Now that the brouhaha is over, and we have seen the back of three quick-succession foreign dignitaries &ndash; Justin Trudeau&rsquo;s seven-day jaunt through India, King Abdullah&rsquo;s three-day sojourn, followed by a low key &ldquo;India&rsquo;s look East visit&rdquo; by the Vietnamese Premier. Delhi definitely seems to be the flavour of the day!

A new dimension has been added to diplomatic greetings &ndash; effusiveness and tightness of the jhappi-pappi (hugs and greetings) dictates the importance of the dignitary, rather than the level of courtesy extended during arrival dignitary. Jhappi-pappi, even when clearly the other person is cringing (in western culture such familiarity borders on transgression of personal space) is the order of the day. An arm&#39;s length handshake and a hello will do &ndash; thank you! Trudeau&rsquo;s reception did not even merit a junior minister of state, leave aside the EAM &ndash; nor, to my knowledge was there any jhappi-pappi; so, there you have it. King Abdullah was given a major bear hug, indicating his importance, while the diminutive Vietnamese Premier merited only a handshake.

So, what exactly do we read out of the visit of the Jordanian King? Visits by the heads of state and premiers of countries are not trifling matters and are meant to promote national interests, with an exchange of far-ranging and important treaties. But once in a while such visits could land up promoting personal interests of a powerful leader, under the dictum &quot;L&#39;&Eacute;tat, c&#39;est moi&quot; (I am the State, and State is I) &ndash; a distinct possibility in a one-man state, like what we are witnessing in China, and certainly a dangerous trend. Is India on the same path?

One is confused as to what importance to accord to the Kings visit &ndash; while a well-meaning person, he is a lightweight in Middle East affairs, holds limited influence to support India in the OIC, and has little say over the Palestine-Israeli equation. Indeed the territorial and jurisdictional influence of the Hashemite is perhaps the lowest in history; West Bank was ceded to the Palestinians, and Jerusalem and its holy sites of the Jews, Christians and Muslims, were usurped by Israel. Thus, Jordan&rsquo;s support hardly furthers India&rsquo;s national interests. Perhaps, visits by King Salman of Saudi Arabia, President Sisi of Egypt, or President Erdogan of Turkey, would have been more meaningful. The only other major player we managed to pull in, was President Rouhani of Iran. On the contrary, Canada is a permanent member of the NSG and could have helped us in nuclear fuel supply situation; besides, India has a number of issues relating to Khalistani separatists, and issues of visas to Indian retired official etc. These were far more important.&nbsp;

So why sign eleven agreements with Jordan, that too insignificant ones on defence cooperation, cultural, economic and miscellaneous matters. None of these will have a major impact either way, for India or for Jordan. Jordan hardly has a standing Defence Force (just 111,000 personnel, the equivalent of one corps of our army), with a total budget of some USD 2.5 billion dollars. The &#39;Defence Agreement&#39; is meaningless, and all the other ten would ordinarily be concluded at the foreign secretary level, or at the most with the EAM. So what exactly was the purpose of the visit?&nbsp;

It was interesting, therefore, to see acrobatic somersaults and chameleonic deftness on the issue of Islam and terrorism. Prime Minister Modi who was hesitant to even don the Muslim skull cap (Taqiyah) when felicitated by a Maulana in 2011, was now pontificating on values of Islam and that fight against terror is not against Muslims. Be that as it may, it becomes clear that politicians can adopt any strategy and go to any length for garnering political mileage. One good thing is, that he has now committed publicly, that India&rsquo;s progress cannot and must not exclude a major element of the population. King Abdullah&rsquo;s visit, his speech (and of the PM) at the Islamic centre to members of the Muslim community, was (to my mind) meant to establish a bridge with the community through a Muslim plenipotentiary; a bridge the PM needs to desperately establish before the 2019 general elections.&nbsp; 
&nbsp; 
The invitation was obviously not for India to get a foothold in Palestinian-Israeli affairs since far too many leaders have burnt their fingers trying to resolve this vexed question. So, other probabilities were; one, to garner support for India&rsquo;s bid for a UN seat; and two, buttress the PM&#39;s bid for a Noble Prize as a statesman of repute. Latter may seem outlandish, but not long ago, while meeting some diplomats, I asked how the outside world viewed NaMo, despite our internal travails, and his silence on these grave matters. The diplomats&rsquo; view was revealing; &ldquo;Modi has an agenda, and a focus on being recognized in history as a modern-day Gandhi and maker of the new India &ndash; he is ambitious and clever and will go to any ends to achieve his aims&rdquo;.

This seems to fit since King Abdullah is known to be leading voice on modernisation and de-radicalisation in Islam. It coincides with NaMo&rsquo;s often-repeated theme of terrorism and radicalism being the biggest challenges faced by the world today. It sort of helped by media announcing that King Abdullah II was a direct descendant of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) &ndash; which he is not &ndash; and that he is also custodian of the holy sites in Mecca-Medina and Jerusalem - which again he is not, since 1925 and 1967 respectively, except perhaps in name for the Jerusalem sites.

Amusing to see our media&rsquo;s skewed interpretation of history, in averring the direct descendant of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH). This is far from the truth and seems to be for domestic Muslim consumption. From my knowledge of Islamic history, while both Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) and King Abdulah II were from the Bannu Hashem clan of the Quraysh tribe, like our gotra system under a Khap (tribe), that is the limit of the association. The King is a Sunni, whereas lineal descendant is claimed by the Shia&rsquo;s, followers of Imam Hussein (the Prophets grandson). Abdullah II rightly traces his lineage as a Sharif (caretaker of the holy sites) through unbroken succession from 1101 to 1925 but is technically not a descendant.&nbsp;

Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) had three sons, but all died in childhood. His lineage passed on through his daughter, Fatima, married to Ali-bin Abu Talib (Prophets first cousin and son-in-law by marriage). Ali and Fatima&rsquo;s two sons, Hassan (the elder child) and Hussein (the younger child) were martyred along with his entire family at the battle of Karbala. What is historically known as the lineal descendants of the Prophet, if existing, are only through this lineage.

What the future holds for India&rsquo;s diplomatic foray into the Mid-East, through this subtle entry, remains to be seen. But, one thing is certain, PM Modi is casting his net wide. Now whether this is in pursuit of national interests or his own, only time will tell.

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

King Abdullah of Jordan is known to be leading voice on modernisation and de-radicalisation in Islam, which coincides with NaMo’s often-repeated theme of terrorism and radicalism being the biggest challenges faced by the world today.

Now that the brouhaha is over, and we have seen the back of three quick-succession foreign dignitaries – Justin Trudeau’s seven-day jaunt through India, King Abdullah’s three-day sojourn, followed by a low key “India’s look East visit” by the Vietnamese Premier. Delhi definitely seems to be the flavour of the day! A new dimension has been added to diplomatic greetings – effusiveness and tightness of the jhappi-pappi (hugs and greetings) dictates the importance of the dignitary, rather than the level of courtesy extended during arrival dignitary. Jhappi-pappi, even when clearly the other person is cringing (in western culture such familiarity borders on transgression of personal space) is the order of the day. An arm's length handshake and a hello will do – thank you! Trudeau’s reception did not even merit a junior minister of state, leave aside the EAM – nor, to my knowledge was there any jhappi-pappi; so, there you have it. King Abdullah was given a major bear hug, indicating his importance, while the diminutive Vietnamese Premier merited only a handshake. So, what exactly do we read out of the visit of the Jordanian King? Visits by the heads of state and premiers of countries are not trifling matters and are meant to promote national interests, with an exchange of far-ranging and important treaties. But once in a while such visits could land up promoting personal interests of a powerful leader, under the dictum "L'État, c'est moi" (I am the State, and State is I) – a distinct possibility in a one-man state, like what we are witnessing in China, and certainly a dangerous trend. Is India on the same path? One is confused as to what importance to accord to the Kings visit – while a well-meaning person, he is a lightweight in Middle East affairs, holds limited influence to support India in the OIC, and has little say over the Palestine-Israeli equation. Indeed the territorial and jurisdictional influence of the Hashemite is perhaps the lowest in history; West Bank was ceded to the Palestinians, and Jerusalem and its holy sites of the Jews, Christians and Muslims, were usurped by Israel. Thus, Jordan’s support hardly furthers India’s national interests. Perhaps, visits by King Salman of Saudi Arabia, President Sisi of Egypt, or President Erdogan of Turkey, would have been more meaningful. The only other major player we managed to pull in, was President Rouhani of Iran. On the contrary, Canada is a permanent member of the NSG and could have helped us in nuclear fuel supply situation; besides, India has a number of issues relating to Khalistani separatists, and issues of visas to Indian retired official etc. These were far more important. So why sign eleven agreements with Jordan, that too insignificant ones on defence cooperation, cultural, economic and miscellaneous matters. None of these will have a major impact either way, for India or for Jordan. Jordan hardly has a standing Defence Force (just 111,000 personnel, the equivalent of one corps of our army), with a total budget of some USD 2.5 billion dollars. The 'Defence Agreement' is meaningless, and all the other ten would ordinarily be concluded at the foreign secretary level, or at the most with the EAM. So what exactly was the purpose of the visit? It was interesting, therefore, to see acrobatic somersaults and chameleonic deftness on the issue of Islam and terrorism. Prime Minister Modi who was hesitant to even don the Muslim skull cap (Taqiyah) when felicitated by a Maulana in 2011, was now pontificating on values of Islam and that fight against terror is not against Muslims. Be that as it may, it becomes clear that politicians can adopt any strategy and go to any length for garnering political mileage. One good thing is, that he has now committed publicly, that India’s progress cannot and must not exclude a major element of the population. King Abdullah’s visit, his speech (and of the PM) at the Islamic centre to members of the Muslim community, was (to my mind) meant to establish a bridge with the community through a Muslim plenipotentiary; a bridge the PM needs to desperately establish before the 2019 general elections. The invitation was obviously not for India to get a foothold in Palestinian-Israeli affairs since far too many leaders have burnt their fingers trying to resolve this vexed question. So, other probabilities were; one, to garner support for India’s bid for a UN seat; and two, buttress the PM's bid for a Noble Prize as a statesman of repute. Latter may seem outlandish, but not long ago, while meeting some diplomats, I asked how the outside world viewed NaMo, despite our internal travails, and his silence on these grave matters. The diplomats’ view was revealing; “Modi has an agenda, and a focus on being recognized in history as a modern-day Gandhi and maker of the new India – he is ambitious and clever and will go to any ends to achieve his aims”. This seems to fit since King Abdullah is known to be leading voice on modernisation and de-radicalisation in Islam. It coincides with NaMo’s often-repeated theme of terrorism and radicalism being the biggest challenges faced by the world today. It sort of helped by media announcing that King Abdullah II was a direct descendant of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) – which he is not – and that he is also custodian of the holy sites in Mecca-Medina and Jerusalem - which again he is not, since 1925 and 1967 respectively, except perhaps in name for the Jerusalem sites. Amusing to see our media’s skewed interpretation of history, in averring the direct descendant of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH). This is far from the truth and seems to be for domestic Muslim consumption. From my knowledge of Islamic history, while both Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) and King Abdulah II were from the Bannu Hashem clan of the Quraysh tribe, like our gotra system under a Khap (tribe), that is the limit of the association. The King is a Sunni, whereas lineal descendant is claimed by the Shia’s, followers of Imam Hussein (the Prophets grandson). Abdullah II rightly traces his lineage as a Sharif (caretaker of the holy sites) through unbroken succession from 1101 to 1925 but is technically not a descendant. Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) had three sons, but all died in childhood. His lineage passed on through his daughter, Fatima, married to Ali-bin Abu Talib (Prophets first cousin and son-in-law by marriage). Ali and Fatima’s two sons, Hassan (the elder child) and Hussein (the younger child) were martyred along with his entire family at the battle of Karbala. What is historically known as the lineal descendants of the Prophet, if existing, are only through this lineage. What the future holds for India’s diplomatic foray into the Mid-East, through this subtle entry, remains to be seen. But, one thing is certain, PM Modi is casting his net wide. Now whether this is in pursuit of national interests or his own, only time will tell. (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Opinion: Why Narendra Modi embraced King Abdullah and ignored PM Trudeau

