Hamid Ansari for President

The Indian public has largely remained disinterested as to who becomes the country’s Rashtrapati

STATECRAFT BY HAPPYMON JACOB

The election of India’s next President is scheduled to be held in July this year. Election to the Indian Presidency is normally not considered to be a politically significant affair since Indian Presidents are only titular heads of the State, not of the executive. The Indian public has largely remained disinterested as to who becomes the country’s Rashtrapati and hence political parties in the country also do not attribute much importance to the selection of an appropriate person to hold the country’s highest constitutional office. However, new India, the ‘post-Hazare’ India, should have a visionary and widely respected person in the Raisina Hill.
Even though the Indian President is not responsible for running the country on a day-to-day basis, there is still a lot that a visionary President can do for the country including in the comity of nations. While the President of India may only have symbolic power, let us not assume that symbolic power does not matter in domestic politics or international relations. A country’s image, stature and influence do not depend only on its hard, material power but also its ideational, soft, and symbolic power. Indeed, sometimes the power of symbols, ideas and visions matter more than the number of tanks and range of missiles. More importantly, states are also often known by the stature of their statesmen. Sometimes even when a state has the material capability to influence developments in world politics, it may not be able to do so primarily due to the lack of statesmen who can convert national power into international outcomes. In other words, in the era of soft power and media diplomacy where visions, norms and values have global presence, a visionary President can make a huge difference to the international standing of India.
India has had many Presidents who were looked upon with admiration for their vision and wisdom. The great Presidency of Dr. Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan, who was an internationally acclaimed philosopher and statesman, is remembered to this day. The incumbent Vice President of India, Mohammad Hamid Ansari, is a visionary and a true statesman who can bring much glory to this country and the President’s office and hence should be elected as the next President of India. Ansari has the potential of making a great President.

Intellectual and thoughtful
Ansari is not a career politician. He is a retired Indian diplomat who, since his retirement, has been one of the influential intellectuals of the country. Anyone who has ever had an in-depth conversation with the Vice President, as has this author, will realize the greatness of the man and the magnitude of his knowledge and wisdom. Calm, composed and thoughtful, Ansari doesn’t jump to hasty conclusions but nudges his listeners to think rationally and form considered and wise opinions. Clearly, this Vice President could be India’s next ‘wise President’.

Diplomat, academic, strategic thinker, peacemaker…
Ansari is a man of many parts. He has been a distinguished diplomat with a sophisticated understanding of the world and India’s potential role in it (he was Ambassador in UAE, Australia, Afghanistan, Iran and Saudi Arabia) an outstanding academic (Visiting Professor at Jawaharlal Nehru University and Distinguished Fellow at the Observer Research Foundation), able administrator (Vice-Chancellor of Aligarh Muslim University), well-known strategic thinker (member of the National Security Advisory Board, and co-Chairman, India-U.K. Round Table) and a great scholar (author of a number of books). He has also been very active in the India-Pakistan track-two forums and has always put his best foot forward in advocating sustainable peace between the two countries. Ansari was seen as a sincere peacemaker and honest statesman in the Indo-Pak track-two circuits. While he always kept India’s national interest in mind in his interactions at the track-two meetings, he never came across as an irrational jingoist.  Ansari always had a solution whenever the two sides found themselves in a diplomatic impasse. He is a man of great intelligence who has exhibited exceptional skills at consensus building and excellent grasp of complex political debates, domestic and international.
My own interactions with Ansari were during my stint at the ORF and in the track-two circuits. Though far senior in age and stature, he always showed a sense of egalitarianism in dealing with his younger colleagues. With his intimate knowledge of international affairs especially the West Asian region, he was truly a fountain of wisdom and forward thinking at ORF. As a celebrated author of a number of academic books and scholarly articles, both the academic and the strategic communities hold him in high esteem. His caliber as a great statesman was once again witnessed by the nation in the manner in which he has been chairing the Rajya Sabha sessions with impartiality and great aplomb for the last five years.

