Commentary/Varsha Bhosle

Jingoists of the world, Unite!

This week, what I really wanted was to relinquish this space to an excellent piece of analysis by Pakistani writer Abdul Haye which was published in The Nation earlier this month. In his article titled "Indian liberals vs Pakistani liberals", Mr Haye trains his sight on our very own angel of mercy Kuldip Nayar, who, in his article "Thou shalln't hate", had lambasted Pakistan's liberal brigade for not turning up at the Wagah border to jointly celebrate the Golden Jubilee of the independence of India and Pakistan.

If you've been visiting Mars, here's a recap: Mr Nayar had given a clarion call to the supposedly like-minded, tender-hearted souls of Pakistan to march towards their country's frontier to light candles and chant slogans of brotherhood, just as he'd lead the Indian chapter of the Fabian glee club on this side. Mr Nayar had also hoped that (after rounds of happy applause from the cheek-to- jowl line of soldiers securing the outpost in inclement terrain), the cross-border choirs could break shaami kababs in the no man's land. I am not making this up.

Pakistan's liberals consented, but even so, the holy night emerged as a silent one: Not a single candle showed up. Which led Mr Nayar to opine that it was due to an, er... discouraging circular issued by the government. But before I add my bit, let Mr Haye speak: "I find it hard to believe that they could have been stopped by a mere circular from doing something that they thought was right. The reason they failed to keep the date with Mr Nayar and his other countrymen could only be that they thought it to be wrong... On sober reflection, they realised that it was much more than friend A meeting friend B. It would inevitably come to symbolise a meeting between two parties. One party representing the oppressors in Kashmir and the other the oppressed in Kashmir. And while the Pakistanis hugged and cheered the other side, the message sent to the people under the Indian sword would be of our utter callousness."

Poor Mr Nayar and his unrequited candles... As my beloved Rajeev warned, our neighbours aren't about to become peace-loving vegetarians, hug trees, and beat swords into ploughshares. Be honest: Didn't Mr Nayar embarrass the hell out of you? Though I normally enjoy watching our liberals fall flat on their pasty faces, I had winced and tightly squeezed my eyes shut on hearing this cockamamie scheme: Since our secularists continue to have such faith in the old, Nehruvian bury-one's-head-in-the-sand ploy, I reckoned it would work with their own effluvium. 'Twas not to be: India became a laughing stock, all the same.

Actually, I wouldn't have minded at all if Mr Nayar had chosen to wear a tall, pointed and belled cap over a motley costume for a stint at Wagah on any other day -- the international community is quite used to bizarre spectacles at frontiers. Unfortunately, the occasion he picked made all Indians look like the 4,000 wide-eyed gimps who followed him there. I demand a law against twerps taking on the mantle of representing us citizens at large.

Never mind Prime Minister I K Gujral's intentions (bless his open- border heart), the secretary-level talks between India and Pakistan were (smirk, smirk) a flop. Pakistan has always had an inflexible, Kashmir-centered, single-point policy towards India; and by 'Pakistan', I don't mean just the government but its people, too -- as Mr Haye affirms in his summation. Never mind the trade-centred goals of the business community which upheld Nawaz Sharief in the elections, his government still describes Kashmir as the core issue between the two countries. The Nation even quoted Mr Sharief as saying, "By the grace of Allah almighty, Kashmir will be liberated during the tenure of the Pakistan Muslim League government."

Well, India has its own compulsions. But the woolly-headed ones actively pushing the "Gujral doctrine" just don't get it: Pakistan's brass will never let the Kashmir issue be shadowed by economic or cultural Indo-Pak interrelations. Unless the military establishment falls in line, little can be expected in terms of a tangible peace. Even as Mian Sharief was being sworn in as prime minister, army chief General Jahangir Karamat declared that Kashmir would not be thrown on the back-burner. These views have since been extensively echoed by Pakistan's press.

To be fair to Mr Nayar, he is a whole lot better than most of the liberals I know: At least so far, he hasn't demanded that J&K be handed over to Pakistan, nor is he in favour of holding a plebiscite in the state. What Mr Nayar wants is that Pakistan put Kashmir aside and embark on trade, tourism and cultural exchanges with India: Very reasonable -- and much like the song sung by Peter Pan to the Lost Boys of Never-Never Land. Or, by Mr Gujral to the Lost Cases of India-India. For peace to work, a country first needs brute strength. Ask the US. Or China.

But you know the perversity of it all? Just as it's obvious that Pakistan's liberals are of a stock different from their Indian counterpart, both nations's hawks are pretty much the same in their ability to smell bullshit. To illustrate: justifying India's stand on Kashmir, Mr Nayar had written, "India's secular polity has become linked with the Valley". Which prompts Mr Haye to reply, "The difference between the Indian position and Pakistan's position is that India does not want the people of Kashmir to be heard while Pakistan wants them to be heard. Where does the question of secularism come into it?" Hahahaha... right on! What *does* secularism have to do with the maintenance of national sovereignty? I feel camaraderie with Mr Haye, for he doesn't let even a gentle admonition slide by. So jingoistic of him, no?

When dealing with Islamic states (including khilafat), it's madness to talk about secularism. Hilal, a joint publication of Pakistan's military establishment and the ISI, vindicates the reservations of Hindutvawadis thus: "The issue of Hindu-Muslim friendship is nothing new. The Muslims ruled over the Hindus for above 1,000 years and the Hindus witnessed their rule for many years... Islam bars Muslims from extending a hand of friendship to Hindus unless the latter change their thinking and nature. The last Prophet of God, Mohammed (PBUH), has said: 'If someone tells me that Mt Uhad has moved for miles, I will accept it but if someone says that an individual or a people have changed their nature without embracing Islam, I will never accept it.' " Would someone please post this in font-size 70 to M/s Gujral & Sengupta? On what basis are they slackening the security of the only homeland Hindus have...?

Mr Haye, too, mixes religion with polity, but he does not cloak his bias in piety: "By ruling Kashmir, they are ruling a Muslim majority state.. It gives the Indians a different kind of sense of power. Let Mr Nayar acknowledge that and drop the hypocritical mask of secularism that the Indian leadership wears and we will have no problem understanding each other and talking to each other." Sure, Mr Haye and I will never see eye-to-eye on Kashmir -- we part ways when it comes to the rights of our respective nations. But that is why I tend to respect him and those who did not picnic at Wagah. Mr Haye may foam at the mouth at the bigotry of the com-div-fundie forces, but he isn't likely to feel the utter contempt that blazes through in his response to Mr Nayar. I say: Jingoists of the world, Unite!

In PC India, jingoism is an overly maligned and much misunderstood property. On a matter not very different, Dilip Dear wrote, "...you're incurably afflicted with that dread disease: jingoism. You will still not stand taller, but you might think you do. I'm here to tell you there's a cure for this disease." And what is the cure for which manifestation of this dread disease? Voila, India should not demand an apology from the Queen for the Jallianwalla Bagh massacre. I do wonder, which is more desirable: To think oneself to be and act as if one is standing tall, or to scrape along the ground in the hope of drawing charity?

I do *not* get it... thank Rudra and Thor and Mars and all those divine ideas that make humans aspire to veer-gati. What's life if it's to be spent kowtowing? I do believe that Nehruvians and Marxists have charted an agenda to destroy our nationalistic spirit. Isn't it strange that those who tomtom the human rights of minorities should be so dull-edged about the wrongs committed on the whole nation by foreigners? Thus, a Mughal couldn't have destroyed the Ram Mandir since it never existed; singing songs of friendship with an Islamic terrorist state is good business; and rolling out the red carpet for pillaging English is standing tall. What a cure. Sheesh.

Look at these cases: The Koreans recently demanded and received an apology for war-time atrocities from Japan. The Jewish community was assuaged in cash and kind by Germany. And last year, New York's and New Jersey's legislatures passed resolutions against Britain, condemning the human rights abuse of the Irish in the Potato Famine of 1840. I hope the (clearly, white American) dunderhead who wrote in Arena -- "I found your editorial suggesting the queen apologise for injustices, massacres, atrocities, etc, that happened 76 years ago not unlike the demands of African- Americans. People who live in the past and can only brood over past injustices deserve to live in the past" -- can calculate the span from 1840 to 1997.

Forget the Jallianwalla Bagh where only thousands were slaughtered. What about the four million Indians who died during the *artificial* Bengal famine of 1943? They died because His Majesty's Government did not release the food supply hoarded for British soldiers in case of an invasion by Japan. Four. Million. Indians.

Yes, I *am* using human rights and their violations as a weapon. Like nationalists all over the world, I do it to gain retribution for my country, to right the wrongs of History -- not for a narrow minority agenda, nor to usher in concepts imported from Russia and China. Britain needs to recognise that India has been maltreated by it. And if that's jingoism, boy, yes, I'm a jingoist and proud of it.

Tell us what you think of this column