End of India-Pakistan
Conflict over Kashmir in Sight?
By Siddique Malik
President
www.spreadfreedom.com
US
A lot has been made of Gandhi’s
meeting with the ruler of Kashmir around the time
of the partition of India. Some people believe that
he encouraged Maharaja Hari Singh to merge his Muslim
majority state with India rather than Pakistan.
Some others have accused him of harboring softness
towards Muslims; in fact it was one such accuser-turned-fanatic
who later murdered Gandhi. However, it is hard to
imagine a philosopher of the heights of Gandhi entering
the dark, narrow and filthy alleys of bigotry, and
making illegal, immoral and unethical maneuvers
to gain territory for the people of his faith at
the expense of the people of another faith.
History proves that
by reaching the heights of dynamism, charisma and
philosophical acumen, one engenders intense reactions
from many quarters. Fair-minded people of all persuasions
love such a person because in him/her they see vindication
of human equality and dignity. Close-minded people
of all persuasions hate this soul, because he/she,
by nature, constitutes an anathema to their insecurities
and prejudices. Mohandas Gandhi like other giants
of human history (Abraham Lincoln for one) was no
exception to this rule. Ironically, they both lost
their lives to the bullets of assassins who felt
threatened by these icons’ humanistic zeal
and mission.
The Maharaja’s
unfair decision to unilaterally merge Kashmir with
India without thoroughly consulting his people,
undoubtedly gave birth to the Kashmir problem. But
this man could be forgiven for his aloofness towards
the wishes of his people. How was a dynastic ruler
to know the pulse of the people? However, the problem
was solidified when the control passed to Jawaharlal
Nehru, India’s first prime minister and one
of its founding fathers.
In a period of about
15 years, Zimbabwe’s Robert Mugabe changed
from being a world-acclaimed freedom fighter who
drove the colonialists away form his country to
being a typical Third World power-hungry dictator
who would stop at nothing to cling to illegal power,
at the expense of his people. After gaining independence
for his country, instead of cultivating the institutions
of freedom, democracy and accountability so that
his people could enjoy the fruits of independence,
he set out to reinforce his personal powers, repeatedly
running for office in increasingly murky elections.
Consequently, today, the people of Zimbabwe are
experiencing a living hell. The economy is in shambles
in a country full of natural resources, and inflation
out of control; a bus ride across town in the capital
Harare costs half the average monthly salary. The
midnight knock at the door has become a tool of
governing. The state of human rights in Zimbabwe,
today, is much worse than it was under the rule
of colonialists. To the detriment of his country
and its people, Mugabe has become the poster boy
for the aphorism: power corrupts and absolute power
corrupts absolutely. To Africa’s disgrace,
another Mbuto is in the making.
However, it is ironic
and surprising that a man of the stature of Nehru
took the Mugabe plunge within months of having gained
independence for his country, even though he indulged
in Mugabe-style suppressive behavior only partially.
He cultivated democracy in India but kept the seed
of democracy far away from the people of Kashmir,
becoming their chief suppressor. In the early days
of the problem, he had pledged to hold a plebiscite
in Kashmir but later reneged, hardly a democratic
stance.
Had Nehru allowed
Kashmiris even the muted sovereignty that the British
Empire had allowed Indians, the issue of Kashmir
would have been solved in its infancy. One wonders
how could Nehru continue to hold free and fair elections
in India while disallowing Kashmiris the right to
decide over their own fate? A man who months earlier
fought for freedom became its usurper. What suddenly
happened to his conscience?
Since Nehru hailed
from Kashmir, perhaps, he did not want India to
be devoid of Kashmir. He continued to avoid plebiscite
for the fear that Kashmiris, if given the choice,
would bail out of India. Or, perhaps he expected
that Pakistan was going to fail as a country and
consequently would come back crawling towards reunion
with India, making the issue of Kashmir defunct;
and he was trying to buy time.
Yet another possible
reason could be the simple ‘sibling rivalry’
between India and Pakistan both of which had the
same mother, the British India. Both these countries
desperately wanted Kashmir to become their federating
unit, and ignored the aspirations of the people
of Kashmir. This denial of a people’s right
to decide their own destiny degenerated into a terrible
sore that over the years cost many lives.
Approximately three
decades after Nehru faced the possibility of his
ancestral land leaving the country of which he had
become the prime minister, thousands of miles away,
another prime minister faced the same emotionally
taxing possibility. But this prime minster handled
the situation by relying on the powers of democracy
rather than the skills of his army's sharp shooters.
A separatist movement
has existed in the Canadian province of Quebec for
a long time. In the late seventies, a native Quebecois,
the legendary Pierre Elliot Trudeau was Canada’s
prime minister, when the separatist party won the
provincial election, and its leader, Rene Levesque,
after taking over as provincial premier vowed to
hold a referendum over the issue of separation from
Canada.
Emotions on both sides
ran high but instead of dispatching troops to stymie
the referendum, Trudeau, as the prime minister of
the whole of Canada, took his case straight to the
people of Quebec, presenting arguments in favor
of staying in Canada.
On May 20, 1980, the
people of Quebec voted on a yes-no referendum and
in the evening, soon after the result came out (60%-40%
in favor of Canada), a humbled prime minister addressed
the nation. He did not gloat over victory but expressed
sorrow over the fact that 40% of the Quebecois had
decided to leave Canada. He promised to work hard
to undo their feelings of alienation, and he kept
his word. Shortly after the referendum, Trudeau
initiated a process of national dialogue, involving
all provinces, to develop a new constitution that
was going to acknowledge and grant Quebec’s
distinct status within Canada.
His tireless efforts
culminated in the emergence of a constitutional
draft upon which all provincial premiers including
Quebec’s Levesque signed. It was then adopted
by the parliament as the country’s constitution
replacing the British North America Act that had
hitherto acted as Canada’s de-facto constitution.
On April 17, 1982, the Queen of England who is also
the Head of State of Canada, in an impressive ceremony
in the lawns of the Canadian parliament, signed
the new constitution into life (this scribe stood
close enough to see the Queens’ pen turn the
page of history). I vividly remember seeing immense
joy and pride on the face of Prime Minister Trudeau
who stood by the Queen, having saved his country
from disintegration, succeeded in consolidating
Quebec’s role within Canada and clearly earned
a spot in history for himself, without a shot being
fired or any one even getting a bruise. Alas, India
never had a Trudeau.
By the time Nehru
died, the Kashmir issue had become an effective
tool for Indian rulers and politicians. It came
in handy whenever the need arose to shift the Indian
electorate’s focus away from the bread and
butter matters of the day. Because of India’s
socialistic tendencies of its early years, these
matters were often of significant nature. It was
only when Dr. Manmohan Singh (the current prime
minister) as finance minister liberalized Indian
economy that the economic tide started to turn in
India. It would thus not be surprising if a solution
to the Kashmir problem were reached under his stewardship.
India’s leaders
have been terribly unfair to their country. It is
truly disgraceful that the world’s largest
democracy with otherwise great democratic credentials
would not allow the people of Kashmir, whom it calls
its own citizens, to vote over their own destiny.
When you have democracy, why fear the outcome of
a vote or a plebiscite?
Indian parliament
maintains empty seats in the house supposedly reserved
for representatives of the part of Kashmir that
is under Pakistani control? What about the democratic
rights of the people of the Indian side of Kashmir?
They may have representation in the parliament but
what about their real aspirations?
If India had given
democracy a full chance, one likely outcome would
have been Kashmir becoming an independent country,
making Pakistan irrelevant. Pressure on Pakistan
would then have mounted to give its Kashmiris the
same choice. By being stubborn on Kashmir, India
has given Pakistan the very relevance that it for
57 years has tried very hard (but unsuccessfully)
to keep away from Pakistan. It is pointless to even
talk about Pakistan’s consequent irrelevance,
if Kashmiris would have opted to stay in India.
Of course, there is
a possibility that Kashmiris would have opted for
Pakistan but the possibility of this materializing
shortly after the 1947 partition of India was not
as great as it subsequently became owing to India’s
continued aversion to democracy in Kashmir. Even
if Kashmiris had decided to opt for Pakistan, the
credit for a solution to a thorny issue would have
gone to India and she would have become an undisputed
moral and democratic leader in the region. Today,
such a stature would have helped India as it tries
to attain permanent membership in the Security Council.
Instead of propelling
India towards the future with the power of foresight,
its leaders chose the blinding strategy of fomenting
and abetting tension with neighboring Pakistan.
It is surprising and saddening that no Indian leader
even tried to explore the possible outcome of a
plebiscite. Obviously, India never had a visionary
like Gorbachev, at the helm.
Of course, Pakistan
could have taken the lead in this arena and made
India irrelevant but Pakistan’s problem was
its democracy handicap. While its people were suppressed
by feudal lords cum politicians in conjunction with
religious bigots and army generals, its attempts
to lease the vehicle of democracy to the people
of Kashmir would have looked cant. At the risk of
sounding repetitive, one would assert that India
did not have such a handicap in mainland India.
Therefore, India had a better chance of upstaging
Pakistan than Pakistan had of upstaging India. As
it turned out India and Pakistan were pretty darn
unwise enemies. One hopes they are going to be smarter
friends than they were enemies.
India has finally realized that Pakistan’s
strategy of trying to rule over dead bodies that
failed in East Pakistan is also not going to work
for India in Kashmir. Moreover, Pakistan has realized
that it is never going to ‘conquer’
Kashmir, no matter how many ‘jehadis’
may converge on the Line of Control. Thanks to America
that it has put its persuasive techniques to work
in making these realizations possible.
In the past, Pakistan
army generals have torpedoed any attempt to solve
the Kashmir problem. However, it looks like that
this time, the junta wants a solution, thanks to
Uncle Sam’s phone calls. A solution to the
problem may very well be in the cards.
The Himalayas
that have wept over the plight of Kashmiris for
many long years must now be smiling over recent
positive developments. One hopes that this thaw
will continue until the meltdown is complete. If
this disappoints those who oppose the meltdown and
would rather live under illusions, then let it be
their turn to weep.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
