One of the fiercest religiously motivated political rivalries existing today is between the nuclear powers India and Pakistan. Many think it began when the Indian Hindu nationalist movement of the early 1900s refused to represent the interests of Indian Muslims. It’s true that this widened a rift until, as independence from the British Empire drew near, it was impossible for them to share a single nation. Muslims had a justifiable fear of being ruled by the more numerous Hindus. Yet partition of British colonial India into the free nations of India and Pakistan did not solve the problem; Hindus and Muslims are still at loggerheads -- through their nations -- the focal point of the strife being the disputed territory of Kashmir.
Bloodshed in Kashmir is centuries old. The initial rift in Pakistan-Indian relations was created during the Islamic invasion in the 600s. Will Durant, author of The Story of Civilization, wrote, "...the Islamic conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history.” The Koran justifies the fanatical violence by Muslim's with, "Slay the infidels, wherever ye find them and prepare them for all kind of ambush"; and "Choose not thy friends among the infidels till they forsake their homes and the way of idolatry. If they return to paganism then take them whenever you find them and kill them." Obviously, if there is no god but Allah, then polytheistic Hinduism cannot be peacefully unified with such an aggressive and intolerant religion, despite Gandhi's dream of coexistence. British rule enforced an artificial peace that abruptly ended in August of 1947.
The freedom movement that was to result in India’s partition had its tangible start when the Englishman Allan Hume helped a group of Indians start the Indian National Congress in 1885. At first it worked as a lobbying group and did not challenge British control of the government. But in the early 1900s a more radical faction emerged within it, led by Bal Gangadhar Tilak, whose aim was independence. The Indian National Congress also had socialist leanings.
In 1906 a crucial split took place; the few Muslim delegates in the Indian National Congress left, and a group called the Muslim League was formed. There are three significant reasons why the Muslim nationalist movement emerged in 1906, later than the Hindu movement. Muslims, because they had their own religious schools, were less quickly influenced by western thought, which was an important characteristic of the leaders of the revolutionaries. Secondly, the Muslims in the Indian National League were becoming alienated by the increasing Hindu nationalism that accompanied the radicalization occurring there. Thirdly, and perhaps the catalyst that brought the others to the surface, was a dispute that occurred 1905-1911 in Bengal. In 1905, The British restructured the provincial borders in a manner that gave Muslims a majority in one of the districts, raising a great Hindu outcry that brought about a reversal of that decision in 1911.
Consequently, from 1906 there were two parties working for independence: the Indian National Congress and the Muslim League. In 1915, Mohandas Gandhi arrived in India. He had a law degree gained in England, experience in nonviolent protests gained working in South Africa, and the leadership and strength of character and morals to mobilize the general Hindu public for the independence cause. The pressure he and his followers exerted caused the British Parliament to pass the Government of India Act in 1935. It gave Indians a legislative law-making body. However, the British Viceroy had veto power and the British were still the de facto rulers of India.
The Hindus were not satisfied with this, and neither were the Muslims. In the popularly elected Indian legislature, the minority Muslims had little power or representation, and Hindu rule infuriated them. In spite of the peacemaking attempted by Gandhi, for many Hindus in the freedom movement, there was no room for Muslims, and during the period of the Indian National Congress’ limited rule, the Muslims were submitted to degradations such as being barred from building new mosques. This was the final break between Hindus and Muslims. From now on, in the negotiations with the British the Muslim League would settle for nothing less than a separate Muslim state.
In 1939 international events intervened with the start of World War II. India’s English viceroy, Victor Alexander John Hope, declared India’s entrance on the side of the Allies without consulting the Indian or Muslim political parties. The Indian National Congress responded by quitting its power in India’s government. They tried to use the war to force the issue with the British, demanding immediate independence. The British offered independence at the end of the war, and the Indian National Council cooperated for much of the war, perhaps seeing a worse future for India if Britain lost the war, as was looking quite likely in 1940.
After the war, the last British viceroy, Lord Mountbatten, managed to negotiate a deal whereby northwestern and the far eastern sections of India became a Muslim state – Pakistan – and the remaining territory a Hindu one. Independence day for Pakistan came on August 14, 1947, and for India August 15, the day after.
This decisive action to end the controversy threw the area into turmoil.
Millions of Muslims and Hindus living on the wrong side of the newly drawn border fled their homes. Violence caused by extreme nationalists from both side was fierce and took thousands of lives. One of the victims was Mohandas Gandhi, assassinated on January 30, 1948, by a Hindu militant who opposed Gandhi’s campaign for peace and reconciliation.
Border squabbles were to be expected, and one duly came. In the province of Kashmir, the Hindu ruler had hesitated in deciding whether to join Pakistan or India, but when his Muslim-majority populace responded with violent protests, he chose India. Within a year of gaining independence, India and Pakistan were at war in Kashmir.
