The Fallacy of the “Two Sides” - Parts I-VII

Part I

Not only in India, elsewhere too, the divide between the “Two Sides” are widening. One side always accuses the other of one or the other. Take this example from India. One side is “Bhakt” and the other “Sickular”. One is “Fascist” and the other “Urban Naxal”. One is “Sold Media” and the other “Modia”. One is “Tukde Tukde Gang” and the other “Divider No 1”. One is “Right” and the other “Left”. One is “So-called Liberal” and the other “Fundamentalist”. One is “Regressive” and the other “Anti National”. There are many. And interestingly, you could find similar nomenclature for the “Two Sides” in the UK, in the US too.

In reality, both the sides 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: I'm sure you know which side of the CAA debate I am on.

Other One: Well, it’s a very layered thing. The entire North East is also on the same side as you, but of course for a totally different reason. And, one thing that everyone is forgetting is that the problem arose because, very few people might know, millions of Hindus who wanted to flee East Pakistan, what later became Bangladesh, and take refuge in India around the Indian Independence, were actually sent back [due to the ill-conceived Nehru-Liaquat Pact] and they and their descendants kept pouring into India ever since – they can’t be called illegal, because there’s no difference between them and me and my father, who managed to somehow enter into India [at the nick of time]. It’s sad that it took so long to acknowledge that they are not illegal. But then, this is totally lost in the narrative of the CAA.

Any One: In my view, if the intent was as noble as that, there could have been other laws that could have been passed, refugee and amnesty laws that so many countries have. This bill to me, stinks of a clear agenda. When taken together with the NRC, it’s nothing short of anti-national in the strongest possible sense.

Other One: Yes, the way it was done was not right. NE broke into chaos and the various sentiments were not handled properly. But somewhere, the colossal wrong against the Hindus from East Bengal had to be corrected. It was wrapped under the carpet forever that few millions of them were not allowed to settle in India when it was India’s moral obligation to give them shelter. Just in one stroke, few millions were made to bear the ignominy of being illegal forever. No one ever bothered to correct this serious wrong. The entire NE problem is also due to that. [Those] who were not allowed to [take refuge] in India legally, trickled into the entire NE slowly, [changing the demographics of the entire region]. The locals do have a reason to be angry with that. Now, I really don’t know what should have been a better way. Whatever you do, amnesty or anything [else], the basic point remains that the Hindus from Bangladesh had to be treated differently. There also, the same arguments would have come – why amnesty only to them?

Any One: Do you know anyone personally who is alive, Hindu, and staying illegally in West Bengal today because they were forced to migrate due to minority circumstances? Someone who could benefit from this bill?

Other One: Well, I speak so vocally about this because I realized many things from within my own family. My father, an uncle and an aunt, seven, fourteen and nine years of age, entered India in 1948, alone. My grandmother and grandfather stayed back in East Pakistan, because they had already heard that the Hindus pouring into India were not being entertained at all. Many had already been sent back. My grandfather was more than seventy. He didn’t want to go through all these. They stayed back till 1965, till he died. My grandma entered India along with my aunt in 1965. By that time my father already had a job and it was not hard for them to settle in India. My grandma died in the 80s and never had a Voter’s card, nor a passport. My aunt never got a passport because there were always some complications as she didn’t go to any school in India. Her son, my cousin brother, now stays in Dubai. He tried all ways to get her there, but the passport itself couldn’t be done. My aunt’s husband is idealistic and never wanted to go to the local MLA for help.

