A position on Kashmir

Syed Ali Shah Geelani said –  “The ongoing movement will continue till India sheds rigidity and gives right of self-determinations to Kashmiris. We will perish but not surrender.”

The favored instrument of self-determination is a plebiscite.

My own position on the plebiscite is that the Government of Hindusthan should grant this demand keeping in mind realities as they exist today and not at the time when the UN Resolution No 47 was adopted in ’48.

In a recent discussion I made the following two observations – Here & followed up Here

Observations –
1. Does the Kashmiri Muslim limit his demand for “Azadi” to Kashmir Valley? – No. He includes J & K & (L)

2. How does the Kashmiri Muslim propose to get his “Azadi”? – Civil unrest, calibrated terror imports, demonizing Security Forces (Kashmir Police, Central forces, Army et al), MsM support, Liberal bleeding hearts

3. What constitutes this “Azadi”? – Initially, a mealy mouthed holistic Kashmiriyat was touted; voiced by and large by Muslims. Then came the cleansing of Hindu Pandits. Now, it is plain Islamic rule which will supposedly tolerate Hindu-Buddhist presence.

3a. That’s one part. The other part is to align with Pakistan or become part of Pakistan.

4. But what is the instrument that will be used to win “Azadi”? – Hindusthan surrenders via a US brokered “peace-deal” or via “greater autonomy”; basically pre ’53 Flag et al or Plebiscite under the “watchful” eye of the UN.

5. A wimpy Hindusthan leadership will ever watch out for the Nationalist reactions to any move toward surrender. BUT, what exactly does Nationalist Hindusthan propose as possible solution? Can the Nationalists use the “strength” of the Muslims in Kashmir, to trip them permanently?
I believe they can.

They can propose a plebiscite.

The conditions for the UN mandated plebiscite are as follows;

Current Reality –

1. Pakistan continues to occupy in PoK
2. Hindu Pandits are no longer resident in their homes in the Valley
3. Muslims demand an Islamic State for J&K&(L) without regard to the 30-40% non-Muslims

Still, Nationalist Hindusthan can propose the plebiscite keeping in mind the new realities;

1. PoK can or not participate in the plebiscite
2. Hindu Pandits in exile elsewhere in Hindusthan, have no practical stake in the future of Kashmir under the circumstances; therefore, they can be exempt from voting
3. Muslims in Kashmir demand an Islamic State. So long as Kashmiriyat envisaged a Hindu-Muslim-Buddhist framework, a plebiscite limited to the populace in Kashmir made sense. Under updated conditions, it does appear to be more fair to involve Muslims across all Hindusthan to decide if Kashmir is to be an Islamic State/part of Pakistan or part of Hindusthan. Since this is a question of Islamic State – Hindus across Hindusthan will have no voting role in the plebiscite.

In the meanwhile Nationalist Hindusthan can also propose a forward plan – This plan would fall in place depending on the result of the plebiscite.

1. If the vote is YES to secede; then preparations for transfer of Muslim population from Hindusthan to Kashmir/Pakistan should ensue. Monetary compensation etc may be decided upon before hand.

2. If the vote is NO to secede; then this should obviously lead to full and complete integration of J&K&(L) with Hindusthan, completely and thoroughly repealing Art 370 and all other distinguishing acts and privileges. This will of course entail the settlement of Hindus, not just Hindu Pandits, in the Valley.

Note – There is always a chance that such an offer of plebiscite will be rejected. However, Nationalist Hindusthan would have proposed a reasonable solution that met with rejection and will be then free to deal with the situation appropriately.

And followed up with & in response to – “The problem is that not the entire Indian Muslim population is placed on plebiscite.” 

– Yes. You are correct in so far as conditions prevailing at the time the UN Resolution No. 47 was adopted. Resolution No. 47

But, current conditions are not in accordance with the demands of this Resolution.

– 2(a) – “When it is established to the satisfaction of the Commission set up in accordance with the Council’s Resolution 39 (1948) that the tribesmen are withdrawing and that arrangements for the cessation of the fighting have become effective, put into operation in consultation with the Commission a plan for withdrawing their own forces from Jammu and Kashmir and reducing them progressively to the minimum strength required for the support of the civil power in the maintenance of law and order..”

– PoK, the portion of Kashmir over-run by Pakistani tribesmen; is still under alien occupation.

– 4 – “After the plan referred to in paragraph 2(a) above has been put into operation, personnel recruited locally in each district should so far as possible be utilized for the reestablishment and maintenance of law and order with due regard to protection of minorities, subject to such additional requirements as may be specified by the Plebiscite Administration referred to in paragraph 7.”

– The Kashmiri minority aka Hindu Pandits are in forced exile in the rest of Hindusthan.

Also see 14(c) – “minorities in all parts of the State are accorded adequate protection.”

However, Hindusthan nevertheless must opt for plebiscite to resolve the problem of “Azadi”. Increasingly and from events in the past 60 odd years; it has become clear that the demand for “Azadi” is a demand for Islamic rule with or without incorporation by Pakistan. (The Bangladeshi example proves further, that an independent Islamic Kashmir is a theoretical possibility and Hindus need not assume otherwise.)

Keeping in mind the continued PoK occupation and the forced exile of Hindu Pandits, Hindusthan is well within its right to dismiss any talk of Plebiscite. But it should not.

Hindusthan should embrace the fact that the Muslims in Kashmir want an Islamic State that does not accord equal rights to Hindus/Buddhists in Jammu and Ladakh – For if it did, it would not be “Islamic”.

It should also embrace the fact that Hindu Pandits cannot be resettled in Kashmir given the ground realities there.

This then takes on the color of an Islamic problem. Kashmir, as of today, remains part of Hindusthan. In Hindusthan, there are Muslims living outside of Kashmir also. When Kashmiri Muslims demand an Islamic State, they and inspite of possible protestations, raise a Muslim demand; for no Hindu has as yet demanded such an Islamic State.

Hindusthan would be well within its rights to know what Muslims outside of Kashmir think about such a demand. (This is very much like the elections of ’46 wherein the Muslim League fought its all Hindusthan campaign on the basis of the Pakistan demand and Muslims across Hindusthan voted. It would be interesting to know that the ML won more support in Non-Pak areas.)

In the 1940s, Jinnah emerged as a leader of the Indian Muslims and was popularly known as Quaid-e-Azam (Great Leader). In the Constituent Assembly elections of 1946, the League won 425 out of 496 seats reserved for Muslims (and about 89.2% of Muslim votes) on a policy of creating an independent state of Pakistan, and with an implied threat of secession if this was not granted. Gandhi, Maulana Azad and Nehru, who with the election of another Labour government in Britain in 1945 saw independence within reach, were adamantly opposed to dividing India.

Additionally, since Hindusthan is a fair State and does not intend to skew results by including the Hindus across Hindusthan within the ambit of the Plebiscite Administration; it should decide to administer this plebiscite with only Muslim participants across Hindusthan.

Readers will also find all UN Resolutions on Kashmir here.

– Namaste

Advertisements

14 Responses

  1. i think after 1948, plebiscite in Kashmir became a non-starter because Pak did not withdraw its troops and minds of people became polluted by the rise of religious hatred. one should remember that Pak raiders exterminated the Hindu population in their zone of occupation without delay.

  2. I have already explained about changed conditions.

    However, my position is that Hindusthan must still offer and administer the plebiscite under existing conditions and realities.

    This is my proposal to solve the Kashmir problem.

  3. Population transfer of muslims into Kashmir? U realise that there are more muslims in India than Kashmir can accommodate? Wouldn’t that be a problem, unless we are preparted to give more land to them – Hindu Land?

  4. “U realise that there are more muslims in India than Kashmir can accommodate?”

    Subhash,

    Yes. That would be the consequence of a YES vote in the proposed plebiscite.

    In a hypothetical meeting room; leaders of Hindusthan (Kashmir & rest-of),Pakistan (since PoK will participate in this plebiscite) and representatives of the UN can decide on where to place such Muslim numbers in Kashmir.Hindusthan can even offer to one-time finance resettlement per the economic worth of each Muslim family moving out.

    Please remember when the Pakistan demand was raised, no doubt it meant Muslim majority provinces would coagulate; however, it did not mean Muslims elsewhere in Hindusthan would be left out of the equation. In short, the new State of Pakistan was meant for all Muslims in undivided Hindusthan.

    By cleansing Kashmir of Hindu Pandits, Muslims have shown that for them, Kashmiriyat manifests in a “Muslims only” Islamic State.

  5. discussion going on nicely. a modus vivendi appears probable. keep up the spirit!

  6. :)I think this plebiscite proposal is a good move even if it is rejected – as most definitely would be especially by Sec-Soc MSM and Secularists – it is worth projecting if only to put these pro Azadi people on defensive.

