Panun Kashmir-A solution to Kashmir Problem
By Dr. Ajay Chrungoo
PAK CLAIMS
Pakistan
right since
its inception has been
engaged in
destabilizing Kashmir to annex it
eventually on the basis of two
nation theory. It makes a
dangerous claim that Kashmir
was ‘unfinished aga’ of Partition.
If this promise is accepted
then the position of 14 crore Muslim
community living in rest of
India becomes untenable.
Pakistan’s real strategic objectives
in pursuing its game plan in
Kashmir can be enumerated as:
-
seeking parity with
India by fomenting separatist
strife;
-
pursuing the goal of
strategic depth;
-
building
justification for army’s permanent
involvement in Pak politics;
-
play its role as the
frontline Muslim state for
eastward expansion of Islamic
fundamentalism;
-
dismantling India’s
Northern Frontier and
-
finally facilitating
India’s encirclement by hostile countries and internal balkanisation.
Internationally,
Pakistan is trying to project
itself as an aggrieved
party claiming that
India has not fulfilled
the international
commitments it made
on Kashmir.
The truth, however,
remains
that the basic
requisite for this
commitment i.e.
vacation of Pakistani
troops from PoK was
never implemented by
Pakistan.
Pakistan also
created hurdles by
joining the cold war
to complicate
the Kashmir issue.
And finally
by annexing the
northern
territories it
projected itself as a
party that treated
Kashmir issue
as a real estate and
a game of
sharing spoils. The
numerous
agreements have
superseded the
so-called
international commitments
of earlier years.
Much is being made
of India’s
so-called commitment
to
Kashmiris that the
future of
Kashmir would be
settled by ‘reference
to the wishes’ of
the
Kashmiri people.
Under the Indian
Indepence Act the
future
of princely states
was to be
settled by the
ruler. Accession
of Kashmir to India
was perfectly
legal and it was
unique in the
sense that both the
ruler and the
then popular
leadership of the
Valley orsed it.
Neither the
ruler nor the
popular leadership
attached any
conditionalities to
the issue of
accession.
Mountbatten’s desire
that the
reference be made
after the accession
to the wishes of the
people has neither
any legal nor
moral binding. In
fact, it carried
the seeds of a
future destabilization
of India. Nehru made
a larger
commitment to the
Indian nation
that Kashmir would
become
India’s secular
crown. India
rightly regards
accession of
Kashmir as a
refutation of two
nation theory.
Secondly, accessions
cannot be done and
undone
every now and then.
Any
dilution of
sovereignty of India
on Kashmir will have
a domino
effect and hasten
the process of
balkanisation.
Harold S. Johnson in
his celebrated
work,
“Self
determination
within
the community of
Nations”,
rightly observes,
“A
belief
in Self-determination can
have
anarchical implications
within
the present international
state
system It suggests the opportunity
for a
group of individuals
to
disregard all established
political relationship in
search
for new ones...No government
could
hope to survive
which
consented in principle to
a
secession of a part of its territory
by a
vote of secessionist
groups.
The stability of the state
itself
rejects any such claim.”
BLINKERED VISION
The founding fathers of Indian republic recognized continued accession of Kashmir with India as a key
element in India’s pursuit of secular nation-building.
Yet their blinkered vision did not link Kashmir’s functioning as an active secular society with India’s
secular nationbuilding process. The problem was further compounded as the leaders of Indian national movement overestimated the
secularism of Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah and ignored the strong undercurrents of communalism
in the ideology of National Conference.
In many respects the National Conference was pursuing a strategy which was not fundamentally different from the
path chosen by Muslim League in the pre-Indepence India. Delineating the many strands in
Sheikh Abdullah’s ideological outlook, Dr K.N. Pandita remarks:
"Sheikh Abdullah did try for rapproachment with the Muslim League
and Jinnah in 1944-45 but Jinnah was unaccommodating.
In 1947 again, Sheikh tried to toe the PC Joshi and Adhikari line (on Two-Nation Theory).
P.N. Bazaz who had worked closely with Sheikh and who understood him far better than anybody else, stated that the NC and Sheikh stood for Muslim nationalism and Muslim precedence in the state of
J&K but for Congress and secularism outside the state of J&K. One may call it sheer opportunism, nevertheless it was the Central
feature of Muslim question of
India.The National Conference continued its tactical support to
accession but ensured to prevent
the integration of
Kashmiri
Muslims with India (Kashmiri Muslims: Vexed Identity, Business and Political
observer, New Delhi 5th June
1993)."
A full scale review of the history and social background of the Kashmir anti-autocratic movement lead by
National Conference is outside the scope of this write-up. There was inherent incompatibility in
the nation-building models pursued by Indian
National Congress
and the
National Conference.
