Are You Indian?

‘My country, right or wrong’
Dr Omar Akhtar
The above sentence has been used as a litmus test for nationalism and patriotic pride. I wonder how many Kashmiris, in reference to their Indian nationality, accept the above statement, and believe in it when applied to India?
According to the Israeli scholar, Daniel Bar-Tal, in 1997, patriotism is, ‘Attachment of group members towards their country that is expressed by a sense of belonging, love, loyalty, pride and care towards the group.’
In the light of the above contemporary definition of patriotism, let us analyse a few facts.
If we were to follow Bar-Tal’s definition, then, Kashmiris should feel a sense of belonging towards India, love India, feel loyal to India, feel proud about India’s achievements, and care about India’s problems. Obviously, by this standard, Kashmiris are way off the mark. How many Kashmiris feel that they ‘belong’ in Delhi, Mumbai, Ahmedabad, and other places, where they are routinely subjected to unnecessary checks, refused hotel rooms, humiliated, and, if unlucky enough, jailed? How many Kashmiris ‘love’ India in the true sense of the word, irrespective of the demonstrative sloganeering of the various paramilitary forces across Kashmiri towns and villages? How many Kashmiris feel loyal to India, such that they respect the Indian army, Indian institutions, Indian flag, Indian national anthem, and believe in their hearts that whatever the Indian government has done and continues to do to them, is fair and just? Exactly how many Kashmiris feel proud of India’s achievements? When the Indian cricket team defeated Pakistan in the 2003 World Cup, the Indian newspapers screamed, ‘We Did It!’ What were the headlines in the Kashmiri papers?
According to the World Values Survey of 2001, India scores very high on the list of patriotism, with a score of 3.70, out of a maximum score of 4.0. Apparently many of the ‘high-income residents’ of Indian who were asked the question, ‘Do you feel proud to be [the particular country they were nationals of]? Felt that bribery, theft of national resources, social ambivalence, and dishonest governance were all components of ‘patriotism.’ Of course we all love India, don’t we? It is a country where you can buy yourself out of anything from a traffic violation to a murder, where human life has no values, especially if that human comes from a valley called Kashmir and believes in monotheistic religion called Islam, where being successful means being successfully dishonest.  
Shwatz, Staub, and Lavine, in their 1999 study of Germany, defined two forms of patriotism, blind and constructive. Blind patriotism, according to them, was a rigid, inflexible attachment to country characterised by unquestioning positive evaluation, whereas constructive patriotism is an attachment to country characterised by critical loyalty.  
If the study by Schatz, Staub and Levine is to be used as a measure, then would Kashmiris be ‘blindly’ patriotic, or would they be ‘constructively’ patriotic? Or would they not be ‘patriotic’ at all? After all, how can you expect a population that never wanted to be a part of the vast country called India, that has no say in its own affairs, that has been constantly lied to, discriminated against, and brutally suppressed, to be ‘constructively’ patriotic towards the symbols and instruments of its oppressors? History has proven that no nation can impose its nationality over another nation and force upon the conquered for long the symbolism of the conqueror. The consequences are dire and gory. Witness the devolution of Yugoslavia, the USSR, and the present destruction of Iraq. Violently enforced nationalism backfires as equally violent national disintegration in a few generations time.  
Blank and Schmidt in 2003, defined nationalism as, ‘Idealization of nation, feeling of national superiority, an uncritical acceptance of national, state and political authorities, a suppression, of ambivalent attitudes towards the nation, an inclination to define one’s group by descent, race, or cultural affiliation, and a derogation of groups not considered to be part of the nation.’ But they made a contrast with patriotism, which they said was different on the following grounds: the nation is critically evaluated, there is support for the system as long as the system is in accordance with humanistic values, there is support for democratic values and an advanced social system, there is a rejection of uncritical acceptance of state authorities, and an acceptance of negative emotions.  
By the above standards, when it comes to Kashmir, according to the widely held view, Indians would count as being ‘nationalist,’ and not ‘patriotic.’ Being patriotic, after all, would force them to critically examine the issue of Kashmir again, and make it binding on them to fulfill the broken promises that have been the root of this conflict. But then, apply this definition to Kashmiris in relation to India, and what do you find? Do Kashmiris believe that they are part of the Indian nation by choice, and do they want this status to continue? Do they feel superior, by virtue of their Indian-ness to neighbouring countries’ nationals? Do they uncritically accept their fates at the hands of the instruments of the Indian State, which has raped, captured and killed Kashmiris, and looted and burnt Kashmiri homes and heritage? Yes, Kashmiris are living and working in India, and many of them, no doubt, do feel at home in India, but are they a vociferous minority or a loud majority? And if derogation of other groups were considered a part of nationalism, then, how many Kashmiris make it a point to throw abuses at Pakistan to show off their Indian-ness?  
Would you then call Kashmiris ‘patriotic’ Indians as per the above definition? If for a second, you thought of Kashmiris as being loyal Indian citizens, then, for all the critical evaluation Kashmiris have given the Indian nation, for all the legitimate concerns at the erosion of culture and democracy in Kashmir, for all the acceptance of the Indian government’s time-tested untruthfulness, what have Kashmiris got in return for their ‘patriotism’ towards India? Curfews, crackdowns, gunfire, graves. Obviously, India does not accept Kashmiri criticism of its policies. When should a government ‘of the people,’ ‘by the people,’ and ‘for the people’ not accept the opinion of the people it rules? Answer: when it does not consider the ruled people a part of it. That is one reason why Kashmiris never thought of themselves as Indians. They were being ‘patriotic’ towards their own national ideals, those of Kashmir.  
In an essay published in Survodhaya in 2002, Amman Madan, an Indian scholar, writes, ‘Any country in modern times which seeks to progress and develop must find ways of attracting and retaining the loyalty of its constituent groups. In modern nations this is done by everybody voting to select their rulers… The naked use of force to coerce acceptance of the nation is not a characteristic of a society based on reason and democracy.’
He obviously was not referring to Kashmir! For Indians, Kashmir is an exception for everything, including Indian nationality; so it must be thrust upon Kashmiris, through brutal force and cunning beguile. If loyalty was to defined by voting, then the figures are clear: Kashmiris, even in the most optimistic estimates, have voted at less than half the Indian national average for over twenty years now.  
The matter is settled. No matter how you define it, Kashmiris are neither ‘nationalist’ Indians, nor ‘patriotic’ Indians, nor are they ‘Indians’ at all.  
Kashmiris are Indians because they have been born in India, or forcibly, physically integrated into the Indian Union, or for economic reasons, they have to do business with Indians. Given a chance to revisit 1947, would Kashmiris now accept the decision of a certain Mr Sheikh Abdullah?
Look at it this way. According to M Crawford Young of University of California, Los Angeles in 2004, ‘Nationalism I would define as an ideology claiming that a given human population has a natural solidarity based on shared history and a common destiny. This collective identity as a historically constituted people crucially entails the right to constitute an independent or autonomous political community. The idea of nationalism takes form historically in tandem with the doctrine of popular sovereignty: that the ultimate source of authority lies in the people, not the ruler or government.’  
Is not the cry for ‘Azadi’ the natural solidarity of a historically constituted group called ‘Kashmiris,’ with a common history, common destiny, and a collective identity? And if ‘democratic’ Indian ‘nationalism’ believes that the ultimate source of authority in a nation lies with the people, then what is India scared of when Kashmiris ask for a plebiscite to determine whether they are Indians or not?