By Aparna Pande
This article appeared in Indolink on February 6, 2007
The Preamble to the Indian Constitution pledges “to secure to all its citizens: Justice, social, economic and political; Liberty of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship.”
For Mahatma Gandhi the ‘India of my Dreams’ was one where ” the poorest shall feel that it is their country in whose making they have an effective voice and in which all communities shall live in perfect harmony.”
The last few days have brought forth reports of purported cold-blooded killings of civilians by security forces in Kashmir. In three separate incidents the Rashtriya Rifles units of the Indian army along with rogue police officers allegedly indulged in these massacres in Ganderbal, near Srinagar.
Amnesty International and other Human Rights agencies have routinely criticized the Indian government especially with respect to excesses by security forces in Kashmir.
India has always reacted negatively to reports about human rights violations in any part of the country. The reaction has been visceral whenever the issue happens to be Kashmir. Attempts are made to either brush the issue under the carpet or to blame ‘undisciplined’ or ‘rogue’ elements in the security forces. Sometimes blame is assigned to the state government.
The security situation and the intrigues or stratagems of the ‘foreign hand’ have also been routinely blamed. The argument is that those who violate the integrity of the country and those who support them do not deserve human rights.
Yet the basis of the Nehruvian state has always been the ‘moral high ground.’
In his ‘Tryst with Destiny’ speech on the midnight of August 14, 1947, Pandit Nehru talked about the need “to create social, economic and political institutions which will ensure justice and fullness of life to every man and woman.”
The official Indian view has been that Jammu and Kashmir ‘lawfully acceded’ to India when the Maharaja of Kashmir signed the Instrument of Accession to India in 1947. India has treated Kashmir and the Kashmiris fairly; they have constitutional protection under Article 370 and have experienced ‘free and fair’ elections as part of a democratic secular country. And given a choice Kashmiris would choose India over Pakistan.
In 1947 after centuries of autocratic monarchical rule in Kashmir the masses were informed that they would get democracy. Powers and rights granted under Article 370 of the Indian Constitution pertaining to more autonomy to the state were gradually eroded on the ostensible grounds of the need for integration with the rest of India.
Ironically the need to win the argument against Pakistan in the international community and to emphasize Kashmir’s inseparability led to the increasing control of the central government over the state.
Instead of letting the people decide who is better for them, the central government, under fear that an unfriendly (read non-submissive) party might come to power in the state, has frequently exerted the right to dismiss governments and rig elections.
Perhaps, if democratic institutions had been set up, elections had been held on time and dismissal of Chief Ministers and Governors had not been so frequent this centralization would have been seen in a different light.
As noted by India expert Sumit Ganguly “short-sighted policies” of the central government led to a ‘mockery of democracy’ in Kashmir. This was in full display in the form of rigged elections in 1972, 1984 and 1987 and sheer disregard towards the feelings of the common people.
The massively rigged 1989 elections provided the pretext for present violent phase of the Kashmiri insurgency. Without the context of these elections the insurgency would not have spread and gained support among the populace, notwithstanding external backing.
Once it had begun, the insurgency was dealt with an iron fist and led to increased police and paramilitary presence in Kashmir. Foreign intervention by Pakistan only strengthened the case for a harder line against the insurgents. Operations against insurgents stopped being surgical and instead affected the larger Kashmiri populace.
The last few months have led to some positive signs in Kashmir. There has been a ‘thawing’ of relations between India and Pakistan. The moderate wing of the insurgency has also talked about the importance of talks as opposed to guns. Many Hurriyat leaders have been involved in talks with both the Indian and the Pakistani governments.
At a dinner meeting in Pakistan-administered Kashmir, in January 2007 Mirwaiz Umar Farooq, chairman of the moderate faction of the Hurriyat Conference, talked about the need to end violence. “We have already seen the results of our fight on the political, diplomatic and military fronts,” the cleric said, “which have not achieved anything other than creating more graveyards.”
Both Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Gen Pervez Musharraf are under immense international pressure to ease relations between the two countries. Each has his domestic compulsions; for one it is the need to leave a legacy and for the other to create legitimacy.
However, immediately after the recent Ganderbal incident Mirwaiz Farooq echoed the views of the pro-Independence Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Front (JKLF) leader Yasin Malik in asking for an independent commission to probe the incident.
One hopes that the Indian government and its security agencies realize the extent of damage caused by such criminal behavior on the part of security forces. It is not just a blow to the government but to the soul of India itself.
Though there has not been a complete halt to the insurgency in Kashmir at least the majority of the indigenous factions are willing to talk and negotiate. It may be a slow process but at least it is moving in the right direction.
Any reversal to ‘non violence as the only means’ would be disastrous. Next time round the insurgency might be more lethal and more difficult to contain. Not only might there be popular support but there might be an additional factor; a better trained and funded international jihadist network would be waiting to enter India.
India and Indians are proud that very few Indian Muslims have joined the ranks of the international jihadis. That may not last for long if India fails to maintain its moral high ground in relation to all its subjects, especially its minorities.
There are reports of growing disenchantment of Indian Muslims with the secular and democratic credentials of India. The Justice Sachar committee report and reports by the intelligence agencies support this view. The continued growth of the Hindutva movement in certain states is another catalyst.
Nehru claimed India had made a tryst with destiny and the time had come to redeem the pledge in 1947. In the last 60 years there are many Indians for whom this promise has been fulfilled. However, there are still many parts of this country and many people who are still waiting. Kashmir and Kashmiris are one such people.
It is time that as Indians we persuade our government to make Kashmiris feel as Indian as the rest of us. In a few decades from now people should be able to once again refer to Kashmir in the following words – Gar firdaus bar rue zameenast, hamiasto, hamiasto, hamiast.” (if there is paradise on earth, it is here, here and here alone)