Kashmir - Think the Unthinkable

[HAIDER]

SRINAGAR: Hardline separatist leader Syed Ali Shah Geelani on Monday demanded the merger of Jammu and Kashmir with Pakistan, as leaders of the moderate Hurriyat faction spoke about independence and a dialogue over the state.

Addressing a mammoth gathering at the tourist reception centre here, Gillani said there was "no solution to the Kashmir issue other than merger with Pakistan".

"We are Pakistanis and Pakistan is us because we are tied with the country through Islam," he roared, as the crowd cheered him and chanted: "Hum Pakistani hain, Pakistan hamara hai" (We are Pakistanis, Pakistan is ours).

Taking a dig at the moderate Hurriyat leaders who shared the stage with him, Gillani said the leadership issue of the Kashmiri separatist movement was "solved today".

"Do you have faith in my leadership? I will be faithful to you till my death and will carry everyone along," he said, as the crowd applauded him shouting in unison "zaroor" (certainly).

Srinagar streets on Monday danced to the tune of ‘‘jeeve jeeve Pakistan'' as frenzied youth chanted ‘‘teri jaan meri jaan, Pakistan, Pakistan'' and the Polo Ground resonated to the rhythm of ‘‘teri mandi, meri mandi, Rawalpindi, Rawalpindi''.

Hardliner Syed Ali Shah Geelani has every reason to be mighty pleased with the turn of events which marked the success of his efforts to put himself and his mentors in Islamabad back in the J&K equation just as they appeared to have been pushed to the margins.

But then came the twist. Giddy by the success of bringing secession back on the agenda, Geelani committed the indiscretion of coronating himself as the leader of the ‘azadi’ flock.

Quite a bungle it was. The boast pricked the sensitive egos of the rest in the secessionist choir and the rift became visible within no time, perhaps creating an opening for the government to try and salvage its chestnuts out of the fire. Geelani's unilateralism left the likes of Mirwaiz Umer Farooq, Yasin Malik and Shabbir Shah miffed and they left the scene without submitting the memorandum to the UN Military Observer's office, for which the march was called in the first place.

The strong bid to appropriate the ‘sadarat' of separatism, which has parties of myriad hues, was said to have sent others in quick meetings to hammer out their responses. ‘‘The chinks are there to see,'' said an analyst. Geelani sensed the resentment as he addressed a press conference in the evening to dub his ‘I am the sole leader of the tehreek' claim as a ‘‘slip of tongue''. He apologised, said the movement was bigger than the leaders and the struggle would continue, reposing faith in the coordination committee of Hurriyat factions.

If the octogenarian leader sought to make amends, it had already reduced the fourth show of strength since the Amarnath issue triggered a surge in sentiments in the form of march to UN office into a game in one-upmanship. Yasin Malik had walked out of the coordination panel's meet on Sunday at Geelani's residence by reportedly expressing reservations on the pro-Pakistan agenda being pushed by others.

The Hurriyat factions have been trying to put up a united face, having led campaigns like ‘Muzaffarabad chalo', mourning at Idgah for Sheikh Abdul Aziz who died in police firing and ‘Pampore chalo' on Saturday. Now, all eyes are on how the other components of the separatist camp take Geelani's apology. The separatists have already announced that the agitation would continue, rebuffing speculation that the march to UN could end the demonstrations which have brought Srinagar to a halt for over a month. On display on Monday was the fact that the fresh surge in ‘azadi' sentiment is driven by a religious rightwing tilt for across the border.
People came in droves, representing various walks of life, to submit memorandums to the UN Military Observer's office. They included the hotel association, Bar association, chambers of commerce and different mohalla committees. All mobilized under the separatist umbrella of Hurriyat Conference and Tehreek-e-Hurriyat of Geelani. Standing out in the massive show, however, were the frenzied youth from downtown areas, Hyderpura and other hubs of recent tensions.

While they provocatively invoked ‘‘Lashkar aayi, Lashkar aayi'' on their march, they later stood up in the park to give a thumbs down to the decision to open Srinagar for three days till Friday. Analysts called them a local constituency of religious rightwing which doesn't want any drop in momentum by relaxing the ‘hartal'. But the script took a twist as the leaders arrived on the scene. Hurriyat did not submit the memorandum to the UN office.

