We first came in touch in 2002. Saif was then running a charity in Libya which was trying to help (among others) Kashmiri refugees, mainly in Pakistan. He had visited the refugee camps in 2001, when Kashmir was dominated by militancy. He was concerned with the humanitarian nature of the crisis. In his early 30s then, he had embarked on his post-graduate degree in the London School of Economics. That PhD (completed last year) and his research interests were concerned with the role of civil society in resolving disputes. He became interested in Kashmir during his studies. Saif was also concerned with the global implications of the spread of terrorism, and that Libya should be seen as a peacemaker.
How did Saif come up with the idea of a survey in Kashmir?
The idea of the survey was entirely his. He had written a paper about Kashmir in ’02 which hasn’t been published yet. He wrote about it as he was interested in the historical nature of the dispute itself. But as we discussed its complexities in the modern period, he felt the Kashmiris should be consulted, to know how they thought on the issue of self-determination, and how they perceived their problems. The survey became a joint effort of the King’s College London, IPSOS-Mori and their associates in India and Pakistan. Chatham House came into the process only when the report was ready.
"Many in India think Azad Kashmir is more backward. It’s not so. Pakistan has invested a lot in infrastructure." How were the surveyors recruited? Could there be a margin of bias creeping in?
They were all locally recruited and trained in Srinagar, in Jammu and Muzaffarabad. The real acid test of independence is in the results. In many respects, the results are not what people would give under duress. For example, on the Indian side where the military presence is very strong, you won’t expect there will be pressure from the government on respondents to say, “I will vote for independence.” Yet the vote for India in J&K was only just over 28 per cent. In Pakistan, you won’t expect only 50 per cent of Azad Kashmir (PoK to Indians) to say they wanted to join Pakistan.
Have you visited the region?
I went to the Valley in India in ’03. The military presence was obvious. I had gone to AJK in 1998. Many people in India think AJK is more backward. It doesn’t strike a visitor like that. Pakistan has put a lot of money into infrastructure. The environment does not look any worse than on the Indian side. It’s very difficult to say unequivocally which side is better. However, the visible signs of the dispute are undoubtedly more on the Indian side.
Why do more people in PoK support violence as a way to end the dispute?
There may be two reasons. On the Pakistan side, militants have always been talked about as freedom fighters. They are fighting on the other side and not within their community. Secondly, it’s producing a very big counter-terrorist reaction from the forces. And that leads to its own brutality.
One result that will surprise people in AJK is that the support for joining Pakistan in J&K is just 2 per cent overall. And particularly outside AJK, in Pakistani Punjab, there’ll be a sense of disbelief.
What policy suggestions would you make to the Indian government?
The most startling thing in the poll is that a very large proportion of Kashmiris don’t like the LoC as it stands today but would be happy to have it if it were opened up and if there were genuine free movement of goods. I wouldn’t suggest turning the LoC into an international border as this takes away the option of making it more porous—and that’s what the Kashmiris want. The diplomatic challenge for India and Pakistan is to ensure that any liberalisation of the border is not accompanied by a resurgence of terrorist/militant movement. And this highlights in essence that the solution to this problem doesn’t lie just in Kashmir, it lies in relations between India and Pakistan and a building of trust.
It’s really surprising that for the noise they make, the pro-Pakistani elements in Jammu & Kashmir (‘The Survey in Kashmir was Saif Gaddafi’s Idea’, Jun 14) are no more than two per cent of the population in that state. All the more reason for the Indian government to improve welfare measures in the state. Samirajan, Portland, US
Gaddafi’s son is a sophisticated terrorist, and his sham survey should be treated as a red flag. Perhaps India should sponsor a survey in Libya to find out how many people want be rid of Gaddafi senior. Sam, Cincinnati, US
Dr Bradnock’s findings should be treated as trash. Maybe he would be better off helping Gaddafi’s son conduct a survey in his own country. Vishwas Wadekar, Pune
Thank you to all those who have taken the trouble to read the article and share their thoughts. Out of the arguments made here, there are two that perhaps need answering. So here they go.
1. The first part of the article compares outcomes (relative percentages of population of the religions concerned) irrespective of the process that led to those outcomes - whether immigration, relatively faster population growth or conversions. This was for two reasons. One, to put the figure of 2.3 per cent in "numerical perspective", as the article itself explained. The second reason was that outcomes are ultimately what the crux of debate is about. The rest of the article in any case dealt with process - or conversions in this case, from both a contemporary and historical perspective.
2. Some commenters have tried to cast doubts on the reliability of Census 2001. Those who do this should bear in mind that Census 2001 was conducted by a BJP government. Considering the extreme importance that BJP gives to this issue, it would be reasonable to expect that IF it had perceived a problem with the methodology that was distorting the numbers, it would have fixed it. As the article mentioned, BJP or BJP-supported governments have been in power for 10 of the last 40 years, or about a quarter of the time, and the only reasonable conclusion one can arrive at is that any misreporting of numbers, real or perceived, would be marginal and hence, not of importance.
To all other arguments made, my answer is the following: Please read the article again, with particular focus on the quotations of Vivekananda and Monier Williams, and the history of the missionary efforts in Bengal and their outcome.
We at Outlookindia.com welcome feedback and your comments, including scathing criticism
1. Scathing, passionate, even angry critiques are welcome, but please do not indulge in abuse and invective. Our Primary concern is to keep the debate civil. We urge our users to try and express their disagreements without being disagreeable. Personal attacks are not welcome. No ad hominem please.
2. Please do not post the same message again and again in the same or different threads
3. Please keep your responses confined to the subject matter of the article you are responding to. Please note that our comments section is not a general free-for-all but for feedback to articles/blogs posted on the site
4. Our endeavour is to keep these forums unmoderated and unexpurgated. But if any of the above three conditions are violated, we reserve the right to delete any comment that we deem objectionable and also to withdraw posting privileges from the abuser. Please also note that hate-speech is punishable by law and in extreme circumstances, we may be forced to take legal action by tracing the IP addresses of the poster.
5. If someone is being abusive or personal, or generally being a troll or a flame-baiter, please do not descend to their level. The best response to such posters is to ignore them and send us a message at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT
6. Please do not copy and paste copyrighted material. If you do think that an article elsewhere has relevance to the point you wish to make, please only quote what is considered fair-use and provide a link to the article under question.
7. There is no particular outlookindia.com line on any subject. The views expressed in our opinion section are those of the author concerned and not that of all of outlookindia.com or all its authors.
8. Please also note that you are solely responsible for the comments posted by you on the site. The comments could be deleted or edited entirely at our discretion if we find them objectionable. However, the mere fact of their existence on our site does not mean that we necessarily approve of their contents. In short, the onus of responsibility for the comments remains solely with the authors thereof. Outlookindia.com or any of its group publications, may, however, retains the right to publish any of these comments, with or without editing, in any medium whatsoever. It is therefore in your own interest to be careful before posting.
9.Outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for how any search engine -- such as Google, Bing etc -- caches or displays these comments. Please note that you are solely responsible for posting these comments and it is a privilege being granted to our registered users which can be withdrawn in case of abuse. To reiterate:
a. Comments once posted can only be deleted at the discretion of outlookindia.com
b. The comments reflect the views of the authors and not of outlookindia.com
c. outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for the way search engines cache or display these comments
d. Please therefore take due caution before you post any comments as your words could potentially be used against you
10. We have an online thread for our comments policy:
You are welcome to post your suggestions here or in case you have a specific issue, to directly email us at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT