Advertisement
Animosity between India and
Pakistan is spread over the past half
a century, more or less equal to the total life of both South Asian nuclear neighbors. During this time, both the countries fought two full-scale wars (1965 and 1971) and two mini-wars (1948 and 1999). Interestingly, the two minor and one full-scale wars were fought over the issue of Kashmir, a state in the extreme north of south Asia. Both India and Pakistan claim their right over Kashmir. The war of 1971 split Pakistan into two halves, thus paving the way for the creation of present day Bangladesh.
Background of present conflicts
To understand the present stand-off between India and Pakistan, we must refer to the past that will guide us again to the present.
Akin to Europe, the sub-continent or south Asia (present day India, Pakistan and Bangladesh) as it is now being called, has never been under a single political authority in the annals of history. On the contrary, this part of the world remained divided into various empires, princely states and kingdoms in the past. Before 1947, there were no such countries as Pakistan, Bangladesh or India.
South Asia is the home of more than a dozen nations that have their own language, culture and history stretched over thousand of years. Of course, these nations are again divided into two major religions, Hindu and Muslim, a factor that played a decisive role in the partition of the subcontinent in 1947.
A person may be a Punjabi by national identity and a Hindu or Muslim by faith. The same is true for a Bengali, Sindhi, and Gujrati, etc.
When British imperialist came to south Asia in the guise of merchants in the fifteenth century, it was divided into various kingdoms, demarcated into the equivalent of the nascent nation states of seventeenth century Europe. To safeguard their trade interests, British forces under the banner of the East India Company, commenced conquering these princely states and kingdoms one by one. By the middle of the nineteen century, the whole of South Asia had come under the occupation of the British Empire. British colonies stretched from the northern plains of Africa to the South China Sea, these were the times when British imperialists boasted that the sun never sets over the British Empire.
In the first half of the Twentieth century, the world witnessed the First and Second world wars. These wars had eroded the very confidence and authority of colonial masters to hold their grip on their vast empires. Subsequently, the process of decolonization started in Asia, Africa and other parts of the world. The winds of liberation also blew in South Asia, though time and again history tells us that every change is not progressive in nature. In one of the most controversial decisions of colonial history, the British chose to divide South Asia along religious community lines. One, a Muslim-majority Pakistan and the other, Hindu India. (Other example being the state of Israel in Middle East) Leaving the fate of semi-autonomous states like Kashmir -- a Muslim majority princely state with its ruler being a Hindu - to their ruler's choice.
So, the liberation of south Asia from colonialism brought more miseries and chaos for us than a sense of relief. It was akin to the beginning of an endless cycle of chaos and turmoil in South Asia. I apologize if anybody feels that I am cursing the blessing of freedom.
Hundred of thousands of people were butchered in riots between the religious communities that followed the partition of South Asia. In one of the biggest mass migrations of history, millions of people migrated from their ancestral abode to newly created political units India and Pakistan. Muslims based in Indian Territory were forced to migrate to Pakistan and, likewise, Hindus of present day Pakistan to India.
Coming to the issue of Kashmir, at that time, Pakistan had claimed that Kashmir belonged to it as it was a Muslim majority state while India insisted that since its ruler, who was a Hindu, had signed papers of accession with India, therefore Kashmir is hers. Thus, a bitter argument ensued that has brought both the countries to war, time and again.
Both the countries have their own reason for going to war. Pakistan insists that Kashmir is an occupied Muslim majority state, thus extending its help for its freedom while India says it is fighting Pakistan-inspired cross border terrorism in Kashmir. In the war of 1948, one part of Kashmir was occupied by Pakistani forces, while the major half remained under Indian rule. Now, Kashmir is divided into two halves. One half is an Indian part of Kashmir where Pakistan inspired an insurgency movement that is entering into its thirteenth anniversary. India wants Pakistan to stop funding militants who are operating in Kashmir and asks the world community to press Pakistan to stop interfering into its business. India argues that while Pakistan is an active partner of the U.S. in the war against terrorism, it is encouraging the same within India's backyard.
