Secularism – A leash or shackle in Bharat’s neck? Part 3 National Cohesion in Secular India

The founding fathers offered two key benefits to the nation from accepting secularism as a foundation of Independent India. Firstly it is said to unite Hindus and secondly it is said to assuage the minority communities. Did the independent India reap these benefits from secularism?

The Hindu majority of independent India remained as united as it was during centuries of foreign rule. It formed no vote banks based on religion, kept its caste/clan based identities. The variations in Hindu majority are further exploited by the very congress system that promised to unite Hindu majority in return for it accepting Secularism in its civil and criminal social transactions. What secularism (Christianity without church) did in reality is that it slowly took away the civilizational memory from the newer generations of Indian Hindus. Hindu culture and heritage are fast losing their relationship to the local flora-fauna and are being analyzed from non-Indic ideological structures. The very Hindu-unity that is promised is getting systematically destroyed.

In fact secularism became a bane for Indian Hindus. The Hindu majority did not get any additional security in Independent India due to their secular laws. The secular laws does not protect Hindus in Punjab, Kashmir, North East, Kerala, Bengal, Orissa etc., Their unity is remained a mirage in secular India. The root cause of this is the fact that by definition secularism is nothing but non-Hinduism, then how can it allow Hindu unity?

At the same time the religious minorities of India did not feel any additional security in a secular-India. The most interesting aspect of this is the separatist movements in the Christian majority North-Eastern India. There is the perpetual Kashmir insurgency problem. Then there are two separatist movements with Indic roots – Khalistan movement in Punjab and Tamil Eelam demands in Sri Lanka. In all these scenarios the secular constitution of India could not calm down the ever anxious religious minorities of Indian union. The response of Indian state to these separatist movements is also something to be observed.

In spite of accepting secularism as the constitutional structure of independent India, it did not achieve much cohesion between the Hindu majority and religious minorities of independent India. There have been more than 50 notable religious riots in the nation. The worst religious riot in sub-continental history happened in 1947 under the watch of the very founding fathers of this nation. 

Secularism – A leash or shackle in Bharat’s neck? Part 2 - Secularization of India

Since there is no philanthropy involved in imperialistic politics, the British applied whatever governance model/laws that they followed in Britain to their Indian colony. Indiscriminate slave trade was conducted in India by East India Company until it was made unlawful in Britain in 1807. Similarly, secularism was introduced to India in the second-half of 19^th century as it became the governance model in Britain. For the British rulers, secularism ensured that they are not entangled in the historical burden of Hindu-Muslim social tension (even though they used this to make political gains), whereas for the Indian intellectual elite of the 19th century, which was a creation of the British rule, this is an opportunity to grow their power and influence for its making a departure from medieval (Islamic) polity in which the state was considered more or less the private property of the ruler.

The first secular act of British Government in India was the Religious Endowments Act in 1863, which appropriated the rents and produce of lands granted mainly for the support of Hindu temples. A similar act introduced for Muslim religious properties and trusts – conceded the Indian Muslims’ right to establish Wakfs and keep it separate from the state appropriation. It is important to note that there was hardly any Christian church property in India at that time.

Another secular act that had universal application for all Indians was the Child Marriage Restraint Act introduced in 1929. In addition to these laws, the British government of India codified and enacted various laws; separate for Hindus and Muslims, mainly in the realm of financial transactions.

The true secularization of India, especially in the sense of “Christianization of India without Church”, happened under the leadership of the first prime minister of India, Jawaharlal Nehru (JLN). A secularized version of Hindu law was codified and enacted into law (Hindu Marriage Act (1955), Hindu Succession Act (1956), Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act (1956), and Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act (1956)) during his leadership. In this process, JLN trampled on various philosophical principles of Sanatana Dharma a.k.a Hinduism such as Vivaaha, Purusharthas and Asrama Dharmas etc., and replaced them with secular (read Christian Law minus Church theology) ritual aspects in their place.

JLN sold this secularism to Indian public in the guise of uniting the Hindu population, by standardizing the personal laws of Hindu majority. In their penchant for secularism the leadership of independent India ignored the fact that the unifying factor of Hinduism is not the locally developed rituals but the dharmic philosophies that all these locally disparate rituals represent and abide by.

