cHindu slams Gilani's history lesson

cHindu's repudiation of Pakistan PM Gilani's rant on the history of bin Laden of the facts presented was shocking for any reader of the newspaper.

But as a reply to why bin Laden was discovered living in relative comfort in the heart of Pakistan, not by the country’s own military or intelligence agencies but by the U.S., Prime Minister Gilani’s account falls far short of an adequate explanation. His characterisation of this failure as that of “all the intelligence agencies in the world” comes across more as an attempt to deflect blame than as a response born out of honest introspection by the Pakistan state. Even as a history lesson, Mr. Gilani’s statement was incomplete. No one pushed Pakistan into the first Afghan war; Pakistan’s military under General Zia ul Haq made a calculated choice to participate in it. Aside from the U.S. support, Saudi Arabia generously poured money into Pakistan to create a culture of jihad. After the war, the same military and its intelligence agencies decided to deploy some of those jihadists to establish a pro-Pakistan regime in Afghanistan, while others were despatched for the task of ‘liberating’ Kashmir from India. No Pakistan army chief has ever made an attempt to institutionally repudiate the Zia legacy.

cHindu goes on to beat up the Pakistani military for keeping silent on how OBL was found in the suburbs of Islamabad.

The agreement is said to have been renewed in 2008, when the present Army chief, General Ashfaq Pervez Kayani, was in charge. While the full truth about how OBL managed to hide in Abbottabad may never come out, it is time for the Pakistan military to face up to some truths about itself — and about its role in bringing the country to its present state.

This is quite different from the cHindu we've read in recent times. One which would've put the blame on India and US for why Pakistan was in such poverty. So to balance this editorial cHindu publishes another "editorial" which details sabre rattling by Indian Army and diplomats against "peace-loving" Pakistan.

Geelani prays for Osama exposes true Kashmiriyat

In what is an out pouring of love of dead terrorist mastermind Osama Bin Laden, Kashmiri separatists like Syed Geelani showed their true colours in celebrating martyrdom.
Never once condemning terrorism or the actions against the innocent by violent Muslims like Osama Bin Laden, Geelani made up rubblish like:

He alleged that a conspiracy was on against Pakistan and that the powers had an eye on nuclear bombs in that country. He prayed for the safety of Pakistan. People shouted pro-azadi and pro-Osama slogans.

Of course the Muslim mob was no different:

Protests erupted in the Batmaloo area soon after the funeral prayers. Masked youth clashed with police and CRPF personnel soon after Mr. Geelani addressed the gathering. The crowd called Osama a “martyr,” who sacrificed his life for the cause of Islam.

Guess this was true Kashmiriyat is about. Support of hardline Islamic terrorism. The whole talk about terrorism not having any religion is rubbish. It has a name.
Where is cHindu in not condemning this behaviour? If there were Hindus celebrating the death anniversary of say Godse, it would speak on its high horse about how they supported violence. But this exposes the hypocrisy of the media in not exposing the agenda of the Kashmiri terrorists posing as separatists.

Interesting interview with Hurriyats Geelani on Kashmir protests

Check out an interesting interview by Nirupama Subramanian with Syed Geelani of the Kashmiri Hurriyat.
The key reason this is interesting more so from the aggressive questioning by Nirupama who does not really give way to the usual bluster shown by journalists when facing Geelani. His penchant for turning any interview into a propaganda session is quickly blunted by Nirupama to focus on the issues and puts him on the back foot. It is always difficult trying to interview a crazy zealot at his home, but Nirupama acquits herself and cHindu credibly with as incisive a session possible.
One does wish she couldv'e called out Geelani on the phony Kashmiriyat issue. But thats a topic for another discussion.

Arundhati Roy refuses to apologize for her support to Kashmir jihadists

In what comes as no surprise as a reaction to the Sangh opposition to her comments, Arundhati Roy continues her quest to support the jihadist agenda of the Kashmiri separatists.

I have never said anything which I have not thought about,” Ms. Roy told journalists after attending a meeting on ‘Cultural resistance to war on people in corporate interest.They [Sangh Parivar activists] have rights to protest, and I have rights to speak and write.

Of course cHindu reports the whole article as though the Sangh activists were creating trouble at a peaceful meeting ignoring the larger context of Ms. Roy's statements. But who ever accused cHindu of being a fair newspaper?

In another article the "peaceful" leader of Sri Lanka again claims to look forward to growth and peace. He asks people to forget the past stating:

They must help us not to widen the gap between the communities but to bring them closer. The past is past; you don't dig into the wounds. We must think positively, not negatively.

Krishna links Kashmir to Tibet and Taiwan

Finally an Indian minister (SM Krishna) tells the Chinese that if they increase their interference in Jammu and Kashmir, India would raise its voice on Tibet and Taiwan.

Drawing a dramatic parallel between the territorial red lines of both countries, India on Sunday told China that just as New Delhi had been sensitive to its concerns over the Tibet Autonomous Region and Taiwan, Beijing too should be mindful of Indian sensitivities on Jammu and Kashmir.

Having followed our foreign policy which has been pitiful in recent years, this is a welcome change that someone has grown a pair and tells China to mind its business.

Hiding behind technicalities - Arundhati Roy charges

Being a journalist in many parts of the world is a tough job. Not wanting to banal, other than the TV heads and the heads of print media, most of the remaining journos have to fight multiple things like competition, lack of imagination, lack of news, reader fatigue to publish good stories. However given a great story like wacky "intellectual" Arundhati Roy pushing for separation of Kashmir from India, N.Ram and his team of jackasses publish what is probably the most banal articles possible titled '‘Sedition' versus free speech '.
Defending Ms.Roy for her treasonous activities, LiC initiates his salvo at the BJP,

It is deplorable that three sentences uttered at a seminar relating to the status of Kashmir within India should have evoked such zealous hyper-patriotic anger and resulted in demands for invoking harsh sedition laws.

He makes it claim as though she was charged during the Spanish Inquisition and burned on a stake!
The primary claim of all left wing journos is that they want freedom of speech when one of theirs makes treasonous statements. But when a nationalistic person makes a statement bashing China or Communism or a certain violent minority, the hypocritical N.Ram and his minions would be in a mad rush to beat them up.

In his classic defence of free speech, On Liberty, John Stuart Mill laid down what is known as the ‘harm principle.' It postulates that the only justification for silencing a person against his will is to prevent him from causing harm to others. It is to this powerful libertarian mid-19th century principle that we owe the idea that free speech cannot be proscribed merely because we find it disagreeable, and that curbs may be imposed only if such expression constitutes a direct, explicit, and unequivocal incitement to violence.

What Arundhati Roy did was exactly that. Supporting the rock throwing militants of Kashmir, who have for years sucked on the funds from the "special" status provided by Article 370 is a clear unambiguous evidence of treason. For all the free speech thrown around by the jerk N.Ram, how about publishing articles of the pogrom conducted by these stone throwing militants? Or the plight of the Kashmiri Hindus who were evicted from their homes?
But these are not the voices N.Ram and his minions like Sidd Varadarajan want to listen to. This is the real BS pushed as editorials by cHindu.

Bhookey-nangey Hindustan

Mary Roy winning a court case made it to news solely because she is the mother of Arundhati Roy. Surely, Arundhati Roy's call for secession and her description of Hindustan as "bhookey-nangey" should have meant a lot more to the readers. But most of the ELM seems to have simply ignored her comments or mentioned it in passing while putting the focus on Geelani. Chindu, too, simply ignored the inflammatory parts of Arundhati Roy's speech, while reporting on the event. Why so? Is this some form of page 3 journalism glorifying the trivial? No, this is secular reporting.
Arundhati Roy’s mother gets property share after 24 years

Twenty-four years after the Supreme Court’s historical judgment giving equal rights to Syrian Christian women along with their male siblings on family property, a sub court in Kottayam on Wednesday executed the final decree in favour of litigant Mary Roy.

Mary Roy, a celebrated champion of women’s fight for equality and gender justice, is mother of Booker Prize winner Arundhati Roy.

The Pioneer :: Home : >> Inciting secessionism

the open call to Kashmiris to secede from “bhookey-nangey Hindustan” by author-activist-anarchist Arundhati Roy who incited students of Aligarh Muslim University, Jawaharlal Nehru University and Delhi University to “fight for the cause of separate Kashmir… a cause that is your future”.

cHindu recomends azaadi to Kashmir

The jerks at Anna Salai have added one more to their growing brood. In an article by Dr. Vithal Rajan - The Kashmir imbroglio: thinking the unthinkable , the author recommends giving Kashmir its freedom by offering it on a platter to Pakistan. He follows that up with several ideas which in normal circumstances would put him in an asylum. But since he writes for cHindu, he would be in an editorial positions as his opinions suck up to those of LiC.

If Indian troops are out of Kashmir, would it jeopardise the security of Indians? Not really. The mountainous barrier between the Kashmir Valley and India is a better defensive line to guard than the present long untenable frontier of the Line of Control. Should we be there in Kashmir against all odds out of moral obligation, because the people of the Valley are dependent on our protection?

While I agree with the writer that Kashmiris have hated India, speaking to many they would prefer India to the hell hole currently known as Pakistan.
The writer then goes on to state foreign policy which has nothing to do with this article,

It has taken Great Britain 60 years to realise it is no longer the centre of an empire. Indian rulers have yet to realise they are no longer in charge of ‘the jewel in the crown.' Indians are not the leaders of Asia — the Chinese are.

Even an egomaniac like Late Pandit Nehru had no illusions that India was the de facto leader of Kashmir. The current leaders have no such illusions of grandeur. Then he states how India should forget the hapless citizens of Tibet,

India should not play dirty pool with China, and harbour Tibetan governments-in-exile. Let it not be forgotten that one of the causes of the India-China border war of 1962 was the covert activities of the CIA from Indian bases.

And states India should become a surrogate or puppet to China,

India should mend its fences pronto with China, and accept the glaring fact that they are bigger, and better

I'm sure LiC would be happy rubbing his cats belly like one Dr. Evil reading this sentence. I'm surprised it was not headlined.
Though I do agree with the writer's last statement which should be extended to Kashmir immediately.

India might have to redraw the frontiers, absorbing Jammu and Ladakh into India without any special status. Whatever the final shape of the outcome, India must be proactive in demanding an immediate international settlement of a problem created by Nehru.

India tells Pakistan to f!&% off

In response to Pakistan's "resolutions" passed on J&K, India responded strongly telling that it had no locus standi in J&K. Finally showing backbone the Foreign ministry told

Pakistan should instead tackle the issues of constitutional safeguards, democracy, extremism, terrorism and human rights violations in the part of Jammu and Kashmir that was under its “illegal occupation.”

Also needling our beloved neighbor on its lack of support for human rights,

Crucially, Pakistan must fulfil its stated commitment of not allowing territory under its control to be used for terrorism directed against India in any manner. This would be an important contribution towards safeguarding the welfare of the people of J&K who suffer the consequences of terrorism fomented from across the Line of Control and the International Border,

This will not stop Pak from fomenting trouble, but hey its a nice start.

Kashmir's economic dependence and trust deficit

The Hindu : Opinion / Leader Page Articles : Kashmir: youth bulge, peace deficit

The
foundations of an abiding peace will be laid not by words but sickles
and hammers; in farms and factories; by concrete and steel.

This is the kind of rotten justifications the sickle and hammer needs. On second thought, it might not be a bad idea to scrap article 370, pack all the communists and settle them in Kashmir so they can plant the sickle and hammer.

Praveen Swami bases his argument on the dependency ratio and economic opportunities. In 1987, Srinagar and Sopore had higher than normal dependency ratio. Without access to more detailed statistics, I can hazard a guess here. Such short-term, local imbalances can be expected. And Srinagar and Sopore are not the only places where it ever occurred. In other words, taken over a longer period of time and geography, Kashmir is not different from the rest of the country, which interestingly is reaping it as a geographic dividend. As it is often said, there are lies and bigger lies and then there is statistics. Praveen Swami is choosing his data for statistical analysis carefully.

Secondly, there is the other important aspect of what Praveen Swami is trying to hide from the readers. Kashmir is more prosperous than the rest of the country and it is bleeding India dry. It is time to ask, apart from terrorism what has been Kashmir's contribution to India. This is the time to stop appeasement of a violent minority.
J&K's dependency on Centre alarming - India - The Times of India

In 2009-10, J&K received Rs 13,252 crore as grants from the Centre, which constitutes nearly 60% of the state's total expenditure. In fact, for the past two decades since the separatist movement spread in the Kashmir valley, the centre has been propping up the state through similar doles. In all, J&K has received grants amounting to Rs 94,409 crore between 1989-90 and 2009-10.

For over a decade, from 1994-95 to 2005-06, the state received 10-12% of all grants disbursed by the central government to the states. In 2009-10, this proportion had dipped slightly to about 8%. This is way above J&K's share of India's population, which is a mere 1%.

