Recent debates, especially on facebook, regarding Zaid Hamid and his relations with a convicted blasphemer who died in jail almost a decade ago have certainly caught the Pakistani youth by surprise. They find themselves locked in an argument which is taking a heavy toll on their intellect and energies. On one side there are people who look upto traditional religious scholars with a good number of years and experience in the matters of religion while the other segment is quite wary of these sources and choose to follow their “Sir” Zaid Hamid.
A closer look into the matter reveals that our youth can easily be generalized as passionate, emotional, irrational, impulsive, aggressive, vulnerable, know-it-all, mind guarded and above all frustrated. The description is equally valid for all the participants irrespective of their point of view. Ironic it may be both the parties well and truly are the future of Pakistan. These youngsters are enrolled in medical, engineering and management universities.
A visit to pro-camp points how easily we the Pakistani youth fall prey to rhetorical war mongers in the name of religion. The followers there are not madressah students, long branded for being fanatics and extremists, but rather educated minds. While on the anti-camp you will find statements of religious scholars belonging to various schools of thoughts, evidences produced and deemed authentic in the court, even the complete court judgment. The advocates calling Zaid Hamid of being a vice of a blasphemer are actively gathering proofs to justify their allegations and even interacting with scholars while the other party seems to be too naïve to listen to or visit anyone. What is more surprising is that there have been defectors in the later camp while the former are steadfast.
The often asked question “Are you (Zaid Hamid) associated with Yousuf Kazzab?” is secondary to who are you? A self proclaimed defense analyst, a jihadi during American funded afghan war, religious scholar, economic expert, a historian and a diehard fan of Dr. Muhammad Iqbal. The question to ask is “What exactly is this character in question?” Who is at the centre to the most ferocious, vivacious, unique and splitting cyber war the country is experiencing.
Cross checks and his own statements presents Zaid Hamid as a computer systems engineer from NED University, Karachi, a very involved jihadi during the afghan war. Later he managed Brinks Securities, Rawalpindi before the entrepreneur in him created Brasstacks an organization which provides security updates and guidance to various national and multinational companies operating in Pakistan.
So how did an engineer from NED become a defense analyst, expert in economics, history and religious matters? These achievements, if true, are nothing short of a fairy tale. Globally, it is general practice that experts have certain contributions such as white papers to their credit, which are examined and debated upon by their peers and seniors to lend credibility and validate their authenticity; unfortunately in this case no such document exists.
What is even more surprising is that a particular and a self proclaimed jihadi is given a lot of room to freely go and deliver speeches and produce TV shows while his contemporaries are blocked, banned and put under arrest. So what is so good about this eloquent speaker that he is allowed to beat the war drums. What is more interesting is that every scholar of repute irrespective of his maslak (school of thought) eyes Zaid with suspicion.
But than again vision often gets blurred when emotions run high and we prefer to perceive things to our liking, facts are molded and our whims and fantasies have the better of us. Those who refer to documented evidences are told to directed their attention on the greater cause which is preached by the controversial speaker and it is explicitly stated “one should believe what is said and forget about who is saying it” as quoted by a diehard fan to avoid further argument. However, for any scholarly debate it is advised that before you lend your ear to someone, ensure that he is of good lineage, his immediate family is bears worthy credentials and he has a sound upbringing and tutoring in the concerned subject.
However, in this particular case it is argued; his (apparent) intentions are not only good but a realization of Pakistan’s destiny as predicted by ‘Syed Nurullah Shah Wali” a saint who existed 900 years ago, amazingly no clue to this saint nor his prediction is available anywhere except a book authored by non-other than Zaid Hamid.
Void of any qualification in defense studies, strategy formulation, economics, history and politics we are forced to lend an ear to an eloquent speaker through the air waves. He even goes on record suggesting that “Pakistan should launch one or two missiles at Israel, perhaps without nuclear warheads to reprimand Mosad for interfering with Pakistan’s internal security”.
Quran in Surah Munafiqoon, verse 4, gives the final verdict “When thou lookest at them, their exteriors please thee; and when they speak, thou listenest to their words. They are as (worthless as hollow) pieces of timber propped up, (unable to stand on their own). They think that every cry is against them. They are the enemies; so beware of them. The curse of God be on them! How are they deluded (away from the Truth)!”
