Thrice exploded, Kashmir issue is once again on thresholds. This time, advancing for a serious collusion under the garb of peace process, to which break up of the dialogue process recently between India and Pakistan bear testimony. Any more serious catastrophe in future may seal chances for re-appraochment unlike Daka meet of two foreign secretaries has provided this time, after Mumbai and Srinagar blasts. Peace process is absolutely delicate and till it does not include people of Jammu and Kashmir, as the third party to the resolution of the issue, uncertainties hovering around will not end. The third party, having emerged, in the name of enforcing a solution, shall have to shun pursuing a policy, not consistent with the changed scenario all over the world and if a suggestion of the sort comes from out side the domain of the amalgamation, it should be welcome.
Here I refer to Ghulam Nabi Hagroo’s write up (Article 370, GK, 28th July). For my own part, the author is absolutely correct to say, “The Liberty seeking democratic forces of J&K pursue a single point programme of boycotting the elections and there by leaving the field open for the political opportunists and benefit seekers”. I however, think at a different wave length on the issue of deleting Article 370 from Indian Constitution, for which Hagroo says, “it is comparatively easier for the Government of India to declare war against Pakistan rather than to delete or otherwise remove this article.”
History is witness to several such events, when people calling themselves oppressed lot joined hands, even in government formations, with the authorities labeled as subjugators. Congress in India joined the British Indian Cabinet, National Conference in the State, induced its representative into the Dogra Government and even Sheikh Mujeeb-ur-Rehman of East Pakistan fought elections ordered by General Yehya Khan. Hurriyat leader Syed Ali Shah Geelani, himself, participated in State Assembly elections in 1977, 1983 and before. Then Geelani Sahib was leading a religious party enjoying support of people in a few pockets of the Valley only. He could hardly expect a government of his own, enabling him to take decisions on greater and important issues. This time, if a leader of Geelani’s stature, in association with others, fighting separately for the cause, akin to Geelani’s, thinks, of probating Hagroo’s Proposition, may succeed to be nearer the goal If not on the goal immediately. The leadership, so emerging shall have to take cognizance of the realities cocooning the present day’s political atmosphere all over the world and its effects on the resistance movements. Not that I spit sentimental venom, but in real terms, Israeli army in broad day light, is causing destruction of cities and countries in its neighbourhood. It is the worst form of Vandalism. Who would wish to be witness to the replica in and around our vicinity? What Dag Hammarskjöld and Kurt Waldheims like UN Secretary Generals could not dare to pin point in the past, Kofi Anan sometime back, knocked at our doors to roar, that UN resolutions on Kashmir issue, were devoid of a clause, similar to the resolutions on East Timore, where Indonesia was persuaded to hold referendum. We are fatalists; we have to be practical as well. What one aspires for is different from what can materialize. Now disintegrated, USSR of the past, had been only country using Veto against American ‘yes’ for Kashmir issue resolution. America called USSR by the names of Fascist, Anti people, Dictatorial and Undemocratic. USSR after disintegration and in the shape and size of today’s Russia, is a tamed country now and the vacuum thus created has been filled by America itself and is now reading the history upside down. All this justifies the proposition of Hagroo and invites us all to reconsider our strategies for modifications.
Now that Pakistan, as a party to the UN resolution for holding plebiscite in Kashmir, has almost abandoned its demand for implementation of the decision, India may argue in more than one way that the accession deed signed by the ruler of the State forms sound basis for holding J&K as a part of it. But excluding the thumb rule of might is right, New Delhi cannot convince, even politically conscious Indians that Kashmir was as much integral to it, as Bihar, Bengal and Bangalore form its parts. This accession deed of Hari Singh together with the prescience of Kashmiri leadership at that time formed basis and ultimately culminated into incorporation of Article 370 in the Indian Constitution. This Article has put constitutional seal on the limited jurisdiction of New Delhi in the State. The Central Government was responsible for maintenance of borders, speak on foreign related issues and look into the communication matters. The State, on the other hand, was free to undertake business of governance, as per its own constitution, which was sovereign. The State had Sadr-e-Reyasat as head of the State, elected by the State Legislature, prime Minister was head of the Government, elected under the independent election procedure of fully authorized State Election Commission.
The State had its own judiciary system, its own army (J&K Malatia) for assistance to local police in maintenance of Law and Order and it had also its own voice in the shape and name of Radio Kashmir. The State was enjoying all sorts of independence and powers, of which, General Musharraf’s self rule proposition could be a replica.
Now except for name sake, the Article 370 is dead and New Delhi shall no longer need to delete it or otherwise remove it. Its edifice has been crumbled down brick by brick. Over the years since 1953, the State has been put under the charge of several Jaffars and Sadiqs, who, for the sake of their personal interests worked at the behest of New Delhi and succeeded in transforming the highly charged Article into the archaism. New Delhi Government’s secular idealism fell prey to the adventurism of communal forces, who sided with feudal lords and titillated the non Muslim State subjects to rise up against the independent status of their own State. State of Jammu and Kashmir had fallen to India as a single unit. There was then, war against feudal lords and anti-democratic forces.
Now the State is divided on regional and religious basis. A man from Andaman Islands has not been allowed to raise hue and cry against his backwardness and poverty, but parts of the State having developed on the lines of Washington, have been trained to raise flimsy slogans of regional imbalances. Kashmiri Muslim is pinched more on this account rather than losing the authority to which the State was entitled to. His alien thinking has roots in the political game of New Delhi, played in the name of regions and religion at the cost of annoyment of majority of the population. Why should Muslims believe in New Delhi’s secular lessons, when their own belief in the secularism has been shaking? Returning back to the conditions of relationship of pre 1953 era should form sound basis for participation of liberty seeking democratic forces of the State, into a dialogue and democratic process. It should always be a pre condition and New Delhi shall have to create conditions conducive for this above turn. This is the only test, which shall determine the quantum of care New Delhi and Kashmiri leadership can take for the subjects, who have been living a miserable life and have been cajoled only since decades.