Religious indoctrination in Kashmir

This is the kind of honesty and introspection we expect from chindu too. There is no point trying to black out islamic violence or projecting it in some form of non-religious, peaceful protest against some form of marginalisation. The violence in Kashmir or the terrorism perpetrated by LeT, IM, SIMI etc is arising out of an ideology rooted in Islam. We need honesty and courage to acknowledge and fight such dangerous ideologies. At the moment, it appears as if we have fallen into the islamist trap which is keeping the ideology glued to religion.
The Hindu : Today's Paper / OPINION : Kashmir's politicians must act

He sharply criticised those who perpetuated a culture of hate by telling their children they had no future in a “Hindu country.” This is the kind of honesty and introspection needed if a way forward is to be found.

Varadarajan burdened by journalistic debt

This journalistic debt that he talks about, Siddharth Varadarajan feels only when it comes to muslims. Varadarajan is faking a sense of morality by claiming to be burdened by this journalistic debt.  Why doesn't he put some effort to write a few stories on Kashmiri
pandits. He is probably afraid of the enormity of the secular debt that it will accumulate. That is not kosher, is it.
The Hindu : Opinion / Leader Page Articles : This is not zero tolerance, Mr. Prime Minister

My question to Dr. Singh, then, was really Raja Begum's, the partial discharge of a debt journalists accumulate as they run from story to story.

Where Swamy is Wrong

This is to clarify the points my fellow blogger DD raised with regard to Subramanyam Swamy's article. First of all, one needs to understand the problem in Kashmir. Like every other state and many countries across the world, Kashmir too has always had a liberal/socialist/leftist political outfit on one end and one or more conservative/rightist/Islamist party on the other. This is true of many other Indian states as well with the Congress filling the role of the former and the BJP with its Hindutva slant taking up the latter space. Just as the BJP takes its inspiration from ancient Hindu texts and our sanatana dharma, the Kashmiri right takes its cue from the Islamist system. Kashmir has long enjoyed strong familial and religious ties with PoK and to some extent, Pakistani Punjab as well. Not surprisingly, the Kashmiri Islamists look towards the Pakistani system as their ideal model (That is one area where the Hindu/Sikh right in India differs from their Islamic counterparts. The Islamist ideologues see Islam as embodying a comprehensive system of governance which it is the duty of the ideal (Islamic) state to adopt as the shariah. In the Hindu predominant states of India, none of the Sangh organizations have any comparable alternative blueprint for governance. While the RSS/VHP/Bajrang Dal have sometimes suggested that they do not, in practice, accept some aspects of the Constitution, they have never offered a clear conceptual alternative to the system as a whole). The trouble is that this Islamist opposition has found it unable to operative within the four corners of a secular Indian constitution - they have come to believe that there is no place in our system to execute their agenda (This is again a point where the Hindu right and the Islamists diverge in their strategy. The BJP made its compromises early on - though the RSS has sought a Hindu Rashtra in the past, the BJP now swears by secularism. This was a strategic move to render themselves more broadly acceptable so as to promote their growth especially in those parts of the country where Hindus are a minority. Also, it was facilitated by the fact that unlike the Islamists, the Sangh did not have any declared alternative that it idealized - the notion of Ram Rajya is quite a nebulous one). A system that does not offer political space to a mainstream alternative is inherently unstable and finds it difficult to sustain its own survival without the periodic use of force. In other words, an absence of choice implies a freedom deficit and a situation somewhat analogous to countries with single party ruled regimes across the world. (By the way, it is this fundamental understanding of politics in pre-partition Muslim dominated states that made Indira Gandhi reject the idea of incorporating Bangladesh into the Indian Union following the Bangladesh war - the fact that there are now two established parties ruling that country alternatively, one outwardly more pro-India than the other, shows how correct that decision was).

