New Age Islam
Mon Jul 15 2024, 02:22 AM

Indian Press ( 22 Dec 2020, NewAgeIslam.Com)

Comment | Comment

Indian Press on Interfaith Marriage, AMU and PM Modi: New Age Islam's Selection, 22 December 2020

By New Age Islam Edit Desk

22 December 2020

• An Interfaith Couple Faced Violence, A Miscarriage And Arrest. We Can't Say 'No Harm Done'

By Kavita Krishnan

• AMU Is the Intellectual Capital of Muslims in the World … When PM Talks It’ll Have A Positive Effect’

By Sanjeev Singh

• When PM Modi Speaks At AMU Today, He Could Underline His Resolve To Preserve, Defend University’s Character

By Faizan Mustafa

• Decoding Pakistan’s New Verbal Assaults

By Harsha Kakar


An Interfaith Couple Faced Violence, a Miscarriage and Arrest. We Can't Say 'No Harm Done'

By Kavita Krishnan

22 December 2020

Rashid and his brother Salim reuniting with their family after being released from custody. Photo: Kavita Krishnan


At first glance, what strikes you about Muskan (Pinky) is how skinny and frail she looks, huddled in bed under a blanket: a far cry from her glowing self in the photograph of herself with Rashd which made it to the Telegraph UK story on her forced abortion.

Mohammad Sartaj Alam, one of the journalists who broke the story, had advised Muskan’s mother-in-law to get a fresh ultrasound in some hospital outside Moradabad district. So Muskan was taken to Bijnor, where she got an ultrasound done at a private clinic. The report reads, clearly “RPC/blood clots in UT”. This shows that there are “retained products of conception” (foetal matter left over after a miscarriage or abortion) in her uterus. We sent this ultrasound report to a senior gynaecologist, Dr Puneet Bedi, in Delhi, and had Muskan speak to him on phone. She told him she continued to bleed and experience pain. He explained to her, and to us, that it is standard practice to prescribe a course of antibiotics and painkillers after any miscarriage (whether it was spontaneous or induced by abortifacients). Failing this, uterine infections could develop, which might even prevent future pregnancies.

Muskan has alleged that the District Women’s Hospital in Moradabad where she was taken while in police custody, injected her with abortifacients to induce an abortion. The hospital denies this – but their denial rings false because of their suspicious conduct. They declared that no miscarriage had occurred – which is now proven to be a lie. Most shockingly, in actions that befit a Mengele, they did not prescribe any antibiotics to Muskan after the miscarriage. Surely they knew that this could mean that she might lose her ability to ever bear a child? They also withheld Muskan’s treatment papers from her, though she asked for them.

Kawalpreet Kaur from the All India Students’ Association and Sneha, an advocate from the Human Rights Law Network, went to buy the medicines Dr Bedi had prescribed, as Muskan made an effort to sit up and speak to me. Her mother-in-law, Naseema, and two aunts of Rashid’s who have come down from Uttarakhand, ask me whether it is safe to give her eggs, meat and ghee to strengthen her up. She has been wasting away from blood loss, weakness, sorrow at the miscarriage and worry for Rashid’s wellbeing, they tell me.

Asked about how she and Rashid met, she hid a little smile: the memory still brought her joy. She has a BA degree, and she was living alone and working in a financial company in Dehradun, when she met Rashid, who ran a saloon. They courted each other for over a year, then got married in July 2020.

Naseema told us that after the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Ordinance, 2020 was passed, she began to worry about her son and daughter-in-law. She knew they had done a nikah ceremony in July 2020 in Dehradun, after duly informing the SP Dehradun as required by Uttarakhand’s own Uttarakhand Freedom of Religion Act 2018. Since then, they had been living together happily, and Muskan was pregnant. But Naseema was uneasy, hearing all the hateful warnings issued by the UP chief minister and other Bharatiya Janata Party leaders against interfaith relationships. She asked a lawyer, Deepak, whether it was advisable for the couple to get the marriage registered, to protect them from any harassment. He told her that the marriage must be registered, and took Rs 5,000 from her to get the documents uploaded and the marriage registered. Either he, or someone in the bureaucracy who was part of the registration process, must have informed the Bajrang Dal.

Muskan describes how, on December 5, she, Naseema and Rashid’s brother Salim were accosted by a violent Bajrang Dal mob on their way to get the marriage registered. The mob abused them, slapped and roughed up Salim, and videotaped the whole episode. I found a video on Facebook of some part of this heckling. It is striking to see how calm and confident Muskan manages to remain, in the face of the Bajrang Dal thugs. They tell her, “You have to get permission from the DM to get married – they’ve had to make a law for the likes of you.” Asked on camera if her father or “guardian” has given her permission to marry Rashid, she replies, “I am an adult, I am 22, I have married him of my own choice five months ago.”

The Bajrang Dal got Muskan’s mother to the police station, and induced her to file an FIR alleging that Rashid had masqueraded as a Hindu to seduce her daughter, who is from a Scheduled Caste. Muskan scoffed when I asked her about this: “I am an adult, I know my own mind, and I was living on my own when I met Rashid. I knew full well he was Muslim. We loved each other. I converted to Islam of my own accord, and we both got married. My mother does not know him, she has just parroted whatever the Bajrang Dal men asked her to.”

Why did Muskan need to convert to Islam, and why did Rashid and she choose a nikah ceremony rather than registration under the Special Marriage Act? Muskan’s experience of trying to get her marriage registered answers that riddle quite well. The SMA or registration process discriminates against couples. It places hurdles that couples who marry under the Hindu or Muslim or Christian or other religious laws do not face. Unlike religious ceremonies, the SMA process requires a couple to put up a public notice of their intention to marry, and allow a month’s interval for anyone to raise an objection to the marriage. Informers within the bureaucracy alert the Hindu-supremacist outfits, and they spring into action to separate the couple, unleash violence and prevent the marriage. In the case of Muskan and Rashid also, the Bajrang Dal thug-in-chief who interfered boasts that he has a network of informers everywhere.

It is to avoid this kind of violence that couples choose a religious ceremony. Since patriarchal objections to the marriage are most likely to be raised by the woman’s community, it is the women in such relationships who tend to convert to their partner’s faith. In another recent instance in UP, a Muslim woman converted to the Hindu faith to marry Naman, a Hindu young man.

On the day we visited Muskan, Rashid and Salim were released from prison. The police itself had filed a petition under Section 169 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, informing a magistrate that they lacked evidence against the accused. But, as Muskan told us, the police knew the truth from the start. Yet, they acted to appease the Bajrang Dal thugs rather than punish them for their attempts to terrorise an interfaith couple. It is no wonder that Hindu supremacist thugs in UP act like a shadow government – after all, one of their own is the chief minister. When Adityanath issues death threats to Muslim men who love and marry Hindu women, he is promising the thugs his blessing and protection.

So on December 5, what was to be a happy and festive occasion turned into a nightmare. Rashid and his brother Salim were taken away to prison, Muskan was taken into a “shelter home”, and Rashid’s younger brother Nasir escaped a mob of Bajrang Dal thugs who were out to lynch him.

What Muskan told us about the shelter home was not surprising. “It is a prison, women are tortured there,” she said, adding that there are other adult women imprisoned there for the crime of loving someone from a different caste or faith. “Their parents claim they are minors, and they are kept there, prevented from having mobile phones. No one but their own parents are allowed to meet women incarcerated in these “shelter” homes, they are made to cook and clean, and the staff bully them. They are told that they can be free from the “shelter home” only if they agree to give up their relationship and be released into parental custody.”

The police and shelter home authorities knew Muskan was pregnant. Yet she was taken away from a loving home, violently separated from her husband who was jailed, and taken into custody as though she were a criminal. A few days later, she began to develop abdominal pains. The shelter home authorities said she was making it all up. When the pain became unbearable, she was eventually taken to hospital on December 11, where she was admitted, and, except for a brief interval, remained till December 14. She says that she was given tablets and injections by the hospital authorities, after which she miscarried.

When Muskan was still in custody, I had heard a recording of a phone call she had managed to make to her mother-in-law. I asked Muskan how she managed to make the call. She said one could bribe the shelter home staff to use a phone. With great presence of mind, she recalled Naseema’s number and managed to call and tell her that she suspected she had been forced to miscarry.

When Rashid and Salim come home, Naseema and the boys’ aunts embrace them fiercely. Rashid and Salim are weeping. Rashid comes over to Muskan and holds her, and both are in tears. As media cameras flash and TV journalists keep asking questions, Rashid whispers to Muskan. He is obviously devastated at her weak appearance.

