Restoring normality in Kashmir - A Left view

By Satya Pal Dang

One of the most importtant tasks before the political ‘class’ of India today is to ensure that mandate given by the people of state of Jammu and Kashmri in the recently held elections is honoured and the Kashmir dispute is finally resolved. This can be discussed fruitfully if relevant background is first recalled.

There were in a manner two Indias before India won her independence. One, British India which was ruled directly by the British imperialist rulers. Second India consisted of 500 Princely states each one of which was being ruled by supposed-to be-autocratic Princes/Maharajas/Kings etc. A few like J&K were big. Some were very tiny. All others were in between, area wise as well as population-wise. In fact all the rulers were puppets of the British. People of the princely states thus  thus suffered under double yoke.

Leadership of the freedom movement/struggle was in the hands of the bourgeois class. It chose to make compromises with the British rulers who had realised that they could not help quitting India and who too therefore were keen to have a compromise/settlement. It was a part of the settlement that sovereignty in relation to the Indian states would rest with the rulers and each ruler would decide whether his state would join India or Pakistan or remain independent.

Maharaja of Kashmir wanted that J&K should join neither India nor Pakistan. He had the support of Praja Parishad (an RSS front organisation) They believed that independent J&K ruled by a Hindu Maharaja would be a Hindu State ala Nepal. Leadership of the National Conference headed by Sheikh Abdullah wanted J&K to be in India as it was the leadership of India’s freedom struggle that had been supporting their struggles against the Princely rule and its oppression and exploitation. In this matter Kashmiris like people of Jammu and Ladakh were whole heartedly with the National Conference.

Rebuffed by the Kashmiris, new rulers of Pakistan sent “raiders” (Army disguised as raiders) into the Kashmir. Indian Army could not be sent as J&K Maharaja had refused to sign the instrument of accession. Resistance was put up only by activists of National Conference and Communists besides the common people. Maharaja at last signed the instrument of accession and agreed to Sheikh Abdullah (father of Farooq Abdullah) taking over as Chief Minister of the State, when Pakistanis were almost at the gate of Srinagar. Indian Army was ordered to enter J&K and throw out the so-called raiders. Indian Army was greeted by Kashmiris with great enthusiasm, welcome-slogans and with flowers and garlands. Valley was got rid of raiders. India had sought the help of the UNO against Pakistani aggression. A cease-fire was ordered. There was also a resolution which said that after Pakistan had withdrawn its forces from the entire state, there would be a plebiscite to decide whether the people of the J&K State as a whole would join India, Pakistan or remain independent. Had Pakistan fulfilled the conditions including withdrawing from the paert beyond the cease-fire line and a plebiscite had then taken place, whole of J&K State would have undoubtedly come to India. Instigated by the British and the USA, Pakistani rulers violated the resolution and refused to withdraw. The resolution therefore lapsed. India had insisted that the resolution was not made enforcible by the UNO. It was under a clause which governed such agreements as would be enforced only by the parties to the agreement. Not long ago it was conceded by the present General Secretary of the UNO that this resolution could not be enforced by UNO. India’s contention has now been recognised even by the “World Community” that the resolution could no longer be invoked after Pakistan’s refusal to comply with the conditions it had agreed to and after ground realities under went many changes.

Unlike most of the rulers, Maharaja of J&K did not agree that Constitution of India would be applicable to J&K too. The leadership of the National Conference too wanted greater autonomy. As a result of mutual negotiations, it was agreed to have Article 370 of the Constitution (originally  its number was different) and that J&K State would have its own constitution to be framed by an elected Constituent Assembly. No body disputes that this Assembly was elected through a completely free and fair elections.

Constitution of J&K adopted by it declared that J&K would be a part of India. It also provided that transfer of more powers to Centre would take place only with the consent of J&K Assembly.

With this essential background, we can discuss mandate of the recent elections to the J&K Assembly and tasks ahead.

***

II. Mandate of the recently held elections is clearly fractured (i) People of J&K as a whole have voted against the rule of the National Conference headed by Farooq Abdullah. Alienation is the result of its failure to continue the struggle for greater autonomy that the state has at present and using the Autonomy slogans only to win elections; its opportunist alliance with BJP and its misgovernance and corruption. The fact that Farooq was all the time flying between Sri Nagar and UK must have also weighed with some voters. (ii) People of Jammu have given a very strong mandate in favour of Congress while BJP stands routed in the entire state including Jammu, earlier its strong hold. RSS slogan that J&K must be trifurcated has been decisively rejected by people of Jammu as well as Kashmir (iii) In the Valley National Conference is still the strongest party. People’s Democratic Party (PDP) comes next with fairly strong support. Congress which has swept Jammu has not faired well  in the Valley. (All this is in terms of seats won and it is that which is relevant as far as formation of Government is concerned. A fully correct picture will emerge when voting figures are available and the same are analysed objectively).

Whatever views one may have, no one can assert that the Congress-PDP government with Mufti Mohammad Sayeed of PDP as the Chief Minister in any way violated the mandate of the people. It needs to be noted that some sort of unwritten cooperation took place between the two parties even during the election itself.

