Author: Praveen K. Murthy
Publication:
Date:
URL: http://ptolemy.eecs.berkeley.edu/~murthy/kashmir.html
As an Indian citizen, I have been
troubled and frustrated at the lack of clarity with which the whole Jammu
and Kashmir (J&K) issue receives treatment in the Western press. In
light of 9/11/01, and the Dec. 13th parliament attack in India, with the
subsequent war mobilization in both India and Pakistan, the J&K issue
has been on the front pages of most western newspapers. So it is perhaps
timely to visit this issue, and present an analysis of it without mincing
any words or indulging in any propaganda.
A history of the Jammu and Kashmir
issue
As is well known by now, the J&K
issue arose in 1947 when the maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir, Hari Singh,
did not make up his mind on whether he wanted to join India or Pakistan,
as was required of some 500 princes, nawabs, maharajas, and kings in the
Indian princely states.
These kings were absolute rulers,
and hence their decision on whether to join India or Pakistan was considered
final, without any regard to any "will of their subjects". Of-course, under
the imperial British and other colonizers, this was also standard practice
at the time as there was no "democracy" in any of the colonized lands.
We will visit the issue of the events leading up to the partition shortly,
but what happened in 1947 is that Hari Singh, who was a Hindu ruling a
kingdom where the majority of the people were muslims, dreamt of independence
for his kingdom, and joined neither India nor Pakistan as the other 500
odd rulers had done. As the deadline approached, Pakistan, which had been
formed as the homeland for subcontinents muslims, expected Kashmir to accede
to Pakistan since Kashmir had a muslim majority, and was geographically
contigious with it. Since Hari Singh held out for independence, Pakistan
broke the status quo by sending in an irregular army of Pashtun tribals
from its Northwest Frontier Province to take Kashmir by force. As Hari
Singh saw his kingdom being swallowed up rapidly, he appealed to India
for help. India agreed, but at the price of his accession to India. He
acceded the state to India, India airlifted troops to Srinagar and saved
the 50% of the state that it controls today. In fact, had the Pashtun tribals
not wasted time looting and plundering, they would have probably had the
entire state today. As it was, the Indian army was able to hold on to the
50% controlled by India today before a ceasefire agreement was struck,
and the present line of control (LOC) was established.
After this, Nehru, India's first
prime minister and a Kashmiri Brahmin himself, took the issue to the United
Nations because in India's view, the entire state had been acceded to India
and Pakistan should have rightfully vacated the land they had siezed illegally,
by force and blood. Of-course, in Pakistan's view, they had been cheated
out of land they thought rightfully belonged to them on the basis of the
partition logic, despite the fact that for people in pricely states like
Kashmir, the rule was for the king to decide regardless of the demographics
or other considerations. The UN resolutions that were passed in 1950 were
inconclusive, and required there to be a plebiscite to determine the wishes
of the people to determine the future of the state. However, there were
certain preconditions that were to be fullfilled before this could occur;
one was for Pakistan to withdraw all of its forces and to restore the state
of Jammu and Kashmir to its original, undivided status. This never happened.
As Pakistan started tilting towards the US in many cold war pacts, Nehru
became increasingly suspicious of Pakistani intentions, and proxy Western
intentions for Kashmir, and dug in his heels regarding the plebiscite,
and eventually renounced it on the theory that Pakistan had not kept its
end of the bargain, that elections held under the Indian constituition
in Kashmir already established that Kashmiris had a valid and effective
democratic voice in the Indian union, and no further action was necessary.
From the Indian point of view, Pakistan's bad faith had been permanently
established: first in their invasion of a sovereign state (that they demand
today rather hypocritically!), and the fact that Pakistan did not withdraw
and restore the state to its original status.
The idea of India
Before we proceed any further in
assigning blame or suggesting solutions, it is necessary to describe the
whole logic of the partition of British India into present day India and
Pakistan. The entire idea of a nation-state is a fairly modern one that
has its orgins in 17th and 18th century Europe where countries like France
overthrew their monarchies and became republics. Prior to this, regions
existed as empires, kingdoms, principalities etc, with geographical boundaries
that were determined by the fortunes and misfortunes of the endless wars
waged by the rulers. In this sense, the idea of India as a nation-state
is fairly new since for large parts of Indian history, the Indian subcontinent
has existed as numerous warring kingdoms. To be sure, various rulers at
various times had succeeded in bring most of what we think of India and
Pakistan today under a unified rule; the British in the hundred years that
they had control over India, largely had much of India under their control
except for the hundreds of petty kingdoms that although free nominally,
were still subservient to the British in the sense of having peace treaties
etc.
