My Open Letter to One of The Many Aspiring Rashtrapatis of Bharat

My letter to the Finance Minister

Ahoy, Donald Trump - Steer the Ship of State wisely and well

The recent US Presidential election has indeed been a defining moment in the political culture, tradition and praxis of American democracy.

Everything was different from the very start. From somewhere, a rank outsider, not belonging to the cosy Washington political establishment sneaked in, and successfully ascended the primaries ladder to win the GOP nomination. He battled the establishment, both in his own party and the Democrats, confounded his opponents at every step, undeterred, unintimidated by the volleys of invective fired at him from every segment of the ‘politically correct’ opinion makers, the media, the business, the ‘liberals’, and even his own Grand Old Party. Finally, he sent a wave of shock and awe to all his opponents and establishments across the seven seas, and won the Presidential election.

No leading newspaper endorsed him or had anything positive to say about him – for them he was a sure loser from the very start. Most world leaders of countries within the US first circle voiced open hostility. Only Russia’s President Putin was friendly. Or was this really concern and unease about dealing with an unconventional loose cannon with no controlling umbilical cord with any time tested political establishment to keep him on leash? Or fear that he appeared to have the potential to shatter the cosy status quo of political correctness and double speak that they were enjoying even at these most turbulent times? It is well known that powerful political and economic elites of many countries are bound together at invisible levels by a strong thread of common interests. To countenance the successful rise of a man aspiring to become the President of the United States, who did not quite belong, was not ‘one of us’, whose politically incorrect hyperbole could shatter their charmed, camouflaged networks – not comfortable at all.

They tried it all, every accusation and abuse – his taxes, his bawdy locker room talk, a decade old, the string of accusing women appearing at the last stages of the election campaign. Hillary played the woman card, the minority card, the racist card, the liberal card, – but nothing seems to have worked. This was not what the people of America wanted to hear.

The hardest hit have been the media pundits and the opinion pollsters on both sides of the Atlantic. It was lead after lead for Hillary Clinton, despite leak after leak of her e mails (courtesy Wikileaks) with extremely serious revelations that certainly compromised the security of the nation, by any standards. But the media ignored them. They blamed it all on Russia, hoping to ignite the dread of Russophobia, but even that did not work. The role of the FBI in this matter also seems a little mysterious. First, closing up the private e mail server case against her in July 2016; then opening it up again on October 28, at the fag end of the campaign; and then closing it up again on November 6, just two days before the election. I can only say that the behaviour of the FBI appears pretty similar to that of our own ‘caged parrots’.

The pollsters and big data analysts are licking their wounds. Both they and the big media are now on a pathetic post mortem binge about what went wrong with their analyses. They appear to be generally unanimous in their conclusions that they were wrong in what they saw, heard and spoke. Or was it that they only saw, heard and spoke what they wanted to or were made to? Demonizing Trump became a spectator sport and he retaliated in full measure. But even the heavy media bias against Trump could not influence the voters’ demand for change, nor mitigate their anger against the establishment.

Clearly, this was a vote for change, pretty much like in our own election of 2014. The people of the US have passed a severe indictment of the Establishment and status quo. The women, the Hispanics, the minorities did not vote for Hillary in the numbers she expected. The Clinton camp, the media and the Wall Street barons were all living in a symbiotic fantasy dream, which infected the pollsters. The Newsweek, a heritage, seasoned magazine, did itself the greatest humiliation of having to withdraw millions of copies declaring Hillary Clinton as the winning candidate. Well, the Clinton camp, their embedded media, and the pollsters appear to have got blinded by their own hysteria, generated by their own wishful thinking.

One can only conclude that there was a vast disconnect between the Hillary camp and the people of the United States. Neither the political correctness that she spoke nor her perpetual abuse of Trump was what the people wanted to hear. They wanted to hear about more jobs, better earnings, higher mobility, protection of their identity and way of life, safety of their country and society; they wanted their dying cities to rejuvenate, their health care to be more affordable and accessible, and most of all they wanted protection from the ruling, invisible oligarchs of America who have blighted their lives. They did not hear that from Hillary. They heard it from Trump.

So Donald Trump will be the 45th President of the United States in January 2017. The hostile media will keep accusing him that he’s incapable of delivering; and protests against him will keep getting organized in the immediate future. But the American people know he is no usurper or occupant by force. He has been constitutionally elected as the next President of the United States.

The great think tanks have plenty to keep themselves busy with for a long long time. Perhaps they should start with this whole notion of ‘political correctness’ and liberalism in the context of the modern nation state in the age of the global economy and global terrorism, concepts that completely failed Hillary Clinton. Let not the paranoia of ‘political correctness’ and ‘liberalism’ curb freedom of expression of the common people or instil fear among them.

The previous establishment has learnt a bitter lesson that inclusiveness should not mean exclusion of the majority. Donald Trump should now ensure that as a true leader he should start building confidence and carrying the diverse segments of the American people with him, minorities, Hispanics, African Americans. He has made a good start with his victory speech on November 9, on the lines of ‘Sab ka Saath, sab ka vikaas’. Let him not veer from this path to make America great again.

The world will be watching his every step, judging his every word. He must govern wisely and well, and not let down his people, his country and the world. To what extent he will be able to change the rigid institutional systems that have come to exert a tight stranglehold on the lives of the common people of America remains to be seen. But let us all wish him success. His task is very tough.

SOME GOOD NEWS IN THE MATTER OF BLACK MONEY RECOVERY

This morning news of a well advertised step to get at concealed black wealth is welcome but I don’t believe it will be a great success. I wish it does though even if honestly implemented it is not a substitute for the grand larceny perpetrated on this unfortunate nation between 2008 and today by the Manmohan and Modi Governments acting in concert and conspiracy.

The step is primarily designed as a cover up operation to conceal the unforgiveable crime committed by the Modi Government. I am sorry that the expression Modi government is almost wholly inaccurate. It is in truth and substance an Arun jaitley government. Modi is a roaming Minister of International Tourism and Contacts.

It is known to the whole of India that for the last decade that I have been fighting for repatriation of illicit money concealed in foreign banks and enterprises estimated by a respected BJP task force to be about 1500 billion U.S Dollars equal to almost ninety lac crores in Indian Rupees . An employee of the famous Liechtenstein bank receiving from the German government a bribe of 475 million U.S Dollars revealed a list of fourteen hundred criminals majority of whom were Indians. The German Government was willing to share this information with Indian Government and without any cost or condition.

Neither the Congress government nor the opposition BJP availed of this magnificent offer. Even though on receiving a satisfactory promise from the German authorities no leader of BJP was willing to help in getting at this money or information. My companions and I fought for two years an intensely contested PIL in the Supreme Court of India. We secured a judgement against the Manmohan Singh Government which declared that no effort had been made by the Government in power to take any effective steps for recovery and repatriation, of this enormous wealth. It then a Special Investigating Team (SIT) under the supervision of two retired judges of Supreme Court of India. In addition the court ordered disclosure to me of the relevant correspondence with Germans relating to recovery of the names of the criminals involved.

This judgement also did not produce any effective action on the part of BJP leaders Arun Jaitley in particular. He was obviously in conspiracy with the Congress ministers particularly Mr. Chidambaram to get at this stolen Indian asset. It produced no response even a mild statement that the alleged correspondence which Chidambaram had disclosed and Jaitley had inherited had nothing to do with the German offer and was in fact correspondence with a small German tax office dealing with the Amended Double Taxation Avoidance Treaty which concerned honest tax payers under legal compulsion of two governments to pay tax on the same income to both. In a report to the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the previous government had explained the blackening out of names of the senders and addresses in both the outgoing and incoming letters in response to an alleged International Practice, which does not exist. It is a puerile joke.

It was obvious to me that this was a further fraud on the people of India by both the previous government and its BJP successor.

Now it is an admitted fact that not a farthing out of the ninety lac crores was recovered by the two finance ministers acting in aid of each other to serve and protect the thieves of vast Indian wealth, which now is almost certainly an unavoidable permanent loss.

