Kashmir Affairs - Security & Conflict Analysis of Kashmir

Maulana Wahidudin Khan
Editor of Al-Risala

Murtaza Shibli

Maulana Wahidudin Khan is one of India’s well-known Muslim writers and Editor of the monthly magazine Al-Risala which is published both in English and Urdu. He often comments on Indian Muslim affairs through his writings and media appearances and is the author of several books on Islam and contemporary Muslim issues.

What is your position on the Kashmir problem?
I have studied a lot about Kashmir - reading a number of books and hundreds of articles. I have also met many people from Kashmir and visited the place several times. I can say that it is a ‘self-made’ problem. According to my experience life is full of chances. In life you find first chance, second and third. The best thing is to avail the first chance. But if you lose it try to grab the second chance. Then if you lose second chance then you have to forget both first and second chance and try your best to avail third chance. Unfortunately, Kashmiris have lost all the three chances. First chance was achievable in 1948. At that time the whole Indian leadership was ready for ‘give and take’ - give Hyderabad and take Kashmir. There is enough evidence to suggest that there was a chance but the Pakistani leaders failed to avail that chance. The reason was that Jinnah and Liaqat Ali Khan both were of the opinion that they are in a position to capture both the states. Both of them were living in delusion. In politics there is no place for delusion.

The second chance came in the last days of Nehru. He wanted to settle the Kashmir issue and was ready to give Kashmir Valley to Pakistan and Jammu area to India. But this again failed. It is on record that Nehru sent Sheikh Abdullah to Pakistan for this purpose, but Nehru suddenly died. Sheikh Abdullah failed to revive Nehru’s dream because he was not an honest person. And hence the second chance was lost. Then the third chance was at the time of Narishma Rao. As Prime Minister he offered autonomy to Kashmiris. At that time he was under full control of the Indian political scene unlike the present PM Manmohan Singh. Rao offered autonomy. I published an article that time addressing Kashmiri leaders that if they lost this chance, they won’t get any chance at all in future. Kashmiri leaders out rightly rejected it as they were confident about this so-called Jihad. Now for the Kashmiris and Pakistan, there is a fourth chance. Abandon militancy and completely accept the ground reality and status quo. And accept in total. Otherwise, there is only total destruction.

Could you elaborate on your term ‘self-made’ problem?
It means if you are not ready to accept the reality and try to build a world according to a delusion, then you fail and face the same problem. If you are not ready to accept this and try to jump to a position that is not achievable in a given reality, this creates problems that I call self created or self made problem.

If we take that as an inspiration, then Ghandi’s struggle against the British was illogical and the resultant sufferings of Indians was self-created. This would take morality out of the equation and we will lose sympathy for the whole ‘free India’ struggle.
No, this is not a scientific analysis. Ghandi did not change the reality. He availed the opportunities what reality offered him. After the French Revolution, right of self-determination was accepted internationally and Gandhi wanted to avail that right of self-determination. This was the logic of Gandhi that was internationally accepted.

Kashmiris are also trying to avail self-determination and their right is also recognised internationally.
No, what you are saying is not valid. Self-determination at the time of Independence was for being part of India not outside of it. You can’t have self-determination while being part of a country.

A recent example of self-determination was that of East Timor.
You don’t know anything. This is a poor reference. The whole West was on their side. Who is on your side? In the East Timorese case, it was simple might is right. In your case, what can you do? Pakistan can’t support you and no country in the world is supporting you openly. I can’t make you understand. All Kashmiris are like this. Politics can’t be run on ideology. Even Prophet (SAW) did not extend his ideology. Either you gain your goal through your own strength or by the support of some great power. There are not third positions. Simple logic has no power and you can’t fight wars through simple logic.

But there is morality of position and logic of understanding and history. If we look at history, there are umpteen examples of struggles, of less powerful races fighting for their identity and independence.
If you want to fight you can, but you will be destroyed. Self-destruction option is open. It is impossible for Kashmiris to secede. Politics demands a bigger mind and no Kashmiri has it.

So your position is that the Kashmiris should accept the situation as it is?
What I mean is that you have to accept established reality and avail the opportunities available in the fields other than a political role - education, industry, business, dawah work etc. There are number of options available other than that of political change.

Why not political change?
You don’t have a choice but to accept it. If you don’t seek to change it, it is destruction. Look at the Agreement of Huddaibiyya. If you have enough power then you change the political status quo, but if you don’t have such power then the best policy is to accept the status quo and divert your energies to other fields other than politics.

May be your ideas are worth exploring. But at the moment there doesn’t seem to be any space that will allow Kashmiris to think in such terms. And what are the guarantees that Kashmiris could preserve their culture?
You were offered such space previously, but you people did not accept it. No one is ready to pay the price of your mistakes. If you are committing mistakes, you will have to pay the price for it. At the time of Sardar Patel, it was possible to preserve your culture, but now only you will pay the price.

Do you think if Kashmiris were to accept what you say, it will have any positive impact on the Indian Muslims?
Indian Muslims do not need Kashmiris for their survival. They have compulsively decided to move ahead and grab the opportunities leaving behind their complaints. They have accepted the realities and therefore are able to move ahead and progress.

Wouldn’t it be a good idea to link Kashmiris to the wider Muslim Ummah of India and reassure them that they are part of a bigger community and thus safer than they might perceive otherwise?
Muslim Ummah is nothing. It is nothing but a poetic thought.

Could you suggest a formula that is respectable for Kashmiris as well?
In practical life, a respectable formula is simply a romantic idea. Gandhi used to say that he was ready to die than to accept partition. But he accepted it so it was not a respectable solution for him, but he had to accept it. Jinnah wanted the whole of Bengal, but didn’t get it and had to accept a truncated Pakistan. So for both of them it was not a respectable solution but both accepted and lived with it. Why do you live in this hope for finding a respectful solution?

Why are you so angry with Kashmiris?
I am only a well wisher of Kashmir. The amount I have read about it, no one has read. I wish them well always.

If that is true why have you never protested about the human rights violations perpetrated on them?
Human rights is simply a romantic concept formulated by some intellectuals in air-conditioned buildings.

But you surely can’t be oblivious to the sufferings of Kashmiris.
That is half of the story. Before militancy there were no sufferings. There are two phases of Kashmir; one is 1948 till 1989 and two is after 1989 till present. In the first phase, Kashmir was full of joy with no problem at all. Everything was alright. Now it is changed and the situation has worsened. And you are paying the price for it. You are on the wrong path, so you can’t complain. It is in the Qura’n that if you start militancy, such things will happen.

You can’t dismiss the whole disciple of human rights and its violations. Amnesty International is a respectable organisation documenting such sufferings heaped upon Kashmiris.
That is a luxury of intellectuals. That is their profession and they make money out of it. Human rights is just intellectual sloganeering. It doesn’t achieve anything. It hasn’t achieved anything.

August 2007