Pakistan: Now or Never?
Perspectives on Pakistan
Breaking the taboo, Indian op-eds suggest Kashmir plebiscite
The last time I visited Kashmir, in November, I was struck by an apparent contradiction: it was more peaceful than it had been in years, at least in the capital Srinagar, and yet the overwhelming mood was one of gloom. With the peace process between India and Pakistan going nowhere, there was a sense that thousands of people had died for nothing in the violence that had convulsed the region since a separatist revolt erupted in 1989. Although the soldiers had disappeared from the streets of Srinagar, and tourists were flocking back, it retained the some of the same tinderbox atmosphere that I had known at the height of the violence. One spark, people told me, could ignite it again.
When that spark came, in the form of a land dispute between Hindus and Muslims that triggered some of the biggest protests since 1989 (you can see my last posting on this here), the surprise was perhaps not so much that it happened but that so few analysts in Delhi (or Islamabad for that matter) saw it coming.
The sheer size and unexpectedness of the protests have prompted some Indian analysts to ask a question that has been anathema in Delhi for decades: Is it time to consider giving Kashmir independence, or at least to let Kashmiris vote on their future?
“If the experience of the last two decades has taught us anything, it is that the situation never really returns to normal. Even when we see the outward symptoms of peace, we miss the alienation and resentment within. No matter what we do, things never get better, for very long,” writes Vir Sanghvi in the Hindustan Times.
“I reckon we should hold a referendum in the Valley. Let the Kashmiris determine their own destiny. If they want to stay in India, they are welcome. But if they don’t, then we have no moral right to force them to remain. If they vote for integration with Pakistan, all this will mean is that Azad Kashmir will gain a little more territory. If they opt for independence, they will last for about 15 minutes without the billions that India has showered on them. But it will be their decision,” he writes.
“Whatever happens, how can India lose? If you believe in democracy, then giving Kashmiris the right to self-determination is the correct thing to do. And even if you don’t, surely we will be better off being rid of this constant, painful strain on our resources, our lives, and our honour as a nation? This is India’s century. We have the world to conquer -the other- 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. It’s time to think the unthinkable.”
The Times of India runs an editorial along similar lines. ”I was once hopeful of Kashmir’s integration, but after six decades of effort, Kashmiri alienation looks greater than ever. India seeks to integrate with Kashmir, not rule it colonially. Yet, the parallels between British rule in India and Indian rule in Kashmir have become too close for my comfort,” writes columnist Swaminathan Aiyar.
Kashmir: is this a re-run of 1989?
After months of relative peace which turned Kashmir into a near-forgotten conflict, the region has exploded again with some of the biggest protests since a separatist revolt erupted in 1989. What started as a dispute over land allocated to Hindu pilgrims visiting a shrine in Kashmir has snowballed into a full-scale anti-India protest, uniting Kashmiri separatists and reviving calls for independence.
The dispute has also pitted Muslims in Kashmir against Hindus in Jammu – the two regions which along with Ladakh make up the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir – in what is the biggest communal crisis faced by the central government in Delhi since it took office in 2004.
At stake is the risk of the “Balkanisation” of Jammu and Kashmir comparable to the break-up of Yugoslavia in the 1990s. In this, worst case, scenario, the state would break up into its three different regions with Jammu and Ladakh favouring India and Kashmir either battling for independence or tilting towards Pakistan. (The state is the part of the former kingdom of Jammu and Kashmir which remained in Indian hands at partition in 1947 with the other side controlled by Pakistan.)
Little wonder then that analysts in India are describing it as a major crisis, with an editorial in the Hindustan Times calling it the greatest test for the central government since it took office.
And although some Indian analysts have accused Pakistan of stoking tensions in Kashmir, the protests look to be, at least in large measure, spontaneous.
So is this a re-run of 1989? At the time separatist sentiments – which had been simmering before 1947 when the kingdom of Jammu and Kashmir was ruled by a Hindu maharajah from Jammu – erupted into full-scale protests which were primarily Kashmiri nationalist rather than religious. According to the Kashmiri version of history, India then tried to crush the revolt with a clumsy heavy-handedness that only inflamed Kashmiri anger further.
The revolt turned increasingly lethal and vicious — in part due to Pakistan’s involvement in supporting the separatists and to the Islamist influence of the mujahideen who had fought the Soviets in Afghanistan in the 1980s. After Pakistan and India tested nuclear bombs in 1998, Kashmir was dubbed the most dangerous place on earth, bringing the two countries to the brink of war in 2001/2002.
india has cosidered the kashmir as a prestige point thats root of the problem,,i think india should leave the kashmir,,they are just consuming our valuble money.they will not be able to stand on their own,,,,let all such elements go..we are just wasting the future of our own children with this kashmir in our hands.to much money ,,to much army and most importantly our concentration…
Hello,
Vir Sanghvi and Swaminathan Aiyar (and also so called “intellectuals” like Arundhati Roy) are all basically suffering from an advancement in their senility. So no fault of theirs for their ludicrous comments. Let a few suicide bombings happen in their neighborhood and/or let some of their family members get DISmembered by it, they will then fall in line too.
To Ms. Myra MacDonald, an analogy: Several years ago as a young teenager, Osama Bin Laden had visited USA including places like Disneyland with his very large family. No doubt he did it in “peace” and even must have enjoyed it, yet all the while harboring sullen hatred towards “America” and all things “American” he saw there. Now we all know what he and his “disciples” did several years later ON the very same soil.
Basically, just because someone (like Kashmiris) are sullen and “hate” India etc. does that mean they should be allowed to go scot free and India effectively GIVING IN to terrorism, pure and simple???
Tomorrow, if Utah wants to secede on the grounds that they are Mormons, will Washington D.C. allow that?
Wake up guys! And stop giving these rascals all this publicity.
regards
Vijay.T, India.