NEWSLINKS
US EDITION
COLUMNISTS
DIARY
SPECIALS
INTERVIEWS
CAPITAL BUZZ
REDIFF POLL
DEAR REDIFF
THE STATES
YEH HAI INDIA!
ELECTION 99
ELECTIONS
ARCHIVES

Search Rediff

Coping with the K word

In the midst of the huge bonfire of vanities that recently took place in the United States where Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee, as usual, had his last say in immaculate rashtrabhasha, the only discordant note was struck each time the K word was brought up.

Brajesh Mishra, invariably suave and self-assured, looked completely flustered whenever Kashmir was mentioned by the hosts and picked up by the media. It was obvious to anyone that the high powered Indian delegation was not exactly comfortable with discussing or responding to any proposition that involved our border state. Even the most innocuous reference was firmly frowned upon. It was almost as if someone had mentioned Gurkhaland to Jyoti Basu or Vidarbha to Bal Thackeray.

But why are we so sensitive to references made to Kashmir by foreigners? In fact, our own government keeps making the grievous mistake of referring to Kashmir all the time without realising that no such state exists in India. What we have actually is the state of Jammu and Kashmir as Karan Singh keeps pointing out. However, in recent years, we have succumbed to the temptation of calling it Kashmir in short and thereby, in a semantic sense, helped the Pakistan government to confuse the issue further.

But that is merely a diversion. The larger issue is far more important. The issue of the K word. Should we, in this age of globalisation, where barriers and boundaries for trade and commerce are so easily crumbling, still be so resentful, so suspicious whenever Kashmir is mentioned in global forums? After all, like every other conflict, this too must find a solution. A quick solution if possible. It is a festering wound for modern India and we must recognise it as such. It serves no purpose to wish it away. And even if we want, we cannot simply because Kashmir represents not only all that is going wrong with this subcontinent but, in a larger sense, all that is going wrong in several other parts of the world where Islamic fundamentalism has struck in different guises.

The guises may differ from region to region, the masks may be many but the truth is simply this: resurgent Islam is looking for opportunities to grow and export their jehad factories. And Kashmir today, whatever the origins of the conflict may have been, has become just another victim of this spiritual opportunism.

The only way we can fight this back is by bringing the truth more upfront. By, in a sense, globalising the issue, not suppressing it. The more India opens up, the more investors come in from all over the world to share in the huge business opportunities here, the more they will feel concerned about solving the problem of Jammu and Kashmir in a manner that best suits India's interests. As long as Kashmir remains only India's problem, we are actually the losers. It must be seen as a problem, a serious problem for the rest of the world.

That is where Pokhran II has actually helped. The nuclear arms race on this subcontinent has terrified everyone else. That is why the whole world is now so eager to resolve it. They cannot ignore its consequences any more. They cannot afford to say: let India and Pakistan fight and kill each other over Kashmir for all we care, it is not our problem. It is now everyone's problem. After Pokhran II, a conflict between India and Pakistan is everyone's problem because one mistake can blow us all up. Nuclearisation has brought the issue centrestage. It is now everyone's concern.

The way India is emerging as a major power, economic if not military, and the way Pakistan is slowly becoming a basket case, economically if not militarily, it may not actually be such a bad idea if we allowed the rest of the world to exert political if not economic pressure on Pakistan to stop making Jammu and Kashmir into such a bloody mess. Terrorism and Islamic fundamentalism suits no nation of the advanced world and by harping on cross border terrorism and the grim jehad factories of Pakistan, we have already scored a foreign policy coup of sorts where Pakistan is slowly finding itself more and more isolated. No, it has not been named a terrorist state as yet by the US Congress but that has not stopped most of the world from openly recognising the fact today that Pakistan sponsors and encourages terrorists.

This of course creates its own problems, as President Clinton was the first to point out. An isolated Pakistan run by a belligerent military chief can be far more dangerous, far more irresponsible than a Pakistan that is on speaking terms with the rest of the world and concerned about public opinion. Our neighbour has been, for five decades now, hugely dependent on US alms and arms and it is not entirely a bad idea to keep them that way so that the US can exert some kind of moral pressure on them rather than let them slip into complete anarchy and become even more dangerous for us.

Meanwhile, India must grow its business with the free world and emerge as an economic powerhouse. Therein lies our strength, our future. While a weak Pakistan will find it that much more difficult to sustain its mayhem and bloodshed in Kashmir.

Pritish Nandy

Tell us what you think of this column