'You hate me, I arrest you'

A young girl of 18 shouts at her mother, ‘I hate you’, and leaves for college.  During the lunch time, the police visit the girl’s college and arrest her on charges of sedition.  The fact that the mother was a government employee was good enough for the mother to file a case of sedition against her daughter.  Because IPC 124 A reads:

Whoever by words spoken brings hatred towards the Government established by law in India shall be punished with imprisonment for life.

A jilted lover who shouts, ‘I hate you’ at a woman is now booked under sedition laws of India just because that woman is a government employee.  It’s not hard to imagine such a situation now that Arundhati Roy is being slapped with various cases across India just because she has been found to harbor ‘hatred’ for this country.  We are on the verge of creating another MF Husain episode, hounding the person we do not like so much so that they would have to eventually flee the country.   Soon we will get rid of all artists and authors from this country who do not conform to the opinions of the majority.  

Scrap sedition laws

When I was a young boy, I assumed, very naturally, that I was extremely patriotic.   Singing the national song and national anthem gave me goose bumps (it does even now), and the very idea of dying for one’s country was a heroic and romantic notion, something I thought I would do without hesitating for a moment.   But then I ‘grew up’.  

The unfortunate consequence of ‘growing up’ is that you are no longer innocent.  You know more than what normally appears.  [I put 'growing up' in quotes because not everyone who lives longer actually grows up.  Most people, I realize, stop growing at around 16 or 17.  They carry their prejudices from then on defending them for the rest of their lives.]

Now, I realize that there are two versions of patriotism.  The first is the love of one’s homeland, which is natural to most people.  We are nostalgic and have an attachment towards one’s origins; either it is a place of birth, or the times when we were young.  We reminisce the moments of the past with longing and feel attached to them.   

Almost every human being will try to protect one’s home against onslaught of the invaders.  One’s home could be just one’s house, one’s street, one’s village, one’s district, one’s region, one’s state, one’s country, or one’s planet.   The definition of home itself changes depending on who the invader is.  If the neighbor tried to encroach upon what rightfully belongs to you, your home is just your house and you fight for it.   But when aliens invade us, then our home is our planet and we fight for the planet. 

If the definition of patriotism is love of one’s home and feeling to defend it from the invaders, then it is completely natural to most human beings to be patriotic.  I think I am a patriot from this definition.  I take pride in fighting for my people as long as I think it is a fight for justice.  I also feel that I should express solidarity with those who fight for their people as long as I think it is a fight for justice.

However, if patriotism is the feeling that my country is the greatest and that it can never do anything wrong, then it is based in sheer arrogance coming out of absolute ignorance.   It is this arrogance based in ignorance that makes me think that my nation, my religion, my race is the greatest just because I am born into it.  I am NOT this kind of a patriot.

Kashmir wants freedom

On a daily basis, people are dying in Kashmir.  These are ordinary people, civilians, young men, students, and boys.  These are not dreaded terrorists or militants.  These are not Pakistani infiltrators.  They are Kashmiri people living Kashmir.  And they are being shot dead by Indian armed forces, whose guns are bullets are paid for by my taxes. 

Yesterday, more than 15 Kashmiris were killed by Indian security forces taking the toll to 85 since June 2010.  The people came out defying curfew in almost all parts of Kashmir Valley, in Srinagar, Baramulla, Sopore, Anantnag, Pampore, Charar-e-Sharif, Budgam, Pulwama.  The message is clear.  Kashmiris seek freedom.  Freedom from Indians.

Let go, India

Kashmir is not simmering anymore.  It is boiling and spilling over.  In the last two months 40 people were killed by Indian security forces.  These are young boys of Kashmir, less than 20 years of age, some of them as young as 8 years, and they are challenging the might of Indian armed forces by coming out onto streets violating the curfew orders imposed onto them. Look at the news headlines from THE HINDU in the last 4 days.

Aug 04: 5 more die as violence continues in Kashmir

Aug 03: Thousands defy curfew; 7 more civilians killed

Aug 02: 8 killed as violence escalates in Kashmir Valley

Aug 01: 2 die in police firing as protesters defy curfew

The new generation of Kashmiri David takes on the Goliath machinery of India.  These young boys risk their lives to defy all the restrictions imposed on them by Indian security forces.  India is at a loss.  It does not know how to deal with this situation.  There are no AK-47s, there are no hand grenades or rocket launchers so that India can claim these protestors are terrorists.  All these young boys have is bunch of easily available stones to take on the sophisticated Indian armed forces. 

Kashmir: Discussion on TV

I was watching TIMES NOW on TV.  This is some time ago, but relevant even today. 

