Delimitation and Women's Reservation - Message for Mr Shashi Tharoor

I saw some of the statements made by Mr Shashi Tharoor regarding the latest delimitation and women's reservation bill which was tabled by GOI in the parliament.  He has made a very rational point about how increasing the number of seats in the Lok Sabha is counter productive to the functioning of the parliament and will make it unwieldy. I recall how Mr Tharoor was being repeatedly interrupted and were given only 7 minutes to make his statement in the parliament on the recently passed SHANTI Bill. A healthy and productive debate requires that members get sufficient time to debate in the parliament and such a large Lok Sabha will not only not allow for high quality debates, but given the tendency of several MPs to create ruckus during parliament proceedings more members will lead to more ruckus. The burden on taxpayers for additional MPs and their staff including security etc. will be an unnecessary burden. All citizens should support his stand on this issue. I would like to express my gratitude to Mr Tharror for raising this point.

Mr Tharoor has raised another question on how delimitation should not be linked with women's reservation. I have my reservations about the whole concept of reservations to start with and I can assure him many patriotic citizens want the politics of reservations to end in the country for its own better future. Just as socialism is a failed social engineering concept, so is quota system a failed system which tramples on individual rights and liberties under false pretext of social justice. No one can be given more rights than equal rights. Special rights are not equal rights and lead to distortion in the functioning of the state. Time has come to start reversing this failed system rather than entrenching it further. Why should the electorate be denied the choice of candidates? Just because of gender, why should someone who has worked in a constituency and can better represent it be denied the opportunity and the electorate denied the right to elect him. This nation has seen several long serving women Chief Ministers and a woman Prime Minister without the need for a special reservation for women. We do not need to distort the system to enable women's representation. If at all political parties are keen on more women MPs, let them field more women candidates and let the electorate decide if they are suitable. The constitution neither denied women their rights nor does it envisage such a reservation based system for their representation. By passing the Women's reservation bill in 2023 the parliament has created a distortion which was not needed to start with. I know I am making an argument for an already lost cause as there is near 100% political consensus on women's reservation in parliament but a start has to be made to free India from the reservation politics and work on building political consensus on ending reservations. Hence at the very least an amendment should be brought about in the women's reservation bill to do it without increasing seats and with a time limit for how long this reservation will last, say a 20 year period with no renewal thereafter. This is my humble suggestion for Mr Tharoor and other MPs to consider.

The argument made against delimitation based on census however baffles me. Mr Tharoor has worked at the UN and I am sure well aware of the long standing democratic principle around the world that in a one person one vote system each vote should have the same weight. From the very beginning India's constitution has recognized the need for equal weightage. If one considers the history of Article 81 and 82 and the various amendments made into it over the years, at no time was it not recognized that weightage should be equal. Equal weightage to each vote is in fact a fundamental principle of the constitution and altering it strikes at the very root of a representative democratic system. For 50 years delimitation has been postponed and many individual voters who do not even realize what rights they have been denied are being treated unequally because of regional interest in parts of the country. One must realize that in general elections the nation votes as one in direct elections, to the House of the People i.e. the Lok Sabha. The states don't miss out in the parliament and are represented in the Council of States i.e. the Rajya Sabha. The present generation of politicians are doing great disservice to the toils of the founders of India's constitution by distorting the very foundation of democracy and national interest by bringing petty regional interests in election to a body whose purpose is to serve the nation as a whole and make choices and decisions in larger national interest. An MP elected to the Lok Sabha represents the constituents and each vote of the MP counts equally. To say that cardinal directions, wealth and GDP, language etc. be factors limiting the principle of equality for the voters electing the MP is a dangerous trend and should not be legitimized further.

Kindly refer to the 1950 version of article 81 on Indian constitution. It says "⁠(b) For the purpose of sub-clause (a), the States shall be divided, grouped or formed into territorial constituencies" this particular clause was removed later on in 7th amendment when states were reorganized. But the original intent of the constitution makers is quite evident that they did not see a constituency for Lok Sabha elections to be somehow limited to the boundaries of a state. "State could be divided, it could be grouped or formed into territorial constituencies" means that it was always possible to have Lok Sabha constituencies spanning across multiple state borders for general elections. While it was never done so is another matter but perhaps had it been done for border districts of various states it would have created much needed spirit of integration in the nation. It further states "(c) The ratio between the number of members, allotted to each territorial constituency and the population of that constituency as ascertained at the last preceding census of which the relevant figures have been published shall, so far as practicable, be the same throughout the territory of India."  There is no doubt left about the message that has been sent to the future generation of Indians by constituent assembly. Entire territory of India has to be treated with the same yardstick. The ratio is important because it ensures equal weightage for each vote. 

There is an entire article 82 which states "readjustment after each census". This is a fundamental constitutional principle that has been kept at abeyance because of petty regional political interests. While no one in the state objects to redrawing the territorial boundaries of constituencies based on census within the state, somehow an impression has been made in the polity of states that states are sacrosanct as sub nationalities and can demand special treatment when it comes to Lok Sabha elections. Whereas it is well understood that states are only administrative divisions and federalism in Indian context in no way means that national interest should be subservient to petty regional interests and power politics. This is a dangerous trend that has gone on for too long and one only hopes that after the 2026 census this distortion is finally corrected. 

Delimitation and Women's Reservation

There is uproar in southern states over the delimitation and women's reservation bill 2026. The argument being that southern states have done better family planning and hence the population growth rate in southern states is lower than northern states and these states will lose out on parliamentary seats if delimitation is done based on current population. This argument has kept the Lok Sabha constituencies fixed since 1973 delimitation which was done based on 1971 census. It has been more than 50 years or about 2/3 the life of the Republic since when the political parties in southern states have opposed delimitation of Lok Sabha constituencies based on the argument that fertility rates in southern states is less than the fertility rates in northern states and hence the southern states will lose out on parliamentary seats. It is not as if the fertility rate in northern states has not come down. There is uneven development in the country and when it comes to providing more support to the lagging states there is opposition form the southern states. This creates a chicken and egg situation because reduction is fertility rate depends on overall development and education of a region.

The argument of opposing census based delimitation is based on a flawed view of the parliamentary system under Indian constitution. It should be understood by everyone that Lok Sabha does not represent states. Lok Sabha is peoples council that is represented by constituencies. As far as representation of states in the parliament is concerned it is provided by the council of states which is the Rajya Sabha. States do not have a special status for election of member of parliaments to Lok Sabha. States are merely administrative divisions and do not represent any kind of sub nationality. New states have continuously been created for administrative and other reasons. But if they start giving rise to sub nationalism then that is not in interest of the republic. The idea of southern Indian states being at odds with northern Indian states is a constructed identity based politics of regional parties with is detrimental to national integration and fraternity between citizens of the country. 

In a one man one vote system each vote should have equal weightage in the Parliament. If we have certain constituencies which have electorate running into thousands of voters and other electorates with lakhs of voters then we have an imbalanced representation in the parliament. Nobody ever objects to delimitation based on census within state boundaries but somehow when the same logic is being applied to Lok Sabha constituencies suddenly the argument about states losing out on parliamentary seats is being raised thanks to regional politics. As if an MP elected for a parliamentary constituency in northern India is suddenly an enemy of the citizens in a constituency in Southern India and will not act in national interest. What ever regional or state interest exists are dealt with by the state governments which have sufficient powers. Member of parliaments elected from any part of the country should make decisions on national interest and as mentioned earlier the states are already represented in the Rajya Sabha which has an indirect election. 

Having made and argument in the favor of delimitation based on census which is mandated in the constitution anyways I would like to make a separate argument against this bill. The number of seats in Lok Sabha since the first delimitation based on 1951 census have increased by approximately 50 members. We already have a large parliament. In various debates over laws in the parliament the MPs hardly get anytime to make their statements. An MP hardly gets 5-10 minutes of uninterrupted time to make his or her arguments. If the number of seats is increased from 543 to 816 that is a 50% increase in the strength of the Lok Sabha. This will certainly damage the quality of debate in the parliament. The financial burden on the tax payers of country for these additional VIP members and their entourage which lives on the exchequer will also increase. The idea of women's reservation of 33% and the sub reservation amongst women for SC/ST communities is also an unfortunate continuation of the one medicine of every ailment principle which has afflicted Indian political class. We need to now move away from reservation politics to save the republic. There are no structural nor legal barriers to women entering politics in the country. If in any constituency and electorate can benefit from a more suitable male candidate to represent them then why should they be limited for the choice of only female candidates. It is not as if there is any bar on women from contesting in any unreserved seats against male candidates. If political parties want to increase women's representation they should do so at party level by giving more tickets to women. We don't need to reserve seats in the parliament for this.

India should move on from such social engineering projects and instead of doing down the road of further reservations its time to do away with reservations starting with OBC reservations for a more merit based equal treatment under the law.

On Sixth Schedule for Ladakh

I can sense some red flags in this demand from Ladakh for inclusion in the 6th schedule of the constitution which is currently applicable to certain states in the north-east. I somewhat understand why center government is reluctant to do this. In negotiations with Ladakh representatives center had proposed art 371 instead.

One would prefer that all citizens irrespective of their background are all treated equal and equal fundamental rights are applied to all and that there be no special provisions, laws etc. which are discriminatory in nature in any way. Hence, I find even art 371 to be an aberration but it appears to be a lesser evil than the 6th schedule which I find to be encouraging sub nationalism and separatism.

It was under British legacy of keeping north-eastern regions separate which unfortunately led to a continuation of the policy by means of 6th schedule provision in Indian constitution. Our constitution makers were sold to this idea of separate identity, otherwise there was no need to have separate provision of 5th schedule for the "tribal" regions of other states, say central India. In the words of Ambedkar as I picked from Wikipedia " The tribal people in areas other than Assam are more or less Hinduised, more or less assimilated with the civilisation and culture of the majority of the people in whose midst they live."  This sort of civilizational distinction I can relate with Ambedkar, his world view and his strong belief in the Aryan invasion theory etc.

The effect of the inner line permit, Elviniasm and the likes on separatist politics in north-eastern states is well known. The inner line permit did not prevent westernization and christianisation but it certainly did prevent the "assimilation" and "hinduisation" that Ambedkar speaks of for the tribes. Shillong, I am told by some, is the most "westernized" city in India with its flourishing rock band culture. 

As far as tribal identities are concerned, I am of the opinion that we are all tribal after all. Every Hindu at least retains his tribal identity with his "Ishta" and "Kula". Are the westernized and Christianized (a "world" religion) residents of Shillong still considered tribal is a larger question in a domain which is above politics. One can certainly sympathize with the separate civilizational identity of the Sentinelese and the Jarawa (to some extent) of A&N but is the idea to keep tribals as such, in perpetuity? Can the normal governance structures of state, districts, block, panchayats etc. not guarantee rights, freedoms and governance in the same way as the rest of India? Do the tribals never aspire to linking with the larger population around them at all?

Anyhow coming to the demands of Ladakh from some news reports it appears that some in Ladakh lament the removal/dilution of article 370 and 35A and see the sixth schedule as a way to status quo ante. I am wary of any discrimination of Indian citizens and any restriction on the right to equality of Indian citizens. These fundamental rights I believe are sacrosanct and I am saying this from the perspective of an Individual and not any people group. Hence, I find such insertion of possible discriminatory tendencies in the governance structure of Ladakh as potentially damaging in the long run. I understand that arguments will be made about the patriotism and unique environment etc. of Ladakh. Can the environment protection not be ensured by a regular legislature?

Ladakh has never been so Isolated in history, after all, it has been at the crossroads of great civilizations. The ancient Silk Road passed through Ladakh. One reads about new reports of gold smuggling from China and the proximity to Tibet and Xinjiang shows the future potential of a flourishing trade in the region if by some miracle we see a political change in China some time in future. So, I am not so convinced about any civilizational Isolation of Ladakh as in Ambedkar's words which should call for any 6th schedule like provisions. I say " 6th schedule like ", rather than 6th schedule itself, since 97% population of Ladakh is tribal, this in fact actually makes the idea of applying 6th schedule quite illogical Once Nagaland and Mizoram became separate states the 6th schedule became irrelevant to the erstwhile "Naga hills" and "Lushai Hills" of Assam as such. The state within a state concept of 6th schedule became moot. 

Similarly, as already the population is overwhelmingly tribal what do the people of Ladakh envisage? It is not as if there is a small tribal population in a large state surrounded by a non-tribal population necessitating an autonomous region within the state. Do the people of Ladakh envisage a separate autonomous division of Kargil and separate for Leh? Is that really needed when a combined legislature can bring better integration between the two districts rather than overly complicating the system with autonomous councils, that can encourage creation of discriminatory laws by these councils, which may lead to perpetual separation of the peoples of these regions and create political problems in future where none exist at present.

With these facts especially that 6th schedule was specific to a unique situation of Assam at the time it was envisaged under very different circumstances which do not exist in Ladakh and even 5th schedule is irrelevant given that almost entire population of Ladakh is tribal, the question now becomes ensuring the rights of the 3% non-tribal population of Ladakh and continued integration and development of the region. I request the people of Ladakh to review their position on this matter and the representatives of Ladakh to reconsider and move towards a normal state-center governance relationship like any other state or union territory of India.

I understand that my views on this subject are limited by my knowledge as a layman, but I suspect few in Ladakh fully realize the implications of what they are demanding either. I only hope that lack of full understanding of the legal & constitutional reasons why 6th schedule is inapplicable now that J&K state has been split does not lead to unnecessarily hardening of positions to a point of no return and lead to public unrest in the region which is detrimental to the peace and security in Ladakh.

Sadhguru on Citizenship Amendment Act

Sadhguru Jaggi Vasudev has given a lucid explanation on the noble motives of Citizenship Amendment Act in response to a question to him. He has urged the protesters to read and understand the act rather than fall for the malicious propaganda that has been going on over it.

His entire explanation can be seen here.

Unfortunately the same journalists who have been spreading misinformation on CAA have started questioning Sadhguru's statement as factually incorrect by nitpicking on irrelevant points rather than understanding the thrust of his argument.

I clear the air here and explain how Sadhguru is absolutely correct and those questioning him are engaging in dishonest journalism driven by prejudice and mala fide intent, which can also be gauged from the disrespectful tone and tenor of their statements against a respected religious figure like him.