The importance of a visionary Rashtrapati
We in India are accustomed to think that whoever becomes the President will not make much of a difference. That is a popular misnomer. At a time when India is passing through an era of political turbulence caused by widespread corruption and mal-governance, and political uncertainty created by weak coalition governments, this country deserves a Rashtrapati who can boost its morale and give it the much needed moral leadership and wise counsel. The people of India are in need of a Rashtrapati who they can look up to for inspiration and guidance. Indeed, it is the absence of such a visionary statesman in the Raisina Hill that drove the multitude of disillusioned Indians to Anna Hazare and the ilk. There is no doubt that Hamid Ansari is someone who can rise to the occasion and restore the lost stature of India’s Presidency and lead the country through these troubled and cynical times with his wisdom and vision. 

There is at the moment no clarity about the positions of various national and regional political parties regarding the Presidential candidate and the nuances of number games. Corridors of power in New Delhi keenly await the several political bargains that are likely to unfold in the days to come. Whatever may be the nature of such games that the political parties are gearing up to play, the need of the hour is for them to realize that they should do everything to restore the lost stature of the President’s office. Political parties should resist the temptation of making ‘rubber-stamp’ Presidents out of non-descript, undeserving and unknown entities so as to suit their petty political agendas. While the President may not be non-political, his/her politics should be of a higher stature. This nation deserves that and Hamid Ansari can bring to the office precisely that.

(Source: Greater Kashmir, May 6, 2012. URL: http://www.greaterkashmir.com/news/2012/May/6/hamid-ansari-for-president-66.asp )

Respond to Pakistan’s peace overtures

Pakistan is most likely looking for genuine strategic accommodation with India

STATECRAFT BY HAPPYMON JACOB

In response to Pakistan’s repeated calls and signals for peace-making, foreign policy mandarins in New Delhi seem to be behaving like a bunch of peace conservatives. This peace conservatism could be a result of a number of factors: lack of trust, dialogue-fatigue with Islamabad, domestic political preoccupations, or hard-nosed strategic considerations. At worst, New Delhi is ignoring Islamabad’s calls for peace; at best it is giving Pakistani peace initiatives a selective treatment wherein it wants to talk about one item and not another. 

Pakistani peace initiatives 
Recent meetings between Indian and Pakistani Commerce ministers Anand Sharma and Makhdoom Amin, respectively, have resulted in a number of trade-related agreements between the two sides. While India has decided, in principle, to allow foreign direct investment from Pakistan, Pakistan is taking steps to finalise a system of “negative list” for trade with India.  Both the sides have agreed to open branches of banks in each other’s countries, set up the India-Pakistan Business Council with co-chairs from both sides, and to ease visa rules for business travel. 

Rawalpindi’s signaling 
Increasing trade ties may be seen by ‘security-traditionalists’ as secondary issues between the two sides. Lets therefore look at some recent security-related developments.  Consider the recent statement of Pakistan’s Army Chief immediately after the Siachen avalanche that killed over 135 Pakistani soldiers. He is reported to have said: “All issues should be resolved and peaceful co-existence is very necessary for both countries. There is no doubt about that," he also hoped that the Siachen issue is "resolved so that both the countries don't have to pay the cost". Kayani’s statement assumes significance for two reasons: he is not known to be a very India-friendly Pak General, and, more importantly, his words count in Pakistan. Hence the statement on the need to have “peaceful coexistence” with India coming from Kayaniis of great significance.  After all, Rawalpindi is not known for pitching for Indo-Pak peace. 

Sharif, Khar and Zardari…and Agni 
Indeed, even before Kayani made the above statement, Pakistan’s former Prime Minister and leader of the Opposition, Nawaz Sharif, had gone even further in his recommendation. He had said that Pakistan should lead the withdrawal from Siachen Glacier, and that India would then automatically follow suit. Pakistan foreign minister Hina Rabbani Khar also reportedly said that Pakistan should review troop deployments in Siachen.  Indeed, she also went on to argue, to quote The Nation newspaper of Pakistan, “Islamabad now trusts New Delhi more than ever before and believes the Kashmir dispute cannot be a roadblock”. 

Pakistan president Zardari’s day-long visit to Indian on April 8 should also be seen as part of this growing chorus in Pakistan to better relations with India. While nothing greatly substantial may have been achieved during his brief visit, it was symbolic of Islamabad’s intentions vis-à-vis India. I was also surprised to note that there weren’t any aggressive reaction from Pakistan when India recently test-fired its nuclear-capable ICBM, Agni-V. 

