Desicritics Category: Politics: Peace

Of Desis, Settlers and Flotillas in Israel

commonsense — Tue, 8 Jun 2010 16:58:37 EDT

Over the past decade, many Jews disenchanted with official Israeli policies have voted with their feet by migrating away from Israel. There has also been a sharp decline in would-be settlers of illegally occupied lands who in the past could be lured to the illegal settlements through a combination of large houses and the racist doctrines espoused by Meir Kahane and his ilk. With a declining birth-rate for Jews, most demographers agree that within the next three decades or so, Arab Israelis will outnumber Jewish Israelis, with obvious implications for a nation that never misses an opportunity to blow its own trumpet about being the “only democracy in the Middle East” while wanting to maintain its identity as a “Jewish state”. In a democratic logic of numbers, it does not take a rocket-scientist to figure out what will happen next.

Enter the desi connection. Illegal settlers are terrified at the prospect of the declining numbers of Jews (even if they are secular Jews). Over the past few years, the more desperate settler activists have been out to convince that Indians from the Northeast regions are in reality estranged Jews who need to come back to the fold and settle in the illegal settlements. This strategy has worked to some extent. The more comical settler activists are even trying to convince the Pashtuns of Afghanistan and Pakistan that they are in reality members of the lost tribe of children of Israel and all will be forgiven if they simply come back settle in the illegally occupied territories. It is not at all clear if any Pashtun has taken up this offer. Perhaps a resident of DC Blogistan can provide some figures of the “success” rates in converting Pashtuns, through spiritual and material bribes.

Even if the success rate is high, time is against those Israelis who believe that might is right and they will always get their way. What happens in the future is anybody’s guess, but that does not stop anyone from making informed guesses. As a recent article in the New York Times indicates, many in the United States are really beginning to wonder if their governments’ unconditional support for Israel, even in the wake of attacks on the flotilla aimed at challenging the blockade of a Gaza ruled by a democratically elected government even though it happens to the repulsive Hamas earlier promoted by the Israeli state in an effort to counteract support for Arafat and Fatah. What happens next is of course anyone’s guess. But an informed guess, as opposed to literal readings of scriptures that some folks here are invested in, is that sooner or later, the United States government may stop issuing blank checks as advance rewards for Israel’s arrogant behavior.

Terrorism: Let Us Get to The Negotiating Table

Golden Boy — Thu, 27 May 2010 00:47:48 EDT

We should first start at looking Terrorists in new light - as human beings, as people. Branding someone as a Terrorist brings with it a lot of conditioning and colours our perception. We begin to judge the person with the coloured perception of our prejudices- e.g. "Terrorist= Killer. All Killers must be killed. All terrorists must be killed."

What we forget is that these are people who believe in a Cause. They are so overcome with their Cause that they are willing to kill and die for it. By dying for their cause, they become gruesome killers in our sight, but to their comrades and States that support them - they become heroes and martyrs. They are perhaps today's Terrorists for us, but tomorrow's freedom-fighters for them.

The question, in dealing with Islamic Terrorism today, is asking ourselves why do they have to resort to Violence? Don't they feel that there could be somebody who could listen genuinely to their grievances?

We all know that Nation States can become demonic in their greed for Power. At such times, individuals do take law into their own hands. Can the terrorists too be such victims of Greedy Nation States?

The Islamic Radicals say that Israel is perpetuating crime against Palestinian Muslims, India against Kashmiri Muslims, the Russians against Muslims in Chechnya, Americans against Iraqi Muslims... They say that they don't want the presence of American Troops in Saudi Arabia, the land of their sacred places- Mecca and Medina. They point out to the Bosnian Genocide.

When I present these points of view it is not to justify the Violence perpetuated by the Terrorists on the common man of the Western Countries, Israel, India and Pakistan. Violence cannot be justified.

However, the present policy of hate vs.hate, violence against violence will only perpetuate more violence. We all know that many more recruits are joining Islamic Fundamentalist Organisations in the name of Jihad (the holy war) Why, many of these new recruits, as we have seen in recent years, are
educated youth!

Continuing the old Policy of an Eye for an Eye, will be foolishness. We need to come out with a new way towards peace, towards Truce. We need to get down to the negotiating table with an open mind with these warring forces.

Only Dialogue is a way out. When I say genuine Dialogue, it means that we need to be open to the idea of Honest self-reflection on both sides. And when we speak of a Dialogue, we need to approach the table with the mind-set of carrying out some heart-breaking changes/compromises on both sides. E.g. India may have to move out of Kashmir and allow a UN plebiscite there. And the Islamist radicals will have to honour the outcome of the Plebiscite even if it is against their liking. They will have to first agree to Truce when the negotiations are on.

That is the only way out. Not bombing or shelling innocent citizens! Not indoctrinating innocent youth to become human-bombs.

We need to talk with these people. We need to invite them to the table, we need to impress them with our honesty at wanting to find out a way out- a Golden Truce wherein both the parties reach concrete solutions.

We need to remember that ultimately each one of us, no matter which side of the fence we belong to - are members of a larger Community - the Human Race.

Let us talk and find solutions. Let us co-exist!

I have created a Google group called Golden Truce, for people who are willing to participate in a Dialogue on the ways and means to find alternative Ways to Deal with Terrorism through Honest Dialogue and Peace. Both sides, the Islamic Radicals, the Modern Radicals (the George Bush-types who believe in killing against killing), and also the common man who have been affected emotionally or personally by the acts of terror, not forgetting - bureaucrats and ministers, clerics & priests, and even the so-called Terrorists are welcome to contribute to the Dialogue and Honest Self Reflection.

A Road to Peace? Cracking the Qur'an Code

Ruvy — Sat, 22 May 2010 16:25:01 EDT

It was late April on a warm night in Jerusalem. The room on the third floor of the Israel Center of Jerusalem filled up. Dr. Asher Eder introduced the evening as the master of ceremonies. His opening remarks were to serve to introduce Lowell Gallin’s new book, Cracking the Qur'an Code: God’s Land, Torah and People Covenants with Israel in the Qur’an and Islamic Tradition.

In much the same fashion that the short story, The Sentinel, was the seminal basis for the novel, 2001, this essay by Dr. Asher Eder, Peace is Possible Between Ishmael and Israel According to the Qur'an and the Tanakh, has been the seminal work that has helped bring forth Lowell Gallin's groundbreaking book, Cracking the Qur'an Code: God’s Land, Torah and People Covenants with Israel in the Qur’an and Islamic Tradition.

In his remarks, Dr. Eder pointed out how the Qur’an is deliberately misinterpreted to create conflict between Muslims and non-Muslims and read greetings from Sheikh Professor Abdulhadi Palazzi

The author, Lowell Gallin, then began his lecture. He described how a former Deputy-Attorney General of Israel, Nahum Rakover, introduced him to Sheikh Professor Palazzi, who has turned out to be the man whose appearance was foretold by Dr. Eder 40 years ago – a Muslim scholar who would arise who would state in plain Arabic and English that the “emperor had no clothes”; that Jew-hatred, Israel-hatred, holocaust denial and anti-Zionism was a lot of garbage.

