Two
incidents or coincidences pertaining to Kashmir problem have brought back the
centrality of the long standing dispute between India and Pakistan, as well as
among the political regime and people in the country into focus. The first set
of incidents is rather disturbing as it has thrown the democratization of
Kashmiri politics completely out of gear. Lashkar-e-Toiba militants have
threatened the Panchayat leaders and carried out the threats by killing
Sarpanches and Panchayat members in the valley forcing more than fifty
resignations within a couple of days. The state government has clearly failed
to infuse confidence among the elected representatives that it is equipped to
deal with the militants, on one hand and that it can provide security to all
including the Panchayat leaders, on the other. Fear, confusion and blame game
have taken firm roots in Jammu and Kashmir.
Second
incident is not at all surprising but looks part of the same strategy,
ostensibly formulated across the border. While democracy takes a backseat in
the Kashmir valley, Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari has raked up the issue
of self determination by the people of Kashmir. Zardari has reiterated Pakistan’s
support to Kashmir’s separatists. Incidentally, the intelligence and security
agencies, and politicians have pointed fingers at the Pak-based LeT, generally
supported by Pakistani establishment, for the recent killings of Panchayat
members in the Kashmir valley.
These
two separate looking developments throw a pattern, which many, including this
author, cannot deny. This warrants rewinding tapes of time and taking a look at
the origin of the K-issue.
(Hereunder,
I am reproducing a piece written (by me and rejected by a reputed journalist of
a very reputed news organization) long back in 2004-05. But, somehow, I find it
relevant today. I agree that were I to write this again, I may improve its
structure a bit.)
Kashmir ……. whenever this word is uttered, a part of
our conscience and sentiment gets stirred up. We start feeling like having been
cheated. We become staunch nationalists. We get angry and confused. Ironically,
we seldom have a real understanding of the problem called, Kashmir, but we feel
deeply about it.
Whether we wish
it or not, whether we like it or not, it’s a fact that in this age of global
terrorism the problem of Kashmir is more like global issue. All the five so-called
major powers of the world are directly or indirectly interested and to some
extent involved in it. The U.S. and Russia (erstwhile U.S.S.R.) have been
interested in it since the days of cold war. For that they have had their own
understanding of the international milieu and hold-sharing game. Although China
has never expressed anything explicitly but on every bilateral platform sharing
with India or Pakistan it has shown some concern about Kashmir. As for the U.K.
everyone agrees that the Kashmir problem is a legacy of British colonialism.
When the British
withdrew from India, three states were ostensibly born: India and Pakistan on
the basis of the infamous two-nation theory, and Jammu and Kashmir. The ruler
of the third entity, i.e. Kashmir decided not to go along communal lines and
declared his state as independent to preserve its composite culture and
life-style. Or, may be, he did not want to give up his royal and princely
character. Maharaja Hari Singh was willing
to join neither India as he felt his majority Muslim subjects would not like
joining a Hindu-majority nation, nor Pakistan, which as a Hindu he was
personally averse to. On the other hand, Pakistani leader Muhammad Ali Jinnah
coveted the Himalayan kingdom, while Indian leaders Mahatma Gandhi and
Jawaharlal Nehru hoped that the kingdom would join India. That is why Hari
Singh thought of making Jammu and Kashmir an independent nation, and did not
make his decision by August 15th to merge with either.
Anyway,
the result was the same, i.e. the birth of three different states or nations
for that matter. Though, all were not admitted into the U.N.O. as separate
entities. But then who knows, had the tribal invaders mixed with the Pakistani
army not invaded Kashmir, it would have emerged as a separate nation. And, our
nationalist feelings for Kashmir would not have developed even. But that was
not to be and India fought three wars (excluding 1971-war) and hundreds of
skirmishes, without getting any solution. However why the able leadership of
the two countries could not reach to a solution is itself a mystery.
.
Take a look at
history. Pakistan sponsored militia-invaded Kashmir in September 1947 under the
guidance of Major General Akbar Khan of Pakistani Army. This was an unbearable
shock for the King of Jammu and Kashmir, Hari Singh. He did not have enough means to protect his
state or himself. At that time, the King did not have too many options to turn
to. After hurried deliberations, the King asked the Indian government to come
to his rescue. Interestingly, the Indian leadership headed by Pt. Nehru and
Sardar Patel did not accept the request immediately. They first asked the King
to sign a treaty for merger with India saying that similar treaties had been
signed by other princely states. This treaty with the King is known as the
Instrument of Accession.
The Instrument of Accession was signed in October 1947. And, only after that India took the task of
protecting Kashmir, rather India. Indian forces landed on the territory of
Kashmir. But by now Pakistan backed forces had occupied almost one-third of
Kashmir. Here, behaviour of the Indian leadership looked quite baffling.
India decided
to protect the capital of Kashmir and the princely house there. It did not wish
to push Pakistani forces beyond Kashmir, by now the territory of India.