When India won its independence
in 1947, it was after nearly 800-900 years of foreign rule. For much of
the last millenium, India had been attacked by Islamic armies from the
middle east and central asia, and these invasions and attacks have been
traumatic, to say the least, on Hindu/Buddhist civilization on the Indian
subcontinent. Hundreds of temples were destroyed by fanatic muslim invaders,
millions of people slaughtered and taken as slaves; in fact, what had occurred
was a veritable rape of India. The recent destruction of the Bamiyan Buddhas
by the Taliban should give some indication of the savagery that must have
gone on centuries ago, as the ancestors of the very same people were then
ruling large parts of India. So it is of some surprise, and great credit
to Hindus to note that much of India's independence Hindu leadership wanted
to implement India as a modern secular, democratic, multi-religious, multi-ethnic
state, instead of a "Hindu" state bent on seeking revenge for its past.
In one fell swoop, the more than 500 kingdoms were absorbed into the republic
of India. Today it is fashionable to call Nepal "the only Hindu kingdom
in the world", as if this is some sort of historical rarity, but one forgets
that fifty years ago, even in British India, there were hundreds of Hindu
kingdoms. It is one of the subcontinent's singular achievements to have
converted *all* these kingdoms into one modern republic. Even rational,
advanced Britain still keeps its dowdy old queen around! Despite the vast
tryanny that had gone on for much of the last millenium, India's Hindu
leaders like Gandhi and Nehru were adamant that India should not become
a "Hindu" state, but consider even its traumatic history as part of the
Indian fabric. After-all, India's muslims are today as much Indians as
anyone else. Nehru's vision of India was based on what he termed "5000
years of continuous Indo-Persian civilization".
India consists of numerous subcultures,
religions, languages, and even races, although Indians have never differentiated
themselves in any recent times on a racial basis (the way it's understood
in the West for instance). Yet, the idea of India is that these differences
are transcended by the overall shared culture of the Indian subcontinent
as a whole. If this was the radical vision of India offered by the (mostly)
Hindu leaders of the Congress party that was instrumental in the independence
movement, the Indian muslim league opposed it and argued that Indian muslims
were a separate nation and could never co- exist with a Hindu majority.
Their argument was precisely the opposite: where Nehru/Gandhi sought to
unify based on a shared Indian culture, the muslim league lead by Jinnah
argued that such unity was silly because of the great heterogeneity. However,
the heterogeneity was not of consequence as far as muslims were concerned
because it was felt that Islam was such a great unifier that muslims on
the Indian subcontinent would be one nation. Eventually, this issue could
not be resolved, and the British agreed to partion India into India, that
chose to follow its Nehru/Gandhian ideals, and muslim Pakistan.
The Pakistani mindset
In my opinion, and the opinion of
many Indians, the real reason for a section of the muslim population arguing
against the unity of India lies in their imperialist longings and delusions.
As already mentioned, before the British, the muslims had been ruling India
for much of the last millenium, and ruling rather violently at that. Many
of these ruling class muslims harbor a feeling that Hindus are nothing
but slaves who deserve and ought to be ruled over. In fact, this minority
of ruling-class muslims felt that they were the natural "heirs" to India
after the British left, since the British had "taken" India from them.
For them, Hindus, these idol and cow worshipping Kafirs, can never be considered
equal to muslims, and it is an abject shame for a muslim to have to live
side-by-side, even as equals, with Hindus. This is the real crux of the
problem. Now in other societies, such as the US or South Africa, undoubtedly
a minority of the ruling class whites have felt similar hatred towards
people whom they once considered inferior and sub-human. However, in the
US they have been marginalized and wield no power or influence any more
(and are even hounded by the FBI), and in South Africa, they have probably
emigrated after blacks took over democratically. However, on the Indian
subcontinent, these people got a neighboring country of their own, Pakistan,
and their visceral hatred and distrust is kept alive because it is precisely
this ruling, feudal class that rules Pakistan today, and keeps up the military-terrorist
kleptocracy.
Why Kashmir is part of India
So now we can address the issue
of Kashmir. Kashmiri claims of "separateness" from India have no basis
because the Kasmiri subculture is just as similar to the overall idea of
"Indianness", and is just as different as any of the other dozen or two
subcultures in India. In other words, there is nothing more unique about
Kashmir, then, say, Kerala, or Karnataka, or Bengal, or Punjab, all of
which have their own unique subculture as well. In fact, Kashmir is central
to the Hindu-Aryan culture that has been mytholized so much, and it has
historically been a great center of Hindu/Buddhist learning. Even the islam
practiced in Kashmir is mostly of the Sufi variety; Sufism is remarkably
broad-minded, and accepts the validity of a variety of Hindu ideas and
is quite different from the intolerant, Sunni Islam of Pakistan. If Kashmiris
are not Indians, then a rather profound question arises as to who is. So
for India, Kashmir is an existential issue that threatens to undermine
the whole idea of Indian nationhood. Coincidentally, the Indian idea is
quite similar to progressive pluralistic societies everywhere including
the United States. Afterall, the modern American is no longer characterized
simply by race, national origin, ethnicity, or religion. If America is
to survive, we had better hope that there is a sense of "being American"
that transcends all these other, more tribal, identities. I believe there
is: perhaps rugged individualism, die-hard belief in democracy, market
captitalism, that "frontier spirit" etc. And unlike Pat Buchanan et. al.,
who are threatened precisely by this multiculturalism that they see as
undermining America, I believe that America was always a multicultural
society; after all, it had native Americans, African Americans, Hispanics,
and European Americans even 200 years ago. It had a constituition that
theoretically upheld the equality of all citizens. That this wasn't implemented
due to white tyranny should be considered a perversion rather than being
seen as America's reason for being. So returning to Kashmir, India, which
has never subscribed to the idea of religion being the basis of nationhood,
cannot abandon the idea that Kashmir is not Indian just because parts of
it have a muslim majority. In any case, the whole idea of Kashmiri independence
smacks of hypocracy: would Kashmiris then hold plebiscites to determine
whether the Hindu and Buddhist minorities (who are majorities in subsets
of the state) want to stay? Where does one draw the line?
A negotiation of Kashmir within
the Indian union opens the pandora's box of Balkanization of India into
its many constituent subparts. Given that endless, unproductive internecine
warfare has been the bane of the subcontinent, and that true greatness
was only achieved in periods of unity, no sensible Indian can agree towards
such a dissolution. And I think that Indians like the possibilities that
a united India offers; a united India has the real potential for becomming
a superpower, something that no Bangladesh or Pakistan will ever be. Indeed,
Indians want to put aside these unproductive debates about identity and
move towards economic prosperity. This is yet another reason why Kashmir
is unnegotiable from the Indian point of view.
Death of the two-nation theory
The two nation theory has already
been relegated to the dustbin of discarded lies of the twentieth century
anyway: Bangladesh's secession from Pakistan proved that. Bangladeshis
apparently felt that their common Bengali culture and language was more
important to them than any Islamic "brotherhood" with west Pakistan. In
any case, if Islamic unity was possible, why are there so many Sunni Arab
states in the middle east? Pakistan, created as a homeland for Indian muslims,
now has fewer than 33% of the muslims of the subcontinent. So all of this
gives lie to the whole theory of "Indian muslims are one nation", and instead
confirms my theory that the real reason for Pakistan's existence is that
a small minority of ruling-class muslims cannot get used to the idea of
the equality of mankind, and more particularly, the idea that muslims do
not have some God-given right to rule non-muslims, plain and simple. Having
read Pakistani newspapers continuously for three-four years now, I have
seen these attitudes expressed so often by a parade of retired military
generals and marshalls and lietuentants that there is no doubt about it.
In addition, Pakistan has struggled
and failed to form any sort of identity in the last 55 years of its own.
They have tried desperately to spin the illusion that Pakistan, in fact,
belongs in the Middle East. Indeed, any Pakistani worth his salt will strenuously
deny that his ethnic origin is of the Indian subcontinent, and instead
claim that he is of Arabic or Turkish, or Persian ancestry (if he is Shia).
The fact that the average Pakistani looks no different from the average
Indian will not demonstrate the idiocy of his claim to him. I am reminded
of the landmark documentary on Africa that Professor Gates, of Harvard
university, did recently, where he talked to the people of the island of
Zanzibar off the Tanzanian coast. This island was invaded by Persians or
Arabs many centuries ago, and the population is largely muslim now. However,
the inhabitants are just as African looking as Tanzanians and other Africans,
and have skin that is just as dark, and hair that is just as curly. And
yet, these people would argue strenuously with Gates that they were in
fact, Persians. Gates would point out that their skin was even blacker
than his own, an African American, and yet, no, they are Persians. Perhaps
it is this sort of empirical evidence that has lead the author VS Naipaul
to conclude that Islam is such a disruptive religion that it literally
forces the converted people to abandon their own history and ancestry,
and makes them slaves to Arab or Persian imperialism.
It is rather instructive to contrast
this behaviour with the behaviour of the Hindu fundamentalists in India:
these people want to debunk the existing idea that the Vedic Aryans, who
are the supposed "ancestors" of most upper caste Hindus, were invaders
who originated from Europe. For these Hindu fundamentalists, this idea
flies in the face of their desire to present Indians as the permanent children
of India, and not as "originating" from anywhere else. While I do not support
the idea of rewriting history or distorting facts, whatever they may be,
I just want to present this contrast: Hindus who want to insist that their
ancestry is purely Indian, Pakistanis who want to insist that their ancestry
is anything but Indian! On the internet, this sometimes leads to rather
hilarious exchanges, like the one where one peace-loving Indian appealed
to his "Pakistani brothers" to unite with Indians as "children of India",
while a Pakistani immediately responds by saying "well, my family are actual
descendents of prophet Mohammed, so I am not a 'child of India'"!
