Kashmir Islamic Territory Vs Democracy - 3

[Guest guest]

Kashmir

Islamic Territory Vs Democracy - 3

An Idealist's Solution

 

As Indian Armed Forces were driving the invaders out, the idealist

Nehru, the then Prime Minister, in consultation with the Governor

General Lord Mount Batten, decided to take the matter to the UNO. On

31st December 1947 he, in his idealism, also offered plebiscite in

the U. Kashmir; although legally and morally India was not bound to

do so. Believing in the ideals of democracy, Nehru had offered this

so that the people of Kashmir could decide their destiny themselves.

Other nations and people may find it difficult to believe that how

could a nation ever be so unselfish (foolish?) so as to leave

a `heaven on earth' for the sake of an abstract ideal.

 

As a proof of India's faith in idealism, may I offer the example of

Bangladesh? India sacrificed heavily, both men and material, in

getting Bangladesh liberated from the fanatic Pakistan; and then left

it entirely free for Bangladeshis to rule their country. As it turned

out, this was not in the interest of liberal Bangladeshis because

soon the fanatic elements murdered the Father of Bangladesh, and

militarily took control of the new-born nation.

 

Bringing the subject back to Kashmir, on 1st January 1948 Nehru

unilaterally declared ceasefire, which was not reciprocated by

Pakistan. All such actions should leave no doubt in any body's mind

about India's intention which was and is that Kashmir should have

genuine democracy. But POK continues to be occupied by Pakistan, and

J&K is trembling under Pak supported terrorism.

 

Non-violence : Still An Impracticality?

 

Today we can easily blame Nehru for being impractical, but let us see

the psychological environment at that time in India. India was

feeling highly elated for having earned its freedom through non-

violence, though at the cost of immense sacrifice of human lives and

suffering perpetrated by British Power. This was the first successful

major non-violent revolution in the world. It may be worth noting

that Jinnah and his Party `Muslim League' had not sacrificed

anything, thus they got Pakistan for nothing. At the time of

partition, while the populations were transferring themselves from

one to the other nation, there was terrible violence almost all over

the undivided India. In this inhuman massacre of innocent peoples,

Hindus had suffered very much more than the Muslims. This was so

because a significant number of Hindus were influenced by the

principle of non-violence; and Gandhi went to areas, where Muslims

were getting the bad taste of their own medicine, and pacified

violent Hindus. Nothing like this happened in Pakistan, on the

contrary Pak Government helped the violent Muslims who were killing

Hindus. The Muslim League had asked for a separate Muslim nation from

secular India, because they were driven by hatred for Hindus. Hindus

did not hate Muslims otherwise how could they welcome and invite

Muslims to join the non-violent `Freedom Movement' led by Mahatma

Gandhi. Obviously a large portion of Muslims had faith in the

Hindu's `tolerance' and in the secularism of India, and they

preferred to stay in India rather than go to Pakistan. India has the

second largest Muslim population in the world. Nehru thought that

both legally and morally Kashmir belongs to India, therefore UNO

would do the justice, and another major problem would be solved non-

violently. And thus India would set an example for promoting non-

violence in the violent world.

 

Vested Interest of Britain and USA

 

Obviously Nehru had not understood British machinations against

India. British were extremely unhappy to leave their mine of gold –

India – and naturally were not friendly to India. They had no desire

that India should make technological progress for they very badly

needed India to remain a market for British goods, without which they

would lose the economic leadership of the world. Unfortunately, in

the Kashmir crisis, the US not only supported its long time ally

Britain but also had an axe to grind itself. It needed a useful base

for its forces against USSR, and Pakistan was suitable from all

angles for the purpose. Some flimsy mistakes like dotting of i's and

cutting of t's etc were found in the `Instrument of Accession' which

was signed by Hari Singh, and already accepted by the legal

authority - Governor General of India - Lord Mount Batten.

Consequently U. Kashmir was not accepted as a part of India although,

based on its confession, Pakistan was declared an aggressor by the

UNCIP, and was asked to vacate its aggression on 13th August 194812 .

Pakistan has never complied with that resolution and yet has

continuously got support of the UK and the USA. After a long time,

on 1st January 1949 a formal ceasefire was signed between Pakistan

and India.

 

Plebiscite : Pakistan's Phobia

 

Almost one year after Nehru's offer of plebiscite, the UNCIP, on 5th

January 1949 passed a resolution which stated : "The question of

accession of the state of Jammu and Kashmir to India or Pakistan will

be decided by the democratic method of free and impartial

plebiscite." Pakistan did not vacate its aggression as agreed by it

(Pakistan) and also as stipulated in the UN Resolution of 13th

August, 1948. This would have then enabled India to vacate its forces

to permit free and impartial plebiscite. As Pakistan was deliberately

violating the said UN Resolution, the hope for the plebiscite was

diminishing. Therefore in June 1949 Sheikh Abdullah13, the most

popular and important leader of J&K, declared that, "We the people of

J&K have thrown our lot with Indian people not in the heat of passion

or a moment of despair, but by a deliberate choice. The union of our

people has been fused by the community of ideals and common

sufferings in the cause of freedom."

 

Pakistan attacks India

 

In 1961-62 India had suffered heavily with a war against China.

Pakistan thought that it could take advantage of this weakness.

Despite the mutually agreed ceasefire under the auspices of UNO,

Pakistan attacked India in winter of 1965, but got beaten. (As per

the Agreement of Tashkent (1962), Pakistan got all its territories

inclusive of POK back which were won by India in the war.) In 1971

West Pakistan not only refused the legal and moral right to

democratically elected Mujib-ur-Rahman of East Pakistan to become the

President of Pakistan but also attacked it and committed most inhuman

atrocities on citizens of East Pakistan. As a result East Pakistan

rebelled, and with the help from India became a new Nation –

Bangladesh. (India not only defeated Pakistan badly but also arrested

91000 Pakistani soldiers.) It should be noted that Pakistan was

formed on the basis of hatred against Hindus, and on the faith that

their religion would keep them united. Result is there for every one

to see. In 1972, an agreement was signed between India and Pakistan,

in which both nations agreed to respect the line of ceasefire till

the issue gets finally resolved. Having lost three wars to India,

Pakistan, from early eighties, started sending terrorists in to

Kashmir and brain washing the tolerant Kashmiri Muslims, and

murdering Hindus, destroying Hindu temples, killing soldiers and

police personnel of J&K. Aircrafts were hijacked. Innocent people all

over India were killed by the terrorists – some of the terrorists are

Kashmiri, some Pakistani and some even from other Islamic countries.

 

Brilliant But Foolhardy Attack on Kargil

 

During winter land around most of the `Line of Control' (LOC) gets

buried under heavy snow. After Simala Agreement it was expected that

Pakistan would respect the LOC, and for many years Pakistan did

appear to be doing so. In winters extremely harsh conditions prevail

in LOC areas; e.g. Dras near Kargil is the second coldest inhabited

place in the world with temperatures going below -50 degrees C.

Therefore, normally, in winters the surveillance on LOC is reduced to

minimal, by either side. Taking advantage of this fact, Pakistan made

a brilliant plan to attack Kargil with maximum surprise. In a few

winters they entered the area beyond the LOC in to India, near

Kargil, and built bunkers, stored arms and ammunitions, and other

logistics materials. And when they thought they could win Kargil they

attacked in April-May 1999, before the summer working conditions.

Indian side was really caught napping in their blankets. Indian

Forces also could not have come in numbers because the only road to

Kargil should have remained snow bound, but for an early summer. A

question naturally arises as to how Indian Intelligence could fail so

miserably! This question is relevant to understand the Kashmir

Problem.

 

Indian Intelligence Failure

 

During winter, apart from radio and air reconnaissance, the main

source of intelligence is Bakerwals and Gujjars living in those

areas. They gladly convey the news of Pak infiltration. To counter

this, first, the dominating and separatist Sunni Muslims of Kargil

area convinced the Governments of J&K and India that they be

separated from the Buddhist-dominated Ladaakh administrative control,

and be made an administrative region under Kashmir. In Ladaakh area

Muslims are not in majority, but in Kargil they are in absolute

majority. Then Pakistan deliberately increased bombing in that area,

and at the same time the local Sunnis increased persecuting the non-

Muslims and non-sympathetic Bakerwals and Gujjars etc to drive them

away from that area. So almost no Bakerwals and Buddhists were there

to inform about the infiltration, and thus total surprise could be

achieved. That is why this plan was brilliant. It is another story as

to how bravery, strategy and superior tactics of Indian Defence

Forces could repulse the brilliant attack, albeit at a great

sacrifice of both man and material. Here again the impractical

idealism of Government of India could be seen in their order to the

Defence Forces to not cross the LOC, even while defending their area.

The impractical strain of idealism in Indians costs them heavily,

every time. The surreptitious attack on Kargil Sector beyond

the `Line of Control', which was accepted in the 1971 Simala

Agreement by Pakistan as inviolable, again confirms that promises

made by and agreements accepted by Pakistan are unreliable.

 

Islamic Terrorism

 

After fighting three wars, Pakistan has realized that they cannot win

a war with India. Therefore they have chosen the most inhuman way –

terrorism with support from international Islamic terrorist

organizations. This terrorism has not only caused heavy losses to

material, military personnel but also more importantly it has dented

the tolerant psyche of Hindus. All Hindus have been driven out from

Kashmir after a planned chain of murders of many prominent Hindus.

This low intensity war is causing a very heavy financial burden to

Indian exchequer and thus obstructing the progress that India,

specially J&K, could otherwise make. The Hindu-Muslim riots are

increasing in India in frequency and intensity. Now Hindus react very

sharply and violently to a riot started by Muslims. Gujarat is a case

in example. But what is still remarkable is that burning of Hindus at

Godara in Gujarat has resulted in a violent reaction in Gujarat only,

the rest of India not only maintained its peace but also condemned

the violent reaction. Earlier in History, by and large Hindus had not

been reacting in such a rage lasting for so long. Now the trend of

intolerance is such that even Hindus feel sad.

 

Security Personnel Vs Terrorists

 

The fate of military and police personnel safeguarding lives of

Kashmiris, and maintaining law and order there would elicit sympathy

from any human being. Though armed, they are easily visible and are

easy victims. Terrorists are also armed but are not visible for they

do not look different from the locals; therefore they always manage a

surprise attack. At the same time security personnel are expected to

be protecting the locals and not shoot unless reasonably sure of the

terrorists. They cannot be trigger happy, and the terrorists can be

as trigger happy as they like. The terrorists also kill the locals in

sufficient numbers to terrify them in to co-operation. Can the Human

rights Commission not see that the dice is heavily loaded against the

Security Forces.? They invariably had been blaming Indian security,

and seldom Pakistan Government and its terrorists. The loading of the

dice can be easily seen in the ratio of terrorists killed to the

security personnel killed. This ratio was very disappointing for a

long time - about 1 security personnel for 3 terrorists. Since 9.11

this has improved slightly14 to 1 to 4.

 

It is beyond my comprehension as to why western media is so

sympathetic to Pakistan. Is it because media is not serving the truth

but its own agenda, whatever it may be? Then should media command the

high respect that it gets? Or is truth so difficult to judge? And,

why does Pakistan invariably gain by a third party intervention. Is

it because of under-dog sympathy syndrome? Not really, because even

when the democracy in East Pakistan was being trampled under the

military boots of West Pakistan, the US was sympathetic to West

Pakistan. (After every war Pakistan did not have to pay any penalty

for its aggression. It got back money and equipment in aid from oil

rich nations, and USA etc.) Ultimately despite being an aggressor, it

is illegally occupying a third of the U. Kashmir. Was the idealism

practiced by Nehru therefore impractical?

 

What conclusions can be drawn?

 

The U.N. has proved incompetent in finding a solution to the Kashmir

problem. The UN has, inadvertently, encouraged terrorism. Terrorism

and drug trafficking help each other in increasing misery in the

world.

 

The problem of J&K is religious expansionism through terrorism, and

not the so called, rebellion against an oppressive and occupational

Government. Whereas the reverse may be true in POK.

 

Ideal of non-violence is not yet practicable in the world.

 

Religion does not guarantee unity of any nation, unless the religion

is liberal.

 

In a democratic nation terrorism should have no place, but in an open

and democratic world terrorism still works. Terrorism can kill a long

established culture of harmony and love among people of different

religions as in J&K. Having suffered firsthand, the most powerful

nation USA is now trying its best to eradicate terrorism, and it may

or may not succeed. Successful fight against terrorism demands

international cooperation, which US is in a position to get.

 

India is unable to stop terrorism in J&K so long as it is being

supported to the hilt by Pakistan through money, arms and ammunition,

military training and the most prolific and cheap breeding ground for

terrorists viz. madarasaas.

 

Terrorism will not give Pakistan what it wants but will continue to

increase misery and losses of innocent humans in J&K. This

frustration may make Pakistan bold to wage a full fledged nuclear

war. If terrorism is not stopped in J&K, danger of a nuclear war is

very real and imminent.

 

– Vishwa Mohan Tiwari, Air Vice Marshal (Retd)

May 14, 2002

 

 

 

12. www.kashmir-information.com/chronology.html

13. www.kashmir-information.com/chronology.html

14. www.satp.org...