Title: The lie across
the border
Author: Saeed Naqvi
Publication: The Indian
Express
Date: March 24, 2000
It is difficult to avoid
the conclusion that the massacres in Kashmir weredesigned to bring the
Kashmir issue centrestage during President Clinton'svisit. I dare say he
will hear a great deal of it during his brief halt inIslamabad. This, therefore,
is a good occasion to cut through the fluff andstate the two respective
cases on Kashmir as plainly as possible.
Pakistan's case is straightforward:
we are an Islamic state; the majority inthe Kashmir valley are Muslims.
Therefore, that piece of real estate shouldbe with us and not with India.
Well, this pan-Islamic
link sounds wonderful but let us not forget thatBangladesh was once East
Pakistan. The Pakistan army cracked down so hard ontheir fellow Muslims
in the East that the hapless Bengali Muslims soughtIndian intervention
to create the independent state of Bangladesh. Theatrocities committed
by the Muslim Pakistan army on the Muslims of what isnow Bangladesh would
compare more with Bosnia than what has been happeningin Kashmir this past
decade. As an Indian Muslim journalist, I have coveredthe Bangladesh war,
terrorism (and insurgency) in Kashmir and the conflictin former Yugoslavia.
So I have a fair idea of what I am talking about.
No, no, no, the Pakistanis
start sta-mping their feet. Pakistan came intobeing on the basis of the
two-nation theory that is, Hindus and Muslimsconstitute two separate nations.
Bangladesh was geographically distant fromPakistan, so we swallowed that
bitter pill. But Kashmir is contiguous withus and until we have Kashmir,
the conditions of the two-nation theory, onthe basis of which we exist,
will not have been complied with. There willremain a question mark on the
very basis on which we exist. It is importantthat President Clinton grasp
this Pakistani logic. Otherwise hisprescriptions will not target the disease.
Surely, there is a flaw
in this Muslim-plus-contiguous logic. Afghanistan iscontiguous with Pakistan
and in Afgh-anistan one Muslim tribe has beenkilling another. Contiguous
with Afgh-anistan is Tajikistan, another theatrefor bloodshed until the
other day. Tajikistan is contiguous with theFarghana Valley where the three
Central Asian Republics meet. In fact,beyond the Indo-Pak border right
upto Morocco in the Maghreb is an unbrokenchain of Muslim states and an
equally consistent chain of disputes. Againstthis backdrop, this business
about Kashmir's contiguity with Pakistan is notclinching logic.
But you are being absurd,
the Pakistanis will say. We talk of Kashmir'scontiguity with Pakistan in
a certain context, in the context of thetwo-nation theory, that by the
logic of this theory Kashmir should have beena part of Pakistan and since
it is not, we consider the Kashmir issue theunfinished business of Partition.
But, supposing, by some
miracle, Kashmir was to become a part of Pakistan,how would that complete
the "unfinished business of Partition"? By Pakistanilogic, the two-nation
theory (Pakistan's basis) implies that Hindus andMuslims form two nations.
Even if Kashmir were part of Pakistan, there wouldstill be 140 million
Muslims in India, 20 million more than the totalpopulation of Pakistan.
For the two-nation theory to stand, the way Pakistanwould have it stand,
these 140 million Indian Muslims, the world's secondlargest Muslim population
after Indonesia, would have to disappear into thinair.
In other words, Pakistan's
insecurities would not end even if Kashmir werehanded to it on a platter.
Indeed, these insecurities would grow because,with Kashmir out of the way,
Pakistan would have to invent another issue tokeep up the confrontation
with India, to keep alive in perpetuity the ideathat Hindus and Muslims
form two nations. Probe a little bit and you willfind that authors of the
Pakistani state realise this fact.
This is why I have always
maintained that Pa-kistan is not interested inKashmir, it is interested
in the Kashmir issue. The issue comes in handy formany purposes. It keeps
the army focussed. It enables politicians to makethe rhetoric on the issue
in direct proportion to the difficulties they havewith their political
opposition. It gives Pakistan the opportunity to raiseit (the issue) in
the Organisation of Islamic Conference to reaffirm itscredentials as an
Islamic country. The specific circumstances of its birthare an essential
component of its national memory. They are essential forPakistan's self-definition.
The whole project runs
into serious difficulties because there are on theother side, in India,
those 140 million Muslims. These 140 million Muslimsare struggling, failing,
succeeding, rioting, coping with prejudice,generating prejudice, just like
everybody else in this gigantic socialexperiment, history's largest effort
at welding a multilingual, multiethnic,multireligious nation.
Of course, there are
all manners of difficulties. There was the horribleBa-bri Masjid episode.
There remains the total political mismanagement ofKashmir leading to police
excesses. But are we to discard the secular,democratic experiment to stabilise
a theocracy?
Where else in the world
do we have a billion people work out their salvationthrough a ballot box
from day one of their independence and succeed? Justpull out from your
pocket any Indian currency note. You will find thedenomination written
in 17 different languages, many of these languageshaving literatures predating
Christ by centuries. I have always found ourcurrency note the most tangible
symbol of our complexity. President Clintonduring his statements in India
and Secretary of State Madeleine Albright inher memorable address to Asia
Society in Washington have demonstrated arefreshingly total comprehension
of the Indian complexity.
This exquisite complexity
would be derailed if Kashmir's status were to bealtered on the basis of
the Pakistani thesis. If Kashmir were placed in thebalance of the two-nation
theory, by what logic are we going to incorporateIndia's 140 million Muslims
in our agenda for the future? One shudders atthe tho-ught of what might
happen.
But must Kashmiri Muslims
suffer indefinitely for the success of India'ssecular experiment? The answer
is a resounding no. They must not suffer anylonger. The material and moral
support that Pakistan gives to militancy inKashmir must stop. On our side
the Prime Minister should have themagnanimity to be able to communicate
to our people in Kashmir thegovernment's sense of shame at the excesses
that have been committed by thesecurity force in the course of quelling
militancy. The management ofKashmir must be placed in more humane and competent
hands.