A package without content

Why didn't PM announce it when all was well in Kashmir

KASHMIR BY DR. SHEIKH SHOWKAT HUSSAIN

After two months of bloodshed and mass mobilization, Manmohan Singh finally uttered a few words on Kashmir. One wonders as to why it took so long for PM to express his views on Kashmir despite the fact that the mobilization in Kashmir had reached such an extent that mobs were targeting everything that symbolized India in every nook and corner of the valley. Had it not been the intervention of Syed Ali Shah Geelani, things would have taken an ugly and irrevocable turn by the time Manmohan Singh responded. The speech of Prime Minister was in chaste Urdu which he as well as Kashmiris understand better, but instead of addressing the problem he kept his focus on symptoms. He did not use the term stone pelters for agitating people nor did attribute mobilization to foreign hand as was done by his Home Minister. He did not mention that the mobilization is confined to few assembly constituencies or Police stations as his Chief Minister of the State would like him to believe. He acknowledged that Kashmir is a political problem and needs to be addressed politically. The solutions suggested by him however didn’t go beyond Autonomy and Economic packages. He offered some lollipops to the boys who he felt remained alienated from India. He mentioned that Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA) can be modified. All these measures according to him can be pursued only when there is peace and younger generation of Kashmir returns to Schools, Colleges and Universities.

            One may ask why Manmohan Singh didn’t address these issues during his previous visit to Kashmir when the valley was relatively peaceful and boys and girls of the valley remained within their educational institutions and Prime Minister had a chance to address them at SKUAST-K (Sher-e Kashmir University of Agricultural Sciences and Technology). At that juncture he simply confined himself to address the issues relating to development and scarcity of commodities. Elaboration for this attitude of Prime Minister was provided by a columnist of a National Daily that he did not need to do so as everything in Kashmir was moving positively towards strengthening the Status Quo. The peace which he perceives to be indispensable for any political package was at that time interpreted to be a symbol of Kashmiri acceptance to their association with India. It is not for the first time that Manmohan Singh expressed about inhuman dimensions of AFSPA. In 2005 during his address on Aug 15, he had uttered similar words and promised to make Armed Forces Special Powers Act sensitive to Human Rights. Why New Delhi didn’t take any action in this direction for past five years though the peace it aspires today did exist.

            There is nothing new in the promise of Autonomy. The offer of Manmohan Singh was preceded by “anything within the ambit of Humanity” by Atal Bihari Vajpayee and “sky is the Limit” of self rule of Kashmiris by Narsimha Rao. Both these promises were made when India  was facing adverse situation on the ground. Nothing concrete came out of these declarations as soon as militancy was contained and mass upsurge in Kashmir became dormant. This in spite of the fact that National Conference sent a detailed Report on Autonomy to New Delhi after its adoption by the State Legislature. Having seen the fate of previous promises and NC proposals, how Kashmiris can be expected to take the latest promises made by Manmohan Singh seriously. The issue of Autonomy has another dimension as well. Kashmir had Autonomy prior to 1953. Its relation with Indian Union dejure remained confined to Defense, Currency, Foreign Affairs and Communication. The de facto situation even at that juncture enabled India to dismiss the Prime Minister and get him arrested through a local police officer. Article 370 of the Indian constitution provided that any changes in these relations can only be made with the concurrence of the State Constituent Assembly, New Delhi kept extending its constitutional provisions to Jammu and Kashmir even after abolition of the J&K Constituent Assembly in 1957. The issue of Autonomy thus pertains to restoring what has been grabbed even within the parameters of Article 370. This can be achieved by an ordinary person through Public Interest Litigation from the Supreme Court. The rider of unanimity associated with the promise is an oblique reference to concurrence of people of Jammu and Ladakh.

Such references and conditions remain ingrained in the concoction that people of Non Muslim dominated Districts of Jammu and Ladakh can feel insecure in autonomous state of Jammu and Kashmir. If Hindus of Jammu and Buddhists of Ladakh can feel insecure in Autonomous state of Jammu and Kashmir, Kashmiri Muslims remain justified to feel insecure within India. The socio-economic indicators of progress of Jammu and Ladakh belie the apprehensions of Jammu and Ladakh whereas; horrifying experience of Kashmiri association with India substantiates their argument for secession.

The statement of Manmohan Singh has no takers in Kashmir; Syed Ali Shah Geelani rejected it. Moderates who in past put their popularity on stake for participation in dialogue too discarded it. In such a scenario the one option that remains with New Delhi is to proceed towards this formulation of Autonomy unilaterally or with the concurrence of its assumed “representative government” in J&K. Given the fact that Bhartiya Janata Party (BJP) is opposing this formulation on inception it remains doubtful whether Manmohan Singh can proceed to enact it even if he wishes. The tragedy with Bhartiya Janata Party is that it proceeds for ceasefire with Hizbul Mujahideen and sending Jaswant Singh to Kandahar while in power. Once out of power the same party advocates scrapping of Article 370 of the Indian Constitution while its parent body Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sang (RSS) advocates change of Kashmir Demography. Positive approach of Communists however can still facilitate the Package provided Prime Minister Manmohan Singh means what he says other option is to accept the demands of demilitarization, release of prisoners, withdrawal AFSPA and set a time frame for a meaningful dialogue as demanded by Mirwaiz. Separatist voices of Kashmir can’t be expected to subside unless the dominant sentiment of Kashmiris is addressed. Urge for self determination continues to become irresistible with every death of innocent and on every sight of instruments of oppression be they in the form of Army, Rapid Action Force (RAF) or Paramilitary Forces.

Published in Greater Kashmir dated 18 Aug 2010

Indian interpretation of quit J&K movement

by DR. SHEIKH SHOWKAT HUSSAIN

Quit Jammu and Kashmir Movement was apparently conceived during Amarnath land row agitation (2008). Shopian double rape and murder case (2009) and its mismanagement provided Hurriyat Conference (G) an avenue of experimenting it. The plan was executed in 2010. In terms of its intensity it surpassed Quit Kashmir Movement of 1946 and Quit India Movement of 1942.

