Wither
Kashmir: Short-Term Glory Or Long-Term Solution
By Ather Zia
01 August, 2007
Countercurrents.org
The
mere mention of Kashmir, brings about an inevitable gush of emotions,
a slew of stanched resolutions, sterile accords and pacts, impulsive
wars and the incessant violence. In the recent years, where the relation
between India and Pakistan is thawing in many regards, and the movement
in Kashmir has been wallowing amidst different narratives emerging from
organizations, which previously claimed to represent the sole aspiration
and dream of a free Kashmir. In the initial years of rejuvenated Kashmiri
resistance, the Hurriyet Conference emerged as a conglomerate of the
22 separatist organizations, becoming a formidable “force to reckon
with in the Valley.” Today, Hurriyet conference is split into
moderate and extremist, as termed by the media; while people have relegated
them to pro-India and pro-Pakistan positions. A range of views emerges
from the splintered group; which ironically was the bulwark embodying
the Kashmiri struggle. Having said this does not challenge Hurriyet’s
overall credibility, if anything the consultant factions still represent
the travesty of Kashmiri presence in a peace process that is working
within a seemingly magnanimous bilateral agenda, but is fraught with
a myopic vision and a narrow view of resolution for Kashmir.
The quest of looking at the
political conundrum that the bilateral peace process has created within
Kashmir manifests in a badly split Hurriyet Conference, the dissonant
offshoots of which effect other surrounding pro-freedom parties. This
phenomenon raises significant concerns for understanding which faction
represents the true aspirations of Kashmiri people and more importantly,
brings the scope of enquiry into understanding motivations behind the
dalliances that either country, whether India or Pakistan is carrying
on with them.
It is quite evident that
both countries would prefer a minimalist approach to a Kashmiri participation
in the peace process. There are staunch believers, in the fact that
Hurriyet was an impressive presence for New Delhi before the split,
lending credence to the belief that New Delhi and Islamabad were burning
the midnight oil to create a rift among the separatists . As the factions
combat internal bickering and ever-spreading schisms, their placebo
inclusion on the sidelines has become handy and convenient for both,
Pakistan and India. The Kashmiri participation at the bilateral negotiating
table has been a tacit non-issue for India and Pakistan. The rampant
diversity in the agenda proffered by the consultant groups makes it
more and more elusive. With the steady departure from core issue being
Kashmir, the thrust on a composite dialogue which discusses “outstanding
issues especially Kashmir” as opposed to what should have been
“the core dispute of Kashmir and other outstanding issues”,
has become stronger.
The enquiry into the composition
and representation of the Kashmiri aspirations is not intended to challenge
the legitimacy of Kashmiri parties involved on the fringes of the peace
process, but their placement amidst the dialogue with either Pakistan
or India is indicative of success they will be able to garner as they
pursue finding solutions for Kashmir. Their genuine intentions of finding
the way out from the status quo is more than evident in the variety
of propositions and plans that they have put forth before India and
Pakistan, the extreme flexibility they have shown in their departure
from previous positions and the alacrity in shuttling between New Delhi
and Islamabad. However, there is a considerable reserve emerging from
people concerning the original sentiment personified by a united front
from Kashmir and the departure from that position towards compromises,
which are at the moment mostly viewed as pro-India or pro-Pakistan.
The allegiance these factions have shown for a peace process that has
had little to offer Kashmiris apart from the 14 buses that traveled
the Srinagar-Muzafarabad route in the last two years is no doubt a matter
of skepticism in the valley.
The consultation with Kashmiris
in matters of a composite dialogue also indicates the dilemma, the peace
process represents for Kashmiri people and the priority it accords them
in the whole scenario. The location of the repository of Kashmiri will,
which the two countries – either India or Pakistan can address,
is needed to garner a relevance that this engagement will have for the
entire Kashmir, not just for a particular faction. These are crucial
issues, which need an urgent cognizance in case Pakistan and India are
genuinely motivated to solve the Kashmir issue for the sake of Kashmir
and its people, and not just for their mutual benefit or the global
audience.
The Indo-Pak motivations
and their engagement with moderate Hurriyet and other outfits, manifest
the preconditions that each country clings to inherently, even if the
extrinsic gestures, at least at the level of CBM’s appear to be
internationally endearing. The progress in bilateral relations over
Kashmir and in their contact with Kashmiri representation, whichever
faction that is, is to be viewed, through what President Musharraf expressed,
in no uncertain words, “Certainly, because none of us [Pakistan
or India] is in favor of their independence” . This sentiment
offered Pakistan’s stand and in an ironic twist, President Musharaf
also spoke on behalf of India to Kashmiris; nevertheless, India had
for its part, had issued a diktat way earlier, if Kashmiris ever wanted
to negotiate. In 2003, the then prime minister of India, Atal Bihar
Vajpayee had declared, “Our doors are open, to all those, who
reject militancy and extreme positions and wish to play a constructive
role in taking Jammu and Kashmir forward on the high road of peace and
rapid development."
So within the ambit of the
rules laid out, independence and extreme positions have come to be perceived
as an anathema by a deeply fatigued and war torn Kashmiri leadership,
foremost by Hurriyet who scurried to reorganize their positions and
plans in order to find some audience for their woes and views. Pakistan’s
departure from its historically stated position of implementing United
Nations security Council Resolution on Kashmir, and succumbing to the
rhetoric for demilitarization and self-governance as alternate solutions,
even as India stands firm on Kashmir being an integral part of India
and its avoidance of calling it a disputed territory, has added fuel
to the harried reactions issuing from the valley and furthered deviations
and diversions in the political map within Kashmir. The split in Hurriyet
also marked a surge in diverse and chaotic narratives that currently
exist elsewhere on the Kashmiri political firmament. For Kashmiri representatives
renouncing pre-conditions and extreme positions, may have garnered them
a presence in the dialogue and consultations at different level of talks,
but it is highly improbable that there will be a mature benefit, which
satisfies all of them.
The present strategy of the
bilateral process and indigenous engagement utilized by India and Pakistan
have relegated Kashmir issue to pesky tangle in the overall political
and intellectual goodwill generated in both countries in the recent
years. Within that context, as both countries veer towards establishing
what has been time and again termed as a relation of mutual benefit,
Kashmir issue seems to devolve into a mere issue of self-governance
or its variant at best. The present Pakistani government may be poised
for historical glory in opting for flexible, creative “out of
the box” solution for Kashmir but in terms of the actual implementation
this move appears short-sighted at best. The same goes for the union
government in India, which is taking full advantage of playing on the
schisms ravaging Kashmir’s erstwhile single-front leadership.
India tacitly continues to reiterate its hold on the valley, be it in
shape of the pro-India parties administering the region or the security
forces, which continue the scourge of human rights abuses.
Pandering to the clamor for
Kashmiri participation, which is overridden at the bilateral table,
and in the recent times engaged less surreptitiously at the sidelines,
is not a working solution for involving Kashmiri will in its true splendor.
President Musharaf’s four point proposal, which includes reorganization,
demilitarization and specific withdrawal of Indian forces, self-governance
in Jammu and Kashmir and “Joint Management” or what was
agreeably re-termed as “Institutional Arrangements” similar
to those in Northern Ireland is a strategy which emphasizes a categorical
negation of self-determination and independence as an option for Jammu
and Kashmir. Within these parameters the engagement with Kashmiris in
general and the consultant groups in particular can be viewed as a mollifying
interaction, which calms the outcry for their inclusion. It also assuages
international pressures engulfing both Pakistan and India, as well as
becomes a talking point for intellectuals and media, which is ever keen
on reporting the supposedly historical developments.
In consulting the specific
Kashmiri groups, who claim to represent peoples will, is indicative
of Pakistan conferring with preferred ideologues, which will no doubt
widen the scope of dissent in future, if ever any solution were to be
reached. As far as India is considered, in widening their span of dialogue,
they have thrown open the door to more chaos and bickering within the
Kashmiri parties. This lends a shadow of doubt to the motivations of
both the countries towards resolving the Kashmir issue. The validity
of a relevant long term solution for Kashmir, is also falling prey to
foreseeable benefits for some genuine concerns that the Hurriyet factions
or other parties in Kashmir voice repeatedly; which is finding an end
to this long protracted conflict and stopping the violence in Kashmir.
Even as the core objectives appear to be genuine and crucial, the strategy
envisaged and implemented to attain them is not plausible.
Contrary Missions: Quest for Fragments of Peace
The spate of contrary narratives
emerging from the moderate Hurriyet faction led by Mirwaiz Umar Farooq
and the extreme faction, Tehreek E Hurriyet, headed by Syed Ali Shah
Geelani, indicate changing perceptions of the solution for Kashmir,
within the valley. In January 2006, this dissonance was showcased for
international audience, as the Mirwaiz Umar Farooq expressed support
for Pakistan's Kashmir policy and arrived in Islamabad for consultations.
