Death of Ealam Tigers : A Post-mortem

Lankan forces might have killed the Tigers but not their ideology. One cannot deny the fact that, conflict of this magnitude cannot happen without the genuine demands/concerns on both sides. On one hand Sri Lankan Tamils and other minorities had a genuine reason for their struggle, i.e. demand for equality, dignity and decent standards of living. On the other hand democratically elected government at Colombo cannot be a mute spectator for intolerable violence practiced and propagated by LTTE; simply because security of citizen is the first responsibility of government. Lankan crisis is yet another example of class conflict based on language and ethnicity. Unless equality among Lankans is promoted with vigor, there is no reason to believe that another breed of Tigers cannot be born. 

1. Roots of Hatred
Sri Lanka secured independence (1948) from British through peaceful negotiations. No one then would have imagined that a mere disagreement in choosing official language could one day lead to huge humanitarian crisis in the island nation. From 1936 to 1944, Lankan leaders favored English for the official language. However, president J.R. Jayawardene (in 1944) favored Sinhala for official language. Prime minister Bandaranaike's proactive move towards making Sinhala as official language led to the passage of "Sinhala Only Act, 1956", which ultimately sown the seeds of ethnic riots. The civil war is a direct result of the escalation of the confrontational politics that followed.

Since then, Sri Lankan minority communities feel that, they had been discriminated by successive majority Sinhalese governments in Colombo. Many youngsters, with the support of diaspora around the world, formed a group to fight against alleged discrimination against Tamils and other minorities. This was the time when "Sun God" - Velupillai Prabhakaran's Tamil New Tigers (1972) was born, which ultimately led to the formation of Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam in 1976. Since then, [take a look at chronology of events],  several leaders including president Ranasinghe Premadasa, Indian prime minister Rajiv Gandhi and over 80,000 civilians and millitary personnel were killed in the civil war. Peace was contemplated through negotiations but was never achieved. 

2. Tigers dragged their feets
Starting from negotiations at Thimpu, Bhutan in 1985, till 2002's ceasefire agreement, brokered by Norway, LTTE always dragged it's feet over one or other issue.  LTTE rejected an offer from former president Chandrika Kumaratunga, which provided powers of devolution (a federal solution) and attempted to assassinate her in 1999. After ceasefire agreement in 2002, LTTE signaled willingness to discuss a federal solution. But in 2003, it pulled out of talks after six rounds of negotiations, citing inadequate steps taken to rebuild war-hit areas. "By accepting no compromise and by continuing to use tactics such as assassinations of perceived 'enemies of the cause' and violent retribution, the LTTE brought about its own doom. [EPW, May 30, 2009]." 

3. Heightened frustration
Colombo had already lost many of its leaders and thousand of civilians. Assassination of Foreign Minister Lakshman Kadirgamar in February 2005 further escalated it's frustration. In the run-up to the November 2005 presidential election, president Mahinda Rajapaksa promised that he would fight Tigers to the finish. In August 2006, Rajapaksa and his core group made a political resolve to launch a "fight-to-finish" campaign against the Tigers. In the same year, "The LTTE provided the much-needed excuse for the assault when its cadre closed down the Mavil Aru sluice gates in the east, denying water to more than 30,000 civilians. The presidential core team in the campaign included his younger brother and Defence Secretary, Gotabaya Rajapaksa, and the army chief, Lt Gen. Sarath Fonseka, both of whom had scores to settle with the Tigers (Both had survived assassination attacks earlier).... The Defence Secretary and the army chief proved to be a lethal combination for the LTTE [Frontline]." 

4. Fight to finish
"Despite a systematic shelling and bombing campaign that killed thousands of civilians, the Sri Lankan army did not receive anything more than token disapproval or humanitarian appeals from the international community. The Sri Lankan government's ruthless drive to vanquish the "terrorist" LTTE was never halted in the final phase of war by an international community tired of "terror" - a stigma that LTTE carried for its past actions [EPW, May 30, 2009]" On April 26, 2009, LTTE declared a unilateral ceasefire as government forces surround an ever shrinking "no-fire-zone". Colombo rejected the declaration and called it a "joke". On May 18, 2009, V. Prabhakaran, the "Sun God" was finally set. Signalling the end of civil war between Sri Lankan government and LTTE. The vicotry rallies and celebrations due to "Sun God's" death does not hide the enormity of challenges ahead for Rajapaksa and his successors.  