The level of mobilization which Kashmir is experiencing remains unparalleled in Kashmir History. Moi-e-Muqadas agitation (1963) and Amarnath land row saw a mobilization but not as determined prolonged and widespread as Kashmir is experiencing today.
In Quit Kashmir Movement of 1946 the centre of activity remained Khanqah-e-Maula and Pather Masjid. Every mosque of Kashmir from Kangan to Kishtiwar reverberates with slogans of Azaadi nowadays. There were twenty two recorded deaths during Quit Kashmir Movementmostly in Srinagar. Nowadays, police firing is causing death everywhere from Trehgam to Kulgam. The movement refuses to die down despite 104 deaths and arrest of thousands of youth and political workers. This huge mobilization has invoked a lot of media attention. It has triggered a Kashmir centric discourse both within Indian Parliament and its mass media. The projection however, instead of acknowledging it as a mobilization for freedom and reflection of peoples aspiration of self determination manipulates it and tries to give it varying interpretations conducive to protection of Indian interests.
In the early phases of this movement the mobilization was attributed to power politics between National Conference (NC) and its rival Peoples Democratic Party (PDP). Early debates relating to Kashmir situation saw Omar Abdullah and Mehbooba Mufti pitted against one another on talk shows. One elaborating it as mechanization of an irresponsible opposition, while other describing it as fallout of administrative mismanagement. Essence of the discourse surrounded around the idea that an opposition party PDP is doing it in order to see the Chief Minister out. Syed Ali Shah Geelani pricked this propaganda balloon soon after his release by stating that resistance perceives everyone ruling Kashmir as puppet of New Delhi and is least bothered about the power politics between pro Indian parties. Recent discourse of Farooq Abdullah attributing stone throwing to funding of PDP is an attempt to give a new lease of life to this interpretation.
The next projection of ‘Quit J&K Movement’ came from Indian home minister himself who ascribed the stone throwing to foreign hand operating in the form of ISI and Lashkar-e-Toiba. The pathetic situation of Pakistan on account of unprecedented floods nullified this interpretation and none in the world was impressed by it. Strong exception taken by foreign minister of Pakistan to similar statements emanating in context of Hotel Taj attack of Mumbai 7/11 and subsequent snub that Indian home secretary received from PM office put the last nail in the coffin of this discourse. In his next statement before Indian Parliament home minister acknowledged that J&K state was experiencing Quit J&K Movement and people are demanding Azaadi.
The acknowledgement however, did not halt the campaign of misinterpretation launched by Indian media against ‘Quit J&K Movement’. The movement was described as an outburst of anarchic stone throwing youth which were not under the control of anyone and bent upon a senseless rampage and devastation. This interpretation too fizzled out as soon as the spree of arson came to an end by a single statement of the ailing Hurriyat Leader. Syed Ali Shah Geelani who withstood Indian oppression and General Musharraf’s manipulations made it clear that he can’t tolerate the deviant behavior of those who are involved in the freedom struggle. Next elaboration was much more nefarious. Indian media tried to exploit and experiment age old divide and rule colonial tactics. Some misplaced utterances of Moulana Abaas Ansari were highlighted as if there was a substantial divide between Shias and Sunnis. For a day Indian news channels continued to telecast “good news” from Kashmir that Shias are going to create their own Hurriyat Conference and there is an emerging divide between different sects of Muslims relating to the freedom struggle. This “good news” turned out to be a nightmare for the colonial mindset when people from Shia dominated Zadibal area asked Mirwaiz Umar Farooq to organize a rally within the area and Shia population gave vent to their aspiration for Azaadi in an unequivocal manner. The interpretation of division within Muslim Community thus doomed. State sponsored Media had to invent a new campaign against the ongoing uprising.
Sikhs in Kashmir lived here during peak of militancy and shared the ordeals of the conflict along with their Muslim neighbours. Apart from the agency managed incidents of Chattisinghpora no Sikh ever experienced any problem during whole era of militancy. Despite attempts of the state to motivate Sikhs to migrate from Kashmir, the community refused migration out rightly and tied its destiny to the fate of Kashmiri society as a whole. They were not motivated to leave Kashmir even by luxurious packages showered upon Kashmiri Pandit migrants by the Indian state. Kashmiris remain grateful to this community and have no reason to get pitted against it. Some mysterious letters written to members of the community were blown out of proportion in order to portray Kashmirresistance as a communal movement. It is unfortunate that the politicians who have failed to penalize perpetrators of a carnage involving massacre of thousands of Sikhs in the aftermath of Indra Gandhi’s assassination in 1986 started to shed crocodile tears for the community in Kashmir. Sikhs sensing the mischief instead of invoking state protection reached out to Hurriyat leadership, thus, foiled this distortion of Kashmirresistance as well.
Having failed on this account media version of Kashmir resistance got reoriented. Aspiration of Kashmiris for Azaadi was acknowledged but Kashmiris were portrayed as a divided lot. The Azaadi sentiment was projected to be the sole ‘Quit Jammu and Kashmir Movement’ was apparently conceived during Amarnath land row agitation (2008). Shopian double rape and murder case (2009) and its mismanagement provided Hurriyat Conference (G) an avenue of experimenting it. The plan was executed in 2010. In terms of its intensity it surpassed Quit Kashmir Movement of 1946 and Quit India Movement of 1942. The level of mobilization which Kashmir is experiencing remains unparalleled in Kashmir History. Moi-e-Muqadas agitation (1963) and Amarnath land row saw a mobilization but not as determined prolonged and widespread as Kashmir is experiencing today.
In Quit Kashmir Movement of 1946 the centre of activity remained Khanqah-e-Maula and Pather Masjid. Every mosque of Kashmir from Kangan to Kishtiwar reverberates with slogans of Azaadi nowadays. There were twenty two recorded deaths during Quit Kashmir Movementmostly in Srinagar. Nowadays, police firing is causing death everywhere from Trehgam to Kulgam. The movement refuses to die down despite 104 deaths and arrest of thousands of youth and political workers. This huge mobilization has invoked a lot of media attention. It has triggered a Kashmir centric discourse both within Indian Parliament and its mass media. The projection however, instead of acknowledging it as a mobilization for freedom and reflection of peoples aspiration of self determination manipulates it and tries to give it varying interpretations conducive to protection of Indian interests.