Likewise, many of my relatives were still there, in Bangladesh, because they had heard horrid stories about rehabilitation of the Hindus from East Pakistan. But by the sixties, they all wanted to flee. By then, few had managed to go to the US, and many more eventually relocated to US. Again, the fear was [uncertainties] about their rehabilitation in India – especially because of India’s stand taken by Nehru, I don’t know why, to not allow the Hindu refugees from Bangladesh any more in India beyond 1950. Somehow, we and our flock, who were allowed to settle in India, moved up in the social ladder and managed. Many settled in the US. So, now I don’t know anyone personally in India who would benefit from this new amendment, but I kept on hearing from my relatives [from across the border], who came to India much later, and also many, who stayed back in the US illegally for years before getting asylum, that all through the 80s and 90s lot of poor Hindus, who didn’t have any richer relatives in India [or in the US], moved into the NE – that’s the root cause of the entire issue in NE. The Hindu migrants there are predominantly the next generations of the poor Hindus who couldn’t settle in India in the 50s because of India’s hostile attitude towards them. Don’t you think it’s just by sheer luck that I’m here and not in the NE, having “infiltrated” into India? I could have been one of them, and if I got the citizen why not them?

If the premise of partition, which India, whatever it might say in paper, also agreed to, is that Pakistan is the home for the Muslims, where very soon “anyone else” was alienated, it’s India’s moral obligation to accommodate this “anyone else”. It should have been from [the] day one, don’t you think? The Shias in Kashmir and POK, Baluch, Ahmadis, Kalash, Hazara etc. from Pakistan should also be accommodated and they can always take asylum. Same goes for the Sri Lankan Tamils – they have already got asylum. But whatever you do, there will always be some classification, as asylum can’t be given [indiscriminately] to everyone. Finally, the whole problem, you also know, has aggravated because the Left, and now the Trinamool Congress, have aggressively lured Muslims from Bangladesh to change the demographics of Bengal, just for their vote bank. My cousin stays at a place near Diamond Harbor, the constituency of Mamata’s nephew, and I hear interesting stories from there all the time about how the proportion of Bangladeshi Muslims is suddenly on rise since 2011. I visited one such neighborhood few years back, just out of curiosity, and I can say none of them came to India because of any good reason – they just knew someone here who lured them to come here.

Part II

Any One: Do you think the government is sincere in solving the specific problem you describe [protecting the persecuted minorities of the Indian subcontinent], and you see no ulterior / broader motive?

Other One: Well, let me ask, do you think any Muslim who has been staying in India forever would be illegally made a non-citizen now, like what everyone is talking? NRC in Assam had lot of Hindus who were excluded. There would be many errors, but I can say many are not errors. They did actually trickle in between 71 and now.

Any One: Well, 2 million people who were left out of the NRC are right now headed for detention camps. In another day and age, we would have called them concentration camps. Who are we to judge how many of those 2 million are genuine illegals. And even if they are, locking then up isn’t an answer that's acceptable in 2019.

Other One: Yes, that I agree, [that] detention camp is not the solution. But no one else is coming up with [a] good solution either. Political parties like TMC can’t be given a free hand to lure Muslims from Bangladesh just to secure their vote bank. That’s also illegal and how do you stop that? No one even speaks about the condition in Bengal, and one day it will also erupt like the NE. The change in demographics in many parts of Bengal is rampant now. Someone should come up with a solution. And yes, it should be better than what we have now, I mean what the [incumbent] government is doing. By the way, see, even now we refer to [the] Bangladeshi Hindus and “illegals”. Isn’t it sad? Why are they illegals first of all? And why am I then legal?

Any One: I think what's missing is proper asylum refugee policy. If as you say Ahmadi and Tamils are free to avail of that policy, why isn't it accessible to Hindus from Bangladesh? Why isn't migration from Nepal an issue? Is it because they are Hindu? What about persecuted minorities in Nepal? I see this whole process as riddled with contradictions, aimed to suit one group in politics, no different from Mamata. Referring to anyone as illegal is sad. No one can be illegal. We are all legitimate humans with legitimate aspirations. These ‘infiltrators’ and ‘termites’ that Shah refers to are the poorest people in the sub-continent. I mean Muslims, who migrate from Bangladesh to India. How poor must they be to want a better life in India, where Muslims are as low as Dalits in socio economic terms?

