The third phase in the Kashmir Valley (the first being three months of shouting and stoning and the second being the all-party delegation’s visit followed by an eight-point package), marked by new rabbits from chief minister Omar Abdullah’s Karakul cap, the three interlocutors’ visit and opening statements, S.A.S. Geelani (among the prime accused in the Parliament House attack case, who escaped punishment due to poor prosecution) and history-starved Arundhati Roy’s rantings and the Centre’s reactions, so far only highlights some confounding contradictions and confusion. While there is no denying the need to address the angst, anger and aspirations of Kashmiris with sensitivity, there are some aspects which yet again need clarification/elaboration.
India’s stand of Jammu and Kashmir being its “atoot ang” (inseparable part) and New Delhi’s statements and actions, which have often veered away from, or contradicted that stand.
While this daily has amply dwelt upon drawbacks and flaws in the Centre’s policy on J&K in the past six plus decades, which seriously impact on national security, recent events and statements do not inspire any confidence about an improvement in the situation so far.
Abdullah’s lengthy and controversial speech in the legislative Assembly on October 6, interpreting that Kashmir acceded to, but did not merge with India, that it was “an outstanding issue” which needs to be resolved and stressing that it cannot be addressed through development, employment or good governance only, caused an uproar after members of the BJP and the Jammu and Kashmir National Panthers Party (JKNPP) MLAs tried to storm into the well of the House and earned him brownie points from the separatists.
Speaking to this newspaper, JKNPP chief Bhim Singh made some interesting observations: “Omar Abdullah’s terming the accession by Maharaja Hari Singh in 1947 as a conditional agreement violates the oath of the allegiance for the Constitution of India that the chief minister had taken… The Instrument of Accession was signed by the only competent authority of the time, Maharaja Hari Singh, whose action was backed by all sections of society and Omar Abdullah’s grandfather, Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah, the tallest leader of Kashmiri Muslims those days… Omar claiming that J&K’s accession to India was conditional, that there was no merger with the Union of India and his comparison with Hyderabad and Junagarh cannot be taken lightly because the young chief minister seems to be having a hidden agenda, not different from that of the anti-India elements… Omar has deliberately ignored that the Parliament of India in its unanimous resolution in 1994 had categorically defined the issue — the liberation of entire POK, including Gilgit-Baltistan, from the illegal occupation of Pakistan… the chief minister of J&K failed to hide his hidden agenda conceived during his visit to Pakistan in 2007. One part of his speech referred to his intention to revive the Anglo-American Dixon Plan.”
Mr Singh further elaborated: “Owen Dixon was sent as a special UN observer to J&K in 1950, after Pakistan refused to withdraw from the occupied areas of J&K as per UNCIP direction in its resolution dated August 13, 1948. To bail out Pakistan, he recommended creation of “Greater Kashmir” — dividing the state on communal lines which the people had opposed in 1947. This proposal was, for a change, rejected by Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru. Because of supporting this plan, Sheikh Abdullah earned Pandit Nehru’s wrath, leading to his dismissal and arrest.”
The very term Jammu and Kashmir (J&K) needs elaboration.
After what Pakistan chewed off in 1947-48, this comprises three major regions Jammu, Kashmir and Ladakh. According to the 2001 Census, Jammu, with 10 districts — Katua, Jammu, Samba, Udhampur, Reasi, Rajouri, Poonch Doda, Ramban and Kishtwar — has 30.69 per cent Muslim, 65.23 per cent Hindu, 3.57 per cent Sikh and 0.51 per cent Buddhists and others. Kashmir region with another 10 districts — Anantnag, Kulgam, Pulwamw, Shopian, Badgam, Srinagar, Ganderbal, Bandipora, Baramulla and Kupwara — has, with a total population of about 6,00,000, 97.16 Muslims, 1.84 Hindus, after over 3,00,000 Kashmiri Pandits were forced to flee in late 1980s, 3.5 per cent Sikhs and 0.11 per cent Buddhists and others. Ladakh region with two districts — Kargil and Leh — has 47.40 per cent Muslims, 6.22 per cent Hindus and 45.87 per cent Buddhists.
