The BJP’s decision to pull out of the alliance in Jammu and Kashmir has led to recrimination on all sides. The junior minister for home affairs responded to criticism from the Congress president with a tweet: “Sardar Patel ji solved all other regions. Nehru ji took charge of Kashmir & created more trouble”. Kiren Rijiju was evidently taking his cue from the Prime Minister, who claimed in Parliament earlier this year that “if Sardar Patel had become the prime minister, today a part of our beloved Kashmir would not have been under Pakistani occupation”. Such assertions are of a piece with the larger attempt of the BJP to co-opt Patel and counter pose him with Nehru at every turn. But they scarcely comport with well-established facts of the matter.
Start with the notion that Nehru called the shots on Kashmir, while Patel dealt exclusively with the rest of the states. At the time of Independence, the future of three princely states remained unresolved in terms of their accession to India or Pakistan: Junagadh, Hyderabad and Kashmir. Declassified documents, including records of cabinet and defence committee meetings, make it abundantly clear that both Nehru and Patel were closely involved in handling these three states. To be sure, they had their differences of opinion, approach and style, but these were worked through by extensive consultation.
Take the oft-criticised decision to approach the UN on Pakistan’s aggression in Kashmir. Patel was, in principle, opposed to the idea of referring such issues to the UN. When Mountbatten had suggested this with reference to Junagadh, Patel had demurred: “There was a grave disadvantage in being a plaintiff in such cases. Possession was nine cases of the law”. On that occasion, Nehru had agreed with Patel. Indeed, with both Junagadh and Hyderabad, Nehru was entirely on board to use force when diplomacy failed to deliver. The case of Kashmir, however, was different.
By late December 1947, it was clear to the Indian leadership that the tribal invaders could only be rolled back if the Indian Army struck across the boundary in Punjab and hit their bases. This meant all-out war with Pakistan. Against the backdrop of the horrendous massacres and population movement accompanying Partition, Nehru felt that a war with Pakistan could unleash further waves of communal violence with disastrous consequences.
To avoid this military option, Nehru reluctantly agreed to Mountbatten’s suggestion to refer the matter to the UN. Patel went along with it despite his earlier qualms, as did other cabinet members. Syama Prasad Mookerjee, the founder of Jana Sangh, would later concede in Parliament: “I was a party when the decision was taken to refer the Kashmir issue to the UNO … That is an obvious fact. I have no right and I do not wish to disclose the extraordinary circumstances under which the decision was taken”. Alas, such fidelity to elementary facts hasn’t rubbed off on his successors.
The claim that Patel would have secured all of Kashmir also flies against his own willingness to compromise at various points. Indeed, Patel believed that Hyderabad was of greater interest than Kashmir. Until late 1947, he was open to allowing Kashmir’s accession to Pakistan if the Pakistanis would tell the Nizam of Hyderabad to fall in line and join India. As he told Pakistan’s Prime Minister Liaquat Ali Khan, “Why do you compare Junagadh with Kashmir? Talk of Hyderabad and Kashmir and we could reach an agreement”. Patel even stated this publicly after the occupation of Junagadh on 11 November 1947: “Our reply was that one could agree on Kashmir if they could agree on Pakistan.” At another meeting with Liaquat on 28 November, Patel offered to pull Indian troops out of Poonch if it would help pave the way for a diplomatic settlement. But Nehru opposed this course.
By the summer of 1948, after the Pakistan Army was fully engaged in Kashmir, Nehru concluded that the conditions for a plebiscite in the state were unlikely to be met and hence the best solution would be to partition the state on the basis of the “existing military situation”. Patel wholly agreed. Partition, he observed, would offer “a permanent, immediate and realistic settlement”. Parts of Poonch and Gilgit could go to Pakistan, while India retained the rest of the state. The Pakistanis were, however, unwilling to countenance the suggestion.
On the internal aspects of the Kashmir issue, too, Nehru and Patel worked closely together despite their differing emphases. Take, for instance, the drafting of Article 370 of the Indian constitution that accorded special status to Jammu and Kashmir. The actual negotiations were carried out over several months between N.G. Ayyangar (cabinet minister without portfolio and former Dewan of Kashmir) and Sheikh Abdullah and his senior colleagues. These were difficult negotiations, but Nehru seldom took a step without Patel’s concurrence.
The opening meetings took place on 15-16 May 1949 at Patel’s residence in Nehru’s presence. When Ayyangar prepared a draft letter from Nehru to Abdullah summarising the broad understanding reached, he sent it to Patel with a note: “Will you kindly let Jawaharlalji know direct as to your approval of it? He will issue the letter to Sheikh Abdullah only after receiving your approval”.
Later, Abdullah insisted that the article should not extend the fundamental rights and directive principles to Jammu and Kashmir but leave it to the state’s constituent assembly to decide whether or not to adopt them. Patel was unhappy but allowed Ayyangar to proceed. At this time, Nehru was abroad. When the Prime Minister returned, Patel wrote to him: “After a great deal of discussion, I could persuade the [Congress] party to accept”. When Abdullah threatened to resign from Constituent Assembly owing a lingering disagreement, Patel asked Nehru to intercede.
Sardar Patel was thus the architect of the Article 370. Historical howlers aside, there is a delicious irony in the BJP’s attempt to claim him for itself while simultaneously seeking to overturn his effort to ensure genuine autonomy for Jammu and Kashmir within the Indian constitution.
Easter Sunday Massacre in Sri Lanka
By Lukman Harees
What happened in Sri Lanka on this black Easter Sunday, in a series of well-orchestrated and coordinated terror attacks on churches and other locations, is an unforgivable and brutal tragedy of catastrophic proportions. A deadly wave of suicide bombings ripped through many churches and few leading hotels in the capital Colombo, as well as in many other parts of the country, making, an otherwise serene, ‘Easter Sunday’ the darkest day in recent history. At least 290 people were reported killed, with 500 injured in this dastardly terror attack. The spate of senseless killings and terror attacks on innocent civilians, on a day when Christians were engaged in reflection and prayer, deserves severe condemnation by people of all faiths, which brought back ugly memories of the bloody chapter of an inhumane war which engulfed Sri Lanka for over three decades in its recent history. It is the height of depravity to target worshippers on their holiest days, proving that terrorists have no race or religion, and that perpetrators of these terror attacks speak for no one but themselves.
The Easter Sunday massacre was certainly a shocking tragedy. Sri Lanka appears to be heading towards another chapter of terror and violence after a period of relative peace and calmness since the end of a bloody war in 2009. However, what causes much concern and fear is that the potency of terror lies not in the act but in the aftermath. The act is death and destruction, horrendous in itself. The response is what gives it political traction. All that the terrorists want is the oxygen of publicity and for the nation to go berserk, declare emergencies, tear up freedoms, and organise attacks on the people at the grass-root levels who have nothing to do with the massacre, thus, creating mayhem in the already wounded nation by the scars of war. By capitulating to these desires, the country would vastly increase the power of terror – and the likelihood of imitation.
The government has imposed a state of emergency and a curfew to maintain law and order, as well as to prevent communal tensions, as there are fears that the Easter Sunday bombings could spark fresh sectarian violence. The state of emergency will grant police and the military extensive powers to detain and interrogate without court orders and was in force at various times during the civil war that raged from 1983 to 2009. As well as this, there are bans placed upon social media to prevent any dissemination of conspiracy theories and misinformation. Still, the government and intelligence services are being blamed for ignoring many prior warnings regarding preparations for an operation of this magnitude. One of the local militant groups immediately accused of orchestrating the massacre was National ThowheedJama’ath (NTJ), which was reportedly warned of by local Muslims, according to a top Sri Lankan police officer.
However, the more worrying aspect is rather the very nature, patterns, timing, planning, and execution of these despicable attacks. They clearly show tell-tale signs of a greater machination at work beyond mere cat’s paw involvement, aimed at creating further mayhem and disharmony among people who are recovering from the wounds of war and post-war communal violence. There are many factors which cause concern: the fact that many churches and members of one religious group were targeted; the manner in which the attacks had been orchestrated simultaneously across Sri Lanka (the level of ‘sophistication’ of which was not seen even in the days of the ruthless Tamil Tigers); and the targeting of leading tourist hotels in the capital. They bear the hallmarks of expertise and professionalism, perhaps with international affiliations and a vested political and economic agenda, rather than the work of ordinary lone wolves, psychopaths, or a small hate group; which raises much suspicion about the possibilities of many ‘outside’ interests.
‘Terrorism’ is far from a new phenomenon – neither in Sri Lanka nor elsewhere in the world. ‘Terrorism’ is nothing but the random murder of defenceless non-combatants, with the intent of instilling fear of mortal danger amidst a civilian population as a strategy designed to advance political ends. A philosopher Ted Honderich, in his controversial book ‘After the Terror’, says, “their (victims) deaths were not the first intention of their killers, but necessary in the carrying out of another intention, a justified one. Their very first intention may indeed be, achieving their political ends.” Thus, there is no doubt that terrorism, as Honderich suggests, is a subset of politically motivated violence that falls short of conventional war, and is both internationally illegal and, to say the least, morally questionable. It is, therefore, not possible to discount the possibility of political scheming too in carrying out this despicable Easter Sunday massacre, in order to gain narrow political ends and stay in power, especially when talks of another round of elections are in the air.
