A Vision of United India

Chapter 1

Political unity in ancient India Introduction

It is widely accepted all over the world today that Indian civilization has achieved greatness in the things most important to human culture, that is, in the mental, spiritual, religious, intellectual, ethical, and aesthetic fields; and in all these matters when seen in the whole, and in its deeper intention there is revealed a great largeness and profundity of development and growth. In fact, one might say that there is revealed here not only a great civilization, but one of the half dozen greatest of which we still have an existing record.

But while all admit the greatness of the achievement of India in the things of the mind and the spirit, there is still a general perception both in India and abroad, that she has failed in life and that her culture has not resulted in a strong, successful or progressive organization of life as is shown to us by the Western civilizations. This charge weighs with an especial heaviness today because modern man, even modern cultured man, is, or tends to be to a degree quite unprecedented, a political, economic and social being valuing above all other things the efficiency of the outward existence and the things of the mind and spirit mainly, if not exclusively, for their aid to humanity's vital and mechanical progress. Modern man has not that regard of the ancients, which looked up towards the highest heights and regarded an achievement in the things of the mind and spirit with an unquestioning admiration or a deep veneration for its own sake as the greatest possible contribution to human culture and progress.

And while it must be admitted that this modern tendency is somewhat exaggerated, ugly and degrading in its exaggeration, inimical to humanity's spiritual evolution, it has this much truth behind it that while the first value of a culture is its power to raise and enlarge the internal man, the mind and the soul, its soundness is not complete unless it has also shaped his external existence and made of it a rhythm of advance towards high and great ideals. This is the true sense of progress and there must be as part of it, a sound political, economic and social life, a power and efficiency enabling a people to survive, to grow and to move securely towards a collective perfection, and a living elasticity and responsiveness that will give room for a constant advance in the outward expression of the mind and the spirit. If a culture does not serve these ends, then there is evidently a defect somewhere either in its essential conceptions or in its application that will seriously detract from its claims to a complete and integral value. There must, therefore, be in any culture aiming at completeness, not only great and noble governing and inspiring ideas, but a harmony of forms and rhythms, a mould into which ideas and life can run and settle. This harmony of forms and rhythms is created by the political, social, and economic systems of the community.

A study of Indian history shows us that Indian culture had a sound political and economic system, which ensured its survival for more than five millenniums; it developed an organization that was admirable for stability and effective administration; it secured the communal order and liberties and the well being of the people under ancient conditions. At the same time, one cannot to fail to observe that this organization was neither able to create a lasting national and political unification of India nor secure her against foreign invasion. These invasions which lasted over a thousand years led first, to a very serious

Page 1

disruption of its institutions and finally, to a very long servitude. It is evident that there was a serious shortcoming somewhere in the political system.

In the first part of this book we shall make an attempt to analyse the causes for this failure. This study will have two aspects, the first being the study and analysis of the root causes for the failure of the unification of India in her early political history and second, India's failure to protect herself from foreign invasions in the later period of her political history. This second part has particular reference to the Muslim invasions and the British conquest. We believe that this study is not only important but that there is also an urgent need for it at the present juncture. A proper study and analysis of the failure could be of great help in the future unification of India, and this will be covered in the second part of the book.

The political history of India

History has shown that India had been subject to invasions right from the 3rd century BC. Starting with the invasion by the organized Persian Empire and then by Alexander in the pre-Christian eras, it was followed by a series of invasions till the advent of the Muslims. The Muslim invasion was followed by the British invasion and conquest till the year 1947.

We shall, therefore, divide the history of political India into four parts. First is the period from the ancient times till the advent of the Muslims; second is the period of the Muslim rule till the advent of the British, third is the period of the British rule and the last is the political history of independent India. In the first three periods, India was subject to invasions and each one of them was handled differently, sometimes with remarkable success and at other times with a certain amount of both success and failure. In the first period starting from the Persian invasions till the advent of the Muslims, the invaders were all absorbed and assimilated in India. In the next phase of the Muslim invasions, there was a great deal of assimilation, though incomplete, particularly in the field of religion. The third period was, really speaking, the first foreign conquest. However, here too, there was a certain amount of assimilation.

Each one of these periods has very important lessons for the student of political science and for the future unification of the Indian subcontinent. We shall now take up in some detail the different periods of political evolution in India.

The first period

The first period of the socio-political evolution passed through three stages: first, the simple Aryan community, then a period of long transition with a considerable variety of experimental formations in political structure and synthesis, and finally, the definite formation of the monarchical state coordinating all the complex elements of the communal life of the people into regional and imperial unities.

However, it is very important to note that through all the building and rebuilding of the Indian polity, there was one principle permanent at the base of construction. That was the principle of an organically self-determining communal life. It was self-determining not only in the mass by means of the machinery of the vote and a representative body erected on the surface, representative only of the political mind of a part of the nation, which is all that the modern system has been able to manage. It was a system self-determining in every pulse of its life and in each separate member of its existence. A free synthetic communal order was its character and the condition of liberty it aimed at was not so

Page 2

much an individual liberty as a communal liberty. This is one of the striking features of the Indian political system and we must keep it in mind right through our study.

This free, organic life was founded on the system of the self-governing village community. The people of a village, living mostly on agriculture, formed in the total a single religious, social, military and political body that governed itself in its assembly, samiti, under the leadership of the king. There was as yet no clear separation of functions or class division of labour.

This system sufficed as long as life was restricted to a small area, but as life evolved, and the communities grew larger and the pressure of new circumstances came into existence, a new system was called for. To meet this necessity, the Indian mind evolved the stable socio-religious system of the four orders. And in ancient India, the four-fold order was at once and inextricably, the religious, cultural, social, political and economic framework of the society. Within that framework, each order had its natural portion; it must be emphasised that in none of the fundamental activities was the share or portion of any of them exclusive.

Thus India created a political system, which gave her stability and a sound government based on the full participation of all the people. But this was not sufficient to protect her from foreign invasion. From the third century BC, she was subject to invasion after invasion and all these invasions came from the passes of the North West. The first invasion that took place was that of the Persian Empire and it was soon followed by the invasion of the Greeks led by Alexander.

The reasons of this weakness

One of the reasons for the historic weakness of the Indian peninsula and its being prone to repeated invasions was its vulnerability through the north-western passes. The Khyber and Bolan passes were the route taken by almost all the invaders to India. This weakness did not exist so long as ancient India extended northward far beyond the Indus, and the powerful kingdoms of Gandhara and Vahlika presented a firm bulwark against foreign invasion. But once they had gone down before the organised Persian Empire, the trans-Indus countries, ceasing to be part of India, ceased also to serve as her protection. Instead, they became the secure base for every successive invader.

The inroads made by Alexander brought home the magnitude of the danger to the political mind of India and as a consequence, from this time onward, we see poets, writers and political thinkers constantly upholding the imperial ideal or thinking out the means of its realisation. The immediate practical result was the rise of the Mauryan empire founded with remarkable swiftness by the statesmanship of Chanakya and constantly maintained or restored through eight or nine centuries, in spite of periods of weakness and disintegration.

Thus began the age of empires in India. All the empires that followed the Mauryan empire of Chandragupta Maurya, the Gupta empire and the Harsha empire, withstood foreign invasions and served the purpose for which they had been created - the saving of the Indian soil and Indian civilization from that immense flood of barbarian unrest. That unrest, which started in the 4th century AD threatened all the ancient stable cultures and finally proved too strong even for the highly developed Greco-Roman civilization and the vast and powerful Roman Empire. It was the same phenomenon that threw great masses of Teutons, Slavs, Huns, and Scythians to the east and south in India; it battered at the gates of India for many centuries, it effected certain inroads, but finally when it sank,

Page 3

the great edifice of Indian civilization still stood firm, great and secure. In fact, all these invaders were assimilated and absorbed into the Indian culture.

Thus the great empires in India served the purpose for which they had been created, but at the same time, it has to be noted that none of them lasted long enough to build up a sound and durable political unity. Each one of these empires lasted for a little more than a century, then disintegrated from within and was followed by another. This process continued for the whole period till the advent of the Muslims. Thus it might be said that the early political history of India is the story of a succession of empires, indigenous and foreign, each of them destroyed by centrifugal forces but each bringing the centripetal tendency nearer to its triumphant emergence. For the dream of a united India remained in the minds of the people. This dream started with the Mauryan Empire, and all the succeeding empires merely confirmed the dream that was to survive and echo again and again in centuries to come, the dream of a united India.

The causes of the failure

Let us now try to analyse the reasons for this failure to unite politically for a sufficiently and reasonably long time. And why in the end did the final collapse come about? These fluctuating movements in the political field, the tardiness, and the final collapse with the advent of the Muslims raise certain very important questions. Was there a fundamental incapacity in the political consciousness of the Indian people or were there other reasons and forces responsible for this situation? We shall try to answer these questions briefly in the following pages.

A great deal has been said and written in modern times about the inability of Indians to unite. It is said that there was never a common patriotism and that this patriotism has only now been created by the influence of Western culture; it is also said that the divisions imposed by religion and caste were the great obstacles to unity and that these could be removed only by modernizing and westernising India. Admitting even in their full degree the force of these strictures - all of them are not altogether true or rightly stated or vitally applicable to the matter - they are only symptoms and we have still to seek the deeper causes.

There are those who reply that the lack of Indian political unity was not really a failure; the argument put forward is that India was at least as big as Europe and that if Europe had not been able to unite for all these centuries, then how could we blame India for this failure? After all, India is as much a continent as Europe. The Indian subcontinent is practically almost as large as Europe containing a great number of peoples and the difficulties of forging unity have been as great or at least almost as considerable. In fact, the subcontinent is home to almost all the religions in the world and has a very large number of distinct and well-formed cultural and linguistic identities. And if it is no proof of the insufficiency of Western civilization or of the political incapacity of the European peoples that the idea of European unity should have remained for so long an ineffective dream on the ideal plane and has only just managed to succeed, it is not just to apply a different system of values to the much clearer ideal of unity or at least of unification, the persistent attempt at its realisation and the frequent near approach to success that marked the history of the Indian peoples.

While there is some force in this argument, it is not in the form entirely apposite; the analogy is far from perfect and the conditions were not quite of the same order. The peoples of Europe are nations very sharply divided in their collective personality, and

Page 4

their spiritual unity in the Christian religion or even their cultural unity in a common European civilization was never so real and complete as the ancient spiritual and cultural unity of India. The spiritual unity centred on Christendom was not the centre of their life, nor even its basis or firm ground of existence, but only its general air or circumambient atmosphere. And this is because the centre of gravity of Europe lies not in its spiritual or cultural centre but much more in its economic and political centre. It is only the increasing community of political movements and the now total economic interdependence of the whole of Europe that has at last created the European Union. It needed two devastating World Wars to impress on the European peoples the imperative necessity of a European Union. Whether it will create a lasting unity, and overcome the mentality born of an age of long separatism remains to be seen.

The psychological unity in India

In India, however, the situation was very different; it was more a cultural and spiritual unity than a political and economical unity. For in India, the spiritual and cultural unity was made complete at a very early time and it became the very basis of life of all this great surge of humanity between the Himalayas and the two seas. The peoples of ancient India were not so much distinct nations sharply divided from each other by a separate political and economic life; rather, they were sub-peoples of a great spiritual and cultural nation itself firmly separated physically, from other countries by the seas and the mountains and from other nations by its strong sense of difference, its peculiar common religion and culture.

The whole basis of the Indian mind is its spiritual and inward turn; its propensity has always been to seek the things of the spirit and the inner being first and foremost and to look at all else as secondary, dependent, to be handled and determined in the light of the higher knowledge; the outer world was seen as an expression, a preliminary field or aid to the deeper spiritual aim. In other words, this approach led to a tendency to create whatever it had to create first on the inner plane and afterwards in its other and outer aspects.

The early mind of India understood the essential character of this problem. The Vedic Rishis and their successors made it their chief work to found a spiritual basis of Indian life and to effect the spiritual and cultural unity of the many races and peoples of the peninsula.

What were the methods adopted by the ancients to bring about this spiritual and cultural unity?

Observing the religious and spiritual tendency of the Indian people, the ancient seers adopted a combination of different psychological and practical methods to bring about spiritual and cultural unity.

As a first step, they created sacred religious places and distributed them all over the country; some of the places are in Haridwar, Prayag near Allahabad, Gaya, Nasik, Dwarka, Puri, Kumbakonam and Rameswaram.

Another method they adopted was the repetition of the sacred text, which every Indian had to use every time he went to bathe:

Gangecha Jamunechaiva Godavari Sarasvatee

Narmada Sindhu Kaveri jalesmin sannidhim kuru

And it means: May the Ganges, the Yamuna. the Godavari, the Sarasvatee, the Narmada, the Sindhu and the Kaveri enter into this water.

Page 5

These are the great rivers of the Indian sub-continent and it is along the course of the great rivers that the sacred stream of Indian culture flowed all over the land.

In addition, there were the legends of the gods and the two great epics - the Ramayana and the Mahabharata -, which were read and moved people in every part of India. These legends were known by every Indian family and created a deep psychological bond among the people.

A very important factor in the unification of the people of India was language. The Sanskrit language was not only a strong unifying force; it was also a powerful educating one. In the words of the eminent historian, Suniti Kumar Chatterjee: "Sanskrit looms large behind all Indian languages, Aryan and non-Aryan. It is inseparable from Indian history and culture. Sanskrit is India. The progressive Unification of the Indian peoples into a single nation can correctly be described as the Sanskritisation of India". Finally, there was the universal reverence of the Vedas all over the country from the extreme North to the tip of South India.

Thus from a very early period of Indian history, the Indian subcontinent had fully realised a very deep, though complex kind of organic unity at the back of all the apparent diversities and multiplicities of the land and the people.

All these created a feeling that India was not just a geographical entity or a collection of people merely having the same religion and language. The Indian nation became a living being with a distinct personality, a dynamic psychological entity.

It is this feeling that has been expressed by poets and writers throughout the ages. In modern times, this was the whole meaning of Bandemataram and is beautifully expressed in the following words of the Mother and Sri Aurobindo.

 India - a living personality

"Mother India is not a piece of earth; she is a Power, a Godhead, for all nations have such a Devi supporting their separate existence, and keeping it in being. Such beings are as real and more permanently real than the men they influence, but they belong to a higher plane, are part of the cosmic consciousness and being and act here on earth by shaping the human consciousness on which they exercise their influence". 1

"Each nation is a Shakti or power of the evolving spirit in humanity and lives by the principle, which it embodies. India is the Bharata Shakti, the living energy of a great spiritual conception, and fidelity to it is the very principle of her existence. For by its virtue alone she has been one of the immortal nations; this alone has been the secret of her amazing persistence and perpetual force of survival and revival". 2

"A Nation is a living personality; it has a soul, even like the human individual. The soul of a nation is a conscious being, a formation out of the Divine Consciousness and in direct contact with it. It is not merely the sum total of its individuals that compose it, but a collective personality of which the individuals are, as it were, cells, like the cells of a living and conscious organism. The soul of a nation is indeed conscious; it knows its raison d'etre, its life purpose, its destiny, the role it has to play in the divine scheme as the divine instrument. And it has a will and through this will it will inevitably find and fulfil itself. And just like the soul of a man, the nation's soul is behind all the movements that form its external life, supporting, building, guiding its political, economic, social and

Page 6

cultural make-up. The individual can know and come in contact with the nation's soul in and through his own soul".3

"Even as the individual has a soul which is its true self, governing more or less openly his destiny, each nation too has its soul which is its true self moulding its destiny from behind the veil: it is the soul of the country, the national genius, the spirit of the people, the centre of national aspiration, the fountain-head of all that is beautiful, noble, great and generous in the life of a country. True patriots feel its presence as a tangible reality. It is this which has been made almost into a divine being and all who love their country call it "Mother India" (Bharat Mata), and it is to her that they daily address a prayer for the welfare of their country". 4

The need of a political unification

We thus see that from the very ancient times, India had developed a cultural and spiritual unity. It is on this firm basis that the unity of India has lasted through the centuries.

But a mere spiritual and cultural unity was not, and could not be, a sufficient basis for a vigorous national life. A durable political unification was needed.

The ancient seers of India were not blind to this necessity. Observing that the constant tendency of the clan life of the Aryan peoples was to consolidate under confederacies and hegemonies of varying proportions, -'such as vairajya, samrajya', - they saw that to follow this line to its full conclusion was the right way. They evolved therefore, the ideal of the Chakravarti. The Chakravarti was the symbol of a uniting imperial rule - uniting without destroying the autonomy of India's many kingdoms and peoples, from sea to sea. This ideal was supported, like everything else in Indian life, with a spiritual and religious sanction. They set up as the outward symbol of this unity, the Aswamedha and Rajasuya sacrifices, and made it the dharma of a powerful King, his royal and religious duty, to attempt the fulfilment of this ideal. He was not allowed by the Dharma to destroy the liberties of the peoples who came under his sway nor to dethrone or annihilate their royal houses or replace their archons by his officials and governors. His function was to establish a suzerain power possessed of sufficient military strength to preserve internal peace and to combine at need the full forces of the country. And to this elementary function came to be added the ideal of the fulfilment and maintenance under a strong uniting hand of the Indian dharma, the right functioning of the spiritual, religious, ethical and social culture of India.

The full flowering of this ideal is seen in the great epics. The Mahabharata is the record of a legendary or, it may be, a historic attempt to establish such an empire, a dharmarajya or kingdom of the Dharma. There the ideal is pictured as so imperative and widely acknowledged that even the turbulent Shishupala is represented as justifying his submission and attendance at the Rajasuya sacrifice on the ground that Yudhisthira was carrying out an action demanded by the Dharma. And in the Ramayana we have an idealised picture of such a Dharmarajya, a settled universal empire. Here too, it is not an autocratic despotism but a universal monarchy supported by a free assembly of the city and provinces and of all the classes that is held up as the ideal, an enlargement of the monarchical state synthesizing the communal autonomies of the Indian system and maintaining the law and constitution of the Dharma.

Page 7

The Indian ideal of conquest

The ideal of conquest held up in ancient India was, therefore, not a destructive and predatory invasion, annihilating the organic freedom and the political and social institutions and exploiting the economic resources of the conquered peoples; rather, it was a sacrificial progression bringing with it a trial of military strength of which the result was easily accepted because defeat entailed neither humiliation nor servitude and suffering but merely a strengthening adhesion to a suzerain power concerned only with establishing the visible unity of the nation and the Dharma. The ideal and the purpose of the ancient Rishis is clear; it is evident that they saw the necessity of military and political utility and that of a unification of the divided and warring peoples of the land, but they saw also that it ought not to be secured at the expense of the free life of the regional peoples or of communal liberties. This could not be done by a centralized monarchy or a rigidly Unitarian imperial State. A hegemony or confederacy under an imperial head would be the nearest Western analogy to the conception they sought to impose on the minds of the people.

The consequences of this approach

Given this mentality and the consequent tendency to create from within outwards, it was inevitable that the unity India first created for herself would be a spiritual and cultural oneness. It could not be, to begin with, a political unification effected by an external rule centralized, imposed or constructed, as was done in Rome or ancient Persia, by a conquering kingdom or the genius of a military and organizing people. It cannot justly be said that this was a mistake or a proof of the unpractical turn of the Indian mind and that the single political body should have been created first and afterwards the spiritual unity could have securely grown up in the vast body of an Indian national empire.

In the words of Sri Aurobindo:

"The problem that presented itself at the beginning was that of a huge area containing more than a hundred kingdoms, clans, peoples, tribes, races, in this respect another Greece, but a Greece on an enormous scale, almost as large as modern Europe. As in Greece, a cultural Hellenic unity was necessary to create a fundamental feeling of oneness; here too and much more imperatively, a conscious spiritual and cultural unity of all these peoples was the first, the indispensable condition without which no enduring unity could be possible. The instinct of the Indian mind and of its great Rishis and founders of its culture was sound in this matter. And even if we suppose that an outward imperial unity like that of the Roman world could have been founded among the peoples of early India by military and political means, we must not forget that the Roman unity did not endure, that even the unity of ancient Italy founded by the Roman conquest and organization did not endure, and it is not likely that a similar attempt in the vast reaches of India without the previous spiritual and cultural basis would have been of an enduring character. It cannot be said either, even if the emphasis on spiritual and cultural unity be pronounced to have been too engrossing or excessive and the insistence on political and external unity too feeble, that the effect of this precedence has been merely disastrous and without any advantage. It is due to this original peculiarity, to this indelible spiritual stamp, to this underlying oneness amidst all diversities that if India is not yet a single organized political nation, she still survives and is still India".

It follows that with the cultural and spiritual oneness created by the ancients, it should have been easier to create a sound political unity. However vast the area and however

Page 8

many the practical difficulties, the creation of a political unity, ought therefore to have been effected more easily than in the case of Europe.

The difficulty and failure of Indian unification

The question, therefore, remains: Why then did India, despite this cultural and spiritual unity, fail to bring about a durable political unity?

We touch here on the secret of the difficulty and the ultimate failure in the problem of unifying ancient India. It could not be done by the ordinary means of a centralized uniform imperial State crushing out all that made for free divergence, local autonomies, established communal liberties. As a matter of fact, each time that an attempt was made in this direction, it failed after however long a term of apparent success One might even say that the guardians of India's destiny wisely compelled it to fail so that her inner spirit might not perish and her soul barter for an engine of temporary security, the deep sources of its life.

The ancient mind of India had the intuition of its need; its idea of an empire was a uniting rule that respected every existing regional and communal liberty, a rule that unnecessarily crushed out no living autonomy that brought about a synthesis of her life; its idea of empire was not based on a mechanical oneness.

But each time an attempt to find such a solution was made, a solution that might securely have evolved and found its true means and form and basis, it did not last. The difficulties were great, the conditions were not ripe, and there was instead an attempt to establish a single administrative empire.

The pressure of an immediate and external necessity dictated that endeavour; but it failed to achieve complete success in spite of its greatness and splendour. This was because it followed a trend that was not eventually compatible with the true turn of the Indian spirit. We have already seen that the underlying principle of the Indian politico-social system was a synthesis of communal autonomies, the autonomy of the village, of the town and capital city, of the caste, guild, family, religious community, regional unit. The state or kingdom or confederated republic was a means of holding together and synthesizing in a free and living organic system these autonomies. The imperial problem was to synthesize again these states, peoples, nations - effecting their unity but respecting their autonomy -into a larger free and living organism. A system had to be found that would maintain peace and oneness among its members, secure safety against external attack and totalise the free play and evolution, in its unity and diversity, in the uncoerced and active life of all its constituent communal and regional units, of the soul and body of Indian civilization and culture, the functioning on a grand and total scale of the Dharma.

This was the sense in which the earlier mind of India understood the problem. But the administrative empires of later times accepted it only partially. And its trend was very slowly and almost subconsciously, what the centralizing tendency must always be, if not actively to destroy, still to wear down and weaken the vigour of the subordinated autonomies. The consequence was that whenever the central authority was weak, the persistent principle of regional autonomy, essential to the life of India, reasserted itself to the detriment of the artificial unity established and not, as it should have done, for the harmonious intensification and freer but still united functioning of the total life. The imperial monarchy tended also to wear down the vigour of the free assemblies, and the result was that the communal units instead of being elements of a united strength, became isolated and dividing factors. The village community preserved something of its vigour,

Page 9

but had no living connection with the supreme authority and, losing the larger national sense, was willing to accept any indigenous or foreign rule that respected its own self-sufficient narrow life. The religious communities came to be imbued with the same spirit. The castes, multiplying themselves without any true necessity or true relation to the spiritual or economic need of the country, became mere sacrosanct, conventional divisions, a power for isolation and not, as they originally were, factors of a harmonious functioning of the total life-synthesis. It is not true that in ancient India, the caste divisions were an obstacle to the united life of the people or that they were even in later times, an active power for political strife and disunion - except indeed at the end, in the final decline, and especially during its later history - but they did become a passive force of social division and stagnant compartmentalism, obstructive to the reconstitution of a free and actively united nation.

We may thus summarise the chief cause of the failure.

The cause of the failure lay deeper down; it lay in the dissidence between the manner in which the problem was or ought to have been envisaged. The actual turn given to the endeavour was a contradiction of the peculiar mentality of the people.

Conclusion

The Indian people had developed a sound political system, which ensured the participation of the whole community in all activities. It was based on the principle of an organic self -determining communal life.

The subcontinent of India was also united on a sound cultural and spiritual basis. This unity was based on the geographical unity of India, the Sanskrit language, the religion of Hinduism and the common reverence for the Vedas.

With the advent of invaders from across the Northwest border, the necessity of a strong political centre began to manifest itself. This took the form of empires. The empires of India saved India from the foreign invasions; in fact all the invaders were assimilated by Indian culture and civilization and they became an integral part of the nation. But at the same time, the centralizing tendency, which came inevitably with the formation of empires, subconsciously led to the wearing out of the freedom and vigour of the subordinate units. The result was that whenever the empire became weak, the regional tendency arose with vigour and weakened the unity of the nation. And this happened because the empires suffered by the inevitable haste, violence and artificiality of its first construction to meet a pressing need; that prevented it from being the deliberate, natural and steady evolution in the old solid Indian manner of the truth of her deepest ideal. As a consequence, the attempt to establish a centralized imperial monarchy brought with it not a free synthesis but a breaking down of regional autonomies. Although their institutes and customs were respected in accordance with the Indian principle, and at first, even their political institutions were not wholly annulled but brought within the imperial system; these could not really flourish under the shadow of the imperial centralization. The free peoples of the ancient Indian world began to disappear, their broken materials serving afterwards to create the now existing Indian races. And it can be concluded that although for a long time, the great popular assemblies continued to remain in vigour, their function in the end tended to become more mechanical, and their vitality to decline and suffer. The urban republics tended to become more and more mere municipalities of the organized kingdom or empire. The habits of mind created by the imperial centralization and the weakening or disappearance of the more dignified free popular institutions of the past

Page 10

created a sort of spiritual gap; there was on the one side the administered content with any government that gave them security and did not interfere too much with their religion, life and customs, and on the other, the imperial administration beneficent and splendid no doubt, but no longer that living head of a free and living people contemplated by the earlier and the true political mind of India. These results became prominent only with the decline, but they were there in seed and rendered almost inevitable by the adoption of a mechanical method of unification. The advantages gained were those of a stronger and more coherent military action and a more regularized and uniform administration, but these could not compensate in the end for the impairment of the free organic diversified life which was the true expression of the mind and temperament of the people.

The fall from the rule of Dharma

A worse result was a certain fall from the high ideal of the Dharma. In the struggle of kingdom with kingdom for supremacy, a habit of Machiavellian statecraft replaced the nobler ethical ideals of the past; aggressive ambition was left without any sufficient spiritual or moral check and there was a coarsening of the national mind in the ethics of politics and government. The signs of these were already in evidence in the draconic penal legislation of the Maurya times and in Asoka's sanguinary conquest of Orissa. The deterioration was held in abeyance by a religious spirit and high intelligence for a long time and did not come to a head till more than a thousand years later. It was then that it came into full force in the worst period of the decline when unrestrained mutual aggression, unbridled egoism of princes and leaders, total lack of political principle and capacity for effective union, want of a common patriotism and traditional indifference of the common people to a change of rulers gave the whole of the vast peninsula into the grasp of a handful of merchants from across the seas. But however tardy the worst results in their coming, and however redeemed and held in check at first by the political greatness of the empire and a splendid intellectual and artistic culture and by frequent spiritual revivals, India had already lost, by the time of the later Guptas, the chance of a natural and perfect flowering of her true mind and innermost spirit in the political life of her peoples.

It was at such a time that the Muslim invasions took place.

We may thus conclude that the political unity of India cannot be achieved unless it is based on a sound cultural and spiritual unity. For, spiritual unity is a large and flexible thing and does not insist like the political and external on centralization and uniformity; rather it lives diffused in the system and permits readily a great diversity and freedom of life. In the words of Sri Aurobindo:

"After all the spiritual and cultural is the only enduring unity and it is by a persistent mind and spirit much more than by an enduring physical body and outward organization that the soul of a people survives. This is a truth the positive Western mind may be unwilling to understand or concede, and yet its proofs are written across the whole story of the ages. The ancient nations, contemporaries of India, and many younger born than she are dead and only their monuments left behind them. Greece and Egypt exist only on the map and in name, for it is not the soul of Hellas or the deeper nation-soul that built Memphis, which we now find at Athens or at Cairo. Rome imposed a political and a purely outward cultural unity on the Mediterranean peoples, but their living spiritual and cultural oneness she could not create, and therefore the east broke away from the west,

Page 11

Africa kept no impress of the Roman interlude, and even the western nations still called Latin could offer no living resistance to barbarian invaders and had to be reborn by the infusion of a foreign vitality to become modern Italy, Spain and France. But India still lives and keeps the continuity of her inner mind and soul and spirit with the India of the ages. Invasion and foreign rule, the Greek, the Parthian and the Hun, the robust vigour of Islam, the levelling steam-roller heaviness of the British occupation and the British system, the enormous pressure of the Occident have not been able to drive or crush the ancient soul out of the body her Vedic Rishis made for her. At every step, under every calamity and attack and domination, she has been able to resist and survive either with an active or a passive resistance. And this she was able to do in her great days by her spiritual solidarity and power of assimilation and reaction, expelling all that would not be absorbed, absorbing all that could not be expelled, and even after the beginning of the decline she was still able to survive by the same force, abated but not slayable, retreating and maintaining for a time her ancient political system in the south, throwing up under the pressure of Islam Rajput and Sikh and Mahratta to defend her ancient self and its idea, persisting passively where she could not resist actively, condemning to decay each empire that could not answer her riddle or make terms with her, awaiting always the day of her revival. And even now it is a similar phenomenon that we see in process before our eyes. And what shall we say then of the surpassing vitality of the civilization that could accomplish this miracle and of the wisdom of those who built its foundation not on things external but on the spirit and the inner mind and made a spiritual and cultural oneness the root and stock of her existence and not solely its fragile flower, the eternal basis and not the perishable superstructure "?5

Page 12

Chapter 2

The advent of the Muslims

Later, however, sometime in the middle of the eighth century when the empires in India had grown weak, the regional spirit reawoke in separatist movements, disintegrating the unity or breaking down its large extension over most of the North. It left behind a certain number of great kingdoms in the east, south and centre and a more confused mass of peoples in the northwest. This was the weak point at which the Muslims broke in and rebuilt within a brief period another empire in the north of India; but this empire was not of the Indian type, it was an empire of the Central Asiatic type.

This was the beginning of the second phase, which put a tremendous pressure both on the Indian political system and its culture. Indeed, it was the beginning of a very turbulent period in Indian history.

As a result of the Muslim conquest, doubts have been cast on the political capacity of the Indian peoples. But first let us try and see why this conquest happened. It took place at a time when the vitality of ancient Indian life and culture, after at least two thousand years of activity and creation, had been exhausted for a time or was very near exhaustion; it needed breathing space to rejuvenate itself and this was done by the transference from Sanskrit to the popular tongues in the newly forming regional peoples.

The Hindu kingdoms and empires had resisted all the previous invasions with great success. But with the onset of the Muslim invasions, things took a different shape. No doubt, the Hindu kingdoms resisted, fought valiantly and hard but they finally succumbed. The struggle of the Hindus to resist the Muslim aggression into India was spread over a period of 600 years from 715 AD up to 1328 AD. This contrasts with the swift Muslim victories in Persia (Iran) over the Zoroastrian Sassanians and in Mesopotamia, Egypt and North Africa over the Romans (Byzantines). The Muslims could not subjugate India so easily. And even after subjugating different parts of the country, they were never able to rule it entirely. The next 400 years from 1328 up to 1720 were marked by a valiant and ceaseless struggle for independence by the Hindus to deliver India from Muslim rule.

It was the Rajputs who first led this struggle in North India followed by the Jats, Marathas and Sikhs. In the South, this struggle was embodied in the Vijayanagar Empire. This struggle for independence came to its peak when the Marathas under Shivaji almost brought to an end the Muslim domination of India.

The Muslim conquest was effected rapidly enough in the north, although it was not entirely complete there for several centuries, but the south long preserved its freedom as it had of old against the earlier indigenous empires. The Rajputs too maintained their independence until the time of Akbar and his successors and it was in the end, partly with the aid of the Rajput princes acting as their generals and ministers that the Moguls completed their sway over the east and the south. And this was again possible because the Mussulman domination ceased very rapidly to be a foreign rule. The vast mass of the Mussulmans in the country were, and are, Indians by race; only a very small admixture of Pathan, Turkish and Mogul blood took place, and even the foreign kings and nobles became almost immediately wholly Indian in mind, life and interest. If the race had really, like certain European countries, remained for many centuries passive, acquiescent

Page 13

and impotent under an alien sway, that would indeed have been a proof of a great inherent weakness; but the British rule was the first really continuous foreign rule that dominated India. The ancient civilization indeed underwent an eclipse and decline under the weight of a Central Asiatic religion and culture with which it failed to coalesce, but it survived its pressure, put its impact on it in many directions and it remains to this day alive even in decadence and capable of recovery, giving ample proof of a strength and soundness that is rare in the history of cultures.

And in the political field, it never ceased to throw up great rulers, statesmen, soldiers, and administrators. Its political genius then was not sufficient, coherent enough, or swift in vision and action, to withstand the Pathan, Mogul and European. But it was strong enough to survive and await every opportunity for revival; it made a bid for an empire under Rana Sanga, created the great kingdom of Vijayanagara, and held its own for centuries against Islam in the hills of Rajputana.

Characteristics of Muslim rule

Though the new Muslim rulers built upon the same economic foundations of the Hindu period, they aimed at total destruction of the social, cultural and religious structure as it then existed. In the early days of their reign, the Muslim rulers unleashed a reign of terror, the likes of which India had never before experienced in her history.

After the conquest of India, one of the very first acts of the Muslim invaders was to pillage the well-endowed Hindu temples at Somnath, Thanesar, Mathura, Kannauj and other places. In this way and in one stroke, the riches concentrated in the hands of these temples through many centuries of grants from Hindu rulers, fell into the hands of the Muslim invaders from Ghazni and Ghori. But they were not satisfied with that; they aimed at total destruction of the whole of Hindu culture.

As part of the process, they attacked all the religious institutions of India - Hindu, Buddhist or Jain. Towards this end, the Muslim invaders undertook the desecration of places of worship, destruction of universities like Nalanda, and the wholesale slaughter of monks and priests to wipe out the intellectual bedrock of the people they overran. They made an attempt to replace the languages - Sanskrit as well as the regional languages. They struck at the universities (like Nalanda), traditional centres of learning (ashrams, gurukulas), architectural symbols (temples, Chaityas, Viharas, Stupas), etc. The policy during the 700 years of Muslim occupation of India was to totally replace the superstructure of Hindu culture with a typical Islamic one.

The tyrannical policies which the Muslim rulers followed since their rule was established in 1194 A.D. left a trail of bitterness in the regions that came under their domination. Hindu tradition survived only in remote corners of the country like in Orissa, Assam and parts of South India. The problem, however, was not merely a political one; it was much more a civilisational problem.

The real problem introduced by the Mussulman conquest was not that of subjection to a foreign rule and the ability to recover freedom, but the struggle between two civilizations, one ancient and indigenous, the other mediaeval and brought in from outside. That which rendered the problem insoluble was the attachment of each to a powerful religion, the one militant and aggressive, the other spiritually tolerant and flexible, but obstinately faithful in its discipline to its own principle and standing in its defence behind a barrier of social forms.

Page 14

In order to understand and appreciate the new conditions in India, it would be useful to understand briefly the history of the two religions, Islam and Hinduism.

A brief history of Islam

MOHAMMED, known as the Prophet of Islam, was born of the esteemed Qoreish tribes in Mecca on the Apr. 20, 570 A.D. The chief occupation of his tribe was trade. When Mohammed was twenty-five years old, he married Khadija, a rich widow of Mecca, then forty years of age. She was a gentle woman of spotless character. Mohammed frequently went to a cave in the desert three miles from Mecca, where he spent months in prayer and meditation. One morning, the angel Gabriel appeared to him and said: "Rise, for thou art the Prophet of God. Go forth and preach in the name of thy Lord. Your God is merciful." A voice was heard - the voice of the Lord - addressed to the Prophet. It was recorded and became the text of the holy Koran. The Koran is not a literary work of Mohammed; it is a direct revelation of the Lord.

When Mohammed was convinced of his divine mission, his earliest efforts were directed towards persuading his own family of the truth of the new doctrine. The tenets of his new doctrine were: the unity of God, the abomination of idolatry, and the duty laid upon man of submission to the will of his Creator. These were the truths to which he claimed their allegiance.

However, he faced a lot of resistance from the Arab tribes in Mecca. Mohammed fled from Mecca to Medina in 622 A.D. when he learned that the Qoreish tribe planned to take his life. The Muslim calendar begins on the day of this flight, known as the Hijra. But in pure self-defence, after repeated efforts of conciliation had utterly failed, he entered into the battlefield. In Medina, his first task on arrival was to build a mosque, that would serve both as a place of prayer and of general assembly for his followers. The worshippers at first used to turn towards Jerusalem -- an arrangement most probably adopted with the hope of gaining over the Jews. In many other ways, by constant appeals to their own Scriptures, by according them perfect freedom of worship and political equality, Mohammed endeavoured to conciliate the Jews, but they met his overtures with scorn and derision. When all hopes of amalgamation proved fruitless and it became clear that the Jews would not accept him as their Prophet, Mohammed bade his followers turn their faces in prayer towards the Kabah in Mecca.

The change of direction during the prayer has a deeper significance than might appear at first sight. It was really the beginning of the National life of Islam. It established the Kabah at Mecca as a religious centre for all the Muslim people, just as from time immemorial it had been a place of pilgrimage for all the tribes of Arabia. Of similar importance was the incorporation of the ancient Arab custom of pilgrimage to Mecca into the circle of the religious ordinances of Islam - a duty that was to be performed by every Muslim at least once in his lifetime.

In order to appreciate the position in Medina after the Flight, it is important to remember the peculiar character of Arab society at that time, at least in so far as this part of the peninsula was concerned. There was an entire absence of any organised administrative or judicial system such as we connect with the idea of a government in modern times. Each tribe or clan formed a separate and absolutely independent body, and this independence extended itself also to the individual members of the tribe, each of whom recognized the authority or leadership of his chief only as being the exponent of a public opinion which he himself happened to share; but he was quite at liberty to refuse to conform to the unanimous resolve of his fellow clansmen. Further, there was no regular transmission of the office of chieftain; though he was chosen generally as being the oldest member of the

Page 15

richest and most powerful of the clan, and as being personally most qualified to command respect. If such a tribe became too numerous, it would split up into several divisions, each of which continued to enjoy a separate and independent existence, uniting only on some extraordinary occasion for common self-defence or some more than usually important warlike expedition. We thus see how Mohammed, without exciting any feeling of insecurity or any fear of encroachment on recognized authority, could establish himself at Medina at the head of a large and increasing body of adherents who looked upon him as their head and leader and acknowledged no other authority. Mohammed thus exercised temporal authority over his people just as any other independent chief might have done, the only difference being that in the case of Muslims, a religious bond took the place of the family and blood ties. Islam thus became what in theory at least, it has always remained - a political as well as religious system. It was Mohammed's desire to found a new religion, and in this he succeeded; but at the same time he founded a political system of an entirely new and peculiar character. At first, his only wish was to convert his fellow-countrymen to the belief in the One God - Allah; but along with this he brought about the overthrow of the old system of government in his native city, and in place of the tribal aristocracy under which the conduct of public affairs was shared in common by the ruling families, he substituted an absolute theocratic monarchy, with himself at the head as vicar of God upon earth.

Even before his death, all Arabia had submitted to Mohammed; Arabia, that had never before obeyed one prince, suddenly exhibited a political unity and swore allegiance to the will of an absolute ruler. The great work of unity succeeded and at the time when Mohammed died, there prevailed over the greater part of Arabia, a peace such as the Arab tribes, with their love of plunder and revenge, had never known; it was the religion of Islam that had brought about this reconciliation. Mohammed died in 633 A.D. It must, however, be noted that Mohammed only developed the existing social, religious and administrative customs of the Arab people into a new system dictated to him by the Divinity to his secret intuitive mind while he was in a state of trance, when he passed from his conscient into his superconscient self.

But within one century of his death, the whole of Western Asia, Syria, Palestine, and other countries like Egypt, the lands of North Africa and Persia were converted to Islam. In Persia, Islam replaced the religion of Zoroastrianism. By the middle of the eighth and the beginning of the ninth century, most of Central Asia had come under the influence of Islam. The Saljuk Turks were converted to Islam in around 960 A.D. and they united into one empire the Muslim kingdoms of Western Asia. The Afghans were also converted to Islam around the eighth century. Then there appeared on the scene the Mongols and Tartars. There is no event in the history of Islam that for terror and desolation can be compared to the Mongol conquest. The hosts of Chengiz Khan swept like an avalanche over the centres of Muslim culture and civilization, leaving behind them bare deserts and shapeless ruins. The Mongols swept over Central Asia and Persia and destroyed the Muslim empire; but by the middle of the 13 th century, the Mongols were themselves converted to Islam. Thus, although the political empire of the Arab Muslims was destroyed, the new rulers after their conversion to Islam recreated another Islamic empire.

Page 16

Persia, which had fallen into the hands of the Mongols, also got converted to Islam in 1295 when Ghazan, the seventh and greatest of the Ilkhans, became a Musulman and made Islam the ruling religion of Persia.

All these conquered civilizations had a long and vibrant history of culture in the past; but after the Muslim conquest, they were all forced to abandon their religion and way of life and adopt instead the Islamic religion. This is one of the characteristic features of Muslim rule; the only exception is India, who has remained faithful to her native religion, Hinduism.

Another point that emerges clearly is that in Islam, religion and politics, religion and conquest, religion and conversion go hand in hand. Every Islamic State inevitably became a theocracy.

As already seen, the tenets of Islam are: the unity of God, the abomination of idolatry, and the duty laid upon man of submission to the will of his Creator. The unity of God was expressed in this phrase: "There is no God but Allah and Muhammad is the messenger of Allah". The abomination of idolatry meant that they broke and destroyed all idols wherever they found them. Islam was thus a monotheistic religion. Islam has five Pillars of Faith or rules that all Muslims are obliged to fulfil. The Five Pillars of Faith include the affirmation of Allah's supremacy as well as four exercises of this faith.

The Five Pillars of Faith

1. The Shahada or Declaration of Faith

The first rule is the declaration or Shahada: "there is no God but (Allah) and Mohammad is his messenger."

2. Prayer

The second rule is the commitment to prayers (Salat) five times a day: Between first light and sunrise, after the sun has passed the middle of the sky, between mid-afternoon and sunset, between sunset and the last light of the day, between darkness and dawn. Prayer is accompanied by prescribed rituals of washing, prostration and the recitation of verses while facing Mecca. The commitment to prayer includes congregational prayer every Friday at noon at a mosque or building for congregational prayer. The word mosque is derived from the Arabic masjid meaning "a place for prostration".

3. Sawm or Fasting

The third rule is Sawm, namely, to fast from sunrise to sunset during the month of Ramadan. Ramadan falls during the ninth month of the lunar Islamic calendar. During the period of fasting and prayer, Muslims are not permitted to eat, drink, and engage in sexual intercourse or pleasurable activities from sunrise to sunset. In refraining from food or drink and in meditation and prayer, Muslims thus personally experience the rigors of suffering, thirst and hunger of those less privileged than themselves. This period concludes with Idul-fitr or the Fast-ending celebrations.

4. Zakat

The fourth rule is payment of one-fortieth of one's annual wages toward charities to aid the poor. This payment is known as Zakat.

5. The Pilgrimage or Hajj

The fifth rule is to go on a pilgrimage to Mecca during the twelfth Islamic month of Dhu-'I-Hijja at least once in a lifetime. The Hajj may only be performed during the twelfth month. Pilgrimages performed at other times are known as lesser pilgrimages.

Page 17

Hinduism

Let us now take a look at Hinduism. The oldest and one of the most important scriptures of Hinduism is the Veda. The Veda is fundamentally a record of experiences based on intuition and revelation. They contain inspired utterances of seers and sages, who had a direct perception of the Divine Being. These seers, or Rishis, heard these compositions during their deep meditations. They are, therefore, known as Sruti. The Rishis transmitted to their disciples the Vedic truths for over a thousand years. At a later date, Sage Vyasa compiled them and put them into writing.

According to the Indian tradition, the Veda is the creation of an age anterior to our intellectual philosophies. In that age, the wisest-the Rishi-depended on inner experience and suggestions of the intuitive mind for all knowledge that ranged beyond mankind's ordinary perceptions and daily activities. Their aim was illumination, not logical conviction, their ideal the inspired seer, not the accurate reasoner.

The Rishi was not the individual composer of the hymn, but the seer (drasta) of an eternal truth and impersonal knowledge.

One very important point to note is that these teachings are not merely speculative. They are based on divine revelations and all those who are ready to follow the necessary discipline can verify them. In other words, they are spiritually verifiable truths. And today, we see that modern psychology is marching inevitably and under the sheer compulsion of facts to the very truths arrived at thousands of years ago by the ancient Rishis. How did they arrive at them? Not by speculation, as many scholars imagine, but by Yoga. Yoga enables us to get inside the object by dissolving the artificial barriers of the bodily experience and the mental ego-sense in the observer. It takes us out of the little hold of personal experience and casts us into the great universal currents; takes us out of the personal mind sheath and makes us one with universal self and universal mind. Therefore the ancient Rishis were able to see what now we are beginning again to glimpse dimly that not only is Nature herself an infinite teleological and discriminative impersonal Force of Intelligence or Consciousness, but that God dwells within and over Nature as infinite universal Personality, universal in the universe, individualised as well as universal in the particular form, or self-consciousness who perceives, enjoys and conducts to their end its vast and complex workings. It is a force of Conscious Being manifesting itself in forms and movements and working out exactly as it is guided, from stage to stage, the predetermined progress of our becoming & the Will of God in the world.

The essential tenets of Hinduism

What are the essential tenets of Hinduism? Hinduism is founded upon three basic ideas or rather three fundamentals of the highest and widest spiritual experience.

1. First comes the idea of the One Existence of the Veda; this One Existence is given different names by the sages, the One without a second of the Upanishads, the Permanent of the Buddhists, the Absolute of the Illusionists, the Supreme God or Purusha of the Theists in all its forms - in a word, the Eternal, the Infinite. The Hindu religion believes that it is possible to discover and closely approach and enter into some kind of unity with this Permanent, this Infinite, and this Eternal. It considers this unity as the highest and last effort of its spiritual experience. This is the first universal credo of the religious mind of India.

Page 18

2. Admit in whatever formula this foundation; follow this great spiritual aim by one of the thousand paths recognized in India or even any new path which branches off from them and you are at the core of the religion. For, its second basic idea is the manifold ways of man's approach to the Eternal and Infinite.

Another important point of the Hindu religion is that one may approach the Supreme through any of the different names and forms, with knowledge or in ignorance; for through them and beyond them we can proceed at last to the supreme experience. To the Indian religious mentality, these names and forms are not merely symbols; they are world-realities. For, between the highest unimaginable Existence and our material way of being, the spiritual and psychic knowledge of India did not fix a gulf as between two unrelated opposites. It was aware of other psychological planes of consciousness and experience and the truths of these supraphysical planes were no less real to it than the outward truths of the material universe. It believed that man approaches God at first according to his psychological nature and his capacity for deeper experience. Thence comes the variety of religious cults, but these are not imaginary structures, inventions of priests or poets; they are intermediate truths of a supraphysical existence between the consciousness of the physical world and the ineffable superconscience of the Absolute.

3. The third idea of the strongest consequence at the base of Indian religion is the most dynamic for the inner spiritual life. It is that while the Supreme or the Divine can be approached through a universal consciousness and by piercing through all inner and outer Nature, That or He can be met by each individual soul in itself, in its own spiritual part, because there is something in it that is intimately one or at least intimately related with the one divine Existence. These three things put together are the whole of Hindu religion, its essential sense and, if any credo is needed, its credo.

Some consequences of this approach

The natural consequence of this approach is that Hinduism means all things to all men. Every approach to the Divine has a place in Hinduism; it recognizes differences and distinctions even while admitting the fundamental unity of mankind. It does not impose uniformity as the other religions do. Hinduism embraces all varieties of religious experience; it is not based on a single experience however overwhelming that may be. Another important point to note is that in Hinduism, the ultimate goal of life is freedom or liberation - Moksha. By this is not meant an outer freedom to fulfil all our desires but an inner freedom to go beyond all external limitations. This freedom is the real unity behind the diversity of Hinduism and the key to its many sides. Hindu pluralism, therefore, is not the denial of unity but the affirmation of a real unity that transcends all outer differences. True unity is built upon freedom, not conformity, and is a state of the heart or inner consciousness, not an outer condition of labels and slogans. The West has emphasized external freedom, which has given it a sense of pluralism in the outer aspects of life; Hinduism teaches inner freedom, without which outer freedom has no real meaning. This inner freedom allows for the full flowering of the soul so that our entire human potential, which is ultimately one of spiritual aspiration, can manifest and bring truth and beauty to our entire physical and outer existence.

Some fundamental concepts of Hinduism

It is important to note a few other concepts, which are fundamental to Hindu religion. There is first the concept of evolution, an evolution of Consciousness and not a merely

Page 19

material evolution of the Darwinian type. Next come the concept of Rebirth and Karma and finally the worship of idols.

The concept of Evolution

The Indian concept of evolution is based on the following:

Spiritual experience tells us that there is a Reality which supports and pervades all things as the Cosmic Self and Spirit, can be discovered by the individual even here in the terrestrial embodiment as his own self and spirit, and is, at its summits and in its essence, an infinite and eternal self-existent Being, Consciousness and Bliss of existence. But what we seem to see as the source and beginning of the material universe is just the contrary—it seems to be a Void, an infinite of Non-Existence, out of which everything has yet to come. Then it begins to move, evolve, create, and apparently it puts on the appearance of an inconscient Energy, which delivers existence out of the Void. Yet we see that this unconscious Energy does at every step the works of a vast and minute Intelligence fixing and combining every possible device to prepare, manage and work out the paradox and miracle of Matter and the awakening of a life and a spirit in Matter; existence grows out of the Void, consciousness emerges and increases out of the Inconscient; an ascending urge towards pleasure, happiness, delight, divine bliss and ecstasy is inexplicably born out of an insensitive Nihil. These phenomena show us when we grow aware in our depths, that the Inconscient is only a mask and within it is the Upanishad's "Conscient in unconscious things", acetanesu cetana. In the beginning, says the Veda, was the ocean of inconscience and out of it That One arose into birth by his greatness, —by the might of his self-manifesting Energy.

The concept of Rebirth and Karma

Next there is the doctrine of reincarnation and Karma.

The doctrine of reincarnation and Karma tells us that the soul has a past which shaped its present birth and existence; it has a future which our present action is shaping; our past has taken and our future will take the form of recurring terrestrial births and Karma, our own action, is the power which by its continuity and development as a subjective and objective force determines the whole nature and eventuality of these repeated existences.

Temple and image worship

Finally there is image worship, which is one of the most powerful manifestations of Hinduism.

The image to the Hindu is a physical symbol and support of the supraphysical; it is a basis for the meeting between the embodied mind and sense of man and the supraphysical power, force or presence which he worships and with which he wishes to communicate. A nexus between the physical and supraphysical is the basis of this worship. Consequently, the Hindu religion is replete with rites and ceremonies of worship. And these rites, ceremonies, system of cult and worship of Hinduism can only be understood if we remember the fundamental character of Hinduism. For the Hindu religion is in the first place a non-dogmatic inclusive religion and would have taken even Islam and Christianity into itself, if they had tolerated the process. All that it has met on its way it has taken into itself, content if it could put its forms into some valid relation with the truth of the supraphysical worlds and the truth of the Infinite. Again it has always known in its heart that religion, if it is to be a reality for the mass of men and not only for a few saints and thinkers, must address its appeal to the whole of our being, not only to the suprarational and the rational parts, but to all the others. The imagination, the emotions,

Page 20

the aesthetic sense, even the very instincts of the half subconscient parts must be taken into the influence. Religion must lead man towards the suprarational, the spiritual truth and it must take the aid of the illumined reason on the way, but it cannot afford to neglect to call Godwards the rest of our complex nature. And it must take too each man where he stands and spiritualise him through what he can feel and not at once force on him something, which he cannot yet grasp as a true and living power. That is the sense and aim of all those parts of Hinduism, which are often stigmatised as irrational or antirational by the positivist intelligence.

Summary

It is quite clear from the above that the two religions are very different in their concepts. Islam believes in one and only one God, while Hinduism accepts many incarnations of the one God.

Islam believes in one sacred book, the Koran; Hinduism accepts many scriptures and includes even the Bible and the Koran.

Islam has fixed rituals, which every Muslim has to follow; Hinduism has rituals but nothing fixed which every Hindu has to follow.

Islam does not believe in idol worship and is committed to destroying all idols; Hinduism believes in idol worship, considering the idol as a physical manifestation of the Divine and allows all forms of worship.

Islam believes in one and only one life while Hinduism believes in rebirth of the soul.

Chapter 3

The Islamic Invasion of India

As stated earlier, Islam, soon after its birth in Mecca and Medina, began to conquer the nations in Africa and the Western part of Asia; and quite inevitably, it was then the turn of India and the invasions began in the eighth century. In the eighth century A.D., there began a series of invasions, which had a profound and lasting effect on India. These were the invasions of the Muslims, first through the Arabian Sea into Sind and later, by the Turks through the passes on the northwest of India. These invasions came through the northwestern passes, the Khyber Pass and the Bolan Pass. This was the beginning of the Mohammedan conquest of India. It must be said right away that the massacres perpetuated by Muslims in India are unparalleled in history, bigger than the Holocaust of the Jews by the Nazis; or the massacre of the Armenians by the Turks; more extensive even than the slaughter of the South American native populations by the invading Spanish and Portuguese. We shall quote from the French historian Alain Danielou, as well as the Dutch scholar Koenraad Elst who has written a very interesting book called "Negationism in India" and finally from Sri Aurobindo, who was one of the very few amongst the Indian revolutionaries, who had the courage to speak the truth about what was then called "the Mahomedan factor ". From the time the Muslims started arriving, around 632 A.D., remarks Alain Danielou, the history of India becomes a long

Page 21

monotonous series of murders, massacres, spoliations and destructions. It is, as usual, in the name of "a holy war" of their faith, of their sole God, that the barbarians have destroyed civilizations, wiped out entire races. Mahmoud Ghazni, continues Danielou, was an early example of Muslim ruthlessness, burning down in 1018 the temples of Mathura, razing Kanauj to the ground, and destroying the famous temple of Somnath, sacred to all Hindus. His successors were as ruthless. In 1030, the holy city of Benares was razed to the ground, its marvellous temples destroyed, its magnificent palaces wrecked. Indeed, the Muslim policy towards India, concludes Danielou, "seems to have been a conscious systematic destruction of everything that was beautiful, holy, refined". (Histoire de l'Inde, p.222) In the words of another historian, American Will Durant: "the Islamic conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history. It is a discouraging tale, for its evident moral is that civilisation is a precious good, whose delicate complex order and freedom can at any moment be overthrown by barbarians invading from without and multiplying within". India, before the advent of Islamic imperialism, was not exactly a zone of peace. There were plenty of wars fought by Hindu princes. But in all their wars, the Hindus had observed some time-honoured conventions sanctioned by the Shastras. The Brahmins and the Bhikshus were never molested. Cows were never killed. Temples were never touched. The chastity of women was never violated. Non-combatants were never killed or captured. A human habitation was never attacked unless it was a fort. The civil population was never plundered. War booty was an unknown item in the calculations of conquerors. The martial classes, who clashed mostly in open spaces, had a code of honour. Sacrifice of honour for victory or material gain was deemed as worse than death. This was the honour of the Kshatriya.

Islamic imperialism came with a different code - the Sunnah of the Prophet. It required its warriors to fall upon the helpless civil population after a decisive victory had been won on the battlefield. It required them to sack and burn down villages and towns after the defenders had died fighting or had fled. The cows, the Brahmins, and the Bhikshus invited their special attention in mass murders of non-combatants. The temples and monasteries were their special targets in an orgy of pillage and arson. Those whom they did not kill, they captured and sold as slaves. The magnitude of the booty looted even from the bodies of the dead, was a measure of the success of a military mission. And they did all this as mujahids (holy warriors) and ghazls (kafir-killers) in the service of Allah and his Last Prophet. Hindus found it very hard to understand the psychology of this new invader. For the first time in their history, Hindus were witnessing a scene, described in the following words: "The conquering army burnt villages, devastated the land, plundered people's wealth, took Brahmins and children and women of all classes captive, flogged with thongs of raw hide, carried a moving prison with it, and converted the prisoners into obsequious Turks." This was not an isolated incident, but repeated innumerable times in the next few centuries. In addition, they desecrated the idols, which the Hindus worshipped. According to 'Sirat-i-Firoz Shahi': "Allah who is the only true God and has no other emanation, endowed the king of Islam with the strength to destroy this ancient shrine on the eastern sea coast and to plunge it into the sea, and after its destruction he ordered the image of Jagannath to be perforated, and disgraced it by casting it down on the ground. They dug out other idols which were worshipped by the polytheists in the kingdom of Jajnagar and overthrew them as they did the image of Jagannath, for being laid in front of the mosques along the path of the Sunnis and the way of the 'musallis'

Page 22

(Muslim congregation for namaz) and stretched them in front of the portals of every mosque, so that the body and sides of the images might be trampled at the time of ascent and descent, entrance and exit, by the shoes on the feet of the Muslims."Within a few centuries, almost the whole of India had come under the Muslim sway. The Delhi Sultanate had taken control of India.

Conversion of Hindus

This conquest was followed by the mass conversion of the people of India; this reached its peak during the time of the Moguls when vast sections of the Indian population became converted to Islam. These conversions took place partly because of fear and partly because of the intolerance then prevalent in the caste system in Hinduism. In its origin, the caste system was a fine arrangement of society based on the temperament of each individual; but with the loss of life power, it degenerated into a rigid bondage and a means of showing one's arrogance. Bloated with the pride of one's origin, it became one of the most degrading features of Indian society. It had become a system, which was based on discrimination by birth and was so entrenched in the Hindu society that neither the Sultans nor the Moguls could make a dent into it. Nor, did they make a deliberate attempt at that. Being the rulers and monarchs, their courtiers, aristocrats and even the common Muslim masses tolerated the pretensions of the Brahmins' superiority by birth. In the caste hierarchy, the Muslims were placed in the bottom category of the untouchables. Since they belonged to the ruling community, the higher caste Hindus did not treat them with the disrespect and disdain which they did to the untouchables of their own community. It was this intolerance of the caste system that led to virtual revolts against it. By the middle of the 13th century, almost the whole of India had come under the Muslim sway. That was the time when Indian civilization was in a period of decline. The life force had waned and as a consequence, the intellectual power was fading and it seemed just a matter of time before India would go down before the Muslim aggression. But just when it seemed that India might succumb to the pressure of Islam like all other civilizations before it, there was a spiritual and religious revival of Hinduism. The result was that it not only survived the pressure but also put its impact on Islam in many directions. This was due to its great power of assimilation and inner strength; and because of that, it remains alive even to this day, thus giving ample proof of a strength and soundness rare in the history of human cultures. A very important point that must be noted is that the vast mass of Muslims in India was, and is, Indian by race. Only a very small admixture of Pathan, Turkish and Mogul blood took place; and even the foreign kings and nobles became almost immediately wholly Indian in mind, life and interest. It was in the early part of the 14th century when Sadr-Al-Din became the first king to be converted to Islam - that Kashmir became Islamic. Under Akbar, the whole of Kashmir came under the sway of the Moguls and during the reign of Aurangzeb, the Rajput Raja of Kishtwar was converted along with his subjects. Even today, it is possible to find aristocrats or Rajas who are descendants of Mohammedanised Rajputs.

Political Factors

As a result of these invasions and conquests, not only the whole of north India but also a major portion of South India, had come under Muslim rule by the middle of the thirteenth century. The green flag of Islam flew all over the country. It seemed that the Islamisation of India was a definite and foregone conclusion, just as it had happened in Egypt and Iran. But within a century (by the middle of the 15th century), Hindu religion and culture

Page 23

had not only effected an astonishing recovery but were fighting back. In the political field, however, there was constant strife; although the Muslim rulers employed a large number of Hindus in the administration, this strife remained simmering just below the surface. With the advent of the Muslim rulers, a major change took place in the political set-up. The earlier Indian political system had in it a strong democratic element. No doubt there were monarchs but Indian monarchy previous to the Mohammedan invasion, was not in any way, a personal despotism or an absolutist autocracy. It had no resemblance to the ancient Persian monarchy or the monarchies of western and central Asia or the Roman imperial government or later European autocracies: it was of an altogether different type. In spite of a certain sanctity and the great authority conceded to the regal position and the personality of the king as the representative of the divine Power and the guardian of the Dharma, he did not have absolute power. But now we had a totally different system. The Muslim State in India was a theocracy and the Sultan was considered to be Caesar and Pope combined in one. His authority in religion was based on the Holy law of the Koran but in practice, he was an autocrat, unchecked by any restrictions and his word was law. The real source of his authority was military strength and all understood this, the common people, the soldiers, the poets, and even the ulemas. But as the Delhi Sultanate was moving towards disintegration, the rise of indigenous independent states began to take place. These states were both Hindu - like in Vijaynagar, Orissa and Mewar - and Muslim - like in Gujarat and Ahmednagar. All these represented local movements of self-determination. But before these movements of self-determination could take shape, they were destroyed by the Mogul invasion, which created the Mogul empire. This was followed by the rise of Shivaji's empire and just when it seemed that a new life was about to rise in the regional peoples, there came the intrusion of the European nations, in particular the British. The failure of the Peshwas and the confusion and anarchy that followed, gave the British the opportunity to take over the whole of India.

Page 24

Chapter 4

India under the British

The British came to India originally as traders through the East India Company during the rule of Jehangir in the 16th century. The chief aim of the British at that time was to make an impact on the Dutch hold on the spice trade and to establish a lasting outpost. But the company soon established its military and political dominance in India. By 1834, the East India Company was no more a trading company; it became the official ruler of India. Eventually, the company assumed complete domination of India and encroached on each and every aspect of her life. The company was very successful till the Sepoy Mutiny of 1857. The mutiny ended a year later when The India Act (1858) was passed; this act abolished the East India Company and vested all power with Queen Victoria. From that time onwards, it was the British Government that governed India through the Indian Civil Service. However, the British were not the first Western power to come to India. They had to contend with the Portuguese and the French.

The arrival of the Portuguese in the 16th century marked the beginning of European domination over the Indian subcontinent, which lasted more than 400 years. The Portuguese controlled coastal Sri Lanka for 150 years and established a trading settlement at Colombo. In 1658, the Dutch drove them out, and in 1796, the British, who controlled the country for the next 152 years, supplanted the Dutch. By the mid-19th century, the British had brought about a dramatic transformation of the economy with the introduction of coffee and tea. A British colony from 1802, Sri Lanka became independent as a separate nation on Feb. 4, 1948. It became a member of the United Nations in 1955. It must be noted that Sri Lanka had a long historic connection with India from the very earliest times and was bound to it by the religions of Hinduism and Buddhism.

Similarly, Burma (now called Myanmar) was first united into a single kingdom in 1044 under the ruler Anawrahta, who made it the centre of Theravada Buddhism. In the 19th century the country came under British control. The British took Tenasserim and Arakan in 1826, most of the delta region, including Rangoon, in 1852, and a large part of the rest of the country in 1885. From 1886 to 1937, they governed it as a province of India. After that, it was declared a separate State.

The northwestern part of the Indian subcontinent came under British control by the middle of the 19th century. This was the territory of Afghanistan. Afghanistan was part of the cultural unity and political unity of India from the most ancient times. Later in the 11th century, it came under Islamic rule. Britain wanted control of this Muslim nation in order to prevent Russia from expanding southward. From its base in India, Great Britain fought three Afghan Wars in less than 100 years: 1839-42, 1878-80, and 1919.

Although the British had more modern arms than the Afghans, the English found the territory very difficult to hold and administer. Local uprisings and guerrilla warfare eventually drove the British out. In the second war, the British sought to establish a mission at the capital, Kabul. Following the murder of their envoy, the British occupied the city and installed a new king. After this conflict, Britain managed the foreign relations of the country, until the third war gained independence for Afghanistan in 1919.

Thus all the areas that were under the influence of Indian culture were taken over by the British by the end of the 19th century. The whole subcontinent of India came under the

Page 25

British by the end of the 19th century. They were soon declared as separate States and got their independence in due course.

Relations between Hindus and Muslims

Once the British had conquered the whole of India, they had to contend with the Hindu and Muslim populations. They soon dominated both. Before the advent of the British, relations between the Hindus and Muslims had been somewhat amicable with some exceptions now and then. But this amity was based more on a policy of peaceful coexistence, rather than on any real attempt to understand each other. When the British took over, their natural hostility was turned towards the Muslims whom they had replaced. Lord Ellenborough wrote of the Muslims in 1843: "I cannot close my eyes to the belief that that race is fundamentally hostile to us, and our true policy is to reconcile the Hindus".