Since the inception of Pakistan, which owes its creation to a vague ideology that insists Muslims are a separate nation, this country is under the influence of ideologues who preach anti-Hindu views and the Muslim obscurantist dogma of pan-Islamism. Paranoia and seclusion have become the state doctrine in Pakistan while dealing with foreign policy, especially vis-à-vis India.
All of this vague Muslim ideology of revivalism, fear of being dominated by India, and resultant surge of abhorrence to India has given way to building a huge military to counter the perceived threat. The majority of people follow a military line of abhorrence to India.
As a result, in a country where poverty is endemic, on an average day three to four persons commit suicide for purely economic reasons, the literacy rate is never more than twenty percent and more than half of our national resources are spent on the military budget. The military has carte blanche to rule the country directly or indirectly.
To maintain the status quo, the military has created the bogeyman of Indian hegemony and asking people to stand behind it for the cause of liberating Kashmir from Indian occupation. In short, the issue of Kashmir has become raison d'etre of the military's continued, unchallenged political influence over Pakistan.
The current military stand-off started on December 13, 2001 when a group of terrorists stormed the Indian parliament and left scores of people dead, including three suspected terrorists whom Indian blamed of having Pakistani patronage. Though Pakistan denied its involvement and condemned the act, the Indian government was not ready to accept the clarification, thus bringing its one-million-strong military to the borders in an offensive posture. For six months now, an eyeball to eyeball stand-off continues in one of the most volatile regions on earth that the world fears may lead to the first ever nuclear war on earth. It is now up to global consciousness how we will successfully manage to avert the nuclear holocaust.
While terrorist acts, like the one on December 13, had been happening in the Indian part of Kashmir and Indian capital in the past, in the post-September 11 global order India wanted to exploit fully the changed international political environment in its favor. This changed global perception does not endorse violence as a mean to achieve ends, no matter whatever the sacred cause one is fighting for.
Exactly one month after the incident, Pakistan's military ruler General Pervez Musharraf, under intense American pressure, delivered a televised address on January 12 in which he vowed not to allow any militant activity in the future on Pakistani soil and pledged to stop militants from crossing over to the Indian part of Kashmir. His speech was largely seen as a basic policy shift in the Pakistani stand on Kashmir. However six months after his lofty speech, militant activities in Kashmir are alive and well and the Indian leadership claims to have given proof to the international community of continued Pakistani support for Kashmiri militants. India claims these militants continue to cross over the so-called Line Of Control, a defective border dividing both the Indian and Pakistani parts of Kashmir and attacking Indian forces. Or in the words of Indian Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee, "General Musharraf should match his words with deeds."
The past two or three weeks were very hard for us in Pakistan. After a fresh terrorist attack, Indian leadership launched a new verbal war against Pakistan by saying that they are going to fight a decisive war with Pakistan who, as they said, was behind the terrorist acts. Don't forget that Pakistan, though being a nuclear power, is far behind India in terms of conventional military might. Therefore, strategic analysts believe that once a war breaks out between India and Pakistan, it would be ended with the use of nukes on both sides. For this they reason that Pakistan would be cornered in an initial phase of the war, thus it would resort to nukes to save itself from total defeat and India would reciprocate. Though, after diplomatic pressure from the international community, both the countries have toned down their war rhetoric, it is assumed that because the warmongers with vested interests on both sides of the borders are in charge of their respective governments, the chances of war are still very much present.
The issue of Kashmir has given the military in Pakistan a reason to deny people their democratic rights, as the military considers itself the sole arbiter of national interests and argues that matters of national security are too sensitive to be left for civilians.
Since the post-September 11 global order has turned everything upside down, the world is no more in a mood to tolerate this tactical war in the name of liberation of Kashmir. The world is in no mood to recognize the argument that your "terrorist" is our "freedom fighter." So, Pakistan is fast losing its options on the Kashmir issue.
The Kashmir issue is being equally exploited by the Indian ruling party, the Bhartia Junta Party, (BJP).
BJP is a right-wing Hindu nationalist party that vows Hindu revivalism. Its leadership has an overt past of participating in religious community riots and demolishing Muslim places of worship. Preaching Hindu nationalism is a trump card in the hands of BJP leadership, who see the issue of Kashmir as a blessing in disguise to extend their vicious agenda of religious intolerance to defeat other secular forces in Indian politics.
To me, the issue of Kashmir freedom is more or less spoiled by Pakistan rather than promoted. By promoting a Jihad on the aspiration of an otherwise secular freedom movement of Kashmiri people, Pakistan has reduced this issue to just settling its score with India and engaging India in a proxy war.
Today India is being ruled by the right wing Hindu nationalist government while Pakistan is under military control. Both ruling elites have vested interests in the issue. I think as long as Pakistan is under military rule and BJP is governing India, the Kashmir issue will remain as a source of tension in South Asia.
Therefore, what the world needs to do is help the Pakistani people restore democracy in Pakistan and likewise help the Indian people to fight and check the advancement of its right-wing religious menace in the form of BJP. Until democratic forces are made master of their country and control the military, the issue of Kashmir will keep haunting South Asia. It is pertinent to note that the U.S. government always feels comfortable in dealing with military dictators, so this time around, when we are being governed by a military dictator, the current dictator is perceived by the White House as its best friend in the region. In India, the hawks of BJP are the best friends of the U.S., and keep getting showered with praise from the White House, despite their role in sectarian religious violence against minorities in the Indian state of Gujrat, where last month hundreds of thousands Muslims were massacred with the tacit approval of the BJP-run government in the state of Gujrat.
Let us not forget that hypocrisy in international politics is no weapon to avert a nuclear doomsday and fight against terrorism. Unfortunately, this is what the sole superpower is doing when dealing with the issues in my country.
(Editor's Note: In the January 21 issue of the New Yorker, Pulitzer Prize winner Seymour M. Hersh documents how the U.S. government aggravated the India/Pakistan conflict by ordering U.S. Special Forces to evacuate Pakistani Al Qaeda fighters to Kashmir. Hersh writes: "...an unknown number of Taliban and Al Qaeda fighters managed to join in the exodus, the administration ordered the United States Central Command to set up a special air corridor to help ensure the safety of the Pakistani rescue flights from Kunduz to the northwest corner of Pakistan...[according to] an Indian assessment, 3300 prisoners surrendered...that left between 4-5000 men unaccounted for. Indian intelligence was convinced that many of the airlifted fighters would soon be infiltrated into Kashmir. There was a precedent for this...our reading is that the fighters can only go to Kashmir.")
Background of present conflicts
To understand the present stand-off between India and Pakistan, we must refer to the past that will guide us again to the present.
Akin to Europe, the sub-continent or south Asia (present day India, Pakistan and Bangladesh) as it is now being called, has never been under a single political authority in the annals of history. On the contrary, this part of the world remained divided into various empires, princely states and kingdoms in the past. Before 1947, there were no such countries as Pakistan, Bangladesh or India.
South Asia is the home of more than a dozen nations that have their own language, culture and history stretched over thousand of years. Of course, these nations are again divided into two major religions, Hindu and Muslim, a factor that played a decisive role in the partition of the subcontinent in 1947.
A person may be a Punjabi by national identity and a Hindu or Muslim by faith. The same is true for a Bengali, Sindhi, and Gujrati, etc.
When British imperialist came to south Asia in the guise of merchants in the fifteenth century, it was divided into various kingdoms, demarcated into the equivalent of the nascent nation states of seventeenth century Europe. To safeguard their trade interests, British forces under the banner of the East India Company, commenced conquering these princely states and kingdoms one by one. By the middle of the nineteen century, the whole of South Asia had come under the occupation of the British Empire. British colonies stretched from the northern plains of Africa to the South China Sea, these were the times when British imperialists boasted that the sun never sets over the British Empire.
In the first half of the Twentieth century, the world witnessed the First and Second world wars. These wars had eroded the very confidence and authority of colonial masters to hold their grip on their vast empires. Subsequently, the process of decolonization started in Asia, Africa and other parts of the world. The winds of liberation also blew in South Asia, though time and again history tells us that every change is not progressive in nature. In one of the most controversial decisions of colonial history, the British chose to divide South Asia along religious community lines. One, a Muslim-majority Pakistan and the other, Hindu India. (Other example being the state of Israel in Middle East) Leaving the fate of semi-autonomous states like Kashmir -- a Muslim majority princely state with its ruler being a Hindu - to their ruler's choice.
So, the liberation of south Asia from colonialism brought more miseries and chaos for us than a sense of relief. It was akin to the beginning of an endless cycle of chaos and turmoil in South Asia. I apologize if anybody feels that I am cursing the blessing of freedom.
Hundred of thousands of people were butchered in riots between the religious communities that followed the partition of South Asia. In one of the biggest mass migrations of history, millions of people migrated from their ancestral abode to newly created political units India and Pakistan. Muslims based in Indian Territory were forced to migrate to Pakistan and, likewise, Hindus of present day Pakistan to India.
Coming to the issue of Kashmir, at that time, Pakistan had claimed that Kashmir belonged to it as it was a Muslim majority state while India insisted that since its ruler, who was a Hindu, had signed papers of accession with India, therefore Kashmir is hers. Thus, a bitter argument ensued that has brought both the countries to war, time and again.
Both the countries have their own reason for going to war. Pakistan insists that Kashmir is an occupied Muslim majority state, thus extending its help for its freedom while India says it is fighting Pakistan-inspired cross border terrorism in Kashmir. In the war of 1948, one part of Kashmir was occupied by Pakistani forces, while the major half remained under Indian rule. Now, Kashmir is divided into two halves. One half is an Indian part of Kashmir where Pakistan inspired an insurgency movement that is entering into its thirteenth anniversary. India wants Pakistan to stop funding militants who are operating in Kashmir and asks the world community to press Pakistan to stop interfering into its business. India argues that while Pakistan is an active partner of the U.S. in the war against terrorism, it is encouraging the same within India's backyard.
Since the inception of Pakistan, which owes its creation to a vague ideology that insists Muslims are a separate nation, this country is under the influence of ideologues who preach anti-Hindu views and the Muslim obscurantist dogma of pan-Islamism. Paranoia and seclusion have become the state doctrine in Pakistan while dealing with foreign policy, especially vis-à-vis India.
All of this vague Muslim ideology of revivalism, fear of being dominated by India, and resultant surge of abhorrence to India has given way to building a huge military to counter the perceived threat. The majority of people follow a military line of abhorrence to India.
As a result, in a country where poverty is endemic, on an average day three to four persons commit suicide for purely economic reasons, the literacy rate is never more than twenty percent and more than half of our national resources are spent on the military budget. The military has carte blanche to rule the country directly or indirectly.
To maintain the status quo, the military has created the bogeyman of Indian hegemony and asking people to stand behind it for the cause of liberating Kashmir from Indian occupation. In short, the issue of Kashmir has become raison d'etre of the military's continued, unchallenged political influence over Pakistan.
The current military stand-off started on December 13, 2001 when a group of terrorists stormed the Indian parliament and left scores of people dead, including three suspected terrorists whom Indian blamed of having Pakistani patronage. Though Pakistan denied its involvement and condemned the act, the Indian government was not ready to accept the clarification, thus bringing its one-million-strong military to the borders in an offensive posture. For six months now, an eyeball to eyeball stand-off continues in one of the most volatile regions on earth that the world fears may lead to the first ever nuclear war on earth. It is now up to global consciousness how we will successfully manage to avert the nuclear holocaust.
While terrorist acts, like the one on December 13, had been happening in the Indian part of Kashmir and Indian capital in the past, in the post-September 11 global order India wanted to exploit fully the changed international political environment in its favor. This changed global perception does not endorse violence as a mean to achieve ends, no matter whatever the sacred cause one is fighting for.
Exactly one month after the incident, Pakistan's military ruler General Pervez Musharraf, under intense American pressure, delivered a televised address on January 12 in which he vowed not to allow any militant activity in the future on Pakistani soil and pledged to stop militants from crossing over to the Indian part of Kashmir. His speech was largely seen as a basic policy shift in the Pakistani stand on Kashmir. However six months after his lofty speech, militant activities in Kashmir are alive and well and the Indian leadership claims to have given proof to the international community of continued Pakistani support for Kashmiri militants. India claims these militants continue to cross over the so-called Line Of Control, a defective border dividing both the Indian and Pakistani parts of Kashmir and attacking Indian forces. Or in the words of Indian Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee, "General Musharraf should match his words with deeds."
The past two or three weeks were very hard for us in Pakistan. After a fresh terrorist attack, Indian leadership launched a new verbal war against Pakistan by saying that they are going to fight a decisive war with Pakistan who, as they said, was behind the terrorist acts. Don't forget that Pakistan, though being a nuclear power, is far behind India in terms of conventional military might. Therefore, strategic analysts believe that once a war breaks out between India and Pakistan, it would be ended with the use of nukes on both sides. For this they reason that Pakistan would be cornered in an initial phase of the war, thus it would resort to nukes to save itself from total defeat and India would reciprocate. Though, after diplomatic pressure from the international community, both the countries have toned down their war rhetoric, it is assumed that because the warmongers with vested interests on both sides of the borders are in charge of their respective governments, the chances of war are still very much present.
The issue of Kashmir has given the military in Pakistan a reason to deny people their democratic rights, as the military considers itself the sole arbiter of national interests and argues that matters of national security are too sensitive to be left for civilians.
Since the post-September 11 global order has turned everything upside down, the world is no more in a mood to tolerate this tactical war in the name of liberation of Kashmir. The world is in no mood to recognize the argument that your "terrorist" is our "freedom fighter." So, Pakistan is fast losing its options on the Kashmir issue.
The Kashmir issue is being equally exploited by the Indian ruling party, the Bhartia Junta Party, (BJP).
BJP is a right-wing Hindu nationalist party that vows Hindu revivalism. Its leadership has an overt past of participating in religious community riots and demolishing Muslim places of worship. Preaching Hindu nationalism is a trump card in the hands of BJP leadership, who see the issue of Kashmir as a blessing in disguise to extend their vicious agenda of religious intolerance to defeat other secular forces in Indian politics.
To me, the issue of Kashmir freedom is more or less spoiled by Pakistan rather than promoted. By promoting a Jihad on the aspiration of an otherwise secular freedom movement of Kashmiri people, Pakistan has reduced this issue to just settling its score with India and engaging India in a proxy war.
Today India is being ruled by the right wing Hindu nationalist government while Pakistan is under military control. Both ruling elites have vested interests in the issue. I think as long as Pakistan is under military rule and BJP is governing India, the Kashmir issue will remain as a source of tension in South Asia.
Therefore, what the world needs to do is help the Pakistani people restore democracy in Pakistan and likewise help the Indian people to fight and check the advancement of its right-wing religious menace in the form of BJP. Until democratic forces are made master of their country and control the military, the issue of Kashmir will keep haunting South Asia. It is pertinent to note that the U.S. government always feels comfortable in dealing with military dictators, so this time around, when we are being governed by a military dictator, the current dictator is perceived by the White House as its best friend in the region. In India, the hawks of BJP are the best friends of the U.S., and keep getting showered with praise from the White House, despite their role in sectarian religious violence against minorities in the Indian state of Gujrat, where last month hundreds of thousands Muslims were massacred with the tacit approval of the BJP-run government in the state of Gujrat.
Let us not forget that hypocrisy in international politics is no weapon to avert a nuclear doomsday and fight against terrorism. Unfortunately, this is what the sole superpower is doing when dealing with the issues in my country.
(Editor's Note: In the January 21 issue of the New Yorker, Pulitzer Prize winner Seymour M. Hersh documents how the U.S. government aggravated the India/Pakistan conflict by ordering U.S. Special Forces to evacuate Pakistani Al Qaeda fighters to Kashmir. Hersh writes: "...an unknown number of Taliban and Al Qaeda fighters managed to join in the exodus, the administration ordered the United States Central Command to set up a special air corridor to help ensure the safety of the Pakistani rescue flights from Kunduz to the northwest corner of Pakistan...[according to] an Indian assessment, 3300 prisoners surrendered...that left between 4-5000 men unaccounted for. Indian intelligence was convinced that many of the airlifted fighters would soon be infiltrated into Kashmir. There was a precedent for this...our reading is that the fighters can only go to Kashmir.")