Lotus Blooming...

The Indian media has, over the past twenty years or so, obsessed over the rise of the Right in India in the form of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). The BJP and its feeder groups (like the Shiv Sena, Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, Bajrang Dal, etc.) have been labelled as Rightists, fascists, communal and anti-secular by Macaulayite academicians, journalists, and activists of various stripes. In a country with three broad political coalitions, nine national parties, and at least forty-eight parties at the state level (a scarier list is HERE), one thing that unites them all is an anti-National Democratic Alliance (coalition led by the BJP) position. These accusations are, at best, misrepresentations or an indication of a complete ignorance of the English language. In truth, they reveal an entirely make-believe world critics of the BJP live in, a world entirely divorced from reality where facts are twisted beyond all recognition. What makes this dangerous is that many of the inhabitants of this make-believe world are in positions of great power and responsibility in the Indian state structure and civic society.

To clarify terms, an exercise of definitions is required here. Labels laden with venom such as secular, communal, and fascist need to be deconstructed (to borrow a word from the JNU Critical Theory crowd) and seen if they apply to the Indian context and if so, how. After all, many of these words were invented elsewhere and transplanted to the Indian context. Indeed, the entire medium of communication is foreign to Indian soil. In the true sense of many of the terms bandied about, the BJP is innocent of the charges. Yet in the battle for public opinion, the BJP has only managed to preach to the choir. Let us look at the so-called Right coalition in Indian politics today.

The political dimension of organisations based on 'hindutva,' or Hindu-ness, is at least eighty years old, its roots beginning with the Akhil Bharatiya Hindu Mahasabha (ABHM, henceforth HMS for Hindu Mahasabha) in 1915. Created by Vinayak Damodar Savarkar and Keshava Baliram Hegdewar (who founded the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh - RSS - in 1925), its main purpose was to oppose the secularist tendencies of the Indian National Congress (INC, henceforth Congress) and serve as a counterweight to the Muslim League. Both Savarkar and Hegdekar were strongly influenced by the ideas coming out of the Hindu Revival Movement that had begun in the late 18th century. People like Raja Rammohan Roy, Dayananda Saraswati, Ramakrishna Paramhamsa, Swami Vivekananda and Aurobindo Ghose, who spoke out against centuries of cultural malpractices and attempted to modernise Hinduism served as an inspiration and a foundation upon which a political organisation espousing the interests of the neglected and mistreated majority could be based. Under MK Gandhi's hypnotic spell, an underfed, illiterate nation ignored its own interests (with much support from the British Government) and decided to embrace minority groups in the soon-to-be-independent India.

The first altercation, the Marriage Bill, intended to outlaw primitive marriage customs that had accumulated over the centuries ran into major opposition in Parliament. Eventually, it became the Hindu Marriage Act of 1955, exempting Christians and Muslims from its provisions but holding Buddhists, Jains, and Sikhs to be quasi-Hindus and hence subject to this Act (Ramachandra Guha's India After Gandhi covers this well). The resolution of the Shah Bano divorce case in 1986 was another major event that further poisoned communal relations. Then Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi amended the Indian Constitution to allow the inheritance of a Muslim woman from her deceased husband revert to the family, leaving Muslim women since destitute and entirely at the mercy of their in-laws (More information HERE, Supreme Court DECISION, women's position HERE). This was a blow not only against other communities (by setting the precedent that even the Constitution can be amended to further narrow sectional interests) but also against women’s rights. The most controversial provision of the Act was that it gave a Muslim woman the right to maintenance for the period of iddat (about three months) after the divorce, and shifted the onus of maintaining her to her relatives or the Wakf Board. The Act was seen as discriminatory as it denied divorced Muslim women the right to basic maintenance which women of other faiths had recourse to under secular law.

In 2004, there was an attempt by the Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh to classify Muslims as backward people. This would entitle them to at least 5% reservation of seats and appointments in the state. Thankfully, this was defeated in the Supreme Court. Many such incidents created a fertile base for the rise of parties and groups like the BJP, RSS, HMS, and the Shiv Sena. Frustrated with what they termed the Congress policy of pseudo-secularism, more people began to take the warnings of the erstwhile Swatantra Party and Jan Sangh seriously. The BJP was the most electable successor of the Sangh Parivar with a fairly decent pedigree of politicians inherited from the Jan Sangh and other like-minded parties in the Lok Sabha. From a meagre three seats the Jan Sangh won in the 1952 elections, the BJP and its allies amassed 303 seats in the 1998 parliamentary elections. The media shrieked that a New Right had risen, not withstanding the century-old roots of the Parivar.

Secularism:

