What could be less fundamentalist than that in January 1990, almost the entire population of Srinagar came out on the streets and marched to the office of the United Nations Military Observers' Group to present a petition for the fufilment of the pledge given to the Kashmiris by the United Nations that they would be enabled to determine their future through a free vote under impartial, international supervision?

All movements of resistance against foreign occupation which embrace a whole society draw in all its elements - the extremists, religious or secular, at one end and the criminal-minded, at the other, with sincere freedom fighters in the middle, constituting the bulk. The resistance in France against Nazi occupation had the active participation of communists; could it on that account be regarded as a communist movement? No insurgency - particularly against a regime which has become incapable of civilised administration - remains uncontaminated by extremism, crime of corruption: this had been historically true even in the most sophisticated societies. Such contamination, however, does not affect the purity of its object viz. liberation from an alien, brutal regime; restoration of human rights and assertion of the popular will. This holds in the case of Kashmir as it would in all similar cases.

Speaking of fundamentalism, there is a marked difference between Pakistan and India. The extremist religious forces in Pakistan have never been able to muster popular electoral support and they operate to the extent that they do and meet with resistance within Muslim society itself. In India, in contrast, the fundamentalist frenzy is directed against the Muslim population. The barbarities inflicted on the Muslims of Kashmir are to a great extent actuated by Hindu hatred against Muslims. Communal hatred and intolerance. No attempt is underway to establish a theocratic state in Kashmir. However, it is only natural that, under the unbearable stress of the kind faced by Kashmiris,  people should try to draw spiritual strength and sustenance from the faith they follow. A powerful ingredient of the Kashmiri psyche in both normalcy and crisis is the consciousness of their Islamic affiliation. But the fact is writ large on Kashmir's history since the 14th century that this consciousness has harmonized with amity between Muslims and Hindus.

The mass exodus of Kashmiri Pandits from the Vale of Kashmir has been cited as a glaring example of the extremism of the Resistance movement. Any impartial investigation will show that the exodus was encouraged and facilitated by the Government of India, represented at the time in the person of the notorious Governor, Jagmohan, to clear the field for the actions that had been planned against the Kashmiri Muslims. The total breakdown of the administration in Kashmir was also an important contributing factor. When there is anarchy, people flee. In any uprising, those who collaborate with the oppressors become targets. However, more Kashmiri Muslims have been targeted than Pandits. It is not a question of religion: it is a question of what side you are on? The popular uprising or the imposed regime?

Moreover, if the international community continues to look the other way while Kashmir burns and its people are massacred by a repulsive military machine, then desperation will set in. In such an environment, fundamentalism becomes the face of frustration. Extreme repression, accompanied by little relief and meagre sympathy from the supporters of human freedom, can so traumatize a people as to pervert their psychology and disfigure their movement.

 India's uses the pejorative term "fundamentalist" in order to exploit the fear and prejudice associated with this phenomenon, real or perceived, and thus undermine support for the cause of Kashmir's freedom. India's use of the label "terrorist" is similarly motivated. The aim is to divert the sympathy and compassion that would be felt at the plight of the Kashmiri people to concerns felt in other contexts.

To cover the crimes committed by its army and paramilitary forces in Kashmir, India describes the uprising in Kashmir as "secessionist" or "separatist". How can a people secede from what they never acceded to and separate from what they never joined? The entire State is a disputed territory and recognized as such by the United Nations. Kashmiris do not see themselves as citizens of India. The Indian claim that Kashmir is an integral part of the Indian Union is unilateral, unrecognized and untenable in law and logic. The future of Kashmir remains to be determined as is evident from all pronouncements made by the United Nations, with the former Soviet Union as the only dissident.