One guy says, ‘Let us have freedoms. Let us talk about freedoms.  We should have freedoms.  But don’t push it to ridiculous extent.  Like Azadi.  Why Azadi? From whom?  I find this whole Azadi thing ridiculous’.

The other guy says, ‘Think of nation’s sentiments.  Respect India’s sentiments.  Let’s live together.  Think in the right perspective.’

The anchor says, ‘Why are you taking support from Pakistan? Isn’t that country the one which is intolerant?  Pakistan is the one which is intolerant. Not India.  Aren’t Mohajirs discriminated in Pakistan? Why do you want to take refuge in Pakistan’s support?’

And I find something grossly wrong with the whole proceedings though most of my Indian brothers and sisters are OK with these discussions.   Today, once again Kashmir is burning.  More than 20 protestors were shot dead by the Indian forces stationed in Kashmir.   According to TIMES OF INDIA, In Iraq, there is 1 soldier every 166 people, and in Kashmir, there is 1 for every 20, nearly 8 times more.   It’s like living in the Bangalore city with nearly 3 lakh troops, one-fourth of Indian Army. 

In the discussion above, the first guy thinks that we all should have freedoms, but not Azadi (freedom).   Whom are we duping here?  Why is Azadi a ridiculous proposition?  We all want to be free.  Every human being wants to be free.  Who wants to wake up to face the gun on a daily basis?  Who wants armies stationed in their towns and villages on a daily basis? Who wants their sisters raped, brothers killed, uncles gone missing? 

Kashmir exposes India

India congratulates itself for its tolerance of different religions. While India truly is a home to some of the biggest religious groups on the planet, it is losing its credibility on treating different religious groups equally.

The current imbroglio in the state of Jammu and Kashmir is a clear fight between Hindus and Muslims though our media, politicians and analysts would like to describe it as political situation that has gone out of control. The pent up hatreds are coming into the foreground. That is causing a dent in the image of India’s tolerance.

Amarnath

For many years now, millions of Hindus from all over India have thronged to Amarnath in Kashmir to pay visit to their gods, and for most part, their visits were peaceful, though Kashmir is a predominantly Muslim region. Now, a new controversy has been created when a certain tract of land was allocated for taking care of visiting Hindu pilgrims. Kashmiri Muslims opposed such a move by raising the objection that it would lead to permanent settlement in the region thereby leading to change in demographics of the region – which is sacrosanct in that state since Indian Independence. The government acquiesced to roll back the decision on allocation of the land. I am not sure if such an allocation was right and if the roll back was wise. But what followed next was quite idiotic – very characteristic of modern but religious India.

Protests

Hindus in Jammu took umbrage at this roll back and came onto streets to protest- defying curfews and targeting minority Muslim population in Jammu region. These protestors include ordinary people, housewives, college girls, school children, the middle class and poor- not exactly the political goons as you may want to believe. Some protestors who defied the curfew died in police firing. One of the TV reporters commented, ‘Kuch Paane ke liye, Kuch Khone Padtha hain’, clearly showing his sympathy to Hindus. What he meant was, to gain something one has to lose something. Little did he know that he was actually voicing opinions of many Hindus in India who think it is time to get to streets to fight for Hindu dignity which they believe they have lost to Muslims for many years now – starting with Ghazni’s raids into India more than thousand years ago!

That ‘losing something’ involved death of few protestors in Jammu. ‘Gaining something’ involved the pride of Hindus.

Kashmir Blockade

To push Kashmiri Muslims into a corner, to stifle them, so that they learn their lessons, so that they dare not defy the might of Indian Hindus ever again, these protestors in Jammu defied curfew to completely block the roads going to Srinagar. This economic blockage of Kashmir Valley was justified by Hindus as a necessary measure to bring the government to its knees. One leader of Amarnath Sangharsh Samiti says [1]:

We knew that unless Kashmiris are made to feel the pinch, the government will not pay attention.

Very soon, the Kashmiri Muslims started to feel the pinch. There was shortage of medical supplies and other essentials in the valley.

Kashmiri Muslims could not even sell their apple produce to earn their living. Meanwhile, Hindu Jammu was gleaming in pride that they have made Kashmiri Muslims suffer. One Samiti convener has this to say [1]:

People in Jammu too are suffering as a result of the blockade, but no one is worried about us. As always the interests of Kashmiris are paramount.

The hypocrisy is not lost. First, you go ahead and create an economic blockade thereby inflicting pain onto others. Then, you sympathize with yourself saying that you too have suffered because of the blockade which you created in the first place.

Kashmiris look towards Pakistan

This event alone has done more harm to Indian cause in Kashmir than the last twenty years of army rule there. In a poll that was conducted by Indian Express in 87% favored independence, and only 3% wanted to merge with Pakistan, less that those who favored staying with India at 7%.

Now, this economic blockade showed Kashmiri Muslims where Indian Hindus really stand. If needed, they are ready to starve them and cut them off to subjugate them. The frustrated Kashmiri Muslims, who were deprived of medicines, and who had to put off their weddings because of shortage of supplies, took to streets. Since India was not ready to let them earn their living, they looked towards Pakistan, and marched towards Muzaffarabad in POK or Azad Kashmir to sell their produce. That meant defying India. Naturally, they were stopped by Indian Army resulting in killing of few marchers. After that, more and more Kashmiri Muslims thronged streets in Kashmir Valley defying curfew orders resulting in more killings. One couldn’t help but notice many Pakistani Flags being waved on TV.

If there was any trace of goodwill that India garnered, it was flushed down in one go.

Current episode debunks India’s credentials

The fabric of Indian secularism is laid bare – it is seen as hollow. It is clear that this whole fight in the state of Jammu and Kashmir is religious in nature. The clichéd idea that J&K is single state is a chimera. It is clear once again that people of Kashmir feel and act quite different from people of Jammu.

The present crisis erupted because of a harbored feeling within Jammu inhabitants who felt they were being sidelined in the state – that only Kashmir gets all the attention while Jammu has to get a step-brotherly treatment, that it has pay the price for India’s obsession with its secular credentials.

BJP and Jammu people contest that the share of Jammu in legislature is lopsided favoring Kashmiris. Citing the number of voters, which is not the right way of looking at it, they come to a conclusion that indeed their percentage share in the state is less. However, this myth is exploded. It is the population that should constitute the share not the number of voters. Some people may or may not vote – for example, in Naxal regions, the voter turnout it usually less. That does not translate into less number of legislators from those regions.

Though this contention from BJP and Jammu is fabricated, it goes without saying that there are many differences between the two regions to warrant bifurcation (or trifurcation) of the state. Every episode in the last many years clearly indicates that Kashmir and Jammu are not similar in religious composition, language, ethnicity, and aspirations. Why the pretense to hold the state together instead of dividing it on the basis of religion (Hindu/Muslim) or language (Dogri/Kashmiri)? Why doesn’t India come to terms with realities and understand that aspirations of Kashmiris in the Valley are very different from those living in Jammu? Why don’t we call spade a spade?

That’s because we continue to delude ourselves that India’s identity is opposite to that of Pakistan. Since Pakistan believed a nation could be formed on the basis of religion, India believes the exact opposite – that it is home to many religions and that a religion should never be an identity to discuss autonomy. Since it negated the idea of creation of Pakistan on the basis of religion, it continued to subdue and suppress all separatist movements in Kashmir which sought autonomy on the basis of religion. India continues to believe that it is tolerant- so tolerant that no religious group would ever seek separation of either a state or nation based on religion. If such a movement exists it casts a blind eye, or gives different interpretations, or accuses neighbors of fomenting such nefarious ideas in its otherwise innocent citizens, but it never admits that religion is an identity that needs to be addressed as a group.

India lives in an illusion that its democracy and religious tolerance are inalienable and inviolable characteristics of India and that nobody can debunk or puncture these widely held principles. If any counter-evidence is produced, it rubbishes that evidence. This is no different from holding onto any ideology that blinds people from reasoning. Indians are blinded by constructions of their own superiorities, such as democracy, secularism (ingrained in Hinduism, not Constitution), and religious tolerance, and they never question these belief systems.

Kashmir exposes India’s illusions

India lost all its bonhomie it created in the last many years with just one event of Amarnath controversy. It is clear where Indian Hindus stand. When it comes to protecting their interests, which can be as trivial as allocation of extra land for their pilgrims, India can choke a population of minority religion into submission by starving them if necessary. This is not just confined to Kashmir. In Gujarat, India casts a blind eye to the government in power that targets certain community on the basis of religion.

With what comfort or dignity can Indian minority live in this country when the majority believes it can do whatever it wants with impunity to further its interests?

India’s credentials as a tolerant state are fast eroding. No political party can stand to the might of rising Hindus who are ready to back their position on the world stage as a dominant power, even if that means suppressing certain communities or religions. Time and again we are succumbing to religious demands and we don’t know how to deal with them. Our approach is ad hoc and most often the solutions are awkward and clumsy. On one hand we don’t want to recognize religious identities and groups as legitimate groups but at the same time we succumb to various irrational religious sentiments.

