Giving Away Kashmir
by Dr. Ajay Chrungoo
For so many years we have
concerned ourselves primarily with how Pakistan seeks to take away Jammu and
Kashmir. We are perhaps getting too late to intensely involve ourselves with how
a section of Indian State and the political class have been, over the years,
crafting the giving away of Jammu and Kashmir. The unilateral submission of the
report of the Working Group on Centre-State Relations by its Chairman Justice
Sagir Ahmad to the Chief Minister of Jammu and Kashmir is only a reflection on
the relentless campaign to keep the Muslim Question in India alive and
transform the vision of secularism into an albatross around the neck of Indian
nation, fixing its limbs into inaction so that the Muslim Power continues to
inch eastwards through successive partitions of India.
A
Sinister Course Correction
The
report submitted by Justice Sagir in the name of Working Group on Centre State
Relations was done without completing the agenda of the Working Group; without
taking most of the members of the Working Group into confidence; without seeking
the opinion of the members on the draft of the report; and last but not the
least without formally winding up the proceedings of the Working Group. It seems
that the entire exercise is aimed at some sort of a course correction crafted by
those who have prefixed the direction and the outcome of the internal dialogue
on Jammu and Kashmir. There are pertinent reasons to think so.
The
delay in submission of the report by Justice Sagir was certainly causing worry
which found expression once in a while in the public sphere. On March 10, 2008 a
prominent local daily reported NC patron Farooq Abdullah blaming New Delhi as
not being serious towards the resolution of the Kashmir dispute and quoted him
making direct and almost indictory references about the Working Group on
Centre-State Relations, “appointment of a Muslim Judge to give report on the
contentious issue of centre state relations reflects their whimsical approach….
The report could have catastrophic consequences for Justice Sagir.” As per the
report of Kashmir Times (KT), Dr Farooq maintained that reluctance of
Justice Sagir in convening another round of meeting of the working group
reflects his understanding of “how the contents of the report could impact his
career prospects.” KT further quotes Dr Farooq as having said, “…in a country
where the minorities are under suspicion all the time, expecting Justice Sagir
to give a report which could maintain his image of being a nationalist would be
a little irrational.” In his expressions Dr Farooq referred to the population
dynamics in the country, “If the centre would have been serious, Justice Sachar
would have been the best choice” He openly confessed about his resentment on the
appointment of Justice Sagir at the time when the heads of the working groups
were being chosen and frankly said, “I resisted his name, since I knew the
repercussions of (his) heading this crucial working group on centre-state
relationships…”
The
statement clearly brings out that persons of the stature of Dr Farooq Abdullah
had a clear cut expectation from the Working Group on Centre State Relations and
an apprehension whether the person of Justice Sagir be able to deliver the same.
Dr Farooq had the full realization that the content of this expectation had a
‘catastrophic’ bearing on the secular fabric in rest of the country and hence he
nurtured a lack of confidence about the wisdom of having a ‘Muslim Judge’ from
outside the State as the head of the Working Group reflecting upon the
relationship of Jammu and Kashmir with the Union of India.
It is
relevant to quote what Prof Amitabh Mattoo was saying months before Justice
Sagir submitted his report given the fact that he has been one of the more
visible backchannel actors in the engagement between Pakistan, India,
separatists and the so called moderates in Kashmir. He wrote in early October,
“An important working group of the Prime Minister on J&K dealt with centre state
relations but it was unable to arrive at a breakthrough. This doesn’t mean that
we have a cul-de-sac. There are many proposals on the table including
those on autonomy, self rule, self governance and achievable nationhood….These
internal discussions must flow into the backchannel which can then attempt to
work out a non-territorial India-Pakistan settlement on J&K based on providing a
similar political architecture on both sides of the line of control working
towards converting the LoC into Line of Peace, that allows free movement of
people, goods, services and ideas.”
The way
Justice Sagir submitted his report has some resonance in the way National
Conference submitted the Greater and Regional Autonomy Reports. Like the
constitution of Working Group on Centre and State Relations, the Farooq
government constituted the Committees on Greater Autonomy and regional Autonomy
after coming to power in 1996 giving an impression of adopting a non-partisan
and inclusive process. He made Dr Karan Singh the Chairman of the Greater
Autonomy Committee and made another non Muslim Balraj Puri to function as
Working Chairman of the Regional Autonomy Committee. Sooner than later Dr Karan
Singh resigned and Balraj Puri was forced out. The reports of the State Autonomy
committee was suddenly finalized, submitted to the government and then pushed
into the State assembly for adoption.