Meanwhile, leaders like Zafar Ahmad Butt of Salvation Movement and Javed Mir of JKLF, Shia cleric Agha Sayeed Hasan of Budgam, former APHC chief Abbas Ansari had already visited the UN office.

Mirwaiz, Malik and Shah, standing before a surcharged gathering, made their speeches. Mirwaiz announced: ‘‘Either the whole gathering will go to the UN office or we will not.'' Then came Geelani who delivered a sharp Islamist address and staked claim to the leadership while taking three pledges which included ‘‘I will take everyone along.''

His bid to nudge others out of the frame, aided by his supporters who struck higher vocal chords to make it a Geelani show, turned out to be a spoiler. The octogenarian could not complete his three pledges, drowned in sloganeering by people who got up midway to disperse. In an hour, Srinagar streets bore a deathly silence, as if nothing had happened.
We are Pakistanis, says Syed Geelani-India-The Times of India

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Think the Unthinkable
​

Have you been reading the news coming out of Kashmir with a mounting sense of despair? I know I have. It’s clear now that the optimism of the last few months — all those articles telling us that normalcy had returned to Kashmir — was misplaced. Nothing has really changed since the 1990s. A single spark — such as the dispute over Amarnath land — can set the whole valley on fire, so deep is the resentment, anger and the extent of secessionist feeling. Indian forces are treated as an army of occupation. New Delhi is seen as the oppressor. There is no engagement with the Indian mainstream. And even the major political parties do not hesitate to play the Pakistan card — Mehbooba Mufti is quite willing to march to the Line of Control.

At one level, the current crisis in Kashmir is a consequence of a series of actions by the Indian establishment. New Delhi let the situation fester until it was too late. The state administration veered between inaction and over-reaction. The Sangh Parivar played politics with Hindu sentiment in Jammu, raising the confrontation to a new level.

But we need to look at the Kashmir situation in a deeper way. We can no longer treat it on a case-by-case basis: solve this crisis, and then wait and see how things turn out in the future. If the experience of the last two decades has taught us anything, it is that the situation never really returns to normal. Even when we see the outward symptoms of peace, we miss the alienation and resentment within. No matter what we do, things never get better, for very long.

It’s not as though the Indian state has no experience of dealing with secessionist movements. Almost from the time we became independent 61 years ago, we have been faced with calls for secession from nearly every corner of India: from Nagaland, Assam and Mizoram, from Tamil Nadu, from Punjab etc.

In every single case, democracy has provided the solution. We have followed a three-pronged approach: strong, almost brutal, police or army action against those engaging in violence, a call to the secessionist leaders to join the democratic process and then, generous central assistance for the rebuilding of the state. It is an approach that has worked brilliantly. Even in, say, Mizoram, where alienation was at its height in the 1970s, the new generation sees itself as Indian. The Nagas now concentrate their demands on a redrawing of state boundaries (to take in part of Manipur), not on a threat to the integrity of India. In Tamil Nadu, the Hindi agitation is forgotten and in Punjab, Khalistan is a distant memory.

The exception to this trend has been Kashmir. Contrary to what many Kashmiris claim, we have tried everything. Even today, the state enjoys a special status. Under Article 370 of our Constitution, with the exception of defence, foreign policy, and communication, no law enacted by parliament has any legitimacy in Kashmir unless the state government gives its consent. The state is the only one in India to have its own Constitution and the President of India cannot issue directions to the state government in exercise of the executive power of the Union as he can in every other state. Kashmiri are Indian citizens but Indians are not necessarily Kashmiri citizens. We cannot vote for elections to their assembly or own any property in Kashmir.

Then, there is the money. Bihar gets per capita central assistance of Rs 876 per year. Kashmir gets over ten times more: Rs 9,754 per year. While in Bihar and other states, this assistance is mainly in the forms of loans to the state, in Kashmir 90 per cent is an outright grant. Kashmir’s entire Five Year Plan expenditure is met by the Indian taxpayer. In addition, New Delhi keeps throwing more and more money at the state: in 2004, the Prime Minister gave Kashmir another $ 5 billion for development.

