Kashmir defines Indian identity
Subramanian Swamy
India should henceforth refuse to
engage in any dialogue on Kashmir except one in which the other side accepts
the whole of Kashmir as an integral and inalienable part of India.
Recently, some
columnists have advocated that India should let go of Kashmir. While not
wanting to wear patriotism on my sleeve, I would say that the silent suffering
majority of India wants none of this. The ‘Kashmir issue,’ in fact, can no more
be solved by dialogue either with the Pakistanis or the Hurriyat, leave alone
the constitutional impossibility of allowing it to secede. This is because we
do not know what kind of Pakistan there will be in a few years from now.
The Pakistan army today, according to all informed sources
available to me, has a majority of captains and colonels who owe allegiance to
the Taliban and Islamist fundamentalism. In another five years, these middle
ranks will reach, through normal promotions, the corps commander level. We know
that the government in Pakistan has always been controlled by the seven corps
commanders of the army. Therefore a Taliban government in Pakistan five years
hence seems a highly probable outcome. Jihad,
that is, war against India will be the logical consequence of that outcome.
Since the Hurriyat in Kashmir is an organisation that cannot go
against Pakistan, India has about five years to prepare for a decisive and
defining struggle with Pakistan. We must prepare to win it to avoid the
balkanisation of India. We therefore should refute those Indian columnists,
academics, and politicians who crave or preen themselves on being popular in
Pakistan, by sounding reasonable and secular on the issue of Kashmir.
Never part with it
Kashmir, in fact, is now our defining identity. It is a touchstone
for our resolve to preserve our national integrity. The population of that
State may be majority Muslim but the land and its history is predominantly
Hindu. For our commitment to the survival of the ancient civilisation of India
and the composite culture that secularists talk of, we have not only to win
that coming inevitable war but also resolve never to part with Kashmir.
I will not blame the jihadis for the coming war. They are, after
all, programmed that way by their understanding of Islamist theology. I will
blame ourselves for not understanding their understanding of the fundamentals
of Islam. It is foolish therefore in the face of this reality to expound the
banal sentiment that “all Muslims are not terrorists or fanatics.” Of course
that proposition is true.
However, the Islam of the cutting edge of Muslim fundamentalism by
leaders such as Osama Bin Laden is in Sira and Hadith, and now increasingly
followed in Pakistan. It calls on the faithful to wage war against the infidels
(who cannot strike back effectively) and crush them. This is why the Kashmiri
Hindu Pandits were driven out in the first place.
The struggle for Kashmir by the jihadis is thus not just for
independence. By their own declaration, they want a Darul Islam there, with the
state becoming a part of the Caliphate. We cannot allow, in our national
security interests, such a state to emerge on our frontiers. Hence the question
of parting with Kashmir cannot arise. We have to go all out to retain Kashmir
as part of India wherein Hindus and Muslims can live in peace and harmony.
Pakistanis often cite the United Nations resolutions on Kashmir to
argue for a plebiscite. This obfuscates the fact of accession of the State to
India. The legality of the Instrument of Accession signed in favour of India by
the then Maharaja of J&K, Hari Singh, on October 26, 1947 has to prevail
anyway. To disregard it will create a plethora of legal issues, including what
will become the status of the Maharaja if we abrogate this Instrument and
re-open the question of Partition itself. In that case, for example, will Dr.
Karan Singh, Maharaja Hari Singh’s son, have a claim to be regarded again as an
independent and sovereign King of J&K?
On the Junagadh issue, Pakistan held the Instrument once signed to
be “final, irrevocable, and not
requiring the wishes of the people to be ascertained [emphasis added].” That is the correct
legal position. But the Junagadh Nawab, after signing the Instrument in favour
of Pakistan, invaded the neighbouring princely states, states that had acceded
to India. This violated the terms of the Indian Independence Act (1947) enacted
by the British Parliament. So when the Indian Army was moved by Sardar
Vallabhbhai Patel to defend these areas, the Nawab, fearful of the
consequences, ran away to Pakistan. His subjects, mostly Hindu and abandoned,
welcomed the Indian army to Junagadh.
Furthermore, on what legal basis can we de novo seek to ascertain the wishes of the
people of J&K as Pakistan asks, when the Indian Independence Act makes no
provision for this? After all, it was this same Act that created a legal entity
called Pakistan, carved out from united India. India under the Act was a
settled and continuing entity out which the British Parliament made a new
entity called Pakistan. Never in previous history was there was a country called
Pakistan. The idea itself was conceptualised as recently as 1940 and legalised
only in 1947.
By what mechanism then can Pakistan seek to amend or even
disregard the Act, without unwittingly undermining the legal status of Pakistan
itself? That is, if the Instrument of Accession is called into question, will
not Partition itself be subject to challenge as without legal basis on the same
consideration?
I raise this question also because of the constitutional futility
of pursuing the issue of the secession of Kashmir. In the case of Beruberi in
Eastern India, the transfer of that area to Bangladesh, although agreed to, has
been enmeshed in prolonged litigation in the Indian Supreme Court. This is
because Article 1 of the Indian Constitution bars the de-merger of any Indian
territory after 1950.
Another argument advanced by these columnists is that if Kashmiri
Muslims do not want live in India, it is against human rights to force them to
do so. That argument is contradicted by the Bangladesh example. The area of
that country was first created by Partition. In 1971, Indian army jawans
created Bangladesh out of Pakistan in circumstances well known to all. But
despite that, millions of Bengali Muslims have come into India as illegal
immigrants and are quite happy to be working with Hindus in India. But
Partition was agreed to by Hindus for those Muslims whom Jinnah said could not
bear to live under alleged Hindu hegemony. Now, after getting their territory,
a large number of Bangladeshis Muslims are voting with their feet to proclaim
that they are happy to live in India with Hindus.
Similarly, after getting Kashmir as an independent country,
Kashmiri Muslims may, like their Bangladesh counterparts, come to live in India
anyway! What then is the point of severing Kashmir from India as these
columnists suggest?
India should henceforth refuse to engage in any dialogue on
Kashmir except one in which the other side accepts the whole of Kashmir as an
integral and inalienable part of India. The people of Kashmir should be left in
no doubt in their mind where the overwhelming number of citizens of India stand
on the future of the State. Therefore, those who, at this crucial juncture of
our history, advocate any dilution of this stand are leading the people of
Kashmir to more misery. They are encouraging the forces of jihad to keep at
their nefarious activities by raising hopes that, with rising costs, India will
capitulate. Any democratically elected Indian government knows that it can
never capitulate on issues of national integrity and risk an upheaval. The
Ramar Setu and Amarnath issues have proved that beyond doubt. Advocating
letting go of Kashmir therefore is a dangerous exercise in futility.
Comments