FOCUS

KASHMIR

A QUESTION WITH NO ANSWER!

JAYARAM SHRIYAN

Mr. Veerappa Moily, a former Law Minister in the UPA II, wrote in Deccan Herald of 27th Nov 2002, an article “Beyond Democracy’s Moment of Glory - Keeping Promises in Kashmir”. In a moment of ‘introspective enlightenment’ he had this to say, “The Congress leadership right from 1947, has always surrendered its ego and shunned narrow political opportunism  in providing stable governments in J & K. This objective approach and display of sagacity are absolutely in tune with the legacy of the Congress Party right from the days of Jawaharlal Nehru, Indira Gandhi and Rajiv Gandhi. Sonia Gandhi has to be commended for her enlightened and statesmanly approach, inspired by national spirit, in lending her support to heralding a vision of Kashmir”.

Indians, in the know of things, recognise that Moily is a diehard Gandhi family loyalist (not to mistake with Mahatma Gandhi). That is how, he remembered to exclude Lal Bahadur Shastri, in his no holds barred praise of Nehru, Indira Gandhi, Rajeev Gandhi and of course Sonia Gandhi in the above referred piece in Deccan Herald. Lal Bahadur Shastri was the Prime Minister of India during the intervening period between Nehru and Indira Gandhi. Moily conveniently forgot the decisive role this, ‘Soft, little man of India,’ played in the 1965 conflict with Pakistan. Prime Minister Shastri, taking an unusually aggressive posture had ordered a full scale retaliation on Pak army in the Chamb sector in Jammu in Sept. 1965. Pak army crumbling under intense Indian attack cried for international help and no help came. Pakistan lost. UN brokered ceasefire came into force on 22nd Sept. 1965.

A situation of this kind, as experienced by PM Shastri, was not experienced by his predecessor PM Nehru. But PM Nehru too had his share of involvement in conflict situation with Pakistan, when in Oct. 1947, Pak Army, in the garb of Pathani tribals entered Muzaffarabad in Northern Kashmir and started looting, the leadership of Kashmir consisting of Hari Singh and Sheikh Abdullah appealed to India for help. But Nehru insisted on a formal accession treaty, and Hari Singh having tasted the Pakistani crookedness readily signed the treaty. Thus on 26th Oct. 1947 Kashmir became an integral part of India. It took 14 months for the Indian Army to drive away Pakistani Army of Pathani tribals into the waste land of North West Kashmir. But Prime Minister Nehru despite the recorded advice of the then army leadership, referred the matter to U.N. Thus, a bilateral issue, between two neighbours became an international issue. Having gone to the UN, we have probably got badly stuck, due to the machinations of super powers, which wanted to use Pakistan to keep a watch on the then USSR and China.

In a recent remark, Chief of Air Staff Air Marshall Arun Raha, was categorical and candid that P.O.K (Pakistan Occupied Kashmir) would have been India’s, had the country gone for a military solution rather than taking a moral high ground and rushing to the UN for a peaceful solution.

However, Prime Minister Shastri, who took charge of the national affairs on 9th June 1964, after the demise of Nehru on 27th May the same year, unfortunately did not live long. He passed away in Tashkant under -yet to be- explained circumstances on 11th Jan. 1966, after signing the Tashkent Declaration with Ayub Khan of Pakistan. Nothing came of the declaration.

His term as Prime Minister lasted only for 1 year and 217 days. He was the cleanest politician free India ever had. He was cleanest in every sense of the term. He was also very decisive and fair and therefore, a solution to the issue of Kashmir could have been a possibility. But that was not to be. 

Post Shastri era, Indira Gandhi became the Prime Minister. If Nehru had ruled India for 17 long years, his daughter ruled India for another 16 years. Although Nehru didn’t groom Indira as his successor, hoping the ‘gungi gudiya’ can be managed, the then leadership of Congress made her the Prime Minister for their own selfish reasons. In the event, she proved more than a match to all men in the Congress to earn a sobriquet ‘the only man in the cabinet’. She broke the Congress Party to become the Supreme boss of both party and the country. Rest as the cliché goes, is history.

Since those days, the Indian National Congress was the only political party with national presence. Under Indira Gandhi, it wanted a role for itself in J & K as well. Usual machinations were tried and resorted to, for breaking the ruling party in Kashmir by means both foul and fair, more often foul. Situation became murky. Of course prior to Congress machination it was the titular head of Kashmir, Karan Singh, who had dirtied the tranquil lake of Kashmir, by engineering split in the National Conference and sending Sheikh Abdullah to jail on trumped up charges of conspiracy with Pakistan. Even Sheikh’s own deputies accused him of duplicity of not being sure of himself in wanting to join India. So also his “agonizing search for alternatives to Kashmir’s accession to India, including independence of a truncated state which shall have only Kashmir valley”.