And then he launched into his subject. I managed to get an interview with Lowell Gallin, and the topics covered on that hot evening in April in that lecture are revealed to you in that interview which follows immediately below.

__________________________________________________________________

What inspired this book?

There was no such book and I thought there should be such a book. The book is composed of essays - but the "reactor core" of the book are the Sacred Verses which are divided into five sections:

God's Land Covenant with Israel,
God's Torah Covenant with Israel,
God's People Covenant with Israel,
The Eternal Capital of the Israelite Kingdom of David and Solomon, and
The Tabernacle - references to the First, Second and Third Temples (Jerusalem is not mentioned in the Qur'an by name - it is not mentioned in the Torah by name, either).

Why should a Muslim be interested in a Jew explaining his book to him? Doesn't that seem arrogant?

The book is written in honor of and based on the teachings of Dr. Asher Eder of Jerusalem, and Sheikh Professor Abdulhadi Palazzi of Rome, Italy. I acted as a scribe or recording secretary to put their teachings in book form. Sheikh Palazzi recommended that we use the English translation of and commentary of the Qur'an by Professor Abdullah Yusuf Ali - his English translation and commentary on the Qur'an is the one most respected by Muslims world wide. Note that the 3rd Edition of Prof. Ali's Commentary was published in Lahore, India, in 1938. It is critical to use a modern version of this work that is absolutely faithful to this 1938 3rd Edition, not one corrupted by "Saudi" or Wahhabi publishing houses. The two "kosher" publishing houses today of this work [Ali, Abdullah Yusuf. The Holy Qur’an: Text, Translation and Commentary] are Goodword Books, New Delhi, India, (e-mail: info@goodwordbooks.com) and Tahrike Tarsile Qur’an, Inc. Elmhurst, New York, (e-mail: read@koranusa.org).

Why and how does one make this claim? What do you mean by "kosher" editions?

A. In the original commentary Prof. Ali used the word "God" whereas the "improved" Wahhabi versions use "Allah" - the "improvers," the Wahhabi, believe that Allah cannot be translated. This is just a way to identify the tampered translation.
B. In the original commentary, Prof. Ali had many positive comments about other religions, Hindus, Zoroastrians, as well as Jews and Christians. The "improved versions" remove all of these.

You say you merely are a scribe or recording secretary. Sheikh Palazzi has a website where his own teachings are made very clear. Why this book, then?

This is the first book to give all qur'anic references to the five subjects I mentioned above. Professor Ali gives the majority opinions, and where applicable, he mentions minority commentators as well. You get from Professor Ali a "sense of the Muslim consensus". The book has a section on the work of Salah Choudhoury, a Bangladeshi journalist who is a Muslim Zionist, and a section on pro-Israel ethnic Turkic (Sunni Muslim majority) nations. It should be noted here that the Muslim world is not all anti-Israel, nor is it necessarily united in its politics, and we non-Muslims do not really comprehend it very well.

Somehow there is a disconnect here. Why is it that so many régimes, particularly Turkey, are so hostile to Jews and Israel if Muslims supposedly are not?

Muslims where? Albanian, Azerbaijani, and the Central Asian Turkic republics have strong diplomatic, economic and military relations with Israel. What about everybody else? The North African nations are not really Arabs. Ethnically, they are not Arabs at all. What about the Pakistani, the millions of Muslims in India? What about the Malaysians, the Indonesians, the rebels in the Philipines? What about the Arab nations and the Muslim "diaspora" in Europe and elsewhere? What function does the Jew-hatred, anti-Israel sentiment, and holocaust denial serve in these countries? It's really very simple.

The autocratic régimes, if you want to even call them that, can deflect the rage of their own people at the inablility of these régimes to provide anything. These societies are nightmares, they are living hell on earth. Their leaders say to themselves, "You cannot blame yourself, you cannot blame your elders, you cannot blame God." Some blame the Jews for the poverty. That's how these régimes survive. That's how the so-called "Palestinian" society survives. Their basic attitude is "someone else is always responsible for our mess".

Who funds all this? "Saudi" Arabia, Quwait, and the Gulf States are funding this world-wide. This is the "public" face of "Islam." What you are really seeing is the public face of Wahhabism pretending to be Islam.

What is Wahhabism? Why is it so bad?

Wahhabism is the tribal religious cult of the al-Saud tribe of Nejd in Arabia. Wahhabis believe that all NON-WAHHABIS are not really Muslims. ONLY Wahhabis are true Muslims. Sunni and Shi'ite Muslims, in Wahhabi eyes, are NOT Muslims. All non-Muslims are fair game for murder, rape, theft, and torture. They make videos of the "fair game." Like fourteen year old school girls, or Daniel Pearl who was beheaded. Al-Qaeda, the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas and the Taliban are all Wahhabi in theology and are funded from "Saudi" Arabia. Their oil money funds all these terror activities and wars.

The Wahhabi call themselves Salafi. Too many call them "jihadists", or "Islamo-fascists" or "Islamic fundamentalists." These names mean nothing and only mislead and cover up the true evil - the true people who are carrying on and inciting war between the Children of Abraham.

Thank you very much.

__________________________________________________________________

In the end, this book, though written in English, is for Muslims to read. They are the ones who study the Qur’an. It is their holy book, and the bottom line, the argument of this book, is that the Qur’an guarantees the right of the Children of Israel to control all of the Land of Israel. Having contributed to this book myself, I cannot write a review on it. But the acid test is not how I, a Jew, might view this book, but how a Muslim might. And Professor Fazal ur-Rehman Afridi, a Muslim from Pakistan, has written a review of this work at his site, The Balkanization of Pakistan.

Dr. Eder made a point about Islam about how Muslims view efforts at success. According to Dr. Eder, who once considered converting to Islam, Muslims believe that they have an obligation to try three times with their best and strongest efforts to accomplish something. Only after they have tried three times with their best efforts, and have failed, will they say that Allah meant for that endeavor not to succeed. Then he explained how the Muslims attempted to conquer Europe twice – once in 782 C.E., when they were stopped by Charles Martel, and the second time in the late 1600’s when they were stopped by the Swedes. The third attempt is taking place now. If this book can help stop this effort, so much the better. But that is not the main reason this book has been written. The real intent of the book is to bring peace between the Children of Ismail, and the Children of Israel.

The reason I’ve sought publication of this article at a South Asian site, is that India has the second largest number of Muslims of any nation in the world, and to my knowledge, English speaking Pakistanis and Bangladeshis can access this site as well. This means that hundreds of millions of Muslims could be exposed to this article, and possibly be influenced to buy this book (from Lulu.com) and to come to view the Qur’an in a light that can bring peace to my war-torn region of the world, as well as possibly to their own. At present, this region is on the edge of war, yet another war, one that will be brought about by evil men whose “messianic” vision will bring yet more death and destruction to this region.

Apparently, the millions dead in the war between Iraq and Iran in the 1980’s were not enough; the thousands dead in the fighting in Yemen have not been enough. The thousands dead in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq are not enough. The millions wounded and crippled for life are not enough. The homeless in refugee camps of the desperate throughout the Middle East are not enough. It seems that to the Wahhabi terrorists across South Asia and the Middle East, and to the Shi’a madmen in Iran, more death, more injured, and more refugees are just what the doctor ordered.

Speaking as a Jew and as an Israeli, I tell you that if this nation is attacked, and it may well be attacked as early as this summer, this nation will deal out death to its enemies. Our eyes will hold no pity, and there will be more dead, more wounded, more refugees whose lives have been ruined by the destruction of their homes, and possibly even worse destruction, destruction I would rather not name. But a lot of this can be changed by a change of heart. And Cracking the Qur’an Code provides an avenue for that change of heart.

So, I am appealing to my Muslim cousins reading this to take the effort to read Cracking the Qur’an Code to understand that yet one more time, the hand of peace is being offered; not the greasy palm of the bought off politician, but the dry hand of a man of peace who does not want to see his children forced to become men of war. Time grows short, and opportunities to avert terrible evil grow fewer and fewer. But a change of heart may enable wounded souls and hearts to heal and bring peace, that we might all sit, each one of us, under our own fig tree without fear and look towards tomorrow – a tomorrow of hope and prosperity.

Cracking the Qur'an Code: God's Land, Torah and People Covenants with Israel in the Qur'an and Islamic Tradition (Jerusalem: Root and Branch Association, Ltd., Print and E-Book Editions. Copyright © Lowell Gallin, 2009). On sale now at Lulu.com. Bulk order discounts and worldwide shipping are both available.

Aman ki Asha: Now Why Didn't We Think of That!

mbjesq — Fri, 8 Jan 2010 12:31:10 EST

Sometimes an idea just takes a while to germinate. Sometimes the big guys simply need to feel that the idea was all theirs before they'll really run with it. Whatever the reason, it seems that the time has finally come for a serious effort at an Indo-Pak peace initiative based on simple people-to-people interactions and cultural exchange.

The proponents of this undertaking are two of South Asia's largest media outlets, the Times of India and the Jang Group in Pakistan. In the garbled, half-literate language of the writers at the TOI: "Starting with a series of cross-border cultural interactions, business seminars, music & literary festivals and citizens meet that will give the bonds of humanity a chance to survive outside the battlefields of politics, terrorism and fundamentalism."

The project is being called "Aman ki Asha", Hope for Peace. Amitabh Bachchan, no less, is promoting the as-yet vaguely defined, bridge-building concerts.

If this sounds familiar, it is because it appears to be based on our lovely Friends Without Borders project and its not-quite-successful sequel, Dil se Dil, both the brainchild of service wizard John Silliphant.

Friends Without Borders was a four-month blitz through India in 2006 to collect friendship letters from tens of thousands of Indian school children and deliver them to kids in Pakistan. Major events were held in around the country, television commercials played on major networks for two solid months, and the project was lauded by the Prime Minister of India and featured in newspapers, magazines (here and here), online media, and television.

The Dil se Dil project was even more ambitious. On the night of 14-15 August 2007, we had planned a special celebration to celebrate the shared 60th anniversary of India and Pakistan and an unprecedented event designed to bring the people of these countries closer together: a concert of Indian and Pakistani superstars, right at the famous Attari/Wagah border. A coming-together of midnight's grandchildren, as it were.

At the heart of both projects was a belief that peaceful, productive coexistence is profoundly wished by ordinary people on both sides of the border, whereas intransigence, antagonism, and recrimination are the domain of politicians and a minority of hardliners. We found tremendous resonance with these ideas during both projects.

Our print-media partners for that undertaking were, of course, the Times of India and the Jang Group. If there is any doubt about the origin of the genesis of the projects, take a look at the TOI article that announced the program. The photo was taken by a TOI photographer at our Friends Without Borders event at Wankhede Stadium in Bombay on 6 February 2006. Even the Aman ki Asha logo looks a bit derivative of the Dil se Dil logo.

Of course, the FWB team is given no credit or kudos for the idea - but that's just fine. Our objective has always been to create positive change. We are open source. If you can take our ideas and do more with them than we can, more power to you! In fact, we'll be glad to assist you.

True, the appropriation of the concept, without attribution and for purposes that appear principally publicity-seeking and commercial, and only secondarily public-spirited, is a bit shady. But then, what do you expect from TOI, the most disreputable, sleazy, ethically challenged media outlet in a country not exactly famous for journalistic integrity?

Still, we are delighted to see these important ideas taken forward.

***

This revival of Dil se Dil prompts me to tell a more detailed story of the crushing disappointment surrounding the eleventh-hour cancellation of our border concert. There were a number of factors censoring my commentary during the course of the project. Chief among these were close monitoring by the Indian Home Ministry at a time when I was in the country on a tourist visa and the fact that our brilliant partners at the NGO Routes 2 Roots were heroically negotiating the permissions with two distrustful governments that did not want to see anything in the media before the deal was done. Even my online announcement of the cancellation was truncated by the judgment that details of the fiasco would only serve to antagonize, when our objective was to sooth.

The concert project had its grand opportunities and major challenges. A.R. Rahman had personally agreed to be our headliner; but his manager, Deepak Gattani, turned-out to be one of the most venal, corrupt, slimy human beings on the face of the earth. The border was a fabulous location; but we had to obtain permission from both governments (never before given) and work out security and logistics with both armies. The United Nations Millennium Campaign agreed to be a partner; but dealing with the UN-anything is an almost guaranteed fuck-up. Hundreds of thousands of people were expected to show-up; but we could only accommodate a few thousand within the secure area of the concert venue and there was no way to turn-back impromptu celebrants from the general area. Nokia signed-on as our major sponsor; but they had done so in such a soulless and shamelessly exploitative way as to completely miss the spirit of what we were attempting to achieve. We had a team of extremely creative, articulate American volunteers; but, fearing al Qaeda targeting of the event, the Home Ministry forbid any overt signs of American involvement, effectively handicapping our PR machinery.

Two weeks from show-time, our partner, the brilliant NGO Routes 2 Roots, was called before the Home Ministry to be advised that security threats from al Qaeda and other, non-disclosed antagonists were running extremely high. Border Security Forces and police from around Punjab, which would have been detailed to our event, would be reassigned to the protection of Delhi. The Government of India would not tell us not to have the concert - it would lose tremendous face in light of Pakistan's go-ahead, were it to do so - but the warning was clear.

Six days from the concert, the show had been scripted, the musical line-up of A.R. Rahman, Rahat Fateh Ali Khan, Ali Asmat, Shafqat Amanat Ali was ready to go, as were the MCs Shah Ruhk Khan, Julia Chawla, Wasim Akhram and Shaiyanne Malik. The show had been scripted and we were working with the fabulous CNN-IBN team on the taping of special content. The concert was to be broadcast through India and Pakistan by major networks, and beamed around the world to satellite affiliates. Television advertisements were already in the air and newspapers were beginning to print stories. The stages, lighting, and television installations were under construction at the border. And all hell broke loose.

