by admin | May 25, 2021 | Interviews
Danish Reyaz with author Sudheendra Kulkarni (Photo Maeeshat)
CHANDIGARH: A former member of India’s ruling Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), Sudheendra Kulkarni says that the recent communal clashes in the Indian capital Delhi have affected India’s global image.
In an exclusive interview with Anadolu Agency, author and strategist Kulkarni, who worked as a close aide of former Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee and his deputy Lal Kishan Advani blamed the ruling BJP followers for orchestrating riots in the capital city of Delhi during the visit of U.S. President Donald Trump.
Anadolu Agency: Why did deadly communal riots erupt in Delhi during U.S. President Trump’s visit to India?
Sudheendra Kulkarni (SK): The root cause of these clashes was the recently enacted citizenship law, known as the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA). It discriminates based on religion in the matter of granting citizenship to people coming from Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Bangladesh. The government of Narendra Modi also announced that it would implement the National Register of Citizens (NRC) all over the country. NRC is meant to detect and deport foreigners illegally residing in India. An earlier exercise of preparing an NRC in the north-eastern state of Assam, which borders Bangladesh, had created anxiety among hundreds of thousands of people, both Hindus and Muslims, that they would be rendered stateless. But the enactment of CAA gave relief to Hindus while creating panic among Muslims in India that many of them, or their co-religionists, would be deprived of their Indian citizenship.
For over two months now, Muslims, joined by large numbers of Hindus, Christians, and Sikhs, have been protesting peacefully against CAA and NRC all over the country. The size of these protests is unprecedented in the history of independent India. The ruling BJP did not expect such sustained and peaceful protests. The BJP has been practicing politics of religious polarization for staying in power. However, the BJP badly lost the elections to the legislative assembly in Delhi, held in February this year. Out of frustration, followers of the BJP incited communal riots in Delhi during the official visit of the U.S. President Donald Trump.
Q: Since you have worked with former Prime Minister Vajpayee’s team, who was also from the BJP, what difference do you find between the approaches of two prime ministers?
SK: The BJP under the leadership of current Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Amit Shah (India’s home minister) is very different from the BJP under the leadership of Atal Bihari Vajpayee. As someone who worked as Vajpayee’s aide for six years (1998-2004), I have no hesitation in stating that Vajpayee sincerely believed in Hindu-Muslim harmony and strove for India-Pakistan peace.
Q: Since you were privy to things unfolding during the 2002 Gujarat riots, why they could not be contained immediately?
SK: Yes, I agree that the 2002 communal riots in Gujarat should have been contained with firmness and promptness. There were differences between Vajpayee and Narendra Modi, who was then the chief minister of Gujarat. The BJP paid the price for it in the national elections held in 2004.
Q: Communal riots may not be a new thing in India, but in this age of information and social media, what different kind of impact they have on the image of the country?
SK: Undoubtedly, communal riots have negatively affected India’s image globally, including in Muslim countries. In the age of the Internet, information travels very fast and all over the world.
Q: You once said that we must show the courage to look at history truthfully. What is the antidote for ending communal hatred?
SK: I firmly believe that the solution to many problems in India — and in South Asia at large — lie in the truthful understanding of history and in learning from mistakes of the past by both Hindus and Muslims.
Specifically, for ending communal hatred and violence, we need to work on two tasks: Hindu-Muslim harmonization and India-Pakistan normalization. The two tasks are inter-related. Reconciliation between India and Pakistan is absolutely necessary for peace and progress not in the two countries but all of South Asia.
If it is wrong to say that India is a Hindu nation that belongs primarily to Hindus (and hence relegates Muslims to the status of second-class citizens). It is equally wrong to believe that Pakistan and Bangladesh are Muslim or Islamic nations that belong primarily to Muslims (and hence relegates Hindus, Sikhs and other minorities to the status of second-class citizens).
Q: What are the main reasons for rising hate and communal polarization in India?
SK: The reasons are partly historical and partly contemporary. When the British colonial rule ended in 1947, India was partitioned and Pakistan was created as a separate Muslim nation. The birth of Pakistan based on the two-nation theory propounded by the Muslim League was wrong because it insisted that Muslims and Hindus constitute two separate nations and cannot live together. The truth is that, from Peshawar (in present-day Pakistan) to Dhaka (in present-day Bangladesh, which was East Pakistan in 1947), Hindus and Muslims had been living together for centuries.
India’s partition in 1947 was accompanied by bloody communal violence in which nearly a million Hindus, Sikhs, and Muslims were killed. Nearly 15 million people became refugees — with many Muslims from India going to Pakistan and almost all of Hindus and Sikhs coming to India. This was the largest trans-border migration of people in human history. Memories of this dark episode have not yet vanished.
Also, the unresolved Kashmir problem, and the four wars between India and Pakistan, have soured relations between the two neighbors. Sadly, the Islamization of Pakistan, the persecution of Hindu, Sikh and Christian minorities in that country, and the acts of terrorism in India by Pakistan-based groups have created an atmosphere of anti-Pakistan sentiments in India. Hindu communal organizations in India have exploited this to foment anti-Muslim hatred and violence in contemporary times.
In this context, I wholeheartedly congratulate Pakistan Prime Minister Imran Khan’s recent statement that his government would take stern action against miscreants in his country if they harmed minorities in Pakistan as retaliation against anti-Muslim riots in Delhi. “Minorities are equal citizens of Pakistan,” he has said. This is highly reassuring and commendable.
Q; Is there any hope for Hindu-Muslim rapprochement?
SK: Religious freedom and tolerance have been the hallmark of Indian civilization. This is because the message of human equality, mutual respect, peace, and nonviolence has been preached and practiced by countless saints and sages from ancient to contemporary times. Just two names are sufficient to prove the point – Lord Buddha and Mahatma Gandhi. Gandhi was assassinated by a Hindu extremist on Jan. 30, 1948, because of his uncompromising advocacy of Hindu-Muslim brotherhood and India-Pakistan peace.
Even today, a vast majority of Hindus and Muslims in India live together as good neighbors all across India. There are extremist and communal-minded groups on both sides, but they are a minority. Moreover, most political parties in India are wedded to the constitutional principle of secularism. Therefore, I am absolutely confident of Hindu-Muslim rapprochement in India.
Indian film industry a hope
Q: What is deterrence against the recurrence of communal riots?
SK: The effective deterrence against recurrence of communal violence in India — or, for that matter, in any multi-religious nation in the world — rests on two pillars. One, the government must be impartial in all its dealings. In particular, the police (also other security forces) and the judiciary must be independent and non-partisan, so that every citizen can feel secure and safe, and expect justice against harm-doers.
The second pillar is social unity among people of various religious and ethnic communities. When communities are united and committed to living together in peace and cooperation, communal forces (Hindu or Muslim) will find it extremely difficult to incite hatred and violence.
Q: You have also propounded that Mumbai can bring India and Pakistan closer with its thriving film industry known as Bollywood and many other things. But over the years Bollywood is also getting hyper nationalistic and adding to polarization.
SK: It is true, and it is very sad, that some people in Bollywood are getting hyper-nationalistic and contributing to polarization. But, overall, Bollywood has rendered immense service to the cause of communal harmony and national integration within India, and propagating humanistic ideals around the world. Even today, three of the biggest movie stars in Hindu-majority India are Muslims — Shahrukh Khan, Aamir Khan and Salman Khan.
Indian cinema is extremely popular in Pakistan, and many great Pakistani poets, musicians, and artists are highly respected in India. To give just one example, in the recent anti-citizenship law agitations all across India, one protest song that has become immensely popular is by Faiz Ahmed Faiz, who was one of the greatest Urdu poets of Pakistan. Therefore, I am highly optimistic about the power of Bollywood to bring India and Pakistan closer.
Q: Prime Minister Narendra Modi began his era with promises on the economy, diplomacy, digital India, clean India. Why he felt need to patronize right-wing fringe for electoral gains instead showing achievements on the economic front?
SK: I agree. Prime Minister Narendra Modi was fortunate in winning historic mandates in 2014 and 2019 parliamentary elections. With such popular mandates, he could have given leadership to India’s march towards accelerated and inclusive development on all fronts, especially in eliminating poverty and backwardness which blight the lives of millions of Indians. He did not need to rely on the politics of polarization.
Courtesy : AA
by admin | May 25, 2021 | Books, News
Vice President of India Mohd. Hamid Ansari, releasing book “AUGUST VOICES – What they said on 14-15 August 1947”, along with Sudheendra Kulkarni, Vinod Twde, Dr Zaheer Kazi
Mumbai: The Vice President of India, M. Hamid Ansari has said that the practical approach to the possibility of a South Asian Union would be to make haste slowly, to be accommodative rather than exclusionary so that negative perceptions are allowed to fade away. He was addressing the gathering after releasing the book ‘August Voices: What they said on 14-15 August 1947’ authored by Sudheendra Kulkarni, in Mumbai today. The Minister of Education, Government of Maharashtra, S Vinod S. Tawde, Dr Zaheer Kazi President Anjuman I Islam and other dignitaries were present on the occasion.
