Jammu and Kashmir: The Underlying Trends
© Anup Mukherjee, Jan 2003
The Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir (J&K) recently underwent the Assembly elections. This article will explore the J&K issue in its various hues and dimensions in the post poll situation, with particular focus at estimating the J&K situation and consequences of these elections and its impact on future.
J&K has been an issue of world concern. Some have viewed it as a potential cause of nuclear conflict, while others would view it as another Kosovo (Kashmir-Kosovo gives good sound byte). J&K is infact in the geographical backwaters- a land locked hilly region, occupying strategic geopolitical location and having a tangled legal history. J&K is situated to the north of India, northeast of Pakistan and adjacent to Tibet and Sinkiang province of China. It is even close to the Central Asian region.
It is useful to start from the roots of the issue. In 1947, British divided the country into the dominion of India and Pakistan. The formation of Pakistan was on the basis of religion - Jinnah had wanted a Muslim Homeland. In contrast, India under the leadership of Gandhi and Nehru had deliberately preferred itself to be a liberal secular democracy where people of all faith could coexist in a system that promoted secular cultural plurality. Consequently it’s no wonder that despite partition and formation of a Muslim homeland, majority of Muslims remained in India. While this was fairly obvious from the start that Muslims in India would be a minority, for the Muslims, the local life-situation links could hardly be thrown overboard for some leaders fancy. The partition basically affected the northwest (now Pakistan) and the east (now Bangladesh) of India.
The worst aspect of partition was the gory travails of the enormous refugee crisis. These issues still continue to linger on, but now, these and many other problems, have paled into insignificance in front of the issue of J&K. Indeed, the issue of J&K has seemingly grown in dimension with time.
India before 1947 had meant British India and various Princely states numbering 562. Many of these were small states, but some were significant. These included princely states like Hyderabad, which is now part of Andhra Pradesh of India; similarly Mysore, which forms part of Karnataka of India. Similarly J&K was another significant princely state. According to the provisions of the India Independence Act, 1947, all treaties and agreements between Britain and Princely States were to lapse. This effectively meant that the Princely states could join either of the dominion or even remain free.
J&K had an interesting situation. The majority of people were Muslims. The ruler was Hindu. Among the political parties in the state, there was the National Conference headed by Sheikh Abdullah (father of Farooq Abdullah, who was till recently the Chief Minister). It was a nationalist political party and leaned towards Congress, and was also hostile towards Muslim League. The other party was the Muslim Conference that leaned towards the Muslim League. The ruler Hari Singh wished to have his independent rule, without joining either of the dominion. It was quite natural that Pakistan would not like to have a Muslim majority province at its vicinity that was not its part. In fact, the ideologues of Pakistan theory would reserve the “K” of Pakistan for Kashmir; the other letters being for Punjab, Afghan Province (NWFP), Sind, and Baluchistan. Eventhough the J&K government and Pakistan had agreed on a Standstill Agreement, Pakistan intended to grab the territory by force. It started with economic blockade of the territory and then sent mercenary tribesmen comprising Afridis and Mahsuds backed by regulars to invade the territory of J&K. These raiders, working under the overall command of the Pakistani army occupied western part of the state including places like Muzaffarabad and also created havoc in the region- looting, burning, raping and killing. Consequent to such situation, Hari Singh asked for Indian assistance and wrote to Mountbatten the Governor General in India in a letter dated 26-10-1947, “…grave emergency of the situation as it exists, I have no option but to ask for help form Indian Dominion. Naturally they cannot send the help asked for by me without my state acceding to the Dominion of India. I have accordingly decided to do so and attach the Instrument of Accession for acceptance by your government.”[1]
Eventhough Indian army defeated these raiders and pushed them back, politics and diplomacy took the upper hand. India stopped short of recapturing the occupied territory. In idealism and having faith in fair play of international community, India took the issue of Kashmir to the United Nations on Jan 1, 1948. UN Security Council passed four resolutions on this issue. The third resolution in this series was most significant. It spoke of three things: 1. ceasefire between the two and a ceasefire line; 2. “The Government of Pakistan will use its best endeavour to secure the withdrawal from the State of Jammu and Kashmir of tribesmen and Pakistani nationals not normally resident therein who have entered the State for the purpose of fighting"; 3. “The Government of India and Government of Pakistan reaffirm their wish that the future status of the State of Jammu and Kashmir shall be determined in accordance with the will of the people and to that end upon acceptance of the truce agreement, both governments agree to enter into consultations with the Commission to determine fair and equitable conditions whereby such free expression will be assured”[2].
Pakistan has never pulled out from the territories it occupied then. Instead it chose to go to war with India on this in 1965, and wished to capture it by force. In September 1965, there was a surprise raid by infiltrators in the Kashmir valley and also simultaneously massive attack on that area. Incidentally, Pakistan was then recipient of military aid from USA, including the famed Patten-Tank. The people of J&K had no sympathy with Pakistan and were at the receiving end of plunder by the Pakistani troopers. The fruitless war came to an end with the Tashkent Declaration of 1965.
In 1971, India was faced with enormous refugee crisis. These were refugees who were fleeing the East Pakistan, due to genocide being perpetrated against them by the Pakistani army. The situation was an internal development of Pakistan, when the leaders of Western Pakistan would refuse Mujibur Rehman the office of Prime Minster, even when his party had won landslide victory in the general elections. Due to the refugee crisis, India had to intervene. In this case as well, US would send its fleet to the region as a threat to India. Eventhough Pakistan launched a massive attack on J&K it was decisively defeated. The consequential Shimla Agreement of 1972 was from Indian point a liberal handout of the then Prime Minister Mrs. Indira Gandhi to Pakistan. The agreement did not put any conditionality on Pakistan, nor it forced any issue on it. Instead, it did address two issues viz. resolution of any differences by peaceful means and respecting the Line of Control (LoC). Even when India held 90,000 Pakistani POWs and also had under it a large tract of Pakistani territory, India did not use the opportunity to force the settlement of the Kashmir issue. As the situation stands today, out of the total territory of 222,236 sq km of J&K, 78,114 sq km is under illegal occupation of Pakistan, 5,180 sq km illegally handed over by Pakistan to China, and 37,555 sq km under the illegal occupation of China- the last one is the consequence of the 1962 Chinese aggression on India.
The points to observe is that consequent to this Shimla Agreement, the standpoint of UN on Kashmir basically ends. According to the Shimla agreement Art 1(ii) “That the two countries are resolved to settle their differences by peaceful means through bilateral negotiations or by any other peaceful means mutually agreed upon between them. Pending the final settlement of any of the problems between the two countries, neither side shall unilaterally alter the situation and both shall prevent the organization, assistance of encouragement of any acts detrimental to the maintenance of peaceful and harmonious relations". But as Pakistani rhetoric would have it, India has not honoured the Security Council resolutions and holds on to J&K by force. This is also the refrain of the Pakistan funded separatist organisations and also part of the propaganda that can be heard day in and day out on the Pakistan Television.
In this respect, a Pakistani analyst Ardeshir Cowasjee[3] makes very valid observations:
“How many times do we all find ourselves at a gathering addressed by a retired or serving member of our armed forces who boasts that one Pakistani soldier can take on four Indian soldiers only to be interrupted by a hawk in the audience with a correction - no, one of ours can take on not four, but five of theirs?
How many times do the history textbooks used in our schools reiterate that Pakistan has fought gloriously and won two wars against India? Our schoolchildren are never taught that we have fought only to suffer.
Today, could the Pakistan army march into Kashmir and conquer the disputed territory which most Pakistanis claim to be theirs and impose our will? The answer, of course, is no. Could we name any world power which would support us in a war against India? The answer, once again, is no. Can we hope that the moral, diplomatic and political support (which we are told is the sole aid we afford to the people of Indian occupied Kashmir) will help them in any way to gain their freedom? No. We have been on the same tack for half a century, getting nowhere, so surely the time has come to change course. Kashmir is in the blood of every Pakistani, we are told. But should it be Kashmir in our blood or Pakistan in our blood?”
Perhaps it is this dilemma of Pakistan that has kept it from becoming a mature nation. It was formed on an unhistorical basis of religion that tried to deny the historical and cultural linkages between the Hindus and Muslims that had formed in the different parts of the country over centuries of living together. It is consequently still in search of its roots. Its identity is defined by its hostility to India. And for all its problems, the policy makers of Pakistan have an easy diversion for its people- and that diversion is Kashmir. Infact in one of the lectures[4], Najam Sethi, the editor of Friday Times (Lahore, Pakistan) gave a detailed analysis on why “Pakistan’s socio-political environment is in the throes of a severe multi-dimensional crisis". Of the six major crises that he outlined, the first was the “crisis of identity and ideology", which “refers to the fact that after fifty years, Pakistanis are still unable to collectively agree upon who we are as a nation, where we belong, what we believe in and where we want to go".
