Volume 2, No. 6-7, June-July 2001

The Kashmir question continues to trouble the minds of the rulers and politicians ever since the struggle for liberation started in 1989. After having tried all military means to crush the movement without any success for twelve long years the Indian rulers have started looking for the other option, i.e.; political. For India the possibility to try for the political options only came up in the wake of the sudden announcement of the unilateral cease-fire made by the Hizbul Mujahideen group in July 2000. Since then many a proposal for a political settlement of the question has been put forward and discussed in the mainstream (bourgeois) press in both India and Pakistan and also internationally.

Many experts commented upon the Hizbul Mujahideen’s July 2000 offer as an indication and recognition of the futility of armed struggle, which has continued to rock the valley.... that the "Kashmiris have realised that azadi is not likely to materialize." Working on this understanding the Indian government sought to explore ways and seek channels to strike a political deal with those forces who would be ready to dump the gun and accept a "within India" solution of the Kashmir problem. What one of the biggest and powerful armies in the world could not achieve through its deadly firepower and widespread repression is being tried out through the political process. Not that there won’t be any weak forces among the armed resistance groups and the political organisations that have taken up the cause of the liberation of Kashmir. Such a thing is always there in all societies. But the important thing here is that the Indian rulers themselves have been unsuccessful to defeat the armed struggle of the people of Kashmir because the righteousness of the cause is not on their side. Righteousness lies with the Kashmiris. The Kashmiris are fighting and making sacrifices for a just cause and this is their real power that can endure in the worst of circumstances. Hence, all moral and human strength is on their side and it is the ground for their future victory. The Indian armed forces lack this power though they have far more superior and sophisticated arms and technology at their disposal. What the Indian rulers, having failed in suppression campaigns, can do is only to try their hands at manoeuvers that can create a wedge in the liberation forces and organisations that are active in the struggle. On the part of the Indian government the "political process" is directed towards this goal.

Political proposals for the solution of the Kashmir problem started coming after the Kargil war. The "international community", presently being led by the US imperialists called for talks between India and Pakistan, since the violence in Kashmir threatens peace in all of South Asia, and may well engulf the oil rich Central Asian republics. The big in the world, also including Russia and China, now want the Kashmir question solved through negotiations. It has acquired added dimensions due to the upheavals spreading towards Central Asian countries and also the western parts of China where poor Muslim peoples want their present state of affairs changed due to diverse reasons. The whole of this vast region is seething with discontented populations thereby threatening the present social ‘stability’. The big powers are afraid that if the liberation struggle in Kashmir grows in the direction of an uncompromising struggle against oppression and for independence its consequences may engulf entire Central Asia. That it will definitely act as a catalyst for promoting the struggle against oppression and for inspiring these peoples to take their destinies in their own hands. Another factor, and perhaps more important, is that it may give strength to the resurgence of Muslim nationalism which often comes into clash with the western imperialist powers. Thus the struggle in Kashmir has enhanced further interest on the part of the "international community". All these powers want the Kashmir problem settled in a "peaceful way" lest it should disturb the present stability of the region.

In a quest of a political solution, Ahmad Faruqui, Energy and Defense Analyst, Palo Alto, California, says,

There seems as many proposals as there are parties and political trends involved in the conflict. But one thing is starkly missing, that is, Kashmir as an independent political entity among the community of nations of the world. With independence there are specifications: demilitarized and neutral. But, if an ‘independent’ Kashmir comes into being it must not have its teeth and the power to defend itself.

Once there was Cambodia in this strange category and its neutrality accepted by all the countries of the world. But the neutrality treaty was to be trampled upon, it’s ruler thrown out and the whole length and breadth of the country devastated. The US imperialists did this crime in 1969 to convert Cambodia into a military base for the purpose of crushing the liberation struggle in Vietnam, pushing the whole of Indo-China into an inferno. The king only wanted to maintain his neutrality but the US wanted to rope it into the Vietnamese war. And no country of the so-called democratic world came forward to the Cambodians’ help except that of the then socialist China.

Leave aside the case of Switzerland. It is an imperialist country and Kashmir will be one of the most backward and poorest in the world, and that Kashmir has powerful neighbours who have already occupied it and refuse to vacate it. Moreover, banks of Switzerland are used by the entire tyrant and reactionary rulers of the world to deposit billions of dollars squeezed through corrupt practices and clandestine deals. This serves other imperialist powers well in their games to buy off, impose and maintain oppressive regimes throughout the world. Switzerland has a great value for the imperialist system as a whole.

