Author: Sandhya Jain
Publication: The Pioneer
Date: February 27, 2001
It is truly ironical that Dr Farooq
Abdullah, variously berated as a playboy and non-resident politician, should
have emerged as the principal proponent of India's civilisational ethos.
In a significant, though unfortunately largely ignored statement last week,
the chief minister offered to abrogate the contentious Article 370 which
confers special status on Jammu & Kashmir, provided the Centre acts
to bring the Pakistan-occupied portion (the so-called Azad Kashmir) back
to the state, and to the country.
Regardless of the probability of
our regaining Pakistan-occupied Kashmir in the near future, this is a momentous
declaration for several reasons. For one, Dr Abdullah has rendered wholly
redundant the pernicious theory that Maharaja Hari Singh, being a Hindu,
had no right to sign the Instrument of Accession on behalf of his mainly
Muslim subjects. Dr Abdullah has thereby affirmed that though religion
formed the basis of Partition in 1947, he repudiates the legitimacy of
separating Jammu & Kashmir from India on the basis of religion. He
has, therefore, joined issue with the religious fanaticism-driven jihad
in the Valley, which can even cost him his life. More importantly, he has
done so because he identifies himself with the nation's civilisational
ethos. Dr Abdullah is perhaps the only eminent Muslim who has claimed Lord
Rama as his heritage; he also conducted himself with decorum at the Tirupati
shrine.
As I understand it, Dr Abdullah
is the linchpin of two wars being fought by and in India. The first is
the old, overt war to keep Kashmir in India. The second, more crucial,
and relatively nascent, is the endeavour to root Islam in its Indian environment.
This involves legitimising a "pietist" Islam as a way of life, delinked
from the turbulence of political power (within the country or without),
and entails opposition to the Wahabi-backed puritanical and aggressive
Islam being propagated in the Valley through the gun by Pakistan-backed
terrorists.
It is well known that at various
points in their history, Kashmiri Pundits have suffered horrible butchery,
to the extent that the number of families once fell to a single digit.
Despite this, ordinary Kashmiris hanker for peaceful co-existence. Dr Abdullah
has rooted this desire in the catholic embrace of India's civilisational
ethos, and is offering to strengthen the bond by (conditionally) abrogating
Article 370. In effect, he is saying that the Hindu ethos is pietist Islam's
lifeline, which should be maintained eternally to sustain and enrich both.
Dr Abdullah has underlined his belief
in the civilisational ethos by strenuously resisting ethnic cleansing in
the Valley. While not a single Muslim of any eminence outside the state
has condemned the massacres of Sikhs there, the chief minister has virtually
begged the community to stay on and has even inducted a Sikh into his Cabinet
to underscore his commitment to the community's safety and honourable existence.
This is, of course, an uphill task. Sikhs injured in the February 3 attack
in Mahjoor Nagar, who are currently recuperating in a New Delhi hospital,
openly express fears of being targeted like the Kashmiri Pandits (Pioneer,
25th February 2001).
Yet not a single important Muslim
or secular Hindu leader has called on them, or sought to redress their
fears. Nor has any eminent secularist had the decency to acknowledge that
Kashmiri Pandits who fled the state were victims of a systematic campaign
of ethnic cleansing, and did not abandon home and hearth for the dubious
pleasure of life in exile.
Interestingly, by calling for the
return of Pakistan-occupied Kashmir, a region known to be chafing under
Pakistani control, Dr Abdullah has astutely asserted leadership of Kashmiris
on that side of the border as well, since he has been elected by the larger
(and free) part of the undivided state. Over time, this can only aggravate
discontent in PoK. My point is that notwithstanding the skill, dedication
and brutality with which the ISI is executing the jihad against this country
in the Valley and elsewhere, the battle is by no means finally decided
against India.
I say this because Pakistan is a
failed state; it lacks internal coherence and its disintegration is inevitable.
The bells first tolled in 1971 when Bangladesh broke loose. They tolled
loud and clear again last September when leaders of the Mohajirs, Sindhis,
Baluchis and Pakhtoons met at Acton Town Hall in London and disparaged
the two-nation theory; they have realised that without a common cultural
foundation, adherence to a universalist faith alone cannot crystallise
diverse groups into a nation. The Mohajir-led disenchantment exposes the
classic chink in Islam's otherwise formidable armour-on the one hand, it
denies legitimacy to ethnic identities; on the other, it fails to subsume
these identities into a community with inner coherence. This is why Pakistan
has been so desperately dependent upon Kashmir and virulent anti-India
rhetoric to keep its flock together; but now the situation has taken a
dangerous turn.
Gen Musharraf's Government is precariously
poised over a precipice. On the one hand, backed by its Punjabi elite,
army, ISI, Jamaat-i-Islami and the super-distilled purist Islam of Saudi
Arabia, it is committed to bleeding India grievously and annexing Kashmir.
On the other hand, the disillusioned ethnic minorities, rejecting the appeal
of common religious lineage, are pulling in different directions. Simultaneously,
the proliferation of jihadi outfits is threatening to overwhelm both Government
and civil society in Pakistan.
While Interior Minister Moinuddin
Haider has been chastised by the Supreme Court for attempting to curb public
fund-raising activities of jihadi outfits, the Government is sufficiently
concerned over the growth of the gun culture to consider action against
religious militants. This can only escalate tensions in an already volatile
situation. Adding to Gen Musharraf's discomfort is America's newly discovered
intolerance to the export of terrorism, and its insistence that Saudi billionaire,
Osama bin Laden, currently the guest of the Pakistan-backed Taliban in
Afghanistan, be handed over to it for trial in a terrorist attack.
With such an unstable situation
on its borders, not to mention the unwholesome state of affairs within,
India must have a policy to face both eventualities. In the event of Pakistan's
disintegration, it must have some notion of what to do if Islamabad's nuclear
ability falls into the hands of potentially unstable groups. Meanwhile,
we need a policy on Kashmir. It is a mockery of governance that after three
months of unilateral ceasefire, the killings of civilians have increased
and ethnic cleansing of Sikhs begun. Despite this, New Delhi has extended
the ceasefire for another three months, though it is so clueless about
how to proceed with the peace process that it cannot even decide if Hurriyat
leaders should be allowed to go to Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. I am at a
loss to understand why Mr Atal Bihari Vajpayee is persistently humiliating
India by making it hostage to a sinking Pakistan.
In the circumstances, it is unfortunate
that political parties have endorsed this mindless initiative. Of course,
Congress under Ms Sonia Gandhi is directionless; but parties with the energy
and ambition to take on an effete Congress and a feeble Prime Minister
would do well to break out of the old rut of discredited minority politics.
Notwithstanding the apparent inevitability
of coalitions in the foreseeable future, resurgent India is craving for
stability and coherence. The future belongs to the party that can lead
the country in terms of its own genius.
