From the archives, 30 Jan 2003

LETTER TO THE EDITOR

EQUALLY ‘FREE AND FRANK’

 Lt Col N Bhatnagar, in his article ‘Jammu and Kashmir: A Legacy of Pluralism and Secular Conflict’ in the Free and Frank pages of the Sep 2002 issue, has put forward a point of view that is intended to serve the twin purposes of debunking the claims of ‘pro-Pakistani and pro-azadi’ separatist elements in Kashmir while also ‘strengthen(ing) our resolve’ and ‘sending the right signals to many such separatist organizations who are articulating similar sentiments’. 

He uses history to embellish the two points he makes. His contextual point is that the India subcontinent as civilisational entity has been ‘one culturally’. His Kashmir specific point is that the Muslim interlude in Kashmir amounts to but a ‘tiny dot’ in its history and therefore is an invalid basis for a claim. The comment here on his article ignores the several instances of historical license in his article. It also studiously avoids exposing his selective use of history. It does not deconstruct his article to reveal that the issues he does not tackle have their own differing story articulating which leads to opposite conclusions. The comment here restricts itself to two issues of some import.

 

The first point this critique raises is that basing the Indian claim to Kashmir on history may not be strategically sound, given the malleability of history. As has been demonstrated by the diverse historical readings of Alastair Lamb and Prem Shankar Jha, one man’s history is another’s propaganda. The instrumental utility of history cuts both ways. Therefore, the historical antecedents of present day Kashmir or the events surrounding the Accession are but floss. India can and must base its case on the competence with which it delivers on the compact between state and citizen. This it has done with credit in the manner the recent electoral exercise in Kashmir was conducted. This indicates that Indian claims based on primordial affinity and affective criteria, endorsed by the Colonel, lack the credibility that such demonstrations of India’s constitutional democracy in action carries.

 

A persuasive perspective has it that it was inattention to this aspect over the years, brought on in part by the understanding advanced by the Colonel, that has led up to the tragedy in Kashmir. For an interested neighbor to take strategic advantage of the predicament we created for ourselves can be expected. Having no better a locus standi than a shared religion, Pakistan can be expected to advance its contrived claims on Kashmir based on religious affiliation, concealing its political and strategic axes to grind. For India to replicate the strategy of its neighbor is to be conceptually bereft in light of the point raised here that history is handmaiden of anyone courting it. The Colonel accepts as much in contradicting himself in the fag end of an article dealing with Indian ‘cultural’ claim on Kashmir that ‘the claim for a separate state based on religion must not be entertained’. The point is that there is no call for privileging ‘culture’ over ‘religion’ as the two can be conflated conceptually.

 

The second point that requires consideration is whether the idea of India espoused by the Colonel in terms of cultural unity of the ‘Indian subcontinent’ is sustainable. The implication of this understanding for the state system that prevails presently on the subcontinent is self-evident. If we have a cultural claim to Kashmir, we have the same on Pakistan and Bangladesh too! More seriously, arguing in this fashion has echoes of ‘cultural nationalism’, a concept politically fraught. While we are entitled to our perspective informed by any non-radical tinge of respective political inclination, it would tantamount to according the notion unwarranted respectability if it were it to go uncontested. It is questionable whether cultural affiliations ought serve as the glue for national integration. History and social anthropology can be equally dexterously commandeered to buttress the arguments against such an understanding.

 

Alternatively, it is best we base our national enterprise of nation-statehood on the attractions of a modern liberal democratic constitutional state, proudly inheriting a rich historical and cultural tradition but not being defined by it. In this vein it is best to remind the Colonel of his own words that it must be realized ‘that foundations of Nation States can never be based on the solution advocated by Jinnah; it has not worked for Pakistan and it will never work elsewhere also’. Presumably, ‘elsewhere’ includes India, as it should. Whatever be the answer arrived at to this live issue in the political arena, it is debatable whether it has any place in military reflection howsoever subtly it may intrude on our collectively professional consciousness through the route of the ‘Free and Frank’ columns of the Combat Journal.