Kashmir Affairs - Security & Conflict Analysis of Kashmir

Yasin Malik’s Safar-e-Azadi, a six month long campaign to involve Kashmiris in the dialogue process between India and Pakistan has drawn much interest. With an increasing mass following of the separatist rallies, how can New Delhi sustain the peace dividends?
The process is not as simplistic as this. There are three dimensions of the Safar-e-Azadi campaign. The first dimension is the demand for rehabilitation of the Kashmiri Pandits. The second dimension is the support extended for the Indo-Pak dialogue process. The third dimension is the demand for involvement of the Kashmiris in that dialogue. So, this campaign is much more than the demand for involving Kashmiris. The rallies organized under Safr-e-Azadi campaign, are not directed against New Delhi. Yasin Malik is leading this campaign because in his view it concerns the future of Kashmir. It has certain objectives: First, to restore the secular fabric and culture of the state that has been shattered. Second is to reach out to the youth of the state. The youth are extremely frustrated as they feel that there is no future for them. Yasin Malik is trying to tell them that there is a future provided that the dialogue process succeeds. Third, when there is a future, the Kashmiris should have a part to play in decision making.

Who proclaims to be the sole representative of the Kashmiris? Is it Yasin Malik or Mirwaiz Umer Farooq?
Yasin Malik does not project himself as the sole representative of the Kashmiris. He is deeply committed to the resolution of the conflict and does not suggest that only ‘he’ should be involved in the dialogue process. At the time of the 2002 elections, Yasin Malik had agreed that whoever was going to represent Jammu and Kashmir for any future dialogue should be authorized through an elected process. He had been asked by the Hurriyat to set up an election commission. He also nominated people for the commission who were to organize an election. So, he favoured an electoral framework where representatives were elected. Hence he was not claiming to be the only Kashmiri voice. However, he will always make a bid to be a contender.

The Mirwaiz’s group has a different stand. It has claims to being the representative of the Kashmiri people, demanding that it should be included in the dialogue process. The All Party Hurriyat Conference is very strident in supporting the ‘Musharraf’ line (the official Pakistan line). They favour Musharraf’s four point programme. The Hurriyat could be willing to contest the elections if the first three points of Musharraf’s plan are accepted. Then the only point to discuss will be self-governance. If it wins the elections then it contends that it will provide the people with self-governance. So far it is only Professor Butt who has enunciated the idea suggesting the appointment of a prime minister and president for the state. This idea gels well with the National Conference’s concept of autonomy. However, both claim that it is ‘their’ idea of autonomy or self-governance! This has complicated the situation.

What are the major developments in the state that impact upon the peace process?
On the positive side, there is increasing recognition on all sides that present boundaries will remain. I prefer using the term present boundaries than the line of control. They will remain but they will be open boundaries. Within the framework of the constitutions of India and Pakistan, the people of the state will try and bring maximum self-government that is achievable within these systems. These principles need to be discussed and not become the bases for killing each other. Therefore, there is a general retreat from the idea of using violence. There is a very strong negative side too. The young people are highly dissatisfied. The older generation is willing to reconcile unlike the youth. There is so much money but the opportunities for employment are limited. This makes it difficult for young people to generate their own livelihood. So, this can become a formula for destruction. It will cause jealousy and envy among the people. The moral fibre of the society is in complete disarray. There are increasing cases of suicide and retreat from traditional moral values. This would have a disruptive effect on the stability of the society.

The kingpins of that highly stable society were the women. The kingpins of the insurgency were also the women. They virtually led it as I personally saw it. However, at present they are the group that is highly discriminated against and marginalized. There is no role for them even though they are the strongest resource base for peace. The negative elements were kept under check only because of the women. All sections including the police have victimized them.

What is your opinion on hosting a RTC for the separatists and talking to militants?
The government of India agrees that it is necessary to talk to all elements in the conflict. However the modalities will have to be worked out to host a RTC in which separatists will participate. A RTC means participation of all sections involved in the conflict. This has not been the case so far in J&K. None of the Kashmri Pandits in the valley were invited. Will the Pandits who left the valley decide on its future or those who are still inside? In my opinion, different groups could have met separately and then an RTC should have been organized.

The mirage of Pakistan stands broken especially after the latest developments in Pakistan. There is increasing disillusionment with Pakistan. Consequently, it should be realized that the separatists’ trend is not dangerous to New Delhi. India should not be afraid of this trend. In 1947 the fear was justified as we had gone through a partition. It should be remembered that in the 6th century BC, India was still India even though it was comprised of 16 states, the Solasamahajanapadas. Even today, our strength lies in the fact that every state’s people regard themselves as being Indian while still being Bengali, Marathi or Bihari.

New Delhi fears the aspirations in Kashmir as it has a Muslim majority population. However, the Kashmiri aspirations are the same as that of a Tamil for Tamil Nadu, a Kannada for Karnataka and a Telangi for Telengana. However, Kashmiri aspirations do not even converge with what the people feel in Doda, Poonch or Rajouri. This suggests that it is a very regional aspiration. The Indian system is well accomplished to deal with such regional aspirations. Still we fear it because of years of suspicion.