A few people think that Kashmir can be made into a Switzerland of Asia. Cambodia is the more appropriate example that comes to the mind. A demilitarized Kashmir will be defenceless against the powerful armies of its neighbours and its people will have to build a new resistance army to defend themselves. All the other proposals don’t take into consideration the dignity of the people of the whole land of Kashmir. The tripartition of Kashmir is bound to plunge the whole of India into a communal battlefield.

As far as the proposal of a UN protectorate is concerned this will only help the powers like USA. Take the example of Kosovo. The US and other imperialist armies entered into it in the name of stopping the Yugoslavian atrocities. But still, long after the Yugoslavian pull out is over, these forces refuse to come out of Kosovo. The independence promised to the Kosovars remains a remote possibility. One of the major real purposes of the US there was, and still remains, to acquire a new bastion for its forces in Europe. Another was to curtail the strengthening of the Kosovo Liberation Army and to make sure that Kosovo and Albania may not unite to form a bigger Muslim state in the heart of Europe. The first act of the US forces in Kosovo was to secure the demobilisation of KLA and its surrender to the [UN] forces. That was the demilitarization of Kosovo. Support for the struggling Kosovars was just a façade to intervene. The only situation in which the US may decide to pull out can be after making sure that Kosovo does not join Albania and accepts a permanent stationing of the US forces on its soil.

Another recent example is that of East Timor. East Timor is set to gain its ‘ independent’ status as its leaders have accepted the imperialist control over its economy. A case of a nation strangled right before its birth. After the US’ victory in the "Cold War" we got the gulf war. The USA as a sole super power is riding rough shod over other nations and has earned more notoriety. Moreover, Clinton’s words about Kashmir must be remembered when he said, "Kashmir is not East Timor". Understandably, it means Kashmir is not even worth a stillborn nation like East Timor. A UN protectorate will mean a brutal imperialist control over the social and economic life of the Kashmiri people.

But, perhaps, we should look more into the analysis that says, ‘Kashmiris have realized that Azadi is not likely to…’ Azadi. That is the real question that should be grappled with. This question has many dimensions to it that need exploration and debate. There are a good number of people on both sides of the Line of Control and the Kashmiri Diaspora spread on all the continents who are for an independent Kashmir, for a distinct and dignified national identity which would reflect their glorious traditions, civilized culture, hardworking and peaceful nature. For centuries they have woven their dreams into carpets, their emotions into silk and embroidered shawls, carved their feelings on wood. Most ancient literary books in the sub continent belong to Kashmir. The Kashmiri people have a glorious, civilized past. They are a people who have imbibed the beauty of nature that surrounds them, a people whose songs reverberate with love and the peace of Sufi traditions. For centuries it has been considered as a paradise on earth. In modern times they were the first in the sub continent to wrest their lands from the oppressive feudal lords.

Their present woes started when the British imperialists transferred power to local reactionaries in both India and Pakistan. Since then they have been denied a dignified existence. Kashmiri Hato is the word that continued to be used derogatively to identify any Kashmiri working in the plains till recently. It has always been an affront to their self-respect and they have always resented the sub-human treatment meted out to them. But no longer now. They have risen up. The rattle of Indian machine guns has been unable to drown the deafening sounds of the mutinous Kashmiri Abshars. Azadi, Hurriyat and Freedom, are the only synonyms that echo in the snow clad gargantuan mountains and the beautiful valleys of Kashmir. A yearning to regain their lost Paradise.

One stops at the word to ponder over it, especially in the light of historical experiences of the second half of the past century. Take the examples of India or Pakistan, or that of the countries of Africa or any other country that belongs to the third world and had been under the direct colonial rule of the colonist countries. Almost everywhere the people have dreamed of and struggled and fought for freedom from the colonial yoke. And almost everywhere the leaders, who became new rulers, have failed to carry on the struggle for liberation or independence through to the end, falling back on their promises. If a correct understanding about the concept of Azadi is not arrived at any talks, or not holding of these talks, for a solution will lose its significance.

