 |
| The current map of Jammu and Kashmir |
Contrary to popular perception, Kashmir is a problem that successive Indian Governments are solely responsible for creating and nurturing. Of course the role of Pakistan and certain extremist elements in Kashmir cannot be denied; but primarily, the lack of foresight and faulty policies of the Indian state are responsible for the "monster" that we have created.
The problem starts with the stupid idea of partition. Given the social fabric of the Indian society, with a mix of different communities in almost every village, the very idea of "Partition", based on religion, was nothing better than (using Nehru's words) "A Fantastic Nonsense". There could never be a rational way in which, a partition line, could have be drawn between the two countries, that would be acceptable to both. It was finally drawn in the most ad-hoc and whimsical manner, by the departing Britishers. Yet, left with no better alternative, both parties accepted the British line of divide and there has been no dispute about it ever since. However the point to note is that, if at that time, the final line was left to talks and dialogues or UN resolutions (like Kashmir), India and Pakistan would still have been fighting over it, as certain things can never be resolved by any amount of dialogue.
Before Independence J&K was a princely state, with a Hindu king and mostly Muslim population. Other than its unique location, between India and Pakistan, there was nothing very unique about J&K. Just like other princely states, the J&K was not like a nation. There was no real unity (cultural or otherwise) or national feeling among its people and really nothing to distinguish it from rest of the country. Actually, J&K was a place where the Muslim League had almost no influence. J&K had been the most peaceful during the Hindu-Muslim riots of 1946. There were hardly any Islamic extremist elements in Kashmir at that time.
The Britishers had instilled hope in the various Crown princes, that after the British withdrawal, they could finally become independent. Many idiots, including Hari Singh of J&K, actually fell for it. The British tried, whole-heartedly, to support the independence claim of states like Travancore (which had much better prospect of surviving independently than J&K) and Hyderabad. But frank diplomacy backed with the option, and use of military force, by Vallabhbhai Patel brought all such states within India. None of the states were given any special rights. Later, due to the linguistic division of Indian states, their very identity was lost in history.
Why is then the J&K different from other cases, like that of Hyderabad? Both Pakistan and England had fully supported Hyderabad, just like J&K. In both cases Indian army had intervened. In both cases, the public opinion, at that time, in the state were mostly the same. Yet, 60 years later, it is almost impossible to even think about an independent Hyderabad, whereas there is a strong ongoing demand for the independence of Kashmir.
I do not claim J&K to be a part of India just because Hari Singh signed the Instrument of Accession (that is for stupid international talks), but because Kashmiri society was the best example of Hindu-Muslim unity and the best rejection of the very idea of Pakistan. But every since independence the Indian government has committed one blunder after another in Kashmir leading to such a sorry state of affairs today.
Nehru had a special attachment towards Kashmir Valley and a very special fondness towards Sheikh Abdulla of the National Conference. Failing to leave the matter to the more pragmatic Patel, was the first major mistake. It was India who pressured Hari Singh to release Sheikh Abdulla from prison, making him the most important political person in J&K. Yet surprisingly, Nehru could not convince Sheikh to integrate J&K with India. India should have been much more proactive in J&K before the Pakistani invasion, since India had upper hand, as Sheikh, the most popular leader in Kashmir, was definitely anti-Pakistan, though not completely pro-Indian. However India did not act, whereas Pakistan stepped on cross-border infiltration as well as created trouble in the Poonch district.
In 1948, when Pakistan attacked J&K (disguised as tribal invasion), India did not respond until the accession papers were signed by Hari Singh, thereby giving a big decisive initial advantage to the Pakistani army. The military strength of the two countries being almost equal, at that time, and the winter of 1947, meant a halt in military operations. It was now that India made the biggest blunder in its history, a mistake which was to cost India very dearly, even after 60 years. Instead of forcing the integration of J&K into India, Nehru gave the complete power to Sheikh Abdulla's and left the question of accession still open, even though the Indian Army was welcomed in Kashmir as liberators. Instead of Sheikh Abdulla being the "Chief Minister", he became the "Prime Minister" of J&K !!
Now, under the influence of Mountbatein, Nehru made another big mistake. Instead of waiting for the end of winter and going for a final military solution, India decided to take this matter to the UN. At the UN, India was almost completely alienated on this issue, with the British backstabbing India and supporting Pakistan. Indian 'Non-Allied Movement' (though very good) did not help matters either. The grand illusion of Nehru, that the UN was a just and rational body, and not driven by short term interests of few nations, came crashing down upon him. However the damage was done. The Pakistanis had strengthened their position in the winters and though fighting continued throughout the summer of 1948, (with India winning back Kargil and Drass) full military solution could not be reached before another ceasefire.
But all was not well even in the Indian part of Kashmir. In 1950, the Indian constitution came into force and recognized J&K as part of India but it was given special privileges in the form of Article 370. This was perhaps the biggest mistake made by the Indian Government. Hence, from this point onwards, when all other princely states were fast loosing their identity, J&K was gaining a special identity and Sheikh Abdullah was becoming ever more ambitious.
A distinction must be made between the Kashmir Valley and the "Jammu and the Ladakh" region of J&K. Jammu being a predominantly Hindu majoriy region and Ladakh being a Buddhist region, always wanted complete accession to India. Here Sheikh Abdulla was never that popular and in 1952-53, these regions rose in revolt against the Sheikh's government encouraged by Dr. Shyama Prasad Mukerjee, of the BJP. He subsequently died in the Jammu Jail for the cause, creating huge unrest in the region. It was a clear case of gross mismanagement by the central government and the lack of effective Home Minister like Patel was clearly evident.
But the worst effect of the agitation was that Sheikh Abdulla, encouraged by the American embassy, now openly sought for independence of Kashmir. He was put behind bars by Nehru without any charge, and Bakshi Gulam Mohammad was made the CM. Such neck-jerk reaction and high-handedness was bound to get resentment from the general public in Kashmir Valley. Moreover Bakshi turned out to be thoroughly corrupt, making matters worse. Hence Article 370, coupled with the mad events of 1950s, made sure that J&K was never fully assimilated into India and always remained a thorn in the flesh.
Right from the beginning there has never been any systematic Indian policy towards Kashmir which has made matters much worse. Sheikh Abdullah was release twice, in 1958 and in 1964, only to be locked up again after a few months. During his last days Nehru desperately tried to diplomatically solve, the Kashmir issue, once for all, but his death laid to rest all such efforts for ever. Successive elections were held in Kashmir, keeping the most influential leader in jail. Moreover, elections of 1967 in J&K, were openly rigged by Indra Gandhi, leading to deep resentment. Successive corrupt governments and the aloofness of the center made, for the first time, pro-Pakistani elements a majority in the state. India was thus slowly beginning to losing ground through its own mistakes.
Lack of foresight of Nehru and the ill effects of Article 370 became more pronounced with every passing year. After partition lakhs of Sikhs went to nearby states to earn their livelihood and due to their hardworking nature, they started having a significant influence in those areas, besides boosting their economies. However Article 370 insured that there was absolutely no investment in Kashmir and no intermingling between the J&K and the rest of India. None of the good central schemes, reached Kashmir. Laws made in Delhi no longer mattered in Kashmir, hence the national feeling could never develop there. Compare that with other places like Tamil Nadu, Assam etc, where, though there were strong regional sentiments at one time, nationalism kept gaining ground over the years. Also, for the rest of India, J&K became a very emotional issue directly related to the national pride. Unfortunately, instead of loving the Kashmiri culture and people, the Kashmiri land became the most prominent issue.
India won a major victory in the 1971 war with Pakistan. However right after that it lost a major diplomatic battle with Pakistan. Instead of solving the Kashmir issue once for all, a weak Shimla Agreement was signed where Pakistan just made an informal promise (which was never kept) of converting the LOC into an International border.
After the scathing loss of 1971, Pakistan decided to pay back India in the same way, and J&K was the ideal battleground for Pakistan. Extremism was extensively encouraged in the whole of Pakistan and especially in POK. Cross border infiltration and terrorism was gaining ground. Seikh Abdulla, meanwhile had reached a truce with the Congress and he was back as the Chief Minster in J&K. However his popularity, even in the valley had decreased considerable. He was no longer the sole voice of the valley.
A lot of local (Islamic as well as Secular but Pro-Independence) organizations came into existence. Prominent among them were - Jammu Kashmir Liberation Front (JKLF), Muslim United Front (MUF), Awami Action Committee etc. However the more serious trouble was the formation of militant organization like - Jaish-e-Mohammed, Ḥizbal-Mujāhidīn, Harkat-ul-Mujahideen etc. These militant organizations got a lot of help from the Pakistani Intelligence agency, ISI, and Pakistan based state terrorist organizations like Lashkar-e-Taiba. The hanging of Mohammad Maqbool Bhat (of JKFL) in 1984, (although necessary) further provoked militancy. The government of the day also played its part in the mess by constantly rigging every elections (like the elections of 1987) to ensure that extremists could never get elected in the J&K assembly. This led to the rise of an armed insurgency movement composed, in part, of those who unfairly lost elections.
The 1990's (1989 onwards) was the darkest period in J&K. Ever since the fall of USSR, the 'Mujahideen' of Afghanistan, were diverted to Kashmir by Pakistan. Cross-border insurgency came to an all time high. Continuous anti-India protests provoked lath-charge and even firing, which in turn, added more fuel to the fire. The All Parties Hurriyat Conference was formed as a grand alliance of various anti-India parties in Kashmir and they remain till date the strongest group, outside the mainstream.
The problem starts with the stupid idea of partition. Given the social fabric of the Indian society, with a mix of different communities in almost every village, the very idea of "Partition", based on religion, was nothing better than (using Nehru's words) "A Fantastic Nonsense". There could never be a rational way in which, a partition line, could have be drawn between the two countries, that would be acceptable to both. It was finally drawn in the most ad-hoc and whimsical manner, by the departing Britishers. Yet, left with no better alternative, both parties accepted the British line of divide and there has been no dispute about it ever since. However the point to note is that, if at that time, the final line was left to talks and dialogues or UN resolutions (like Kashmir), India and Pakistan would still have been fighting over it, as certain things can never be resolved by any amount of dialogue.
Before Independence J&K was a princely state, with a Hindu king and mostly Muslim population. Other than its unique location, between India and Pakistan, there was nothing very unique about J&K. Just like other princely states, the J&K was not like a nation. There was no real unity (cultural or otherwise) or national feeling among its people and really nothing to distinguish it from rest of the country. Actually, J&K was a place where the Muslim League had almost no influence. J&K had been the most peaceful during the Hindu-Muslim riots of 1946. There were hardly any Islamic extremist elements in Kashmir at that time.
 |
| Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel |
Why is then the J&K different from other cases, like that of Hyderabad? Both Pakistan and England had fully supported Hyderabad, just like J&K. In both cases Indian army had intervened. In both cases, the public opinion, at that time, in the state were mostly the same. Yet, 60 years later, it is almost impossible to even think about an independent Hyderabad, whereas there is a strong ongoing demand for the independence of Kashmir.
I do not claim J&K to be a part of India just because Hari Singh signed the Instrument of Accession (that is for stupid international talks), but because Kashmiri society was the best example of Hindu-Muslim unity and the best rejection of the very idea of Pakistan. But every since independence the Indian government has committed one blunder after another in Kashmir leading to such a sorry state of affairs today.
 |
| Nehru and Sheikh Abdullah |
In 1948, when Pakistan attacked J&K (disguised as tribal invasion), India did not respond until the accession papers were signed by Hari Singh, thereby giving a big decisive initial advantage to the Pakistani army. The military strength of the two countries being almost equal, at that time, and the winter of 1947, meant a halt in military operations. It was now that India made the biggest blunder in its history, a mistake which was to cost India very dearly, even after 60 years. Instead of forcing the integration of J&K into India, Nehru gave the complete power to Sheikh Abdulla's and left the question of accession still open, even though the Indian Army was welcomed in Kashmir as liberators. Instead of Sheikh Abdulla being the "Chief Minister", he became the "Prime Minister" of J&K !!
Now, under the influence of Mountbatein, Nehru made another big mistake. Instead of waiting for the end of winter and going for a final military solution, India decided to take this matter to the UN. At the UN, India was almost completely alienated on this issue, with the British backstabbing India and supporting Pakistan. Indian 'Non-Allied Movement' (though very good) did not help matters either. The grand illusion of Nehru, that the UN was a just and rational body, and not driven by short term interests of few nations, came crashing down upon him. However the damage was done. The Pakistanis had strengthened their position in the winters and though fighting continued throughout the summer of 1948, (with India winning back Kargil and Drass) full military solution could not be reached before another ceasefire.
But all was not well even in the Indian part of Kashmir. In 1950, the Indian constitution came into force and recognized J&K as part of India but it was given special privileges in the form of Article 370. This was perhaps the biggest mistake made by the Indian Government. Hence, from this point onwards, when all other princely states were fast loosing their identity, J&K was gaining a special identity and Sheikh Abdullah was becoming ever more ambitious.
 |
| Dr. Shyama Prasad Mukerjee |
But the worst effect of the agitation was that Sheikh Abdulla, encouraged by the American embassy, now openly sought for independence of Kashmir. He was put behind bars by Nehru without any charge, and Bakshi Gulam Mohammad was made the CM. Such neck-jerk reaction and high-handedness was bound to get resentment from the general public in Kashmir Valley. Moreover Bakshi turned out to be thoroughly corrupt, making matters worse. Hence Article 370, coupled with the mad events of 1950s, made sure that J&K was never fully assimilated into India and always remained a thorn in the flesh.
Right from the beginning there has never been any systematic Indian policy towards Kashmir which has made matters much worse. Sheikh Abdullah was release twice, in 1958 and in 1964, only to be locked up again after a few months. During his last days Nehru desperately tried to diplomatically solve, the Kashmir issue, once for all, but his death laid to rest all such efforts for ever. Successive elections were held in Kashmir, keeping the most influential leader in jail. Moreover, elections of 1967 in J&K, were openly rigged by Indra Gandhi, leading to deep resentment. Successive corrupt governments and the aloofness of the center made, for the first time, pro-Pakistani elements a majority in the state. India was thus slowly beginning to losing ground through its own mistakes.
Lack of foresight of Nehru and the ill effects of Article 370 became more pronounced with every passing year. After partition lakhs of Sikhs went to nearby states to earn their livelihood and due to their hardworking nature, they started having a significant influence in those areas, besides boosting their economies. However Article 370 insured that there was absolutely no investment in Kashmir and no intermingling between the J&K and the rest of India. None of the good central schemes, reached Kashmir. Laws made in Delhi no longer mattered in Kashmir, hence the national feeling could never develop there. Compare that with other places like Tamil Nadu, Assam etc, where, though there were strong regional sentiments at one time, nationalism kept gaining ground over the years. Also, for the rest of India, J&K became a very emotional issue directly related to the national pride. Unfortunately, instead of loving the Kashmiri culture and people, the Kashmiri land became the most prominent issue.