First of all, it needs to be made clear that there is no military solution to the Kashmir problem. The military can at best contain the scope of the problem and protect us from a failure to solve it but is not an answer in itself. This is where Swamy is wrong. By ruling out negotiations and foreclosing political efforts, he will ensure that those who do not see eye-to-eye with the GoI are goaded into extreme measures. The consequences of such an extreme position are too harmful to contemplate. For one thing, such a position will effectively hand over the jehadis a victory - the Kashmiri separatists will no longer have to play a careful game of balancing their support for dialogue with sympathy for the terrorists; instead, the stance will force them to go over fully to their side. If the GoI compels Kashmiris to take a with-us-or-against-us, given the historic sentiments in the valley, the odds are that a majority including moderates and independents would choose to go against us. No one, not even Israel, despite being so powerful, takes such an extreme view that there will never be a Palestinian state - the possibility of a state in the future is always held out for the Palestinians provided various conditions of good conduct are fulfilled.

Secondly, there was an outwardly calm in the valley but there has never been genuine normalcy. Sheikh Abdullah was imprisoned off and on by Nehru and later by Indira Gandhi, there were intermittent riots on a couple of occasions and finally an accord in 1975. But the Sheikh was well aware that the only way to guarantee peace in his state was if Kashmir, India and Pakistan all agreed. This was also the reason Nehru dispatched Abdullah to Pakistan for talks shortly before his death.

Swamy predicts that Pakistan will be controlled by jehadis five years from now. The question is still open. People predicted the same thing five years ago when there was speculation about Musharraf's successor. For one thing, the Americans ensured who Musharraf's successor was going to be and are very likely going to have a prominent say in who succeeds Kayani. It is true that the Pakistan army has moved steadily towards the right since Zia-ul-Haq and many of its cadres share a common ideological perspective with the jehadi outfits. But this will affect more the answer to the questions when and whether the Kashmir issue is tackled, not so much how. As Pranab Mukherjee said recently, Pakistan will be judged by its actions, not words. If jehad is declared against India, that will of course automatically shut down the dialogue process as it had done recently following the Pakistan Army's direct role in the Embassy bombing in Kabul. No doubt we need to be prepared to wield the stick but that does not mean that if peace reigns, there can be no carrot. Besides, the ideological predilection of the army are no doubt important but it is one among several related factors to be figured into the political calculus. After all, we have dealt with the Islamist right before - for example, the Vajpayee government held discussions with Maulana Fazlur Rehman, a Deobandi cleric who heads the Jamiat-ulema-e-Islam and is currently the Pakistani parliament's chairperson on Kashmir affairs.

Finally, much has been written about the legalities of the dispute, so I will keep this brief. India promised a plebiscite in the Instrument of Accession, a promise it came to regret and reneged upon (it conducted a plebiscite in Junagadh where it was confident of victory given the large Hindu majority but none in Kashmir where it possibly predicted that the odds of losing were high). It has since been arguing that the issue of a plebiscite is between the GoI and the people of Kashmir with Pakistan having no say in the matter. As for the issue of Kashmir with Pakistan, it will be resolved by talks under the Shimla accord of 1972. This fine distinction ignores the political realities of Kashmir and ever since the current peace process picked up towards the end of Vajpayee's tenure, such legalisms have been less employed by both sides.

Swamy is right that outright secession is not the answer - it is politically untenable and constitutionally impermissible. But short of that, is there a solution to the Kashmir question that would grant enough autonomy and would also be acceptable to Pakistan? There have been some reports of the two sides having arrived at a framework. There was even an article last year in Outlook providing the details which I do not recall now. Nothing was announced however and not much has been heard of it ever since. Gen. Musharraf a while ago suggested that the answer would perhaps involve 'rendering the border irrelevant'. That may be a worthwhile goal but India would have to figure out how to go about preserving and protecting its interests in the valley, a challenge that is easier said than done.

Kashmir, Secularism and Indian Identity

Malini Parthasarthy and Subramanyam Swamy have two op-eds (here and here) side by side in today's edition. Malini exhorts the Congress to fight harder for the secular project and Swamy asks India to not negotiate with Pakistan over Kashmir but to prepare for war to safeguard Kashmir and India from the Islamist project. If there is one thing common to both, it is their unjustified confidence in their own beliefs notwithstanding evidence to the contrary and a consequent failure to introspect.

Malini needs to wake up. If the idea of secularism had been so ingrained in our ethos, Kashmiri secessionists would not have had the traction they do - the fact that they do enjoy considerable popular support is good evidence of the failure of the much proclaimed secularism. Swamy, on the other hand, calls for India to deny Kashmir self-determination. This absolutist position is a recipe for never ending confrontation in the years to come. India has already spent a fortune on this state and will be forced, by adopting such a rigid position, to spend much more both on security and development - if peaceful protests do not succeed, they will once again give way to violent insurrection with the next generation of jihadis getting ready to fight the India once again. Swamy's legal games cannot distract from a simple fact: bereft of popular support, no government, whatever its ideals, can survive forever except by brute force, an option that should be reserved for the end.

