The turmoil in Jammu and Kashmir calls for the need to deal with the Kashmiri sentiments with more sympathy, patience and sophistication.
The ongoing turmoil in Jammu and Kashmir is unprecedented in its intensity and mass appeal, and has the potential to recast the State’s existing political realities as well as force a rethink of India’s traditional lines on the Kashmir problem and most certainly give way to newer political realities when all is said and done.
While comparisons are rightly made between the current turmoil in the State and the situation in the early 1990s (minus the militancy), what needs to be noted is that despite all the efforts by the Indian state (and use of all sorts of measures ranging from force to negotiations with the separatists) in the last two decades or so, the dislike, let us face it, that a large number of Kashmiris express for India is real and there for everybody to see. It doesn’t help any more to comfort ourselves by saying that this is only an urban phenomenon in downtown Srinagar and not all Kashmiris share this sentiment. The anti-India agitations in Kashmir have given us, as a nation, an opportunity to introspect on some of our policies towards Kashmir.
Underlying causes
In order to understand the underlying dynamics of the ongoing turmoil in Kashmir, it is necessary to understand what led to this state of affairs. While the otherwise innocuous Amarnath land transfer may have been a triggering point, there are more profound and serious causes to what is happening in the Valley today. An analysis of the recent political history of Kashmir proves one thing beyond any doubt: peace in Kashmir is too fragile to be taken for granted and a mistake was committed in taking it for granted.
In retrospect, despite all their promises to the Kashmiris, what have the governments in Srinagar and New Delhi done, in the last four years, to resolve the Kashmir problem to the satisfaction of Kashmiris? Almost nothing.
Reports forgotten
One might argue, as many political commentators are doing today, that so much money has been pumped into Kashmir. But political problems are not resolved by monetary measures alone.
The Prime Minister’s Round Table Conferences and the reports that were produced subsequently by various working groups have been neatly archived and forgotten about. The reports and the contents were indeed very encouraging and one had hoped that the governments would act on them helping, thereby, to improve the situation in the State. The government in Delhi did not bother to do that.
It has now become clear that New Delhi was sleeping through the various phases of peace in Kashmir (and the unprecedented groundswell of popular support for it), ignoring the daily demands and pleas from dissidents, activists, mainstream politicians and analysts to engage the State and the problems therein more proactively.
It was not just that there was unprecedented willingness on the part of dissidents and various sections of Kashmiris to look for a solution to the State’s problems. More importantly, many of the suggestions to conflict resolution were concrete and should have been taken into serious consideration. The government’s passive, if not dismissive, attitude towards such gestures and proposals has brought about the prevailing situation of political disconnect between the people and the State.
The implications
The most obvious implication of the current turmoil in Kashmir is the resounding return of the popular slogan of azadi to the streets of Srinagar. What started as a struggle for land grew in proportion when Jammuites economically blockaded Kashmir and is now rapidly spreading as a pro-azadi movement: land or the blockade are no longer issues in this movement. From what was widely termed as an ‘irreversible’ peace process between India and Pakistan as well as between Srinagar and New Delhi, things have changed so radically in about two months’ time that neither of the peace processes exists today.
That many years of negotiations with Kashmiris, the ‘special status’ and large amounts of economic aid have not been able to win the hearts and minds of the people of Kashmir has to make not only New Delhi but we as a nation sit up and rethink our traditional policies towards Kashmir and Kashmiris’ feelings towards the rest of us.
The ongoing struggle between Kashmir and Jammu has also witnessed the rise of Jammu as a political stakeholder in the State. Until a couple of months ago, Jammu and Kashmir meant Kashmir: Jammu felt politically, economically and developmentally sidelined and neglected, even as the facts do not bear out much of this perception of neglect. However, in politics, perceptions sometimes matter more than facts.
While the Sangh Parivar is quite obviously trying to get political mileage out of what is happening in Jammu, it needs to be pointed out that the struggle in Jammu is not merely religious and the issue, again, is not only about the land transfer: Jammu wants to be heard at the high table of J&K politics, and it is no more willing to accept a Kashmir-centred polity in the State.
While this is likely to further divide the two regions, it would also benefit the Hindutva forces in Jammu. From being on the margins of the political landscape in J&K, the Bharatiya Janata Party is now likely to emerge as a decisive force in the politics of the State thanks to the local discontentment against the policies of the National Conference, the People’s Democratic Party and the Congress during the ongoing crisis in Jammu.
The All Party Hurriyat Conference (APHC) that has been spearheading the Kashmiri agitation is also facing a political dilemma of how far to go and how much to ask from New Delhi. While the three APHC demands (opening the roads to Pakistan for trade, release of Kashmiri political prisoners and the non-application of the Armed Forces Special Powers’ Act in the State) are not akin to seeking azadi, the increasing popular support for azadi in the State would put the APHC in a tight spot: the APHC led by Mirwaiz Umar Farooq may not be prepared to seek complete independence from India though Tehreek-i-Hurriyat chief Syed Ali Shah Geelani would press for it in the days to come. The question at this point of time is whether and how Mirwaiz can pacify the hard-line elements who will try to go beyond the brief of his moderate political agenda.
What lies ahead?
Even if New Delhi’s multi-faceted strategy to restore normality in Kashmir becomes fruitful in the days to come, the future of the State is likely to be characterised by some significant developments. First of all, the ongoing turmoil will convince New Delhi of the need to grant greater autonomy to J&K. Mere promises of “anything short of azadi” will not work now; they will need to be delivered on the ground. Thinking on the lines of greater autonomy to the State (along the line of an undiluted Article 370) is perhaps a way ahead. A close examination of the proposals put forth by most stakeholders in J&K points to such a consensual solution. In this process, it is now all the more important that the various regions within the State do not “feel” neglected.
Secondly, this spate of agitations is likely to be followed by fresh and committed attempts at establishing greater linkages and collaboration between the two sides of the erstwhile princely State of Jammu and Kashmir. Let us remember that such measures were under serious consideration long before the new spell of agitations began in the State. What peace could not achieve, conflict might.
Thirdly, and most importantly, the ongoing turmoil also calls for the need to deal with the Kashmiri sentiments with more sympathy, patience and sophistication. Considering the fact that one of the immediate causes of what is happening today was the arrogant and allegedly communal statements by the then Chief Executive Officer of the Shri Amarnath Shrine Board such as why “Muslim pollution is tolerable and not Hindu pollution” (pointing to the pollution caused to the Dal Lake, the Wular Lake, etc., by local residents), which he made while addressing a press conference in Srinagar before the agitations began.
Source: The Hindu, August 22, 2008.
Authors