Today, Pakistan teeters on the verge
of collapse, is ruled by a military dictatorship, and has had almost no
democracy for much of its existence. Its former rulers and prime ministers
have all either been murdered, or arrested, or exiled. I do not recall
when a Pakistani leader was able to retire peacefully and lead a normal
life in Pakistan. Yet, strangely enough, Pakistan talks about plebiscites
and democracy in Kashmir! The Pakistani military, supposedly the only functioning
instituition in Pakistan, is a miserable failure: they have lost three
wars with India, and more than half their country. In fact, the 1971 war,
where they lost Bangladesh, must have been such a humiliation considering
that they lost to an Indian, Hindu, Kashmiri, Brahmin, WOMAN (Indira Gandhi)!!
For a Pakistani of this afore-mentioned ruling class, it is difficult to
think of a more humiliating scenario. And yet, even today, Pakistanis will
boast of their fighting prowess, and how "Hindus are cowardly", and how
one Pakistani soldier is worth ten Hindu soldiers! The delusion never ends,
and perhaps it has to continue as that is the only reason for Pakistan's
existence. Afterall, their entire military-terror complex has a vested
stake in hostility towards India, as that allows them to spend most of
their money on defence, and line their pockets in the process. Many a general
in Pakistan has become impossibly rich, as have many politicians. It is
a rather sad state of affairs.
For the feudal ruling class of Pakistan,
destabilizing India is one of their main objectives. The existence and
success of a secular democratic India flies in the face of the "two-nation
theory", and sets a dangerous example, in their eyes, by causing their
own citizens to ask: what was the purpose of Pakistan and partition? Hence,
to propagate the myth of the two-nation theory, and Pakistan's raison d'etre,
this ruling class has a vested interest in destroying Indian secularism,
democracy, and balkanizing it so that they can say "we told you so". This
is yet another reason why Indians cannot trust Pakistani claims on Kashmir;
what happens to the other Indian muslims after that? Surely Pakistan would
try to start making that an issue? In any case, one does not have to go
that far: Pakistani strategy assumes that Kashmir's secession will itself
pave the way for Indian collapse. This is another delusion that this class
persists with.
So, I would say that the India-Pakistan
conflict is quite a deep conflict that goes to the heart of identity, reading
of history, and how each nation perceives its destiny. The Kashmir dispute
is hardly about territory.
Debunking some persistent myths
Myth #1: They are so alike, why
can't they just get along
One of the things that constantly
annoys me is the mindless bleating you hear of in the Western press of
how Indians and Pakistanis "are cousins", and "look alike", which somehow
makes it all the more silly that they should be in constant conflict. In
one sense, this reflects a racist and patronizing attitude towards all
non-European peoples, whose conflicts are somehow seen as really silly
and inexplicable as it supposedly has no rational basis at all. It also
makes me wonder: so is it somehow more understandable if people kill only
people who DON'T look like them? One would think, with all the progress
we have made, that an appeal for peace should be on the basis of a shared
humanity, rather than any nonsense about "being cousins" or "looking very
similar". Most conflicts in the world occur between people who are quite
similar! Can anyone outside Northern Ireland tell apart a Catholic Irishman
from a Protestant one? Does anyone care? What about Turks and Greeks over
Cyprus, or Israelis and Palestinians (recall that genetic study that showed
that even European Jews were closer to Palestinians genetically than other
non-Jewish Europeans). How about the Chinese versus Chinese in Taiwan.
Hutus and Tutsis. In fact, what about the whole American-Soviet cold war;
can the 90% of the world that is non-white tell the difference between
a white American and a white Russian? Even culturally, Russia and the US
are quite similar insofar as both are part of "Western, European civilization".
Would the average American family have any problems getting along with
the average Russian family, even during the height of the cold war? The
fact is, if India is going to get into a fight with anyone, it's probably
going to be someone in its neighborhood, like Pakistan, or China, or Bangladesh.
What reason on earth would it have to get into a fight with Mexico, or
Germany?
The above observation also applies
on an individual level. After all, if you are going to get into a deep
bitter, long-lasting conflict with anyone, it's likely to be a family member:
a divorce with a wife/husband, a fight with parents over some disagreement,
fights with siblings over inheritence or property etc. Why would one get
into a fight with someone quite arbitrary and unrelated? Similarly, one
might get into a dispute with one's immediate neighbors because of noise,
or dogs defecating on the lawn, or garbage etc. Why would one get into
a fight with the guy down the street?
So enough with the "they look alike
and yet they fight" already!
Myth #2: Average Indians and Pakistanis
in Hackensack, New Jersey get along, so why don't the countries
Another frequent bit of mindless
drivel reported is "that people on both sides want peace. Here in the US,
Indians and Pakistanis get along quite well and can't understand why their
governments don't". This angle is frequently used by the Western press
to reinforce the stereotype that clearly these Third World countries don't
know how to behave and are sooo uncivilized. Look: their own citizens say
that they can get along.
