What to do about
Kashmir ?
by Koenraad Elst
About
the Author: The
writer, who grew up in the Catholic community in Belgium is an expert in
Chinese and Indo-Aryan Studies and Philosophy. He has many books to his
credit and his books on India, notably "Negationism in India:
Concealing the Record of Islam", and "Indigenous Indians: From
Agastya to Ambedkar" have become classics. The following write-up
is courtesy the Souvenir "Kashmir: The Forgotten Side",
released on the one-day KP Conference held in Kanpur in April 1995: Editor. |
The
most under-reported case of ethnic cleansing worldwide in recent years is
undoubtedly the violent expulsion of a quarter million Kashmiri Pandits from
Kashmir, practically the whole Hindu population, in 1989-90. Just like the
expulsion of all 50,000 Hindus from Kabul after the city was captured by the
mujahedin in April 1992, the world press has strictly kept the lid on the news
of ethnic cleansing in Kashmir. The Indian media, unable to conceal the facts to
its readership, have tried to minimize and ideologically cleanse the news by
calling the refugees "migrants" (even while describing Bangladeshi
infiltrators with an avowed Lebensraum agenda as "refugees"), by
blaming them for communal friction in Jammu where many of them live in refugee
camps, and by claiming that they left voluntarily as part of a strategy worked
out by the then governor Jagmohan in his desire to have a free field for
shooting poor hapless Kashmiri Muslims.
The pro-separatist
bias in Kashmir reporting has not missed its effect: influential politicians in
the USA and other Western countries are supporting the demands of the terrorists
against the world's largest democracy, which ought to have been the West's
natural ally in the South Asian region. The same people who oppose the justified
independence movements of the Kurds and Tibetans in the name of stability (read:
business), suddenly become sponsors of the independence movement when it comes
to Kashmir, an integral part of India since thousands of years. Perhaps there is
a consistency somewhere in their position: what the Kashmiri separatists have in
common with the oppressors of the Kurds and the Tibetans, and what apparently
makes them worth supporting, is that they all practice their own bit of
genocide. But the plight of the Kurds and Tibetans is at least known to world
opinion; the Kashmiri Pandits are unknown to the world, hence unheard.
Who are the Kashmiri
Pandits? Since thousands of years, they have been a pillar of Hindu civilization
and a living embodiment of the Indian- ness of Kashmir. After the Muslim
conquest, physical force and social pressures were combined to Islamize the
population; the present-day Kashmiri Pandits are the progeny of those few who
managed to avoid conversion to Islam. To preserve their Hindu identity, they had
to use compromise, bribes, services to the rulers, flattery, temporary exile,
and some feats of heroism. Far from being hostile to Islam, they have developed
the understandable habit of flattering Islam and overlooking the problem which
Islam poses, esp. by extolling the supposedly tolerant Sufi mysticism popular
among the Kashmiri Muslim community and by brandishing the trans-religious
notion of Kashmiriat.
The insistent refrain
that ''Islam is essentially a religion of peace" and that "all
religions are essentially the same", now the banner of the sentimentalist
tendency within Indian secularism, has always been most popular among the
fearful Hindu minorities in Muslim-majority areas like Sindh, East Bengal and
Kashmir. In their position, this white lie was understandable, but today the
option of such a superficial explanation of religious hostilities is no longer
open. Just like the Arab Christian attempt to transcend religious polarization
in the secular ideology of Arab nationalism has ended in failure (expulsion of
the remaining Christians from Turkey, attacks on Copts in Egypt, the Lebanese
civil war), so also the hopeful balloon of Kashmiriat has now decisively been
pin-pricked.
The Kashmiri Muslims
have made their rejection of Kashmiriat clear by massively supporting the
Pakistani agents who masterminded the separatist guerilla. Too many Kashmiri
Pandits have been betrayed or killed by their very neighbours, with whom they
thought they had such chummy secular relations. We would like to follow the
fashion of exonerating the masses and putting the blame on the militants alone,
but unfortunately, just like a majority of the German people shared in Hitler's
guilt by bringing him to power, so also the average Kashmiri Muslim is not
altogether innocent. It is no use fooling ourselves: after Kashmiris have
enjoyed a number of legal and material privileges in India, they are still in
favour of separatism, and no further extension of their autonomy and material
benefits will convince them that they belong to India. All this secularist
poetry about "winning back the hearts of the Kashmiris" overlooks the
deep religious roots of Kashmir separatism; not addressing this fundamental
problem will only keep the struggle going and will cost thousands of lives. In
order to stop the fighting, to save many thousands of lives bound to be lost in
a continuing war, and to preserve India's unity and integrity, it is necessary
to seek out the very root of Kashmiri separatism: Islamic fundamentalism.
To be sure, many
nominal Muslims throughout Islamic history have followed universal human
principles including a toleration of and fellow- feeling for their non-Muslim
neighbours. But as soon as Islamization campaigns make them more sensitive to
the demands of the doctrine, even many of these good people tend to develop the
typical hostility against unbelievers. The last decades have witnessed precisely
this Islamization of hitherto superficial Muslims in areas like Malaysia, East
Bengal and Kashmir, and the result has invariably been the spread of hostility
against unbelievers to the supposedly most tolerant corners of society, esp. the
backward villages and the westernized elites. The indoctrination of the Muslim
masses has seldom been as thorough as in this modern age.
As long as Kashmir
remains a Muslim-majority area, there will be some form of anti-Indian
separatism in Kashmir. The best solution is therefore to free the Kashmir
population from their conditioning through education. After a decisive victory
of the Indian Army against the separatist militias (the precondition of any
effective policy), the Kashmiri Muslims should be exposed to a programme of
ideological and cultural deconditioning, A crash course in the true history of
Muslim conquests would be a crucial factor in breaking the spell cast on the
minds of otherwise fine human beings. This programme could be taken up by civil
organisations or by the State.
Failing a policy which
takes on Islamic fundamentalism itself at the ideological level, the second
option is to change the demographic composition of Kashmir; lifting Article 370
would allow Hindu non-Kashmiris to settle in the valley alongwith the Pandits,
and the government could give land to Army veterans. In the present atmosphere
this would put the Hindus in Kashmir in a position similar to that of Israeli
settlers in the West Bank; having to live in fortified settlements surrounded by
a hostile local population. Perhaps that is a temporary inconvenience which
Indians will have to take in their stride.
Meanwhile, Indian
Muslims also have a role in the Indian struggle for Kashmir. They should speak
out to the Muslim world in favour of Kashmir remaining inside secular India. Of
course, this would not necessarily be proof of their support for a secular
rather than an Islamic state. Before partition, modernist Muslims favoured a
separate Muslim-majority state, but traditionalist Muslims opposed partition.
Gullible and self-deceiving Hindus have eagerly considered the latter position
as secularist and nationalist: in reality, the traditionalists, including
Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, were only more ambitious than the democratic modernists
around Mohammed Ali Jinnah. While Jinnah had a short term strategy to secure a
part of India as a Muslim state, the traditionalists had a long-term strategy to
conquer or reconquer the whole of India for Islam.
Today, the plea that
some Muslim leaders, from M.J. Akbar to Syed Shahabuddin, against the secession
of Kashmir, may well stem from the same concern to strengthen the position of
Islam within India. Indeed, the less than wholehearted support of several
radical Islamic states for the Pakistani claim on Kashmir probably results from
a concern for the growth of Indian Islam, which might be stunted seriously if a
successful secession of Kashmir exposes them. But whatever their ulterior
motives, let us be practical: Indian Muslim leaders should be encouraged to
speak out against Kashmiri separatism, not just in their own papers, but on
international forums. Wherever the Pakistani lobby pleads the separatist cause,
Akbar and Shahabuddin should be sent to plead the integrationist cause. They
should tell the world that the vast majority of the Indian Muslims, along with
the Hindus, support the full integration of Kashmir with India, and that the
traitorous clique of the secularist "human rights activists" who plead
surrender to the terrorists, represent only themselves.
Kashmir is an integral
part of India, the political embodiment of Hindu civilization. This should not
be surrendered to the barbaric assault by Pakistan and its terrorist agents.
Source: Koshur Samachar
|