Mix with all other communities and not live in ghetto

Here I am publishing a recent interview I did with Yusuf Unjhawala (@yusufDFI). Yusuf is an out spoken critique of radicalization of youth in various Muslim communities in India, a voice of moderation and a proponent of equal rights for Muslim women. Yusuf is very active in social media. He has a large following of supporters and a long list of opponents too. Yusuf is also an influential voice in Indian social media on defence matters and is an administrator at www.defenceforumindia.com

In this interview I ask him some questions which were difficult in my view, but the ease with which he has answered them gives me confidence that these are not so difficult to be shied away from.

1) To start with, please share some background about you. We know that you are an editor at Defence Forum India and have also written for publications like Swarajya Magazine on defence matters. But your main occupation is your business. A family business I assume. How did India Defence Forum India happen? From where did your interest in defence matters begin?

Answer: First of all thank you for considering me worthy of an interview.

Yes I am a businessman by profession. Not surprising as I belong to the Dawoodi Bohra community which is a trading community. Although many have moved into professional courses. I myself am a Mechanical Engineer.

My interest in defence has been from school days. I wanted to join to armed forces but it was not to be. But interest in defence and strategic affairs always remained.

In 2009, the forum www.defenceforumindia.com was started as there was space for creating an outlet for young and old on issues of defence. Twitter and facebook had not caught on in a big way and forums were more structured and focused.

2) Commonly when people look at India they look at it in terms of its modern administrative units i.e. the states. Another way to define India is to look at it in terms of its various communities. These communities are spread across physical boundaries but may also consider a certain geography  as the root of their sub-culture. You belong to one such community which has earned a lot of respect and good will in India. The Bohra Muslims. Could you tell us something about the community from your perspective? What has been the reason for the community having made such positive contribution to society and earned good will?  

Answer: The Bohra community derives its theological doctrine from the Fatemids of Egypt. It belongs to the Shia sect and within Shiasm, its part of the Ismaili branch. Fatemid dynasty that ruled was a time when “Caliphate’ and the political rule was one as per Ismailis. They ruled much of North Africa also known as Maghreb. From Egypt to Morocco and also parts of Middle East. At the end of the dynasty, the Imam went into seclusion and a post of vice-regent was established in Yemen called Dai commonly called Syedna.

They sent their missionaries to India and managed to convert people. So most Bohras are converts although normal migration and settlement would have happened from areas outside the current geography of India.

The Bohras got their name from Gujarati word vepaar meaning business. You will find Bohras all over the world. Bohras literacy rate is high both among boys and girls and that is probably why the Bohras stand out among other Muslim sects of India.

Bohras came into their own during the world wars especially the first. They supplied material for the British war effort and made a lot of money. Most of them had moved from their native villages in Gujarat to Bombay, Kolkata and later on to Chennai back then in search for their livelihood. Those who made this big money wanted to give back to the society and formed various trusts that ran schools, colleges, medical facilities etc. That they also got educated and the inherent docile nature of the Bohras have endeared them to everyone.

3) You have commented on some of the issues among the Bohra community. Like the issue of Female Genital Mutilation, recent influence of Arab culture and on the leadership of the community. What are some these issues that are subject of much debate and 'churn' in the community? What are your views on these?

Answer: Female Genital Mutilation or FGM has been prevalent in the Bohra community for centuries. One theory says that since the Bohras are a mercantile community with the men going on long tours in search of business opportunities, they got the women to undergo FGM to suppress their sexual desire. There hasn't been any debate within the community on this issue and years of what probably was a community or cultural practice acquired a religious color which has made sure that the topic will remain off the table of discussion. Also there was very little education on the subject for both the men and the women. The process is carried out by untrained elderly ladies of the community in utter secrecy on 6-7 year old girls. The girls have no clue as to what they have gone through.

All this has changed with the advent of social media which has exposed more people to the issue and there has been discussion within the community but its all hushed hushed. A few months back the Syedna cryptically announced that the process has divine sanction and must go on. This makes it difficult to even debate on the issue let alone get rid of it.

On the question of influence of Arab influence within the community, yes I have seen more use of Arabic words in sermons in the mosque. The Bohras are all Gujaratis and for a long time it was Gujarati which was the language of all communication. In the last few years, this has changed where a language called “Lisan-ud-Dawat’ (Language of Missionary) has become widely used. It consists of Gujarati, Hindi, Persian and Arabic words but lot of Arabic words these days which common folks dont even understand. Bohras are told Arabic is the divine language as Gods revelations in Quran is in that language. Ordinary bohras don't know the language nor do they make any effort to learn it. It is only taught in the Bohra universities that trains the clergy. I must say that bohras still use Khuda Hafiz and not Allah Hafiz and Ramzan and not Ramadan which is finding traction among other Muslims in India.

About the churn, if you are hinting at the ongoing power struggle following the demise of the previous Syedna, then yes. It split the community. Most “seem” to be with the son of the previous Syedna, Mufaddal Saifuddin and has become the dominant faction and carries the Dawoodi Bohra tag. The other faction has been called the Qutbi bohras although its not they who have named themselves as such and still call themselves Dawoodi bohra and claim to be the successors of the previous Syedna. The case is in the court. A court order will not change allegiance of people as they stand today but its more to do with the enormous wealth that the ruling cleric commands which is at stake.

The dominant faction has been using all the tricks in the book to shore up or show numbers including use of smart cards to track attendance of community members on various occasions and events in the mosques and those who don't come are questioned.

4) You have actively commented on this phenomenon which is described as Islamism. How would you define it? What is this ideology and why is it a matter of concern?

Answer: In simple terms, Islamism is political Islam. The use of Islam for political goals which will result in worldwide Islamic rule or Caliphate. It's adherents espouse a puritanical way and want to live life as it existed during the Prophet’s time. Non-muslims are called Kafirs and are expected to either convert or be dhimmis and pay protection money. This is what happened in the past and Islamists want to revive what they call the golden era of Islam when Muslims ruled large areas from Europe to India.  It's a supremacist ideology which has no regard for other religions. They don't entertain any debate on their practices and can get very violent as we see in many parts of the world. They follow a very strict and extreme version of Sharia law and deny women equal rights. They conduct violent jihad against “Kafirs” and finding causes with the purpose to establish Islamic rule across the world.

It is a matter of concern as this has led to spiralling of terrorism. No country is safe. India off course has been at the receiving end of terror from Pakistan. Its a state sanctioned Jihad and Kashmir is only an excuse.

The other issue that India faces is radicalization of its own Muslim population due to the extensive use of social media by the extremists in propagating their ideology. We have seen many Muslim kids to to Syria and join ISIS. there is a rise in the extremist wahabi ideology which is funded by Saudi Arabia. The home ministry is cognizant of the fact that money has come into India to fund mosques and madarsas with preachers from outside coming in propagating an extreme version of Islam. That is why a few months back Prime Minister Modi called on Indian Muslims to fall back on the Sufi ways that has always flourished in India over the centuries.

