Indian State made promises relating to resolution of Kashmir dispute in fifties and sixties through declarations in United Nations regarding fulfillment of right to self determination of Kashmiri people. The successive governments didn’t keep the promise. India agreed to a bilateral solution through Shimla agreement but never resorted to a serious discussion with Pakistan. It promised sky as limit when its authority and writ over Kashmir faced armed insurgency in early nineties the promise never kept. This attitude of the Indian state has made everyone who deals with it skeptical about intentions.
Most of the times Indian state provided various pretexts to evade a meaningful discussion on kashmir. These include absence of a vision document, lack of representative character of those seeking discussion and continuity of armed insurgency.
Despite non-participation of Hurriyat, lesser voter turn out within cities and towns, excessive militarization and restrictions on media even if recent elections to the state assembly are presumed to be genuine these in no way constitute an endorsement of status quo. No one asked voters to vote for legitimization of Kashmir’s accession to India. The votes were sought on the basis of development roads, employment and other issues. Voters too responded with same issues when asked reasons for voting. National Conference, Peoples Democratic Party and even Congress mentioned during their campaign that the elections have nothing to do with endorsement of accession. It was probably this understanding within insurgent camp that made them to resist disruption of electoral process. It was this perception that contributed to their indifference towards elections. Farooq Abdullah acknowledged it soon after first round of voting and also towards the end of elections.
Apart from these issues however, every participant in the elections promised facilitation of resolution of Kashmir problem. National Conference referred to its autonomy document, Peoples Democratic Party came up with its vision document. Both these documents provided for redefining of relations between Jammu and Kashmir and the Indian state. National Conference demanded restoration of pre 1953 status and People Democratic Party almost same position along with dual currency and freedom of movement between Indian and Pakistan Administered Kashmir. It is obvious that despite having nothing to do with resolution of Kashmir problem recent elections had to do a lot with redefining of relations between India and Kashmir. Those who voted expect from the parties concerned to demonstrate their seriousness about their documents and vision statements. Apart from developmental issues it will be achievement on this account that will determine response of the people towards present dispensation. During its previous tenure National Conference promised the autonomy. On account of failing to achieve it lost the subsequent election. This time too it failed to motivate voters in most of the constituencies because of its failure to deliver on the issues of autonomy. Though the party could not be expected to get autonomy restored on its own, its weakness and submissive attitude before uncompromising rulers of Delhi devastated its fortunes. The party enjoying largest following within rural folk remains confined to towns and cities that too because of success of boycott call within these areas.
Whenever separatists secured a negotiated settlement of Kashmir Indian Government questioned their representative character. Peoples Democratic Party and National Conference have established this representative character through elections conducted by the Election Commission of India. If the elections remained fair and the ones who got elected are perceived to be representatives of people it is a test for Indian state to respond to their documents of self rule and autonomy. Absence of any sort of vision document also no more remains a pretext of denial to negotiate. The situation also creates a testing time for the parties that have won. National Conference and Peoples Democratic Party along with others have more than 2/3rd majority that is required for any sort of resolution for autonomy or self rule. Challenge for them is to prove that they stand by their documents and don’t use them as mere instruments of motivation for voters.
Statement of Farooq Abdullah that his party is going to work for facilitation of a dialogue with separatists is not a proper response to this challenge. People want Farooq Abdullah and his party to achieve what they have promised and take a stand on it. Onus of securing support of others sharing same type of views lies upon the National Conference. Let you initiate a dialogue, take a stand on your autonomy document and be ready to take cudgels on it. Leadership demands taking stand not shying away from responsibilities. By facilitating a dialogue you assume position of a middle man. You contribute to status quo by taming rebellious segments of society and become an instrument of occupation for maintenance of status quo people have not voted you for that.
You have a document of autonomy and your performance will be judged by the level of your achievement in context of this document. Same holds true about Peoples Democratic Party. Whatever vote it has got has an element of expectation of facilitation of self-rule by it. Its achievement will also be assessed on the basis of its capability to realize and actualize the document relating to self-rule.
The Central Government on its part will try to use the state assembly as an instrument of occupation as it has used it in past. The global scenario and the fluid situation in the sub-continent and the state demands immediate response to expectations. Any deviational tactics is not going to work. Kashmir cannot remain hostage to impotence of decision making process of Indian state nor to the compulsion of its electoral politics. Main plank of argument on the part of Indian state has been a slow and evolutionary approach. The documents provided by National Conference and Peoples Democratic Party fit within this paradigm. There should be no pretext to evade a deliberation on these. Restoration of autonomy or self rule will not constitute a solution to Kashmir problem but can be a prelude to the same. It will surely reflect seriousness of Indian state to respond to the Kashmir problem with a political dispensation. Separatists and Pakistan too may be motivated to negotiate their own agenda once sincerity of the Indian state as a serious negotiating partner is established.
Past experience however belies this expectation. Indians used every Prime Minister and Chief Minister of the state to strengthen occupation once he outlived his utility he was thrown away. This happened with Sheikh Abdullah and Farooq Abdullah in spite of their collaboration in facilitation of occupation. This remained the fate of Bakhshi Ghulam Muhammad, Mir Qasim and G M Sadiq despite their contributions on developmental front. Mufti has been the latest casualty of Indian mechanizations. Omar Abdullah too is destined to face the same fate if one goes by the experience of his predecessors. He is new enjoys a period of grace and expectations it is to be seen whether he avails it to the advantage of his party, his person, his nation or becomes another tissue paper in the hands of occupation. The tissue papers have no use besides being dumped by the occupying administration as soon as it serves their purpose.
Most of the times Indian state provided various pretexts to evade a meaningful discussion on kashmir. These include absence of a vision document, lack of representative character of those seeking discussion and continuity of armed insurgency.
Despite non-participation of Hurriyat, lesser voter turn out within cities and towns, excessive militarization and restrictions on media even if recent elections to the state assembly are presumed to be genuine these in no way constitute an endorsement of status quo. No one asked voters to vote for legitimization of Kashmir’s accession to India. The votes were sought on the basis of development roads, employment and other issues. Voters too responded with same issues when asked reasons for voting. National Conference, Peoples Democratic Party and even Congress mentioned during their campaign that the elections have nothing to do with endorsement of accession. It was probably this understanding within insurgent camp that made them to resist disruption of electoral process. It was this perception that contributed to their indifference towards elections. Farooq Abdullah acknowledged it soon after first round of voting and also towards the end of elections.
Apart from these issues however, every participant in the elections promised facilitation of resolution of Kashmir problem. National Conference referred to its autonomy document, Peoples Democratic Party came up with its vision document. Both these documents provided for redefining of relations between Jammu and Kashmir and the Indian state. National Conference demanded restoration of pre 1953 status and People Democratic Party almost same position along with dual currency and freedom of movement between Indian and Pakistan Administered Kashmir. It is obvious that despite having nothing to do with resolution of Kashmir problem recent elections had to do a lot with redefining of relations between India and Kashmir. Those who voted expect from the parties concerned to demonstrate their seriousness about their documents and vision statements. Apart from developmental issues it will be achievement on this account that will determine response of the people towards present dispensation. During its previous tenure National Conference promised the autonomy. On account of failing to achieve it lost the subsequent election. This time too it failed to motivate voters in most of the constituencies because of its failure to deliver on the issues of autonomy. Though the party could not be expected to get autonomy restored on its own, its weakness and submissive attitude before uncompromising rulers of Delhi devastated its fortunes. The party enjoying largest following within rural folk remains confined to towns and cities that too because of success of boycott call within these areas.
Whenever separatists secured a negotiated settlement of Kashmir Indian Government questioned their representative character. Peoples Democratic Party and National Conference have established this representative character through elections conducted by the Election Commission of India. If the elections remained fair and the ones who got elected are perceived to be representatives of people it is a test for Indian state to respond to their documents of self rule and autonomy. Absence of any sort of vision document also no more remains a pretext of denial to negotiate. The situation also creates a testing time for the parties that have won. National Conference and Peoples Democratic Party along with others have more than 2/3rd majority that is required for any sort of resolution for autonomy or self rule. Challenge for them is to prove that they stand by their documents and don’t use them as mere instruments of motivation for voters.
Statement of Farooq Abdullah that his party is going to work for facilitation of a dialogue with separatists is not a proper response to this challenge. People want Farooq Abdullah and his party to achieve what they have promised and take a stand on it. Onus of securing support of others sharing same type of views lies upon the National Conference. Let you initiate a dialogue, take a stand on your autonomy document and be ready to take cudgels on it. Leadership demands taking stand not shying away from responsibilities. By facilitating a dialogue you assume position of a middle man. You contribute to status quo by taming rebellious segments of society and become an instrument of occupation for maintenance of status quo people have not voted you for that.
You have a document of autonomy and your performance will be judged by the level of your achievement in context of this document. Same holds true about Peoples Democratic Party. Whatever vote it has got has an element of expectation of facilitation of self-rule by it. Its achievement will also be assessed on the basis of its capability to realize and actualize the document relating to self-rule.
The Central Government on its part will try to use the state assembly as an instrument of occupation as it has used it in past. The global scenario and the fluid situation in the sub-continent and the state demands immediate response to expectations. Any deviational tactics is not going to work. Kashmir cannot remain hostage to impotence of decision making process of Indian state nor to the compulsion of its electoral politics. Main plank of argument on the part of Indian state has been a slow and evolutionary approach. The documents provided by National Conference and Peoples Democratic Party fit within this paradigm. There should be no pretext to evade a deliberation on these. Restoration of autonomy or self rule will not constitute a solution to Kashmir problem but can be a prelude to the same. It will surely reflect seriousness of Indian state to respond to the Kashmir problem with a political dispensation. Separatists and Pakistan too may be motivated to negotiate their own agenda once sincerity of the Indian state as a serious negotiating partner is established.
Past experience however belies this expectation. Indians used every Prime Minister and Chief Minister of the state to strengthen occupation once he outlived his utility he was thrown away. This happened with Sheikh Abdullah and Farooq Abdullah in spite of their collaboration in facilitation of occupation. This remained the fate of Bakhshi Ghulam Muhammad, Mir Qasim and G M Sadiq despite their contributions on developmental front. Mufti has been the latest casualty of Indian mechanizations. Omar Abdullah too is destined to face the same fate if one goes by the experience of his predecessors. He is new enjoys a period of grace and expectations it is to be seen whether he avails it to the advantage of his party, his person, his nation or becomes another tissue paper in the hands of occupation. The tissue papers have no use besides being dumped by the occupying administration as soon as it serves their purpose.
No comments:
Post a Comment