Leave a comment

Pakistan – The Country of My Friends

Indo-Pak friends devika mittal (india) and aliya harir, saba khalid, namra nasir, raza khan (pakistan)

As I think of friendships across the border, my first memory goes back to the days of yahoo messenger, chatrooms and orkut! I would often visit the Pakistan chat room just out of curiosity. I can’t recall if I had made any friend from there through this. I owe my first friend from Pakistan to Harry Potter! Though my memory is posing serious challenges but what I certainly remember that I was able to strike not one but several conversations with so much ease with this one friend from Pakistan. I don’t even know if this person will even remember me because we lost touch and it has been so many years now but I certainly remember my first friend from Pakistan and I thank him because I think that it was probably because of him that I never ever had any hatred for a Pakistani.

The second round of friendships came with my admission time and entry in South Asian University (SAU). I will want people to genuinely believe me that one of the things that I imagined about SAU and which motivated me to apply was meeting Pakistanis! My fascination was derived out of my new found understanding of our past, the horror of our past actually. On both sides, we are often exposed to very biased and one-sided accounts of what had happened. I had got the opportunity to explore that the horror was also shared by both sides and I was filled with guilt and remorse. It makes me emotional everytime I think about what we did to each other. It disturbed me and I could not think of a way to make things fine. The only thing that came to my mind was to probably reach out to the “other”. I had befriended a Pakistani student aspirant during admission time and though he never joined the university, we became friends! His name was Zeeshan and as again my memory challenges me, I can’t remember much details. But what I clearly remember is that how when we started sharing photographs of our cities and when I saw photographs of a Pakistani city (forgetting which city it was..but I think it was Islamabad), I said “Yaar ye to foreign country lag rai hai” (This looks like a foreign country) and he laughed and said that yes it is foreign indeed.. it is Pakistan! I think this explains how our bond was. I had forgot the “difference”!

In the university with students from all 8 SAARC countries, the bonding was strongest with Pakistani students primarily because we spoke the same language. I also always feel that when Indians and Pakistanis meet, they are very extra sweet to each other! I somehow think it is because we carry the past baggage for which we try to make up for.  

My third and strongest round of friendships have come with Aaghaz-e-Dosti. It has helped me to not only get such close friends but actually family members across the border! I must reiterate that I do not like to write fancy and do not exaggerate. Visiting Pakistan for me solely meant visiting my friends. Because of the conflict and a culture of stereotypes and mutual suspicion, when we travel to Pakistan or a Pakistani travels to India, he/she is given many unwanted advices. People would say that they pray that we will come back alive. When I went to Pakistan, I also had such concerned friends in India. I must say that not even for one second, did I feel scared. Infact, I felt so much scared when I was to travel to Europe. With Pakistan, I did not feel any such feeling. I attribute this to my friends and “family” in Pakistan. My birthday was a day prior to my travel to Pakistan but I celebrated a second birthday in Pakistan. All thanks to Namra. I had really not imagined it and I don’t think I ever got a bigger birthday surprise than that in my life. There is a lot more that my beautiful, bold and so hard working friend did for me which I am not sure if I can ever return. My elder brother Raza bhai was I think on his heels during the entire trip. I don’t think I can ever say enough about how good he is. I was taken such good care by my two elder sisters – Safia didi and Summi didi. Then there were some non-Lahoris without whom my trip to Pakistan would have been incomplete. The time that I spent with the Pashto Poet-Philosopher Rauf, adorable Imrana, charming but very mischievous Huma and ofcourse Aliya without whom I cannot even imagine my daily life was when I secretly was so angry thinking about the culture of hatred and conflict that has been constructed. I had also got the opportunity to make so many new friends. While it is always customary to talk good about one’s hosts and for the right reasons that they really try so hard to get you across the border, I want to talk about the two university hosts for the bond that they had initiated which they were not compelled to. They were not compelled to wait for us hours before our arrival on the Wagah Border. They were not compelled to invite us to their home, invite us to meet their family members. Though I really feel guilty of not having done so and wish that the offer was not of limited time period, I was deeply moved by such a gesture. I had also got another new very wonderful friend named Zeeshan whom again I did not know previously but who really made sure that I didn’t ever feel alone. While I take a lot of time to talk freely with new people, I feel that he really broke that bubble so instantly through his friendly and humble nature. I met Dr. Wasif Ali Waseer who took out time from his busy schedule to be with us throughout the two days and had also made us met his really lovely wife Saba and with whom I bonded over some Indian serials.  While I think of all this, I am also reminded how these are all supposedly my enemies who were supposed to hate me. 

Pakistan means a lot to me and the reason are my friends and I have all kinds of friends, I should say. I have friends who are as good as family. I have brothers like Umair Bhai, Raza Bhai, Mujtaba, Adil, Zuhaib, Jahanzeb, younger brothers like Hussain, Syed Zeeshan Ali Shah, Faizan, Owais, sisters like Nazzia didi, Saba, Natasha, Imrana, Warda, Zoya, Suraya and very adorable younger sisters – Fatima and Mahrosh. I have friends like Poonamchand, Warda, Faisal and Asad on whom I can always depend on. I have found friends like Ashraf, Sehyr, Shabbir, Zeeshan Ahmed and Saif with whom I can engage in discussions on even critical issues. Pakistan has given me friends, mentors, inspirations. It continues to bless me with friends. With this, I must mentioned my newest friend from Pakistan – Dr. Munir whom I met in a conference on Human Rights Education in Germany. The Conference had seen practitioners and scholars from different countries and while it was an honor to interact and learn from all of them, the interaction with the Pakistani participant was certainly very different. It didn’t take us even seconds to bond and the bonding became so strong that once I ended up counting 4 Indians in the conference (there were 3 Indians and 1 Pakistani).

My friendships have helped me to understand conflict, to understand it from different angles, understand the complexities and more importantly, on how futile the conflict is.

Leave a comment

Returned with Love: My Experience of Visiting Pakistan

Devika Mittal - lahore trip

As an ardent supporter of Indo-Pak peace and having many friends in Pakistan, visiting Pakistan was a long-awaited desire for me. Having worked actively as a member of Aaghaz-e-Dosti, a cross-border Indo-Pak friendship initiative, I didn’t have many pre-conceived notions about the country. I was far too excited that I would finally visit Pakistan.

The literally golden opportunity was an academic conference on inclusive education that was organized by University of Management and Technology (Lahore). When my co-authored paper was selected, I and my friend Madhavi Bansal knew that this was only the first step forward. The second and most difficult step was getting a visa. Our apprehensions were right. The struggle for visa comprised of standing in a long queue outside the embassy waiting endlessly, being on the verge of rejection with a host of terrible sounding suggestions that are not listed on the embassy website, troubling our hosts with emails to intervene more and offering daily prayers. To our great surprise celebrated with tears of joy, we were finally granted the visa to visit Lahore.

The moment of crossing the border filled me with emotions. The white line on the border reminded me of Manto’s stories, especially of Toba Tek Singh. I imagined seeing the spot where the story had concluded. I was to cross the border and enter the land which is prejudiced, which we have been taught is different and opposing.

In a span of six days, we were to discover if this was actually true. While we had been talking to people from Pakistan through our peace activities, the people would mainly be those who were already convinced somewhere about peace so this was the first experience of interacting with people who may have had no experience of interacting with Indians. However, as expected, it largely turned out to be a myth.

Because of our language which was apparently “Urdu”, people could tell that we are non-Lahoris, but we being Indians was not what they would imagine. We were travelling in a rickshaw. While directly, the driver smiled at some words that I used and I thought that he had found out. He asked me where we were from and on discovering that we were Indians, his eyes widened and he exclaimed, “Masha Allah!” He said that he knew that we were not from Lahore but had thought that were probably from Karachi. He shared that his grandparents had migrated from India. He told that both Hindus and Muslims prayed to God but only used different words and that there wasn’t really a difference. “There is no hatred but politics”.

The expression of disbelief, the wide eyes and giving us a second look when we would inform people that we were Indians were unforgettable and something that I enjoyed. After they found out, they would change. They would become more welcoming towards us. We were invited for lunch at home by complete strangers.

Even in the university, the environment was way beyond friendly, it was quite special. There were people who came for our presentation only because we were Indians. A more special thing was that before our presentation, the moderator of the session welcomed us with a quote of Mahatma Gandhi. We were cared for far beyond what we could ever expect.