5) By and large the Muslim communities in India have escaped this ideology and most people reject it. But one knows that there is active influence being exerted by some sections/forces. Who are these forces? How can the various Muslim communities escape this? What do they need to do to keep the young generation on a positive path of prosperity and positive contribution to society?

Answer: Muslim community in India has escaped it by and large as they are Indic in origin and followers of sufi ways. But like I mentioned earlier, there is a wahabi influence these days. Add to this vested political interests are making matters worse.How can we address this is one question, will we be allowed to address this is another considering the politics that's played around.

One thing that is certain is that Muslims need to get educated. Get into public schools and study in multi-cultural environment. It's not that it will stop radicalization as we have seen doctors and engineers conduct terror attacks but it will to a large extent get them out of the narrow world that they live in guided by their faith and be more aware, respectful and considerate of other faiths and cultures. It will take them away from the narrow minded clerics who shape their worldview and motivate them to question and demand answers regarding practices and issues within the community and in fact get onto the path of reforms within the community.

But will it be allowed to be addressed? History has shown that clerics and politicians will not allow reforms. Prominent example is the Shah Bano case in which Muslims forced PM Rajiv Gandhi to legislate against Supreme Court order that went in favor of Shah Bano for maintenance after her husband divorced her. Or take the ongoing debate on triple talaq where again a Muslim woman has sought a ban on the practice which doesn't exist even in Islamic countries but strongly backed by clerics and Muslim politicians in India. The problem is they quickly declare any attempts to correct the wrongs as a war on Islam. Makes it difficult to reform both by the courts or by the reform minded members of the community.

The government has to figure out a way to clip the wings of clerics from the personal lives of ordinary Muslims. Engage with the intellectuals and common Muslims alike and delegitimize the role of self appointed and self serving thekedars of Indian Muslims like the All India Muslim Personal Law Board. The supreme court has already called the issuance of fatwas as unconstitutional. We can go a bit further and legislate a limited role for clerics in the lives of Muslims to just leading the prayers.

Another thing that the government will have to take measures to stop provocative and radicalizing content that proliferates on social media.

6) Why do the influential people from various Muslim communities push Islamism under the carpet? Some don't like to use the term since it seems to in their view portray Islam itself in negative light.

Answer: I think the violent nature of Islamists prevents people from speaking up. We have seen what has happened to writers in Bangladesh who have been murdered. Then there is the use of blasphemy laws in Islamic countries which prevents people from speaking freely. In India too there are similar forces which scares people from raising their voices.

7) What do non-Muslims need to know about Islamism? How to single out this Ideology and separate it from wider Muslim religious traditions? How can non-Muslims positively address this?

Answer: I have already described what Islamism is all about. Thanks to internet and social media, there is awareness about it today.

I would also say that there are two parts to the issue. One that happens outside India and one that's within. There are different socio-political dynamics, i might add geo-political in the larger context.

In many cases what happens outside is applied to Indian Muslims which probably is not right. The situation in Europe for example is different & cannot be applied to India. Indian Muslims are ethnic of the country whereas there is a migratory,multi ethnic and multi cultural Muslim population in Europe & it has its own problems today with regards to integration with the rest. Indian Muslims are integrated into the larger population being of same ethnicity, language & Indic culture.

So there should not be any broad brushing of ordinary Indian Muslims who are culturally Hindustanis.

Then there is a geopolitical angle to Islamism in which the wahabi ideology is trying to penetrate across the world and use it to influence native policies. There is also a Shia-Sunni rivalry primarily stemming from Saudi-Iran power struggle. This led to propping and support of very violent groups of people in trying to achieve dominance.

Coming to Indian context, you have a few self styled Muslim leaders with political objectives indulging in competitive Islamism. Trying to push common Muslim population further into a more hardened form of Islam. This will only lead to further isolation of Muslims from the mainstream. Muslims as it is are at the bottom of the socio-economic ladder in the country. Isolation will only worsen the situation leading to more inward looking and greater chance of radicalization.

What the larger non Muslim community can do is to push Muslims into introspection by taking up various issues. The issue of Triple Talaq for instance or FGM has found support from wider population who agree that the practice is wrong and that rights of women need to be protected. This will emboldened Muslims to rise against such practices and break the wall or barrier that exists in not questioning.

8) Recently there have been some developments. Long after Shah Bano case now the case of triple talaq is in supreme court. There is also the case of entry of women in Haji Ali dargah sanctum. How are these being seen in the community? I would like to understand not just your view but that of the various Muslim communities.

Answer: Being from the Bohra community, I cannot speak on behalf of the larger Muslim community. But in this regards, Bohras are much better off. Women are allowed to pray in mosques & can go to any dargahs of Bohra saints or past Syednas and pray albeit there is clear separation of men and women within the premises. Also within the Bohra community there is no instant Talaq. It's difficult to get a divorce as all efforts are made to reconcile first.

But going by the reports and statements of clerics & some Muslim politicians, it's clear that they don't want to give women equal rights or their dues or give them a life of dignity. Recently Haji Ali dargah agreed to allow women in. So that is a welcome development. That there was a move to block women was surprising as women have been prominent in the spread of Sufism.

On the triple talaq issue, we now have comments from the Allahabad High Court which has observed that triple talaq is against the right of Muslim women and is unconstitutional. Justice Mushtaq in the Kerala High Court just a few days back said that justice has become elusive for Muslim women and the remedy lies in the codification of the divorce law. Justice Mushtaq went on to say that fear that uniform code on marriage will offend Sharia is a myth. The matter on triple talaq is also pending with the Supreme Court. The usual suspects who claim to represent Muslims are not expected to reform and keep harping on the keeping personal laws intact in the garb of right to religion. So it will need outside intervention by either the courts or the parliament to uphold individual rights which are violated in the name of religion.

9) What is the role of All India Muslim Personal Law board in Muslim life. How do people look at it? Who do they represent? What have been their positive contribution or otherwise?

Ans: the AIMPLB is an NGO which has assumed the role of being representative of all Muslims in India. Successive government indulgence and patronage has made it assume that. I don't know how many common folks even know about it. This has to stop. In this regard, the Allahabad HC comment comes at good time where it observed that “No personal law board is above constitution”.

10) There is view among some Indians that India is an artificial creation, that became a nation due to British occupation and they unified India. There is another view, that sees India as a civilization state. Some would say constitution makes India some others would say it is the civilization that has made the state and the constitution. Some fear that using such a formulation excludes people who do not consider themselves to be part of the civilization. How do you think an average Muslim looks at this? Do they not find themselves from the same civilization? Do they find such an Idea threatening?

Ans: LOL. India or Bharatvarsh has existed for thousands of years. This idea that India was born in 1947 is false. Anyways that's a topic in its own.

But since you refer to what an average Muslim looks at it, let me state India known as Hind has been mentioned by the prophet in a positive manner. It's another matter that Pakis concocted a ghazwa hadith.

The Muslims of India as people are no different from any other citizen. They are converts to Islam but that doesn't mean they become unrooted from what they are.

