J&K: Starting point of a Solution

Dear Shantanu,

I am of opinion that your suggestion on Kashmir is not going to bring peace..

In my opinion for solution for Kashmir, we should be clear about our vision of Integration. What do we mean by integration. What does it mean to languages, what does it mean to religion as is being practiced, what does it mean to responsibilities and authorities of center, states, districts, and town authorities.

Another important point is to understand whether different states are part of this country because it is beneficial for the people of that state or it is only for desire of people of all other states.

I find our intelligentsia and politicians are not able to go to basics and are utterly confused.. And fail to understand India is most COMPLEX COUNTRY !!! and will need solutions that do not exist anywhere else !!

In my opinion solution is:
1. To declare Plebiscite in Kashmir,
2. Conducting reliable plebiscite,
3. Defeating Separatists in Plebiscite,
4. Ruthless eradication of Separatists,
5. Tri-furcation of the state in Jammu, Laddakh, and Kashmir Valley
6. Providing much higher level autonomy to every state including trifurcated Kashmir by dissolving concurrent list in favor of states
7. Giving incentive to Kashmiris to start armed struggle for liberation of POK..

The starting point of solution will best be the dictum from Bhagvad Gita whose loose translation is “Focus on what you can change, let go of what you can’t change. When faced with a distressing situation ask yourself if you have control over the events. If you do, change what you can. If you don’t, learn to let it go and move on”.

It might be a good idea to limit the discussion here to “what you can change”. A clear identification of “YOU” is very important. You as a person(1), you as a group(2), you as a community(3), you as a nation(4), and you as a good citizen of the world(5). My sense is that as a blogger and blog reader you can do a lot under 1,2, and 5. As 4 I doubt this group has any locus standi. I don’t have much hope about position (3) either.

I agree with the basic idea that the concept of independence is outrageous and we must not allow national disintegration game through secession. Even the history part – the referendum was only meant to be join India or Pakistan. International mollycoddling of militants in Kashmir and encouraging them along ‘independence’ thinking line has caused the present problem.

As a first step the international bodies must understand and clarify – no independence – if ever it came to an extreme – the choice is only India or Pakistan.

In terms of solution, I don’t think one India one law is viable because the state in serious grips of insurgency. How will the Kashmiri pandits return – they stand to face violence and persecution.

The solution I think will be a strong single party – unity government rule in Kashmir.

Shantanu,
While I agree that some of the solutions have merit, I would say that removal of Article 370 should be put to vote in all states of India. Let us see what the “aam admi” think about it.
Then take an opinion about plebiscite inside valley and if most people in the valley wants to secede, then divide the valley only and re-settle Pandits in our portion. Even if Govt. is willing to take Pandits back, there is no guarantee that they would not be thrown out of valley 5 years later.

Previous comment came out wrong. meant to quote Sanjeev Sabhlok……

c) All poverty must be eliminated
d) All corruption must go
e) Total freedom (subject to accountability) must be ensured."


Well of course everyone wants this, but how do you do it?

India is bound today by the most obtuse colonial governance system one can imagine. It is almost a failed state. How can a failed state that doesn’t know how to govern honestly provide freedom to anyone, leave alone Kashmir?


Well said sir, but I don’t see a shake up, this bold approach that you all want, through democratic means. Corrupt congress wont do it, as you implied, they are too busy muslim vote chasing and taking kick backs (that’s my impression as a foreign observer). BJP? Well I don’t know much about them, but say they, or any other popular party, were aiming for this, do you see them producing a strong, intergral enough leader, with bold enough policies, getting through India’s electoral minefield with all that media scrutiny, and getting a decisive mandate. The only way to get such a leader or party in is to exploit the endemic corruption in order to do so, which is the very essence of irony. Putin did that somewhat though (yes I know I keep harking on about old Putin, but in his authoritative regime, corruption has gone down since the bad ol’ days)

Some good points made here. Under a democratic set-up the Pak occupied area would not want to integrate with Kashmir valley because
1) cultural and linguistic differences- the majority on the other side of LOC speak a language closer to Punjabi and are more Salafi in religion.
2) the Pak policy of encouraging emigration to U.K etc means that Mirpuris have an artificial prosperity through remittances. The fear on their side is that the better educated but poorer Kashmiris of the valley would dominate. Needless to say, this outcome would never actually transpire. On the contrary war-like tribesman would establish hegemony.