Secularism is the view that religious considerations should be excluded from civil affairs or public education. Espoused vociferously by people like Voltaire and Condorcet during the French Revolution, its origins in the modern sense of the word are clearly European. Voltaire would have probably taken secularism a step further and dismissed religion altogether. However, at its core, secularism implies that there will be no preference given to any religion over another in the public sphere. In independent India, the poster boy for secularism was Nehru. Although the word secular was inserted into the Preamble to the Indian Constitution by the 42nd Amendment Act of 1976 during Indira Gandhi's Emergency, Nehru had neither the time nor patience for religious superstitions. In fact, he described the Rourkela Steel Plant as a temple of modern India. While Nehru may personally have been secular, it is evident that he did not grasp the full meaning of the term and its applicability to India. Not only did he compromise the promised secularism for political expediency, but he also misunderstood the nature of the people he ruled over. Ancient India was religious yet secular - it did not interfere in the religious practices of Zoroastrians, Jews (even the State of Israel recognised this in 1992), or even Christians and Muslims. The state did not differentiate between its citizens based on religious belief, yet the ruler was strongly guided by religious principles, Samrat Ashoka for example. This experience cannot be transposed to the West because unlike Hinduism, Christianity and Islam believe in, strongly emphasise in fact, conversion. Hinduism does not share the bitterness and hatred amongst its different schools that Protestants and Catholics or Shi'i and Sunnis have shown. Consequently, there was never a need to separate religion and state in India under Hindu rule. Indians think secularism means inclusion. This is because we have no precise word for it in any Indian language. The word actually means distance from religion, but in no Indian language can distance from dharma be a good thing. The word does not exist because the concept is alien to us. Hindi uses बिन्संप्रदायिक (binsampradayik), which means non-sectarian, and that is why secularism cannot be tranposed onto the Indian context.

The converse, however, that the Congress-led United Progressive Alliance and the hodgepodge Third Front are not secular is very true. Remember that secularism means that there shall be no preference for one religion over another - the Marriage Act, the Shah Bano case, the banning of the Satanic Verses, and the HAJ SUBSIDY (In 2007 the Haj subsidy paid by the Indian government was Rs. 595 crores, and for 2008 it was Rs. 700 crores. Since 1994 the round trip cost to Jeddah, Saudi Arabia has been fixed at Rs. 12,000 per pilgrim, and the government has footed the rest of the bill. In 2007 this difference came to Rs. 47,454 per passenger) are but a few examples of the many ways in which the Congress and the Third Front have been anti-secular. They are the ones who have violated the Constitution and the supposed wishes of Gandhi and Nehru, not the BJP.

There is the additional point that Hinduism is not, in the Judeo-Christian and Islamic sense, a religion. The Supreme Court agreed with this assessment in lieu of the fact that Hindus could be monists, monotheists, henotheists, polytheists, or even atheists and still be considered Hindu. In a system in which there are no commandments or laws but suggestions, there were six schools of thought as late as the 1300s (only three survive now), and it was relatively easy to switch from one to another, the Western category 'religion' fails to encompass the richness of the phenomenon.

In all fairness, it must also be conceded that many of the lower strata of Parivar supporters see the BJP as a platform from which to target Muslims. Rather than return to the secular hindutva of Ancient India that they espouse, the Muslim community has been targeted, Ayodhya and Godhra being two extreme examples. Again, in the interest of full disclosure, anti-Islamic feelings are not restricted to India. With the rise of Wahhabist Islam, more and more parts of the world are beginning to reject the veneer of a peaceful religion that moderate and liberal Muslims try to project. Islam came to India in 712 with the conquest of Sindh by Mohammad-ibn-Quasim (it may have come earlier through traders, but there is no strong evidence for this). By 1192, after the Second Battle of Tarrain, Islam established a firm grip in the subcontinent with the capture of Delhi. With the exception of a few rulers like Akbar, the Muslim sultans proceeded to loot and pillage India, desecrating the temples of the 'infidels.' Muhammad Ghori, Mahmud Ghaznavi, and Aurangzeb hold the dubious distinction of being the most destructive of all invaders, eclipsing even Nadir Shah. Centuries of subjugation and mistreatment, to put it mildly, has finally come back to haunt the modern generation of Muslims. Regrettable though it may be, the sins of the father will be visited upon the sons. Such is human nature - there is a strong demand for a pound of flesh or the complete retreat of Islam into the private sphere (which is antithetical to the Islamic understanding of the universe).

Recent violence against Christians was instigated by churches in India funded by evangelical American mega-churches publishing and distributing pamphlets that have called Shiva lustful, Ganesha an illegitimate child, and Vishnu a eunuch. Although violence and vigilantism cannot, in principle, be condoned, there was clear provocation from missionaries. The attacks on Christian establishments were not a manifestation of Hindu intolerance. Similar incidents happened during the Raj as well but these were fiercely opposed by public debates and speeches by Vishnubawa Brahmachari, Muttukumara Kavirajar, Arumuga Navalar, Nakkirar, Centinatha Aiyar, Nirveli Civa Shankara Panditar, Dayananda Saraswati, and others. The uneducated masses, in some cases, resorted to violence. (Kenneth Jones' edited volume, Religious Controversy in British India covers Hindu reaction to Christian proselytsing quite well.)

Rightist:

The Sangh Parivar has been labelled India's New Right, the Hindu Right. Although there is nothing pejorative in the word 'Right' itself, the twentieth century has seen too many right-wing movements clamp down viciously on basic freedoms. Hitler, Franco, Pinochet, Rhee, and Diem are but a few examples (interestingly, these are also Western sagas). As a result, most political parties identify themselves as Conservative rather than Right, for example the Tories in the UK, the CDU in Germany, or the UMP in France. Political Hinduism, on the other hand, is very much an entity of the Left. Chanakya, the archangel of Realism, wrote in his Arthashastra that even prostitutes should be provided free education and board (and subsequently licensed and taxed!). Dharamshalas were built along roads for travellers to rest and eat, usually free of charge. The ruler was expected to give to his people generously and often in the form of services and alms. In most if not all definitions of 'Left,' using Western Europe as the yardstick, Ram Rajya falls clearly in the Leftist camp. Its exponents are keenly aware of this and are active in volunteer work across India at different levels and fields. During the Chinese invasion of India in 1962, RSS volunteers were sent to the front to perform secondary duties to free up more soldiers for fighting (for which the RSS was invited to march in the Republic Day Parade in 1963 and the ban on them that had been in place since Gandhi's assassination repealed). During riots, earthquakes, and other emergencies, HMS and RSS volunteers work tirelessly in the effected areas to bring relief. For the BJP to be seen as Right-leaning, one must indeed be quite far on the Left.

