Note: This post is the first of a marathon 3-part series on the J&K dispute (yeah, quite a topic I've chosen for my "comeback post" on Blogger!). In this post, I collect in one place an objective record of J&K's recent history, and a layout of the current majority alignment in different regions of J&K. I then discuss my roadmap for a comprehensive and just resolution of the dispute, and the most common rationalizations about the J&K dispute that Indians living in denial use, along with my rebuttal to each.
Part 2 addresses one specific but popular rationalization that is of some serious concern. In it, I argue why a potential J&K exit from the Union of India will most likely not lead to a "Balkanization" of India as feared by many Indians.
Part 3 lists some "FAQs" that I anticipate from people regarding the opinions that I express here. Of course, I might answer questions or comments from readers otherwise too.
My purpose in these posts is to honestly, objectively, and dispassionately analyze the J&K dispute from a neutral perspective, not to inflame passions. I have simply applied the humanist principles that have helped resolve similar (and worse) disputes and atrocities around the world successfully over the last century, while the J&K dispute festered on. I invite informed discussions, questions, and even criticism. I think us Indians, especially the youth - the future of India, need to start approaching the J&K dispute from a rationalist and humanist perspective, and not be swayed by the jingoistic propaganda of the right, left, and center in India that has plagued, and continues to limit the thinking of, our previous generations. So, please read with an open mind and do not spew hate.
A Brief History of J&K:
This is a distilled chronological list of historical facts about J&K without the propaganda that is spread by India, Pakistan, and Kashmiri separatists. Of course, I am neither a historian nor an expert on J&K. I have distilled these from multiple sources that are widely considered credible, especially the United Nations, and human rights organizations.
1. Pre-Partition Kingdoms and Religious Pluralism in J&K
The area of J&K has seen its fair share of kingdoms and religions rise and fall - Hindu, Greek, Buddhist, Muslim, Sikh, and British. Religious pluralism has always been a part of J&K culture.
2. Religion-based Partition of British-ruled India
Due to Jinnah's two-nation theory, with the agreement of Nehru and Gandhi, British-ruled India was to be bifurcated to give rise to a Muslim-majority Pakistan, incorporating Muslim-majority British-ruled provinces. The so-called "princely states", i.e., provinces ruled by kings subservient to the British had the option of choosing to join either Pakistan or the new India. J&K, at the time of partition, was ruled by a Hindu king, but had a majority (three-fourths) Muslim population. Popular uprisings broke out in parts of J&K against the king demanding accession to Pakistan. In this sense, J&K was the mirror image of Hyderabad, which saw popular uprisings by the majority Hindu population against the Muslim king demanding accession to India.
3. Popular Rebellion and Tribal Invasion from Pakistan
While the king of J&K was still contemplating his decision, Pashtun tribal militias from north-west Pakistan, possibly, mercenaries aided discreetly by Pakistan, invaded J&K, and in collusion with local anti-royal rebels, occupied many districts of the kingdom. They managed to move quickly through J&K since they enjoyed popular support among most Muslims. The king panicked and sought help from India to crush the rebellion and "invasion".
4. J&K's Dubious Conditional Accession to the Union of India
Upon the advice of Mountbatten, the king signed an Instrument of Accession bringing his kingdom under the dominion of India. However, both Mountbatten and Nehru promised the king that India will hold a plebiscite in J&K to determine the ultimate political status of J&K after the Indian armed forces repel the invaders and crush the rebellion.
5. First India-Pakistan War over J&K's Status
Pakistan was caught unawares, and legitimately, cried foul. Since the king had signed a "standstill agreement" with Pakistan to buy time while he contemplated his decision on J&K's status, Pakistan contended that his sudden accession to India was illegal and made under duress. And since the accession went against the wishes of the majority Muslim population, it was also untenable. The Indian and Pakistani armies fought the First Kashmir War and India largely prevailed.
