The idea of a new country being carved out is
an exciting one. Especially in the post Cold War world, where changing boundaries
was a remote possibility. East Timor, Kosovo and South Sudan were carved out in
the twenty first century on ethno-religious lines. The creation did make for
some international headlines but the biggest bang was landed by the referendum in
Scotland (happening today). Today the Scots will be asked, “Whether Scotland
should be an independent country”? People will vote a “yes” or a “no”. The Indian
media has not given much importance to the event, but it is inevitable that someone
tries to piggyback the movement happening far away from India. Indian Affair
happened to read this article on Firstpost. Hasan Suroor has made a case for self-determination for the Indian Kashmiris and ridiculed
the Indians for becoming “embarrassingly jingoistic” on the Kashmir issue.
The case that Hasan makes is subtle. He starts
off with some tidbits on the discussion held in one of the committee rooms in
the British Parliament on Kashmir dispute. He then trashes it saying it is a
mere ritual. Then there is a full paragraph from “an Indian media report”,
which apparently proves Hasan’s point that Indian media has a “patriotic slant”.
Then there are a few paragraphs on how the liberal, sophisticated ad broad
minded Indians and Pakistanis turn embarrassingly jingoistic, as if by magic.
This is followed by a vague argument on how
the, “…notion of absolute national sovereignty passed its sell-by date more
than two decades ago.” He gives the collapse of Soviet Union as a point
of reference as to why the notion of national sovereignty has ceased to exist.
The point is that Soviet Russia was an
imperialist force and treated the now independent states as its colonies. The
initial bond of ideology had faded when the socialist economic policies went
horribly wrong. The states broke off at the first opportunity they got. The very
states then joined the Commonwealth of independent states at Russia’s behest.
All is not smooth there, the friction between Russia and its former colonies
from Georgia in the Caucasus to Ukraine in the Black Sea are a proof that
national sovereignty is very much alive and kicking (Russia has annexed Crimea
by force).
Then there is another vague mention of, “The
partition of Sudan, the growling momentum of secessionist movements in Africa,
and the push for autonomy in the Muslim world-- not to mention what's happening
in Ukraine--are all signs of the changing times”. It is difficult to link any of this to the
Kashmir issue. Sudan was partitioned on ethno-religious lines after decades of
bloodshed. Africa probably will go through a long and slow process of
rearranging its territorial boundaries. Countries are not created on a drawing
board, that’s what the European imperial powers did. It is understandable that
the African people would want to set things right, the way it suits them. There
is no push for autonomy in the Muslim world. The only thing happening from
Morocco to Malaysia is, a push for more authority and tightening of the
proverbial iron fist.
Finally Hasan touches upon the Scottish referendum
and makes a subtle case for Kashmir to be given the right to
self-determination. The constitution of India gives every citizen the right to
free speech. Hasan has exercised his. The arguments are flawed, however. He
says, “And it is interesting to see how Britain is approaching it? Not by
bullying or intimidation but by love-bombing the Scots, begging them to stay
on, and promising to reward them with greater autonomy if they reject
independence.”
 |
| Azadi Vs Referendum |
Of course the British are love bombing the
Scots, after all the Scots never carried out any terrorist attacks, they never
colluded with an adversary to weaken the government in Scotland, and neither
did they carry out routine stone pelting on the security forces. They deserve
better treatment because they argued their case in a civilised manner.
Hasan then implies that the approach of the Indian
government is flawed because, “In India, on the other hand, not only autonomy
guaranteed to Kashmir at the time of its accession has been progressively
whittled down over the years, the Modi government's official policy is to scrap
Article 360 [should be read as 370] which gives it special status”. The
benefits and relevance of article 370 is open to debate. There are different
views on how the issue should be approached. This debate is a sign that
democracy in India is alive and well. Hasan might want to listen to his own
view on how times are changing. A debate on article 370 too is a sign of
changing times. Let’s not stifle the discussion even before it starts.
Then comes the most bizarre argument. “It is a
prescription for further alienating the Kashmiris and pushing them into the
pro-azadi camp whereas the effort should be to win their hearts and minds-- if
necessary by bribing them, as the Brits are doing, offering them inducements
they cannot reject. Like everything else, loyalty has a price tag; and how much
you are willing to pay shows much you value a relationship”. A debate on
article 370 seems to a prescription for alienation. What happened to the spirit
of democracy where everything is open to a debate?
The government of Jammu and Kashmir has
budgeted an estimate of ₹22,973 crore for the fiscal 2014-15. This is the
amount of central grant that J&K wants for a year. There are many other
infrastructure projects that the Indian government has carried out, not to
mention the relief work being carried out by the army in wake of the
devastating floods in Kashmir. Sadly the Kashmiris have responded with
provocative messages with banners and graffiti and tried to cause physical harm
to the rescue teams by pelting stones at helicopters and rescue boats. Probably
the Kashmiris do not appreciate “bribes”. They will not because it is not about
bribe, the issue is based on religion and religion alone.
“The twenty- first century is the age of
“multinational statehood” and large nations with culturally diverse populations
need people's consent to govern them. It is no longer possible to impose
consent from London, Moscow and Delhi. It has to be earned. Jackboots have had
their day”, says Hasan. It is worth remembering that India is probably one of
its kind “multinational state” with such mind-boggling diversity. It’s the Kashmiris
who do not appreciate that. The hard evidence of this being the systematic
persecution and forced exodus of Kashmiri Hindus in the 1990s. The diversity of
Kashmir died at the hands of Islamist movement backed by Pakistani state and non-state
actors. India also happens to have a federal form of government. The
constitution clearly separates the list of responsibilities falling under the
union and state lists. The people of India are giving their consent every five
years (some times more often) to govern them.
At the end is another argument as to why India should
seek help from a third country, ideally the USA since they have past experience
of resolving the Irish issue with the British. Then a soft slap, saying you
need to grow up India. The sad thing is that the Kashmiri case has no similarities with the Scottish case. The violence, the religious hatred, the role of adversaries, militancy, systematic change of demography by forcing Hindus out, etc has made Kashmir a case unfit for self-determination.
Hasan would have come across as a rational thinker
rather than as an irrational, nirvana seeking teenager had he also said a word
or two to the Kashmiris. Something like do not attack your rescuers or do not
cross over to the Pakistani side to get militancy training or try to live in a
diverse society and bring back your brothers and sisters whom you kicked out decades
ago. His is probably the case of “support by silence”.
