Author: Dr Farrukh Saleem
Publication: The Jang
Date: June 15, 2003
URL: http://jang.com.pk/thenews/jun2003-daily/15-06-2003/oped/o4.htm
Is Kashmir our core issue? Cambridge
Advanced Learner's Dictionary defines 'core' as "the basic and most important
part of something". If that something is Pakistan then is Kashmir Pakistan's
"most important part" (or was East Pakistan our most important part)? In
a more commercial sense 'core business' is defined as "the most important
or the largest part of a company's business activities which it depends
on in order to continue trading". If that business is the good governance
of Pakistan then is Kashmir our 'most important or the largest part' and
is Pakistan's good governance dependent on Kashmir?
Merriam Webster Dictionary defines
'core' as "a central and often foundational part; a basic, essential, or
enduring part." How does that definition apply to Kashmir? What role did
the Kashmiris play in the creation of Pakistan and what role did the East
Pakistanis play in the creation of Pakistan?
Hamida Khuhro's "Our forgotten commitment"
really stimulated my thought process on our 'core issue'. She writes, "We
talk of Kashmir endlessly, of mountain peaks that must be secured, of military
might that we must ensure in order to be secure but we forget the 'core'
of our freedom struggle, the reason Pakistan became first a possibility,
then a fact." She insists that "in all our arguments for peace and for
all our justifications for going to war" we always forget 125.5 million
Muslims living in India (The World Fact Book; est July 2002).
How did Pakistan become a reality?
Our history books don't stop storming us with the idea that Pakistan was
the demand of all Muslims living in India but the same books become shy
in admitting that Pakistan's most enthusiastic supporters were Muslims
who now live in Bombay, Delhi, Kolkata, Bhopal, Kanpur, Ahmedabad, Allahabad,
Hyderabad-Deccan, Agra, Nagpur, Lucknow, Dhaka, Chittagong, Khulna, Sylhet,
Jesore and Mongla. In the initial more crucial years of the struggle for
Pakistan Muslims living in Muslim majority areas had remained more or less
indifferent. The real moving force was the Muslims living in Muslim minority
areas.
For the Quaid, the core issue behind
the creation of Pakistan was to safeguard the interests of all Muslims
living in the sub-continent. The Quaid knew full well that almost as many
Muslims would be left behind in India as would inhabit Pakistan. The Quaid,
therefore, did not want Pakistan to become India's enemy. Right after partition,
Miss Fatima Jinnah went on record insisting that she and her brother shall
continue visiting the Quaid's favourite home at Malabar Hills in Bombay
(Band Stand area of Bombay was also on their favourite list).
In 1948-49, India was Pakistan's
most important trading partner. That year, 56% of Pakistan's exports went
to India and 32% of all our imports came from India. Some university exam
papers came from Indian teachers and some of our papers went back to India
for checking. We shared movies and sang the same tunes.
Jawaharal Nehru and Lah Bahadur
Shastri remained steadfastly tied to the vision of a multi-religious and
a multi-ethnic democracy. Indira Ghandhi, Morarji Desai, Charan Singh,
VP Singh and Chandra Shekar did not deviate from the original vision either.
The core issue for the Quaid was
to make Pakistan a multi-religious, multi-ethnic, liberal, progressive
and a prosperous democracy. On 9 August 1947, Quaid-i-Azam delivered a
speech at the Karachi Club. The Quaid asserted that it is the "scared duty
of the Sovereign State of Pakistan to solve the problem of poverty of the
people." As far as our founding father is concerned it is clear that the
eradication of poverty was the core issue.
Ghulam Mohammad, Iskander Mirza,
Field Marshal Mohammad Ayub Khan, General Mohammad Yahya Khan and General
Mohammad Ziaul Haq all deviated from the Quaid's core issue. Those who
followed the Quaid as our leaders have been persistently ignoring poverty
as the core issue and poverty, as a consequence, has doubled over the past
couple of decades (the World Bank had estimated urban poverty in 1993-94
at 17% of the population. Estimates for 2003 are around 34% of the population).
In India, poverty over the last decade has declined from 38% of the population
to 22% and is projected to go down to 15% by 2005.
Empirical evidence suggests a definite
correlation between peace and prosperity. Border disputes and poverty are
also closely related. Ethiopia, Sierra Leone, Afghanistan, Cambodia, Somalia,
Nigeria, Haiti, Mozambique, Mali and Angola are pathetically poor and are
all engaged either in an active border dispute, extreme civil strife or
civil war.
Yugoslavia, the Soviet Union, Afghanistan,
Iraq, Syria, Mozambique, Somalia and Yemen all spend a disproportionately
large percentage of their GDP on defence. Yugoslavia is no more. The Soviet
Union had 10,000 atom bombs but the country is no more. Split into at least
15 pieces; Russian Federation, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Armenia, Belarus,
Georgia, Moldova, Ukraine, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan,
Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan. Lessons of history are clear: Countries that
spend a disproportionately large percentage of their GDP on defence either
split up or become economically insolvent or have an active civil war.
Kashmir lacks a military solution.
Even if there were a violent solution it would amount to lending a hand
to 10 million Kashmiri Muslims and cutting off the legs of 125.5 million
Muslims living in India. Would a brutal Kashmir solution conform to the
core reason behind the creation of Pakistan?
(The writer is an Islamabad-based
freelance columnist farrukh15@hotmail.com)
