|
It is an irony of
history that there is a unity of purpose between the government of India and
Pakistan who to this day treat Kashmir as a matter to be resolved between India
and Pakistan. For India, Kashmir is an "integral part of India" and defines its
pluralist character just as Pakistan insists that without Kashmir it is
"incomplete". While both can marshal facts in their favour it is time to accept
that history of partition and international obligations under UN Security
Council resolutions of 1948 have been overtaken by events that took place in
1980’s.
When an idea grips
the imagination of people it becomes a material force. In Indian held kashmir
the word ‘azadi’ (freedom) subsumes their experience, of humiliation, abuse,
indignity. The process of alienation which was located in the political economy
of ‘parasitic capitalism’ with its over-dependence on government, limited
prospects of progress, lack of investments, and frustration fuelled by
unemployment, rampant corruption together with the last twelve years of
relentless violence against the people have convinced them that their
emancipation lies in opting out of India.
The ‘Movement for
Freedom’ began in 1988, 16 years after Shimla Agreement was signed in 1972
between Indian and Pakistan (soon after the emergence of Bangladesh) which
obliged the two parties to resolve the dispute over Kashmir. Neither India nor
Pakistan showed much interest in addressing this issue until Kashmiris living in
Indian held territory themselves rose in revolt demanding the right of
self-determination and asserting their desire to be independent.
The annual report of
the Ministry of Defence for 2000-2001 claims that the major problem in J&K is
that of "cross-border terrorism" . But, if the killings of security forces
personnel are placed against the size of the force deployed an even more
startling scenario emerges. In 1989-90 the number of militants were 300, the
numbers rose to 10,000 by 1993-94, and then came down to current strength of a
maximum 4000 in J&K . In the same period the size of counter-insurgency force
has risen from 30,000 to 300,000 and today has crossed 500,000. In short while
numbers of militant came down government forces have continued to bloat.
Obviously the government forces are meant to suppress a movement rather than
fight armed militants. Twelve years of military crackdowns, operations, and
‘interrogation’, has embittered and estranged the people and contributed to
government force’s battle fatigue, indiscipline, and brutish behaviour. Indias
officials claim that militancy is foreign controlled; Indian government claims
70% of militants are foreigners. But even government figures expose the lie and
instead show that thrice as many Kashmiris continue to be killed; of the 2020
alleged militants killed in 2001, foreign militants numbered 625. And if the
number of civilians killed (919) is added to this then nearly five times as many
Kashmiris are killed compared to the socalled foreigners. Besides it is not
known who these foreiginers are because Kashmiris from pakistan held kashmir can
scarecly be considered outsiders!
If to the Indian
government militancy is simply terrorism, the Pakistani regime characterised
till the other day all militants as "freedom fighter". The Indian
government presents the Kashmir issue merely as a matter of cross-border
terrorism so as to discredit and demonise the movement for freedom (tehrik-i-
aazadi), the Pakistani regime until recently glossed over the difference between
the Kashmiris, fighting for their ‘freedom with the "‘jehadists" who want to
impose an authoritarian ideology.
Now, the Indian
Government insists that dialogue can be resumed provided Pakistan restores
"mutual trust and confidence through concrete and tangible action including
cessation of cross-border terrorism (in J&K) and hostile propaganda against
India". But tough posturing against Pakistan is meant to white-wash the crimes
of the Indian government and avoid search for non-military solutions. The
insurgency arose in Indian held part of Kashmir and the causes were internal. Of
course Pakistan both supported the movement guided by its interests as well as a
sought to influence it along line of its own choosing. If they have been
successful it is because the Indian government only followed the policy of
military subjugation of the people wanting them to surrender before Indian
military might. It is also a fact that until 94-95 Indian opinion-makers
believed that insurgency in J&K was caused by factors internal to India.
Pakistan was criticised and among Indian jingoists conspiracy theories remained
popular but Pakistan did not become obsession of all Indian opinion-makers until
1996 when National Conference "won" the elections with the help of security
forces. Thereafter Indian opinion-makers forgot all about erosion of Kashmir’s
internal autonomy, rigged elections, broken promises, repression and began to
focus on the ‘proxy war’ waged by Pakistan and ignored the need to regain the
confidence of the people. Anycase, state to state relations continue even in the
most adverse circumstances. And contentitous matters are meant to be placed on
agenda for talks rather than set as a pre-condition. At a time when Pakistan is
caught in one of its biggest challenge that poses a threat to its very existence
easing tensions through dialogue should be the obvious choice
The Government of
India is convinced that Kashmir is nothing but essentially a problem caused by
cross-border terrorism. This lie has been perpetuated and internalised to a
point that untruths have an unfettered run. On January 11 the army chief said
that since 70 percent of those killed in J&K are "foreigners" it is being called
a proxy war and not counterinsurgency. Unfortunately Indian governments own
figures rubbish their pet theory; of the 2020 alleged militants killed in J&K
last year Indian government claims 625 are "foreigners". Indeed if 919 civilians
killed in 2001 are added then five times as many Kashmiris are killed then
"foreigners". In fact if the official figures for 90’s are considered then 14356
militants were killed of these 2358 are said to be "foreigners". Apart from this
9718 civilians were killed. Which is to say that ten times as many Kashmiris
died compared to "foreigners". Of course, official figures are underestimates
and pass off as militants ordinary civilians and shift the blame for civilian
casualties on militants when they die due to indiscriminate firing. In just past
four weeks not only have the security force personnel been guilty of burning to
death of a Kashmiri boy (December 29), but two Dutch tourists were killed
(January 13) when they tried to stop jawans from harassing a woman.] Now for
sure there were groups such as Lashkar-e-Tayaiba, Jaish-e-Mohammed etc., who
were patronised by the Pakistani establishment and who are responsible for some
of the most spectacular attacks on military targets as well as gruesome killings
of non-Muslims. But obsession with cross-border terrorism not only was meant to
distract attention from the terrorism unleashed by Indian security forces and
for reducing the issue to being nothing more than a result of malevolent
activity of the ISI but above all to deny the people any voice in the making of
their destiny. The people who were alienated and their desire to be free of
India and demand for the right of self-determination ceased to matter. For most
governments people are a malleable lot who can be turned and twisted the way the
establishment likes. The submission to brute force is taken to mean voluntary
participation. Thus the Indian Army chief could claim in the same press
conference that "people (of Kashmir) have always cooperated... They had
patiently waited outside for hours in cold winter nights during cordon and
search operations to fish out militants".
That the Indian
government has no concern for the people is also clear from a number of steps
that it has taken lately. Foremost among them is decision to suspend
communications with Pakistan; stopping bus, rail and air links. Overnight more
than 20 crore Indians whose relaives and friends live in Pakistan were denied
normal contacts with their near and dear ones because security "experts" regard
air and bus links as conduit for ISI’s subterfuge and fear that PTA could do a
September 11 on India’s strategic asset! When paranoia rules the roost worst
scenarios reign supreme and reason takes flight. This is also exhibited in the
decision to suspend STD, ISD and internet links from J&K to deny militants
communication links! That this punishes the Kashmiri people is of no
consequence, and is a reminder that Kashmiris are not "integral" part of India’s
territorial claim to J&K rather they are subjects living at their mercy in an
occupied territory.
The process begun in
Pakistan of dismantling the groups such as Lashkar and Jaish reinforces the
political dimension of the Kashmir issue. The crackdown on religous extremists
means that no longer will the non-Kashmiri groups operating in J&K enjoy a free
run. For sure the fedayeen attacks or the more spectacular acts of these groups
such as attack on the Badamibagh headquaters of the 15 Corps in 2000 did cause
panic within security forces and won them grudiging admiration even from their
enemy. But even their supporters found it difficult to defend the attacks on
civilians especially targetted killings of non-Muslims. The tension between the
people and jehadists surfaces time and again as in the recent acid attack on
young women for not adhering to the dress code and the all round condemnation
that compelled the ‘jehadists’ to back down. But until the attack on the J&K
assemby on October 1st when scores of unarmed Kashmiris died or were injured the
‘jehadists’ were seen by Kashmiris as a countervailing force against the massive
Indian troop deployment.
