Kashmir 2047

4 years from now, it will be a 150 years since Gandhi was born.  Our democracy, our  greatest

homage and the grandest tribute to that mighty man will be a 100 years old 31 years from now.

These are mere specks in the grand canvas of our ancient civilization, but they mark significant

milestones in our journey and evolution to a modern nation state that has chosen to perfect its

union in a secular, pluralist and  democratic framework, enabled  by our ethos and challenged

by our past. If we are to remain true to both our pluralistic values that rests on our ethereal

cultural past, our collective  mastery in assimilation, acquired by  generations - practicing that

art over the centuries, at times necessitated by  the vicissitudes visited up on us  by history, at

times by the appearance of advent figures in our cultural canvas, and to our modern

democratic project which demands rigorous,  continuous, inconvenient  yet necessary  

introspection  under the klieglights of the new information age, we must, as a nation decide

what to do about Kashmir. Before we set out to do that it is time for unalloyed assessments of

facts and history.

1. The modern state of Jammu and Kashmir was not historically a single political entity. Its

existence is owed to the  Napoleonic Sikh and Dogra generals of Maharaja Ranjit Singh's Court

. Even before 1947 there  existed a  world of difference  between the  plains of  Jammu and the

hills of Jammu, not to speak between the rarefied  heights of Ladakh and the valleys of Gilgit.

2. As the British conquest of annexing territories to bring them under direct political rule froze

after 1857, Jammu and Kashmir  remained as one of the big 5 princely State whose rulers were

awarded a 21 gun salute by the crown. It lagged behind the  British administered provinces in

its development of political consciousness and participation  in the nation building  projects

[plural by emphasis].

3. In 1947 the broad canvas of Indian political leadership accepted Partition and the "logic"

behind it. That  decision and by  implication  the acceptance of that logic behind it, is an

unholy sacrament bound  to generations of Indians. We  cannot  forsake it and revel  in  

revanchist expeditions without strategic implications and moral consequences.  K

Subrahmanyam  continued to insist  that  1971  should be called the 'Bangladesh  Liberation  

War' not without  reason, the main  implication being it was not an  attempt to revisit 1947,

but a  commensurate reaction  to a new  situation.  In 1971,  Indira Gandhi gave solemn and  

private promises to both USA and USSR  that India  did  not  have any  designs on West

Pakistan including PoK and honored those promises through Shimla  Accords and  beyond.

4. The instrument of accession that we [rightly] cling on for legality was signed under

conditions of extreme emergency , prior to which there were two parties that claimed the

territories rightfully. One party, Pakistan  aggressed and India the other party partly repulsed

the aggressor and solidified the possession of the remaining territory.   The Maharaja was

under an impossible situation of doing  justice to the various communities and the

territories of the state. Those difficulties still obtain if we consider the entire J&K as one

political unit even today  for the sake of argument.   Even in 'cohesive' political units as 'tightly' 

knit as Punjab and Bengal, Indian leadership accepted the principle of partition and boundary

commissions which worked on the  primary axis of Muslim Vs  Non-Muslim. Even in the

inanely obvious  case of Junagadh, Patel did not rest with annexation by force but

legalized it with  plebiscite.

5. In contrast to what happened to significant Hindu and Sikh populations inside of what 

became Pakistan,  Kashmir  Valley continues to remain a Muslim Majority  area under the

Indian Union,  a telling difference and a marked tribute to our democracy. Though India 

should be proud that it continues to remain overwhelmingly Muslim , it  cannot justifiably 

claim that it is comfortable in the Union. By the same token the Muslims of Kashmir should be

eternally shameful that even a minuscule minority of Hindu Pandits could not live peacefully

among them and evacuated the valley.

Though the physical trauma of partition has been well documented , it has remained mainly to

be a tale of refugees , rightly so, 1 million killed and 20 million displaced, more so than many

major wars in the history of mankind.  However not much of the psychological trauma it

caused to Gandhi and Nehru is explained or understood.  That continuous and

contemporaneous self-chronicler Gandhi,  in every chance he got to speak and

write, expressed how physically painful it was to see his dreams of Hindu-Muslim unity shatter

to pieces in the melee of Partition. It invalidated his  whole lifetime of work, he continued to

lament.  The pragmatists near him Patel, Rajaji, Prasad, admirers around him JP and Lohia  

and Ambedkar the one away from him all admitted partition and by implication its logic.