When the Constituent Assembly ratified the Indian constitution, the word 'secular' was not to be found in it. And with good reason. While the state did not see a role for itself in the religious affairs of the people, it did not prevent the state either from identifying with popular beliefs even if they are inspired by religion. In addition, Art. 370 allowed Kashmir to retain its own Constitution even as the provisions of the country's constitution were kept apart to give the state the political space to create its own laws. Even as this autonomy has steadily eroded, anger against these special priveleges to one state has mounted across the country. The trouble with Malini and others who perceive the issue similarly is that their approach has dismally failed to resolve either of these grievances. On the one hand, she reiterates the myth that a strict enforcement of secular doctrine will keep the Kashmiri separatists at bay - the Amarnath controversy did not create the Islamist constituency, it only provided the latest pretext for Islamist mobilization against the state. On the other, she insists that fighting the Sangh Parivar forcefully will make the other question of popular anger over the special treatment go away. False again. The reason for the rise of the BJP has been the popular anger over special treatment to minorities. The only way to make that go away is to either do away with these concessions or to provide convincing justification for them. No secularist has managed either and not surprisingly, nor does Malini.

The problem is not of the Congress winning or losing electoral battles against the BJP but of its inability to counter the ideological framework of the Sangh. The answer (at least the principles of one) for secularists is actually quite simple. They need to start by distinguishing between values they perceive to be vital to the state's well-being and the system that only imperfectly reflects them but can withstand the vicissitudes of popular sentiment. They and the parties they patronize have long focused upon the former which is certainly important for mobilizing support for electoral battles as well as to generate public opinion towards an idealized goal. But it is only the latter that can create and sustain enduring political institutions and resolve the difficult political problems of our time.

In practice, this means the government must negotiate with Pakistan and with the Hurriyat. It must be willing to draw a line that is wide enough to allow some elements of an Islamic political order in an eventual Kashmiri constitution. And it must be willing to concede some leeway to religious values in other states as well. Unless, the country is willing to dismount from the high horse of secular fundamentalism, the anti-establishment undercurrents that have grown stronger in recent years will only lead the state towards a crisis of legitimacy.

On Recent Op-eds in The Hindu

'The Way Forward':

The Hindu editorial (2nd September) titled 'The Way Forward' has little new to offer. It makes only one suggestion namely, asking the government to open the Srinagar-Islamabad highway but recognizes that the problem with doing that lies with not India but Pakistan which means that there is not much the Delhi government can do about it anyway. Apart from that, it exhorts the EC to conduct early elections - again, hardly a brainwave. Neither of these is going to resolve the Kashmir issue by themselves; at best, they can facilitate a settlement to a limited extent, nothing more. On the key issue of Kashmir's political future and India's role in resolving it, what does the paper have to say? Sadly, not a thing.

Sainath on Hurricane Politics in the US:

The Hindu has exhibited a very keen interest in the upcoming Presidential election in the US. No prizes for guessing who it is rooting for. But it was quite surprising to see P.Sainath, the rural affairs editor, write upon the American political scene and how Hurricane Gustav will impact it! Sainath clearly follows American domestic politics and events very closely - that is evident from the number of occasions in which he quotes from the Wall Street Journal (his comments usually dripping with sarcasm). But to my knowledge, this is the first time he has actually written a full op-ed on the subject - for a change, the tenor is not envious like it usually is.

'Building Model Campus Communities':

Sujatha Byravan's article titled 'Building model campus communities' was strange to say the least. The article for the most part talks about how universities and engineering institutes in particular can become more ecofriendly, how they can reduce their carbon footprint, save energy and generally become more efficient. That begs the question: what actually is the contribution of these institutions towards global warming? Compared to the figures she quotes for industry and agriculture, miniscule I presume. Her real point is amplified in para 7 when she talks about the advantages that such institutions have to foster innovation:

Campuses have the capacity to build successful climate innovation systems: all the organisations and individuals involved in generating, diffusing, adapting and using new knowledge; the interactive learning that must occur when organisations engage in generation, diffusion, adaptation and new use of knowledge, (that is, new products and processes); and the institutions — rules, habits and conventions — that govern how these interactions and processes occur. Engineering school campuses, with their unique education, talent and skills, separate enclaves, and relatively independent management, are ideally placed to develop into fertile breeding grounds for climate innovation and serve as models for the rest of the community. IITs and other engineering colleges also have access to government and private funds to provide investments required for a metamorphosis of this kind.

When I started reading this article, this is the part I expected her to really focus on. How can our institutions help conduct research on climate change? Why are engineering colleges better placed than say, liberal arts colleges or specialized national institutes to conduct such research? How much investment would it take to upgrade existing engineering colleges to take up such an effort? Does it require a change in the curriculum? Does it require refashioning our model for higher education? What can the government do in terms of policy and financing to facilitate it? Sadly, none of these questions were answered (perhaps I was mistaken to have expected it in the first place but then, addressing these questions would have rendered its objective more meaningful.)

The author's idea instead seems to be that our students, exposed to environment friendly measures in college, would carry forward the same model to whereever else they go after graduation. But if the idea is to inculcate in them such a lesson of life, school is probably a better place to start than college. That is where their worldview is initially formed and where students learn the values they are expected to uphold and live by for the rest of their lives.

'Cooperation with Discord':

Today's article by Sreeram Chaulia was interesting to say the least. The Hindu published criticism of its own correspondent Vladimir Radyuchin in that article. Criticism of Russia and China has generally been disallowed on its pages in the past, so it is worthwhile to note that the paper has made something of a modest beginning here. Of course,a detailed answer to the question of why China refused to back Russia upon the Georgian question at the SCO summit meeting would have been interesting but the author does not provide any.

A final point: the recent criticism of the Indo-US nuclear agreement on the pages of the People's Daily which has received wide coverage in other media appears to have been ignored by The Hindu.

Conflicting Claims on the Kashmir Question

I was intrigued by two contrasting articles in the current issue of Frontline. One by Praveen Swami analyzing the historical political currents in J&K notes that the National Conference (NC) led by Sheikh Abdullah played on communal sentiments as much as other parties and is as responsible for the communal divide between Jammu and Kashmir as the others. A second by Noorani portays the late Sheikh as the epitome of transparency and statesmanship who was deeply wronged by Nehru. Historical perspective apart, Noorani insists on tying the J&K problem to Nehru's treatment of Abdullah. He claims that this slight was never forgiven by the people of that state and the road ever since his imprisonment in 1953 on trumped-up charges has gone steadily downhill.

Noorani has made this point in articles many times before. He routinely insists on tying the latest Kashmiri uprising to perceived slights of the past. This is something the NC leadership also claims - Farooq Abdullah used to throw a similar charge at New Delhi when he was the CM and I would not be surprised if Omar now asserts the same. But beyond the NC faithful, do the Kashmiri streets hold such a feeling? There is no evidence of that which makes it hard to take this view seriously. Also, one must not forget that J&K politics has taken several turns over the course of the last six decades. The NC under Abdullah which held out for a negotiable version of azadi for a long time through the '50s and '60s made its peace with India in 1975 when Sheikh Abdullah signed the Kashmir accord with Indira Gandhi. In what has been termed a completely free election, the NC under his leadership also won the subsequent assembly election in 1977 - the idea that the 1975 accord had no popular legitimacy at that time is debunked by this fact.

The accord however did not end the movement for azadi: while it allowed the mainstream NC to settle down to business as usual, it forced the opposition to offer a more extreme version of azadi repudiating the association with India. As the violence escalated towards the end of the '80s, the agenda of the opposition was steadily galvanized by the backing of the various militant outfits. Not surprisingly, the demand for azadi, always latent and implicit in the accord itself, got a new lease of life. The current struggle being led by the Hurriyat thus has its origin in the non-NC opposition. Geelani and co. care little about the compromises the NC made and are anxious to undo them. They are not particularly bothered by what happened to Sheikh Abdullah even if they are willing to deploy his treatment as a rhetorical point. The idea that Abdullah's shoddy treatment has left open a wound that now festers is a figment of Noorani's imagination - it was sutured and closed in 1975 and has given no further cause for trouble ever since. What we have now is a new wound that, despite being relatively disinfected, has turned into an abscess and continues to plague the body. It remains to be seen whether the UPA will manage to drain it and restore normalcy or will allow the past to be repeated albeit in a new form with a different set of actors.