Some of the money may have returned to India under some camouflaged in false attire and earning even more money by trading operations in India.

Yes the present order to freeze all undeclared assets is a good one and may well bring some gain to India, but it is almost sure that the real dacoits have now changed the character of the stolen wealth and this new step widely as evidence of government honesty is just a foolish and dishonest claim. Yes some small culprits would suffer but the major ones must be enjoying the joke. Yes some money will be earned but I am almost sure that no substantial gain shall be made by this unfortunate India.

We shall not be persuaded to believe that this is any compensation for the mind-boggling loss of the money which we have deliberately not recovered an action which is treason against this unfortunate nation. The nation should insist that we shall not forgive that monstrous crime of some years ago.

It is a matter of some satisfaction that the new President of the Party Amit Shah has confessed that all this promise of getting black money back was an election joke (Jumla) or a Gimmick.

The ruling Party has officially through its President made this declaration and claim. This statement has not been repudiated or disowned by the Finance Minister or the Prime Minister or anyone else. It is a confession that not availing of the German offer to share the Liechtenstein names was deliberately done, as there was no intention to get at this black money or fulfil the promise in the solemn election manifesto.

This is also an admission that reflects on the honesty of the previous government. They too had no intention to get at the black money as by the secret protocol with the Swiss Finance Minister India had already given up the right to get any information about the past and given up rights created by the relevant United Nations Convention.

The new Finance Minister of India our real Prime Minster now, has faithfully only entered into the Amended DTATs. This is a clear cut solemn confession that he has not moved a finger to get at the black money referred to in the election manifesto of the BJP and widely used to capture votes in the 2014 election. He is a conspirator with the dacoits and he must have warned them of the latest move of yesterday to secure no money from any bank in the past i.e. before 2011.



Some good will doubtless arises from last night's decision but this is not a pardon for the past crimes. My countrymen should not forgive this moral monster called Jaitley.

Jaitley’s Jumla

The nation was informed by Shri Arun Jaitley, Hon’ble Finance Minister of India, on October 1, 2016 that at the end of the first quarter of the Income Declaration Scheme, 64,275 declarants have collectively disclosed Rs 65, 250 crore, boasting that the government had taken serious steps to unearth black money at “domestic and foreign level.”

Really Mr Jaitley? After recovering a mere Rs 1 crore per person, are you again trying to fool the nation, just as your predecessor did, that you and your government have put in their best efforts in retrieving the country’s black money stashed away abroad. The real black money holders of our country must be laughing all the way to the bank.

Do you, Mr Jaitley recall the black money figure estimated by your own Party at US$ 1500 billion amounting to Rs 90 lakh crores, which they swore to the nation they would retrieve once in power?Where does your ‘recovered’ money of Rs 65,000 crores touch that figure? Do you think the people of this country can be fooled by your great achievement of whitening Rs 65,000 crores? You have already become a figure of ridicule among the people who know the truth, and of the general fraud and deception once again being played on our people. Every petty realtor in this country, a breed multiplying alarmingly, as our country urbanizes, can shell out much more of unaccounted money than the Rs 1 crore per head at any given time. The Finance Minister has committed the greatest betrayal of the Indian people by abetting his predecessor, and following his own duplicitous fraud on the people of India, with yet another ‘jumla’.

Besides, there appears to be a blanket ban regarding the modalities of recovery of black money from the 65,000 people, the nature of the enquiry, the procedures, and to what extent the veracity of disclosures was checked. A disturbing news item appeared in the highly respected Economic Times on October 1, 2016, with the headline that ‘Roadside eatery owners declare Rs 50 crore under the black money scheme in Mumbai.’ The humble eateries consisted of vada pav centres, dosa centres, sandwich centres and also a jalebiwala in south Mumbai, and had reportedly been raided by the Income Tax authorities, and coerced to pay under IDS. Come on Mr Jaitley, don’t test our sense of humour to this absurd extent. Surely, these roadside vendors do not constitute the highest league of black money holders in our country that need priority attention! And can there be a more revealing instance of benami, conspiratorial transactions, for which you are stated to be the biggest beneficiary. Your entire exercise smacks of yet another jumla to deceive the people of India, and requires an immediate investigation.

The world knows my painstaking efforts to inform the nation about the plunder of India and the illegal flight of unaccounted money into foreign banks under the UPA regime. I have appeared as a petitioner before the Supreme Court seeking stringent government action to check this flight of capital and constitution of a Special Investigation Team to monitor the repatriation of black money back to India. 

Our Hon’ble Finance Minister has been an active agent the entire black money operation that was unfolding in our country over the last decade. He was Leader of the Opposition, when the UPA Government was stubbornly refusing to avail of the German Government’s offer to share the names of the Indian black money account holders at the LGT Bank, Leichtenstein Bank that it had obtained.

I will repeat a few questions to Mr Jaitley from my detailed list of questions posted on my blog on 15TH April, 2016, which will remind my readers of his diabolic role in the fraud –

Why did you not as Leader of the Opposition, insist upon the disclosure of this information in national interest? Instead, you appear to have joined hands with your predecessor Chidambaram, in his case that the German Government never gave us any names.

Are you aware that when the SIT ordered that copies of the Government’s correspondence with the German Government be made available to me, I was given 17 letters, but with blacked out names of the writers and receivers of the correspondence?

Have you seen that in one of the e mails, your predecessor and his accomplices made one slip and forgot to blacken the e mail address of one Ms Anita Kapoor, a favourite of the previous regime, who not surprisingly was rewarded by becoming Chairman CBDT by you, and has been getting some assignment or other after retirement?

The originals of these 17 letters remained in the Finance Ministry, now under your charge. If you were an honest Finance Minister, you would have exposed the truth that this fraudulent correspondence was not between the Government of India and the Government of Germany in connection with Germany’s offer to give us the names of the illegal account holders, but between the CBDT and the Central Tax Office in Germany about the Double Taxation Treaty. 

I accuse you of being in conspiracy with the previous dispensation, and cheating on your own Prime Minister. It is your actions of conspiracy with the former regime that led your Party President to make his famous ‘election gumla’ remark. I am taking this matter to the Supreme Court and will ask for a public confession from your President as to the circumstances which led him to do so. 

There is enough public talk that this whole Income Disclosure Scheme is nothing but another innovative money sharing scheme. And judging from the pittance of Rs 65,000 crores that has been ‘recovered’, this public talk might well be true.

I suggest that it is still not too late for Modi and the nation to get rid of you, the presiding fraud of the Finance Ministry. 

The Nightmare in Paradise

It’s been almost three months now, and each day brings news of curfew, stone pelting and pellet guns, tear gas and rubber bullets, and the tragedy of avoidable loss of life and injuries of civilians, police and army personnel. The last event that has shaken every corner of the nation, every segment of society and every political party is the Uri attack by Pakistani sponsored terrorists which left 18 army personnel dead. I pay my homage to them and salute them for their supreme sacrifice in defending our country, and pray for their families for coming to terms with their loss. 

I am extremely perturbed that the Chief Minister of J &K, Ms Mehbooba Mufti, has advised the Prime Minister of a three-pronged action plan, to resolve the Kashmir issue, ‘including involvement of separatists and Pakistan in substantive dialogue…’ Is she not aware that the problem has been settled not once but four times? And that in spite of the commitments at Tashkent and Shimla, Pakistan’s perfidy has never ceased? As the most monstrous reincarnation of terrorism in the world today, Pakistan is still determined to capture the whole of J&K through the terrorism that it is perpetrating in the valley, acting as a partner of the IS and other jihadi terror groups. 

I would like to tell Mehbooba that her advice for dialogue with Pakistan is anti-national, and Pakistan is not a stakeholder at all in the Kashmir issue. Kashmir is an integral part of India, constitutionally , legally and morally something that is non-negotiable. It is the people of Kashmir with whom the dialogue should be held and it is she who must lead it as Chief Minister. The Human Rights groups’ concerns shall be respected, provided their demands are rational and take into account the terrorist behaviour of Pakistan, and its export of terrorism into Kashmir.

