Mark the Graves

Statecraft

HAPPYMON JACOB

The famous Russell–Einstein Manifesto issued in London on July 9, 1955 ends with the following words: “We appeal, as human beings, to human beings: Remember your humanity, and forget the rest. If you can do so, the way lies open to a new Paradise; if you can’t, there lies before you the risk of universal death.”

Today the time has come for us to call upon the rulers of Jammu and Kashmir to remember their humanity, listen to the voice of their conscience and take a decision that will begin the process of undoing the many wrongs committed against the people of Kashmir. The time has come for the rulers of J&K to stop living in denial and come out with truths even though some of those truths might hurt than comfort. But then bitter truths are better than false comforts. 

The Omar-Abdullah led government of J&K should immediately order the DNA profiling of over 2000 dead bodies lying unsung in around 38 graveyards of Kashmir.For a Chief Minister who has been talking about truth and reconciliation and has been a voice of reason and moderation, this is the opportunity to demonstrate to his fellow Kashmiris and the world that he does care about those whose Chief Minister he is. 

Indeed, there is a growing national and international concern about the Omar-government’s flip-flops on the question of mass graves. This is something that his government is not going to be able to ignore for too long. TheUN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Navi Pillay, in her statement a few days ago urged “the Indian authorities to fully investigate past killings and disappearances and bring the perpetrators to justice, as well as to ensure protection of witnesses and families of the missing and provide them with redress”. Amnesty International in its reports has been calling upon the government to conduct an inquiry into the matter. Kashmiris from all walks of life have been demanding on a daily basis that the government should order DNA profiling of the remains in those graves. How long will the rulers of Kashmir be able to ignore the voice of their people? 

The J&K State Home Department has reportedly written to the State Human Rights Commissionthat “many of the Human Rights activists raise the bogey of human rights violations at the behest of forces inimically disposed towards our country”. The ‘all-knowing, immensely wise and undoubtedly patriotic’ J&K Home department, by this statement, has not just accused “human rights walas” but also the State Human Rights commission, which happens to be a statutory body, of being anti-national! Someone needs to remind the babus of J&K Home department that it was not a report written by Pakistan that spoke of over 2000 bodies dumped into unmarked graves at 38 sites in north Kashmir. It was a report prepared by the Jammu and Kashmir State Human Rights Commission (SHRC). 

Replying to a question by the senior CPI-M leader and MLA, MY Tarigami a week ago, the J&K government informed the State’s Legislative Assembly that as per the information provided by the District Development Commissioners, 2305 persons have been declared missing in the state. Indeed, the figures were provided by the same Home department. 

So if we have a home department report which says that over 2000 persons are missing from the state and a SHRC report that says that around the same number of bodies are lying in unmarked graves in Kashmir, how on earth can the very same Home department now say that the graves mentioned by the SHRC are full of dead bodies of terrorists even though the state has still not been able to account for 2305 missing persons. I simply can’t get the logic behind this.  

In September 2011 Chief Minister Omar Abdullah had said so valiantly that DNA tests will be conducted on the dead bodies in the unmarked graves to confirm their identities. One year later, Omar’s government has now changed their stance on the issue. What has changed in one year? Who has convinced him to change his stance? Moreover, why does the Chief Minister keep changing his positions on important political issues? Shouldn’t the chief Minister of J&K be a man of his own words, at least? 

Is it not outrageous for the state government to say that “the families of the disappeared should identify the particular graveyard and the grave where they believe their family member might be buried. Only then after acquiring proper permission DNA test of that particular grave would be carried out.” As I said in my last column, how on earth can the families of missing persons ever manage to do that? Forget justice for a moment, can Omar Abdullah’s government please stop making fun of the Kashmiri people?

If the home department is so certain that the bodies actually belong to militants killed by the Indian armed forces and not innocent Kashmiris, shouldn’t it actually be forthcoming and enthusiastic about a probe that will verify their claims? If the home department is not lying to the people why not back it up with some evidence? 

The fact is that we all know why the state government is choosing to live in denial. The J&K government, like all governments, would not like to own up to having committed or help commit any sins.

