Coffeehouse for desis
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

Kashmir defines Indian identity

Go down

 Kashmir defines Indian identity Empty Kashmir defines Indian identity

Post by Rishi Thu Apr 18, 2013 10:39 pm



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.













(The writer is a former Union Law Minister.)

Rishi

Posts : 5129
Join date : 2011-09-02

Back to top Go down

Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum