Author: Arvin Bahl
Publication:
Date:
"Peter Beinart, the editor of The
New Republic notes that India's Muslim population is "among the freest
in the world" and estimates that more Muslims go from Pakistan to India
every year than the other way around."
The December 13th attack on the
Indian Parliament allegedly carried out by Pakistan supported terrorist
groups; Lakshar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Mohammed, which caused India to
initiate a massive military buildup along its border with Pakistan
and the May 14th attack on an army camp in Jammu by Pakistan backed terrorists
increased tensions on the subcontinent and brought the Kashmir issue to
the forefront of world attention.
Kashmir is often erroneously referred
to as a "disputed territory." In reality, Kashmir is an integral part of
the Republic of India. Kashmir acceded to India in the same exact manner
as the states that acceded to Pakistan did. According to the formula used
for the partition of the subcontinent, the rulers of each of the 560 semi-independent
princely states that were under indirect British rule were given a choice
to either accede to India or to Pakistan. The ruler of Kashmir, the Maharaja
Hari Singh, chose to join India on October 26, 1947.
The conflict started in the fall
of 1947 when the Pakistani Army sent in Pashtun tribesman to invade Kashmir.
Hari Singh decided to join with India in exchange for the help of the Indian
government in repelling the invaders. While the Indian Army managed to
gain control of the majority of the state, Indian Prime Minster Jawaharlal
Nehru - instead of driving out the invaders completely and ensuring
that all of Kashmir remained under Indian control - called on the United
Nations for intervention, much to the chagrin of Home Minster Sardar Patel.
A cease-fire line ensued, separating the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir
and the portion gained by Pakistan during the war known as Pakistan Occupied
Kashmir (POK), which it continues to occupy. The countries have fought
three wars over Kashmir and since the early 1990s Pakistan has been sponsoring
terrorism in Jammu and Kashmir. This terrorism has claimed 60,000 Indian
lives.
Pakistan attempts to paint the conflict
as a struggle between Hindus and Muslims, claiming that Jammu and Kashmir
should be part of Pakistan because it has a Muslim majority. Yet India
is the world's largest secular democracy. Unlike the Pakistani state, the
Indian state has always proclaimed the equality of all religions and the
equal rights of all its citizens irrespective of religion. Not only
do Muslims have equal rights in India, they have special protections with
regards to religious institutions not granted to the Hindu majority and
receive government funding for religious pilgrimages to Mecca. India even
allows Muslims to have five wives and have their own civil code, which
no other secular democracy allows. India has the second largest Muslims
population in the world and more Muslims than Pakistan. It has had Muslim
Presidents, ministers in both national and state governments, and Supreme
Court Justices. For example, A.P.J. Abdul Kalam, a Muslim who is the father
of India's missle program has recently been named India's 12th President
of the Republic. Peter Beinart, the editor of The New Republic notes that
India's Muslim population is "among the freest in the world" and estimates
that more Muslims go from Pakistan to India every year than the other way
around.
Herein lies the problem from the
Pakistani perspective. Pakistan's claim to Kashmir is based on the two
nation theory, the same theory that justified Pakistan's creation and the
partition of the subcontinent: Muslims of the subcontinent cannot peacefully
coexist in a secular democracy with people of other faiths and thus must
have their own separate Islamic state. Thus Kashmir is not a conflict between
Hindus and Muslims, nor is it simply about territory, but rather it is
a microcosm of an ideological struggle between the two irreconcilable worldviews
that form the basic ideology that each nation was founded upon.
As the Chicago Tribune states, "the
fate of Kashmir goes to each nation's basic vision of itself. India, a
mostly Hindu nation, has a secular government that has always stressed
the freedom and equality of all faiths. With more than 100 million Muslims,
it spurns the idea that religion should determine national identity. Pakistan,
on the other hand, thinks Muslims can be secure on the subcontinent only
in an Islamic republic." The fact that India has a larger Muslim population
than Pakistan and that East Pakistan became Bangladesh in 1971 proves that
religion cannot serve as the basis of national identity and has demonstrated
the fallacy of the two-nation theory.
Christopher Hitchens writing in
The Nation about Kashmir notes the potential consequences of following
the Pakistani position on Kashmir: "The demand that religion should determine
nationality would, if applied, destroy the whole subcontinent and make
it a prey to warring faiths. The present Indian government may be Hindu
nationalist in temper, but no responsible successor regime could or should
be asked to accede to such a fanatical demand." Saeed Naqvi,
an Indian Muslim journalist asserts that the Indian state is "history's
largest effort at welding a multilingual, multiethnic, multireligious state."
This effort would be severely undermined as would Indian secularism
should India lose Kashmir.
India's possession of the Muslim-majority
state of Jammu and Kashmir is seen by Pakistan as the ultimate denial of
its rationale for existence. As Naqvi notes, "Indian secularism is
anathema to Pakistan; its success across the border denies the theocratic
state with its very basis." Pakistan backed Islamic fundamentalist groups
have thus embarked upon their quest to "liberate" Jammu and Kashmir
from India's "oppressive" secular democracy and turn it into an Islamic
theocracy. Islamic terrorists have ethnically cleansed the Hindu population
of the Kashmir Valley driving 300,000 Kashmiri Pandits from their ancestral
homeland and as the Navbharat Times notes, from 1986-1992, "Ninety-one
Hindu temples in the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir were subjected to
destruction, grenade and rocket attacks, arson, and ransacking by Pakistan-backed
Islamic militants." Young girls are forced by militant Islamic groups to
wear veils against their will. Pakistan's brutality, however, is not confined
only to Hindus, but also affects the Muslims Pakistan claims to be "liberating."
A report titled, "A Profile of Terrorist Violence in Jammu and Kashmir"
notes that the number of Muslims killed in Kashmir by terrorists is seven
times the number of Hindus.
But perhaps the most compelling
reasons why Jammu and Kashmir must remain a part of India relate to the
realities of the subcontinent. India has had virtually uninterrupted democratic
rule ever since independence. By contrast, Pakistan has been ruled for
most of its history by oppressive military dictatorships, as it is currently.
Freedom House has annually rated political freedom in every country in
the world since 1972. Pakistan's rating in 1999-2000 was worse than that
of South Africa under apartheid and Yugoslavia under communism for ever
year since 1972. The only way to guarantee that the most fundamental human
rights of the Kashmiri people are protected such as the right to vote,
the right to assembly, and freedom of speech is to ensure that Jammu and
Kashmir remains a part of India.
The most pressing issues, however,
have to do with the religious freedom and secularism, where the contrasting
conditions seen in both countries are rooted in the radically different
ideologies upon which each nation was founded. As noted above, India is
a secular state that guarantees not only equal rights but also special
privileges for its Muslim minority. This is not the case with Pakistan,
a nation many would call an Islamic theocracy. Article 227 of the Pakistani
Constitution, for example, mandates that "all existing laws shall be brought
in conformity with the Injunctions of Islam as laid down in the Holy Quran
and Sunnah, in this Part referred to as the Injunctions of Islam, and no
law shall be enacted which is repugnant to such Injunctions." Article 203-D
empowers a Federal Shariat Court to "examine and decide the
question whether or not any law or provision of law is repugnant to the
injunctions of Islam." If a law is found to be repugnant to Islam either
the government "shall take steps to amend the law so as to bring
such law or provision into conformity with the Injunctions of Islam" or
" such law or provision shall, to the extent to which it is held to be
so repugnant, cease to have effect on the day on which the decision of
the Court takes effect." Article 51 reserves over 95 percent of all seats
in Parliament for Muslims. Article 41(2) states, "A person shall not be
qualified for election as President unless he is a Muslim." Article 91(4)
describes the oath the Prime Minister takes:
"I, ____________, do swear solemnly
that l am a Muslim and believe in the Unity and Oneness of Almighty Allah,
the Books of Allah, the Holy Quran being the last of them, the Prophethood
of Muhammad (peace be upon him) as the last of the Prophets and that there
can be no Prophet after him, the Day of Judgment, and all the requirements
and teachings of the Holy Quran and Sunnah"
While most national constitutions,
such as the American Constitution, explicitly prohibit such religious
tests for public office that are characteristic of medieval Europe, the
Pakistani Constitution mandates them.
The significance of discussing the
Pakistani Constitution, is that while in many countries minorities suffer
discrimination, in not many does the nation's constitution
mandate such persecution. Many think that by merely stopping a "fundamentalist
fringe" in Pakistan, "secularism" and "religious tolerance" can be preserved,
failing to recognize that the very ideology of the Pakistani nation is
in conflict with liberal norms such as secularism and religious pluralism.
For example, BBC on January 31st 2002 describes Pervez Musharraf,
a man hailed as the "Ataturk of Pakistan" as trying to dispel " the impression
that his recent moves against Islamic extremism were aimed at negating
the country's founding ideology." Musharraf is quoted as saying,
"Nobody should ever think that this
is a secular state. It was founded as the Islamic Republic of Pakistan".
While it is certainly true that
at times democratic nations such as India and the United States
have failed to live up to their commitments of equality, freedom, and secularism,
these nations, unlike Pakistan, are at least committed to such norms.
The United States State Department
Pakistan Country Report on Human Rights, and Labor note that "Pakistan's
discriminatory religious legislation encourages religious intolerance and
violence directed against minority Muslim sects, Christians, and Hindus."
(emphasis added)
In Pakistan, the testimony of Muslims
in court counts more than that of non-Muslims and the testimony of men
counts more than that of women. In certain cases, the testimony of women
and non-Muslims is not accepted at all. The report notes that if a Muslim
man rapes a Christian woman in the presence of several Christian men and
women, he cannot be convicted under Hudood ordinances because non-Muslim
witnesses are not accepted.
The New York Times on May 17, 2002
describes a story of a rape victim who is sentenced to death by stoning.
Under Islamic law in Pakistan, if a woman makes an accusation of rape,
which is almost impossible to prove, she herself can be prosecuted for
adultery. Under Pakistan's blasphemy law one who "willfully defiles,
damages or desecrates a copy of the holy Koran" can face life imprisonment.
Even certain sects of Islam suffer from religious persecution. Pakistan
has specific legal prohibitions against Ahmadi Muslims. For example, they
are not allowed to name their children Mohammed, recite the Quran, call
themselves Muslims, or use Islamic terminology. The persecution of minority
Muslim sects continues under the government of Pervez Musharraf, which
is widely hailed by the West as a bulwark against Islamic extremism. The
Lahore Times notes :
"President General Pervez Musharraf
and his military-government have promulgated the Conduct of General Elections
(Second Amendment) Order 2002 that prohibits listing Ahmedis or Quadianis
on electoral rolls. The government has invited objections to this order
within ten days fromits promulgation. Under the order, a non-Muslim or
Ahmedi cannot register to vote. Any Ahmedis or Quadianis found to be on
the official electoral rolls would be summoned by the Revising Authority.
Their appearance before this authority would be mandatory within 15 days
of receiving notification. This person shall then be required to sign a
declaration agreeing to the finality of the Holy Prophet. If this person
refuses to sign this, he or she shall be deemed non-Muslims. The name of
this person shall then be removed from the electoral rolls. "
Forcing the people of Kashmir, long
known for their tolerant traditions, to live in such a theocratic society
is unjust
Most disturbing, however, is Pakistan's
treatment of Hindus, which comprise 35 percent of the population of Jammu
and Kashmir. According to former French Cultural Minister Andre Malraux,
the policies of Pakistan (which means "land of the pure" in English) towards
Hindus, bear striking resemblance to the Nazi actions towards the Jews.
In 1946, over 30 percent of present day Pakistan was Hindu, but now the
total percentage of religious minorities is less than 3 percent, as a massive
ethnic cleansing forced out all non-Muslims. (By contrast, the number of
Muslims in India has increased from 8 percent to 14 percent since 1947).
In 1971, the Pakistani army engaged in the Bangladesh genocide in which
over 2 million Hindus were slaughtered. When Pakistan took over parts of
Kashmir in 1947, it launched a brutal campaign against Hindu and non-Muslim
populations. As noted above, Pakistan's ethnic cleansing against Hindus
continues today in Jammu and Kashmir. Given this history of ethnic cleansing,
the fate of Kashmiri Hindus if Pakistan were to take over all of Kashmir
is too painful even to contemplate.
Much is also stated about the "self-determination"
of the Kashmiri people and "ascertaining the will of the Kashmiri people."
Article 370 of the Indian Constitution, gives Jammu and Kashmir more autonomy
than any other state in India. Article 370 even prohibits people from other
parts of India from settling in Jammu and Kashmir. Pakistan on the other
hand, has forcibly removed Kashmiris from their homeland and settled it
with Pashtun and Punjabi servicemen in an attempt to alter the demographic
composition of the Pakistan Occupied Kashmir. The will of the people of
Jammu and Kashmir has been ascertained through periodic democratic elections
in the state. By contrast, in the Northern Areas of the Pakistan Occupied
Kashmir, adult franchise has never been granted. It is also important
to note that there are three parts to the state: Hindu-majority Jammu,
Buddhist-majority Ladakh, and the Muslim-majority Kashmir Valley. The insurgency
is almost entirely confined to the Kashmir Valley, which comprises only
15 percent of the area of the state.
It is also erroneously assumed by
many that the Muslims of Kashmir do not want to be a part of India.
The party that has governed Jammu and Kashmir for most of the years since
independence is the pro-India National Conference, led by a Muslim,
Farooq Abdullah. Pakistan claims that the terrorist movement in Jammu and
Kashmir is "indigenous." Yet this is not the case as over 70 percent of
those killed by the Indian army in the state from June 2001 to January
2002 were Pakistanis. A large portion of the remaining 30 percent were
likely to be Arabs or Afghans. A recent poll by the British based firm
MORI International has shown that 61 % of Kashmiris believed they would
be better off economically and politically as Indian citizens, while only
6% preferred Pakistan. Over two-thirds of the respondents believed
that Pakistan's involvement in Jammu and Kashmir has been harmful.
Over 88% believed that ending the infiltration of militants across the
Line of Control would help bring peace to the region. In 1964, when
Pakistan attacked Jammu and Kashmir, the Kashmiris helped turn the invaders
into the Indian army rather than helping the Pakistanis. And most importantly,
Pakistan claims that it is the guardian of Muslims on the subcontinent
ring hollow due to the persecution of various Muslim sects in Pakistan
as noted above and its brutal terrorist campaign in Jammu and Kashmir which
has killed thousands of innocent Kashmiri Muslims.
(Arvin Bahl is from Edison, NJ.
He can be reached at abahl@princeton.edu)