Voices of dissent
When in Rome, do as the Romans. Care to apply this quote in Kashmir and you’ll start questioning this age old saying. For the only thing that’s clear here is that there is no one way of looking at the valley nor a uniform goal for it.
Kashmir has been the hotbed of political action for countless years and thus there have emerged numerous visions about it. If Kashmiriyat was to be quantified into a single definition today, there would be no unanimous consent to the arrangement.
The Amarnath Land Transfer proposal has resulted in unfettering a host of voices with dissimilar demands for the State. For the Congress, its a question of not being projected as an anti-Hindu party at a time when four states in north India are slated for polls after Jammu and Kashmir. Yet it has managed to pull off, just that. As a worried Congress general secretary wondered, "Are we making the same mistake we did in opening the locks of the Babri Masjid?"
The Kashmiri business and trader community responded to the pro land deal demonstrations in Jammu by adopting a “look north” approach. After its vigorous marketing by separatists, the idea of moving Kashmiri produce via Muzaffarabad found wide acceptance in Kashmir.
The separatists, for long divided among themselves, united over the agitation against the land transfer. Some within them, define it as a plot to settle non-local Hindus in the valley, while to some its a wonderful vantage point to promote secession.
Mirwaiz Farooq, chairman of the moderate Hurriyat faction, even suggested that the Kashmiris have no objections to carving a Hindu-dominated Dogra Desh out of the Jammu province-harking back to the dubious Dixon Plan that had suggested a Muslim-majority state south of the Chenab.
In all this turmoil, an army officer posted in the valley, says, “Even if you’re yet not pleased over the fact that the Centre foots your bills, does it give you grounds to resent such subsidies so much that you storm out your house waving Pakistani flags in front of jawans who’ve sacrificed comforts, families and sanity for your security?( the incidence of suicidal tendencies, & ‘fragging’- juniors shooting at seniors is highest in J&K).
"It's a terrible and tremendous setback," said a top state government official. “The flare-up has come at a time when the Valley was experiencing one of the longest spells of relative calm and stability with Pakistan-sponsored militancy at its lowest ebb. The state had been gearing up for the Assembly polls due in October”.
In an interview to a prominent news channel, PDP chief Mehbooba Mufti said, "There is an overwhelming perception in Kashmir that land transfer to the Shri Amarnath Shrine Board will undermine their special status under Article 370. We cannot wish away that perception," conveniently forgetting that her party had agreed to the state cabinet's decision of transferring 100 acres of land to the board before it made a U-turn fearing that the consent could erode its Kashmiri constituency.
While the samiti has stridently struck a "nothing short of land" stance, the Valley-based politicians and separatists are dead opposed to cede "even an inch of land" on paper to Shri Amarnath Shrine which ironically was discovered by a Muslim shepherd more than a century ago. "The agitation will continue till the Government addresses the core issue," said Mr. Sharma, reiterating the samiti's "no-land-no-deal" stance. "It involves our religious faith and there can be no middle ground," he added.
In fact, this issue has created a vent for related issues & sentiments.
"Jammu has always received the short end of the stick in the past 60 years, and the Amarnath land issue has given a vent to its pent-up regional aspirations," said Brigadier (retd) Suchet Singh, a leading member of the samiti.
"In such a surcharged atmosphere, the Valley politicians dare not campaign in Jammu and vice versa," said senior Kashmiri CPI(M) leader Mohammad Yousuf Tarigami.
"The turmoil may bring the state back to square one of the '90s and could fritter away all the gains that the elected political dispensations have made in the last decade," he feared.
Further more, an increasing number of reports in the media suggest that India should consider allowing Kashmiris to secede, since the widespread demonstrations taking place day after day would indicate that they don’t want to be a part of India:
“We promised Kashmiris a plebiscite six decades ago. Let us hold one now, and give them three choices: independence, union with Pakistan, and union with India. Almost certainly the Valley will opt for independence. Jammu will opt to stay with India, and probably Ladakh too. Let Kashmiris decide the outcome, not the politicians and armies of India and Pakistan,”- Swaminathan Aiyar,TOI.
“If the experience of the last two decades has taught us anything, it is that the situation never really returns to normal. Even when we see the outward symptoms of peace, we miss the alienation and resentment within. No matter what we do, things never get better, for very long,” writes Vir Sanghvi in the Hindustan Times.
In a follow up to this tirade, Mr.Sanghvi further mentions,“I reckon we should hold a referendum in the Valley. Let the Kashmiris determine their own destiny. If they want to stay in India, they are welcome. But if they don’t, then we have no moral right to force them to remain. If they vote for integration with Pakistan, all this will mean is that Azad Kashmir will gain a little more territory. If they opt for independence, they will last for about 15 minutes without the billions that India has showered on them. But it will be their decision,”.
However,Mr. K Subrahmanyam, a Delhi based strategic defense analyst is of the opinion that, “Disruption is being made part of India’s political culture by most of our political parties. We must ponder over the consequences of yielding to the secessionists in Kashmir & the encouragement it would provide to other such movements elsewhere in the country.”
Some argue that the basic issue is whether the Indian republic is in a position at this stage, 58 years after its constitution, to permit secession of a small portion of its population on the basis of religious identity. “If they are allowed to leave, there would be consequences that have to be anticipated”.
Not only in Kashmir but violent agitations, elsewhere pose a challenge to the idea of India. The country has to seek a comprehensive strategy to deal with this challenge. Yielding to the Kashmiri secessionists is not a solution. It would be the end of the concept of India.
"It's an explosive situation where a solution can lead to a bigger mess," said a top state bureaucrat and member of the governor's crisis-management team to a popular news magazine. For, what is at play in India's most volatile region is a sense of historical hurt.
Further more, an increasing number of reports in the media suggest that India should consider allowing Kashmiris to secede, since the widespread demonstrations taking place day after day would indicate that they don’t want to be a part of India:
“We promised Kashmiris a plebiscite six decades ago. Let us hold one now, and give them three choices: independence, union with Pakistan, and union with India. Almost certainly the Valley will opt for independence. Jammu will opt to stay with India, and probably Ladakh too. Let Kashmiris decide the outcome, not the politicians and armies of India and Pakistan,”- Swaminathan Aiyar,TOI.
“If the experience of the last two decades has taught us anything, it is that the situation never really returns to normal. Even when we see the outward symptoms of peace, we miss the alienation and resentment within. No matter what we do, things never get better, for very long,” writes Vir Sanghvi in the Hindustan Times.
In a follow up to this tirade, Mr.Sanghvi further mentions,“I reckon we should hold a referendum in the Valley. Let the Kashmiris determine their own destiny. If they want to stay in India, they are welcome. But if they don’t, then we have no moral right to force them to remain. If they vote for integration with Pakistan, all this will mean is that Azad Kashmir will gain a little more territory. If they opt for independence, they will last for about 15 minutes without the billions that India has showered on them. But it will be their decision,”.
However,Mr. K Subrahmanyam, a Delhi based strategic defense analyst is of the opinion that, “Disruption is being made part of India’s political culture by most of our political parties. We must ponder over the consequences of yielding to the secessionists in Kashmir & the encouragement it would provide to other such movements elsewhere in the country.”
Some argue that the basic issue is whether the Indian republic is in a position at this stage, 58 years after its constitution, to permit secession of a small portion of its population on the basis of religious identity. “If they are allowed to leave, there would be consequences that have to be anticipated”.
Not only in Kashmir but violent agitations, elsewhere pose a challenge to the idea of India. The country has to seek a comprehensive strategy to deal with this challenge. Yielding to the Kashmiri secessionists is not a solution. It would be the end of the concept of India.
"It's an explosive situation where a solution can lead to a bigger mess," said a top state bureaucrat and member of the governor's crisis-management team to a popular news magazine. For, what is at play in India's most volatile region is a sense of historical hurt.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment