Volume 1, No. 1, March 2000

The anxiety and grief of the relatives and later their agitation, which were given wide coverage that put pressure on the government, has enraged some of the policy makers and their advisors, and questions are raised whether in future why the people should not be asked to get prepared for sacrifices. The ruling classes want the people to sacrifice themselves in every way to keep their unjustified hold on Kashmir in the name of nationalism. During the Kargil war, we witnessed chauvinism taken to great heights by the media, especially, the TV and radio, blaring out nationalist songs day and night which were heard after a lapse of about thirty years.

Round the year the people are fed with rubbish and degenerated culture on the TV screens. The nationalist songs are meant for the common people "to die for the nation" while the rulers carry on their dirty political games, embezzlements, scams and what not. Their sons do not die at the front fighting the "enemy forces." Those who die on the battlegrounds are the sons of the peasants and the common people who join the army to make both ends meet. Sons of the rich do not become cannon fodder, they have all the means at their disposal to enjoy life and have no such compulsion. They don’t die for the nation.

We should remember that when thousands of unemployed youth collected at Bharatpur in Rajasthan, Darbhanga in Bihar and in Nagpur during the war in Kargil to get a job in the army, they were indiscriminately fired upon by the police and dozens were killed, exposing the anti-people character of the system. Those young people were killed at the real border which divides the rulers from the people, the employer from the unemployed, the rich from the poor and which lies not at some line of control in Kashmir but right in our own courtyard. Now the rulers are debating that the people should be made to die when there are no Rubiya Sayyads and Swiss Moneybags among the hostages.

The debate over the hijack episode is raging. There are still others who suggest revamping of the security structure in Kashmir so that Kashmir is more tightly held on to and all dissent and aspirations for freedom are destroyed. They call for finding ways to induce changes within Pakistan thus asking the Indian State to intervene in her internal atlairs. They also call for mobilising international support in the "war against cross-border terrorism" and for winning the ‘International community’ to her own side by signing the CTBT and NPT. India, which hitherto has been saying that it does not want a third party role in the Kashmir tangle is nearing towards accepting the ‘international community’s role.

It is afterall, difficult to take action when men like Roberto Giory, the Swiss tycoon, are present among the hostages. Giory controls 90 percent of the worlds’ currency printing business and was present in the hijacked aircraft. The Swiss government had told the Indian Government to "do everything to secure the release of the of the hostages without anyone of them being harmed." Diplomats from the Swiss Govt. remained present at Kandhar throughout, till the crisis ended. India, which had been "considering all options" was stopped to exercise the military option due to a number of factors including this important one. India felt at a loss not being able to utilise the opportunity to show its muscle against "cross-border terrorism."

Previously, the relatives of the hostages were up in arms asking for the acceptance of the hijacker’s demands giving the example of Rubiyya Sayyad’s kidnapping case. This had put a lot of pressure on the govt. which was thrown onto the defensive. The Govt. had to organise some relatives of army men who had lost their lives in Kargil to counter the pressure of the relatives of the hostages. Efforts were made to invoke "nationalism" among the relatives and the Indian authorities succeeded in convincing a few of the gullible to release statements putting "faith" in the government and its actions in defense of ‘national interests.’ The govermnent, however, could not act and Advani had to concede that the BJP government had taken a beating.

The "Crime against Humanity" epithet has so much been used in the week long hijack drama that it has served to gloss over the crimes which the Indian army perpetrates over the Kashmiri people in the name of unity and integrity of the country. It must be remembered that Kashmir is not a part of India and belongs to the Kashmiri people who have never been given the choice to decide whether they want to be a part of India or Pakistan or want to stay independent of the both. Moreover, if Kashmir as part of India, one day its people decide to come out of the Union, they must still have the right to do so. Unions cannot be maintained unilaterally and through coercion. Such unions would be more criminal than the said "crime against humanity" and this crime is being committed by the Indian rulers, who are so fond of talking about peace, ‘Indian democracy’ and human rights.

The hijack episode has been utilised to boost up military preparations and getting the state structure to be ever ready for the kill. The rulers have debated endlessly the unpreparedness at Amritsar airport where the "hijackers should have been engaged" in pseudo negotiations and the plane stormed. The whole of the Indian media has concentrated on this topic and the people have been made to think that the real problem lay in unpreparedness to go into a killing adventure. Not a sane voice of reason has arisen, that the real problem lies in not giving the Kashmiris their right to freedom.

The Indian media which is fond of accusing the Pakistani intelligentsia for not bothering about what is right and what is wrong with their rulers, has remained silent over the real state of things prevailing in our own country. The columnists who suggest the government help in the "democratisation" of Pakistan, remain oblivious to the stark facts of the undemocratic state of affairs here. As Indians, we must speak of the injustices being done in Kashmir first and then only talk about the matters of our neighbour. It is true that the so-called democracy in Pakistan was one of the worst in the world with rampant corruption, rapes of women in the police custody, denials of fundamental rights for the majority of the population, and a nexus of police, criminals and politicians. It is not that only the military is bad and the democracy of Benazir or that of the Sharif was good, both the military and the civil governments behave in much the same way. Both the countries are afflicted with the very same problems and in both territories the regimes work against the interests of the people. The sooner the Indians come to realise the sorry state of affairs in their own land the better, than to cry at the conditions prevailing in their neighbour’s courtyard.

The liberation struggle in Kashmir has little to gain from such acts of hijacking. For the rulers on both sides the question in Kashmir is to grab the maximum in the final settlement, whenever it comes. The Indian "experts" and the bourgeois media are giving teeth to the players on this side of the sub-continent, as their counterparts are doing on the other side. The frenzied debate over the possibilities of a commando operation is nothing but a part of the overall military approach to the Kashmir question. The rulers feel disconcerted at losing the initiative at the Amritsar airport. Kandhar closed all "other options", a number of people were destined to be forcedly sacrificed in the name of defending the honour of the country and the "zero tolerance of terrorism" policy. When the foreign minister says, "Saving the lives of the people was uppermost in the mind of the government", he lies. He was, in fact, forced to save the lives of the people due to hostile circumstances, in reality the government did not have any respect for their lives.

Inspite of knowing well that Pakistan is a base for HuM and HuA the American administration is moving cautiously in branding Pakistan a terrorist state as India has been "requesting" the US to do. The US is convinced that the present military government in Islarnabad is not in the least anti-US and it can do business with it while at the same time continuing its rhetoric for bringing in a so-called democratic set-up. It is well aware of the situation in Afghanistan and it cannot afrord to lose another time tested loyal lever in the region especially when it is hopeful that the Musharraf regime can be used to pressurise the Taliban to fall into line. In this respect, army man Musharraf is no less reliable than the civilian Sharif, or for that matter, any civilian ruler provided he is not a fundamentalist of the Iranian or Talibani type who prove difficult to be roped in. Musharraf has already started talking to the Taliban on this score as Sharif had been doing. Moreover, about five years ago, when the US was very much on the brink of declaring Pakistan a state as sponsoring terrorism, it had desisted in response to a request from the then Prime Minister Ms. Benazir who pleaded that that would push Pakistan into the hands of anti-American forces. The same situation exists today, despite the "undemocratic" rule of the military.

The relatively soft tone of the mouthpieces of the US administration, troubles the Indian policy makers and opinion makers of the Indian fourth estate. They feel that the US has belied their hopes. Some of the opinion makers are so much disgusted by the American attitude that they have started preaching to fight "the scourge" of militancy by relying on India’s own efforts and to stop looking to the US for support and for it to brand Pakistan as a terrorist state. Such people advice India to pass its own laws to declare a state as a terrorist one and pursue, on its own pre-emptive strikes at possible training camps. These are the most vehement among the whole lot of the chauvinistic crowd.

One important obstacle for the Indian rulers is that the US is not prepared to recognise the Indian claim that Kashmir as a whole belongs to India. Pakistan too lays its claim to it. When America says that India should go to the "root cause of the whole problem" she suggests to her to strike a deal with Pakistan on Kashmir. At the same time the US continues to remind Pakistan that it needs to prepare itself for a crackdown on the armed outfits on its soil. Of course, at present, for this, the Kashmir question acts as a major obstacle.

The US has many times expressed that both parties should arrive at a negotiated settlement. During his recent visit to both the countries Mr. Karl Inderfurth told reporters in Islamabad on January 21 the opinion of the US administration. He also said that President Clinton had already expressed "his willingness to play an active role in support of establishing such negotiations." While talking ‘peace’ the US is more interested in promoting tensions and war in the region, in order to increase its geo-political influence in South Asia. For this reason the US wants to play the role of a broker between the two states provided both the parties agrees, to it. Pakistan agrees India does not. India does not want any mediator, the US wants to be one. Pakistan frequently calls for it and hence, tries to "internationalise" the issue, which India resents. India is afraid that Pakistan will demand too-much with the clout of insurgency in its hands and the US will very likely oblige Pakistan to India’s disadvantage. Hence, the latter’s refusal. This refusal is now especially strong, as Indian armed forces are finding it hard to control the guerilla forces in Indian occupied Kashmir. India is preparing to descend on the people and freedom fighters in Kashmir with more efficiency, fire power and terror with its "zero tolerance of terrorism" approach before coming to the bargaining table, gaining an edge over Pakistan.

At the heart of the US broker-ship lies the permanent division of Kashmir in two parts. Defacto, this division is already there since 1948. Indira Gandhi and Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto are reported to have discussed it at the time of Simla Agreement way back in 1972. Although there is no official statement to this effect from either the Indian of Pakistani side, yet the ex-Prime minister of Pakistan, Nawaz Sharif had tried to convince his Indian counterpart I K Gujral on taking up the issue. Now, CEO Musharraf is also calling for negotiations over it. The Indian side keeps evading. A fairly good number of Indian opinion makers and ex-diplomats and politicians, including Gujral, are obliquely suggesting the "political process". The "political process", whenever it comes, is of course fraught with dangerous portents for the people of Kashmir as it is meant to slice the land into two and where there will be no option for the right to self determination. The ‘willing’ mediator, Clinton has already categorically stated that "Kashmir is not East Timor," ruling out self-determination for the people of the land.

Speaking to the tune of the Pakistani rulers, Maulana Masood Azhar, the HuM chief released by India in exchange for hostages at Kandhar, has said, "Kashmir belongs to Pakistan." And Gen. Musharraf says, "if India wants an end to the Kashmiri struggle then it should accept that Kashmir is an issue and discussions should be held on it". This leaves no doubt about Pakistani designs. Because Pakistan has its own designs on Kashmir should in no way let us be dragged behind the designs of our own reactionary rulers.

What the people of Kashmir want must be left to the Kashmiris themselves. Whether they want to join Pakistan or India or stay independent of both is for them to decide and this right must be upheld. We, as the people of this country, must oppose all attempts of the Indian government, which are directed towards denying the Kashmiri people this right while in no way lending any support to the reactionary rulers in Pakistan who want to strike a deal with their reactionary counterparts in India to carve up the land among themselves.

Though the carving up of Kashmir may not come soon due to a number of factors and despite the attempts by US imperialism, the movement for freedom might suffer unnecessarily due to all the three powers, which hover around. Nevertheless, the Indian rulers and their henchmen must be condemned and exposed for their terror machine, which is playing havoc with the lives of the people in the valley of death. The debate, unleashed in the wake of hijacking, laid further grounds for fanning up feelings of blind nationalism in the common man, preparing fathers and mothers for tolerating more deaths of their near and dear ones and making them support the diabolical designs of the rulers. The defeat at the hands of the hijackers is not a defeat for the common man in India but a defeat for the rulers for whom the battle of Kashmir is already half lost because it is an unjust battle on their part. Despite the "victory" in Kargil the rulers are unable to win the bleeding hearts of the Kashmiri people and here lie the seeds off future defeat for the Indian occupation forces.

 2.2.2000

<Top>