Misjudgement

 

 

1952 - Sheikh Abdullah

The lion of kashmir

Sheikh Abdullah was vehemently opposed to the two-nation theory and its communal implications

“The Jammu and Kashmir State is labouring under many disadvantages, with a large Mohammedan population absolutely illiterate, labouring under poverty and very low economic conditions in the villages and practically governed like dumb driven cattle…” Such words of Sir Albion Bannerji, expressed in an interview on March 15, 1929, after his resignation as Foreign and Political Minister, stirred several Kashmiri Muslim young men, fresh from the universities in India, particularly, Aligarh. They had organised themselves into a group holding frequent meetings at the Muslim Reading Room in Srinagar. One of the members of this group was Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah.

The Sheikh organised mass meetings of Kashmiri Muslims. His fiery speeches against the autocratic rule of the Maharaja created a ferment. Stories about Abdullah’s exemplary courage and charisma spread like wild fire. Within no time he endeared himself to his people as Sher-i-Kashmir and, unquestionably, until his death in 1982, remained the most dominant voice in Kashmir politics.

Abdullah founded the Muslim Conference in 1932. In order to enlist the support of non-Muslims to his cause for responsible government, he converted his organisation into the National Conference in 1939.

By the logic of Partition on religious grounds, J&K should have become part of Pakistan. Abdullah vehemently opposed the ideology of communal politics. As the Prime Minister of self-governing J&K, Abdullah was determined to shape the destiny of his people in accordance with the social and political objectives of the New Kashmir Manifesto. However, his dismissal on August 9, 1953 and subsequent arrest created a chasm between Srinagar and Delhi. Nehru ultimately realised the futility of keeping the Kashmir problem in limbo. In 1964, he released Abdullah and accorded him an official welcome. Nehru's death finished his belated yet genuine spirit of resolving the Kashmir issue through tripartite dialogue with Abdullah at the helm.

Mohammad Ishaq Khan

The author is a historian and holds the Shaikhu’l-Alam chair at Kashmir University 1955 - ASEAN Conference

The Bandung bandwagon

Bandung represented the forces of the underdeveloped, newly independent nations taking on the might of the West

It was the first big meet of the underdogs of the world. It was an assertion of new found independence and identity. Yes, the historic conference of Bandung, a small town in West Java, Indonesia from April 18 to 25, 1955, had marked a paradigm shift and given a final push to the centuries old colonial world order. The gathering of 29 Asian-African heads of state was designed to combine the efforts of the erstwhile exploited multitude to address the issues of social development, sovereignty, race, religion and peace. It was a first attempt to create a post-colonial world order and the leaders in the vanguard of this attempt were the Indian Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, Indonesian President, Ahmed Sukarno, Egyptian President, Gamal Abdel Nasser, Chinese Premier, Zhou Enlai, Vietnam Prime Minister, Ho Chi Minh and leaders from Algeria, Morocco, Tunisia, Lebanon, Syria, Japan and the Philippines.

The 1950s had marked a new era in post-War global politics. The advent of Cold War and the Soviet Union as a super power and enemy number one of the developed world had, in more ways than one, introduced a fresh thinking into the minds of countries which had thrown away the yoke of imperialism. The intensification of global ideological war and the military assertions by America, first in the Korean War between 1950 and 1953, and again in Vietnam in 1954 were clear indications to the underdeveloped world that imperialism was not a thing of the past. It was abundantly clear to the Afro-Asian nations that if they had to make their presence felt in the world and also sustain their independence and freedom, they would have to make joint efforts. And it is with these concerns that the first seed of Non-Aligned Movement were sown at Bandung. Speaking boldly at the conference, Prime Minister Nehru had announced: “It is with military force that we are dealing now, but I submit that moral force counts and the moral force of Asia and Africa must, in spite of the atomic and hydrogen bombs of Russia, the USA or another country, count." Such was the spirit with which the underdogs of the world had begun to assert themselves in 1955 at Bandung.

