Your source of Free Articles Your source of Free Reprint Articles and Content! Login

Find an Article:, your source of Free Articles about: Magazine

A bugbear called kasmir


Terror is extreme fear. It was first employed as a political weapon in the French Revolution, when hundreds of clergy and nobilities were butchered together with Louis 16th and his wife Mary Antoinette on the newly invented Guillotine. After that, sporadic violence was resorted to by all the Asian, African and Latin American counties for getting freedom from colonial rule. It was also practiced by the Communists, the Nazis and the Fascists to suppress all opposition.

But the form Terrorism has taken now can be categorized under three heads. The first is of the deprived people indulging in it, as they want parity and equitable distribution of wealth, as the Naxalites. The second type is related to people wanting racial segregation, as the Bodos. The third type is of the Islamic people working through a global networking…what they want is not very clear, perhaps they want to establish a Pan-Islamic world!

As far as Kasmir related terrorism is concerned, it is futile pointing out fingers at Pakistan and ISI. Whatever is happening is due to our lackadaisical and equivocal approach.

In the first place, signing the Mountbatten Plan was a blunder. It is past comprehension how the astute politicians like Gandhi and Nehru failed to fathom the dastardly ramifications it was to bring. May be, they had become impatient to taste power at whatever cost involved. If they had waited for decades couldn’t they wait for a few more years till a more logical settlement was reached? Or else, they were apprehensive of things taking a worse shape in the coming years!
Second, when the division of India and Pakistan was based not on area but religion, why the Muslims were allowed to stay here or the Hindus were allowed to remain in Pakistan? If anyone gives the plea that it was not feasible to evacuate and rehabilitate the religionists, then how on earth they agreed to divide the country on the basis of religion?
We obviously committed many mistakes since the beginning as far as Kasmir is concerned. When Hari Singh sought help from India, then we had an upper hand. We could have dictated our own terms to him in return of military help and could have got him sign the Instrument of Accession without giving any privileged position whatsoever. I don’t think that the position of Kasmir was in any way different than Junagadha or Hyderabad. But we didn’t take any unequivocal stand, much to our own jeopardy. We treated Kasmir with an inexplicable awe and respect as if we were obliged to serve it and to have it as our territory. It is past apprehension why we acceded to the demands first of Hari Singh and then of the constituent assembly in the most humble and slavish manner! This is the only instance in history where the giver was being dictated by the receiver… Leave aside our policy of appeasement towards Kasmir. Why we started talking about it with a third party (Pakistan) is even more intriguing. The moment Kasmir signed the Instrument of Accession; it became a part of India. Then what was the need of discussions and dialogues with Pakistan? It was a blatant disregard of diplomacy and an indirect admission of the fact that India’s claim on Kasmir was dubious. Why Nehru took it to the UN, in 1949,why Sastri went for the Tashkent Agreement in 1966 and why Indira Gandhi went for Simla Agreement in 1972 is never questioned and all the political analysts find themselves explaining the benign motto of our leaders and the principle of peaceful-coexistence we follow.

But our idealism have cost us three wars with Pakistan, one war with China---Blowing to pieces the Panchasheel of Nehru, one covert military exercise in Kargil, frequent tension on the borders, serial bomb blasts taking a heavy toll of life and property and utilization of our resources by the hardliners to carry out anti-India activities on our own land! . The much-hyped bus and train services did hardly anything than to make it easier for the terrorist elements to send their cogs in India to carry bomb blasts and such nefarious activities.

I think, there is no need for any dialogue with a third party i.e. Pakistan. Neither is there any need of raising this issue at any international platform. This issue was taken to the UN by Nehru decades ago, but what has been the outcome? No country has been categorical in seconding India’s claim to Kasmir and no country would ever, because a weak and fragile country loses respect in the International market and it is never taken seriously. Also there in no need to talk to any leader in Kasmir who are related to pro-plebiscite groups or Azad Kasmir groups.. When article1 is applicable to Kasmir, which claims Kasmir as the legal and irrevocable part of Indian Territory, then the question of holding a plebiscite to know the opinion of the people to merge either with India or Pakistan or opt for freedom stands null and void. The Agreement of Feb 1975 also ratified to the same … the temporary provision of Article 370 was made permanent and greater autonomy was given to the state. We gave them separate constitution and a free hand in maintaining their state as they pleased…. but their demands have never halted. And why they demand--- because we heed them and take them seriously! I think, Krisna has done much to make Duryodhan understand ethics and moralities, but the war of Mahabharat is inevitable.

But for Patel our country would have looked like a sieve, with nearly six hundred princely states either free or merging with Pakistan. So we should shun all high idealism and adopt a pragmatic approach. I think that it is high time we make a volte-face in our dealings with Kasmir, and with Pakistan altogether. In Kasmir all revolutionary measures and all unwarranted demands should be crushed with an iron hand, and Pakistan should be given a last warning not to indulge in any unwarranted activities failing which it should be attacked without a second thought. There is no place for idealism in statecraft. A statesman needs to be Machiavellian, and if he is not, then, fast is the ruin of the state which it heads…due to the foolhardiness and idealism of Priam, the whole Troy was burnt to ashes.
Published: 2009-06-01
Author: Anju misra

About the author or the publisher
I am a student of law and also a English language trainer running an own brandname chain of training institutes as "British Linguistics". I have a passion of writing with related expertise and can write in many fields.

Source: self

Most popular articles from Magazine category
Buy this article  
Full Rights: 50.00

Article Categories
Arts and Entertainment   Arts and Entertainment (general)   Astrology   Books   Casino Gambling   Literature   Magazine   Movies/Film   Music   Philosophy   Photography   Picture   Poetry   Television Automotive Business Communication Computer and Internet Finance Health and Fitness Home and Family Legal News and Society Pets and Animals Recreation and Sports Science Self Improvement Travel


Home | Submit an article | Benefits | Terms and Conditions | Top Writers | Contact-Us| Login

Copyright - Free Reprint Articles -