The Nuclear Debate

What Ideology?

Many of us are glued to the television these days wondering whether the Manmohan Singh Government will survive or not! The Left Parties have been crying from the roof tops that they will bring down the Government for ideological reasons. I ask – what ideology?

Left supporters say their social ideology forbids improving relationships with imperialistic nations. Is it true? Today, the imperialist forces are defined by the G8. These are the governments of Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States. These eight nations decide the future of other nations. I have not come across any objections from the Left Parties in improving relations with Japan, or Canada, or capitalistic Russia, nations in the G8. Interestingly, India is trying to gain entry into this group, and it has had the support of the Left Parties in its efforts - another interesting angle to the ideological issue.

Obviously, if relationships with imperialistic nations were an ideology, there would have been many occasions when the Left would have walked out. Looked at logically, the difference between the Left Parties and the Congress Party is therefore not ideological. The Left Parties have a special dislike to the United States – just one of the imperialist forces. Therefore, it is an issue of prejudice not ideology.

Let me now look at the ideology of coalition politics. When two parties get together to support each other, their formal relationship is determined by the ‘Common Minimum Program (CMP)’. If either of the parties were to dishonor the CMP, the other party is free to break the relationship. This is the ideology of coalition governance. Have the Left Parties followed this ideology when they have broken the relationship with the government for an issue that does not figure in their CMP?

Perhaps, the same argument can be used by the Left Parties to justify their action. If the Congress Party felt that the Nuclear deal was so important, why did they not insist in including it in the CMP? This shows how a comedy of error works. Obviously, the Congress Party did not believe that there would be threefold increase in the price of crude oil in the last 18 months. They also did not anticipate that they would be able to conclude a sweetheart deal with the United States. When these developments took place they should have renogtiated the CMP. It shows a lack of foresight at the least and political expediency at the worst.

Just like the Left Parties and the Congress, other political parties are viewing the Indo-US nuclear deal as a political opportunity to embarrass the government.

The Bhartiya Janata Party (BJP) wants a better deal with the United States. According to the Chief United States negotiator, the BJP was agreeable to a less favorable deal when it was in power.

Mayawati, a leader of the Dalits and heading the Bahujan Samaj Party, has suddenly become concerned about the interest of the Muslims, though the parties that represent the Muslims like the National Conference, All India Muslim League, and Progressive Democratic Party, etc. have all supported the Manmohan Singh government’s actions on the nuclear deal. What is anti-muslim about the deal?

Politicians have stopped thinking about the nation but are taking their positions based on short-term political or other gains. In the bargain, India is the loser.

Is the deal good for India? As a strategist, there can be many ways of looking at the various issues posed by this deal. Many of these issues have been raised by both the proponents and opponents of the deal. Much of it is complex and finally subjective.

Let me try to look at the deal as a layman. It is a known fact that Pakistan, at one time demanded that it be offered a similar deal to India, but U.S.A. refused to do so. Pakistan then begged for a similar deal, but it was denied again. One must remember that nuclear strategy been an important element in the competition between India and Pakistan.

Why was Pakistan so keen for a similar offer? The answer is very simple; Pakistan believes that India will be able to bring in fourth generation nuclear technology for its civilian uses. With this knowledge, India would have an edge over it as it finds ways to use this knowledge to develop superior nuclear weapons technology.

If this argument makes sense, we need to look no further. If it does not make sense, there is another simple way to look at the deal with the International Atomic Energy Commission (IAEC). According to the deal with the International Atomic Energy Commission (IAEC) India’s reactors will be split into two categories, for civilian use and for non-civilian use. India is still free to use non-civilian nuclear material in a manner it deems fit in keeping with its obligations to the world community.

This deal is based on the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT) philosophy. The NPT philosophy stands on three pillars: non-proliferation, desire towards disarmament, and the right to peacefully use nuclear technology. The NTP recognizes the inalienable right of sovereign states to use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. Do we disagree with this?

The crux of the matter is about testing of nuclear devices. Is this crucial? The destructive force of advanced nuclear weapons is so great now that no nation tests such weapons. The last underground test by the United States was in 1992, the Soviet Union in 1990, the United Kingdom in 1991, and both France and China stopped testing in 1996.