Of-course, I have never heard of
a Jewish-Muslim riot in the US either, and yet noone asks why Israel and
Palestinians can't get along. And I am sure there are plenty of Jewish
families in the US who get along quite well with their Muslim, even Arab,
even Palestinian friends. I haven't heard of any Catholic Irish Americans
and Protestant Irish Americans getting into a fight either. Why don't they
get along in the UK then? So the patronizing, subtle racism when it comes
to the India-Pakistan conflict is quite clear from this. However, even
taking the question at face value, I would like to observe that what the
average person thinks in any society doesn't really matter! After all,
these decisions about "national interests" and "civilizational values"
are all articulated and determined by an elite group in any society. American
foreign policy is made by PhDs from Berkeley and Harvard sitting in Washington
think-tanks, not Joe Sixpack. I mean, during the cold war, could the average
American argue rationally why communism was bad, and capitalism good, other
than mouthing some platitudes? What percentage of the American population
would have read deeply, Marx's manifesto? As already mentioned, would the
average American family have had any trouble getting along with the average
Russian family, that would have had pretty much the same desires, goals,
practices, diet in day-today life? Even in a democracy as advanced and
literate as America, these decisions are assigned to people presumably
much smarter and wiser and knowledgable than the average person. If that
is true of America, it is even truer of a democracy like India where a
much greater percentage of the population is illiterate and unsophisticated.
And it is orders of magnitude truer in countries like Pakistan that are
even more illiterate, and that don't even have any sort of representative
or consensual government. At least in a democracy, there is some possibility
that a range of opinion can emerge, and even find itself in power. That
is quite impossible in dictatorships. So it is of no consequence what the
average person thinks or wants, particularly one living 10,000 miles away.
The average person is not in charge of security or "implementing the national
vision", so the fact that he can "get along" with another such average
person doesn't really mean much. If all existence could be boiled down
to simply a search for food, shelter, and a decent slice of Tiramisu, there
would be no conflicts or wars or killings at all! We could all eat marshmellows
and be happy!
Myth #3: Indo-Pak conflict is the
cause of poverty
Another piece of nonsense thrown
about is that the "India-Pakistan conflcit is keeping both countries in
poverty". Hmm, let's examine this hypothesis by looking at other countries
on the Indian subcontinent. Take Bangladesh. Despite having a homogenous
population, despite not having any "Kashmir problem with India", despite
not being obsessed with weapons of mass destruction, why is Bangladesh
in such poor shape? Or consider Nepal, another basket case that cannot
decide whether it wants to be a monarchy, a democracy, or Maoist dictatorship
long after Mao is dead (long live Mao!). Or how about Sri Lanka: 18 years
of civil war and no end in sight. And the best of them all: Afghanistan!
'Nuff said.
The fact is that, at least for India,
Kashmir's problems hardly make a difference. During the 1990's, when the
Kashmir rebellion was in full swing, India grew its economy at the rate
of 6.5% per year on average, one of the fastest in the world. In fact,
a 20% increase in efficiency and a 20% reduction in corruption would probably
do far more for India than any peace dividend in Kashmir. This is not to
suggest for one moment that peace there is not desireable or needed--of
course it is--but let us not overstate the problem and somehow assume that
the conflict there is holding all progress hostage. That is simply nonsense.
It is also instructive to realize that the Kashmir conflict is being fought
mostly with bullets, grenades, and guns. These are the cheapest military
equipment there are, and their cost pales in comparison to nuclear weapons,
second-strike capability, a blue- water navy, long range missiles and ICBMs,
advanced fighter jets, aircraft carriers, nuclear submarines, and spy satellites.
It is highly unlikely that India would forego any of these things even
with peace in kashmir, since these are all things that a big country like
India ought to have in order to maintain balance with unpredictable, totalitarian
states like China. So the idea that without Kashmir, India would suddenly
become the United States is rather silly. What India needs, and indeed
all of the Third World, is good governance, responsible civic-minded leaders,
good, sensible economic policies, transparency, and no corruption. These
are the things that will make the real difference, regardless of whether
there is peace in Kashmir or not.
Myth #4: Pakistan's break from jihad
signals a turnaround
Much has been made of Musharrafs
Jan. 12th, 2002 speech where he supposedly signaled a break from the fundamentalists.
While this might be great for Western interests, it should hardly be of
any real comfort to India since all it signals is the , perhaps, the end
of the means, and not necessarily the ends. There is no indication that
Pakistan intends to change the whole way in which it percieves itself vis-a-vis
India. That it now finds the jihadi means to be ineffective might simply
mean that it will look for alternatives. The real problem is the feudal,
hate-mongering class that rules Pakistan, and this group has never been
the fundamentalists themselves. Fundamentalist Islam has been used by this
class very cynically to provide a cheap source of canon fodder for their
deadly game. Indeed, the Pakistani military today has no capacity to fight
the Indian army to save its life. So the establishment has been using their
illiterate rabble as their canon fodder for fighting the Indians. It is
difficult to think of a case where a population has been exploited more
callously than this. Thousands of these jihadis have died like cockroaches
in Kashmir, with scarcely even an acknowledgement by the establishment
(afterall how can they: that would be an admission of guilt). After the
rout of the Taliban, and another unceremonious slaughter of hundreds of
Pakistani fodder, in Afghanistan, one wonders how long the Pakistani underclass
will continue to be fooled by their mullahs and government agencies. Already
there are demands for apologies and renumeration for those killed by these
Pakistani policies and lies. Hence, the abandonment of the jihadi strategy
is necessary for the military, since it's going to happen sooner or later
anyway. In light of this, it is necessary for India to keep the heat on,
and judge by actions rather than words. Long term peace will not come until
Pakistan is rescued from the clutches of this hateful class.