TSI Edit Bureau 1972 - Shimla Accord

The shimla retreat

The language used in the Shimla Agreement has, sadly, been interpreted differently both by India and Pakistan

A landmark agreement in modern Indian history. This accord was the eventual product of an Indian initiative, presented to the UN Secretary-General on February 14, 1972, proposing direct talks with Pakistan “at any time, any level, and without preconditions.” In April, senior Indian and Pakistani representatives met in Muree, Pakistan, to prepare for a Gandhi-Bhutto summit. Such a meeting commenced in Shimla on June 28. Five days later, Mrs. Gandhi and Bhutto announced an accord designed to guide their countries’ bilateral relations. The accord continues to set the tone for India–Pakistan relations, with frequent reference by both sides to its provisions during periods of tension.

Several of these provisions are significant: both would “refrain from the threat or use of force. . . in accordance with the Charter of the UN”; measures such as restoration of communications, postal and air links, expansion of trade and travel, cultural exchanges, etc., would be progressively implemented to “restore and normalise relations”, each country’s troops would be withdrawn behind the international border.

The agreement also established a new “line of control” (LOC) in Kashmir based on the cease-fire line accepted on December 17, 1971.

The language with the greatest import for future India-Pakistan relations incorporated India’s preference for bilateralism: “the two countries are resolved to settle their differences by peaceful means mutually agreed upon between them.” India has interpreted this to imply that outstanding differences, particularly Kashmir, cannot be referred to or raised in international fora such as the UN. Not surprisingly, Pakistan construes the wording differently. As noted in the earlier discussion of no-war proposals, these contradictory interpretations have engendered chronic irritation between the two countries. Truly an opportunity missed.

Susan M. Burns

The writer is historian and disarmament expert 1986 - Uniform Civil Code

The shah bano factor

This case, more than any other, established that Indian Muslims would not countenance interference in their personal affairs

Shah Bano episode is indeed a very important incident in India but I am sceptical if it influenced the course of history or not. Yes, it helped Muslims to bury their differences and unite for the cause of religion. It was evident by the attendance and response of the Muslims in the post-Shah Bano convention. It took everyone, including the government, by surprise. Peacefully, Muslims of India conveyed to the government that they dare not meddle in the personal affairs of Muslims. The Uniform Civil Code is only a Directive policy, whereas the right to have one’s personal laws is a Fundamental Right. Even a novice can tell that the latter has the upper hand over the former. Then where is the question of appeasing to Muslims? On the contrary, the then Rajiv Gandhi Government upheld the Constitutional ethos by overruling the Supreme Court verdict through Parliament. Some people claim that Rajiv Gandhi was doing penance for opening the locks of Babri Masjid. Rajiv might have had his motives, but what he did was completely in accordance with the Constitution. If he had failed, every other person or political party would have started meddling in the internal matters of Muslims.

Some say that several Muslim countries have a Uniform Civil Code, then why not India. If other countries are doing something wrong, we need not copy them. Personal Laws are in sync with the ethos laid down by Holy Quran and that is why it is sacrosanct for us. In my personal view, I see the Shah Bano episode as the single most uniting factor for the Muslims of India.

Maulana Jalal-ud-din Umri

The writer is chief of Jamaat-e-Islami Hind 1999 - Lahore bus yatra

The first step forward

If the Lahore Bus Yatra had not taken place, the first historic steptowards peace in South Asia would have been missed

The then Prime Minister, Atal Behari Vajpayee’s bus ride to Lahore in 1999 was a bold and historic initiative to build bridges with Pakistan, which had fought three wars with India (between 1947 and 1971) and unleashed cross-border terrorism for more than a decade. Pakistan responded by its incursion in Kargil. Yet, Vajpayee continued with his efforts to make Pakistan understand that peace was more important than war.

The confidence building measures carried out by Vajpayeeji, including sending the Indian cricket team to Pakistan in 2004 (after a gap of 15 years), resulted in people-to-people contact. This also brought down the simmering tension between the neighbours.

While Vajpayee was ready to send across the doves, he was also prepared to crush attacks on the country and its institutions with a strong hand. After the attack on Parliament on December 13, 2001, the former Prime Minister mounted massive diplomatic and military pressures on Pakistan to convey to the world that India would retaliate strongly to contain terrorism. Pakistan got the message.

If the Lahore Bus Yatra had not taken place, the first historic step towards peace in the region would have been missed. Yet, we will have to be watchful because an insecure Pakistan is more dangerous than a prosperous and happy Pakistan.

Rajnath Singh

The writer is President, Bharatiya Janata Party