Retributions  

A question of power

Echoing Swaminathan S Anklesaria Aiyar, Amit Varma asks,

1. 1] Frame an argument, or even your position on the subject, that states why Kashmir should remain part of India.
2. 2] Then replace the word ‘India’ with ‘the British empire’, and ‘Kashmir’ with ‘India’.[link]

Now, the secession argument is terribly complex. Taken to its logical conclusion, what stops Malviya Nagar or Andheri from declaring independence? Or indeed, an individual to declare himself as a republic of one and refuse to abide by the law? But leaving aside such issues, lets tackle the larger question.

Aiyar, and by extension Varma, display a classic misunderstanding of imperialism: The fundamental logic behind imperialism is the same which has underlined geo-politics since ages and continues to do so: Power. Imperialism was never an end by it self but merely an exercise in advancing national interest by using the instrument of military conquest. In that respect, it was no different from Alexander’s wars or the Mughal empire or any of the great empires of world history. Unfortunately, much of modern discourse has focused on outward symbols of imperialism–White Man’s burden for example–while ignoring its manifest logic. India was colonized simply because Indian people were unable to protect themselves. And when the British left India, it was simply because the cost of ruling India outweighed the benefits. The struggle between Indians and the British may have been couched in lofty moral terms but at its heart it was a power struggle.

From this perspective, even if India is an imperialist power in Kashmir, there is nothing to be apologetic about India’s ”occupation” of Kashmir. Arguably, India cannot hold on to the Kashmir valley without military power. If this is unfair, it is only as unfair as American ability to overthrow Taliban after just one attack while India continues to bleed by thousand cuts and is unable to do little except subject the Indian people to the theatrics of the likes of Shivraj Patil.

The question to be asked therefore is simple: Does keeping Kashmir within the Indian union serve the national interest? From the perspective of Indian nationhood–the only one which matters–it is a clear cost-benefit analysis–the kind Vir Sanghvi indulges in. Sanghvi argues that despite pouring billions of dollars in Kashmir and placing it on a higher pedestal vis-a-vis other Indian states, Kashmiris remain alienated and there is little chance this would change in the foreseeable future. There can be two opinions of Sanghvi’s arguments but there is little doubt that analysis like his should drive India’s Kashmir policy.

Varma makes another curious assertion. He argues that ”given the imperatives of Indian and Pakistani politics, a plebiscite is impossible, and no solution to Kashmir exists. The wound will fester on.” This is utter nonsense. Either Varma is completely ignorant of the history of India-Pakistan conflict or has substituted woolly-headed liberalism for geo-political logic. Nationalists did not prevent the creation of Pakistan but has it solve the vexed ”Hindu-Muslim” problem? Are they responsible for Al Qaeda’s animosity towards India? Varma’s argument is not only disingenuous but is plainly dangerous because it assumes that surrendering to extremists will save us from their wrath. India’s surrender on Kashmir will not solve India-Pakistan imbroglio (See Nitin’s post). In fact, it is quite likely to embolden Pakistan to more aggressively pursue its long term objective of dismembering India. India and Pakistan represent two differing ideologies–two different approaches to nation building. No reconciliation is possible till either of the ideologies scores a decisive victory.

Finally, a conundrum all advocates of Kashmir freedom must ponder over. All rights Kashmiris enjoy flows from their status as Indian citizenship–the state is obliged to protect the rights of only those who affirm allegiance to the Indian constitution. If the Kashmiris are Pakistanis as one hard line leader recently suggested, or if they reject Indian nationhood then the state owes them nothing. Just like it owes nothing to Afghans and Chinese and Americans.

If India was to truly act as an imperialist power in Kashmir, then it would be the people of Kashmir who would be the biggest losers.