Kashmiris are happy to take the money and the special rights but they argue that India has been unfair to them because no free political process has developed. And, it is true that we have rigged elections in Kashmir. But, it is now nearly a decade since any rigging was alleged. Nobody disputes that the last election was fair. Moreover, even though the Congress got more seats than the PDP, the Chief Ministership went to Mufti Mohammad Sayeed as a gesture.

Given that Kashmir has the best deal of any Indian state, is there anything more we can do? Kashmiris talk about more autonomy. But I don’t see a) what more we can give them and b) how much difference it will make.

If you step back and think about it, the real question is not “how do we solve this month’s crisis”? It is: what does the Centre get in return for the special favours and the billions of dollars?

The short answer is: damn all.

As the current agitation demonstrates, far from gratitude, there is active hatred of India. Pakistan, a small, second-rate country that has been left far behind by India, suddenly acts as though it is on par with us, lecturing India in human rights and threatening to further internationalise the present crisis.

The world looks at us with dismay. If we are the largest democracy on the planet then how can we hang on to a people who have no desire to be part of India?
The other cost of Kashmir is military. Many terrorist acts, from the hijacking of IC 814 to the attack on parliament have Kashmir links. Our response to the parliament attack was Operation Parakram, which cost, in ten months, Rs 6,500 crore and 800 army lives? (Kargil cost us 474 lives.) Each day, our troops and paramilitary forces are subjected to terrorists’s attacks, stress, and ridicule.

So, here’s my question: why are we still hanging on to Kashmir if the Kashmiris don’t want to have anything to do with us?

The answer is machismo. We have been conned into believing that it would diminish India if Kashmir seceded. And so, as we lose lives and billions of dollars, the Kashmiris revel in calling us names knowing that we will never have the guts to let them go.
But would India really be diminished? One argument is that offering Kashmiris the right to self-determination would encourage every other secessionist group. But would it? Isn’t there already a sense in which we treat Kashmir as a special case? No other secessionist group gets Article 370 or so much extra consideration. Besides, if you take this line, then no solution (autonomy, soft borders etc.) is possible because you could argue that everybody else would want it too.

A second objection is that Indian secularism would be damaged by the secession of Kashmir. This is clearly not true. As history has shown, Indian Muslims feel no special kinship with Kashmir. They would not feel less Indian if some Kashmiris departed.
Moreover, too much is made of the size of Kashmir. Actually secessionist feeling is concentrated in the Valley, an area with a population of 4 million that is 98 per cent Muslim. (The Hindus either left or were driven out). Neither Jammu nor Ladakh want to secede. So, is the future of India to be held hostage to a population less than half the size of the population of Delhi?

I reckon we should hold a referendum in the Valley. Let the Kashmiris determine their own destiny. If they want to stay in India, they are welcome. But if they don’t, then we have no moral right to force them to remain. If they vote for integration with Pakistan, all this will mean is that Azad Kashmir will gain a little more territory. If they opt for independence, they will last for about 15 minutes without the billions that India has showered on them. But it will be their decision.

Whatever happens, how can India lose? If you believe in democracy, then giving Kashmiris the right to self-determination is the correct thing to do. And even if you don’t, surely we will be better off being rid of this constant, painful strain on our resources, our lives, and our honour as a nation?

This is India’s century. We have the world to conquer — and the means to do it. Kashmir is a 20th century problem. We cannot let it drag us down and bleed us as we assume our rightful place in the world.

It’s time to think the unthinkable.

Think the Unthinkable- Hindustan Times

---------------------------------------------------------

Well, the old thread got lost in the server switch, so I thought I'd start it again.

The subject is interesting because it adds a new dimension to the discourse on Kashmir in India, and these issues have not been raised by some Indian Muslim or Kashmiri, but mainstream Hindu authors.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

This one from the Times of India:

Independence Day for Kashmir​

17 Aug 2008, 0338 hrs IST, Swaminathan S Anklesaria Aiyar

On August 15, India celebrated independence from the British Raj. But Kashmiris staged a bandh demanding independence from India. A day symbolising the end of colonialism in India became a day symbolising Indian colonialism in the Valley.