Communalism:

In the strict definition of the word, which seems irrelevant to journalists and academics alike, communalism is the identification of a group based on religion and then positing that the group's other socio-economic or political interests must naturally coincide. The primary identity of the group though, is religious. The BJP, in asking for a uniform civil code, is quite the opposite of this. In effect, they are saying that all Indians, regardless of religion should be treated equally under one law. It is the Congress and the Third Front that wish to give preferential treatment through separate jurisdictions and reservations to Muslims and Dalits. In this, they are the ones positing that the most important facet of the identity of these people is religious and therefore other interests coincide, making them communities that need representation. Like the British before them (most famously, the Government of India Act of 1935), the UPA and the Third Front create communities that further divide the Indian population. The HMS and the RSS had, since the 1920s, opposed such carving up of India into many little Indias.

Critics have accused the 'Hindu Right' as trying to impose a tyranny of the majority upon minorities in India while they themselves support proportional representation, weighted quotas in jobs and education, and personal law. This is a thorny issue inherent in the democratic structure. Although it allows for a tyranny of the majority, if the solution is to imbue the minorities with special privileges and powers, it would then be called minorityism, where the minorities can hold the majority at ransom. There is no way out of this dilemma except to stress tolerance and make decisions on a case-by-case basis.

It is also worth noting that communalism is not bad in and of itself. In the Ottoman Empire, Maronites, Jews, Orthodox, and other non-Muslim communities were divided into their own separate millets. Although politically inferior to the Sultan’s Muslim subjects, this system provided for a secure political status and much internal autonomy to each group. This system exists today in Iran and Pakistan. Although this arrangement may be criticised for not bringing equality to everyone, it has proven to sometimes be the lesser of two evils - after the forced secularisation of the Ottoman Empire by the British and French after the Crimean War, violence.

against minorities increased and even genocide of the Armenians was conducted in 1915. Under the forced secularisation of Ataturk in Turkey, anti-Greek violence drove the Greeks out of Istanbul in the 1950s and the Assyrians and Chaldaeic Christians were chased out of south-eastern Turkey in the 1960s. Despite centuries of living under the millet system, Christians were a third of the Ottoman Empire in 1900; by 2000, after less than a century of secular rule, they are less than 1% of the Turkish population.

There is one final accolade left to be distributed, and this one goes to the Congress, Third Front, the media, and the JNU professors who have followed a Nehruvian/Marxist formula in lashing out at the BJP and its allies. The accolade is Macaulayism. It was Thomas Babington Macaulay who said that the purpose of British education in India was to create a people Indian in colour but British in every other respect. Macaulayites are those who have internalised the ideology of, as Rudyard Kipling put it, the White Man's Burden are are intent on liberating the "half devil and half child" natives from their superstitions and nonsensical customs. They are a class of self-hating Hindus (Nehru had written to his father to allow him to transfer from Cambridge to Oxford as Cambridge was beginning to have 'too many Indians') and Indians who knew all the bad things that had happened in their culture but none of the positive contributions. They are Indians in blood and colour but anti-Indian in intellectual and emotional orientation. Their self-alienation has wreaked havoc in India's social and political spheres.

Finally, there remains the accusation that the Sangh Parivar is particularly anti-Muslim. This is a difficult issue the Parivar can perhaps NOT be exonerated from entirely. It is not that Hindu organisations make Muslims the focus of their ire for the sake of creating a convenient Other. Militant Hindus have targeted Christians as well for certain actions. The real opposition is to intolerance. Islam has, irrespective of its scriptural stance, been intolerant around the world these past two centuries. Christianity has been less so but the surge of evangelical ministries may make Christianity equally unwelcome to the Parivar. Hindu rulers welcomed other religious communities that have thrived in India since their arrival. Buddha and the Jain teerthankaras were able to preach beliefs opposed to the orthodoxy freely their entire lives without fear of persecution. Jews and their monotheistic G-d have been left alone, the only place in the world they have never been persecuted. Then why the ire against Islam (and Christianity to a lesser extent)? One answer could be that proselytising religions are in essence intolerant - they seek to convert, by force if possible. Centuries of bad behaviour - desecration and destruction of temples and monuments (eg. Bamiyan), extra taxation, wars - have left some Hindus a little short on patience. India came into Hindu hands for the first time in almost a millennium when it became independent in 1947. This time, the Hindu 'Right' did not want to surrender so easily.

Mission Kashmir

Kashmir – the world’s most dangerous place. Kashmir – where three nuclear powers that have already fought four wars against each other in the past 60 years come together. It is the root of the India-Pakistan strife and a magnet for international terrorists. Since the partition and subsequent independence of the subcontinent from British rule, the region has hardly known any peace. Although terrorism was a newer phenomenon of the 1980s, Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq, and American beneficence in the form of billions of dollars of unaccounted for weaponry poured into the region, Kashmir was at the forefront of Indian and Pakistani planning and operations during wars.

