Some months ago, the European Union (EU), led by Germany, which currently holds the EU presidency, organised a seminar on "Minorities in India and the European Union" with participants being invited from India and Europe. This was an event of some significance where experts came together for the first time to address the burning issues of how to recognise a minority and how to deal with minorities.

The opening and inaugural sessions were addressed by, among others, Bernd Muetzelburg, German ambassador to India, Francisco da Camara Gomes, ambassador, head of the European Commission delegation to India, AR Antulay, union minister, Ministry of Minority Affairs and Hamid Ansari, chairman, National Commission for Minorities. During the day, three parallel working groups deliberated on 1) Integration policies: theory and practice in India and Europe; 2) Religious diversity in secular frameworks in India and Europe; and 3) Ethnic, linguistic, social, cultural and territorial identities in Europe and India, respectively. At the concluding session all of them came together. Presentations on fundamental issues based on a group discussion and consensus among group members were heard from each group.

In the final analysis, everybody appeared to agree that there is a need for conceptual innovation to replace the terminology of "minority" and "majority". In other words, there is a need for framework innovation in order to deal with the complex issues of minority dynamics such as minority identity; forms of exclusion as a mark of minority identity; defining citizenship, state and religion; human rights within diverse perspectives; inclusive models of participation within cultural diversities; proportionate representation of minorities; accountability and the mechanisms of the state; ethnic, linguistic and religious minorities; national minorities and changing boundaries in Europe; failure of state mechanisms in India; future strategies for inclusion, affirmative action and monitoring of policy implementation; international monitoring mechanisms and so on.

No doubt, we have to go a step beyond by recognising that there is a need worldwide for rethinking minorities, be they national minorities like Tibetans in India or the 69 per cent German-speaking population in South Tyrol (northern Italy) or ethnic, religious, linguistic and tribal minorities in India or minorities caused by conversions under life-threatening state-sponsored terrorist or fundamentalist violence as in Kashmir.

This becomes very clear if we consider the minority community of Kashmiri Pandits who became a minority through forced conversions in their own homeland, Kashmir. The process just took several centuries, from the 14th century onwards.

Further developments around 1947-1948, when India won her independence from the British Empire and Pakistan came into existence, brought about their exclusion from participation in political decision-making mechanisms over the past 60 years. More recently, in 1989-1990, this was followed by a man-made catastrophe resulting in their being uprooted en masse from the valley of Kashmir, which has been their home since ancient times, ecologically, historically and culturally.

This final act in the tragedy of this community has made them refugees in their own country. Their case shows how violently and massively state mechanisms fail, when they do fail, in protecting the life and dignity of helpless citizens and civil society, once left at the mercy of terrorists and fundamentalists. What made the Pandits’ situation especially precarious was the fact that the plan to eliminate them en masse within their own homeland was not only sponsored but hatched by Pakistan and its intelligence agencies. Under this plan, Pakistan could claim some success in her deal with the terrorists since innocent Pandits were brutally killed while others received warnings to leave the valley or face death. The miracle is that most of them have survived, by leaving the valley under cover of darkness one by one, although every preparation had been made to wipe them out in 1989-1990 and earlier, in 1986. Several questions arise in this context of ethnic cleansing.

Why and how did state mechanisms fail at all levels in Kashmir and in New Delhi in 1989-1990 and thereafter? Why did they do nothing as the Kashmir tragedy of 1989-1990 unfolded? It is hard to believe that there were no state mechanisms in place or that the state is not accountable to its civil society, to its citizens. But so long as no inquiry is conducted by the state into the tragic and violent events of 1989-1990 and its own failure in Kashmir, the whole world would have no choice but to believe this even though it is well known that India has the necessary institutions in place, including its National Commission for Minorities (NCM).

With Kashmir as our example, how are we to address the whole issue of rethinking minority dynamics? Is there already a paradigm in place, say in Europe and elsewhere in the world, that lays down the rules of the game on how to treat minorities if they are already well recognised? Are there clear rules about how to recognise a minority before we think of how to deal with this? If so, is there an urgent need for a paradigm shift? Most experts feel that both India and Europe have paradigms in place for recognising and integrating minorities. In India there is the NCM, under the union Ministry of Minority Affairs. Yet there are in existence minorities not recognised by the Government of India, nor by the NCM. Just think of the Kashmiri Pandits who have been robbed of everything, including their dignity. Similar problems cannot be ruled out in the European context.

To pose the problem in a nutshell: Assuming that there are some mechanisms in place, such as the NCM in New Delhi, that are meant to take care of minorities’ interests and their well-being, it must be admitted that there is no paradigm or comprehensive framework in place to recognise hitherto unrecognised minorities. In the South Asian context, the real issue is not how to bring about a paradigm shift since there is no paradigm in place yet. The problem is how to evolve a paradigm for the first time, to clear the fog surrounding minority realities and minority dynamics worldwide. Thus a paradigm is needed:

Ø to understand the complexities of each single minority;

Ø to put in place appropriate mechanisms for sustained negotiations with minority problems;

Ø to put in place mechanisms for evolving policies and decisions in which minorities have a meaningful role to play;

Ø to put in place mechanisms for delivering justice without delays;

Ø to put in place mechanisms for dealing with state failure/retreat of the state where implementation is concerned, making its mechanisms accountable to its citizens, to civil society;

Ø to put in place mechanisms at the national (and possibly the international) level for monitoring all that is being implemented.

