This the first time such operation has been acknowledged publicly. Perhaps the first with a scale of this nature too. One needs to see if this is employed more often. I was expecting that some skeptical defense journos would at least remain silent this time. But to my surprise without naming names at least two of these influential defence journos have publicly mocked this as placating jingoistic domestic audience and are not accepting the army version that many terrorist were hurt. I hope no operation details are further revealed even to placate the skeptics.
Some people have asked for footage to be revealed. But that hopefully wont be done. One hopes such actions are done more often not as response but actively to make wider ranges of LOC itself a sanitized zone.
I also hope such actions are not given an impression of being throttled by US approval and veto on this occasion or future.
People have been anticipating and wondering about Pakistani response. I suppose they will fall back to doing what they do. Which is more terror. We talk of isolating Pakistan in the world. But even if only India, Bangladesh and Afghanistan remain steadfast together for another decade perhaps some change can be brought about. India's isolation against Pakistani terror seems to be ending.
Today I saw news about a book of compilation of Parliament attack co-conspirator Afzal Guru that has been released in Srinagar. He is being portrayed as a martyr and his letters(real or fictional) are exhorting people to "propagate martyrs' mission, because its the blood of martyrs that has kept resistance movement alive".
Unfortunately the youth of the valley today do not know of 1947, 1965, 1971. 1974 or recognize the violence against the Kashmiri Hindus as the first consequence of this "armed struggle" as it is glorified. They only know of the bloody violence starting 1989 and see everything from the prism of this violence.
I am of the opinion that separatists survive on violence and international exposure for support. All humans value freedom and separatists appeal for "freedom" seems to get them instant favors in both capitals around the world and among the population of those countries.The voice of Kashmir's refugees is completely drowned out. Only those who have some Idea about the real history of Kashmir'a accession to the Indian Union and those who have a stake in the survival and prosperity of all the people of this union and by extension the entire subcontinent are able to realize the hollowness of these separatist arguments. Plebiscite and right to self determination argument was a non starter even when Nehru mentioned it because you could not have the losers of this so called plebiscite living as refugees at worst or second class citizens at best in what ever is left of J&K after this plebiscite. This was realized by the leadership in New Delhi even in early 1950's. It is the leadership of J&K which failed to look beyond narrow interests and join the national mainstream without special terms and privileges that has lead to the current situation in the valley.
There is no right to self determination for the people of J&K it applies only to European colonies not to democratic states. But there is a right to return as per the UN principles of Human rights for refugees and Kashmiri Hindus have it.The real worry is the youth of valley for me who are easily radicalized and turned into cannon fodder by the Rawalpindi establishment which has its own axe to grind. The proxy war being fought in the valley has resulted in huge toll for the people of the state and the security forces alike while Rawalpindi can keep the fires burning at very low cost to itself. The task of security forces has been of finding needle in a haystack and the result of their heavy handed actions is that more and more youth are getting radicalized. Even to this day when a Hizbul militant is killed then processions take place in his village and he is hailed as "martyr". Old separatists like Syed Ali Shah Geelani visit such places and egg the villagers on while continuing to receive favors from Pakistan.When a J&K policeman or an innocent civilian or a public representative is killed by the militants then no protest take place. It is difficult to tell truth from propaganda when every unexplained incident of violence is quickly blamed by the separatists on the security forces and the state and national media plays it out every protest at that moment without following thrugh the entire investigation. I am sure excesses have occurred in the state at the hands of the security forces but in a destabilized environment that exists in the valley our institutions which cannot deliver even in calmer places are bound to fail.
There is no quick solution to this problem because Rawalpindi is secure and smug that no heavy action is possible from Indian security forces because of its Nuclear umbrella hence there is no reason for it to stop the violence. But there a fair bit which can be done to deny space to the separatist ideology in the national and international forums. Some people are doing that part and I appreciate whatever they have done so far. I wish more people come out in open to confront this victim hood perception that the separatists portray and the impossibility of the self determination argument they make.
This opinion piece appeared in The Hindu Zubin Mehta and the unequal music. I was long expecting someone will try to make this Nero analogy. But unfortunately it doesn't stick on Zubin. It does stick on the separatist leaders who have lead the common people of the state to meaningless conflict, death and destruction while accepting diamond studded watches as gifts from Pakistani mentors across the border. Soon someone will argue that the Sindhu festival in Ladakh and the Amarnath yatra should be stopped. Zubin is an artist of world renown, the valley is fortunate to have him perform in Srinagar. Kudos to German embassy for arranging this in spite the terror threat and I salute the artists who came. Get over this separatism. The root of violence is not the Idea of India. It is the destabilization engineered by the ideologues in Pakistan. The same people who destroyed Afghanistan. There is no legitimacy in separatism in valley just as there was no legitimacy in separatism in Tamil Nadu. Get over it.
The novelist and Journalist from Jammu and Kashmir Mirza Wahid paints a very one sided picture of Kashmir with the militants and separatists as victims
where as the security forces as "evil". May be loss of his family
members and seeing death and destruction up close has gotten him to this victim mentality. What is missing from his
account though are the atrocities committed by the militants and the silence of the
separatist when targeted killings of those who do not agree with separatist
ideology takes place at the hands of these Pakistan trained militants. The
state of the Kashmiri Pundits who are refugee in their own country is hardly
mentioned. His interpretation of Kashmir being separate from India is purely fictional too and reflects the
unfortunate identity crisis that the youth in Kashmir
are going through. The cause of this identity crisis is the failure
of political leaders of the state of Jammu
and Kashmir and central government in 1947 to bring about a
merger with the Union of India without this autonomy provision which has left
identity issues in the minds of the youth. Fact is that J&K merged with the
Indian union under legal provisions of Indian Independence Act. The decision to merge with India rather than Pakistan was taken by J&K to save itself from destruction and occupation by the
Pakistani invaders. That is when the Indian Army first went into the state to liberate not to occupy. There is no question about J&K being separate from India. Even the
constitution of J&K recognizes this fact.
It is unfortunate that the State has seen so much violence
since 1989 but the cause of this violence is Pakistani military which used a
proxy war strategy to engender separatism in J&K. The first victims of this
violence were the religious minority population of Kashmiri Hindus who were
ethnically cleansed from the valley. 500,000 of these are living as refugees in
their own country today this happens no where in the world. But because of the
fear of violence from Pakistan
sponsored terrorists they are forced to abandon their homes and live in slums
in Jammu.
The death and destruction in J&K is heart rendering but
what does one expect to happen when terrorists from all around the world driven
by violent ideologies are pushed into the state by Pakistan to cause this very
death and destruction. The security forces are not robots they are also human
and thousands have laid down their lived to prevent the terrorists from running
amok the way Taliban did in Afghanistan.
For those who are moved by Mr Wahids fictional stories I would recommend read Vidya
Bhushan Dhar’s work also to get a view of what really happened to the Kashmiri minorities when the violence in the name of religious ideology started in
Kashmir.
Abstract: Political decentralization and political autonomy are sometimes used interchangeably in arguments asserting the need for greater devolution of power in India. In this write up I argue that such linkage or casual interpretation is not in favour of healthy political discourse in India. I assert that we need to use the term Panchayati Raj and only that term when talking about grass root democracy which is desirable. But we should not look at state autonomy as a solution to some of our governance problems. State autonomy I assert is of negative consequence and leads to a nation within a nation sort of discourse which I call a kind of Satrap system not suitable for a large diverse democratic nation like ours which is unique in the world.
One of the issues at stake in our national discourse today is that of political decentralization and political autonomy which are sometimes used interchangeably. Mahatma Gandhi was a proponent of political decentralization, what he called Gram Swaraj. I do not claim to know what Gandhiji really meant by all that he said, but herein you find a statement which is revealing “the 7 lakh villages should be self sufficient as village republics”. From this statement one can draw an intuitive understanding of a model of democracy that includes the people in deciding what is best for their immediate needs, rather than one that separates the state from the people and create a situation where people are dependent on a hierarchical system of governance even for their basic needs.