Published in Kashmir Dispatch dated 01 Nov 2010

Changing the character of Kashmir

WHOSE CONSPIRACY?

IS CENSUS AN ATTEMPT TO CHANGE THE DEMOGRAPHY OF THE STATE, DR. SHEIKH SHOWKAT HUSSAIN COMMENTS ON THE CENSUS AND ITS AUTHENTICITY

The subject of Census has been a matter of debate. Not only sociologists or population experts, but it has been seriously concerning some conscious Kashmiris. Representatives of Kashmir, whichever side they belong to, have expressed their worry about some changes which can have far reaching effects on the very character of state in general and state in particular.
In a statement, Senior Separatist leader Syed Ali Shah Geelani alleged that the census in Kashmir is simply an exercise of manipulation of figures through which, continuous decline of Muslim population is depicted. It is not for the first time that doubts have been expressed about authenticity of the census process in Jammu & Kashmir. In 2000, Saifuudin Soz, present day Congress President of J&K expressed similar views and appealed Hurriyat and Hizb-ul-mujahidin to intervene in the process. Similar statements were issued by Sheikh Abdullah and Farooq Abdullah in eighties. An allegation of manipulation of census figures is an issue over which pro India and separatist parties have similar views. These allegations have created a deficit of credibility of census process thus deserve a serious notice on the part of all those concerned.
Jammu & Kashmir had 78% Muslims according to 1941 census. Division of Kashmir had its impact upon demography of the state. The percentage of Muslims within Indian administered zone remained only 72%. In 1951, there was no census in Kashmir. According to 1961 census, the Muslim percentage was projected to be only 69%. The decline became manifest with every successive census operation. 1971 census depicted Muslim population to be 67%. The percentage provided by 1981 census remained 65%. In 1991, census was not held in J&K. As a result of uproar and public anger, the percentage depicted positive trends in 2001. Muslim Percentage this time remained 67%. Had this population grown in similar way as Muslim population grew elsewhere in the world and in India, Muslim demography of J&K should have shown positive trends all along.  In India, Muslims were ten percent of the total population in 1951. Today, this percentage has become almost 15%. The population growth among Muslims has been higher as compared to other communities across the globe. Apart from religious taboos associated with various means of contraception, higher growth rate of Muslim population within India is attributed to less level of affluence and literacy. Kashmiri Muslims too, remain less literate and less affluent as compared to non Muslims of J&K, yet they are depicted to be having different demographic trends as compared to Muslims of India. Muslims sense of insecurity becomes acute when demands about coercive demographic transformation of state are made by BJP (Bharatiya Janata Party) and RSS (Rashtriya Swaymsevak Sangh). RSS chief made a specific demand for demographic transformation of J&K on January, 27th at Bhubaneswar. ORAGNISER, official magazine of RSS also pleads for demographic transformation and perceives it to be the only solution of Kashmir problem.
It is in this background that Kashmiris have become skeptical about the census and this scepticism is given a voice by leaders.  One doesn’t need to go for a research to understand the manipulations made by census department in context of J&K population. In 1971, J&K had only 42000 people whose mother tongue was Hindi. 1981 census inflates this figure to 1012808. On face of it one can attribute this 2200% increase in the population of Hindi speakers to popularity of Hindi. But once one analyzes the figures provided by census, some different conclusions get reflected. The decadal increase of Hindi speaking population should have been associated with reciprocal decline in the number of those who speak Kashmiri and Dogri- two prime languages of the state. Decadal growth of Kashmiri speakers is 30% and that of Dogri speakers 27%. This increase is in line with decadal growth of 29 % of population of the state as a whole. One wonders where these Hindi speaking persons came from. It is obvious that this increase in numbers is result of manipulation of figures. 1971 census had 360000 Gojri speakers. Gojri doesn’t find a mention in 1981 census. It is obvious the all nomad Gojars and Bakerwals have been depicted as Hindi speakers in the census. 
Whatever deficiency remained, that has been made up by enumerating non state subjects along with state subjects within the census. It seems members of security agencies as well as migrant labourers have been added to the figures of state population within the census. The fact gets confirmed when one browses through linguistic mosaic of the state. The census depicts that we have people with Tamil, Telugu, Assamese, Bhojpuri, Marathi, Gujarati, Malayalam and Kannada as their mother tongue in J&K. It is obvious that this is nothing but reflection of enumeration of non state subjects along with natives within the census. Given the historical facts, this development can’t be seen in isolation. Apart from context of final disposition of J&K state, demographic transformation has another angle as well. The angle pertains to disempowerment of the Muslim majority sought by Right wing Hindu Nationalists. BJP & RSS have been consistently demanding delimitation of constituencies to state legislature on the basis of concocted figures of the census. Prof. Bhim Singh filed a writ petition in J&K high Court for this purpose. J&K High Court dismissed it off but Bhim Singh has proceeded to Supreme Court for this purpose. Manipulation of census figures and subsequent demands for delimitation of constituencies is nothing but RSS plan in practice to transform Kashmir into another Palestine. Reluctance of New Delhi to enter into a serious dialogue for resolution of Kashmir problem is in anticipation of this demographic transformation. Purpose is to defer resolution until the majority of Kashmir is transformed into minority.
A media hype is being created that separatists this time support the census. The supporting exercise without any reservations regarding authenticity seems to be fulfillment of an assignment to authenticate concocted figures of past and future.    
Census is a process of enumeration of population embarked upon by the state. It goes on irrespective of support of anyone. Even if there is no exercise of collection of data, states make projections through Sampling Method or taking Mean of previous and future census. The issue is not that of support to census or its opposition, but its authenticity and credibility. We don’t need to stand to be counted. When we participated whole heartedly in 1981, the reward was discount of population our count was 65% and we boycotted in 2001, the count was 67%. Our standing up hardly mattered. Everyone agrees that in J&K census has not been credible either because of manipulation of figures or because of the procedures detrimental to the interests of natives of state and its majority. The leaders instead of making noise about Participation or Non participation should make sure that it doesn’t become an instrument of transforming Muslim majority character of the state. Same is true about columnists.  Instead of behaving as poster boys of status quo and writing columns that seem to be nothing other than elaboration of information department posters, the subject demands serious treatment based on facts and figures.   This is a duty which we owe to our future generations irrespective of our association with any shade of political opinion.

