Kashmir has been bleeding. The green valley has deep patches of red. The red stains of the blood of innocent Kashmiris, the militants and the armed forces. There is hardly a week when one does not read the killings of Kashmiris, killings by militants of this or the other hue. In the cross fire between the army and militants many a lay Kashmiri citizens meet their doom. While Pakistan claims that by the logic of Two Nation theory Kashmir belongs to Pakistan, India asserts that by the virtue of the treaty of accession Kashmir is an integral part of India. When one of these countries wants to talk, the other backs out and in this game of hide and seek between the two nations, the real victims are Kashmiri people and the ethos of Kashmiriyat, which are the distinctive and proud heritage of that land. Many a thinkers and political forces have been contributing solutions to the problem. Barring the opinion of Kashmiris all other solutions do the sympathetic rounds in the corridors of powers and in the minds of dominant social sections.

It is in this light that recent 'considered prescriptions' of first the VHP and than the Sangh Parivar Patriarch, RSS, are to be seen. VHP demanded that Jammu be made a separate state, Laddhak be made a Union territory and a separate union territory be carved out from the valley for the Kashmiri Pandits. RSS has endorsed the first three prescriptions and these are similar to what BJP had been demanding when not in power. One wants to examine as to how this solution is close to the one being proffered by the US think tank. Way back in 1953 RL Stevenson had advised the Sheikh Abdullah on similar lines. In a way it is the best endorsement of Jinnah-Savarkar two-nation theory. As per this theory the religious community determines the Nationality and Religion is the base of Nation State. The only difference between these two worthies was, one said that since it is a Hindu Nation the others have to accept the primacy of Hindus and live accordingly (Savarkar), while Jinnah claiming that once the British will leave, the Hindus, since they are in majority, will dominate the Muslims. And as Muslims any way are a separate nation so they should have a separate state.

Even at that time the British colonial powers had accepted Muslim League as the representative of  Muslims and regarded Congress as a Hindu body (many a Hindu communalists were part of Congress, but predominantly it represented all communities of India) and so the representative of Hindus. The very understanding of British was based on the concept that India is a conglomeration of Religious communities, mainly Hindus and Muslims. The Indian National movement had to grow against the powers of British Empire and against the communal outfits of Muslim League (Islamic state), Hindu Mahasabha and RSS (Hindu Rashtra). The electoral arena proved without doubt that Muslim League was no representative of Muslims, neither was Hindu Mahasabha representative of Hindus. British at their home were seeing themselves primarily as British, but here they used exclusively religious categories to understand and describe India. Accordingly when JS Mill wrote a History primer for the training of British officers he described the periods of Indian History as Hindu, Muslim and British period. The latter was not to be described and understood as Christian period of Indian History. The Indian nation, how so ever imperfect, was a in the process of formation. Different communities were bringing forth their Indian identity as the foremost identity, while relegating the religious and regional identities at the secondary positions.

The communalists and British colonialists had the same wavelength in their understanding. British also had the interest of basing their empire on the divide and rule policy for which Jinnah's Muslim League on one side and Hindu Mahasabha-RSS on the other came in handy. The colonialists and the communalists had a cozy relationship at deeper level. Communalists did not have to struggle against the British. British did not have to restrain them except when they exceeded their limits in hating each other. Unfortunately this perfect ideological fit of communalists and colonialists resulted in Partition tragedy. Kashmir opted to remain indetendent. Jinnah could not tolerate an independent Muslim state (Kashmir) in the neighborhood. Logic, which he had been using over a period of time, was that since Muslims constitute majority in Kashmir, so it has to merge with Pakistan. In due course he was to send his army dressed as tribals to attack Kashmir. In similar way Pandit Prem Nath Dogra of Praja Parishad the predecessor of Jana Sangh, (the previous edition of presently ruling BJP), was to advise the Hindu King of Muslim majority area not to merge a Hindu State (Kashmir) with secular India. The logic here was that state's nature is determined by the religion of the king. One wonders how Pandit Dogra and his ilk would have characterized Hydrabad, where the ruler was Muslim?

Kashmiri people were made of different mettle. In the face of Pakistani attack, when the Hindu Maharaja fled for his security, Sheikh Abdullah had to handle the major responsibility. Had he been nurtured in Jinnah-Savarkar School of politics the problem would have been 'solved'. He could have opted for merger to Pakistan in the face of marching Pakistani armies. He 'unfortunately' turned out to have absorbed the values of Indian freedom struggle and his National conference had rejected the principle of divine right of kings to rule and opted for the democratic-secular politics. He 'unfortunately' turned out to be the one steeped in Kashmiriyat Culture, the culture that is the mix of Sufi, Rishi and Buddha traditions, Kashmiriyat for which primacy is for syncretic culture and not this and that religion. Accordingly, he wanted to preserve Kashmiriyat and bring in democracy. The treaty of accession gave enough autonomy to Kashmir's elected body. Treaty of accession accepted the principles of Do Vidhan-Do Pradhan (Two constitutions-Two Prime Ministers). But that was not to be.

In due course under the pressure from the Jana Sangh, and other Hindutva elements the treaty of accession started getting eroded bit by bit. The humiliation of elected representatives of Kashmir (Sheikh Abdullah twice and Faroukh Abdullah once were put behind the bar for long times) was symbolic of dishonoring the treaty of accession. Once treaties are violated, democratic processes are muzzled; terrorism cannot remain far behind. In due course Pakistan trained terrorists started their activities duly joined in later by the other of their breed from the neighboring Afghanistan where American establishment was fighting the battle for Freedom through the Jehadis, the terrorists of the ilk of Osama, trained by the CIA via the conduit of Pakistan.

The biggest victims of the Imperialist game, the designs of Pakistans ruling Junta and the violation of treaty of accession by Indian establishment, has been the people of Kashmir. Bereft of development and employment, lured by the rewards in the afterlife, many a boys succumbed to the designs of Pakistan (courtesy US) trained militants and today the tragedy is total.

Surely the only solution of the problem lies in the democratization of society and polity, development and employment to youth. Can the religion-based division solve any problem whatsoever? Pakistan formed on the basis of religion broke in to two under the weight of economic and cultural contradictions. India founded on secular ground has been able to retain its ground despite rising assertion and manipulations of communal elements. A division of Kashmir on communal lines will be fraught with disaster. In yesteryears communal vision manufactured by British was the ideological base of Muslim League and Hindu Mahasabha-RSS. Today again, the prescriptions of the present Imperialist power US and the RSS are matching to a great extent. Is there something more to the commonality of solutions and understandings, given by Imperialists and communalists, than meets the eye?