Besides the university conference, our other main focus was to meet our friends and interact with people. We got the opportunity to interact with school and college students. The interactions helped me to know how people of Pakistan, especially the youth thought. People of both countries hold stereotypes and misconceptions about each other and the reason is that there are very few platforms to know each other. The sessions, thus, helped to answer the curiosities. We were asked about different religions in India and I informed that India was a land of religious diversities just like Pakistan. The constitution of India even legally recognized and respected agnostics and atheists. Similarly, a student in Punjab University asked about Pathans in India. They inquired about how they were perceived. There were questions on how Pakistanis are perceived in India, how Pakistanis serials and movies were seen there. And I spoke about the success of Zindagi channel that has provided a great alternative to the never-ending and boring saas-bahu sagas that dominate the Indian TV industry. For movies, there is still a big void and people hardly know the great movies that Pakistan has produced.

What also came out of the interactions was that youth of Pakistan, like youth of India, are not much aware of the issues, the complexities yet embroiled in the conflict, in the culture of stereotypes sustained by the biased media and lack of people-to-people contacts. In Punjab University, over the discussion on the restrictions of visa, a student justified the city-specific visa by saying that Indians would come and spy on our weapons. Another important part of the discussion was on the role that people can play in improving the relations. Interestingly, I was asked the same question during a discussion in a university in Gujarat (India), some months back.

The questions that we were asked in Pakistan were exactly the same as asked during discussions in India on this issue. This shows that people on both sides are curious, have the same apprehensions, perceptions about each other. Having these interactions also helped as they highlighted the fact that on both sides, people preferred peace over conflict. The students were excited to hear us and wanted to interact and connect personally.

While the six days in Pakistan gave way to new bonds, it also strengthened the existing ones. While Lahore didn’t seem much different and definitely not part of a different country, my friends, three of whom came all the way from Islamabad and one from Peshawar made sure that it didn’t even seem like a different city. Six days in Pakistan and few hours before my scheduled departure, I was wondering if I could stay back even for one more day – this says enough of how Pakistan treated me. I came back with new thoughts, knowledge to break some more stereotypes and more importantly, a new strength to work for peace between the two countries. Let people of India and Pakistan meet and I am confident that each one will pen down a similar story.

This article got published on Dunya News Blog (Pakistan)

Leave a comment

Homosexuality is not unnatural; also present among animals

Source: Think being gay is unnatural? These 11 animals will prove you wrong

If diverse sexualities are not natural, then why is it found in most animals? If diverse sexualities are not natural then why do we need so many measures to impose heteronormativity?Here are some animals that prove diverse sexualities are a fact of nature:

1) Dragonflies: Dragonflies are among the most highly evolved predators in the insect world and they are also among the most demonstrative—engaging in spectacular in-flight ballets as well as serious sensual encounters with other dragonflies.

2) Giraffes: Young male giraffes, prior to mating with a female, sometimes engage in same-sex encounters and short term alliances

3) Rams: Domestic rams are statistically among the most extensively gay mammals in existence. Scientific studies have shown that up to eight percent of male sheep may form exclusively male-to-male pair bonds, forsaking all contact with the female ewes.

4) Dolphins

5) Rams

6) Western Gulls

7) Australian Black Swans: Homosexual behavior has been documented in wild Australian black swans, which sometimes form threesomes involving two males as they establish a nest site

8) Penguins

9) Laysan Albatrosses: In 2007, scientists studying the laysan albatrosses of Oahu noticed that sixty percent of birds present were female, and that thirty-one percent of all the albatross pairs were lesbian.

10) Bonobos: Bonobos, which resemble miniature chimpanzees, are not only among the world’s most intelligent animals but are in fact humanity’s closest relative. Since many of the conflicts occur between two males or between two females, homosexual bonding is a frequent occurrence among these amorous apes.

11) Cock of the Rock: Andean “cock of the rock” are spectacular forest songbirds with an extremely dramatic appearance, combining brilliant orange with a huge crest. Natural selection has led to some rather outlandish feather adornments. Remarkably, up to forty percent of males engage in same sex activity.
12) African Lion: A good percentage of male African lions have been found to engage in same-sex sexual activities
Leave a comment

Why we should support Raif Badawi

raifOn 17 June 2012, a Saudi Arabian Blogger Raif Badawi was arrested under the charge of “insulting Islam”. Raif Badawi had created “Free Saudi Liberals”, a website which encouraged debates on religious and political issues in 2008. The website promoted the idea of secularism and criticized religious extremism. He was charged of insulting Islam through this website.

The Saudi Supreme Court held him guilty and pronounced a sentence of 10 years in prison, 1000 lashes (50 lashes on every Friday) and a fine of 1 million riyals. After he serves a decade in jail, he is also forbidden to travel for the following decade and from participating in the media.

He had been previously charged for “apostasy” in 2008 as well but was released after questioning. “Apostasy” which means renunciation of one’s religion is chargeable with death sentence in Saudi Arabia. In 2012, the prosecutors wanted to charge him under apostasy as well but in 2013, he was cleared for it. According to sources, he may face the charge of apostasy again.

Raif Badawi is undergoing the punishment for the charge of “insulting Islam”. He is imprisoned. He had received the first 50 lashes in January. But since his wounds remain unhealed, the punishment has not been repeated.

Badawi has support from the international community. He receives support from the United Nations, United States, the European Union, Canada and several other countries. Human Rights Activists and Organisations around the globe have expressed their support with him. In January 2015, the United Nations had issued a last-minute appeal to Saudi Arabia to stop the scheduled second round of flogging for the activist. They had also appealed the Saudi Government to review this type of penalty. However, the Government remains unmoved. While the punishment is being delayed, there is no news of any relief. Infact, the Saudi officials have asked the international community not to “interfere” in the ‘internal’ matters of the country.

Badawi’s case is or should be for everyone who speaks and respects “Freedom of Speech”, “Secularism” and “Justice”. Here’s why we all should support him and demand his immediate release:

Right to Freedom of Speech and Expression

Freedom of Speech and Expression is one of the most important rights given to an individual. It is one of the important rights given in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the article 19 of which states,

“Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.”

It applies to all member countries of United Nations. Since Saudi Arabia is a member country, it is applicable for it as well. Going by this, Raif did nothing wrong. He has the right to freely express himself and to have an opinion. As the right mentions, he also had the right to seek information, learn from other sources regardless of the frontiers and this is what he had done. No Government should try to define the boundaries of knowledge.

Badawi has the right to think and decide for himself. He has the right to form his own opinion, choose what he may believe in. His website conducted debates on different issues. It cannot be regarded to be illegal and unacceptable. What is unacceptable is the behavior of the Saudi Government to restrict knowledge. Controlling freedom of speech, dissent is a mark of autocratic and barbaric states, not modern nation-states.

There is a difference between “Insult” and being “Critical”

Badawi has been accused of “insulting Islam” but how has he done so? There are no concrete evidences available to prove that he had “insulted” Islam. There is a difference between insulting and being critical and the latter cannot be regarded to be illegal or objectionable. Everyone has the right to be critical. It is important to understand and know what exactly had Badawi said that is considered to be against Islam. What was objectionable? Was his way of holding a debate over religious practices objectionable? If yes, then this very thinking is against Islam. Islam was born out of questionings, as a response to the contemporary sociopolitical situation. Islam is rational in its essence. Every practice that Prophet Mohammad had ascribed was given with reasons which were clearly specified. This method meant that he wanted that people should know why a certain practice has been prescribed. The underlying motive seems to be to challenge blind acceptance and to promote thinking and rationality. Thus, debates cannot be considered to be un-Islamic. Debates to think about the religious practice, to explore the true essence of islam cannot become unacceptable. A true Muslim who knows about the life and teachings of Prophet Mohammad will know it.

Prophet Mohammad laid down several practices and they all responded to the specific conditions at that time. The overarching ideology was to promote peace and justice. Even if Badawi may have challenged some of the practices, he did so by being under the ideological paradigms of Islam. So he could not have “insulted” Islam. He may have been critical which is allowed not only by the Universal Right to Freedom of Opinion but by Islam itself.

His writings targeted extremism, not Islam

As about the claims, it is again important to re-iterate the fact that no concrete evidences are available to show how he had “insulted Islam”. His website was shut down. What remains are some of his writings that have appeared in other websites. What emerges from his writings are his rejection of extremism of all sorts. He had not insulted islam, he had insulted extremism, blind following which as stated earlier, is antithesis to the spirit of Islam. Here are some extracts from his writings:

On the Israel-Palestine issue, Badawi wrote, “I’m not in support of the Israeli occupation of any Arab country, but at the same time I do not want to replace Israel by a religious state … whose main concern would be spreading the culture of death and ignorance among its people when we need modernisation and hope. States based on religious ideology … have nothing except the fear of God and an inability to face up to life. Look at what had happened after the European peoples succeeded in removing the clergy from public life and restricting them to their churches. They built up human beings and (promoted) enlightenment, creativity and rebellion. States which are based on religion confine their people in the circle of faith and fear” (Source: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/14/-sp-saudi-blogger-extracts-raif-badawi)

In another account, Badawi wrote on an incident in which an astronomer was punished on the grounds of being critical of sharia beliefs,

“I advise NASA to abandon its telescopes and, instead, turn to our Sharia astronomers, whose keen vision and insight surpass the agency’s obsolete telescopes. Indeed, I advise all other scholars the world over, of whatever discipline, to abandon their studies, laboratories, research centres, places of experimentation, universities, institutes etc. and head at once to the study groups of our magnificent preachers to learn from them all about modern medicine, engineering, chemistry, microbiology, geology, nuclear physics, the science of the atom, marine sciences, the science of explosives, pharmacology, anthropology etc. – alongside astronomy, of course. God bless them! They have shown themselves to be the final authority with the decisive word in everything, which all mankind must accept, submit to and obey without hesitation or discussion.” (Source: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/14/-sp-saudi-blogger-extracts-raif-badawi)

Through his writings, Badawi had criticized persecution of other religions in Saudi Arabia and the conservatism of Saudi Clerics, their attitude towards secularism.

This is not to argue that all his writings were unproblematic but what is true is that his larger ideas were right. There were no false claims. A glance at the Saudi Arab’s human rights record can testify it.

More importantly even if his ideas were problematic, his writings were one-sided or biased, the fact is that they were only articles. They were also not provocative. He also did not have the same authority as Saudi clerics did. Unlike them, he could not issue any fatwas to impose his view.

Death sentence for ‘Apostasy’ is barbaric

The Saudi authorities are trying to charge Badawi for apostasy for which he can be granted death sentence. Badawi would not be the first to be the victim for apostasy. Saudi Arabia has a terrible record of executing people. As reported by Amnesty, Saudi Arabia ranks among the top five executioners in the world. In 2014, 90 people were executed. So far in this year, 54 people have been reportedly executed in the first three months of 2015. (Source: https://www.amnesty.org/en/articles/blogs/2015/04/the-ultimate-punishment-saudi-arabia-ramps-up-beheadings-in-the-kingdom/ ) Apostasy is one of the top charges for execution. Apostasy means the renunciation of one’s faith and conversion to another.

Simply put, it is a barbaric practice. Everyone has the right to think and decide for oneself. Secondly, it again cannot be a rule that may have been given by Prophet Mohammad. The rationalist that he was, he would not have forced people to follow his teachings. He wanted people to follow his teachings by understanding them, their importance. Prophet Mohammad was also not opposed to people of other religions. His teachings did mark a deviation from them but he had not permitted the use of violence against them.

Killing people over their religious beliefs is un-Islamic and inhuman. More importantly, if one is truly religious, one will know that religion is a sacred thing. All religions teach the same thing. They teach love, justice and humanity. Only a person who is not familiar with his/her religion will fight over it. Religion is not an identity, it is a belief. If someone does not believe in or follow the religious practices, how does it matter if he/she is a follower or not?

A last point is that by giving death sentence or lashes as punishment, will the glory of Islam be established? Will people who do not believe or respect Islam start respecting it? There are better and more civil ways to tell people that what they are thinking is wrong. Violence is never the solution.

Badawi punished for opposing Saudi Arab authority, not Islam

Saudi Arabia has one of the worst human rights’ record. The Saudi Arab authorities severely restrict freedom of expression, impose censorship, have discriminating laws against women and non-muslims, have detained and sentenced without trial, many Government critics and political activists. Badawi had written about this at length. He had particularly criticized the government for suppressing dissent. There is a possibility that Saudi Arabian authorities have suppressed Badawi not for his views held to be against Islam but against itself. The lack of concrete evidence as well as the writings of Badawi hint at it.

Badawi’s case, thus, needs to be seen in a more complex way and should be supported by anyone who supports Freedom of Speech, Secularism and understands Islam. While Badawi’s case is not the first case, there is a chance to make it the last one or move towards a better tomorrow.