While land occupied by the Army is an issue on both sides- the Pak army is far more committed to keeping what it already holds. Moreover, Pak has never and is not now going to allow democracy in the area it occupies. However, except in a democratic set-up, integration of the Valley into P.O.K would simply mean reduction to a serf status with the Pak army calling the shots- surely a worse outcome for the Valley.
On the Indian side of the L.O.C, the Muslims of the Valley have good reason to be wary of ‘azaadi’- this is a non-starter. Pak has demonstrated time and time again its ability to use irregulars and officers in mufti to simply take over by force. Though the recent floods in Pak were due to heavy rainfall and had nothing to do with Indian dam building- still people, including an educated Pakistani reporter on al Jazeera, repeat this like a mantra. There is a long standing belief that the Indus water treaty was a case of Ayub Khan selling out to American pressure. Fatima Jinnah was able to make good political capital out of this issue back in the 60’s.
Kashmir can gain a hydro-electricity bonanza either by independence or by staying with India and repudiating Indus water treaty. However, independence is a non starter when you are dealing not with Indian Govt. but the I.S.I acting through jihadi irregulars. Stone throwing would not avail against them! Thus, Kashmir’s basic interests are not aligned with Pakistan- yet this is their only other option.
Regarding Shias- they actually have different interests though, puzzlingly, there are Shia separatists- perhaps this linked to Iran’s meddling. The tragedy of minorities within Islam- esp. Ahmediyas is that they campaigned for the creation of a country which suddenly decided they were ‘Kaffirs’. The Ismailis seem to have been able to insulate themselves- but how long will even their careful diplomacy remain effective against the sort of developments we recently saw in Swat? After the American withdrawal, only India has the capacity and will to fight the jihadis.
Given the above- what is the big problem in Kashmir? Armed Forces Special Powers Act? Koran burning? Or as Manmohanji says- the pressing need to pour even more money down the drain for so called ‘development’?
The question which keeps coming up is why the father was kept in Delhi while the baby son was sent to Srinagar? And what will happen to India when the cute little Crown Prince takes over?
Why not simply cut off funding? If circumstances are not favorable for productive investment- because someone somewhere wants to burn a Koran- then don’t commit funds to that area. Another point is religious denominations and political formations should be competing along socially productive avenues like education provision, forest management, water harvesting, earthquake relief etc – rather than this game of ‘more extreme than thou’ and hair trigger responses to imaginary threats like Danish cartoons or some guys allegedly tearing pages out of the Holy Book.

Thanks Shantanu for highlighting the J&K problem to the best of your ability.
————————————–
Let me put the records straight which always get DISTORTED in Indian History/Culture right from the Vedic period (including Ramayana/Mahabharata)to the present modern India, and J&K saga is no different from it.

The sad part is that we always fall for the misinformation and propaganda launched by some vested interests whose statements and actions are readily drafted as part of ‘HISTORY’ and then we start doing our analysis on the basis of those conditioned facts.

As evident from the History right from the Ramayana/Mahabharata events and even before that (and I don’t consider them as mythology at all,again propaganda launched by vested interests to brand them as mythology from ages), one wrong or ill-timed statement changes the course of events and history and there are number of examples to prove that in the history.

I felt the need to have some context before addressing the basic facts about J&K. It is equally important to understand the history not as told and recorded by vested interests but by actual unfolding of the events. Right understanding of the facts and past events will only give right solutions.

1.1. The British projected Shri Sheikh Abdullah in 1930 as a Muslim leader of J&K state to topple Hindu Maharaja Hari Singh. The British obviously wanted to play a Muslim-Hindu dividing card which they were doing shrewdly all over India and in Bengal 1905.
2. The British were perplexed by the statement of Maharaja in the first Round table conference in London in 1930 where he said “While Indian Princes valued British connection, they had full sympathy for the aspirations of their motherland for an equal and honourable place in the comity of nations.”

3. This outspoken patriotic statement by Maharaja Hari Singh came as a shock to the British who were planning to have more direct control over Gilgit and rest of the J&K due its strategic importance. They decided to break Hari Singh by building up popular ‘Muslim’ pressure on communal basis by projecting Shri Sheikh Abdullah as J&K leader.

4. Shri Sheikh Abdullah was eyeing to rule J&K and infact met Gandhi and then Congress president Kriplani and sought support from congress to launch a movement against the Maharaja prior to unfolding of 15 August. Both advised against launching such movement. But Shri Sheikh Abdullah went back to Srinagar and launched ‘Quit Kashmir’ movement against Maharaja. His concern was only Kashmir and not J&K and that too to get the seat of power at any cost before British left India.

5. He made fiery speeches and communal speeches against Maharaja and was subsequently arrested. This prompted large scale of arson and violence by Shri Abdullah supporters.

6. Pandit Nehru due to his affinity and fondness of Shri Sheikh Abdullah because of some ‘COMMON HOBBIES’ they share and also ancestoral link of Pandit Nehru to Kashmir decided to visit Kashmir much against the advise of Gandhi and Patel. Pandit Nehru was arrested by the Prime Minister of J&K Ram Chandra Kak.

7. This arrest made Pandit Nehru who was then tipped to be the head of the interim government at New Delhi ,an enemy of Maharaja Hari Singh forever.

8. Indian leaders (Cong) instead of basing their claim on the natural ground that J&K being an integral part of India which could not be effected by the partition agreement which concerned only British India banked on the support of Shri Sheikh Abdullah. Pandit Nehru wanted Sheikh Abdullah at the helm and supported him.

9. Shri Sheikh Abdullah intention was to get the seat of power and therefore Kashmir. He hardly was concerned about Jammu, Ladakh, Gilgit and other parts of the J&K state. This obviously worried Hari Singh as Abdullah was biased against other people of J&K.

10. This dilemma of Hari Singh delayed the signing of instrument of accession and infact he chose to remain standstill. Jinnah agreed to respect that stand-still agreement but later violated it by sending pak tribals/army to invade J&K.

11. Had Sardar Patel who had persuaded hundreds of Princes to join India successfully was allowed to lookafter J&K issue as well by Pandit Nehru the story would have been completely different. He might have done it J&K accession as well with his diplomatic skills.

12. It is wrong and shrewd propaganda launched by Shri Sheikh Abdullah that Maharaja Hari Singh fled Kashmir. The fact of the matter is that on Hari Singh willingness to sign the instrument of accession t, Mr V P Menon was sent by GOI to get first hand information of the state. Experiencing the real situation there and the havoc created by the Pakistani raiders and also by the fact that Hari Singh’s army especially the Kashmiri soldiers were helping raiders and killing their own soldiers Mr Menon advised Hari Singh to leave immediately for Jammu in order to sign the instrument of accession on arrival from New Delhi.

Incidentally the aid could be sent from New Delhi only after the Maharaja had acceded to India by actually signing the instrument of accession HIMSELF. His survival was MUST. Maharaja moreover was in his state of J&K.

As I have mentioned previously as well, two basic things needs to be done at the minimum to even start discussing J&K issue seriously with some permanent solution.

1. Abrogation of article 370 which was exclusively created for Shri Sheikh Abdullah by Pandit Nehru inspite of refusing by Dr Ambedekar.

2. Reorganisation of the state once 370 is abrogated. It effectively means giving statehood to Jammu, Kashmir and probably a UT status to Ladakh.

These two things are must to make any inroads to some positive development to this man made issue.

The whole territory of 84,000 square miles of J&K is part of India legally according to the signed instrument of accession. The Dogra and Kashmiri people of Jammu & Kashmir had special sentimental and patroitic attachment with Gilgit because of the great sacrifices made by the Dogra people in conquering it. There are thousands of samadhis of Dogra soldiers who had laid down their lives in the various Gilgit campaigns between 1859 and 1895 and their great defiance before the arrival of support from New Delhi in 1947 often goes usung.

Only the will and good intentions can solve this issue and unfortunately present set of people lack it or probably too smart to do it.

What I find interesting is that abrogation of Article 370 has been on the platform of BJP for years now (though they did not have the requisite support to implement it when they were in power), and seems to me that many people, who take the effort to research the issue, read up on the history and look at the alternatives, arrive at the same conclusion.

Yet, we all know which position is termed “communal” in the mainstream media and among the intelligentsia, and which position is termed “secular” (and by implication, better). Makes me wonder about the intelligence of these intellectuals – the torch-bearers of secularism. It is important to question this labeling, and to challenge the label-makers in no uncertain terms in order to shift and change the paradigm of the debate.

Dear Sir,

I agree with you that Kashmir issue may sow seeds of disintegration of India.

However, I think your starting point is somewhat flawed. To validate the starting point of your premise, let us try to imagine what would have been the case if Maharaja Hari Singh didn’t have any false notions of remaining independent and would have signed the Instrument of Accession before 15th Aug 1947, just like any other 500+ princely states – V.K. Menon’s “Apples in the Basket”. In such a scenario, question of plebiscite would not have arisen but Pakistan would still have sent their “Mujahideens” and we would have defended every inch of the territory. There would have been no disputed status of J&K, no Article 370 and no kid glove treatment.

The question is, in such a scenario would the average Kashmiri Muslim still have the same allegiance to the Union of India as that of an average Bihari (Hindu or Muslim) or a person from Jammu. I don’t think so.

One can argue that over a period of time, with change in demographics (they would have possibly changed in absence of Article 370), the average “Kashmiri’s” stance would have changed and assimilation would have been complete but the underlying resentment of the native Muslim population would have resisted any change of demographics in the first place, leading to further unrest.

So, the basic issue is people’s will. Everything stems from there. People’s will can be changed by ushering in development which leads to further assimilation but after six decades, it’s too late. It has become a classic case of Catch-22.

I don’t see any solution to bring in lasting peace in the Valley without compromising India’s strategic interests i.e. letting the Valley go, which is unthinkable, unimaginable to the idea of India & its defence. So, the deadlock will continue till the concept of Islamic Fundamentalism itself becomes extinct, which doesn’t seem to be happening any soon.

Anupam,

Thanks for the links.

http://hindunationalismmuslimunity.blogspot.com/2010/08/india-must-divide-jammu-kashmir-to-make.html

If people of Jammu Region, Ladakh Region and Himachal Pradesh don’t
agree to any of the above two choices then Hindu majority entire Jammu
Region, Buddhist majority Ladakh District, Shia majority Kargil
District and Anantnag district containing Holy Amarnath Temple and
required for settling all refugee Kashmiri Hindus called Pandits be
severed only from current “Jammu and Kashmir” state of India and
merged with Himachal Pradesh.

Pakistan openly threatening of one more 26/11.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/slideshow/ALeqM5hRtIvmuvlbec3cXAtqo9dUxVaX6Q?docId=CNG.87fc43de98513173dcce8b64af55cda1.221&index=1

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hRtIvmuvlbec3cXAtqo9dUxVaX6Q?docId=CNG.87fc43de98513173dcce8b64af55cda1.221Edit

Kashmiri separatists rally in Pakistan against Indian rule

SardarVallbhai Patel had the responsibility to integrate 500+ princely states into the newly formed Republic of India many were massive and muslim like Hyderabad and many more had much larger muslim populations than Kashmir.

Yet you have absolutely no problem on that count in any of states that acceded to India.

‘Chacha’ Nehru was given the responsibility of ONE SINGLE state which had legally acceded to India and made a pigs breakfast of the whole thing (UN,Art 370,special constitution etcetra) which continues to haunt the Indian state till this day.

Though there is no end to alternate history one can’t help but wonder how much better India could have been had Patel not been forced to step down by MK Gandhi in favour of his protege Nehru and become the first Prime Minister of the Republic of India!

Are they (the interlocutors)preparing for the ground work for “Azaadi” at the behest of powers that be.

http://news.rediff.com/report/2010/oct/25/prepare-raodmap-for-azaadi-padgaonkar-tells-kashmiri-students.htm

Hello Milind Kotwal,

Your theory of India constituting of multiple “nations” was first propounded by the Communist Party of India during the British Raj days. They used that theory to ally with Jinnah, to justify the demand for Pakistan and for the partition of India. It is interesting to see you resurrect it. You must have pleased Comrade Deepak no end, I suspect. 🙂 I fail to understand the fascination people like you and Comrade Deepak have for genocidal communist theories. I have this (perhaps false) stereotype in my mind that Indians who converse in English have the benefit of education, and education imparts values like humanity…

Anyways, applying this communist party definition of a nation, Jammu is also a nation. Kargil with its predominantly Shia population is a nation. Ladakh is a nation. Kashmiri Pandits are a nation. J&K, thus, is composed of many nations. So it makes no sense to speak of a homogeneous “Kashmiri” population and a “Kashmiri” plebiscite. We should not allow the imperialist designs of the Sunni fundamentalists of the valley to deny Ladakhis, Jammu residents and Pandits their own homelands. Moreover these fundamentalists have no respect for diversity. They want to rule over all peoples of Kashmir, they want to put women in the veil and they want to kill blasphemers. Strangely, I see you, a diversity-wallah, rooting for these hegemonists.

You may use a cheap pavement-sold local manufacture, or you may use Revlon, L’Oreal etc. No matter what kind of lipstick you use, it generally looks good only on a woman.

DEar Karthik,

From what you have written and the way you have written, it is clear that your thinking is highly biased, which is not good for quality discussion. Eventhough I have my biases I try to be as objective as possible, that is why I have replied in points and all the points togeather is the approach and the approach can not be selective. agreeing with some points and not agreeing with others is quite dangerous.. Any way..

Wise people say “when you have serious troubles go to “basics” for solution” India needs to go to basics and that is what I am doing today !!! From my analysis of the situation India as we know it today can not survive for more than ten years if the constitution is not overhauled..

I suggest you try to understand concept of Nationality, macro economics, social management, process of development etc.. to understand dynamics of current developments.

We can discuss if you reply to my entire post..

Karthik,

Please do not repeat your rhetoric .. I am reproducing my post to enable you to answer it point by point..

Hi Kartik and Deepak,

Very good and deep discussion !!! I just want to add some of my insight.

1. Human Values Or Dharma, Religion, Nationality, Regionalism, are all at different levels and needs to be understood at their level.

2. As per human values all are equal but this can not be practiced when it comes to selecting an employee, similarly when you find a homeless on the street you do not accommodate him in your house.. So human values have their level while developing social culture, designing and establishing systems, but not when it comes to one to one dealing.

3. Nationalism is important to instill sense of belongingness and sense of ownership in the citizens. These senses are very important for the survival of the society and they encourage individuals to sacrifice individual or personal interests for the interests of the society.

4. India is not a Nation and is difficult to develop into the one, because of different History, and different languages. Just having common Culture do not make it a nation. Hindi Heartland, Maharashtra, Bengal, Gujarat, Orrisa, Tamil Nadu.. etc.. are all Nations and not part of Nations..

5. Accepting all the states as Nation do not mean that such understanding is essentially divisive, but in effect it provides means to manage the differences. Not accepting the differences denies us even that possibility.

6. India is United in culture and should remain so. If we destroy the shared culture India can not remain united. Secularism as it is practiced in India is destroying the culture that unites this country.

7. Minorities should be prepared to get assimilated into larger Indian culture, at least they should not be allowed to strengthen their separate identity. This is what US is doing with the emigrants.

8. By not holding plebiscite, India has committed a blunder. The issue would have been settled long back in History and we would have been free to handle other important issues..

9. Even today, if we declare plebiscite, we shall be forcing people who are seating on the fence to take position and also it will force Pakistan out of its comfort zone..

10. Telling Kashmir people that we will not allow them to secede is Imperialist mentality and detrimental in the long run. We should remain together because it is beneficial, and not because it is forced on anybody.. India can not remain united under force, even if it is through constitution..

11. Indian constitution in fact is a third class constitution..and will not be able to hold this country together for long…

12. To manage diversity, we will have to forget whatever is written in any scripture, or happened in the past. We shall have to define what we want in the future and any arrangement in constitution, law, practice that goes against the planned future shall have to be discarded, irrespective of religious consideration. If followers of any religion do not accept it they should be separated into different category, given freedom to practice what they want but their rights should be curbed in a way that their freedom does not affect the other citizens..

Milind Kotwal

From Interlocutors Want Surgery of Article 370 by Arvind Lavakare:
…Similarly, despite talking loudly about protecting human rights in J&K, the Interlocutors are silent on the demand of (i) large groups in Jammu Province for full integration with the rest of India and (ii) organised grioup of Buddhists seeking Union Territory status for their Ladakh Province. Nor are the Interlocutors concerned about the urgent need to remove the shameful discrimination between the J&K’s privileged citizens which Section 6 of the State Constitution calls “Permanent Residents” (labelled “State Subjects” in the days when a Maharaja ruled the State) and other residents of the State who have been given rights of Indian citizenship by the Government of India. Thus, these other residents, even those living in the State for years (who are not recongised as “Permanent Residents”) are not entitled to vote for the State Assembly elections while, ironically, they are entitled to vote for the Lok Sabha elections of the Indian Parliament. Standing for the Assembly elections is therefore simply out of question. Why, these non-Permanent Residents are not permitted to contest for even a panchayat seat leave alone vote at a a local panchayat election. Worse is that, by Rules made under the said Section 6 above, the children of these non-Permanent Residents are denied the right to secure scholarships and other benefits given by the State Government to Permanent Residents. And, as is commonly known, non-Permanent Residents are not permitted to acquire immovable property in J&K. These discriminations are most condemanble and remind one of the signs “Dogs and Indians not Allowed” put up outside select clubs in British India. Apparently, the Interlocutors approve of such a tag being used for J&K territory.
6.Not most of those outside J&K know that the six members of India’s Lok Sabha elected trom J&K have every right to speak and vote on any Parliamentary or Constitutional legislation applicable only to the territories except J&K, but not one of the rest of the 750-odd members constituting the Lok and Rajya Sabhas has the right to speak, debate and vote on whether that piece of legislation should be made applicable to the State of Jammu & Kashmir! That decision is left only to the J&K Government, courtesy Article 370 of Constitution of India