The
Regional Autonomy report of NC envisaged the division of the State along the
same lines as Mushraff did later on. It put the division of Jammu province into
Muslim and Hindu majority domains firmly on the agenda for the settlement of the
Kashmir issue. Balraj Puri later wrote about the proposed breaking of the
existing regions in the State: “Though redemarcation or creation of a region or
a district was not included in the terms of reference of the committee, I still
sought a clarification from the Chief Minister who categorically ruled out
consideration of any such demand….. I sent my report to all members and the
chief minister in all humility for favour of their kind consideration, scrutiny
and comments. Despite a reminder, I did not receive any comment……. I received a
letter from the Chief Secretary on 21 January 1999 that my term had expired on
31 December 1998. Through another order dated 4 March1999, the term of the
Committee minus me was extended in a similar retrospective way w.e.f 31 December
1998 till 31 March….It seems an alternate 28 page report was hastily got drafted
and signed by three out of six original members which was tabled in the
legislative assembly when it was about to adjourn sine die on 16 April.” What
made the then Chief Minister Dr Farooq to suddenly abandon the pretensions of
accommodation and legitimate consultation taking every body on board, and like
Justice Sagir did recently, push through the reports having a bearing on the
future of the state?
Pre- Fixed Destination
The
entire peace engagement internal as well as external has a pre-fixed objective
for a well entrenched lobby and every process employed by GoI is being judged on
the yardstick of this objective. When PDP released its Self Rule document, not
in front of the Working Group on Centre State relations, but in Pakistan, NC
president Omar Abdullah openly blamed the Indian High Commission of having
facilitated the entire process. The Foreign Ministry chose not to contradict the
allegation. There are many a Kashmir analyst who privately believe that the Self
Rule document is the creation of some section of PMO. In the recent past, we
have many instances which we come across a process, where GoI, acted almost in
tandem with the Muslim leadership of Kashmir Valley mainstream and the
separatists.
During
Vajpayee regime, a USA based Kashmiri secessionist leader, lobbyist and fund
raiser, Farooq Kathwari, arrived in India with the full knowledge of Government
of India in March 1999 ‘carrying a series of proposals for the creation of an
independent Kashmiri State’. At that time both USA and Government of India
underplayed his Jihad connections. His son had died in Chechnya while fighting
Russians. He met very important persons belonging to Indian intelligence service
and the ruling BJP. On March 8, Kathwari had a closed door meeting with Dr
Farooq Abdullah and a group of his top Cabinet colleagues on the premises of
Secretariat in Jammu. This meeting induced the urgency into the Farooq
Government to come out with its reports on greater and regional autonomy in the
State. During his visit Kathwari seemed ‘encouraged enough to push ahead with a
new version of his blue print for the solution of Kashmir’. The blue print—
Kashmir: A Way Forward— later became commonly known as Kathwari Proposals. The
National Conference reports had ‘striking similarities’ with Kathwari proposals
as the later had with Dixon’s proposals. Noted columnist Parveen Swami while
commenting about this convergence wrote, “As significant, Abdullah’s maximalist
demands for autonomy dovetail with the KSG’s (Kashmir Study Group) formulations
of a quasi Sovereign State.”
It was
not a coincidence that almost simultaneously the Indian and Pakistani Foreign
Ministers would meet in the Sri Lankan capital Colombo in March 1999 and reach
an agreement envisaging ‘plebiscite in Jammu and Kashmir on regional/district
basis’, ‘maximum possible autonomy to Kashmir and its adjoining areas’, division
of Jammu province along the Chenab River and so on. Significantly, the BJP lead
NDA was in power at that time.
The
Regional autonomy report of NC advocated dividing the State into its Muslim and
non-Muslim domains exactly the same way Kathwari envisaged. Pushing Balraj Puri,
the Working Chairman of the regional Autonomy Committee, out of the decision
making loop was a course correction applied to see the endorsement of the
Greater Muslim Kashmir to which he probably would not have agreed.