The advent of the education system brought in by the British through the English language saw the Hindus adapting themselves rapidly to the new situation. As a result, the Hindus broke new ground in almost all fields, whether it was education, business or in the professions.

The Muslims, unable to adapt themselves to the new conditions and demands, remained stagnant. This resulted in an economic downgrading of the Muslim community. Then came the Sepoy Mutiny and things changed for the worse for them. The general trend towards their economic collapse received a further impetus in the post-1857 period when the British, incensed at the Muslim "audacity" in staging a revolution against them, launched upon an avowedly anti-Muslim policy. Their lands were confiscated without rhyme or reason; they were barred from enlistment in the army and the police, their traditional vocations. Indeed, they were made to stew in their own juice, persecuted, humbled, and frustrated. Thus, by the 1870s, according to W.W. Hunter, a renowned author, there was scarcely a Government office in Calcutta in which a Muslim could "hope for any post above the rank of a porter, messenger, filler of ink-pots and mender of pens". The poignancy of the Muslim economic situation was summed up by Hunter in these words, "A hundred and seventy years ago it was almost impossible for a well-born Mussalman in Bengal to become poor; at present it is almost impossible for him to continue rich". In the rest of the subcontinent as well, the Muslims had fallen on evil days in the aftermath of the mass uprising. Thus the Muslim community, which was ruling most of India before the coming of the British, and were the dominant class in India, found themselves completely at a loss in the new situation.

The Muslim Response

The Muslim response to this challenge posed by the rise of the British and the emergence of the Hindus as a power was not integrated; it was rather disparate, tardy, and somewhat local in character. The religious leaders who had provided leadership to the community since the decline of Muslim power in India, withdrew from the mainstream of community life, and devoted themselves exclusively to imparting religious education. Their seminaries, especially at Deoband, Farangi Mahal, Rai Bareilly and Calcutta did help the Muslims to preserve their identity, but hardly addressed themselves to the problem of the economic collapse of the Muslims. The first response came in April 1863 when Nawab Abdul Latif (1828-93) launched the Mohammedan Literary Society in Calcutta, then the capital of the British Indian Empire. The Society stood for Western learning and progress; it submitted to the government a number of memorials on the state of Muslim

Page 26

education and on social and religious issues; it was in part, responsible for the Government's Resolution of Aug. 7, 1871, on Muslim education. Initially apolitical, the Society progressively assumed a political role: it represented the Muslim viewpoint and Muslim grievances to the government. Syed Ameer Ali (1849-1928), the great jurist and scholar, also addressed the Muslim problem, but primarily in political terms. He founded the National Mohammedan Association in 1878 and it submitted a memorandum to the Viceroy, which for the first time processed and articulated Muslim demands and grievances. The memorandum, which became the basis of discussion on the state of Muslim education and Muslim employment for three years, finally led to the government's Resolution of Jul. 15, 1885. This was an important event for it signified a reversal of the British Government's policy towards Muslim progress. Ameer Ali, who was by far the most politically oriented among the Muslim leaders of his time, mooted the idea of a conference of Muslim leaders and intelligentsia and later the establishment of an All India Muslim Political Conference, both in 1888, but his plans were aborted because of opposition or lack of response from other leaders.

The Indian Renaissance

As already seen, by 1857, the whole of the Indian subcontinent had come under the control of the British. The exploitation of India by the British had reached very great proportions. The Indian nation was thus facing a great crisis. The historian T.B. Macaulay thought that India was at the point of dissolution. The society was steeped in superstition, manacled by primitive customs, and it seemed that the sense of community had all but vanished. The situation was similar to what India had faced in the 14th century. At that time, the question was the continuity of India's life - whether her separate identity in culture, social organization, religion and thought would be maintained or whether she would merge with the expanding commonwealth of Islam. Then, India was saved by the spiritual revival of the 14th and 15th centuries. This time the question was different - it was not the continuance of the Hindu culture. Rather, the problem facing India was the confrontation of a superior, expanding and highly dynamic civilization with an old, static and, as it appeared, decaying culture. Here was a civilization, which was convinced not only of its own incomparable greatness, economic strength, and technological and scientific superiority but was moved by a firm belief that the form of life it represented was the final one to which all others must conform.

Along with this, there was another problem that confronted Indian culture - it was the relationship of Hinduism with Islam and the problem of their coexistence in the new circumstances under the domination of a people alien to both. It was at this critical moment that the Indian renaissance began and this was essentially due to the manner in which Hinduism reacted to the foreign domination. This reaction, which first started in Bengal, spread to all other parts of the country and included all the fields of culture. The sole exception was in the political field; for, till the end of the nineteenth century, British rule was accepted as a beneficent development. Raja Rammohan Roy publicly thanked God for having placed India under the British rule. Prasanna Kumar Tagore declared: "If we were asked what government we would prefer, English or any other, we would one and all reply English by all means, even in preference to a Hindu government".

The national feeling slowly started taking shape and it was not long before that it took a concrete political form. It came in the shape of the Indian National Congress. Ironically, it was an Englishman, Allan Octavian Hume, who was responsible for the formation of

Page 27

the Indian National Congress. In the words of an Indian historian, "The Congress was the natural and inevitable product of forces already at work in the country; it would have emerged soon enough, Hume or no Hume."

Hume, who was the son of a radical politician, entered the Indian Civil Service in Bengal in 1849. After serving as magistrate in the district of Etawah at the time of the Indian Mutiny of 1857, he was assigned to the board of revenue in the North-Western Provinces. From 1870-79 he was attached to the central government of India as secretary in the revenue and agriculture department. His views favouring greater participation for Indians in Indian affairs created difficulties, and he was returned to provincial administration. On his retirement from the civil service in 1882, he involved himself in political activities aimed at giving Indians a more democratic, representational government and was one of the conveners of the first session of the Indian National Congress, held at Bombay in 1885. This event heralded the beginning of a political awakening. The demand for political freedom, however half-hearted and halting, began to find expression in the collective life of political India.

Page 28

Chapter 5

The British policy of divide and rule

Let us see how the British viewed the situation after 1857.

The British realized that if the Hindus and Muslims came together as they did in the Sepoy Mutiny, it would be difficult for them to continue to rule India. There was a reversal of British policy.

The policy of divide and rule was initiated. The first step in this process was the propping up of Sayyid Ahmad Khan. Sayyid Ahmad Khan, who in his early life was a liberal, had a broad-minded approach to communal relations. He even remarked: "Hindus and Muslims are the two eyes of India. Injure the one and you injure the other". But soon he changed his stance. First with the patronisation of the British, he founded the Anglo-Oriental College at Aligarh. Then, the principal of the college, Mr Beck, convinced Sayyid Ahmad Khan that the Muslims should not support the Congress movement. Mr Beck wrote in 1893: "the objective of the Congress is to transfer the political control of the country from the British to the Hindus". Spurred on by Beck, Sayyid Ahmad Khan discouraged the Muslims from joining the newly formed Indian National Congress. His argument was that the setting up of democratic institutions would mean the permanent subservience of the Muslims to the Hindus. He, therefore, asked the Muslims to look up to the British administration for protection and help. At the same time in order to weaken the nationalist movement, the British encouraged Raja Shiv Prasad and other pro-British Indians to start an anti-Congress movement. They tried to drive a wedge between the Hindus and the Muslims. They fanned communal rivalries among the educated Indians on the question of jobs in Government service.

On the Muslim side, Sir Sayyid Ahmad Khan's (1819-98) effort to raise the Muslim community was the most sustained, wide-ranging and comprehensive; it was also more widely accepted by the mainstream Muslim community and was more consequential. Sir Sayyid's panacea for the Muslim situation in the post-1857 period was modern education. As already seen, he founded the college at Aligarh and schools at various places; he launched the Tahzib al Akhlaq to bring about moral and social reform; he fought against the prevalent feeling of despondency and resignation. And, "Aligarh, with all the forces it organized", to quote Kraemer, became "the starting point of a slow awakening of the Muslim community out of its listlessness". It was also "the most potent factor in the breaking down of the crushing feeling of backwardness and despondency". Sir Sayyid's movement at that time was considered mainly educational, because of his unending stress on Muslims acquiring modern education. He was also averse to Muslims participating in any sort of organized political activity, which, he feared, might revive British hostility towards them. That was why he opposed Ameer Ali's proposed Political Conference and why he advised Muslims against joining the Indian National Congress, when it was organized in 1885. However, in his policies and programme, he was, in part, guided and goaded by political considerations. For one thing, he believed that education was the passport to political power; for another, he seemed supremely conscious of the basic fact "that the political life of the Muslims could be saved from extinction by their participating in and not by discarding Western education". For instance, the Mohammedan Education Conference, helped to provide a common platform for the Muslims of various provinces to come together, "to formulate a centre of public opinion for the entire Mohammedan 'nation' and then to spread those ideas among the

Page 29

community" and to create communal consciousness and solidarity. The Aligarh School, which Sir Sayyid founded, says Dr. I.H. Qureshi, "gave the Muslim community a new hope, a new sense of mission. From the deepest despair it pulled the Muslims out into a new field of fruitful activity. Indeed Aligarh was the cradle of the feeling of nationalism among the Muslims because it kept alive the idea of a well-integrated Muslim community in the Subcontinent".

Muslims Enter Politics

The awakening among Hindus since the middle of the nineteenth century made the Aligarh movement increasingly politically oriented. Earlier in 1867 the Hindus in Banares had launched an agitation for the ouster of Urdu from courts. As years rolled by, Sir Sayyid also became increasingly fearful of the numerical, educational and economic superiority of the Hindus; this led to his demanding reservation of seats for Muslims and other important Indian elements in the Imperial Council. Otherwise, he felt, the Muslims stood no chance of getting elected by a predominantly Hindu electorate on the basis of sheer numbers. The Congress' demand for elections without reservations alarmed him and led him to oppose its claims and demands.

The Hindu agitation for making Hindi the court language in U.P., Bihar and Oudh succeeded in 1890. As a response to this agitation, the Muslims under Nawab Muhsin-ul-Mulk organized the Urdu Defence Association in 1900. Before long, this Association took on the complexion of a political platform; it also became the forerunner of the All-India Muslim League.

The Partition of Bengal

The next step of the British in fostering the communal divide was the Partition of Bengal. This was a blatantly clear step in dividing the Hindus and Muslims in the name of administrative reforms. As already mentioned, the British not only encouraged the two communities to form political parties along religious lines, they also took various steps to create a situation whereby Hindus and Muslims would be forced to think that their religious identity was at peril. This effort culminated in the partition of Bengal in 1905. The Presidency of Bengal was divided into two parts, apparently for administrative reasons. It was argued that Bengal, Bihar and Orissa, which had formed a single province of British India since 1765, had grown too large to handle under a single administration; but it was quite clear that the partition was made along communal lines in order to divide the communities. Even Lord Curzon on a tour of East Bengal, confessed that his "object in partitioning was not only to relieve the Bengali administration, but to create a Mohammedan province, where Islam could be predominant and its followers in ascendancy." It thus provided an impetus to the religious divide and one of the results was the formation of the Muslim League.

The Reaction in Bengal

The people of Bengal were indignant and outraged. For them, the partition was not merely a fresh application of the British policy of divide-and-rule, but the sundering of the soul of a people. Sri Aurobindo who was then in Baroda, wrote about the partition: "This measure is no mere administrative proposal but a blow straight at the heart of the nation". This single event brought about united opposition from all groups, political and non-political. Poet Rabindranath Tagore, Sir Gurudas Banerjee, a judge, and the Maharajas of Mymensingh and Cossimbazar all joined in the protest. It triggered a tremendous awakening and it manifested in a sudden outburst of the genius of the

Page 30

Bengali race, flowering in the field of literature and music. So great was its impact that Ramsay Macdonald exclaimed: "Bengal is creating India by song and worship, it is clothing her in queenly garments". This led to the movement of the boycott of British goods.

Foundation of the Muslim League (1906)

In the meantime, the urge of the Muslims to organize themselves politically led to the founding of the All-India Muslim League at Dacca in 1906. With the Aga Khan (18771957) as the permanent President and Nawab Salimullah Khan (the Nawab of Dacca), Nawab Muhsin-ul-Mul, Nawab Viqar-ul-Mulk and Mohammad Ali (1877-1931) as the core of its leadership, the League aspired to become the political mouthpiece of Indian Muslims. Its platform included safeguarding of Muslim interests, articulating their demands, building up public opinion in favour of a separate electorate, and countering Hindu propaganda and agitation against the partition of Bengal.

In 1906, another official of the Anglo-Oriental College, Mohsin-ul-Malik, encouraged, if not prompted, by its principal, Mr Archibald, took a step that would drive the wedge between Hindus and Muslims still deeper. Hearing that the Morley-Minto government was going to institute legislative reforms, Mohsin-ul-Malik convened a deputation of Muslim leaders to call on the Viceroy. They requested that the Muslims should be represented on the Councils as a separate community not merely on their numerical strength but in respect to the political importance of their community and the service it had rendered to the empire. Morley was against such an undemocratic proposal, but he let the Viceroy, Lord Minto, have his way.

At the same time, the Muslims began to circulate the Lal Ishtahãr (Red Pamphlet) all over Bengal in the wake of the first Muslim League meeting at Dacca in December 1906. The Ishtahãr was the handiwork of Samiullah, the Nawab of Dacca, and his henchmen who had hosted the delegates to the meeting of delegates from all over India. It was obvious that the anti-Congress crusade launched by Sir Sayyid Ahmed in the closing years of the 19th century was being converted quite fast into an all-out anti-Hindu jihad. The Ishtahãr proclaimed in ringing tones: "Ye Mussalmans, arise, awake! Do not read in the same schools with the Hindus. Do not touch any article manufactured by the Hindus. Do not give any employment to the Hindus. Do not accept any degrading office under a Hindu. You are ignorant, but if you acquire knowledge you can send all Hindus to Jahannum (Hell). You form the majority of the population in this province. The Hindu has no wealth of his own and has made himself rich only by despoiling you of your wealth. If you become sufficiently enlightened, the Hindus will starve and soon become Mohammedans."

The Muslim reaction to the Partition of Bengal was radically different from the nationalistic view. The Muslims considered the partition of Bengal as an important step in getting their legitimate right. According to them, the unwieldy Bengal Presidency was partitioned for purely administrative reasons; and it was only as a by-product that there came about the emergence of the Muslim majority province of East Bengal and Assam. According to the Muslim leaders, the anti-Urdu agitation in U.P., and Bihar; the cow-protection activities, the setting up of Shivaji Clubs, the demand for elections on a non-denominational basis which would preclude Muslims from getting elected without Hindu backing, and finally the agitation again the partition of Bengal - all these combined had

Page 31

pitted the Hindus against the Muslims, further embittering their relations and foreclosing the traditional avenues of cooperation between them.

It was against this backdrop that the Muslims demanded a separate electorate in 1906, in order to ensure their representation through genuine representatives. The demand also implied that the Indian Muslims, though a minority, were yet a distinct entity by themselves in Indian's body politic, and that they were determined to keep their identity intact in any future constitutional arrangement. Thus, from this time onwards the separate electoral plank became the sheet anchor of Indian Muslim politics.

As we shall see later in this chapter, this was conceded by the British in the Minto-Morley Reforms (1909), and by the Congress in the Lucknow Pact (1916).

Hindu-Muslim Riots

Another ploy used by the British to divide the Hindus and Muslims was to subtly encourage Hindu-Muslim riots. There is evidence to believe that the British incited the Muslims to violence against the Hindus. For example, in Jamalpur in Bengal, there were terrible riots in 1907 in which the Hindus were butchered and the women threatened. Muslim hooligans had let loose a reign of terror against defenceless Hindus in the countryside of East Bengal. H.W. Nevison who visited India as a representative of The Manchester Guardian, reported: "Priestly Mullahs went through the country preaching the revival of Islam and proclaiming to the villagers that the British Government was on the Mohammedan side, that the Law Courts had been specially suspended for three months and no penalty would be exacted for violence done to the Hindus, or for the loot of Hindu shops or the abduction of Hindu widows. A Red Pamphlet was everywhere circulated maintaining the same wild doctrine... In Comilla, Jamalpur and a few other places, rather serious riots occurred. A few lives were lost, temples desecrated, images broken, shops plundered, and many widows carried off. Some of the towns were deserted, the Hindu population took refuge in any pukka houses, women spent nights hidden in tanks, the crime known as 'group-rape' increased and throughout the country districts, there reigned a general terror, which still prevailed at the time of my visit."

There were two reactions to these riots. The moderate Congress leaders, having full faith in British justice appealed to the British to intervene and stop the riots. The other reaction was that of the Nationalist section of the Congress. They demanded that the Hindus should fight back. Here is an illustration from an article in the Bandemataram: 'from all parts of East Bengal comes the terrible news of violation and threatened violence of women by budmashes. Bengal is then dead to all intents and purposes. Nowhere is the honour of women so much valued as in India. And as our people do not lift their finger or court death when seeing women violated before their eyes, they have morally ceased to exist. Long subjugation has crushed the soul and left the mere corpse. If Bengal has been seized with such a severe palsy as not to strike a blow even for the honour of our women, it is better for her people to be blotted from the earth than encumber it longer with their disgrace.' 6

Minto-Morley Reforms

The next step in the British game was the reforms proposed by the Viceroy Lord Minto. These were known as the Minto-Morley reforms. What exactly were these reforms? First proposed in 1906, they were finally passed by the British Parliament in 1909. In 1906, even as the Boycott struggle was raging and was being crushed with a heavy hand, the Secretary of State Morley called in the "moderate Congress" leaders for discussions on

Page 32

possible reforms of the Councils. By 1907, these Moderate leaders led by Gokhale were quivering with anticipation at the imminent reforms and by 1908, they were joyous at the Minto-Morley proposals; they expressed "deep and general satisfaction", and praised "the high statesmanship which dictated this act of the Government", and tendered "sincere and grateful thanks" personally to Morley and Minto. These reforms were officially known as the Government of India Act 1909. Its aim was to specifically see how the system of government could be better adapted to meet the requirements and promote the welfare of the different provinces without impairing its strength and unity. It attempted to enlarge the legislative councils and make them more representative. However, it would not be wrong to say that the Indian Councils Act was actually a farcical exercise in mass deception. It pompously introduced the principle of "elections". What this amounted to was merely a minority of indirectly elected members in the Central Legislative Council and a majority of indirectly elected members in the Provincial Councils. The Councils themselves allowed only some powers of discussion, putting of questions, and sponsoring of resolutions. These Councils had no control over administration or finance, let alone defence or foreign policy. The reforms were made with the express intent of isolating the growing nationalist movement. Lord Morley indeed explained this in a most telling manner to the House of Lords: "There are three classes of people whom we have to consider in dealing with a scheme of this kind. There are the extremists who nurse fanatic dreams that some day they will drive us out of India.... The second group nourishes no hopes of this sort, but hope for autonomy or self-government of the colonial species and pattern. And then the third section of this classification asks for no more than to be admitted to co-operation in our administration. I believe the effect of the Reforms has been, is being, and will be to draw the second class, which hope for colonial autonomy, into the third class, which will be content with being admitted to a fair and full cooperation.

In the system of election that was introduced most cynically, a separate electorate for the Muslims was brought in. But despite all the show of reforms, no real responsibility was handed over to the Indian people. In fact, Morley was quite clear as to what his objective was. He said: "If I were attempting to set up a parliamentary system in India, or it could be said that this chapter of reforms led directly or indirectly to the establishment of a parliamentary system in India, I for one would have nothing to do with it".

 But far more serious was the Anglo-Muslim rapprochement. According to M.N. Das: "the Viceroy's philosophy, in terms of his advocacy of communal electorates, was to weaken Indian nationalism and in this objective he was singularly successful for when communal conservatism united with an apprehensive imperialism, still at its height, insurmountable obstacles arose to national unity and revolutionary programmes. This was the beginning of the tragedy of Indian nationalism."

The National Congress Party's reaction

While the moderate Congress leaders were all praise for the reforms, there was a section of the Congress party, which saw the danger in these reforms. This section was the National Congress Party led by Sri Aurobindo, Tilak and others. Here is an extract from the writings of Sri Aurobindo on these reforms. This was in stark contrast to the view of the Moderate wing of the Congress party.

Sri Aurobindo wrote in the Karmayogin on the Nov. 11, 1909.

Page 33

"The question of separate representation for the Mohammedan community is one of those momentous issues raised in haste by a statesman unable to appreciate the forces with which he is dealing, which bear fruit no man expected and least of all the ill-advised Frankenstein who was responsible for its creation..... The Reform scheme is the second act of insanity, which has germinated from the unsound policy of the bureaucracy. It will cast all India into the melting pot and complete the work of Partition. Our own attitude is clear. We will have no part or lot in reforms, which give no popular majority, no substantive control, no opportunity for Indian capacity and statesmanship, no seed for Indian democratic expansion. We will not for a moment accept separate electorates or separate representation, not because we are opposed to a large Mohammedan influence in popular assemblies when they come but because we will be no party to a distinction which recognizes Hindu and Mohammedan as permanently separate political units and thus precludes the growth of a single and indivisible Indian nation. We oppose any such attempt at division whether it comes from an embarrassed Government seeking for political support or from an embittered Hindu community allowing the passions of the moment to obscure their vision of the future." 7

Again, he wrote:

"But the country, the swadesh, which must be the base and fundament of our nationality, is India, a country where Mohammedan and Hindu live intermingled and side by side. The Mohammedans base their separateness and their refusal to regard themselves as Indians first and Mohammedans afterwards on the existence of great Mohammedan nations to which they feel themselves more akin, in spite of our common birth and blood, than to us. Hindus have no such resource. For good or evil, they are bound to the soil and to the soil alone. They cannot deny their Mother nor can they mutilate her. Our ideal therefore is an Indian Nationalism, largely Hindu in its spirit and traditions, because the Hindu made the land and the people and persists by the greatness of his past, his civilization and his culture and his invincible virility, in holding it, but wide enough also to include the Moslem and his culture and traditions and absorb them into itself. 8

Regarding the Hindu-Muslim problem that was threatening to take alarming proportions, Sri Aurobindo wrote:

"Of one thing we may be certain, that Hindu-Muslim unity cannot be effected by political adjustments or Congress flatteries. It must be sought deeper down in the heart and in the mind, for where the causes of disunion are there the remedies must be sought. We shall do well in trying to solve the problem to remember that misunderstanding is the most fruitful cause of our differences, that love compels love and that strength conciliates the strong. We must strive to remove the causes of misunderstanding by a better mutual knowledge and sympathy; we must extend the unfaltering love of the patriot to our Mussulman brother, remembering always that in him too Narayana dwells and to him too our Mother has given a permanent place in her bosom; but we must cease to approach him falsely or flatter out of a selfish weakness and cowardice. We believe this to be the only practical way of dealing with the difficulty. As a political question the Hindu-Muslim problem does not interest us at all, as a national problem it is of supreme importance. We shall make it a main part of our work to place Mohammed and Islam in a new light before our readers to spread juster views of Mohammedan history and civilization, to appreciate the Musulman's place in our national development and the means of harmonizing his communal life with our own, not ignoring the difficulties that stand in

Page 34

the way of the possibilities of brotherhood and mutual understanding. Intellectual sympathy can only draw together; the sympathy of the heart can alone unite. But the one is a good preparation for the other".9

The Hindu Mahasabha

The policy of support given by the British to the Muslims and their aggressiveness naturally invited a reaction from the Hindus. The Hindu Mahasabha and other Hindu organizations were formed in the second half of the nineteenth century and gave their first expression in Bengal. They emphasized such items as cow protection, Hindi in Devanagari script and caste reforms. The leaders of the Hindu Mahasabha were alarmed by the entry of the Muslim 'ulema' into politics for the ulema had expressed the need for a holy war in order to fulfil their Pan-Islamic aims. The Hindu organizations felt that they had to create an effective organization to defend Hinduism against militant Islam.

Later, the Hindu Mela organization was formed to revive the pride in Hindu civilization. Vinayak Damodar Savarkar founded the Mitra Mela in 1899 in Bombay. It was later known as the Abhinava Bharat Society (Young India Society). It advocated armed struggle to throw off the shackles of foreign rule. But the most famous of these organizations was the Arya Samaj formed by Dayanand Saraswati in 1875. The Arya Samaj, a movement that was popular in Northern India, especially in Punjab, tried to go back to the Vedic roots of Indian culture. At the same time, it tried to correct some of the distortions that had crept into the Hindu religion, for example, the hereditary aspect of the caste system, the excessive stress on rituals and child marriage.

The British were thus faced with pressures from both the Hindu and Muslim communities. They had to tread a narrow and careful path but they were careful to see that their self-interest was never compromised; it was always kept paramount. Faced with the tremendous reaction from the people of Bengal in particular, and the people of India in general, they annulled the partition of Bengal in 1911.

.

The annulment gave the Muslims a rude shock. The British complicity in the spoilation of the Ottoman Empire and in the strangulation of Iran about the same time caused further alienation. The British had refused Turkish troops access to Libya through Egypt in 1911, when Libya was raided by Italy, and during the subsequent Balkan wars of 1912-13, which brought the Balkan powers to the gates of Adrianopole, the British sympathies, as usual, were with the aggressors and against the aggrieved Turks.

Then, in 1912, the British refused to grant the Aligarh Muslim University Scheme, on which Muslim India had set its heart, and which was designed not only to strengthen Muslim community consciousness throughout the subcontinent, but also to further strengthen the concept of an integrated pan-Indian Muslim communal sentiment. Finally, in 1913, a portion of a mosque in Kanpur was demolished to make room for building a road. These events, coming one after another in barely two years, hurt Muslim susceptibilities grievously and completely eroded Muslim faith in the British promises, justice and conduct. Thus the Muslims launched an anti-British campaign. The Congress and the Muslim League joined together in their fight against British imperialism.

The Lucknow Congress

It was at that time that the Congress party took a step that was to have the most serious consequences for the future. This step was taken at the Congress session at Lucknow. It was here that a pact was made between the Hindus and Muslims. The Lucknow Pact made in December 1916 was an agreement made by the Indian National Congress and the

Page 35

All-India Muslim League and adopted by the Congress at its Lucknow session on December 29 and by the League on Dec. 31, 1916. The Congress agreed to separate electorates for Muslims in provincial council elections. This pact was aimed at greater Hindu-Muslim cooperation and unity. However, it proved to be just the opposite and was, in fact, the first step in creating a permanent divide between the Hindus and Muslims. The later history of India amply proves this. Sri Aurobindo had been repeatedly warning of the dangers of communal representation. We are quoting again what he wrote in 1909. "The question of separate representation for the Mohammedan community is one of those momentous issues raised in haste by a statesman unable to appreciate the forces with which he is dealing, which bear fruit no man expected and least of all the ill-advised Frankenstein who was responsible for its creation.... We will not for a moment accept separate electorates or separate representation, not because we are opposed to a large Mohammedan influence in popular assemblies when they come but because we will be no party to a distinction which recognizes Hindu and Mohammedan as permanently separate political units and thus precludes the growth of a single and indivisible Indian nation. We oppose any such attempt at division whether it comes from an embarrassed Government seeking for political support or from an embittered Hindu community allowing the passions of the moment to obscure their vision of the future."

Much later Sri Aurobindo wrote: "What has created the Hindu-Muslim split was not Swadeshi, but the acceptance of the communal principle by the Congress, (here Tilak made his great blunder).

A very important point to note is the attitude of Mohamed Ali Jinnah. At this time, most interestingly and somewhat ironically, he opposed the idea of a separate electorate for the Muslims. In the words of Krishna Iyer: "He opposed the Muslim League's stand of favouring separate electorate for the Muslims and described it 'as a poisonous dose to divide the nation against itself.'" He collaborated with the Congress and actively worked against the Muslim communalists, calling them enemies of the nation. He had been much influenced by the speeches of Naoroji, Mehta and Gokhale whom he adored. Naoroji as Congress President had emphasised the need for "a thorough union of all the people" and pleaded with Hindus and Muslims to "sink or swim together. Without this union, all efforts will be in vain", he added. Jinnah was in full agreement with this view. He deprecated the "contrary separatist policy advocated by the League".

This step of creating separate electorates was a turning point in the history of the nation. In 1906 when the Muslim League was formed, it was a mere political entity but after the separate electoral arrangement was formalized, it became a distinct political force. From then on, the Muslim League played a more and more active part in fighting for the so-called Muslim rights and dividing the nation.

Summary

Let us take a look at the forces in play at this time in regard to Hindu-Muslim relations. The British policy of divide and rule

The definite willingness of the Muslim intellectuals to support this policy

The reaction of the Indian National Congress of going along with the British as they had

great faith in the British sense of justice.

The reaction of one section of the Hindus like the Hindu Mahasabha

The reaction of the Nationalist wing of the Congress led by Sri Aurobindo and Tilak.

Page 36

It was quite natural and understandable, though regrettable that the British wanted to retain their hold on India; therefore, the policy of divide and rule does not come as a surprise at all. All imperial nations have used this stratagem to remain in power and the British had perfected this strategy in all their colonies.

The Muslim intelligentsia supported this policy in their self-interest. After all, they had been the rulers of India for the last few centuries before the British replaced them. The work then before them was to convert the Muslim masses to the same idea. It is clear that they were becoming a force.

The Indian National Congress, which was formed in 1885, despite working for the Independence of India, did not have a clear vision of the role and destiny of India. It adopted basically Western models for political and social change in India. Led by the moderates it failed to acquire any roots among the common people. The politics of the moderates was "halting and half-hearted" because they had great faith in the British system and justice. This section of the Congress party was constantly flattering the Muslims in order to bring about unity.

The Hindu Mahasabha and allied organizations, as a reaction to the Muslim aggressiveness, tried to assert the Hindu way of life. But their main stress was more on the externals of Hinduism, on the social and ritualistic plane rather than on the deeper elements of Hinduism.

Last but not least, was the Nationalistic Congress party led by Sri Aurobindo; it too sought to return to Hinduism; but its whole concentration was on the deeper and eternal elements of the Hindu religion. This was inspired by what may be called the religion of patriotism. It was made up of, first, the identification of Mother India as a soul; second, the attempt to introduce the Kshatriya element in the Hindu psyche; and third, the conviction that India was destined to be the leader of the human race in the spiritual progress. This approach was stressed both by Swami Vivekananda and Sri Aurobindo. On his return to India from the meeting of the Parliament of Religions held in Chicago in 1893, Vivekananda declared that the indebtedness of the universe to India knew no bounds. While civilizations had come and gone, the civilization of India was 'indestructible and eternal'. And the message of this civilization had to be spread throughout the world.

Sri Aurobindo reiterated this in all his political writings in the Bandemataram. On his release from the Alipore jail, Sri Aurobindo made his famous Uttarpara speech. Here are some extracts from that speech: "I realised what the Hindu religion meant. We speak often of the Hindu religion, of the Sanatan Dharma, but few of us really know what that religion is. Other religions are preponderatingly religions offaith and profession, but the Sanatan Dharma is life itself; it is a thing that has not so much to be believed as lived. ... This is the Dharma that for the salvation of humanity was cherished in the seclusion of this peninsula from of old. It is to give this religion that India is rising. She does not rise as other countries do, for self or when she is strong, to trample on the weak. She is rising to shed the eternal light entrusted to her over the world. India has always existed for humanity and not for herself and it is for humanity and not for herself that she must be great. ...But it is not circumscribed by the confines of a single country; it does not belong peculiarly and for ever to a bounded part of the world. That which we call the Hindu religion is really the eternal religion, because it is the universal religion, which embraces all others. If a religion is not universal, it cannot be eternal. A narrow religion, a

Page 37

sectarian religion, an exclusive religion can live only for a limited time and a limited purpose. This is the one religion that can triumph over materialism by including and anticipating the discoveries of science and the speculations of philosophy.

It is the one religion, which impresses on mankind the closeness of God to us and embraces in its compass all the possible means by which man can approach God. It is the one religion which insists every moment on the truth which all religions acknowledge that He is in all men and all things and that in Him we move and have our being. It is the one religion, which enables us not only to understand and believe this truth but to realise it with every part of our being. It is the one religion, which shows the world what the world is, that it is the Lila of Vasudeva. It is the one religion which shows us how we can best play our part in that Lila, its subtlest laws and its noblest rules. It is the one religion, which does not separate life in any smallest detail from religion, which knows what immortality is and has utterly removed from us the reality of death". 10

Page 38

Chapter 6

The advent of Gandhi

In the next phase, it was Gandhi who dominated the scene. From the time that Gandhi entered politics, the Congress was only an expression and mouthpiece of the ideas and principles of Gandhi.

This period is of great importance in the history of India as it gave a new direction to Indian politics; whether this direction was the right one is debatable and the battle regarding this is still going on. What is needed now is clarity of vision and understanding that will help in putting the right values in the right perspective of the Indian background and thus prepare for the future evolution of India. But before we come to that stage, we shall see what the basic principles of Gandhi were.

The basic principles on which Gandhi founded his movement were Non-violence, Hindu-Muslim unity and Non-Cooperation or Satyagraha. At a later stage he added as one of his aims the uplift of the Harijans. We are concerned here only with the Hindu-Muslim problem. In order to bring about Hindu-Muslim unity Gandhi was prepared to go to any extent to please the Muslims. He believed that since the Hindus were the majority community they should be prepared to sacrifice their interests and values in order to bring about this unity. As a consequence, he was prepared to sacrifice even fundamental national interests; the concept of the divinity of the nation seemed to be completely missing from his vocabulary. Here is an illustration: On Aug. 4, 1920, Mahatma Gandhi had written in Young India: "My advice to my Hindu brethren is: Simply help the Mussalmans in their sorrow in a generous and self-sacrificing spirit without counting the cost and you will automatically save the cow. Islam is a noble faith. Trust it and its followers. We must hold it a crime for any Hindu to talk to them about cow-protection or any other help in our religious matters, while the Khilafat struggle is going on".

Similarly he interpreted the concept of non-violence as one of the fundamental tenets of the Hindu way of life. These were in direct opposition to those of Sri Aurobindo and Swami Vivekananda. Gandhi put all these ideas into practice in the Khilafat movement. Let us then see what the Khilafat movement was.

The Khilafat Movement (1919-23)

Shortly after the outbreak of the First World War, the Allies were loudly proclaiming their sympathy for smaller and weaker nations. Worried that Turkey might join the Germans in the War, the British government in order to win its support gave assurances of sympathetic treatment at the end of the war. The British Prime Minister, Lloyd George, declared on Jan. 5, 1918 that the Allies were "not fighting to deprive Turkey of the rich and renowned lands of Asia Minor and Thrace, which are predominantly Turkish in race". And President Wilson too endorsed this view in his message to the American Congress. These specific assurances by leading statesmen of Allied countries led the Indian Muslims to believe that whatever happened in the war, the independence of Turkey and her territorial integrity so far at least as her Asiatic dominions were concerned would be maintained. But all these hopes were doomed to disappointment - the reason, the terms of the Armistice and the Treaty of Sevres in August 1920, after the end of the war. Thrace was presented to Greece, and the Asiatic portions of the Turkish Empire were put under the control of England and France in the guise of Mandates. While Turkey was dispossessed of her homelands, her ruler, the Sultan, was deprived of all real authority even in the remaining dominions as he was placed under the authority of

Page 39

a High Commission appointed by the Allied Powers who really ruled the country. The Muslims of India regarded this as a great betrayal on the part of the British; a storm of indignation broke out and seething with rage, they yearned for bold action. This was the beginning of the Pan-Islamic movement and it gathered force in 1919.

The All India Muslim League led by the brothers Mohammad Ali and Shaukat Ali launched an agitation for the Khilafat Movement and they got the full support of Gandhi. In supporting the Khilafat Movement, Gandhi saw "an opportunity of uniting Hindus and Muslims as would not arise in another hundred years". Little did he realise that this movement would only strengthen the Pan-Islamic movement and weaken the national movement.

On March 20, Gandhi recommended to the Congress that Non-Cooperation be adopted as the method to get the demands of the Khilafatists granted. He had also promised to get Swaraj in one year. In December 1920, the Congress at its Nagpur session unanimously accepted the recommendation. But right from the outset Gandhi made it clear that the Khilafat question was in his view more important and urgent than that of Swaraj. He wrote: "To the Musalmans, Swaraj means, as it must, India's ability to deal effectively with the Khilafat question.... It is impossible not to sympathise with this attitude.... I would gladly ask for postponement of Swaraj activity if thereby we could advance the interest of the Khilafat."

It is evident that this Khilafat Movement was a movement that had nothing to do with Indian Nationalism. It encouraged the Pan-Islamic sentiment and thus went against the very grain of Indian Nationalism. It accentuated the sentiments of the Muslims that they were Muslims first and Indians afterwards. The Pan-Islamic sentiment behind the Khilafat Movement was clearly indicated by the mass migration of Muslims from India to Afghanistan. This planned movement, known as hijrat, started in Sindh and gradually spread to the North West Frontier Province. It was estimated that in August 1920, nearly 18,000 people were on their way to Afghanistan. But unfortunately for the Khilafat Movement, the Afghan government, which was inspired more by national than Pan-Islamic sentiment, forbade the admission of the Indian Muhajirs into Afghanistan. This was a severe blow to the Khilafat Movement. Soon, the British Government arrested the Ali brothers. The Hindu-Muslim alliance, founded as it was on a momentary hostility towards the British, could not endure for long. After the arrest of the Ali brothers, Gandhi seized upon an incident at Chauri Chaura, a remote village in U.P., to call off the movement. Then, Turkey herself took the fateful decision to abolish the institution of Khilafat in March 1924. Mustapha Kemal, whose nationalist forces deposed the Sultan in November 1922, proclaimed Turkey a republic a year later and finally abolished the office of the Caliph in early March 1924. The Khilafat Movement in India thus died a natural death; but it had encouraged and succeeded in strengthening the Indian Muslims' sense of separateness. This Turkish decision robbed the movement of its raison d'etre and the Khilafat Movement came to an end with the Muslims sinking to a state of utter despondency and helplessness. But the movement mobilized the Muslims politically at the grass-root level for the first time, and this experience came in handy later during the subsequent Pakistan movement. Since the Khilafat Movement was launched for the advancement of an Islamic cause, it helped strengthen their Islamic sensibilities and orientation and quickened their communal consciousness. This sense of separateness finally led to the formation of Pakistan.

Page 40

It will be of interest to note the role of the Ali brothers in the Khilafat Movement. The Ali brothers in their speeches emphasized the fact that the interests of the Indian Muslims lay more with the Muslims everywhere in the world, whether in Tripoli or Algeria, rather than with Hindus in India. When there were rumours that the Amir of Afghanistan might invade India, Mohamed Ali said: "If the Afghans invade India to wage holy war, the Indian Muslims are not only bound to join them but also to fight the Hindus if they refuse to cooperate with them." Gandhi also said: "I claim that with us both the Khilafat is the central fact; with Maulana Mohamed Ali because it is his religion, with me, because in laying down my life for the Khilafat, I ensure the safety of the cow, that is my religion, from the knife of the Muslim." It is thus evident that the Hindu-Muslim split had been fostered and encouraged by the policies of the Congress. It also signalled the beginning of the policy of appeasement of the Muslims by the Congress party.

This is what Sri Aurobindo had to say: "What has created the Hindu-Muslim split was not Swadeshi, but the acceptance of the communal principle by the Congress, (here Tilak made his great blunder), and the further attempt by the Khilafat movement to conciliate them and bring them in on wrong lines. The recognition of that communal principle at Lucknow made them permanently a separate political entity in India, which ought never to have happened; the Khilafat affair made that separate political entity an organised separate political power. It was not Swadeshi, Boycott, National Education, Swaraj (our platform) which made this tremendous division, how could it? Tilak .was responsible for it not by that, but by his support of the Lucknow affair - for the rest, Gandhi did it with the help of his Ali brothers".

During the height of the Khilafat agitation, which had for its aim the Hindu-Muslim rapprochement, the country was rocked by some of the worst communal riots in Kerala. These riots known as the Moplah Riots took place in August 1921 and sent shock waves throughout India. It was the most prolonged and concentrated attack on the Hindu religion, life and property; hundreds of Hindus were forcibly converted to Islam, women were outraged. Gandhi who had brought about this calamity by his communal policy kept mum. He did not utter a single word of reproach against the aggressors nor did he allow the Congress to take any active steps whereby repetition of such outrages could be prevented. The façade of Hindu-Muslim unity had to be maintained and anything that would displease the Muslims had to be avoided. All this only encouraged the Muslims to be more stubborn in their demands.

This trend of turning a blind eye to the Muslim atrocities continued right through the Freedom Movement till India got its independence and, unfortunately, goes on even today.

Let us see what Sri Aurobindo had to say on the Hindu-Muslim problem. In the course of a conversation, a disciple observed: "There is also the question of Hindu-Muslim unity which the non-violence school is trying to solve on the basis of their theory".

Sri Aurobindo replied: "You can live amicably with a religion whose principle is toleration. But how is it possible to live with a religion whose principle is 'I will not tolerate?' How are you going to have unity with these people? Certainly Hindu-Muslim unity cannot be arrived at on the basis that Muslims will go on converting Hindus while Hindus shall not convert Mohammedans. You can't build unity on such basis. Perhaps the

Page 41

only way of making the Mohammedans harmless is to make them lose their faith in their religion". 11

Later he said:

"The attempt to placate the Mohammedans was a false diplomacy. Instead of trying to achieve Hindu-Muslim unity directly, if the Hindus had devoted themselves to national work, the Mohammedans would have gradually come of themselves.... This attempt to patch up a unity has given too much importance to the Muslims and it has been the root of all these troubles." 12

Again in 1923 Sri Aurobindo remarked:

"I am sorry they are making a fetish of this Hindu-Muslim unity. The best solution would be to allow the Hindus to organize themselves and the Hindu-Muslim unity would take care of itself, it would automatically solve the problem. Otherwise we are lulled into a false sense of satisfaction that we have solved a difficult problem when in fact we have only shelved it." 13

In 1926, Sri Aurobindo remarked:

"Look at Indian politicians: all ideas, ideas-they are busy with ideas. Take the Hindu-Muslim problem: I don't know why our politicians accepted Gandhi's Khilafat agitation. With the mentality of the ordinary Mahomedan it was bound to produce the reaction it has produced: you fed the force, it gathered power and began to make demands which the Hindu mentality had to rise up and reject. That does not require Supermind to find out, it requires common sense. Then, the Mahomedan reality and the Hindu reality began to break heads at Calcutta. (This refers to the riots in Calcutta the previous month). The leaders are busy trying to square the realities with their mental ideas instead of facing them straight."14

Page 42

Chapter 7

The return of Jinnah to Indian politics

A very important event that took place in 1928 was the return of Jinnah from England. When he rejoined Indian politics he was a totally different man and this time he pursued a radically new policy with regard to the Muslims of India. It was at that time that the Indian leaders decided to formulate an Indian Constitution acceptable to all political parties. This idea was taken up at the Congress session of 1927 in Madras. As a result, a committee headed by Pundit Motilal Nehru was set up. An All Parties Conference met at Lucknow in August 1928 where a constitution was framed and was accepted by the Congress party. However, when the All Parties Convention met later in December, it was not accepted by the Muslim League, which was headed by Mohammed Ali Jinnah. Jinnah made new demands and put them forward in the form of amendments, which were not passed. Jinnah then left the convention in protest and joined the Muslim leaders who did not see eye-to-eye with the Congress. On Jan 1, 1929, an All India Muslim Conference was held where he issued a manifesto of Muslim claims. This formed the basis of his fourteen demands later.

Jinnah began his political career in the school of Gokhale and was an adherent of the Congress till 1920-21. He was an able debater and a top rank political leader. However, the mysticism of Gandhi was a mystery to him; at the same time, he was opposed to the reactionary Muslim parties. Not finding himself comfortable with Indian politics, he left for England to settle in that country. Jinnah returned to Indian politics in 1928, a completely changed man and gave a completely new turn to Indian politics. What made him return and the causes of the change in him are not clear. It is suggested in some quarters that he was piqued by the Congress attitude towards him. His abilities as a parliamentarian and organiser soon brought him to the forefront and he became the leader of the Muslim League.

From this time onwards, Jinnah was an ardent champion of the Muslim cause. He started a movement claiming that the Muslims constituted a separate nation from the Hindus and he pursued it vigorously. In the meanwhile, the British government announced the Communal Award. There was a lot of discussion in the Congress party regarding the Communal Award and there were sharp differences within the party. In this Award, the seats allotted to the communities other than the Hindus were far in excess of their numerical strength. For instance, the position of Hindus in Bengal was especially deplorable. Out of the 250 seats in the legislature, only 80 seats were allotted to the Hindus while the Muslims were given 119. Quite naturally, the Muslims members of the Congress favoured the award.

But the Hindu members, led by Gandhi, in order to placate the Muslims, refrained from definitely condemning it. It is necessary to point out that the greatest disservice done by Gandhi to the cause of Indian nationalism was his frank admission, in season and out of season, that no solution to the communal problem would be acceptable to him that was not supported by the Muslims. This placed in the hands of the Muslim reactionaries the power to put a veto on all constitutional progress in India and this power was used to the hilt by the Muslims both at the Round Table Conference and later by Jinnah. From this time onwards, Jinnah relentlessly pursued his one-point programme of creating a separate homeland for the Muslims of India.

Page 43

We have already seen how the Hindu-Muslim fraternity artificially created by Gandhi during the Khilafat agitation had collapsed and was followed by bitter feuds leading to communal riots. Mohammed Ali who was the principal lieutenant of Gandhi in the Khilafat agitation had, by 1930, turned against Gandhi. He refused to work with Gandhi and made no secret of his Pan-Islamism. He said: "I belong to two circles of equal size but which are not concentric. One is India and the other is the Muslim world. We are not Nationalists but Supernationalists." However the influence of the Ali brothers was on the wane and it was Mohammed Ali Jinnah who took the lead of the Muslim community. By 1928, his whole concentration was on the improvement of the political status of the Muslims in India. In this he was aided by two factors:

1. The clever move by the British who declared that no political concession would be given to the Indian people unless there was a fair measure of agreement between the Hindus and the Muslims..

2. Secondly, the repeated declaration of Gandhi and the Congress party that there could be no solution to the constitutional problem in India unless there was complete agreement between the two communities.

Jinnah exploited this situation in a masterly manner. In 1929, as the leader of the Muslim League, he repudiated the Nehru Constitution and proposed his fourteen points. It is true that the All Parties Convention did not accept Jinnah's amendments but he gained on two fronts; firstly, the Nehru report lapsed and secondly, he killed the Nationalist Muslim Party formed by Ansari. Ansari had all along been claiming that his party truly represented the Muslims. Jinnah and Ansari soon drifted apart and within a short time, the Muslim League became the sole representative of the Muslims. The Congress claim that it represented the whole nation, including the Muslims, suffered a serious setback. From this time onwards, Jinnah stressed the need of maintaining the unity and solidarity of the Muslims as a separate social and political unity. Jinnah warned the Congress not to interfere in Muslim affairs, thus implying that no Muslim who was not a member of the Muslim League should be regarded as a true representative of the Muslims. He looked upon the Muslim community as a distinct and separate community. This feeling was further increased by the proposal made by Mohammed Iqbal. In the Allahabad Congress of 1930, he said: "I would like to see the Punjab, North West Frontier Province, Sind and Baluchistan amalgamated into a single State. Self-government within the British Empire or without the British Empire, the formation of a consolidated North-West Indian Muslim State appears to me to be the final destiny of the Muslims, at least of North-West India." This idea was taken up by a young man educated in Cambridge, Rahmat Ali. His conception was that since 712 AD, the four States mentioned above were the natural home of the Muslims since they were in a majority in those areas. To him the Hindu-Muslim conflict was not a clash of religions or economic factors. It was an international conflict between two national entities. He said: "Our religion, culture, history, tradition, literature, economic system, laws of inheritance, succession and marriage are fundamentally different from those of the Hindus. These differences are not confined to broad basic principles; they extend to the minutest details of our lives. Therefore for us to seal our national doom in the interest of one Indian nationhood would be a treachery against our posterity, a betrayal of our history and a crime against humanity for which there would be no salvation." However, in the thirties, the scheme proposed by Rahmat

Page 44

Ali was considered a student's impractical scheme. But Jinnah was determined to see that this idea would be made a practical proposition.

While it is important to note the role played by Gandhi and Jinnah in furthering the cause of the Muslims, it is absolutely necessary to understand the psychological and ideological roots of the Islamic movement in India. For without this strong ideological basis, it would have been almost impossible to convert this into a mass movement. This was the task that Jinnah took upon himself in the next few years.

Pakistan's Islamic Foundations

We shall quote here from an article of Rajiv Malhotra on the Islamic foundations of the movement.

"The three important social demands that dominate the Islamic orthodoxy as adopted by Pakistan's government and many other Islamic States (as opposed to alternative liberal interpretations that are subverted) are: (1) the 2-nation theory, (2) global loyalty to Islam superceding sovereignty of man-made countries, and (3) Islamic triumphalism. These are summarized below:

1. The 2-nation theory: Pakistan was carved out of India based on the theory that Muslims require their own separate nation in order to live in compliance with Islamic Law. This theory is equivalent to: (a) segregation (neo-apartheid) by demanding a separation of socio-political jurisdiction for Muslims; and (b) Islamic exclusiveness and imposition of Islamic "Law" upon the public sphere. This is the exact opposite of both pluralism and secularism. The traumatic event that resulted from this, in India, is commonly called "The Partition." Once the population of Muslims in a given region crosses a threshold in numbers and/or assertiveness, such demands begin. Once this ball is set in motion, the euphoria builds up into a frenzy, and galvanizes the Pan-Islamic "global loyalty" discussed in #2 below. The temperature is made to boil until Muslims worldwide see the expansion of their territory as God's work. The US will have this experience at some point during the next few decades.

2. Pan-Islamic loyalty superceding local sovereignty: Islamic doctrine divides humanity into two nations that transcend all boundaries of man-made countries: All Muslims in the world are deemed to be part of one single nation called dar-ul-islam (Nation-of-Islam). All non-Muslims are deemed to belong to dar-ul-harb (the enemy, or Nation-of-War). This bi-polar definition cuts across all sovereignty, because sovereignty is man-made and hence inferior and subservient to God's political and social bifurcation. Islamic doctrine demands loyalty only to Islamic Law and not to the man-made laws of nations and states, such as USA, India, etc. Among the consequences of this doctrine is that a Muslim is required to fight on the side of a Muslim brother against any non-Muslim. This has often been invoked by Muslims to supercede the merits of a given dispute at hand. Orthodox Islam calls for a worldwide "network" of economic, political, social, and other alliances amongst the 1.2 billion Muslims of the world. Pakistan invokes this doctrine to claim Indian Muslims as part of dar-ul-islam, with Pakistan designated as caretaker of their interests. The Al Qaeda global network of terror is simply the extreme case of such a "network" mentality turning violent against the dar-ul-harb.

3. Islamic Triumphalism: A central tenet of Islam is that God's "nation" -- i.e. the dar-ul-islam -- must sooner or later take over the world. Others, especially those who are in the crosshairs, as prey at a given moment, see this as religious imperialism. Pakistan's official account of history honors Aurungzeb because he plundered and oppressed the infidels,

Page 45

i.e. Hindus and Buddhists. Likewise, many other conquerors, such as Mohammed of Ghazni, are portrayed as great heroes of Islamic triumphalism. (Even Pakistan's missile is named after an Islamic conqueror of India in the Medieval Period.) Given this divine mandate, the ethos of aggressiveness and predatory behavior is promoted and celebrated in social life, which non-Muslims see as Islamic chauvinism. September 11 was a misjudgment of timing and dar-ul-islam's ability to take over. But any orthodox Mullah or Imam would confirm God's edict that eventually Islam absolutely must take over the world."

Here is another statement of Jinnah that argued in favour of a separate state of Pakistan: "You must remember that Islam is not merely a religious doctrine but a realistic and practical code of conduct. I am thinking in terms of life, of everything important in life. I am thinking in terms of our history, our heroes, our art, our architecture, our music, our laws, and our jurisprudence. In all things our outlook is not only fundamentally different but also often radically antagonistic to the Hindus. We are different beings. There is nothing in life, which links us together. Our names, our clothes, our foods they are all different; our economic life, our educational ideas, our treatment of women, our attitude to animals. We challenge each other at every point of the compass." He went on to say: "To yoke together two such nations under a single state, one as a numerical minority and the other as majority, must lead to growing discontent and final destruction of any fabric that may be so built up for the government of such a state."

It is evident that with this kind of mentality, it would neither be difficult nor take too long for Jinnah to convert the majority of Muslims to his viewpoint. In the following years, his whole plan of political action was to utilize every forum and occasion for the fulfilment of this goal. It must be pointed out that Jinnah's concept of two nationalities is false and was invented by him to further his own interests. In the words of Sri Aurobindo:

"The idea of two nationalities in India is only a newly-fangled notion invented by Jinnah for his purposes and contrary to the facts. More than 90% of the Indian Mussalmans are descendants of converted Hindus and belong as much to the Indian nation as the Hindus themselves. This process of conversion has continued all along; Jinnah is himself a descendant of a Hindu, converted in fairly recent times, named Jinahbhai and many of the most famous Mohammedan leaders have a similar origin. "15

Page 46

Chapter 8

The Second World War

Then, there came the Second World War. The Congress party had to take a decision as to whether it should support the Allies, remain neutral, or oppose them. The Congress party dithered for some time but finally decided to first remain uninvolved and finally, to even oppose the British. This step proved to be disastrous for India. From the occult point of view, it was a very serious mistake that resulted in opening the doors to hostile forces.

The Mother said in May 1941: "The world situation is critical today. India's fate too hangs in the balance. There was a time when India was absolutely secure; there was no danger of her being a victim of Asuric aggression. But things have changed. People and forces in India have acted in such a way as to attract Asuric influences upon her: these have worked insidiously and undermined the security that was there." From then on, the special divine protection that India had always had was breached. Even from the political point of view, it showed a shortsightedness that betrayed a total misunderstanding of world affairs.

When the Second World War broke out, Sri Aurobindo came out publicly on the side of the Allies. Here is what he said:

"We feel that not only is this a battle waged in just self-defence and in defence of the nations threatened with the world-domination of Germany and the Nazi system of life, but that it is a defence of civilisation and its highest attained social, cultural and spiritual values and of the whole future of humanity. To this cause our support and sympathy will be unswerving whatever may happen; we look forward to the victory of Britain and, as the eventual result, an era of peace and union among the nations and a better and more secure world-order."

In a letter to a disciple, he explained the reasons for this support in some detail:

"We [Sri Aurobindo and Mother] made it plain in a letter which has been made public that we did not consider the war as a fight between nations and governments (still less between good people and bad people) but between two forces, the Divine and the Asuric. What we have to see is on which side men and nations put themselves; if they put themselves on the right side, they at once make themselves instruments of the Divine purpose in spite of all defects, errors, wrong movements and actions which are common to human nature and all human collectivities. The victory of one side (the Allies) would keep the path open for the evolutionary forces: the victory of the other side would drag back humanity, degrade it horribly and might lead even, at the worst, to its eventual failure as a race, as others in the past evolution failed and perished. That is the whole question and all other considerations are either irrelevant or of a minor importance. The Allies at least have stood for human values, though they may often act against their own best ideals (human beings always do that); Hitler stands for diabolical values or for human values exaggerated in the wrong way until they become diabolical (e.g. the virtues of the Herrenvolk, the master race). That does not make the English or Americans nations of spotless angels nor the Germans a wicked and sinful race, but as an indicator it has a primary importance Even if I knew that the Allies would misuse their victory or bungle the peace or partially at least spoil the opportunities opened to the human world by that victory, I would still put my force behind them. At any rate things could not be one-hundredth part as bad as they would be under Hitler. The ways of the Lord would still be

Page 47

open-to keep them open is what matters. Let us stick to the real, the central fact, the need to remove the peril of black servitude and revived barbarism threatening India and the world.

P.S. Ours is a Sadhana which involves not only devotion or union with the Divine or a perception of Him in all things and beings but also action as workers and instruments and a work to be done in the world or a force to be brought in the world under difficult conditions; then one has to see one's way and do what is commanded and support what has to be supported, even if it means war and strife carried on whether through chariots and bows and arrows or tanks and cars and American bombs and planes, in either case ghoram karma [a dreadful work, Gita, 3.1].... As for violence etc. the old command rings out for us once again after many ages: "Mayaivaite nihatah purvameva nimittamatram bhava Savyasacin" [By me and none other already they are slain, become only the occasion, O Arjuna, Gita, 11.33]16

In the meanwhile, the Muslim League used the war to consolidate its position. On March 23, 1940, the All-India Muslim League, in a resolution at its historic Lahore Session, demanded a separate homeland for the Muslims in the Muslim majority regions of the subcontinent. The resolution was commonly referred to as the Pakistan Resolution. The Pakistan demand had a great appeal for Muslims of every persuasion. It revived memories of their past greatness and promised future glory. We reproduce extracts from the text of the presidential address by Jinnah at the All-India Muslim League held at Lahore from March 22 to 24, 1940.

"Muslim India cannot accept any constitution, which must necessarily result in a Hindu majority government. Hindus and Muslims brought together under a democratic system forced upon the minorities can only mean Hindu Raj. Democracy of the kind with which the Congress Hall Command is enamoured would mean the complete destruction of what is most precious in Islam. We have had ample experience of the working of the provincial constitutions during the last two-and-a-half years and any repetition of such a government must lead to civil war and raising of private armies as recommended by Mr. Gandhi to Hindus of Sukkur when he said that they must defend themselves violently or non-violently, blow for blow, and if they could not, they must emigrate. Mussalmans are not a minority as it is commonly known and understood. One has only got to look around. Even today, according to the British map of India, out of 11 provinces, four provinces, where the Muslims dominate more or less, are functioning notwithstanding the decision of the Hindu Congress High Command to non-cooperate and prepare for civil disobedience. Mussalmans are a nation according to any definition of a nation and they must have their homelands, their territory and their state. We wish to live in peace and harmony with our neighbours as a free and independent people. We wish our people to develop to the fullest our spiritual, cultural, economic, social and political life in a way that we think best and in consonance with our own ideals and according to the genius of our people. Honesty demands and vital interest of millions of our people impose a sacred duty upon us to find a honourable and peaceful solution, which would be just and fair to all. But at the same time we cannot be moved or diverted from our purpose and objective by threats or intimidations. We must be prepared to face all difficulties and consequences, make all the sacrifices that may be required of us to achieve the goal we have set in front of us.

Page 48

Ladies and gentlemen, that is the task before us. I fear I have gone beyond my time limit. There are many things that I should like to tell you, but I have already published a little pamphlet containing most of the things that I have said and I have been saying and I think you can easily get that publication both in English and Urdu from the League Office. It might give you a clearer idea of our aims. It contains very important resolutions of the Muslim League and various other statements. Anyhow, I have placed before you the task that lies ahead of us. Do you realise how big and stupendous it is? Do you realise that you cannot get freedom or independence by mere arguments? I should appeal to the intelligentsia. The intelligentsia in all countries in the world have been the pioneers of any movements for freedom. What does the Muslim intelligentsia propose to do? I may tell you that unless you get this into your blood, unless you are prepared to take off your coats and are willing to sacrifice all that you can and work selflessly, earnestly and sincerely for your people, strengthen your organisation and consolidate the Mussalmans all over India. I think that the masses are wide-awake. They only want your guidance and your lead. Come forward as servants of Islam, organise the people economically, socially, educationally and politically and I am sure that you will be a power that will be accepted by everybody".

This statement of Jinnah brings out clearly the line of argument and action that he proposed to follow.

The next day the Lahore resolution or the Pakistan resolution was passed.

'Lahore Resolution' or 'Pakistan Resolution'

Originally the word 'Pakistan' was not mentioned in the 'Lahore Resolution', but the Hindu and the British Press dubbed the Lahore Resolution as the Pakistan Resolution. Quaid-e-Azam accepted it and the word 'Pakistan' became synonymous with the Lahore Resolution. The Lahore Resolution subsequently known as 'Pakistan Resolution' was presided over by Quaid-e-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah. The resolution was moved by Mr. Fazlul Haq, the chief minister of Bengal, and seconded by Chaudhry Khaliq uzzaman.

On Mar. 23, 1940, Muslim League held its Annual session at Lahore under the Presidentship of Quaid-e-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah. The Quaid-e-Azam in his Presidential address made a detailed survey of the Indian political situation and asserted that India had never been united. For centuries, it had been divided between Muslim India and Hindu India and so would it remain in the future. The customs, traditions and the entire mode of civilization of these two people were different. They were different not only in their religious beliefs, but their entire outlook of life bore a different imprint. There were more shades of dissimilarity than similarity. He said: "The Hindus and Muslims belong to two different religious philosophies, social customs and literature. They neither intermarry nor inter-dine together and indeed they belong to two different civilizations which are based mainly on conflicting ideas and conceptions." The stage was now set for the demand of a separate independent homeland for the Muslims of India. The Muslim public opinion following the Congress rule in the Muslim minority provinces felt that the rights and privileges of Muslims could not be protected under a parliamentary form of government.

The Lahore session of the Muslim League was convened when the memory of the Khaksar tragedy in the Punjab was still fresh. The Quaid-e-Azam cancelled all the programmes of public pomp and show. The session was held in the open space of Minto

Page 49

Park (now Iqbal Park) under the enlarging shadows of the minarets of the Badshahi Masjid and the Lahore Fort. Lakhs of people from all over India gathered at Lahore to pay homage to their leaders and listen to the fateful decision, the All India Muslim League was to make. On Mar. 23, 1940, in a packed pandal, Maulvi Fazl-ul-Haq, the chief Minister of Bengal, moved the following resolution:

The Resolution:

"While approving and endorsing the action taken by the council and the working committee of the All-India Muslim League as indicated in their resolutions dated the 27th of August, 17th and 18th of September and 22nd of October 1939 and 3rd of February 1940, on the constitutional issue, this session of the All India Muslim League emphatically reiterates and the scheme of Federation embodied in the Government of India Act, 1935, is totally unsuited to this country and is altogether unacceptable to Muslim India.".

"It further records its emphatic view that while the declaration dated the 18th of October, 1939, made by the viceroy on behalf of his Majesty's government is reassuring in so far as it declares that the policy and plan on which the Government of India Act, 1935 is based will be reconsidered in consultation with the various parties' interest and communities in India. Muslim India will not be satisfied unless the whole constitutional plan is considered de novo and that no revised plan would be acceptable to the Muslims unless it is framed with their approval and consent".

"Resolved that it is the considered view of this session of the All-India Muslim League that no constitutional plan would be workable in this country or acceptable to the Muslims unless it is designed on the following basic principles. That geographically contiguous units are demarcated into regions which should be constituted, with such territorial readjustments as may be necessary, that the areas in which the Muslims are numerically in a majority as in the North-Western and Eastern zones of India should be grouped to constitute 'independent states' in which the constituted units shall be autonomous and sovereign".

"That adequate, effective and mandatory safeguards should be specifically provided in the constitution for minorities in these units and in the regions for the protection of their religious, cultural economic, political, administrative and other rights of interests in consultation with them and in other parts of India where the mussalmans are in a minority adequate, effective and mandatory safeguards shall be specifically provided in the constitution for them and other minorities for the protection of their religious, cultural, economic, political, administrative and other rights and interest in consultation with them".

"This session further authorises the working committee to frame a scheme of constitution in accordance with these basic principles, providing for the assumption finally, by the respective Regions of all powers and such other matters as may be necessary".

Let us now see what the attitude of the Congress and, in particular of Gandhi, was to Jinnah. Gandhi said that if Jinnah wanted a separate state, it must be given. Otherwise, there would be civil war.

Here again is what Sri Aurobindo had to say on this issue in May 1940:

Page 50

SA. Have you read what Gandhi has said in answer to a correspondent? He says that if eight crores of Muslims demand a separate State, what else are the twenty-five crores of Hindus to do but surrender? Otherwise there will be civil war. (A disciple :) I hope that is not the type of conciliation he is thinking of. SA. Not thinking of it, you say? He has actually said that and almost yielded. If you yield to the opposite party beforehand, naturally they will stick strongly to their claims. It means that the minority will rule and the majority must submit. The minority is allowed its say, "We shall be the ruler and you our servants. Our harf [word] will be law; you will have to obey. " 17

The Cripps Proposal and the Quit India Movement

The next important event that hastened the creation of Pakistan was the rejection of the Cripps Proposals. What exactly were the Cripps proposals?

The war, which had started in 1939, was now continuing in full rage. By the summer of 1940, Germany had conquered all those who were against them in the European continent except England. England now stood alone. The Congress Working Committee held a meeting in July 1940 and demanded "an immediate and unequivocal declaration of the full independence of India, which will enable it to throw its full weight into the efforts for the effective organisation of the defence of the country". In response to this, the Viceroy made an offer known as the August Offer. While reiterating the offer of Dominion Status, he agreed that the writing of an Indian constitution was the primary responsibility of Indians themselves. He, therefore, offered to set up a constitution making body after the war. As for the present, he suggested that there would be an increase of Indians in the Governor-General's Council; also a war-advisory council would be established. The Congress rejected the offer, saying that it was too little and too late. After the rejection, the Congress resorted to a Civil Disobedience Movement on a small scale; it was restricted to an individual and not to a mass Satyagraha. In 1941, the campaign picked up some momentum but met with very little success. The British Government arrested and convicted over 20,000 persons.