India won a major victory in the 1971 war with Pakistan. However right after that it lost a major diplomatic battle with Pakistan. Instead of solving the Kashmir issue once for all, a weak Shimla Agreement was signed where Pakistan just made an informal promise (which was never kept) of converting the LOC into an International border.
 |
| Mirwaiz Umar Farooq |
A lot of local (Islamic as well as Secular but Pro-Independence) organizations came into existence. Prominent among them were - Jammu Kashmir Liberation Front (JKLF), Muslim United Front (MUF), Awami Action Committee etc. However the more serious trouble was the formation of militant organization like - Jaish-e-Mohammed, Ḥizbal-Mujāhidīn, Harkat-ul-Mujahideen etc. These militant organizations got a lot of help from the Pakistani Intelligence agency, ISI, and Pakistan based state terrorist organizations like Lashkar-e-Taiba. The hanging of Mohammad Maqbool Bhat (of JKFL) in 1984, (although necessary) further provoked militancy. The government of the day also played its part in the mess by constantly rigging every elections (like the elections of 1987) to ensure that extremists could never get elected in the J&K assembly. This led to the rise of an armed insurgency movement composed, in part, of those who unfairly lost elections.
 |
| Refugee tent colonies as a result of Kashmiri Pandits exodus from the valley |
Eventually the army had to be called, to douse the situation. However in a rogue incident many unarmed protesters too got killed. This resulted in a wave of revenge killings, especially against the Kashmiri Pandits. Most of the estimated 162,500 Hindus in the Valley, including the entire Kashmiri Pandit community, fled the Valley in March 1990. This was one of the worst human tragedies of independent India. The scale of ethnic cleansing in the valley was very much like that of the Jews in Hitler's Germany. The demography and the culture of J&K was changed for ever, right under the nose of the Indian State. The worst thing was that instead of a political struggle, it became a 'Jihad' to create an Islamic state in Kashmir. The very idea of Secular India now was under threat, ironically in the same place, which had once been, the model of Hindu-Muslim unity. Although foreign hand behind the 1990s turbulence in the valley cannot be denied, the fact remains, that it had a lot of popular support, and the Indian policy for the last so many years, was the major reason behind it.
Over the next decade the army brought relative peace in the valley. The border was sealed off and a lot of militants were encountered. Thousand of martyrs laid down their lives in the service of the nation. The army heavily contributed towards developmental activities in J&K, and also relief and rescue activities, in case of natural calamities. However, even after doing such a great job, with great discipline and hard work, the army failed to win over the hearts of the common Kashmiris. The feeling of alienation, increased rather than decreased. There are precise reasons for the same. The most important being ASFPA.
Along with the army presence, came the notorious ASFPA act (July 1990) in J&K. ASFPA is a draconian act which gives complete immunity to the armed force from any action, including the right to shoot on sight. Such an act was very necessary in the 1990s for the army to function smoothly. Otherwise, it was almost certain, that India would not have been able to hold on to Kashmir any longer. However, army presence is never compatible with civil administration. The major problem being that army personals can never be tried in civil courts and for any human right violations, alleged or otherwise, the general public has no avenue for redressal of his grievances. Even though there are many parts in our country, where human right violations and atrocities committed by the police are much greater, the very presence of legal system, howsoever ineffective and slow, acts as a effective counterbalance. Acts like ASFPA, create a much greater feeling of alienation in the general public, and even normal incidents get blown out of proportion. There are loose cannons everywhere, even in army. There have been cases where, for promotion or rewards, army personal have victimized innocent citizens. At other times, some genuine human mistakes were also made. The worst part been that, even if action was taken against them, it happened in army courts, away from the public eye. Hence justice was never visible on the ground.
Since the 1990's the story till date, has been pretty much the same. There are approximately half a million Indian security forces deployed in the Kashmir Valley since the nineties. Continued violence has taken the lives of tens of thousands of civilians. The fact remains that without the army, the India state cannot exist in Kashmir, even though the insurgency has largely been controlled. A decade of ASFPA has created a very strong negative feeling on both sides. In the army, there is a distinct dislike towards the native population as they have seen scores of their fellowmen been killed by the militants, some of them Kashmiris, and others claiming to be fighting for the Kashmiris. In their view, Kashmiri are ungrateful and unworthy of their great sacrifices. On the other hand, the general Kashmiri (in the valley mostly) views the army with great fear and treat them as foreign occupying forces, having absolute power. They deeply resent their suppression of civil rights under ASFPA, the fact that they have to carry IDs all the time, the various army checkpoints spread everywhere, the high-handedness with which the army treats them, and the little hope that they have, of things ever becoming better. The fact that very few Kashmiris are actually part of the army doesn't help matters either. Adding to that, is the strong propaganda of the Hurriat Conference, and the rabble rousing of the opportunist mainstream politicians.