It is unimaginable that the Saudi Arabian society with such strict Islamic tenets, and following the austere Wahhabi system, could be changed over in so short a time.&nbsp; It is unthinkable that this is the same Saudi Arabia, where weekly beheadings and amputations of murderers, rapists and thieves, was announced on television, by the grace of the King and Protector of the Harmain and Sharifain, the grand mosques of Mecca and Medina.&nbsp;

I have attended one such beheading near Ba&rsquo;atha at the colloquially named chop-chop square and, as I look back, could not have imagined this turn-about for at least another hundred years. Is this the same country, where all you could see was black robed, burqa-clad, and fully veiled women, covered from head to toe, and white thobe clad men &ndash; gender separation was the rule.&nbsp;

I recall having a meal at a pizza joint, as a family we were in a cubicle, separated from the next couple by a high wall. That was the norm &ndash; no mixing with strangers. Schools for girls were cordoned off by high walls &ndash; by a literal purdah -&nbsp; and male teachers could only instruct through remote one-way cameras. Even elderly women could not leave their homes without a mahram &ndash; male escort.&nbsp;

This rigid adherence to Wahabbi values, where even swallowing one&rsquo;s spit during the month of Ramadan was considered a sacrilege, for over two centuries, cannot have come about without resistance from the religious order. Muttawas, falling under the control of the Ministry for Propagation of Virtue and Prevention of Vice (yes, it is true there was a Ministry by this name), must have been bludgeoned into submission. Could this be the same country where the Head Islamic authority, the blind Sheikh Abdullah bin Baaz, still proclaims the world is flat, and that the sun revolves around the Earth?

The change started sometime back in late 2017. Harbinger of these were two incidents: one, imprisonment of many Royals at the Carlton Hotel on grounds of corruption and two, an innocuous news item, &ldquo;Belgium to appoint a woman, Dominique Mineur, as its ambassador to the Kingdom&rdquo;. This was strange and unusual in a highly male-dominated bastion, where even our Sikh Foreign Service officers were unwelcome because they sported a beard, which the Saudis claimed to be the sole preserve of Muslims.&nbsp;

This appointment reminded me of an incident in 1993 at the Saudi Trade Fair in Riyadh. My family and I had just parked our car and were heading for the entrance to the exhibition hall when we saw an altercation involving the Belgian ambassador. Apparently, while alighting from the car, the ambassador&rsquo;s wife, being European and dressed in a skirt under her abaya &ndash; a black gown-like cloak worn by most foreigners - had unwittingly exposed her legs.&nbsp;

The religious police, the Muttawa, pounced on her, slamming the car door and shouting abuses at her. The all-powerful religious police were an authority to themselves; they were crude and diplomatic courtesies mattered little to them. Far cry from that incident, a woman of the same country is now coming as its Ambassador - apt and fitting desserts!&nbsp;

All this was followed in quick succession by women being allowed to drive, witness football matches, without the need of a male escort, and other reforms. And now, the most unthinkable has happened, the Rubicon has been crossed - &ldquo;Saudi Arabia allows women to join the military&rdquo;. This morning&rsquo;s news has literally taken the breath out of me. I am at a total loss to understand as for how did all this happen &ndash; not even in my wildest dreams could one have imagined these far-reaching reforms?&nbsp;

The next change is likely to be regarding consumption of alcohol, which is currently forbidden, except for members of the diplomatic community. Strange as it may sound, the Indian Rupee was the official legal tender in Saudi Arabia till 1954, and beer was not considered as alcohol and was available in Jeddah and Dammam till as late 1977.&nbsp;

Even driving by women was largely ignored. In any case, only the royals and few rich Saudis could afford cars but all this changed when a Saudi Princess fell in love with a commoner, and eloped with him in a car from Riyadh to Jeddah, in a bid to leave the Kingdom.&nbsp;

Mishaal bint Fahd bin Mohammed Al-Saud, was just 19 when she fell in love with Khaled al-Sha&rsquo;er Mulhallal, nephew of the Saudi Ambassador in Beirut. This was unthinkable in the traditional society, and both were executed on 15 July 1977 by a firing squad in Jeddah. This incident of failed and unrequited love found expression in the movie, &ldquo;Death of a Princess&rdquo;.&nbsp;

Ever since the segregation of sexes, and not being allowed to mingle with non-relatives, has been strictly enforced. Little wonder, that while driving around the city in the late 90s we would often see young women holding a placard with their phone numbers, while being driven around. Hopefully, this too may change, and young people allowed to meet and make their choice of life partner, rather than in the traditional way of an arranged marriage.

Somehow I feel nostalgic and yearn that the old conservative country is back &ndash; wish it had stayed the same, for nothing else if not amusement, in seeing such archaic practices in the modern age. This complete makeover will dramatically alter this traditional society &ndash; what remains to be seen is how this social change is managed, and whether it is for the good?&nbsp;

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Sweeping social changes in an obscurantist nation might change a traditional society.

It is unimaginable that the Saudi Arabian society with such strict Islamic tenets, and following the austere Wahhabi system, could be changed over in so short a time. It is unthinkable that this is the same Saudi Arabia, where weekly beheadings and amputations of murderers, rapists and thieves, was announced on television, by the grace of the King and Protector of the Harmain and Sharifain, the grand mosques of Mecca and Medina. I have attended one such beheading near Ba’atha at the colloquially named chop-chop square and, as I look back, could not have imagined this turn-about for at least another hundred years. Is this the same country, where all you could see was black robed, burqa-clad, and fully veiled women, covered from head to toe, and white thobe clad men – gender separation was the rule. I recall having a meal at a pizza joint, as a family we were in a cubicle, separated from the next couple by a high wall. That was the norm – no mixing with strangers. Schools for girls were cordoned off by high walls – by a literal purdah - and male teachers could only instruct through remote one-way cameras. Even elderly women could not leave their homes without a mahram – male escort. This rigid adherence to Wahabbi values, where even swallowing one’s spit during the month of Ramadan was considered a sacrilege, for over two centuries, cannot have come about without resistance from the religious order. Muttawas, falling under the control of the Ministry for Propagation of Virtue and Prevention of Vice (yes, it is true there was a Ministry by this name), must have been bludgeoned into submission. Could this be the same country where the Head Islamic authority, the blind Sheikh Abdullah bin Baaz, still proclaims the world is flat, and that the sun revolves around the Earth? The change started sometime back in late 2017. Harbinger of these were two incidents: one, imprisonment of many Royals at the Carlton Hotel on grounds of corruption and two, an innocuous news item, “Belgium to appoint a woman, Dominique Mineur, as its ambassador to the Kingdom”. This was strange and unusual in a highly male-dominated bastion, where even our Sikh Foreign Service officers were unwelcome because they sported a beard, which the Saudis claimed to be the sole preserve of Muslims. This appointment reminded me of an incident in 1993 at the Saudi Trade Fair in Riyadh. My family and I had just parked our car and were heading for the entrance to the exhibition hall when we saw an altercation involving the Belgian ambassador. Apparently, while alighting from the car, the ambassador’s wife, being European and dressed in a skirt under her abaya – a black gown-like cloak worn by most foreigners - had unwittingly exposed her legs. The religious police, the Muttawa, pounced on her, slamming the car door and shouting abuses at her. The all-powerful religious police were an authority to themselves; they were crude and diplomatic courtesies mattered little to them. Far cry from that incident, a woman of the same country is now coming as its Ambassador - apt and fitting desserts! All this was followed in quick succession by women being allowed to drive, witness football matches, without the need of a male escort, and other reforms. And now, the most unthinkable has happened, the Rubicon has been crossed - “Saudi Arabia allows women to join the military”. This morning’s news has literally taken the breath out of me. I am at a total loss to understand as for how did all this happen – not even in my wildest dreams could one have imagined these far-reaching reforms? The next change is likely to be regarding consumption of alcohol, which is currently forbidden, except for members of the diplomatic community. Strange as it may sound, the Indian Rupee was the official legal tender in Saudi Arabia till 1954, and beer was not considered as alcohol and was available in Jeddah and Dammam till as late 1977. Even driving by women was largely ignored. In any case, only the royals and few rich Saudis could afford cars but all this changed when a Saudi Princess fell in love with a commoner, and eloped with him in a car from Riyadh to Jeddah, in a bid to leave the Kingdom. Mishaal bint Fahd bin Mohammed Al-Saud, was just 19 when she fell in love with Khaled al-Sha’er Mulhallal, nephew of the Saudi Ambassador in Beirut. This was unthinkable in the traditional society, and both were executed on 15 July 1977 by a firing squad in Jeddah. This incident of failed and unrequited love found expression in the movie, “Death of a Princess”. Ever since the segregation of sexes, and not being allowed to mingle with non-relatives, has been strictly enforced. Little wonder, that while driving around the city in the late 90s we would often see young women holding a placard with their phone numbers, while being driven around. Hopefully, this too may change, and young people allowed to meet and make their choice of life partner, rather than in the traditional way of an arranged marriage. Somehow I feel nostalgic and yearn that the old conservative country is back – wish it had stayed the same, for nothing else if not amusement, in seeing such archaic practices in the modern age. This complete makeover will dramatically alter this traditional society – what remains to be seen is how this social change is managed, and whether it is for the good? (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Opinion: What happens behind the black burqah in Saudi Arabia?

The tectonic changes taking place in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia have left most, if not all, political and diplomatic pundits aghast. This is no Arab Spring &ndash; this is a sandy tsunami that too generated internally, without apparent cause, and probably with little local impulsion. Whoever felt that change is not possible by one man, the person then obviously has not run across the likes of Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, MBS for short. Recent events also provide ample evidence that King Salman, his father representing the old guard, is now a mere titular head &ndash; the actual paradigm shift is towards the new generation, represented by MBS.

The uppermost question now in everyone&rsquo;s mind is, will he be able to sustain this frenetic pace? Where did his motivation come from &ndash; he is a sabra, having done his graduation from King Saud University; he is not one of the foreign-educated princes who might have been influenced by the so-called &lsquo;democratic principles&rsquo; of the free world. Most other princes have been more than affected by corrupt practices and power play.&nbsp; Therefore, it is all the more amazing to see this young, locally-educated prince expounding major visionary changes for his country &ndash; veering it away from the single oil-based industry, to a more innovative economy.

One thing is certain, and I say this from personal experience, you never can predict what goes on in the Arab mind. Years ago, in late 1990, just prior to the First Gulf War, I was seated at dinner with some Indian friends. Having just joined as the new Indian Military Attach&eacute;, and with war clouds on the horizon, it was but natural for the conversation to veer around to that. &ldquo;So, tell us Colonel, is war likely, and do we stay back or leave?&rdquo;.&nbsp;

Commanding all my years of military experience, and seeing what the Coalition Forces had arrayed against the Iraqis, I grandly said, &ldquo;No way &ndash; there will be no war. The Americans will tuck their tails and run; they don&rsquo;t want to see any more body bags and, the Iraqis will realise they will get clobbered if the Americans do stay and fight&rdquo;. The war started the very next morning, leaving me red in the face; so much for my understanding of the Middle East.&nbsp;

Lesson No 1, nothing is obvious or logical where the Arab mind is concerned. Lesson No 2 was that oil and greed were far greater motivators than principled behavior and, that it was legit to even cook up tales of &lsquo;WMDs in vast numbers&rsquo;,&nbsp; of &lsquo;ruthless dictatorships&rsquo; and such like drivel, to achieve their goal of area domination.

Where is the freedom and democracy that was promised &ndash; sadly the only educated, historically and culturally rich societies of Iraq, Syria and Iran were destroyed beyond repair or destabilised to such extent, that the battle goes on till this day. The US has always stood by the dictators, particularly, when it suited their national interests of controlling the source of energy supply and, once done, the same leaders become pariahs. Pure economics and self-interest, there had been no concern for the nations or their citizens.

Coming back to young MBS and his vision of a grand and modern Saudi Arabia. How has he been able to achieve all this in the face of opposition from the established order &ndash; his uncles, the royal princes, and the clergy? The Saudi National Guards (SANG)W, an elite and best-equipped force, was the fief of late King Abdullah bin Saud, and this mantle passed on to his son, Mitteb bin Abdullah.&nbsp;

SANG consists of Bedouin stock and are intensely loyal to their roots and to the royal household. No usurper (and MBS was certainly one) could have changed their loyalty; so, how did he manage to stage a &lsquo;palace coup&rsquo; against Prince Mitteb, and still attract their loyalty? How was Prince Muqqrin bin Saud, his uncle and heir apparent, sidelined? I met Prince Muqqrin, Governor of Hail Province, in 1992 during my tenure in Saudi Arabia &ndash; a British trained fighter pilot, he seemed to be fairly modern in his outlooks, and fitted-in into the natural hierarchal change in this orthodox society.

Same goes for the Royal Saudi Land, Sea &amp; Air Forces (SNLF), which come under Prince MBS, as Minister of Defence. A largely chocolate cream bunch of overweight and paunchy soldiers and leaders, SNLF was propped up merely for the cause of providing jobs and for defending the nation &ndash; but not in any real or serious way.

For the serious bit, Saudi oil assets and petrodollars bought the presence of the US, Western Forces and even an Armored Brigade from Pakistan. So suspicious were the royals of their own military, that if the armoured brigade was stationed in Tabuk (Northern Saudi Arabia), tank ammunition was kept thousands of miles to the South at Al Kharj (Near Riyadh); furthermore, keys to the depot were always with a royal!&nbsp;

In the recent tsunami, this ceremonial military too has been struck by an awesome sandstorm. The Joint Chiefs of Staff (General Abdul Rahman bin Saleh al-Bunyan) has been sacked and replaced by First Lieutenant General Fayyad bin Hamed al-Ruwayli. Senior hierarchy of the Defence Ministry has been removed, and a woman, Tammadur bint Youssef al-Ramah (name suggests she is a commoner) appointed as Deputy Defence Minister. Holy Moses &ndash; such a step was totally unthinkable, and&nbsp; conservatives must be turning in their graves.&nbsp;

Probable reason for this massive reshuffle is the poor performance of the forces in their fight against the Houthis in Yemen. Latter have struck Saudi land, sea and air assets with virtual impunity. Naturally, this has been upsetting for MBS and the Kingdom, having pumped in billions of dollars in arms purchases &ndash; the expected Return on Investment (ROI) has been zilch. Though the Saudis have been quick to dismiss adverse war results as the cause, it is most likely the underlying reason.&nbsp;

There is another fear ever-present amongst the royals &ndash; that of a military coup. It is for that reason they have tolerated the un-Islamic presence of US troops, as also a sizeable Pakistani military contingent, willingly given by the latter as quid pro quo for the financial lifeline assured by Saudi Arabia. By removing the top hierarchy, Prince MBS has consolidated his position.&nbsp; But he is &ldquo;riding a tiger&rdquo; and time will tell if he can get off without being eaten.

&nbsp;

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

&nbsp;

The probable reason for this massive reshuffle in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is the poor performance of the forces in their fight against the Houthis in Yemen.

The tectonic changes taking place in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia have left most, if not all, political and diplomatic pundits aghast. This is no Arab Spring – this is a sandy tsunami that too generated internally, without apparent cause, and probably with little local impulsion. Whoever felt that change is not possible by one man, the person then obviously has not run across the likes of Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, MBS for short. Recent events also provide ample evidence that King Salman, his father representing the old guard, is now a mere titular head – the actual paradigm shift is towards the new generation, represented by MBS. The uppermost question now in everyone’s mind is, will he be able to sustain this frenetic pace? Where did his motivation come from – he is a sabra, having done his graduation from King Saud University; he is not one of the foreign-educated princes who might have been influenced by the so-called ‘democratic principles’ of the free world. Most other princes have been more than affected by corrupt practices and power play. Therefore, it is all the more amazing to see this young, locally-educated prince expounding major visionary changes for his country – veering it away from the single oil-based industry, to a more innovative economy. One thing is certain, and I say this from personal experience, you never can predict what goes on in the Arab mind. Years ago, in late 1990, just prior to the First Gulf War, I was seated at dinner with some Indian friends. Having just joined as the new Indian Military Attaché, and with war clouds on the horizon, it was but natural for the conversation to veer around to that. “So, tell us Colonel, is war likely, and do we stay back or leave?”. Commanding all my years of military experience, and seeing what the Coalition Forces had arrayed against the Iraqis, I grandly said, “No way – there will be no war. The Americans will tuck their tails and run; they don’t want to see any more body bags and, the Iraqis will realise they will get clobbered if the Americans do stay and fight”. The war started the very next morning, leaving me red in the face; so much for my understanding of the Middle East. Lesson No 1, nothing is obvious or logical where the Arab mind is concerned. Lesson No 2 was that oil and greed were far greater motivators than principled behavior and, that it was legit to even cook up tales of ‘WMDs in vast numbers’, of ‘ruthless dictatorships’ and such like drivel, to achieve their goal of area domination. Where is the freedom and democracy that was promised – sadly the only educated, historically and culturally rich societies of Iraq, Syria and Iran were destroyed beyond repair or destabilised to such extent, that the battle goes on till this day. The US has always stood by the dictators, particularly, when it suited their national interests of controlling the source of energy supply and, once done, the same leaders become pariahs. Pure economics and self-interest, there had been no concern for the nations or their citizens. Coming back to young MBS and his vision of a grand and modern Saudi Arabia. How has he been able to achieve all this in the face of opposition from the established order – his uncles, the royal princes, and the clergy? The Saudi National Guards (SANG)W, an elite and best-equipped force, was the fief of late King Abdullah bin Saud, and this mantle passed on to his son, Mitteb bin Abdullah. SANG consists of Bedouin stock and are intensely loyal to their roots and to the royal household. No usurper (and MBS was certainly one) could have changed their loyalty; so, how did he manage to stage a ‘palace coup’ against Prince Mitteb, and still attract their loyalty? How was Prince Muqqrin bin Saud, his uncle and heir apparent, sidelined? I met Prince Muqqrin, Governor of Hail Province, in 1992 during my tenure in Saudi Arabia – a British trained fighter pilot, he seemed to be fairly modern in his outlooks, and fitted-in into the natural hierarchal change in this orthodox society. Same goes for the Royal Saudi Land, Sea & Air Forces (SNLF), which come under Prince MBS, as Minister of Defence. A largely chocolate cream bunch of overweight and paunchy soldiers and leaders, SNLF was propped up merely for the cause of providing jobs and for defending the nation – but not in any real or serious way. For the serious bit, Saudi oil assets and petrodollars bought the presence of the US, Western Forces and even an Armored Brigade from Pakistan. So suspicious were the royals of their own military, that if the armoured brigade was stationed in Tabuk (Northern Saudi Arabia), tank ammunition was kept thousands of miles to the South at Al Kharj (Near Riyadh); furthermore, keys to the depot were always with a royal! In the recent tsunami, this ceremonial military too has been struck by an awesome sandstorm. The Joint Chiefs of Staff (General Abdul Rahman bin Saleh al-Bunyan) has been sacked and replaced by First Lieutenant General Fayyad bin Hamed al-Ruwayli. Senior hierarchy of the Defence Ministry has been removed, and a woman, Tammadur bint Youssef al-Ramah (name suggests she is a commoner) appointed as Deputy Defence Minister. Holy Moses – such a step was totally unthinkable, and conservatives must be turning in their graves. Probable reason for this massive reshuffle is the poor performance of the forces in their fight against the Houthis in Yemen. Latter have struck Saudi land, sea and air assets with virtual impunity. Naturally, this has been upsetting for MBS and the Kingdom, having pumped in billions of dollars in arms purchases – the expected Return on Investment (ROI) has been zilch. Though the Saudis have been quick to dismiss adverse war results as the cause, it is most likely the underlying reason. There is another fear ever-present amongst the royals – that of a military coup. It is for that reason they have tolerated the un-Islamic presence of US troops, as also a sizeable Pakistani military contingent, willingly given by the latter as quid pro quo for the financial lifeline assured by Saudi Arabia. By removing the top hierarchy, Prince MBS has consolidated his position. But he is “riding a tiger” and time will tell if he can get off without being eaten. (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Opinion: Tsunami in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia

My background is a military one, but I am greatly attracted to ancient history and architecture, and try to elicit as much as I can from books, chronicles, and from written and electronic media. So, when some friend sent me a clipping with the advice, &lsquo;you must see this; it is a fabulous stage enactment of the original&rsquo;, I quickly became engaged. What he was referring to, was the play &ldquo;Mughal-e-Azam&rdquo; currently running at the National Stadium. Though life is difficult in the far-flung places where we are often posted we, the military officers, get to see, travel, and explore some phenomenal places of historical and geographical significance. Indeed, were it not for adventurous military officers, the Ajanta Ellora caves, Khajuraho temples, Lhasa, Kashmir valleys, deep Hindu roots, and so many others would have never have come to light.

This is one such tale, based on a mix of folklore and actual events.

Nostalgia swept over me, as I recalled my connection in a way, with the iconic emperor, Akbar. Years ago, in 1987, while commanding my armoured regiment, we were deployed for impending war in Batala-Gurdaspur area, during Operation Trident. For the uninitiated, &ldquo;Trident&rdquo; was another occasion for sabre rattling, when the Indian Government threatened to sort out Pakistan, for its nefarious designs and activities on our side of the border, but ultimately failed to do anything. In any case, part of the task was to know our own areas like the back of one&rsquo;s own hand, and that of our adversary through close scrutiny across the border.

I have always been adventurous and, this heaven-sent opportunity in an operational area gave me the freedom to travel, and see many historical places, simultaneous to my military reconnaissance. It was during one of these recces that I spotted the military symbol of a battlefield on my map &ndash; crossed swords with the words &lsquo;Takht Akbar Badshah&rdquo; below it &ndash; at the Punjab border town of Kalanaur. Proceeding to that site, I was awestruck by the sight that greeted me. Here was a majestic throne of sandstone or maybe was it white marble, surrounded by a vast courtyard of red sandstone, amidst the verdant green wheat fields.&nbsp;

On enquiry, I learnt that this was the very spot where Prince Jalal-ud-din Muhammad was anointed Emperor of India at the relatively young age of 13 years. This sudden elevation was occasioned by the death of his father, Humayun, who fell down a steep stairwell while holding onto some heavy books and attempting to kneel when the azhaan (call to prayer) was heard. His foot got caught in the robe and, as he plummeted to his death, it signalled a change in the hierarchy.&nbsp;

While going around this monument, and placing myself on the throne in mock anointment, I noticed a Sikh farmer washing vegetable on the periphery &ndash; rather odd to find a protected historical monument being put to such use. I queried this wizened farmer, &lsquo;don&rsquo;t you know what great historical event has taken place here&rsquo;? His laconic reply, as he continued with his business, unmindful of the presence of so many military persons was, &ldquo;haan ji; suniya si ithe koi Akbar bande nu baithaya si&rdquo;! (Oh! Yes &ndash; heard some guy called Akbar sat here once). &nbsp;I almost choked &ndash; how mighty Akbar would be turning in his grave, at this dismissive comment. Here was the throne of one of India&rsquo;s greatest emperors, being used for washing vegetables!!

Akbar&rsquo;s uncle, Bairam Khan, under whose tutelage the young Prince was, had been campaigning in that area to restore order, consequent to Humayun&rsquo;s recapturing the Delhi throne. Bairam realised the danger that his young charge was in since successions in the Timurid clan often took a bloody turn. To scotch any attempt as usurpation, he organised the coronation at that very spot and remained camped there till it was certain that Akbar had the loyalty of all, before proceeding to Delhi.

An interesting anecdote was told to me about a Muslim fakir, revered in the Kalanaur area. On meeting Akbar a few months prior to Humayun&rsquo;s death, the fakir had predicted that Akbar would be crowned Emperor within that campaign period. This was considered impossible, as Humayun was only 46 years of age, but an unfortunate &ldquo;stumble&rdquo; changed the fate of India. In recognition a beautiful tomb was made for that seer &ndash; unfortunately, I don&rsquo;t remember his name but do recall how majestic his tomb looked even in serious decay. Kalanaur is an area rich in history. This was the place where Feroze Shah Tughlaq built a palace on banks of the Ravi River, an area where the Hindu warrior Banda Bahadur roamed around with his Sikh followers to torment Aurangzeb&rsquo;s chieftains. I also vividly recall seeing a 50 m tall mausoleum of some ruler, which had three Pakistani Artillery shells penetrate its dome &ndash; the holes were a stark reminder of how close this town was, to the scene of action in the 1965 Indo-Pak conflict. 
&nbsp;

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Many of the areas close to India's western border have a number of Islamic monuments that were shelled by the Pakistani Army in different occasions.

My background is a military one, but I am greatly attracted to ancient history and architecture, and try to elicit as much as I can from books, chronicles, and from written and electronic media. So, when some friend sent me a clipping with the advice, ‘you must see this; it is a fabulous stage enactment of the original’, I quickly became engaged. What he was referring to, was the play “Mughal-e-Azam” currently running at the National Stadium. Though life is difficult in the far-flung places where we are often posted we, the military officers, get to see, travel, and explore some phenomenal places of historical and geographical significance. Indeed, were it not for adventurous military officers, the Ajanta Ellora caves, Khajuraho temples, Lhasa, Kashmir valleys, deep Hindu roots, and so many others would have never have come to light. This is one such tale, based on a mix of folklore and actual events. Nostalgia swept over me, as I recalled my connection in a way, with the iconic emperor, Akbar. Years ago, in 1987, while commanding my armoured regiment, we were deployed for impending war in Batala-Gurdaspur area, during Operation Trident. For the uninitiated, “Trident” was another occasion for sabre rattling, when the Indian Government threatened to sort out Pakistan, for its nefarious designs and activities on our side of the border, but ultimately failed to do anything. In any case, part of the task was to know our own areas like the back of one’s own hand, and that of our adversary through close scrutiny across the border. I have always been adventurous and, this heaven-sent opportunity in an operational area gave me the freedom to travel, and see many historical places, simultaneous to my military reconnaissance. It was during one of these recces that I spotted the military symbol of a battlefield on my map – crossed swords with the words ‘Takht Akbar Badshah” below it – at the Punjab border town of Kalanaur. Proceeding to that site, I was awestruck by the sight that greeted me. Here was a majestic throne of sandstone or maybe was it white marble, surrounded by a vast courtyard of red sandstone, amidst the verdant green wheat fields. On enquiry, I learnt that this was the very spot where Prince Jalal-ud-din Muhammad was anointed Emperor of India at the relatively young age of 13 years. This sudden elevation was occasioned by the death of his father, Humayun, who fell down a steep stairwell while holding onto some heavy books and attempting to kneel when the azhaan (call to prayer) was heard. His foot got caught in the robe and, as he plummeted to his death, it signalled a change in the hierarchy. While going around this monument, and placing myself on the throne in mock anointment, I noticed a Sikh farmer washing vegetable on the periphery – rather odd to find a protected historical monument being put to such use. I queried this wizened farmer, ‘don’t you know what great historical event has taken place here’? His laconic reply, as he continued with his business, unmindful of the presence of so many military persons was, “haan ji; suniya si ithe koi Akbar bande nu baithaya si”! (Oh! Yes – heard some guy called Akbar sat here once). I almost choked – how mighty Akbar would be turning in his grave, at this dismissive comment. Here was the throne of one of India’s greatest emperors, being used for washing vegetables!! Akbar’s uncle, Bairam Khan, under whose tutelage the young Prince was, had been campaigning in that area to restore order, consequent to Humayun’s recapturing the Delhi throne. Bairam realised the danger that his young charge was in since successions in the Timurid clan often took a bloody turn. To scotch any attempt as usurpation, he organised the coronation at that very spot and remained camped there till it was certain that Akbar had the loyalty of all, before proceeding to Delhi. An interesting anecdote was told to me about a Muslim fakir, revered in the Kalanaur area. On meeting Akbar a few months prior to Humayun’s death, the fakir had predicted that Akbar would be crowned Emperor within that campaign period. This was considered impossible, as Humayun was only 46 years of age, but an unfortunate “stumble” changed the fate of India. In recognition a beautiful tomb was made for that seer – unfortunately, I don’t remember his name but do recall how majestic his tomb looked even in serious decay. Kalanaur is an area rich in history. This was the place where Feroze Shah Tughlaq built a palace on banks of the Ravi River, an area where the Hindu warrior Banda Bahadur roamed around with his Sikh followers to torment Aurangzeb’s chieftains. I also vividly recall seeing a 50 m tall mausoleum of some ruler, which had three Pakistani Artillery shells penetrate its dome – the holes were a stark reminder of how close this town was, to the scene of action in the 1965 Indo-Pak conflict. (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Opinion: How is India's war with Pakistan related to Mughal history

I was recently asked if I would be able to participate and provide encouragement in an event, celebrating interfaith and intercaste marriages - being undertaken by an NGO called DHANAK. Latter name means &ldquo;rainbow&rdquo; in Urdu/Hindi, and champions the cause of &ldquo;Right to Choice&rdquo; of the partner in matters of marriage and relationships, and raises its voice against &ldquo;Honour Killing&rdquo; crimes in India.

Over the years DHANAK has touched the lives of over 700 couples, providing them shelter from retributive parents and society, arranged marriages for eloping adults, and counseling both the couples and parents. The counselors explain that it is easy to love, but what is more important is, to understand that marriage is not a trifling matter, it is a lifelong commitment, along with a difficult path, given the social pressures by many communities.&nbsp;

The call to me came from Shailaja Rao all the way from the USA &ndash; she, being a Hindu, is married to Mohammad Zubair, a Muslim. Why me, I wondered and then it dawned &ndash; it was consequent to an <a href="http://www.wionews.com/south-asia/opinion-i-need-to-speak-out-in-support-of-hindu-muslim-marriage-this-is-why-28060">article on inter-faith marriage</a> that I wrote for WION some weeks back. The catalyst for that article was the ghastly incident in Ghaziabad where Hindutva goons led by a local politician had the audacity to interfere - fortunately with no luck - in the marriage of a prominent Hindu businessman&rsquo;s daughter to a Muslim boy.

This incident made me sit up and reflect because my own daughter had earlier married a Muslim. I would not have brooked any interference.&nbsp;

Who gave these people the right to object or interfere in what is purely a personal matter. Victor Hugo once said, &ldquo;your liberty extends only till where my nose begins&rdquo;, but here in India anybody and everybody seems to make it their business to render advice on so personal a matter and even suggest to find a suitable boy from one&rsquo;s own flock. But looking around me I realise this is not so simple a matter &ndash; the fires of obscurantism and religious intolerance are only growing each year, despite the seeming emancipation of society!&nbsp;

The event termed as SAHAS (Strengthening Alliances for Humanity and Secularism &ndash; Convener, Asif Iqbal) is staged each year on 14 February, in coincidence with the universal day of love. Held very aptly at the Gandhi Peace Foundation, on Deen Dyal Upadhyay Road, in New Delhi &ndash; both towering and secular personalities. The building itself was a bit rundown and needed a shot in the arm (like most institutions linked to the Mahatma), but the dingy atmosphere was more than overcome by the three hundred energetic young people from across India, who had congregated there.&nbsp;

This year it coincided with Valentine&rsquo;s Day, Ash Wednesday, and Mahashivratri &ndash; could not have been a more fitting occasion to celebrate the resilience of love in the face of hate and intolerance, when people of interfaith marriages, particularly Hindu &ndash; Muslim couples face discrimination on a daily basis, in housing, in jobs, and in travel. It is a sad reflection of Indian society where tolerance has always been its greatest strength. Little do we realise, Victorian values and family restrictions are not the flavours for the younger generation, more used to experimentation and freedom of thought.

Ask any parent and he will swear that they have brought up their children with correct moral and social values &ndash; how can they then deny their children the freedom to choose when they have become adults.&nbsp;

The subject on everyone&#39;s mind was &ldquo;Love Jihad&rdquo;, the nemesis of today&rsquo;s free-thinking society. The very phrase is oxymoronic, and people targeting interfaith marriages do not know the first thing about Jihad.

It may come as a surprise to most that this word is mentioned only once in the Holy Quran, testifying to its insignificance in Muslim thought. Yet, so much hatred has been spread because of it, &nbsp;and blood of innocents shed. Good and Evil, like Ying &amp; Yang, like Dharma and Adharma, are attributes that reside inside humans &ndash; the Quran enjoins people to root out that evil and become good beings, striving in God&rsquo;s cause. The meaning has been twisted for political and communal reasons to imply forcible conversion of faith, more specifically converting members of other religions to Islam.

What have been the catalysts for increasing number of successful interfaith &amp; intercaste marriages?

&nbsp;Social mobility, better economic prospects, and desire to spurn the pernicious evils of dowry and corruption are some issues that bother the young generation. The joint family system is eroding fast and with young men and women migrating to cities, it is but natural that they would interact with members of other communities, and social status. But the biggest factor has been the increasing number of educated women in today&rsquo;s society; women who no longer wish to be shackled under the archaic patriarchal system &ndash; they choose to make their own choices with regards their bodies and to marriage.

This is not to the liking of the established order and is the root cause of conflict between the older and younger generations. In some communities in northern India, girls find boys of their own community to be mentally and educationally incompatible and naturally choose from outside the group.&nbsp;

Current backlash, particularly, where it involves a Hindu girl and a Muslim boy, is also due to vested social reasons and dilution of the religious economy (priests stand to lose the most in terms of power and influence) and the political economy that thrives through divisions in society. These power centres now feel threatened by interfaith marriages which are chipping away at their stranglehold. Honour killings are orchestrated by the patriarchal system threatened by the fact that the younger generation dares to choose on its own, and in defiance of established social practices, where arranged marriages were the norm.

In most cases narrated by the congregation, it was not the parents (who generally were won over with the passage of time) of the girl that felt dishonoured, but relatives and village panchayats, acting like kangaroo courts and ordering honour killings to protect outdated social structures. Fiery speeches by eminent social activists like Jagmati Sangwan of Sonepat, who have risked life and limb to support abandoned/cowering couples, and Sheeba Aslam Fehmi, of Rajasthan, who has taken on the powerful Muslim Ulema, made the event memorable.

