Peace in Kashmir
I have been writing on Kashmir for many years now—from 1968 onwards. From the very outset, I have been of the firm view that unrealistic politics have devastated Kashmir, and that now, through practical and realistic politics, a progressive Kashmir can come into being.
The Kashmiri Muslims seem to have become upset with almost everyone and are living in an atmosphere of mistrust. It is, however, possible, for the Kashmiris – if they so desire – to start a new life at any moment. But for this there are two necessary conditions. Firstly, the Kashmiris must admit that they are themselves responsible for the unpleasant situation they find themselves in today. As long as they continue to blame others for this situation, it will not be possible for them to start a new life.
The second indispensable condition is that the Kashmiris must step out of their imaginary world and start living in the real world. In other words, they must come out of the wishful thinking that their incapable leaders have been instigating. Adopting methods that are in harmony with present-day conditions, they should make plans for their progress.
Conditions have decreed that the Kashmiri Muslims must willingly, and not out of compulsion, take the bold step of accepting that Fate has ordained them to be a part of India and that now they have no option but to willingly accept this decision. Furthermore, they must accept that there is nothing at all wrong in this, and that it is definitely good for them from every angle. India is a big country. It enjoys freedom and democracy. It is home to almost 200 million of their Muslim co-religionists. Most of the bigger Islamic institutions in the Indian Subcontinent are located in India. All across India are scattered the memories of a thousand and more years of Muslim presence in the region, which continue to provide a sense of determination to the country’s Muslims. Above all, India provides enormous opportunities for dawah. A hadith report (contained in the collections by Imam al-Nasai and Imam Ahmad) gives the good news of salvation in the Hereafter for this task of dawah.
Once when I was in Karachi for a few days, I met a Muslim industrialist who told me that Muslims in India were in a better position than Pakistanis. When I asked him why, he answered, ‘Pakistan is a small country. If we manufacture something here, we have a very small potential market for it. In contrast, India is a vast country. If you produce something there, you have a huge market you can sell it in.’
What this Pakistani industrialist said to me has become a fact of life. In the 21st century, the Muslims of India have emerged as the most progressive Muslim community in the whole of South Asia. This is no exaggeration, and one can easily prove it by a comparative study.
If the Muslims of Kashmir were to willingly and wholeheartedly join India, they would find that many opportunities for great progress would be opened up to them. The possibilities that they would enjoy in India to progress economically, educationally and in other ways are not available anywhere else in the region.
Moreover, even in terms of politics the Kashmiri Muslims have great opportunities to progress in India. Some time ago, an article I wrote was published in various Urdu, Hindi and English papers. Therein I stressed that if the Muslims of Kashmir were to abandon their policy of confrontation and wholeheartedly accept India and become part of it, it is quite possible that one day in the future, democratic India’s first Muslim Prime Minister would be a Kashmiri Muslim. I have absolutely no doubt about this.
The Kashmiri Leadership
I have been seriously pondering on the Kashmir issue for decades now. With God’s blessings, the views that I held about the subject when I started off still appear to me to be valid. With God’s grace, I have never felt the need to change them.
I have been writing on Kashmir from 1968 onwards. Probably my first article on the subject was published in the 14th June, 1968 edition of the Urdu weekly Al-Jamiat, the official organ of the Jamiat ul-Ulema-e Hind. Therein I commented that the then Kashmiri leader Sheikh Abdullah was a sincere Kashmiri. Because of his bravery and sacrifices, he truly deserved to be called Sher-e Kashmir, the ‘Lion of Kashmir’. But his moves for Kashmiri independence were simply unrealistic. I wrote that in 1947 he was in a position in which, had he been realistic, he could have decided the fate of Kashmir according to his wishes. But now, I said, when he had lost the power to decide things, he was going about setting up a hue and cry. This furore had no value in the world of today.
I described Sheikh Abdullah’s predicament with the help of the following analogy. Once, a young man decided to open a shop. He had just stepped into the real world and had no idea as to the precautions one should take to survive in the world. And so, he used only a very ordinary lock for his shop.
One day, the young man returned from his shop looking very downcast. Seeing him, an elderly man asked, ‘What’s the matter? You seem very sad.’
‘My shop has been robbed!’ replied the young man.
‘How did that happen?’ asked the old man.
‘The lock was just an ordinary one, and so the robber easily broke it and looted whatever was inside,’ said the young man.
‘Then, it is your fault!’ quipped the old man.
‘Yes,’ replied the young man. ‘Now I’ve learnt that one should use a good, strong lock to keep one’s shop safe.’
‘Is this something to learn only after making a mistake? When you decided to become a shopkeeper, you should have known, from the very first day itself, that you should use a strong lock for your shop!’ the old man said.
In matters like one’s shop or other such personal affairs, I wrote, it is possible that if you make a mistake, you can correct yourself. But it is entirely different when it comes to national questions. In personal matters, after once suffering a loss it is possible to again turn the situation in your favour through hard work. But in national affairs, the moment you lose the handle that controls the power to make decisions, the problem becomes very complicated, and naturally very difficult to resolve.
I further remarked that leadership of a nation is only for those who can envision the future in the present. People whose vision is limited only to the present and the past, and who see the future only when it turns into a reality and bombards them, simply cannot lead a country—although, through their unwise actions, they can certainly entangle it in enormous problems.
I have continuously repeated this line in various other articles that I have been writing on the Kashmir issue over the last many years. If all that I have written on the subject were put together, it would form a voluminous book.
It is with God’s grace that thousands of Kashmiris have benefitted from these efforts I have made. Many of them have cleansed themselves of their militant mentality and are engaged in positive work. I keep receiving letters and telephone calls from Kashmiris in this regard.
Every political movement is attributed to a community or the general public, but, in actual fact, it is movement of and for its leaders. A few leaders incite people through their writings and speeches and then extract the price of their leadership in the name of the people. Such a situation greatly increases the leaders’ responsibilities. Under such conditions, a leader should have undergone the necessary preparation and be capable of handling the responsibilities that go with leadership. If someone becomes a leader without this necessary preparation, he commits a major crime in the eyes of God, even if he may be very popular among his people.
The Kashmiris are now faced with the final hour, as it were, when they must rise above their leaders and look at the whole question of Kashmir afresh. They must chart the course of their life, not in the light of the utterances of their leaders, but, rather, in the light of reality. There is simply no other way for them to succeed.
Lessons From Nature
When a stream is blocked by a boulder, it changes its course. Skirting the boulder, it carries on ahead. However, we foolish human beings act differently. We struggle in vain to seek to break the boulder and move ahead, even if this means that our journey comes to an end, once and for all.
The armed uprising in Kashmir against India began in October 1989. Just a month before this, I visited Kashmir, where I spoke at the Tagore Hall in Srinagar. This trip gave me the opportunity to meet numerous Kashmiris.
One day during this trip, I went with some Kashmiri Muslims to a valley outside Srinagar. The place was arrestingly beautiful. From the towering peaks streams tumbled into the valley below. My companions and I sat on the banks of a brook. I noticed the way the brook flowed, till it arrived at a massive rock. The brook did not bang its head against the rock, seeking to break it and move ahead. Rather, when it met the rock, it swerved around it and kept on with its forward journey uninterrupted.
I turned to my Kashmiri companions and said, ‘This is a message from nature to you. This phenomenon of nature tells you that if in the journey of life you face a hurdle, you should not seek to hurl yourself against it to carry on ahead. Rather, what you must do is to carefully avoid the hurdle and continue with your journey. This is the secret for success in life. It applies in the same way to communities as it does to individuals. The only way to progress is to ignore the hurdles one comes up against, and, instead, to focus on, and make use of, all available opportunities to build one’s life.’
Personally, I do not regard the military or political presence of India in Kashmir as a hurdle for the Kashmiris. In the present democratic age, politics is simply a headache and an army is only a guard on the frontiers. Before 1989, the Indian Army in Kashmir was only stationed along the borders of Kashmir. Indian soldiers did not enter Kashmiri localities. But when in October 1989 Kashmiri activists picked up guns and took to the path of violence, the Indian Army entered Kashmiri settlements in order to combat the uprising, because the militants were based there.
Even if, for the sake of argument, the Kashmiri Muslims consider the presence of Indian soldiers in Kashmir to be an obstacle in their path, the only sensible way for them to succeed and progress is what nature tells them in its own language—‘Ignore the problems and avail of the existing opportunities.’
This is not a principle that one should follow out of compulsion. Rather, it should be voluntarily adhered to. Nor does it apply only to the Kashmir case. In fact, it is a universal principle. It applies to all individuals and groups. It applies just as much to Muslim-majority countries as it does to countries where Muslims are a minority.
Unwise Methods
A basic principle for a successful life in this world is that if we have a dispute with someone over something, we must start by willingly accepting whatever concessions or advantages we are able to get. If we do not do this at the very outset, and, instead, in a bid to get more, we delay the solution of the dispute, the situation is bound to become even more intractable. Consequently, it will become impossible for us to get even what we were initially getting in terms of what we wanted.
A good illustration of this principle is the ongoing problem of Palestine. In 1917, the British drew up a plan, commonly known as the Balfour Declaration, to partition Palestine. This partition scheme was clearly in favour of the Arabs. Under the scheme, less than a third of the territory of Palestine was given to Israel, and more than two-thirds was set aside for the Arabs. As per the scheme, the whole city of Jerusalem and the entire area of the Bayt ul-Maqdis was given to the Arabs. However, the Muslim leadership of that time refused to accept this scheme. A certain Arab scholar took a realistic stance on the matter and suggested that the scheme be accepted, for which he was accused of betraying Arab interests. This scholar died, uttering the following verse:
Soon my people will come to know that I have not betrayed them.
And no matter how long the night is, the morning is certain to come!
If the Muslim or Arab leaders had adopted a pragmatic and realistic approach, and, accepting whatever was being offered to them at the very outset, had concentrated all their efforts on work of construction and progress, the Palestinian Arab Muslims today might have been much better off than the Jews of the region. However, because of their unrealistic approach, the Palestinians’ aspirations were brought to ruin.
Exactly the same thing happened in Jammu and Kashmir. Both the Kashmiri and the Pakistani leadership have been guilty of extreme ineptitude. Facts reveal that the present Kashmir problem is a result of the injudiciousness of the Kashmiri leaders themselves, rather than of the oppression or conspiracies of others.
In this regard, the record of the injudiciousness of Muslim leaders is a long one. I will allude to just one aspect of this here. In 1947, when India was partitioned, Pakistani leaders adopted a completely unrealistic stance and staked their claim to two Hindu-majority Indian princely states: Junagadh and Hyderabad. Had the Pakistani leaders adopted a realistic approach and not claimed Junagadh and Hyderabad (which Pakistan was definitely not going to get in any case), the question of Kashmir would never have turned into a serious conflict. It could then have very easily been solved in favour of Pakistan. But the two-pronged thrust of the Pakistani leadership, in trying to seize Hyderabad and Junagadh and also Kashmir, resulted in Pakistan getting not even one of them!
Let me cite some facts to confirm this point. Chaudhry Muhammad Ali was the Prime Minister of Pakistan for a short period in the mid-1950s. Prior to this, he had been a minister in the cabinet of Prime Minister Liaqat Ali Khan. In his voluminous book Emergence of Pakistan, he relates that shortly after the Partition, the Muslim ruler of the princely state of Junagadh declared his state’s accession to Pakistan, even though Junagadh had a Hindu majority. India did not accept this accession and, by force, took over the state and incorporated it into India. After this, a meeting was held in Delhi, attended by Jawaharlal Nehru and Sardar Patel, from the Indian side, and Liaqat Ali Khan and Chaudhry Muhammad Ali, from the Pakistani side.
Chaudhry Muhammad Ali writes:
Sardar Patel, although a bitter enemy of Pakistan, was a greater realist than Nehru. In one of the discussions between the two Prime Ministers, at which Patel and I were also present, Liaqat Ali Khan dwelt on the inconsistency of the Indian stand with regard to Junagadh and Kashmir. If Junagadh, despite its Muslim ruler’s accession to Pakistan, belonged to India because of its Hindu majority, how could Kashmir, with its Muslim majority, be a part of India simply by virtue of its Hindu ruler having signed a conditional instrument of accession to India? If the instrument of accession signed by the Muslim ruler of Junagadh was of no validity, the instrument of accession signed by the Hindu ruler of Kashmir was also invalid. If the will of the people was to prevail in Junagadh, it must prevail in Kashmir as well. India could not claim both Junagadh and Kashmir.
When Liaqat made these incontrovertible points, Patel could not contain himself and burst out: “Why do you compare Junagadh with Kashmir? Talk of Hyderabad and Kashmir, and we could reach an agreement.” Patel’s view at this time, and even later, was that India’s efforts to retain Muslim-majority areas against the will of the people were a source not of strength but of weakness to India. He felt that if India and Pakistan agreed to let Kashmir go to Pakistan and Hyderabad to India, the problems of Kashmir and of Hyderabad could be solved peacefully and to the mutual advantage of India and Pakistan.
If what Chaudhry Muhammad Ali says is true, it is incontrovertible proof that the conflict over Kashmir is the creation of the Pakistani leaders themselves, and not of the Indian leaders.
Further proof of this is available in another book by the well-known Pakistani leader, Sardar Shaukat Hayat Khan. This book was originally written in English, under the title The Nation That Lost Its Soul. Its Urdu edition, titled Gumgashta-e-Qaum, was published from Lahore. Here are some excerpts from this book:
Later, during the attack on Kashmir, Mountbatten came to Lahore. At a dinner attended by [the then Pakistani Prime Minister] Liaqat [Ali Khan], Governor Mudie and four Ministers of West Punjab, Lord Mountbatten conveyed a message from Patel, the strongman of India, asking Liaqat to abide by the rules regarding the future of the princely States previously agreed upon between the Congress and the Muslim League: that they would accede to either India or Pakistan on the basis of the majority of their inhabitants and their contiguity to [either India or Pakistan]. Patel had said that Pakistan could take Kashmir and let go Hyderabad Deccan, which had a majority Hindu population and was nowhere near Pakistan, by sea or land. After delivering this message, Lord Mountbatten went to rest in the Lahore Government House.
I, being overall in charge of the Kashmir operations, went to Liaqat Ali Khan. I suggested to him that as the Indian Army had entered Kashmir and we would be unable to annex Kashmir with the help of the tribesmen, or even with our inadequate armed forces, we should make haste to accept Patel’s proposal. Nawabzada [Liaqat Ali Khan] turned round to me and said, ‘Sardar Sahib! Have I gone mad to give up Hyderabad State, which is much larger than the Punjab, for the sake of the rocks of Kashmir?’
I was stunned by the Prime Minister’s reaction and his ignorance of our geography and his lack of wisdom. I thought he was living in a fool’s paradise and did not understand the importance of Kashmir to Pakistan, while hoping to get Hyderabad, which at best was only quixotic, wishful thinking. It was not connected with Pakistan anywhere. In protest, I resigned from the position I was holding in the Kashmir operations.
If one accepts what Sardar Shaukat Hayat Khan said as true, it is clear evidence that the conflict over Kashmir was created entirely and solely by the Muslim leadership and no one else. Here, I will add that according to an established law of nature, it is not possible for any individual or community to exact the price of its own mistakes from others. A person has to pay the price of his follies himself, and definitely Pakistan is no exception to this rule.
Be Realistic
In April 1986, a group of Sikhs got together in Amritsar and declared what they called the independent State of Khalistan. At this time, I wrote an article in the Hindustan Times, captioned Acceptance of Reality. This article was about both Punjab and Kashmir. Addressing the people of Punjab and Kashmir, I wrote that the ongoing movements for an independent Punjab and an independent Kashmir could never succeed. They were tantamount to breaking one’s head against a boulder. Nothing could be gained from such movements, except, of course, for some broken heads and worse. I advised the people of both regions to be realistic, to accept the status quo and to focus their energies on positive purposes instead.
The Sikhs realized this soon enough, and ended the violent militant movement for Khalistan. The Kashmiris, too, will certainly come round to this path finally, but only after much suffering and devastation, I fear. The reason for this difference is that the Kashmiris have given their suicidal policy the alluring name of ‘Islamic martyrdom’.
In this regard, I would like to share a personal experience. In early 1992, two well-educated Kashmiri Muslims came to Delhi and met me. They were not members of any militant group, but yet they were staunch supporters of the Kashmiri militant movement. Not being militants in the practical sense of the term themselves, at the intellectual level they certainly were what could be called consummate ‘ideological militants’.
In the course of our conversation, I told these men that their self-styled ‘Kashmir movement’ was not at all proper or acceptable on any count. Nor was there any meaning in Kashmiri independence. It would spell nothing but disaster. But the men passionately supported the ‘movement’, claiming that very soon it would gain a ‘glorious success’. Then, they wrote in my diary the following words:
The Kashmir that will emerge after separation from India will, God willing, be an Islamic Kashmir.
After this, I said to the men, ‘What you claim is nothing but baseless wishful thinking. You people will very soon come to know how unrealistic your views are.’ Then, in front of them I wrote the following words in my diary:
Suppose Kashmir separates from India, the independent Kashmir or Pakistani Kashmir that will emerge will be a devastated Kashmir. The choice for the Kashmiris is not between Indian Kashmir and Pakistani Kashmir, but, rather, between Indian Kashmir and a devastated Kashmir.
Many years have passed since this incident took place. The developments over these many years fully prove that what the two so-called Kashmiri mujahids claimed was nothing but false and baseless wishful thinking. On the other hand, whatever I, with God’s grace, had said on that occasion has become an undeniable reality. Events over the years have proven that in today’s circumstances, Kashmir’s welfare lies not in the creation of an independent Kashmir or in becoming part of Pakistan. On all counts, Kashmir’s welfare lies in being part of India and for the Kashmiris to abandon their confrontational approach and adopt the path of peaceful construction and progress.
Those in Kashmir who are engaged in what they think to be a jihad movement call themselves ‘lovers of Islam’ (or what is called in Urdu islam pasand). My advice to these people is to become realistic (or haqiqat pasand) before becoming islam pasand. The fort of Islam stands on firm ground. No fort can be built on the foundations of wishful thinking.
Avoid Political Confrontation
‘A wise man is one who knows the relative value of things.’
Judging by this saying, it appears that among the Kashmiri leaders there is perhaps no one at all who could be called wise. They may know something about their people, but not a whit about the dire consequences of their actions.
They would do well to take a lesson from the decision made by the Queen of Sheba when the Prophet Solomon wrote to her asking her to submit to him. Despite her courtiers’ advice to her that she need not do Solomon’s bidding, the Queen replied:
‘Surely, when mighty kings invade a country, they despoil it and humiliate its noblest inhabitants—these men will do the same […]’ (27:34)
A very important fact is brought out by the Quran. And that is that in confronting a powerful ruler one must think carefully of the consequences of doing so. If the consequences will prove negative, confrontation must be avoided. Experience proves that confronting a powerful ruler is generally counter-productive, for it leads to destruction on a massive scale. This devastating consequence of political confrontation is inevitable, no matter who the ruler one confronts.
Confronting a powerful ruler and fighting against him must be avoided at all costs and under all circumstances. If some people ignore this and directly confront such a ruler, it is pointless for them to later complain about loss of life and property. They ought to know that the destruction that they suffer is the price they pay for their having chosen a wrong course of action. Those who take to the path of armed confrontation against an existing government have necessarily to suffer for it. It is simply impossible in this world for a certain group to make a mistake and then have the price paid for it by some other group.
Kashmiri and Pakistani ideologues have brought out numerous writings with such titles as The Wounded Kashmir, The Wounded Valley and so on. These writings which talk about how the Kashmiris are being oppressed by the Indian Army, are quickly disseminated across the world. Yet, in practical terms, they have no positive result or benefit at all. All these kinds of reports are simply pointless screaming and complaining.
The responsibility for the fact that all this demanding and demonstrating of theirs has proved absolutely ineffective must be shouldered entirely by the Kashmiris themselves. They have no one to blame but themselves. There is a great lesson for these Kashmiris in the story of the Queen of Sheba in the Quran, as mentioned above. The policy adopted by the Queen was a wise one in that it avoided the possibility of destruction and oppression by the army. But in contrast, because of their unwise approach, the Kashmiris simply invited the Indian Army to make them a target. What the Queen of Sheba did was just the opposite—she avoided confrontation. This, in one sentence, is the summary of the entire Kashmir story.
The way to find a solution to the vexed Kashmir problem is for the Kashmiris themselves to recognise their mistakes, and, learning a lesson from the example of the Queen of Sheba as described in the Quran, to prepare an appropriate plan of action to reconstruct their lives. There is simply no alternative solution.
What Wisdom Demands
According to a hadith report contained in the Sunan Abu Dawud, the Prophet advised Muslims not to adopt the path of violence, or else, he said, their conditions would become even more severe. (Sunan Abu Dawud, Hadith No. 4904). The veracity of this statement is clearly evident today in every Muslim country where people have adopted violence to attain their objectives. This is what has happened in Kashmir, too.
The culture of violence that has gripped Kashmir has had no beneficial consequence at all. On the contrary, the destruction that it has caused has been so enormous as to be simply indescribable. It has devastated Kashmir’s economy and educational system. It has led to the death of over a hundred thousand people, with many more being injured and crippled for life. It has played havoc with moral values. The Kashmiriyat in whose name this militant movement was launched was itself destroyed. This culture of violence forced huge numbers of capable and highly educated Kashmiris to leave Kashmir and shift elsewhere. Kashmir’s tourist industry, which played a major role in the state’s economy, was decimated. In short, this movement, launched in the name of the Kashmiri people, produced no benefit whatsoever for the common Kashmiris, although it has certainly benefitted the self-styled leaders of Kashmir.
The Quran clearly tells us:
You may not grieve for what has escaped you (57:23)
This Quranic verse tells us of a law of nature that God has established in this world. According to this law, every person and every community has to experience some form of loss, at some time or the other. No person or community is exempted from this law of nature, for this is part of God’s creation plan. In other words, this is God’s law, and so it is impossible for anyone to change it.
But, along with this, there is another law of nature—that in this world opportunities never cease. Here, whenever one opportunity is lost, at once another one emerges. Hence, wisdom demands that we should forget our lost opportunities and, instead, should make use of the new ones that are available to us. This is precisely what the Kashmiris should do today.
Exploitative leaders thrive on fanning people’s feelings of being denied or deprived. On the other hand, true leaders lead movements that are based on achievements rather than denial or deprivation. They point out to people the available opportunities, not closed doors, and in this way help chart a new future for their people.
Peace and Justice
You can live in a state of perpetual peace, but definitely not in a state of perpetual war. But perhaps the leaders of Kashmir have no knowledge of this well-tested fact of history. They have kept up with their completely pointless war, which has now assumed the form of suicide bombing. Little do they know that the Japanese resorted to suicide bombing on an even more massive scale in the Second World War but that this tactic completely failed. Not a single ruler in history, no matter how powerful, has been able to maintain a state of perpetual war. How, then, can the weak people of Kashmir hope to keep up their pointless war forever? What is bound to finally happen is that the Kashmiri militants will one day tire of fighting and will be compelled to call off their war. But the right way would be for the Kashmiris to adopt a wise policy and end this devastating war on the basis of their own decision.
Once, in a conversation with an educated Kashmiri Muslim, I said that what Kashmir needs most today is peace. He replied that the Kashmiris, too, want peace, but, he added, it should be peace with justice. Peace that did not go along with justice, he argued, was beneficial only for oppressors but not for the oppressed.
My answer was that this was the gravest misunderstanding—a misunderstanding shared by all the Muslim leaders throughout the world. Peace, I said, is defined as the absence of war. This is a correct definition. Peace can never be established along with justice. Instead, when peace is established, it creates opportunities, which can be availed to achieve justice. This, I mentioned, was in accordance both with reason and Islam.
When the Prophet Muhammad entered into a peace treaty with the pagan Quraysh at Hudaybiya, he secured from this only peace, not justice. However, this peace created opportunities. The Prophet availed of these opportunities and finally justice was achieved. Justice is never a part of peace. The two cannot be had simultaneously. Rather, justice is always secured only after peace is established, by using the available opportunities. Justice does not automatically stem from peace.
The leaders of the Kashmiri militant movement constantly and unanimously repeat one point. And that is that they want the Kashmir issue to be resolved in accordance with the resolutions of the United Nations, or, in other words, that a referendum be held in Kashmir. The meaninglessness of this argument, from the legal and logical points of view, was made clear to the whole world when the Secretary-General of the United Nations, Kofi Annan, announced in Islamabad that the United Nations’ resolutions had now become irrelevant.
Here I would like to point out a matter of principle. And that is that one can secure one’s rights only on the basis of one’s own strength, and not through someone else’s. It is simply unrealistic and wishful thinking to expect the United Nations’ resolutions to be acted upon in today’s context.
This is Not an Islamic Movement
Kashmir’s Muslim militants call their war an ‘Islamic jihad’. This is completely erroneous. The un-understandable silence of the Muslim ulema on this point has only further convinced these Kashmiri militants of their claim. The fact is that the present war in Kashmir is most definitely not a jihad. Those who are part of this war definitely cannot receive the reward for participating in jihad.
Just as there are certain conditions to be observed in Islam for offering prayer, so also are there certain conditions for jihad in the path of God. The war in Kashmir does not fulfill these conditions. A jihad requires a regular amir, or leader. It also requires a Muslim territory that can serve as its headquarters. Also, necessary prior preparations must be made for jihad. Jihad, moreover, is not fought for land, power, or wealth, but for establishing God’s Word. And so on.
The fact is that the Kashmiris’ war does not fulfill a single one of these conditions. The present war in Kashmir can be called either a guerilla war or a proxy war, but neither of these has any relation whatsoever with Islam. Guerilla war is un-Islamic because in Islam, leading jihad is the task of the ruler, not of members of the general public. Proxy war is un-Islamic because a government that engages in such a war does not openly announce it, while an open announcement of war is a necessary condition for an Islamic war.
If this reality is kept in mind, the ongoing futile war in Kashmir conveys this message to the Kashmiris:
You must, without a single moment’s delay, end your war because this war will cause your destruction, both in this world and in the Hereafter. You are bound to face devastation in this world because you are fighting without the necessary preparations. And your devastation in the Hereafter will be because, in the name of jihad, you are fighting a war that, according to Islamic principles, is simply not a jihad.
A movement for political independence is not an Islamic movement. Rather, it is wholly a communal or nationalist movement. There appears to be no harm if such a movement is launched in the name of nationalism, but if such a movement is carried on in the name of Islamic jihad, it will certainly be a wrongful movement.
Not a single prophet launched any movement in the name of his country’s freedom or political freedom, even though most of the prophets lived at a time when conditions were exactly the same as those that prevail when political leaders launch movements for freedom of their homelands. For instance, at the time of the Prophet Joseph, a pagan foreign family ruled over Egypt. Yet, Joseph did not launch a political movement of this sort in the country. Such a movement was launched later, after Joseph’s demise, and it was led not by his companions but, rather, by what could be called ‘community leaders’..
If the Kashmiri Muslims want to make their movement an Islamic one, it is incumbent on them that, first of all, they must completely end the present form of their struggle. They must admit that they have been carrying on what is an entirely national or communal movement to which they have wrongly given an Islamic label. Accordingly, they must completely distance themselves from this. No such movement can ever earn God’s help.
Kashmiri Muslims often lament that they are being crushed on two sides—by the Indian Army, on the one hand, and by militants, on the other. They also claim that when their so-called jihad was started, a number of good people were involved in it but that it has now gone into the hands of the wrong people.
This claim is totally wrong. The fact is that this is the inevitable consequence of guerilla war, always and everywhere. Guerilla wars are started by what seem to be good people, but later on, wrong or bad people inevitably join in, because they find in these movements a convenient shelter—in the name of, say, ‘Islamic jihad’ or ‘national liberation’—under which they can engage in killing and looting and falsely claim this behaviour to be ‘legitimate’.
Hence, this sort of pretext is not going to be of any benefit whatsoever for the Kashmiris. They have to admit that launching their guerilla war was a mistake from the very first day itself. In a situation like this, admitting one’s mistakes, rather than blaming others, is the very first step that one must take.
The Politics of the Possible
In life, one is sometimes given a second chance, but one must know how to make use of it. For instance, the first chance, as it were, that India got after it won its independence was to emerge on the world map as a united country. But this was not to be its fate, and so the leaders of the country availed of the other opportunities that they had before them. Pakistan faced a similar situation, too. The Pakistani leaders dreamt that East and West Pakistan would jointly form a large country, but in 1971-72, when Bangladesh was created, they lost this first chance. Thereafter, the Pakistani leaders tried to use the other available opportunities to build their country.
The same holds true, in different ways, in the case of every other country. Each country has, in some way or the other, lost its first chance. But, availing of the second chance—other available opportunities—they have been able to gain a new lease of life.
This holds true for Kashmir, too. The leaders of Kashmir had a political dream for their land prior to 1947—this was, in a sense, their first chance. But they lost this chance with the Partition in 1947. And so, now the proper and possible way out for the Kashmiris is to use their second chance—the existing opportunities—to build a new Kashmir.
Some of the leaders of Kashmir dreamt of an independent country. This did not seem impossible to them. But the decisive developments in the conditions after 1947 rendered the emergence of an independent Kashmir on the map of the Indian subcontinent impossible. Now, what is possible, given the existing conditions, is that Kashmir should be part of India under Article 370 of the Indian Constitution. Till now, Kashmiri leaders have been engaged in the politics of the impossible. Now, recognizing practical realities, they must engage in the politics of the possible.
The only proper advice for the Kashmiris is that they must forget the past and learn to live in the present. They must seek to build their lives in view of the opportunities present, not according to past notions.
If with regard to Kashmir Pakistan were to adopt a policy of admitting existing realities, it would be nothing new for it. After all, prior to this, Pakistan had to adopt this very policy with regard to Bangladesh (the former East Pakistan). And so, it has no excuse as to why it cannot do the same with regard to Kashmir.
Global Possibilities
The Kashmiri Muslims have certain plus points, which they have not really seriously thought about so far. One of these is that if they join India, they can gain the status of being part of a country that has among the world’s largest Muslim populations, even larger than Pakistan and Bangladesh. This is such a plus point for the Kashmiri Muslims that if they were aware of it, they could gain the greatest blessing of life: that is, confidence and courage and the complete absence of feelings of inferiority.
Because of the wrong guidance of their incompetent leaders, the Kashmiri Muslims have lost their first opportunity, but their second opportunity is still available to them even now. Using this second opportunity, they can attain all that they want.
It is the good fortune of the Kashmiris that when, after seeming to have lost their first chance or opportunity, they were entering a new phase defined by their second chance, there was such a dramatic transformation in global conditions that the entire world was turned into a global village. Because of this, the question of changing political systems became an issue of relatively little importance. The new global conditions have made it possible for anyone living anywhere on the face of the earth to establish global communications. Even if some people do not seem to form part of the political class or to have political power, they can still obtain all the benefits that in earlier times could only have been enjoyed by those who were part of the governing apparatus.
Singapore and Japan illustrate this point very clearly. They are, in terms of size, small countries, and yet they are enjoying the benefits of global possibilities and potentialities. The Kashmiris, too, can avail of these in the same way, but only if they make wise use of them.
Victory for Both
It sometimes happens that two individuals or groups quarrel over a piece of land. A part of the land is grabbed by one group, and the rest by the other. It may happen that both groups fight each other to grab each other’s bit of land, and in the process both groups are devastated. But another way is for the parties to agree that each can keep the bit of land that he has, end their quarrel and get busy developing their bits of land. This way to solve a dispute is what is called a ‘win-win solution’.
This, to my mind, is the best and most practicable formula to solve the conflict between India and Pakistan over Jammu and Kashmir. At present, both India and Pakistan control parts of Jammu and Kashmir. If, on the basis of the ‘win-win solution’ principle, the two agree to be satisfied with whatever part of the state they presently control, and, abandoning the path of conflict, they focus on developing their respective parts of the state, it would definitely be greatly beneficial for both countries. Both countries could embark on the path of progress that has been blocked for a very long time.
It is true that the portion of Kashmir under Pakistani control is relatively small in size. But experience tells us that in this world the size of a territory is only of relative importance. What is really important is the wise use of a territory’s resources. Numerous countries, such as Taiwan and Singapore, for instance, are very small in size but, in terms of progress and prosperity, are in much better shape than many big countries.
Man is a ‘psychological creature’. It is a person’s psyche that creates his personality. Experience shows that if someone develops a negative psyche, his entire personality becomes negative. On the other hand, if someone develops a positive psyche, his entire personality becomes positive.
This rule applies as much to individuals as it does to groups, communities and countries. The problem of Jammu and Kashmir has been a continuing source of bitterness between India and Pakistan from 1947 onwards. In this long period, both countries have viewed each other as enemies. Each of them feels that the other has robbed it of its rights. ‘I may have been defeated, but so have you!’ they think in relation to each other. Consequently, both countries are driven by the very strongly negative emotions they feel for each other. Their relations are such that they simply cannot properly focus on constructive work for their own progress.
Now, if both countries were to behave wisely, new doors of progress would open up for them. For this, however, they would have to replace their negative approach with a positive one. ‘I may have been defeated, but so have you!’ would have to be replaced by ‘I won, and so have you!’
Till now, these two neighbouring countries have viewed each other as deadly enemies. But if a fundamental change in psyche occurs, they will begin to see each other as friends. Till now, both countries have lived with a sense of having been deprived of their due. But if they change to a positive way of thinking, they can focus on their achievements instead. Till now, both countries have thought of themselves as surrounded by problems. But through positive thinking they can see that they are surrounded by numerous opportunities. Despite their geographical and political separation, a constructive unity can be established between them. And all this would be a miraculous result of both countries having adopted the ‘win-win solution’ path.
Moving Towards A Solution
The choice that Pakistan faces today is not between democracy and military rule. Rather, it is between either remaining in the impasse in which it finds itself, thereby wiping itself off the roadmap of the global community, or extricating itself from this impasse and moving ahead.
In the history of a country, it can sometimes happen that its progress comes to a complete standstill. At such times, it becomes imperative for it to take a bold decision so that its progress may resume. This sort of decision is often unpopular and against people’s sentiments. Such bold decisions are often taken by military rulers. Generally, democratically elected rulers do not take such bold decisions because they come to power after being elected by the people. They hesitate to take any revolutionary decision that is not in accordance with popular sentiments.
To make this point, let me cite two instances. One of these is from Muslim history—the instance of Salahuddin Ayyubi (d. 1193 C.E.). What is considered to have been his great achievement was his protecting the Muslim world from the Crusaders. But how did Salahuddin gain the powerful status that enabled him to play this great role? He was a military officer under the Sultan of Egypt, Nuruddin Zangi. When the Sultan died, Salahuddin snatched his throne, although the Sultan had sons of his own. In this way, Salahuddin became the Sultan. Muslim historians generally regard this seizing of the throne by Salahuddin as legitimate because, although from the legal point of view it seemed to be wrong, from the point of view of its results, it proved to be of enormous political benefit. It was this that made it possible for Salahuddin to later play his great role in protecting Islam and Muslims.
Another instance is that of the French President Charles de Gaulle (d. 1970). He was a General in the French Army, but later seized political power and became the country’s President. On the face of it, this was an anti-democratic action, but by doing so de Gaulle was able to take a major step in saving France that a democratically elected ruler could not take.
At that time, France still had many colonies in Africa, which it called ‘French provinces’. But this unrealistic policy proved to be so dangerous for France that in the race for ‘progress’ after the Second World War, it became the ‘Sick Man’ of Europe. De Gaulle examined the matter, setting aside French national sentiment. He realized that the only solution to the problem was to unilaterally grant freedom to the French colonies in Africa. This move was completely opposed to the sentiments of the French people. But it was this unpopular decision that granted France the status of a major power in the race for ‘progress’.
The current situation in Pakistan is somewhat similar. Pakistan’s undeclared war against India over Kashmir has brought immense destruction to Pakistan itself. The entire world views Pakistan as a very unsafe country. Global financial institutions are not ready to invest there. The unrest among the Pakistani public has led to strife in vast parts of the country. Pakistan’s religious, educational and cultural institutions have become centres for destructive activities.
The most horrific result of these developments is the alarming brain-drain that the country is facing. Human beings naturally want to progress and move ahead. And for the progress of any country it is enough if its people have the opportunities to carry on with their efforts. For instance, peace should prevail; there should be good infrastructure; people should be properly compensated for their work. If in any country these opportunities are fully available, every person in that country will himself or herself become actively engaged and the country will automatically begin to progress. However, unfortunately, this could not happen in Pakistan. There, because of the ideology based on agitating against, and seeking to forcibly overthrow, the political status quo, an emergency situation was created that continued uninterrupted. As a result, people had very limited opportunities to progress. That is why large numbers of capable Pakistanis left Pakistan and shifted elsewhere. During my visits to America, I have asked many Pakistanis who had settled in America why they left their country and came to America. Almost all of them replied that in America they had opportunities to work, unlike in Pakistan.
The unrealistic policies of Pakistan with regard to Kashmir have proven to be an obstacle blocking the path to Pakistan’s further development. It is a fact that Pakistan has been left far behind in the field of progress. The only way for it to overcome this backwardness is to stop fighting against problems, and, instead, to adopt a policy of making use of available opportunities. In the present circumstances, what the Pakistani leaders must do is agree to accept the status quo in Kashmir. In other words, the Line of Control in Kashmir should be accepted as the agreed frontier between India and Pakistan, with certain necessary adjustments. In this regard, by accepting the geographical and political status quo that has come to prevail between India and Pakistan in Kashmir, the Kashmir conflict can be resolved forever. I have been consistently and continuously advocating this solution since 1968.
Pakistan must abandon its emotional-driven policy with regard to Kashmir and in its place adopt a realistic policy. It must come to an agreement with India on Kashmir so that peace may be established in Pakistan and the country can focus on its internal development.
Ever since 1947, Pakistan’s politics have centered on one question—and that is, to change the political status quo in Kashmir. But it has been conclusively and fully proven that this is an enormously destructive policy, which will not produce any positive results. It did not have any positive consequences in the past. This is how it is at present as well. And, it will be the same in the future, too.
For Pakistan to take a revolutionary step of the sort I have suggested would certainly not be easy. But if, mustering courage, it does take this decision, it would gain miraculous results. Its undeclared war with India would come to an end and peace would be established. The negative mentality of the Pakistani people would transform into a positive mentality. Mutually beneficial trade would flourish between India and Pakistan. There would be exchanges between the two countries at various levels, including in the fields of education, culture and politics. Exchange of literature would help remove misunderstandings between them, and a brotherly atmosphere would be promoted. India and Pakistan share much in terms of culture. Yet, despite this, although neighbours, the two remain distant. But if the Kashmir issue were to be solved as I have suggested, they would become friendly neighbours.
Whenever an individual, community or nation wants to do something, it is faced with a pre-existing status quo. Now, there are two ways of thinking in this regard. One is to first try to change the existing status quo so that the road is cleared and one is able to do as one wants. The other is to leave aside the existing status quo as it is and to focus one’s efforts on other possible activities instead.
This latter approach I call ‘positive status quoism’. And this approach is in accordance with reason. That is to say, when what one considers to be an ideal solution is unattainable, one should agree to accept what is practical. This is what Islam, too, teaches. That is, the best and most useful policy with regard to a conflict is reconciliation and coming to an agreement with the other party. In other words, when faced with a conflict, one should desist from confrontation and, instead, adopt a conciliatory approach.
This suggestion of accepting the status quo in Kashmir and basing relations between India and Pakistan on firm foundations is not a new one. When Jawaharlal Nehru was the Prime Minister of India, India and Pakistan had evidently agreed to this proposal, so much so that Sheikh Abdullah went to Pakistan as a mediator. But with Nehru’s sudden death, no action could be taken on this historic proposal. According to an article in The Hindustan Times (18th June, 2001):
By 1956, Nehru had publicly offered a settlement of Kashmir with Pakistan over the ceasefire line (now converted into the Line of Control). On 23 May 1964, Nehru asked Sheikh Abdullah to meet Ayub Khan in Rawalpindi in an effort to solve the Kashmir imbroglio [...] the Pakistani leader agreed to a summit with Nehru, which was to be held in June 1964. This message was urgently telegraphed to Nehru on May 26. But just as Nehru’s consent reached Karachi, the world also learnt that Nehru had died in his sleep. And with that a major opportunity for a peaceful solution [of the] Kashmir [conflict] was also lost.
If Pakistan were to accept the status quo in Kashmir as a permanent solution, it would not have any negative consequences at all for Pakistan, nor, in broader terms, for Muslims as a whole. In such a situation, despite being separate from Pakistan, Kashmir would still retain its status of a Muslim-majority region. Furthermore, it is an uncontestable fact that the Muslims who live in India are in a better position than the Muslims of Pakistan and Bangladesh.
Another point to be noted is that for Pakistan to reconcile with India is no ordinary matter. If it does so, it would be able to end its on-going conflict with its powerful neighbour. To end a running conflict with a neighbour is tantamount to opening the doors to every kind of progress. How ending a conflict with an enemy paves the way for progress is illustrated by the example of modern Japan. During the Second World War, Japan and the USA were enemies, but after the war, Japan reconciled with America. This reconciliation enabled Japan to emerge as an economic super-power.
Pakistan’s present policy has become the cause of Islam being given a bad name. In line with this policy, Pakistan had sought to make hatred against India a means of promoting national unity. But this wrong policy did not succeed in uniting the people of Pakistan (including the former East Pakistan) in the name of Islam. It only united them in the name of anti-India hatred. And this, as a result, gave the world the chance to say that Islam did not have the power to unite Muslims. As an article in the Delhi-based The Hindustan Times (18th June, 2001) put it, ‘Islam does not hold Pakistan together any more, but anti-Indianism does.’
If Pakistan were to adopt a reconciliatory approach, it would help promote a positive mindset among its people. This would help usher in a new period in that country, wherein Pakistani national unity would be based not on anti-Indian, but on pro-Islam, sentiments. This would be so immensely beneficial that it would not be surprising if all the doors of Divine blessings were opened to it.
Letter addressed to the then Pakistani President, General Pervez Musharraf prior to his visit to India
New Delhi
9th July, 2001
Respected President Pervez Musharraf,
Assalamu Alaikum!
Your impending visit to India (15-16 July, 2001) is a source of joy for all of us. May God bless this step with full success!
On 12 October 1999, when God saved you from a possible air crash and blessed you with the political leadership of Pakistan, I remembered an incident in the life of Robert Clive. When Clive escaped an accident, he exclaimed, ‘God! You have saved me so that I can do something big!’ After this, he really went on to do something big in British history. I feel this will be repeated with you, too. I feel that God has saved you with His special assistance so that you can play a vital role in establishing peace on the Indian subcontinent, which history has been awaiting for the last half century.
When I heard the news that you were planning to visit India at the invitation of the Government of India, I wrote several articles about your impending trip, which were published in Urdu, Hindi and English newspapers in India […]
If you permit me, I would like to say that with regard to Kashmir, Pakistan should adopt a policy that is expressed in the English saying, ‘Politics is the art of the possible.’
I have, as a well-wisher, been pondering on the Kashmir problem ever since its inception. I started writing on this subject in 1968, for the Urdu, Hindi and English press. Based on an impartial analysis of the problem, my firm opinion is that with regard to Kashmir, Pakistan has only two possible options. The first is that in this matter Pakistan should adopt a de-linking policy. That is to say, it should set aside the Kashmir issue to be resolved through dialogue and establish normal relations with India in all other spheres. And the second is that it should accept the geographical status quo in Jammu and Kashmir as the accepted international border and thereby end this problem, once and for all. Besides these, no practical solution is possible. The only alternative is enormous devastation.
There is another very important aspect of this issue. You know that in present times, militancy has emerged in different parts of the world in the name of jihad. And prominent among these places is Kashmir. This militancy has produced no benefit at all. On the contrary, it has caused devastating damage, in that it has caused Islam to earn the image of being a violent religion. This bad name that has been given to it has stopped the progress of Islam that had been carrying on continuously for the last 1000 years.
If you enter into a peace treaty with India, it will not benefit just Pakistan alone. Rather, because of it, a new, healthy process will be set in motion in the entire Muslim world. After this, the present violent tendencies will give way to a dawah-oriented outlook.
Present-day commentators see Pakistan as a possible ‘nuclear flashpoint’. But if you act with courage and enter into a Hudaybiya-like peace treaty, Pakistan will become a ‘dawah flashpoint’ instead.