India needs to recognize a religious identity as a legitimate identity (like language, caste, region, etc) and that this identity forms a distinct group whose members may share similar aspirations. It then needs to address these groups’ aspirations within legal and constitutional confines by separating religion from state. Indians don’t know how to do that. Indians think that identifying a human as male or female would make the state masculine or feminine. A state can address religious groups without having to recognize it as an instrument of state and we need to just learn how to do it.

[1] Outlook, August 18, 2008

Kashmir VII: Some questions answered

[One may want to read Kashmir I, II, III, IV, V, VI to get the premise. Here, I answer some of the questions that arose during the discussions on prior articles].

Can an Independent Kashmir sustain as a nation?

When in doubt, think of Bhutan! There are many countries that are far smaller than Kashmir Valley which survive as nations. The concept that a nation should have a large land mass and big population with abundant natural resources is unique to populations of big countries. There are examples galore that suggest that a nation does not have to fit this description. Vanuatu, Belize, Luxembourg, Andorra, etc, do not have large land mass nor large populations but survive as nations. How about Lesotho and Gambia who are completely surround one single country? What about their protection? Though China laid claim to Bhutan it accepts its existence a bit hesitatingly because it is protected by India. There are many small countries on the planet whose security is guaranteed by big brothers. Such a protection to Kashmir is not unthinkable.

Some Indians ask ‘Is it worth it- to stay so small? Why not stay with a big country and enjoy the benefits?’ I wish the answer was that simple! If it was the only prevailing rationale, then we should be seeing only big countries in the world right now. They shouldn’t be breaking up into smaller nation states. The whole of Central America should be one big nation! Nations are not necessarily born out of economic reasons. They are born out of aspirations of its people to govern themselves. If a majority in a certain land believe they are ethnically, linguistically, culturally, racially, or religiously different from the other parts, and if they wish to be independent, they can form a nation. There are no preset rules to form a nation. Being landlocked and mountainous doesn’t seem to deter Switzerland from performing as a nation. As we saw recently with Soviet Union and Yugoslavia breaking up, there is a potential for many nations to form, and as seen with Germany uniting, many nations could merge. Every nation will have to find its own set of ingredients to survive and develop- there are no rigid parameters that are equally applicable. The notion that it may not survive economically or will not be able to sustain itself is not a valid reason for denying independence. 

Do people in Kashmir Valley really want an Independent country?

It looks like they want it. There are no valid statistics to ascertain this since India never wanted to face the reality. But all the Kashmiri protests, their complete renunciation of every Indian effort, their lack of faith in Indian institutions including constitution and local elections, their support to freedom movement allowing foreign mercenaries to fight India, etc, reflect their disassociation with India. India does not entertain any talks that include independence to Kashmir, so how is one to ascertain the exact statistics? Some readers quoted an article in Dawn, which in turn refers to TOI:

A poll by TOI indicates that nearly 53.9% in Kashmir Valley ask for Independence. One should not quickly conclude that other 46.1% want to be with India. How many want to be with Pakistan, and how many have not expressed their opinion is not mentioned in this report. 

What about Hindu Pandits?

The story of Kashmir is an unresolved issue that has its origins in Partition of India. For a long time, we covered up all the Kashmiri protests and misgivings, and pretended all was well by running puppet administrations. The time caught up, and after a series of bungled-up episodes, people of Kashmir Valley rose in protest against Indian Administration during 1980s. However, most Indians would like to believe otherwise- that it is a Pakistan-sponsored program; that it is an Islamic fundamentalist ideology in tune with what’s going elsewhere. By clubbing the situation with these bogeymen, we do not take any responsibility and instead lay the blame onto the forces that lie outside.

Imagine the whole of Jammu and Kashmir acceded to Pakistan during Partition. Wouldn’t those quarter-million Hindus have migrated into India back in 1947-48 leaving behind their properties, just like million others? The actions of Kashmiri Muslims that have led to migration of Pandits in 1989 are inexcusable. [The story of the migration of 1989-90 is itself mired in controversy where Jagmohan’s actions are questioned by Pandits who ask if indeed there was a real threat that warranted this migration.]

The problem of Hindu Pandits is a problem of India. It has to deal with it the way it has dealt with million other Indians who have migrated into India from Pakistan during Partition. No practical solution (unless India resorts to the methods employed by Israel) can envision their return to Kashmir Valley. It’s a sad reality that India has to wake up to. Do Hindus of India lay claim to their ancestral property in Pakistan’s Punjab? They do not. It is understood to be a consequence of our Partition. In an effort to separate conjoined twins, Partition has performed a surgical procedure and it resulted in death of more than half a million people and migrations of 15 million. We do not lay claim to the lands lost nor ask for compensation for the lives lost. We see it as a result of the decisions we made (during Partition) and bear the consequences to provide aid, help and support to those victims.