Danish Reyaz with author Sudheendra Kulkarni (Photo Maeeshat)
“I confess I have read, but infrequently, some of the writings of Sudheendra Kulkarni ji. Some years back he was gracious enough to send me a copy of his very interesting collection of writings on what Mahatma Gandhi would have done with the internet.” He said
It is tempting to type caste. Could he be called an archeologist, or dubbed a futurologist? Neither would do justice to his work. To me, it is evident that Kulkarni ji has the mind of an explorer, a visionary, in quest of new worlds.
The book before us is one such endeavour, to build a new edifice on the ruins of the past. And yet, because this is not a green field venture, it is essential to understand the nature of ruins on which rebuilding is to commence.
The task of the historian, as Ibn Khuldun put it, is to ‘lift the veil’ from conditions of the past. The present case is also a matter of living memory and therefore not immune from subjectivity of greater intensity. The ‘post-truth’, in this case, arrived seven decades earlier!
The challenge for us, therefore, is three fold:
- To understand what happened in 1947?
- To examine the role and limitations of the principal actors?
- To explore realistically the options for the future.
The happening of 1947 has rightly been describes as a ‘tragedy’ to which the Two Nation theory contributed. The British role, and their anxiety to leave India on terms most advantageous to them, is well known.
Was this sufficient to bring about the division of the country?
Some of the iconic personalities cited in the book, and others not mentioned, played a role in articulating and shaping perceptions for over two decades. Their ‘final’ statements, if such a term can be used for what they said on August 14-15, have therefore to be seen in a wider context of their role in the developments that led to the final decisions.
The critical question is simply put: why was the Partition Plan, put forth by the British, accepted?
Much has been written about the experience of the functioning of the Interim Government of 1946-47. In the discussions preceding and during the crucial AICC meeting of June 14-15, 1947 opinion was divided but both Jawaharlal Nehru and Vallabhbhai Patel supported Partition. Their line of reasoning, as per public record, was not identical. Nehru felt a compromise with the Muslim League would result in ‘a weak India, that is, a federal India with far too much power in the federating units,’ adding that partition would be temporary, that Pakistan was bound to come back to us.’ Patel felt, as he put it, that ‘in spite of my previous strong opposition to partition, I agreed to it because I am convinced that in order to keep India united it must be divided.’ He added, in a speech in Bombay on October 30, 1948, that ‘we accepted partition willingly and after a full weightment of its consequences.’
Ten years after the event, Maulana Azad attributed the decision of his principal colleagues to ‘anger or despair (that) had clouded their vision’ adding that ‘the verdict (of history) would be that India was not divided by the Muslim League but by the Congress.’
It is therefore difficult to disagree with Shri Kulkarni’s conclusion that ‘history’s verdict casts the responsibility for India’s Partition on both the parties although the Muslim league’s guilt is decidedly greater’ because it anchored its demand on the Two Nation Theory.
And yet, the thought did persist with some of the decision-makers that the impending happening was somewhat unreal, not altogether desirable, and hopefully transitory. The latter aspect, however, was not investigated or spelt out.
Even more glaring was the apparent absence, on all sides, of reflection and articulation of the economic implications of the division of what had hitherto been one economic unit for over a century with its own imperatives and socio-economic consequences.
The theme of the book before us is to project a scenario of the possibility of a South Asian Union with the India-Pakistan-Bangladesh Confederation at the core. Its underlying assumption is the possibility and desirability of an India-Pakistan Rapprochement.
Our focus is on three nation-states of recent origin, of different sizes and capacities, differing versions of the past, conflicting ideologies and national security perceptions, but sharing geography, ecology and wider human security challenges.
Our author seeks a solution by plunging headlong into the core of differences. He suggests a ‘cultural and spiritual confederation’ that would subdue and overcome extremist perceptions of those whom he is not disinclined to name, reverts to what was said by some political and spiritual personalities, and cites with approval Maharishi Aurobindo’s words that the desired change will come ‘by an increasing recognition of the necessity not only of peace and concord but of common action, by the practice of common action and the creation of means for that purpose.’
Idealism, however lofty, has to be tempered with realism. Common action is easier done on areas of convergence than of divergence. This convergence is to be sought by moving beyond the traditional paradigm of conventional security into those of human security and human wrong. Both are ignored by the governments and societies in our region; there is a crying need for the recognition and implementation of both. Only then would we develop the perception and capacity for correctives.
A beginning therefore has to be made in regional cooperation with a focus on human security problems, on movement of people and on trade without unreasonable restrictions. The common traits in cultural traditions and historical narratives needs to be transmitted to a younger generation through conscious promotion rather than studied prevention of cultural exchanges, films, and other cultural activities.
The experience of SAARC has not been encouraging and therefore alternate strategies need to be explored. The proposed new structure would have to be voluntary and devoid of overt or covert coercion. There may be lessons to be learnt from other regional organizations.
The practical approach would be to make haste slowly, to be accommodative rather than exclusionary so that negative perceptions are allowed to fade away. Political commitment and modalities have to surface to resolve outstanding areas of disagreement. Foremost amongst these is what the Simla Agreement of 1972 called ‘a final settlement of Jammu and Kashmir’. Its domestic dimensions, as well as the trans-LOC incursions, have been in the news of late. The State is doing all that is necessary to confront and repel terrorism. The State also has a duty to ensure that the rights and dignity of our citizens in the State are respected and ensured and shortcomings effectively addressed. Alienation of any segment of the citizen body within our land does not contribute to the overall health of the Republic.
Chale chalo ke who manzil abhi nahin aa’ii.
by admin | May 25, 2021 | News
Pakistan’s former Foreign minister Khurshid Mahmud Kasuri spoke brilliantly while releasing his book Neither a Hawk nor a Dove.(Photo Maeeshat)
Mumbai: (IANS) Belligerent Shiv Sena activists abused and blackened the face of veteran journalist and L.K. Advani’s former aide Sudheendra Kulkarni to protest his organising the launch of former Pakistani foreign minister Khurshid Mahmud Kasuri’s book here on Monday but the event passed of without any further incident.
The incident created a nationwide outrage with condemnation from all major political parties including the state’s ruling Bharatiya Janata Party, which is in alliance with the Sena in both the centre and in Maharashtra.
Taking the Sena’s challenge headlong, Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis had assured that the function would be held and full security would be provided to the event and the visiting dignitary.
The state government ensured tight security at the venue, Nehru Centre in Worli, where “Neither a Hawk Nor a Dove: An Insider Account of Pakistan’s Foreign Policy” was released peacefully without any untoward incident in the presence of a large number of dignitaries from different walks of life.
The attack happened earlier in the day as Kulkarni was leaving his home in Sion in south-central Mumbai.
A group of around a dozen Sena slogan-shouting activists accosted him, asked him to cancel the event and then smeared him with black ink.
A shaken but determined Kulkarni, chairman of think-tank Observer Research Foundation (ORF), told media persons that the Shiv Sena had repeatedly warned it would not permit the event and if the ORF failed to comply, the party would disrupt it in “Shiv Sena style”.
“The Shiv Sena has no authority to impose such a ban… We have taken a principled stand and shall not cancel the event,” asserted Kulkarni, who did not wash off the ink for several hours,
Kasuri said he was “saddened and unhappy by this attack on Kulkarni whom I have known for many years” and condemned it. “…the right to protest must be peaceful and these people must change their tactics of protest,” he said at a hurriedly convened press conference here following the incident.
“I have come with a message of peace… An overwhelming majority of people in both countries want peace between the two countries… But, there are some who don’t want India-Pakistan peace,” he said.
Senior BJP leader Advani in New Delhi and party spokesman minced no words in protesting against the Sena actions, while social networking sites condemned what many termed “Shiv Sena hooliganism”.
Several top Congress leaders including state party chief Ashok Chavan, leader of Opposition Radhakrishna Vikhe-Patil, city chief Sanjay Nirupam, senior state leader Sanjay Dutt also condemned the attack.
Though virtually isolated, the Sena appeared undeterred by the backlash and vowed to continue its anti-Pakistani protests in different forms.
“You have witnessed what is going on since today morning. Kasuri has arrived in Mumbai for the function arranged by Pakistai ‘agent’ (Kulkarni) – You have also seen the Shiv Sena’s reaction and how their faces have been blackened,” Shiv Sena MP and spokesperson Sanjay Raut told media persons.
“We are not concerned by who is condemning the action. Our agitation will continue. It is not a political agitation, but a patriotic one against the forces attempting to break and divide the country,” he said.
Warning the Sena would not tolerate any talks which was “anti-India” or “anti-Indians”, Raut said: “During his tenure as foreign minister, Kasuri worked actively against India. He invited anti-Indian separatists in Jammu and Kashmir and instigated them to unite against India. This is the same Kasuri whom they are welcoming with a red carpet.”
He said the Sena has sent a report listing all of Kasuri’s anti-India activities during his tenure as Pakistan foreign minister, and urged Fadnavis’ intervention to cancel Monday’s function.
The Monday incident came close on the heels of last week’s threats by Sena leading to cancellation of two concerts – in Mumbai and Pune – by renowned Pakistani ghazal maestro Ghulam Ali.
It came a day after the BJP virtually snubbed the Shiv Sena leadership by keeping them at bay during Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s visit to Mumbai to lay the foundation for three mega-projects – the Ambedkar Memorial, two new lines of Mumbai Metro and a new container terminal at Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust.
