Soft terrorism in Kashmir and urgency to deal it hard

By Dr. Ajay Kumar

A clip of one of the leaders of Jammu and Kashmir is getting viral where she targets the Government of India for amending Article 370 that thwarted the nefarious designs of Pakistan sponsored terrorism in Kashmir. Ever since, the GoI amended the article 370 of the Indian constitution that ended temporary special provisions provided for the state of Jammu and Kashmir, the mainstream political parties of Jammu and Kashmir are hell bent upon repeated lying to the public. They are lying to the extent that, they malign the Parliament of India of stealing the provisions of Article 370. They repeatedly lie, and indoctrinate the youth of Jammu and Kashmir who now want to be a part of development journey of this nation Bharat proudly. The targets of false narrative are Kashmiri youth who are more or less disconnected from the rest of the world because of the closed nature of the Kashmir division of Jammu and Kashmir. It is easy to spill venom against India among the less educated youth of the valley as many of them are not exposed to the rest of India. More so, they have not even crossed to neighboring Jammu division.

The enclosure of the Kashmiri people is exploited by the local leaders of Kashmir and they capitalize this from both sides, from Pakistan as well as India. They are not leaders of the youth but, the brokers for their own legitimacy. Since the article 370 amendment that abrogated the provisions providing temporary special status to Jammu Kashmir ended the hegemony of the Kashmir based biggies. The state now is integrated with the rest of Bharat. It will be now open and there will be more interstate exchanges. It will also lead to more openness among the youth.

Although the state after 5th August 2019 is progressing and making strides towards achieving new heights under the leadership of PM Narendra Modi, the opportunistic power brokers of Jammu and Kashmir are in a rat race to save their legacies. Due to the popularity of nationalistic movement and unfurling of the tricolour flag, more and more youth of Kashmir are openly accepting and joining the nationalistic organizations and political particles. The local power brokers see it as a threat and it may become in future existential crisis for them.

The cries of the local leaders for talks between India and Pakistan are nothing but to maintain their localities towards Pakistan. They want to maintain a balance between Bharat and Pakistan. They speak a different language when in Delhi and an entirely different when they are back in the hinterlands of valley. The hypocrisy of the local leaders are not new but an age old traditions be it NC or PDP. Both the parties have propagated the idea of soft terrorism through provocative and anti-India speeches. They indirectly instigate the youth against Bharat. Their sole purpose is to keep the valley boiling and capitalize the situation both monetarily and politically. The instigative speeches praising Pakistan or pointing at Delhi to initiate talks with Pakistan are nothing new. The recent comments of PDP leader while addressing workers at Kulgam on previous Saturday are nothing short of promotion of soft terrorism. Just like urban naxals who have infiltrated academic and urban spaces and indoctrinate the young minds, these Kashmiri local leaders also indoctrinate the youth, they poison the youth with Anti India and Pro Pakistan propaganda.

The recent speech clearly instigates the youth, it embolden the youth and may inspire them to what Taliban is doing in Afghanistan. The PDP leader goes on to say that we should look at what is happening in Taliban? This is indirectly way to threaten India and propagate the soft terrorism among the youth. It’s this soft terrorism that increases the confidence of the youth. Without fueling of the major players, and support of soft terrorists, the terrorism cannot last so long. It is indeed supported by the soft terrorists. The soft terrorism must also be taken seriously by the GoI. It must be dealt hard. The soft terrorism inculcates actual terrorism. Steps must be taken to hit hard the proponents of soft terrorism.

The author teaches at a Central University in India.

Views expressed are personal.

CAA and anti CAA protests: In situ resolution of perpetual issue of religious persecution in neighbouring countries is the way forward.

