Kashmir issue, who cares?

Farhan Qutab

I think both the Pakistanis and Indians have emotional attachments to Kashmir. But this is a question of honouring the Kashmiris' emotions more than those of Pakistanis or Indians.

The problem with Kashmir started immediately after freedom of India and Pakistan from the British. The partition of 1947 has some interesting facts about it but there are two that deserve attention.

The first is known by all that according to the partition plan, the Muslim majority areas would form Pakistan and Hindu majority areas would be included in India.

In Kashmir's case, though the population was predominantly Muslim, the ruler was not and he opted (or was made to) for the Hindu side of the sub-continent.

The second is known by very few; in another case, the state of Hyderabad with a Muslim Maharaja as the ruler, who did not opt for India, was also annexed by India through army action. The Indian army defeated the "Razakar" forces of the Nizam Hyderabad and put an end to its princely status in September 1948.

Though the Nizam went into oblivion and there was no reaction as such from the people, Kashmir became an issue as the Kashmiris did not bow to the Indian aggression.

Pakistan's attempts to help out the Kashmiris were not that successful as amusingly, the then British Army commander disobeyed the Governor General, Ali Jinnah and did not allow Pakistani troops to enter Kashmir, otherwise the story would have ended there and then.

So it was basically the Kashmiris themselves who liberated part of their homeland, now called the free Kashmir or the Azad Kashmir. On the contrary, Indian occupation of Kashmir was largely facilitated by its army as was the case in Hyderabad's annexation. The Kashmiris since then have struggled for liberation from India and in 1989, their struggle assumed massive proportions that is continuing to this day.

Laura's article (Aug. 25) plainly pinpoints that the issue could be easily decided if the Kashmiris were allowed to exercise their right to self determination. In Timor Leste's case, the people were allowed to do so. Whether it was UN persuasion, or the pressure from world powers, particularly the West, a poll was somehow held.

In Kashmir's case, interest in the UN or for that matter the international community is not there, the West is not at all interested. Yes, if Kashmir had oil wells, natural resources, mineral deposits, it would attract attention. Or at least if it had a majority non-Muslim population it would interest the West.
So in this respect, it is a different case as compared to Timor Leste, which had a majority Roman Catholic population to win the hearts and minds of the West.

So what happened in 1947, 1965, 1971 and then in 1999 between Pakistan and India, formed the basis of all conflicts in Kashmir, and it still does. So if the two stay out and let the Kashmiris decide for themselves under a watchful UN eye, as was the case in Timor Leste, there won't be any cause of cribbing for the two nuclear rivals any more.

-(From Jakarta Post)