KASHMIR – THEN AND NOW
THE PHENOMENON IS NOT NEW. IT ONLY CHANGED MODES. IT BEGUN IN ‘47 AND EVEN TODAY IT REFUSES TO DIE DOWN, COMMENTS DR. SHEIKH SHOWKAT HUSSAIN
Ever since Jammu and Kashmir State was annexed to India, Kashmiris continue to dispute legitimacy of this relation and perceive it to be a bond of subjugation. The modes of resistance assumed different forms during changing times. From 1947 to 1953, Political Conference of Ghulam Mohi-ud-Din Karra initiated it. The resistance at this juncture remained confined to pasting of posters and raising of slogans by students of S.P. College. Even these modes of resistance invoked harsh reactions from local administration led by Sheikh Muhammad Abdullah. In an era when switching on Radio Pakistan could invoke a reaction from “Khoftan Fakirs” (renegades of those times) indulging in pasting posters was fraught with horrifying repercussions. These included banishment to Pakistan administered Kashmir. This mode of resistance, however, played a role in mobilizing people. The mobilization manifested itself in the form of sloganeering at S.P. College on the eve of UN Commission’s visit and a similar scenario on a large scale at Eidgah during Moulana Abul Kalam Azad’s address to people on the occasion of Eid in 1953. The incidents were attributed to Sheikh Abdullah’s overt instigation and his administrative mismanagement. Sheikh was dismissed from Prime Ministership and detained.
For a while, Bakshi Ghulam Muhammad managed to camouflage the resistance through his cultural carnivals and his goga terror (Kashmiri distortion for Urdu gurga). The situation, however, instead of improving deteriorated further with Mirza Afzal Beigh organizing the resistance through Plebiscite Front (1955-1975). Election boycott, non cooperation, Jail Bharo used to be ways of defiance at this juncture. The peaceful resistance reached its climax in 1963 during Moi Muqadus agitation. Congress government in Delhi instead of responding to popular resistance tried to blunt the people’s movement through economic packages, legal and administrative measures aimed at integration of the state with Indian union. Kashmir plunged into insurgency in 1965 catalyzing Indo-Pak war. Americans betrayed Pakistan and imposed embargo on supply of military hardware to it.
The continuation of embargo made Pakistan vulnerable and resulted in its dismemberment in 1971. The Kashmir resistance opted for a ‘look-East policy’ and tried to emulate the strategy adopted by Sheikh Mujeeb-ur-Rahman’s Awami League for secession from Pakistan. The strategy involved participation in elections and using electoral mandate as a justification for separation. Delhi, scared of this mode of resistance, imposed a ban on Plebiscite Front and did not allow it to join electoral fray. Shiekh Abdullah could participate in elections only after he dumped Plebiscite Front and transformed it into National Conference. Other actors which included Jama’at-e-Islami and Awami Action Committee (AAC) were perceived to be too insignificant and allowed to join electoral fray directly or indirectly. Using elections for mobilization continued to be a policy with these groups until 1987. Whole of society, especially the younger generation participated in these elections with the same intention that the mandate will be used as a justification for secession. Rulers of Delhi too made it a point to manipulate the election results and triggered the militant phase of resistance.
Youth disillusioned with electoral process for achievement of their aspirations ultimately resorted to gun in 1990. The events in Punjab and Afghanistan provided motivation for armed resistance. Defeat and dismemberment of Soviet Union at the hands of Afghan Mujahideen emboldened Kashmiri youth and militant resistance became a predominant way of fight for Azadi. New Delhi responded with promises of negotiated settlement while at the same time using ruthless force to suppress the insurgency. Narasimha Rao, the then prime minister of India, promised self-rule with “Sky as its limit”. Despite use of third generation renegades (Nabid’s) the resistance didn’t subside. Forced by continuation of resistance, BJP government offered ceasefire to Hizbul Mujahideen. The pressure of resistance compelled it to the extent of sending its Foreign Minister, Jaswant Singh, along with Masood Azhar, the head of Jaish-e-Muhammad to Kandhar for negotiations. Vajpayee’s ceasefire offer to Hizb and Jaswant Singh’s visit to Kandhar was not a concession but a compulsion. Indian state also proceeded for negotiations with Pakistan with which it had lost the edge of superiority in conventional warfare on account of nuclearization of the subcontinent.