In recent years Pakistan has been too preoccupied with its eastern border, and hence cross-border terrorism is at all time low. The total no of insurgents in the valley are estimated to be less than 500 now. Violence has come down significantly. Things look better from the outside, but they are not. The danger is greater now since it emanates from within, rather than from outside. Instead of bullets, the Kashmiris have taken to mass protests, strikes and stone pelting. 2010 has been one of the worst years in Kashmir. Protesting against the alleged fake killings by the army, lakhs of people joined the protest and more than a hundred died in the clashes that followed, over the next several months. India had to use its full force to subdue the protests. Such mass protests have seriously weakened the moral position of the Indian state in the Kashmir valley. To a nationalist like myself, the situation's uncanny resemblance with the British rule in India is deeply troubling and worrisome. Passive resistance by common man is far more dangerous than any armed rebellion. A complete and comprehensive strategy for J&K is the dire need of the hour.
Kashmir has not been the only troubled region in India, clamoring for independence. At one time militancy in Punjab almost rivaled that of Kashmir, but today it is almost completely over. The reason for the above, was a lack of external support, lost of popular mass support and the fact that the main force fighting militancy, were the police, compromising of Sikhs only. These are the exact lessons that should be applied in Kashmir also. A partial removal of ASFPA, from certain districts is a step in the right direction. Civil laws must be strengthened to give more powers to the police. The J&K police must be heavily armed and equipped with latest gadgets. J&K police should recruit more and more unemployed people in the state, and should be kept at the forefront against any insurgent attack. Casualties of local Kashmiris at the hand of terrorists, would erode their popular support base. At the same time more Kashmirs must be inducted into the Paramilitary forces and sent to different parts of the country like the Northeast. Army presence must be made less and less visible and should only be concentrated on the border areas to make sure that there is absolutely no help from across the border. After a few years of peace, Article 370 must be slowly diluted, with a single point agenda of attracting investment (especially foreign) in the state, and not changing the demographic profile of the state. Sustained economic progress is the surest way of combating terrorism in the state. After that, there must be a sustained effort to resettle the Kashmiri Pandits back in the state in a natural unforced way, by giving them property, industry rights and economic help etc. Slowly but surely the complete Article 370 must be scrapped, facilitating J&K's complete integration into the country. A trifurcation of the state with the removal of Article 370 from Jammu and Ladakh region, is also an idea worth considering.
How mush of the above is actually possible and how much would just remain wishful thinking is anyone's guess. One thing is certain, that there is no quick solution for the problem and it is going to take a very long time. The government should devote its full energy and effort in trying to win back the popular support and there should be a detailed plan for the same. However sooner or later, people's wishes will have to be respected. Only 'Soft power' and not 'gun power' can deliver the final victory. If, however (in the worst case) none of the efforts materialize, and people in the Kashmir Valley remain defiant as ever, then it is in the interest of both Kashmir and the rest of India, that there should be a referendum and India should respect the result. As it is said, it you truly love a person, you need not hold her tight. Let her leave, and she would come back to you.
Over the next decade the army brought relative peace in the valley. The border was sealed off and a lot of militants were encountered. Thousand of martyrs laid down their lives in the service of the nation. The army heavily contributed towards developmental activities in J&K, and also relief and rescue activities, in case of natural calamities. However, even after doing such a great job, with great discipline and hard work, the army failed to win over the hearts of the common Kashmiris. The feeling of alienation, increased rather than decreased. There are precise reasons for the same. The most important being ASFPA.
Since the 1990's the story till date, has been pretty much the same. There are approximately half a million Indian security forces deployed in the Kashmir Valley since the nineties. Continued violence has taken the lives of tens of thousands of civilians. The fact remains that without the army, the India state cannot exist in Kashmir, even though the insurgency has largely been controlled. A decade of ASFPA has created a very strong negative feeling on both sides. In the army, there is a distinct dislike towards the native population as they have seen scores of their fellowmen been killed by the militants, some of them Kashmiris, and others claiming to be fighting for the Kashmiris. In their view, Kashmiri are ungrateful and unworthy of their great sacrifices. On the other hand, the general Kashmiri (in the valley mostly) views the army with great fear and treat them as foreign occupying forces, having absolute power. They deeply resent their suppression of civil rights under ASFPA, the fact that they have to carry IDs all the time, the various army checkpoints spread everywhere, the high-handedness with which the army treats them, and the little hope that they have, of things ever becoming better. The fact that very few Kashmiris are actually part of the army doesn't help matters either. Adding to that, is the strong propaganda of the Hurriat Conference, and the rabble rousing of the opportunist mainstream politicians.
 |
| Syed Ali Shah Geelani of the Hurriyat Conference |
Kashmir has not been the only troubled region in India, clamoring for independence. At one time militancy in Punjab almost rivaled that of Kashmir, but today it is almost completely over. The reason for the above, was a lack of external support, lost of popular mass support and the fact that the main force fighting militancy, were the police, compromising of Sikhs only. These are the exact lessons that should be applied in Kashmir also. A partial removal of ASFPA, from certain districts is a step in the right direction. Civil laws must be strengthened to give more powers to the police. The J&K police must be heavily armed and equipped with latest gadgets. J&K police should recruit more and more unemployed people in the state, and should be kept at the forefront against any insurgent attack. Casualties of local Kashmiris at the hand of terrorists, would erode their popular support base. At the same time more Kashmirs must be inducted into the Paramilitary forces and sent to different parts of the country like the Northeast. Army presence must be made less and less visible and should only be concentrated on the border areas to make sure that there is absolutely no help from across the border. After a few years of peace, Article 370 must be slowly diluted, with a single point agenda of attracting investment (especially foreign) in the state, and not changing the demographic profile of the state. Sustained economic progress is the surest way of combating terrorism in the state. After that, there must be a sustained effort to resettle the Kashmiri Pandits back in the state in a natural unforced way, by giving them property, industry rights and economic help etc. Slowly but surely the complete Article 370 must be scrapped, facilitating J&K's complete integration into the country. A trifurcation of the state with the removal of Article 370 from Jammu and Ladakh region, is also an idea worth considering.
How mush of the above is actually possible and how much would just remain wishful thinking is anyone's guess. One thing is certain, that there is no quick solution for the problem and it is going to take a very long time. The government should devote its full energy and effort in trying to win back the popular support and there should be a detailed plan for the same. However sooner or later, people's wishes will have to be respected. Only 'Soft power' and not 'gun power' can deliver the final victory. If, however (in the worst case) none of the efforts materialize, and people in the Kashmir Valley remain defiant as ever, then it is in the interest of both Kashmir and the rest of India, that there should be a referendum and India should respect the result. As it is said, it you truly love a person, you need not hold her tight. Let her leave, and she would come back to you.
Mast Likha hai Utsuk Bhai.. It is very informative and very well documented . Keep it up this good work . One suggestion for u dude Civil services ki preparation karo . you have the potential do something good for society.
ReplyDeleteI dont understand ur nationalism when you claim the use of Army in the internal affair of a state as a necessary one.. You r saying that 'kashmiris sud be recruited in paramilitary forces and sud be sent to NorthEast states'. But for what? To kill the people in tht region n cripple the already crippled ones?
ReplyDeleteI wonder when you give the account of Kashmiri Pandits being fled to valley due to conflicts among d people in d state, you just ignored the role of Army in those 4000 dead bodies found in mass graves! The figure of people fled n d latter one of dead bodies may seem to give a different picture, but look how d so-called-protectors of people have really done!
It is for the right wings who want Kashmir to be a part of India but not the people. When you mention tht had 'forceful integration' of kashmir been done d present problem wud hav not been at this level.. I believe, always think, there wud hav been no problem if the princely states in tht time were allowed to exist as independent nations. Bloodsheds n forceful annexation hav been d story of a new India as it gets liberated from the British rulers.. And, implanting a national feeling to those who do not previously have it, because there was nothing called a country called India before the independence, was never going to be easy! Tht is how then violence and force hav become a tool for the state to suppress the dissents anywhere in this country!
The point is tht the solution of this situation should not be the proxy war tht is now goin on.. As a protector of its citizens, d govt is also responsible for d prosperity of any region.. The people in these crisis-affected regions, be it JnK or NE.., will continue to feel being aliennated until d democratic environment dawns in their life!
We sud look at d people, connect them, invest on developing infrastructures of d regions, stop carrying/inciting religious propagandas..d root cause of d issue is not a complicated one..but d consequences hav been made complicated by few crooks just for their political/religious/self gain.
@ Ish Thanks .........I am not sure how much change can people in Civil Services, bring in the society. There is a much greater chance of the system changing you, or you being sidelined and made irrelevant.
ReplyDelete@springwriter Let me give you a detailed reply, point by point.
ReplyDeleteI never said that "Army in the internal affairs of the state is necessary". It is definitely undesirable and after a certain period of time it is actually counterproductive. However presence of army in Kashmir in 1990 was definitely necessary to control the violent situation there. Police with ordinary guns could never have been able to overpower the 2500 odd extremists in the valley who were armed (with a continuous supply from the Pakistan) with weapons like AK47.
I completely agree that situation is NE is even worse than in Kashmir. If the Indian Government has made some mistakes in J&K, they have made much much bigger mistakes in NE and people there have suffered greatly. I will probably write about the NE some other time.
Let me explain why I said that Kashmiris must be inducted in army and paramilitary force. Please understand the great patriotic feeling generated by a martyr. The best example being the Kargil war. Don't you remember, with what great respect and honour, the corpses of the army soldiers, were treated in their native places all across India (and Shillong) ? NE has a similar situation as Kashmir. We have rampant militancy as well as human rights violation by army in both these places. But Kashmiris in army, in NE, will get (for the first time) to see the other side of the situation. They would then positively influence the society back in the valley. Also having been on the other side for most of their lives, they would positively influence the army to treat the citizens of NE with greater respect.
Please understand the Army is not basically to kill people indiscriminately. It was initially there, just to maintain law and order. However over time a deep apathy towards the general public develops in the army which is highly counterproductive. It becomes difficult for them to differentiate between general public and terrorists. Certain rogue incidents, abuse of power, and human right violations also happens. Army is, after all, not meant of civil regions.
You talked about 4000 dead bodies in mass graves. Looks a lot right? But please consider this - In Rural Kashmir, people generally bury their dead in unmarked graves only. Since the 1990s, on an average, 500-600 people (and ~200 army men) are killed, in cross fire, every year. All the terrorists are buried by the Army in unmarked graves only. Hence let us be pragmatic and not emotional. Of course I do not say that no human right violation has ever taken place. But as I said earlier, "there are many parts in our country, where human right violations and atrocities committed by the police are much greater" (like Bihar or Orrisa).
