Kashmir Affairs - Security & Conflict Analysis of Kashmir

Maloy Dhar
Former Joint Director, Intelligence Bureau, India

Murtaza Shibli

One of India’s publicly known intelligence officer, Maloy Krishna Dhar has worked in counter-insurgency operations in North-Eastern states, Punjab and Kashmir. He has written several books on Indian intelligence and regularly comments about the current political situation in South-Asia.

What is happening with Kashmir right now?
Well! Recently our Prime Minister said that he wants the Line of Control (LoC) to be the line of peace. Does it mean it would be a permanent border? No one has spelt that out. But the reality is that there is a LoC internationally accepted and respected by both India and Pakistan officially. If we all want to live peacefully along this line and further peace and development, I don’t find anything wrong in accepting it. My idea is that we need to improve the quality of governance and connect Kashmir with the mainstream democratic process of India. Without doing these things, any solution is a utopian idea.

How realistic is that?
The process is very slow and I should say the parabola of our democratic set up has not even touched the fringe of small parabola of the aspirations of the people of Kashmir.

This could be because there is structural bias and violence against Kashmiris in India.
I won’t use the word bias, but it is the problem with India. We Indians are hardly concerned with our so-called fringe areas. Be it North East, Kashmir or Andaman and Nicobar. We mainland Indians are not bothered except for when the print media or TV patriotism urges them to be concerned.

One can understand this from the metropole and periphery perspective. And Kashmiris see themselves totally different from India.
There are many such areas in India. You go to Bastor, Jharkhand, hilly areas of Maharastra, you would find they don’t live in India. They live in their own make belief world which is being captured by Naxalites. So India is not one India. I painfully admit that as a patriotic Indian that we live in many Indias. But all these Indias have to be made into one, including Kashmir. Kashmir is a special problem due to the historic baggage and failure of Indian leaders.

So why blame Pakistan then?
Let us be frank about it; Pakistan’s interference in Kashmir has complicated the issue. Pakistan sponsored tanzeems and their intelligence agencies are involved in inciting trouble in Kashmir even today.

Why not? Kashmir is an internationally acknowledged dispute between the two countries, so any one can try to outwit the other.
That is what I am saying. If you have unattended fault lines, the enemy would always try to exploit it.

I don’t see it as an enemy act. Pakistan is as much a party to the dispute as India is. They are both trying their own games.
Sitting in London you may talk like that. Sitting in India, I have a different take. Since I live in India, I live it everyday and I don’t see it like how you see it. I will tell you with authenticity that if Pakistan stops interfering, the whole edifice of Kashmir insurgency will collapse.

What is your assessment of the India-Pakistan ‘peace process’?
The peace process per se is a good exercise for India, Pakistan and Kashmir, because the level of militancy and violence has gone down and gradually trickle by trickle the relationship between people to people is being established. New horizons are emerging gradually. It is a very painfully slow process. I welcome the peace process as long as it minimises the sufferings of the Kashmiri people, minimises the appearance of terrorism, and enhances the prospect of good governance.

That is what its stated aim was. But more than three years into the process, do you think Kashmiris have got any relief from the Indian state apparatus; the Army, paramilitary forces and the intelligence agencies?
My answer is yes and no. Yes in a sense that if I compare the indices of economic input that has been happening during the past five years, the graph is constantly higher than in the previous five to ten years. Second, in spite of the allegations of harassment and human rights violations by the Indian forces; their presence in every nook and corner and their reluctance to thin out on the ground for strategic reasons, I should say that the people of Kashmir feel at least 30-40 per cent more relaxed than they felt five years back. I find this as a positive change. But these changes are not good enough and whichever government is in charge in Kashmir, whether it is Mufti or Azad or any other government, they have to ensure that the people of Kashmir do not face any harassment from the army or paramilitary forces on the ground. Fear factor among the Kashmiris should be cut down to the maximum level possible.

The general perception is that the local Kashmiri governments have no control over the Army or paramilitary forces.
It is not like that. I have served in the insurgency infested areas. We must talk in very finely segmented terms; when the militants come from Pakistan or in collaboration with the local boys they enforce what is called mass control meaning total control of the population over a geographic area through violence. And any government, whether Congress government or that of Mufti Sayeed, or Governor’s rule can not allow the militants to have total mass control of the people or their minds. No government will allow it. It has never happened in Greece, Malaysia or Algeria. It has not happened anywhere in the world and thus you can not expect anything new to happen in Kashmir as far as the strategic measure of counter mass control is concerned. So what happens in such a situation is that the mass control measures of militants and the counter mass control measures by the army squeezes the common population and creates hostilities. Many Kashmiris do not like people coming from across the border and they are not warm towards us either.

Is it because of mass control that the Indian government is refusing to demilitarise Kashmir?
This is a very important part of anti-mass control i.e. your sheer physical presence to announce to the other side that they don’t control the territory, we do. I have applied it in North-East and Punjab and I have experimented with it in Kashmir.

So the raison d’être of the massive Indian military presence is not to fight militants?
Absolutely. It is not war with militants or Pakistan. But what General Musharraf did to us in Kargil, there is a fear that if we relax, he may do it to us again. How can we trust Pakistan?

We can extend the same argument inversely as well. India has been involved in insurgencies in Pakistan like the one in Balochistan?
You make me laugh. Pakistan has been doing this to India since 1947. They have armed Nagas, Mizos, Tripuris, Manipuris, ULFA and what not.

Same is true with India with even creating Bangladesh.
Well well! It is a clandestine game. You feed my enemies, I feed yours. That is all.

So there is no need to be emotional about this all.
No, this is not being emotional. It is the question of you being successful in blunting your enemy’s efforts to arm your enemy. In Mizoram we were successful. In Nagaland we have been mostly successful, in Assam we are more or less successful and in Punjab we have been totally successful.

Why not in Kashmir?
Because unfortunately Kashmir is a different problem as certain people in Kashmir as well as Kashmiri leaders are living as prisoners of history. If they come out of the psychological prison of Partition, they would understand that India is the only secular democratic country which can accommodate their aspirations and not Pakistan. They can’t even go to China where the Muslims are being persecuted day in and day out.

The Muslims in India are being persecuted as well.
No, I won’t say they are being persecuted, I would say our inability and inability of our Muslim brethren to get better assimilated.

There is state sponsored violence directed against the Indian Muslims for the last 60 years.
Oh yes! I agree. There has been violence in Gujarat.

I could give you umpteen examples right from 1947.
I know the history of communal riots in India and it didn’t start in 1947. But the secularism is still very strong and vibrant and no one can do away with it.

I would like to ask you again about the mass control mechanism. Do you think the massive Indian military presence in Kashmir is simply to control the masses?
One part is that and the other is Pakistan’s intransigence. After Kargil no General would say ok I am taking out my troops.

But isn’t it strange that India and Pakistan have taken bold decisions but they can’t trust each other enough.
Pakistan is not a single state. In our country the army is controlled by the politicians.

The Army in Kashmir seems to be working outside of the political control.
Let us not simplify the whole thing. In Pakistan there are three or four tiers of decision making. ISI makes its own decisions; which even the military and the politicians have to accept. The army itself is a political entity in Pakistan. Whatever decisions they take, the people have to accept. So decision making is a very difficult process in Pakistan. But in India the army is totally under political control, but the political government cannot just say to the Army to walk out because the army has more understanding and reasons to argue with the politicians, even on the floor of the Parliament.

Isn’t it dangerous that the Indian Army Generals in Kashmir are taking open political positions and making public statements?
You see a politician is not a messiah. He is not free to act. Bureaucracy and the army are there to serve him. But while serving, he must keep abreast with the strategic point of view expressed by the bureaucracy and the army. If the politicians ignore that then they do it at their peril like Nehru did in 1962 when he was advised to mount aerial attack against China which he didn’t and India lost the war. The strategic decisions can not be left to the politicians because they are not professional fighters and planners. They can give the orders.

But in the Kashmir case, the Army is taking an open and public position by issuing press statements against demilitarisation.
That is to boost up the morale of the army that is doing donkey’s work in Kashmir for decades now. It is not part of any politics.

In Kashmir the feeling is that because the Army enjoys unrivalled power and privileges that they have developed a vested interest against any peace move.
I can’t abate on this that they don’t have a vested interest. Since I am not a witness on the ground, I can not say if some of them are doing illegal trade or if they are not making some illicit money on the ground, if they are exploiting certain people I can not vouchsafe for that. But what I am talking here are the broader aspects. If somebody misuses position on the ground, simply because of being on the ground is a different kind of problem. That is not the problem connected to our systemic fault.

