Commentary/Varsha Bhosle

Rules of the jungle still apply…

On April 1, your friendly jingoist tuned in to CNN's Q&A with Riz Khan featuring Nayyar Zaidi, a Pakistani journalist based in Washington, and Gowhar Rizvi, a New York-based functionary of the Ford Foundation. There was no Bharatiya representative; the topic was the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir. The two guests never did see eye-to-eye: While Mr Rizvi, in the most non-confrontational way, explained that the right of self-determination of Kashmiris cannot be denied, Mr Zaidi thundered that the only option open to Kashmiris was that of joining Pakistan.

In the meantime, Mr Khan fielded calls/faxes/email from international viewers – ALL of whom agreed with either Mr Rizvi or Mr Zaidi. It's possible that on All Fools' Day, the Law of Averages plays its own little prank.

On my part, I was rooting for Pakistan. After all, any country that can throw up such an aggressively nationalistic specimen, deserves whatever we can cede to it. There was no mincing about: when Mr Zaidi said "disputed territory", nobody could have considered J&K to be otherwise. He invoked Nehru's gift to modern India – the 1948 UN resolution on Kashmir which calls for a plebiscite in the state; he pragmatically explained how a small independent country could never exist as a buffer between India, China and Pakistan; and he demonstrated the wonderful stuff of which Pakistanis are made.

The mind is a strange thing – for mine went to Japan: When Prime Minister Hashimoto paid a private visit to a certain shrine in Tokyo, China and Korea protested so strongly that he had to pledge not to enter it again. Apparently, along with honouring Japanese war heroes, the shrine also houses the graves of war criminals. I mused, has India ever asked a British dignitary to place a wreath on behalf of his country at the Jallianwala Bagh? The thought never seems to occur to us. For us, humiliation and indignity are virtues to be cherished. All too often, they go by the names of "unilateral gestures" and "international goodwill".

Which took me to Nawaz Sharief's advice to India: "I hope you will agree with me that without some progress on the core issue of Jammu and Kashmir, it will be difficult to initiate a meaningful cooperation in the economic and cultural fields." Immediately, to promote trade and exchange of artists, we unilaterally relaxed the restrictions on visas – and have now been asked to reduce our level of troops, including paramilitary forces, in the Vale of Kashmir. Least we get complacent, Pakistan's foreign minister, Gohar Ayub Khan, has sought the support of friendly countries vis-à-vis "the held Kashmir". You see, Mr Khan "would also like New Delhi to stop violating human rights of the Kashmiri people".

Yes, sir! It's not in our conciliatory natures to bring up the Inter Services Intelligence's activities along the Indo-Nepal border, its training and arming of terrorists in J&K and Punjab, and its support to the Islamic fundamentalist organisations spread all over India. Humanitarian gestures like the release of boats and crews (which are ours to begin with) will be enough for us, thank you. That a hawkish stand is required on what constitutes our sovereign land, seems to elude us: forget M/s Rizvi and Zaidi, even Indians say that we should pay heed to the demands of Kashmiri separatists!

No, I do not understand the peacenik mentality at all. In August 1994, when 200 ISI-directed mercenaries (including Afghan, Palestinian and Lebanese war veterans) settled in the mosque of Sheikh Nooruddin Noorani in Chrar-e-Sharief, the Indian administration did not take the only action proper in the case, i e, cordon-and-search and storm. For India was afraid to create a situation akin to Hazratbal during the 51st session of the UN Commission on Human Rights to be held in Geneva in February 1995. So, for over five months, the army waited while the foreigners freely moved about in the township. Finally, inspired by the likes of the Bajrang Dal no doubt, the mercenaries razed the shrine on Id. And, India got slammed for it.

We didn't have to contend with just the ISI: Amnesty International, too, attacked. To coincide with the foresaid UN session, it published a report which alleged that India "continues to torture and kill with virtual impunity" the civilian population of Kashmir. For extra measure, Amnesty published on its journal's cover a photograph of a woman from Kanyakumari, and captioned it as that of a Kashmiri. When the conscientious lensman, Gabrielle Torsello, protested against this travesty, he was asked by Amnesty to back its claim…

Some call Kashmiri militants "freedom fighters", but the IRA is always "terrorist". Britain keeps control over a part of Ireland to protect the rights of (minority) English and Protestants settlers. The American Civil War was all about keeping the nation together at all costs – Abraham Lincoln didn't need to seek a referendum in the South. The Oklahoma bombers are terrorists, but murderers playing havoc in Kashmir are the downtrodden agitating for their rights… Every act lends itself to a parallax view.