This has meant that Pakistan (or at least the official Pakistan) has defined its identity as an anti-thesis to India. In real terms this has meant a continuous anti-India rhetoric, and at least for a couple of decades active fomenting of Jehadi terrorism in the region. The two regions of India worst affected by it have been Punjab and J&K. Punjab was a hard nut to crack, and consequently with failure in Punjab, the focus shifted to J&K. J&K offered a situation of tangled legal history and presence of Muslim population - both these things being absent in Punjab.
It is common knowledge that the Jehadi terrorism is nurtured, funded and armed and logistically supported by Pakistani agencies. In J&K, there has been an active fomenting of terrorism by supply of money, arms, and mercenary terrorists. The rhetoric of Pakistan though stops short of saying these- but what it does say is that it continues to support the Kashmiri cause with political and moral support. It is quite ironic that in the modern times, the problems confronting nation states is not sought to be solved by dialogue process, but by fomenting of terrorism in neighbouring country.
After 9/11, the US and the West has woken up to the dreadful prospect of Jehadist terrorism as a threat to the civil society. Still in this regards, it is quite interesting to note that while, US would go round the whole world and carry out regime changes in places like Afghanistan and would have no qualms to ally with Pakistani dictator- but if India puts forth the basic conditionality on Pakistan to restrain its involvement in terrorism in the J&K for a meaningful talk to take place, US would put pressure on India that it should still talk notwithstanding the continued sponsoring of terrorism by Pakistan in the valley. The current National Security Advisor of India Brijesh Mishra prefers it as a dual standard on terrorism by USA. USA’s objective of singling out 9/11 as a special case of pursuit overlooks the fact that, “Al Qaeda thrives on a vast, deeply entrenched and integrated network of more than fifty radical groups who share deep bonds of Islamic ideology, common political targets- the United States, India, and Israel- and training facilities and resources that straddle the Afghanistan and Pakistan borders”[5].
The apologists of the military rule of Pakistan usually point out that the terrorist organisations might be out of control of the Pakistani regime. The usual argument is that if the terrorists were indeed in control of the regime, how is it possible that these terrorists would attack western targets in Pakistan itself. In my view these two things are quite separate. The cross border terrorism is possible only when the military establishment helps the terrorists to cross the border. The kind of border India and Pakistan have, it is unthinkable that such crossing can happen without any logistical and tactical support by the military. It is also pertinent to note that internal terrorism in Pakistan is a worrying thing. It not only raises the anxiety of the regimes in Pakistan, but also raises the anti-India rhetoric in that country, which is very de-stabilising for the region.
J&K has been a zero sum game for not only India and Pakistan, but also for Pakistan internally. Any Pakistani leadership going soft on Kashmir- meaning anything less than total annexation or even signals of compromise on this issue with India is bound to topple or get marginalized. Musharraf also understands this. On the other hand, in India, there is an unanimous resolution of Parliament that affirms India’s claim over the Pakistan occupied territory of J&K. At the same time, there are certain political parties that are hawkish on Pakistan and that leads to a situation where a meaningful national consensus is difficult to be built that treads a middle path. Track-2 diplomacy has indeed been initiated on various occasions, but has not yielded any desired outcome. Consequently, while there has been unwillingness of Pakistani leadership to come to any meaningful dialogue on the issue, in India as well any political party is unwilling to concede the reality of the situation. The most logical option of converting the LoC (Line of Control) to the international border does not get the requisite merit that it has. This was an option explored by Indira Gandhi and Z.A. Bhutto during the Shimla Agreement. Yet, it was not put on paper, but remained a verbal assurance by Bhutto to Gandhi, and was easily given a short shrift soon after by the Pakistani leader.
Among all these hi-fi international politics and uncertain diplomacy and terrorist threats, the people of J&K on the India’s side were recently presented with the opportunity to choose their political representative once again. The term of the previous Assembly was coming to an end. The elections for a new Assembly was held in a four phased polling process stretching the months of September and October 2002. This was in a way a ‘test case’ for India, which did succeed with the participation of the people in the voting process.
