On Kashmir problem

On Kashmir problem

In support of Abdulah Ghalib's letter titled Pakistan and
India (The Jakarta Post, June 6, 1996), I want to emphasize that
the continuing insurgency in Jammu and Kashmir is essentially a
legacy of the high-handed policy of the Indian government
following the August 1947 partition of the subcontinent.

When the princely states of the former British India were
given the option to join either India or Pakistan or remain
independent, the Hindu ruler of Kashmir at that time, Maharaja
Hari Singh, initially wanted to choose independence.

But, in October 1947, he was arm-twisted into acceding to
India, although at the end, he insisted that such an accession
was conditional upon a plebiscite by his mainly Moslem subjects.

In any case, after the undeclared war that soon followed
between India and Pakistan, the Security Council of the United
Nations passed a resolution in January 1948, calling for a
cease-fire and a plebiscite.

India, as a matter of fact, agreed initially to such a
plebiscite, but apparently, out of arrogance and in defiance of
the United Nations, unilaterally renounced the idea in 1954.

Historical background aside, the most ominous development in
the Indian subcontinent in recent years has been the rising tide
of Hindu extremism in Indian politics and its implications and
repercussions in Kashmir.

For instance, followers of the extremist Bharatiya Janata
Party (BJP), which came out through last month's general election
as the single biggest political party in India, thought there was
simply nothing wrong in literally demolishing the historic 16th
century Ayodhya mosque of Uttar Pradesh in December 1992.

Furthermore, these BJP zealots, together with their equally
fanatical allies, also want the Kashmir Valley to be resettled
with millions of Hindus, to outnumber the Moslem majority and
even advocate an open war against Pakistan over Kashmir.

They seem to think that Kashmir and in reality Pakistan and
Bangladesh as well, were the integral parts of a mythical united
India,

While the Indian government is expediently espousing a policy
of national secularism, the Indian army, rather understandably,
has found it fit to appease those extremist groups by retaliating
against the Kashmiri Moslems with particularly brutal force.

Cases of Indian violations, rapes, arson and torture have been
frequently reported in the world media during the past four
years. Kashmir, therefore, is not just a major irritant as the
United States seems to think, but an ongoing human agony which
urgently needs to be rectified.

The solution to the problem seems obvious to me, given the
historical background and following persecution and Hindu
chauvinism. Let the people of both occupied parts of Jammu and
Kashmir exercise their right of self-determination through a
plebiscite.

After all, such a plebiscite was both stipulated by the former
Hindu ruler of Kashmir and agreed to initially by India, as well
as subsequently demanded by the United Nations.

India, which often prides itself as the largest democracy in
the world and a leading moral force in the international arena,
should at least listen to the wishes of the people of Kashmir and
abide by the Security Council resolutions.

Indeed, a peaceful settlement of the problem is becoming quite
urgent, not only because the dispute has already caused three
major wars between India and Pakistan, but because the specter of
a devastating nuclear confrontation between them is now looming
as a distinct possibility.

MASLI ARMAN

Jakarta