Wide-Ranging Discussions On Day 2 Of The Jaipur Dialogues 

Opening the session was Lt Gen (retd) Syed Ata Hasnain who gave a profound, yet easy-to-understand talk on ‘hybrid warfare’.

Lt Gen (retd) Syed Ata Hasnain:

Threats from across the border not the only threat to India. Any thing which stops Indian citizens from realising their aspirations within the limits of the constitution, is a threat to India’s security. Security is no longer only about military threats, but includes threats of hybrid nature.

For example, after 1971, under Zia, Pakistan decided to pursue hybrid warfare against India. This would mean that it not only resorted to firing at the border but also cross-border infiltration. Then stone-pelting in Kashmir was added to it. And to that in turn was added a diplomatic campaign against India in the world and an attempt to take advantage of social faultlines in India. This was “war by a thousand cuts”.

And for a long time India wasn’t prepared for this kind of war, especially in the period between 1987-91. It was that bad. India was politically, socially and economically weak. 4 divisions of the army were sent to Sri Lanka. The war in Afghanistan had ended, and the mujahideen were moving for India. It was also the time of the Mandal unrest.

In such a scenario, it would have been stupid for Pakistan to not take advantage of this. Benazir Bhutto, egged on by Hamid Gul and others, initiated a multi-pronged assault on India . Then, attacks all over India followed.

In Kashmir today, this hybrid warfare has paralysed governance. Only one way to fight it is: WHOLE OF GOVERNMENT APPROACH. The whole government has to fight this war.

Demonetisation, for e.g, is an attempt to breakdown the finances of terrorists. Only 20-30 per cent of ISI funds comes from the government. Rest they earn via drug trade. And it is this drug trade that would be hit by demonetisation.

(After this, a question-answer session followed. General Hasnain’s answers are given below)

The old-world approach to Kashmir was—bottle it up. This was driven by the notion that separatists would turn Indian, like they did in Mizoram. It was hoped that separatists would ultimately come on board, come to politics.

The realisation that this will not happen has come today. From here, to cutting funding of separatists (as hoped in the question) will not be an overnight change.

Drastic changes will come under Prime Minister Modi; he’s doing it, and Indians have to be patient. Like we are under current circumstances of demonetisation.

(Next a question came on handing over security of Jammu and Kashmir to the J&K police)

Shekhar Gupta wrote in December 2013 that the ‘dividend of peace’ should be given to people of Jammu and Kashmir and that the Army should move to border. I wrote a counter and in that I asked that in the context of J&K, “what is victory”. Unless each Kashmiri proudly says that he or she is an Indian, there is no victory. Army can’t go anywhere for another ten years. Army’s task is to ensure comprehensive victory for India. This will bring the state up, and the state will bring the final victory for India.

Dr David Frawley:

—The media in India is functioning like an independent branch of the government. It colluded with the academia, which is run by the Left. Even globally, the academia is more towards the Left than the society. A similar alliance was made with the global media. The negative stories about India that are run are planted from India. Today, it appears as if the main opposition party is the media and not an actual political party.

—India the only country where the where the majority community suffers from the bias of the judiciary.

—The intolerance debate is about loss of power, not loss of freedom. The socialist elite is losing power, and that is why there is a lot of noise. Intellectual churning, although, is very important. But, it has to reach the people, and the Delhi elite need to be challenged.

Sushant Sareen:

Certain anitiquated practices that are still prevalent need to be interfered in by the state. However, mindless political correctness and judicial intervention has to go. One example of this problem is the National Green Tribunal.

Thus, state needs to interfere in some aspects but within certain limits.

Although India certainly has civilisational lessons for the world, we can’t go back to the past. Problem with the liberal elite they always come across as trying to stop the progress of India. The other problem is that they come out with wonky ideas. For example—Kashmir, and the phrase “political framework”.

What does that mean?

Kashmir’s political solution is not only for Kashmir but also for all Indians.

Article 370, in its part is a non-issue because it has not stopped India from doing anything it wanted to do.

Thus, India cannot lift its eyes off threats. Constant vigil is the only way out. And that has be to in all aspects.

Lastly, a word or two about the general approach towards governance in India: If children of bureaucrats and ministers are allowed to study only in government schools, the quality of education therein would improve.

And, no bureaucrat or minister should be allowed to go abroad for medical treatment. Why have you not improved medical services in India?

(Tufail Ahmad then followed up with some questions and observations)

A new, qualitative definition of MINORITY is needed. The Numerical definition of minority not sufficient. Any group that is suppressed can be called a minority. That makes Dalits and women the first social minority in India.

The Issue of Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) is before the Supreme Court. The government has said that AMU is not a minority institution. If the court rules in favour of government, that would signal a shift in thinking. The Current status of AMU sends signal that Muslims can only come to AMU. However, the truth is that they can go any institution of their choice.

AMU is a central university and has Shia and Sunni theology departments. Why should a central university have theology departments?

I call upon political parties to abolish minority wings for better integration of Muslims in politics and to rename the minority affairs ministry. Every Indian citizen who is disadvantaged can come under the “minority” tag.

(The next speaker was Tarek Fatah who built on his address yesterday which can be found here.)

(Following that was a question-answer session whose highlights can are given below.

David Frawley: There is a tendency to show any Hindu response as ‘fringe’. Hindus have to communicate who they are better. Reforms are necessary. Women need to be given more rights. But the so called Hindu backlash will not go away unless there is a sense of equality in discourse.

~*~

Sanjay Dixit to Tarek Fatah: Maulana Azad held in high esteem. Although, now he is being looked at differently. What are your views on Maulana Azad?

Fatah: Azad promoted as an Indian Muslim against the Muslim of the League. Azad did not hold a favourable view of the non-Urdu speaking Muslim and made a huge mistake in letting NWFP go.

Tufail Ahmad: Azad's thinking was like today's jihadis. Many religious scholars, including Maulana Azad, had opposed Partition only because it would have divided the ummah.

~*~

Fatah: The CPEC is a project to eradicate the Baloch population and establish Punjabi dominance over the region.

~*~

Fatah: Arnab is both moderator and the protagonist. That shows the preference of the audience and that is not the way it should be.