It began with anonymous telephone threats to one of the directors of Routes 2 Roots, which the Indian Intelligence Bureau was able to trace to "an off-shore satellite source somewhere in the Indian Ocean." These call were followed with calls to the Routes 2 Roots office, traced to a pay-phone in Delhi. Routes 2 Roots were once again summoned to the Home Ministry and this time the message was clear: the Government of India would not be able to guaranty the safety of those attending the event and was considering withdrawing its No Objection Certificate - government-speak for the permission we had arduously obtained to be able to hold the concert. The Intelligence Bureau believed the threats were al Qaeda related.

We had no choice but to cancel the concert.

The extent of this fiasco apparently had repercussions well beyond our shattered volunteer team, collaborators, sponsors, and supporters. Although President Pervez Musharraf was up-to-his-ass in a constitutional crisis, thanks to ongoing conscientious protest in the judiciary, his office took the time to telephone Routes 2 Roots to insist that the show must go on. But we could not allow that to happen in the circumstances; and by then it was too late anyway.

The Aman ki Asha agenda is substantially less ambitious and backed by two media powerhouses. This bodes well for success. We wish it well.

The State of the Indian Union

Somik Raha — Wed, 16 Dec 2009 10:36:39 EST

As the media debates the issue of statehood through the Telangana crisis, and we see other demands pouring in, from Gorkhaland in West Bengal to Harit Pradesh, Purvanchal and Bundelkhand in Uttar Pradesh, the common man is left wondering what to make of all these demands.

On the issue of Kashmir, and in general, ceding Indian territory to other countries, the emotional response comes pretty quickly, leaving no ambiguity. However, carving out new states is not an emotional issue for those who are not involved in the demand. The question boils down to one of efficiency and development, and the usual argument is that underdeveloped regions need more attention which they hope they will get with a smaller and more focused state.

Let us examine this question in the light of decision-making. There are two distinctions that accurately describe most government decisions - "isolated" and "distorted." We will start with decision isolation. Government decision-makers are mostly isolated from the people who are affected by their decisions. A central idea of governance is the idea of the head of the family, who acts in the best interests of the rest of the family. This metaphor breaks down pretty quickly, due to physical distance. As head of the family, we can see how our actions affect our loved ones. As head of the government, we simply cannot see all of those affected by our actions, and hence, we land ourselves in the isolation trap. We end up making decisions that we would never wish on our loved ones.

The decision isolation that results is inversely proportional to the size of jurisdiction of the government. Someone in New Delhi decides what is best for the country and this applies to people in Kannyakumari who are left scratching their head about what's going on. It is a lot better when most decisions about Kannyakumari are left to someone in Chennai. But the isolation is still very much there, and it is a matter of degree, not of kind.

The second issue is that of distorted decision-making. When making government decisions, the preferences of the decision-makers get distorted by the punitive incentive system. It is quite rare for outstanding government decision makers to be rewarded. On the contrary, it is quite common for those who've landed with bad outcomes to be punished. This distortion in the incentives results in long decision cycles where risk-taking is avoided as much as possible. The result - we shoot for mediocrity and mostly fail to achieve even that. There is a silver lining though. Unlike China, the Indian government has a low commitment to action. That would mean both good and bad decisions don't get implemented properly. Since good decisions are so rare, this really means India is somewhat spared from the aftermath of terrible policy decisions, simply because the government does not have the werewithal of implementing it. In China, once the government has decided that it is good to have one child, they make it happen. The disaster that has led from this policy is not yet fully understood by contemporary Chinese - most don't have brothers and sisters, aunts and uncles! Their culture has been transformed in a very artificial manner, and few remember it.

We can now see that if we have smaller states, we will begin to tackle the issue of decision isolation. We also end up taking away large concentrations of power - this is one of the best things we could do to gain more freedom in our society. One of the biggest reasons politicians are in a tizzy over the split is that they will now have less economic power (through corruption in a smaller state). For regular people, this is great! We also have a better chance at reducing decision distortion, as less and less can be done by a less powerful state government, and so, voluntary initiatives will have the chance of emerging, where politics is not the main driver.

I wish everyone and their grandmother would start asking for their own state. And while we're at it, we should ask for a couple of Union Territories as well. Since both Telangana and Andhra Pradesh are fighting over Hyderabad, why don't the citizens of Hyderabad have their voices heard and get incorporated into a Union Territory or perhaps their own state (like Delhi)? That way, Hyderabad can avoid facing parochial pressures like Mumbai and retain its cosmopolitan nature.

An India which has tons of state governments, none of which is big enough to do too much damage would imply more power to the people to take over their own destiny, and develop the ability to think outside of traditional taxation-driven progress. It would mean unleashing the creativity of India's population of which there is no dearth. It would mean challenging linguistic, religious and economic identities that we have come to accept. It would mean accepting that the lines we draw are in our head, and not in the world out there.

Cultural Translators: A Step Toward Waging Peace

Harold Bergsma — Mon, 7 Dec 2009 09:51:00 EST

"I don't understand why he got angry." "Why wouldn't she shake my hand?" "It seems that they shout at each other instead of talking." "He agreed to send it, in fact he agreed to everything, with a big smile." "Taking shoes off at the portal is a real pain." "So, what's so bad about putting my feet on the foot stool while talking to him?" "Bowing low to Japanese royalty is a bit much, don't you think?"

They don't even recognize that they are in culture shock. And the beat goes on. The list could fill the entire page. When one person from a given culture meets a social situation that is foreign to her/him, the only way that person can cope is to translate what is said, seen, felt and conveyed through appropriate verbal codes and body language by using the cultural tools available, that is personal understandings and habits gleaned during a lifetime in the home culture. A common term used by many who travel to other countries is culture shock. It is very hard to not compare one country to the other, one people's habits to your own. Eating habits feature large in culture shock as does personal space. So, travelers should be explorers and recognize that other people act, think, and believe differently.

We have all heard the expressions, "Ugly American" used to describe tourists from America who are visiting another country and doing all the things that make locals shake their heads in disbelief. The term so widely used now has become part of our commonly used expressions. It has its roots in a political novel The Ugly American published in 1958. by Eugene Burdock and William Lederer. It was a best seller. One of the characters in this fictional work is a journalist from Burma. He says, "For some reason, the people (Americans) I meet in my country are not the same as the ones I knew in the United States. A mysterious change seems to come over Americans when they go to a foreign land. They isolate themselves socially. They live pretentiously. They're loud and ostentatious."

What I have observed frequently are the following. Talking too loud. Shouting to be understood in English when the native speaker doesn't understand. Butting in. Displaying wealth. Displaying body parts. Being insensitive to local norms of dress. Becoming angry and making a scene. Flirting in public. Again, the list can go on and on. But why single out Americans? Why not the British? Why not French? Why not Spanish? Or for that matter, why not Indians? Particularly when it comes to the matter of isolating themselves socially. But that is another matter, since most people tend to cluster with those with whom they can communicate and who are like themselves.