As a liberal, i dislike ruling people against their will. True, nation-building is a difficult and complex exercise, and initial resistance can give way to the integration of regional aspirations into a larger national identity — the end of Tamil secessionism was a classical example of this.

I was once hopeful of Kashmir's integration, but after six decades of effort, Kashmiri alienation looks greater than ever. India seeks to integrate with Kashmir, not rule it colonially. Yet, the parallels between British rule in India and Indian rule in Kashmir have become too close for my comfort.

Many Indians say that Kashmir legally became an integral part of India when the maharaja of the state signed the instrument of accession. Alas, such legalisms become irrelevant when ground realities change. Indian kings and princes, including the Mughals, acceded to the British Raj. The documents they signed became irrelevant when Indians launched an independence movement.

The British insisted for a long time that India was an integral part of their Empire, the jewel in its crown, and would never be given up. Imperialist Blimps remained in denial for decades. I fear we are in similar denial on Kashmir.

The politically correct story of the maharaja's accession ignores a devastating parallel event. Just as Kashmir had a Hindu maharaja ruling over a Muslim majority, Junagadh had a Muslim nawab ruling over a Hindu majority. The Hindu maharaja acceded to India, and the Muslim nawab to Pakistan.

But while India claimed that the Kashmiri accession to India was sacred, it did not accept Junagadh's accession to Pakistan. India sent troops into Junagadh, just as Pakistan sent troops into Kashmir. The difference was that Pakistan lacked the military means to intervene in Junagadh, while India was able to send troops into Srinagar. The Junagadh nawab fled to Pakistan, whereas the Kashmir maharaja sat tight. India's double standard on Junagadh and Kashmir was breathtaking.

Do you think the people of Junagadh would have integrated with Pakistan after six decades of genuine Pakistani effort? No? Then can you really be confident that Kashmiris will stop demanding azaadi and integrate with India?

The British came to India uninvited. By contrast, Sheikh Abdullah, the most popular politician in Kashmir, supported accession to India subject to ratification by a plebiscite. But his heart lay in independence for Kashmir, and he soon began manoeuvering towards that end. He was jailed by Nehru, who then declared Kashmir's accession was final and no longer required ratification by a plebiscite. The fact that Kashmir had a Muslim majority was held to be irrelevant, since India was a secular country empowering citizens through democracy.

Alas, democracy in Kashmir has been a farce for most of six decades. The rot began with Sheikh Abdullah in 1951: he rejected the nomination papers of almost all opponents, and so won 73 of the 75 seats unopposed! Nehru was complicit in this sabotage of democracy.

Subsequent state elections were also rigged in favour of leaders nominated by New Delhi. Only in 1977 was the first fair election held, and was won by the Sheikh. But he died after a few years, and rigging returned in the 1988 election. That sparked the separatist uprising which continues to gather strength today.

Many Indians point to long episodes of peace in the Valley and say the separatists are just a noisy minority. But the Raj also had long quiet periods between Gandhian agitations, which involved just a few lakhs of India's 500 million people. One lakh people joined the Quit India movement of 1942, but 25 lakh others joined the British Indian army to fight for the Empire's glory.

Blimps cited this as evidence that most Indians simply wanted jobs and a decent life. The Raj built the biggest railway and canal networks in the world. It said most Indians were satisfied with economic development, and that independence was demanded by a noisy minority. This is uncomfortably similar to the official Indian response to the Kashmiri demand for azaadi.

Let me not exaggerate. Indian rule in Kashmir is not classical colonialism. India has pumped vast sums into Kashmir, not extracted revenue as the Raj did. Kashmir was among the poorest states during the Raj, but now has the lowest poverty rate in India. It enjoys wide civil rights that the Raj never gave. Some elections — 1977, 1983 and 2002 — were perfectly fair.

India has sought integration with Kashmir, not colonial rule. But Kashmiris nevertheless demand azaadi. And ruling over those who resent it so strongly for so long is quasi-colonialism, regardless of our intentions.

We promised Kashmiris a plebiscite six decades ago. Let us hold one now, and give them three choices: independence, union with Pakistan, and union with India. Almost certainly the Valley will opt for independence. Jammu will opt to stay with India, and probably Ladakh too. Let Kashmiris decide the outcome, not the politicians and armies of India and Pakistan.

Independence Day for Kashmir-Swaminomics-Swaminathan A Aiyar-Columnists-Opinion-The Times of India

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

And here we have the Pulitzer Prize winning author Arundhati Roy:

Kashmir needs freedom from India: Arundhati Roy​

19 Aug 2008, 0147 hrs IST, Avijit Ghosh ,TNN

SRINAGAR: Activist and author Arundhati Roy, who was present at the massive Monday rally, said that the people of Kashmir have made themselves abundantly clear. ( Watch )

“And if no one is listening then it is because they don't want to hear. Because this is a referendum. People don't need anyone to represent them; they are representing themselves. As somebody who has followed people's movements and who has been in rallies and at the heart or the edge of things, I don't think you can dispute what you see here,” she told TOI .

Roy also said that “since the 1930s, there have been debates and disputes about who has the right to represent the Kashmiri people, whether it was Hari Singh or Sheikh Abdullah or someone else. And the debate continues till today whether it is the Hurriyat or some other party.”

Then she added, “But I think today the people have represented themselves.”

Roy concluded with words, “India needs azadi from Kashmir as much as Kashmir needs azadi from India.”

Kashmir needs freedom from India: Arundhati Roy-India-The Times of India

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Now the kneee jerk Indian responses to this have primarily been, 'It'll break the country apart".

One has to wonder how much faith Indians have in their nation, if the resolution of an international dispute with Pakistan according to UN resolutions, that might result in the loss of a tiny sliver of land (Kashmir Valley alone, Jammu and Laddakh staying with India and Northern Area's with Pakistan), would actually result in India 'breaking apart'.

That argument is nothing but a canard.

 

[Flintlock]

Think all you want.

It ain't gonna happen.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Think all you want.

It ain't gonna happen.

And a few years ago articles like these weren't going to appear either.

Thinking is what makes the world tick - you may desist if you wish, on Kashmir it is apparent that India has, as seen by the facade of 'everyone in Kashmir just loves India' came crumbling down in the last two weeks.

 

[vish]

And a few years ago articles like these weren't going to appear either.

Thinking is what makes the world tick - you may desist if you wish, on Kashmir it is apparent that India has, as seen by the facade of 'everyone in Kashmir just loves India' came crumbling down in the last two weeks.

Gee... look how happy you are... as far as the facade is concerned... you think we guys are not surprised?

As far as pro-Independence articles are concerned, they abound in the Indian media.

This is the final phase of the guerilla insurgency... people are pissed off with the establishment... the insurgency has succeeded in doing that. But what the insurgency has failed in doing is cause any real damage other than PR.

But you are missing the point AM: almost everybody in India (including the Muslim community and the usual pro-independence segment) is loosing patience. Expect Article 370 to go away in some time. Primary reason why it is still in place is to "not offend Muslim votebank." But they increasingly do not care...

The recent protests against the land transfer was the undoing (by the way, what do you think of the deal?)... no government will make room hence forth.

 

[Flintlock]

And a few years ago articles like these weren't going to appear either.

Thinking is what makes the world tick - you may desist if you wish, on Kashmir it is apparent that India has, as seen by the facade of 'everyone in Kashmir just loves India' came crumbling down in the last two weeks.

Well, glad you have something to celebrate. But don't expect India to give in to the Islamists this easily.

We've faced far tougher challenges before.

 

[Flintlock]

Let me not exaggerate. Indian rule in Kashmir is not classical colonialism. India has pumped vast sums into Kashmir, not extracted revenue as the Raj did. Kashmir was among the poorest states during the Raj, but now has the lowest poverty rate in India. It enjoys wide civil rights that the Raj never gave. Some elections — 1977, 1983 and 2002 — were perfectly fair.

