E
ver since Farooq Kathwari came up with some sketches relating to resolution of Kashmir dispute it has become a fashion for every Tom, Dick and Harry to prepare a plan for Kashmir. Those who formulate these plans are mostly the ones who find an avenue of publicity in publication of these plans. There are others who try to be seen in line with the probable solutions that they perceive or are likely to be accepted by India and Pakistan. Some formulate the plans on behest of institutions associated with different establishments to ascertain the public mood and reactions. A group of politicians have dedicated themselves to the job of welcoming each and every proposal irrespective of their contradictions. Mirwiaz welcomes every road map whether it comes from Musharaff or Manmohan Singh. In this regard I am reminded of Prof. A. M. Khusroo who once while entertaining a delegation of teachers praised their views. After sometime expressed similar words for a rival delegation. On being asked by his wife as to why he praises conflicting ideas he responded “Begum App bee theekh kah rahe hain”.
The inception of 2007 has seen people of importance and not much importance divulging their plans probably feeling that they may be left out if they do not come up with a plan of their own. Some proceed with a four page plan whereas others managed to collect few hundred pages. As a university teacher at first instance one of the plans appeared to me dissertation of a postgraduate student in the discipline of dispute resolution. The researcher has managed to collect material from different sources, organized it but failed to co-relate it with his conclusions. The writer seems to be struggling a lot to project the work as an objective research but the inclinations get reflected at every juncture. The propounders appear to be the ones who do not belong to the state and are proposing a solution of reconciliation to warring factions of a dispute. Such an approach does not behoove any one who has an iota of attachment to Kashmir and its problems. The terminology of western institutions specializing in study and research of conflicts has been utilised frequently.
The leadership is projected to be led by their sentiments instead of the realities surrounding them. They want them to forget the history probably because the history does not justify any U-turn. Respect for sacrifices is sought in the form of cosmetic measures & erection of monuments. At the same time a case is forwarded for betrayal of the object for which sacrifices were made. Conclusion mostly suffers from an error of generalization in context of aspiration of people of the Valley, Jammu and Ladakh regions. Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah is ridiculed for compromises but plea is made for a similar compromise on the part of present day leaders in the form of achievable nationhood. Arguments on this line are devoid of the context in which Sheikh Abdullah made a compromise. The context of Sheikh’s compromise was defeat of Pakistan in 1971 war and nuclearization of India in 1974. The context of present day parleys is altogether different i.e., inability of India to contain the secessionist movement in the State and acquisition of nuclear arms by Pakistan. Sermons for becoming realistic are associated with partial projection of the realities. The realities are projected the way they appear to be conducive to status-quo whereas the negative aspect of realities for Status-quo is altogether overlooked. Presuming that the “Kashmiri society is exhausted, tired, fatigued and unlikely to be capable of sustaining the movement” . It is also a reality that 181 Indian soldiers got killed in the previous year. More than 100 committed suicide and not less than fifty were targeted by their fellow colleagues. Keeping in view the fact that it is only one out of twenty casualties among regular armed forces which get killed and one among the 1000 depressed soldiers who commit suicide. The proportion of fatigue and exhaustion is in no way less on the other side. Relativity of so called realities too is overlooked. Few years back, Bush used to tell others to be with him or against him. Within five years the mightiest power of the world is in a quagmire both within Iraq as well as in Afghanistan. Reality of today is that he is unable to carry along his own Congress and people in his quest for a new crusade.
It is conceded that leaders instead of leading have been led by masses and also accepted that the movement is going to continue even if leaders abandon it. Still there is a sermon for leaders to become realistic and go for modified version of Status- quo. The Status- quo is sought to be camouflaged in a web of relations between Kashmir and India , Kashmir and Pakistan and Kashmir & Azad Kashmir with out prejudice to the authority, interests and security of India. The decommissioning of weapons possessed by militants is proposed while envisaging a perpetual presence of Indian army in Kashmir. Demilitarization although used several times is basically targeted against non-state actors. Status-quo is perceived to be the fate accompli and leaders advised to compromise with it. This inspite of acknowledging the common perception that India has never kept its promises. One of the main worries of the roadmap drafters is the transformation of Kashmiri society from war phobic to war hardened community and wish for reversal of this trend. No sane person can be happy with conflict and strife but it is also a fact that meekness, submissiveness made Kashmiris conducive for subjugation.
Right from Northern Ireland up to Hong Kong every model is used as a role model for resolution of Kashmir. Depiction of half truth about these models is a norm with roadmaps and same way the ones which do not suit continuation of Status-quo are never referred. Reference to Ireland is confined to Good Friday Agreement which simply relates to six counties of the type which resemble parts of Kuthua, Jammu, Udampur and Leh District of our State. The solution applied to twenty six counties of Ireland which became independent in 1922 is over looked. Hong Kong was given on lease hundred years back. Britishers made it a point to return it to Chinese inspite of hundred years’ retention and absence of an organised movement for secession. Emphasis on this aspect is altogether missing whereas presence of Hong Kong within China as autonomous region is highlighted because it suits perpetuation of Status-quo in Kashmir. Reference to East Timor, Montenegro, Qubec & Eriteria etc., does not exist simply because Right of Self Determination was the roadmap of resolution of these disputes.
Kashmiris aspirations for becoming International player is sought to be fulfilled in becoming part of Indian delegations to international forums, a role that Abdullah’s, Muftis have been playing for over a half century. Kashmiris are proposed to be accommodated as complementaries to the delegations of Indian defense and foreign ministries. Inspite of recognition of the fact the de jure stand of Pakistan has been for aspiration of Kashmiris, the roadmaps attempt to equate it with India on account of some practical issues which haven’t been addressed by Pakistanis. The roadmaps act as a red herring to deflect the attention of the world community from the solution to which it is a party and was drafted by it on behest of India & Pakistan in light of rules of International Law relevant to dispute resolution. Problem is not of a roadmap but lack of will and wish to reach to a solution.
As mentioned and conceded the movement for emancipation of Kashmir is unlikely to die even if leadership betrays it. Every one has a right to deliberate on utility or futility of violent and non violent means and his own course of action. This discourse, however should not end up as a case for abandonment of an aspiration. People’s struggle in Kashmir preceded militancy and will proceed it. The militancy was not the beginning and end of their struggle. 1857 marked the end of one phase of Sub-Continents struggle for liberty. It also remained dawn of a long drawn freedom movement. This history can repeat itself in Kashmir. No one should remain under an illusion that somersaults and support of joint colonization of Jammu & Kashmir by India and Pakistan is going to be digested by Kashmiris. Aspiration of Kashmiris has outlived so many leaders of the Sub-Continent. It will outlive those who are trying to make Kashmir a casino for the elite of India and Pakistan.
Jish Khak Kay Zameer Mein Ho Atash-i-Chinar
Mumkin Nahin Ke Sard Ho Woh Khakh-i-Arjmand
ver since Farooq Kathwari came up with some sketches relating to resolution of Kashmir dispute it has become a fashion for every Tom, Dick and Harry to prepare a plan for Kashmir. Those who formulate these plans are mostly the ones who find an avenue of publicity in publication of these plans. There are others who try to be seen in line with the probable solutions that they perceive or are likely to be accepted by India and Pakistan. Some formulate the plans on behest of institutions associated with different establishments to ascertain the public mood and reactions. A group of politicians have dedicated themselves to the job of welcoming each and every proposal irrespective of their contradictions. Mirwiaz welcomes every road map whether it comes from Musharaff or Manmohan Singh. In this regard I am reminded of Prof. A. M. Khusroo who once while entertaining a delegation of teachers praised their views. After sometime expressed similar words for a rival delegation. On being asked by his wife as to why he praises conflicting ideas he responded “Begum App bee theekh kah rahe hain”.
The inception of 2007 has seen people of importance and not much importance divulging their plans probably feeling that they may be left out if they do not come up with a plan of their own. Some proceed with a four page plan whereas others managed to collect few hundred pages. As a university teacher at first instance one of the plans appeared to me dissertation of a postgraduate student in the discipline of dispute resolution. The researcher has managed to collect material from different sources, organized it but failed to co-relate it with his conclusions. The writer seems to be struggling a lot to project the work as an objective research but the inclinations get reflected at every juncture. The propounders appear to be the ones who do not belong to the state and are proposing a solution of reconciliation to warring factions of a dispute. Such an approach does not behoove any one who has an iota of attachment to Kashmir and its problems. The terminology of western institutions specializing in study and research of conflicts has been utilised frequently.