The first Kashmir war ended in a compromise, but the area remained fortified on both sides and extremely violent, and war sparked up again for a short time in 1965.
Strife between the two new countries was not the only result of the division of India. Both countries’ economies suffered extremely from the social upheaval. The countries were also politically unstable. The two areas of Pakistan, East Pakistan and West Pakistan, were 1,600 km separate from each other, with India in between. On top of the ethnic and cultural differences (they shared only their religion, Islam), the East Pakistanis were underrepresented in Pakistan’s government and received less development than West Pakistan did. The government was slow to send aid when East Pakistan was hit by a devastating cyclone in 1970, and in 1971, when East Pakistan (being more populous than West Pakistan) gained a majority in the National Assembly, President Yahya Khan delayed its meeting and sent troops to quell protests in East Pakistan.
In response, East Pakistan declared itself independent on March 26, 1971, and became Bangladesh. Civil war broke out, and lasted until the end of that year, when, in December, India entered the war and aided Bangladesh in freeing itself of Pakistani troops.
After the war, Indian PM Indira Gandhi and Pakistani President Zhifikar Bhutto met in 1972 and agreed to work for a peaceful solution to the Kashmir problem. But the rivalry did not decrease, and two years later, in 1974, it entered a new phase when India tested a nuclear weapon. Pakistan was not far behind, and soon had its own nuclear weapons.
One of the effects of the division was that the foreign relations of the two nations were very much defined by their conflict. After India’s border war with China in 1962, Sino-Pakistani relations greatly improved. When India signed a treaty with the Soviet Union in 1971 and began buying billions of dollars worth of military equipment from the Soviets, formerly friendly relations between Pakistan and the Soviet Union were very much cooled.
This, in turn, gave Pakistan an ally in the United States, another country hostile to the Soviet Union. The two nations worked together to aid Afghanistan, Pakistan’s neighbor to the northwest, in resisting the Soviet invasion that lasted from 1979-89. Pakistan itself received some aid from the U.S., which had cut it off earlier in 1979 due to concerns over Pakistan’s nuclear program.
The end of the Cold War in 1989 changed foreign relations again. The U.S. ended aid to both countries in 1990 and then placed sanctions after both conducted nuclear tests in 1998. History repeated itself when Pakistan again became a U.S. ally in 2002 for another operation in Afghanistan. India has been displeased at Pakistan’s increasing influence, but there have not been significant repercussions in the India-U.S. relationship yet.
In the meantime, the Kashmir issue refuses to go away. Normally, such a border dispute could be settled by bilateral discussions and compromises from both sides. But religious pride, on both sides, makes compromise close to impossible. The armies of both countries are entrenched along the border of the area, and violence flashes out periodically.
The area has become the focal point for militants from both sides. What’s unclear is how much the activities of these militants are aided and abetted by their countries. Both countries insist innocence in the crimes of their individual citizens, but accuse the other of harboring terrorists. Both also accused each other (in 1983) of helping rebels within the others’ territory. Pakistan alleges that India aided rebels in Pakistan’s Sindh area, and India believes Pakistan aided Sikhs, a religious group that has often run up against India’s Hindu government. Two Sikhs were responsible for the assassination of India’s Prime Minister, Indira Gandhi, in 1984.
It’s difficult to predict the future of this conflict. There is no easy answer to the Kashmir deadlock, but the nuclear capabilities of each nation will hopefully continue to provide a deterrent to any aggressive action from either side. India’s treatment of its own remaining Muslims is a tension point that could see bigger developments in the near future. In 1992 Hindus destroyed a 464-year-old mosque in Ayodhya, claiming that it was the holy site of the birth of their god Ram. This set off a wave of bombings and riots. India is also dealing with a mounting struggle by the Dalits, the oppressed outcastes in the Hindu caste system, to claim their legal rights. In the past the Hindu extremists have responded with violence – like the murder of Australian Christian missionary Graham Staines by a mob in 1999.
On the other side are Muslim extremists, whose activities are mainly limited to the Kashmir area. Pakistani terrorists have occasionally targeted Christians (since 9/11 there have been two attacks on Pakistani churches), but outside of Kashmir their actions have been relatively limited. Al Quaeda may be hiding out along the Afghan border of Pakistan, but that's another issue.
These Muslim extremists are a reaction to the Hindu nationalists, who are in turn, were reacting to the encroachment of Islam. In the formative stages of this conflict, the centuries prior to independence in 1947, both the Muslims and the Hindus were obviously working for their own benefit, but the Hindus must bear the blame for escalating the competition into conflict by using their greater numbers to oppress the Muslims during the era of limited self-rule between 1935-39. Neither group could trust the other to rule over them, and the hatred that reemerged ensured that the new nations of Pakistan and India would be born enemies of each other. This analysis is demonstrated in the violence that is continuing into the 21st century.
No comments:
Post a Comment