This visit was opposed in a rally organized by Millat-e-Islamia Kashmir,
an outfit that supports Syed Ali Shah Geelani’s breakaway Hurriyet
faction. Geelani’s faction dismisses the peace process as a sham
meant to divert people from the UN promised plebiscite. It perceives
the moderate Hurriyet’s stand as a surrender and opposes reopening
the bus route between Muzaffarabad and Srinagar fearing dilution of
the Kashmir problem. As a votary of self-determination, Geelani does
not engage in plans for self-governance, autonomy, joint management,
and soft border, that he thinks will be a surrender before India . Ironically,
Geelani as a staunch ally and a passionate advocate of the state's accession
to Pakistan is perceived as fighting against the very entity he has
been drawing succor from all his life. Although, Geelani may remain
committed to plebiscite and seeking people's aspiration, he has so far
presented no plan or strategy for achieving this goal within the modalities
and ground realities of the existing situation and his politics stands
deeply isolated by both Pakistan and India. Another section of Kashmiris,
the Jammu Kashmir Liberation Front (JKLF) is actively pursuing the third
option of Independence, instead of a plebiscite which would offer choice
between Kashmir's accession to either India or Pakistan. JKLF launched
a public protest in 2001, also in Pakistan-administered Kashmir when
the contestants in the assembly elections required there to declare
their support for the accession of the entire State of Jammu and Kashmir
to Pakistan. Neither India nor Pakistan, however, has taken cognizance
of the third option . Amanullah Khan, one of the founding members of
JKLF expresses motivation for outright independence; believing the Kashmiri
will for independence is overwhelming and assesses that the Hindus of
Jammu will never opt for Pakistan and have no option other than independence
. Yasin Malik, heading the JKLF in the Indian administered valley, in
an unprecedented campaign gathered about 1.5 million signatures (or
thumb impressions of people, with names and addresses). This campaign
has been hailed by progressives in India for affirming Kashmiri identity
cutting across religious, regional and ethnic divides and his language
of peace and the Gandhian mould of activism is more than welcome in
the intellectual circles in India . If on one hand, Malik is successful
in abstaining from violence and putting a positive agenda before the
people, on the other hand, he has not put forth any strategy for achieving
Independence for Kashmir. His campaign for Kashmiri participation does
not offer much understanding of the role or benefit that such engagement
will yield at the Indo-Pak negotiating table, which does not recognize
the third option for Independence. In the saga of deepening fragmentation
in the political firmament in the valley, JKLF has also broken up with
the rival group staking a claim at the party leadership. Another splinter
faction, led by Javed Mir, a former staunch colleague of Malik, joined
Geelani’s breakaway party, only to leave and ally with Mirwaiz’s
Hurriyet faction, which for a heady period was pivotal in parleying
with Islamabad and Delhi.
The interesting part of the
bilateral political theatre which began with accepting a Kashmiri consultation
for a largely premeditated agenda, heightened further, after Sajjad
Lone of the People’s Conference was invited by Prime Minister
Manmohan Singh to Delhi, close on the heels of Hurriyet’s Islamabad
visit. In an article in Tribune titled, “Invitation to Lone: PM
kills two birds with one stone” , this development was seen as
Delhi emphasizing a deliberate change. In engaging groups other than
the Hurriyet, Delhi was undermining the credence that Pakistan has bestowed
on them as well as their claim of being the sole representatives of
the genuine will of Kashmiris. Despite Hurriyet’s outcry at being
sidelined even though it was the largest conglomerate, Delhi was in
no mood to appease and continued its strategy of what they called, “broadening
the scope of dialogue”; and which in the case of Kashmir, amounts
to nothing short of a cacophony. Hurriyet was even relegated to present
their proposals to Narayanan (National Security Advisor) before discussing
them with the prime minister. So as the bilateral seduction worked its
magic intermittently on the different Kashmiri representatives, attaching
ephemeral importance and assuring them of alternate benefits, the more
their role eroded in the whole exercise. As far as the mood of the Kashmiri
people during the apparently breakthrough meetings was concerned, newspapers
reported that the Indian meeting (Sajjad Lone with Manmohan) did not
generate any enthusiasm in the valley and people remained equally indifferent
to the Hurriyat's Pakistan sojourn.