But Rashid and Salim are both guarded in what they say about the police. They were escorted into their own home by an officious, grim and unsmiling man in a black suit, who kept saying to the family “What are all the tears for, it is all okay now, all is now well.” This man kept trying to disperse the media as well as activists like us. A friend of the family whispered to me that this man worked with the police, and his presence was meant to remind Rashid and Salim that they were being watched.

Rashid’s is a very poor, working class household in Kanth village in UP’s Moradabad district. Naseema has had to spend a lot of money in bribes. Without bribes, she said, it was impossible to get warm clothes to her daughter-in-law in the shelter home, nor to her sons who were being held captive in a quarantine centre.

By the police’s own admission, there is no evidence that Muskan, Rashid or Salim had committed any crime. Their arrest and detention was clearly illegal. The officious man in a suit may say “no harm has been done and all is well”, but in fact, Muskan and Rashid and their loved ones are all victims of a series of violent acts by the Bajrang Dal, and by a range of UP government authorities including the police, shelter home and hospital.

It would be truly obscene if we, the people of India, too say “no harm done”, shrug and look the other way.

A loving husband and wife were violently attacked by an outfit which, by its own admission, trains its members in violence and makes a habit of separating interfaith couples. The police, instead of acting against the thugs, illegally arrested the victims of the violence. A pregnant woman was subjected to trauma. Whether as a result of the trauma or as a result of forced administration of abortifacients, she suffered a miscarriage. The authorities lied, denied the miscarriage, and in order to protect the lie, failed to protect her from a possible uterine infection that could affect child-bearing in the future. In two weeks, a pregnant bride in the pink of health has been reduced to a shadow of herself.

UP’s anti-love ordinance is a blood-purity law to rival Nazi Germany’s Nuremberg laws. Muskan’s and Rashid’s case is not a “misuse” of the law. The only “use” of such an ordinance is to give legal cover to Hindu supremacist thugs who inflict violence on interfaith couples. It is not enough for such ordinances to be struck down and declared unconstitutional by courts.

Courts, if they are to do their duty, must order a countrywide probe into the violent Hindu supremacist outfits that terrorise interfaith couples, and their enablers embedded in the police and administration. They must mandate changes in the Special Marriage Act to do away with the month-long notice period. The Supreme Court’s right to privacy judgement must not just be an elegant piece of prose for the history books. Courts must act to protect the right of interfaith, inter-caste and same-sex couples to privacy, so that any government employee who leaks information about impending marriages to vigilante groups, should lose his job and face prosecution.

And last, but not least, all laws seeking to restrict conversion must be struck down. Faith, like love and marriage, is a private affair. The state cannot claim authority to ask adult individuals to furnish justifications for their decision to convert, or to marry.


Kavita Krishnan is secretary of the All India Progressive Women’s Association (AIPWA).


AMU Is the Intellectual Capital of Muslims in the World … When PM Talks It’ll Have A Positive Effect’

By Sanjeev Singh

December 22, 2020

Prime Minister Narendra Modi will virtually attend the centenary celebrations of the Aligarh Muslim University today. He will be the first PM after Lal Bahadur Shastri in 1964 to deliver the address at AMU. Sanjeev Singh and Nalin Mehta spoke to Shafey Kidwai, a professor and member in-charge of PRO at AMU, on the significance of the occasion:

Prime Minister Narendra Modi will be addressing the centenary event on the 22nd of December, what was the thought process behind this entire event and this concept?

You see, we are celebrating our 100 years of completion of the university. That’s why we think it’s important that Prime Minister Narendra Modi and President Ramnath Kovind should be invited along with other leading personalities. Our vice-chancellor thought about this as the PM had recently attended the function at Lucknow University. So that’s why we thought that it would be very appropriate to speak to him and request him to address our students and we want to initiate a good dialogue.

In the past few years, we’ve seen a lot of friction between the university and the government. Do you want to leave that behind and move on?

Yes, there are so many misconceptions right now because there is no dialogue. We just want to initiate a dialogue with a new beginning during our centenary year. We must bring people together and hope we can achieve success in every sphere of life. Our aim is to bring people together and leave behind all kinds of dissension or differences like we did to build and make progress with this institution.

