The need for recognition of Kashmir as part of India

The American-led war on terrorism has highlighted the role of Pakistan in supporting terrorism in Afghanistan - as well as an attack on the Indian parliament allegedly sponsored by Pakistani intelligence - has brought increased attention to the issue of Kashmir.

Kashmir is often erroneously referred to as a disputed territory. In reality, Kashmir is a part of the Republic of India. Kashmir acceded to India in the same exact manner as the states that acceded to Pakistan did. According to the formula used for the partition of the subcontinent, the rulers of each of the 560 semi-independent princely states that were under indirect British rule were given a choice to either accede to India or Pakistan. The ruler of Kashmir, the Maharaja Hari Singh, chose to join India.

The conflict started in 1947 when Pakistan invaded Kashmir. Indian Prime Minster Jawaharlal Nehru — instead of driving out the invaders and ensuring that all of Kashmir remained under Indian control — called on the United Nations for intervention, much to the chagrin of Home Minster Sardar Patel. A cease-fire line ensued, separating the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir and the portion gained by Pakistan during the war known as Pakistan Occupied Kashmir. The countries have fought three wars over Kashmir and since the mid 1980s Pakistan has been sponsoring terrorism in Jammu and Kashmir. This terrorism has claimed at least 20,000 to 60,000 Indian lives.

Pakistan attempts to paint the conflict as a struggle between Hindus and Muslims, claiming that Jammu and Kashmir should be part of Pakistan because it has a Muslim majority. Yet India is the world's largest secular democracy. Not only do Muslims have equal rights in India, they have special protections with regards to religious institutions and government funded religious pilgrimmages not granted to the Hindu majority.

For example, the Indian Constitution allows Muslims to have five wives and have their own civil code, which no other secular democracy allows. Muslims in India have special protections with regards to religious institutions.

India has more Muslims than Pakistan, and has had Muslim Presidents and ministers in both national and state government. Peter Beinart of the New Republic estimates that more Muslims go from Pakistan to India every year than the other way around.

Herein lies the problem from the Pakistani perspective. Pakistan's claim to Kashmir is based on the two nation theory, the same theory that justified Pakistan's creation and the partition of the subcontinent: Muslims of the subcontinent cannot peacefully coexist in a secular democracy with people of other faiths and thus must have their own separate Islamic state. Thus Kashmir is not a conflict between Hindus and Muslims, nor is it simply about territory, but rather it is a microcosm of an ideological struggle between two irreconcilable worldviews; the secularism and pluralism that represent the fundamental ideology of the Indian state and the sectarian and anti-secular two nation theory that serves as the basis of Pakistan's existence.

As the "Chicago Tribune" states, "the fate of Kashmir goes to each nation's basic vision of itself. India, a mostly Hindu nation, has a secular government that has always stressed the freedom and equality of all faiths. With more than 100 million Muslims, it spurns the idea that religion should determine national identity. Pakistan, on the other hand, thinks Muslims can be secure on the subcontinent only in an "Islamic republic." The fact that India has a larger Muslim population than Pakistan and that East Pakistan became Bangladesh in 1971 proves that religion cannot serve as the basis of national identity.

Christopher Hitchen's writing in The Nation about Kashmir notes: "The demand that religion should determine nationality would, if applied, destroy the whole subcontinent and make it a prey to warring faiths. The present Indian government may be Hindu nationalist in temper, but no responsible successor regime could or should be asked to accede to such a fanatical demand."

India's possession of the Muslim majority state of Jammu and Kashmir is seen by Pakistan as the ultimate denial of its rationale for existence. Thus, Pakistan-backed Islamic fundamentalist terrorists have thus embarked upon their quest to 'liberate' Jammu and Kashmir from India's 'oppressive' secular democracy, and turn it into an Islamic theocracy. Four hundred thousand Hindu Kashmiri Pandits have been driven from their homes in the Kashmir Valley and as the "Navbharat Times" notes, from 1986-1992, "Ninety-one Hindu temples in the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir were subjected to destruction, grenade and rocket attacks, arson, and ransacking by Pakistan-backed Islamic militants." Young girls are forced to wear veils against their will. Pakistan's brutality, however, is not confined only to Hindus, but also affects the Muslims Pakistan claims to be 'liberating.' A report titled, "A Profile of Terrorist Violence in Jammu and Kashmir" notes that the number of Muslims killed in Kashmir by terrorists is seven times the number of Hindus.

But perhaps the most compelling reasons why Jammu and Kashmir must remain a part of India relate to the realities of the subcontinent. India has had uninterrupted democratic rule ever since independence. By contrast, Pakistan has been ruled for most of its history by brutally oppressive military dictatorships, as it is right now. Freedom House has annually rated political freedom in every country in the world since 1972. Pakistan's rating in 1999-2000 was worse than that of South Africa under apartheid and Yugoslavia under communism for ever year since 1972. The only way to guarantee that the most fundamental human rights of the Kashmiri people are protected such as the right to vote, the right to assembly, and free speech is to ensure that Jammu and Kashmir remains a part of India.

The most pressing issues, however, have to do with the religious freedom and secularism, where the contrasting conditions seen in both countries are rooted in the radically different ideologies upon which each nation was founded. As noted above, India is a secular democracy that guarantees not only equal rights but also special protections for minority groups such as Muslims. This is not the case with Pakistan, a nation many would call an Islamic theocracy. The US State Department Pakistan Country Reports on Human Rights note that "Pakistan's discriminatory religious legislation encourages religious intolerance and violence directed against minority Muslim sects, Christians, and Hindus." In Pakistan, the testimony of Muslims in court counts more than that of non-Muslims and the testimony of men counts more than that of women. In certain cases, the testimony of women and non-Muslims is not accepted at all. The report notes, for example, that if a Muslim man rapes a Christian woman in the presence of several Christian men and women, he cannot be convicted under Hudood ordinances because non-Muslim witnesses are not accepted. The Pakistani Constitution reserves over 96 percent of all seats in Parliament for Muslims only and a non-Muslim cannot become head of state. Even certain sects of Islam suffer from similar treatment. Pakistan has specific legal prohibitions against Ahmadi Muslims. For example, they are not allowed to name their children Mohammed, recite the Quran, call themselves Muslims, or use Islamic terminology. Forcing the people of Kashmir, long known for their tolerant traditions, to live in such a theocratic society is unjust.

Get the best of the ‘Prince’ delivered straight to your inbox. Subscribe now »

Most disturbing, however, is Pakistan's treatment of Hindus, which comprise 35 percent of the population of Jammu and Kashmir. According to former French Cultural Minister Andre Malraux, the policies of Pakistan (which means 'land of the pure' in English) towards Hindus, bear striking resemblance to the Nazi actions towards the Jews. In 1946, over 30 percent of present day Pakistan was Hindu, but now the total percentage of religious minorities is less than 3 percent, as a massive ethnic cleansing forced out all non-Muslims. (By contrast, the number of Muslims in India has increased from 8 percent to 14 percent since 1947). In 1971, the Pakistani army engaged in the Bangladesh genocide in which 2.5 million Hindus were slaughtered. When Pakistan took over parts of Kashmir in 1947, it launched a brutal campaign against Hindu and non-Muslim populations. As noted above, Pakistan's genocide against Hindus continues today in Jammu and Kashmir. Given this history of ethnic cleansing, the fate of Kashmiri Hindus if Pakistan were to take over all of Kashmir is too painful even to contemplate.

Much is also stated about the "self-determination" of the Kashmiri people and "ascertaining the will of the Kashmiri people." In Article 370 of the Indian Constitution, India gives Jammu and Kashmir more autonomy than any other state in India. For example, Article 370 prohibits people from other parts of India from settling in Jammu and Kashmir out of respect for the Kashmiri people. At one point, the Kashmir legislature was allowed to veto any laws passed by Parliament pertaining to Kashmir. Pakistan on the other hand, has forcibly removed Kashmiris from their homeland and settled it with Pathan and Punjabi servicemen. The will of the people of Jammu and Kashmir has been ascertained through periodic democratic elections in the state. By contrast, in the Northern Areas of the POK, adult franchise has never been granted.

It is also erroneously assumed by many that the Muslims of Kashmir do not want to be a part of India. Currently the party that has an overwhelming majority in the state assembly is the staunchly pro-India National Conference, led by a Muslim, Farooq Abdullah. Jammu and Kashmir's seats in the Indian Parliament are all held by pro-India parties. It is also important to note that there are three parts to the state: Hindu-majority Jammu, Buddhist-majority Ladakh, and the Muslim-majority Kashmir Valley. The insurgency is almost entirely confined to the Valley, which comprises only 15 percent of the area of the state. Pakistan claims that the terrorist movement in Jammu and Kashmir is "indigenous." Yet, this is not the case as over 70 percent of those killed by the Indian army in the state from June 2001 onward were Pakistanis. A large portion of the remaining 30 percent were likely to be Arabs or Afghans. In 1964 when Pakistan attacked Jammu and Kashmir, the Kashmiris helped turn the invaders into the Indian army rather than helping the Pakistanis. And most importantly, Pakistan claims that it is the guardian of Muslims on the subcontinent ring hollow due to the persecution of various Muslim sects in Pakistan as noted above and its brutal terrorist campaign in Jammu and Kashmir which has killed thousands of innocent Kashmiri Muslims. Arvin Bahl is from Edison, NJ. He can be reached at abahl@princeton.edu.