Amnesty International’s Annual Report: Saudi Arabia 2013 http://www.amnestyusa.org/research/reports/annual-report-saudi-arabia-2013

“A look at the writings of Saudi blogger Raif Badawi – sentenced to 1,000 lashes” by Ian Black published in The Guardian http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/14/-sp-saudi-blogger-extracts-raif-badawi

“What Blogger Raif Badawi’s new book reveals about Saudi Arabia” published in Deutsche Welle (DW) http://www.dw.de/what-blogger-raif-badawis-new-book-reveals-about-saudi-arabia/a-18353234

“Why Saudi Arabia is so afraid of Raif Badawi” by Sara Yasin published in Los Angeles Daily News http://www.dailynews.com/general-news/20150119/why-saudi-arabia-is-so-afraid-of-raif-badawi

Leave a comment

Role of people in improving Indo-Pak relations

While British India became independent and was divided into India and Pakistan for a more peaceful and saner future, we know that this is yet to be realized. Since separation, there has largely been a culture of war and extreme hatred. In these 67 years, there have been 4 major wars, countless ceasefire violations and indirect clashes suffered by divided families, prisoners and fishermen.

Yet, there exists a very pessimistic attitude towards peace. It has also been reduced to an issue of mockery. Working to improve relations is seen as passive and futile. Also, these views emanate not from the stakeholders but from the common masses in both countries. There is
not just a pessimistic attitude but also a severe questioning of it, especially on times of a clash. During any disturbance, the peace groups and activists are targeted. They are rendered accountable. Their loyalty towards their country is questioned. They are asked to prove their love for their country by condemning the other. Their efforts are regarded to be futile and showy.

In general, there exists a view that war and peace are in the hands of those who have political power. What can you and me do about it? The conflict is regarded to be a conflict between the state heads, between New Delhi and Islamabad. Is this true? Do people have no role to play?

What is then the purpose of interactive sessions, seminars, public demonstrations and student exchanges?

Another view that anyone who advocates for peace witnesses is that there can be no peace unless we solve the core issue, the Kashmir or the K-issue. Is this the only way to establish peace?

While the two views regarding the state’s role and the need to resolve core issue are not wrong, they are narrow and insufficient. We use the term “peace process”. The word “process” signifies that peace, like any process, will come under certain conditions and through a systematic way. It will come under a certain culture. While peace and conflict definitely depends on the political head, the decision or the official policy is never in isolation with the views of the people. The states manufacture consent. There is a certain ideological culture that it manufactured to create as well as sustain the official policy. In our context, hatred for India/Pakistan has been manufactured and sustained. There exists a culture of hatred and suspicion on both sides of the border. Both sides have constructed their own stereotypes and misconceptions. These have been aggravated, if not carefully constructed, by the lack of communication and by miscommunication. Both sides believe that they are right and the other is wrong. Both sides think the other does not want peace, the other is unjust and cruel.

These misconceptions are used to justify clashes. The state and public opinion cannot be said to be in isolation with each other. Both affect and influence each other. It was the public anger that killed Sarabjit Singh and Sanaullah Ranjay. It is public opinion that determines the action and ‘reaction’ on the borders. If we talk about issues of prisoners and fishermen, it is not just the state but the people’s biases (as prison guards, advocates and judges) that aggravate their sufferings. Thus, it is essential that a culture of peace, respect and understanding is established. People need to become sensitive and need to realize the importance of peace for a better future. They need to realize that the other, like them, wants peace and friendship. It is also this culture that will contribute to resolving of core issues. In the present scenario of jingoism, opinions are only classified as “pro-Indian” and “anti-Indian” or “pro-Pakistani” and “anti-Pakistani”, not in a rational way. They are not seen from a human perspective. It is the culture of peace that will motivate them to think rationally and in a just manner. Peace needs to be created before being established.

Thus, people cannot be regarded to be passive agents. The people of both countries need to take charge for a better future. 

This article got published on The Pakistan Today and CSS Current Affairs Pakistan website

Photo Source: http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/multimedia/dynamic/01261/indo-pak_jpg_1261225g.jpg

Leave a comment

Need to recognize multiple perspectives on partition

indopak partition

As I think of writing about partition, I pause to think if it is still a relevant issue? Partition of India and Pakistan happened 67 years ago and was succeeded by many other major clashes so should I instead talk about the wars? Is partition an outdated issue or does it still hold any relevance?

Talking of relevance, another debate that came to my mind was whether it is fine to keep talking about it? Should we not just move on?