Technology has reached levels that the results of technological changes are simulated by computers. According to experts, these simulations are expected to have similar accuracies compared to scaled down models. Inaccuracies in such scaled down models are created by upscaling. This seems plausible, otherwise United States and USSR would not have signed the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty in 1996. They had the largest stake in developing such weaponry.

The nuclear deal with the IAEC and the Nuclear Supplier’s Group (NSG) will allow for the transfer of civilian nuclear material to India from all international sources, and yet permit India not to sign the NPT Agreement. The US-India nuclear deal is a deal offered by the United States to transfer of civilian nuclear material to India, forbidden by its laws for non-NPT states. This is a special offer based on India’s clean proliferation record, and its emerging economic status.

Good strategy is about moving the nation towards a preferred future. This means providing the nation with greater options. We can do this by signing the nuclear deal or we can hope for a better sweetheart deal with the next President of the United States. That is the risk.

Is the risk worth taking? The risk relates to our energy security. Affordable energy is critical to development. France has shown that Nuclear Power can be produced at prices that are lower or competitive to conventional sources. The prices of coal and natural gas, conventional sources for generating power, are tied to the price of crude. Were we to lose the nuclear deal option, it should be the prayer of every Indian that the the Thorium based technology being developed by India is highly successful. Alternatively, we should pray that the price of crude oil does not shoot up to $500 per barrel in the next 5 years.

An Interview with Upendra Kachru

This article is an interview with a journalist of PTI at the launch of my book 'Extreme Turbulence - India at the Crossroads'. It has appeared in a number of publications including 'The Economic Times' of April 24, 2008, rediff.com, nbcindia.com, newkerala.com, sify.com, parindia.com, etc.

I am reproducing it below:


India will weather economic turbulence: Book

PTI | April 24, 2008 | 15:17 IST

India's journey to become an economic superpower is fraught with dangers but the country�has the potential to overcome the turbulence, feels a management expert.

The widely held belief, particularly among constituents of India's 300 million strong middle class that the country was on its way to becoming an economic superpower in the near future, was misplaced, cautions Upendra Kachru, a management expert.

His book Extreme Turbulence was launched in the capital recently.

Kachru, however, expresses confidence in India's potential as an economic powerhouse. He highlighted the dangers we face as a nation on the move.

Unless the country gears up to face the onslaught of 'turbulence' resulting from a sudden yet tedious transition witnessed by the economy, it runs the risk of squandering the initial gains of growth, according to him.

"The focus of the book is on the challenges of change witnessed by India in its long journey of transition from a closed to an open economy and the resultant turmoils accompanied by this transition", says Kachru.

Though the Indian economy has crossed what Kachru calls the 'inflection point' of integration with the global economy, it has now entered the period of 'extreme turbulence', he says.

The 'extreme turbulence' results from a series of factors. Prominent among them were the quantum leaps achieved by scientific progress, technology advancement and social and political restructuring on the one hand.

On the other hand was the inability of the environment to sustain our burgeoning needs.

"One of the best aspects of our growth is that post 2005, we have passed a cusp, from where we can not go back, unless we make unprecedented blunders," Kachru says, adding, "The continuous growth sustained over almost a decade has already provided the required momentum to the economy."

However, the drawback, according to him stems from the fact that while a number of institutions existed to spell out models of perspective planning, no system had yet been deviced to take planning to the grassroots in order to ensure that growth does not bypass a section of them.

"You have to be able to take perspective planning from the ivory towers from where it is executed to the grassroots where it is implemented," Kachru says.

"I have tried to explain the processes of development to the middle class Indians through my book. I hope someone carries the explanation forward to grassroot levels", he says.

Responding to criticism that he overtly favoured capitalism as a model of economic development in his book despite its shortcomings, he calls the model of laissez fairre a 'necessary evil'.

"There are no accepted models of success that can be emulated today. Even the pride of being the most powerful nation could not keep a communist Soviet Union from disintegrating", he says.

"In the present circumstances we believe capitalism is the only way that can be manipulated to serve maximum people. It is what we call a necessary evil."

The Woman's Reservation Bill

Today's Supreme Court ruling on the reservations for OBCs has not come as a surprise. It creates a precedent for reservations to be seen as a cure for many ills. Let us think about the next case of reservations that is on its way - the Women's Reservation Bill.

Determined to find out the rationale for the Women's Reservation Bill, I raised the issue with a Member of Parliament. I asked him, “When more than 50 per cent of the electorate consists of women – why do you need the Women's Reservation Bill?”

He said, “Parties do not find suitable women candidates."

“I am sure that if you look hard enough, especially as there is such a large number of women, you could find the right type of woman candidate, and perhaps people will vote for them,” I said.

He replied, “Even if we look hard enough and find good candidates, it will not work. It is sad that women do not generally vote for women in elections if there are male candidates. Men do not like women to join politics – therefore do not vote for them. That is the main problem. --- The solution is the ‘Women’s Reservation Bill’.”

A senior party official, when asked why his party had not nominated more women in the last elections, explained that they were not able to find winnable women candidates. In a democratic set-up parties have to offer the most winnable candidate to the electorate. The solution to giving more representation of women in Parliament was the ‘Women’s Reservation Bill’.

From the perspective of the official of the political party, the ‘Women’s Reservation Bill’ will create suitable candidates, though such candidates are not available now. The perception of the Member of Parliament was that we need the ‘Women’s Reservation Bill’ because women will not vote for women and men will not vote for women.

It is an unusual phenomenon, when in a practicing democracy; the majority needs reservations to protect its interests. With nearly 51 per cent of the population in the country as women, we have a ‘Women’s Reservation Bill’ waiting on the sidelines in Parliament.

Women in India have been ministers, ambassadors, and even a Prime Minister. Examined next to other nations, India’s record of women in politics is impressive. In all general elections until 1998, 17.16 percent of all women candidates were elected to the Lok Sabha, as opposed to only 10.32 percent of all male candidates. Even among candidates of recognized parties, 32.53 percent of women candidates were elected, as opposed to 26.5 percent of male candidates. Though statistics show that women candidates do not seem to suffer discrimination at the hands of voters, yet political parties shy to nominate more women.

The buzz word is “empowerment”. Do women constitute a homogeneous constituency with common interests and goals which need to be represented in Parliament? Politics of special constituencies works best when the affected people feel that they can reap rewards. How will the ‘Women’s Reservation Bill’ empower the poorest and neediest of women folk? How does it ensure other changes such as social reform, land reform, literacy, etc. take place?

If the public and political parties create conditions that women look upon themselves as an important and distinct political constituent of society, women will be able to fill up all the seats in Parliament, without recourse to the provisions of the Bill. Possibly, there would be no men in Parliament.

The Other Backward Classes (OBC) and Backward Classes have changed the face of politics of the country by considering themselves as a political constituency. V.P. Singh destroyed much of the traditional vote bank of the India National Congress Party with the Mandal Commission Report. Mayawati in Uttar Pradesh, and Laloo Prasad Yadav in Bihar, are prime examples of the success of creating special political constituencies. The OBCs now comprise 280 MPs in a House of 542.

Common questions to the Bill are; how will constituencies be chosen; the will the process of rotation work; what will be the duration for which the preference will be experimented with; and how will the social composition of the proposed representation adequately reflect society.

Sadly, the Draft Bill is contrived and complex. The Bill mechanically provides for entry of women members to fill vacancies in the Lok Sabha and Vidhan Sabhas. Such mechanical reservation and rotation will result in two thirds of incumbent members being forcibly unseated in every general election.

Will candidates be able to nurse their constituencies on a long term basis? The rotation system will select and randomly reserve constituencies for women. It will deprive the electorate in these constituencies the right to elect the best candidate. As legislators will not have to seek re-election from the same constituency, they will not be accountable to their constituents. It will make it unnecessary for women to build their credibility as effective representatives. Politics will become more materialistic and the political process more unstable.

The Bill, as it is framed, will also encourage sections of the population with separate identities — tribals, caste groups, linguistic sub cultures, religious minorities, etc. to ask for reservations. We must also be open to the possibility of newer and newer sub-groups wanting recognition, representation and reservation in the political and economic arenas. Should the number of men in Parliament shrink, will we be discussing a ‘Men’s Reservation Bill’ so that men also find a place in Parliament.

The Forum for Democratic Reforms proposed an alternative to the ‘Women’s Reservation Bill’ that was endorsed by the Election Commission. The suggestion was to introduce legislation in Parliament that made it mandatory on parties to increase the nomination of the number of women candidates. We need to think again on the proposal put forward by The Forum for Democratic Reforms as it has distinct advantages over the reservation system proposed.

Democracy is about freedom of choice. In our system each person has one vote and an opportunity to exercise his or her franchise for the best candidate to represent the Legislature and Parliament.

I am not for ‘reservations’ as Article Fourteen of India's Constitution states, "The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India". Nonetheless, I do believe that there are special circumstances under which ‘reservations’ are justified - in the areas of self improvement and empowerment through the right to education or the acquisition of skills.

Reservations should not include functional areas or offices of profit. There is a need to look at the ‘Women’s Reservation Bill’ once again, to remove its limitations. This should be done only when we can convince ourselves that the ‘Women’s Reservation Bill’ is indeed essential.

We should not forget what Justice R.V. Raveendran wrote in the OBC judgment, "When more or more people aspire for 'backwardness' instead of 'forwardness' the country itself stagnates." Perhaps, the final answer lies by the Parliament using the logic used by the Supreme Court regarding the death sentence, ‘reservations’ should be practiced in the rarest of rare cases.

Book Release: Extreme Turbulence - India at the Crossroads

Yesterday my book, 'Extreme Turbulence - India at the Crossroads' was formally released by Shri Yashwant Sinha former Finance Minister in the NDA Government. He said, "I opened this book casually, and then I could not put it down till I had finished it". And he continued praising the book lavishly.

Mr. Kuldip Nayar, the noted journalist, who was supposed to discuss the book had obviously not read it. So he talked about independence and poverty in India. He also said "The rich are dishonest, cheats, blah! blah! blah!".

The function was great. The "blah! blah! blah!" created some sort of a stir in the forum and became the basis for a lively discussion. It continued for over half an hour. This is the first book opening I have been to in Delhi where the discussion session lasted over 30 minutes.

As soon as I got down from the dais, Jiji came up to me and embraced me with tears in her eyes. She was weeping with joy and pride. That is when sorely I missed my parents. I imagined how Papaji and Chandji would have reacted. Maybe they were watching from the other side.

As I walked out into the hall, Mr. Sukumar, the CEO of Harper Collins came up to me and said, "Congratulations, that was great". What a relief. I had been very aprehensive about my performance at the function - the book covers such a wide range of topics, and I was not sure of myself and my ability to field all the questions. Now, it was over. My family and friends told me I came out smelling like a rose in the discussion session!

The discussion session was followed by cocktails and snacks. I was swamped with requests to sign copies of my book. I must have signed at least 20 copies. The food was good. Usha thought that the Kababs were excellent. Purnima loved the mushrooms stuffed with cheese. I stuck to beer and fish fingers, both of which I love.

We left after 10 P.M. and the party shifted to C-47. Ajay, Shiro, Praful, Gaurav, Gautam, Sai, Vaibhav, and their friends were all there. The evening finally ended after 1 A.M.

Next morning Shubha called. She said she saw Vinod Dua leaving with a copy of the book. Lots of people who had come to the book release had to leave as the hall did not have enough seating capacity. Litika, the head of promotions in Harper Collins, also told me that they had not expected such a response but they were able to get all the right people to the book launch.

**************

Well, this is the formal address I made to the audience:

Hon’ble Shri Yashwant Sinha, Shri Kuldip Nayar, Mr. Sukumar and Friends,

I am meeting Mr. Sinha today after nearly 27 years. Mr. Sinha may not remember me, but I can not forget him. Maruti was registered as a company in February 1981. At that time, I was working for Maruti under the custodianship of Shri M.C. Gupta. Mr. Sinha was a member of the first board of Directors.

As Maruti’s Chief Executive, I personally took board resolutions to his office to have them signed. I went to see him right after he took over as a director of Maruti. I had expected to walk into a conventional office, but his office was not conventional. I walked into an impressive sitting room, with a sofa upholstered in white, some easy chairs and a centre table. In the corner of the room was a small table, perhaps 4’ x 2’, with just a few files on it and a chair was facing the wall. My interaction with Mr. Sinha made me certain that I was in front of someone special. I was right. At that time Mr. Sinha was a Joint secretary in the Ministry of Transport. His rise in politics to become the Finance Minister and the External Affairs Minister in the NDA Government is an extraordinary story.

Thank you, sir, for your graciousness in releasing my book and thank you again for your lavish praise of my book.

Shri Kuldip Nayar has kindly agreed to speak on my book for which I am extremely grateful. When I think of Mr. Nayar, many things come to my mind. I think of a person of distinction, long experience, great social commitment, and a well-respected doyen of journalists. I look forward to what he has to say on my book. Whatever Mr. Nayar says will certainly provide more insights to me.

My publishers, Harper Collins, have asked me to share with this distinguished audience a few words about my “turbulence”, that is, my book. I would prefer you read my book rather than listen to me. But my publishers are my boss and, therefore, you will have to bear with me. I promise I will try to make this introduction short. I will not talk on the contents of this book, but say a few words about the premises on which the book is based.

As the title suggests, the primary focus of ‘turbulence’ is the challenges of change. This focus leads us to the first premise. If future were predetermined, change provides no challenge. The challenge exists because the future is not somewhere we are going; it is something we are creating. We have to decide on the type of future we want to create.

The second premise relates to the nature of the challenge. Never before in the history of humankind has the rate of change, the challenges to be faced, and the cost of failure been so high. The coming decades will see many major discontinuities in the economic, political, and social spheres. How will we, as a nation, face this ‘Extreme Turbulence’?

The third premise relates to solutions to these challenges. Never before has humankind acquired so much knowledge and proficiency to meet the challenges of change. Can we use this knowledge to create a brighter future, and a more inclusive and prosperous society?

The fourth and final premise recognizes the paradigm change in the power equation. Power that was vested wholly with the nation-state is now shared with the nation’s institutions and individuals.

This means recognizing that a nation can create prosperity only through institutions and civil society implementing new ideas and pursuing the country’s dreams. Will we dare find the means to integrate the resources of the government, institutions (both private and public), and civil society into a coherent force for social and economic development?

The final premise is also the motivation for writing this book. Developmental strategy, popularly called ‘perspective planning’, has been a monopoly of the government since independence. Unfortunately, we have not so far developed any institutions or alternative frameworks to bring ‘perspective planning’ to the civil society. If the civil society has to be involved in a push for development, these issues have to be brought to them in a manner that is simple so that they can understand the issues.

I have tried to take a small step in this direction. I do not know how far I have succeeded but I have described, with stories, the challenges and how the governance in India, Indian business and industry, chiefly the successful ventures, have tackled the upheavals and challenges of extreme turbulence.

It is my hope, Ladies and Gentlemen, that this book will initiate a discussion in our civil society of how we can contribute to our aspirations for a better future for India. If that happens, I will consider myself fully rewarded.

And, finally, I take this opportunity to thank my publishers, Harper Collins, for their cooperation in making this “turbulence” possible.

THANK YOU!

India, Pakistan and the Kashmiris

I was a student at the University of Illinois many years back. During those days, I developed a very close friendship with Khalid. He was studying for a Ph. D in nuclear physics. Khalid was a Kashmiri from Pakistan and I was a Kashmiri from India. We had many things in common, but surprisingly all the things we had in common were the things I have in common with my north Indian friends – not a single commonality related to our being Kashmiri.

Contrary to common perception, a ‘Kashmiri’ is basically a territorial identity. It means – a state subject of the former Princely State of Kashmir or a descendant of a male subject of the State. That is reality.

In 1950, Sir Owen Dixon, the UN representative for India and Pakistan, noted that Kashmir was “not really a unit geographically, demographically or economically” so much as “an agglomeration of territories brought under the political power of one Maharaja”.

There is no linguistic link between Kashmiris in Pakistan and in India. People speak Kashmiri in the valley, Dogri in Jammu and Ladakhi in Ladakh. But in Pakistan held Kashmir, the majority speak Punjabi, others Pashtu and Potohari (Mirpuri).

The ethnic background of the communities across the Line of Control (LOC) is also different. The Kashmiris in Pakistan held Kashmir are basically of Punjabi and Pathan stock. The Kashmiris in the valley are an old recorded civilization that can trace its identity much further back than other inhabitants of South Asia. Ladakhis and Dogras in Indian Kashmir also have no ethnic links with the people of Pakistan held Kashmir.

The LOC actually separates distinct linguistic, ethnic as well as cultural communities. The only commonality between the communities in the two countries is that a large part of the population is Muslim.

****************

The Kashmir problem is not about the separation of ethnic or linguistic groups between India and Pakistan. India has the second largest Muslim population in the world and the Muslim population of Kashmir is a very small part of it. That a large part of the population in Kashmir is Muslim – is important to the theocratic state of Pakistan. Is this argument reason enough to create or accept a division?

As long as Pakistan insists that Kashmir is the core issue between India and Pakistan and is an unfinished agenda of the partition and India takes the stand that the demographic character of the country is such that any settlement based on religion would threaten the very fabric of the country; we have to be mentally prepared that the conflict will not go away.

If the people of Kashmir had to decide their future, how is this to be ascertained? If it is an unfinished part of partition, I believe that it is the people who were part of the partition process who were provided the choice. This right of choice is not a right that passes from generation to generation. The demography and the conditions in the region have changed.

The solution has to be based on trying to reconstruct what the will of the people was at the time of the United Nations resolution. There has been significant progress in the social sciences and in techniques of analysis. Is it possible to reconstruct the wishes of the people from the facts and statistics available?

As this may not be possible, talks can provide a solution if there is goodwill and a serious determination to find solutions. India and Pakistan have yet to show that they have a will to work and live together.

One has to remember the regularity of bilateral talks since 1972, at the Foreign Secretary level every one or two years and at the President or Prime Minister level more than 9 times between 1972 and 2001.

The perceptions of religion, ethnicity and plebiscite hide the reality of the escalation of the conflict with India. The problem relates to Pakistan’s ruling dispensation. That is why the solution so difficult to find.

The Pakistan Army came into birth with a war on Kashmir. The Kashmir conflict is the structural element that helps it to remain in a constant situation of mobilizing society and imposing its control upon it. An Army can only rule when there is a threat perception.

As a theocratic nation, the Army finds it difficult to identify its Muslim neighbors as threats. Therefore, India has been projected as a real threat to Pakistan and this projection has been carried out effectively for the last 50 years. The fragile cohesion of Pakistan and the trauma of the 1971 division of Pakistan strengthen this image of India. It not surprising then that the Kashmir issue has been kept alive.

The escalation of the Kashmir problem by Pakistan is the effect of the strategy for control, and is not the cause of the Indo-Pakistan imbroglio.

*********

Though India may believe that Kashmir is an integral part of this country and Kashmir's accession to India is final and non-negotiable, we have to keep talking. It is more important now, especially keeping in mind the new developments in Pakistan. Dialogue helps in lowering hostility.

Perhaps the talks should start by India convincing Pakistanis, the world and Indians that India is a secular nation and not a Hindu nation in spite of its demography; India is not a threat to Pakistan in spite of its size and military power; that the existing power structure in Pakistan can be sustained even if India and Pakistan maintain neighborly and friendly relations.

Pakistan on the other hand can convince India that it is willing to build bridges between and peoples and ensure that its territories are not used to attack or destabilize the balance between the countries. It will use its media to further India-Pakistan relations.

The process of talks has to start by finding ways to encourage people to people contact to induce a fresh air of conciliation and prove the credentials of both India and Pakistan, bettering their sports and cultural relations, and ensuring good media. If this shows results they can look at trade as the area to exploit.

Both the countries need to recognize that regional co-operation can be mutually beneficial. They can work together to expand their regional markets and improve their competitive position internationally.

A sustainable and coherent policy, based on mutual respect to each other, has to be created for talks on Kashmir to be fruitful. The first step in this exercise would be to improve the relations between the two countries and at the same time work to bring peace to the state. A step-by-step approach then needs to be decided upon. This will require the countries to formulate a coherent approach of how the Kashmir dispute can be resolved.

India and Pakistan are both mature nations. They should understand that they are weaker if they work against each other and stronger if they work together. As nuclear powers they cannot afford war. Therefore, they need to talk – they need to shed their suspicions of each other and talk peace, understanding and co-existence. Perhaps the solution will have to be built around making the LOC a more permanent line of separation, as both nations have lived with it for over sixty years.


