need for recognition of Kashmir as part of India

[Guest guest]

The need for recognition of Kashmir as part of India

 

By Arvin Bahl

abahl

 

"Peter Beinart, the editor of The New Republic notes that India's

Muslim population is "among the freest in the world" and estimates

that more Muslims go from Pakistan to India every year than the other

way around."

 

The December 13th attack on the Indian Parliament allegedly carried

out by Pakistan supported terrorist groups; Lakshar-e-Taiba and

Jaish-e-Mohammed, which caused India to initiate a massive military

buildup along its border with Pakistan and the May 14th attack on an

army camp in Jammu by Pakistan backed terrorists increased tensions on

the subcontinent and brought the Kashmir issue to the forefront of

world attention.

 

Kashmir is often erroneously referred to as a "disputed territory." In

reality, Kashmir is an integral part of the Republic of India. Kashmir

acceded to India in the same exact manner as the states that acceded

to Pakistan did. According to the formula used for the partition of

the subcontinent, the rulers of each of the 560 semi-independent

princely states that were under indirect British rule were given a

choice to either accede to India or to Pakistan. The ruler of Kashmir,

the Maharaja Hari Singh, chose to join India on October 26, 1947.

 

The conflict started in the fall of 1947 when the Pakistani Army sent

in Pashtun tribesman to invade Kashmir. Hari Singh decided to join

with India in exchange for the help of the Indian government in

repelling the invaders. While the Indian Army managed to gain control

of the majority of the state, Indian Prime Minster Jawaharlal Nehru —

instead of driving out the invaders completely and ensuring that all

of Kashmir remained under Indian control — called on the United

Nations for intervention, much to the chagrin of Home Minster Sardar

Patel. A cease-fire line ensued, separating the Indian state of Jammu

and Kashmir and the portion gained by Pakistan during the war known as

Pakistan Occupied Kashmir (POK), which it continues to occupy. The

countries have fought three wars over Kashmir and since the early

1990s Pakistan has been sponsoring terrorism in Jammu and Kashmir.

This terrorism has claimed 60,000 Indian lives.

 

Pakistan attempts to paint the conflict as a struggle between Hindus

and Muslims, claiming that Jammu and Kashmir should be part of

Pakistan because it has a Muslim majority. Yet India is the world's

largest secular democracy. Unlike the Pakistani state, the Indian

state has always proclaimed the equality of all religions and the

equal rights of all its citizens irrespective of religion. Not only

do Muslims have equal rights in India, they have special protections

with regards to religious institutions not granted to the Hindu

majority and receive government funding for religious pilgrimages to

Mecca. India even allows Muslims to have five wives and have their own

civil code, which no other secular democracy allows. India has the

second largest Muslims population in the world and more Muslims than

Pakistan. It has had Muslim Presidents, ministers in both national and

state governments, and Supreme Court Justices. For example, A.P.J.

Abdul Kalam, a Muslim who is the father of India's missle program has

recently been named India's 12th President of the Republic. Peter

Beinart, the editor of The New Republic notes that India's Muslim

population is "among the freest in the world" and estimates that more

Muslims go from Pakistan to India every year than the other way around.

 

Herein lies the problem from the Pakistani perspective. Pakistan's

claim to Kashmir is based on the two nation theory, the same theory

that justified Pakistan's creation and the partition of the

subcontinent: Muslims of the subcontinent cannot peacefully coexist in

a secular democracy with people of other faiths and thus must have

their own separate Islamic state. Thus Kashmir is not a conflict

between Hindus and Muslims, nor is it simply about territory, but

rather it is a microcosm of an ideological struggle between the two

irreconcilable worldviews that form the basic ideology that each

nation was founded upon.

 

As the Chicago Tribune states, "the fate of Kashmir goes to each

nation's basic vision of itself. India, a mostly Hindu nation, has a

secular government that has always stressed the freedom and equality

of all faiths. With more than 100 million Muslims, it spurns the idea

that religion should determine national identity. Pakistan, on the

other hand, thinks Muslims can be secure on the subcontinent only in

an Islamic republic." The fact that India has a larger Muslim

population than Pakistan and that East Pakistan became Bangladesh in

1971 proves that religion cannot serve as the basis of national

identity and has demonstrated the fallacy of the two-nation theory.

 

Christopher Hitchens writing in The Nation about Kashmir notes the

potential consequences of following the Pakistani position on Kashmir:

"The demand that religion should determine nationality would, if

applied, destroy the whole subcontinent and make it a prey to warring

faiths. The present Indian government may be Hindu nationalist in

temper, but no responsible successor regime could or should be asked

to accede to such a fanatical demand." Saeed Naqvi, an Indian Muslim

journalist asserts that the Indian state is "history's largest effort

at welding a multilingual, multiethnic, multireligious state." This

effort would be severely undermined as would Indian secularism should

India lose Kashmir.

 

India's possession of the Muslim-majority state of Jammu and Kashmir

is seen by Pakistan as the ultimate denial of its rationale for

existence. As Naqvi notes, "Indian secularism is anathema to

Pakistan; its success across the border denies the theocratic state

with its very basis." Pakistan backed Islamic fundamentalist groups

have thus embarked upon their quest to "liberate" Jammu and Kashmir

from India's "oppressive" secular democracy and turn it into an

Islamic theocracy. Islamic terrorists have ethnically cleansed the

Hindu population of the Kashmir Valley driving 300,000 Kashmiri

Pandits from their ancestral homeland and as the Navbharat Times

notes, from 1986-1992, "Ninety-one Hindu temples in the Indian state

of Jammu and Kashmir were subjected to destruction, grenade and rocket

attacks, arson, and ransacking by Pakistan-backed Islamic militants."

Young girls are forced by militant Islamic groups to wear veils

against their will. Pakistan's brutality, however, is not confined

only to Hindus, but also affects the Muslims Pakistan claims to be

"liberating." A report titled, "A Profile of Terrorist Violence in

Jammu and Kashmir" notes that the number of Muslims killed in Kashmir

by terrorists is seven times the number of Hindus.

 

But perhaps the most compelling reasons why Jammu and Kashmir must

remain a part of India relate to the realities of the subcontinent.

India has had virtually uninterrupted democratic rule ever since

independence. By contrast, Pakistan has been ruled for most of its

history by oppressive military dictatorships, as it is currently.

Freedom House has annually rated political freedom in every country in

the world since 1972. Pakistan's rating in 1999-2000 was worse than

that of South Africa under apartheid and Yugoslavia under communism

for ever year since 1972. The only way to guarantee that the most

fundamental human rights of the Kashmiri people are protected such as

the right to vote, the right to assembly, and freedom of speech is to

ensure that Jammu and Kashmir remains a part of India.

 

The most pressing issues, however, have to do with the religious

freedom and secularism, where the contrasting conditions seen in both

countries are rooted in the radically different ideologies upon which

each nation was founded. As noted above, India is a secular state that

guarantees not only equal rights but also special privileges for its

Muslim minority. This is not the case with Pakistan, a nation many

would call an Islamic theocracy. Article 227 of the Pakistani

Constitution, for example, mandates that "all existing laws shall be

brought in conformity with the Injunctions of Islam as laid down in

the Holy Quran and Sunnah, in this Part referred to as the Injunctions

of Islam, and no law shall be enacted which is repugnant to such

Injunctions." Article 203-D empowers a Federal Shariat Court to

"examine and decide the question whether or not any law or provision

of law is repugnant to the injunctions of Islam." If a law is found to

be repugnant to Islam either the government "shall take steps to

amend the law so as to bring such law or provision into conformity

with the Injunctions of Islam" or " such law or provision shall, to

the extent to which it is held to be so repugnant, cease to have

effect on the day on which the decision of the Court takes effect."

Article 51 reserves over 95 percent of all seats in Parliament for

Muslims. Article 41(2) states, "A person shall not be qualified for

election as President unless he is a Muslim." Article 91(4) describes

the oath the Prime Minister takes:

 

"I, ____________, do swear solemnly that l am a Muslim and believe in

the Unity and Oneness of Almighty Allah, the Books of Allah, the Holy

Quran being the last of them, the Prophethood of Muhammad (peace be

upon him) as the last of the Prophets and that there can be no Prophet

after him, the Day of Judgment, and all the requirements and teachings

of the Holy Quran and Sunnah"

 

While most national constitutions, such as the American Constitution,

explicitly prohibit such religious tests for public office that are

characteristic of medieval Europe, the Pakistani Constitution mandates

them.

 

The significance of discussing the Pakistani Constitution, is that

while in many countries minorities suffer discrimination, in not many

does the nation's constitution mandate such persecution. Many think

that by merely stopping a "fundamentalist fringe" in Pakistan,

"secularism" and "religious tolerance" can be preserved, failing to

recognize that the very ideology of the Pakistani nation is in

conflict with liberal norms such as secularism and religious

pluralism. For example, BBC on January 31st 2002 describes Pervez

Musharraf, a man hailed as the "Ataturk of Pakistan" as trying to

dispel " the impression that his recent moves against Islamic

extremism were aimed at negating the country's founding ideology."

Musharraf is quoted as saying,

 

"Nobody should ever think that this is a secular state. It was founded

as the Islamic Republic of Pakistan".

 

While it is certainly true that at times democratic nations such as

India and the United States have failed to live up to their

commitments of equality, freedom, and secularism, these nations,

unlike Pakistan, are at least committed to such norms.

 

The United States State Department Pakistan Country Report on Human

Rights, and Labor note that "Pakistan's discriminatory religious

legislation encourages religious intolerance and violence directed

against minority Muslim sects, Christians, and Hindus." (emphasis added)

 

In Pakistan, the testimony of Muslims in court counts more than that

of non-Muslims and the testimony of men counts more than that of

women. In certain cases, the testimony of women and non-Muslims is not

accepted at all. The report notes that if a Muslim man rapes a

Christian woman in the presence of several Christian men and women, he

cannot be convicted under Hudood ordinances because non-Muslim

witnesses are not accepted.

 

The New York Times on May 17, 2002 describes a story of a rape victim

who is sentenced to death by stoning. Under Islamic law in Pakistan,

if a woman makes an accusation of rape, which is almost impossible to

prove, she herself can be prosecuted for adultery. Under Pakistan's

blasphemy law one who "willfully defiles, damages or desecrates a

copy of the holy Koran" can face life imprisonment. Even certain sects

of Islam suffer from religious persecution. Pakistan has specific

legal prohibitions against Ahmadi Muslims. For example, they are not

allowed to name their children Mohammed, recite the Quran, call

themselves Muslims, or use Islamic terminology. The persecution of

minority Muslim sects continues under the government of Pervez

Musharraf, which is widely hailed by the West as a bulwark against

Islamic extremism. The Lahore Times notes :

 

"President General Pervez Musharraf and his military-government have

promulgated the Conduct of General Elections (Second Amendment) Order

2002 that prohibits listing Ahmedis or Quadianis on electoral rolls.

The government has invited objections to this order within ten days

fromits promulgation. Under the order, a non-Muslim or Ahmedi cannot

register to vote. Any Ahmedis or Quadianis found to be on the official

electoral rolls would be summoned by the Revising Authority. Their

appearance before this authority would be mandatory within 15 days of

receiving notification. This person shall then be required to sign a

declaration agreeing to the finality of the Holy Prophet. If this

person refuses to sign this, he or she shall be deemed non-Muslims.

The name of this person shall then be removed from the electoral rolls. "

 

Forcing the people of Kashmir, long known for their tolerant

traditions, to live in such a theocratic society is unjust

 

Most disturbing, however, is Pakistan's treatment of Hindus, which

comprise 35 percent of the population of Jammu and Kashmir. According

to former French Cultural Minister Andre Malraux, the policies of

Pakistan (which means "land of the pure" in English) towards Hindus,

bear striking resemblance to the Nazi actions towards the Jews. In

1946, over 30 percent of present day Pakistan was Hindu, but now the

total percentage of religious minorities is less than 3 percent, as a

massive ethnic cleansing forced out all non-Muslims. (By contrast, the

number of Muslims in India has increased from 8 percent to 14 percent

since 1947). In 1971, the Pakistani army engaged in the Bangladesh

genocide in which over 2 million Hindus were slaughtered. When

Pakistan took over parts of Kashmir in 1947, it launched a brutal

campaign against Hindu and non-Muslim populations. As noted above,

Pakistan's ethnic cleansing against Hindus continues today in Jammu

and Kashmir. Given this history of ethnic cleansing, the fate of

Kashmiri Hindus if Pakistan were to take over all of Kashmir is too

painful even to contemplate.

 

Much is also stated about the "self-determination" of the Kashmiri

people and "ascertaining the will of the Kashmiri people." Article 370

of the Indian Constitution, gives Jammu and Kashmir more autonomy than

any other state in India. Article 370 even prohibits people from other

parts of India from settling in Jammu and Kashmir. Pakistan on the

other hand, has forcibly removed Kashmiris from their homeland and

settled it with Pashtun and Punjabi servicemen in an attempt to alter

the demographic composition of the Pakistan Occupied Kashmir. The will

of the people of Jammu and Kashmir has been ascertained through

periodic democratic elections in the state. By contrast, in the

Northern Areas of the Pakistan Occupied Kashmir, adult franchise has

never been granted. It is also important to note that there are three

parts to the state: Hindu-majority Jammu, Buddhist-majority Ladakh,

and the Muslim-majority Kashmir Valley. The insurgency is almost

entirely confined to the Kashmir Valley, which comprises only 15

percent of the area of the state.

 

It is also erroneously assumed by many that the Muslims of Kashmir do

not want to be a part of India. The party that has governed Jammu and

Kashmir for most of the years since independence is the pro-India

National Conference, led by a Muslim, Farooq Abdullah. Pakistan claims

that the terrorist movement in Jammu and Kashmir is "indigenous." Yet

this is not the case as over 70 percent of those killed by the Indian

army in the state from June 2001 to January 2002 were Pakistanis. A

large portion of the remaining 30 percent were likely to be Arabs or

Afghans. A recent poll by the British based firm MORI International

has shown that 61 % of Kashmiris believed they would be better off

economically and politically as Indian citizens, while only 6%

preferred Pakistan. Over two-thirds of the respondents believed that

Pakistan's involvement in Jammu and Kashmir has been harmful. Over

88% believed that ending the infiltration of militants across the Line

of Control would help bring peace to the region. In 1964, when

Pakistan attacked Jammu and Kashmir, the Kashmiris helped turn the

invaders into the Indian army rather than helping the Pakistanis. And

most importantly, Pakistan claims that it is the guardian of Muslims

on the subcontinent ring hollow due to the persecution of various

Muslim sects in Pakistan as noted above and its brutal terrorist

campaign in Jammu and Kashmir which has killed thousands of innocent

Kashmiri Muslims.

 

Arvin Bahl is from Edison, NJ. He can be

reached at abahl