Published in Greater Kashmir dated 04 May 2010

Kashmir and Indian Communists

Those who opposed Quit India movement during Indian Freedom Struggle can’t be expected to support the ongoing Quit Jammu & Kashmir movement

Dr Sheikh Showkat Hussain

Mr Prakash Karat General Secretary, Communist Party of India described Kashmir situation as extremely serious and discarded the policy of Indian State to shower bullets against stone pelting youth of Kashmir.

He asked Government of India to recognize special status of the state and treat it “as a special case”. In an interview to Kashmir Times he portrayed Home Minister of India Chidambaram behaving as a viceroy rather than the home minister of a democratic state. He also stressed the need for a meaningful dialogue with Pakistan and pro-freedom parties of Kashmir. But all these words of concern relating to Kashmir lost their meaning once he expressed his views that autonomy for J & K is the solution of the Kashmir dispute.
In spite of being a dynamic comrade and taking strong positions on various issues facing India, Mr Karat didn’t embark upon a paradigm shift in context of Kashmir. This despite the fact that Moscow  and Beijing have ceased to be Vaticans for Communist parties and  there is no scope for Communist Parties remaining hostage to strategic interests of Former Communist dominions.  Failure of Communist Parties of India to take a forth right stand on Kashmir in line with aspirations of Kashmiri people is rooted in their past that has been essentially anti-Kashmir. Communist Parties of India in the beginning attracted dedicated and sincere workers. Subsequently, elite from exploiting classes joined communist movement and assumed its leadership. The masses which they exploited previously as feudals and capitalists started to get exploited by the same people as leaders of working classes. No wonder Maoists and Naxalites in east India target CPI and CPM as well perceiving them as instruments of status quo. Leaders of the Communist parties were used by Indian state to lobby with Russians and Chinese for their support towards its Kashmir policy. As a result of communist lobbying, Russians declared accession of Jammu and Kashmir with India to be legitimate in 1955 on visit of Bulganian and Kruschew to Srinagar. Subsequently Soviet Union blocked implementation of UN Resolutions pertaining to Right of Self-determination for Kashmiris through use of veto in UN Security Council. In 1956 Chinese followed the suit and for a while supported accession of Jammu and Kashmir with India to be legitimate.  The Chinese policy, however, changed subsequently as a result of Indo-China conflict of 1962 and Indian receptiveness to Dalai Lama. They became supporters of Right to Self-Determination for Kashmiris. Chinese support culminated into meeting between Sheikh Abdullah and Chinese Prime minister Chou En Lai in 1967 at Algiers. Sheikh Abdullah was detained soon after his arrival from Algiers.   
Upto 1965, no Indian Party was allowed to have its branch in Kashmir.  Communist Party of India in 1965 for the first time set up its unit in Jammu thus became a collaborator in facilitating coercive assimilation of the state with India. State Unit of CPI (M) is viewed as an extension of intelligence agencies by masses.  Though communists came to power in West Bengal as a result of alienation of Muslims from Congress after 1965 Indo-Pak, the war led to large scale arrest of Muslims throughout India. Muslims who traditionally voted for Congress shifted their loyalties towards opposition. As a result of this shift communists made big strides towards power in West Bengal in 1967 election with Muslim support. But this shift didn’t in anyway help in elevation of socio-economic development of the community.  Muslims of Bengal, according to Sachar Committee, report are at lowest position throughout India in terms of economic and social development. It was communist Brahmin intrigue unleashed and conceptualized by D P Dhar Indian Ambassador to Soviet Union in 1971 that led to dismemberment of Pakistan and segregation of Bangladesh from it.
Conceptually, communists of India have been trapped in an error of generalization equating Hindu radicalism and Islamic radicalism as instruments of imperialism. This assumption is still adhered to despite the fact that it is Islamic radicalism which is confronting the US imperialism after the end of the Cold War. Same has been their error in context of their approach towards religion. Marxian paradigm viewed religion as opium for the people. Marxian view was based on Euro-centric understanding of history where Catholicism had definitely been an instrument of exploitation. They applied this notion to all religions and failed to come to terms with religion as an instrument of struggle against exploitation and tyranny. This remains true about Islam which created a revolution even during autumn of communism under the leadership of Imam Khomeini. Communism has vanished as a global political power on account of its failure to reinterpret its doctrines in varying circumstances of space and time plus the corruption that infested it as a result of its tryst with power.
Communist parties in India too remain vulnerable to this fate if they are unable to change.   Communist power in India is already experiencing autumn with unprecedented loses in local body elections of Bengal. Kashmir cause has survived communist hostility in past. It is surely going to survive as long as Kashmiri masses remain dedicated to it. The type of devotion and sacrifices Kashmiris are rendering for their right of self determination will surely bear the fruit irrespective of the fact whether Indian Communists support it or not. Those who opposed Quit India Movement during Indian Freedom Struggle can’t be expected to support the ongoing Quit Jammu & Kashmir movement.