Considering the comparative strength of the troops, India could easily have driven
out Pakistanis forces and thus nipped the Kashmir problem in the bud itself. This
was a fatal blunder committed by new India. We need at first to accept this
with an open and non-maligned hearts. It is difficult to ascertain that who was
responsible for this decision. May be, the logic for this happening lay in the
fast changing history of India then. As our leaders of the time, though were great
nationalists and had brought us independence, but perhaps could not understand the
meaning of Kashmir’s merger with India.
This
was not the only mistake that India committed. India took the matter to U.N.O. It
is often said that India did so on the advice of the then viceroy Lord
Mountbatten, the person most probably responsible for the decision of
protecting only the capital and princely house of Kashmir. India could have
resolved the matter with Pakistan in the light of the India Independence Act of
1947 whereby India’s legal position was strong in the wake of the Instrument of
Accession already signed between Jammu and Kashmir and India. The Act provided
that any of the princely states could join India or Pakistan by choice, the
only prerequisite being the geographical continuity of the princely state with
the merging nation. Thus, Kashmir had legally become an integral part of India
because the King of Kashmir was the legal head of the state and his decision of
merger was legal under the India Independence Act. Obviously the India
Independence Act would have invalidated the Pakistani attempt of sabotaging
Kashmir.
Further, even at U.N.O. India complained in a manner that was short on
research and logic. Here, India filed the case under Article 37 instead of
Articles 36 and 51. Simplified, Article 36 refers to the invasion of a sovereign territory by an
outside power. While Article 37 refers to the invasion of a territory disputed
between the two countries, one of them. Thus by filing the case under Article 37 India legally accepted the disputed status of the territory of Kashmir. This
step was in a way a negation of the India Independence Act, the very Act that
was the legal source of the creation of an independent and sovereign India from
the British Empire. Simply put, despite Kashmir becoming an integral territory
of India, the government of India admitted at the UNO that a part of it was not
surely under its sovereignty.
Later on, Indian
leaders realized the blunder but by then the problem had born. The UN
Resolution was passed. It asked for the appointment of two neutral observers by
the U.N.O., and holding a plebiscite in Kashmir to determine the democratic
will of the resident population. But, it also clamped two conditions. One, that
Pakistan should withdraw its troops from Kashmir and second, having seen that
India should do the same before actual plebiscite could be held. Since,
Pakistan never thought of going back, so India was not bound to either withdraw
or hold plebiscite. Though, India has been holding parliamentary and state
elections there and it is forwarded as a sort of plebiscite by the Indian think
tank. But, technically nothing could be done on the U.N. Resolution.
Perhaps all
the politicians at the helm of affairs have clearly understood this technical
complexity of the issue and hence most of them have just played with the issue
and people’s sentiment for Kashmir. They first sensitized the issue by
projecting it as the symbol of national prestige and honour. Although they have
generally overlooked the similar problem of Aksai Chin. The reason is simple,
that Kashmir could be easily related to the psyche of the two- nation theory.
Before going for any
concluding thought it would be better to have a look at one integral part of
the same problem, i.e. the Siachin issue. It takes us back to the U.N.
Resolution of 1949. It provided for a Line of Control, a position held by the
two countries when they accepted the ceasefire as per the resolution. The LOC
is a demarcated line up to a point in the Karakoram Mountains called NJ-9842.
Demarcation could not be carried out beyond this line because of the
geographical adversity of the territory. The UN Accord says that beyond NJ-9842
the line of control would follow the crest line of the Saltotras and Siachin
ranges towards northeast up to the border of China. But, the tangle here is
that the crest of these ranges does not go along northeast direction. Rather,
it takes a backward turn to north and a bit northwest. Here Pakistan is stuck
at northeast direction while India favours crest line demarcation. But the
problem had not been realized here till 1984.
In 1984 a French mountaineering group
applied with the Indian government for a research tour of the Siachin but the
government of India turned down the request. The same group approached the
Pakistani government, which permitted them to do so. India thought it as an
incursion on Indian Territory from the Pakistani side. So, the Operation
Meghdoot was carried and the Indian army occupied the crest line there. Here,
India is in advantageous position after having occupied the crest line
physically but the cost is enormous. There is one more chink here. Pakistan has
gifted about 10,000 sq. km. of area in the Karakoram region to China for
developmental purposes. The land, obviously, is claimed by India. The strategic
importance of the gift is more than the physical one if seen in the light of
Chinese occupation of Aksai Chin.
Obviously, the complexities involving Kashmir are not easy to
comprehend and resolve. To add, Pakistan has created the headache of sponsored
terrorism. In fact, terrorism has given a new dimension and publicity to the
Kashmir problem. It has forced all the concerned powers to look at the problem
afresh. Its devastating and negative nature has also convinced the world of
India’s stand on it and has unmasked intention of Pakistan, which has now
allowed terrorism to move from institutional framework to individual mode. The
latest killings of Sarpananches and elected Panchayat members by LeT sponsored
militants make this point amply clear. The governments of India and Pakistan
must look forward to resolve the issue for the mankind on the sub-continet..
Though, it is highly improbable to predict any amicable solution, and that only
the brains of an Aristotle or a Chanakya can do so.