Leaders of
Indian National
Congress visualized
the success of
secularism
through delegitimising
religion-based
identity politics.
But the
very ‘raison-d-etre’
of National
Conference politics
was avowed
pursuit of Muslim
identity politics.
In the situation
aggravated
by imperialist
intervention Indian
leadership resorted
to short cuts.
They ignored that
the secularization
of Kashmiri society
would
be the soul of
Kashmir’s continued
accession with
India. Indian
leadership abandoned
non-Muslim
pro-India social
groups in
Jammu, Kashmir and
Ladakh to
the mercy of Muslim
communal
leadership of Valley
and overlooked
the calculated
attempts
by Kashmiri Muslim
leadership
to inject
communalism in the
body politic of
Jammu and Kashmir.
To counter the
secessionism
which was inbuilt in
this situation
Indian leadership
decided to
patronize
pro-accession communal
politics. Prof. M.K.
Teng, the
distinguished
Political Scientist
explains:
“The
Congress leaders had
always
believed that improvised power equations, redistribution
of
political patronage and
wider
financial inputs into
Muslim
communalism would
the
“Muslim alienation” in
Kashmir
and provide the settlement
for
peace. In sheer self-conceit,
they
clung tenaciously
to their
belief that the
Muslimisation of the state did
not
conflict with Indian secularism,
and they
could strike a
bargain
with the militant regimes,
even if
it was at the cost
of the
Hindus and the other minorities.” (Kashmir-Myth of
Autonomy, Anmol Publications).
Over a period of
time pro-accession
and anti-accession
communal
politics developed a
symbiotic
relationship. While
the
anti-accession
groups were
building separatist
movement to
detach Kashmir from
India, the
pro-accession groups
were using
separatism as a
lever to blackmail
Centre and squeeze
the non-
Muslim groups in the
state. Both
groups cooperated in
strengthening
the Muslim
precedence,
facilitating
Muslimisation and
the Islamization of
Kashmir and
adjoining regions of
Doda and
Kargil and weakening
Kashmir’s
link with India
through instrumentalities
of Article 370 or
outright
secession.
ROOT CAUSE
The emergence of
secessionist
movement in Kashmir
cannot
be delinked from the
changing
sociology of Kashmir
Society
over the years and
the rise of militarized
trans-national
Islamic fundamentalism.
In the first two
decades since
independence urban
Muslim
middle class and the
commercial
bourgeoisie were
co-opted in the
political power
structure of
Kashmir. However,
these very
groups subsequently
thwarted
the aspirations of
lower middle
class in urban areas
and resisted
the strong urge of
the rural propertied
groups for rightful
share
in the political
power structure.
This created the
groundswell
which facilitated
the rise of disaffected political groups in
the
Kashmir Valley.
Indian
leadership’s policy
of patronizing
personalized
politics syndrome
strengthened the
oligarchic
tendencies among the
ruling
families of Kashmir.
These
families created a
network of interests
which looted the
public
exchequer creating a
big rentier
class and alienating
people
through rampant
misgovernance.
Pakistan was
quick to reach out
to disaffected
political sections
and the alienated
populace rallied
behind
these disaffected
political
groups. Prof.
Mustapha Kamal
Pasha has examined
this phenomenon
in his essay
“Between
the Two
Nation Divide: Kashmir
and
Islam”
(Perspective on
Kashmir ed. Raju
Thomas). He
says: “Increasing social differentiation
and
rising political consciousness
among
new social
groups
coincided with
kleptocracy, nepotism, corruption
and the
politics of greed,
rather
than a functioning democratic
order
with political accountability
as its
chief aspiration”.
The intervention by
Pakistan
was easy because of
the substratum
of communalism, kept
alive through
fortification of
Muslim identity
politics.
Rise of
transnational Islamic
fundamentalism both
in the context
of Gulf oil boom in
1973 and
the Afghan war 1979
onwards
created the logistic
base for Pakistani
intervention in
Kashmir
and arms-financial
pipeline for
sustaining the
terrorist movement.
The western powers’
global
designs helped
provide the
crucial diplomatic
support to the
terrorist movement
in Kashmir.
The unwillingness of
the national
political leadership
of India
to adequately fathom
the subversive
potentialities of
the
National Conference/PDP
politics
is the main reason
that solutions
to militancy elude
us.
There are three
genres of separatist
politics in Kashmir.
One, the
avowedly pro-Pak
groups which
seek annexation with
Pakistan. Secondly,
the so-called pro-independence
groups which seek
independent
Islamic state.
