Hindu Vivek Kendra
A RESOURCE CENTER FOR THE PROMOTION OF HINDUTVA
   
 
 
«« Back
The need for recognition of Kashmir as part of India

The need for recognition of Kashmir as part of India

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)
 


Back                          Top

«« Back
 
 
 
  Search Articles
 
  Special Annoucements