5. Post war Challenges
Immediate post war challenge for Rajapaksa government is rehabilitation of more that 150,000 internally displaced civilians. President Rajapaksa has promised that he would complete the rehabilitation process within six months. Even though it sounds ambitious, it is not impossible if international community steps in and help expedite the process. Though Rajapaksa was successful in his "fight-to-finish" campaign against the Tigers, the roots of the conflict cannot be uprooted so soon. Lankan government must address genuine grievances of the Tamils. Present and future administrations at Colombo must make sincere efforts for the welfare of Tamils and other minorities. "Anything short of a federal setup that grants political rights for the oppressed Tamil population would only lead to a further festering of the deep wounds from years of marginalization and alienation of Tamils."

If Rajapaksa and his successors does not make sincere efforts to promote equality, dignity and decent standards of living for Tamils and other minorities, "the seeds would be sown for another militant organization - one that would have learnt from the past mistakes of theLTTE - espousing complete separation [EPW]."

Talibanization of 'Switzerland of Pakistan'

"With high mountains, green meadows, and clear lakes, Swat Valley is a place of great natural beauty that used to be popular with tourists as the Switzerland of Pakistan". It's even called as "Switzerland of East" because of it's attractive geography. "It's pristine beauty,snow capped mountains, rivers and rare Buddhist archaeological sites are known all over the world." It was an important tourist destination and major socio cultural center before it was captured by Taliban. Today, "Switzerland of Pakistan" is Taliban's battle ground for Islamic fundamentalists. The roots of Talibanization in Swat Valley can be traced to cold war politics.

The Cold War saw periods of heightened tensions and the Soviet war in Afghanistan (1979–1989) was one of them. Soviet Union forces were supporting the Marxist People's Democratic Party of Afghanistan (PDPA) government against the Mujahideen resistance. Mujahideens in Afghanistan were actively supported by United States and Pakistan extended all possible support to help Mujahideens win over Soviet forces. Operation Cyclone was the code name for the United States Central Intelligence Agency program to arm the Afghan mujahideen during the Soviet war in Afghanistan. Operation Cyclone is one of the longest and most expensive covert CIA operations ever undertaken. United states engaged general Zia-ul-Huq to fight a US-aided war by proxy in Afghanistan against the Soviets.  Zia now found himself in a position to demand billions of dollars in aid for the Mujahideen from the Western states. Ronald Reagan's government met all his expectations. Pakistan continued to fight proxy war which in no way benefited it's people. "The war left deep scars to the Pakistani society with the menace of Kalashnikov (AK-47 assault rifle) culture spreading all over the country.

Many Afghan Mujahideen later converted to new forms of Jihadist outfits in the shape of Taliban and Al-Qaeda in the early 1990s. The Pakistan and US trained Arab and Afghan fighters later in 2001 initiated a 'Jihad' against US. The links of the spectacular and deadly events of September 11 attack were deeply rooted in the Soviet-Afghan war. Osama bin Laden invested his inherited money into the Soviet-Afghan war to fight the 'infidel communist power' and was abetted by CIA, ISI, US and Pakistani military establishments for over 10 years.[wiki]"

Today, the children of Cold War politics have matured enough to threaten those who had nurtured them. Pakistan and it's friends refer those (strong) insurgency groups as "non-state actors". "According to USA, a plethora of non-state armed group have been engaged in violent struggle in Pakistan after the end of Cold War. Baloch Liberation Army (BLA), Harkat ul-Jihad-i-Islami (HUJI), Harkat ul-Mujahidin (HuM), Harkat ul-Ansar, Hizbul Mujahideen (HM), Jaish-e-Mohammad (JeM), Lashkar-e-taiba (LeT), etc... are just to name few of them. The so called non-state actors, with the help of "elements" within the state structure, are as powerful and influential as the Pakistani state." The real state within the state of Pakistan is not the ISI but the jihadist network in Pakistan's hinterland. The power of jihadist in Pakistan is so pervasive that, despite the presence of 20,000 Pakistani troops in the valley, (so called) democratic leaders had to be on their knees to surrender Swat Valley, the "Switzerland of Pakistan". Undoubtedly, Talibanization of Swat Valley is going to be one of the defining moment in balancing the power equation in Pakistan.

Rules of Taliban in Swat Valley directly conflict with natural justice. Simply because, stricter interpretation of Islamic laws contradict the natural laws. Poverty, coupled with apathy towards modern education are fundamental reasons behind the current mess in Swat. This may sound rhetoric, unfortunately that's the ground reality. The only pragmatic way to overcome the mess in Pakistan is to bring the political stability through democratic institutions. Pakistan needs time to clean up the mess created by it's dictators in the past (more on this here and here). Passing the blame on Pakistani state is not going to do any good, the world must compassionately understand the situation and help Pakistan to realize it's political stability. Long term paths of eradicating poverty, modern education along side the religious education should be pursued with greater vigor and tenacity.

