Author: Varsha Bhosle
Publication: Rediff on Net
Date: April 11, 1997
URL: http://www.rediff.com/news/apr/11varsha.htm
On April 1, your friendly jingoist
tuned in to CNN's Q&A with Riz Khan featuring Nayyar Zaidi, a Pakistani
journalist based in Washington, and Gowhar Rizvi, a New York-based functionary
of the Ford Foundation. There was no Bharatiya representative; the topic
was the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir. The two guests never did see
eye-to-eye: While Mr Rizvi, in the most non- confrontational way, explained
that the right of self-determination of Kashmiris cannot be denied, Mr
Zaidi thundered that the only option open to Kashmiris was that of joining
Pakistan.
In the meantime, Mr Khan fielded
calls/faxes/email from international viewers - ALL of whom agreed with
either Mr Rizvi or Mr Zaidi. It's possible that on All Fools' Day, the
Law of Averages plays its own little prank.
On my part, I was rooting for Pakistan.
After all, any country that can throw up such an aggressively nationalistic
specimen, deserves whatever we can cede to it. There was no mincing about:
when Mr Zaidi said "disputed territory", nobody could have considered J&K
to be otherwise. He invoked Nehru's gift to modern India - the 1948 UN
resolution on Kashmir which calls for a plebiscite in the state; he pragmatically
explained how a small independent country could never exist as a buffer
between India, China and Pakistan; and he demonstrated the wonderful stuff
of which Pakistanis are made.
The mind is a strange thing - for
mine went to Japan: When Prime Minister Hashimoto paid a private visit
to a certain shrine in Tokyo, China and Korea protested so strongly that
he had to pledge not to enter it again. Apparently, along with honouring
Japanese war heroes, the shrine also houses the graves of war criminals.
I mused, has India ever asked a British dignitary to place a wreath on
behalf of his country at the Jallianwala Bagh? The thought never seems
to occur to us. For us, humiliation and indignity are virtues to be cherished.
All too often, they go by the names of "unilateral gestures" and "international
goodwill".
Which took me to Nawaz Sharief's
advice to India: "I hope you will agree with me that without some progress
on the core issue of Jammu and Kashmir, it will be difficult to initiate
a meaningful cooperation in the economic and cultural fields." Immediately,
to promote trade and exchange of artists, we unilaterally relaxed the restrictions
on visas - and have now been asked to reduce our level of troops, including
paramilitary forces, in the Vale of Kashmir. Least we get complacent, Pakistan's
foreign minister, Gohar Ayub Khan, has sought the support of friendly countries
vis-à-vis "the held Kashmir". You see, Mr Khan "would also like
New Delhi to stop violating human rights of the Kashmiri people".
Yes, sir! It's not in our conciliatory
natures to bring up the Inter Services Intelligence's activities along
the Indo-Nepal border, its training and arming of terrorists in J&K
and Punjab, and its support to the Islamic fundamentalist organisations
spread all over India. Humanitarian gestures like the release of boats
and crews (which are ours to begin with) will be enough for us, thank you.
That a hawkish stand is required on what constitutes our sovereign land,
seems to elude us: forget M/s Rizvi and Zaidi, even Indians say that we
should pay heed to the demands of Kashmiri separatists!
No, I do not understand the peacenik
mentality at all. In August 1994, when 200 ISI-directed mercenaries (including
Afghan, Palestinian and Lebanese war veterans) settled in the mosque of
Sheikh Nooruddin Noorani in Chrar-e-Sharief, the Indian administration
did not take the only action proper in the case, i e, cordon-and-search
and storm. For India was afraid to create a situation akin to Hazratbal
during the 51st session of the UN Commission on Human Rights to be held
in Geneva in February 1995. So, for over five months, the army waited while
the foreigners freely moved about in the township. Finally, inspired by
the likes of the Bajrang Dal no doubt, the mercenaries razed the shrine
on Id. And, India got slammed for it.
We didn't have to contend with just
the ISI: Amnesty International, too, attacked. To coincide with the foresaid
UN session, it published a report which alleged that India "continues to
torture and kill with virtual impunity" the civilian population of Kashmir.
For extra measure, Amnesty published on its journal's cover a photograph
of a woman from Kanyakumari, and captioned it as that of a Kashmiri. When
the conscientious lensman, Gabrielle Torsello, protested against this travesty,
he was asked by Amnesty to back its claim.
Some call Kashmiri militants "freedom
fighters", but the IRA is always "terrorist". Britain keeps control over
a part of Ireland to protect the rights of (minority) English and Protestants
settlers. The American Civil War was all about keeping the nation together
at all costs - Abraham Lincoln didn't need to seek a referendum in the
South. The Oklahoma bombers are terrorists, but murderers playing havoc
in Kashmir are the downtrodden agitating for their rights. Every act lends
itself to a parallax view.
The problem is, the majority in
India is Hindu. We are lulled by centuries of karmic philosophy to live
and let live. We do not think about the contemporary problems the State
faces on the world map: Our illiterate are roused only by invoking god;
our prosperous are involved in the business of living; our opinion- makers
grovel before Western ideology; and our press labels all governmental acts
of strength as repressive and against the "white" concept of human rights.
At the same time, there's no indigenous analysis of the political moves
in US and Europe: How many Indian journalists personally monitored the
situation in Belfast? Has there been an Indian view on how the West tackles
terrorism? Do we know the methods of the SAS? Do we know anything other
than what the West LETS us know?
The intellectually servile can never
conceive that every nation looks towards its own. It is for us to create
an aura where our spineless politicians do not embark on a "Oh-beat-me-up-for-I'm-an-Indian"
agenda. The government must be forced to separate the issues of international
peace and national sovereignty. For, the interference by diplomats such
as Frank Wisner and Robin Raphel evince a determination to destabilise
India. Seema Mustafa, in The Asian Age, got to the crux of the problem:
"US intellectuals and Congressmen have, almost to a person, ignored the
elections that were held in Jammu and Kashmir as if the process just did
not occur. If some have referred to it, it is merely to insist that the
elections do not resolve the Kashmir issue, that the dispute is open to
arbitration as it remains 'unresolved'."
I remember CNN's bulletins of 1995:
PoK was "administered by Pakistan", but J&K was a "Muslim-majority",
"India-dominated" state. Please mull over the terminology and whether J&K
does, in fact, have a Muslim majority. From Doordarshan, I'm led to believe
that Ladakh is two-thirds of J&K and that Ladhakis are Buddhists who
do not want to secede. I'm told that Pandits and Dogras must have a say
in Kashmir's future; that Gujjar tribals and Kashmiri Shias form a significant
percentage that is terrified at the prospect of a Pakistani- influenced
Sunni rule. Naturally, all such geographical and ethnic statistics are
absorbed as facts only by Hindutvawadis, Buddhist fundamentalists and Indian
Nazis. That's secularist India for you.
The whole scene is so warped that
Mr Jagmohan, the former governor of J&K, has been castigated for his
tough manner against terrorists; perhaps, he was expected to frolic with
the rosy-cheeked. Has it been possible for any government anywhere to reason
with Islamic fundamentalists? But, the press continues to rail against
the measures taken to curb terrorism. Between 1990 and 1994, over 10,000
people have been tortured and killed by militants in J&K. What has
the world done about that - except step up the export of arms.?
When Nawaz Sharief was sworn in
as prime minister, The Nation quoted him as saying, "By the grace of Allah
almighty, Kashmir will be liberated during the tenure of the Pakistan Muslim
League government" and that his government was considering ways of raising
the issue at all international fora. No matter how many Indo-Pak summits
are arranged, Pakistan will never forgive us for liberating Bangladesh;
it will always be focused on Kashmir. If we soften now, we will soon be
yielding part of India to our acquisitive neighbours. Next, it will be
the turn of Punjab, then Assam. and so on.
Those of the Hindi-Paki-bhai-bhai
mould would do well to digest the results of the opinion poll conducted
by The Herald in January: Of Pakistan's populace, 72% want Pakistan to
yoke its wagon to the Arab world; 52% think Jinnah had created a religious
state; 51% oppose cutting military spending; 84% want to keep the nuclear
option; less than 50% favour friendlier ties with India; 34% want an independent
Kashmir - while 65% want Kashmir to be "united" with Pakistan.
Our intellectuals, in their quest
for seeking a wider platform, lure us into becoming wimps. Slowly but surely,
they break the nation's backbone. It is futile to harp about what Nehru
did or didn't do; what Maharaja Hari Singh should have done but didn't;
whether Jagmohan was a ruthless tyrant or not - it's all gone into the
dustbin of history. But, rules of the jungle still apply: If tiny little
Japan can send shivers up Uncle Sam's spine; if Arab-surrounded Israel
can storm its way to power, then both fully deserve respect for their national
character and wiliness. All we do is pussyfoot without direction, and waver
when we must firmly draw the boundaries of our nation. At this rate, there
will soon be none.