The "political independence" these countries gained remained formal or degenerated into one, and their economies remained fettered to the powerful imperialist economies that continue to throttle them up to this day leaving the people of these countries in abject poverty, degradation and misery. For the people, this sort of independence has done nothing. It has proved a sham. The people feel still fettered to the clanking iron chains of confinement, hopelessness and despondency. We the people living in India and those living in Pakistan, the great majority of us feel that real independence has eluded us. Only those who have state power and control over the means of production, only the corrupt, the scamsters, the swindlers and big wigs are the real gainers. Nehru’s promise to the people of India for "a tryst with destiny" has proved wrong so also his promise to the Kashmiri people to "respect their will" was a farce. He well knew it that he was not going to keep his word. He betrayed. The people of India too need a new India, an India where they will have their destiny in their own hands.

On the other hand, accession to Pakistan raises some very important questions. Are the people in Pakistan better placed than the people of India? Do the people there really feel satisfied with their fate and feel that they are living in an independent country? Are not the rulers in Pakistan more ready to do the bidding of powerful outside powers than listen to and take care of the interests of the people of Pakistan? Nothing better. Jinnah’s promises to the people of Pakistan did not fare any better than Nehru’s here.

Azadi or Freedom for the people needs more to be understood in its real sense. The rulers in both India and Pakistan have been unable to provide freedom to the people in both the countries. They cannot fulfil the aspirations of freedom of the Kashmiri people. Simply, they cannot. They rule over these lands for the interests of imperialist masters and for the selfish interests of a narrow section of society. On both sides of the Indo-Pak border the same anti-people and inhuman system prevails. The right to chose any one of the two or reject both of them lies solely with the entire people of J&K.

Every nation must have the right to decide about its own future. That is why the right of the Kashmiri people to break away from India must be upheld and their struggle for liberation supported. Another option, which is not included in the above mentioned list of options, but nevertheless, is being talked of, is on the pattern of the Palestinian State. A State fragmented and without any right to raise an army to defend itself, a State entirely dependent economically and militarily on its wild enemy, a State at the mercy of and subservient to the requirements of Zionist Israel, a State whose people are being continuously hounded, terrorized and cannoned day in and day out. It cannot be an example to be emulated by a people who want freedom. The deal in the Middle East was brokered by the biggest enemy of the people the world over, US imperialism, and on the part of the PLO it was a complete sellout.

Political scientists on both sides of the border and the world over, also the parliamentarians in UK, who put their opinions on Kashmir make this point to the leaders of the Kashmir movement that in the present day world armed struggle to gain independence is neither "feasible" nor "possible". They follow in the footsteps of Bill Clinton who warned the peoples’ movements and governments the world over saying, "This era does not reward people who struggle in vain to redraw borders with blood". Again, this is the same advice of ‘futility of the armed struggle’, that ‘Azadi is not likely to materialize’, that only ‘the possible and the feasible’ should be thought out and opted for. This has been the philosophy of the conservatives and reactionaries of all times who oppose change. Borders have always been drawn with blood, and this is true even today. A few years ago we witnessed it in Europe with the Yugoslavian break-up.

Everywhere the oppressed, sooner or later, rises up against oppression. They force the oppressors out and the borders are redrawn. In olden times it was the oppressors, tyrants and colonizers who overran the lands and peoples to establish their rule. The present times are mainly of rebellions and revolutions. This era belongs to the people and not to the likes of Clinton. The armed struggle in Kashmir, and for that matter, everywhere, wherever the people have risen up, cannot be cowed down with such declarations.

The bourgeois political scientists echo the reactionary thoughts and the dictums of Clinton in a number of ways. The drumbeat that is being blared out about the political process and the political solution for Kashmir by various bourgeois experts and columnists is directed towards the liberation forces to make them lay down the gun and sit at the negotiating table. But this too is facing hurdles. The Kashmiri people want a lasting solution to the conflict and not a so-called honourable solution that falls short of independence. The government of India is non-committal about a political solution. It just blindly talks of peace, peace and peace. This blind talk of peace without enunciating a political formula is just a farce meant to hoodwink the world and the people of Kashmir that India wants peace but the liberation forces are not responding. The fact is it wants anything short of the independence of Kashmir and that too by keeping out Pakistan. It is an attempt that is meant for the unconditional surrender of the liberation forces, to strike a deal for a "within India solution". It is far far away from the Kashmiri peoples’ dream of Azadi.

Let the struggle for Azadi be raised to a higher level, in all its three components: ideological, political and military, making it really more representative of the aspirations of all sections of the people of the whole state of Jammu & Kashmir. Let a mighty storm arise on both sides of the line of control and a real war of the people be waged for creating a new, a really free and united Azad Kashmir.

<Top>