Overture

After months of stalling and indolence, when I finally created this blog and had a look at it, something was amiss. It was empty. It had the look of a just-opened Savings Account with zero balance. Hell, even banks demand 1000 bucks so as not to make your account look like a system error. Unless, of course, you are a student or NREGA worker or...hmm, too many exceptions! Damn you 'financial inclusion'. 

So I stopped looking at "No Posts" like a moron and started to think of something to make the first deposit. But, as most of us already know, words escape us when we need them then most. So I decided to go for the second best thing - time-tested & expedient; something which I regularly took recourse to during my college days (adding my name to an ever-expanding list which boasts of names ranging from Bollywood Musicians to Fareed Zakaria): Ctrl+C ---> Ctrl+V 

Here I am copy-pasting an inadvertent exchange of e-mails that I'd had with Mr. Shamshad Ahmed (ex-Foreign Secretary, Pakistan) around this time last year, when I was making my early forays in the domain of Writing, zealously commenting on various blog-posts and newspaper articles. It was during one such 'article-hunting' that I came across this. Now, usually I am content with replying on the site itself but there was something (which makes our cricket team beat Pakistan in a World Cup match even if it had lost to practically every other country, including Zimbabwe) about the origin of the post that made it incumbent upon me to drop a reply in the inbox of the author (you know, make it personal). So I rolled up my sleeves, asked for Sunny paaji's blessings, pictured Gadar's हैण्ड पंप उखाड़ने वाला सीन and started writing. It turned out to be this:

Sir,

I read your article "May you long live, Katju!" published in The Nation and would like to submit that some of your arguments do not stand up to close scrutiny, especially if done rationally and dispassionately.

" They have met at thousand points, on battlefields and at festivals, around market places and in homes. And yet, they have remained distinct and far apart. "

Personally I do not agree with this assertion. From whatever limited interaction I had with Muslims here, it never felt like they were 'distinct and far apart'. And I am quite sure that the feeling was mutual. I do agree that there might be insecurities festering due to various reasons, practical and historical (that's another debate), but that does not necessarily translate into being distinct and far apart. In fact, taking a liberal guess and extrapolating from my personal experience, I would assert that most of them are tied by community bonds.

"Nobody can deny this reality; otherwise, there would not have been two states carved out of India in 1947. "

Sir, your reality is your perception of history. My reality is formed by my perception of history which says that partition of India cannot be reduced to a simplistic notion of incompatibility of Hindus and Muslims. It was a culmination of sequence of complex historical events contrived by, in large part, British. That is what I realized after reading history books.

" In his view, at least 80 percent of the Indians, both Hindus and Muslims, were communal. Against this fractious scenario, how can he be so confident of a ‘reunification’ in the subcontinent? "

I think you missed the basic point of Mr. Katju here. Mr. Katju's 'reunification theory' presupposes a secular mindset of all (or at least of a large majority of) the residents of sub-continent. But as you rightly pointed out, that far from being the case, it doesn't look like happening in foreseeable future.

"That the Congress was a predominantly Hindu organisation was evident from the fact that at its inaugural session, out of 72 delegates only two were Muslims."

This is the point I most strongly disagree with. What you have presented here is a fact but in my humble opinion it doesn't represent reality. As history books would tell us, after mutiny of 1857, Hindus (especially upper caste) were quick to take up to modern secular English education which resulted in their development of political consciousness. Muslims were late to respond to demand of changing times due to various factors. Sir Syed Ahmed Khan did his best to spread modern secular education among Muslims but it did not lead to widespread penetration of modern education. This prevented the rise of political consciousness among Muslim masses. This, coupled with the fact that Muslims were a minority, could explain why there were only 2 Muslims delegates in inaugural session of congress against 72 Hindus. 

"As early as in the beginning of the 11th century, Al-Biruni had observed that Hindus differed from the Muslims in all manners and habits. Since then, despite living together for more than a thousand years, Hindus and Muslims continued to develop different cultures and traditions."

Lastly I would like to point out that this enmity between Hindus & Muslims is contrived and not a natural outcome stemming out of differences in culture/religion/social order etc. As you've rightly pointed out, despite all these differences, we had managed to live together for almost a thousand years. Then isn't it obvious that we would have continued to live together had it not been for the British conspiracy of dividing India? 

Over the years the problem has become much more complex due to various factors. I hope that people on both sides will try their best to  mitigate these factors and believe that it is possible to coexist peacefully. 

Thank You

Narender Kumar

New Delhi

Obviously, I wasn't expecting a reply. I mean who (that too as important as a senior diplomat of a big country) replies to an unsolicited email, even if full of diplomatic undertones. But reply he did. Turns out that he was sick of the responses on website in normal conversing styles (read uncouth references full of mother and sister adjectives) of deshbhakts and my formal manner was like a breather to him. It went like:

Dear Mr. Kumar,

I m delighted indeed to receive for a change a very-well articulated and historically-backed Indian point of view. I am mostly in agreement with you and respect even those elements of your viwpoint that I may disagree with. That is exactly the way civilised people engage in dialogue and exchange their viepoints. I have no problem with your vesion of history. But for a character like Katju, there was no other way to respond.

I advise you just go and visit the concerned website to see the language of the Indian (mostly Hindu) commnetators have used on my article and later on Katju's rejoinder. I can't even repeat that language here. It is nothing but filth, venom and poison. This is not the first time. It is a routine experience. Whenever there is any piece written by a Pakistani columnist with any reference to India or its policies, there are comments showing only a filthy and uncivilised mindset. We don't see this phenomenon in our youth here who despite the crazy fundamentalists in our society still hope for good relations between our two countries. There is some problem with the grooming of the younger Indian generation. I am not starting any new debate here but let me thank you for your very valuable comments that I greatly apprceiate for their well-meaningfulness and effective presentation. 

We should be focused more on how we can move away from history and rise above the old divides to build upon the commonalties that we do share. We must build bridges rather than destry them, and learn to live at peace with each other. Perhaps, one day, we might together even be a factor of regional peace and stability.  

God bless you.

Now even though I was too tempted to reply to sweeping generalisations like "some problem with the grooming of the younger Indian generation", I felt it would be stretching it too far. So I let it go. Besides writing another 500 word reply was too daunting a task for me. 

As I look back, I feel happy to have written it. And as I start my blogging journey as an amateur writer,and also being an IFS aspirant, it seems only fitting that this should become my first post.