Islam & Peace

The Kautilyan Perspective:
Islam & Peace
By U. Mahesh Prabhu

A man is judged not so much by his words, as by his actions. Similarly is the case with religion. It's judged, solely, by the action of its followers and leaders.

Over the internet I have come to know of a very interesting group of people who have with them but one agenda: of convincing masses of 'Islam is a religion of peace'. Frankly I have had no issues with them, whatsoever, initially. As a firm believer in mutual co-existence and free speech I found the issue, chosen by them, to be close to my heart and, also, to be the need of the hour.

I was, then, even relaxed to know that there were finally some men, that too within Islam itself, attempting to undo the blemish what those Wahhabis had brought to it. Though I never put in my written word of gratitude to them I was praying for them to be triumphant in their task. But today I am compelled to speak otherwise. Not without a fair and valid reason, for sure.

To ensure I realized and understood their intentions accurately, I resolutely kept an eye on their activities, rather closely, both on and off the internet, through my sources, for quiet some time. It didn't took me long to realize their true intent. They were attempting to deceive people and motive them to convert to Islam, of which they had their own version, in rather very roguish manner by resorting to Negations.

Honestly I am not critical of conversions. I solemnly deem that any person should be free to follow the religious conviction of his predilection, unreservedly. But it should be through a virtue and only after realization of facts by the person aspiring for conversion. I am indubitably against depraved, shady and unjust methods of conversion, like the ones these were attempting to.

Islam, as many may know, is youngest of Semitic religions known to the mankind. It has had no great cultural, diplomatic and scholarly legacy, when it commenced its voyage from the deserts of Arabia. To expand its influence it had to entirely rely on the military prowess of its Prophet. As any Islamic scholar will confirm, Prophet Muhammad wasn't a literate. However, that is not to say that he was 'unwise' as some unjust critics of Islam might say. His genius was unquestionably commendable.

Quran wasn't given to him by Allah in a 'ready to serve format'. As per Islamic traditions it was 'revealed to him over a period of time'. Understanding his illiterate background, to make the Quran possible in the form of book he had to obtain services of some educated men. But the way in which he ensured that those educated men didn't muddled with his words, that which he had received from Allah, he would verify and cross verify and counter verify it from time to time.

Given the aforesaid context, to spread 'the word of Allah' prophet had but one road– his sword. As you see there were no scholars in Arabia, especially Islamic scholars, at that point of time. And the only peaceful method by which you could convert is by the way of debates which was completely nonexistent. And the 'holy wars' or 'Jihad' spilled blood of millions.

Any historian will concur that conflict for dominance, between Islam and Christianity, has exterminated over 17 million people, or even more, until date. Given this, it becomes increasingly difficult for individuals, including me, to trust that Islam is a religion of peace. The same is pertinent with Christianity also.

What we see today in Middle-East is no dissimilar than the conflict of the times of yore. People often misconstrue that the present-day American administration to be a 'liberal' and 'nonreligious'. That's absolutely a travesty of fact. George Bush, the swaggering American President, whose presidency, thank god, is to come to an end shortly, calls himself as a 'Reborn Christian'. If there is but one discrepancy in between the wars in the middle-east, then and now, it's that: then it was exclusively for the control of religious places, Jerusalem in particular, and now it's for oil.

True, even in India, then called Bharath; we had several caste, creeds and sects who had a lot of disparity among themselves. But as some 'scholars' would like to say, there wasn't bloodshed for the expansion. Though there were wars, it was on the intellectual and not on the military level, as it is often misleadingly stated. It was with words and seldom with swords.

But both Christians and Muslims, of course, had no such options and for them Sword was the first and the final resort. My Muslim intellectuals may well differ, but they simply cannot negate the fact that any insult on Prophet Muhammad or Islam has resulted in the 'violence', and the same is true even to this day. Or can they?

Now here's my sincere question to the Islamic scholars: How are we, the 'Kafirs', to believe that 'Islam is a religion of peace' when the entire age of Islam was led by wars and bloodshed? This, let me assert, is not a point to enrage but to seek an honest and truthful answer. I hate neither Islam nor any other faith. I say that with forthrightness. I have no axe to grind.

Further, every time a prophet is insulted there is not a single soul in the Muslim world who talks of peace. They needed no evidence when the Indian born, and now British, author Salman Rushdie was issued a fatwa by a fanatic Imam of a theocratic Islamist state for his beheading! Not one among the protestors, to the best of my knowledge, had even read Rushdie's 'blasphemous' book - Satanic Versus. Every time such issue had cropped up my question to my Muslim brothers was increasingly simple 'How could ordinary mortals insult a great prophet or Allah himself?' Greatness is that which is attained by people when they are above the criticism. Isn't it?

Yes, the same is also true, but only to a certain extent, in Hinduism. To testify the difference let me help you recall the recent 'Ram-Sethu Saga', when the Congress led UPA government's appointed office bearers made a nasty attempt of questioning the existence of Lord Ram. How many do you think, among the saints and monastery heads of Hinduism issued a diktat to behead Karunanidhi? Any guesses? Just one! To add further, you only need to go through the annals to realize the way in which, and how critically, the Mahant was criticized for having issued the diktat. Contrary to this, how many of our 'intellectuals' did really criticize the Mullahs who called for beheading of Danish Cartoonist?

A man is judged not so much by his words, as by his actions. Similarly is the case with religion. It's judged, solely, by the action of its followers and leaders. Given the people are aware of the fact that the number of people killed in the name of 'Allah!' we non-Muslims are certainly, and are very much, sceptical of affirming the statement of 'Islam being a religion of peace'.

Before I conclude, let me avow here that I live by a code, which is 'I may not love all, but I shall hate none.' I am an ardent advocate of Vedic principle that 'Hatred begets nothing, but destruction.' So it may be understood that my words here are sincere presentation of fact. I am not glum basher of Islam. I have no personal interest in bashing any religion for that matter.

Let the Muslims be free to propagate their religion, I am not perturbed by that. But my earnest appeal to them is to present truth and drop depraved, shady and unjust methods of conversion.

I am convinced that had Prophet Muhammad had a team of scholars like my distinguished intellectual friends like MJ Akbar he would have seldom retorted to wars. But the fact that he resorted to sword, which was his only available option, is a historical fact, and that which can seldom be negated.

The Ritual of Recommendation

The Ritual of Recommendation
By Mubasshir Mushtaq

Is there any difference between an enemy and an unfaithful friend?

If communalism is BJP's base, appeasement is a Congress tradition. If BJP has been hostile towards Muslims, Congress has been indifferent. If BJP pours its venom of communalism openly, Congress keeps that venom afloat and takes out when there is any need for political display. To an Indian Muslim, BJP is an open enemy while Congress has been an unfaithful friend.
Is there any difference between an enemy and an unfaithful friend?

In the eighties and nineties, BJP became visible from negligible because of its anti-Muslim politics and the so called "old wound" on Indian civilization: Babri Masjid. For Congress, Babri Masjid was a game of hide-and-seek. It flirted with the Hindus as well as the Muslims. If Rajiv Gandhi did not understand the seriousness of Masjid-Mandir politics, Narsimha Rao was well aware of its consequences yet he believed in the official art of winking! That fateful day, he did not wink, he was in fact sleeping!

