The Mughal Emperor Jehangir (father of Shah Jahan, who built the Taj Mahal in memory of his beloved wife Mumtaz Mahal), wrote this couplet in Persian about Kashmir:
If there is Paradise on Earth; It is this, It is this, It is this.
I visited the Vale (of Kashmir), as it is called, when I was 21. I could not agree with Jehangir more; Srinagar, Gulmarg, Pahalgam and the other places I visited there are still very pleasently memorable. I had promised to myself then that one day I will bring my future wife and our children back to see the splendid panorama. But it was not to be.
The actual history of Kashmir is long, convoluted and controversial. In a nutshell, it the province of Jammu & Kashmir was under the direct rule of a Hindu maharajah, Hari Singh. During the years of the Raj, it existed as an independent entity and paid an annual 'fee' for remaining so to the British. When independence was granted in August 1947, and India was divided into India and Pakistan, Hari Singh chose to remain independent, rather than join either of the successor states, which was his option.
However, a short time after the formation of the two nations, irregulars from Pakistan (next door) raided the Vale in an attempt to annex it to Pakistan. Within a matter of days, Hari Singh had agreed to become a part of India, and Indian troops were landing at Srinagar airport. This was the start of the first Indo-Pakistan war, which had been by now joined by the regular Pakistani Army units.
Ironically, during this first year post-independence, the armies in both countries were still under British command, and the war ended in a stalemate when India's first Prime Minister, Nehru, appealed to the UN. A cease-fire was instituted and a 'Line of Control' established at a point where the Indian Army was able to push the Pakistani forces back.
There were some contradictions . The alleged basis of the partition of India was religious; it was the division on a country into a Muslim Pakistan and a predominantly (82%) Hindu India. Nevertheless, after Partition, India still was the most populous Muslim country in the world (This title has since been taken over by Indonesia, about a decade ago). Kashmir was (and is) the only state in the Indian Union with a Muslim-majority population. This was the casus belli for Pakistan: why should a Muslim-majority region be a part of a predominantly Hindu (though secular per its Constitution) India? The Pakistanis ignored the fact that Kashmiris wished to stay independent.
Unknown to India, in the region of Askai Chin, adjacent to Tibet, China built the National Highway 219, connecting Tibet and Xinjiang. This was the basis of the Sino-Indian war of 1962, because India considered Askai Chin to be its territory. It has been under overt Chinese control since. Aksai Chin was historically part of the Himalayan Kingdom of Ladakh until Ladakh was annexed from the rule of the local Namgyal dynasty by the Dogras and the princely state of Kashmir in the 19th century. When Hari Singh (a Dogra) acceded to India, All of Jammu, Kashmir and Ladakh (including Askai Chin) legally became a part of India.
In 1965, Pakistan waged another war against India in an attempt to annex Kashmir. Though India had just lost its first and only war with China over territorial disputes, it defeated Pakistan soundly. India wanted to be a status quo state; Pakistan a revisionist one.
So at present, half of the entire State is administed by India, one-third by Pakistan, and the remainder by China. Surrounded by these three countries, it is rather impossible for it to stay independent, as it originally wished.
In fact, this state comprises of three regions. Jammu is predominantly Hindu (66%, 30% Muslim) and Ladakh about half Buddhist (50%, 46% Muslim). It is only the Vale of Kashmir that has a majority of Muslims (95%, 4% Hindu), and it alone has been the bone of contention between the two countries. However, if you ask a Kashmiri on the street, he will still like to be independent, but his next choice will be joining Pakistan, rather than India. No so in either Jammu or Ladakh; they'd like stay with India than be independent or go over to Pakistan.
When Maharajah Hari Singh acceded to India, he esured that his province enjoy a special status in the Union, unlike the rest of the states. This was promised, and under Article 370 of the Indian Constitution, the Union Constitution was extended to the State with some exceptions and modifications. For example, a non-Kashmiri cannot own land in that state, though a Kashmiri can hold property in any other part of the country. In addition, the state receives money from the Central government in excess of any other state on a per-capita basis. For instance, it received about eight times in funds as compared to another state, Bihar, in 2007.
Nehru was himself a Kashmiri, and he knew the feelings and aspirations of Kashmiris well. During 50s and early 60s, the whole country of India was coming into being and starting anew, and it was a rather uneventful period in Kashmir's history. It had the first free elections and voted in its own, Sheikh Abdullah (aka the Lion of Kashmir).
With the death of Nehru in 1964 and the rise of his daughter Indira Gandhi (no relation to the Mahatma), things began to change. Indira was not, like her father, a statesman; she believed in realpolitiks, and was sly, calculating and sought vengeance. During the next decade, she put the Sheikh in jail, poisioned the politics of the state and installed a government of her own party (the Congress) after elections that were corrupt and irregular.
This led to the formation of
JKLF, the Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Front, in 1977. Its members were moderate, often scholars, who wanted to raise the issue of more sovereignty of their State and felt that the promises of the Article 370 were not implemented in full. Their protests were non-violent in the beginning, but soon led to aggression.
Pakistan was happy with this inbred agitation, though it was not particularly happy with
JKLF because they did not want Kashmir to be a part of either Pakistan or India and had declared their movement as non-religious. Pakistan wanted to foment trouble on religious lines, and started to widen this existing fault-line by recruiting, training and funding outfits that would act against India. Still, until the end of the 1980s, all the trouble in Kashmir was by disaffected Kashmiris, and the disturbance was moderate in scale.
The year 1989 proved to provide a big bonanza for Pakistan. The Afghan war has just ended with the withdrawal of Soviet forces, and there were hundreds of soldiers-of-fortune suddenly unemployed. The ISI (Inter-Services Intelligence), the MI-6 of Pakistan, was only too happy to oblige. Suddenly, the home-grown movement was converted into a big-scale operation of terrorism that was supported in mechanics and logistics by the Pakistani Armed Forces. Of course, there were Kashmiris in the ranks, but the whole process now had a definite religious flavor and fervor.
It suited Pakistan for several reasons. Firstly, having been defeated in the wars of 1965 and 1971 by India, it provided a sweet revenge. This was especially sweet because in 1971, India had helped East Pakistan secede from the West and become Bangladesh. Secondly, it knew it would not be able to wrest Kashmir out of India's control by regular military means, because India's was a more powerful military. This slow-bleed of the Indian Armed Forces suited it well, and kept Indians occupied and unable to create any other trouble for Pakistan, or so their thinking went. Thirdly, this provided a raison d'etre for its Armed Forces, which were becoming important players in the political landscape of Pakistan.
India had no option but to react militarily. Soon, the Vale of Kashmir was turned into a police state. This further exacerbated the violence, and the viscious circle continues to the present. As is true with any police state, there were human rights violations and other excesses by the Indian Army, which are no excuse its actions being a result of the terrorists trying, and succeeding, to exact a toll on them.
This violence is rather limited to the Vale of Kashmir, though there are occasional episodes in Jammu as well. If truth be told, Pakistanis will be happy to annex just the Vale; they are not interested in Jammu or Ladakh. In fact, there has been increasing sentiment in the Vale to be a part of Pakistan.
The Indian State has several dilemmas about the status of Kashmir. It is, by its Constitution, a secular State, and where everyone stands equal regardless of caste, creed, class or religion. How could it allow Kashmiris to be treated differently, though they have to because of Article 370? How could it let the Vale secede? India has prided itself on being a secular democracy, and this detachment would be a testament to the facts otherwise. It is also a question of pride; how can India let any part of its territory secede? In addition, it will open the door to other regions clamoring for autonomy. This is quite a possibility, as India is as variegated as Europe with regions only a few hundred miles apart having different cultures, languages and cuisines.
On the other hand, Indians are tired of the conflict. The Indo-Pakistani relations that held center-stage in the 20th century are becoming increasingly irrelevant. India is rising to become a world economic power, while Pakistan is slipping into failure. The middle-class is growing in India, and its worries and priorities are changing. India wants to look forward to attaining a place on the world stage and is not interested in looking back at the issues that it feels shackle it to the past. It also has to deal with increasing terrorist threats in the rest of the country.
There has been as growing sentiment in India is to let the Vale of Kashmir go. It doesn't care if it remains independent or becomes a part of Pakistan. As far as Indians are concerned, no one in their right mind would want to be a part of that country in 2008. If Kashmiris want it, Godspeed.
Posts