Dr. Ajay

Certain groups of people are protesting against Citizenship Amendment Act 2019 in India on the grounds that it is discriminatory as it makes religion as a basis of granting citizenship to the religiously persecuted refugees in India. The CAA is a onetime solution for granting citizenship to the victims of religious persecution who have migrated from three neighbouring countries. The law specifically mentions, Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi and Christian for the purpose of granting citizenship. It’s upto Supreme Court of India to look into the constitutional validity of the legislation. However, a deeper issue of how the protesters have contributed to whitewashing of the religious persecution of the minorities in the neighbouring countries is discussed at length. In order to give relevence to the anti CAA protests, the protesters must have acknowledged the plight of religious minorities in Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan while demanding for further amendment to CAA to include Muslims instead of demanding its complete roll back. Demanding for a complete roll back of the legislation is denying the fact of persecution of religious minorities. Its startling as to why they don’t acknowledge persecution of religious minorities every now and then in Pakistan. What prevents them from doing so? Even recently, we are witnessing number of abductions, religious conversions and forced marriages of non muslim girls espevialy Hindus, Sikhs and Christians. And Nanakana Saheb case is well known to all of us where some Islamic fundamentalists had completely surrounded the Gurudwara and were raising slogans of killing all Sikhs and their extermination from the Gurudwara. Ignorantly, none of the protesters have even condemned or issued any statement against such acts of violence, religious torture of minorities in Pakistan. This raises a question on the validity and the aims of the current protests. Whether they want to scrap this legislation completely? or they want it to be a religion neutral legislation? And is it justifiable to scrap this legislation only because it doesn’t not include Muslims? However, Muslims are not barred from applying for citizenship and they can apply through existing rules. Anyone can apply for the same irrespective of religion or faith for Indian citizenship through proper channels. Larger question is whether grant of citizenship can be denied to persecuted minorities only because Muslims are excluded from it. Under these circumstances, should they demand for complete roll back of CAA or should they demand for the inclusion of Muslims if they feel it is discriminator and exclusive of Muslims?

From the pattern of current protests, it is clear that they are not even even concerned about the plight of persecuted minorities or inclusion of Muslims. In most of the rallies/interviews, protesters are seen only talking about comolete roll back of CAA. None of the protesters have so far acknowledged persecution of religious minorities in Pakistan or demanded for inclusion of Muslims. They may demand for inclusion of Muslims on the fact and if the feel that Muslims are also victims of some kind of persecution other than religion for example Ahmdiyas, Shias, Balochis and those liberal Muslims who speak for reformation of Islam. No one can disagree with the fact that even Sunni-Muslims who speak against Islamic fundamentalism are targeted in Pakistan and Bangladesh.

What these protests have done to the larger issue of persecution of religious minorities in Pakistan? It can be seen clearly that these protests have at least contributed to whitewashing of very important and a deep rooted problem of religious (Islamic) fundamentalism in Pakistan and Bangladesh. Instead of acknowledging and condemning it, the current protests seem emboldening to Islamic fundamentalists in neighbouring countries. The patterns of protests show that everything is hunky dory in the neighbouring countries. There is no issue of religious persecution in Pakistan at all. The current protests have covered this larger issue of Islamic fundamentalism and shifted the world focus to India whether the legislation (CAA) is violative of constitution. Therefore, there is a complete cover up of the actual issue of religious fundamentalism and the persecution of the minorities in Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan. The main opposition of the protesters is that CAA is an anti-Muslim legislation as it specifically excludes Muslims from becoming Indian citizens. As mentioned in the foregoing lines, that Muslims are also persecuted in Pakistan especially Non Sunni Muslims. If they are also persecuted in the neighbouring countries, why should they be excluded? The answer to this question as to why they have been excluded from the list is given by Honourable Home Minister during debate in the Parliament that they are all Muslims and that is a sectarian issue and can be solved by themselves internally.

At times, these protesters also demand for religion neutral legislation and also inclusive of any other kind of persecution for example persecution of the atheists, third gender people, LGBT community members etc. Besides this, they also sometimes question that why only religion has to be considered for granting citizenship? Why other reasons of immigration are not considered, for example job opportunities etc. One can reply to the question as to why religion is the basis of granting citizenship in the same language. If the religion is the basis of persecution in neighbouring countries, then religion only should be the basis of granting citizenship. This is like asking a doctor, that patient is suffering from pain, why painkiller is the prescription and not the anti-rabies? What other medicine would you prescribe against pain instead of painkiller?

Two issues have been elaborated in the following paragraphs at depth.

1. Even Muslims face persecution in Afghanistan, Bangladesh and Pakistan, so why does CAA exclude them?

The protesters give the example of Tasleema Nasreen and some others who have fled neighbouring country. There are some Sunni Muslims who also face torture just because they have religious dissent and speak against Islamic fundamentalism. And there are some more examples which suggest sunni Muslims are also tortured in their own country, so why CAA doesn’t recognise persecution of Muslims while amending Citizenship Act, 1955. Tasleem Nasreen has taken shelter in India. She is women activist, who write against oppression of women and fight against the ill treatment of women in Bangladesh. As per her interview given to Middle East Quarterly, she told, since she started writing on issues of gender justice and ill-treatment of women in Bangladesh, Muslim fundamentalists started issuing fatwa for killing her. They charged her of blasphemy, her books were burnt, newspaper and publisher offices were attacked by Muslim fundamentalists.
And this is a truth that even Muslims also face threats in the same Muslim dominated neighbouring countries. We must acknowledge that fact. However, none of the protesters talk about the cause of such persecution even against fellow Muslims. They have not spoken against the root cause of persecution of Muslims let alone Buddhists, Sikhs, Hindus, Jains, Parsis or Christians. The problem is deep rooted and until we target the root cause of the problem, there will be no long term solutions to the problem. Instead of condemning their acts of violence against fellow Muslims in Pakistan and Bangladesh, protesters in India are legitimising and emboldening them by not talking against the larger issue of Islamic fundamentalism. Indian protesters instead of addressing the cause of the problem are targeting the effect side of problem. Islamic fundamentalism and the religious intolerance is the cause of the problem called persecution of minorities and other muslim sects.

For a moment, let’s assume that CAA is amended to include persecuted Muslims also. Will it solve the deeper problem or will it aggravate the problem? The problem will not be solved by granting citizenship to the persecuted Muslims unless we address the cause of the problem. The problem will continue to grow. On the other side of border, as such fundamentalists unleash terror against the fellow Muslims and other minorities, the persecuted people will continue to migrate to India finding shelter. How long this vicious cycle can continue, how long India can accomodate such persecuted persons. The persecution and immigration will become perpetual. It will have no end but a continuous inflow of people from across the border and that will further embolden the fundamentalists back in these Islamic countries to persecute even more. Will it continue until Bangladesh or Pakistan becomes completely free of its minorities or with no trace of religious dissent.

That is why, If you don’t deal with the fundamentalists and the fundamentals, the situation will go on and on. Need of the hour is to recognise and target cause of the problem and not the effect of the problem. There must be an in situ resolution of the problem. Indian protesting brothers and sisters must tell their brothers and sisters of Bangladesh and Pakistan to at least accommodate religious dissent and different sects belonging to the same religion. They must teach them concept of mutual co-existence and mutual respect for each other. As Dr. Anand Ranganathan (Associate Professor at JNU and Author) says, the problem lies in the fundamentals, so the fundamentals must be targeted rather than targeting the fundamentalists. The problem of Islamic fundamentalism in Pakistan, Afghanistan and Bangladesh must be acknowledged and delay with an iron fist. If there were no such problem of Islamic fundamentalism. So truth has to be acknowledged and that truth is about the chronic issue of Islamic fundamentalism which doesn’t even tolerate an iota of deviation from the religious fundamentals let alone altogether different faiths. There is a need of debate over such problematic fundamentals. The issue of persecution is deep rooted, superficial treatment will give a temporary relief but the problem will continue to perpetuate unless root cause is recognised and dealt with an iron fist and anti CAA protesters must also give attention towards this larger issue.

Second issue is even more chronic in Pakistan.

2. Non Sunni Muslims in Pakistan for example Shias, Ahmdiyas, Balochis etc. also face large scale persecution so why Indian legislation has not considered their genuine case?

The point is very valid, and it’s a fact that non Sunni Muslims also face torture every now and then. But, Ahmdiyas are declared as non-Muslims by Pakistan in their modern constitution itself. Again, for a moment, let’s assume such categories of Muslims are also included in the list for granting citizenship. Will it solve the issue at hand? The answer is no because again we are superficially targeting effect without giving attention to the cause of the problem. Problem is Islamic fundamentalism and intolerance towards difference of worship or faith. The fundamentalists do not even tolerate such little differences of worship among their own sects. You forget about their tolerance towards non-Muslims whom they call Kafirs/infidels. It’s first up to Pakistan to decide whether Ahmdiyas are Muslims or not. Shias and Balochis are not declared Non-Muslims by the constitution, but they continue to face third degree treatment in their own home. So this is a sectarian issue between the Muslims. It’s up to majority Sunni Muslim controlled government of Pakistan whether to recognise Shias, Ahmdiyas or Balochis at par with themselves or continue to consider them as third grade citizens. Majority Islam has to think over the sectarian Islam. Until the government of Pakistan take concerted steps to ensure equality of all its citizens including non-Muslim minorities, there won’t be a lasting solution to this issue.

Indian protesters instead of asking India to accommodate such non Sunni Muslims, must ask Pakistan government and work for making Pakistan an inclusive Pakistan for all the religious sects and faiths. Instead of emboldening the fundamentalists and legitimising their onslaught against non-Sunni Muslims, they must be condemned. They need to be isolated. Such fundamentalists I believe are not more than a fraction, the like-minded Indian Muslims and others must stride for making Pakistan and Bangladesh a better place for non-Sunni Muslims and non-Muslim minority religions. That will be a long term solution to a perpetual issue of religious persecution in Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan and its immigration to India. There is a need of in situ recognition and targeting of cause of the problem instead of superficial treatment of its effect. Recognition of problematic fundamentals and in situ addressing of the problem is the way forward. Instead of promoting immigration to India, steps must be taken to make Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan a better place for all its citizens.

The author is Ex JNUSU Councillor and presently teaches at a Central University in India.

Views expressed are personal.

Hinduism and Hindutatva: Are these words correctly defined by propagndists?

To Shashi Tharoor and all his nincompoop blind supporters who are spreading misinformation regarding Hindutva and Hinduism.

A lot of people including Shashi Tharoor are spreading misinformation and misinterpreting two words i.e. Hinduism and Hindutva. They have made a comparative table (mis) explaining what hinduism is and what Hindutva is? They have concluded that Hinduism is good, Hindutva is bad (a comparative chart shared him and shared by his followers is at the end).

People including Shashi Tharoor have tried their level best to demonise Hinduism several times earlier also (for example fake narrative of Hindu terrorism) and they have failed miserably. They have failed several times to defame Santana Dharma and they have continuously done so. This is another attempt to further defame Hinduism by misinterpreting Hindutva and Hinduism to confuse followers of Sanatan Dharma.

This is another conspiracy to confuse people between Hinduism and Hindutva. The story of Hindutva is fabricated and it is to appease some of their Abrahamic friends (we all know who they are) for vote bank politics.

This is a divisionary project by misinterpreting Hinduism and Hindutva to further increase splits among Hindu society. This is a pre-planned strategy of LeLiJi gang. The project is to confuse Hindus and to force them to think about their beliefs and feel apologetic of being Hindu. This is a slow and easy way of poisoning Hindu society so that they remain confused whether they are followers of Hinduism or Hindutva. In that confusion, they will continue to feel apologetic and inferior for being Hindu for the masses don’t understand the meaning of such technical terms. Since some Librandus including Shashi Tharoor have explained the several aspects of Hinduism and Hindutva without having any reference or any thing to substantiate their claim.

Here I would like to tell those enemies of Hinduism that Hindutva and Hinduism are levels or stages within Hinduism and Hindutva is not what they hàve defined almost similar to Abrahmic religions. They have given it extremist colour which is totally defamatory and false. And they have divorced the Hindu(tattva) from Hinduism purposely to frame fake stories.

I am not going into the details of epistemological meaning of Hinduism as it is already an accepted word. Though suffix -ism is conceived as derogatory and it is even against the pluralistic nature of Hindus. However I want to explain the meaning of Hindutva and How it is misinterpreted by Shashi Tharoor and his likes.

Hindutva is portmanteau word made of two parts i.e. Hindu and tattva.

English translation of suffix -tattva is element or it also means thatness, reality or truth. It also translates into elements of reality or aspects of reality. And there are different number of tattavas (elements/aspects) of different religions or sects of religions. It can be different in Hinduism, Shaivism, Jainism, Judaism or Vaishnavism. These elements desribe those religions, and acquisition or inculcation or adoption of such elements will make you that. Here the acquisition of hindu aspects/elements (tattava) is considered Hindutva. Means thatness, or the adoption or inculcation of that (elements) of Hinduism. Similarly, adoption of Buddhist elements make you Bodhisattva. Acquisition of elements of other religions make you that (-tattva).

Image source: Wikipedia

For example. Vedanta proclaims that ‘I am Shiva’, which in essence means you are the Truth, pure consciousness, ever-blissful one. To know the true nature of Self, Shiva Tattva, who ‘I’ am, in essence, is the aspiration of the seeker who under the guidance of the master, then undertakes austerities and practices for this realisation (Speaking tree).

Source: Both screenshots are from Wikipedia.

So those spreading this misinformation and misinterpretation of such words are nincompoops. Those following blindly such people’s claims without even knowing or studying such concepts are bigger nincompoops. Ignorant believers and supporters of such people are real andbhakts (blind followers) just because post is shared by Shashi Tharoor. Such thugs are also surviving because of nincompoops blindly supporting them without having any idea of Sanatan Dharma. They have some hidden agendas to appease their masters elsewhere and voters here in India just by creating and drawing such kind of parralels with Abrahmic religions.

Therefore, I request all the people not to fall prey to such misinformation being spread by enemies of Hindus and humanity in general. They have plans to demonise Hindus, and make them apologetic be creating their own fake theories and fake narratives.

Annexure 1: This image is shared by Shashi Tharoor and his blind supporters to further divide Hindu society.

Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019: How can we illustrate it to illiterate protestors?

This sums up the current protests.

Dr. Juliet has 5 sons. They start fighting and ask for partition of the property. This leads to the formation of two groups. Two of them wish to have a new property (home) for themselves. Two of them choose to stay back with father, Juliet. And 5th one (David) is more idealistic and decides to go with the former group (i.e. new home).
Of the 3 sons staying in new property, Juliet realised that, one of them (David) is being tortured by 2 other sons. Discovering this, he asks his son (David) who was facing torture to come and stay with him (Juliet). This infuriates the other two sons who were staying peacefully with the father, and they start protesting against this decision.

Image source: Twitter/BJPLive

Now tell me?
1. Whether the demand of two sons to bring in other two sons who were torturing David was justified just because father is trying to save his son (David) from being killed by two other brutal brothers.

2. What do you think, if the two others also have to come to his father’s home then? Should we keep the newly constructed property vacant? Then what is the use of that newly constructed property exclusively for three sons? If all of them have to come to father’s home, then that property must be made accessible to all the 5 brothers and father.

3. Is it justified to bring in the two torturing brothers along with the tortured David to father’s home? Since those two were torturing David? Shouldn’t we all bother about David since he is being persecuted.

Dream of Akhand Bharat Sans Borders Seems Inevitable Now.

Ajay Kumar

My appeal to all the protestors.
Since we all are fighting for the migration of all the people from Bangladesh, Pakistan and Afghanistan to India irrespective of their religion. Why don’t we think of reunification of the three countries and establishment of Akhand Bharat.
These protestors are talking of only people’s migration, why not talk about removal of the borders? Let’s call our brothers and sisters in these countries also to join the ongoing protest to fulfill the dream of Akhand Bharat. And this seems inevitable looking at the unity among the protestors of all faiths. Magnitude of this unity was observed only during indepedence. Now let’s talk about Akhand Bharat sans Borders.

Protestors should talk of nullification of the borders. When our people don’t feel safe across borders, why we should continue with the borders. This means, the countries are not fit to be Independent nations. If we have to allow the diffusion of people from these countries to India, then what is the need for existence of these countries. The borders must be abolished, and Akhand Bharat should be established under competent government which can glue people of the three countries.

The author teaches at

Central University.

Let us not turn University into conformity!

Read this to know why there was a protest at CUK against IPS officer T.P. Senkumar. The opposition is not against his academic credentials but because he led an investigation which was not acceptable to the govt of the day. Now, let’s decide whether he has the right to speak about our Constitution? Is it that only PhD holders and MA students of Political Science can speak about the subject? Why can’t even an illiterate person also speak about the constitution? Now this group of students and their faculty collaborators will decide who can speak and who cannot? As citizens of the country, we all must have the right to speak on this matter for this country is governed as per the principles enshrined in the constitution of India. Each one of us whether having a PhD degree in political science or not have the right to speak. Even an illiterate person can and must be given given opportunity to speak about the constitution. By this logic, the way students of CUK were misguided by political parties and political parties’ controlled faculty members to protest against selected individuals is a blot on the Indian democratic principles. It’s against freedom of speech and expression. By this logic, right to freedom of speech and expression are privileges of only educated elites? Are these left and KSU students of the view that only educated class have theme right to speak about the constitution? If yes, then this exposes their antipathy towards the lesser educated or even uneducated. Despite of giving opportunity to all the people irrespective of their educational background, we must endeavour to inculcate the principles of constitution and sense of constitutionalism among the masses. The today’s protest, was an antithesis to this very idea of percolation of constitutionalism even among the most deprived and uneducated people of India. If the academic spaces such us CUK can’t become a an equal platform for all of us to discuss, debate and dissent, then I doubt the minds of such students whose minds are either preoccupied with inherent discrimination towards lesser educated or they have been enslaved by their masters. This is evident from the fact that most of the sloganeering students were (hired) outsiders. Let Universities be real universities where all have equal right to freedom of expression. Let us not turn our academic spaces a monopoly of the left liberals. Let us not turn University into Conformity.

“the senior IPS officer’s relations with the LDF government were not cordial after he led the investigation into the sensational T.P. Chandrasekharan murder case”

Read more about TP Senkumar here as to why he should not speak at an event organised by University?

After reading, do make your opinion whether, he should not be allowed to speak just because he led an investigation relating to a murder of one person in which members of ruling political party were allegedly involved?

Views expressed are personal.

Opportunistic constitutionalists: Dissecting hypocrisies of supporters of Kashmir’s independence

First of all, I want to ask two questions to the supporters of Azadi in Kashmir. (1) Are you comfortable if a state of India dominated by Muslims is made an Islamic state exclusively for Muslims? (2) Are you okay if a Muslim majority state is given independence just because it is a Muslim dominated state? If your answer to both these questions is No. Then the next two questions are not for you but if your answer to either one or both of the above questions is yes, then the next two questions are for you. Are you comfortable if a Hindu dominated state of India is declared a Hindu state exclusively for Hindus? Are you okay if this country is declared Hindu Rashtra exclusively for Hindus? If your answer to either one or both of these questions is No, then this article is for you and all of them who are crying for betrayal of Kashmiri people by Government of India for abrogation of Article 370. The argument is given that opinion of the people was not sought before taking a step to abrogate the provisions of Article 370. There is a section of media and public who believe that Kashmir has its own unique identity, and abrogation of article 370 will lead to erosion of that unique identity of Kashmir and Kashmiri people. I call them opportunistic constitutionalists (OCs). They further argue that unique identity of Kashmir is sufficient for either conferring a special status to the state or seeking independence from India. I am puzzled at this argument; I am even unaware of what that unique identity of Kashmir is? However, the supporters of Kashmiri independence aka opportunistic constitutionalists argue that since the state is dominated by Muslims, it must be given a chance to either stay with India or to remain independent. Is this a sufficient claim for unique identity of Kashmir and thus for independence? Assuming that, independence is given to Kashmir on the basis of Muslim dominance, what would happen to minorities, non-sunni muslims and tribal muslims? What about their rights?

I am addressing these questions in the following paragraphs which also expose the double standards of OCs who support the Independence of Kashmir from India and crying since the abrogation of certain provisions of article 370. There is no denial that Kashmir is a Muslim dominated state. However, is it a sufficient argument to give an independence to this state for being Muslim dominated. If a religion is the only basis of carving out a new country, then can we afford another 1947 like partition and aftermath. The supporters of Kashmir independence in real sense are the supporters of one country – one religion concept. Coincidentally supporters (aka OCs) of one country one religion concept are the biggest opponents of Hindu Rashtra which is however not exclusive of other religions. Hindu Rashtra is inclusive of all the religions. They use secularism principles enshrined in the constitution of India to oppose the concept of Hindu Rashtra. At the same time, by supporting independence of Kashmir from India just on the basis of Muslim majoritarianism, they support the idea of one country – one religion. In other words, they reject, the pluralistic culture of India who at the time of Independence choose to be a secular democratic country accommodative of all the religions. And to defend, independence of Kashmir from India on the basis of dominance of one religion, the so called opportunistic constitutionalists take the support of democratic principles enshrined in the Constitution of India. These double standards of OCs expose their bias towards one religion. At micro level, in this case Kashmir, democratic principles overweigh secular principles whereas when they oppose the idea of Hindu Rashtra, secular principles overweight democratic principles. Such double standards expose the hypocrisies of these selfish opportunistic constitutionalists (SOCs). Their love for imposition of Nizam-e-Mustafa is justified based on democratic principles whereas their hatred and opposition of Hindu Rashtra is justified on the basis of secular principles. Let us assume if plebiscite is held in the state of Jammu and Kashmir. What are the possibilities and outcomes? The state being dominated by Muslims, there are chances of voting in favor of Independence. Of the 70 percent Muslims, majority may vote for independence. And if independence is granted to the state of Jammu and Kashmir, what outcomes it would have on the 30 percent minorities of J&K. Not only minorities, but what would happen to the Non Sunni Muslims and tribal Muslims of J&K. It can be assumed that religious minorities which include Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Christians, Jains, Muslim tribals and Non Sunni Muslims will not be comfortable with independent Kashmir (Which will definitely be an Islamic State of Kashmir) because they are aware of the first partition of India into India and Pakistan. All are aware of the human rights of minorities and Non Sunni Muslims in Pakistan. So granting independence to J&K on the basis of one religion means throwing preys into the mouth of a predator. And people who are aware of the situation of minorities in Pakistan will never want another partition on the basis of religion. And this is almost clear that, if Kashmir is given an independence, the country will be become a parallel Pakistan in the Northern part of India. First thing they will do is to impose Nizam-e-Mustafa, which will ultimately wipe out religious minorities, Non Sunni Muslims and tribal Muslims from Kashmir. I am worried whether supporters of Kashmir independence consider these issues? Coincidentally, the supporters of Kashmiri independence (which also means supporting Sunni dominance, Nizam-e-Mustafa, slaughter of minorities and non-sunni muslims) are also the biggest minority rights activists in India. They cry every now and then and feel unsafe on secular territory of India which works as per the principles secular and democratic principles enshrined in the constitution of India. However, they want to throw the minorities, non-sunni muslims and tribal muslims into the mouth of a hungry predator. Looking at the condition of minorities in Pakistan, do they even imagine the existence of minorities, non-sunni muslims and tribal muslims in hypothetical independent Islamic state of Kashmir. These minority rights activists in India will be the first to justify atrocities committed on minorities of hypothetical independent Kashmir. They will justify it by falsely attributing it to the oppression they have faced under majority Hindu India in the past. Another Pakistan in North of India means slaughter of minorities, forced conversions, rapes, tortures, desecration of religious places of minorities, non-sunni muslims and tribal muslims. They will not be allowed to celebrate their festivals, they will be denied jobs, scholarships etc.

And I am saying this with confidence because, if a state can do this to its minorities within the framework of Indian constitution then you can imagine what they can do under their independent constitution (which will be as per the Shariah principles and Pakistani constitution). What has happened in Muslim dominated state of Jammu and Kashmir so far? Genocide and expulsion of Non-Muslims i.e. Kashmiri Pandits from valley, denial of minority rights to actual minorities, denial of equal rights to women (article 35A), denial of property rights to outside Indians, denial of reservation and scholarships to tribal Hindus are all symptoms of an Islamic state ruled as per shariah laws. And this has happened even within the framework of Indian secular constitution which gives special provisions under article 370 to the state of Jammu and Kashmir. And we can imagine, the damage that will be caused to the non-muslim minorities in independent Kashmir is beyond imagination. Apparently, we can believe that the supporters of Kashmiri dependence are indirectly campaigning for this unimaginable human rights violations, atrocities and slaughter of minorities, non-sunni muslims and tribal muslims. This exposes double standards of hypocritical selfish opportunistic constitutionalists, they use the Constitution of India as per their convenience. They defend the creation of a Muslim country Jammu and Kashmir and the imposition of Shariah Laws just because the state is dominated by Muslims. At the same time, they oppose the idea of Hindu Rashtra even though the country is dominated by Hindus.

Views expressed are personal.

The author is a resident of the State of Jammu and Kashmir and he teaches at a Central University

Next post wil be on opportunistic constitutionalists.

Opportunistic constitutionalists: Dissecting hypocrisies of supporters of Kashmir’s independence”.

Here, I argue about the biased mind of the supporters of Azadi in Kashmir and their opposition of the concept of Hindu Rashtra which is however inclusive of all the religions in contrast to Independence of Kashmir on the basis of one religion. I call them opportunistic constitutionalists and I expose their double standards for both these situations. I further expose, how they quote secular principles of Constitution of India for opposing Hindu Rashtra whereas they take the support of democratic principles for defending creation of Muslim state of Jammu and Kashmir. I also give a hypothetical scenario as to what can happen if Kashmir is given independence, what may happen to minorities, non sunni muslims and tribal hindus and muslims.

Views are personal.

Does your research has real impact (along with impact factor) or not?

Ajay Kumar & Sushil Kumar

Image result for social impact factor
Image is for the purpose of illustration/representation only (Source-

Few years back, I was listening to a lecture being delivered by one of the Nobel Laureates in Chemistry at Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi. He showed screenshots of few papers with impact factor between 2 and 3. Even some of his papers were below 2 Impact Factor (IF). He was trying to highlight whether your research carry any real impact or not does it have an impact on the society apart from impact factor. He was addressing to the audience that what really matters is the impact of your research and not simply the impact factor of the journals you published in. He also reiterated that, impact factors are not a proxy to the real impact of your research. He also informed the audience that, he could get Nobel Prize in Chemistry even with papers published in very low impact factor.

