A collective tragedy

Col J P Singh, Retd
Valley is on the boil again. Violence and anarchy which engulfed it in the nineties is threatening to come back. Waves of protests, curfews, suicide terrorist attacks on Sarpanches and security forces, killing of civilians and fracas in the Assembly on Guru’s hanging, tantrums from across the border followed by resolution passed in Pak National Assembly in favour of Indian convict of Parliament attack and consequent Indian reaction, all put together; has created an alarming situation in the valley. History of violence and anarchy that engulfed the state before appears to be on the repeat course.
Too much has been said and done about the ‘K’ issue. Volumes have been written. Too many people have told us too much. Buckets of tears have been shed for Kashmiris. Whomsoever they trusted, he promised them their paradise lost. They followed their leaders like a faithful flock, ungrudgingly doing what they were told to do. In the process, they endured great hardships. Paradoxically nothing changed despite promises and none of the Moses led them to the promised land. Today Kashmiris are in a bind. They are blindfolded. They are no more capable of distinguishing between reality and illusion. Anti India rhetoric of Kashmiri leaders and fracas among legislatures proves that democracy in J&K has dipped to the lowest low if not failed. This is J&K’s collective tragedy.
By sponsoring the tribal invasion, Pakistan changed the perception of ‘K’ issue from an ideological issue into a geographical dispute. It was India, which took this issue to the United Nations. UN resolution of 13 August 1948 decreed that a plebiscite should be held in Kashmir after the withdrawal of all Pakistani forces from those areas which it had occupied. Thereafter Kashmiri leaders put implicit faith on America and Pakistan for getting them Azadi.
Despite four Indo-Pak wars over Kashmir, neither Pakistan got Kashmir it so desperately wanted nor Kashmiris got Azadi. America, which once empathised with them, today steers clear of Kashmir. This became amply clear from President Barak Obama’s declaration on 15 July 2012 while addressing Indian Parliament. He completely disassociated America from Kashmir. By declaring that “it is not the place of any nation, including the United States, to try to impose solutions on Kashmir from outside”. He also sent out a clear signal to the international community that America was not in favour of any ‘third party’ intervention. Deletion of Jammu & Kashmir from the list of disputed territories of UN Security Council, immediately after state visit of US President, means that J&K ceases to be a dispute between India and Pakistan so for as the UN representing the world is concerned. No other country has accepted or advocated third party involvement in ‘K’ issue. Pakistan still keeps parroting Plebiscite just to keep the pot boiling. That is very significant for separatist leaders and food for thought for Kashmiris.
While Islamabad’s resolve to keep ‘K’ issue alive is understandable, adding military and militancy angle to the peaceful movement caused irreparable damage to the cause. While India was ready for implementing UN Resolution, Pakistan showed extreme desperation in annexing Kashmir that it resorted to military options rather than wait for lengthier dialogue process. By refusing to vacate illegally held areas, Pakistan has given India a legally tenable and diplomatically advantageous position by shifting the onus for non implementation of UN resolutions on Pakistan. In his article ‘Understanding UN Resolutions on Kashmir’ in Greater Kashmir on 20th July 2012, Hashim Qureshi had quoted UN Secretary General Kofi Annan’s statement that, “General Assembly cannot implement the resolutions of the UNCIP on Kashmir”, ascribing this as the reason. Hence ‘K’ issue is non-negotiable since then. Indian secularism does not allow it another division on the basis of religion on which Pakistan was created. So where does Kashmir stand now?
A plebiscite, as envisaged in the UN resolutions, can still be held provided POK is freed by Pakistan and handed over to India. But by granting non Kashmiris the right to acquire land and settle down in POK as well as seceding portion of POK to China, Pakistan has virtually foreclosed this option. Since the geography and demographics of the region have been permanently altered, Resolution 47, calling for plebiscite, is now obsolete. It is thus evident that under the prevailing conditions, ‘right to self determination’ through a plebiscite as an option is virtually dead. This resolution yielded nothing except disillusionment. Hence clamouring for Azadi / UN resolution or third party intervention does not make any diplomatic sense in resolution of ‘K’ issue.
Kashmir dispute is a problem of the past and legacy of power politics. It has its own dynamics which continues to steer the dispute. With interesting regularities, Kashmir dispute dances to the tune of violence. More interestingly it erupts when we see the things getting better. Latest attack on CRPF camp in Bemina is continuation of the set pattern. Every now and then new problems and challenges manifest in some new form / trend / trouble and seek new avenues of solution. More often than not, a small intrigue becomes an explosive bomb just about to explode on the press of a wrong button. One sees one statement or action being aggravated by a similar another one. Who is responsible for the turmoil? Incidentally violence in the valley is led by an indigenous dynamic which is Azadi and external dynamics which is Pakistan ( ISI ). Kashmir, where disillusionment is an industry, does not allow anyone downtime; not even to the 3rd generation which should be looking up and forward without blindly following the dictates of separatist leaders.
Let’s look back to the day when young Chief Minister took the oath of office. He symbolized a ray of hope, a new pathway, an emotional reconnect with public, re-orientation of centre state equation and a great opportunity for heralding an era of peace and prosperity. How has every thing fallen apart suddenly after an enthusiastic political process followed by enthusiastic Panchayat elections? Twice before Army Chiefs have said that normalcy available before and after the elections was not encashed. These lost opportunities indicate that Kashmir dispute is as much a leadership issue as it is political.
Maharaja Hari Singh acceded the state to secular India rather than theocratic Pakistan. Sheikh  Abdullah, a mass leader, supported the accession and later ruled J&K. His garndson must honour the sagacity and wisdom of two shrewd men and key players of J&K politics after independence who were instrumental in shaping our destinies. Which Azadi are we clamouring for after the end of monarchy? Kashmir needs Azadi from corruption and anarchy. The rest who joined and succeeded these great men were corrupt and power hungry. They misguided and disillusioned Kashmiris. That is the tragedy. Kashmiris need a leader who can steer them clear of the tragic ambiguities. It needs security forces which can lead them to peace and prosperity. It needs Delhi’s indulgence in addressing genuine concerns of all the regions of J&K lest the proxy war unleashed by Pakistan engulfs the state again.

Follow our WhatsApp channel