Pakistan issue is deep rooted in historical mishaps - Part 2

Most of us in India and around the world are very critical of Pakistan for it's apathy towards fighting terrorism. The blame game is not going to work neither for India or Pakistan nor for the world at large. Pakistan is a victim of successive leaders/dictators, right from Mohammad Ali Jinha to Pervaz Musharaff, who have attempted to rewrite it's history for their own narrow motives. The present civilian government is under tremendous pressure to act against terrorism on it's soil. On one hand, it cannot blame it's past for the present problems, on the other hand it cannot ignore the international pressure. After decades of repeated mistakes, Pakistan is finally realizing the fact that it's problems are deep rooted in it's own mishaps. 

Read details of all misadventures of Pakistan and it's leaders in Part 1 of this article.

The roots of Pakistan's problems can be traced to undivided India's Freedom Movement. The "divide and rule" policy of British Raj, Mohammad Ali Jinha's differences with Congress and his own political ambitions, the infamous partition, Kashmir Conflict, Bangladesh liberation war (1971 Indo-Pak War), the cold war and subsequent balance of power in the world have all contributed to current mess in Pakistan.

Successive army dictators, from Ayub Khan to Pervaz Musharraf, "have attempted to rewrite this 'unfortunate country’s' history for their own narrow motives [Kamran Shafi]." Country's socio-economic development was given a backseat. Cultural developments were dominated/influenced by Shariat. Proxy wars fought by Pakistan resulted in widespread militancy and illicit drug trade. Prolonged political instabilities coupled with "military and ISI dominance" deprived the growth of democratic ideals. As a result, today, internal affairs of Pakistan are uncontrollable. The militants inside and around Pakistan have become exceptionally strong (blame it on US policies during cold war). Terrorists in Pakistan, once nurtured by United States and Pakistan, are becoming threat to the whole world. Pakistan's nuclear capabilities are adding to the fear and there is a clear apprehension of nuclear weapons falling in the hands of terrorists.

Today, the crisis in Pakistan is not because of the innocent civilians but because of it's rulers and their narrow motives. The problem in the region can never be solved by guns alone, India and rest of the world must understand that Pakistan's problem is deep rooted in cultural differences, socio-economic problems and political instability. What we need is not the prolonged postmortem of the past, but rigorous pursuit of new opportunities to bring the peace. Passing the blame on Pakistan is not going to do any good, the world must compassionately understand the situation and help Pakistan to realize it's political stability. Fortunately, civilian government is in power, they are facing problems because of misrule in the past. World need to understand that, Pakistan need some time to clean up the mess created by dictators. Terrorism can be fought with collective efforts and diplomatic paths should be continued with tenacity.

Peace does not come from the barrel of a gun but is achieved when cultural differences are respected and the fundamental rights of all are recognised and upheld [Desmond Tutu].

Pakistan issue is deep rooted in historical mishaps - Part 1

The roots of Pakistan's problems can be traced to undivided India's Freedom Movement. The "divide and rule" policy of British Raj, Mohammad Ali Jinha's differences with Congress and his own political ambitions, the infamous partition, Kashmir Conflict, Bangladesh liberation war (1971 Indo-Pak War), the cold war and subsequent balance of power in the world have all contributed to current mess in Pakistan.

1. When Lord Curzon adopted the policy of "divide and rule", little did he know that his narrow imperialistic approach would one day affect the world peace. The unity and integrity between Hindus and Muslims was impeccable before British came to India. During 1857 Revolt, Bahadur Shah Zafar was proclaimed the Emperor of Hindustan, mutineers considered him as a symbol of "united India" against the foreign (British) rule. Swami Shradhananda was allowed to preach from the pulpit of Jama Masjid. There were many glorious instances of Hindu-Muslim fraternization. But British did exactly what they needed in order to break the unity, i.e. to divide Indians and rule over them. Lord Curzon decided to divide Bengal province citing administrative reasons and pronounced that easter Bengal will be Muslim majority area and Wenstern Bengal will be Hindu Majority area.

Mistake 1: Muslim League okayed Bengal Partition and allowed different policies for Hindus and Muslims.

2. In 1933, a group of Punjabi Muslim students led by Choudhary Rahamat Ali floated the idea of Pakistan. Ali demanded a separate national status for Muslims for which he coined the name 'PAKISTAN' - 'P' for Punjab, 'A' for Afghan province (North-West Frontier Province), 'K' for Kashmir, 'S' for Sindh and 'TAN' for Baluchistan. No one took this demand for separate state seriously until 1937 when Muslim League formally accepted the idea. Muslim League and Congress failed to realize the true motives of British policies and engaged themselves in repeated confrontation. Subsequently, Muslim League opposed Congress and forced the then Leaders of Congress to accept the demand for separate nation.

Mistake 2: Congress and even Britishers tried to convince Muslim League to give up the idea of Pakistan (Ex: in August Offer 1940, Cripps Mission 1942, Cabinet mission plan 1946) but Mohammad Ali Jinha would not be satisfied with anything less than the partition of the country.

Had Mohammad Ali Jinha and his followers avoided their parochial attitude and inclination towards partition on religious grounds, all the problems in the region could have been obviated by United India.

3. In the aftermath of Partition, the princely states of India, which had been left by the Indian Independence Act 1947 to choose whether to accede to India or Pakistan or to remain outside them. While most of the princely states decided to join either India or Pakistan, Maharaja Hari Singh of Jammu and Kashmir decided not to join any of the newly formed countries. The history will remember Maharaja Hari Singh for his indecisiveness. If he had made a timely decision to join either India or Pakistan, the question of Kashmir Conflict would have never arose. When Azad Kashmir forces and tribal Pathans attacked Kashmir, Pakistan gave every possible support to them. Maharaja Hari Singh desperately needed Indian support to avoid the invasion. Indian Government demanded Maharaja Hari Singh to join Indian union if his state needs Indian military support. Subsequently, he signed the Instrument of Accession. India dispatched it's military to Kashmir and routed Pakistan supported forces. United Nations intervened and asked both India and Pakistan to hold the plebiscite to decide whether Kashmir should join India or Pakistan.

Mistake 3: At that time, the Indian and Pakistani governments agreed to hold the plebiscite but Pakistan did not withdraw its troops from Kashmir thus violating the condition for holding the plebiscite. Later, under UN's revised conditions for plebiscite, Pakistan accepted to hold plebiscite but India refused. Plebiscite was never held and Pakistan continued to support militants in the region. Thus paving the way for building safe haven for terrorism.

4. Before 1971, Bangladesh was a part of Pakistan and was called East Pakistan. In 1970 Pakistan Elections, "East Pakistani Awami League won 167 of 169 seats in East Pakistan and secured a simple majority in the 313-seat lower house of the Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament of Pakistan). Awami League leader Sheikh Mujibur Rahman presented the Six Points to the President of Pakistan and claimed the right to form the government. After the leader of the Pakistan Peoples Party, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, refused to yield the premiership of Pakistan to Mujibur, President Yahya Khan called out the military, which was made up largely of West Pakistanis.

Mass arrests of dissidents began, and attempts were made to disarm East Pakistani soldiers and police. After several days of strikes and non-cooperation movements, the Pakistani military cracked down on Dhaka on the night of March 25, 1971. The Awami League was banished, and many members fled into exile in India. Mujib was arrested and taken to West Pakistan. On 27 March 1971, Ziaur Rahman, a rebellious major in the Pakistani army, declared the independence of Bangladesh on behalf of Mujibur [wiki]."

Mistake 4: Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, Yahya Khan did not respect the electoral verdict. If they have allowed Awami League to form the government, Pakistan would have harbingered democratic rule for generations to come. Instead, both the leaders allowed their narrow political interests to rule over law of the land. Subsequently, India supported Bangladesh Liberation forces for it's own strategic reasons. Bangladesh liberation was irrecoverable damage to Pakistan and further fueled Indo-Pak hostilities.

5. The Cold War saw periods of heightened tensions and the Soviet war in Afghanistan (1979–1989) was one of them. Soviet Union forces were supporting the Marxist People's Democratic Party of Afghanistan (PDPA) government against the Mujahideen resistance. Mujahideens in Afghanistan were actively supported by United States and Pakistan extended all possible support to help Mujahideens win over Soviet forces. Operation Cyclone was the code name for the United States Central Intelligence Agency program to arm the Afghan mujahideen during the Soviet war in Afghanistan. Operation Cyclone is one of the longest and most expensive covert CIA operations ever undertaken.