How to view these developments? How should we put these developments in proper perspective? Considering that the Indian response to most of these peace overtures from Pakistan has been lukewarm, if not disinterested, I imagine that ‘peace conservatism’ is the dominant tendency in today’s New Delhi. This ‘peace conservatism’ could be due to three inter-related reasons. One, New Delhi may reason that Islamabad’s peace initiatives are tactical in nature and they do not reflect a real change of strategic thinking in Islamabad, and certainly not in Rawalpindi. They are just buying time. Secondly, Pakistani peace initiatives are also likely to be seen by peace conservatives in New Delhi as an embattled country’s desperate moves. Given Pakistan’s continuing fall from glory in the eyes of the comity of nations, one way to convince the international community that Pakistan is serious about peace and stability is to talk peace with India. This is seasonal at best and when things get better at the international front, Pakistan will be back to its old games. Thirdly, it could also be argued that by talking peace with India, Pakistan is indulging in its age-old trick of creating a political smokescreen for strategic advantages. In other words, talking peace with India is a Pakistani ploy to lull India into complacence: remember what the Pakistani army was doing when the peace deal was being put together in Lahore in 1999? 

However, I think the opposite is true.  I tend to think that Pakistan is most likely looking for genuine strategic accommodation with India. It has realized that many of its anti-India grand strategies have terribly failed and hence it wants to resolve its outstanding conflicts with India. Also Pakistan is faced with a two-front situation and hence wants to lessen the security burden on itself. I also believe that these Pakistani peace initiatives will have long-term strategic implications. However, even if one were to think that these are tactical (hence to be reversed in the long-term) measures from the Pakistani side, which I believe is the worst-case scenario, there is no reason to think that tactical measures will have absolutely no strategic implications at all: indeed, often it so happens that the tactical measures states adopt do lead to strategic outcomes. Hence even if New Delhi wants to go by the worst-case scenario argument, it should positively respond to Pakistani peace overtures and get them to sign peace deals with it on all outstanding issues. And if Pakistan, in future, reverses its peace deals with India, it would have disastrous consequences for itself, as is witnessed by history. 

The moment is ripe for some definitive action on the India-Pakistan front and so why not start from Siachen? New Delhi should positively respond to the Siachen “offers” by Kayani, Sharrief and Khar. It should not heed to the ever-pessimistic analysis of peace conservatives in New Delhi. The fact is that both Islamabad and Rawalpindi have signaled India that they want to make peace with India. Remember, it is not often that we hear both Islamabad and Rawalpindi talking to India in one voice.

(Source: Greater Kashmir, April 22, 2012. URL: http://www.greaterkashmir.com/news/2012/Apr/22/respond-to-pakistan-s-peace-overtures-16.asp )

Non-violent state and not-so-non-violent society

The fact is that tolerance to violence is thinly separated from its actual commission

STATECRAFT BY HAPPYMON JACOB

Perhaps all societies have internal contradictions; perhaps human beings themselves have contradictory steaks in them. I do not know that for sure yet, but I do know that there are a lot of internal contradictions within our society, the Indian society. For one, we have a self-proclaimed non-violent state, which has consistently maintained a defensive posture towards the international system, and yet the state of non-violence inside the state is not very laudable. Two recent instances triggered me to reflect on this issue in a more self-critical manner: India’s vote against Sri Lanka at the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC), which I justified in my column last week, and the controversial child custody case in Norway involving an Indian family.

The non-violent state
India is a self-proclaimed non-violent and defensive country. It has been averse to the use of aggression against other states - both now and historically. Our conventional as well as nuclear weapons are guided by defensive intentions, doctrines and postures. Modern India has never, with the honorable exception of 1971, projected force outside its territorial boundaries even when it had clear incentives, reasons and international encouragement to do so. Indeed, India even refused to use force against a particular neighboring country even when aggressively provoked by it, time and again.

The Indian state has also historically condemned all acts of aggression against small powers by big ones in the international system. India is convinced that imperialism and colonialism are bad ideas and has been consistent in its disapproval of them. We are also against any form of discrimination in the international system and we have always spoken up against human rights violations elsewhere. That said, there is a clear domestic-international divide in our discourse on non-violence.

The blinders of our mind and domestic violence
We are very upset about the violation of Tamil people’s human rights in Sri Lanka and hence voted against Colombo in UNHRC, and yet we did almost nothing when over 100 people were killed in Kashmir by our own security forces. Some people did react, but I would call that a much toned-down reaction for it was much less in intensity in comparison to how we have reacted to what happened in, say, Sudan, Egypt or Somalia. We look the other way when the Indian state wages a war against the Maoist-infested central Indian jungles even though we know that one of the major reasons why a lot of tribals there take to arms is because the state has provided them with nothing but many forms of structural violence. We are often tolerant towards custody killings, police brutality and often ask for public – extra-judicial – hangings/punishment of criminals without a trial forgetting that societies cannot wish away their responsibility in creating the social environment in which a crime gets committed.

How many of us are aware of the dehumanizing living and psychological conditions inside our prisons that often house more under-trials than convicts? Many of us believe that it is ok for ‘criminals’ to be treated like that for they are criminals after all, aren’t they? I often remind myself of what Dostoevsky once said: “The degree of civilization in a society can be judged by entering its prisons”.

The fact is that tolerance to violence is thinly separated from its actual commission. The state of non-violence within us and in our society is appalling and yet we preach to the international community on the need to avoid violence. We voted against Colombo: what would be the reaction of our society – forget the state – if some country were to table a resolution in UNHRC against New Delhi on human rights violations in Kashmir?

We do have an image problem. We just don’t like anyone telling us that we are wrong. We sit in judgment of the US about the condition of prisons in Guantanamo bay (apart from its legality etc.). What if they were to tell us improve your prisons first!

The castes of our mind and the double-talk on discrimination
We talked about nuclear apartheid that the west was practicing against us for a long time. However, today the West accepts India as part of the global non-proliferation regime and so we don’t invoke the term ‘nuclear apartheid’ when the West metes out the same treatment to Iran. Isn’t the age-old caste system – widely prevalent in the Hindu society and even in the Muslim and Christian societies even though in smaller measure – the most abhorrent kind of structural violence existing in the contemporary Indian society? We know that and yet we still proudly flaunt our caste (or hide them with shame)!

There are also other castes of mind that are in operation in our societies. We still live bounded by our “dear” feudal social structures even in the most modern of our cities. We talk about the need to pump in more and more resources into our IITs and IIMs to make them more and more world-class but hardly anyone is talking about the poor Sarkari schools. Our castes of mind are stronger than we think they are!

The non-self-reflective moral outrage
When the Norwegian child protection authorities recently took away two children from their Indian parents alleging that they were not being well-looked after by their parents, the high and mightly in New Delhi got involved with the case and the Indian media and civil society seethed with anger. They cried foul and even accused the Norwegian government of racial discrimination.

I wish our politicians, officials, media, page-three celebrities and civil societies give our children at least a fraction of the focus they gave to the two “Indian” children in Norway. If only we spent some more resources to take care of our children begging in the streets, if only we gave proper education and shelter to our child labourers, if only we showed more outrage when we see the millions of uncared for children in our midst!

What is even sadder is that we even go to the extent of justifying child labour saying, “if these children work they can at least find something to eat and get a place to sleep”. How many of us have young children working in our own homes? I think it is a ridiculous and hypocritical argument to say that by letting children work we are doing them a favour. The fact is that we must force our governments to spend more resources on taking care of these children rather than sending diplomats to Oslo to take care of the ‘Indian’ children there or buying more and more weapons every year.

(Source: Greater Kashmir, April 15, 2012 URL: http://www.greaterkashmir.com/news/2012/Apr/15/non-violent-state-and-not-so-non-violent-society-6.asp )

Implications of India’s UNHRC vote

If India wants to be counted as a major power it will have to make up its mind on important global issues

STATECRAFT BY HAPPYMON JACOB

For some time I was unable to make up my mind regarding my own personal response to India’s vote against Sri Lanka at the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) on March 22nd. Frankly, I was debating what kind of national interest I should keep in mind when framing my response - enlightened national interest or strategic interest of the country? After much debating, I have now made up my mind. New Delhi did the right thing by voting against Colombo. Let me tell you why.

First of all, let me examine the rationale of those who vehemently argued that New Delhi should side with Colombo especially at a time when the Euro-Atlantic political community seemed to have been clearly all out against the Sri Lankan government on the issue of Human Right abuses and war crimes.