It is
highly improbable to conceive that Dr Farooq Abdullah, who was also the Chief
Minister, was not adequately briefed by Government of India about the purpose
and purport of Kathwari’s visit to India. Even if he was not, it is more
improbable to think that Americans didn’t educate him. Kathwari’s closeness to
US state department and his presence in India with his “Way Forward’ proposals
on Jammu and Kashmir was more than a hint for NC to move fast enough to finalize
the reports of his government on greater and regional autonomy and push it
through the state assembly where NC had a two third majority.
To be
fair to Justice Sagir, he refused to take into consideration definite signals
from the interested quarters in the Government of India to fall in line and took
his time. He in fact took undue time, in the view of those, who are in a haste
to strike a deal with the separatists and Pakistan. In the very first meeting of
the Working Group, to the clarification of a query posed by this author as to
whether decisions will be taken in the Working group by a majority vote or total
consensus, Justice Sagir had assured that report of the WG will be finalized
only if there was a total consensus. During the deliberations of the Working
Group, this author, while making his expositions on the Greater autonomy
report of NC attracted the intense attention of the Chairman while making the
following comment, “ Sir, While coming to participate in this Working Group I
was acutely conscious of the fact that I have the responsibility of the very
survival of my community on my shoulders , during the deliberations which have
taken place here I have come to realize that I have the responsibility of the
minorities of the State on my shoulders. After listening to the expositions of
NC, PDP and even Congress I feel I have the responsibility of the minorities of
the entire country on my shoulders. Sir I am sure that you will agree with me
that you also have the responsibility of the minorities of this nation on your
shoulders while conducting this Working Group.”
Justice
Sagir could not have submitted the report, which he eventually did, if he would
have followed the due process of first completing the remaining agenda of the
Working Group, then submitting the draft report for acceptance by the members,
seeking a total consensus on it as he had promised and then duly winding up the
proceedings of the Working Group. When he changed midway the agenda for the
fourth meeting of the Working Group and incorporated the presentation of Wajahat
Habibullah, he left no one in doubt about his helplessness by offering no
answers when the members asked him the reasons for doing so. He looked with
embarrassment towards his secretary in the Group, Sh. Ajit Kumar, perhaps
telling us that someone else had taken this decision. Justice Sagir could not
have submitted the report if he would have listened to his conscience, which he
did for sometime. He eventually neither disappointed Dr Farooq Abdullah nor that
section in Government of India for whom the unfinished work of the Working Group
was becoming a major hurdle. Submission of a report which at least will not come
in way of the pre fixed objective of the so called search for peace with
Pakistan had perhaps become an imperative necessity.
Paradigm Shift
When
Kathwari was invited to India along with his proposals ‘Kashmir: A Way Forward’,
it marked a major change in the strategic perspectives of Indian state. Kathwari
plan was a rechristened Dixon Formula. It envisaged a quasi independent or
eventually independent Greater Muslim Kashmir. To Dixon doing this was
completing the ‘unfinished agenda’ of partition of India.
Nehru
from the inception was opposed to an Independent Kashmir. He had out rightly
communicated to Muslim leaders of Kashmir that, “he would prefer to hand over
the State to Pakistan on a platter rather than support its independence and
allow it to be turned into a centre of international intrigue and danger to both
India and Pakistan.” It is not to say that Nehru and his successors till
Vajpayee considered independence or quasi independence for Jammu and Kashmir as
a political blasphemy. There is a lot of evidence available to suggest that
Nehru and his successors in Congress flirted with these options but
predominantly from a tactical perspective. For strategic planners in India
counterpoising Independence or Autonomy of Jammu and Kashmir to counter pro-Pak
sentiment in the State has always been a very attractive option. They always
believed that keeping these options alive, and also nourishing them would
provide India leverage to wrong foot Pakistan. Bereft of the profound
understanding of the issues involved and oblivious of the implications, they
flaunted this manoeuvre more often than less as a strategic necessity. By
accepting Independence or quasi independence options as possible concepts for
clinching a deal with Pakistan, India has virtually checkmated itself.
Pakistanis now publicly claim that they are actually agreeing to India’s
position and so there should be no delay in a final settlement.