Publsihed in Rising Kashmir dated 25 Nov 2010

Lasting solution to Kashmir dispute

By Dr Sheikh Showkat Hussain

For the first time in his political career Syed Ali Shah Geelani raised issues apart from his ideal i.e. the freedom of Kashmir. While reiterating his demand for freedom he asked the Indian state to fulfill his five conditions so that he can re-mould his agitation calendar. He at the same time conveyed that if these conditions are not fulfilled he may have to intensify the ongoing Quit Jammu and Kashmir Movement.

The five points apparently are a response to moderate separatist leaders demand for articulation on immediate concerns of Kashmiri society. The threat of intensification of agitation is directed towards New Delhi which while making countless promises has remained ruthless towards the wide spread unprecedented mobilization of Kashmir. The five points were surprising for New Delhi as it had never anticipated such incremental approach from a hard liner. Media reports indicated receptiveness of New Delhi to consider the points to normalize the deteriorating law and order situation. But its unwillingness to accept Jammu and Kashmir as a disputed territory seems to be impediment towards this line of action. Failure of the all parties meeting to come up with any response to these five points has depicted impotence of Indian state to take bold decisions and initiatives. The decision to send all parties’ delegation to Kashmir sounds illogical given the fact that most of those who participated in the discussion in all parties meeting appear to be unfamiliar or unwilling to understand the realities of Kashmir. It wouldn’t be out of place to suggest an orientation course on Kashmir for the new emerging breed of Indian leaders prior to their Kashmir engagements.  

CBMs

One wonders why Indian state should be unwilling to acceptance of Jammu and Kashmir as internationally disputed territory. Indian state has no logic for its hesitation to acknowledge Kashmir as a dispute. It has been doing so ever since the state was taken over by India through scandalous and unpopular deal of accession. The letter written by Governor General Mountbatten to Maharaja Hari Singh on  October 28, 1947 communicated that the acceptance of accession is provisional and subject to its ratification by  people of the state. Same was conveyed by the PM Nehru to Kashmiri’s, Pakistan and the United Nations for years consistently. It was Nehru who proposed that future of the state should be decided through a plebiscite under UN supervision. It was Indian state which proceeded with Kashmir dispute to the UN. Acceptance of Kashmir as a dispute is thus acknowledgement of Nehruian legacy of which Congress claims to be the custodian. Though India projected endorsement of accession by the State Constituent Assembly as ratification of accession by people of the state, UN disputed this assertion through several resolutions of its Security Council. India again agreed to settlement of J&K dispute through Shimla Agreement in 1972 and Lahore Declaration in 1998 during BJP rule. India continues to host UN observer’s mission in Srinagar and Delhi thus indicating Kashmir remains a disputed territory on the agenda of the UN. Indian government lead by Atal Behari Vajpayee entered into ceasefire with Hizbul Mujahideen (HM) the prime pro-freedom militant group of Kashmir thus giving implied recognition to insurgency. Recognition of Kashmir as dispute is thus part of BJP legacy as well.  

Another important demand raised by Hurriyat (G) and another faction pertains to de-militarisation of J&K state. It is obvious that the demand is not of relocation of troops nor for relieving them from assignments normally taken care of by civilian administration though both remain indispensable for a genuine withdrawal. It is demand of withdrawal of Indian forces from J & K state thus associated with call of its monitoring through some credible International agency. The first step in this direction demands pronouncement of facts and figures by Indian state as to number of its soldiers in J&K. A detailed list of military and paramilitary formations along with information about their assignments and area of land under their disposal is necessary to make withdrawal exercise assessable. Previous exercises of unilateral troop withdrawal proved to be bogus in absence of such information. Monitoring of this withdrawal by some credible agency e.g., United Nations Military Observers Group for India and Pakistan (UNMOGIP) already present in J&K will make this exercise authentic. The process of withdrawal has to be simultaneous in all the districts and preferably to be initiated from district head quarters.

The third demand raised is that Indian state must agree to   try its errant soldiers for war crimes and
its prime minister should assure that henceforth no excesses will be committed. The point involves investigation of mass graves, disappearances, custodial killings, use of rape and torture as weapons of war by the armed forces. It also includes investigation of other crimes particularly those perpetrated against children and women. Hurriyat has yet to clarify whether the investigation has to be through a domestic adjudicating forum or an international tribunal. War crimes have remained exclusive domain of international tribunals in Nuremberg, Tokyo, Bosnia, and Rwanda.  Revocation of Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA), Disturbed Areas Act (DAA) and Public Safety Act (PSA) constitutes another demand of separatists. These are emergency legislations meant to be used as adhoc measures to deal with law and order problems. A polity which survives on these for decades needs to take stock of its own legitimacy.  AFSPA is a central legislation over which Delhi has to take an initiative whereas Public Safety Act (PSA)   and Disturbed Areas Act (DAA) are state legislations revocable by the state.    State government can initiate action in this context on its own thus help in building up of pressure against New Delhi for a similar action.

An important demand of Hurriyat pertains to release of all political prisoners and withdrawal of cases pending against Kashmiri’s for the past 20 years. These include cases against the youth, politicians and former militants. The cases and prisoners   remain scattered within J&K and various states of India. The litigations demanded to be withdrawn, of course are the ones that are incidental to the political mobilization of past twenty years. These are not crimes per se but acts for which one is neither liable to extradition nor trial as an ordinary criminal. Unfortunately Indian state has always over looked this aspect of these litigations.  General amnesty has always been a pre-requisite for any peace process. Pandit Nehru set precedent of it by withdrawing Kashmir Conspiracy Case against Sheikh Abdullah and issuing him passport as a Kashmiri {not Indian} in 1964. Abdullah proceeded to Pakistan on this passport to negotiate with Field Marshal Ayub Khan. Abdullah demanded it for himself and got it. Geelani is demanding it for all, be they stone pelters, militants or politicians. Most of the cases remain pending within J&K and state government does not need approval from New Delhi to withdraw these. Pending cases have made lives of former militants miserable as they cannot pursue their normal life while contesting real or concocted court cases. Inability to secure employment and enjoy normal life makes them vulnerable to exploitation. They often become soft targets for corrupt officials and security agencies. They are always subjected to various uses and abuses on account of their vulnerability. We have innumerable instances of former militants getting targeted during normal law and order problems. While addressing this demand the plight of those Kashmiri youth should not be over looked who have been implicated in false cases across India. Fulfillment of this demand can’t be visualized without honorable release and rehabilitation of Kashmiris lodged in various Indian jails.