1) The religion census of Pakistan was not released since 1998. There is no doubt that there has been drastic decline in percentage of Hindus in these Islamic countries. In West Pakistan the bulk of (>90%) Hindus reside on Sindh. Of which majority are in princely state of Amarkot which was a Hindu majority state which joined Pakistan after Independence. In rest of Pakistan Hindus have been nearly wiped out. Some people are nitpicking over the number of 23% as population of minorities in whole of Pakistan(East + West) at the time of independence, this figure may be accurate if one looks as pre- partition population before migration induced by partition.  In fact in West Pakistan the percentage of Indian religions had reduced from 16% in 1901 to 1.68% in 1991. The thrust of Sadhguru's argument was correct that there is reduction due to persecution & violence.

2) Sadhguru cites an incident of his visit to Jwala Mata temple in Baku where he met a Hindu whose wife had been abducted, converted to Islam and married to someone else on same day. He mentioned in context of this incident that Pakistan did not recognize Hindu marriages which is why this man had no legal case to protect his wife. This was an incident in past not recent. In 2016 Sindh province passed a Hindu marriage act and in 2017 rest of the provinces got a Hindu marriage act. But this in no way changes what Sadhguru said. This is a clear case of persecution of Hindus in Pakistan. Even the current law of Pakistan is being criticized for its annulment clause which causes the marriage to be annulled if any spouse converts to Islam. This is a loophole that can be exploited to abduct and convert even married Hindu women. . There are several cases of abduction of Hindus girls reported from Pakistan.So Sadhguru's example of persecution of Hindus stands valid.

3) A propaganda is being spread that the Citizenship Amendment Act does not mention persecution hence it is not about religious persecution of minorities in Islamic countries in subcontinent. Fact is that in the statement of objects and reasons of the act it is clearly mentioned that religious persecution is the reason. There are associated government notifications on Passport Act and Foreigners Act of 2015 which clearly mention exemption based on religious persecution or fear of religious persecution. When there is overwhelming evidence of an obvious religious persecution based on state discrimination in these countries then such media propaganda is condemn able. Sadhguru in fact says that discrimination in these countries is state defined by law, because of the Islamic nature of these states. So he is again absolutely correct.

4) Sadhguru mentioned that police response has been relatively restrained compared to the kind of riots taking place. He is absolutely correct on this point. One need not go to far back in history just compare this with how 36 people were shot dead by Police after Baba Ram Rahim's followers rioted in Haryana in 2017. Now consider at the Police action in Jamia Milia Islamia university. Sadhguru mentioned that if students pelt stones then won't police enter the university to control the crowds. A lot of noise has been created in police action in Jamia Millia. It must be noted that even courts have not entertained such motivated arguments of police excesses. It is interesting to note that police has sought access to the CCTV footage from the University which has still not been provided to them. What's the justification for this denial? What is there to hide? Sadhguru is again correct in saying that police action was going to happen when there is rioting and even innocents will unfortunately get caught in this action.

5) Sadhguru is correct when he says that rumour are being spread that Muslims will lose their Citizenship because of CAA. This is a malicious propaganda that many people including students have fallen for. If they simply read the act they will know this is not the case. Thus act simply provides a faster path to citizenship to persecuted religious minorities from 3 Islamic states. Does not affect ant Indian citizen. Does not adversely affect anybody's case for seeking citizenship of India under existing process.

6) Sadhguru was asked about NRC so he responded with his views about it how every nation needs to know who its legal citizens are. It is obvious this is needed. He mentioned that for proving citizenship by birth several documents can be accepted. People are arguing they don't have documents. So he question who are these people who have no ID documents. How is it possible for people in this day and age to have no documentary proof. He further states that people who don't have documents can produce witnesses. The possible list of documents can clearly be deduced based in Assam NRC. Spokesperson of home ministry has recently tweeted that witnesses may be considered for illiterate people who don't have documents and a process around that be created. So Sadhguru's entire reply to the question on CAA-NRC is absolutely correct. Those trying to nitpick are dishonest and reflect the same kind or media propaganda journalism that has spread disinformation on CAA in the country.

Information War on Citizenship Act

In the past couple of weeks, the kind of reporting we have seen in Indian and in world media backed by several motivated academicians and politicians on the recent amendment to Indian’s Citizenship Act, can only be described as an Information War, that has been unleashed on the Indian state. It is well known that the ruling Bhartiya Janata Party is seen as a right-wing nationalist party. In India it is seen as a party with primarily Hindu voter base. In international media it is often described as a Hindu nationalist party which in their eyes is a negative portrayal. The ideological opposition to BJP is well entrenched in the left leaning English media in India and also in similarly inclined western media. In general, western media has a negative view of India as a result of cold war dynamics of the past, but off late with the political rise of BJP in India, they have a particularly negative view about India under BJP government.

Various reasons can be attributed to this entrenched opinion. Political positions viewed as right wing are automatically disliked by self-described left liberal media. Influence of Christian evangelical organizations on western and even local Indian media is another factor, since these organizations see the BJP as a less conducive to their evangelical project in India. Similar motive can be attributed to media organizations under influence of Islamic evangelical organizations and Islamic countries. When such motivations are at play then its is almost impossible to expect reasonable analysis of events in India from these media organizations. Their criticism however is often cloaked in the language of liberalism, pluralism, women’s rights, democratic values etc.

There is also a set of Indian urban population which has primarily grown cut off from the civilizational ethos of India under the influence of an education system that specializes in turning the mindset of people away from anything that is culturally Indian in general and Hindu in particular. There is a belief in this population that being less Indian, less Hindu is somehow being more modern. This population has long considered itself to be the guardian of “Indian secularism”. A term which is as difficult to define if not more, than the term Hindutva or Hindu-ness which BJP espouses. In this scenario those who consider themselves anti-Hindutva also consider themselves to be the sole guardians of secularism in India. This group is most turned off by the “Hindu nationalist” image of BJP and views every action by BJP with suspicion. They are also most easily influenced by the western media being English speaking themselves. Many among them consider themselves global citizens who happen to hold an Indian passport.

This urban Indian population especially students of humanities discipline in Indian universities have been under influence of certain ideological groups namely Ambedkarites, extreme Marxist, Islamists and to a lesser degree evangelical Christian groups. The influence of last of these is most subtle since it is not explicitly in Christian fundamentalist terms in most Indian universities but instead in the language of western universalism. This student population has seen BJP as antitheses of what they understand should be the future direction of India. With rise of BJP and loss of political space in electoral democracy to these ideologies they have chosen to combine forces in campus politics by projecting their most extreme form on impressionable college students who are easier to mould towards these ideologies due to a fertile ground created by absence of civilizational knowledge and cultural awareness. In short due to a lack of emic perspective in the humanities education in India these students are most prone to be turned towards these ideologies that are often described as breaking India forces (read Breaking India by Rajiv Malhotra, Aravindan Neelakandan) since they see the cultural underpinnings of India and the mainstream culture as oppressive and worthy of being thrown out.

Some of the recent political decisions by the BJP government like the law banning Muslim practice of triple divorce, curb on foreign funding of Indian NGOs which either work for evangelical purposes or influencing Indian political process, the revocation of article 370 which gave a separate constitution to the J&K state and the judicial decision on Ayodhya Ram temple case which went in the favour of Hindus, left these ideological groups completely shattered. It was unexpected by them that these important issues on which they had staked their entire existence had gone out of their hands completely. They were confident that no Indian government will be able to change the constitutional status of J&K, that their case on Ayodhya Ram temple was undefeatable and that no government will be able to touch the Muslim personal laws. They considered these issues to be the touchstone of Indian secularism and set back on these issues hurt their cause greatly.