The
formulation that Two Nation theory can be countered only by a Three Nation
theory is turning out to be a fatal self goal. Both theories are ideologically
one and the same. Cutting the Two Nation politics into regional or ethnic
denominators does not resolve its basic incompatibility with a state based on
recognition of plural diversity on the principle of equality. Breaking away of
Bangladesh from Pakistan only solved the problem of power sharing within the
frame work of the bigger Pakistan. It did not resolve the conflict with an
inclusive secular nation because it defined its separation from India on the
same principle of two nation theory.
The
symbiotic relation which Pakistan evolved between Pro-Pak and
pro-independence/autonomy politics in Jammu and Kashmir could not be properly
comprehended within the framework of the strategic perspective of India. This
perspective visualized harnessing of Muslim identity politics and
constitutionally fortifying Muslim sub-nationalism in the State as not only an
antidote to Pakistan in Jammu and Kashmir but also an effective device to
mobilize Muslim vote bank in rest of India. It considered Muslim communalism in
India as merely a reaction to the tyranny of Hindu majority. The entire approach
over the years has become not only a device to circumvent the issue of Muslim
communalism in India but to protect and nourish it.
Despite
all this, till Kathwari’s visit, Indian State had not totally closed its eyes to
the incompatibility of an autonomous sphere of Muslim interests in Jammu and
Kashmir with the secular nation building. That explains why over the years the
process of erosion of article 370 remained alive. Extension of jurisdiction of
Supreme Court of India, CAG, fundamental rights and many other central laws was
an expression to dissolve this incompatibility. A dominant section of Indian
State and the political establishment never agreed to elevate Article 370 from a
transitory provision to a permanent feature of Indian constitution. The
strategic paradigm of fortifying Muslim identity politics in Jammu and Kashmir
and rest of India to negate the appeal of two nation theory has lead to the
creation of broadly two sections within Indian State and the political
establishment.
One such
section always had a subversive motivation and visualized recognition to Muslim
Sub-nationalism in Jammu and Kashmir as a space to build a Greater Muslim
Kashmir and use this to impair the indivisible unity of Indian Republic from
within. This section always wanted Muslim identity politics in Jammu and Kashmir
to be alive and kicking to use it as a cardinal insult to balkanize India along
its sub- national diversity.
The
second segment constitutes of those who gave more credence to the tactical value
of harnessing Muslim sub-nationalism but only to weaken the appeal of Pakistan
in the State of Jammu and Kashmir. While keeping the affront to Muslim identity
politics to the minimum, this section however did try to neutralize the
disruptive potential of special status of Jammu and Kashmir to the unity of
India. This group nourished a misplaced wish that eventually Indian democracy
will prove to be a stronger force and Muslim identity politics in the state will
loose its relevance. This group has premised their approach on the line that
Muslim communalism has not to be contested; it has to be given minimum affront
and the best choice is to circumvent it.
Over the
years there has been a ping pong battle between these two mindsets, one seeking
to delegitimise the religious identity politics, the other doing everything to
consolidate Greater Muslim Kashmir. When Muslim majority Doda was carved out of
the Hindu majority Jammu province in 1948, followed by carving out of Shia
Muslim majority Kargil out of Buddhist majority Ladakh, we were witnessing the
counter responses to the process of fuller integration of Jammu and Kashmir
unleashed not from Pakistan but from within. Nehruvian strategic paradigm kept
this internal conflict in the nation building process alive.
The
promotion of Kathwari plan by Vajpayee government marked the demise of this
strategic perspective. The new paradigm recognizes the three nation proposals
of independence or semi- independence of Kashmir as a solution to Indo- Pak
conflict rather than a tactical antidote to the two nation vision. Recognizing
Pakistan as a partner in settling the future of the only Muslim majority state
of India has not only made the settlement on Jammu and Kashmir as the unfinished
agenda of partition but opened afresh the Muslim question in India. The support
extended by eminent Muslims like AG Noorani or Shabana Azmi to the separatist
cause in Kashmir have the sinister forebodings of the new confidence of a
section of Indian Muslim elite to question the very unity of the nation.