By the end of 1941, the war took a very serious turn. The Japanese after the attack on Pearl Harbour, joined the Axis powers against Britain. Very soon they overran Singapore, which had been considered impregnable; next came the turn of Malaysia and soon after they entered Burma, thus coming to the doorstep of India. The impending threat of a Japanese invasion of India loomed large. The Viceroy made a public appeal for a united national front, but it fell on deaf ears. At the same time, there was a section of English opinion led by Mr Amery, the Secretary of State that was openly with the Muslim League. But the enlargement of the Governor-General's Executive Council without the approval of the Muslim League stiffened its attitude. It passed a resolution stating that any fresh declaration, which affected the demand for Pakistan or proceeded on the basis of a Central Government with India as one single unit and Mussulmans as an all-India minority would be strongly resented by the Muslims. The Muslim Press rang with cries such as: "Pakistan is our demand and by God we shall have it". The Hindu Mahasabha challenged the threat and like the Congress demanded full independence, but unlike the Congress it was ready to cooperate with the British in the war effort. The British government, partly realizing the inevitability of India's future independence and partly under American pressure to secure her support during the war, sent Sir Stafford Cripps to

Page 51

India in March 1942, with a proposal for Dominion Status after the war, as a first step towards full independence.

The Cripps Mission

The proposals that Sir Stafford Cripps brought with him may be summarised as follows: In order to achieve the earliest possible realisation of self-government, a new Indian Union would be created with the full status of a Dominion. This would mean that India would be 'associated with the United Kingdom and the other Dominions by a common allegiance to the Crown, but equal to them in every respect in no way subordinate to them'.

Immediately after the war, India would be free to frame its own constitution. Until then, a new Executive Council would govern the country; the British would retain control of the defence of India as part of their world war effort, but the task of organising the military, moral and material resources would be the responsibility of the Government of India in cooperation with the peoples of India.

Here is an extract from the speech given by Sir Stafford Cripps on Mar. 30, 1942: "First of all you will want to know what object we had in view. Well, we wanted to make it quite clear and beyond any possibility of doubt or question that the British Government and the British people desire the Indian peoples to have full self-government, with a Constitution as free in every respect as our own in Great Britain or as of any of the great Dominion members of the British Commonwealth of Nations. In the words of the Draft Declaration, India would be associated with the United Kingdom and other Dominions by a common allegiance to the Crown but equal to them in every respect, in no way subordinate in any aspect of its domestic or external affairs.

The principle on which these proposals are based is that the new Constitution should be framed by the elected representatives of the Indian people themselves. So we propose that immediately after hostilities are ended, a constitution-making body should be set up consisting of elected representatives from British India and if the Indian States wish, as we hope they will to become part of the new Indian Union, they too will be invited to send their representatives to this constitution-making body, though, if they do, that will not, of itself, bind them to become members of the Union. That is the broad outline of the future.

There are those who claim that India should form a single united country: there are others who say it should be divided up into two, three or more separate countries. There are those who claim that provincial autonomy should be very wide with but few centrally controlled federal services; others stress the need for centralization in view of the growing complexity of economic development.

These and many other and various ideas are worthy to be explored and debated, but it is for the Indian peoples, and not for any outside authority, to decide under which of these forms India will in future govern herself.

So we provide the means and the lead by which you can attain that form of the absolute and united self-government that you desire at the earliest possible moment. In the past we have waited for the different Indian communities to come to a common decision as to how a new Constitution for a self-governing India should be framed and, because there has been no agreement amongst the Indian leaders, the British Government has been accused by some of using this fact to delay the granting of freedom to India. We are now giving the lead that has been asked for and it is in the hands of Indians and Indians only,

Page 52

whether they will accept that lead and so attain their own freedom. If they fail to accept this opportunity the responsibility for the failure must rest with them."

This was followed by protracted negotiations with all the parties. The Congress rejected the offer because it doubted Britain's declared intention to share executive power. Another reason for the rejection was the clause that permitted the provinces to secede from the proposed union. In addition there was Gandhi's pacifism, which proved to be a stumbling block. Gandhi called the proposals 'a post-dated cheque on a crashing bank'. On the other hand, the Muslim League too was not satisfied because it was not agreeable to the creation of one Indian Union; it wanted the possibility of the creation of more than one Union. The Cripps Mission thus ended in failure.

However, Sri Aurobindo took a totally different position. As seen earlier, he supported the Allies in the war, and when the Cripps offer was made, he sent Cripps the following message.

"As one who has been a nationalist leader and worker for India's independence, though now my activity is no longer in the political but in the spiritual field, I wish to express my appreciation of all you have done to bring about this offer. I welcome it as an opportunity given to India to determine for herself, and organise in all liberty of choice, her freedom and unity, and take an effective place among the world's free nations. I hope that it will be accepted, and right use made of it, putting aside all discords and divisions.... I offer my public adhesion, in case it can be of any help in your work."

The next day, on April 1, Cripps replied with the following telegram: "I am most touched and gratified by your kind message allowing me to inform India that you who occupy a unique position in imagination of Indian youth, are convinced that declaration of His Majesty's Government substantially confers that freedom for which Indian Nationalism has so long struggled."

Sri Aurobindo, in addition, sent a personal messenger to the Congress to urge them to accept Cripps' proposal; he also sent a telegram to C. Rajagopalachari, in which he said: "... Appeal to you to save India. Formidable danger, new foreign domination when old on way to self-elimination."

Sri Aurobindo's advice was ignored: "He has retired from political life, why does he interfere?" said Gandhi to Duraiswamy Iyer, Sri Aurobindo's messenger. Although Nehru and Rajagopalachari favoured acceptance of Cripps' offer, Gandhi found it unacceptable because of his opposition to war. Had Cripps' proposal been accepted, the Partition and the blood bath that followed might have been averted.

Sri Aurobindo gave reasons for accepting the proposals.

First, Hitler represented an Asuric force and his victory would be good neither for India nor for the world.

Second, this offer was made chiefly to the Congress party and it was an opportunity for it to handle the communal problem.

Third, while the British were in India, Indians would be administering the country with their support from behind the scenes. That would have meant that a very large number of Indians would have been trained in administration.

Fourth, he said that by participating in the war effort, almost a million soldiers would be trained in the very thick of war and fighting in the thick of war was the best experience; and if the British decided to back out of the agreement after that, there would be a very large number of Indians who could take up arms against the British.

Page 53

Fifth, he said that when one has to choose between a known enemy and an unknown enemy, it was better to choose the known enemy. Because if the Germans or Japanese won the war, there was no guarantee that India would get freedom. The Indians would only change their masters and knowing the British, knowing the background of their history, with all their shortcomings, they had generally a democratic approach to life and second, the Indians knew them well having fought them for almost 200 years.

The Quit India Movement

As a result of the failure of the Cripps Mission, Gandhi's attitude towards the British changed radically. He was convinced that the presence of the British in India was an invitation to the Japanese to invade India. He suggested that the safety and interest of both Britain and India "lie in orderly and timely British withdrawal from India". He believed that with the withdrawal of the British, the danger of a Japanese invasion would disappear. At this time, differences emerged between Nehru and Gandhi. Nehru believed that India must fight with Britain against Fascism, while Gandhi felt that all ideas of cooperation or friendly understanding between Britain and India must end. On June 7, he wrote: "I waited and waited until the country should develop the non-violent strength necessary to throw off the foreign yoke. But my attitude has now undergone a change. If I continue to wait I might have to wait till doomsday. For the preparation that I have prayed and worked for may never come and in the meantime I may be enveloped and overwhelmed by the flames that threaten all of us. That is why I have decided that even at certain risks, which are obviously involved, I must ask the people to resist the slavery." On Jul. 14, 1942, the Congress Working Committee passed the Quit India resolution. It renewed the demand that British rule should end in India immediately, and gave the assurance that it was agreeable to the stationing of the armed forces of the Allies in India. It pleaded with Britain to accept the very reasonable demand, failing which it would be reluctantly compelled to utilise all the non-violent strength for the vindication of its political rights and liberty. On August 8, the Congress Working Committee endorsed the Quit India resolution. Gandhi announced to the people of India, 'I am not going to be satisfied with anything short of complete freedom. We shall do or die. We shall either free India or die in the attempt.' The next morning he and all other Congress leaders were arrested. Immediately after the arrests, Jinnah issued a statement deeply regretting that the Congress had declared war on the Government, unmindful of all interests other than its own, and appealing to Muslims to keep completely aloof from the movement. This position of Jinnah further endeared him to the British Government.

The news of these arrests led to violent popular demonstrations, which soon spread over the whole of India. Spontaneous acts of protest in the form of hartals, strikes and processions took place. From August 11, the situation deteriorated. There were concerted outbreaks of mob violence, arson, murder, and sabotage, most of them being directed against the railways, telegraphs and against the police. These outbreaks occurred simultaneously in widely separated areas in the provinces of Madras, Bombay and Bihar. So serious was the situation that parts of the country were completely cut off and British rule virtually ceased to exist. The cult of non-violence had come to an end once for all, never more to figure as a potent force in India's freedom struggle.

The British Government crushed the movement ruthlessly using all the machinery of modern warfare at their disposal. These methods included machine gun firing and even aerial bombing. Tens of thousands were arrested and the police used the most bestial

Page 54

methods to quell the uprising. By the end of September, the movement had been more or less crushed and the British regained control over the whole of India. The Quit India movement had ended in a total failure. The question then arose as to who was responsible for the terrible violence and the sufferings that followed; a prolonged correspondence between Gandhi and the Viceroy, Lord Linlithgow, took place each blaming the other. Gandhi, not getting a satisfactory response, went on a fast from Feb. to Mar. 2, 1943 but it was not clear what the fast was about. This was followed by a terrible famine in Bengal and parts of Orissa, Bihar and Madras in which over three million persons died; this famine was the result of the Government's scorched earth policy.

This one act of the Quit India Movement by the Congress party changed the whole situation. The British government was under a moral obligation to Jinnah and the Muslim League to satisfy their demands, for after all they had come to their help in a time of distress. One would not be wrong to say that this one step of the Congress led to the formation of Pakistan. For Jinnah, there was no looking back after that.

Direct Action

One of the first steps that Jinnah took after this was to force the hands of the British government by resorting to direct action. The whole purpose was to prove that Hindus and Muslims would not be able to live together. He explained that the participation of the Muslims in the proposed constitution making machinery was fraught with danger. He said that while the British had machine guns to enforce their will and the Hindus the weapon of civil resistance, the Muslims alone remained defenceless. It followed that they must bid good-bye to constitutional methods and prepare for self-defence and self-preservation by resorting to direct action. August 16 was fixed as the day for Direct Action. While the tension was building up, the Viceroy decided on August 12 to invite the Congress to form the interim government. That proved to be the last straw for Jinnah. Nehru invited Jinnah to participate in the interim government but he declined the invitation. At that time, the president of the All-India-Jamaitul Ulma-I-Islam, Shabbir Ahmad Usmani, declared that no power on earth could crush the Muslims. 'Living he is a Gazi and killed in action he is a martyr'.

In Calcutta, August 16 began with public demonstrations, hartals and the hoisting of the Muslim League flag. Soon clashes broke out and spread to the whole city. Utter confusion prevailed in the city and the hooligans had a field day indulging in stabbing, killing, arson, looting and criminal assaults on women. The mob fury continued for four days with the government standing by and proving to be utterly ineffective in dealing with the situation. It is estimated that thousands were killed, tens of thousands injured, lakhs left homeless and property worth crores of rupees destroyed. Bengal was then under the Muslim League and the Chief Minister was Suhrawardy. The Statesman wrote: 'this is not a riot. For three days the city concentrated on unrestrained civil war. Upon whom the main guilt for it rests is manifest. Where the primary blame lies is where we have squarely put it - upon the Provincial Muslim League Cabinet and particularly the Chief Minister.' The rioting soon spread to other parts like Noakhali and Tipperah where the Muslims were in a majority. The Hindus were butchered mercilessly and the Hindus in Bihar retaliated. All in all, it was a sordid story of horror and cruelty. This was the way Jinnah had chosen to prove his point: Hindus and Muslims could not live together.

At the same time, there was a planned and systematic attack by Muslims on the Sikhs in East Punjab. This attack was of a diabolical character and lasted for months starting from

Page 55

December 1946. The Muslim population of the Punjab, in order to cow down the Sikhs, resorted to a total campaign of murder, arson, loot and abduction of women. The Sikhs had to go through this experience for months and millions of them were forced to quit their homes. What is not very well known or fully borne in mind is the fact that this tragic migration was the last culminating episode in a conspiracy that had been hatched for more than a decade before it actually occurred. It was the conspiracy of the Muslim League to establish a Muslim State without the encumbrance of any non-Muslim populations. .

To sum up:

(a) The Muslim League agitation had as its aim the overthrow of the Coalition ministry, and clearing the way for the achievement of Pakistan,

(b) H. M. G. Statement of Feb. 20, 1947, declaring that power would be transferred in India in default of one Central Government, in some areas to the existing Provincial Governments, made it imperative for the League to capture power and to establish its own Government in the Punjab at all costs, so that such a Government should be able to receive power independently of a Central Government of India;

(c) The "Victory Day" of Mar. 2, 1947, was used by the League for making provocative speeches, and whipping up the passions of the Muslim masses against all who might oppose Pakistan;

(d) Not being able to get the cooperation of a single Hindu or Sikh inside the Provincial Assembly, the Muslim League decided upon capturing power by waging a war on the minorities in the Punjab;

(e) For this purpose, the Riots of March 1947 were started, and they occurred simultaneously in Lahore, Amritsar, Jullundur, Multan, Rawalpindi, Campbellpur and other districts, the aggressors in all places being Muslims;

(f) These riots were no ordinary riots, but were a war of subjugation and conquest in which the Muslim people, the Muslim police and Muslim officials worked in perfect unison, and brought widespread death, destruction and uprooting to Hindus and Sikhs in a dozen districts, killing many thousands and uprooting about a million, before the month was out.

So, from Mar. 5, 1947 onwards, the constitutional game was up, and for the Hindus and Sikhs it became a sheer struggle for life against a fierce and well-planned Muslim onslaught - well-planned because the Muslim League had a fighting corps (the Muslim League National Guard), an ample stock of weapons, both sharp-edged and fire-arms, and a plan of attack with the connivance of police and officials.

It had now become clear that India would be divided and that the British would withdraw soon. Several small regions sought sovereignty. It was decided that Atlee's deadline of June 1948 be advanced to August 15, 1947. V.P. Menon proposed the TWO-DOMINION of INDIA and PAKISTAN plan that was accepted by Mountbatten and by Nehru on May 11, 1947. On June 2, 1947, the Menon-Mountbatten plan was accepted by Nehru, Kripalani and Patel on behalf of the Congress, by Baldeo Singh on behalf of the Sikhs, and by Jinnah on behalf of the Muslim League.

The Status of the Princely States

The British had divided what makes up the present Bangladesh, India and Pakistan into several segments. About 40% of this territory came under 'British India' over which alone the British Parliament could legislate. The British Parliament did NOT legislate for the

Page 56

remaining 60% of the territory that was ruled by the princes, the maharajas, and the Nizams, and they reported to the Viceroy. There were nearly six hundred of these princely states.

The Indian princely states were left free to decide if they would stay independent or join one of the two countries. The British Government's ruling, contained in His Majesty's Government's statement of Jun 3, 1947, was clear: "...the decision announced about the partition relates only to British India (seven provinces) and that their policy towards the Indian (princely) states.. .remains unchanged". There was no provision to influence the destiny of the princely states with regard to any communal factor, which was the governing factor for the partition only of 'British India' over which alone did the British Parliament legislate. The future of the nearly six hundred princely states was thus completely, exclusively and irrevocably to be determined by their monarchs.

Sardar Patel led a brilliant campaign that got most of the princely states to take quick and correct decisions. These princely states were encouraged to accede to either Pakistan or to India as per the wishes of their rulers. It was expected, naturally, that the rulers would keep in mind the interests of their subjects. Given the treatment meted out to the Muslims from India who went to Pakistan, any State, it was obvious, would opt only for accession to India. Pakistan was conceived and formed as a Muslim state. India was not formed as a Hindu state. Most of the princely states acceded to one or the other country in a very dignified way, governed by simple logistics. However, there were some exceptions. We shall deal with them in the later part of the book.

On Aug.15 1947 India got her independence. At the stroke of midnight, Jawaharlal Nehru made his famous speech. We quote from the speech: "Long years ago we made a tryst with destiny, and now the time comes when we shall redeem our pledge, not wholly or in full measure, but very substantially. At the stroke of the midnight hour, when the world sleeps, India will wake to life and freedom. A moment comes, which comes but rarely in history, when we step out from the old to the new, when an age ends, and when the soul of a nation, long suppressed, finds utterance. It is fitting that at this solemn moment we take the pledge of dedication to the service of India and her people and to the still larger cause of humanity".

At the same time Sri Aurobindo gave a message to the nation: Here is an extract from the message:

"August 15th, 1947 is the birthday of free India. It marks for her the end of an old era, the beginning of a new age. But we can also make it by our life and acts as a free nation an important date in a new age opening for the whole world, for the political, social, cultural and spiritual future of humanity. India is free but she has not achieved unity, only a fissured and broken freedom.... The old communal division into Hindu and Muslim seems to have hardened into the figure of a permanent political division of the country. It is to be hoped that the Congress and the nation will not accept the settled fact as forever settled or as anything more than a temporary expedient. For if it lasts, India may be seriously weakened, even crippled: civil strife may remain always possible, possible even a new invasion and foreign conquest. The partition of the country must go - it is to be hoped by a slackening of tension, by a progressive understanding of the need of peace and concord, by the constant necessity of common and concerted action, even of an instrument of union for that purpose. In this way unity may come about under whatever form-the exact form may have a pragmatic but not a fundamental importance. But by

Page 57

whatever means, the division must and will go. For without it the destiny of India might be seriously impaired and even frustrated. But that must not be."18

Page 58

Chapter 9

Summary of causes of Partition

We may summarise the chief causes of the Partition of India

The policy of divide and rule of the British

The aggressive attitude of the Muslim League

The Congress policy of appeasement of the Muslims

The psychological foundation of the different parties

We have described briefly the events that ultimately led to the partition of the country. But events are after all only manifestations of the psychology of the people and the vision that the leaders have of the nation. It is, therefore, important to see the vision of India that the different parties had and the inevitable consequences that it has had on the nation's development. It is also evident that if any meaningful and lasting change has to take place on the ground, it has to be preceded by a psychological change in the mass; otherwise it will not last and will only make the situation worse than before.

It is evident that there were great differences of perception regarding the very essence of Indianness - what India stood for, what were the means of its attainment and finally what the future vision of India was. We shall study this in the case of the Muslim League who more or less represented the Muslim community in India and the two sections of the Congress party who claimed to represent the whole nation but ultimately seemed more to represent the Hindus and to a great extent, the other religious groups. The two groups in the Congress had radically different perceptions. On one side was the Gandhian thought and on the other was the Nationalistic or Swadeshi wing of the Congress in 1905 led by Sri Aurobindo and Tilak. It would be useful, therefore, to see in some detail these perceptions.

At the very outset we must point out that we shall not take into account the British factor although it played a significant role in the partition of India. For, the British vision of India was entirely coloured by self-interest. As colonial rulers, their chief and only interest in India was as a colonial master and as a source of revenue and exploitation. And even after India attained independence, they have continued the same game of equating India and Pakistan in order to secure greater leverage in the subcontinent.

The Nationalistic view

The term Hindu 'revivalism' is a complete misnomer; it should really be called the Indian Renaissance. It took place in the 19th century and was essentially a resurgence of the national spirit of a people native to the land, who had suffered terribly and for a long time from successive foreign invasions. The Indian society was aspiring to reform and renew itself in the image of its ancient ideals, which had endowed it with strength and stability. It took a political form in the beginning of the 20th century, between 1905 and 1910.

In this political phase, led by Sri Aurobindo, Tilak, Lala Lajpat Rai and Bipin Chandra Pal, the movement took a new orientation. In contrast to the first phase of the Congress movement led by Dadabhai Naoroji and his colleagues, the Swadeshi Movement, as it was then called, attempted to base its political creation on the Indian spirit and not on imitative European lines. This movement pursued a new conception of the nation not merely as a country, but as a soul, a psychological, almost a spiritual being and, even when acting from economical and political motives, it sought to dynamise them by this subjective conception and to make them instruments of self-expression rather than objects in themselves. No doubt it failed, but that was not due to any falsity in its inspiration, but rather due to the strength of a hostile pressure and the weakness still left by a past decadence. Although its incipient creations were broken or left languishing and deprived of their original significance, they remain a fingerpost on the roads. And it must also be noted that this movement stands out as one of the most important events in Indian political history. For the growth and development of Nationalism, during that brief period of three years through the instrumentality of Sri Aurobindo's Bandemataram is a political phenomenon unparalleled by any similar movement in the world.

Let us now see what the contributions of this movement were.

First, it was fundamentally a Nationalist movement which succeeded in creating a powerful sentiment among the masses; it awoke the sense and spirit of Indianness that was at once a reawakening of the ancient Shakti of India and a new pulsation to recover the Spirit and give to it new and creative instruments of thought and energy.

Second, the subsequent movement of the Congress from 1920 onwards was guided and inspired by the principal ideas and programmes of the Nationalist movement; unfortunately, that movement deviated in its spirit and force from the sublime and daring vision of the early Nationalists like Tilak, Sri Aurobindo and others.

The vision of India

In 1907, Sri Aurobindo wrote:

"For this thing is written in the book of God and nothing can prevent it, that the national life of India shall meet and possess its divine and mighty destiny". 19

In this view the nation is not a piece of land or a collection of individuals; it is a soul with a destiny.

This is what Sri Aurobindo wrote in one of his letters:

"While others look upon their country as an inert piece of matter - a few meadows and fields, forests and hills and rivers -- I look upon my country as the Mother. I adore Her; I worship Her as the Mother". 20

The methods to be adopted

Regarding the methods to be used to attain freedom, this passage sums up the vision of Sri Aurobindo:

"In some quarters there is the idea that Sri Aurobindo's political standpoint was entirely pacifist, that he was opposed in principle and in practice to all violence and that he denounced terrorism, insurrection, etc., as entirely forbidden by the spirit and letter of the Hindu gospel of Ahimsa. This is quite incorrect. Sri Aurobindo is neither an impotent moralist nor a weak pacifist.

The rule of confining political action to passive resistance was adopted as the best policy for the National Movement at that stage and not as a part of a gospel of Non-violence or pacific idealism. Peace is part of the highest ideal, but it must be spiritual or at the very least psychological in its basis; without a change in human nature it cannot come with any finality. If it is attempted on any other basis (moral principle or gospel of Ahimsa or any other), it will fail and even may leave things worse than before. He is in favour of an attempt to put down war by international agreement and international force, what is now contemplated in the "New Order", if that proves possible, but that would not be Ahimsa, it would be a putting down of anarchic force by legal force and even then one cannot be sure that it would be permanent. Within nations this sort of peace has been secured, but it does not prevent occasional civil wars and revolutions and political outbreaks and

Page 60

repressions, sometimes of a sanguinary character. The same might happen to a similar world-peace. Sri Aurobindo has never concealed his opinion that a nation is entitled to attain its freedom by violence, if it can do so or if there is no other way; whether it should do so or not, depends on what is the best policy not on ethical considerations. Sri Aurobindo's position and practice in this matter was the same as Tilak's and that of other Nationalist leaders who were by no means Pacifists or worshippers of Ahimsa".21

The spiritual approach

However, the most important point in this vision is the stress on the spiritual approach. It has to be made clear and cannot be sufficiently emphasised that the uniqueness of India lies in its spirituality. Spirituality is the very essence and purpose of India's existence. Thus spirituality is the means and road to the Indian salvation.

The true solution will come only when man accepts the spiritual aim of life, which fulfils itself in the fullness of life and man's being in the individual and the group. It will not proceed by a scornful neglect of the body, nor by an ascetic starving of the vital being and an utmost bareness or even squalor as the rule of spiritual living, nor by a puritanic denial of art and beauty, nor by a neglect of science and philosophy; it will be all things to all, but in all it will be at once their highest aim and meaning and the most embracing expression of themselves in which all they are and seek for will be fulfilled.

Finally, on the communal problem, Sri Aurobindo is clear that harmony has to be established between all the communities; but compromising on fundamentals cannot do this. It has to be based on deeper levels and no attempt to placate or appease other interests in the name of harmony will serve the purpose. Here is an extract from a letter written by Sri Aurobindo in April 1936:

To sum up the political vision of Sri Aurobindo:

Spirituality must be made the chief motivating force of life; a spirituality which is not a rejection of life, but all-inclusive and consists of an integral development of the being.

The Indian nation is not just a geographical entity, but also a cultural and spiritual concept. This includes the whole of the sub-continent.

This cultural and spiritual entity must now be converted into a political, economic and military unity. The division of the subcontinent must be undone. Every means, political, economic, cultural and military has to be used to bring about this unity. As a nation it is our duty to defend our own legitimate interests, political, economic, cultural and military.

Page 61

In this context, I quote a passage from a talk of Maj Gen Vinod Saigal (Retd): 'India's natural frontier is at the Hindu Kush. The subcontinent of India begins at the Hindu Kush - historically, culturally and tectonically. Irrespective of what happened in the past, irrespective of the partition of India in 1947, and irrespective of the worldview of the global powers of today the global equipoise of the next millennium can only be attained through a stabilisation of the subcontinent - preferably along the northern perimeter, as defined earlier'.

As far as possible, this unity has to be brought about by peaceful methods; but the use of force cannot be ruled out; it does not go against the core values of Indian culture." "The basis of this oneness is 'Unity in Diversity'."

The Muslim attitude

When analysing the attitude of the Muslims, we must remember that for over 800 years before the British conquest of India, the Muslims were the rulers of almost the whole of India. In the later part of their rule, however, as part of the cultural revival, they met with strong resistance from Hindu rulers like Shivaji, Krishna Dev Raya and others. The Hindu mind had awakened to the danger of Islamic domination. Then came the British conquest as a result of which both Hindus and Muslims became subjects in the British Empire. With the Hindu revival having taken place in the nineteenth century, the Muslims were in a state of total despair. There began a Muslim revivalism. But, unlike the Indian renaissance, this 'revivalism' in India was the frenzied reaction of a foreign religion, which had failed to convert a majority of the native population to its own creed, and which was, therefore, feeling terribly frustrated. The descendants of Muslim rulers were now reviving dreams of an empire, which their forefathers had built with so much bloodshed but which had been lost in the last round. They called upon their confused comrades and converted victims to revert to the old medieval ways when Islam had converted the pagan and peace-loving people of Arabia into a group of marauding conquerors.

India with her powerful assimilative capacity had absorbed the earlier aggressions of the Greeks, the Sakas, the Kushanas and the Hunas; and it is certain that in normal circumstances, the culturally and temperamentally compassionate society of the Hindus would have absorbed the Arab and Turk invaders too after their conquest. But the new invaders - the Arabs and Turks themselves had been swallowed by the aggressive ideology of Islam. Consequently, the Muslims were always dreaming of reviving their empire in India. Their whole behaviour pattern has thus been dominated by this psychological attitude of reconquering India and converting it to Islam, something they failed to do in their earlier attempt. It may be noted that whenever and wherever the Muslims conquered a civilization, whether in Egypt or in Persia, it had been converted wholesale to Islam. The only exception was the Indian civilization. They were thus determined to reconquer India and complete the task of converting the whole of India to Islam after driving out the British and partly with the aid of the British. In order to do this, the fiction was invented that the Hindus and Muslims constitute two separate nationalities in the Indian subcontinent. This attitude was the chief motivating factor in the days before partition and it remains so even today. Shri Shiva Prasad Roy, a perceptive Bengali writer, summed it up thus: "Pakistan and Bangladesh are their fixed

Page 62

deposits. Those are Islamic states. No one else can lay a claim on them. India is a joint account. Plunder it as much as you please."

Some warning voices

This behaviour pattern had been noticed by many eminent and perceptive personalities long before partition. The great poet, Rabindranath Tagore, in an interview to The Times of India published on April 18, 1924: "Another very important fact which according to the poet was making it almost impossible for Hindu-Mohammedan unity to become an accomplished fact was that the Mohammedans could not confine their patriotism to any one country. The poet said that he had very frankly asked many Mohammedans whether, in the event of any Mohammedan power invading India, they would stand side by side with their Hindu neighbours to defend their common land. He could not be satisfied with the reply he got from them. He said that he could definitely state that even men like Mr. Mohammed Ali had declared that under no circumstances was it permissible for any Mohammedan, whatever his country might be, to stand against any other Mohammedan." Similarly, Lala Lajpat Rai came to the conclusion that this behaviour pattern had its primary source in the Quran and the Hadis. Lalaji wrote as follows in a confidential letter to Deshbandhu C.R. Das: "I have devoted most of my time during the last six months to the study of Muslim history and Muslim Law and I am inclined to think that Hindu-Muslim unity is neither possible nor practicable. Assuming and admitting the sincerity of the Mohammedan leaders in the Non-Co-operation Movement, I think their religion provides an effective bar to anything of the kind. There is no finer Mohammedan than Hakim alias Ajmal Khan Sahab, but can any Muslim leader override the Koran? I can only hope that my reading of the Islamic Law is incorrect and nothing would relieve me more than to be convinced that it is so. I do honestly and sincerely believe in the necessity and desirability of Hindu-Muslim unity. I am also fully prepared to trust the Muslim leaders, but what about the injunctions of the Koran and the Hadis? The leaders cannot override them."

Shri Sarat Chandra Chatterji, the noted Bengali novelist and a Congressman of long standing, had commented on the overt behaviour of Muslims ever since Islam arrived in India. Pained by the humiliations which Muslim hooligans had heaped on Hindus in the countryside of East Bengal, he had written as follows in October 1926: "If we go by the lessons of history we have to accept that the goal of Hindu-Muslim unity is a mirage. When Muslims first entered India, they looted the country, destroyed the temples, broke the idols, raped the women and heaped innumerable indignities on the people of this country. Today it appears that such noxious behaviour has entered the bone marrow of Muslims. Unity can be achieved among equals. In view of the big gap between the cultural level of Hindus and Muslims which can hardly be bridged, I am of the view that Hindu-Muslim unity which could not be achieved during the last thousand years will not materialise during the ensuing thousand years. If we are to drive away the English people depending upon this elusive capital of Hindu-Muslim unity, I would rather advise its postponement."

And finally, Sri Aurobindo too remarked in 1923: "Hindu-Muslim unity should not mean the subjection of the Hindus. Every time the mildness of the Hindus has given way. The best solution would be to allow the Hindus to organise themselves and the Hindu-Muslim unity would take care of itself, it would automatically solve the problem. Otherwise we are lulled into a false sense of satisfaction that we have solved a difficult problem, when

Page 63

in fact we have only shelved it. You can live amicably with a religion whose principle is toleration. But how is it possible to live peacefully with a religion whose principle is 'I will not tolerate you.' How are you going to have unity with these people? Certainly Hindu-Muslim unity cannot be arrived on the basis that the Muslims will go on converting Hindus while the Hindus shall not convert any Mohammedan. ... You can't build unity on such a basis. Perhaps, the only way of making the Mohammedans harmless is to make them lose their fanatic faith in their religion."

When he was asked: "Can this be done by education?"

"Not by the kind of education they receive at Aligarh today but by a more liberalising education. The Turks, for instance are not fanatical because they have more liberal ideas. Even when they fight it is not so much for Islam as for right and liberty."

The contribution of Muslims to the Freedom Movement

At the same time, we must take note of the contribution of the other section of the Muslim community both to the freedom movement and to independent India. They represent an important segment of the Muslim population and can play a very important role in the future unity of India. These are the Nationalist Muslims who were against the partition of India. They played an important role in the freedom struggle and in evolving the ethos and concept of composite nationalism. The writings and efforts of personalities like Shah Waliullah, Maulana Mohd. Qasim Nanotvi and Shah Ismail Shaheed represent the beginnings of the anti-colonial movement. Their spirit found manifestation in Abul Kalam Azad, Mohmoodul Hasan, Hakim Ajmal Khan, Dr. M.A. Ansari and Maulana Abdul Bari of Firangi Mahal who provided vital support to Gandhi's movement for building national unity on the principles of non-discrimination and social justice. In this context, the contribution of Maulana Hussain Ahmad Madni is worthy of special note. His was the first effort at articulating the thesis that modern nationhood is determined by territory and not by religious faith. The idea was spelt out more clearly and precisely by Abul Kalam Azad when he reconciled his duties as part of the Indian nation and a legatee of universal Islamic heritage. His approach has been a major factor in building a nationalism, which seeks to advance human welfare.

Imperialist occupation of the country in the wake of the decline and fall of the Moguls saw the Muslims standing shoulder to shoulder with their Hindu compatriots to regain freedom from alien rule. If Rani Laxmibai's forces fought in Bundelkhand, Begum Hazrat Mahal led the uprising at Lucknow.

During the freedom struggle, if intellectuals like Abul Kalam Azad and Hasrat Mohani set standards in intrepid patriotic journalism, poets like Josh Malihabadi and Qazi Nazrul Islam kindled and strengthened the spirit of patriotism.

The fortitude that the Indian Muslim community has shown in facing the blight of Partition is a great tribute to their patriotism. The Muslims of free India are here not just by accident of birth but also by deliberate choice. They rightfully claim the inheritance of their contribution to the making of the Indian nation-state. No less is their contribution to the endeavours for national reconstruction in the wake of the unfortunate Partition. Today, they are in the forefront of the political, social, economic and cultural life of the country. Indeed, there is no field where they have not contributed in a big way to the national development and growth. It is not necessary to mention names, as there are too many. It is sufficient to mention that it is with this section that the hope of the future lies

Page 64

and it is they who will be in the vanguard of the movement to bring out a deeper harmony between Hindus and Muslims.

The Gandhian Congress view of India

Finally there is the view of the Congress party, which was still powerfully under the influence of Gandhi.

This phase began with the advent of Gandhi. It seemed at one point of time that there would be a continuation and development of the movement started in the second phase. Gandhi with his enormous popularity and hold on the Indian masses seemed poised to continue the spiritual turn given in the previous stage. But that was not to be. There was a distinct shift from the Indian spiritual turn to a moral and, in some ways, a foreign turn, however well garbed it was in the Indian attire. Gandhi gave a completely different interpretation of the Indian spirit and it is this vision that stills holds sway among a very large section of the Indian intelligentsia and political elite. This deviation was the cause of much of the confusion and tardiness of the movement of non-cooperation, Satyagraha and non-violent struggle. Ultimately, India muddled through an uncertain terrain of thought and action as also much suffering and violence and attained freedom that left her divided amid the communal tensions which are crippling her even today, more than fifty years after Independence. The solution to this state of affairs is to bring back the spirit of the Swadeshi movement. The attempt to revive the deeper and genuine Indian spirit is bound to be renewed as soon as a wider gate is opened under more favourable conditions. Till that attempt comes, a serious danger besets the soul of India.

Let us briefly state the political philosophy of Gandhi's movement. This political philosophy was based on three planks, namely non-violence, non-cooperation and Hindu-Muslim unity.

Each one of these contains a truth and yet in the hands of the Congress party and in particular in its application by Gandhi, they became instruments not of truth and unity but of falsehood and disunity. And this happened because they were used as absolute dogmatic tools instead of as tactics and instruments of policy.

Non-violence

For Gandhi, non-violence was not a policy; it was a creed and dogma to be applied in all circumstances.

Here is an illustration of this attitude in the letter written by Gandhi during the Second World War to the Prime Minister of England:

"I appeal for the cessation of hostilities. Because war is bad in essence. You want to kill Nazism. Your soldiers are doing the same work of destruction as the Germans. The only difference is that perhaps yours are not as thorough as the Germans. I venture to present you a nobler and a braver way, worthy of the bravest soldiers. I want you to fight Nazism without arms or with non-violent arms. I would like you to lay down the arms you have as being useless for saving you or humanity. ... Invite Herr Hitler and Signor Mussolini to take what they want of the countries you call your possessions. Let them take possession of your beautiful island with your many beautiful buildings. You will give them all of these but not your souls nor your minds". (Amrita Bazar Patrika, July 4 1940). Thus we see that according to Gandhi, Indian culture was synonymous with absolute nonviolence; recourse to violence was wrong even in as grave a situation as the British were facing, and therefore, non-violence was an absolute law to be followed in all

Page 65

circumstances. This attitude has been influencing the political decision even today in  independent India.

The Gandhian view of the Nation

As far as Gandhi's vision of India was concerned, it came out clearly first during the Khilafat movement. This thinking even in independent India has moulded the Congress party and it has led to the appeasement of the Muslims and other minorities.

During the Khilafat Movement, Gandhi made it clear that the Khilafat question was in his view more important and urgent than that of Swaraj. He wrote: "To the Musalmans, Swaraj means, as it must, India's ability to deal effectively with the Khilafat question.... It is impossible not to sympathise with this attitude.... I would gladly ask for postponement of Swaraj activity if thereby we could advance the interest of the Khilafat." Thus it becomes clear that the nation was less important than the interests of the Muslim community.

Again it must be noted that the Khilafat Movement was a movement that had nothing to do with Indian Nationalism. On the contrary, it encouraged the Pan-Islamic sentiment and went against the very grain of Indian Nationalism.

We thus see the great difference between the two movements, one led by Gandhi and the other led by Sri Aurobindo. The future India will have to decide which of these two visions it will follow and accept.

We shall conclude this chapter with a note from Sri Aurobindo. In April 1936, Sri Aurobindo had remarked about the consequences of the movement led by Gandhi in the following words:

"It (the Swadeshi movement of 1905) laid down a method of agitation which Gandhi took up and continued with three or four startling additions, khaddar, Hindiism, Satyagraha -getting beaten with joy, Khilafat, Harijan etc. All these had an advertisement value, a power of poking up things, which was certainly livelier than anything we put into it. Whether the effects of these things have been good is a more doubtful question.

As a matter of fact the final effects of Gandhi's movement have been:

A tremendous fissure between the Hindus and Mohamedans, which is going to be kept permanent by communal representation;

A widening fissure between the Harijans and caste Hindus, to be made permanent in the same way;

A great confusion in Indian politics which leaves it a huge mass of division, warring tendencies, no clear guide or compass anywhere;

A new constitution which puts the conservative class in power to serve as a means of maintaining British domination or at least as an intolerable brake on progress; also divides India into five or six Indias, Hindu, Moslem, Paria, Christian, Sikh etc;

A big fiasco of the Non-co-operation movement, which is throwing politics back on one side to reformism, on the other to a blatant and insincere Socialism.

That, I think is the sum and substance of the matter. I am referring to my prophecy made at the beginning of the Non-co-operation movement "it will end in a great confusion or a great fiasco. " I was not an accurate prophet, as I have pointed out before. It should have run "It will end in a great confusion and a great fiasco. " 23

Let the reader decide whether all this has come true.

Page 66

Conclusion

We may conclude that although India had developed a cultural and spiritual unity right from the ancient times, it failed to evolve a political unity. However, it is certain that this too will come in due course.

We shall conclude with the words of Sri Aurobindo:

"But the most striking example in history is the evolution of India. Nowhere else have the centrifugal forces been so strong, numerous, complex, obstinate. The mere time taken by the evolution has been prodigious; the disastrous vicissitudes through which it has had to work itself out have been appalling. And yet through it all, the inevitable tendency has worked constantly, pertinaciously, with the dull, obscure, indomitable, relentless obstinacy of Nature when she is opposed in her instinctive purposes by man, and finally, after a struggle enduring through millenniums, has triumphed. And, as usually happens when she is thus opposed by her own mental and human material, it is the most adverse circumstances that the subconscious worker has turned into her most successful instruments. The beginnings of the centripetal tendency in India go back to the earliest times of which we have record and are typified in the ideal of the Samrat or Chakravarti Raja and the military and political use of the Aswamedha and Rajasuya sacrifices. The two great national epics might almost have been written to illustrate this theme; for the one recounts the establishment of a unifying dharmarajya or imperial reign of justice, the other starts with an idealised description of such a rule pictured as once existing in the ancient and sacred past of the country. The political history of India is the story of a succession of empires, indigenous and foreign, each of them destroyed by centrifugal forces, but each bringing the centripetal tendency nearer to its triumphant emergence. And it is a significant circumstance that the more foreign the rule, the greater has been its force for the unification of the subject people. This is always a sure sign that the essential nation-unit is already there and that there is an indissoluble national vitality necessitating the inevitable emergence of the organised nation. In this instance, we see that the conversion of the psychological unity on which nationhood is based into the external organised unity by which it is perfectly realised, has taken a period of more than two thousand years and is not yet complete".24

Page 67

Part 2

Indo-Pakistan relations after Independence

Chapter 1

The Kashmir problem

In the second part of the book, we shall deal with the actions and strategies of the Government of India after independence. The country was now free but unfortunately divided. It was hoped that this division would be only temporary and provisional. However, the sad part of the whole affair was that the Government of India had accepted the Partition as final and irrevocable. As already seen, at the beginning of this chapter, Sri Aurobindo in his message of Aug.15, August 1947, had warned of the consequences of partition in the following words: "But the old communal division into Hindu and Muslim seems to have hardened into the figure of a permanent political division of the country. It is to be hoped that the Congress and the nation will not accept the settled fact as forever settled or as anything more than a temporary expedient. For if it lasts, India may be seriously weakened, even crippled: civil strife may remain always possible, possible even a new invasion and foreign conquest".

Unfortunately the Government of India, led first by the Congress party and later by other parties, accepted the partition as final and all their policies and strategies have been founded on this plank.

As a consequence, there was no attempt to bring about the unity of India. This only accentuated the problems, which India had to face and is still facing after more than half a century of freedom. We shall see in this section the inevitable and unfortunate errors committed that are the natural consequence of this shortsighted vision that has brought the country to such a difficult situation.

The Kashmir problem

Immediately after Independence, India was faced with the Kashmir problem. The Maharaja of Kashmir, Hari Singh, unlike most rulers of other states was dithering and had not taken any decision regarding his State; he hoped to remain independent. He, therefore, sought a 'standstill' agreement with both Pakistan and India. At that time, Sardar Patel sent a message to Maharaja Hari Singh of Jammu and Kashmir, through Mountbatten himself, that were he to accede to Pakistan, India would not take it amiss. It is clear that if the Maharaja wanted to accede to India or to Pakistan he could have done so in August 1947 itself. However, the public opinion in Jammu and Kashmir at that time was not in favour of joining Pakistan.

The inner story

On Aug. 24, August 1947, Mohammed Ali Jinnah, weakened by the prolonged pre-partition negotiations, ceremonies to mark the birth of Pakistan and by his lung disease (unknown to the British and Indian political hierarchy) had expressed his desire to take a vacation in Srinagar. His request was turned down by the then Maharaja of J&K, Hari Singh. Though trade along the famous 'silk route' connected Kashmir and Afghanistan, this little known incident started the recent violent connection between these two places. Shocked by this rebuke to the father of Pakistan, Liaquat Ali Khan, the Prime Minister, convened a secret meeting (unknown to the British officers in the Pakistan administration including General Messervy, the Commander-in-Chief of Pakistan Army) to discuss the future course of action on Jammu and Kashmir (J&K).

Page 68

During the meeting, the Pakistan Army dismissed the idea of outright invasion as it could lead to a war against their erstwhile comrades in arms for which they were not ready. Two other plans were discussed. The first, outlined by Colonel Akbar Khan, a Sandhurst graduate, involved an uprising of the Kashmiri dissident Muslim population. This plan would entail months of preparation and visualised forty to fifty thousand Kashmiri dissidents descending on Srinagar to force the Maharaja of J&K to cede to Pakistan (this plan was carried out with a few modifications was carried out in 1988-89).

The second plan involved the most troublesome and feared population of the subcontinent, the Pathan (Pashtuns) tribesmen of the North West Frontier Province (NWFP). It had become known that agents of the King of Afghanistan were arousing the Pathan (Pashtuns) tribes of NWFP seeking their support for the expansion of his kingdom to Peshawar and the banks of River Indus, leading to the creation of a 'Greater Pashtunistan'. Sending these troublesome tribesmen to Srinagar (J&K) had considerable appeal; it would force the swift fall of the Maharaja and the annexation of the State to Pakistan. In addition, offering tribesmen an opportunity to loot bazaars in Kashmir would keep their covetous eyes off the bazaars of Peshawar.

Major Khurshid Anwar, an officer who had been cashiered from the erstwhile Indian Army for misappropriating Mess funds, was chosen to arouse the emotions and galvanise the Pathans. Known for his volatile character, Anwar met the tribal leaders and tried to arouse their religious passions based on the concept of 'the infidel Maharaja about to join India, leaving millions of Muslim brethren under Hindu rule' (the present galvanization of support for militancy is also based on a similar concept of Muslims suffering under Hindu rule). More than patriotic and religious passion was the promise of loot. Within days and weeks, a call 'Jihad' (holy war) echoed in the tribal areas. Secretly, weapons and supplies were collected at various assembly points from where the crusade was to be launched. To ensure they stay focussed on their aim, a large number of Pakistan Army officers and soldiers in the guise of Pathans were merged with the Lashkars (tribesmen).

The invasion began on Oct. 21 1947. The Pathans killed, raped women and looted bazaars wherever they went. The convent of the Franciscan Missionaries, thousands of Hindu, Sikh and Muslim women and the bazaars of Muzaffarabad, Uri and Baramulla bore testimony to the Pathans' animal instincts and thirst for pillage. Despite the best efforts of the Pakistan Army officers and men to make these Pathans reach Srinagar, they were beaten back by the Indian Army landing at the Srinagar airfield in the early hours of Oct. 27 1947, after the Maharaja of J&K had signed the 'Instrument of Accession'. The defeat of the tribals a few miles outside Srinagar, led to their flight along with the loot and brought the Pakistan Army in direct confrontation with the Indian Army. As the battle raged on for three months, the Indian Army helped regain large tracts of the Jammu and Kashmir State. The officers and men of the two armies, who had parted company only three months ago and vowed to remain brothers in arms against a common foe, seemed to have become enemies forever.

Here is a detailed report on the Kashmir war.

We quote from the official Army report on Kashmir:

"Why did Pakistan invade Kashmir in the first place? First, Kashmir being a Muslim-dominant state was considered a natural part of Pakistan, which had made Islam the basis of its modern nationality. Second, Khan Abdul Gaffar Khan's Pathanistan Movement was gaining momentum and Kashmir was held out as a bait for luring the

Page 69

poor tribals away. The internal conditions of Jammu & Kashmir with religious passions aflame, lawlessness rampant and authority paralysed offered the right mix for the raiders to strike.

Operation Gulmarg

The Army Headquarters of Pakistan planned the main invasion plan, code-named Operation Gulmarg. Conclusive proof of this came through two different sources -Major Onkar Singh Kalkat, then serving as the Brigade Major at HQ Bannu Frontier Brigade Group, and G.K. Reddy, a journalist. Both happened to stumble upon the plan by chance. The invasion was planned meticulously with considerable strategic and tactical insight. According to Operation Gulmarg, as described by Major Kalkat, every Pathan tribe was required to enlist at least one Lashkar of 1,000 tribesmen. These Lashkars were to be concentrated at Baftnu, Wana, Peshawar, Kohat, Thal and Nowshera by the first week of September 1947. The Brigade Commanders at these places were to issue them arms, ammunition and some essential clothing items. Each Lashkar was also to be provided with a Major, a Captain and ten JCOs of the regular Pakistan Army. The entire force was to be commanded by Major General Akbar Khan, who was given the code name Tariq.

All Lashkars were to meet at Abbottabad by October 18th. According to the plan, six Lashkars were to advance along the main road from Muzaffarabad to Srinagar via Domel, Uri and Baramula, with the specific task of capturing the aerodrome and subsequently advancing to the Banihal Pass. Two Lashkars were to advance from the Haji Pir Pass direct on to Gulmarg, thereby securing the right flank of the main force advancing from Muzaffarabad. Another two Lashkars were to advance from Tithwal through the Nastachhun Pass for capturing Sopore, Handwara and Bandipur. And 10 other Lashkars were to operate in the Poonch, Bhimbar and Rawalkot area with the intention of capturing Poonch and Rajauri before advancing to Jammu. Arrangements were also made for detailing of guides/informers from the so-called Azad Army, to all these tribal Lashkars.

Major General Khan was also given the task of organising the Azad Army, the major portion of which was to come from the Muslim element of the J&K State forces. Dumps of arms, ammunition, supplies and clothing were to be established forward of Abbottabad by October 15th. These were to be subsequently moved to Muzaffarabad and Domel after the D-day. Pakistan's 7 Infantry Division was to concentrate on the Murree-Abbottabad area by October 21st and was ordered to be ready to move immediately into J&K territory to back up the tribal Lashkars and consolidate their hold on the Valley. One infantry brigade was also held in readiness at Sialkot to move on to Jammu. The D-day for Operation Gulmarg was fixed as 22 October 1947, on which date the various Lashkars were to cross into J&K territory. The invasion plan was tactically sound and, in the beginning, brilliantly executed. The main attack had by necessity to be launched frontally along the motor road. Apart from rifles, the standard weapon of the raiders, the main force was also equipped with a few light machine guns and travelled in about 300 civilian lorries.

Between October 22nd and 26th, the raiders had run over Domel, Muzaffarabad, Uri and Baramula. Yet in their success lay the seeds of their doom. For on their way, they took to looting and raping, and the ultimate goal of the 'Holy War' was forgotten. Each man tried to grab as much wealth or as many girls as he could, and the 'infidel' Maharaja at

Page 70

Srinagar or the 'liberation of the oppressed Muslims' of Kashmir was last on his mind. The advance on Srinagar was held up for a few days, and that proved crucial. In Delhi, hundreds of kilometres from stricken Baramula, it had at last been decided to save Kashmir in its hour of peril. Even as the barbaric raiders were satisfying their greed and lust in Baramula, transport planes full of Indian troops were winging their way through the azure autumn skies: Destination Srinagar.

Only the impromptu airlift to Srinagar in October 1947 saved the Kashmir Valley. A hundred planes landed every day on the improvised airfield at Srinagar, bringing in troops, ammunition and supplies and evacuating casualties and the refugees. The RIAF and civilian pilots of these Dakotas defied the mountains, the weather, and fatigue, to continue the airlift till the Valley was saved. Giving invaluable support to these were the fearless fighter pilots who accurately and repeatedly attacked vital enemy positions at Gurais, Zoji La, Pindras and Rajouri. Apart from the men in uniform, civilians played a crucial role in liberating the Valley. The dedication and skill of the civilian pilots who flew to Srinagar in October 1947 was no less than their counterparts in the RIAF. Very few know that a civilian washerman, Ram Chander, won a Maha Vir Chakra for rescuing an officer wounded during an ambush, shooting down several enemy troops in the process. It was this Indian spirit and valour that saved the Valley.

India to the Rescue

It was on 24 October 1947 that the Government of India first got news of the Kashmir invasion. By that time, Domel and Muzaffarabad had already fallen to the raiders, who were fast approaching Srinagar. The Maharaja of Kashmir sent an S.O.S. message to the Indian Government on the night of October 24th. After deliberations at the highest levels, it was decided that India couldn't send its troops till J&K formally acceded to India. Maharaja Hari Singh signed the Instrument of Accession in the evening of October 26th, which made J&K an integral part of India - legally, morally, and constitutionally. The Indian reaction, from then onwards, was swift, adverse ground conditions notwithstanding.

Operation Jak

The Indian rescue operation was beset with obvious difficulties from the very beginning. Srinagar was over 480 km from the nearest point on the Indian border. Troops in East Punjab were engaged in dealing with the refugees and maintaining law and order. Hence, air transport was the only way out. Worse still, the airport at Srinagar was hardly fit to land fully laden transport planes. But that was the only option available and it had to be taken. The rescue mission was code-named, Operation Jak. The first regiment to move in was 1 Sikh, stationed at Gurgaon at the time and commanded by Lt. Col. D.R. Rai. The troops were transported in four Dakota planes that took off from Delhi on October 27th and reached Srinagar early morning the same day. The first engagement with the enemy started on October 28th. Lt. Col. Rai was the first Indian officer to fall in the battle of liberation.

It was only after the first troops had landed at Srinagar that the gravity of the situation was realised. So, the Indian Army decided to throw its full weight to drive back the invaders. On October 28th, the Delhi and East Punjab Command was ordered to carry out Phase II of Operation Jak. It involved dispatching one Brigade Group to Jammu via Pathankot. The next day, the Eastern and Southern commands were asked to spare whatever troops they could for the operation. Airlifts were undertaken almost round-the-clock

Page 71

to increase the troop strength. On October 30th, two fighter aircraft of the RIAF were detailed to operate from the Srinagar airstrip to provide air-support to the ground troops. In the following days, many Harvards and Spitfires were based on that airfield and they gave invaluable support to the infantry.

Meanwhile, there had been some fierce engagements with the enemy on the ground, resulting in some casualties on the Indian side. But most importantly, the advance of the invaders had been checked. The ground troops held the enemy. Transport planes took care of the supply of troops, equipment and ration. Interestingly, apart from three RIAF planes, 33 civil Dakotas were used in these sorties. Many of them even did a double trip to Srinagar on a single day - a tribute to the morale of the pilots and crew. By November 6th, the critical phase for Srinagar was over. The raiders had lost the initiative thanks to their looting at Baramula. About 3500 Indian troops had reached Srinagar by then. They threw a ring of machine guns and bayonets around Srinagar and the airfield. Although the invaders were only about 8 km away from the city at the nearest point, it was now impossible for them to penetrate the Indian positions and capture the capital, almost in their grasp. Having strengthened their position, the Indian Army was about to begin the liberation of the Kashmir valley.

The Liberation of the Valley

According to orders from the Defence Committee of the Cabinet, Baramula was to be recaptured from the enemy by November 17th, even if the Indian Army had to incur 500 casualties. The original plan was to launch the decisive battle on November 10th, but an unexpected attack on Indian positions at Shalateng on November 7th postponed the initiative. In a masterly battle strategy, the Indian troops flanked the invaders from three sides and unleashed murderous firepower on them. The RIAF strafed them from the air. The Battle of Shalateng was over within 20 minutes. It put Srinagar and Kashmir Valley beyond the grasp of the invaders forever. There were encounters after that, but the enemy was being driven back steadily and surely. By the evening of November 13 th, Uri was captured. With that the liberation of the Kashmir Valley was complete".

Summary

When the first wave of tribal warriors from Pakistan invaded the Kashmir Valley on Oct. 22, 1947, the kingdom of Jammu & Kashmir had not acceded to either Pakistan or India. Therefore, taking the plea that it was an internal matter, India refused to send in its troops to the Valley. However, when Maharaja Hari Singh signed the Instrument of Accession with the Indian Government on the evening of Oct. 26, 1947, Jammu & Kashmir became an integral part of the Indian Dominion legally, morally and constitutionally. This was the time to react to the tribal invasion, which India did commendably, considering the short notice given to its military commanders.

The first troops were flown to Srinagar with hardly a couple of days of planning and preparation. The liberation of the Valley in early November 1947 was a splendid feat of arms by the 161 Brigade, fighting against hordes of raiders. This single brigade managed to hold its own throughout the long winter of 1947-48 when its only line of communication was blocked by snow. Large areas in the Tithwal, Naushahra and Rajouri sectors were liberated from the invaders, and were held by a vastly superior enemy against repeated attacks. Naturally, the Indian Army also suffered setbacks, minor and major, at several places such as Jhangar, Pandu, Kargil and Skardu. But the situation was fully restored at Jhangar and Kargil. The long siege of Poonch was finally broken and the

Page 72

Gurais & Dras areas were successfully recaptured against tremendous odds. The Army won five Param Vir Chakras (PVCs), 47 Maha Vir Chakras (MVCs) and not less than 284 Vir Chakras (VrCs), including three twin-awards of VrCs, during the J&K Operations of 1947-48.

During the long campaign, the Indian Army lost 76 officers, 31 JCOs and 996 men of other ranks. The wounded totalled 3152, including 81 officers and 107 JCOs. Apart from these casualties, the J&K State Forces lost approximately 1990 officers and men. The small Royal Indian Air Force (RIAF) lost 32 personnel, including 9 officers. However, the enemy casualties were definitely many times the total of Indian Army and RIAF casualties. By one estimate, the enemy suffered 20,000 casualties, including 6000 killed. The gallantry and skill of all ranks of the Indian Army are amply borne out in the various accounts of these operations. But the exploits and the vital role of the RIAF deserve special mention here. Its contribution to the success of the J&K operations cannot be over emphasized, and it was the one weapon to which the enemy had no answer, as the Pakistan Air Force wisely desisted from joining the fray.

Kashmir's accession to India

On October. 26th 1947, acting on the authority vested in him as the ruler of Jammu and Kashmir, Maharaja Hari Singh abandoned his 'standstill policy' and acceded to India. This has been verified by the UN, which testified that the accession to India was legal and complete. We reproduce the text of the letter dated Oct. 26, 1947, from Hari Singh, Maharaja Of Jammu & Kashmir, to Lord Mountbatten, Governor General of India.

My dear Lord Mountbatten,

I have to inform your Excellency that a grave emergency has arisen in my State and request immediate assistance of your Government.

As your Excellency is aware the State of Jammu and Kashmir has not acceded to the Dominion of India or to Pakistan. Geographically my State is contiguous to both the Dominions. It has vital economical and cultural links with both of them. Besides my State has a common boundary with the Soviet Republic and China. In their external relations the Dominions of India and Pakistan cannot ignore this fact.

I wanted to take time to decide to which Dominion I should accede, or whether it is not in the best interests of both the Dominions and my State to stand independent, of course with friendly and cordial relations with both.

I accordingly approached the Dominions of India and Pakistan to enter into Standstill Agreement with my State. The Pakistan Government accepted this Agreement. The Dominion of India desired further discussions with representatives of my Government. I could not arrange this in view of the developments indicated below. In fact the Pakistan Government are operating Post and Telegraph system inside the State.

Though we have got a Standstill Agreement with the Pakistan Government that Government permitted steady and increasing strangulation of supplies like food, salt and petrol to my State. Afridis, soldiers in plain clothes, and desperadoes with modern weapons have been allowed to infiltrate into the State at first in Poonch and then in Sialkot and finally in mass area adjoining Hazara District on the Ramkot side. The result has been that the limited number of troops at the disposal of the State had to be dispersed and thus had to face the enemy at the several points simultaneously, that it has become difficult to stop the wanton destruction of life and property and looting. The Mahora

Page 73

powerhouse that supplies the electric current to the whole of Srinagar has been burnt. The number of women who have been kidnapped and raped makes my heart bleed. The wild forces thus let loose on the State are marching on with the aim of capturing Srinagar, the summer Capital of my Government, as first step to over-running the whole State.

The mass infiltration of tribesmen drawn from distant areas of the North-West Frontier coming regularly in motor trucks using Mansehra-Muzaffarabad Road and fully armed with up-to-date weapons cannot possibly be done without the knowledge of the Provisional Government of the North-West Frontier Province and the Government of Pakistan. In spite of repeated requests made by my Government no attempt has been made to check these raiders or stop them from coming into my State. The Pakistan Radio even put out a story that Provisional Government had been set up in Kashmir. The people of my State both the Muslims and non-Muslims generally have taken no part at all.

With the conditions obtaining at present in my State and the great emergency of the situation, as it exists, I have no option but to ask for help from the Indian Dominion. Naturally they cannot send the help asked for by me without my State acceding to the Dominion of India. I have accordingly decided to do so and I attach the Instrument of Accession for acceptance by your Government. The other alternative is to leave my State and my people to free-booters. On this basis no civilized Government can exist or be maintained. This alternative I will never allow to happen as long as I am Ruler of the State and I have life to defend my country.

I am also to inform your Excellency's Government that it is my intention at once to set up an interim Government and ask Sheikh Abdullah to carry the responsibilities in this emergency with my Prime Minister.

If my State has to be saved, immediate assistance must be available at Srinagar. Mr. Menon is fully aware of the situation and he will explain to you, if further explanation is needed.

In haste and with kind regards,

Yours sincerely,

Hari Singh

Below is the text of the Instrument of Accession

The Instrument of Accession

Whereas, the Indian Independence Act, 1947, provided that as from the fifteenth day of August 1947, there shall be set up an independent dominion known as INDIA, and that the Government of India Act, 1935, shall, with such omissions, additions, adaptations and modifications as the Governor-General may by order specify, be applicable to the dominion of India.

And whereas the Government of India Act, 1935, as so adapted by the Governor-General provides that an Indian State may accede to the Dominion of India by an Instrument of Accession executed by the Ruler thereof.

Now, therefore, I Shriman Indar Mahandar Rajrajeshwar Maharajadhiraj Shri Hari Singhji, Jammu Kashmir Naresh Tatha Tibbet adi Deshadhipathi, Ruler of Jammu and Kashmir State, in the exercise of my sovereignty in and over my said State do hereby execute this my Instrument of Accession and:

I hereby declare that I accede to the Dominion of India with the intent that the Governor-General of India, the Dominion Legislature, the Federal Court and any other Dominion

Page 74

authority established for the purposes of the Dominion shall, by virtue of this my Instrument of Accession but subject always to the terms thereof, and for the purposes only of the Dominion, exercise in relation to the State of J&K (hereinafter referred to as this State') such functions as may be vested in them by or under the Government of India Act, 1935, as in force in the Dominion of India, on the 15th day of August 1947 (which Act as so in force in hereafter referred to as "the Act").

I hereby assume the obligation of ensuring that due effect is given to the provisions of the Act within this State so far as they are applicable therein by virtue of this my Instrument of Accession.

I accept the matters specified in the Schedule hereto as the matters with respect to which the Dominion Legislature may make laws for this State.

I hereby declare that I accede to the Dominion of India on the assurance that if an agreement is made between the Governor-General and the Ruler of this State whereby any functions in relation to the administration in this State of any law of the Dominion Legislature shall be exercised by the Ruler of this State, then any such agreement shall be deemed to form part of this Instrument and shall be construed and have effect accordingly.

The terms of this Instrument of Accession shall not be varied by any amendment of the Act or of the Indian Independence Act, 1947, unless such amendment is accepted by me by an Instrument supplementary to this Instrument.

Nothing in this Instrument shall empower the Dominion Legislature to make any law for this State authorizing the compulsory acquisition of land for any purpose, but I hereby undertake that should the Dominion for the purposes of a Dominion law which applies in this State deem it necessary to acquire any land, I will at their request acquire the land at their expense or if the land belongs to me transfer it to them on such terms as may be agreed, or, in default of agreement, determined by an arbitrator to be appointed by the Chief Justice of India.

Nothing in this Instrument shall be deemed to commit me in any way to acceptance of any future constitution of India or to fetter my discretion to enter into arrangements with the Government of India under any such future constitution.

Nothing in this Instrument affects the continuance of my sovereignty in and over this state, or, save as provided by or under this Instrument, the exercise of any powers, authority and rights now enjoyed by me as Ruler of this State or the validity of any law at present in force in this State.

I hereby declare that I execute this Instrument on behalf of this State and that any reference in this Instrument to me or to the Ruler of the State is to be construed as including a reference to my heirs and successors.

Given under my hand this 26th day of October, Nineteen Hundred and Forty Seven. Acceptance of Instrument of Accession of Jammu and Kashmir State by the Governor General of India

I do hereby accept this Instrument of Accession.

Dated this Twenty-Seventh day of October Nineteen Hundred and Forty-Seven.

(Sd). Lord Mountbatten Governor General of India

The Indian response

After receiving this letter, the Government of India sent its troops under Lt.Col.D.R.Rai to Kashmir on Oct. 27, 1947, to save Kashmir from Pakistan's invasion, and there was

Page 75

widespread jubilation among the citizens of Srinagar and the inhabitants of neighbouring towns and villages. The morale of the people was high and they organized bands of volunteers to maintain law and order and collected all motor vehicles for use by the Indian army. Local drivers were at the wheels ready to risk their lives in defending their motherland.

Within a few days, the major part of Jammu and Kashmir was cleared of the Pakistani invaders. And then came the action from the Government of India, which defies all rational explanation. Just when it seemed that the whole of the State would come under the control of India, the Government of India decided to lodge a complaint against Pakistan in the United Nations. But that was not to be. This action of the Government of India is difficult to explain and the consequence is that the problem of Kashmir is still there like a festering wound.

On Jan. 1, 1948, India complained to the UN Security Council under the provision of Article 35 of the UN Charter. The United Nations took eight months to have the United Nations Commission on India and Pakistan (UNCIP) resolution tabled and it was finally done on Aug. 13, 1948. The issue before UN under Article 35 was Pakistan's aggression against India, and not the legality of the Instrument of Accession. The latter has never been questioned by anybody, including UN legal experts, yet even today the world is made to believe that it is the accession that is under dispute!

Let us see the resolution of the United Nations. The UNCIP resolution is as follows:

The UNCIP resolution of AUGUST 13, 1948

Part I - provided for a cease-fire.

Part II - provided for a truce agreement under which Pakistan would accept unconditional withdrawal of its troops, tribesmen, and all unlawful Pakistan nationals from Jammu and Kashmir. Further, this part recognized the necessity of India maintaining an army in Jammu and Kashmir to maintain law and order in the state.