This idea is what was called Panchayati Raj and strengthening of this institution was made a part of directive principles of state policy in our constitution at the time of framing of the constitution. The 73rd amendment of the constitution changes were made in '92 to overcome some of the reasons why Panchayati Raj Institutions(PRI) were not functioning as expected, like absence of regular elections, insufficient representation SC/ST and women, inadequate devolution of powers and lack of financial resources. As per this amendment a 3 tier system of village, block and district level panchayats are setup. However more than 20 years after this amendment which was considered historic at that point of time the Prime Minister still had to make a speech recently urging center and states to “strengthen the panchayats” rather than be able to proudly commend them on their achievements in last 20 years. These issues are variously cited as to why the system is still not considered effective:-
a) State governments are not devolving enough responsibilities and the center cannot force the state governments because these fall is states domain.
b) Members are not sufficiently trained and do not know their powers and responsibilities sufficiently.
c) Elected women are being represented by their husbands.
d) Non cooperation of bureaucracy
e) Major projects are implemented by the state government without involving the PRIs.
This is a short list of issues but I am sure people who are actually involved with PRIs know much better.
Whenever I hear about the term decentralization of India being uttered especially in foreign academic circles (Sugata Bose et al) I hear it being accompanied with the term ‘autonomy’. This ‘autonomy’ is being pushed as the magic pill that will solve all of India’s problems. So for Jammu and Kashmir there is an autonomy solution, for Nagaland there is an autonomy solution and there is a domino effect of this demand in all the insurgency affected and even some non-insurgency affected states where on and off demand for autonomy are raised. Late Jyoti Basu former CM of West Bengal was a known supporter of ‘greater autonomy’ to the states especially to J&K. The greatest affront which I find in these arguments is a selective use of history to make a sweeping statement that India never had a ‘Unitary’ state and was instead always ruled as autonomous units. There are certain assumptions in this statement. The first assumption, which is incorrect, is that India today has a unitary form of government. The truth is that we are a federal state not unitary. The second assertion that India always had autonomous units is being used as a suggestion that it is good to have autonomy at state level, where the states have internal autonomy for everything and the center is limited to the triad of ‘Foreign Affairs, Defense and Finance(currency)’. This extreme arrangement is something most people will have serious exception with. Such an arrangement with article 370 like provisions is what I would call division of India into Satraps, since this kind of autonomy is a question of sovereignty rather than governance. This leads to the notion of nation within a nation. It smells of an argument for creating various levels of sovereignty which is logical path to choose only for an outside power ruling over foreign land, the characteristic of which is leaving autocratic governors for the Satraps for indirect rule and extraction of tribute to keep the top most sovereign relevant. But this arrangement is entirely unsuitable for integration of a democratic nation. The sovereignty of the elected government of a democracy has to be absolute no only to be able to serve the interest of the people internationally but also to keep the movement of wheel of progress continuous in the entire nation as per the collective will of all the people of the country. This wheel like our notion of Dharma Chakra includes everything good that people desire in their lives. No one should be deprived of such progress which is something that can never be guaranteed in a structure with such autonomous satraps.
Autonomy has been variously proposed in the past, say with the cabinet mission plan of 1946 which was in my view rightly rejected, in J&K where we have seen the result and is being demanded today by NSCN/IM insurgents. It is considered by some as the root cause of alienation in J&K rather than the other way round as proposed by some others. It is logical to see that when such an arrangement is made, then the first thing the state government tries to do, is to limit migration to the state and turns itself into more of what I call a ‘hermit state’ within the Indian union. Citizens of the country can migrate to another country and become legal foreign nationals but can never migrate to such states within the country itself. Economic and cultural delinking of the state with the rest of the country then follows. In J&K for example the residents of the other states were referred to as Indians while the Kashmiri’s would give their regional identities more importance long before any whiff of insurgency was felt in J&K. We have seen an incomplete integration of J&K or rather gradual separation since independence which has lead to such identity issues as we see among some Kashmirs today. There are few other states where various degrees of state subject laws apply like Nagaland, Mizoram and Sikkim. I do not think any such migration restrictions applied to India in historical times otherwise we would not have such a diverse culture and diverse population which exist in the country today. You can find many ethnic minorities in each and every state of the country which have been living in that state for centuries, where as, they may be represented as ethnic majority in some other state. This is true even in these autonomous or semi-autonomous states that we have today.
The kind of political autonomy to the states which is being talked about increasingly in foreign and also Indian ‘intellectual circles’ as a way to go forward in my view will not lead to better governance for the people. What it will lead to is autocratic state governments, regional identity politics at the cost of nationalism and national interest, marginalization of and attacks on ethnic, linguistic, cultural and religious minorities of the state as has happened in J&K, strong feeling of separatism, opportunity for foreign intervention and perhaps a complete balkanization as happened to a multi-ethnic Yugoslavia. India of course is not Yugoslavia we are certainly hugely better integrated. Our integration is civilizational not just political and has occurred over several millennia. There are several threads that tie the various beads of India together; perhaps the beads themselves are made of the thread that ties them. Using a term which Rajiv Malhotra has made famous I would say that we perhaps truly have what will be called an Integral Unity. In my view it is not possible to separate the beads without completely changing the character of India itself. Trying to break down India is a never ending exercise because there can be no two views which will match on what would constitute a truly independent and separate or autonomous part of India. You can literally break down into thousands of separate identities not just 10-15 hence balkanizing India is not going to bring any peace or prosperity for the people of the nation. Autonomy similarly will not bring any lasting peace or prosperity to the people. Even in a state like Sikkim which does not have any outside migration and has been largely successfully integrated into the Indian union we have elements of majority minority tensions existing though not very pronounced, certainly not like the kind which exists in J&K.
The political integration of India after independence done by the states ministry under Sardar Patel was the single most important political exercise in the history of post partition India. In modern times this exercise and the enactment of the constitution is what would be termed as the emergence of a Chakravartin in India. The Dharma Chakra in the tricolor is not bereft of the symbolic importance of this Chakravartin for our national integration and rule of law within our nation’s boundaries. For me the Ashoka Chakra has always been the most important symbol in our tricolor. The constitution is what guarantees that the wheel of law can move freely without interruption in our great country. This is why changes to the constitution which will make our savior and protector weaker is something we should always guard against. I am all for Panchayti Raj which I would say is a non translatable term for our kind of decentralization but I am certainly not in favour of state autonomy which will perhaps lead us back to the time of Western and Northern Satraps of historic times and the wheel of law will be found wanting in the country and leave us vulnerable to outside intervention and control.
Recent events in the
state of Jammu and Kashmir
after Afzal Guru’s hanging have brought back attention to the interlocutors
report in the media. The murder of 5 CRPF jawans in the terror attack in the
valley in March invited panic reaction about doing something to solve the Kashmir issue. No doubt continued violence in Jammu and
Kashmir is of great concern to all citizens of the country but can this
violence really be brought to an end without ever considering how to address
the source of this violence with exists across the border? India it seems
has all but conceded that it can do nothing about the infrastructure of terror
that exists across the border. We seem to have been lulled into believing that
since the violence has been reduced relative to its peak, the will to inflict
violence has also been reduced across the border too and we seem to have come
to a conclusion that somehow ignoring Pakistan’s real intentions will
make the problem go away. Without having done anything meaningful to coerce Pakistan to give up its desire to continue
support of terrorism against our country especially in J&K, we hope to
address the separatist question in Kashmir through
negotiations or through promise of more autonomy in the state.
A lot has been said
about alienation of the population especially the youth in the valley. No doubt
there has been alienation of the people in the valley from the Idea of India and
especially the views of the youth in Kashmir
are of utmost importance. Any counter insurgency action as has been mentioned
time and again by experts requires winning back the trust of the people and
disassociating the support base of the insurgents and separatists among the general
population. But questions need to be asked as to the effect that implementing suggestions
in interlocutors report is going to have on the long term interest of the
country and whether or not it will have any effect on the permanent end to
violence and secessionist politics in the state. Several aspects of the
interlocutors report have been discussed in the public domain but the primary
questions remains, will offering more autonomy make the secessionists
permanently quit the demand for secession and will no further separatist
movement will ever emerge in J&K after that?
Before we address this
question we need to be first clear about the nature of the demand from the
separatists. It is insisted by the separatists especially in front of the
international audience that their demand is of freedom and of independence. I
would argue this is not what their demand really is and it is easy to logically
derive why this is not true. Independence
is what the Indian subcontinent got in 1947 from colonial occupation thanks to the
Indian Independence movement. The movement for creation of Pakistan was not an Independence
or freedom movement it was a communal movement for separation from India based on
the so called two nation theory. The result of that movement was an unprecedented
violence in the form of communal riots which claimed 1.5 million lives in the
subcontinent and lead to a refugee crisis of over 14 million people which had
never been seen in human history before. The region which was formed as Pakistan had at
the time of partition close to 30% non Muslim religious minority population
which is today reduced to closer to 1%, thanks to that very event. The movement
in Kashmir which centers around the so called “right to self determination” is
also in similar lines not a freedom movement it is a communal movement for
separation and the first victims of this movement were the people belonging to
the minority community of Kashmir.
In the book “Integration
of Indian States” written by VP Menon he has mentioned that when Jammu and
Kashmir merged with India in 1947 it was Lord Mountbatten’s strong opinion that
given the special nature of the ethnic and religious composition of the
population in the state there should be a plebiscite held in the state to
confirm its accession to the dominion of India, after law and order had been
restored, and the state had been cleared of the Pakistani raiders which had
attacked the state to occupy it by force. This argument was agreed to by the
government of India he was
heading and formed the basis of India’s
policy during negotiations with the Pakistan government to make them
desist from trying to takeover the state by force. This policy was pursued in
the negotiations that took place both before and after India approached the UN to
seek peaceful withdrawal of Pakistan’s national and military personnel from the
state of Jammu and Kashmir but was rejected first by Jinnah who wanted to claim
the entire state based on the simplistic argument that it was Muslim majority
and hence should go to Pakistan in its entirety and later by subsequent Prime
Ministers of Pakistan who never agreed to the withdrawal of their forces from
the state.
The fact that Pakistan
was never really clearly recognized as an aggressor by UN thanks to perhaps a
mistake by the team representing India under Sir Girija Bajpai in filing the
appeal to the UN under chapter 6 of the UN charter which calls for bringing to
the attention of the UN an event of a nature of dispute rather under chapter 7
which calls upon a to the UN’s attention to an event of the nature of external aggression.
American diplomat Vincent Sheean in his book “Nehru: The years of Power” has
mentioned that in his opinion it was a technical error on the part of India
which lead to the situation where western diplomats in the UN sticky about
matters of letter rather than substance used this to treat the matter as a
dispute between two morally equal parties rather than a matter of aggression by
Pakistan as it really was. It also provided Pakistan
with an excellent opportunity to draw parity with India
and introduce all sorts of matters including the communal riots of 47 under the
pretext of genocide by India
to the debate.
For India, perhaps going to the UN
under any provision was a lose-lose proposition. Going under chapter 7 would
probably have meant that UN Security Council intervention in the form of
military presence would have become inevitable and this would also not have
been acceptable to India.
In hindsight taking the matter to the UN only ensured that Kashmir got dragged
into the international cold war politics in which Pakistan
was seen as a more reliable partner by the victors of world war rather than India. Hence in
India’s view there was
always a bias in the UN’s proceedings in favour of Pakistan which was clearly the
guilty party. Later on this internationalization also lead to the situation
where Shekh Abdullah was courted by the Americans and even the Chinese. The
Americans planted and encouraged the idea of “Independence”
with Shekh Abdullah and for the government of India
the possibility of an American base in Kashmir became a real possibility,
something which went against the non aligned foreign policy which India wanted to
pursue. This is precisely the reason why India has been wary of approaching
the UN for any such matter ever since 1948. We did not approach the UN during
any subsequent aggression by Pakistan
or during the China
war. This is also the reason why we do not encourage any third party
intervention in Indo Pakistan
relations.
India today disowns the UN resolution 47 which asked
for plebiscite in J&K. The reasons are that Pakistan never exited the area
under its control, the negotiations held with Pakistan in the 50’s failed to
arrive at an acceptable formula under which plebiscite could be held, Pakistan
over the years changed the demographics of the regions of J&K under its
control and the Shimla accord signed with Pakistan in 1974 made the UN
resolution irrelevant. But the real reason why any resolution based on
plebiscite could not be arrived at and I will assert will never be arrived at
is the realization on part of any subsequent responsible Indian government that
the very nature of the population mix of J&K which was sighted by
Mountbatten as the reason why plebiscite should be held in J&K makes it
impossible to make a just decision based on plebiscite. The fact of the matter
is that the population of J&K is ethnically, linguistically and religiously
a very diverse population living together in that state for centuries and for
that reason any referendum which is really a communal question of separation
will only be voted on communal lines, leading to complete destruction of the
social fabric of the society of J&K. The scenarios of partition in ’47 will
be repeated and will be followed by population movement and communal riots of
the worst kind in the entire country. It will essentially change the complete
nature of India
as it exists today. We will never be a secular, democratic, republic where all
diversity of population can live together and balkanization and radicalization
will follow. Such a nightmare scenario is so gross and the human tragedy that
might follow so unimaginable that no responsible person in India can ever
agree to it.
The question of
plebiscite having been dealt with as rejected in my understanding by a majority
of public opinion in the country and my arguments about the communal nature of
separatist demands having been made I would like to address the more difficult
question of autonomy which has perhaps a more divided opinion within the
country. Several people have been arguing including some political parties in
J&K, that autonomy is the solution to the separatist problem. The
interlocutors have in fact recommended making article 370 a special provision
as against a temporary provision of constitution as it exists today also they
have asked for review of all laws extended to J&K since 1953. The assembly
of J&K had also passed a resolution to that effect for even reverting to
the designation of Prime Minister and President of the state rather than the
designation of CM and Governor. They
would like the IAS and IPS officers in the state to be replaced with the state
service officers and removing the powers of national election commission, CAG
and the Supreme Court in matters of the state.
All such moves to
revert the status of government in J&K to the pre ‘53 status or close to
pre ‘53 status in various degrees will in any logical person’s opinion lead to
less integration of the state with the rest of India rather than more integration.
Any such move will not weaken the separatist demand. The core separatist demand
is not autonomy they have never asked for it and they will never be satisfied
only with it. This will only play in the hands of the separatist and extremists
who will see it as a step closer to eventual separation rather than settlement
of their concerns. This move will also lead to more complications in dealing
with other cases of insurgency in the rest of the country especially in the
north east where it will be seen that extremist violence eventually does pay
and demand for such a settlement in Nagaland and Manipur will gather steam. The
fact of the matter is that more autonomy and provisions like article 370 and
separate constitution for a state as exists in J&K is not a solution to
problems of alienation of population it is in fact is a slow poison which over
a period of time leads to degeneration of the state to a communal and identity
politics of the worst kind. It also leads to bad laws and persecution of the
minority population of the state. We have ended up creating a North Korea
like hermit state within the Union of India where people of the state are
deprived of progressive laws and progressive political movements of the rest of
the country. It has lead to a situation that the government sector is seen as
the only credible employer and lack of employment opportunities has lead to
disaffection of the people from the government. The politics of the state as we
have seen in J&K since 1947 is forever hostage to corruption, autocratic
government, petty power politics and manipulation of the people based on
ethnicity and religion. Today J&K is more ethnically and communally divided
than it was at any point in its history and the persecution of minority population
of Kashmir which is living as refugees in its
own state is not hidden from anyone. Mr Balraj Puri and Praveen Swami in a
series of articles for the frontline magazine had between 1999 and 2001 written
extensively about these issues. Autonomy of the kind the state has been given
has been seen as the main cause of such divide.
India exists because of the Idea of India which is
centered on the diversity of its population and the values of tolerance,
secularism, respect for others traditions and cultures, intermingling of
populations and economic integration. This is what has lead to the cultural and
political evolution of India.
I would like to make another assertion that a person may be born an Indian
citizen but no one is truly born an Indian. We are raised as Indians, just as
anyone is never born into a particular religion, that person has to be raised
as a follower of that particular religion. The virtues of Indian-ness of the
kind I have mentioned have to be experienced. They cannot be imposed from the
outside or by laws. They are experienced and learned in the environment of a
child’s neighborhood, schools, colleges and work places before he or she can
truly imbibe them. Unfortunately the identity politics of J&K and the
retrograde state subject laws of J&K which have disallowed the population
of Kashmir valley to ever experience this Idea
of India, is today alienated from the population of rest of the country. I
can’t imagine how any logical person will propose the same conditions which
lead to the primary alienation of the population of the state as a solution to
the current separatist problem in the state.
