Why the Scotland referendum shows bullying won’t solve the Kashmir issue

London: Given the predictable and highly polarised reactions in both India and Pakistan to the debate in Britain’s parliament on the Kashmir issue, Hasan Suroor, who has been watching and analysing the same ritual play out year after year in London writes in Firstpost, that the breathless excitement in Indian media, and within the diplomatic community over this empty ritual is symptomatic of India’s unwillingness to come to terms with the fact that its claim about Kashmir being an “integral” part of the country is not universally accepted.

At a time when the United Kingdom faces the prospect of a break-up with Scotland holding a referendum, to decide whether or not to continue its 300-year old union with Britain, the exercise holds important lessons for India and Kashmir, Hasan Suroor writes. He says, it is interesting to see how Britain is approaching it- not by bullying or intimidation but by love-bombing the Scots, begging them to stay on, and promising to reward them with greater autonomy if they reject independence.

In India, on the other hand, he says, not only is the autonomy guaranteed to Kashmir at the time of its accession being progressively whittled down over the years, the Modi government’s official policy is to scrap Article 370 which gives it special status.

This he says, is a prescription for further alienating the Kashmiris and pushing them into the pro-azadi camp whereas the effort should be to win their hearts and minds- if necessary by bribing them, as the Brits are doing, offering them inducements they cannot reject.

The twenty- first century, Suroor says, is the age of “multinational statehood” and large nations with culturally diverse populations need people’s consent to govern them. It is no longer possible to impose consent from London, Moscow and Delhi. It has to be earned.

Hasan Suroor points out that from time to time, British MPs instigated by their Pakistani-origin voters perform a ritual: they get the House of Commons to debate a motion on Kashmir asking their Government to mediate in the dispute. At the end of a usually desultory and thinly-attended debate, which takes place not in the House but one of the committee rooms, another ritual is repeated: a junior Foreign Office minister (never the Foreign Secretary himself) stands up to reiterate the government’s position that it has no intention to mediate as it regards Kashmir as a bilateral issue to be resolved by India and Pakistan themselves.

A third ritual then follows, as if on cue: both Indians and Pakistanis- the diplomats of the two countries, their media and community activists, then rush to claim “moral victory”. Pakistanis boast that the fact that British Parliament discussed the issue at all was a recognition of their position while Indians hail its outcome as a “vindication” of India’s policy against foreign intervention.

Back in India and Pakistan, people read their respective journalists’ patriotic and suitably slanted accounts. The British media, of course, doesn’t give a toss to a non-debate and so you’re hardly likely to find a mention in a major London newspaper.

Here’s a flavour of an Indian media report after a debate last week.

“The Indian government is furious…India has always considered any debate on Kashmir by British parliamentarians as an interference in India’s internal affairs…Kashmir being topmost on Pakistan’s diplomatic agenda, its missions exploit the local Pakistani community to persuade MPs to reflect their point of view in such debate,’’ the report said adding, for good measure, “Those reflecting India’s stance on Kashmir were well prepared. Not only did they seem to have been well briefed, but had done their own home work. By comparison, the apologists for Islamabad indulged in ISI-inspired

propaganda, including questioning the legitimacy of elections in Kashmir….Had there been a vote, the pro-India lobby would have won hands down.”

Suroor says, he’s been watching this routine for well over a decade and each time, he is struck by how otherwise sober and liberal Indians and Pakistanis suddenly turn embarrassingly jingoistic over Kashmir. Pakistanis, obsessed as they are with Kashmir, are expected to react as they do, especially as Britain is home to a large population of Mirpuris who hail from the Pakistan Occupied region of Kashmir.

But what about Indians? British Indians have always regarded themselves as a cut above Pakistanis-  more sophisticated , broadminded, and  liberal. Once they famously sought not be lumped with other Asians demanding that rather than being referred to as “British Asians” they should be called “British Indians” to distinguish them from their lesser subcontinental neighbours.

So, why when it comes to Kashmir, do they start to sound so much like the benighted Pakistanis? They say: “no, no we’ve no quarrel with Pakistanis: we object to British Parliament interfering in an issue that is India’s internal affair.’’

And that, Suroor points out, is the nub. The Indian reaction, he says, represents India’s unwillingness to come to terms with the fact that its claim about Kashmir being an “integral” part of the country is not universally accepted.

He writes, that there is something called a “Kashmir dispute” and just because the international community has left it to the two countries to resolve it does not mean that it has ceased to exist; or that the world accepts either Delhi’s or Islamabad’s claims at face value.

Suroor says that India appears to not have noticed that its notion of absolute national sovereignty passed its sell-by date more than two decades ago. The whole international doctrine of national sovereignty and what constitutes a country’s internal affairs has changed profoundly in recent years, he writes, especially since the territorial meltdown in Eastern Europe and the Balkans following the collapse of the Soviet Union.

The partition of Sudan, the growling momentum of secessionist movements in Africa, and the push for autonomy in the Muslim world- not to mention what’s happening in Ukraine, are all signs of the changing times.

Human rights, people’s will and their right to self-determination have trumped the old idea of absolute immutable national sovereignty and non-negotiable territorial integrity. 

This is why Suroor writes that Scotland’s referendum over becoming an independent nation, by breaking away from the United Kingdom, holds key lessons for India and Kashmir- especially in the manner in which Britain is coping with it- not through violence, or coercion or anger, but through molly-coddling with kid-gloves. There is no bullying or intimidation in UK’s approach, Suroor writes, instead the British are begging the Scots to stay on, and promising to reward them with greater autonomy if they reject independence.

Suroor is also critical of the Narendra Modi government’s official policy to scrap Article 370 which gives it special status. He considers it a prescription for further alienating the Kashmiris and pushing them into the pro-azadi camp, instead of trying to win their hearts and minds and even bribing them with inducements they cannot reject. Like everything else, Suroor says, loyalty has a price tag; and how much you are willing to pay shows much you value a relationship.

For all the talk of a “new” India, Suroor writes, regrettably, its worldview and diplomacy remain stuck in the mid-twentieth century with old notions of nationhood and sovereignty. The times he says have changed to an age of “multinational statehood” and large nations with culturally diverse populations that seek people’s consent to govern them. Governance, he points out, has to be earned in the current day and age. Jackboots have had their day.

And if you cannot resolve a dispute yourself there’s no shame, Suroor says, in seeking others’ help to facilitate a settlement. The peace in Northern Ireland was restored not by the army but through long and tortuous negotiations facilitated by the then US president Bill Clinton leading to an agreement to give the province huge powers to govern itself through its own parliament.

India, by contrast, neither wants to involve outsiders, nor it seems does it like to do much talking itself- either with Kashmiris or the other party to the dispute. Ideally, it doesn’t want to do anything because the status quo suits it.

But, says Hasan Suroor, it’s often forgotten that what India has been doing in Kashmir, is essentially managing a holding operation. It has already gone on for too long, and a holding operation, by definition, cannot be sustained forever. He calls for India to have a more grown-up Kashmir policy consistent with the new global approach to secessionist tendencies.

Follow this link to join our WhatsApp group: Join Now

MONTHLY	Rs 100
YEARLY	Rs 1000
LIFETIME	Rs 10000

CLICK FOR DETAILS