What is also unfortunate is that even as there are sane voices in the rest of India demanding an urgent probe into the matter, much of the country seems to prefer not to bother with it. As the widely read Indian columnist Swaminathan S. Anklesaria Aiyar pointed out a year ago: “Secular Indians feel outraged by 900 Muslim deaths in Gujarat’s 2002 riots. They are outraged by the killing of 3,000 people by Chilean dictator Pinochet. But they are mostly bored by 2,730 Kashmiri bodies in unmarked graves.” This is the tragedy of Kashmir and no less a predicament of the Indian secularism.

Rahul’s ‘non-political’ Kashmir visit

No ‘uncomfortable’ questions were allowed to be put to the visiting dignitaries!

Statecraft 

BY HAPPYMON JACOB

The recent visit of the Congress scion and Member of Parliament Mr. Rahul Gandhi to the Kashmir University with a delegation of prominent Indian businessmen is indeed a welcome step, but an inadequate one at that. The fact that Mr. Gandhi managed to convince top industrialists such as Ratan Tata, K.M. Birla of Aditya Birla Group, Rajiv Bajaj of Bajaj Auto, Deepak Parekh of HDFC, and Ashoka Reddy of MindTree to accompany him to Kashmir and speak to the students at the University auditorium deserves praise. I have no doubt in my mind that the likes of Mr. Tata and Mr. Birla will live upto the promises they made to the young Kashmiris. Some of them have even promised to make a comeback visit to Kashmir sometime later. So far so good.

That said, my concern is not really about the utility of such moves intended to improve the economic conditions of people, but about Rahul’s technocratic approach to addressing political issues. Again, I do not doubt the fact that Rahul is a well-meaning gentleman and a sincere politician. But over and again, he has proved to be unable to view and understand political issues through political lenses. Rahul, for instance, was nowhere to be seen when the Kashmir valley was up in flames in 2008 and 2010. We did not hear him offer any solutions to douse the fire nor was he reaching out the Kashmiri youth during those days. But then why blame him alone? Even Kashmir’s own politicians had gone into hiding when the valley was burning.

Rahul Gandhi’s three monkeys
Rahul seems to be going by the slightly modified version of the principle embodied by the three wise monkeys “When in Kashmir, see no politics, hear no politics, speak no politics”. What else can explain the fact that Rahul was unwilling to discuss any politics during his visit to the campus? Apparently, his organisers had stage-managed the show to such an extent that no ‘uncomfortable’ questions were allowed to be put to the visiting dignitaries! Does he think that students in university campuses are not mature enough to discuss politics? Does Rahul think that it is not their job to discuss politics in the campuses and that they should just do their studies and go home? While bringing economic prosperity to Kashmir is good, Rahul should also have shown the political vision and guts to answer the ‘uncomfortable’ political questions of the Kashmir University students. 

Moreover, Rahul should have reminded his close friend Omar Abdullah that the latter’s government should take the trouble to conduct DNA profiling of the 2,156 dead bodies in around 38 graveyards of Kashmir. A year ago Omar had claimed that his government would make sure that the DNA tests are conducted and the families of at least some of the missing persons will finally have a sense of closure. His government has now gone back on that promise saying that a) it is not possible to conduct DNA profiling of all bodies and, b) only terrorists are buried in those graves. Even more curious is the argument that “The families of the disappeared should identify the particular graveyard and the grave where they believe their family member might be buried. Only then after acquiring proper permission DNA test of that particular grave would be carried out.” For heaven’s sake, how can the families of missing persons ever manage to do that? Forget justice for a moment, can Omar Abdullah’s government please stop making fun of the Kashmiri people? 

Economic opportunities are good, but bringing justice to those whose kith and kin have been killed is even more important. And if Mr. Rahul Gandhi thinks that bringing Tata and Birla to Kashmir will compensate for the blood spilled by thousands of Kashmiris, he has not even begun to understand the conflict in Kashmir. 

Let us face it, economics is not politics and hence any attempts by anyone to resolve political issues through economic means is unlikely to be successful in the longer run. Indeed, using economic means to address political questions is not something that New Delhi is doing for the first time: this is a standard practice in state-led conflict resolution initiatives. And these economic means come in many shapes and forms: economic rebuilding, job creation, infrastructure development and sometimes straightforward bribing. But then a symptomatic approach is not designed to address the deeper political questions and that is precisely its problem. 

