What has changed over time is the mindset of the population.
The generation that had seen a united British ruled India is dead.
Progressive think tanks believed that once the generation ( both in Pakistan and India ) that saw Partition died off relations between the two nations would dramatically improve. The mindset of a young generation would not be tainted with communal religious hatred and extreme jingoism.
In fact the opposite happened.
The generation that saw Partition had bitter memories but also had nostalgia for a united country. That generation was aware of the culture, and a significant number could speak read and write a common language ( Urdu , and Hindi ). A common language Hindustani existed.
At one peak moment in India ( 1970s) centrist and left wing elements of this generation was in power. They wanted to see an India Pakistan Federation in their lifetime.
In particular the issue of Kashmir was to be determined by future generations and the Simla Agreement in 1972 was to fix the "border to make a borderless Kashmir" within Pakistan and India.,
This policy was promoted by five eminent Kashmiri pundits (T.N. Kaul, D.P. Dhar, P.N.Haksar, P.N. Dhar, and R.N. Kao). Indira Gandhi was herself of Kashmiri Pundit origin.
Indian held Kashmir remained peaceful throughout the 1971 war and for almost 13 years thereafter .
Up to 1984 the Partition generation that ruled India wanted Kashmir ( Indian held ) with its people. The reasons were political as they were strategic . A prosperous and peaceful Muslim majority state within India was a powerful reminder to the world that India was a secular state and Partition and Pakistan was an unpleasant colonial anomaly that would be addressed. Internally the ruling Congress Party backed by centrist, left wing parties ( the CPI, CPM etc. ) kept the fascist forces off balance showing a peaceful Kashmir
From 1977 onwards, events based on internal politics in India began to charge the mindset of the population. ( to be discussed in a separate post ) . It is sufficient to say that the younger generation mindset is far more polarized, and communalized with extreme jingoistic fervor than any generation before. Indian Muslims, Kashmiris, and Pakistanis are all classified as ONE enemy.
The current regime in India with a massive mandate from a younger polarized vote bank enjoys complete support in this policy of classification of the enemy.
The present generation of Indians wants complete elimination and removal of Indian Muslims and Kashmiris ( and of course the destruction of Pakistan).
So India as of today wants the land and territory of Kashmir without the people ( implied Muslims) .
India also wants the rest of its territory cleansed of Muslims but that is beyond the scope of this topic.
A parliament resolution in 1991 in India demanded Pakistan vacate Azad Kashmir and resolved to use "all means " to recover the territory.
In the next post Pakistan's Kashmiri policy will be discussed
( to be continued).
Pakistan's stance on Kashmir is simplistic, and legalistic.
- Unlike India which refutes the logic of Partition itself Pakistan views Kashmir as an unfinished agenda of Partition.
- Pakistan's case is that as a contiguous territory with a Muslim majority Kashmir belongs to Pakistan. The people of Kashmir want to belong to Pakistan.
- Pakistan cites the 1948 U.N. Resolution for a plebiscite as a legal case.
In my earlier post we have seen that India's attempts in 1971 to regain Azad Kashmir were unsuccessful. Pakistan's attempt in 1965 to regain Indian Occupied Kashmir was also unsuccessful for the following reasons.
- The population in Indian Occupied Kashmir did not to support the Pakistani operations, and in fact in some cases colluded with the Indian Army defending the territory. The reason was that at time India had a largely secular government in power and mostly democratic in structure. Pakistan was under martial law and the population of Indian Administered Kashmir preferred a secular democratic partial autonomy to an uncertain status under Pakistan.
- Whatever the reasons, the non-cooperation of the Indian Occupied Kashmiri population resulted in heavy casualties for Pakistan. Worst of all the non-cooperation of the Kashmiri population emboldened India to expand the conflict outside Kashmir onto the international border threatening Pakistan's key cities including Lahore , Sialkot and other cities in Sindh. In fact with initial successes India was even contemplating retaking Azad Kashmir.
- For Pakistan, the focus of the war changed from regaining Indian Occupied Kashmir to the defense of Pakistan itself. A courageous and brilliant defense by Pakistan's Armed forces shattered any ambitions by India to either retake Azad Kashmir or to punish Pakistan by seizing chunks of territory within Pakistan itself.
