Two years and counting

Next week Modi government will have completed its two years in office and those two years have turned to be nothing less than a cauldron of unimaginable and hitherto unheard upheavals. The events and issues that arose in past two years were shrouded in an unforeseen and unpredicted surrealism. Before any dissection of past two macabre years, it would be imperative to dwell on the genesis of a phenomenon that put Modi in power as a prime minister instead of being indicted for his overt and covert acts of omission and commission while he was heading the state government of Gujarat.

The irony of Gujarat due to its history of recurrent communal violence and its shift to rabidity of communalism wouldn’t be lost on any student of history with an interest in the study of sectarian strife. The word irony was used in the context of Gujarat as being the home state of Gandhi who inspired non-violence world over. The public opinion in India under Modi has shifted towards idolization of the Nathram Godse, the man who shot Gandhi.  As a member of Hindu Mahasabha, Godse was incensed over what his organization perceived as Gandhi’s tilt towards Muslims and appeasement of Pakistan. The last act of Gandhi happened to be his fast against Indian government’s non-payment of financial dues to Pakistan in the aftermath of the partition of sub-continent. Gujarat that Modi presided had been inspired more by Godse than Gandhi. Modi acting strong against Muslim population and his well-recorded invectives caught imagination of increasingly communalized Indian population that paved his path to power at the federal level. Through application of any conventional laws, Modi would be indicted for either inciting gory killings of Muslims or at the very least for his failure to act in time to prevent mayhem under his watch. In one of the well-publicized cases, Hinduvta henchmen attacked a Muslim majority residential colony and the neighbors sought protection from a politician and former member of national parliament, Ahsan Jafri. Little did they know Mr. Jafri would himself become the symbol of atrocities committed by the men who owed their allegiance to none other than Modi?

Many say that Modi became prime minister, despite those acts in Gujarat or his aficionados would have everyone believe that it was his Gujarat model of progress and wealth, which he himself sold during a slick election campaign of 2014 in flesh and holograms. Truth be told it wasn’t despite and it most certainly was the case of in spite; it was his act of showing Muslims their right place that caught fancy of overtly Hindu epoch fed Indian middle class with a slanted sense of history. That would still require paraphernalia to make an electoral success plausible and possible. Anyone with an understanding of the machinery of government in a continental sized country would know the oversized supremacy of bureaucracy and right wing Hinduvata forces grasped that wisdom much earlier and more efficiently than anyone else. The task of infiltration of bureaucracy at all strata started in earnest early on, but that gained a zealous momentum when Jan Sangh, a forerunner of BJP entered national government as part of a conglomeration under the banner of Janata Party in 1977 following the electoral defeat of Indira Gandhi. The reality and depth of that incursion by rabid communal forces of Hinduvta was brought to light by Liberhans commission that went into events leading up to demolition of Babri Masjid. Deliberate dereliction of duty by so many officials on that day of national shame happened to be more than just an unintentional fortuitous quirk on their part.

Nevertheless, the final push towards consolidation of bureaucracy that included civilian and military, in Hinduvata column was attained through meticulously crafted process during six long years of BJP government of Vajpayee from 1999 through 2004. The fully partisan bureaucracy made change of government and ascension of Congress led UPA in many ways redundant. Though, to be on the side of fairness, the UPA government, particularly in its second term played no less part in undermining itself. That government suffered an inherent contradiction because of being run as an overtly neoliberal government that ran counter to the basic welfare agenda of Congress party. Though main blows to that government came from the partisan bureaucracy that undermined its agenda at most crucial moments through selective leakage of documents, coupled, at later stages, with RSS backed anti-corruption campaigns. By the time of 2014 elections the erstwhile government was barely creaking.