In Tamil Nadu, the Tamils sympathize with their counterparts in Sri Lanka but this does not mean that they all want to leave Tamil Nadu and go to Sri Lanka. This also holds true for the Muslims in Kashmir. The sympathy for Pakistan is declining. There was always a small group that had pro-Pakistani aspirations but this was never in a majority. That is why Sheikh Abdullah had cashed in on this opportunity and opted for India. He knew that this population would not reconcile with the Punjabi Muslim majority. We have to understand this situation. We are on a threshold but it could go either way. We have to speak and persuade to change the situation. Anger should not be allowed to rise among the youth. Our aim is much larger and we have to work harder.

Can Kashmir’s borders become irrelevant given years of mistrust between the two countries? Would economic cooperation between the two sides of Kashmir contribute to such a situation?
The Indo-Pak dialogue has made much headway in the recent past. This should have strengthened the internal peace process. Unfortunately, it has had a reverse effect in some ways because the Kashmiris feel they are being left out of the dialogue. Borders are still relevant but they can become irrelevant and in this process the Kashmiris have an important role. Cross border trade and investment from each side can facilitate softening of borders. The RTC is an instrument that can facilitate participation of all Kashmiris in dialogue. Unless separatists and the other leadership are part of such conferences little headway can be made on issues like irrelevance of borders. These are a people of certain stature and should be respected for that.

Economic activities across the borders are a significant means to improve relations in the region. For example the forests were the richest resource of the Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir. Today, the so-called LoC runs through these forests. This has prevented their fruitful utilisation by both sides. They have been badly exploited and decimated in the recent past. There is a need to reconsider this issue and structure a joint forest development plan on both sides of the border. The region is the richest source of timber: Chinar, silver Birch, Saal, Oak and Teak. Some of these varieties are not available even in rest of the country.

A younger generation of politicians in the state can bring change and exercise leadership. Yasin Malik, Mirwaiz Umer Farooq, Mehbooba Mufti and Omar Abdullah are the leaders that have to be encouraged to work to improve the scenario. They may blame each other, but that will be part of an electoral process and should be accepted.

What is your response to the Pakistani ambassador‘s statement that Northern Areas were always a part of Pakistan?
Pakistan has always said that Northern Areas were not part of what it calls Azad Kashmir. Under Amritsar Treaty of 1846, Jammu and Kashmir came under Maharaja Hari Singh. However, Pakistan claims that Giligit and Baltistan (Northern Areas) were independent autonomous republics in Jammu and Kashmir region but not part of the state of Jammu and Kashmir. After partition the military leadership in Gilgit opted for Pakistan. Also, the people of Gilgit and Baltistan do not want to be associated with the state of Jammu and Kashmir. They want a separate state within Pakistan.

Pakistan has also conceded part of the area to China, perhaps because it did not consider it part of the ‘disputed territory’. Nevertheless, the Pakistan foreign office has distanced itself from the remarks made by the Pakistan ambassador. The ambiguity will always remain because it will have implications in the event of an increasingly remote possibility of plebiscite in the state of Jammu and Kashmir.

Musharraf also said that Pakistan would not consider the UN Resolutions on Kashmir to reach a solution. However, he has only repeated what was clearly affirmed in the Simla Agreement that Kashmir would be resolved on the bases of bilateral dialogue. Hence, there is nothing new in the Pakistani responses that should astonish India.

Can you elaborate on your concept of “Naya Kashmir?”
The basis of the concept is local self-governance at the village. It is based on the Panchayati Raj system in India. Under this system, there are three levels, namely, the village level, intermediate level and the district level. In Jammu and Kashmir, I have suggested the village level, the district level and the regional level. The base for having a regional level is not religious or ethnic but geographical. The three regions (Jammu, Kashmir and Ladakh) are geographically variant. I have suggested two assemblies for the Jammu region because it includes a mountainous region and large plains.

The valley is only 80 miles long and 20 miles wide so it forms one unit. Just like there are Hill Development Councils in Ladakh, you can have similar councils in the other two regions. Pivotal to the whole suggestion is self-governance at the village level. Then the second and third levels could be adjusted accordingly. There can be no attempt to trifurcate the state.

Is New Delhi seriously considering Musharraf’s four-point formula?
Musharraf says a lot of things even if he is unsure of his details. I am not sure that he still is clear in what he means by self-governance. The government of India is more circumspect and persevering. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has openly stated that Musharraf’s four points could be considered for discussion by India.

However, these are not the only four points that can resolve the Kashmir conflict. Nor is New Delhi putting forth another formula to counter Musharraf’s four points. This is not how negotiations are conducted. If Musharraf makes a statement in front of the media, New Delhi cannot be expected to respond in like manner. Is television the means for conducting dialogue? On the issue of Pakistan’s troops on the LoC, one needs to note that their presence is illegal and against the UN Resolutions unlike the presence of Indian troops. On the whole, the Indo-Pak dialogue has made considerable progress. It should not be arrested. Therefore, the Indian PM has been considerate and accepted President Musharraf’s four-point formula for further discussion.

October 2007