The most complex aspect of
intra-Kashmir political scenario, the interweave and contrariness that
exists therein, is a sad legacy of combating powers which have ravaged
the very core of Kashmir polity. Although this complexity does not invalidate
the existence of the political pursuits, it nevertheless makes them
extremely vulnerable. Sajjad Lone had been a part of Hurriyet and was
expelled after attacking Mirwaiz Umar Farooq for attending the funeral
of his father's alleged killers. In attending the funeral of the man
killed by the Indian security forces and who was named in the FIR on
Lone’s assassination, Farooq invoked Sajjad’s ire who demanded
a public apology for “glorifying the killers of our leader.”
The senior Lone, who favored negotiation with India was shot dead in
2002. He was also expected to field several proxy candidates in the
upcoming state legislative, a move that some of his opponents called
a sellout to India . Sajjad Lone, who incidentally is married to JKLF
chief Amanullah Khan’s daughter, was dismissed from Hurriyet,
which led to bifurcation of the Peoples Party and his brother Bilal
Lone, continued representing his faction in the moderate Hurriyet.
Moreover, in the political
food chain in Kashmir, one cannot forgo the “in-power and out
of power rhetoric” practiced by the carriers of the mainstream
pro-India politicians. In the current milieu, prominent amongst them
is Mehbooba Mufti, of the People’s Democratic Front (PDP), who
is calling for demilitarization after her father Mufti Mohammad Sayeed,
completed three years in power. In the chaotic political formulations
and their subsequent aspirations, the thin line between some mainstream
pro-India parties and pro-freedom groups seems to be growing vague,
as their demands have begun to sound alike. The over zealous media assiduously
reports the unfocused rhetoric further worsening the chaos for the hapless
masses. An editorial in times of India indicated that PDP's support
for demilitarization signifies the growing proximity between it and
Hurriyat [ostensibly the moderate faction]. This can be interpreted
in a myriad of ways, either casting doubts on Hurriyet’s intentions
or a change of heart in PDP, whatever it may be – it inevitably
becomes the indicator of the extreme political befuddlement that has
been planted in the Kashmiri soil. With active engagement of pro-freedom
groups like the Sajjad’s faction of the People’s party,
which is perceived as being inclined to join mainstream politics, the
bedlam seems poised to proliferate further rather than be stanched any
time soon.
The Only Way Forward
In the past few years, as
is quite evident that New Delhi and Islamabad have embarked on bold
initiatives to bolster mutual relations and chalk out, at least a rudimentary
plan for resolving the crucial issues between them. Although the Kashmir
issue, which fits the definition of what actually is crucial (or wrong)
between them, has been substituted by a host of CBM’s and an unwavering
need for a seemingly protracted composite dialogue process. In the meantime,
the opening up of Line of Control (LoC) for the Srinagar-Muzaffarabad
bus service, which by far an apparent manifestation of the whole process,
comes across as a mere peripheral milestone for people in Kashmir whose
real problem stands sidelined. There is criticism foremost within Kashmir,
as well as India and Pakistan regarding this peace process, which has
yielded so little for Kashmiris.
In the initial days of rummaging
for a way forward with India, as Pakistan became receptive to the winds
of change blowing through Asia for greater economic integration, a 9/11
hued world and hinted at making borders irrelevant, an article in Tribune
expressed the following views,
“President Pervez Musharraf ultimately realized the significance
of softening the Line of Control for handling the question of Kashmir.
India has been hammering this point for a long time. This was the central
idea behind promoting people-to-people contacts by starting the bus
service between Srinagar and Muzaffarabad with the minimum requirement
of travel documents. Once people find it easy to travel from one side
of Jammu and Kashmir to the other with facilities for trade and commerce,
they will develop a stake in peace. The advantages of peaceful coexistence
will make the people concentrate on their economic well-being. The pressure
from the people, which is bound to increase in such a situation, may
force the two governments to find a workable remedy for the problem,
which has been one of the major roadblocks to peace (Tribune, May 2005)”
Although this report chalks a cyclical roadmap for achieving an end
to the Kashmir dispute. However, it evokes apprehensions about the historical
malady that ails both India and Pakistan, which is a predilection for
diluting Kashmir issue. Moreover, there is strong precedence to support
the premise of trying to solve Kashmir problem first, and then awaiting
the rest to follow. Currently, the whole scenario has become a conundrum
similar to that of chicken before egg or egg before chicken. It reverberates
incessantly as Pakistan continues to rustle up plans, reworks its historical
stand, urges India to reciprocate; while Indian government firm on its
stated positions on Kashmir, stresses the condition of creating an environment
suitable for stable peace.
