Those gripped by religious nationalism are unable to understand the regional-ethnic aspirations of the people. Many an ultra-nationalist of different hues also fall into this trap many a time.
With the formation of the Indian nation, the integration of regions like Himachal Pradesh, North Eastern States and Jammu & Kashmir created some challenging situations. Though in all these cases the challenges were met in different ways and are even now continuing to pose some issues of serious national concern, but those related to Kashmir require some more pressing attention.
Located in a strategic geographic area of great significance, the global powers have also added their own weight behind complicating matters in Kashmir. Kashmir remains one of the most contentious issues between the two neighbours, Pakistan and India. In addition, the communal forces in India have been making it a bone of contention all through.
It is in this backdrop that when the BJP’s prime ministerial aspirant, Narendra Modi gave a call for debating the article 370, a whole hell broke loose. His intention in saying ‘who it has benefited’ was to indicate that it is unnecessary and should be abolished. To buttress his point, BJP leaders Sushma Swaraj and Arun Jaitly reiterated that abolition of article 370 is an integral part of the agenda of Hindutva-RSS, BJP’s parent organisation. Jaitly went to uphold the stance taken by Shyama Prasad Mookerjee, the founder of Bhartiya Jan Sangh, the predecessor of the present BJP, that of complete and immediate integration of Kashmir into India. Jaitly also distorted the contemporary history and events by saying that “Nehruvian vision of a separate status has given rise to the aspirations for pre-1953 status, self-rule and even Azadi.
Many a TV debate participant on the issue have shown their ignorance about the status and content of Article 370 as such.
It is true that in Kashmir today there are many tendencies, which vary from asking for total independence, Azadi to Autonomy. There will hardly be any popular support for debating or abolishing Article 370 as such at broad layers. It is difficult to say how many fall in which category, but a large number are for more autonomy with article 370 in place. There is a complex history to the issue. As is well known, Kashmir was one of the princely states without direct rule of the British. Dogra dynasty’s King Hari Singh, who ruled Kashmir, refused to join the constituent assembly under the Cabinet mission plan. Eighty per cent population of J&K was Muslim. With India’s independence, the Maharaja had two options, one to remain independent, two either to merge with India or with Pakistan. Maharaja was tending to remain independent. Hindu leaders of Jammu supported Maharaja in this separatist plan. “J&K Rajya Hindu Sabha,” including the ones who later on joined Bharatiya Jana Sangh, vociferously argued that “a Hindu state, as Jammu & Kashmir claimed to be, should not merge its identity with secular India” (Kashmir, Balraj Puri, Orient Longman 1993, p. 5).
The attack of the tribal-supported Pakistan military in 1947 changed the whole scenario.
After this attack the Maharaja, due to his inability to protect Kashmir, requested the Indian Government to bail him out. The Indian Government wanted the state to accede to India before it could send the armed forces to ward off Pakistan’s aggression.
The accession treaty was thus signed with the provision of Article 370. It was not a merger. India was to look after defence, currency, foreign affairs and communications while Kashmir was to have its own constitution, flag, Sadar-i-Riyasat [head of state] and Prime Minister. Justifying this action, Pandit Nehru in a broadcast to the Nation on 2 November, 1947 said, “…Both the Kashmir Government and the National Conference pressed us to accept this accession and to send troops by air, but made condition that the accession would have to be considered by the people of Kashmir later when the peace and order were established…”(Nehru, Collected Works, XVIII, p. 421).
India approached the UN with a request to get the aggression vacated and to supervise in the process of plebiscite. Multiple factors operated here in due course of time and the holding of plebiscite got postponed sine die.
With this, another process began at home. Jana Sangh Chief Shyama Prasad Mookerjee’s insistence, supported openly by the Jana Sangh and covertly by some bigwigs in Congress as well, asked for the total merger of Kashmir into India. At this point Nehru was under the external pressure of Jana Sangh and internal pressure from some of his colleagues in the cabinet to totally integrate Kashmir with India. Nehru pointed out, “We have to be men of vision and there has to be a broad-minded acceptance of facts in order to integrate [Kashmir] really. And real integration comes from mind and the heart and not of some clause, which you may impose, on other people.“
Since then a lot of water has flown down the Jhelum. The pressure of communal forces, the doubts raised in the minds of Sheikh Abdullah due to the murder of Gandhi and rise of communal politics, led him to think whether he has done a right thing in deciding to accede to India. He wanted to be part of a secular polity, but communal teeth of the country had started becoming more visible. His doubts and their articulation led to his arrest for 17-long years. And this is where the process of alienation of Kashmiri people began. This alienation was duly aided by Pakistan, in supplying arms to disgruntled youth. The matter got worse, compounded with the entry of foreign militants into Kashmir in the 1980s. These elements, whose US-sponsored mission of defeating Russian army in Afghanistan was over and they were looking around for other areas for implementation of their mistaken notions of Jihad. They joined in and the earlier struggle in Kashmir, on the grounds of Kashmiriyat, was communalised by them. An atmosphere was created which made the Kashmir struggle a distorted version of Jihad, undermining its Kashmiriyat. This is what led to targeting of Kashmiri Pandits. This gave a big handle to the communal elements in India to propagate the separatism of Muslims.
Things started improving in the first decade of this century. Still the accumulated agony of Kashmiri youth started manifesting in the “stone-throwing youth” who emerged as a result of the total disenchantment with the state of affairs prevailing in Kashmir.
In the light of this, the Central Government appointed a team of interlocutors. The recommendations of the group of interlocutors, Dileep Padgaonkar, Radha Kumar and M. M. Ansari (May 2012) in nutshell asked for rejection of the return to pre-1953 position, while at the same time asking for measures to restore the autonomy of Kashmir. The team suggested that the Parliament should not make any law for Kashmir unless it relates to the internal and external security of the state. Significantly, it gave the status of “special” instead of “temporary” to the Article 370, which is the bone of contention for the ultra-nationalists like the BJP.
Very correctly, the team said that the proportion of officers in the state should gradually be changed to increase the weight-age of the local officers. It also talks of creating regional councils with financial powers, and measures to promote cooperation across Line of Control (LoC) while talking of resuming dialogue with both Hurriyat and Pakistan. The Government has been non-committal about it so far, while the BJP has rejected them on the ground that it is a dilution of the accession of Kashmir to India. The separatists found it insufficient, saying that there is no political settlement of the issue.
While calling for debate around Article 370, one needs to understand as to what Kashmiris want, a mere assertion of ultra-nationalist tendencies will harm the process of healing of wounds and the march towards a better democratic process in the state.
As Nehru pointed out, what is more important is to win the hearts and mind of the people, the laws can follow. Integrating the people by considering their aspirations is the need of the hour. As such, these outbursts are counterproductive for the people at large.
How many years the rest of India should show and keep working on winning the heart and minds of kashmiris?
Muslims are always asking(read begging)…they are never willing to adjust/give away.
BY muslims i mean muslims as group(umma) and not muslims as individuals.
Until the rest of India, realizes that it has illegally and with brute savage force occupied a territory that does not belong to it.
Who says it does not belong to India…India owns kashmir…you guys can move it of kashmir by selling your land, utensils, furniture and we will give to 20% extra for the market value of those product.If you can drive out kashmir pandits from valley, we can drive you out of kashmir too.
Dear Naren,
I am not sure how old are you and how much do you know about Kashmir. Please do not link Kashmir with your “rest of India” and as far as “Winning hearts and minds of Kashmiris” goes; please do some research as to how Indians have shaped their policies against kashmir and its citizens. Its ironic to note that I have to educate people on “muslim mirror” where it is assumed that learned muslims visit to grasp what they dont know or at least try to know without any prejudice against any other community.
Your’s my dear, I am sorry is as myopic a view as your “Rest of India”.
Thankyou.
Sajad
2014/2015 will be the last time we will speak about Kashmir. Not only article 370 entire Kashmir issue will be settled once for all. In 2010 UN also removed from disputed list of security council.
Friend, You seem to be the learned scholar evolved over the years from the soil of “Akhand Bharat”‘s some remote part. When was the last time, you dreamt about Kashmir being removed from the disputed list? Do you even know how many UN resolutions speak for the right to self determination of Kashmiris?
Come sometimes to Kashmir, we will have an ice cream near the office of the United Nations Militry observers group – in the heart of Srinagar.
Dear Mr. Ram Puniyani
The article, I beg to differ is not presenting the truth in its entirety.
1) Pakistan army did not attack Kashmir as it was still under the British. It rather was the tribes men who attacked Kashmir and hence to say that India sent its troops on the “condition of accession” is flawed as the Indians always had a confrontational attitude towards Pakistan and vice-versa. This attitude has not changed till date and nor do I see any possibility of this happening in the future.
2) Accession, many believe is non-existential as nothing of such sorts ever happened. “Instrument of accession” is shrouded thus in mysteries of tri-color.
3) What led to arrest of Sheikh Abdullah is again presented in a typical, Indian way of confusing and concorting the truth. Your way of presenting it is like Sheikh joined India (secular India, whatsoever it means) and then regretted as he felt the communal teeth of India bitting against his Kashmiri skin. So, he asked for Plebiscite- Plebiscite, which was promised to Kashmiri nation by Nehru not only in Srinagar but in the United Nations as well. Here starts the trouble- Sheikh turns a traitor and is arrested and thrown in prison for 17 years…AND when he is released he is catapulted to Cheif Minister instead of Prime Minister- hence bowing to the Akhand Bharat’s slogan “EIK VIDHAN EIK PRADHAN”…Thence, Sheikh enters the list of most faithful Indians by decieving his people.
4) In the same para you link sheikh’s arrest with “disgruntled kashmiri youth”- how pitiful! How can it be that you are covering 30 years in a single paragraph without mentioning all the rigged elections, the savage Indian policies, the errosion of article 370- All without an iota of ommission!
5) While you fiegn secular- why dont you honestly mention; the ulterior designs of “Indian ultra nationalists” by invoking the repeal of article 370?
6) Interlocuters and their report – Would have appreciated had you mentioned the need of inventing the interlocuters in the first place! 125 boys as young as 8 years were killed by your savage, brutal, wild forces in uniform and then Indians wanted to know genuinely “what Kashmiris want”- hence they get these bunch of retired journos and proffessors to get intouch with the “common public of Kashmir and hence comes this “interlocuters report” or whatever…it’s plain tactic of buying time and pacifying the anger during the 2008/2010 upheavel of Kashmiri masses, demanding the much needed, much awaited and much deserved Freedom of Kashmir.