Kashmir remains tense. Any indifference towards these demands is fraught with risks of unanticipated consequences, according to Syed Ali Shah Geelani. In the background of this threat the situation can become irreversible if the powers that be take the demands in a casual manner. Illusions about Kashmiris reconciling with status quo remain   unrealistic to even   the state chief minister. This acknowledgement of the realities has to proceed beyond the state government. Indian state has to respond with positive measures. There can’t be any escape route from it if Manmohan Singh government is serious about peace in Kashmir. Do not be bad bargainers. Jinnah demanded 33 per cent seats of parliament. You refused and ended giving up 33% of undivided India to him.

The Solution

The five points mentioned above, however, remain confidence building measures not an ultimate solution. For ultimate solution Kashmiris need to be recognized as people who live within this planet. Being people they have an inalienable right to self determination under the very first common Article of the Human Rights Covenants (ICCPR, ICESCR). Being the ones living on this planet they remain entitled to be governed by the same norms which apply to resolutions of similar conflicts else where in the world. Kashmiris demand exercise of right of self determination on one more ground as well. Indian state has given a commitment to Kashmir and International community has endorsed it through resolutions of UN. Indispensability of self-determination for any peace has been beautifully portrayed by president Wilson of US as ‘No peace can last or ought to last which does not recognize and accept the principle that governments derive all their just powers from the consent of the governed and that no right anywhere exists to hand people about from sovereignty to sovereignty as if they were property’ President Wilson. L.C Chen. ‘Self Determination as a Human Right,’ in Riesman and Weston. (Ends Towards World Order and Human dignity 1976), 214 and the US and Self Determination, Perspectives on the Wilson Ian Conception, AJIL.

Response to Indian Apprehensions

The norms that governed the resolution of East Timor, Eritrea, and Montenegro in recent past remain relevant to Kashmir as well. Heterogeneity of population was not used as a pretext to deny the state of their choice to majorities of these states. 22 per cent dissenters to freedom of East Timor were obliged to accept the majority decision. Same was the case with 45 per cent dissenters to the independence of Montenegro.  Southern Sudan is also in process of getting resolved through a referendum. This being the globally accepted norm, for resolution of disputes pertaining to territories inhabited by people can’t be and should not be discarded in context of Kashmir. We don’t say that minorities living in various parts of Kashmir shouldn’t be allowed to exercise their choice but once a decision has been achieved on the basis of majority it has to be accepted by everyone. Minority can’t hold the majority as hostage. At the same time minorities deserve to be treated as equals in the dispensation that emerges out of majority decision with assurances related to their identity. Right to equality and identity is as sacrosanct right of the minorities as statehood of their choice is right of the majority. It is this perception of Kashmiris that makes them indifferent towards the apprehensions which are expressed relating to the situation of Indian minorities in case of secession of Kashmir from India. Muslims of India enjoy rights by virtue of being human beings and citizens of this vast country. The rights which they enjoy are not in lieu of hostage status of Kashmiris. Such a formulation is an insult to them and to the people of Kashmir. Secularism is part of preamble of your constitution and constitutes its basic structure. It is not a concession in exchange of subjugation of Kashmir.

 

We don’t digest the argument that borders have become irrelevant in the globalized world. Indian insistence on a solution involving no change of borders suffices to nullify it. Insistence on respect for irrelevant borders makes them very much relevant. Given the fact that India itself laid down the precedent of changing borders through its help in separation of Bangladesh from Pakistan, such argument looses all its weight.

We remain indifferent to allegations of out side support as well. We have emulated examples set by Indian nation in this respect. It is an established fact that Japanese supported Indian National Army you reciprocated by keeping your forces at the disposal of Bangladeshi secessionist movement. Despite the fact that right to receive and render support for freedom is not patented in your favour our movement at present remains exclusively indigenous.   

Scenario of a bloodbath too does not scare our youth. Two years ago, former foreign secretary of India Salman Haider, while responding to some of my comments observed that if China can have Olympics after Tiananmen Square massacre, India too can have Common Wealth games after a similar situation. If Yeltsin could be rewarded after devastating Grozny (capital of Chechnya) why can’t Indian state afford such events in Srinagar? At that juncture it was a fiction of his imagination. Today   it is looming large over Kashmir as a real scenario. New generations of Kashmir instead of getting haunted by death are chasing it on streets and lanes of the valley. When reminded of such scenarios including the ones that were orchestrated at Delhi in the aftermath of Indra Gandhi assassination their response remains nothing other than some slogans…Tum Goli maro Azaadi, Tum bhokay maro Azaadi , Tum pyaasay maro Azaadi , Tum khoon bahaawo Azaadi.  With passions for Azaadi running so high it is now up to Indian state to asses whether it is willing to proceed towards this scenario or respond to aspirations of Kashmir.

The view that secession of Kashmir will trigger a process of dismemberment of India is not well founded. If Pakistan could survive and compete with India after creation of Bangladesh why can’t India survive and prosper once relieved of Kashmir headache. Indian nationhood is not too fragile to be tied to association of Kashmir with it.

Your beneficiaries (Namak Khawr) in Kashmir will tell you that it is one more bubble (Hubaab) in the history of Kashmir resistance. It will die soon just give us some packages. You have cultivated so many of them who remain addicted to packages using every opportunity to grab them.   You have been giving these packages they couldn’t pacify the aspiration for Azaadi.