Mistake 5: United states engaged general Zia-ul-Huq to fight a US-aided war by proxy in Afghanistan against the Soviets.  Zia now found himself in a position to demand billions of dollars in aid for the Mujahideen from the Western states. Ronald Reagan's government met all his expectations. Pakistan continued to fight proxy war which in no way benefited it's people. "The war left deep scars to the Pakistani society with the menace of Kalashnikov (AK-47 assault rifle) culture spreading all over the country. Many Afghan Mujahideen later converted to new forms of Jihadist outfits in the shape of Taliban and Al-Qaeda in the early 1990s. The Pakistan and US trained Arab and Afghan fighters later in 2001 initiated a 'Jihad' against US. The links of the spectacular and deadly events of September 11 attack were deeply rooted in the Soviet-Afghan war. Osama bin Laden invested his inherited money into the Soviet-Afghan war to fight the 'infidel communist power' and was abetted by CIA, ISI, US and Pakistani military establishments for over 10 years.[wiki]"

To this day, Pakistan is confronted by the legacy of Zia's policies.

6. The Pakistani military has played an influential role in mainstream politics throughout Pakistan's history, with military presidents ruling from 1958–71, 1977–88 and from 1999–2008. The first Constitution of Pakistan was adopted in 1956, but was suspended in 1958 by General Ayub Khan. The Constitution of 1973—suspended in 1977, by Zia-ul-Haq, but re-instated in 1991. In 1999, general Parvez Musharraf seized the power from Nawaz Sharif led civilian government and suspended the constitution twice and re-instated.

Mistake 6: Pakistan has proved over the time that, It's harder for them to run a constitution than to frame one! Repeated military coups in Pakistan have given a death blow to the spirit of democracy. Subsequently, Pakistan began a marked shift from the British-era secular politics and policies, to the adoption of Shariat and other laws based on Islam. This facilitated religious fanatics to hate democratic ideals. Pakistan-Taliban peace pact in February 2009 is an example for Pakistan's failed democracy.

Above examples of Pakistan and it's leaders' misadventures are just a tip of the iceberg. Successive army dictators, from Ayub Khan to Pervaz Musharraf, "have attempted to rewrite this 'unfortunate country’s' history for their own narrow motives [Kamran Shafi]."

To be Continued...

[Update: Click here to read Part -2]

From 'Womb to Tomb', influence of terrorism is pervasive

Lot has been written and said about Mumbai massacre, media and online social networking community produced voluminous literature on every bit of that horrendous crime. "India has learned that not all terrorism stems from Pakistan: the country has faced attacks from Indian Islamists, Hindutva groups and ethnic-chauvinist organisations in the north-eastern States. Each form of hate has fed and legitimised the other. But this circle of hate has been driven, too, by organisations based in Pakistan, jehadist groups that have demonstrated that they, while being friends of Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence Directorate, are enemies of the people of Pakistan [Frontline]." Read more here. Wherever the terror originate, it has become conspicuous now that 'subconscious fear' has been created in the minds of ordinary people. At every stage of our life, from 'Womb to Tomb', terrorists/fundamentalists have made their presense felt. The fear of grave consequences of terrorism is now transforming into public anger fighting against government's apathy.

On 26th November, all political parties looked like they are united in the fight against terrorism, but "the message of unity that was sent out in the immediate aftermath of the attacks was lost in less than 24 hours". Probably opposition felt it's too risky to support ruling UPA government, in it's actions against terrorist, ahead of Delhi and Rajasthan assembly elections. The blame game began, not just in the speeches of politicians but Newspapers too carried advertises echoing slogans against government to woo voters in Delhi. This blame game incinerated public anger and just after our bravehearts fired final bullets in the battlefield, the angry citizen's voice was reverberated in every corner of India.

There is absolutely no doubt that despite intelligence inputs, government failed to act, but why do we always feel so proud to attack the politicians and blame the government for it's inaction?

"Why should we keep finding fault with only the politicians? Isn't there something wrong with us, the common populace? Aren't we to be equally blamed for the mess? How is it that we find scapegoats in politicians, security forces, and all others except ourselves? What is it that we have done to keep the country safe? Has our behaviour been conducive to the security forces' fight? Shouldn't we do something about it? Why should we keep on blaming the politicians, instead of just booting the opportunistic lot of them out of power by the power of ballot? Have all those who have been crowing about bad politicians, ever voted? Did they exercise their franchise? Isn't casting a vote the duty of the common man? If you have not liked a politician or political party, did you cast your vote against them? If you have found that no political party is worth your vote, did you take care to ensure that your vote is not cast to anybody by going to the polling booth and not voting for anybody? [Indian Current Affairs blog]."

Protesting and showing disapproval for government's action/inaction is our democratic right but just doing that doesn't help niether to the nation nor to ourself. Ask not whether the system is going to change, ask whether you can change. So what is that we can do? We just need to answer the above questions and act, otherwise we don't need to be vociferous.

Keep your religious life personal, No need to show your veneration

Few days back, one of my friend came back to me saying that he did not agree with some of my argumentse related to Amarnath issue. In a broader perspective, I told him that, "God's name is there behind most of the violences, riots, unrests, terrorist attacks and many other heinous crimes (recent Anti Christian violence, Amarnath issue, terrorist attacks are perfect examples of heinous crimes in the name of god and religion). It's all a communal misunderstanding in the name of God, who, i am not sure if exist." He hit back saying, "It doesn't matter whether YOU believe in god or not. It doesn't change the fact that more than 95% of the people do. And it is more important to them than anything else." If they just believe in certain faith/religion, it's not a problem, but religious chauvinism coupled with misguided and misinterpreted history of religion and god lead to communal violences. Liberty of 'belief, faith and worship' promised by framers of our constitution are for peaceful coexistence. 'Freedom of religion' enshrined in our constitution (Article 25-29) are not intended for any kind of induced proselytization.

Hindu fundamentalist argue that, Islam by itself is a imperialistic idea. According to "dar al-harb (territory of war or chaos) and dar al-islam (territory of peace) muslims are expected to bring God's word and God's will to all of humanity, by force if absolutely necessary, and attempts by the regions in dar al-harb to resist or fight back must be met with a similar amount of force [about.com]." One of my open minded Muslim friend told me that, the original philosophy of dar al-harb and dar al-islam were not for creating Islamic world. It was meant to fight immorality. i.e. Destruction of region of immorality (dar al-harb, the territory of war or chaos) by the morals of dar al-islam (territory of peace).

Another ideology sited quite often is Jihad. But meaning of Jihad is not 'holy war',

"The Qur'anic concept of jihad refers to exerting efforts, in the form of struggle against or resistance to something, for the sake of Allah. This effort can be fighting back armed aggression, but can also be resisting evil drives and desires in one's self. Even donating money to the needy is a form of jihad, as it involves struggling against one's selfishness and inner desire to keep one's money for one's own pleasures. Jihad can, therefore, be subdivided into armed jihad and peaceful jihad. Armed jihad, which is the subject of Chapter 4, is only temporary and is a response to armed aggression. Once the aggression has ceased, armed jihad comes to an end. Armed jihad, thus, can take place only when there is an aggressive, external enemy [source]."

But Muslim fundamentalist interpret Jihad in a way that directly contradicts the original meaning of Jihad. Same is the case with philosophy of dar al-harb and dar al-islam.

Apart from misinterpretation of religious text, there is another issue of proselytization. "Majority of the Muslims of India are converts to that faith from Hinduism through force of circumstances [Mahatma Gandhi]" and so are Christians of India. "Poor people who wander about, find no work, no wages and starve, whose lives are continual round of sore affliction and pinching poverty, cannot be pround of the constitution or its law [Dr. Radhakrishnan]." Obviously they do not mind converting to other religion if they can get what they do not have, i.e. source of livelihood. It doesn't really matter if the law preach secularism or even if it bans forced/induced proselytization. The fundamental question behind induced proselytization is of 'honourable existence' i.e. the economic freedom. If that is not attained, the results are horrendous incidents like Anti Christian violence, and even extreme fundamentalism. More over, the so called "proselytisers" must realize that, the respect and value for a particular religion must be earned and should never be induced nor demanded.

Though the protogonists of religious philosophies claim to preach peace and humanity, they often forget the importance of coexistence of various faiths and beliefs. The parochial attitude of inflicting thoughts like 'superiority of one faith over other' are foundations of communal violence. If you practice a perticular religion, keep it to yourself, keep it within your home. There is no point in going out and showing your veneration for the religion/god you believe in, that neither help "purify" yourself nor it brings peace in the society.

Amarnath issue and an unheard v(n)oise called 'Azad Kashmir'

I was perplexed by the fact that God's name is there behind most of the violences, riots, unrests, terrorist attacks and many other heinous crimes.

1. Amarnath land transfer imbroglio in the name of Lord Amarnathji,
2. Demolition of Babri Masjid in the name of Lord Rama,
3. Killing of over 130 innocents due to stampede at Naina Devi temple,
4. Attacks on temples (Ex Akshrdhama), mosques (Ex Babri Masjid), churches (Ex 2007 Orissa violence) to demonstrate the superiority of one religion over other,
5. Use of god's name for personal gain Ex: BJP's 'Rath Yatra', using the name of 'Lord Shriram' for political gains, discrimination in the name of secularism (Ex: wowing muslims to gain votes, Cast politics at grass root level).
6. Spending crores and crores of rupees on holy events at temples, mosques, churches.
7. Above all incinerating religious comparisons (take a look at these videos).
   

