NEWSLINKS
US EDITION
COLUMNISTS
DIARY
SPECIALS
INTERVIEWS
CAPITAL BUZZ
REDIFF POLL
THE STATES
ELECTIONS
ARCHIVES
SEARCH REDIFF

Search the Internet          Tips

Recent Columns

Of symbolic and real      fights Sounding the bugle      and backing off! Secularism and      appeasement Are we joining the ranks      of Bosnia and Rwanda? NRIs need a new      mantra

And now for trifurcating J&K

The suggestion by the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh to split Jammu & Kashmir into three distinct territories has raised a furore in the country along well-known ideological lines. It is rather tragic that in India today every suggestion or decision is seen through the prism of ideology and religion with words like pseudo-secularism and pseudo-patriotism flying forth and generating heat rather than light.

It is a tragic reflection on how little faith the RSS inspires in scores of Indians that any suggestion emanating from it is shot down and seen pejoratively. The reason is, unfortunately for India, that any suggestion by the RSS tends to be motivated by not what is best for India, but what is best for Hindu India.

Take the demand for trifurcating Jammu & Kashmir. Ironically, there is nothing fundamentally wrong with the demand that a large state like Jammu and Kashmir be split into smaller states. The debate between the advantages and disadvantages of big states versus small states is old, and much empirical evidence shows that small states tend to do better, even though they have their own set of problems. Thus, in north India, Punjab and Haryana are doing well as compared to the gigantic Uttar Pradesh and Rajasthan.

Even prosperous Maharashtra has seen demands for partition and the creation of a separate Vidarbha state. Ditto Andhra Pradesh, where the demand for a separate Telangana tends to come up every now and then. And some years ago there was the demand to partition West Bengal, allowing the Nepalese-dominated northern regions to become a separate state. We already know how Assam was splintered into many states, with still more segments within Assam asking to be separate, or how undivided Punjab was split into three states.

Let us never deride the fact that every society or segment of society fears its identity and culture being swamped, whether within the country or a province. Smaller segments within a state or province have legitimate fears of being overridden by larger and more powerful groups. When in the mid-1980s there was a demand for a separate Gorkhaland carved out in northern West Bengal, among the many factors responsible was that ethnically, linguistically, and culturally, Bengalis and Nepalis do not have much in common. Can a Nepali ever become the chief minister of Bengal? Was it not similar fears that led the Biharis, decades ago, to demand -- and get -- a Bihar state separate from Bengal?

When the first states were created in independent India, the principal organising factor was language. In the case of India's northeastern states, the key factor was ethnic tribes. The creation of Jharkhand, Uttaranchal, and Chhattisgarh now means that a state can be created for being a distinct territory within a huge province.

So, on principle, if India can allow the creation of a Jharkhand and an Uttaranchal, why can it not allow Ladakh and Jammu to split from the Kashmir valley? After all, there are differences of language and culture and each region is a distinct territory. And are they not citizens entitled to the same rights?

The sad answer lies in the religious prism through which India is seen these days: Jammu, Kashmir, Ladakh are, by and large, Hindu, Muslim, and Buddhist majority regions, respectively.

Given the RSS history of seeing everything through religious lenses, there is no doubt the same is the case with its demand for trifurcating the state. The RSS is not overly bothered about administration or economy or the like. It is worried about the spread of Islam into Jammu and Ladakh. [They would, of course, have had no such compunction had it been Hindu influence spreading into the valley.]

The RSS demand would have sounded truer if it had also asked that ungovernable Uttar Pradesh be split up. Incidentally, the RSS in its internal administrative divisions marks Uttar Pradesh as four distinct regions.

Also, one hopes the RSS understands that should Jammu, Kashmir, and Ladakh be split, there is every reason to fear that at some future date, Kashmir [comprising the valley] might not remain a part of India. Is the RSS actually prepared for that? [Note: one of the two most suggested solutions to resolving the Kashmir dispute is to let the valley go to Pakistan while India keeps Jammu and Ladakh; the other is converting the Line of Control into an international border]. Or is the RSS gambling that should the Kashmir valley ever go to Pakistan, the resultant Hindu backlash might lead to a Hindu republic?

On the other hand, many who have often argued for smaller states have rejected the trifurcation demand for no reason other than that it was voiced by the RSS. That too is wrong.

To those who oppose the demand for splitting up the state, let us never forget that worldwide most political boundaries are imperial legacies. We live in an era when we seek to undo imperial legacies. For centuries, Ladakh was a separate kingdom with its own language, culture, and values, cut off from the larger kingdoms surrounding it. This land came into the Indian sphere of influence when it nominally accepted the suzerainty of the Mughal emperor.

And it was only in the 19th century that Sikh general Zorawar Singh actually marched up to Ladakh and captured it, making it part of the then large Sikh kingdom. When the British defeated the Sikhs, this nation of shopkeepers actually allowed the Dogras to buy [what was conveniently called] the Kashmir kingdom [comprising Jammu, Kashmir, Ladakh, Gilgit, Baltistan, the present-day Northern Territories, and huge tracts of land that then bordered Afghanistan, Tibet, Turkmenistan]. Thus Ladakh as part of Kashmir is a historical legacy of imperialism.

Why must independent India honour such imperialism when it has willingly undone other similar cases? One can legitimately also ask why the Dogras, Kashmiris, and Ladakhis are part of the same state when Hindi-speaking Uttaranchalis are no longer part of Hindi-speaking Uttar Pradesh.

In seeking to deal with the Kashmiris and their many painful problems, let us not sweep under the carpet the grievances and legitimate concerns of other groups such as the Ladakhis simply because they happen to be fewer in number or protest non-violently, and therefore appear less important.

Rather than outright rejection, their pleas need to be considered carefully and then decided upon.

ALSO READ:
Of Kashmir, nationalism, and rights
Let the people vote to be a part of this nation
Small states an answer to people's alienation

Amberish K Diwanji