Handling Kashmir

By P. V. Indiresan

GEN. PERVEZ Musharraf comes from a culture that has irrevocable faith in one, and only one, God. It is natural for him to target one single issue to the exclusion of all others. In Mr. Atal Behari Vajpayee's culture, it is important to start with Ganapati puja. So, he would like to start with confidence-building measures. With his cultural background, Gen. Musharraf cannot comprehend (that bewilderment he has expressed repeatedly) why Indians cannot realise that Kashmir is the one and only issue and all others are irrelevant. On the Indian side, it is equally incomprehensible why Pakistan cannot appreciate that one has to proceed step by step. The conflict between these two diametrically opposite cultures is the true issue.

Where there is no clash of culture, opponents can agree to disagree. Where cultural differences are deep rooted, that is not possible. Each side is convinced of the logic, the ethics of its own stand. More tragically, each side is also convinced of the illogic and the immorality of the other. As a consequence, each party will conclude that the other is not only stupid, it is also acting out of evil motives. This situation is fashionably known as the clash of civilisations. So, Kashmir is only a symptom. Even if the Kashmir imbroglio is resolved, other conflicts will erupt; there will be no peace.

Most Pakistanis sincerely believe in the Two-Nation Theory. Many Indians believe, equally sincerely, in secularism. There is no meeting point between the two. The creation of Pakistan was an uneasy compromise. That did not resolve the basic conflict; it merely isolated it geographically. India cannot give up Kashmir because that will jeopardise its fragile secularism. Pakistan cannot give up its claim on Kashmir because that will strike at the very root of its existence.

It is fashionable to describe Pakistan as a failed state. When it comes to secularism, India has not succeeded either. The creation of Pakistan, the strife in Kashmir and even the existence of religious/ caste- based parties in India are all witnesses to failures of secularism in India. At the same time, every minority other than the Muslim - Christians, Sikhs, Jains and the like - has prospered in India. The richest man in India is a Muslim. Muslims occupy the commanding heights in fields such as the film industry. Hence, it can be argued there is no reason why India's Muslims should not be prosperous and successful. Unfortunately, these arguments are not convincing enough for many Muslims, even in India.

Many Muslims send their children to madrassas, the kind that offer antiquated education and reject modern knowledge. Most Muslim communities receive substantial aid from countries such as Saudi Arabia and splurge them on building mosques; they do not invest in modern schools. Evidently, those Muslims are so afraid of losing their identity that they prefer to remain poor rather than venture outside the narrow confines of their faith. So long as that state of affairs persists, it must be accepted that the roots of the Two-Nation Theory persist not only in Pakistan but in India too; that India has failed in secularism.

The Two-Nation Theory can be countered only by making Muslims (both in Pakistan and in India) feel that Islam is as safe in India as it is in Pakistan, preferably even safer. From the times of Jawaharlal Nehru, Indians have talked of ``unity in diversity'' as the remedy in this case. That concept is too intellectual, too disembodied to appeal to the masses. The masses may appreciate that idea better if it is expressed in the colloquial idiom, in the form of religious concepts with which they are familiar. Then, the concept, unity in diversity, may be split into two parts: One, vasudaiva kutumbakam (the whole world is one family) to define the concept of unity; two jaati dharma, (dharma is different for different social groups) to assure individual identity for each and every social group.

These two ideals are Hindu in origin but deeply entrenched in the Indian psyche. It can be sold to the Indian public, to both Hindus and non-Hindus, better than dehydrated Western ideas can be. Emphasising these indigenous concepts can reassure Muslims and other minorities that they will be an integral part of the Indian family and at the same time their separate identity is safe. It will also emphasise that being one family, everyone must learn to accommodate the others.

``Liberal'' intellectuals are likely to be aghast at this idea of bringing in Hindu religious concepts into the debate. They would better think again. Hinduism is like a sponge, it absorbs everything. Being a sponge, it remains a sponge even if it is cut to pieces. That is why Hinduism has survived; it cannot be written off. On the other hand, being a sponge, Hinduism absorbs both what is good and what is bad. So, the proper strategy is not to throw away Hindu ideas but to use them selectively.

Quite rightly, grave objections can be raised against reviving the idea of jaati dharma. It is true that the culture of jaati has poisoned and stunted Indian society. Revival of jaati can indeed be fatal to national progress. At the same time, it is important to remember that all remedies are poisons. Remedies are remedies only because they are poisonous. Wisdom lies in using what could be poisonous when misused; use it in the right place, in the right manner, in the right dose. Undoubtedly, jaati is a poison. In so far as it preserves the identity of each and every social group, it is also a medicine. ``Secularists'' who ardently desire a common code for all communities would do well to remember that.

Where do we go next? We have two ways of looking at the issue. One, Pakistan created the problem in the first place and we have been forced to react. Two, we made mistakes first, and the Pakistanis have taken advantage of them. Statesmanship will demand the latter approach.

The final solution is not defeating Pakistan but winning over Kashmiris. It is probable that Kashmiris are disillusioned less with India than with Indian corruption. India will profit more by making the Kashmir administration less corrupt and more transparent than by spending more and more on combating terrorism. In particular, far too many Kashmiri youth are being killed for cooperating with terrorists. That way India has not destroyed enemies, it has spawned more of them.

Certainly, Indian forces in Kashmir should be protected. That can be done without killing the youth, but by banishing them to places such as Bangalore where jobs are in plenty. Find the youth jobs; you will create goodwill instead of enmity. As the saying goes, only idle hands go to the devil.

Till the nineteenth century, Europe suffered from leprosy as much as India does today. Leprosy vanished there not because of new medicines but because Europe became prosperous and its public health improved. Whether we want to admit it or not, Kashmir has put us on the defensive. We will get rid of that disadvantage not by force of arms nor by forceful diplomacy but by improving public administration.

Regrettably, no Indian politician is bothered. The real truth is the terrorist does not come from Pakistan; the terrorist is within.

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : Opinion
Previous : Lessons not learnt at the WTO
Next     : She was the exception