The Christian minorities never needed a secular law because the so-called secular law is nothing but a Christian social contract minus the church.

JLN did not and could not press the Indian Muslim population to come under the secular uniform civil code because they squarely denied the government of India in interfering with their personal lives and religious beliefs.

Thus the secular leadership brigade of Independent India snatched away the Hindu dharmic philosophy from the civil relationships of majority Hindu population. 

Iran Conundrum – Thinking beyond the obvious

As the drum beats of war appear on the Iranian horizon is there exists an opportunity for India to steer the world community out of this disaster? How can it help the key players in realizing their true national potential?

Roots of mistrust

The root cause of this international issue is the historical civilizational clash between Judo-Christian west and Shia-Persian Iran with the Sunni-Arab GCC trying to benefit from this quarrel. In its effort to be more Islamic than Sunnis, Iran made an unnecessary enemy out of the regional military power - Israel (and by association the sole super power USA).

In their pursuit of hegemony, all these players are forgetting the fundamental truth – A civilization’s greatness lies in its capacity to survive against toughest odds and not in its capacity to destroy others.

Iran - By proclaiming to ‘erase Israel out of the map’, the Iranian leadership showed its lack of wisdom fitting to the great civilization it represents. It is trying to hide this irrationality under the (perceived) protection of nuclear weapons. What Iranian leadership fails to understand in this process is that the other irrational states that it wants to emulate are artificial states created by world powers for a specific purpose and have no freedom on their own to use that nuclear blackmail beyond the intended purpose. By trying to follow the footsteps of North Korea and Pakistan Iranian leadership is not only diminishing its stature but also insulting the great civilization it represents.

Israel - The Jewish civilization has endured much suffering for thousands of years in the hands of almost all world powers except India (and China). They toiled hard to build the modern nation-state of Israel and they have a right to exist as a proud nation. While they have a right to secure their national interests, it cannot be achieved at the destruction of other nations and societies. They should respect the sovereignty and national-pride of other societies as much as they do theirs.

All other stakeholders in this game, be it USA/EU/GCC or PRC/Russia, are there to protect their self-interests and extend their power and influence at the cost of others.

Indian interests

While India’s economic interests are closely associated with the GCC, its geopolitical interests are tied with Iran. On one side there are 6 million Indians living in the GCC region earning ~$20B foreign exchange annually. In addition to this, India imports nearly 65% of its $90+ billion energy security from the gulf region every year alone. On the other side, Iran is key to India’s geopolitical interests especially in Afghanistan in addition to being a key pillar in India’s energy security (Iran supplies 11% of Indian energy requirements).

Any geopolitical misstep in Afghanistan will have serious repercussions to Indian internal and external security. In addition to this India’s actions are closely observed by each and every stakeholder of this game as it will be a sign of geopolitical maturity that is expected of India to match its growing economic foot print.

Problem Scenario
National Sovereignty – This is the paramount of Iran’s national interests. Israel and GCC wants to reduce this by weakening Iran and breach into its territorial integrity. USA/EU (NATO) group want to cut Iran to size so it cannot challenge their hegemony. Russia/PRC group (SCO) wants to protect Iran’s sovereignty so it can be their representative in the strategic West Asian region.


Nuclear Security – This is Iran’s strategy to achieve its first objective. None of the other players want Iran to hide under the nuclear umbrella as they are afraid of the potential harm Iran cause under this protection. The world has learned enough lessons from the nuclear blackmail by Pakistan and North Korea; the nuclear migraines of the world. Even Russia/PRC group cannot accept a new entrant to the coveted nuclear group.


Nuclear Energy – This is the pretext Iran is using to develop its nuclear military potential. While Israel, GCC and USA/EU question the necessity of energy surplus Iran to need nuclear energy, they cannot deny this right of Iran under existing international laws. The USA/EU group might be interested to support Iran on this cause under ‘right’ circumstances. The Russia/PRC group wholeheartedly supports Iran’s right to harness nuclear energy for its economic potential.


Economy – This is a key ingredient for Iran’s long-term success. Even though Israel and GCC might want to curtain Iran’s economic progress on one or other pretext so it will not become too strong to threaten their geopolitical interests, Iran can win the support of both the power groups USA/EU and Russia/PRC if Iran compromises on key issues.

India’s value proposition

India has civilizational relationships with Iran going back to its pre-Islamic history and it always kept this relationship mutually beneficial. India is the only civilization that did not prosecute Israelis.

India also has developed an indigenous nuclear wherewithal against the unfair international sanctions. Its nuclear umbrella covers all of West Asia and its BMD capability is second to none. India has demonstrated its commitment to WMD non-proliferation unlike few world powers that are trying to intimidate Iran.

India also has time-tested economic, military and geo-political partnerships on both sides of the table.  Its national interests are integrated with the stability and success of all the parties involved in this crisis. So the solutions proposed and underwritten by India will benefit all the parties immensely.

Possible Indian Solution
Iran proclaims ‘Israel’s right to exist’ – Quran claims that Judaism and Christianity as the previous incarnations of itself. So it should be very easy for Iranian leadership to accept this fundamental reality of Israel.

The world community is already helping the Palestinian cause by giving it UN membership. Iran will work with Israel and the international community to make the Palestine dream a reality.

Provide Nuclear Umbrella to Iran – India will provide nuclear umbrella to Iran by signing a friendship treaty with Iran. Any WMD attack on Iranian territory will be considered as an attack on Indian soil and Indian nuclear doctrine will kick in. India will not transfer/deploy any nuclear weapons or delivery mechanisms on Iranian soil as Indian missiles can cover all potential Iranian threats.

Iran voluntarily gives up its pursuit of nuclear weapons and destroys its weaponization capacity, if any. This should satisfy Israel's national security concerns, permanently. 

Iran will invite and allow complete oversight of its nuclear establishments by IAEA. Iran can buy civil-nuclear technology from anyone as long as they are under IAEA guidelines.


USA/EU and Russia/PRC groups might have reservations on the other side providing the same nuclear umbrella to Iran, where as both groups might find it acceptable for India to provide the same as a neutral player.

Provide BMD coverage to Iran – India will provide BMD coverage to key Iranian civilian and economic centers so they are protected from potential nuclear first strike from its adversaries.

A stable and secure world

By accepting India’s mediation and help Iran will survive as one nation from this self-inflicted security conundrum. If its value proposition to world humanity is that valuable, Iran will be able to achieve its national goals in a peaceful manner. Iran’s current identity that is pushing it into this abyss is hardly few hundred years old whereas its existence is thousands of years. Hope Its leadership learns the lessons Saddam Husain and Mummed Gadhafi failed to learn before it is too late.

By solving the Iran-Israeli problem, India would be offering a new paradigm for world stability where the strong and powerful nuclear states (USA, Russia, China and India) can help smaller nations come out of their mutual differences and security anxieties. 

purushaarthaalu - artham

అర్థం, అర్థ-కామ-ధర్మ-మోక్షాలనే నాలుగు విధాలైన పురుషార్థాలలో మొదటిది.

మన ఋషులు మనం చెసే ప్రతి పనియొక్క పరమార్థం (ఏ ప్రయోజనం/లాభం కోసం ఆ పని చెస్తున్నాము) బట్టి, ఆ పనులని నాలుగు విధాలుగా విభజించారు; అవే పురుషార్థాలుగా పిలవబడుతున్నాయి.

ప్రాణం ఉన్న ప్రతిజీవి ఆ ప్రాణాన్ని కాపాడుకోవడం కోసం ప్రయత్నిస్తుంది. మృత్యువు నుంచి తనను తాను కాపాడుకొనడంలో ఆ ప్రాణి చేసే ప్రతి కర్మ లెదా పనిని ఆర్థ-పురుషార్థం గా పరిగణిస్తాం.

ఈ అభద్రత అనేది, అనేక రకాలుగా వుంటుంది. ఆకలి, దాహం, ఛలి, ఎండ, వర్షం; ఇలాగ ఎన్నో అభద్రతలు ప్రతి ప్రాణి ఎదుర్కొంటుంది ప్రతి నిముషం. వీటితోపాటే తన వంశాన్ని నిలబెట్టుకొవడానికి చేసే వివాహ లెదా సంసార కర్మ (పని) కూడా ఆర్థ పురుషార్థం కిందకే వస్తుంది.

ఈ సాధారణ అభద్రతకి మించిన ఏ కర్మ అయినా కామం అనే రెండవ పురుషార్థంగా పరిగణింపబడుతుంది. ఉదాహరణకి తన శరీర పొషణార్థం తీసుకునె ఆహారం అర్థం అయితె, తన జిహ్వ (రుచి) సంత్రుప్తికోసం తీసుకునే ఆహారం కామం అవుతుంది.

వ్యక్తి చేసే ఏ కర్మ అయినా, అది తన అర్థ పురుషార్థం కోసరం అయినా సరే, ధర్మం అనే మూడవ పురుషార్థానికి లోబడే జరగాలి. ఈక్కడ ప్రాణులని కర్త(లు) అని, భోక్త(లు) అని రెండు రకాలుగా విభజించారు మన ఋషులు. విచక్షనా జ్ఞానం కల మనుష్యులందరు కర్తలు అయితే, విచక్షనా జ్ఞానం లెని పక్షి, జంతు, వృక్ష గణాలన్ని భోక్తలుగా పిలవబడ్డాయి. ఈ భోక్తలు తాము చెసే పనులను (విలాస, వినోద, మైధునాలతో సహా - పక్షులు, జంతువులు ఇంకా వృక్షాలు కూడా వినోదం మరియు వుల్లాసం కోసం ఆటలాడడం మనం చూస్తూవుంటాము, జీవితంలో) ఏ మాత్రం కర్తృత్వ భావన లెకుండా (నేను ఈ పని చెస్తున్నాను అనె జ్ఞానం/ఆలొచన/భావన) చెస్తాయి కనుక వాటికి ఈ ధర్మం అనేది వర్తించదు. ఇదే కాకుందా ఈ భోక్తలు తమమీద ఆరొపింపబడ్డ కర్మలని తప్పించుకోలెక పొవడం (పశు, వృక్ష, జంతు పాలన ఇంకా బానిసత్వం) అనేది కూడా ఈ మినహాయింపుకు కారణం.

ఈ అర్థ పురుషార్థాన్ని వ్యక్తి స్థాయి నుంచి ఒక సంఘం స్థాయికి తీసుకు వెళితే దాన్ని ఈ ఆధునిక కాలంలో మనం పిలిచే దేశ సంరక్షన, భద్రత అనే భావన అవుతుంది. ఏ ప్రభుత్వ పాలన యొక్క పరమావధి అయినా తన దేశం/సంఘం లొని వ్యక్తుల సమిష్ఠి భద్రత మాత్రమె. ఈ భద్రత అనేది ఎన్నొ రకాలుగా వుంటుంది- సాంఘిక, భౌగొళిక, వారసత్వ, సంస్కృతిక, ఇంకా ఎన్నొ. అందుకే ఆర్య చాణక్య ఇలా అంటాడు తన అర్థశాస్త్రంలొ - "మనుష్యాణాం వ్రుత్తి: ఆర్ఠ:, మనుష్యవతీ భూమిరిత్యర్థ:, తస్యా: ప్రుథివ్యా: లాభపాలనోపాయ: శాస్త్రం ఆర్ఠశాస్త్రం ఇతి (15వ అధికరణం, 1వ శ్లోకం)" అంటే, మనుష్యుల జీవనోపాధి అర్థం. అనగా మనుష్యులున్న భూమి అని అర్థం (దేశమంటే మట్టి కాదొయ్, దేశమంటే మనుషులోయ్ - గురజాడ). ఆ భూమిని పొందడానికి, పాలించడానికి తగిన ఊపాయాన్ని చెప్పే శాస్త్రం అర్థశాస్త్రం.

ఏ ప్రభుత్వ/రాజరిక వ్యవస్థ అయినా ఈ అర్థ-పురుషార్థానికే పరిమితమై ఉంటుంది. ఎందుకంటే ఈ సమస్త విశ్వంలో ఉన్న అన్ని వనరులు ఎకమైనా కనిసం ఒక్క మనిషియొక్క కోరికలని కూడా సంత్రుప్తిపరచలెవు. అందుకే ఎన్ని ప్రభుత్వాలు మారినా అవి ఆ దెశంలొని ప్రజల కోరికలని తీర్చలెక పొతున్నాయి.

మరి వివేకవంతుడైన మనిషి ఈ అర్థ పురుషార్థాన్ని దాటే మార్గం ఏమిటి? దానికి మనం మనిషియొక్క జీవితం అనే మూలానికి వెళ్ళాలి. మనం ఈ జీవితాన్ని ఈ పుట్టుక మరియు చావు/మృత్యువు ల మధ్యలో వుండే కాలం గా భావించినంత కాలం మనం ఈ అర్థ పురుషార్థానికి బానిసై ఉండాలి. ఈ జీవితం యొక్క నిర్వచనం మార్చినప్పుడే మనం అర్థ-పురుషార్థాన్ని దాటగలుగుతాం.

మనం హిందు-ఇజం అని పిలుచుకునె మన సనాతన ధర్మం మన జీవితాన్ని ఆత్మ-స్వరూపం గా నిర్వచిస్తోంది. ఈ ఆత్మ తత్వాన్ని అర్థం చెసుకుని, మన ఆత్మ-స్వరూపాన్ని తెలుసుకోగలిగినప్పుడు అది మోక్షం అనే నాలగవ పురుషార్థం అవుతుంది. ఆ స్థితిలో ఈ అర్థ-కామ-ధర్మ పురుషార్థాలు అన్ని లీనమైపొతాయి.

స్వస్తి!

Purusharthas - Artha

Artha is the first of four Purusharthas: Artha, Kama, Dharma, and Moksha.


The fundamental quest of any living being is to stay alive and fight the insecurity of 'death/Mr'tyu'. This pursuit for security is called Artha, the first Purushartha.


It is instinctive for a living being to search and acquire food to fight hunger, water for thirst, dwelling for security from elements, procreate to continue one’s lineage etc., which are part of pursuing the Artha Purushartha. Any pursuit that goes beyond this basic sense of security becomes the second Purushartha, Kaama. For example - acquiring food to sustain one's life and health is Artha, whereas the desire to have a specific taste/type of food becomes Kaama.


Even this natural pursuit of security has to be done within the limits of a socially acceptable code of conduct, Dharma, the third Purushartha. The live beings are separated into two groups: the species that are mere Bhoktas - all non-human beings who have limited consciousness; and Kartaas - humans who are beings with enough level of consciousness to choose their actions. Only the Kartaas are bound by the Dharma - code of conduct, whereas Bhoktas are destined to accept whatever action is imposed on them.


When extrapolated to a society, the Artha Purushartha becomes the modern concept of National Security. The purpose and objective of any governance system is to ensure that all its citizens are provided this basic sense of security in terms of the social, civilizational and territorial definitions of a given nation. Chanakya thus defines Artha "ManuShyaaNaam Vrutti : ArTha:, Manushyavatii Bhoomirityartha:, Tasyaa: pruThivyaa: LaabhaPaalanOpaaya: Saastram ArThaSaastram Iti = The process of human livelihood is Artham, and the process of acquiring and securing such a society is science of Artha or Artha-Sastram" in his Arthashastra (Chapter 15:1).


No government's mandate goes beyond this Artha-Purushartha, because even the whole universe cannot satisfy a single person's Kaama/desire.


The only way a being's Artha Purushartha can be neutralized is by redefining one's being. As long as a person's being is defined in the limited sense of life (period between material birth and material death), the Artha Purushartha exists. Only when this definition of oneself goes beyond this concept of life, this in-complete sense of insecurity can be solved permanently.


That alternative definition of self and life is defined as Aatma-swaroopa in Sanatana Dharma a.k.a Hinduism. That is why all other Purusharthas dissolve when one realizes one's Aatma-swaroopa-- Moksha, the last Purushartha.

Secularism – A leash or shackle in Bharat’s neck? Part 1

The other day I watched the movie “Rise of the Planet of the Apes”. The story is about a Chimpanzee called “Caesar” that received a gene-therapy drug, developed to improve the brain cell capacity in Alzheimer's patients, and achieves human-level intelligence. At first Caesar is un-aware of its social status but starts to resent the leash in its neck after seeing a family's German shepherd being restrained from coming after him. Caesar wonders if he deserves to be restrained like a pet, which might hurt itself and others due to its animal-level intelligence and low emotional-intelligence. Eventually Caesar revolts against its captivators by first exposing other Chimpanzees and apes to the same gene-therapy drug (it got) and then liberating them from the shackles of human civilization in order to lead a free life among its kind and build a civilization of his own.

*****

The European wars of religion conducted in the name of Christianity brought immense suffering and destruction to European Anglo-Saxon society. The Church played a significant role in this and the political response of the European society was to separate the Church from state affairs. This is called as Secularism – separation of Church and State in a Christian society.

The first non-Christian society that adopted Secularism is the modern state of Turkey (1923). The past incarnation of Turkey is Asia-Minor, which is the land bridge between Asian and European continents. This is the region that is much contested by the Islamic Middle-East/West-Asia and Christian Europe. As long as the Islamic Ottoman Empire lasted (1302-1922), this region remained the center of Islamic power. The Ottoman Empire was defeated in the First World War, leading to the formation of the new republic, Turkey, in 1923. If this were to happen in medieval times, the Turkish society would have been converted into Christianity. Since the west itself separated the church from the state, a modern version of this political overlordism, Secularism, was accepted as the compromise option by both sides. This transformed the definition of Secularism from “separation of Church and State” to “Christianity without Church” in the modern geopolitical context.

The next major society that accepted Secularism is the Hindu-majority India (1947). Once again this Hindu majority nation (India) was colonized by Christian west and the only compromise option for India to get its independence is to accept Secularism (read the overlordship of Christianity without Church) as the governance model. It is pertinent to note out that half of Muslim-majority India, that became Pakistan at the same point, did not choose to become a secular state. Perhaps this is the compromise that the Hindu-majority India is forced into with Christian Britain in return for its support to convince the numerous princely states in favor of India.

Who is talking to Pakistan – India or INC?

The recent visit by Congress MP and former Minister of State, Ministry of External Affairs, Sri Sashi Tharoor offers an interesting insight into the dynamics of Indo-Pakistan dialogue process. To a student of Foreign Relations, it doesn't appear like a dialogue between two independent and sovereign nations but a dialogue between a dynasty (separated from its people) and a troublesome satrap. While it may satisfy the egos of some misguided nationalists, in reality such approach doesn't offer any realistic solutions to problems that matter and might result in unintended harm to Indian core Interests.

As part of his visit, Sri Tharoor gave multiple speeches and participated in talk shows. They are too long to reproduce/quote here. Some of his articles and debates (that are basis for this post) are:

January 5, 2012 – Hindustan Times - Civil-military imbalance in Pak impeding Indo-Pak ties: Tharoor

January 6, 2012 – The Asian Age – Geography of hope

January 7, 2012 - Panel discussion on “Sochta Pakistan”

Following are the key aspects of that deliberation and let us see what is said and what point of view (India’s or Indian National Congress Party’s) is presented.

1. Pakistan’s Civil-Military relationship

The whole world knows about the relationship between Pakistani civil-military relationships. If not for Pakistan evolving into the world’s capital of Islamic Terrorism, this is completely an internal matter of Pakistan society and India or any other country has no business talking about it.

One should distinguish between a civil Pakistani government and military Pakistan government if and only if there is a significant difference between these models on the use of Terrorism as a Foreign Policy tool.

The below graphic illustrates and the reader can clearly see that the Civilian governments in Pakistan are no different from their military counterparts when it comes to their “terrorism as instrument of state policy” concerning India.

Note: Blue = Civilian Govt Yellow = Sustained Terrorist programs (Punjab & JK) Red = Major terrorist events or wars

Combined with the on-going tussle between the current UPA2 administration and the nation’s armed forces leader Sri VK Singh one can understand the true purpose of Sri Tharoor’ s comments.

2. Cross-Border terror emanating from Pakistan in to India

Here Sri Tharoor admits that the people who believe that peace is possible between India and Pakistan are in minority. Yet he tries to present the minority opinion as Indian Foreign Relations objective.

Then he gives the longest rope to Pakistan by admitting that terrorist groups cannot be turned off like a tap; thus making the whole issue of “cross-border terrorism” meaningless.

What is important to India; stopping cross-border terrorism or free-trade/educational-exchange with Pakistan?

The root of this convoluted logic in Foreign Policy lies in INC’s need to recapture the Muslim vote-bank in India proper. Since it lost the Muslim vote bank to regional parties, post 1992 Babri Masjid demolition, INC failed to come to power on its own strength in Delhi. INC has tried many political tricks to bring this significant vote bank (15% vote share – that can influence >100 parliament constituencies) under its fold by witch hunting Post-Godhra riots and Saffron-Terrorism etc to no avail.

In its eagerness to solve this issue before 2014 elections, INC seems to have resorted to Paki-logic; by associating Indian Muslim community with better relations with Pakistan; giving Pakistan (sic) say in sub-continental Muslim affairs.

3. Peace talks between Govts of India and Pakistan

Sri Tharoor points out the lack of clarity on who in Pakistan, Civil Govt or Military, guarantees the agreements signed between the two nations and if the agreement signed by one party is honored by the other power center.

This is a basic challenge involved in solving in any multi-party negotiation problem. A simple approach would have been to request that both civil and military representatives are part of the negotiations.

4. Pakistani paranoia on Indian intentions

Sri Tharoor makes few assertions on this point.

• India is totally reconciled to Pakistan’s existence as an independent state
• A strong and stable Pakistan was in India’s interest
• India is a “status quo-ist” power and there could be peace between the two sides if they agreed on “mutually acceptable parameters”.

The inherent contradiction in these assertions is - would India still want a “Strong and Stable” Pakistan even when there are no “mutually acceptable parameters” that are foundation for peace between these two nations, and would India still accept Pakistan’s existence under those circumstances?

5. Pakistani national obsession to dismember India

Sri Tharoor reminds us Pakistan’s long sponsored terrorism as part of its policy meant to “bleed India” and its efforts to wrest Kashmir from India and concludes that such policy is yielding negative results to Pakistani society and military as the chickens are coming home to roost.

Does it mean Pakistani terrorist policy is an acceptable instrument of foreign policy if it were to contain those jihadi terrorist outfits to India-centric operations only? Would this elder brotherly advice resonate in Pakistani strategic and military community? After all the whole Pakistani existence is based up on its Islamic identity and its military strategy is based on Jihad in the name of Allah. Would there be any need for Pakistan’s existence if it starts behaving like a mini-India?

6. Siachin conflict

Sri Tharoor says that “Indian political leadership is agreeable to vacating Siachin glacier region as a confidence building measure; but Indian Armed forces are not comfortable with this measure given Pakistani betrayal in Kargil in 1998 and Pakistani unwillingness to mark these positions electronically.”

This is the second most irresponsible assertion Sri Tharoor made in this spate of articles and discussions he had in Pakistan. With this single statement Sri Tharoor unwisely implies that

• That there are two disparate assessments on Siachin issue within India
• Indian political decision making is devoid of inputs from its military leadership
• That Indian military must accept the agenda of political leadership even if it is inimical to Indian Interests (After all he was preaching Pakistan the same thing)

7. Life of Indian Muslims

That brings us to the most irresponsible assertion by Sri Tharoor in his Pakistan trip.

Instead of politely but firmly reminding his Pakistani hosts that Pakistan is not a representative of Indian Muslims, Sri Tharoor not only entertains such line of thought but also makes ludicrous excuses to his Pakistani hosts to suite his party’s political agenda.

When questioned by his Pakistani counterparts on the so-called (sic) Gujrat-Pogram, Sri Tharoor admits that this is a shameful event and squarely blames BJP government for these religious riots, well in sync with his party position and subsequent witch hunting by successive Congress governments.

In his eagerness to wash his (sic) secular dirty laundry in Pakistan (a religious state) Sri Tharoor forgets that

• The sub-continent history is full of Hindu-Muslim religious clashes starting from the days the Islamic hoards pillaged peaceful Hindu subcontinent
• The founding fathers (JL Nehru and MK Gandhi) of his political party did much-worse than Sri Narendra Modi in stopping the worst religious riots in 1947 resulting hundreds of thousands of Hindu and Muslim deaths
• There have been more than 50 religious riots since 1947 under INC’s leadership, often triggered for Congress’s own political moves

These are just few examples. A careful analysis of INC’s strategy, thru Sri Tharoor’s words, towards Pakistan reveals two fundamental objectives

1. That INC doesn’t want to make India’s vision as its political vision but instead want to make its vision India’s vision
2. That INC doesn’t mind using its foreign policy to benefit its internal fortunes instead of making India’s fortunes as the primary goal of Indian foreign policy

In other words Sri Tharoor wants us to believe that “INC is India”!