August 23, 2000

From the ramparts of the Red Fort
Now redeem the promise

If reconciliation is the hallmark of your strategy, why not talk to our chief adversary and expose the hollowness of its stand on Kashmir?

As I settled down in the early hours of the morning to watch the Prime Minister perform from the ramparts of the Red Fort, I began reflecting on that momentous day when India awakened to life and freedom. Never mind, I said to myself, whether the mission of scores of freedom fighters was fulfilled or not at the stroke of the midnight hour. The important thing was the lowering of the Union Jack; the redeeming feature was that it wasn’t to flutter again at the Red Fort, where it was hoisted in 1857, or anywhere else in the country. Now, it was the turn of the tricolour flag to be raised high into the sky. The jhanda, declared India’s Prime Minister on August 16, symbolised freedom and democracy not only for India but also for the world at large.

The Red Fort had been the site of the INA trials in 1945. Scores of legal luminaries walked in and out of its Rumi Darwaza to defend the freedom fighters. They included Tej Bahadur Sapru, Bhulabhai Desai, K.N. Katju, Asaf Ali, Bakshi Tek Chand and, last but not least, Jawaharlal Nehru, who made his final appearance as an advocate. Now, on August 16, the curtain was drawn on this phase of India’s history.

The crowds surged towards the Fort to win back what was theirs, to celebrate, once and for all, the dawn of a new era. They burst into excited cheers as they heard a voice choked with emotion. Young boys and girls in their school uniform chanted in unison: “Chacha Nehru Zindabad”! “Chacha Nehru Zindabad”. The sounds of crackers were heard as far as Okhla, where a similar ceremony was underway at the Jamia Millia Islamia School. The faces of students and teachers lit up when their Vice-Chancellor, Zakir Husain, held out the prospect of a brighter future for the poverty-stricken institution.

As one watched Atal Bihari Vajpayee being escorted to the podium, I was reminded of how the flag, the anthem and the national emblem are the three symbols through which an independent country proclaims its identity and sovereignty, and as such they command instantaneous respect and loyalty. The petroleum minister, who first made an indiscreet remark on the ceremony before tendering his unqualified apology, should have known that the three symbols reflect the entire background, thought, and culture of a nation. Nehru had reflected in The Discovery of India that some kind of dream of unity had occupied the mind of India since the dawn of civilization. At that moment — a moment that comes but rarely in history — liberation from colonial rule was the first tangible step towards the realisation of that dream.

Any momentous occasion, whether it is the Republic Day Parade or the celebration of Independence, must prompt people to think about who they want to be, what values they want to actualise, what their legacy will be. This has been the message of our thoughtful and energetic President K.R. Narayanan.

No wonder, on the eve of the Golden Jubilee of the Republic, he called for an ‘‘honest self-analysis and self-questioning about where we, as a people and a society, are headed?’’ Drawing attention to the sullen resentment among the masses against their condition, he cautioned that these voices of resentment should not go unheard. ‘‘The unabashed, vulgar indulgence in conspicuous consumption by the nouveau riche has left the underclass seething in frustration... Our three-way fast lane of liberalisation, privatisation and globalisation must provide safe pedestrian crossings for the unempowered India also.’’ The President talked of the raw deal given to women — “our greatest national shame” — and the indifference towards the Dalits. Last fortnight, the President spoke yet again of the “dark clouds of prejudice and callous unconcern” over the problem of rape and atrocities against women and suggested rewriting of laws which would deter such crimes. In a tone that bears the imprint of his strong personality, the President observed that democratically elected governments should assert their authority over the daredevil heroes of crime and banditry. One wonders if the chief ministers of Tamil Nadu and Karnataka are listening! I suspect not.

Vajpayee’s first speech in this millennium (as Prime Minister) from the nation’s most hallowed pulpit can be interpreted as his personal manifesto for the forthcoming talks with the American establishment. If so, his statesman-like tone would have sent out signals of moderation and reasonableness abroad. While the PM may have enhanced his personal stature and bolstered his liberal image in Washington, the Sangh Parivar, already feeling rudderless and demoralised by the declining fortunes of the BJP in UP, would be fuming and fretting over his references to India’s liberal culture, his plea for religious tolerance, and his criticism of creating “imaginary enemies.” Besides, the parivar’s grandiose plans of building a Ram temple in Ayodhya may well have been grounded after the PM’s observations. This calls for celebration.

Yes Mr. Prime Minister, borders cannot be redrawn either in the name of religion or on the strength of the sword. Your criticism of the two-nation theory is also well taken. I am sure you have heard of Saadat Hasan Manto who eloquently and poignantly captured these themes in his story “Toba Tek Singh.” But please convey your strong sentiments to the American establishment as well. Let them know that the state of Israel must choose the path of compromise and accommodation and not ride roughshod over the legitimate aspirations of the Palestinian people. Let the American President, who brokered the Camp David summit, know that our philosophy militates against coercion and the misuse of religion to serve territorial ambitions. This, Mr. Prime Minister, will vindicate our own stand on Kashmir. You are right in underlining the need for reconciliation: healing the wounds by the larger canons of “insaniyat” (humanity) is a noble thought.

But, Sir, consider translating this idea into practice. I venture to suggest, first of all, that pigheadedness and a false national pride should not stand in the way of engaging Pakistan on the Kashmir imbroglio. If reconciliation is the hallmark of your strategy, why not talk to our chief adversary and expose the hollowness of its stand on Kashmir? Second, the beleaguered people of Kashmir expect tangible material prosperity and not empty promises. Militancy is, in large part, the consequence of underdevelopment and thrives on exploiting popular discontent. You cannot, therefore, create a haven of peace unless you remove the causes of disaffection in the wounded valley. The ball is in your court at 7, Race Course Road. Let us know what you think when you return to the Red Fort next year.

 

Other columnists:

Other articles by the columnist Redefining 'composite culture' Raging against the dying of the light