If Hindu fanatics of RSS, Bajranj Dal and BJP brought down Babri Masjid, secular men of Congress gave us Liberhan commission; the country's longest running inquiry commission yet to submit its report after 16 years! If BJP demolished Babri Masjid in a day, Congress indecision has taken 16 years. If BJP has physically desecrated the Muslim heritage, Congress has mentally raped Indian Muslims for 16 years.

Is there any difference between an enemy and an unfaithful friend?

Post-Babri demolition, Congress continued its policy of hide-and-seek. It is altogether a different matter that Congress does not know the trick to hide and the sense to seek. It is a party whose fate is always in a state of permanent confusion. When at the Centre, it keeps dangling between right and left. Pendulum politics has been eating up its electoral share. When will Congress learn to be in the centre?

BJP, on the other hand, has always been a right-wing party but like Congress it too does not enjoy consistency and political permanence. When it comes to power, it quietly changes its colour from saffron to green. Green is not the colour of Islam it is a colour of peace. BJP advocates peaceful negotiation of Babri Masjid-Ram Mandir dispute. It undresses its violent robes and dons the dress of masses. Can an Indian survive for 16 years on a one-meal-called Ayodhya? BJP knows that Ayodhya can't feed India's farmers so it's better to talk about governance. Good governance is better than Lord Ram!

Good governance is good but trumpeting good governance is bad! BJP learned this political lesson when it slipped on India shining campaign.

Congress which benefited from BJP's debacle thought it obligatory to reward its Muslim vote-bank. It was indeed an honourable intention. Congress, India's oldest party, is yet to learn how to reward loyalty. One should pay royalty to reward loyalty! Alas, Congress continued its old and grand tradition of going into stone-age. It stuck to its old tools of appeasement: Committee and Commission; the 2cs which have become the destiny of Indian Muslims.

It's like using telex in an age of internet!

First it was the Sachar committee report. Then came the mute Ministry of Minority Affairs. It is a crawling ministry whose only function is to distribute fallen crumbs after the cream has been licked by the upper crust. BJP behaved like a barking dog. The Indian Muslim was caught in this crossfire and felt guilty of being 'appeasement.' Fallen crumbs don't fill a community's stomach.
Congress was so pleased with its crumb-distributing ceremony at the Centre that it decided to set up one such state ministry in Maharashtra!

Sachar committee was not enough! On May 11, Vilasrao Deshmukh announced formation of a six-member research committee to analyse social, educational and economic conditions of Muslims in Maharashtra. Dr. Mahmud-ur-Rahman, a former Vice-Chancellor of Aligarh Muslim University, is the chairman of the committee which will submit its provisional report on June 30.
When this columnist asked the chairman (who was in Malegaon recently) why do we need a separate committee when Sachar Committee has already done the job assigned to this committee, he said, "Sachar has only diagnosed the disease. We will offer prescription in the form of policy and schemes."

Will the findings and recommendations of this committee have a binding on the state government? The answer is obviously no. If the Congress-NCP alliance is really sincere in uplifting Muslims, they should follow the example of Shahu Maharaja of Akola, the father of social reform. He did a lot to uplift lower castes way back in the first quarter of 19th Century. And he did not need any committee to do that. He only believed in one word: legislation.
The day average Muslims realize the fundamental difference between recommendation and legislation, Congress will never ever come back to power again.

So is there any difference between an enemy and an unfaithful friend?

The Reactionary Hinduism

The Reactionary Hinduism
By U. Mahesh Prabhu

We, the Hindus, have based our whole existence, mostly, on God and therefore, it is credible that Hindu Society has developed in an all-comprehensive manner, with a perplexing variety of phases and forms, but with one lace of integration running intrinsically through the whole host of its expressions and manifestations. All the sects, diverse castes in the Hindu fold can be defined, but the expression 'Hindu' cannot.

It's virtually impossible to describe the word 'Hindu'. You can define Muslim, Christian and people of other faiths quiet accurately, but not Hindu.

Many deem that all Hindus are idolaters - that's certainly not true. Arya and Brahma Samajis are also Hindus, but are completely critical of Idol Worship. If you assume that Hindus are the one who adhere to Bhagavad-Gita as the ultimate Holy Scripture - Shaivas, followers of Shiva, would beg with you to differ. Sincerely, there is no description which can accurately depict Hindu. We can define the cosmos, spirit, earth and all that, but not Hinduism. But just because we cannot define it, does it mean that it doesn't exist? Certainly not!

We, the Hindus, have based our whole existence, mostly, on God and therefore, it is credible that Hindu Society has developed in an all-comprehensive manner, with a perplexing variety of phases and forms, but with one lace of integration running intrinsically through the whole host of its expressions and manifestations. All the sects, diverse castes in the Hindu fold can be defined, but the expression 'Hindu' cannot.

Of course, countless efforts have been made to bring forth a viable definition, but all have proved to be simply imperfect, inaccurate. It is but normal in the case of people who have been growing and evolving for the last so many centuries. The Hindu society is a living reality, which all of us feel, in every drop of our blood. But although we cannot define it, we can, and must be able to, appreciate the exceptional features which mark out the Hindus as a distinct people.

We cannot say that, merely because a particular individual is not a Muslim or a Christian, he is a Hindu by the process of riddance. I have met several thinkers who often refer 'Hindu' as 'a non-Muslim'. That is, unquestionably, not a hale and hearty way of understanding our unfeigned nature. Hindu is not a negative person.

But off late the pessimism in the Hindu psyche is mounting powerfully, and is extremely visible. In his book Bunch of Thoughts Rastriya Swayamsevak Sangh's second Sarasanghacharak MS Golwalkar, better known Guruji, had warned about this situation fairly in advance.

'To give an example,' said Guruji in the book 'our workers once approached a prominent Hindu leader during the signature collection campaign demanding ban on the slaughter of cows. But they were greatly shocked to hear him saying, "What is the use of preventing the slaughter of useless cattle? Let them die. What does it matter? After all, one animal is as good as the other. But, since the Muslims are hell bent upon cow-slaughter, we should make this an issue. And so, I give you my signature." What does this show? We are to protect the cow not because the cow has been, for ages, an emblem of Hindu devotion but because the Muslims kill it!'

This Hinduism, born out of reaction, was termed by Guruji as 'negative Hinduism' or 'reactionary Hinduism'. For many in the BJP, today, the word 'Hindu' is of use only to serve political objectives. Simply for the reason that a Congressman or a Socialist or someone thinks in term of 'composite culture', they stand up and claim a 'pure Hindu' culture.

Stranger than this is the cry of 'Hindu Communism'! A Hindu, to the best of my knowledge, can either be a Hindu or Communist. He can by no means be both. According to Guruji 'It only means that those who shout about "Hindu Communism" know neither Communism nor Hinduism.'