Other One: My point is simple, this “anyone else” from erstwhile East Pakistan must be treated differently because they were not allowed to enter India and were not taken care of earlier – there shouldn’t be a question of asylum to them. My father didn’t get asylum. “Anyone else” from Pakistan who wanted to come to India after partition shouldn’t be a case for asylum – they are as good citizens as any other, like you and me. As they were then not allowed to claim the Indian citizenship they were entitled to [because being a party to the partition, India implicitly accepted the Two Nation Theory in letter and spirit and hence was obligated to give refuge to all willing non-Muslims from Pakistan], first they should be allowed to do so now. That should be separate from anything else, I feel. And then, there can be any humane rules for absorbing people from other countries on compassionate grounds irrespective of religions, as much as India can afford to, like the Tibetans. All of them [who had fled Tibet] were absorbed in due course. Something like that could always be there. Anyway, let’s continue with the arguments as that’s what is very much needed, in civilized form, not attacking each other.

Any One: Academic thought exercise: How do you feel about a regular Muslim who chose to leave Dhaka in 1975 because she wanted to live in secular India with better women's rights? In your view is her claim to Indian citizenship weaker than a Hindu from Bangladesh who decided to migrate at the same time?

Other One: I believe, she can always seek citizenship through natural process, like Adnan Sami and many of Pakistani origin have also done. She doesn’t have to illegally enter India without documents. It’s like our friends settling in the US for better opportunities. Taslima Nasreen is also staying legally in India and she will surely get Indian citizenship someday. Interestingly, she’s hounded by the Muslims not the Hindus, please note. No one is talking about such cases. The Baloch leader Bugti was granted Indian citizenship. There are so many Shias from POK staying peacefully in India, legally. But for the Hindus of Bangladesh, that’s a total different story. The partition gave them the right to stay in India, and no one can deny that. Millions of them were not allowed to stay in India – so their case can’t be mixed with anyone else’s, I feel. It’s like the Pandits’ right to go back to Kashmir. It can’t be mixed with anything else. Their claim to citizenship is above all, even before mine and yours because they have been wronged in the most horrific way by India. They were denied their legal right by India. For everyone else [the other persecuted people in question] – India didn’t do any wrong to them.

The data I have dug out, and have also validated with a report from a Bangladeshi Muslim reporter’s article, says, only seven lakh Muslims actually crossed border from India to East Pakistan, during the partition, and many of them were Hindi speaking Biharis. And multiple reports say that very few of these seven lakh would have left because of the fear of persecution. On the contrary, the Great Calcutta Killing and the Nokhali riots [of 1946] had made it very clear that Hindus were no longer safe in Bangladesh or East Pakistan. So when the partition happened, there was absolutely no reason to deny them entry to India. That’s the most inhuman act ever done to any community – leave them to die. And they did. Peer reviewed papers cite reports that more than 2.5 million Hindus were killed in East Pakistan between 1947 and 1971 – these numbers are comparable to Holocaust. And they died just because they were not allowed to enter India. How can I compare them with anyone else? Sometimes I myself feel disillusioned why these particular community – the Hindus from Bangladesh – never got any sympathy from anyone.

Part III

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

Any One: OK [Referring to the fact that the militarization of Kashmir started with the Pandit exodus in the late eighties]. But it goes back to my fundamental problem with addressing one historical injustice by committing new ones. With Kashmir, I think the recent moves will be seen by history as having created another Palestine. I think there's plenty of awareness about the plight of the Pandits. May be, it wasn't talked about in the 90s, but that's all I hear these days. I have a Pandit aunt who lives in Kolkata. Maybe that's why I was aware even through the 90s. Competitive injustice will kill us all.