I fail to understand why Kashmir is still perceived as a problem that has yet to be solved. It has been solved four times – the first time in 1947, when Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir acceded to the Union of India, after a fully armed section of the Pak army disguised as tribal’s invaded the state and almost reached the outskirts of Srinagar. Both under the Constitution as well as International Law the whole of Jammu and Kashmir became fully a legitimate part of sovereign India. The Indian forces succeeded in driving back the attacking tribals and could have taken the whole of J&K, including what we call Pakistan Occupied Kashmir, (POK). But it was Nehru’s folly to accept an armistice, while part of the state territory still remained to be taken over. But both by domestic and international law, the title of India to the entire territory of the state of J&K (including what we call Pakistan Occupied Kashmir, POK) is unchallengeable in law.

The second time the Kashmir issue was solved was after the 1965 war, when Pakistan again resorted to an illegal war to conquer our side of Kashmir by armed force. Pakistan lost badly, and the war ended with the Tashkent Declaration, the essence of which lies in two promises:

(i) Neither Party shall change the present status quo by force or violence or war;

(ii) Neither will carry on any propaganda for changing it.

​Pakistan should be grateful for Indian magnanimity – we gave them much more than what they deserved. India has virtually made a moral promise not to claim any part of POK. But this assumes that Pakistan will never make any claim even to even one inch of Indian Kashmir. If Pakistan repudiates by word or deed any part of the Tashkent Declaration, India’s claim to POK will remain fully alive and enforceable before any International Tribunal. 

The third time the Kashmir issue was resolved was after the 1971 war when Bangladesh broke away. The Shimla Agreement of 1972, in its reference to J &K states in Para vi) (ii) “In Jammu and Kashmir, the line of control resulting from the ceasefire of December 17, 1971, shall be respected by both sides without prejudice to the recognized position of either side. Neither side shall seek to alter it unilaterally, irrespective of mutual differences and legal interpretations. Both sides further undertake to refrain from the threat or the use of force in violation of this line.”

Do these agreements leave any doubt that the Kashmir issue has yet to be decided between India and Pakistan? In both the Tashkent and Shimla Agreements, the status quo on Kashmir has been accepted by Pakistan. And India has shown great generosity to Pakistan by agreeing to it. 

I would also like to ask the people of Kashmir whether they are aware that vast tracts of Pakistan Occupied Kashmir in the Gilgit-Baltistan region have been gifted to China? Does this not invalidate Pakistan’s claim on Kashmir? Do the Kashmiri people need any further proof that Pakistan has no respect or love for the people of J & K and have no qualms about pawning vast tracts of J &K to China as bribes, in their obeisance to China?

It is well established that the continuous violence in Kashmir is being triggered from across the border, through infiltration of the IS and the numerous Pakistan sponsored terrorist outfits such as JEM. It is also now an accepted fact that Pakistan is in league with the IS as the breeding ground for rearing and cultivating terrorist mercenaries across the world, be it Baluchistan, Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Kashmir, or the US. Notorious terrorists involved in several terrorist attacks that have taken place across the world are invariably reported to have done their terrorist training and radicalization stint in Pakistan. 

Another question I would like to ask is why are Kashmiri parents allowing their children and not preventing them in indulging in dangerous and illegal stone attacks against the police or security forces? I would hold the parents completely responsible for permitting their children to commit these crimes, and then seeking sympathy for them and their children.

Our defence forces should certainly be in a position of great alert, because Pakistan’s intentions are becoming increasingly more sinister. India has no intention of being an aggressor, but will not hesitate to retaliate in fullest strength, should the situation require it. And we are not a nation of cowards or afraid of going to war, should the situation so require. This has amply been reflected through the recent speeches of our Prime Minister and Foreign Minister in Kerala and the UNGA.

I have chaired the Kashmir Committee from 2002, and in 2002-03 had several rounds of talks with the Hurriyat leaders. The talks produced an agreement declared publicly by the Hurriyat in Delhi that:

1) Terrorism and violence are taboo.

2) A lasting and honourable peaceful resolution must and can be found. 

3) The resolution must be acceptable to all political elements and regions of the state.

4) Extremist positions held by all for the previous five decades have to be and will be abandoned.

5) Kashmiri Pandits will be rehabilitated with honour and rights of equality.

A careful understanding of the five points of the agreement show that abrogation of Article 370 of the Constitution of India on the one hand and secession on the other were consciously and finally abandoned. The polestar of the peace process would thereafter be the legitimate interests and rational expectations of all elements and regions in the composite state.

​This agreement brought joy to every Indian and to most Kashmiris. The moderate section of the Hurriyat had repudiated the extremists and, at the same time, carried on talking to the Kashmir Committee with the full concurrence of the Pakistan authorities. It is tragic that the usual wooden-headedness of the Government of India blocked a formal solution. At the International Kashmir Peace Conference held in Washington, my friend Ashraf Jehangir Kazi, the distinguished ambassador of Pakistan to the United States argued that the Kashmir Committee had initiated a process of acceptable change. If anyone refuses to accept this, it would only show that he is an enemy of peace, regardless of his pretended postures and rhetorical assertions. 

Pakistan’s terrorism in Kashmir cannot intimidate India. Kashmir is non-negotiable, and India has a strong legal and constitutional case vis a vis Kashmir. If Pakistan continues to flout its treaty obligations from Tashkent and Shimla, we should not shy away from referring the matter to the International Court of Justice, with an irrevocable pledge to abide by the verdict. 

Pakistan can only lose POK, which we have very generously allowed them to keep.

FAKE DEMOCRACY IN PAKISTAN

I have heard a good part of the Stirring Saturday speech of the Prime Minister Modi in Kerala addressed to the people of Pakistan. I was touched by the emotion it conveys and the genuineness of his claim of being a real friend of the people of Pakistan Yes he did attack the rulers but I don’t blame him , Instead I compliment him. If I was in his place I might have been perhaps more critical of the bogus claim of Pakistan governing class of being a democracy. The history of Pakistan falsifies this claim completely.

The creator of Pakistan Mr. Jinnah was no genuine secularist despite his western education and un Islamic mode of life. In 1944 he had declared that Islam was “Our bedrock and sheet anchor,” and he would therefore declare in 1944;” We do not want any flag excepting the League flag of the Crescent and Star. Islam is our guide and the complete code of our life. We do not want any red or yellow flag. We do not want any isms, Socialisms, communisms or National Socialisms.” In April 1946 Jinnah embraced “ in the name of Allah the Beneficent, the Merciful” as the League pledge for Pakistan. In general, after the creation of Pakistan references to the Quran and the Prophet became increasingly prominent in Jinnah’s speeches, and even if Jinnah had held on to a somewhat broad view of minority rights, those simply did not manifest themselves in any constitutional or institutional guarantees during his short reign as Governor General of the new state . Jinnah died in September 1948, barely 12 months after the state was formed. While his contribution to Pakistan’ initial state formation was huge, in terms of lasting institution – building in a positive sense, his impact virtually proved non-existent.

I have written before about how the Muslim League persuaded the British to declare that when they gave up the sovereignty which was vested in the British Crown it will revert not to the people of the princely States (more than 500 in number) but to the undemocratic rulers. The League had its eyes on Hyderabad ruled by the Nizam and the notorious Razakars. This design was frustrated by the wise Sardar Patel. After that Pakistan turned to Kashmir. The ostensibly tribal invasion by soldiers in disguise was frustrated by their own delay in full one day delay in raping or ravishing beautiful nuns and teachers in a well known convent on the way. During this one day two events took place ; the Maharaja signed the Instrument of Accession to India and invitation to Indian forces to repel the threatened Pakistan invasion. India accepted the challenge and our brave soldiers repelled the tribal attack in nick of time. They threw the intruders back and would have got them out of the whole state of J&K but for Nehru Foolishly accepting a ceasefire with slightly less than half of J&K left in the control of Pakistan. India at least won an uneasy peace until 1965.

This was divine punishment for illegitimate designs on Hyderabad a predominant Hindu state right in the heart of India.

Pakistan did become an independent state which included the eastern state of Bangladesh. But let the world make no mistake. Sovereignty in Pakistan was captured by the Army and not the politicians as representatives of the people. Pakistan has been openly ruled by the Army and only half of the time by elected politicians that too only in name. The Stark truth has been that the people of the state have never become the real effective rulers.

Quaid-e-Azam claimed to be a great believer in the teachings of the great Prophet of Islam. This claim also not true. The holy Quran declared a great truth : “When one walks in search of knowledge he is on the path of God ; the ink of the scholar is holier then the blood of a martyr”. This is the essence of modern secularism after all secularism is the superiority of education ones illiteracy; of reason ones superstition and sciences ones religion. What is now peddled as Islam is a counterfeit version promulgated by Wahhabi of Saudi Arabia in who instead preached that all Mushrikun have no right to exist on this planet and his definition of Mushrikun included Jews, Christians , Hindu and even Shias and all non-Muslims. One has to see what is happening even to Shias in the Sunni world.

I invite all who wish to understand secularism at least to read and imbile the lessons contained in what I regard as one of the greatest book of this century. It is written by a trinity of three great world scholars Imam Jamal Rahman , Pastor Don Mackenzie and Rabbi Ted Falcon. Every religion has a core and a disposable past dependent on time and circumstance. The core of Islam is the teaching of Prophet – I have mentioned .When Muslims followed the real teaching of the Prophet they mastered the known world and produced philosophers , physicians and even monarchs, like Haroun and Rashid. In the 13th century they followed the teaching of some mad Mullah who told them to burn all the books except the Quran. I believe and not all the scholars of the Muslim world will shake this belief of mine that the Prophet of Islam was secular more than any counterfeit ones of today. The Taliban, the ISIS, the Hizbul Mujahideen and many such organisations are an insult to the Great Prophet of Islam. All the versions of Islam prevalent today almost without exception are counterfeit, most of them reflections of the Wahhabi teaching. No wonder Pakistan can ever be truly secular and a genuine democracy. Pakistan rulers have no commitment to the rule of a genuine democracy. The sad truth of is that Pakistan is one of the weakest states globally. Today powerful warlords control many parts of the country. Taliban for example has become a key player in the political system. Conflicts between the key sectarian groups, Sunnis and Shias, and by ethnic groups such as Mohajirs (7.57% of the population) and Baloch (3.57%) have made Pakistani cities like Karachi, Peshawar, and Quetta unsafe for their inhabitants. In addition, key ethnic groups such as Baloch, Sindhis (14.1 %), Pashtuns (15.42 %), and Seraikis (8.38 %) demand autonomy from the Punjabi- dominated (44.68 %) country, some more forcefully than others.

The military is not only the security provider but has also emerged as a key economic force in Pakistani society. Senior military officers are given land grants by the state, and over the years they have emerged as a major land – owning class. They have a presence in all other key businesses as well. The economic domination of the military class has meant that major economic changes like those undertaken by Korea and Taiwan are not in the interest of the military elite.

I am deliberately skipping many smaller matters for lack of adequate space and time too. I now proceed to concentrate on the subject of a non-existent democracy of Pakistan and the tragic reality of military dictatorship, which thrives on the tensions of the Kashmir boiling pot.

Pakistan specially since the time of Zia-ul-haq has consistently and deliberately pursued a two track policy of engaging in clandestine operations to weaken India while appearing to be willing to negotiate peace. In the book , The Quranic Concept of War , Brigadier S.K Malik states :

The Holy Quran wishes to see the Muslim armies always in an uppermost , dominating and commanding position over those of their adversaries… The Book wants the Muslims to retain the initiative to themselves through bold , aggressive but calculated and deliberate planning and conduct of war. We shall later see that , despite the gross inferiority of his numbers and material , the Holy Prophet ( peace be upon him) never let the initiative to pass on to his adversaries.


The First Military Takeover :1958

The major weakness of the Pakistani political order was the dearth of strong political leaders or political parties with a deep democratic sense or commitment. There were four governors general and seven prime ministers between 1947 and 1958, the most crucial period of state formation in terms of institution building. These weak civilian leaders , most of whom were drawn form the bureaucracy , lacked legitimacy and popular appeal. They also made no serious efforts to nurture democratic political processes , which required active political parties. The prime ministers and governors general jockeyed among themselves as to who should hold more authority.

The main purpose of the state was national security ( a rare source of consensus among all the political parties and the bureaucratic elite), ensuring the defense spending took the biggest chunk of the national budget. Pakistan’s defense expenditure during 1948 to 1959 was 59% of total governmental expenditure, growing by 116 % during this period.

By the second half of 1950s , the three A’s – “ Allah , Army and America “ – would emerge as the most powerful rallying forces in determining the destiny of Pakistan.

General Ayub Khan was appointed chief martial law administrator by President Iskander Mirza in October 1958 , in a proclamation equivalent to a coup d’e’tat. The proclamation of martial law and the military takeover of power were momentous events for the state in Pakistan as they killed the possibility of nascent democracy emerging , with a military subservient to civilian control. Within a few weeks of the coup Ayub Khan managed to dismiss Mirza as president and then have him exiled.

In march 1963 , he signed a border agreement with China , ceding 750 square miles of territory in Kashmir and in effect “ making China a party” to the Kashmir dispute.

The warrior state Pakistan tested its military mettle in 1965 war with India. As a preclude to the war, in March 1965, Pakistan launched a limited incursion into the Rann of Kutch region of Gujarat. A military stalemate resulted , but the biggest lesson learnt was that India would concede territory under pressure , as New Delhi agreed to international arbitration of the dispute. Following this “success”, Operation Gibraltar was conceived. The plan consisted of sending 7,000 to 8,000 specially trained mujahid soldiers into Indian Kashmir to dislocate and disorganize the Indian army by sabotaging Indian military installations and communication facilities. They would follow this by distributing arms to Kashmiri liberation volunteers. Once the guerrilla operation gained momentum, it was expected that India would find the control of Kashmir too difficult to sustain and would seek a conciliatory settlement , especially under international pressure.

These assumptions would prove wrong. Indian forces struck back by opening a second front on the international border in the Punjab , and were able to get close to the Pakistan city of Lahore. Pakistan , as a result , had to pull out its troops from the Kashmir theatre, thereby nullifying the limited advances it had made. The superpowers would diplomatically convince both state to agree to a ceasefire. A meeting was held at the Soviet Central Asian city of Tashkent in January 1966, attended by Ayub Khan and Shastri , where a ceasefire agreement was signed. Pakistan gained little territorially and the status quo ante was restored. Most importantly, neither of Pakistan’s strategic allies , China or the United States , would come to the rescue of its military adventurism. The latter in fact imposed an economic embargo on Pakistan , and military transfers and economic aid to Pakistan were curtailed. This put pressure on Pakistan to agree to a ceasefire after 17 days of fighting between December 1970 and January 1971. In the elections , East Pakistan’s Sheikh Mujibur Rahman would emerge as the overall winner with 160 seats , although in West Pakistan , the Pakistan People’s Party(PPP) led by Zulfikar Ali Bhutto was the frontrunner with 81 seats.

By November 1971, India had intervened with troops , and on December 3, 1971, Pakistan declared war on both Eastern and Western fronts. The Indian army , led by General Sam Manekshaw and locally commandeered by Lieutenant General Jagjit Singh Aurora , led a short blitzkrieg operation lasting 13 days, thoroughly defeating the Pakistani army in East Pakistan and liberating Bangladesh on December 16,1971. Some 93,000 Pakistani troops surrendered to India , resulting in national humiliation to the Pakistani people, especially the Army, the supposed custodian of Pakistan’s security. The country lost its eastern portion and more than half of its population. This pivotal event profoundly harmed Pakistan’s future relations with India.

The secession of East Pakistan was a crucial event that only strengthened the warrior nature of Pakistani state. Although at the post war Shimla conference in 1972 Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto agreed to respect the Line of Control in Kashmir and seek an eventual resolution of conflict with India through bilateral negotiations , his policy became increasingly belligerent after returning home.

The Indian military victory in 1971 generated temporary period of calm on the subcontinent. Pakistan was much weaker than before: the eastern portion of its territory lost, its armed forces demoralized and its political elite groping for a second chance to build a national security state and re-establish strategic party with India.

The military was waiting in the wings to stage a coup, as was evident when the civilian rulers’ rank incompetence mounted. The opportunity came in July 1977 when General Muhammad Zia-ul- Haq , a zealot in uniform with military competence , ousted Bhutto’s democratically elected government. The popular agitation by the opposition parties and Bhutto’s repressive approach provided an opportunity for such a coup. Zia not only destroyed civilian rule , but sent Bhutto to jail on trumped –up charges of connivance in the murder of a political opponent and then allowed him to be hanged on April 4 , 1979.

Zia-ul-Haq continued the hyper-national security state policies and accelerated the covert nuclear weapons program. But Zia’s Major policy innovation was the introduction of Shariat Laws and the Islamization of Pakistan’s educational system. In that pursuit, he was helped by Saudi Arabia and its strict Wahabbi sect of Islamic preachers. More moderate elements of Islam were subjugated to this more orthodox view, and a generation of Pakistanis would grow up in a system of madrassas that his policies helped to set up. Many of them proved to be great seminaries of hatred , focusing almost exclusively on medieval teachings. The contemporary predicament of Pakistan in fact can partially be attributed to this one ruler whose policies have had a profoundly debilitating – and lasting – impact on the Pakistani body politic , its relation with neighbours , and even global security in the early twenty- first century. In many respects , Zia is akin to Aurangzeb , the Mughal ruler who introduced extreme Islamic ideas in South Asia in the seventeenth century and destroyed all the progress his predecessors , such as Akbar , had achieved in establishing inter communal harmony.

US direct military and economic assistance to Pakistan over the 1980s amounted to over $7.2 billion , leaving it only behind Israel, Egypt , and Turkey in aid received from Washington.

The United States closed its eyes to Zia’s accelerated pursuit of nuclear weapons. Washington’s policies indirectly helped the Islamization of Pakistan as Zia engaged with different mujahedeen groups in both Afghanistan and in Pakistan. Zia used the war in Afghanistan to gain the support of Pakistan’s Islamist parties, thereby weakening opposition to his tenuous rule.

The American military drive against the Soviet Union was a major success, forcing Moscow to withdraw from Afghanistan , and eventually helping to bring about the collapse of the Warsaw Pact and the Soviet Union as state. The end of the Cold War owes much to the Soviet Union’s failure in Afghanistan.

The Soviet retreat from Afghanistan in 1989 heralded momentous changes to the international system. It helped to end the Cold war and led to the eventual collapse of the Soviet Union. For Pakistan , it was disastrous as it released thousands of Mujahedeen warriors into its society , with over a million refugees serving as an easy recruiting ground for Jihadhist groups. Pakistan’s support of the mujahedeen has essentially created a war economy where narcotics and weapons become the most valuable currency, thereby further entrenching the warrior state. Washington made no real effort to settle the politically and strategically empty space created by the Soviet retreat. Its failure to do so would later haunt America , helping to facilitate the September 11,2001, attacks by al-Qaeda warriors supported by the Taliban, an entity which Islamabad had helped create.

Despite some limited attempts at democracy , from its early days Pakistan repeatedly found it immensely difficult to create or sustain democratic institutions. Indeed , it quickly became a garrison state where the ultimate authority rested with the military as the most powerful political and social institution , with the many privileges and risks that come with such a status. Since 1958, Pakistan has alternated between elected government and military rule, but democratic governance has been neither complete nor sustainable. The army has always been lurking behind the elected governments, holding real political power and the capacity to control the fate of the civilian elite. If the civilians failed to comply, the army would unleash its ultimate sword- coup d’e’tat. Even under civilian rule, the army and its spy wing , the ISI , never gave up their power over crucial national security and foreign policy matters , including the control of the atomic weapons that the country obtained in the 1980s.

Today , a leading scholar of Pakistan calls the military – intelligence establishment of the country the “ deep state” which can “ pick and choose policy toward extremists, refusing to fight those who will confront India on its behalf as well as those Taliban who kill Western and Afghan soldiers in the war next –door” in Afghanistan. Those civilian rulers who dared to seriously challenge the military establishment risk assassination, as happened to Zulfikar Ali Bhutto and Benzair Bhutto, or exile, as in the cases of Benzair Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif.

Pakistan ended up as a garrison or praetorian state and whenever the military ceded power to elected civilian governments, it did so only partially. This left Pakistan a hybrid democratic model where the ultimate power rested not with the people but with the military as a veto player in any decisions the civilian government would take.

I have called Pakistan a Garrison state. I have borrowed this adjective for Pakistan from a great book ‘ The Warrior State’ by one T.V Paul a book which I recommend to all my friends and in particular our External Affairs Minister Mrs. Sushma Swaraj. A Garrison state is a state which is preoccupied with danger, in which the specialist on violence are the most powerful societal group which appropriates a huge share of natural assets to itself; The army and those in command.

This has turned out to be a truth too long and I hope to complete it for my readers by the next week.

MY SPEECH IN THE RAJYA SABHA ON JAMMU AND KASHMIR ON 10/8/2016

MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: He will not stop in one minute. ...(Interruptions)...Naqvi ji, he will not stop. ...(Interruptions)... After disposing of all these names, if time is there, I will call you. ...(Interruptions)... Please sit down. ...(Interruptions)... Now, Shri Ram Jethmalani. Before that, let me request all the remaining Members to please take five minutes each. Please start.

SHRI RAM JETHMALANI (BIHAR): Mr. Deputy Chairman, Sir, apart from the fact that probably I am the oldest Member in this House

MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: How can it be a maiden speech?...(Interruptions)... He is the oldest Member. ...(Interruptions)...

SHRI RAM JETHMALANI: Sir, it is my maiden speech so far as my representation of the State of Bihar is concerned. . I have been now elected from that State and I am entitled to the benefit of one maiden speech, and, that is the one which I am delivering just now. However, Sir, I leave it to you. When you want me to stop, give me three minutes' notice. Sir, I must start by paying a tribute to the only speech which I thoroughly enjoyed from the first word to the last word, and that is the speech of the BJP Member from Jammu. I am sorry, if I do not know your correct name but, I think, you are Gopal Yadav. Is it? ...(Interruptions)... No? What is his name? ...(Interruptions)... Okay. Mr. Jitendra Singh. My apologies but I must say that I was terribly impressed by the speech, which you delivered, and, I am much wiser with that.

