Kashmir in political perspective.

• Jurisdiction: Australia
• Author: McGuire, John
• Date: 22 December 1999

In late 1999, the government changed in both India and Pakistan. On 10 October, the thirteenth Lok Sabha was duly constituted in India; two days later, on 12 October, the elected government in Pakistan was overthrown in a military coup. It could be argued that such developments are nothing new, on the grounds that they represent the continuity of political patterns that have characterized post-colonial India and Pakistan since 1947. But do they? The answer to this question depends very much on what type of historical memory you draw upon and what type of historical narrative you construct.

The Legacy of the Two-Nation Policy

While India and of Pakistan stand as separate nations today, each is the product of the British Indian colonial regime and has been shaped by the two-nation policy that provided the basis for the devolution of power from the colonizer to the colonized. Indeed, on 15 August 1947 when they became independent nations, both were defined by a transitional process, in which power passed from one ruling elite to another. Certainly, there was no transformation in the social relations of production. On the contrary, in each case, the colonial elite was replaced by a post-colonial elite, comprised of an uneasy alliance between different elements of the ruling class, including among other key nationalist leaders, bureaucrats, military personnel, large landlords, rich peasants, industrialists and businessmen. What was dissimilar during this period, however, was the way in which two post-colonial states evolved under markedly different conditions.

Firstly, Congress was acknowledged to be the senior partner in negotiations and, as a result, laid claim to the central components of the old colonial regime, including the name India. Apart from its symbolic gain, it assumed control of eighty-two per cent of its territories, its civil service, its armed forces, its police, its revenue and its other assets and liabilities. (1) In contrast, the Muslim League, as the key advocate for Muslim interests in negotiations, had to operate with a fragmented post-colonial infrastructure and a national identity which was still emergent and which lacked the same frame of reference as its Congress counterpart. Secondly, Congress as a political party was in a much stronger position to impose its political will on the newly created India than the Muslim League was in Pakistan. Whereas Congress was highly organized, broadly based, and generally seen as the prime mover behind the nationalist movement, the Muslim League was more loosely organized, and regionalized in terms of its power base. Thirdly, Congress projected the new India as a secular-based parliamentary democracy, a position that became even stronger when Gandhi was assassinated by a Hindu fundamentalist in 1948, bringing into disrepute the link between politics and religion. In contrast, Pakistan's identity was built around the idea of Islam, on the one hand, and authoritarianism, on the other. Fourthly, in Nehru, India had a leader of great political authority to guide it during the first decade and a half of independence, whereas Pakistan's comparable figure, Jinnah, died in 1948, creating a leadership problem which was accentuated when Liaquat Ali Khan, the first prime minister of Pakistan, was assassinated three years later. Finally, insofar as it was located around the periphery of India and in those places where Muslims had large numbers, Pakistan was created out of two regions, a western component and an eastern component, that were separated by over one thousand miles of Indian territory, in which the only common link was religion. The cost of this absurd decision can be measured in terms of the killing of hundreds of thousands of Hindus, Muslims and Sikhs, who sought to relocate themselves, according to their newly developing sense of national identity. (2)

In such circumstances, it is hardly surprising that the pattern of political development in one has not been the same as the other. Yet how different have they been? Certainly it is not difficult to construct different political histories for each of them. Since independence, India's governments have been formed as a result of elections, which under normal circumstances are held every five years. By way of contrast, the post-colonial state in Pakistan appears to have paid lip service to the notion of elections, with the governor-general or president, the military and bureaucracy imposing their will throughout the period, and with a popular, direct election not being held until some two-and-a-half decades after independence. To suggest that India and Pakistan have remained the same, however, ignores the important changes that have occurred in both societies since independence.

In India, there have been at least three significant shifts during that period: 1947-67, 1967-89, and 1989-99. In the case of the first period, operating in the wake of a long and ultimately successful nationalist movement, and with Nehru as prime minister for much of the time, Congress, as the natural party of government, claimed to act on behalf of all class, caste and religious interests. Moreover, while it was confronted by ongoing problems relating to the economy, and to regional issues such as language, it appeared to manage fairly successfully. In fact, during these years, Congress could point to India's emergence as a stable and progressive postcolonial state. Of the more important developments, there had been a constitution drawn up within three years of independence, five-yearly elections set in place for all levels of government, five-year economic plans initiated in 1951, and a leadership role for India among non-aligned nations in the international world. (3)

During the second period, this situation began to change as the economy took a sharp turn downward both nationally and internationally. By 1966, there was, as Ernest Mandel describes it, the beginning of a long economic slump, which in the case of India was manifested in widening class, caste and religious differences. In the wake of these changes, Congress experienced a major split, with Indira Gandhi emerging as the leader of the most powerful group, Congress (R) then Congress (I). In this period also, while the rhetoric remained populist, the message shifted from one of a concern with questions of social welfare and poverty, as espoused in the 1971 election campaign, to one that tended by the early 1980s to focus on communal issues. As well, it was a period when Congress went beyond the electoral process in attempting to retain political control. Indeed, in imposing emergency rule in 1975, in using President's Rule to remove state governments of different political persuasions, in interfering in the election process and in engaging in corruption by way of patronage and political donations, Congress weakened the parliamentary, democratic process in India. (4)

In the period covering the last decade or so, this weakening of parliamentary democracy in India has continued, as is evident in a range of internal rebellions and in the government's increasing use of the army and para-military forces to maintain its authority. Such rebellions include attacks by 'terrorist/liberationist' organizations and/or secessionist forces, like the Sikh militants in the Punjab, the United Liberation Front of Assam (ULFA), Naxalite rebels in Andhra Pradesh, and Muslim 'freedom' fighters in Kashmir. More...