[Reader-list] Think the unthinkable by Vir Sanghvi

[Kashmir Affairs]

      Counterpoint | Vir SanghviEmail Author August 16, 2008First Published: 22:55 IST(16/8/2008)Last Updated: 23:15 IST(16/8/2008)
      


    
        
        
        
        
        
        
    
    
        
        
        
            
                
                    
                        

                        
addthis_pub             = 'hindustantimes'; 
addthis_logo            = 'http://www.hindustantimes.com/HomePage/images/ht_logo.png';
addthis_logo_background = 'EFEFFF';
addthis_logo_color      = '666699';
addthis_brand           = 'HindustanTimes.Com';
addthis_options         = 'favorites, google, email, myweb, digg, delicious, myspace, facebook, live, more'; 

                        

                        
                    
                    
                        
                        
                    
                    
                    
                
            
        
        
        
    
    
        
        
        
        
        
        
    
Have
you been reading the news coming out of Kashmir with a mounting sense
of despair?  I know I have. It’s clear now that the optimism of the
last few months — all those articles telling us that normalcy had
returned to Kashmir — was misplaced.  Nothing has really changed since
the 1990s. A single spark — such as the dispute over Amarnath land — 
can set the whole valley on fire, so deep is the resentment, anger and
the extent of secessionist feeling. Indian forces are treated as an
army of occupation. New Delhi is seen as the oppressor. There is no
engagement with the Indian mainstream. And even the major political
parties do not hesitate to play the Pakistan card — Mehbooba Mufti is
quite willing to march to the Line of Control.
  
 
 
              
   
       
       
         
At one level, the current crisis in Kashmir is a consequence of a
series of actions by the Indian establishment. New Delhi let the
situation fester until it was too late. The state administration veered
between inaction and over-reaction. The Sangh Parivar played politics
with Hindu sentiment in Jammu, raising the confrontation to a new
level. 
But we need to look at the Kashmir situation in a deeper way. We can
no longer treat it on a case-by-case basis: solve this crisis, and then
wait and see how things turn out in the 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. 
It’s not as though the Indian state has no experience of dealing
with secessionist movements. Almost from the time we became independent
61 years ago, we have been faced with calls for secession from nearly
every corner of India:  from Nagaland, Assam and Mizoram, from Tamil
Nadu, from Punjab etc. 
In every single case, democracy has provided the solution. We have
followed a three-pronged approach: strong, almost brutal, police or
army action against those engaging in violence, a call to the
secessionist leaders to join the democratic process and then, generous
central assistance for the rebuilding of the state. It is an approach
that has worked brilliantly. Even in, say, Mizoram, where alienation
was at its height in the 1970s, the new generation sees itself as
Indian. The Nagas now concentrate their demands on a redrawing of state
boundaries (to take in part of Manipur), not on a threat to the
integrity of India. In Tamil Nadu, the Hindi agitation is forgotten and
in Punjab, Khalistan is a distant memory. 
The exception to this trend has been Kashmir. Contrary to what many
Kashmiris claim, we have tried everything. Even today, the state enjoys
a special status. Under Article 370 of our Constitution, with the
exception of defence, foreign policy, and communication, no law enacted
by parliament has any legitimacy in Kashmir unless the state government
gives its consent. The state is the only one in India to have its own
Constitution and the President of India cannot issue directions to the
state government in exercise of the executive power of the Union as he
can in every other state. Kashmiri are Indian citizens but Indians are
not necessarily Kashmiri citizens.  We cannot vote for elections to
their assembly or own any property in Kashmir. 
Then, there is the money. Bihar gets per capita central assistance
of Rs 876 per year. Kashmir gets over ten times more: Rs 9,754 per
year. While in Bihar and other states, this assistance is mainly in the
forms of loans to the state, in Kashmir 90 per cent is an outright
grant. Kashmir’s entire Five Year Plan expenditure is met by the Indian
taxpayer. In addition, New Delhi keeps throwing more and more money at
the state: in 2004, the Prime Minister gave Kashmir another $ 5 billion
for development. 
Kashmiris are happy to take the money and the special rights but
they argue that India has been unfair to them because no free political
process has developed. And, it is true that we have rigged elections in
Kashmir.  But, it is now nearly a decade  since any rigging was
alleged. Nobody disputes that the last election was fair. Moreover,
even though the Congress got more seats than the PDP, the Chief
Ministership went to Mufti Mohammad Sayeed as a gesture. 
Given that Kashmir has the best deal of any Indian state, is there
anything more we can do? Kashmiris talk about more autonomy.  But I
don’t see a) what more we can give them and b) how much difference it
will make. 
If you step back and think about it, the real question is not “how
do we solve this month’s crisis”?  It is: what does the Centre get in
return for the special favours and the billions of dollars?
The short answer is: damn all. 
As the current agitation demonstrates, far from gratitude, there is
active hatred of India. Pakistan, a small, second-rate country that has
been left far behind by India, suddenly acts as though it is on par
with us, lecturing India in human rights and threatening to further
internationalise the present crisis. 
The world looks at us with dismay. If we are the largest democracy
on the planet then how can we hang on to a people who have no desire to
be part of India?
The other cost of Kashmir is military. Many terrorist acts, from the
hijacking of IC 814 to the attack on parliament have Kashmir links. Our
response to the parliament attack was Operation Parakram, which cost,
in ten months, Rs 6,500 crore and 800 army lives? (Kargil cost us 474
lives.) Each day, our troops and paramilitary forces are subjected to
terrorists’s attacks, stress, and ridicule. 
So, here’s my question: why are we still hanging on to Kashmir if the Kashmiris don’t want to have anything to do with us?  
The answer is machismo. We have been conned into believing that it
would diminish India if Kashmir seceded. And so, as we lose lives and
billions of dollars, the Kashmiris revel in calling us names knowing
that we will never have the guts to let them go. 
But would India really be diminished? One argument is that offering
Kashmiris the right to self-determination would encourage every other
secessionist group. But would it? Isn’t there already a sense in which
we treat Kashmir as a special case? No other secessionist group gets
Article 370 or so much extra consideration. Besides, if you take this
line, then no solution (autonomy, soft borders etc.) is possible
because you could argue that everybody else would want it too.
A second objection is that Indian secularism would be damaged by the
secession of Kashmir. This is clearly not true. As history has shown,
Indian Muslims feel no special kinship with Kashmir. They would not
feel less Indian if some Kashmiris departed. 
Moreover, too much is made of the size of Kashmir. Actually
secessionist feeling is concentrated in the Valley, an area with a
population of 4 million that is 98 per cent Muslim. (The Hindus either
left or were driven out). Neither Jammu nor Ladakh want to secede. So,
is the future of India to be held hostage to a population less than
half the size of the population of Delhi?
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. 
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 — 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.

Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com