Kashmir: making the same mistakes

I am currently reading Ramachandra Guha's definitive guide to India post democracy titled India After Gandhi. While looking at the secessionist threats you do find that one problem repeats itself in the same way over and over again; the continuous political and ideological almost war-like situation in Kashmir. This article is also in light of a HT survey conducted and published in the Hindustan Times regarding the sentiments of Kashmiri's, Jammuites and Indians

Nehru in the 50's listed 4 plausible solutions and in the 60's after a set back in China in a bid to stem the decline of his legacy both nationally and internationally sought with the help of Sheikh Abdullah a possible solution: India puts down its claim to Gilgit and Azad kashmir (POK), Pakistan gives up its claim to Kashmir, that Jammu and ladhak are integrated with India and that the valley of kashmir gets to decide by plebiscite on independence or integration with India/Pakistan.

50 years later the solutions to the problem highlighted by the HT poll are the same 4 proposals that Nehru gave:
J&K (a)be integrated with India
(b)with Pakistan
(c)Partition the disputed territory between India and Pakistan
(d)Self determination for the Valley(though the existence of an independent Kashmir is highly unlikely)and Jammu and ladakh integrated to india.

The prejudice in Indian minds as pointed by the accompanying article to the survey is that when a Kashmiri states that he/she does not wish to be called Indian they are labelled pro-pakistan or Pakistani and that what a Kashmiri wants is simply the right to self determination and the principle of freedom that India, Gandhi and the masses fought tooth and nail for half a century ago.


The average Indian sees that apart from excessive presence of the army the situation in the valley is as good and as bad as anywhere else in India, in fact more money is spent on the valley than most of the backward states in India. Although there is a minority which does not give a damn any more because they need to get on with other issues such as education, inflation and employment. The people of India in their thoughts and views are not always a united front, even though nationalistic pride does achieve it at times.

The solution of Kashmir back then was halted also in a small way by the growth of Hindu fundamentals against the idea that a part where Jammu and Ladakh are predominantly Hindu and Buddhist might secede to be an independent entity or even secede to Pakistan. It is at a time like this that despite their differences Nehru and the Sheikh had one thing in common; an unflinching faith in the idea of Secularism. And that despite certain communal and militant movements the sheikh always believed in a peaceful political solution.

Decades later, after each successive state and national governments could not get around achieving an institutionalised negotiation, moderates were replaced with a more extremist movement and the exodus of the Pandits to Jammu meant that the movement became communal and could no longer be called secular. Militancy prevailed, the army was called in and another Pandora's box of separatism, violence, armed conflict, human rights violation ensued and then Kargil happened. Then there was some peace that ensued elections were held in Kashmir and there was hope. Musharaf could talk all he wants about theories of the LOC as a border and joint administration but as the airs in Delhi and Islamabad changed it was back to square 1 or rather it should be called square zero. Then Mumbai happened further international tensions resulted and Kashmir got relegated because there was never a designed process for dialogue.


If Kashmir could be compared to any other disputes then it would be the ones in Nothern ireland and Palestine though both of the above are much more violent and are in general ethnic and religious disputes unlike Kashmir. The lesson is that you need to safeguard against a military threat(prepare for militancy,increase your intelligence presence) but always persist with a frame work for constructive delibration.

Cut to 2010,protests erupt in the valley, deaths of innocent young students, the deadlock in the peace talks and the growing communal tensions lead to a combustible mixture of a leaderless movement venting out against the inexcusable loss of lives anger, unemployment and lack of opportunities. These situations perpetuate themselves as they stem from the lack of political will to address two issues;the growth of an islamist intifada and the lack of a political institution.The moderate factions are sidelined and will not oppose the extremists in the means or the ideology used behind reaching a political solution. The idea of religious extremism in a region surrounded by Pakistan, China and not too far away from Afghanistan is not in India's interest. The political deployment by the government of India will greatly determine how the future shapes up not only for India but also for the Indian army and the CRPF; which are now always on the alert for a possible militant aggression and if that wasn't enough face the daunting task of being vilified and being portrayed as the perpetual antagonist in the eyes of the Kashmiris.

This situation though can be combated by addressing the second issue of building an institutionalised mechanism to pursue debate irrespective of the political whims of people in Delhi or Islamabad. This could ensure that violence isn't the only solution for the kashmiris and the possible reconciliation and resettlement of the Kashmiri Pandits and Hindus.The all party delegation though has come up with some initiatives; the eight point agenda, making a team of interlocutors (noticed how the term that got Tharoor into trouble is now ubiquitous in the media?)releasing of prisoners, the inclusion of separatist, reviewing the areas that are declared disturbed.

This is where we need leaders who can go against the stem of populist tide to sense when a situation is wrong and when it is right. With a strong leadership masses can strive to achieve a solution but with a weak and contradicting leadership and no sense of moving forward that leads to the rise of an angry mob which just wants vindication and which will pursue it by any and all means violent as necessary. Now if the separatist aren't convinced, if the communal voices increase beyond the possibility of restraint, the violence pursues, if Pakistan decides to launch another terrorist attack history is all set to repeat itself in an endless loop, which neither India or the valley can afford.