03-20-2005, 05:51 AM
ON KASHMIR
Islamists and Hindutva Chauvinists: Two Sides of the Same Coin
This interview was conducted by Yoginder Singh Sikand with X, a
social activist from Jammu and Kashmir who requested anonymity. Here
he talks about his views on a possible resolution of the Kashmir
conflict.
Q: The ongoing violence in Jammu and Kashmir has severely impacted on
inter-community relations in the state. What can be done to promote
some sort of dialogue between the communities?
A: I agree with you when you say that inter-community relations here
are not the same as they were two decades ago. At the same time I
disagree with the argument that some people put forward that Hindus
and Muslims simply cannot peacefully coexist. But I would admit that
in Jammu and Kashmir there are people with extreme views in each
community, who use religion to preach intolerance and hatred. This
has happened all over South Asia, and not just in our state alone.
Unfortunately, I do not think there are any organized efforts
underway on the part of civil society organizations here to promote
better inter-community relations.
Q:: How do you look at Islamist groups like the Lashkar-i Tayyeba and
the Jama`at-i Islami? Do you think they reflect the views of most
Kashmiri Muslims?
A:: These are armed groups and command most of whatever strength they
do by the force of their weapons. They certainly do not represent the
views and beliefs of most Muslims in Jammu and Kashmir, who do not
agree with their understanding of Islam. The Lashkar and many people
in the Jama`at seem to think that you can be a proper Muslim only if
you live in what they call an Islamic state, but this is not true.
This argument is wrong, but it is a persuasive one for many. Before
1947 the Muslim League claimed that Islam needed a territory of its
own to prosper. What followed was the `Islamic Republic' of Pakistan,
which is neither `Islamic' nor a Republic! Don't misunderstand me. I
am a believing Muslim myself but I cannot agree with this notion that
the mere fact that one shares the same religion with others means
that one belongs to the same nationality and must live in the same
state, which is what the Islamists argue. The hollowness of this
claim was exposed no sooner had Pakistan come into being, with
mounting ethnic, linguistic and sectarian tensions between the
different Muslim groups living in that country. These factors played
a more important role in Pakistani politics than Islam. Even today,
because of the injustice that they feel subjected to, many Baluchis
and Sindhis in Pakistan are demanding the right to self-
determination. I fear that if Kashmir joins Pakistan, in a few
decades the Kashmiris will also start demanding freedom from Pakistan
and Punjabi domination.
Q: How do you feel that the problem of Kashmir can be eventually
resolved?
A: Violence is no solution at all, and I think most Kashmiris now
feel this way. Any solution to the issue, to be acceptable, must
ensure that justice is done to all the ethnic, linguistic and
religious groups living in the state. Otherwise, if the voices of
some groups are suppressed there is bound to be constant instability.
I think that any future political set-up for Jammu and Kashmir must
necessarily be secular and democratic. This is not simply because of
the large and significant non-Muslim minority in the state, but also
because the single largest group, the Kashmiri Muslims, do not, as a
whole, want to live under a so-called Islamist regime. And then, you
must realize that the Muslims of the state are not a homogenous
community. In addition to the Kashmiri Muslims, you have Dogra
Muslims, Gujjars, Bakkarwals, Kargilis, Punjabi Muslims and so on,
and they have their own diverse political views. I personally think
that the majority of the Muslims of the state would not like to live
in Pakistan, given its history of military rule, Punjabi domination,
sectarian rivalries and backward economy. On the other hand, India is
the cause of some of its own problems. It never allowed true
democracy to function in Kashmir and consistently rigged the
elections in the state. In any case, it is pointless discussing what
has happened. I think no solution to the problem can afford to leave
out the voices and aspirations of the people of Jammu and Kashmir. It
is not simply a problem concerning India and Pakistan alone, and so
the voices of the people of the state must also be taken into
account. And by this I mean not simply the Kashmiri Muslims, but all
ethnic, linguistic, sectarian and religious groups, Muslims and
others, who live in both parts of the divided state of Jammu and
Kashmir. The people of both parts should be allowed to interact and
dialogue among themselves.
Q: What the advocates of Kashmir's independence or accession to
Pakistan generally overlook is the impact this might have on Hindu-
Muslim relations in the rest of India. What do you have to say about
this?
