1971, Majlis & Vande Mataram

We wrapped up the debate on 1971; as I quipped I had been forced to “Defend the Indefensible. Most of the audience who spoke up did so in our favour (the audience was very mixed).


I found this an interesting debate because it was extremely difficult subject area; I could have argued for either side but it so happened I was slotted into “Team Pak”, which frankly suited me.

My “Pakistaniyat” is surging at the moment after Iran, Queen of the East, was slighted last week. I’ve realised Pakistan is the Persianate Shield and a stalking horse for our Turanian civilisational-complex. Once we cede the Satrap on the Indus; all chaos follows.

So this debate, which was rather serendipitous since it was only a matter of “timing” (I had gone for Chaat & Chat and then got drafted/enlisted myself in the debate) chimed with my own awakening Pakistani identity; dormant for so long.

However this does not change my pro-Hindu anti-Islam convictions (contradictory much I know). The latest controversy at Majlis is that the old logo had Vande Mataram on it, to which the Pakistanis are objecting to.

Vande Mataram

I’m extremely upset about this since as a Briton I’m rooted in a love for tradition. If the Majlis logo had Vande Mataram when it was founded in 1891 then it must continue the same tradition.

There are understandable concerns about VM’s anti-Muslim bias but Pakistanis must transcend the tit-for-tat mentality. Otherwise I will be making a move to change the name of Majlis to something neutral like “South Asian Gathering.” The Persianate culture did not come to India peacefully but forcefully and if we Pakis are to take on historical slights at every opportunity then we must also accept the dismantling of our shared culture.

VM is a rousing anthem about an ancient people waking up to defend their Motherland. It is a historical fact that those invaders included the Muslims and therefore just as God Save the Queen has some problematic verses so will VM. It doesn’t mean that we have to deny it but rather accept and understand the context in which it arose.

As a Kaffirstani I dislike the intense Pakistani attachment to Islam. Pakistanis must learn now to slice away this reflexive association and start immersing ourselves in a Hindu cultural framework. Just because India destroyed Babri Masjid and assault Allahabad does not give Pakistan any permission to destroy Hindu temples or rename Lakshmi Chowk. In fact Indo-Islamic culture has always been syncretic and Pakistan must embrace the Indian as well as the Islamic.

Cambridge as a South Asian Hub

Incidentally I was the first speaker of the first debate, in over 30 years, of a 128 year old Society that was extremely influential in the politics during the Raj.

As an aside Cambridge has always been a hub for South Asian politics unlike Oxford; Allama Iqbal, Chaudhary Rahmat, Nehru, Rajiv Gandhi are all associated with the college. I imagine this has to do with Cambridge’s more “radical” politics as opposed to Oxford being more conservative and establishment driven.

What I enjoy about Majlis is that it chimes so well with my online interests in BP and BC (BrownCast). A decade (patchy at times) of BP gives me a rather deep familiarity with the minutiae of South Asian contemporary politics and history..

The arguments on 1971

I made two arguments (we were limited 5 minutes each) and I got a bit carried away so I thundered them (at heart as a Kaffirstani, I’m quite the chameleon in my relentless need to blend in I take on lots of different roles):

(1.) The cause for a Just War. India did not sufficient explore diplomatic or international consensus. India as an “aggressive power”; 1948 Hyderabad, 1963 Goa and of course 1971 East Pak.

Furthermore the need to establish some greater consensus was not geniune as the Soviet Union was trying to avoid conflict a month before.

(2.) The nuclearification of the Subcontinent stemmed immediately from 1971 (December 1971 the war was lost, Jan 1972 Pakistan began the nuclear program).

I’ve heavily condensed my two arguments but I was only meant to deliver the main thrusts.

I was followed by my very good friend MJ, who’s a brilliant postdoc physicist (he’s Indian Hindu but his ancestors are from Dhaka). He structured his arguments as follows:

(1.) India was forced to act on its principles and help midwife the Bangladeshi people to freedom.

(2.) The genocide of the Bangladeshi people (he prefaced his remarks with gonimoter maal).

Following that we had some other argument (3 Prop, 3 Opp including ourselves) however my second Prop focused on the “hypocrisy” of Indian foreign policy.

To cut a very long story short I do think the Prop carried it because we did not contest the need for Bangladeshi independence but rather drew upon the reasons for Indian interference in 1971.

BrownCast Podcast episode 23: Dr. Jeffery Long on Hinduism, history and politics

Another BP Podcast is up. You can listen on LibsyniTunes, Spotify,  and Stitcher. Probably the easiest way to keep up the podcast since we don’t have a regular schedule is to subscribe at one of the links above.

You can also support the podcast as a patron (the primary benefit now is that you get the podcasts considerably earlier than everyone else…). Would appreciate more positive reviews.

Today we talk to Jeffery Long, a professor of religious studies at Elizabethtown College. A practitioner of Vedanta, he is also the author of Historical Dictionary of Hinduism, Jainism: An Introduction, and A Vision for Hinduism: Beyond Hindu Nationalism. Dr. Long is also an editor of Buddhism and Jainism.

We discussed a variety of topics, from the nature of Hindu philosophy, the interaction with Islam, the distinction between astika and nastika schools, as well as Dr. Long’s impressions of Tulsi Gabbard (someone who he actually met at some point).

Pakistan, India, Israel..

From Dr Hamid Hussain

There are some discrepancies in Indian and Pakistani narratives that give rise to many speculations.  I have also heard some rumors about an Israeli pilot in Pakistani custody but hard to confirm or make sense.  One Pakistani former senior diplomat has alluded to this.  If he is wrong then it is most irresponsible on his part. If true then in these days of Wikileaks and anointing of saints of modern day technology; St. Chelsey Manning and St. Julian Assange, it can not be kept secret for long.  In hyper-nationalist fervor, it is very easy for people to go ‘off the rails’ and modern technology running away with ‘fake news’.

It will be extremely irresponsible on part pf Israelis to jump into India-Pakistan fray directly by allowing its pilots to fly combat missions.  As India buys a lot of defense equipment therefore many Israeli technicians are likely helping Indian forces in training and maintenance of defense equipment which is different.  Israel is very good at ‘bridge technologies’ where advanced electronics of either American origin or indigenous made are retro-fitted in Russian products to improve their capability.  Indian inventory is predominantly Russian therefore it makes sense for Indian-Israeli cooperation in this arena.  India improves its defense capability although in my view only marginally and Israel finds a lucrative market for its defense industry.  Nothing wrong as it is in the interest of both parties. Continue reading Pakistan, India, Israel..

Cambridge Union Debate on 1971 War

Image may contain: 6 people, including Mrittunjoy Guha Majumdar and Zachary Zavidé

This is the formal re-launch of the Cambridge Majlis, 128 years after its inception. This is their first event in almost 30 years however they were extremely influential (Cambridge has always been a South Asian nexus moreso than Oxford).

Image may contain: plant and text

How Indian are Pakistanis (vs. non-Indian)

I was sent this link via Twitter, Pakistanis are Arabs:

OK – so clearly that’s nonsense … but while I have your attention ..

Back in 2012, the Aspen Institute held a discussion called “My Middle East” featuring authors from around the “modern Middle East”. This included participants from various Arab countries, Turkey, Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan. Each author was given an opportunity to provide insight into their unique Middle Eastern experience. The brilliant Daniyal Mueendin was representing Pakistan. When it was his turn to speak, he started rambling about how the question was confusing to him as he was not a Middle-Easterner and so didn’t really know what to say – in other words, he missed the point completely i.e for all practical purposes (and particularly from the perspective of the audience) his cultural experience was Middle Eastern enough. I should add that the participants from Turkey and Afghanistan had no such problems. To me this brought to the fore an issue that’s been bothering me for a while namely a tendency among affluent, liberal Pakistanis to underplay Pakistan’s cultural affiliation with the Greater Middle East and instead fixate eastward, towards India, for such cultural linkages.

To be frank there is no substance I can see to the blog post, just some assertion. After reading this I am more convinced that Pakistanis are South Asian and shouldn’t be included as part of the “Greater Middle East,” because the argument presented is so weak, vacuous and contentless.

Pakistanis, especially the ones who are from Pashtun backgrounds, are more Middle Eastern than other South Asian peoples, even Muslims from Uttar Pradesh. I don’t deny that. But the dominant Punjabi culture of Pakistan is South Asian. Indian if you want to remove the term “Indian” from its current political valence.

Note: It is not surprising that this is the question where some of our local Hindu nationalists agree with Pakistani nationalists. Reality damns them both.

BrownCast Podcast episode 22: Ajay Verghese on pre-colonial India, Hindus, Muslims, etc

Another BP Podcast is up. You can listen on LibsyniTunes and Stitcher. Probably the easiest way to keep up the podcast since we don’t have a regular schedule is to subscribe at one of the links above.

You can also support the podcast as a patron (the primary benefit now is that you get the podcasts considerably earlier than everyone else…). Would appreciate more positive reviews.

Today we talk to Ajay Verghese; Ajay is an assistant professor of political science at UC Riverside and has written extensively about ethnic and religious conflicts in pre-colonial, colonial (i.e. British Colonial, not earlier Turko-Mughal colonists) and independent India. We talk about Hindus, Muslims, religious conversion, conflicts, and other fun stuff.

The Pulwama attack and its Aftermath

Last week the world media was gripped with the news of Indian airstrikes inside Pakistan followed a day later by Pakistani figher jets (which allegedly included F-16s) apparently intruding or flying very close to the LOC and atleast one of the Indian jets, MiG 21, pursuing the Pakistani fighter planes getting hit with both the plane & its pilot falling into the PoK region.

Initially the Pakistani army & political establishment claimed that they had downed two Indian jets and that they had 2 Indian pilots in their custody but this was corrected a little while later to the claim the custody of only 1 Indian pilot.

Two days later the Indian pilot was handed over to India after the Pakistani PM Imran Khan made an official announcement within their parliament. The prompt release of the Indian pilot is considered by some to have gone a long way in de-escalation though heavy shelling at LOC from both sides appears to be still ongoing.

The Background

However, behind this unfolding story that dominated International media for a few days, there are other developments preceding and succeeding it which also need to be looked into.

The reason why India was forced to carry out the airstrikes deep into Pakistan in Balakot, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa was the massive suicide attack on a CRPF convoy of about 75 buses transporting 2500 soldiers back to the borders after their holidays. This attack martyred more than 40 Indian soldiers and caused a huge uproar across the nation. The Indian government was quick to point to Pakistan for the attack and as per The Hindu newspaper, the Pakistan based Jaish-e-Mohammad claimed responsibility for the attack with the suicide bomber being a local Kashmiri youth.

The NDA government in India under Narendra Modi had so far tried to project a no-nonsense image against terrorism, especially in Kashmir. As a result, the Uri attack was followed by what India claimed was a major ‘surgical strike’ across the border into PoK that apparently left many dead in the terrorist lauchpads. The recent Pulwama attack was bigger than Uri and so the Modi government was expected to do something akin to the ‘surgical strike’ or maybe bigger. Modi warned of a retaliation and the air was thick in anticipation. The Balakot airstrikes followed 12 days later.

The Pakistani narrative all along has been that there is no proof of Pakistani involvement in the Pulwama attack and that it was willing to act upon the terrorist organisations inside Pakistan if India provided them ‘actionable intelligence’. The Pakistani political establishment argues that given the precarious economic position Pakistan finds itself in, it is in no position for adventurism  and carry out the Pulwama attack and create more problems for itself. It has been also preaching peace non-stop. The release of the Indian pilot was also apparently meant to further this Pakistani objective.

Who’s behind the Pulwama attack ?

