– Pranawa C. Deshmukh
Continued from the previous issue…
The question of Jammu and Kashmir’s status must 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 –
Ø Meticulously free the path towards 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.)
Ø 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-Centre relationships are not desirable. Article 370 contravenes this requirement violently, and must therefore be dealt with].
Ø 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 to 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 the 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 for 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.
Diversionary tactics employed by Pakistan sidetracks India’s contemplation on these factors. Worse, political interests in India have overtaken national priorities. What has allowed this to happen is a lack of national will. A disastrous offshoot of 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’, ‘and salvation’. In sharp contrast to this, ‘Dharma’ has been defined differently by Krishna himself (Mahabharata, 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.
The meaning of the terms ‘Dharma’, ‘Religion’ and ‘Secularism’ must 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 above broad based definition of Dharma.
‘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 ‘a system of personal faith’ – would allow each to practice his personal religion and worship his own God. However, in each aspect of social behaviour, 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 adhere 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. Indian Muslims, by and large, have shown no support whatsoever to the secessionist movement in Kashmir, and have openly opposed it time and again.
(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 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.”
VIII. 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 sought by some Islamic scholars are however underway. Pessimism on such reforms amongst Hindus is on account of historical events.
Gandhi’s support to the Khilafat movement is often cited as the basis for this pessimism. However, should Hindus neglect prospective reforms amongst Muslim scholars? By such indifference, would they not catalyse 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 always suspect that reforms amongst Muslims were not effective in the past, and hence cannot take place in the future? 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.
[The author is the Coordinator of the Jammu and Kashmir Project, Bharat Awareness Forum, Atlanta, USA and Convener, CIFJKINDIA (http://www.cifjkindia.org )]
References:
1. Arvind Lavakare, “The definition of ‘secular’”, See http://www.rediff.com/news/2002/may/14arvind.htm
2. Non-Muslims and the Sharia, Islam and Democracy. See http://www.ntpi.org/html/nonmuslims.html
3. Pervez Hoodbhoy, “Exorcising Terror – American Style.” See http://www.ntpi.org/html/exorcisingterror.html
See http://www.subcontinent.com/sapra/terrorism/terrorism20001227a.html
5. B. Raman, “Pakistan-Sponsored Terrorism In J & K,” South Asia Analysis Group. See http://saag.org/papers2/paper192.htm
8. Mrs. Hamida Maqbool Shah, “Leave India Alone: Pakistan And Terrorism In Kashmir,” The Truth About Kashmir, See http://www.armyinkashmir.org/articles/lindia.html
9. The Korea Herald. http://www.koreaherald.co.kr/SITE/data/html_dir/2003/11/07/200311070034.asp
10. The Indian Express, http://www.indiaexpress.com/news/regional/delhi/20030921-3.html
11. The Hindustan Times, http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/181_486790,0008.htm
Forthcoming Articles of the present series:
THR-JK3: “Jammu and Kashmir’s Accession to India: Legal, Complete, and Irrevocable”
THR-JK4: “UN Resolutions on Jammu and Kashmir: Plebiscite and Will of the People”
THR-JK5: “Root Cause and its solution: Article 370 of the Constitution of India”
THR-JK6: “The Consolidation of Integration of PoJK and CoJK in J&K, and of J&K in India”
THR-JK7: “Kashmir – 6th Century BC to 3rd Century AD – The Persian encounter (531 BC – 322 BC), The Mouryas (320 BC – 180 BC ), The Greeks (160 BC), The Kushans (ad 15 – 225), the Nagas (3rd century)”
THR-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)”
THR-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)
THR-JK10: “Kashmir under the Mughuls (1586 – 1751), Afghans (1751 – 1819), Sikhs (1819 – 1839) and under the Dogras (1846 – Oct. 26th, 1947)”
THR-JK11: “The Kashmiri Hindus – their plights and rights”
THR-JK12: “Resolution of the Jammu and Kashmir problem toward global fight against terrorism”
THR-JK13: “Geopolitical context of Chinese occupation of Jammu and Kashmir (Ladakh)”
THR-JK14: “Development of fully integrated Jammu and Kashmir: jewel in Bharat-Mata’s crown”
Author
About Author
