India, Pakistan and the Kashmiris

I was a student at the University of Illinois many years back. During those days, I developed a very close friendship with Khalid. He was studying for a Ph. D in nuclear physics. Khalid was a Kashmiri from Pakistan and I was a Kashmiri from India. We had many things in common, but surprisingly all the things we had in common were the things I have in common with my north Indian friends – not a single commonality related to our being Kashmiri.

Contrary to common perception, a ‘Kashmiri’ is basically a territorial identity. It means – a state subject of the former Princely State of Kashmir or a descendant of a male subject of the State. That is reality.

In 1950, Sir Owen Dixon, the UN representative for India and Pakistan, noted that Kashmir was “not really a unit geographically, demographically or economically” so much as “an agglomeration of territories brought under the political power of one Maharaja”.

There is no linguistic link between Kashmiris in Pakistan and in India. People speak Kashmiri in the valley, Dogri in Jammu and Ladakhi in Ladakh. But in Pakistan held Kashmir, the majority speak Punjabi, others Pashtu and Potohari (Mirpuri).

The ethnic background of the communities across the Line of Control (LOC) is also different. The Kashmiris in Pakistan held Kashmir are basically of Punjabi and Pathan stock. The Kashmiris in the valley are an old recorded civilization that can trace its identity much further back than other inhabitants of South Asia. Ladakhis and Dogras in Indian Kashmir also have no ethnic links with the people of Pakistan held Kashmir.

The LOC actually separates distinct linguistic, ethnic as well as cultural communities. The only commonality between the communities in the two countries is that a large part of the population is Muslim.

****************

The Kashmir problem is not about the separation of ethnic or linguistic groups between India and Pakistan. India has the second largest Muslim population in the world and the Muslim population of Kashmir is a very small part of it. That a large part of the population in Kashmir is Muslim – is important to the theocratic state of Pakistan. Is this argument reason enough to create or accept a division?

As long as Pakistan insists that Kashmir is the core issue between India and Pakistan and is an unfinished agenda of the partition and India takes the stand that the demographic character of the country is such that any settlement based on religion would threaten the very fabric of the country; we have to be mentally prepared that the conflict will not go away.

If the people of Kashmir had to decide their future, how is this to be ascertained? If it is an unfinished part of partition, I believe that it is the people who were part of the partition process who were provided the choice. This right of choice is not a right that passes from generation to generation. The demography and the conditions in the region have changed.

The solution has to be based on trying to reconstruct what the will of the people was at the time of the United Nations resolution. There has been significant progress in the social sciences and in techniques of analysis. Is it possible to reconstruct the wishes of the people from the facts and statistics available?

As this may not be possible, talks can provide a solution if there is goodwill and a serious determination to find solutions. India and Pakistan have yet to show that they have a will to work and live together.

One has to remember the regularity of bilateral talks since 1972, at the Foreign Secretary level every one or two years and at the President or Prime Minister level more than 9 times between 1972 and 2001.

The perceptions of religion, ethnicity and plebiscite hide the reality of the escalation of the conflict with India. The problem relates to Pakistan’s ruling dispensation. That is why the solution so difficult to find.

The Pakistan Army came into birth with a war on Kashmir. The Kashmir conflict is the structural element that helps it to remain in a constant situation of mobilizing society and imposing its control upon it. An Army can only rule when there is a threat perception.

As a theocratic nation, the Army finds it difficult to identify its Muslim neighbors as threats. Therefore, India has been projected as a real threat to Pakistan and this projection has been carried out effectively for the last 50 years. The fragile cohesion of Pakistan and the trauma of the 1971 division of Pakistan strengthen this image of India. It not surprising then that the Kashmir issue has been kept alive.

The escalation of the Kashmir problem by Pakistan is the effect of the strategy for control, and is not the cause of the Indo-Pakistan imbroglio.

*********

Though India may believe that Kashmir is an integral part of this country and Kashmir's accession to India is final and non-negotiable, we have to keep talking. It is more important now, especially keeping in mind the new developments in Pakistan. Dialogue helps in lowering hostility.

Perhaps the talks should start by India convincing Pakistanis, the world and Indians that India is a secular nation and not a Hindu nation in spite of its demography; India is not a threat to Pakistan in spite of its size and military power; that the existing power structure in Pakistan can be sustained even if India and Pakistan maintain neighborly and friendly relations.

Pakistan on the other hand can convince India that it is willing to build bridges between and peoples and ensure that its territories are not used to attack or destabilize the balance between the countries. It will use its media to further India-Pakistan relations.

The process of talks has to start by finding ways to encourage people to people contact to induce a fresh air of conciliation and prove the credentials of both India and Pakistan, bettering their sports and cultural relations, and ensuring good media. If this shows results they can look at trade as the area to exploit.

Both the countries need to recognize that regional co-operation can be mutually beneficial. They can work together to expand their regional markets and improve their competitive position internationally.

A sustainable and coherent policy, based on mutual respect to each other, has to be created for talks on Kashmir to be fruitful. The first step in this exercise would be to improve the relations between the two countries and at the same time work to bring peace to the state. A step-by-step approach then needs to be decided upon. This will require the countries to formulate a coherent approach of how the Kashmir dispute can be resolved.

India and Pakistan are both mature nations. They should understand that they are weaker if they work against each other and stronger if they work together. As nuclear powers they cannot afford war. Therefore, they need to talk – they need to shed their suspicions of each other and talk peace, understanding and co-existence. Perhaps the solution will have to be built around making the LOC a more permanent line of separation, as both nations have lived with it for over sixty years.


Upendra Kachru