There is a tendency on the part of many of the nationalists in India to attribute the entire insurgency in Kashmir to the machinations of Pakistan. The fact is that Pakistan has been wanting right from 1947 to sec that Jammu and Kashmir secedes from India and accedes to Pakistan; But Pakistan could not succeed in its designs till the bulk of the people of Kashmir were wholly disillusioned about the propriety of their accession to India…

Pakistan could take advantage of the dissatisfaction which had arisen by 1989 as a result of India’s continued distrust of the people of Kashmir and its failures to filiations of the agreement of the Pakistan has not been the cause of the generation of disaffect against India in Jammu and Kashi has certainly fomented it and has assisted the militants by training them and supply in them with arms and other means of terrorism.

“The Kashmir situation is characterized by the continuation of the excesses of security forces, the almost complete alienation of the local people from India, the increasing communalization of the Kashmir Movement and the growing difficulty of bringing about the return and rehabilitation of the refugees, particularly Hindu refugees, in the Valley.

There are two mutually inconsistent approaches to the solution of the Kashmir problem. One approach is characterized by narrow nationalism and the other by principles of democracy and humanism.

The narrow nationalist approach is the one openly adopted by the BJP, It is, however, shared by many supporters of the Congress as well as other parties and by several persons who do not belong to any political party. Narrow nationalism leads to the view that there is no adequate reason why Jammu and Kashmir should have a different status in the Indian Union than that of the other States. Sponsors of this approach insist that the secessionist movement in Kashmir should be put down by a strong hand and that Article 370 of the Constitution… should be abolished. This view gives more importance to the land of Kashmir than the people.

Kashmir, they say, must remain a part of India irrespective of whether the people of Kashmir want to be Indians.

The alternative approach based on the values of democracy and human is his been advocated right from the time when militancy took a virulent form in the Kashmir Valley… Human Rights Organizations (have) urged repeatedly to the Government of India that it should have an early dialogue with the known leaders of the Kashmir Movement, without imposing any preconditions.

They (have) also urged that the Indi Government should offer the maximum autonomy to the State of Jammu arid Kashmir in order that the leaders of militants may agree to participate in the dialogue. They proposed that India should offer to delete those provisions in the Presidential Order of 1954 which eroded the autonomy Of the State and that the Government of India should make it clear that the right of the Indian Executive to deal with the affairs of Jammu and Kashmir will be strictly Confined to the subjects of defence, foreign affairs and communications, Even the subject or communications, according to the proposal, should be limited to those aspects which are relevant to the defense ‘of the State from foreign aggression.

At the proposed dialogue the militants are bound to demand a plebiscite on the question of the accession of Jammu and Kashmir to India. There are certain difficulties in implementing the promise of plebiscite which should be frankly discussed in the proposed dialogue with the leaders of the militants.

Before taking a decision in favor of a plebiscite on the question of accession of Jammu and Kashmir to India the wishes of the Peoples of Jammu, Ladakh, Balti and Gilgit would have to be separately assessed, If such an assessment is made, appears very unlikely that the people of these four regions would agree to throw in their lot with the people of Kashmir ‘Secondly, among the leaders of the Kashmir militants themselves there is no unanimity on whether the plebiscite should be confined to a choice between joining India or Pakistan and whether a third choice of being free from both the countries should be available to the people.

A third and perhaps the most formidable difficulty in deciding in favor of a plebiscite at this stage is should have on the core India if the majority in the plebiscite voles for secession from India and particularly if it supports accession to Pakistan. Secession of Jammu and Kashmir from India and secession to Pakistan would be looked upon as a second partition of the country and it may lead to communal riots somewhat comparable to those which took place in 1947. Such an eventuality should be avoided as far as possible on human it are fan grounds.

In view of those serious difficulties in having plebiscite, the Kashmir leaders should be urged during the proposed dialogue to postpone the demand for a plebiscite for a period of, say, about ten years and see whether the Indian government adheres during. this period to the promise ‘of maximum autonomy, It is possible, and even likely, that if during, this period the people of Jammu and Kashmir are allowed to form democratic Government of their awn, if there is no interference by the Indian Government in their internal fairs, and if they are thus allowed to enjoy the substance of freedom, their sense of alienation from India will be greatly reduced and their demand for secession from India may wither away.

Another question which still have to be decided in the dialogue is in regard to the return and rehabilitation of those refugees, Hindus and Muslims, ho have left the Valley since 1990. Those who wish to return to the Valley should be able to go back to their homes… The militants should ‘also give them an assurance for their personal safety in the Valley.

For the final solution of the Kashmir problem an understanding between India, Pakistan and the people of Jammu and Kashmir is essential. It spears to me that we should first hammer out an agreement with the Kashmir leader’s md only there after there should be a tripartite conference between India, Pakistan and representatives of Jammu and Kashmir.

So long as Pakistan remains a theocratic state, merger with Pakistan will not be in the interest of the people of Jammu and Kashmir. If, however, an agreement is reached between the Indian Government and the Kashmir leaders for a democratic solution at their differences, it would be possible in a tripartite conference to settle present line of control as the international boundary between India and Pakistan…

It appears that the Government of India had no policy in regard to the Kashmir movement except to put down the militancy. Now the Government of India apparently wants to hold an early election in Kashmir, without attempting to reach any understanding with the leaders of the Kashmir movement. The Government appears to be under the delusion that the people of Kashmir are still in favor of the accession of their State to India and that it is only the fear of the gun which is preventing them from expressing their solidarity with India.

‘Those who are in touch with the ground realities know that an election without an understanding with the genuine Kashmir Leaders will be a mere farce. (MI 10/95)

Article extracted from this publication >> November 3, 1995