Other One: Well, as for Kashmir, I visited with my patents and family just two years back, just to get a firsthand experience, in the middle of another crackdown where internet was stopped. My driver for the entire stay was a Shia and he has absolutely no problem with India. He is not anti-India and he hates Pakistan and holds the Sunnis for their plight. So you have all the minorities – Buddhist in Ladakh, Pandits, Shias – all have a totally different perspective than the Sunnis. But you always hear the Sunni narrative – what about the rest of the minorities? I have problem with any narrative which becomes one sided and I see that most for Kashmir, as if it’s only all Sunni. So, what’s the solution? Can the Pandits ever be rehabilitated to Kashmir? And if not, then would you be fine with that? What I don’t get anywhere is any alternative solution that would keep Pakistan at bay and also restore the rights of the Pandits and the Shias.

Any One: The average guy will not know about the historical injustice. Just like the Kashmiri kids don't know about the Pandit exodus. Their personal reality is what will define their attitude towards the state.

Other One: So what do you think should be the right solution?

Any One: I think it's OK to say “I’m not sure”. Definitely for me. And the state should also be humble enough to say that. Involving the stakeholders is critical. They killed that possibility in Kashmir. And they may have killed in Assam too. The autocracy we are living in doesn't understand these things. What consultations did they hold with Kashmiris before deciding their fate? What did they discuss with the Assamese? The arrogance shocks me. Perhaps it’s no coincidence that it's 100 years since the Rowlatt Act and the worst of the colonial oppression. Echoes of an inglorious past.

Other One: Assam is too early to say what they did and how much they consulted the local people – I don’t have any information about that. But yes I can “assume” they must have done more. Now for Kashmir, not only they, but successive governments have been talking for thirty years. And I would really like to hear from anyone what’s the solution there. Few things are nonnegotiable I believe you admit. (1) They have to stop all persecution of non-Sunnis, have to rehabilitate [the] Pandits in letter and spirit, stop marginalizing the Shias and the Buddhists. (2) They have to stop terrorism in all ways – I think you also know terrorism can’t thrive without local support. (3) They have to stop aligning with Pakistan. Do you disagree to these main tenets? It applies not only to Kashmir but also to the rest of India. I always hear criticism but no one has ever given a solution. If anyone is saying Kashmir must be allowed to be independent, then you know how stupid that would be. (1) That would mean succeeding Kashmir to Pakistan, and (2) That will be a bad precedence for all other states all of which could then ask for secession. So now, let people suggest what the possibilities are. I’ve been studying this at least for the last 10 years and have just heard barbs and idealistic rhetoric but not a single person who claim to be sympathetic to the Kashmiri cause has given any solution – including Arundhati Roy, Barkha Dutt and so many western media.

Well, the comparison with Rowland act is not technically very correct. British India was predominantly nonviolent and Kashmir is not. Not even the NE, but the latter has become predominantly nonviolent and I am hopeful something will be soon worked out there. But without stopping terrorism in Kashmir, I don’t see how things will change. I have one more major problem with Kashmir. And I see this elsewhere too. There’s a sympathy for the Sunnis worldwide but there’s no sympathy for other sects of Muslims. No Kashmir sympathizer ever talks about POK. I believe you know how their demographics have been ruthlessly altered by Pakistan. But even after 70 years, the demographics of Indian Kashmir hasn’t changed at all for the Muslims, though the Hindus have been totally kicked out. Still, I didn’t find anything significant about POK in the internet. The same Article 370 has been violated both by Pakistan and China in their parts of Kashmir but hell broke loose when India wanted to end that. What do you have to say about this total silence about the Kashmiris of POK? I have problem with such one sided narrative. If you see, I have come to realize, the both sides of a cause actually are equally one sided – the government at one side and ones who oppose at the other side. Neither side ever takes a holistic view and I feel both sides are equally guilty of not solving any problem, just because of this one sidedness.