They looked at Partition as a settlement, painful as it was, which enabled two independent

dominions to charter their course without  interference and blockade by the other from within.  

Nehru, the man of the future and the architect of modern India, could not wait to get to work in

putting his plans to work in his dominion,  seemed to be placed in the pragmatists camp. But

he could not have escaped the inner turmoil as Gandhi could not, in which he ultimately

perished in its ineluctable tragic consequence. The much acclaimed 'sensitive Nehru soul' must

have been seared. He desperately wanted to be  proved right and Jinnah wrong. He felt that we

succumbed to a political blackmail and not to a rational political argument.  Seared as his soul

was , his mind was determined to use all the powers to make India formally secular

in its laws, polity and society.  In this project to refute the Two Nation Theory he found a

convenient ally Sheikh Abdullah , a vast arena to experiment- the State of Jammu and

Kashmir and a people sufficient number of whom seemed ambivalent to the Pakistan project.

While he was being indecisive about Kashmir, Pakistan forced his hands by aggressing and

occupying the state with military troops and tribal irregulars.  India's prestige demanded an

answer and it had to be given in the form it was given. Some may even argue it fell way short of

its measure.  If we look at the LoC of 1948, the troops were asked to stay  behind the line that

Nehru considered hopeful of  keeping in India through a plebiscite, the major

part being the Kashmir Valley in which his political ally Sheikh Abdullah had substantial clout

and in which Pakistan was deeply unpopular due to the tribal exploits of loot, plunder and

rape of Oct 47.  But Sheikh Abdullah had expectations of his own - a price tag or an excuse -

depending on your view point to "deliver" the Valley to the Union.  That is how we ended up

with Article 370.

Even as late as Sep 1950 after all the UN Resolutions and the endless walla-walla in UN, India

was amenable to a  partition of the state in which the current LoC becomes the International

border with minor adjustments and there would be a plebiscite in the valley through which it

could be awarded to Pakistan or India. This is the position to which we have to return.  India

could rightly claim and conceivably hold the Valley in the Union till eternity. We

could wait for Pakistan to  crumble and disappear.  No amount of treasure or blood is too

much for the survival of a nation. However to prove to "ourselves" of our secular nature, we

don't need this costly experiment. Not when  the subjects of the experiment are restless people.  

Our pluralist nature is self-evident and shall remain  strong even with or without territories

consisting of hostile populations tethered to the Union with special articles. To Nehru's ghost,

(if that 'scientific' man had one) I would answer, what better tribute to your belief than a united

secular, democratic India there is and what a fitting rebuttal to Jinnah's belief

than Bangladesh.

Here is a suggested plan of action. We promise that a free, fair plebiscite with international

observers will be held in August 15 2047 only in the Valley of Kashmir and the parts north of  

which would be required to adjoin it with in the event it decides to join Pakistan. There will be

only 2 choices on the ballot - India or Pakistan.  We will not be willing parties to self-

balkanization. This promise will be contingent upon no terrorists being trained,

infiltrated, supported by Pakistan. If the Valley wants to be independent from India let it join

Pakistan and then demand independence from Pakistan. We will use the next 31 years to build

sufficient road networks to  support all the other frontier areas that will remain in India.  If the

security situation inside the Valley returns to normalcy  law and order is restored, Army will  

move out of the valley and shall continue to guard the LoC against incursions. We repeal

Article 370 and restrict it to the Valley (or the plebiscite areas) alone. Next 30

years will be used to demographically alter the state so the future security of the non-plebiscite

areas shall be ensured.

If this plan works, we get 30 years of relative peace, time and energy to focus on our other

serious challenges like Chinese expansionism, build our alliances, grow our economy,  create a

more perfect Union. By 2047 our economy will be the 3rd largest in the world behind China

and the United States. The Valley of Kashmir can think about this question in peace for 30

years to decide whether they want to remain  in it or join a pauperized, failing Dar-ul-Islam.