[Prev][Next][Index]
Asian Studies symposium on Kashmir
I would like to bring to your attention a recent symposium on Kashmir
held at University of South Carolina on Oct. 25-26, 1994. This symposium
(titled: Kashmir- A Symposium---- resolving Regional Conflict) was held by
the Center for Asian Studies in cooperation with The Institute of Inter-
national Studies and the University of South Carolina; and featured 2 of
the top four noted academicians on Kashmir (Prof. Robert Wirsing of USC
and Prof. Joseph Schwartzberg of Univ. of Minnesota); as well as James
Clad (Senior Associate, Asia Pacific Policy Center), Ms. Patricia Gross-
man (Human Rights Watch, Asia), Prof. Miraj-ud Din Munshi (former proffesor
of medicine, Srinagar Medical College), Ms. Neelam Deo, Indian Embassy &
Mr. Prakash Singh, recently retired director general of BSF (Indian dele-
gation) and Mr. Zamir Akram (Pakistan Embassy-Political)- in short, almost
all the people involved in the struggle in Kashmir.
The speech by Prof. Miraj-ud Din Munshi (I believe he works as an
assistant to Dr. Ghulam Nabi Fai at KAO) was such a gross re-write of the
history of Kashmir that he was not taken seriously. He made absurd state-
ments such as: the Instrument of accession doesn't exist, that nobody
called the Indian army to help in Kashmir in 1947, that the HR abuses in
Kashmir would put Hitler & Goebbels to shame, that the KPs who were
murdered, were killed because they belonged to BJP etc. <the last state-
ment evoked questions from the panelists to the effect that, even if
this were true, does it justify their being murdered- a question for which
Mr. Munshi had obviously no answer), etc. While such statements might
impress the sort of crowd Dr. Fai usually works with, i.e. people with
zero knowledge about Kashmir; it was recognized by all the expert
panelists (these guys have a much more in-depth knowledge of Kashmir than
probably most of us Kashmiris) as an attempt at grand-standing. As a
result of his speech, Prof. Miraj ud-Din Munshi lost all credibility, and
nobody bothered "dialoging" with him. Dr. Sazawal's (of IAKF) speech
(included at the end of this note), on the other hand, led to over 45
minutes of discussion on the issue of homeland (Panun Kashmir with maps &
all), initiated by Schwartzberg who had seen & heard of it during his
trip to India last summer. Most of the panelists seemed to see IAKF's
(i.e. Panun Kashmir's) stance as the most sensible one.
The Pakistani & muslim delegation's strategy was to try to paint
Panun Kashmir and Sazawal as communalists- a strategy which failed
completely. For example, one muslim lady got up from the Pakistani
delegation & introduced herself as an Indian muslim (married, presumeably,
to a Pakistani) and read out verses from the Koran showing Islamic
tolerance towards other religions etc. Dr. Sazawal took the opportunity of
praising her profusely and saying that this is precisely the sort of Islam
we hope to see in Kashmir and that we would love to have a continued
dialog with such open-minded people. And then, Dr. Sazawal took out one
of the Allah Tiger banners and started reading the urdu slogan on it (I
believe it was something to the effect: Kafiron baag jao, Kashmir mein
jihad hoge, Kashmir mein rehna hai to Allah-u-Akbar kehna hai etc) and
then told the crowd that it is this brand of fundamentalist Islam that
must be stopped at all costs; and that KPs welcome peaceful muslims such
as the one who had stood up. The Pakistani delegation was left red-faced.
A few more interesting tid-bits. Apparently Patricia Grossman (Asia
Watch) admits that the problem in Kashmir started in the early 70's as a
result of communalism of Kashmiri politics. This is a far cry from her
statements in the past, in which she contended that the problems in
Kashmir arose because of widespread cheating in 1987 elections. Another
interesting development was that one Mr. Anwar Khan from Azad Kashmir, who
had befriended Dr. Sazawal sometime back in London, passed on a large
number of booklets written by him and his people which he asked Vijay to
distribute to the Indian and Pakistani delegations. Apparently this book
describes the horrific treatment of Kashmiris, who have been made
second-class citizens in their own homes in the so-called Azad Kashmir
area. Mr. Anwar Khan claims that Pakistan is totally un-islamic in its
nature, as witnessed by its treatment towards the Kashmiris in the so-
called Azad Kashmir region.
