09-03-2012, 11:56 AM
(This post was last modified: 09-03-2012, 12:00 PM by G.Subramaniam.)
Kashmir: Autonomy Demand
Author: Samar Abbas
Publication: Economic and Political Weekly
Date: December 2-8, 2000
The recent article 'Autonomy Demand: Kashmir at Crossroads' by Rekha Chowdhary (July 22-28, 2000) rightly emphasises the real possibility of an upcoming trifurcation of Jammu and Kashmir. However, the author unfortunately takes a negative view of such developments, terming them as 'alarming' and 'reactionary'. In fact, the peaceful partition of a region beset by ethnic-based conflicts can actually prevent much unnecessary blood-shed, and provide a lasting solution to age-old historical disputes. The trifurcation of the state is thus a development which, given the total communal polarisation at the ground level, may be the only alternative to civil war.
Territorial partition on ethnic lines involving population transfers has been the solution applied by international mediators to resolve complex ethnic conflicts in several parts of the world. The effective partition of multi-ethnic Yugoslavia into Serbia, Croatia and Bosnia was the prime reason for the end to the bloody civil war there. In addition, where the political leadership possessed foresight and agreed to the partition of multi-ethnic states prior to the outbreak of hostilities, conflicts have been prevented altogether. Thus, Czechoslovakia was amicably partitioned into the Czech and Slovak republics, averting a possible civil war. The peaceful break-up of the Soviet Union may also be similarly explained. In Kashmir, while it is true that what may be termed as 'reactionary forces' are supporting the concept of a trifurcation, yet at the same time an international think-tank, the Kashmir Study Group, has also supported the idea. East Timor and Eritrea are some other examples where larger states have been broken up to settle religious and ethnic conflicts.
Indeed, ethnic partition has been proposed as a solution to America's long-standing race problem. An organisation called 'Americans for Self-Determination' (ASD) seeks to partition America into three main ethnic-based states: a Hispanic-dominated 'Aztlan' in the south-west, a Negro-dominated 'New Afrika' in the south and south-east, and an Anglo-Saxon dominated state comprising the rest of the present United States. Representatives of all three conflicting groups are members of this organisation, with each ethnic group realising that separation is the most sensible long-term solution to America's race problem. It is feared that the alternative would be a racial civil war.
Indeed, given the continuing escalating cycle of violence between Hindus and Muslims in India, as well as the rapid rise of ethnic conflicts around the world, it is imperative to find a permanent solution to the Hindu-Muslim conflict as a whole and not just in Kashmir. The total paralysis of state machinery in the aftermath of the Babri masjid demolition - an event well-documented in this journal - shows that even a minor Hindu-Muslim confrontation in the future has the potential of plunging the nation into a civil war. Whereas the secularism of the Indian intellectual elite and upper class is truly commendable, it must be remembered that the general populace - on both sides - displays a considerably greater amount of chauvinism. Failure to recognise the immense hold that reactionary forces have gained amongst the general populace will only lead to more bloodshed. The Indian intellectual elite must recognise that elites in most other parts of the world could not prevent the outbreak of ethnic hostilities.
Indeed, within the Kashmir Study Group proposal for the communal trifurcation of Kashmir lie the seeds for a final solution to the Hindu-Muslim problem all across south Asia. Perhaps the Hindus may wish to set aside 12 per cent of the territory of the Indian Union for the Muslims, who form 12 per cent of the population and hence could claim to have a 'right' to 12 per cent of the land. This land would sensibly comprise the already Muslim-dominated and historically Islamicised regions of northern UP (Rohilkhand, North Oudh) and northern Bihar (Seemanchal), where Hindus already live in fear of Muslims. The Muslims all across the rest of India could then migrate to that region, whilst Hindus would then comprise the sole ethnic group in the remaining 88 per cent of India. This migration would be a peaceful process spread over several years, with both communities slowly migrating to regions wherein they dominate, avoiding blood-baths. At the ground level, I would like to point out that this process is already at work in many parts of India.
There are numerous advantages for both sides this solution. For the Muslims, these regions would then be free to join Bangladesh and Pakistan, leading to a resurrection of the territorial limits of the Mughal Empire. It is proposed that this region be named 'Mughalstan', and it is hoped that this new nation would experience a cultural efflorescence as the glorious Mughal civilisation is restored. For the Hindus, their faith and culture would be safe in the remaining 88 per cent of the Indian union as the Muslims would have left these regions for Mughalstan. This would be effectively a 'Hindu Rashtra' which several Hindu organisations are working so hard for. Moreover, it would be a Hindu Rashtra comprising almost 90 per cent of the territory of the modern Indian union. Most importantly, the all-pervading blood-shed and constant loss of lives would stop as no Muslims would be living in this Hindu Rashtra. There would be no more Mumbai blasts, no more terrorist attacks, no more fear of the 'bearded mulla' with a grenade in one hand and a Quran in the other. This is of greater importance for Hindus, since the total casualties amongst this community are likely to much higher in case of a full-blown jihad. State law would protect Hindu religion, and legislation could be enacted preventing conversions from Hinduism so that the present fear of a 'Muslim takeover' by out-breeding and/or conversion would be permanently set at rest. The advantages for Hindus thus probably outweigh the territorial losses in this scenario.
Perhaps an organisation on the lines of the 'Americans for Self-Determination' can be formed, comprising both Hindus and Muslims, which may be called 'Indians for Self-Determination'. Its goals would be the formation of a 'Hindu Rashtra' as well as a 'Mughalstan', with the recognition that neither side can win all of India, and that their actions are essentially humanitarian, preventing a possible future civil war.