Upendra Kachru

Ruminations on Kashmiriyat

I had written this piece and another, sometime in 2003, on my native land - Kashmir. I did not do anything with this piece of writing then, but now I want to share my thoughts with you. The piece may be dated in terms of chronology, but the facts and sentiments still remain unchanged.

KASHMIR – KASHMIRIYAT

"Gar Jannat Bar-ru-e-Zamin Ast ; Hamin Ast , Hamin Ast, Hamin Asto”

If there is paradise on this earth; this is it, this is it, and this is it. These words are believed to be the expressions of the Mughal Emperor Jahangir. Bernier, who was the first European to enter the territory as early as 1665 AD, called it "a kingdom of unsurpassing beauty". Francis Younghusband, another great admirer, has said in his charming book on Kashmir that when "the clouds roll by, the haze lifts and a real Kashmir spring or autumn discloses itself, the heart of even the hardest visitor melts and he becomes a Bernier himself !"

The chronology of the Kashmir Kings written by Kalhana in his Raj Tarangini eulogises the beauty of Kashmir and says “ Kashmir is manifest with the beauty of Goddess Parvati; and its owner is Lord Shiva himself.”

Legend states that the Kashmir valley was once a large lake and in it lived an abominable demon. The demon was killed after the lake was drained with the collective help of Brahma's grandson, Kashyap and the goddess Parvati. Parvati killed the demon by dropping a mountain upon him and thereby crushing him to death. This legendary mountain is believed to be 'Takht-i- Sulaiman' or Shankracharya that forms the famous backdrop to the city of Srinagar.

Beauty and Kashmir are synonymous. Kashmir has been the poet’s paradise, the dreamer’s “heaven”, and its beauty has made it the envy of the region. Surrounded by three Himalayan ranges, Karakoram, Zanaskar and Pir Panjal - majestic with snow covered peaks, the valley is a tourist’s delight. These mountains are the birthplace of the great rivers that flow through the valley.

Every season offers new vistas - spring, when the air is heady and the valley is filled with the fragrance of a million flowers that blossom on trees, shrubs and creepers; summer and autumn, when these effects are heightened with the colors of warm introspection; winter, when the snow paints the landscape with a brush of white.

However, the most beautiful of all, the gem that made Kashmir a real paradise, was its multifaceted and unique cultural blend. Its different cultural forms like art and architecture, fair and festivals, rites and rituals, seer and sagas, cuisine and language, embedded in ageless period of history, created an unparalleled cultural cohesion – called ‘Kashmiriyat’.

******

Myths and history, language and literature, art and architecture, culture and tradition, in Kashmir all worked towards strengthening the concept of 'kashmiriyat'. In Kashmir, Buddhism reached the zenith of its glory, Hinduism extended its philosophical frontiers into Shaivism and Shaktism, and Islam achieved a new meaning and practice in its tradition of Sufism.

'Kashmiriyat’ was an evolution of a people isolated by geography and interdependent on each other. This interdependence grew into a common culture, a native pride, a togetherness and mutuality amongst the peoples – something local and ingenious to the valley.

The concept of togetherness and mutuality was passed on by wandering mendicants, male and female, Hindu and Muslim. Their songs and utterances penetrated into the imagination of the people. Their hymns were in their language, Kashmiri. It was the memory and compositions of Lal Ded and Noor-ud-Din and Habba Khatoon that continued to inspire the Kashmiri Muslims and Hindus alike, irrespective of class or religion and promote ‘Kashmiriyat’.

The 1990’s saw an attack on ‘Kashmiriyat’. It started with threats, abduction, torture and killings. It resulted in the flight of nearly a quarter of a million of Kashmiri Pandits of the Kashmir valley into neighboring Jammu and the plains of India. Death and destruction came to the valley, with armed bands burning down educational institutions bridges and vital communications, looting, vandalizing and burning the leftover properties of Pandits. They also started enforcing Islamic diktat on the masses and holding civil servants to ransom in order to run the administration by proxy.

The story of the exodus of the Kashmiri Pandit from the valley and the aftermath is the story of our family and many like us. We lived in Habakadal in Srinagar. Though our family branch of the family left the valley in 1948, my uncles used to live in the ancestral home. One night in early 1991, the neighbors told them that they should leave. It was not safe for the family to continue living in the mohalla. My uncles hired an auto rickshaw. The family packed some of their most precious belongings and went to the bus terminus in the dead of the night. When they tried to board the bus to Jammu, they were told to leave their belongings behind as there was no space in the bus for their luggage. They left the valley with a suitcase, which was all they could carry. Our ancestral house was burnt down a few years later.

These refugees also carried away with them the centuries old tradition of ‘Kashmiriyat’. It was there in 1947. It enabled the Kashmiris to counter- attack the Kabalis. The Kashmiris could have thrown their own lot with the invaders and thus could have opted for Pakistan. But they didn’t. They threw their weight with secular and democratic India rather than with theocratic and authoritative Pakistan. They showed more concern with Kashmiriyat i.e. their Kashmiri identity than with their Muslim identity. Is it still there?

A change is taking place – the Kashmiri Pandits have left the valley. People who visit the valley notice a difference in the social and economic fabric of the valley. Much of the political and economic power in Kashmir is now in the hands of many who would normally not have such power. In a major thrust to expand literacy, ‘Madrasas’ have gained importance amongst the population. Many of these institutions are believed to focus on the Islamic identity of the students – weakening the concept of ‘Kashmiriyat’.

Is it an accident that Sheikh Abdullah, who was considered a pillar of ‘Kashmiriyat’, made all his major political announcements out of Hazratbal, a mosque? His son, Farooq Abdullah, and his grandson follow this tradition. Interestingly, the expansion of the ‘Madrasas’ started during the Sheikh regime. Considering politics of the country where religion, language and caste have become the vehicles to create vote banks – it is not surprising. To an extent this is a legitimate strategy in a democracy – but when focusing on votebanks based on religious beliefs can result in fundamentalism, there is need to re- examine this issue.

There may be vast differences between perception and reality. A study conducted by Dr. Mir Zafar Iqbal in his book, 'Unrest In The State Of Jammu And Kashmir - A Quest Of Some Psycho-social Correlates', (Mohit Publications, 2003) showed similarity in attitudes towards Kashmiri nationalism (that envisages ‘Kashmiriyat’) being cherished by Muslims, Hindus and militants equally. In groups, he studied from Kashmir, he found no Hindu –Muslim prejudice. He concludes that the Kashmir issue is not an ethnic problem between Hindus and Muslims but is a problem about Kashmiri nationalism.

A combination of Kashmiri nationalism and the temptation of a plebiscite make up a deadly cocktail. It is, therefore, no wonder that Pakistan and many of the political parties in the valley keep the issue of plebiscite open. As long as plebiscite is a possibility and this concept is kept alive in the minds of the people, there is the incentive to change the demography of the region and the mindset of the people.

**********

As an optimist, I hope Dr. Mir Zafar Iqbal is right and ‘Kashmiriyat’ has temporarily gone underground. If this is the problem, the solution lies in restoring law and order and taking back control of the civil governance. This is a difficult task, and requires external influences to be minimized and internal influences maximized.

External influences can be restricted using diplomatic processes, improved security arrangements and technological options to halt cross-border movement and publicity. Internal processes can be strengthened only if the people have the will to do so.

The average Kashmiri has to start fighting the threats of the armed groups - who have no accountability and play by rules of their own making. Tradition and morality has once again to take precedence over other issues. This will be possible by reawakening ‘Kashmiriyat’ and using it as the resource to provide a healing touch. This task is difficult and requires patience, but reawakening the conscience of the people is the way to bring back peace in Kashmir.

I remember the pride my father and my grandfather took in the fact that we were Kashmiris and of the spirit of ‘Kashmiriyat’, amongst us. It took just a few months of violence to tarnish a tradition that had a genesis of over a thousand years. Secularism, that has become the essence of Indian pluralism, is based on the concept of ‘Kashmiriyat’ – the tradition of respecting the identity of diverse ethnic groups, enriching their cultures and contributing towards their social mores. It was Nehru’s background and what he saw of ‘Kashmiriyat’ in the valley that made him believe that secular India could be a reality. Kashmir exported the unique concept of ‘Kashmiriyat’ to India and now it needs to be brought back into Kashmir.


Upendra Kachru