That scenario provided a fertile ground for Modi to plough into and that he did with relish of an accomplished conman by launching a fact free campaign. It was the campaign based on perversion and mauling of history that brought him to power massive mandate. That was the first time since 1984 that a single party had majority on its own.  In recent days many members of Modi government had been harping on the theme of a Congress-free India, sarcastic reality would make it amply clear the Modi through his early on acts in government made India rather BJP free through forceful retirements and brutal sidelining of doyens and veterans of that party. As a matter fact what he instead created has been a dangerous coalition of people steeped in garish personal loyalty and ultra Hinduvata rabidity personified by Ratko Mladic like Amit Shah with Modi himself as a Radovan Karadzic doppelganger and the government for past two years has run on the rabid agenda of that coalition.

If there were one feature to characterize two years of Modi government, nothing could match the phenomenon of a steep anti-intellectualism with deep-rooted hatred and loathing for scholarship. That profound hatred and distrust and in many ways fear of education or anything remotely related to it has formed running theme for the regime that continues unabated to this day.  Keeping in essence with that nihilistic agenda, mediocrity and mythology has supplanted genuine scholarship. Centers of learning and education all over the country are under attack with deliberate efforts underfoot to mold history slanted towards myth at the cost of reason and evidence. Not that the government has attained any laurels in any other sphere. The perceived precedence of foreign affairs through extravagant jamborees abroad of Modi proved nothing more than egomaniac acts trips with state of affairs involving near neighborhood in complete shambles. Any successive government, though, can correct course through different actions. But the damage through assault on education and scholarship will have affect on generations and generate crowds of intellectually handicaps; that would be the lasting and definite legacy of Modi government of two years. But those who could perceive knew exactly the kind of government India was getting, any other notion would be utter delusional.
-Rajiv Kumar

Kashmir conflict-revisited

In early1980s, walking through the lush green fields, on crisp spring and summer mornings, on my way from the student hostel to the chemistry department in Kashmir University or while looking out from the window of my room at three peaks of Zabarwan hills of mystifying beauty, my head would be bedeviled with all-consuming Kashmir issue that would linger from discussions with fellow students coming from virtually every corner of the valley. Kashmir has remained one place where one could avoid anything but being political. I grew up with a constant talk of freedom, with processions demanding self-rule and any disturbance anywhere in the world would turn into an issue against occupation of Kashmir by an external power. The perception that early years of 1980 decade were times of apparent tranquility and relative prosperity with Kashmir as a settled issue or so powers to be thought, particularly those in Delhi, was nothing more than a delusional mirage. From my interactions and discussions with people and the place, I had a lingering feeling of a reality that was at odds with canonical wisdom of the time; I harbored perennial doubts about the long term viability of an apparent mismatch that had been fostered on the place through various machinations and historical quirks. The place, to me, seemed like straddling deeply faulty political tectonic plates. The ensuing collision could not be avoided nor could the impact of the impending cataclysm be predicted. And when that collision happened it defied the worst predictions, if anyone had made any. While geological collusions occur through the course guided by forces of nature, the unscrupulous external forces and powers to be with absolute lack of imaginations hastened the eruption of political fault lines in Kashmir and result was a war that engulfed the entire populace. What had completely defied any prediction was an utter fragility and total collapse of the state even when the war was in its infancy; the later regrouping of the state came in form of a strategy based on counter insurrection that out did rebels in tactics and torture and veritably in brutality.

