HISTORY TELLS US THAT WE ARE LILY WHITE

(But, according to most people in the world including Indians, that is not the case with other countries, particularly in respect of adversaries. But then their history books say the same. The background for inculcating this belief is because History (books) taught in schools/colleges of each country has to be approved by its Government. And no Government is going to admit easily that it was wrong in the past. Further, Governments wittingly or unwittingly eulogize Governments’ actions in the past whereas history of adversaries is depicted in none too positively).

It is reported in the newspapers that among other things history taught in Pakistan school contain the following:

‘ The British began….in conjunction with Hindus, to greatly suppress Muslims.’ Muhammad Ali ( Jinnah ) felt Hindus wanted to make Muslims slaves. As he hated slavery, he left Congress…………….. India, with the help of Hindus living in East Pakistan, instigated people living there, and in Dec. 1971 invaded ….. All of us should receive military training and be prepared to fight the enemy……….In the 1971 India-Pakistan war, the Pakistan armed forces created new records of bravery and the Indian forces were defeated everywhere.

The British had the objective to takeover India and to achieve this, they made Hindus join them and Hindus were very glad to side with the British. After capturing the sub-continent, the British began on the one hand loot of all the things produced in this area, and on the other in conjunction with Hindus, to greatly suppress the Muslims.

Their ( Muslim saints ) teachings dispelled many superstitions of the Hindus and reformed their bad practices. Thereby Hindu religion of the olden times came to an end.

And so on and so forth.

Long back, when countries were ruled by kings, courtiers had no other choice ( the king could behead them ) but to laud their kings and even when this or that king was defeated in a war, cover up the defeat. On to modern history. Kings continued to rule some countries. Some were ruled by Governments of various hues. Courtiers were replaced by Government machinery. Paeans of praise were replaced by cover ups and justifications.

The above position has to be expected. German History books ( As said above, history books in most, if not all, countries have to be approved by the respective governments ) cannot state that it started a mindless war. American history writing cannot question the justification of why the atom bomb was dropped on Japan instead of on Germany which was the main villain for the holocaust or that it was foolhardy for America to go to war in Korea or Vietnam. Objective writing by Historians of any country ran the risk of creating animosity with the Government and readers, the latter group also wanting to see their history from the prism of partisanship. It is only during the last five or six decades that books with somewhat objective enumeration of history by independent historians are available for the public. But Government has to stick to the position taken on any matter.

The matter is further complicated by the fact that Governments usually put out only their versions on the stand taken by Government and the supporting arguments for that stand. Counter views of other countries are not highlighted. Unfortunately fourth estate, either because of lethargy to ascertain facts from the other side or to be on the right side of Government or taking the view that ‘ our country ‘ must be right, do not publish contrarians views.

The somewhat elaborate preface as above was required for the reader to have better understanding of what is explained below.

Major events in the Indian history in the 20th century

1. Our independence from British yoke

British was forced to leave India by the agitation started by the people of India. That is our claim and history. But there is another theory and that is that British had decided to leave India at some stage of our starting the agitation. Had the British wanted, it could have recruited more people to the Army and repressed the agitation. But the folklore of our agitation winning freedom from British is ear soothing and gladdening our hearts, that we would not like to dwell too deeply on such matters.

2. Partition

For agreeing to have a united India ( including Pakistan ), Jinnah bargained for the post of the first Prime Minister of United India and further demanded a few of his Muslim friends being given important portfolios in the Cabinet. Gandhiji was fully aware of the unreasonableness of the demand. Yet to ensure that the country remains a single unit, Gandhiji was inclined to accept the proposal, though the Congress was strongly opposed to the demand. To be fair to Congress, it was an unreasonable demand. And further nobody at that time envisaged that bifurcation of the country would lead to such a large scale carnage immediately in the after math of partition of the unified country. It spawned mistrust between the two countries and populace of the same and culminating in military skirmishes and wars. Yet another offshoot of the carnage was the polarization of Muslims and Hindus in India.

3. Annexation of the erstwhile independent countries as States of India and Pakistan

Under the Indian Independence Act each princely State had the choice of joining either India or Pakistan. Obviously the choice of each princely State would be spelt out by the Government of the state, which meant the ruler ( king ) of the state.

But what actually happened was as below:

Kashmir: The ruler of Kashmir indicated that it wanted to join India. So India sent troops to Kashmir to thwart the move by Pakistan ( through liberation forces ) to annex Kashmir with Pakistan. India succeeded in this, though a small part got occupied by Pakistan. Subsequently the issue came up before the UN and India agreed to hold a plebiscite. However, the plebiscite was never held.

(After 60 years of Kashmir being part of India, holding elections there as in other parts of the country, spending much more money there than any where else in the country, giving a special status to that State ( No Indian can own property there ), posting a large contingent of military there for the protection of Kashmiris, Government of India is wary of holding a plebiscite in Kashmir on whether the people there want to opt to be part of India or Pakistan or an independent country, though the last option was not part of Indian Independence Act. It is difficult for Kashmir to exist, much less progress, if it becomes an independent country, given its geography, infra structure, economic development, etc., Yet, Government of India is not confident whether Kashmiris would vote for continuing to be part of India, should a plebiscite is held ).

Junagarh: The Nawab of Junagarh ( a Muslim ) declared that his State would join Pakistan. Majority of the people of Junagarh were Hindus. Indian forces moved to Junagarh and occupied the state. Then, to confirm the legitimacy of India’s action, India held a plebiscite in which overwhelming majority of people voted for joining India. ( Note he difference in the approach of India between Kashmir on the one hand and Junagarh on the other )

Hyderabad: The Nizam of Hyderabad wanted to continue Hyderabad as an independent country. The Nizam also started some dialogue with Pakistan. Indian Government through police action annexed Hyderabad on the ground that there cannot be an independent country surrounded by Indian regions.

Goa: Goa was ruled by Portugal for a long time. Portugal was not in favour of Goa joining India. In the 60s, people of Goa started agitation for Goa joining India. On the ground (pretext) of ensuring peace, India marched police forces to Goa. Government of Portugal, probably felt that with Indian police force in Goa and indications of Indian Army marching to Goa, it may be better to allow Goa to join India. And this happened.

Pondichery and Mahe: These were French colonies within India. French voluntarily decided to allow these regions becoming part of India.

Summation: Strategically all actions taken by India, as above, were in the interests of India. Morality was not the issue. These were pragmatic actions. The will of the rulers or wishes of people were not the prime criteria. It is all history now. Yet, the fact remains that India cannot take a ‘ holier than thou attitude ‘ on such matters.




4. Arunachal Pradesh
Before British annexation in 1858, most of the region of now christiand Arunachal Pradesh was more or less under the loose control of Tibet and Bhutan.
In 1913-1914 representatives of China, Tibet and Britain ( meaning British Goernment ruling India ) negotiated a treaty in India: the Simla Convention.. British administrator, Sir Henry McMahon, drew up the 550 mile (890 km) McMahon Line as the border between British India and Outer Tibet during the Simla Conference. The Tibetan and British representatives at the conference agreed to the line, which ceded Tawang and other Tibetan areas to the imperial British Empire.The Chinese representative had no problems with the border between British India and Outer Tibet. However on the issue of the boder between Outer Tibet and Inner Tibet the talks broke down. Thus, the Chinese representative refused to accept the agreement and walked out. The Tibetan Government and British Government went ahead with the Simla Agreement and declared that the benefits of other articles of this treaty would not be bestowed on China as long as it stays out of the purview. The Chinese position since then has been that since China had suzerainty over Tibet, the line was invalid without Chinese agreement. Furthermore, by refusing to sign the Simla documents, the Chinese Government had escaped according any recognition to the validity of the McMahon Line.
The situation developed further as India became independent and the People's Republic of China was established in the late 1940s. With the China poised to take over Tibet, India unilaterally declared the McMahon Line to be the boundary in November 1950, However, China never recognized the McMahon Line which meant that China did not accept the position of the whole of present Arunachal Pradesh being part of India.
In a nutshell, the stand of Indian Government is that Arunachal Pradesh is an integral part of India and that has been the position for long. However, China disputes this position.


5. Creation of Bangladesh

After the creation of Pakistan, with two segments, one in the West and another in the East ( which later became Bangladesh ), East Pakistanis noticed that whenever one of them was elected as Prime Minister of Pakistan, he was swiftly deposed by the Pakistan Government ( essentially establishment manned by West Pakistanis ). Secondly, East Pakistan received a step motherly treatment on various matters from the Government of Pakistan.

The situation reached a climax in 1970 when the Awami League, the largest East Pakistani political party, led by Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, won a landslide victory in the national elections. The party won 167 of the 169 seats allotted to East Pakistan, and thus a majority of the 313 seats in the National Assembly. This gave the Awami League the constitutional right to form a government. However, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto (a Sindhi), the leader of the Pakistan Peoples Party, refused to allow Rahman to become the Prime Minister of Pakistan. Instead, he proposed the idea of having two Prime Ministers, one for each wing.
Repression of the people, particularly Hindus, of East Pakistan started by the Armed forces of West Pakistan stationed in East Pakistan. Refugees started pouring into India, creating a major problem for India.
India also started indirect assistance to liberation movement of East Pakistan. Apprehending further involvement of India in the affairs of East Pakistan, Government of Pakistan attacked India on the Western side. India declared war with Pakistan and liberated East Pakistan from the rulers of West Pakistan.
Hence essentially the reasons for India attacking Pakistan were two: (1) Influx of large number of refugees from East Pakistan to India, and (2) Pakistan’s attack of India on the Western side. ( However, many of the observers of the developments on this subject were of the view that India wanted to vivesect Pakistan and also weaken Pakistan.) By going to war and winning the same, the then Government of India ( which meant the Congress Party ) also received encomiums from the people of India.
Pakistan never forgot and never forgave India for the creation of Bangladesh.

6. Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam ( LTTE ), Sri Lanka


· Sri Lanka became an independent country in 1948.
· Population: 70% Budhists, 15% Hindus, 8% Muslims & 7% Christians
· Tamil population in Sri Lanka: 5% ( 8.55 lakhs )
· Historically Sri Lankan monarchs had used the services of South Indian labour since centuries BC. Further, Tamils in large numbers came to Sri Lanka in the 19th and 20th centuries essentially to work in plantations. In 1964 a large percentage were expatriated back to India most of whom were then absorbed as workers in Tamil Nadu Tea plantions.
· The socio economic indicators of the Tamil community was amongst the worst in the country. The community in general was isolated with little contact with Sinhalese, which consistituted the major ethnic people of Sri Lanka.
· LTTE was formed in the 70s to carve out an independent Tamil State ( country ).
· 31 countries ( India among them ) have currently proscribed LTTE on the ground of it being a terrorist organisation.
· In 1987, faced with growing anger amongst its ( India’s ) own Tamils, and a flood of refugees to India, India intervened directly in the conflict for the first time by initially airdropping food parcels into Jaffna ( by way of helping Tamils).
· After subsequent negotiations, India and Sri Lanka entered into an agreement. The peace accord assigned a certain degree of regional autonomy in the Tamil areas with Eelam People's Revolutionary Liberation Front (EPRLF) controlling the regional council and called for the Tamil militant groups to lay down their arms.
· Furthermore, India was to send a peacekeeping force, named the Indian Peace Keeping Force (IPKF) to Sri Lanka to enforce the disarmament of Tamils and to watch over the regional council.
· That led to LTTE getting itself engaged in military conflict with the Indian Army. Indian Army launched number of assaults on the LTTE. The ruthlessness of this campaign, and the Indian army's subsequent anti-LTTE operations made it extremely unpopular amongst many Tamils in Sri Lanka.
· The Indian intervention was also unpopular amongst the Sinhalese majority, and the IPKF became bogged down in the fighting with the Tamil Tigers for over 2 years, experiencing heavy losses. IPKF left Sri Lanka in 1990 on request of the Sri Lankan government.
· Fighting continued throughout the 1990s, and was marked by two key assassinations carried out by the LTTE, that of former Indian Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi in 1991, and Sri Lankan President Ranasinghe Premadasa in 1993.
· In 2001 the LTTE dropped its demand for a separate state. Instead, they stated that a form of regional autonomy would meet their demands In March 2002 both sides signed an official Ceasefire Agreement. As part of the agreement, Norway and the other Nordic countries agreed to jointly monitor the ceasefire through the Sri Lanka Monitoring Mission.
· Even though LTTE was formed as a military group, it later transformed itself to a de facto Government. LTTE controls sections in the north of the island,. LTTE has implemented a judicial system and has also established a police force Another state function of the LTTE administration is social welfare. This humanitarian assistance arm is funded by tax collection internally . LTTE has also established an education and health sector that offers services to the people under their control. They have also created a human rights organization, called Northeast Secretariat on Human Rights, that functions to advocate the rights of Tamils.
· In 1984, LTTE created a unit of female squad called the Freedom Birds. This unit was the first group of women to be given military training in India ( Tamil Nadu ).
Summing up
· Present position is that Sinhalese and Tamils as well as Srilankan Government and LTTE are wary of Indian Government.
· People and Government of Tamil Nadu are sympathetic to the cause of LTTE and have been influencing Government of India to take pro active approach in protecting the intersts of Tamilians in Sri Lanka and also LTTE.
· In Tamil Nadu politics, particularly in respect of vote banks, LTTE issue is an extremely sensitive one.
· It has been said ( though not confirmed ) that financial assistance to LTTE is being provided by Tamil Nadu political parties.
· Similarly, earlier it was said that LTTE soldiers were being trained in Tamil Nadu.