One of the ugliest social/cultural situations that exist is how people behave during war. Listen to 'them' talk about the Kashmir conflicts. Listen to the invective that pours forth when American drones bomb border towns in Pakistan. Listen. "Death to America!" When one faces an enemy the most important thing to posses is superior strength in arms and superior technology to deliver the killing blows. A man with a bow and arrow facing a soldier with an AK47 has little chance of survival. War situations are clear cut, kill or be killed. Or are they? Sometimes it's hard to find the enemy. Many times we are our own worst enemies when it comes to communication and translating the meanings of other cultures, especially when we carry the heavy weapons, or have very deep pockets.

War against terrorism can be translated in a variety of ways. War against those who harbor terrorists, war against supporters of known terrorism, war against those in a country that holds political positions against those they perceive to be the aggressor. The definition of war is morphing rapidly. In the past the enemy was known, the lines were drawn and bombs away. Now the question is where are they? Who are they? Where is bin Laden anyway? 'Certainly you must know'. Among any given crowd walking in a bazaar there could be hundreds of Taliban. They look just like everybody else.

This all translates into international frustration and the only way to deal with it is to 'augment the number of troops in the Afghanistan'. Translation needed. That is the key. Foreign policy is really just a matter of translating one country's ambitions, need, and goals in regards to another country in a way that is both understandable and hopefully agreeable to the other country. Translation is however, a real political problem.

Alissa J. Rubin writing for the New York Times News Service and quoted in The San Diego Union Tribune, Nov.21, 2009, in a meaningful article entitled, "Cultural translator has general's ear; British woman uses knowledge of area." What leaped out in the print of the page was this statement written by the 'cultural translator', Emma Sky working with the U.S. forces in Iraq. "When you drop a bomb from the air and it lands on a village and kills all those people, and your turn around and say, 'Oh, we didn't mean to kill the civilians,' well, who did you think was living in the village."

Unfortunately, when an entire village of Muslim civilians is blown to shreds that translates into a cultural mandate, jihad, and deep hatred for the bomb throwers. Many writers have stated that such acts translate into recruitment efforts for Al Queada and new supporters for the Taliban, which at one time were on America's side in the war against Russian occupation in Afghanistan. Leslie H. Gelb writes in Time, July, 2009. "Robert McNamara Learning from a Great Manager's Tragedy" was a fine tribute to a brilliant man, a smart guy. But it is not just how smart we are, she points out, wars like Vietnam (and Iraq) are an 'open ended statement'. Our long and costly war against terrorism, our war in Afghanistan and the 'drone' wars over the Northwest Frontier Province of Pakistan are also open ended. As long as we make such wars, on other's soil, they will make their response, jihad! Gelb say, "We can help, but it must be theirs." Yes, help implies being asked to give assistance, which we have done, even to the Taliban when Russia was our problem in Afghanistan. But Gelb is spot on when she says, "...nationalist wars, civil wars, tribal and religious wars--they can never be won by Americans."

The Pushtun cultural ethical code of the people who live on the Pakistan border and across the border in a large part of Afghanistan is defined by the words Zar, Zan, Zamin which says it all. At all costs preserve the privacy and sanctity of the zennanah (harem), Zan, or your personal pocket book (wealth), Zar and Zamin, the very sacred earth of home under your feet. These are their 'pursuit of happiness."

When a military general is accompanied by a person who is sensitive to the local people, and who speaks their language, who hears the gossip and reads the cultural signals, then a totally new direction in military warfare may emerge. If more cultural translators had more general's ears to talk to there might be some hope for the development of policy that results in a reversal of the 'Vietnam like' situation now existing in Afghanistan, which was the major theme of The Ugly American. Such generals talk to those who command them, including the commander in chief.

Personal communication is difficult enough and often ends up in frustration and anger simply because both parties do not speak the same emotional and cultural language. "Oh, that is just because of cultural difference." Precisely! Acknowledging that such differences exist in a multicultural world and that no group has all the answers for the rest of the world is a huge step forward in foreign policy and strangely, in the way warfare is carried out. I have always liked the term, 'cultural relativism', because it is so beautifully descriptive of the realities of interaction between people of different cultures. Translation required! Have you ever tried to put together a swing set using the instruction sheet that is written in Chinese?

To be effective, cultural translators should be in tune with both cultures they are translating for or they end up with costly goofs. Without such cultural translation, those that carry out policy and those that make it may turn a blind eye toward the problems related to war, or should I say a deaf ear. Language fluency is key in cultural translation and more important, a respect and love of the people who speak the language. Allisa Rubin's work with the general is "One giant step for mankind." When more army generals have cultural translators at their sides perhaps there will be hope for waging peace.

The Value of Surrender

Golden Boy — Sun, 15 Nov 2009 02:53:24 EST

My relationship with Yoga in the past one month has been filled with introduction to and understanding of a new philosophy; some great insights; and new experimentation with totally new concepts which has inspired, affected and changed my day-to-day living.

I have come to appreciate the fact that there was something totally wrong with my own life-style, my thinking and attitude, my philosophy of the past that had brought me to the brink of disaster. Failed relationships - personal, at workplace, and romantic; total reliance on psychiatric drugs; my hardcore adherence to certain beliefs and Cause, all this had accelerated into a final loss of will and desire to live.

This was enough indication that my Mind to whom I had listened to all this while was diseased beyond repair. I could no longer rely on this Mind, it just had no more solutions for me, no new horizons! It had failed me completely.

When this happens in one's life, when one realizes that the Mind has failed him/her totally and this cannot go on for any further, Osho advises that Surrender is the only option.

One surrenders to a greater Entity, whether a Higher Reality or another noble person - a Guru, and entitles him/her to take over his/her life totally. Then the Guru instructs how the person would live his life. And the disciple, in a sense of complete surrender listens and acts according to the instructions of his/her Guru.

Surrender is a noble act, and it takes a lot of courage and conviction. The Mind, which is the seat of one's ego, will always try to intervene and say "What are you doing? Are you out of your Mind?"

And it is actually true. You are finally out of the clutches of your monkey mind. You have suffered enough, and the time has come when you rely on a Greater Intelligence, a greater guidance to allow you to find new insights, a completely new way to live.

*****

A true Guru never makes his disciple dependent on him. In fact he wants his disciple to be independent and free. Attachment to the personality of the Guru is just another trick of the mind, to create a new relationship and start to play its own games, to bring up expectations and then be disappointed when these are not met. Attachment has to be given up. Expectations have to be given up. Only dedication to one's path helps.

Because attachment would mean knowing that the Guru will always be there to catch you if you fall, and the ego likes dependence. A true Guru will let you fall and learn through your own mistakes. He will ask you to jump when your mind will say, "this is completely crazy." And as you have surrendered your Mind to him, you will have to jump. It is a free fall. You have trusted your Guru with your life. And in that free fall you kill and transcend your ego.

Osho says that when one surrenders trust is very important. Total trust. Faith is acquired by birth: being Hindu, Muslim, Christian. So every Hindu would blindly want to defend his own religion and badmouth other religion. A person who is born to Muslim parents will not like anyone else saying anything which goes against his (blind) faith.

Trust on the other hand, is by choice. You choose in all your freedom to trust your Guru. Nobody asks you to trust him. You are not born into a family that follows a particular Guru. And when the time is not right, your mind might take you to several Gurus only to make you disappointed.

Only when it is time and when your true Guru comes on the horizon; only then you have no choice but to trust him. That is perhaps what Krishnamurti means by choice less awareness. But there is a paradox. You have the option not to surrender to the Guru and to move on with your miserable existence. It is your decision.

*****

I have also understood the fact that it is a myth that every person will have only one Guru in his lifetime. Maybe one would have a different Guru at different points of time. And each will be suitable for you at that stage of spiritual development in your life. And each Guru might be completely different from the other.

Osho says that a Master of Tantra will say, "Sex is a tool to liberation". While a Master of Yoga will say, "Sex is a hindrance to liberation". Both are true. Every disciple has a different temperament (swabhava). And what is good for one, is poison for another. So there are bound to be differences in the method towards liberation too.

This is the thing about Hinduism that "Followers of the Books" like Muslims, Jews, Christians and Sikhs don't understand. They ask how can one Hindu say that Vegetarian diet is good while the other devout Hindu enjoys non-vegetarian food? The 'people of the book' who are used to following their own books which they believe to be the Gospel Truth cannot understand this.

They wonder how a stone, which may not even have any shape and is picked up from the corner of the road, be placed under a tree and a temple come up around it? They wonder how Hindus can then bow down to that stone. In their ignorance they think that Hindus are actually worshipping that stone.

Osho says that the "people of the book" fail to understand that the Hindu is not actually worshipping the stone. For a Hindu the stone is less important than the act of Surrender. It is the act of Surrender that is more important, to let go of one's ego. To allow a Greater Reality to take over, to stop playing games around, to allow oneself to say, "Thy will be done, not mine"- it is the attitude of Surrender that is important for a Hindu.

So you may be an atheist, not believe in God, but you may have a Master. Hinduism has space for atheists too. He can surrender his ego to his Guru.

The Ego is the cause of much of our differences of opinion. The Mind is the root of all the wars. As they say that "Wars are not fought on battlefields, but in the Minds of people". What is Terrorism in the name of Islam? It is a war for a certain ideology that a significant few think is higher than any other ideology. What was the War in Iraq, the war between India and Pakistan etc. all about? They were rooted in total conditioning of a people's mind on both sides of the border that thought that they were fighting for the truth.

Mind creates these problems. And surrender of the Mind, the Ego, is the only option available to us, to go beyond our individual differences whether it be as a race, a community, or as next-door neighbours. We need to Surrender our ego to the Higher Reality without questioning to which authority (whether Allah, a Guru, a God, or Bhagwan) one's neighbour is surrendering his ego to.
The terrorists need not surrender, we need not surrender to them, the polluting nations need not surrender, because they all have valid reasons! The Mind will always have valid reasons!

It is only when the Mind chooses to surrender that peace will return on Earth.

Afghanistan: What Next?

Vinod Joseph — Sat, 17 Oct 2009 01:15:51 EDT

The Americans bombed Taliban-controlled Afghanistan in retaliation for having sheltered those responsible for the 9/11 bombing of the World Trade Centre. Since Afghanistan was already in the stone-age, having endured the Soviet occupation and a long stretch of in-fighting among various groups of Mujahideen after the Soviet departure, there wasn’t much to bomb, but that didn’t stop the Americans from dropping ordinance. Having paid the Al Qaeda and their hosts, the Taliban, back with the same coin, the Americans landed their aeroplanes on Afghan soil and set up bases with avowed intention of planting democracy in that part of the world. And that was the beginning of the current set of troubles.

When Obama campaigned for Presidency he sort of implied that Afghanistan was a just fight, though Iraq wasn’t. The upshot of that assertion has been an increase in the number of US boots on the ground in Afghanistan and a concerted effort to extricate from Iraq. Obama has also tried to get US coalition partners to commit more troops, but with the exception of the UK, no other country has been willing to do so.

In principle I agree that Obama is right in saying Afghanistan is a just cause – planting democracy in Afghanistan that is, and that Iraq is a good case for letting the locals resolve matters as best as they can. However, the ground reality is that Afghans have shown no great appetite for democracy. In a terrain bereft of democratic shoots or even roots, where most Pashtuns are either sympathetic to the Taliban or are the Taliban, the best foot the Americans have been able to put forward has been in the form of Hamid Karzai, a man who isn’t exactly a paragon of virtue.

As US and other coalition casualties mount in Afghanistan, Obama will be under increasing pressure to pack up and leave. My opinion of Obama has always been that he is a man of principles who also likes to avoid causing offence. A man who likes to please as many people as possible. If things don’t change in Afghanistan (and the Taliban show no indication of wanting to change), Obama might want to consider various options. And what could those options be?

1. It’s well known that Iran supplies funding and technology for Iraqi insurgents, especially Shiite insurgents. What is less well-known is that Iran also supplies weaponry to the Taliban, though they are predominantly Sunni and there is no love lost for Shiite Iran. The US could strike a deal with Iran whereby Iran is allowed to fulfil some of its nuclear dreams (without actually producing or acquiring nuclear weapons) and in return, Iran totally stops the flow of money and technology to Afghanistan. Iran might be allowed to conduct a nuclear test or two and Ahmadinejad will be allowed to strut and strike a pose in front of his people. Such a deal with make Israel very unhappy and there will always be the fear that if Iran is given a nuclear inch, it’ll take a nuclear mile. If this strategy is to work, Israel must not be allowed to attack any of Iran’s nuclear sites. Without Iranian support, the Taliban will suffer to some extent. However, as long as the border with Pakistan is not sealed, and it cannot be sealed, the Taliban will be able to breathe.

2. Supplement US troops with soldiers from Islamic states like Bangladesh and Indonesia which are officially American allies, but are not hated by Afghans. I’m not sure how keen the Indonesians and Bangladeshis will be to shed blood in Afghanistan. More importantly, by joining the Americans, they are likely to be tainted in the eyes of the Afghans. Of course, additional manpower will not do any harm to the coalition struggling to hold Afghan territory, but it will be very difficult and even expensive to persuade Indonesians and Bangladeshis to send troops to Afghanistan. If this can be achieved, the US might be able to get the necessary breathing space to carry out necessary reconstruction and build up the Afghan national army.

3. US troops can be replaced with soldiers from Islamic states like Bangladesh and Indonesia. If they replace the Americans rather than supplement them, the Indonesians and Bangladeshis will not look too bad in Afghan eyes. Also, people in Indonesia and Bangladesh might not resist the idea of sending troops to Afghanistan as much as they would if their soldiers are seen to be helping American troops. However, I am not sure how good a job the Indonesians and Bangladeshis will be able to do on their own. Without drones and hi-tech bomber planes answering calls for help within minutes, it’s unlikely that the Taliban can be kept at bay. In fact, if the Americans are replaced by Indonesians and Bangladeshis, there’s a very good change that the Taliban will be in control of Afghanistan very soon after the US departure. Of course, the US could give those weapons to the Indonesians and Bangladeshis and train them to use those weapons, but I doubt if the US would want to do that.