In the backdrop of these untoward developments, Muslims of Sri Lanka, who have also been regular victims of terror in the post-war period, are now in a renewed state of fear and insecurity. With media sensationalism playing both locally and globally—borrowing ideas from a powerful Islamophobia industry—the emerging situation shows signs of a social volcano waiting to erupt. It is too early to find out the intricate details of what led to this shameful chapter in the history of this Island, the Pearl of the Indian Ocean. However, in this confusing scenario, the peaceful mainstream Muslims now wake up to the reality that it is imperative, even belatedly, that they stand up to and confront the evil of a small fringe group amongst them. For the moment, both Muslims in Sri Lanka, as well as Muslim diaspora groups worldwide, are expressing their solidarity and offering support with their grieving Christian neighbours and other victims of this tragedy. This is undoubtedly the most challenging chapter in Sri Lanka’s recent history, and there is now an increase of public activism Sri Lanka, which asks the country’s political and religious leaders to follow the example of New Zealand Prime Minster Arden, whose calmness, compassion, and tough leadership style were praised by observers in the wake of the worst mass killing in her country’s modern history.Something must also be said about the stark contrast between the global reaction to the destruction of symbols of European Christianity in the form of the Notre Dame fire and the destruction of non-European dark-skinned Christian bodies and lives. Let this be food for thought.
Sri Lanka will have to figure out how to move forward so that events like this one do not recur. Things like ‘terrorism’ are complex issues of our time, and as other countries around the world have seen, they lack clear solutions: gun bans do not end violence; cracking down on social media does little to deter racism or hatred, and stigmatisation and demonising communities do not work. On the contrary, it is a concerted plan of action and public activism, across racial or religious divides that is needed. They will do the right things: avoid emotional outbursts, ensure people are alert to the evil elements amongst them, expose this evil, and forge unity among people to confront it, all whilst ensuring common values of humanity are protected at all costs. For the mainstream Muslims of Sri Lanka showing solidarity and resoluteness in healing the scars of the wounded nation, the foremost challenge is to project the real message of Islam in the public domain, confronting false propaganda media narratives from the clutches of radical and ‘extremist’ elements. As MuizBukhary, a well-known Sri Lankan scholar, says: “we need to work hard to put things right”.
Faith and Enlightenment Should Go Hand In Hand
By Zafar Aziz Chaudhry
In the early part of this month, during my sojourn to the Holy Land, the question which perplexed me most was whether there was a real connection between enlightenment and faith, and whether in their genesis these two are all-embracing or mutually exclusive. My deep reflections on various texts of the Holy Quran, and some references gathered from history did reaffirm my belief that they are mutually inclusive and do not conflict with each other. In fact for the future survival of Muslim nations with grace and dignity in competition with the rest of the world, it should be clearly understood that there is no schism between these two concepts. Rather an enlightened world-view is likely to rub off the accumulated centuries-old rust on the other-wise pristine fabric of Islam.
The European intellectual movement of the late 17th and 18th centuries emphasized reason and individualism rather than tradition. It was heavily influenced by philosophers such as Descartes, Locke, and Newton, and its prominent figures included Kant, Goethe, Voltaire, Rousseau, and Adam Smith. It was a revolt against Man’s self-imposed tendency not to use his own understanding and only to follow tradition. It stressed reason, logic, criticism, and freedom of thought over dogma, blind faith, and superstition. In a broader sense, Enlightenment applied scientific reasoning to politics, science, and religion. Its followers were typically humanists who supported equality and human dignity, and it is wrong to suppose that enlightenment is in any manner opposed to religion. On the other hand, it acts as a bulwark against superstition, intolerance, and bigotry which have brought bad name to religions.
Despite their different approaches, science and religion are also complementary. It is said that science can help you diagnose and treat your cancer, but it cannot touch the despair and dismay and terror you feel when you get the diagnosis, nor can it help you to die well. For that people turn to religion, which answers the deeper questions of our human predicament.
The survival of religion in the 21st century, according to Karen Armstrong, largely depends on its capacity to create compassion for the fellow human beings which is the ultimate object of religion.