The problem is, the majority in India is Hindu. We are lulled by centuries of karmic philosophy to live and let live. We do not think about the contemporary problems the State faces on the world map: Our illiterate are roused only by invoking god; our prosperous are involved in the business of living; our opinion-makers grovel before Western ideology; and our press labels all governmental acts of strength as repressive and against the "white" concept of human rights. At the same time, there's no indigenous analysis of the political moves in US and Europe: How many Indian journalists personally monitored the situation in Belfast? Has there been an Indian view on how the West tackles terrorism? Do we know the methods of the SAS? Do we know anything other than what the West LETS us know?

The intellectually servile can never conceive that every nation looks towards its own. It is for us to create an aura where our spineless politicians do not embark on a "Oh-beat-me-up-for-I'm-an-Indian" agenda. The government must be forced to separate the issues of international peace and national sovereignty. For, the interference by diplomats such as Frank Wisner and Robin Raphel evince a determination to destabilise India. Seema Mustafa, in The Asian Age, got to the crux of the problem: "US intellectuals and Congressmen have, almost to a person, ignored the elections that were held in Jammu and Kashmir as if the process just did not occur. If some have referred to it, it is merely to insist that the elections do not resolve the Kashmir issue, that the dispute is open to arbitration as it remains 'unresolved'."

I remember CNN's bulletins of 1995: PoK was "administered by Pakistan", but J&K was a "Muslim-majority", "India-dominated" state. Please mull over the terminology and whether J&K does, in fact, have a Muslim majority. From Doordarshan, I'm led to believe that Ladakh is two-thirds of J&K and that Ladhakis are Buddhists who do not want to secede. I'm told that Pandits and Dogras must have a say in Kashmir's future; that Gujjar tribals and Kashmiri Shias form a significant percentage that is terrified at the prospect of a Pakistani-influenced Sunni rule. Naturally, all such geographical and ethnic statistics are absorbed as facts only by Hindutvawadis, Buddhist fundamentalists and Indian Nazis. That's secularist India for you.

The whole scene is so warped that Mr Jagmohan, the former governor of J&K, has been castigated for his tough manner against terrorists; perhaps, he was expected to frolic with the rosy-cheeked. Has it been possible for any government anywhere to reason with Islamic fundamentalists? But, the press continues to rail against the measures taken to curb terrorism. Between 1990 and 1994, over 10,000 people have been tortured and killed by militants in J&K. What has the world done about that – except step up the export of arms…?

When Nawaz Sharief was sworn in as prime minister, The Nation quoted him as saying, "By the grace of Allah almighty, Kashmir will be liberated during the tenure of the Pakistan Muslim League government" and that his government was considering ways of raising the issue at all international fora. No matter how many Indo-Pak summits are arranged, Pakistan will never forgive us for liberating Bangladesh; it will always be focused on Kashmir. If we soften now, we will soon be yielding part of India to our acquisitive neighbours. Next, it will be the turn of Punjab, then Assam… and so on.

Those of the Hindi-Paki-bhai-bhai mould would do well to digest the results of the opinion poll conducted by The Herald in January: Of Pakistan's populace, 72% want Pakistan to yoke its wagon to the Arab world; 52% think Jinnah had created a religious state; 51% oppose cutting military spending; 84% want to keep the nuclear option; less than 50% favour friendlier ties with India; 34% want an independent Kashmir – while 65% want Kashmir to be "united" with Pakistan.

Our intellectuals, in their quest for seeking a wider platform, lure us into becoming wimps. Slowly but surely, they break the nation's backbone. It is futile to harp about what Nehru did or didn't do; what Maharaja Hari Singh should have done but didn't; whether Jagmohan was a ruthless tyrant or not – it's all gone into the dustbin of history. But, rules of the jungle still apply: If tiny little Japan can send shivers up Uncle Sam's spine; if Arab-surrounded Israel can storm its way to power, then both fully deserve respect for their national character and wiliness. All we do is pussyfoot without direction, and waver when we must firmly draw the boundaries of our nation. At this rate, there will soon be none.

Tell us what you think of this column