Jammu and Kashmir's relevance to Hindu Renaissance and to Hindu-Muslim (& 'secularism') Politics in India

Pranawa C. Deshmukh

Co-ordinator, Jammu and Kashmir Project, India Awareness Foundation (IAF) - previously - Bharat Awareness Forum (BAF), Atlanta, USA Convener, CIFJKINDIA (http://www.cifjkindia.org)

In the earlier article titled Fountainhead of Indian Culture," the author traced the significance and contributions of Jammu & Kashmir in Indian history and culture over the past 5000 years and exemplified that the region is an essential part of India's national heritage. This is the second article of a fourteen-part series written for The Hindu Renaissance.

I. Preamble:

Liberation of the Jammu and Kashmir question from religious and political connotations is perhaps a prerequisite to recover the region illegally occupied by Pakistan since 1947. The Consolidation of Integration First of Jammu and Kashmir in India (CIFJKINDIA) project is but a tiny amongst a multitude of steps in a natural and essential continuance of the pre-1947 freedom struggle which even as of now leaves two-thirds of the State of Jammu and Kashmir under alien occupation. More than 56 years after India celebrated its (incomplete) 'Tryst with Destiny' on August 15th, 1947 the integration of J&K in India remains to be consolidated. The situation threatens India's integrity and security. .

Considering the fact that 'Jammu and Kashmir' occupies a very special historical place in India's cultural heritage (please see the article 'Jammu and Kashmir - Fountainhead of the Indian Culture' in the previous issue of 'The Hindu Renaissance' -), it is imperative for Hindu renaissance that Kashmir and Kashmiris are, in every respect, wholly secure in India. This can be achieved if the route to achieve this is thoroughly sanitized from Hindu-Muslim politics in India, inclusive of the politics of 'secularism'. This needs elaboration, since many regard the Jammu-Kashmir murkiness to be inseparable from the 'Hindu-Muslim-Secular' politics in India. This perception is most unfortunate as discussed below; after all the 'terms of partition' that led to the division of the country had completely different tracks for the 562 princely states and for the rest of British India. The factors involved in the Maharaja Hari Singh's delayed decision to accede to India were unique, rarely analyzed fully!

The thorny question of Jammu and Kashmir must be analyzed using detailed and rigorous research methodologies that would analyze a vast body of data, most of which are 'less-known', contrary to widespread claims! There are two broad categories in which the complexities that govern the dynamics of the Jammu and Kashmir problem can be classified. Somewhat loosely perhaps, these may be referred to as 'foreground factors' and 'background factors'. Both are crucial.

Background Factors:

Stereotype apprehensions (a) of 'leftist intellectuals' about 'Dharma', (b) of 'Hindutva thinkers' about 'Secularism' and (c) of various religious and political analysts about the 'Rigidity' of Islam have divided the Indian voters between two broad groups: those who call themselves 'secularists' and those who call the self proclaimed 'secularists' as 'pseudo-secularists'. Issues of national importance are addressed in the background of the 'secularists' vs. 'pseudo-secularists' divide in India. Key elements of this split are the three stereotype apprehensions mentioned above. These elements impact the socio-political-religious scenario in which one seeks to understand the J&K imbroglio. The J&K question must be resolved, instead, in its own historical context, unbiased by the politics of 'secularists' vs. 'pseudo-secularists'.

Foreground factors:

A conglomeration of intertwined historical events has rendered the subject multifaceted. Addressing the issue based on only a subset of historical facts has led to enormous confusion. The solution to this complex problem must be sought in its own terms, and in the context of the little known unique and multifarious history of this region. Some factors that are listed below are of great importance; some are old - belonging to the period of the early years of Independence; some are new, currently active. An integrated analysis of all these factors is essential; neglect of any one whichever is disastrous. The key 'foreground' factors that have rendered the issue so jumbled up are:

1. Delayed accession (on October 26, 1947), however legal and irrevocable, to India by the Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir.

2. Ignorance about why the Maharaja hesitated to accede to any one of the two countries by 15th August 1947.

3. No consideration in the media about why the Maharaja did not betray his Muslim people and accede to India in August 1947 itself.

4. Undue confusion, due to neglect of facts of history, about J&K's accession vis-à-vis that of Junagarh.

5. Unawareness about the plunder of Kashmiri Muslims (like those of erstwhile East Pakistan) by Pakistan's invasion, despite formal records of the same by elite Muslims such as Dr.Zakir Hussain.

6. Ignorance about specific issues in India's case (of 1st January 1948) before the United Nations under Charter 35.

7. Absence of discussion in Indian media about why there were two resolutions of the UNCIP (United Nations Commission on India and Pakistan).

8. Little knowledge about the preconditions laid out in the UN resolutions.

9. Blatant ignorance about the fact that contrary to Pakistan's claims, it is signatory to UN Resolution that does not provide for independence to Jammu and Kashmir.

10. Deficient knowledge about how and why Pakistan, and not India, avoided the plebiscite.

11. Reluctance of Indian media to expose Pakistan's game plan of demanding plebiscite while forcing delays till it can alter coercively the demography of the region till the result would be in its favor.

12. Ignorance about the democratically adopted Constitution of the State of Jammu and Kashmir, which declares J&K as an integral part of India.

13. Media silence on the opinions of 'world leaders', following democratic elections in J&K, on the declaration in the Nineteen Fifties that the Kashmir people have already opted for India.

14. Lack of understanding of the then circumstances during the early years of independence that led to the 'Article 370' of the Constitution of India.

15. Gross neglect of the 'root' cause (viz. 'Article 370' of the Constitution of India) that has germinated and nurtured secessionism and terrorism in Jammu and Kashmir.

16. Politicization of 'Article 370' as a tool to fetch votes in Indian election, at the cost of both Hindus and Muslims in India, inclusive of those in J&K.

17. Lack of knowledge about the implications of Article 370 on the legal system in J&K; there are plenty of implications as and more serious than just restrictions of purchasing property in J&K by a non-Kashmiri.

18. Unfortunate bracketing of 'Article 370' issue with other issues such as 'Ayodhya' etc.

19. Reluctance to address anomalies in the Constitution of India left by the Gordian knot in which Article 370 is entangled.

20. Reluctance to define within the Constitution of India the meaning of the term 'secularism' even as it is used in the very preamble to the Constitution, thus allowing the Hindu-Muslim-Secularism politics to impact the 'Article 370' and other J&K issues.

21. Absence of clear vision about the emerging scenario for the development of the State of Jammu and Kashmir - with various nationalist organizations promoting conflicting solutions (such as 'trifurcation', 'quadrification', formation of 'Panun Kashmir', etc.)

22. Inconsistent policy on separatists and terrorists.

23. Ignorance amongst Kashmiri Muslims about the treatment handed to non-Punjabi Muslims in Pakistan.

24. Silence in Indian media about the exploitation of Muslims in PoK by Pakistan.

25. India's gross indifference toward the crying needs of the people of PoK.

26. India's indifference to the economic potential of the region occupied by Pakistan.

27. Indian analysts' and media's failure to generate awareness that consolidation of integration of Jammu and Kashmir in India is in the best interest of both Hindus and Muslims, inclusive of the Muslims in PoK.

28. Absence of a national white paper, endorsed by all political parties, to secure the human rights of Kashmiri Hindus and simultaneous development of Kashmiri Muslims to help them get mainstream jobs in progressive India.

29. Absence of vigilance on part of Muslims across the country, and in Jammu and Kashmir in particular, that they have a right to information and education leading toward genuine professional excellence and consequent prosperity as an alternative to tentative appeasement. .

