In this context let me go back to the question, which I raised in the beginning of this paper: what then actually has lead to the failure of all these attempts towards reconciliation? An honest answer to the question will point to a trust deficit between the two blocks.
When one goes back into the history of the dispute, it becomes obvious that it was a dispute between India and Pakistan in which Kashmiris be given the choice either to accede to India or to Pakistan. However, as the time passed the dispute took a different turn, and a different school of thought came into existence which demanded a free Kashmir. Sovereign Kashmir is more common in the recent Kashmiri imagination than accession to either of the countries. The situation took a different turn after last year’s Amarnath land issue. Most of the Kashmiris came on the streets demanding freedom. Most of the Indian intelligentsia supported this popular demand of Kashmiri people. Arundhati Roy in her article “Land and Freedom” (The Guardian, Friday, August 22, 2008) wrote, “The Indian military occupation of Kashmir makes monsters of us all. It allows Hindu chauvinists to target and victimize Muslims in India by holding them hostage to the freedom struggle being waged by Muslims in Kashmir. India needs azadi from Kashmir just as much as – if not more than – Kashmir needs azadi from India.”
The peace process between India and Pakistan stopped after the 2008 attacks on Mumbai, which was carried out allegedly by Pakistani nationals. Since then both the countries are trying to start afresh a peace process to resolve all the bilateral issues including Kashmir. Due to growing international pressure to resolve the Kashmir issue, Indian government again invited Hurriyat to discuss the Kashmir issue, in 2009. Home Minister P. Chidambaram on June 11, 2009 during his visit to Srinagar, said “We would like to take small, baby steps one by one and no great leap in Kashmir.” On October 28, 2009 Dr. Manmohan Singh reached out to Kashmiri separatists, offering to resume peace talks to end decades-old insurgency in the Himalayan region[10]. Soon after the PM’s offer of talks, Hurriyat (M) welcomed the step and said they are ready to participate in the dialogue whereas Hurriyat (G) rejected any such proposal. Dr. Singh also offered unconditional talks with Pakistan to resolve Kashmir issue. Ahead of the PM’s visit to Valley, on October 15 2009, P. Chidambaram announced a quiet dialogue with all the political shades of Kashmir. What lacked in this programme was the degree of quietness. New Delhi, backed by the Jammu and Kashmir state government, kept releasing press statements that it is engaging Hurriyat (M) in the quiet diplomacy, which the latter refused.
The past three years have seen a shift in the political scenario of Kashmir. Year 2008 saw agitation against transfer of some hectares of land to the Shri Amarnath Shirine Board, resulting in the death of nearly 60 people. The resistance died after the state government revoked its decision of land transfer and the cycle of deaths was put to a halt. Peace remained elusive for some time. Soon into the summer of 2009, security forces in the South Kashmir district of Shopian saw people on the streets of Kashmir after the alleged rape and murder of two women. The anger and the resistance died after a few months. Unfortunately, the relative peace could not survive even six months, and people were seen on the streets of Srinagar again after the killing of a youth, Tufail Matoo, allegedly at the hands of security forces on June 11, 2010. These protests against human rights violations have resulted in the deaths of 25 people so far. AK 47s and other modern sophisticated weapons are seen nowhere on the streets of Kashmir; instead, the baton has been transferred to youths (as noted by APHC (M) chairman, Molvi Umar Farooq in one of his statements) who come onto the streets of Kashmir with stones in their hands as a mark of protest. Many political analysts see it as ‘intifada’ against the Indian state?
In the pretext of development and regional cooperation, India and Pakistan have once again met at the table, resuming the dialogue between the two nuclear powers that was suspended after the Mumbai attacks. Dr. Manmohan Singh met his Pakistani counterpart on the sidelines of SAARC summit in Bhutan, and both leaders agreed that relations between the two countries should be normalized and channels of contact should work effectively. Recently, on July 15, 2010, the Foreign Ministers of both countries met in Islamabad. The talks between Krishna and Qureshi ended in a deadlock, with the latter accusing India of selectively focusing on terror and ignoring its vital concerns on issues like Kashmir. India says that it will go in for gradualist, incremental approach revolving around trust-building humanitarian measures, before moving on to enlarge the scope of dialogue. However, the question remaining with us is whether this change of attitude by both the countries will come to the rescue of Kashmiris who have suffered in the last six decades. The concept of independent Kashmir makes Kashmiri people the primary stakeholders in the dispute, which is to be resolved between India and Pakistan. Both India and Pakistan should take into account all the sections of Kashmiri societies, pro-freedom leaders (both moderates and extremists) and pro-Indian leaders, irrespective of their opinions. Dialogue without any of these stakeholders will be a useless exercise.
[1] On 2nd November, 1947, broadcast to the nation over All India Radio, Pandit Nehru, PM of India
[2] Nehru’s reiteration of plebiscite pledge in a telegram to Liaqat Ali Khan, November 03, 1947
[3] Abdullah, S. M. (1986). Atish-e-Chinar. Ali Mohammad and Sons.
[4] A.G. Noorani; Harsh truths about Kashmir, Frontline Volume 20 – Issue 16, August 02 – 15, 2003
[5] President Rajendra Prasad’s letter to Jawaharlal Nehru on July 14, 1953
[6] http://www.kashmirtimes.com/archive/0706/070613/feature.htm
[7] SWJN; Volume 23; page 346
[8] India’s National Security Advisor, Brajesh Mishra, in a interview with Margaret Warner, Talking Peace; January 6, 2004
[9] Mirwaiz Umar Farooq, Chairman of the separatist alliance All Parties Hurriyat Conference, to a press conference at Srinagar, January 2009.
[10]http://business.maktoob.com/20090000389570/India_offers_new_talks_to_Kashmir_separatists/Article.htm
There is fundamental fact author has missed. Author says it was expected that J&K being Muslim majority state it was expected to join Pakistan, but Mr. Jinnah policy in 1947 was not this. Jinanh position was that Pakistan went by prerogative of ruler not of the people. Pakistan accepted the instrument of accession of Junagarh of Nawab of Junagarg when the it was A Hindu Majority State? Why? but when plebiscite was held there it protested because it went with prerogative of ruler. Now why this prerogative of ruler and not with will of masses, the reason was that many of the Muslim rulers like Nawab of Bhopal, Nizam of Hyderabad, Nawab of Junagarh etc had fully invested in Muslim league when it was formed so league could not abandon when they needed them, & strategically they wanted to weaken India Even Maharaja of Jodhpur and maharaja of Travancore also were encouraged by Pakistan to accede to Pakistan Now why Kashmir was left out, at the time of independence Gurdas-pur was not granted to India, at this point Pakistan was fully aware that Maharaja cannot but accede to Pakistan but here his calculation failed.
Coming to the acceptance of instrument of accession on the instrument itself it was not provisionally accepted if you see the instrument today which is widely available on Internet. while Mountbatten in a separate letter said that when the land has been cleared of raiders it will be put to people, but Pakistan did not vacate its occupied part so how promise can be made good? Coming to resolutions UN resolutions required Pakistan to get out of Kashmir, it gave India right to send troops in Kashmir adequate enough to maintain law and order, then once the Pakistan regulars and irregulars were out UN had to notify India and then plebiscite was to be held but mind you these all references were not binding either on India or Pakistan. The trouble here with valleys writers is they go facts that are supplied by Pakistan they will not tell you this story as this wrier is doing. It is on Mr. Nehru alone the whole argument is being made. There more to it Mohd. Karim Chagla who was PA of Mr. Jinnah later became the education Minster of India, while making a speech in UN said that since Pakistan has not fulfilled its obligations how India will? So there are many speech’s not a single on to quote.
Taking events a bit backwards, Pakistan invaded Kashmir through its regulars & irregulars, on Oct- 22, 1947 Hindu massacre of Mazufarrbad happened, On 24th they accepted a provisional govt of J&K headed by Sardar Ibrahim Khan ,(it was he who transferred control of Gilgit Baltistan to Pakistan by Karachi pact but fact is Muslim conference had not even a chapter in gilgit baltistan) it was to give legitimacy to the occupied Part of Kashmir that is why they called this occupied part as so-called azad Kashmir. Here it may also be interesting to know that on 5th oct a Kashmiri called Ghulam Nabi Gilkar had also announced a provincial govt of J&K from Pakistan, Mr Gilkar was an associate of Sheikh Mohd Abdullah in Muslim conference, but Pakistan ditched him because he was an Ahmadi and what happened to him is not known to him even toady. So in 1947 Pakistan used aggression to enter Kashmir and this story continues even today
So where Mr Jinnah left the political place for Sheikh Abdullah because mind you Sheikh Abdullah was in Jail on 14& 15 August 1947. It was Nehru who gave him this space. But yes by 1948 Sheikh Abdullah had changed his mind and by now he started to look for plebiscite demand from Mr Nehru. It is here nationalists in India blame Nehru, he gave article 370 to valley which means a kashmiri Muslim today can invest in Immovable property all across India & in Kashmir while as a person outside J&K cannot own immovable property in J&K! why this policy at all nationalists ask ? it was same sheikh Abdullah who signed Kashmir accord and became chief minister of J&K and he also made speeches in Srinagar.
Bottom-line today is that there are people of other religions in J&K who do not subscribe to this theory of Partition on basis of religion only a section of Muslims in valley do support it because they have been told as Muslims you need not live with India, you may call it by any name you like…but is fundamentally a completion of the agenda of partition of 1947 that is why today it is demand of a section of Muslims in valley not of all inhabitants of J&K as a whole.