Pakistan's culpability for 9/11
IN FACT, I believe that Pakistan's
ISI has at least some responsibility for the 9/11 attacks in the US. There
is just too much of a fishy smell the way that Omar Sheikh Saeed, an ISI
agent and terrorist who wired money to Mohammed Atta has been covered up
by the media. In fact, the day before 9/11, the head of the ISI, Mahmud
Ahmed WAS IN WASHINGTON meeting senior CIA officials. Not only does Ahmed
have links with Sheikh, we know he had met Bin Laden many times, and was
DISMISSED from his post soon after 9/11. For some reason, this never been
reported much in the media. Why doesn't the US push for Ahmed's extradition?
What did the ISI know about the 9/11 plot? Can we imagine that had the
head of Iraqi intelligence been involved in this manner, Iraq would not
have been attacked by now? Anyway, here is a website that explores the
links between the ISI, 9/11, and Omar Sheikh. If that link is broken, here
it is, reproduced: Local copy.
In my opinion, I would not be surprised
if elements in the ISI were actively involved in the 9/11 plot. One possible
motive for them would be to ingratiate themselves with the US afterwards
to start pulling in aid and military supplies, just as it's happening.
Also, one sees that dictator Musharraf has managed to cement himself into
power in a way that would have been much more difficult without 9/11. Not
only has he thwarted democracy by changing the consituition to his hearts
content, but he has guaranteed that the military remains the supreme force
in Pakistani politics. Before 9/11, this would have been extremely difficult,
with all of the economic sanctions and more sanctions if anything like
this usurping of power had occured (or that fraudulent "referendum" that
was held in April 2002). However, now, with Bush declaring that "he's still
tight with us in the fight against Al Qaeda", he has been able to do what
all this easily, while continuing to get billions of dollars in loan writeoffs
and aid.
Pakistan's manipulation of the US
is a classic case of "pissing on someone's leg and telling them it's raining".
That's exactly what the Pakistanis have been upto.
The biggest beneficaries from 9/11
has undoubtedly been the military-terrorist regime in Islamabad. It's difficult
for me to believe that this Bush administration is that gullible. Or is
there a more serious case of blowback at work here, with the CIA's unholy
alliance with the ISI coming home to roost? Whatever the case, it all smells
worse than an open sewer in a Karachi slum.
It's also appropriate here to demolish
another little ditty that's bandied about: "In Pakistan, fundamentalists
have never won more than 3% of the vote in any election". This is cited
often to prove that Pakistan is a "moderate" state. First of all, there
haven't been that many elections in Pakistan to really know one way or
the other. The few elections that have taken place have been so fraudulent
that one of these "elections" was even the cause of the 1971 civil war
that resulted in Pakistan's dismemberment at the hands of India. Secondly,
Pakistan was established as an "Islamic republic" which means that even
the baseline state is far more fundamentalist in comparison to secular
democracies like India and the US. Afterall, in an Islamic republic, non-Moslems
are second class citizens to begin with. In fact, in Pakistan, even a group
that believes in the Koran and Mohammed is classified as non-Moslem because
they do not believe that Mohammed was the last prophet (the Ahmediyyas),
and thus second class citizens. In light of this, the word "moderate" needs
to be redefined. In a secular country like India, you can run on an anti-Hindu,
anti-religion platform as many parties do (for instance, the various communist
parties that rule states like Kerala and West Bengal, or the 'Dravidian'
parties in Tamil Nadu that are based on the foundations laid by Periyar
who hated religion, Hinduism in particular). Such a party in Pakistan would
be unlikely to even open an office, let alone run for power or win. Taking
comfort in the fact that religious fundamentalists haven't won more than
3% in a few rigged elections is a bit like taking comfort in the fact that
the latest mafia don only has two hits to his name and not fifteen like
some others.
Myth #5: Indians should reach out
to Pakistanis and establish brotherhood.
I am not quite sure how to put this,
since I am not against any brotherhood or friendly relations. However,
what I am troubled by is that a section of the Indian population continues
to believe that Pakistan is India's little sibling, and that if we just
reach out to them, they will see that they too are children of the Indian
subcontinent. This leads to ludicrous things such as the whole "south asian"
movement in the US. In my opinion, Pakistanis have rejected the Indian
label long ago. So I do not see why Indians should persist in trying to
assimilate Pakistanis under the Indian identity. They do not want to be
a part of it, they do not believe in the entire range of multicultural
plurality of the Indian subcontinent, so why keep trying. In fact, it's
all rather pathetic: while these Indian peaceniks try to "reach out" to
Pakistanis, the same Pakistanis are convinced of the diabolical nature
of Indians who they percieve as wanting to steamroll all identity that
is not Indian. This attempt at assimilation is precisely what they hate,
so I have never understood why these Indians even try. I think that Pakistan
and Pakistanis should be left alone to forge their own identity, and they
are free to make it as non-Indian as they like!
I suspect that this impulse for
brotherhood on the Indian side, even though it is rejected outright by
even the most liberal Pakistani, comes from those Indians who feel the
most ethnic kinship with Pakistanis. These Indians are invariably Punjabi,
or from Western UP or Kashmir, and traditionally they have dominated Indian
national politics. So their ethnic ties with punjabis on the Pakistani
side, for instance, has to be admitted. However, the percentage of Indians
who are from these parts of India is miniscule, and they do not speak for
all Indians. Indeed, the most dynamic parts of India today are the south,
and the west, and I suspect that most people in these parts do not feel
any kinship with Pakistanis at all. Unlike Lucknow, where Urdu is an important
part of the local culture (Urdu is a language like Hindi, but has been
assoicated with Muslims in India for a long time. Urdu was basically born
of Hindi and Persian during Moghal rule, although I am sure a Pakistani
will strenuously deny any links to Hindi!), Urdu is not of much consequence
in the south or west. As a south indian, hindu vegetarian myself, I have
nothing in common with the muslim punjabi Pakistani. The same could be
said for an Indian muslim punjabi as well, but we do share the belief in
India! That is the central difference: identity is not based on ethnicity
or language, but ideals, or even a belief in geography, or a sense of shared
history. These are precisely the things that have been rejected by Pakistanis.
An analogy would be: does a white American feel greater kinship with a
black American (ok, let's say an assimilated black American) than, say,
a Polish person? Now, a Polish American might indeed feel some affinity
for Polish people, but that does not extend to all of America. To me, the
Indian who wants to establish brotherhood with the Pakistani on the basis
of ethnic ties is doing it all wrong: the Indian identity is not about
tribal/ethnic ties, and the Pakistani rejects precisely those types of
ties. So what is the point? I suspect that as the south and western parts
of India surge forward, surely this will have an impact on the Indian leadership
as well, and we can formulate more rational, and less emotional policies
towards Pakistan and Pakistanis, and stop trying to assimilate them.
In the US, this attempt at brotherhood
has lead to the "South Asian" identity being adopted by some second generation
immigrants from the Indian subcontinent. I question the need for this identity:
what purpose does it serve? We already know that any Pakistani who admits
to a commonality with Indians is going against the grain of his entire
identity; hence, most so- called "south asians" are actually Indians! Besides,
in the US, old-world politics is of no concern. (If it is, then how can
one ignore the radically divergant politics of the Indian subcontinent
and treat it in a unified way?) So in what sense should this identity be
helpful? If skin color is the driving force, then there are many other
groups with brown skin now: hispanics, Vietnamese, mulattoes etc. Cultural
similarity is nonsense, since religious and other differences limit any
similarity to only common ethnic groups like Punjabis. As a Hindu, I probably
have more in common with the 5-10 million Americans who practice Yoga,
are into "eastern spirituality", flirt with vegetarianism, meditate etc,
than any second generation Pakistani. So as far as identity goes, I believe
that Indian-Americans should have the Indian one as the ethnic tie, and
simply expand that to American for dealing with things American. Intermediate
groupings like "south asian" or even "asian" make little sense. Leave the
Pakistanis alone (and Bangladeshis, Sri Lankans etc -- everyone who hates
association with India and Indianess anyway)!
This appears to have dawned on Indians
in Britain, who are now demanding that the "Asian" grouping there be dropped
since they don't want to be confused with the rioting Pakistani and Bangladeshi
youths. The difference in levels of assimilation between Pakistanis/Bangladeshis,
and Indians can be seen in the following sort of example: Nassir Hussain,
an Indian-born muslim, and Omar Sheikh, a Pakistani-born muslim, were both
brought up in England and attended the London School of Economics. After
that, Hussain became the captain of that most English of instituitions,
the England cricket team (and true to form, Hussain has been whining about
the weather during the recent India tour, as any good English captain should),
while Sheikh has joined various jihads, fought in Kashmir, and was one
of the terrorists released by India in 1999 during the Indian airlines
hijacking. Sheikh is also suspected of wiring $10,000 to Mohammed Atta
in days leading up to 9/11, and has been "found guilty" in the murder of
Daniel Pearl, the Wall Street Journal reporter.
