NEW DELHI:
India’s newly appointed foreign minister, Salman Khurshid, a politician of impeccable political lineage hailing from Uttar Pradesh, the most powerful state in India, has for some time been the target of remarks like “dhoonda Musalman, mil gaya Salman”.
His appointment illustrates the crisis of the liberal Muslim in India today, caught between the conservative leadership of the community that demands total religious conformity and the just-under-the-skin communalism of the seemingly liberal Hindu.
Khurshid cannot have found the path easy — he notes as much with wry humour in his play, The Sons of Babar, which traces the evolution of India as we know it through the eyes of a young man’s imagined conversations with Mughal emperor Bahadurshah Zafar in the confusing days after the demolition of the Babri Masjid.
Khurshid’s rise to power has been slow. Indian National Congress’s prospects in Uttar Pradesh have been down for several decades now. Being Khurshid’s home state, the condition has been a reflection on him as well. He was first commerce minister, then external affairs, and later joined the cabinet as minister for law and minority affairs. He has been an important sounding board for his party. He was asked to become a member of the Group of Ministers on Media, the core of the government which is authorised to clarify, correct, and provide information on government moves, both on- and off-the record.
He was an important negotiator between the Anna Hazare-led India Against Corruption (IAC) and the government during the standoff at Ramleela Maidan, and his legal expertise was put to good use in drafting a Lok Pal bill that was both consistent with the constitution and acceptable to the IAC.
Few know that Khurshid was an important behind-the-scenes-actor in the controversy over the age of the Chief of Army Staff (COAS) VK Singh, and that he actually prepared a draft of a letter that would have pulled both the COAS and government back from the brink.
Khurshid is known to be a witty but courteous politician. He loves animals – few know that his Delhi home is a virtual menagerie of birds, rabbits, dogs, cows and cats — no sick animal is ever turned away.
As minister for external affairs, Khurshid will be sharp and pointed in relations with Pakistan, very committed to setting relations right with the country. At the same time, those who believe they will be able to play on his religion should watch out: he is nobody’s fool and understands history and politics with equal facility.
If his predecessor SM Krishna was courteous and restrained, the world will see an Indian foreign minister who is courteous but not restrained if provoked.
Published in The Express Tribune, October 30th, 2012.
COMMENTS (47)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
@Maria: ” good fences make good neighbors” ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Thank you for revealing the secret behind Af Pak bonhomie.
@gp65: "my guess is that it is your establishment that wants to do so," You have rightly guessed.This idea of 2 nation theory was first floated by general Yehya khan and his colleagues when they imbeded JI in politics.Remember JI was staunch opponet of Pakistan movement.
ET has removed a post by me but has kept readers' answers to it. That means my post was up briefly, and somebody decided it was too much to swallow, so he/she removed it. Is there a censor board within ET? Siddique Malik, Louisville, Kentucky, USA.
@PaKhtoon: So what your are saying is that there is illogic in the statements made by Indians. In that case it must be really easy to debunk these statements. So what exactly have you said to debunk the "Illogic of Indians"? Or are you not even capable of debunking illogical statements? By the way, as I said earlier, I am not an Indian, I am just a fan of India and its secular democracy. Siddique Malik, Louisville Kentucky, USA.
@Maria: "Just to let you know, Pakistanis of my generation have long moved beyond the two nation theory- Pakistan is a reality and no jealous Indian can change that."
I am not sure any Indian (except perhaps some total fringe whom I am not aware of) WANTS to change this reality. I think this notion should have been put to bed in 1971 when India made o attempt to annex Bangladesh and later in 1999 when Vajpayee the PM from BJP went to Minaar-e-Pakistan. The only debate on the 2 nation theory that I see going on is in Pakistan and my guess is that it is your establishment that wants to do so, to keep its relevance by focusing on big bad India that wants to swallow Pakistan. The truth is that India has never been the first one to start any war and it never will be.
