BY RAJMOHAN GANDHI
In his letter to the prime minister on nationalism versus
separatism LK Advani has placed the people of Jammu, the national flag, the
motherland and the Indian army in one column, and the people of the Kashmir
valley and separatism in a second, adversarial column. Some will see this as
fair. Can it be denied that the national flag and the Indian army have many more
admirers in Jammu than in the valley? Don’t we hear of attacks on security
forces and the raising of Pakistani flags in Kashmir? Does anything like that
happen in Jammu town?
Advani’s divisive formulation has to be opposed not because it
is entirely untrue but precisely because it is a half-truth, more dangerous than
a lie for being believable.
A difficult reality can be dealt with in two ways. It can be
admitted, deplored and corrected. Or it can be welcomed with glee, presented as
a fundamental and unchangeable truth and used as a political springboard.
For the first time an important political leader has suggested
that not just the terrorists but all the people of the Kashmir valley are
adversaries – foes of the motherland, of the national flag and of the army.
For the first time a possible future prime minister of India has
divided the people of Jammu and Kashmir into two sections, one with positive
qualities and worthy of the army’s protection, and the other with negative
impulses, deserving of the army’s suspicion.
Advani was careful not to use the word ‘Muslims’. But, of
course, he is not implying that Kashmiri Pandits are separatists. He means
Kashmiri Muslims. Everyone knows that and Advani knows that everyone knows what
he means.
He also knows – and this is even more serious than what he says
about Kashmiri Muslims, grave as that is – that his remark about people with
anti-motherland, anti-flag and anti-army sentiments will be understood as
referring to India’s Muslims in general and not just the Muslims of Kashmir. The
tactic of dividing Jammu and Kashmir, and by implication India as a whole, into
Hindu and Muslim is particularly dangerous at this juncture when India and the
rest of the subcontinent is facing the most serious challenge that extremists
using Islam have ever posed. Advani is much too intelligent and experienced to
believe that the way to meet this challenge is to unite all non-Muslims in
confrontational solidarity against all Muslims.
He knows perfectly well that the vast majority of India’s
Muslims oppose extremism and terrorism. As for Kashmiri Muslims, Advani is aware
of their tradition which equips Muslims of the valley to lead a fight against
bigotry. And he knows also that Pakistani Muslims in general not only oppose
extremism but are the major targets of jihadist militancy today.
Above all, as a 1947 refugee from Sindh and as a former home
minister Advani has an idea of the incalculable costs of Hindu-Muslim conflict.
He must therefore know, as do the rest of us, that the real clash in India and
within the subcontinent is not between Hindus and Muslims or between Indians and
Pakistanis or between nationalists and traitors or even between the people of
Jammu and the people of Kashmir. Instead, it is between all those (of every or
no religion and of every region) who cherish life with all its vagaries and
therefore seek to solve problems through peaceful means, and a relatively small
but dangerously dedicated number of those (Muslims, Hindus and others) who are
willing to kill people, including the innocent and themselves, to achieve a
goal. He knows this well. Yet when he saw a political springboard he just went
for it.
Finally, Advani’s demand for a transfer of land in the Kashmir
valley to the Amarnath shrine board is also unwise. Something other than a
transfer should be entirely acceptable.
No ‘title deed’ has ever been less necessary. Until the end of
June tourists from all over India were enjoying Kashmir and helping its economy
along. Less offensively conspicuous than before, security forces were in
complete control and Kashmiris were looking back upon militancy as a curse (many
blamed it for the 2005 earthquake).
The Amarnath pilgrimage was growing in numbers and convenience.
Environmental aspects were receiving attention. There was no sense in taking
away with the ‘religious’ or ‘pilgrimage’ hand the autonomy promised by the
political hand.
That India can retain Kashmir was not and is not in doubt. Size
counts. Numbers count. Armies count. The economy counts. But anyone who thinks
that coercion can be more effective in Kashmir than genuine respect and
autonomy, or that the respect that India commands worldwide will grow with
effective Indian coerciveness, does not understand the 21st century. And such a
person has not thought of the effect on towns across India of coercing the
people of Kashmir, or of using the religious card towards that end.
Let Advani say what he likes. The rest of us should appeal to
the people of Jammu and the people of Kashmir to return to sobriety and
calmness. They are not foes but much needed allies for greater tasks and are
fully entitled to their dignity. n
(Rajmohan Gandhi is the author of Gandhi: The Man, His
People and the Empire. This article was published in the Hindustan Times
on August 19, 2008.)
Courtesy: Hindustan Times;
www.hindustantimes.com