Shahnaz Agha
As I write this piece, New Delhi is busy congratulating itself on the unexpected voter-turnout in Jammu and Kashmir, and the Indian media is filled with editorials gleefully proclaiming the “death” of the separatist movement. Indeed, the results have dealt a humiliating blow to the Hurriyat leadership. Despite their calls for a boycott, official ECI figures claim that over 51% of eligible voters across the 46 constituencies of the Kashmir Valley participated in the polls – technically the highest turnout that the Valley has seen over the past 20 years.
Still, let us not forget that this is Kashmir, and these elections were conducted in much the same way as past elections have been. Votes were cast under the shadow of 700,000 Indian guns. Hundreds of separatist leaders and activists were arrested and detained for the entire polling period; many remain in prison. Unarmed protesters were shot and killed [additional link]. Human rights activists attempting to monitor voting were beaten and arrested. Journalists were attacked, detained and threatened by Indian security forces, sparking condemnations from Reporters Without Borders. There were reports of villagers being forced to vote against their will. Public assemblies were banned. And normal life in the Valley was crippled for days on end by draconian curfew orders, to the point where for nearly two months, Friday prayers couldn’t be offered in Srinagar’s largest mosque. I don’t think I need to belabor the point that this is not how a functional democratic society works, but that’s a different discussion entirely.
Despite all this, no one can deny the fact that a lot of Kashmiris wanted to participate in these polls of their own volition, if not the cities (especially among Kashmir’s disaffected urban middle class), then definitely in the villages. To interpret this as a sign that Kashmiri nationalism itself has lost public support makes little sense. Indeed, 51% turnout seems quite high, though perhaps not quite as momentous as some would like to claim. After all, following the 1996 polls, conducted at the height of the militancy at a time when few would argue that popular sentiment in the Valley was pro-India, the ECI still claimed 46% turnout in the Valley. It didn’t prove to be the death of separatist sentiment then, and I sincerely doubt that these polls will be any different. Remember, less than six months ago, hundreds of thousands of common people came out on the streets to demonstrate yet again just how deeply unhappy they are to be a part of India. Can anyone honestly believe public sentiment has changed so dramatically in a matter of months?
Twenty years of militancy have taken their toll, and hope for a distant azaadi notwithstanding, the beleaguered people of this state need some form of redress for their daily issues. Everyone voted for their own reasons – some for the bijli, sarak, paani promised to their villages by the pro-India parties, others because local candidates promised to help their sons find jobs, or get their husbands out of Indian jails. The pro-India parties also did an excellent job of positioning themselves – openly proclaiming that the polls were exclusively about local issues, and had nothing to do with acceptance of Indian rule or the final resolution of the Kashmir conflict. Campaigning on platforms condemning the Indian government’s recent excesses in the state (ironically including the arrest of the separatist leadership and the brutal and undemocratic suppression of the anti-election movement), and promising to curb the military’s authority in the region, further helped their cause.
While the higher than expected turnout has provided fodder for some chauvinists to claim this as public mandate for Indian rule, it’s difficult to find fault with the voters themselves. Rather, much of the blame lies squarely on the shoulders of the Hurriyat, and their irresponsible boycott, which inherently links participation in the elections to acceptance of Indian rule. Why, when the UN itself has repeatedly ruled that Indian polls and the decisions made by the governments elected through these polls have no bearing on Kashmir’s final status, did the Hurriyat feel the need to link the two issues? Perhaps with the popularity of this summer’s pro-independence protests, they were expecting a repeat of the 1989 Lok Sabha elections, when the call to boycott was nearly universally observed. But this is not 1989, and the optimism of those days, with the widespread belief that azaadi was right around the corner, is gone. Twenty years later, that azaadi has become a more distant goal, and some form of administration is necessary to address Kashmir’s day-to-day needs…and a local Kashmiri administration (even under the auspices of the incredibly corrupt NC and PDP) is still superior to languishing under Governor’s rule. Expecting people to boycott polls under these circumstances, though potentially a powerful symbol of popular commitment to the independence movement, does little to address the needs of the impoverished masses, and will fail in the face of fancy campaign promises from the more resourceful pro-India parties. Clearly a fresh, and more organized approach is necessary, though whether that involves the Hurriyat’s direct participation in the polls is doubtful. After all, even if we ignore the ideological absurdity of a separatist taking an oath under the Indian constitution, the 1987 elections are testament to the lengths New Delhi has gone to in an effort to rig elections against Kashmiri nationalists.
As for the results of the elections themselves, I’m not particularly surprised. Dynastic tradition has been the bane of South Asian politics since the fall of the Raj, and unfortunately Kashmir has hardly been immune to this phenomenon. It’s all too easy to judge Omar Abdullah on the numerous failures of his family during their years of running Kashmir as a personal fiefdom, but that wouldn’t really be fair. Still, his personal track-record is hardly reassuring. The man who, just a few years ago, was the BJP-led NDA government’s blue eyed boy (and even voted in favor of POTA), is now claiming to be a champion of Kashmiri rights and autonomy. There doesn’t seem to be much strength of conviction there – he seems to me to be more of a political chameleon, changing his colors to suit the occasion. Then again, I suppose some level of opportunism is to be expected of all politicians.
Omar Abdullah promised quite a bit over the course of this campaign – an end to military human rights abuses, a review of the hundreds of PSA cases being used to detain Kashmiri civilians without formal charges, and negotiations with the Hurriyat leadership towards the peaceful resolution of the Kashmir conflict. Naturally, the NC (and the PDP, and Congress) campaigned on a pro-autonomy platform, as they have for the past 60 years. All three parties have been given a chance, and all have completely failed in that regard. Will Omar Abdullah make genuine efforts towards accomplishing these goals, or were they more of the empty campaign promises we have been fed for decades? Only time will tell. Still, though history has taught me to expect little, I sincerely hope that this new government does what it has said it will. After all, a lifetime of such broken promises has only served to feed the sense of alienation and discontent that plagues Kashmir today.
Shahnaz Agha is a Kashmiri.
Photo Courtesy: AP
Vikam,
Regarding your points:
1-2: I agree, India is the major power-broker in South Asia. But if it has any interest in progressing socially and economically, it will eventually have to come to terms with the futility and unacceptable cost of maintaining a rather expensive military occupation to keep an unwilling region in check. Just like the European imperialists before them, the Government of India will ultimately have to realize that the “prestige” of ruling over such territories does not reasonably justify the economic cost of maintaining them. Despite all the talk of economic growth, India is still a desperately poor nation, with higher childhood starvation rates than even Ethiopia and Sub-Saharan Africa…if India has any pretensions of leaving behind the miasma of the third world and becoming a international power, its going to have to start using the money currently being spent on brutally suppressing the aspirations of the Kashmiri people on uplifting and educating the masses in mainland India. I think the intellectual classes in India are already starting to realize this fact…hopefully the government will follow.
3: You are correct in that an independent Kashmir would likely only share borders with India & Pakistan. However, you overestimate the importance of the trade link to India via Jammu, especially in the historical context. Throughout history, and to this day in fact, there isn’t even one all-weather road or railway connecting Kashmir to India. The one road that does exist is frequently rendered unusable during the winter. Historically, Kashmir’s year-round trade links to the Subcontinent were through the Muzaffarabad highway to Rawalpindi and Lahore. The link between Kashmir & Jammu is a completely artificial one, created by the British as part of the Treaty of Amritsar in 1846…with no historic, cultural, or economic basis. The Valley has indeed historically been a discrete political unit, primarily trading with Central Asia through the Silk Road, and what is now Pakistani Punjab by way of the Muzaffarabad/Rawalpindi highway.
4. Its entirely possible to remain trading partners without outright military occupation. I don’t see why Kashmir couldn’t have the same kind of relationship with India that Bhutan has.
Milind,
At this point, your statements are every bit as laughable as those of Pakistanis who claim that their army did no wrong in B’desh in ’71, and Israelis who claim that their treatment of Gaza is just “self defense.” Delude yourself all you want…your security forces have made a name for themselves the world over, whether they’re massacring unarmed civilians and torching villages in Kashmir, or raping African boys & girls, smuggling gold, and trafficking arms to the very same militants they were supposedly protecting civilians against in their capacity as UN peacekeepers in Africa.
Shahnaz,
You can choose to find my comments as laughable as you like. Yet, an overwhelming majority of Indians deeply respects our defense forces. Decent, law abiding citizens have nothing to fear from the Indian military.
The most reassuring sight in India for any minority that has borne the brunt of communal violence has been the sight of the army which is called out when the situation gets really bad.
Yes, anti national elements who spread mischief and corruption in the land will find our armed forces very tough to deal with.
Shahnaz
You are mistaken about the economical cost of maintaining the Indian army in Kashmir. It is something India can very much afford. India might have a very low per-capita income, but its gross economic product is very high. This means it has one of the first-rate armies in the world, and it will not cost much to keep occupying the valley. It is very much doable.
Moreover, India is growing economically. And its grip on the valley will only become tighter in the future.
Kashmiris do not have a clue of what are the real strengths and weaknesses of India. They can never win political independence (assuming if that is what they want) from India by either invoking terrorism in the valley, or by crying to Pakistan.
The dispute that India has with Pakistan over the UN referendum, has no direct bearing on Kashmiris. There is no provision about independence in that referendum. However, even before that referendum happens, India has 3 crucial bargaining points.
1) India has a right to demand that the population of Kashmir be returned to its pre-1947 situation. This means Kashmiri Pandits should first return to the valley and the Punjabis should vacate from Pak-occupied-Kashmir. And Pakistan and China should get out of their occupied territories.
2) India will demand that the constitution of Kashmir be secular, so as to guarantee the rights of the Kashmiri Pandits. Jinnah has promised such a thing when demanding for the partition of India, but Pakistan ceased to be a secular state, thereby violating the argument of Jinnah.
3) India, on behalf of Afghanistan, will demand that a similar referendum be held in NWFP and FATA which also have a very contested accession towards Pakistan. No Afghan government has yet recognized the Durand line.
There are significant opposition to each of these issues in Kashmir and Pakistan. So independence to Kashmir via a UN referendum is very much a dead end.
Any progress towards in dependence of Kashmir is bound to be gradual : starting from the basics. There are no shortcuts to it. For this, they have to participate in the political process – not just in elections, but also in the media. India didn’t gain independence from Britain overnight. There was a very long struggle of getting electorates, getting their own representatives, passing bills in the parliament and gradual increase of the autonomy.
The fact is the majority of the separatists in the valley are religiously motivated, and they don’t have a clearly defined nationalistic agenda. As long as this is the case, Kashmir will only simmer in further violence and uncertainty.
”Last year 60, yes 60 Gujjar protesters were shot dead in Rajasthan while demanding reservations, they were all Hindus”
Dude, the Gurjar protesters were hardly as innocent as you claim they were. They held the state ransom for over 2 months and indulged in large scale violence including lynching policemen. No state can tolerate people taking law in their hands. If anything, the state’s response was too muted due to political considerations.
Shahanaz,
Thank you for your concern towards my fellow citizens. But I am afraid there is no substantial link between child starvation in Bihar and India’s military expenditure. The problems of human development in the states of the Indian heartland, have more to do with caste conflicts/social problems, political instability and rampant corruption. The evidence for this, is that states in Southern India (like Kerala, Tamil Nadu) and Western India (Maharashtra, Gujarat) have much better indicators on human development than they did 20 years ago. Obviously there are massive problems, and I have acknowledged this in my very first comment, but if the last 60 years are any evidence, India’s socio-economic development is definitely not contingent on the Kashmir issue.