@Maria: " Pakistanis of my generation have long moved beyond the two nation theory" +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Indeed in 1971 it became a three nation theory, with possibility of further fragments.
the article on salman khursheed did not mention that he is grandson of dr zakir hussain who was india's president in seventies. he was also sheikhul jamia of jamia millia islamia delhi and vice chancellor or muslim university aligarh. asaf jilani
India is a secular country. Salman Khurshid has been promoted to external affairs minister just because he had the highest qualification of 'corruption' which is the only qualifying cretaria for congress partymen. And he is awarded for his hardwork he has shown by snatching away disabled people's crutches.
Seriously ET!! I wasn't expecting this sort of headline from your paper. India is a constitutionally secular country, which means religion is not the matter of the state. Why celebrate the idea of having a Muslim Indian foreign minister? This is absurd.
A Muslim FM is big news in the Pak media as far as we in India are concerned the law minister has become the FM no big deal.
this man has corruption charges piling against him, rather than promote him, investigate and only after he turns to be innocent, than promote him to FM,until then they are bunch of losers.
Hahaha Stupid people ... Do not understand politics! Ch ch ch
@Mohinder sandhu: He got the position because he is a muslim. Intellectually he is not deserving of this post. Congress did it to get muslim votes otherwise he is nothing.
@Zeeshan - "Dr. Hussain was a Hyderbadi. His homeland was annexed through Operation Polo. You still want to talk about the greatness of that civilization? Abdul Kalam Azad was a Congress man who was loyal to Nehru. I will argue, his politics clouded his decision." - Even if you justify the partition and the two nation theory, you would agree that the partition should have happened with a lot of care, taking into account the Hindu/Muslim population spread across the country. The reason Hyderabad and Junagadh was annexed is that the boundary of a state cannot exist within a state. I am sure Pakistan wouldn't have allowed a princely Hindu state existing within its boundary. Apart from this, 85% of Muslims in India didn't migrate to Pakistan and thereby Pakistan got a larger share of land proportionate to Muslim population at the time. All the elite Muslims of India migrated to Pakistan leaving poor Muslim population to fend for itself, most of whom came from lower socio-economic strata as converts of lower caste Hindus. As for Abdul Kalam Azad, no one in his sane mind would say politics clouded his decision, as his prediction about the secession of Bangladesh came true.
@Siddique Malik: I am all for good relations between India and Pakistan - in fact I am all for good relations between all nations of the world. I do however believe that good relations are only possible when countries respect the sovereignty and rights of neighboring nations. India does not believe in this which is why they are actively involved in destabilizing and terrorizing not only Kashmiris but all of its neighboring states. Have you ever heard the expression " good fences make good neighbors" ? For your kind information, Pakistan has had a minority member serve as a Foreign Minister. Do I want equal rights for all Pakistani citizens? Of course I do ! However I want this regardless of what is or isn't going on in India. I think the problem with a lot of people like you is that you think that Pakistanis are as obsessed about India as much as Indians are obsessed about Pakistan. Look at all the Indians who post on Pakistani papers. I frankly don't care whether an Indian Muslim or Indian atheist is their foreign minister - As fr sour grapes, the tone of your rhetoric tells me who this maxim is more applicable to and why. Just to let you know, Pakistanis of my generation have long moved beyond the two nation theory- Pakistan is a reality and no jealous Indian can change that.
Salman Khurshid has the right credentials to be appointed as FM and he will surely do better than his mild mannered predecessor. As an Indian I feel proud that during our six decades old history, Hindu majority has never questioned the appointment of President, PM and below from other religions and that puts India on a higher pedestal than other countries including the Western world.
Khurshid has been elevated to this post as a reward for his loyalty to the Congress High command. There is no other reason.
This person has serious corruption allegations against him and he has no convincing reply to those allegations. It is amazing how his own party, instead of launching independent investigations against him, chooses to support him and reward him by elevating him to the post of Foreign minister.
@Siddique Malik:"Are you saying, if one is logical then one must be an Indian?" No man , it's the other way around....
Congratulations secular India. hope one day Pakistan will follow the same path.
@anand singh: "Cannot understand why we have to prefix religion to everything. He is an Indian and only an Indian can be the FM of India. Thats all." Agreed 100%. We have third largest population of Muslims in the world. Its, but natural that they have equal rights as that of any other Indian and can hold any position that any other Indian can hold. Why so much fuss about it and you said it correctly "why to prefix religion to everything"???
@@not-an-indian: "whatever else you are, you are atleast a Pakistani" ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Sadly the entire Pakistani identity is based on 'not being an Indian' but no one can answer on being what?
@Zeeshan: "Pakistanis will treat this man for who he is: a Muslim carrying water for someone else." ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Pls view him as the Indian Foreign Minister. Thank You.
@Maria, do you not know that a non muslim cant occupy top positions in Pakistan?
A fellow from from Oxford Uni., he enjoys equal love and affection from all communities in his constituency (Farrukahbad), anyways he has already served the country as foreign minister (Minister of State). He mentality is far above any religion.
@Zeeshan 1. I am sure you definitely followed those textbooks where you were taught that Pakistan existed even in 16th century and India was created out of Pakistan and having the Arabian descent. Bangladesh was created because of the the atrocities of Pakistan. There are more than 25% Muslims PEACEFULLY living in West Bengal with Hindus, so your theory is more emotional and less factual. If there were no love between them then India would have seen terrorist infiltration from its eastern border as it sees from its western border.
As far as the Kashmir is concerned, let me ask you a question if Kashmiris are not in favour of India they why do every time they actively participate in elections held by Indian authorities (76% in Panchayat election and 64% in assembly election). The fact is that it was just a propaganda generated by some groups but with the grace of "ALLAH" their motives are rejected and now Kashmir is much more peaceful than it used to be long time ago which is evident by a record number of tourist (1 Million) in Kahsmir last year. You should also visit some of the news agencies like Al-Jazeerah (Qatar based news agency) to know the will of the Kashmiris though the facts would be displeasing for you but surely an eye-opener or at least listen to your commentators like Najam Sethi or Hasan Nisar,at the same time I would love to know how many tourist visited in Pakistani controlled Kashmir.
Mr. Siddique is in USA because of his wisdom and knowledge. Being in outside country and working there doesn't really make anyone less patriotic.You should ask the same question to your countrymen living in UK, Dubai, Saudi Arabia or anywhere else in the world, I think you will get the proper answer.
As someone rightly said TRUTH ALWAYS HURTS.
@Zeeshan: The great constitution of India is what it is: a piece of concocted paper which starts with the lie: “we, the people of India,”… there’s no “we” in that constitution. That paper could say anything it wanted but the reality is important. From caste discrimination to religion hatred, none of those disappears in India because of this piece of paper.
you are absolutely right here,it will also certainly not disappear when one starts following a religion,a religion whose religious books says that all are equal and one. the book and paper can say anything it wants, but in reality there is no such thing as brotherhood or unity, the hatred, discrimination,the injustice, it is all still there and will certainly not disappear just because a book promises otherwise.
.@Zeeshan: “India’s interest” is an oxymoron. Pakistanis will treat this man for who he is: a Muslim carrying water for someone else
if that is your view,the be ready to see more than a billion plus Muslims as, Muslims carrying water for some one else,as there are hardly any allies of Pakistan even in Muslim countries.
and about Kashmiri Muslims, long back Indian Muslims declared and endorsed the view that Kashmir was an integral part of India.and to just remind you,the same kashmiris who are supporting Pakistan, they held a gathering to honor osama bin laden when he was taken down by american troops, really shows how much peace loving these people are, and this is just a tip of the iceberg, there are many examples of how exactly they are peaceful ,and Pakistanis cheer lead these people as freedom fighters.
@Siddique Malik: I think what matters here is the independence not the theory on which the independence is based! I'm a Bangladeshi, though I myself is not a believer in the two-nation theory but this same theory did a lot of good. For example: if this theory was not put forward by Quaid-e-Azam then Indian subcontinent would not have been divided and we the Bangladeshis would have been living under the rule of New Delhi, as the capital of undivided India. I think Mr. Jinnah used the theory just as an "excuse" to gain the much cherished independence. This is evident from one of his words that, "it will take thousand years for different ethnic groups in Pakistan to integrate into Pakistani nationalism." So, here in his own point of view mere the slogan of Islam is not enough to keep the entire nation together!
Cannot understand why we have to prefix religion to everything.
He is an Indian and only an Indian can be the FM of India.
Thats all.
@Mohinder sandhu: Please do not make religion an issue. The reality is there but the fact rests upon who considers it a personal matter. The running of a successful government policy is not dependent upon religion and rests on the ability of the persons entrusted to look after the affairs of the state. Education, experience, outlook and conformity to the policies are what counts. Finally, will he be able to deliver? Salams
@siddique malik,
"Who are you to make that judgment? It is exactly this arrogance and self-conceit that is destroying Pakistan. Do you think only Pakistanis can be good Muslims? Was Abul Kalam Azad, a scholar of Islam a token Muslim? Was Zakir Hussain, a president of India, a token Muslim? Dr. Hussain was a devout Muslim and hosted many religious functions at his official residence, especially functions to celebrate the birthday of Prophet Muhammad, as his security staff consisting of Indians of all faiths stood guard for their president. That’s humanity; that is civilization; that’s equality; that’s human dignity."
Dr. Hussain was a Hyderbadi. His homeland was annexed through Operation Polo. You still want to talk about the greatness of that civilization?
Abdul Kalam Azad was a Congress man who was loyal to Nehru. I will argue, his politics clouded his decision.
"Of course, India, a large country housing over a billion people, has social, ethnic and yes, even religious conflicts. But at least, the great constitution of India treats all citizens equally. That’s not what non-”token” Muslims of Pakistan can say about Pakistan. Siddique Malik, Louisville, Kentucky, USA."
The great constitution of India is what it is: a piece of concocted paper which starts with the lie: "we, the people of India,"... there's no "we" in that constitution. That paper could say anything it wanted but the reality is important. From caste discrimination to religion hatred, none of those disappears in India because of this piece of paper.
@@not-an-indian: Are you saying, if one is logical then one must be an Indian? Siddique Malik, Louisville, Kentucky, USA.
@Jag Nathan: I completely agree; Mr. Khurshid is a great son of India. Siddique Malik, Louisville, Kentucky, USA.
@Usman: Most of the distance on this way has to be covered by Pakisatn. Siddique Malik, Louisville, Kentucky, USA.
@Siddique Malik : whatever else you are, you are atleast an indian.
I am not a fan of the Congress. But I can assure you this much - Kurshid was not elected because he was a Muslim. Indians elected him because he was considered as worthy of being elected to represent the interests of India and not any one narrow community. And represent he shall. If Pakistan expects any breaks from our Muslim FM, you guys are living in fools paradise. Indians Muslims always fought for Mother India.
@siddique malik,
"Many Muslims opposed partition of India, among whom was none other than the legendary Abul Kalam Azad. Was he a less of a Muslim because he opposed the idea of driving a knife — that’s exactly what the two-nation theory was — through the chest of India? Absolutely not."
Some Muslims opposed dividing Muslims into pieces and not because they want to live under Indian rule.
"Today, there are as many Muslims in India as in Pakistan. India has had three Muslim presidents, and a number of Muslim cabinet ministers. Then came the collapse of East Pakistan, when the Muslims-majority wing of Pakistan decided to separate from Pakistan. Obviously, religion could not keep the two wings together, and the theory’s absurdity became further clear."
The "theory" is all encompassing not just solely about religion anchoring two people together. The manifestation of Bangladesh itself was the affirmation of that "theory". A Muslim-dominated Bengal became an independent nation which refused to submit to New Delhi or Calcutta. You could disapprove that "theory" when Hindu-dominated Bengal wants to be united with the Muslim-dominated Bengal. Go ahead, ask the Hindu-dominated Bengal whether they want unity with the Muslims and then you'll understand the absurdity of your assumption.
"The last nail in its coffin will be driven, when a Muslim foreign minister of India will sit down with his Pakistani counterpart to present the view point of all people of India and uphold India’s interests."
There is no coffin to begin with, so don't rush for the hammer. That's what happen when you see nail in everything. Instead of sitting with his Pakistani counterpart, ask this man to sit with his Kashmiri counterpart and see how Khurshid is viewed by Kashmiri Muslims. And, finally "India's interest" is an oxymoron. Pakistanis will treat this man for who he is: a Muslim carrying water for someone else.
"Why did one million people have to die and another 15 million subjected to forced migration in the name of an absurd theory? It’s time Pakistan wakes from its slumber, discards the theory and lives in peace with all its neighbors."
Who decides the "theory" is absurd" A Muslims living in USA? Siddique, why aren't you in India right now in order to prove that you reject the "theory"?
Congrats to India...from Pakistan. We need to learn; have a long way to go!
@Maria: Nobody is talking about fusion; I am talking about good relations. By the way, does it matter to you "as a Pakistani" whether or not your non-Muslim compatriots have equal constitutional rights and protections? I think it will be a big deal if a non-Muslim Pakistani becomes president or prime minister of Pakistan. If these things are not important to you, how do you explain a constitutional requirement in Pakistan that disallows non-Muslim Pakistanis the right to seek nation's top jobs. I think it is a big deal that Muslim foreign minister of India can sit down with his Pakistani counterpart and project the interest of India. Where does that leave the two-nation theory? Now that India has made this achievement, grapes feel sour to you. Siddique Malik, Louisville, Kentucky, USA.
@Hemant and Siddique Malik: I don't care whether the FM of India or Sri Lanka or Burma is Muslim - their job is to represent their nation and promote their interests. Why can't people grow out of their petty parochialism? Even of the PM of India were Muslim, it matters little to me as a Pakistani - I believe that India and Pakistan are different nations. If the PM of Bangladesh turns out to be Hindu, does that mean that India and Bangladesh should fuse and be one? What you folks fail to understand is that Pakistan and Pakistanis have moved on from your tired debates about partition and your mother India which never was a nation until 1947 - the same time Pakistan too became a nation. I wish all the best to the Indian FM - be he Hindu, Sikh, Christian or atheist. Likewise I want the best from the Pakistani FM even if she is of any faith or background.
@Hemant: You have reasons to be proud of India. I am not even an Indian, and I am proud of India. India is an example for the world in terms of constitutionally sanctioned human equality. I wish Pakistan could learn from its twin sibling, and provide the same constitutional equality of its minorities, as India gives to its minorities. Siddique Malik, Louisville, Kentucky, USA.
He is muslim and will look after interests of Hindu majority India. It is same like British appointed Indian judges in Indian courts but they had to follow law made by British.In many cases these judges had to give verdict against their own beliefs.
Many Muslims opposed partition of India, among whom was none other than the legendary Abul Kalam Azad. Was he a less of a Muslim because he opposed the idea of driving a knife -- that's exactly what the two-nation theory was -- through the chest of India? Absolutely not. Today, there are as many Muslims in India as in Pakistan. India has had three Muslim presidents, and a number of Muslim cabinet ministers. Then came the collapse of East Pakistan, when the Muslims-majority wing of Pakistan decided to separate from Pakistan. Obviously, religion could not keep the two wings together, and the theory's absurdity became further clear. The last nail in its coffin will be driven, when a Muslim foreign minister of India will sit down with his Pakistani counterpart to present the view point of all people of India and uphold India's interests. Why did one million people have to die and another 15 million subjected to forced migration in the name of an absurd theory? It's time Pakistan wakes from its slumber, discards the theory and lives in peace with all its neighbors. Siddique Malik, Louisville, Kentucky, USA.
He is not a muslim in any body's eyes.He got that position because he deserve it.Also he is indian first then anything else