In consonance with the Pakistani establishment preaching peace and innocence has been the narrative within Pakistan which suggests that it is Narendra Modi & his Govt consisting of Hindu fundamentalists who want war and bloodshed and who are just looking for an excuse to start a war. Apparently this war hysteria & jingoism across India against Pakistan is Modi’s own making which he has created to help him win the upcoming elections which he would otherwise lose. Infact the demonisation of Modi in Pakistani media has been a constant feature ever since he became the PM candidate from the BJP for the 2014 polls. In newspapers like the Dawn, there does not pass by a week without atleast a couple of articles about the ‘misdeeds’ and ‘mal-intentions’ of Modi & RSS/BJP .  This has been happening for 5 years now. You are unlikely to find a single Pakistani who has some good to say about Modi. Thats the kind of propoganda the Pakistani media has run against Modi & BJP/RSS with a lot of help from their liberal leftist media friends in India. Many in Pakistani are quite convinced that the Pulwama attack itself was done at the behest of Modi so that he could create a war hysteria and use it to his benefit in the elections.

Nevertheless, the Pulwama attack was not the only major terrorist attack in the region in the past few weeks. Just a day before the Pulwama attack which happened on February 14, there was an identical terrorist attack in Iran where a suicide bomber in a car/van attacked a bus of the elite Revolutionary guards of Iranian armed forces in the Sistan province in which as many as 27 of these soldiers were martyred. The attack was claimed by Jaish-ul-Ahd, a group operating from within Pakistan just like the Jaish-e-Mohammad. It is likely that Jaish-ul-Ahd has links with Lashkar-e-Taiba & the Pakistani establishment.


The Iranians have vowed revenge and they also appear to put the blame on Pakistan.

The extemely identical nature of these terrorist attacks in Iran & India separated by a mere day, and targetting the security forces of these countries travelling in convoys, by jeeps/vans driven by suicide bombers, suggest that these attacks may even have been planned together. If so, it raises the question – could Pakistan have the gumption to carry out such dastardly attacks at the two ends of their neighbourhood ? And to what avail ?

If Pakistan is given the benefit of doubt, it still does not mean that groups based within the Pakistani soil did not carry out these attacks. But could it be there is some external agency or power involved which has enough reach in the South Asian region in general and also in Pakistan, that backed these groups to carry this out ?

The responses of the Iranian leadership immediately after their armed forces were attacked is worth a read.

As per their Supreme leader Khamenei, “It is certain that the perpetrators of this crime were linked to spy agencies of certain regional and trans-regional countries and Iran’s relevant organizations must focus on that and seriously pursue it.”

Their President Rouhani while blaming the US & Israel as the “root causes of terror” in the region, urged Iran’s neighboring countries to “fulfill their legal obligations” within the framework of the principle of good neighborliness and prevent the terrorist groups from using their soil to launch attacks against their neighbors. In this last bit, the neighbouring country he had in mind appears to none other than Pakistan.

Could the Iranian leadership be onto something here and could it be that other more formidable powers with interests in the region, especially in Afghanistan & Pakistan, had a role in the twin attacks ? Surely one should not let Pakistan off the hook. It appears that even Iran argues about Pakistani complicity in the attack on its forces,

“Pakistan’s government, who has housed these anti-revolutionaries and threats to Islam, knows where they are and they are supported by Pakistan’s security forces,” said Revolutionary Commander Major General Mohammad Ali Jafari, referring to terror group Jaish al-Adl (“Army of Justice”). 

“If (the Pakistan government) does not punish them, we will retaliate against this anti-revolutionary force, and whatever Pakistan sees will be the consequence of its support for them,” Ali Jafri warned. 

However, could it be that the terrorist organisations and their military/ISI backers are a law unto themselves who perhaps do not even willingly answer to the Pakistani establishment and are willing to do the work of the highest bidder ? In such an environment, an external power can certainly find much opportunity to further its own ends.

The Aftermath of the Indian air-strikes

Apparently, after the air strikes, there was also a threat of a missile attack on Pakistan, as claimed by the political leadership of Pakistan (Imran Khan, Shah Mehmood Qureshi), a perilous situation that was subsequently diffused. It also appears that the US among all the external players involved in the region, has played the most active and significant role in diffusing the situation between India & Pakistan.

The statement by Donald Trump from Hanoi, Veitnam of some “reasonably attractive” news coming from India-Pakistan followed by the release of IAF pilot as well as the Pakistan Foreign Minister profusely thanking the Americans in playing the lead role in diffusing the tensions is clear pointing to such an inference.