Myth #6: A stable and prosperous
Pakistan is in India's best interest
This is another bit of 'truism'
that is thrown around, without any analysis of its validity. I am not completely
sold on this cannard yet, since I would like to wonder aloud, if it is
so true, why the same does not apply to Cuba for instance. Here is a state
that is communist and is ideologically opposed to the US, but is still
so weak that it could never do the US any real harm. And yet, for decades,
the US has operated on the principle that it must destroy the Cuban regime
before it allows Cuba any room for prosperity; hence the trade embargo
and inclusion of Cuba as a "terrorist state". If this policy works for
the US, why is a reverse policy needed for India? The Pakistani regimes,
as already mentioned, have *always* been ideologically opposed to India.
They have *always* crafted, as a matter of policy, the destruction of India.
So why is a "stable prosperous Pakistan" in Indian interests? I believe
that as long as Pakistan remains ideologically opposed to India, India
should treat Pakistan the same way the US treats Cuba, and India should
work to actively to destabilize the Pakistani regime and work to usher
in a government there that is friendly towards India and does not debate
and fight over existential issues like identity and geographic status quo.
In fact, I would argue that the US obsession with Cuba is quite ridiculous;
Cuba has no capacity to threaten US security in any way. Pakistan, however,
threatens Indian security very much, especially with weapons of mass destruction.
Hence, the stable, prosperous myth needs to be shattered, and Indian policy
should be one of intolerance for anti-Indian regimes on its borders.
Myth #7: US support of dictatorships
in the ME leads to terror
This is a bit tangential to the
whole Kashmir issue, but is a cannard that's been thrown around liberally
since 9/11. People point out that the US supports "unsavoury, undemocratic
regimes" in places like Saudi Arabia and Egypt and this is why terrorism
flourishes. The fallacy with this argument, it seems to me, is that democracy
does not exist in the Islamic world period. Syria has been at odds with
the US for the longest time; Hafeez Asad was no ally of the US, and yet
where is the democracy in Syria? The US has had Syria on its list of "terrorist
states" for the longest time. Same with Saddam Hussein's Iraq: for at least
12 years now, the US does not support him. When Musharraf seized power
in Pakistan, there was no US support for him, or for Pakistan for that
matter. Ditto with Iran, where the US is no friends with the mullahs. Or
Libya? Reagan bombed Tripoli and Khaddafi's house way back in 1986! But
he is still the dictator of that country. Other examples that have no US
support include Sudan, and Somalia; neither is a functioning democracy
either. In contrast, in Serbia, after the bombing there, they have overthrown
Milosevic and are on their way to democracy. This is not to defend US foriegn
policy; the US has certainly supported plenty of unsavoury charcters throughout,
but that hardly suggests that without US support these places would have
necessarily become beacons of democracy.
A call for peace
Finally, one wonders why Kashmiris
would do a better job of governing themselves. After-all, the other Muslim
nations on the Indian subcontinent have proven far more inept than even
India! To wit: Afghanistan, a spectacularly failed state, Pakistan, a state
on the verge of collapse that is regularly called one of the top five most
corrupt states in the world, and Bangladesh, that last year was called
the most corrupt country in the world by Transparency International! If
India has rigged elections in Kashmir, consider that Pakistan has barely
held any elections at all, and has supressed "freedom" movements in places
like Balochistan far more brutally than anything India has done in Kashmir.
The Pakistani army killed between 1.5 million to 3 million Bangladeshis
in 1971. For any Kashmiri to think that their future belongs with Pakistan
is foolishness of the highest kind. In fact, the syncretic Kashmiri sufism
is far more compatible with the inclusive secular ethos of India, and not
the satanic Wahabi poison practiced by many Pakistanis. To be sure, India
has governed Kashmir badly, but then the same can be said of most states
in India. This is why India is still a developing country! Allegations
of election rigging happen everywhere in India. And with 650 million eligible
voters, it is difficult to imagine it not happening somewhere, although
remarkable improvements have been made. Taking up violent struggle for
percieved "bad governance" is quite inexcusable, and Kashmiris have to
realize that they should fight for good governance and freedom from corruption;
that is a fight all Indians will agree with. It is quite clear that once
peace comes to Kashmir, India would be more than happy to live up to its
ideals, and Kashmiris would be the biggest benificaries. Also, the type
of politiking that was present when the Congress was the dominant party,
is difficult to imagine now since no party has that sort of power any more,
and is unlikely to. With coalition governments being the order of the day
in Indian politics, I am quite sure that Kashmir, as any state, is much
less likely to have interference from Delhi.
So in summary, India will never
give up Kashmir, and never should. Kashmiris should abandon their deadly
violence, and work to make India live up to its ideals, and no, democracy
does not mean the right to secede. Pakistanis should take control of their
country from the hateful, feudal class that is choking it to death, and
pursue a sensible path of progress based on existing borders. The LoC (line
of control) should be converted to the permanent border, so that everyone
can move on.
