Lt Gen P S Mehta
Consequent to Maharaja Ranjit Singh’s death in 1839, Maharaja Gulab Singh began to collude with the British to undermine and eventually eliminate Sikh power. He was granted the Kashmir valley and Gilgit for a petty sum. The Maharaja vacillated in exercising a timely option to merge with India in 1947, despite persuasions led by Sardar Vallabhai Patel to seek cooperation of National Conference (NC) and accede to India, thereby making it difficult for Pakistan to invade J&K without entering into a conflict.
By October 1947, J&K was engulfed in communal riots in the immediate aftermath of partition, however the Maharajas intransigence and his dalliance with fate continued, while Pakistan backed ‘Tribal invaders’ had commenced their march towards Srinagar allowing Jinnah to boast that “Kashmir is in my pocket”. Concurrently Pt Nehru pledged that,” India would hold a referendum under international auspices, such as UN to determine whether the people of J&K would ultimately prefer India or Pakistan”. Subsequently the plebiscite could not be held due to the condition of non withdrawal of Pakistani forces from Kashmir. Pakistan forces had entered J&K across the dividing international border “Radcliffe Line” made by the British and occupied large portions of territory in J&K. Calling the Indian army as occupation Army by Kashmiri Awaam is factually incorrect since they were summoned by the Maharaja to come to his rescue. The end state of 1947 operations resulted in India gaining prized piece of real estate which included the Kashmir valley, Jammu and Ladakh regions. Pakistan had occupied a long strip of land in Western J&K, portions of Ladakh (Skardu) and Gilgit Balistan (The Northern Areas). Thus the Kashmir dispute was born. The crux of the Kashmir problem is in the three way disagreement over the legitimate locus and the unit of sovereignty – Indian Kashmir, Pakistani Kashmir or an Independent Kashmir. These are mutually exclusive and fall in two broad categories – Plebiscitary or Partitionist.
The Plebiscitary Approach
Pt Nehru’s promise had long receded into distant memory, however repeated betrayals in the state and non seriousness of Delhi Government over the years alienated the Awaam to a breaking point. India alone dismisses plebiscite as irrelevant since the people of J&K have exercised their democratic rights repeatedly for peace and stability. While plebiscite and the goal of an independent reunified Kashmir are politically unrealisable, an honourable accommodation of this urge for “Khudmukhtiyari” is essential for resolving the dispute today.
The ‘flaws’ inherent in the plebiscitary approach are the fundamental and intractable fault lines defined by Nationalist, Regional and Communal allegiances. Pakistan has by design turned the demography of POK by inducting Punjabi Muslims, thereby reducing the Kashmiris to a minority. In the Kashmir valley, a hypothetical referendum may return a pro- independence verdict, however a significant minority consisting of Hindus (Pandits), Sikhs, Gujjars, Shias and Paharis would vote for India (despite the latest strategy of politicising the heinous criminal act of rape and murder of nomad girl to pollute the Gujjar psyche by dirty vote bank politics), while a sizeable minority would vote for Pakistan. The predominantly Hindu Jammu region would turn a pro India verdict with certain Muslim dominated pockets voting differently. Thus Self Determination sounds distinctly unitary; however the reality is an extremely plural society where ‘Self ‘is fractured on the most basic questions of identity and allegiance. Hence the plebiscitary approach is simplistic and destabilising. In Indian J&K any attempt to impose any of these perspectives is a sure recipe for conflict, repression and violence.
The Partitionist Approach
A logical and opposite of the plebiscitary approach – the partitionist approach comes in a variety of forms and seeks to respond to the complexities of the problems of drawing or redrawing borders based on political community and sovereignty. The simplest manifestation is converting the LOC into a de jure international boundary (Musharaff – Manmohan theory). However this too seems improbable since Kashmir is the oxygen for existence of Pakistan Army, who would never let the Kashmir issue die, besides the bleed for Bangladesh revenge. It is evident that these three ideologically based and territorially fixated nation state perspectives lead to nothing but an Impasse. A case for regional autonomy was opted for by the leaders of Jammu on the same basis on which the leaders of Kashmir were demanding autonomy. Pt Nehru was amenable to this concept and Sheikh Abdullah apparently endorsed this commitment. This was opposed by the Jan Sangh who pushed for, “Full accession of the state to India” – on the other hand, competing sentiments of hurt regional and communal pride were also mobilised in Jammu which in turn threatened the autonomy and identity of the Kashmir’s. This marked the beginning of the end of Kashmir’s emotional relations with India. Additionally this dynamic worked in favour of Kashmiri irredentists who had a vested interest in keeping alive a strong Hindu communal party in Jammu to strengthen their control over the Muslim majority districts in Jammu region for a “Greater Kashmir”.
Azadi. The quest for Azadi owes its genesis to a history of prolonged subjugation and suppression of Kashmiri Muslims by various invaders/rulers in Kashmir. The Dogra rule presents a grim picture of a hopelessly incompetent regime ruling over, “An oppressed and poor subject population”. A watershed event occurred in 1931, wherein attempts by young Muslims to present a list of grievances to the Maharaja led to riots and killing of twenty one protestors by the police. This event marked a turning point in the history of Political Mobilization in Kashmir. The sentiment for Azadi was fuelled by the call for a “Responsible Government by The All J&K Muslim Conference in 1938”. Over the years Azadi continues to remain an important Leitmotif for expression of Kashmiri Political dissatisfaction and by 1994, the Azadi movement reached a “Crossroads – The existence of two competing definitions of Freedom and Self Determination. Asking for Azadi is indicative that Kashmiris don’t want merger with Pakistan. Hereafter it was the militants trained and armed by Pakistan who assumed leadership of the Azadi movement, but they too have failed to deliver. NC and PDP and their experiments of alliances with Congress and BJP to rule the state too have failed to deliver Azadi or good governance (Aspirations of Awaam).