The Indian part of J&K comprises the regions of Kashmir, Jammu and Ladakh. Demographically, the Kashmir valley is primarily Muslim, Jammu predominantly Hindu and Ladakh is largely Buddhist. There are other communities as well like the Shias, Gujjars, Bakkarwals, Sikhs etc. interspersed in the region. These different regions do not have by any means any common political goals. Ladakh has always aspired to be a centrally administered union territory, so that its isolation and underdevelopment could get addressed. At political level there has even been a seeming rivalry between Jammu and the Kashmir region. Also, Jammu has not generally been affected by violence. The region that has been endemic to violence in the past has been the Kashmir valley.
This time round there were different issues in the elections. The security and violence definitely occupied the central theme. Related to this were issues like releasing prisoners, dialogue and talks with the militant organisations; and application of laws like POTA (Prevention of Terrorism Act). Similarly there were issues like disbanding of the Special Operation Group (SOG), which is the main counter-terrorism outfit of the state. The ruling regime- National Conference (NC) emphasised the need for greater autonomy to the state. This autonomy basically means undoing the five decades of constitutional development in the state. During its rule, the NC had even moved resolutions for such autonomy, but the Centre had rejected such demands. Another significant issue was that of lack of development. The main industry of the state is tourism that has been badly affected by the militancy. Apart from this there are issues of infrastructure that the state is generally lacking. Jammu region had its own issues. Certain parties of Jammu raised the issue of creation of a separate state. This is consequence of a long history of general neglect of Jammu vis-à-vis Kashmir. But unfortunately this issue has got embroiled as one that has generally been espoused by the Hindu Right parties, and therefore come to be identified as one with parochial scope. Another issue, but which received little attention was that of displaced Kashmiri Pandits. These people had become internal refugees in the country when they had to flee for their life from the Kashmir valley, when the terrorist violence was at full swing. Interestingly, just as the main secessionist organisation - the Hurriyat Conference called for a boycott of the polls, similarly some of the organisations representing these displaced Kashmiri Pandits also spoke of boycotting the polls, though such calls were made for vastly different reasons.
Kashmiri Pandits form an important section of J&K, and many of them belonging to the Kashmir region have been internal refugees for many years now. They had to flee Kashmir for their life when the violence was at its height. The process that has still not been able to resettle them has disillusioned them. Though the Election Commission had made arrangements for their voting, only a fraction of them chose to exercise their franchise. Part of this was possibly because their organisation - “Panun Kashmir” chose to boycott the polls, perhaps because of apathy of the powers to address their concerns, but also because they thought that a democratic process was meaningless in shadow of threats and violence.
The main contestants in these polls were the ruling National Conference (NC) headed by Farooq Abdullah and his son Omar Abdullah. The Congress was led by Ghulam Nabi Azad. The Congress had poll adjustment with the new political power, the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) that was headed by Mufti Mohd. Sayeed and her daughter Mehbuba Mufti. PDP incidentally received support of the militant outfits in the campaign process. There was also the Panthers Party that is headed by Bhim Singh and is based in Jammu. Among the various parties and independents that participated in the elections, some of the important participants include the Bhartiya Janta Party (BJP), which is the ruling party in the Centre and the Communist Party (Marxist). On the other hand, the main political outfit of the separatist cause- the All Party Hurriyat Conference (APHC) boycotted the elections. APHC is an alliance of nearly thirty political formations, some being pro-Pakistan parties, others are led by moderates opposed to merger with Pakistan, while still others are former militants who having being disillusioned with the gun have decided to give the dialogue process a shot. Consequently, APHC is a faction-ridden body. Abdul Ghani Lone, who was an important member of this formation had been assassinated by unknown gunmen in May 2002. He was a moderate, had engaged in dialogue with the Indian government, and on several occasions condemned terrorist violence.
The election itself was marred by violence. Between July and September 2002, nearly 59 political workers had been killed, most of them belonging to the ruling NC. There was a great apprehension that the polls would not be free or fair. But the issue was not just this. Many terrorist outfits in the Pakistan Occupied Kashmir held rallies condemning the elections itself. The attitude of the Pakistan government itself was unsympathetic, as was visible from the pronouncements of the official Pakistan Television that kept reminding the viewers not to take these elections seriously and dubbed these as sham elections. It is equally interesting to note that there has been no democracy worth the name in the Pakistan Occupied Kashmir in so many years of its occupation.
But, one thing is equally true that on the front of elections, the record of India in the J&K has not been above board. The most popular and fair election in J&K in past is considered to be the 1977 and 1983 elections. To some extent the issue of militancy is also related to the unfairness of the electoral system. Here it is interesting to note that the present chief of the Hizbul Mujahideen, Syed Salahuddin, who also heads the United Jehad Council, which is a conglomerate of the Kashmiri militant groups operating from Pakistan, was in the 1987 elections a contestant for the seat of the Legislative Assembly, and could not make it to the assembly. The issue of a rigged election has very adversely affected the credibility of the state in providing for a fair democracy in the past. But this time round, it was clear that the Election Commission of India was ruthless to make it a free and fair election. It was also supported in this endeavour by the central and other state governments. The electoral lists were computerised and updated. Nearly 8000 electronic voting machines were introduced to make the system more efficient and pre-empt any malpractice. Many polling booth staff was brought from outside the state. Large number of transfers were affected at the orders of the Election Commission, and any complain of electoral malpractice was promptly attended to and resolved.
The consequence was an enormous success. It can even be called a victory for the democratic process and shows that if the system is not manipulated, it invites ready and willing participation of the people who wish to have peace above anything else.
The results[6] of the elections were equally revealing. There were 87 seats (of which, 46 seats in the Kashmir Valley and 37 in Jammu); total number of contestants were 709; a total of 2,656,627 voters actually cast their votes- this constitutes nearly 43.7 percent of the total electorate in the J&K. Among the eligible electorate, of the total men, 48.26% cast their vote and of the total women 38.27 percent cast their vote. In forty three constituencies, the voting percentage was over fifty, and in some cases reaching above the seventy percent mark. In others it was less than fifty, and in some cases touching as low a figure as three percent. In two constituencies of Ladakh region, the candidates won unopposed. There were 7083 polling stations. Of those who contested- out of 679 men, 85 were elected; and of the 30 women, 2 were elected.
Among the major winners were NC, Congress and the PDP. NC emerged as the largest single party by winning 28 seats; Congress got the second best by winning 20; PDP won 16; Panthers Party won 4; Independents grabbed 13. Incidentally the ruling party at the centre, the BJP that had contested in 58 constituencies, could get only one seat.
In terms of vote share, the positions of the parties were: NC 28.24%, Congress 24.24%, PDP 9.28% and BJP 8.57%. Independents grabbed 16.5% of the vote share. The major winner in the Kashmir valley was the NC, followed by PDP. The PDP’s gains were confined to the Kashmir valley. Congress won its 15 out of 20 seats from the Jammu region. It is noteworthy that these parties have openly condemned militancy and terrorism and never spoken for any separation of J&K from India. Some analysts point out that not much thought should be read into these elections as it was largely a vote against the corrupt NC government. I would ask if this is not the working of democracy then what is it? Democracy means that people and political parties can put their viewpoints and contest elections. The corrupt and inefficient governments are thrown out- or if the regime has worked well to the satisfaction of the people, it is returned. In this case of J&K apart from NC being corrupt or whatever, it was also hard on militancy and terrorism. Even discounting the fact of nature of NC government, if people of Kashmir valley were so much for separatism, they surely would not have voted for a party that has consistently opposed separatism and consistently spoken against Pakistani interference. Moreover most of the seats won by NC are those where the polling percentage was over 50%.
The elections as a whole received a lot of kudos from every quarter, whether it be the media or the diplomats, everyone had closely scrutinised this crucial polls and attested to its fairness. Even U.S. Ambassador to India, Robert Blackwill, has remarked, "It was a successful election. The election commission did a very fine job. It was a credible election carried out by democratic means."[7] In Washington also, the US state department applauded the election process. Previously, to a suggestion of Colin Powell for “permitting independent observers", the Chief Election Commissioner of India, J.M. Lyngdoh’s response had been, “the day of White man observing what the native does is long past. He cannot determine what the coloured man does and whether he is doing it right or wrong”[8]. Despite this, the Election Commission issued passes to diplomats of various countries to have a first hand look at the polling process without giving them any status of “Observer".
The elections had returned a fractured verdict. The results showed that while the NC had been rejected by the voters, they still continued to have the confidence of a large section of the people. It was quite clear that the people wanted a change of regime. In this endeavour, the NC did not come in between the path of the Congress and PDP. NC preferred to undergo the spell of the opposition. Interestingly, there was quite a tussle between the Congress and PDP on the issue of the post of Chief Minister. And for once, it seemed as if, this was just another state of India and no politician being concerned of the landmark situation of the J&K history. Mufti would not budge on this issue and ultimately Congress yielded to his demand on the Chief Minister’s post. Despite of Congress having the larger number of seats, and also having the support of other parties like the Panthers and other independents, it preferred to give over the CM’s post to Mufti for an initial tenure of three years, after which it would be the Congress party’s turn to nominate its CM. In this regard, it is equally nice to see that NC did not throw its weight around to claim the CM’s post and then try to break away MLAs to itself. Perhaps everyone was aware of the importance of the situation and consequently party like the Congress which would not have left any stones unturned to get CM’s post in any other state, gave way to Mufti of the PDP to become the CM.
It has been rightly pointed out that the “Kashmir elections are an opportunity for positive change in the state, though their ultimate results will depend on how willing the governments in Delhi and Islamabad are to create a real peace process”[9]. The tangled web of past does not get clear in a day or just by regime change or by the democratic process. To what extent the new regime would be able to do the tight rope between the various issues from providing a healing touch and release prisoners, to having dialogue and also combat terrorism, to keeping through the alliance and also to bring about development in the state- all of this is only for the future to tell.
Here certain issues need to be discussed.
Firstly, while J&K has the spirit of ‘Kashmiriyat’ that reflects in one word the spirit of diversity and multicultural social and ethnic co-existence, it is difficult to think to what extent at political level the different regions like Jammu and Ladakh would go along with Kashmir. So, politically the regions do not have homogenous aspirations. It can even be argued that the political problem has its roots in Kashmir, and not in either Jammu or Ladakh. Moreover as the recent elections have shown, the NC which has been consistently opposed to any form of independence has won in the Kashmir valley. The other party PDP that is now the ruling regime in J&K and has its base in Kashmir valley is equally opposed to the idea of independence. All these show that the people of the valley are not comfortable with the idea of independence. The loss is definitely of the pro-independence and the pro-Pakistan forces: whom I would term as the counter elites of the valley. At an ideological level, to what extent this sentiment can be sustained among the people of the valley would depend on how the new government is able to deliver goods. This means good governance that is free of corruption and addressing the issues of development. It is equally useful to see that if the counter elites in form of Hurriyat had indeed decided to participate in the elections what votes it would have gathered. There had been a consistent move by India’s central government to make Hurriyat participate in the elections, but to no avail. It is definitely strange that these counter elites while claiming themselves to be true representative of people’s aspirations shy away from testing and demonstrating their standing among the people by contesting in the elections.
Secondly, the issue of autonomy needs to be redefined. To what extent can Kashmir be seen as a special case is something that confronts the Indian democracy. At an ideological level the ruling BJP at the centre definitely stands for abrogation of Art. 370 of the Constitution, that guarantees the relative autonomy of the J&K. but this is a matter of debate whether if such a thing is possible, or whether this is not just a rhetoric for scoring the brownie points vis-à-vis other parties in keeping with its aggressive posture of neo-nationalism. At the same time, it is equally unlikely that any regime at centre would like to revert the constitutional development of J&K in the past years, in its process of closer legal integration of J&K with India. Also, it is equally difficult to see the issue of autonomy as exclusive to Kashmir or J&K. This issue in my view in the Indian context should be seen and addressed properly in the larger context of federal polity. While on one pole we have unitary systems like France, on the other we have the federal structure of USA. The federal polity of India is quite distant from one of USA. In India, the centre enjoys enormous powers and in special circumstances even overriding powers vis-à-vis the provinces. These federal issues needs to be discussed both on politico-administrative level as well as on fiscal level. And such issues are pertinent- for J&K as well as other states of India.
Thirdly, despite its legal emphasis on unitary features, we find that India in real terms is faced with issues like militancy. This is largely a consequence of neglect of local region. Frustration of people arising out of lack of development generally paves way to militancy. This is particularly visible in the border regions like Kashmir and the regions of northeast, but also in other central regions. When development does not take place, it is bound to have social and political repercussions. A good case is that of Andhra Pradesh. While certain areas of the state has surged ahead in the info-tech revolution and the government itself is labelled as one of the most tech-savvy government in India, it has been facing Naxal militancy, and drought situations that has resulted in failure of crops and lead to suicide deaths by farmers. Such intra-state contradictions among regions, as well as that of inter-state imbalances need to be addressed. In the context of J&K, Kashmir gets all the focus, and the areas of Jammu and Ladakh are as if taken for granted. These two regions have generally been neglected at the cost of total focus on Kashmir only.
Fourthly, on various economic indicators the state is among the backward regions of the country. The major industry of the state is tourism and its related sectors like handicraft, shawl, carpet weaving etc. The tourism has been badly hit due to terrorism problem in the state and the revival is now being underway. In various economic indicators and human development indicators, the state is way behind other states of India (the situation in Pakistan Occupied Kashmir is even worse). The state is short of sources of revenue generation and is dependent on the centre for most of its requirements. Here it is interesting to note the observation of Farooq Abdullah on the issue of freedom- “Independence is fine. But I ask those people how will we survive? On one side there is China, on the other Pakistan and then there will be a border with India. Right now we don’t spend a dime on our armed forces or Air Force, or paramilitary forces or insurgency. All the money comes from the Central Government. Where will we get the money from? These thousands of crores, where will they come from?”[10]
Fifthly, this economic situation of the valley is unlikely to change. It is a hilly state. It is landlocked and is a border state. By implication it is bound to remain more important from the military point of view. This also means that because of its terrain agriculture activity cannot take place in the large scale as in the plains, nor would it attract large investments for heavy industries, because of its location. Presence of hostile neighbours like Pakistan (and also China) means that investors would always prefer a more safe location than investing in J&K. If investment has to take place, it has to be undertaken by public expenditure. And as these resources are not available at the level of state, it has to be dependent both for its military and investment needs on a strong centre. Also, development of the state is hampered by issues like the Indus River Treaty (1960) with Pakistan that pre-empt exploitation of water resources for more productive usage of the state. According to this treaty, the right to water resources of Indus, Jhelum and Chenab rest with Pakistan. This pre-empts use of these waters for irrigation projects in the Kashmir region. in such situation, those who advocate independence should do a reality check than just play on an emotional pitch.
Sixthly, the issue of terrorism is one that is funded from Pakistan. Most of the funds are routed through the illegal channels. And all these go into fomenting of not only anti India political activity, but also terrorism. In recent times, what is most disturbing of this terrorist activity is that these terrorists have started making Hindu temples the targets of their heinous activity. Now, these temples are not just in Kashmir, but also outside the valley. There has been attack on Akshardham temple in Ahmedabad in Gujarat; similarly there was attack on the Raghunath temple in Jammu. Now, at an analytical level, one can understand ‘freedom-fighter’ attacking symbols of government. But it really defies any rationalisation that ‘freedom-fighters’ would attack temples! This only proves beyond doubt that these ‘freedom fighters’ are fake- and only mercenary terrorists who aim to destabilise India and create social disharmony. And beyond doubt the patrons sit in Pakistan. It is interesting to note in this context that while the West had given ears to this freedom fighter thing in the past, but since 9/11, it has come out that there cannot be any distinction made between terrorism and freedom fight, if terrorist violence is used.
Seventhly, this continuous violence is like social outrages, and increase tensions between the two countries. This is particularly a more serious issue, because of the nuclear weapons in possession of the two countries. It is unfortunate that even on the nuclear issue Pakistan has not come clean. On many occasions, its leaders have publicly stated that nuclear weapons are not showpiece, and if necessary they would be legitimate weapons of war. Now this is complete contrast to India’s nuclear doctrine that spells out no use against non-nuclear nation, and no first use against nuclear nation in event of war. Incidentally, Pakistan is the only country where the nuclear button is not in civilian hands, but in the control of military.