I will begin by answering the second question first. Prof. Krishna Kumar in his book “Battle for Peace” (2007) has argued and I agree with him that while a lot has been written on partition, we have not been encouraged to engage with it. We have, especially on the Indian side, continued to see and develop it further without challenging the basic proposition. There is now an emphasis on oral history. There is also the angle of class that has been used to explore partition. It is argued that it was the Hindu dominating class v/s the Muslims dominated. While the Indian scholars have debated upon the inevitability of the partition, there hasn’t been any significant attempt to imagine India if partition had not happened. This should not be surprising because the narrative of partition is tied up with the foundation of two countries. While partition is a moment of “crisis” for one, it is a moment of “liberation” for another. This discourages attempts to see partition from the side of the “other”. This discourages any critical dialogue on the narrative of the partition. But it is relevant a discussion? Should we not just forget and move on?

The fact is we can’t. Before forgetting about the partition, we need to engage in a dialogue with it. We need to understand the complexities of the past because it shapes our present perspectives. 67 years after, India and Pakistan still seems to live in the past. 67 years after, we still compare ourselves. On both sides, there are still people who debate if the decision to part ways was right or not. On the Pakistan side, the vision of Quaid-e-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah is constantly reminded. As Prof. Krishna Kumar in his book “Pride and Prejudice” (2001) had shown that the idea of Pakistan shared by Quaid-e-Azam during the formative period of Pakistan is still invoked. This is not true for the Indian side. But on the Indian side, many people still remember partition and the existence of Pakistan but in a more negative light. Many people have the misconception that Pakistan came out of India whereas on partition, undivided colonial India had been partition into two nations – India and Pakistan and imagine a “father-son” relationship which is used in a derogatory sense. There are still many people who would point at any negative news from Pakistan and would say that Pakistan has failed and it will soon “merge” with India.

67 years after, we still carry a stagnant picture of each other. Because the partition happened on communal lines, on both sides, people imagine a conservative or hypocrite other. So the talk of partition is still not irrelevant. It is very much alive. The narrative of partition continues to shape our perceptions about each other.

When I say narrative, I mean the “official” narrative. As stated above, both sides have constructed an opposing narrative. The Indian side “officially” sees partition as a sad event. It views it as a significant break in the ‘secular’ fabric of the country. It views it largely as the conspiracy of the British. This is the dominant and official view on partition in India. On the “Pakistan” side, the partition is far from being a moment of “crisis”. It was the partition that led to the birth of Pakistan as a separate country. It is seen as “liberation”. Liberation from whom? As the official narrative of partition says, liberation from both British and Hindu dominance. The book “Pride and Prejudice” (2001) gives the content of history textbooks in both India and Pakistan. Both countries have given different interpretations for same historical events. Both have chosen to emphasise or neglect certain events. Both have used history for their project of nation-building. While India used it to save itself from fragmenting any further, Pakistan used it for legitimizing its decision of separation and for sovereignty. All countries use history for its own national ends and India and Pakistan are no exception.

It is important at this stage to clear that my intention is not to challenge any narrative. It is infact to state that different perspectives exist and we must recognize that. It is to say that none of the narratives can be entirely refuted. One cannot really argue that whose interpretation of history was correct. It cannot be argued that there was no Hindu dominance. It cannot be argued that before the British, there were no problems between Hindus and Muslims. The British may have encouraged the division but they cannot be alone blamed for it. Similarly, the complete difference and opposition theory cannot be accepted either. There cannot be such a simplistic division of population, lived experiences into Hindu and Muslim. The religious identity cannot be assumed to be primary. We need to view these interpretations more critically. History as a discipline has many schools of thought. It accommodates several interpretations and we must respect that.

Besides these two official narratives, we have the narrative of partition that many people on both sides did not and still do not accept the decision of partition. Many did not want to migrate and wanted to live in the place that they had been living for since years. There are many who did not want to migrate but had to or were forced to. We must also respect this. This narrative seems to be more dominant and “accepted” in India. The reason was stated above.

The reason why we need to recognize the different perspectives on partition is because it seems to be the way forward for peace. We need to engage with the narrative of partition, understand it, view it critically and accept that the past was very complex. We need to engage with the past before moving on because the past shapes our present perceptions. We cannot see partition simply as either a sad and disruptive moment in the secular fabric of Indian society or as a moment of liberation accepted by all. On the Indian side, we find it is fine to refute partition without thinking that refuting partition refutes the very existence of a country. This pertains more to ignorance on the Indian side because of the existing official narrative. Similarly, on the Pakistan side, there is a need to realize that while partition is a reality, it was not accepted by all at that time for different reasons. This does not refute the existence of Pakistan. We need to accept that different perspectives exist. We need to engage more critically with our past. We cannot see partition from one view and talk of peace. The past was complex and we need to recognize that for a simpler future.


Kumar, Krishna. 2001. Prejudice and Pride. India: Penguin Books.

Kumar, Krishna. 2007. Battle for Peace. New Delhi: Penguin Books.

This article was published on CountercurrentsSouth Asia Monitor and Eurasia Review


Sexual violence by army is a reality and cannot be justified

AFSPA devika mittal

In 2004, Thangjam Manorama, was brutally raped and murdered by Assam Rifles. She was arrested from her house at around 3 am on the allegation of being a “militant”. Her body was found a day later. There were bullet shots in her vagina and semen all over her skirt. To protest against this brutual rape and killing, a group of about 50 women had staged a nude protest in front of the Kangla fort. They had raised slogans like “The Indian Army rape us”. This protest had forced the Manipur Government to act. The Manipur Government had ordered an inquiry and submitted a report but the Guwahati High Court had rejected it saying that the Manipur Government does not have the authority. After continuous pressure, there were some developments in the case but they have not led to any result. Till now, justice has not been granted. This case was not an exception. Such incidents have happened before and continue to happen in areas where the Armed Forces Special Powers Act(AFSPA) has been imposed. Many believe this is because AFSPA provides the armed forces with legal impunity.

The Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA) rules over eight states in India – North East India (except Sikkim) and the state of Jammu & Kashmir. In the name of “upholding law and order”, the law gives the right to armed forces to arrest without a warrant, shoot to kill any person on mere suspicion. The law protects the army persons with legal impunity. The officers found guilty can be punished only after the central government issues a sanction. This is one of the main reasons why today AFSPA has become a symbol of army arbitrariness and cruelty in AFSPA areas. AFSPA has resulted in fake encounters, rapes, torture, extra-judicial killings and disappearances.

Much has been written about how the army is misusing its power not only to disregard the civilians but also the government and judiciary. We have had instances where the armed forces have refused to co-operate even when the judiciary has taken up such cases and have been accused of destroying or manipulating evidence. Even in the case of Manorama, it is alleged that the guilty officers had shot her several times in the vagina to destroy evidence. The state government too has acknowledged cruelty of the army in some instances. State government officials have in some cases in Manipur paid compensation to the victims of AFSPA. Former Union Finance Minister P. Chidambaram had acknowledged that he felt “ashamed” of the Kunan Poshpora incident of Kashmir wherein atleast 50 women were raped by the soldiers of Rajputana Rifles in a single night. But the army alone cannot be blamed. In many cases, the central government has also refused to sanction the right to punish the guilty officers.

There is a sense of hypocrisy, when India talks about human rights, and criticizes China for the atrocities committed in Tibet, and gives shelter to political refugees. While we are proud to call ourselves a democracy, the truth is that the army is very powerful. Also, while AFSPA, an anti-human law, does permit killing, the law does not permit sexual violence. How can the sexual violence be justified at all? This should not come under legal impunity. This was also one of the recommendations of the Justice Verma committee that was appointed in December 2012 to review laws for sexual crimes. The committee had recognized sexual violence by armed forces in AFSPA areas and had recommended that the cases of sexual violence be brought under ordinary criminal law.

The army being held responsible in cases of sexual violence will, in no way, “degrade” or “disrespect” the army as the army officials would like us to believe. We must respect our army. They do sacrifice their lives for us, whatever the motivation may be. It does not mean all their acts are right or should be justified. These incidents are real, they are not fabrications and the guilty army personnel should be punished. The cases of sexual violence have not only been reported from AFSPA states. There have been several reported cases of army men raping civilians in non-AFSPA states. While this does not mean that all army persons misuse their power, some definitely do. The glorification of army and army persons serves like impunity even in non-AFSPA states. Army personnel should never feel insulted or degraded because of measures to ensure transparency and accountability under certain circumstances. But the army cannot and should not have criminals in uniform, they cannot be above the law. This is a democracy and the army being a part of the state must respect it. 

This article was published on The News Minute