Rajender Razdan
Here is the text of Dr. Vijay Sazawal's speech:.............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
A KASHMIRI PERSPECTIVE- PAST AND PRESENT
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
V.K. Sazawal
National President, Indo-American Kashmir Forum
The Past:
~~~~~~~~
I was 15 months old when tribals from the Northeast Areas and
Pakistani regular army, under the joint command of Maj. Gen. Ak-
bar Khan, invaded Jammu and Kashmir (hereafter called Kashmir) in
October 1947. As the news of the plunder, brutality and violence
reached Srinagar where I lived with my family, my father brought
home certain capsules from the pharmacy that he owned, and he
distributed them to everyone in the family. The only all-weather
road out of Srinagar had already been seized by the invading
hordes, and the only way out of the valley was by aircraft, which
was accessible to only a few. The increasing uncertainity about a
rescue from India, coupled with the horror stories of rape and
mutilation in a Christian convent in Baramulla, created un-
paralled horror and panic among the minorities in Srinagar, and
my family was no exception. From October 23rd to the 27th in
1947, my family was just one cyanide capsule from self-inflicted
death. My father later told me that he wanted us to die in digni-
ty.
Fortunately, the Indian army finally arrived by air on the
27th of October and saved numerous lives, including ours. Over a
period of time, I grew up, got married and moved to the United
States. My parents, who aged gracefully in Kashmir, chose to stay
there in spite of my repeated requests to settle down with us.
For them, it was not merely a home where they grew up and knew
everyone, it symbolized the very essence of their existence and
spirit. Having a very rich cultural heritage that went back 5,000
years in an uninterrupted past, they saw themselves living
amongst their ancestors, bonded forever to the place with its
unique traditions and glorious past. When the current mayhem
started in Kashmir in 1989, it was understandable why they did
not leave the valley in spite of the Islamic zealots who targeted
the minority Pandit community. Even as other relatives and
friends began to flee, my parents chose to stay in Kashmir think-
ing as aged retirees they posed no threat to anybody. My father
especially had good relations with the Muslims in the neighbor-
hood from whom he bought his day to day provisions. One fateful
day, on July 27, 1990, two young boys whom he recognized as chil-
dren of one of the local store owners, knocked on his door.
Thinking the brothers were running some errand, he let them in,
only to be confronted with a demand for "protection money" in
order to remain in his own home. The brothers flashed their
handguns and promised to return the next day. The same night my
parents fled with nothing more than the clothes they were wear-
ing.
My father died as a broken man in the oppressive heat of
New Delhi in 1993. He never got over the fact that he, along with
his peers, had been ethnically cleansed out of the Kashmir Val-
ley. He wanted to stay close to his cultural roots, hoping that
one day he would return to the land of his ancestors. Unfor-
tunately, that was not to be.
The reason why I introduced my talk on a personal note is
because I want all of you to realize that Kashmiri Pandits have
been forsaken by one and all. Pakistan would like to claim Kash-
mir on the basis of Muslims living in the state, forgetting that
Kashmir has deep rooted Vedic heritage and even today represents
a subset of the cultural and religious diversity that exists in
the entire subcontinent. India would like to claim that Kashmir
is a test of its ideals as a secular nation, forgetting that in
the process they made guinea pigs of the Pandits among a reli-
gious majority that could not be entrusted to govern responsibly.
Sunni Muslims in Kashmir valley would like to claim independence,
forgetting that by themselves they occupy only 16 percent of the
land and constitute about 40 percent of the population. The world
press keeps talking about the so-called third option, forgetting
that the state already enjoys unprecedented autonomy under the
secular Indian Constitution, but lacks the theocratic fanaticsm
that the "Azadi" seekers demand. If not challenged, Islamic fer-
vor will surely turn Kashmir into another Iran or Afghanistan.
And let me tell you, we do not want another Iran or Afghanistan.
The world does not need one more Iran or Afghanistan.
The Future:
~~~~~~~~~~
So where do we go from here? After all, no solution to
the Kashmir problem is final unless and until Kashmiri Pandits
find their moorings back in the land of their ancestors. As
aborigines of Kashmir, who have suffered at the hands of Islamic
warriors, they will demand, and they must demand, adequate safe-
guards and protections so that past horrors are not repeated
again. From a broader perspective, the geopolitics of the subcon-
tinent demands recognition of new ground realities since the par-
tition. It is not as much a case of ignoring past promises, as
much it is a case of understanding new challenges.
Whether anyone realizes it or not, the central isues for
Kashmiris today are not unification and independence. The key is-
sues that are stifling peace and prosperity in Kashmir are reli-
gious extremism and lack of democratization. The secular fabric
that coated the Kashmiriyat once has been torn to shreds by grow-
ing Islamic fundamentalism on one side, and by a lack of human
rights for most ethnic communities on the other. In that sense,
the situation is virtually identical on both sides of the cease-
fire line today.
The unification of Kashmir will not enhance the political
and regional stability in the region, because:
- The unification of the two regions will be a death knell for
the minorities in the region. Even though the two regions of
Kashmir under India and Pakistan have evolved differently in the
last 47 years, the two are strikingly similar in the way the
minorities have fared. Pakistani Kashmir drove out all non-
Muslims decades back. Muzaffarabad, which had a significant Hindu
population in 1946, is 100% Muslim today. Indian Kashmir, which
retained the multi-religious and multi-ethnic character since
partition, has steadily come under growing Islamic chauvinism
resulting in ethnic cleansing of Kashmiri Pandits from the val-
ley.
- The unification of the state would make some sense only if
there is a possiblity of independence. That option does not exist
in practical terms- neither the UN resolutions on Kashmir nor the
surrounding powers (India, Pakistan and China) are in favor of
it. In most neighboring nations, the idea of independent Kashmir
is perceived as a yet another Anglo-American plot to reclaim a
replacement for Shah's Iran.
- There is simply no way that either India or Pakistan can sur-
vive (both politically and metaphorically) if either was to part
with Kashmir.
- Finally, and perhaps the most important reason is that it is
not clear what benefits- economic, political or otherwise the in-
dependence will bring to Kashmiris. Will we become the next Azer-
baijan or Ukraine? Independence does not necessarily mean im-
provement. The reasons have to be more than emotional pledges of
leaders in the past. Ground realities today are vastly different.
A case for independence has yet to be made.
The "least damage option" out of the present tension and
strife is to convert the line of actual control (LAC) into the
international boundary between India and Pakistan. This will com-
plete the partition of the subcontinent and will allow both India
and Pakistan to claim ownership to some part (if not all) of
Kashmir.
For Kashmiris, this will be a reality check since it does
not take away anything from what exists today. On the other hand,
more importantly than which side of the border they live, are the
political, cultural, and human rights issues that have been ig-
nored in the past. Kashmiris on either side of the border must
be allowed to exercise their basic rights freely.
Therefore, the first order of business is to encourage
dialogue between the various communities in two Kashmirs (in-
dependently) rather than a four-way dialogue between two Kash-
mirs, India and Pakistan.
The intercommunity dialogue should be initiated so that
each region can define the framework under which the constituents
can exercise their political, economic, religious and cultural
rights freely and unequivocally. Protection of the human rights
of minorities in each region must be guaranteed by specific leg-
islative measures, including designation of geographic areas
where various ethnic communities and minorities can exercise in-
fluence and create the critical mass for their religious and
economic security. In this regard, Panun Kashmir, a political or-
ganization of displaced Kashmiri Pandits, has asked for creation
of a homeland to ensure that aborigines of Kashmir do not become
extinct in their own land. Similarly, constituents in the North-
ern Areas have asked for the transfer of administration authority
from the government of Pakistan to the local government.
The regions of Kashmir, independently, should then
develop new political framework recognizing the new demographics
and power sharing. The central governments of India and Pakistan
should neither interfere in this process, nor exercise undue pre-
judice or favoritism to any one community at the expense of oth-
ers. Once the intercommunity dialogue has met its objectives, the
constituents of each Kashmir should enter into negotiations with
their respective central governments to redefine the powers of
the state within the federal union. However, the central govern-
ments should ensure that the new political arrangements are fair
to each ethnic region, while at the same time are consistent in
character and structure with the federal constitutions of the two
countries.
What I am proposing is an integrated and phased approach
to bringing peace and tranquility not only in Kashmir, but in the
entire subcontinent. It consists of three discrete actions:
(a) Convert the LAC into the international boundary; (b) Conduct
an intercommunity dialogue in each region of Kashmir independent-
ly, that will define the political, economic and cultural balance
between the diverse ethnic entities. Minority rights will require
designation of ethnic enclaves to ensure religious protection and
political influence. (c) Finally, negotiate new pacts with the
respective central governments, consistent with the aspirations
of the people in the two regions.
The three steps that I have presented are the basic
building blocks for establishing long-term peace and tranquility
in the subcontinent. A process that promotes democratization of
the two Kashmirs will eventually lead to a stage when the border
crossings between the two regions will become routine. The hope
is that one day the border between the two Kashmirs will be like
the boundary between U.S.A. and Canada.
I believe this is the only plan that offers something to
everyone involved, recognizing that no one can get everything
that they desire. the drive for such a compromise must come from
Kashmiris themselves. Let the world know that inspite of our hu-
man failings, we are generous and peace loving people. Let Kash-
mir become the symbol of peace in the new world order.
Thank you.
October 25, 1994.