Guruji was once asked as to 'whether RSS was organizing Hindus in order to counteract the various activities of the Muslims.' For this his riposte was 'Even if Prophet Mohammad had not been born and Islam had not come into existence, we would have taken up this work just as we are doing it today, if we had found Hindus in the same disorganized, self-forgetful condition as at present.' adding 'Until the positive conviction that "this is my nation, this is my dharma, is my philosophy which I have to work for and set as standard for all other nations to follow-well" becomes the solid basis for Hindu organization.'

But what we observe with most of the reigning 'Hindu' politicians of the BJP is absolutely paradoxical to these ideas and ideals of Hinduism. Oblivious of the very fundamental nature of Hinduism, and its illustrious legacy, these shady political mongers swear by its spiritual traditions only to gather votes and gain power to further the sleaze in the foundation of our vibrant democracy. Let me assure you all that this is not a healthy development.

Washington Temptation

Washington Temptation
By Seema Mustafa

Who is the one person, or actually the two persons, who are clear about going ahead with the nuclear deal? The Prime Minister and his deputy, Deputy chairman of the Planning Commission Montek Singh Ahluwalia. For them the government does not matter, the elections are irrelevant, so long as Dr Manmohan Singh can emerge from his prime ministership with the laurels he is looking towards Washington for. A personal victory, in their analysis, far outweighs a national defeat.

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has gone into a sulk. He does this periodically to convince his mentors in the United States that he remains completely committed to the nuclear deal, and in the off chance that this will work as pressure on the Congress leadership. Of course when the storm blows over, as it has several times in the past couple of years, and the Congress decides not to pursue the nuclear deal, the PM emerges from the sulk with his aides insisting that contrary to their own of the record briefings earlier, Dr Singh had never even thought of resigning.

Of course the Congress and its prime minister does not care that each time the nation is plunged into a crisis. Hundreds of man hours have been lost in the process with paralysis overtaking the non performing government as ministers and allies rush around trying to break the impasse. Files are not cleared, as the country is placed into election mode because of the petulance of one person, and a Congress leadership that is unable to take a political call. This despite the near unanimous decision of Parliament that the nuclear deal was not in consonance with national interests, and the government would do best to throw it out of the window. In the process it might have to throw the baby (read PM) out with the bath water, but then sometimes these decisions are necessary.

Dr Singh throws a little tantrum almost on every eve of the UPA-Left meeting on the nuclear deal. One wonders why he does not do so in the intervening period, but that is a question that can await an answer. So this time too he let Sonia Gandhi know----and this might have been denied by the Congress but certainly not by the PMO that spread the rumour in the first place----that he would resign if the Left was not halted in its tracks, and the government not allowed to take the safeguards agreement to the IAEA. The same issues and the same debate was reopened, and to cut a long story short, it was made clear to the government that the Left was not prepared to budge. And that CPI(M) general secretary Prakash Karat was categorical that the IAEA safeguards agreement should be discussed in its entirety by the committee and ratification by the Board of Governors could not be on the government cards until then.

The government went into pressure mode that took the following form: PM will resign; elections are inevitable; Samajwadi party will support the Congress; there is no question of the government backing off from its intenational commitments; the allies are with the Congress and so on so forth. If the picture was as clear cut as this, the Congress should have taken the decision by now, going full steam ahead into the elections. But obviously there is a big gap between the rhetoric and the reality. The Samajwadi party is hedging its bets, the allies do not want snap polls as all of them face defeat in their home states and would like to party a little longer, and the Congress party leaders are bitterly divided about going ahead with polls at a time when inflation is hitting double figures, and the poor are collapsing under the weight of the UPA's economic policies.

So who is the one person, or actually the two persons, who are clear about going ahead with the nuclear deal? The Prime Minister and his deputy, Deputy chairman of the Planning Commission Montek Singh Ahluwalia. For them the government does not matter, the elections are irrelevant, so long as Dr Manmohan Singh can emerge from his prime ministership with the laurels he is looking towards Washington for. A personal victory, in their analysis, far outweighs a national defeat. For lets face it, Dr Singh is not likely to be prime minister again and has a reputation to maintain with the US. For if this was not so, the government today would not be playing old games over the nuclear deal but would be rushing to implement measures to contain inflation, and during the interim period bring relief to the poor. However, all this has been put on the side table while the Prime Minister pushes the US case for a deal that has been effectively rejected by Parliament.

Unlike the Congress that is flaying wildly, the Left is hitting back with some well aimed punches. The first punch was rendered when it made it clear that it would not allow the government to go to the IAEA Board of Governors with the safeguards agreement that it had not seen. Repeated attempts by minister Pranab Mukherjee proved futile, and it soon became clear to even the fools in the Congress party that the Left did mean business, and had actually meant business all along. The government then started maintaining that the Left might withdraw support but would not vote with the BJP against it in Parliament. Then came the second punch. The Left let it be known that once it withdrew support it was "on the other side" and would happily vote out the government. This would ensure a roadblock for the deal in the Nuclear Suppliers Group. The third punch was delivered quietly to the Samajwadi party whose leaders Mulayam Singh Yadav and Amar Singh have been flirting openly with the Congress. These unscrupulous UP leaders were told that they could get out of any third front options that the Left would explore in the future, if they decided at this stage to support the Congress.

The Prime Minister disappeared through it all. He is not well, his aides said in a manner that encourage the media to further promote the sulk theory. Sulking and throwing tantrums is perhaps an inherent component of the PMs personality. If that be so, his advisors should encourage him to use the sulks to ensure more respect from the Congress and his colleagues in the cabinet. And if he needs issues to exercise this option, he could throw an occasional tantrum for the poor farmers still without relief, for the Bhopal victims still struggling for compensation, for the thousands inGujarat living as second class citizens…the list would fill a column. There is no dearth of issues in India as the Prime Minister will find once he moves his gaze away from Washington.

Looming Crisis of Powerlooms

Looming Crisis of Powerlooms
By Mubasshir Mushtaq

In such a scenario, what the powerloom weavers of Maharashtra should do? Blaming the local trader or baniya will not serve the purpose. Market does not always dance to a Baniya or Marwari's tunes; it functions on an economic term called market forces. Our government needs an effective regulation to curb the undue cotton export to the foreign countries. Government must ensure that the cotton is supplied in the domestic market first. Foreign players, offering lucrative prices, must wait in a queue.

As powerloom weavers of Maharashtra observed state-wide bandh (on June 16) called by Indian Powerloom Federation and Maharashtra Powerloom Federation over escalating yarn prices (which are now on a downward swing) and dwindling prices of grey-cloth, a question must be posed: who must be blamed for this textile crisis which is threatening the 19 lakh strong power loom industry for the past two months?

Should we blame the local trader who very often resorts to black marketing and hoarding in order to artificially raise the yarn prices? Or should the blame be passed on to the spinning mill owners who are well aware of the art of market manipulation?

The above two questions very often determine the fate of the weavers but this time the real reason behind the ongoing recession lay somewhere else. The crisis is wrapped in two words: cotton export.

According to Cotton Advisory Board (a government body under the Central Textile Ministry) the cotton export for the year 2007-2008 is 8.5 million bales, (one cotton bale consists of 170 kgs) out of which 60% has gone to China alone!

India's cotton-based textile industry had been doing extremely well during the year 2003 to 2007, due to the adequate availability of good quality home grown cotton. But during the year 2007-08, apart from various other factors like sudden appreciation of rupee against US dollar, escalation in bank interest rate, slump in the local and export markets, the abnormal cotton price has totally paralysed the performance of the textile industry and in this scenario, even the top ticket mills are incurring huge losses.

If Shri J.Thulasidharan, Deputy Chairman of SIMA (The Southern India Mills' Association) is to be believed government of India did not take necessary steps to control the unabated export of the cotton. He has gone on record to say that many multi national cotton traders, unlike previous year, have entered into the Indian market and dominated the cotton purchases from the beginning of this season. He has warned that if the present trend continues, the spinning mills would be closed soon.

The one cotton candy (which consists of 356 kgs) is normally priced at Rs. 19,000 but this year because of scarcity of the cotton it is being sold at Rs. 25,000 per candy, an increase of more than 35%.

Even CITI (Confederation of Indian Textiles Industry) chairman PD Patodia has warned that "unchecked cotton exports is not healthy for domestic firms. The government has to give heed to industry's concern."

The textiles industry has already asked to put a curb on cotton exports in order to keep a check on prices but the government is in no mood to listen. In an interview given to Reuters on May 8, Union Textile Minister Shankar Singh Vaghela was ecstatic about cotton production. "If the monsoons are good", he said, "We may see production of 35 million bales in 2008-2009." He did not speak a single word about escalating cotton export, which is having a disastrous impact on the powerloom weavers across the country. Interestingly, it is not the farmers who are making money out of the cotton exports but the intermediaries.

Steep cotton prices directly affect yarn prices. And a steep yarn price means an increase in the cost of production of grey-clothes.

Before 2003, when the excise was imposed on powerloom industry, weavers did not know the terminology of loss. With the implementation of free quote trade from January 1, 2005, plain shuttle powerloom products are facing a stiff competition.

In such a scenario, what the powerloom weavers of Maharashtra should do? Blaming the local trader or baniya will not serve the purpose. Market does not always dance to a Baniya or Marwari's tunes; it functions on an economic term called market forces. Our government needs an effective regulation to curb the undue cotton export to the foreign countries. Government must ensure that the cotton is supplied in the domestic market first. Foreign players, offering lucrative prices, must wait in a queue.

It is only by altering the government's policy towards the cotton export; weavers can overcome the present crisis of the power loom industry. Are they ready to compel the government to change its policy?

US will have to play Chinese checkers

US will have to play Chinese checkers

By Susenjit Guha

How can the US confront China with the cold war worn policy of ratcheting up US defense budget which John McCain has in mind while being saddled with billions in piled up debts?

Barack Obama and John McCain may differ on domestic issues and foreign policy, but their near unanimity on China as they head toward the final showdown proves the emerging Asian tiger will be a future big bother.

Obama’s talk of friendship with China rather than competition early on in the campaign has been scaled up recently urging punishment for manipulating the Yuan, dumping goods into the US and violating intellectual property rights. McCain wanted hazardous cheap toys banned and took a swipe at the Chinese leadership for gagging free speech and religion.

But how far will they be able to walk the talk when China is holding nearly $491 billion in Treasury securities--- financing US’ budget deficit compared to $60 billion in 2000--- is anybody’s guess. Since George W Bush took office, US exports to China went up by 400 per cent according to Commerce department figures, while Chinese exports to US tripled.
Again, ground realities made both George W Bush and Bill Clinton earlier temper their campaign speech rhetoric on China soon after they took over.

Now the surging- ahead –Chinese-juggernaut, ready to devour resources at any cost in any part of the world, may upset certain set in stone ethics and democracy parameters.

Public opinion in the United States and most parts of the world about George W Bush’s foreign policy has impacted the need for a change which has propelled little known Barack Obama into the forefront. But there are no safety nets for ordinary Chinese who cannot affect any changes to their near totalitarian regime which sups with the most reviled despots of the world, sells them arms while going on an overdrive in defense expenditure themselves. If the US Department of State’s Country Reports on Human Rights Practices, 2006 is to be believed, the Chinese state is brutal, officially executing somewhere between five thousand and twelve thousand people every year, more than all other states in the world combined.

So how can the US confront China with the cold war worn policy of ratcheting up US defense budget which John McCain has in mind while being saddled with billions in piled up debts?

Recent tamping down of Tibetan protestors and veto for any aggressive UN aid push into Myanmar where a man-made humanitarian crisis was underway and tens of thousands--- most of them children--- were starving, proved the Chinese leadership still does not care for world opinion, not even before the Beijing Olympics. It will foil global attempts to bear on despots who trample human rights to clean up their act.

And this happened when China was working toward an image makeover after foreign investments started flowing in and when people form all walks of life were urged to build national image. Support for the Sudanese government accused of genocide in Darfur went alongside the sprucing up exercise.

As Xinxua News Agency, CCTV, China Daily and China Radio International competed with BBC in SE Asia, the Chinese administration worked toward creating regional groups sidelining the US, a concern expressed by John McCain. And the rebuttal that China was a developing country incapable of sophisticated cyber crimes like allegedly hacking into congressional computers, have few buyers in the US.

The lid is firmly placed after a semblance of measured openness following the catastrophic earthquake. AFP journalists were told in no uncertain terms to keep off earthquake ravaged school buildings to avoid contacts with parents of victims who blamed the government for corruption.

It would be naïve to expect China’s interest in the six-party talks to make North Korea give up nuclear arms production to be without any reason. US presidents in the past have stuck to a one China policy regarding Taiwan. But nearly 40000 US troops are stationed in South Korea. A near equal number in Japan, Philippines and a few in Guam may also have to be pulled back after troops in South Korea head home in case North Korea comes clean. US cannot bank on the other traditional pro-US partner nations where latent nationalism may surface once US troops leave South Korean soil.

Can the US leave the region totally exposed to China if the six-party talks finally succeed and Kim Jong-Il suddenly turns benign, unshackles North Koreans and opens the gate? China may have an interest in such a scenario. But, how will the US deal with such a situation?

Resisting democracy, protection from eroding influences, sidelining Japan, an US ally, tacitly resisting India, another emerging, but democratic Asian economy and setting up firewalls to shield despotic regimes floating on scarce energy resources, may warrant compromises in US’ China policy once again.

And it would also be a test in diplomacy when an emerging superpower enjoying the best of both worlds---some in Beijing’s Security Ministry want to trace back to the Middle Kingdom era and centuries of dominance in Asia--- will keep playing by its own rules.

Missing Touch

Missing Touch
By Seema Mustafa

Politics is not done from behind a desk and a computer. It is done on the streets where the leaders are expected to know their workers by name. Indira Gandhi was famous for the personal touch she gave to her visits, and surprised even critical hacks, when she reached out at public meetings to touch someone and ask about his or her family by name.

A friend of the Congress party, with a sad shake of the head, said, "must admit they have really spoilt it all." Of course the word used by him was far more descriptive, but unprintable. And the conversation in a typical middle class Delhi drawing room turned to politics. And at the end of the one hour ---at times heated---discussion one glaring fact stood out: the Congress had lost its seat as the favoured party.