In JK1 (the first article of the present series in 'The Hindu Renaissance' - J&K: Fountainhead of the Indian Culture) major events in Jammu and Kashmir (situated on the bank of the rivers Sindhu and Saraswathi) over more than five thousand years was traced. In the present article (JK2), the 'background factors' mentioned in the above 'preamble' are discussed. Each of the 'foreground factors' will be addressed in the forthcoming articles. The 'foreground factors' 1-5 will be dealt with in JK3, 6-13 in JK4, 14-21 in JK5 and 22-26 in JK6. Subsequent articles JK7 through JK10 will summarize, for the sake of completeness in narrating the 'Unfinished Story of Jammu and Kashmir' major events in the Jammu and Kashmir region in the period BC600 through AD1947. The article JK11 will be on "The Kashmiri Hindus - their plights and rights", JK12 on "Resolution of the Jammu and Kashmir problem toward global fight against terrorism", and JK13 on "Geopolitical context of Chinese occupation of Jammu and Kashmir (Ladakh) and its remedy". Finally, in JK14, "Development of fully integrated Jammu and Kashmir: jewel in Bharat-Mata's crown", the issues under the 'foreground factors' number 27-29, above, will be discussed.

It is the contention of the present article that an impartial and graceful solution would emerge once one raises the 'Jammu and Kashmir' tangle above typecast perceptions of 'Dharma' and 'Secularism' and also about Hindu-Muslim attitudes'.

Place of J&K's status on tracks of history, and on India's course of destiny: - separation of the issue from religion and politics:

For the sake of the discussion, consider now the following remarks which many believe to be the premise of the Jammu and Kashmir predicament: .

(i)The Jammu and Kashmir problem is the residue of an incomplete partition of India prompted by Mohammed Ali Jinnah's 'Two-Nation theory' which would divide India into the Muslim-majority State of 'Pakistan' and the residual part to constitute 'India'. (This contention prompts the proposal that the present LoC be now treated as the international border to complete the partition of India.)

(ii) The 'terms of partition' provided for the then 562 princely states under the British sovereignty to accede to India, or to Pakistan, or remain independent, depending on the majority population of that region being respectively Hindu or Muslim.

(iii) Maharaja Hari Singh, the Hindu Dogra Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir in 1947 betrayed his Muslim majority population by acceding to India.

(iv) The matter was referred to the United Nations to conduct a plebiscite to determine which country Jammu and Kashmir would accede to, or if it would stay independent ('azadi').

(v) India did not carry out the plebiscite as promised, because India was afraid that the Muslim majority population in Jammu and Kashmir would certainly opt to join Pakistan.

(vi) The 'will' of the predominantly Muslim people of Jammu and Kashmir is not in favor of India.

Driven by considerations dictated by the above factors (i) through (vi), J&K issue is then analyzed essentially in terms of Hindu-Muslim rivalry. Once rooted in the Hindu-Muslim enmity, the issue translates immediately into the politics of Hindu-Muslim votes to get elected and form the Government; both 'Hindutva' and 'Secularism' has been accused of being abused in this process.

A careful scrutiny of the above six remarks, (i) through (vi), however, proves each one of them to be false! The tragedy is compounded manifold due to stereotype apprehensions (a) of 'leftist intellectuals' about 'Dharma', (b) of 'Hindutva thinkers' about 'Secularism' and (c) of various religious and political analysts about the 'Rigidity' of Islam.

The J&K issue must recover first its rightful place on accurate tracks of history and on India's course toward her destiny. The falsehood of, and fabrication in, the six remarks (i) through (vi) will be dispelled in subsequent articles; the question about Jammu and Kashmir's status cannot be resolved on the basis of wrong premise contained in these six remarks. But before we discuss this, we shall address the 'background factors' first.

II. Fresh look at the apprehensions of 'leftists intellectuals' about 'Dharma', of 'Hindutva' thinkers about 'Secularism', and of various scholars about the 'Rigidity of Islam': .

'Cross religion mistrust' in India has led to an uneasy tension between various religious groups in the country. We shall discuss first the 'stereotype apprehensions' (a), (b) and (c), mentioned above, which have a direct and damaging bearing on the Jammu and Kashmir imbroglio. These apprehensions constitute the most significant of the 'backdrop factors'.

Central issues in inter-religion uneasiness:

Muslims and Christians in India are worried about the term 'Dharma'. They suspect that adherence of 'Dharma' would lead to domination of those belonging to minority religions in India by the Hindus. They suspect that they would be treated as second-class citizens.

Hindus are concerned about the term 'Secularism'. They find that 'Secularism' is the tool for political appeasement of the minorities to fetch their support in the democratic quest for power to form government, at the cost of justice to the Hindus. Furthermore, there are widespread tensions amongst all non-Muslim Indians that since Muslims consider Quran to be infallible and unchangeable, Muslims can never live in peace with non Muslims who they consider it their religious duty to kill or convert in accordance with the Quranic diktat.

