Himalayan Blunder, Reprise [Rajeev Srinivasan]
I think it was John Kenneth Galbraith who called India a "functioning anarchy". Never before in recent memory has this been truer -- the response to the Kargil invasion has been an absolute disaster. This is one of those times when I almost despair for this beloved country. It is déjà vu 1962, Himalayan blunders all over again. And I see China's modus operandi behind all this.
Even though this is not the time for pointing fingers, I cannot help wondering: who screwed up? The Indian government, for sure -- for this has been a strategic, tactical, and propaganda catastrophe. And then the armies of fifth columnists in the English-language media and among the 'progressives' -- in a moment of national crisis they should not indulge in loud and pointless dissent motivated by petty politics.
There are some who are aghast at the fact that India is fighting a war. Fair enough. I think this is a good time to suggest to them: "This is the plan: India will ensure her territorial integrity by all available means; you have to commit. Agree and commit; or disagree and commit. Either you commit, else please leave India. Your heroes, be it China, or Pakistan, or the US, will be happy to take you."
1. Why Kashmir? The 'progressives' and indeed, all of us, need to understand why Jammu and Kashmir is worth fighting for. It is the very core of India's secular identity. For if India gives up on J&K and lets it be taken over by Islamic aggressors, it is tantamount to accepting the Two-Nation Theory -- TNT -- that Muslims and Hindus cannot live together: that they, axiomatically, need separate nations.
Pakistan was created as the archetype of this idea: ask the Hindus living there, that is the small handful of them (the others have either been killed or converted to Islam). India, on the other hand, is the epitome of the rejection of the TNT -- its 130 million Muslims enjoy equal rights under the law. They are not second-class citizens, as all non-Muslims are in an Islamic theocracy such as Pakistan.
Thus, it is appalling that the 'progressives' -- who loudly proclaim their 'secular' credentials all over the place -- should be the proponents of religion-based discrimination. To make it quite plain, if the 'progressives' want to cede J&K to Pakistan, then they have accepted the TNT, which then means that all 130 million Indian Muslims must also be sent to Pakistan!
Is that a bargain that Pakistan, the 'progressives' et al are willing to accept? In truth, this bargain is something that I, and most people in India, would find abhorrent. Ironically, it is these very 'progressives', in particular their idol, Jawaharlal Nehru, who brought about the wholly unnecessary Partition, and the biggest forced migration of human beings in history: the greatest Holocaust that ever happened. Of course, Nehru also created the Kashmir issue, by not pushing Pakistanis out by force in 1948.
Apart from this argument based on long-term ideals about Indian as a nation, there are several excellent strategic reasons to ensure Jammu and Kashmir is forever a part of India.
First, it is India's listening post that allows India to keep an eye on what goes on in Central Asia, and have some control over the Karakoram Highway through which Chinese nuclear proliferation to Pakistan (and further afield) takes place. Without J&K, Delhi would be appallingly close to potentially hostile territory. We know what happens when buffer states disappear -- remember Tibet, the historic buffer with China?
Second, if Jammu and Kashmir indeed were to become a separate nation (as preferred by the Americans), it would be easy prey for Americans, Chinese, or any others interested in the Great Game. Despite all those proclamations of Kashmiriyat and a separate Kashmiri identity, I am hard pressed to see how an independent J&K could survive on its own. It will be swallowed up.
Third, we have seen what Sunni fundamentalists have done in the Vale of Kashmir -- their ethnic cleansing has been far worse than what has happened in Kosovo: there are no Hindus left in the Valley any more. It is a safe bet that if India were to yield in Jammu and Kashmir, the remaining Hindus of the state (in Jammu) and Buddhists (in Ladakh) will be massacred, converted, or turned into refugees.
J&K is by no means a Muslim-only province, although the Americans are wont to add the terms "the only Muslim-majority province in Hindu-majority India" to every report on J&K. (I have always wondered why they don't say, in the interests of equal opportunity, "Atlanta, a black-majority city in white-dominated America" whenever they talk about that city.) See the population figures according to the Census of India, 1981, (no census in 1991 due to the violence): all these non-Muslims and a fair number of Shi'ite Muslims will be targets for massacres by Pakistanis. This cannot be countenanced. --------->
216.32.165.70 |