Mandate needs to be examined not only in terms of Government formation but also and much  more deeply as to what the coalition government should do. Clearly and first and foremost it is a mandate against terrorism and for restoration of peace. Clearly also it is a mandate for greater autonomy. People of Jammu have given a mandate to undo injustice done to them by the governments of the National Conference. Within J&K State, they should get regional autonomy. People of Ladakh may be for UT status but they too would welcome regional autonomy which will in fact would be better for them.

Clearly the peace constituency is considerably bigger than would appear from percentage of voters who exercised their voting rights risking their lives. Many though wanting peace must have considered it wiser not to risk their lives by exercising their right to vote. Even if there were complete peace already, 30 to 40 percent may not have exercised their right to vote as happens invariably. On the opposite side of peace can be counted only those who did not vote in response to the call for boycotting elections. They would obviously be a minority-may not be insignificant but surely not a very big minority either. The new government therefore must do all it can for restoration of peace and towards that end it should seek and get full help and cooperation from the government of India.

It would be totally wrong to think as some people seem to that mandate is to crush terrorism in the way the USA has done (!)  it in Afghanistan. It would also be wrong to think that alienation from India which had developed is a thing of the past and we are where we were when Indian Army marched in to Kashmir to throw out the raiders.

Alienation from India had grown mainly because Government of India had been rigging elections to J&K Assembly (except once when Morarji Desai was the Prime Minister, to some extent in 1996, and now in 2002. For the largely fair elections now, India has to be thankful to the Election Commission of India). To some extent, bourgeoisie that grew in Kashmir valley as a result of capitalist development, fuelled the demand for Azad Kashmir because it thought that Azadi would enable it to have the best of both the worlds. Kashmiri Muslims always had kept a long distance from fundamentalism though religious fundamentalism could not in the given circumstances but exercise some influence. Perhaps last straw on the camel's back was the totally wrong and unconstitutional dismissal of Govt. of Farooq Abdullah and installation of Shah as the Chief Minister in 1984. Alienation reached its peak. But for this, terrorism would not have grown on the soil of Kashmir. Cross border terrorism too can succeed only if a section of the people because of their deep rooted grievances is at least sympathetic to it.

Rigging of election was done to ensure a loyal government in the state. And with the help of the loyal governments autonomy of J&K was very much diluted. This could not but evoke strong resentment.

Experience of fight against Khalistani terrorism in Punjab has shown that terrorism can be best fought if it is fought both on law and order as well as political front. The latter to remove/lessen alienation and feeling of injustice, real or imagined, and on law and order front because no government can take the ridiculous position that killings by terrorists must be suffered till a political solution is found. Unfortunately governments of India of various hues never adopted a correct policy in actual practice. Emphasis has been only on "bullet for bullet" and hardly anything to overcome alienation.

For overcoming alienation of the Kashmiris it was necessary to ensure that excesses were not committed during the fight, that every possible effort was made to prevent killings of innocents, where some innocent get killed unavoidably to own it and to render maximum help to the family. Secondly, and this would be the meaning of fighting on political front, to agree to considerably greater autonomy than J&K enjoys today.

Excesses committed by terrorists began alienating them from the people. More than once opportunities came when alienation of the people from India could have been overcome. These were missed. There is a golden opportunity now and this must not be missed. To ensure that, the new government must take steps to undo wrongs done previously.

It should not release any terrorists but those who had not committed any act of terrorism or have surely given up terrorism should be released. Those in the process of giving up terrorism, should be helped by all suitable measure, whether they are outside or inside the jail. Hue and cry being raised by BJP against commitment that POTO would not be used is ill conceived. POTO can do more harm than good just as TADA did that. Infact POTO is worse and a more lawless law. The necessary warning should be that killers must not be shown any mercy and there must be no soft corner as till they give up terrorism.

As far as autonomy for J&K State as a whole is concerned, there may be no going back to pre-1953 position i.e. only 3 departments for the Centre. But state will have to be given considerably greater autonomy than it has today. May be some thing on the lines of 1975 Indira-Sheikh Agreement. Concrete packages will have to be worked out for Jammu as well as Ladakh. J&K government cannot deliver all this. Only the Govt. of India can deliver. State government do whatever it can and press New Delhi for the rest.

State government can deliver a lot in the matter of good governance e.g. ensuring decrease in unemployment, as well as corruption bettering the lot of the poor, etc. It can do that despite its limited powers if the ruling politicians prove to be of a different metal than generally India's politicians are today. Whether in power or in opposition they are governed only by two considerations (i) what will enable them to enrich themselves, and (ii) What will help them to fetch them votes.

There is no such thing as principles or long-term interest of the people. Mehbooba Mufti looks like a politician of the type J&K needs to day. I hope there are many more of the required mould. If J&K politicians-ruling or otherwise-act with the same spirit with which our freedom fighters did, they would save not only their own state but the whole of India. Return of Pandits too must be on their top agenda.

Given advances in the above correct direction and given steps to take the whole truth to the people of Pakistan, it will not be difficult to resolve the Indo-Pak dispute Kashmir. Let us not forget that neither people of India nor of Pakistan want another Indo-Pak war. Both want lasting peace and friendship between the two countries. And this reality will make possible a just and honourable settlement on the basis of Shimla Agreement.

*The author is a veteran communist leader based in Punjab.

Previous

Index

Next