Vajpayee’s strategic vision underlined that the frontline Muslim state of
Pakistan can live in harmony with a secular and Hindu majority India. This shift
in India’s strategic perspective is of the nature of a mutation. From
visualizing the creation of an Independent Greater Muslim Kashmir as more
dangerous than its secession to Pakistan and a potential hot bed of
international intrigue, the new perspective seems to view the creation of the
same as a bridge of peace between Pakistan- a confessional ideological State-
and India a secular state.
Giving
Away Kashmir
Manmohan
Singh’s tenure has carried the strategic shift further away from the Nehru –
Gandhi era. The peace with Pakistan at any price seems to be getting
internalized in a way that it has become more than a strategic necessity— an
ideological imperative. The subversive entrenchment within, emboldened by its
increasing reach and sway, is gradually succeeding in harnessing the might and
wherewithal of the State itself to mount a concerted attack on the Nation.
The three
Round Table Conferences and the meetings of the various Working Groups and the
conclusions there of are manifest examples of how Indian State is made to invest
in creating a Greater Muslim Kashmir.
A section
of pro India participants, invited to the First Round Table Conference, did
debate the wisdom of participating in it. They had legitimate apprehensions that
the conduct of such a conference was in fact an exercise to accord democratic
legitimacy to certain concessions that Government of India was ready to make to
Pakistan and the separatists in the Valley. The Prime Minister Manmohan Singh
had already had series of very high profile meetings with a section of
Separatist leadership. These meetings, lasting for hours, along with the top
most officers of Government of India had catapulted the separatist leadership
into the national and international limelight once again at a time when their
credibility on the ground was at the lowest. The Chenab Solution, which had
prominently come to the public realm after Vajpayee invited Kathwari and sent
his special emissary Sh.R K Mishra to start a dialogue process with Pakistan,
had attained the stature of a possible solution considered more by the
Government of India than by Pakistan. Was the participation of pro India
leadership in Jammu and Kashmir in the Round Table Conference along with the
separatist leadership sought to give an impression of involving everyone so that
the compromise already worked out could be presented as a fate accompli to the
wider national opinion? Retrospectively this apprehension seems to have been
well founded. At that time however the opinion that Round Table Conference
accorded legitimacy to the diversity of political opinion in the State and
presented an opportunity to show the separatists their position in over all
political environment of the state clinched the argument against dissociating
from the RTC.
Through
The Three RTC’s and the Working Groups, GOI pushed through all such proposals,
which have critically strengthened the processes for the creation of Greater
Muslim Kashmir. A process of reconciliation with separatism on their terms has
by now been firmly grounded through a series of administrative, quasi legal and
political maneuvers. These measures are such that they do not need a
legislative sanction of the Parliament and as such are not dependent upon the
political consensus.
The
deliberations in RTC’s and Working Groups amply reflect a deliberation in
implementing an agenda which had already been unleashed. The very architecture
of the RTC’s was developed in a way were Government of India was placed as a
neutral arbitrator between pro India opinion and those who wanted the change
the status quo of the relation between Jammu and Kashmir and the Union of India.
Many times Government of India seemed to facilitate the separatist agenda by
maintaining stoic silence even when the Muslim leadership of the valley put
forward misplaced constitutional arguments or historically unfounded and false
propositions undermining the very accession of the state with India and
attacking its sovereignty. When none other than Omar Abdullah said in the very
first RTC that, “we have signed only instrument of accession and not instrument
of merger,” the statement had profound implications needing a proper response
from the highest in the Government of India. In the same meeting the leader of
PDP and then Cabinet Minister in the sate government, Sh Muzaffar Beigh said,
“Article 370 had a treaty status”. He opined that this treaty had developed
after an understanding between Constituent Assembly of Jammu and Kashmir and
Constituent Assembly of India both of which as per him were sovereign bodies.
This blatant falsehood and sinister twist was never contested by Government of
India.
A section
of Indian State and political establishment seem to be allowing blatant
falsehoods aimed at wrecking the sovereignty of the nation in Jammu and Kashmir
in such a way so that public at large not only in Jammu and Kashmir but in rest
of India as well as Internationally is convinced that India has no Case in Jammu
and Kashmir. The deliberations in the Working Groups were also conducted in a
manner to undermine all legitimate imperatives of National interests. Government
of India is mirroring the attitudes which the British Government adopted in the
build up to the partition of India.