It is a fact that, impact factor do not calculate the real impact of a paper on the society. It established that, there are many papers which appear in high impact factor journals but are sparingly cited. To add and artificially increase impact factor, there are few journals which encourage citation of papers from their own journals which automatically boost the impact factor. After all, impact factor “is a measure of the frequency with which the average article in a journal has been cited in a particular year. It is used to measure the importance or rank of a journal by calculating the times its articles are cited” (The University Library at the University of Illinois at Chicago). Such kind of system creates a vicious cycle which lead to cut throat competition among new researchers and scientists to publish or perish in high impact journals. Many of the Universities and other research institutes also consider impact factor as the most important criteria for selection of candidates for various academic and scientific posts.

Then question is should we shun Impact factor completely? The answer is out rightly no, however papers should really have an impact on the society in the short or long run or at least they must contribute significantly to the existing knowledge base or generate new information or open a new area of research. Unless we have a better yardstick to replace impact factor (s), we have to rely on it as a proxy to quality of research of an individual. But we need a yardstick which captures multidimensional parameters of a research. For example innovativeness, novelty, long term role that study can play, its number of individual citations (not just the impact factor of journal) could be integrated to make a multidimensional   But to really have a multidimensional yardstick (Index) to comprehend the real impact of a research, we need a serious engagement of various stakeholders. The scientific community at large can take a lead in public and social interest in this direction. But unless we have a robust multidimensional system, we cannot promote publications in predatory journals also, at least there should be some standard criteria for journals also. The recent exercise by UGC to weed out predatory journals is an important step to further improve the quality of research however it requires more proactive steps towards strengthening a robust system of multidimensional social impact in consultation with scientific community. Essentially a predatory journal is a publication without a robust peer review system and true editorial board and are often found to publish a very low quality research. They also ask money as publication charges. On top of this, they entice researchers to publish by sending mails. There are many Institutes and Universities which even consider such papers for the appointments, this is also a serious question as the research papers published in such journals are worthless and without any quality.

Many times people boast of the number of research papers they have published (no matter, how many of them are published in predatory journals), the real question is how many of them really have an impact and worth publication. Do they really have an advancement in the existing knowledge, do they have relevance to India’s exigencies. Some people may argue that there is no Indian science or regional science, science is a global, that’s true but at least some of us can reorient our research as per the needs of our own society and its relevance to India’s context. Such a direction oriented research is an important step for India’s prosperity. For example, some of us can design our research towards precision agriculture, climate smart agriculture, smart cities, rural urban migration, doubling farmers income, providing irrigation facility, desalination, hydroponics, artificial intelligence, permaculture, sustainable farming etc.

India needs disruptive innovations in the 21st century to catch up with some of the contemporary developing countries. Just counting on GDP may improve our reputation but how innovative are we, Indians? This will be a crucial question in the coming years. The recent upward jump of India in Global Innovation Index (GII) calculated by World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) is an encouraging sign. In the 2017 edition of GII, WIPO ranked India 60th on its list of 130 most innovative countries in the world. However, contemporary developing country China is far ahead of India which ranks at 22. Scientific community can contribute to improving India’s GII in the coming years by doing socially disruptive innovations and such disruptive innovations needs the active participation of imaginative Indian young scholars and prospective scientists as well as the current scientific community. How can we make our students more imaginative and how can we make them think like the Nordic countries such as Switzerland, Sweden, Denmark is the real test of time. These are the countries always appearing on top in most of the surveys and indices. Simply making them rote machines through memory based exams is not going to help India escape Middle Income Trap. They need to be imaginative, innovative and should think rather than just mug the facts to reproduce in the exams.

Reforming India’s exam system, creating an innovation space for our students, a space to think and imagine, revamping the system of research impact analysis, designing multidimensional criteria to evaluate the social and scientific impact of a research, redesigning syllabus we teach in universities and colleges will have a synergistic impact on India’s innovativeness in the times to come. The culture of either “publish or perish” also needs a serious relook to restrict mushrooming of large number of predatory journals and improve quality of research.

Views are personal.

AK is associated with Central University of Kerala, Kerala (and JNU, New Delhi),


SK with Govt. Degree College, Ramnagar, J & K.