The leadership is projected to be led by their sentiments instead of the realities surrounding them. They want them to forget the history probably because the history does not justify any U-turn. Respect for sacrifices is sought in the form of cosmetic measures & erection of monuments. At the same time a case is forwarded for betrayal of the object for which sacrifices were made. Conclusion mostly suffers from an error of generalization in context of aspiration of people of the Valley, Jammu and Ladakh regions. Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah is ridiculed for compromises but plea is made for a similar compromise on the part of present day leaders in the form of achievable nationhood. Arguments on this line are devoid of the context in which Sheikh Abdullah made a compromise. The context of Sheikh’s compromise was defeat of Pakistan in 1971 war and nuclearization of India in 1974. The context of present day parleys is altogether different i.e., inability of India to contain the secessionist movement in the State and acquisition of nuclear arms by Pakistan. Sermons for becoming realistic are associated with partial projection of the realities. The realities are projected the way they appear to be conducive to status-quo whereas the negative aspect of realities for Status-quo is altogether overlooked. Presuming that the “Kashmiri society is exhausted, tired, fatigued and unlikely to be capable of sustaining the movement” . It is also a reality that 181 Indian soldiers got killed in the previous year. More than 100 committed suicide and not less than fifty were targeted by their fellow colleagues. Keeping in view the fact that it is only one out of twenty casualties among regular armed forces which get killed and one among the 1000 depressed soldiers who commit suicide. The proportion of fatigue and exhaustion is in no way less on the other side. Relativity of so called realities too is overlooked. Few years back, Bush used to tell others to be with him or against him. Within five years the mightiest power of the world is in a quagmire both within Iraq as well as in Afghanistan. Reality of today is that he is unable to carry along his own Congress and people in his quest for a new crusade.
It is conceded that leaders instead of leading have been led by masses and also accepted that the movement is going to continue even if leaders abandon it. Still there is a sermon for leaders to become realistic and go for modified version of Status- quo. The Status- quo is sought to be camouflaged in a web of relations between Kashmir and India , Kashmir and Pakistan and Kashmir & Azad Kashmir with out prejudice to the authority, interests and security of India. The decommissioning of weapons possessed by militants is proposed while envisaging a perpetual presence of Indian army in Kashmir. Demilitarization although used several times is basically targeted against non-state actors. Status-quo is perceived to be the fate accompli and leaders advised to compromise with it. This inspite of acknowledging the common perception that India has never kept its promises. One of the main worries of the roadmap drafters is the transformation of Kashmiri society from war phobic to war hardened community and wish for reversal of this trend. No sane person can be happy with conflict and strife but it is also a fact that meekness, submissiveness made Kashmiris conducive for subjugation.
Right from Northern Ireland up to Hong Kong every model is used as a role model for resolution of Kashmir. Depiction of half truth about these models is a norm with roadmaps and same way the ones which do not suit continuation of Status-quo are never referred. Reference to Ireland is confined to Good Friday Agreement which simply relates to six counties of the type which resemble parts of Kuthua, Jammu, Udampur and Leh District of our State. The solution applied to twenty six counties of Ireland which became independent in 1922 is over looked. Hong Kong was given on lease hundred years back. Britishers made it a point to return it to Chinese inspite of hundred years’ retention and absence of an organised movement for secession. Emphasis on this aspect is altogether missing whereas presence of Hong Kong within China as autonomous region is highlighted because it suits perpetuation of Status-quo in Kashmir. Reference to East Timor, Montenegro, Qubec & Eriteria etc., does not exist simply because Right of Self Determination was the roadmap of resolution of these disputes.
Kashmiris aspirations for becoming International player is sought to be fulfilled in becoming part of Indian delegations to international forums, a role that Abdullah’s, Muftis have been playing for over a half century. Kashmiris are proposed to be accommodated as complementaries to the delegations of Indian defense and foreign ministries. Inspite of recognition of the fact the de jure stand of Pakistan has been for aspiration of Kashmiris, the roadmaps attempt to equate it with India on account of some practical issues which haven’t been addressed by Pakistanis. The roadmaps act as a red herring to deflect the attention of the world community from the solution to which it is a party and was drafted by it on behest of India & Pakistan in light of rules of International Law relevant to dispute resolution. Problem is not of a roadmap but lack of will and wish to reach to a solution.
As mentioned and conceded the movement for emancipation of Kashmir is unlikely to die even if leadership betrays it. Every one has a right to deliberate on utility or futility of violent and non violent means and his own course of action. This discourse, however should not end up as a case for abandonment of an aspiration. People’s struggle in Kashmir preceded militancy and will proceed it. The militancy was not the beginning and end of their struggle. 1857 marked the end of one phase of Sub-Continents struggle for liberty. It also remained dawn of a long drawn freedom movement. This history can repeat itself in Kashmir. No one should remain under an illusion that somersaults and support of joint colonization of Jammu & Kashmir by India and Pakistan is going to be digested by Kashmiris. Aspiration of Kashmiris has outlived so many leaders of the Sub-Continent. It will outlive those who are trying to make Kashmir a casino for the elite of India and Pakistan.
Jish Khak Kay Zameer Mein Ho Atash-i-Chinar
Mumkin Nahin Ke Sard Ho Woh Khakh-i-Arjmand
No comments:
Post a Comment