6. Resolutions of the United Nations and Ceasefire
Both India and Pakistan requested the United Nations to mediate and resolve the J&K dispute. A ceasefire was reached thanks to UN resolutions and the UN mandated that a plebiscite be held in all of J&K to ascertain its political future. Nehru himself requested the UN to organize the plebiscite. The UN laid a pre-condition that J&K must be demilitarized by both India and Pakistan. However, technical differences about the interpretations of the resolutions meant that neither countries fulfilled their pledge, leading to a deadlock. Essentially, both India and Pakistan are equally culpable for the stalemate in J&K.
7. India's Backtracking on J&K's Right to Self-Determination
Eventually, India simply backtracked on its pledge to the king and people of J&K about organizing a plebiscite, contending that Pakistan refused to demilitarize. Pakistan, on its part, blamed India for refusing to demilitarize. India's denial of a plebiscite is unequivocally a realpolitik-based double cross that went against the wishes of the majority-Muslim population of J&K. As for Hyderabad, India simply invaded it and overthrew the Muslim king to annex the province in a nod to the support of the majority-Hindu population.
8. India's Assimilation of J&K, Article 370, and International View
Article 370 was added to India's constitution to guarantee a "special" status and some degree of autonomy to J&K within the Union. For example, India's parliament has fewer powers over J&K than all other states, the Supreme Court of India does not have full jurisdiction over J&K, J&K has its own official flag, non-J&K citizens of India have fewer rights in J&K than locals, etc.
For the next 4 decades, India tried to assimilate the population of J&K, with limited success. The Muslim majority of J&K has consistently maintained its anti-India stance. Pakistan, on its part, has consistently raised the J&K dispute at all international fora.
9. Pakistan-sponsored Armed Separatist Violence
Following a rigged election in the late 1980s, and the general failure of India-controlled democracy in J&K, popular discontent among the Muslim majority boiled over into a full-fledged separatist rebellion against India. With moral, diplomatic, economic, and armed support from Pakistan, violent militant groups emerged and started fighting against the elements of Indian state power - the police, the politicians, the armed forces, etc.
10. India's Militarization, Human Rights Violations, and Jingoism
India responded to the rebellion with an iron fist - a brutal, large-scale militarization of Kashmir Valley, and some other parts of J&K in the 1990s. Indian armed forces, particularly the Indian Army, were tasked with crushing the militant separatism. Human rights organizations have documented widespread violations of human rights, by both the Indian armed forces and the militant separatists. Crimes of the Indian armed forces that have been documented include abduction and enforced disappearances, rape and gang rape, illegal imprisonment and torture, murders in the form of fake encounters, and murders of children during street uprisings. Coincidentally, India's economy was in the doldrums due to the decades of failed socialist policies of Nehru and Indira Gandhi. All this led to a meteoric rise of Hindutva-inspired politics in India. Far-right jingoism started to become popular, even among section of the intelligentsia. The J&K dispute provided a perfect excuse for the far-right politicians to bash Muslim-majority Pakistan and appease their base.
11. Pakistan-sponsored and Islamism-inspired Terrorism
A combination of the increasing frustration among the Muslims of J&K, the rise of Islamist-inspired politics in Pakistan, the freelancing ISI-trained Islamist militants who returned from Afghanistan, and the rise of Hindutva-inspired anti-Muslim violence in India decidedly gave an Islamist bent to Kashmiri separatism. From being an armed political uprising to achieve independence for J&K, it became a largely anti-India and anti-Hindu terrorist movement (I define "terrorism" as intimidation and murder of civilians by groups that aim to achieve political goals.) Most of the terrorist groups were funded and trained by the ISI and the Pakistani Army - a move that Pakistan will later come to regret. Of course, some separatists like the Hurriyat have remained non-violent and committed to negotiate a political resolution with both India and Pakistan.
12. Ethnic Cleansing of Kashmiri Hindus
The Islamist terrorist groups started a systematic campaign of intimidation to drive out non-Muslims, particularly Kashmiri Hindus, from the Kashmir Valley. This is unequivocally an act of ethnic cleansing.