But unfortunately religion is mostly misunderstood in our time due to our inability to take historical perspective of the social, cultural, intellectual, and emotional settings that shaped people’s lives and actions in the past. Such an understanding which is often termed as “historical empathy” helps us to understand the vast differences between us in the present and those in the past. Compassion also teaches us to transcend our limited world-view and place ourselves in the cultural and social environments of the past.
The Holy Prophet by his conduct and precepts has been admittedly one of the greatest and most influential personages in history and we Muslims believe that the Holy Quran, his revealed message to humanity, is a marvel of wisdom for the mankind. But the fate of Muslims everywhere is most pathetic, the responsibility for which can be traced in Islamic history.
The first shock after the death of the Holy Prophet on the question of his succession resulted in the tragic split between the Sunnies and Shias which also in due course divided the Islamic countries into two blocks.. The next significant setback which reversed the Islamic clock occurred during the Abbasid period when philosophers like al-Ghazali (1058-1111 AD) fiercely opposed the Mu’tazilites practice of subjecting Islamic theology to rationalism which led the Abbasids to ban the Mu’tazilites. Islam’s vitality and appeal was gravely affected by the resurgence of literalist interpretations of Sharia (that treats man-made laws as divine) and the worsening of sectarian cleavages within Islam which has set in motion a perpetual cycle of violence that directly endangers the lives of ordinary Muslims everywhere.
Within a century of Holy Prophet’s death his followers had built an empire that stretched from Spanish Europe to Central Asia. The Rashidin caliphate can be credited for military expansion, but It was not until the Umayyad Dynasty-from 661 to 750-that Islamic and Arabic culture began to truly spread. The Abbasid Dynasty-from 750 to 1258-intensified and solidified these cultural changes.
The Golden period of knowledge in Islam began during the reign of the Abbasid caliph Harun al-Rashid (786 to 809) when he invited scholars from various parts of the world with different cultural backgrounds and mandated them to gather and translate all of the world’s classical knowledge into the Arabic language. This resulted into an astonishing growth of philosophers and scientists such as IbneRushd (translated Aristotle, and wrote books on Islamic jurisprudence) Al-Kindi (discovered rules of astronomy and optics) Khwarizmi (Father of Algebra and mathematics) IbneSina (Father of Medicine, astronomy and Logic) who ushered in a golden era of knowledge.
Ironically the dark age of Europe coincided with golden age of Islam. But it was the most tragic turn in the history of Islam that the fruits of hard labours of these philosophers and scientists could not reach the Islamic society because of the opposition to rational thought by the jurists and clergymen of the day and lack of wisdom and vision of their rulers who opposed a rational underpinning of Islam – analogous to St. Thomas Aquinas who lent rationality to Christianity in the Middle Ages. The theologians like Al-Ghazali and IbneTaimiyya refused to accept scientific change and discoveries and forced the Khalifa to ban Mu’tazilites who were advocates of rational thought. It was contrary to the teachings of the Quran and precepts of the Holy Prophet who had made no such restrictions on the acquisition of knowledge. According to the saying of the Prophet, Muslims were to seek knowledge even if they had to go to China.
The Islamic state also failed to patronize these polymaths by refusing them enough funds for their research etc under fear of reaction from the reactionary forces. But most importantly, contrary to the injunctions of the Holy Quran, the local jurists divided the concept of knowledge into two broad and disjunctive categories as “Ilm Ad-Din” (= religious knowledge) and “Ilm Ad-Dunya” (= worldly knowledge). Neither in the Quran nor in the authentic books of Hadith was there any such division allowed in the acquisition of knowledge. Islamic sources declare knowledge as an indivisible whole.
The Golden period of spread of knowledge ended with the collapse of the Abbasid caliphate due to Mongol invasions and the Siege of Baghdad in 1258 AD.
Even during the Ottoman Empire, nothing was done for promotion and development of science and technology, perhaps because the Emperors thought that it would be a threat to the opulence of the monarchs. On the other hand, a blunder was done through a wretched Fatwa, which banned the printing press in the Empire which remained in force for over 200 years. This left Islamic world in the dark when West sailed away with renaissance and enlightenment.
Thus there are enough grounds to believe that for the survival of Islamic civilization, faith and enlightenment should go hand in hand.
Losing Hope in God’s Mercy
By Ejaz Naqvi
Ever since I was a child, I used to hear the sermons trying to instill the ‘fear of God’ in me, whereby the Imams will warn us to be straight or else! Decades later, as I started to study the Qur’an myself, the kind and forgiving nature of God became so apparent making me wonder why the focus of the clerics was so much on the wrath of God.