Rights of recognition: During 1989-1990, members of the Kashmiri Pandit minority were individually and collectively robbed of their dignity and fundamental human rights thanks to a well-planned strategy by Pakistan-trained terrorists who have been operating in the Kashmir valley for the last two decades. The mechanisms of the state, both at the centre and in the valley, watched the implementation of the terrorist plan without doing anything to safeguard the dignity and the fundamental rights of the Kashmiri Pandit minority.

There are a number of fundamental issues relating to the Kashmiri Pandit minority that call for most urgent attention – issues that are far more pressing than the "peace process" with Pakistan which has been the main actor in engineering, inciting and openly supporting terrorism in the valley of Kashmir since 1947. According to India’s defence minister AK Antony, "The threat of terrorism is still very much there. Infiltration from across the Line of Control may have slightly stabilised but terrorists are now trying new routes. Infiltrators and terrorists are getting support from across Pakistan. It is a fact" (The Times of India, March 26, 2007).

This is no more than ritual dynamics. The minister’s ambivalent statement came in response to demands for troop reduction made by Mufti Mohammad Sayeed, chief of the People’s Democratic Party in Kashmir valley. Similar ritual dynamics are visible in regular news items carried in national newspapers, which indicate progress on issues within the composite dialogue between India and Pakistan and the likelihood of their signing new agreements on Siachen. India’s stand on terrorist violence in Jammu & Kashmir will remain ambivalent until we openly question Pakistan’s dirty role in the "Kashmir issue", a role it has been playing ever since it came into existence in 1947.

India’s stand will continue to suffer from this ambivalence also because of our inability to question the foundations of the American-Pakistan strategic partnership. One of the most tested pillars of this partnership is the "dirty role" Pakistan is required to play for the USA in a changing world.

It is hardly surprising then that there has been no word from the Government of India on the plight of the Kashmiri Pandit minority. Have they not lived in the valley as a minority, not only for the past 60 years of Indian democracy but throughout the past several centuries? Today the whole world knows the answer. It becomes imperative to articulate the complexities of their plight because they are now living as unrecognised refugees in their own country. As a first step, we would like to bring into the public domain the following demands.

First, the Government of India should, without further delay and failure, institute an inquiry by a retired Supreme Court judge into the "hows" and "whys" of the failure of state mechanisms, both at the centre and the state level, in 1989-1990 and thereafter, which greatly helped Pakistan and Pakistan-trained terrorists to implement their plan to kill innocent Kashmiri Pandits selectively in Srinagar and across villages in Kashmir valley and force the rest of them to leave Kashmir valley for good under cover of darkness.

By the middle of 1990 the valley was emptied of all of them. The successful implementation of their plan took several months. The demand for an inquiry in this context is not new. It has been repeatedly raised over the past 17 years by individuals, families and groups affected by this man-made catastrophe.

Secondly, there is already in place a Ministry of Minority Affairs under the Government of India as well as a National Commission for Minorities. But the endangered Kashmiri Pandit minority, surviving for the past 17 years as an unrecognised refugee community in India, is yet to be recognised as a minority by the NCM. We the members of the Kashmiri Pandit minority would like to know whether such recognition will ever be granted.

Thirdly, members of the Kashmiri Pandit minority would like to know how long we have to wait before our dignity and full participation in life and culture in the Kashmir valley, including political life, are fully restored. How long do we have to remain refugees in our own country? We should, at least, be granted a place in the valley with our houses, which have seen plunder and destruction during these 17 years, rebuilt, and with security of life and livelihood as guaranteed under the Indian Constitution. We need to know when this will become possible, as we cannot be subjected to such inhuman treatment and forced exile for life. When can we see our fundamental rights fully restored?

Fourthly, all cultural and religious places of worship of the Kashmiri Pandit minority should be restored to their pre-1989-1990 glory wherever these have been subjected to desecration and destruction, and provided with security cover against fundamentalist onslaughts.

Fifthly, all members of the Kashmiri Pandit minority should be, wherever they are, compensated for the atrocities inflicted upon them during the past 17 years of life in exile. This should also cover those who have not been recognised among the affected families/population simply because no mechanism has been set in place for them. These persons have been breadwinners for their families who lived in the Kashmir valley until 1989-1990 and who were forced to take jobs outside Jammu & Kashmir from the 1950s-1990 due to lack of opportunities in their ancestral homeland. By simply ignoring their interests, how long will the families of the Kashmiri Pandit minority remain divided families even in exile?

Sixthly, pending the findings of a properly constituted inquiry committee, the Government of India should bring before the parliament a white paper on the total number of members of the Kashmiri Pandit minority who have been forced to leave the valley from the 1950s-1989 and since 1989-1990. Accordingly, their proportional representation in parliament and in the Jammu & Kashmir state assembly should be legislated without delay.