Eighthly, the issue of mediation has often come up as a way to resolve the differences between the two neighbouring nations. Now, Kashmir is definitely a zero-sum game for the two countries. If today the UN resolution on Kashmir is a dead letter, bringing in mediation would only lead to internationalisation of the issue once again, without any obvious guarantee of it getting solved. Moreover it would not only complicate the matter further, but also strengthen the hands of those who are against existence of civil society. International mediation has not even resolved at any measure the high profile Middle East problem. It is futile to think that any country would be able to do that in regards to Kashmir. Moreover, the West has generally been hostile to India and in this matter and until recently were fairly sympathetic to the ‘freedom fight’ cause than acknowledging the problem of terrorism- most of the ‘leaders’ of the terrorist violence used to find safe haven in the countries of Europe and North America. Also, in cases of long-term antipathy to India and pro-Pakistan tilt of the West[11], it is hardly surprising that at the diplomatic and political level the West, particularly the US is still seen with suspicion by India.
Ninthly, it must also be said that the anti-Pakistan jingoism that is often displayed at a rhetorical level by political parties and different organisations in India is not really going to be of any help in resolution of the issue. Perhaps the policy makers should make a realistic assessment of the solution and try to negotiate the issue based on the basic premise of conversion of the present Line of Control to that of International Border. This is the most realistic solution that has the saving grace of translating the defacto into dejure. And at least this is not fanciful like many ‘creative’ solutions that are often offered like putting forth the Andorra Model or pre-1953 model or the trifurcation model or even making the India’s Kashmir and the Pakistan Occupied Kashmir as neutral autonomous zone. It would be more useful to realise and acknowledge the political realities to work towards a realistic solution. In this matter the Pakistani leadership also needs to come out of its obsession for Kashmir.
Then there is the larger question of balkanisation. What are the limits to which each small group can claim independence? A country like India which is constituted by various sections- religions, castes, tribes, ethnicities, languages, regions, and more importantly historical ties of a common coming together of a nation-state- to what extent can a small group on a singular basis can claim its separate status? In case of Kashmir, religion (viz Islam) can in no measure be valid criteria of separation. There are more Muslims in other states of India than in Kashmir. Region again is an insufficient cause. J&K is formed by a group of regions, and none of the other regions have demanded separation- infact Jammu and Ladakh has been demanding greater integration. Moreover, even in the Kashmir valley, larger political formations that have support of the people are NC, Congress, PDP, Communists etc. - they are against separation. In such situation small marginal groups that receive (mercenary) funding from across the borders and carry out violence cannot claim to be legitimate representative of the people. Cowing down people through fear of violence is not consent to the separatist cause.
Finally, in conclusion, it can be said that despite the fractured verdict of the people, despite the ongoing terrorism, and despite the ideological brain-washing by Pakistan on the issue of ‘azadi’ (independence), the very fact that people of J&K have come out to vote and voted for parties that are against terrorism and ‘azadi’ is a good pointer on people’s preference on the issue. These elections also substantiate findings of a major survey on Kashmir[12] Conducted in the month of April 2002, the survey clearly showed that people of the state wish to remain part of India, that they abhor violence, that they believe in democracy, and they want economic development that would provide more jobs and reduce poverty. The recent elections have clearly demonstrated that if there is fair play in the electoral process, it drastically brings down the separatist rhetoric and increases the stake of the people as citizens of the country and also reduces their sense of alienation.
[1] Jagmohan (1991), My Frozen Turbulence in Kashmir, p. 86 (Allied, New Delhi)
[2] Resolution of UN Security Council dated Aug 13, 1948
[3] Dawn (Karachi), Feb 17, 2002 <http://www.dawn.com/weekly/cowas/20020217.htm>
[4] Kewal Singh Memorial Lecture delivered at the India International Centre, New Delhi on Apr 30, 1999
[5] Naveeta Chadha Behera, The Brooking Institution Policy Brief #110, November 2002
[6] Statistical Report on General Election, 2002 to Legislative Assembly of Jammu and Kashmir, issued by Election Commission of India.
[7] Washington Times, October 14
[8] Outlook, Sept 30, 2002
[9] South Asia Monitor, Number 52, Nov 1, 2002
[10] Business Line, July 3, 2000
[11] National Security Archive, Electronic Briefing Book No 79, on the American attitude in 1971 <http://www.nsarchive.org/NSAEBB/NSAEBB79>
[12] MORI Survey on Kashmir <http://www.mori.com/polls/2002/kashmir.shtml>