Having made my case
against autonomy or conversion of article 370 which in my view is the root of
the difficult situation in J&K into a permanent provision in the
constitution I would like to assert that
I am in no way against decentralization of powers to the people at the local
level. Local body elections and strengthening of the Panchayats are perhaps a
more robust solution to delivering the experience of freedom to the masses of
the state as has been argued by Mr Wajahat Habibullah. But economic development
of the state is not possible without allowing economic migration of
professional, workers and businessmen from other states to J&K. The cities
in J&K can never become engines of economic growth unless they become
cosmopolitan like any small or big city of the country.
In order to imagine what solution exists for the current problems of
J&K one needs to look at the ways which will lead to the eventual peaceful
return of the Kashmiri minority population to their homes and their being able
to live in a peaceful environment where they are not deprived of any economic
activity. The separatist movement and separatist propaganda survives on the oxygen
of violence and international support including the primary source of violence
and propaganda in Pakistan.
Unless these two things are addressed and unless the freedom to local
population in form of a well functioning local democracy and uncorrupted administration
is delivered to the common people of the state in my view any other solution
will only serve the purpose of appeasing the separatists and eventually serve
the cause of destructive elements. Hopefully the government of India will not
take any decision in panic which will lead to a situation that can only be described
as consumption of the slow poison of arsenic out of an unfounded fear that the
only alternative is consumption of cyanide.
This post is in response to editorial "Kashmir’s unsettled business" that appeared in The Hindu of March 14, 2013. I do not agree with the
conclusion of the editorial that solution to violence in Kashmir
lies with what the editor has called implementing "sensible measures"in
the interlocutors' report. The measures from interlocutors' report mentioned in the editorial are in my view not sensible at all. The interlocutors were sent to build bridges with
population of J&K and what they are suggesting is raising even higher walls
between the J&K and rest of India. One gentleman amongst them was recently
quoted in Kashmiri media saying that "Kashmiris hate India like rats hate cats". The
inherent contradictions in that statement not withstanding, it reflects a keenness
for dramatics rather than responsibility. Such irresponsible people have come
up with the most irresponsible suggestion of making article 370 permanent
rather than leave it as temporary as it exists currently.
How
can economic growth in J&K happen without more economic interaction with
other parts of India?
Would any of our larger metro cities be the engine of economic growth for us
had they disallowed migration from other parts of India? The constitution of India sustains
the "Idea of India". There is no peace and prosperity possible in India without this idea of India which thrives on tolerance for the other and interaction through mingling of diverse population of India is essential
for experiencing the Idea of India. The root cause of alienation among the
youth of J&K is that they have not experienced the meaning of what it is to be an Indian. Unfortunately the constitutional provisions given to J&K
and the retrograde state subject laws are responsible for the degeneration of
the politics of J&K to a communal and identity based politics. Let there be
no doubt in the mind of anybody that the movement for separation in J&K
among the separatist is not a movement for freedom it is a communal movement
for separation and the minority population of Kashmir were the first victims of
this movement. The nation within a nation concept is responsible for this
movement to have gathered momentum as it did in '89 and allowed Pakistan to
exploit the weakness exposed to them.
There
is good reason why article 370 was agreed to after great disagreement only as a
temporary provision by the founders of our Nation. It was expected to only lead
to greater integration in course of time unfortunately the integration process
was not pursued vigorously and the State degenerated towards greater communal
politics and regionalism. The root cause of the violence in J&K is the existence of
machinery in Pakistan to
wage a proxy war against India
and that is the cause of disturbance in J&K ever since JKLF came into existence.
We have been shying away from this root cause and have no strategic vision on
how to coerce Pakistan
to stop this activity. If insurgency in J&K and the destabilization that
has occurred there has to be cured then the source of the arms supply and the
source of training and motivation for insurgents should be neutralized first.
Separatists can only be marginalized when violence and the international
support including that from western countries which they get comes to an end.
They cannot be marginalized with any kind of appeasement in the form of greater
autonomy to the state. They have never asked for it for settlement and that
will only lead to legitimizing their cause. It would be seen as step closer to
eventual separation. There is no reason why Indians should start doubting our
founding principle of tolerance and unity in diversity which are the basis of
the Idea of India. There is everything in the constitution which guarantees
equality before law and government to every citizens and nothing in the constitution that tramples on the instinct
of self preservation of any individual, family or community. Political autonomy
of the kind that was given in article 370 is a slow poison that has caused
great stress to our integrity and political unity. There is no "sensible
measure" in consuming arsenic in a panic reaction out of an unfounded fear
that the only alternative is consumption of cyanide.
Kashmir Times published an opinion article on 16 March 2013 “Sale of Kashmir: A Day We Want to Forget” - Dr Altaf Hussain Para. The author of the article seems to have made a very selective reading of Indian History while making his assertion about the “darkest day in Kashmiri history” and his assertion that “a group of otherwise unrelated tracts were converted to form a Princely State, which had nothing in common except a ruler imposed on it, purely for political considerations”. It does not serve truth because many rulers in Indian history had formed several states by conquest or treaties. This is precisely how the Mughal Empire also came into existence. Another fact of the matter is that the strategy used by the British to extract rent from Indian rulers and conquer territory was pretty much the same throughout India. It is described in one line as "Divide and Rule". Story of their capture of Punjab and treating Jammu and Kashmir as a vassal state was no exception and similar history can be found starting with the British capture of Bengal with the aid of Mir Jaffar in 1757.
People of the country have moved beyond the past because the past rulers and the British intrigues of the past are no longer relevant. After all every community or ethnic group of people can harp on the excess committed by some Maharaja or Nawab or Emperor depending on how you want to read history and how far back in history you want to go. Each one of us be it Punjabis, Gujratis, Sikhs, Bengalis, Rajputs, Malyalis or so on can cite from history how one ruler was replaced with next and how he was worse than the last and so on. The British ruled us by dividing us on religious and ethnic lines and left a parting gift of Partition of subcontinent on communal lines which lead to a million plus people who were otherwise living peacefully together getting killed in communal riots.
It is relevant to note that the independence of the entire subcontinent of India from the European colonizers was brought about through what is known as the Indian Independence movement. The entire population of the subcontinent became free thanks to that. The movement for creation of Pakistan was not a movement of independence of Pakistan it was a communal movement for separation and we all know the consequence. It is hence important to note that the future of the people of what is left of India lies in the best traditions of secularism, tolerance and respect for law. There is noting to be gained from the kind of article Dr Altaf Hussain Para has produced except to inflame passions and create regional divide in the minds of the people of State of J&K in terms of ethnicity and religion.
The state of Jammu and Kashmir on our side of LOC is a single democratic political state unit, people belonging to all ethnic groups, all religions groups are equal and have equal right to life and liberty. The present phase of violence which started in '89 will in larger context only be seen as blip in our history of coexistence in peace. Peace can only prevail in J&K and by extension in rest of India through secular traditions, tolerance and respect of law and constitution, which is the only guarantee for safety and prosperity of all communities including minority communities in any part of the country.
The Idea of India and the legal representation of the Idea of India which is the constitution of India is what guarantees safety and prosperity to any kind of minority or majority population in the subcontinent. From Afghanistan to Myanmar only India stands out as a country where by constitution and law minority rights are protected, stresses to this guarantee in the form of operational weakness of our democratic and administrative institutions not withstanding. No other country has managed to do this. Hopefully the people of J&K and the readers of Kashmir Times will take a more holistic approach to our shared History rather than make selective reading from it for narrow political motives.
When one reads about the clamor in media for implementation of more autonomy proposal from GOI interlocutors for Jammu and Kashmir one wonders if more political autonomy is a solution. The real question to ask about solution for Kashmir is to ask what are the steps that need to be taken to ensure that the Kashmiri minority which has had to escape the valley and is living like internal refugees be able to return to the valley and live in peace?