And finally I’m also amused at this stand that whenever something wrong happens to the Hindus, people want to forget that totally. Like this case of the Hindus of East Pakistan – they are the second most persecuted religions community in the world after the Jews. Then the Pandits – they are again one of the very few religious communities who have been 100% evicted from their homeland. In both cases people are ready to forget such huge colossal wrongs and want to move ahead. So then the other side can also say, “Anyway, you want to forget. This Kashmir thing will also be forgotten after 50-60 years.” Are you fine with this? Of course not, and no one can be fine with this. So my original question comes: What’s the solution which doesn’t ask for forgetting anything?

Now related to this is my even a larger problem – people always side with the first aggressor and accuse the retaliator because the retaliation is always 100 times more than the first aggression. Everyone accuses US for the nuclear attack on Japan but they totally forget what instigated that. For the Palestine cause too, it’s very clear who’s the first aggressor and if you do a “what if” analysis of what could have happened if the first aggression didn’t happen, then you can realize how different everything would have been. No one thinks this, that if the Ottoman Empire had sided with the Allied forces in both the World Wars, perhaps there won’t be any Palestine problem today. So most of the plight in the Middle East is created by that, and how can you totally ignore that, like ignoring Japan’s responsibility in bringing such loses to its own people?

I’m always in for healthy debates which enlighten me more than anything as I believe in seeing both sides with equal importance.

Part V

Any One: I feel it's incorrect to believe that Arundhati Roy or Barkha Dutt or folks like us can magically come up with a solution [for Kashmir]. It has to be some [a] combination of declaring the LOC an international border, giving the current Kashmiris proper rights and representation, a roadmap for demilitarization, a roadmap for minority rights, strengthening our border protection, etc. Specifics needs much deeper and sincere engagement with the valley. But now this is all academic talk. After August, the chances of this happening are zero. People like me are ready to join the militancy. Not me as in me, but people with our kind of background.

Other One: Well, when you say Kashmiris I’m sure you’re referring only to the Sunnis because the Shias and others don’t have much problem – I saw that first hand two years ago. Now I would be also curious to know what rights and representations the Kashmiris in India didn’t have between 1947 and the late eighties that anyone anywhere else in India had. All political parties in Kashmir were run by Kashmiris and I don’t take the crap that elections were rigged and hence they had to take to militancy. Elections have been rigged in Bengal all along till recently. First of all, it was never militarized. Even to get into talks, there has to be a status quo and few things like “azaadi” and sympathy towards terrorists and Pakistan have to be kept aside. So both sides have to come to some compromise that never happened, I see. See, these things are easy said than done. And you have very strong points, so do I, and both have logic and reasoning. Another problem is that my side and your side both are adamant and arrogant, claiming superiority in ideology and humanism. I see some very silly arguments coming up from both sides.

By the way, going by your logic of joining militancy, don’t you think the Hindus of Bangladesh and the Pandits should have all taken to militancy by now because their persecutions and human rights violation have been much more than the Sunnis of Indian Kashmir? See, this logic also doesn’t hold good. Many more people have been deprived of many things but they never took to militancy. Same goes for the Maoists – nothing can justify their militancy, or for that matter [that of] the Lankan Tamils.

Any One: Incorrect to assume that I'm only talking about rights and representation of Sunni Kashmiris. Everyone has rights. The idea of a democracy is not majority rule, which is what our politicians have made us believe, but a voice for everyone, no matter how feeble. If we carve out a Kashmir solution while ignoring the Shias and Pandits we will just sow the seeds of a new problem. Anyway, like I said, this debate is completely academic, because for the foreseeable future Kashmir is lost to India as a result of the August actions. As far as why Hindus didn't become militant in Bangladesh, I don't know. These are hard questions. Regarding militancy, where it does exist, one must try and understand the reasons behind it. Understanding terrorism isn’t the same as condoning it. For a while now anyone who tries to do the former is branded as someone who is doing the latter, and gets called terrorist sympathizer and anti-national. That in my view is an intentional political strategy that ultimately damages the country.