AMU has such a rich, past and heritage. But recently some members of the Sangh Parivar etc, have been creating issues around the university. How does the university view local political intervention?

There are so many local compulsions and AMU is a soft target. They know what they are seeing is not true, but they just hurl abuses and make wild allegations. But it is different when we approach the central leadership. Recently, in two meetings, the Union education minister praised AMU for its secular credentials and academic achievements. This had a soothing effect. When the minister spoke, there was a lull, otherwise local leaders keep making wild accusations almost every day.

AMU students protested against the CAA NRC Bill and have extended support to protesting farmers in Delhi. How do you view these protests?

In a democracy, yes, you have a right to protest. And if they are saying something, if they are extending support to farmers in a peaceful manner, I don’t think there is any threat, but they should be within the limit. This is what democracy is all about. Students should not go on rampage or damaging the property of a university or outside. We have a protest site on the campus and students are free to register their protests in a peaceful manner. We don’t discourage things like that.

What astonishes me is the sense of belonging that the students have for the University. So, when they think the University may come in harm’s way or anything they do that would be against the interest of AMU, they listen to us.

Should Universities retain Hindu or Muslim in their names?

There is globalisation and there is g-localisation which means local aspirations. We need a bit of both. Our university’s doors are open to people of every religion, caste and creed. More than 30% of our students belong to the majority community. The name only reflects some cultural aspirations and traditions which are to be preserved. Our culture is the only survival kit in this world and we derive solace from it.

AMU is a central university. It gets funds from the Centre. Then why should we have reservations for a particular community?

I want to clarify that there is no reservation for Muslims in AMU. It is a misnomer. We have 50% seats reserved for internal students and any student who has finished Class XII from here will get this benefit irrespective of him or her being a Muslim, Hindu, Christian or any other religion. There is not even one percent reservation for Muslims in AMU.

Nobody comes to AMU to study a simple BA course. Most come to study courses in Urdu, Islamic studies, theology and Arabic which is why you will find a lot of Muslim students in AMU. But in courses like mass communication, LLB, and other prestigious courses like engineering and computer science, you will find an equal number of students from other communities.

By inviting PM Modi for the centenary function, what are you hoping to achieve?

I think our VC has taken the initiative to make a new beginning. We have sent a Rs 140 crore proposal to the Union education ministry to set up a professional college for women. We hope we can come together and achieve success. This will mark the beginning of a new era of hope and we look forward to listening to our PM. We just want to have a good rapport with the government of the day and the majority community. We will progress when we come together. Pluralism is our basic value. There will be a lot of hiccups like local BJP leaders but when the PM talks about our academic tradition, it will certainly have a positive effect.

Aligarh and AMU is also the intellectual capital of Muslims in the world. When PM Modi attends the function and delivers his message of ‘sabka saath sabka vikas’ at AMU, it will provide the best opportunity to be used by us and the government as well.


When PM Modi Speaks At AMU Today, He Could Underline His Resolve To Preserve, Defend University’s Character

By Faizan Mustafa

December 22, 2020

“From the seed we sow today there may spring up a mighty tree, whose branches, like those of the banyan of the soil, shall in their turn strike firm roots into the earth and themselves send forth new and vigorous saplings; that this college may expand into a university, whose sons shall go forth throughout the length and breadth of the land to preach the gospel of free inquiry, of large-hearted toleration and of pure morality,” said Sir Syed Ahmad Khan at the time when Viceroy Lord Lytton laid the foundation of the MAO (Mohammadan Agro-Oriental) college on January 8, 1877. The prophetic words of the founder have come true as Aligarh Muslim University is today an internationally-acclaimed university and a unique symbol of India’s composite culture. At a function to unveil the university’s centenary celebrations today, Prime Minister Narendra Modi will be in attendance.

Historian Hamilton Gibb had called the institution the “first modernist organisation of Islam”. The university has rightly been recognised as an “institution of national importance” by the Constitution. It has produced heads of state of several countries, including India. Two its alumni, Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan and Zakir Hussain, were conferred the Bharat Ratna.

