|
The national liberation struggle in Kashmir continues to rage despite
conspiracies to divide the land permanently between its powerful neighbours and
large scale repression and terror campaign let lose by the reactionary Indian
armed forces. The aftermath of Kargil has seen a sustained resurgence of
guerrilla attacks against the Indian occupation forces. Hitherto safe considered
military targets have been daringly attacked by Kashmiri freedom fighters and
heavy casualities inflicted contrary to the belief of Indian occupiers that
Indian victory" in Kargil will demoralise the guerrilla forces and a long
respite from, what they call "terrorism", will be ensured. The hopes kindled by
victory euphoria and hype against cross-border-terrorism have been belied and
Indian occupation army is resorting to ever more indiscriminate killings and
burnings in the Kashmir valley. The tall claims of Indian home minister Mr. Lal
Krishan Advani that Indian forces were very selective in combating 'terrorism"
and were highly careful about maintaining human rights in Kashmir and North
East, were given a befitting slap. On 10 December, 1999, the World Human Rights
Day, Jammu and Kashmir observed a complete strike and hundreds of parents of the
"arrested" and subsequently disappeared youths demonstrated in Srinagar laying
bare the lies concerning Indian governments' alleged observance of human rights.
The parents of the innumerable arrested Kashmiri youth dared the Indian
government either to produce these young people in the courts or declare them
dead. But the Indian government has refused to comply with either of the two
demands.
Of course, all these young men and women have been tortured and killed by the
Indian army and then disposed of without any trace. Indian occupation
authorities usually deny the allegations of widespread beatings, burning of
houses and rapes of women, although these things have become a routine on the
part of Indian armed forces. Yet they have accepted that they have killed more
than 10,600 militants during the past ten years. Indian authorities also concede
that 2,600 Kashmiris have been killed in crossfire with the militants. These
2,600 are, in fact, cold-blooded murders by the occupation army. Indian
authorities also concede that they have lost more than 2,000 security personnel
in this decade while suppressing the insurgency in Kashmir. Of the 8,000
civilians killed, and claimed by the authorities as victims of Kashmiri
militants, most are
the handiwork of disguised army personnel, as a number of investigations by
independent civil and human right organisations suggest, although many among
these have been punished by the freedom fighters for their links with the
occupation authorities. People in Kashmir usually coin plain about these secret
operations by the disguised Indian armed forces as there is a difference between
the modus operandi of army in disguise and the militants in general. Though it
is difficult to ascertain the role of either of the two the fact remains that
Kashmir, the heaven on earth, has been turned into a hell by denying the
Kashmiris their right to self-determination and manage the affairs of their own
destiny.
The Kashmiri people have not been cowed down by Indian atrocities, neither they
will ever he. Slit abdomens, mutilated faces and cigarette and electricity shock
burned bodies, rapes, beatings and burning and bombing of hamlets and
residential streets throughout the valley tell the tale of Kashmiris in Indian
occupied territories and not of some foreign mercenary force operating in hills
and jungles. The roots of insurgency lay in the occupation of land and not
across the borders as the reactionary Indian rulers would have the Indian people
believe. The 10,600 +2,000+8,000 killed are again Kashmiris, barring a few, who
support the cause of Kashmir. It is sufficient to prove that militant freedom
fighters come from among the Kashmiri people, and bullets which kill them, go
from India and the real purpose behind the noise of "cross-border terrorism" is
to suppress, terrorise and subjugate a nation, which defies Indian domination.
