Gandhi and Kashmir

From The Statesman
Little is known about the role which Gandhi played with regard to the Kashmir issue during the last few months of his life. The stand which he took shows that his idealism did not prevent him from being practical. His blend of the two led Kingsley Martin of the New Statesman and Nations, who interviewed him a few days before his death, to observe: “My affection for Gandhi and my knowledge that he was a great man were not impaired by the discovery that he was still a Hindu nationalist and an imperfect disciple of the Mahatma.” Gandhi was anxious to lend a helping hand to resolve the Kashmir issue. From 31 July-2 August 1947, he made a two-day visit to Srinagar and a one-day visit to Jammu. In the course of these visits, he met, besides the Maharaja and Maharani, Prime Minister Ram Chandra Kak, Begum Abdullah, National Conference workers and members of the public. On 6 August, Gandhi briefly informed Nehru and Patel about what he said or noted during the meetings: “I told the Prime Minister about his unpopularity among the people... Both the Maharaja and Maharani admitted that with the lapse of British paramountcy, the true paramountcy of the people of Kashmir would commence. However much they might wish to join the Union, they would have to make the choice in accordance with the wishes of the people. How they could be determined was not discussed. Bakshi Ghulam Mohammad was most sanguine that the result of the free vote of the people, whether on the adult franchise or on the existing register, would be in favour of Kashmir joining the Union provided of course that Sheikh Abdullah and his co-prisoners were released, all bans were removed and the present Prime Minister was not in power. Probably he echoed the general sentiment.” Gandhi’s visit to Srinagar caused a decisive impact. Ram Chandra Kak was removed from the office of Prime Minister on 10 August and Sheikh Abdullah was released on 29 September. All this and strengthening of the road link between Pathankot and Jammu would seem to suggest that ground was being prepared for accession of the State to India. But there is no hard evidence to support the Pakistani charge that a “sinister design” had been worked out by India to secure the accession of the State. This charge, in fact, stands refuted not only by the assertion of Lord Mountbatten but also by the unambiguous statement of three services Chiefs of India who were all British, namely General RM Lockhart, Chief of the Indian Army; Air Marshal TW Elmhirst, Commander of the Royal Indian Air Force; and Rear Admiral JS Hall, Chief of the Royal Indian Navy. In a joint statement, they said: “On 24 October, the Commander-in-Chief, Indian Army, received information that tribesmen had seized Muzaffarabad. This was the first indication of the raid. Prior to this date, no plans of any sort for sending Indian forces into Kashmir had been formulated or even considered.” On the other hand, Pakistan’s leaders, having attained their goal of a separate state by way of “direct action” and other questionable means, were in an aggressive frame of mind. They crafted an unusual plan to seize the state of Jammu and Kashmir by force. Under this plan, in order to cause dispersal of the State forces, skirmishes were manipulated all along the border, from Gilgit to Mirpur. Thereafter, on 22 October, a full scale tribal invasion, backed by Pakistan’s regulars, was launched. The tribesmen, comprising Afridis and Mahsuds and other “volunteers” and “freedom fighters”, were all operating under the overall command of Akbar Khan, a Major General in the Pakistani army who was given the code name of “General Tariq”. The state administration was so unprepared that it could not destroy the vital Krishan-Ganga bridge at Muzaffarbad for want of dynamite. Baramulla fell into the hands of the raiders on 24-26 October. Overtaken by their wild habits, they indulged in large-scale looting, burning, raping and killing. As noted by Father Shanks: “The tribesmen ~ great, wild, black beasts they were ~ came shooting their way down from the hills on both sides of the town. A 20-year old Indian nurse, Philomena, tried to protect a Muslim patient whose baby had just been born. She was shot dead first. The patient was next.” Even the St Joseph Convent was destroyed, and the Assistant Mother Superior and three nuns were brutally murdered. After visiting Baramulla, the correspondent of the New York Times wrote: “Surviving residents estimate that 3,000 of their fellow townsmen, including four Europeans and a retired British officer and his pregnant wife, were slain.” Though Gandhi criticised the raiders, his criticism of their beastly acts was rather mild and couched in general terms: “What they are doing will bring about the downfall of Islam and yet they say that they are doing all this for a free Kashmir.” However, he warmly approved of the dispatch of Indian armed forces for the defence of the state. He went to the extent of saying: “I would not shed a tear if the little Union force was wiped out bravely defending Kashmir like the Spartans at Thermopylae nor would I mind Sheikh Abdullah and his Muslim, Hindu and Sikh comrades dying at their post in defence of Kashmir.” Gandhi was criticised for his stand. His critics pointed out that during the Second World War Gandhi had advised Churchill, Hitler and Mussolini to follow his technique of non-violence. Why did he not give similar advice to his fellow-Indians, they asked. He countered: “I would be untrue to my faith if I refuse to assist in a just cause any person or measure that does not coincide with the principles of non-violence. The Indian armed force was sent in response to the appeals of Sheikh Abdullah, the Premier of Kashmir and the Maharaja. It is true that Kashmir should go to whom it belongs. In that case, all those who have gone from outside, be they Afridis and any other, should get out.” Gandhi preferred bilateral talks between India and Pakistan to a reference of the Kashmir issue being made to the United Nations. He thought that the reference would bring them only “monkey justice”. On two occasions at the end of December 1947, first on 25th and then on 29th, in the course of his post-prayers observations, he raised the question: “Could not the representatives of India and Pakistan sit down and thrash out the Kashmir affairs as they have already done in case of many other things? Could they not close their ranks and come to an amicable settlement with the assistance of impartial Indians? Or has impartiality fled from India?” Even after complaint had been made by India to the United Nations on 1 January 1948, Gandhi pleaded for its honourable withdrawal. At his prayer meeting on 4 January, he appealed to Pakistan to remain true to its name ~ clean ~ and wanted both the parties to have a change of heart. The understanding, he said, must be genuine; harbouring hatred would be worse than war. Gandhi’s aim was to ensure continuity of Hindu-Muslim unity, which he witnessed in Kashmir, and to extend it both to India and Pakistan. He wanted genuine understanding between the two countries. He was even thinking of going to Pakistan. He knew that the issue of Kashmir was like “a glowing match-stick in a rick of hay”, ever exposed to the risk of going up in flame. “At any rate, I won’t be there alive to witness it,” he remarked to Rajkumari Amrit Kaur, referring to the possibility of a war between India and Pakistan. “Is our independence going to end in such a fratricide?”

‘Terrorists are victims who create more victims’

From The Times of India

It’s Gandhi Jayanti, and Non-Violence Day. So, who better than Thich Nhat Hanh, tireless advocate of non-violence, to guide a Peace Edition? We hope his message will foster reconciliation and compassion
Midway through the news meeting, the grim news came in: Agartala had been rocked by serial blasts. All eyes immediately turned to Venerable Thich Nhat Hanh, the Guest Editor for our special Peace Edition. As journalists, what should we do on a day like this? The Zen master, who has rebuilt bombed villages, set up schools and medical centres, resettled homeless families and for a lifetime advocated tirelessly the principles of nonviolence and compassionate action, pondered for a while. He then answered softly but with great clarity, “Report in a way that invites readers to take a look at why such things continue to happen and that they have their roots in anger, fear, hate and wrong perceptions. Prevent anger from becoming a collective energy. The only antidote for anger and violence is compassion. Terrorists are also victims, who create other victims of misunderstanding.’’ This, remember, is the monk—now 82 years old—credited with a big role in turning American public opinion against the war in Vietnam—for which Martin Luther King Jr had nominated him for the Nobel Peace Prize in 1967. And so, his words are not to be dismissed lightly. “Every reader has seeds of fear, anger, violence and despair, and also seeds of hope, compassion, love and forgiveness,’’ said Thich Nhat Hanh, affectionately called Thay. “As journalists, you must not water the wrong seeds. You have the job of selectively watering the right seeds. You must attempt to tell the truth and yet not water the seeds of hate. It’s not what’s in the story, but how you tell it that’s important.’’ But how should the State deal with terror? Thay’s answer: “We should invite those who believe they are victims of discrimination and injustice to speak about it. We should initiate sessions of deep listening and invite deeply spiritual people, who don’t have to be famous, to attend these. We must televise these sessions nationally. I am sure you will see a dramatic drop in the level of violence. A war on terror cannot succeed, because you cannot bomb perceptions. The only solution is dialogue.’’ He cited the example of an experiment by his group of monks at Plum village in France, in 2006. “We asked people to write letters to terrorists and more than 40 letters came in. Some claimed, ‘I am the terrorist because I am also violent and there is suffering in me as well’. If we reduce the violence in us, and change, then we change others around us because then we are connected to them.’’ Talking about world peace, the monk said, “Political leaders, before they get down to talking at peace summits, should practise sitting, walking, talking informally with each other and practise techniques to calm themselves. Only then can talks lead to positive results.’’ The history of Vietnam in the last century was fraught with violence. Thay has himself seen war from close quarters. Naturally, the question came up—does he believe nonviolence can help find solutions in today’s complex world? Thay’s reply was surprisingly pragmatic. “Non-violence can never be absolute. However, you can make aggressive action less violent. The first step towards non-violence is to be calm and compassionate yourself.’’ ‘Happiness & safety can’t be individual thing’ Questions on wars and conflicts led to the next logical query. How can humanity relate with each other when it is divided within confines of national or ethnic or racial identities? That brought the Buddhist teacher into his element, propounding on one of Buddhism’s basic tenets of ‘nonself ’. The problem, he said, arises when one’s self is set against another’s self. Once we realize that self is made of non-self, then the issue of identity gets settled. “Man is made of non-man elements. I am made of so many non-me elements—my parents, the food I eat, the education I received, knowledge gained from others. Take away all the ‘non-me’, and there is no ‘me’ left. Buddhism is made of non-Buddhist elements. A Christian is made of non-Christian elements and a Muslim is made of non-Muslim elements,’’ said Thay. In other words, once we realize that the idea of ‘I’ is a mere figment of the imagination, with nothing real to correspond with it, we will realize our larger or universal self. That’s why, Thay says, we need to learn from suffering. Because only after we have understood the nature of suffering can we understand true happiness. “Happiness and safety can’t be individual matters. If you have peace on your side, only then can you promote peace in the world. Individual happiness is impossible, as is individual suffering. Because we are not one but a collective.’’ And what about the financial crisis that is causing many to suffer? The answer, says Thay, is related to greed and fear. “As journalists, you must help people so that they don’t become victims of greed and fear. If the aim is happiness, then you must be prepared to give up riches and fame and power, all of which are transitory.’’ Can the modern economy—fuelled by conspicuous consumption—co-exist with a monk’s lifestyle? After all, if everyone stopped consumption, industries would shut down and unemployment would rise. So, should individuals, in their pursuit of ‘selfish’ happiness, create unhappiness for others? “Many of us have started believing in happiness from consumption. But happiness is largely a problem of the mind. You don’t have to run into the future, you have enough conditions to be happy right here and now. But in our search for more conditions to be happy, we sacrifice the present. The remedy for us is to go home to the present moment. Don’t get stuck with the past or get sucked into the future. So many wonders of life are with you. Development is like a wild horse that we are riding, over which we have lost control,’’ responded Thay. But then, isn’t it much simpler for a monk to talk about not consuming than for people who have to deal with the world on the world’s terms? Can regular people with regular lives follow his teachings? According to Thay, “The meditative practice is for everyone, monks and nonmonks, the young and the less young. The conditions for reaching out for Buddha-hood are there for everyone. We are just caught up in our worries and projects. The kingdom of God is available for you. But are you available for the kingdom?’’ We couldn’t resist asking: what were his feelings when the Taliban destroyed the Bamiyan Buddhas? His reply: “There was no anger. We have a tendency to punish whoever has dared to make us suffer. We seek relief by making the other person suffer. If we see whoever is hurt as a victim, then a neuro pathway will open in our brain and we will forgive the person and reduce his suffering, which in turn will help us to suffer less. All this is not based on speculation but on the basis what we have done, in our group sessions.