While these processes were on, the events of 9/11 changed the equations in favour of India. US mobilized the world against all sorts of armed freedom movements and dubbed these as manifestations of terrorism. The tirade against the so-called “terrorism” was pursued with such ruthlessness that the mastermind of Kargil conflict, Gen Pervez Musharraf, lost his nerves. Musharraf embarked upon U-Turn in its Kashmir policy. Pakistani postures unnerved a segment of the Hurriyat leadership which too found in it an avenue of reconciliation with the status quo in the name of realism and self-rule. Indian state perceived War on Terror as a permanent phenomenon. Instead of taking advantage and settling the issue it engaged in hoodwinking the Kashmiris, while engaging in “do more” rhetoric towards Pakistan. The situation to their dismay proved to be temporary. American War on Terror started to prove as a biggest fiasco for the sole super power. On one side US continued to receive a beeline of body bags from Afghanistan on the other side its economy plunged into recession. The situation made Kashmiri masses to rejuvenate and adopt a different way of resistance. The ‘Look-East policy’ of pre-90s was substituted by policy of looking towards Middle East. Intifada of Palestinians became their role model. Youth and resilient segment of leadership started to use demonstrations and ensuing clashes involving throwing of stones as a new technique. There was nothing new in it in terms of modus operandi; the only new element within it was conscious involvement of committed youngsters. The 2008 Amarnath Land Row catalyzed a mass mobilization in favor of this mode of resistance. It dissipated all illusions about Kashmiris having reconciled to the status quo on account of depletion of levels of militancy. Kashmiri youth continued with this pattern of resistance even after Amarnath Land Row. The resistance, however, remained confined to towns and cities with leaders opting a lukewarm approach towards it. Some self-styled intellectuals and Muftis even ridiculed this mode of resistance. The Quit Kashmir Movement of Hurriyat Conference led by Syed Ali Shah Geelani and Civil Disobedience Movement of Hurriyat (M) however, conferred ownership and legitimacy to this mode of resistance. With Pakistan formally abandoning Musharraf’s four-point formula and different segments of Hurriyat speaking in same length and line, Kashmir again stands mobilized from one corner to another. The mobilization transcends even Amarnath agitation of 2008 and Moi Muqaddas agitation of 1963. The response to this movement has taken beyond Pir Panchal. It has created an impact in Chenab Valley, Poonch and Rajouri too. It has erased the illusions that Kashmiris have submitted to the status quo on account of their participation in elections. This new phase has enabled Kashmiris to manage survival of their resistance through worst times when their aspiration for Azadi was sought to be buried forever in the name of fight against terrorism. Rulers of Delhi are again behaving as ostriches by involving in acts of self-deceit through media censorship and oppression. This attitude is sought to be justified through misinterpretations and manipulations of agency sponsored Kashmir experts. New Delhi is probably waiting for departure of Americans from Afghanistan so that non-state actors again get a chance to get involved and Indian state ‘avails’ an opportunity of dispatching its Foreign Minister for negotiations to Kandhar. Those having confidence of defeating two super powers can prove to be more lethal than the ones India faced in 90’s. Being at war with it, Pakistani state too can’t control their Kashmir involvement. Irrespective of postures given through recent Donors Conference at Kabul, Americans are surely leaving that country. The US too has confirmed it through reduction of four billion US dollar aid to the Karzai administration. No one in Kashmir expects Quit Kashmir Movement of Geelani and Civil Disobedience Movement of Mirwaiz to fetch them Azadi immediately, but these movements like Quit India Movement have surely mobilized the Kashmiri society for post 2011 scenario. Sense of non achievement can drive Kashmiri youth towards another cycle of insurgency. Every new phase of resistance in Kashmir has been more lethal than the preceding ones. Those defeated in Afghanistan can’t be expected of much help in such an eventuality. Instead of persuading Americans to stay in Afghanistan, Indian state needs to take bold initiative on Kashmir. This is the only way to deal with the situation instead of becoming its victim.
For a while, Bakshi Ghulam Muhammad managed to camouflage the resistance through his cultural carnivals and his goga terror (Kashmiri distortion for Urdu gurga). The situation, however, instead of improving deteriorated further with Mirza Afzal Beigh organizing the resistance through Plebiscite Front (1955-1975). Election boycott, non cooperation, Jail Bharo used to be ways of defiance at this juncture. The peaceful resistance reached its climax in 1963 during Moi Muqadus agitation. Congress government in Delhi instead of responding to popular resistance tried to blunt the people’s movement through economic packages, legal and administrative measures aimed at integration of the state with Indian union. Kashmir plunged into insurgency in 1965 catalyzing Indo-Pak war. Americans betrayed Pakistan and imposed embargo on supply of military hardware to it.
The continuation of embargo made Pakistan vulnerable and resulted in its dismemberment in 1971. The Kashmir resistance opted for a ‘look-East policy’ and tried to emulate the strategy adopted by Sheikh Mujeeb-ur-Rahman’s Awami League for secession from Pakistan. The strategy involved participation in elections and using electoral mandate as a justification for separation. Delhi, scared of this mode of resistance, imposed a ban on Plebiscite Front and did not allow it to join electoral fray. Shiekh Abdullah could participate in elections only after he dumped Plebiscite Front and transformed it into National Conference. Other actors which included Jama’at-e-Islami and Awami Action Committee (AAC) were perceived to be too insignificant and allowed to join electoral fray directly or indirectly. Using elections for mobilization continued to be a policy with these groups until 1987. Whole of society, especially the younger generation participated in these elections with the same intention that the mandate will be used as a justification for secession. Rulers of Delhi too made it a point to manipulate the election results and triggered the militant phase of resistance.
