The Kashmir Problem (The Last Smile: A Father’s Love Story by Jeevan Zutshi-5)

(Looking back at the untimely death of a promising young man by his father Jeevan Zutshi of California; see the links for the earlier chapters below)

The Last Smile: A Father’s Love Story by Jeevan Zutshi

The current conflict emerged after India and Pakistan became separate countries in 1947. Sumit Ganguly, a visiting scholar at the Center on Democracy, Development and the Rule of Law at Stanford University, wrote a summary in July/August 2006 issue of Foreign Affairs Magazine. Ganguly sees the conflict as a kind of impasse of “competing projects of nation building.”

He writes that India’s position, that Kashmir deserves a chance to demonstrate that it can thrive as a “secular state,” was solidified with the decision of Kashmir’s Hindu monarch to join India in 1947 in an attempt to prevent a “Pakistani-backed incursion.” Pakistan has consistently viewed Kashmir as belonging to it because of Kashmir’s high Muslim population.

(It is important to note that the state of Jammu and Kashmir has a Muslim population of 65% and that of Hindus is 30%. So, the Muslim population is not overwhelmingly high. It is in the Kashmir Valley (popularly called the Vale Of Kashmir) that The Last Smile 10 Chapter One - Following The Footprints Of My Origin 11 the Muslim population is 97%. Often, the people following Kashmir Problem are ignorant of these demographics. Wars have broken out between these two countries three times, in 1947-48, 1965, and 1989. An alarming component of this conflict is not only the suffering of Kashmiris, who have been forced to endure the outbreaks and Pakistan’s attempts at stirring up ancient rivalries between Muslims and Hindus, but the fact that in 1990 and 2001-2002, the two countries threatened to use nuclear weapons over it.

Ganguly also notes that the case that each country has made for the sovereignty over Kashmir has been countered by the events that took place subsequently. Bangladesh seceded from Pakistan in 1971, proving a majority Muslim state could gain its independence from Pakistan, and the rise of “virulent Hindu nationalism” takes some of the wind out of India’s argument that it is a secular nation.

In spite of these events, the countries have neither adjusted nor backed down on their claims. When Pakistan was defeated in the 1971 Indo-Pakistani war, which was provoked by the Pakistani civil war (not the dispute over Kashmir), there was relative peace between the two countries until 1989. India’s superiority in conventional arms was part of the reason the conflict had ebbed.

According to Ganguly, what changed in 1989 was the people of Kashmir, who were no longer willing to tolerate the “chicanery” of the National Conference, the dominant party, which “had long intimidated political opponents, stuffed ballot boxes, and coerced voters -- all with the tacit approval of the Indian government.” Ganguly notes that “a mostly indigenous ethnoreligious insurgency, was aided and abetted by Pakistan, who gave them “weapons, training, and sanctuary” in order to garner revenge after their humiliating defeat in 1971.

There may be other views on the degree to which this insurgency was indigenous, for it is well known among Kashmiris that Pakistan has continually tried to stir up ethnic hatred in Kashmir, where Hindus and Muslims had been residing in peace for decades. Pakistan’s aid changed the shape of the insurgency; soon Islamist terrorist organizations had replaced local insurgents. Ganguly notes that these organizations attracted people who were more motivated by “bloodthirstiness, religious fervor, and greed” than they were in helping Muslims gain political rights in Kashmir. As Ganguly puts it, “During the 1990s, the insurgency in Kashmir became a well-organized, ideologically charged extortion racket and, in the process, lost the support of much of the local populace.” The decline in the support of the population of Kashmir was due to the insurgents tendency to “harass, and sometimes even terrorize” the Kashmiris.

The government of India countered the uprising with their security forces and by holding elections in 1996 and 2002, which the international community observed to be fair. Ganguly notes that there have been three crises that have renewed the attention of the world on the Kashmir dispute.

The first lies in the fact that since 1998 both countries have shown their nuclear capabilities by testing. The second occurred in 1999, when Pakistan invaded India, gamboling on greater success this time in light of its recent demonstration of its nuclear capabilities, which it hoped would nullify India’s conventional arms superiority. Pakistani troops, disguised as tribes people, slipped over the border (referred to as the “Line of Control”) and took over three positions vital to protecting Indian-controlled Kashmir.

The Indians fought back hard, and the international community, with the United States at its forefront, was quick to support India and denounce the invasion. However, Pakistan turned out to be correct in its assumption that its nuclear capacity had shifted the playing field, as it had apparently kept India from launching a counter attack into Punjab or Rajasthan.

On December 13, 2001, the third event occurred. India’s parliament building was attacked while it was in session by Pakistani-backed terrorist organizations. India renewed diplomatic efforts and some of the compromises that were agreed upon include ceasefire along the Line Of Control, bus service between Srinagar and Muzaffarabad (capital of Pakistan-controlled Kashmir), permission granted for the members of anti-India organization All Parties Hurriyat Conference (APHC) to visit Pakistan. Although these appear to be steps towards reconciliation, there remain major obstacles to achieving a long-lasting resolution.

For one, although India’s Prime Minister, Manmohan Singh, has voiced a willingness to discuss with the APHC issues of political representation, Pakistan has not been willing to stop its support of terrorist organizations bent on creating upheaval in Kashmir. The international community should work on helping the two countries find an accord, for the consequences of neglecting this issue could be costly. With the likelihood that Pakistan will continue to foment division and enmity among Kashmiris, another Indo-Pakistani outbreak could be triggered at any time. Washington would then be required to step in to try to keep the situation from escalating.

Meanwhile, there is some danger of dwindling investment in India, although investors should be heartened by India’s resiliency in the face of the conflict. In spite of the unresolved situation over Kashmir, and the insurgency there that has not abated, India has continued its rise to prominence on the world stage. Ganguly notes that India has done exceeding well given the dour The Last Smile 12 Chapter One - Following The Footprints Of My Origin 13 predictions of commentators in the world community that India might collapse due to rapid increase in population, slow economic growth, newly formed communist groups, and ethnic, religious, and caste strife amongst its population. He notes that India has shown itself to be “remarkably resilient, and apart from a brief suspension of political liberties in the late 1970s, it has managed to handle crises without abandoning its commitment to democratic practices.” Although it’s within India’s interest to bring the conflict with Pakistan to a speedy resolution, the avenues toward peace are hard to discern.

Solutions have been offered, starting from creating plebiscites within the region to help decide its own fate, to granting independence for Kashmir. Ganguly suspects that any solution will have to give all Kashmiris, whether they are Muslms, Hindus, or Buddhists, the ability to “exercise their right of determination.” But he adds that even a plebiscite on Kashmir’s fate would not necessarily address the needs of its minority groups. A Sunni-dominated independent Kashmir would not be welcomed by Hindus, Buddhists, or even Shiite Muslims for that matter.

Their misgivings about such a development would not be not out of place given the “tragic experience” of minorities in Pakistan and the “Sunni-Shiite violence in Iraq.” Ganguly believes that Kashmir’s minorities would fare best “as part of India’s multiethnic, multireligious, secular state,” but this would not be likely to sit well with Pakistan.

Pakistan would rather see Kashmir within its own borders or separated from India as an independent Muslim-dominated state, which could be predicted to be sympathetic to Pakistan. Although Pakistan purports to be interested in the rights of Kashmir, as Ganguly notes, its record on upholding minority rights and democracy has been “abysmal.” Since 1947, the governing structure in Pakistani-controlled part of Kashmir has been marked by the absence of democratic institutions and practices, which raises the question of how an independent Kashmir could function. India also is unlikely to concede any territory and does not wish to see the effects of an independent Kashmir on other “secessionist movements” within India.

Ganguly reasons that negotiations must begin with the notion that giving up territory is not on the table for India. Any viable resolution would need to address the grievances of the Muslims in Kashmir as well as protect the rights of all the minorities. Among those are Kashmiri Pandits, who are the aborigines of Kashmir and who have suffered to a great degree in 1989 when 350,000 of them had to flee for their lives. Many of these Pandits are still living as refugees in their own country.

Their issues must also be addressed. Civil society plays a critical role in nation building and human development. Local societal issues in Kashmir, unrelated to regional politics, cannot not be ignored until the Kashmir Problem is resolved. The civil society in Kashmir faces a challenge in reorienting its agenda to address a wide spectrum of local issues and thereby enhance its appeal and relevance to various sections of the society. To build a violence free and tolerant state, the government has to take steps to work seriously and in good faith on a solid plan.

I agree with Dr. Amitabh Mattoo’s, former Vice-Chancellor, University of Jammu And Kashmir, plan, called 5 R. That comprises of: reconciliation between all stakeholders, (2) revival of composite culture of pluralism, (3) rehabilitation of internally displaced people, (4) reconstruction of the economy, and (5) restoration of faith in the system.

4) Story of Kashmir: (The Last Smile: A Father’s Love Story by Jeevan Zutshi-4)

3 Story of Kashmir: (The Last Smile: A Father’s Love Story by Jeevan Zutshi-3)

2: Story of Kashmir

1)
see a forward by Maharaj Kaul