The Fallacy of the “Two Sides” - Part III

Part II

The two sides of a cause, or a narrative, or an ideology are like the two sides of the same coin, which has no value without either of them. But still one thinks it’s superior to the other and the other dismisses it as though its existence is inconsequential. But one thing that comes about, seen holistically, is that both the sides are adamant, arrogant and insensitive to each other. The reality is that, one exists because of the other and if one hadn’t been there perhaps the other wouldn’t be there too. There’s a “Bhakt”, only because there’s also a “Sickular”. There’s a “Sold Media” because there’s also a “Modia”. And in the melee, the coin seems meaningless.

To give an example, let’s go through a conversation between “Any One” and “Other One”, who represent the two sides. They both are friends and come from similar backgrounds. But still they are on the two sides and here goes their conversation, about the recent CAA, Citizenship Amendment Act.

Any One: Can you point me to some good material that describes how the Hindus of East Pakistan were denied entry into India in the late 40s and 50s? Deplorable as that might be, I still don't see how that makes it OK to give blanket citizenship to all Hindus from Bangladesh who may have entered India all the way up until 2014, while excluding others.

Other One: How can you compare the Hindus of Bangladesh with anyone else in the world? Which other community has been killed in so big numbers? Of course they are more eligible than anyone else in the world – they were left to be killed because of India’s fault. Forget about facts and figures and history. Have you ever thought why’s it that you never hear of Hindus (or for that matter even Muslim) from Pakistan infiltrating into the Punjab, but you hear Hindus from Bangladesh have been entering into Bengal and NE till this day? What do you think is the reason? The only reason is that close to 100% non-Muslims were allowed to enter India immediately after partition from [West] Pakistan, but only a part could enter India from Bangladesh and rest couldn’t, and they and their descendants have been pouring in ever since. Why do you think you rarely hear about infiltration of Muslims form the west – are they not poor? Of course they are poor and may be even poorer than Bangladeshi Muslims. But still why don’t they pour into India through the Punjab or Gujarat or Rajasthan? Rajasthan is much easier to slip through. But still you only hear Muslims entering through Bengal. Doesn’t that smell of something else? Good that these are coming out now.

This is a pretty well researched article but still not fully correct, as the author might not have researched that well. But at least it’s coming out now. It says, “This insistence, that the solution lay not in rehabilitation but encouraging East Bengali Hindus to not migrate, flew in the face of facts. This severely affected the state of East Bengali refugees, who were ignored by the Central government, which remained “preoccupied with the problem of resettling 7 million refugees fleeing the massacres in the Punjab”. Since New Delhi kept on insisting that Bengal had no refugee problem, “long after the number of refugees in West Bengal had outstripped those in the East Punjab, such funds for their relief and rehabilitation as the central government was persuaded to sanction remained hopelessly inadequate and far too belated to resolve, or even to alleviate on the margins, one of the most intractable problems which partition had created,” wrote Chatterjee.”

https://scroll.in/article/946454/the-nehru-liaquat-pact-failed-refugees-from-bangladesh-but-so-would-the-citizenship-bill

Any One: Thanks for the info on the fallout of the Nehru Liaquat pact. I was only partly aware of the impact. There is a process to become a citizen, but it seems very complex and probably out of reach of poor people irrespective of religion. So fixing that without discriminating based on religion would have been the right thing to do, in my view. That would mean a proper refugee law. That could have addressed the historical wrong in the case of Hindus from East Pakistan, and still maintained our pluralistic credentials. I don't believe in fixing one historical injustice by committing another.

Other One: That’s [Nehru Liaquat pact] the main reason behind most of today’s problems in NE, and so many others. And it’s sad that no one even in Bengal ever acknowledged that so many million Hindus from East Pakistan were actually deprived of their citizenship of India. It’s as if it never happened. Even the Bengalis and the Bengali intelligentsia totally ignored them – and then 2.5 million of them were [left to be] killed by [the] Pakistani army between 1947 and 1971. Which other religious community other than the Jews faced such level of genocide? Don’t you think they, like the Jews, can’t be categorized with anyone else in the world?

Any One: Well, in spite of what happened to the Jews, I do not for once condone the way Israel was created. Again an example of addressing a historical injustice with another one. How well that worked out? Kashmir is our own Palestine too. Since August. These are just my views, all of us have views that are shaped by our personal exposure. But I guess it's important to keep listening to others.

Other One: Well, I have a different perspective of both Israel and Kashmir. As for Kashmir, why is there the army first of all? And before 1990, was there any army? What started this?

Any One: I am generally depressed at the loss of ideals. This is no country of Tagore’s “Where the mind is without fear”. I met a group of Kashmiri students and professionals. They have lived the horror personally. All Indians should listen to them. They are too scared to speak up. What kind of a country is this?

Other One: Totally agreed, but why did it come to this? What happened in 1989? Why were things normal before that? And have you heard the views from the Pandits? Why were they kicked out? Who’s responsible for that? And what triggered that?

Any One: I have a very close Pandit friend.

Other One: What’s his view about why they were kicked out?

Any One: His view is that all Kashmiris see the issue through their own prism. He is totally sympathetic to the cause of the young Kashmiris in the valley today. He doesn't believe in punishing them for what happened in 1989. Most were not even born then. But he understands that it's not the wider view held by the Pandit community. Most of them are like Anupam Kher.

Other One: But did the problem end after 1989? Why, first of all, the army had to be deployed? If you want to forget everything then no problem will be solved ever. What about the emotions of the Pandits who lost everything? And how can they get justice? Forget Pandits, what about the Shias in Kashmir? I always have one question about Kashmir: Why no one even acknowledges the plight of the Pandits? Why is it always one sided narrative?

Part IV