Youth disillusioned with electoral process for achievement of their aspirations ultimately resorted to gun in 1990. The events in Punjab and Afghanistan provided motivation for armed resistance. Defeat and dismemberment of Soviet Union at the hands of Afghan Mujahideen emboldened Kashmiri youth and militant resistance became a predominant way of fight for Azadi. New Delhi responded with promises of negotiated settlement while at the same time using ruthless force to suppress the insurgency. Narasimha Rao, the then prime minister of India, promised self-rule with “Sky as its limit”. Despite use of third generation renegades (Nabid’s) the resistance didn’t subside. Forced by continuation of resistance, BJP government offered ceasefire to Hizbul Mujahideen. The pressure of resistance compelled it to the extent of sending its Foreign Minister, Jaswant Singh, along with Masood Azhar, the head of Jaish-e-Muhammad to Kandhar for negotiations. Vajpayee’s ceasefire offer to Hizb and Jaswant Singh’s visit to Kandhar was not a concession but a compulsion. Indian state also proceeded for negotiations with Pakistan with which it had lost the edge of superiority in conventional warfare on account of nuclearization of the subcontinent.
While these processes were on, the events of 9/11 changed the equations in favour of India. US mobilized the world against all sorts of armed freedom movements and dubbed these as manifestations of terrorism. The tirade against the so-called “terrorism” was pursued with such ruthlessness that the mastermind of Kargil conflict, Gen Pervez Musharraf, lost his nerves. Musharraf embarked upon U-Turn in its Kashmir policy. Pakistani postures unnerved a segment of the Hurriyat leadership which too found in it an avenue of reconciliation with the status quo in the name of realism and self-rule. Indian state perceived War on Terror as a permanent phenomenon. Instead of taking advantage and settling the issue it engaged in hoodwinking the Kashmiris, while engaging in “do more” rhetoric towards Pakistan. The situation to their dismay proved to be temporary. American War on Terror started to prove as a biggest fiasco for the sole super power. On one side US continued to receive a beeline of body bags from Afghanistan on the other side its economy plunged into recession. The situation made Kashmiri masses to rejuvenate and adopt a different way of resistance. The ‘Look-East policy’ of pre-90s was substituted by policy of looking towards Middle East. Intifada of Palestinians became their role model. Youth and resilient segment of leadership started to use demonstrations and ensuing clashes involving throwing of stones as a new technique. There was nothing new in it in terms of modus operandi; the only new element within it was conscious involvement of committed youngsters. The 2008 Amarnath Land Row catalyzed a mass mobilization in favor of this mode of resistance. It dissipated all illusions about Kashmiris having reconciled to the status quo on account of depletion of levels of militancy. Kashmiri youth continued with this pattern of resistance even after Amarnath Land Row. The resistance, however, remained confined to towns and cities with leaders opting a lukewarm approach towards it. Some self-styled intellectuals and Muftis even ridiculed this mode of resistance. The Quit Kashmir Movement of Hurriyat Conference led by Syed Ali Shah Geelani and Civil Disobedience Movement of Hurriyat (M) however, conferred ownership and legitimacy to this mode of resistance. With Pakistan formally abandoning Musharraf’s four-point formula and different segments of Hurriyat speaking in same length and line, Kashmir again stands mobilized from one corner to another. The mobilization transcends even Amarnath agitation of 2008 and Moi Muqaddas agitation of 1963. The response to this movement has taken beyond Pir Panchal. It has created an impact in Chenab Valley, Poonch and Rajouri too. It has erased the illusions that Kashmiris have submitted to the status quo on account of their participation in elections. This new phase has enabled Kashmiris to manage survival of their resistance through worst times when their aspiration for Azadi was sought to be buried forever in the name of fight against terrorism. Rulers of Delhi are again behaving as ostriches by involving in acts of self-deceit through media censorship and oppression. This attitude is sought to be justified through misinterpretations and manipulations of agency sponsored Kashmir experts. New Delhi is probably waiting for departure of Americans from Afghanistan so that non-state actors again get a chance to get involved and Indian state ‘avails’ an opportunity of dispatching its Foreign Minister for negotiations to Kandhar. Those having confidence of defeating two super powers can prove to be more lethal than the ones India faced in 90’s. Being at war with it, Pakistani state too can’t control their Kashmir involvement. Irrespective of postures given through recent Donors Conference at Kabul, Americans are surely leaving that country. The US too has confirmed it through reduction of four billion US dollar aid to the Karzai administration. No one in Kashmir expects Quit Kashmir Movement of Geelani and Civil Disobedience Movement of Mirwaiz to fetch them Azadi immediately, but these movements like Quit India Movement have surely mobilized the Kashmiri society for post 2011 scenario. Sense of non achievement can drive Kashmiri youth towards another cycle of insurgency. Every new phase of resistance in Kashmir has been more lethal than the preceding ones. Those defeated in Afghanistan can’t be expected of much help in such an eventuality. Instead of persuading Americans to stay in Afghanistan, Indian state needs to take bold initiative on Kashmir. This is the only way to deal with the situation instead of becoming its victim.
Published in Greater Kashmir dated 31 July 2010
No comments:
Post a Comment