DEMOCRATIC LIES, UN-DEMOCRATIC TRUTHS, FASCIST SCHEMES
After the end of war in Kargil and spurt in guerrilla operations a debate has
started among the Indian intellectuals about how to integrate Kashmir into
Indian polity. Some intellectuals and a few retired army generals including
those currently in service, suggest an all out military solution of crossing the
Line of Control and of occupying the whole land of Jammu and Kashmir by pushing
the Pakistani army into western Punjab and northwestern-frontier-province thus
"liberating" and integrating Kashmir with India once for all thus, ensuring
peace forever. Another section of these Indian intellectuals have suggested a
'sober' approach. They, however, are for taking up developmental projects in
Kashmir, giving more autonomy and democracy to the state and, of course
desisting the Indian army from indulging in indiscriminate terror campaigns and
directing it to win the confidence of the people through taking up social
welfare schemes. Nevertheless, both these camps remain reactionary in their
outlook concerning the national liberation of Kashmir, though the bourgeois
press has divided them into hawks and doves. The only difference lies in
maintaining the status quo of the line of control or pushing it further
Westward. Both sections are for integration into India and for denying the right
to self-determination. While the "doves" consider themselves to be 'democratic'
and accuse the 'hawks" of ultranationalism and militarism, the 'hawks', on the
other hand, accuse the 'doves' of appeasement and responsible f6r keeping the
Kashmir question live from the time of Nehru who "faulted when he rushed to the
U.N. in 1948 without pushing out the Afridis and their Pakistani backers"
outside of the now POK. These gentlemen blame Nehru for the thorn which is stuck
in the Indian throat and are for a full-fledged military operation for the
solution of the problem. All these integrationists overlook the fact that the
problem lies in not giving independence to Kashmir. And no amount of hard
measures, or, as 'moderates' among them plead, of soft approaches falling short
of recognising the most natural right of Kashmir's independence, can guarantee
peace in the region. The denial of this very right itself is built upon violence
and cannot lead to any "peace" as long as this policy is not abandoned.
There is another section of the Indian intellectuals who feel genuinely
disturbed over violence and human rights violations and want this to be stopped.
They sympathise with the plight of Kashmiri people and also condemn the whopping
expenditures which the Indian government spends in maintaining control over
Kashmir. They argue that this huge amount is being wasted by the Indian rulers
which otherwise 'could' have been used for the well-being of the poverty for
stricken people of India. Apart from billions of rupees being spent yearly on
keeping armed forces in Kashmir the Indian tax payer's Rs. 4500 crores were
spent in the limited Kargil war in mere two months. Also, they resent the
killing and maiming of Indian army Jawans in thousands on snowy deserts of
Kargil and Siachin glaciers, which offer nothing in return. These people opposed
the war in Kargil and demanded a peaceful solution to the problem, which can
save Indian men and money from being wasted. These good hearted people plead
purely from a democratic and humanist plank without going into political
intricacies and geopolitical strategies of the reactionary ruling classes.
Of course, there are also revolutionary democratic forces in India who
wholeheartedly support the just cause of freedom for Kashmir. These forces are
branded anti-national by those very ruling classes who themselves are selling
the country cheap to the imperialists and multinational companies. The first two
categories supported the war in Kargil and suggested various measures to the
reactionary rulers and helped in creating a chauvinist euphoria. They are still
debating the issue and the rulers are happy that they have been able to win an
overwhelming majority of the opinion maker intellectuals and the media to fit
into their reactionary schemes.
These intellectuals and the media today are the most vehement in defending the
"democracy" of elections and the Indian "democratic" system where Kashmiri
people are always given the "democratic right to vote" whereas, they argue, the
Pakistani regime does not give this democracy to Kashmiris in POK. On this
account, they plead, the Kashmiris have always been given the right to express
themselves and so the demand for a plebiscite or referendum in Kashmir has no
locus-standi. Notwithstanding the fact that there have been massive boycotts of
many such elections in Kashmir inspite of rigging and force that were used to
intimidate people into vote casting, these mouthpieces of ruling classes
continue their rhetoric. Even the most democratic bourgeois which deny the
Kashmiris democratic right to self-determination will be considered undemocratic
given the fact that this so-called democracy justifies the forcible occupation
of a nation. This is the most undemocratic truth which lays bare all the
democratic lies of the reactionary ruling classes and their spokespersons.
Their line of argument runs like this: "so long as India remains democratic, no
state of the Indian Union can claim any right of secession, its people will have
to persist in pursuing their rights within the framework of the Union." These
words are of a learned professor of International Law who teaches at Jawahar Lal
Nehru University, New Delhi. These honorable men of the society who teach law to
their students do not stop to think for a while that not to give right to secede
itself contains the right of one nation to forcefully bind another nation into a
forced union thereby denying equal status and free will to form or break a
union. No nation will ever want to break a union based on free will unless it
feels that there are elements of coercion and oppression on the part of its
powerful partner. Right to secede guarantees that a powerful nation will never
coerce the weaker nation into submission and this will make the most democratic
union among nations. Without this right India does not remain "democratic". But
the professor speaks in the language of an oppressor while claiming himself to
be democratic. All oppressors speak and argue likewise and refuse to listen to
the contrary. And when it comes to "maintain' the Union they don't deny the use
of force and resort to it thus making the union forced. While rejecting the
demand of a plebiscite in Kashmir Indian politicians resort to the rhetoric of
"sacred land of India" which is one from "Kashmir to Kanya Kumari." The essence
of "Indian Democracy contains coercion as the real thing and democracy as a
farce.
Behind all the hype about democracy in India the ruling classes harbour the
dreams of permanently devouring that part of Kashmir which is occupied by the
Indian armies. The parliament of these ruling classes has already
"democratically" passed the undemocratic resolution about Kashmir giving it the
status of an "integral" part of the Indian Union. They talk about the line of
control as a "sacred" line, which is "unviolable", thereby justifying permanent
occupation of land on their side of the LoC. Indian ruling classes want to
effect a permanent division of Kashmir with the consent of their Pakistani
counterparts who have equally reactionary schemes up their sleeves. At the time
of Shimla agreement Mr. ZulfiquarAli Bhutto had been convinced by the then Prime
Minister of India, Indira Gandhi to convert the line of control into a permanent
border between the two neighbours. Z.A. Bhutto agreed to the proposal but was
afraid to earn the ire of the Pakistani and Kashmiri people as it was a
politically dangerous game to execute an about-turn of the declared Pakistani
position of championing the "cause of Kashmiri brethren." Bhutto's dilemma has
been mentioned by a former foreign secretary' Mr. J.N. Dixit in a book. Indian
rulers had pressed for this solution in secret parleys with the Pakistani rulers
even during the times of crisis in Kargil. It was disclosed both in the Indian
and Pakistani press in the aftermath of Kargil. Mr. Nawaz Sharif who was deposed
later in a military coup on Oct.12, 1999 had also accepted the Indian proposal
backed by the American administration. On Oct.13, in a radio talk programme,
former Indian Prime Minister Mr. Gujral told the listeners that Sharif himself
had told him that "I cannot give you my Kashmir, that you know and I cannot
lake your Kashmir; that I know. We can have negotiation (for a solution at
least." The Pakistani withdrawal from Kargil was part of a broader
understanding between America, Pakistan and India on the questions of Kashmir
and Muslim fundamentalism in the region emanating from the Talibani Afghanistan.
In this broader understanding Kashmir problem stands to be 'solved' by executing
a permanent division of Kashmir between Indian and Pakistani reactionary states.
This scheme of denying right to self-determination to Kashmiri people exposes
the reactionary character of Indian, Pakistani and American ruling classes and
provides a lesson for Kashmiri freedom fighters to know about the real purpose
of "Indian democracy", Pakistani Muslim rulers and American imperialist
machinations. These often come in the garb of "great deals and vision of
American values." All the three stand as enemies of Kashmiri liberation
movement, some hidden, some open.
When President Clinton said that, "Kashmir is not East Timor", he was pointing
to the Pakistani authorities to stop equating Kashmir with East Timor and to
drop the demand of a referendum. Indian media picked up this hint from Clinton
and published a number of articles rejecting any analogy between Kashmir and
East Timor. These articles pointed out that East Timor's case was referred to
the Decolonisation Committee of the UN as it was a case of annexation of
territory which was about to be decolonised. It was opined that contrary to the
East Timor case the Kashmiri king had himself signed on the instrument of
accession while East Timor was annexed by Indonesia through the force of arms.
These columnists stressed that the Security Council's resolution of 1948 talks
of a 'plebiscite' without the option of independence while East Timor's
referendum was for independence. This is just an expert jugglery in words. The
UN had decided to organise a 'plebiscite' to give a right to the Kashimris
either to accede to India or to Pakistan. It was undemocratic in nature because
it did not speak of independence to Kashmir, But this wrong presentation on die
part of the World Body does not preclude the right of Kashmiris to stand as an
independent nation, acceding to neither India nor Pakistan. In fact, the
referendum in East Timor too was not for "independence". The UN decision only
talked of autonomy within Indonesia or not. There was no choice as between
autonomy vs. independence. But this did not preclude East Timor's independence
if its people wanted so. Neither the UN could have stopped a people from gaining
independence if they desired so. Similarly, the language of the 1948 resolution
cannot kill the aspirations of a people to gain independence. The reality cannot
be wished otherwise than it is now, as Pakistan and India both have backed out
from 'plebiscite' as they don't want to pull their armed forces from their
respective areas of occupation. It does not mean that they have gained the right
to divide Kashmir between themselves as this 'objectivity' has come to stay
since 1948. This backing out, in fact, shows the vested and expansionist
interests of both the concerned countries. The thing has come to pass from
'Plebiscite' to 'Division' and this is again a heinous crime against a nation.
The natural right of nation to exist independently cannot be denied nor a
division can be forced upon it. For Pakistani rulers it may be a part of a
larger game of keeping population of Pakistan in control who feel a strong bond
of brotherhood with the Kashmiri people. They done to publicly accept the Indian
proposal of a formal division and they might be in need of a "third party" or
'international mediation" in such a resolution. For India, Kashmir is just a
picturesque landscape and not a home to a people. Indian atrocities speak of a
general Indian psychology on Kashmir issue. There are no sentiments associated
with the majority of Kashmiri people, otherwise the wails in Kashmir would
have aroused wide spread indignation among the Indians against their rulers.
Later when JKLF in POK announced its plans to cross the line of control and
challenged the right of Pakistani as well as Indian rulers to convert the LoC
into a permanent international border, rulers of both the countries collaborated
to scuttle and thwart the JKLF attempt. Pakistani authorities pounded on them
and arrested them in thousands while Indian army declared that "crossing of
(sacred) line of control will be considered an aggression and accordingly dealt
with" and with this warning to the JKLF the Indian rulers sounded their
fascist policy of suppressing any opposition to its occupation through bullet
and terror.
Indian rulers and bourgeois press has gone jubilant over American support for
India on Kashmir which is a 180 degree reversal of the former American position
of supporting Pakistani rulers on this question. American imperialism's
provisions 'principled' position is now reversed to a new 'principled' position
in the face of new realities of the region where the principal task for them is
to control the Taliban's excessive fundamentalism which threaten American
strategic calculations in the region where Kashmir issue is to be "resolved" by
partitioning it and rejecting any demand for a united independent Kashmir.
America is trying to pressurise the new army rulers in Pakistan to come round
according to its dictates. The genuine national liberation fighters in Kashmir
will have to take into consideration the criminal schemes and machinations of
various powers and forces working in the region to thwart and derail their
struggle for self-determination and independence.
The intensification of armed struggle also call for intensification of struggle
on the plane of politics and ideology to arrive at correct conclusions about the
political direction of the struggle so that all kinds of conspiracies are
defeated which stand in the path of achieving a real liberation from all kinds
of foreign exploitation and national oppression. They will have to rely
basically on their own efforts to achieve their objective.
|