Conclusion:
Actions taken by Government of India in this vexatious issue had boomranged on the Government of India. If the Government of India does not help Tamils / LTTE, then both Tamil Nadu Government and a large number of Tamils in India would be alianated. On the other hand if the Government helps then it would create further tension between the Governments of India and Sri Lanka.
In other words, Government of India has only a Hobson’s choice.

7. Dalai Lama’s agitation against China

Yes, the agitation against Chinese rule in Tibet so far has been peaceful. And considering Buddhist ideology, it can be expected to continue peaceful. Yet one cannot close our eyes to facts, such as, India is providing financial help to Dali Lama and his disciples and while accepting the fact of Tibet being part of China, from Indian soil Dalai Lama is allowed to peacefully agitate seeking special status for Tibet as compared to other provinces of China.

Hardly anybody would oppose Government of India giving more or less asylum to Buddhist people in Dharmasala and financially helping them. But how will Chinese view this development. Obviously with considerable disfavour. After Tibet becoming a part of China and this position willingly or unwillingly having been accepted by other countries in the world, Indian Government is not on firm footing in giving a helping hand to Dalai Lama in his efforts to get some sort of autonomy or special status for Tibet within the larger Chinese frame.


8. Malaysia:

Malays, Indians ( mainly Tamils ) and Chinese constitute the population of Malaysia. Both Indians and Chinese have been there for long. Chinese, who came later, are mainly into business and Indians in various professions. Malays are not able to compete with either of the ethnic groups with the result that while Chinese and Indians have prospered, Malays have been not doing well. Inevitably the heart of the Malaysian Government and politicians is with Malays. So the Government started reserving Government jobs for Malays ( a la ‘ people of the soil’ syndrome in India ). Since Malays are hardly into business, Chinese were not affected by this policy, whereas it affected Indians there, who were in the service class. Tamils mounted some agitation and sought help of Indian Government. Of course, whenever and wherever Tamils are involved, the State Government of Tamil Nadu starts exercising pressure on Government of India to do something. Now in this case, Government of India can do precious little, except to suggest to Malaysian Government to be sympathetic to the wishes of Tamils there. And that precisely is what Government of India did.


9. Indians living in other countries

Large numbers of Indians have been living in other countries for a long time, i.e., Gulf countries, USA, UK, and Malaysia. The trend during the last two or three decades indicate that the number of Indians migrating to those countries for work would continue. Many of the Indians now in those countries are second ( and a few third ) generation Indians. Increasingly the number of Indians settling down permanently in those countries is going up. While assimilating partly with the country of their stay, most of them have naturally affinity towards India. But what becomes tricky is how far the Government of India should go in supporting those Indians settled in those countries when they oppose some policy changes made by the Governments in those countries which are inimical to the interests of Indians there. .

The point to be noted is that in such matters there is no straight line and no uniform approach can also be taken. Fairness will have to be tempered with pragmatism.



10. India producing nuclear weapon

Had Pakistan produced nuclear bomb before India did the same, the Government and people of India would have castigated Pakistan for starting a race with India on the matter with no option for India but to produce similar weapon, converting this area into a nuclear war zone, etc., And Indian Government would have sought intervention of major world powers to restrain Pakistan from such a venture. Indian stand would be as follows. Unlike India, Pakistan is not a peace loving nation, past record of Pakistan shows that it can behave in an extremely irresponsible manner related to relations with India, Pakistan is essentially ruled by military and a nuclear weapon in the hands of military is a dangerous development and now that Pakistan has a nuclear weapon, India has no other alternative but to produce a similar weapon and India being a peace loving country it would desist from ‘ first use’ of the nuclear bomb to be produced.

India produced the bomb first. Pakistan felt that it has no alternative but to produce nuclear weapon. How else would Pakistan react, especially when the military there has a strong grip on the political leadership.

11. Pakistan a failed State

That has been glib statement emanating from fourth estate and many of the politicians and experts in India during the recent times, i.e., after the terror strikes on Mumbai. It is also repeatedly stated that Pakistan has hardly any control on its Military, particularly its ISI wing and no control on terrorists. The conclusion drawn is that Pakistan Government cannot contain either its military or the terrorists. There is lot of truth in these statements and appraisal of ground reality.

But then consider the following two facts in respect of India

1 ) It is said by many experts that in respect of over 60 districts in the country, the writ of Moaists runs and that local administration is powerless in implementing law and order and administration.

2 ) According to Sainath’s wonderful book ‘ Everybody likes a draught ‘
whatever economic development India has achieved during the last 60 years, has bye-passed millions people, including Adivasis. Sainath has described in detail the harrowing conditions under which these people live.

When this is the position, how can we do finger pointing at Pakistan as a failed State.





Conclusions

· Churchill said ‘ We have no permanent enemies or friends but only permanent interests.’ That is true for all countries.

· There is frequent diplomatic pressure on all Governments when it comes to actions taken by the Governments which have ramifications on other countries. What is put out for public consumption would not be the whole truth. That is how diplomacy works. And Governments have to give due consideration to such pressures.

· Intelligence inputs. Government approaches are sometimes influenced, and it should be so, by intelligence inputs, which it cannot share with public. Sometimes this leads to people being baffled by Government actions.

· Quite often Governments are faced with Hobson’s choice. Act, and it will be condemned. Not act, then also it will be condemned.

· Finger pointing by public is easy. While appreciating the sentiments of people, Governments have to be pragmatic and more importantly Governments have to weigh between public approbation and long term interest of the country.

· Uniform policies or approaches cannot be taken by Governments in respect of problems with other countries. Certain adhocism is bound to be there and rarely though there could also be contradictions.

Foot-note:

The trouble with history in such matters is the changing scenario. The position as obtained thousand years back might have been changed five hundred years back and then further changed 300 years back, with one country or another dissenting with the position obtained at any stage. A country may repudiate covenants signed by its erstwhile rulers. Ethnicity, contiguous areas, etc., would be brought up to back the claim. There is no right and wrong in such matters. Expediency, self interest, etc., cannot be brushed aside. Solutions can be found only through discussions, at times with involvement of third countries.

Hitler felt that other countries had given a raw deal to West Germany and hence the attack against other countries was justified.

USA, the self appointed guardian of world, righteously attacked Iraq on the premise that a rogue state like Iraq should not be allowed to proceed with nuclear ( weapon ) research.

USSR wanted to ensure that the world does not come under the hegemony of USA and built a mighty military state, to repel Western World from any attack on USSR or its allies.

The above examples could be multiplied.

In short, each country justifies its actions, though many of which are inimical to the interests of other countries.

It is the same in societies. ‘Yes, there may be a few blemishes in us. But on the whole we are O.K, but not our neighbours. Look at what they did on this or that issue ‘ - that is the generally held view of all. It is the same with societies, countries, religions. In brief, ‘ the other guy is at a fault.’ Nobody thinks of grey areas or that both could be right from their own perspectives.

LTTE has been seeking separate Tamil Elam. Dalai Lama is seeking special status for Tibet. While the two demands are not the same, is there not similarity.


Signing off

A wag said something like the following:

‘ Why not exchange the history books of various countries to find out how the same facts / developments related to history are told differently by each country.’

***