13. Hindutva-inspired Religious Polarization in J&K
The ascendancy of Hindutva-based politics in India reached J&K as well. Pretty soon, Hindu and Sikh groups in Jammu became more vocal about their pro-India alignments, in contrast to the pro-independence or pro-Pakistan alignment of the majority of Muslims of Kashmir Valley. Even Buddhist groups in Ladakh became vocal about splitting from J&K to become a union territory or a state of the Union of India. Proposals from the Sangh Parivar (a collection of far-right Hindutva groups) to "trifurcate" the state of J&K were repeatedly rejected by successive governments of India.
14. Post-9/11 Anti-Islamism Backlash and Pakistan's Implosion
Soon after 9/11, Pakistan, pressured by the United States, started to systematically silence the Islamist terrorist groups that it had nurtured and harbored. Worldwide, Islamism gained prominence as a political ideology that is inimical to a liberal democracy and human rights. Pakistan has waged wars against some anti-US terrorist groups, but has left anti-India terrorists largely untouched. All this coincided with a steady decrease in separatist violence in J&K. But India has refused to do reduce its militarization of the Kashmir Valley. After the brutal 26/11 attacks in Mumbai, the world recognized Pakistan's role in sponsoring anti-India terrorism. In a twist of fate for Pakistan, it is now the country that is "most affected" by Islamist terrorism (in terms of number of civilians killed).
15. Current Status of J&K, and International View
The status quo in J&K is what it has been for decades. India refuses to hold the UN-sponsored plebiscite it promised to the people of J&K, and refuses to demilitarize J&K. Pakistan refuses to disarm the violent separatists and Islamist terrorists, and demilitarize J&K. The Pakistani establishment has lost credibility internationally due to its dithering on Islamist terrorists. India, on the other hand, is generally considered a "rising power", owing to its burgeoning economy and secular liberal democracy. Thus, most of the world no longer cares about the J&K dispute for fear of annoying India, and the people of J&K are effectively on their own again.
Major Regions of J&K and Majority Popular Alignments:
Obviously, J&K if not a monolithic entity. It is a patchwork of several regions, ethnic groups, languages, and religions. But, largely speaking, J&K is usually partitioned into 5 major regions. Within each region, there is enough evidence to predict what the majority alignment would be. They are as follows:
Under Indian Administration (technically, a quasi-legal occupation):
1. Kashmir Valley (epicenter of anti-India separatism; primarily pro-independence or pro-Pakistan)
2. Jammu (epicenter of separate-state sentiments within Indian-administered J&K; primarily pro-India)
3. Ladakh (significant separate-state sentiments; primarily pro-India)
Under Pakistani Occupation (technically, an illegal occupation):
4. Muzaffarabad Area (known as Azad Kashmir in Pakistan; primarily pro-Pakistan)
5. Gilgit-Baltistan (also known as Northern Areas in Pakistan; primarily pro-Pakistan)
Under Chinese Occupation (generally ignored in the J&K dispute, but technically, an illegal occupation):
6. Aksai Chin (largely uninhabited; alignments unknown)
My 10-Step Roadmap for a Just, Democratic Future of J&K:
1. Acceptance of the right to self-determination of the people of J&K by all parties to the dispute, namely, India, Pakistan, and J&K separatists.
2. Acceptance of the right to self-determination of different regions within J&K by all parties.
3. Amendments to their respective constitutions by elected representatives of India and Pakistan.
4. Simultaneous demilitarization from all regions of J&K by both India and Pakistan. Disarmament and surrender of armed separatists and terrorists sponsored by Pakistan.
5. United Nations-mandated interim neutral administration and peacekeeping force in J&K.
6. Legally binding commitment by all parties to adopt democratic rule of law, and respect the Universal Declaration of Human Rights after the plebiscite, especially the freedom of expression and minority rights. Specifically, whoever administers Kashmir Valley must consent to the repatriation of Kashmiri Hindus.
7. Acceptance of the binding legal authority of the UN's International Court of Justice for arbitration in the event of any breach of agreement, or conflict between parties on issues such as land and water resources, currency and trade, etc.
8. UN-mandated and legally binding plebiscite in all regions of J&K with three options - independence, accession to India, and accession to Pakistan. Other creative options are also possible here, e.g., enhanced autonomy within India or Pakistan, joint sovereignty, etc., depending on proposals from the parties involved.
9. Acceptance and enforcement of the results of the plebiscite by all parties, including amendments to their constitutions. UN-mandated monitoring agency in all regions of J&K to oversee the enforcement for a few years.
10. Legally binding cooperation agreement among all parties to apprehend and surrender war criminals and other serious violators human rights (e.g., for torture, rape, murder, ethnic cleansing) - Islamist terrorists, officials of the armed forces, politicians, and civilian officials from both India and Pakistan - to face justice for their crimes against humanity at the UN's International Criminal Court.
Rebutting Indian Rationalizations for Occupation:
1. J&K was and is an "integral" part of the Republic of India
No, it was not, and it is not. Article 370 of the constitution of the Republic of India makes this clear. Also, see points 4, 6, 7, and 8 from the history.
2. J&K is historically Hindu, and hence, should belong in India.
Not true (see point 1 from history above). J&K has historically been religiously diverse, with the Hindu religions being one prominent part of its diversity. More generally, "historically X" argument generally does not carry much water. For example, the US does not submit to "historically Native American, so let us disempower all European and African Americans" narrative. Why then does India support Palestinian statehood, if as some Israelis argue, the entire land of Palestine was "historically Jewish"? Finally, consider India itself. Anthropological, archaeological, and linguistic evidence suggest that historically, north India was inhabited by Dravidians. So, should we disempower Indo-European speakers in north India? Ludicrous, is this not? :)
3. J&K is religiously diverse, and hence, should be in India.
Yes, J&K is religiously diverse. But that does not give India alone the right to decide J&K's status. But the regional religious diversity of J&K does necessitate a careful multi-region plebiscite, as I outlined above. The people of the each region need to decide their status.
4. J&K was always a part of historical India, religions aside.
Not true. If we look at India's history, it was a fragmented mess of warring kingdoms for most of its history (much like Europe). Only 4 true "pan-Indian" empires ever existed - Maurya, Gupta, Mughal, and British empires. Let's look at each. Under Maurya and Mughal rule, half of J&K, most of India's north-east, and most of present-day Tamil Nadu and Kerala were not in the empire. Most of Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Bangladesh were. So, why is Madurai a part of India but Kabul is not? :) Under Gupta rule, J&K as well as most of the Deccan plateau and east India were not in the empire. The British empire consolidated the entire Indian subcontinent under one rule. It also oversaw the partition of India, which has led to this mess. See points 1 and 2 from history. Thus, the "historical" argument is self-contradictory and invalid.
5. J&K will become an Islamist state if not in India.
If a region elects to exit the Union of India, their governance model is their business, subject to the UN-monitored pre-plebiscite agreements (see point 6 from my roadmap). Obviously, within the Union of India, an Islamist state is unacceptable.
6. Kashmiri Hindus might be persecuted in Kashmir Valley.
The cold truth is that no one can guarantee foolproof security for anyone anywhere. Did Muslims get foolproof security under India's democracy? No. Hindus under Bangladesh's? No. Tamils under Lanka's? No. Thus, it is hypocritical to expect a different standard for a future government that rules Kashmir Valley. That said, I think this is a key reason why point 6 of my roadmap is critical for peace in J&K.
7. An independent J&K will be economically unviable.
First, I think it is probably not true. Tourism, agriculture, mineral wealth, and hydroelectricity could very well be the economic engines of a viable, independent J&K. Second, there are dozens of UN member countries that are tinier than just Kashmir Valley. Third, if (parts of) J&K vote to secede from India, its economic viability is not India's business. Thus, this argument is both invalid and irrelevant.
8. Plebiscite in J&K will lead to a "Balkanization" of India.
This is perhaps the most serious argument - that India will somehow "disintegrate" into civil war like Yugoslavia, if J&K is allowed to secede. I think this argument is a lot hollower than it sounds, and I attack this in detail in Part 2.
No comments:
Post a Comment