Part III - "The Government of India and the Government of Pakistan reaffirm their wish that the future status of the State of Kashmir shall be determined in accordance with the will of the people, and to that end, upon acceptance of the truce agreement (of Part II), both Governments agree to enter consultations with the Commission (UNCIP) to determine fair and equitable conditions whereby such free expression will be assured".

India sought a series of clarifications from the UNCIP. After the UNCIP received the final communication from the Governments of India and of Pakistan dated respectively Dec. 23 and 25, 1948, the UNCIP passed another resolution on Jan. 5th, 1949, declaring certain provisions supplementary to the UNCIP resolution of Aug. 13 th, 1948.

The UNCIP resolution of January 5, 1949

Among these supplements was a provision for a Plebiscite Administrator to be nominated by the Secretary General of the UN in consultation with the UNCIP. More importantly, also unambiguous was the fact that the 'consideration of the plebiscite' would come into effect ONLY AFTER the UNCIP would find that "the cease fire and truce arrangements set forth in Parts I and II of the Commission's resolution of August 13, 1948, have been carried out". The UN resolution further required that "all persons who on or since August 15, 1947, have entered the state (of Jammu and Kashmir) for other than lawful purposes shall be required to leave the state".

Furthermore, it should be noted that the UNCIP resolution of Aug.13 1948, stated that the "future status of the State of Kashmir shall be determined in accordance with the will of

Page 76

the people", and thereby included the possibility of Jammu and Kashmir becoming independent of both India and Pakistan. Pakistan had this provision reduced, in the UNCIP resolution of January 5, 1949 to "the question of the accession of the State of Jammu and Kashmir to India or Pakistan", thereby excluding the possibility of an independent Jammu and Kashmir. Yet, the media in India and all over the world has allowed Pakistan to carry on the propaganda that Pakistan champions the cause of freedom of the people of J&K!

Till today, Parts I and II of the UNCIP resolution of August 13 th, 1948, have never been put into operation. Instead, Pakistan consolidated its aggression. India, instead of evicting the intruders on the spot, kept protesting to the Security Council, that Pakistan should "vacate its aggression".

So far as the cease-fire agreements have been concerned, as is well known, notwithstanding Part I of the said Aug. 13, 1948 UNCIP resolution, Pakistan has signed some, and broken them all, subsequent to several military defeats (most notably in 1965, 1968, 1971 and the latest in 1999).

The plebiscite: How and Why Pakistan avoided it?

Pakistan was NEVER in favour of 'self-determination' of the Kashmiris. Pakistan's claim to have supported Kashmiris' self- rule is manifestly refuted by the stand it has taken. All evidence is essentially to the contrary. Pakistan wanted, following the outdated tactics of the Moguls, to coerce the Kashmiris to accede to it. Every time the UN came close to organizing a plebiscite in Jammu and Kashmir, Pakistan raised difficulties and actually avoided the plebiscite.

Pakistan had to avoid the plebiscite because it realized that the Kashmiris, had suffered an enormous loss of human dignity at its hands, and would not vote to accede to it. Pakistan hoped that it could put off the plebiscite in Jammu and Kashmir till there was sufficient illegal Pakistani infiltration, which would offset the popular choice in the state. Pakistan's policy was manifestly simple and malicious: First and foremost - disregard democracy. Further, coerce people into saying what it wanted them to say and pass it off as 'popular people's mandate'. Pakistan employed the strategy of accepting and consolidating what they got, and asking for more and more, just as Jinnah had done previously.

The instrument of accession of Jammu and Kashmir accepted by the Government of India was the very same as for all other princely states. The accession was thus complete in law and in fact, and made the State of Jammu and Kashmir an integral part of India. There was simply no popular support to Pakistan in Jammu and Kashmir: how could the very same people against whom Pakistan committed atrocities actually want to join it? Philip Talbot wrote in 'World Politics, No 3, April 1949, of 'the tenacious resistance against Jinnah and Pakistan by Kashmir's largest political party, the Kashmir National Conference, which was Muslim led (by Sheikh Abdullah) and largely Muslim supported.' Pakistan's strategy was, therefore, to avoid plebiscite till it manipulated the demography of the region. This would be done over ten, twenty, thirty, fifty, years - as many as it would take, till the demography of the region had been manoeuvred by forcing Indians out of the state, through terror and malice, and replacing them by illegal infiltration. This would be done till the result of a plebiscite would be in Pakistan's favour. Pakistan repeatedly raised problems regarding demilitarisation of the region required as a precondition

Page 77

to the plebiscite by the UN resolution, so that it could actually stall the plebiscite even as it kept demanding it! Pakistan is still continuing with this very game plan, and all the Governments of India have let it go on.

In May 1951, Yuvraj Karan Singh issued a proclamation convoking a CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY on the basis of free adult franchise, elections to which were held in October 1951. Correspondents and observers who came personally to witness the elections, reported upon these elections across the world.

On Apr. 30, 1951, the UN appointed Dr. Frank D. Graham as an arbitrator. Pakistan was claiming Jammu and Kashmir on the grounds that it was predominantly Muslim, but it failed to assess the strength of secularism that has been at the very heart of the Indian tradition. Several Muslim leaders supported Jammu and Kashmir's accession to India. In a Memorandum submitted on Aug. 14 1951, by fourteen prominent Indian Muslim leaders to the UN, the petitioners clearly spelt out how Pakistan did not consider the well being of the Muslim community at large. This memorandum deplored Pakistan's attitude toward the Muslims in Jammu and Kashmir and expressed confidence in India's will and ability to safeguard Muslim interests. This memorandum is one of the countless expressions of solidarity of the Muslim community to the interests of India, and has been in consonance with the rich, secular traditions of modern India. Sheikh Abdullah and Maulana Azad were not the only Muslims who understood the fact that India was not automatically a 'Hindu state in imbalance' just because Jinnah had declared Pakistan to be a Muslim State.

Disgusted with Pakistan's continued evasion and non-cooperation on the plebiscite, Dr. Graham asked for extra time on Oct. 15, 1951, and then on Jan. 17, 1952, he admitted failure!

On Aug. 7, 1952, Jawaharlal Nehru, India's first Prime Minister, declared in the parliament of India: "Jammu and Kashmir's accession was complete in law and in fact... It is patent and no argument is required because the accession of every (princely) state in India was complete on these very terms. When the United Nations Commission accompanied by legal advisors and others came here, it was open to them to challenge it. But they did not."

On Feb. 6th, 1954, the constituent assembly unanimously confirmed the 'Instrument of Accession'. The will of the people was ascertained in the highest of democratic traditions. What more is required to establish popular mandate?

Pakistan continued to take the issue to the UN and kept pressing for a plebiscite even while evading it. Finally in 1964, at the UN Security Council meeting, India's brilliant representative, M.C. Chagla declared: "Jammu and Kashmir became an integral part of India... You cannot make more complete what is already complete... The two basic UN resolutions of 1948 and 1949 were conditional and contingent on Pakistan vacating its aggression and the condition has not been complied with.... The basis having disappeared, these resolutions are no longer binding on us... The only people who continued to suffer were the people of Kashmir for whom Pakistan felt no care...the resolutions of the UNCIP had lapsed, and under no circumstances would India agree to a plebiscite which Pakistan repeatedly avoided."

Finally, the UN Security Council debate ended, with the President of the Security Council stating, on May 18, 1964, "the negotiations between India and Pakistan might be

Page 78

complicated by any outside intervention". USA, Great Britain and the Soviet Union asked for a bilateral settlement instead of UN involvement.

The US representative to the UN, Adlai Stevenson, said: "the Kashmir question should be peacefully resolved.... We urged bilateral talks between the parties last year. An agreement cannot be imposed from the outside." This was reported by the President of the USA, while reporting to the U.S. Congress on events in 1964 on 'Our participation in he UN' (US State Dept. Publication 7943, released Feb. 1966, pp.63-70).

Conclusion

The legality, completeness and irrevocability of Jammu and Kashmir's accession to India was firmly established, but India failed to consolidate Jammu and Kashmir's integration due to a temporary measure of dubious value and devastating consequences, that was taken then.

There are several lessons to be learnt from the events of 1947 - the most important being that it is the leadership of a nation, which determines the course of history, and that national security can be defended and protected only by that nation itself. This is as true today as it was in 1947. National security was given the go by when Nehru listened to Mountbatten rather than to Sardar Patel and ran to the UN to do his work for him while national integration was achieved and strengthened because Sardar Patel relied on nothing but his own courage and counsel and faith in his own destiny.

The events which led up to December 1947 are well recorded and do not warrant repetition. Suffice it to say that after India won the Battle of Shatlang, after Baramulla was recaptured from the marauding Pakistani hordes, and after our troops had reached the heights of Uri, all that remained to be done was for our troops to move into Pakistan and deliver the ultimate, punitive blow for daring to invade Indian Territory. The GOI did indeed warn Pakistan on Dec. 22nd, December, 1947, that it would move into Pakistan if Pakistan did not forthwith cease to wage this terrorist war in J&K. Gandhi too is reported to have written to Atlee asking Britain to restrain Pakistan from embarking on this destructive path but Mountbatten and Nehru's arrogance changed India's course of history.

Pakistan was created by the British not only as a puppet state of strategic geo-political importance in Asia to protect the West's interests in oil in the middle east but also as a permanent lever with which to check India; and Kashmir was meant to be the proverbial thorn in India's flesh. The British government had everything to gain in keeping the tensions running high between India and Pakistan via J&K. The British government, therefore, could not afford to have India moving into Pakistan and crushing it nor could it afford to be drawn forcibly into a situation where it would be compelled to deal firmly with Pakistan.

It was at this very crucial moment in India's history that Mountbatten dissuaded Nehru from attacking Pakistan and instead persuaded him to approach the UN to deal with Pakistan's transgression. This effectively succeeded in keeping the problem of J&K unresolved. And it has remained unresolved till today because the Government of India has not applied its mind to free itself from the legal tangle it has created for itself and its ineptitude in dealing with the international community. The gratuitous interference of the UN with the Pakistanis lurking sinisterly in the background has further debilitated this country's will to resolve the problem firmly and with its own strength.

Page 79

Nehru decided, on Mountbatten's advice, and to India's eternal shame and misfortune, to lodge a complaint with the UN Security Council. That was done in January 1948 when India invoked Article 35 of the UN Charter. The text of India's complaint is recorded in the Security Council document of Jan. 2nd, January 1948. India's complaint said, "Since the aid which the invaders are receiving from Pakistan is an act of aggression against India, the government of India are entitled, in international law, to send their armed forces across Pakistan territory for dealing effectively with the invaders". The Government of India appealed to the Security Council to ask the Government of Pakistan:

To prevent Pakistan Government personnel, military and civil, participating in or assisting the invasion of Jammu and Kashmir State;

To call upon other Pakistani nationals to desist from taking any part in the fighting in Jammu and Kashmir State;

To deny to the invaders access to and use of its territory for operations against Kashmir Military and other supplies all kinds of aid that might tend to prolong the present struggle.

To understand the scope for intervention in the affairs of J&K by the international community, provided by the UN, one must read Articles 33, 34, 35, 36 and 37 of the UN Charter together. India, as a member of the UN, availed of her right under Article 35 of the UN Charter to lodge a complaint against Pakistan for invading J&K with the malevolent intention of grabbing territory, which rightfully and legally belonged to India.

Another act of appeasement by Gandhi was Gandhi's "fast unto death" to force the Indian Government to pay 55 crore rupees to Pakistan, and to force the Hindu and Sikh refugees in Delhi to vacate the abandoned mosques and Muslim homes where they had found shelter (this was midwinter 1947-48, when the temperature close to freezing). But it could easily be seen that the real motive behind the fast was to compel the Dominion Government to pay the sum of Rs 55 crores to Pakistan, the payment of which was emphatically refused by the Government.

Chapter 2

More problems with Pakistan The problem in East Pakistan

Some time in the year 1950, Hindus were being butchered in East Pakistan. Faced with this difficult situation, the Government of India was contemplating taking some strong steps to protect the Hindus. Sardar Patel was then Home Minister and he faced the biggest test of his statesmanship when thousands of Hindus were driven into East Bengal by Pakistan - a development, which took everyone by surprise and angered the whole nation. Till then, the eastern front had been, by and large, peaceful and free from any communal backlash. The Sardar was much perturbed by the unhelpful attitude of the Government of Pakistan, which did not desist, by word or deed, from spoiling relations between the Hindus and the Muslims. The Government of Pakistan's pronouncements and actions had a natural reaction in India; at the annual session of the Congress in December 1948 at Jaipur, Patel warned Pakistan that if she did not stop the influx of Hindu refugees into India, especially from East Bengal, "we would have no alternative

Page 80

left except to send out Muslims in equal numbers". It was a sort of ultimatum, a warning to Pakistan to conduct its affairs in a civilized manner.

As a result of the strong stand taken by the Sardar and just when it seemed that action was about to be taken, the Prime Minister of Pakistan, Liaquat Ali Khan, rushed to Delhi. Arriving in the first week of April 1950, he concluded what came to be known as the Nehru-Liaquat Pact, under which equality of citizenship to Hindus and Muslims alike in both dominions was reaffirmed and various other protective measures such as the constitution of minority commissions, better control and investigation into riots, and strict safeguarding of the rights and interests of minorities were guaranteed.

The two Prime Ministers met in Delhi on Apr. 2 1950, and discussed the matter in detail. The meeting lasted six days. On Apr 8, the two leaders signed an agreement, which was later entitled as the Liaquat-Nehru Pact. This pact provided a 'bill of rights' for the minorities of India and Pakistan. Its aim was to address the following three issues:

1 To alleviate the fears of the religious minorities on both sides.

2. To elevate communal peace.

3. To create an atmosphere in which the two countries could resolve their other differences.

Under the agreement, the governments of India and Pakistan solemnly agreed that each would ensure to the minorities throughout its territories, complete equality of citizenship, irrespective of religion; a full sense of security in respect of life, culture, property and personal honor.

It also guaranteed fundamental human rights of the minorities, such as freedom of movement, speech, occupation, and worship. The pact also provided for the minorities to participate in the public life of their country, to hold political or other offices and to serve in their country's civil and armed forces.

The Liaquat-Nehru Pact

The Liaquat-Nehru Pact provided for a mechanism to deal with oppressive elements with an iron hand. Both the governments decided to set up minority commissions in their countries with the aim of observing and reporting on the implementation of the pact, to ensure that no one breached the pact and to make recommendations to guarantee its enforcement. Both Minority Commissions were to be headed by a provincial minister and were to have Hindu and Muslim members among its ranks. India and Pakistan also agreed to include representatives of the minority community in the cabinet of the two Bengals, and decided to depute two central ministers, one from each government, to remain in the affected areas for such period as might be necessary. Both the leaders emphasized that the loyalty of the minorities should be reserved for the state in which they were living and that for the solution of their problems, they should look to the government of the country they were living in. This pact was broadly acknowledged as an optimistic beginning to the improvement of relations between India and Pakistan.

However, the Hindus in West Bengal were not satisfied with the pact; they seethed with anger. Two ministers in the Nehru Cabinet, Shyama Prasad Mukherjee and K.C.Neogy, resigned.

Sri Aurobindo's view of the pact

Let us now see the position taken by Sri Aurobindo on this issue.

Page 81

We quote in full this letter written to a disciple: "I am writing to explain the indications I had given of my view that a change has taken place in the situation owing to the Nehru-Liaquat Pact making the position I took in the letter to Dilip no longer quite valid and necessitated a halt for a reconsideration and decision of policy. I gather from what you have written that you are rather surprised by my view of things and think that there is no change in the situation; you seem to regard the Pact as a futile affair not likely to succeed or to make any change in the situation and foredoomed to speedy failure. I would like to know what are the grounds for this view if you really hold it. I am quite prepared to learn that the situation is quite different from what it seems to be, but that must be based on facts, and the facts published in the newspapers or claimed as true by the Congress leaders point in a different direction. There seems to be something, initially at least, like a radical change in the situation and I have to face it, look at the possible and probable consequences and decide what has to be done.

What was the situation when the Dilip letter was written and what is it today? At that time everything was pushed to a point at which war still seemed inevitable. The tension between Pakistan and India had grown more and more intolerable in every aspect, the massacres in East Bengal still seemed to make war inevitable and the Indian Government had just before Nehru's attempt to patch up a compromise made ready to march its army over the East Bengal borders once a few preliminaries had been arranged and war in Kashmir would have inevitably followed. America and Britain would not have been able to support Pakistan and, if our information is correct, had already intimated their inability to prevent the India Government from taking the only possible course open to it in face of the massacre. In the circumstances the end of Pakistan would have been the certain consequence of war. The object we had in view would have been within sight of achievement.

Now all this has changed. After the conclusion of the Pact, after its acceptance by the Congress Party and the Assembly and its initial success of organisation and implementation, its acceptance also in both Western and Eastern Pakistan, no outbreak of war can take place at least for some time to come, and, unless the Pact fails, it may not take place. That may mean in certain contingencies the indefinite perpetuation of the existence of Pakistan and the indefinite postponement of the prospect of any unification of India. I regard the fact as an exceedingly clever move of Liaquat Ali to fish his "nation" out of the desperate situation into which it had run itself and to secure its safe survival. I will not go elaborately into the reasons for my view and I am quite prepared for events breaking out which will alter the situation once more in an opposite sense. But I have to take things as they are or seem to be, weigh everything and estimate the position and make my decision, I will not say more in this letter, though I may have to say much hereafter. You should be able to understandfrom what I have written why I have reversed my course. Our central object and the real policy of the paper stands, but what steps have to be taken or can be taken in the new circumstances can only be seen in the light of future developments.

Meanwhile I await your answer with regard to the question I have put you. Afterwards I shall write again especially about the stand to be taken by Mother India".

Sri Aurobindo25

Page 82

Events in India

Immediately after attainment of Independence, India set up a Constituent Assembly with the intention of giving herself a constitution. This Constituent Assembly was neither elected by the people of India nor set up at their own initiative. It was set up under the terms of the British Cabinet Mission proposals. Its members were indirectly elected by the provincial assemblies that were themselves elected under the Government of India Act, 1935, on a highly restricted franchise covering hardly 11 per cent of the population of British India and surrogates, not of the people of the princely states, but of the princes. In that sense, the Constituent Assembly was not truly a representative body. It was rather an elitist body of the chosen few, not an assembly of people's representatives. This elitist body was made up of persons who were foreign-educated and western-oriented. And was that probably the reason why, speaking at the All India Congress Committee on Jul. 7, 1946, Jawaharlal Nehru had said: "I do think that some time or other in the future we may have to summon our own revolutionary Constituent Assembly"?

However, it might be, it was on Nov. 26, 1949, that the people of India gave to themselves the Constitution of the "Sovereign Democratic Republic of India". And it was on the Jan. 26, 1950, that the Constitution came into effect. This is what the preamble to the Constitution says:

WE, THE PEOPLE OF INDIA, having solemnly resolved to constitute India into a SOVEREIGN SOCIALIST DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC and to secure to all its citizens JUSTICE, social, economic and political;

LIBERTY of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship;

EQUALITY of status and of opportunity;

And to promote among them all

FRATERNITY assuring the dignity of the individual and the unity and integrity of the Nation

IN OUR CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY this twenty-sixth day of November 1949, do HEREBY ADOPT, ENACT AND GIVE TO OURSELVES THIS CONSTITUTION.

The Indian Government adopted the Parliamentary system and the first elections were held in 1952. Since then elections have been held more or less regularly every five years. During the first four decades or so after Independence, the direction of the government was to create a strong centralized state, which fought against external threats, suppressed regional autonomy, and controlled the commanding heights of the economy. That phase coincided with much uncertainty about the political future of the nation. However, the country has, over time, matured politically.

For all its failings, the democratic system has taken firm root. The decline of the Congress and the rise of regional and smaller national parties have brought in an era of coalition governments. Although it seemed at the beginning that these coalitions would be unsteady and problematic, time has shown not only continuity but also a relative stability. It is clear that no matter how many changes of government take place, the process of governance is not undermined.

Events in Pakistan

In Pakistan, events were moving fast and in a different direction. The founding father, Mohammed Ali Jinnah, was Pakistan's first governor-general. He was terminally ill at the time of Pakistan's independence, and died within a year. His deputy, Liaquat Ali Khan, the first prime minister, was assassinated three years later. Both believed that Pakistan needed a strong centre to survive as a nation state. This policy resulted in a

Page 83

strong reliance on the civil service that was dominated by West Pakistanis. Since 55% of Pakistanis lived in East Pakistan, under the democratic system, they would have come to dominate the national political decision making process, something that neither Jinnah nor Liaquat were willing to countenance. At the same time, they knew that dominance by an unrepresentative centre would inevitably provoke dissension from the regions. And inevitably, this denial of heterogeneity was slowly antagonizing the provinces in Pakistan. The result was that regional elites began to mobilize popular support for greater provincial autonomy. Thus, Centre-State relations became the principal focus for political conflict. This manifested itself at two levels: at a lower level, between Punjab, which was the dominant province, and the three smaller provinces in West Pakistan; and at a higher level, between West and East Pakistan.

An important point to note is that Jinnah's, and to an even greater extent, Liaquat's effectiveness was limited by the fact that they were immigrants from India. The fact that Jinnah had insisted on making Urdu the national language was resented by many ethnic groups, such as the Bengalis in East Pakistan, who had a pride in their language. Slowly and as a consequence of these problems, the Muslim League, which was Pakistan's ruling party, lost its way after achieving Pakistan. It did not possess the same grassroots organization as the Congress in India. The contrast with India is illustrative. Nehru, backed by a first-rate team and a solidly organized Congress, had almost two decades until his death in 1964, to guide and consolidate the new state. Liaquat did not see any urgency to hold elections at the national level or create a constitution, since he was concerned about the resulting dilution in the centre's authority. In January 1949, he used the services of Jinnah's successor as Governor-General, Khawaja Nazimuddin, to dissolve the Punjab legislature and take over the reins of power, thus setting a dangerous precedent. Soon after, Liaquat was assassinated.

Liaquat's assassination resulted in the transfer of effective control to leaders who were ex-civil servants. These leaders worked symbiotically with people who were politicians nominally, but were feudal lords and tribal leaders fundamentally. Quite naturally, they showed little interest in formulating policies that would bring prosperity to their electorate. Instead, they wished to perpetuate the authoritarian rule their forebears had exercised for centuries. The two ex-civil servants who dominated the national scene were Iskander Mirza who became the President, and Ghulam Mohammed who became the Governor General on Liaquat's death. Ghulam Mohammed connived with the army chief, General Ayub, to dismiss many elected officials including Prime Minister and former Governor-General, Khawaja Nazimuddin in 1953. The following year, he dismissed the entire Constituent Assembly. Even though India had formed its constitution in 1949, Pakistan was to remain without a constitution till 1956. During those years, it continued to be ruled under the Government of India Act of 1935 that Great Britain had designed to exercise imperial control over its Indian subjects. The 1956 constitution lasted only for two years, and was abrogated by the military coup of 1958. Ayub provided a new constitution in 1962, based on the presidential form of government.

Faced with widespread lawlessness and corruption, President Mirza declared martial law in 1958, and turned over power to General Ayub. Mirza blamed the imposition of martial law on "the political adventurers, the smugglers, the black marketers, the hoarders" who were flourishing "to the detriment of the masses and are getting richer by their nefarious practices". In his maiden speech, Ayub stated that he had been asked on numerous

Page 84

occasions by Governor-General Ghulam Mohammad to take over the country but had refrained from doing so because he had a faint hope that some politicians would rise to the occasion and lead the country to a better future.

It will be pertinent to note that Ayub's "coup d'etat in Pakistan was the most striking example of how an apolitical military could slowly be drawn into the political field due to the failure of the political leaders to run liberal democratic institutions. In 1958, Pakistan was in the grip of a serious economic crisis. The government treasury was empty. Smuggling, black-marketing and hoarding had penetrated deep into the economic life of Pakistan. There was widespread industrial unrest and strikes became common. The impotence of the political leadership and general corruption in the society as compared with the well integrated and disciplined organization of the armed forces and their role in the maintenance of law and order led to a perception amongst the higher military command that it was they who had to maintain law and order and keep the state intact.

Ayub therefore gave a firm warning to the disruptionists, political opportunists, smugglers, black marketers and other such social vermin, sharks and leeches to "turn over a new leaf and begin to behave, otherwise retribution will be swift and sure". Within a month, the martial law authorities seized as much smuggled goods and gold as the previous governments had seized in the past 11 years, and imposed price controls that brought about a fall in the prices of a number of basic commodities. These measures brought initial popularity to Ayub's regime. He institutionalised the process of economic planning. This led to rapid economic progress in the early sixties, but exacerbated inter-class inequities in the distribution of income. Surprisingly, this was by design, since the premise was that the road to eventual equality lay through initial inequalities. Ayub had implemented "trickle down economics" in Pakistan much before Ronald Reagan in the United States. A class of "robber barons" was created that resulted in the concentration of wealth in a handful of families. Forty-three families owned 75% of manufacturing assets and a similar percent of insurance assets. Only seven families owned commercial banks accounting for 92% of all domestic deposits. Ayub's family acquired about $20 million in assets. Military officers were given land in newly created "defence housing societies" at throwaway prices, and profited enormously by reselling it on the open market. Similarly, a large portion of the 2.5 million acres of land that was surrendered by the feudal lords through the Land Reforms of 1959 was given to military and civil officials. Retired military officers were given plum jobs in public and private sector corporations while others were absorbed into the central and provincial bureaucracies.

Faced with several internal problems, and in order to divert attention from what was going on in the country, Ayub Khan decided to confront India first with a problem in Kutch, and later in Kashmir.

The 1965 War

In August1965, another war took place. Again, it was the same operation; Pakistan Army regulars were sent into India in the garb of tribals and as the operation picked up gradually, by the end of August 1965, it became an open war.

According to a report in the US Library of Congress, the 1965 war was instigated by the Government of Pakistan through a militant movement on the border in an effort to topple the status quo on Kashmir and raise international intervention. "Pakistani forces did not find as much support among the Kashmiri population as they had hoped, but fighting spread by August, and a process of escalation culminated in a full-scale Indian offensive

Page 85

toward Lahore on September 6. Within a few days, the Indian army was in Lahore. Fighting continued until a UN-sponsored ceasefire took hold on September 23."

During the war, the Mother of the Sri Aurobindo Ashram sent an open message to the Prime Minister Lal Bahadur Shastri. The message ran like this: "It is for the sake and the triumph of truth that India is fighting and must fight until India and Pakistan have once more become One because that is the truth of their being".

The question was asked that if the Security Council orders them to cease-fire, then? Mother said, "India must still fight. Otherwise she will have to do it all over again". Once again, the Government floundered, as we didn't have the will to go till the end. 27

Page 86

"Do you know the war is going on?"

"Yes Mother, every day I hear the news on the radio. Mother, who will win the war —India surely and not Pakistan."

She nodded and said: "India and Pakistan must become one. By the way, have you read the message I sent to the Prime Minister- Mr. Sastri?"

"No, Mother."

Then she herself went into her living room from her music room and fetched the message and gave it to me, asking me to read it there and then and keep it. I read as follows:

"If the Security Council orders them to cease fire, then?"

"India must still fight. Otherwise she will have to do it all over again..."

Page 87

Tashkent Declaration

The war was militarily inconclusive though it was quite clear then that had it continued, Pakistan would have been beaten back and the Kashmir dispute would have been resolved once for all. Instead, the Indian Prime Minister, Lal Bahadur Shastri, and the Pakistani General Ayub Khan met in Tashkent at the invitation of Russian Premier, Alexi Kosygin, and agreed to withdraw troops on both sides. The Tashkent Declaration committed both sides to resolving all differences peacefully and to desist from interfering in each other's internal affairs. Shastri died in Tashkent and not much work was done to carry forward the spirit of the declaration.

Chapter 3

The Bangladesh War

Prelude to the 1971 war

Sometime in the early 60's, Ayub Khan's son, Gauhar Ayub, led a procession through the streets of Karachi, a city where Ayub Khan had lost in the elections. The procession turned violent and the resulting killings sowed the seeds of ethnic polarization. It completely alienated Pakistan's largest city from Ayub Khan, and accelerated his downfall in 1969. The revolt was especially strong in East Pakistan since it had been seriously neglected during Ayub's period. The gap in per capita income between the two wings had doubled in percentage terms, so that in 1969/70 the per capita income in the West was 61% higher than in the East.

Constitutionally, Ayub Khan should have turned over power to the speaker of the Assembly. However, he stated that the prevailing conditions of lawlessness did not permit the convening of the National Assembly, and that he was turning over power to the Army chief, General Yahya Khan. Curiously, Ayub Khan asked Yahya Khan to "fulfill his constitutional responsibility" and impose martial law. He closed with a wish that "we continue to march towards progress and prosperity along the path of democracy." In despair, Ayub Khan said, it "is impossible for me to preside over the destruction of our country." Privately, he confided that he had failed, and added that there was no leader in the opposition who would rise above his self-interest. He stated that keeping the country together for the past 10 years "was like keeping a number of frogs in one basket". And he spoke ominously about East Pakistan: "The East will last a few years and the West will drag on...There is no communication between the two parts. Let us hope some miracle will save us from complete separation."

His handpicked successor, General Yahya Khan, suspended this constitution in 1969. Pakistan got its current constitution in 1973.

1971 India-Pakistan War:

The partition of the Indian Subcontinent in 1947 created two independent countries: India and Pakistan. India, which became independent on Aug. 15, 1947, stood for an equitable polity based on the universally accepted idea that all men were created equal and should be treated as such. Pakistan, which officially came into existence a day earlier, was based on the premise that Hindus and Muslims of the Subcontinent constituted two different nationalities and could not co-exist. The Partition created two different countries with most Muslim majority areas of undivided India going to the newly created nation,

Page 88

Pakistan (Land of the Pure). Pakistan was originally made up of two distinct and geographically unconnected parts termed West and East Pakistan. West Pakistan was made up of a number of races including the Punjabis (the most numerous), Sindhis, Pathans, Balochis, Mohajirs (Muslim refugees from India) and others. East Pakistan, on the other hand, was much more homogeneous and had an overwhelming Bengali-speaking population.

The Roots of Discord

Although the Eastern wing of Pakistan was more populous than the Western one, political power since independence rested with the Western elite. This caused considerable resentment in East Pakistan and a charismatic Bengali leader, Sheikh Mujibur Rehman, most forcefully articulated that resentment by forming an opposition political party called the Awami League and demanding more autonomy for East Pakistan within the Pakistani Federation. In the Pakistani general elections held in 1970, the Sheikh's party won the majority of seats, securing a complete majority in East Pakistan. In all fairness, the Sheikh should have been Prime Minister of Pakistan, or at least the ruler of his province. But the ruling elite of West Pakistan was so dismayed by the turn of events and by the Sheikh's demands for autonomy that instead of allowing him to rule East Pakistan, they put him in jail.

Origins of the Crisis

The dawn of 1971 saw a great human tragedy unfolding in erstwhile East Pakistan. Entire East Pakistan was in revolt. In the West, General Yahya Khan, who had appointed himself President in 1969, had given the job of pacifying East Pakistan to his junior, General Tikka Khan. The crackdown of Mar. 25, 1971, ordered by Tikka Khan, left thousands of Bengalis dead and Sheikh Mujibur Rehman was arrested the next day. The same day, the Pakistani Army began airlifting two of its divisions plus a brigade strength formation to its Eastern Wing. Attempts to disarm the Bengali troops were not entirely successful and within weeks of the March 25 massacres, many former Bengali officers and troops of the Pakistani Army had joined Bengali resistance fighters in different parts of East Pakistan.

The Pakistani Army conducted several crackdowns in different parts of Bangladesh, leading to massive loss of civilian life. The details of those horrific massacres, in which defenceless people were trapped and machine-gunned, is part of Bangladeshi history. Survivors compare it to the Nazi extermination of Jews.

At the same time, the Pakistani Administration in Dhaka thought it could pacify the Bengali peasantry by appropriating the land of the Hindu population and gifting it to Muslims. While this did not impress the peasantry, it led to the exodus of more than eight million refugees (more than half of them Hindus) to neighbouring India. West Bengal was the worst affected by the refugee problem and the Indian government was left holding the enormous burden. Repeated appeals by the Indian government failed to elicit any response from the international community and by April 1971, the then Indian Prime Minister, Mrs. Indira Gandhi, decided that the only solution lay in helping the Bengali freedom fighters, especially the Mukti Bahini, to liberate East Pakistan, which had already been re-christened Bangladesh by its people. Pakistan felt it could dissuade India from helping the Mukti Bahini by being provocative. The Pakistan Air Force (PAF) in East Pakistan took to attacking suspected Mukti Bahini camps located inside Indian Territory in the state of West Bengal. In the Western and Northern sectors too, occasional

Page 89

clashes, some of them quite bloody, took place. Pakistan suggested that should India continue with its plans it should expect total war as in 1965. Only this time, the Pakistanis would concentrate their forces in the West and thereby aim at capturing as much as Indian Territory as possible. The Indians, on the other hand, would be fighting a war on two fronts (while at the same time keeping a watchful eye on the Chinese borders). Given this scenario, the Pakistanis felt that India at best would be able to capture some territory in East Pakistan and lose quite a bit in the West. In the end, the Pakistanis knew that the Western powers would intervene to stop the war and what would matter was who had the most of the other's territory. Confident that another war would be as much of a stalemate as the 1965 Conflict, the Pakistanis got increasingly bold and finally on Dec. 3, 1971, reacted with a massive co-ordinated air strike on several Indian Air Force stations in the West. At midnight, the Indian Prime Minister, Mrs. Indira Gandhi, in a broadcast to the nation declared that India was at war with Pakistan. As her words came on in million of Indian homes across the Subcontinent, the men at the front were already engaged in bitter combat...

The war lasted for 13 days precisely. To cut a long story short, the Pakistan Army in the East surrendered on Dec. 16, and on the Dec. 17 India declared a cease-fire.

In June 1971, The Mother had written in a letter to a disciple:

La disparition du Pakistan est inevitable; elle aurait pu deja se produire, mais l'ignorance

humaine l'a retardee.

The English translation is as follows:

The disappearance of Pakistan is inevitable; this could have already happened, but human ignorance has retarded it.

Page 90

Let us now look at the position of the Mother regarding the Bangladesh problem. On Apr. 3, just seven days after the crackdown, Mother sent a message to Indira Gandhi, "The urgent recognition of Bangladesh is imperative".

As already seen, the conflict had its genesis in March when the Pakistani President and his tough military regime moved to crush the East Pakistani movement for greater autonomy, outlawed the Awami League, which had just won a majority in the nation's first free election, arrested its leader, Sheik Mujibur Rahman, and launched a repressive campaign that turned into a civil war with East Pakistan's Bengalis fighting to set up an independent Bangla Desh (Bengal Nation).

Nearly 1,000,000 people were killed and 10 million refugees streamed into India. "We have borne the heaviest of burdens", Mrs. Gandhi said, "and withstood the greatest of pressure in a tremendous effort to urge the world to help in bringing about a peaceful solution and preventing the annihilation of an entire people whose only crime was to vote democratically. But the world ignored the basic causes and concerned itself only with certain repercussions. Today the war in Bangla Desh has become a war on India."

On Dec. 16, the war was over. Within hours of the surrender of the Pakistan Army in East Pakistan, Indira Gandhi called a cease-fire. Mother said: "Again it won't be for this time. It won't be done that way. I've seen how. It won't be through battle. The different parts of Pakistan will demand separation. There are five of them and by separating, they will join India - to form a sort of confederation. That is how it will be done. It is not for this time also. It will take some more time". And She added: "One of the things foreseen is the conversion of America, the United States, but it will take time". Later, She said: "We are plainly heading for the disintegration of Pakistan". Thus what was said was that these five parts would secede and that there would be a conversion of America. Then there would be a Confederation of India and then the work of Sri Aurobindo would start in a big way.

Six months after the cease-fire, on Jul. 2, 1972, Mrs Indira Gandhi and the Pakistan Prime Minister, Z.A.Bhutto, signed the Shimla Agreement. That Agreement settled a few points once and for all. First of all, it categorically drew the line of cease-fire.

The line of control was clearly demarcated first on the map, and then on the ground. This work of demarcating the Line of Control was entrusted to delegations of the two armies led by two of the most respected officers of the two armies, Lt General PS Bhagat and Lt General Abdul Hameed Khan. They held several meetings and demarcated the Line of Control not only on the map but on the ground also. The second thing that was agreed upon was that there would be no third party intervention and that all problems between India and Pakistan would be solved bilaterally and that even the United Nations would not intervene. Evidently there were many other points, which were discussed and agreed upon. After the Bangladesh war, India had taken 93,000 prisoners who had surrendered in East Pakistan. In a moment of extreme generosity, India released all the prisoners and in another moment of extreme generosity, she withdrew all her troops from Bangladesh. That was the beginning of the end. Within a few months, other foreign powers came, and took over control. Soon tragedy struck. On Aug. 15, 1975, Sheikh Mujibur Rehman and his whole family were assassinated; the only person left alive was his daughter, who happened to be somewhere outside Bangladesh at that time. She later became the Prime Minister of Bangladesh.

Page 91

Once more, there was a failure on the part of the Government of India to pursue a sound and rational policy. This failure was the direct outcome of a deliberate decision by the Government of India led by Mrs Indira Gandhi. It was the decision not to pursue the trials of the Pakistani military prisoners on charges of crimes against humanity, a decision to which Bangladesh acquiesced, and the politicians and people of India barely paid attention. On hindsight, this was an incredible and tragic omission. Consider that, conservatively speaking, the Pakistani military murdered a million people within a span of nine months. If we go by the reputed number of six million murdered in the Nazi holocaust over a period of at least six years, it follows that the Pakistani military's "kill rate" exceeded that of the Nazis by at least 33%. Yet neither the world community nor the Government of India even raised a whimper; a blind eye was turned to the genocide. And most unfortunately, even India's own political parties failed to appreciate the political gains to be had from protesting this impunity. Despite the Pakistani military's deliberate targeting of Hindus, the Indian political parties showed no particular interest in making the criminals answer for their crimes. Even the Communist parties in Bengal were not moved to denounce this failure to punish the fascist murderers of innocent Bengali peasants. Incredibly, there was no voice of consequence anywhere demanding from the Pakistani military even so much as an acknowledgement of, and apology for, their atrocities. Needless to say, the question of forcing Pakistan to make reparation to Bangladesh was not seriously considered either. It seemed that practically everyone in India was content with the mere pleasure of defeating an enemy in war. No one thought of seizing the history of the moment, and putting it through the judicial system and other apparatus of a civilized society. Had the Government of India and the political parties taken these steps, it would have been much less thinkable in the subcontinent for anyone to flaunt retrograde values of the kind embodied by the Pakistani military.

Page 92

Chapter 4

Military Rule in Pakistan Recurrent Military Rule

The task of presiding over the destruction of his country was left to Yahya. Interestingly, at Pakistan's birth in 1947, General Yahya Khan, then a Major, had commented that the day of independence "should be a day of mourning. As a united country, India and Pakistan could have been a strong and powerful nation". But in 1969, it was a different Yayha Khan; now, he justified the military takeover. He declared, "strikes and violence have become a daily routine and the country has been driven to the edge of an abyss. The nation has to be pulled back to safety and normal conditions have to be restored without delay." However, in December 1971, the day of mourning arrived, and United Pakistan died. Yahya was forced to step down by a rebellion in the military high command, and he handed over power to Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, a feudal lord from Sindh. His People's Party secured 81 of the 138 seats in West Pakistan in the 1970 elections. However, none of these were located in the two smaller provinces. Bhutto's rule was marked by an unprecedented degree of vindictiveness against political opponents, ideological hypocrisy, and economic mismanagement. Bhutto came to power on a platform of "Islamic Socialism," designed to rectify the distributional inequities of the Ayub period and to provide "food, clothing and housing" to every man, woman and child. A few months prior to coming to power, he wrote, "When the history of this country is written it will be admitted by our people and by the world outside that no individual has rendered so much service to the cause of socialism in Pakistan as I have done". He resorted to large-scale nationalization to eliminate concentration of wealth. However, within a few years, the leftist ideologues within his party had been marginalized. By 1976, access to the state had become a primary avenue of accumulating a private fortune. Corruption was a mechanism through which resources were being transferred, from public enterprises to private individuals. Unfettered by socialist concerns, the state intervened to redistribute resources arbitrarily in favour of those who had access to its patronage. All economic indicators turned downward during the Bhutto years. Foreign debt rose to $7 billion, equivalent to nearly 6 per cent of national wealth. The rate of growth of the economy deteriorated sharply after 1974. During the 1974-77 periods, the economy grew at a rate of only 2.7%, per cent, or .3% per cent less than the rate of population growth. Per capita income declined. Despite his socialist rhetoric, income distribution worsened during Bhutto's rule. On the political front, anxious to assert his personal power at the expense of democratic institutions, he dismissed the provincial government in the minority province of Baluchistan, leading to a large-scale insurrection that was only temporarily quelled by brutal army action. Bhutto rigged the national elections in 1977, and his party's clean sweep at the polls on March 7 stunned its opponents and a vast section of the people generally. The extent of the landslide vitiated its credibility. He called a meeting of senior party officials and divisional commissioners and asked them: "why have you done this to me"? Widespread rioting followed, and the opposition parties asked for his resignation. Wary of army rule, Bhutto was forced to declare martial law in the large urban centres. He tried to convince the leader of the opposition, Mufti Mahmood, to drop his demand for his (Bhutto's) resignation by showing him evidence that Pakistan was about to be invaded simultaneously by India, Afghanistan, and Iran. The wily Mufti was not persuaded. It was then widely expected that Bhutto would deploy the army and the

Page 93

Gestapo-like Federal Security Force, a paramilitary unit, to put down the rioting. His defence minister, General Tikka, who had earned the title of Butcher of East Pakistan and Baluchistan, was preparing to kill up to 20,000 people. To prevent a showdown on the streets, the army headed by General Zia ul Haq launched Operation Fairplay, and deposed the elected government for a third time.

The Zia era

Zia stated: "The Army takeover is never a pleasant act, the country should remain in the hands of the representatives of the people who are its real masters. I genuinely feel that the survival of this country is in democracy and democracy alone." However, the two leading parties had failed to reach a compromise, and there was a serious risk that the country would be plunged into a serious crisis. Under such conditions, Zia said, "It is an inexcusable sin for the Armed Forces to sit as silent spectators...the Army perforce had to intervene to save the country". During this period, a conscious decision was taken to wage what may be called the Low Intensity Conflict with India and a clear blueprint on of the strategy towards India was drawn. The strategy was that there were to be no more conventional wars with India. The nuclear question was not in sight at that time. They realised that they had no chance since the Indian Army was too big. So they worked out a new strategy. It was to be the LIC or the Low Intensity Conflict. This Low Intensity Conflict would mean that they would infiltrate into India. There was an organisation which was given this job very specifically which was known as the ISI. They were told to go everywhere in India, create as much trouble as possible, go to Nepal, go to Bangladesh, go to the neighbouring countries, sneak inside and create as much trouble as possible. Later, in 1988-1989 the Pakistani establishment developed another plan. This was known as Operation Topac. The idea was to infiltrate into India and create dissension and start militancy. As a result, they began their first operations not in Kashmir, but in Punjab. In 1984, Operation Blue Star was a very painful experience. In 1989, the same operation was started in Jammu and Kashmir. Zia ruled for 11 years. The first two years were marked by indecisiveness as he sought to develop a coalition of forces that would support his rule. He had promised to hold elections within 90 days, and to hand over power to the elected representatives. When it became clear to him that Bhutto would be re-elected and would probably try him for treason, punishable by the death penalty, he decided to pursue a course of action that resulted in Bhutto's death by hanging in 1977. Zia became an international pariah after this incident. However, his fortunes underwent a reversal in 1979, when the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan. Pakistan was now a frontline state, and became the beneficiary of large-scale American aid to the tune of $3.2 billion over five years. Of this, it is estimated that 20% was pocketed by Pakistan's military-civil service elite. The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan made Pakistan a frontline ally of the Western World in its battle against Communism. This presented Zia Ul Haq, with the golden opportunity of killing two birds with one stone, that is, remove the problem of 'Greater Pashtunistan' as also ensure control over Afghanistan's affairs. In addition, Pakistan got billions of dollars in aid and military equipment. Meanwhile, in the early 1990's, the local uprising in Kashmir (similar to one of the plans discussed in 1947) had run out of steam as its very foundation was flawed. The Pakistan trained, indoctrinated and battle hardened (in Afghanistan) cadres of the Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Front (JKLF) wanted independence rather than secession to Pakistan. To counter this force, Pakistan raised another called the Hizbul Mujahideen, which

Page 94

massacred hundreds of JKLF cadres. Soon, however, the Pakistani Army realized that this force also could not deliver the goods - help it in its aim of annexing Kashmir. With the reins of Afghanistan firmly in the hands of the Pakistani rulers, foreign fighters, who had fought in Afghanistan, were inducted into J&K. The flow of these foreign fighters from groups like Harkat-Ul-Ansar (banned by the US in 1997 for kidnapping a US tourist in Kashmir) remained in consonance with the state of affairs in Afghanistan. Despite this induction of foreign fighters the situation in Kashmir did not develop as the Pakistani rulers expected it to. By the end of 1998, with the Taliban capturing 90 per cent of Afghanistan, a push was planned to upgrade the level of the proxy war in Kashmir, which by then had started to wane. The plan came in the form of 'Operation Badr', in which the Pakistani soldiers of the Northern Light Infantry units were sneaked in to capture the unmanned heights in the Kargil Sector in the months of March-April 1999. As the Indian Army reacted to recapture these heights, leaving large portions of the Jammu and Kashmir Sectors porous, hundreds of battle hardened foreign fighters, mostly Pakistanis and Afghans of Harkat-Ul-Mujahideen, Harkat-Ul-Jehad-e-Islami (both from erstwhile Harkat-Ul-Ansar), Lashkar-e-Toiba and Al Badr groups, taken from the Taliban forces, were pushed into these Sectors. This upgraded the level of the proxy war in Kashmir and brought it back into international focus. Another incident, which brought the Kashmir -Afghan connection into focus was the hijacking of an Indian Airlines plane, IC 814, to Kandahar in December 1999. The three terrorists released by the Indian authorities in exchange for the safety of the passengers were all operating in Kashmir. One of them, Masood Azhar, formed the Jaish-e-Mohammed, based on the cadres from Harkat-Ul-Mujahideen and Harkat-Ul-Jehad-e-Islami. This dreaded terrorist organization, operating with full force in Kashmir, is known to have close links to Osama Bin Laden's Al Qaeda and Mullah Omar, the Taliban Chief. At present, Jaish-e-Mohammed is on the 'terrorists watch list' of the US Government and is banned by the UK Government. The training of the terrorists fighting in Kashmir was another area of cooperation and connection. All recruits from Pakistan, Kashmir, POK and Afghanistan were sent to the battle front in Afghanistan for battle inoculation and also for advanced training in the camps run jointly by Pakistan's ISI and Osama Bin Laden's Al Qaeda, in the areas of Khost, Jalalabad and Kandahar. The cooperation continued unabated till the 11 September attacks on the World Trade Centre and Pentagon, which once again brought the Afghan connection to the forefront. For 10 days after the attack, confusion persisted amongst the terrorist ranks operating in Kashmir on their future tasks and operations. Interviews by terrorist leaders to the media revealed their intentions to fight US forces in Afghanistan. Pakistan's establishment, sensing the international community's mood, issued orders for them to stay put and fight in Kashmir itself. Despite all precautions taken by the Pakistanis, and the killing of a large number of cadres belonging to Harkat-Ul-Mujahideen, Jaish-e-Mohammed, and Lashkar-e-Toiba Zia committed the Pakistani armed forces, through the Inter Services Intelligence (ISI) division, to arming and training the Mujahideen in Afghanistan. Their operations took a heavy toll on the Soviet garrison. Unable to withstand the armed resistance of the Mujahideen, the Soviet Union withdrew from Afghanistan. This palpable victory for Zia soured quickly since it turned Pakistan into an urban jungle, and may have even led to Zia's death. The presence of three million war refugees in Pakistan, many of them armed with AK-47 Kalashnikov rifles and many others engaged in narcotic trafficking, brought a new wave of anarchy that resulted in

Page 95

large scale random violence, particularly in Karachi, the largest city. The refugees were not interested in going home, and their presence in major urban areas exacerbated the myriad ethnic fissures that permeate Pakistani society. Even more so than under the Ayub period, retired and even serving general officers were appointed to top positions in public sector corporations, to buy the loyalty of the army to Zia's continuing rule. In addition, Zia's poorly conceived and implemented program of Islamization stirred sectarian violence between the majority Sunni and the minority Shia sects that have doctrinaire differences in their interpretation of Islamic Jurisprudence. Funds collected through the religious tax, Zakat, were made available to the social arms of religious and political parties to promote human development. Unfortunately, they ended up in the hands of religious militias that initially fought against the Soviets in Afghanistan and later shifted their focus to the Indian forces in Kashmir after the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan. Zia sanctioned the covert provision of arms and training to Sikh separatists who were fighting for an independent state of Khalistan in Indian Punjab. It is said that India responded to Pakistan's covert programs in Kashmir and Punjab by sending agent provocateurs into the bordering Pakistani provinces of Sindh and Punjab. In 1983, there was a rebellion in Sindh. Military rule invariably heightens ethnic tensions in Pakistan, since Sindh and Baluchistan are poorly represented in the armed forces. They account for about 30% of the population but only 5% of the army. Extended military rule in a multi-ethnic and diversified society also increases political fragmentation and creates vested interests supporting authoritarian and non-democratic arrangements. In 1984, India occupied the Siachen Glacier that lies in an undemarcated portion of the Line of Control in northeastern Kashmir, causing significant dismay in Pakistan. Zia had not been able to gain popularity. He was increasingly isolated, and even his handpicked prime minister, Junejo, began to pursue independent policies. Matters came to a head when a large ammunition dump exploded at Ojri, killing a hundred people and injuring thousands. It contained supplies for the Mujahideen and was due for an American audit. The prime minister ordered an inquiry into the explosion. It came up with damning evidence against the head of the ISI, and found that the Stinger missile and other American arms had been sold off on the black market. Zia fired Junejo and the inquiry never took place. The charges levelled against Junejo included incompetence in handling Pakistan's chronic problems of corruption and economic development, and the new problem of urban violence in Karachi. Zia promised new elections in November but was destined not to carry out this promise. On August 17, his plane crashed mysteriously, killing all on board. But not before he had put Pakistan on the road to a diabolical anti-India plan.

Operation Topac

The plan, codenamed "Operation Topac", is still under implementation. The Kargil intrusion was phase 2 of Operation Topac. Four months before his death, Gen Zia called a meeting of top army Generals and ISI officials at his residential office. The meeting was a hush hush affair. Intelligence reports indicated that a top Afghan Muhajideen leader and two prominent Kashmir terrorists also attended the secret meeting. President Zia delivered a crucial speech at this meeting, in which he unveiled. Operation Topac. This operation was meant to be a new version of "Operation Gibraltar" -- an anti-India Pakistani operation, which flopped in 1965. In an intelligence coup of sorts for India, a few months after Zia presented Operation Topac to his top Generals, the Indian

Page 96

intelligence agencies received a copy of Zia's speech delivered at the April conclave. The speech was reproduced in the April-June 1999 issue of the prestigious "Indian Defence Review" (IDR) as follows: "Gentlemen, I have spoken on this subject before, therefore, I will leave out the details. As you know due to our preoccupation in Afghanistan, in the service of Islam, I have not been able to put these before you earlier. Let there be no mistake, however, that our aim remains quite clear and firm - the liberation of the Kashmir Valley -- our Muslim Kashmiri brothers cannot be allowed to stay with India for any length of time, now. In the past we had opted for ham handed military options and therefore, failed. So, as I have mentioned before, we will now keep our military option for the last moment as a coup de grace, if and when necessary. Our Kashmiri brethren in the valley, though with us in their hearts and minds, are simple-minded folk and do not easily take to the type of warfare to which, say, a Punjabi or an Afghan takes to naturally, against foreign domination. The Kashmiris, however, have a few qualities, which we can exploit. First, his shrewdness and intelligence; second, his power to persevere under pressure; and the third, if I may so say, he is a master of political intrigue. If we provide the means through which he can best utilise these qualities -- he will deliver the goods. Sheer brute force is in any case not needed in every type of warfare, especially so in the situation obtaining in the Kashmir Valley, as I have explained earlier. Here we must adopt these methods of combat which the Kashmiri mind can grasp and cope with -- in other words, a coordinated use of moral and physical means, other than military operations, which will destroy the will of the enemy, damage his political capacity and expose him to the world as an aggressor. This aim, Gentlemen, shall be achieved in the initial phases. In the first phase, which may, if necessary, last a couple of years. we will assist our Kashmiri brethren in getting hold of the power apparatus of the State by political subversion and intrigue. I would like to mention here that as no Government can survive in Occupied Kashmir unless it has the tacit approval of Delhi, it would be unrealistic to believe that the MUF or any such organization can seize power through democratic or other means. In view of this, power must "apparently" remain with those whom New Delhi favours. We must therefore ensure that certain "favoured politicians" from the ruling elite be selected who would collaborate with us in subverting all effective organs of the State. In brief, our plan for Kashmir, which will be codenamed as "Op Topac", will be as follows:

Phase 1

A low-level insurgency against the regime so that it is under siege, but does not collapse, as we would not yet want central rule imposed by Delhi. We plant our chosen men in all the key positions; they will subvert the police forces, financial institutions, the communication network, and other important organizations. We whip up anti-Indian feelings amongst the students and peasants, preferably on some religious issue, so that we can enlist their active support for rioting and anti-government demonstrations. Organize and train subversive elements and armed groups with capabilities, initially, to deal with paramilitary forces located in the valley. Adopt and develop means to cut off lines of communication between Jammu and Kashmir and within Kashmir and Ladakh by stealth, without recourse to force. The road over Zojila up to Kargil and the road over Khardungla should receive our special attention. In collaboration with Sikh extremists, create chaos and terror in Jammu to divert attention from the valley at a critical juncture and discredit the regime even in the Hindu mind. Establish virtual control in those parts

Page 97

of the Kashmir valley where the Indian Army is not located or deployed. The southern Kashmir Valley may be one such region.

Phase 2

Exert maximum pressure on the Siachen, Kargil, and Rajauri-Punch sectors to force the Indian army to deploy reserve formations outside the main Kashmir Valley. Attack and destroy base depots and HQ located at Srinagar, Pattan, Kupwara, Baramulla, Bandipur and Chowkiwala by covert action at a given time Some of Afghan Mujahideen by then settled in Azad Kashmir, will then infiltrate in selected pockets with a view to extending areas of our influence. This aspect will require detailed and ingenious planning. The fiasco of Op Gibraltar (1965) holds many lessons for us here. At a Certain stage of the operations, Punjab and adjacent areas of Jammu and Kashmir will be put under maximum pressure internally by our offensive posture.

Phase 3

Detailed plans for the liberation of Kashmir Valley and establishment of independent Islamic state in the third phase will follow. We do not have much time. Maximum pressure must be exerted before the general elections in India and before Indian Army reserves, which are still bogged down in Sri Lanka, become available. By the Grace of God, we have managed to accumulate large stocks of modern arms and ammunition from US consignments intended for Afghan Mujahideen. This will help our Kashmir brethren achieve their goals. Even if we create a kind of "Azad Kashmir" in some remote parts of Occupied Kashmiri as a beginning, the next step may not be as difficult as it appears today. On the other hand, it should also be noted that a part of the Indian Army, particularly the infantry, will be well trained by now for such a situation due to their experience in the Northern-Eastern region and more recently in Sri Lanka. But the situation in Kashmir will be somewhat different; more like the "Intefada" of Palestinians in towns, and on the pattern of the Mujahideen in the countryside to attack hard target. A period of chaos in the State is essential in the circumstances. And what of our Chinese friends? They can do no more than ensure that Indian forces deployed against them are not moved out: but this may be required only at the last or the third stage of our operations. Of course, if we are in serious trouble, the Chinese and our other powerful friends shall come to our rescue one way or the other. They will ensure if we do not win, at least we don't lose. Finally, I wish to caution you once more that it will be disastrous to believe that we can take on India in a straight contest. We must, therefore, be careful and maintain a low military profile so that the Indians do not find an excuse to pre-empt us, by attacking at a time and at a point of their own choosing, at least before phase 1 and 2 of the Operation are over. We must pause and assess the course of operations after each phase, as our strategy and plans may require drastic changes in certain circumstances. I need not emphasize any further than that a deliberate and objective assessment of the situation must be ensured at each stage, otherwise a stalemate will follow with no good for Pakistan. Pakistan Paindabad".

India's reaction

Despite the timely intelligence inputs that India received, there was no political will from the successive governments to take Pakistan head on and try to nip the problem in the bud. The Pakistani audacity and resolve was apparent from the fact that Op Topac was prepared one year after India had flexed its military muscle in the famous Operation Brasstacks of 1987. Gen Zia's death, the eventual political turmoil, and Pakistan's

Page 98

continued involvement in Afghanistan were some of the factors that delayed the implementation of Op Topac. The Operation started with full steam from 1989 onwards. Around this time, Pakistan military strategists had also prepared the blueprint of two more operations: Op Mushtary (Jupiter) and Plan X. Maj Gen Afsiir Karim (Retd), a much-decorated Indian solider who is also a member of the National Security Council Advisory Board, wrote in IDR that Op Mushtary would commence at a certain stage of Zarb-e-Kamil and was likely to take the following form: Extensive and continued firing including artillery and mortar fire all along the Line of Control. Attack on Isolated posts on the LoC, particularly in remote and difficult areas. Capture of important but less defensible tactical features on the Shamsabari Range, Kargil, Shyok Valley- Saltoro Range and in the Punch-Rajauri sector. Plan X was prepared to pre-empt a possible Indian military offensive in Pakistan Occupied Kashmir and force an Indian retreat from the Saltoro Crest Line and Siachen Glacier. Plan X also envisaged launching a surprise attack to seize and hold logistics support bases vital for maintenance of troops deployed on the Saltro Crest Line, Siachen and Southern Glaciers. The IDR (April-June 1999) published as follows the main features of Plan X made available to India by an intelligence agency of a third country:

Plan X

To achieve surprise, Plan X was to be executed in deep winter, preferably at a time when flights between Thoise (a forward air base of IAF in Ladakh) and the rest of India are unable to operate when the strategic Khardungla was blocked due to heavy snowfall. Capture of forward positions of Partapur garrison astride Siari-Tutuk axis and logistics support bases for Southern Glaciers by infiltration across the LoC Heli-dropping of specially equipped and trained troops east of Partapur Thoise Airfield complex and Siachen Base simultaneously. Interdiction of Khardungla by SSG commandos after blowing up sections of the road and important culverts on either side of the pass. Actual concentration of troops and simulation of major attacks at an appropriate time in Dras, Kargil, Gurz, Tangdhar and Punch sectors to tie down Indian reserve formations. Raids and destruction of staging camps and gun positions located on the Siachen Glacier. Exert maximum pressure on the Indian posts on the crest line from both sides of the LoC., Capture Sia La on the crest line in the northern Glacier are, if possible. Step up guerrilla and terrorist activity, raid airfields, and radar facilities in the valley on given code words. Activate major disturbances and widespread rioting in all major towns of Kashmir Valley and Jammu Division. All forces to be prepared and trained to operate for a period of eight days without resupply or land link-up. Plans for exfiltration of troops in unfavourable circumstances will be prepared but divulged only to a selected few.

Page 99

Chapter 5

Civilian rule in Pakistan and the role of the Army

After the death of Zia, there was civilian rule for 11 years. This period was one of the most corrupt in Pakistan's history as the two leading politicians, Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif, vied with each other for political control and were twice elected to office. Benazir doled out political franchises to the minor thug-rulers, including convicted murderers. She sanctioned corruption by refusing to act against, or even investigate, senior ministers and allies accused of stealing from the state. During his second tenure, Sharif was in power with an absolute majority in the National Assembly. He successfully fired the president and then the chief justice of the Supreme Court. His confrontational approach drove him to muzzle parliamentary dissent, repress civil liberties and bring the judiciary to heel. His exploitation of religion for political purposes opened up a Pandora's box and fostered the resurgence of orthodoxy and militancy. In May 1998, India exploded five nuclear devices at Pokran, less than a 100 miles from the border with Pakistan. Sharif successfully matched these explosions within two weeks, but these resulted in significant economic sanctions being imposed on Pakistan. As a result of the sanctions, the economic condition deteriorated and affected the professional and corporate interests of the military. The army chief, General Jehangir Karamat, proposed the establishment of a national security council.. .that was interpreted as an indictment of the civilian government. This caused friction between the army chief and Nawaz Sharif, and caused Karamat to step down three months prior to retirement. Subsequently, Sharif signed the Lahore Declaration of peace with Indian Prime Minister Vajpayee.

The Kargil misadventure

Then came Pakistan's military adventure in Kargil, Kashmir. After initial successes, the Pakistanis were forced into a humiliating withdrawal that resulted in hundreds of casualties. Sharif tried to fix the blame for this affair to the new army chief, General Musharraf, and was in the process of firing him when the fourth army coup took place in October 1999. Musharraf gave his maiden speech at 3 am. To the people of Pakistan he stated boldly "the armed forces have never let you down," hoping that at that early hour, his listeners would not recall who was behind Pakistan's debacle in 1971. To some it bore an eerie resemblance to Yahya's boasting in March of 1971 that the armed forces were prepared to do everything to preserve the integrity of Pakistan, and that this was "a duty in which they have never failed." Musharraf's coup, in a "radical departure from past coups saw virtually no public resistance.. .Widely seen as the only institution that could help bring order and stability to a leaderless country in unprecedented economic, political and social disarray, the army reinforced its credentials as the ultimate arbiter and saviour". While Musharraf chose not to impose martial law, he rules by decree and is only accountable to the army corps commanders. Even the president is answerable to him. The cabinet is composed of military officers, bureaucrats, and technocrats who, regardless of their integrity and merits, are not accountable to the people of Pakistan. A national security council advises Musharraf. He has impaired the independence of the judiciary since the justices were asked to pledge their loyalty to him. Those who did not wish to make such a pledge had to resign. A whole crop of serving general officers is now responsible for a wide array of civilian functions in which they have no core competency. These range from management of the electric utility to running the airline to husbanding agricultural resources to managing the board for cricket. A very large number of ex-generals serve as diplomats. Musharraf has stated that Pakistan stands

Page 100

ready to meet any threat from India. This raises the issue of over staffing in the military, since a large number of senior military officers can attend to civilian duties without compromising security only if the military is overstaffed to begin with. With all the power that he now holds, Musharraf is now within the ambit of Lord Acton's adage-power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. All prior military rulers have proved to be corrupt in the end. More tellingly, despite having absolute power, he has still not been able to move decisively in any sphere, and a year later, is still in the process of assembling a nationwide coalition to support him. This Sisyphean endeavour is similar to Zia's and shows the inherent impotence of military rule: As noted by a commentator, "Zia had been very quick to back down at the first marches of mass movement. When Shia Muslims began demonstrating against Islamic taxation based on Sunni Muslim interpretations, their demand was met within days. Further, because unelected governments could rarely trade on either the demonstrated support or the constituent pressures of their nations, they were notoriously weak in negotiations with outsiders. Dictators generally had no voting numbers and few cheers to demonstrate that great numbers of people would back their decisions. All they had was the power to impose their will on great numbers, but in that power there was inherent weakness". Musharraf knows that expectations are high for the new dispensation to deliver what inept and venal politicians have failed to. His proposal to devolve power at the local government level has been rejected by all political parties. His proposal to impose a general sales tax was met with strikes by the trading community and rioting in the streets. Finally, he has been unable to rein in the religious militias, and they are continuing to wage an unrequited jihad in Kashmir. Notes veteran journalist Ahmed Rashid, "it has been amazing how unlike previous military regimes people are no longer scared of taking on the army". Till the recent Supreme Court established a three-year time frame for a return to democracy, Musharraf had set no time limit for returning power to the people. It is fair to say that Pakistan's military rulers have even exceeded the powers that were accorded by ancient Rome to its dictators, since the latter were elected by the senate for a fixed term, usually to cope with a dire emergency. A serious problem with military rule is a lack of an exit strategy. Neither Ayub, nor Yahya, nor Zia left voluntarily. Musharraf, who was due to retire a year after he took over, has announced that he will not be retiring till the expiration of the three-year period. When Zia took over in 1977, he extended his term routinely from the sanctioned three years, and was still the army chief when he died 11 years later. The Pakistani economy would be bankrupt without IMF loans. Illiteracy is rampant, and poverty is widespread. Yet military spending continues to consume a very large portion of the budget, without any obvious contribution to national security. Excessive military spending is strategically myopic, and the cause of many of Pakistan's economic problems. Musharraf is aware of these problems, but blames them on India's hegemonic policies.

The role of the Army in Pakistan

All countries have armies, but in Pakistan it will be more apt to say that the army has a country. Defence expenditures consume between one-third and one-half of the national budget. In recent decades, senior military officers have been transformed into powerful landlords through grants of choice agricultural lands and real estate. Retired officers head most public corporations. This garrison economy is increasingly unsustainable, as Pakistan's poor multiply and the economy falters. The army has been one of Pakistan's

Page 101

strongest institutions since the creation of the nation in 1947, and the events since September 11 have tested and reinforced its domestic and international position. Three factors stunted the growth of other institutions while encouraging the strengthening of the army. First, Pakistan was born with a chronic sense of insecurity, the product of the violent legacy of Partition and the resulting dislocation and law and order problems. Second, the India-Pakistan war over Kashmir encouraged the state to concentrate resources at the centre and, again, in the army. Finally, the death in 1948 of Mohammad Ali Jinnah, the founder of the nation, left a political and ideological vacuum. When the British partitioned and left the Indian sub-continent in 1947, Pakistan faced the formidable task of building a centre and defining a national identity from scratch, while trying to deal with these challenges. The administrative and ideological challenge was further exacerbated by the fact that the two wings of Pakistan, East and West, were separated by some 1000 miles of Indian Territory as well as by differences of language and political tradition. After the assassination of Jinnah's successor Liaquat Ali Khan, Pakistan's civil institutions, still very new, struggled to provide continuity of government and ultimately were bypassed and distorted, with the military coming in to clean things up. This scenario has been replayed with some differences on several occasions. While the army's stints at the helm of political power have been the subject of vigorous debate in Pakistan, the army still remains the most widely respected institution in the country. The army, in turn, views itself as the guarantor of Pakistan's internal and external stability. Pakistan's political institutions have never had the same vigour, and have been further weakened by this pattern of alternation between military and constitutional rule. Its other civil institutions - the civil service and a large network of public and private organizations - were once looked on as pillars of strength, but they too have weakened in the past three decades through a mixture of neglect and abuse by both military and civilian governments. Civil society in Pakistan has similarly been whittled down by decades of misrule by both the army and civilian governments. Pakistanis, however, are a politically aware people, and the periods of elected rule they have experienced have given them a desire for accountable and participatory government. While Pakistan's last decade of democratic governance was deeply flawed due to the monopoly and corruption of the ruling elite, it did strengthen the freedoms Pakistanis enjoy today, notably a vigorous free press. The chain of events set in motion in Pakistan after September 11 provided the impetus for President Pervez Musharraf's military government to try to unify the country behind his programme to reform the state. Challenges to Musharraf's authority, most notably from the Islamic right and militant organizations, remain and will continue to haunt him in the future also. However, entrenched institutional problems will make political reform the greatest challenge for Pakistan in coming years. It is a challenge that threatens the very existence of Pakistan as a nation State. The army believes that it represents the best and brightest talent in Pakistan, and has maintained a professionalism that has eluded political institutions. The army is generally united, and is loyal to its leadership. It is not a monolith, and renews its leadership on a regular basis. The primacy given to this detached and professional ethos is one reason many experts on the Pakistan army argue that officers do not actively seek a political role but prefer to remain in the background as overseers of political life, stepping in when leaders stray from a particular path, as a matter of duty. However, it also fosters a widely shared conviction that army officers are uniquely able to do any job the nation might entrust to them, including

Page 102

political ones. When the Pakistan army was created out of the British Indian army, its leaders emphasized Islam as a unifying force, along with other values of military life derived from the British colonial period, such as discipline, internal cohesion, efficiency, professionalism and esprit de corps. The pragmatic requirement to integrate a diverse military force drove this melding of religious and secular values, but the ideology of the Pakistani army remained largely secular. Religion was invoked largely in times of war with India. While Islamic history and principles were part of the training curriculum before Zia, the interpretation of Islam that was popularised in the army at that time was moderate and liberal, and any kind of extremism was frowned upon. This changed when General Zia-ul-Haq took over as Chief of Army Staff in 1976. He launched an "Islamization" program to consolidate his support in an ethnically fragmented society and give his regime legitimacy. To the existing mission of the Pakistan army, he added a new element: supporting the "ideology of Pakistan", which he defined to include personal religious devotion. This fitted in well with his declared intention to strengthen Pakistan's Islamic identity: In 1977, Zia-ul-Haq, said: "Pakistan, which was created in the name of Islam, will continue to survive only if it sticks to Islam. That is why I consider the introduction of an Islamic system as an essential prerequisite for the country." Contrast that with the oft-quoted statement of Pakistan's founder, Mohammed Ali Jinnah, "You are free, free to go to your temples, you are free to go to your mosques or to any other places of worship in this state of Pakistan. You may belong to any religion or caste or creed; that has nothing to do with the business of state." While the army has always been the most powerful political force in Pakistan, it has undergone important changes in the decades since independence. The army's British colonial traditions were slowly Americanised during the Cold War. With his coup in 1977, General Zia- ul -Haq injected a messianic zeal to redefine Pakistan as an Islamic state governed by the Shariah (Islamic Law). "Islam, Pakistan, Jihad" became emblazoned on banners at Pakistani army recruitment, centres, beards proliferated, promotions went with piety, and few could be seen to miss Friday prayers. A new ethos was created; this was to be an army not just for Pakistan, but also for the greater glory of Islam. It was, after all, a different historical epoch. The global jihad industry, financed by the US and Saudi Arabia, welcomed it.

Political Role and Attitudes

The Pakistan army has four key interests that it will always want to protect:

• Absolute control over its own institution, including over promotions, recruitment, assignments, and discipline.

• Decisive say in security policy, and in those aspects of foreign policy that relate to security. The military elite makes foreign policy in Pakistan, with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs playing a secondary role. It is concerned not only about relations with India, but also about ties with Pakistan's major foreign friends and sources of military equipment (the United States, China, and occasionally the major Muslim countries).

• Maintaining an adequate budget. A large part of Pakistan's annual budget has traditionally gone to defence expenditure. At present, defence accounts for 24% of the government budget, and 3.9 percent of GDP. Both these figures represent a reduction from previous levels; both apparently reflect a decision to place military pensions outside the "military" category. The government's ability to shift resources away from defence toward the badly under- funded social sectors in practice rests on its ability to persuade the military that social progress is important to national security.

Page 103

• Preservation of the army's core economic interests, including those run by organizations of retired military or by offshoots of the military. These have become, by some estimates, the largest industrial concern in Pakistan today. Retired military officers are a large talent pool, and have become accustomed to being approached for senior positions in the government and in business. Ideally, the institutional preference of the military is to protect these interests indirectly, from the sidelines, rather than by taking the whole responsibility for running the government.

However, when the army believes that these interests are threatened - especially the first two interests - it has stepped in. The military leadership has taken over the Pakistan government on four occasions: October 1958, July 1969, July 1977, and finally October 1999, and military rulers have governed Pakistan for nearly half the country's independent existence. On each occasion, the army chief moved against the civilian government at a time when policy-making was drifting, political institutions were faltering, and the army either feared or was responding to decisions it believed harmed the country's - and the army's - interests. In 1958, a succession of revolving door governments had paralysed policymaking, and Field Marshal Ayub Khan took over. In 1977, widespread popular unrest following an election that Prime Minister Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto had manipulated compounded the mistrust stemming from Bhutto's already difficult relationship with the army, and General Zia- ul-Haq took over the government. In 1999, the precipitating event in General Musharraf's coup was an effort by Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif to fire the army chief, following a series of actions that infringed on the institutional integrity of the army.

Summary

Out of the nine general elections held so far in the country over the last 56 years, army generals have held four. Every time that happened, transfer of power from the army to the elected civilians in its true sense did not take place. In the first one, General Ayub Khan managed to transfer power from the commander-in-chief of the army to the 'elected' president - that is, from himself to himself. In the second one, General Yahya Khan refused to transfer power to the parliament that he had brought into being through an election but had finally to hand over the baton to a civilian martial law administrator. In the third one, General Zia-ul- Haq, too, initially refused to transfer power to the 1985 elected parliament. But when he realised that power was slipping out of his hands, he dissolved the assembly and the government shortly before his death in an air crash. As for the fourth one, General Musharraf, who held an election in October in 2003, is still holding out against a real transfer of power to the elected parliament on the plea that the checks and balances needed to establish 'true' democracy in the country are not yet in place. General Musharraf believes that elections alone do not usher in 'true democracy,' and as long as such a democracy does not come about, he should not transfer power to the elected parliament. 'True democracy' as conceived by him, requires a president with powers to dismiss elected assemblies in consultation (not binding) with the proposed National Security Council, comprising the prime minister, the Senate chairman, the leader of the opposition, the four provincial chief ministers, the three armed forces chiefs, joint chiefs of staff chairman and he himself presiding over the meetings.

Page 104

Chapter 6

The Intelligence Agencies

Besides the army's institutional role in the government and in the structure of national political life, in the past two decades the intelligence services have become a major actor on the national political scene. Military Intelligence - (MI), and the Inter-Services Intelligence --(ISI), the two major services, are widely believed to have had a major hand in shaping the candidates and choices available to the voters in elections at least since General Zia's parliamentary elections in 1985. They are reliably reported to be active in today's political scene, notably by encouraging politicians to join the party that appears to be preferred by President Musharraf through manipulation of the government's anti-corruption investigations. In this role, the intelligence services are as much the tool of the individual political leader as of the army itself. This is the most undemocratic of the army's interventions in politics; it is also the role that will be hardest to weed out, assuming that a future leader wishes to do so.

The ISI in India

The ISI has become a state within a state, answerable neither to the leadership of the army, nor to the President or the Prime Minister. The result is that there has been no real supervision of the ISI, and corruption, narcotics, and big money have all come into play, further complicating the political scenario. Drug money is used by ISI to finance not only the Afghanistan war, but also the proxy war against India in Punjab and Kashmir. The ISI has the task of collection of foreign and domestic intelligence; co-ordination of intelligence functions of the three military services; surveillance over its cadre, foreigners, the media, politically active segments of Pakistani society, diplomats of other countries accredited to Pakistan and Pakistani diplomats serving outside the country; the interception and monitoring of communications; and the conduct of covert offensive operations. The ISI has always been the executing arm of Pakistan's Kashmir obsession. As early as 1964, ISI-trained militants sneaked into the Gulmarg sector of Kashmir but their activities came to a standstill due to the 1965 Indo-Pak war. It was in 1988 that Pakistan dictator Gen Zia-ul Haq gave ISI its present sinister status. Operation Topac, blueprint of Pakistan's proxy war with India over J&K, to be executed by the ISI, catapulted the organisation to notoriety. Under Topac, ISI used combat methods, which the Kashmiri mind could grasp, i.e., co-ordinated use of moral and physical means other than military operations. In the first phase, local Kashmiri boys, especially those owing allegiance to Muslim United Front, were sent to camps in Pakistan for training. The ISI also established a hub for Islamic militants called Markaz Dwar with its spiritual leaders coming from Algeria, Sudan and Egypt and set up training camps in Pak-occupied Kashmir. The Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Front (JKLF), comprising Kashmiri boys, was the first organisation to be trained in these camps. Phase II of Operation Topac began in 1992 with the ISI training Afghans. The aim: to spread the Kashmiri cause and rally support from the Islamic world. In 1993, Indian security forces caught Mohammad Fazal-al-Haji, member of Palestine-based PFLF, in south Kashmir. The ISI soon realised that unless it had Pak-based groups operating in the Valley, it would not be in full control. Therefore, with Jamait-e-Islami's help, the Hizbul Mujahideen started taking centre stage along with Harkat-ul-Ansar, which the ISI created by merging Harkat-ul-Jihad-ul-Islam and Harkat-ul-Mujahideen. To keep a tight control on the jihadis, these groups were put together under the United Jihad Council led by the Jamait-ul-Mujahideen leader. In the early nineties, there were over 40 militant outfits operating in the Valley. At present, nine are operational. They are all Pakistan based and include Lashkar-e-Toiba, Harkat-ul-Mujahideen

Page 105

(Harkat-ul-Ansar's avatar), Jais-e-Mohammed, Al-Badr and Hizbul-Mujahideen. The ISI provides sophisticated weaponry, including automatic grenades launchers, improvised timing devices and state-of-the-art communication gadgets, including frequency checking devices, for detecting military operations (most are of NATO/OS origin capable of frequency hopping and selective broadcast.) The other weapons continue to be the tested AK-47 and AK-56 with improved firepower. With a decrease in local militants, the ISI strategy has been of suicide attacks by Fidayeen. In the past 16 months, Lashkar-e-Toiba has carried out 30 such attacks, including the ones on the 15 Corps Headquarters in Srinagar. Interestingly, several mercenaries bred in the west, especially England, are being brought in. Fund-raisers by organisations like the World Kashmir Freedom Movement and Mercy International, backed by the Jamait-e-Islami and controlled by the ISI, are collecting huge amounts in the name of the dead and dying in Kashmir. However, most of it goes to Mujahideen fighting in Kashmir.

Pakistan's internal state and jihad

Let us now look at the internal state of Pakistan and the adoption of jihad as one of the main planks of its State and foreign policy. Internally, Pakistan is facing rebellion from the different States. Sindh in particular, is demanding separation from Pakistan and complete freedom. One of the leading figures in this movement is Altaf Hussain. In London recently, Altaf Hussain spurned Partition and invited Baluch, Pashtoon and other Sindhi leaders to join him and ask for azadi or total freedom. He said what he had been hinting at for months: the creation of Pakistan was a mistake. Addressing a meeting at Acton Town Hall in London last week, Hussain departed from his usual Urdu to declare in slow, measured English. "The division of the Indian subcontinent was the biggest blunder in the history of mankind." Then in Urdu: "What did I say?" Switching over to English, he then repeated his line on Partition all over again. Hussain spoke from "a stage that had a lot of weight," points out an MQM leader. The Mohajirs were later joined by Baluch, Pashtoon and Sindhi leaders who have formed the PONM (Pakistan Oppressed Nations Movement). But they call it Poonam. And for Gen Musharraf's regime it's turning into a dark night. "I don't believe that Pakistan can be saved," PONM leader Sardar Ataullah Mengal said at the meeting. The speeches were accompanied by slogans from the audience. Le ke rahenge azadi, they thundered, a throwback to the '40s cry: Le ke rahenge Pakistan. "You talk of azadi. That doesn't mean breaking a nation; if we get our rights within Pakistan, that too is azadi, and we'll have that at any cost. But then if a greater azadi comes, then you (the military rulers) will be responsible," added Mengal who today is among the most influential Baluch leaders; and whose son Naseer was once chief minister of Baluchistan. Fifty-three years after independence, Baluchis, Pashtoons, Seraikis and Sindhis are not free, Mengal declared. "We're one kind of people, our rulers are another kind." Punjabis, that is. Indeed, it is Pakistan's ruling Punjabis who have forced the rest together in a rebellious opposition. "When it comes to enjoyment it's you; when you need to test missiles and nukes, it is us," Mengal said. The bitterness seems to have wide backing among the Baluchis whose assembly had condemned the nuclear test in their state. This bitterness was also reflected in the speech of Mahmood Khan Achakzai, who heads the Pashtoon Khwa Milli Awami Party in Baluchistan. "Pakistan is heading towards destruction because of its colonial ways," he said. "It just can't go on like this. We Pathans did not surrender to the British; we certainly won't surrender to the ISI. You can't make slaves of us," he said. Ditto Sindh. "We've no rights any more," says

Page 106

Syed Imdad Shah, son of the late G.M. Syed, who was in detention for about 30 years. "Our land is occupied, our waters taken, the provincial assembly is now just a debating society." The Sindhi leader said the Sindhis would oppose the Islamisation of Pakistan. "We have always been a secular people, and we want a secular state," he said. Altaf, the maverick MQM leader, went on to say that the "Titanic of the Islamic ummah" was sinking. "The Titanic didn't sink suddenly. It sank slowly. They shot off distress flares. But nobody came. And this isn't a film, it's a fact," he said. The only way Pakistan could save itself, he said, was through a change in its attitude towards the non-Punjabis: "We didn't want to hear the truth in '71, and Pakistan broke. If you treat us like slaves, a time will come when we'll get independence and you'll be without slaves." The leaders even took on Qaid-e-Azam, M.A. Jinnah. The Mohajirs are not carving out a separate Jinnahpur within Sindh because - and Hussain almost shouted this out - "if we break the country, we will never name it after Jinnah". Hussain now says his next step will be to write a letter to Indian Muslims: "I will inform them about what is happening to us in Pakistan". Indeed, what was on display was a non-Punjabi, if not anti-Punjabi, front within Pakistan. The joint resolution adopted at the meeting spoke of Pakistan as a 'multinational entity' and said that "the majority of the Muslim population of Pakistan, divorced itself from Jinnah's Pakistan, created by the Muslims of the subcontinent; thereby the very premise of the existence of the remaining part of Pakistan was lost in '71." The resolution describes the three evils of Pakistan as the army, bureaucracy and the intelligence agencies, "all hailing from Punjab, who were responsible for the dismemberment of the country.... They invaded the Baluch, the Pashtoons, the Sindhis and finally they assaulted the descendants of the creators of Pakistan, that is, the Mohajirs." The resolution also says that Pakistan's smaller nations "have come to the conclusion that, in the existing set-up, they can't attain their fundamental rights." The underlying reasons for this anger are Pakistan's economic imbalances. The Sindhis point out that their state contributes 60 per cent of the national income but gets only six per cent from the national budget, while Mengal says that non-Punjabi provinces contribute 90 per cent to Pakistan's income but get little in return. "Even a beggar from Baluchistan can't enter Punjab as he can't beg in their language," he scoffs. The smaller provinces, the thinking goes, feel colonized and believe they are actually paying to be colonised. While politicians of the Indian subcontinent have a penchant for fiery speeches and hyperbole, what Acton Town Hall witnessed was more than just rhetoric. For, Hussain is still the leader of about 20 million Mohajirs in Pakistan. And while Sindh is pursuing its cultural distinctiveness with louder demands for political separateness, Baluchistan and the northwest are also joining the chorus. In all, there's no doubt that the cracks in Pakistan are getting wider and increasingly difficult to paper over, or even hide.

Jihad in Pakistan

Since the end of the Cold War, the Pakistani ruling classes, in search of new strategies for national security, have been inadvertently undermining the sovereignty of the state itself. The structures created during the covert war against Soviet intervention in Afghanistan were redirected by the Pakistani state to achieve the objectives of national security against India: that in the absence of strategic depth, India could be contained only with an offensive strategy that kept its Army embroiled in Jammu and Kashmir. Pakistan's Islamisation drive (through madrassas) and the call for jihad became a cornerstone of its policies in Afghanistan and Kashmir. Young boys from all over Pakistan, Afghan

Page 107

refugees and Kashmiris (JKLF) were indoctrinated, trained and made to fight in Afghanistan against the Red Army. Even after the Soviets' left in 1989, Pakistan did not let go of the reins in Afghanistan. After experimenting with one favourite or another, it finally backed the Taliban, which had sprung from the madrassas in Pakistan. One of the principal factors, which influenced Pakistan in cultivating the Taliban, was jihad and its stakes in Kashmir. The practice of jihad as a foreign policy objective by the militia suited Pakistan's interests vis-a-vis the quarrel over Kashmir. The concept of Islam not only ensured a steady flow of 'holy warriors' into Kashmir; it also provided justification for Pakistan's Foreign Policy. Thus, the jihadi groups became their first line of defence and India was kept militarily engaged in a proxy war without the Pakistan army getting directly involved. But these structures both at the ideological and material level actually became a threat to the state itself. Even before September 11, many Pakistani analysts expressed concern over these ominous developments. The current ruling regime had also sensed the trajectory of these developments. The military establishment had for some time been divided over its support for the Taliban and seriously concerned about the growing sectarian violence within the country. And yet, many analysts were taken by surprise when Pervez Musharraf abandoned the Taliban, when the Americans put him on notice after the September 11 terrorist attacks. He had been trying for some time to distance himself from the Taliban and curb the powers of some of the radical Islamic groups at home. That divorce was not possible without force. His half-hearted attempts were an indication that curative and incremental methods were not an answer to the problem. He needed a pretext. and September 11 provided him that pretext, support and legitimacy to carry out with force what his internal reforms were supposed to have done-restore the internal sovereignty of the state. But today, the army's jihad philosophy lies buried under the rubble of the World Trade Centre. When faced with a US bent upon bloody vengeance, an acute institutional sense of survival sent the military establishment scurrying to join the US-led coalition and take up arms against its former creation, the Taliban, and their Amir-ul-Momineen (leader of the pious). It is an irony that the radical Islamic groups that are supposed to be a threat to Gen. Musharraf today are a product of the Pakistani state. It was the abdication of the traditional developmental role by the corrupt and decaying state that created the space for political Islam. The strengths of religious extremism in its initial stages had come from state patronage but increasingly popular support for it grew in civil society. The radicalisation of Pakistani civil society started by Zia-ul-Haq in his efforts to gain legitimacy was continued by successive democratic regimes as well as by Gen. Musharraf for national security reasons. In the process, they undermined the internal sovereignty of the very state whose executive authority they wielded.

Chapter 7

The present situation of Pakistan

All these have put Pakistan in a most unenviable situation. Pakistan is being talked all over the world as a failed State.

Here is an extract from Brahma Chellaney:

"Economically, Pakistan has become a basket case under military rule, which has scared away investors with its bellicose rhetoric and cosy ties with fundamentalists. It is doubtful whether the present military can keep Pakistan together. Pakistanis are more disillusioned than ever, realising that the Musharraf regime is no better than the

Page 108

politicians it replaced The military, however, can flourish only as long as the Pakistan State survives. Therefore, the military will do everything to keep Pakistan from disintegrating, even if it means raking up hostility with India and engaging in further adventurism.

The dangers

A SINKING PAKISTAN WILL INSIST ON SINKING INDIA TOO. ITS ROLE SINCE LAST YEAR IN KARGIL, KANDAHAR AND KASHMIR IS A STARK REMINDER OF THAT. One myth is that Pakistan is making itself bankrupt by bleeding India in Kashmir. Pakistan is perched on the edge of bankruptcy, not because of its surrogate war in Kashmir, but because of its search for military parity with India that results in unsustainably high defence spending as well as its political and economic disorder. In fact, proxy war is a highly cost-effective strategy that Pakistan can carry on everlastingly because it consumes a tiny proportion of its defence expenditure but inflicts disproportionately high costs on India - costs that a conventional military strategy cannot impose. As Pakistan sinks further, its military will increasingly take recourse to its economical tool of proxy war to keep India mired in internal-security problems. Today's "war of a thousand cuts" being waged by Pakistan could become a war of ten thousand cuts. It doesn't take much for a strong-willed State to murder, maim and menace the innocent through surrogate agents. India's interests can be served neither by pleading for a secure, stable Pakistan nor by disdainfully writing off Pakistan. Pakistan will continue to loom large on India's security horizon unless it disintegrates". It is becoming clearer with every passing day that Pakistan is becoming a failing State. It seems almost inevitable that Pakistan will disintegrate from within. The only thing that might keep it going for some more time is the support given to it by the United States.

Page 109

Here is an extract from an article by Arindam Bannerjee illustrating this point. .

Arindam Banerji, Ph.D., is an Indian-American entrepreneur in Silicon Valley with an expertise in geopolitics and US-India relations.

Pakistani Army vs. Pakistan

"Strong arm tactics and outright commandeering have left the army in Pakistan in control of all financial establishments of any value, including travel agencies, utilities, cement production, fertilizer factories, dairy production, employment agencies, rice mills, seaports, postal service, telecommunication infrastructure, oil/gas plants, pharmaceuticals, mines, wool mills and cereal production, to name a few. And no, this is not limited to just legal economic activities, but also extends to illegal ones - Kamila Hayat reports that a number of illegal gambling dens are coming up all over the country, run and owned by army personnel. You get the idea - everything and everything, legal and sometimes even illegal ones, in Pakistan, seem to belong to the Pakistani army. Quips Khayyam Durrani, who runs an elite school, only meant for army children "The army considers itself a privileged class. The fact is that the actual rulers in Pakistani society are the army people." These privileges and whims of the ruling army are slowly creating a divide that will never be bridged with American money or Musharraf's guns. A perfect example of this widening divide was the open threat to ban Musharraf's entry into NWFP, issued recently by Syed Munawar Hassan, a top leader of the MMA religious alliance. The vitriol in the Baluchistan Post article against the army is even more palpable, when it says: "With guns given to them by the nation to counter the enemy, the generals instead, have held the Mother country, its people, its parliament and the judiciary to ransom. ...The Army has become above the law, above the constitution and even above the country. It feeds on the country's prosperity and the well- being of its people who now, are trudging an existence simply to serve the army and its selected elites.". The army is not only immune from the law, but also dispenses its own brand of justice. A report in the Gulf Times, reports: "The Human Rights Commission of Pakistan recently investigated a case in Multan where army officials had placed a banner outside a textile shop, asking all military men to boycott it. This mysterious message outside a commercial business had been motivated by the fact that the shop owner, Aslam Shahzad, had testified in a case involving an army officer and a policeman in a scuffle". Other similar incidents, where police officers have lost their jobs for going up against the army, are also related in the report. In fact, as Kamila states, patriotism today is increasingly tied to what is good for the Pakistani army, not what is good for Pakistan: "Indeed, the perception that civilians are today second class citizens in the state is growing. And with the army top brass apparently seeing any attempts to highlight wrongs committed by men in khaki as unpatriotic behaviour." Abid Ullah Jan, yet another journalist who had to flee Pakistan due to his opinions on the army, concludes his pensive article on "Pak army vs. Pakistan" with "In the final analysis we would come to know that Pakistan was not at war with India or someone else, but its own armed forces". This is not a country moving towards democracy, but towards anarchy - unfortunately, with American help. Problem is, we've seen this pattern before - the current situation is exactly the same as in late 1970 and early 1971 - provinces elected a government that the army did not like and the rift between the army and the citizens of East Pakistan exploded. Result - 3 million civilians killed, 300000 women raped in 9 short months. M.A. Niazi in his editorial in the Nation seems to predict the oncoming obvious: "There is therefore one solution which solves for the

Page 110

foreseeable future Musharraf's problems, and serves US interests. And that is for him to let loose a reign of terror on Pakistan, to establish a true dictatorship". Eerily similar to Gen. Yahya Khan's decision in 1971 to perpetrate genocide, in order to solve his problems. Where Next? It may suit our immediate interests to coddle this dictator, but let us not forget that we were doing the same to another dictator in Iraq till a few years ago. The difference is that this dictator actually does have nuclear weapons, has donated nuclear weapons technology to rogue states and does have nuclear scientists with strong linkages to the Osama. Terrorism against friendly governments like Afghanistan and India continue every day under the very noses of the army that controls all activity in Pakistan. We did not learn from our mistakes with the Shah and naively repeated them with Saddam; now, we see a repetition of this unfortunate habit with Musharraf. Sadly, Shenoy gets it about right: "The general has trampled on every principle Americans supposedly cherish - separation of church and state, democracy and free elections, an independent judiciary and the rule of law. Yet, as long as the Pakistani army does not openly embrace bin Laden, the United States shall support the dictator of Pakistan." Free Trade agreements and weapons of war like F-16s given unfettered to a brutal dictatorship with a penchant for terrorism may not be the best thing for the safety of US or its friends. In our hurry to bestow gifts on the genocidal dictator, let us not leave our national interests and abiding principles behind. Both our strategic interests and our principles, call for the support of the Pakistani people, and not the Pakistani dictator. Contrary to popular perceptions, Musharraf is not the only solution to key US interests in Pakistan -remedial steps to bring Pakistan back into the comity of respected nations is the only way forward. Instead of papering over problems specific to Pakistan through our injudicious support for Musharraf, we must deal with them directly, as in: Strengthen legitimate democratic leadership: Benazir Bhutto must be brought back with appropriate forgiveness of charges and a critical role to play in the administration of Pakistan, even if this means a re-election. Strengthen democratic institutions: Drop arbitrary modifications to the Pakistani constitution as well as revoke the supremacy of non-elected bodies such as the National Security council - the elected National assembly and the existing constitution must become supreme again, with some temporary support for maintaining Musharraf's position through the transition. Send army back to the barracks: Armies that own countries tend to cause immense destruction. The army's stranglehold over the economy and civilian organizations must be loosened - political corruption is a fact of life with almost all other countries in Asia and should not be used as an excuse to let the army loot the nation. Reform Pakistani education: Without significant changes to curricula in schools, the radicalisation of Pakistani society cannot be reversed. Aid dollars must be tied to metrics reflecting a change in the direction of education. This is the only solution to stopping the endless supply of terrorists. Reform in Charitable and financial institutions: Charity money is used to fuel terrorism in Pakistan - without this money and strengthened financial institutions, terrorism will starve. Without terrorism, problems with neighbour India can be resolved peacefully. Strengthening democracy and reforming education will automatically start improving Pakistan's economy and its relationship with other democracies like India; thus, reducing the need for WMD proliferation dollars. Pakistan's problems with nuclear neighbour India and the rest of the world will not disappear until we cure Pakistan's internal ills. At the cost of repeating myself, almost any cure of Pakistan has to start with limiting the role of the Pakistani army and bringing

Page 111

in democracy, and sadly enough things have become so convoluted in Pakistan, only America can help fix things at this point. In effect, much like the US is undertaking nation-building in Iraq, it has to do the same in Pakistan - Pakistan, probably needs this more than any other country in the world. If we're not careful and do not take remedial action in Pakistan soon, there will be another genocide; who knows where it'll be, but 1971 is here again - maybe in India this time, may be Afghanistan, or quite possibly in Pakistan, itself like 71. Or heaven forbid, as Physicist Gordon Prather, predicting a nuclear attack on the US suggests: " Who did it? Probably al-Qaida. But where did they get the nuke? Well, nukes leave "fingerprints." Our radio-chemists are going to know right away if the nuke came from Pakistan, the most likely source."

Conclusion

Finally we might conclude that Pakistan is facing disintegration; and this disintegration is coming from within and is not due to external factors. What are these factors?

• The inability of Pakistan to find an identity.

• The prevalence of the feudal mentality.

• The absence of a democratic system leading to long periods of Army rule.

• The adoption of jihad as a tool of foreign policy.

One of the major problems in Pakistan is the prevalence of the feudal mentality. The dominance of the feudal lords continues to be a feature of Pakistani politics. In the mid-seventies, two thirds of the leaders of the ruling People's Party were either landlords or tribal chiefs as were 157 of the 238 members of the National Assembly in 1985. Together, the landed aristocracy and the civil service constituted an oligarchy whose policies exacerbated inter-class and inter-regional economic inequalities. Within a few years of independence, this oligarchy expanded to include the military. Under the British rule, the bureaucracy and the military had served as the "steel frame" that held India together. In postcolonial Pakistan, they came together to "determine the parameters within which political and economic changes were to occur. The resulting political instability produced seven prime ministers in eleven years. Of these, one only stayed in power for two months.

The adoption of Jihad as one of its foreign policy tools is self-defeating and will destroy Pakistan. It will rebound on itself and lead to civil war and inevitable self-destruction. And it is obvious that with each passing day that the Musharraf regime has a rather low credibility on the international stage.

It seems quite clear that Pakistan is on its last legs. The dissolution of Pakistan seems inevitable. We shall discuss this in the next part of the book.

Page 112

Book 2

The Solution

Chapter 1

Introduction

In this part of the book, we shall try to suggest some lines along which a solution to the problem of Indian political unity may be brought about. It has to be clearly understood that when we speak of the political unity of India, we mean the unity of the whole subcontinent and not just the unity of India and Pakistan. The question whether the unity will take the form of a federation or a confederation depends on circumstances and is not of paramount importance. But the creation of this unity is of great importance not only for India, but also for the whole world. In fact, one might go so far as to say that unless India becomes united, there is little hope of bringing about a stable world unity. As we have seen in the first part of this book, a durable and lasting political unity has eluded the Indian nation for the last five thousand years. We have also seen in the previous chapters the root causes for the inability of the Indian nation to bring about a political unity. These may be summarised as:

• The attempt to bring about unity by over-centralisation and the method of military domination by one people or one imperial dynasty over the rest of the country. This led to a succession of empires, but none of them were permanent

• The inability to handle the religious conflict after the Muslim invasion and influx into India.

The time has now come to make an attempt to solve this problem for it is in the interests of all the nations of the subcontinent and eventually, of the world. A stable and united India on a sound federal basis will be a great source of strength to the world. It will help usher in a sound political, economic and cultural framework for a united world. For India is the one country where all the religions are being practised vigorously; at the same time, it has an unparalleled cultural diversity. A successful resolution of the Indian problem will make it easier for world unity to take shape. This can only be done by making spirituality the basis of unity; in other words, by going beyond the religious approach into the spiritual approach. The spiritual framework assures unity on the basis of diversity.

We divide this part of the book into four parts.

1. The first part deals with the inevitability of the union of the subcontinent. It will be shown here that the so-called Pakistan nation will disintegrate and get dissolved by the sheer law of political forces. Nature will see to it that Pakistan as a political unit will disappear. The only thing that has to be taken into account is the speed at which it will disintegrate. It is here that the human agency comes in, more specifically, the attitudes of the Governments of India and Pakistan and of the people of the two countries. We have also to take into account the attitudes of the Western nations, in particular that of the United States.

Page 113

But whatever their attitudes, we shall show in this part that Pakistan will inevitably dissolve because it is not a nation in the true sense.

2. In the second part, we shall analyse the human obstacles to the union. We shall analyse and identify these obstacles in order to deal with them and wherever possible, eliminate them. The chief obstacle to the unification is the Pakistan Army and its offshoots. They have a vested interest in the continuation of the division and have, therefore, to be brought under Indian control with firmness and tact.

3. In the third part, we shall study the aspects that unite the different parts of the subcontinent. We shall study and analyse all the elements that make for unity — the geographical, the economic, the cultural and the religio-spiritual aspects. We will try to show that in all these areas, there is a deep underlying core of unity. These elements have to be highlighted and brought to the forefront and firmed up to establish a lasting unity. At the same time, one will have to note the fact that there are sharp differences between Hinduism and Islam; but these differences exist more on the life plane and in the outer structure of the religion. We shall show that on the deeper level, there are many common points and similarities; it is very important and necessary to stress on these common points. But far more important, we shall ultimately have to go beyond religion to spirituality. It is only in the spiritual approach that there can exist a harmony - a harmony that will be based on unity in diversity.

4. In the last part, we shall suggest some practical lines along which this unity can be established and cemented. On the political and economic fronts, it will be necessary to move towards the creation of a confederation in the subcontinent. This confederation will include all the nations that constitute SAARC. Institutions will have to be created which will help foster unity in all the fields of human activity.

Messages from Sri Aurobindo and Mother

It will not be out of context to start with some messages which reflect the views of Mother and Sri Aurobindo on the partition of the Indian nation.

Sri Aurobindo wrote on the Aug. 15 1947:

"But the old communal division into Hindus and Muslims seems now to have hardened into a permanent political division of the country. It is to be hoped that this settled fact would not be accepted as settled forever or as anything more than a temporary expedient. For if it lasts, India may be seriously weakened, even crippled: civil strife may remain always possible, possible even a new invasion and foreign conquest. India's internal development and prosperity may be impeded, her position among the nations weakened, her destiny impaired or even frustrated. This must not be; the partition must go. Let us hope that this may come about naturally, by an increasing recognition of the necessity not only of peace and concord but of common action, by the practice of common

Page 114

action and the creation of means for that purpose. In this way unity may finally come about under whatever form — the exact form may have a pragmatic but not a fundamental importance. But by whatever means, in whatever way, the division must go; unity must and will be achieved, for it is necessary for the greatness of India's future".

It is therefore, of great importance that this goal be achieved. It is only after this is achieved that we can touch on the mission of India and its destiny. And for that, India will have to move beyond the religious approach to the spiritual; for it is the spiritual approach that is the genius of India; in fact, one might even say that it is the very purpose of India's existence. In the words of Sri Aurobindo: "Afterwards the work for the Divine will become more possible and it may be well that the dream, if it is a dream, of leading the world towards the spiritual light, may even become a reality."

Later, in 1950, in an interview with K.M. Munshi, Sri Aurobindo said:.

Here is an extract from the writings of Munshi regarding the interview.

"Then the Mahayogi sprang a surprise on me: " When do you expect India to be united?" he asked.

I was taken aback. I explained to him how our leaders had agreed to partition.

I then said: " So long as the present generation of politicians is concerned, I cannot think of any time when the two countries — India and Pakistan — can be united."

Sri Aurobindo smiled and answered: " India will be reunited. I see it clearly."

Was it an opinion? Was it a clear perception?

I shook my head in doubt and asked how India could be reunited. In two short sentences the god-man described what Pakistan stood for, and indicated how the two countries could come together."

Pakistan has been created by falsehood, fraud and force. It must be brought under India's military ambit."

Much later in 1971, the Mother had written in a letter to a disciple:

La disparition du Pakistan est inevitable; elle aurait pu deja se produire, mais l'ignorance humaine l'a retardee.

The English translation is as follows:

The disappearance of Pakistan is inevitable; this could have already happened, but human ignorance has retarded it.

Thus in the vision of Sri Aurobindo and the Mother, Pakistan will inevitably get dissolved as a political unity and merge with India.

We shall now take up all these points in some detail.

Page 115

Chapter 2

Pakistan a political unit

In the following pages we will show that Pakistan is not a nation in the true sense of the word; it is a political unit manufactured and carved out by the accident of circumstances and deliberate planning by a section of the Muslim leadership, the British government and the shortsightedness of the Congress leaders.

It is well known to all students of political science that the mere creation of a political unit is not enough to ensure its permanency and durability. A political unit, in order to be viable must be a real unit - that is to say, it must be a unit bound by a deep psychological, cultural, spiritual unity and not merely by a centralized State held together by force, which is the hallmark of the State unit.

In the formation of a nation, there are many factors that play an important role; these are geography, race, language, religion, economic interests and interdependence, a common aspiration, common dangers and suffering and even a common enemy. Depending on the situation, one factor or other would be prominent. In certain cases, race would count and enter in as an element, but only as a subordinate element. In others, the race factor would predominate and be decisive; in still others, it would be set at naught partly by a historic and national sentiment overriding differences of language and race, partly by economic and other relations created by local contact or geographical oneness. Cultural unity would also count and play an important role, but need not, in all cases, prevail; even the united force of race and culture might not be sufficiently strong as to be decisive.

The examples of this complexity are everywhere. Switzerland belongs by language, race and culture and even by affinities of sentiment to different national aggregations, two of sentiment and culture, the Latin and the Teutonic, three of race and language — the German, French and Italian. And these differences worked sufficiently to bewilder and divide Swiss sympathies whenever there was a clash of nations; but the decisive feeling overriding all others is the sentiment of Helvetian nationality and that would seem to forbid now and always any idea of a voluntary partition or dissolution of Switzerland's longstanding natural, local and historic unity.

We thus see that there are many powerful factors that play important roles in varying amounts in the formation of a nation. But the ultimate cementing factor is not any of these but a dominant subtle and psychological element. This deeper psychological element is not easily definable and is often referred to as the inner psyche or the soul of the nation. It is this subtler force that really holds a nation

Page 116

together despite all the differences and centrifugal pulls. All other elements, however restless they may be, must succumb to this force; however much they may seek for free particularistic expression and self-possession within a larger unity, they must subordinate themselves to this more powerful attraction.

The nation and the empire

Thus, in the study of political science, we see that there are two kinds of political units, the empire and the nation. The empire, which has been a constant phenomenon in the political history of the ancient and medieval world, has all but disappeared in very recent times. The nation State is a recent and modern phenomenon, and has more or less replaced the empire. Today there are no empires but only nation States. No doubt there are larger groupings like the European Union, ASEAN and so on. But at the present stage of human progress, the nation is the largest living collective unit of humanity. The question that naturally arises is why did the empires disappear? They disappeared because by their very nature, empires are artificial units built by force; they are not based on a natural binding force among the constituents. On the other hand, a nation is bound by an inner force and is, therefore, bound to persist and be a durable political entity. That is the whole difference between an empire and a nation. And today in the modern world after the Second World War and the formation of the United Nations, a large number of nations have been created. Some of these nations have been created by the accidents of history or have been the products of big power machinations and rivalries. These nations have been created more by external force and artificial methods rather than by a natural evolutionary process. It is, therefore, evident that one has to make a distinction between political units and real units. Still, one might ask, why should this distinction be made of the political and the real unit when name, kind and form are the same? It must be made because it is of the greatest utility to a true and profound political science and involves the most important consequences.

Illustrations

We shall give some illustrations. In the history of mankind, there have been many empires, but they have all been only political units and not real units; they had no life from within and owed their continuance either to a force imposed on their constituent elements or else to a political convenience felt or acquiesced in by the constituents and favoured by the world outside.

The Austrian empire or the Holy Roman Empire that was on its last legs before the First World War, was long the standing example of such an empire; it was a political convenience favoured by the world outside, acquiesced in by some of its constituent elements and maintained by the

Page 117

force of the central Germanic element incarnated in the Hapsburg dynasty.

As soon as the political convenience of an empire of this kind ceases, that is to say, the constituent elements no longer acquiesce and are drawn more powerfully by a centrifugal force, and if at the same time, the world outside no longer favours the combination, then force alone remains as the one agent of an artificial unity. This is exactly what happened to the Holy Roman Empire. The force of Nationalism had been awakened in Europe and the constituent elements of the Empire were clamouring for independence and second, the Great Powers in Europe having no need for this empire were waiting for its dissolution. One may therefore, conclude that when an empire, like the Holy Roman Empire, a non-national empire, is broken to pieces, it perishes for good; there is no innate tendency to recover the outward unity, because there is no real inner oneness; there is only a politically manufactured aggregate.

On the other hand, a real national unity broken up by circumstances will always preserve a tendency to recover and reassert its oneness. The Greek Empire has gone the way of all empires, but the Greek nation, after many centuries of political non-existence, again possesses its separate body, because it has preserved its separate ego and therefore, really existed under the covering rule of the Turks.

In recent times after the Second World War, we see this phenomenon being repeated many times. We see this in the case of Germany, Vietnam, Korea, and India. In each of these cases, the division was an artificial one based on the ground situation existing at that time and compounded by the power rivalries of the leading Powers. And in all cases except the Indian subcontinent and Korea, the division has been annulled or is in the process of being annulled. Let us then take up the examples of Germany and Vietnam and see the process by which unification took place. Both these countries achieved reunification in their own way through diplomatic, political, and economic means, and even military force.

Page 118

Chapter 3

Brief history of the unification of Germany

After the Second World War, the German nation was broken up into two parts, East Germany and West Germany. The eastern part was under the Communist influence of the Soviet Union and the western part was under the influence of the Western world. But despite these ideological differences and the Cold War, the internal oneness that was the foundation of the German nation always remained and finally proved stronger. The Berlin Wall was pulled down and the German nation once again became united.

Upon its surrender to the allied forces on May 8, 1945, the U.S., Britain, France and the Soviet Union partitioned Germany into four zones for occupation. In the face of the intensifying Cold War between the West and the Soviet Union after the end of World War II, the U.S., Britain and France consolidated the zones under their respective occupation, establishing the Federal Republic of Germany (commonly referred to as West Germany) on Sept. 7, 1949. On Oct. 7, 1949, the Soviet Union created the German Democratic Republic (that is, East Germany) in the zone under its occupation. Despite its division into four sections, its occupiers fortunately placed Germany under a single economic zone. During their talks at Potsdam from Jul. 17 to Aug. 2 1945, the U.S., Britain and the Soviet Union agreed to put the four occupied areas under a single economic zone and to allocate major commodities evenly to guarantee an equal life for the Germans. In 1946, the U.S., Britain and France each signed an accord with the Soviet Union on commodity trade in the occupied zones. The three Western nations consolidated the areas under their occupation into a single economic and administrative zone in January 1947. As mentioned, the occupiers of Germany took a shot at placing the four divided areas under a single economic zone from the start.

But the single economic zone temporarily fell apart with the blockade of Berlin enforced by the Soviet Union from Jun. 24, 1948 to Apr. 12, 1949. Economic exchange between the two Germanys was resumed and furthered with the establishment of the Federal Republic of Germany and the German Democratic Republic in September and October 1949, respectively. On Oct. 8, 1949, right after the establishment of the two governments, East and West Germany signed the Frankfurt agreement. Under the agreement, the two countries let their central banks take charge of the settlement of accounts arising from mutual commodity trade for the sake of convenience. From the Frankfurt agreement down, the two countries signed numerous agreements in an effort to step up economic exchange. The two countries had imbalanced trade relations where economically superior West Germany offered a helping hand to East Germany. To be more specific, West Germany put up with a loss from unfair currency translation. The actual purchasing power of the West German and East German mark was at a ratio of 4 to 1. Despite the situation, West Germany applied the ratio of 1 to 1 with regard to its trade with East Germany, sustaining a four-fold loss. In terms of trade volume with East Germany, West Germany registered a deficit of US$ 200 million in 1988 with US$ 4.5 billion of export and US$ 4.7 billion of import. Besides, West Germany underwrote loans (worth tens of millions of dollars) to East Germany at low interest rates, that is, 0 to 4% of annual rates. In addition, West Germany disbursed a colossal amount of ransom to set the political prisoners in East Germany free. Reportedly, West Germany paid US$ 35,000 to 70,000 per person. In the period from 1962 to 1982, West Germany bought 19,000 political prisoners from East Germany, paying US$ 1 billion of ransom. West Germany also paid the toll for its citizens travelling to East Germany. West Germany disbursed US$ 350 million to East Germany for 10 years. Economic aid from West Germany increased East Germany's dependence on its western neighbour to 40%, while West Germany's reliance on the East remained at only 10%. In short, West Germany's sound economy served as the driving force behind its absorption of East Germany.

Page 119

Exchange and Cooperation between East and West Germany

Reunification of the two Germanys reached completion on Oct. 3, 1990.

It was a peaceful reunification based on a mutual agreement, not military might or coercion. Although East and West Germany were on hostile terms with each other in ideological respects, they successfully healed a social split through consistent exchange and cooperation.

The peaceful reunification of the two countries, which took place in the process of promoting exchange and cooperation, was sped up by the winds of change for democratisation and liberalization in Eastern Europe. Reunification of the two countries was made possible thanks to the fledgling democratisation and liberalization in East Germany. Affected by perestroika (reform) and glasnost pursued by Gorbachev, who was then Communist Party General Secretary of the Soviet Union, communist countries in Eastern Europe set themselves on the path of democratisation and liberalization, breaking out of the shackles of the Soviet Union. Encouraged by the strong winds of autonomy and democracy in Eastern Europe, 16 million East Germans joined the crusade for reform. Finally, the East Germans, who succeeded in democratisation of the country, opted for a merger with West Germany. The reunification of the two Germanys is characterized by the fact that East Germany voluntarily chose to be absorbed by the West. In other words, East Germans, who had been struggling hard against poverty and oppression under a despotic communist regime, decided for themselves to be incorporated into free and prosperous West Germany.

National Policy of West Germany to Democratise East Germany

West Germany's active support for the East did not come wholly from fraternal love. West Germany intended to promote human rights and welfare of its East German brethren suffocated by the authoritarian communist rule and to ultimately induce creation of a democracy. As pointed out before, West Germany paid ransom to East Germany in order to protect the human rights and freedom of East Germans placed behind bars for their resistance to the despotic communist regime. Furthermore, West Germany linked its mark loans to East Germany with enhanced human rights and freedom of East Germans. In 1983, West Germany granted one-billion-mark loans to East Germany and, in return, induced the communist country to remove a third of machine gun emplacements and land mines it had installed in the 1,400-km borderline. In 1984, West Germany underwrote a loan amounting to 950 million marks to East Germany to encourage the East to relax rigorous restrictions on its citizens' trips to West Germany. In particular, the then West German Chancellor Helmut Kohl, who played a central role in unifying the two countries, called for opening up and liberalization of East Germany as a precondition to reunification. Whenever circumstances permitted, Chancellor Kohl argued that democratisation of East Germany was a prerequisite to reunification of the two countries. As only East Germany remained barely influenced by the strong winds of opening up and democratisation that had been sweeping Eastern Europe from the spring of 1989, Chancellor Kohl stepped forward to urge the democratisation of East Germany. He said on Aug. 22, 1989, that the East German government had to take democratic reform measures following Hungary and Poland in order to stop the massive escape of its citizens into West Germany. On Oct. 21, 1989, Chancellor Kohl pointed out that reunification of the two countries hinged on whether the freedom, human rights and self-determination of East Germans were being honoured. He made it clear that East Germans could opt for reunification only when the freedom of individual East Germans was guaranteed under a democratic system. Chancellor Kohl also linked large-scale economic assistance to East Germany with its democratisation. On Nov. 8, 1989, he put forth democratisation of East Germany as a prerequisite to reunification of the two countries, saying that East Germany would have access to massive economic aid only when its communist party gave up wielding monopolistic power and executed free elections and political pluralism. He argued that it was a national obligation for West Germany to urge East Germany to implement an innovative political and economic reform. He also flatly said that the precondition to reunification of the two Germanys was creation of an atmosphere favourable for the exercise of democratic rights by all the Germans.

As a matter of fact, it cannot be denied that exchange and cooperation between East and West Germany

Page 120

paved the way for their reunification by indirectly stimulating the East Germans' craving for opening up and democratisation and inflaming their aspiration for the West Germans' freedom and affluence. Fortunately, East and West Germany promoted economic exchange under a single economic zone despite their division by the four powers after World War II. Economic exchange by the two countries stirred up East Germans' curiosity about West Germany, fanning their dissatisfaction with the East German regime and raising their expectations of West Germany. In addition, postal service, correspondence and human exchange between the two countries contributed to furthering East Germans' yearning for life in West Germany. In other words, the freedom and prosperity of West Germany served as a catalyst to stimulate East Germans' admiration for West Germany. In spite of the division in 1945, people in the two countries could resort to irregular means to correspond with each other. With the establishment of the Berlin Wall by East Germany in August 1961, the two-way correspondence was suspended temporarily. From the beginning of their division, East and West Germans vigorously corresponded with each other as indicated by the fact that East Germany demanded 1.8 billion mark from the West from 1948 to 1968 as fees for continued postal and telegraphic service. The two countries finally signed a protocol on mutual postal and telegraphic service in September 1971, dramatically increasing the number of telephone circuits. Telephone lines connecting East and West Germany were on the rapid rise each year.

Framework of Agreement between the Two Germanys

Despite their division, East and West Germany kept their transportation network intact. There were 32 railroad lines, three freeways, 31 federal roads and other highways linking the two countries. The transportation network was totally cut off at the time of the blockade of Berlin from June 1948 to April 1949. After the period, it came into normal use again. East Germany began to collect tolls from West Germany from 1951 in the belief that the passage to West Berlin was of great significance to West Germany. East Germany often placed West German travellers under rigorous customs procedures and delayed operation of freight cars with excessive inspection. In 1955, East Germany put forward the idea of levying taxes on the use of roadways connecting West Germany and West Berlin. In May 1972, the two countries signed a transportation agreement. Based on the principle of reciprocity according to international practices, the agreement laid down transportation-related stipulations including railway, freeway and marine transportation. The agreement enhanced convenience of mutual transportation, promoting exchange and cooperation between the two countries. Human exchange between East and West Germany took place from the beginning. West German residents were allowed to travel to East Germany for four weeks once a year to visit their parents or siblings in the East. Other West Germans were permitted to stay in East Berlin for a week. In addition, East Germany unrestrictedly authorized entry of West Germans to attend exhibitions, to those who travelled on a commercial passport or had an invitation from East German public institutions. Though there existed limited restrictions on human exchange between East and West Germany, exchange of more than one million people was made possible from an early stage of their division. Human exchange between the two countries increased from 1.1 million people in 1960 to 1.25 million in 1970 and to 1.54 million in 1972. In 1973 when the framework agreement on the relations between the Federal Republic of Germany and the German Democratic Republic came into effect, their exchange of travellers swelled to 2.27 million. Human exchange between the two countries reached five million just before their reunification. Ahead of the signing of the framework agreement, East and West Germany concluded a transit agreement to simplify travel procedures. The transit agreement signed in December 1971 encompassed protection of travellers, simplification of human exchange procedures, relaxation of freight transportation regulations, improvement of transportation facilities and establishment of a traffic committee.

But exchange of the press remained one of the biggest hurdles to exchange between the two countries. East Germany was afraid of the possible influx of the West German ideology of civil liberty through the press. Under the circumstances, the formal exchange of radio and television broadcasting by the two countries was made possible only after 1973 when the framework agreement took effect. In 1988, there were six East German correspondents in Bonn, capital of West Germany, while 19 West German correspondents were stationed in East Berlin, capital of East Germany. In addition, three West German television-broadcasting companies established their branches in

Page 121

East Berlin for local broadcasting. As a result, 85% of East Germans could view West German television programs. At the same time, all the East Germans were able to listen to West German radio programs. Even before the framework agreement came into effect, some East Germans were watching or listening to West German television and radio programs. The East German authorities could not completely seal off the country from the outside despite the efforts to block transmission of West German television and radio programs. Thus, East Germans were exposed to West German radio waves from the early years of the division.

Ultimately, East and West Germany signed the agreement on basic principles of the relations between the two countries on Nov. 8, 1972. Under the agreement, the two countries declared that they would renounce use of force against each other and pursue protection of sovereignty, equality, independence, autonomy, territory and human rights of all the countries around the world along with prevention of discriminative treatment. Under the framework agreement between the two countries, they consented to sign an accord to make endeavours for disarmament, promote exchange in the fields such as economy, learning, technology, transit and legislation and further cooperation in areas such as postal and telephone service, health, culture, sports and environmental protection. In addition, the two countries announced that they would exchange permanent representative offices in the places where their governments were located. The two nations also declared that the accords respectively signed by them in the past and the bilateral and multilateral treaties related to them did not conflict with the agreement.

Collapse of East Germany and Its Adoption of Freedom

The framework agreement between East and West Germany brought their relations much closer than before. Prior to the signing of the framework agreement, the two countries had been on uncomfortable terms with each other, as they had no diplomatic ties. After the conclusion of the agreement, however, they set the stage for cementing friendly relations. The framework agreement ultimately laid the foundation for reunification of the two countries in 1990 by enhancing their exchange and cooperation, wiping out mutual distrust and restoring the homogeneity of the people. Their reunification in 1990 would have been impossible without promoted exchange and cooperation between the two sides. If the two countries had not pursued mutual exchange and cooperation and thus the wall of distrust and tension had not been dismantled, they would have felt difficulties in holding out an olive branch to each other at the end of 1989 despite the wave of democratisation and opening sweeping Eastern Europe. At the end of the 1980s, East and West Germany were virtually in a state of reunification with their border existing only in name. But, East Germany still remained under the authoritarian rule of Erich Honecker, leader of the Communist Party, with no freedom and liberalization. So long as the East Germans could not enjoy freedom, a peaceful reunification was nothing but a pie in the sky. Honecker forced upon the East Germans the idea that the country was a paradise of workers and a sovereign state and that reunification was a nonexistent issue. But the winds of change had started to blow even in the communist country under the tight control of the government. With Gorbachev taking the initiative for a sweeping reform, the wave of democratisation and liberalization swept Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia and eventually, East Germany. The influx of East Germans into West Germany in the fall of 1989 pushed the two countries on the fast track towards reunification. From September to early October 1989, 100,000-plus East Germans fled to West Germany by seeking asylum at the West German embassies in Hungary, Poland and Czechoslovakia or by crossing the border between the two Germanys.

In 1961, when the Berlin Wall was erected, 207,000 East Germans escaped from poverty and autocracy in pursuit of freedom and affluence in West Germany. Out of the 637,000 East Germans who moved to West Germany from 1961 to early 1989, 241,800 people had illegally fled to the country. In the process, 200-plus East German escapees were shot to death on the spot by East German border guards. A number of East Germans made a desperate attempt to flee to West Germany. In addition, those who chose to stay in East Germany until 1989 held intense pro-democracy protests. Chanting "Gorb", a nickname for Gorbachev, they clamoured for free election, freedom of speech and liberalization of overseas travel. Confronted with a pro-democracy movement spreading throughout the country and pressure from Gorbachev, Honecker stepped down from office after 18 years in power. Despite his resignation, anti-government demonstrations continued to intensify and culminated

Page 122

in an East Berlin protest on November 4 in which one million protesters gathered together. The pro-democracy movement, which began with a protest by 120,000 people in Leipzig on October 16, drew together one million people in only two weeks. Protesters fervently cried out for the resignation of the communist regime and implementation of a free general election. Finding himself in a tight corner, Egon Krenz, general secretary of the East German Communist Party, finally declared the complete opening up of the Berlin Wall at 7 p.m. on November 9. On that day, the newspaper, Suddeutsche Zeitung, made a mention of East German citizens crossing the border in crowds, saying that a wave of unchained people was pouring in. At that moment, East and West Germany were practically reunified. The only remaining thing was to settle official reunification procedures. With the Berlin Wall down and free mutual traffic materializing, East Germans explicitly called for incorporation into West Germany. Arguing that their goal was to create one Germany, they chanted a slogan that the Reds should leave East Germany. Demonstrators carried a placard in favour of confederation with West Germany and a poster nominating West German President von Weizsacker for President of a reunified Germany and Gorbachev for the European Union President. Bowing to the mounting pressure from its people, the East German government finally held a general election on Mar. 18, 1990. In the election, the conservative Alliance for Germany that supported early incorporation into West Germany in its platform, gained 192 seats out of 400. By contrast, the Party of Democratic Socialism, the former Communist Party, obtained only 66 seats while the Social Democratic Party, which took a cautious position toward reunification, secured 88 seats. The result of the general election indicated that most East Germans hoped for reunification with West Germany by absorption. Under the circumstances, the East German government signed an agreement with West Germany on May 18 on the creation of a monetary, economic and social union for an ultimate economic integration on July 1. The economic integration meant that East Germany renounced a communist economic system for absorption into the West German capitalist market economy. On August 23, the East German People's Chamber adopted a resolution that East Germany would join the West in compliance with Article 23 of the West German Basic Law on Oct. 3, 1990. The East German parliament opted for reunification with West Germany by absorption by an overwhelming majority (294 voting for reunification and 62 against it with 7 abstaining from voting). Under the West German Basic Law, East Germany determined the date of unification without ratification by the West. With East Germany's adoption of the resolution, East Germany was federated with West Germany on Oct. 3, 1990. It was a historic moment, marking the completion of German reunification. West German Chancellor, Kohl, assumed the first chancellery of the reunified country while West German Foreign Minister, Hans-Dietrich Genscher, took up the office of vice chancellor and foreign minister. Only five East German leaders including Lothar de Maizier, former chancellor, and Zabienne Paul, former chairman of the People's Chamber, became members of the new cabinet. On Dec. 2, 1990, only two months after the reunification, a general election was held in reunified Germany. The ruling Christian Democratic Union garnered 312 seats out of 656 while the Party of Democratic Socialism, the former Communist Party, acquired a meagre 16 seats. With the Social Democratic Party securing 239 seats, the remaining seats went to minor political parties. As fully explained before, East Germany was absorbed into West Germany by its own decision. Deserting its communist system, East Germany chose to be absorbed into a free democracy. The German reunification is comparable to a case where a mismanaged and bankrupt company begs a blue-chip company for its merger. After reunification, Germany has been abiding by the basic policy line of West Germany in every aspect including politics, economy and diplomacy.

Vietnam

Let us now take up the example of Vietnam. Here too, despite the most intense and painful war that lasted for more than two decades, the two parts of Vietnam have reunited and have become a united nation. However, the methods employed here were quite different from Germany, but they present an interesting case study.

Page 123

Chapter 4

A Brief History of the unification of Vietnam

Vietnam was reunified on Apr. 30, 1975, with democratic South Vietnam absorbed by communist North Vietnam by force. The reunification is a typical example where one people divided by ideological confrontation of democracy on one side, and communism on the other, was unified by force under socialist revolutionary strategies and tactics. In Chinese, Vietnam means going over to the South. This indicates that people in Vietnam were driven away to the South by outside powers in the North. The name of the country attests to its historical hardship of having been subject to numerous foreign invasions. Historically, Vietnam faced a myriad of aggressions by China. China once called the country Annam, which originates from the fact that Ming subjugated barbarians in the South. With the decline of Ching and the advance of Western powers to Asia, Vietnam was reduced to a French colony. From the late 18th century, France began its invasion into the IndoChina peninsula. In 1900, it finally annexed Vietnam to the Indo-China Federation of French territory along with Cambodia and Laos. With the occupation of France by Germany during World War II, Japan occupied Vietnam in 1940 and installed Baodai, the Vietnamese emperor, as the leader of a puppet government. Ho Chi Minh, leader of the communist guerrillas waged an anti-Japanese independence campaign by organizing an alliance for independence. France claimed its colonial control over Vietnam in the wake of the defeat of Japan in 1945. Ho Chi Minh responded to the situation with a declaration of establishment of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam in Hanoi in September 1945. In September 1945, France temporarily recognized the republic headed by Ho Chi Minh. But, an armed clash between the two countries in Hanoi in December 1945 touched off an all-out war. The war continued for eight years until a truce agreement was signed in Geneva on July 21, 1954.

Under the Geneva agreement, Vietnam was divided into two countries with the 17th degree northern latitude as the borderline. North Vietnam, with Hanoi as its capital, had a population of 13 million. In the face of the division of the country, 800,000 North Vietnamese people fled to the South in pursuit of freedom. In October 1955, Prime Minister Ngo Dinh Diem of the provisional South Vietnamese government declared the establishment of the Republic of Vietnam and assumed the first presidency. He boycotted a general election slated for June 1956 under the Geneva agreement, contributing to a lasting division of the country. The dog-eat-dog conflict between South and North Vietnam began to spread in 1956 when Vietcong, North Vietnam-sponsored communist elements in South Vietnam, started to deliver

Page 124

sporadic surprise attacks. (Vietcong stands for Vietnamese communists.) Vietcong organized the Vietnamese National Liberation Front on Dec. 20, 1960, in an aggressive effort to communise South Vietnam. Vietcong, under its newly acquired name of the Vietnamese National Liberation Front, professed itself an advocate of reunification of the two Vietnams and peaceful independence based on neutrality. In reality, however, Vietcong was merely a sub-organization under the North Vietnamese Communist Party, which was sponsored and dictated by North Vietnam. When France finally gave in to Ho Chi Minh in the war and the Ngo Dinh Diem government was installed in South Vietnam, the U.S. began to render political support to South Vietnam in place of France. In 1961, U.S. President John F. Kennedy expanded the support into the military area. In early August 1964, President Lyndon B. Johnson decided to bomb a strategic military point of North Vietnam immediately after the Maddox, a destroyer of the 7th U.S. Fleet, was attacked twice by North Vietnamese torpedo boats. It marked the commencement of the U.S.-North Vietnamese war without a declaration of war. On Jan. 27, 1973, the U.S., South and North Vietnam and Vietcong signed a peace accord to end the war in Paris. Article 4 of the accord prescribed that the U.S. should stop military interference or intervention in internal affairs of South Vietnam. In addition, Article 5 stated that all the troops, military advisors and technicians of the U.S. and other foreign countries specified in Article 3 and all the military personnel related to the subjugation plan, military equipment and supplies including ammunition should be withdrawn from South Vietnam within 60 days from the signing of the accord. Article 15 also said that reunification of Vietnam should be realized in stages through peaceful means, based on mutual consultation and agreement between the two Vietnams without coercion or consolidation of one party by the other and interference of outside powers.

Reunification by Communisation

In compliance with the peace accord signed in Paris, the U.S. completely pulled out its troops from Vietnam on Mar. 19, 1973. U.S. interference with a Vietnamese dispute came to a halt eight and a half years after Washington started a bombing campaign against North Vietnam in August 1964. The number of American troops in Vietnam stood at up to 540,000 at a point. In addition, five other countries (South Korea, Australia, Thailand, New Zealand and the Philippines) dispatched more than 70,000 troops. With 600,000 South Vietnamese government forces counted in, a total of 1.2 million troops fought against Vietcong. The U.S., which started to intervene in Vietnamese affairs from 1961, spent US$ 141 billion over 14 years and sustained a loss of 56,000 soldiers. Moreover, President Lyndon

Page 125

Johnson gave up his second bid for presidency amid escalating armed conflicts and fierce anti-war demonstrations. During the war, 4,687 South Korean troops were killed in action. The accord for termination of the Vietnam War and restoration of peace in the country went into effect at 00:00, January 28. But, the first day of its enforcement was marred by more than 400 violations, meaning that the war virtually continued. Only the U.S. fully honoured the peace accord, withdrawing its forces within the proposed 60 days. In the meantime, 150,000 North Vietnamese troops, who had been already infiltrated into South Vietnam, were preparing for an all-out war against South Vietnam. After driving out American forces on the basis of the peace accord even without rifle shooting, North Vietnam launched an all-out offensive against South Vietnamese government forces in collusion with Vietcong. North Vietnam finally occupied Saigon, drawing an unconditional surrender from South Vietnamese President Duong van Min at 10:14 of Apr. 30, 1975. It marked reunification of Vietnam by force by communist forces.

Reunification of Vietnam by force is attributed to many factors. First, North Vietnam's persistent strategies and tactics for a communist revolution served the purpose effectively. After a long colonial rule by France, Vietnam was occupied by Japan in World War II. Against the backdrop, North Vietnam cashed in on the xenophobic sentiments of the Vietnamese. Labelling the U.S. troops in Vietnam as colonial forces, North Vietnam fanned anti-American sentiments to the utmost. In addition, North Vietnam linked the communist theory of class conflicts with an anti-government and anti-American campaign. North Vietnam argued that the exploitative bourgeois class and capitalist countries had to bear the blame for chronic poverty and corruption in Vietnam. Under the circumstances, not only the proletariat, but also those with religious professions, journalists and teachers in South Vietnam led the vanguard of anti-government and anti-American protests, leaning toward Vietcong. Second, corruption and incompetence of the South Vietnamese government was also responsible for communisation of South Vietnam. The degenerated South Vietnamese government was a dictatorial regime. It might be natural that the government, which failed to get the backing from its own people, went to ruin ultimately. The following is a part of the editorial of Le Suer, a Belgian newspaper just before the fall of South Vietnam. A corrupt, incompetent and despotic government such as the Thieu regime was certainly destined to lose a game at its start even with money and weapons. Indeed, South Vietnam fell to ruin even with 600,000 government troops, 540,000 U.S. forces, 70,000 allied forces, state-of-the-art

Page 126

American weapons and US$ 140 billion in aid. It was obviously attributable to internal corruption of the regime. Third, unjustifiable intervention by the U.S. was also to blame for communisation of South Vietnam. The U.S., which ruthlessly thrust itself into a conflict in the Vietnamese jungle after the defeat of France, gave an impression that it was a successor to French colonialists. Furthermore, the U.S. dispatched its troops to Vietnam on the heels of the Korean War that claimed the lives of 54,000 young Americans including those not killed in action, in only five years from the end of World War II. Americans questioned the legitimacy of the Vietnam War, saying that it was irrational to sustain the loss of a huge amount of money and thousands of young Americans for a corrupt and dictatorial government. In the end, escalation of the Vietnam War touched off unprecedented anti-war demonstrations in American history, as it was supposedly the worst war with little popular support. Against this backdrop, the press frequently distorted facts, reporting that the American forces suffered a devastating defeat when they won a battle. Moreover, the press overstated the atrocities perpetrated in the war, stirring up anti-war sentiments and creating public opinions in favour of the pullout of the American forces from Vietnam. Under the circumstances, the U.S. government had no alternative but to withdraw its troops from the country with haste and it ultimately resulted in communisation of South Vietnam. Fourth, the deceptive tactics of the communists also played a role in communisation of South Vietnam. According to the accord for termination of the Vietnam War and restoration of peace in the country signed also by North Vietnam, reunification of the two countries was to be realized based on peaceful means and mutual consultation and agreement. When the U.S. government pulled out its forces from the country within 60 days of the signing of the accord in accordance with it, North Vietnam absorbed South Vietnam by forcing it into an unconditional surrender, not resorting to peaceful means and mutual consent.

We see here two totally different examples of unification, one by some kind of force and the other by understanding and the pressures of economic necessity. Both these hold a lesson for the Indian subcontinent. A possible combination of these two methods might have to be adopted in the Indian subcontinent.

Page 127

Real Unity

We may thus conclude that whenever and wherever there is a deep underlying national psychological unity, political unity will come about after however long a time and suffering. It naturally leads us to the conclusion that there are two types of units, the political unit and the real unit. History gives us innumerable examples of artificial political units breaking up, while units that have not achieved political unity but are bound by a deep and subtle psychological feeling survive the most difficult periods of centrifugal conflict.

This truth of a real unity is so strong that even nations which never in the past realized an outward unification, to which Fate and circumstance and their own selves have been adverse, nations which have been full of centrifugal forces and easily overpowered by foreign intrusions, have yet always developed a centripetal force as well and arrived inevitably at organized oneness. This is clearly illustrated in the unification of Saxon England, mediaeval France, the formation of the United States of America; in all these cases, it was a real unity, a psychologically distinct unit which tended and has been driven, at first ignorantly by the subconscious necessity of its being and afterwards with a sudden or gradual awakening to the sense of political oneness, towards an inevitable external unification. It is a distinct group-soul, which is driven by inward necessity and uses outward circumstances to constitute for itself an organized body. But the most remarkable instance of this phenomenon is India. Here is a passage from Sri Aurobindo to illustrate this theme:

"But the most striking example in history is the evolution of India. Nowhere else have the centrifugal forces been so strong, numerous, complex, obstinate. The mere time taken by the evolution has been prodigious; the disastrous vicissitudes through which it has had to work itself out have been appalling. And yet through it all, the inevitable tendency has worked constantly, pertinaciously, with the dull, obscure, indomitable, relentless obstinacy of Nature when she is opposed in her instinctive purposes by man, and finally, after a struggle enduring through millenniums, has triumphed. And, as usually happens when she is thus opposed by her own mental and human material, it is the most adverse circumstances that the subconscious worker has turned into her most successful instruments. The beginnings of the centripetal tendency in India go back to the earliest times of which we have record and are typified in the ideal of the Samrat or Chakravarti Raja and the

Page 128

military and political use of the Aswamedha and Rajasuya sacrifices. The two great national epics might almost have been written to illustrate this theme; for the one recounts the establishment of a unifying dharmarajya or imperial reign of justice, the other starts with an idealised description of such a rule pictured as once existing in the ancient and sacred past of the country. The political history of India is the story of a succession of empires, indigenous and foreign, each of them destroyed by centrifugal forces, but each bringing the centripetal tendency nearer to its triumphant emergence. And it is a significant circumstance that the more foreign the rule, the greater has been its force for the unification of the subject people. This is always a sure sign that the essential nation-unit is already there and that there is an indissoluble national vitality necessitating the inevitable emergence of the organized nation. In this instance, we see that the conversion of the psychological unity on which nationhood is based into the external organized unity by which it is perfectly realized, has taken a period of more than two thousand years and is not yet complete. But it must be remembered that France, Germany, modern Italy took each a thousand or two thousand years and more to form and set into a firm oneness.

And yet, since the essentiality of the thing was there, not even the most formidable difficulties and delays, not even the most persistent incapacity for union in the people, not even the most disintegrating shocks from outside have prevailed against the obstinate subconscious necessity. And this is only the extreme illustration of a general law".

Page 129

Chapter 5

Pakistan - an artificial unit

We shall now look at the history of Pakistan. The so-called nation of Pakistan, which was created in 1947, claimed to be a homeland for the Muslims of the subcontinent. The Muslims were supposed to be a different nation with the religion of Islam as the psychological binding factor. All proponents of Pakistan have claimed that Pakistan is bound by Islam and was in fact, created to bring the Muslims of the subcontinent together into a strong and viable Islamic group; in other words, the claim is that Islam was the cementing factor of Pakistan. It can be shown that this is not true and is actually, a falsehood and fraud, which the world has been swallowing without any understanding of the roots of the creation of Pakistan.

It is our contention that Pakistan is a manufactured political unit and not a real unit; it has no life from within and owes its continuance to two factors;

• A force imposed on its constituent elements from inside.

• The political convenience felt by the world outside.

The Pakistani Army

The force imposed on its constituent elements is the Pakistan Army. This is testified by the fact that Pakistan has been under military rule for most of its history. The military has mounted four coups, in 1958, 1969 and 1977 and 1999.

Summary of military interventions

In 1958, General Ayub Khan stages a military coup.

In 1962, General Ayub Khan lifts martial law

In 1969, General Yahya Khan reimposes martial law

In 1977, General Zia ousts Prime Minister Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto

On Oct. 12 1999, there was another coup in Pakistan. This time it was General Musharraf who staged the coup. Here is an extract from the BBC: "The army is at centre stage once again. The announcement by Pakistan's army chief, General Pervez Musharraf, that the military had seized power came after several months of rumours of a possible military coup. Although Pakistan was founded as a democracy after the partition of the Indian sub-continent, the army has remained one of the country's most powerful institutions.

 Turbulent history

After Pakistan formally became a republic in 1956 under President Mirza, it faced an array of serious threats to its stability. Its conflict with India over Kashmir remained unresolved, relations with Afghanistan were poor, and the country suffered continuing economic difficulties, frequent cabinet crises, and widespread political corruption. In October 1958, President Mirza abrogated the constitution and granted power to the army under General Muhammad

Page 130

Ayub Khan, who subsequently assumed presidential powers. The office of the Prime minister was abolished and rule by decree introduced. Ayub Khan's autocratic rule lasted until 1969, when he was forced to resign following serious unrest. General Agha Muhammad Yahya Khan, commander-in-chief of the army, who reimposed martial law, in turn replaced him. He stepped down following the civil war, which resulted in independence for Bangladesh (formerly East Pakistan), and military rule came to an end -temporarily. Zulfikar Ali Bhutto became the new president, introducing a new constitution, which came into effect in 1973. But after elections in 1977, the opposition challenged Bhutto's victory, and widespread riots ensued. Failure to reach reconciliation prompted the army chief of staff, General Mohammed Zia-ul-Haq, to depose Bhutto in a military coup and declare martial law. This remained in force until 1985. Despite the subsequent return to civilian government, the politics of Pakistan have remained closely linked to the military. Now the army's actions appear to herald an end to what has been the longest period in Pakistan's turbulent history in which the military has remained on the sidelines".

The support of the Western World

The political convenience of the world outside emanates from the United States and the Western Bloc as part of their larger geo-political aim. The Cold War was only one of the manifestations of this geo-political aim. Pakistan was a useful ally for the United States during the Cold War. Today, Pakistan is supposed to be a useful ally against terrorism. This is totally contrary to facts, for Pakistan is indeed the epicentre of terrorism. As long as the United States and the Western Bloc need or think that they need Pakistan for their own self-interest, they will continue supporting Pakistan despite its non-democratic government and its support to terrorism.

The falsehood in the creation of Pakistan

It is intended to show in this part of the book that the very creation of Pakistan is a falsehood and a fraud inflicted on the international community. We shall illustrate this in the words of well-known authors both of Pakistani origin and other commentators.

First, Lt Colonel Lubra in an article shows how the British plotted in the creation of Pakistan for furthering their own interest in total disregard of historical and geo-political imperatives. He writes:

"With her economy in doldrums Great Britain was bound to find it difficult to hold on to her empire. This was further aggravated by a top secret signal sent by the Viceroy, Lord Wavell that Britain could no longer depend on the Indian Armed Forces to perpetuate her hold on India. He had come

Page 131

to the conclusion after the Indian National Army trials, which was followed by the Naval Mutiny.

Having decided that she could not hold onto India, Great Britain then decided that she had to retrieve her losses to the maximum degree as possible. The obvious was that first she must find out ways and means as to how she could get out of paying the surplus balance of payments which she owed to India. The amount was to the tune of # 55 million, which she was honour-bound to transfer to India.

The method to renege was as simple as it was devious. She decided to create Pakistan an entity, which would be in perpetual clash with India as she planned to ensure a perpetuation of clash of interests. This would ensure that the two countries would be forced to spend the # 55 million on weapons, which would be supplied by her. However, what was more important was that the two countries would become her permanent clients for the acquisition of ever-fresh need for weapons. By end 1946 Britain had already decided that Jammu and Kashmir would be the source and cause of clash".

We have seen in the first part of the book that Jinnah looked upon the Muslim community as a distinct and separate community. That was the justification he gave to create Pakistan. This feeling was echoed by the proposal made by Mohammed Iqbal. At the Allahabad Congress of 1930, he said: "I would like to see the Punjab, North West Frontier Province, Sind and Baluchistan amalgamated into a single State. Self-government within the British Empire or without the British Empire, the formation of a consolidated NorthWest Indian Muslim State appears to me to be the final destiny of the Muslims, at least of North-West India." A young man educated in Cambridge, Rahmat Ali, took up this idea. His conception was that since 712 AD, the four States mentioned above were the natural home of the Muslims since they were in a majority in those areas. To him the Hindu-Muslim conflict was not a clash of religions or economic factors. It was an international conflict between two national entities. He said: "Our religion, culture, history, tradition, literature, economic system, laws of inheritance, succession and marriage are fundamentally different from those of the Hindus. These differences are not confined to broad basic principles; they extend to the minutest details of our lives. Therefore for us to seal our national doom in the interest of one Indian nationhood would be a treachery against our posterity, a betrayal of our history and a crime against humanity for which there would be no salvation."

This idea was repeated again and again by successive rulers of Pakistan. It was Zia-ul-Haq who gave it a definite direction when he assumed the Presidency of Pakistan. He

Page 132

considered it as the fundamental glue to Pakistan's existence as a nation. This is what he said:

"Other than Israel, Pakistan is the only state created on religious grounds. We are created on the basis of Islam. Look at Israel: its religion and its ideology are the main sources of its strength. We in Pakistan have lost sight of the importance of these things. And without them you're like a straw being thrown about in the ocean. You're a Sindhi, a Baluch, a Punjabi, a Pathan. Pakistan's binding force has always been Islam. Without it, Pakistan would fall."

The contradictions

However, many writers and thinkers in Pakistan themselves questioned this belief. In an article entitled "Pakistan and Islam: Ethnicity and Ideology by Hazma Alavi" from her book State and Ideology in the Middle East and Pakistan, the author writes:

"There is a pervasive belief, held more widely outside Pakistan than in the country itself, that Pakistan like Israel and Iran, is one of three confessional states in the world; that, like Israel, Pakistan's very origin was to fulfil a religious ideal, to create an Islamic state and Islamic society for Muslims of India.

This is but only one of many facets of a cascade of major contradictions that underlie any suggestion that the creation of Pakistan was the result of a struggle by Muslims of India to create an 'Islamic State'. We have to face up to the glaring fact that the Pakistan movement was vigorously opposed by virtually the entire Muslim religious establishment in India. In another part of the article she writes:

"Here we have yet another paradox. The men of power in Pakistan, the bureaucrats, military leaders and politicians generally, all in truth have an essentially secular intellectual make up and few are devout practitioners of their religion. In their hands Islam has been made into just a political slogan, a mask that they feel they must wear when facing the public. They mistakenly feel that they need this for the legitimisation of power in the eyes of the masses. Because having nothing to offer to the common people by way of improving their material conditions of life and labouring under the illusion that the mass of the people are an unthinking fanatical lot who will be carried away by their insincere slogans, they wrongly believe that they can mobilise their support by resort to religious slogans. The results of successive elections have proved them wrong. But the falsification of Pakistan's history continues, driven by the unthinking political calculations of the state authorities who organise the production and dissemination of distorted propagandist accounts of our history through the commissioning of 'approved' textbooks, controlled by a bureaucratic 'Textbook Board'. Schools and colleges in

Page 133

Pakistan are required to disseminate such falsified accounts of the past to their students. As a consequence of this, after nearly half a century since the Partition, we have generations of Pakistanis who have no idea whatever of the reality of our history. All they know is the fiction that is relayed to them through the state controlled educational system and the media".

She concludes:

"This universal opposition of virtually every significant religious group in Undivided India, indeed the entire Muslim religious establishment to the Pakistan movement and the Muslim League cannot be reconciled with any idea of religious origins of Pakistan. This is just one of many paradoxes that anyone who thinks that the true reason for the creation of Pakistan was to establish a religious 'Islamic state', must unravel.

Thus the concept of Pakistan as an Islamic State does not seem to be holding and is of dubious value.

Similarly in another article written on Ayesha Jalal: Taking On Pakistan's Hero, Then Taking the Heat:

"What has angered so many Muslims here and in her homeland is Ms Jalal's assertion that the revered founding father of Pakistan, the slender, eloquent Mohammed Ali Jinnah, had feet of clay. She argues that the 1947 partition of India -- the event that opened the door for the creation of Pakistan -- was an accident, a colossal miscalculation. What's more, she says that Jinnah never wanted a separate Muslim state; he was only using the threat of independence as a political bargaining chip to strengthen the voice of the Muslim minority in the soon-to-be sovereign India.

For proof, she maintains, look no further than Jinnah's reaction to the partition. "The state-sponsored nationalist attitude seems to suggest that what Jinnah had dismissed as a mutilated, moth-eaten Pakistan is what they were actually fighting for," the 42-year-old scholar explained in a recent interview, adding that Jinnah twice rejected what turned out to be the final model for Pakistan.

This is heresy to most Pakistanis, for whom the partition is a point of pride, a landmark historical event comparable to the declaration of the state of Israel for Zionists. And to many Pakistanis, the individual most responsible for the partition is nothing less than a Muslim paladin. "It's as though you're telling Americans that George Washington wasn't a starry-eyed nationalist but a coldblooded, opportunistic militarist," remarked David Ludden, an associate professor of South Asian history at the University of Pennsylvania.

The present situation

The situation has not changed even today; on the contrary it has become worse. There is a persistent attempt by the government to indoctrinate the people of Pakistan through education. Observing that the ideological force of Islam is

Page 134

not helping to bind the people of Pakistan, recourse has been taken to distort the whole education process. Here is an extract from a book written by A H Nayyar and Ahmad Salim titled the Subtle Subversion. This is regarding the school curriculum and the textbooks used in Pakistan. This is what they write:

"Our analysis found that some of the most significant problems in the current curriculum and textbooks are:

• Inaccuracies of fact and omissions that serve to substantially distort the nature and significance of actual events in our history.

• Insensitivity to the actually existing religious diversity of the nation

• Incitement to militancy and violence, including encouragement of Jehad and Shahadat

• Perspectives that encourage prejudice, bigotry, and discrimination towards fellow citizens, especially women and religious minorities, and other nations.

• A glorification of war and the use of force

• Omission of concepts, events, and material that could encourage critical self-awareness among students

• Outdated and incoherent pedagogical practices that hinder the development of interest and insight among students

To give a few examples:

The books on Social Studies systematically misrepresent events that have happened over the past several decades of Pakistan's history, including those which are within living memory of many people. This history is narrated with distortions and omissions. The causes, effects, and responsibility for key events are presented so as to leave a false understanding of our national experience. A large part of the history of this region is also simply omitted, making it difficult to properly interpret events, and narrowing the perspective that should be open to students. Worse, the material is presented in a way that encourages the student to marginalise and be hostile towards other social groups and people in the region.

The State of Curricula and Textbooks in Pakistan

The curricula and textbooks are insensitive to the religious diversity of the Pakistani society. While the teaching of Islamiat is compulsory for Muslim students, on average over a quarter of the material in books to teach Urdu as a language is on one religion. The books on English have lessons with religious content. Islamiat is also taught in Social Studies classes.

Thus, the entire education is heavily loaded with religious teachings, reflecting in this respect a very narrow view held by a minority among Muslims that all the education be essentially that of Islamiat. There is an undercurrent of exclusivist and divisive tendencies at work in the subject matter recommended for studies in the curriculum

Page 135

documents as well as in textbooks. Pakistani nationalism is repeatedly defined in a manner that is bound to exclude non-Muslim Pakistanis from either being Pakistani nationals or from even being good human beings. Much of this material would run counter to any efforts at national integration."

As an inevitable consequence of this attitude, there is a sense of dismay and revolt spreading in the whole of Pakistan. In fact there are strong indications that the constituent elements of Pakistan - Sindh, Punjab, Baluchistan and NWFP — are demanding separation and independence from the Central Government of Pakistan. It seems clear that as they begin to feel more strongly the centrifugal pull, they will stand up to the Army rule; the inevitable result will the beginning of the disintegration of Pakistan. The glue of Islam seems to be getting unstuck.

The external factor

On the other hand, there is the external support given by the Western world to Pakistan. This support is not based on ideals or values but on self-interest, and indeed a very shortsighted self-interest. But the hard reality seems to be slowly dawning on these nations and consequently this support seems to be coming to its natural end.

The United States and the Western World have been consistently supporting Pakistan for the last 50 years to further their own geo-political interest; although these nations claim to support democracy, they turn a blind eye to the military rule in Pakistan. But now they are slowly beginning to realize the folly of supporting Pakistan. The events of 9/11 have acted as a catalyst in this direction. In fact one now reads and hears the Western press describing Pakistan as "a failed State".

A perusal of the Cato research paper on American policy towards India, by Subodh Atal, is another clear indication in this direction. Here is an extract from the Cato paper:

The Cato paper

"Without delay, the United States must pressure the Musharraf regime to dismantle the entire terrorist infrastructure in the Northwest Frontier Province and Pakistan controlled Kashmir, which serve as reservoirs for anti-U.S. jihadis. It should warn Musharraf that, if Pakistan is unwilling or incapable of cleansing itself of its terrorist infrastructure, the U.S. military will take matters into its own hands and extend the anti-terrorism war into Pakistani territory. To further mitigate the risk, the United States must convince Pakistan to accept security systems such as alarms and anti-terrorism measures for its nuclear arsenal. While this might be unpalatable to Pakistan, the grave threat posed by its arsenal outweighs those considerations. U.S.

Page 136

contingency plans should be in place to secure and extract nuclear weapons from Pakistan, if there is an Islamic extremist coup in that nation. The United States should not, however, offer missile defense support for Pakistani nuclear installations. Such aid would drastically alter the strategic balance on the subcontinent and give Pakistan the impetus to continue its regional destabilizing activities that fuel its Islamic extremists.

Conclusion

The US must convince Pakistan to accept security systems such as alarms and anti-terrorism measures for its nuclear arsenal.

Since the September 11 attacks, comprehensive U.S.-led efforts have been under way to destroy the terrorist movement led by Al-Qaeda and defuse the threat of large-scale terrorist attacks. As part of those efforts, U.S. and British forces deposed the Taliban and forced its Al-Qaeda guests to flee from Afghanistan. Worldwide moves to freeze terrorist funds were undertaken, and President Bush identified three nations as the "axis of evil" that needed to be contained. One of those, Iraq, is under intense pressure to give up its chemical and biological weapons, but it does not have any nuclear weapons. Both Iran and North Korea are pursuing nuclear weapons, and the latter may already have a small number. Yet Pakistan is potentially a greater source of danger than any of the "axis of evil" nations. Despite Pakistan's being officially an ally in the anti-terrorism war, sections of its military and intelligence wings have facilitated the escape and regrouping of Al-Qaeda. The Pakistani member groups of the International Islamic Front that collaborate with Al-Qaeda continue to be well funded and active. Leaders of Islamic extremist parties that still support the Taliban, as well as pro-Islamic military leaders who were instrumental in creating the Taliban, wait in the wings to dethrone Musharraf and take over the nation's rapidly expanding nuclear arsenal.

Not enough is known about what secrets of their trade were discussed by Pakistani nuclear scientists with Bin Laden. Furthermore, Pakistan has been selling its nuclear weapons technology to North Korea, Myanmar, and Saudi Arabia. There are questions about whether Musharraf has full control over his military and intelligence apparatus as well as his nuclear arsenal. U.S. policy toward Pakistan has failed to consider the cumulative dangers that nation presents. America continues to pump billions of dollars of aid into Pakistan, without accounting for its fate. Few questions about possible ISI links to the September 11 attacks, the organization's role in sheltering Al-Qaeda, or Pakistan's nuclear proliferation activities have been asked, let alone answered. U.S. policy appears to be frozen, concerned only with the preservation of Pakistani dictator Musharraf and

Page 137

overlooking the larger goal of fortifying U.S. national security. Despite having considerable leverage over Pakistan, U.S. officials have given that country a free ride to continue posing as an anti-terrorism ally. If Musharraf is unwilling or unable to weed out al-Qaeda from his nation's territory, Pakistan is the next logical theater of the antiterrorism war. That should also help bring to an end the need for politically provocative U.S. bases in Pakistan. The United States must develop contingency plans for securing and extracting the Pakistani nuclear arsenal in case of an Islamist coup. And if Musharraf does not have full control over his expanding nuclear assets, then the world may be dealing with a nuclear rogue nation. President Bush would then have a far greater problem than a Saddam Hussein who might someday possess nuclear weapons."

The Human Rights Commission too has got into the act and is putting pressure on Pakistan. Here is a letter from the Commission to President Musharraf.

Letter to General Pervez Musharraf on 4th Anniversary of Oct. Coup

October 10, 2003

His Excellency General Pervez Musharraf President Islamic Republic of Pakistan Aiwan-e-Sadr Constitution Avenue Islamabad, Pakistan

Dear General Musharraf:

October 12, 2003 will mark the fourth anniversary of the military coup that brought you to power. Since the 1999 coup, Human Rights Watch has monitored the suppression of civil liberties and the progressive undermining of civilian institutions in Pakistan.

Human Rights Watch is concerned that in the years since the coup, the Pakistani government has systematically violated the fundamental rights of members of the political opposition and former government officials. It has harassed, threatened, and arbitrarily arrested them. Many have been detained without charge, mistreated and tortured, and otherwise denied their basic due process rights. The government has removed independent judges from the higher courts, banned anti-government public rallies and demonstrations, and rendered political parties all but powerless. In addition, the last four years have also witnessed the rise of extremist political activity and an increase in sectarian killings.

Meanwhile, your involvement with the United States in its war on terror has been characterized by a disregard for the due process rights of suspects. Arbitrary arrests and detentions, apparently with the support of U.S. authorities in Pakistan, have taken place with depressing regularity.

The rule of law is a critical element in the promotion and protection of human rights. Your failure to institute genuine and periodic elections as required by international law has

Page 138

become an important symbol of the lack of rule of law in Pakistan. We urge you to provide a timetable and demonstrate a commitment to genuine, pluralistic elections at the earliest possible date. October 12 would provide an excellent opportunity to make such a commitment. Solutions to many of the human rights problems discussed below depend, at least in part, on the creation of a duly constituted civilian government.

Torture and Mistreatment of Political Opponents and Journalists

Torture is routinely used in Pakistan, both to obtain confessions in criminal cases and against political opponents. Most acts of torture committed by civilian law enforcement agencies are usually issue-specific and aimed at producing a confession during the course of a criminal investigation. By contrast, acts of torture by military agencies primarily serve the purpose of "punishing" an errant politician, political activist or journalist. Torture by the military usually takes place after the victim has been abducted;

the purpose is to frighten the victim into changing his political stance or loyalties or at the very least to stop him from being critical of the military authorities. The victim is often let go on the understanding that if he fails to behave, another further abduction and mistreatment will follow. In this manner, the victim can be kept in a state of fear often for several years.

A recent example is the case of Rasheed Azam, a journalist and political activist from Khuzdar in Balochistan province. Azam, a reporter for the local newspapers Intikhab and Asap and a member of the organizing committee of the Balochistan National Party, has been in police custody since August 15, 2002. Azam communicated to Human Rights Watch through intermediaries that he has been taken three times to the Khuzdar military cantonment where he alleges he was abused and tortured, including by being beaten while he was hung upside down and through sleep deprivation.

Azam is being held on baseless claims that he committed sedition. According to the First Information Report of the local police, Azam was arrested in Quetta on the basis of a report "received from a sensitive department" that he had distributed a poster with a photograph of Pakistan army personnel beating a crowd of Baloch youth. The report goes on to state that such "sedition" against the army "is an offense of grave nature." However, the report fails to mention the date, time or place the alleged "crime" was committed, nor does it name the "sensitive department" in question or any eyewitnesses that saw the "offense" being perpetrated. Rasheed Azam remains in jail to date as his bail application was rejected by the district judge on the grounds that the case against the accused was credible. His

Page 139

colleagues have filed a bail application in the Balochistan High Court that awaits hearing.

Another case of detention and torture is of Rana Sanaullah Khan, a member of the suspended Punjab provincial assembly. Sanaullah was arrested under the sedition law for criticizing the military government in November 1999. According to Sanaullah, he was whipped, beaten, held incommunicado, and interrogated for a week in police custody before eventually being released on bail. In October 2002, Sanaullah was re-elected to the Punjab Assembly and elected deputy leader of the opposition. On March 8, 2003, heavily armed men, some of whom wore police uniforms, abducted him.

According to Sanaullah: I was handcuffed and, with my face covered with a cloth, I was driven to the ISI [Inter-Services Intelligence] office where I was tortured for three or four hours. They were using some sharp-edged weapon with which they would cut open my skin and then rub some sort of chemical in the wound. I felt as if I was on fire every time they did that. I have 22 such injuries on my body. Later, I was pushed into a car and thrown on a service lane along the motorway some 20 kilometers from Faisalabad.

Sanaullah explained to Human Rights Watch that he remains under pressure from the government and continues to receive sporadic threats.

The use of such forms of arbitrary detention and torture must end. Perpetrators of the torture of Azam, Sanaullah and others must be removed from the country's security forces and prosecuted.

Return to Civilian Rule & the Legal Framework Order

Your administration has unilaterally imposed a series of far-reaching amendments to the Pakistan constitution that dramatically strengthen the power of the presidency, formalize the role of the army in governance, and diminish the authority of elected representatives. The amendments under the Legal Framework Order (LFO) significantly curb freedom of association and the freedom of individuals to stand for elected office. Opposition legislators who have spoken to Human Rights Watch have reportedly been beaten, harassed, and subjected to blackmail for voicing opposition to these arbitrary changes to the Pakistani constitution.

Indeed, in the months preceding Pakistan's October 2002 parliamentary elections, your administration took measures that all but ensured a military-controlled government. In addition to the constitutional amendments under the LFO, these included an April 2002 referendum that extended your presidential term for five years and restrictions on political party activities. Independent observers reported extensive fraud and coercion during voting for the referendum and widespread poll-rigging and harassment of candidates

Page 140

preceding the parliamentary elections. It is worth pointing out that these measures have served to suppress the kind of moderate voices necessary for Pakistan to develop into a pluralistic, rights-respecting society.

Subsequent to the elections, your administration has chosen to sideline the mainstream political opposition and negotiate on the LFO only with the Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal (MMA), an alliance of religious political parties that have historically enjoyed close links with the Pakistan military. However, even these negotiations broke down recently over your administration's refusal to offer a firm date by which you would resign from your military position in exchange for their support for your running for president of Pakistan in a civilian capacity.

Taken together, the amendments under the LFO have ensured that ostensibly civilian governments at the federal and provincial level are effectively subordinate to and even exist at the discretion of the president and the military. In spite of this, the opposition in the federal parliament has made it clear that it does not recognize the validity of the constitution as arbitrarily amended by your administration. We urge you to recognize the troubling implications of the LFO and the resulting constitutional crisis for credible civilian governance in Pakistan and to rescind the LFO.

War on Terror

The conduct of the war on terror in Pakistan has raised serious questions about the commitment of Pakistan to internationally and domestically recognized standards of due process.

Perhaps the most high profile example of the failure of due process occurred in December 2000 when Pakistani security forces, allegedly accompanied by officials of the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), raided a house in Lahore and arrested nine individuals. The group included several well-known doctors. While your government denies the presence of FBI personnel at the arrest, eyewitness accounts provided to Human Rights Watch say that Caucasian men with American accents accompanied the Pakistani officials and took charge of the operation once they had gained entry to the premises. Only several weeks after the arrests did the government admit that the doctors had been detained under the Security Act for alleged links with Al-Qaeda. Subsequently, the Pakistan government repeatedly ignored orders by the Lahore High Court to produce the detainees in court. Instead, the detainees are currently on trial by an "anti-terrorism" court in Lahore, a process that lacks basic procedural safeguards for a fair trial. In another incident, Dr. Amir Aziz, a Lahore-based orthopedic surgeon who has reportedly provided treatment to members of the Taliban and Al-Qaeda leadership, was arrested on October 21 2002. His family reported that he had

Page 141

been arrested by ISI officials accompanied by Americans whom they took to be FBI agents. Without being presented a legal basis for his arrest, Dr. Aziz was released several days later.

The cases mentioned above are illustrative of a pattern of due process violations occurring across Pakistan in the name of the war on terror. Human Rights Watch urged Pakistani authorities to scrupulously follow international due process standards in prosecuting in cases of alleged terror suspects. Legal Discrimination Against and Mistreatment of Women and Religious Minorities

Inaction on the Hudood Laws persists despite the government-run National Commission for Status of Women calling for repeal of the Hudood Ordinance on the grounds that it "makes a mockery of Islamic justice" and is "not based on Islamic injunctions." This, despite the outcry in Pakistan and internationally, over cases such as the tribal "jirga" ordered gang-rape of Mukhtaran Bibi in Punjab and the sentencing to death by stoning of Zafran Bibi on grounds of adultery. Human Rights Watch has monitored these and other cases involving abuses under the Hudood Laws. Informed estimates suggest that over 210,000 cases under the Hudood laws are under process in Pakistan's legal system

Under Pakistan's existing Hudood Ordinance, a woman who has been raped and wants the state to prosecute her case must have four Muslim men testify that they witnessed the assault. In the absence of these male witnesses, the rape victim has no case. Equally alarming, if a woman cannot prove the rape allegation she runs a very high risk of being charged with fornication or adultery, the criminal penalty for which is either a long prison sentence, including public whipping, or, though rare, death by stoning. The testimony of women carries half the weight of a man's testimony under this ordinance.

Further, the Qisas (retribution) and Diyat (compensation) Ordinance makes it possible for crimes of honor (such as the killing of women in the name of honor) to be pardoned by relatives of the victim and assesses monetary compensation for female victims at half the rate of male victims.

These are just part of a set of "Islamic" penal laws introduced by the former military ruler, General Zia ul-Haq in 1979. While your administration has publicly warned against this kind of extremism, these warnings have failed to translate into concrete legal measures to protect the basic rights of women in conformity with international norms.

Discrimination and persecution on grounds of religion continues, and an increasing number of blasphemy cases continue to be registered. The Ahmadi community in particular has been the target of religious extremists and Human Rights Watch has followed several cases where

Page 142

members of this community have been subject to discrimination, not just at the hands of religious extremists but the Pakistani police and military authorities as well.

Information provided by the Ahmadi community and authenticated by HRW indicates that during 2002-3 at least ten Ahmadis were charged under various provisions of the Blasphemy Law. Mushtaq Ahmed Saggon and Waris Khan were charged for "preaching" and a case was registered against "Abdul Nasir and three others" for distributing "objectionable literature." Four Ahmadis were accused of preparing to build a "place of worship." (Ahmadis can be charged under the Blasphemy Law for using the term "mosque" to describe their places of worship.) In 2002 at least three members of the Ahmadi community were convicted under the blasphemy law. One was subsequently acquitted on appeal. However, Nazir Ahmed and Allah Rakhio were awarded life imprisonment by an Anti-Terrorist Court on charges of "desecrating the Quran" and "demolishing a mosque."

In addition, at least six others were sentenced under the Blasphemy Law in 2002. Of these four were awarded the death penalty and two received life imprisonment. They have appealed their sentences. Sectarian Violence

Pakistan has experienced an alarming rise in sectarian violence since the 1999 coup. In particular, Sunni extremists, often with connections to militant organizations such as Sipah-e-Sahaba Pakistan (SSP), have targeted Muslims of the Shi'a sect. There has been a sharp increase in the number of targeted killings of Shi'a, and particularly Shi'a doctors, since the 1999 coup. These doctors make easy targets as they work in easily accessible public places and follow predictable routines. Indeed, the majority of the victims have been killed in or around their clinics or hospitals. Shi'a Muslim doctors are now fleeing Pakistan in large numbers in fear of their lives. Human Rights Watch has interviewed the families of many of those killed.

Since assuming power, your government has followed what can only be described as a deliberate policy of strengthening sectarian militant organizations. This has involved providing support to the political wings of these organizations under the umbrella of the MMA and otherwise, while little effort has been made to bring those responsible for acts of sectarian violence to justice or to provide protection to the targets or their families.

On October 6, Maulana Azam Tariq, a Sunni extremist leader and member of parliament, was murdered in an apparent act of retaliation by unknown assailants. Maulana Azam Tariq had generated animosity because of his reported declaration that Shi'a were non-Muslims and legitimate targets for murder, and his being allowed to contest the

Page 143

October 2000 elections despite being the head of Sipah-e-Sahaba Pakistan, which the government had declared a terrorist sectarian organization. Further, when under arrest on charges of murder, Tariq had the unusual privilege of being provided a stipend of 10,000 rupees per month by the government. Once elected to the National Assembly, Tariq chose to support the pro-Musharraf government in place since November 2002.

Human Rights Watch fears that Azam Tariq's murder may spark a new wave of violence against the Shi'a community. It is the responsibility of the government of Pakistan to protect the Shi'a citizens of Pakistan and safeguard their right to life. This is a duty that the government has thus far failed to perform.

Human Rights Watch urges you and your government to take measures to address the problem of sectarian violence in Pakistan. Those implicated in acts of sectarian violence must be prosecuted, and actions to protect the affected communities must be undertaken. It is critical that your government act, and appear to act, impartially on all religious and sectarian matters. The failure to do so could result in serious violence.

Thank you for your consideration. I look forward to your reply.

Yours sincerely,

Brad Adams

Executive Director

Asia Division

This extract only proves that the Western powers and the United States of America are being slowly compelled to withdraw their support to Pakistan. The leadership might dither and hesitate but world circumstances and political forces will compel them to see the hard truth and sooner or later they will have no other option but to withdraw their support to Pakistan. The moment this becomes an accomplished fact, the days of Pakistan are numbered.

Page 144

Steps that need to be taken by the Government of India

The first and most important decision that the Government of India must take is that it should not accept the Partition of India as final. A policy decision needs to be taken that the partition of India will be annulled. Once that is done, all possible steps should be taken to bring about unity between the two nations and peoples. Steps in that direction could be as follows:

1. Increase people to people contact in a big way in every field of activity. The example of Germany is a remarkable proof of the success of this method.

2. Increase economic cooperation between the two governments if possible and between the people of the two nations even if the Government of Pakistan does not cooperate. This has been proved again by the example of Germany.

3. Take the strongest steps to curb terrorism in any form; give the Army a free hand in their operations against the terrorists. Ensure that political interference is completely stopped.

4. Take steps to create a climate of understanding and goodwill between all the religions within India itself. This is an important factor and needs to be pursued vigorously.

Page 145

Chapter 6

The obstacles to the unification of India and Pakistan

In this part of the book, we shall try to identify the obstacles to the unification of the subcontinent. Undoubtedly the chief obstacle is the institution of the Army in Pakistan. The people of Pakistan seem to show a keenness to work together with India, particularly in matters concerning trade and culture, but it is the Army and its offshoots like the ISI that have a vested interest in the perpetuation of the division.

The Army in Pakistan

We now take a look into the functioning of the Pakistani Army. The Pakistani nation has for the most part of its history been under military rule; it has not been able to evolve a system of civilian rule such as is there in most other nations of the world. This, by itself, is a clear proof of the falsehood that Pakistan is a nation, a real psychological unit. It has needed Army rule to keep the nation together. But much worse is the fact that the Army is not doing what it pretends to do — hold the nation together. On the contrary, it has become one of the worst exploiters of the Pakistani people and society.

Pakistan today is held together by a powerful military that directly consumes a very large portion of its budget after debt payments. The military has gained strength by opportunistically aligning itself with the United States, China and Saudi Arabia. It has directly ruled the country for most of its history and has cultivated relations with the fundamentalist Islamist clergy to strengthen its hold. In fact, the military is a bastion of Islamists who are influenced by fundamentalist movements such as Wahabism and Deobandism -- the same movements that hold sway among large numbers of Pakistani Punjabis.

Here is one article on the Armed Forces of Pakistan. Pakistan's Armed Forces by Maj (retd) Zahid Yazdanie, Irvine, CA

"The armed forces in Pakistan always acted like a holy cow. Nobody ever dared to bring out the real worth of the Pakistan armed forces. Outsiders only knew them as someone too sacred to be discussed. Today, we are in a mess because of this protectionist attitude. The armed forces have gradually eaten up the national resources and never left anything for social services. It is just a matter of time when Pakistani currency will go to hyper inflation like Russia and Indonesia and the dollar will trade at Rs 100 /dollar. The prices of commodities will jump through the roof. And rampages (like the one in Peshawar) will follow in all parts and organizations in Pakistan.

Pakistan's armed forces always deliberately created a false security threat for Pakistani politicians. They emphasized a bigger defense budget, a bigger force, more equipment and

Page 146

thus better and more secure Pakistan. Unfortunately, all the politicians played into this created security threat scenario. Nobody ever realized that strength is actually in the economy

If we calculate all the resources spent on the armed forces in the last 30 years, take out 50% of it and spend on infrastructure, industry, agriculture and social services, Pakistan today would have been totally debt free, prosperous and definitely with strong and much better armed forces.

It would be better now to put the immense human resources of the army to some national use. It would be wise to use them to develop agricultural farms on uncultivated lands. It is possible for our army to develop about 100,000 farms of 12 acres each complete with all amenities, including a small manufactured home. These farms can then be sold to millions of low income families on an installment basis".

Our forces are responsible for bringing Pakistan to this sorry state of affairs. It is now their responsibility to review their whole role and to start playing an active role in the national economy.

Here is another example of how the Army is looting the people of Pakistan.

A first hand list of Army land lords Special SAT Report BAHAWALPUR, Pakistan: Pakistani Army Generals, including President Pervez Musharraf and his top colleagues, have found an innovative way to defend the land of their country — by grabbing it.

SA Tribune has got a list of over 100 armed forces men who allotted to themselves at least 400 or more acres of prime land in Bahawalpur, heart of Punjab, "to defend it from the enemy," at the throw away rate of Rs 380 per acre (US Dollars Six & 50 cents). The list is only of one District. Such lists exist all over Punjab and Sindh where a new breed of landlords has already been created through similar allotments.

These fertile lands were given to the serving and retired generals on the pretext that these army generals will "prove a front line against the invading army." The centuries old British colonial law to settle locals near enemy border was invoked by these army men to grab the lands. But instead of taking lands close to the border, they took away prime heartland acres, thousands of them, in the name of defending the country.

The price they paid was Rs 380 an acre was notional but many of them sold the land making millions. Others have become feudal lords in their own right by employing landless peasant to till these land and produce key crops. This list has been prepared with the help of land revenue record of the district of Bahawalpur by local activists of Nationalist Qaumi Movement, a group fighting for the rights of the local people.

Page 147

This conversion of generals into landlords also explains why no serious effort has been made by the military to introduce land reforms in the country, which could cure many political and social imbalances in the Pakistani society.

The list includes the names and the area (Chak) where the land (400 acres or more) is located.

http://www.pakistanweekly.com/Letters.htm

Here is another instance from a letter written by a citizen of Pakistan to the Pakistan web site:

Dear Sir,

May God bless you and others like you who have launched a crusade against the conspiratorial and corrupt Generals of Pakistan. In Pakistan, the Army is the only self-sufficient institution. It owns from Dairy Farms to huge Industries. This is unique about Pak. Army. Nowhere else in the world does the Army run businesses and Banks. The army officers get milk and butter from the Army dairy farms, chicken from Army poultry farms, Clean and pressed clothes from Army Laundries, Very Cheap electricity from the M.E.S, which is supplied by WAPDA), Lands grabbed from the Provincial Governments, Free and top of the class Health facilities from the C.M.H. and their children get the best education free of charge in Army and P.A.F. educational Institutions. In every city a line divides the poor and the well to do; i.e. the shabby municipal limits and the posh Cantonments. The generals distribute the lands in cantonments amongst themselves at throwaway prices. Why can't these lands be sold in Auction to pay away the debt of the country? These allotments are in addition to the hundreds of Acres of land, which every General gets upon promotion from the rank of a Brigadier. What to speak of the lands they get on 23rd of March with the Medals bestowed upon them by their colleagues. They get these Medals without a fight. And we all know their calibre during wars. We have lost all wars fought to date courtesy our Corrupt Army. This is not a Mafia, it is actually a Cartel and till the time this hydra headed monster is sorted out the country will bleed and the people will remain impoverished even if Angels come to rule Pakistan.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/cms.dll/html/uncomp/articleshow?artid=27859526

Pak army siphoning off US aid in Swiss accounts

While Pakistani political parties are still fighting as to who would head the civilian government, Selig Harrison, an American expert on South Asian affairs, has said that the military rule in Pakistan would continue indefinitely with the generals putting more and more money in Swiss Bank accounts and buying off civilian leaders. "The only way to make things better in Pakistan would be a change in

Page 148

American policy and the use of American economic aid leverage to push Musharraf towards civilian rule as condition for US aid. However, I don't see that happening," added Harrison, senior scholar, Woodrow Wilson International Centre. He was addressing a conference demanding human rights protection and a fair share of resources for Sindhi people here on Saturday. "I don't think the armed forces want a war. They are too busy making money. If there is a war, it won't be confined to Kashmir. Sindh will be in the front lines. So, it's certainly in the interest of Sindhis to work with the other forces in Pakistan favouring an end to Pakistani support for Islamic militant incursions into Kashmir," Harrison noted.

From the Indian Express Monday Jan 8 2002:

Pakistan has a "very narrow social base of the ruling elite. Pakistan is ruled by four interest groups or their coalition: military, bureaucracy, the feudal lords and the industrial barons. Making up the nucleus of these four interest groups, it is believed, are a dozen corps commanders, nearly 2,000 landlords owning more than half the cultivable land, a cadre of nearly 1,000 officers and less than 50 industrial families. It is they who own Pakistan and rule in the name of the people."

Page 149

Chapter 7

The present situation in the subcontinent

Let us see the role of the Pakistan Army after the September 11 attacks.

Here are a few extracts from some journals:

The September 11 attacks on New York and Washington and the ensuing U.S.-led war on terrorism have given Pakistan's military dictator, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, an opportunity to improve relations between Washington and Islamabad. That relationship had experienced a steep decline in the 1990s, as the end of both the Cold War and the common struggle against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan eroded the perception of shared strategic interests. Moreover, while it was losing its strategic significance to the United States, Pakistan was coming under the control of an assertive military-religious nexus that promoted anti-American radical Islamic forces at home and abroad. Since September 11, General Musharraf, whose regime had been the main source of diplomatic and military support for the terrorist Taliban that ruled neighbouring Afghanistan, has portrayed his regime as an ally of Washington in its counter-terrorism campaign. Musharraf, though, headed a military clique that brought an end to his nation's short democratic experience, assisted radical Islamic terrorist groups in Afghanistan and Kashmir, pressed for a war with India, advanced Pakistan's nuclear weapons program, and presided over a corrupt and mismanaged economy. Despite that record, he is being hailed by the Bush administration as a "courageous" and "visionary" leader who is ready to reorient his country toward a pro-American position and adopt major political and economic reforms. In exchange for his belated support, Musharraf has been rewarded with U.S. diplomatic backing and substantial economic aid. Musharraf s decision to join the U.S. war on terrorism didn't reflect a structural transformation in Pakistan's policy. It was a result of tactical considerations aimed at limiting the losses that Islamabad would suffer because of the collapse of the friendly Taliban regime in Kabul. Rejecting cooperation with Washington would have provoked American wrath and placed at risk Pakistan's strategic and economic interests in South Asia. Some cooperation between the United States and Pakistan is necessary to wage the war against terrorism, but that cooperation must not evolve into a new long-term strategic alliance. Washington should view Pakistan, with its dictatorship, failed economy, and insecure nuclear arsenal, as a reluctant supporter of U.S. goals at best and as a potential long-term problem at worst.

US think tanks look afresh at India and Pakistan

Page 150

M.V.KAMATH

After the September 11 attacks and the massing of a million men on the borders of nuclear-armed India and Pakistan in 2001 there has been an awakening among American think-tanks as to what US role should be vis-a-vis the two major South Asian nations. Two of them, in particular the Asia Society and the Council on Foreign Relations were concerned enough to appoint a Task Force to examine what America's approach to India and Pakistan should be in the given circumstances.

The sixty-member Task Force was headed by three distinguished scholars, two of them former Ambassadors, namely Frank G. Wisner II and Nicholas Platt and the third Dr Marshall Boouton from the private sector. As Co-Directors they had Dennis Kux, a diplomat with vast experience in India and Mahnaz Ispahani.

The report of the Task Force commands attention not only because it reflects the experience and wisdom of men of vast standing but because one can expect it to be taken seriously by the US government itself. Hence its importance. The Task Force is clear about one thing: that consolidating US ties with India, securing a moderate Muslim state in Pakistan, actively encouraging peaceful relations between Pakistan and India, ensuring an Afghanistan where terrorists can never again find shelter, must be US priorities.

What is significant about the Task Force's report is that it labours under no illusions. It does not go too deeply into Indo-US relations, no doubt realising that it may invoke unhappy memories of a conflict-ridden past. What it takes note of is the present. As the report puts it: "Unlike during the Cold War years, US and Indian interests broadly coincide (now). The medium-term policy challenge is to complete the transition from past estrangement through constructive engagement on to genuine partnership".

As the report notes, after four decades of cool ties, Washington and New Delhi are now actively and constructively engaged. The report further notes that as the twenty first century unfolds, India will have one of the world's largest economies and will become an increasingly significant security factor in the Indian Ocean region and in Asia as a whole. As the report sees it, India is "like a giant ocean liner that steams ahead at a slow but steady and generally predictable pace and changes direction only very gradually".

The report, too, is sure of certain things about India, namely, that it will remain democratic, that its economy will make steady if uneven progress, that it will "gradually advance towards great power status" and that "regardless of whether the BJP or Congress holds power in New Delhi, India is likely to find its national interest served by better relations with the United States". Of these, the report is under no

Page 151

doubt. The Task Force surely is well-informed. Its advice to both the United States and India, under the circumstances is that they should work to expand political, security, military and intelligence cooperation, intensify both official and non-official dialogue on economic and trade issues and negotiate a trade agreement in services. The Task Force also has specific advice to give to both United States and India. For example, it says that the United States should:

1. Ease restrictions on cooperation with India in the civilian satellite sector,

2. Treat India as a "friendly" country in granting export licences for transfers of defence equipment,

3. Ease restrictions on the export to India of dual-use items that have civilian and military uses and

4. Encourage U.S. foundations, business and scientific and educational institutions to expand efforts to develop cooperative programmes with Indian counterparts.

At the same time, according to the Task Force, India should:

1. Implement domestic economic reforms with greater vigour to promote more rapid growth,

2. Open its economy further in the global market by reducing administrative restrictions and other barriers to foreign trade and investment and

3. Modify policies and reduce administrative restrictions that impede cooperative academic and foundation activities.

Few would challenge the validity of these suggestions made in good faith. By and large, the Task Force's outlook towards India is positive, even appreciative. It notes for example that "despite sharp differences at Cancun", the United States and India share common ground in areas such as services, lowering industrial tariffs and reducing restrictions on agricultural trade.

Indeed it goes further to say that "in dealing with these and related policy issues, it is in the US interest to show continuing sensitivity to India's concerns as a developing country" even while pointing out that it is "in India's interest to avoid taking positions that echo pre-reform ideology".

The Task Force has no quarrel with India's foreign policy either. It notes no doubt with some satisfaction that "longstanding support for non-alignment and intimate security ties with the Soviet Union have lost much of their relevance" and that "in the altered global landscape, New Delhi has sought to improve and broaden relations with as many major power centres as possible, especially, but not exclusively, with the United States".

The Task Force, too, does not seem to be offended at the knowledge that "even though India greatly values improved relations with Washington, it remains uncomfortable with the idea of a single dominant super power". If the Task

Page 152

Force has its way, it would see that India gets a permanent seat on the UN Security Council.

As its report puts it, "if and when there is a comprehensive restructuring of the Security Council, the United States should be prepared to give serious consideration to India's membership". In sharp contract to its appreciation of India's current status is the Task Force's understanding of the situation in Pakistan. It notes, for instance, that in the fifty-six years since Pakistan became an independent state, "it has not been able to achieve a stable political system". "Neither" says its report, "Pakistan's soldiers nor its politicians have offered honest or competent leadership for any extended period". Its assessment of Pakistan is blunt and sharp.

Says the report: "The country has failed to develop a clear sense of national identity. No elected government has yet completed its term in office; civil service and judicial standards have eroded". The report, too, takes a dim view of the backing that Pakistan has been giving to jehadi groups that are active in "India-administered Kashmir". It is not happy with Pakistan's questionable nuclear dealings either. "For the United States, preventing the further spread of nuclear weapons has the highest priority, yet Pakistan's record of nuclear and ballistic-missile transactions with North Korea suggests a willingness to become involved in the most dangerous kind of nuclear proliferation", the Task Force notes.

One gets the further feeling that the Task Force is not sure that Musharraf will last. As its report says: "it remains to be seen whether Musharraf's political dispensation will prove any more durable than those of Pakistan's earlier rulers". Against this background, what is the advice that the Task Force has to give the US Government in handling Pakistan? As the Task Force sees it, America has a major stake in friendly and long-term ties with Pakistan except that "a positive relationship will be difficult to sustain unless Islamabad firmly turns its back on terrorist groups and plays by non-proliferation rules". The Task Force has specific recommendations to make. It says the United States should:

1. Urge publicly as well as privately, an enhanced civilian and a reduced army role in governance of Pakistan,

2. Oppose continued involvement of the ISI (Inter-Services Intelligence) Directorate in the electoral process,

3. Provide increased assistance in bolstering civil society.

4. Press Musharraf to make good his pledge to stop infiltration across the Line of Control permanently;

5. Ease restrictions on Pakistani textile imports into the United States,

6. Make education the principal focus of US assistance,

Page 153

7. Obtain early Congressional approval for a five-year $3 billion assistance package of which two-thirds is for economic and only one-third is for military use,

8. Make clear that Pakistan's failure to do a better job of preventing the use of its territory by terrorists will reduce US assistance levels.

Importantly, the Task Force says that in order to reduce tensions between India and Pakistan, the United States should stress with Pakistan, the need to:

1. Permanently prevent infiltration across the LoC,

2. Modify its present negotiating stance, which makes progress on Kashmir a precondition for dealing with other India- Pakistan issues.

Will Pakistan ever listen to Washington? Can it afford not to? The fact that Islamabad on its own has offered a ceasefire along the LoC indicates that things are moving. Which is why one has to take the recommendations made by the Asia Society-Council on Foreign Relations Task Force seriously. Perhaps they are an indication of things to come.

Chapter 8

Factors leading to unity in the subcontinent

In this part of the book, we shall identify the factors that lead to unity in the subcontinent. Many indeed are the elements that have fostered the unity of India. These may be enumerated as: geography, economy, culture, religion and spirituality.

However in order to create a durable unity, we must find out not only the points which help in uniting the people but also those that obstruct unity. In other words, we have to identify the centripetal and the centrifugal forces that are at work in the nation. Before we come to that, let us try to observe and understand the general principles that Nature has followed in building up her human aggregates. We see that in almost all cases in the formation of a united aggregate, there is provided first, a natural body, second, a common life and vital interest for the constituents of the body, and third, a conscious mind or sense of unity and a centre or governing organ through which that common ego-sense can realize itself and act.

1. We see in the past that in the formation of human aggregates there has been in the normal process a common bond of descent or past association that enables like to adhere to like and distinguish itself from unlike. This is the race factor.

2. Second, there has been a common habitation, a country so disposed that all who live within its natural boundaries are under a sort of geographical necessity to unite.

In earlier times when communities were less firmly rooted to the soil, the first of these conditions was more important.

Page 154

In settled modern communities, the second predominates; but the unity of the race, pure or mixed—for it need not have been one in its origin—remains a factor of importance, and strong disparity and difference may easily create serious difficulties in the way of the geographical necessity imposing itself with any permanence.

1. In order that the unity may impose itself, there must be a considerable force of the second natural condition, that is to say, a necessity of economic unity or habit of common sustenance

2. and a necessity of political unity or habit of common vital organization for survival, functioning and growth. And in order that this second condition may fulfill itself in complete force, there must be nothing to depress or destroy

3. the third, a conscious mind, and central governing organ, in its creation or its continuance. Nothing must be done which will have the result of emphasizing disunity in sentiment or perpetuating the feeling of separateness from the totality of the rest of the organism; for that will tend to make the centre or governing organ psychologically unrepresentative of the whole and therefore not a true centre of its ego-sense. But that does not mean that the individuality of the sub-units can be suppressed; differences may be allowed to exist within the framework of unity. For it must always be remembered that separatism is not the same thing as particularism, which may well coexist with unity; it is the sentiment of the impossibility of true union that separates, not the mere fact of difference.

To sum up, the elements that tend to bring about unity are: geography and race, economic unity and interdependence and a common ego that is representative of the whole nation. In modern times, the race factor is losing its importance due to the phenomenon of globalization and increased communication. However geography, economics, and a central government that is representative of the whole nation play a very important role in bringing about political unity.

It must be noted that in the Indian subcontinent, before the Muslim invasion, religion was a powerful binding factor; but after the Muslim invasion and its powerful impact, and more particularly in recent times, religion has unfortunately become a divisive factor and has created more problems than ever. This problem has to be tackled and the only way of doing it is to graduate from religion into spirituality. This will be discussed in detail in the later part of the book.

The Indian Nation

Page 155

We shall now identify the factors in the history of India, which have helped in fostering the unity of India. These are: the geographical factor, the economic factor and most importantly, the cultural and spiritual factors.

In the Indian subcontinent, it is evident that the geographical unity is strongly present, and accompanying it is the economic unity. The only problem is the political, which in recent times has been completely distorted due to the religious factor.

Recent historical beliefs

There is a widespread belief particularly among the Indian educated intellectual class, even among well meaning Indians that India, as a nation is a creation of the British. The argument is that since India was unified under a single political rule only in few brief periods of its history, it is an artificial state. It is believed that it was only the British who created the idea of India as a single nation and unified it into a political state. Another facile and widespread assumption is that the developed Western countries have a comparatively far greater continuity of nationhood, and legitimacy as nation states, than India. This again is not true, for it must be remembered that France, Germany and modern Italy each took a thousand or two thousand years and more to form and set into a firm oneness.

This belief or myth is not accidental. It was deliberately taught in the British system of education that they established in India. John Strachey, writing in India: Its Administration and Progress' in 1888, said "This is the first and most essential thing to remember about India - that there is not and never was an India, possessing any sort of unity, physical, political, social or religious; no Indian nation."

This belief was evidently fostered and encouraged as part of the British policy of divide and rule. Unfortunately it still survives among a section of the educated English-speaking intellectuals. But what is generally not sufficiently known and recognized is that the idea of the fundamental unity of India is much older than British rule; it is not a recent growth or discovery but has a history running back to a remote antiquity. And this idea had many components such as geography, culture and religion. There are many proofs to show that the great founders of Indian religion, culture and

Page 156

civilization were themselves fully conscious of the geographical unity of their vast mother country. For indeed, India, shut into a separate existence by the Himalayas and the ocean, has always been the home of a peculiar people with characteristics of its own recognisably distinct from all others, with its own distinct civilization, way of life, way of the spirit, a separate culture, arts, building of society.

But first let us see what makes India a nation and a civilization apart from the rest of the world and second, what its mission is. For the nation, like the individual, has been created with a special purpose — a purpose that it alone can fulfil. "Everyone has in him something divine, something his own, a chance of perfection and strength in however small a sphere which God offers him to take or refuse. The task is to find it, develop it and use it". Let us then first see what makes India a distinct entity with a character of its own.

The geographical unity

An important factor in the unity of India is the geographical factor. Here is a piece of land cut off from the rest by the Himalayas on the north east, the Hindukush on the north west; in the south are the three big seas — the Bay of Bengal on the south east, the Arabian Sea on the south west and the Indian Ocean on the south. It is as if Nature herself had marked out this piece of land as a distinct unit and a separate entity.

India is the name given to the vast peninsula which the continent of Asia throws out to the south of the magnificent mountain ranges that stretch in a sword-like curve across the southern border of Tibet. Shaped like an irregular quadrilateral, this large expanse of territory, that we call India, deserves the name of a subcontinent. Ancient geographers referred to India as being "constituted with a four-fold conformation" (chatuh samasthana samsthitam).

On three sides, the South, West and East are the three great seas, the Indian Ocean, the Arabian Sea and the Bay of Bengal; while the Himavat range stretches along its north like the string of a bow". The name Himavat in the above passage refers not only to the snow capped ranges of the Himalayas but also to their less elevated offshoots — the Patkai, Lushai and Chittagong Hills in the east, and the Sulaiman and Kirthar ranges in the west. These go down to the Sea and separate India from the wooded valley of Irrawady, on the one hand, and the hilly tableland of Iran on the other. The Himalayas standing tall in breathtaking splendour are radiant in myth and mystery. These, the youngest and tallest mountain ranges, feed the Ganga and the Indus River with never-ending streams of snow.

Vincent Smith, an authority on early India, had said: "India, encircled as she is by seas and mountains, is indisputably a

Page 157

geographical unit, and as such is rightly designated by one name."

Indeed, in the Puranas and the epics, we find evidence of the existence of an "India", an ancient superstructure over the various distinct regions that now make up India. This superstructure was and is still known as Bharata to the Indians themselves, and as "India" or variants like Hind and Hindustan to outsiders. The well-known quote from the Vishnupurana says:

"Uttaram yat samudrasya himadreshcaiva daksinam

Varsam tad bharatam nama bharati yatra santatih."

That is, Bharata is defined as the land north of the seas, south of the Himalayas, and where the people are called "Bharati". But the Bharati peoples were not all similar and alike. They were distinct peoples and this was well known to the authors of the Puranas. Yet they used the term Bharata, thus indicating that in spite of differences, there was commonness and an underlying unity.

We see this illustrated in the epics. The Ramayana and the Mahabharata provide a clear example of how the various regions of India were linked by a common culture and awareness. Al-Biruni, writing about India from a place west of the Indus, was aware of the centrality of Vasudeva and Rama to the Indian tradition. All over India, we find local versions of the Ramayana and the Mahabharata. They may disagree on the details, but not on the essentials. Even the regional variants of the epics show an awareness of the 'whole' and not merely of the region they were composed in. The 'Great' tradition of the Sanskrit epics is mirrored in the 'little' traditions, which are local in their form and yet global in their scope.

Besides this intimate knowledge of the parts, the Mahabharata presents a conception of the whole of India as a single geographical unit. In the famous passage in the Bhismaparva the shape of India is described as an equilateral triangle, divided into four smaller equal triangles, the apex of which is Cape Comorin and the base formed by the line of the Himalayan mountains. As remarked by Cunningham in the chapter Ancient Geography of India, "the shape corresponds very well with the general form of the country, if we extend the limits of India to Ghazni on the north-west and fix the other two points of the triangle at Cape Comorin and Sadiya in Assam." (Mookerji pp. 62-63)from Fundamental Unity of India by Radha Kumud Mookerji

We thus see that the first element of Indian nationhood is drawn from its unique geography. India is one of the few countries that can be located on a physical map of the world, even when no political boundaries are drawn.

Page 158

The river systems

The river systems that exist in India also testify to the unity of the subcontinent. Not only are the rivers of India centres of economic development, but they are also cultural and religious centres that bind the people together.

The very name 'India' is derived from Sindhu (Indus), the great river that constitutes one of the most imposing features of that part of the sub-continent, which seems to have been the cradle of its earliest known civilizations. Rising in southwestern Tibet, at an altitude of 16,000 feet, Indus enters the Indian Territory near Leh in Ladakh. The river has a total drainage area of about 4,50,000 square miles, of which 1,75,000 square miles lie in the Himalayan Mountains and foothills.

After flowing eleven miles beyond Leh, in the north Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir, the basin is joined on the left by its first tributary, the Zanskar, which helps green the Zanskar Valley. Many interesting mountain trails beckon the mountaineering enthusiasts to the Zanskar Valley. The Indus then flows past Batalik. When it enters the plains, its famous five tributaries — Jhelum, Chenab, Ravi, Beas, and Sutlej —that give Punjab (the food bowl of India) its name as the "land of five rivers," join it. It is this very same river that flows into Pakistan and then into the Arabian Sea.

However, much of the myth and sentiment attached to India is related with the Ganges. The gushing waters of the Ganges are at once peaceful and tumultuous. Nature's glory and man's aspirations have long met along the Ganges. The history of Ganga is as old as the history of Indian civilization. Barring the period of the Harappan civilization, the Ganga basin has been witness to most of the mythology, history, and people of India. It was in this plain that the great kingdoms of India, found their home. Also it was in

Page 159

this place that the essence of Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, and Sikhism were established in India. In short, the Ganga river has been the lifeline of India, economically, spiritually and culturally.

The mighty Ganga (also Ganges) emerges from beneath the Gangotri glacier at a height of 3,959 m above sea level, in the Garhwal region of North India. Here she is known as the Bhagirathi, after the legendary prince Bhagirath who is accredited with bringing her down from heaven to earth. Bursting forth at Gaumukh, out of a huge cavern shaped like the mouth of a cow, snow laden and hung with giant icicles, the Bhagirathi goes rushing, sparkling, foaming around chunks of ice that are constantly breaking off from the glacier above. Eighteen kilometers downstream, stands Gangotri, which was the source of the river until the glacier melted and retreated to its present position above Gaumukh. From here onwards, the river passes through the plains of North India, covering the states of Uttar Pradesh, Bihar and West Bengal and then through Bangladesh. Along the route that Ganga and her tributaries took, came up different settlements, each of which was distinct and had its own indigenous culture.

Uttarkashi, Devprayag, Rudraprayag, Karnaprayag, Rishikesh and Haridwar are some of the important sites on the coast of this holy river during the early phase of its journey through North India. From Haridwar to Allahabad, the Ganga flows parallel to the Yamuna, another important river flowing through North India, each describing a huge arc. It flows past Garhmukteshwar, the very place where the goddess Ganga is said to have appeared to Shantanu (ancestor of the Pandavas), and Bithur, a city close to but much older than Kanpur, the site of an ancient Shiva temple, before reaching Allahabad, an important religious centre of India.

It is said that Allahabad is a sacred place with soul cleansing powers, particularly so because the mythical, subterranean river Saraswati is said to join the Ganga and Yamuna at this point — a speck of white sand known as the Sangam. In Vedic times, there was a settlement at this confluence, known as Prayag, where the Vedas were written. Brahma himself is said to have performed a sacrifice here. Huen Tsang visited Prayag in 634 AD. It was under the Mogul Emperor Akbar that Prayag was renamed Illahabas, later to be changed to Allahabad. Overlooking the confluence is a massive, historic red stone fort built by Akbar.