India has sought integration with Kashmir, not colonial rule. But Kashmiris nevertheless demand azaadi.

This I agree with. People calling this colonialism don't know what colonialism is. India has always sought to develop the valley and the people of Kashmir, but alas, if your minds are brainwashed by propaganda, there is little even the best intentions can do to sway your mind.

We have made too many sacrifices, lost too many lives over this tiny sliver of land. It'll snow in the Sahara before we willingly give it up.

 

[ashfaque]

And a few years ago articles like these weren't going to appear either.

Thinking is what makes the world tick - you may desist if you wish, on Kashmir it is apparent that India has, as seen by the facade of 'everyone in Kashmir just loves India' came crumbling down in the last two weeks.

Actuallly you are totally wrong.... India has seen situation worst that current one. These kind of articles written consistently, it has attracted your attention now...

India knows there are three kind of people in Kashmir 1) Who are pakistani agents and do not any thing to do with Kashmiri people, just want to grab power like Geelani 2) People who wants independent Kashmir 3) People who wants to stay with India.

Problem is Pakistan can see only Pakistani Supporters, because even a free Kashmir will not be in favour of Pakistan due to many reasons...

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Vish, Ashfaque and Flint,

I am not surprised by your comments - you are after all frequenters of a defense forum (as am I) and therefore liable to be more jingoistic than most, and ardently opposed to pragmatism or compromise of any sort.

The events of the last few days will not anytime soon change Indian policy towards Kashmir. That is not what my point was, but they are important in that after all these years of investment by India in Kashmir, hoping to use development as a way to win Kashmiris over, it is obvious that the overwhelming sentiment remains pro-Pakistan. Its not a matter of seeing 'pro-Pakistani' Kashmiris, the events of late pretty much show us that most of the valley is pro-Pakistan, or pro independence - either is fine by me, though I prefer the former.

That the facade has fallen is crucial, because India and Indians had built up this charade that Kashmri could be won over, and that the Kashmiris would accept and integrate with India, and that argument has been destroyed for now.

Moving on, whether the GoI scraps Kashmir's special status or not remains to be seen. It is equally likely that CBM's between AK and IK might see the light of day, with trade between Muzafarabad and Srinagar blossoming. The latter will be good for everyone involved, the former we shall see, but IMO it will portend more instability in IK, and a further alienation and radicalization of the Kashmiris.

 

[Contrarian]

Now the kneee jerk Indian responses to this have primarily been, 'It'll break the country apart".

One has to wonder how much faith Indians have in their nation, if the resolution of an international dispute with Pakistan according to UN resolutions, that might result in the loss of a tiny sliver of land (Kashmir Valley alone, Jammu and Laddakh staying with India and Northern Area's with Pakistan), would actually result in India 'breaking apart'.

That argument is nothing but a canard.

Could you give maps Agno. I'd like to know EXACTLY how big is the Kashmir Valley in a map of India as a whole, so i can make my relative estimate.

 

[Energon]

The situation in the early 90s was far, far worse. The likelihood of India giving up a part of their land to appease any one particular group Muslim or otherwise is pretty much nil. I do however think that subsidized repatriation offers have to be made. If anyone truly believes he or she is Pakistani on account of the "Islamic connection", then they ought to move there and it is in the government's best interest to cover a part of the moving costs so as to avoid any more social unrest that is crippling one of their states.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

The likelihood of India giving up a part of their land to appease any one particular group Muslim or otherwise is pretty much nil.

Actually its more of an argument related to the resolution of a territorial dispute recognized as such by the UN, on the basis of a solution recommended by the UN.

If anyone truly believes he or she is Pakistani on account of the "Islamic connection", then they ought to move there and it is in the government's best interest to cover a part of the moving costs so as to avoid any more social unrest that is crippling one of their states.

That is absurd, since the anti-India sentiment is only one factor in the equation - an equally significant part of the issue is Pakistan's claim to the territory, as recognized by the international community and the UN, the latter to which the GoI was a party to.