Thomas Small Aimen, we've done it again. We planned to record an episode on Kashmir, on Pakistan and India, and, bang, right on cue the Pakistani capital of Islamabad erupts into violent protest. Aimen, what's going on?
Aimen Dean What is going on, you know, is our dear friend, and I'm being sarcastic here, Imran Khan, the former – now the former prime minister of Pakistan, is not exactly happy about being out of power.
Thomas Small Ah. So, you – you've gone straight for the juggler right away. You've alienated half of our Pakistani listeners.
Aimen Dean Look, for me, I can say that, just like the Palestine-Israel episode, we're going to ruffle some feathers here. But you know what? We are—. Here at Conflicted, we deal with facts and facts alone.
Thomas Small Well, we try to deal with facts. Sometimes, some Aimen Dean opinion slips in there. But—. Anyway, Aimen, I got to admit right up front. I'm no expert on Kashmir. I mean, I'm hardly an expert on anything. But certainly not Kashmir. So, I'm relying on you today. Let's get into it.
Right, Aimen. Listeners have been requesting we do an episode on Kashmir. And here it is, our first episode on that crisis. Perhaps our first of many. Who knows? It's been a long-festering crisis. It has erupted several times into war, involving several major players: India and Pakistan, of course, but also China, Afghanistan, Bangladesh, and, of course, the US and Britain as well.
Kashmir is a classic case study in the amorphous thing we've been calling the clash of civilisations. And not in the way that you perhaps think. People think the problem there boils down to Islam versus Hinduism. Well, think again, I say. It's another example of Western modernity throwing a hand grenade into a pre-modern, traditional world with the usual conflictual results. Or so I'll argue at least. What's the situation there at the moment, Aimen?
From what I understand, the India-controlled part of the region is heavily militarised, and the people there are increasingly discontent with the Indian government's heavy-handed policies. Is that how you see it?
Oh, yes. There is no question. Heavy militarisation of any zone will result in discontented civilians. No question about it. I mean, and – and Kashmir in particular is the most heavily militarised zone in the world right now.
Thomas Small The most heavily militarised zone in the world?
Aimen Dean Yes.
Thomas Small I did not know that.
Aimen Dean Yeah. The—.
Thomas Small So, we're talking more than – more than, you know, Palestine, for example?
Aimen Dean Oh, yeah. Because you have six hundred thousand Indian troops in the Indian-administered Kashmiri zone and then you have on the other side, on the Pakistani side, you have between two hundred and fifty to three hundred thousand troops in the Pakistani-administered Kashmir. So, you – you end up almost with three hundred thousand on the Pakistani side, six hundred thousand on the Indian side. Almost a million troops are facing each other there in Kashmir.
Thomas Small Oh, my God. And, of course, you know, both sides, also nuclear powers. It's—. You know, it's a recipe for – for – for a major disaster.
Aimen Dean Yeah. It—. This is—. You know, what worries me is that if you look at the – the – the size of Kashmir on either side, I mean, and put them all together—. And don't forget, by the way, Kashmir, isn't only claimed by India and Pakistan. China also, you know, taken a chunk of Kashmir in 1962 war between India and China. So, you will end up with a situation where there are three major powers, all of them are nuclear, you know, fighting over Kashmir. It is—. And it is most important to understand here that this conflict is one of the most unnecessary conflicts, you know, you could ever come across, you know, in this series.
Thomas Small We'll get there, Aimen. We'll get there. You've got a lot to say about your views on the Kashmiri crisis and, in fact, it's solution. But before you go there, I mean, I want to talk more about this: the nuclear element. I mean, you briefly referred to Pakistan's nuclear programme in the last episode, the one on Libya, because it was a Pakistani nuclear scientist who – who helped Gaddafi or was helping Gaddafi acquire a bomb for Libya before – before Gaddafi agreed to shut down his programme of weapons of mass destruction.
Now, India obviously acquired its bomb before Pakistan. In 1974, it carried out an operation. I think it has an almost hilariously inappropriate name given what it was for. Do you know the name? Operation Smiling Buddha.
Aimen Dean Oh, yeah. I mean, for God's sake, like, you know, I mean, Buddha was, you know—.
Thomas Small A pacifist.
Aimen Dean Exactly.
Thomas Small So, Operation Smiling Buddha, in 1974, was India's first ever test of a nuclear weapon. And so, you know, India's neighbour, Pakistan, did not take this successful demonstration of nuclear capability lying down, and its own nuclear programme, which had been launched two years earlier, was then kicked into high gear.
In – in the nineties, this came to a head when both powers became proper nuclear powers. And since then—. Well, Aimen, you know, India, Pakistan, cultural cousins, caught in a Cold War all their own since 1947, since the partition of the Raj.
When India tested that bomb in '74, was it a watershed moment in South Asian history?
Aimen Dean You know, Thomas, there is a joke in both India and Pakistan about what keep both countries together. You know? Because if you look at India, it's just a patchwork of many states with so many different languages, so many different cultures, so many different ethnicities. India is so fragmented, you know, culturally and geographically and politically and everything. So, what keeps it together?
So, they say, what keeps India together is English and cricket.
Thomas Small English and cricket.
Aimen Dean However, what is keeping Pakistan together?
Thomas Small Tell me.
Aimen Dean Cricket and India. Yes.
Thomas Small I see. So, Pakistan – Pakistan is held together by a shared hatred of India and cricket.
Aimen Dean Indeed. So—. And then— And this demonstrate the fact that, you know, the entire British Raj actually, even at the height of its power and the height of its, you know, hegemony, it was really still a patchwork of many decentralised, you know, provinces with princely states here and, you know –, you know, with many enclaves and exclaves. And, you know, it – it was really a jumble of so many things put together.
Thomas Small Tell me about it, Aimen. I mean, I have been staring at maps of the Raj for the last two weeks in preparation for this episode, trying to wrap my head around some way of simplifying that polity. You know, it is—. It's insane. If you look at a map of all the different zones of British control, semi-British control, independent Maharajahs, weird things called presidencies, weird things called agencies, it—. Not to mention, you know, like, little outposts still of Portuguese and French control. It is insane.
Aimen Dean Don't forget it's called the Indian subcontinent. It's massive. It's huge.
Thomas Small It's massive.
Aimen Dean And hugely populated also.
Thomas Small The conflict between India and Pakistan goes very, very deep. But on paper at least, it's over an extremely mountainous piece of land in the far north of the Indian subcontinent, where the Himalayas meet the Hindu Kush, Kashmir. And I say "piece of land," but, you know, it's roughly the size of Great Britain. So, Kashmir is not small at all.
Aimen Dean Yeah. It might be the size of great Britain. but the reality here is that it is absolutely essential. It is geographically gifted with high mountains. And these high mountains are the source of many rivers in the Indian subcontinent.
Thomas Small Especially the Indus River that flows down through the middle of Pakistan.
Aimen Dean If you look at Tibet and China, it is the birth place of the Yellow River, the Yangtze, and the Mekong. So, there are so many of us that are essential for hundreds of millions of people coming out of that plateau.
The same thing with Kashmir. Kashmir, actually, there are quite few rivers coming out of there. It is the source of water for Pakistan. You know, the Indus River, you know, system. And the Indus River system is what's run through Pakistan. So, especially through the Punjab. And then, later the Sindh, which gives, you know, the—. Which is, you know, the lifeline for the fertile parts of Pakistan. It's the, you know, bread basket of Pakistan there.
So, for India, having some control over Kashmir actually will have a – a strategic edge, massive strategic edge against Pakistan. Pakistan understand this and they want to be free of – of, you know, India's strategic grip on its water sources.
Thomas Small I mean, Aimen, you've actually been to Kashmir, haven't you? I think you went—. Did you go as a fully-fledged jihadist or were you already a double agent working for MI6 inside al-Qaeda?