4. Persuade India to send troops to Afghanistan to help American troops. Indian soldiers will be hated as much as the Americans and may suffer as many casualties. In order to persuade India to put its soldiers in harms’ way, the US might ‘persuade’ Pakistan to accept the Line of Control in Kashmir as the international border and give up all claims on Indian administered Kashmir. US drones flying over Af-Pak might direct some of their fire over training camps for Kashmiri militants. Indian politicians might be able to sell such this solution to India’s population. However, this solution would be very unpopular in Pakistan. Any such settlement over Kashmir would be temporary and will last only as long as the Americans stay in the neighbourhood. China will not be happy with this, since a secure northern frontier will tilt the balance of power in favour of India.

However, in my opinion, if implemented, this plan has as much chance of success as supplementing US troops with Indonesians and Bangladeshis. By sheer numbers, Indian troops supported by US technology and troops will be able to keep the Taliban at bay. Let’s assume, this is maintained for a period of five years, until the next Afghan elections, by which time, a reasonably strong Afghan national army can emerge and reconstruction and redevelopment can be carried out. If the Afghans manage to elect a strong government in Kabul that is relatively progressive, stable and strong, Afghanistan might revert to the sort of peace it had when it was ruled by King Zahir Shah from 1933 to 1973. Though this option has a good chance of success, I just don’t see Obama even considering the possibility of seeking Indian troops for Afghanistan and siding with India on Kashmir.

5. The Americans and their allies could just pack up and leave, after declaring that their objective of brining democracy to Afghanistan has been achieved. After the last Soviet soldier left Afghanistan on February 15, 1989, the Soviet protégé Najibullah managed to hold on to power for a surprising four years. The only reason why he was finally finished off was because of the enormous amount of Pakistani support for the Mujahideen. If the Americans were to just leave, just like the Soviets did, it is anybody’s guess as to how long Hamid Karzai will be able to hang on to power. The Taliban are bound to expand the territory they control – but will they be able to obtain sway over the whole of Afghanistan? In my opinion, they will, over a period of time. This process will be quicker if they can convince the Pakistanis to help them. To get Pakistani help, the Taliban must be willing to renounce any plan to capture power in Pakistan.

The ISI is mostly probably cursing itself for having allowed the Taliban to shelter the Al Qaeda. If Mullah Omar hadn’t permitted Bin Laden and his fellow nutcases to use Afghanistan as a base, no one would have given two hoots about Afghanistan. Pakistan would still have its ‘strategic depth’ in the west and Kashmir would be boiling. If the Americans were to pack up and leave, the ISI would want to just turn the clock back. Afghanistan would be run by the fundamentalist Taliban, while Pakistan would be modern and free from fundamentalists. This would be a dream ending for Pakistan, especially the ISI. However, would the Pakistani Taliban who currently control large swathes of Pakistan’s North West Frontier Province be willing to give up their plans and either lead a quiet life or migrate to Afghanistan? Having tasted power, I doubt if Pakistani Taliban can ever be persuaded to give up their plans to capture power in Pakistan itself. They might pretend to do so for a temporary period till they capture the whole of Afghanistan, but sooner or later, civil war will return to Pakistan.

China will be very unhappy and uncomfortable if the Taliban are back in power in Afghanistan. As long as the ISI had control over the Taliban, very little external support was available to Uighurs in China’s restive xinjiang province even though many Uighurs have fought for the Taliban in Afghanistan. Recently the Al Qaeda openly called for a holy war against China. The Al Qaeda and the Taliban are two different entities. The Taliban are much more realistic. Will Pakistan be able to convince the Taliban to not support the Uighurs in China after the Americans vacate Afghanistan? They might be able to. It all depends on how quickly memories of the current rift fade and how quickly the clock is put back.

We currently live in a very interesting period in time. Let’s see how events in Afghanistan unfold.

President Barack Obama Awarded 2009 Nobel Peace Prize

Solilo — Fri, 9 Oct 2009 13:58:10 EDT

The conferral of one of the world's top accolades on a President less than nine months in office was greeted with gasps of astonishment this morning in our small town. I don’t know if it has to do with the almost 100% Republican community here but even from my neutral point of view I still can’t comprehend the reasons behind this honor to the President.

Obama was honored "for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between people," the head of the Norwegian Nobel Committee Thorbjoern Jagland said. [link]

"I do not view it as a recognition of my own accomplishments, but rather as an affirmation of American leadership," President Obama said from the White House Rose Garden. "I will accept this award as a call to action."

Obama is the third sitting US President to have won the prize after President Roosevelt and Wilson. Former President Jimmy Carter won in 2002 and former Vice President Al Gore received the prize in 2007.

In 1906, President Roosevelt won the prize for brokering a peace between Russia and Japan - two countries that turned against US in future. In 1919, President Wilson won it for his post-WWI peace efforts. This didn't prevent WWII. So the question is how can a President be merely awarded for initiative? Shouldn't final result matter? For a layman it seems he was awarded simply because he is not George W. Bush.

Another question that always lingers in my mind when I hear of the Nobel peace prize is why did Mahatma Gandhi never receive one? I am not bringing Mahatma Gandhi in here because I am an Indian by birth but simply because I don't know any person who deserves a peace prize more than Gandhi.

Mahatma Gandhi was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize five times between 1937 and 1948 but never received the prize, being assassinated on 30 January 1948 two days before the closing date for the 1948 Peace Prize nominations. The Norwegian Nobel Committee had very likely planned to give him the Peace Prize in 1948 as they considered a posthumous award, but ultimately decided against it, and instead chose not to award the prize that year. It was stated then that "there was no suitable living candidate" but in 1961, it was awarded posthumously to Swedish diplomat and the second Secretary-General of the United Nations Dag Hammarskjöld who died after being nominated. Years later, Nobel committee regretted their decision on Gandhi and when the Dalai Lama was awarded the Peace Prize in 1989, the chairman of the committee said that this was 'in part a tribute to the memory of Mahatma Gandhi'.

Going back to the burning question now, Does Obama deserve the Nobel Peace Prize so soon?

On a lighter note, President sure deserves a Nobel Prize in Chemistry for his magnetic chemistry with his wife Michelle. [picture link]

Kashmir: UN Plebiscite is the Need of the Hour

Golden Boy — Fri, 18 Sep 2009 06:09:05 EDT

“India needs azadi from Kashmir as much as Kashmir needs azadi from India.” – Arundathi Roy

During the Freedom Struggle in India, even as Mahatma Gandhi led a Non-Violent resistance to the British Raj, and later called for Complete Independence, kids in Britain were busy writing essays on this frail and scantily dressed old-man who could stir up an entire nation of a billion people with his clarion call for ‘Swadeshi’ (Boycott of foreign goods) and Non-Cooperation.

(Here the author wishes to add that had it been the Japanese in place of British, the Mahatma’s Non-Violence would never have been tolerated! The British were a civilized people)

The British are known to be fiercely patriotic. Yet even as the Mahatma marched through the streets of Manchester, great crowds of common British people waved to him and cheered him! This, when he was fighting for Independence of India from their own country!

