The Kashmir issue, viewed from first principles

by Sanjeev Sabhlok

.

Freedom First has recently completed an extensive discussion on Kashmir, but in my order of things to write on, Kashmir has only now come up. I have seen the results of the discussions on Freedom First, and this article reflects a consolidated view I have formed after decades of thinking about the Kashmir issue. I hope this article provides a useful framework for consideration of this challenging issue.

.

Tensions pulling in opposite directions

.

The philosophy of freedom generates two fundamental tensions in relation to nations: one centripetal, the other centrifugal. The first is the territorial principle; the other people-focused. The first relates to national integrity, the other to individual sovereignty and freedom.

.

In the draft manuscript Discovery of Freedom (http://discovery.sabhlokcity.com/) I call the territorial domain the fortress. No society can be free if its borders are not well defined and well-defended. But note that in creating national boundaries no civilized principle applies: only brute force. Life is the survival of the fittest. A nation that loses control over territory loses it permanently. Nothing more can be done about it. There is no court of appeal.

.

The second vital tension relates to the purpose of a nation. Nations are not sovereign; their people are. National boundaries are merely matters of our convenience. We create nations so our taxes can be used within a particular geographical boundary and not be spent randomly on Eskimos. Nations are about a practical social contract, not about land worship.

.

There is yet another tension, that of history. In the case of Kashmir, we need to be aware of India’s commitments and treaties. We also need to put ourselves in the shoes of affected people: the Muslims who work within the J&K government and support India, and Kashmiri Pandits who have been forced at gunpoint to flee Kashmir.

.

Let me discuss these issues further.

.

1. The fortress

.

India’s partition was essentially a communal award. Pakistan is the only purely Islamic nation. That religion as a basis for nations is totally unworkable is irrelevant now. Our ancestors thought it was. We should take that as a given. In addition, there was a role for the princely states who could choose independence, or accede to either India or Pakistan.

.

The Muslim ruler of Hindu majority Junagarh (that borders India and Pakistan) acceded to Pakistan. India did not accept this, took over Junagarh by force after which a 1948 plebiscite confirmed Junagarh being part of India. Similarly, India rejected the Nizam of Hyderabad’s desire to maintain a separate nation. Brute force is consistent with the way national boundaries are determined and so liberalism has nothing to say on the merits of these cases.

.

When the Hindu raja of Muslim majority Kashmir fled Srinagar under conditions of chaos and anarchy, he notionally acceded to India. Nehru flew planes into Srinagar and took over the Valley, contradicting the communal award (Kashmir being a Muslim-majority territory), but that was permitted as part of the partition arrangements outlined above. Pakistani troops, on the other side, took over Azad Kashmir through tribals acting as their front. Kashmir was divided.

.

Unfortunately, Nehru did not close the matter vigorously, regardless of the pros and cons of the situation. Instead, he agreed to cease hostilities but committed to a plebiscite, a commitment that he repeated on every possible occasion. Such idealism, inconsistent with a liberal’s understanding of territory and nationhood, cost India dearly through the subsequent confusion it generated in everyone’s mind.

.

Idealism and emotions have no place in considerations of national territory. Azad Kashmir, being within Pakistan’s control, must now be formally treated as a part of Pakistan unless we want to attack this nuclear power. Similarly, India must firmly insist that Kashmir valley is Indian territory and withdraw its complaint to the UN.

.

In considering the future of Kashmir we must ask that if Kashmir were to become independent (assuming Pakistan agreed) would it be sustainable? Even the most cursory analysis shows it wont’. Leaving aside the innate instability of Pakistan which will never permit to remain independent, even China will seek to use it as a base to intervene in India. So the case for India is clear. Freeze the boundaries, redraw the maps, and, if possible, take back the Karakoram highway from China.

.

2. Sovereignty of individuals

.

The liberal is firm that nations are subordinate to individuals. We the sovereign individuals delegate our powers to nations, not the other way around. The purpose of nations – to ensure our freedoms – must be served, else their existence is meaningless. So the next question, once international boundaries are fixed, is this: Do the current arrangements defend and protect the freedoms of all Indians, including those who live in Kashmir?

.

In BFN (online notes) I wrote: “Forcing people to stay with us at the point of a gun is not the way to grow either our children or others’ children.” Unless the people of Kashmir feel convinced that they are fully respected and that their freedoms are respected, imposing the concept of India on them would amount to a violation of the social contract. Kashmiris must be genuinely free, else there is no point having them integrate with India.

.

But how can the people of Kashmir be free if Indians are not free! Indian governments have been wedded to the failed policies of socialism for over sixty years. India continues to be a statist society with too many barriers to freedom and prosperity. None cares even remotely for our freedoms. So how can such gangsters ensure anyone else’s freedom? We have the most obtuse colonial governance system one can imagine, that has almost made India a failed state. How can a miserably misgoverned nation like India provide freedom to anyone, leave alone Kashmir?

.

Given half a chance, everyone in India (including Kashmiris) makes a beeline for permanent residency visas for USA, UK, Australia, because India has nothing to offer to anyone but misgovernance and corruption. When all India has to offer us are gangsters who loot us, who in his right mind wants to be part of this madhouse that calls itself a “nation”?

.

Having established international boundaries firmly, I therefore don’t recommend integrating Kashmir as an immediate action, but liberating the whole of India (including Kashmir) first. Let’s change the game. If freedom and prosperity can be assured to everyone, the Kashmiris will want to remain with India. Else this will remain an illiberal and anti-people arrangement.

.

In particular, if people can't be free in India and must be imposed upon by Hindu fanatics then the concept of India becomes totally irrelevant. What such people want is a Hindu state. In that case not more than a handful of high quality Indians will remain behind. The claims of BJP regarding Kashmir are untenable if they simultaneously want to impose Hinduism or Hindu conceptions on India.

.

Let's all become clear first - that India is a country for all Indians who must be free to lead the kind of life they wish. Else the conception of India is untenable. It can't be held together by force. That is impossible. If anything can unite India, it is the idea of freedom. Nothing less will do. With freedom and associated wealth, Kashmiris will become desperate to remain in India, and its integration will be complete.

.

3. Historical evolution

The third perspective about Kashmir considers its unique history. Apart from the confusing commitments to a plebiscite, Kashmir’s accession to India was not done properly. Kashmir continues to have a separate constitution and Article 370 of the Indian Constitution gives it a privileged status. That is totally inappropriate.

.

Regarding the many things that Nehru said and committed to, and other subsequent treaties, I have now come to the view that these are now irrelevant, having been overtaken by many other events. Time doesn't stand still, so we can't go back. We must now treat the water that has already flowed, as having flowed and gone forever. New solutions are needed, with a focus on freedom and good governance. In that lies Kashmir's salvation. In that lies India's salvation and future.

.

Conclusion

.

Kashmir must be firmly treated as a part of India. But its full integration must not be done at gunpoint. Instead, we must offer Kashmiris (and all Indians) genuine freedom. The following must be ensured, simultaneously: (a) all areas in India must be treated on par; (b) all Indians must be treated on par (ie. reservations must go); (c) all poverty must be eliminated; (d) all corruption must go; and (e) total freedom (subject to accountability) must be ensured.

.

This will mean giving everyone the freedom to trade and live anywhere in India. This freedom doesn’t yet exist, such as in many NE states and tribal areas. All these qualifications on Indians’ liberties must go. By abolishing special privileges for Kashmir and other areas, free movement of all Indians into Kashmir (and other areas) will be ensured, just as Kashmiris can move anywhere else in India and acquire property should they so desire.

.

Once all these freedoms are simultaneously assured, the Indians in Kashmir will appreciate and welcome the benefits of living in free India. The full integration of Kashmir will then be achieved seamlessly, without force.

.

For that to happen, a liberal political party must take charge of policy making in India. Only the liberals can resolve the many intractable problems that India faces.

.

Freedom Team of India

The Freedom Team of India (http://freedomteam.in/) is engaged in the effort to bring freedom and good governance to India, a task in which Indian liberals are invited to join. Become a Freedom Partner!

MR. SANJEEV SABHLOK can be contacted at sabhlok@yahoo.com