[Reader-list] Why Kashmir has no case for self-determination

[shuddha at sarai.net]

Dear All, 

The case for, or against, self-determination, has to rest, finally, not in
what others think, but in what those who desire the determination of their
own destinies, believe.

Either we take a democratic principle seriously, or we do not. Either we
believe that a popular majority's acquiescence to a form of sovereignty
makes sense, or it does not.

My stand on the question of 'self-determination' for Kashmir has nothing to
do with an argument for, or, against the possibility or necessity or
desirability of a Kashmiri nation-state. That is not for me to judge. Nor
is it for anyone other than those who will be its willing or unwilling
subjects.

My position is simple. If the majority of the people of the Kashmir valley
(please note that I am not talking of Jammu or Ladakh) believe that they
should not stay within the Indian union, then, it is undemocratic to force
them to stay. If, however, they demonstrate in a free, fair referendum,
conducted by a neutral body, attended upon by international observers, that
in fact they wish to stay within the Indian union. Then, it would be
equally undemocratic to have them secede.

The Indian government, when it took the Kashmir issue to the United
Nations, promised such a referendum. It has not kept to that promise. If it
does so, then the matter can be easily settled.

Finally, just because we don't agree with what the majority of a people
believe in, does not mean that we have the right to foist decisions alien
to their will upon them. Kashmiri self-determination may be
self-delusional, it may not be. But that is not anyone other than the
people of Kashmir can, or should decide, for them, or on their behalf.

I may find Hindu or Islamic fundamentalism distasteful, and I will struggle
against it passionately, but if, theoretically, the majority of the people
were to accede to Fundamentalism, I would have to accept that this is in
fact a reflection of their democratically expressed will. My job would then
be to argue with them, consistently, clearly, passionately, if necessary,
forever.

If it is patently clear that their will has been subverted, as it has been
recently in Iran (or in the staged 'elections' that were held in Kashmir in
1987, which inaugurated the current more than two decade long period of
unrest) then a commitment to democratic principles would have to mean a
struggle to restore that will.

Vivek Gumaste has invoked many arguments in his text, but not a single one
of them actually attempts to engage with what the question of the will of
the majority of the Kashmir valley. Until a proper engagement with that
question is undertaken, every argument for the forcible retention of the
Kashmir, whether undertaken on pragmatic or idealistic grounds, need to be
seen for what it would end up being - the ornaments of tyranny.

best, 

Shuddha





> Self-determination is a lyrical, mesmerising phrase that sparks the
> fire in a revolutionary and excites the cerebral neurons of a
> libertarian, galvanising both into frenzied activity. But
> self-determination shorn of its prerequisites and mindless of its
> implications can prove to be a toxic, self-mutilating instrument with
> deleterious consequences for its protagonists and antagonists. Nowhere
> is this more evident than in the case of Kashmir where it holds an
> uncertain future for its proponents in the Valley and can be the axiom
> that seriously erodes the basic fabric of India's Constitution.