Be that as it may, the Constitution of India has overarching provisions that recognise the right of consenting adults, irrespective of religion, orientation or caste, &nbsp;to marry as they will, notwithstanding any objections of society, or parents, or relatives of the couple. Unfortunately, while the law is unambiguous and protection of fundamental rights has been assured by the highest court in the land, this means little in practice, to the marauding Hindutva hordes. Sadly, these lumpen elements are egged on by the very people &ndash; political leaders &ndash; charged with ensuring compliance with the law, maintaining communal harmony, and protecting the lives of its citizens.

One thing is certain &ndash; interfaith and intercaste marriages are an idea whose time has come and no amount of &ldquo;love jihad&rdquo;, or attacks by inimical groups, can stop the tide. Indeed these mixed marriages may be the answer to inter-communal conflicts, and the &ldquo;manuvadi&rdquo; system of segregation. Social and caste boundaries are blurring with the upward economic mobility of minorities/lower castes, and greater involvement of women in daily life.

As far back as 1950, framers of our Constitution realised that nature of society would change one day, and had envisioned the Civil Marriage Act, which resulted in the present Special Marriage Act. This latter has major lacunae, and needs to be completely re-written &ndash; instead of providing protection to interfaith marriages, it paints a target on young couples and their parents &ndash; their names and addresses are advertised to the world, allowing whosoever wishes, to interfere. This is what happened in the unfortunate case of Ankit Saxena of Delhi. What logic is there in asking if anyone has an objection to the marriage, especially when the parents of the boy and girl have none.&nbsp;

Many horrific tales were narrated that day, of beatings, of confinement, and even murder by bloodthirsty goons in the presence of family members and parents. But there was an equal number of tales of courage, and of genuine love and acceptance by parents and in-laws. This gives great comfort and is a morale booster to NGOs like DHANAK, and movements like SAHAS. There were many couples whose parents had refused to accept the marriage initially, but eventually came around when they realised determination of the children and that would needlessly miss out on some great times with them and their grandchildren.

Society has to be sensitive, and realise that &ldquo;love is blind&rdquo; and knows no boundaries.

As a poet rightly said, &ldquo;Jab ishq ka junoon hadh se badh jaye, haste haste aashiq suli chadh jaye, khoob laga lo pehre aur bedhi; yehi Ishq ki marzi hai, yehi Rab ki marzi hai&rdquo;!&nbsp;

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

While there are goons interfering in love life of couples, DHANAK preaches 'Right to choice' of partner.

I was recently asked if I would be able to participate and provide encouragement in an event, celebrating interfaith and intercaste marriages - being undertaken by an NGO called DHANAK. Latter name means “rainbow” in Urdu/Hindi, and champions the cause of “Right to Choice” of the partner in matters of marriage and relationships, and raises its voice against “Honour Killing” crimes in India. Over the years DHANAK has touched the lives of over 700 couples, providing them shelter from retributive parents and society, arranged marriages for eloping adults, and counseling both the couples and parents. The counselors explain that it is easy to love, but what is more important is, to understand that marriage is not a trifling matter, it is a lifelong commitment, along with a difficult path, given the social pressures by many communities. The call to me came from Shailaja Rao all the way from the USA – she, being a Hindu, is married to Mohammad Zubair, a Muslim. Why me, I wondered and then it dawned – it was consequent to an article on inter-faith marriage that I wrote for WION some weeks back. The catalyst for that article was the ghastly incident in Ghaziabad where Hindutva goons led by a local politician had the audacity to interfere - fortunately with no luck - in the marriage of a prominent Hindu businessman’s daughter to a Muslim boy. This incident made me sit up and reflect because my own daughter had earlier married a Muslim. I would not have brooked any interference. Who gave these people the right to object or interfere in what is purely a personal matter. Victor Hugo once said, “your liberty extends only till where my nose begins”, but here in India anybody and everybody seems to make it their business to render advice on so personal a matter and even suggest to find a suitable boy from one’s own flock. But looking around me I realise this is not so simple a matter – the fires of obscurantism and religious intolerance are only growing each year, despite the seeming emancipation of society! The event termed as SAHAS (Strengthening Alliances for Humanity and Secularism – Convener, Asif Iqbal) is staged each year on 14 February, in coincidence with the universal day of love. Held very aptly at the Gandhi Peace Foundation, on Deen Dyal Upadhyay Road, in New Delhi – both towering and secular personalities. The building itself was a bit rundown and needed a shot in the arm (like most institutions linked to the Mahatma), but the dingy atmosphere was more than overcome by the three hundred energetic young people from across India, who had congregated there. This year it coincided with Valentine’s Day, Ash Wednesday, and Mahashivratri – could not have been a more fitting occasion to celebrate the resilience of love in the face of hate and intolerance, when people of interfaith marriages, particularly Hindu – Muslim couples face discrimination on a daily basis, in housing, in jobs, and in travel. It is a sad reflection of Indian society where tolerance has always been its greatest strength. Little do we realise, Victorian values and family restrictions are not the flavours for the younger generation, more used to experimentation and freedom of thought. Ask any parent and he will swear that they have brought up their children with correct moral and social values – how can they then deny their children the freedom to choose when they have become adults. The subject on everyone's mind was “Love Jihad”, the nemesis of today’s free-thinking society. The very phrase is oxymoronic, and people targeting interfaith marriages do not know the first thing about Jihad. It may come as a surprise to most that this word is mentioned only once in the Holy Quran, testifying to its insignificance in Muslim thought. Yet, so much hatred has been spread because of it, and blood of innocents shed. Good and Evil, like Ying & Yang, like Dharma and Adharma, are attributes that reside inside humans – the Quran enjoins people to root out that evil and become good beings, striving in God’s cause. The meaning has been twisted for political and communal reasons to imply forcible conversion of faith, more specifically converting members of other religions to Islam. What have been the catalysts for increasing number of successful interfaith & intercaste marriages? Social mobility, better economic prospects, and desire to spurn the pernicious evils of dowry and corruption are some issues that bother the young generation. The joint family system is eroding fast and with young men and women migrating to cities, it is but natural that they would interact with members of other communities, and social status. But the biggest factor has been the increasing number of educated women in today’s society; women who no longer wish to be shackled under the archaic patriarchal system – they choose to make their own choices with regards their bodies and to marriage. This is not to the liking of the established order and is the root cause of conflict between the older and younger generations. In some communities in northern India, girls find boys of their own community to be mentally and educationally incompatible and naturally choose from outside the group. Current backlash, particularly, where it involves a Hindu girl and a Muslim boy, is also due to vested social reasons and dilution of the religious economy (priests stand to lose the most in terms of power and influence) and the political economy that thrives through divisions in society. These power centres now feel threatened by interfaith marriages which are chipping away at their stranglehold. Honour killings are orchestrated by the patriarchal system threatened by the fact that the younger generation dares to choose on its own, and in defiance of established social practices, where arranged marriages were the norm. In most cases narrated by the congregation, it was not the parents (who generally were won over with the passage of time) of the girl that felt dishonoured, but relatives and village panchayats, acting like kangaroo courts and ordering honour killings to protect outdated social structures. Fiery speeches by eminent social activists like Jagmati Sangwan of Sonepat, who have risked life and limb to support abandoned/cowering couples, and Sheeba Aslam Fehmi, of Rajasthan, who has taken on the powerful Muslim Ulema, made the event memorable. Be that as it may, the Constitution of India has overarching provisions that recognise the right of consenting adults, irrespective of religion, orientation or caste, to marry as they will, notwithstanding any objections of society, or parents, or relatives of the couple. Unfortunately, while the law is unambiguous and protection of fundamental rights has been assured by the highest court in the land, this means little in practice, to the marauding Hindutva hordes. Sadly, these lumpen elements are egged on by the very people – political leaders – charged with ensuring compliance with the law, maintaining communal harmony, and protecting the lives of its citizens. One thing is certain – interfaith and intercaste marriages are an idea whose time has come and no amount of “love jihad”, or attacks by inimical groups, can stop the tide. Indeed these mixed marriages may be the answer to inter-communal conflicts, and the “manuvadi” system of segregation. Social and caste boundaries are blurring with the upward economic mobility of minorities/lower castes, and greater involvement of women in daily life. As far back as 1950, framers of our Constitution realised that nature of society would change one day, and had envisioned the Civil Marriage Act, which resulted in the present Special Marriage Act. This latter has major lacunae, and needs to be completely re-written – instead of providing protection to interfaith marriages, it paints a target on young couples and their parents – their names and addresses are advertised to the world, allowing whosoever wishes, to interfere. This is what happened in the unfortunate case of Ankit Saxena of Delhi. What logic is there in asking if anyone has an objection to the marriage, especially when the parents of the boy and girl have none. Many horrific tales were narrated that day, of beatings, of confinement, and even murder by bloodthirsty goons in the presence of family members and parents. But there was an equal number of tales of courage, and of genuine love and acceptance by parents and in-laws. This gives great comfort and is a morale booster to NGOs like DHANAK, and movements like SAHAS. There were many couples whose parents had refused to accept the marriage initially, but eventually came around when they realised determination of the children and that would needlessly miss out on some great times with them and their grandchildren. Society has to be sensitive, and realise that “love is blind” and knows no boundaries. As a poet rightly said, “Jab ishq ka junoon hadh se badh jaye, haste haste aashiq suli chadh jaye, khoob laga lo pehre aur bedhi; yehi Ishq ki marzi hai, yehi Rab ki marzi hai”! (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Opinion: Love in the time of jihad

Apart from China, it is the Saudi Arabian influence that may become more prominent in Pakistan. Despite the waning of US influence, it still has residual influence over Pakistan and Saudi Arabia; it was said that if there were two constants in the affairs of these nations it was Allah &amp; America, in that order.&nbsp;

The tectonic changes wrought in Saudi affairs have perplexed watchers &ndash; what has been done by the young Crown Prince, Mohammed bin Salman, was just unthinkable a few years back. It is unlikely that such draconian social reforms and economic changes can be brought about in so traditional a society without some backing. The praise heaped by Donald Trump appears to be the catalyst behind these reforms as is the forging of a pan-Arabic alliance of Sunni countries to combat Iran, Syria and Hezbollah influence in the Middle East. Saudi Arabia has indeed become a front line US proxy &ndash; its campaign in Yemen (and obliquely against Iran) is clear proof of that. &nbsp;

Saudi Arabia:&nbsp;fountainhead of Islamic resurgence

&nbsp;&nbsp;Despite recent overtures towards India and increase in trade, we have to bear in mind that Saudi Arabia was the fountainhead of Islamic resurgence worldwide and more so in South Asia. It has actively exported and funded Wahhabi movements in J&amp;K, root cause of our current troubles. It is axiomatic that in any Indo- Pak dispute Saudi Arabia will ally with its Muslim ally rather than us &ndash; we must have no illusions about this. How strong this support will be in the near future, however, is a moot point.&nbsp;

Crown Prince Muhammad bin Salman (known as MBS) is &ldquo;riding a tiger&rdquo; in changing the status quo in his society &ndash; it is amazing how he has managed to garner loyalty from even the Saudi National Guard &ndash; a branch loyal to late King Abdullah faction of the Al Saud family &ndash; by ousting Prince Mitteb bin Abdullah. MBSs task is cut out and his country is likely to take some time to stabilise, before it can look outwards.&nbsp;

He will need all his wits in managing a major crisis within the royal family, having arrested some of the wealthiest and most powerful of his uncles and cousins, leading his country out of obscurantism, reducing Wahhabi influence at home and abroad. He has effectively subdued the religious hardliners &ndash; evident from unheard of freedom now provided to women. Given these far-reaching changes, Saudi Arabia is unlikely to extend its influence abroad, especially through economic dispensation. India needs to wait and watch how the situation develops, and whether Saudi funding for madrassas and jihadi groups dries up substantially. &nbsp;

MBS is now in full control of the four most important elements of his country &ndash; economy, media, security, and the military (Land, Naval &amp; Air Forces), as well as its counterweight, the Saudi National Guard. He has done away with the ultra-orthodox Department of &ldquo;Propagation of Virtue &amp; Prevention of Vice&rdquo; &ndash; i.e., the dreaded black-robed Wahhabi Muttawas. In one fell stroke, he has defanged the radical and ultra-orthodox elements by bringing under his wing the &lsquo;Council of Senior Clerics&rsquo; and the unofficial &lsquo;Awakening Clerics&rsquo;. This has placed him in an autocratic position to do as he pleases. &nbsp;

&nbsp;With the era of direct American influence in the Middle East waning, Saudi rulers have moved to rapidly build up their military that does not overly rely on the United States and is capable of meeting both Iranian and jihadist threats. It has diversified weapon procurement from Russia.&nbsp;

The Saudi military has been, in many ways, the proverbial &ldquo;chocolate cream soldiers&rsquo; army&rdquo; more familiar with parade ground routines, and to provide employment opportunity to the youth. This benign role suited the monarchy, always fearful of a palace coup. It relied more on the Saudi National Guards, a force comprising more rural and loyal subjects. Defence of the country was outsourced to the US, in exchange for a secure flow of oil and through massive arms purchases.&nbsp; &nbsp;

&nbsp;This changed thanks to the hard lessons during its first conflict with the Houthis in 2009&ndash;2010, where the Saudi military performed poorly. In response to this, Riyadh has sought to strengthen Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), and its own armed forces by urgently enhancing its special forces capabilities, upgrading training across the board, localising military production, reforming the military bureaucracy, getting the retired Pak Army Chief on board as the main strategist, and seeking out new sources of arms.&nbsp;

Pakistan is a vassal state

Appointment of Gen Raheel Sharif as the Commander of the Gulf Coalitions Forces has been a brilliant stroke, and has brought a sea change in the strategic and operational capability of the Saudi Forces. Improved relations with Russia have allowed Saudi Arabia to diversify its arms and equipment purchases and has also augmented the Kingdom&rsquo;s influence over global oil prices. However, for the immediate future, the final arbiter of their fate still remains the US; any disruption in the supply of spares, and 90% of their equipment will turn to junk.&nbsp; &nbsp;

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;It is said the Saudi King can summon the Pak PM and Army Chief at a moment&rsquo;s notice &mdash; even in the midst of a major domestic crisis. So to all intent and purpose, Pakistan is a vassal state, dependent for its existence and economy on external powers, be it China or Saudi Arabia. The latter has little to offer at the present moment, barring platitudes of Muslim solidarity, owing to its dwindling oil economy, expensive war against Yemen, and its confrontation with Qatar-Iran.&nbsp;

There also begs the question, what will be the role of Islamic fundamentalism under the new wave of liberalisation presently underway in the Kingdom? It would be difficult for Saudi Arabia to maintain a dual policy of liberal Islam at home, while supporting Wahhabi style militant organisations abroad. And when he is backed and supported by the Pentagon and Ambassador Nikki Haley, this means that an alliance is taking shape in the region under American leadership. That is certain because he has had the gumption to imprison Prince Al Waleed bin Talal, the wealthiest of Saudi princes.&nbsp;

It may be recalled that the outspoken Al Waleed had a Twitter spat with US President Donald Trump back in 2016. Responding to Trump&#39;s calls for banning Muslims from entering the US, Bin Talal had asked him to drop out of the US Presidential elections, calling him a &ldquo;disgrace not only to the GOP but to all America&rdquo;. Little wonder he has paid for it on US directions. &nbsp;

&nbsp;&nbsp;Pak-Saudi nuclear and missile linkages &nbsp;

&nbsp;&nbsp;On the nuclear front, an unholy nexus existed between Pakistan, China, North Korea and Saudi Arabia, as far back as 1985. Chinese engineers established two missile bases at Al Kharj (some 100 kms south of Riyadh) and at Al Sullaylil (400 kms South of Riyadh). It was rumored, but never positively established, that an arrangement existed between Pakistan and Saudi Arabia that former would provide nuclear warheads to be mated with Chinese help, with the latter&#39;s CSS2 (Dong Feng) ICBMs, in the event of a strike against Israel.&nbsp;

Likewise, Pakistan was to have a lien on Saudi missiles to strike against India. This mutual pact was touted as the Islamic Bomb. But things have undergone a dramatic shift since those days &ndash; Pakistan now has its own SRMBMs &amp; MRBMs, which can reach most parts of the India sub-continent, so its dependence on Saudi ICBMs is largely hypothetical.&nbsp; &nbsp;

&nbsp;&nbsp;Can the leopard change its spots? &nbsp;

&nbsp;&nbsp;Saudi Arabia has been the main source of funding for practically all Muslim terrorism &ndash; Moros in Philippines, Jihadi groups in Pakistan and J&amp;K, the&nbsp;war in Chechnya, the Al Shabab in Africa, and all Muslim militant activities in Europe and the US. Can it continue to play this double game, or will it change course? Remember this is the same country which in the 1990s said, &ldquo;today, we Muslims are 2 billion strong, out of a world population of 7 billion; in due course, we shall become 5 billion, and rule the world&rdquo;. This scenario might well come true, as Muslim growth rate is 2.4 against a decline in all other faiths. Therefore any radicalisation of the faith can have serious consequences for world peace.&nbsp; &nbsp;

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Conclusion &nbsp;

The void created by the USA abandoning Pakistan is likely to be filled by China, both economically and militarily. Naturally, this will have consequences for the Pak, as they will have to cede numerous concessions to the latter. Already Pakistan is deeply indebted to China for the CPEC and its further involvement in the OBOR project will push it deeper into China&rsquo;s arms. With China&rsquo;s strategy to surround India by creating a &lsquo;String of Pearls&rsquo;, i.e., of bases in the Indian Ocean - some in our immediate neighbourhood - it becomes essential for us to evolve a countervailing strategy. &nbsp;

&nbsp;&nbsp;These developments do not augur well for India, aligned as it is with the US, a nation that can change its stance at a moments notice. It would do well for the security establishment to hedge its bets, and keep the line to Russia open. &nbsp;

&nbsp;

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;

&nbsp;

Despite recent overtures towards India and increase in trade, we have to bear in mind that Saudi Arabia was the fountainhead of Islamic resurgence worldwide and more so in South Asia.

Apart from China, it is the Saudi Arabian influence that may become more prominent in Pakistan. Despite the waning of US influence, it still has residual influence over Pakistan and Saudi Arabia; it was said that if there were two constants in the affairs of these nations it was Allah & America, in that order. The tectonic changes wrought in Saudi affairs have perplexed watchers – what has been done by the young Crown Prince, Mohammed bin Salman, was just unthinkable a few years back. It is unlikely that such draconian social reforms and economic changes can be brought about in so traditional a society without some backing. The praise heaped by Donald Trump appears to be the catalyst behind these reforms as is the forging of a pan-Arabic alliance of Sunni countries to combat Iran, Syria and Hezbollah influence in the Middle East. Saudi Arabia has indeed become a front line US proxy – its campaign in Yemen (and obliquely against Iran) is clear proof of that. Saudi Arabia: fountainhead of Islamic resurgence Despite recent overtures towards India and increase in trade, we have to bear in mind that Saudi Arabia was the fountainhead of Islamic resurgence worldwide and more so in South Asia. It has actively exported and funded Wahhabi movements in J&K, root cause of our current troubles. It is axiomatic that in any Indo- Pak dispute Saudi Arabia will ally with its Muslim ally rather than us – we must have no illusions about this. How strong this support will be in the near future, however, is a moot point. Crown Prince Muhammad bin Salman (known as MBS) is “riding a tiger” in changing the status quo in his society – it is amazing how he has managed to garner loyalty from even the Saudi National Guard – a branch loyal to late King Abdullah faction of the Al Saud family – by ousting Prince Mitteb bin Abdullah. MBSs task is cut out and his country is likely to take some time to stabilise, before it can look outwards. He will need all his wits in managing a major crisis within the royal family, having arrested some of the wealthiest and most powerful of his uncles and cousins, leading his country out of obscurantism, reducing Wahhabi influence at home and abroad. He has effectively subdued the religious hardliners – evident from unheard of freedom now provided to women. Given these far-reaching changes, Saudi Arabia is unlikely to extend its influence abroad, especially through economic dispensation. India needs to wait and watch how the situation develops, and whether Saudi funding for madrassas and jihadi groups dries up substantially. MBS is now in full control of the four most important elements of his country – economy, media, security, and the military (Land, Naval & Air Forces), as well as its counterweight, the Saudi National Guard. He has done away with the ultra-orthodox Department of “Propagation of Virtue & Prevention of Vice” – i.e., the dreaded black-robed Wahhabi Muttawas. In one fell stroke, he has defanged the radical and ultra-orthodox elements by bringing under his wing the ‘Council of Senior Clerics’ and the unofficial ‘Awakening Clerics’. This has placed him in an autocratic position to do as he pleases. With the era of direct American influence in the Middle East waning, Saudi rulers have moved to rapidly build up their military that does not overly rely on the United States and is capable of meeting both Iranian and jihadist threats. It has diversified weapon procurement from Russia. The Saudi military has been, in many ways, the proverbial “chocolate cream soldiers’ army” more familiar with parade ground routines, and to provide employment opportunity to the youth. This benign role suited the monarchy, always fearful of a palace coup. It relied more on the Saudi National Guards, a force comprising more rural and loyal subjects. Defence of the country was outsourced to the US, in exchange for a secure flow of oil and through massive arms purchases. This changed thanks to the hard lessons during its first conflict with the Houthis in 2009–2010, where the Saudi military performed poorly. In response to this, Riyadh has sought to strengthen Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), and its own armed forces by urgently enhancing its special forces capabilities, upgrading training across the board, localising military production, reforming the military bureaucracy, getting the retired Pak Army Chief on board as the main strategist, and seeking out new sources of arms. Pakistan is a vassal state Appointment of Gen Raheel Sharif as the Commander of the Gulf Coalitions Forces has been a brilliant stroke, and has brought a sea change in the strategic and operational capability of the Saudi Forces. Improved relations with Russia have allowed Saudi Arabia to diversify its arms and equipment purchases and has also augmented the Kingdom’s influence over global oil prices. However, for the immediate future, the final arbiter of their fate still remains the US; any disruption in the supply of spares, and 90% of their equipment will turn to junk. It is said the Saudi King can summon the Pak PM and Army Chief at a moment’s notice — even in the midst of a major domestic crisis. So to all intent and purpose, Pakistan is a vassal state, dependent for its existence and economy on external powers, be it China or Saudi Arabia. The latter has little to offer at the present moment, barring platitudes of Muslim solidarity, owing to its dwindling oil economy, expensive war against Yemen, and its confrontation with Qatar-Iran. There also begs the question, what will be the role of Islamic fundamentalism under the new wave of liberalisation presently underway in the Kingdom? It would be difficult for Saudi Arabia to maintain a dual policy of liberal Islam at home, while supporting Wahhabi style militant organisations abroad. And when he is backed and supported by the Pentagon and Ambassador Nikki Haley, this means that an alliance is taking shape in the region under American leadership. That is certain because he has had the gumption to imprison Prince Al Waleed bin Talal, the wealthiest of Saudi princes. It may be recalled that the outspoken Al Waleed had a Twitter spat with US President Donald Trump back in 2016. Responding to Trump's calls for banning Muslims from entering the US, Bin Talal had asked him to drop out of the US Presidential elections, calling him a “disgrace not only to the GOP but to all America”. Little wonder he has paid for it on US directions. Pak-Saudi nuclear and missile linkages On the nuclear front, an unholy nexus existed between Pakistan, China, North Korea and Saudi Arabia, as far back as 1985. Chinese engineers established two missile bases at Al Kharj (some 100 kms south of Riyadh) and at Al Sullaylil (400 kms South of Riyadh). It was rumored, but never positively established, that an arrangement existed between Pakistan and Saudi Arabia that former would provide nuclear warheads to be mated with Chinese help, with the latter's CSS2 (Dong Feng) ICBMs, in the event of a strike against Israel. Likewise, Pakistan was to have a lien on Saudi missiles to strike against India. This mutual pact was touted as the Islamic Bomb. But things have undergone a dramatic shift since those days – Pakistan now has its own SRMBMs & MRBMs, which can reach most parts of the India sub-continent, so its dependence on Saudi ICBMs is largely hypothetical. Can the leopard change its spots? Saudi Arabia has been the main source of funding for practically all Muslim terrorism – Moros in Philippines, Jihadi groups in Pakistan and J&K, the war in Chechnya, the Al Shabab in Africa, and all Muslim militant activities in Europe and the US. Can it continue to play this double game, or will it change course? Remember this is the same country which in the 1990s said, “today, we Muslims are 2 billion strong, out of a world population of 7 billion; in due course, we shall become 5 billion, and rule the world”. This scenario might well come true, as Muslim growth rate is 2.4 against a decline in all other faiths. Therefore any radicalisation of the faith can have serious consequences for world peace. Conclusion The void created by the USA abandoning Pakistan is likely to be filled by China, both economically and militarily. Naturally, this will have consequences for the Pak, as they will have to cede numerous concessions to the latter. Already Pakistan is deeply indebted to China for the CPEC and its further involvement in the OBOR project will push it deeper into China’s arms. With China’s strategy to surround India by creating a ‘String of Pearls’, i.e., of bases in the Indian Ocean - some in our immediate neighbourhood - it becomes essential for us to evolve a countervailing strategy. These developments do not augur well for India, aligned as it is with the US, a nation that can change its stance at a moments notice. It would do well for the security establishment to hedge its bets, and keep the line to Russia open. (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Opinion: Pakistan's terror entente with Saudi Arabia has deep roots

&nbsp;I have been watching the news on WION, that their journalist Taha Siddiqui was attacked while travelling to the airport, by a group of 10-12 armed men, speaking in clipped English. Is there something newsy in this?&nbsp;

&nbsp;

Being an avid Pak watcher, to my mind, none at all.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

Let us see how &amp; why the Pakistan establishment is so malevolent to the media and more so to Indians.

&nbsp;

&nbsp;Pakistan was born in a hail of gunfire and extreme hatred. This set the trend for its animus relations with India, which have only deteriorated with each passing year. Four watersheds in the tumultuous Indo-Pak relationships have been the 1947 invasion of Kashmir, the 1965 conflict, the 1971 war and the Kargil fiasco. In each encounter with India, Pak has come out the worst, increasing its bitterness towards India.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

As far as the Pakistan media is concerned, it perhaps is the only organisation that is revealing the true state of affairs in the country, and putting their military on the mat.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

&nbsp;I vividly recall an incident at Bogra (East Pakistan) on 17 December 1971, where I witnessed the surrender of Pak troops; the Pakistani Colonel was in tears at the humiliation suffered by his military. Rather than introspect and see that this defeat was of their own making, they blamed India for splitting their country. &ldquo;Be prepared&rdquo;, the Colonel warned, &ldquo;we will avenge this humiliation. India will pay the penalty for this treachery in the years ahead&rdquo;. &nbsp;

&nbsp;

Another incident which is etched in my memory happened in 1993 during my tenure as Defence Attache with our Embassy in Riyadh.&nbsp; At a social function where many Pakistani military officers were present, I casually remarked, &ldquo;there is no difference between our cultures &ndash; we have the same dresses, the same eating habits, and acquired the same training prior to independence&rdquo;. The vitriolic and vehement rejoinder by a Brigadier was, &ldquo;there is nothing common &ndash; we come from a different and militarily superior race, we profess an entirely different religious group, and culturally we are as different as tea &amp; milk.&quot;&nbsp;

&nbsp;

Who attacked Taha? It could be any of the numerous agencies that work for the Pak establishment, but most likely the FSB (Filed Security Bureau) &ndash; this latter agency is notorious for intimidating foreigners, and certainly the Indians. Even visitors with a valid visa are regularly tailed and sometimes picked up, and jailed. Journalists, both local &amp; foreign, are fair game, and one may recall at least four instances in 2017 alone, where Human Right activists and journalists have vanished.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

Then there was the case of the senior GEO TV journalist who was waylaid, and narrowly escaped being killed. Actually, the Pak State and the Military-ISI combine have given some sort of unspoken license to any agency be it the FSB, FIU (Field Intelligence Unit), the Police, and even average citizens to taunt and humiliate Indians, since the state is powerless to confront the Indian state. This is the coward&rsquo;s way of taking revenge. These &lsquo;deep state&rsquo; elements are now all powerful.

&nbsp;

First, there was the famous case of the American-Israeli journalist, Daniel Pearl, who was abducted in Karachi and later beheaded. Then in Lahore in January 2011, Raymond Allen Davis, a former United States Army soldier, and contractor with the Central Intelligence Agency was confronted by unidentified armed men in a busy market area. Davis fired, killing his assailants but was caught and jailed despite his professed diplomatic immunity. Davis was charged by Pakistani authorities with double murder and the illegal possession of a firearm. Because of American influence, Davis, managed to escape punishment for killing the two certainly Pak Government agents. Judges acquitted him on all charges and Davis immediately departed Pakistan.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

Several years earlier an Indian diplomat, Rajesh Mittal, was roughed up by unidentified people, leading to a deadlock in Indo-Pak relationships. Then there was a case of an Indian diplomat and his wife being subjected to a high-speed car chase by Pakistani &lsquo;deep state&rsquo; goons &ndash; a chase during which the diplomat&#39;s car was struck, repeatedly, from by behind. This blatant disregard of international provisions and norms of decent behavior, by euphemistically called &lsquo;unidentified men&rdquo;, is nothing but action by Pak government agents, supported and abetted by the ISI&rsquo;s &lsquo;deep state&rsquo; system.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

&nbsp;All this is happening despite the threat of &lsquo;quid pro quo&rsquo; retaliation that the Indian state could resort to. The only persons with whom these &lsquo;deep state&rsquo; actors do not mess with are the Defence officers posted in the Indian Embassy in Islamabad &ndash; even the ISI realises that this &lsquo;red line&rsquo; must never be crossed, lest their officials in the Pak High Commission New Delhi, are paid back in the same coin.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

We have to wait and see how sternly the Indian government views Taha Siddiqui&rsquo;s case &ndash; yet another protest lodged with the Pak Foreign Office will be meaningless, as have been hundreds of others. The Indian government too needs to step in &ndash; coming as it does on the heels of the humiliating treatment meted out to Kulbushan Yadav&rsquo;s family.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

Taha Siddiqui episode clearly demonstrates the impunity with which these agencies are operating. Our soft approach will only embolden them further. An attack on India&rsquo;s Fifth Estate is a virtual attack on the state itself.

&nbsp;

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL).

Filed Security Bureau and Field Intelligence Unit of Pakistan could possibly be responsible for the assault on Taha Siddiqui.

I have been watching the news on WION, that their journalist Taha Siddiqui was attacked while travelling to the airport, by a group of 10-12 armed men, speaking in clipped English. Is there something newsy in this? Being an avid Pak watcher, to my mind, none at all. Let us see how & why the Pakistan establishment is so malevolent to the media and more so to Indians. Pakistan was born in a hail of gunfire and extreme hatred. This set the trend for its animus relations with India, which have only deteriorated with each passing year. Four watersheds in the tumultuous Indo-Pak relationships have been the 1947 invasion of Kashmir, the 1965 conflict, the 1971 war and the Kargil fiasco. In each encounter with India, Pak has come out the worst, increasing its bitterness towards India. As far as the Pakistan media is concerned, it perhaps is the only organisation that is revealing the true state of affairs in the country, and putting their military on the mat. I vividly recall an incident at Bogra (East Pakistan) on 17 December 1971, where I witnessed the surrender of Pak troops; the Pakistani Colonel was in tears at the humiliation suffered by his military. Rather than introspect and see that this defeat was of their own making, they blamed India for splitting their country. “Be prepared”, the Colonel warned, “we will avenge this humiliation. India will pay the penalty for this treachery in the years ahead”. Another incident which is etched in my memory happened in 1993 during my tenure as Defence Attache with our Embassy in Riyadh. At a social function where many Pakistani military officers were present, I casually remarked, “there is no difference between our cultures – we have the same dresses, the same eating habits, and acquired the same training prior to independence”. The vitriolic and vehement rejoinder by a Brigadier was, “there is nothing common – we come from a different and militarily superior race, we profess an entirely different religious group, and culturally we are as different as tea & milk." Who attacked Taha? It could be any of the numerous agencies that work for the Pak establishment, but most likely the FSB (Filed Security Bureau) – this latter agency is notorious for intimidating foreigners, and certainly the Indians. Even visitors with a valid visa are regularly tailed and sometimes picked up, and jailed. Journalists, both local & foreign, are fair game, and one may recall at least four instances in 2017 alone, where Human Right activists and journalists have vanished. Then there was the case of the senior GEO TV journalist who was waylaid, and narrowly escaped being killed. Actually, the Pak State and the Military-ISI combine have given some sort of unspoken license to any agency be it the FSB, FIU (Field Intelligence Unit), the Police, and even average citizens to taunt and humiliate Indians, since the state is powerless to confront the Indian state. This is the coward’s way of taking revenge. These ‘deep state’ elements are now all powerful. First, there was the famous case of the American-Israeli journalist, Daniel Pearl, who was abducted in Karachi and later beheaded. Then in Lahore in January 2011, Raymond Allen Davis, a former United States Army soldier, and contractor with the Central Intelligence Agency was confronted by unidentified armed men in a busy market area. Davis fired, killing his assailants but was caught and jailed despite his professed diplomatic immunity. Davis was charged by Pakistani authorities with double murder and the illegal possession of a firearm. Because of American influence, Davis, managed to escape punishment for killing the two certainly Pak Government agents. Judges acquitted him on all charges and Davis immediately departed Pakistan. Several years earlier an Indian diplomat, Rajesh Mittal, was roughed up by unidentified people, leading to a deadlock in Indo-Pak relationships. Then there was a case of an Indian diplomat and his wife being subjected to a high-speed car chase by Pakistani ‘deep state’ goons – a chase during which the diplomat's car was struck, repeatedly, from by behind. This blatant disregard of international provisions and norms of decent behavior, by euphemistically called ‘unidentified men”, is nothing but action by Pak government agents, supported and abetted by the ISI’s ‘deep state’ system. All this is happening despite the threat of ‘quid pro quo’ retaliation that the Indian state could resort to. The only persons with whom these ‘deep state’ actors do not mess with are the Defence officers posted in the Indian Embassy in Islamabad – even the ISI realises that this ‘red line’ must never be crossed, lest their officials in the Pak High Commission New Delhi, are paid back in the same coin. We have to wait and see how sternly the Indian government views Taha Siddiqui’s case – yet another protest lodged with the Pak Foreign Office will be meaningless, as have been hundreds of others. The Indian government too needs to step in – coming as it does on the heels of the humiliating treatment meted out to Kulbushan Yadav’s family. Taha Siddiqui episode clearly demonstrates the impunity with which these agencies are operating. Our soft approach will only embolden them further. An attack on India’s Fifth Estate is a virtual attack on the state itself. (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL).

Opinion: Attack on Taha Siddiqui is proof of Pak hatred for India

I find that I ask myself a similar question regularly these days. It&#39;s this: Where are we headed?&nbsp;

Most recently, it was when I read reports of a young couple&#39;s decision to marry being questioned by self-appointed &#39;protectors&#39; of a faith.

Where does the nation go from here? If love between two people of different religions needs sanction from all and sundry? Are inter-caste weddings next on the list requiring sanction?&nbsp;

It strikes me as strange that &#39;incestual&#39; marriages between uncle and niece within the Hindu tradition continue in parts of this country, and yet we have trouble digesting consenting adults choosing to marry just because they&#39;re born to different religions.&nbsp;

Perhaps, this estimation is too vague.&nbsp; Given that the rage (at least from media reports) is, for the most part, comes to be directed at marriages between members of two specific religions: Hinduism and Islam. More intriguing is that these flag-bearers of propriety are more incensed when these unions involve Hindu women and Muslim men.&nbsp;

Here&#39;s what I think: an abiding Indian tradition of tolerance is being hacked away, slowly, and unfortunately, no longer insidiously but openly. In fact, in doing so, we&#39;re mirroring the very image of a hard-line form of faith that these very same mascots of Hinduism openly castigate. How are these saffronites of Hinduism any different from the bearded Mullahs of Islam?

This is not the Hindu faith I grew up with. It is some hydra-headed monster which is politically motivated and propagated. And, if they aren&#39;t stopped with vocal disavowals of the venom they&#39;re spreading, tolerance, acceptance and fellowship will become chimeras, to be replaced by stances hardened in bigotry.

Here&#39;s why the incident in Ghaziabad has evoked these emotions in me: I was that young girl&#39;s father a few years ago, when my own younger daughter told me that her Muslim boyfriend and she had decided to get married.

If I say I was entirely on board from the word go, that would be an untruth. I had my concerns. The reportage on extremist Islam has left the majority of Muslims open to unwarranted criticism. They are asked to demonstrate their differences and publicly express their rage at Islamist terrorist attacks. They may be subject to more scrutiny when they travel overseas. They may face trouble when they go looking to rent an apartment.&nbsp;

These were my concerns for my daughter and her decision to marry outside of Hinduism. Add to that the work of destiny: her first name is Islamic. A beautiful two-syllable Arabic name; a powerful name with a powerful story. And yet, by marrying a Muslim the assumption would be that she too is Muslim; that her husband and she were a Muslim couple, open to the scrutiny I&#39;ve listed above.

The conviction that my daughter and son-in-law had put some of my concerns to rest. What really made things easier was the manner in which my nonagenarian father reacted to their announcement. A military veteran and almost entirely blind in both his eyes, he pronounced his happiness at their decision after shaking my son-in-law&#39;s hand: &#39;a firm handshake,&#39; he said, &#39;is a fine way to know a man. Yours has just the right strength. Do well by my grand-daughter; I&#39;m certain she&#39;ll do well by you.&#39;

My daughter and son-in-law chose to marry the very same way that the couple in Ghaziabad did. Through legal sanction from the Indian Constitution, under the Special Marriage Act. I shudder to think what my reaction could have been had a mob of men claiming to protect my faith had come knocking on my door to demand answers to a marriage sanctioned by law.&nbsp;

Thankfully for us, they didn&#39;t. And yet, if they needed to they could have.&nbsp;

After all the rigmaroles of the SMA made my family&#39;s address public, as that of my son-in-law&#39;s parents. My daughter&#39;s agency as a 30-year-old adult was a trifling when faced by the lengthy processes of legal sanction: she and her husband needed our sanction, his parents sanction, their intent to marry had to be advertised so that anyone who &#39;objected&#39; to it could make their displeasure known. What is the point of it all? Other than to dissuade consenting adults whose faith takes a back seat when confronted with love?

Unfortunately, criticism of fanning the bogey of &#39;love jehad&#39; has been far from forthcoming from the quarters that matter: strong, political voices that use megaphones like social media to their advantage with nary a concern on most days. The silence is deafening.&nbsp;

For me, the Ghaziabad story stands out in many ways, because the fringe&#39;s ability to work with impunity and without fear of repercussion is no longer a rural outpost. It has come knocking on the door of the cities that forms part of the national capital region. It has invaded the privacy of an educated, well-placed and, from what I understand, wealthy family.

The protection that we thought we gave ourselves from the narrow-minded bigotry of populism stands threatened. By educating our children, raising them to eschew prejudice, in showing them the beauty of pluralism and the confines of purism, we thought we were safeguarding them; wrapping an impenetrable cloak of fortitude around them. And yet, today, my family, my wife, and I, as well as many others like us, stand bare to the elements of fanaticism.

I&#39;m a military veteran, a man who spent his youth and adulthood standing shoulder to shoulder with Indians of every faith, caste, creed and gender. Not so that very pluralism and diversity could be brought to its knees, but to make sure it&#39;s a legacy passed on in eternity.&nbsp;

I write this because if I didn&#39;t I&#39;d form part of a silent majority. I&#39;d form part of a system that is already intruding in our ways of life in unimaginable ways, but for fear, that by staying quiet I&#39;m no better than our political elite: sanctioning through silence, allowing this intolerance to consume us and everything that&#39;s good in us.

To end, I am reminded of a famous quote by Pastor Martin Niemoller, during the height of the Nazi programs in the late 1930s, which turned German society into a behemoth that consumed millions:

&nbsp;

First they came for the Communists

&nbsp;

And I did not speak out

&nbsp;

Because I was not a Communist.

&nbsp;

Then they came for the Socialists

&nbsp;

And I did not speak out

&nbsp;

Because I was not a Socialist.

&nbsp;

Then they came for the trade unionists

&nbsp;

And I did not speak out

&nbsp;

Because I was not a trade unionist.

&nbsp;

Then they came for the Jews

&nbsp;

And I did not speak out

&nbsp;

Because I was not a Jew.

&nbsp;

Then they came for me

&nbsp;

And there was no one left

&nbsp;

To speak out for me.

&nbsp;

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL).

&nbsp;

I'm a military veteran, a man who spent his youth and adulthood standing shoulder to shoulder with Indians of every faith, caste, creed and gender. Not so that very pluralism and diversity could be brought to its knees, but to make sure it's a legacy passed on in eternity.

I find that I ask myself a similar question regularly these days. It's this: Where are we headed? Most recently, it was when I read reports of a young couple's decision to marry being questioned by self-appointed 'protectors' of a faith. Where does the nation go from here? If love between two people of different religions needs sanction from all and sundry? Are inter-caste weddings next on the list requiring sanction? It strikes me as strange that 'incestual' marriages between uncle and niece within the Hindu tradition continue in parts of this country, and yet we have trouble digesting consenting adults choosing to marry just because they're born to different religions. Perhaps, this estimation is too vague. Given that the rage (at least from media reports) is, for the most part, comes to be directed at marriages between members of two specific religions: Hinduism and Islam. More intriguing is that these flag-bearers of propriety are more incensed when these unions involve Hindu women and Muslim men. Here's what I think: an abiding Indian tradition of tolerance is being hacked away, slowly, and unfortunately, no longer insidiously but openly. In fact, in doing so, we're mirroring the very image of a hard-line form of faith that these very same mascots of Hinduism openly castigate. How are these saffronites of Hinduism any different from the bearded Mullahs of Islam? This is not the Hindu faith I grew up with. It is some hydra-headed monster which is politically motivated and propagated. And, if they aren't stopped with vocal disavowals of the venom they're spreading, tolerance, acceptance and fellowship will become chimeras, to be replaced by stances hardened in bigotry. Here's why the incident in Ghaziabad has evoked these emotions in me: I was that young girl's father a few years ago, when my own younger daughter told me that her Muslim boyfriend and she had decided to get married. If I say I was entirely on board from the word go, that would be an untruth. I had my concerns. The reportage on extremist Islam has left the majority of Muslims open to unwarranted criticism. They are asked to demonstrate their differences and publicly express their rage at Islamist terrorist attacks. They may be subject to more scrutiny when they travel overseas. They may face trouble when they go looking to rent an apartment. These were my concerns for my daughter and her decision to marry outside of Hinduism. Add to that the work of destiny: her first name is Islamic. A beautiful two-syllable Arabic name; a powerful name with a powerful story. And yet, by marrying a Muslim the assumption would be that she too is Muslim; that her husband and she were a Muslim couple, open to the scrutiny I've listed above. The conviction that my daughter and son-in-law had put some of my concerns to rest. What really made things easier was the manner in which my nonagenarian father reacted to their announcement. A military veteran and almost entirely blind in both his eyes, he pronounced his happiness at their decision after shaking my son-in-law's hand: 'a firm handshake,' he said, 'is a fine way to know a man. Yours has just the right strength. Do well by my grand-daughter; I'm certain she'll do well by you.' My daughter and son-in-law chose to marry the very same way that the couple in Ghaziabad did. Through legal sanction from the Indian Constitution, under the Special Marriage Act. I shudder to think what my reaction could have been had a mob of men claiming to protect my faith had come knocking on my door to demand answers to a marriage sanctioned by law. Thankfully for us, they didn't. And yet, if they needed to they could have. After all the rigmaroles of the SMA made my family's address public, as that of my son-in-law's parents. My daughter's agency as a 30-year-old adult was a trifling when faced by the lengthy processes of legal sanction: she and her husband needed our sanction, his parents sanction, their intent to marry had to be advertised so that anyone who 'objected' to it could make their displeasure known. What is the point of it all? Other than to dissuade consenting adults whose faith takes a back seat when confronted with love? Unfortunately, criticism of fanning the bogey of 'love jehad' has been far from forthcoming from the quarters that matter: strong, political voices that use megaphones like social media to their advantage with nary a concern on most days. The silence is deafening. For me, the Ghaziabad story stands out in many ways, because the fringe's ability to work with impunity and without fear of repercussion is no longer a rural outpost. It has come knocking on the door of the cities that forms part of the national capital region. It has invaded the privacy of an educated, well-placed and, from what I understand, wealthy family. The protection that we thought we gave ourselves from the narrow-minded bigotry of populism stands threatened. By educating our children, raising them to eschew prejudice, in showing them the beauty of pluralism and the confines of purism, we thought we were safeguarding them; wrapping an impenetrable cloak of fortitude around them. And yet, today, my family, my wife, and I, as well as many others like us, stand bare to the elements of fanaticism. I'm a military veteran, a man who spent his youth and adulthood standing shoulder to shoulder with Indians of every faith, caste, creed and gender. Not so that very pluralism and diversity could be brought to its knees, but to make sure it's a legacy passed on in eternity. I write this because if I didn't I'd form part of a silent majority. I'd form part of a system that is already intruding in our ways of life in unimaginable ways, but for fear, that by staying quiet I'm no better than our political elite: sanctioning through silence, allowing this intolerance to consume us and everything that's good in us. To end, I am reminded of a famous quote by Pastor Martin Niemoller, during the height of the Nazi programs in the late 1930s, which turned German society into a behemoth that consumed millions: First they came for the Communists And I did not speak out Because I was not a Communist. Then they came for the Socialists And I did not speak out Because I was not a Socialist. Then they came for the trade unionists And I did not speak out Because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews And I did not speak out Because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me And there was no one left To speak out for me. (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL).

Opinion: I need to speak out in support of Hindu-Muslim marriage. This is why.

Author

Zee News Rajasthan

Editor

Maj Gen K S Sindhu Retd Vsm

Home

Live Tv

Latest

World

India

Business

Entertainment

Sports

Opinions

Videos

Photos

Gravitas

Lifestyle

Science

Tech

Rajasthan News in Hindi: In-depth coverage of Rajasthan Crime, Political News, Education, Rajasthan Weather Update and Latest Rajasthan News on Zee News Rajasthan.