What is interesting to note is that while Rahul and Omar show reluctance in addressing political questions using means that are truly political, their grand fathers Jawaharlal Nehru and Sheikh Abdulla, respectively, used to be exactly the opposite. They reveled in politicizing everything that happened around them. They had absolutely no hesitation in discussing deeply distressing political questions right in the middle of their people. Elderly Kashmiris would remember how the Sheikh and Nehru used to make impromptu speeches at Lal Chowk addressing important political questions that Kashmir faced then: Kashmir faces the very same questions even now but the grandsons of Sheikh and Nehru seem to fight shy of addressing them. Why is a political approach important? Notwithstanding the fact that a political approach is often a comprehensive one, it is also useful in bringing justice to those who have been deprived of it. More so, an economic approach can only help ‘hide’ a political problem and so an economic solution provides no guarantee that the conflict will not come back to hurt us again.

(Source: Greater Kashmir, October 7, 2012. URL: http://greaterkashmir.com/news/2012/Oct/7/rahul-s-non-political-kashmir-visit-5.asp )

Don’t blame it on the professor

HAPPYMON JACOB

SHARE  ·   COMMENT (6)   ·   PRINT   ·   T+  

Unemployment, skyrocketing prices and other governance-related problems are not the failures of the Indian higher education system

This is in response to Justice Markandey Katju’s article that appeared in The Hindu on September 3, 2012, entitled “Professor, teach thyself.” At the outset, let me say that a number of issues that he has raised in his article are justifiable criticisms of India’s higher education system and hence deserve further discussion even if one were to ignore the highly condescending tone of the article. However, Justice Katju’s arguments also suffer from several serious logical and substantive flaws.

He is critical of the fact that while a great amount of money is pumped into the higher education sector in India, money spent on primary education is negligible. It is the latter sector that needs resources, he argues, because the huge amounts of money spent on higher education in the country are “for the benefit of foreign countries.” Even if one were to buy this highly skewed and factually incorrect argument, one is at a loss to understand how the “professors” are responsible for this state of affairs. Surely, it is not the university fraternity that makes decisions regarding budgetary allocation in this country. Just because the government’s policies do not prioritise primary education, it does not follow that we stop funding the higher education sector; that is indeed a curious argument. Funding the country’s primary education sector, which is indeed a priority, need not be at the cost of India’s higher education sector.

THE ‘STATE-OF-THE-ART’ MYTH

On the one hand, he argues that the Indian university system should produce Nobel laureates and “Fellows of the Royal Society,” emulating the universities in advanced countries such as Australia. On the other, he also complains about the Rs.150 crore that is annually given to universities like Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU). He also complains about the “state-of-the-art” campuses and “air-conditioning” provided to institutions of higher education in India. Has Justice Katju ever made an effort to inquire about the facilities and infrastructure available in western universities?

Most universities in India still do not have access to the latest journals; and when we think of “state of the art facilities,” we only have in mind clean toilets, and electricity to run our computers. The fact is that most Indian universities do not have the funds to air-condition lecture halls or provide air-conditioning even in the chambers of senior professors; that is certainly the case in JNU. I wonder if Justice Katju would be able to work out of a non-air-conditioned office and lecture in furnace-like lecture halls for hours together in Delhi’s sweltering heat!

THE ‘HIGHLY PAID’ MYTH

Justice Katju writes that the professors are given “huge salaries and fine houses to live in.” This is yet another factually incorrect argument. If he wishes to understand how much professors get paid for their work, he should compare their salaries with the salaries of those holding equivalent ranks in the government or the judiciary. While I tend to agree with the spirit of this argument that a large number of academics do not engage in high-quality research and that their publications are “mostly poor,” I wish to point out that there are several structural reasons why academic research in India may not be policy relevant. Those of us who teach/research international relations or India’s foreign and defence policy, for instance, are aware that the government’s unwillingness to declassify and open its archival records on defence, security and foreign policy matters to public access even after 30 years of a particular policy decision is one of the major reasons why it is almost impossible to produce authoritative academic assessments in these fields. When we do write, policymakers would discard it saying it is inaccurate and speculative, and they are not entirely wrong in saying so. However, if a considerable amount of academic writing in India on foreign policy and national security is widely considered to be based on guesswork, please don’t put the blame entirely on the professors. The government’s archaic secrecy laws have to take part of the blame.

THE OBJECTIVE OF HIGHER EDUCATION

I also fail to understand how IIT and IIM professors are to be blamed if their students get employment abroad and prefer to leave India. If anything, the very fact that IIT and IIM products are chased after by the international business houses proves that their professors are actually doing a fine job of giving them world-class education. Moreover, it is patently misleading to suggest that the government should stop funding higher education because of the brain drain from the country.

Finally, there is a larger substantive question that Justice Katju’s article raises. He asks whether the higher education system in India has managed to raise the standard of living of the poor Indian masses who are struggling with massive unemployment, skyrocketing prices, huge problems of health care, housing etc. I have fundamental issues with this line of argument. First of all, massive unemployment, skyrocketing prices and such other governance-related problems are not the failures of the Indian higher education system: these are systemic failures and pinning that on the Indian higher education system is grossly unfair. Second, the primary job of the universities is to teach students and guide their research, not to tell the government how to run the country. Third, even when the universities produce research-based studies on ways of improving various aspects of governance in the country, the government hardly ever takes notice of the research outputs of universities. If the babus don’t listen to the professors, why blame the professors? Finally, Justice Katju’s “instrumental” understanding of education is deeply problematic. He seems to argue that the sole objective of higher education is to help the governance of the country. Going by that argument, any intellectual or academic pursuit that has no direct instrumental value for governing the country is a useless enterprise. Hence, the production, accumulation and transfer of knowledge on philosophy, ancient history, African tribal societies, Victorian drama and aesthetics have to be considered as a waste of time since they don’t contribute to solving governance problems in India!

(Happymon Jacob teaches at Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi).

Source: The Hindu, September 17, 2012. URL: http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/article3904588.ece )

Indo-Pak Relations: Glass Half Full

There is an urgent need to create ‘shock-absorbers’ in India-Pakistan relations

Statecraft BY HAPPYMON JACOB

Will the ongoing visit of India’s foreign minister S. M. Krishna to Pakistan make any difference to India-Pakistan relations? Can the Indian foreign minister,who belongs to an embattled UPA government, take the ongoing efforts to strengthen the bilateral relationship to the next logical level? Or will Krishna’s ‘mission Pakistan’ prove to be yet another futile exercise? I think the glass is half full. 

Minister Krishna is scheduled to meet (or has already met) a host of Pakistani leaders from both the ruling party as well as the opposition. This by itself, I think, is a progressive step. The fact is that if New Delhi wants to deepen its relations with Pakistan, it should reach out to Pakistanis belonging to a wide spectrum of political persuasions. Secondly, the revival of the Indo-Pak Joint Commission and its subgroups can do a lot of good for Indo-Pak relations. The Joint Commission has often been a victim of the imponderables between the two sides. Thirdly, my ‘glass is half full’ optimism also comes from the great deal of diplomatic effort that has gone into strengthening the Indo-Pak bilateral environment in the past year or so. From the parlays between the home secretaries to the commerce and the foreign secretaries, there have been a number of Indo-Pak official engagements in the past yearand these in a sense have managed to deepen the relationship and create a certain sense of purpose and vision, at least from an instrumental point of view. One only hopes that the diplomatic effort of the past one year, including this visit by Krishna and his delegation, is taken to a higher level by a visit by Dr. Manmohan Singh to Islamabad sometime soon. 

It is interesting to note that while New Delhi and Islamabad have been making politically correct noises about the ‘K’ (Kashmir) word and the ‘T’ (Terrorism) word, the apparent lack of progress on these two items has not prompted either party to call off the dialogue process. While I do not believe that not talking about contentious issues is not the perfect way to resolve them, I am willing to see some merit in carefully planning and timing the discussion on contentious issues. Sometimes diplomacy is all about timing. 

Critics would argue that this is yet another round of talks without any real and tangible result in sight, and hence these talks are as good as not having them at all. India and Pakistan are simply going through the motions of a dialogue process, half-hearted as it is, and may achieve almost nothing at the end of it, they would argue. For instance, but for some improvement at the trade front, what have all these diplomatic engagement s of the past one year produced? Nothing, really.