There was an article published in the Greater Kashmir newspaper published in J&K under the headline "Kashmiris hate India like rats hate cats." about a statement made by one of government appointed interlocutors. There are many contradictions in those statements and the headline in the newspaper. Saying "Kashmiris hate India" is a suggestion that India and Kashmir are separate entities. Then the generalization that Kashmiris hate India is far too casual. The interlocutors could not have met each and every Kashmiri nor would they have thoroughly analyzed all the reasons and aspects of their dislike or hatred to come to the conclusion that they hate 'India' or is it that they are filled with hate thanks to certain events of their life post 1989 cycle of violence and what is needed to get them on board is 'truth and reconciliation' not appeasement by promises of autonomy which is path to further alienation and drift from the national mainstream. What exactly about India do the ones who are filled with hatred hate? Is it that India is a secular, democratic, republic which by its constitution guarantees equal rights to all irrespective to his or her background? I doubt if any Indian can hate an India built on as noble and progressive ideal like that.
When even culturally and civilizationally independent countries of world are moving closer to each and removing barriers by creating EU and APEAC, we in India who have inherited an Idea of India which was bold and unique for its time and lead to the creation of a multi-cultural pluralistic multi-religious, multi-ethnic, secular and democratic republic for the people of the subcontinent, who are tied to each other by history of coexistence and civilizational ties over several millennia are unfortunately drifting apart due to petty regionalism and communal divisions. I am in no way a so called 'Hindu Nationalist' nor am I sympathizer of a reactionary ideology of majority domination. I am sold to the "Idea of India" as any as might exist and with the force of those credentials I have exceptions to some of the suggestions of the interlocutors report created by the team. The most exceptional was on the Idea that Jammu and Kashmir needs more autonomy. I agree to the Idea of more decentralization of governance but not more autonomy of the kind that are contained in some of the provisions of article 370 which are so divisive and so against the Idea of India that the great makers of our constitution who under grave misgivings agreed to it only as a temporary provision. I am making an assertion that if the people of J&K are alienated today it is not because of removal of autonomy it is due to the sense of separation which was unfortunately built by the existence of such a provision for a 60 years. It does not take long to see what might happen say if you apply this article 370 to any part of India. The population of that part will forever be hostage to the regional and communal strife and identity politics rather than be on path of economic prosperity. If no outsider is allowed to become a Kashmir and adopt Srinagar or Jammu or Rajauri as home because of the retrograde state subject laws that exist there then what ties with the other regions of the country do we expect. It is 60 years of drift that had to be corrected not create a recipe for more drift. If it was the partition of Bengal and the separate electorate on the basis of religion that sowed the seeds of India's partition on religious lines then it is also the kind of constitutional provisions that were created for J&K with lead to growth of separatism in the valley.
The extermist forces in Kashmir will assassinate every voice of reason and are responsible for many a deaths including that of Maulana Showkat who had raised his voice against stone pelting by youth in 2011. There is a constant propaganda regarding various aspects of Afzal Guru case that goes on in the local Kashmir media. While it is true that his abrupt hanging and denial of the right to his family to meet him for the last time was cruel and I second some arguments about jumping the queue but I am not sure if we can sit in judgement about the merits of the pronouncement of death sentence to him. I am not sure if not executing Afzal Guru for political reasons would serve the image of justice and law in our country either. Can we trust nothing in this country not even the highest court? Can we go on delaying carrying out court judgments for political reasons? How do we propose to fight extremism? By cowing down to it or by addressing the reasons for it.
Finally I would like to say that any solution to the difficulties in Jammu and Kashmir lies in more integration not less. Sikkim has been successfully integrated in India and is today not only showing high economic growth and lower poverty levels but is peaceful and comfortable both in its regional and national identity. The reason why the Moists extremists of Nepal were not able to fan the flames of the Greater Nepal movement is a testament to its successful integration. I am in no way expecting that the entire article 370 can be abruptly removed but giving more autonomy to the State government is certainly a step in the wrong direction. More decentralization can be attempted and the state gov can be encouraged to implement some of the panchayat governance reforms which are clearly helpful in winning the hearts and minds of the people which is quite evident from the assassination of the sarpanchs by extremist forces. We should be doing everything that the extremist forces do not want us to do while keeping in mind that we do not wish to take steps that lead to less integration.
As a thought experiment I would say what are the steps that need to be taken to ensure that the Kashmiri minority which has had to escape the valley and is living like internal refugees be able to return to the valley and live in peace. We don't need to heed to divisive forces but answer to the steps that lead to improvement of the lives of ordinary citizens and marginalize the very vocal separatist and extremist forces. In a talk show organized by noted Pakistani progressive writer and editor Tahir Gora has given a forum to Kashmiri minority and Kashmiri Muslim participants to discuss the problems of the minorities and what is the reason they feel has lead to this alienation in Kashmir. There in lies the real solution unfortunately no one in India is listening.
The separatists in Kashmir valley which gain publicity with every disturbance in Jammu and Kashmir reflect a sense of alienation which is very real in the valley. Yet every time the valley erupts a common Indian wonders why the Kashmir valley is in such a turmoil and exactly which freedom did the Kashmiris not enjoy in their history since independence that any other Indian did enjoy. In my view there have been two over lapping trends of alienation in Jammu and Kashmir. The first trend is the pre-89' trend and the second trend is the post-89' alienation. In order to exploit the pre-89 trend and the unfortunate event of the 1987 elections which were widely believed to be rigged the Pakistani establishment used its lessons from Afghanistan to engineer conditions for destabilization in the valley. When militant and terrorist activity increased and the state government appeared to be incapable of dealing with the disturbance on its own it lead to a response from central security forces and the army which unfortunately has lead to the conditions of post-89' alienation where the population of the state has begun to see themselves living under a police state with several alleged incidents of human rights abuses by the security forces which have gone unpunished.
The violence in Jammu and Kashmir and the failure of our institution to restore peace without excessive use of force leads to incidents of police shootings of protesting mobs and a cycle of violence which erupts once in a while even to this day. There have been various claims by the human rights activists in the state of events where torture, disappearances and civilian killings in crossfire have taken place. Allegation of rapes have also been made against the security forces. But these are part of the post-89' alienation. I would like to address here what has lead to this unfortunate end in the first place. This is a story of 40 years of alienation of the state and particularly the valley which became a happy hunting ground for communal extremism and Pakistan sponsored terrorism. Since independence the state of Jammu and Kashmir has been governed by a different set of laws compared to the rest of India. The fundamental rights guaranteed to the citizen of the country do not apply to the state the regressive state subject laws deny the right to 99% of Indian citizens which are not permanent residents of the state from acquiring property in the state and migrating to that state. A woman marrying a permanent resident of J&K becomes a permanent resident of Jammu and Kashmir but no other citizen of India except those born to permanent residents of the state can become state subjects.
Right to property of the state subjects only leads to a situation where very few Kashmirs in the valley have experienced growing up with people from the rest of India as neighbours. The Idea of India where every citizen of India can live with dignity and right to life and property requires that all citizens are treated equally before the law. The citizens of various states with varying ethnic, religious, linguistic upbringings share their future in the Idea of India in which tolerance for the other and respect for various religious and cultural traditions is a must. The Idea of India has a natural resonance for the subcontinent which is the most diverse in the world. India is a unique country to call itself home for such a diverse groups of people. People of India have a history of coexistence over a millennia. A coexistence which has been brought about by migration and contact over thousands of years. The republic of India has been built around this Idea of India and it forms the spirit of India.
No human is born a Muslim or a Hindu or Christian every human child has to be raised as a Hindu or a Muslim or a Christian. Similarly while every child born in India to either parents being Indian citizen acquires the citizenship of India by law however he or she confers to the Idea of India when he is raised as an Indian. The child has to experience the Idea of India to be raised as an Indian that experience comes from growing up with the friends and neighbours with different background. By going to school where the Idea of India is both experienced in the form of the diversity experienced in India and also this Idea of India is taught by teachers who belong to diverse backgrounds. This is the most essential experience that when a child is deprived of, then the Idea of India does not take root in his or her mind.