SHRI RAM JETHMALANI (contd.): Sir, I don't wish to repeat the contents of any other Member's speech, not because I have not enjoyed them but because of lack of time, and, Sir, I hope I will not repeat a word which has already been spoken. I must tell you that I probably had no intention of coming and speaking on this subject in this House. But, yesterday, when I got up in the morning -- and I was in Mumbai, attending a very great festival in my home; I was celebrating the 60th birthday of my elder son -- and read the newspapers which contained the statement of the Hon. Chief Minister of Jammu & Kashmir. I have regarded that lady as a younger sister of mine, and I have treated her with respect and affection. But I must tell you that I cut short my stay in Bombay, came to Delhi, immediately wrote a very strong letter to her and saw to it that it was delivered to her on the e-mail and probably repeated in the morning by the normal mail. Sir, that letter of hers contained what I regard as some very, very mischievous suggestion. The mischievous suggestion was, “please now start a new dialogue, like the dialogue which Atalji had with Pakistan”. We shall have no dialogue with Pakistan but we are prepared to have every dialogue with the people of Jammu & Kashmir and we shall surrender to them many things which they may not even deserve . But that is our love and affection for them. So far as Pakistan is concerned, Sir, the Kashmir problem has been solved more than once. It has been settled at least four times in the political history of India. Sir, first of all, let me point out to you one great mistake which Pakistan committed. Fortunately, they did not get the benefit of it. You know that when India was finding its independence, question arose as to the sovereignty of the British Crown , the States, the multitudes of States we had. To whom shall it go? And I believe that the Congress Party took a very correct role. They said it shall revert to the people of India. Even many Muslim politicians in joined this except the strict one in the Muslim League. They said, "No; the sovereignty shall not go to the people, but it shall go to the ruler of the State." Now, there was a plan behind this. The plan behind it was that they thought, "Kashmir is a small State, we will be able to conquer it by force at any time". They said, therefore that; the sovereignty must go to the Princes because they had their eyes on the State of Hyderabad. It was a Non- Muslim majority State and His Highness, the Nizam of Hyderabad, was ruling the State by that great army of Razakars, like whom one has not seen so far as military ethics and character are concerned. However, the Indian Army, under the control of Sardar Patel, one of the greatest politicians and sensible people that India had produced, was marching into Hyderabad when Pandit Nehru got some qualm of conscience and he tried to stop it, and Sardar Patel had to tell him a lie that the Army had already entered Hyderabad. And, if Pandit Nehru had his way and Sardar Patel had failed, take it from me, we will today be facing the problem of Hyderabad and India ..(Interruptions)..

SHRI JAIRAM RAMESH: This is simply not true, Sir. ..(Interruptions).. This is simply not true.

SHRI JAIRAM RAMESH (CONTD.): This is falsifying history. ...(Interruptions)... This is a canard. ...(Interruptions)... This is a propaganda. This is simply not true. ...(Interruptions)... I have seen the archives. ...(Interruptions)... I have written a book on...(Interruptions).. He is misleading the House. ...(Interruptions).. He is misleading the House. ...(Interruptions)... He is a very senior Member. I respect him. I respect him as a human being, as a lawyer...(Interruptions)... But on this, he is completely, comprehensively wrong. ...(Interruptions)...

DR. K. KESHAVA RAO: Which part of it is wrong? ...(Interruptions)...

SHRI JAIRAM RAMESH: Don’t interfere...(Interruptions)...

MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Okay. All right. Keshava Raoji, both are on record. ...(Interruptions)... You sit down. ...(Interruptions)... No, no. Both are on record. ...(Interruptions)... What Mr. Ram Jethmalani said and what Mr. Jairam Ramesh said...(Interruptions)...

THE LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION (SHRI GHULAM NABI AZAD): Sir, today, we should not go into the history. All of us, the Congress Party, the BJP and all other parties, decided not to dig out the past. We should talk about the present.

SHRI RAM JETHMALANI: We are not digging out the past. We are talking about some historical ...(Interruptions)...truths

SHRI GHULAM NABI AZAD: We will have it when we will have discussion on archives. That time we will have this discussion. ...(Interruptions)...We are discussing the current problem. ...(Interruptions)...

MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Ram Jethmalaniji, the issue is that Kashmir is burning. We want some solution. We are racking our brains for a solution as to what to do. So, rather than going back to history, give suggestion for that. ...(Interruptions)...

SHRI RAM JETHMALANI: Yes, Sir. Sir, I personally wish to tell this House that the solution offered yesterday in the Press by the Chief Minister of Jammu and Kashmir is not a solution to be considered at all. You must reject it. We must be careful about giving this kind of advice which the Chief Minister gave because this particular matter had been decided four times. As I told you, the sovereignty had to reside in the people. I wish to cite one incident. When Hyderabad was lost, the raiders, the armed military people of Pakistan in concealed identity and posing to be tribals to attack Kashmir and they had...(Time-bell)...

MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Now you have to conclude. Please conclude. You have already taken nine minutes.

SHRI RAM JETHMALANI: Sir, out of nine minutes, you deduct those seven minutes. ...(Interruptions)... All right, Sir. My appeal to this House is that the Kashmir problem has been solved with Pakistan more than three times. One point towards which I would particularly like to draw your attention is that in the 60s, Pakistan started a war of aggression believing full well that they are attacking us. While we were unarmed and weak . But the Indian Army completely mastered that aggressive attack and that led to another great action of one of the greatest Prime Ministers which India had and he was Lal Bahadur Shastri. What happened was that we got Tashkent Declaration. The Tashkent Declaration had two clauses. One was that neither party shall change the present status quo by force or by violence. And the second one was that neither party shall even carry on any propaganda for changing it. (Time-bell) If Pakistan wishes to go back on the Tashkent Declaration and other settlements that have taken place, be sure that you will tell Pakistan that it will lose its claim to half of Jammu and Kashmir which Indian generosity had given to it for good.

SHRI RAM JETHMALANI (CONTD.): But, we are prepared that we will take it back. (Time-bell) Sir, I want no talks with Pakistan on this issue. All that you must tell them is that if they want to fight that issue with us, let us go to the International Court of Justice or let us go to the Security Council; and, be sure that they will lose there. Tell them that if they succeed there, we will succumb to the decision of the international community. Today, Sir, please do not carry on with any kind of dialogue with Pakistan, but do carry on every kind of dialogue with the people of Jammu and Kashmir. (Time-bell) They are our kith and kin, and they are as dear to us as anybody else can be. Sir, so far as I am concerned, you may be pretty sure that I will give my life to keep the people of Jammu and Kashmir as friends of India and I will see to it that the Indian Union with that State is appreciated by everybody including the entire civilized world. I shall spend there a few years of my life that remain. I am running today the 93rd year of my life. I will devote the remaining part of my life to see that the people of Jammu and Kashmir are happy and that they remain happy, live long and be friends of this country. Thank you.

OPEN LETTER OF TO HON’BLE PRIME MINISTER NAWAZ SHARIF AND HIS FELLOW MINISTERS

Dear Prime Minister,

I don’t claim that you regard me as a friend but I claim that I am the friend of Pakistan including you. I have been born and brought up in Pakistan until I was compelled to become a refugee in India not because of any Muslims of Sindh but angry Muslims who reached Sindh from Outside India looking mainly for Hindu properties.

Sindh has been the land of Sufis and we had developed such a wonderful synthesis of Islam and Hinduism there. When I was young I used to get my new clothes on Eid day and Muslims children brought them on Deepawali.

From 1941 to 1948, I practiced law in Karachi in a firm called Brohi and Co. in which my only other partner was the Allah Bukhsh Brohi, a man whom I loved and whose memory I respect. People of Pakistan know him very well so do some people in India because he was the High Commissioner of Pakistan in Delhi for a couple of years. We were both products of the Bombay University and both of us had Masters Degree from that University. His degree was in Philosophy as Buddha and Kant as his special philosophers. I had constitution and International Law for my Masters degree in Law. Today I am running my 93rd year but throughout my long life which might come to an end any day I have not given up my love for Pakistan and affection for its people. Though a Hindu I believe that the Prophet of Islam was one of the greatest and unmatched in some ways. Pardon me for reminding you of the essence of his greatness. He is the one who told his followers that when you walk in search of Knowledge you walk in Path of God; the ink of a scholar is holier than the blood of a martyr. When Muslims followed this teaching they became the masters of the civilized world. In the 13th century, it is the misfortune of the Muslims that you produced a Khalifa who told you to burn all books except the holy Quran. Since then following this suicidal teaching you became the slaves of those whom you had educated to become civilized. I regret that tragedy persists and treat this as my dying declaration. 

Let me first cure you of your long suicidal path in the matter of acquiring political control of Jammu and Kashmir. While most Indian leaders including a small fraction of Muslim leaders were busy fighting for India’s independence majority of Muslims represented by the Muslim League was not interested in Indian independence but in the creation of Islamic State of Pakistan. India paid the heavy price and of course you got a truncated Pakistan but you rejoiced that you had at least got a new Islamic State. It is strange but significant that while the majority of Indian intellectuals talked of sovereignty reverting to the people of India the Muslim League insisted that sovereignty must descend to the rulers of Indian States. You thought that Kashmir will be no problem for Pakistan. You can capture it by force anytime. Your sights were trained at time on Hyderabad, a Hindu majority state but ruled by the Muslim Nizam and his ruthless army of Razakars . Your conquest of Hyderabad was frustrated by the timely action of Sardar Patel and in Kashmir whit its Hindu ruler you relied upon your army disguised as tribal raiders marching in with forcible occupation in view. They had almost succeeded in reaching the gates of Srinagar but fortunately they wasted sometime with raping some Christian Nuns on the way that gave time to the Maharaja to sign the instrument of accession with India. The Indian army got there in time drove back the raiders until you sued for peace and foolish Nehru with the kind Hindu in him was content to with half of Kashmir leaving the other half in the control of criminal gangsters. That was their status in law. You might respect them as patriots. 

This was the not the end of the problem. In the 1960’s you planned a war of aggression. Fortunately the brave Indian army frustrated this act of naked aggression on the part of Pakistan. You were lucky that India was ruled at that time by Lal Bahadur Shastri whom I regard as the best Prime Minister India has ever had. You should be grateful to his memory for he gave you a magnificent gift the Tashkent Declaration. It had two Clauses which produced a perennial peace and a liberal settlement from a victorious enemy to a defeated one. These Clauses were

1. Neither Party shall disturb the present status quo by force or war; and

2. Neither Party shall carry on any propaganda for changing it.

It is a matter of shame that you have forgotten this magnificent compromise and the Indian generosity which left half of Jammu and Kashmir under your control despite your act of criminal aggression. I hope you realize that your claim to what India call Pakistan Occupied Kashmir (PoK) is based on the generosity of the Tashkent Declaration .Unfortunately gratitude does not seem to be an ingredient in the character of Pakistan leaders.

After this Pakistan lost Bangladesh, a Muslim majority state which came to you at the time of partition of India in 1940’s. If you could not retain a Muslim majority province and you have permanently reconciled to that loss with what justification can you lay any claim to the half of Jammu and Kashmir which India retains as a result of a valid instrument of accession by Maharaja of Kashmir. 

I hope you recall that the Bangladesh disaster left 93000 Pakistani soldiers in Indian custody. Your Prime Minister Bhutto in words with their own significance was licking the feet of Indira Gandhi. He saved that army by signing the Simla Agreement of perpetual peace. 

I suggest if Pakistan is a self respecting country you should develop utmost love and affection for the generosity of Indians. Instead of that you have let loose a reign of terror in Jammu and Kashmir and the satanic organization ISIS is threatening the security of the whole world. Ask yourself Mr. Prime Minister are you not on the side of ISIS in this unholy war against the rest of the world.

You are endangering the existence of Islam on this planet. Of course there is going to be widespread destruction of millions on this planet and humanity might have to surrender the planet to the cockroaches. But you are not going to succeed in capturing Jammu and Kashmir. You should be ashamed that you are turning young boys from the age of 10-13 as terrorists and girls of a slightly longer age 15 years maximum. These youngsters don’t understand that you are using them to win some sympathy from the world but the world knows that it is the cowardice of the older people who want to sacrifice these innocent youngsters in your unholy war which is now being waged against Jammu and Kashmir and against the whole civilized world.

Lastly, Mr. Prime Minister when Musharaff ruled Pakistan he came with proposals for settlement. I regret that the then government of Atal Bihari Vajpayee rejected the proposals. After his return to Pakistan, Musharaff sent his proposals to me through his friend, the famous owners of a brewery in Pakistan. You know the name. I am suffering from a slight loss of memory. I will speak to you further about these proposals if you are in a mood to hear a little more.

Do I ask Mr. Prime Minister that you will consider this as an appeal from a genuine friend of Pakistan and admirer of the Prophet of Islam. 

You don’t mind this letter being published.

Yours Affectionately 

Ram Jethmalani 

India must take the lead in the UN to combat terrorism

I write this piece for my fellow citizens, but also to remind the triumvirate of our Home Minister, External Affairs Minister and the Defence Minister, to perform their duty to the world and the Indian nation in particular, and marshal all their strength for combating the monster or terrorism that threatens to devour the world.

Recent terrorist events around India and pre-empted attacks in India clearly establish that the IS is as much a threat to our country and its peace loving population, as it is in the Middle East. I wonder whether people are aware of why the second ‘IS’ in the name of the murderous organisation, ISIS was dropped? Because it is no longer the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, but is directed towards every country of the world, including India. 

India, as an aspiring world power, must take the lead in exterminating this menace promptly and seriously, for the peace and security of our secular nation, and get into action in the United Nations, Security Council and the General Assembly.

2016 marks the 10th anniversary of the UN Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy. In 2006, the General Assembly adopted the United Nations Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy (Resolution 60/288) by consensus to enhance national, regional and international efforts to counter terrorism, through a common strategic and operational approach to fight terrorism, and to combat it individually and collectively, mainly through strengthening state capacity to counter terrorist threats and better coordinating United Nations system’s counter-terrorism activities.

The Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy is composed of 4 pillars - Addressing the conditions conducive to the spread of terrorism; measures to prevent and combat terrorism; measures to build states’ capacity to prevent and combat terrorism and to strengthen the role of the United Nations system in that regard; and measures to ensure respect for human rights for all and the rule of law as the fundamental basis for the fight against terrorism. The General Assembly reviews the Strategy every two years, and at its 5th review held on July 1, 2016, a detailed strategy based on the above principles was unanimously adopted. See https://www.un.org/counterterrorism/ctitf/en/un-global-counter-terrorism-strategy

The General Assembly resolution makes it clear that the primary responsibility for implementation of the Strategy rests with Member States, and gives the United Nations system the pivotal role for promoting coordination and coherence in the implementation of the Strategy at the national, regional and global levels and in providing assistance to Member States where requested.

The world has witnessed repeatedly in recent years, the rise of new types of terrorist threats to international peace and security. The most significant challenge is the spread of violent extremist ideologies and the emergence of terrorist groups fuelled by them. Violent extremism is a diverse phenomenon, without an internationally agreed definition. Nevertheless, in recent years, terrorist groups such as the IS, Al-Qaida and Boko Haram have clearly defined the content, intent and operation of terrorism and violent extremism. These groups unite in a single ideological source but transcend national boundaries in their murderous operations. In recent years, terrorist and violent extremist groups have inflicted immense damage. The statistics are frightening: thousands of civilians killed and wounded in terrorist-related incidents in the past decade and millions of men, women and children displaced or forced to flee their homes. Women and children, in particular, suffer, given that many have been sexually abused and enslaved. Even UN field missions and country teams in Africa, Asia and the Middle East have been attacked. This new phenomena of an undefined state of war, which eludes the existing Geneva Conventions on War, calls for an urgent need for increased international cooperation to prevent, counter and combat them.

In 2006, terrorist groups had a certain freedom of movement from their bases in ungoverned spaces. Al-Qaida sought to be a vanguard, preparing the conditions for a takeover of the State in some Muslim majority countries. Its success was limited and resulted in many deaths, almost invariably of fellow Muslims. However, Al-Qaida set the stage for the emergence of a more ruthless and determined form of terrorism. Al-Qaida in Iraq became Islamic State of Iraq in 2006 and then ISIL in 2013 before finally calling itself simply Islamic State and declaring the re‑establishment of the Caliphate in 2014.

ISIL and Al-Qaida remain indistinguishable in terms of their vision and ultimate objectives, but they differ in terms of tactics. From its beginnings, Al‑Qaida has believed that it should work patiently, while ISIL believes that it has to force the pace. ISIL still controls a sizeable area of Iraq and the Syrian Arab Republic and has expanded its reach through affiliates in Libya, Yemen and West Africa, while claiming “provinces” in other countries. One of the affiliates of ISIL, Boko Haram, has been particularly notorious and lethal. ISIL has also inspired, encouraged or directed attacks in faraway countries including Australia, Bangladesh, Belgium, Canada, France, Indonesia, Pakistan, Somalia, Turkey and the United States of America. In addition, it has attracted recruits from more than 80 countries, posing a potential threat to security when those fighters return home. Spurred to compete, Al-Qaida and its affiliates have established control of territory, most notably in Somalia, the Syrian Arab Republic and Yemen, and continue to mount attacks in Europe and North, West and East Africa, as well as in Asia.

Terrorist tactics have also evolved. Suicide bombings have become more common, but so have mass-casualty and complex attacks mounted by a group of attackers working together in one or multiple locations and expecting to die. Another worrying trend has been the growing tolerance of terrorism by States, especially when terrorists attack rivals. Terrorism remains a common threat and a shared concern, regardless of its immediate target.

The role of the media and the use of social media by terrorist and violent extremist groups have gained a new quality and thus constitute an increasingly important dimension to address. Even foiled plots attract media attention, serving the perpetrators’ purpose of spreading fear and prompting a reaction. Most new recruits are now from 17 to 27 years of age, with differing levels of education and social and economic backgrounds. This has made the task of understanding and countering the appeal of terrorism all the more difficult, and the international community has found it hard to respond effectively.

That these developments have occurred, and even increased, as the world has poured more resources into countering terrorism raises serious and critical questions:

(a) Have Member States sufficiently implemented the relevant counter-terrorism legal instruments and norms not only to counter terrorism but also to address the conditions that give rise to it?

(b) Has the United Nations system been successful in providing the requested assistance to Member States in preventing violent extremism and countering terrorism?

(c) Above all, are the tools and resources at the disposal of the international community for prevention sufficient to meet and overcome the challenges posed by terrorism and violent extremism?

The adoption of the United Nations Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy has seen unprecedented international consensus on the need for joint action against terrorism. One of its great achievements has been to maintain the agreement that all Member States are affected and thus have an interest in contributing.

India should take the lead and mount continuous pressure upon the United Nations that the intentions of the UN are urgently actionated and effective international mechanisms set up to make a visible dent in countering terrorism and preventing violent extremism, not just in words, but in decisive action. 

Before I close, I wonder how many people know that Al Baghdadi, leader of the Islamic State was arrested by the US forces in early 2004, and then released in December, because he was appraised by the U.S as a ‘low-level’ threat to public security?

Whither Islam?

I wonder how future historians would describe the advent of the 21st century - The Age of Terrorism? The revival of religious wars? Or to use Huntington’s famous heading, ‘The Clash of Civilizations?’ Or all three?

Today, the two dominant revealed religions of the world are at cross roads, the older Christianity in great fatigue, silencing itself in its historic, cultural homelands, and the later Islam in complete disarray, in a self-destruct mode. Politically, it has been captured by a self proclaimed Caliphate, which is in barbaric battle with the rest of the world. The Middle East, once one of the most prosperous parts of the world is in the throes of devastation and destruction. Its people are fleeing by the millions to safer lands, the closest being the European countries. This exodus, the largest in modern history is something that appears to defy a solution.

Saudi Arabia continues to be the patron of Wahabi Islam, which is known to continuously export money and finance terrorist activity in various parts of the world. The greatest challenge before the civilized nations today is how it can protect itself from the fanatical barbarians of the new terrorist face of Islam, now scattered and organized all over the world, who want to impose a complete negation of all the democratic values, constitutionalism, and secularism, for which the West fought for centuries through the blood of countless unknown lives.

Internet and social media are presumed to be the main vehicle for indoctrination, radicalization and organization of terrorism, another bite-back of scientific advancement. Cyberspace overcomes time and space and unites terrorism across the world. How will the civilized world counter this challenge?

The western world is showing a great deal of patience in the face of horrific terrorist attacks against it, starting from the 11 September Twin Tower attacks, the Paris attacks of November 2015, and the Belgian attacks of March 2016. Europe is under siege – by the continuous threat of terrorist attacks from within, and by the refugee invasion from outside. However, to the great credit of the people of Europe, in keeping with their secular ideology, they continue to wisely differentiate between true Islam and Islamic terrorism. But how long will this patience last? The day their patience runs out, the world will witness the most brutal Armageddon, fought on religion, a return to the dark ages. No part of the world will remain untouched; terrorist outfits are said to have spread out globally.

All civilized nations must immediately come together and work out a common strategy about how to counter this very dangerous monster. As far as the UN is concerned, I believe that it has still not been able to get a consensus regarding an internationally-agreed definition of the word ‘terrorism’.

I have written before and I wish to repeat that every scripture has two parts — the first, temporary, situated and relevant in the place and context of its origin, and the other eternal, immortal and universally applicable to humanity. A religion evolves in time when its topical, contextual content is interpreted as such, and relegated into the background. A religion evolves when its eternal, immortal and universal truths are reiterated and propagated in coexistence with contemporary times and with the rest of humanity.

I have written before and I wish to repeat that I am a great admirer of the Prophet of Islam, because he is the one Prophet who clearly told his followers, "When you walk in search of knowledge, you walk in the path of God; the ink of the scholar is holier than the blood of a martyr." As long as his followers adhered to this teaching of their Prophet, they were masters of the civilized world. When they forsook his teachings, burnt all books and read only the Quran, and that too not in its entirety, they became slaves of those whom they had educated.

This great picture of Islam of Prophet Mohammed has been more or less distorted, if not completely obliterated. The suicidal ISIS is a faithful reproduction not of Islam but the Wahhabi cult which is only an insult to the Islam of Prophet Mohammad whom I revere even though I a non-Muslim. I think most Indian Muslims realize this distortion. I am proud to call myself a secular Indian Hindu. Secularism, I have often explained is the subordination of ignorance to education and of religion to science. No prophet of any religion had even imagined of man landing on the moon, or the nuclear bomb, a capsule capable of destroying humanity, and modern medicine and surgery to heal humans from disease and death.

The cause of Islam’s tragedy was Mohammad Ibn Abdul Wahhab, born in 1703 in Saudi Arabia, the founder of a sect called ‘Wahhabis’. He pretended to revive the Islam of Prophet but did exactly the contrary.

He picked on a stray line in the Holy Book and convinced himself that it has decreed death and annihilation to all Mushrikhun, i.e. polytheists. His definition of polytheists, however, was different from that of the rest of the Islamic world and has proved a big curse to humanity. By his definition , Christians, Jews, Shiites, Hindus and many others are polytheists, who have forfeited their right to live. He was the first to legitimize Jihad, even against fellow Muslims. His doctrine was worse than the act of burning the Holy Koran which advised – fight in the way of God against those who fight against you, but do not commit aggression ( Koran 2:190-92)- and proclaimed that the ink of the scholar is more valuable than the blood of the martyr. In the spring of 1802, 12,000 of his followers invaded the southern part of Ottoman Iraq. They entered Karbala, massacred some 4,000 Shiites and ransacked holy Shiite shrines, including the tomb of Hussein, the martyred grandson of the Prophet himself. They looted the city and carried off its wealth on the backs of 4000 camels.

In the early 20th century a similar militia movement was initiated in Saudi Arabia, called ‘Ikhwan’ The Saudi Royal family saw great guardians in these toxic movements and the notorious Bin Laden was the evil product of these two. The movement called Muslim Brotherhood also joined in this unholy war on the decencies of the Holy Prophet of Islam. India has not escaped the evil attention of this motley crowd of fanatics. Can the civilized world conquer terrorism is a worrisome question and the answer is not easily found.

Muslims must recall the Islam of pristine grandeur because its current Wahhabi version is only leading to the destruction of Islam, through the self proclaimed IS Caliphate, and its savagery, hatred and terrorism against everyone except themselves.

Leading religious muslim leaders, intellectuals and thinkers across the world must create a movement for Islam’s Renaissance, before it is destroyed by the ISIS Caliphate.