The situation may appear to have cooled down for some time but it will erupt again on slightest provocation like a dormant volcano with more lethality. Lull in resistance is guided by instinct of survival rather than reconciliation with the status quo as its beneficiaries may want you to believe. Kashmir has seen a transition from armed insurgency to a non violent mass movement. Whatever violence is seen in Kashmir at present it is perpetrated by instruments of the state. Sense of non achievement can push youth towards violence yet again. It does not auger well for any party.  Such a scenario can haunt as a reality after the departure of Americans from Afghanistan in 2011. The powers who are getting mauled and mutilated in Afghanistan and their so-called War on Terror cant be of much help in that eventuality. Given the fact that non state actors have gone beyond the control of Pakistani state now, any rapprochement with Pakistan too can’t be of any use unless you are ready to dispatch your foreign minister to Kandahar.

No doubt India remains stronger than it was in 1948, 1965 and 1990. Same remains true about its adversary as well. Through nuclearization of the sub-continent India has leveled its own superiority. You retaliated to insurgency of 1965 by attacking Haji Peer and Lahore. You could do no more than sending dossiers after Mumbai attacks. The options now remain limited to peaceful resolution of the issues or a protracted engagement in Kashmir. Fallouts of such an engagement can’t remain localized in a globalized world and era of information technology.   

I conclude my presentation with the prophecy of Mahatma Gandhi which he made in a letter to a great son of Kashmir, Pandit Prem Nath Bazaz, “Seeing that Kashmir is predominantly Mussalman it is bound one day to become a Mussalman State. A Hindu prince can therefore only rule by not ruling i.e., by allowing the Mussalmans to do as they like and by abdicating when they are manifestly going wrong” (Bazaz, Kashmir in crucible p.176)

The paper was presented in a seminar at India Habitat Centre, New Delhi

Support yes; assimilation no!

By Dr Sheikh Showkat Hussain

Sermons need to be given to Indians of every hue and ideology, especially the ones who matter, in order to mobilise them to come to terms with Kashmir

Right from 1947, Kashmiris have refused to get assimilated within India despite the fact that Indian state tried to go for it in a coercive manner by erasing local content within curriculum and official discourse. Official media, both print and electronic, was blatantly used for cultural proselytisation while private media was often hoodwinked or bribed to pursue the official agenda.

The attitude of Kashmiri’s doesn’t remain confined to the official campaign of assimilation but transcends beyond that. In spite of being Muslims their way of celebration of festivals remains more central Asian than south Asian. The dates of festivals are often at variance with the ones on which these are observed by Muslims in mainland India. It is not specific to Muslims only other communities too depict this difference. Religious and political movements in spite of sharing ideologies remained locally oriented.
There was much in common between Muslim League and Muslim Conference ideologically, yet structurally the two organisations remained apart. Congress and National Conference looked the politics of pre-partition era with the same perspective yet the organisations remained different.  This didn’t stop here even the cadre based organisations like Jamaat-e- Islami in spite of sharing the doctrines and organisational pattern with its counterparts in the subcontinent remains separated from them. Attempts of coercive assimilation boomeranged and Kashmir got de-stabilised in a big way once Indian political parties started to operate in Kashmir since 1964. Sheikh Abdullah, who patronized ‘Mahaaz-e-Raishumari’ at that juncture tried to block this encroachment within Kashmiri domain by launching Non-Cooperation movement against those who joined Indian National Congress. For the policy makers in Delhi, 1964 might be hallmark of integration but at social level it remains the beginning of an era of alienation from Indian state that has culminated in the form of militancy and post-militancy mass resistance. In spite of utter failure of this strategy, the state seems to be in a mood try it again. This time they are seeking assimilation of resistance with those who are pitted against Indian state for different social and community centric demands. Recent conference by some Moulvis of Deoband must be seen in this context. The organisers don’t represent entire Deoband but that school of thought within it for whom Indian Nationalism has always been an article of faith. Hussain Ahmad Madni, the grandpa of the Madni organisers of the conference thus wrote in his book ‘Muttahida Qaumiyat aur Islam’ that it is proved beyond doubt that Congress stands for the same concept of Nationhood foundations of which were laid down by the Prophet(pbuh) in Madina. The sentence was repeated at three places in the book and invoked wrath of Allama Iqbal (RA) in the form of a poem ‘Hussain Ahmad’ in his compilation titled ‘Ramgaan-e-Hijaaz’. Apart from Iqbal, great ulema like Maulana  Anwar Shah Kashmiri, Maulana Ashraf Ali Thanvi, Maulana Shabir Ahmad Usmani and Qari Mohamad Tayab too didn’t subscribe to the views of Madani. The Mission Kashmir of Madni’s is nothing but an attempt to consolidate the Indian nation of their grandpa’s estimation. It was in pursuance of this mission that the declaration made at the end of Deoband convention identified Kashmiri Muslims as part and parcel of Indian Muslim community whose fate can’t be different from them. Some of us feel inflated by the tears (real or artificial) which are shed for us and tend to become receptive to the ones shedding these without understanding their designs. It is not the case only with Molvis of Deoband. There are others some pretending to represent or genuinely representing the oppressed segments of Indian society. We are told that you are not the only ones suffering at the hands of Indian state, there are others as well. Let us join and fight this oppression together. There is nothing wrong in the idea per se. We shouldn’t be averse to soliciting the support of any such group but the tradition of non-assimilation has to be kept alive. We may be oppressed in the same way but we remain different. The oppression in various parts of India is not legally sanctioned. In our case, it is shielded and sanctioned through legislations like Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA), Disturbed Areas Act, Public Safety Act (PSA), Enemy Agents Act. In their case, the oppression is an aberration from the normal functioning of state instruments. In our case, it is a legally sanctioned normal pattern. When it comes to deployment of Army there, the mindset of Indian elite remains that Army is not meant for use against own people while in context of Kashmir, the attitude of Indian intelligentsia have always been that the forces fighting shouldn’t remain handicapped. Ours is a struggle for fulfilment of an internationally recognised and sanctioned right of self determination.
They are fighting for achievement of rights guaranteed by the Indian constitution. Ours is a supra-national or international problem and theirs is a problem within the parameters of Indian Polity and Constitution. Our desperation for support should not land us into a non-governmental effort of assimilation. By identifying with struggles of other oppressed people in India, we should not devalue our struggle to the extent that our tormentors even start to pity us. Atal Bihari Vajpayee responding to demand of some pseudo-separatists of entering into negotiations on the pattern of Naga’s mocked us by saying, ‘Why do you degrade yourselves to the level of Naga’s?’ Another dimension from the perspective of which, the support has to be assessed is its impact.
Whether the support is expressed to us or is oriented towards mobilising Indian public opinion for resolution of Kashmir dispute. We are aspiring for fulfilment of an aspiration and remain convinced about that. We don’t need to be sermonized. Sermons need to be given to Indians of every hue and ideology especially the ones who matter, in order to mobilise them to come to terms with resistant Kashmir. It is this aspect of resistance that needs to be taken care of by our supporters. It was mobilisation of US public opinion that forced Americans to leave Vietnam. It was the American media and civil society which culminated in the form of a campaign for de-mobilisation of American troops from Iraq. Kashmiris need a similar dispensation from those who really support us. Our and their problems may be similar but our problems remains rooted in a bigger problem pertaining to legitimacy of Indian statehood in Kashmir. Every other problem of ours is rooted in it and incidental to it. We must solicit the support for this and nothing else while sympathising with causes of other oppressed classes of India.