Since Independence in Jammu and Kashmir the retrograde state subject laws have been perpetuated. This law was create by the Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir in 1927 to disallow non state subjects from purchasing property. After independence the same law has resulted in denying other state residents from acquiring property in Jammu and Kashmir. In the 70's a law was created by state government to allow resettlement of Pakistani citizens of the region of erstwhile princely state of Jammu and Kashmir in Pakistan's control back to the Indian state of J&K, but at the same time high walls have been created to disallow residents from other states of the country from acquiring property in the state of J&K. This highly discriminatory law has lead to a situation where an entire population of Jammu and Kashmir has been denied the experience of the Idea of India and the entire population of other states of India have been deprived of the right to become residents of J&K and participate in the economic and cultural growth of the state.
Such divisive laws and a constitution of Jammu & Kashmir which give rise to communal and identity divisions in the state have resulted in extremist forces taking over the erstwhile secular traditions of the state. Root cause of the alienation of the youth of Kashmir valley is the denial of the Indian experience of unity in diversity to them not the devolution of autonomy as is being projected by some political parties in the state.
I am utterly dismayed
by the way foreign media and supposed foreign analysts describe the Kashmir issue and the way that they discuss it in
television debates. They start with such factually incorrect assumptions about Kashmir’s history and its current problems that I wonder
if any discussion or suggestions about the solution of that problem will lead
us anywhere. I understand the truth is so glaring that recognizing the truth
will probably make the complete mockery of the position of Pakistan and
many international powers particularly the western countries, that they and
their misinformed media perpetuate these myths. I wonder whey India turns out
so defensive in the world in its position on J&K. As long as there is
conviction amongst Indians in the Idea of India there is hardly any reason to
be defensive about it, except that we were limited in our history by our
resources and by being on the wrong side in terms of national self interest
with the west and China.
My conclusion is that in the world of international diplomacy it is not about truth
but self interest and we have been collectively let down by our defensive
approach in communication and diplomacy while Pakistan
and its strategic friends in their single minded pursuit of self interest have
managed to bog India
down. This post is an effort to dispel some of these myths which have been
perpetuating in the world for so long that some of them have even come back and
occupied a considerable space in Indian national consciousness.
First let me address what
Kashmir is in terms of the territory
of Kashmir. What the
world calls Kashmir is not Kashmir it is the state of Jammu and Kashmir. Kashmir is only a part of
the State of Jammu and Kashmir.
The size of the valley of Kashmir is about 140 Km
long and 32 Km wide which is comparable to the Aksai Chin region of Ladakh
which is currently under Chinese occupation. The world seems to know that
Kashmir is divided between India
and Pakistan where as the
fact is that Kashmir is not divided, the entire valley
of Kashmir is within the Indian side
of the Line of Control, what was divided thanks to the Pakistani invasion in
1947 was the state of Jammu and
Kashmir. The entire Jhelum valley which is Kashmir was completely cleared of the Pakistani invaders in 1947. In
fact what Pakistan calls Azad Kashmir is not even Kashmir it is a part of Jammu
which it continues to occupy after 1947 invasion.
A question is raised
several times that a plebiscite promised by India
on the Kashmir question was not honored. The
true facts are that Kashmir became an international dispute in 1948 when India appealed to the United Nations for its
intervention on the Pakistani aggression on the state of Jammu and Kashmir. The fact that it was
considered a dispute at all in the UN rather than an act of aggression by Pakistan continued to dismay Indian government for
several years. How could the UN have considered an aggressor and a victim of
aggression at par by legitimizing it as a dispute between India and Pakistan, where as it was clearly Pakistan which had attacked the state and India had
gone in to defend the state after it had legally acceded to India, so it was
Pakistan which was in illegal occupation of the territory when India went to
the UN. Kashmir issue became and international
dispute thanks to a technical error in the appeal which was filed by Sir
Girija Bajpai in the UN which was filed under chapter 6 of
the UN charter which deals with peaceful resolution of disputed rather than chapter 7
which deals with acts of aggression. The gross disservice done to the nation by
the team filing the appeal should have been an issue of national debate and
questioning but it was hardly ever raised for the last 65 years in the country.
But this technical error gave Pakistan
the opportunity and the western country an excuse to hide behind the
technicalities of appeal in order to pursue their own national interest at the
cost of the population of the state of Jammu
and Kashmir. The UNSC resolution 47 which was finally
passed in April of 1948 mentioned plebiscite as means to decide the fate of Kashmir but it was conditional on the Pakistani forces
being removed from the region and an impartial plebiscite to be conducted under
supervision Indian armed forces. Since Pakistan had no intention of
withdrawing, a plebiscite could not have been held. Thanks to its aggression Pakistan had already been rewarded with a
portion of the state of Jammu and Kashmir and Kashmir had become and international dispute thanks to
its desire to acquire more portions of the state by all means possible at its disposal.
Another myth which is
perpetuated is that Jammu and Kashmir region
has been a source of bitter territorial dispute between India and Pakistan for which they have gone
to several wars. The assumption in any such argument is that both sides have
been attempting to change the status quo on the line of control and trying to
occupy territory in each others control. Where as the fact is that starting
from 1947 when Pakistani invaders first attacked the erstwhile princely state
of Jammu and Kashmir it is Pakistan which has been trying to alter the
situation by force and not India. Every invasion in the Kashmir region has been
initiated by Pakistan.
Pakistan thanks to its
covert invasion in 1947 managed to acquire a considerable territory of Jammu and
Kashmir. In 1965 brimming with self confidence
with their plum acquisition of American Patton tanks and encouraged by the
favorable outcome of Raan of Kutch invasion they planned and executed the so
called Operation Gibraltar and invaded in Jammu & Kashmir. In 1971 it was Pakistan which chose to first expand the war of
Bangladesh Liberation in the western sector by planned air strikes and then
tank invasion to acquire territory in Kashmir
by force. It was Pakistan which in 1989 chose to apply lessons learned from its
Afghan operations to Jammu and Kashmir and wage a proxy war on India, they
armed and trained disaffected Kashmiri youth and also Pakistanis and Afghans
and other foreigners and sent them out to wage a ‘Jihad’ in J&K. In 1999
again it was the Pakistani Army which invaded and occupied mountains in Kargil
on the Indian side of Line of Control and expected to get away with it thanks
to its nuclear armed status. What is also pertinent to note is that in each of
these instances of invasion and violence in J&K starting with 1947, the
Pakistani Army has initially denied having any role to play and the west has
remained silent on it (except perhaps the Kargil war of 1999) not in the interest of truth but for its own
self interest.
Now let us understand Jammu and Kashmir in
terms of its people. Arguments are made by Pakistan
and sometimes echoed in the west that ‘Any resolution of Kashmir
has to take into account the wishes of the Kashmiri people’. In order to
understand the wishes of the Kashmiri people we have to first understand who
the Kashmiri people are? Are they only
the primarily Muslim Kashmiri speaking population of the valley? Or are they
the entire state of Jammu and Kashmir.
The thrust of the argument by Pakistan here is that the wishes of a section of the people of
the Kashmir valley who are vocal in espousing the separatist cause should
matter and the views of the rest of the population of the state of Jammu and Kashmir
and those in the valley who do not espouse such a cause should essentially be
silenced. It should be reminded that it is a voice that the population of Jammu and Kashmir has consistently
been expressing in the various elections that have taken place in the state under Indian constitution.
Perhaps one of the best descriptions of the cultural diversity of Jammu and Kashmir which
I have come across was in an article in
Frontline Magazine in 2001 by Mr. Balraj Puri. Jammu
and Kashmir in spite of no permanent immigration to that state
since independence because of its special status granted to it in the
constitution is one of the most diverse of all regions of India in terms
of ethnicity, culture, religion and sects. How can such a region have a singular
opinion on the so called resolution of Kashmir?
Whose opinion matters most? The Kashmiri Muslims, the Kashmiri minority
refugees, the Buddhist Ladakhis, the Muslim Ladakhis, the Pahadis, the Gujjars,
the Dogras, the Sikhs? Is the future of Jammu and Kashmir to be determined by a
very vocal separatist block which has also espoused to violence at the behest
of their controllers in Pakistan Army and the silent majority which has
consistently been expressing its opinion in the various elections in the past
about trust in Indian democracy should suffer the consequence of the separatist
agenda?