Can India give freedom only to Kashmir Valley?

Nations change shape all the time. They add new lands and lose few lands. Some change their identity; some new ones are formed from old countries. Nothing is forever- especially not the nations. 

But for most Indians, most things in life are sacred, including their map, their National song and all associated symbols. They believe in sanctifying them for eternity. Most Indians are reluctant to see any breakup, even that of their states. They impose sanctity to all shapes and fight tooth-and-nail to protect it. For them, LoC is sacred and so is the indivisibility of all states including Jammu and Kashmir. 

The state of Jammu and Kashmir consists of three distinct regions with different geographies, ethnic compositions and histories. To club them into one does not make sense- we will not be able solve the problem that will satisfy all. The aspirations of these three regions are different as well. While the people of Kashmir Valley ask for Independence (or want to merge with Pakistan), most others (in Ladakh and Jammu) do not. Even during the partition, it was discussed whether it made sense to club this entire region as one entity. But since, this region was under one king, it was thought appropriate not to complicate things (since we used the same argument for annexing some kingdoms into our country).

Granting Independence to Kashmir Valley will satisfy the aspirations of its people that originate during Partition of India. Retaining Ladakh and Jammu will keep our commitment towards these people who wish to remain with India.

Is ‘what is good for India’ good for Kashmir?

Many Indians believe that 'what is good for India' should be good for Kashmir too. We can’t imagine, believe nor accept that Kashmiri Muslim are actually fighting us including our values- the same values that we cherish and believe to be universal. Indians believe that these Kashmiri do not know what they want. We want to educate them and teach them how benevolent we are, and why it is in their interest to be with us. We want to tell them the greatness of our institutions- democracy, freedom, liberty to women, and our secular principles, and show them our track record that we are so proud of (in comparison to those next door). We want to explain to them how being with India is in their best interest- like enjoying good economy and a better standard of living (unlike the other ‘backward’ neighbors). We cannot imagine how Kashmir wants to become a ‘regressive Islamic state’ when they have a choice to be with ‘progressive democratic and secular nation’ such as ourselves? They ask, “Can’t Kashmiri see that their youth has better future with us than in an independent Kashmir? Look at what happened to Pakistan and Bangladesh? Can’t they see the obvious?”

This was the exact mindset white man had when he was the colonial master. The white man’s burden- his duty to civilize the world, led him to conquer continents, wage wars, and kill millions in the process, all in the name of that single belief, that he was ordained by certain higher power to instill such institutions in uncivilized world. Some leaders in Britain (including Churchill) were opposed to granting independence to India because they believed Indians were better off with British Empire. They could not imagine nor believe Indians will be able rule themselves. 

Churchill, speaking to an audience in London in 1930, claimed that if the British left Indian sub-continent, then "an army of white janissaries, officered if necessary from Germany, will be hired to secure the armed ascendancy of the Hindu”. 

Few months later, he said, "to abandon India to the rule of the Brahmins would be an act of cruel and wicked negligence". According to him, "India will fall back quite rapidly through the centuries into the barbarism and privations of the Middle Ages".

Speaking in 1931, Churchill said: 

“At present the Government of India is responsible to the British Parliament… To transfer that responsibility to this highly artificial and restricted oligarchy of Indian politicians would be a retrograde act. It would be a shameful act. It would be an act of cowardice, desertion and dishonour. It would bring grave material evils, both upon India and Great Britain…” 

Indians echo such similar sentiments now when asked about Independence to Kashmir. “How are you going to guarantee the rights of all sects? How are you going to guarantee rights of women? Will this country not go Islamic the Taliban way? How will they survive as a nation?”

The contemporary American imperialism is based on the notion that ‘what is good for America is good for the world’. Once a major chunk of population and administration believe in this notion, it becomes easy to manipulate its people to do anything sinister, including waging a war in the name of promoting those American values in foreign lands. No wonder, George Bush II had popular support before invasion of Iraq since it was supposedly ‘Operation Enduring Freedom’, designed to liberate the oppressed people and install ‘American style’ democracy there. Now we see the Iraqis fighting these forced values vehemently and vociferously, blowing themselves up in the process. Most Indians grow up believing 'what is good for an Indian' should be good for Kashmiri as well. If need be, we would like to hold that population at gunpoint to instill our values into them. We don’t realize that such forceful shoving of values make those populations choke on them; they reject them by vomiting it out.

What most of these Indians fail to understand is that the notion of 'what is good' is different for different people. A Danish jail cell may provide all amenities, including TV, daily food, good clothing and work, but an Indian would rather live in a slum in Delhi to be free. Freedom! That single word that spawned so many struggles of mankind, including our glorious Independence Movement in which we wanted to define it according to our terms, and yet we are now defining it for others, making it paradoxical.

Kashmir VI: Was accession legal and ethical?

Dweep asked... (as a comment at my blog)

"BTW, I'm interested to know if you have a personal judgment on whether the Kashmir accession was correct - legally and ethically."

I try my best not to take an ethical stand on historical events- sometimes it is hard to say if a certain decision is ethical or not - unless it is a glaring violation (like genocide committed by Nazis) or an obvious act of good faith (like that of Mother Teresa). Legal actions need not necessarily be ethical. Law is bound to a land and can change with time. What is legal in US need not be legal in India. What is legal in India in 1800s need not be legal now. Slave trade was legal during 1600s but would we think it is ethical now?

Is colonial rule (that spanned more than three hundred years and covered half the world) ethical? There are certain benefits that came about while there were many sufferings. Is killing and violence in a fight for freedom ethical? We hail Chandrasekhar Azad, Bhagat Singh and Subhas Chandra Bose as heroes but imprison Kashmiri activists. Is killing in a war ethical? Some soldiers are tried for war crimes while some are rewarded medals. There are many events in history of mankind on which it is difficult to comment whether it was ethical or not. Definition of what is ethical itself changes with time and place. While most Indians sleep next to their kids, most Americans do not and believe that it should not be encouraged so much so that their law has a say on it. We in India believe that our war with Pakistan (in 1971) to liberate Bangladesh was a heroic deed- because we saved a lot of Bangladeshis from subjugation and outright massacre. But let's assume if the newly formed Bangladesh could not sustain itself and succumbed to a barbaric invasion from Myanmar right after its independence. In retrospect, would we be happy with our actions?

While I believe accession of Kashmir is legal (because a piece of paper was signed before or after Indian troops landed in Kashmir), to say whether it was an ethical move is debatable. If I was alive during the time of Independence, I would have been happy that we saved Kashmir from an invasion, but the subsequent events in that state tell me that India has not done a good job keeping the good faith of that people. I guess, only the results and consequences of such controversial actions will determine whether it was the right move or not (unfortunately, in retrospect). Kashmir’s history is filled with false promises, unfulfilled guarantees, misrule, deceit, suffering, pain and tragedy. If the Muslims of Kashmir are suffering, if the Hindus of Kashmir are suffering, and if the Indian armed forces are suffering, I am not sure if it was the right move.

There is nothing wrong in admitting that we made a wrong move and start making reparations. And according to me, India can make amends by giving independence to Kashmir (and providing safe haven and compensation to Kashmiri Hindus). To be able to do something like that, we need lot of courage, strength of character, moral fortitude, dose of empathy, and confidence in ourselves as nation and people, because we would have to swallow a lot of pride and egotistic sentiments. Wise people and similarly wise countries admit their mistakes and are ready apologize to make amends. Immature people and similarly immature countries are ready to kill and die to uphold their false beliefs in spite of many opposing evidences.

Right now, I believe that we are not doing a good job in the North-east either. Our policies, our attitudes and our actions will come back to haunt us. There will be a day in the near future when we will be debating whether we should let North-east go. We can't get away scot-free after such a lousy job spanning fifty years. We shouldn’t be expressing surprise when these regions fight for their independence. If you beat up the kid all through his young age, ignore his concerns, not take care of him, not attend to his needs, I don’t think you should be surprised if he grows into an adult and adamantly fights to leave the house.

Kashmir V: On Plebiscite

1. What is a plebiscite?

A plebiscite can be defined as "vote in which a population exercises the right of national self determination".

2. Who promised the people of Jammu & Kashmir a plebiscite?

Jawaharlal Nehru, the Prime Minister of India, and Lord Mountbatten, Governor General of India, promised a plebiscite to the Raja Hari Singh, and to the people of Jammu & Kashmir, and it was accepted by India as a part of UN resolution of 1948.

3. Did India ever implement a plebiscite in Jammu & Kashmir?

No.

4. What is a ‘disputed territory’ during the time of Partition?

In 1947, when India and Pakistan were carved out of Indian sub-continent, Radcliffe divided the ‘British controlled India’ into India and Pakistan. Outside British controlled India, there were 565 princely states in India at that time. Lord Mountbatten and British Parliament with consent from Queen of England offered these princely states to join India or Pakistan. Independence was not assured; request to join British Empire was declined; but no explicit mandate was given to any of these princely states to join India or Pakistan. It was up to these two newly formed countries- Pakistan and India, to coax, or persuade each princely state to join either country; and Lord Mountbatten was assigned to help these two countries secure these dominions. A ‘disputed territory’, as they are usually referred to during the time of Independence and Partition, is a region to which both Pakistan and India laid a claim. When it comes to most of the kingdoms it was a logical conclusion whether it would join India or Pakistan – and each country went about pursuing and coaxing the Princes to join their country. However, there were three disputed regions at that point of time- Junagarh, Hyderabad, and Kashmir. The Kings of Junagarh and Hyderabad were both Muslim and wanted to join Pakistan but their kingdoms were predominantly Hindu. Moreover, their kingdoms were not contiguous to Pakistan and were actually lying inside India. Land-locked kingdoms were not given an option to join non-contiguous countries. Geographical separation was as much required in addition to the opinion of majority of population. King of Jammu & Kashmir was a Hindu and didn’t want to join India or Pakistan. His kingdom was predominantly Muslim. Though it was tacitly agreed by India that Kashmir would go to Pakistan owing to its Muslim majority and it being contiguous to Pakistan (and India as well), it laid claim to this kingdom when they realized that that King of Jammu & Kashmir was not joining Pakistan despite many attempts by Pakistan to coax him into signing accession.

5. Did India ever implement a plebiscite in any other disputed territory?

Yes, in Junagarh. But it was done in a haphazard way. Very few voted and hence India ignored its results and went onto occupy it. Pakistan did not protest much though the Nawab of Junagarh had already acceded to Pakistan. It was generally agreed by everyone (both India and Pakistan) that it could not have joined Pakistan without a contiguous border.

6. Did India send its troops into any of the disputed regions?

Yes, to all the three regions. To Junagarh and Hyderabad, India sent its troops against the wishes of the King. These forced accession were rationalized because India had a massive support from local population who were predominantly Hindu. To Kashmir, India sent its troops at the behest of the King of Jammu & Kashmir only after he signed accession to India (when he faced aggression from tribal people of Pakistan).

7. What was the rational for annexing Junagarh and Hyderabad to Indian Union?

They were predominantly Hindu, while the Kings were Moslem. Though the kings wished to join Pakistan, the people wished otherwise. A referendum or the opinion of the people and not that of King was the prevailing logic that was applied to rationalize all accessions. India conducted a plebiscite in Junagarh, but In Hyderabad, the massive support of population after the infamous or glorified armed ousting of Nizam did not make it necessary to justify the accession. Both Junagarh and Hyderabad did not have a contiguous border with Pakistan.

8. Was the same rationale applied to Kashmir?

No. Kashmir was predominantly Muslim and had a contiguous border with both India and Pakistan. King of Jammu and Kashmir acceded to India against the claims of Pakistan to its Muslim population. If the same rationale had been applied to Jammu and Kashmir, the state would have acceded to Pakistan, and its Hindu and Buddhist population would have migrated to India (as it happened in case of Punjab or Bengal).

9. How did Kashmir become a legal entity in Indian Union?

In 1947, Maharaja Hari Singh signed the Treaty of Accession by which the state became a part of India. But the people of that state were promised a plebiscite. No referendum or plebiscite took place. Later in 1952, Constituent Assembly of Kashmir, consisting of leaders of that state ratified the Accession, but retained autonomous powers. Subsequently these autonomous powers were slowly reduced. In 1974, Kashmir Accord made Jammu & Kashmir an integral part of India overthrowing these autonomous powers completely (but retained Article 370).

10. Is the ratification of Constituent Assembly same as plebiscite?

No. The UN resolution asks for mandate from the people, not the elected leaders.

Kashmir IV: Legal Conflict

There are too many legal issues regarding Kashmir conflict- one can argue forever, and it looks like no pragmatic solution can ever be reached if one were to stick to the legal documents and legal issues. The emotions and sentiments run very high amongst Indians, Pakistanis and Kashmiris; and a debate or a discussion on Kashmir at any level, whether it is UN or a bilateral summit, in a coffee shop or a group debate on TV, turns very passionate and the rhetoric is usually very irrational. Let’s look at some of the arguments here:

A. India considers Kashmir to be an 'integral part' of India, as accepted, ratified and proclaimed by the Constituent Assembly of Kashmir in 1956 and as signed in Kashmir Accord in 1974.

B. BUT, Pakistan considers Kashmir to be 'disputed territory' as inferred from UN resolution of 1948 and as endorsed in Simla Accord of 1972. Pakistan still demands for a plebiscite to decide the fate of Kashmir.