I suppose adopting a policy of reconciliation with regard to Kashmir would be a risk as far as your popularity is concerned. But the answer to this apprehension is provided in the Quran (4:128), which tells us that ‘reconciliation is best’. This means that if in contentious matters one avoids confrontation, and, instead, agrees to reconciliation, it is much better from the point of view of results.
In life, every big success entails risks. You are aware that France’s colonial policies in Africa greatly weakened it. But General de Gaulle boldly, and in a unilateral way, ended this policy. The result of this was that the General’s popularity in France nosedived, but today this ‘de Guallism’ is regarded as a successful foreign policy because, due to it, France gained new strength after the Second World War.
May God help you in every way!
Wahiduddin
They Sat Together, Talked, and Then Departed
On 14th July 2001, the then Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf arrived in Delhi. The then Indian Prime Minister wanted the geographical and political status quo in Jammu and Kashmir to be maintained while normal relations were established between India and Pakistan in all other matters. This was essential for the progress of both countries. But the Pakistani President’s demand was that, first of all, the status quo in Jammu and Kashmir should be changed, and, according to his claim, Pakistan’s right over the entire state should be accepted. Only after that would he agree to normal relations between the two countries. Given these two different perspectives on the issue, the talks that were held between the leaders of the two countries on the occasion failed.
When General Pervez Musharraf arrived in India, he spoke, to begin with, in such a manner that it appeared that he had come to India with the intention of reconciliation. For instance, in a speech at the Rashtrapati Bhavan in New Delhi, he said that no military solution of the Kashmir conflict was possible. Similarly, at a press conference in Agra, he spoke about ‘acceptance of reality’. He also said that he had come to India with an open mind. Yet, later, without entering into any realistic reconciliation, he returned to Pakistan.
As far as I can gauge, General Musharraf apprehended fierce emotional reaction on the part of the Pakistani public, and that is why he could not enter into any reconciliation with India and returned home. According to one commentator, ‘General Pervez Musharraf knew that the emotionally-charged people of Pakistan, who cannot tolerate defeat by India even on the cricket pitch, would definitely not tolerate political defeat by India in Kashmir.’
The Pakistani President must have known that if he entered into a compromise with India on Kashmir, the Pakistani public would have considered it their political defeat and he would have become the target of their ire. But, on the other hand, not compromising and reconciling with India on Kashmir would have only further worsened Pakistan’s woeful economic conditions, which would have led to the Pakistani public becoming even more disillusioned with General Musharraf.
In such a situation, the Pakistani President had to choose between two evils, one of which would ruin his political career. It was for him to decide which of the two was a lesser evil, and then choose it over the greater evil.
In my opinion, accepting the Indian position on Kashmir would have been opting for the ‘lesser evil’ from the point of view of Pakistan, because it would have been tantamount simply to Pakistan acknowledging something that it had already lost. In return for this, Pakistan would have been rewarded with the opening of doors of progress that have so far been closed to it. And if, on the contrary, the Government of Pakistan did not accept the Indian position on Kashmir and continued its undeclared war with India, the devastating consequence would be that not only would Pakistan continue to be deprived of what it has lost, but that it would, in addition, see the worsening of its economic devastation – which is already intolerable.
Auspicious Beginning, Ominous Result
Self-styled ‘Islamic’ groups in Pakistan and fundamentalists in India seem to be distinct from each other in terms of their beliefs. But at the practical level, both are almost identical. Both claim that they alone are the saviour of their respective countries. But the fact is that perhaps no one has caused more harm than they to their own countries.
The reason for this is that although both groups claim to be well-wishers of their respective countries, both are also extremists. And not even a single home, leave alone an entire country, can properly run on the basis of extremism.
Take the case of Islamist groups in Pakistan. These people have been active in Pakistan ever since 1947. They appear to have succeeded in getting many of their demands met. Yet, these successes of theirs have not brought about positive results, in the wider sense of the term, for their country.
One can cite several examples from Pakistani political history to substantiate this point. Here I will restrict myself only to the problem of Kashmir. In line with their particular mindset, Pakistani Islamist groups have labeled the Kashmiri movement not as a Kashmiri nationalist one, but, rather, as a jihad.
In a nationalist movement, practical realities are always the decisive factor. Because of this, nationalist movements always have a certain flexibility and allow for the possibility of adjustment. But jihad is a matter of religious belief. When something is deemed to be connected with jihad, people who are linked to it lose their flexibility and their willingness to accept adjustments. This is because with regard to jihad they believe that even if by following their present policy they obtain nothing, still their success lies in giving up their lives by doing whatever they are doing. In dying in the course of what they think is a jihad they believe that they will directly reach heaven.
Developments show that secularist quarters in Pakistan are ready to adopt a policy of adjustment with India on the Kashmir question. But the Islamist camp in Pakistan is vociferously opposed to this. They have made this issue so emotionally-laden that many Pakistanis have now come to believe that whether or not they are able to reach and conquer Srinagar, they will certainly reach heaven by fighting for this cause! In this way, the Pakistani Islamist groups have become a major obstacle in the way of Pakistan adopting a policy of adjustment on Kashmir, although history tells us that such a policy has always been the sole means of success for any people or nation.
Now take the case of India. Fundamentalists in India are playing the same sort of negative role as Pakistani Islamists. Religious fundamentalism promotes among its advocates an extreme sense of self-righteousness. A consequence of this mentality is that people who are infected by it develop tendencies towards extremism and fanaticism. Such people are concerned only about themselves and care nothing at all about others. They think of themselves as right in all matters, and of others as always and inevitably wrong. They think that they alone, and no one else, deserve consideration.
After Independence, the fundamentalist lobby in India became very active. As an example of the negative results of their stance, I would like to cite the outcome of General Pervez Musharraf’s visit to India in July 2011 at the invitation of the Government of India.
The Pakistani President met Indian leaders in Delhi and Agra, and, to begin with, this programme of meetings seemed to give cause for hope. But later, a certain bitterness crept in, so that the meeting between Indian and Pakistani leaders ended without a joint declaration being issued. The Pakistani President’s visit had been a failure.
What caused this failure? According to me, one major reason was the inflexible attitude of certain Indian fundamentalist leaders. Because of their rigid mindset, they were unable to deal effectively with the Pakistani President, and that is one reason for the failure of the meeting.
For more than half a century now, I have been of the opinion that the only possible solution to the Kashmir problem is for both countries to accept the current Line of Actual Control in Jammu and Kashmir as the established border between India and Pakistan. Obviously, this is a very bitter pill for Pakistan to swallow. This is why, in order to make this proposal acceptable, one needs to act with great wisdom. Without this, it is impossible to succeed. You cannot win by abusing your opponent. But you can certainly win by showing appropriate consideration and love.
When General Pervez Musharraf came to India, he gave several hints from which one could estimate that he was ready for dialogue and reconciliation. He said he had come to India with an open mind. Visiting his ancestral home in Delhi, he indicated that he was an Indian by birth, and that this was why he naturally had a soft corner in his heart for India. In his speech at the Rashtrapati Bhavan, he commented that there could be no military solution to the Kashmir dispute. At a press conference in Agra, he spoke about the acceptance of reality and the need for a step-by-step approach. And so on.
These sorts of gestures from the Pakistani President suggested that he was ready for a reconciliatory approach. He wanted to end the Kashmir conflict. But our leaders, owing to their fundamentalist outlook, could not reap the benefit of his gestures. And so, a great potentially historic event failed to happen.
Our Indian fundamentalist leaders should have known that, irrespective of whatever agreement General Musharraf might concede to, he had to return to his country. Hence, they should have been very careful and wise in their utterances, so that when General Musharraf returned to Islamabad, he would not be greeted with black flags. But because of the inflexible attitude of our leaders and their unrealistic utterances, all talk of reconciliation suddenly and dramatically evaporated. How something that started off on a very positive note ended up on a disappointing note was widely discussed in the media, and I do not need to deal with it here.
Resolving a conflict requires great wisdom as well as full consideration for the other party. When it comes to one’s personal interests, everyone knows how important this is. But when it comes to the question of national interests, people quickly forget this, and behave as if this were an alien idea.
The Work to Be Done
The history of the last few hundred years in Kashmir can be divided into three major periods. In the first period, the people of Kashmir were influenced by Sufis. The arrival of Sufis in Kashmir benefitted the Kashmiris in that they received the gift of Islam through them. The vast majority of Kashmiris converted to Islam. But for many Kashmiris, Islam became synonymous with culture. Most Kashmiris were wedded to the graves and shrines (dargahs) of the Sufis. They took to reciting particular types of litanies with great care, as if this itself was Islam in its totality. A negative fall-out of this shrine-based understanding of Islam or ‘cultural Islam’ was that no true, deeper understanding of Islam developed that could have enabled the people to see things in a proper and far-sighted manner. This unawareness made the Kashmiris vulnerable to negative politics that bore no relation to authentic Islam. Neither did such politics provide the Kashmiris with any worldly benefit.
Islam provides Man with a spiritual centre. It teaches Man the appropriate method of worship. It provides Man with a Divine culture. As far as I know, the people of Kashmir learned about these aspects of Islam, but there was another aspect of Islam whose benefit they remained cut off from to a great extent. And that was the building up of the intellect. The education and nurturing of the Kashmiris was not done in a manner that would enkindle in them the proper Islamic awareness. It is perhaps right to say that while the Kashmiris embraced Islam at the religious level, they did not succeed in going very far in terms of the transformation of their awareness on Islamic lines.
Stirred up by the slogans raised by some leaders in the early years of the 20th century, the Kashmiris began mobilising against the then Dogra Raj. If this is looked at from the Islamic point of view, it was an emotional outburst. And so, we see that, despite appearing to be successful, this movement played no role in the building of the Kashmiris’ future. The movement against Dogra rule was more the expression of the boldness of some political leaders than the expression of Islamic awareness in the true sense of the term.
After 1947, a new period of movements emerged among the Kashmiris. In this period, the people of Kashmir were influenced by two major movements. One was in the name of secularism, and the other was in the name of Islam. Both these movements, once again, were the products of the political aims of some leaders. They were not born of Islamic awareness in the real sense of the term.
After 1947, secularist leaders carried on their movement in the name of Kashmiri independence as well as in the name of accession to Pakistan. Some leaders benefitted from these movements by becoming famous and gaining in material terms, but as far as the Kashmiri public was concerned, they were running towards a non-existent target. These movements were completely pointless and futile—they had a beginning, but they had no end.
Another section of Kashmiri leaders launched a movement for what they called ‘Islamic Kashmir’ and the establishment of the what they called the ‘Prophetic System’ or Nizam-e Mustafa. These people took the name of Islam, but they really had no assets, as it were, other than mere wishful thinking and emotionalism. They were driven by romantic emotions, and drove others, too, all the while imagining that they were moving in the direction of Islam. But the fact is that, leave alone benefitting Islam, their movement did not benefit even the Kashmiris in worldly terms. This world is a world of practical realities. Here it is not possible to gain positive results from emotional politics.
It is because of the failure of these movements that after 1989, the Kashmiri movement took to the path of violence. The violent and destructive movement that emerged among the Kashmiris was a result of their frustration. To begin with, they followed their foolish leaders on a completely pointless course. And then, when in accordance with the law of nature these movements proved useless, they became frustrated and agitated and launched an armed struggle.
The proper way now for the Kashmiris is to reassess their entire history. Admitting their past mistakes, they should make new plans for their future. It is a fact that the Kashmiris have lost their ‘first chance’. And so, now the only possible way out for them is to understand, in a very conscious way, what their ‘second chance’ is, and to willingly use it, and in the right way.
For the Kashmiris to embark on building their lives once again, they need to focus, in particular, on three things: education, economic development and dawah.
The Kashmiris should abstain completely from politics and the gun. They must focus particularly on education, setting up educational institutions across the state. For at least 25 years, they should relinquish all other projects and concentrate on the education of their children.
The state of Jammu and Kashmir has great potential for trade and industry. Till now, the Kashmiri Muslims have taken very little advantage of this potential. They must now focus on trade and industry.
The third field which the Kashmiri Muslims should focus on is dawah. By dawah I mean communicating the message of Islam to others. In this regard, the Kashmiri Muslims have before them two very large fields of action—one being the non-Muslims of Jammu and Kashmir, and the other being the tourists who flock in large numbers to Kashmir.
If peace could be established in Kashmir, the tourism industry would greatly expand. From the dawah point of view, this would be of immense benefit, with people of different faiths coming in contact with the Kashmiri Muslims. If the Kashmiris avail of this opportunity in the right way, it would in itself suffice for their success in this world and in the Hereafter.
Kashmir, Replica of Paradise
Once upon a time, Kashmir used to be called jannat nazeer, which means ‘replica of paradise’. Many centuries ago, when a Persian poet saw Kashmir, he exclaimed:
If there is heaven on earth, it is here! It is here! It is here!
When in the past Kashmir was referred to as a ‘replica of paradise’, it was not ruled by the ‘Kashmiri people’. It was ruled by the Mughals, and, later, by others, and then by the Dogras. In this entire period, Kashmir remained a ‘replica of paradise’. People would come to see it from all over the world. If in the Indian subcontinent the Taj Mahal was the epitome of architectural beauty, Kashmir was the epitome of natural beauty.
From this history of Kashmir, we learn that for Kashmir to be considered a ‘replica of paradise’ on earth, it was not at all necessary that it be ruled by a so-called government of the ‘Kashmiri people’. Governing power is actually a sort of political headache. Irrespective of whoever’s fate it is to suffer this political headache, Kashmir will remain Kashmir. The people of Kashmir need nothing for their progress other than their own constructive activities.
The Quran refers to everything that relates to what is good for human beings. But there is no mention of freedom in the sense of political freedom. This shows that ‘freedom’ is simply a deceptive term. It does not have any real meaningfulness. A clear practical proof of this is that today there are some 60 Muslim countries that, after immense sacrifices, won freedom from European colonial rule. But, in reality, these countries are not free. What happened in these Muslim countries was that the fight against an external foe later transformed into civil war. This might well happen with the Kashmiris, too. Either they keep up their so-called war of independence, which is bound to degenerate from being an externally-directed war into a devastating civil war, or else they end their present political conflict and focus all their energies on construction and progress.
In July 2001, I spent a week in Switzerland, attending an international conference. There was an 80 year-old Kashmiri lady in our team, who, when taken to various places of interest by the organisers, was so overwhelmed by the beauty of Switzerland that she exclaimed, ‘Our Kashmir was once as beautiful as this, but today it is devastated!’
Who destroyed Kashmir? No Government was responsible for this. The only people to blame were those foolish leaders who, with their emotionally-driven rhetoric, inflamed the Kashmiri youth and pushed them on to the destructive path of militancy. If these leaders had instead set these youth on the path of education and constructive work, perhaps Kashmir would have been even better than Switzerland today. But the inept guidance of these incapable leaders so terribly damaged Kashmir that even an entire century will not suffice to make amends for it.
It is indispensable now for the Kashmiri people to completely abandon militancy and forever. They must adopt the way of peaceful construction. If the people of Kashmir were to do this wholeheartedly and sincerely, it would open a new and glorious chapter in Kashmir’s history.