A Hindu has no issue with the Allah and none with Muslims. The conflict is only with the verses in Quran, such as those which direct jihad (defined [1] by the jihadis as 'killing') against the 'non-believer' (- a 'believer', as per Islam, being one who believes that the Quran is Allah's - God's dictum). For this position alone, however justified, a Hindu must be ready to be branded an 'extremist'. Indifference to this conflict seems necessary if he is to seek acceptance of his 'secular' credentials. What can be more absurd than this, since the 'Secular Constitution' of our country cannot really accommodate different treatment prescribed in 'those' verses of the Quran to the 'believer' and the 'non-believer'! Non-Muslims in India have a right to live without the fear that his Muslim compatriots consider it their religious duty ordained by Allah Himself that the non-Muslims be converted or killed. Yet those who call themselves 'secular' in India are more afraid of the apprehensions of the Hindus and not of those verses in Quran. This has led to serious apprehensions about 'secularism' amongst Hindus, and they either distrust, or mock at or shy away from 'secularism'. This has clearly divided the Indian voting pattern along 'secularists' and others giving both sides some advantages and also some disadvantages. This has become a potent element on the Indian political scene as each political party stalks for single-factor vote bank, at the cost of real development issues.

The word 'secular' arouses much mistrust, because of the twist one can give to the term toward political benefits. The term has critical corollaries in the socio-political life of India. The term 'Secular' was inserted in the very 'preamble' of the Constitution of India in 1976. Unfortunately however, the term was not defined within the Constitution - which is precisely why it gets mistrusted and misused. This is a shame, since it is important to have the country's Constitution to be respected and trusted. In 1978, the Constitution (45th Amendment) Bill sought to define 'secular' to mean 'equal respect for all religions'. The Bill was passed in the Lok Sabha. In the present article, the term 'secular' has been used to denote essentially this 'equal respect for all religions'. The 45th Amendment Bill of 1978 was however voted down in the Rajya Sabha, and the term remains undefined [2] in the Constitution.

Secularism, in the western context, means 'separation of State (governance) and Religion (personal faith). This meaning is comprehensively reconcilable with 'equal respect for all religions', which would preclude different treatment to any one religion, whether favorable or otherwise. Constitutional guarantee to treat all religions with equal respect would provide no room for interference between 'State' and 'Religion'. The notion of 'separation of State and Religion' need not be rejected only because it has western roots. Instead, one can highlight the fact that the 'western' usage is comprehensively accommodated in India's Constitution if 'secularism' is defined to guarantee 'equality of all religions'.

Many pretend to overlook the contradiction between the 'Secular Constitution' of India [2] and the Islamic 'Sharia' that lays down 'different treatment' to peoples of different faiths, despite the fact that even some Muslim scholars [3] have now challenged the resulting incongruity. The common misuse of 'secularism' has unfortunately hijacked its meaning, which must be reinstated. This misuse has enabled the leftists to suppress the Hindus, and in retaliation the Hindus have developed distrust for 'secularism' and they mock at it.

There is an internal commencement amongst some Muslim scholars [4] who admit that " ... Sharia law dictates that there shall be no equality between Muslims and non-Muslims ... .. In the multicultural world of which we are now part there can be no justification for discrimination on religious grounds. Imagine the howls of protest if Muslims living in the west were to be treated as second-class citizens under the law. One of the great lessons we can learn from the west is the idea of 'secular' that is neutral laws that discriminate against no-one."

Some Islamic thinkers are confronting the conflict between Islamic aphorism and modern principles of social coexistence. Writes a Muslim scholar [4]: " ... I would argue that the accurate answer to the primary question - can Islam be made secular, democratic, and pluralistic - is twofold. Islamic theology will not permit this either now or at any time in the future. But Islamic society may well accept it over a period of time - if the right conditions should somehow come about." 'Secularism' thus requires 'pluralism' and 'democracy', essential for the multi-religious population in India. 'Hindu Renaissance' must confront, elucidate and accommodate, and not fear or avoid, the term 'secularism', and work with progressive Muslims to define it within the Constitution of India. This needs further efforts amongst the Muslims, but that cannot happen if Hindus hold that the Muslim mindset can never change, notwithstanding concrete efforts [3,4] such as mentioned above.

A clear definition of 'secularism' as 'equal respect to all religions' would protect not merely the Hindus, but the benefits will in fact be larger for those belonging to the minority religions since they could otherwise be run over by those who belong to the majority religion. A possibility that the minorities have naively overlooked so far is that the Hindus could get increasingly suspicious and aggressive and may also consider it their sacred duty to kill or convert the non-Hindus, drawing inspiration (misplaced?) from the very Bhagwad Geetha in which Krishna commands, in verse 66 of the 18th Chapter:

Sarwadharman parityajya mamekam saranam vraja

Relinquish all duties; vow that you take refuge in Me alone!

Constitutional protection under 'secularism' by demanding it to mean 'equal respect to all religions' alone can protect the minorities against misadventures of the majority.

Identifying a rationalized definition of the term 'secularism' within the Constitution of India is an important step in the resolution of the Jammu and Kashmir question. The course must be freed from spurious and misleading religious and political smears which contribute a critical 'background factor' inhibiting a solution to emerge.

The question of Jammu and Kashmir's status must therefore be extricated from the religious-political mindset and restored to its rightful place - in facts of history:

First, the Jammu and Kashmir imbroglio must be correctly answered in terms of the legality, completeness and irrevocability of the accession of J&K to India.

Second, it must be understood that the accession of J&K to India has been fully and firmly ratified by the wishes of the people of Jammu and Kashmir, enshrined now in the very Constitution of the State of Jammu and Kashmir.

Third, a clear vision for the development of Jammu and Kashmir as an integral part of the Republic of India must be developed. (Key elements of these three critical factors will be discussed in the present series of articles).

Thus, it is in the backdrop of the 'secular' Constitution of India that Jammu and Kashmir's status and development, as an integral part of India must be addressed.

Toward this objective, it is necessary to -

- Meticulously free the path toward Consolidation of Integration First of Jammu and Kashmir in India (CIFJKINDIA) from religious and political nuances. [Like it is with other states in India, the people of Jammu and Kashmir may practice different faiths. Also, its State Government must be periodically elected].

- Address Article 370 of the Constitution of India, which has been and remains a stumbling block for the Consolidation of Integration of J&K in India. [A State in the Indian Union can be governed only in accordance with the country's constitution; amendments to the constitution can of course be made in accordance to constitutional provisions. Article 370 must be addressed to bring on par J&K's statehood with that of other states. Each state may have its own laws appropriate to the region, but wild variations in State-Center relationships are not desirable. Article 370 contravenes this requirement violently, and must therefore be dealt with].

- To discuss the Consolidation of Integration of 'Pakistan occupied' and 'China occupied' parts of J&K (PoJK and CoJK) in Jammu and Kashmir, and of J&K in India. [Given the ground reality in the Gilgit-Baltistan region, this is a compelling goal, for the security and integrity of India, and also to enable the people of the region reclaim their human rights - right to peace and prosperity].

The Jammu and Kashmir discomfiture is predominantly due to lack of awareness about exhaustive facts pertaining to the following questions:

(i) Was the Accession of J&K to India 'just'?

(ii) Did the UN Resolutions indict India, and what is their relevance today?

(iii) What about the 'Wishes of the People'? Pakistan harps on these questions by its misinformation campaign - only in order to divert attention from the real 'most critical' factors, which are:

A) Supreme National Will - to resolve the issue for the best advantage of most people, specially of those who belong to the State of J&K, inclusive of Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists, Sikhs etc., and including those who live in the Gilgit-Baltistan region.

B) Abrogation of Article 370 - this is the 'root' cause that has maintained a different status of J&K. It prevents many Indian laws to operate in J&K thereby creating an atmosphere conducive to breed secessionism and terrorism.

C) Demographic Rationalization and Prospective Reconfiguration - Trifurcation, Quadrification, creation of Panun-Kashmir etc. of J&K.

India's contemplation on these factors is sidetracked by diversionary tactics employed by Pakistan. Worse, political interests in India have overtaken national priorities. What has allowed this to happen is lack of national will. A disastrous offshoot if this is the continuation of the anomalous 'Temporary' Article 370 to contaminate the country's Constitution for over fifty years! Finally, confusion about constitutional provisions (or lack of them) under Article 370 for reconfiguration of Jammu and Kashmir, and a multitude of proposals inconsistent with each other, further aggravate difficulties.

In the present series of articles, the diversionary factors invented by Pakistan's misinformation campaign (of which the Indian media has become an unsuspecting ally) will be dealt with, and the above-mentioned three critical factors will be expanded upon. However, before that, the relevance of the Jammu and Kashmir imbroglio to Hindu renaissance must be demonstrated. The discussion can be carried out essentially within the framework of 'secularism', but this requires a clear understanding of 'Dharma' and 'Religion'.

'Religion' and 'Dharma' are not synonyms; in fact they are antonyms! Common understanding is that 'Religion' imposes adherence to a particular tradition, faith in a particular God, adoption of a particular path to 'moksha', 'nirvana', 'salvation'. In sharp contrast to this, 'Dharma' has been defined differently by Krishna himself ('Maha-Bharata', Karna Parva 69.59):

The word 'dharma' stems from the root 'dhru' which means 'to hold' and it is by 'dharma' that the society (social order, civilization) is held together. Thus it is in essence true that 'dharma' is that system which holds the social order.

Imposition of any one religion threatens peace, produces war. Pursuit of 'Dharma' does just the opposite: it produces a scheme that would hold different, plural, conflicting perspectives to be embraced together in constructive, synthetic harmony, since 'Dharma' is what holds the social order together. 'Dharma' must be therefore 'secular', since the society we live in today essentially includes Hindus, Muslims and Christians etc. As per Krishna's words, above, "it is in essence true" that the 'Dharma' is "that system which holds the social order", and in today's world a 'Dharmic Society' must embrace Hindus, Muslims, Christians, Parsees and all. It is this defining criterion of 'Dharma' (by Shri Krishna) that makes the 'Hindu Dharma' intrinsically 'secular', ('equal respect to all religions'); it also makes 'secularism' essentially Dharmic. Reconciliation of 'Dharma' and 'Secularism' with each other, and recognizing the contradiction of both to 'Religion', is essential to prevent abuse of 'Secularism'. The term 'secularism' in the Constitution of India cannot itself be wished away, nor any of the different 'Religions' practiced in India, but the meaning of the terms 'Dharma', 'Religion' and 'Secularism' can certainly be clarified to prevent their political abuse. A Hindu, Christian and a Muslim may practice different religions, but their common 'Dharma' toward sustenance of the social fabric they belong to in India must be the same. Reforms in the practice of each religion may be needed, and must be carried out based on the principle of 'equal respect to all religions', that is of 'secularism'.

'Dharma' concerns itself with an evolutionary sense of righteousness; 'Religion' (any religion) is dictated by theology and sacred books in whose terms alone - however anachronistic and obsolete can a code of conduct be framed. Rigid adherence to 'Religion' has been, and will remain, the root cause of conflicts, bloodshed and wars. Hindu Renaissance would be unsuccessful unless it clearly defines the opposite elements in 'Dharma' and 'Religion'.

Operational definitions:

The definitions - 'Dharma' as 'that system which holds the social order'; and 'Religion' as 'spiritual system that is chosen by an individual as a matter of personal faith' - would allow each to practice his personal religion and worship his own God. However, in each aspect of social behavior, a common discipline must be observed by every citizen of the society (such as following the same 'traffic rules'). Sensitive terms like 'Religion', 'Dharma' and 'Secularism' must be properly defined within the Constitution so that Government cannot interfere with personal freedom. The very ambiguity in the meanings of these terms would otherwise permit the majority to run over the minority, or impose the tyranny of the minority on the majority via the politics of appeasement. The Constitution of India must provide for equal opportunity and justice to each citizen irrespective of sex and ancestry. It must guarantee that each citizen has the right to his personal faith. The Constitution must however require that every citizen adheres to a societal system of norms that would hold peoples of diverse religions in a harmonious framework. None would then feel threatened by the other's religion, and each person would trust every other.

Indian Muslims on 'Article 370', and on 'Jammu & Kashmir':

'Article 370' applies to the State of Jammu and Kashmir alone but impacts the integrity and security of the entire country. Article 370 has allowed secessionism and terrorism to grow in Jammu and Kashmir, affecting Hindus and Muslims both. Article 370 has prevented the consolidation of integration of Jammu and Kashmir in India. It has nothing to do with Allah or with Rama. Article 370 offers absolutely nothing to a Muslim in Hyderabad or Kolkata, but clubbing it with the 'Ram temple' has united Muslim voters in both Hyderabad and Kolkata against its abrogation, and only because they may be united in their stand on 'Rama temple'. This is tragic, for otherwise the stand taken by Indian Muslims on Jammu and Kashmir is no different from that of Hindus.

Indian Muslims' stand on Jammu and Kashmir:

(a) Not a single Indian Muslim leader of any consequence has ever supported the secessionist activity in Kashmir. Militant outfits in J&K hold this against the Indian Muslim community. Indian Muslims in the Valley were not spared by the militants. Most were compelled to leave the Valley. Some were killed including the VC of Kashmir University, Prof. Mushirul Haq, a brilliant son of the Indian Muslim community [7]. Indian Muslims, by and large, have shown no support whatsoever to the secessionist movement in Kashmir, and have openly opposed it time and again [8]. (There certainly may be some Indian Muslims who have hurt India's interests in Jammu and Kashmir and elsewhere, but there are no less Indian Hindus as well who must have done the same. This cannot be held against all the Indian Muslims. No prominent Indian Muslim has supported separatism in Jammu and Kashmir).

(b) The National Convention of Indian Muslims on J&K, held in Delhi on 21st September 2003, adopted the following consensus statement [9,10]: " ... we, the Indian Muslims, regard the people of Jammu and Kashmir as an inseparable and valuable component of the larger Indian Community ... . the destiny of Jammu and Kashmir is indivisible from that of India. ... We note with satisfaction that an increasing section of the Kashmiri intelligentsia rejects the option of independence in view of the geo-political situation of the territory and the emergent threat to the sovereignty of small States ... .. We totally reject the ill-conceived presentation of terrorism, which destroys innocent lives, as 'jihad'. We condemn the infiltration of terrorists across the LoC and the support it gets from the various agencies in Pakistan."

(c) A characteristic viewpoint [11] expressed by a Kashmiri Muslim is worth noting: "It is well known that Pakistan has no love for Kashmiris as their so called co-religionists. ... Kashmir is no pocket borough of Pakistan and Kashmiris no pawns on Pakistan's political chessboard. They are a proud, ancient and most cultured community in the sub-continent; be they Hindus or Muslims. It has been the shortsightedness on the part of our leadership that we did not wrest PoK from Pakistan soon after that country invaded the valley in 1947. Muslims in India are Abdul Hamids, Brig Usmans, Idris Latifs or Abdul Kalams or my father-in-law, a Second World War veteran, a freedom fighter and a pious Muslim who was assassinated in cold blood by an ISI-hired Afghan mercenary in July 1992 while offering afternoon prayers. Indian Muslims and Kashmiris in particular do not require to be authenticated by Pakistan. It is therefore, time that the present leadership in Pakistan woke up to the realities and considered accommodation instead of confrontation."

III. Pressing Questions!

It is sometimes argued that Muslims can never co-exist with any other community as they are stuck with the finality of the distinction between a 'believer' and a 'non-believer'. Reforms [3, 4] sought by some Islamic scholars are however underway. Pessimism on such reforms amongst Hindus is on account of historical events. Gandhi's unsuccessful support to the Khilafat movement is often cited as the basis for this pessimism. However, should Hindus neglect prospective reforms amongst Muslim scholars [3,4]? By such indifference, would they not catalyze the amalgamation of Indian Muslims against the Hindus? The biggest question is: can the Hindus then still expect the Muslim-majority State of Jammu and Kashmir to be retained as an integral part of India? Why should Hindus suspect that reforms amongst Muslims cannot take place now because they could not be carried out in the past? Aren't reforms in the twenty-first century world of mass communication more promising than ever before? Why must they fail when some Islamic scholars are themselves openly advocating them? Can such reforms be encouraged if they are treated with contempt and suspicion? As an alternative, can one wish away one out of every five Indians across the country?

Hindu renaissance must seek its destiny on the principles of 'Dharma' and 'Secularism', undeterred by the confusion about the former and misuse of the latter. An important and involved element in this exercise will be to extricate the Jammu and Kashmir issue out of its muddle and consolidate the integration of the State in India. Many view Jammu & Kashmir as an ambiguous residue of an incomplete partition of the pre-1947 British India, precipitated by a Hindu Maharaja against the wishes of his Muslim citizens. This misconstruction has triggered religious and/or political nuances engineered by Pakistan's muck propaganda, generating doubt in the unsuspecting Indian mind. The Indian media and intelligentsia have remained only passive, letting politics overtake national priorities. This has left the gates open for jihadi assault into India through Kashmir. India must combat this effectively, and this is possible only if Indians squarely examine the records of history and dissociate the issue from all religious and political ramifications. These issues will be addressed in the forthcoming articles in this series. .

References:

1 http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/181_486790,0008.htm

2 http://www.rediff.com/news/2002/may/14arvind.htm

3 http://www.ntpi.org/html/nonmuslims.html

4 http://www.ntpi.org/html/exorcisingterror.html

5 http://www.subcontinent.com/sapra/terrorism/terrorism20001227a.html

6 http://saag.org/papers2/paper192.htm

7 http://www.milligazette.com/Archives/01-5-2000/clean_up_your_act.htm

8 http://www.koreaherald.co.kr/SITE/data/html_dir/2003/11/07/200311070034.asp

9 http://www.milligazette.com/IndMusStat/2003a/051JK23Sep03.htm

10 http://www.indiaexpress.com/news/regional/delhi/20030921-3.html

11 http://www.armyinkashmir.org/articles/lindia.html

Scheduled Articles of the present series :

JK1: "Jammu and Kashmir: Fountainhead of the Indian Culture"

JK2: "Jammu and Kashmir's relevance to Hindu Renaissance and to Hindu-Muslim (& 'secularism') Politics in India" (present article)

Forthcoming:

JK3: "Jammu and Kashmir's Accession to India: Legal, Complete, and Irrevocable"

JK4: "UN Resolutions on Jammu and Kashmir: Plebiscite and Will of the People"

JK5: "Root Cause and its solution: Article 370 of the Constitution of India"

JK6: "The Consolidation of Integration of PoJK and CoJK in J&K, and of J&K in India"

JK7: "Kashmir - 6th Century BC to 3rd Century AD - The Persian encounter (531 BC - 322 BC), The Mauryas (320 BC - 180 BC), The Greeks (160 BC), The Kushans (ad 15 - 225), The Nagas (3rd century)"

JK8: "Major Events in Jammu and Kashmir - 3rd Century AD to 7th Century AD: India under the Guptas (240 - 600), The Hun assault (467), and Samrat Harshavardhan (606 - 647)"

JK9: "Rulers of Kashmir - 7th Century AD to 16th Century AD: The Karkotas (600 - 855), The Utpalas (855 - 1003), and the Loharas (1003 - 1320), The first Muslim rulers of Kashmir (1339 - 1586)

JK10: "Kashmir under the Moghuls (1586 - 1751), Afghans (1751 - 1819), Sikhs (1819 - 1839) and under the Dogras (1846 - Oct. 26th, 1947)"

JK11: "The Kashmiri Hindus - their plights and rights"

JK12: "Resolution of the Jammu and Kashmir problem toward global fight against terrorism"

JK13: "Geopolitical context of Chinese occupation of Jammu and Kashmir (Ladakh)"

JK14: "Development of fully integrated Jammu and Kashmir: jewel in Bharat-Mata's crown"

All materials on this website are © 2000-2008

Printer Friendly Format

Search this website

top