As per Qureshi, “I would especially like to thank US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. By utilising private diplomacy, the US has played a very positive role. I’d also like to mention the efforts of China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Jordan and the UAE for trying to defuse the situation through diplomacy.

The response from China has been on the other hand quite muted. It has also refused to take sides with Pakistan, whether in defending it from the Pulwama attack accusation or after the Balakot airstrike. China has merely asked both the countries to sort out the differences between themselves.

It could very well be that sensing an opportunity in the ongoing crisis to further its own ends, the US forced itself into the mediation between the two countries. In response to relieving the pressure from India, Iran & Afghanistan, India would have likely asked for strict concrete steps being taken against LeT & JeM and their leaders. However, it is also certain that the US would also have asked for its pound of flesh in the bargain in the form of Pakistani support in the US activities in the region, such as in the US talks with the Taliban. It may also have been a way for the US to convey to Pakistan that in a crisis with India, it was only the US and not China that can help it. If Pakistan has acquiesced to the US demands, we may even see some economic aid given to them by the US pretty soon.

What can India do ?

It seems to be clear that the US and Indian interests in Afghanistan and Pakistan are not converging.  In the current flare-up, the US appears to not be completely on the Indian side. While it has condemned the terrorist attack, batted for India’s right to respond and asked Pakistan to act against the terrorists on its soil, it has taken an attitude of reconciliation rather than confrontation with Pakistan.

As far as India is concerned, one of the things that has changed from the Indian side is that it has shown a willingness to respond to a cross-border terrorist attack with significant escalation. This raises the stakes for all those countries with interests in the Af-Pak region such as the US, Russia & China as well as for the wider international community. India’s entreaties to other countries about terrorism emanating from Pakistan which harms it, will henceforth be taken with a greater urgency. The airstrikes did not just send a signal to the Pakistani establishment and they may have also served to remind the world community that India is in no mood to take this lying down and if they want things to run smoothly, they ought to exert pressure on Pakistan.

It appears now that Pakistan has for the time being at the very least started acting against the terrorist organisations if the news coming out of Pakistan is to be believed. Besides the Indian pressure, the imminent blacklisting under FATF is also hanging like a Damocles’ sword on Pakistan’s neck. But India remains unconvinced because it has often seen such actions being reversed in the past.

It remains to be seen what the larger Indian objective is and how will it be achieved. One likely strategy is to bring Iran & Afghanistan on the same page as India and portray them as victims of Pakistan based rogue elements. How much support does India get from the US in this is anybody’s guess.

While the Imran Khan government has unequivocally said that it wants nothing but peace with India, it has still made all efforts to highlight the Kashmir issue and sell its narrative of Indian atrocities in Kashmir. So, it is clear that though Pakistan seeks peace it still wants it on its own terms. As long as Pakistan maintains this obstinacy peace in the region will remain elusive.  If Pakistan is sincere about peace, it should stop its focus on Kashmir. If India-Pakistan relations improve it is quite natural that the terrorism in Kashmir and alleged Indian atrocities are going to die down. So why does Pakistan not see this ? Perhaps because it still harbors a desire of wresting Kashmir out of Indian control, if not as a Pakistani province than as a independent country under its absolute influence. This will quite obviously not be acceptable to India at any cost. The sooner the Pakistani establishment lets go off this, the better it would be for peace in the region.

In the long term, the South Asian region needs to come together as one block if it wants World powers to stop meddling in the region. The biggest stumbling block is the Indo-Pakistani conflict on Kashmir and Pakistan’s willingness to act as a client state of world powers like the US and China who are only chasing after their own interests. China has a firm handle on Pakistan at the moment and it is unlikely that China will let go off it anytime soon but the Pulwama crisis has left the Chinese in an awkward position. With Pakistan giving the lion’s share of the credit for de-escalation to the US, the Chinese have had to themselves come forward and claim that it too played a ‘constructive’ role in the de-escalation. What this means for the future is anybody’s guess.

Brown Pundits