 |
|
India and Pakistan: On the brink of the abyss Nothing can justify the massacre of the tourists in Pahalgam or similar acts, which are supported only by a tiny minority of Kashmiris or Indian Muslims. But to understand the situation in the region, a look at history is essential. Even Israel has a critical media outlet, Haaretz . India has none. Kashmir remains a taboo subject. The predominantly Muslim province never received the right of self-determination that the Congress Party (Indian National Congress) had promised at India's independence. Instead, the region was partitioned between the newly founded republics of India and Pakistan after a brief war. The British commander of the Pakistani army refused to allow regular troops, leaving a ragtag group of militias to fight regular Indian units. Mahatma Gandhi, known as a pacifist, gave his blessing to the Indian invasion. Articles 370 and 35A of the Indian Constitution were actually intended to safeguard Kashmir's special status, not least by prohibiting non-Kashmiris from acquiring land and settling there. Any expression of discontent was brutally suppressed; Kashmir became a police state where the military was never far away. Killings and rapes were not uncommon. Mass graves have since been discovered. Courageous Indian citizens such as Arundhati Roy, Pankaj Mishra, and others have tirelessly denounced these crimes. Angana Chatterji documented numerous examples during her fieldwork from 2006 to 2011: People were forced to witness the rape of women and girls in their families. A mother who was forced to watch soldiers rape her daughter begged for mercy. The soldiers refused to give in. She then begged to leave the room or be killed. A soldier held a gun to her forehead, said he would grant her this wish, and shot her dead—before they raped her daughter. This wasn't even illegal. The Armed Forces Special Powers Act of 1958, upheld by India's Supreme Court, grants uniformed representatives of the central government de facto impunity in "disturbed areas." In 2019, Modi's strategy was to flood Kashmir with Indian troops, impose curfews, arrest local leaders and journalists, and intimidate the population to such an extent that there would be no protests that could prompt Western powers to object. The goal was to transform the valley into the center of dairy production for the entire country. The repression seemed to be working—until now. Calls for war on both sides The Indian government is convinced that the Pakistani army was responsible for the massacre. No evidence has been presented so far, but the accusation seems more plausible than the Pakistani response that it was a false flag operation. Not least, on April 24, Pakistani Defense Minister Khawaja Asif admitted on British television that Pakistan had been training and financing terrorist groups on behalf of the United States for decades. A few days later, Asif predicted an Indian attack on Pakistan , only to later retract his statement. Indian politicians from various parties are openly calling for war. Shashi Tharoor, a prominent member of the Congress Party and a former high-ranking UN diplomat, declared: "Yes, there will be bloodshed. But more theirs than ours." Public sentiment is characterized by a thirst for revenge and demands for a swift, decisive war. Israel's genocide in Gaza is approvingly cited as a model, but another scenario appears more likely: Following the Israeli bombing of the Iranian embassy in Damascus in April 2024, the CIA quickly coordinated a targeted Iranian retaliation campaign in which US, French, British, and Jordanian air defense systems intercepted Iranian drones and missiles. The Indian army and air force are preparing an attack apparently modeled on an Iranian retaliatory strike. [This attack took place on May 7 – ed.] Retired generals are publicly boasting about their own drone arsenal. The most radical measure currently being discussed is the occupation of the Pakistan-controlled part of Kashmir and its annexation to the Indian part. The threats to cut off Pakistan's access to water are mere saber-rattling, and Bilawal Bhutto's retort – "If the water doesn't flow, your blood will flow" – was rash and unwise, even for a former Pakistani foreign minister. Indian media claim that the inflammatory speech delivered by Pakistani army chief General Asim Munir on April 17 to representatives of the Pakistani diaspora was the trigger for Pahalgam. Others, such as former Pakistani Major Adil Raja, are convinced that Munir himself ordered the attack to boost his prestige and pave the way for a new military dictatorship. However, the ISI (Intelligible Intelligence Service) blocked this claim. Damage control or truth? Hard to say, but Munir's alarming speech at least provides clues to subsequent events. The aim of the speech was apparently to convey unequivocally to wealthy overseas Pakistanis that the army holds power. Among the audience were apparently claqueurs who gave the general a standing ovation for his unprecedentedly crude, vulgar, and ignorant statements. I am not aware of any previous military dictator of Pakistan who ever spoke in such a condescending tone. The Sandhurst-educated General Ayub Khan was bland and secular. General Yahya Khan was highly entertaining when drunk and avoided public appearances. General Zia-ul-Haq was a religious fanatic with sadistic tendencies, but at the same time open to negotiations with India; anti-Hindu rhetoric was not his style. Finally, General Pervez Musharraf was essentially secular, relatively educated, and seriously interested in rapprochement with India. Munir's attempt to portray himself as a Pakistani Modi in uniform failed miserably. He put forward three theses, all of which are abhorrent nationalist lies. First, that Hindus have always been the enemy and Muslims can never coexist with them. This is a reversal of Modi's claim that all Indian Muslims converted from Hinduism and should return to it. Someone should have enlightened the general: Before 1947, Muslims lived alongside Hindus for almost twelve centuries, and later also with Sikhs. During the Mughal period, hated by both Modi and Islamist fundamentalists, there were mixed armies with Muslim and Hindu officers defending an empire founded by Muslims. Islam spread so rapidly that many pre-Islamic rituals from West Africa, Europe, India, China, and Southeast Asia were incorporated into the new religion. The Wahhabi version of history taught in Pakistan today is narrow-minded and false. In pre-colonial and even colonial India, certain saints were venerated by both Hindus and Muslims. This new attempt at simplistic history is damaging Pakistanis, both at home and abroad, and is partly responsible for the inability of many young Muslims to counter Islamophobia. Munir described Kashmir as "our jugular vein. We will not forget Kashmir. We will not abandon our Kashmiri brothers in their historic struggle." In reality, however, most of Kashmir has been under Indian control since August 1947. The Pakistan-administered part of the region doesn't fit the anatomical metaphor. Perhaps a superfluous lobe in General Yahya's liver would be more apt. His third, highly emotional argument referred to the sanctity of the two-nation theory, considered the ideological foundation of Pakistan. However, this theory was violated by the Pakistani army in 1970 when it refused to recognize the election results that had given the Bengalis of East Pakistan a majority. This refusal by General Yahya led to the massacres of Bengali Muslims by their "brothers" from West Pakistan, a civil war, and Indian intervention. This also marked the end of the two-nation theory. Contrary to what Munir wanted his audience to believe, the military did not save Pakistan, but rather led it to the brink of political and economic ruin. The assembled diaspora should have been provided with a list of army chiefs who retired as billionaires. Precarious situation in Balochistan Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that the Pahalgam attack was actually a Pakistani operation. Why now? Pakistani officials accuse India of supporting the nationalist guerrilla organization Balochistan Liberation Army (BLA), which seeks to secede the southwest from Pakistan. The BLA's most audacious attack to date took place on March 13 of this year, when it derailed a train in the Bolan Pass and took passengers hostage. The BLA regularly attacks military posts and railway stations. This attack was clearly well-prepared. Pakistan is convinced—and many observers share this assessment—that India is supplying and financing the BLA with weapons. Rumors of Chinese naval activity in the port of Gwadar further fuel suspicions that the US may also be behind the BLA. Dozens of Chinese workers have been killed by Baloch nationalists. The overall picture is complex, and Pakistan undoubtedly bears considerable responsibility for this explosive mix. Like the Kurdish nationalists, the Baloch have recognized that true independence no longer exists in today's geopolitical reality; in Syria and Iraq, Kurdish groups have allied themselves with Israel and the US. The BLA now faces a similar strategic choice. It is hard to imagine that its sole objective is to expel China from Gwadar. The old, progressive anti-colonialism is dead. The Baloch are left with only the choice between Pakistan or India, along with their respective allies. As with the Kurds, in most cases only the appointed leaders benefit, while the population continues to suffer. In Balochistan, too, multinational corporations will ultimately plunder the resources. Just take the example of Iraq. Was Pahalgam a retaliatory strike for the Bolan attack a month earlier? Possibly. Will a war solve anything, even if India annexes just another small piece of Kashmir? Hardly. Behind the scenes, India made Pakistan an offer: "We can accept the status quo and declare the Line of Control a fixed border. This will be followed by a peace agreement, free trade, the lifting of restrictions on Pakistani cricket, and visa-free travel." The Pakistani army was reportedly interested, albeit divided. Ultimately, however, the "Kashmir is our jugular vein" faction prevailed. The best solution For most Kashmiris, the best solution would be a united, autonomous state with security guarantees from Pakistan and India, as well as the reinstatement of Articles 370 and 35A in the Indian Constitution. Too good to be true? Perhaps. But the alternatives seem unattainable, or worse. During recent protests against Modi's authoritarian rule—as after the overthrow of Zia's military dictatorship in 1988—students and others gathered on both sides of the border: Hindus, Muslims, Christians, and Sikhs. Together, they recited a poem by Faiz Ahmad Faiz, which Modi's followers condemned as "anti-Hindu": We'll see We will certainly seeThe day that is promised to usInscribed in creation itself We will be witnessesLike the mighty mountain of oppression and cruelty Blown away like a piece of cotton wool As beneath our feet, the feet of the humiliated The earth trembles, rears up, tremblesAs if above the heads of the rulers Lightning and thunder howl and crash And only the name of God remains Who is everywhere and hiddenSpectacle and spectator at the same time As the call becomes loud: “I am the truth”And that means: me, and that means: you And God's people will reign at lastAnd that means: me, and that means: you We will see this day We will definitely see him https://www.rosalux.de/news/id/53398? Back This is the first German publication of "On the Brink?", which was originally published by the New Left Review. The subheadings have been added editorially. Translation by Claire Schmartz for Gegenteil Translation Collective. Tariq Ali is an editorial board member of the New Left Review. |
 Links Search |
||||||
|
|||||||