After all, god is supposed to protect humanity. Why is he silent (if he exist)? If Amarnathji is compassionate about mankind, why can't he help us break the impasse reached at Kashmir, his own home? (I am not arguing against god here, I am still agnostic about the existence of god).

The issue here is not the existence of god, but the use of God's name and diversified religious faiths to attain personal gains. For example, Omar Abdullah said, "As long as there is a single Muslim in Kashmir, the Amarnath yatra will never stop." He spoke vociferously in the parliament about being "an Indian first and Muslim later" (the Indian Nationalism), now he takes a complete U turn and speaks about "Kashmir Nationalism" and Azaadi. Leaders in Kashmir, especially the leaders of the All Parties Hurriyat Conference (APHC), Jammu and Kashmir Liberation front (JKLF) mastermind the protests which lead to the killing of innocents in Kashmir.

"The APHC does not recognize the Indian Constitution and has stayed away from all elections held in the state of Kashmir so far. It blames the lack of sincerity of India for the failure of the repeated attempts at the resolution of the Kashmir issue. It has consistently criticized and Accused the Indian Troops present in Kashmir of Human Rights Violations [wiki]." If they think government is not capable of handling Kashmir, why can't they contest democratic elections and win to rule (or serve) Kashmir? Why can't they choose the democratic way of resolving Kashmir issue? The protests and violences in Kashmir are not showing the road to peace, but demonstrating the vested interests of leaders who are masterminding the violence. Here is a quick look at what exactly happened behind Amarnath land issue.

1. In the year 2000, Farooq Abdullah government had enacted “the J&K Shrine Board Act’’ to provide basic facilities to pilgrims and managing the religious shrine.
2. Later, state government refused to allocate any land to run the functions of the shrine board effectively.
3. A writ petition was filed in J&K high court demanding the land transfer.
4. On April 15, 2005, a single-judge bench upheld the decision to transfer land to the shrine board.
5. Consequently, J&K government had allotted 100 acres (0.40 km²) of forest land to the Shri Amarnathji Shrine Board (SASB ) out of the total land area of 15,520.3 km² (5,992.4 sq mi) in the main Kashmir valley.
6. Now this is what is at the center of the whole agitation. The separatists as well as the opposition parties in J&K now demand that this land transfer be annulled. The nationalists and people in Jammu want the land to be transfered to Shrine Board.  A clear divide between people of Jammu and people of Kashmir is thus visible [courtesy].

Now the mere land transfer issue (in the name of god and religious faiths) is becoming a precursor to what is being called as Azaadi for Kashmir. Here is how the entire situation got worse [wiki],

1. Six people were killed and 100 injured when police fired into a crowd in Srinagar protesting the transfer of land.
2. Separatist JKLF (R) organized a march to the controversial land in Baltal. The death of a JKLF(R) activist in a fire opened by the Security Forces became the flash point for protests in the Kashmir valley region.
3. Some environmentalists argued that the land transfer would hamper the region's delicate ecological balance.
4. The protests and violences became pervasive in Kashmir and situation went out of control.
5. People's Democratic Party (PDP) said that it would withdraw support to the Indian National Congress (INC)-led state government if it did not revoke the land transfer agreement.
6. The state government accepted the demands of PPP and the Muslim protesters. Govt revoked the land transfer decision on July 1,2008.
7. Hindu groups in the Jammu region organized counter protests and demanded that the land must be transfered to Shrine board.
8. The crisis deepened further when the PDP didn't lend support to the state government even after the revocation of land transfer.
9. On 11 August 2008, around 2,50,000 Kashmiri protesters attempted to cross the LoC to Muzaffarabad, in violation of march ban orders. Fifteen people were killed including APHC separatist leader Sheikh Abdul Aziz and hundreds more injured when police and paramilitary forces opened fire on protesters attempting to cross the LoC.
10. With increasing number of protests and killings, the noise of 'Azad Kashmir' resurfaced.

Thus, a mere land transfer issue raised an unheard v(n)oise of "Azad Kashmir". A small issue, which could have been resolved peacefully if leaders were ready to sit across the negotiation table. Freedom should be respected and honored but not to a ridiculous extent of demanding partition. We have already seen bloodshed due to the partition of Bengal (during British rule), Partition of India & Pakistan, Partition of Bangladesh, and yet leaders of Kashmir & separatist have not learnt their lesson. Pakistan's attempts to provoke Kashmiris into joining the pro-independence protests are clear indications of its desperation for Kashmir. Pakistan should stop its gross interference in our internal affairs and focus on issues where it has a locus standi.

Azaadi (Independence) to Kashmir is quixotic. The situation gets worse if Kashmir become independent, it cannot sustain economic, political and fundamentalistic onslaught. More over, increasing heinous acts of terrorism will only add to the mess. Kashmir is an integral part of India and being so is good for both Kashmir and rest of India.

The British Legacy of Adivasi Militancy

ASSAM reported its most shameful incident in recent times on November 24 when a teenaged adivasi girl, stripped naked by some youth during mob violence, ran for dear life on a street in Guwahati with her attackers chasing her in full public view. The girl, a Class X student from Biswanth Chariali in Sonitpur district in northern Assam, pleaded with her attackers for mercy, but in vain. A middle-aged man finally came to her rescue and offered her his own clothes to cover herself. Local newspapers even published pictures of an assailant kicking her private parts, which was subsequently shown by television news channels. - Frontline, December 08-21, 2007.

Such an inhuman act can happen only when our society is still inhuman. Struggle for existence and a better life is not new for mankind. Bloodiest battles in the past were fought for the very reason 'to exist and to be able to exist in a better way'. When there is no equality, struggle for existence and a better life becomes obvious and so is the tribal/adivasi movements.

Assam Adivasi rebellion is not new, its roots can be traced to Santal Rebellion in 1855. Tribal groups lost their land to money lenders and traders, outsiders encroached their lands, they lost their forest - greatest source of their livelihood during the process of modernization and development, the construction of railways worsened their misery. The railway contractors used brute force to employ them cheaply on construction work and even kidnapped and raped Santal women. The railways even took away the grains produced by Santals and created food shortage. Silent protest of Santals until 1855 did not help at all. They started attacking Zamindars and money lenders, disrupted rail traffic. They even beheaded Mahesh Lal Dutta, a policeman for harassing one of their men. The Santal declared the end of company rule and proclaimed Santal Raj.

Santals' guerilla war tactics with bows and arrows were no match to the superior British troops. The British army of over thousand troops equipped with modern firearms and war elephants attacked Santals and it is estimated that atleast 15,000 (fifteen thousand) Santals were killed in the army action. Sidhu and Kanhu Murmu the legendary leaders of the revolt were hanged. The day of rebellion is still celebrated among the Santal community with great respect and spirit for the thousands of the Santal martyrs who sacrificed their lives along with their two celebrated leaders in their glorious albeit unsuccessful attempt to win freedom from the rule of the zamindars and the British operatives[wiki].

More over, after the annexation of Assam from Burma (Myanmar), the British colonial administration started tea plantations on a large scale in the region. Very soon India became one of the largest exporter of tea to the western world. Obviously this created a shortage of labours in the tea gardens. The Tea District Labour Association, constituted under the Tea District Emigrant Labour Act of 1932, started recruiting labour from six labour-surplus provinces – Bengal, Bihar, Orissa, Central Provinces, United Provinces and Madras. The labourers thus brought into Assam had a trying time. The agents, known as free contractors, enticed them with secure employment, good wages and healthy habitation. But what the labourers got was a raw deal. The mortality rate among them became high. The abuse of the free contractors was so grave that it met with protests from various quarters [frontline].

The exploitation, deprivation and treachery continues to exist even today in the tribal regions of our country. If Adivasis in Assam are demanding for better life (the Scheduled Tribe status), there is nothing new in it. The tribal groups are struggling for better life from over 150 (yes! hundred and fifty) years. Their struggle took a new shape with the vote bank politics. Democracy and education enabled tribal groups to realize their rights. And hence the seeds of hope and the better life were sown in the hearts of tribal and adivasi community. "Their recent struggle to gain Scheduled Tribe (ST) status is bound to give new verve to the adivasi struggle for empowerment and may help it to come out of the deadening groove of vote bank politics, the immeadiate need is to address the social and economic issues which continue to plague [EPW]" the tribal and adivasi communities.

Some of the News channels like NDTV declared on November 25th that, the recent adivasi revolt was a clear case of age-old enmity between the Assamese and the Adivasis whom the former thinks as "coolies". It would be wrong to see the issues as Assamese-Adivasis confrontation. The problem is more of socio-economic rather than ethnic. Both the government and leaders of tribal/adivasi groups should realize this and should come to the negotiation table and solve the problem.