Completely engulfing conflict became all-consuming and not a single demographic group escaped its trepidations and effects; the war obliterated an old order or perhaps that old order failed to see its obsoleteness and that it had outlived its utility. Many from that old order either escaped or embraced new reality and for those whom neither option existed were left to fend for themselves. The armed insurrection of 1989 did not happen overnight and as a matter of fact it had been on the anvil for a long time; it was there to see for anyone who wanted to read signs. The seeds of future conflict in Kashmir were already sown the moment an instrument of accession was signed in 1947; both Indian leadership and representatives of Kashmir harbored visions that were at complete cross purposes from one another. The former more interested in an idea of a monolithic unified Indian state than anything else and the later holding to dream of an autonomous entity. One of the fundamental facts remained that accession to the Indian state never gained acceptance and legitimacy in the valley, which was further complicated by forced and inhumane demographic engineering in Jammu province at the behest of the then Dogra ruler. For Indian state it didn’t take long to lay bare its naked ambitions through dismissal of the Sheikh Abdullah government in 1953 and from then onwards all it did was to run a charade of stage managed democracy in the state. Nevertheless, the decades of 1970s and 1980s, in my opinion, were watershed in pushing the valley into the inferno of 1990s. The changed geopolitics of the subcontinent in early 1970s did not leave Kashmir unaffected and in part led to an accord of 1975 that brought Sheikh Abdullah back to power in the state, albeit, in a much diminished form.

The Indian government with its known propensity to be short sighted failed to perceive changes taking place in the international arena, in particular the revolution in Iran that overthrew Shah and eventually brought Shiite clergy headed by Ayatollah Khomeini into power and global forces unleashed in its aftermath; it continued with its unreformed vehemence in1980s in its dealing with Kashmir after the death of Sheikh Abdullah that not only alienated the people further but led to hardening of opinions against what was now seen as nothing more than an oppressive state. Twin disasters, the state governor in the form of Jag Mohan, twice over, and botched elections of 1987, could be in many ways thought as the catalysts for the disaster that befell valley in 1990s. The increased tenuousness of the situation in the valley accompanied with ever increased brutality by security forces of the state. The question whether rebellion would have been otherwise circumvented is hard to answer; the disaster, nevertheless, always lurked in the shadows owing to very faulty underpinning of the entire enterprise; perhaps the abyss into which Kashmir eventually fell, was avoidable or at least could be cushioned. The war that engulfed Kashmir has seen many narratives enumerating the causes and consequences but most of those utterly failed due to overt tendencies towards linearization and simplifications. History, as a historian friend would always scold me, is more than a mere narration of events; events affect people and they are the ones who live through the times bad and good. As a matter of fact history parallels lives of the people that live through and is best understood through their ordeals and travails. The decade of war that ravaged the valley affected lives of those who were living their ordinary existence and saw themselves caught in the vortex of cataclysmic conflict and affected them irreparably whether or not they had wished for it. The stories of those individuals constitute the history of conflict and its genesis that resulted in a lost decade and cost tens of thousands lives in deaths and disappearances. In the context of struggle, the conflict was motivated for a cause that still remains subliminal.
-Rajiv Kumar

Mufti Sayeed

Besides many attributes, Mufti Sayeed will undoubtedly be associated with an exceptional political longevity. Mufti emerged in politics of Kashmir in 1960s during a period that can be benignly termed as synthetic or artificial in a long saga of charades played out in the state. That superfluous era in Kashmir commenced with dismissal of Sheikh Abdullah from the state premiership and his subsequent long incarceration. The politics in Kashmir became permanently tethered to illegitimacy that was propped and maintained in no uncertain manner by dangling carrots and stinging sticks on the hinds of those who became willing part of that masquerade. Mufti Sayeed was part of Democratic National Conference (DNC) that came to power following the assumption of the office of Prime Minister of State by Ghulam Mohammed Sadiq in 1964 and within a year DNC transformed into local branch India’s ruling National Congress. The Prime Minister Ghulam Mohammed Sadiq, himself became Chief Minister together with a consequential transformation of the office of head of the state ‘Sadr-e-riyasat’ to that of Governor. The latter change was not merely invidious but it struck at the basic character of the state constitution. The state constitution had specific provision for head of the state as an official elected by the state legislature, in contrast to other states of the union that had governors nominated by the President of Indian Union at the recommendation of the union cabinet. That act not only eroded the unique character of the state guaranteed by the provisions of article 370 but happened to be blatantly illegal. Under the provisions of the state constitution any changes to the act could be carried out only with consent of the state constituent assembly, which had dissolved in 1957 under the chairmanship of none other than Ghulam Mohammed Sadiq.

Mufti Sayeed was very much part of that Machiavellian period that bereft of any democratic legitimacy thrived on intrigues and pleasures of the central government. He happened to be in Syed Mir Qasim group that dissented against and tried to dislodge Ghulam Mohammed Sadiq from the office until the true nature of their elected offices in the state and central legislatures was brought home to them by the then Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi. Syed Mir Qasim did become Chief Minister of the state following the death of Ghulam Mohammed Sadiq in 1972 and Mufti Sayeed a cabinet minister. The accord of 1975 saw them relinquishing their offices and Sheikh Abdullah returned as the Chief Minister. That point onwards, Mufti Sayeed played less than a savory role in the state and left himself, to be guided by narrow political and personal expediencies that had dire consequences and in many ways could be partly held responsible for the tragic era that Kashmir went on to endure. But then he was not the only politician who contributed to the greater tragedy of Kashmir. The return of Sheikh Abdullah put the minions of that synthetic era into their proper place through complete and repetitive rout in properly held state elections from 1977 onwards. Mufti himself could not escape stinging defeat at hustings in his home constituency of Bijbehara.   

Nevertheless, even after being defeated in elections, Mufti was part of the plot that led to the ouster of Farooq Abdullah government in 1984 by that divisive Jagmohan at the behest of Indira Gandhi. That still did not constitute his most unpardonable act, which would come later in form of reappointment of Jagmohan as the state governor in 1989 when militancy in the state was still in its infancy. People in their thousands had yet to die and the migrations of the Hindus had yet to start. That act of Mufti Sayeed as the Union minister had tragic consequences far beyond anyone had imagined. After having switched parties and squeezed into parliament from a constituency in UP, he was inducted into the central cabinet of V. P. Singh as the home minister, in charge of internal security. His conduct during the kidnap of his daughter and his vengeance to settle scores with Farooq Abdullah had consequences beyond tragic. Though in later years he did resurrect himself and his fledgling party in the state electoral politics that too with substantial success and became Chief Minister in 2002, a tenure that turned out to be in many ways relatively successful. Then the lure of the office and tragedy of Kashmir once again in the very late stage of his life forced him into the blunder of joining hands with communalists, which will always remain a blot on his legacy.

At personal level Mufti Sayeed was always amiable and an approachable person. He died this morning at the age of 79.

-Rajiv Kumar

Advani and his protégé

http://www.indiaresists.com/advani-and-his-protege/

Advani and his protege

The shapes of things, spawning under Modi government of over a year, are in many ways exactly that any individual with slight political perception and knowledge of communalism would have forecast. Notwithstanding his grandstanding about development and economic progress, the basic verity that Modi originates from the cauldron of rabid communal politics steeped in intolerance and with a flawed sense of history remains unchanged.  Any attempted efforts to offer Modi a veneer of statesman and manipulated exonerations by different agencies and courts of the land for his role in instigating and fanning the riot of 2002 in Gujarat come unstuck when matched with the facts and his own utterances and doings from those times. What he did or did not do in Gujarat in 2002 would in any civilized nation of the world constitute crimes against humanity. As a matter of fact, many countries deemed those nefarious actions of his as such and had denied him entry until he became the Prime Minister. And he came to power not despite rather because of his role in those riots. Any misconception about him providing a good governance with focus on economic development has by now been completely laid to rest, the country is instead almost under a siege by the hardcore Hindu communalists; they constitute the core constituency of Modi that facilitated him into the office. Marauders could brazen into homes of an ordinary citizen and bludgeon members of the family mere on suspicion of beef consumption is not much different from merciless killing of Ashan Jafri and hundreds of others in one single incidence of lynching in 2002 in Gujarat. Then as the Chief Minister and now as the Prime Minister, Modi has remained steadfast in his refusal to act or speak on the issue. He refuses to be bothered by spate of killings of secular and rationalist writers in the country and instead his henchmen are busy in shifting the blame on to the victims.

Nothing better could portray the current state affairs than Sudheendra Kulkari appearing in newspapers with a blackened face at the launch of a book by Khurshid Mahmud Kasuri, a former Pakistani foreign minister. That face was blackened by rabid right wing supporters of Shiv Sena in Mumbai who followed the act by taunting Modi for his instigation of Gujarat riots in 2002. Who else could know the truth better than the close allies? Thuggish organization has been in cahoots with Modi in turning a progressive country into a den of communal intolerance and rabidity. The victim, Sudheendra Kulkari, himself had been a member Modi’s ruling party. That incident even had veteran BJP leader, Lal Krishna Advani speak out against prevailing intolerance. Curiously, Advani’s utterances were suggestive of him as a progressive political sage. The crude and cold reality tells that for many, if not all, communal conundrums facing India, the responsibility can be directly placed on Advani. Advani for that matter is the real culprit and responsible for many mayhems and consequent communal riots. When there was a clamor for dismissal of Modi in the aftermath of 2002 massacres in Gujarat, he was saved by none other than Advani.

To keep Modi in office despite his crimes would constitute one of the many indiscretions that Advani committed during the span of his political career. His conduct stands out by two distinct yet interrelated characteristics, cynical use of communalism for petty political gains and his utter incompetence despite a sagely veneer. Keeping in with tradition of that vile organization, Lal Advani came into politics via RSS, a rabid organization famous for celebrating murder of Gandhi. Advani remained part of Jan Sangh, a forerunner of current BJP in various capacities. When that organization joined Janata Party and won the elections in 1977 in the aftermath of internal emergency, Advani became minister for information and broadcasting. While that Janata experiment lasted two years, the Jan Sangh constituent of Advani did lasting damage through facilitation of infiltration by communal elements into every strata of government. Following its reincarnation as BJP after break up of Janata Party, Advani assumed mantle of leadership following its rout in the first election after assassination of Indira Gandhi in 1984. Advani as a leader of BJP turned out to be a vintage communalist and unleashed hitherto unseen bigotry. He cynically turned a dormant issue of disputed Babri Masjid into a communal frenzy that left thousands dead in its trail. For the sake of historical accuracy, that structure was never a temple; an idol was placed in the mosque through surreptitious machinations involving Hindu Mahasabha, local bureaucrats and state government of Uttar Pradesh. None of that mattered to Advani, who in a single quest of narrow political gains vitiated the entire country. Even the congress government of Rajiv Gandhi did not lack behind in utilizing the communal polarization. Serial broadcast of Hindu epics on national television in 1980s played no less part in communalization of the country from one end to another.

When Advani’s march of rabid communalism in 1989 was interrupted in Bihar, BJP brought down the national government. In the meanwhile, electorally, the communal antics of Advani had started paying dividend. It would be still be some time before BJP would come power at the center; in the interim he presided over one of the most shameful episode that befell India. In December 1991, Lal Advani over saw the total demolition of Babri Masjid. It was not just destruction of that national monument rather the entire communal fabric of the country came apart on that day of national disgrace in which Advani played the foremost part. The irony remains that every single vile act brought BJP ever-increasing share of votes; Advani’s politics of cynicism had turned entire country into rabid and cynical. That was ground created by Advani that bred the rise of ultra-communalists and opportunists like Modi. Once BJP came to power, Advani assumed portfolio of home minister charged with internal security. His tenure as minister would always be remembered for the hijacking fiasco in which that government shamelessly handed over three terrorists in exchange for the hostages. Advani shamelessly feigned ignorance about the transpirations of hijacking saga in his memoirs despite being the minister in-charge of the internal security at the time. Everything else, however, pales in comparison to his reckless defense of Modi, which makes Advani equally accomplice in the mayhem that was carried out in Gujarat. And in many ways the current state of hyper communalism can be traced back to the cynical politics authored by Lal Advani. All Modi has done is to prove himself to be the true protege of Advani.

