The pre-Independent princely state of Jammu and Kashmir comprised five distinct cultural regions or 'nations'. Of these, three are now in Indian territory -Jammu, Kashmir Valley and Ladakh - and two are in Pakistan's northern area consisting Gilgit, Baltistan and Hunza and Pakistan-Occupied Kashmir (POK) ...
Paradoxically, the more artificial boundaries between Bengal and Punjab have come to be stabilised as 'natural' and the more natural Line of Control (LoC) (in) Jammu and Kashmir remains contentious. The reason for this will have to be located in the infamous two-nation theory which held that Hindus and Muslims are two separate 'nations'. Following this perverse doctrine, all Muslim- majority areas had to be in Pakistan and all Hindu-majority areas had to be in India.
But the superficiality contained in the exclusive reliance on religion to define nation and nationality has been proved with the division of Pakistan and the emergence of Bangladesh. The insistence on the part of Pakistan to claim the Kashmir Valley as its 'integral' part is to persist with the two-nation theory which has been proved wrong several rounds over.
However, vivisection of a nation into two or more states is not something peculiar to the Indian subcontinent. The lack of co-terminality between states and nations would yield at least five different patterns. First is the division of a nation into two or more and their being assigned to two or more states. The Kurdish nation is divided between five states but mainly between Iraq, Iran and Turkey. The Naga nation is divided between India and Myanmar. There is an Indian Punjab and also a Pakistani Punjab.
Second, the division of a nation into two or more sovereign states. This was the situation of Germany till unification. This is the case even today in the two Koreas. Third, the division of a nation into two, of which one part is a sovereign state and the other part is attached to another sovereign state. For instance, there is the Republic of Ireland and there is also Northern Ireland which is a part of the United Kingdom. In the Indian subcontinent, there is Bangladesh, which is a sovereign state, but there is also West Bengal and Tripura in the Indian territory populated by Bengalis. Fourth is a state being carved out of parts of several nations. The classic example is Switzerland The fifth is the case of a state encompassing several nations. An example of this was the erstwhile Soviet Union where matters were clear, at least conceptually. The Soviet passport had two entries - citizenship: Soviet and nationality: Uzbek, Kazhak etc. The United Kingdom is a multinational state with its English, Scottish, Welsh and Irish population. India, of course, is a classic case of a multinational state and so is Pakistan.
Why is it that while the problems in some of the above cases are 'solved' the solution could not be replicated in the less difficult case of Kashmir? If the Kashmir situation is not one of lack of co-terminality between state and nation, what is its specificity?
One way of understanding the specificity of Kashmir is to view it in terms of the religious composition of the people; the Pakistani perspective. But the notion that religious identity and national identity are co-terminus is wrong. It is wrong because one cannot conceive of a nation, whichever way one defines it, without a territory; a homeland for its people. And, the co- terminality between religion and territory has been disturbed in the last five centuries due to conquest; colonisation and proselytisation.
This being so, neither Kashmiri Muslims nor Kashmiri Hindus can claim Kashmir as their exclusive homeland.
On the basis of language, one could have nurtured 'Kashmiriyat', the nationhood of Kashmir. But this was endangered by the state policy through the recognition of Urdu as the official language because of its presumed linkage with Islam ... Kashmiri, as a language is included in the Eighth Schedule of the Constitution (and) Urdu ...is the mother tongue of only 0.25 per cent of the people.
The fact that several nationst which are vivisected across state territories in the Indian subcontinent raise the question of whether we should rethink the political arrangement in the Indian subcontinent. The very poser is dubbed unpatriotic and anti-national in today's political theology. But Europe's nations and states which waged the most violent battles for centuries have come together.
Compared to Europe, we have a less violent history and there is no reason why we should not rethink the possibility of a political arrangement in South Asia to ensure lasting peace ...
The initial need is to recognise the fact that the integrity of several nations is endangered in the process of state formation in South Asia. What exactly is meant by the term 'national integration'? It does not mean state consolidation. What is to be achieved through national integration is recognising the unity of the nations which are vivisected across state territories in South Asia. That is to acknowledge their common nationality and nationhood, even though they are citizens of different states.
Victims of History
There are many people who believe that the partition of India 'solved' our problems but both experience and history of the last 50 years prove otherwise. Pokhran I and II would not have been necessary if the political boundaries had been different. Partition also violated the civilisational integrity of South Asia. Partition actually created more problems than it solved. It is true that we cannot undo history but we need not be mere victims of history. We can and we should renegotiate history. (Source: The Times of India, 16 August, 1999)
