Kashmir Solution and Secularism

Shiban Khaibri   

Is Kashmir issue going to be resolved? Has Kashmir finally been of officially recognized as disputed requiring a solution? Has the hitherto Indian stand slipped down from the indomitable and non -negotiable status of Kashmir being an integral part of India? Has accession of the state with the Union of India being made to look hazy if not ambiguous? These and other related questions haunt every one's mind to whom India is dear, the concept of secularism is treated as the concomitant of our philosophy of "live and let live", to whom the supreme sacrifices of hundreds of our valiant soldiers is sacrosanct who, while defending Kashmir right from Kabayali attack backed by Pakistani army in 1947 to 1965 and 1971 wars, thrust on India and then fighting till the moment, the proxy and elusive war of terrorism for nearly three decades?

The recent statement of one of the Union cabinet Ministers Dr Farooq Abdullah on May10, 2010; in Jammu that Kashmir solution was round the corner, has to be read in between the lines. The contours of this solution, even its nuts and bolts are appearing to be fairly known to Dr Farooq or else how could he further say, "the solution will be such that is acceptable to people of Jammu and Kashmir, India and Pakistan. Even after so many days, none from Home affairs ministries has refuted

Farooq's claim which in other words, can be inferred as having official confirmation, meaning that quiet (read secret) diplomacy and Justice (Retd.) Sageer's working group recommendations of a greater autonomy have found their utility and relevance, besides providing the basic framework to moot a solution. Not only this, it inversely means graduation to recognition of dual control of J&K, rendering LOC in fructuous, reduction of troop deployment to the extent of de- militarization and the like. If this is what will be "acceptable to the people of J&K, India and Pakistan," then it amounts to reversal of the avowed stand of India, right from the historic day of Oct27, 1947; when the state unconditionally acceded to India and the pleas of M A Jinnah, the Governor of Pakistan, vide his telegram dated Oct 20, 1947, were turned down and rejected by the ruler of the state, Maharaja Hari Singh as well as by Sheikh Abdullah who was Head of the Emergency Administration. On Oct21/ 22, 1947 an organized massive attacks by the tribesmen (Kabayali) backed by the Pakistani regular army to annex Kashmir by force and deceit, took place.

If the fact of history, the accession, is now disputed and made negotiable after more than six decades, then what guarantee is attached with the "solution round the  corner" of the Kashmir problem   to remain in the state of effectiveness and acceptability vis-a-vis Pakistan where the centres of power are more than one and with the change of the government, any solutions and agreements are bound to be rendered useless, that being the track record of Pakistan.

Later President Kennedy having seen Nehru very firm on Kashmir and never getting influenced by any (American) interference or pressure had accepted American diplomatic ineffectiveness by saying, "Kashmir was ingrained in each and every nerve of Nehru and it was difficult to expect any concessions from him.

Coming back to the statement of Dr Farooq, "How does it matter if some people didn't support the solution, support base of such people will die if they oppose the solution of Kashmir ." How can the support such people die, is hard to understand, as the beneficiaries of such solution based on the grounds of religious considerations, were Kashmiri Muslims and Pakistan only.

 

What about the people of Jammu, Kashmiri Pandits who were hounded out from Kashmir under a well planned strategy? Are such sections going be accommodated in any way, let alone get benefited under this solution which shall be nothing but dilution and limiting of the writ of India? What about even those nationalist Muslims who would disagree with the dangers of balkanization of the country and imminent rendering of secularism ineffective, which could lead to disastrous consequences. Government of India, known for its weak knee and wavering policy on Kashmir, has never looked as weak, inconsistent and flummoxed, as we see in post Indira Gandhi era. It was mainly due to the             results of such policies that terror and crude fundamentalism erupted in the valley of

Kashmir and Pakistan got increasingly emboldened to succeed in getting Kashmir top global exposure with India painted as oppressor and Indian troops as mercenaries of violators of human rights.

The legendary democrat, true secular and patriot, Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru was ruthlessly fearless, while dealing with any of foreign pressure at a time when India was reeling under the aftermaths of partition, abject poverty and acute food problem necessitating dependence on other countries even for importing the basic necessities of a common man. He was forthright in castigating those powerful nations whose policy was to subdue and coerce the poor nations into their political subjugation. He had many a time rejected abinitio the advice or suggestion of America or U.K; on Kashmir matters -, "I am now tired of the advice rendered by America, India does not need any advice or suggestion in respect of our home or foreign policy. We being honest and sincere, hardly need anyone's advice. So far as Kashmir is concerned.

We shall not give even an inch of our land to anyone. Let the world get tossed from one to the other end, we are firm and steadfast in our stand on Kashmir. "Nehru had rubbished and rejected the efforts of President Truman for using "good offices" of the U.N.O for resolving India - Pakistan dispute, throwing in the dust bin, the Dixon Formulae floated by America, any holding of a plebiscite or any idea of demilitarization. Later President Kennedy having seen Nehru very firm on Kashmir and never getting influenced by any (American) interference or pressure had accepted American diplomatic ineffectiveness by saying, "Kashmir was ingrained in each and every nerve of Nehru and it was difficult to expect any concessions from him." Dr Manmohan Singh is occupying the same chair and constitutional position as that of Pandit Nehru. Why should the weak, inapt, consistently wavering and ineffective Kashmir policy of the central government, after the death of Smt. Indira Gandhi, be not visited by firmness, befitting the stature of the largest democracy of the world? The weak policies, the patch work approach and the appeasement has led to a mess, given Pakistan an upper hand, the separatists the license for their shops to sell anti India, anti-secular and disruptive products while most of them allegedly are said to be making  assets and fortunes disproportionate to their incomes.

It is equally surprising that Abdullah’s whose three generations have been in power in Jammu and Kashmir, now regret for the state acceding to India and perhaps, therefore, nursing the ambition to make the state of J&K a sovereign and autonomous entity while on the other hand, PDP feigns to be restless and ill at ease, for India not working hard to talk to Pakistan, instead Mufti Sayeed laments and is disturbed for New Delhi not seeing the ," inevitability of resolving the Kashmir issue as till then suspicion about Kashmiri Muslims would keep on lingering." He pours all anger against Government of India for" rendering its pronouncements as mere statements, instead of starting talks with leaders (read separatists), they were put in jails".

Take the case of Congress in J&K, one of the senior most leaders who has tasted the power, Gulam Rasool Kar declaring, "Every Kashmiri (Muslim) including pro-accession elements nurtured pro- Pakistan tendencies, every Kashmiri (Muslim) is emotionally attached to Pakistan whether they are in Congress or National Conference."

Kar termed Kashmir as disputed and urged Congress to strive for a resolution with Pakistan, the dispute on Kashmir."

If Dr Farooq's statement or Ex Pakistan Foreign Minister K M Kasauri's statement that Kashmir Pact was just a signature away is a fact, then the stand of India for all these 62 years stands negated which is fraught with irretrievable consequences. The edifice of Secularism is feared to get weak. At the outset, the Kashmiri Pandits, Jammu Dogras, Ladakhi Buddhists, Sikhs and other non-Muslim minorities of J&K shall be the worst sufferers as fallout of such solution shall amount to catering to the protagonists of Azadi or Pakistan's sponsored and inspired secessionism. It could pave the way for yet another partition on the basis of religion as a pluralist structure of our democracy was bound to get grossly affected and endangered. If Kashmir was going to be decided on the basis of religion, how can vast areas of India not be similarly decided, is a question of increasing importance. India should not bow, not even in the least, to any extraneous pressure. If suffering was destined for disregarding "pressures", why not accept that option like a truly sovereign independent and a powerful country? India has to be saved from a second partition, from getting Balkanized and from slipping down from the secular and pluralist path.

DISCLAIMER:

The views expressed in the Article above are Shiban Khaibri’s personal views and kashmiribhatta.in is not in any way responsible for the opinions expressed in the above article. The article belongs to its respective owner or owners and this site does not claim any right over it. Copyright Disclaimer under section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing."

Courtesy: Sh Shiban Khaibri and The Martand- The Official organ of All State Kashmiri Pandit Conference: 16th may, 2010