I would hear multiple times ‘the correct way’ to greet, the correct way to bathe, the correct way to step into the bathroom, the correct way to enter the mosque, the correct way to offer Salat and fast and so on. If I didn’t, I was risking having all my good deeds deleted. If I erred a little, I would face the anger of God. The “right path” was so narrow that it would be impossible not to stumble and fall out of the mercy of God.
It is true that the Qur’an is full of warnings for the wrongdoers. But it is also full of the good news. In fact the prophets, including Prophet Muhammad, are often referred to as Basheer (bearer of good news) and Nazeer (the warners). For some reason, the clerics got stuck mostly on the Nazeer part.
Growing up, I thought I would never ever be able to make it and be on the good side of the Lord. No matter how hard I worked, if I stumbled a little, all my good deeds would be washed away. It was as if God had his finger on the ‘delete’ button and ever so ready to use it. The truth is that He does have his finger on the ‘delete button’, but it is our sins and wrong actions that He is so willing to delete!
To be perfectly honest, I still don’t know if ‘I made it’. Only God knows that. Only God is the Judge.
However, I am actually much more hopeful of God’s mercy. I realize the most commonly repeated attributes of God in the Qur’an are Rehmaan (the Most Gracious) and Raheem (the Most Merciful).
And in terms of God deleting the good deeds, the fact is that the Qur’an is full of passages on God’s Mercy and His Forgiveness. This verse says it all.
Say: “O my Servants who have transgressed against their souls! Despair not of the Mercy of Allah: for Allah forgives all sins: for He is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful. 39:53
We tend to forget that in Islam, one of the biggest sins is to lose hope in God’s mercy! The exegetist differs in their opinion if this verse was revealed in reference to a particular group of Muslims or a larger group or the entire humanity. Many do believe it is addressed to all ‘servants’ and all humans are considered His servants.
And whoever does evil or acts unjustly to his soul, then ask forgiveness of Allah, he shall find Allah Forgiving, Merciful. 4:110
There are other passages that clearly state that everyone will be rewarded for even an atom’s worth of good deed.
‘Acting unjustly to his own soul’ or ‘transgressed against their souls’ refers to the fact that if we do wrong, we only hurt ourselves.
One way I look at the Qur’an is that it gives us plenty of information and education on the consequences of breaking the law, as well as obeying the law.
I realize the Day of Judgment is also called the Day of Reckoning (Yaum e Hissab), so I am accountable for my actions (and inactions). It is also very true that the Qur’an’s description of the punishment for the wrongdoers and deniers of God’s signs is rather graphic but its description of the reward and mercy for those who believe AND do good work is also repetitive and I would argue more prevalent. The Qur’an acknowledges that humans are not angels and that we are prone to sin, and therefore calls for us to repent and ask for forgiveness. The greatest sin in Islam is considered to be associating partners with God. That sin cannot be forgiven, except when one repents.
Surely God does not forgive that anything should be associated with Him, and forgives what is besides that to whomsoever He pleases; and whoever associates anything with God, he devises indeed a great sin. 4:48
Many of the ’99 Names of God’ refer to His forgiveness.
Al-Wadud: The Loving One
Al-Ghaffar: The Forgiving
Al-Ghafur: The Forgiver and the Hider of Faults
Al-Afu: The Forgiver- this refers to forgiving as in ‘rubbing off’ or in deletion of sins as if they never occurred!
Al-Rau’f: The Clement (Lenient)/Kind
Like the Qur’an, the Old Testament is also sometimes viewed as a bearer of a wrathful God, ready to set everything ablaze. But it too makes many references to God’s forgiveness and mercy.
Then the Lord passed by in front of him and proclaimed, “The Lord, the Lord God, compassionate and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in loving kindness and truth; who keeps loving kindness for thousands, who forgives iniquity, transgression and sin; yet He will by no means leave the guilty unpunished, visiting the iniquity of fathers on the children and on the grandchildren to the third and fourth generations.” Exodus 34:6-7
Similarly the Gospels make references to forgiveness on numerous occasions- even more so then the Old Testament. Salvation and forgiveness are integral part of Christianity. The Gospels add another element- to forgive each other so God can forgive us- something that is part of the revered ‘Lord’s prayer’ as taught in Matthew 6:9-13 and Luke 11:2-4
….and forgive us our sins, as we forgive those who sin against us. Luke 11:4 and Matthew 6:12
Of course I don’t want to ‘take advantage’ of Lord’s forgiveness and continue to wrong myself. But I do realize we are all humans and that I will err. When I do, I will never lose hope in his immense mercy and His forgiveness. That’s the biggest hope out there no matter what they say!