I do see their point: you need to work towards concrete outcomes in a purposeful manner. And yet, I am persuaded by the thinking that sometimes process is itself the product. Often, there is a need to engage your ‘adversary’ at multiple ‘peaceful’ levels to create the atmospherics to negotiate lasting peace. After all, it is better to be talking to each other peacefully and graciously, even when there is not tangible outcome in sight, than working to sabotage each other.  Finally, the fact is that India has simply no other choice than to diplomatically and politically engage Pakistan? Does it really have any other alternative vis-à-vis Pakistan? 

The imponderables 
To me, however, what is bothering is not really the lack of concrete outcomes from the dialogue process, but the potential of the ‘imponderables’ to frustrate the peace process. Indeed, India-Pakistan relations have always been a victim of such imponderables: what else can explain the overnight disappearance of the 2004-2008 India-Pakistan peace process which was widely termed as ‘irreversible’? 

The first imponderable, of course, is a repeat of 26/11. While one hopes that such an instance won’t take place, there is no way one can rule it out. What a Mumbai-II will mean for Indo-Pak relations is something only time can tell. One thing, however, is certain. It will ‘at least’ mean a repeat of what followed the 26/11 terror attacks, that is, the end of the Indo-Pak peace process. The second imponderable is a regime change in Pakistan. What will be the fate of this engagement process between the two sides if and when there is a regime change in Islamabad? And what if the new regime in Pakistan is less forthcoming towards India than the present one? Thirdly, what will be the impact of the evolving ‘endgame’ in Afghanistan on Indo-Pak relations? Indeed, on all these three ‘imponderables’, we have a historical record to go by and that record is not something that can make us optimistic about the future of Indo-Pak relations. 

I would, therefore, argue that instead of trying hard to rule out potential wildcards such as these, there is a need to think of ways to deal with them as and when they occur with minimum damage to the bilateral relations. Differently put, there is an urgent need to create ‘shock-absorbers’ in India-Pakistan relations so as to not let the unforeseen effects of unfortunate imponderables throw them off balance. The exact nature of these political and diplomatic shock absorbers are to be designed by the officials on both sides. But some of the steps in this direction could already be taken. For instance, institutionalization of regular exchange of views between the two intelligence communities, like it used to be the case between the two superpowers during the Cold War years, is one way doing it. It’s time India and Pakistan put on their ‘thinking caps’ and did some out-of-the-box thinking about it.

(Source: Greater Kashmir, September 9, 2012. URL: http://www.greaterkashmir.com/news/2012/Sep/9/indo-pak-relations-glass-half-full-4.asp )

India Against Itself

What is India’s biggest security threat? China? Pakistan? Terrorism? Indeed, these three items are most likely to top our list of the security threats faced by the country. I, however, do not think these are India’s biggest security threats. I am of the opinion that India’s biggest security threat is itself. For one, external threats such as China and Pakistan are likely to unite India while the internal threats could easily create deep schisms within the body politic of the country. Secondly, India seems to be well prepared to address the security threats emanating from the external sources, but is undoubtedly ill prepared to face the ones stemming from within.  Thirdly, I do not think that India is going to face any real existential threats from China and Pakistan in the days to come, but India’s internal threats are clear, present and imminent. 

The recent episode of how people belonging to Northeast India had to run back to their native states from ‘mainland India’ is illustrative of the kind of existential security threats that India will face in future. Why do I think that India’s future security complex will be dominated by threats emanating from its domestic sphere? Here’re some of the reasons why I think India’s biggest security threat is itself. 

Culture of Status Quoism
Our governments revel in status quoism, especially the Sonia Gandhi-led Congress party. The Congress Party’s view of India is mechanical, not political. In other words, its politics of governance is premised on the assumption that progress is a convenient byproduct of stability, defined as status quo. It forgets that India is an unmanageably huge country with massive problems and the only way we can begin to resolve the country’s problems is by initiating bold, large-scale and out-of-the-box policy initiatives, not by piecemeal, half-hearted and politically bankrupt initiatives. This ‘never-rock-the-boat’ culture of the Congress party is partly due to the inability of the Congress Chief to act in unconventional ways: she is a prisoner of her public images and perceptions. Hence status quoism is the best policy for a party whose leadership’s ability to continue in power depends on images conventional politics.When was the last time the Congress party made an effort to think out of the box?!

A related problem is the politics of deferment that the Indian state is so adept at practicing. It believes that it is always better to postpone the resolution of difficult problems rather then address them head on. The idea is that once the burn is taken out of a burning issue, you can afford to ignore it because no body is going to take about it thereafter. However, the problem lingers on only to blow up at a later point of time. 

The question of stakes 
The idea of India can exist only in so far as the citizens of India have stakes in its continued existence. The idea of India is dependent on our stakes in it. Hence lets ask the question: what are some of the possible stakes Indians can have in the idea of India? I can think of four: 1) instrumental reasons (political and economic benefits), 2) cultural reasons (a sense of togetherness, cultural bonds etc.), 3)fear of the other (external threat perceptions)and, 4) Political reasons(patriotism etc.). The question to ponder over here is whether these reasons are still valid and for who. In other words, how many Indians consider one or more of the above-mentioned reasons are still valid for them in order to be part of the idea and reality of India. The recent incidents of violence in the country show, at least to my mind, that the fear of the internal other is replacing the fear of the external other! Humans are greatly persuaded by ideas that give them a sense of meaning and purpose, but once they lose their faith in those ideas, their sense of meaning and understanding of reality also undergo changes.  

Misguided politics of the middle class 
It is true that the degree of state-society negotiations in India is deeply unsatisfactory. And the citizens of the country, in general, and the middle class, in particular, are unhappy about it, justifiably so. The extremely limited space forstate-society negotiations in India has resulted in an acute lack of healthy civil society activism in the country. The available space is now hogged by ‘god men’ of different kinds (Baba Ramdev, Sri Sri Ravishankar and Anna Hazare etc.) whose agenda cannot be considered as contributing to a healthy idea of India. 

Misplaced Aspirations 
Yet another reason why the country has not been able to manage its internal threats is due to its misplaced global aspirations. India has, for sometime now, been focusing on the potential role it could play on the global stage and therefore been directing its material, intellectual and political resources towards such an objective. To my mind, this is not just a story of misplaced aspirations but, more importantly, has resulted in the country’s inability to focus its various resources on tackling its ‘internal threats’. For instance, take a look at the ever-increasing defense expenditure of the country that is often referred to as ‘arming without aiming’ or ‘defense buildup without a grand strategy’. India finds it necessary to continue to increase its defence spending in order to cater to its global aspirations as well as to address its ‘external threats’. If only India had focused these resources on the domestic front, the country’s governance would have been much better and the idea of India would have many more takers. 

Aversion to Reforms
One of the major reasons, and often cited by a large number of informed commentators, for the absence of good governance in the country is the lack of reforms. Indian state has a fundamental aversion to reforms of any kind. Numerous commissions have been set up in this country to recommend steps to the government for reforming its police forces, judiciary, electoral process, Civil Services, CrPC and what not, all of which belong to an era that we don’t belong to anymore. The government has implemented hardly any of those recommendations either because there is no pressure from the civil society or because the political class is just not serious about it. It would not be an exaggeration to argue that the current state of India’s police forces, judiciary, electoral process, Civil Services, and CrPC symbolizes an ancient idea of India: not an idea of India that belongs to the 21st century.

(Source: Greater Kashmir, August 26, 2012. URL: http://greaterkashmir.com/news/2012/Aug/26/india-against-itself-22.asp )

Politics of Asylum

Should the Hindus from Pakistan be given asylum by the government of India?

Statecraft BY HAPPYMON JACOB

The Indian media has been feverishly advocating that Pakistani Hindus should be given political asylum in India. However, the Indian political class, barring the Hindu right wing BJP of course, has remained diplomatic over the issue, carefully avoiding from taking any stand on the issue. There is a snowballing sympathy wave for the Pakistani minorities who are crossing over into India due to the ill treatment that they have been facing in their own homeland. 

I have been closely looking at these developments in order to formulate my own position on the issue, and yet my own position is clearly a complex one with many shades of moral dilemma. First of all, there is absolutely no doubt that the minorities – Hindus, Christians etc. – face discrimination in Pakistan. Quite apart from the fact that Islamic extremists in Pakistan persecute the minorities, Pakistani minorities are also legally discriminated against. For instance, non-Muslims are not allowed to become either the President or Prime Minister of Pakistan. 