    PI.

  7. If Muslim majority states or areas are going to demand a “Separate state or nation”, then I reckon Hindustan would dissolve from being one Country and revert back to princely states that it was pre-independence, but in a fierce and fanatic manner. Why should present day Hindustan suffer from the folly an imbecile Nehru had committed some sixty odd years ago? It is neither logistical proximity nor religious predominance that governs the notion of ‘separatism’. If that was the ambit of qualification, I cannot help say that even Pakistan will need to be annexed by virtue of being a state adjacent to an 80% Hindu Nation or, in the least, the Muslims of Hindustan accept for a fact that their demands for a separate state or country whatever be the case stands null and void by their very rhetoric.
    That the argument raised in the subject article above, that ONLY Muslims across Hindustan should determine the status of J&K+L is not only preposterous but a ridiculous impossibility. J&K+L, regardless of the Nehruvial folly, was, is and will be a part and parcel of Hindustan. Now If the Muslims have reservations to that, please cross the border to their very own sponsor, Pakistan. What a better and befitting state can they, the Muslims ask for themselves! Please be our guests and migrate. Why erode our exchequer to bankruptcy in the futile attempt to retain and sustain that community which has never bestowed their primordial loyalty and trust in Hindustan and on the contrary instigated anti-nationalism and dissension. Never! Jai Hind!.

  8. Thanks Prashanth. Not very sure what you wanted to convey but there are two facts to be noted – 1. There are practically no Hindus in the Valley within a Muslim majority J & K 2. Muslims across Hindusthan have not really opposed calls for “Azadi” for J & K.

    So why does my proposal for a Muslims only all-Hindusthan plebiscite on the status of Kashmir not make sense?

    I urge you to read the post again.

    Namaste

  9. Sir, I did get the essence of your message as conveyed.

    But my debate was as to why proffer a plebiscite at all. Let me attempt to approach your proposal from another hypothetical viewpoint.
    1) Assuming a plebiscite with all Muslims from India, Yes, JKL would be voted to be separated. Religion comes first for Muslims.
    2) Assuming a plebiscite held with all Hindustan, No, Hindus would never part with JKL.

    Further, assuming hypothetically that an all Muslim JKL is ceded, you are inadvertently increasing the number of enemies surrounding Hindustan. JKL will never be a pally part of Hindustan within or without. It would formidably enhance the strength of a masquerading Pakistan, an all time enemy, and weaken Hindustan defense.

    My comments may / could be in haste but not clouded in doubt. JKL should remain an integral part of Hindustan for all the very reasons they want to secede. If an Hindu majority country can suffocatingly tolerate the ever rising Muslim populace, JKL deserves to be every bit the same to all of its citizens, be it Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists. There can not be quid pro quo here.

    May I assume I managed to convey my opinion here.

  10. Please read my proposal again on what will happen if the vote is “YES”

  11. Well, unless I am missing the intrinsic intention, my understanding would be:
    1) if YES to secede , move all Muslims out of Bharat to JKL.
    2) if NO to secede, full integration to Bharat.

    Now, let’s us take point (1):
    a] Is it physically possible considering the volume of Muslims as opposed to the land available.
    b] What surety that Muslims will migrate entirely?
    c] Who will bear the Capital and Operational cost of such an exercise? Bharat?
    d] Why the compensation clause at all?

    If it is point (2):
    a] Cannot be more welcoming to Hindustan
    b] Repeal Article 370 and all subsidiary benefits
    c] KP to return to JKL with pre-1990 status.
    d] A general assembly election with full participation of all communities to be immediately held.

    Your proposal No. 2 stands more amicable than anything. But with a brain washed dogma like Islam influencing the majority, how will that happen other than with physical coercion and systematic eradication of the secessionist voice.

  12. We need to work at a solution. Why worry about logistics? A plebiscite under these conditions would mean Muslims have agreed. Cost per transferee will remove anxiety and make it more business like and feasable.

    Point 2 is linked to point 1.

  13. I honestly cant think rational when it comes to searching for a solution for JKL. To me, JKL remains an integral part of Bharat and any aggression from within should be contained like any other anti-state aggression like the Maoists for instance. There should not be any relent in our approach nor any compromise. Article 370 has been the biggest enemy so to speak. Abolish it and the state will be free of violence. This is my personal view.

  14. My take is that emotionalism has been our bane and has blocked rational and workable decisions.

    We must curb our emotions but strengthen our resolve, use our imagination and win.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: