Every individual remains in a mood to see the world as he wishes it to be in his own estimation. Even though a situation may be contrary to ones expectations one looks at it as if everything is going in the way he desires to see it. Realities are realities they manifest themselves whether we want to see them or not. The one who remains in illusions often gets shocked and shattered when he faces realities in a crude manner. The shock is result of complacence because on account of self assumed perceptions, the person never expected to face these. What is true about individuals same is true about groups, communities and nations. Indian Kashmir policy has been suffering from this syndrome for past sixty years.
Since pre-partition days Indian policy towards Kashmir has been infested with certain assumptions. In 1947, when India leadership planed to annex Kashmir, Nehru anticipated that Pathans under the influence of Sarhadhi-Gandhi (Khan Abdul Gaffar Khan) and Kashmiris under the leadership of Sheikh Abdullah will vote for India. It was under this expectation that Nehru promised plebiscite to Kashmiri’s and proceeded with Kashmir problem to United Nations. Realizing that Pathans voted contrary to his expectations. Nehru had to backtrack from his promise to Kashmiris. He proceeded for a policy of trying to win over Kashmiris in the name of development. He dismissed the Government of Sheikh Abdullah in 1953 and entrusted the job of integrating Kashmir with India to Bakshi Ghulam Mohammad. For this purpose huge financial packages were kept at his disposal. For a while this policy seemed to work. Along with lot of development, Bakshi seemed to be capable of rallying people around him. New Delhi was over taken by euphoria. Instead of respecting sentiments of Kashmiris, it embarked upon an ambitious plan of coercive integration of the state with India. So many central laws were extended to the state. Relation between Jammu and Kashmir and Indian Union didn’t remain confined to defense, currency and foreign affairs as was agreed in the instrument of accession. Whole of illusion relating to success of this policy exploded in 1963. Displacement of holy relic from Hazratbal shrine made Indo-Kashmir relations more fragile than a knot of a semi-spun thread. Pandit Nehru realized futility of his Kashmir policy and wanted to reorient it. He did learn a lesson but it was too late. He released Sheikh Abdullah, dispatched him to Pakistan on a reconciliation mission. He expired while trying to resolve Kashmir dispute with Pakistani president Field Marshal Ayub Khan.
Successors of Nehru, however, overwhelmed by American tilt towards India in the aftermath of Chinese invasion of 1962 revived the policy of coercive integration. They scraped the posts of SADRI-RIYASAT and Prime minister and extended Articles 356 and 357 of the Indian Constitution to the state. Ruling National Conference was converted into local unit of Indian National Congress. Result of this coercive integration was insurgency and war of 1965. Kashmir became a hostile terrain for Indians. After 1965 it was impossible for Indian leaders to mix with ordinary Kashmiris as was experienced during Nehru era. The revived policy of coercive integration boomeranged. Before India could learn any lesson from this fiasco of its Kashmir policy India and Pakistan got engaged in Indo-Pak war of 1971. Pakistan was disintegrated and Bangladesh came into existence as a result of international conspiracy. Indian foreign policy became hostage of a new illusion. Weakened Pakistan was perceived to be irrelevant to the resolution of Kashmir dispute. Although Kashmir problem found its mention in Shimla Agreement, no serious effort was made to negotiate it with Pakistan. Despite refusal of UN to close its observer’s mission in Kashmir on Indian demand and mention of Kashmir in first Sino-US Joint Communique, India pursued a unilateral path to settle this problem. In 1975 it entered into an agreement with Sheikh Abdullah. This Agreement didn’t provide anything to Kashmir apart from anarchic rule of Sheikh Abdullah and his progeny. Pakistan felt offended and rejected this agreement.
Contrary to Indian illusions Pakistan emerged as a more compact and potent state after secession of Bangladesh. On the other hand India had to face a decade long insurgency in Punjab. This insurgency had devastating impact upon India and consumed its Prime Minister Indra Gandhi. Punjab situation catalyzed revival of separatist movement in Kashmir. In early nineties, writ of Indian state dissipated over every part of the valley and its adjoining areas. The time that was anticipated to act as an integrative force proved to be on the side of secession. Those who proclaimed that accession of Kashmir to India is irreversible desperately looked for someone in Kashmir to negotiate. Revived separatist movement proved to be much more costly than all the wars that India faced after its independence. As soon as Indian establishment started to realize indispensability of resolving Kashmir problem and Atal Bihari Vajpayee initiated the peace process, happenings of 9/11 created a new illusion among the policy makers of India. They perceived that Islamophobia of the West will suffice them to evade a just solution to Kashmir problem. It is this illusion that has retarded the pace of so called peace process. Receding levels of militancy has become another yardstick for portraying the situation to the liking of status quoists. The level of militancy has come down because of geo-politics. It has stopped to receive international support. This however does not necessarily reflect reconciliation of Kashmiris with the status-quo. Once international situation changes to their advantage, sense of non-achievement can again compell them to resort to more lethal form of insurgency. Even at present, their sense of deprivation may make them receptive to global non-state actors and transform the situation beyond the control of everyone. The super powers who themselves are getting mutilated in Iraq and Afghanistan can’t be of much help in such an eventuality.
Within Kashmir and India there have been some propagandist intellectuals who consistently concoct stories and interpret events to the liking of the Indian policy makers. Purpose of this exercise has been to keep India’s Kashmir policy perpetual hostage to illusions. The idea of Kashmiris being followers of different passive Islam is a myth invented for the same purpose. The notion that Kashmiris are fed up with prolongation of resistance and simply want development and peace are similar concoctions. Purpose of this breed is to persuade the Indian establishment to maintain the status-quo. Beneficiaries of status-quo are scared of any change. The realities, however, never remain hostage to anybody’s liking or disliking. They follow their own dynamics and crystallize in the form of an unwanted phenomenon for those who want to continue the occupation. Had the situation in the Kashmir followed the same path as it was interpreted to be following since 1947 Kashmir should have long back integrated with India. Contrary to this anticipation Kashmir continues to remain alienated with the passage of every decade. The alienation assumes horrifying dimensions with the growth of every new generation of Kashmir, making the occupation increasingly costly. Bereft of conscience keepers like Gandhi, Vinoba Bhave, Jai Prakash Nayrayan and strong Prime Ministers, Indian establishment continues to be hostage to these concocted illusions and unwilling to reconcile with realities. They seem to be waiting for a similar situation to arise as existed in early nineties to review their policy of indifference.
Since pre-partition days Indian policy towards Kashmir has been infested with certain assumptions. In 1947, when India leadership planed to annex Kashmir, Nehru anticipated that Pathans under the influence of Sarhadhi-Gandhi (Khan Abdul Gaffar Khan) and Kashmiris under the leadership of Sheikh Abdullah will vote for India. It was under this expectation that Nehru promised plebiscite to Kashmiri’s and proceeded with Kashmir problem to United Nations. Realizing that Pathans voted contrary to his expectations. Nehru had to backtrack from his promise to Kashmiris. He proceeded for a policy of trying to win over Kashmiris in the name of development. He dismissed the Government of Sheikh Abdullah in 1953 and entrusted the job of integrating Kashmir with India to Bakshi Ghulam Mohammad. For this purpose huge financial packages were kept at his disposal. For a while this policy seemed to work. Along with lot of development, Bakshi seemed to be capable of rallying people around him. New Delhi was over taken by euphoria. Instead of respecting sentiments of Kashmiris, it embarked upon an ambitious plan of coercive integration of the state with India. So many central laws were extended to the state. Relation between Jammu and Kashmir and Indian Union didn’t remain confined to defense, currency and foreign affairs as was agreed in the instrument of accession. Whole of illusion relating to success of this policy exploded in 1963. Displacement of holy relic from Hazratbal shrine made Indo-Kashmir relations more fragile than a knot of a semi-spun thread. Pandit Nehru realized futility of his Kashmir policy and wanted to reorient it. He did learn a lesson but it was too late. He released Sheikh Abdullah, dispatched him to Pakistan on a reconciliation mission. He expired while trying to resolve Kashmir dispute with Pakistani president Field Marshal Ayub Khan.
Successors of Nehru, however, overwhelmed by American tilt towards India in the aftermath of Chinese invasion of 1962 revived the policy of coercive integration. They scraped the posts of SADRI-RIYASAT and Prime minister and extended Articles 356 and 357 of the Indian Constitution to the state. Ruling National Conference was converted into local unit of Indian National Congress. Result of this coercive integration was insurgency and war of 1965. Kashmir became a hostile terrain for Indians. After 1965 it was impossible for Indian leaders to mix with ordinary Kashmiris as was experienced during Nehru era. The revived policy of coercive integration boomeranged. Before India could learn any lesson from this fiasco of its Kashmir policy India and Pakistan got engaged in Indo-Pak war of 1971. Pakistan was disintegrated and Bangladesh came into existence as a result of international conspiracy. Indian foreign policy became hostage of a new illusion. Weakened Pakistan was perceived to be irrelevant to the resolution of Kashmir dispute. Although Kashmir problem found its mention in Shimla Agreement, no serious effort was made to negotiate it with Pakistan. Despite refusal of UN to close its observer’s mission in Kashmir on Indian demand and mention of Kashmir in first Sino-US Joint Communique, India pursued a unilateral path to settle this problem. In 1975 it entered into an agreement with Sheikh Abdullah. This Agreement didn’t provide anything to Kashmir apart from anarchic rule of Sheikh Abdullah and his progeny. Pakistan felt offended and rejected this agreement.
Contrary to Indian illusions Pakistan emerged as a more compact and potent state after secession of Bangladesh. On the other hand India had to face a decade long insurgency in Punjab. This insurgency had devastating impact upon India and consumed its Prime Minister Indra Gandhi. Punjab situation catalyzed revival of separatist movement in Kashmir. In early nineties, writ of Indian state dissipated over every part of the valley and its adjoining areas. The time that was anticipated to act as an integrative force proved to be on the side of secession. Those who proclaimed that accession of Kashmir to India is irreversible desperately looked for someone in Kashmir to negotiate. Revived separatist movement proved to be much more costly than all the wars that India faced after its independence. As soon as Indian establishment started to realize indispensability of resolving Kashmir problem and Atal Bihari Vajpayee initiated the peace process, happenings of 9/11 created a new illusion among the policy makers of India. They perceived that Islamophobia of the West will suffice them to evade a just solution to Kashmir problem. It is this illusion that has retarded the pace of so called peace process. Receding levels of militancy has become another yardstick for portraying the situation to the liking of status quoists. The level of militancy has come down because of geo-politics. It has stopped to receive international support. This however does not necessarily reflect reconciliation of Kashmiris with the status-quo. Once international situation changes to their advantage, sense of non-achievement can again compell them to resort to more lethal form of insurgency. Even at present, their sense of deprivation may make them receptive to global non-state actors and transform the situation beyond the control of everyone. The super powers who themselves are getting mutilated in Iraq and Afghanistan can’t be of much help in such an eventuality.
Within Kashmir and India there have been some propagandist intellectuals who consistently concoct stories and interpret events to the liking of the Indian policy makers. Purpose of this exercise has been to keep India’s Kashmir policy perpetual hostage to illusions. The idea of Kashmiris being followers of different passive Islam is a myth invented for the same purpose. The notion that Kashmiris are fed up with prolongation of resistance and simply want development and peace are similar concoctions. Purpose of this breed is to persuade the Indian establishment to maintain the status-quo. Beneficiaries of status-quo are scared of any change. The realities, however, never remain hostage to anybody’s liking or disliking. They follow their own dynamics and crystallize in the form of an unwanted phenomenon for those who want to continue the occupation. Had the situation in the Kashmir followed the same path as it was interpreted to be following since 1947 Kashmir should have long back integrated with India. Contrary to this anticipation Kashmir continues to remain alienated with the passage of every decade. The alienation assumes horrifying dimensions with the growth of every new generation of Kashmir, making the occupation increasingly costly. Bereft of conscience keepers like Gandhi, Vinoba Bhave, Jai Prakash Nayrayan and strong Prime Ministers, Indian establishment continues to be hostage to these concocted illusions and unwilling to reconcile with realities. They seem to be waiting for a similar situation to arise as existed in early nineties to review their policy of indifference.
No comments:
Post a Comment