Rebellion in Kashmir

* Thank you for Bob Drogin’s report, “Trapped in a Vale of Tears” (Aug. 29). Indian leaders, rulers of the “world’s largest democracy,” continue to keep together by ruthless terror the geography of the British colonial empire.

For a Kashmiri, the dispute is not a territorial matter between India and Pakistan. The issue is the fundamental human right of self-determination: a right which was pledged to the Kashmiris by the United Nations in 1948. The United States was one of the sponsors of the U.N. resolution calling for a plebiscite in Kashmir. The plebiscite never took place because Kashmir became a pawn in the superpower rivalry after Pakistan signed a defense pact with the United States. Now that the Cold War is over, it seems the old India hands in Washington are more interested in exploring the potential for U.S.-India trade than making it possible for Kashmiris to determine their own future.

Kashmiris have for four decades relied on American understanding of their aspirations for freedom and democracy. By keeping on the sidelines now, the U.S. government is making it possible for radical militants to take over the leadership in the subcontinent. Until the Kashmir conflict is resolved, there can be no peace in the Indian subcontinent, which is home to one-sixth of humanity. As Drogin points out, both India and Pakistan are now believed to have nuclear capabilities. A nuclear holocaust, therefore, cannot be ruled out.

To resolve the Kashmir conflict both India and Pakistan must be asked to demilitarize Kashmir and provide the Kashmiri people with an opportunity for self-determination.

RAFIQUE A. KHAN

Los Angeles

* That the Indian central government has acted ineptly and the Indian army has perpetrated unconscionable atrocities is only part of a complex tragedy. Drogin does not mention that until four years ago nearly 250,000 Kashmiri Hindus, people whose family histories go back thousands of years in this Himalayan valley, lived in the area which he visited for five days. Just as in the article’s story of Abdul Rashid, many innocent civilians have been murdered by the militants for no reason apart from the religion into which they were born. Virtually to a person, these Hindus have fled Kashmir with only their lives. As many as 50,000 Kashmiri Muslims, mostly the professionals and educated, have left as well.

Initially, the militants were a handful of Kashmiri youths, financed and trained by Pakistan; ironically, this group today advocates independence from both India and Pakistan. Among the 28 militant organizations which have subsequently appeared, many are not Kashmiris. A number are young Afghani fighters, out of work and seeking a new war. Others have come from Pakistan, financed by fundamentalist Muslim groups.

The Indian government’s agreeing to the secession of Kashmir is not politically possible. The fundamental problem is not Kashmir, but the rest of the country. While India is predominantly a Hindu country, in absolute numbers it has the largest Muslim population of any country in the world. A fundamentalist Hindu political party, with ominous nationalist overtones, is now the No. 2 political force in India and could well take control of the central government. If Kashmir goes, the blood bath which would ensue in the rest of the country is unthinkable, and the country as a whole may well become ungovernable.

ALEXANDER E. HANSEN

Pasadena