But in recent years thanks to competitive Islamism & influx of radical version of Islam, the need to be different has come up. So women who till a few years back who wore saris, salwar kameez,  are now wearing burqas. Men are growing long beards, wearing topi. Words that were very native to India are now being discarded in favor of Arabic.

Pakistanis who detached themselves from Indian roots in search for Arabic, Turkic identity, got into an identity crisis. Indian Muslims should guard against that. The clerics again play an important role in this regard as they are the ones who preach in mosques & teach in Madarasas.

11) What are your views on education for Muslim youth? Is modern education alone a solution to radicalization? After all Jinnah was educated in the west and he belonged to a community of Muslims who had a very composite culture. His mother's name was Mithibai. His Grandfather had converted to Khoja Islam and his family was a prosperous merchant family. All parameters and conditions seem to suggest the so called composite culture of India, yet we see an Islamist in him. What else could an intelligent man have seen except the current state of Islamism in Pakistan when he asked for it? Similar story exists for Iqbal.

What do you think Muslim families need to do and what should their non-Muslim neighbours do, so that youth do not turn to this ideology?

And: Yes Jinnah was a suited booted, pork eating, wine drinking Islamist who was seeking legacy. I mentioned earlier that some of the big terror attacks were carried out by doctors & engineers. So yes education alone doesn't guarantee move away from radical Islam.

But in general, education in math, science, social science, history etc in public schools is required for Muslims to be at par with other citizens of the country which will help them secure jobs and better lives for themselves. Mix with all other communities & not live in ghettos, indulge in exchange of ideas that broaden horizons which allows them to question ills within the community, break myths etc.

What non Muslims can do? Continue to be themselves as their ancestors were in being accommodating. All 180 million Muslims are not extremists or terrorists. Once you base everything on the presumption that all Muslims are potential terrorists, it will make it difficult to fight radical Islam.

The fight against radical Islam is not going to be easy. It's going to take generations to reform. Educating current & future generations of Muslims in secular schools, regulating what's taught in mosques & Madarasas will help develop the minds of Muslims away from radical ideas.

Response to Uri

This the first time such operation has been acknowledged publicly. Perhaps the first with a scale of this nature too. One needs to see if this is employed more often. I was expecting that some skeptical defense journos would at least remain silent this time. But to my surprise without naming names at least two of these influential defence journos have publicly mocked this as placating jingoistic domestic audience and are not accepting the army version that many terrorist were hurt. I hope no operation details are further revealed even to placate the skeptics.

Some people have asked for footage to be revealed. But that hopefully wont be done. One hopes such actions are done more often not as response but actively to make wider ranges of LOC itself a sanitized zone.

I also hope such actions are not given an impression of being throttled by US approval and veto on this occasion or future.

People have been anticipating and wondering about Pakistani response. I suppose they will fall back to doing what they do. Which is more terror. We talk of isolating Pakistan in the world. But even if only India, Bangladesh and Afghanistan remain steadfast together for another decade perhaps some change can be brought about. India's isolation against Pakistani terror seems to be ending.

New York Time's version of religious intolerance in India

Recently an editorial appeared in the NYT signed the Editorial Board.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/26/opinion/religious-intolerance-in-india.html?referrer

Here is my response to it which I am sure wont make it to the readers letters section.

This is in reference to the recent editorial published in NY Times regarding the religious conversion controversy in India. While I find that it correctly mentions several facts about the recent events. It does not cover the whole picture.

Hinduism being a non proselytising religion is under constant assault by western fundamentalist Christian churches which have a stated goal to Christianize India.

Organizations like JoshuaProject, Worldvision, Harvest India and innumerable other missionary churches have in past and at present continue to use allurements like superstitious faith healing, cash, medical services, education etc to "Harvest Souls" & save "poor Indians" from the "darkness" of their "false gods" & "evil spirits". Billions of dollars are directed each year to India for this purpose. Recently a case was registered in Kashmir against a Christian pastor trying to convert Muslim youths in Kashmir by allurement.

Christian missionaries are known to come to India on tourist visas and illegally engage in proselytism of children in their schools.

Christian churches are also known to support terrorist organizations that target local Hindus. Killing of Swami Lakshmanananda in 2008 by left wing extremists supported by Christian organizations which resulted in Kandhamal riots in Orissa and the recent killings of 80 Hindu Vanvasis by NDFB terrorists in Assam are a few examples. One of the stated demands of Christian NDFB terrorists is to replace the traditional Devanagari script of Bodo language with Roman alphabets.

So the issue is not as straightforward as NYTimes seems to suggest, that the so called oppressed Hindus convert to other faiths under their own volition.

I hope in future your paper carries a more balanced story on the real facts on the ground and calls the american churches by name which play a part in generating discord in India through their unethical practices backed by loads of US dollars.

Afzal Guru's book of letters and Jihadist Propaganda

Today I saw news about a book of compilation of Parliament attack co-conspirator Afzal Guru that has been released in Srinagar. He is being portrayed as a martyr and his letters(real or fictional) are exhorting people to "propagate martyrs' mission, because its the blood of martyrs that has kept resistance movement alive".

Unfortunately the youth of the valley today do not know of 1947, 1965, 1971. 1974 or recognize the violence against the Kashmiri Hindus as the first consequence of this "armed struggle" as it is glorified. They only know of the bloody violence starting 1989 and see everything from the prism of this violence. 

I am of the opinion that separatists survive on violence and international exposure for support. All humans value freedom and separatists appeal for "freedom" seems to get them instant favors in both capitals around the world and among the population of those countries.The voice of Kashmir's refugees is completely drowned out. Only those who have some Idea about the real history of Kashmir'a accession to the Indian Union and those who have a stake in the survival and prosperity of all the people of this union and by extension the entire subcontinent are able to realize the hollowness of these separatist arguments. Plebiscite and right to self determination argument was a non starter even when Nehru mentioned it because you could not have the losers of this so called  plebiscite living as refugees at worst or second class citizens at best in what ever is left of J&K after this plebiscite. This was realized by the leadership in New Delhi even in early 1950's. It is the leadership of J&K which failed to look beyond narrow interests and join the national mainstream without special terms and privileges that has lead to the current situation in the valley.

There is no right to self determination for the people of J&K it applies only to European colonies not to democratic states. But there is a right to return as per the UN principles of Human rights for refugees and Kashmiri Hindus have it.The real worry is the youth of valley for me who are easily radicalized and turned into cannon fodder by the Rawalpindi establishment which has its own axe to grind. The proxy war being fought in the valley has resulted in huge toll for the people of the state and the security forces alike while Rawalpindi can keep the fires burning at very low cost to itself. The task of security forces has been of finding needle in a haystack and the result of their heavy handed actions is that more and more youth are getting radicalized. Even to this day when a Hizbul militant is killed then processions take place in his village and he is hailed as "martyr". Old separatists like Syed Ali Shah Geelani visit such places and egg the villagers on while continuing to receive favors from Pakistan.When a J&K policeman or an innocent civilian or a public representative is killed by the militants then no protest take place. It is difficult to tell truth from propaganda when every unexplained incident of violence is quickly blamed by the separatists on the security forces and the state and national media plays it out every protest at that moment without following thrugh the entire investigation. I am sure excesses have occurred in the state at the hands of the security forces but in a destabilized environment that exists in the valley our institutions which cannot deliver even in calmer places are bound to fail.

There is no quick solution to this problem because Rawalpindi is secure and smug that no heavy action is possible from Indian security forces because of its Nuclear umbrella hence there is no reason for it to stop the violence. But there a fair bit which can be done to deny space to the separatist ideology in the national and international forums. Some people are doing that part and I appreciate whatever they have done so far. I wish more people come out in open to confront this victim hood perception that the separatists portray and the impossibility of the self determination argument they make.

Fictions of Mirza Wahid

The novelist and Journalist from Jammu and Kashmir Mirza Wahid paints a very one sided picture of Kashmir with the militants and separatists as victims where as the security forces as "evil". May be loss of his family members and seeing death and destruction up close has gotten him to this victim mentality. What is missing from his account though are the atrocities committed by the militants and the silence of the separatist when targeted killings of those who do not agree with separatist ideology takes place at the hands of these Pakistan trained militants. The state of the Kashmiri Pundits who are refugee in their own country is hardly mentioned. His interpretation of Kashmir being separate from India is purely fictional too and reflects the unfortunate identity crisis that the youth in Kashmir are going through. The cause of this identity crisis is the failure of political leaders of the state of Jammu and Kashmir and central  government in 1947 to  bring about a merger with the Union of India without this autonomy provision which has left identity issues in the minds of the youth. Fact is that J&K merged with the Indian union under legal provisions of Indian Independence Act. The decision to merge with India rather than Pakistan was taken by J&K to save itself from destruction and occupation by the Pakistani invaders. That is when the Indian Army first went into the state to liberate not to occupy. There is no question about J&K being separate from India. Even the constitution of J&K recognizes this fact.

It is unfortunate that the State has seen so much violence since 1989 but the cause of this violence is Pakistani military which used a proxy war strategy to engender separatism in J&K. The first victims of this violence were the religious minority population of Kashmiri Hindus who were ethnically cleansed from the valley. 500,000 of these are living as refugees in their own country today this happens no where in the world. But because of the fear of violence from Pakistan sponsored terrorists they are forced to abandon their homes and live in slums in Jammu.

The death and destruction in J&K is heart rendering but what does one expect to happen when terrorists from all around the world driven by violent ideologies are pushed into the state by Pakistan to cause this very death and destruction. The security forces are not robots they are also human and thousands have laid down their lived to prevent the terrorists from running amok the way Taliban did in Afghanistan. For those who are moved by Mr Wahids fictional stories I would recommend read Vidya Bhushan Dhar’s work also to get a view of what really happened to the Kashmiri minorities when the violence in the name of religious ideology started in Kashmir.

Personal Tragedy V/S National Tragedy

When a man commits an illegal act and gets caught, it is no doubt a personal tragedy for him and his family. I am sure most people regret that they erred in their judgement. They would certainly not like to be in jail and would wish that the past act would never have taken place. Unfortunately the legal process in our country has its own pace. The under trial has to go through a long trial in the courts. For an innocent person such a trial can itself be the punishment on the other hand for the guilty it may even be an act of buying time. The Bombay blast case has gone one for 20 years. The victims of the blast have waited 20 years for justice which is still elusive because the masterminds of the blast are still beyond the reach of law.

Sanjay Dutt was convicted by the supreme court for illegal possession of banned weapons and sentenced to the minimum sentence prescribed by law. Then he along with some other accused punished for similar crime were given 1 month to surrender. Today Sanjay Dutt got another reprieve to surrender after another 4 weeks. He wanted to finish his films before going to jail to serve his sentence for which he wanted 6 months reprieve. So the court in supposedly "humanitarian grounds" gave him 4 weeks with no further extension and he accepted. All in all this whole episode gives the appearance of a bargain for delay rather than humane gesture. If the producers have money locked in on Sanjay Dutt then the question here is of money not of "humanitarian grounds". A mother who has a child appearing for his school exams probably deserves more humanitarian gesture for month delay rather than a movie actor who wants to finish his films so that he and his producers do not suffer a loss.

Whatever be the real truth, in the end this case gives an impression of deliberate delay to keep a rich, politically connected celebrity out of jail for as long as possible, rather than one of delivering justice where justice is due. Mr Dutt's claiming suffering due to inordinate delay does not cut the bill; after all Mr Dutt did not spend his years out of jail, since he was first arrested, doing national or social service to deserve a reprieve. He was busy making money, living the good life and working for entertainment of his movie loving fans. It does not quite cover for the loss that the victims of the 93' Bombay blast had to suffer. Given the circumstances under which he has been found in illegal possession of banned weapons, he has knowingly or otherwise been linked with the entire bombing episode which he should have certainly avoided.

Whatever be Sanjay's personal tragedy it does not cover for the national tragedy which people of India have collectively suffered. The court seems to have erred, but people are not pleased and the politicians along with the government of Maharashtra should be forewarned, not to act on Sanjay's mercy plea in a way which will lead to dissatisfaction among the people of Bombay, because they are in no mood to forgive.

"Occupation" of the Valley

Let me try and address a particular question of the so called "occupation" of Kashmir valley by the Indian army which is often raised by Kashmiri separatist, Pakistan based terrorist organizations, international "human rights" activists, certain foreign governments and some Indian "intellectuals".

As far as my reading of history goes the Indian Army went to the Kashmir valley in 1947 for the first time when help was sought by both the erstwhile Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir and the popular leader Mr Sheikh Abdullah. When it landed in Srinagar airport it brought a sigh of relief to the population and not any fear of so called occupation. Indian Army went to Kashmir to defend Kashmir, Jammu and Ladakh from the same forces which continue to threaten it today. To the people who leave no stone unturned to find faults with Army and criticize it I have to say please read some history about the circumstances under which the Army had to be called in both in '47 and in '89.

Historical reasons apart if we look at the present situation in the Valley then a number of foreign governments and international organization have pointed finger at the Indian government regarding the number of civilian deaths that have taken place in Jammu and Kashmir as a marker of "oppression" by the Indian Army. The number quoted has been an estimate of 60,000 civilian deaths since 1989. I am not sure about the figure but assuming it is true and regardless of the circumstances of these deaths, whether they were caused by terrorist violence, militants killed by security forces, extra judicial killings, terrorists convicted to death by courts or civilians caught in cross fire, this estimated number is of course unacceptable. But does it automatically lead to the conclusion that the cause of such a high civilian death number is a result of Army's presence in the valley? Won't the more correct reason be the proxy war being waged in Kashmir by the Pakistani Army and civilians being the victims of this war. Who is the aggressor in Kashmir today? Is it India or is it Pakistan? Then who has the onus of bringing these deaths to an end.

The number of civilian deaths in Afghanistan since 2001 NATO operation is estimated to be a similar figure of 60,000, yet none of these international organizations and foreign governments have accused ISAF forces in Afghanistan as "occupying" forces, when clearly they are foreign while Indian Army is within its own territory. The same governments who were pointing finger at India in the 90's are part of the ISAF forces.

The ISAF forces are now leaving Afghanistan by cutting a deal with Pakistan and Pakistan backed Taliban not because the war has been won but because the cost has been too high for them to sustain. The civilians in Afghanistan now fear the worst because they know that while the present situation is not rosy, the alternative is even darker. Indian Security Forces have been fighting this Pakistan sponsored insurgency for past 23 years yet India cannot give up on Kashmir because the commitment of the Indian Army is to the silent population in the Valley and also Jammu and Ladakh who do consider themselves as Indians.

Doesn't the nation owe to the people of Ladakh and Jammu the same protection and freedom of life that it owes to other citizens of India. Will the Indian army be able to defend Ladakh and Jammu without protecting Kashmir Valley? What about the Kashmiri Pandit minority population which is a refugee in its own state? What does the nation owe to them?

While all complaints of human right abuses deserve to be looked at dispassionately and justice be done but calling Indian Army an occupier in Kashmir suits only the enemies of India because exit of the Army from Kashmir also results in simultaneous collapse of the Indian Nation as it exists today.

Who deserves sympathy?

Who deserves more sympathy the citizens of Kashmir or the citizens of Afghanistan?

Separatist leaders in Kashmir are still living in the past while political leaders in Afghanistan are more progressive today. While Kashmiri leaders incite people to throw stones when a terrorist is hanged, Afghan leaders clearly identify and expose Pakistani interference and have no sympathy for extremist ideology and terrorists. Afghanistan remembers and honors icon of peace and Indian nationalist Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan and Kashmiri leaders call on people to rally around the so called 'martyr' Maqbool Bhat who was convicted of murder. Young in Afghanistan look forward to watching the next episode of the Afghan Star while the Kashmir Grand Mufti bans a girls music band.

After being completely destroyed in 30 years of violence Afghanistan wants to free itself of ethnic an cultural difference and identifies national integration as the road to peace and progress. Leaders in Kashmir cant think beyond the valley and the old jargon of autonomy. The valley is shutdown because Afzal Guru was hanged for plotting the attack on Indian Parliament on the behest of a foreign nation. Afghanistan has seen more violence and pain, and yet it can hope to transform itself. Today I have more sympathy for the Afghan citizens than I have for the Kashmiri separatists.

There is no Rogue ISI

Ever since 26/Nov Mumbai attacks in the year 2008 the people of the subcontinent are being lead to believe that there are some rogue ISI elements who have been out of control of the Pakistani Army and who have not severed there links with the terrorists and Taliban and who have possibly planned and carried out the attacks. Mr Ahmed Rashid a well respected author and journalist who is an Afghanistan/Pakistan expert had argued in 2008 immediately after that attacks that the attacks were perhaps planned and executed by the al-qaeda along with "disbanded LeT". He had written in an article for BBC "Al-Qaeda is looking for some relief and a diversion... This strategic diversion ploy for the sake of al-Qaeda and its surrogates is the principle motive behind the Mumbai terrorist attacks." He went on to say "Charges that the Pakistan government, army or its Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) were behind the attack appear unfounded." In the words of the Pakistani government after they finally agreed that the attack was planned in and executed from Pakistan, they were "non state actors".

However in the same year before Mumbai attacks while discussing his book Descent into Chaos in the Conversations With History program with Harry Kreisler Mr Rashid had categorically stated that "there is no rogue ISI". The so called rogue ISI was created to continue supporting Taliban while avoiding detection by the CIA of its activities. Retired Army generals, and ISI men who had worked with the Taliban were given "part time" jobs to go on a "vacation from home for 4 weeks 5 weeks" and work with the Taliban.

Ahmed Rashid - "There is no Rogue ISI" (26:02)

All this has been in public domain for quite sometime it is also in the US government's knowledge for a. long time that Pakistan is supporting the Taliban and keeping it as a "Strategic Asset". A 2007 Congressional Research Service report RS22632 titled "Pakistan and Terrorism: A Summary" released by Wikileaks in Feb 2009 in its summary mentions that "The outcomes of U.S. policies toward Pakistan since 9/11, while not devoid of meaningful successes, have neither neutralized anti-Western militants and reduced religious extremism in that country, nor have they contributed sufficiently to the stabilization of neighboring Afghanistan. Many observers thus urge a broad re-evaluation of such policies."

The report says  "Throughout the opening months of 2007, Administration officials, U.S. military commanders, and senior U.S. Senators issued further incriminating statements about Pakistan’s assumed status as a terrorist base and the allegedly insufficient response of the Islamabad government." it goes on to say "The United States also remains concerned with indigenous extremist groups in Pakistan, and with the ongoing 'cross-border infiltration' of Islamist militants who traverse the Kashmiri Line of Control and other borders to engage in terrorist acts in India and Indian Kashmir. Many analysts consider such activities conceptually inseparable from the problem of Islamist militancy in western Pakistan and in Afghanistan. Domestic terrorism in Pakistan, much of it associated with Islamist sectarianism, has become an increasingly serious problem affecting major Pakistani cities. Separatist violence in India’s Muslim-majority Jammu and Kashmir state has continued unabated since 1989 with some notable relative decline in recent years. Many experts reject efforts by the Pakistani government and others to draw significant distinctions between U.S.- and Indian-designated terrorist groups fighting in Kashmir and those fighting in western Pakistan and Afghanistan, and in Pakistan’s interior".

The report clearly raises doubt on Pakistan's intentions by stating that "Numerous experts raise questions about the determination, sincerity, and effectiveness of Pakistani government efforts to combat religious extremists. Doubts are widely held by Western experts, many of whom express concerns about the implications of maintaining present U.S. policies toward the region, and about the efficacy of Islamabad’s latest strategy, which appears to seek reconciliation with pro-Taliban militants." The report is so damning that I can go on quoting from the report but it is rather better if the interested reader reads it himself/herself. It is also in my view one of the main inputs if not the cornerstone of the subsequent Obama government's policy in  Pakistan as I have covered below.

Mr Rashid's assertions in the interview to University of California Berkley, and the picture of a typical handler of this "ISI within ISI" fits well people like Hamid Gul a retired ISI chief with links with both Taliban and LeT founder Hafees Saeed. He openly conducts meetings with Hafees Saeed and other Jehadi outfits in Pakistan on a supposed pro Kashmir and anti India platform. There is no dearth for such India baiters in Pakistan who fit the bill of these "ISI within ISI" operatives. The narrative since Mumbai asking for restraint from the people of India and from the GOI at the face of all provocations has been that al-Qaeda  and Taliban affiliates "want to divert attention from the west of Pakistan to the east". On the face of it this argument seems logical and valid. US war in Afghanistan would have been jeopardized by any Indo-Pak flareups, so it was valid for the US to make this argument. But the odd price for this restraint will have to be paid by innocent citizens of India. The perpetrators of Mumbai are still not punished and Hafees Saeed is a free man.

Frankly there are so many diversions in the diversions that no one can say what the real story behind Mumbai is. Was it to divert Pakistan from the west? Or was it planned with an assumption that no trace will be found as to who was behind that attacks? Did the ISI within ISI get embolden with its success in hoodwinking the CIA and felt it was time to punish India as a warning to keep out of Afghanistan? Was the planning for the attack done with  full knowledge that there will be no military response from India after all Pakistan had built up conventional and nuclear military since 9/11 with US military aid. Is it wrong to suspect that the real perpetrators were pretty much the establishment itself rather than any rogue elements?

But what is interesting is to note the response of the United States and India to these Mini ISI's activities. While India replied under the time tested "good faith policy"(I am not sure if it has ever worked) and resumed uninterrupted and un-interruptible dialog with Pakistan. US also had "time tested"(never worked?) response in the lines of continuing to provide aid carrots to its "strategic ally".

Obama government replaced the Bush government in Jan 2009. Under Obama's watch AF-PAK policy was formulated. Under this policy an attempt was initially made to include India too which the Indian government declined. The idea was to engage the whole region for solving Pakistan's problems. India did not want to be clubbed so as to avoid any external pressures on its own national interest, especially pressures to "resolve" Kashmir as an incentive to Pakistan for stop supporting the terrorists. But never the less all said and done after Mumbai we still started dialog with Pakistan "in spite of terrorism". In US a policy change was perhaps undertaken and Afghanistan was brought back in focus. A military surge was ordered but unfortunately at the same time a withdrawal date was announced thus emboldening the Taliban and its friends to dig in and fight it out.

On the aid front United States had now installed an old Pakistan friend and India-baiter Ms Robin Raphel as Ambassador responsible for the targeted civilian aid to "improve the image of United States". At the same time it seems the Pakistani concerns as mentioned in the Congressional Report were being addressed during the drafting of the so called Kerry-Lugar bill sanctioning civilian aid of $1.5 billion per year. When the US congress was pushing President Bush to be tough on Pakistan after his years of leniency for inaction on Taliban as per the CRS report  "In response to U.S. congressional signals of a possible shift in U.S. policy toward Islamabad, the Pakistani National Assembly’s Defense Committee unanimously passed a resolution threatening to end or reduce Islamabad’s cooperation on counter terrorism if U.S. aid to Pakistan were to be made conditional."  later the report says "Other analysts, however, including those making policy for the Bush Administration, believe that conditioning U.S. aid to Pakistan has a past record of failure and likely would be counterproductive."

The Kerry Lugar bill does impose certain restrictions. For civilian aid it requires a certification each year by the special representative to Pakistan (Robin Raphel) to certify that "principal objectives" are being met in order to release the full quantum of $1.5 billion, but is also allows up to $750 million to be released without such certification. The bill also puts a certification requirement for certain military assistance. Limitation on Security-related Assistance for fiscal years 2011 through 2014 and a limitation on Arms Transfers for fiscal years 2012 through 2014. Why arms transfers we allowed for another year without certification requirement? I don't know.

Bulk of the arm purchases of conventional variety by Pakistan from the US had already taken place during the Bush-Musharraf years. A CRS report of 2012 on this subject says "Major U.S. arms sales and grants to Pakistan since 2001 have included items useful for counterterrorism and counterinsurgency operations, along with a number of big ticket platforms more suited to conventional warfare.In dollar value terms, the bulk of purchases have been made with Pakistani national funds, but U.S. grants have eclipsed these in recent years." it goes on to say "The Pentagon reports total Foreign Military Sales agreements with Pakistan worth about $5.4 billion for FY2002-FY2010 (in-process sales of F-16 combat aircraft and related equipment account for about half of this).", It should be remembered that in the 90's the US had denied arms sales to Pakistan. The sale of F16s were done under the garb of using them in counter terrorism operations.

It is always possible for the US government to block transfer of weapons already contracted. A CRS report of Aug 2009 says ", all government-to-government agreements or licensed commercial contracts for the transfer of defense articles or defense services may be halted, modified, or terminated by the executive
branch should it determine that it is advisable to do so. In this context, should the Bush Administration decide that actions taken by the government of Pakistan are contrary to the national security interests of the United States, the President can suspend or terminate existing arms sales agreements or prevent the delivery of weapons previously ordered, as he deems appropriate. The Congress can also pass legislation that would suspend, modify, or terminate any arms sale contract should it choose to do so."

Of course none of these weapons sales were ever suspended. All this while the ISI within the ISI continued to support Taliban and blunt the US army's efforts. Under Obama's watch Osama Bin Laden was found in a safe haven within the garrison town of Pakistan, again the so called "rogue elements" in ISI were blamed to have provided support to him without the knowledge at the "highest level". Then in 2011 there was a border skirmish between Pakistani forces and the American forces in which 24 Pakistani soldiers were killed. In response Pakistan blocked the supply routes and threatened to evict US from the Shamsi air base. After US apology the blockade was lifted. But the US government had to take some action too so the aid was reduced for a while.

Obama's second administration has now taken office. After the cooling down period of 2011-2012 the relations between Pakistan and US are back on track. Pakistani foreign minister visited US in January and during an interview with Charlie rose said that relations are much better now. I believe they were assured of support from the US government of continued aid and assistance despite their chequered history. The statement from newly appointed Secretary of State John Kerry in which he said "aid cut will be unkind" should be indicative.

While all this was going on there was an incident on the LOC in January 2013 in which two Indian soldiers were killed there bodies mutilated and one dead body beheaded by the Pakistani army as claimed by India and as usual denied by Pakistan. This incident was supposedly in response to a previous incident in which one Pakistani solder was killed in cross border firing by India which was in response to Pakistani shelling in which three civilians had died which India claims was to enable cross border infiltration. When India protested to Pakistan about the beheading incident  the Pakistani FM denied any role of her Army and in the wake of Indian Army Chief's statement that "we reserve the right to retaliate at the time and place of our choosing" did not miss the opportunity of her US attention to blame India of "war mongering ".

While all this is important the most important story here is, and what even Mr Ahmed Rashid is now pushing in the west is, that before exiting Afghanistan USA should get a peace settlement done between Pakistan, Taliban and the Afghanistan government to avoid any post withdrawal conflict between the regional players via their proxies in that country. So the mini ISI has pretty much succeeded in ensuring that its interests in that country are served through the Taliban and also ensured that any talks should not happen without its knowledge. One should be reminded that the Pakistanis had detained Mullah Baradar when they found that he was talking to Afghanistan government without their knowledge. In Sep 2011 Burhanuddin Rabbani who was holding peace talks with the Taliban on behalf of the Afghan government was killed in a suicide attack.

What ever happens in Afghanistan after american withdrawal, I am afraid history is witness, that whenever western countries have interfered in this region for their strategic reasons even if it was for a reason as morally justified as stopping terrorism, the effect has been detrimental to the citizens of the subcontinent. In their "strategic interest"  the tilt has well and truly always been in favour of the establishment in Pakistan at the detriment of India. So I doubt if the LeT will be eliminated or the perpetrators of Mumbai be punished by the time US exists Afghanistan. Time will tell and as they say history will be the judge. But one thing is for sure to me after hearing Mr Rashid and seeing what all has happened since his interview in 2008,  there is no Rogue ISI only a clever indirection. I wonder who was deceived. Was it the US government? Was it the Indian Government? Or the people of the subcontinent?

Obama 2.0

Mr Barack Obama has taken oath of his second term in office of the President of United States Of America. His first speech after his oath on 21 January was much appreciate in the media. I could not keep myself from comparing this speech with the speech he gave in 2009 after taking office of his first term and the most important aspect which I was looking for and found, was the skipping of terrorism from any direct mention in his latest speech. In his speech in 2009 he had made a very substantial reference to terrorism when he had said "Our nation is at war, against a far-reaching network of violence and hatred." where as in the speech of 2013 he has said that "This generation of Americans has been tested by crises that steeled our resolve and proved our resilience. A decade of war is now ending.". He went on to say "We, the people, still believe that enduring security and lasting peace do not require perpetual war." and "...we are also heirs to those who won the peace and not just the war; who turned sworn enemies into the surest of friends - and we must carry those lessons into this time as well."

President Obama is no doubt one of the best Orators of our times in the world so his speeches are always interesting to listen to. His latest speech should not come as a surprise to any listener because it was long known that USA was looking for an exit strategy in Afghanistan since the day Mr Obama was sworn in. He winded up Iraq and had to do the same in Afghanistan. Iraq was a war against a regime which could be ended once an alternative regime was established. Ending of wars is always welcome to the people who suffer the pains of war, except for the fact that Afghanistan was a war like no other war. It was not a war against a nation it was a war against certain organizations and group of people with a certain ideology who in Mr Obama's own terms were a "far-reaching network of violence and hatred".  USA may have run out of appetite for war and do not want to fight a perpetual war, but I wonder if their war in Afghanistan has really succeeded. Osama Bin Laden was found in Abbottabad and as we hear about the various drone strikes which USA does with in Pakistan, that they have managed to get several al-qaeda terrorists. But unfortunately the Taliban leadership and several members of al-qaeda leadership have survived. Other banned organizations like the  LeT, the Jaish-e-Mohammad and other al-qaeda affiliates still survive and we all know where all these outfits find a mostly comfortable home. It is is within Pakistan.

From the day the Americans threatened war on Taliban the Pakistani establishment has played a double game with them. It has been established and commented on by many journalists that when the ISI chief under Parvez Musharraf, Mahmoud Ahmad was sent to Taliban leadership to make them break links with al-quaeda he instead encouraged them to dig in and fight it out. He was later sacked by Musharraf. After the US invasion in Afghanistan Taliban leadership was provided a sanctuary in Pakistan. We all know in which circumstances Osama Bin Laden was found within the Pakistan garrison town close to their most important military academy. The Pakistanis continued to support Taliban to regroup and fight NATO forces in Afghanistan while at the same time supporting NATO supply lines in Pakistan in exchange for money. When USA attempted to pursue and punish the Pakistani armed forces supporting the Taliban in 2011 they were greeted with an angry Pakistani reaction which lead to the closure of these very supply lines, which eventually lead to a US apology.  I am reminded of an interview of Hamid Gul the Ex ISI Chief of Pakistan who was one of the master minds of the first Afghan Mujahideen war against the soviets. He continues to openly support the terrorists invading Kashmir. In his interview he mentions by attacking Pakistani forces "the Americans have shot themselves in the foot" since their supply lines run from Pakistan he also threatens the countries north of Afghanistan to desist from providing an alternative route to the Americans because "the fallout will be on them.. this is an irregular warfare .. which can travel across borders".

A lot has changed since the 2011 incident the relations between USA and Pakistan have normalized again, there is talk of settlement with Taliban and centrality of Pakistan's role in it. The 21 January speech of Mr Obama hints at the possible settlement with Taliban which US is contemplating. This is a victory of sorts for the Pakistani ISI. They were saving Taliban as a possible asset to be used once the US exits. They also did not allow any direct negotiations between Taliban and the Afghan government lest they come to an agreement which is not acceptable to them. As being stabbed in the back goes the Obama administration also has its share of people with dicey record when it comes to Taliban I am hinting at the so called "Lady Taliban" Ms Robin Raphel. More about her later but there is little doubt as many journalists and Afghanistan experts and even Afghans themselves have said Pakistan is the problem as far as fighting the Taliban is concerned in Afghanistan.

Coming back to the Obama speeches. As speeches of Mr Obama go I am reminded of a speech he gave to college students in Mumbai during his 2010 India visit. Mr Obama was asked by a student a very pertinent question perhaps stated in such blunt terms that Mr Obama had to use an equally blunt answer. The question was "Why is Pakistan so important to America that it does not declare it a terrorist state?". The answer along with a lot of other explanation was that "Pakistan is a Strategic country, not just for the United States but the world."

When I heard this term "Strategic" in this speech as I was listening to it recently, after having read quite a bit about the history of western influence in Pakistan I was immediately reminded of the effect these influences and interference have had on the people of the subcontinent. It is well known that the very first interference was by the British in creation of Pakistan when after the 1942 quit India movement by the Congress they had firmly decided to support Muslim League in their demand for a separate state. A friendly Muslim state of Pakistan in the subcontinent gave them "strategic" leverage over USSR and it also gave them an ally in the Muslim world. It has been written that the British strategic interest also drove their Kashmir policy. I wonder if Mr Nehru was hood-winked into approaching the UN by Lord Mountbatten when the west had no interest in making the aggressor Pakistan vacate Kashmir for a plebiscite to take place under Indian administration, as Nehru had intended to do. One needs to keeping in mind that the Maharaja had acceded to India after Pakistani aggression in order to save the population of Kashmir from the invaders and Nehru had in Shekh Abdulla's own words no obligation to promise a plebiscite in the first place.

It was also for strategic reasons that the west armed the Pakistani Army and Air Force during the 50's and 60's and confident of their new found strength they planned another invasion in Kashmir ostensibly to raise a revolution which lead to the 1965 war. Is it also for strategic reasons that Pakistan Army was propped up for all these years in ways that allowed it to usurp power from the civil administration all too frequently in Pakistan. There was another "strategic" reason that the west had for providing aid and arms supply to Pakistan during the 80's. It was the first Afghan war that USA fought covertly along with Pakistan against USSR in Afghanistan. That war as we all know is the genesis of the current radical "Islamic Terror" that the world is facing. The current breed of terrorists who have been waging a war on Indian on behalf of the Pakistani's are all a result of the lessons learned by Pakistani Army and the networks built by them with these forces. The rise of Taliban in Afghanistan provided the Pakistani's with a ready supply of afghan fighters to be sent into Kashmir.

One would have thought that 26/Nov attacks in Mumbai would be a turning point in how India would be looking at its policies towards terror emanating from Pakistan. One had imagined that the tolerance for western military and financial support to Pakistan would no longer be so high within the Indian leadership and there would be considerable pressure put on the Americans to link their aid to progress on fighting all kinds of terrorists with in Pakistan. But it seems the support continues. Robin Raphel the wife of late Pakistan ambassador Arnold Lewis Raphel who was killed along with Zia-ul-Haq in the plane crash in 84, is a member of the Obama administration's Af-Pak diplomatic group. Ms  Raphel is ex CIA and a known Taliban sympathizer before 9/11. She is infamous in India for her comments about Kashmir in the 90's when she had said "US did not recognize the instrument of accession, as meaning that Kashmir was an integral part of India.”. Ms Robin is responsible for the civilian aid that Pakistan gets from USA as per the provisions of the Kerry-Lugar bill. After the shock of finding Osama bin laden in Abottabad USA had slowed down the disbursements, but after the Dec 2012 talks between USA and Pakistan the aid in her own words "is expected to pick up pace".

The Pakistani Army uses the military aid and reimbursements it gets for building is strengths in conventional and nuclear warfare against India. Substantial portions of aid for civilian purpose and war effort  reimbursements is alleged to be siphoned off for other purposes. So all in all my conclusion is that historically the western powers and China have for strategic reasons of their own kept the Pakistani military on steroids which allows them to punch well above their weight. Their self confidence in defeating any military response from India allows them to continue supporting terror in Kashmir and elsewhere against us. So I wonder, especially in the aftermath of the recent incidents in LOC in January 2013, if the Indian leadership will ever ask the western and eastern friends of Pakistan that when it comes to terrorism "Are you with us? Or are you against us?".

Runaway grandmother - The story is now old but not over

I am publishing below a letter I wrote to Praveen Swami of The Hindu whose recent articles in Hindu have been appreciated by some as being 'more balanced' than the 'jingoistic' reporting in the Indian media about the killing and inhuman mutilation of two Indian soldier's bodies at the Line of Control by Pakistani army soldiers after a cross LOC infiltration into Jammu and Kashmir. In my letter to Praveen I raise some issues about how the GOI disputes some of the statements in his article as inaccurate especially the so called real trigger of these incident which was an old lady crossing over to POK without anyone noticing in September 2012. The Indian army spokesperson says the incident happened in 2011 not 2012 and so cannot be linked with the beheading. I also take exception to Praveen in effect stating that both sides have carried out mutilation without being able to have any proof to corroborate that statement. Finally I make an argument that to be really balanced his article should have mentioned about Pakistan army being accused of facilitating infiltration of terrorists into J&K by resorting to shelling and firing across the LOC which in my view is the real cause of tension at the border i.e. the terrorist infiltration.

Praveen,

This is regarding your now 'famous' article which appeared in The Hindu on 10th of January. I am sure you must have received responses on this and this is an old story now. The story may be 10 days old but it is by no means dead and while your article when it appeared would have possibly been considered by many as following high standards of journalism. It would have been praised as an article in which you brought out 'the facts' of the current escalation in conflict in a particular section of the LOC. After which it has been quoted everywhere from India, to Pakistan, to Washington, to UK. I also read the response from GOI and your response to that which appeared in The Hindu on 11th. 

The basic premise of your story was that incident started off with the grandmother crossing over in September 2012 which the Indian Army claims happened in September 2011. The Indian Army has also denied that it crossed over and raided the Pakistani post. While initially Pakistan had claimed that Indian soldiers had raided their post but now they have been saying that they came withing 30 meters of LOC and 'fired at them across the LOC' in their foreign minister's own words, which appears to me more closer to the fact of what really happened on the day when their soldier was killed on 6th/Jan.

While these another set of facts if they go unchallenged by you do place some doubts on the way your story was constructed but for me the crucial question in your story as I am sure is also for you is beheading as an insult to the dead soldiers. No matter what arguments on the issue are made that both sides may have carried it out, a past act does not justify the present specially when there is no proof of mutilation and beheading of enemy dead bodies by Indian soldiers as mentioned in your article "by the account of one military official, which The Hindu could not corroborate independently, beheaded two.".  If you could not corroborate independently then is there a justification in your carrying it in that way. I believe you should not just leave it at that. Your should bring about the facts of incidents when the Indian army did carry out such inhuman acts. I would like them exposed so that these incidents are brought to an end. Simply stating that the facts cannot be corroborated is not enough especially since we can corroborate that Indian soldiers were mutilated by Pakistan Army including the often quoted incident of the reward that Musharraf gave to Ilyas Kashmiri and also Saurabh Kalia's case.

The first account of beheading of enemy by Indian solders I came across is what I had read quite some time ago in a book about Kargil War by Srinjoy Chowdhury, But then there is beheading and there is beheading. That book carried an account of the Naga regiment soldiers who carry a 'Dao' weapon beheading enemy in hand to hand combat and then unfortunately also carrying it back with them. Now while this is not a graceful subject but the qualitative difference between beheading or bayoneting in hand to hand combat and the torture and killing of a captured soldier or the mutilation and beheading of dead soldier's bodies and the effect that has on their families should not be lost on anyone. This is adding insult to their grievous loss which is hard to tolerate for anyone. 

While your article does make every effort to sound balanced say mentioning PAK(a fact) instead of POK(also a fact of history) but it misses the most important reason why cease file violations in LOC are so crucial for India. It is not a game of one-up-man-ship for the Army; it is the infiltration of terrorists into Kashmir and the support that Pak army provides to them and continues to do so as I write this email to you is what is the main issue. That point was completely missing from your article. You did allude to it in your followup article on this issue but in a very different light, again diluting the problem of cross border terror. You have yourself written a book on the subject of the "Informal War" in Kashmir being waged by Pakistan on India. So the fact is that the Indian Soldier is continuously paying sacrifices on behalf of the nation. He cannot be considered dispensable for a higher cause. Had this present issue not been raised so strongly in the media then no general or politician would have bothered to visit the slain soldier's family.

It is my submission that the Indian political leadership has failed the Indian soldier, and if they claim to be patriotic and expect continued sacrifices from the soldier and his family, if they expect the soldier to continue fighting this war of attrition in Kashmir while they do nothing substantial about the continued support that Jehadi's get from Pakistan then they are perhaps expecting too much from the soldier. It does not need television anchors to question the Pakistan policy of the Indian government after an incident like the present one. One can never rule out another Mumbai. If we are waiting for another Mumbai before substantial efforts are made to dismantle the terror machinery in Pakistan then another Mumbai will happen, may be sooner than anyone expects; after all a lot will change in the subcontinent once USA exits Afghanistan. When it comes to terrorism, the civilian government in Pakistan, the citizens of Pakistan and the friends of Pakistan(including western powers) are also in the dock not just Pakistan Army. A concerted reply is needed from Indian Government, Army, media and the people for this issue of terrorism. One cannot remain neutral to it. We cannot continue to pay odd sacrifices, they have to be held accountable and I don't think anyone has seriously being asking for a War, being fully aware of the consequences, but people are asking for accountability which should be achievable by other means. Should it not?