The Indian Government is rightly angry at the December 13 attack on the Indian Parliament that left 14 people dead. It was an attack at the heart of Indian democracy and made. However, India’s response, especially in the past few days, has been misdirected – ironically from the very pressures of democracy which arise when voters demand action and bay for blood. The attack was a terrorist attack organised and led by people who want an end to Indian rule over Kashmir – the only territory in India with a Muslim majority.
India, however, has repeated its old line – that Pakistan sponsors Kashmiri terror against Indian rule and is seeking the incorporation of Kashmir into Pakistan. About 30,000 people have died in Kashmir violence since a rebellion against Indian ruled erupted 11 years ago.
India has embarked upon a massive troop build up on the Pakistani border and threatened war. The two nations have already gone to war twice over the disputed territory. The situation is more dangerous now because both India and Pakistan are nuclear states and because of the new context in which the dispute finds itself.
Since September 11, the United States has needed Pakistan in its fight against terrorism and its war in Afghanistan. It has made the US much more friendly to and forgiving of the military Government of Pervez Musharraf. It is easy to see how India could resent this. After the December 13 attack, India (like Israel) jumped on the terrorist bandwagon, following the United States’s lead in responding widely and militarily and often without evidence – even though India had less solid ground for doing so.
There is nothing to point to Pakistan as sponsor of the attack on the Indian Parliament, even if India could rustle up some evidence that Kashmiri separatists were involved. Moreover, Pakistan has arrested the leaders of the two main Kashmiri separatist groups, the Lashkar-e-Taibar and the Jaish-e-Mohammad on other grounds, so if India has the evidence it can press its case.
The attack on the Indian Parliament was deplorable and if there were masterminds behind the perpetrators they must be brought to justice. The perpetrators themselves, of course, were handed justice of a sort at the time – they were killed in the attack and evidence of any links were (perhaps conveniently) killed with them.
But India must look to wider causes for the attack. At partition of the Indian sub-continent in 1947, territory was roughly divided on religious grounds. Kashmir was disputed because its population was more evenly divided. In 1947 it went to India on a temporary basis with the understanding that there would be a free and fair vote as to its future. India has refused to conduct the vote, fearing Kashmir would go vote to go to Pakistan, leaving a significant minority of non-Muslims in a Muslim country.
Neither India, nor Pakistan are keen on the obvious third option – that Kashmir be independent.
Earlier in 2000 the situation looked quite promising. When General Musharraf came to power he arranged talks on Kashmir with Indian Prime Minister Atal Vajpayee. They took place – symbolically – at the Taj Mahal, which was built by a Muslim ruler as an act of love. Today the Taj Mahal is being camouflaged for war. It is unnecessary and avoidable. It will take an act of courage and statesmanship by Mr Vajpayee similar to his bus diplomacy in 1999. The two nations must engage in serious dialogue to resolve the dispute in Kashmir and India – the largest democracy on earth – must show a willingness to allow Kashmiris to have a free vote as to their future.