Kashmir, another dangerous source of concern for Muslim

Roy Hattersley, Former British Foreign Secretary, Guardian News Service, London

George W. Bush was right to say that the prosecution of the war against terrorism cannot be contingent on securing a just and lasting peace in the Middle East -- though rejoice that Tony Blair added that, moral imperatives aside, there is no real chance of the war being won while the open wound of Palestine is allowed to fester.

But even if, over the next year or so, Israel's frontiers (as set out by United Nations resolutions) are guaranteed and the Palestinian state is established and recognized, the jihad will continue wherever Muslims believe that they are being suppressed and persecuted. History and geography combine to mean that, sooner or later, Kashmir will become the distant country that forces the west to take belated notice of its despair.

The history is simply described. When imperial India was partitioned after independence, Kashmir was left in limbo. There are a number of possible explanations for Lord Mountbatten's indecision. The British prime minister, Clement Atlee, was rightly pressing him to draw the borders of the new nation as quickly as possible. Kashmir's rivers -- Thelum, Indus, Chenab and Tawi -- irrigated both of the new nations that were to be created on Aug. 15 1948. It may even be that Lady Mountbatten's close friendship with India's Pandit Nehru prevented predominately Muslim Kashmir from becoming part of the Islamic republic of Pakistan.

The plan and promise were to determine Kashmir's future by a UN-supervised plebiscite. Before that could happen the power vacuum was filled by Pakistan from the west and India from the south -- Pakistan with the authority of an international mandate, India to suppress Pathans who were making trouble along the border. The two countries agreed, in the Simla agreement, to work out a permanent and peaceful solution. Nothing happened.

If the promised plebiscite were held, the votes would be split three ways. An insignificant minority would support the idea of an independent Kashmir -- even though a separate state is not economically viable. About a quarter would opt for union with India. Almost three times as many would choose to join Pakistan -- because, being Muslims they want to be members of the Islamic republic.

That is the reason politically sophisticated Indians -- who deny that their government is motivated by the territorial imperative -- say that the plebiscite should not be held. They do not want the sub-continent to be divided into a Hindu nation and a Muslim nation. India is a secular republic. To cede Kashmir to Pakistan would be getting dangerously close to accepting the religious division.

Perhaps. But whatever their reasons, most Kashmiris want to be governed from Islamabad. And 50 years ago they were told that they would be given the chance to choose. The denial of that right has resulted in sporadic revolt in what the Pakistanis call "occupied Pakistan" and brutal suppression of the uprisings by the Indian army. The refugees, unhappily camped in "free" Kashmir, tell stories of atrocities that are too spontaneous to be propaganda.

The attribution of racial characteristics is a dangerous habit. So I limit my comments about the Kashmiri personality to the experiences of people I know. Most are descendants of men who, given a few pounds when their land was flooded to build a dam, used the money to come to England and build new lives of industrious anonymity.

They are not, by nature, revolutionaries. But they tell me -- with real apprehension -- that militant Arabs and Pakistanis are beginning to infiltrate the communities from which they came. That is where geography becomes important. Look at the map of north India. Where do you think the pro-Taliban mujahidin will go when they are driven out of Afghanistan?