A: Yes, you are very right. There may be 10 million Muslims in Jammu
and Kashmir, but Muslims in the rest of India number, say, 14 times
that. It is obvious that if Kashmir becomes independent or joins
Pakistan, Hindu fascist groups in India would be even further
strengthened. It would further reinforce their argument that Muslims
are communal, that they cannot be loyal to a non-Muslim state and so
on. It might lead to a wave of attacks on Muslims in the rest of
India and will perhaps even permanently ensure Hindutva hegemony in
India. However, I do not think that the Islamists in Kashmir and
Pakistan, who claim to be fighting to defend the rights of Muslims
all over the world, are really bothered about what happens to the
Indian Muslims if they succeed in their designs in Kashmir. It is the
same as the position of the Muslim League when India was partitioned
and Pakistan was created. The leaders of the Muslim League were not
at all concerned about the fact that the Muslims in what became the
Republic of India had to suffer, and continue to suffer even today,
because of the Partition demand. So, I think that any solution to the
Kashmir issue that ignores its possible consequences for the Indian
Muslims, who account for 14 times the Kashmiri Muslim population, is
unacceptable, even from the Islamic point of view, which the so-
called Islamists conveniently forget.
Q: So what you are saying is that the radical Islamists and the
Hindutva rightwing feed on each other, and, in a sense, need each
other?
A: Yes, exactly. One always needs an opponent to justify one's own
aggressive intentions. So, that is why I say that Islamists and
Hindutva fascists cannot survive without each other despite claiming
to be the most inveterate foes. Islamist radicalism in Kashmir is, in
a sense, a response to Hindutva aggression, and Hindutva gets further
reinforced by Islamist radicalism. It is a vicious circle. The fear
of Hindu hegemony also created Pakistan, although it is a different
matter that this was no solution at all. It only further exacerbated
the communal problem. Likewise, I think that if Kashmir becomes
independent or joins Pakistan and what they see as their rivalâIndia
or the Hindusâare no longer on the scene, rival armed militant groups
might start fighting each other, and we could witness a civil war as
in Afghanistan.
Q: Islamists claim that they will establish what they call
a `genuine' Islamic state in Kashmir, which will ensure social
justice and equity for all. How do you see this claim?
A: I think this is all empty propaganda. Can you tell me the name of
even one Muslim country where such a state exists? These people have
been fed on the writings of people like Maududi and Sayyid Qutb, who
only created fanciful theories of their own. They do not have any
clear economic program. They deliberately do not talk about the
details of the polity that they want to establish, because they have
no idea how to run a modern state. This is the same in the Hindu case
as well. Hindutva ideologues say they want to establish Ram Rajya,
but we know the sort of Rajya they want to establish means death and
oppression. There is nothing as a blue-print provided in Islam, or in
any other religion for that matter, for running a modern state. We
need to think pragmatically, not in narrow ideological terms.
Islamists and Hindutva Chauvinists: Two Sides of the Same Coin
This interview was conducted by Yoginder Singh Sikand with X, a
social activist from Jammu and Kashmir who requested anonymity. Here
he talks about his views on a possible resolution of the Kashmir
conflict.
Q: The ongoing violence in Jammu and Kashmir has severely impacted on
inter-community relations in the state. What can be done to promote
some sort of dialogue between the communities?
A: I agree with you when you say that inter-community relations here
are not the same as they were two decades ago. At the same time I
disagree with the argument that some people put forward that Hindus
and Muslims simply cannot peacefully coexist. But I would admit that
in Jammu and Kashmir there are people with extreme views in each
community, who use religion to preach intolerance and hatred. This
has happened all over South Asia, and not just in our state alone.
Unfortunately, I do not think there are any organized efforts
underway on the part of civil society organizations here to promote
better inter-community relations.
Q:: How do you look at Islamist groups like the Lashkar-i Tayyeba and
the Jama`at-i Islami? Do you think they reflect the views of most
Kashmiri Muslims?
A:: These are armed groups and command most of whatever strength they
do by the force of their weapons. They certainly do not represent the
views and beliefs of most Muslims in Jammu and Kashmir, who do not
agree with their understanding of Islam. The Lashkar and many people
in the Jama`at seem to think that you can be a proper Muslim only if
you live in what they call an Islamic state, but this is not true.
This argument is wrong, but it is a persuasive one for many. Before
1947 the Muslim League claimed that Islam needed a territory of its
own to prosper. What followed was the `Islamic Republic' of Pakistan,
which is neither `Islamic' nor a Republic! Don't misunderstand me. I
am a believing Muslim myself but I cannot agree with this notion that
the mere fact that one shares the same religion with others means
that one belongs to the same nationality and must live in the same
state, which is what the Islamists argue. The hollowness of this
claim was exposed no sooner had Pakistan come into being, with
mounting ethnic, linguistic and sectarian tensions between the
different Muslim groups living in that country. These factors played
a more important role in Pakistani politics than Islam. Even today,
because of the injustice that they feel subjected to, many Baluchis
and Sindhis in Pakistan are demanding the right to self-
determination. I fear that if Kashmir joins Pakistan, in a few
decades the Kashmiris will also start demanding freedom from Pakistan
and Punjabi domination.
Q: How do you feel that the problem of Kashmir can be eventually
resolved?
A: Violence is no solution at all, and I think most Kashmiris now
feel this way. Any solution to the issue, to be acceptable, must
ensure that justice is done to all the ethnic, linguistic and
religious groups living in the state. Otherwise, if the voices of
some groups are suppressed there is bound to be constant instability.
I think that any future political set-up for Jammu and Kashmir must
necessarily be secular and democratic. This is not simply because of
the large and significant non-Muslim minority in the state, but also
because the single largest group, the Kashmiri Muslims, do not, as a
whole, want to live under a so-called Islamist regime. And then, you
must realize that the Muslims of the state are not a homogenous
community. In addition to the Kashmiri Muslims, you have Dogra
Muslims, Gujjars, Bakkarwals, Kargilis, Punjabi Muslims and so on,
and they have their own diverse political views. I personally think
that the majority of the Muslims of the state would not like to live
in Pakistan, given its history of military rule, Punjabi domination,
sectarian rivalries and backward economy. On the other hand, India is
the cause of some of its own problems. It never allowed true
democracy to function in Kashmir and consistently rigged the
elections in the state. In any case, it is pointless discussing what
has happened. I think no solution to the problem can afford to leave
out the voices and aspirations of the people of Jammu and Kashmir. It
is not simply a problem concerning India and Pakistan alone, and so
the voices of the people of the state must also be taken into
account. And by this I mean not simply the Kashmiri Muslims, but all
ethnic, linguistic, sectarian and religious groups, Muslims and
others, who live in both parts of the divided state of Jammu and
Kashmir. The people of both parts should be allowed to interact and
dialogue among themselves.
Q: What the advocates of Kashmir's independence or accession to
Pakistan generally overlook is the impact this might have on Hindu-
Muslim relations in the rest of India. What do you have to say about
this?
A: Yes, you are very right. There may be 10 million Muslims in Jammu
and Kashmir, but Muslims in the rest of India number, say, 14 times
that. It is obvious that if Kashmir becomes independent or joins
Pakistan, Hindu fascist groups in India would be even further
strengthened. It would further reinforce their argument that Muslims
are communal, that they cannot be loyal to a non-Muslim state and so
on. It might lead to a wave of attacks on Muslims in the rest of
India and will perhaps even permanently ensure Hindutva hegemony in
India. However, I do not think that the Islamists in Kashmir and
Pakistan, who claim to be fighting to defend the rights of Muslims
all over the world, are really bothered about what happens to the
Indian Muslims if they succeed in their designs in Kashmir. It is the
same as the position of the Muslim League when India was partitioned
and Pakistan was created. The leaders of the Muslim League were not
at all concerned about the fact that the Muslims in what became the
Republic of India had to suffer, and continue to suffer even today,
because of the Partition demand. So, I think that any solution to the
Kashmir issue that ignores its possible consequences for the Indian
Muslims, who account for 14 times the Kashmiri Muslim population, is
unacceptable, even from the Islamic point of view, which the so-
called Islamists conveniently forget.
Q: So what you are saying is that the radical Islamists and the
Hindutva rightwing feed on each other, and, in a sense, need each
other?
A: Yes, exactly. One always needs an opponent to justify one's own
aggressive intentions. So, that is why I say that Islamists and
Hindutva fascists cannot survive without each other despite claiming
to be the most inveterate foes. Islamist radicalism in Kashmir is, in
a sense, a response to Hindutva aggression, and Hindutva gets further
reinforced by Islamist radicalism. It is a vicious circle. The fear
of Hindu hegemony also created Pakistan, although it is a different
matter that this was no solution at all. It only further exacerbated
the communal problem. Likewise, I think that if Kashmir becomes
independent or joins Pakistan and what they see as their rivalâIndia
or the Hindusâare no longer on the scene, rival armed militant groups
might start fighting each other, and we could witness a civil war as
in Afghanistan.
Q: Islamists claim that they will establish what they call
a `genuine' Islamic state in Kashmir, which will ensure social
justice and equity for all. How do you see this claim?
A: I think this is all empty propaganda. Can you tell me the name of
even one Muslim country where such a state exists? These people have
been fed on the writings of people like Maududi and Sayyid Qutb, who
only created fanciful theories of their own. They do not have any
clear economic program. They deliberately do not talk about the
details of the polity that they want to establish, because they have
no idea how to run a modern state. This is the same in the Hindu case
as well. Hindutva ideologues say they want to establish Ram Rajya,
but we know the sort of Rajya they want to establish means death and
oppression. There is nothing as a blue-print provided in Islam, or in
any other religion for that matter, for running a modern state. We
need to think pragmatically, not in narrow ideological terms.