Open Forum
New Delhi, 3 September 2008
‘Azadi’ For Kashmir
REVISITING
PARTITION
By Prakash Nanda
Over the past few days many “liberals” have argued in
leading Indian publications that if the Kashmiris do not want to remain with India, they
should be allowed their “azadi” or independence. The views of these “liberals” should be
respected in a liberal democracy that India is. However, one can
legitimately counter-question some aspects of their suggestion, before it is
considered by any responsible and democratic government.
For one, while agreeing with the Kashmiri separatists that
they need “azadi”, the “liberals” have not explained whether the separatists
“deserve” independence. Here the pertinent point is the ground on which the
separatists are demanding their independence. Do our “liberals” believe in the
justness of that ground? And that ground is the fact – something the
separatists in Kashmir have made crystal clear in their recent rallies -- that
since Kashmir is essentially a Muslim-majority area the Muslims there cannot
co-exist with non-Muslims, who, otherwise, constitute India’s
majority. In other words, Muslims cannot be a constituent of “non-Muslim” India. That is
why one witnesses so many Pakistani flags in the separatists’ rallies and that
is why separatist leader Syed Gilani talks of Kashmir’s accession to Pakistan.
This is nothing but the reassertion of the so-called
“two-nation theory”, on the basis of which the subcontinent was partitioned in
1947, whether we admit it or not. If the
“liberals” accept this theory, what have they to say about the Muslims living
in other parts of India?
For another, and this is more important, the liberals have
not highlighted “how” India
should allow “azadi” to Kashmir. Is the
process going to be conditional or not? The question of conditionality is
important because of the following reason:
When India was partitioned in 1947, the population figures
were about 330, 27 and 30 million people in India, West Pakistan, and
Bangladesh (then East Pakistan) respectively. In terms of area, India, Pakistan,
and Bangladesh
constituted roughly 1.3, 0.3 and 0.06 million square miles respectively. Thus,
population percentages were 85%, 15% and land percentages were 75% and 25% for
India and united Pakistan (West and East Pakistan) respectively.
But then, united Pakistan
was meant for “all” the Muslims of the subcontinent just as Israel was for
all Jews of the world. If all the Muslims of the pre-August 1947 India had decided to go to the then united Pakistan,
Pakistani rulers could not have said nor done anything to the contrary. In
cases of partition elsewhere in the world, there were always exchanges of
population. The case of Greece-Turkey, Germany-Czechoslovakia,
Bulgaria-Turkey, Poland-Germany,
Bosnia-Serbia and Croatia-Serbia are recent examples where a full-scale
exchange of population was organised, sometimes by the United Nations itself.
However, in the case of India’s partition, a systematic
exchange of population never took place.
In fact, every liberal, secular and democratic Indian should be proud of
the fact that India after
partition continues to have more Muslims than either Pakistan
or Bangladesh.
That being the case, in 1947, India
had to accommodate 85% of the population in 75% of the land of the undivided
subcontinent. So, the then Pakistan
got a much better but extremely unfair land deal during the partition compared
to India.
It may be argued here that the father of Pakistan, Mohammad Ali Jinah, talked of a Pakistan where
every religious community could reside. He did not insist of the Hindus and
Sikhs to flee Pakistan
despite the horrendous ethnic cleansing in some border States
of both India and Pakistan at
that time. But the situation today is radically different. In 1947, Hindus constituted over 20% in West
Pakistan and 36% in East Pakistan (Bangladesh). Now, they are less
than 1% in Pakistan and
about 8% in Bangladesh, whereas
in India,
the Muslim population has risen from about 10% in 1947 to about 15% today. In
other words, Pakistan and Bangladesh now have got lesser reasons to
explain why they should have disproportionate land with them vis-a-vis India.
Clearly, India
is the aggrieved party over the manner the partition is sustained. Now, when
one talks of “azadi” for Kashmir, he or she is
precisely reopening the question of partition. Because, talking of allowing
Kashmiris to secede just because they say that as Muslims they cannot remain in
Hindu-majority India means
that the process of partition of India still remains incomplete. And
if that is the case, India
has got every right to demand for the readjustment of the territories involving
both India and Bangladesh. Are
the Kashmiri separatists and their “liberal “supporters prepared for such an
eventuality?
Let Kashmir secede, but simultaneously ask both Pakistan and Bangladesh
to return to India
the excess land they have. Some “liberals” could counter-argue that Kashmir’s case is different because of its ethnicity,
which is distinct from religion. But then if ethnicity could be the basis of
dividing and uniting nations, Pakistan
and Bangladesh
have no right to exist as sovereign countries since Indians, Pakistanis and
Bangladeshis are ethnically same and geographically both belong to the same
landmass, having common flora and fauna. If geography and ethnicity are to be
interpreted negatively, then too Pakistan’s legitimacy could be challenged,
given the perpetual clash between Shias and Sunnis, not to talk of the ever
disenchanted Muhajirs, whose leaders are on record to have said that the
partition of India was “A historic blunder”.
If Kashmiri separatists and their liberal supporters argue
that the Hindus, Buddhists and Muslims cannot coexist in Jammu and Kashmir and,
therefore, the Muslims must either join Pakistan or form an independent
country, then they should convince their Muslim brethren in the rest of India
that they have done wrong by staying back in India and that they all should
migrate either to Pakistan or Bangladesh, failing which these two countries
should return excess territories to India.
This is not to suggest that partition should be undone, but
to emphasise that “liberals” are aggravating the crisis not only in Kashmir but also in the rest of the subcontinent.--INFA
(Copyright,
India News and Feature Alliance)
|