The shine has worn off. And there is a certain resignation amongst the traditional Congress voters that the party will find it impossible to rise from under the crippling weight of price rise, inflation and non governance. The BJP, on the other hand, has whipped up the cadres and is stirring price rise and non governance into its communal cauldron of terrorism, uniform civil code, Ram temple in what it hopes will be a potent mix. Unlike the Congress it also has a Prime Minister on offer, but like the Congress it is also torn apart by factionalism in the states.

Karnataka has given a major boost to the BJP that is now determined to ride on this wave. The Congress has sunk back into its state of denial where no one is even willing to analyse the reasons for its failure in the southern state. All the woes of defeat have been heaped at the Janata Dal (S) door as the party luminaries in Delhi close ranks to defend party president Sonia Gandhi and her son Rahul Gandhi who really was the 'star' of a campaign that did not pay dividends. He is currently hunting for talent, and is interviewing young men and women selected by a team of Congress leaders, for posts in the Youth Congress.

Politics is not done from behind a desk and a computer. It is done on the streets where the leaders are expected to know their workers by name. Indira Gandhi was famous for the personal touch she gave to her visits, and surprised even critical hacks, when she reached out at public meetings to touch someone and ask about his or her family by name. She would spend nights at the district headquarters and open the door by the simple gesture to all the workers who wanted to meet her, till late at night and again early mornings. The present Congress president does not even spend hours in the smaller towns, visiting the cities only to address a public meeting and flying straight back to Delhi. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has made it clear that he is not a politician, and can at best be expected to make government announcements and not charge the party with new enthusiasm.

The point is that the touch is missing. And Rahul Gandhi, who must be a great chap personally, does not have the charisma to imbue the touch with a special meaning. He tries, but only in spurts, and is failing. Political parties get a second chance at the hustings, even when they fail to deliver, if their leaders have the ability to wipe tears and bring a smile on starved faces. Of course a second term of non governance ensures their ouster, but then a comeback is always guaranteed as the leaders have the charisma to convince the electorate of the TINA (there is no alternative) factor. Rahul Gandhi has a wooden touch, and even the die hard loyalists have started reluctantly admitting this.

The BJP has the same problem with president L.K.Advani. He has done a great deal for the party---being one of the architects of the Ram janambhoomi movement culminating in the demolition of the Babri masjid----but he still lacks that special touch. It was largely because of this that he had to concede first place to Atal Behari Vajpayee who, despite being a hard RSS member, had the charisma to sway the masses including the middle class. Vajpayee's retirement has placed Advani at the center stage, but his acceptability within the party is in direct proportion to his acceptability within the nation. He is not popular and does not have the rapport with the party workers that Vajpayee had. Advani realizes as well as others, that if the second rung of BJP leaders had been able to agree on any one as the party's prime ministerial candidate, he would not have had this opportunity.

Go down the list. Amar Singh tries but has not been able to replace Mulayam Singh Yadav as a popular leader in Uttar Pradesh. DMK's M.Karunanidhi has not been able to transfer his mass appeal to his son Stalin who will find it difficult to hold the party together. Omar Abdullah in Jammu and Kashmir is more popular than his father Farooq Abdullah who is carrying heavy baggage, but if both are standing together, the people turn to the older man. On the other hand Mehbooba has a better rapport with the masses than her father Mufti Mohammad Sayeed, whose lack of charisma stood him in poor stead even when he was trying to establish himself as a Janata Dal leader in UP. His daughter can claim the credit for his re-emergence in Jammu and Kashmir. Nitish Kumar is by far the better chief minister and will get the votes for good governance, but in mass appeal he can not compete with Lalu Prasad Yadav who still remains a peoples favourite. Former prime minister V.P.Singh could have the crowds roaring in support, being actually one of the most charismatic leaders in the field at his level.

The BJP, along with the RSS, is working hard to consolidate support in the states partly through hard work, and partly through deploying every communal trick in the book. The Congress is not working at all, and the state leaders uncertain of their future spend all their time in keeping the central leadership happy. The result has been a string of defeats in the states, with the party now not even appearing to be in a position to benefit from the anti incumbency factor in some of the states going to the polls later this year. The Congress has long since realized that Sonia Gandhi and her son do not have the magic it needs to turn dust into votes but is also aware that it has nothing else on offer. It could have tried to make up the deficit with governance, but then hard work appears to have become an alien word for Congress ministers in the states and the center.

What does Obama hold for South Asia

What does Obama hold for South Asia
By Susenjit Guha

If Obama can rub some of his charm on Iran's president Ahmadenijad and in the neighbourhood and utilize what the Hamas chief said in a recent interview about an air of expectancy about the new US President---he obviously thought of Obama---he can expect to effect some changes in their perception of the US.

Not many US presidents in the recent past have had close relations with South Asians from their college days as Barack Obama seems to have had. Despite Hillary Clinton's active fund-raising Indian Punjabi lobby in the US, neither she nor John McCain had any links with Indians or Pakistanis during their formative years or shared their anxieties and concerns of funding as graduate students. And one wonders if George W Bush could have located South Asia on the map when he took over.

Barack Obama's room mates at Columbia and Yale were from the Indian sub-continent. During his campaign he said differences between Shias and Sunnis were not unbeknownst to him before he joined the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

According to Pakistan's Friday Times, Obama was a guest of his college friend, later care-taker Prime Minister, Mian Muhammad Somroo, in 1981. He stayed as his guest in Karachi and Hyderabad, Sind for three weeks after visiting his mother and sister Maya in Indonesia.
Does it mean an Obama presidency will prefer Pakistan to India? Not likely, since Obama had to shoot off mails and respond to concerns by Indian Americans who too had been with him in college, to allay their apprehensions when Hillary was branded a Democrat from Punjab during his campaign.

Recently, he called India a natural partner of the United States.

But going by Obama's campaign strategy which had its share of 'wink wink' on NAFTA which irked Canadians, both the straight talk of going up the hills of Pakistan's North West where Al Qaeda seems to be holed up and stopping outsourcing of jobs to India, is aimed at the electorate. Didn't he grovel before the Judeo-Christian lobby to allay their fears of going out of the way to meet President Ahmadenijad?

He has now resigned himself to the fact that US jobs may move to Bangalore or elsewhere in Asia in a competitive world.

Going by his networking skills which halted and trounced the formidable Billary election machine, Obama may---he has the best chance at a very opportune moment in US history---engage with arch adversaries of the US like Iran. And if one goes by the latest Gallup Poll in the US, 6 out of 10 Americans favour an out of the box approach to foreign policy to mend the tarnished image of their nation.

If Obama can rub some of his charm on Iran's president Ahmadenijad and in the neighbourhood and utilize what the Hamas chief said in a recent interview about an air of expectancy about the new US President---he obviously thought of Obama---he can expect to effect some changes in their perception of the US.

If Obama makes it to the White House, USA will stand re-defined in the eyes of the world.
If tension gets toned down in and about Tehran, entire South Asia will be saved from a catastrophic spill out and may discourage other branded rogue nations from acquiring nuclear weapons to deter an interventionist US.

Expecting the Hussein, middle name of Barack Obama to mollify the ensconced cavemen in Pakistan's north-west who would stop at nothing short of annihilation of the west, is asking for the moon. Barack, even- though-Hussein, Obama, does not fit their bill to deliver.

Obama may have to do another round of 'wink wink' about Musharraf like his predecessor did till democracy strengthens in Pakistan to literally unseat him. Obama cannot send wrong signals readily to US allies who have risked their skin, sorry uniform, and allow the strongest Pakistani institution, the armed forces and the ISI to careen towards China.

Wouldn't he need them and the always accommodating gate-keeper Musharraf, if US forces, hopefully on the basis of some credible information, need to go for the hills?
And it was not for nothing that money was pumped in by Musharraf's extended family for the Obama campaign. It's all wink wink in real politick.

Obama may have fund-raisers among the people of Indian origin in the US, but Mian Muhammad Somroo, the caretaker Prime minister of Pakistan in 2007-2008 is a personal friend with whom he presumably is still in touch. So if the core issue between India and Pakistan gets ratcheted up, there is enough likelihood of a more than patient hearing of the Pakistani side of the story.

Free Speech Politik

Free Speech Politik
by Seema Mustafa

Hundreds of journalists are at the receiving end, and their stories begin and end in the mofussil towns and districts of India. Many speaking out against atrocities and human rights violations have been picked up by the police as Maoists or militants or insurgents. The labels vary, the lesson is the same. Shut up or else….

The BJP and the Shiv Sena do not have to do it. The Congress and its allies like the NCP are doing it for them. Just as Congressmen were shaking their heads and agreeing with journalists about the rank intolerance of the Modi government as reflected in the case filed against the Resident Editor of the Times of India in Gujarat, their principal ally attacked one of the most respected journalists in Maharashtra. Wielding crow bars and saffron flags a mob of the Shiv Sangram Sangathana, an offshoot of the NCP, attacked Loksatta editor Kumar Ketar and his wife, stoning their one room flat, and trying to break the door open in what were terrifying moments for the targets.

The provocation was an editorial by Ketkar in which he questioned the decision of the Congress-NCP government in Maharashtra to create an island in the Arabian Sea for installing a Shivaji statue at a cost of Rs 200 crores. The money, he said, would have been better spent in alleviating poverty. And that Shivaji would have been the first to agree with him. Sangathana leader and NCP vice president in the state V.Mete was unrepentant, and justified the right of the mob to take action. Political parties, the country over, demonstrate tremendous intolerance for dissent that is increasingly taking the form of violence when they are in government. In Opposition of course they all become ardent defenders of freedom, justice and liberty.

In many cases, the attacks are provoked by sheer politics, a consolidation of vote banks. In this case too the mob was accompanied by a television crew, with Mete calculating on getting a positive response from sections of society. The NCP has tried to distance itself from the attack. The Congress, after a significant pause while it tried to assess the impact, has also criticized it. But in the final analysis, this is what politics has become, a pandering to base sentiments with no attempt to lift people to levels that unite and re-energise. It is all about caste, religion and divisiveness. The BJP plays on religion and caste, the Congress plays on religion and caste, and the regional parties pander to sectarian and caste interests. Intolerance is growing at all levels as politicians have decided that politics is of the street, and the consequences be damned.

Hundreds of journalists are at the receiving end, and their stories begin and end in the mofussil towns and districts of India. Many speaking out against atrocities and human rights violations have been picked up by the police as Maoists or militants or insurgents. The labels vary, the lesson is the same. Shut up or else…. Many others live under threat, and have been compelled to wind up their journalistic career or toe the line. There is no body to protect the journalists, just the state from which the scribes often need protection. The Press Council of India is a defunct, government enterprise that offers little by way of security or even guidance. Other organizations are too small, and as ineffective. The managements usually do not support the working journalist, and are the first to make their peace with governments.

Something will have to be done about this by the scribes and civil society, as intolerance is growing. And when the political class gets corrupt and in the process weak and ineffectual it becomes trigger happy. The desire to shoot the messenger assumes an overpowering dimension. One of the main features of Indira Gandhi's emergency was censorship. Corrupt Congress chief ministers like Jagannath Mishra and Gundu Rao at the time sought to bring in Bills to muzzle the press. Today the likes of Narendra Modi have replaced them, and the heat of intolerance is being felt by not just journalists but also those working for the oppressed and the victimized in the states. The arrests of Binayak Sen and other intellectuals and activists in Chhatisgarh are yet another indication of this.

It is becoming difficult to speak for the poor and for the truth. Those urging the government to address the distress of the poor in the Naxalite affected villages of India are labeled as Maoist sympathizers and arrested. Those speaking out for the missing persons in Jammu and Kashmir, and against human rights violations are labeled as militants and locked up. Those protesting against police atrocities in general are labeled as terrorists and tortured. Those insisting that taxpayers money should be spent for the poor, and not for statues and ministers overseas visits are attacked. Those agitating for farmers rights are lathi charged and detained. Those writing on all these issues and questioning government policies are targeted as anti-state.

Governments refuse to realize that issues that concern the people, and the majority of people at that, cannot be kept under a lid. The pressure will then just accumulate and burst with such force that it will be difficult for governments to handle. Particularly today, as the problems are far too many and far more complex than they were say in Indira Gandhi's time. The north east insurgency continues with no end in sight. The New Delhi-NSCN talks are just that talks, with the NSSCN chief Muivah now threatening to call off the charade. Jammu and Kashmir is relatively calm but then that should not give any government in Delhi a feeling of complacency. As any one dealing with this border state knows, violence is always hovering around the edges and takes barely any time to hit the centre. The Maoists are gaining ground in the heartland of India----having spread the area of influence to nearly 200 districts now. Economic policies have successfully created two India's" one for the poor and another for the rich. Agrarian unrest, urban unrest, rural unrest all add up to a turbulent potion that can explode with disastrous results, unless it is dealt with immediately and urgently.

The print media does have moments of truth. Television has given this up altogether for TRP ratings that according to its managers are directly dependent on the ability of news to entertain. Goverments are pampered into complacency to a point where the ruling elite actually begins to believe its own lies. And this where the real danger lies, when border lines become blurred, and fiction becomes the truth for those in power.

The Kautilya Perspective:Confessions of a Bibliophile

The Kautilya Perspective
Confessions of a Bibliophile
By U. Mahesh Prabhu

A few months back 'India's Prime Minister in waiting' L K Advani released his memoirs My Country My Life. I found this memoir at one of the bookshops in the city. Reluctantly I purchased it. As I passed each page I was captivated with the experiences he had penned. It was more than a book of 'political propaganda'. It was a faultlessly seeming to be a work of a journalist to me, which Advani certainly was during the 60s.

I am a Bibliophile. Reading has been the best source of inspiration for me. I have found it to be the best mode of enlightening myself and also to comprehend skill of others, as a fellow writer. It is mostly through reading that I have learnt to structure a tale, describe character, delineate action, judge what works and what does not. A writer, some say, is 'always hunting, looking to snatch or steal, discovering what to avoid and what to make their own', this is emphatically accurate in my case.

I had been a frequent reviewer of books with a premier New Delhi based Newspaper. As a part of the job, they would send me a copy of a book to write a review. As an eloquent book reader I preferred to read any book twice. I employed this technique to ensure that before I criticize, or appreciate, I have made myself thorough with its contents. I solemnly deem that 'we will be predisposed only in a pessimistic way if we read without understanding'. This practice made my submissions of reviews tardy.

The Editor of this newspaper wasn't pleased with me over, what he called, 'deliberate delays'. But I would try to persuade him, as many times as he would raise the topic, that mine was the right way to do. I gave him no raison d'être to triumph over me, whenever a debate was provoked. But winning never meant convincing and one fine day he abruptly removed me from the panel of reviewers. It's over three months now and since then I have had to bear the cost of buying books, myself. The abrupt halting of my services to review books raised in me two fundamental questions: firstly 'Was I wrong in my approach?' and secondly 'Are my fellow reviewers reading the books thoroughly before giving their decree?' Never before had I evaluated my reviews with others. I was so certain that I considered mine to be the best. I was pompous, though to some extent.

A few months back 'India's Prime Minister in waiting' L K Advani released his memoirs My Country My Life. Most of the assessment from critics it acknowledged weren't benign. I had formed a bias for Advani in my own mind. I always found in him an ever despondent attitude for the Chair of Prime Minister. And most of the reviews looked as if to be targeting him for all the same rationale that which had formed my bias.

I live in Mangalore, a place which is consistently bereft of good books. I often tend to evoke the words of Nathaniel Benchley who said he found bookshops 'too depressing to enter.' I couldn't agree more with him, especially looking at the state of bookstore in my own city. All those books – each an attempt to immortality – are resting here on the on the shelves unread, unloved.

I found this memoir at one of the bookshops in the city. Reluctantly I purchased it. As I passed each page I was captivated with the experiences he had penned. It was more than a book of 'political propaganda'. It was a faultlessly seeming to be a work of a journalist to me, which Advani certainly was during the 60s. He was the Editor of Organizer, an RSS 'mouthpiece'.

As a politician you can seldom abstain from expressing your criticism. But there was a difference in his approach in the book. Though he had awful discrepancies with his colleagues, especially during the NDA regime at the centre, he was extremely fine in articulating his differences. I couldn't see 'loathe'. I was stirred by the recall he made about personalities absolutely unknown today. He could remember them all, and well. The book consisted more than that of Babri Masjid and his difference with his Cabinet colleagues, where many of his presentation of facts are too much for me to accept as true. But that is not to make a case against him, or to be utterly contemptuous, as many reviewers had been.

I couldn't locate a review by any other critic which had given an impartial justice to Advani. Almost all and sundry were impelled by their preconceived notion – I'm afraid to admit. Even my most favorite writer Khushwant Singh, now in his 90s, was one such person whose review almost stripped me of the admiration I had for him. I found his approach to be snobbish, sorry to say.

After having read the book twice, and rereading the reviews thereafter, I have, almost, come to but one conclusion: Books in this country aren't reviewed well. If not bad, they aren't good either. This I say not as a book critic, but as a bibliophile.

You may, certainly, disagree.

The Irony of IPL

The Irony of IPL
By Mubasshir Mushtaq

The good thing about IPL is that it was the triumph of humility over arrogance. Rajasthan Royals, IPL's cheapest franchisee, was an extremely courteous team. Their win signifies victory of courtesy over callousness. Men of bang were reduced to a whimper: Sachin Tendulkar, Shoab Akhtar, Rahul Dravid; the list is long.

Nobody would have though that Yusuf Pathan, the son of a muezzin, would make Rajasthan Royals truly royal with his bat and ball. If his father made his bread by his sonorous voice, Yusuf made his butter by his bat and ball. Yusuf, like his younger brother Irfan, is a shining example of a torrential transformation of a young Indian Muslim. The blood brothers have redefined the concept of economic empowerment for a community whose majority is yet to grapple with the comprehensive meaning of the terminology. The two brothers who grew up playing cricket inside a mosque and a nearby ground wouldn't have dreamt to come so far. If international cricket gave Irfan an opportunity, IPL transformed his brother's shaky cricket career into a stable one. An impoverished family has become stable because of the cricket. IPL has further pushed it into an economic exaltation.

I find it strange why Rajasthan Royals, champions of the first T20 IPL tournament, were billed as underdogs. The underdogs – a coinage of some contemptuous commentators – have proved to be super-dogs. Is there any criterion in cricket to affix the label of underdogs? It was because of the psychology of superiority that our men of mike didn't term Mumbai Indians or Bangalore Royal Challengers as underdogs. After all they are owned by the high and mighty of the corporate world. Cricket is a funny game. Even a Nostradamus can't predict a team's fallout.

The good thing about IPL is that it was the triumph of humility over arrogance. Rajasthan Royals, IPL's cheapest franchisee, was an extremely courteous team. Their win signifies victory of courtesy over callousness. Men of bang were reduced to a whimper: Sachin Tendulkar, Shoab Akhtar, Rahul Dravid; the list is long.

The first IPL tournament was an exercise of "ego-driven carnage" where corporate cats (half of them directly or indirectly related to BCCI) bid to buy cream players. It is altogether a different matter that they couldn't milk enough cream out of them. Corporate greed stings. It has stung liquor baron Vijay Mallya who still believes that money can buy you everything. You can buy men with money but not their talent. That brings us to some interesting questions: Should cricket players be treated as a commodity? Or should they offer themselves for a price, that too in an auction? Is commodification of cricket quite similar to prostitution? Did IPL contaminate the purity of a game called cricket? Although I am not a purist but these harsh questions deserve honest answers.

IPL pioneered the concept of hired cheerleading in the Indian cricket. Whether cheerleaders need a cover drive or an extra cover is a different debate but one thing is certain: we ordinary Indians don't know how to cheer! Since cheering was assigned to surgical babes of Russia and elsewhere, we Indians were left with one thing: cricketing voyeurism! When was the last time, spectators witnessed a surge in their testosterone levels?

In an age of globalization, cricket is shedding nationalistic inhibitions. IPL blurred borders. The wall of race, religion and colour came down crumbling: When did you see Sourav Ganguly hugging Shoab Akhtar? Can an IPL improve Indo-Pak relations? If the answer is yes, we should play more T20 matches.

The irony of IPL lies with the iron man of Maharashtra: Sharad Pawar. A strange sense of nostalgia engulfed me as I watched Sharad Pawar distributing medals and prizes. His was a truly remarkable gesture of honouring men who deserved it. The iron man happens to be India's agriculture minister as well. Had he rewarded India's farmers, things would have been different. All he did was to dish out a dole of loan-waiver. The loan-waiver means nothing to a farmer who wouldn't have repaid it anyway. Thousands of farmers have committed suicide in Vidarbh region in Maharashtra. Sharad Pawar should have remembered them at his finest moment of 'cricketainment' career. The game of cricket can never take place without a farmer's cotton. The "stench" of money in IPL can make one nauseating. May be IPL should donate some for the have-nots. A question for Sharad Pawar: Can't IPL have a farmers' fund?

In the first half of twentieth Century Cricket was part and parcel of the British colonization. In the twenty first Century, Indians are colonizing fellow Indians.

Behind the Gujjar-Meena Fracas

Behind the Gujjar-Meena fracas
By U. Mahesh Prabhu

In 1947 British left India, but their strategies were carried by the Indian politicians. Reservations, that which was put in the constitution with a very noble idea of uplifting the depressed, began to be used as an effective tool to gather votes from specific castes. The current violent clashes between the Gujjars and Meenas have their roots in the same policy of Divide et Impera.

The 1857 uprising, though for a short time, unnerved the British. After the event, to ensure that this never occurred for a again, Britons began commencing a series of real politick measures. The Bengal army which had shown alarming camaraderie during the mutiny was disbanded. Calumny against the Brahmins, for having presented the ideological leaven for the revolt along with constituting an all India framework for the movement, was doubled. The unity of Hindus and Muslims, which was unmistakably extraordinary during the revolt, was a major budding threat for the empire in India and provision were made to dissuade it.

'Divide et Impera was the old Roman motto,' wrote Lord Elphinstone, then Governor of Bombay 'and it should be ours.' Sir John Strachey was of no dissimilar view. 'The existence, side by side, of hostile creeds among the Indian people, is one of the strong points in our political position in India.' he stated.

Lord Curzon partitioned Bengal along religious lines. 'Even after this sensible Hindu and Muslim leaders in East Bengal continued to oppose the partition' observes S. Abid Husain in his book The Destiny of Indian Muslims. The fanatic mullah however persuaded the Muslim masses that the governance of the province had now been passed into their hands and aroused in them a blind fury, which naturally took the form of a revolt against the landlords and traders who were predominantly Hindus, and communal riots raged throughout the new province.

'The partition of Bengal had to be revoked after a few years on account of the countrywide agitation against it,' Abid Husain continues 'yet, it sowed the seed of division in the hearts of the people that was one day to divide the whole country...' Curzon was forced to resign but his successor Minto went ahead with the policy of 'Divide et Impera', in the most predictable manner, by introducing 'Muslim Representation'. He took elaborate steps to make it appear that communal representation was being introduced 'to meet the demands of the Muslims'. And he did it with amazing brilliance. Apart from that other steps took forward, by him, was to drag Sikhs and others away from Hindus and also whittle down the number of 'Hindus' by dividing them within, using caste distinction. This policy continued uninterruptedly until the end of the Imperial regime.

In 1947 British left India, but their strategies were carried by the Indian politicians. Reservations, that which was put in the constitution with a very noble idea of uplifting the depressed, began to be used as an effective tool to gather votes from specific castes. The current violent clashes between the Gujjars and Meenas have their roots in the same policy of Divide et Impera.

According to some historians Gujjars have their roots to the Huns dynasty from Central Asia; while some others link them to the Georgians and Chechens, but all agree that their origin is from Central Asia. Once they landed here with the Huns they established small kingdoms in the areas around modern Rajasthan and Gujarat. Incidentally Gujjars are both Hindus and Muslims. The Muslim Gujjars had shown dissent against the British in Ludhiana in Punjab. In the process of rebelling against the British, they were known to have committed several loots of British garrisons, which made the Imperial authorities to classify them under the 'Criminal Tribes' (CT).

Meanwhile, the Meenas community that is now arraigned against the Gujjars getting the ST status also have an interesting history. Unlike the Gujjars, who are spread out in north-western India, Meenas are a tribe whom you would find only in Rajasthan. Today a land-owning class, historians say they were ruling class in the ancient Matsya (modern Rajasthan) and were even seen as Kshatriyas, like the Gujjars in the earlier times. However their origin is still not clear as historians differ on whether they had Central Asian origin like the Gujjars, or are were an indigenous community.

The similarity between the Gujjars and the Meenas appear over the way in which the British treated them. Like Gujjars, British found this community also as a peril, a British chronicler even labelled them as 'revengeful and blood thirsty people'. And like they did with the Gujjars, this community was also denominated as a CT. It may be seen that both had belonged to a much higher caste order and were later relegated into CT during the Imperial rule.

In the post-independent India, the Meenas, who became economically better off being landowner somehow managed to get them classified, during the 60s, as a ST, while the economically inferior Gujjars got only the OBC status. The Gujjars were quiet reconciled to this status, after their demand in the 70s 'to be included in the ST category' was rejected.
But the problem began, all over again, in the 90s when the NDA government led by BJP with an eye on the Jat votes in Rajasthan, before 1998 elections to the Assembly, promised them an OBC status. When this promise was duly fulfilled in '99 the Gujjars suddenly found themselves at a detrimental position as more economically and socially, as well as educationally powerful Jat began cornering 'their' OBC share.

The BJP was in the scene again during the 2003 Assembly Polls. Its present Chief Minister, Vasundhara Raje Scindia, pledged the Gujjars that if she came to power she would urge their inclusion in the ST list to the Centre. It is this unfulfilled demand, according to Gujjars, which has forced them to violence. These unrests and caste clashes are now spreading to Delhi, UP and Haryana, rather too fast.

Politicians, if they don't do anything else, always play games. A similar game was played in Karnataka in the late 1980s when former Prime Minister HD Deve Gowda had 'championed' the cause of the Nayakas to be included in the list of STs. Despite opposition from many quarters, Gowda had used his clout with the short-lived Chandra Shekhar Government at the centre in 1990 and included the Nayakas in the ST list. And the result: Population of the STs multiplied and when the fresh delimitation of Assembly and Lok Sabha constituencies were completed the seats reserved for ST in Karnataka Assembly zoomed up to 15 from 2 per cent and for the Lok Sabha from none to two.

The situation is no different in Rajasthan today. The seats reserved for the STs are expected to go up, and one of the major casualties will be the Dausa Lok Sabha (LS) seat, considered as the only Gujjars stronghold. A seat represented by late Rajesh Pilot for long time, and now held by his son Sachin, it is likely to be reserved for STs. Similarly a few Assembly seats held by the Gujjars are also likely to face extinction, as far as the Gujjars are concerned. It is this lurking fear which has also ignited the kind of frenzy among the Gujjars. The resistance of Meenas for inclusion of Gujjars in the ST category is directly related to their apprehension that their almost unchallenged dominance of this category will be thing of the past, if the Gujjars, like the Nayakas in Karnataka, enter the list.

One suggestion which is being spoken of to overcome this lethal deadlock is to categorize the OBCs like in Karnataka and Kerala and create a quota within the quota. This may solve the problem when it comes to sharing seats in education and job, but still it is unlikely to alleviate the trepidation of the Gujjars about the political trouncing they would suffer, following the delimitation process.

Interestingly the situation has gone so convoluted that neither the BJP nor the Congress is able to constrain the monster they themselves had created. They are absolutely clueless in handling the situation.