Leaving aside the history of the conflict for now, the fact remains that the majority of the state is under Indian occupation, while Pakistan has annexed part of the area under their control and crated Azad Kashmir in a small strip of the remaining land. And the question remains to be answered, what about Kashmir? Why should they want to be with either Pakistan or India? Instead of regurgitating standard answers fed to either side, let us look at this closely and realistically.

Proposal One: Status quo

Kashmir has been a flashpoint between India and Pakistan for more than 50 years. Currently, the Line of Control – named so after the Simla Accords in 1972 – divides the region in two, with one part administered by India and one by Pakistan. India would like to formalise this status quo and make it the accepted international boundary. But Pakistan and Kashmiri activists reject this plan because they both want greater control over the region. Although India claims that the entire state is part of India, it has been prepared to accept the Line of Control as the international border, with some possible modifications. Both the US and the UK have also favoured turning the Line of Control into an internationally-recognised frontier. But Pakistan has consistently refused to accept the Line of Control as the border since the predominantly Muslim Kashmir Valley would remain as part of India. Formalising the status quo also does not take account of the aspirations of those Kashmiris who have been fighting since 1989 for independence for the whole or part of the state.

If it were to work, hypothetically, this would be the most face-saving solution. The wishes of the Kashmiris would perhaps be disregarded, but let us revisit that point a little later. Both India and Pakistan get to retain what they have fought for and held on to these past sixty years. This is perhaps also politically the most acceptable on all sides.

Proposal Two: Kashmir goes to Pakistan

Pakistan has consistently favoured this as the best solution to the dispute. In view of the state's majority Muslim population, it believes that it would vote to become part of Pakistan. However a single plebiscite held in a region which comprises peoples that are culturally, religiously and ethnically diverse, would create disaffected minorities. The Hindus of Jammu, and the Buddhists of Ladakh have never shown any desire to join Pakistan and would protest at the outcome. In 1947 India and Pakistan agreed that the allegiance of the state of Jammu and Kashmir would be decided by a plebiscite. Had the majority voted in favour of Pakistan, the whole state would have become part of Pakistan. This no longer seems to be an option.

A plebiscite offering the choice of union with Pakistan or India also does not take into account the movement for independence which has been supported by political and militant activists since 1989. India has long since rejected the idea of a plebiscite as a means of settling the Kashmir issue. Instead the government argues that the people have exercised their right of self-determination by participating in elections within the state. However the demand for a plebiscite to be held, as recommended by the Governor-General of India, Lord Mountbatten in 1947, and endorsed by the United Nations Security Council, is still considered by some as a way of letting Kashmiris exercise their right of self-determination.

This is a far-fetched idea. There is nothing for India to gain in this and everything to lose. It is simply unacceptable to the Indian people, and any Government that agrees to this proposal will be ostracised in Indian politics for decades to come. This solution is militarily also improbable. Barring nuclear weapons (in which both sides will annihilate ach other and this discussion will be moot), India retains a conventional superiority and strategic position in Kashmir. If it came to blows, Pakistan’s risks are disproportionately higher than its improbable gains. This was highlighted in 1999 during the Kargil incident.

Proposal Three: Kashmir is integrated fully into India

Such a solution would be unlikely to bring stability to the region as the Muslim inhabitants of Pakistani-administered Jammu and Kashmir, including the Northern Areas, have never shown any desire to become part of India. In 1947, the Maharajah of Jammu and Kashmir agreed to the state becoming part of India. India and Pakistan then agreed to hold a plebiscite to confirm which country Kashmir's citizens wanted to join. The Indian Government believed that the majority population, under the charismatic leadership of Sheikh Abdullah, would vote to join India, with its secular constitution, rather than Muslim Pakistan. If the plebiscite had been held and the majority had voted in favour of India, Pakistan would have had to relinquish control of the Northern Areas and the narrow strip of Jammu and Kashmir which it occupied militarily in 1947-8. As stated earlier, India has long since rejected the idea of holding a single plebiscite as a means of determining the fate of the state of Jammu and Kashmir, arguing that the people made their choice by participating in elections within the state.

Another argument for this is simply the economic prosperity India can offer that Pakistan cannot. Or that Pakistan is Islamic and more (potentially…and presently) restrictive than India. However, Indians do not consider what Kashmiris live through everyday. They suppose that Kashmiris are as Indian as anyone from Uttar Pradesh or Rajasthan and therein lays the problem. The fact of the matter is that many Kashmiris do not see the benevolence in Indian rule. Human rights violations abound, and the state has seen none of the stability, peace, or prosperity they would supposedly enjoy under Indian rule.

The newspapers abound with stories of Indian Army and Police atrocities – rapes, shootings, targeted killings, arbitrary detention, random curfews, and shoot on sight orders are the order of the day for the Indian citizens of Kashmir. And last year, hundreds of unidentified graves – believed to contain victims of unlawful killings, enforced disappearances, torture and other abuses – have been found in Indian-administered Jammu and Kashmir. Amnesty International has urged the Indian government to launch urgent investigations into the mass graves, which are thought to contain the remains of victims of human rights abuses in the context of the armed conflict that has raged in the region since 1989.