But what is important from the point of view of Kashmiris, is whether Indian government has the human and financial resources to continue occupying Kashmir. For the foreseeable future, the answer is yes. You have a very good moral argument, but it is not a practical one. And if you factor in the strategic interests that the government has in political control of Kashmir, it is unilikely that it is simply going to ‘come around’ anytime soon.
Yes, the military should leave Kashmir, apart from the Line of Control, I totally agree. But then, dont you think the first demand Kashmiris should make should be that of withdrawing the army ? But, on the protests on TV, they seem to be chanting for ‘Azaadi’, ‘Jive Jive Pakistan, Bhookha Nanga Hindustan’, ‘Bharat Teri Maut Aayi’. Dont you think that the first step should be protests to remove the army, once that is done we can move forward with ‘azaadi’ discussions ? But somehow, the protests, although rooting from the military’s actions and general alienation, do not seem to emphasize that. I guess, as you said before India is represented by the military in Kashmir, and the ‘anti-India’ protests are really ‘anti-military/central government’ protests.
Shahanaz,
I see great hope in your statement about India and Bhutan. My next question to you would be, ‘Will you as a Kashmiri be willing to have a relationship with India, similar to one that Bhutan does, within the framework of the Indian Constitution ?’
Please think carefully, yes India in general is not a very nice place right now, but being an Indian does have some benefits. The prominent ones for general Kashmiris being access to federal money, access to cheap goods from India, easy entry for tourists from what has to be the biggest ‘market’ for Kashmiri tourism and a general safety net (I know this sounds very ironical in the current situation). For individuals it means access to Indian institutions like the IITs, IIMs, the major economic centers of South Asia like Mumbai, Bangalore, Delhi and easier professional growth opportunities.
I know it sounds like I am trying to bribe you, but I am just offering my point of view. You have to make the decision.
Vikram,
The question isn’t whether or not India has the resources to maintain the military occupation of Kashmir. Rather, its the inevitable realization that those resources would be better spent elsewhere. Despite all this middle class Indian hubris and jingoism, even if you completely disregard the 25% of the population that lives in UP and Bihar, India remains a desperately poor nation (albeit slightly less desperately poor than it was 20 years ago). Even the Gujarats and Karnatkas of India don’t hold a candle to Asia’s more successful developing nations (China, Malaysia, etc), let alone the developed world. To argue that the billions currently being spent on suppressing Kashmir could not be used elsewhere in a country this poor really makes no sense.
As for your second post, the relationship between India and Bhutan is not “within the framework of the Indian constitution.” Bhutan is an internationally recognized independent state, that sends its own representative to the UN, manages its own diplomatic and trade relations. India does not have the right to station any soldiers within its sovereign borders without Government of Bhutan’s permission. There is a treaty in place that provides for cooperation on matters of foreign affairs and defense, along with certain other provisions…but Bhutan is not by any stretch of the imagination ruled by India under the Indian constitution.
Any workable solution to the Kashmir conflict must result in an internationally recognized discrete Kashmiri entity. At this point, anything less that that (some sort of autonomy under the Indian constitution) is utterly meaningless, as we have absolutely no reason to trust that the Indian authorities will allow any such provisions to remain intact, given their past track record. Remember, back in 1947 Kashmir was fed promises of autonomy (among other things, like plebiscites) as well…that autonomy didn’t even last 5 years. Significant cooperation (as in Bhutan’s case) is possible. Outright Indian rule is not.
Shahanaz,
The question of control of the Kashmir valley for India is one of security. I have repeatedly stressed that the main reasons for the occupation of the valley are strategic, not economic. Like I said, you make a compelling moral argument but one which is not practical.
I dont see how anything I said was jingoistic, I acknowledged India’s massive human development problems in my very first comment. I just gave those examples to point out that development in India is certainly not contingent on the Kashmir issue. In fact, even a cursory at India’s media and blogosphere will reveal daily scandals, corruption issues, infrastructure problems. We, Indians are not as blinkered as some people like to think.
As for comparison with other countries, I dont think that is the subject matter of this post, all I will say that in the minds of most Indians the legitimacy of the government comes from success in elections, not comparison with other countries. This is a fact, for better or for worse.
To tell you the truth, I am afraid something like, “India does not have the right to station any soldiers within its sovereign borders without Government of Kashmir’s permission.” will be completely unacceptable to most Indians, given the current security scenario. This is morally incorrect, but thats how things are.
Thank you for responding to my questions, and I hope you gained something from this conversation. I certainly have. Inshallah, a solution to this mess will be found. Khuda Hafiz.
“Any workable solution to the Kashmir conflict must result in an internationally recognized discrete Kashmiri entity.”
Workable for whom? If the challenge for the sub-continent is better lives, security, good governance and better opportunity; how will an independent Kashmir solve that problem?
You are right – if India were a corporation – spending money on a “sinking fund” is a waste. But India is not and we have to live with the fact that Kashmir cannot be allowed to become a “haven” for jihadists. Price we will pay will be much higher. Kashmir has an elected goverment today – by the Kashmiris and for the Kashmiris. Let that govt. come up with its own solution that works not just for 5 million Kashmiris but 1.5 billion Indians. Let time tell what works.
Vikram,
What all Indians must realise is that solving Kashmir issue by granting it Azadi will have no impact on Indian Defence expenditure- it could very well go up as Kashmir will become Talibanised and will become a launching pad to attack India.
More importantly, stating what has been stated before, if the population of Kashmir is given a choice now, which was not envisaged in the “Indian Independence Bill” passed by British Parliament, people of every princely state in India will demand similar privilege, especially when “Hindu fanaticism” is also a major source of concern for India. The Gwalior Princely State, which is part of BJP ruled MP, can demand same privilege as Kashmir and if it chooses to be independent, can India survive. The Kashmiris gave up armed struggle in 1994 itself and presently it is the Paki Terrorist who are sustaining it. Army will be out of rest of Kashmir except the border when the terrorism stops- if it takes another 200 years so be it. Irish problem is being fought by England for more than 200 years and is still on.
Dear Shahanaz,
The extracts of Indian independence bill is given below:-
” The Indian Independence Act 1947 was the statute (10 and 11 Geo VI, c. 30) enacted by the British Parliament promulgating the partition of India and the independence of the dominions of Pakistan and India. The Act received royal assent on July 18, 1947.
The legislation was formulated by the government of Prime Minister Clement Attlee, after representatives of the Indian National Congress,[1] the Muslim League,[2] and the Sikh community[3] came to an agreement with the Viceroy of India, Louis Mountbatten, on what has come to be known as the 3 June Plan or Mountbatten Plan
Passed on 15th June 1947, the Act basically stipulated that:
• Two independent dominions, India and Pakistan shall be set up in India .
• The date of setting up of dominions was fixed as fifteenth of August 1947.
• The responsibility as well as suzerainty of the government of United Kingdom shall cease on fifteenth of August 1947.
• That all Indian princely states shall be released from their official commitments and treaty relationships with the British Empire, and will be free to join either dominion.
• Both Dominions will be completely self-governing in their internal affairs, foreign affairs and national security, but the British monarch will continue to be their head of state, represented by the Governor-General of India and a new Governor-General of Pakistan. Both Dominions shall convene their Constituent Assemblies and write their respective constitutions.
• Both Dominions will be members of the British Commonwealth, but free to leave whenever they please.
• The British monarch shall be permitted to remove the title of Emperor of India from the Royal Style and Titles. King George VI subsequently removed the title by Order in council on June 22, 1948 ”
The “fourth” clause clearly states that “princely states ….. will be free to join either dominion”. Independence was not an option as per the Bill. Why doesn’t the “Azadi” Kashmiris approach the British Parliament to amend the above clause and include “independence” too rather than blaming rest of India for the problem.