Volume 1, No. 6, August 2000

As suggested by the imperialist chieftain Clinton the Indian rulers have offered to talk to various political forces in Kashmir to explore the scope for a "negotiated settlement". On April 5, Home Minister Advani announced that "the government is willing to hold talks with militants on every demand, legitimate or otherwise, if they abandon the path of violence." He ordered the release of all the Hurryiet leaders one by one in the month of April, who had, in the first place, been illegally arrested for their call to boycott the assembly elections. He said that this was a joint decision of the state and the central governments and was not just a casual action. Yet the press says that Mr. Farooq Abdullah is out to destroy the prospects of talks, with his National Conference going all out with its autonomy resolution at great speed in the state assembly. The Indian press, with almost one voice, has condemned Farooq for his autonomy move.

For the liberation fighters, the autonomy of the National Conference falls far short of their aspirations to win independence. Even for the Hurriyet leaders, who have proclaimed Azadi as their final and sacred aim, the offer of talks is another bait to come around to a solution, short of independence.

The Indian rulers have put forward their proposal while at the same time stepping up their campaign to liquidate militant Kashmiri youth in the name of fighting foreign mercenaries. The order for the release of the Hurriyet leaders came amid the large-scale protest movement, which was going on in the valley against the killing of local youths by the security forces in the wake of Chatti Singh Poora massacre of Sikhs. The security forces had claimed that they had killed the foreign perpetrators of the massacre, while in actuality they had arrested locals and murdered them in cold blood and whose DNA tests have not so far been carried out by the government as promised. The stepped up fake encounter killings and the dangling of the carrot is the tribute that the Indian rulers are paying to the Clinton visit. The first response of the Hurriyet to the offer was that it was a decision "due to global pressure on India" and that the Hurriyet would never compromise over the core political question of the "independence of Kashmir". Whether the talks take place or not, yet it is important to study, analyse and comprehend the dangers and conspiracies of the Indian ruling classes which lie behind this offer.

Although the Indian rulers have said time and again that they do not want any mediation on the resolution of the Kashmir question yet it has tried to win the major powers of the world to its side. Before his visit to the sub continent the US President had said that he was ready to mediate in the Kashmir conflict, yet he stated the opposite during his stay in India and in his address to the people of Pakistan over television. Yet on June 23, the US ambassador to India said, "Washington is now in a position to determine when the talks should take place". In fact, in the present circumstances, any resolution of the Kashmir problem is unlikely to be sorted out without the overt or covert participation of the US.

As long as the states in India and Pakistan are controlled by the comprador classes and the liberation struggle in Kashmir does not correctly identify its open and hidden enemies, the imperialists will have a role to play in this conflict to advance their own exploitative interests. In the present day world the US pushes its pig-mouth into every corner of the earth wherever there is something of importance for the New World Order. Kashmir is one such point and there is some truth in the statement of the Hurriyet that the Indian State has offered to talk due to "global pressure". The Indian State lies when it says that it is against any third party mediation in the conflict. In reality, it will be the happiest government on earth if it gets US patronage to rein in the insurgent forces in Kashmir and strike a deal with the equally reactionary state of Pakistan over the heads of the people of Kashmir. And nothing can be more dangerous for the liberation movement in Kashmir if a ‘peace deal’ is struck at the behest of the US.

In fact, one month before Clinton’s visit to India, a US-based Kashmir Study Group (KSG) suggested formulas for resolution of the Kashmir issue. The KSG is headed by a US-based, Kashmiri furniture magnate, Farooq Kathwari, and is constituted of senior US politicians like Gary Ackerman. One of the possibilities suggested is similar to the autonomy proposal put forward by Farooq Abdulla. The other two are ridiculously fluid entities which can only result in enflaming the conflict and facilitating US intervention.

The US’s criminal role in extinguishing the fire of the national liberation struggle in Palestine and in fathering the surrender of Palestinian fighters is one of the most glaring examples of betrayal brought through a ‘peace deal’. The US brokers, who are master traders in human blood and death, are most willing to mediate in Kashmir to push their claws further into the sub-continent. It bodes ill for the freedom fighters of Kashmir if the US butchers of the Gulf and Serbia are invited to play a role under any garb. When Clinton said in Islamabad that, "we shall never mediate between India and Pakistan," that was to pressurise Pakistan to come around and not India. India did welcome that statement not because of the US’s refusal to mediate rather it was due to the fact that US intervention in the conflict was beginning to be to the advantage of the Indian rulers. Clinton convinced India that given the deep involvement of Pakistan and both the states having nuclear capability, India should work for a negotiated settlement. At the core of US efforts lies a permanent division of Kashmir. The idea already has strong takers both in India and Pakistan. With US intervention the remedy is bound to prove worse than the disease for the people of the sub-continent and more enslaving for the people of Kashmir. The rulers of both India and Pakistan want the US to broker a peace deal in its interests, and it will definitely be the worst solution for the Kashmiris if it ever comes.

Ever since the question of Kashmir’s independence did come up, Kashmir has faced untold repression at the hands of the Indian reactionary state. The people of the valley have valiantly resisted the Indian military onslaught and made many thousands of sacrifices. Despite widespread terror and unabated killings the people have stuck to their aim of Azadi making it difficult for the Indian rulers to continue their hold on Kashmir. The resistance of the Kashmiri people has attracted the attention of the world. The UN had to pass a number of resolutions on the conflict. The Indian State has refused to honour these resolutions thus trampling over the rights of the people in this land. The resolution on plebiscite, though it was not meant for an independent status of Kashmir, would have paved the way for an amicable settlement of the problem. But India remained stubborn in its refusal to hold a plebiscite, opted for giving autonomy to the state imparting it a special status within the Indian Union, then went on to corrode the autonomous status even and finally took up the position that Kashmir was an integral part of India. While at the same time it declared that the Line of Control, dividing Kashmir into two parts, was a sanctified borderline between India and Pakistan.

Now the whole political exercise is centered on making the line of control into an international border. Advani says that the talks with the Hurriyet will be held only within the parameters of the Indian Constitution and Pakistan will be involved only if it stops "cross border terrorism." Indian rulers, like any other reactionary rulers, have branded the liberation movement in Kashmir as terrorist. While itself carrying on its occupation of the land with the power of its armed forces unleashing terror over the population it demands that the use of violence by the freedom fighters be stopped! In other words, it wants the liberation fighters to accept that their freedom struggle is terrorism that must be stopped as a pre-condition to any talks. The Hurriyet leaders have rejected any pre-conditions whatsoever.

Besides, the Home Ministry has, of late, been undertaking dangerous games of divide and rule in Kashmir. It has proposed the division of J&K into three states — of Kashmir, Jammu and Ladakh. Also, in addition to instigating Kashmiri Pundits against the freedom fighters, it has now resorted to also instigation of Sikhs and Buddhists. The earlier massacre of Sikhs at Chattisinghpoora and now of Buddhists at Leh is part of the Indian rulers’ game of divide and rule, learnt from the British.

The Pakistani leaders, with a little bit of give and take, too wants to curtail the growing influence of the Mujahideen forces within Pakistan. It is using the Mujahideens to enhance its own reactionary designs in the sub-continent. Mr. Parvez Musharraf, the CEO of Pakistan, already talks of the need of curtailing the activities of these forces but cites his inability to do so, like his predecessors, Ms. Benazir and Mr. Nawaz Sharif, as long as the Kashmir Question is not settled with guarantees from the world powers. That is why it continuously pushes the idea of third party mediation fearing its powerful neighbour’s expansionist designs. Obeying the dictates of the US it has asked the Taliban government in Afghanistan to wind up training camps there and stop the infiltration of Muslim militants. It is also helping the US in forcing the Taliban to expel Osama bin Laden from its territory.

As for Kashmir too, it opposes the idea of an independent Kashmir, which would neither join Indian or Pakistan. The occupiers on both the sides of the LoC want to control the land and fate of the people of Kashmir and both vehemently oppose independence of Kashmir. The Pakistani rulers talk of Azadi for Kashmir only to make it a part of Pakistan leaving no option for the People of Kashmir to stand independently.

First and foremost, the right of the people of Kashmir to decide their own destiny must be upheld. It must be entirely at their own discretion whether to join India or Pakistan or stay independent of the both. The liberation movement in Kashmir must clear the muddle on political questions and analyse the interests of the various forces active in the region. Before entering into any negotiations it must arm itself with a correct understanding. Only then it will be able to thwart the nefarious designs of vested forces and enhance the interests of the Kashmir nation. The US president, Clinton had already rejected the right of self-determination for the people of Kashmir when he had said, "Kashmir is not East Timor." If India is not ready to accept this right for various nationalities residing in India, Pakistan too is against this right for the Pakhtoons, Baluchis and the Sindhis in Pakistan. Neither India nor Pakistan upholds this right for the Tamils in Sri Lanka. In fact, the behaviour of both India and Pakistan is determined by their own pragmatic interests and not according to some principle and this should be analysed in the proper context leaving no room for the exploitation of the struggle in Kashmir. The mutual enmity between the two powerful neighbours of Kashmir should be utilised to further the cause of liberation without falling prey to anyone of them.

Fearing isolation by the new political developments, the Farooq Abdullah Government in Srinagar has taken up the mantle of champions of Autonomy for J&K The state assembly passed a resolution in June 2000, calling for re-establishing the State’s pre-1953 status. This move by the Farooq government has created an uproar in the mainstream political parties and intellectuals. Everyone is accusing him of taking up the issue at the wrong hour "because the nation is passing through a critical time" when no signal should be sent which "can be easily interpreted as anti-nationalism." Although, no one doubts the slavish credentials of Farooq Abdullah yet the whole of the print media and parties, including all the ex-prime ministers have come up against the demand of autonomy. It has shown that, leave alone the question of right to self-determination, the Indian ruling classes resent even the demand for autonomy.

Farooq does not explain to the people of Jammu and Kashmir as to why he kept quiet all these years when autonomy was being corroded by various Indian governments. He wants to pose himself as a true champion of the aspirations of the people and to compete with the Hurriyet leaders that he can demand and secure more from the Indian rulers. When the people of the state are up in arms for the liberation of Kashmir any move to water down the issue to that of autonomy is another example of betrayal by the National Conference. Farooq knows that the Indian rulers did not respect the previous agreement on autonomy nor will they respect a new one if it ever comes. Having been rejected by the people of Kashmir through the boycott of elections, Farooq is trying the dead ploy of autonomy.

The APHC has declared that to talk within the parameters of the Indian constitution "equals to surrender of our agenda," that "India and Pakistan cannot decide our fate." (The Hindu, interview with Yaseen Malik, May29, 2000). The APHC is also against the division of Kashmir which is yet another ruse being vehemently pushed by Advani and Co., to divide the people of Jammu and Kashmir.

The liberation struggle in Kashmir is bound to confront complicated issues of political diplomacy together with the ongoing military operations against it; and here will be tested its political maturity.

July 2, 2000

<Top>