The findings appear in the report Facts under Ground, issued on 29 March by the Srinagar-based Association of the Parents of Disappeared Persons (APDP). The report details the existence of multiple graves which, because of their proximity to Pakistan controlled-areas, are in areas not accessible without the specific permission of the security forces. Since 2006, the graves of at least 940 people are reported to have been discovered in 18 villages in Uri district alone. The Indian army has claimed that those found buried were armed rebels and "foreign militants" killed lawfully in armed encounters with military forces. However, the report recounts testimonies from local villagers saying that most buried were local residents hailing from the state. The report also alleges that more than 8,000 persons have gone missing in Jammu and Kashmir since 1989. The Indian authorities put the figure at less than 4.000, claiming that most of these went to Pakistan to join armed opposition groups. In 2006, a state police report confirmed the deaths in custody of 331 persons, and also 111 enforced disappearances following detention since 1989.

Unlawful killings, enforced disappearances and torture are violations of both international human rights law and international humanitarian law, set out in treaties to which India is a state party. They also constitute international crimes.

The nationalist critique of this argument is obvious – they would make use of a counterfactual that life would be far worse for these people had they been under Pakistani administration, or they would argue that these complaining Muslims are free to leave for Pakistan and have been since August 14, 1947. Some of them might even try and change the topic by bringing up human rights violations in other countries even in times of peace, such as Saudi Arabia. The fact of the matter is, all these arguments are hollow. The first point is a counterfactual, meaning it cannot be proved either way. If a settlement had been made and Kashmir partitioned or given in toto to either India or Pakistan, the situation would have been stable if the other side did not press the issue. It does not change the fact that living conditions are appalling in Jammu and Kashmir. The argument that the people are free to leave is not even an argument; it is a tantrum of a spoilt child who has not been given a thorough beating once in a while. Why should these people vacate their lands to satisfy some politicians from India or from Pakistan? They have been there longer than the Indian state has been. The third point, that of distraction, is also silly – if India claims to be better than these other places, should they not act like it? If some place is worse, some other place is better – what of it? How does this make your Bharat mahan?

A smarter argument would be that Jammu & Kashmir is a war zone – in a state of war, excesses are committed by all sides. It is unfortunate, but the state cannot be judged by the standards of peace time. Outside active war zones (and Srinagar doesn't fit that description any longer) the main city in Indian-administered Kashmir is one of the most heavily militarised places I've ever seen. Hardly a great advert for Indian democracy. Every 50 metres or so, on every main street, stand several men (or very occasionally women) armed with assault rifles and – more often than not – big sticks. There are undeclared curfews and a blanket of security across the city. Half a million army and police personnel keep watch over Kashmir, and Srinagar has more than its fair share.

In Lal Chowk, Srinagar's central market square, the reality of life is that one day the market is closed, and the next day it is open, playing havoc with traders’ lives. Down in the old town, the Jama Masjid, Srinagar's finest mosque, is one of the symbols of Kashmiri identity. On Friday at noon it should be packed with worshippers coming to pray. But it too is totally deserted. The magnificent wooden and brass doors which open into the courtyard of the mosque are padlocked shut - there have been no Friday prayers here for six weeks. In the surrounding streets the Indian security forces have enforced a total shut down.

Is there actually a threat which might justify all this extraordinary security? The nature of the separatist campaign has been changing, moving away from armed insurgency towards other forms of protest like street campaigns. But occasional shootings do occur, claiming the lives of the unaware, or simply the unlucky. There is undoubtedly a terrorist presence in the city as well, with Lashkar-e-Taiba militants frequently being capturd or killed. The Lashkar was originally formed to kick India out of Kashmir. So how do Kashmiris feel about them now?

Khurram Parvez, a human rights activist, has a personal interest in the subject. He was badly injured when his vehicle hit a landmine in 2004. "The authorities told me Lashkar-e-Taiba had planted the mine," he says. "That's why I went to talk to them. They were seen by many people,” he says, “as an organisation which was fighting the Indian occupation in any way it could. But if they have done what has happened in Mumbai, it has already affected the popularity of Lashkar-e-Taiba in Kashmir. Because people somehow think that if Lashkar-e-Taiba is responsible for killing innocent people like this, then they can't fight for anyone's rights, anyone's freedom. Because they are people who do not believe in any freedom."

Mirwaiz Omar Farooq, one of the main leaders of the peaceful campaign for Kashmiri independence agrees that Lashkar-e-Taiba and the accusations it faces over the Mumbai attacks have done Kashmir no favours. "Definitely it has cast a negative shadow over the Kashmir issue," he says. "It gives leverage to those who want to link Kashmir with international terrorism and extremism. The fact is that Kashmir is a political problem, and we have to find a political solution to it." But for separatists like Mirwaiz Omar Farooq that doesn't include fighting elections under the Indian constitution. "For years we had lots of problems here," says another man. "But the problems are now between two countries. Not here in Kashmir."

Proposal Four: Kashmir becomes independent

The difficulty of adopting this as a potential solution is that it requires India and Pakistan to give up territory, which they are not willing to do. Any plebiscite or referendum likely to result in a majority vote for independence would therefore probably be opposed by both India and Pakistan. It would also be rejected by the inhabitants of the state who are content with their status as part of the countries to which they already owe allegiance. An independent Jammu and Kashmir might also set in motion the demand for independence by other states in both India and Pakistan and lead to a "Balkanisation" of the region.

