Month: August 2019

Modi and Shah are making concerted efforts to ensure that their dominance in the party and the government remains unchallenged

In a series of tweets congratulating Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Home Minister Amit Shah recently for taking the bold and historic step of resolving the festering Kashmir problem, Defence Minister Rajnath Singh pointed put that the “groundwork” for this permanent solution was laid down over the last five years.

“In the first five years the government under the leadership of Prime Minister (Narendra) Modi prepared for the ground for a permanent solution in Jammu and Kashmir. Now, after coming back to power, we have taken many big steps in the direction of that solution,” Singh said.

Ordinarily, this statement would have escaped attention but then we are not living in ordinary times. Singh’s throwaway reference to the work done on Jammu and Kashmir in the Modi government’s first term was essentially an attempt to draw attention to his contribution to this exercise and to claim his rightful place in the ruling dispensation’s ecosystem since a systematic effort has been made to sideline him.  

Singh was heading the crucial home ministry in 2014 before he was moved to the defence ministry in the Modi government’s second term. It’s a different matter that unlike Shah, Singh never enjoyed the same clout as his successor today because of his proximity to Modi. Though Singh is technically the number two in this government, there is no doubt that Shah is the de facto second-in-command.

The process of marginalizing Singh, which began in 2014 when the BJP came to power, has continued after the Modi returned to form a government after a resounding electoral victory earlier this year. In fact, the sidelining of Singh is in line with the concerted efforts made by the Modi-Shah duo to see that no party senior or a leader with a mass base is allowed to get out of line or eclipse the BJP’s big two. The wings of such potential candidates are invariably clipped so that BJP ministers and MPs remain faceless and beholden to Modi for their electoral victory.

While Singh has been rendered powerless for the past years, Transport minister Nitin Gadkari has been effectively silenced while former chief ministers Shivraj Singh Chouhan and Vasundhara Raje have been kept out of the power matrix in their respective states. Venkaiah Naidu was given the vice-president’s post even though he was loathed to leave active politics.

The late Sushma Swaraj was never trusted because of her allegiance to BJP veteran leader LK Advani and was accommodated in the government as she could not be ignored given her experience, talent and seniority. However, she was not allowed to function autonomously though she was heading the crucial external affairs ministry. It was, therefore, not surprising when Swaraj opted out of electoral politics before the last Lok Sabha poll on health grounds and was denied a Cabinet berth in the government’s second term though she could have been accommodated in the Rajya Sabha.

Rajnath Singh was put in his place soon after he took over as home minister in 2014 when he was not free to appoint his personal secretaries. He was further pushed on the defensive when the Delhi Durbar was rife with rumours, believed to be circulated by party insiders, that Modi had pulled up Singh’s son Pankaj following allegations that he had taken money for arranging the postings of police officials. The BJP was forced to issue a denial after a furious Singh complained to the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh. But the damage was already done.

More recently, Singh was kept out of key Cabinet committees and it was only after he threatened to resign that corrective measures were taken. Last month when Amit Shah presided over the groundbreaking ceremony of projects worth ₹65,000 crore in the Uttar Pradesh capital Lucknow, Rajnath Singh was conspicuous by his absence. Singh, who represents Lucknow in the Lok Sabha, was said to be traveling then but questions have been asked if the programme dates could not have been adjusted to ensure Singh’s presence. Similarly, Singh had a minimal role in the government’s recent moves on Jammu and Kashmir, which were handled by Modi, Shah and national security advisor Ajit Doval.      

Known to be a straight talker, Nitin Gadkari hit the headlines in the run-up to the last Lok Sabha elections when a series of controversial statements made by him were seen to be a pitch by him for the Prime Minister’s post. Not only did he invoke Nehru and Indira Gandhi (at variance with party position) and speak of tolerance in his public remarks, Gadkari literally sought accountability for the BJP’s defeat in last year’s Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, and Chhattisgarh assembly polls. “If I am the party president, and my MPs and MLAs are not doing well, then who is responsible? I am,” he said.

Paying tribute to Sushma Swaraj recently, Gadkari dwelt at length on how as BJP president he depended on her for advice. Truly a telling comment in view of Swaraj’s equation with Modi and Shah. Today Gadkari is barely seen or heard and the only time he is in the news is when he has a fainting spell which is quite frequent.

Though he lost his government in the last assembly election, former Madhya Pradesh chief minister Shivraj Singh Chouhan wants nothing more than to get back his old job. But the BJP’s Central leadership is not obliging him by toppling the Kamal Nath government though it has a wafer-thin majority in the assembly. While it is well-acknowledged that Chouhan’s personal popularity has not dimmed, Modi-Shah duo wants to hand over the reins of the state to a new leader. This was evident when Chouhan was not given charge of the party’s state unit or made the leader of the legislature party.

Former Rajasthan chief minister Vasundhara Raje was also denied a position in the state after her defeat. She had blotted her copybook during her tenure as chief minister when she challenged Modi over appointments in the state unit and distribution of tickets during the assembly elections. Raje has been keeping a low-profile since then though like Chouhan, she was appointed party vice-president at the national level but this was to guard against their interference in the party’s state unit. After the party lost the assembly polls, the BJP made a conscious decision to give tickets to Raje’s detractors in the Lok Sabha elections and followed it up by accommodating them in the Modi government at the Centre. The result is that the two-time chief minister and a one-time powerful leader has been virtually banished from active politics.

It all began in the run-up to the 2014 Lok Sabha elections when senior leaders like LK Advani, Murli Manohar Joshi and Yashwant Sinha were put to pasture. And it is clear this exercise is continuing as Modi and Shah work assiduously to see that their dominance in the party and the government remains unchallenged.

]]>

Indian political stage has lost three of its hearty and humble personalities in a single week, leaving behind a void that will be greatly missed

Politicians come and go. Those who hold office are more powerful as they can do favours, but are also more vulnerable. Assessing them becomes an if-and-but exercise.

Fragrance or odour they spread by their deeds and words matters. And when they go, memories they leave behind. Their political legacies, if any, are for the scholars and historians to study. Their families, mostly, are a different story.

Two diminutive women and a polio-stricken man strode India’s political scene for close to four decades. They passed away in the last three weeks. As a scribe who watched and reported them, I do think they spread frangrance amidst a lot of muck around, and have left something to remember them by. 

Sheila Dikshit, 81, Delhi’s longest-serving Chief Minister, went first on July 20. She can rightly be credited for making New Delhi a world capital worth visiting and a little more habitable.  

Next to go on July 28 was Sudini Jaipal Reddy, 77, a Congressman-who joined Janata Party and Janata Dal and then, returned to the old stable. He was acceptable to all as their spokesman, doing his job with equal dedication and conviction. Remarkably, media lapped up whatever he said in all his avatars.

And last week, on August 6, Sushma Swaraj, the youngest of them at 67, left.  India’s external affairs minister till only two months ago, she opted out of this year’s elections on health grounds. Despite speculation about her willingness, she found no place in Modi-2. If she had a premonition of what was coming, we will never know.

Qualities common to the three were grace and personal charm in whatever they did or say in public, a high level of credibility and the ability to carry others along.

Although belonging to different parties, they got on well among themselves in the country’s political roadshow. Actually, like politicians anywhere, the Indians, too, snipe at each other in public, but the better ones share mutual warmth.

After attacking the Congress-led government from her seat as Leader of the Opposition, Swaraj was among the first to rush to hospital when her political bête noir, Congress President Sonia Gandhi, took ill during the proceedings.

That Gandhi had defeated her in an election earlier did not matter. Also forgotten was her declaration when Gandhi was close to becoming the prime minister that she (Sushma) would shave her head off and live like an ascetic in protest. Coming from one woman about another, it was not received well. Yet, Swaraj, with her trademark ‘bindi’ and Hindu-Hindi persona, was BJP’s perennial antidote to Gandhi. That is politics.      

India has lost three sharp minds that went beyond their calling and well beyond the routine and the humdrum. If Sushma quoted Sanskrit scriptures and Urdu couplets spontaneously, Sheila was often seen at Sufi festivals.

Each of them was intensely humane and earned goodwill by helping whoever they could.

Do-gooder Dikshit was called “Aunty Number 1”. Like Reddy, Swaraj, too, was among the more accessible ministers. At the Foreign Office where much of the work was done from the prime minister’s office (PMO) and when she was unwell and unable to travel, she used the social media and provide succor to whoever could reach her. They included a girl who on losing memory had strayed into Pakistan, stranded spouses, someone needing urgent medical help — and they came from across the world.

Diplomats from 51 countries at the United Nations signed her condolence book. Indian diplomats who had worked with her were nostalgic. In Pakistan, there were sentimental outpourings for Sushma even as the neighbour was receiving the shock treatment over New Delhi’s Kashmir move that has since blown into a full-scale political and diplomatic war. Her last tweet was to ‘congratulate’ the prime minister.

Born in Haryana’s orthodox, anti-woman social order Sushma, then 25, was a socialist to boot and the state’s and the country’s youngest Cabinet minister. An effective Leader of Opposition, she was the first full-term external affairs minister. It was no mean achievement.

Political analysts say Modi had ‘downgraded’ Sushma because she belonged to the ‘rival’ L K Advani camp within the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). Yet, Modi had tears in his eyes while bidding final farewell.         

Reddy shed his feudal background to join students’ politics. He never let his physical handicap keep him down. “I can take care of myself,” he politely said when I tried to help him balance his crutches, papers and his coffee mug.

His life was a saga of an irrepressible creative spirit that transcended all obstacles to soar to great heights, says India’s Vice President M. Venkaiah Naidu, a long-time associate, but from a different camp.

As young lawmakers, the two rocked the Andhra Pradesh Assembly. Their personal cooperation and political clash is the stuff of how political culture evolves in a democracy. Sadly, the public only gets to know the crude side of politics, which abounds aplenty.  

When Reddy was depressed, it is said, he would lock himself in, read books and take detailed notes. He would emerge fresh with more quotations from Rousseau, Dante, Immanuel Kant, Shakespeare, whoever.

An erudite scholar, among the many that Indian parliament has had, he was both fiery and persuasive. You hardly noticed his Telugu intonations when he spoke in English. Its limited knowledge could make you reach for dictionary, if you cared.

Long before Shashi Tharoor, India parliament’s current super-wordsmith, Reddy gave currency to ‘humungous’ to describe a scandal of the Rajiv Gandhi Government. In the opposition then, he debunked the “Mr Clean” campaign to project Rajiv as one that smacked of “an advertisement of a detergent.” It hit the political bull’s eye.

If Reddy was a man of words, Swaraj and Dikshit were women of action, often para-dropped by their parties when locked in adverse situations. Although from neighbouring Haryana, but undoubtedly BJP’s national leader, Swaraj became Delhi’s chief minister for just three months to quell an internal party rivalry. She lost, besides this rift, to sky-rocketing onion prices in demand during festive season.

She was succeeded by Dikshit. A Punjabi married into an Uttar Pradesh family with deep political roots, she became Delhi’s chief minister — and ruled for 15 years.

Political fortunes changed with her hosting the Commonwealth Games.  She arguably received much opprobrium during its preparations. The Games, though, went off well. But they triggered an anti-corruption campaign that sent Dikshit’s party downhill. She lost by a huge margin.

The Congress has not recovered since. It projected her as is “Brahmin face” in Uttar Pradesh polls, but then abandoned her. At a ripe age, she was Delhi Congress chief, contesting an election, and losing it. Her last act before suddenly being moved to hospital was to address a letter to her paralyzed party.

Think of a minister who can publicly say politicians are “wild animals” who need to be kept in check. None left after Reddy’s departure.

Perceptions matter in journalism while understanding and appreciating politics. The effort was worthwhile with these three stalwarts.

The writer can be reached at mahendraved07@gmail.com

]]>

Having announced the welcome post for a Chief of Defence Services, the Prime Minister must now integrate the Services HQs with Defence Ministry wherein officers and bureaucrats will sit side by side as equal partners

From the ramparts of the Red Fort in his 92-minute Independence Day speech, the Prime Minister has finally announced the appointment of Chief of Defence Services (CDS) post for the three services. The crying need for the post was felt after the 1971 Indo-Pak War wherein with the consent of the Indira Gandhi Government, Gen SHFJ Manekshaw performed the duties of the CDS for the duration of the war. He was also promoted to Field Marshal, a Five Star General on his retirement. This much-awaited appointment is a welcome step for deteriorated civil-military relations wherein the three services are denied direct access to the Raksha Mantri (RM) and they have to pass through the tinted filters of an under equipped and qualified bureaucracy.

Based on the arrangements in most of the democracies of the world, it was always felt that a single point advisor to the government representing all the three services for all aspects of operations, training and procurement was paramount. The CDS had to be senior to all the serving Chiefs to be effective and as such should be a five star general who would have a direct access to the Raksha Mantri (RM). The bureaucrats in the Ministry of Defence (MoD) were always wary of this arrangement and were against the appointment as their implied authority over all the three services would be diluted. Although, the Chairman Chiefs of Staffs Committee was the right man to perform in absence of the CDS, in various UPA Government tenures, the Defence Secretary, who is lower in status to the three Chiefs was performing this task by default; without adequate in-depth knowledge of the three services, only because he had direct access to the RM.

Successive governments continued to defer the appointment of CDS on the ill advice of the bureaucracy. Thanks to the then BJP Government headed by Atal Bihari Vajpayee to have formally identified the need of having a CDS after the Kargil War. The Group of Ministers in the Kargil Review Committee recommended that a Five Star General should be appointed as the CDS. The appointment was related to the integration of services headquarters with MoD as is prevalent in most of the democratic countries of the world.

It is to the credit of the three services that they started preparing the framework of the CDS Secretariat and integration of the services headquarters with MoD. The services set up a joint integrated Headquarters named the Integrated Defence Staff (IDS). IDS has been effectively and efficiently functional for over a decade now and is headed by Chief of the Integrated Defence Staff (CIDS); an Army Commander level Officer in rotation from the three services, who would eventually be the deputy of the newly appointed CDS. Presently, the CIDS reports to the Chairman Chief of Staff’s Committee who is the senior most services Chief and holds two hats in this rotational appointment. The newly appointed CDS will just have to walk in and “plug and play“the role as he already has an effective team in place.

The NDA.1 government identified the need to have a CDS and the late Manohar Parrikar on taking over as RM had promised the services that he would soon get a CDS appointed. However, the three services Chiefs were not on the same page as IAF opposed the idea. The IAF and Indian Navy, because of their smaller sizes, were always scepticle that this post would generally be held by an Army Officer and their priorities of modernisation and acquisitions may be relegated or kept on the back burner. In the Israeli Army in the 2005 war with Lebanon the CDS was from the Air Force and Israeli tanks suffered heavy casualties due to an unorthodox use of missiles fired from basements and windows of houses by Hizbulla. It was then decided that CDS would always be appointed from the Army and is usually from the Special Forces.

Due to his proximity with the PMO, NSA Ajit Doval has been willy nilly performing the duties of the CDS from Pathankot Incident to surgical strikes to Balakot and now abrogation of Article 370. While it may be acceptable for internal security situations to have an ex police officer taking charge of the situation, for an external threat he would woefully fall short. PM needs to be congratulated for not succumbing to the suggestion of a four star general to the job because Chairman of Chief of Staff Committee, a four star General is presently performing the duties and cannot be very assertive on the other two chiefs of the same stature.

Ideal choice for the first CDS are two learned and very well read Generals who have retired in the last two years and are still current. The first one is Lt Gen Praveen Bakshi who was wrongfully denied the appointment of the COAS in spite of being capable, and the second choice is Lt Gen DS Hooda who was at the helm of Northern Command during the launch of surgical strikes. Otherwise, a serving Chief may be promoted and another chief appointed in his place. The front-runners amongst them are the Air Chief BS Dhanoa after Balakot and the Army Chief Bipin Rawat. Government will do well if they appoint the first CDS who is a visionary and acceptable to all services. 

The new RM Mr Rajnath Singh needs to be congratulated on rolling back of income tax levies on disabled soldiers and announcement of appointment of CDS within three months of his taking over. He needs to restore the confidence of the serving military soldiers in their government who has been systematically relegating their rightful stature in NDA 1 period. Since the Central Police Forces Officers have already been granted Non Functional Financial Upgradation (NFFU) and the services have been denied the same; the elite defence services have for the first time in history of India been relegated to a position below the CPOs. This does not augur well for the morale and motivation of the defence forces of a country which aspires to be a regional power within a decade.

The modernisation and acquisition plans of the defence services need an immediate impetus with infusion of necessary funds. This is also the ideal time to integrate the services headquarters with MoD wherein services officers and bureaucrats will sit side by side as partners and MoD will stop pretending to be a higher Headquarter. Lots of overlapping will be removed with savings to the defence budget and efficiency and accountability would be ensured.

]]>

Abrogation of Article 370 will bring the same accountability, transparency and rule of law to Jammu and Kashmir that the rest of Indians take for granted

On 5th August 2019, ten days before India’s Independence Day, Prime Minister Shri Narendra Modi gave a gift of Independence to Jammu and Kashmir. The Article 370 which was a noose around the neck of India was abrogated and the state was bifurcated into Union Territories of Ladakh and that of Jammu and Kashmir. This is a historic moment for all Indians living in and outside India.

There are several myths surrounding the Article 370. Here, I shall try to address these one by one.

People say that it was a condition of J&Ks merger to India. Nothing could be further than truth. Only 3 months after India’s independence in August 1947, Jammu & Kashmir was attacked by Pashtoon Kabailis supported by Pakistan Army. Their mission was to annex the Muslim majority Kashmir valley with Pakistan – the ‘unfinished business of partition’ that Pakistan often refers to. The Hindu Maharaja Hari Singh who initially wanted to stay independent from both Pakistan and India had to sign a document of Accession with India in return of armed assistance. There were no conditions to this Accession.

ALSO READ: Abrogation Of Article 370 – Can India Bear The Cost?

The UN resolution on Kashmir of 1948 declared Pakistan an aggressor and asked it to vacate the land that it had illegally grabbed. India was asked to secure law and order in the whole of Jammu and Kashmir including the annexed part and hold a plebiscite to ascertain people’s choice on merger with India or Pakistan. Needless to say Pakistan never fulfilled the condition of vacating the occupied land that it had annexed. Still there was no Article 370.

So, where does this Article come from? Well, like all princely states of the Indian Union, Jammu and Kashmir had set up a constituent assembly to determine which parts of Indian Constitution would apply to them. In 1949 while all other states accepted the Indian Constitution in totality, Jammu and Kashmir Constituent Assembly asked for time to come to a conclusion. As a result a ‘temporary and transient’ Article 370 was inserted in the Indian Constitution, which stipulated that the other articles of the Constitution that gave powers to the Central Government would be applied to Jammu and Kashmir only with the concurrence of the State’s constituent assembly.

This ‘temporary provision’ was intended to last till the formulation and adoption of the State’s constitution. However, the State’s constituent assembly dissolved itself on 25 January 1957 without recommending either abrogation or amendment of the Article 370. Thus the Article has become a permanent feature of the Indian constitution. It must be stated here that J&K constitution adopted on 17 November 1956 clearly enshrines in its preamble that the State of Jammu and Kashmir is and shall be an integral part of the Union of India. The unresolved question of Article 370 looks therefore as a deliberate mischief as it directly contradicts the intention of the J&K Constituent Assembly.

Second myth that’s doing the rounds is that Article 370 gave special status to the people of Kashmir. One might be mistaken for thinking that this special status makes all J&K citizens prosperous and self sufficient. The facts are disappointing. Ladakh with 58% land mass and most iconic scenery doesn’t have a higher education institution and young students have to travel to Jammu for further education. Jammu region only in the past 3 decades has got some infrastructure but compared to any other district in India, it is severely lagging behind both in quality and quantity. Be it water, electricity, job opportunities, trade, industry – it is very sparse and compared to the population it services; woefully inadequate. So where do the central funds to the tune of ₹7,000/head go?

You can see palatial houses, wide roads and reliable electricity and transport connections in Srinagar city and around Dal Lake. As you go further out, the condition of the poor farmer tilling fields or a shikarawala is very similar to a vegetable vendor in Jammu. The pumping of central funds has made the politicians from Kashmir valley super rich but hasn’t alleviated the lives of common people of the valley who have been kept busy with the dangerous toys of Jihad. Literacy rate, especially among women is one of the lowest in the country and infant mortality rate among the highest. The special status obviously hasn’t helped where it should and only corruption and nepotism has thrived.

There’s is another myth; around protection of demographic uniqueness of the state through Article 370. This is often linked to  the promise of plebiscite as per UN resolution. This argument falls flat on its face when we realize that Pakistan has flooded the Pakistan Occupied Jammu and Kashmir (PoJK) with Punjabis and Mirpuris who have no cultural, heritage and linguist connection with erstwhile Jammu and Kashmir; while the Legislative Assembly of Jammu and Kashmir reserves 24 unelectable seats for PoJK districts.

Ladakh, a Buddhist majority district was flooded with Muslims and now the balance is 50:50. Kashmiri Hindus, the aboriginals of the land with 5000 years of civilizational connect to Bharat and Sanatan Dharma were systematically thrown out of the valley to create a 100% Muslim majority state. Hills of Jammu which reverberated with sounds of temple bells has been flooded with Muslims from Kashmir who buy property at a premium and Rohingyas who surrounded critical infrastructure and institutions. Hindu refugees from West Pakistan streaming in since 1947 have not been given state subject while Rohingyas are seen with Adhaar cards and jobs. Under the garb of Article 370 no Indian can settle in Jammu and Kashmir, so the demographic changes we see in Jammu and Ladakh have been systematically engineered by vested interests.

Under the garb of Article 370 state subject laws were manipulated to suit a patriarchal, regressive arrangement. A man could marry anyone from India, abroad or even Pakistan and his state subject rights would remain unchanged. He, his spouse and children would be able to study, get a job, own property, set up a business in Jammu and Kashmir unhindered. A woman upon marrying had to reapply for her state subject certificate. If she married a man from outside of the state, she would lose all rights stipulated by her maiden state subject including inheritance, jobs and education.

Under the garb of Article 370 many weaker sections of the society were disadvantaged as the state legislative assembly didn’t adopt laws such as The Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, The Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, 1986 , Scheduled Caste and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, The Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act and The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, Hindu Marriage Act , RTI Act , Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, Hindu Marriage Act, Hindu Succession Act, Religious Endowment Act, Religious Institutions (Prevention of Misuse) Act, Dissolution of Muslim Marriage Act, Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, National Commission for Minorities Act  and so on.

This meant that menial workers, SC/STs, nomadic people and forest dwellers didn’t have their rights protected as in the rest of India. Valmikis for example, even if a PhD could not get any job except for a sweeper in the state government – something unheard of in the rest of India. Minority reservations were granted to the Muslim population which was incidentally a majority in the state. Tax avoidance was rampant and there was no right to information. There are 106 such central laws that will now be applicable in the union territory of Jammu and Kashmir and union territory of Ladakh post abrogation of Article 370.

As an Indian, I am really pleased that abrogation of Article 370 will bring the same accountability, transparency and rule of law to Jammu and Kashmir that the rest of Indians take for granted. Central funds that were previously diverted to the coffers of ruling clans such as Abdullahs and Muftis will now be utilised in building the lives of ordinary citizens of Jammu, Kashmir and Ladakh. There will be roads and trains, educational institutions and industry, water and electricity, tourism and jobs in an appropriate proportion to all the regions.  As a Union Territory both Ladakh and Jammu and Kashmir will prosper without corruption. Ladakh and Jammu will get their due share of development and growth.

The prospect of losing control over the narrative and power is currently driving certain sections of media and politicians in a frenzied opposition to the move. They feel that elections, education and employment will empower the ordinary citizen of Jammu, Kashmir & Ladakh and throw them out of the business of minting money. Ordinary Indians should stand with their fellow countrymen from Jammu, Kashmir & Ladakh as they will taste real independence after 70 years of independence. Let’s give this seed time to grow.

]]>

Internal dimensions look scary in Kashmir as terrorism is likely to increase in the months to come and hardcore jihadi groups will mushroom across the state

Muscular nationalism is Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s USP. That policy has paid rich dividends to his party. Some would say the Uri surgical attack and the Balakot air strike, were responsible for the BJP’s comprehensive 2019 election victory.

Buoyed by the success, the government has now scrapped Article 370, and stripped Kashmir of the special status it enjoyed since 1947. Not just that, but the state has been bifurcated and made into two union territories. But, has Modi carried it too far this time? Will this bold act, hugely popular with the rest of the country, come to haunt the BJP in years to come? How this plays out in the valley and in the larger neighbourhood is yet to be determined.

Pakistan has expectedly reacted with shock and anger, calling it a violation of the UN resolution. Islamabad will mount an all-out diplomatic offensive against India. It has downgraded ties with New Delhi, asked Indian High Commissioner Ajay Bisaria to leave and suspended the Samjhauta Express. The little trade there was with India will also stop now. People in Punjab would be worried about what happens to the Kartarpur project, since the bilateral relations have reached such a low point. But that remains to be seen.

India has asked Pakistan to review its decision and said that it was done with an eye to grab international attention and present an “alarming picture to the world.’’ It is well known that the international community is concerned about a possible nuclear flash point in South Asia. Now more than ever, considering the rising tension between the two nuclear armed neighbours.

Islamabad has always maintained that Kashmir is a “disputed’’ territory and a solution to the problem must be worked out between India, Pakistan and the people of Kashmir. Prime Minister Imran Khan has predicted that the freedom movement will gain momentum in the valley. This is certainly a given considering that there has been no consultations with the people at all. Kashmir has also been in lock-down mode since Sunday.

Islamabad has already called for a meeting of the Organisation of Islamic Co-operation (OIC) to discuss the situation in Kashmir. The OIC will certainly issue a statement, but beyond that not much can be expected. India has worked on ties with both Saudi Arabia and the UAE, the prime movers of the group. The Gulf states are now engrossed with Iran, Yemen and Syria, in their immediate neighbourhood. The UAE has already backed India. “The reorganisation of states is not a unique incident in history of independent India and it was mainly aimed at reducing regional disparity and improving efficiency. It is an internal matter as stipulated by the Indian Constitution,” Dr Ahmad Al Banna, the UAE’s ambassador to India has said.

Pakistan will also take up Kashmir to the United Nations Security Council. The Human Rights Council in Geneva will also be approached. There will be a flurry of diplomatic activity with Islamabad possibly sending out envoys to world capitals to explain what India’s latest action means. Pakistan expects Kashmir to go up in flames but as of now the heavy military presence has ensured there are no protests in the valley.

Can Pakistan galvanise world opinion against India? Has Delhi handed over Kashmir in a platter to Pakistan? Can India get away with it at a time when each nation is looking out for itself and unlike in the past the liberal values — human rights and moral positions — are no longer at the core of international diplomacy. The liberal world is crumbling and the BJP government must have taken all this into account before going ahead with its latest Kashmir move.

It is but natural that Pakistan will play its Afghan card to the hilt. At a time when the US –Taliban talks have reached a crucial stage, Washington will not wish for distraction on the India-Pakistan front .Pakistan will let the US know that the situation in Kashmir would distract Islamabad and shift its focus from peace moves in Afghanistan to the India-Pakistan border.

PTI reported a State Department spokesman as saying: “The US is closely following India’s legislation regarding the new territorial status and governance of Jammu and Kashmir. We note the broader implications of these developments, including the potential for increased instability in the region.”

Hostile fire across the India-Pakistan border has continued unabated in the last few years. Tension between the nuclear armed neighbours is something Washington does not need at the moment. Prime Minister Imran Khan has already said that a terror strike in the valley now could even provoke a full scale war between the two arch rivals. This is something which will worry the Trump administration. President Donald Trump, facing elections next year wants a complete US troop pull- out before that. A military confrontation between India and Pakistan would be the last thing Washington wants at the moment when an agreement with the Taliban appears imminent. Perhaps with this in India, the US has said there was an “urgent need” for dialogue among all actors to reduce tensions and to avoid a potential military escalation in South Asia. Washington has also asked Pakistan to ensure that infiltration does not occur. This is to make sure that a military confrontation does not take place at this crucial juncture.

The US pointsman for Afghanistan, Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad was in Delhi on Tuesday and briefed foreign minister Jaishankar on the Taliban talks. The Indian minister must have also given the envoy a briefing on India’s recent action regarding Kashmir. Little is known about the talks. From the photograph and relaxed body language of the two, the talks appear to have gone smoothly.

China has already expressed its concern about developments in Kashmir. It has questioned the bifurcation of Ladakh. “China is seriously concerned about the current situation in Kashmir,’’ went on to say that the issue is a legacy of history between India and Pakistan. In a separate statement, the Chinese foreign ministry reacted to India’s decision to create Ladakh as a Union Territory. “China always opposes India’s inclusion of Chinese territory in the western section of the China-India boundary under its administrative jurisdiction,” it said. “This position is firm and consistent and has never changed. The recent unilateral revision of domestic laws by the Indian side continues to undermine China’s territorial sovereignty, which is unacceptable.’’

The MEA has said that the re-organization of the state is India’s internal matter and reminded China that it did not comment on its domestic issues. China faces resistance from local Muslims in Xinjiang, from Dalai Lama’s followers in Tibet, as well as pro-democracy activists in Hong Kong.

With foreign minister S Jaishankar slated to visit China from the 11-13 of the month, this issue will come up for discussion. It is not yet certain how this will pan out with China. But with a trade war on with the US, President Xi Jinping has other more serious issues to worry over.

Two major regional players, Russia and Iran have not yet commented on the latest government move. The world’s appetite for liberation wars, or moral rights and wrongs are no longer as they were earlier. Pakistan’s own credibility is low. Considering all this, while there will be some amount of criticism of India’s actions in Kashmir and China will needle India with this whenever necessary, it will not abruptly overturn the gains of the Wuhan spirit.

More important perhaps is the internal dimensions of the new Kashmir policy. Kashmir valley can be held down by force but at a massive cost. Terrorist attacks will increase in the months and years to come. Hard core jihadi groups will mushroom across the state. The young people have demonstrated earlier how they can face the might of the Indian state. Stone throwing school children will perhaps now take up arms. Kashmiris will feel they have nothing to lose. Few in the valley believe that development will come to the state now that the contentious article 370 is out of the way.

AS Dulat, former RAW chief and the man late prime minister Vajpayee used to help the peace process said in a recent interview that Kashmiris have once again been let down by India. Pakistan will naturally take advantage and continue to stoke the fire. Keeping down a sullen alienated population will not be an easy task for India’s security forces.

]]>

The political pendulum has now swung from one extreme to the other, from ‘appeasement’ to ‘appropriation’ of the community

It is not unusual, given the great churning India is going through, to welcome legislation, soon to be law, with a few caveats and some apprehensions.

With Rajya Sabha doing so last week, both Houses of Parliament have passed the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Bill, 2019,  that makes talaq-e-biddat a criminal offence. It provides for three years’ imprisonment to a Muslim husband who divorces his wife by pronouncing the word ‘talaq’ thrice, irrevocably, in one sitting.

ALSO READ: The Law Will Get Me The Respect I Deserve

After a prolonged, yet inconclusive, debate in parliament, by top judiciary and the academia, if one excludes sections of the Muslim clergy, the conservatives and sections of the political class (for reasons both legal and political), the move has received widespread approval.

With that India, having the world’s third largest Muslim population, is on par with several Islamic countries, including Sudan, Egypt, Iran, Jordan, Morocco, Tunisia, Algeria, Yemen and Iraq. Of those with similar social norms to India, Pakistan and Bangladesh had outlawed it in 1961. It remains in vogue in Sri Lanka.

Indian Muslims are governed by the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act of 1937, as interpreted by the All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB). This body comprising mainly Sunni ulema, has rigidly stuck to its turf and opposes any ‘interference’ in the ‘divine’ law.

But others like Professor Tahir Mahmood, an internationally recognized expert on sharia law, support a ban on triple talaq. Mahmood recently told Scroll, an Indian news website: “Ignorance, obstinacy, blind belief in religion and morbid religiosity are undoubtedly the factors responsible for triple talaq being allowed in India.”

ALSO READ: This Law Will Empower Muslim Women

Lawyer-politician Arif Mohammed Khan, who played a key role in drafting the legislation, says despite prohibition, this practice is rampant in Pakistan and many with overwhelming influence of the clergy that propagate it as the “word of God” among illiterate masses.

To end the practice effectively, he justifies a law that deters. However, debate persists on this point. Criticism centres heavily on criminalizing of a marriage that is essentially a civil act. The opposition was outvoted on this in parliament.

Then, there are practical issues: How does one adjudicate in a his-word-against-hers exchange between husband and wife? Who will look after the wife, abandoned and in all probability ostracized by the husband’s family through this illegal act? More importantly, the children, once the erring husband goes to jail? The problem is acute if the wife has no independent income and worse if she is not accepted in her parental home.  

Despite this law as a deterrent, the practice is unlikely to end soon. Law Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad who piloted the bill, said some 300 marriages dissolved under the spell of instant talaq while the debate was on. In 2017 alone, 574 instant divorces had occurred, just before the Supreme Court declared it illegal.

Seeking to implement this verdict, the government amended some provisions of its original legislation, making the offence cognizable only if the affected wife, or one related to her by blood or marriage, files a police complaint. A man arrested under this law may get bail, after the Magistrate grants a hearing to the wife. Thirdly, the offence is compoundable, that is, the parties may arrive at a compromise.

Questions persist. Why this new law when wife and children’s abandonment, failure to provide for them and dowry harassment can be tackled under the existing law? Once the apex court has declared instant talaq illegal, what is the need for criminalizing it?  The bill doesn’t convincingly answer these and many other questions.

The government has chosen to give teeth through a three-year jail term, ostensibly in keeping with a general approach that makes many other laws, even traffic violation, stringent with higher punishment.

Moving on to giving credit and the blame, a less-talked aspect of the debate is that the predecessor Congress-led government had studied status of India’s Muslims through a commission headed by late Justice Rajinder Sachar. A committee it formed to assess Muslim women’s status said in 2013 that the triple talaq “makes wives extremely vulnerable and insecure regarding their marital status”.

However, over half-a-century in power, the Congress followed the liberal/secular approach of leniency to ‘protect’ the minorities. In the case of Muslims, it adopted the British colonial practice of tackling the community through its generally orthodox clergy. This got institutionalized as AIMPLB in 1973.

The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and its government accuse the Congress and the Left parties of ‘appeasing’ the Muslims and holding them as “vote bank.” Now it ingeniously takes the credit for this Muslim-specific law enacted in the name of “gender justice”. The political pendulum has now swung from one extreme to the other, from ‘appeasement’ to ‘appropriation’ of the community.

This fits in with the BJP’s majoritarian agenda and its two-pronged strategy of neutralizing the community’s vote while seeking support from among its women.

There is another less-talked aspect that needs attention. Given the rising education levels among Muslim women, especially in the cities, it is conceivable that they would vote for Prime Minister Modi for this act. Statistics of the last two decades show that more Muslim girls are entering schools and colleges and into the work force when compared to boys who are either not inclined to study or are required to turn family’s bread-earners early in life.

The community leaders are subdued. The AIMPLB has not reacted. Save some Muslim lawmakers, there is no significant opposition. Including a Congress in disarray, the Opposition was out-maneuvered and outvoted. The government managed the numbers even in the Rajya Sabha where it is in minority, first by engineering defections and then ensuring absenteeism.

India is on the cusp of social and political change. The challenges are all-round and more layered as the changes are being initiated by a Hindu right-wing majority party. Its triumphal mood is palpable.

Doubts and apprehensions arise as it seeks to ‘protect’ women of a community when its men are lynched by right-wing vigilantes if they happened to be cattle traders. Why single out one community when others, too, require reforms?

The social and political cost of not having a Uniform Civil Code (UCC) is showing. Besides being mandated by Article 44 of the Constitution, the UCC is also part of the BJP’s agenda. It would unite India in true fashion where citizens irrespective of religion would follow the same laws for marriage, divorce, succession, etc.

Will Modi and his government bite the bullet while seeking to earn everyone’s saath and vishwas (support and trust)?

The writer can be reached at mahendraved07@gmail.com

]]>