This actually seems like a reasonable idea - hold another referendum in
Kashmir and let them go if they want to. Anything I am missing here?
Udhay
http://www.hindustantimes.com/StoryPage/FullcoverageStoryPage.aspx?sectionName=&id=37ea1a37-c222-41e7-8b19-859b5fd34cbdAmarnathLandRow_Special&&Headline=Think+the+Unthinkable
Think the Unthinkable
Counterpoint | Vir Sanghvi
August 16, 2008
Have you been reading the news coming out of Kashmir with a mounting
sense of despair? I know I have. It’s clear now that the optimism of
the last few months — all those articles telling us that normalcy had
returned to Kashmir — was misplaced. Nothing has really changed since
the 1990s. A single spark — such as the dispute over Amarnath land —
can set the whole valley on fire, so deep is the resentment, anger and
the extent of secessionist feeling. Indian forces are treated as an army
of occupation. New Delhi is seen as the oppressor. There is no
engagement with the Indian mainstream. And even the major political
parties do not hesitate to play the Pakistan card — Mehbooba Mufti is
quite willing to march to the Line of Control.
At one level, the current crisis in Kashmir is a consequence of a series
of actions by the Indian establishment. New Delhi let the situation
fester until it was too late. The state administration veered between
inaction and over-reaction. The Sangh Parivar played politics with Hindu
sentiment in Jammu, raising the confrontation to a new level.
But we need to look at the Kashmir situation in a deeper way. We can no
longer treat it on a case-by-case basis: solve this crisis, and then
wait and see how things turn out in the future. If the experience of the
last two decades has taught us anything, it is that the situation never
really returns to normal. Even when we see the outward symptoms of
peace, we miss the alienation and resentment within. No matter what we
do, things never get better, for very long.
It’s not as though the Indian state has no experience of dealing with
secessionist movements. Almost from the time we became independent 61
years ago, we have been faced with calls for secession from nearly every
corner of India: from Nagaland, Assam and Mizoram, from Tamil Nadu,
from Punjab etc.
In every single case, democracy has provided the solution. We have
followed a three-pronged approach: strong, almost brutal, police or army
action against those engaging in violence, a call to the secessionist
leaders to join the democratic process and then, generous central
assistance for the rebuilding of the state. It is an approach that has
worked brilliantly. Even in, say, Mizoram, where alienation was at its
height in the 1970s, the new generation sees itself as Indian. The Nagas
now concentrate their demands on a redrawing of state boundaries (to
take in part of Manipur), not on a threat to the integrity of India. In
Tamil Nadu, the Hindi agitation is forgotten and in Punjab, Khalistan is
a distant memory.
The exception to this trend has been Kashmir. Contrary to what many
Kashmiris claim, we have tried everything. Even today, the state enjoys
a special status. Under Article 370 of our Constitution, with the
exception of defence, foreign policy, and communication, no law enacted
by parliament has any legitimacy in Kashmir unless the state government
gives its consent. The state is the only one in India to have its own
Constitution and the President of India cannot issue directions to the
state government in exercise of the executive power of the Union as he
can in every other state. Kashmiri are Indian citizens but Indians are
not necessarily Kashmiri citizens. We cannot vote for elections to
their assembly or own any property in Kashmir.
Then, there is the money. Bihar gets per capita central assistance of Rs
876 per year. Kashmir gets over ten times more: Rs 9,754 per year. While
in Bihar and other states, this assistance is mainly in the forms of
loans to the state, in Kashmir 90 per cent is an outright grant.
Kashmir’s entire Five Year Plan expenditure is met by the Indian
taxpayer. In addition, New Delhi keeps throwing more and more money at
the state: in 2004, the Prime Minister gave Kashmir another $ 5 billion
for development.
Kashmiris are happy to take the money and the special rights but they
argue that India has been unfair to them because no free political
process has developed. And, it is true that we have rigged elections in
Kashmir. But, it is now nearly a decade since any rigging was alleged.
Nobody disputes that the last election was fair. Moreover, even though
the Congress got more seats than the PDP, the Chief Ministership went to
Mufti Mohammad Sayeed as a gesture.
Given that Kashmir has the best deal of any Indian state, is there
anything more we can do? Kashmiris talk about more autonomy. But I
don’t see a) what more we can give them and b) how much difference it
will make.
If you step back and think about it, the real question is not “how do we
solve this month’s crisis”? It is: what does the Centre get in return
for the special favours and the billions of dollars?
The short answer is: damn all.
As the current agitation demonstrates, far from gratitude, there is
active hatred of India. Pakistan, a small, second-rate country that has
been left far behind by India, suddenly acts as though it is on par with
us, lecturing India in human rights and threatening to further
internationalise the present crisis.
The world looks at us with dismay. If we are the largest democracy on
the planet then how can we hang on to a people who have no desire to be
part of India?
The other cost of Kashmir is military. Many terrorist acts, from the
hijacking of IC 814 to the attack on parliament have Kashmir links. Our
response to the parliament attack was Operation Parakram, which cost, in
ten months, Rs 6,500 crore and 800 army lives? (Kargil cost us 474
lives.) Each day, our troops and paramilitary forces are subjected to
terrorists’s attacks, stress, and ridicule.
So, here’s my question: why are we still hanging on to Kashmir if the
Kashmiris don’t want to have anything to do with us?
The answer is machismo. We have been conned into believing that it would
diminish India if Kashmir seceded. And so, as we lose lives and billions
of dollars, the Kashmiris revel in calling us names knowing that we will
never have the guts to let them go.
But would India really be diminished? One argument is that offering
Kashmiris the right to self-determination would encourage every other
secessionist group. But would it? Isn’t there already a sense in which
we treat Kashmir as a special case? No other secessionist group gets
Article 370 or so much extra consideration. Besides, if you take this
line, then no solution (autonomy, soft borders etc.) is possible because
you could argue that everybody else would want it too.
A second objection is that Indian secularism would be damaged by the
secession of Kashmir. This is clearly not true. As history has shown,
Indian Muslims feel no special kinship with Kashmir. They would not feel
less Indian if some Kashmiris departed.
Moreover, too much is made of the size of Kashmir. Actually secessionist
feeling is concentrated in the Valley, an area with a population of 4
million that is 98 per cent Muslim. (The Hindus either left or were
driven out). Neither Jammu nor Ladakh want to secede. So, is the future
of India to be held hostage to a population less than half the size of
the population of Delhi?
I reckon we should hold a referendum in the Valley. Let the Kashmiris
determine their own destiny. If they want to stay in India, they are
welcome. But if they don’t, then we have no moral right to force them to
remain. If they vote for integration with Pakistan, all this will mean
is that Azad Kashmir will gain a little more territory. If they opt for
independence, they will last for about 15 minutes without the billions
that India has showered on them. But it will be their decision.
Whatever happens, how can India lose? If you believe in democracy, then
giving Kashmiris the right to self-determination is the correct thing to
do. And even if you don’t, surely we will be better off being rid of
this constant, painful strain on our resources, our lives, and our
honour as a nation?
This is India’s century. We have the world to conquer — and the means to
do it. Kashmir is a 20th century problem. We cannot let it drag us down
and bleed us as we assume our rightful place in the world.
It’s time to think the unthinkable.
--
((Udhay Shankar N)) ((udhay @ pobox.com)) ((www.digeratus.com))