Reflecting on our decisions we should ask ourselves whether our conclusions were drawn or derived through intellectual exercise or are a result of some personal impression, facts or simple hearsay. We must ask our selves, Why we as a society are vulnerable to such rhetoric? What is the state of our intellect? How long will we keep acting like a flock of sheep or a hoard of cattle?
Do we as a nation, need to focus our energies on insulting traditional religious scholar and engaging in war hysteria with neighbouring India or should we look inside and try to resolve our core issues i.e. illiteracy, unavailability of basic necessities and rising unemployment. How much longer can we blame America, Israel, India and Govt. for our shortcomings? What have we done remaining well within our constitutional domains for the inequalities, injustices and malpractices we observe around us? Has any one of us ever lodged a complaint, even thought about doing it, against these everyday occurrences? The lamest excuse in this matter is that the system is not conducive to individual efforts. Instead of following someone’s oratory and condemn Institutions we should actively pursue our constitutional rights. Civil disobedience or military take over as suggested by the enlightened expert are not a solution but rather a grave mistake.
Five children were killed since December in a suspected case of child sacrifice in a village in Hingoli district in Maharashtra.
Indian children in New Delhi. Many of them exposed to human rights abuses.
The Indian police have now arrested four persons including three women to unravel the mystery.
The boys, aged between 4-12, belong to a family in Digras village near Aurangabad in Maharashtra and were killed between December 2009-March 2010, police said.
The killings came to light recently following which police registered a case of murder against six suspects and arrested four persons yesterday after conducting searches at their residence, police inspector M A Rauf told PTI.
Police also recovered several materials like ash, black threads, unknown poisonous substances and some herbs during the search, he said.
The four accused identified as Parshuram Dalvi, Kalvati Kundlik Mokle, husband Kundlik Mokle, Aasha J Dalvi, Vandana Mokle and spouse Vithal Mokle have now been remanded to police custody till March 22.
The accused landed in police net after Vandana allegedly tried to sacrifice one more child named Rikishesh Dalvi earlier this month. This attempted murder was done on behest of a local self styled godman who is still absconding.
Vandana who is childless was also preparing to sacrifice 11 kids under the ritulistic killing to fulfill her wish for a child, sources said.
Source: Press Trust of India (PTI).
My comment:
Only Satan wants us to sacrifice blood of humans, even of animals. There is no need for this kind of offerings, thanks to Jesus. He has redeemed us with His own blood.
Even in the more than 3.000 year old First Mosaic Covenant, such offerings were banished.
Leviticus 18:21 ‘Do not give any of your children to be sacrificed to Molech, for you must not profane the name of your God. I am the LORD. 2 Kings 23:10 He desecrated Topheth, which was in the Valley of Ben Hinnom, so no one could use it to sacrifice his son or daughter in the fire to Molech.
The elite in India keeps 500 million of its population outside the society of humanity, denying them basic human rights like education.
Satan will continue to demand blood sacrifices of children in India. The scale of this activity in rural India is unknown. This is presently the worst crime against humanity on Planet Earth.
He is pointing with his oar at a giant scrub-laden hill that he wants me to climb with him.
Urghhhh, I groan letting the oar flop.
‘It will be an adventure.’
‘I don’t want an adventure. I’m tired.’
‘You’re so no fun.’
‘You’re not in the famous five.’
Everytime I get in a canoe I think of Last of the Mohicans. That’s what makes me get in the canoe. Then after approximately three seconds I decide Daniel Day Lewis made it look much sexier than it actually is. ‘I will find you. Stay alive no matter what occurs,’ rings in my ears.
I am not sure I am going to stay alive no matter what occurs in this canoe as John steers us towards a great big bloody boulder in the sea. ‘Mind the big rock,’ I call out.
‘Thanks for that. I can’t see anything at all so it’s great that you’re navigating.’
I struggle to turn with the oar in my hand. ‘You can’t see?’ Then I realise he is being sarcastic. I stop paddling. Not that he notices. Our speed remains the same. We head towards some rapids. ‘Ahhhh rapids.’
‘Why are you worried?’ John says still paddling.
‘Because it might overturn. I might smash my head on a rock and drown.’
‘They aren’t even rapids.
He’s right they are more like the little waves you make when you get in the bath. We ripple through them.
And then we see them. Three dolphins start dancing around our boat. I have never been this close to a dolphin. And for some reason the only thing I can find to say is, ‘Why don’t we eat dolphins?’
‘You’re watching dolphins play five feet away and you’re asking why we don’t eat them? You are unbelievable.’
‘I don’t mean I want to eat them (I’ve been vegetarian now for 8 weeks – kudos please) I just mean that we eat most things in the sea, we eat urchins and ugly shit like squid. Why not the dolphins?’ Why is there no dolphin nicoise on the menu? Have you ever wondered about that?
John ignores me and keeps paddling after them.
‘If I were a native American I’d be called Canoes with Dolphins,’ I say.
John doesn’t say anything but hazarding a guess, I think he’s thinking his Native American name would be ‘Canoes with idiot’.
In many nations of the world, there is an all-out war on baby girls. In 1990, economist Amartya Sen estimated that 100 million baby girls were missing — sacrificed by parents who desired a son. Two decades later, multiple millions of missing baby girls must be added to that total, victims of abortion, infanticide, or fatal neglect.
The murder of girls is especially common in China and northern India, where a preference for sons produces a situation that is nothing less than critical for baby girls. In these regions, there are 120 baby boys born for every 100 baby girls. As The Economist explains, “Nature dictates that slightly more males are born than females to offset boys’ greater susceptibility to infant disease. But nothing on this scale.”
In its lead editorial, the magazine gets right to the essential point: “It is no exaggeration to call this gendercide. Women are missing in their millions–aborted, killed, neglected to death.”
There is a famous proverb in Urdu and in Hindi as well, meaning that Hindu would never deal straight; that is what India is doing in resolving Kashmir issue. Late Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto was an authority on international affairs who has written in his book, ‘Bilateralism’, “If you forget history, history will forget you”. …yes, he was right in case of India and the US, in particular and other countries in general.
In 1989, owing to indigenous freedom movement, the Indian-held Kashmir was on the verge of being freed from the clutches of India. The Kashmiri Muslims’ sacrificed more than 90,000 Kashmiris, apart from destructions of their properties worth millions of dollars and burning of their religious places whereas UN and the big wigs of the world either have become silent spectators, though they call themselves as the flag carriers of Human Rights which proves that they are just hypocrites and biased against Muslims. However, India again played her old trick of asking international community, the 3rd party, to intervene and ask Pakistan to stop aiding the freedom movement as the issue will be resolved through ‘talks’ hence the international community, mainly US and Britain, pressurized Pakistan to accept the Indian offer of “talks”, and Pakistani rulers, being not so far-sighted, accepted it which turned the table not only against Kashmiri indigenous freedom movement but it also deviated Pakistan’s stand from the UN Resolution of Plebiscite in Kashmir, of 1948.
It has been an irony of fate that the Pakistani rulers, ever since birth of this country, civilians or the military, have always succumbed to undue pressures from the US and the Britain, on different international issues. The intensity of pressurization from US, on Pakistan enhanced to an unbearable extent when US asked Pakistan to accept India as a regional ‘super power’. In other words US wanted Pakistan to accept Indian hegemonies to the extent that Holbrook asked Pakistan to let India to do a few “surgical strikes” on supposedly “terrorist’s camps” in Pakistan, soon after RAW and Mossad produced drama “Mumbai Carnage” was played. It was also being said that Zardari, succumbed to such an absurd demand from Holbrook, had also agreed but our patriotic armed forces straightway refused and threatened to treat it as an attack on Pakistan and told that if India did go for such an adventure, an appropriate and befitting response will be given to India. This is what USA and her Vice Royal of Pak-Afghanistan; Holbrook had the designs against Pakistan whom they call “an old ally” and a partner in “war-on-terror’. Holbrook probably knew that it was quite likely that unpatriotic Pakistani rulers might give permission of a few surgical strikes and under the cover of “surgical strikes” India would have gone for a full fledged attack on our nuclear sites. This is what USA’s “friendship is, that she is always keeping a dagger under the ‘cloak of its friendship’, to stab us in the back, any time.
However, coming back to the subject, late Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto only in public meetings kept demanding for Plebiscite in Kashmir in accordance with the UN Resolution but his daughter Benazir Bhutto not only accepted the offer of ‘talks’ but she even went to the extent of confederation with India under one President and one currency. May be she owed an obligation to US or to India. She preferred to seek help from those who were known enemies of Pakistan. In Simla agreement why Z A Bhutto accepted to rename ‘Cease Fire Line’ to ‘Line of Control’ and declared it as a bilateral issue is not understandable.
The well planned ‘Monkey Diplomacy’ of ‘talks’ is going on for the last 21 years without any results, as probably India waiting for the implementation of USA’s New World Order wherein Balochistan of Pakistan, along with Balochistan of Iran, has been made a separate country, NWFP including the northern areas of Pakistan have been added into Afghanistan and the whole of Kashmir has been shown as part of India. Although the ‘basic principle’ of the “New World Order” is to form new states on the basis of ethnicity of the population in the Middle and the South East but US being biased against Muslims has divided all the Muslim countries into small states but did not see that India is also made of more than a dozen ethnic groups out of which Kashmiris, Muslims, Sikhs, Tamils, Gujratis, Assamese, Bengalis, Biharis, Nagas, Mizos and the Chinese in the north east, are the major groups which could also form separate independent states.
The Indians being more cunning in diplomacy than Pakistan’s incompetent and dubious rulers as well as below-average intelligence level diplomats absorbed in foreign service on quota system, lost the Kashmir case that since the Simla agreement never saw light in any UN or Security Council meetings. Therefore it was relegated to a bilateral issue that could not be raised on international forums. Unfortunately in an apparent move, Pakistan also accepted the issue as a ‘Bilateral issue’ and to be resolved through ‘bilateral talks’. Why did Pakistan accept the change in the status of an issue already decided in her favour…? This is, in fact, sheer incompetence of Pakistani rulers and the diplomats, which, one could only believe, had been done because of “vested interests” which prevailed upon national interests and nothing else. Is it the way that governments are run, without self-respect and accepting pressures and disgrace at any cost…? It doesn’t matter even if we are a small country but we have dependable resources, men and material, which may allow us to sustain feeding of our population at a much lower cost than what we are spending on imports and subsidies without aid, provided we have sincere and patriotic leadership.
The Indian diplomacy could be gauged from the fact that whenever India wanted has used the 3rd party’s intervention like in 1989 if India would not have sought help from US and Britain to pressurize Pakistan, she would have lost Kashmir but when the hard time passed and 7 heads of the states offered arbitration for the settlement of this long-awaited issue, India refused 3rd party arbitration. This is hypocrisy and “Monkey diplomacy”. Whereas Pakistan has always been clean in these affairs as she not only accepted UN Resolution of Plebiscite but also the arbitration offers made by different heads of the states of the world, including Nelson Mandela. Pakistan could never assert itself with force to get a third party arbitration or raise it at the United Nations.
The absence of self-respect and the intensity of incompetence, prevailing at all levels, are the dominating factors in failure of our foreign policy whether it’s with India, US, EU or the Muslim countries. India, taking the ‘plea’ of Mumbai mayhem, refused to resume ‘talks’, but the Pakistani rulers from the President down to the level of minister of state as well, started begging before Indians and the international community to resume the ‘talks’. These politicians did not even feel disgrace for the country in asking, which was like begging, for resumption of “talks” as if India will offer Kashmir in a platter through the so-called ‘talks’, probably it shows their ‘blood-type’ in not thinking about disgrace and self-respect of the country, which comes up naturally before taking any step.
Indian refusal to resume ‘talks’ was a golden, God-given opportunity for Pakistan to kick-off and to get rid of the Indian ‘cobweb’ of ‘talks’, moving even with the slower than snail’s speed for the last 21 years, therefore, should have demanded plebiscite or arbitration, in Kashmir, by a 3rd party, preferably through Nelson Mandela. But because of in-competency, prevailing at every level, Pakistan lost this opportunity and again fell down into the ‘traps’ of talks which are going on and on and on……..for the last 21 years.
Whenever India is cornered by some countries, whom she can not avoid, India somersaults saying that this is a ‘Bilateral issue’, between Pakistan and India, so we can not accept arbitration whereas India always call the same 3rd party for intervention when she has uncontrollable trouble in Indian-held Kashmir. So, this is also one of the several self-contradictions of India on Kashmir which I have mentioned in my article “Indian Self-Contradictions on Kashmir”. This is all “Bania diplomacy” of India because India CAN never say it a bilateral issue as it had been raised at the UNO by India herself, and the UNO resolved it with unanimous voting for plebiscite then how can she deny it and label it as a ‘bilateral issue’ which is just like throwing dust into the eyes of the international community.
More recently Indian Interior minister, on his visit to US asked USA to intervene and ask Pakistan to punish the (so-called) Pakistani non-state actors in Mumbai Attack. May I ask him if this is not a bilateral issue..? Why India asking for arbitration of 3rd party in this matter too…?
It is also being observed that whenever India gives schedule of ‘talks’ to Pakistan she gives the list of the agenda, the Kashmir issue is not specific and rather is in the last under the heading ‘other disputes’, giving least importance to this major issue despite of the fact that both the countries were about to go for a big nuclear war twice in the near future. Even on international forums Indian delegations walk-out, of the international forums, if Pakistan brings about the Kashmir issue, taking the plea that Kashmir is an integral part of India and why this issue is being raised here although this used to be like saying Day to night by India as how can India say like that about an issue which has been resolved at UNO level in 1948 and 1971, awaiting implementation. Moreover, now what did India say to the World Bank when India was refused development programme aid/loan by the World bank on the plea that Kashmir is NOT part of India and India did not come out with even a meager sound. Why..?
If we go back to the history of this problem we shall observe that the indigenous struggle of the movements for the independence of Kashmir has been made off and on by Kashmiri Mujahideen. And whenever India has been under severe pressure, by Kashmiri Mujahideen, she requested international community to intervene and ask Pakistan that the issue will be resolved through ‘talks’, despite of the fact that India has always been refusing to arbitration offers by seven heads of the state but when she is in real trouble India would go begging international community, the 3rd party, to intervene which was NOT acceptable for arbitration, this is called the Indian “Monkey Business”.
However, international community, the 3rd party, particularly UK, US and other EU countries, used to pressurize Pakistan to stop moral and material support to the Kashmiris Mujahideen as India has agreed to resolve the issue through ‘talks’. That is totally wrong approach not only of international community but of Pakistani rulers to accept this plea as because India always wanted to defuse and break the momentum of the freedom movement of Kashmiri Mujahideen, which used to be at its peak built after sacrificing of hundreds of (young) lives and property. Thus India has always been successful in befooling not only international community, the 3rd party, but the Pakistani rulers as well. The Pakistani rulers have been forgetting the saying of a Muslim Persian scholar “Aazmooda ra aazmoodan juhl ast” means, to test someone already tested is equivalent to illiteracy which is 100% correct in case of India and USA.
The international community, the champions and the flag carriers of Human Rights, have never realized the loss of precious human lives and the unrecoverable loss of property of Kashmiri Muslims as it has never happened once or twice but least a dozen times. The fact is that not only UNO but even the international community has been keeping their eyes blind on Kashmiris agonies because of the barbaric atrocities of Indian police and the seven divisions of army posted there.
China is the only country following the verdict of UN Resolution on Kashmir and hence refused issuance of visas to the citizens of Indian-held Kashmir, taking the plea that Kashmir is not a part of India, exactly as the World Bank has also told clearly to Indian government that Kashmir is NOT a part of India. The irony of fate is that despite being a party to this dispute, even Pakistan’s foreign office and its diplomats did not realize it and have been issuing visas to Kashmiris on Indian passports. Whereas all the countries of the world should follow the suite, thus should refuse issuance of visas on Indian passports like China. This is one of the jobs of the embassies which they should carry out along with other jobs. The Secretary General, Foreign affairs of Pakistan is supposed to take personal interest in perusing our embassies abroad.
India also played the ‘Drama’ of Mumbai Terror Attacks, killing its own innocent people and the put the total blame on Pakistan, hence, refused to talk on Kashmir issue, and rather talking of “punishing” Pakistan, in collaboration with USA. exactly as the USA played the ‘Drama’ of 9/11, killing its own people and then putting blame on Al-Qaida in Afghanistan, but surprisingly, after invading Afghanistan, USA came to know that Al-Qaida is in Pakistan exactly as she came to know the non-existence of WMDs after invading Iraq and killing and committing genocide of more than 3 million Muslims.