Also the re-emergence
of Sardar Abdul Qayum Khan as head of National Kashmir Council of Pakistan
reinforces the shift away from "jehadis". He was sidelined few months back by
the same regime for being far too independent and for espousing the cause of
dialogue and condemning the jehadis. Above all by shedding the verbiage of a
religious war it robs Indian government of the propoganda edge of running down
the Kashmiri people’s struggle as Islamic fundamentalism and conversely the
secular issue of self-determination of Kashmiris acquires poignancy. For sure
militancy is not going to end. Jehadis might still be around for some time but
HM’s pre-eminence will no longer be a matter of speculation. Hurriyet’s
centrality in dialogue cannot be denied. Already caught on the backfoot by the
hype generated by the military standoff and the inevitability of international
pressure the PMO despatched Wajahat Habibullah (a former IAS officer from J&K
cadre) for sounding out the politicians in the movement (APHC and Shabir Shah)
and to convince them that PMO was once again serious. While Hurriyet is
unwilling to accept this having seen the Indian government backtrack again and
again the attempt only enhances the APHC which has been a butt of much ridicule.
It is once again being said that Kashmiris can be bought over with autonomy and
talk of peace and reconciliation. The point is that coercive diplomacy has seen
the restoration of the Kashmir issue on the world agenda. International
intrervention is no longer a laughable propositiq. Why should the movement
settle for less when conjunction of events have brought them closer to their
main demand? Consider also that Indian opinion-makers have been unreliable in
standing up for the Kashmiris compared to the Pakistani establishement and
public. The momentum Pakistan has gained in ridding itself of communal-fascisim
no longer makes democractisation far-fetched for Pakistani society. Indeed as it
gains momentum bastion of theocracy, the sharia and the hudood, will come under
threat. In contrast in India not only are communal fascism patronised and
protected by the NDA government but the government, bureaucracy, security
forces, judiciary are showing signs of regression and communal proclivity. Why
would Kashmiris look to remain with India or find it an attractive alternative
after 5 decades of broken pledges, 13 years of state terror.
Now the Indian
government has consistently botched every opportunity that came by it for
initiating talks. On two ocassions in past one year; once when Hizbul Mujahideen
offered unilateral ceasefire (July 2000) and when non-initiation of combat
operation (November 2000-May 2001) was announced by the Indian government with
assurance of talking to All Party Hurriyet Conference, the government did
everything to scuttle the political process. The fact is that instead of
dialoguing with those who are alienated, the Indian government has stuck to the
military conquest of the movement.
It would be wrong not
to recognise that both India and Pakistan are caught in a vicious circle of
their own-making. But people are not pliable tools and unless their aspirations
are addressed neither Indian nor Pakistan can any longer maintain the
status-quo-ante. It is not simply choosing between accession to India or
Pakistan. Apart from the fact that the movement began on the demand for
independence and this demand remains popular, Indian held J&K territory has a
very large non-Muslim presence of upto 45% as well as several linguistic
minorities. There is not a single theocratic state in the world that gives its
citizens equal rights and even when minorities are physically protected they are
treated as second class citizens. Thus accession will reduce the issue to one of
communal polarisation and partition with devastating consequences in an already
volatile region. On the other hand India’s formal democracy, while
constitutionally upholds equal rights, has failed Kashmiris (indeed people of
India as such) and has denied them their democratic right through one or other
strategem, and lost their confidence. India’s very large Muslim population of 11
crores fear that were Kashmir to secede from India they might have to bear the
brunt of Hindu fascist backlash against them. That is precisely why the third
choice of independence articulated by the Kashmir struggle for freedom acquires
poignancy. Because a democratic secular republic is the choice which alone can
ensure the reunion of the divided J&K while at the same time assuring the
minorities protection and equal rights so as to avert communal partition. Such a
course would boost the morale of the democratic struggles of the people in south
asia just as Maoist victory in Nepal will catapult the agenda of social
transformation to pre-eminence in world politics.
If the Indian
govermnment does not initiate dialogue then an international intervention headed
by US is sure to take place. Given the geo-strategic location of J&K where it
borders on China’s Tibet and Sinkiang province and its proximity to Afghanistan
and Central Asia it would provide a colossal strategic and commercial advantage
for imperialism. In other words, unless Indian people raise their voice in
support of Kashmiri people and bring pressure to bear on the Indian ruling
classes to initiate dialogue with Pakistan and the Kashmiri people we would be
caught in a bind. Suppport for Kashmiri people must be combined with drawing
attention to the Indian ruling classes disastrous handling of the issue which is
providing an opportunity to imperialism to emerge as the mediator.
|