Thus there was a broken leadership with broken following even among the members of the main political party, the National Conference. Unfortunately, Sheikh Abdullah spent many years in jail, undeservedly on flimsy charges, only with the purpose of keeping him out of the state political processes of government forming by electoral means. But Sheikh Abdullah did not harbour any ill will towards Delhi. In the meanwhile Pakistan tried its best to wean him away from India, by inviting him to Pakistan, offering him Pakistani passport etc. Sheikh Abdullah did not bite any of these baits. What Pakistan never realised was despite Kashmiris unhappiness with India, they were not interested in Pakistan either. However what strengthened the desire of Sheikh Abduallh to go for India was the Pakistan’s treatment of East Pakistan, which broke away to become Bangladesh after a bloody war in 1971, where India played a decisive role in helping Bangladesh to secede from Pakistan.

In 1972, Simla pact was signed between India and Pakistan recognising the Line of Control. This effectively partitioned Kashmir. Further political developments in India led to the fall of Indira Gandhi and the emergence of Janata Government in New Delhi. 

The fresh election in Kashmir with Janata rule in Delhi, ensured the fair election in the valley and that gave full power to National Conference once again. However in 1982, Sheikh Abdullah, while still being the Chief Minister of J & K, died on 8th Sept. The whole of Kashmir had congregated to say good bye to the soul of their revered leader irrespective of their moorings. The body that was laid in state at the Srinagar polo ground was draped in Indian tricolor. Sheikh Abdullah had died as an Indian and Pakistan had no comment to offer.

The Janata Party which came ushering a hope of better governance folded up within 2 years and 4 months, due to its own inherent contradictions and the petty inadequacies of its coalition partners. Indira Gandhi came back with vengeance. 

Indians are witness to the changing fortune of political parties in Kashmir. All had their political agenda, but maintained it to be within the constitution of India. However separatists, who over the years, grew more and more assertive with the covert support of Pakistan, had their own agenda. There were proposals in the past to make LOC as border for both India and Pakistan. But Pakistan wanted all of Kashmir for itself.

Thus, there are three claimants to Kashmir. India does not mind to settle with the eastern part of the L.O.C. Pakistan wants the whole of Kashmir. And separatist want India to leave Kashmir to Kashmiris. Separatists are not demanding the return of POK. May be separatists want to go with Pakistan once India leaves Kashmir, which is unlikely. Therefore, how the Kashmir tangle can ever be solved?!

Hussain Haqqani published a book “India Vs Pakistan: Why can’t we be just friends?” He was a former Pakistani ambassador to the U.S., so was advisor to four Pakistani Prime Ministers. Currently a director with Hudson Institute in Washington. He writes (P/46) “If the rationale of Partition was to create a Muslim majority Pakistan and a Hindu majority India, then Pakistan cannot accept J & K, with its Muslim majority, as part of India. Kashmir must be part of Pakistan to fit the contours of the two-nation theory”.

Clearly this is the policy of Pakistan. Kashmir is Muslim majority and therefore should be part of Pakistan. Well prima facie, there cannot be any argument in this demand. But you wanted to take it by force in 1947 itself, but failed. India drove you out. The then king of Kashmir Harisingh and Kashmir Muslim leader Sheikh Abdullah didn’t want you. They opted for India and signed the accession treaty. But it was the wrong decision of the then Indian political leadership to go to the U.N. that got India entangled with POK.

So, the problem of Kashmir has the same length of history as India’s independence. The article 370 in the constitution giving Kashmir a special status, is another highly debatable decision, which neither helped Kashmir politically, nor economically. Clearly there is an impasse. How do we go about the resolution of the conflicting positions?

Come summer of discontent. Kashmir Valley has erupted once again. On July 8, Burhan Wani, 21, was killed, along with two others. He was the commander of the Hizbul Mujahideen in Kashmir. He was a kind of hero to the youth of Kashmir. Massive protest erupted. During the over 3 months standoff between security forces and protesters, some 100 died, hundreds were injured in their faces by the pellets fired by Army. Good number of them, young children, forced by separatists and funded by Pakistan. In fact Pakistan had created a stone pelting industry in Kashmir. There have been lot of talk about excessive force by army. But why does an army use force, if there is no violence, if there is peaceful protest! Use of force becomes necessary when protesters attack security forces, burn public property, even kill security men. A policeman drowned to death, when protesters pushed his vehicle to Jhelum river in Anantnag. Of course some excess by the security forces may not be ruled out, in the face of extreme provocation. 