However, Pakistani leadership has weakened its position not only before India but before the world community as well by insisting, like begging, for ‘talks’ on Kashmir issue as in view of UN Resolutions of 1948 and 1971 Pakistan should insist on Plebiscite immediately and by asking India to come to the talks is weakening our own case, therefore, Pakistan should ask UNO, for implementation of UN Resolutions on Kashmir i.e. Plebiscite and take a firm stand on it, come what may.
As mentioned earlier, Pakistan should (1) Not to accept the new twist of India of labeling it as a bilateral issue and (2) should NOT go for talks on Kashmir issue at all as it has already been resolved in the United Nations in 1948 and 19971 with unanimous voting to hold Plebiscite in Kashmir. (3) There should No talks on any issue until the issue of Kashmir is resolved in accordance with UN Resolution, as Bhutto had taken this stance and no one in the present regime as well as in the opposition benches have that much caliber to over-rule Bhutto’s stance and view points about Kashmir and India. Therefore, by asking India to come to the talks is like off-setting the already decided United Nation’s Resolution of plebiscite, thus it would be tantamount to weakening our own case.
Pakistan should kick off the Indian stance to resolve the issue through “talks” or as she has made it a “bilateral issue”. The acceptance of Indian stance of “talks’ and the “bilateral issue” shows absence of caliber in Pakistani government that they have given-up its stand on the issue and has accepted Indian stance. Pakistan MUST insist for implementation of UN Resolution of 1948 and 1971 on Kashmir issue and NO less than Plebiscite, under any circumstances, whatsoever.
In view of Bill Clinton’s interview on Kargil affair, he said that both the countries were on the verge of nuclear war, on Kargil issue. He was right as it may happen, if not today may be tomorrow but it will if the Kashmir issue is not resolved. Therefore, now there are only two ways of resolving this issue, as the “talks” going on for the last 21 years have NOT been able to yield any results and these two ways, by virtue of which peace could be achieved in the sub-continent, are.
1. UNO should go for plebiscite in Kashmir without losing time or
2. Pakistan and India will go for a final war using as many nukes as they have, killing millions of innocent people on both sides and then the international community will decide the issue, the bone of contention, on merit and i.e. to hold plebiscite. So, isn’t it better, for UNO and the world’s so-called champions and flag carriers of Human Rights, to hold plebiscite before both these countries go for a horrible nuclear war? Sajid Ansari
Three months after the eruption of Telangana’s latest independence movement, I want to take a few minutes to examine the issue at large. This dispute has caused so much fury and hatred on both “sides” that it’s easy to forget the genuine historical issues that lie at its root. Every two weeks or so, the students at Osmania University begin new demonstrations. The suicides have not ceased – in fact, they’ve accelerated. A bright young chemical engineering student, age 20, hanged himself a few days ago, leaving a note that specifically identified the delay over Telangana’s statehood as the reason for his death. He joins at least one hundred who have successfully killed themselves for this issue, and several hundred who have tried.
The many supporters of Telangana’s statehood with whom I’ve spoken invariably bring up the historical injustices their region has suffered. These date back to the pre-independence era, when the Nizam of Hyderabad, an “independent prince”, ruled Telangana as a fiefdom within the British Empire. The areas now comprising Andhra were under direct British rule. As a result, those from Andhra gained exposure to the English language and institutions, which put them at a natural advantage after Independence, when India adopted an English administrative language and a government modeled after Britain’s.
Independence brought to India a raft of state-related problems, in many ways similar to the current Telangana agitations. In 1956, the States Reorganization Act divided India along “linguistic” lines, wherein they tried to give every major language group its own state. Ironically, Andhra Pradesh was itself born of such a struggle, as the Reorganization Act largely sprang from agitations for a Telegu-speaking state, what later became Andhra Pradesh.
Any Telegu-speaking state would have to include Telangana, and so it joined the new Andhra Pradesh by what is now known as the “Gentleman’s Agreement”, which stipulated that Telangana be given a certain percentage of state spending with respect to population along with a raft of other demands including an escape clause for Telangana to secede, if it should wish.
The Andhra Pradesh government violated the agreement before the ink dried. In not one year after the signing did Telangana receive any of the promised investment. The region was already “underdeveloped” with comparison to the Andhra region due to its separation from the British Empire and the pervasive corruption of its previous ruler, the Nizam. After centuries of feudal serfdom under the Nizam, Telangana found it had merely traded one oppressor for another.
The statistics bear this out. Telangana has received only 13% of irrigation projects in the state, and face discrimination in employment, education, health services, and many other areas. The average citizen of Telangana is noticeably worse off when compared an average citizen of Andhra.
In 1969, Telangana exploded into secession demonstrations that the Andhra police brutally suppressed, killing 300. Then began a long and humiliating list of “programmes” – the “Six-point plan”, the “Eight-Point programme”, etc – each valid only on paper. They essentially put the issue on permanent back-burner, allowing Telangana’s frustrations to slowly simmer for forty years, until now, when they again boiled over.
Irrigation is a major thorn. Telangana lies naturally on a plateau, and rivers tend to flow away from it. To add to that, the Andhra government built two dams that diverted away what little water reached Telangana. As a result, Telangana farmers find themselves at the mercy of the rains. Two or three years of uncertain rainfall, as they’ve just experienced, can utterly ruin them.
The monsoons were three months late last year, and no one in India can afford the luxury of climate change denial. Each summer is hotter than the one before it. Telangana, being rain-fed, stands to lose the most. In many ways, this issue can be seen through a climate perspective.
Detractors of Telangana’s statehood generally employ “practical” arguments as to why it would be unwise to grant Telangana independence. Often, they refer, with no intended irony, to Telangana’s historical deprivation as a reason it “needs” Andhra to help it ‘develop’. I have even heard one vehement opponent claim that “they [people from Telangana] are just lazy – they don’t want to work and expect jobs to come to them,. Some level of overt discrimination is thus apparent, at least among certain circles – wealthy ones, I should imagine.
Others wonder whether Telangana will still rely on the fertile Andhra plains after it becomes independent, given the terrifying food inflation rate in India – a sore point to raise since a major aspect of this crisis is agrarian.
One also hears the problem of Hyderabad as a good reason this dispute ought to be evaded, or even ignored. Hyderabad is the capital of the consolidated Andhra Pradesh state, and it happens to be right in the center of Telangana. One reason why Andhra wanted Telangana so badly, many contend, is Hyderabad’s attraction as a capital. The Andhra region has no suitable city. And whether by deliberate planning or unconscious will, Andhra’s significant investment in Hyderabad (“colonization”, some would call it) became an unspoken claim to the land.
Hyderabad now stands as perhaps the fourth most-developed city in India, and it has attracted a surge of foreign investment. The city, hazy and overcrowded as it is, now sports dozens of shopping malls, every major fast-food chain, a “world-class” international airport, a burgeoning IT sector, four 5-star hotels, and a jet-set of American and European businessmen, promising to “do business”.
At various press conferences I’ve attended in my capacity as a newspaper intern I’ve heard Indian scientists, businessmen, politicians, all talking about how Hyderabad knows no recession, how it will become a “world city” by 2015. Over the last two months, these pronouncements have had a tinge of worry to them. Everyone “knows” – or thinks they know – that if Hyderabad goes to Telangana, investment will be ’scared off’.
One hears often how we must protect “Brand Hyderabad” at all costs. At press conferences and business luncheons, the Caucasian benefactors from America or Europe, those who write the checks, can be seen clucking their tongues in dismay. These protests are “bad for business”.
“Pragmatism” aside, however ,I think it should be clear that Telangana has suffered severe discrimination, and that they deserve some sort of redress for the historical disadvantage at which they find themselves. Further, they’ve been lied to, systemically, for more than forty years. Their anger is legitimate, and it cannot be deferred any longer. However, whether actual statehood is the solution to Telangana’s problems remains to be seen.
I admit my original reaction to these demonstrations was ignorant and uninformed. I saw this movement then as so much emotional nonsense – that even if Telangana had legitimate grievances (which, even at the time, I was beginning to suspect that they did) these pointless demonstrations distracted the political establishment from what should be the real focus of their endeavors: controlling India’s population, reducing the toxic brown cloud lingering above the subcontinent, ensuring equitable water and food distribution, and solving the land problem. I did not realize then that Telangana was agitating precisely for these things, albeit, only for themselves.
In many nations of the world, there is an all-out war on baby girls. In 1990, economist Amartya Sen estimated that 100 million baby girls were missing — sacrificed by parents who desired a son. Two decades later, multiple millions of missing baby girls must be added to that total, victims of abortion, infanticide, or fatal neglect.