Aimen Dean At the time, I was a fully-fledged spy inside al-Qaeda for MI6. I mean, the reason for that is because, at the time, I used to have a cover story, you know, working as a merchant within al-Qaeda, on behalf of al-Qaeda, you know, acquiring certain commodities from Kashmir in order to export, including the pink Himalayan salt, you know, and as well as the famous Kashmiri mountain honey. So, I mean, that was what—. It – it was a wild adventure.
Thomas Small So, you were going into Kashmir regularly to pick up these goods that you then sold on to – to – to make money for al-Qaeda all the while working for MI6. But what – what was the—? Let's say, what was the intelligence gathering aspect of your visits to Kashmir?
Aimen Dean So, my visits to places like Muzaffarabad and then, from there, into the Neelam Valley and, you know, the Kargil Hills and all of these places that you hear about in the news all the time—. First of all, the first impression you get there is what a beautiful place.
Thomas Small I've seen photos, and it's breath-taking. It's like be – beyond anything I've ever seen, really.
Aimen Dean It's—. It – it – it is a Switzerland, but on steroids in terms of, you know, natural beauty. I mean—.
Thomas Small Isn't Switzerland on steroids? Arnold Schwarzenegger. No, he's Austrian.
Aimen Dean No. He's Austrian. I mean, you know, he is Austrian. Okay. So—.
Thomas Small So, you're saying Kashmir is the Schwarzenegger of the subcontinent?
Aimen Dean Indeed., you know, you – you look at—. You go there and you find such amazing natural beauty, littered with, you know, training camps and military outposts. And – and you think, "Oh, my God. What a—. You know? What a pity?"
But you meet Kashmiris and you immediately, you know, notice the warmth. You know, the loveliness of the people. And, you know, you listen to their grievances. And I was surprised actually by the fact that they have very, very, you know, angry grievances against the Indians. But also, at the same time, they have equally angry grievances against the Pakistani military.
Thomas Small Sure. So, back to your – your – your trips there, what – what sort of intelligence were you gathering?
Aimen Dean At the time, I was looking into groups like Lashkar-e-Taiba, Jaish-e-Mohammed. I was looking into their relationship with al-Qaeda. The training camps of al-Qaeda set up for them there in conjunction with the Pakistani military. The Pakistani ISI. And also, at the same time, understanding their financial and cultural and ideological relationship with al-Qaeda and the Taliban and the relationship between all of these groups.
Thomas Small That's absolutely fascinating. I mean, you—. Your – your knowledge of Kashmir is, indeed, very intimate. I mean, I hope I'm not talking out of turn here, but your – your wife is actually Kashmiri.
Aimen Dean Indeed.
Thomas Small So, you are the man to – you are the man to turn to about Kashmir.
Aimen Dean But I can tell you that they—. You know, in order to understand Kashmir and the Kashmiri conflict right now, we have to really go back in history. Not too far, but just at least, like, you know, I mean, to the first half of the twentieth century.
Thomas Small Well, you're right. I'm afraid we're going back further than that as we always do. I love a bit of Bronze Age. I love a bit of Iron Age.
Aimen Dean Indeed.
Thomas Small So, let's have our typical excursus on an ancient India in this case. However, first, geography. It's called the Indian subcontinent. It is huge. It is heavily populated. It currently has—. The Indian subcontinent as a whole. So, we're talking, you know, we're talking Pakistan, India, and Bangladesh and Bhutan and Nepal, in fact. One-point seven billion people, basically.
Aimen Dean More than China.
Thomas Small Twenty-two percent of the world's population. And, yes, more than China. Very important. And it's a single cultural geographical zone, even though it's split into different nation states at the moment.
Geographically, the Indian subcontinent is basically a huge island that smashed into Southern Asia gazillions of years ago, and the force of the impact created the Himalayan. So, this is why India, from space, looks a little bit like—. Well, I'd like to think of it—. It's like the aftermath of a car crash. Like a fender bender. The Himalayas are the crumpled hood. A steep wall of mountains rising above the rest of the country below.
Aimen Dean You have dark imagination, I must say. You have dark imagination. I'll tell you why. Because when I see India, I see a slice of pizza, you know, basically. And, you know—. I—. You know? And, basically, the Himalayas is the crust.
Thomas Small Okay. That's a much, much more pacifistic or much, much sweeter – sweeter—. Or more savoury, I should say. A more savoury metaphor.
So, yes, like the crust of a slice of pizza, the Himalayas rise above the rest of India. And just below the Himalayas is this – is a huge arc of extremely fertile land called the Indo-Gangetic Plain. This is where the Indus and Ganges rivers fertilise the—. You know, an – an immense amount of arable land that has been, for many millennia, the – the – the – the source really of Indian civilisation, literally. Cities, empires, et cetera. And then, beyond the Indo-Gangetic Plain is the Peninsular plateau all the way down to the south. And the plateau is ringed all around by coastal plains, a thin strip of green running around the edge of the country. And it's – it's just enormous, the whole place. It's enormous.
Now, as I said, the Indo-Gangetic Plain is where the action has been for most of history. And, of course, I'm not – I'm not – I'm not an expert at all. The history of – of the region and its religions is hotly contested, not only by scholars, but – but especially by Indians and Pakistanis themselves of every stripe. Because religion has become so mixed up with national identity in South Asia. That's part of the story we're telling.
But historically, right? Stay with me here, Aimen. Basically, you have a people. They're called the Dravidians, right? They probably predate the other inhabitants of the subcontinent. They are now located mainly in its southern half and in Sri Lanka. They speak their own languages, the Dravidian languages. The major one of which is Tamil. They were probably the people who founded the Indus River civilisation, one of the early cradles of civilisation. This one, along the Indus River valley in what is now Pakistan. The Dravidian peoples have their own ancient religious practices. They are, themselves, very diverse. And to some extent, they have been influenced by the religion of their conquerors, the Indo-Aryans.
So, the Indo-Aryans, cousins of the ancient Iranians about whom we spoke, you know, I don't know, eons ago when we were talking about Iran, they were speakers of an Indo-European language, which split into the many Indo-European languages and dialects of India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh. You know, Hindi, Punjabi, Kashmiri, Gujarati Bengali. Many, many, many more.
When they arrived as invaders from the north, during the Bronze Age, they came with a religion that was significantly different from that of the indigenous inhabitants, a religion which was codified a bit later into texts known as the Vedas. And this is—. This religion is actually not so dissimilar from Zoroastrianism, because they have similar roots in the Iranian, you know, Indo-Iranian areas of Central Asia.
This Vedic religion, in turn, developed into a highly ritualised priestly tradition, which scholars call Brahmanism, and it was against this, against Brahmanism and it's priestly stratification, that Buddhism arose as a kind of reaction sometime around the turn of the fifth century BC.
So, that sort of lays a bit of the groundwork for what happened next. And, you know, the subcontinent is too ancient and too huge and too diverse to do justice to – to it. But politically speaking, over the centuries, various empires would wax and wane, centred somewhere along the Indo-Gangetic plain, usually in its eastern half and penetrating southward. Sometimes a long way. Sometimes less. But most of the time, the whole subcontinent was fragmented into warring principalities, if you can even call them that. And this is basically the case all the way until the nineteenth century, when the whole of the subcontinent and even further, into Burma or Myanmar, was politically unified under the British.
However, I'm going to hand this over to you now, Aimen. Before we get to the British, tell us about Muslims and the subcontinent. So, when and how did Islam arrive there? It wasn't straightforward. It came in incremental waves.
Aimen Dean So, the arrival of Islam, you know, to the Indian subcontinent started roughly about ninety years after the death of the Prophet Muhammad. You know? So, in the six nineties. You know, seven hundreds, early seven hundreds.
Thomas Small Culminating, I think in 711, if I'm not mistaken.
Aimen Dean 711. Yeah.
Thomas Small Yeah.
Aimen Dean When—. You know? There were – there were the, you know the – the – the campaigns of Muhammad in [unintelligible], going all the way to what is today is modern-day Karachi and the surrounding areas. It was going towards the Sindh and, to some extent, into the Punjab.
So, you know, these early incursions, you know, incorporated some of these provinces, especially Baluchistan, you know, and the, you know, parts of the Sindh into the Umayyad Empire. It remains so. Then, after the Abbasids came, they consolidated their control over these parts, especially around the Indus River. But that's it. The Indus River, you know, formed a borderline between the Muslim conquest and, you know, the heartland of the, you know, Gangetic Plain.
Thomas Small That's right. I—. At that point, if I'm not mistaken—. So, the – the Muslims became well, you know, well-established in what is now, you know, that part of Pakistan. It remained inside the caliphate forever. Networks of ports from Arabia via Sindh grew up and grew up and dotted all around the – the subcontinent as trade. The Arab—. You know, the Arabs per – performed trade activities around India. It's not – it's not easy to know exactly how influential this trading activity was in terms of spreading Islam, but it must have played some role.
Aimen Dean So, the network of ports that the Muslim traders and merchants established, it was actually extensive. It ran all the way from, you know, modern day, Karachi, if we can call it, you know, all the way through Goa, you know, in the west of India, going all the way to Tamil Nadu and then also to Ceylon, which is known today as Sri of Lanka. Although the Arabs had a different name for Sri Lanka at that time. They used to call it Serendib.
Thomas Small Ah, Serendib. That's a beautiful name.
Aimen Dean And from there they, you know, expanded into the Maldives. They expanded their trade missions into Jakarta, Java, Sumatra, and all the way to Thailand. So, you know, the – the trade network was extensive. And through the trade network, Islam slowly and gradually was being introduced, at least being familiarised, you know, by the, you know, by the Hindu princes.
And, in fact, an entire Hindu kingdom, separate from India though, converted to Islam in later years, because of, you know, the merchant activities. That was, of course, Jakarta, the principality of Jakarta.
Now, going back, this was the first wave. But militarily – militarily, there was no further expansion, you know, after the Abbasid's, you know, dynasty was established. They focus more on Central Asia.
Thomas Small Yes. I mean, in fact, from – from Central Asia—. Well, from Greater Persia, let's call it, especially Afghanistan. Islamic rule politically began slowly, slowly to spread, you know, as Hindu kingdoms in the Punjab, in – in sort of north – northern Pakistan, north – north, you know, Western India, the Punjab and Kashmir fell to Islamic conquerors. But then, eventually, the whole Ganges valley, all the way to Bengal. So, basically, you know, the entire Indo-Gangetic Plain crystallised under Islamic rule in the thirteenth century, during the rise of what's called the Delhi Sultanate.
Aimen Dean But indeed, it wasn't the Arabs, really, who subjugated India. It was actually the Mongols, known as the Mughals. They are the ones who, when they converted to Islam, made this detour into – through Afghanistan, into the plains of India. And they conquered India this way.
Thomas Small That's right. So, first, you have the Delhi Sultanate, which conquered about seventy percent of the subcontinent. And then, in 1526, as you say, the great conqueror, Babur, and his Persianate Turco-Mongol warriors from Kabul conquered about ninety-five percent of the whole subcontinent, which was then incorporated into the Mughal Empire.
And I think Mughal India is, really, the India of the average person's imagination. I mean, like the Taj Mahal, the Red Fort, and all those sorts of Oriental dreams of what India is.
Aimen Dean Indeed. And just to let, you know, that, you know, in many ways, the—. While – while the Abbasids stopped, you know, the conquest of India at, you know, the Indus River. And that's it. They formed that political border with the rest of India.
Thomas Small Just like Alexander the Great before them, actually. That's interesting. Alexander himself stopped at the Indus.
Aimen Dean Exactly. I think it's just because, by then, you know, the Arabs had enough of elephants. I mean, basically, they fought the Persian elephants. You know? They fought, you know, the Asian elephants. They didn't want to fight any Indian elephants anymore. "That's it. We've had enough of elephants."
But, you know, the cultural exchange that happened during the Abbasid era between India and the Arab word phenomenon.
Thomas Small Yeah. Immense.
Aimen Dean Immense. I mean, the—. First of all, mathematics, you know, and geometry and architecture. I mean, the—. And medicine. I mean, it – it just—. The House of Wisdom in Baghdad, you know, the greatest library the world has ever seen by then, was receiving so many delegations from India, bringing with them knowledge, bringing with them mathematics. It was amazing.
Thomas Small Yeah. The House of Wisdom is – is most famous in the west for – for being the place where Greek science and Greek literature was translated and – and – and housed. But even more so, I would say, works of Persian and especially Indian genius populated the House of Wisdom. And as you say, lots—. And not just science, actually. A lot of literature entered into Arabic and Persian via India at that time.
Aimen Dean Indeed. Including numbers. I mean, funny enough, the Arabs came with the – what we know now as the Arabic numerals, which is what we use today globally, you know, including in the English language and many European languages. But now, the Arabs, especially of the Gulf, they are using Indian numbers instead of the original Arabic. So, that in itself is incredible.
Thomas Small So, since we're talking about—. We'll go on to talk about, you know, Hindu-Muslim relations in the subcontinent. We can briefly say that the Mughal conquests of India were somewhat chequered. There was a lot of destruction as there often is during such conquests. I think at – in phases at the beginning of the – of the Imperial expansion, you know, the native polytheistic traditions considered to be idolatry by the Muslim conquerors were, you know, were targeted somewhat in some places. But eventually, the Mughal Empire settled into a pattern of fairly sort of peaceful coexistence between a Muslim aristocracy ruling class, a Muslim, let's say, a growing Muslim merchant class, and a – a Hindu majority. There was basically peace between those communities. Is that fair to say? Do you – do you think?
Aimen Dean Yeah. Because, don't forget, you know, many of the Mughal sultans then adopted what they call, you know, Din-i Ilahi, which is, you know, means, you know, the Divine Religion or, you know, which in a try to incorporate some of the mysticism of, you know, Hindu religion into Islam.
And at the time, even during that time, there was, you know, the birth of the Sikh religion, which was trying to incorporate aspects of Islam and Hinduism. The—. It – it was mostly peaceful coexistence, you know. Riots would happen between now and then. Because why? It was a peaceful coexistence imposed from the top down.
Thomas Small Well, we want to move on cause we got to get to the twentieth century. So, when we talk about the British, I'm going to be brief. So, basically, just in summary. The East India Company is founded in 1600. It sets up a number of trading forts around the coast of India, especially Calcutta in the east and Bombay in the west. And over the next two hundred and fifty years, the – the East India Company takes advantage, really, of the slowly crumbling Mughal Empire by conquering or – or annexing or otherwise incorporating, subjugating the whole subcontinent.
So, then, in – in 1857, there's a huge uprising called the Mutiny of Disgruntled Indians, mainly Muslims, in fact, in the north. And this compelled the British government in London, which had largely let, you know, allowed the East India Company to rule the place on its behalf. But after the mutiny, the British government in London took direct control of what then became known as the Raj, British India, which was the unquestioned jewel in the British Imperial crown. You know?
Remember, again, we're talking about modern Pakistan, India, and Bangladesh. Oh, and also Nepal and Bhutan and even Burma, you know, Myanmar, for a large part of – of the history.
So, we're talking a huge, huge, huge region, heavily populated. And during this whole period, first under the East India Company and then during the ninety years of the Raj, modernity came to India.
Aimen Dean You mean, bureaucracy?
Thomas Small Oh, no. Bu – bureaucracy, the Mughals had a very sophisticated bureaucracy, which they …
Aimen Dean Indeed.
Thomas Small … brought with them from the Persian tradition of bureaucracy. It's not bureaucracy. Modern ideas. So, I think what's most germane to the topic of the partition of India later and – and the Kashmir crisis is the idea – is the modern idea of religion. I mean, that might strike you as weird, but religion as a category is very modern and very Western. And it was the British who began to categorise Indians by religious affiliation. You know? Religious as the British themselves understood it.
So, the word Hindu, for example, was originally used to denote anyone who lived in Hind, in India, which was defined as "all the land east of the Indus River." But in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, its definition, the definition of Hindu, shifted and began to denote the non-Muslim religious traditions of India, which were vast, incredibly different, very diverse. Often mutually, you know, contradictory. But the Europeans amalgamated this diversity conceptually into one thing, which they called Hinduism, which they labelled a religion and considered one of the great religions of the world.
But, you know, what is religion? Is there even such a thing? I mean, is religion, which – by which I mean something that can be bracketed off from the rest of the world, from the rest of the society, from politics, from social interaction, from trade, from criminal justice, something that can be bracketed off and – and – and – and seen apart from everything else?
Or is this thing, religion, really an inherently Western concept, rooted in the particulars of European history? You know, in the wars of religion that followed. The Protestant reformation, when Catholics and Protestants were fighting. And in order to create peace, they sort of said, "Look, religion is separate. It's private. Everyone can have their own religion or whatever."
But it's – it's a separate thing. I don't think that's the way that Muslims and – and what are now – who are now called Hindus traditionally understood it.
Aimen Dean Yeah. And this is why, like, you know, I mean, like I said, like, you know, that the Mughals adopted the, you know, the new concept of Din-i Ilahi. Like, you know, the divine religion. Everyone can worship God the way they like, you know, as long as it will be the Sultan. I think, you know, the arrival of the British and with their concept of religion as a category and an identity may have contributed to the religious divide that will take place, you know, in later years in India.
Thomas Small I think it definitely did. Historically, the peoples of India had identified with more than just whatever spiritual tradition they followed. You know, linguistic, ethnic, regional, and dynastic markers. I mean, who you – who, who your leader was.
Aimen Dean And the caste system also.
Thomas Small Well—. Yes. Those – those markers of identity were even stronger than religion. And, yes, strongest of all even among Indian Muslims, to some extent, was class …
Aimen Dean Yes.
Thomas Small … or caste. Because that Brahman-ic strand of Indian religion led to the creation of a very rigid caste system in India, which persists to this day.
Aimen Dean Even among Muslims. Even among Pakistanis. Like, you know, I mean, still. You know?
If you ask someone, "Oh, where is your wife from?"
"Oh, my wife is from the same caste as me."
"Caste?"
You know? So, I mean, it was a foreign idea to me at the time. Like, you know, I mean. "What do you mean by cost? I mean, I thought caste, you know, just is something that is, like, you know, the Hindus practice."
They said, "No, no, no. Even – even among Muslims in India and Pakistan, the caste systems still exist."
Thomas Small Well, we can—. I mean, I want to talk about this more. I mean, I hope it is not going to bore you, dear listener. But, you know, Aimen, you say that the Mughals tried this thing called Din-i Ilahi, the "divine religion" as you translated it. But let's talk about that, "din," which is translated usually as religion into English. But I'm not sure that that's the right translation. I mean, etymologically, "din" is related to the word "law" or the word "judgment" or the word—. How – how do we talk? "Din" was a much more all-embracing concept than the way we think of as religion today.
Aimen Dean Sometimes, it could be a way of life.
Thomas Small A whole way of life, but also a way of governing society.
Aimen Dean Yeah.
Thomas Small It's inherent in the word. You know, the sultan's din, the sultan's religion, is also his way of governing society.
Aimen Dean Yeah.
Thomas Small It's very different from religion as we understand it now, a private affair by – based on conscience and metaphysical ideas that you – that you, you know, give your intellectual ascent to. It's – it's more social. It's more political.
Aimen Dean Absolutely. There is no question. I mean, Islam's, you know, amalgamation of laws and rituals put together as well as transaction. So, you have transactions, laws, and rituals. And you put them together. And worship and spirituality, you put them together. That is actually what religion is. It's a way of life, all-encompassing, from the seat of power, all the way, hidden into the private room where you pray. All of this is religion.
Thomas Small From "the seat of power" is the important – the important thing.
Aimen Dean Yes.
Thomas Small So, basically the Sultan could define for his – his realm, what the "din" was. So, in – in Mughal—. The Mughals defined it as including the practices that we call Hinduism. That's the thing.
Aimen Dean Yeah.
Thomas Small It wasn't seen as incompatible as we now have to understand it with Islam. The sultan, a Muslim, he had a din," and that "din" included his Hindu subjects.
Aimen Dean For sure.
Thomas Small This transformation of the consciousness, let's say, of – of the inhabitants of the Indian subcontinent towards a more modern conception of religion. to some extent, came to a head beginning in 1871, when the Raj held its first of many censuses of all of the inhabitants of the – of the Raj. it was the first of several. And this helps to further engrain religious identity among Indians.
And briefly—. It would be interesting, I think, to discuss the impact this had on Bengali. Because we – we think of the partition of India of 1947 as the big partition. But there was a – a sort of a preview of the – of the major partition in 1905, when Bengal was partitioned between east and west, between an eastern Muslim majority area and a western Hindu majority area. And this was the result of these censuses, which had revealed that there were more Muslims in Bengal than was thought. And the Raj, they said, in order to administer Bengal better, although Bengalis themselves accused the Raj of – of adopting divide and conquer policies, partitioned Bengal, a huge area, into – into these – these two sides, which resulted in – in chaos.
Aimen Dean You see as partition of the Bengal and the idea that separate elections will be held for each community was the brainchild off idiotic British civil servants. And because the idea is "Oh, yeah. Divide and conquer. Divide the rule. That's the best way to do it."
But in reality, the 1905 partition and then, after that, by 1911, there were these separate elections, all of this mean that the British unwittingly planted the idea that, first, Hindus and Muslims cannot get along together in a united India and, second, you know, that if they can get along, then, in the future, maybe, maybe, you know, each side can go separately.
Thomas Small Yes. In 1911, the – the partition of Bengal was actually undone and Bengal was reunited, because the British had seen the chaos that partition there had caused. So, ironically, from that point onwards, the British themselves never favoured partition as a solution to internecine or, whatever, intercommunal political problems.
We saw a few episodes ago that in the case of Palestine, for example, the British abstained from the UN vote to create the partition there. They didn't believe that partition would work. They were proved right to some extent. And as we'll see, you know, in the run-up to the partition of India in 1947, the British also tried to avoid this. In the end, they couldn't. But they didn't want partition as policy, I think, because they'd been burned by the partition of Bengal.
Aimen Dean But you say—. But you see the problem here is that they might not have wanted partition, but their entire set of policies they implemented in India and the – and the Raj led eventually to the partition, because they were really favouring one party against another within the alliance, you know, that was, you know, trying to gain Indian independence.
And, of course, we'll be talking about personalities soon. But we are, you know, talking here about Gandhi, Jinnah, Nehru, Sardar Patel, and everyone. Like, you know, I mean, they were imprisoning one group while allowing the other to campaign and to have more political freedom. By that, I mean, Muhammad Jinnah.
Thomas Small So, the idea that Muslims and Hindus in India would eventually need their own state, it began to – to rise in India in the late nineteenth century, early twentieth century. But resistance to that idea also was on the rise. It's proponent presented something called "composite nationalism." For example, Gandhi. You know, the most famous Indian, you know, freedom fighter, independence supporter. He said, "Hindus and Muslims were sons of the same soil in India. They were brothers who therefore must strive to keep India free and united."
So, this idea that India was one, that Indians, regardless of their ethnicity, regardless of their religion, are one, is what informed the development of something called the Indian National Congress. I mean, a massive player, political player to this day in India. And I—. You know, I wish we could go into the whole story and the details, because the story of – of – of India and it's – it's struggle to get independence and then what – everything that followed is amazing, but it would take a gazillion hours to tell it properly.
So, the Indian National Congress was the most well-organised and most powerful proponent of independence from Britain. And for that very reason, it annoyed the British authorities. So, yes, as you say, Aimen, eventually, the Raj worked closer with a group that had arisen in opposition to the Indian National Congress, the All-India Muslim League, which invariably brings us to a – a very big personality in this story. Muhammad Ali Jinnah.
Aimen Dean If we talk about Muhammad Ali Jinnah, you – if you ask the Indians how do they view him, they view him entirely negatively. If you ask the Pakistanis how did they view him, they view him entirely positively. And if I ask myself as someone who's an avid, you know, reader of history, how do I view him, I really believe that his role was not entirely positive in the story of the Indian subcontinent.
Thomas Small Well, let's tell the listener first, you know, who this guy is. I mean, he was born, in 1876, near Karachi, to a wealthy merchant family. Funnily enough, an Ismaili family. That – that's quite interesting, isn't it?
Aimen Dean Indeed. I mean, this is one of the things I always, like, you know, find it puzzling. Whenever I talk to my friends from Pakistan, I ask the question. I ask, you know, "What is Qaid-i-Azam to you?" Qaid-i-Azam means the "Great Leader" and that is the title they give to Muhammad Ali Jinnah.
And they say, you know, "He is the founding father of Pakistan. He is this. He is that."
And most of the people I talk to are either, you know, Barelvis, you know, Sunni. You know, Sunni Barelvis or Sunni Deobandi from Pakistan. And they say, "Yeah. But, you know, he was a Ismaili?"
"What?"
"Yeah. He was a Ismaili."
I mean, the fact that he was a Ismaili, and as such considered a heretic, you know, by all of these religious schools, tells me a lot about the Pakistani education system. That, you know, they really gloss over, you know, his first, you know, highly aristocratic, you know, roots, you know, and the fact that he was a follower of the Aga Khan and he was a Ismaili.
Thomas Small Plus, I imagine they gloss over just how Westernised he became. And he went to London to study law. During his studies there, he was inspired mainly by the great thinkers of England's liberal tradition, like John Stuart, Mill, and others. And, you know, he – he – he – he only wore suits from Savile Row. The language that he spoke most fluently was English. So, he was very Westernised before returning to India where he set up practice as a lawyer.
Aimen Dean The reality is, Thomas, I don't believe, you know, Muhammad Jinnah was motivated by religion, to be honest. Because, for him, the majority of India's Muslims are Sunnis. And, you know, he is Ismaili. He is like, you know, I mean, completely separate from them in terms of religion. I mean, basically, like, you know, he's a fringe sect. That's the first thing.
The second thing is that he was mainly secular, liberal, and aristocratic and really, like, you know, was in pursuit of material gain. You know? And, therefore, what was his motivation about really creating that separate identities, you know, for foreign Muslims in the Indian subcontinent?
In my honest opinion, I would say he was really after one thing and one thing only. He was after power. He did not want to be the second man in the united India. He wanted to be the first man in a smaller country for India's Muslims.
Thomas Small Well, I think that one of the indications that it was political ambition that largely motivated him was the fact that in the – in the teens, you know, in 1916, around that point, he was a member of the Indian National Congress while also being a member of the All-India Muslim League, this other organisation, which opposed the – the political platform of the – of the India Congress. So, you know, he was clearly trying to straddle both sides. In the end, he threw his weight entirely behind the Muslim League and he became its, you know, he became its great leader in time.
Now, the Muslim League, quite straightforward, founded, in 1906, it wanted a state for Muslims only and it worked assiduously towards that end.
We got to jump forward now to World War II. So, by World War II, the Raj had introduced some democratic reforms. There had been elections, and members of Indian political parties were participating in governing the country. The Indian National Congress was by far the biggest of these political parties, but other parties were there as well.
Now, in World War II, when the UK declared war on Germany, India's viceroy there followed suit. So, India declared war on Germany. The leaders of the Indian National Congress, like Gandhi, like Nehru about whom we'll speak a little bit more down the line, they all resigned from the government. They opposed the Nazis, but they refused to join Britain's fight against the Nazis before being granted independence. 'Cause independence from Britain was the Indian National Congress's primary aim.
Now, Jinnah and the Muslim League were delighted by this resignation. And during the war, as Congress leaders were held under arrest, Muslim League members drew closer to British authorities, who were considered by the British—. I mean, the British considered the Muslim League to be more loyal than the Indian National Congress.
So, then when, in – in 1940, in Lahore, the Muslim League held a conference where they adopted a resolution calling for an independent Muslim state following independence, the British found themselves in a tricky situation. They didn't want partition. They wanted an independent India to remain whole, remain one, but they had really, you know, got very close to the Muslim League and its leaders, especially Jinnah. Jinnah enthusiastically endorsed the idea of an independent Muslim state, of course, which he hopes to lead. And – and because the Muslim League, unlike the Congress, was free to spread its message during the war, during the war, more and more Indian Muslims signed up to its ideology and – and began to desire an independent state.
Aimen Dean So, it became clear that, you know, as World War II was coming to an end, that India was going to be partitioned. Despite the best efforts by Gandhi, despite the best efforts by Nehru, it became clear that the distrust between the two communities has reached levels where it's no longer reconcilable.
Thomas Small This was certainly clear following the provincial elections that were held in 1946. At the end of the war, provincial elections were held, and it was understood that the outcome of those elections would help guide the policy of independence, whether to pursue partition or not. Ninety percent of all non-Muslims in India voted for the Congress and eighty percent of the Muslims who voted, voted for the League, who it seemed to be quite clear—. Though it's important to note of all Indian Muslims, only sixteen percent were eligible to vote, most of them upper-class Muslims.
So, you get a sense then that wealthy, upper class, elite Muslims felt that an independent state would serve their interests. It's not clear to me from the reading I've done that most Indian Muslims wanted to separate.
Aimen Dean Indeed. In fact, even Deoband, the school, you know, that was founded in order to preserve Muslim identity during the British Raj in 1866 was opposed to partition.
Thomas Small After the election, results came in. And then, in general, there was an increase in – in intercommunal violence. There were various riots. The situation became very, very tense in India. Desperate to leave, desperate to sort out a – a rapidly deteriorating situation, the Raj, you know, its viceroy, Lord Mountbatten, announced that, on the 15th of August 1947, India as it was then known would be independent and would be partitioned.
Aimen Dean And that partition was so messed up. I mean, seriously. Because why? They created this new entity called Pakistan, which was, you know, of course, what we know today as modern Pakistan along the Indus River. But what many listeners might not know is that there was another part of Pakistan to the completely other side of the country, in the east, and that was called East Pakistan. That is what we know today as Bangladesh.
Bangladesh was, from 1947 until – until 1971, called East Pakistan. And Pakistan today, as we know, it was known as West Pakistan, because Muslims were the majority in two sides of the country. And as a result, the partition was just looked so currently.
Thomas Small It not only looked convoluted. It resulted in – in just some phenomenally horrible scenes. I mean, fourteen million people were displaced as a result of partition as various, you know, groups decided that they had to or wanted to move to – to one either state to be amongst their co-religionists. You know, well over a million people died in riots and – and sort of pogroms and ethnic cleansing. There was – there was a lot of rape of – of women. It – it was—. It was really, really, really tragic.
Aimen Dean Absolutely. And in the midst of all of this chaos, there was Kashmir. Kashmir, at the time, was a separate principality ruled by a Hindu prince called Hari Singh. And he, you know, ruled a – an entity that was two-thirds Muslim and one-third Hindu and Sikhs and Buddhist. He was the Maharajah of Kashmir. And Kashmir at the time was invited, just like other princely states, to either join Pakistan or India.
Thomas Small Yes. That was one of the arrangements that the Raj had said. "To – to those independent Maharajahs," they said, "look, you can choose to be a part of this new India. You can choose to be a part of new Pakistan as you like. You just have to sign a letter of accession, as it was called, and – and inform New Delhi which – which country you want to join.
But Maharajah Hari Sing of the princely state of what was called Jammu and Kashmir at the time, which is – which is huge, you know. This is this big area in the north of India. He – he prevaricated. He didn't know which – which way he wanted it.
Aimen Dean Indeed. And there was a problem. He faced a problem. That he was a Maharajah, but most of the arms were with the Muslims. Because at the time, by the end of the World War II, most of the British Indian army conscripts were Muslims because of the Indian National Congress, who are mostly Hindus, boycotted World War II, as we – as you said. So, he was in a – in a pickle here. So, what he did is that he confiscated arms from the Muslim soldiers in Kashmir, gave them to Hindus and Sikhs. That created mistrust. That created communal violence. You know, twenty thousand Muslims were massacred. They got angry. They massacred and returned twenty thousand Sikhs and Hindus. And the situation was chaotic.
And so, the Maharajah, what did he do? He just left to New Delhi and, instead of the promise to remain neutral and to leave it to a vote, he actually just went to Nehru and said, you know, "I lost control of the situation. I need, you know, troops to come and restore peace in Jammu Kashmir."
Thomas Small I want to stop you there, Aimen. We haven't told the listener, Aimen, who Jawaharlal Nehru is. So, let – let's – let's discuss this man. I mean, an absolute titan, an icon of modern India. The – the secretary of state Dean Atchison, the American secretary of state, said of him, "Nehru was so important to India and India's survival, so important to all of us that if he did not exist, as Voltaire set of God, he would have had to be invented."
Nehru is a twentieth century titan. So, who was he?
Aimen Dean ell, he was from Kashmir, to begin with.
Thomas Small Yes. How incredibly convenient for us. He was a Kashmiri.
Aimen Dean Yeah. From the Pandit Kashmiris. I know—. You know, we're talking about the Hindu Kashmiris. They're called the Pandits. And so, you know, he came from the Pandit community of Kashmir and he was, you know, from a well-to-do family. He went to England to study law. You know, he and his father were some of the leaders of the National Indian Congress. And, in later years, he was, you know, extremely influenced by Gandhi and by Gandhi's appeal for India to find its soul and to return back to his traditions and to reject aspects of British modernity in favour of, you know, the spiritualism that, you know, characterise, you know, India's Hindus in the past.
Thomas Small So, Gandhi himself studied law in England. And every—. All of these guys studied law in England. And – and, you know, I could argue—. You could argue that though he – he portrayed himself, Gandhi, that is, portrayed himself as a traditional Indian, in fact, there was something very, very modern about his – his movement towards independence, his democratic ideals, his nonviolence. All of this is quite modern. Though, on the more radical, left wing, kind of spiritual side of modernity.
Aimen Dean Absolutely. So, Nehru is the product of being highly educated, but, at the same time, he adapted the down-to-earth attitude that Gandhi wanted to adapt. And, you know—. And he became more or less, you know, the undisputed leader of the National Indian Congress. And then, later, of course, became the first prime minister of India upon independence. But, of course, he and Gandhi were pretty much heartbroken, you know, over the partition. You know, all of them opposed the partition.
Thomas Small Yeah. So, back to Kashmir. So, Maharajah Hari Singh prevaricated about whether to join Pakistan or join India. Now, I – I think—. You know, you're a little bit nicer to – to old Hari Singh. I think he—. What he really hoped was to retain his independence and what – and hoped, somehow, of – for an independent Kashmir.
So, when we left Hari Singh, he – he'd gone to New Delhi.
Aimen Dean Yeah. He went to Nehru straight away and he said, "I need Indian troops to come and restore peace."
So, Nehru, looking at him and said, "I'm not going to help you, because you're not part of India yet. You know? How about you become part of India and I will send the troops to pacify the situation?"
So—. And that is when, you know, Nehru accepted Kashmir's accession into India and he sent him the troops. Jammu and Kashmir, you know, was the last Indian principality to decide whether to join Pakistan or India. But, you know, we have a situation here. The Maharajah of Jammu and Kashmir, while Jammu and Kashmir was two-thirds Muslims, however, the Maharajah Hari Singh was, in fact, Hindu. And he was afraid that—. Of course, he wanted to retain his status. He wanted to retain his power and influence. But he knew that if he wants to abide by the agreement that he pledged to Lord Mountbatten, the last viceroy, British viceroy in India, as well as to Nehru, that there will be a referendum, a plebiscite. Then, you know, it's – it's going to be inevitable that the population of Kashmir will choose to join Pakistan.
So, he started really clumsily, you know, putting together some measures, which actually led to aggravating the situation. First, he started confiscating the arms of the – the British Indian Muslim soldiers in Kashmir. You know, the Kashmiri ones who joined the World War II and then returned back. So, they were – had their weapons confiscated. They were thinking, "Oh, he is giving the weapons to the Hindus and to the Sikhs. So, therefore, we have to do something."
So, during this trouble and the communal riots, between twenty and thirty thousand Muslims were massacred. The Muslims retaliated against the Hindus and the Sikhs in the province, and twenty thousand Sikhs and Hindus were massacred.
And to make it even worse is that the new government in Pakistan, you know, thought that they have to pre-empt what they believe to be Hari Singh's intention not to honour the agreement and not to hold the referendum. So, they invaded. And they used Pashtun tribal men to launch the invasion into Jammu and Kashmir, which had really, like, you know, the opposite of the desired results. So, they invaded. And that invasion actually led to the, you know, Pashtun tribes committing atrocities against Muslims in – in Jammu and Kashmir.
Thomas Small Yeah. This is the Indo-Pakistani War of 1947, 1948, which, you know, remarkably mirrors in many respects, the – the war of Israeli independence one year later. I mean, in—.
Aimen Dean Indeed.
Thomas Small Especially in the sense that that war never ended. Neither war has really ever ended. And just as Israel is sort of still partitioned between the Palestinian territories and Israel proper, so is Kashmir still partitioned along what was called the line of control, which the UN established to try to at least create an armistice between the two sides. 'Cause after Pakistan invaded India invaded and – and managed to fight back the Pakistani troops. But anyway, in the end, the UN got involved and put a stop to it right there, along the line of control.
Aimen Dean Indeed. And into this new story, like, you know –, you know, we see the fading of a character, which is Hari Singh, because Hari Singh ran straight away to New Delhi. You know, after the invasion of the Pashtun tribes from Pakistan, and asked, you know, the prime minister of India at the time, Jawaharlal Nehru, for assistance.
Nehru said, "I would love to assist you. But, you know, you know what, this is the letter of, you know, Kashmir – Jammu and Kashmir accession to India. Sign it." You know? "Because I can't, you know, send troops to restore order without, you know, Kashmir being part of India."
So, he signed it and he signed, you know, Jammu and Kashmir into India. So, Jawaharlal Nehru sent the troops to – to fight the tribal people and to send them away.
But here is the issue. There is one character that needs to be introduced into the story, which is essential, which is the character of Sheikh Abdullah.
Thomas Small Sheikh Abdullah. Who is Sheikh Abdullah?
Aimen Dean Sheikh Abdullah is a Kashmiri leader, political leader, political activist, and someone who always wanted, you know, an, you know, a Muslim power in – in Kashmir. That Kashmir should be an independent state generally. But nonetheless, between him answering to Jinnah or answering to Nehru, he found Nehru to be more amenable than Jinnah.
