and State legislatures, from where laws and policies are made, are reluctant to annul even a very popular demand made by the anti-corruption movement like the demand for a stronger Jan Lokpal Bill etc. One of the reasons for that was that they felt that in the game of electoral politics, no honest alternative could defeat them; therefore we felt the time had come for us to set up an honest political alternative and show them that an honest political alternative can defeat entrenched corrupt political parties. So we had at that stage decided to set up the Aam Aadmi Party. Of course, unfortunately the party itself has now become like any other normal political party with all the same trappings of power, corruption, even gundagardi etc.....

Q. Why are you dissatisfied with the Indian party system?

You see, if you ask the question, can people freely vote in India?—the answer would be: yes, most people can freely vote. If you ask the second question, are people satisfied with the government that they elect, the answer would be: most people are dissatisfied and that is why wherever we go, people tell us that there is no alternative before them and all the mainstream political parties are casteist, communal, corrupt etc. Therefore, from everywhere, there is a demand to form an alternative political party. Now the reason why this happens is in my view, one of the main reasons is that we in our representative democracy, we have the first- past-the-post system at two levels when we cast our vote for our MP and MLA. When you vote for your representative, the person who gets the highest number of votes, gets elected, even if he has got only 25 per cent votes, and the other person has got less than 25 per cent. So this person who may have got only 25 per cent votes become the representative of the whole constituency.

When you are voting for a representative you are not merely voting for the candidate, you are also voting for a government, and that is why you see, when people cast their vote, they don't always vote for the best candidate or the best party that they consider to be the best because if they feel that the best candidates or the best party have no chance of winning, then they don't want to waste their vote and they will then vote for the party or candidate that they consider to be relatively less bad amongst those parties or candidates who seem to have some chance of winning. So that is how they assess who has some chance of winning and who has some chance of losing; that assessment is made largely on the basis of the visibility of that candidate and his party. So if there is a very honest candidate and honest party who is not visible, meaning there is no advertising, it does not have many paid workers on the ground or does not have to many workers on the ground to give the candidate visibility, then they feel that while this person may be a good candidate or his party may be a very good party but they have no chance of winning, what's the point of wasting our vote, let us vote for the least bad among those parties which appear to have some chance of winning.

Visibility brings viability and that is usually a function of advertising with feet on the ground and workers and volunteers on the ground. Advertising is largely a function of money. Workers and volunteers now are also usually paid workers bought by money. In India, on very rare occasions like the AAP in 2014 and 2015 during the Delhi elections when a large number of unpaid volunteers worked, as the AAP had only reasonable amount of donation money which had come from all over the world. This kind of thing hardly ever happens and the result is that it is only those parties with a lot of money—and usually that money acquired by corrupt means—which have the kind of visibility which gives them viability in the eyes of the people that these parties have some chance of winning. That is why, we have this business of while we have free and fair voting, we are forced to vote for the lesser evil, so to say, every time they seem to go from one party to choose the other party and we are not satisfied with the government that they form. This is the problem.

Q. What are the major challenges for making India a participatory democracy?

In my view, this kind of problem is the first-part-the-post system in a representative democracy which is making us choose a lesser evil all the time and it is not allowing us to choose a really good government. This problem can reduce to some extent if we make our democracy more participatory. Now one way of making democracy participatory is to decentralise power. So that the maximum power resides at the lowest level which means all the matters which concern village or which concern a local area and local Mohalla etc., should be dealt with and decided by the people of that village or Mohalla. It is the only thing which concerns several villages that needs to be taken to the next level, which could be the block level or the ward level so to say and all the things which involve only that block or ward should be decided at that level and so on; only the things which involve several wards or several blocks should be taken to the next higher level. It should be at the district level, and only the things which concern several districts should be taken to the State level and those covering several States should be taken to the Central level. We allow more participation because the smaller the unit the higher is the use of the participation that we can have in a democracy. So the level of village and Mohalla people can actually get together and they discuss in the community and they decide themselves. At the larger level, this kind of physical gathering or community gathering is not possible but still something can be devised so that there can be several gatherings where they can come together.

So this is one way of making democracy more participatory so that it is to decentralise power and which has direct democracy at least at the lowest levels system of initiative on referendums by which even at larger level where a physical meeting is not possible on important issues people can sign or take initiative such as, for example, people want Jan Lokpal, that is a national issue. At present, if let's say 20 per cent electorate sign and petition for Jan Lokpal, then there should be a referendum on that issue, in which people can vote; if they decide by majority to have Jan Lokpal then it should become law without having to go to Parliament. This is the system which has been adopted in many countries, especially in Switzerland. Switzerland has the most advanced system of this initiative on referendums which take major decisions. That will also make our democracy more parti-cipatory because, I think, it is possible to organise referendum and lobbies which seek attention. Noam Chomsky calls it “manufactured consent”. But that is not as easy as we find some influential class of persons who bribe a few representatives in Parliament and get their Bill passed.

Q. What will you say about the Gandhian model of decentralisation which we have already got through 73rd and 74th Amendments?

Yes, though the attempt was made to decentralise power through the 73rd and 74th Amendments, unfortunately that was not really implemented in its true spirit. Unfortu-nately, most of the power continues to remain with the Central Government and lesser power with State governments and very little power existe at the lowest level. By and large, Panchayats are not functioning. Here I am showing my concern over a body like gram sabha and not just Panchayat. Panchayat is a relative body. But a truly direct democracy is about assembling the entire citizens in order to take decisions.

Q. Is referendum an appropriate tool, as in India most of the people don't have the proper understanding of the issues?

If we can trust the people with electing representatives who can decide anything, so we should also have some safeguards because you can't have referendum over something which would be totally unconstitutional, for example, suppose you have a referendum on whether all Muslims should be thrown out of India, that would be an unconstitutional referendum as it is against the basic structure of the Constitution. You will have to have some authority or body which can decide what kind of referendum is possible, and which kind is not. This power should be given to the authority.

Q. You have initiated the formation of an anti-corruption platform for RTI activists.What is its agenda?

It is not for just RTI activists, Swaraj Abhiyan has decided to take up four major campaigns, which has become a major problem in the country. One is the issue of corruption which is a serious problem in India. Lokpal has not been formed, the integrity of the CVC is under question, and whistleblower notification has been virtually made useless, while the whistle-blower law has not been notified. RTI activists are being disabled and so on. Corruption continues to be a serious problem which needs to be addressed; therefore one of the major campaigns that we want to run is on corruption and act on it as part of the Swaraj Abhiyan which will focus on the anti-corruption campaign. There is also the anti-communalism campaign, education and employment campaign and lastly the farmers and agricultural campaign.

Q. Recently there was the Swaraj Abhiyan Aman Committee conference in Varanasi under your convenorship. What is the need for such an initiative in India today?

Especially after the BJP Government came to power at the Centre, they are being seen as very aggressive. Coming to the BJP Government at the Centre, a new problem which has emerged is of the communal-fascist BJP, and the RSS has always made it clear, it is time for the Hindu Rashtra, for a Hindu India where they would like to make the minorities second class citizens. Towards this end, they are using every method possible to communally polarise people. And they are using that not merely to win elections in the various States by communal polarisation, but also for the purpose of curbing of freedom of speech or cracking down on dissent, cracking down on minorities and cracking down on Dalits etc. So it is a full-fledged communal fascist assault that we are seeing in this country under the leadership of Modi. So the object of this convention is to discuss and decide what citizens can do, by way of citizens activism, and how they can defuse this communal attack.

Q. You have talked about ‘Citizens' Activism'. What is the role of civil society, in your opinion, in contemporary politics?

Unfortunately, our established political parties have failed us; therefore the onus of fighting
all those evils, as we are seeing around us including this communal fascism, rests with the civil society. And this includes fighting corruption as well.

The civil society is playing a very important role today. There are large numbers of activists or organisations which have been campaigning against all kinds of bad things; so such civil society activism needs to be encouraged and organised. This Aman convention was to organise such civil society activism around the issue of communal fascism.

by Ram Puniyani

Can there be two types of justice delivery system in the same country? This question came to one's mind with the U-turn taken by the NIA in the cases related to terror acts in which many Hindu names were involved. Now the NIA in a fresh charge-sheet (May 13, 2016) has dropped the charges against Pragya Singh Thakur, has lightened the ones against Colonel Purohit and others. Along with this new line of the NIA it is being stated that Hemant Karkare's investigation in these cases was flawed and that it was the ATS which had got the RDX planted in Purohit's residence to implicate him in this case. The implication is that all this was being done at the behest of the previous UPA Government.

A brief recap is in order. Maharashtra in particular and many other places in the country were witness to acts of terror. The first major attention to this phenomenon took place when two Bajrang Dal activists were killed while making bombs in the house of one RSS worker, Rajkondawar (May 2006). There was a saffron flag flying atop the house and a board of the Bajrang Dal was put up in front of the house. At the site of the bomb explosion fake moustaches, beard and pyjama-kurta were also found. This was followed by many other blasts—in Parbhani, Jalna, Thane, and Panvel etc. In most of these cases the police investigated on the lines in which the generally Muslims were blamed for such acts. After every act of blast a few Muslim young men were arrested and they were later, after long gruelling court cases, released as no evidence was found against them.

The Malegaon blast, in which the Sadhvi's role came to the surface, took place in 2008. In the blasts those returning from Namaz (prayers) were killed and many injured. Following this the usual suspects, Muslims, were arrested. Then while investigating the cases the Maharashtra ATS chief, Hemant Karkare, found that the motorcycle used for the blast belonged to Sadhvi Pragya Singh Thakur, an ex-ABVP worker. The trail of investigation led to Swami Dayanad Pande, retd. Major Upadhyay, Ramji Klasnagra, Swami Aseemanand amongst others. They all belonged to the Hindu Right-wing politics. There were lots of evidence in the material recovered. One of the helpful evidence came in the form of the legally valid confession of Swami Aseemanand. This confession was made in judicial custody in the presence of a Magistrate.

In the confession the Swami spilled the beans and said that after the Sankat Mochan blast of 2002, they had decided that bomb will be replied by bomb. He was then looking after the VHP work in Dangs. He gave a detailed narrative of the whole process in which all the people were investigated and became part of the charge-sheet of the NIA.

When Karakare was investigating the case and many of the Hindu names started coming under the scanner Bal Thackeray wrote in Saamna that ‘we spit on the face of Karakare'. Narendra Modi, the then CM of Gujarat, called him deshdrohi (anti-national). Advani also reprimanded Karkare. Feeling the heat of this pressure from the Hindutva political outfits, Karkare went to meet his professional peer, Julio Rebeiro. Rebeiro has a record of high level of professional integrity. Rebeiro appreciated his painstaking work. Karkare asked what should be the stand of a person like him when facing such a heat from the politicians. The senior officer told him to honestly do the work and ignore these insinuations.

Meanwhile the global terror phenomenon hit Mumbai. On 26/11 ten terrorists, armed to the teeth, attacked Mumbai. On this occasion Karakare got killed. There is a strong controversy about this killing also. The then Minority Affairs Minister, A.R. Antulay, said that there is terrorism plus something else which is behind the killing of Karakare. Narendra Modi, who had earlier called Karkare a deshdrohi, landed up in Mumbai and wanted to give a cheque of Rs one crore to the widow of Karkare; she refused to accept the amount.

After Karkare's death the investigations continued on the lines laid down by him. The charge-sheet was ready and all the involved were to be tried for acts of terror. Meanwhile the government changed at the Centre and the NIA adopted the line which has led to the present situation where the efforts to release the Sadhvi are gathering intimidating speed. The change in the line got reflected in the statement of the Public Prosecutor, Rohini Salian. She stated that she was told to go soft on these cases. As she refused to toe this line, she was sacked.

One recalls that in the 1992-93 Mumbai violence, over one thousand people had died. This carnage was followed by the bomb blasts in which over two hundred people died. As far as the communal carnage is concerned, not many got severe punishments—no death penalty, no life imprisonments. In the cases of bomb blasts many have been given death penalty and many more life imprisonment. One of the people undergoing life imprisonment is Rubina Memon. Her crime: she owned the car which was used to ferry the explosives. She never drove the car with the explosives.

Sadhvi owned the motor cycle used for the Malegaon blasts; she will be out from the prison soon. Rubina owned the car; she will be in prison all her life. In the Mumbai carnage so many died. No severe punishment to anybody. So many severe punishments in the bomb blasts' case!

So where does our democracy stand at the end of all this? It seems two types of justice delivery systems are out there in the open. While shrill debates on TV will defend the Sadhvi and blame Karkare for faulty investigation, the people in Malegaon are protesting furiously and planning to go to the court against the change in the stance of the NIA. Two political parties seem to be preparing to save the honour of Karakare and press for sincere examination of the evidence collected by him.

One hopes the guilty will be punished and innocents will be protected. But this seems a bit too much to expect in the current scenario!

The author, a retired Professor at the IIT-Bombay, is currently associated with the Centre for the Study of Secularism and Society, Mumbai.

There is a vast difference between perception and evidence. When Congress Vice-President Rahul Gandhi says that the RSS is responsible for the assassination of Mahatma Gandhi, he is conveying the general perception. In fact, the then Home Minister, Sardar Patel, imposed a ban on the RSS which he withdrew when the organisation gave in writing that it was only a cultural outfit. However, the perception has remained till today.

The BJP, which is said to be a political wing of the RSS, has always denied the charge. But there is no clinching evidence either with the BJP elements or those opposed to it. The Congress, which is in the forefront of those who say that the Mahatma was assassinated by the RSS, has not placed before the public any evidence to buttress the charge; the RSS too has not given any evidence that it was a victim of a conspiracy either.

When the Congress was in power at the Centre—they ruled for more than 50 years—it could have published the intelligence reports or some other documents to suggest that the assassination was the doing of the RSS. Nor did the BJP, when it was in power, release anything which would remove the charge once and for all.

What Rahul Gandhi has said was the perception prevailing throughout the country and abroad; it persists even today. At that time the RSS elements were on the defensive and generally preferred to keep quiet. This only confirmed the perception that the Mahatma was killed by Nathuram Godse, a fanatic Hindu, having an RSS connection.

I was working with an Urdu newspaper, Anjaam, then. We were all sitting at the office when the PTI teleprinter machine's bell alerted for a flash. We rushed to the machine and the cryptic message was: Gandhi shot at! I wasted no time and went straight to the Birla House on my scooter. My office was situated near Jama Masjid and I rode through the Darya Ganj area. The locality was calm and oblivious to the great tragedy.

There was a wooden gate at Birla House and there was no security to stop any visitor. I went to the raised platform where Gandhi's body, swathed in white khadi, was lying. Lord Mountbatten, the last British Viceroy, came after I had reached the venue. He saluted the body; both Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru and Home Minister Patel, who followed him in the queue, were openly crying. The crowd had started swelling by then.

The assassin, Godse, who did not escape, was still there and surprisingly without any remorse. The cartage was carried through Raj Path, with Nehru and Patel sitting on either side of it, to what is today called the Rajghat. Ironically, Gandhi—who had spread the new philosophy of non-violence to the world—was taken for his last rites in a military vehicle which the Mahatma would not have liked.

Rahul Gandhi was not even born then. But he had the privilege of being a scion of the family which gave its all to the national struggle. He has every right to find fault with the RSS and he is not a third party to the entire episode of courage and sacrifice. The entire conspiracy to kill the Mahatma has been placed before the public, though bit by bit. And there is no doubt that the RSS elements were behind it.

In a letter addressed to jailor Arjun Das at Ambala, where he was detained, Godse confessed that he shot Gandhiji and argued that the Congress leaders at that time were weakening the country, making it an easy prey for Pakistan. This was a flimsy argument which did not go down well with the public when the letter was ultimately released.

The dust of time has covered many a footstep and it is very difficult to find out today who else at the Nagpur headquarters of the RSS had blessed the heinous crime. This was probably the first crime committed in the name of ideology. Things have, however, changed now because the atmosphere has been politicised and there are very few voices left whose credibility is beyond reproach. The RSS is still riding the high horse and refusing to join issue.

The fact that the matter has been given to the party spokesman to handle shows that the Congress is already making preparations for diluting its stand. If it does so, the party would lose face, more so Rahul Gandhi, who is being projected to lead the party in the next Lok Sabha elections. This is a tough case before the Supreme Court because it is going to be damned if its verdict goes either in favour of the Congress or the RSS.

What saddens one is that the secular forces in the country are not marshalling their strength to face the biggest challenge to the idea of India, democratic and anti-communal. The struggle for independence was for the ethos of pluralism and egalitarianism. Once Gandhi was portrayed as a non-violent Communist and he did not take any offence to the comment, although the Communists had described him as a running dog of imperialism. The Communists should make amends for their mistakes and hang the picture of the Mahatma at their headquarters in Kolkata.

My advice to the RSS and BJP is the same. Gandhi is an apostle of the marginalised and the backward. He represented the national struggle and India's emancipation from the British. This is the point on which all the political parties meet and they should have no hesitation in collectively recognising the fact that Gandhi rolled up the 150 years of foreign rule.

As for the allegations of Rahul Gandhi, the Supreme Court has taken note of them. In the wake of the Court hearing, many skeletons may tumble out of the closet. Now that the Congress Vice-President has refused to apologise—one can only hope that he will stick to his statement—the fat is on fire and the public may see an ideological warfare in the Court itself. Rahul Gandhi is either made or marred.

The author is a veteran journalist renowned not only in this country but also in our neighbouring states of Pakistan and Bangladesh where his columns are widely read. His website is www.kuldipnayar.com

In a historic ruling, Justice Madan B. Lokur and Justice U.U. Lalit of the Hon'ble Supreme Court have spoken out in favour of democracy. The judgment came on a plea by hundreds of families in the North-Eastern State of Manipur for a probe by a Special Investigation Team into 1528 cases of alleged fake encounters involving the Army and the police.

In particular, by saying: “It does not matter whether the victim was a common person or a militant or a terrorist, nor does it matter whether the aggressor was a common person or the state. The law is the same for both and is equally applicable to both...This is the requirement of a democracy and the requirement of preservation of the rule of law and the preservation of individual liberties”, the Hon'ble Supreme Court took a step in the direction of equality before the law, and reaffirmed Article 21 that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.

The judgment has been welcomed especially among people in the “disturbed areas” of our North-Eastern States and Kashmir, and is surely in partial vindication of Irom Sharmila's principled, 12-year-long ongoing fast demanding repeal of AFSPA.

This writer, with his Army background, is the first to point out that no soldier (the term refers to all ranks of the Armed Forces—Army, Navy and Air Force) will defend wrong-doing of any sort, leave alone heinous crimes like murder and rape, by another soldier whether he is “on-duty” or “off-duty”. The reason is not merely that such should be the attitude of any good citizen, but because a known offender in the team is a threat to the coherence, man-to-man trust and fighting efficiency of the military team, and to the survival of the individual soldier in high-risk situations, at all levels from the section, platoon, company and battalion upto the highest formations.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court's ruling will not find dissonance within the Armed Forces (hereinafter Army, for short). However, without in any manner questioning the wholly welcome order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and with all due respect and humility, this writer would like to make some points on the larger issue of AFSPA and deployment of the Army on internal security (IS) duties.

Disempowerment of the Soldier

The plea by the families of Manipur concerns alleged fake encounters involving both the Army and the police. While a faked encounter is reprehensible, a murder is a murder and a rape is a rape, it is necessary to examine the differences between the Army soldier and the armed policeman, and see why the Army and the AFSPA take a beating.

Under Article 246 of the Constitution, Parlia-ment makes laws concerning the deployment of the Armed Forces “in aid of the civil power”, prescribing the powers, jurisdiction, privileges and liabilities of soldiers during deployment. The Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, 1958 (AFSPA) is one such law. The others are, the Army Act 1950, the Navy Act 1957 and the Air Force Act 1950, and associated Rules and Regulations, to administer military law to all ranks of the three Armed Forces.

These laws abrogate a soldier's constitutional rights under Article 19(1)(a), (b) and (c), of freedom of speech and expression to communi-cate with the media, freedom of assembly, or the right to form or be members of associations or unions for collective bargaining. Besides this, the Army Act (AA, for short) and the Acts for the Navy and Air Force are strict by any standards, and in fact their “excessive” strictness has been commented upon in legal circles. Thus, because of the nature of duties performed by them and the strict laws in force for maintenance of strict discipline among them, soldiers are by law, uniquely disempowered citizens. This is not the case with members of the bureaucracy, State policemen or armed policemen (CAPFs), on whom restrictions by law and administrative rules are far less stringent. This (necessary) disempowerment is a stumbling block for the Army when called in aid of the civil power. The reasons are discussed hereunder.

The government can function in the interest of people when there is peace and order in society, functionaries in power use people-oriented politics, and the rule of law prevails among all sections of society. Providing security and public order by fair and just enforcement of extant laws, and maintenance of supplies and services essential to the public, is the primary task of governance by the civil administration, which is the combination of the powers, roles and functions of people's elected representatives, bureaucrats and integral police forces.

Disturbance of law and order usually happens because of conflict of interests within civil society, caused by inappropriate laws and/or unfair policies and/or poor or ill-motivated implementation—in short, maladministration or misgovernance. When law and order, and peace in society is disturbed and is beyond political resolution, governance calls for using the force of the State and/or Central police (CAPFs). When law and order cannot be restored despite deploying State and Central police or because of their misuse, it can only be restored by deployment of the Armed Forces (Army) on IS duties in aid of the civil power as permitted by the Constitution. The government has no other option; the Army is its instrument of last resort.

When the government calls the Army for IS duties as, for example, to quell rioting, the Army may confront a violent mob. The Army officer commanding the sub-unit is obliged to take the written permission of a Magistrate who accom-panies the sub-unit, before opening fire if the situation so warrants according to the discretion of the Magistrate, because the soldier cannot use firearms against civilians without permission from civil authority. But when law and order breaks down in a large area, the government cannot provide Magistrates to day-and-night accompany every Army sub-unit, and it therefore empowers the Army to handle such situations by means of AFSPA.

The AFSPA

The AFSPA is an enabling legislation. It legitimises deployment of the Army in large areas which the civil administration may notify as “disturbed areas”. AFSPA is applicable only to the Armed Forces (under the Ministry of Defence), and not to CAPFs or State police forces under Central or State Ministries of Home Affairs respectively. The Constitution of India makes a distinction between “the members of the Armed Forces” [Article 33(a)] meaning soldiers, and “members of the Forces charged with the maintenance of public order” [Article 33(b)] meaning police personnel. Thus the term “Armed Forces” (proper noun) should not be applied to just anybody of uniformed persons bearing firearms such as police or CAPFs who may be authorised and trained to use firearms, but only to the soldiers of India's military. But, often unable to distinguish between the Army and civilian forces that bear arms, mediapersons use the catch-all term “security forces” or “armed forces” (common noun) to include the military, CAPFs and State police.

The confusion is exacerbated because CAPFs and police forces wear camouflage uniforms that are virtually indistinguishable from Army uniforms. In tense situations where a journalist takes risks, it can be risky for him/her, and even more so for any member of the public, to ask an armed man to which force he belongs. Thus often enough, the media and the public straightaway blame the Army for incidents involving CAPFs or police, because of AFSPA being in force. Even if subsequent inquiry by civilian authority in a particular case finds that the Army was not involved, the negative “Army-AFSPA” image persists in public opinion.

According to AA Section 69 “Civil offences” and AA Section 70 “Civil offence not triable by court-martial” read together, a soldier who commits rape, murder or culpable homicide not amounting to murder of a civilian, will not be tried by a court-martial unless he is on active service, or at any place outside India, or at a frontier post. In any case, AFSPA being in force is not the cause for his committing crime, and cannot be viewed as a facilitator for crime. But repealing AFSPA would cause AA Section 70 to become inapplicable, making the soldier liable for trial by criminal law—and this is really the cause for the public demand to repeal AFSPA.

AFSPA Section 3 confers upon a State or Central Government, powers to declare the whole or some part of the State as a “disturbed area” ... “in such a disturbed or dangerous condition that the use of Armed Forces in aid of the civil power is necessary”, by issuing a notification to that effect. The assessment of the condition of society and the discretion to notify it as “disturbed” is the sole prerogative of government. The Armed Forces have no role in this whatsoever. AFSPA Section 4 confers special powers upon members of the Armed Forces in the notified disturbed areas to arrest, enter and search, or open fire.

Demand for Repeal of AFSPA

Notwithstanding the constitutionally permissible last-resort necessity of using military force for internal security when the political-adminis-trative tools of governance fail, there is little justification for an elected govern-ment to use even police force for day-to-day governance continuously over decades.

People in our North-Eastern States and Kashmir, for decades trapped in the crossfire between the government police and military forces on the one hand, and the bullets, grenades and IEDs of militants on the other, want nothing more than peace and democratic freedoms. Irom Sharmila, a national icon of courageous non-violence, who has been on fast for 12 long years demanding the repeal of AFSPA, stated it squarely and unequivocally in 2013: “I am against a government that uses violence as a means to govern.” [Jiby Kattakayam; “I am against a government that uses violence to govern”, The Hindu, March 5, 2013]

She goes further to say that “the government and the army are colluding to cheat the people”. Her stating that the people are being cheated of peace, social order and meaningful development is understandable and correct. But her accusation of the Army's collusion with the government, suggesting that the Army has an institutional interest or stake in IS deployment, is unfounded. It bears repetition that the Army comes out of barracks at the specific call of the government and not of its own accord. Therefore, “cheat the people” refers to the government cheating the people through abject failure of the politics of development, and monumental political-bureau-cratic corruption of ideology and principles. Decades-long continuous violence through the instrumentality of police and military for governance is antithetical to peace and social order essential for development of the sort that people crave for and need. This legitimate craving of the people is reflected in their demand for the repeal of AFSPA.

Continuous Use of AFSPA

Hearing several petitions challenging the constitutional validity of AFSPA, the Supreme Court ruled in 1997 [Naga People's Movement of Human Rights v Union of India (1997) ICHRL 117 (27.11.1997)] that the powers given to the Army by AFSPA were not arbitrary or unrea-sonable and did not violate constitutional provisions. However, the Supreme Court went further to rule that (1) declaration of an area as disturbed should be reviewed every six months, (2) Central Government sanction or refusal to prosecute Army personnel should be accom-panied by reasons in writing, and (3) Army personnel operating under AFSPA would do so under legally binding safeguards or guidelines in the form of a comprehensive list of DOs and DON'Ts before, during and after operations, in dealing with civil courts, and when providing aid to civil authority. [Note below]

The restriction that the government should review the declaration every six months is cosmetic, since it merely calls for bi-annual bureaucratic paperwork. It has not prevented governments from maintaining entire States as disturbed areas continuously for decades. To limit Army deployment on IS duties, the continuity of AFSPA needs to be broken. This writer suggests an amendment by inserting a final sentence in AFSPA Section 3 as follows: “Provided that the Governor of the State or the Adminis-trator of the Union Territory or the Central Government shall not declare an area as disturbed for more than an aggregate of 90 days in any calendar year.” The period (of 90 days or less or more) suggested can be finalised after wide public discussion and cross-party consultation.

Endnote

The use of the military in aid of the civil power is an option that no government, howsoever liberal, will discard especially since it has constitutional sanction. The military on IS duties is to civil society what an ICU is to a critically ill person. A patient cannot remain for years in a hospital ICU, because he/she would be effectively dead. The patient needs treatment for the disease and right nutrition to regain normal health. Likewise, the military remaining deployed on IS duties over decades makes civic life in society effectively dead, without assuring peace or security. India's societies need the “treatment” of honest political effort by transparent dialogue and engagement with people, and “nutrition” of good governance for their growth. Society does not need the Army, except to guard the country's borders against external aggression and protect its sovereignty and territorial integrity.

While no government may ever propose to Parliament to repeal AFSPA, it would certainly be open to amending it. An amendment to cap the applicability of AFSPA to a total of, say, 90 days in any calendar year, will allow governments to retain their (albeit undoubtedly coercive but unavoidable) option of military deployment when civil administration fails to maintain law and order. This will make governments accountable to the people, to rediscover ways of providing a deeply troubled society with honest politics and good governance. It will also enable the Army, one-third of which is engaged in IS duties, to focus more on securing India's borders.

Note

List of DOs and DON'Ts as directed by the Supreme Court in NPMHR v. India in 1997, that are legally binding

DOs:

1. Action before Operation:

(a) Act only in the area declared ‘Disturbed Area' under Section 3 of the Act.

(b) Power to open fire using force or arrest is to be exercised under this Act only by an officer/JCO/WO and NCO.

(c) Before launching any raid/search, definite information about the activity to be obtained from the local civil authorities.

(d) As far as possible coopt representative of local civil administration during the raid.

2. Action during Operation:

(a) In case of necessity of opening fire and using any force against the suspect or any person acting in contravention of law and order, ascertain first that it is essential for maintenance of public order. Open fire only after due warning.

(b) Arrest only those who have committed cognisable offence or who are about to commit cognisable offence or against whom a reasonable ground exists to prove that they have committed or are about to commit cognisable offence.

(c) Ensure that troops under command do not harass innocent people, destroy property of the public or unnecessarily enter into the house/dwelling of people not connected with any unlawful activities.

(d) Ensure that women are not searched/arrested without the presence of female police. In fact women should be searched by female police only.

3. Action after Operation:

(a) After arrest prepare a list of the persons so arrested.

(b) Hand over the arrested persons to the nearest police station with least possible delay.

(c) While handing over to the police a report should accompany with detailed circumstances occasioning the arrest.

(d) Every delay in handing over the suspects to the police must be justified and should be reasonable depending upon the place, time of arrest and the terrain in which such person has been arrested. Least possible delay may be two-to-three hours extendable to 24 hours or so depending upon a particular case.

(e) After raid, make out a list of all arms, ammunition or any other incriminating material/document taken into possession.

(f) All such arms, ammunition, stores etc. should be handed over to the police station along with the seizure memo.

(g) Obtain receipt of persons and arms/ammunition, stores etc. so handed over to the police.

(h) Make record of the area where operation is launched having the date and time and the persons participating in such raid.

(i) Make a record of the commander and other officers/JCOs/NCOs forming part of such force.

(k) Ensure medical relief to any person injured during the encounter, if any person dies in the encounter his dead body be handed over immediately to the police along with the details leading to such death.

4. Dealing with civil court:

(a) Directions of the High Court/Supreme Court should be promptly attended to.

(b) Whenever summoned by the courts, decorum of the court must be maintained and proper respect paid.

(c) Answer questions of the court politely and with dignity.

(d) Maintain detailed record of the entire operation correctly and explicitly.

DON'Ts:

1. Do not keep a person under custody for any period longer than the bare necessity for handing over to the nearest police station.

2. Do not use any force after having arrested a person except when he is trying to escape.

3. Do not use third-degree methods to extract information or to a extract confession or other involvement in unlawful activities.

4. After arrest of a person by the member of the armed forces, he shall not be interrogated by the member of the armed force.

5. Do not release the person directly after apprehending on your own. If any person is to be released, he must be released through civil authorities.

6. Do not tamper with official records.

7. The armed forces shall not take back a person after he is handed over to civil police.

List of DOs and DON'Ts while providing aid to civil authority

DOs:

1. Act in closest possible communication with civil authorities throughout.

2. Maintain inter-communication if possible by telephone/radio.

3. Get the permission/requisition from the Magistrate when present.

4. Use little force and do as little injury to person and property as may be consistent with attainment of objective in view.

5. In case you decide to open fire:

(a) Give warning in local language that fire will be effective;

(b) Attract attention before firing by bugle or other means;

(c) Distribute your men in fire units with specified Commanders;

(d) Control fire by issuing personal orders;

(e) Note number of rounds fired;

(f) Aim at the front of crowd actually rioting or inciting to riot or at conspicuous ringleaders, i.e., do not fire into the thick of the crowd at the back;

(g) Aim low and shoot for effect;

(h) Keep Light Machine Gun and Medium Gun in reserve;

(i) Cease firing immediately once the object has been attained;

(j) Take immediate steps to secure wounded.

6. Maintain cordial relations with civilian authorities and paramilitary forces.

7. Ensure high standard of discipline.

DON'Ts:

8. Do not use excessive force.

9. Do not get involved in hand-to-hand struggle with the mob.

10. Do not ill-treat anyone, in particular, women and children.

11. No harassment of civilians.

12. No torture.

13. No communal bias while dealing with civilians.

14. No meddling in civilian administration affairs.

15. No Military disgrace by loss/surrender of weapons.

16. Do not accept presents, donations and rewards.

17. Avoid indiscriminate firing.

[Source: Naga People's Movement of Human Rights v Union of India [1997] ICHRL 117

(27.11.1997)]

Major General S.G. Vombatkere, VSM, retired in 1996 as the Additional DG, Discipline and Vigilance in the Army HQ AG's Branch. He is a member of the National Alliance of People's Movements (NAPM) and People's Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL). With over 490 published papers in national and international journals and seminars, his current area of interest is strategic and development-related issues.

On July 8, 2016, the Supreme Court said that the Armed Forces Special Powers Act, 1958, in force in parts of the North-East and J&K, cannot be an excuse for extrajudicial killing—whenever such allegations surface they have to be investigated regardless of whether the person is a dreaded criminal, terrorist or an insurgent. On the same day a young militant, Burhan Wani, was killed in an encounter with the security forces. We don't know whether it was a case of extrajudicial killing. Prashant Bhushan says it was a fake encounter. Extrajudicial killings have been going on quite freely. The case in which the above judgment has been delivered has a list of 1528 deaths in counter-insurgency operations in Manipur from which the Court has sought details on 62 which are suspected extrajudicial killings. And Manipur is a small State compared to J&K.

Moreover, the turnout at Burhan Wani's funeral indicates two things—either the killing was perceived to be extrajudicial or he is viewed by the Kashmiri youth as more than just a militant. He represents the aspirations of the Kashmiri youth because of which they like to associate themselves with him even taking the risk of facing fire from the Indian security forces. The experience of Burhan Wani at the hands of the Indian security forces when they beat him up and humiliated him is the same that every Kashmiri youth faces at some point or the other and even repeatedly. Most simply pocket the insult. Some, like Burhan Wani, revolt against it and in the process become a militant. There are a number of organisations from across the border which are ever willing to train such youth in the use of arms and explosives and guerilla warfare, even though Burhan is not believed to have received training in Pakistan. He was the commander of the Hizbul Mujahideen at the young age of 22 years.

The basic question is: who or what is responsible for the birth of militants? Pakistani terror organisations or the policy of the Indian state which alienates the youth of the Valley? Why is the demand of Omar Abdullah as the then Chief Minister of J&K and for which Irom Sharmila has been fasting in Imphal for the last 15 years— the removal of AFSPA—not being met? Only a reduced presence of the security forces can lead towards a situation of normalcy. But the security forces scuttle this idea.

A political problem cannot be treated like a law and order problem. The Indian state must accept that there is disaffection in Kashmir and the political views of the national political parties and the people of Kashmir probably differ greatly. The only way out is dialogue with not just the political parties but all sections of separatists and insurgents in Kashmir which the current BJP Government at the Centre seems to be disinclined towards. It is not that the government doesn't talk to such groups. In Nagaland they have had an agreement with the separatist groups. Moreover, if the government is not talking to the separatists in Kashmir, then it is sure recipe to push them towards Pakistan, for which then the govern-ment should not blame them.

At a time of grief and crisis a refreshing approach has been offered by the former Home Minister, P. Chidambaram. He has differentiated between the land of Kashmir and the people of Kashmir. He argues that successive governments of India have worried about the territory of Kashmir in their zeal to maintain Kashmir as an integral part of India but have failed to take the people along. The people have become more and more alienated because of the government's policies.

Considering that P. Chidamabram was the Home Minister, it is commendable that he has expressed his opinion so candidly and taken a position very radically different from the traditional official position of the government.

Chidambaran advocates honouring the promises made by India to J&K at the time of its accession to India. He argues for more autonomy to J&K, allowing them to frame their own laws as much as possible as long as they don't conflict with the Constitution of India. He calls for Indians to respect the identity, history, culture and religion of the people there.

Chidambaram has made a surprising revelation that he was in favour of withdrawal of the armed forces from the civilian areas and for them to be posted only in border areas but the defence establishment did not agree to it. In any case he thinned the security forces by 10,000. He also wanted the State Government to be responsible for the day-to-day law and order situation but again the security forces were not agreeable to this proposition.

If Chidambaram and Omar Abdullah were allowed to work on their ideas, the situation would have been completely different today. People would have been spared the presence of the security forces among them which can be oppressive and humiliating. If people had felt more involved in running their own government they would have also felt the responsibility to maintain peace. It is possible that still some extremists would have continued to operate. But then it must have been left to the Kashmiris to deal with their fellow citizens to try to convince them to leave the path of violence.

Right now the presence of the Indian security forces for such a prolonged period makes them look like an occupying force. P. Chidambaram says we cannot preach to Sri Lanka to respect the democratic rights of its Tamil minority when we're not able to do it with the Kashmiris.

If human rights violations take place because of the presence of the security forces, we cannot expect the Kashmiris to trust the government. The ultra-nationalist view of the present government in power in New Delhi makes things worse. They know only one way to deal with their opponents—that is, to remain tough. It is beyond their imagination to talk to the people whom they consider as anti-nationals. They just can't perceive that whom they consider as anti-nationals may not be so in the eyes of the people of Kashmir. They could even be their heroes. Unless the government starts seeing things from the Kashmiri perspective, there would be no headway towards resolution of the Kashmir conflict.

Noted social activist and Magsaysay awardee Dr Sandeep Pandey was recently sacked this year from the IIT-BHU where he was a Visiting Professor on the charge of being a “Naxalite” engaging in “anti-national” activities. He was elected along with Prof Keshav Jadhav the Vice-President of the Socialist Party (India) at its founding conference at Hyderabad on May 28-29, 2011.

From N.C.'s Writings

Kashmir today has become the touchstone of Indian statesmanship. The crisis that has emerged there can no longer be managed by conventional methods of settling political acrimony. It has gone much beyond, and now it has assumed the magnitude of a definite threat to the integrity of the country.

The militants who want Kashmir to secede from the Indian Union are today in control of life and politics—at least in the Valley itself. It is time the public in this country was informed about the actual state of affairs in Kashmir. It is a grim, very grim situation and the nation cannot afford to take an ostrich outlook That will be self-deceiving, because any delay in facing upto the reality may ultimately end up in the actual secession of a part of Indian territory. There need be no doubt on this score.

How precarious the situation is can be gauged from the fact that the entire administration is now openly divided in its loyalty. Roughly, it can be stated that the most active and dominant in the Valley today are the militants who want Kashmir to secede from India. Next to them come the large masses who are discontented with the prevailing conditions for which they blame New Delhi. Lastly, there is a small number, mostly muted and passive, who still want Kashmir to stay within the Indian Union. In such a situation it is but natural that the militant secessionists dominate over the discontend masses today while the pro-Indian forces are hopelessly marginalised, and forced into inactivity. In other words, the balance of forces in the Kashmir Valley has qualitatively changed.

In the past, roughly about the time the National Conference-Congress-I Ministry took office in 1987, the secessionists were a hard core minority group, and the discontended gathering round the Muslim United Front (MUF) having had a substantive following could have been forced to meet the challenge of the National Conference and the Congress-I, had the two parties worked actively as a unified force.

Unfortunately, such an opportunity was squandered by both the parties in the coalition. The alliance turned out to be just a pact between the leaders of the two parties—Farooq Abdullah and Rajiv Gandhi. There was no rapport whatsoever between the ranks of the two parties, not to speak of their launching a united front movement. This was further compounded by the total malfunctioning of the coalition Ministry. From personal experience borne out by two visits to the Valley in that period, this correspondent gathered the very disturbing impression that behind all the high-visibility political impetuosity and exhibitionism on the part of Farooq Abdullah, his Ministry emerged as the symbol of utter corruption and maladministration. It was this very phase which saw the growing activity of the secessionist groups emerging out in the open.

This account of the past in the Kashmir Valley has been necessitated by the patently distorted account given by Rajiv Gandhi in his letter to the Prime Minister on March 6. One would like to remind both Rajiv and Farooq as to what happened on the Independence Day, August 15 last when the secessionists, coming out in the open, had forced a black-out in Srinagar with Pakistani flags flying at many places. Was it an example of their “maintenance of political contact with the people” or that “at no time was the administration alienated from the people” as has been claimed in Rajiv's letter?

It is such a display of dishonest alibi on the part of Rajiv Gandhi that weakens his appeal for a “national consensus” for meeting the crisis in Kashmir today. Such a consensus, which is urgently called for to meet the fast deteriorating situation, demands that all the leaders of all parties—particularly the Congress-I, the National Conference and the National Front Government—must desist from mutual recriminations. This is not the moment for washing each other's dirty linen in public, but for making a determined endeavour to work out a united national approach to salvage Kashmir for the Indian Union.

Such a united approach has become necessary because it will be imperative to boldly meet even the discontented militants and win them over by seriously meeting some of their genuine demands. While terrorism needs to be curbed, there has to be side by side a determined effort to prove to the people in the Valley that they stand to gain by remaining in the Indian Union, that this democracy can ensure for them a better life with more autonomy. Whether it is Article 370 of 1951 or the accord of 1975—all these can be re-examined in all good faith and a degree of self-government can be assured in keeping with the spirit of the times. No rigid posture will help on this score. In fact, the present government by its very commitment will have to meet the claims of the States for more autonomy vis-à-vis the Centre, as dece-ntralisation is on the agenda of the day. Viewed in this context, the discontent in Kashmir can be met only by taking into consideration its special status born out of historical reasons. Only when such a line is taken, backed by a united national stand, can the challenge of Pakistani interference be met effectively. Not only that. Such an approach can very well be the stepping stone towards Indo-Pakistan understanding as well.

Kashmir unreconciled shall be the Achilles' heel for the Indian Republic; Kashmir contented can be the most important show-window for Indian democracy. Once again, let it be remembered: the crisis in Kashmir poses today the most formidable challenge for Indian statesmanship.

(Editor's Notebook, Mainstream, March 10, 1990)

Integral part requires

Police and pellets;

Integral people could

Do without bullets.

Integral part implies

Boundary overrides bloodl

Integral people means

We too die when you

Are dead.

Integral part says

Forget the promises

We had made;

Integral people say

We are betrayed.

Integral part yells

Lump it or die;

Integral people cry, cry, cry.

Badri Raina

MUSINGS

Ban on newspapers in the Valley. No news, no reports, no views, no comments. Pumping pellets right into connectivity. A complete black out as mobile and internet connections are snapped. Reeking of dictatorship. Nothing short of an undeclared Emergency. Back to those dark ages in these developed times!

Last weekend the police raided the newspaper offices of the three leading newspapers of the Kashmir region—The Kashmir Times,Rising Kashmir,The Greater Kashmir, and its Urdu sister concern, Kashmir Uzma. They not just seized thousands of copies, they shut down the printing press, took away the printing plates, beat up and arrested the staff.

Why should news be murdered by the political rulers? Why this crackdown on the media? What is the establishment trying to conceal? What is to be camouflaged? What more havoc is to be unleashed on the hapless masses of the Kashmir Valley? Why extend crackdowns from homes to newspaper offices?

Together with these developments, photo-graphs are surfacing which more than relay the extent of brutality unleashed on human forms. Eyes, faces, ribs, chest, stomach, lungs, limbs grievously injured by pellets and bullets. Even children not spared, dragged by hardened cops.... In fact, several of these photographs carry some level of similarity to pictures of Palestinian children hounded and thrashed by Israeli cops. Dragging along apprehensions of what more could follow in the Kashmir Valley—in fact, whilst keying in I am reminded of some of the ‘grave apprehensions' that Kashmiris had been talking of when the news of Sainik colonies had first come up. They'd told me that they consider Sainik colonies as a ploy to get RSS workers to reside in the Valley—“in the coming years we Kashmiris could be pushed here and there and those RSS cadres will be given our prime locales.... Look what massive tragedy had taken place in Palestine... Palestinians driven out of their homes/lands and Israelis sitting in total control!”

Instead of making certain that these apprehen-sions and insecurities are done away with, the establishment seems determined to compound the mess. Instead of sending additional force to the Valley, there is an urgent need to send an army of healers, communicators, medical/health experts, counsellors, dialoguers to the Valley, to reach out to its bruised angry population. Instead of banning the publication of newspapers, efforts should have been on that they are published against all possible odds; after all, newspapers do play an extremely vital role in connecting the masses with ground realities and with that help curb spread of rumours and apprehensions. Today how does the Kashmiri get to know the basic facts when every possible means of communication is banned?

And in this scenario not one per cent trust in government/police hand-outs or those briefings or those stale assurances from the rulers who dare not come out in the open and face the wrath of their own people. None seemingly around. Except, of course, within the confines of the television studios. Even the local MLAs not to be heard or seen. The only exception is Rashid Engineer but he is different; he carries the sheer conviction to raise his voice. Loud and clear.

Also, none of the VVIPS flying from New Delhi to Srinagar with announcement of hefty packages of crores! Crores for whom when people are dying?

Ongoing Mishandling of the Situation

What a mess we have made of the paradise on earth! What brutality has been unleashed on a hapless lot! There has been a complete mishandling of the situation for the last so many years... In fact, right from the early nineties, when I had begun reporting on the situation in the Kashmir Valley, one aspect was writ large—mishandling of the situation. In fact, I recall the words of the former Chief Justice of J&K, Justice Bahauddin Faruqi: “The government is treating each person as a suspect. I would say there are no more than 100 militants, yet to locate them a whole city's population is hounded. The searches are done in the most brutal way—even before dawn the whole area is cordoned off ... even women in labour are not allowed to move...” He‘d said this during the course of an interview given to me in Srinagar in the early 1990s. And now, over the years, gaps have been widening, alienation standing out stark, together with some bitter realities.

Alienation and anger furthering over the years. Poor governance, failed promises by the politicians in power, together with vested interests of the political lobbies and a complete bypass of the local sentiments had helped heaped havoc in the Kashmir region. Decay is writ large. To put across this decay in the words of Mohamamd Ashraf, former Director General of J&K Tourism and author of several book on the Valley—“We used to live in paradise but it is lost now. For the locals the political turmoil has turned it into a hell. Especially the last two decades have been the worst in the recent history. Apart from losing thousands of lives and the cultural mosaic of centuries, the people have lost the sensitivity to various happenings around them. We abhorred violence but now it hardly affects us. Blood has become the cheapest commodity around.”

And if you were to read Ajit Bhattacharjea's volume, Tragic Hero of Kashmir—Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah (Roli Books), you would realise how over the years the Kashmiris' patience has got transformed into sheer anger. The stark contrast between 1947 and the years that followed ... As Ajit Bhattacharjea writes in the very preface to this book—“Unforgettable recollections of Srinagar as an island of amity in a sea of religious bloodshed in the Indian subcontinent inspire the writing of this book. The contrast between the cordial atmosphere of Srinagar and the foetid communal fear still stalking Delhi in October 1947, from where I had flown, exceeded even the first enchanting impression of the beauty of the Valley. It provided a ray of hope that secularism could survive in India... In the capital of India, as in much of the north of India, Muslims were under attack in reprisal for the bloody eviction of Hindus and Sikhs from the newly born Islamic state of Pakistan. Yet in the capital of Kashmir there was no sign of religious tension: its Muslim inhabitants were helping newly arrived elements of the Indian Army, Hindus and Sikhs, to defend the city against advancing Pathan lashkars ...”

Pause and think and reflect and introspect—why has the calm Kashmiri turned rebellious and angry? Is poor governance to be blamed for this present-day mess? Have political tactics failed? Can the hapless Kashmiri survive on speeches fitted with hollow words and layers of complete deceit?

For this mess political tactics and strategies used by the government at the State level and also at the Centre are to be blamed. Human rights violations by the government machinery and its agencies have gone a long way in bringing about alienation.

Holding elections is one formality-ridden aspect. Governance has to run deeper. Politicians have failed. Failed miserably. Governance is to connect with the masses. Yet, ironically, the political establishment seems hell-bent on bypassing the people and their local leaders.

EDITORIAL

As we go to press, news has come that yesterday two Muslim women, suspected of carrying beef, were beaten up and abused at a railway station in Madhya Pradesh's Mandsaur district. The police had reportedly come to the railway station to arrest the women on receiving information that they were travelling with 30 kg of beef to sell. However, before the police could do anything a mob that had gathered there began to thrash the women. The mob allegedly comprised activists of the Hindu Dal, obviously one of the numerous fringe groups belonging to the Sangh Parivar.

Now, look at the kind of ‘division of labour' in the BJP. Party MLA Yashpal Sisodia strongly defended the Hindu Dal activists, saying: “Those (Muslim) women are criminals and it was women who beat them up, so it's a reaction to an action.” This was almost an echo of what Narendra Modi, our present PM who was the Gujarat CM in 2002, had said following the post-Godhra anti-Muslim pogrom in the State in February-March that year: “According to Newton's Third Law of Motion, every action has an equal and opposite reaction.”

Madhya Pradesh being a BJP-ruled State, its Home Minister had to adopt a different stance owing to his constitutionally held position. He promised to initiate “action against those who have attempted to take law in their hands”. He also disclosed that, according to the veterinary report, “prima facie it (the meat the Muslim women carried) was found to be buffalo meat”.

The Hindustan Times report informed:

Slaughter of buffalo and consumption of its meat are legal in the State, but sellers require a permit from the local civic body for the same. Since the two women did not have the necessary permit, they have been booked by the police.

This was also what the Minister conveyed.

This incident has come just a fortnight after four Dalit youth were flogged by cow protection vigilantes for having allegedly skinned a dead cow in Gujarat's Una district. That sparked a massive outrage with Dalits taking to the streets to register their anguish and indignation against the persecution of members of their own community.

Yesterday's incident at Mandsaur justifiably triggered resentment in the Rajya Sabha today on the lines of the Upper House members' vociferous protests against the Una attack on Dalits as well as the derogatory and insultingly abusive words used by UP BJP's Vice-President Dayashankar Singh against Mayawati at a gathering in Mau. BSP supremo Mayawati led the charge today while Leader of the Opposition in the House, Congress MP Ghulam Nabi Azad, declared: “Gau raksha honi chahiye, lekin uske naam par bahaana karke Dalit aur Mussalmanon ko target karo, uske khilaf hain hum. (Cow should be protected, but we are against the targeting of Dalits and Muslims in its name.)“

Mayawati referred to the BJP slogan ‘mahilaon ke samman mein, BJP maidan mein', and averred: “But actually women are thrashed over beef-rumours in BJP-ruled Madhya Pradesh.”

But what did the BJP Minister, Mukhtar Abbas Naqvi, say? “We should rise above politics on such issues, and the welfare of society should be above personal motives.” These were the only words that he could utter.

His response itself exposed the ruling party's ulterior game: let the members of the cow brigade continue with their nefarious activities, we of the Treasury Benches shall turn a blind eye to all such acts on their part!

July 28 S.C.