It is true that there have been mistakes on the part of both the governments of the day and the Kashmiri leadership for decades to sort out issues of autonomy. Unfortunately, relentless interventions by Pakistani inspired militant groups have made things very complicated. The periodic eruption of violence has become a kind of regular feature in Kashmir.

And Uri happened, could it be a tipping point in our Pak Policy! India need to stop Pakistan using terrorism as an instrument of state policy. Diplomatic isolation, MFN status withdrawal and Indus Water Treaty dilution, are all options that may have its effects, but Pakistan being Pakistan is unlikely to change its stripes. As a former army chief Gen Bikram Singh said “It is time Pakistan and its army that have blatantly pursued asymmetric warfare against India were subjected to unbearable pain through an assertive and aggressive policy. Pakistani army, the brain behind Pakistan’s India policy, must be given a taste of its own medicine and made to bleed by a thousand cuts.” Can this be an option!

And come 29th Sept. Surgical Strike happens, just as Army had reacted on Uri. “We reserve the right to respond at a time and place of our choice”. This had to happen. For 30 long years, India has been soft peddling Jehadi attacks from across the border. It has, at long last, decided and hit back where it has hurt Pakistan both physically and mentally. Modi government has also shown the gumption to let the DGMO to speak to Pakistani counterpart giving them the details of the strike. Of course as usual Pakistan went to the market in its trademark denial mode to tell the world that India is lying and there has been no surgical strike. But, it’s not going be normal anymore at the border and India’s relation with the troubling western neighbor. This latest action by Indian forces across the LOC is bound to have its sobering effect on the Pak inspired troubles in Kashmir Valley.

The government took care to brief the diplomatic community posted in New Delhi. Thus took them on board as a measure of confidence building. It seems to have gone down well with international community including China. So, in this evolving scenario how Kashmir issue can be tackled, gets the centre stage.

Opposition parties, initially having supported the army action and congratulating the government, U turned to attack NDA leader BJP, its leader Naredra Modi and started making the Kashmir scene little more murky. Of course BJP, in its wisdom, allowed its cadres to claim the surgical strike as its own with posters appearing in poll bound Uttar Pradesh. It is sad, but an ugly reality of Indian politics.

Coming to Kashmir, it is very clear, the solution as per the wishes of three parties to it, is not possible. Pakistan wants whole of Kashmir, Kashmiri separatist wants freedom from India and for India, both are anathema.

So what are the options before India?

It was Arthur Moore of The Statesman who proposed a triangular confederation. Both Mahatma Gandhi and Nehru were positive about it. But both of them are not in the picture. It could have been a possibility then. But Pakistan was simply not interested. Can India give up Kashmir, because Pakistan demands it and fought 3 wars with India and lost them all?! No, that will not happen.

It is true that the then ruler signed the accession treaty with India, because Kashmir was attacked by Pakistan. So Pakistan cannot be trusted. Kashmiris can trust India, but the Muslim majority factor is the stumbling block. Can India give up Kashmir, because the Muslim Majority is demanding it? India is constitutionally a secular country, if it yields to the theocratic demand of separatist Muslims, India can balkanize. India is a mosaic of many faiths with Hindus being almost 4/5th of its total population. But Hindus speak far too many languages and India was divided as states on linguistic basis. Therefore any concession to Kashmir, on religious basis can have serious implications on the body politic of India and the concept of Idea of India may be destroyed.

It is true, Kashmir has been mollycoddled for far too long. While it is also true that article 370 has given them an identity separate from other parts of India, it has not helped it economically. New Delhi has to reassess its socio/political alignments and take into confidence some sections of Kashmir to see the logic to revisit article 370, in the larger developmental paradigm, so that the rationale of peace with stability leading to all round economic development of Kashmir can be the clear vision for the youth of Kashmir. Of course, the Pakistani factor will be ever present. But if Kashmiris are convinced like Sheikh Abdullah that Pakistanis cannot be trusted -whether it is the Pathani tribal attack of Oct. 1947, or the treatment of East Pakistan, by the West Pakistan, despite both being Muslims, then leading to break-up of Pakistan and creation of Bangladesh. The point can be driven home. Besides, if the Kashmir valley can be won over with appropriate socio/economic visions, articulated by New Delhi, Pakistan’s influence can be curtailed, and it can become so much easier for New Delhi to manage Pakistan. Of course, all these are easier said than done. But nothing is beyond hope.

THE STONE WARRIORS

ASHISH KAUL

“Har raat khuda se dua mein bas yahi mangtey hain ki sehar na ho; Allah, kisi tarah se aftaab ko apni aagosh me rok lo taki kuch aur masoomon ko zindagi aur mazloomon ko rahat mile. Kashmir ki takdeer mein raat ke andheron mein hi sakoon milta hain,” (Every night we pray that there be no dawn. Lord, keep the sun in your arms so that innocents are given another day of life. It is written in Kashmir’s destiny that peace be found only in darkness) says Shaheen Khan, 19, a high-school drop-out from a village in west Kashmir.

“Every morning, we are required to leave home and join the protests. We are damned if we do and doomed if we don’t." Khan, who speaks fluent English, Urdu and Kashmiri, represents thousands of Kashmiri youth who find themselves torn between their dreams and the realities of a harsh land.

The Valley has been held hostage to sanghmar or stone-pelters who ironically chant ‘azadi’. While young men play to the media gallery, there is a dark side to the streets. As the sun rises, Magam’s residents march out to block roads to the city as part of their daily drill. They march out, pelt stones, and return to their homes, thanking Allah for one more day of life. Rafiq Qureshi, 23, who scored 73 per cent in the Class X examination, has laid his future to rest next to the grave of his elder brother, who was claimed by the ‘muhim’ or movement. “My brother was shot in the crossfire between protesters and armed forces,” says Qureshi. That, however, is the official line. Magam and many villages in the Valley march on the orders of terrorist leaders; they risk their lives at the hands of security forces when they do, and when they don’t, they risk a brutal death at the hands of militants.

Far south of this village lies Anantnag, now rechristened Islamabad, a sleepy town with a rich cultural and religious heritage, which lies on the route of the annual Amarnath Yatra. Anantnag is also the first major town as you enter the valley from Jammu. Today, an eerie silence cloaks the town. “They keep a list of residents and maintain a meticulous record of those who follow orders and, more specifically, of those who don’t,” says Basharat Khan, a resident of Nai Basti. “If we don’t follow orders, they attack our houses. My car was attacked and the glass smashed by a bunch of boys barely out of school.”

Khan talks of an earlier age. “We grew up in an era of brotherhood with Hindus, a minuscule minority, but a community that lived in an aura of religious and social tolerance, which is long gone.”

Irfan Kashmiri, 20, is on the streets almost every day with stones in his hands. “Politicians asked for votes in the name of representing the people involved in muhim, now they are the ones targeting us.” He represents a generation for whom stone-pelting is not only a means of venting anger but a means of survival and sustenance in a tumultuous valley.

Sajad Ghani is a readymade garments trader from Sangam village on the Srinagar National Highway. He says, “Militancy is the biggest trade in the valley. Most trade is controlled by businesses that have muhim leaders as invisible partners.” People like Ghani symbolise the new-age micro-economics that has come up in the Valley where the economic divide is splitting the society into haves and have-nots. On-street militancy has quickly emerged as a career option for a breed of young Kashmiris born in the shadow of guns and terror.

Zaffar Khan, 50, is the son of an eminent academician in Anantnag. He says, “We grew up with Hindus and celebrated Eid with as much fervour as we did Diwali. We played together and ate from the same plate; Kashmir in the pre-90s era was an epitome of brotherhood, tolerance; a truly secular fabric that reflected the ethos of being Indian. But this generation has seen nothing but fanaticism, hatred and curfews.”

There is another shade of grey looming on the valley. The stone mujahids have realised that the closure of the establishment means closure of schools and colleges and hence a good reason for a weak political class to exert pressure on the government to promote students without examinations. Freebies like this are an intoxicating drug for these young minds who have found in stone-pelting a vocation, and escapism, and perhaps a way for the voiceless to exert power in a society ruled by the gun.

“These young boys also harass women who want to study and work towards a progressive life. Women are often threatened and molested in the name of muhim,” says Shabnam Mir, 17, who dropped out of high school in Sopore after she was publicly abused.

Rubina Ali, 43, a social worker from downtown Anantnag, talks of the “business of terror and a generation of young Kashmiris as consumers crushed between the muhim and the state. “Even social media is watched. Anything we say about the current state of Kashmir draws flak, especially if we express dissent against militancy.”

Modern Kashmir is fast forgetting its legends and history. “How many Kashmiris today even know of Tahir Ashai or Ghani Kashmiri, a legendary Persian Kashmiri poet whose work is prescribed study for scholars in Iran but who lies in a forgotten and dilapidated grave in the Rajouri Kadal area of Srinagar,” asks Bilal Rather, a professor at Kashmir University.Do they remember that Charaka, famous for the medical treatise, Charaka Samhita, was from Kashmir?

Even as the mainland rewrites its history, the militants in the valley are writing a new history of Kashmir that sees Islam and terror as the only stakeholders.

(Names and locations have been changed to protect identities.)