Kashmir sans two-nation theory

Musharraf's formulation was a bolt from the blue because both the points had dominated the discussions in Pakistan practically from the time it came into existence. Quaid-e-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah, founder of Pakistan, described Kashmir as a "jugular vein." Yet, Musharraf cannot be faulted because he has, contrary to general impression, retrieved the two-nation theory in its original form, that is, Hindus and Muslims are two separate nations. Jinnah had, however, reinterpreted the two-nation theory after partition to mean that Pakistanis and the Indians constituted two different nations, not Muslims and Hindus. "You may belong to any religion or caste or creed. That has nothing to do with the business of the state," he had said. He had even introduced the joint electorate, hitherto separate because of the British intention to divide and rule.

Following the two-nation thesis, Musharraf has suggested Kashmir to be separated from Jammu and Ladakh. His words are: "Let us first define Kashmir." He may have in mind the Chenab as the Kashmir's boundary on the one side and Doda of the Jammu region on the other. Whatever the boundary, Musharraf is talking about the valley when it comes to Kashmir. The state of Jammu and Kashmir has three regions _ the valley, Ladakh and Jammu. The valley has a preponderant majority of Muslims, roughly 95 per cent. If it is cut off from the state, Jammu and Ladakh would comprise the state. The first has the Hindu majority and the other the Buddhist.

The flaw in Musharraf's proposal is that it divides the state of Jammu and Kashmir on the basis of religion. He does not have to say that he has based his proposal on the basis of religion. If and when the valley is separated from Jammu and Ladakh, it will come to that. This may not be acceptable to India because, as Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has said, he cannot entertain any division on the basis of religion. He is justified in saying so because no government of any political party can survive at Delhi if it agrees to divide the state religion-wise. The ethos of pluralism, India's pride possession during the independence struggle, falls flat. The country may even lose democracy if it ceases to be secular. Whatever the BJP's criticism at present, the party may come to accept Musharraf's formulation since it strengthens its ideology of Hindutva. It can go to town to propagate that if the Muslims in the valley can separate themselves after being part of India for 60 years, where is the guarantee that Indian Muslims would not do so when given the choice? The society would be polarised, exposing Muslims to untold sufferings.

Secular parties cannot touch the proposal even with a bargepole. Their entire work of years will be nullified. The communists did an irreparable damage to themselves when they supported partition. They had not been forgiven even after repeated apologies.

Any compromise which has even a tinge of communalism will destroy the very base of secular parties. They should wake up now, not after the back channels finalise the deal.

I recall that a proposal on the lines of Musharraf's was offered to Prakash Singh Badal when he visited Pakistan along with Atal Behari Vajpayee by bus. At breakfast, then chief minister of Pakistan's Punjab Shahbaz Sharif, brother of Nawaz Sharif, told Badal to take Jammu and Ladakh and give the valley to Pakistan. The latter replied he was too small to solve big questions like Kashmir.

The discussion would have ended there and then but I picked up the thread. I said: Sahahbaz Sahib, you could settle the Kashmir in any way you like but not on the basis of religion. I told him that I came from Sialkot and saw what happened to the minorities on both sides after partition which was done on religious lines. One million people were killed and 20 million uprooted. We in India could not afford to face another partition. Nor would we be able to save pluralism which was already under pressure from communal forces. Musharraf may think that his proposal was a clever way to resurrect the two-nation theory. But he should recall _ belonging to a family which migrated from Delhi _ the repercussions of a division. It would not only separate the Kashmiri Muslims from non-Muslims in Jammu and Ladakh, but go beyond the state and endanger India's integrity.

Manmohan Singh has welcomed Musharraf's proposal in a general way. It is meant to assure him that India is keen to normalise relations with Pakistan. This was necessary because the impression in that country was that Musharraf was bending backwards to make up with New Delhi which was not acknowledging any of his proposals.

People in the valley may be happy over Musharraf's proposal, although left to themselves they would like to have an independent state which Pakistan had rejected firmly. Still by stating that Pakistan had no territorial claim over Kashmir, Musharraf has strengthened the case of the valley for self-rule. In a way, he has thrown down the gauntlet to India. Whether it picks up the gauntlet or not is yet to be seen, but a new situation has been created. Foreign Minister Pranab Mukaherjee may have some answer when he visits Pakistan before the summit meeting between Manmohan Singh and Musharraf at Islamabad.

A possible amicable solution is that India give all subjects to the state of Jammu and Kashmir except Foreign Affairs, Defence and Communications. Pakistan should do likewise in Kashmir and the northern areas on its side. The line of control should be made soft so that the border becomes irrelevant. The armed forces on both sides should withdraw first to the barracks and then to their own country to demilitarise the entire area. The hardcore Pakistanis who demand Kashmir's integration with their country are willing to accept this or similar solution provided another choice is given to the Kashmiris after 10 years to have another look at the settlement. Indians may be opposed to this. The argument to win them over is that Kashmir will be solved once and for all if they accept the state's autonomy within India and soft borders.

Any proviso for subsequent revision will make them reject the proposal for settlement.

Kuldip Nayar is an eminent Indian columnist.