The Kashmir Valley is dominated by ethnic Kashmiris, who, thanks to the Pakistan Army/ISI’s highly active efforts at infiltrating terrorists, subversion and motivation since late the 1980s and renewed since 2008, with Geelani as an essential ingredient, have largely driven the Azadi campaign. Non-Kashmiri Muslim ethnic groups (Paharis, Sheenas, Gujjars and Bakarwalas), who dominate areas along the Line of Control, have remained indifferent to the separatist campaign. Parts of Jammu region, with a 70:30 Hindu-Muslim ratio, were militancy-hit, but violence there ebbed, as it did in the Kashmir Valley after the India-Pakistan peace process began in 2004.
Dogras (67 per cent) are the single largest group in the multi-ethnic region of Punjabis, Paharis, Bakerwals and Gujjars. Statehood is demand in Hindu-dominated districts. Ladakh is the largest region in the state with over 2,00,000 people spread over two districts, Leh (77 per cent Buddhist) and Kargil (80 per cent Muslim population). The Leh Buddhists have been demanding Union territory status for many years.
Time and again New Delhi and recently the majority of the all-party delegation to J&K ignored or merely glossed over the other communities in the state. There is no mention of the “ethnic cleansing” of Kashmiri Pandits in the late 1980s, or the threats to the few of them still there and Sikhs during the recent three months violent agitation or the aspirations of the other ethnic groups in the state.
This agitation’s genesis is the 2008 Amarnath land agitation, following which, a massive rally of reportedly over 5,00,000 protesters on August 18 that year, gave secessionist movements a decisive boost. Also, during the Amarnath land agitation, for the first time since 1947, Jammuites expressed their anger by blocking the road for trucks carrying essential supplies bound for Srinagar.
While the Constitution of India allows freedom of speech, are there any limits to it, particularly when statements question the very status of the country, or insult it, or cause disharmony, or worse, are seditious? And if there are laws of the land, which some rabidly anti-national elements like Geelani or “social activists” like Roy break, should they not be sued and punished?
During a “convention” organised in New Delhi on October 21, by the Committee for the Release of Political Prisoners, a Maoist front organisation, on “Azadi — The Only Way,” the theme that should have raised hackles in North Block. Conducted by Geelani and attended by students of Aligarh Muslim University, Jawaharlal Nehru University and Delhi University, Roy reportedly gave an open call to Kashmiris to secede from “bhookey-nangey (starving-naked) Hindustan… fight for the cause of separate Kashmir… a cause that is your future”.
While, reportedly, the Centre does not intend suing Geelani or Roy, a complaint case against the latter has already been lodged under Section 124 (A) of the Indian Penal Code at the Ranchi Chief Judicial Magistrate’s Court, by Mr Ashish Kumar Singh, accusing her of attempting to bring hatred or contempt against the lawfully established government and demanded lawful action against her for stating that “Kashmir was never an integral part of India” etc (while she interacted with media on September 25-26).
If liabilities like Geelani, always referred to as separatist, but in fact one who has been an organiser/coordinator/financer of terrorist groups responsible for deaths of thousands of innocent people and security forces not only in J&K but also other parts of India, repeatedly make seditious statements, should they not be jailed? If further disturbances and bloodshed are to be prevented and reasonable peace is to be achieved and maintained in the Kashmir Valley, then not only Massarat Alam Butt and Aasiya Andrabi, but also all others involved in assiduously inciting public and organising violence, must be apprehended and along with Geelani, put in jails, in states well away from J&K. Young boys, arrested only for stone-pelting and those on mere suspicion, should be released under assurance from parents.
Most importantly, governance, which was practically absent, must be re-established, with the right choice of leaders to regain public trust and confidence.
The violence in Kashmir and the Pakistan Army upping the ante on the Line of Control are obviously timed for US President Barack Obama’s visit. In light of the US arming Pakistan, pressurising India to resolve Kashmir and what all the US wants to sell to India, New Delhi’s major challenge will be to play its cards with firmness and finesse. Will it do so?
Anil Bhat, a retired Army officer, is a defence and security analyst based in New Delhi