Much as I am deeply saddened at their plight, I would, from a policy point of view, argue that India should desist from the temptation to announce asylum or citizenship to Pakistani Hindus crossing over into India. The government of India should play down the issue in order to avoid the potential diplomatic complications. And that is precisely what New Delhi seems to be doing now. New Delhi should extend the visas of those who have already arrived in the country, if so requested. Indian authorities should perhaps take up the issue with Pakistan during confidential bilateral parlays. In the meantime, the Indian media should exercise restraint and the BJP should just shut up. 

Is India a Hindu nation?No it is not; it is a secular country and the Indian constitution is abundantly clear on that. India is not the homeland of Hindus but of Indians, however much the Sangh Parivar might try and interpret it differently. If so, why should the persecution of Hindus in Pakistan bother the Indian state anymore than the persecution of anyone in Pakistan or Sri Lanka or Nepal or China, for that matter? Making a hue and cry over the manner in which Hindus are treated in Pakistan and keeping mum when the same treatment is meted out to other minorities, like christens, there is not befitting a secular state. 

The question of implications 
It is true that India has a tradition of accepting refugees from different countries of south Asia into the country and so giving asylum to the persecuted Pakistani Hindus is the right thing to do from a purely humanitarian point of view. That said, we should not forget the unintended consequences of such an act of charity. If New Delhi does indeed make public offers of asylum to Pakistani Hindus, it will most certainly lead to unnecessary politicization of the issue by Pakistan. Pakistan is likely to make similar statements of concern and worry vis-à-vis Indian Muslims some of who are undoubtedly persecuted in various parts of India. Moreover, if India offers political asylum to some Hindus from Pakistan, who have managed to cross over, it is likely that the remaining members of the Hindu community in Pakistan will be further isolated and condemned by Pakistani religious bigots. In other words, India’s humanitarian gesture could potentially end up creating more difficulties for Hindus in Pakistan and, indeed, also for Muslims in India. 

Moreover, Indian offer of asylum will surely have negative implications for India-Pakistan bilateral relations. The recent strides in Indo-Pak relations are both positive and hold great promise for a grand reconciliation between the two sides. Very importantly, there is a clear willingness on both sides to deemphasize their differences and to focus on issues that are agreed upon by both the sides. The ‘politics of asylum’ can damage these bilateral gains. 

The moral question 
Allow me to be a little more provocative. Do we have a moral right to sit in judgment of the manner in which minorities are treated in Pakistan? Far from it, I would say. If Pakistan is guilty of persecuting its minorities, India’srecord is not far better. While the Constitution of India does not discriminate anyone on the basis of religion, there is no denying the fact that minorities, especially Muslims, are discriminated against in many parts of the country. In some cities, they even find it difficult to find accommodation just because they are from a minority community. Has the Indian media, now morally outraged and going hammer and tongs against Pakistan, forgotten what Narendra Modi’s government did to Muslims in Gujarat? Have they forgotten the fact that he has been elected back to office despite what the Muslims had to go through in Gujarat? I wonder how the mainstream Indian media, catering primarily to the Indian middle class’ delusions of grandeur, would react if Islamabad were to declare that they would give political asylum to the Muslims who are/were persecuted in Gujarat and other places in India! They would call it a conspiracy, just as Pakistan’s interior minister who thinks that it is an Indian conspiracy to give 250 visas to Pakistani Hindus. 

Many ‘realist’ analysts in India have argued in the past few weeks that India should ‘actively’ look after the welfare of the 4.5 or so million Hindus in Pakistan as doing so would be ‘strategically advantageous’ to India in the longer run. Pakistan has done it for a very long time vis-à-vis India and I fail to see how, in the final analysis, it has become strategically advantageous to Pakistan.

(Source: Greater Kashmir, 19 AUGUST 2012. URL: http://www.greaterkashmir.com/news/2012/Aug/19/politics-of-asylum-4.asp )

From the Munich Security Conference, 3-5 February, Munich, Germany

                          (Next to me is Matthias Gebauer, Chief Correspondent Berlin, SPIEGEL ONLINE, Berlin)

 (with Samer Naber, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Jordan and Georg Schulze Zumkley, CDU/CSU Parliamentary Group, German Bundestag)

              (With Besa Kabashi-Ramaj, Senior Advisor to the Minister for the Kosovo Security Force)
         

                                   (Meeting Senator John Mccain)