India would, proponents of such a view argued, lose its traditionally strong diplomatic relationship and strategic leverage with the Sri Lankan government if it voted against Colombo. Being on the right side of the Sri Lankan government is of great significance at this point of time all the more because of the Chinese forays into Sri Lanka. I was in Colombo recently and the increasing Chinese presence there should be seen to be believed. Not only do they have an economic presence in the island nation but also strategic presence. India’s vote against Colombo (and Chinese vote in favour) is likely to deepen this Sino-Sri Lankan strategic partnership. Conspiracy theorists have also argued that it is the Chinese closeness to the Sri Lankan regime that the Americans wanted to target and hence the UNHRC resolution..

The other argument made by critics of the Indian decision is that India should not abide by the western (read American) human rights standards. They argue that the Indian vote shows that New Delhi has finally started acting under the directions of Washington on key international issues where India’s voice matters. What else, they ask, can explain the fact that India did not respond in the same manner when it had to make up its mind on human rights issues in Sudan, Belarus, Turkmenistan, North Korea etc? And this vote has now created a precedent for India and whenever a similar situation arises again it will be forced by the West vote as per their directives. Bad precedent it is, the argument goes.

More importantly, the fact that India has now taken a stand on human rights issues with regard to other countries will mean that India will be bound by the same standards on human rights situations from now on. In other words, other countries will now talk about human rights abuses in Kashmir, and India will not be able to hide under the classic argument of “non-interference in internal affairs”.

I am not going to critique each of the above-mentioned reasons. Rather, I will explain my reasons for arguing that Indian decision to vote against Sri Lanka is laudable. First of all, let’s look at the vote from an enlightened strategic interest. The fact that India has been pushing hard to become a permanent member of the UN Security Council and wants to be treated as an emerging global power simply means that India has to adopt a new behavior pattern – increased power presupposes increased responsibilities. If India wants to be counted as a major power it will have to make up its mind on important global issues. It would be impossible to be a free-riding great power.

It is also important to note that a country’s foreign policy can not be based only on material considerations. Normative considerations need to form an important aspect of India’s external outlook and policy. Respect for human rights is a good normative consideration irrespective of whether or not the western countries have been talking about it. Sure, India can have its own version of human rights. But you can’t be criticizing the western notions of human rights standards just because they are western. Do we have an alternative conception of human rights? If so, please bring them on board and discuss it with the rest of the world. India can not afford to go on criticizing the western human rights standards when it is unwilling to articulate its alternative version of human rights standards.

The fact is that the Sri Lankan government grossly violated human rights and killed thousands of Tamil civilians in the final stages of the anti-LTTE campaign. There is no denying of that. And that needs to be condemned. More importantly, there is only triumphalism in today’s Colombo rather than remorse or any attempt at bringing justice and succor to the Tamil population in the country. Even to this day those speaking against the Sri Lankan government’ policies continue to disappear in “white vans without number plates”. This should not be allowed to continue.

Does India have the moral standing to sit in judgment of human rights violations in other countries when there are number of commissions of such acts within India itself? Of course, if India judges other countries on the basis of certain human rights standards, it will also be judged by others on the same standards. You can’t get away from that. But so what? I think it is time that India as a nation acknowledged that we have violated human rights of our own people on many occasions and that we regret it. And let’s say that we will make sure that such instances will not be allowed to repeat in future, rather than trying to find cover under the vague and much-embattled notion of sovereignty and the principle of “non-interference in the internal affairs of other counties”. Its time India adopted new standards of human rights for itself and others.

(Source: Greater Kashmir April 8, 2012. URL: http://greaterkashmir.com/news/2012/Apr/8/implications-of-india-s-unhrc-vote-28.asp.

My views on the emerging security situation in Afghanistan

My interview on Rajaya Sabha TV on the security situation in Afghanistan

World Panorama Episode 12

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YK2yYHucbnk&list=PL9E8D2AED720ECC2B&index=12&feature=plpp_video

My Views on Pakistan...

My Interview on Rajya Sabha TV on Pakistan (World panorama Episode 2)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VtJTx7-BLGo

New Delhi’s forgetfulness

Kashmir just happens to be right on top of Government of India’s ‘to forget’ list!