Published in Rising Kashmir dated 31 Oct 2010

Wikileaks and Indian Media jingoism

By Dr Sheikh Showkat Hussain

Parochialism at the level of media discourse and policy making has a potential of pushing the subcontinent into the era of stone age.

Wikileaks claims to be an international non-profit media organisation that publishes otherwise unavailable documents from anonymous news sources and leaks. Whole of the world has been overtaken by a controversy relating to secret US foreign policy communications exposed by Wikileaks. Apart from the issues, whether these leaks are authentic record of American foreign policy documents or concocted accounts to mislead the world.

Deliberate fabrications to convey covert messages to allies and adversaries or part of foreign policy to rectify the imbalances created by formal foreign policy postures assumed by the US administration at official level?
Whatever be the background or the reasons for the leaks, they have conveyed certain startling information about the mindset of US foreign policy makers. While on one side these pricked the balloon of much drum beaten US support for Indian membership to the privileged club of VETO holders’ at United Nations by depicting India as self appointed candidate for the permanent membership of the UN Security Council.
On the other hand the leaks have dissipated any doubts about the reality of a nuclear confrontation within the Indo-Pak subcontinent. The leaks have made it obvious that the Pakistani nuclear arsenal if not superior is definitely a match to Indian nuclear weapons. The leaks have portrayed without any iota of ambiguity the limits of US influence over Pakistan in relation to its policy towards non state actors pitted against India on account of its own compulsions and dependence on Pakistan for concluding or continuation of its military misadventure in Afghanistan.
Having got a precise message of the strategic quagmire within which India remains trapped, the leaks needed to be deliberated seriously for reorienting the Indian foreign policy. Unfortunately, instead of using the leaks as an avenue for a serious foreign policy re-evaluation, Indian media seems to be using them for unleashing another campaign of jingoistic discourse.
Seriousness of the situation and dissipation of illusions demanded taking cognizance of realities as they are, acknowledging them and developing an attitude of caution and considered foreign policy formulations. An attitude of recognition of realities and urge for reconciliation with these too remains indispensable need of the hour.
What we see on contrary is a barrage of irresponsible statements coming not only from policy makers but also from retired defence and foreign policy experts. Responding to a question relating to Indian response to existence of huge nuclear arsenal with Pakistan, a retired army official responds on News X that we may not say it but definitely we do have preparations for launching a similar expedition against Pakistani arsenal as was pursued by Israeli’s against Iraq.
The naive statement overlooks the fact that Iraqi nuclear facilities were in the stages of infancy, whereas Pakistan is a declared and acknowledged nuclear weapon state. Through nuclearisation, Pakistan has achieved long sought parity with Indian state according to former Indian foreign minister Jaswant Singh.
The fact that India planned ‘Operation Cold Start’ against Pakistan and abandoned it only after Americans warned them about a possible nuclear retaliation from Pakistan makes it clear that the jingoistic attitude is not only confined to media discourses but percolates deep to the level of policy and decision making.
The scenario exhibits an alarming situation. With subcontinent sitting over a devastating nuclear stockpile of arms and jingoistic minds still kidding with adventures that have a potential of triggering a nuclear war with catastrophic ramifications, it is high time for saner elements within India to become pro-active.
The illusion of superiority has to be replaced by the strategy based on objectivity. Aggressive posturing has to be substituted by a will to reconcile with realities and settle the issues which have a potential of pushing the subcontinent into a nuclear nightmare. Americans who otherwise remain aggressive and non-compromising did nothing apart from proceeding for using Chinese influence while responding to recent North Korean artillery barrage against South Korea.
Reason for this soft response was nothing other than the fact that North Korea has formally tested its nuclear weapons. What holds true about North Korea, same has to be emulated by Indian policy makers in context of Pakistan? The fact that Operation Cold Start was planned in context of Kashmir makes it all the more indispensible to address Kashmir dispute.
It has reaffirmed Kashmir connection of sub continental nuclearisation established by Prime Minister Vajpayee by associating Farooq Abdullah with his Pokhran visit. The only chief mister taken to Indian nuclear experimentation site along with prime minister was Abdullah.
The root causes of Indo-Pak strife and friction of which Kashmir happens to be the foremost need to be addressed urgently. The jingoism at the level of media discourse and policy making otherwise has a potential of pushing the subcontinent into the era of stone age.

Published in Rising Kashmir dated 08 Dec 2010