India and Pakistan recently agreed to renew diplomatic ties and to discuss the Kashmir issue. Of course, with the Hindu nationalists in power in India, these discussions will break down even before they have begun, and we will be back to square one.
It is, however, high time that India gives up its illegitimate claim on the disputed territory. Let me explain just why I consider it an illegitimate claim.
Saying that Kashmir has historically been part of India is nothing but navet. India as a nation did not exist before the 20th century. Indian nationalists fabricated the identity of the Indian nation at the beginning of the last century to gather mass support for their independence movement from the British. With the diversity in India, which persists even today, it impossible to argue that an innate feeling of brotherhood could have existed among all Indians a 100 years back. If India was indeed one nation, why did Pakistan and Bangladesh break away in 1947? Why do we have secessionist movements in Northeast India, North Bengal, Kashmir and several regions of South India? Therefore, what makes Kashmir a "part" of India?
Another fact that we usually overlook is that India has historically been governed by kings. At the time of independence in 1947, each kingdom was given the choice either to join Pakistan or to stay with India. The people of Kashmir, overwhelmingly Muslim, were poised to vote to join Pakistan. The Maharaja of Kashmir, a Hindu horrified by this prospect, asked the nascent Indian state for help. In response, Vallabbhai Patel, a Hindu nationalist leader, disregarded the decision of the Kashmiri people and invaded the state. This act in itself makes the Indian claim on Kashmir illegitimate.
Moreover, Kashmir has its own constitution and, technically, its head is the Prime Minister, equivalent in powers to the Indian Prime Minister. This constitution has provisions for secession from India. So, the question of a domino effect does not arise. There is no other state or territory in India which has this autonomy. But to prevent secession, the Indian government is preventing any plebiscite in Kashmir and suppressing the popular will.
Why is India so desperate to keep Kashmir in its territory? Well, from a strategic point of view, the high Himalayas of Kashmir provide a protective belt for India against external aggression. However, Indian military expenditure to maintain bases in Northern Kashmir amounts to billions of dollars per day for each station -- a number that dwarfs any cost for India to establish encampments in the valleys south of Kashmir. Kashmir does not have any natural resources -- no oil and no minerals. The only industry that has ever gained a foothold in Kashmir is tourism, and revenues from this activity do not warrant this Indian desperation to keep Kashmir.
In a slightly different scenario at its independence, the state of Hyderabad was majority Hindu but ruled by a Muslim. As expected, the ruler wished to accede to Pakistan but the people felt otherwise. Patel, again, used force to coerce the Nizam (ruler of Hyderabad) to ratify the Indian constitution. Effectively, the Indian government nullified its own principle of self-determination of the kings and their people, and proved that it would go to any lengths to increase or maintain its territorial domain. With this mindset of the Indian leaders, how can we expect a solution to the Kashmir problem acceptable to both sides?
The Kashmiri freedom fighters are terrorists, or so says the Indian government. It is interesting to note that India invaded Kashmir in the first place -- or committed terrorism against its people -- and now that its citizens want to reassert their right to self-determination, India declares this terrorism. Rather ironic, wouldn't you say?
The right to self-determination is enshrined in our principles of democracy. If we are eager to spread these ideals around the world, how can we ignore this glaring example of suppression of the popular will in Kashmir? How can we not support the Kashmiri claim to independence? If we truly believe in democracy, we need to pressure India to renounce its claims in Kashmir. If India is truly a democratic state, then it should allow Kashmir to decide its own destiny.
