Commentary/Varsha Bhosle
Jingoists of the world, Unite!
This week, what I really wanted was to relinquish this space to an
excellent piece of analysis by Pakistani writer Abdul Haye which
was published in The Nation earlier this month. In his article
titled "Indian liberals vs Pakistani liberals", Mr Haye trains
his sight on our very own angel of mercy Kuldip Nayar, who, in his
article "Thou shalln't hate", had lambasted Pakistan's liberal
brigade for not turning up at the Wagah border to jointly
celebrate the Golden Jubilee of the independence of India and
Pakistan.
If you've been visiting Mars, here's a recap: Mr Nayar had given a
clarion call to the supposedly like-minded, tender-hearted souls
of Pakistan to march towards their country's frontier to light
candles and chant slogans of brotherhood, just as he'd lead the
Indian chapter of the Fabian glee club on this side. Mr Nayar had
also hoped that (after rounds of happy applause from the cheek-to-
jowl line of soldiers securing the outpost in inclement terrain),
the cross-border choirs could break shaami kababs in the no man's
land. I am not making this up.
Pakistan's liberals consented, but even so, the holy night emerged
as a silent one: Not a single candle showed up. Which led Mr Nayar
to opine that it was due to an, er... discouraging circular issued
by the government. But before I add my bit, let Mr Haye speak: "I
find it hard to believe that they could have been stopped by a
mere circular from doing something that they thought was right.
The reason they failed to keep the date with Mr Nayar and his
other countrymen could only be that they thought it to be wrong...
On sober reflection, they realised that it was much more than
friend A meeting friend B. It would inevitably come to symbolise a
meeting between two parties. One party representing the oppressors
in Kashmir and the other the oppressed in Kashmir. And while the
Pakistanis hugged and cheered the other side, the message sent to
the people under the Indian sword would be of our utter
callousness."
Poor Mr Nayar and his unrequited candles... As my beloved Rajeev
warned, our neighbours aren't about to become peace-loving
vegetarians, hug trees, and beat swords into ploughshares. Be
honest: Didn't Mr Nayar embarrass the hell out of you? Though I
normally enjoy watching our liberals fall flat on their pasty
faces, I had winced and tightly squeezed my eyes shut on hearing
this cockamamie scheme: Since our secularists continue to have
such faith in the old, Nehruvian bury-one's-head-in-the-sand ploy,
I reckoned it would work with their own effluvium. 'Twas not to
be: India became a laughing stock, all the same.
Actually, I wouldn't have minded at all if Mr Nayar had chosen to
wear a tall, pointed and belled cap over a motley costume for a
stint at Wagah on any other day -- the international community is
quite used to bizarre spectacles at frontiers. Unfortunately, the
occasion he picked made all Indians look like the 4,000 wide-eyed
gimps who followed him there. I demand a law against twerps taking
on the mantle of representing us citizens at large.
Never mind Prime Minister I K Gujral's intentions (bless his open-
border heart), the secretary-level talks between India and
Pakistan were (smirk, smirk) a flop. Pakistan has always had an
inflexible, Kashmir-centered, single-point policy towards India;
and by 'Pakistan', I don't mean just the government but its
people, too -- as Mr Haye affirms in his summation. Never mind the
trade-centred goals of the business community which upheld Nawaz
Sharief in the elections, his government still describes Kashmir
as the core issue between the two countries. The Nation even
quoted Mr Sharief as saying, "By the grace of Allah almighty,
Kashmir will be liberated during the tenure of the Pakistan Muslim
League government."
Well, India has its own compulsions. But the woolly-headed ones
actively pushing the "Gujral doctrine" just don't get it:
Pakistan's brass will never let the Kashmir issue be shadowed by
economic or cultural Indo-Pak interrelations. Unless the military
establishment falls in line, little can be expected in terms of a
tangible peace. Even as Mian Sharief was being sworn in as prime
minister, army chief General Jahangir Karamat declared that
Kashmir would not be thrown on the back-burner. These views have
since been extensively echoed by Pakistan's press.
To be fair to Mr Nayar, he is a whole lot better than most of the
liberals I know: At least so far, he hasn't demanded that J&K be
handed over to Pakistan, nor is he in favour of holding a
plebiscite in the state. What Mr Nayar wants is that Pakistan put
Kashmir aside and embark on trade, tourism and cultural exchanges
with India: Very reasonable -- and much like the song sung by Peter
Pan to the Lost Boys of Never-Never Land. Or, by Mr Gujral to the
Lost Cases of India-India. For peace to work, a country first needs
brute strength. Ask the US. Or China.
But you know the perversity of it all? Just as it's obvious that
Pakistan's liberals are of a stock different from their Indian
counterpart, both nations's hawks are pretty much the same in their
ability to smell bullshit. To illustrate: justifying India's stand
on Kashmir, Mr Nayar had written, "India's secular polity has
become linked with the Valley". Which prompts Mr Haye to reply,
"The difference between the Indian position and Pakistan's
position is that India does not want the people of Kashmir to be
heard while Pakistan wants them to be heard. Where does the
question of secularism come into it?" Hahahaha... right on! What
*does* secularism have to do with the maintenance of national
sovereignty? I feel camaraderie with Mr Haye, for he doesn't let
even a gentle admonition slide by. So jingoistic of him, no?
When dealing with Islamic states (including khilafat), it's
madness to talk about secularism. Hilal, a joint publication of
Pakistan's military establishment and the ISI, vindicates the
reservations of Hindutvawadis thus: "The issue of Hindu-Muslim
friendship is nothing new. The Muslims ruled over the Hindus for
above 1,000 years and the Hindus witnessed their rule for many
years... Islam bars Muslims from extending a hand of friendship to
Hindus unless the latter change their thinking and nature. The
last Prophet of God, Mohammed (PBUH), has said: 'If someone tells
me that Mt Uhad has moved for miles, I will accept it but if
someone says that an individual or a people have changed their
nature without embracing Islam, I will never accept it.' " Would
someone please post this in font-size 70 to M/s Gujral & Sengupta?
On what basis are they slackening the security of the only
homeland Hindus have...?
Mr Haye, too, mixes religion with polity, but he does not cloak
his bias in piety: "By ruling Kashmir, they are ruling a Muslim
majority state.. It gives the Indians a different kind of sense of
power. Let Mr Nayar acknowledge that and drop the hypocritical
mask of secularism that the Indian leadership wears and we will
have no problem understanding each other and talking to each
other." Sure, Mr Haye and I will never see eye-to-eye on Kashmir --
we part ways when it comes to the rights of our respective
nations. But that is why I tend to respect him and those who did
not picnic at Wagah. Mr Haye may foam at the mouth at the bigotry
of the com-div-fundie forces, but he isn't likely to feel the
utter contempt that blazes through in his response to Mr Nayar. I
say: Jingoists of the world, Unite!
In PC India, jingoism is an overly maligned and much misunderstood
property. On a matter not very different, Dilip Dear wrote,
"...you're incurably afflicted with that dread disease: jingoism.
You will still not stand taller, but you might think you do. I'm
here to tell you there's a cure for this disease." And what is the
cure for which manifestation of this dread disease? Voila, India
should not demand an apology from the Queen for the Jallianwalla
Bagh massacre. I do wonder, which is more desirable: To think
oneself to be and act as if one is standing tall, or to scrape
along the ground in the hope of drawing charity?
I do *not* get it... thank Rudra and Thor and Mars and all those
divine ideas that make humans aspire to veer-gati. What's life if
it's to be spent kowtowing? I do believe that Nehruvians and
Marxists have charted an agenda to destroy our nationalistic
spirit. Isn't it strange that those who tomtom the human rights of
minorities should be so dull-edged about the wrongs committed on
the whole nation by foreigners? Thus, a Mughal couldn't have
destroyed the Ram Mandir since it never existed; singing songs of
friendship with an Islamic terrorist state is good business; and
rolling out the red carpet for pillaging English is standing tall.
What a cure. Sheesh.
Look at these cases: The Koreans recently demanded and received an
apology for war-time atrocities from Japan. The Jewish community
was assuaged in cash and kind by Germany. And last year, New
York's and New Jersey's legislatures passed resolutions against
Britain, condemning the human rights abuse of the Irish in the
Potato Famine of 1840. I hope the (clearly, white American)
dunderhead who wrote in Arena -- "I found your editorial suggesting
the queen apologise for injustices, massacres, atrocities, etc,
that happened 76 years ago not unlike the demands of African-
Americans. People who live in the past and can only brood over
past injustices deserve to live in the past" -- can calculate the
span from 1840 to 1997.
Forget the Jallianwalla Bagh where only thousands were
slaughtered. What about the four million Indians who died during
the *artificial* Bengal famine of 1943? They died because His
Majesty's Government did not release the food supply hoarded for
British soldiers in case of an invasion by Japan. Four. Million.
Indians.
Yes, I *am* using human rights and their violations as a weapon.
Like nationalists all over the world, I do it to gain retribution
for my country, to right the wrongs of History -- not for a narrow
minority agenda, nor to usher in concepts imported from Russia and
China. Britain needs to recognise that India has been maltreated
by it. And if that's jingoism, boy, yes, I'm a jingoist and proud
of it.
Tell us what you think of this column
|