(cont in the next comment ......)
I completely agree with you when you say that - "It is for the right wings who want Kashmir to be a part of India but not the people." I want to integrate the people of J&K and not just the land. I have exactly mentioned why I have always considered J&K to be a part of India. Also I have given suggestions as to the steps required to integrate the people with the rest of India. Please refer to the last paragraph for the same.
ReplyDeleteYou are completely wrong when you say that -"there wud hav been no problem if the princely states in tht time were allowed to exist as independent nations. Bloodsheds n forceful annexation hav been d story of a new India as it gets liberated from the British rulers." Sorry but your understanding of history is completely wrong. The princely states were never independent. They were always under the British rule in all respects - economically, militarily as well as administratively. These "Crown Princes" were complete idiots who were allowed certain vanities by the Britishers, thats all. It was highly mischievous of the Britishers to encourage them to dream about becoming despots. Annexation of these states was a very practical and just step. There were 550 princely states in India. Can you even think about 550 independent nations (that too dictators) within India ?? Annexation of Kashmir in 1948 (without Article 370 just like other states) would not have been "forced" but would have have been welcomed by the people of Kashmir and would have saved so many lives.
"Implanting a national feeling to those who do not previously have it, because there was nothing called a country called India before the independence, was never going to be easy!" --- Yes I partially agree to that. However I do believe that, though we were never one as a political entity, the whole India has always been culturally distinct from the rest of the world. Don't compare India to countries like France/Italy, rather compare it to Europe and then you can understand what binds us together. However it is very important to note that for the 200 years that we were under the highly suppressive British rule, there were no "Kashmiri sentiments" or "Naga Independence Movements" etc. These demands have no historical backing, rather these are highly opportunistic in nature, caused by the perception of "the emergence of a weak center once the all powerful Britishers withdraw". Only the wrong policies and knee jerk reactions of the Gov are responsible of the feeling of alienation in the people of J&K and NE. Otherwise there was absolutely no reason, cultural or otherwise, for such feelings to ever exist.
I completely agree with your last paragraph :) :)
It gladdens my heart to know that young people like yourself have such in depth knowledge of this intractable issue.
ReplyDeleteI just finished reading a book by Wajahat Habibullah, "Kashmir: The dying Light" which also gives great insight in the issue from an insiders point of view.
Keep writing, some will agree with you, some wont. But it is important to have opinions.
Very good report, Utsuk. You should construct and promote this page as a educational "current affairs" over the internet.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I think certain things to be clarified in the process......
About Nehru
============
The problem with him was that he only cared about the future of India, not to solidify the present when the need arised. Also, to the core he was a "soft" pacifist who believed to "please" anybody which could open the part for the next round of negotiations for which he wanted to get his work done. But as long as Patel was there, India was still in "safe" hands of the "Iron Man of India". After Patel, the slew of political blunders were aniticipated, which later surfaced as "Chinese annexion" and Kashmir.
It was due to Patel only, "crowned" princerly states were declared as a part of India. Impartant thing is to mention is if Hydrabad was still independent, it would have acted like a rotten stomach of United India. Thankfully, the threat was averted due to clever diplomacy and use of militiary force by Patel.
As you mentioned, conflict of interest arised in case Kashmir, Nehru actually overruled Sardar's viewpoint and announced on AIR that Article 370 was to be laid and UN will take care of Kashmir. This was the first weak point embossed in "United India dream".
Partition Issues
===============
To argue on Partition today and 60 years past was never an option. British gave India only two draft for Independence handover. One was to leave divided India into princely states as it is and the second was the formation of 2 major dominons, namely Pakistan and India. The Plan included "then united Hindu India" and muslim majority areas of (East+west) Pakistan. No provision of independent states was considered.
Due to Jinnnah's "Muslim league's "Direct action" bloody riots initiations, everyone had to vouch in for 2 dominon plan to control the situation. Once accepted by both Congress & Muslim league, only then damage control and bloodshed came ander control.
It is important to remember that we didn't had much say in that time of "Divide & Rule" Policy. If entire population had to be united, then another 30 years more would have taken to gain just independence.
British cleverly handed the onus of "alingning crowned states" to India. Thanks to Sardar Patel dedicated efforts and "Iron clad" handedness of situation combined with tough negotiations, we got our "United India". East pakistan issue was also sorted out later by Indira Gandhi. Only Kashmir remained. (contd)
Kashmir Opinions
ReplyDelete================
While I agree with what you have mentioned regarding Kashmir, I strongly oppose on grounds of leaving the valley in hands of natives with a referendum. It can't be argued that Kashmir is the strategic importance to military. We have to keep check on Pakistan's militant activities and China 's suspiciaos movements every now and then.
People of Kashmir today, are too scared, too hurt and mentally broken to take concious decision. They will be encouraged to choose "Independent" nation by joint rhetoric of Pakistan and China. And they will "accept" it willingly given with this state of "scared" mind.