The real fact of Kashmir is that Kashmir is not a territorial dispute at all. Kashmir is an ideological dispute. It is a dispute between the Idea of India which is a pluralistic multi-religious, mutli-cultural, multi-ethnic, secular democracy and the Idea of Pakistan which was based on a two nation theory which states that Muslims of India and the Hindus of India are separate nations. So the Pakistani claim on Kashmir is based on the religions identity of Kashmir where as India's claim on the state of Jammu and Kashmir is based on its identity as a mosaic of ethnic, religious and linguistic groups of people.
Let me try and address a particular question of the so called "occupation" of Kashmir valley by the Indian army which is often raised by Kashmiri separatist, Pakistan based terrorist organizations, international "human rights" activists, certain foreign governments and some Indian "intellectuals".
As far as my reading of history goes the Indian Army went to the Kashmir valley in 1947 for the first time when help was sought by both the erstwhile Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir and the popular leader Mr Sheikh Abdullah. When it landed in Srinagar airport it brought a sigh of relief to the population and not any fear of so called occupation. Indian Army went to Kashmir to defend Kashmir, Jammu and Ladakh from the same forces which continue to threaten it today. To the people who leave no stone unturned to find faults with Army and criticize it I have to say please read some history about the circumstances under which the Army had to be called in both in '47 and in '89.
Historical reasons apart if we look at the present situation in the Valley then a number of foreign governments and international organization have pointed finger at the Indian government regarding the number of civilian deaths that have taken place in Jammu and Kashmir as a marker of "oppression" by the Indian Army. The number quoted has been an estimate of 60,000 civilian deaths since 1989. I am not sure about the figure but assuming it is true and regardless of the circumstances of these deaths, whether they were caused by terrorist violence, militants killed by security forces, extra judicial killings, terrorists convicted to death by courts or civilians caught in cross fire, this estimated number is of course unacceptable. But does it automatically lead to the conclusion that the cause of such a high civilian death number is a result of Army's presence in the valley? Won't the more correct reason be the proxy war being waged in Kashmir by the Pakistani Army and civilians being the victims of this war. Who is the aggressor in Kashmir today? Is it India or is it Pakistan? Then who has the onus of bringing these deaths to an end.
The number of civilian deaths in Afghanistan since 2001 NATO operation is estimated to be a similar figure of 60,000, yet none of these international organizations and foreign governments have accused ISAF forces in Afghanistan as "occupying" forces, when clearly they are foreign while Indian Army is within its own territory. The same governments who were pointing finger at India in the 90's are part of the ISAF forces.
The ISAF forces are now leaving Afghanistan by cutting a deal with Pakistan and Pakistan backed Taliban not because the war has been won but because the cost has been too high for them to sustain. The civilians in Afghanistan now fear the worst because they know that while the present situation is not rosy, the alternative is even darker. Indian Security Forces have been fighting this Pakistan sponsored insurgency for past 23 years yet India cannot give up on Kashmir because the commitment of the Indian Army is to the silent population in the Valley and also Jammu and Ladakh who do consider themselves as Indians.
Doesn't the nation owe to the people of Ladakh and Jammu the same protection and freedom of life that it owes to other citizens of India. Will the Indian army be able to defend Ladakh and Jammu without protecting Kashmir Valley? What about the Kashmiri Pandit minority population which is a refugee in its own state? What does the nation owe to them?
While all complaints of human right abuses deserve to be looked at dispassionately and justice be done but calling Indian Army an occupier in Kashmir suits only the enemies of India because exit of the Army from Kashmir also results in simultaneous collapse of the Indian Nation as it exists today.
Who deserves more sympathy the citizens of Kashmir or the citizens of Afghanistan?
Separatist leaders in Kashmir are still living in the past while political leaders in Afghanistan are more progressive today. While Kashmiri leaders incite people to throw stones when a terrorist is hanged, Afghan leaders clearly identify and expose Pakistani interference and have no sympathy for extremist ideology and terrorists. Afghanistan remembers and honors icon of peace and Indian nationalist Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan and Kashmiri leaders call on people to rally around the so called 'martyr' Maqbool Bhat who was convicted of murder. Young in Afghanistan look forward to watching the next episode of the Afghan Star while the Kashmir Grand Mufti bans a girls music band.
After being completely destroyed in 30 years of violence Afghanistan wants to free itself of ethnic an cultural difference and identifies national integration as the road to peace and progress. Leaders in Kashmir cant think beyond the valley and the old jargon of autonomy. The valley is shutdown because Afzal Guru was hanged for plotting the attack on Indian Parliament on the behest of a foreign nation. Afghanistan has seen more violence and pain, and yet it can hope to transform itself. Today I have more sympathy for the Afghan citizens than I have for the Kashmiri separatists.
Ever since 26/Nov Mumbai attacks in the year 2008 the people of the subcontinent are being lead to believe that there are some rogue ISI elements who have been out of control of the Pakistani Army and who have not severed there links with the terrorists and Taliban and who have possibly planned and carried out the attacks. Mr Ahmed Rashid a well respected author and journalist who is an Afghanistan/Pakistan expert had argued in 2008 immediately after that attacks that the attacks were perhaps planned and executed by the al-qaeda along with "disbanded LeT". He had written in an article for BBC "Al-Qaeda is looking for some relief and a diversion... This strategic diversion ploy for the sake of al-Qaeda and its surrogates is the principle motive behind the Mumbai terrorist attacks." He went on to say "Charges that the Pakistan government, army or its Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) were behind the attack appear unfounded." In the words of the Pakistani government after they finally agreed that the attack was planned in and executed from Pakistan, they were "non state actors".
However in the same year before Mumbai attacks while discussing his book Descent into Chaos in the Conversations With History program with Harry Kreisler Mr Rashid had categorically stated that "there is no rogue ISI". The so called rogue ISI was created to continue supporting Taliban while avoiding detection by the CIA of its activities. Retired Army generals, and ISI men who had worked with the Taliban were given "part time" jobs to go on a "vacation from home for 4 weeks 5 weeks" and work with the Taliban.
Ahmed Rashid - "There is no Rogue ISI" (26:02)
All this has been in public domain for quite sometime it is also in the US government's knowledge for a. long time that Pakistan is supporting the Taliban and keeping it as a "Strategic Asset". A 2007 Congressional Research Service report RS22632 titled "Pakistan and Terrorism: A Summary"released by Wikileaks in Feb 2009 in its summary mentions that "The outcomes of U.S. policies toward Pakistan since 9/11, while not devoid of meaningful successes, have neither neutralized anti-Western militants and reduced religious extremism in that country, nor have they contributed sufficiently to the stabilization of neighboring Afghanistan. Many observers thus urge a broad re-evaluation of such policies."
The report says "Throughout the opening months of 2007, Administration officials, U.S. military commanders, and senior U.S. Senators issued further incriminating statements about Pakistan’s assumed status as a terrorist base and the allegedly insufficient response of the Islamabad government." it goes on to say "The United States also remains concerned with indigenous extremist groups in Pakistan, and with the ongoing 'cross-border infiltration' of Islamist militants who traverse the Kashmiri Line of Control and other borders to engage in terrorist acts in India and Indian Kashmir. Many analysts consider such activities conceptually inseparable from the problem of Islamist militancy in western Pakistan and in Afghanistan. Domestic terrorism in Pakistan, much of it associated with Islamist sectarianism, has become an increasingly serious problem affecting major Pakistani cities. Separatist violence in India’s Muslim-majority Jammu and Kashmir state has continued unabated since 1989 with some notable relative decline in recent years. Many experts reject efforts by the Pakistani government and others to draw significant distinctions between U.S.- and Indian-designated terrorist groups fighting in Kashmir and those fighting in western Pakistan and Afghanistan, and in Pakistan’s interior".
The report clearly raises doubt on Pakistan's intentions by stating that "Numerous experts raise questions about the determination, sincerity, and effectiveness of Pakistani government efforts to combat religious extremists. Doubts are widely held by Western experts, many of whom express concerns about the implications of maintaining present U.S. policies toward the region, and about the efficacy of Islamabad’s latest strategy, which appears to seek reconciliation with pro-Taliban militants." The report is so damning that I can go on quoting from the report but it is rather better if the interested reader reads it himself/herself. It is also in my view one of the main inputs if not the cornerstone of the subsequent Obama government's policy in Pakistan as I have covered below.
Mr Rashid's assertions in the interview to University of California Berkley, and the picture of a typical handler of this "ISI within ISI" fits well people like Hamid Gul a retired ISI chief with links with both Taliban and LeT founder Hafees Saeed. He openly conducts meetings with Hafees Saeed and other Jehadi outfits in Pakistan on a supposed pro Kashmir and anti India platform. There is no dearth for such India baiters in Pakistan who fit the bill of these "ISI within ISI" operatives. The narrative since Mumbai asking for restraint from the people of India and from the GOI at the face of all provocations has been that al-Qaeda and Taliban affiliates "want to divert attention from the west of Pakistan to the east". On the face of it this argument seems logical and valid. US war in Afghanistan would have been jeopardized by any Indo-Pak flareups, so it was valid for the US to make this argument. But the odd price for this restraint will have to be paid by innocent citizens of India. The perpetrators of Mumbai are still not punished and Hafees Saeed is a free man.
Frankly there are so many diversions in the diversions that no one can say what the real story behind Mumbai is. Was it to divert Pakistan from the west? Or was it planned with an assumption that no trace will be found as to who was behind that attacks? Did the ISI within ISI get embolden with its success in hoodwinking the CIA and felt it was time to punish India as a warning to keep out of Afghanistan? Was the planning for the attack done with full knowledge that there will be no military response from India after all Pakistan had built up conventional and nuclear military since 9/11 with US military aid. Is it wrong to suspect that the real perpetrators were pretty much the establishment itself rather than any rogue elements?
But what is interesting is to note the response of the United States and India to these Mini ISI's activities. While India replied under the time tested "good faith policy"(I am not sure if it has ever worked) and resumed uninterrupted and un-interruptible dialog with Pakistan. US also had "time tested"(never worked?) response in the lines of continuing to provide aid carrots to its "strategic ally".
Obama government replaced the Bush government in Jan 2009. Under Obama's watch AF-PAK policy was formulated. Under this policy an attempt was initially made to include India too which the Indian government declined. The idea was to engage the whole region for solving Pakistan's problems. India did not want to be clubbed so as to avoid any external pressures on its own national interest, especially pressures to "resolve" Kashmir as an incentive to Pakistan for stop supporting the terrorists. But never the less all said and done after Mumbai we still started dialog with Pakistan "in spite of terrorism". In US a policy change was perhaps undertaken and Afghanistan was brought back in focus. A military surge was ordered but unfortunately at the same time a withdrawal date was announced thus emboldening the Taliban and its friends to dig in and fight it out.
On the aid front United States had now installed an old Pakistan friend and India-baiter Ms Robin Raphel as Ambassador responsible for the targeted civilian aid to "improve the image of United States". At the same time it seems the Pakistani concerns as mentioned in the Congressional Report were being addressed during the drafting of the so called Kerry-Lugar bill sanctioning civilian aid of $1.5 billion per year. When the US congress was pushing President Bush to be tough on Pakistan after his years of leniency for inaction on Taliban as per the CRS report "In response to U.S. congressional signals of a possible shift in U.S. policy toward Islamabad, the Pakistani National Assembly’s Defense Committee unanimously passed a resolution threatening to end or reduce Islamabad’s cooperation on counter terrorism if U.S. aid to Pakistan were to be made conditional." later the report says "Other analysts, however, including those making policy for the Bush Administration, believe that conditioning U.S. aid to Pakistan has a past record of failure and likely would be counterproductive."
The Kerry Lugar bill does impose certain restrictions. For civilian aid it requires a certification each year by the special representative to Pakistan (Robin Raphel) to certify that "principal objectives" are being met in order to release the full quantum of $1.5 billion, but is also allows up to $750 million to be released without such certification. The bill also puts a certification requirement for certain military assistance. Limitation on Security-related Assistance for fiscal years 2011 through 2014 and a limitation on Arms Transfers for fiscal years 2012 through 2014. Why arms transfers we allowed for another year without certification requirement? I don't know.
Bulk of the arm purchases of conventional variety by Pakistan from the US had already taken place during the Bush-Musharraf years. A CRS report of 2012 on this subject says "Major U.S. arms sales and grants to Pakistan since 2001 have included items useful for counterterrorism and counterinsurgency operations, along with a number of big ticket platforms more suited to conventional warfare.In dollar value terms, the bulk of purchases have been made with Pakistani national funds, but U.S. grants have eclipsed these in recent years." it goes on to say "The Pentagon reports total Foreign Military Sales agreements with Pakistan worth about $5.4 billion for FY2002-FY2010 (in-process sales of F-16 combat aircraft and related equipment account for about half of this).", It should be remembered that in the 90's the US had denied arms sales to Pakistan. The sale of F16s were done under the garb of using them in counter terrorism operations.
It is always possible for the US government to block transfer of weapons already contracted. A CRS report of Aug 2009 says ", all government-to-government agreements or licensed commercial contracts for the transfer of defense articles or defense services may be halted, modified, or terminated by the executive
branch should it determine that it is advisable to do so. In this context, should the Bush Administration decide that actions taken by the government of Pakistan are contrary to the national security interests of the United States, the President can suspend or terminate existing arms sales agreements or prevent the delivery of weapons previously ordered, as he deems appropriate. The Congress can also pass legislation that would suspend, modify, or terminate any arms sale contract should it choose to do so."
Of course none of these weapons sales were ever suspended. All this while the ISI within the ISI continued to support Taliban and blunt the US army's efforts. Under Obama's watch Osama Bin Laden was found in a safe haven within the garrison town of Pakistan, again the so called "rogue elements" in ISI were blamed to have provided support to him without the knowledge at the "highest level". Then in 2011 there was a border skirmish between Pakistani forces and the American forces in which 24 Pakistani soldiers were killed. In response Pakistan blocked the supply routes and threatened to evict US from the Shamsi air base. After US apology the blockade was lifted. But the US government had to take some action too so the aid was reduced for a while.
Obama's second administration has now taken office. After the cooling down period of 2011-2012 the relations between Pakistan and US are back on track. Pakistani foreign minister visited US in January and during an interview with Charlie rose said that relations are much better now. I believe they were assured of support from the US government of continued aid and assistance despite their chequered history. The statement from newly appointed Secretary of State John Kerry in which he said "aid cut will be unkind" should be indicative.
While all this was going on there was an incident on the LOC in January 2013 in which two Indian soldiers were killed there bodies mutilated and one dead body beheaded by the Pakistani army as claimed by India and as usual denied by Pakistan. This incident was supposedly in response to a previous incident in which one Pakistani solder was killed in cross border firing by India which was in response to Pakistani shelling in which three civilians had died which India claims was to enable cross border infiltration. When India protested to Pakistan about the beheading incident the Pakistani FM denied any role of her Army and in the wake of Indian Army Chief's statement that "we reserve the right to retaliate at the time and place of our choosing" did not miss the opportunity of her US attention to blame India of "war mongering ".
While all this is important the most important story here is, and what even Mr Ahmed Rashid is now pushing in the west is, that before exiting Afghanistan USA should get a peace settlement done between Pakistan, Taliban and the Afghanistan government to avoid any post withdrawal conflict between the regional players via their proxies in that country. So the mini ISI has pretty much succeeded in ensuring that its interests in that country are served through the Taliban and also ensured that any talks should not happen without its knowledge. One should be reminded that the Pakistanis had detained Mullah Baradar when they found that he was talking to Afghanistan government without their knowledge. In Sep 2011 Burhanuddin Rabbani who was holding peace talks with the Taliban on behalf of the Afghan government was killed in a suicide attack.
What ever happens in Afghanistan after american withdrawal, I am afraid history is witness, that whenever western countries have interfered in this region for their strategic reasons even if it was for a reason as morally justified as stopping terrorism, the effect has been detrimental to the citizens of the subcontinent. In their "strategic interest" the tilt has well and truly always been in favour of the establishment in Pakistan at the detriment of India. So I doubt if the LeT will be eliminated or the perpetrators of Mumbai be punished by the time US exists Afghanistan. Time will tell and as they say history will be the judge. But one thing is for sure to me after hearing Mr Rashid and seeing what all has happened since his interview in 2008, there is no Rogue ISI only a clever indirection. I wonder who was deceived. Was it the US government? Was it the Indian Government? Or the people of the subcontinent?
