Kashmir; Controlled but Never Owned

Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah, most popular and acknowledged leader of his time, was quite influenced and inspired by the way India was going to emerge after its independence – democratic, socialist and secular; country with a hope for its poor and downtrodden sections of the society, constitutional guarantee of fundamental rights to its citizens.
While Indian National Congress (INC) represented all segments of the population, the elite, working class, farmers and artisans, in contrast to Muslim League constituted mostly by the elites of the Indian Muslim society. Thus, Sheikh Abdullah must have felt compelled to see future of his nation with socialist, democratic country where he would be able to translate his Naya Kashmir vision into reality and secure the plural character of Jammu and Kashmir. The relationship of trust he had developed with Jawaharlal Nehru was another important factor that played a significant role in this direction. Thus, Kashmir’s popular leadership did not obviously want to join Pakistan. Kashmir vacillated between independence and accession to India and chose the latter.
Indeed, accession to India was conditional on Kashmir retaining its distinct cultural and regional identity. To ensure it was decided that the J&K would hold special position within the Union of India. In this direction, various agreements and constitutional provisions came into existence which described and defined position of J&K within Union of India. For instance, ‘Delhi Agreement’ and ‘Article 370’ of the Indian Constitution, which embodied certain special provisions for J&K. It is pertinent to mention here that Article 370 was included in the Constitution, not as an afterthought but after mature consideration by the Constitution makers. Article 370 assured the state all benefits of independent Kashmir without compromising the territorial integrity of the Indian federation. Primarily, Jammu and Kashmir was allowed to have its own constitution within the Indian Union. Second, Parliament’s legislative power over the State was restricted to three subjects only – defence, external affairs and communications. Besides many other things, article 370 further affirmed that other provisions of the Indian constitution would apply to the state of Jammu and Kashmir with such modifications and exceptions as President of India might specify by order in consultation and with concurrence of the J&K State Constituent Assembly and that the legislative authority of the parliament in respect to the state of Jammu and Kashmir would be confined to those items of the Union and concurrent list which correspond to the matters specified.
However, from the very beginning there were forces working behind scenes who never allowed Kashmir to have a unique political status which it deserved because of its unique political history and the circumstance under which it signed the instrument of accession with India. Subsequently, all the promises made by the political leadership in Delhi vis-à-vis Kashmir were broken systematically. The dismissal and then arrest of then prime minister of the state Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah, the most potent campaigner of state’s accession with India, was the beginning. With his dismissal from his position in 1953, the erosion of Article 370 was started and in the next few years the basic structure of the Article 370 was completely abrogated. To retain the hegemony over the Jammu and Kashmir, many coercive agencies were put into action. Rigging of elections became a normal practice. Most of the civil and political and democratic rights were curtailed. People were pushed into an authoritarian political system. Jaya Prakash Narayan, one of the prominent political figures of the Indian politics, described the situation of the Jammu and Kashmir state in a letter he wrote to Indira Gandhi, the then prime minister of India, as follows: “We profess democracy, but rule by force in Kashmir…”
State governments and chief ministers were dismissed and sacked arbitrarily by the Union government. Lack of democratic space for people to express their political aspirations and in case anyone tried to do so he was put behind the bars. Consequently, in early 1990’s, the discontent among the people took a violent turn and violence became means of dissent against the Union government. The federal government instead of reforming its historical mistakes and resolve the issue through political process and address the genuine concerns of the people in the state, continuously relies heavily on its coercive machinery and military might that incited the situation. There are more than half a million Indian military and paramilitary forces deployed in the state of Jammu and Kashmir equipped with draconian laws like AFSPA (Armed Forces Special Powers Act) which gives them impunity to operate against the civilian population in the state. The thick presence of military and other paramilitary forces has serious implications on governance and constantly undermined the civil administration and in the process militarized the governing culture, whereby military values, ideology and patterns of behaviour result in the militarization of the structural, ideological and behavioural patterns of civil state.
In an interview with India Today, the former Finance Minister, Home Minister and currently member of Raja Sabha, Mr. Chidambaram said that in Kashmir it is the GOC who calls the shots and not elected chief minister (Sic). Further, Kashmiris, within and outside the state are looked upon with great suspicion and mistrust that further alienates them and sometimes pushes them to take up extreme positions. Similarly, every time there is any mass uprising both state and central government seems in denial mode and resorting to military might is only option government would try to address the issue. Latest example is the manner in which government is dealing with the protests triggered by the killing of BurhanWani. Since his death nearly 60 people have lost their lives in the clashes between protesters and security forces in the valley. More than five thousand people have been injured. About 300 civilians, mostly between 9 to 21 age group, received injuries to their eyes from pellets. Doctors treating these patients reported that the majority of them may never see again. In no case reported so far was a patient’s full vision restored. All leading government hospitals are overburdened by the increasing number of injured patients admitted in the hospitals. Besides, entire Kashmir valley is under curfew. Most of the communication services including mobile phones and internet services have been suspended.
Yet again the Central government has failed miserably to address the issue politically. After BJP led NDA-II came into power, there was a hope in Kashmir that given the mandate he received, Mr. Modi will start from where Vajpayee left. However, seemingly, there is nothing new except the same military might to be used against the dissenting voices of Kashmiris. It was only after a month and death of 60 Kashmiris before Mr Narendra Modi said a word about the unrest. Earlier the Union Home Minister, Mr.Rajnath Singh came to Srinagar merely to blame Pakistan for the latest unrest in the valley. He left without saying a word or mourn the death of those who got killed by the security forces. Similarly, by adding more troops in the valley, the Union government is just exhibiting their unwillingness to accept that there are genuine political aspirations of people which require a well-structured roadmap to deal with the situation.
Home Minister Rajnath Singh, on 10th of August in the Parliament, announced to hold an all party meeting to discuss the prevailing situation in the valley and also promised to consider sending a delegation there. The results of the meeting are unlikely to end growing political instability and disregard for human rights in Kashmir if the institutional settings underlying the conflict remains unaltered.
Rather than looking at the Kashmir unrest as an economic or developmental issue, priority of both central as well as state government should be to eliminate alienation among people. Some of the key steps in this direction could be ensuring safety and security of the people followed by steps like demilitarising residential areas; banning all the lethal weapons; building well thought out communication channels between people and government of India; and withdrawal of AFSPA (Armed Forces Special Powers Act). People of Kashmir should at the centre of any forthcoming dialogue process. Furthermore, the government of India should seriously consider the proposals such as Autonomy model, Achievable Nationhood, Four-Point Proposal, Self-Rule. A consensus has to build among all the stake holders in the conflict towards the resolution of the Kashmir issue.
What has happened and is happening in Kashmir should be a lesson that by force you might control Kashmir but not the minds and hearts of Kashmiris.

(Feedback at samiruni@gmail.com)