The
Working Group on Confidence Building Measures never discussed anti- terrorism
measures as an important confidence building measure for the return of normalcy
in the state. It did not at all debate the relevance of anti terrorism laws in
the state in the light of the ongoing terrorist campaign. It did not even
cursorily address the human rights violation in the State due to terrorism. The
Working Group focused primarily on the State specific aspects of Human Rights
Violations just as Amnesty International and Asia Watch used to do in 90’s.
The
mindset employed can be understood by the written admission of the Working Group
on Confidence Building Measures while dealing with the question of internally
displaced Kashmiri Hindus, “the Working Group concerns itself with the
rehabilitation and improvement of conditions of the militancy victims and did
not go deeper into the causes or the genesis of the militancy in the state.” The
Working Groups followed a clear cut direction to ignore all issues which would
bring into focus the issues of ideologically motivated violence in the state and
bring the ugly side of armed Muslim separatism in the state to light. Their
recommendations were meticulously in line with the separatist demands.
WG on
Confidence Building Measures recommended abrogation of Armed Forces Special
Powers Act(AFSPA), relief not only to the victims of terrorism but the families
of the killed terrorists, create conditions for the return of persons to Jammu
and Kashmir, who had gone to Pakistan Occupied Kashmir and Pakistan for training
and organizing support for armed separatism etc. etc. Only lip service was
rendered to all other issues including the problems faced by refugees, who had
come from West Pakistan, while as PoK refugees of 1947 were not even mentioned
in the report. The political motivation at work from behind can also be clearly
understood by reading some recommendations of the same Working Group. The
recommendations state, “To start unconditional dialogue process with militant
groups for finding sustainable solutions to the problems of militancy….To
examine the role of media in generating an image of the people of the state as
to lessen the indignity and suspicion that the people face outside the state”.
WG on Strengthening Relations across LoC never even considered the issue of
illegal economy in the state and impact on it by cross LoC trade. It never
discussed the issue of Middle East based business mafia seeking to suck up
Jammu and Kashmir into its lap even when the leaders of the business committee
in Kashmir have been openly canvassing with their fraternity that cross LoC
trade would integrate Kashmir valley with the economy of not Pakistan but Middle
East.
The WG
recomm-endations strengthened the processes already unleashed to bring about
economic and political integration of the Muslim majority areas of Jammu with
the overwhelmingly Muslim Kashmir valley. Mughal road connecting Poonch-Rajouri
with Kashmiri through Shopian-Pulwama, and Sinthan top road connecting
moutaineous Kishtwar district with Anantnag, construction were given further
impetus. The handing over of the national power projects to J&K government
assumed new stridency during the RTCs and WG meetings and the subsequent
recom-mendations have already created an agenda for developing the
infrastructure economic, legal and political for the Greater Muslim Kashmir..
During
the deliberations of the 3rd RTC the Muslim representatives from Kargil
vehemently opposed the concept of demilitarization and brought to light the
humane role played by Indian security establishment for the people living in
Kargil, Drass and other remote areas. The entire exposition eventually was
ignored and never allowed to be known in the rest of the country primarily
because GoI had already embarked upon the process of demilitarization. In the
same RTC the then MLA from Bandipore addressed the PM and said, “Sir, why was
the All Party Hurriet Conference Chief Syed Ali Shah Gilani was released from
Jail before this conference. What was the assessment of Govt of India? If he was
released why was he allowed to address a public rally at the airport itself?
What was the assessment of GoI about this? Do you know Sir that Lashkar-e-Toiba
flags were flaunted in this rally? Do you know sir what were the slogans raised
in the rally? Sir, they raised the slogans-Lashkar Aayi, Lashkar Aayi,
Manmohan ki Maut Aayi, Azad ki maut Aayi.”
The
release of the radical pro-Pakistan Hurriet leader retrospectively seems to have
a purpose. Gilani was perhaps released to raise the din of radical demands
outside so that the proposals of Self Rule, Greater Autonomy raised by Peoples
Democratic Party and National Conference within RTC appear to be moderate
options and could be endorsed.
The
attitude of Government of India to Jamaat, Ali Shah Gilani and
Dukhtaran-e-Millat (DeM) appears to have a purpose when we see that it is GoI
which is investing in pushing through the Kathwari/Dixon plan as a solution.
While all other separatist leaders have lost their credibility and potential to
mobilize public, it is only Syed Ali Shah Gilani, DeM and Jamaat-e-Islami which
can keep the pot boiling in the public and providing the required pressure and
momentum to the Govt of India for giving concessions. It is well known that
whenever Govt acted firmly on the ground, the Intifada never took off. And it
assumed the proportions of an uprising when Govt of India publicly declared
retraction of its authority from the ground. Omar Abdullah asked the Prime
Minister in one of the RTCs as to why has been Government of India always
befriending and encouraging such elements in the State who have a manifest anti
India stand on Kashmir.
Giving
away of Kashmir is basically a process of recasting the concepts of sovereignty
of Indian Nation, its frontiers and its secular vision. The Self rule Document
of PDP, which many believe has been prepared by government of India, openly
talks about redefining the concepts of nation, sovereignty, ethnicity, regions
etc etc. When GoI India talks about porous borders, rendering borders
irrelevant, settlement between stake holders it is talking about a fundamental
ideological shift in the nation building vision. To qualify them as tactical
interventions or strategic imperatives right or wrong will be a gross
misjudgment.
To those
who pose serious questions about the gradual process of capitulation in Jammu
and Kashmir conducted and calibrated by sections of the State, the argument put
forward in the back channels is the intense international pressure brought about
by USA and China. It is not incidental that one of the first public expressions
of a ‘Two Front’ situation for India has been given by none other than Brijesh
Mishra the National Security Advisor to Vajpayee Government and one of the
brains which set the peace process with Pakistan rolling. Prodded and patronize
by the State a voluntary censorship seems to be in vogue not to discuss the
content and quality of this pressure. It is true even after 9/11 USA has not
given any indication that it has changed its policy on Kashmir or Pakistan vis a
vis India. But it is also true that at a time when it is being parroted from
within India that GoI has been forced to enter into a dialogue with Pakistan
under US pressure, American government has publicly released the information
about terrorists arrested in USA which link the 26/11 terror attacks in Mumbai
directly to serving officers in Pakistani Army. The Statement of Robert Gates
that India may loose its reserves of restrain in case of one more terrorist
attack on Indian soil was less a prodding in favour of a dialogue and concession
to separatists and more a warning to Pakistan.
This is
not to say that USA is not seeking such cooperation from India which addresses
US concern more than Indian concerns. The fact is that USA has a lesser
leverage to exert pressures on India than it had before 9/11.Before the terror
attacks on twin towers in New York, US government had its relations intact with
Pakistan and rest of the radical Muslim countries around the Middle East. It had
not entered Iraq and was exploring a relationship with Taliban. Now the
situation is different. USA, by the admission of its own experts, is over
stretched and needs India more in an atmosphere of global recession than any
time in history. Why is Government of India more than willing to accommodate
American view now than it has been ever before? Not only that, why are
propaganda campaigns like the suspension of aid to Jammu and Kashmir by World
Bank because it has suddenly woken up to recognize Jammu and Kashmir as a
dispute, left uncontested? That too when the representative of WB has clarified
that they are continuing to finance many projects in India including Jammu and
Kashmir.
The bogey
of increasing international pressure is being crafted from within to target
Indian public opinion at a time when dialogue with separatists is going on and
Pakistan is unraveling from within. A section from within the government and the
political establishment wants to present a compromise in Jammu and Kashmir as a
deliverance to the nation from a perpetual confrontation, even if it means
abandoning its frontiers, its people in the State, its civilisational
responsibility, central features of its eco heritage , secularism and
everything which India stands for.
I
participated in the first SAFMA conference in New Delhi immediately after a
group of Pakistani Journalists had for the first time visited Jammu and Kashmir.
During the lunch session of the Conference I overheard a conversation between
the visiting Pakistani journalist and an official of the Pakistani embassy in
India. The journalist was telling the official in Urdu that Indians while
talking about settlement of Kashmir issue always say that they can not allow
second Partition of India. The official said that Gandhi and Nehru also used to
say like this before the partition.
*(The author is Chairman
of Panun Kashmir)
Source: Kashmir
Sentinel
|