By Sushil Kutty
Every word they speak is a lie, including the ‘and’ and ‘the’ in the sentence. That is the politician for you. Not to be trusted, or believed. But when the army chief says ‘azaadi’ is beyond the pale of the Kashmiri youth, that’s the end of any wish for ‘autonomy’, too. The message was also for the separatists, and the politicians of legitimate political outfits such as the National Conference and the PDP.
When India got freedom (azaadi) in 1947, and later when the Constituent Assembly of Kashmir ratified the instrument of ascension, Kashmir changed hands and joined the Indian Union. And if at all there is a dispute, it is between India and Pakistan, which too will not stand the test unless Pakistan Occupied Kashmir is vacated and other conditions are met to address the issue in a civilized manner. First step will be to eject Hafiz Sayed and his band of terrorists out of J&K.
The army chief’s brass and tacks talk should shut up the so-called Kashmiri freedom-fighter. General Bipin Rawat’s final words that “you cannot fight us” spell not just the action (of fighting the Indian Army) wrong, it is also an in your face, point-blank assertion that the wayward Kashmiri just cannot stand up to the might of the Indian Army. Gen. Rawat spoke the truth without recourse to the Gita, which is about rules of war.
The end to the ‘azaadi’ dream came even as it was revealed that the invocation of the falsehood ‘Indian Occupied Kashmir (IOK)’ is fraught with danger. Especially if you are a Kashmiri student studying abroad and wanting to return ‘home – IOK’ because your heath is in tatters and your passport is damaged beyond repair.
It happened to Sheikh Ateeq, medical student in Manila, who tweeted to external affairs minister (EAM) Sushma Swaraj, but made the mistake to mention that he was “from IOK”. Swaraj shot back with “there is no such place as IOK” and Ateeq, confronted with the truth, corrected himself and got a fresh Indian passport as well as, hopefully, his health.
India is a complex country and that explains the myriad of issues. And while it is often said of the ‘Muslim’ that when and if he crosses 33.3% in the population mix, he will throw his weight around, it has come to light that the maxim is true of the Hindu, too. The Hindu fringe – Bajgrang Dal and the assorted far-right pastry in the box – in BJP-ruled Haryana has in recent days created a Hindu-Muslim divide where none existed – in Gurugram.
Stopping anybody from his god-given right to pray, from where he stood and in large numbers is a crime. The Hindu is at fault and should correct himself. The army chief’s words that ‘you cannot fight us’ applies to this context, too, albeit not in military terms. The law should step in and enforce itself with gusto. Gurugram falls in Mewat, which is where the Muslim Meo are in large numbers. It seems the Hindu fringe believes that the Meos lost the day the Hindutva-embracing BJP came to power in Haryana – like Muslim like Hindu!
Speaking of the ‘two nations’ of Hindu and Muslim, Pakistan’s foremost historian Ayesha Jalal – author of such books as The Sole Spokesman (Jinnah) and The Pity of Partition – is on record that Jinnah was not responsible for Partition and that religion was not Pakistan’s only raison d’etre. In an interview dating back a couple of years, she says, “Jinnah did not want Partition, in case people have forgotten that”.
Jalal says one of the “great fallacies” that human beings make is not to look at “context”. According to her, too much is made of the history Jinnah made and too little of the context that made Jinnah. She embarks on the line that Jinnah was from a province in undivided India where Muslims were in a minority and he “wanted to use the power of the areas where Muslims were a majority to create a shield of protection for where they were in a minority.”
The historian, who doesn’t have time for the Zia-ul-Haqs of this world, says Jinnah’s “hostage theory” was not acceptable to the Congress, which came to the conclusion that Partition was the better of the two evils though Jalal, maybe in deference to Jinnah, doesn’t use the word “evil”. Instead, she says, “It was easier for them (Congress) to partition the subcontinent and let these areas go.”
Jalal insists that politicians in undivided Bengal and Punjab did not want Partition, and that “any Islamic explanation for the new country would have to explain how Muslims cohere across India.” Jinnah wanted to “consolidate Muslim majority areas behind the All-India Muslim League and then use undivided Punjab and Bengal as a weight to negotiate an arrangement for the Muslims at an all-India level.”
The historian, who admits to being frustrated by the larger Indian identity that westerners give to people of the subcontinent, says when the United Bengal Plan was floated, Jinnah backed it and said ‘what’s Bengal without Calcutta? It is like asking a man to live without his heart’. “So, we ended up with a mutilated Pakistan that Jinnah had rejected out of hand,” argues Jalal. “Jinnah did not want Partition.”
The current rulers of India and the majority of Indians will scoff at Jalal’s defence of Jinnah and she may not get a visa to visit India and speak on Jinnah and Partition. EAM Sushma Swaraj’s tweet to a visa request from Jalal will be interesting to read and the Kashmiri student in Manila will have a word of caution for Jalal.
Like said, India is such a goldmine for interesting happenings and events – tidbits! For example, there is this coolie at the Ernakulam Railway Station who cleared the Kerala Public service Examinations taking advantage of the free google Wifi at the railway station. An undivided India without a majority or a minority would not have left Ayesha Jalal also unembarrassed in stations and airports across the West! (IPA Service)
The post The Whole Thing About The ‘Majority’ appeared first on Newspack by India Press Agency.