Like Haridwar, Varanasi is also a temple town of India. However, it is difficult to describe Varanasi. As Shri Ramakrishna once said, "One may as well try to draw a map of the universe as attempt to describe Varanasi in words." As old as any currently inhabited city on earth, it was already well known in the days of Buddha, 2,500 years ago.

Page 160

It finds constant mention in ancient literature and has all along been a pilgrimage centre, sacred to Shiva. Hindus consider it an auspicious place to die, for then one goes straight to heaven. Surprisingly, Varanasi does not mark one of Ganga's great confluences, but is named after two small rivers that join here, the Varuna and Asi. The oldest habitation site of India — Kashi, lies north of the Varuna.

Crossing the vast Gangetic plain, the Ganga flows past Patna, the famous Pataliputra mentioned in the history books across India. She flows past Mokamah, a place famous as the working destination of the great hunter-conservationist Jim Corbett while in India. It flows past Farakka Barrage, built to divert more water from Ganga to Hooghly to prevent the latter from silting. Soon thereafter, the Ganga splits into the numerous tributaries that form the Gangetic delta. The Hooghly, regarded as the true Ganga, is one of these tributaries. The main channel proceeds to Bangladesh as the river Padma, so dearly loved by Rabindranath Tagore, the great poet of India.

Like the Ganges, the vast networks of rivers flowing throughout India are sacred to its people. The same goes for the region south of the Gangetic Plains in north India. This region is a highland zone rising to the chain of the Vindhya Mountains — forming the land of the river Cauvery. Long revered by the people of India for the bounties of fertility bestowed by the gentle waters, this river flows from the azure mountains of the Nilgiris. Today, this region covering the four south Indian states of Tamil Nadu, Kanataka, Kerala and Andhra Pradesh, offers visible continuity with traditions in time. Above the land of the Cauvery lies Orissa, another culturally rich state in India that is fed by the river Mahanadi.

Through the east of India, flows the cascading Brahamputra. The waters of the Brahmaputra travel all the way from China to the plains of the Indian state of Assam. Further northeast are seven other states of Tripura, Meghalaya, Manipur, Arunachal Pradesh, Nagaland , Mizoram,and Sikkim — together known as the seven sisters.

The two rivers Narmada and Tapti in central and western India have the unique distinction of flowing in the east to west direction, unlike other major rivers in India. Of the two, Narmada has more mythological significance as being the mother and giver of peace. Legends in India have it that the mere sight of this river is enough to cleanse one's soul, as against a dip in the Ganga or seven in the Yamuna.

All these rivers of the subcontinent of India are sacred to their people. Not only do they enhance and further the cultural unity, they are also strong elements in the economic unity of the subcontinent.

Page 161

The population of India

At the same time, the population of India is great. India is home to a large and diverse population that has added to her vibrant character since ages. There are about 3,000 communities in India. So wide and complex is the mix of the Indian population that two-thirds of her communities are found in the geographical boundaries of each of her states. They are a mingling of the most diverse races.

Even the climate seems to obey this principle of unity; there is the southwest monsoon in the summers, which gives rain to most of North India, and the northeast monsoon, which gives rain to the southern peninsula. In this way, the whole country is covered by the monsoon.

However, within this framework of unity, there is also present a tremendous and rich diversity. There are the highest mountains in the world and at the same time, the vastest plains; there are places that receive the highest rainfall in the world, and places that receive almost no rainfall. There are the most fertile plains and the most arid deserts. Amidst all this tremendous diversity, there has always been kept alive and fresh the feeling that this piece of land is a unit and a single entity.

 Other factors leading to unity

Besides the geographical factor, many other factors have contributed to this sense of unity; our great forefathers, the Rishis of ancient India, have consciously created many of them. Probably the most significant formula of national unity invented by the ancient Indians is found in the sacred text which every Indian has to use each time he bathes or sits down to worship his God — the text for the sacrificial purification of water. It runs thus:

Gangecha Jamunechaiva Godavari Sarasvatee

Narmada Sindhu Kaveri jalesmin sannidhim kuru

And it means: May the Ganges, the Yamuna, the Godavari, the Saraswati, the Narmada, the Sindhu and the Kaveri enter into this water. These are the great rivers of the Indian continent. They cover practically the entire riparian system of this great land. It is along the course of these great rivers that the sacred stream of Indian culture flowed over this land. In the days before the introduction of the railways, the great rivers were the highways of commerce and culture. That is why they are so sacred to the Indian. And the Indian, wherever he may be in this wide country, by repeating this text during his daily bath and worship remembers the unity of his country and his people. This is conclusive evidence of the fact that India had realized a very deep, though complex kind of organic unity at the back of the apparent diversities and multiplicities of her land and people.

Thus although India has become a political unity only in recent times, the underlying psychological unity has always been there and is the basis of the external and political unity.

Page 162

This external and political unity also India has tried to realize and manifest in her life. This is the significance of the Mahabharata and the Ramayana; it is also the truth behind the unification attempt of Chandragupta Maurya, the later Gupta emperors like Harshavardhan and even some of the Mogul emperors. In addition to all this is the religious diversity that makes India the only place in the world where all the religious streams flow together. And most interestingly, around 500 communities of India follow two religions at the same time.

The religious diversity of India

No wonder then that India is today known all over the world as the "Land of several Religions". Ancient India witnessed the birth of Hinduism, Jainism and Buddhism; but all these cultures and religions intermingled and acted and reacted upon one another in such a manner that though the people speak different languages, practise different religions, and observe different social customs, they follow certain common life-styles throughout the country. India, therefore, shows a deep underlying unity despite its great diversities. The term Hinduism has emanated from the name given to the people who lived on the banks of the river Sindhu or Indus as it was denominated by the foreign invaders who came from the North West into India many, many centuries ago.

However, Hinduism is not really a religion, it is a philosophy and a way of life that has evolved over the millennia in the Indian subcontinent. Although there are many texts from the Vedic times, which enunciate the basic truths and lay down certain doctrines, Hinduism is not a doctrinaire religion but a catholic one with tolerance as its cornerstone. Hence, the myriad of people of different racial, linguistic and religious faiths, who have come in from the east and from the west, through the mountain passes and along the sea coast, bringing with them their own ideology, their customs and their languages into India, have continued to live their lives according to their own traditions. It must be noted that one of the most powerful means of uniting the Indian people was language. And in this, one will notice that Sanskrit played a very important role. In the words of Chatterjee: "Sanskrit looms large behind all Indian languages, Aryan, and non-Aryan. It is inseparable from Indian history and culture. Sanskrit is India. The progressive Unification of the Indian Peoples into a single Nation can correctly be described as the Sanskritisation of India". (Chatterji, p. 32.)

The economic unity of the subcontinent

There is a strong economic interdependence among the countries of the subcontinent. This interdependence is because the countries in the region have a geographical

Page 163

contiguity, and along with it, strong historical, social, cultural and ethnic affinities. Evidently, these could easily act as powerful centripetal forces and thus, contribute substantively to a lasting unity. It is this inherent logic that strongly justifies regional cooperation, particularly among all the South Asian countries. The benefits are that it will facilitate coordination among the nations and make it a powerful force. It is only after this unity takes concrete shape that India can play its true role and fulfil its destiny in the world.

The South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC), comprising the seven South Asian countries of Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, the Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan and Sri Lanka, formally came into existence in 1985 with the adoption of its Charter at the first Summit in Dhaka in December 1985. The idea of regional cooperation was first proposed through 'a regional forum', with a view to holding periodic, regional-level consultations among countries in South Asia on matters of mutual interest and possible cooperation in economic, social, cultural and other fields. The rationale was primarily based on the premise that regional experiences elsewhere in the globe had been highly successful and that the countries in the South Asian region would benefit enormously from such cooperation as it would strengthen their competitive position, both individually and as a group. Above all, it would usher in a reign of peace and harmony in the subcontinent. After the last meeting of SAARC in Islamabad, the idea of economic cooperation has been given a further boost and it is hoped that this will lead to a stable economic unity.

The fundamental unity of India

However, the chief factor in creating the unity of India lies in her spiritual culture. Despite successive invasions of India by foreign powers, the cultural unity has not been diminished; rather, it has been enriched and enhanced. This is due to the power of assimilation that is one of the striking features of Indian culture. Indian culture by its wideness had the power of taking all that was good in these cultures and absorbing it into itself. As a consequence, India always knew that her mission was to make the whole of life a means of expressing the spiritual principle. In the words of Sri Aurobindo: "It has absorbed all that has entered into it, put upon it the Indian stamp, welded the most diverse elements into its fundamental unity. But it has also been throughout a congeries of diverse peoples, lands, kingdoms and, in earlier times, republics also, diverse races, sub-nations with a marked characteristic of their own, developing different brands or forms of civilisation and culture, many schools of art and architecture which yet succeeded in fitting into the general Indian type of civilisation and culture. India's history has been throughout

Page 164

marked by a tendency, a constant effort to unite all this diversity of elements into a single political whole under a central imperial rule so that India might be politically as well as culturally one."

When one looks at the history of India, one will see that India has assimilated elements from the Greeks, the Persians and even other nations. For instance, she took from Greek architecture, from Persian paintings, etc. The assimilation of the Mohammedan culture too was done in the mind to a great extent and it has to go much further. The conflict is in the outer life and an attempt has now to be made to bridge even this shortcoming.

There has thus been a cultural unity binding the diverse peoples of India. However, before we get down to trying to analyze the cultural unity of the Indian people, it would be pertinent to try to understand what we mean by the culture of a people.

The aim of culture

The aim of all human life is to seek happiness in this world, and true happiness lies in the finding and maintenance of a natural harmony of spirit, mind, and body. A culture is to be valued to the extent to which it has discovered the right key of this harmony and organized its expressive motives and movements. And a civilization must be judged by the manner in which all its principles, ideas, forms, and ways of living work to bring that harmony out, manage its rhythmic play and secure its continuance or the development of its motives. A civilization in pursuit of this aim may be predominantly material like modern Western culture, or it may be predominantly mental and intellectual like the old Graeco-Roman or it might be predominantly spiritual like the still persistent culture of India. Let us see then what the Indian conception of happiness and culture was.

The Indian conception

What is the central conception that has governed India's spiritual culture? India's central conception is that at the root of all creation there is a Supreme Consciousness or Spirit. This Consciousness is here incased in matter, involved and immanent in it; and it evolves on the material plane by a process of rebirth of the individual. In this process of evolution, the individual moves up the scale of being from the physical man and vital man till in mental man he enters the world of ideas and realm of conscious morality, dharma. It is this achievement, this victory over unconscious matter that constitutes the concept of evolution in India. This evolution develops its lines, enlarges its scope, elevates its levels until there is the increasing manifestation of the sattwic or spiritual portion of the vehicle of mind; this enables the individual mental being in man to finally identify himself with the pure spiritual consciousness that

Page 165

exists beyond Mind. This, according to the Indian concept, is the ultimate aim of life.

It is on this basis that the whole of Indian life is built. Her religion is an aspiration to the spiritual consciousness and its fruits; her philosophy formulates it; her art and literature have the same upward look; even the Indian social system is built upon this conception; her whole dharma or law of being is founded upon it. This is her conception of progress. To the Indian mind, the true meaning of progress is this spiritual progress, not merely the externally self-unfolding process of an always more and more prosperous and efficient material civilization. It is her founding of life upon this exalted conception and her urge towards the spiritual and the eternal that constitute the distinct value of her civilization. And it is her fidelity, with whatever human shortcomings, to this highest ideal that has made her people a nation apart in the human world. We may thus sum up:

The culture of a people

Let us now try to define what we mean by the culture of a people. The culture of a people may be roughly described as the expression of a consciousness of life, which formulates itself in three aspects.

There is first, a side of thought, of ideal, of upward will and the soul's aspiration.

Second, there is a side of creative self-expression and appreciative aesthesis, intelligence and imagination.

Last, there is a side of practical and outward formulation. A people's philosophy and higher thinking give us its mind's purest, largest and most general formulation of its consciousness of life and its dynamic view of existence. Its religion formulates the most intense form of its upward will and the soul's aspirations towards the fulfilment of its highest ideal and impulse.

Its art, poetry, literature, scientific developments provide for us the creative expression and impression of its intuition, imagination, vital turn and creative intelligence.

Its society, politics and economics provide in their forms an outward frame in which the more external life works out what it can of its inspiring ideal and of its special character and nature under the difficulties of the environment. Together they make up its soul, mind, and body.

Page 166

The application in life

We shall now see how in every field of human activity, India has tried to aim at the highest spiritual expression. We shall illustrate this in the field or philosophy, art and politics.

Philosophy and Religion

One of the most striking and unique features of Indian culture is that philosophy and religion have always worked together, in tandem as it were. Philosophy has been made dynamic by religion and religion has been enlightened by philosophy.

What the intellect grasped through the higher mind was made living by religious and spiritual practice. Religion, which sometimes tends to become narrow and intolerant, has been widened and enlightened by the intellectual study of philosophy.

This is one of the first distinctive and unifying characteristics of Indian culture. It is true that Indian culture shares this with the more developed Asiatic peoples, but it has been brought here to an extraordinary degree of thoroughgoing pervasiveness.

It was in the post-Vedic age of Indian civilization that the great intellectual development took place. This age was distinguished by the rise of the great philosophies, by a vivid, many-sided epic literature, by the beginnings of art and science, by the evolution of a vigorous and complex society, by the formation of large kingdoms and empires and, by manifold formative activities of all kinds and great systems of living and thinking. Here, as elsewhere in Greece, Rome, Persia, China, this was the age of a high outburst of the intelligence working upon life and the things of the mind to discover their reason and their right way and bring out a road to fulfill the noble fullness of human existence. But in India this effort did not ever lose sight of the spiritual motive; it did not ever miss the touch of the religious sense. It was a birth time and youth of the seeking intellect and philosophy was the main instrument by which it laboured to solve the problems of life and the world. Science too developed, but it came second, as only an auxiliary power. It was through profound and subtle philosophies that the intellect of India attempted to analyze by the reason and logical faculty what had formerly been approached with a much more living force through intuition and the soul's experience. But the philosophic mind started from the data these mightier powers had discovered and was faithful to its parent Light; it went back always in one form or another to the profound truths of the Upanishads which kept their place as the highest authority in these matters. There was a constant admission that spiritual experience is a greater thing and its light a truer if more incalculable guide than the clarities of the reasoning intelligence.

Page 167

Inevitably there was a close link between religion and philosophy. The relationship between religion and philosophy was complementary, each one helping the other. Philosophy was made dynamic by religion, and religion was enlightened by philosophy. Thus philosophy and religion have been predominant in Indian culture and all the other elements have followed as best as they can. This is the one of the distinctive characters of Indian culture.

Indian art

Similarly, in all other fields of human activity, such as art, architecture, sculpture, painting, music, and literature, the aim has been ultimately to discover and express the Divine. The dominant note in the Indian mind, the temperament that has been at the foundation of all its culture and originated and supported the greater part of its creative action in philosophy, religion, art and life has been spiritual, intuitive and psychic; but this fundamental tendency has not excluded but rather powerfully supported a strong and rich intellectual, practical and vital activity.

As an illustration, the aim of Indian classical music is to bring the listener into contact with his own soul. Here one will notice that many of the well-known Indian classical musicians are not only Hindu but also Muslim. Thus Indian music has become one of the most powerful tools of cultural unification.

Similarly in literature, the Urdu language is a beautiful language made up of different elements from the languages of India.

All this has been brought beautifully in this extract from the writings of Sri Aurobindo on the spirit and soul of India:

"What was this ancient spirit and characteristic soul of India? European writers, struck by the general metaphysical bent of the Indian mind, by its strong religious instincts and religious idealism, by its other-worldliness, are inclined to write as if this were all the Indian spirit. An abstract, metaphysical, religious mind overpowered by the sense of the infinite, not apt for life, dreamy, unpractical, turning away from life and action as Maya, this, they said, is India; and for a time Indians in this as in other matters submissively echoed their new Western teachers and masters. They learned to speak with pride of their metaphysics, of their literature, of their religion, but in all else they were content to be learners and imitators. Since then Europe has discovered that there was too an Indian art of remarkable power and beauty; but the rest of what India meant it has hardly at all seen. But meanwhile the Indian mind began to emancipate itself and to look upon its past with a clear and self-discerning eye, and it very soon discovered that it had been misled into an entirely false self-view. All such one-sided appreciations indeed almost invariably turn out to be false. Was it not the general

Page 168

misconception about Germany at one time, because she was great in philosophy and music, but had blundered in life and been unable to make the most of its materials, that this was a nation of unpractical dreamers, idealists, erudites and sentimentalists, patient, docile and industrious certainly, but politically inapt, —"admirable, ridiculous Germany"? Europe has had a terrible awakening from that error. When the renascence of India is complete, she will have an awakening, not of the same brutal kind, certainly, but startling enough, as to the real nature and capacity of the Indian spirit.

Spirituality is indeed the master key of the Indian mind; the sense of the infinite is native to it. India saw from the beginning, —and, even in her ages of reason and her age of increasing ignorance, she never lost hold of the insight, — that life cannot be rightly seen in the sole light, cannot be perfectly lived in the sole power of its externalities. She was alive to the greatness of material laws and forces; she had a keen eye for the importance of the physical sciences; she knew how to organise the arts of ordinary life. But she saw that the physical does not get its full sense until it stands in right relation to the supra-physical; she saw that the complexity of the universe could not be explained in the present terms of man or seen by his superficial sight, that there were other powers behind, other powers within man himself of which he is normally unaware, that he is conscious only of a small part of himself, that the invisible always surrounds the visible, the suprasensible the sensible, even as infinity always surrounds the finite. She saw too that man has the power of exceeding himself, of becoming himself more entirely and profoundly than he is, —truths which have only recently begun to be seen in Europe and seem even now too great for its common intelligence. She saw the myriad gods beyond man, God beyond the gods, and beyond God his own ineffable eternity; she saw that there were ranges of life beyond our life, ranges of mind beyond our present mind and above these she saw the splendours of the spirit. Then with that calm audacity of her intuition which knew no fear or littleness and shrank from no act whether of spiritual or intellectual, ethical or vital courage, she declared that there was none of these things which man could not attain if he trained his will and knowledge; he could conquer these ranges of mind, become the spirit, become a god, become one with God, become the ineffable Brahman. And with the logical practicality and sense of science and organised method, which distinguished her mentality, she set forth immediately to find out the way. Hence from long ages of this insight and practice there was ingrained in her, her spirituality, her powerful psychic tendency, her great yearning to grapple with the infinite and

Page 169

possess it, her ineradicable religious sense, her idealism, her Yoga, the constant turn of her art and her philosophy".

Indian society and politics

Even in politics and society, there was a heroic attempt at spiritualizing them. However in the application of spirituality to the political and social life, there were great difficulties. As already seen, the master idea that has governed the life, culture, social ideals of the Indian people has been the seeking of man for his true spiritual self; and it looked upon life as the frame and means for that discovery and for man's ascent from the ignorant natural into the spiritual existence. This was always subject to a necessary and inevitable gradual evolution, first of his lower physical, vital and mental nature. This dominant idea India has never quite forgotten even under the stress and material exigencies and the externalities of political and social construction.

But the difficulty of making the social and political life an expression of man's true self and some highest realization of the spirit within him is immensely greater than that which attends a spiritual self-expression through the higher being, that is to say, through the things of the mind, religion, thought, art, and literature. It is true that in all these India reached extraordinary heights and wideness in the inner life, but she could not in the outward life go beyond certain very partial realizations and very imperfect attempts.

All that she could manage to do was to create a general spiritualising symbolism, a small amount of infiltration of the greater aspiration into the routine life; it gave a certain cast to the communal life, and created institutions favourable to the spiritual idea. But it could go no further. And that is because politics, society, economics are the natural field of the two first and grosser parts of human aim and conduct recognized in the Indian system, artha, kama — -interest and hedonistic desire. Dharma, the higher law, has nowhere been brought more than partially into this outer side of life, and in politics to a very minimum extent; for the effort at governing political action by ethics is usually little more than pretence. The coordination or true union of the collective outward life with Moksha, the liberated spiritual existence, has hardly even been conceived or attempted, much less anywhere succeeded in the past history of the yet hardly adult human race. Accordingly, we find that the governance by the Dharma of India's social, economic and political rule of life, system, turn of existence, with the adumbration of a spiritual significance behind, was as far as her ancient system could advance. The full attainment of the spiritual life being was left as a supreme aim to the effort of the individual.

However, she did make that endeavour with persistence and patience. There was a constant reminder of the spiritual aim even in the political and social life; and this effort by itself

Page 170

gave a peculiar type to her social polity. As a result of this reminder and effort, we do not find in India the element of intellectually idealistic political progress or revolutionary experiment, which has been so marked a feature of ancient and of modern Europe. A profound respect for the creations of the past as the natural expression of the Indian mind and life, the sound manifestation of its Dharma or right law of being, was the strongest element in the mental attitude and this preservative instinct was not disturbed but rather yet more firmly settled and fixed even in modern times after the advent of the European powers. The Indian method of progress that was adopted was a slow evolution of custom and institution that was conservative of the principle of settled order, of social and political precedent, of established framework and structure.

Therefore, Indian polity never arrived at that unwholesome substitution of the mechanical for the natural order of the life of the people, which has been the disease of European civilization now culminating in the monstrous artificial organization of the bureaucratic and industrial State. The advantages of the idealising intellect were absent, but so also were the disadvantages of the mechanising rational intelligence.

The Indian mind has always been profoundly intuitive in habit even when it was the most occupied with the development of the reasoning intelligence, and its political and social thought has therefore been always an attempt to combine the intuitions of life and the intuitions of the spirit with the light of the reason acting as an intermediary and an ordering and regulating factor. It has tried to base itself strongly on the established and persistent actualities of life and to depend for its idealism not on the intellect but on the illuminations, inspirations, higher experiences of the spirit, and it has used the reason as a critical power, testing and assuring itself of the steps and aiding, but not replacing, the life and the spirit that are always the true and sound constructors.

Page 171

Chapter 9

The Hindu-Muslim problem and its solution

But with the advent and conquest of India by the Muslims, there came a rift both in the religious and social fields and consequently in the political field. We shall not go in detail into this aspect, since it has already been discussed in the first part of the book; but what is of importance and relevance to the present situation is to find out how this rift can be removed and a sound unity established. It has to be clearly understood and stressed that most of the problems of modern India - whether it be the creation of Pakistan and the subsequent tensions in our relationship, the Kashmir problem, the Ayodhya problem, and the communal riots -these are all manifestations of this single problem, the Hindu-Muslim problem. It is this that needs to be tackled. Once this is solved, all the rest will follow.

At the same time, we have to note that even after the rift, there has been a continuous effort to bring the two communities together. The Indian effort at assimilation has continued unabated. Despite the rift created by the irruption of the Mohammedan peoples with their very different religion and social structure, there continued a constant effort at political unification. There was an effort towards a mingling of cultures and their mutual influence on each other; some heroic attempts were even made to discover or create a common religion built out of these two apparently irreconcilable faiths and here too there were mutual influences.

But throughout India's history, political unity was never entirely attained and for this there were several causes — first, vastness of space and insufficiency of communications preventing the drawing close of all these different peoples; second, the method used which was the military domination by one people or one imperial dynasty over the rest of the country which led to a succession of empires, none of them permanent; third, the absence of any will to crush out of existence all these different kingdoms and fuse together these different peoples and force them into a single substance and a single shape and last, in recent times the religious divide between the two communities.

All these problems are now being tackled. Those vast spaces, which kept her people from closeness and a full interplay, have been abolished in their separating effect by the march of Science and the rapid strides in communication. Also, in the 50 years after attaining independence, the idea of a federation has slowly taken shape and the complete machinery for its perfect working has been discovered and is fully at work.

It is true that the ancient diversities of the country carried in them great advantages as well as drawbacks. By these

Page 172

differences the country was made the home of many living and pulsating centres of life, art, culture, a richly and brilliantly coloured diversity in unity; all was not drawn up into a few provincial capitals or an imperial metropolis, other towns and regions remaining subordinated and indistinctive or even culturally asleep; the whole nation lived with a full life in its many parts and this increased enormously the creative energy of the whole. There is no possibility any longer that this diversity will endanger or diminish the unity of India. Above all, the spirit of patriotic unity has been too firmly established in the people to be too easily effaced or diminished, and it would be more endangered by refusing to allow the natural play of life of the sub-nations than by satisfying their legitimate aspirations...

India's national life will then be founded on her natural strengths and the principle of unity in diversity which has always been normal to her and its fulfilment the fundamental course of her being and its very nature, the Many in the One, would place her on the sure foundation of her Swabhava and Swadharma.

The Hindu-Muslim problem and its solution

But as already mentioned, the one problem that needs to be resolved is the Hindu-Muslim problem and that needs to be taken up urgently. For this to happen, it must be made absolutely clear that Hindu Muslim unity is not possible unless India-Pakistan relations improve radically. It is to be hoped that the present attempt and thaw in Indo-Pak relations will be carried forward to its logical conclusion. That conclusion will be that the State of Pakistan merges with India and once more becomes an indivisible part of India For the very existence and foundation of Pakistan is that Hindus and Muslims cannot live together. It was on this basis that Pakistan was created. However, the history of the last 50 years has shown how unstable Pakistan is and the simple reason for this is the falsehood of the basic premise on which Pakistan is built. As a matter of fact, there are more Muslims in India than in Pakistan and they are living a life of dignity and harmony with the rest of the country. It follows that steps have to be taken to dismantle the state of Pakistan. This does not mean an attack on Islam; rather it will mean finding out a greater harmony between the two religions and as a final step between all religions. This is the first condition to bring about a deeper understanding and harmony between the two communities. But it is evident and must always be kept in mind that all this cannot happen overnight; it needs a long psychological preparation and some practical steps on the external plane. We will have to start by becoming good neighbours and live peacefully. This will ultimately and inevitably lead to the creation of a united

Page 173

nation. What then are the steps to be taken towards Pakistan and what should the policy be?

Steps to be taken towards Pakistan

Our policy should base itself on the following planks: As seen in the earlier chapters, the biggest obstacle to unity in the subcontinent is the Pakistan Army and its sister establishments in Pakistan. The first step would be, therefore, to weaken the military. This has to be done by supporting the return of democracy in Pakistan. For in a democracy, the governments are obliged to respond to the basic needs of the people, and that will put pressure on large military budgets. At a later stage, one can even envisage the unification of the two Armies.

Second, constituencies in Pakistan whose livelihood and prosperity depend upon good relations with India should be nurtured. That will mean that we have to develop the growing trade relations between India and Pakistan. In this, India should take the initiative. The example of West Germany is a living testimony of this approach. We should not allow the initiative to rest with Pakistan. A probable step in this direction could be by declaring unilateral freeing of trade.

Third, we should help the secular minded people in Pakistan to come closer to us — through people to people and professional contacts, by throwing open opportunities for education and training, and cultural activities. The disillusionment of the middle class with the failure of Pakistan can play an important role in turning the tide in favour of India.

Fourth, on the political plane we must deepen our relations and understanding with the United States, Russia, China, and other neighbouring countries that see Islamic fundamentalism as a threat to the stability of their societies. Obviously, this is a large agenda and it requires a steady purpose, and time to fructify. But above all, it needs a national consensus covering all parties, with secularism, economic success, and a strong national defence as the underpinnings of our future.

Finally, and most important, we must reinterpret all the religions practised in India - Hinduism, Islam, Christianity and all other religions, which are practised in the country — at a deeper level. The time has come when we have to begin to seriously consider what they all really mean and are in their soul, that is to say, in their very reality and essence. Once that is done, we shall realize that there are no real differences.

Page 174

Chapter 10

The political system in India

However, all this needs a national approach and consensus, something which is totally missing in the country today. This unhappy situation arises out of the political system that we have adopted in India. This system, which we have borrowed from the West, opens the door to a peril of stupendous proportions. For we are now faced with a Westernisation, inspired on one side by the Parliamentary form of Government and on the other by the militant Socialism of the Communist bloc. As a result, the politics of this country has become very divisive and is hampering all development and growth. The solution to this lies in creating a national government, a government where the national interest is paramount, and not the party interest. India will have thus to find out its own political system. This needs a serious debate and consultation. The time has come to start this process.

Viewed from this point of view the whole question takes on a different aspect. A radical change in the political system is needed and some signs of awakening seem to be taking place and there are hints of a change and a recovery of the deeper Indian spirit. We believe that a deep change of spirit is foreshadowed although it has not yet taken a definite form. The time has come to give it a definite shape and form. In a letter written in 1914, Sri Aurobindo wrote:

"Spirituality is India's only politics, the fulfilment of the Sanatana Dharma its only Swaraj. I have no doubt we shall have to go through our Parliamentary period in order to get rid of the notion of Western democracy by seeing in practice how helpless it is to make nations blessed. India is passing really through the first stages of a sort of national Yoga. It was mastered in the inception by the inrush of divine force, which came in 1905 and aroused it from its state of complete tamasic ajnanam [ignorance]. But, as happens also with individuals, all that was evil, all the wrong samskaras [imprints] and wrong emotions and mental and moral habits rose with it and misused the divine force. Hence all that orgy of political oratory, democratic fervour, meetings, processions, passive resistance, all ending in bombs, revolvers and Coercion laws.... God has struck it all down, — Moderatism, the bastard child of English Liberalism; Nationalism, the mixed progeny of Europe and Asia; Terrorism, the abortive offspring of Bakunin and Mazzini.... It is only when this foolishness is done with that truth will have a chance, the sattwic mind in India emerge and a really strong spiritual movement begin as a prelude to India's regeneration. No doubt, there will be plenty of trouble and error still to face, but we shall have a chance of putting our feet on the right path. In all I believe God to be guiding us,

Page 175

giving the necessary experiences, preparing the necessary conditions."1

In another conversation dated 27 December 1938 Sri Aurobindo refers to the Parliamentary form of government: Parliamentary Government is not suited to India. But we always take up what the West has thrown off.... [In an ideal government for India,] there may be one Rashtrapati at the top with considerable powers so as to secure a continuity of policy, and an assembly representative of the nation. The provinces will combine into a federation united at the top, leaving ample scope to local bodies to make laws according to their local problems.

The need of a national government

It has become imperative to form a national government not based on the party system with its narrow ideological approach, but with a national vision and approach. In this context, we quote a message given by the Mother to Mrs Indira Gandhi in 1969.

Let India work for the future and take the lead. Thus she will recover her true place in the world. Since long it was the habit to govern through division and opposition. The time has come to govern through union, mutual understanding and collaboration. To choose a collaborator, the value of the man is more important than the party to which he belongs. The greatness of a country does not depend on the victory of a party, but on the union of all parties".

The paradigms of the party system

The present party system that we have borrowed from the West is based on two fundamental assumptions.

The first assumption is that power corrupts and that absolute power corrupts absolutely. Therefore there has to be a constant vigil on the ruling power and the way to do that is by creating an opposition party.

The second assumption is that each political party represents an ideology. An ideology is in this view a mental principle arrived at by the process of a rational and scientific study. We have thus in the economic and political fields, the ideologies of Democracy and Socialism, public sector and private sector, globalisation and Swadeshi and so on. All these ideologies are pitted as representing opposing viewpoints and one has to choose between them.

Let us briefly analyse these two basic assumptions.

There is no doubt that in the present state of human consciousness power does corrupt and that consequently checks and balances have to be constantly kept in place. This has resulted in the creation of an opposition with the

1 Archives & Research, December 1977, p. 84.

Page 176

aim of keeping a constant vigil on the ruling party. But unfortunately this has been carried to the point where opposition is made for the sake of opposition and the consequence of this is that the party has become more important than the nation. This is visible in the political life of almost all nations and more so in India. It is therefore indispensable that, while admitting the need of an opposition, an element of harmony leading to consensus is brought into the political system. The present system that encourages vote bank politics has to be replaced by a better system, which reflects the national aspiration. It is beyond the scope of this book to discuss the system and method needed to implement this idea; but it is imperative and urgent that political parties come together to work out a solution.

The second principle, which is based on the assumption that the mind and reason can give us the whole of Truth is an error and yet contains a truth.

Indian culture and psychology have always known that although the mind and reason are powerful and useful instruments of knowledge, they cannot arrive at the whole of Truth. The reason cannot arrive at any final truth because it can neither get to the root of things nor embrace the totality of their secrets; it deals with the finite, the separate, the limited aggregate, and has no measure for the all and the infinite. But at the same time it is evident that the reason does give us one aspect of the Truth. Each system or ideology represents one aspect of the Truth, but not the whole Truth. Therefore insisting on one side of the Truth does not help a nation or society to progress. On the contrary, it is only in the harmonious blending of opposites that any trued progress can take place. There has to be an attempt to synthesise these apparently opposite ideas. Freedom and discipline are not contrary ideas; rather both of them are needed for the progress of a society and nation. In the same way we can see that democracy and socialism, globalization and Swadeshi, development and ecology have to be synthesized and harmonized. In fact, one might say that the art of life and in particular of political life lies in harmonizing opposites.

All these issued are reflected in the manifestos of political parties. Unfortunately, the mind being what it is, the natural tendency is to stress on one of these ideas at the cost of the other. But life cannot be based on one idea alone; each idea has to be given its due importance and place. As a result of the party system and the natural stress on one idea almost exclusively, there comes in the natural principle of compensating reactions. The law of action and reaction, which is valid in physical Science, is in human action, which always depends largely on psychological forces, a more constant and pervading truth. That in life to every

Page 177

pressure of active forces there is a tendency of reaction of opposite or variative forces which may not immediately operate but must eventually come into the field or which may not act with an equal and entirely compensating force, but must act with some force of compensation, may be taken as well established. It is both a philosophical necessity and a constant fact of experience. For Nature works by a balancing system of the interplay of opposite forces. When she has insisted for some time on the dominant force of one tendency as against all others, she seeks to correct its exaggerations by reviving, if dead, or newly awakening, if only in slumber, or bringing into the field in a new and modified form the tendency that is exactly opposite. After long insistence on centralisation, she tries to modify it by at least a subordinated decentralisation. After insisting on more and more uniformity, she calls again into play the spirit of multiform variation. The result need not be an equipollence of the two tendencies; it may be any kind of compromise. Or, instead of a compromise it may be in act a fusion and in result a new creation, which shall be a compound of both principles. This is visible in the political history of independent India. Without elaborating in any detail, the change of governments in the last three decades testifies to this truth and law of action and reaction.

One might therefore reasonably conclude that it is only by the harmonizing of all these apparently opposite viewpoints that one can arrive at a settled and secure national growth and development. The political system must reflect this vision of things and only then can we move on a sound and stable curve of progress and fulfillment. One might even reasonably conclude that Nature is pushing India in this direction by the formation of coalition governments at the Centre. Let us therefore collaborate with Nature and move ultimately towards a national government, which will inevitably create a harmonious synthesis of ideas overriding all narrow political interests.

It is our hope that all political parties will make a sincere attempt to realise these ideals and evolve a system suitable to the genius of India. It is only on this basis that the true development and unity of India can come about.

Chapter 11

Hindu-Muslim unity

At the same time attempts will have to be made to bring the two communities together and solve the Hindu-Muslim problem on a permanent basis. The question is: On what basis do we solve the problem? We could be guided by this quotation from Sri Aurobindo:

"Of one thing we may be certain, that Hindu-Muslim unity cannot be effected by political adjustments or Congress flatteries. It must be sought deeper down in the heart and in the mind, for where the causes of disunion are there the

Page 177

remedies must be sought. We shall do well in trying to solve the problem to remember that misunderstanding is the most fruitful cause of our differences, that love compels love and that strength conciliates the strong. We must strive to remove the causes of misunderstanding by a better mutual knowledge and sympathy; we must extend the unfaltering love of the patriot to our Mussulman brother, remembering always that in him too Narayana dwells and to him too our Mother has given a permanent place in her bosom; but we must cease to approach him falsely or flatter out of a selfish weakness and cowardice. We believe this to be the only practical way of dealing with the difficulty. As a political question the Hindu-Muslim problem does not interest us at all, as a national problem it is of supreme importance. We shall make it a main part of our work to place Mohammed and Islam in a new light before our readers to spread juster views of Mohammedan history and civilization, to appreciate the Musulman's place in our national development and the means of harmonizing his communal life with our own, not ignoring the difficulties that stand in the way of the possibilities of brotherhood and mutual understanding. Intellectual sympathy can only draw together; the sympathy of the heart can alone unite. But the one is a good preparation for the other".

What are the steps to be taken to fulfil this goal? Here we shall see that it has to be a multi-pronged approach. Some steps have to be taken both in the political field and some others in the deeper cultural and religious and spiritual fields.

In this attempt, the central appeal has to come from the cultural leaders of both the communities. They will have to bring forward the deeper Indian ethos, the characteristic Indian and Hindu spirit, which is intrinsically tolerant of all religions and not theocratic like some of the present day Muslim states. This ethos will give all minorities their civic dues but will not keep pampering them out of fear of losing their votes. And it will insist on a common civil code as indispensable to a genuine secularism, a code for all communities which will override whenever necessary in the interests of the whole country, the code peculiar to each community. That ethos will also do away with the current custom of special reservation of seats in parliament on a communal or else caste basis. No communities or castes should be recognized. All citizens will be Indians and they will be members of parliament by popular election according to their merit. Equal opportunities will be given to all elements of the nation to progress and share in the guidance of the country.

On the deeper cultural and religious plane, we have to reinterpret Islam and all other religions in their true historical perspective. In that context, a university should be

Page 178

set up with the aim of studying all religions and synthesising them. The Institute of National Integration run by the Army in Pune, can be a good example. In fact, this institution may be converted into the proposed University.

However, one thing must be made clear and has to be emphasised strongly that the uniqueness of India lies in its spirituality. Spirituality is the very essence and purpose of India's existence. On this issue there can be no compromise. In this context, here is a portion of a letter from Sri Aurobindo: "As for the Hindu-Muslim affair, I saw no reason why the greatness of India's past or her spirituality should be thrown into the waste paper basket in order to conciliate the Muslims who would not at all be conciliated by such a stupidity. What has created the Hindu-Muslim split was not Swadeshi, but the acceptance of the communal principle by the Congress, (here Tilak made his great blunder), and the further attempt by the Khilafat movement to conciliate them and bring them in on wrong lines. The recognition of that communal principle at Lucknow made them permanently a separate political entity in India which ought never to have happened; the Khilafat affair made that separate political entity an organised separate political power. It was not Swadeshi, Boycott, National Education, Swaraj (our platform) which made this tremendous division, how could it? Tilak was responsible for it not by that, but by his support of the Lucknow affair - for the rest, Gandhi did it with the help of his Ali brothers".

If these steps are taken with sincerity and steadfastness, one can prepare the ground for graduating from Religion to Spirituality. For that is the only way to overcome the religious divide and bring about the full development of India's destiny. For although religion has been a very powerful factor in human life, there have been historically some serious shortcomings in its practice. It is these shortcomings that have given the occasion and opportunity for the revolt against religion. However, in India it is impossible to eliminate religion for it is a very powerful and dynamic force. Let us now look at the deficiencies of religion in this light.

The shortcomings of religion

The study of history shows that us that religion as a guide of human society has had some serious shortcomings.

First, we see that in the past it has often stood in the way of the development and growth of philosophy and science. The records of History show how the Christian Church burned a Giordano Bruno, imprisoned a Galileo, and so generally misconducted itself in this matter that philosophy and science had in self-defence to turn upon Religion and rend her to pieces in order to get a free field for their legitimate development. And this happened because men in the passion

Page 179

and darkness of their vital nature had chosen to think that religion was bound up with certain fixed intellectual conceptions about God and the world which could not stand scrutiny, and therefore scrutiny had to be put down by fire and sword; scientific and philosophical truth had to be denied in order that religious error might survive.

Second, we see too that a narrow religious spirit often oppresses and impoverishes the joy and beauty of life, either from an intolerant asceticism or from an excessive austerity. This happens because often the religious spirit is unable to see that religious austerity is not the whole of religion, though it may be an important side of it. It has failed to see that the ethical and religious way is not the sole approach to God, since love, charity, gentleness, tolerance, kindliness are also and even more divine, and it forgot or never knew that God is love and beauty as well as purity.

Third, in politics religion has often thrown itself on the side of power and resisted the coming of larger political ideals, because it was itself, in the form of a Church, supported by power and because it confused religion with the Church, or because it stood for a false theocracy, forgetting that true theocracy is the kingdom of God in man and not the kingdom of a Pope, a priesthood or a sacerdotal class.

Fourth, it has often supported a rigid and outworn social system, because it thought its own life bound up with social forms with which it happened to have been associated during a long portion of its own history and erroneously concluded that even a necessary change there would be a violation of religion and a danger to its existence. As if so mighty and inward a power as the religious spirit in man could be destroyed by anything so small as the change of a social form or so outward as a social readjustment!

All these errors in their different shapes have been the great weakness of religion as practised in the past and the opportunity and justification for the revolt of the intelligence, the aesthetic sense, the social and political idealism, even the ethical spirit of the human being against what should have been its own highest tendency and law.

It follows that we should move from Religion to Spirituality. This does not mean, as some secularists tend to believe that we should discard Religion; rather religion has to be enlightened and raised up to a higher level and wider domain. In that domain there will be place for all religions, all view points and every human activity. For all human activity can become a legitimate means to arrive at the highest spirituality.

In this context, let us see what each religion has contributed to mankind. Here is a quotation from Sri Aurobindo:

Each religion has helped mankind. Paganism increased in man the light of beauty, the largeness and height of his life, his aim at a many-sided perfection. Christianity gave him

Page 180

some vision of Divine love and charity, Buddhism has shown him a noble way to be wiser, gentler and purer; Judaism and Islam, how to be religiously faithful in action and zealously devoted to God; Hinduism has opened to him the largest and profoundest spiritual possibilities. A great thing would be done if all these God-visions could embrace and cast themselves into each other; but intellectual dogma and cult-egoism stand in the way.

All religions have saved a number of souls, but none yet has been able to spiritualise mankind. For that there is needed not cult and creed, but a sustained and all comprehending effort at spiritual self-evolution.

This effort at spiritual evolution is provided by the systems of Yoga. Here is what Sri Aurobindo has to say:

WHAT IS YOGA

The contact of the human and individual consciousness with the Divine is the very essence of Yoga. Yoga is the union of that which has become separated in the play of the universe with its own true self, origin and universality. The contact may take place at any point of the complex and intricately organised consciousness, which we call our personality. It may be effective in the physical through the body; in the vital through the action of those functioning's which determine the state and experiences of our nervous being, through the mentality whether by the means of our emotional heart, the active will or more largely by general conversion of the mental consciousness in all its activities. It may be equally accomplished through a great awakening to the universal or transcendent Truth and Bliss by the conversion of the central ego in the mind. And according to the point of the contact that we choose, will be the type of Yoga that we practise.

THE SYSTEMS OF YOGA

Hatha Yoga dealing with the life and body aims at the supernormal perfection of the physical life and its capacities and goes beyond into the domain of the mental life.

Rajayoga operating with the mind aims at a supernormal perfection and enlargement of the capacities of the mental life and goes beyond it into the domain of spiritual existence.

The path of knowledge (Jnana Yoga) aims at the realisation of the unique and supreme self.

The path of devotion aims at the enjoyment of the supreme love and Bliss and utilises normally the conception of the Supreme Lord in his personality as the divine Lover and enjoyer of the universe.

The path of works (Karma Yoga) aims at dedication of every human activity to the Supreme will. To that, our works as well as the results of our works are finally abandoned.

Page 181

The synthesis must be effected by neglecting the forms and outsides of the Yogic disciplines and seizing rather on some central principle common to all which will include and utilise in the right place and proportion their particular principles, and on some central dynamic force in which is the common secret of their divergent methods and capable therefore of organizing a natural selection and combination of their varied energies and different utilities. The divinising of the normal material life of man and of his great secular attempt of mental and moral self-culture in the individual and the race by this integralisation of a widely perfect spiritual existence would thus be the crown alike of our individual and of our common effort. Such a consummation being no other than the kingdom of heaven within reproduced in the kingdom of heaven without, would be also the true fulfilment of the great dream cherished in different terms by the world's religions.

ALL LIFE IS SPIRITUAL

The division between "ordinary life and "spiritual" life is an outdated antiquity. All human beings have it in their minds, the division between leading a spiritual life and leading an ordinary life, having a spiritual consciousness and an ordinary consciousness - it is not true, there is only one consciousness. If an opposition is still needed, we can have the opposition between truth and falsehood. For in all things, falsehood and truth are mixed everywhere .It would be better not to make any divisions.

Finally we conclude with a quotation from the writings of the Mother:

Religion and Spirituality

"The conflict of religions arises because each one claims the exclusive truth and demands a complete adherence to it by the method of dogma, ritual, ceremony and prescribed acts. The solution would be, first to recognize that the real truth of religion is in the spiritual experiences of which it is an outer formulation. To transcend therefore the outer form, and insist on the spiritual experience and in addition to recognize that there can be infinite and valid varieties of spiritual experiences is the important step in the solution. It is not by insisting on religion that India and the world can be reconstructed. The new world will transcend religions and will insist on the purity of spiritual experience.

Instead of taking religions in their outward forms, which are precisely dogmas and intellectual conceptions, if we take them in their spirit, in the principle they represent there is no difficulty in unifying them. They are simply different aspects of human progress, which complete each other perfectly well and should be united with many others yet to form a more total and more complete progress, a more integral approach to the Divine.

India's attempt in her religion was to some extent directed to this inner perception; it is at present lost but we must now place forward this perception clearly and radically, not revive religion or religious spirit, but present the ideal of spiritual perfection which consists of an integral realization of the spirit and its full manifestation in physical life."

Page 182

Chapter 12

The Armed Forces in India

We have today in India a fine and living example of this national and secular approach in the Armed Forces. It will, therefore, not be out of place to make a study of their working. For indeed, they represent a fine example of unity in diversity, secularism and patriotism. Not only have they a magnificent record of bravery, valour and selfless service but also and, far more important, they have been one of the chief instruments in keeping the unity and integrity of the country intact. What are the factors that have made such a record possible? We shall bring out some of the significant ones.

• The jawan and the officer of the modern Indian Armed Forces is the inheritor of a long culture of heroism and valour. In fact, he is the final product in the long chain of warriors, which this country has produced. For in the Indian tradition, there is nothing nobler than waging a war in the service of Truth and Justice — Dharma. As the Gita says: "To a warrior, there is nothing nobler than a righteous war. Happy are the warriors to whom a battle such as this comes. It opens a door to heaven". It is this spirit that has to permeate the whole national life of India. This war has to be fought by every citizen of India, and this war is the war between the higher nature and the lower nature of man.

• The officer of the Indian Armed Forces has the ability to lead from the front. This has been demonstrated in the two World wars and later in the Indo-Pak wars and the war against the Chinese. Today we see it in the leadership qualities of the officers taking part in the low intensity conflict both in Jammu & Kashmir and the Northeast. This ability to lead from the front has to become one of the traits of the Indian citizen. In other words, every Indian citizen has to stand up and be ready to be counted for what he believes is the Truth.

• The training imparted in the Indian Armed Forces is another important factor. The traditions, the customs of gallantry and honour drilled into the minds of all members of the Army, the highest form of comradeship, the esprit de corps both in peace and battle play a key role in the functioning of the Armed Forces. This sense of unity, while respecting the traditions of Indian culture should be the motto of every Indian citizen.

Page 183

• The Indian Armed Force is truly Indian in its deepest sense. The soldiers and officers of the Indian Armed Forces are first and foremost Indians. Their love of India transcends all regions, castes and religions. They are thus psychologically upholding the unity of the country. All Indians must emulate this. They must be first and foremost Indians.

• The Indian Armed Force is secular in the best sense of the term. Whatever the religion of the soldier and officer, they are respectful of all religions and take part in all the festivals of the different religions; yet they are deeply religious and follow the deeper traditions and practices of their own religion.

• The Indian Army is well known all over the world for its professionalism. This professionalism is sustained by a relentless pursuit of both knowledge and its execution in the practical and material field. It might be called "the seeking for perfection on the material plane".

• These qualities should become the basis of the national life. This would automatically solve many of the divisive problems that beset India today.

• To these should be added the urge and desire for perfection on the psychological plane. It should become one of the chief motivating elements in the life of the Indian citizen, whether he be a soldier and officer or an ordinary citizen that he should aspire to become a perfect human being, perfect in all the parts of his being and in close touch with the Divine within him. For then he will realise what the heroes and warriors of India, both in the past history and in the freedom movement had realised - that the Indian nation is not just a piece of land nor a collection of people, but a living spiritual entity, a soul.

Page 184

Chapter 13

Summary and Conclusion

Before we close, let us make a recapitulation of the points discussed in the book.

First, India has been culturally and spiritually a nation from the most ancient times; the Vedic Rishis made it one their fundamental tasks to create this spiritual unity. However, despite the cultural and spiritual unity, political unity was not attained for a sufficiently durable time despite many heroic attempts. We have analyzed the reasons for this failure and come to the following conclusions. The chief reason of the failure was the excess of the centralizing tendency, which came inevitably with the formation of empires. It subconsciously led to the wearing out of the freedom and vigour of the subordinate units. As a consequence, the attempt to establish a centralized imperial monarchy brought with it not a free synthesis but a breaking down of regional autonomies.

Second, after the advent of the Muslim civilization into India, a new problem was created which came in the way of a politically united India. This was the clash of two ancient civilizations and religions. However, the real problem introduced by the Mussulman conquest was not that of subjection to a foreign rule and the ability to recover freedom, but the struggle between two civilizations, one ancient and indigenous, the other mediaeval and brought in from outside. That which apparently rendered the problem insoluble was the attachment of each to a powerful religion, the one militant and aggressive, the other spiritually tolerant indeed and flexible, but obstinately faithful in its discipline to its own principle and standing on the defense behind a barrier of social forms. There were two conceivable

Page 185

solutions, the rise of a greater spiritual principle and formation, which could reconcile the two or a political patriotism surmounting the religious struggle and uniting the two communities.

During the freedom struggle an attempt was made to create this political patriotism and was partially successful but in the end the religious intolerance and mistrust took over and the result was the partition of the country.

It is now high time to attempt the solution of the problem on both these lines. The institution of SAARC is itself a first step and opportunity in this direction and this forum can be used to create patriotism on both political and economic lines.

As for religion, we shall quote this passage from the Mother to illustrate the solution.

"The conflict of religions arises because each one claims the exclusive truth and demands a complete adherence to it by the method of dogma, ritual, ceremony and prescribed acts. The solution would be, first to recognise that the real truth of religion is in the spiritual experiences of which it is an outer formulation. To transcend therefore the outer form, and insist on the spiritual experience and in addition to recognise that there can be infinite and valid varieties of spiritual experiences is the important step in the solution. It is not by insisting on religion that India and the world can be reconstructed. The new world will transcend religions and will insist on the purity of spiritual experience.

Instead of taking religions in their outward forms, which are precisely dogmas and intellectual conceptions, if we take them in their spirit, in the principle they represent there is no difficulty in unifying them. They are simply different aspects of human progress, which complete each other perfectly well and should be united with many others yet to form a more total and more complete progress, a more integral approach to the Divine.

India's attempt in her religion was to some extent directed to this inner perception; it is at present lost but we must now place forward this perception clearly and radically, not revive religion or religious spirit, but present the ideal of spiritual perfection which consists of an integral realisation of the spirit and its full manifestation on physical life".

To pursue this to its logical conclusion, we have to set up institutions, which will make a detailed study of all religions in their deeper meaning and bring about a reconciliation of all religions. More it has to lead to the generalisation of Yoga, which is a practical way of attaining to the spiritual consciousness. In other words Yoga has to be generalised. This is the line of thought and action that the political leaders and more particularly the religious heads of these two communities should stress. If this is done with sincerity

Page 186

and persistence, it should be possible to create the conditions for the emergence of a great synthesis of all the religions and thus open the way for a true spiritual flowering of India and eventually of the world.

The third point that has to be followed is that the political system we have been following for the last 50 years and more is totally unsuitable for India. We have to get back to our roots and create a national government, which will reconcile all the aspirations of the different groups and communities. This cannot be done by means of the party system; for the party system is leading only to division and confrontation, instead of harmony and understanding.

The fourth point is that even in today's India we have a living example of this unity and national integration in the Armed Forces. It will be worthwhile to make a detailed study of the working of the Armed Forces and incorporate whatever is possible into the mainstream of the national life.

Finally, as a first practical step some suggestions are being made which one can start implementing immediately.

• Ensure that a uniform civil law is put in place. This has to be done by a detailed discussion with all the communities.

• Eliminate the policy of reservations in gradual steps. The reservations that are made should be for the economically handicapped and the physically handicapped.

• Stop all religious conversions. Let each citizen of India follow his own religion without hindrance.

• Scrupulously screen all funds coming from abroad to religious and other organisations so that they are used only for genuine purposes.

• Ensure that funds given to Hindu temples by the citizens of India are not taken over by the State; instead create a body independent of the State, but chosen by the temple authorities themselves, to handle these funds.

• Create a Central University and institutions with the purpose of studying, integrating, harmonising and synthesising all religions.

If these steps are pursued sincerely and steadfastly, there will inevitably come about a deep psychological unity leading to a confederation of India, which will include all the countries of the subcontinent. This will be the natural and final outcome and culminate in a lasting and durable political unification.

The need to move towards a confederation of India

As these steps are taken and a sense of unity begins to prevail in the subcontinent, there will result a movement

Page 187

towards creating a confederation. This confederation of India will include all the States within SAARC and at a later stage could even include Afghanistan and Myanmar. However, certain conditions have to be kept in mind and scrupulously fulfilled. The first condition is that the Indian government must scrupulously respect the free internal life and will, the social, cultural, economic tendencies of the sub-nations while giving them an equal part with herself in the management of the great common questions of the confederation. India herself can be nothing more in the future of such a new type of aggregate than a political and cultural centre, the clamp or nodus of the union. Given this orientation of the governing mind in India, nothing short of some unforeseen cataclysm can prevent the formation of a confederation in which each part will preserve its individuality and yet be part of the larger unity.

This is at least the hope and dream that we cherish. Time alone will show how and when this will become a reality.

Page 188

Ladies and Gentlemen:

We are meeting today in our session after fifteen months. The last session of the All-India Muslim League took place at Patna in December 1938. Since then many developments have taken place. I shall first shortly tell you what the All-India Muslim League had to face after the Patna session of 1938. You remember that one of the tasks, which was imposed on us and which is far from completed yet, was to organise Muslim Leagues all over India. We have made enormous progress during the last fifteen months in this direction. I am glad to inform you that we have established provincial leagues in every province. The next point is that in every bye-election to the Legislative Assemblies we had to fight with powerful opponents. I congratulate the Mussalmans for having shown enormous grit and spirit throughout our trials. There was not a single bye-election in which our opponents won against Muslim League candidates. In the last election to the U.P. Council, that is the Upper Chamber, the Muslim League's success was cent per cent. I do not want to weary you with details of what we have been able to do in the way of forging ahead in the direction of organising the Muslim League. But I may tell you that it is going up by leaps and bounds.

Next, you may remember that we appointed a committee of ladies at the Patna session. It is of very great importance to us, because I believe that it is absolutely essential for us to give every opportunity to our women to participate in our struggle of life and death. Women can do a great deal within their homes even under purdah. We appointed this committee with a view to enable them to participate in the work of the League. The objects of this central committee were ( 1 ) to organise provincial and district women's sub-committees under the provincial and district Muslim League; ( 2 ) to enlist a larger number of women to the membership of the Muslim League; ( 3 ) to carry on an intensive propaganda amongst Muslim women throughout India in order to create in the a sense of a greater political consciousness - because if political consciousness is awakened amongst our women, remember your children will not have much to worry about; ( 4 ) to advise and guide them in all such matters as mainly rest on them for the uplift of Muslim society. This central committee, I am glad to say, started its work seriously and earnestly. It has done a great deal of useful work. I have no doubt that when we come to deal with their report of work done we shall really feel grateful to them for all the services that they have rendered to the Muslim League.

We had many difficulties to face from January 1939 right up to the declaration of war. We had to face the Vidya Mandir in Nagpur. We had to face the Wardha Scheme all over India We had to face ill-treatment and oppression to Muslims in the Congress-governed provinces. We had to face the treatment meted out to Muslims in some of the Indian States such as Jaipur and Bhavngar. We had to face a vital issue that arose in that little state of Rajkot. Rajkot was the acid test made by the Congress, which would have affected one-third of India. Thus the Muslim League had all along to face various issues from January 1939 up to the time of the declaration of war. Before the war was declared the greatest danger to the Muslims of India was the possible inauguration of the federal scheme in the central Government. We know what machinations were going on. But the Muslim League was stoutly resisting them in every direction. We felt that we could never accept the dangerous scheme of the central federal Government embodied in the

Page 189

Government of India Act, 1935. I am sure that we have made no small contribution towards persuading the British Government to abandon the scheme of central federal government. In creating that mind in the British Government, the Muslim League, I have no doubt, played no small part. You know that the British people are very obdurate people. They are also very conservative; and although they are very clever, they are slow in understanding. After the war was declared, the Viceroy naturally wanted help from the Muslim League. It was only then that he realised that the Muslim League was a power. For it will be remembered that up to the time of the declaration of war, the Viceroy never thought of me but of Gandhi and Gandhi alone. I have been the leader of an important party in the Legislature for a considerable time, larger than the one I have the honour to lead at present, the present Muslim League Party in the Central Legislature. Yet, the Viceroy never thought of me. Therefore, when I got this invitation from the viceroy along with Mr. Gandhi, I wondered within myself why I was so suddenly promoted and then I concluded that the answer was the 'All-India Muslim League' whose President I happen to be. I believe that was the worst shock that the Congress High Command received because it challenged their sole authority to speak on behalf of India. And it is quite clear from the attitude of Mr. Gandhi and the High Command that they have not yet recovered from that shock. My point is that I want you to realise the value, the importance, the significance of organising ourselves. I will not say anything more on the subject.

But a great deal yet remains to be done. I am sure from what I can see and hear that the Muslim India is now conscious, is now awake, and the Muslim League has by now grown into such a strong institution that it cannot be destroyed by anybody whoever he may happen to be. Men may come and men may go, but the League will live forever.

Now, coming to the period after the declaration of war, our position was that we were between the devil and the deep sea. But I do not think that the devil or the deep sea is going to get away with it. Anyhow our position is this. We stand unequivocally for the freedom of India. But it must be freedom of all India and not freedom of one section or, worse still, of the Congress caucus and slavery of Mussalmans and other minorities.

Situated in India as we are, we naturally have our past experiences and particularly the experiences of the past 2 ½ years of provincial constitution in the Congress-governed provinces. We have learnt many lessons. We are now, therefore, very apprehensive and can trust nobody. I think it is a wise rule for every one not to trust anybody too much. Sometimes we are led to trust people but when we find in actual experience that our trust has been betrayed surely that ought to be sufficient lesson for any man not to continue his trust in those who have betrayed him. Ladies and gentlemen, we never thought that the Congress High Command would have acted in the manner in which they actually did in the Congress-governed provinces. I never dreamt that they would ever come down so low as that. I never could believe that there would be a gentleman's agreement between the Congress and the Government to such an extent that, although we cried hoarse, week in and week out, the Governors were supine and the Governor-General was helpless. We reminded them of their special responsibilities to us and to other minorities and the solemn pledges they had given to us. But all that had become a dead letter. Fortunately, Providence came to our help, and that gentleman's agreement was broken to pieces, and the Congress, thank Heaven, went out of office. I think they are regretting their resignations very much. Their bluff was called off. So far so good. I therefore appeal to you, in all seriousness that I can command, to organise yourselves in such a way that you

Page 190

may depend upon none except your own inherent strength. That is your only safeguard and the best safeguard. Depend upon yourselves. That does not mean that we should have ill-will or malice towards others. I order to safeguard your rights and interests you must create that strength in yourselves that you may be able to defend yourselves. That is all that I want to urge.

Now, what is our position with regard to future constitution? It is that as soon as circumstances permit or immediately after the war at the latest the whole problem of India's future constitution must be examined de movo and the Act of 1935 must go once for all. We do not believe in asking the British Government to make declaration. These declaration are really of no use. You cannot possibly succeed in getting the British Government out of this country by asking them to make declaration. However, the Congress asked the Viceroy to make a declaration. The Viceroy said, 'I have made the declaration'. The Congress said, 'NO, no, the want another kind of declaration. You must declare now and at once that India is free and independent with the right to frame its own constitution by a Constitution by a Constituent Assembly to be elected on the basis of adult franchise or as low as franchise as possible. This Assembly will of course satisfy the minorities' legitimate interest. Mr. Gandhi says that if the minorities are not satisfied then he is willing that some tribunal of the highest character and most impartial should decide the dispute. Now, apart from the impracticable character of this proposal and quite apart from the fact that it is historically and constitutionally absurd to ask ruling power to abdicate in favour of a Constituent Assembly. Apart from all that, suppose we do not agree as to the franchise according to which the Central Assembly is to be elected, or suppose we the solid body of Muslim representatives do not agree with the non-Muslim majority in the constituent assembly, what will happen? It is said that we have no right to disagree with regard to anything that this Assembly may do in framing a national constitution of this huge sub-continent except those matters, which may be germane to the safeguards for the minorities. So we are given the privilege to disagree only with regard to what may be called strictly safe-guards of the rights and interests of minorities. We are also given the privilege to send our own representatives by separate electorates. Now, this proposal is based on the assumption that as soon as this constitution comes into operation the British hand will disappear. Otherwise there will be no meaning in it. Of course, Mr.Gandhi says that the constitution will decide whether the British will disappear and if so to what extent. In other words his proposal comes to this: First, give me the declaration that we are a free and independent nation then I will decide what I should give you back. Does Mr.Gandhi really want the complete independence of India when he talks like this? But whether the British disappear or not, it follows that extensive powers must be transferred to the people. In the event of there being a disagreement between the majority of the Constituent Assembly and the Mussalmans, in the first instance, who will appoint the tribunal? And suppose an agreed tribunal is possible and the award is made and the decision given, who will, may I know, be there to see that this award is implemented or carried out in accordance with the terms of that award? And who will see that it is honoured in practice, because, we are told, the British will have parted with their power mainly or completely? Then what will be the sanction behind the award, which will enforce it? We come back to the same answer, the Hindu majority would do it and will it be with the help of the British bayonet or the Gandhi's "Ahimsa". Can we trust them any more. Besides, ladies and gentlemen, can you imagine that a

Page 191

question of this character, of social contract upon which the future constitution of India would be based affecting 90 million of Mussalmans, can be decided by means of a judicial tribunal? Still, that is the proposal of the Congress.

Before I deal with what Mr.Gandhi said a few days ago I shall deal with the pronouncements of some of the other Congress leaders - each one speaking with a different voice. Mr.Rajagopalacharya, the ex-Prime Minister of Madras, says that the only panacea for Hindu-Muslim unity is the joint To put before you, a letter from Lala Lajpat Rai to Mr. C.R. Das. It was written, I believe, about 12 or 15 years ago and that letter has been produced in a book recently published by one Indra Prakash and that is how this letter has come to light. This is what Lala Lajpat Rai, a very astute politician and a staunch Hindu Mahasabite said. But before I read his letter it is plain from that you cannot get away from being a Hindu if you are a Hindu. The word 'nationalist' has now become the play of conjurers in politics. This is what he says:

"There is one point more which has been troubling me very much of late and one which I want you to think carefully and that is the question of Hindu-Muhammadan unity. I have devoted most of my time during the last six months to the study of Muslim history and Muslim law and I am inclined to think it is neither possible nor practicable. Assuming and admitting the sincerity of Mohammadan leaders in the non-cooperation movement I think their religion provides an effective bar to anything of the kind".

"You remember the conversation I reported to you in Calcutta which I had with Hakim Ajmal Khan and Dr. Kitchlew. There is no finer Muhammadan in Hindustan than Hakim Ajmal Khan, but can any Muslim leader over-ride the Quran? I can only hope That my reading of Islamic law is incorrect. I think his reading is quite incorrect. "And nothing would relieve me more than to be convinced that it is so. But if it is right then it comes to this, that although we can unite against the British we cannot do so to rule Hindustan on British lines. We cannot do so to rule Hindustan on democratic lines."

Ladies and Gentlemen, when Lala Lajpat Rai said that we cannot rule this country on democratic lines it was all right but when I had the temerity to speak the same truth about 18 months ago there was a shower of attacks and criticism. But Lala Lajpat Rai said 15 years ago that we cannot do so viz., rule Hindustan on democratic lines. What is the remedy? The remedy, according to Congress, is to keep us in the minority and under the majority rule. Lala Lajpat Rai proceeds further:

"What is then the remedy? I am not afraid of the seven crores of Mussalmans. But I think the seven crores in Hindustan plus the armed hordes of Afghanistan, Central Asia, Arabia, Mesopotamia an Turkey, will be irresistible".

"I do honestly and sincerely believe in the necessity or desirability of Hindu-Muslim unity. I am also fully prepared to trust the Muslim leaders. But what about the injunctions of the Koran and Hadis? The leaders cannot over-ride them. Are we then doomed? I hope not. I hope your learned mind and wise head will find some way out of this difficulty".