And this is the crucial moment, the crucial moment, when there was a meeting between Sheikh Abdullah in 1948. Between Sheikh Abdullah, Sardar Patel, the deputy prime minister, and Nehru, the prime minister. Nehru looks at Sheikh Abdullah, who is now galvanising a Kashmiri resistance, Kashmiri Muslim resistance against the Pakistani invasion. Because without the Muslims, you know, at least some segment of the Muslims of Kashmir, siding with India, India will have trouble, you know, pacifying Kashmir.
So, he told Sheikh Abdullah, he told him, "If you want to go with Pakistan, now is your time. So, make up your mind. You want to go with Pakistan or stay with India?"
Sheikh Abdullah, who would later become the first governor, Muslim governor, of Kashmir on behalf of Delhi, said, "I want to stay with India."
And that's what sealed Kashmir's fate. You know, many people, like, you know, basically don't understand that Kashmir had a shot at being part of Pakistan, because, you know, Nehru, you know, reluctantly asked him. He said, "Do you want to go with Pakistan or stay with us?"
He said, "No. I'm going to stay with India." And Sheikh Abdullah then went to the UN Security Council and condemned the Pakistani invasion. And he said that those Pashtuni tribes that invaded, "raped our girls, kidnapped out women,", you know, "killed many of ours,", you know, "and looted the country,", you know, "and, actually, we as Kashmiri Muslims, we were the victims equally, not only of Hindu nationalists, but also, you know, Pashtun tribes invading from Pakistan."
And I think this is where the, you know—. The reality is that the conflict was prolonged and prolonged because of what Sheikh Abdullah decided at the time. If he decided just, okay, join Pakistan, maybe, like, you know, I mean, this conflict would have been over. But no. The reality is that he decided to stick with India.
Thomas Small Well, in the end, tragically, Kashmir was divided.
I want to zoom out and incorporate the Cold War perspective on Kashmir, because Kashmir and the conflict there played a role, an important role, in the Cold War, a role that, as we will see in a second, ties in very neatly with all the other things we've been discussing in this season of Conflicted.
So, you know, as most people know, in the Cold War, India was neutral. As we saw with Nasser's neutrality in general, the US opposed neutrality in the Cold War. It had a "you're either with us or against us" mentality.
But in the case of India, the US was forced to adopt a more conciliatory approach. I mean, India was a huge democracy, and America hoped that it would be a counterweight to a rising communist China. For that reason, the US did not want to get involved in the Kashmir conflict. President Eisenhower's position was that the dispute should be settled using peaceful means only and, after demilitarisation of the region, a plebiscite of Kashmiri residents should take place to determine the fate of Kashmir.
Well, by this point, Nehru categorically rejected both. He wasn't interested in demilitarising the region and he certainly wasn't interested in a plebiscite, fearing that it would mean all of Kashmir was added to Pakistan. So, Nehru rejected Eisenhower's solution.
Eisenhower was, of course, focused on the Soviet threat. He realised that India wanted Pakistan to be weak. It would rather have a weak Pakistan, too weak to press its claims in Kashmir, than a Pakistan strong enough to resist Soviet pressure. So, Eisenhower decided that America had no choice but to strengthen Pakistan. And so, when he was putting the pieces together for that military alliance that would become the Baghdad Pact, he included Pakistan in it.
The Baghdad Pact. Do you remember, dear listener, all about the Baghdad Pact? How Nasser was opposed to it and how it led to all manner of – of shenanigans in the Middle East. Well, Pakistan was in that pact. So, it had ramifications for the subcontinent as well.
Obviously, the prime minister of India, Nehru, strongly objected to Pakistan being in the Baghdad Pact. He claimed that the us was taking sides in the Kashmir dispute and used it to whip up a lot of resentment against America, among Indians. You know? Nehru's position was clear. He said, "I do not like either communism or colonialism. Communism is only a threat. Colonialism is a fact."
Nehru's position here was precisely the same as Nasser's. Remember Nasser didn't like communism, but he felt that British colonialism was the real threat. And then, he saw that America was just behaving like the British colonialist from before.
Nehru felt the same. And so, this is the final piece in the puzzle that we've been putting together on and off for most of this series. Pissed off at America for America's close military support for Pakistan, Nehru reached out to other leaders equally unwilling to fall in line behind America's Cold War objectives, equally concerned at the way American policy so closely mirrored the policy of the British Empire before it. And, of course, one of those leaders was Nasser.
Nehru formally inaugurated what was called the Non-Aligned Movement, i.e., powers that didn't want to be aligned with either the Soviet Union or the United States in the Cold War. Nehru inaugurated this movement by convening the Bandung Conference in Indonesia in April 1955. Nasser was there. He was the primary representative of the Arab countries. The US had intensely petitioned Nasser not to attend the conference, but Nehru's seduction was more powerful. Nasser was there as the primary representative of the Arab countries and, thus, in solidarity with all these anti-American leaders.
Nasser returned to Cairo and – and became the man that we have seen him become. You know, he—. The man who nationalised the Suez Canal. The man who resisted the invasion during the Suez crisis. The man who led the Arabs to, well, overwhelming defeat in 1967.
So, we can say, Aimen, if it weren't for the Kashmir crisis and the formation of the Non-Aligned Movement, on the back of it, maybe the modern Middle Eastern history would be completely different.
Aimen Dean Maybe. But, you know, like, I mean, what is, you know, ironic for me is that Nehru, just like Nasser, went down the path of non-alignment. But that non-alignment meant weapons and military assistance from who?
Thomas Small The Soviets.
Aimen Dean Exactly. So, while Pakistani military was, you know, armed by the Americans, the Indian military actually was armed by who? By the Soviets.
Thomas Small So, we've laid the foundations for an understanding of the Kashmir crisis, which goes on. I mean, and it – it really does go on. As you said, Aimen, it's the most heavily militarised place in the world. It erupted into war in 1962. Again, with – with China, which took a chunk of Kashmir. War with Pakistan again in 1963. And – and on and on and on.
I mean, in the eighties, this infamous jihadist group, Lashkar-e-Taiba was founded by the – by the Pakistani military, I think.
Aimen Dean Yes. The Pakistan military and the ISI formed this group, Lashkar-e-Taiba. And—. In 1986, I think. And it started like, you know, from the mountains of Afghanistan as the jihadist movement against the Soviet Union. And then, after that, of course, the Pakistanis established even more groups such as Hizbul Mujahideen and Jaish-e-Mohammed. So, all of these militant groups were founded by the ISI and by the Pakistani military to infiltrate into Kashmir and to create, you know, a insurgency inside Kashmir against the Indian military presence there.
The reality is that it's a tragedy. It is a tragedy, because the entire Indian subcontinent is held hostage to this never-ending crisis and never-ending conflict.
Thomas Small You mentioned to me, Aimen, your idea of the Palestinisation of Kashmir in the way that Kashmir is – is used by leaders in both Islamabad and New Delhi to – to create national solidarity, to strengthen their own political positions.
I mean, certainly, you know, India is by no means a good guy in this context. The Indian military has been very brutal in its part of Kashmir. And in recent decades, Indian politics have become more and more associated with Hindu nationalism. And the Kashmiri crisis is part of that.
Aimen Dean Whenever I talk to people, I just realise that on both sides of the border, there are three major players, on both sides of the borders, who don't want a solution to Kashmir. On the Indian side, you have the Hindutva. You know, the Indian Hindu nationalists. They don't want a solution to Kashmir, because it is a cause that keep giving them, you know –, you know, followers and money and influence. Because, you know, you whip up the national, you know, Hindu feelings, you know, with the crisis and Kashmir. Kashmir has become a national pride issue.
Then, you have RAW. You know, the Indian intelligence. They love the idea of the fact that there is an enemy to be engaged with, which is Pakistan and its ISI. So, you know. And this crisis keep going on and on. And it gives importance and budget and extra influence for RAW.
And then, you'll have the Indian military. Because if there is an enemy in Pakistan and its ally, China, then, you know, there is – there is a greater, you know, importance to the Indian military. More budget, more recruit, more power, more influence. So, these are the three major players on the Indian side of the border.
On the Pakistani side of the border, even greater forces there don't want to have peace, you know, with India over Kashmir. You know, first, you have the Pakistani military. You know, as long as there was an enemy, the Pakistani military will be so powerful. In fact, the Pakistani military in Pakistan is far, far more powerful than the India military in India. They control forty percent of the economy and they control politics. They can depose any prime minister, elected prime minister, at any time. Just look at what happened to Imran Khan now. Before that, Nawaz Sharif. And before that, Benazir Bhutto twice. And it's always like this. The Pakistani military decides who actually among the civilian government rule the country. So, why would they give up – give all this up, you know, for a sake of peace?
Then, you have the ISI. The Inter-Services Intelligence like, you know, I mean. So, this agency, the ISI, the Pakistani intelligence, they get their budget and they get their influence and they get their power, because of what's happening in Kashmir and across the border and the enmity with India.
Then, you have the most important element here: the Islamist groups all across Pakistan. Whether they are the Jemaah Islamiyah or whether they are [unintelligible] Tehrik-e [unintelligible] Muhammad or whether they are Lashkar-e-Taiba or Jaish-e-Mohammed or Hizbul Mujahideen, all of these people, they don't want peace with India. Because, you know, it is the Indian or the enmity to India is what keeps all these groups together. They can raise funds. They can have recruits. They can radicalise the population. Why would they give all this up? So, you end up in a situation where Kashmir—. Poor Kashmiris. I mean, they are really caught in the middle between all of these powerful forces.
Thomas Small Well, don't forget China. I mean, there's another big player in Kashmir. China is a – is a close ally now of Pakistan. China has immense interest in Afghanistan and in the – in the new, you know, economic corridor, all the way down to the Arabian Sea through Pakistan.
You know, China, I guess, it also—. It's pretty happy with the status quo. It would like its rival India to be wrong-footed in this way.
Aimen Dean Indeed. I mean, I always discussed with my both Indian and Pakistani friends. And I'm married to a Pakistani. Like, you know, I mean, from Kashmir. So, you know. So, we always have these discussions and debates, and they are so animated. And I love it. But I always say, "Look, listen to me, I know, like, you know, what I'm going to say, you won't like. But, you know, just take a seat back. You know, take a deep breath. Relax a little bit. You know? Free yourself from the shackles of, you know, emotional nationalism and let's talk irrationally here. First of all, before I say what my solution is, I have always stated that I was – I'm very much opposed to what happened during the partition. The partition was a mistake. Historical, strategic, in every level. It was a mistake. I would rather than India as a whole, Bangladesh, Pakistan, and India today, were a one united country. Because the idea that the Muslims feared, you know, oppression by the Hindus, well, if the Muslims remained, they will be at least between thirty-five to forty percent of the population. There would be a very big minority that they can withstand anything that the Hindus can throw at them. And the Hindus will be slightly enough majority that they can have dignity and they will not feel that they are overruled by a Muslim aristocratic class."
So, we come back to the fact that the partition was a mistake. But now, we are living in the now. And so, how do we solve the crisis in Kashmir?
I always said that there is only one power in the world that have both leverage over India and Pakistan, that they can bring the two parties together and pressure them into a solution. And that power is that GCC.
Thomas Small The Gulf Cooperation Council. Saudi Arabia, the Emirates. All – all of your friends over there on the – on the Arabian Gulf.
Aimen Dean Indeed. Because both India and Pakistan, they received the majority of the energy from there. And the majority of India's and Pakistan's labour workforce, who send in billions upon billions of remittances every month, you know, come from the GCC. So, the GCC is an important lifeline, economic lifeline, to both India and Pakistan.
If the six countries of the GCC were to come together and to say, "Well, you know what, like, you know, it's time to resolve this issue. We don't want a nuclear war on our doorstep. You know? So, what we want to do is that for both sides of Kashmir, the one-third that Pakistan controls and the one-half the India controls, for these two Kashmirs, both of them become a autonomous region. And the Pakistani side would become an autonomous region of Pakistan. The Indian side to become the autonomous region of India. And both of them become totally demilitarised."
And the next phase after that will be massive investment in the tune of tens of billions of dollars by these countries into the tourism and food sector in Kashmir.
Thomas Small I mean, tourism alone would – would – would get so much investment, as you say. Kashmir is beautiful.
Aimen Dean Kashmir is a heaven on earth. It is the—. You know? Let's put it this way. Like, you know, the more attractive sister of Switzerland. And, you know—. And this is why, you know, for the Arabs of the Gulf, you know—. Just if you offer them this all-year-round tourism, whether it is skiing holidays in the winter or, you know, beautiful summer weather. You know, chalets and, you know, villas, I mean, you're talking about tens of billions of dollars of investments that actually will create millions of jobs on both sides of the border.
And you open the border. Not only across the two parts of Kashmir, which is now demilitarised. You open the entire bloody border from Kashmir all the way to the Indian Ocean. You open the entire border between the two. Because if you unlock the trade, if you unlock the commercial cooperation between Pakistan and India, what that would do to the one-point-six billion people who live there on the sub-Indian continent, it will transform their lives.
Thomas Small It's a beautiful dream, Aimen. But as you said, there are too many powerful players with interests opposed to that dream. I don't see it happening anytime soon.
As for me, you know, unlike you, I don't really live in the now. And I – I come away from this exploration of Kashmir and the history of partition just wondering. Why the hell did the modern Western style nation-state have to develop there in the way it did? You know? Why did we have to create national identities, homogenous national identities, increasingly based upon some fictional idea of religious partisanship? Why did we have to do that at all?
You know, India. India is – is so old. India had its own forms of – of governance, its own traditions. Very hierarchical. Absolutely. Not – not at all in, you know, the way that we understand, you know, governance in – in the West. But why did it have to happen? That's all I'm left with, you know. A tragedy or yet another tragedy of the – the modern state causing problems.
Aimen Dean Yeah. But you know what? I'm still optimistic that as Indians and Pakistanis become more entrepreneurial and more enterprising, that they will see that the Kashmir issue could be resolved, you know. But it needs a powerful third party with leverage over both sides coming in and saying, "You know what? Let's grow up. Let's have peace. [Amin].
Thomas Small [Amin].
Well, dear listener, that's Aimen and me on Kashmir. I'm sure we'll come back in another episode to talk more about Kashmir. There's so much that could be said. There are so many wars, so many terrorist groups, so many shenanigans happening in that part of the world. But that's it for now. This episode, God knows, is long enough. From the Indian subcontinent, stick with us, because, in two weeks, we will go to, really, the – the – the epicentre of all that we've been talking about in all of this – on all of this series, though we haven't focused in on it. And by that, I mean, Turkey.
A reminder that you can follow the show over on Facebook and Twitter @MHConflicted. And for a deeper dive on some of the subjects we cover here on Conflicted, head over to Facebook and search "Conflicted Podcast Discussion Group." There, you will find other fans of the show engaging in heated debates, enlightening conversations, and just generally geeking out over Conflicted-related topics.
Those of you who already subscribe to the show will know that, at the end of each episode, Aimen and I pick a question sent in by a lucky listener to answer for our exclusive bonus content section. To access that content, begin with the chance of getting your question answered. And to listen ad-free, you can subscribe to the show for just 99p on Apple Podcasts or sign up to Conflicted Extra on Spotify also for just 99p.
That's it for this week. Join us again in two weeks' time for another episode of Conflicted.
Conflicted is a Message Heard production. This episode was produced and edited by Rowan Bishop. Sandra Ferrari is our executive producer. Production support and fact-checking by Molly Freeman. Our theme music is by Matt Huxley.
#