In the 1960s, following discussions between India and Pakistan over Jammu and Kashmir, a group of Kashmiris demanded that the entire state should become independent as it was prior to the Maharajah's accession to India in 1947. The movement for independence of the entire state is mainly supported by Kashmiris who inhabit the more populous Kashmir Valley and who would like both India and Pakistan to vacate the areas they are occupying. They base their claim on the fact that the state was formerly an independent princely state, is geographically larger than at least 68 countries of the United Nations, and more populous than 90. This movement is not supported by India or Pakistan, both of which would lose territory. And in view of the likely regional instability, an independent Kashmir is not supported by the international community either.

An independent Kashmir could be created from the Kashmir Valley - currently under Indian administration - and the narrow strip of land which Pakistan calls Azad Jammu and Kashmir. This would leave the strategically important regions of the Northern Areas and Ladakh, bordering China, under the control of Pakistan and India respectively. However both India and Pakistan would be unlikely to enter into discussions which would have this scenario as a possible outcome.

If, as the result of a regional plebiscite, which offered the option of independence, the majority of the inhabitants of the Kashmir Valley chose independence and the majority of the inhabitants of Pakistani-administered Jammu and Kashmir, (excluding the Northern Areas) also chose independence, a smaller, independent Kashmir could be created by administratively joining these two areas together. This would leave the predominantly Muslim Northern Areas as part of Pakistan and Buddhist Ladakh and majority Hindu Jammu as part of India, with the possibility that some Muslim districts of Jammu might also opt to join the independent state. Although Pakistan has demanded a change in the status of the Kashmir Valley, it depends on water from the Mangla Reservoir in Pakistani-administered Jammu and Kashmir and would be unlikely to permit loss of control of the region. India is still committed to retaining the Kashmir Valley as part of the Indian Union and has refused to consider holding a plebiscite in any part of the state.

An independent Kashmir Valley has been considered by some as the best solution because it would address the grievances of those who have been fighting against the Indian Government since the insurgency began in 1989. But critics say that, without external assistance, the region would not be economically viable. With an approximate land mass of 1,800 square miles (80 miles long, 20 to 25 miles wide) it is much larger than Monaco and Liechtenstein – but only one-tenth of the size of Bhutan. Whether or not the rest of the state retained its current political affiliations, many Kashmiris therefore believe that the valley could be viable in its own right. In terms of livelihood, the valley could sustain itself through tourism, handicrafts and agriculture.

But an independent Kashmir Valley would also need to retain good relations with its neighbours in order to survive economically. Not only is the region landlocked, but it is snowbound during winter. An independent Kashmir Valley would have the advantage of giving neither Pakistan nor India a victory out of their longstanding dispute. But although Pakistan might favour the creation of an independent Kashmir Valley, India would be unlikely to agree to the loss of territory involved. Autonomy of the same region under the Indian Union is also an option; Pakistan is more likely to request a 'joint protectorate' in order to share in safeguarding the Kashmir valley's political integrity and economic development.

Ultimately, neither India nor Pakistan would be willing to see this through. The region is economically unviable, and in an effort to keep India and Pakistan out of its affairs, an independent Kashmir may cosy up to China. India will certainly not allow this, and Pakistan, for all its cosy ties with China, worries about the giant whose bed it has crawled into. Chinese control of Pakistani markets is a destabilising factor for many of the smaller industries, and with the West increasingly sceptical about Pakistan’s professions of combating terrorism, Pakistan has no choice but to allow the Yellow Giant preferential access to key sectors of its economy.

The question remains for the Indians, if they wish to woo the Kashmiris away from their separatism, what must they do? Admittedly, with Pakistan right across the porous border, it is a tall order to provide peace and prosperity, but some measures must be taken to at least prevent the indiscipline in the Army. Perhaps more troops on the border would make cross-border terrorism more difficult. Either way, unless India can pull a rabbit out of its turban, the Indian case before Kashmiri eyes will only suffer. Because, as MK Gandhi said, what difference does it make to the dead, the orphans, and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty and democracy?

Operation Cast Lead

On December 27, 2008, Israeli forces commenced Operation Cast Lead. The operation was a military incursion into the Gaza strip to root out Hamas training camps, rocket launching facilities, and hopefully, its infrastructure. A fragile six-month truce between Hamas and Israel expired on December 19, 2008.

On December 13, Israel had announced that it was in favor of extending the cease-fire, provided Hamas adhered to the conditions. Exactly one week later, on December 20, Hamas officially announced that it would not extend the cease-fire which had expired on December 19. It cited the Israeli border blockade as the primary reason and resumed shelling of the western Negev (Israel said that it had begun to ease the blockade, but reimposed it when Hamas failed to end all rocket fire and weapons smuggling.) On December 24, more than 60 Palestinian mortar shells and Katyusha and Qassam rockets hit the Negev. Hamas code-named the rocket attacks "Operation Oil Stain" and claimed that it fired 87 rockets and mortar rounds at Israel that day.

The next day, after Israel had "wrapped up preparations for a broad offensive," Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert delivered a final warning in an interview with the Arabic language satellite channel al-Arabiya. He said "I am telling them now, it may be the last minute, I'm telling them stop it. We are stronger."On Friday, December 26, Israel reopened five border crossings between Israel and Gaza to supply fuel for Gaza's main power plant and to provide about 100 truck loads of humanitarian aid, including grain and other goods. That same day, militants fired approximately a dozen rockets and mortar shells from Gaza at Israel, one accidentally striking a northern Gaza house, killing two Palestinian sisters and wounding a third. According to Israeli defense officials, its subsequent December 27 offensive took Hamas by surprise, thereby increasing militant casualties.

