Kashmir conundrum; wouldn't India be better off with a plebiscite?

The BJP’s ascent has taken Kashmiris further from India. This may seem a strange thing to say now, at the cusp of a PDP-BJP wedding, but the facts stand where they do. Let’s survey events as a Kashmiri might. The state is divided along religious lines absolutely and totally. Consider this alliance. All of the PDP’s 28 MLAs are Muslim. Of the BJP’s 25 MLAs, 24 are Hindu. The Hindu MLAs thrashed a Muslim MLA over the beef issue. Their party did not punish them.

This religious division is of course geographical. I read 20 years ago in The Siege Within (by M J Akbar) of how the state was formed. Kashmir was sold by the British to the Dogras of Jammu for their betrayal of Punjab. The religious division has now become political also.

- - - It is being reported that security forces besieging terrorists in Kashmir are now being stoned by locals as they fight. This is remarkable because violence in Kashmir is at its lowest levels ever. - - - If terrorism is ending why is the hostility picking up? My guess is that it is the Pakistani army’s mischief that has more or less ended. The violence by locals is in fact back to the levels of the 1980s and that will be dismaying to those of us familiar with those days.

- - - Why did Jawaharlal Nehru renege on the plebiscite? He thought we would lose. Whether or not that was true in the 1950s, I can assure you it is true of Kashmir today. And it is a measure of how awful we have become as a people that there is no reaching out to them — observe the manner in which the BJP made Mehbooba Mufti grovel — to reassure them that we mean well (if in fact we do).

The intense, anti-Muslim passion for nationalism we have discovered under the BJP has already done the damage. Kashmiris have full freedom to shout Bharat Mata ki jai, but what else? We don’t really care. So long as they fake support of India in cricket, we are happy.

For the full text of the blog by Aakar Patel, in the Sunday ToI, click here.

I had read this blog on the 27th March itself, the day it was published. From then I had been asking myself as to why we should be holding onto this piece of land, howsoever beautiful it may be (our Himachal and Uttaranchal are also as beautiful, one should think), in the face of such prolonged hostility from large sections of the local population. The deeper aggravating factor here, apart from the historical ones, is the religious divide, fuelled of course by the aggressive neighbor, desperate to avenge the dismemberment of their country, for which they hold us responsible.

Well, there are some sporadic secessionist activities in the North-Eastern states too. But, with religion seemingly not playing much of a role there, the secessionist activities are apparently spared of the same level of intensity as in Kashmir.

While the matter had receded to the back of my mind, over the more than a week since then, the recent NIT flare-up (check the ToI report here) brought it all to the fore once again. When non-Kashmiri's, forming over 70% of the student strength in the college, feel so insecure as to want to abandon the course mid-way, well, there indeed is a problem, and there's no escaping it.

As such, why not we allow a UN monitored plebiscite in the valley part alone, giving the people the following three options:

1) Become a full-fledged Indian state - no more Article 370,
2) Merge with Pakistan - if that's what they want, even considering the raw deal their brethren in PoK are getting presently,
3) Become an independent country - in which case they will have to content with the fact that they are going to be a totally land-locked country, and with the very limited resources at their command, the going is going to be rather tough - well, Bhutan is managing things fine; and Nepal is managing along, too. But, one additional factor they'll have to content with is the question of PoK joining them, over which they are very likely to be faced with a conflict situation with Pakistan.

When the options before the Kashmiri's are placed this way, there's a very good chance they'll opt for the first.

More importantly, our credibility in the eyes of the world will go up greatly, leaving Pakistan with no more reasons to carry on their belligerent posturings towards us. And, once the Pakistan factor gets neutralised, even our Hindutva-vaad will get toned down, and the Hindu-Muslim equation will more or less become akin to what it's currently between the majority Hindu community and the minority Christian, Sikh, Parsi, or any other community too, which admittedly is not too bad; in fact, one may even call it harmonious.

Peace will reign thereafter, and with that, we can concentrate all our resources on bettering the lives of our citizens. If by "our citizens", it includes Kashmiri's too, well and good; if not, we leave them to the care of Allah, the merciful.

Muralidhar Rao

PS: This is a delicate issue, and therefore, commentators are requested to be extra careful about the language used in their responses.