Imperial India

"Madness is like gravity, all it takes is a little push"

- Joker, in the movie The Dark Knight

Indeed, all it's taken for madness to be unleashed in J&K was nothing more than a little push. The act of giving 40 hectares of land for temporary use was going to cause demographic change. Jammu protested, and then Kashmiris tried to go to Muzaffarabad to sell their wares.

And in all this, bleeding hearts have come out of the woodwork arguing for "azadi". Swaminathan S Anklesaria Aiyar is one of these bleeding hearts who believes that India is doing to Kashmir what "Great" Britain did to India.

Indian "intellectuals" have got to be the most masochistic people on the planet. They hardly lose any opportunity to indulge in self-flagellation. Unfortunately, many Indians do not know the facts of the Kashmir issue, and Aiyar being a "respected" Sunday columnist, is being taken seriously by people. Let's have a look at his claims.

As a liberal, i dislike ruling people against their will.

There are a lot of people who do not wish be ruled by the govt of India. I too am one of them. I don't see why I should pay taxes for money that ends up being exchanged to buy votes in a confidence motion. And a lot of other people would agree. If we get together, can we ask for independence from India as well?

The politically correct story of the maharaja's accession ignores a devastating parallel event. Just as Kashmir had a Hindu maharaja ruling over a Muslim majority, Junagadh had a Muslim nawab ruling over a Hindu majority. The Hindu maharaja acceded to India, and the Muslim nawab to Pakistan.

Well, Aiyar too ignores a very potent fact about both Junagadh and Kashmir. It is true that the Nawab of Junagadh chose Pakistan. However, two states under his suzeraintity, Mangrol and Babariawad, acceeded to India. Junagadh attacked them, thereby attacking India. India had all the right in the world to intervene. Even after that, India agreed to a plebiscite which was almost unanimously in favor of accession to India.

Coming to Kashmir, India was not against a plebiscite. It is a common propaganda by Pakistan and the liberals that we were. But a plebiscite has pre-requisites, like everything else. The pre-requisites were specified in UN Security Council Resoution 47 [full text here] and and the very first was that Pakistan would withdraw its military from all of J&K, and the Pathan tribesmen (who had invaded Kashmir to begin with and caused Hari Singh's accession to India) and remove all non-Kashmiris from J&K.

Pakistan neither did nor committed to, any of these. So when the UN-prescribed conditions for a plebiscite have not been met, how is it hypocritical to not go for a plebiscite?

Even India's entry into Kashmir wasn't a forced one, unlike the British entry into India. India did not invade a sovereign territory, the forces moved in after Hari Singh acceeded to India. The Pathans invaded Kashmir on 22 Oct 1947 and were well on their way to Srinagar. Hari Singh asked the Indian govt to intervene. But India could not legally do so unless Kashmir acceeded to India. He did that, and that's when India came in.

UN Resolution 47 clearly clubbed the Pakistan and the Pathan "tribesmen" recognizing that Pakistan was behind the Pathan invaders. So the accession of Kashmir to India was due to the invasion precipitated by Pakistan. How is this in any way similar to what the British did?

In these 60 years, we've had that bugbear of the Right called Article 370, which among other things forbids non-Kashmiris from buying land there. The vice versa is not forbidden. This is in direct contradiction to every occupied territory in history, whether it's Tibet, British India or, indeed, "Azad" Kashmir. Occupying powers, like China in Tibet, try to change demographics, which is something India hasn't done. How is this reminiscent to British rule except in deluded fantasy?

Let me not exaggerate. Indian rule in Kashmir is not classical colonialism. India has pumped vast sums into Kashmir, not extracted revenue as the Raj did. Kashmir was among the poorest states during the Raj, but now has the lowest poverty rate in India. It enjoys wide civil rights that the Raj never gave. Some elections — 1977, 1983 and 2002 — were perfectly fair.

Well, at least at the end of an article consisting of nothing but hideous exaggeration and self-flagellation, Aiyar has the good sense to inject some perspective. Yet masochistic tendencies can't be resisted for long, evidently. That's why Indian rule is not "classical" colonialism, whatever that means.

In the end, he roots for that eternal chimera: plebiscite. A plebiscite was possible in 1948, and if Pakistan had played along things would probably have been different. But plebiscite is not an indefinitely valid promise - after generations have passed, after Pakistan has altered the demographics of PoK, after the Kashmiri Pandits have been hounded out and Aksai Chin gifted to China, there is no more plebiscite possible.

Yet, the Aiyars of the world continue to mislead people into self-flagellation. Talking about the British Raj is an emotional ploy guaranteed to succeed in sending most Indians into a catharsis of shame, and it works because most Indians haven't read Resolution 47. We're lucky intellectuals like these weren't in power during Bhindranwale's revolt, else Punjab would have been a different country by now.

The Cult of Self-Pity

In the wake of the Amarnath agitation, a lot of people have raised supposedly poignant questions about India's democracy and commitment to secularism. Many of them belong to the Arundhati Roy category of leftist "intellectuals" who have a soft corner for anything Pakistani.

So it comes as a surprise (at least to me) when Shabana Azmi joins the brigade blasting Indian secularism in this interview with Karan Thapar. [Full interview here]

Now I'm not a great fan of secularism as practiced in India, but no matter how screwed-up it is, I don't see how it is against Muslims.

Credit where it is due. Azmi is without doubt the most intelligent and sensible Muslim voice in the media. I'd say Azmi is a far better Indian than all the gung-ho media patriots to whom Indian-ness is synonymous with saffron. She's not a puppet of the Mullahs. But the favorite hobby of the Mullahs - self-pity - isn't something she's entirely immune to.

It is her view, that Indian Muslims aren't treated well because - hold your breath,

I can’t get a house in Mumbai. I wanted to buy a flat and it wasn’t given to me because I am a Muslim.

Now that's interesting, because she apparently owns four houses in Juhu and a house in Khandala. She was rejected one flat somewhere and she concluded it was because she was Muslim? What about the other four houses she bought - why hasn't she mentioned them, is it because it's not ideologically convenient to do so?

[Times of India carried out a survey to verify Azmi's claims and this is what they found]

But let's get beyond whether Azmi's claims are true or not and look at whether they would be valid even if true, because even the Sachar report mentions that Muslims don't easily get flats on rent. There are many perfectly valid reasons why flats are denied. I have rented a flat; I know.

My ex-landlord rented us the flat on condition that we wouldn't cook or eat non-veg in the house. That being the case, it is easily imaginable that he would deny anyone who he knew would have to eat non-veg at home. Even many house owners who don't mind non-veg would mind beef, and therefore deny the house. Such people have no real problem with the tenants being Muslim as they do with the fact that it means beef might be eaten in the house.

Such concerns are not unjustified. It's the landlord who owns the house and it is his choice of parameters that should prevail. He's not committing a crime by denying the house. If tomorrow a Muslim denies me a house because I enjoy mocking Mohammad and Allah, it would be entirely justified. And bear in mind, those who say idol-worship is a sin and idols are false gods are doing the very same to the Hindus - another valid reason for denying a house.

But this house comment was probably the weakest link in her interview, and picking on it isn't really nice. So let's move on to another gem from the interview.

Karan Thapar: Shabana Azmi, I want to ask you a critical question as a former MP. Let’s talk a little bit more focussed about Indian Muslims. They are amongst the poorest, least educated and worst represented communities in India. Has Indian politics been unfair to the Indian Muslim?

Shabana Azmi: (After a thoughtful pause) Yes.

This is where things get really murky. Azmi believes Indian politics has been unfair to the Indian Muslim. I really wonder where that comes from. Which Indian politician or party is actually against Muslims getting an education or getting jobs? Forget the INC and Left, even the BJP doesn't oppose it - all they oppose is reservations.

Muslim bodies do not want a Uniform Civil Code, and so it has become a touchstone of Indian secularism that UCC is not secular. The whole definition of secularism has been twisted by the politicians and the media to suit the Muslims. This doesn't seem to be unfair to the Muslims.

Salman Rushdie's book was banned in India because it "hurt Muslim sentiments." Taslima Nasrin was disgraced and not-so-subtly forced to leave the country by the government. (Interestingly, MF Husain's paintings weren't banned). I don't support the shutting up of Rushdie, Nasrin or MFH, but its too glaring that Rushdie and Nasrin were both hounded out by the govt to please Muslims while MFH was not, and again that is not unfair to Muslims either.

In Shah Bano's case Rajiv Gandhi got the law changed to please Muslims, and again that is not unfair Muslims either.

And in the most recent Amarnath controversy, we had 40 hectares of land denied for temporary structures because a demographic change would take place there. I leave you to figure out what the demographic change is, but it doesn't seem to be unfair to Muslims either. But when the VHP talks of demographic change elsewhere in India, our secular intelligentsia and media are quick to pounce upon them.

So where and how exactly is politics being unfair to Muslims? All these indicate simply that what Muslims demand, the govt does. The last thing you can cry about this is that it is being "unfair".

The only exception is Gujarat and Babri Masjid. Heinous as they are, the fact that the culprits are not brought to book is simply because you can't touch politicians of any party in India. This fact, at least, is independent of Muslims and Hindus.

Yes, it is true that Muslims are under-represented. But as the recent movie Aamir asks, who has stopped them from doing anything? Which jobs are Muslims by law unqualified to apply for?

But Azmi does hit the nail on the head finally

Karan Thapar: But they do not get it because the politician do not think of that?

Shabana Azmi: Yes, that and the fact that the community is allowing itself to listen to the fundamentalists, who are not actually their leaders.

That's the whole point. Azmi needs to ask why is it that the fundamentalists, and not people like her, are seen as the leaders. Better still, why are there any leaders on a community level at all. There are no leaders of the community for Hinduism, Sikhism or Christianity, who enjoy any amount of comparable clout. The afro-haired Sai Baba is an exception, but he has as many detractors among Hindus as followers. No one sees him as a spokesman of Hindus.

Yes, its true that Muslims need to stop seeing themselves, and the whole world, through the religious prism. There is no worldwide conspiracy against Muslims. People are too busy getting their work done and making money to have an agenda of exterminating Muslims. Even Narendra Modi, after the 2002 riots, has focussed more on development than religion, because he realises that religious hatred won't keep him in power forever.

George Bush, Narendra Modi, LK Advani and Ali Sina are not the biggest enemies of Muslims. Self-pity is.