Historiography needs to go beyond Eurocentrism and saffronisation.
Suchet’s portrayal was more than the sum of the character’s distinctive props.
Producers of highbrow art never quite shake off a need for what’s further down.
The Aam Aadmi Party’s controversial foray into Kashmir affairs and the BJP’s continuing attacks on the UPA government’s foreign policy last week do not bode well for India’s national security at a critical moment in domestic politics and great uncertainty in the international environment.
The call for a referendum in Kashmir on the presence of the army there by Prashant Bhushan, a senior leader of the AAP, shows how unready the party is for the big stage. The problem is not that Bhushan has his foot in his mouth. After all, this is not the first time he has stirred up a controversy on Kashmir. In 2011, he had reportedly suggested that a plebiscite should decide whether Kashmir should be part of India. The worry is about the party’s facile understanding of the national security challenges in Kashmir.
The army has been deployed in Kashmir since the end of the 1980s for a specific reason — to cope with the extraordinary threat to the nation’s territorial integrity accentuated by cross-border terrorism aided by the Pakistan army. The AAP seems to forget that J&K’s accession to the Union of India is contested by Pakistan and parts of this frontier state are under the occupation of Pakistan and China.
Yet, it is not out of place for a political party to raise questions about the nature, disposition, and effectiveness of the army’s large scale deployment in Kashmir for nearly a quarter of a century. Instead of responsibly initiating what could have been a useful national debate, however, the AAP has raised a highly sensitive issue in a cavalier manner. As a new political formation that has captured the nation’s imagination in a short span of time, the AAP might be excused for its innocence on national security.
The BJP, in power during 1998-2004, has no such redeeming explanation for its churlish attitude towards national security. Consider, for example, the party’s reaction to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s comments on the foreign policy record of the UPA government at a press conference last Friday.
The BJP’s criticism of the PM’s statement that India was in sight of a breakthrough with Pakistan and its questioning of the terms of the UPA’s Kashmir negotiations with Islamabad are breathtaking in their cynicism.
It is well known that Atal Bihari Vajpayee authorised negotiations with Pakistan on Kashmir, for the first time since 1963, through a back channel, immediately after the NDA came to power in 1998. Interlocutors on the Pakistani side have affirmed that these discussions took place on the basis of the so-called “Chenab formula” that would have involved some territorial concessions.
The veteran journalist, Kuldip Nayar, reported in his book, Scoop (published in 2006), that Vajpayee had told him India and Pakistan “were almost there” in clinching a Kashmir settlement during 1998-99. Pakistan’s Kargil betrayal in 1999 and the failed Agra Summit with Pervez Musharraf in 2001 did not stop Vajpayee, who understood the utmost importance of regional peace and reconciliation.
Vajpayee’s persistence eventually bore fruit in January 2004, when he hammered out a continued…