Other One: To me, if I see from little above, taking a holistic view, both sides seem to be agenda driven without any side trying to understanding the other. Whenever it comes to [the] persecuted Hindus, the response is, either “I can’t say” or “Let’s not bring that here”, or “Let’s move on, that’s past, why rake history”. And to me that aggravates the chasm between the two sides. To me both sides have serious biases and both sides think they are doing the right thing from their perspective. Like I always failed to understand why there’s no sympathy for the second largest persecuted religious community in the world, that’s the Hindus of East Pakistan, from the people who seem to be so much concerned about Palestine and Kashmir, whereas the numbers of the latter are lower in some order of magnitude than that of the former. There’s absolutely nothing significant available in the internet about the conditions of the Shias in POK. No one seems to be bothered about them but all are so concerned about the Sunnis of Indian Kashmir. There’s a bias in many other things which again increases the gaps between the two sides. So unless both sides reconcile, and stop taking moral high ground over the other, things will not stop.

I and you may be a skewed representative of the two sides – I said skewed because very few from your side seem to be as sensible and well-read and well opinionated like you and I can say the same for my side too. I feel so strongly about something without bias and you for something else. I can’t agree that I’m communal and you’re of course not anti-national. But still, see, how much “difference of opinion” exists on some very fundamental things between us. At least I listen to you and you hear me without me calling you anti national and you calling me communal. But that’s not the case for all from my and your sides. I perhaps can’t make you understand what makes me sad and what makes me feel helpless about certain reactions I see about certain things. I’m sure you too feel why I don’t think like you. So, you know that the thing we are dealing with is not simple and unless everyone behaves like us, there’s absolutely no hope. Next time BJP will lose, Congress will again carry out the same mistakes that will again bring back a more ferocious BJP after few terms and this will go on.

Any One: Wondering why if Ahmadis could access a process to gain citizenship why couldn't the Hindus from Bangladesh access the same process?

Other One: As I always maintain, Hindus of Bangladesh can’t be compared with anyone else. They are technically Indian citizens who were denied their basic right – they were not allowed to enter India – and that resulted in them being the second largest victim of persecution after the Jews. As I told, if I’m the citizen then they too are, and I could have been also one of them who couldn’t enter India, or rather not allowed to enter India. The partition made it mandatory for India to accept all willing non-Muslim people from both East and West Pakistan – everyone from West Pakistan was allowed to enter and only a part from East Bengal was. So the Hindus of Bangladesh can’t be mixed with anyone else. And no question of asylum for them – they are Indian citizens who were deprived of their rights. And then, they are much more persecuted than anyone else in India. Ahmadi, Baloch etc., etc. – no one faced such genocide killing 2.5 million.

Part VI

Any One: So your argument is they [the persecuted Hindus from Bangladesh who have entered India illegally] should not be made to go through any process [for Indian citizenship]. Understood.

Other One: Something which seems default to me is not easy to explain others. And there lies the chasm between the two sides of the story. Of course, no one has been wronged like them. The Jews have been rehabilitated worldwide. But the second most persecuted religious community in the world is still not being rehabilitated and we are still debating. That’s really painful. And isn’t it just amazing that despite such level of persecution not a single of them have yet become militant or even taken to any form of violence, both in Bangladesh and also in India.

Any One: Understood. I am not convinced about rehabilitation for past wrongs at the cost of others who are very much in the present. I don't know if it's [Hindus not taking to militancy] amazing. You could think of various reasons. Divisions within Hindu society, lack of leadership, who knows. They are all theories. But i understand your viewpoint. Even though i don't agree with it. I guess that's important.

Other One: There’s a persecuted community who were ready to adjust to anything that came along and struggle to do whatever best they managed to get. And see, most successful Bengalis worldwide are among those persecuted people. It’s indeed something to study for the whole world. But they never even came to the radar of anyone. No one is asking to do any wrong to others. I’m just saying, keep them aside and create rules for others. Don’t mix them with other persecuted people at all. Isn’t it ironical that we are ready to understand why someone can become militant but we say “don’t know” when there’s an example of such a huge persecuted community who stayed away from militancy? By the way, Parsis and Tibetans too never became militants and they too were not less persecuted. It’s indeed worth studying why certain people – Sri Lankan Tamils, Maoists, Kashmiris – took to militancy but many others didn’t.