C. BUT, Maharajah Hari Singh, King of Jammu & Kashmir regions, signed a treaty of accession to India in 1947, thereby becoming a part of Indian Union.

D. BUT, he did so in the extreme conditions which were considered special circumstances. A normalcy was to be restored and then a decision had to be made on this accession which never happened.

E. IN ADDITION, Jawaharlal Nehru and Lord Mountbatten promised that they would conduct a plebiscite once the situation becomes normal.

F. BUT, for that to take place, Pakistan had to move back its troops from the regions it occupied in 1947 war and that never happened.

G. INSTEAD, a Constituent Assembly of Jammu and Kashmir took a decision to accede to India in 1952. This is NOT the plebiscite UN envisioned.

H. BUT, that had many clauses including maintaining the autonomous nature of that state.

I. MOREOVER, Pakistan expressed its desire to carry out UN resolution, but the details of implementation never went any further than the discussion tables- mainly because India never wanted to hold that plebiscite fearing loss of whole state to Pakistan.

Present Situation:

A. Pakistan has NOW a desire to hold that plebiscite, and is ready to take any measure for that (including troop withdrawal) only if India takes proper steps to show that India is ready to do the same.

B. BUT, India is clearly aware that such a scenario is awkward for India. It is very clear from the mass opinion, that India would lose the state of Jammu & Kashmir.

C. AND, it doesn't make sense for India to lose the regions of Jammu and Ladakh, which are not interested in any separate country. India has to fulfill its duty towards those people.

D. AND, India believes that UN resolution of 1948 is old and has no place now in the new set of scenarios, especially when so many other new treaties have been signed which make it irrelevant.

E. BUT, Pakistan abhors abandonment of UN resolutions on this issue and it believes the root cause can be solved only by implementing that first resolution.

F. BUT, India believes, with enough evidence to back it up, that Pakistan has meddled way too much in the affairs of Kashmir, and has induced many of its own people into this region illegally, and hence a plebiscite in such a scenario is not acceptable because it would not show the true intent of the people.

G. BUT, Pakistan believes that such a scenario had evolved because of unfulfilled promises, and hence India has to take blame for it. India cannot ignore the freedom movement being fought over there.

H. BUT, India believes that, if not for Pakistan's involvement, Kashmiri would have loved to be with India, as they did for the prior 40 years (before 1989), and if ever they are fighting for independence now, its because of Pakistan's involvement.

I. BUT, Pakistan believes that it is an indigenous movement, spearheaded by Kashmiri Muslims whose innate desire is to attain freedom from India. They believe it is an incomplete story from partition. And if are foreign mercenaries, it is only because Kashmiris want them.

Demographics issue:

A. Kashmiri Moslems contend that Kashmir belongs to them and hence they have a right to decide where they want to be- with Pakistan or with India or be Independent.

B. BUT, Kashmiri Pandits, who comprised around 10% in 1989 have migrated out of Kashmir valley because an Islamic Insurgency had crept in which threatened their very lives.

C. Given the situation no practical solution can be devised to bring back Kashmiri Pandits to Kashmir Valley (same as no Indian Hindu can be brought back to their homeland in pre-Independence Pakistan)

Kashmir – Demographics in Detail

Kashmir Valley (including India and Pakistan regions) has 6.3 Million population of which 97% are Muslim. The Indian side of Kashmir Valley has 95% Muslim.

According to 1991 Census, the population of Jammu & Kashmir is 11.6 Million. An additional 1.5 Million refugees were in Pakistan (not Azad Kashmir) and 0.5 Million were living other parts of the world. Of this 11.6 Million living in Jammu & Kashmir, 7.3 Million (63%) were living in Indian side of Kashmir while 4.3 million (37%) were in Pakistan controlled Kashmir. The religious composition of Indian Administered Jammu & Kashmir is Muslims 64%, Non Muslims 36%.

The details are given below:

Kashmir valley: (3.80 million) Muslims 95% Non-Muslims 5%
Poonch, Rajori & Doda: (1.18 million) Muslims 65% Non-Muslims 35%
Jammu, Kathua,Udhampur: (2.16 million) Muslims 10% Non-Muslims 90%
Leh District: (0.08 million) Muslims 5% Non-Muslims 85%
Kargil District: (0.08 million) Muslims 8% Non-Muslims 12%

The religious Composition of Pakistan controlled Kashmir is Muslims 100%
Azad Kashmir: (2.50 million) Muslims: 100%
Gilgit, Baltistan: (0.70 million) Muslims: 100%

Kashmiris elsewhere: 1.1 million