The cornerstone of Sir Syed’s philosophy was the development of a scientific spirit, which he considered to be a sine qua non for intellectual advancement and social progress. He faced stiff opposition from fundamentalist Muslims and more than 50 fatwas were issued against him for his progressive views on Islam and emphasis on western education. Sir Syed was a great nationalist. On Hindu-Muslim relations, he had said in 1883 that by living together for centuries in India, Muslims have acquired hundreds of customs from the Hindus just as Hindus learned hundreds of things from the Muslims. In Gurdaspur in 1884, he remarked: “O Hindus and Muslims! Do you belong to a country other than India? Do you not live on this soil and are not buried under it or cremated on its ghats? If you live and die on this land, then, bear in mind, that… all the Hindus, Muslims and Christians who live in this country are one nation.”

The Scientific Society founded by Sir Syed in 1863 was national in character. Apart from the British members, it comprised 82 Hindu and 107 Muslim members. Even the 22-member managing committee of MAO College included six Hindus. The first graduate of the university was Ishwari Prasad and the first MA was Amba Prasad. Strangely, famous colleges of England did not admit non-Christian students even as late as the beginning of the 20th century.

True, Section 2 of the MAO College Laws, 1877 clearly provided that “the college is primarily for the Muslims and so far as consistent with above objectives for others”. But this is exactly what the Supreme Court of India held in Kerala Education Bill (1957), when it observed that minority institutions are primarily for the minority that has established them. The TMA Pai judgment (2003) reiterated this view while dealing with the relationship of Article 30(1) with Article 29(2). AMU does not have religion-based reservation but most people do not differentiate between reservation in state institutions and minority institutions. While the former cannot have religion based reservation due to Article 15(1), the latter are entitled to it under Article 30(1) if it is a religious minority institution. As minorities are an integral part of India, AMU as the greatest citadel of minority education is simultaneously an institution of national importance in respect of which only Parliament can legislate. Many erroneously believe that a government-aided institution cannot be a minority institution. Article 30(2) explicitly negates this view. The Court has consistently held that government “aid” cannot come with such conditions that will “annihilate or destroy minority character” of a minority institution.

No one has ever doubted the minority character of MAO College. The Supreme Court in 1967 and Allahabad High Court in 2005 admitted the so-called “deep green” character of the MAO College. This college was converted into a university in 1920. Section 5 of the AMU Act even today says AMU shall inherit not only all debts, liabilities, etc. of the MAO College but also its rights. Even Justice Chagla, while introducing the 1965 amendment, had told Parliament that the government has no intention of changing the character of the university. Yet, departing from its otherwise liberal approach, the Supreme Court in 1967 opined that it is not clear from the text of the 1920 Act that the university was established by Muslims. H M Seervai termed the judgment as “productive of great public mischief”. Parliament responded to court’s anxieties through an amendment in 1981 to clarify and explicitly state the historical fact that Aligarh Muslim University is “an institution of their choice established by Muslims of India” and that it “in fact originated as MAO College” and was merely “incorporated” and not really “established” in 1920. In 2005, Allahabad High Court struck down this amendment as a “brazen overruling”. The SC quickly stayed this judgment and in 2019 agreed to reconsider its own 1967 judgment.

AMU always received full support from successive governments. Since PM Modi has given the slogan of Sabka Saath, Sabka Saath and Sabka Vishwas, he may not only give a big financial package to the university but also assure the over-anxious AMU fraternity about his resolve to preserve, protect and defend the historic and constitutional character of this great institution so that AMU realises the vision of its founder by producing enlightened and liberal citizens. Investment in the secular and modern education of minorities helps the nation in many ways.


Faizan Mustafa is president of Consortium of National Law Universities and vice-chancellor of NALSAR, Hyderabad. Views are personal


Decoding Pakistan’s New Verbal Assaults

By Harsha Kakar

December 22, 2020

Shah Mehmood Qureshi, Pakistan’s foreign minister, addressing a press conference in Abu Dhabi, stated: “An important development has cropped up. I have learned through our intelligence forces that India is planning a surgical strike against Pakistan. This is a serious development and I also have knowledge that they tried to seek approval from important players who they consider to be their partners.” He again attempted to bring up the globally rejected dossier by stating that Pakistan had revealed ‘India (was) sponsoring terrorism in Pakistan’ through a dossier that it had shared with the international community. These comments were later repeated by Imran Khan.

The question which remains unanswered is why Abu Dhabi was chosen for the announcement. Was it because Qureshi’s visit to UAE failed as it refused to lift the ban on Pakistan workers as also that it was unwilling to support Pakistan financially? UAE officials stated two days later that the ban was temporary but did not mention when it would be lifted.

Around the same time, in an interview to ‘The Christian Science Monitor’, Pakistan’s ambassador to the US, Majeed Khan, stated Islamabad wants the US to help stop Indian interference in Pakistan’s internal affairs. He added, “we do not want our relationship with Washington to be India-specific,” hinting that the US must recognize efforts of Pakistan in promoting peace in Afghanistan. He also raised the issue of the “dossier” raised by Pakistan on Indian interference in its internal matters. He said: “(India) is trying to destabilise Pakistan’s economic cooperation with China by fomenting terrorist attacks against Chinese-financed development projects, including a deadly assault at a luxury hotel in Gwadar.”

In the same interview, James Dobbins, a former US special representative for Pakistan and Afghanistan projected the US view, stating, “We may see the US taking a little tougher stance toward India over its human rights record, but basically we’ll continue to court India as a counterweight to China,” adding, “and overall, I don’t think we’ll see the Biden administration taking a very different approach to Pakistan than the Trump administration did.” This would suggest Pakistan’s attempts to paint India as a villain are failing.

In another incident last weekend, Pakistan accused India of targeting a UN Military Observer vehicle. This was denied by India as it had prior information of the visit and there was no firing in the area. Pakistan stated that India “specifically targeted a UN vehicle carrying members of the United Nations Military Observer Group in India and Pakistan from across the Line of Control.” It added, “Such illegal and unlawful acts against all established international norms, signify malintent of Indian Army to target not only innocent civilians residing along the LoC but UN Peacekeepers as well.”

Pakistan’s Foreign Office spokesperson, Zahid Chaudhri, stated, “Pakistan urges the international community to advise India against any irresponsible act and to desist from any action that would jeopardise regional peace and stability.”

The UN representative in New York stated, “At this stage, we’re simply aware that a vehicle was hit by an unidentified object, no one was harmed, we are investigating the incident.” This is not the first time that Pakistan has accused India of targeting UN Peacekeeping vehicles. It had done so in 2017 and 2018. In both cases the UN itself dismissed Pakistan’s claims on grounds that the incident had occurred but there was no proof that it was due to Indian firing.

These three announcements were near simultaneous and in not a single case did Pakistan present any concrete evidence to back up its claims, other than repeating the story of its dossier which anyway contains no proof.

Why has Pakistan suddenly begun spreading propaganda against India? Internally, the government is facing intense pressure from a combined opposition and a rising Pashtun movement. Accusations on the army, for interfering in internal politics and corruption, continue to grow, with former Premier Nawaz Sharif leading the attack. To add to this are growing cases of Covid, a failing medical system and an economy in ruins. The only way to offset the opposition, deflect growing internal pressure and back the army is by claiming that India is planning a surgical strike. After all, India is the eternal enemy. To add credence to these claims, the army is supposedly placed on high alert.

The smooth conduct of District Development Council elections in J and K, with no calls for boycott nor incidents of terrorist violence, and active participation by locals, displays a failure of Pakistan’s Kashmir policy. There has been no support to the country even in the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC). The officially released OIC statement on Kashmir, after the foreign ministers’ meeting in November, was in sharp contrast to what was claimed by Pakistan.

Diplomatic and economic pressure is mounting on Pakistan on account of its support to terrorist groups. Its known allies have backed away and are unwilling to support the country. It is being compelled to borrow from China at much higher rates of interest to repay loans from Middle East nations. Oil on deferred payment basis has stopped, adding to economic woes.

It is also hoping to enhance pressure on India as Indian retaliation along the LoC is causing havoc on its defences. Further, Indian exposure of Pakistan’s involvement in backing terrorism has been increasing. Pakistan has been attempting to sell its fake dossier in every country, hoping that someone may join it in support. This could then enable Pakistan to justify its actions in Kashmir and enable it to get out of the FATF blacklist by accusing India. Thus far, apart from China and Turkey, not a single nation has stood by Pakistan.

Pakistan will continue inventing new charges against India, all without proof, in the desperate hope of offsetting internal mounting pressure on the establishment. Globally, it will continue crying foul, hoping that at some stage it receives support as the weaker neighbour of India.


Harsha Kakar is a retired Major-General of the Indian Army.