The proponents of Kashmir's Azadi from India and India's from Kashmir have lost sight of the defining aspect of the last 25 years – Pakistan's sustained political interference which enabled it to create a large, well-funded and armed militancy. What was called 'moral support' to a political movement actually meant cross-border training camps for militants, widespread distribution of arms and ammunition, the involvement of Afghan and other foreign 'mujahideen' and the infusion of a fundamentalist Islam alien to Kashmir. The ubiquitous AK-47 was not part of India's plan.
On Monday, August 18, and then again on Friday, August 22, lakhs of Kashmiris poured into Srinagar to hold what must be the largest peaceful demonstration held anywhere in India over the past 10 years. Various estimates put the figure between 2.5 lakh (J&K Police estimates) to 5 lakh (media estimates). It seems that the people of Kashmir have once again started on the road to self-determination and, they hope, freedom from India.
This and the events that preceded these huge demonstrations have led to calls from some intellectuals, commentators and journalists in sections of the media that it is now time to ‘let Kashmir go’. On a programme on a news channel 60 per cent of the respondents felt that it was now time for Kashmir’s Azadi. A Times of India poll in nine cities reveals that 70 per cent of urban respondents want Kashmir to stay a part of India. It is clear that the demonstrations in Kashmir for ‘self-determination’ have opened up that debate in the rest of India.
There are three basic arguments: One says that our rule over Kashmir is akin to that of colonial British rule over India a sort of quasi-colonialism, that the desire for independence overrides all other considerations and that a democratic India should hold a referendum to let Kashmiris decide their own future. The second argument takes a more matter of fact approach: We have tried everything with Kashmir – we have sent in the Army, the ballot box and signed them a blank cheque –but nothing works. Kashmir is holding us back, they don’t want to be with us anyway so let’s hold the referendum and be done with it. The third approach is more sensitive. Its proponents say that we have committed terrible atrocities on Kashmiris in the name of national integrity, young men have been shot, women raped and children have lost their youth. We have broken their bones but not their spirit. The only way to salvage our conscience is to hold a referendum.
Three different arguments, three different approaches from three different kinds of people, yet each gives the same counsel – Indians must get used to the idea of giving up Kashmir.
The situation and its possible resolutions are not that simple. The proponents of Kashmir’s Azadi from India and India’s from Kashmir have lost sight of the defining aspect of the last 25 years – Pakistan’s sustained political interference which enabled it to create a large, well- funded and armed militancy. What was called ‘moral support’ to a political movement actually meant cross-border training camps for militants, widespread distribution of arms and ammunition, the involvement of Afghan and other foreign ‘mujahideen’ and the infusion of a fundamentalist Islam alien to Kashmir. The ‘gun’, the ubiquitous AK-47, was not part of India’s plan. A few years ago, Hurriyat leader Abdul Gani Butt in a reply to a senior Indian politician’s question said they wanted independence to preserve ‘Kashmiriyat’. In spite of the violence that has prevailed over the past 20 years, most Kashmiris will be hard pressed to say that Kashmiri culture has been damaged by India. In fact, the main damage to Kashmiriyat has been done by Pakistan-introduced fundamentalism.
The Indian state did not ever seriously try to build the regional Kashmiri identity into a larger national identity. But that does not mean that Kashmir was never really a part of India or that the people of Kashmir have always resented being forced into coexistence with India. While there may be some doubt on the intentions behind the Treaty of Accession signed in 1947, there is no doubt about its legality. Furthermore, it was a popularly elected Constituent Assembly that ratified the state’s accession to India.
There has been a lot of time spent on trying to identify the genesis of the Kashmir problem. When did it begin, 1931, 1947, 1953, 1988? Was it with the first demonstration against the Raja in 1931 or with the opportunistic but legal signing of the Instrument of Accession in 1947 or with the arrest and imprisonment of Sheikh Abdullah for 11 long years in 1953? Or was it with the widespread discontentment after yet another rigged election in 1987? That does not really matter. The date that we should focus on is not when the problem begin but when do we honestly start redressing the issues facing a people who over the past sixty years had to deal with externally-sponsored militancy, besides other problems.
The point is not what the Indian state has done wrong. Pretty much everything that our politicians could do wrong, they did. From the steady dilution of Article 370, which was integral to the Presidential order that extended the Indian Constitution to the state, to the dismissal of elected chief ministers beginning with the first, the Indian state has been subverting democratic systems in Kashmir even before they could take root. Add to that the repressive measures that began in the late eighties, the middle-of-the-night cordon and search operations, the atrocities committed on innocent villagers under the pretext of aiding militants, the killings, the rapes, the illegal detentions. Even in those rare times when there was a popularly elected government, the state sent in exceedingly political governors. From Jagmohan to Girish Saxena to the latest disaster S K Sinha, these governors did everything in their power to apply the heavy hand of the state, push in draconian laws, interfere in local politics and in the most recent example exploit a sensitive situation to create a communal problem that has led to the current crisis.
The fact is that successive regimes at the Centre did not give democracy a fair chance in Kashmir. We are a country of more than a billion people comprising multiple ethnicities, regional identities, communities, castes and tribes, languages and religions. For 61 years, what has kept us together is our democratic system. True Indian democracy has many faults, and minorities and the backward classes and castes have not been as well served as they should have been. Their struggles for political empowerment continue to meet resistance at every step. But the system works. In 61 short years, Indian democracy has politically empowered millions of citizens who previously had been denied even the most basic of human rights. Indian democracy has created Mayawati, a Dalit leader, who represents the aspirations of the most exploited, backward and underprivileged sections of Indian society, who is now the Chief Minister of the country’s most populous state and has elevated her to within striking distance of the prime ministership of the country. That is what India stands for, that is what it has to offer.
Kashmir has always had a strong democratic instinct. The first ever public agitation in the then princely state was to demand a representative government. Even now the demonstrations that brought out a million people on the streets have been to demand a government that they can call their own. The Indian state has a choice. It can either continue to repress the political aspirations of the Kashmiri people or it can have faith in the strength of the Indian democratic system. The government should as soon as possible do away with undemocratic laws like the hated Armed Forces Special Powers Act, Jammu and Kashmir Disturbed Areas Act and Public Safety Act. The elections to the Assembly should be held on time and the government should immediately begin working with the state’s representatives to ensure that all the provisions in the Constitution of India are restored to Kashmir.
A lot of the talk on the fallout of a possible referendum leading to the secession of Kashmir has focused on the impact it will have on Indian secularism and on the fear that every other region will begin to clamour for independence. Those fears are genuine but they are overshadowed by the damage Kashmiri secession will have on Indian democracy. The failure of the Indian state to convince the Kashmiri people that their political, cultural, economic interests are best served with India will mean the failure of Indian democracy.
By ASIF SYED