Under this back drop one must see another issue that these forces see as important which is the status of illegal Bangladeshi immigrants in India. Whether you look at the liberal left, or the Islamist both see that inaction by GOI in the problem of illegal Bangladeshi immigrants is the happy state of affairs. No government in past had been able to deal with this problem even when there was a widespread movement in Assam to deal with this problem of forced demographic change in north eastern states especially Assam. One of the reasons for this inaction was the difficulty of dealing with this problem without also affecting the Bangladeshi Hindu population which had come to Indian since the 1971 genocide of Bengali Hindus. It is now well known that 80% of the 10 million refugees of the Bangladesh war that came to India were Hindus so were the approximately 3 million victims who were killed in East Pakistan by the Pakistani army. It would not be wrong to say that it was genocide particularly of Bangladeshi Hindus which is easy to see if one compares the census figures of Bangladesh from the pre and post war periods. 

The recent change to the citizenship act which was done by the BJP can be seen as an attempt to solve this conundrum. How to protect the population of religious minorities from Bangladesh living in India from any legal action for deportation back to Bangladesh, where they are vulnerable, but at the same time be able to act on the illegal economic migration from Bangladesh, which has changed the demographics in North eastern states in particular, but has also led to creation of settlements of Bangladeshi populations in several cities in rest of India? This law which provides a faster path to Indian citizenship to religious minorities from Afghanistan, Pakistan and Bangladesh and prevents their deportation on grounds of illegal entry or lack of valid documents of entry is a safety net to protect this population for any future state action against illegal economic migrants living in India. A vast majority of such migrants are Bangladeshi.

This distinction between refugees escaping religious persecution a majority of whom happen to be Hindus and the illegal economic immigrants a majority of whom happen to be Muslims does not go down well for the self-described liberal secularists in India. Thus, the Citizenship Amendment Act and the expected national register for citizens which would follow was seen as the final nail in the coffin of secularism by them. They first argued that the CAA is not permitted in Indian constitution which is secular. When it is pointed out that the same constitution permits special consideration to religious minorities when its comes to freedom of operating their educational and religious institutions which Hindus don’t get, or how it is permitted for the state to provide special scholarships and run state funded educational institutions which provide reservations based on religion, how it can run a special minorities affairs ministry and can tolerate separate personal laws, these inconvenient questions are completely avoided by them. The question of legality of this law has been challenged by them in the courts, which has for now refused to stay the act and given the central government one month to respond to the objections.

Without waiting for the court decision to arrive they immediately cried foul of the motive of the government in bringing the CAA in conjunction with yet to be announced pan India National Register for Citizens. While their concern is that with the difficulty of Bangladeshi Hindu refugees being resolved by CAA the illegal Bangladeshi economic migrants now become vulnerable to state action in any future NRC, they chose to project the CAA and NRC exercise being somehow against Indian Muslims. Their weird argument was that Hindus and other religions except Muslims are protected by CAA safety net in any future NRC. Which is completely wrong since CAA is for foreign refugees not for Indian citizens. No Indian will ever choose to apply for naturalization using the CAA route just because his or her name is missed in any future NRC due to lack of any required documents. Naturalization is a longer process and will require clearance by intelligence agencies etc. If such an application is rejected that this person will be left in the lurch despite being an Indian citizen for several generations. It would be utterly foolish for an Indian national to do this rather than produce a community certificate or witnesses from the community in lieu of government issued ID. This was also clarified by spokesperson of the home ministry.

On this rumour that NRC+CAA combine will disenfranchise Indian Muslims in particular they ran a nation-wide campaign against CAA. In this media war the central government of India was projected as being of fascist intent that wishes to put Muslims in detention camps also called in some circles as concentration camps. Such absurd claims and hijacking of the movement by radical Islamists lead to large scale rioting in several urban centers of the country with higher concentration of Muslims. The international media outlets have carried front page articles, editorials and oped criticizing the Citizenship Amendment Act as a “Muslim ban”. When the reality is that it simply provides a faster path and easier process for naturalization to persecuted religious minorities from 3 Islamic countries in the subcontinent. It does not take away any opportunity for anyone no matter what their background on seeking Indian citizenship by naturalization etc by the existing process. What they have described as an action being taken by India for the first time is also not correct. While there was no law as such, it has been the policy of GOI to give special consideration to religious minorities from Pakistan in particular for providing then Indian citizenship by registration or naturalization. It has been seen a commitment by post partition India to provide a refuge to people escaping the Islamic state created in India after partition. This was provided specifically to the non-Muslim communities coming from Pakistan. One is not able to fathom how the executive action remains in the realm of secularism even if favours a particular religion but a legislative action is suddenly a threat to the secular principles of the state.

Given the level of misinformation that is being spread on this issue in India as well as world over, one is struck by the vulnerability of the Indian state to information war of this kind. No matter how many clarifications are given by several quarters, whether state institutions or private individuals, the rumour and the fear mongering around it refuses to die. Riots and protests by university students against the CAA continue unabated. Several lives have been lost, corers of rupees of public property has been damaged and India’s reputation abroad is tarnished in the campaign which has flimsy factual grounds. While one would have understood the academic disagreement on the approach or the legal questions raised on the Law which could have been discussed and resolved in rational manner, the irrational public outrage at display has every marking of an information war that the Indian state needs to better prepare itself for and be able to pre-empt and counter in future, through appropriate communication strategy. The grip of combined breaking India forces on Indian universities is also a cause for worry and the long-term security risk for India that needs to be solved by introducing the emic perspective in Humanities education and making it the mainstream perspective rather than the fringe perspective it currently is. It is only though giving primacy to civilizational knowledge systems in humanities education can this be done. Which is of course another battle ground for the “secularists” who will resist it at every level in the name of it being Hindu.

Citizenship Amendment Act 2019

We have witnessed a sea change in the approach of National Democratic Alliance government since the 2019 election towards addressing issues that have been long in the election manifesto of BJP, compared to the previous five years. Many people were expecting that 2019 general elections will produce a much reduced mandate in the backdrop of the state assembly results in Madhya Pradesh, Chattisgarh and Rajasthan which were held just before the general elections. But the mandate received by the NDA was much bigger than last term. We have seen that not just in Lok Sabha but also in Rajya Sabha NDA has been able to muster a majority with the help of parties which are not in formal alliance with BJP, like Biju Janata Dal and AIADMK.

With this stronger mandate from the people of the country, BJP has found itself in a position to implement the long held promises in its manifesto. We have seen the long awaited scrapping of Article 370 which was seen as unexpected in terms of the swiftness with which it was executed. While the dust had not yet settled on Article 370, NDA went ahead and addressed another difficult problem of what to do about the crores of refugees from neighbouring states who have been living stateless in India for decades. Since partition of India in 1947 and the further splitting of Pakistan in 1971 after a mass genocide of East Pakistan population by Pakistani Army and its supporting militias, an overwhelming majority of whom were Hindus, there have been several waves of immigration of religious minorities from Pakistan into India.

There is almost daily news on the persecution that religious minorities face in the self declared Islamic countries of Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan. There are hardly any Sikh and Hindu citizens left in Afghanistan since the advent of Taliban. The Population of religious minorities has seen a steady decline in Pakistan and Bangladesh. Even in the population which was left after the initial population exchange at the time of partition, there has been reduction of more than 50% among the Hindus in these countries. It is no body's case that religious minorities enjoy any semblance of religious freedom in these three Islamic countries. Abduction of Hindu, Sikh and Christian minor girls and forced conversion after marriage is a common occurrence in Pakistan's Sindh province where majority of Hindu population of Pakistan lives. In Bangladesh also restrictions on Durga Puja, destruction of temples and forced occupation of property of Hindus is very common. All these of these countries are constitutionally Islamic states which discriminates against religious minorities by Law.

Religious minorities from these three countries in the subcontinent are estimated to be close to 2 crores and are living in India stateless for decades. India has given citizenship to such refugees in past via executive orders. Some of these instances have been cited during the parliamentary debate over the citizenship amendment bill. While the refugees from Pakistan have been absorbed as citizens in batches, the most contentious issue has been about the twin problem of refugees and illegal economic immigration from Bangladesh. It is no body's case that the majority Muslims from these countries can claim state oppression based on religion. The qualitative difference has to be understood that while some citizens who happen to be Muslims may face oppression because of political activism or other reason but the religious minorities face discrimination by state and by the community in large simply for "existing".

Government of India has an obligation towards its citizens to secure its borders and keep a check on illegal immigration. However it is well known fact that over the years GOI has been terribly lax in this effort. Out borders are porous and movement of people and smuggling of goods takes place with impunity. This is a result of a weak state with lopsided priorities. The primary function of the state is internal and external security, but India's spending on this is woefully low. While the socialist welfare state spends its resources and energy in running inefficient loss making public sector companies in areas where the state should simple not operate like running airlines. As a result of this lack of attention wilful or otherwise the borders have been left unsecured and a huge population of illegal migration primarily from Bangladesh has resulting in change of demographics primarily in the norther eastern states, but also in several other parts of the country.

This gordian knot which is as complex as or perhaps even more complex than article 370 had to be cut and it has been cut by the twin actions of Citizenship Amendment Act(CAA) and the Nation wide register of citizens. This nation wide NRC is already part of the Citizenship Act which was added to the act in 2003 in article 14A of the act but it has not been implemented yet. The CAA 2019 essentially provides a one time amnesty to the illegal migrants who have been persecuted in these three Islamic countries in the subcontinent on the bases of their religion and form a minority population their. As has already been mentioned before there isn't much data required to be presented to prove this the religious census in these countries clearly establishes the dwindling populations of religious minorities there, in contrast with flourishing population of religious minorities in India. In fact the population of Hindus is in steady declined in India under the twin pressures of relatively slower birth rate and mostly unethical targeted religious conversion which is directed primarily towards the Hindu population. In Bangladesh in particular there has been large scale targeted persecution of Hindus. It has been established by other sources which I cite here 80% of the 10 million refugees who came to India in 1971 and 80% of estimated 3 million killed in the genocide perpetrated by Pakistan army in then East Pakistan were Hindus.

Under this backdrop of 71 genocide and the partition of the country on religious lines which left a number of religious minority populations in these Islamic states it was and continues to the be responsibility of Indian state to provide refuge to these people who were stuck on the wrong side of the border for no fault of theirs. While it is not in the interest of the Indic civilization that Indic population goes extinct in these states which were once flourishing centers of the civilization. But at the same time India cannot turn its back on these populations who have sought refuge in India and are living here as stateless and send them back to their source countries. There has been recent news of how 500 Hindus who were deported from Rajasthan to Pakistan were en-masse converted to Islam.

In treatment by the Indian state in grant of citizenship or otherwise they should not be considered at par with the illegal economic migrants. While both have entered India illegally one group has entered under threat of persecution based on religious lines and the other for economic benefit. It has been reported in 2014 that as much as 6% of the GDP of Bangladesh is the amount of remittance that the Bangladeshi workers send back home from India. They prefer India because of ease of entry and low cost of migration since they don't need to procure "Passport" etc to come to India. This number is four times of the remittance they receive from Saudi Arabia. This clearly points to the enormity of the problem of illegal immigration from Bangladesh and loss of employment opportunity to own  population in the low end labour market of India.

CAA makes this clear distinction by giving these refugees twin guarantee that they would not be deported if they belong to 6 religious minority population of Afghanistan, Pakistan and Bangladesh as defined in the Act and by reducing the wait time for their naturalization from 12 years to 6 years of aggregate period of stay in India. This is all that the act does it gives a fast track process for application of citizenship of India by registration or naturalization by these refugees and protection against deportation. It does not take away any right from any one else whether Indian Citizen or a foreign national applying for the citizenship of India or seeking asylum on any grounds. It has to be understood that the refugees need to apply for citizenship. So it is possible that their application may be rejected and they may be denied citizenship. But my interpretation of the CAA 2019 is that they will still enjoy protection from deportation if they belong to religious minorities from these 3 countries as defined in CAA 2019.

Many arguments have been made that this act is against secular principles. Claims are being made that it is unconstitutional. The fundamental logic that such arguments don't answer is that if Indian state can give special rights to religious minorities in India,w can it not give special rights to the religious minorities of these countries in the process of seeking citizenship of India. How can one act be secular but other cannot be secular. The definition of word secular it self is not very well defined. Indian state regularly interfears in the matter of religious activities of Hindus who happen to be national majority but not necessarily regional majority in every state of India. So I do not quite understand how this act fails the secularism test. The individual Muslims from Af-Pak and Bangladesh can still apply for Indian citizenship via the normal process. That right has not been denied to them, only a certain section of population from these countries has been given easier process as against the usually more complex process of acquiring Indian citizenship. Various aspects of the legality of this act have been mentioned by lawyers like Harish Salve.

Some people have argued that a combination of CAA and nation wide NRC is discriminatory towards Muslim Indian citizens since compared to say a Hindu who is rejected in NRC and a Muslim who is rejected in NRC the Hindu will not be expelled but a Muslim would. This is far from the truth and stems from incorrect understanding of Citizenship act and the process of naturalization after CAA and the process of national ID both of which are part of the Citizenship act. As has been explained by home minister several time the NRC process will not look at religion of a person at all. CAA will look at religion only for foreign nationals who apply for naturalization under the new process because of religious persecution in these 3 countries. It would be a weird argument to make that a Hindu who gets excluded in NRC will not be expelled if found to be a foreigner. Only a foreigner from these three countries will logically apply for naturalization under CAA. Why would a Hindu Indian citizen whose several generations have lived in the territory of India claim to be Pakistani and then claim persecution for claiming naturalization? Why would he risk his application being rejected and ending up being truly stateless? This logic is beyond belief. But this is the main argument made by the people who oppose CAA and protest on streets.

People are rioting, op-eds are being written, placard wielding students including law student are protesting over this supposedly unequal treatment that Muslims will get since they cannot claim this illegal way of getting citizenship by naturalization and a hypothetical hair brained Hindu can. Any such attempt will only make the case weaker for such a person and the process more complicated since it will trigger more scrutiny by Intelligence Bureau and may result in a rejection of claim when a perfectly legal way of resolving this issue of lack of documents could be found if not via the executive branch of the government then by approaching judiciary.  IB director had told the JPC on Citizenship Amendment Bill that the immediate beneficiary of this act will be around 31,000 refugees who have already applied for citizenship based on religious persecution. But any future claim while not disallowed will require enhanced enquiry by both Internal and External Intelligence agencies of India.

Now that some groups have challenged the act in court we await the judgement of the Supreme court of India to see whether the Act stays as is, parts of it are struck down or all of it is struck down. But the series of violent riots that have taken place across the country and the student protest in certain colleges where they have blocked normal functioning of the colleges shows that these people are not in line with the principles of constitutional democracy and the duty of a citizen to remain peaceful during public demonstrations etc. These actions also amount to putting pressure on the courts which are hearing this matter currently. Such activities should be avoided and court should be allowed to make a judgement on all aspects of this law.

Zubin is not Nero separatist leadership in valley is

This opinion piece appeared in The Hindu Zubin Mehta and the unequal music.
I was long expecting someone will try to make this Nero analogy. But unfortunately it doesn't stick on Zubin. It does stick on the separatist leaders who have lead the common people of the state to meaningless conflict, death and destruction while accepting diamond studded watches as gifts from Pakistani mentors across the border. Soon someone will argue that the Sindhu festival in Ladakh and the Amarnath yatra should be stopped. Zubin is an artist of world renown, the valley is fortunate to have him perform in Srinagar. Kudos to German embassy for arranging this in spite the terror threat and I salute the artists who came. Get over this separatism. The root of violence is not the Idea of India. It is the destabilization engineered by the ideologues in Pakistan. The same people who destroyed Afghanistan. There is no legitimacy in separatism in valley just as there was no legitimacy in separatism in Tamil Nadu. Get over it.

Latest controversy on the national song Vande Mataram

Recently we were greeted by the news of a member of parliament walking out from the Lok Sabha while the national song Vande Mataram was being played. The speaker of the house has expressed her disagreement with what the MP did. The MP has justified her walking out for "religious" reasons.
This issue keeps resurfacing over and over again. It has become so politically motivated that one does not know what the real intention of people opposing or supporting singing the national song is. The fact of the matter is that the first two stanzas of Vande Matram is India's national song. The national song of India does not disrespect any religion. Singing it does not make you less in whatever religion you follow. The original song does have reference to Maa Durga but that this not the national song today. The first two stanzas of the original song constitute the national song today. People who make a controversy out of the national song citing history are not really secular in my view they are anti thesis of what it means to be secular. How does one undo the history of our freedom struggle and the part played by the national song just because someone thinks it is not secular?

The crux of the intellectual argument made against Vande Mataram is perhaps present in the often cited article by Mr A G Noorani. http://www.frontline.in/navigation/?type=static&page=flonnet&rdurl=fl1601/16010940.htm. There are other arguments made using terms not so much in the vogue in India regarding cultural nationalism against civic nationalism with an assertion that Vande Mataram represents cultural nationalism where as India only needs civic nationalism. Where as the fact is that any civil nationalism in practice has never subverted the culture of the land, say in a country like France it has meant that the French language has predominated. We cannot in India seek to subvert our own culture so as not to sound anti-secular. Breaking of coconuts and lighting lamps are part of our culture and any government cannot say that we are secular so we won't do this in official functions.

I do not agree with Mr Noorani on several of his other views specially on Kashmir and I do not consider him truly secular either. His article cited above though full of references and historical context failed to impress me. These intellectual positions are probably being used to justify the unjustifiable. The historical context of the first two stanzas of Vande Mataram as a national song should be seen only as the freedom movement(which is why it was made the national son g in the first place) rather than the story in the novel Anand Math and its interpretations. The national song deserves full respect devoid of petty sectarian politics.

Political Decentralization - Panchayati Raj v/s State Autonomy

Abstract: Political decentralization and political autonomy are sometimes used interchangeably in arguments asserting the need for greater devolution of power in India. In this write up I argue that such linkage or casual interpretation is not in favour of healthy political discourse in India. I assert that we need to use the term Panchayati Raj and only that term when talking about grass root democracy which is desirable. But we should not look at state autonomy as a solution to some of our governance problems. State autonomy I assert is of negative consequence and leads to a nation within a nation sort of discourse which I call a kind of Satrap system not suitable for a large diverse democratic nation like ours which is unique in the world.

One of the issues at stake in our national discourse today is that of political decentralization and political autonomy which are sometimes used interchangeably. Mahatma Gandhi was a proponent of political decentralization, what he called Gram Swaraj. I do not claim to know what Gandhiji really meant by all that he said, but herein you find a statement which is revealing “the 7 lakh villages should be self sufficient as village republics”. From this statement one can draw an intuitive understanding of a model of democracy that includes the people in deciding what is best for their immediate needs, rather than one that separates the state from the people and create a situation where people are dependent on a hierarchical system of governance even for their basic needs.  

This idea is what was called Panchayati Raj and strengthening of this institution was made a part of directive principles of state policy in our constitution at the time of framing of the constitution. The 73^rd amendment of the constitution changes were made in '92 to overcome some of the reasons why Panchayati Raj Institutions(PRI) were not functioning as expected, like absence of regular elections, insufficient representation SC/ST and women, inadequate devolution of powers and lack of financial resources. As per this amendment a 3 tier system of village, block and district level panchayats are setup.  However more than 20 years after this amendment which was considered historic at that point of time the Prime Minister still had to make a speech recently urging center and states to “strengthen the panchayats” rather than be able to proudly commend them on their achievements in last 20 years. These issues are variously cited as to why the system is still not considered effective:- 

a) State governments are not devolving enough responsibilities and the center cannot force the state governments because these fall is states domain.

b) Members are not sufficiently trained and do not know their powers and responsibilities sufficiently.

c) Elected women are being represented by their husbands.

d) Non cooperation of bureaucracy

e) Major projects are implemented by the state government without involving the PRIs.

This is a short list of issues but I am sure people who are actually involved with PRIs know much better. 

Whenever I hear about the term decentralization of India being uttered especially in foreign academic circles (Sugata Bose et al) I hear it being accompanied with the term ‘autonomy’. This ‘autonomy’ is being pushed as the magic pill that will solve all of India’s problems. So for Jammu and Kashmir there is an autonomy solution, for Nagaland there is an autonomy solution and there is a domino effect of this demand in all the insurgency affected and even some non-insurgency affected states where on and off demand for autonomy are raised. Late Jyoti Basu former CM of West Bengal was a known supporter of ‘greater autonomy’ to the states especially to J&K. The greatest affront which I find in these arguments is a selective use of history to make a sweeping statement that India never had a ‘Unitary’ state and was instead always ruled as autonomous units. There are certain assumptions in this statement. The first assumption, which is incorrect, is that India today has a unitary form of government. The truth is that we are a federal state not unitary. The second assertion that India always had autonomous units is being used as a suggestion that it is good to have autonomy at state level, where the states have internal autonomy for everything and the center is limited to the triad of ‘Foreign Affairs, Defense and Finance(currency)’.  This extreme arrangement is something most people will have serious exception with. Such an arrangement with article 370 like provisions is what I would call division of India into Satraps, since this kind of autonomy is a question of sovereignty rather than governance. This leads to the notion of nation within a nation. It smells of an argument for creating various levels of sovereignty which is logical path to choose only for an outside power ruling over foreign land, the characteristic of which is leaving autocratic governors for the Satraps for indirect rule and extraction of tribute to keep the top most sovereign relevant. But this arrangement is entirely unsuitable for integration of a democratic nation. The sovereignty of the elected government of a democracy has to be absolute no only to be able to serve the interest of the people internationally but also to keep the movement of wheel of progress continuous in the entire nation as per the collective will of all the people of the country. This wheel like our notion of Dharma Chakra includes everything good that people desire in their lives. No one should be deprived of such progress which is something that can never be guaranteed in a structure with such autonomous satraps.

Autonomy has been variously proposed in the past, say with the cabinet mission plan of 1946 which was in my view rightly rejected, in J&K where we have seen the result and is being demanded today by NSCN/IM insurgents. It is considered by some as the root cause of alienation in J&K rather than the other way round as proposed by some others. It is logical to see that when such an arrangement is made, then the first thing the state government tries to do, is to limit migration to the state and turns itself into more of what I call a ‘hermit state’ within the Indian union. Citizens of the country can migrate to another country and become legal foreign nationals but can never migrate to such states within the country itself. Economic and cultural delinking of the state with the rest of the country then follows. In J&K for example the residents of the other states were referred to as Indians while the Kashmiri’s would give their regional identities more importance long before any whiff of insurgency was felt in J&K.  We have seen an incomplete integration of J&K or rather gradual separation since independence which has lead to such identity issues as we see among some Kashmirs today. There are few other states where various degrees of state subject laws apply like Nagaland, Mizoram and Sikkim. I do not think any such migration restrictions applied to India in historical times otherwise we would not have such a diverse culture and diverse population which exist in the country today. You can find many ethnic minorities in each and every state of the country which have been living in that state for centuries, where as, they may be represented as ethnic majority in some other state. This is true even in these autonomous or semi-autonomous states that we have today.

The kind of political autonomy to the states which is being talked about increasingly in foreign and also Indian ‘intellectual circles’ as a way to go forward in my view will not lead to better governance for the people. What it will lead to is autocratic state governments, regional identity politics at the cost of nationalism and national interest, marginalization of and attacks on ethnic, linguistic, cultural and religious minorities of the state as has happened in J&K, strong feeling of separatism, opportunity for foreign intervention and perhaps a complete balkanization as happened to a multi-ethnic Yugoslavia. India of course is not Yugoslavia we are certainly hugely better integrated. Our integration is civilizational not just political and has occurred over several millennia. There are several threads that tie the various beads of India together; perhaps the beads themselves are made of the thread that ties them.  Using a term which Rajiv Malhotra has made famous I would say that we perhaps truly have what will be called an Integral Unity. In my view it is not possible to separate the beads without completely changing the character of India itself. Trying to break down India is a never ending exercise because there can be no two views which will match on what would constitute a truly independent and separate or autonomous part of India. You can literally break down into thousands of separate identities not just 10-15 hence balkanizing India is not going to bring any peace or prosperity for the people of the nation. Autonomy similarly will not bring any lasting peace or prosperity to the people. Even in a state like Sikkim which does not have any outside migration and has been largely successfully integrated into the Indian union we have elements of majority minority tensions existing though not very pronounced, certainly not like the kind which exists in J&K.

The political integration of India after independence done by the states ministry under Sardar Patel was the single most important political exercise in the history of post partition India. In modern times this exercise and the enactment of the constitution is what would be termed as the emergence of a Chakravartin in India. The Dharma Chakra in the tricolor is not bereft of the symbolic importance of this Chakravartin for our national integration and rule of law within our nation’s boundaries. For me the Ashoka Chakra has always been the most important symbol in our tricolor. The constitution is what guarantees that the wheel of law can move freely without interruption in our great country. This is why changes to the constitution which will make our savior and protector weaker is something we should always guard against. I am all for Panchayti Raj which I would say is a non translatable term for our kind of decentralization but I am certainly not in favour of state autonomy which will perhaps lead us back to the time of Western and Northern Satraps of historic times and the wheel of law will be found wanting in the country and leave us vulnerable to outside intervention and control.

Is autonomy the solution to separatism in Kashmir?

Recent events in the state of Jammu and Kashmir after Afzal Guru’s hanging have brought back attention to the interlocutors report in the media. The murder of 5 CRPF jawans in the terror attack in the valley in March invited panic reaction about doing something to solve the Kashmir issue. No doubt continued violence in Jammu and Kashmir is of great concern to all citizens of the country but can this violence really be brought to an end without ever considering how to address the source of this violence with exists across the border? India it seems has all but conceded that it can do nothing about the infrastructure of terror that exists across the border. We seem to have been lulled into believing that since the violence has been reduced relative to its peak, the will to inflict violence has also been reduced across the border too and we seem to have come to a conclusion that somehow ignoring Pakistan’s real intentions will make the problem go away. Without having done anything meaningful to coerce Pakistan to give up its desire to continue support of terrorism against our country especially in J&K, we hope to address the separatist question in Kashmir through negotiations or through promise of more autonomy in the state.

A lot has been said about alienation of the population especially the youth in the valley. No doubt there has been alienation of the people in the valley from the Idea of India and especially the views of the youth in Kashmir are of utmost importance. Any counter insurgency action as has been mentioned time and again by experts requires winning back the trust of the people and disassociating the support base of the insurgents and separatists among the general population. But questions need to be asked as to the effect that implementing suggestions in interlocutors report is going to have on the long term interest of the country and whether or not it will have any effect on the permanent end to violence and secessionist politics in the state. Several aspects of the interlocutors report have been discussed in the public domain but the primary questions remains, will offering more autonomy make the secessionists permanently quit the demand for secession and will no further separatist movement will ever emerge in J&K after that?

Before we address this question we need to be first clear about the nature of the demand from the separatists. It is insisted by the separatists especially in front of the international audience that their demand is of freedom and of independence. I would argue this is not what their demand really is and it is easy to logically derive why this is not true. Independence is what the Indian subcontinent got in 1947 from colonial occupation thanks to the Indian Independence movement. The movement for creation of Pakistan was not an Independence or freedom movement it was a communal movement for separation from India based on the so called two nation theory. The result of that movement was an unprecedented violence in the form of communal riots which claimed 1.5 million lives in the subcontinent and lead to a refugee crisis of over 14 million people which had never been seen in human history before. The region which was formed as Pakistan had at the time of partition close to 30% non Muslim religious minority population which is today reduced to closer to 1%, thanks to that very event. The movement in Kashmir which centers around the so called “right to self determination” is also in similar lines not a freedom movement it is a communal movement for separation and the first victims of this movement were the people belonging to the minority community of Kashmir.

In the book “Integration of Indian States” written by VP Menon he has mentioned that when Jammu and Kashmir merged with India in 1947 it was Lord Mountbatten’s strong opinion that given the special nature of the ethnic and religious composition of the population in the state there should be a plebiscite held in the state to confirm its accession to the dominion of India, after law and order had been restored, and the state had been cleared of the Pakistani raiders which had attacked the state to occupy it by force. This argument was agreed to by the government of India he was heading and formed the basis of India’s policy during negotiations with the Pakistan government to make them desist from trying to takeover the state by force. This policy was pursued in the negotiations that took place both before and after India approached the UN to seek peaceful withdrawal of Pakistan’s national and military personnel from the state of Jammu and Kashmir but was rejected first by Jinnah who wanted to claim the entire state based on the simplistic argument that it was Muslim majority and hence should go to Pakistan in its entirety and later by subsequent Prime Ministers of Pakistan who never agreed to the withdrawal of their forces from the state.

The fact that Pakistan was never really clearly recognized as an aggressor by UN thanks to perhaps a mistake by the team representing India under Sir Girija Bajpai in filing the appeal to the UN under chapter 6 of the UN charter which calls for bringing to the attention of the UN an event of a nature of dispute rather under chapter 7 which calls upon a to the UN’s attention to an event of the nature of external aggression. American diplomat Vincent Sheean in his book “Nehru: The years of Power” has mentioned that in his opinion it was a technical error on the part of India which lead to the situation where western diplomats in the UN sticky about matters of letter rather than substance used this to treat the matter as a dispute between two morally equal parties rather than a matter of aggression by Pakistan as it really was. It also provided Pakistan with an excellent opportunity to draw parity with India and introduce all sorts of matters including the communal riots of 47 under the pretext of genocide by India to the debate.

For India, perhaps going to the UN under any provision was a lose-lose proposition. Going under chapter 7 would probably have meant that UN Security Council intervention in the form of military presence would have become inevitable and this would also not have been acceptable to India. In hindsight taking the matter to the UN only ensured that Kashmir got dragged into the international cold war politics in which Pakistan was seen as a more reliable partner by the victors of world war rather than India. Hence in India’s view there was always a bias in the UN’s proceedings in favour of Pakistan which was clearly the guilty party. Later on this internationalization also lead to the situation where Shekh Abdullah was courted by the Americans and even the Chinese. The Americans planted and encouraged the idea of “Independence” with Shekh Abdullah and for the government of India the possibility of an American base in Kashmir became a real possibility, something which went against the non aligned foreign policy which India wanted to pursue. This is precisely the reason why India has been wary of approaching the UN for any such matter ever since 1948. We did not approach the UN during any subsequent aggression by Pakistan or during the China war. This is also the reason why we do not encourage any third party intervention in Indo Pakistan relations.

India today disowns the UN resolution 47 which asked for plebiscite in J&K. The reasons are that Pakistan never exited the area under its control, the negotiations held with Pakistan in the 50’s failed to arrive at an acceptable formula under which plebiscite could be held, Pakistan over the years changed the demographics of the regions of J&K under its control and the Shimla accord signed with Pakistan in 1974 made the UN resolution irrelevant. But the real reason why any resolution based on plebiscite could not be arrived at and I will assert will never be arrived at is the realization on part of any subsequent responsible Indian government that the very nature of the population mix of J&K which was sighted by Mountbatten as the reason why plebiscite should be held in J&K makes it impossible to make a just decision based on plebiscite. The fact of the matter is that the population of J&K is ethnically, linguistically and religiously a very diverse population living together in that state for centuries and for that reason any referendum which is really a communal question of separation will only be voted on communal lines, leading to complete destruction of the social fabric of the society of J&K. The scenarios of partition in ’47 will be repeated and will be followed by population movement and communal riots of the worst kind in the entire country. It will essentially change the complete nature of India as it exists today. We will never be a secular, democratic, republic where all diversity of population can live together and balkanization and radicalization will follow. Such a nightmare scenario is so gross and the human tragedy that might follow so unimaginable that no responsible person in India can ever agree to it.

The question of plebiscite having been dealt with as rejected in my understanding by a majority of public opinion in the country and my arguments about the communal nature of separatist demands having been made I would like to address the more difficult question of autonomy which has perhaps a more divided opinion within the country. Several people have been arguing including some political parties in J&K, that autonomy is the solution to the separatist problem. The interlocutors have in fact recommended making article 370 a special provision as against a temporary provision of constitution as it exists today also they have asked for review of all laws extended to J&K since 1953. The assembly of J&K had also passed a resolution to that effect for even reverting to the designation of Prime Minister and President of the state rather than the designation of CM and Governor.  They would like the IAS and IPS officers in the state to be replaced with the state service officers and removing the powers of national election commission, CAG and the Supreme Court in matters of the state.

All such moves to revert the status of government in J&K to the pre ‘53 status or close to pre ‘53 status in various degrees will in any logical person’s opinion lead to less integration of the state with the rest of India rather than more integration. Any such move will not weaken the separatist demand. The core separatist demand is not autonomy they have never asked for it and they will never be satisfied only with it. This will only play in the hands of the separatist and extremists who will see it as a step closer to eventual separation rather than settlement of their concerns. This move will also lead to more complications in dealing with other cases of insurgency in the rest of the country especially in the north east where it will be seen that extremist violence eventually does pay and demand for such a settlement in Nagaland and Manipur will gather steam. The fact of the matter is that more autonomy and provisions like article 370 and separate constitution for a state as exists in J&K is not a solution to problems of alienation of population it is in fact is a slow poison which over a period of time leads to degeneration of the state to a communal and identity politics of the worst kind. It also leads to bad laws and persecution of the minority population of the state. We have ended up creating a North Korea like hermit state within the Union of India where people of the state are deprived of progressive laws and progressive political movements of the rest of the country. It has lead to a situation that the government sector is seen as the only credible employer and lack of employment opportunities has lead to disaffection of the people from the government. The politics of the state as we have seen in J&K since 1947 is forever hostage to corruption, autocratic government, petty power politics and manipulation of the people based on ethnicity and religion. Today J&K is more ethnically and communally divided than it was at any point in its history and the persecution of minority population of Kashmir which is living as refugees in its own state is not hidden from anyone. Mr Balraj Puri and Praveen Swami in a series of articles for the frontline magazine had between 1999 and 2001 written extensively about these issues. Autonomy of the kind the state has been given has been seen as the main cause of such divide.

India exists because of the Idea of India which is centered on the diversity of its population and the values of tolerance, secularism, respect for others traditions and cultures, intermingling of populations and economic integration. This is what has lead to the cultural and political evolution of India. I would like to make another assertion that a person may be born an Indian citizen but no one is truly born an Indian. We are raised as Indians, just as anyone is never born into a particular religion, that person has to be raised as a follower of that particular religion. The virtues of Indian-ness of the kind I have mentioned have to be experienced. They cannot be imposed from the outside or by laws. They are experienced and learned in the environment of a child’s neighborhood, schools, colleges and work places before he or she can truly imbibe them. Unfortunately the identity politics of J&K and the retrograde state subject laws of J&K which have disallowed the population of Kashmir valley to ever experience this Idea of India, is today alienated from the population of rest of the country. I can’t imagine how any logical person will propose the same conditions which lead to the primary alienation of the population of the state as a solution to the current separatist problem in the state.

Having made my case against autonomy or conversion of article 370 which in my view is the root of the difficult situation in J&K into a permanent provision in the constitution  I would like to assert that I am in no way against decentralization of powers to the people at the local level. Local body elections and strengthening of the Panchayats are perhaps a more robust solution to delivering the experience of freedom to the masses of the state as has been argued by Mr Wajahat Habibullah. But economic development of the state is not possible without allowing economic migration of professional, workers and businessmen from other states to J&K. The cities in J&K can never become engines of economic growth unless they become cosmopolitan like any small or big city of the country.

In order to imagine what solution exists for the current problems of J&K one needs to look at the ways which will lead to the eventual peaceful return of the Kashmiri minority population to their homes and their being able to live in a peaceful environment where they are not deprived of any economic activity. The separatist movement and separatist propaganda survives on the oxygen of violence and international support including the primary source of violence and propaganda in Pakistan. Unless these two things are addressed and unless the freedom to local population in form of a well functioning local democracy and uncorrupted administration is delivered to the common people of the state in my view any other solution will only serve the purpose of appeasing the separatists and eventually serve the cause of destructive elements. Hopefully the government of India will not take any decision in panic which will lead to a situation that can only be described as consumption of the slow poison of arsenic out of an unfounded fear that the only alternative is consumption of cyanide.