I wonder if leaders like Yasin Malik (who ask for Independence for Kashmir) would ever receive that kind of a welcome in Mumbai or Delhi. The Chief of JKLF (Jammu Kashmir Liberation Front) could at best expect a cold-shoulder or worse brickbats if he were to speak in favour of Independence for Kashmir on a dais in India outside Kashmir.

This is because, we as a Nation are becoming highly Nationalistic in character than Patriotic. A Patriot, even though loves his country, would stand by his conviction of ‘humanity first Nationality later’. So, hypothetically speaking, if India were to bomb a foreign country a Patriot would protest against his own country.

Nationalists however are brought-up on a different diet altogether. Their loyalty to the nation is a product of high-voltage emotions that may defy logic to the extent of being anti-life and anti-humanity! Any finger-pointing towards their country, no matter however logical and correct, can make a Nationalist fret and fume and he would instantly lose his cool, wanting to engage in arguments based on illogical reasoning and would even advocate bloodshed in the name of Nationalism.

So ask a Patriot about the human-rights violation in Kashmir, and he would say it is highly probable, given the fact that wherever Armed Forces heavily garrison a city or a State, as history has time and again shown, there are indeed large-scale Human-Rights violations in the land under siege.

However a Nationalist would put up a highly illogical argument like “why do those people want Independence from our country in the first place?” etc

When India was partitioned at the time of Independence, Kashmir was still a separate entity.

The Hindu Maharaja of the hugely Muslim populated State ran to India when there were armed encounters between the Maharaja’s troops and the insurgent forces in Kashmir in August 1947.

The “Instrument of Accession” was signed, and Mountbatten accepted the agreement on the Condition that "the question of accession should be decided in accordance with the wishes of the people of the state… as soon as law and order have been restored in Kashmir and her soil cleared of the invaders… the question of state's accession should be settled by a reference to the people."

Thus at the time of Indian Independence and accession of Kashmir to India, PM Jawaharlal Nehru had promised a Plebiscite in Kashmir allowing the Kashmiri Avaam to decide if they wanted to stay with India, Pakistan or be a totally Independent State.

Even as late as 1954, UN Security Council reaffirmed the 1948 resolution between India and Pakistan to withdraw troops from the Valley and hold a plebiscite in the State.

However in March 1965, India took a complete U turn and passed a resolution in its Parliament declaring Kashmir as a province of India.

Till date, we have not kept the promise made to the Kashmiri people to hold a Plebiscite in Kashmir to allow them their right to Self-Determination.

-x-x-x-

We had 3 wars with Pakistan and one with China, and lost a part of Kashmir (now called “Azad Kashmir”) to Paksitan and a part to China (“Aksai Chin”)

Till date we have kept discussing Kashmir (which is now a disputed territory) with Pakistan and the Hurriyat (a political front formed as an alliance of 26 political, social and religious organizations in Kashmir for Kashmiri’s Right of Self-Determination), however successive governments in India have been increasingly closed to the option of holding a plebiscite in Kashmir, as we have kept hoping for a miracle to happen in the Valley but in vain!

The Indian Prime Minister Dr.Manmohan Singh’s recent remarks that there is “no place for separatist thought” in the region drew mass-protests and shut-down in Kashmir.

Over the years, high Nationalist emotions have been flamed in this country over Kashmir (to condition the hearts and minds of the common man of India) with so-called “patriotic songs” saying:“Kashmir kee dharti ran hai/ Sartaj Himalay hai/ Sadiyon se jisko humne apne khoon se paala hai”! with total disregard to the will of the Kashmiri people and their right to Self-determination that was promised to them long ago.

-x-x-x-

India’s argument at the International forum till date has been that we cannot hold a Plebiscite in Kashmir unless a plebiscite is held in the entire land of Kashmir i.e. not only in Indian Kashmir but also in the land that is under the illegal occupation of Pakistan (Azad Kashmir) and Aksai Cheen. However in the same tune PM Dr.Manmohan Singh declares that “there is no room for separatist thought”. But isn’t a separate Kashmir always a possibility if you agree to a plebiscite? This shows India’s unwillingness to honour its commitment to hold a Plebiscite in Kashmir.

Meanwhile Kashmir is burning. Even as Security forces kill those whom we call “militants”, the Kashmiri people mourn the death of their Freedom Fighters.

A friend who has served in the Valley as a cadre of the Armed Forces confirms that anti-India sentiments are at an all-time high amongst the Kashmiri youth against the illegal retention of their land by India and the growing instances of human-rights violations by armed forces and fake encounters in the Valley. The instances of ‘Missing young people’ remain a matter of high concern. Heavy presence of armed military personnel in the Valley makes any semblence of ‘return to daily life’ highly impossible.

My friend from the Armed Forces confirms the fear of the Indian Army in losing a State that is so “strategically important” from a military point of view.

Indian Politicians on the other hand are afraid that if a refrendum is held in Kashmir and if Kashmir gains Independence from India, it will open a whole new Pandora’s box, wherein similar demands for freedom from the Country will start sprouting in other States of the Indian Union.

If such is the insecurity of our Politicians, and so weak is the thread of Unity that holds us together as a Nation, the people of Kashmir have no light waiting for them at the end of this long tunnel; no hope indeed! No wonder that the deadlock continues, and so does the struggle of the Kashmiri people.

In this light, the Indo-Pak talks, talks with Kashmiri leaders etc. are a complete hogwash by India, in its attempt to buy time while it waits for a miracle to happen (read: peace to return in the Valley!)

As Arundathi Roy recently said in a massive pro-independence rally in Kashmir in August 2008, “.. if no one is listening then it is because they don't want to hear. Because this is a referendum. People don't need anyone to represent them; they are representing themselves. As somebody who has followed people's movements and who has been in rallies and at the heart or the edge of things, I don't think you can dispute what you see here”

“…since the 1930s, there have been debates and disputes about who has the right to represent the Kashmiri people, whether it was Hari Singh or Sheikh Abdullah or someone else. And the debate continues till today whether it is the Hurriyat or some other party. But I think today the people have represented themselves.”

Even in face of the growing massive protests in Kashmir, we pump in arms for our Armed Forces stationed there, send more and more troops, and desperately cling to “a part of the country” that is not ours’! The gangrene meanwhile has started spreading to other Indian States as well, in form of those fighting for the right of Kashmiris planting bombs in crowded places in major Indian cities. We spend a huge sum of the Tax-payers money in Kashmir to suppress popular revolt, resources which could be used for development instead.

Arundathi Roy is completely correct when she says “India needs azadi (freedom) from Kashmir as much as Kashmir needs azadi (freedom) from India”

-x-x-x-

Meanwhile mothers in the Valley lose their sons to either the Struggle for Freedom in the Valley, or lose them in Fake Encounters; or their sons just go missing!

With India and Pakistan going nuclear and growing more and more hostile to each other over Kashmir, peace and stability can come to South Asia only if Pakistan, India and China hold a joint-UN plebiscite in the whole of Kashmir (i.e. Indian Kashmir, Azad Kashmir, and Aksai Chin). We need to do this immediately to restore sanity in this region.

We need to give the people of Kashmir their right to Self-Determination which is long overdue.