STATECRAFT BY HAPPYMON JACOB

Like human beings, sentient and forgetful, states (governments, to be more accurate) also sometimes tend to forget or pretend so. The (successive) government(s) of India has a habit of forgetting things: issues, promises, duties and priorities. This is not only regarding the question of Kashmir, but about almost everything that needs political courage and willingness. Kashmir just happens to be right on top of Government of India’s ‘to forget’ list!

Some of the major preconditions that New Delhi had stated from time to time to take steps to resolve the Kashmir conflict are the following: Pakistan stops doing what it has been doing in Kashmir, things improve in Kashmir and that Kashmiri separatists be willing ready to negotiate less then perfect solutions (or move from their absolutist positions). New Delhi would argue that once these things happen and the stage is set, it would take steps to address the deeper political questions regarding the Kashmir conflict. Looking at the political developments in and around Kashmir these days, I a of the opinion that most of these pre-conditions have been more or less fulfilled thereby setting the stage ready for New Delhi to take the next steps.

Let’s examine these arguments in some detail. The internal situation in Kashmir has undergone a dramatic change. Cross-border infiltration into the Kashmir valley and the levels of violence there have come down drastically and this is borne out by the data provided by the Government itself. Things are getting back to ‘normal’ in Kashmir the way New Delhi wants it. The Kashmiri separatists are seemingly moving away from their puritanical stances. I am not just talking about Sajad Lone here whose mainstream political party, People’s Conference, is steadily gaining popularity in the Valley especially among the youth. Mirwaiz Umar Farooq, who has been referring to civic problems and political corruption in his recent Friday sermons, stated two days ago in Geneva that “APHC is willing to forgo international facilitation provided both the governments of India and Pakistan agree that the APHC leadership will be fully associated with the peace process at a later stage.” Yaseen Malik too has indicated time and again that he is not only willing to negotiate with New Delhi and but is also willing to look at all available options. Hardliner Syed Ali shah Geelani recently held a series of meetings in New Delhi with Indian leaders and members of Indian civil society perhaps realizing that his puritanical position does not have many takers anywhere including in Pakistan.

It is widely understood by now – and I have written about it at length in my earlier columns – that Pakistan has clearly changed its policy on Kashmir. The Indo-Pak exchanges on Kashmir are also reasonably positive. Indeed the contemporary Indo-Pak engagements on Kashmir are guided by the following baselines: that neither party will push for altering the existing borders; that they will try and increase greater linkages between the two sides of the erstwhile Princely state of J&K; Kashmir issue should not be allowed to play spoilsport in Indo-Pak relations; and that they will pick up the bilateral political dialogue from where it was left off in 2007 as and when they agree to start serious negotiations on Kashmir. This simply means that there are a number of Indo-Pak meeting points on J&K, which can be further worked on.

Moreover, Indo-Pak relations have also been steadily improving in the past few years. Number of Kashmir-specific CBMs were signed last year which are likely to be strengthened in the days to come. The recent visit of the Indian commerce minister Anand Sharma to Pakistan and the general improvement in Indo-Pak trade relations have to be seen as a step in the right direction. While Pakistan has been reducing the heat on Kashmir India is seen as reducing its anti-Pak rhetoric on Afghanistan. Indeed, after rubbing India on the wrong side by not inviting India to the 2010 Istanbul conference on Afghanistan, India was brought on board last year.

All this means that most of New Delhi’s prerequisites for initiating a political dialogue on Kashmir with the Kashmiris have since been met. And yet there seems to be no initiative from New Delhi to address the Kashmir question. Political pundits in New Delhi argue that given the impending elections in Pakistan and India and the domestic political turmoil in both the countries, it is unlikely that the two governments will initiate anything new on Kashmir. Given the fragile political existence that the UPA government has today, it would be very unwilling to touch the Kashmir issue. In fact, for months now, no one has talked about the Kashmir interlocutors and their report. It is almost as if New Delhi has forgotten the ‘K’ word. And this was the worst fear of the Kashmiris - that the Government of India will forget about Kashmir and move on with newer priorities when things cool down in and on Kashmir. While that can be seen as smart politics, the danger lies in the fact that the history of the insurgency in Kashmir shows that unforeseen incidents can sometimes destroy this fragile peace and all that has been ‘gained’ in and on Kashmir could then go completely waste.

(Source: Greater Kashmir, 18 March, 2012. URL: http://www.greaterkashmir.com/news/2012/Mar/18/new-delhi-s-forgetfulness-16.asp )