Author: Claude Arpi
Publication: The Pioneer
Date: August 27, 2008
In the past fortnight, several senior commentators
have decided it is time to accept the separatists' demand for self-determination
in the Kashmir Valley. One commentator has written, "As a liberal, I
dislike ruling people against their will... Let Kashmiris decide the outcome,
not the politicians and Armies of India and Pakistan... The parallels between
British rule in India and Indian rule in Kashmir have become too close for
my comfort."
Such reasoning is fallacious. To "dislike
ruling people against their will" is not reason enough to let parts of
India secede. Don't you think that the people of Arunachal Pradesh often feel
neglected by the rulers in Delhi who decide their future without consulting
them and 'against their will'? Any 'liberal' (if he/she is honest) will apply
the same reasoning to the entire North-East. Should these States also secede?
In the 1980s, the Khalistanis in Punjab also felt that Delhi was ruling them
'against their will'. Should Punjab have become independent?
As for the 'promised' plebiscite, which is
being resurrected by 'liberal' commentators, the UN resolutions of August
1948 and January 1949 were clear and specific. The proposed plebiscite was
for all the regions of Jammu & Kashmir. Further it was conditional to
the Pakistani troops withdrawing from all the areas it had occupied in the
State; and, second, Pakistan withdrawing its tribesmen and nationals not ordinarily
resident in these areas from the entire State.
For the UN, there was no question of first
changing the demography of the occupied areas. To hold a plebiscite after
the Kashmir Valley has been cleansed of its Hindu population will only encourage
secessionists and terrorists to use similar tactics in other parts of India.
Another eminent columnist has written, "If
you believe in democracy, then giving Kashmiris the right to self-determination
is the correct thing to do... This is India's century. We have the world to
conquer -- and the means to do it. Kashmir is a 20th century problem. We cannot
let it drag us down and bleed us as we assume our rightful place in the world."
This merits only one comment: If India is further dismembered, it is doubtful
that the 21st century will be India's century. Allowing Kashmiris to secede
is certain to become a precedent for others in India to 'democratically' ask
for their right to self-determination.
Similar to the position taken by our 'liberals'
has been that of the foreign media which has reacted to the recent troubles
with its old prediction that 'Kashmir will soon be lost for India". Le
Monde quotes Ahmed, a young Kashmiri, as saying, "I prefer to die in
the streets shouting 'Long Live Free Kashmir' than in an isolated confinement
after being tortured (by the Indian Army)." Ahmed's friends, says Le
Monde, threw stones at security forces while screaming, "Indians are
dogs." Then, referring to Abhinav Bindra's gold medal, Ahmed says, "But
it is in Kashmir that Indians are the best shooters."
Le Figaro, in an article headlined "Kashmir
bye-bye?", its correspondent spoke of the "beauty of the Valley
which nobody questions, though some in India have nonetheless begun to ask
themselves if the future of their great democracy is to keep four million
Kashmiris against their will. It is a new tune!" The correspondent, however,
asked a relevant question: "Why has the Government in New Delhi kept
silent and inactive for so long when the tension had already started mounting
in July?"
The problem is not only the poor leadership
of the rulers in Delhi, though nobody can deny that the present crisis has
been created by the inept handling of the situation, but also the wily leadership
in the Kashmir Valley.
If one looks at the history of Jammu &
Kashmir, one realises that whenever the Valley has been stricken by famine,
war or invasion, it was due to the poor leadership and despotism of its kings,
sultans and maharajas. The Chinese pilgrim Hsuan-tsang has described Kashmiris
thus: "They are volatile and timid; they are good-looking, but deceitful."
The history of Kashmir is a succession of
alternating periods when just and fair rulers made the Valley a 'Paradise
on Earth' and times when "people were treated as grass", to quote
the historian Srivara, one of the authors of Rajatarangini. He describes one
of these periods during the 15th century when "accepting bribes was considered
by the officers as virtue, oppressing the subjects was regarded as wisdom
and the addiction to wine and women was reckoned as happiness".
Take the more recent example of Sheikh Abdullah,
described by historian S Gopal as "Nehru's old friend, colleague and
blood-brother." Sheikh Abdullah was chosen by Jawaharlal Nehru in January
1948 to plead India's case in the UN. Though a member of the official Indian
delegation to Lake Success, Abdullah had a secret meeting with US Ambassador
Austin, who reported to the US Secretary of State, "It is possible that
the principal purpose of Abdullah's visit was to make clear to US that there
is a third alternative, namely independence... He made quite a long and impassioned
statement on the subject. He said in effect that whether Kashmir went to Pakistan
or India, the other dominion would always be against a solution... (Kashmir)
is a rich country. He did not want his people torn by dissension between Pakistan
and India. It would be much better if Kashmir were independent and could seek
American and British aid for development of the country" Thus was the
seed 'azadi' planted by Nehru's 'blood-brother'.
Adlai Stevenson came to Srinagar to meet Abdullah
in May 1953. The creation of an independent 'Sheikdom of Kashmir' was the
purpose of the visit. This would perfectly suit American interests by checking
the advances of the Chinese in Xinjiang and the Russians in Afghanistan. A
'non-aligned' Nehru could not be considered a reliable ally. At that time,
The New York Times published a map hinting at an independent status for the
Valley and a few days later, Abdullah asserted in a speech, "It is not
necessary that our State should become an appendage of either India or Pakistan."
This habit of saying something one day and
doing the opposite the next has been characteristic of most of the leaders
of Jammu & Kashmir for the past 60 years. Sheikh Abdullah's grandson,
Mr Omar Abdullah, recently said in Parliament, "We fought for our land
and will continue to fight for our land till our last breath." This same
person shamelessly sides with those who say that Hindus are trying to change
the demography of the Kashmir Valley by erecting some temporary structures
for pilgrims.
With a vacillating Centre, a weak Governor,
a father-and-daughter duo always ready to pull the carpet from under their
partner's feet and the secessionists back in the news after several years,
the State of Jammu & Kashmir seems doomed. But not if India were to stand
firm and resist those who wish to see the country disintegrate.