A year’s worth of intelligence went into Cast Lead. On D-Day, at 11:30 a.m., more than 50 fighter jets and attack helicopters swept into Gazan airspace and dropped more than 100 bombs on 50 targets. The planes reported "alpha hits," Israeli Air Force (IAF) lingo for direct hits on the targets, which included Hamas bases, training camps, headquarters and offices. Thirty minutes later, a second wave of 60 jets and helicopters struck at 60 targets, including underground Kassam launchers - placed inside bunkers and missile silos - that had been fitted with timers. Their locations were discovered in an intensive intelligence operation. The goal: to strike at Hamas' ability to fire rockets into Israel.

More than 170 targets were hit by IAF aircraft throughout the day. At least 230 Gazans were killed and over 780 were wounded, according to Palestinian sources. Officials said at least 15 civilians were among the dead. The IDF released a list of some of the targets hit: the Hamas headquarters and training camp in Tel Zatar; the "Palestinian Prisoner Tower" in Gaza City that was turned into a Hamas operations center and armory; the Hamas police academy, which was bombed during a graduation ceremony, killing 70-80 people; training camps in southern and central Gaza; the former office of Yasser Arafat in Gaza City that is now used by Hamas Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh; and the Izzadin Kassam Brigades headquarters in the northern Gaza Strip. Throughout the initial stages of the air operation, the IDF Gaza Coordination and Liaison Administration transmitted messages to civilians in Gaza to stay away from Kassam launch sites and Hamas buildings and infrastructure. Hamas responded by intensifying its rocket and mortar attacks against targets in Israel throughout the conflict, hitting previously untargeted cities as Beersheba and Ashdod.

On January 3, 2009, ground troops, the Israeli Defence Force (IDF), moved in to support the IAF and mop up any residual resistance. Israel declared a unilateral ceasefire on January 18, followed quickly by a shattered Hamas. It is estimated that approximately 1,200 Palestinians and 13 Israelis died in the conflict. The number of combatant and non-combatant casualties is a subject of ongoing contention, with Palestinian Ministry of Health claims running as high as 5,300. Casualty figures have been difficult to verify independently due to the limited amount of journalists allowed in Gaza during the conflict, although the United Nations and Western journals such as the Italian Corriere della Sera concurred with Israeli figures. In the days following the ceasefire, the BBC reported that more than 400,000 Gazans were left without running water. The BBC further reported that 4000 homes had been ruined, leaving tens of thousands of people homeless. By March 2, the world community had pledged $4.5 billion to the rebuilding of Gaza, the US under the new President Barack Obama contributing $900 million.

A blow-by-blow account of the entire operation can be found HERE.

The conflict reminded us of the many questions we have not answered about the Middle Eastern question for the past 60+ years, as if we could forget. Cleaving to the matter at hand, the case was simply a matter of retaliation against Hamas’ nonstop barrage of rockets into Israel. The year 2008 saw the greatest number of rockets and mortar shells (3,750) fired into Israel despite the six-month truce (during which about 360 rockets were fired into Israel by Hamas). December 2008 alone saw about 700 projectiles being fired into Israel. With increased range of the rockets, now about 40 kms, about a million Israelis came into range of the missiles. In an attempt to disrupt this rain of rockets upon Israeli cities, in an effort to destroy the stockpiles of Hams’ rockets, in order to cripple Hamas for some time to come, Operation Cast Lead was executed.

Some academics have tried to mount the defence of the Palestinians by pointing to the disproportionate ratio of casualties. This is utter nonsense, for that means that George Washington was in the wrong when he crossed the Delaware and attacked the Hessians on Christmas morning, 1776. It means that American forces were the wrong-doers from D-Day until VE-Day because their casualties were much lower than Nazi ones. The number of casualties does not determine anything. Besides, the argument does not take into account that the Hamas were not trying to keep Israeli casualties to a minimum!

Israel has been attacked from all sides for committing war crimes. Although this is doubtful in that Israel was not carrying out an operation of eradication, there were some problems with the use of munitions during the campaign. White phosphorous, for example, can be used only to give off smoke to cover troop movements and at night for incandescence. The Hague Conventions (NOT Geneva!) ban use of the substance in civilian areas. Although Israel initially denied using white phosphorous, it later came to light that they had indeed done so. The Israeli Government has promised an investigation for which they should be pressured by the international community.

Another reason Israel has come under fire for human rights violations is because of their careless demarcation of combat zones and civilian areas. Critics of Israel have argued that by taking the war into the Gaza Strip, an area so densely packed with civilians – women and children – it was inevitable that there would be civilian casualties. The Gaza Strip is about 360 square kilometres in area and is home to about 1.4 million people. Israel’s carelessness, it has been argued, is proof that beneath the official rhetoric, the stated aim of the Jewish State is to eradicate or dislocate the Palestinian people from the region.

This seems to be more conspiracy theory than fact. If Israel wanted to genuinely make Palestinians leave the area, it would not be that difficult. Nor would it be difficult to kill them all. Israel controls the water, food, and transport into the Gaza Strip. At their whim, they can close off the place and destroy its inhabitants. Within days, the lack of food would weaken them to a point where resistance would become suicidal. This has not happened for two reasons. First, the international outrage would be incredible, enough to break Israel. Second, to want to do so supposes a particularly sinister and evil streak within Israelis, for which there is no evidence. Israel acts as any nation in a state of war does – emotions are overflowing and a survival instinct kicks in. There is always a tendency to shoot first and ask questions later during war. Some such incidents may have occurred, for which there should be redress. To extract from this anything more diabolical is quite unconvincing.