Thirdly pro-autonomy/
self-rule groups
which
seek an Islamic
state on the territory
of India with weak
constitutional
and political links
with the
country.
The subversive
potentialities
in National
Conference/PDP politics can be enumerated as:-
1) Its penchant to link the Muslim majority
character of Kashmir with accession and weaken the constitutional links with the
country.
2). Its pursuit of
Dixon Plan which
implies in the first
stage to create
Greater Muslim
Kashmir
and in the second
stage an autonomous
Greater Muslim
Kashmir.
Sheikh Abdullah is
on record
having orsed the
dangerous
Dixon Plan, which
seeks to take
Kashmir Valley away
from India.
In a letter to Col.
GA Naseer, the
then President of
Egypt, in 1965,
Sheikh wrote:
“Sir
Owen took a detached
view of
things and considered this
as the
best practicable solution
under
the circumstances. It appears
to be a
fair method of resolving
the
present tangle. In order
to avoid
a number of complications,
that
might arise by holding
a
plebiscite immediately in
the
territory referred to in clause
(c)
above, a reasonable way can
be found
in keeping the said territory
under UN
Trusteeship for
a
specified period (i.e. 5 to 10
years).
The people of the territory
can be
given an opportunity for
the
exercise of the right of self-determination
in a suitable way,
after
that period.”
In 1948 NC created
Doda district
in Jammu province to
consolidate
Muslims in Jammu
region.
This facilitated the
spillover of
plebiscite and later
fundamentalist
militancy politics
into the Doda
region. In 1979 when
Sheikh
Abdullah was at the
helm NC created
Kargil district as a
Muslim
majority district to
consolidate the
Muslim identity
there. The dangerous
regional autonomy
plan of
NC seeks to
balkanise Jammu
province on communal
basis.
NC’s patronage to
Chenab Development
Council which
seeks to merge Gool
and
Mahore tehsils of
Udhampur
with Doda leaves no
one in
doubt about the
seriousness
of NC to implement
Dixon Plan.
Similarly NC has
been trying to patronise Muslim groups in Poonch,
Rajouri and Bani (Kathua) to
weaken the Dogra identity of
Jammu. In Jammu also groups
have alleged that under a
definite plan National Conference
had a greater design to
change the demography of Jammu
province.
Praveen Swami, a
sellknown, Journalist and
author of
“The
Kargil War” exposes National
Conference’s gameplan to undermine secular-plural identity of Jammu. He
observes:
The
Regional Autonomy
Report
forms an important backdrop
to recent events, and
underlining the multiple way in
which democracy and
secularism in J&K have come under
assault. Released by the RAC, the
Report calls for the historic
regional formations of
Kashmir, Jammu and Ladakh
to be broken up into new
entities. In some important senses
this holds out more
fundamental threats to the prospect
of a secular and
democratic J&K than any number
of Lashkar-e-Toiba
insurgents. But the most dramatic impact
of the RAC recommations would be
on Jammu.
The district of Doda, and the
single Muslim dominated tehsil
of Mahore from the
adjoining district of Udhampur,
would be made into a
new Chenab Valley
Province. Largely Hindu Jammu,
Kathua and Udhampur
districts would become
the Jammu province. Poonch
and Rajouri districts, for
their part, would form the Pir
Panjal province. The existing Province
of Jammu would
thus be turned into three
provincial blocks divided along
the geographical fault
lines of Hindu and Muslim
majorities. The strange history
of the RAC and its equally
bizarre recommendations, suggest
that meaningful
democratic change is the last
thing on the National
Conference’s mind...The sole outcome
of the RAC proposals will be
to enable National Conference
politicians in the Jammu
region to represent
themselves as defers of local Muslim
communities against
a largely fictional hegemony of
Jammu’s largely Hindu
urban trading communities.” (The
Kargil War). Wajahat
Habibullah’s proposals virtually
simulate this.
National Conference
also tried to silence the
criticism of pro-India groups by pursuing a
policy of ethnic preference
and ethnic exclusion. In the Ladakh region it was patronising
the minority Argon Kashmir Muslim
group to under cut the
Buddhist majority.
In Kargil district
aspirations of the Zanskari
Buddhists were being counteracted by
adding Muslim areas to the
Zanskar assembly constituency.
The interests of the
strongly patriotic 12 lakh
strong community of Gujjar Muslims
are being harmed by subverting
the benefits of ST reservation
and raking up Paharis as a
counter group.
In the wake of
ethnic cleansing of Hindus in
Kashmir, Doda, Udhampur, Poonch and
Rajouri the policies of
ruling National Conference/PDP have
created a situation where the
exiled Hindus can never go back to
their homes.
