By taking sides, you have only abused this institution of Interlocution
VIEWPOINT BY DR. SHEIKH SHOWKAT HUSSAIN
Wherever there is a conflict, there are different ways to resolve it. It may be resolved through adjudication, mediation, and arbitration or through use of good offices of a third party. Interlocution is also one of the modes of peaceful resolution of disputes. It involves utilizing services of some neutral credible entities or individuals for building bridges between the disputing parties and hammering out a solution. Prerequisite for success of the process is neutrality and credibility of those who get involved in interlocution. Despite negative impression about sincerity of the Indian state appointment of the interlocutors after last year’s agitation did generate a degree of hope. The reason for this was involvement of a new group of persons in it. They were not traditional Kashmir handlers rather new to this assignment. Traditionally Kashmir remained exclusive domain of Punjabis on both sides of border. They instead of addressing it transformed their preoccupation with Kashmir in to an avenue of organizing annual Punjabi Chopal with an aroma of Kashmiri cuisines for facilitation and justification of direct or indirect state hospitality.
Basic flaw in the present phase of Interlocution however, remained involvement of an Indian Muslim in this business. Being the ones whose loyalties towards India are often questioned Muslim Indians tend to be more loyal than others. Having the burden of depicting their loyalty towards Indian state they cannot be expected to persuade the system to agree to a solution. Their involvement has been compounded by the fact that over the years Indian Muslims have been given the feeling that if Kashmir secedes it will have an adverse impact upon their position. Maulana Abul Kalam Azad could not escape this psyche when Nehru used him to negotiate with Sheikh Abdullah prior to Sheiks dismissal and detention in 1953. Apprehensions proved right when we saw MM Ansari like a propagandist mentioning the heavy turnout in elections symbolizes abdication of a sentiment for azadi on the part of Kashmiris. World hardly digests this line of argumentation because it has seen almost hundred percent participation of people in elections within all regimented societies be they of Middle East or East Europe. Though other members of the commission didn’t subscribe to his views burden of proving loyalty made him to issue such a statement.
Whatever, traces of credibility remained with interlocution crashed completely after a recent TV discourse. Radha Kumar, the moderate face of the interlocutor team claimed in a talk show on NDTV that those who want freedom in Kashmir are a minority whereas the majority of Kashmiris remains satisfied with status quo. If she is true in her claim and sincerely believes in what she says, her team should have no hesitation in recommending self-determination as the mode of resolution of Kashmir dispute. With majority satisfied with status quo it is to the advantage of Indian state to demonstrate it before whole of the world. All those who harp on Azadi will stand exposed and the Kashmir dispute will be settled for ever. She discredited the institution of interlocution for all times to come by claiming that most of those killed in Kashmir during past twenty years were killed by militants and not by Indian security agencies. The second assertion on the part of the most moderate face of interlocution however, has exposed the worth of Indian postures of seeking solution to Kashmir through interlocution. Presuming that militants act with same degree of impunity as Indian forces do yet it is impossible that the number of abuses committed by them will be more or even at par with those committed by the state forces who exceed them by several hundred thousand times in numbers. Number of militants in Kashmir according to Indian estimates does not exceed five hundred whereas number of Indian military personnel according to conservative estimates remains more than five hundred thousand. Militants depend on local population for support and logistics where as Indian security agencies suspect every Kashmiri to be a militant unless proved otherwise. For Mr Dilip Padgoankar the only problem in Kashmir remains feeling of domination of valley within Ladakh & Jammu.
It is obvious from the language used by interlocutors that like every other mode of dispute resolution Indian state has used interlocution in Kashmir as a means of deceit and deception. At times it has also been used as a device of gaining time or diverting attention of the international community from the real issues involved. Interlocution in context of Kashmir is an old trait used again and again not as means of the dispute resolution but to deny its existence. Present phase of interlocution too remains infested with all these problems. In 2010 when Kashmir was fully mobilized and focus of attention for the international community it was resorted to with a view to impress upon the world that India is serious in its efforts of resolution of the long standing dispute. People expected that the interlocutors to depict a degree of neutrality. No one denies them right to have their views but everyone has a right to ask as to why those who are supposed to mediate express themselves in favor of a party to the dispute. Such statements have vindicated the stand of those who discarded this process from inception and refused to get engaged with interlocutors.
Basic flaw in the present phase of Interlocution however, remained involvement of an Indian Muslim in this business. Being the ones whose loyalties towards India are often questioned Muslim Indians tend to be more loyal than others. Having the burden of depicting their loyalty towards Indian state they cannot be expected to persuade the system to agree to a solution. Their involvement has been compounded by the fact that over the years Indian Muslims have been given the feeling that if Kashmir secedes it will have an adverse impact upon their position. Maulana Abul Kalam Azad could not escape this psyche when Nehru used him to negotiate with Sheikh Abdullah prior to Sheiks dismissal and detention in 1953. Apprehensions proved right when we saw MM Ansari like a propagandist mentioning the heavy turnout in elections symbolizes abdication of a sentiment for azadi on the part of Kashmiris. World hardly digests this line of argumentation because it has seen almost hundred percent participation of people in elections within all regimented societies be they of Middle East or East Europe. Though other members of the commission didn’t subscribe to his views burden of proving loyalty made him to issue such a statement.
Whatever, traces of credibility remained with interlocution crashed completely after a recent TV discourse. Radha Kumar, the moderate face of the interlocutor team claimed in a talk show on NDTV that those who want freedom in Kashmir are a minority whereas the majority of Kashmiris remains satisfied with status quo. If she is true in her claim and sincerely believes in what she says, her team should have no hesitation in recommending self-determination as the mode of resolution of Kashmir dispute. With majority satisfied with status quo it is to the advantage of Indian state to demonstrate it before whole of the world. All those who harp on Azadi will stand exposed and the Kashmir dispute will be settled for ever. She discredited the institution of interlocution for all times to come by claiming that most of those killed in Kashmir during past twenty years were killed by militants and not by Indian security agencies. The second assertion on the part of the most moderate face of interlocution however, has exposed the worth of Indian postures of seeking solution to Kashmir through interlocution. Presuming that militants act with same degree of impunity as Indian forces do yet it is impossible that the number of abuses committed by them will be more or even at par with those committed by the state forces who exceed them by several hundred thousand times in numbers. Number of militants in Kashmir according to Indian estimates does not exceed five hundred whereas number of Indian military personnel according to conservative estimates remains more than five hundred thousand. Militants depend on local population for support and logistics where as Indian security agencies suspect every Kashmiri to be a militant unless proved otherwise. For Mr Dilip Padgoankar the only problem in Kashmir remains feeling of domination of valley within Ladakh & Jammu.
It is obvious from the language used by interlocutors that like every other mode of dispute resolution Indian state has used interlocution in Kashmir as a means of deceit and deception. At times it has also been used as a device of gaining time or diverting attention of the international community from the real issues involved. Interlocution in context of Kashmir is an old trait used again and again not as means of the dispute resolution but to deny its existence. Present phase of interlocution too remains infested with all these problems. In 2010 when Kashmir was fully mobilized and focus of attention for the international community it was resorted to with a view to impress upon the world that India is serious in its efforts of resolution of the long standing dispute. People expected that the interlocutors to depict a degree of neutrality. No one denies them right to have their views but everyone has a right to ask as to why those who are supposed to mediate express themselves in favor of a party to the dispute. Such statements have vindicated the stand of those who discarded this process from inception and refused to get engaged with interlocutors.
Published in Greater Kashmir dated 13 Aug 2011
No comments:
Post a Comment