Except for India's losses in the Chambh Jhaurian sector in 1971 ( the icy wastes of Siachen, and Turtok notwithstanding ), the tactical situation on the ground hasn't changed much to either Pakistan or India's advantage. Even the 1999 Kargil war did not change the situation much.
The situation today
By 1972 it was clear to the Kashmiris in Indian Administered Kashmir that any India Pakistan war was not going to change their status.
Kashmiris in Indian Administered Kashmir had expected to retain their partial autonomy or special status within a secular democratic framework of the Indian constitution. With a peaceful secular democratic establishment Kashmiris in Indian Administered Kashmir had hoped to attract international support and intervention for a peaceful unification with Pakistani Administered Kashmir and the establishment of an autonomous region. Kashmiris were looking to independence rather than a merger with Pakistan.
We have seen earlier how the secular democratic environment in India has deteriorated to the point that any agreement at defusing tensions between India and Pakistan is unacceptable to the Indian masses.
The vilification of India's Muslim minority is as intense as the hatred for the Kashmiri Muslim. The enemy for the average Indian in the street is Muslims; regardless if that defines a Kashmiri, Indian or Pakistani.
The change in India's secular democratic setup has had a profound impact on the "Indian" Kashmiri Muslim mindset. A peaceful secular Indian Administered Kashmir is no longer possible in a vitiated communal environment in the rest of India, and Kashmiris do not wish to suffer the fate of Indian Muslims. Which is why the earlier reluctance for armed rebellion and collusion with Pakistan has changed. Kashmiri Muslims are actively resisting the Indian occupation, and one million Indian troops and paramilitary forces are needed to hold down a population of 12 million .
The communalizing of Kashmir has resulted in the displacement of Kashmiri Pundits from the Valley. There is a resumption of communal violence against Muslims in Jammu.
The struggle of Kashmiris in Indian Occupied Kashmir is no longer just a struggle for autonomy and independence, but also a struggle for preservation of their freedom to practice their religion.
This development has been a windfall for Pakistan. All of Pakistan's earlier efforts to motivate Kashmiri's in India had failed; most crucially in the 1965, 1971 ( non-existent ) , and 1999 conflicts. Pakistan's foreign policy think tanks are realistic enough to realize, that given the military realities on the ground Kashmiris will never oust the Indian forces on their own ; nor can Pakistan help them achieve this objective.
The window of 1949, and 1965 has passed forever. Pakistan also realizes with much satisfaction that India lacks the military capabilities of taking Azad Kashmir from Pakistan. India's earlier gambit of threatening Pakistan on the international border, and forcing it to choose between defending Azad Kashmir and protecting Lahore, is no longer viable because of the nuclear dimensions. Pakistan can with some immunity, keep the "pot boiling" in Kashmir, tying down huge numbers of Indian troops. With a fundamentalist religious nationalist regime in power with a huge nuclear armed military establishment and hatred of Muslims, it makes sense to keep such a formidable enemy off balance.
For Pakistan it is no longer an issue of Kashmir but survival. Pakistan needs to survive an existential threat from a vastly superior enemy. Kashmir is but one tool to keep its enemy off balance. Liberation or Integration of Kashmir is very distant in the minds of Pakistani security planners.
Progressive think tanks tend to view the Kashmir issue in economic, political and territorial terms. It was like that one time from 1972 to early 1980 when India and Pakistan were extremely reluctant to fight and had pushed the religious angle to the background. Even when the Soviet Union prior to invading Afghanistan, asked India to invade from the east retaking Kashmir and capturing large parts of Pakistan, India refused. The Soviet Union hoped to neutralize Pakistan which it knew would become a base for the western backed Afghan resistance.
India violated it's Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Understanding with the Soviet Union rather than get embroiled in another war with Pakistan. Indian Prime Minister Morarji Desai ( whatever his drink he preferred ) should have been honored and given the Nobel Peace prize for averting a carnage on the sub-continent.
Today this is no longer the case. India has been swept by a wave of religious fundamentalist hysteria bent on a "1000 year revenge ".
( To be concluded )