STAKES
In the context of
separatist violence in Kashmir
there are four issues which
need to be addressed.
1. Restoration
of the law and order by ing the
terrorist violence.
2. Reversing
the genocide against
Kashmiri Pandits and Hindus in
Jammu region.3. Rebuilding
the edifice of participatory democracy in
the state.
4. Weaning
Kashmir Muslim populace away
from the separatist politics. Terrorist violence
in Kashmir is still not being
treated as a war by the Indian
leadership. There is an inherent
contradiction in the policy of Govt.
of India. It only seeks bringing
down the terrorist violence
to manageable levels in the hope
that it would create space for a
political solution.
Due to this flawed
approach destroying the
support structures of terrorists does
not become a priority. To
defeat the terrorism comprehensively the
Indian state needs a new
military doctrine.
A key objective of
Pakistan’s game -plan in
Kashmir is to push out Hindus from the
Muslim majority areas. This is being achieved through
physical destabilization of Hindu minority and by imposing
genocide. So far the successive
leaderships at the Centre have
demonstrated total lack of vision
and will in evolving a doctrine
of survival for these patriotic
minority groups. The
communalization of the Kashmiri Muslim
society and its intense
socialisation with separatist politics
has contributed to the
destabilization of the Hindu groups. Thus
reversing of genocide
entails secular governance as well as secularisation
of Kashmir society.
Policy of promoting
Muslim precedence by
National Conference has lead to the
political marginalisation of
people of Ladakh, Dogras,
Kashmiri Pandits and Gujjars.
Even a partisan writer like Gautam
Navlakha, whose sympathies lie
with Muslim communal leadership
of Kashmir concedes:
“It goes
without saying that the
absence of a clear cut policy towards
non-Muslims is a shortcoming of the
political leadership in
Kashmir. It has seldom bothered
to go beyond the generalities, which
only assuage the
insecurity felt by Kashmiri Pandits”
(Economic and Political Weekly,
Bombay November 6,
1993).
There has to be new
approach in ing communal and ethnic
discrimination against the patriotic groups.
Restoration of participatory
democracy, which accommodates
aspirations of all ethnic group will
strengthen the nationalist base of
polity of J&K.
The Muslim
alienation in Kashmir has many
strands. One section has
political grievance that the ruling
national conference had thwarted their
chances of upward mobility
by following oligarchic policies.
Second section is alienated because
of rampant misgovernance. The
third section feels
alienated from India because of
heightened sense of communal identity
reinforced by autonomy
politics, and Islamic fundamentalism
practicised by Jamaat-i-Islami.
There is a need to reorient the
politics by building high stakes
for separatist politics and
communally-oriented agas. At the same
time attention has to be
paid to evolve a methodology
for the entry of disgruntled
political groups into the
political mainstream and rebuilding the
edifice of good governance.
PROSPECT
The practice of
Muslim precedence politics and the
long legacy of separatist
politics has made Jammu and
Ladakh colonies of Kashmir and
pushed out Kashmiri Pandits
from their homeland. After
throwing Kashmiri Pandits out
from Kashmir, the Kashmir Muslim
leadership is engaged in
destroying the secular and plural
identities of Jammu and Ladakh.
Continuation of Jammu and Kashmir
as a unitary state has
not only lead to the
politico-economic marginalisation of people living in Jammu and Ladakh but
it has also lead to the
spillover of terrorist violence and
separatist politics into these
areas. The nation- building
model adopted in the form of the
present Jammu and Kashmir state is
in essence a subversion of
secular vision of India.
PANUN KASHMIR
There is no other
solution for restoring the
Kashmiri Hindus to their homeland and
ing communally motivated regional
discrimination against Jammu and Ladakh other than
political reorganisation of
the Jammu and Kashmir State. This reorganisation which
entails the quadripartition of
the state would restore
secular identity of Jammu and Ladakh and
help Kashmiri Pandits
recover their homeland.
The creation of
Panun Kashmir in Kashmir valley
would not only restore Pandits
to their Homeland, it also
holds the potentiality of creating the
basis for secular
accountability in the Kashmir valley. It
is the first strategic response in the
Modern India to the sinister
proposal of communally motivated
Dixon Plan. Panun Kashmir
is thus not only a solution to
the problem of Kashmiri Pandits as
such but is also a solution to
the Kashmir problem on a
long-term basis. It would also raise
stakes for pursuit of separatist
communal politics in Kashmir and help
in consolidating India in Kashmir on
its own strength. With
Panun Kashmir the politics of Doda
and Kargil will also
undergo change.
The creation of two
political systems in Kashmir valley
holds the potential of
creating national consensus on
Kashmir.
Source: Kashmir
Sentinel
| 
