[Reader-list] Gun Salutes for August 15

[S. Jabbar]

> 
> Dear Shuddha,
> 
>> It¹s been a few days since I sent a reply to your long letter to me. Since
>> you usually respond quickly I actually wondered if you or anyone else saw the
>> meat of my response which was tucked away at the end of your post.  I assume
>> you haven¹t so I¹m resending it.  Pl ignore it if you¹ve read it already.
>> Warm regards
>> sj
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> I do not wish to be complicit in that occupation. I think many more people in
>> India are coming around to this view. Their numbers will only increase,
>> because Indians, like people all over the world, are not stupid. More and
>> more people are realizing and will come to realize that for the faintest
>> possibility of peace, equity and prosperity to take hold in South Asia, India
>> must let go of Kashmir. Only then will there be lasting peace on the
>> subcontinent, only then can the tremendous and tragic drain that is the arms
>> race be put an end to.
>> 
>> 
>> How do you see this Œletting go of Kashmir¹? I¹m curious.
>> 
>> I have never advocated or believed Kashmir should be held by force.  It is
>> shameful that a nation that prides itself on having won its independence by
>> means of a non-violent struggle should have had to resort to brute power to
>> hold down a region.  It is all the more galling that it has had 60 years in
>> which to convince the people of Kashmir of the benefits of being part of the
>> Indian union and failed time and time again.  If you look at Kashmir
>> post-1947 there have been innumerable agreements signed between the Govt of
>> India and the representatives of the people of J&K and each one of them has
>> worked for a period and then failed.  The 2002 elections brought considerable
>> hope to New Delhi, but 8 years later we seem to have come full circle.
>> Whenever I ask why it is that we (India & Pakistan) seem to be treading water
>> on Kashmir, Kashmiri friends point to the root cause which has been left
>> unaddressed.  The root cause in this widely held view is the promise of a
>> plebiscite or the right to self-determination.  This is a long discussion.
>> 
>> I have no problem, in principle, to say the Kashmiris or anybody else should
>> get Azadi from India and vice-versa, but I¹d have to stop and think about
>> what that means in real terms: What this means for the people of the Valley,
>> Jammu, Ladakh, India and Pakistan; what is my definition of Azadi and how do
>> I propose to practically resolve my ideas given the long and complex history
>> of the region.
>> 
>> 
>> The UN Resolutions speak of a plebiscite to either Pakistan or India.  It did
>> not, in 1948, anticipate the demand for an Independent Kashmir.  It is not
>> simply the Indian state that rejects the Resolutions but also advocates of an
>> independent Kashmir. Pakistan has repeatedly said it would not countenance
>> the creation of an independent Kashmir, and curiously, neither have
>> successive leaders of Pakistan Administered Kashmir.  So how do you
>> practically deal with this situation?  Do we press the UN to revoke, annul
>> and expunge the Resolutions of 1948? No Kashmiri has ever raised this
>> seriously because they know that Pakistan would not allow it.
>> 
>> The state of J&K is extremely complex.  Jammu & Ladakh want closer
>> integration with India.  Some would argue that Muslim areas of Jammu share
>> the Kashmiri sentiment , but though I could be wrong, that has not been my
>> experience.  The Valley itself is divided into the Œpro-Azadi¹ and
>> Œpro-India¹ lots.  The latter, smaller in number, are largely businessmen who
>> have interests in other parts of India and politicians and workers of
>> mainstream political parties.  Besides these, there are border areas like
>> Gurez, Keran, Karnah and to some extent Uri where the people have been
>> largely insulated from separatist political activity of the Valley because of
>> the large presence of the Indian Army and their dependency on them.
>> 
>> Among those wanting ŒAzadi¹ or secession from India, Kashmiris themselves put
>> the divide as 60% for independence and 40% for accession with Pakistan.  How
>> is this to be resolved? After the revolution? I don¹t think so.
>> 
>> I don¹t think another Partition will bring about lasting peace to the
>> sub-continent.  Speaking of which, in 1947, the people of India were not
>> given the right to vote either for or against Partition.  Gandhi proposed and
>> Jinnah had opposed the idea of a plebiscite in 1944. The 1946 election was
>> interpreted as a vote for Partition, but of the 350 million population of
>> India only 10% were eligible to vote in the first place as there was no
>> universal franchise. So, the verdict of 35 million people divided into
>> separate electorates was taken as the will of the people. And what did it
>> tell us when, of the 95 million Muslims in undivided India, 4o million
>> continued to live in India after the creation of Pakistan?
>> 
>> The fruits of 1947 are in front of us.  I believe, like you, that replacing
>> one nation-state by another is hardly the solution. For many years now,
>> friends in Pakistan and I have been discussing the idea of a South Asian
>> Union which loosens the idea of sovereignty, strengthens people, encourages
>> movement across borders, makes irrelevant armies that are presently engaged
>> in fighting each other.  I wonder whether it is possible to take this
>> conversation into that direction, into bringing together rather than
>> sundering?
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>