In a recent development,
India downplayed Pakistan's assertion that Kashmir was the core issue
between the two countries, saying it was not perturbed and remains optimistic
about progress in the bilateral composite dialogue. With the fourth
round of composite dialogue underway, confidence-building measures piling
up and the ceasefire in place for the last three years, India seems
confident. With its newfound global alliances and economic potential,
Kashmir issue in the Indian mainstream has almost been demoted to the
status of a chronic malaise. It is also being conveniently lumped within
the overarching threat of the so-called Islamic terrorism, a stereotype
that finds a ready and sympathetic audience inside and abroad. With
such reinforcement and the fact that Kashmiri cry for self-determination
has been subsumed within new overarching narratives for self-governance
and joint institutions; Kashmir issue is gradually undergoing an unsolicited
makeover.
Kashmiris for their part,
living in the siege like atmosphere prevalent in the valley and suffering
unbated human rights abuses, are hard to convince regarding an easy
achievable solution. Their disenchantment with the peace process and
the parties involved therein, is rooted in the failures of past and
shortcomings in the current one. They have watched too many people and
parties fall prey to the demon of interim solutions borne of the edgy
friendship between India and Pakistan. The Indo-Pak romance has a familiar
pattern for those who know it intimately, “talks - tension - and
more talks. Rather than enjoying the peace initiatives, one gets more
concerned when the honeymoon is going to end.”
The peace process to many
keen eyes appears to be a big rigmarole which is has been birthed by
the two countries, only to be carried upon a desperate population represented
by a reactive, diverse, and impressionable leadership. There is an evidence
of preordained mindsets, which are reworking the canonical truths about
Kashmir in order to maintain the claim on the real estate within their
grasp and the efforts they make to override the constraints created
therein; in order to catch up with the global trends and pressures as
they make cosmetic changes in the regional relations.
Even if the basic travesty
of a democratic process was to be followed in Kashmir, no non-elected
leadership can be engaged on behalf of hapless people or substituted
for an overarching process of self-determination, as in a UN mandated
plebiscite. Having said that does not lend any credence to the elected
or governing parties, who with their pro-Indian loyalties are inherently
discredited in the eyes of Kashmiri people especially during the last
16 years. Therefore, the issue remains, what is the best viable option
for a stable peace in Kashmir? To court that resolution requires more
patience and sincerity than, India or Pakistan is willing to extend
to Kashmiri people. The solution can only be found in a UN mandated
plebiscite. The demand for plebiscite is not an irrelevant one, provided
it has an option for Independence. However, the very idea of plebiscite
leading to a free Kashmir, which has cost a lot of Kashmiri blood is
pushed on to the backburner by most factions, including the moderate
Hurriyet and is endorsed by the Pakistan. If anything, it is most relevant
in the current situation prevailing in the valley where the narratives
emerging from the Kashmiri political firmament are fragmented. In such
circumstances, the groups which are courted may be appeased momentarily
but the ones sidelined and disgruntled will multiply and create further
unrest. As far as Kashmiri masses are considered, they have receded
into an inert and fearful submission. They can only be roused to express
their free will if no threat exists to their life or property, and which
in the current circumstance is not possible.
The UN Resolution albeit
updated with a third option, is the only means to pave way for a permanent
solution for Kashmir. Contemporary world, has witnessed South Africa,
Angola, and East Timor emerge as Independent countries. More recently,
Montenegro, became a sovereign state after a little over the required
55% of the population opted for independence in a May 2006 referendum.
In Kashmir a two-phased referendum could be held under the UN auspices;
the first one would have options for Independence or Union . The second
would only take place if people chose Union and would have options to
join either India or Pakistan. Fanciful or naïve as it seems, such
a resolution is not an irrelevant pipedream; it can be a lasting solution
for genuine deliverance of Kashmiri people, that is if bilateral will
and motivation is ever dedicated towards solving Kashmir for Kashmir’s
sake.
Ather Zia
is a Kashmiri journalist, currently pursuing graduate studies in US.
Leave
A Comment
&
Share Your Insights
Comment
Policy
Digg
it! And spread the word!
Here is a unique chance to help this article to be read by thousands
of people more. You just Digg it, and it will appear in the home page
of Digg.com and thousands more will read it. Digg is nothing but an
vote, the article with most votes will go to the top of the page. So,
as you read just give a digg and help thousands more to read this article.