Any One: It would be worth studying why militancy did not develop among the Hindus in Bangladesh or Tibetans in China while it did among Tamils of Sri Lanka, or Sunni Muslims of Kashmir. Maybe it will help prevent militancy among other marginalized groups, of which there are hundreds. But as a matter of urgency, when faced with militant violence, the state reacts with violence, academics try to ask why is there militancy, and perhaps forget to ask the question of why there isn't militancy elsewhere. I am certain the answer if there is one cannot be simplistic (e.g. Tibetans are fundamentally peace loving) and should not be seen through the prism of race or religion, but needs to be dug out from the specific political and social circumstance. Maybe at a people to people level, the Hindus of Bangladesh didn't consider their Muslim neighbors to be sufficiently different from them, given the abundance of cultural commonalities, in order for them to wage war on them. Or maybe there was no wealthy diaspora willing to fund them with arms. It will require serious research to understand why. It might be easier to answer questions of why there is militancy elsewhere. Because it's there, and causal links can be established. Understanding absence of something is fundamentally harder I think. But I'm no expert.

Availability of arms is fundamental I think. Presence of Pakistan is an obvious factor in Kashmir. India fortunately didn't fuel an insurgency in Bangladesh. But just academically speaking, if India did, do you think the Hindus would have seized the opportunity? It's possible, isn't it? E.g. the LTTE got some of their power and legitimacy from an arguable level of endorsement from some South Indian parties. All I'm saying is, we can theorize about this stuff. But the pain and suffering that people and kids are going through right now, today, is something we are all complicit in. Just as our parents were complicit in Nehru's mistakes. In our times if there is something I can do to raise my voice against injustice that moves me, I will. And I agree I can't do it for everyone. So the argument of what about the community X in such and such place doesn't hold for me. We are not super humans that we have to stand up for every injustice. If we raise our voice for any cause, we believe in, I think we are being good citizens, irrespective of what side of the debate we are on, as long as it is sincere and not agenda driven.

Other One: These are very interesting discussions and I wish people actually indulged into this rather than attacking the other side and landing nowhere. As you said, yes, there’s a bias in everyone and people should accept that. You stand for something doesn’t mean that someone else can’t stand for something else. And “my standing” is the only high “standing” is also not acceptable. Today’s problem comes exactly from this attitude. I love Gandhi like a God and always hated Nathuram Godse but when I read what he told to the court in his trial I was firstly so shaken that I couldn’t sleep for [a] few days. Not that my love for Gandhi came down, rather it increased, but I learned a very big thing – that the other perspective is also equally strong as mine, and that the ethics and moralities are only relative. At the end, Nathuram Godse took arms, very much like a Kashmiri terrorist, and the adamancy and arrogance about the absoluteness of my ideology never allows to pardon a militant, come what may. Hence, at the end I can’t take Nathuram’s side though he also stood for what he felt was right. All our standings are like that. If I stand for Gandhi I must demonize Nathuram, and if I stand for Nathuram I must demonize Gandhi. But in reality, both sides become demon – the Gandhians might feel appalled at the thought that Nathuram could be right, and vice versa.