Now, ladies and gentlemen, that is merely a letter written by one great Hindu leader to another great Hindu leader 15 years ago. Now, I should like to put before you my views on the subject as it strikes me taking everything into consideration at the present moment. The British Government and Parliament, and more so the British nation, have been for many decades past brought up and nurtured with settled notions about India's future, based on developments in their own country which has built up the British constitution, functioning now through the Houses of Parliament and the system of cabinet. Their

Page 192

concept of party government functioning on political planes has become the ideal with them as the best form of government for every country, and the one-sided and powerful propaganda, which naturally appeals to the British, has led them into a serious blunder, in producing a constitution envisaged in the Government of India Act of 1935. We find that the most leading statesmen of Great Britain, saturated with these notions have in their pronouncements seriously asserted and expressed a hope that, the passage of time will harmonise the inconsistent elements in India.

A leading journal like the London Times, commenting on the Government of India Act of 1935, wrote that "undoubtedly the difference between the Hindus and Muslims is not of religion in the strict sense of the word but also of law and culture, that they may be said indeed to represent two entirely distinct and separate civilisations. However, in the course of time the superstitions will die out and India will be moulded into a single nation'. (So according to the London Times the only difficulties are superstitions). These fundamental and deep-rooted differences, spiritual, economic, cultural, social and political have been euphemised as mere 'superstitions'. But surely, it is a flagrant disregard of the past history of the sub-continent of India as well as the fundamental Islamic conception of society visa-vis that of Hinduism to characterise them as mere 'superstition'. Notwithstanding thousand years of close contact, nationalities which are as divergent today as ever, cannot at any time be expected to transform themselves into one nation merely by means of subjecting them to a democratic constitution and holding them forcibly together by unnatural and artificial methods of British Parliamentary statutes. What the unitary government of India for 150 years had failed to achieve cannot be realised by the imposition of a central federal government. It is inconceivable that the fiat or the writ of a government so constituted can ever command a willing and loyal obedience throughout the sub-continent by various nationalities except by means of armed force behind it.

The problem in India is not of an intercommunal character, but manifestly of an international one, and it must be treated as such. So long as this basic and fundamental truth is not realised, any constitution that may be built will result in disaster and will prove destructive and harmful not only to the Mussalmans, but to the British and Hindus also. If the British government are really in earnest and sincere to secure peace and happiness of the people of this sub-continent, the only course open to us all is to allow the major nations separate homelands by dividing India into 'autonomous national state'. There is no reason why these states should be antagonistic to each other. On the other hand, the rivalry and the natural desire and efforts on the part of one to dominate the social order and establish political supremacy over the other in the government of the country will disappear. It will lead more towards natural goodwill by international pacts between them, and they can live in complete harmony with their neighbours. This will lead further to a friendly settlement all the more easily with regard to minority by reciprocal arrangements and adjustments between Muslim India and Hindu India, which will far more adequately and effectively safeguard the rights and interests of Muslim and various other minorities.

It is extremely difficult to appreciate why over Hindu friends fail to understand the real nature of Islam and Hinduism. They are not religions in the strict sense of the word, but are, in fact, different and distinct social orders and it is a dream that the Hindus and Muslims can ever evolve a common nationality, and this misconception of one Indian nation has gone far beyond the limits and the cause of more of our troubles and will lead

Page 193

India to destruction if we fail to revise our nations in time. The Hindus and Muslims belong to two different religious philosophies, social customs and literature. They neither intermarry, nor interdine together and, indeed they belong to two different civilisations, which are based mainly on conflicting ideas and conceptions. Their aspects on life and of life are different. It is quite clear that Hindus and Mussalmans derive their inspiration from different sources of history. They have different epics, their heroes are different, and different episode. Very often the hero of one is a foe of the other, and, likewise their victories and defeats overlap. To yoke together two such nations under a single state, one as a numerical minority and the other as a majority, must lead to growing discontent and final destruction of any fabric that may be so built up for the government of such a state. History has presented to us many examples such as the Union of Great Britain and Ireland, Czechoslovakia and Poland. History has also shown to us many geographical tracts, much smaller that the sub-continent of India, which otherwise might have been called on country but which have been divided into as many states as there are nations inhabiting them. Balkan Peninsula comprises as many seven or eight sovereign states. Likewise, the Portuguese and the Spanish stand divided in the Iberian Peninsula. Whereas under the plea of unity of India and one nation which does not exist, it is sought to pursue here the line of one central government when we know that the history of the last 12 hundred years has failed to achieve unity and has witnessed, during these ages, India always divided into Hindu India and Muslim India. The present artificial unity of India dates back only to the British conquest and is maintained by the British bayonet, but the termination of the British regime, which is implicit in the recent declaration of His Majesty's Government, will be the herald of the entire break-up with worse disaster than has ever taken place during the last one thousand years under the Muslims. Surely that is not the legacy within Britain would bequeath to India after 150 years of her rule, nor would Hindu and Muslim India risk such a sure catastrophe.

Muslim India cannot accept any constitution, which must necessarily result in a Hindu majority government. Hindu and Muslims brought together under a democratic system forced upon the minorities can only mean Hindu Raj. Democracy of the kind with which the Congress Hall Command is enamoured would mean the complete destruction of what is most precious in Islam. We have had ample experience of the working of the provincial constitutions during the last two-and-a-half years and any repetition of such a government must lead to civil war and raising of private armies as recommended by Mr. Gandhi to Hindus of Sukkur when he said that they must defend themselves violently or non-violently, blow for blow, and if they could not, they must emigrate. Mussalmans are not a minority as it is commonly known and understood. One has only got to look around. Even today, according to the British map of India, out of 11 provinces, four provinces, where the Muslims dominate more or less, are functioning notwithstanding the decision of the Hindu Congress High Command to non-cooperate and prepare for civil disobedience. Mussalmans are a nation according to any definition of a nation and they must have their homelands, their territory and their state. We wish to live in peace and harmony with our neighbours as a free and independent people. We wish our people to develop to the fullest our spiritual, cultural, economic, social and political life in a way that we think best and in consonance with our own ideals and according to the genius of our people. Honesty demands and vital interest of millions of our people impose a sacred duty upon us to find an honourable and peaceful solution, which would be just and fair to all.

Page 194

But at the same time we cannot be moved or diverted from our purpose and objective by threats or intimidations. We must be prepared to face all difficulties and consequences, make all the sacrifices that may be required of us to achieve the goal we have set in front of us.

Ladies and gentlemen, that is the task before us. I fear I have gone beyond my time limit. There are many things that I should like to tell you, but I have already published a little pamphlet containing most of the things that I have said and I have been saying and I think you can easily get that publication both in English and Urdu from the League Office. It might give you a clearer idea of our aims. It contains very important resolutions of the Muslim League and various other statements. Anyhow, I have placed before you the task that lies ahead of us. Do you realise how big and stupendous it is? Do you realise that you cannot get freedom or independence by mere arguments? I should appeal to the intelligentsia. The intelligentsia in all countries in the world have been the pioneers of any movements for freedom. What does the Muslim intelligentsia propose to do? I may tell you that unless you get this into your blood, unless you are prepared to take off your coats and are willing to sacrifice all that you can and work selflessly, earnestly and sincerely for your people, strengthen your organisation and consolidate the Mussalmans all over India. I think that the masses are wide awake. They only want your guidance and your lead. Come forward as servants of Islam, organise the people economically, socially, educationally and politically and I am sure that you will be a power that will be accepted by everybody.

Page 195

An extract from Justice M. C. Chagla, in his autobiography:

"As far as I am concerned there are three things to which I have always adhered. They have represented my working faith and my abiding belief. These principles are unity, secularism and democracy. I know all the divisive factors but to my mind they are superficial. I have always thought that it was India's destiny to remain one country and one nation. One has only to look at a map of Asia to be convinced of this fact. With the Himalayas in the north and the sea in the west, south and east, India stands out as something distinct and apart from other countries that separate it. The Gods in their wisdom wanted India to remain one and undivided. Further, there is an Indianness and an Indian ethos, which has been brought by the communion and intercourse between the many races and the many communities that have lived in this land for centuries. There is a heritage, which has devolved on us from our Aryan forefathers. There is an Indian tradition, which overrides all the minor differences, which may superficially seem to contradict the unity. Even the Muslim community, which numbers about 60 million, inherits the same tradition and legacy, because more than 90 per cent of the Muslims living in India were converted from Hinduism, which is the primary religion of this country. Hindus and Muslims have lived together as friends and comrades from times immemorial. They participate in one another's festivals and even worship together common Saints in whom they both have faith. " (Chagla, Roses in December)

Page 196

Manekshaw interview on Kashmir

Sam Manekshaw, the first field marshal in the Indian army, was at the ringside of events when Independent India was being formed. Then a colonel, he was chosen to accompany V P Menon on his historic mission to Kashmir. This is his version of that journey and its aftermath, as recorded in an interview with Prem Shankar Jha.

At about 2.30 in the afternoon, General Sir Roy Bucher walked into my room and said, 'Eh, you, go and pick up your toothbrush. You are going to Srinagar with V P Menon. The flight will take off at about 4 o'clock'. I said, 'why me, sir?'

'Because we are worried about the military situation. V P Menon is going there to get the accession from the Maharaja and Mahajan.' I flew in with V P Menon in a Dakota. Wing Commander Dewan, who was then squadron leader Dewan, was also there. But his job did not have anything to with assessing the military situation. He was sent by the Air Force because it was the Air Force which was flying us in.'

Since I was in the Directorate of Military Operations, and was responsible for current operations all over India, West Frontier, the Punjab, and elsewhere, I knew what the situation in Kashmir was. I knew that the tribesmen had come in -initially only the tribesmen - supported by the Pakistanis.

Fortunately for us, and for Kashmir, they were busy raiding, raping all along. In Baramulla they killed Colonel D O T Dykes. Dykes and I were of the same seniority. We did our first year's attachment with the Royal Scots in Lahore, way back in 1934-5. Tom went to the Sikh regiment. I went to the Frontier Force regiment. We'd lost contact with each other. He'd become a lieutenant colonel. I'd become a full colonel.

Tom and his wife were holidaying in Baramulla when the tribesmen killed them. The Maharaja's forces were 50 per cent Muslim and 50 per cent Dogra.

The Muslim elements had revolted and joined the Pakistani forces. This was the broad military situation. The tribesmen were believed to be about 7 to 9 kilometers from Srinagar. I was sent into get the precise military situation. The army knew that if we had to send soldiers, we would have to fly them in.

Page 197

Therefore, a few days before, we had made arrangements for aircraft and for soldiers to be ready.

But we couldn't fly them in until the state of Kashmir had acceded to India. From the political side, Sardar Patel and V P Menon had been dealing with Mahajan and the Maharaja, and the idea was that V.P Menon would get the Accession, I would bring back the military appreciation and report to the government. The troops were already at the airport, ready to be flown in. Air Chief Marshall Elmhurst was the air chief and he had made arrangements for the aircraft from civil and military sources.

Anyway, we were flown in. We went to Srinagar. We went to the palace. I have never seen such disorganisation in my life. The Maharaja was running about from one room to the other. I have never seen so much jewellery in my life --pearl necklaces, ruby things, lying in one room; packing here, there, everywhere. There was a convoy of vehicles.

The Maharaja was coming out of one room, and going into another saying, 'Alright, if India doesn't help, I will go and join my troops and fight (it) out'.

I couldn't restrain myself, and said, 'That will raise their morale sir'. Eventually, I also got the military situation from everybody around us, asking what the hell was happening, and discovered that the tribesmen were about seven or nine kilometres from what was then that horrible little airfield.

V P Menon was in the meantime discussing with Mahajan and the Maharaja. Eventually the Maharaja signed the accession papers and we flew back in the

Page 198

Dakota late at night. There were no night facilities, and the people who were helping us to fly back, to light the airfield, were Sheikh Abdullah, Kasimsahib, Sadiqsahib, Bakshi Ghulam Mohammed, D P Dhar with pine torches, and we flew back to Delhi. I can't remember the exact time. It must have been 3 o'clock or 4 o'clock in the morning.

(On arriving at Delhi) the first thing I did was to go and report to Sir Roy Bucher. He said, 'Eh, you, go and shave and clean up. There is a cabinet meeting at 9 o'clock. I will pick you up and take you there.' So I went home, shaved, dressed, etc. and Roy Bucher picked me up, and we went to the cabinet meeting.

The cabinet meeting was presided by Mountbatten. There was Jawaharlal Nehru, there was Sardar Patel, there was Sardar Baldev Singh. There were other ministers whom I did not know and did not want to know, because I had nothing to do with them. Sardar Baldev Singh I knew because he was the minister for defence, and I knew Sardar Patel, because Patel would insist that V P Menon take me with him to the various states.

Almost every morning the Sardar would sent for V P, H M Patel and myself. While Maniben (Patel's daughter and de facto secretary) would sit cross-legged with a Parker fountain pen taking notes, Patel would say, 'V P, I want Baroda. Take him with you.' I was the bogeyman. So I got to know the Sardar very well.

At the morning meeting he handed over the (Accession) thing. Mountbatten turned around and said, ' come on Manekji (He called me Manekji instead of Manekshaw), what is the military situation?' I gave him the military situation, and

Page 199

told him that unless we flew in troops immediately, we would have lost Srinagar, because going by road would take days, and once the tribesmen got to the airport and Srinagar, we couldn't fly troops in. Everything was ready at the airport.

As usual Nehru talked about the United Nations, Russia, Africa, God almighty, everybody, until Sardar Patel lost his temper. He said, 'Jawaharlal, do you want Kashmir, or do you want to give it away'. He (Nehru) said,' Of course, I want Kashmir (emphasis in original). Then he (Patel) said 'Please give your orders'. And before he could say anything Sardar Patel turned to me and said, 'You have got your orders'.

I walked out, and we started flying in troops at about 11 o'clock or 12 o'clock. I think it was the Sikh regiment under Ranjit Rai that was the first lot to be flown in. And then we continued flying troops in. That is all I know about what happened. Then all the fighting took place. I became a brigadier, and became director of military operations and also if you will see the first signal to be signed ordering the cease-fire on 1 January (1949) had been signed by Colonel Manekshaw on behalf of C-in-C India, General Sir Roy Bucher. That must be lying in the Military Operations Directorate.

Excerpted from Kashmir 1947, Rival Versions of History, by Prem Shankar Jha, Oxford University Press, 1996, Rs 275, with the publisher's permission.Readers in the US may secure a copy of the book from Oxford University Press Inc USA, 198, Madison Avenue, New York, New York 10016, USA. Tel: 212-726-6000. Fax: 212-726

SEAN P. WINCHELL INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INTELLIGENCE

Sean P. Winchell teaches in the Grandview, Missouri, School District. He earned honors degrees in Political Science and History at the State University of New York, Stony Brook.

From International Journal of Intelligence and Counterintelligence, 16: 374-388, 2003

Pakistan's ISI: The Invisible Government

Since partition, no political force within Pakistan has driven the nation's domestic and international political agenda as has its army, and more specifically, one of its intelligence units, the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI). Agency. Comprised of the three branches of Pakistan's military, the Army, Navy, and Air Force, the ISI, in its time has

Page 200

been linked to political assassinations, the smuggling of heroin and opium, and the smuggling of materials and components for nuclear weapons. From headquarters on Khayban-e Suharwady Street in Islamabad, the ISI has worked to suppress political opposition to the military regimes that have dotted Pakistan's political landscape since 1947. It has also embraced radical Islamic extremism and worked with the United States in aiding the Afghan mujahideen in expelling the Soviets from Afghanistan. At the same time, it has been charged with using Islamic militants in a campaign of terror to wrench control of the provinces of Jammu and Kashmir from the Indians. Now, in light of the events of 11 September 2001, ISI's exploits over the course of the last fifty years have entered into the Western Hemisphere's mainstream press as the United States is compelled to work with the organization in pursuing its war on terror. 1

BACKGROUND

In 1948, following Pakistan's loss of the first Indo-Pakistani War, and the abysmal intelligence performance of Pakistan's intelligence service, the Intelligence Bureau, the then-Deputy Army Chief of Staff. General R. Cawthorne 2 formed the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) agency. 3

Created from the three branches of Pakistan's military, and modeled after Iran's intelligence service, the SAVAK, the ISI coordinates with the Army, Navy, and Air Force intelligence units of Pakistan's military in the collection, analysis, and dissemination of military and nonmilitary intelligence, focusing mainly on India. After receiving its training from the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the French intelligence service, the SDECE4, the ISI originally had no active role in conducting domestic intelligence collection activities, except in Pakistan Occupied Kashmir (POK) and Pakistan's Northern Areas (NA) of Gilgit and Baltistan. The ISI's role in Pakistani politics changed in 1958, when then-Army Chief of Staff General Ayub Khan seized power in a coup, adding a new political dimension to the ISI's responsibilities.5

THE ISI UNDER AYUB KHAN

Prior to the 1958 coup and the implementation of martial law, the ISI, which is part of Pakistan's Ministry of Defense, reported directly to the Army Chief of Sta. After the implementation of martial law, the ISI began to report to then-President Ayub Khan and the martial law administrator. In addition, under General Khan, the ISI became responsible for monitoring Pakistani politicians, especially those in what was then Eastern Pakistan. Khan expanded the ISI's role to the protection of Pakistan's interests, which included the creation of a covert action division within the ISI to assist Islamic militants in Northeast India, as well as to assist the Sikh Home Rule Movement in the 1960s.6 Under General Khan, the ISI was given the mission of conducting ''the collection of foreign and domestic intelligence, coordination of intelligence functions of the three military services; surveillance over its cadre, foreigners, the media, politically active segments of Pakistani society, diplomats serving outside of the country; the interception and monitoring of communications; and the conduct of covert operations.''7 Through the 1960s, the ISI and other Pakistani intelligence services were largely concerned with conducting domestic counterintelligence operations. At the behest of Ayub Kahn, the ISI warned social organizations with potential political influence, such as student groups, trade organizations, and unions not to become involved in the political arena, and kept these groups under tight surveillance. In addition, the ISI instructed Islamic clerics to leave any political rhetoric out of their exhortations. 8 General Khan

Page 201

further expanded the ISI's powers when he began to suspect the loyalty of Bengali officers in the Intelligence Bureau's Dhaka Branch in East Pakistan. Khan ordered the ISI to conduct domestic intelligence operations in the region, and to monitor East Pakistani politicians. 9

375 PAKISTAN'S ISI: THE INVISIBLE GOVERNMENT AND COUNTERINTELLIGENCE VOLUME 16, NUMBER 3

During the 1964 presidential elections the ISI became particularly active. The ISI monitored candidates running for office, especially in what was then East Pakistan (now Bangladesh), keeping Bengali politicians in Dhaka, Pakistan's legislative capital, 10 under close surveillance. The ISI attempted to keep Khan apprised of the political mood in East Pakistan, which the ISI believed had swung in favor of President Khan. But the ISI had miscalculated the popularity of Khan's opponent, Fatima Jinnah. 11 The following year, the ISI's intelligence collection and analysis during the Indo-Pakistani War, which took place over Kashmir, was a fiasco. The ISI, under Director-General Brigadier Riaz Hussain, 12 was then vigorously conducting domestic intelligence collection operations inside Kashmir, and had numerous assets inside the Indian-controlled sector. Once the conflict started, all its assets in the region went underground, blinding the ISI to what was occurring, both militarily and politically. This included losing track of a division of Indian tanks. Part of the problem that faced the ISI was that prior to the conflict, it had devoted itself to domestic intelligence operations, including keeping track of the regime's various political opponents. The ISI had also been conducting intelligence operations against India. As a result, the ISI was at a complete loss in addressing the army's (and the government's) needs for timely military intelligence. Through the late 1960s and into the 1970s, the ISI worked in tandem with the CIA, under the Richard Nixon administration, to provide aid and support to the Khalistan movement in Punjab.13 In addition, the CIA and the ISI collaborated to discredit then-Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi's granting of naval facilities to the Soviet Union at Vizag and on the Andaman and Nicobar islands. The program came to an end with Gandhi's death in 1984.14

YAHYA KHAN AND THE GROWTH OF ISI

Under President Yahya Khan, the ISI once again escalated its domestic intelligence collection activities, especially in East Pakistan. It sought to guarantee that no East Pakistani candidate would win the presidential election. But, the operation was a complete failure. Throughout the 1960s, the Awami League, led by Bengali leader Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, gained in popularity. In 1970, the Awami League won an overwhelming majority of seats to the National Assembly in the general election and, under Parliamentary law, had the right to form a government with Rahman as the newly elected Prime Minister. President Khan, who did not want to grant East Pakistan greater political autonomy, then delayed the commencement of the National Assembly, which in turn provoked a civil war. 15

376 SEAN P. WINCHELL

For the next two years, as East and West Pakistan fought a bloody civil war, the ISI attempted to crush the Bengali resistance movement in East Pakistan. The ISI's efforts included the assassination of several prominent Bengali politicians. The conflict was finally brought to an end in late 1971 when the Indian military interceded on behalf of the

Page 202

East Pakistani government, leading to the defeat of Pakistan proper on 16 December 1971, and the formation of Bangladesh, or the Bengali state.16 Following Pakistan's defeat and the independence of Bangladesh, Yahya Khan was forced to step down and Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto was elected President of Pakistan.

THE ISI IN A DEMOCRACY

President Bhutto tried to bring the ISI under control by appointing Lieutenant General Gulam Gilani Khan as its director. At Khan's behest, Bhutto promoted Lieutenant General Zia ul-Haq to the position of Army Chief of Staff .Despite being in a democracy, the ISI had become so entrenched in Pakistani society by the time that President Bhutto came to power that it was readily adopted by his regime. In 1972, Bhutto, faced with a revolt by Baluchistani nationals in Baluchistan, and suspecting the loyalty of officers in the Quetta branch of the Intelligence Bureau, once again increased the ISI's mandate, making it responsible for conducting intelligence operations in the region.17

In March 1977, Pakistan held its first general elections, with Bhutto's Pakistan People's Party (PPP) winning a substantial victory. His opponents decried the election results as fraudulent. These accusations led to violent protests and strikes. On 5 July 1977, General Zia ul-Haq, with the aid of the ISI, seized power in a coup. Zia then ordered Bhutto's arrest and had him tried for the 1974 murder of a political opponent. Convicted of the murder, Bhutto, on 4 April 1979, amid worldwide protests, was executed. On 17 September 1978, amidst the negative fanfare, Zia declared himself President and ruled under martial law until 30 December 1985, when he restored some of the Pakistani people's civil rights.

ZIA UL-HAQ AND THE SOVIET INVASION OF AFGHANISTAN

The son of an Islamic cleric, Zia was a fundamentalist who believed that the only way Pakistan could become a major regional power was to turn it into an Islamic state. Consequently, he made a deliberate attempt to Islamize the Pakistani military. During this period, officers were actively encouraged to become Islamic fundamentalists, and only those officers who were practicing Muslims received promotion. Experts now believe that approximately thirty percent of the country's army officers are Islamic fundamentalists. 18 The ISI's powers were expanded to collect domestic intelligence on political and religious organizations that were opposed to Zia's regime. In addition, the ISI began to smuggle arms and aid to Sikh extremists in the Indian province of Punjab. 19

In 1974, India conducted its first nuclear test, Pokharan I. In tandem with Pakistan's third defeat at the hands of India, the Bhutto government had established a division within the ISI to conduct the ''clandestine procurement'' of nuclear materials and missile technology from China and North Korea. In order to hide the establishment of the nuclear weapons program, the division received funding from both Saudi Arabia and Libya. In addition, proceeds from heroin and opium smuggling were deferred to the program. Finally, the ISI also began smuggling nuclear technology out of Europe, all of which the United States knew, but did nothing about. 20

The Soviet Union's 1979 invasion of Afghanistan compelled the CIA to increase its ties with the ISI. The Agency had previously been working with the ISI to discredit Indira Gandhi and to aid the Sikh Home Rule Movement. Now, the CIA began collaborating with the ISI in training the Afghan mujahideen to combat the Soviets, also providing them with logistical support and financial and military aid.21

Page 203

CIA intelligence officers were sent to Pakistan to liaise with the ISI, and members of the ISI's covert action division received training in the United States. The CIA, through the ISI, ultimately channeled some three billion dollars worth of arms to the Afghan mujahideen.22 But the CIA did not know at the time that the ISI was not using all of the arms or money as Washington had intended. The ISI was appropriating arms destined for the mujahideen and selling them to the Iranians and pocketing the proceeds. When the Ronald Reagan administration learned of the ISI's activities, it sent a fact-finding mission to Pakistan to investigate. But by then the ISI had already altered its records of the transactions and destroyed any evidence that might show its complicity. The ISI was also using the CIA-provided funds to enroll graduates from Pakistani madrasas23 to fight in the war against the Soviets, and in the process laying the ground for the rise of the Taliban.24 Between 1983 and 1997, the ISI trained approximately 83,000 Afghan mujahideen. For its efforts Pakistan paid a price, as Soviet forces located inside Afghanistan began bombing Pakistani cities located along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border. 25 In addition to supporting Afghan mujahideen fighters, the ISI began to assist Kashmiri separatists in their efforts to make Kashmir part of Pakistan. In 1988, as part of that support, then-President Zia created Operation Topac. 26 The idea behind the project was to avenge Pakistan's defeat in the 1971 war with India and, in the process, attempt to balkanize it. Operation Topac had three operational objectives: (1) the disintegration of India; (2) the utilization of spy networks to conduct acts of sabotage; and (3) the ISI was to ''exploit porous borders with Nepal and Bangladesh to establish bases and conduct operations'' [inside India].27 In addition, the CIA gave a wink and a nod to the production of opium and heroin in northern Afghanistan under the ISI's auspices. The growth and sale of the substances is important for three reasons: (1) The drugs and their subsequent use by many of the Soviet forces stationed in Afghanistan turned many of the Soviets stationed there into drug addicts, diminishing both their will and their ability to fight; (2) the proceeds from the sale of the heroin in Europe and the United States afforded the ISI the opportunity to continue to finance its proxy war against the Soviets; and (3) the proceeds from the drugs also helped to support Pakistan's burgeoning nuclear weapons program. It, too, was a program the United States knew of, but did nothing about. Following the expulsion of the Soviets from Afghanistan, heroin smugglers in Pakistan used their experience from Afghanistan to increase their smuggling to the West. 28 Several notable terrorists rose out of the ashes of the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan and the CIA-ISI's joint efforts to oust them. Included among them are Ramzi Yousef, the individual responsible for the February 1993 bombing of New York City's World Trade Center; Mir Aimal Kansi, who in 1993 murdered two CIA employees outside of CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia; and Osama bin-Laden, as well as a whole host of Islamic militants in the Philippines and narcotics smugglers in Pakistan. 29

THE KASHMIR ISSUE

Since partition in 1947, Pakistan has tried in vain to wrest control of Muslim dominated Jammu and Kashmir from India. For most of this period, the ISI has used Islamic militants living in Kashmir to foment discord. Since partition the ISI has also served as the ''principal liaison'' with militant Islamic organizations, many of which the United States now considers terrorist organizations. Included are the Allah Tigers, al-Umar Mujahideen, Harkat ul-Ansar, Hizb-ul-Islam, Hizb-ul-Mujahideen, Jamaat Hurriyat Conference, and the Muslim mujahideen.30 Joint Intelligence North (JIN), the ISI section

Page 204

that supervises Islamic militants in Jammu and Kashmir, has been largely responsible for providing financial aid, military assistance, and logistical assistance to militants in the region.31 The modern plan to drive India out of Jammu and Kashmir was formulated in 1984 by then ISI Director-General Hamid Gul. The ISI 379 originally implemented its plan via propaganda, then steadily increased pressure in the 1990s as ISI-backed Islamic militants began to launch strikes and street rallies. The militants then conducted terrorist attacks against Indian interests in Kashmir. 32 Young Islamic militants were trained in Jammu and Kashmir, and the ISI is believed to have funded the campaigns of Kashmiri politicians or bribed them outright, to gain their support. 33 Starting in 1989, following the withdrawal of Soviet forces and the election of Benazir Bhutto 34 to the presidency, the ISI began supporting Islamic separatist organizations, such as the Jamaat E-Islami as part of a ''process of Islamization and revolt.'' 35 Consequently, the ISI started using monies garnered from its Afghani drug smuggling operation to finance ISI-backed terrorist incursions into the Indian provinces of Kashmir and Punjab.36 The ISI is believed to spend nearly Rs 100 Crores 37 every year to run its proxy war in Kashmir. Islamic militants inside Jammu and Kashmir receive arms and ammunition from the ISI. It also directs indoctrination programs and runs training camps, which in turn produce seasoned and motivated Islamic militants experienced in the use of advanced weapons systems and explosives.38 According to the Indian military, prior to 11 September 2001, the ISI had approximately thirty camps running in Pakistan Occupied Kashmir and Pakistan proper. It was assisted in running these camps by the Harkat-ul-Ansar (HUA),39 which is known for having close ties with Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda terrorist network. The HUA's two militias, the Harkat-ul-Mujahideen and Harkat-ul-Jihad, provide food, shelter, and clothing for trainees at these camps. In addition, the ISI has contracted militants from Afghanistan, Bahrain, Chechnya, Iran, Kazakhstan, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Turkey, and Yemen to fight in Kashmir.40 Finally, the ISI is known to have supplied Islamic militants in Kashmir with assault rifles and more advanced weapons systems, which included the Russian Snayperskaya Vinyovka Dragunov (SVD) sniper rifle, surface to air missile systems (SAMs), and plastic explosives.41 The ISI is also believed to be cooperating with Bangladesh's intelligence service in contacting Bangladeshi insurgents in India's northeastern region and the province of Assam.42

EFFORTS TO BRING THE ISI UNDER CONTROL

The ISI is believed to have assassinated Shah Nawaz Bhutto, the brother of former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto,43 in 1985 by poisoning him on the French Riviera. The ISI's intention was to intimidate Bhutto into not returning to Pakistan to push for democratic elections. She refused to be intimidated, and returned home after General Zia was killed in a plane crash. In 1988, she won the Prime Minister's position. 44 By that time, it had become readily apparent to many in Pakistan that the ISI was out of control. That belief was confirmed in 1990 when a commission Bhutto had appointed to look into ISI's activities concluded that the organization ''had the makings of a de facto government.'' Consequently, Bhutto tried to rein in its power. Prior to the release of the report, she had already taken steps to curb ISI's role. Her first step was to halt the practice of appointing a Lieutenant General recommended by the Army Chief of Staff as the Director-General. Instead, in 1989 she renamed Major General Shamsur Rahman Kallue to the post. Next, she borrowed a page from her father, and tried to bring the ISI under her control by promoting generals loyal to her into Pakistan's two other intelligence services, the

Page 205

Federal Investigation Agency (FIA), which launched attacks against ISI-backed Islamic extremists, and to the Intelligence Bureau (IB). Unfortunately for Bhutto, these steps drew the ire of Army Chief of Staff General Aslam Beg. Along with her maladroit efforts at influencing other key Army appointments, Bhutto quickly found herself at loggerheads with General Beg, which ultimately led to her dismissal by Pakistan's President in August 1990.45 Under the leadership of Director-General Hameed Gul, the ISI's role in Pakistani politics grew again. ISI's activities are thought to have included rigging the 1990 elections, which brought Nawaz Sharif to his first term as Prime Minister. 46 Like his predecessor, Sharif (1990-1993) also tried to bring the ISI under control. Following his election, he appointed Lieutenant General Javed Nasir as Director-General, even though Army Chief of Staff Lieutenant General Asif Nawaz Janjua had not recommended him. Unfortunately for Sharif, Nasir's appointment seems to have had little influence on the ISI's day-to-day operations .47 During her second term as Prime Minister, Bhutto once again tried to regulate the ISI's power by transferring its responsibility for clandestine operations inside Afghanistan to the Ministry of the Interior. Sections of the ISI close to then-Pakistani President Farooq Leghari had Bhutto's surviving brother, Murtaza Bhutto, murdered outside of his house in Karachi in September 1996. The ISI then undertook a propaganda campaign within the Pakistani media blaming Prime Minister Bhutto and her husband for Murtaza's murder. The cloud of suspicion surrounding Bhutto afforded President Leghari the impetus to dismiss her in November, once again bringing Nawaz Sharif to power.48

THE TALIBAN

Despite trying to curb the ISI's power, Benazir Bhutto had an onerous legacy. Pakistan has long used the ISI's active role in Afghanistan as a means of controlling the Afghan mujahideen and shaping its own regional foreign policy objectives. In 1989, following the withdrawal of Soviet forces from Afghanistan, the ISI chose to increase Pakistan's strategic strength in the region by establishing an ''Islamic Caliphate'' in Afghanistan.49 In 1994, Bhutto, at the behest of an American oil forum50 and several family friends in Pakistan's army, threw her support behind a group of Islamic Afghan students, known as the Tailbone, then located in the Pakistani city of Kanawha. Absent of any ISI influence, the Taliban at first proved to be particularly successful. Members of warring factions from across Afghanistan left their own camps to rally under the Taliban's flag. The ISI, taking notice of the Taliban's gains, secured financial backing from Bhutto's government and began to recruit students from madrasas all over Pakistan in an effort to support the fledgling Taliban, then led by Mullah Muhammad Omar.51 Using resources and contacts left over from the resistance to Soviet occupation, and with ISI support and training, the Taliban bribed local tribal warlords and conducted guerilla tactics in their efforts to gain power in Afghanistan. In 1996, after two years of fighting, the ISI-backed Taliban managed to defeat most of the warring factions and gained control of approximately ninety-five percent of the country. Since then, the ISI has been accused of actively supporting both the Taliban and bin Laden's terrorist organization, al-Qaeda.52

THE RISE OF PERVEZ MUSHARRAF

During his second term as Prime Minister (1997-1999), Nawaz Sharif again tried to curb the ISI's power, appointing Lieutenant General Ziauddin as Director-General even though the Army Chief of Staff, General Pervez Musharraf, had objected to his

Page 206

appointment. In response, Musharraf named Lieutenant General Muhammad Aziz, then ISI's Deputy Director-General, as Director-General of Military Intelligence (DGMI). Musharraf then placed Joint Intelligence North (JIN), the ISI division responsible for conducting clandestine intelligence activities, under Aziz's control. Relations between Sharif and Musharraf deteriorated even further in 1999, when Sharif dispatched Ziauddin to meet with officials in the Bill Clinton administration in Washington, D.C., where they discussed Sharif's concerns over Musharraf's continued loyalty. Returning to Pakistan, Ziauddin was then ordered by Sharif to travel to Kandahar to pressure Taliban leader Mullah Muhammad Omar to stop supporting Islamic fundamentalists in Pakistan and to work with Washington in extraditing bin Laden to the United States. Upon learning of Ziauddin's trip, Musharraf dispatched Aziz to Kandahar, where he instructed Mullah Omar that he was to disregard Ziauddin and instead follow his instructions, which had Musharraf's backing. 53 By now, Sharif was widely viewed by many members of the public and the Army, especially Musharraf, as becoming increasingly dictatorial. Musharraf argued that Sharif was taking too many liberties in his running of the army. On 19 October 1999, in a popularly backed coup, General Musharraf overthrew Sharif and took control of the government, declaring himself Chief Executive. 54 Turning to the ISI, now-President Musharraf dismissed ISI Director-General Ziauddin, and replaced him with Lt.-General Ahmed Mahmud, an Islamic conservative. 55

POST-SEPTEMBER 11

Politicians and political pundits in the United States have repeatedly asserted that everything changed on 11 September 2001. Those words could not have been truer for the ISI's relationship with the United States and Afghanistan. Prior to 11 September, neither the ISI nor the Pakistani government had any desire to hand Osama bin Laden over to the United States. In fact, it is believed that just prior to 11 September, the ISI had dispatched additional operatives to Afghanistan to aid the Taliban. 56 On 11 August, just a month before the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, General Musharraf was quoted in an interview by the Russian newspaper Noviye Izvestia as saying ' 'the Taliban . . . control about 95% of the territory [Afghanistan] and cannot be wished away. . . .We feel that the international community should engage the Taliban rather than isolating them and ostracizing them.'' 57 On 11 September, the ISI's General Mahmud was in Washington at the time of the attacks, and pledged to provide the United States with the intelligence it needed to pursue its war on terror. 58 Despite Mahmud's promises, at least five ISI intelligence officers are known to have assisted the Taliban in preparing Afghan defenses against an imminent American attack. 59 But President Musharraf subsequently forced the ISI to do an about-face regarding its role in Afghanistan. In October, Musharraf sent Mahmud to Kandahar in Afghanistan as part of a diplomatic mission to tell Mullah Muhammad Omar to hand bin Laden over to the United States. Instead, Mahmud did the exact opposite, advising Mullah Omar not to hand bin Laden over. When Musharraf, who has long had strong ties to the ISI, learned of Mahmud's actions, he decided to bring the agency under his control by removing its Director-General, replacing him with Lieutenant-General Ehsan ul-Haq, who is believed to share Musharraf's pro-Western views. Ehsan, considered a moderate and a friend of Musharraf, had previously served as the head of military intelligence, and is widely respected within Pakistan's military and by senior American intelligence officials. 60

Page 207

THE ISI'S CONTINUED ROLE IN KASHMIR

While relations between the United States and Pakistan have warmed considerably with the ISI's removal from Afghanistan, relations between India and Pakistan continue to remain tense. India holds Musharraf responsible for the 1999 conflict in the Kashmiri province of Kargil, known as the Kargil War.61 Relations between India and Pakistan became more complicated when, on 13 December 2001, Kashmiri separatists staged an attack on India's Parliament in Delhi. The Indian government under Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayi blamed ISI-backed Islamic militants for the incident and began to mount troops on the POK border. In response, Musharraf, fearing an all-out war with India, is believed to have instructed the ISI to make sure that Islamic militants not carry out any more attacks. 62 The following month, in January 2002, President Musharraf pledged that his country would contribute to the War on Terror, and began to disband the ISI's Afghanistan and Kashmir departments ISI officials have reported that as many as forty percent of those working for the ISI could be reassigned, thereby reducing the ISI staff from an estimated 10,000 to 6,000. By February 2002 intelligence officers within the Afghanistan and Kashmir divisions had already been transferred, with more transfers expected. 63 While the ISI's Afghanistan division is believed to have been closed down entirely, the Kashmir section continues to be more of a challenge since it serves as one of Pakistan's main sources of information on Indian intelligence activities in the region. The ISI also has a long history of providing logistical and military support to Islamic Kashmiri separatists.64 The major sticking point in the ISI's restructuring is the agency's reluctance to shut down the Kashmir division for two primary reasons:

the ISI and the Pakistani government do not trust the Indian government and want to continue to conduct intelligence operations in the region; and

the ISI is already troubled by the loss of its Afghanistan division. President Musharraf may not want to further antagonize the agency by completely shutting down its Kashmir division.65 Under pressure from the George W. Bush administration in Washington, the ISI has also begun to sever its ties with Islamic extremists in the region, most notably with the Hizb-ul-Mujahideen and the Jaish-e-Muhammad groups. 66, 67

In addition, the ISI's domestic political intelligence operations are being transferred to Pakistan's civilian intelligence service, the Intelligence Bureau. 68 President Musharraf, as a former Army Chief of Staff, may better be able to bring the ISI, which is part of Pakistan's military structure, under control. According to Gary Samore of the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London, ''under civilian rule the ISI had a fair amount of independence . . . under Musharraf they are answerable.'' 69 Following the 11 September attacks and the initiation of President Bush's response of a ''war on terror,'' the United States began to rely heavily on intelligence provided by the ISI. In return for American electronic intelligence (ELINT) and financial remuneration, the ISI has provided the United States with human intelligence (HUMINT) of extreme importance because the ISI is believed to possess vast stores of intelligence on bin Laden, al-Qaeda, and the Taliban. In addition, the ISI has detained suspected al-Qaeda operatives as they attempt to cross into Pakistan, and have handed many over to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). A most notable capture of a top-level al-Qaeda operative came in April 2002, when the ISI informed the FBI of the whereabouts of Abu Zubaydah, al-Qaeda's operations chief. This information allowed the FBI to place a tracking device on Zubaydah's car, which eventually led to his arrest by federal agents and deportation to the prison established for the purpose at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.70 Despite their

Page 208

cooperation with the U.S. effort, both Musharraf and the ISI have their detractors. Afghanistan's Interior Minister, Younis Qanooni, has accused the ISI of helping bin Laden flee Afghanistan.71 Pakistan, which views Afghanistan's new government as being pro-Indian, has vehemently denied the accusation.72

A FIRM HAND

Until quite recently the ISI has been a ''kingdom within a kingdom,'' answerable to neither the army nor Pakistan's President. Its leaders have used their power to constrain political opponents at home, while conducting various intelligence operations abroad. With the rise of President Musharraf, and Pakistan's strengthened relationship with the United States, enough pressure may now exist to afford Musharraf the opportunity to bring the ISI firmly under government control.

REFERENCES

1 Rahul Bedl, ''Vital Intelligence on the Taliban May Rest with Its Prime Sponsor— Pakistan's ISI,'' Jane's.com, 3 May 2002. Available on the World Wide

385 PAKISTAN'S ISI: THE INVISIBLE GOVERNMENT AND COUNTERINTELLIGENCE VOLUME 16, NUMBER 3

Web: (http://www.janes.com/security/international-security/news/misc/ janes011001-1-nshtml). Intelligence Resource Program, ''Directorate for Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI),'' Federation of American Scientists, 1 May 2002. Available on the World Wide Web: (http://www.fas.org/irp/world/Pakistan/isi).

2 In 1948, General Cawthorne was a leading member of the British Expeditionary Force stationed in what was about to become the state of Pakistan.

3 Intelligence Resource Program, op. cit., p. 1.

4 SDECE: Service de Documentation Exte rieure et de Contreespionage (the Service of External Documentation and Counterespionage).

5 Rahul Bedl, op. cit., p. 2. Major General Ashok Krishna, AVSM (Ret.), ''The Inter-Service Intelligence (ISI) of Pakistan,'' IPCS, Article No. 191, 25 May 1999, p. 1; B. Raman, ''Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI),'' South East Asia Analysis Group, Paper No. 287, 8 January 2001, p. 1.

6 Indranil Banerjie, ''Pakistan's Inter-Service Intelligence in Afghanistan,'' SAPRA India, 20 September 2001, p. 4; Intelligence Resource Program, pp. 1-2; B. Raman, op. cit., p. 1.

7 Intelligence Resource Program, p. 1.

8 Federal Research Division, U. S. Library of Congress, ''Pakistan: The Ayub Khan Era,' ' 1 May 2002. Available on World Wide Web: (http: // lcweb2.loc.gov/frd/cs/cshome,html). See section on Pakistan: Chapter 1, The Ayub Khan Era.

9 B. Raman, op. cit., p. 1.

10 When Pakistan was established, it consisted of two halves: West Pakistan (today's Pakistan), and East Pakistan, now Bangladesh. When the nation was created, Pakistan's political leadership decided that the capital would be in West Pakistan, while the Legislature would meet in East Pakistan.

11 Altaf Guahar, ''Writer Exposes ISI's Role in Pakistani Politics,'' The Nation in English, 17 August 1997, p. 2; Intelligence Resource Program, p. 2.

12 The Director General of the ISI has always been, with a couple of notable exceptions, a Lieutenant, or three-star, General. Under the Director General

Page 209

are three Deputy Directors General (DDGs), one from each of Pakistan's military branches: Army, Navy, and Air Force.

13 Following India's independence, Jawaharlal Nehru, its rst Prime Minister, implemented a foreign policy of nonalignment, which afforded India the opportunity to actively engage both the United States and the Soviet Union. As India became more intimately involved with the USSR, U.S. policymakers sought stronger ties with India's neighbor, Pakistan.

14 Major General Yashwant Deva, AVSM (Ret.), ''ISI and Its Chicanery in Exporting Terrorism,'' Indian Defence Review, 1995, p. 8; Altaf Guahar, op. cit., p. 1; Intelligence Resource Program, p. 2; B. Raman, op. cit., p. 2.

15 Intelligence Resource Program, p. 2.

16 Indranil Banerjie, op. cit., p. 4.

17 B. Raman, op. cit., p. 1. 386 SEAN P. WINCHELL INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INTELLIGENCE

18 Ron Nordland, ''A Dictator's Dilemma,'' Newsweek, 1 October 2001, p. 1.

19 Indranil Banerjie, op. cit., p. 4; Rahul Bedl, op. cit., p. 2.

20 Rahul Bedl, op. cit., p. 3; B. Raman, op. cit., p. 3.

21 Rahul Bedl, op. cit., pp. 1-2; Intelligence Resource Program, p. 3.

22 Yashwant Deva, op. cit., p. 3.

23 In the Islamic faith, madrasas are Muslim seminaries for the study of advanced Islamic law, also known as Shari'a.

24 Yashwant Deva, op. cit., p. 3; B. Raman, op. cit., p. 2.

25 Intelligence Resource Program, p. 3.

26 Operation Tupac was named after Tupac Amaru, an eighteenth-century Incan prince who led a rebellion against the Spanish to liberate Uruguay. A leftist guerrilla group named after him functioned for many years in Peru. See Simon Strong, Shining Path: Terror and Revolution in Peru (New York: Times Books/ Random House, 1992), especially pp. 114-115.

27 Intelligence Resource Program, p. 3; John Daily Wilson, ''Describes Activities of ISI in India,'' The Pioneer (Delhi), 30 June 1999, p. 1.

28 Rahul Bedl, op. cit., p. 3; B. Raman, op. cit., p. 3.

29 Rahul Bedl, ibid.; B. Raman, ibid., p. 2.

30 Douglas Jehl, ''Pakistan Cutting Its Spy Units Ties to Some Militants,'' The New York Times, 20 February 2002, p. 1. Tim McGirk, ''Has Pakistan Tamed Its Spies?,'' Time, 6 May 2002, p. 34; John Daily Wilson, op. cit., p. 2.

31 John Daily Wilson, op. cit., p. 2.

32 Ibid.

33 Ibid.

34 General Zia met an untimely end on 19 April 1988 when the Air Force plane in which he was flying exploded mysteriously in midair. What caused the explosion has never been explained.

35 Indranil Banerjie, op. cit., p. 8.

36 Ibid.; Intelligence Resource Program, p. 1; Tim McGirk, op. cit., p. 34.

37 This is approximately 20.56 million U.S. dollars per year.

38 Yashwant Deva, op. cit., p. 5; Intelligence Resource Program, p. 2; Ashok Krishna, op. cit., p. 2.

Page 210

39 In 1997 the U.S. State Department declared the HUA a terrorist organization and placed it on America's terrorist watch list.

40 Ashok Krishna, op. cit., pp. 2-3.

41 John Daily Wilson, op. cit., p. 2.

42 Ashok Krishna, op. cit., p. 3.

43 Benazir Bhutto is the daughter of the slain former Pakistani President Zul.kar Ali Bhutto.

44 Intelligence Resource Program, p. 3.

45 Indranil Banerjie, op. cit., p. 5;Douglas Jehl, op. cit., p. 1; B.Raman, op. cit., pp. 5-6.

46 Intelligence Resource Program, p. 3.

387 PAKISTAN'S ISI: THE INVISIBLE GOVERNMENT AND COUNTERINTELLIGENCE VOLUME 16, NUMBER 3

47 B. Raman, op. cit., p. 5.

48 Ibid., p. 6.

49 Indranil Banerjie, op. cit., p. 1.

50 Which particular American oil firm is not listed in any of the source material that I have come across, though several of these documents do stipulate that Prime Minister Bhutto's decisions were at the behest of an American oil .rm.

51 Indranil Banerjie, op. cit., p. 9; Rahul Bedl, op. cit., p. 2.

52 Indranil Banerjie, ibid.; Rahul Bedl, ibid.; Tim McGirk, op. cit., p. 32.

53 B. Raman, op. cit., p. 7.

54 Sharif was arrested, charged with, and convicted of hijacking and terrorism. The charges stemmed from an incident in October 1999 when he refused to allow a plane carrying 198 passengers, one of whom was Musharraf, to land in Karachi. See Owen Bennett Jones, Pakistan: Eye of the Storm (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2002), especially Chapter 2, ''The 1999 Coup,'' pp. 34-55; and Mary Anne Weaver, ''Pakistan: In the Eye of Jihad and Afghanistan'' (New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2002), Chapter 1, ''General on a Tightrope,'' especially pp. 11-18.

55 Indranil Banerjie, op. cit., p. 7.

56 Rahul Bedl, op. cit., p. 3.

57 Ibid., p. 9.

58 Ibid., p. 1.

59 Tim McGirk, op. cit., p. 35.

60 Rahul Bedl, op. cit., p. 2; David Chazan, ''Pro.le: Pakistan's Military Intelligence Agency,'' BBC's News Online, 9 January, 2002, p. 8; Intelligence Resource Program, p. 4; Douglas Jehl, op. cit., pp. 1-2; Tim McGirk, op. cit., pp. 34-35.

61 The Kargil War was a ten-week conflict in 1999 between the Indian army and Islamic militants (who may have been members of the Pakistani military) who had crossed the line of control from Pakistani Occupied Kashmir into India.

62 Rahul Bedl, op. cit., p. 2.

63 Douglas Jehl, op. cit., p. 1.

64 Ibid., pp. 1-2.

65 Ibid., p. 2.

66 The Jaish-e Muhammad Islamic extremist group is most notable in the West for its kidnapping and murder of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl.

Page 211

67 Douglas Jehl, op. cit., p. 1.

68 Ibid.

69 David Chazan, op. cit., pp. 4-5.

70 Indranil Banerjie, op. cit., p. 3; Tim McGirk, op. cit., p. 33.

71 Many in Afghanistan blame both the Pakistani government and the ISI for the creation of the Taliban, and there currently exists within Afghanistan a strong undercurrent of antipathy to both Pakistan and the ISI.

72 David Chazan, op. cit., p. 6. 388 SEAN P. WINCHELL INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INTELLIGENCE

Page 212

India's spiritual heritage

An article written by Glen P. Kezwer, Ph.D. Glen Kezwer has been practising and studying meditation for the past twenty years at a meditation institute in northern India. He writes:

ICG Asia Report N°73 16 January 2004

UNFULFILLED PROMISES:

PAKISTAN'S FAILURE TO TACKLE EXTREMISM EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

It has been more than two years since President and Chief of Army Staff Pervez Musharraf pledged to reform Pakistani society by reversing the trend of Islamist extremism. In a televised speech, he promised a series of measures to combat extremism. One of the key issues was to bring all madrasas - the religious schools that educate many Pakistani children - into the mainstream and to increase scrutiny of them by controlling funding and curriculum. President Musharraf's call for an end to the promotion of an ideology of jihad was welcomed around the world. Two years on, however, the failure to deliver to any substantial degree on pledges to reform the madrasas and contain the growth of jihadi networks means that religious extremism in Pakistan continues to pose a threat to domestic, regional and international security. Declaring that no institutions would be above the law, the government said it would: register all madrasas so that it had a clear idea of which groups were running which schools; regulate the curriculum so that all madrasas would adopt a government curriculum by the end of 2002; stop the use of madrasas and mosques as centers for the spread of politically and religious inflammatory statements and publications; and establish model madrasas that would provide modern, useful education and not promote extremism. New rules were to be outlined in a presidential ordinance. "No individual, organisation or party will be allowed to break the law of the land," Musharraf declared. However, to date no such regulation has been promulgated. Most madrasas remain unregistered. No national syllabus has been developed. No rules on funding of madrasas have been adopted. The government has repeated the rhetoric of mainstreaming madrasa education on many occasions but has pledged that it will not interfere in the affairs of those schools. While three model madrasas have been set up and have enrolled around 300 students, as many as 1.5 million students attend unregulated madrasas. President Musharraf had promised to crack down on terrorism and end the jihadi culture in Pakistan. He declared that no organisation would be allowed to indulge in terrorism in India-administered Kashmir. While several Pakistani groups were banned, their leaders were not prosecuted under the Anti- terrorism Act. One extremist leader was allowed to run for parliament and indeed won a seat though more than twenty charges of violent crimes were pending against him. Many secular politicians were disqualified for much less, including not having a higher education. Banned groups were allowed to continue working under new identities with the same leadership. Many, though banned a second time in November 2003, continue to function unhindered and are likely to resurface under new names again. The government has done very little to implement tougher controls on financing of either madrasas or extremist groups despite obligations under UN Security Council Resolution 1373. It has failed to pass the necessary laws, even removing the issue of terrorism funding from draft regulations on money laundering on the misleading claim that it was already covered under an earlier law on terrorism. Pakistan's laws on terrorism and extremist groups remain muddled and opaque. While the government claims to be tackling terrorism, it has taken almost no steps towards restricting the extremism that permeates parts of the society. Even al Qaeda was not officially banned until March 2003. Musharraf's failure owes less to the difficulty of implementing reforms than to the military government's

Page 217

own unwillingness. Indeed, he is following the pattern of the country's previous military rulers in co-opting religious extremists to support his government's agenda and to neutralize his secular political opposition. Far from combating extremism, the military government has promoted it through its electoral policies and its failure to implement effective reform. Whatever measures have so far been taken against extremism have been largely cosmetic, to ease international pressure. Government inaction has resulted in a resurgence of domestic extremism, including sectarian violence. The failure to penetrate and crack down on terrorist networks is evident in two assassination attempts against President Musharraf himself in December 2003. The jihads in Kashmir and Afghanistan, which in different degrees owe much to support from within Pakistan, remain threats to regional peace. Reliant even more than in the past on the religious right for regime survival after the passage of the Seventeenth Constitutional Amendment with the MMA's support, Musharraf remains unlikely to take the decisive actions against domestic jihadis and jihadi madrasas he pledged in January 2002 and has reiterated repeatedly. These unfulfilled promises could well prove his undoing.

RECOMMENDATIONS

To the Pakistan Government:

Establish immediately a Madrasa Regulatory Authority, headed by the Interior Minister, to:

(a) Impose mandatory registration and classification of the madrasa sector;

(b) empower the Pakistan Madrasa Education Board to revise and standardise curriculum and ensure it is implemented;

(c) review existing laws for the registration of non-governmental organisations with a view to tightening financial controls and strengthening the monitoring infrastructure; and

(d) link grants to madrasas under the Education Ministry's Madrasa Reforms Plan to their registration, declaration of financial assets and acceptance and implementation of standardised religious and general curriculums.

2. Sign immediately the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism.

3. Take effective action against all extremist groups and parties, in particular,

(a) dismantle the infrastructure of groups banned under the Anti-Terrorism Law by prosecuting their leaders, making public the evidence for which the groups were proscribed, and preventing members from regrouping and reorganising under new identities;

(b) close all madrasas affiliated with banned organisations;

(c) close all other jihadi madrasas, including those linked to religious parties.

4. Ensure that any political deals with religious parties do not involve conditions that compromise basic civil liberties or Pakistan's obligations under United Nations Security Council Resolution 1373.

5. Use the federal government's constitutional powers to override any provincial legislation that conflicts with basic constitutional liberties in order to prevent the provincial governments dominated by the religious umbrella alliance, the Muttahida Majlis-i-Amal (MMA), from implementing policies that violate those liberties.

6. Pursue an even-handed policy towards religious and secular parties.

To the International Community:

7. Publicly urge Pakistan to meet its obligations under UNSC Resolution 1373.

Page 218

8. Hold the Pakistani government to its commitments to madrasa reform, and in particular urge it to:

(a) close all madrasas linked to banned extremist groups and all other jihadi madrasas;

(b) establish a Madrasa Regulatory Authority under the Ministry of Interior with sufficient powers to overcome clerical resistance; and

(c) institute mandatory, rather than voluntary, registration, curriculum reform, and financial control mechanisms.

9. Call upon Pakistan to sign immediately the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism and fulfil the obligations imposed by that document.

Islamabad/Brussels, 16 January 2004

Page 219

Sri Aurobindo on

Parliamentary Democracy

A few quotations and references

March 16, 1908

It has been said that democracy is based on the rights of man; it has been replied that it should rather take its stand on the duties of man; but both rights and duties are European ideas. Dharma is the Indian conception in which rights and duties lose the artificial antagonism created by a view of the world which makes selfishness the root of action, and regain their deep and eternal unity. Dharma is the basis of democracy which Asia must recognise, for in this lies the distinction between the soul of Asia and the soul of Europe.¹

***

July 13, 1911

(From a letter to a friend.)

Be very careful to follow my instructions in avoiding the old kind of politics. Spirituality is India's only politics, the fulfilment of the Sanatana Dharma its only Swaraj. I have no doubt we shall have to go through our Parliamentary period in order to get rid of the notion of Western democracy by seeing in practice how helpless it is to make nations blessed. India is passing really through the first stages of a sort of national Yoga. It was mastered in the inception by the inrush of divine force which came in 1905 and aroused it from its state of complete tamasic ajñanam [ignorance]. But, as happens also with individuals, all that was evil, all the wrong samskaras [imprints] and wrong emotions and mental and moral habits rose with it and misused the divine force. Hence all that orgy of political oratory, democratic fervour, meetings, processions, passive

Page 220

resistance, all ending in bombs, revolvers and Coercion laws.... God has struck it all down, — Moderatism, the bastard child of English Liberalism; Nationalism, the mixed progeny of Europe and Asia; Terrorism, the abortive offspring of Bakunin and Mazzini.... It is only when this foolishness is done with that truth will have a chance, the sattwic mind in India emerge and a really strong spiritual movement begin as a prelude to India's regeneration. No doubt, there will be plenty of trouble and error still to face, but we shall have a chance of putting our feet on the right path. In all I believe God to be guiding us, giving the necessary experiences, preparing the necessary conditions.²

***

c. 1914

Democracy in Europe is the rule of the Cabinet minister, the corrupt deputy or the self-seeking capitalist masqued by the occasional sovereignty of a wavering populace; Socialism in Europe is likely to be the rule of the official and policeman masqued by the theoretic sovereignty of an abstract State. It is chimerical to enquire which is the better system; it would be difficult to decide which is the worse.³

***

c. 1918

Certainly, democracy as it is now practised is not the last or penultimate stage; for it is often merely democratic in appearance and even at the best amounts to the rule of the majority and works by the vicious method of party government, defects the increasing perception of which enters largely into the present-day dissatisfaction with parliamentary systems.⁴

***

January 5, 1920

(From a letter to Joseph Baptista, a co-worker of Tilak.)

2 Archives & Research, December 1977, p. 84.
3 From Thoughts and Aphorisms.
4 The Ideal of Human Unity, 15.434.

Page 221

Dear Baptista,

I do not at all look down on politics or political action or consider I have got above them. I have always laid a dominant stress and I now lay an entire stress on the spiritual life, but my idea of spirituality has nothing to do with ascetic withdrawal or contempt or disgust of secular things. There is to me nothing secular, all human activity is for me a thing to be included in a complete spiritual life, and the importance of politics at the present time is very great. But my line and intention of political activity would differ considerably from anything now current in the field.... What preoccupies me now is the question what [the country] is going to do with its self-determination, how will it use its freedom, on what lines is it going to determine its future?

You may ask why not come out and help, myself, so far as I can, in giving a lead? But my mind has a habit of running inconveniently ahead of the times, — some might say, out of time altogether into the world of the ideal. Your party, you say, is going to be a social democratic party. Now I believe in something which might be called social democracy, but not in any of the forms now current, and I am not altogether in love with the European kind, however great an improvement it may be on the past. I hold that India having a spirit of her own and a governing temperament proper to her own civilisation, should in politics as in everything else strike out her own original path and not stumble in the wake of Europe. But this is precisely what she will be obliged to do, if she has to start on the road in her present chaotic and unprepared condition of mind. No doubt people talk of India developing on her own lines, but nobody seems to have very clear or sufficient ideas as to what those lines are to be. In this matter I have formed ideals and certain definite ideas of my own, in which at present very few are likely to follow me, — since they are governed by an uncompromising spiritual idealism of an unconventional kind and would be unintelligible to many and an offence and stumbling-block to a great number.⁵

***

7 April 1926

The parliamentary form would be hardly suitable for our people. Of course, it is not necessary that you should have today the same old forms [as in ancient India]. But you can take the line of evolution and follow the bent of the genius of the race....⁶

 5 On Himself, 26.430-431.

Page 222

27 December 1938

Parliamentary Government is not suited to India. But we always take up what the West has thrown off.... [In an ideal government for India,] there may be one Rashtrapati at the top with considerable powers so as to secure a continuity of policy, and an assembly representative of the nation. The provinces will combine into a federation united at the top, leaving ample scope to local bodies to make laws according to their local problems.⁷

***

February 2, 1939

Nowadays people want the modern type of democracy — the parliamentary form of government. The parliamentary system is doomed. It has brought Europe to its present sorry pass....

[In India] one should begin with the old Panchayat system in the villages and then work up to the top. The Panchayat system and the guilds are more representative and they have a living contact with people; they are part of the people's ideas. On the contrary, the parliamentary system with local bodies — the municipal councils — is not workable: these councils have no living contact with the people; the councillors make only platform speeches and nobody knows what they do for three or four years; at the end they reshuffle

and rearrange the whole thing, making their own pile during their period of power.⁸

***

International Journal of Intelligence and Counterintelligence, 16: 374-388, 2003

Copyright # 2003 Taylor & Francis Inc.

ISSN: 0885-0607 print/1521-0561 online

DOI: 10.1080/08850600390201477

7 Evening Talks, p. 564.
8 Talks with Sri Aurobindo by Nirodbaran (Sri Aurobindo Society, 1986), p. 274-280.

Page 223

References in the book

We give below, chapter by chapter, references or guides to the sources.

Chapter 1

No 1. Sri Aurobindo Birth Centenary Library Vol 14, The Foundations of Indian Culture pp- 366-367 p 16 in the manuscript

No 2. Sri Aurobindo Birth Centenary Library Vol 14, The Foundations of Indian Culture pp- 367-368. p 21-22 in the manuscript

Chapter 5

No 1. Sri Aurobindo and the New Thought in Indian Politics by Haridas Mukherjee and Uma Mukherjee pp -xxxviii p 56 in the manuscript

No 2. Sri Aurobindo Birth Centenary Library Vol 2 Karmayogin pp 245-246 p 59 in the manuscript

No 3. Sri Aurobindo Birth Centenary Library Vol 2 Karmayogin pp -262 p 59 in the manuscript

No4. Sri Aurobindo Birth Centenary Library Vol 2 Karmayogin pp- 24 p 60 in the manuscript

No 5. From an unpublished letter of Sri Aurobindo p 63 in the manuscript

No 6. Sri Aurobindo Birth Centenary Library Vol 2 Karmayogin pp 3 onwards p 66 in the manuscript

Chapter 6

No1. India's Rebirth pp -161 p 72 in the manuscript

No 2. India's Rebirth pp175 p72 in the manuscript

No 3. India's Rebirth pp -160 p72 in the manuscript

No 4. India's Rebirth pp - 167 p73 in the manuscript

Chapter 7

No1. India's Rebirth pp -237 p 80 in the manuscript

Chapter 8

No 1. Collected Works of the Mother - Centenary Edition Vol 13 - Words of the Mother pp- 125-126 p 81 in the manuscript

Page 224

No 2. Sri Aurobindo Birth Centenary Library, Vol 26 On Himself pp - 393 p 82 in the manuscript

No 3. Sri Aurobindo Birth Centenary Library, Vol 26 On Himself pp - 396-398 p 83 in the manuscript

No 4. India's Rebirth pp - 218 p 88 in the manuscript

No 5. Sri Aurobindo Birth Centenary Library, Vol 26 On Himself pp - 404 p100 in the manuscript

Chapter 9

No 1 .

No 2. India's Rebirth pp-16 p 104 in the manuscript

No 3. Sri Aurobindo Birth Centenary Library, Vol 26 On Himself pp - 40-41 p 105 in the manuscript

No 4. India's Rebirth pp - 160-161 p 109 in the manuscript

No 5. From an unpublished letter of Sri Aurobindo p 114 in the manuscript

No 6. . Sri Aurobindo Birth Centenary Library, Vol 15 Social and Political Thought pp -288-289 p115 in the manuscript

Part 2

Chapter 2

No 1. From an unpublished letter of Sri Aurobindo p 145 in the manuscript

No 2. White Roses compiled and Published by Huta pp -279 p 151 in the manuscript

Chapter 3

No 1. Kargil, the manifestation of a deeper problem p 157 in the manuscript

Page 225

Book 2

Chapter 1

No. 1 Kargil, the manifestation of a deeper problem p 203 in the manuscript

No 2. From an unpublished letter of the Mother to a disciple p 203 in the manuscript

Chapter 10

No 1. India's Rebirth pp 89 p 293 in the manuscript No 2. India's Rebirth pp207 p293 in the manuscript

Chapter 11

No 1.Sri Aurobindo Birth Centenary Library, Vol 16 The Supramental Manifestation pp 394 p 302 in the manuscript

No 2. Sri Aurobindo Birth Centenary Library Vol 20, The Synthesis of Yoga pp 27 p 302 in the manuscript

N0 3. Sri Aurobindo Birth Centenary Library Vol 20 The Synthesis of Yoga pp28-33 p 303 in the manuscript

No 4. Sri Aurobindo Birth Centenary Library Vol 20 The Synthesis of Yoga pp37 p 303 in the manuscript

No 5. Collected Works of the Mother, Centenary Edition, Vol 12 On Education, pp403-404 p 303-304 in the manuscript

No 6. from the Collected works of the Mother p 404 in the manuscript

To make it easier, I have put the page of the reference and at the end the page in the manuscript.

Page 226