 |
||
|
||
|
||
How come there are no Kashmiri Hindus in the Hurriyat?
The recent Vajpayee initiative on, well, what - Kashmir, Pakistan, both? - has reminded me of a song by the young Canada-based Pakistani singer, Adnan Sami. The song has a mesmerising rhythm and goes:
Teri oonchi shaan hai, Maula/ Meri arzi maan le, Maula/ Kaisay-kaison ko diya hai/ Aisay-vaison ko diya hai/Apni jebein jhad, Maula/Aur na mujh ko taal, Maula/Mujhko bhi tu lift karade/Thodi si to lift karade.
After Tehelka, the stocks scam, the election defeats, the ceasefire fiasco, not to mention the war of attrition with the Sangh Parivar, a prayer from Mr Vajpayee to the Almighty along these general lines is natural. But why is he routing it through Pakistan? Why do we keep forgetting that for Pakistan our dismemberment is virtually a directive principle of state policy?
"Kashmir, that is, the break-up of India is the core issue for us," Pakistan tells the world and we say, "No, no, that is not the core issue. But, yes, we can discuss it amongst other things." Discuss Kashmir with Pakistan? Have we taken leave of our senses? Lest everyone forget, let me remind. There have been, and always will be, only two points about Kashmir.
First, legally, it is as much a part of India as Alaska is of the US. Never mind what Pakistan says about it being disputed. The fact of history is that Kashmir became a part of India under an arrangement agreed to by Mohammad Ali Jinnah himself.
The arrangement was voluntary. It was domestic. It was political. As such, there is no need to discuss Kashmir's future with Pakistan or any other country except to get back the bit we lost in 1948 or, at worst, to turn the Line of Actual Control into an international border.
Second, more importantly, if something has to be discussed with the Kashmiris, will someone tell me the premise on which these discussions will be based? Remember it is only some Kashmiri Muslims who have a problem with being a part of "Hindu" India, not all Kashmiri Muslims.
If Kashmiriyat is the issue, is it confined to those few Muslims of the Valley? What is this sort of Kashmiriyat if not a euphemism for a religious identity?
Are we going to tolerate claims of a separate identity on the grounds of religion? Was once not enough? Unless this issue is clarified, there cannot be any "talks" with those who would be the new Sole Spokesmen.
But Mr Vajpayee has done the deed now, so let's see why he may have done it. One important reason, of course, is American pressure and the government's desire to please the new rulers of the world.
The US regards Indians and Pakistanis as monkeys with nukes, who need to be calmed down in case they begin to nuke each other. Talk, they say, because talking helps bring down tensions. Look at how we talked to the Russians and prevented a nuclear war, they add.
That may well be true, but would they have talked if the Russians had laid claim to Alaska and made it the only issue and a pre-condition - "Alaska first, SALT next?" I don't think so.
A second reason could be that India wants the West to think that we are, well, you know, all right sort of chaps, fit to belong to the clubs. We should be very clear about this. We will first have to go "Yes, sir, No, sir, Three bags full, sir". If you are not economically strong and well governed, but weak and corrupt (which, from all accounts, we are), that is the only way of gaining acceptance.
The third reason provides the reason for the title of this article. This is Mr Vajpayee's desire for a place in history as the man who solved the Kashmir problem. He keeps on trying. And he keeps on failing.
In 1977, when he was external affairs minister, he liberalised the visa regime for Pakistanis to travel to India. But that didn't prevent Zia ul-Haq from doing his separatism act in Punjab in the 1980s. Then he went to Lahore on that silly bus journey. But that didn't prevent Musharaf from doing his Kargil thing.
Then came the ceasefire in Kashmir. But it only resulted in the jehadis having a clear line of fire and scores of our people died.
And now comes this invitation to - of all persons - Musharraf, a man who doesn't have even a shred of a mandate to speak for Pakistan. What is our dear Prime Minister up to? Does he understand Pakistan at all?
Why this particular route to a place in history? Why not get on with other, more pressing things, like economic reform which would please the US a lot more than some poorly tarted up diplomacy that is not going to lead to anything as long as Pakistan doesn't agree to making the Line the new international border?
In the final analysis, Pakistan will not get off our backs unless there is an incentive for it to do so. Has that incentive been created? If so, is it a permanent one? If not, here's the plaintive Mr Sami again:
Tu ne khud hi to kaha hai/ Deta
hoon jo mangta hai/Kab se banda maang raha hai/Kab se line mein khada hai/Mujh
ko bhi to lift karade/Thodi si tu lift karade.
|
||
|
||
|
||