-Rajiv Kumar

Inhabitants of gutter

It had been only six months that Indira Gandhi had been voted out power in 1977 when 11 dalits were burnt alive in Belchi. While, the jokers of Morarji Desai government busy tearing each other apart, Indira Gandhi visited the affected area atop an elephant. That already marked the turning point leading to downfall of first non-Congress government two years later and the ultimate return of Indira Gandhi to power. That Janata government experiment provided the first opportunity for the thugs of Hinduvta to infilitrate bureaucracy and other echelons of establishment at every level as Jan Sangh, a forerunner of BJP, was a constituent of that ill-fated Janata conglomerate. Only if dumb leaders of today's Congress party had taken a leaf out Indira Gandhi's life and had openly condenmed the lynching of poor pious family man and visited the family in Dadri. The place was so close to Delhi, they didn't even need to rent an elephant. Even that despicable Shashi Tharoor, who at one time had got into non-stop chanting of paeans in Modi's worship, has not spared a thought for the victims. No wonder, it is the monsters like the uncultured minister of Modi or a third rate ideologue setting the vicious agenda for the discussion so that everyone else is dragged to their habitats in gutters.

-Rajiv Kumar

Political expediency of Indian liberals

Yesterday I posted a rhetorical question on social media whether Modi has uttered a word on the gruesome killing of a human, on the mere suspicion that the family had beef stored in their fridge. That would be naive to expect that thug to show any remorse. He until this day never showed any regret at the murder of humanity that he committed in Gujarat. A more regretful than the criminal's silence is lack of visible outrage from so called secular politicians. Where are those communists, who were vile while undermining the government of Manmohan Singh. Maybe the extant of rabid forces ultimately lies at the door of those liberals who for mere political expediency chose to ignore clear signs of impending doom. History will never forgive that rascal Prakash Karat when he chose to part company during the first term of UPA government merely based on perceived bruises to his ego. 

Or for that matter, when thugs of Hinduvta placed the most brilliant artist that India produced under siege. No liberal politician raised a single ruckus, when MF Hussain was forced to go into exile. Even so called educated idiots that I personally know tried to rationalize that shameful episode, a blot on Indian nation in most asinine manner. It is for those omissions and commissions of so called liberals, the country has come under the siege by thugs of Modi, because they let those thugs to flourish.

-Rajiv Kumar

Gujarat model

The gruesome killing of Mohd Akhlaq on the mere suspicion of beef consumption, howsoever, shocking was not completely unforeseen. Modi's rise to power was solely predicated on his criminal role in the 2002 riots in Gujarat. Notwithstanding his and his followers claims, Modi's utterances from those times are testament to his overt and covert role in instigating and fanning those mayhems under his own watch. His notoriety in those riots was something that caught fancy of Indian majority and catapulted him into power in Delhi. The Gujarat model and those dreams of development are nothing more than empty hokums. The only Gujarat model he and his henchmen and those thugs in Nagpur have in mind are the massacres of 2002; they are doing their utmost to implement that seditious design at country wide level. Gullible might have been sold to one after another shallow gimmicks of Modi, they should be assured that once he and his henchmen are done with minorities, they, the gullible, will be the only ones left to be targeted by the thugs. That time there will be none to come to their rescue. The ideal of India would be long dead.

-Rajiv Kumar

The book, the spymaster and Indian clumsiness

In all probability the number of pages filled with reviews on a memoir by the former spy on Kashmir and published by Harper Collins India by now far exceeds the pages in the book itself. As a disclosure, I have to declare I have not yet read the book. My copy is stuck somewhere in the transit. All those labored reviews and excerpts by now provide a near comprehensive picture about the contents of those memoirs. I was rather amazed at the reaction and response to the book than by the contents of the book that I know so far. The mere fact that Amar Singh Dulat, a spy with intelligence bureau and later an intelligence point man of prime minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee in Kashmir, wielded asymmetrical influence allows a peak into illegitimacy of occupation and the machinations used for its continued sustenance. The fact remains that the Indian rule in Kashmir following the illegal dismissal of government of Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah in 1953 had but a consistency of an orchestrated charade. Liberal distribution of cash and use of people from Intelligence agencies as conduits was the only way to prop up such illegitimacy to the hilt. If only those who gloat about their parts in exploits to maintain Indian rule in Kashmir by bribing and spying the same people, would pause for a moment to ruminate about the havocs wrought on the place and its people. But then the welfare of the place and people was never on their agenda, which was restricted to maintain India stranglehold on Kashmir no matter the costs and consequences.

In the matter of review of the book by the Indian spymaster, it is actually A. G. Noorani, the noted jurist, who has gone beyond and provided the context for the exploits of spymaster himself, his predecessors and successors. There couldn’t be a better-qualified person other than Noorani to write an authoritative review complete with a comprehensive context. His earlier book on the Article 370 lays bare the legal fallacy of the extension of Indian laws on the state of Jammu & Kashmir after dissolution of the state constituent assembly in late 1950s. Legal facts coupled with unambiguous political reality, no matter when and how, any presumed plebiscite on the issue of Kashmir’s accession would always have and would go against India. The Indian paraphernalia being fully aware of that reality were left with only alternative of maintaining the charade, no matter the costs and consequences. The one issue that eluded A. G. Noorani in his review or his book is that Indian surreptitiousness in dealing with the state was matched only with its clumsiness and incompetence.

There had been short periods of relative stability, no matter how superficial, when Indian state could have displayed farsightedness to resolve the matter in a peaceful manner and none of the violence that consumed hundreds of thousands of lives would have happened. Instead it wasted those times by embarking on self-congratulatory complacency and furthering Indian stranglehold in Kashmir. No one else other than Indian state is the owner of the violence that erupted in its full form in 1989. The predetermined elections then or now could have only one consequence, which already has once run its full course and nothing has been done or is being done to alter that course. The saddest part of the entire saga has been that now it is left to rabid nationalists to set agenda for Kashmir, because they happen to be the governing party in India. For them, the aspirations of people in Kashmir never had any value. When Pervez Musharraf offered them discussion on the issue in Agra, the then Indian prime minister, Vajpayee enacted disappearance despite being the host with active nudge from hyperventilating hardliner, L. K. Advani. The same brigade of nationalists upped their ante when a possibility of breakthrough arose between Man Mohan Singh and Musharraf. What would be or is bewildering, is that people of Kashmir ever gave a space in their minds to the notion that solution would come from Modi, the current prime minister of India who assumed office not despite but because of his brazenness towards minorities, Muslims in particular as demonstrated in Gujarat riots of 2002. 

   

Pathetic Shashi Tharoor

Whenever I see Shashi Tharoor's name, a quote attributed to John Quincy Adam comes to mind, which is "an erudition without a measurable grace is worthless". Recently he has been a subject of huge adulation for his performance at an academic debate at Oxford University. He was articulate with total command of facts. Just for the record, that debate was purely academic and the British government is not anytime soon going to hand over reparations to India just because Shashi Tharoor apparently won that debate. A pertinent but crucial issue that merits consideration is that where was his articulation and erudition when he was a member of previous UPA government. If anyone remembers during that time all he did was to embarrass himself and his government. Now ever since the ascendancy of Modi to power, all Shashi Tharoor has been doing is to shamelessly ingratiate himself with Modi who is running a bigoted, divisive and retrograde government. If Shashi Tharoor were a true scholar, he wouldn't become an apologist for the regime that loathes scholarship.