Suppose if "referendum" goes for "Pakistan alignment" or "Independent state", imagine what will happen to Indian National Security !!... Unparalled movement of Pakistan's & Chinese militiary force will create bloodshed in whole country and create war-like conditions. Both are nuclear powered and if Pakistan will suffer militiary, China will supply the ammunation and men to her. By gifting "Kashmir" we would open doors to total destruction which we see in snapshots every day.
The ideal solution is of course to scrap Article 370. This only is the sole handicap of India. I see the ray of hope in current legal reforms bill but we surely need strong willpower on this issue. Like "Anna", a strong public opinion has to be voiced for scrapping this legal handicap.
Sending Kashmirs as paramilitary forces in NE border to arise "national feeling" is not viable in current situation. "Violence breeds violence". How are you trying to induce a national spirit in an "exhausted" soul of kashmiri whose routine is to dig the unmarked graves of his brothers, every day ?? Only concession this time will perhaps that if he is killed in action, his family will be honoured with a wrapped tricolor body, a military gun salute and a state marked grave. But, the end result will only be that the family would had lost her remaning son which is no different from her daily routine. Might be some member may get some govt. job in the process. But really, you think you have to sacrifice a family member to get a stable job ??? Nah... These things are like looking into far into a rosy future.
To initiate the confidence in kashmiris, first, the civil position has to be strengthened as I mentioned before. Trade units, jobs are to be generated, proper education facilities, trasportation, water supply, agriculture initiatives has to be taken first. When a person feels he is a true son of India, then only he can commit his whole hearted mind and soul dedication in militiary.
And yes, "Only "soft" power not only "gun power" is not effective in every case". But careful selection of right tool at right time i.e. "soft and gun power" are effective according to different situations.
"Gun power + soft power" got us "United India" with Hyderabad. Got us Independence too. "Gun power" silenced Punjab riots. And "soft power" made us nuclear enabled nation. Over relying on only one power leaves you defenceless someday. Kashmir is a standing example of our overreliance on both the powers in successive decades.
Concluding Remarks
==================
I'm glad to see a "maturing adult" in you. Keep writing !!! Always remember one thing, history has changed its course whenever someone has dared to write and influence the masses. Good luck with that !!
"Reading maketh a full man, conference a ready man, and writing an exact man"
@alka Thanks for the encouragement.
ReplyDelete@manas Thank you for your interest and encouragement.
About Nehru : I agree with you completely.
Partition Issues : I am not blaming Indian leaders. They were browbeaten into accepting the partition by Jinnah and Britishers. I am just saying that partition, based on religion, was the most stupid idea ever and has resulted in the shitpot called 'Pakistan'.Partition caused more bloodshed than the 'Direct Action' of 1949.
Kashmir Opinions : In Kashmir we have a catch 20-20 situation. We cannot remove Article 370 right away as it would lead to massive protests. Development is not happening due to militancy. Army presence causes deep resentment and anti-India feeling. There is no easy answer. Meanwhile we are paying very heavy cost, economic as well as human, to maintain the status quo.
As I said, I consider referendum as the last choice and not something that should be immediately done. Due to our stupid policies, we have created a situation where kashmiris are mostly anti-Indian. These policies have to be reversed first. Removal of ASFPA from certain parts of Kashmir is very essential. As I have said - "The government should devote its full energy and effort in trying to win back the popular support and there should be a detailed plan for the same. "
However lets remember that no one can guarantee that all these efforts will ultimately succeed. Yes Kashmir is important strategically, but I don't think Indian state would be prone to total destruction, just by the expulsion of Kashmir valley.
hey bhaiya, nice article.... very informative and well presented! provides an insight into views of both sides - native Kashmiris and Indian army & people... something that policy makers (wrt kashmir) of this country need to understand first hand.
ReplyDeleteThanks Shagun :) :)
ReplyDeleteI think I did a pretty good job of describing the problem. However, I don’t think I did a good job of providing a comprehensive solution in the blog. Fortunately, the Government of India has done a much better job.
ReplyDeleteThe government has successfully implemented a few of solutions that I had suggested - removing Article 370 and splitting the state (I had recommended splitting the state into 3 rather than 2 parts). The best part was effective Media Management which has ensured a far lower bloodshed than expected. The block on Social Media and 4G internet has really proved effective in preventing mass secessionist protests. COVID-19 has also played a part in stabilising the situation.
After any surgery, healing touches are required. I hope government is working in that direction, with a similar sense of urgency. Opening cinema halls, creating new tourist attractions (cable cars, ski resorts etc.), providing Government Jobs, creating SEZs, encouraging economic actives are steps in the right direction. Gradually the restrictions must be lifted, 4G internet must be allowed but Social Media must remain restricted for a long time.
I hope in the next few years, the healing effects and prolonged peace start having its effect on the Kashmiri population (there is hardly any worry about the Jammu and Ladakh regions). Ultimately Kashmir will become a normal India region only if ASFPA is gradually removed and political activities are re-started. That must be the long-term aim of the government. I hope that one day the anti-India sentiment in the valley are a thing of the past. This will take at least the next 15-20 years. The future of Jammu, Kashmir and Ladakh is finally looking bright.