he May 13 column "End the Occupation, India" by Adil Ahmad '04 baffled and offended us when we read it last week.
Mr. Ahmad starts by saying, "Of course, with the Hindu nationalists in power in India, these discussions [on the Kashmir issue] will break down even before they have begun ..." He seems to be blaming these diplomatic breakdowns on India exclusively. It's unfair of him to point the finger at just one side without serious justification.
His first point is an attack on Indian identity, which Mr. Ahmad claims is "fabricated." He makes the mistake of mixing together political history with cultural history. True, politically, India has only been around for 55 years. Yet culturally, the people have been around for thousands of years. Just because India is a diverse region with many religions, languages and customs, does not mean there isn't a sense of unity among its peoples that's deeper than the political existence of a few decades. The nation is a secular republic representing a population so large that it must be structured to accommodate diversity in order to survive. If indeed it were not adept at responding to its people's needs, the many secessionist movements Mr. Ahmad mentioned would have succeeded as the Indian government could not possibly suppress a popular uprising.Mr. Ahmad's second point goes in this sequence: "The people of Kashmir, overwhelmingly Muslim, were poised to vote to join Pakistan" at the time of independence; the king of Kashmir asked India for help; India, disregarding what the Kashmiris wanted, invaded the state.
In reality, Mr. Ahmad's first claim of the people's choice is unfounded as no vote was taken. Even his claim that Kashmir is overwhelmingly Muslim needs further qualification: Kashmir can be divided into three regions: Jammu, Kashmir valley and Ladakh. Although the three regions as a whole have a Muslim majority, Jammu is mostly Hindu, while Ladakh is largely Buddhist. Saying that all three of these areas would want to side with a Muslim nation needs more explanation that Mr. Ahmad provides.
During Indian and Pakistani independence from the British Raj the Kashmiri king was hesitant to choose which nation to sign with. He effected standstill agreements with both India and Pakistan, so that Kashmir would belong to neither until he could figure out what to do after the British left. Indeed, he was hoping Kashmir could become its own nation. However that year, Pathan tribals from Pakistan invaded Kashmir to claim it for themselves, violating Kashmir's standstill agreement with Pakistan. The king signed the Instrument of Accession with India, letting Indian troops come into the region.
Mr. Ahmad then moves on to talk of how the Indian government is wrongly preventing a plebiscite in Kashmir and suppressing the popular will. The Indian government's stance on this issue wasn't even presented. Originally, the government was fine with a plebiscite on condition that the invaders would leave. (Why should they be allowed to vote, right?) They never left. Since then, India has taken extreme measures to maintain Kashmir's ethnic identity. Article 370 of the Indian Constitution makes it illegal for non-Kashmiris to buy land in the state. At one time, it was even illegal for a non-Kashmiri to visit Kashmir without special permission. As you can see, India has been committed to maintaining the cultural independence of Kashmir. While India has been keeping non-Kashmiri Indians from moving to Kashmir, Pakistan has been ethnically flooding the region from its territories. Given this precedent, it is not unlikely that if a plebiscite were held to decide Kashmir's fate, they would end up like those in which Missouri was added to the union: thousands of partisan thugs crossing the borders and attempting to bully citizens into voting a certain way. A clean vote is highly unlikely.
Next, Mr. Ahmad compares Kashmir to Hyderabad. He blames the decision of Hyderabad to join India on an Indian, Vallabbhai Patel. In actuality, the British were responsible for the partitioning, and their main concern was geographic contiguity. In fact, it would have been rather preposterous for anyone, the British, Indians or the king himself to have set up a separate kingdom within a diverse democracy. The fact that it has worked demonstrates that the Indian government really has done what it set out to do: unify diverse provinces by means of equal democratic representation.
Mr. Ahmad's final shot consists of calling Kashmiri terrorists freedom fighters. If these people are really indigenous Kashmiris, Mr. Ahmad, how do they get ahold of rocket launchers, fight in high elevations and successfully avoid Pakistani landmines with only their indigenous knowledge in place? As Michael Krepon in Jim Lehrer's News Hour pointed out, "Kashmiris don't live in this terrain. We're talking about elevations of 16,000 feet and higher. It's barren. The folks have to come there from somewhere. The scope of this military operation is such, the equipment involved, the logistics, the communications support that would be necessary for an activity of this kind has to come from somewhere. And the most likely source would be Pakistan." These fighters aren't Kashmiri freedom fighters. They're terrorists supported by Pakistan. Indeed, under U.S. pressure during Bush's War on Terror, Pakistani leader Musharaff himself agreed to stop moving terrorists into India. He banned five organizations and arrested more than 2,000 people. For the leader of a country to admit to stop something means that something was going on in the first place. Just reading any regional South Asian newspaper will show regular stories of civilians killing by these other militant "civilians."
Mr. Ahmad ends his article saying: "If India is truly a democratic state, then it should allow Kashmir to decide its own destiny." However, if India indeed "ends the occupation," Pakistan will not just sit tight. What's more, Pakistan is not a democracy. Its leader came into power by overthrowing an elected government and suspending the Pakistani Constitution. Freedom of speech is still suppressed, and the government does not call itself secular. If Kashmir falls in the hands of this nation, Kashmiris would be forfeiting their rights to representation. Granted, the Kashmiris, the true Kashmiris, should have a voice in their governance, but remember that the status quo already provides this. Democracy may have its discontents, especially for its minorities, yet sacrificing the freedom of choice is an act laden with heavy consequences and should be considered only at the last.
We acknowledge that the presence of Indian security forces in Kashmir has resulted in an abysmal human rights record for the state. Possible solutions might be increasing accountability mechanisms and human rights training within the security forces. India needs to do a better job for the people of Kashmir, no doubt about that, but pulling out and letting Pakistan have a field day isn't an option.
Until it has been determined that the true Kashmiris want a theocracy, it should not be assumed that they do simply because Pakistan professes the same religion. The real tragedy would be if the people of the region are forced to sacrifice their freedom in exchange for an authoritarian regime. Then both the Muslims and Hindus of India would be losing out on a grand opportunity for cooperation and tolerance. Democracy may never be easy, butrule by the sword is never right.