Pakistan and the fundamentalists have been proactive over the last 30 years and have made the security forces only to react. Their latest experiment of Nizam – i – Mustafa and radicalisation of the youth has been very successful and is spinning the Valley out of control. However such Frankenstein’s are known to kill its own creators – Killing of Kashmiri police and Kashmiri army personnel and the stoning of their own children’s school bus in Shopian are the latest manifestations drawing mixed responses from the Awaam. These failures coupled with significantly incompetent Government, desperate and inconsiderate opposition, neglected economy cum development, rampant corruption, growing unemployment, extreme radicalisation, effective fundamentalists and Jammat – i – Islami backed by venomous Hurriyat, a perceived indifference of Delhi, extremely high frustration and confusion amongst the Awaam has accelerated the process of distrust towards the authorities.
State of Confusion Vs Aspirations. While the aspirations of the major section of the Awaam (the middle class elite, rural stock, a percentage of bureaucrats / politicians and the rich elite) can be summed up as their desire for end of terrorism, peace, development, availability of uninterrupted essential services, higher education, return of tourism, eradication of corruption, employment opportunities besides reliable and good grass root governance, ironically the Youth has been transformed as the front face in a bid to compensate for the diminishing number of militants and dying insurgency. Majority of the Youth remain confused since they aspire for a change and a desperate exit from this rot. Last 30 years of trying to crush the militancy has been a failure, if not a partial success due to significantly disconnected comprehensive Politico – Military Strategy. The security forces brought down the militancy to sub optimal levels a number of times – it was the stark absence of any political strategy that failed to exploit these opportunities. Meddling in mundane and tactical issues of abrogation of Article 370/35A and removal of AFSPA 1990 is a great error. Launch of political initiatives and measures instead is the way ahead.
Considering the realities today, there is a dire need to look for a lasting and effective solution. New methods need to be tried out by breaking away from the old thought processes and the unrealistic fears looming in Delhi. Aspirations of the Awaam especially the Youths are the key to any worthwhile solution. While third party mediation on Kashmir has been and continues to be rejected by India, there is also an apparent reluctance to progress with a bilateral Inter – Governmental dialogue process. A low key, indirect and discreet facilitation by credible third party (say USA/UK/UN/ICJ) which is not styled as intrusive mediation may be both necessary and potentially efficacious. A process which could be led by an institutionalised Inter Governmental Council which must inter alia include PMs of both countries (with Foreign Ministers as working chairs), Home and Defence Ministers, top bureaucrats / diplomats, COAS’s, selected Parliamentarians, eminent citizens and top Minsters of the two Kashmirs – IHJ&K & POK. Such an initiative is likely to deliver, provided India and Pakistan are able to accept the natural fallout of the division of J&K over the last 70 years on the basis of psychological cum ethno demographic changes on both sides of the LOC.
Multi Pronged Peace / Political Offensive. First declare Kashmir as an autonomous region on the lines of Northern Areas with Sadar – i – Riyasat and Wazir- I -Azam reincarnated followed by reduction of forces (Rashtriya Rifles and CAPF) from the towns, strengthening of democratic processes – aspirations, besides confidence building amongst the people by attending to their demands. Also a Joint Mechanism for Peace in Af Pak may be undertaken. It is averred that India and Pakistan must coexist as good neighbours and even consider a joint mechanism to fight terrorism in the region. At the same time India must have the ability to generate effective Surveillance and Strike Power along with matching National Will. The efforts towards peace in Af Pak cannot be allowed to fail for which a mutually acceptable joint mechanism must be given a chance to succeed.
It is indeed a reality that the Terror Factory of Pakistan despite US pressures remains alive and ticking. It merits consideration that with radicalisation of Kashmiri youth in case insurgency resurges to larger dimensions, India must be prepared to exercise a final assault – The Military Option/The Iron Fist – a swift conventional operation into POK and Pakistan Punjab, while remaining below the bogus nuclear threshold of Pakistan to generate criticality by capturing areas and destruction of Pak Forces to end this menace for good. The methods suggested above particularly those which are people centric may seem ambitious considering the entrenched antagonistic positions, yet these are viable for choosing “The Exit Policy” for the desperate Kashmiri Awaam who have been let down by Abdullahs, Muftis, Militants, Fundamentalists and Pakistan. Until the logic of a peace process is framed within the bounds of universal values of Insaniyat and Insaaf, Kashmir will remain a major global flashpoint. There is a spark of wide spread condemnation of violence by a majority of Awaam who yearn for peace – Azadi from being prisoners in their own homeland. However it is also important to recognise that “the End of Terrorism by an Iron Fist Approach” will not imply “End of Alienation of the People of Kashmir”. A “Dialogue Process” in the State which is sensitive to real – politics and addresses all concerns may be the way ahead. Of course this industry has to close for good much against the desires of powers and money by interested anti national parties on both sides of the LOC.
(The writer is son of the Kashmiri soil, Defence Analyst / Strategist and an Ex Strike Corps GOC)
feedbackexcelsior@gmail.com
Trending Now
E-Paper
Follow our WhatsApp channel