Prof Hari Om
The current turmoil in Kashmir in the wake of lawful liquidation of Hizbul Mujahideen commander Burhan Wani on 8th July has once again triggered a very intense debate on solutions which could, according to trouble-shooters, forge a lasting peace in the restive Valley. Some like A. G Noorani have suggested that New Delhi should replicate late French President General de Gaulle’s Algerian model in Kashmir. In other words, they have suggested that “If you wish to forge a lasting peace in Kashmir, negotiate with those with blood on their hands; you never negotiate with those with no blood on their hands because they are irrelevant”.
On the other hand, former interlocutors on Jammu and Kashmir, including Dileep Padgaonkar and Radha Kumar had insisted on the implementation of their 10th October, 2011 report which had, among other things, suggested revocation of the AFSPA, demilitarisation of the state in a phased manner, dialogue with Hurriyat Conference and also advocated the need to make the “temporary” Article 370 a “permanent” feature of the Indian Constitution. Radha had, in addition, said “in Kashmir political aspirations range from autonomy to independence”.
In fact, all those, including many from the Congress and the CPI-M, who have reflected on the prevailing situation in the Kashmir Valley have expressed almost identical views and asserted that Kashmir problem is “political” that needed “political solution” and that no financial and employment package could end the alienation in Kashmir and restore peace in the Valley
The Kashmir-based political parties – Peoples Democratic Party and National Conference — have also expressed their views on the Kashmir unrest and recommended solution which, according to them, if accepted and implemented in their entirety, would end unrest in the Valley. Jammu and Kashmir Chief Minister Mehbooba Mufti, who also heads the Kashmir-based Peoples Democratic Party, has pitched for the implementation of the Peoples Democratic Party-Bharatiya Janata Agenda of Alliance of 1st March, 2015, which is virtually a carbon-copy of her party’s election manifesto, also called “Aspirational Agenda”.
“My father (late Mufti Mohammad Sayeed) made an Agenda of Alliance to show a way to take Jammu and Kashmir out of the morass and that cannot be done only by money or packages, there are some issues like dialogue, peace process, winning hearts of people here, lakhs of Kanals of land under security forces, which they do not need now – they needed it before but not now – or camps, if you return them to us, we will construct colleges, universities or parks so that people feel that our situation is improving as security forces were moving backwards and institutions and recreational facilities are being constructed there,” she said in Srinagar on July 24 after her meeting with the visiting Union Home Minister Rajnath Singh. To be more precise, she suggested that the Agenda of Alliance had all the ingredients required to conciliate the alienated Kashmiri Muslims.
The National Conference, which is the main opposition party in the Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly with just 15 members in the 87-member House and nearly 11 per cent of the total popular votes polled, has completely deviated from the path it consistently followed after 2000. Its stand after 2000 had been: Implement the 2002 autonomy committee report, which envisages limited accession of the State with India or which limits the jurisdiction of New Delhi over Jammu and Kashmir to just three subjects, defence, foreign affairs and communication, alone could resolve the Kashmir issue and establish peace in the State on a permanent basis.
Like Mehbooba Mufti, Working President of the National Conference and former Chief Minister Omar Abdullah, also met with Union Home Minister Rajnath Singh in Srinagar on 24th July. He submitted a detailed memorandum to him. Later talking to reporters, Omar Abdullah disclosed that he had urged the Union Home Minister to hold talks with all stakeholders and devise a solution that was acceptable to majority of people of the State.
“We all are concerned over the prevailing situation. The situation has been bad in the Kashmir Valley since the last 16 days. More than 40 people have lost their life and thousands are injured. We put forward some points before Singh and also told him that there is a need to take some long-term measures.
First of all, this has to be accepted that the issue of Jammu and Kashmir is not economic. It is not like that you will send money here and this issue will get resolved. This is not an issue of gun as well. The gun undoubtedly has played a role in this issue but the basic issue is not of the gun. The basic issue is political and till the time we do not accept this, it will be impossible to find a solution to this issue. So, that is why, we requested Singh to show courage and accept that the issue of Jammu and Kashmir is a political one. Talks should be held with the people from all opinions, all the stakeholders should be brought into the ambit of dialogue and a solution, which is acceptable to majority of the people, should be found. This is what we said and we hope, Singh will ponder over it,” he, among other things, said.
One thing that was common in what these conflict-managers, Kashmiri leaders and others of their ilk said was that their whole approach was Kashmir and one-community-centric. However, it didn’t surprise anyone in the State, as it was not a new thing for them. This had been the approach of the Kashmiri mainstream leaders, Delhi-based peaceniks, and even policy-planners in the South and North Blocks.
What alarmed the people of the State, particularly the non-Muslim minorities in the State, including Hindu, Sikh and Buddhist, was the solution put forth by Omar Abdullah. Reasons were obvious. It’s true that Jammu and Kashmir is a Muslim-majority State, but it also cannot be denied that the minorities in the State constitute almost 40 per cent of the State’s total population and that it’s the very small Kashmir Valley, which is just 40X90 sq km, is the epicenter of anti-India and anti-minority activities.
You cannot allow a community whose population is about 10 per cent more than that of the minorities to decide the fate of the State and the minorities for the simple reason that the majority view, if imposed, on the State would simply mean the rise of a situation in Jammu and Kashmir similar to the one the minorities witnessed across the newly-created Pakistan in and after 1947, and even in 1946. Today, Pakistan is virtually a hundred per cent Muslim. As for East Pakistan, which became sovereign Republic of Bangladesh in 1971, the fate of the minorities was no different. The situation there continues to remain very hostile for the minorities in the country, which came into being with the help of India.
Even otherwise, you cannot allow a particular area to secede just because the followers of a particular religion inhabit it. It has happened nowhere in the world. India is the only landmass in the world which witnessed its partition on the ground that the followers of Islam considered India a threat to their religion and efforts are again afoot to cause another communal partition of India, which must be defeated not only because the minorities in the State abhor the idea of partition on communal basis but also because the segregation of Jammu and Kashmir from India would embolden the enemies of the nation to unleash forces of destabilisation in the country. There should be no doubt about it. We already are seeing such forces ganging up and speaking openly for the Kashmiri separatists and communalists and denigrating the institution of the army and other symbols of Indian State.
Omar Abdullah talks about stakeholders. Yes, the people of Jammu and Kashmir are stakeholders, but only as far as the governance of the State is concerned. They cannot be given the authority to redraw the political map of India. The real stakeholder in Jammu and Kashmir is the Indian nation whose writ must run as far as the unity and integrity of India is concerned.
New Delhi must reject out-of hand the solution as put forth by Omar Abdullah. The other option is referendum across the nation to ascertain its views on the political status of Jammu and Kashmir vis-à-vis India.