The crux of the issue of human rights violations, however, is how Israel pursued its war aims into the midst of heavily populated civilian areas. This, unfortunately, is the face of modern warfare. Rarely do two nations face each other squarely in a field of battle, as they did even in World War I, and limit the hostilities to those areas. Modern warfare, as seen during World War II and ever since, knows no boundaries. Armies have always retained the right of chase to the detriment of civilians on both sides. In a guerilla war like the one being waged in Palestine, this is even more so. Combatants hide amongst the populace to elude the uniformed and usually stronger foe. They hide their weapons in hospitals, schools, and places of worship so that any attempt to destroy or capture their arsenal becomes an immediate propaganda victory for them. This has been seen in countless places, the Golden Temple in Amritsar (1984) and the Charar-e-Sharif in Srinagar (1995) being only two of the most famous examples. The Geneva Convention states that anyone holding a weapon in a conflict zone is a combatant. In the days when the Convention was written (after the Battle of Solferino, 1859), it was assumed that only two nation-states would go to war against each other, and the idea of civilians picking up weapons and cities being fields of battle had not been fully embraced yet. In this sense, it can be argued that since Hamas does not represent the Palestinian people, it is not a ‘High Contracting Party’ and therefore not eligible to draw upon the rights and privileges of the Convention. Be that as it may, even if we were to accept Hamas as a ‘High Contracting Party,’ in the same way the definition of ‘combatant’ has been broadened to mean anyone carrying weapons within the zone of combat, the definition of ‘zone of combat’ should also be broadened to include any place where active fighting and the storage of means to carry out the fighting exists. Thus, if terrorists were to hide in a school, the onus is on them to ensure that the children are not harmed, not their pursuers. By hiding themselves or their weapons in schools and hospitals, they become the first to violate the conventions of war. Once this door has been opened, despite all the caution that might be exhibited by the side in pursuit, things are bound to get ugly.

The deliberate targeting of civilians is in and of itself a war crime, and as are Hamas attacks from within civilian areas and civilian structures, whether it be an apartment building, a mosque or a hospital, in order to be immune from a response from Israel. The BBC reported on January 5 that witnesses and analysts confirm that Hamas fires rockets from within populated civilian areas, and all sides agree that the movement flagrantly violates international law by targeting civilians with its rockets. Amnesty International accused Palestinian gunmen of using Palestinian civilians as human shields. Israel argues that Hamas blurs the line between civilians and combatants, and is therefore responsible for civilian deaths in Gaza. The Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs stated that "Hamas' use of human shields" and "operational use of heavily built-up and densely populated civilian areas" violates Article 8(2)(b)(xxiii) of the Rome Statute. This statute defines as a war crime the act of "Utilizing the presence of a civilian […] to render certain points, areas or military forces immune from military operations." It also defines Palestinian attacks as terrorist in nature, because they kill civilians in order to sow terror within the broader civilian population. This would violate the Geneva Convention's Laws of Armed Conflict. UN Humanitarian chief John Holmes stated that Hamas's rocket attacks on southern Israel violate international laws. In 2007, exiled Hamas political chief Khaled Mashaal called recent rockets attacks on Israel "self-defense." Hamas leaders argue that rocket attacks on Israel are the only way to counter Israel's policies and operations, including artillery strikes. But Human Rights Watch has said that such justifications do not overcome the illegality of the attacks under international humanitarian law. On January 14 it was reported that Palestinian militants had also fired mortar shells containing phosphorus explosive into the Eshkol Regional Council area in Negev.

We have not yet addressed the fact of the Hamas using the turmoil to settle some of their own scores. Hamas has been accused of executing several Fatah members and Palestinians suspected of collaborating with Israel. Fatah officials in Ramallah reported Hamas executed at least 19 party members and more than 35 Palestinians. The Palestinian Center for Human Rights stated on January 31 that it had credible reports that Hamas operatives killed six members of Fatah and that another 35 were shot in the knees or beaten. The Hamas government in Gaza endorsed the killing of Israeli collaborators but denied allegations it had attacked members of Fatah during the conflict. A Hamas spokesperson said that the internal security service was instructed to track collaborators and hit them hard. If Israel really wanted to exterminate the Palestinians, it seems that all it really has to do is sit back and watch the Palestinians implode under the weight of their own contradictions.

Finally, a question I have always asked but have never received any answer to: why was the world quiet when Israel was shelled constantly by Hamas? Where are the rights of the Israeli people? Why does everyone come out when Israel defends itself, but never when Israel suffers an attack? If a bomb goes off in a crowded Tel Aviv market or disco, the world (some countries) will offer a minute of silence. If two Palestinians are killed by a Hellfire missile from an AH-64, there is an outrage and Israel is immediately depicted as the Nazis of the era. This hypocrisy sends the message to groups like Hamas that it is alright to continue their dastardly deeds. They can find refuge behind brainless academics, an illiterate international audience, and journalists who are looking for Pulitzers more than facts.

I have not gone down the rabbit hole and got into the debate over the creation of Israel because that is in itself another story. In brief, I have nothing against the two-state solution, but it must bear out the interests of both Israel and the Palestinians. If Palestine devolves into another Talibanised Afghanistan, it will serve no one’s purpose. But we must look at events on a case by case basis or we shall never make meaningful progress on the Middle Eastern question.