Author: Samar Abbas
Publication: Economic and Political Weekly
Date: December 2-8, 2000
The recent article 'Autonomy Demand: Kashmir at Crossroads' by Rekha Chowdhary (July 22-28, 2000) rightly emphasises the real possibility of an upcoming trifurcation of Jammu and Kashmir. However, the author unfortunately takes a negative view of such developments, terming them as 'alarming' and 'reactionary'. In fact, the peaceful partition of a region beset by ethnic-based conflicts can actually prevent much unnecessary blood-shed, and provide a lasting solution to age-old historical disputes. The trifurcation of the state is thus a development which, given the total communal polarisation at the ground level, may be the only alternative to civil war.
Territorial partition on ethnic lines involving population transfers has been the solution applied by international mediators to resolve complex ethnic conflicts in several parts of the world. The effective partition of multi-ethnic Yugoslavia into Serbia, Croatia and Bosnia was the prime reason for the end to the bloody civil war there. In addition, where the political leadership possessed foresight and agreed to the partition of multi-ethnic states prior to the outbreak of hostilities, conflicts have been prevented altogether. Thus, Czechoslovakia was amicably partitioned into the Czech and Slovak republics, averting a possible civil war. The peaceful break-up of the Soviet Union may also be similarly explained. In Kashmir, while it is true that what may be termed as 'reactionary forces' are supporting the concept of a trifurcation, yet at the same time an international think-tank, the Kashmir Study Group, has also supported the idea. East Timor and Eritrea are some other examples where larger states have been broken up to settle religious and ethnic conflicts.
Indeed, ethnic partition has been proposed as a solution to America's long-standing race problem. An organisation called 'Americans for Self-Determination' (ASD) seeks to partition America into three main ethnic-based states: a Hispanic-dominated 'Aztlan' in the south-west, a Negro-dominated 'New Afrika' in the south and south-east, and an Anglo-Saxon dominated state comprising the rest of the present United States. Representatives of all three conflicting groups are members of this organisation, with each ethnic group realising that separation is the most sensible long-term solution to America's race problem. It is feared that the alternative would be a racial civil war.
Indeed, given the continuing escalating cycle of violence between Hindus and Muslims in India, as well as the rapid rise of ethnic conflicts around the world, it is imperative to find a permanent solution to the Hindu-Muslim conflict as a whole and not just in Kashmir. The total paralysis of state machinery in the aftermath of the Babri masjid demolition - an event well-documented in this journal - shows that even a minor Hindu-Muslim confrontation in the future has the potential of plunging the nation into a civil war. Whereas the secularism of the Indian intellectual elite and upper class is truly commendable, it must be remembered that the general populace - on both sides - displays a considerably greater amount of chauvinism. Failure to recognise the immense hold that reactionary forces have gained amongst the general populace will only lead to more bloodshed. The Indian intellectual elite must recognise that elites in most other parts of the world could not prevent the outbreak of ethnic hostilities.
Indeed, within the Kashmir Study Group proposal for the communal trifurcation of Kashmir lie the seeds for a final solution to the Hindu-Muslim problem all across south Asia. Perhaps the Hindus may wish to set aside 12 per cent of the territory of the Indian Union for the Muslims, who form 12 per cent of the population and hence could claim to have a 'right' to 12 per cent of the land. This land would sensibly comprise the already Muslim-dominated and historically Islamicised regions of northern UP (Rohilkhand, North Oudh) and northern Bihar (Seemanchal), where Hindus already live in fear of Muslims. The Muslims all across the rest of India could then migrate to that region, whilst Hindus would then comprise the sole ethnic group in the remaining 88 per cent of India. This migration would be a peaceful process spread over several years, with both communities slowly migrating to regions wherein they dominate, avoiding blood-baths. At the ground level, I would like to point out that this process is already at work in many parts of India.
There are numerous advantages for both sides this solution. For the Muslims, these regions would then be free to join Bangladesh and Pakistan, leading to a resurrection of the territorial limits of the Mughal Empire. It is proposed that this region be named 'Mughalstan', and it is hoped that this new nation would experience a cultural efflorescence as the glorious Mughal civilisation is restored. For the Hindus, their faith and culture would be safe in the remaining 88 per cent of the Indian union as the Muslims would have left these regions for Mughalstan. This would be effectively a 'Hindu Rashtra' which several Hindu organisations are working so hard for. Moreover, it would be a Hindu Rashtra comprising almost 90 per cent of the territory of the modern Indian union. Most importantly, the all-pervading blood-shed and constant loss of lives would stop as no Muslims would be living in this Hindu Rashtra. There would be no more Mumbai blasts, no more terrorist attacks, no more fear of the 'bearded mulla' with a grenade in one hand and a Quran in the other. This is of greater importance for Hindus, since the total casualties amongst this community are likely to much higher in case of a full-blown jihad. State law would protect Hindu religion, and legislation could be enacted preventing conversions from Hinduism so that the present fear of a 'Muslim takeover' by out-breeding and/or conversion would be permanently set at rest. The advantages for Hindus thus probably outweigh the territorial losses in this scenario.
Perhaps an organisation on the lines of the 'Americans for Self-Determination' can be formed, comprising both Hindus and Muslims, which may be called 'Indians for Self-Determination'. Its goals would be the formation of a 'Hindu Rashtra' as well as a 'Mughalstan', with the recognition that neither side can win all of India, and that their actions are essentially humanitarian, preventing a possible future civil war.