How do you view the public anger over the Army trying to build shrines or mosques in some parts of Kashmir?
There are two different perspectives; Kashmiri and that of the Indian forces, and both don’t converge. As you are aware the strong streaks of fundamentalism spread by Salafis, Wahibis and Ahl-e-hadith are percolating down to the masses, vitiating the minds of the people. And they feel that if the Indian Army or paramilitary forces repair the houses of the people; repair their shrines they think that their hold on the people will shrink. So they start propaganda to oppose the army actions. Taking it further, if it was me I would have taken the local leaders into confidence first before embarking on such a plan.

Doesn’t it smack of colonial mentality that the Army thinks that it can even repair the fractured spiritual landscape?
It is not colonial mindset. This is a foolish approach of some officer that we will do this to make the people happy.

If the Army wanted to embark on such a mission in Delhi, would they do it the same way as in Kashmir?
Oh no …they can’t do it, they can’t do it. They have to take the community leaders with them.

That shows that the Kashmiris are being treated differently.
I wouldn’t say they are being treated differently. I would say that it has been tomfoolery on the part of certain people by not taking the community leaders with them.

You earlier made references to the growing fundamentalism in Kashmir and I share some concern as well. But don’t you think that it is in reaction to the growing Hindu fundamentalism in India?
It is no reaction. It is part of the same world wide resurgence of Islamic fundamentalism. I have however a different understanding of its origins. I believe that since the First World War the way Muslims were dispersed and maltreated by the West, it is to that reaction that led to the creation of the Muslim Brotherhood which branched into other groups. Otherwise Wahibis were active in India even in 19^th century. Now Salafism is coming through, Al-Qaeda and all the rest of it. This is a general pattern of Islam evolving and trying to reassert itself on the world scene telling to the West no more meddling with us. And we in India are getting little bit of side effects from it. That is all.

What is your assessment of the Hurriyat leaders?
Some of the Kashmiri leaders like Geelani have framed their mind in a certain slot of history and do not want to come out of that. But my view is that the majority of them want to come out of the historical pains and start anew, provided that the people of India embrace them and offer them good governance, good economic development and good security and equality.

The current Indian behaviour portrays that they want to co-opt Kashmiris. They want agents not partners in a genuine political process, and saving Geelani everyone is co-opted but to no help of Kashmiris.
Well this has been an unfortunate part which I reiterate in my writings also. I would say that in 1987 we had an opportunity. If the younger people would have come to power, things would have been probably different, but we missed that opportunity but we should go again for such an experiment; open elections with all politicians and even the militant boys.

Hizb-ul Mujahideen initiated a dialogue in 2000. But to my understanding it was the Indian intelligence particularly IB who scuttled the move.
Well I won’t go into the whole thing, as by that time I had left the service. And I won’t be able to tell you the details about it. But I can assure you one thing that the intelligence agency is also made to work some time as diplomats. First phase of such diplomacy goes through intelligence agencies, and then comes the political diplomacy.

Observing from a distance how did it feel?
Well observing from a distance I think the intelligence agencies in Kashmir should be used as diplomatic tentacles of the government of India and to take the message of reconciliation. I think this part is lacking.

Kashmir has de facto three parties; India, Pakistan and China. Why is it that India is only concerned with Pakistan and not China while seeking resolution of the problem?
Well it is not like that. We may do business with China, we may do trade with them and dine and dance with them, but strategically I am a conformed Indian that China will always view India with suspicion and India will always view China with suspicion but not Pakistan.

Is it because India can overwhelm Pakistan by its sheer size and economies of scale?
No it is not like that. It is simply because we are the same people. Some quirk twist of history separated us. What is the difference between me and a Pakistani? We come from the same blood stream, same stock, same language, same food, same dress, same music, everything. The only thing that divides us is a boundary driven over a map. So there is people to people affinity. That is not with China. Chinese and Indian civilisations may have intermingled at certain points, but we have always travelled in parallel. But India, Pakistan and Bangladesh will always cross lines because after all we are one people.

How do you see Kashmir in the future?
It will always be strategically important whether it is part of India or assumes a different political shape. Sadly the current problem has created a lot of bad air. It is because of Gandhi’s preference for Nehru and not any other leader that such problems exist. Gandhi was incapable of holding power; he was capable of inciting people.

July 2007