The moment you demonize one side too much, there’s a retaliation and in most cases it’s very severe. There are very solid grounds, supported by facts and figures, that Hindus have been wronged in many ways. But that’s normal – anyone could be wronged. So there’s perhaps no exception about the wrongs done towards the Hindus. But for a very long time the side that stood for the Hindus were demonized so much that one day they retaliated. If the demonization didn’t happen, perhaps the retaliation also wouldn’t have happened. Terrorism is also one form of fascism. In fact, fascism is terrorism. So if you think why the BJP has such enormous support base in [what your side refers to as] its [own] form of “terrorism”, it’s perhaps because of the same reason why Kashmiris have also come to support terrorism – the feeling that they haven’t been heard enough, that they have been demonized in many ways. So basically the problem is always in demonizing the other side. Whenever I call someone fascist or communal I’m demonizing him, not understanding why he’s behaving like that. [For the sake of argument, it could be said that] there’s no difference between a Kashmiri terrorist and may be Amit Shah or Modi or another Nathuram. One has more power so he’s doing more harm. So unless this looking down on others, taking a moral high ground that “my stand is higher than yours”, this will never end. As I told, BJP will lose, Congress will come, they will also do some other form of harm and then again BJP will come and it will go on and on like a vicious circle – unless we learn to listen otters, stop demonizing others.

Part VII

Any One: Good points. I recently read Vikram Sampath's biography of Savarkar. That was useful for me. As was Ambedkar's exchanges with Gandhi. By the way, there’s a funny story. Baba went to Bombay while he was in first year at college. The guy who was hosting him lived in the same building as Savarkar. He dropped by his house, and my father was told, pronam koro. So he did. Now he can tell the story of how he touched Savarkar's feet, the man who likely inspired Godse. Yes, I agree that a unidimensional impression of any of these people is a huge injustice to each of them.

Other One: Interestingly, in the leftist narrative of Savarkar, at least in the history text books we read in [the] Bengal board, Savarkar was shown as a great hero and there was no mention of his two nation theory or anything. Gokhale introduced Ganapati festival which Tagore also introduced in Bengal and unknowingly that alienated the Muslims to a great extent, might be more than what Savarkar did. In fact, I really doubt how much alienation of the Muslims in India happened due to Savarkar, or for that matter Godse. Of the so huge Tagore’s work, how many [have] Muslim characters could again be a bone of contention and perhaps that’s the reason why he’s now being condemned by [a section of] the radicalized Bangladesh. Tagore wrote so widely about the Vedas and the Upanishads, but I haven’t come across anything about Muslim [theology]. And the same holds good for Swami Vivekananda. But that doesn’t make them communal. But if someone wants to say, from one angle both Swamiji and Tagore could be seen as communal.

Any One: Yes, but it's also not fair to judge these people by 21^st century social norms. By that argument Gandhi was a racist. The reason social norms change is because of forward looking thinkers like them.

Other One: It’s all about one sided narratives that creates a chasm between two sides. The leftist narrative of India for the first 50-60 years after independence did the most harm in creating the chasm. Yes, you’re correct, that’s my point also – you can’t say Gandhi a racist or Swamiji a communal, but a narrow agenda based narrative could paint them like that. And that’s what has happened in India in many ways. What we see today is a bad retaliation of that – the reaction to looking down and demonizing one side.

Coming to Vikram Sampath, do you support how everyone left him out of the Bangalore lit fest just because he had a different ideology or because he didn’t support the Award Wapsi? So what’s the difference between bigots and the people who raise their voices against bigots? That’s what makes the other side very suspicious of the people who raise voices. There are tons of other similar examples. None of those voices comes openly in support of Taslima Nasreen. And everything is reciprocal. The moment the other side becomes powerful the reciprocation becomes more vigorous. But who created the Frankenstein? The same voices who now fight against the Frankenstein. So, at the end of the day, it’s like [a] poem by Annada Shankar Roy, I read long time back – it goes something like this: Mukherjee is the King, Mukherjees are the people; Mukherjee is the government, Mukherjees are the opposition; Mukherjees are the protest, Mukherjees are the police... You know what he means and I see the same thing here too. It’s all the same people on either sides.

Any One: Yes. I don't support Vikram Sampath being disinvited. It's as bad as how Ambedkar was disinvited from his last lecture. I too have a few friends who are on other sides of the spectrum including you. No good can come out of stopping dialogue. Positions will only get hardened. It's important to keep explaining to each other with rational arguments.