The identity of Jammu
& Kashmir requires that it should have a separate state managed fairly by
the representatives of the five regions of J&K while having peaceful
relations with their neighbours — India,
Pakistan and China.
On
October 23 this year the Indian government appointed Dineshwar Sharma, who was
Director Intelligence Bureau, as an interlocutor for Jammu & Kashmir. His
appointment was immediately rejected by the All-Party Hurriyat Conference
(IPHC), Farooq Abdullah of National Conference and Pakistan. In 2010 also, the
Indian government had appointed a group of three interlocutors to hold dialogue
with all stakeholders of J&K for peace in the region. Termed as a
non-starter in 2010, in 2017 also, the so-called initiative taken by New Delhi
to start the process of dialogue in the turbulent Valley of Kashmir albeit its
repressive policies, is termed as a futile attempt.
Dineshwar
Sharma, who served in J&K around 25 years ago called his appointment as a ‘home coming” with a resolve to engage all the stakeholders
including pro-independence groups for a purposeful dialogue on resolving issues
confronting
J&K. Yet the ground realities militate against the October initiative of
the Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi as the Muslim majority Valley has risen
against the occupation of Indian military and serious human rights violations
against peaceful demonstrators striving for independence from New Delhi
continue unabated.
Situation
in the Indian controlled J&K got from bad to worse when the National
Security Adviser Ajit Kumar Doval came up with his own set of ideas named as ‘Doval doctrine’ which gave free hand to the Indian military and
para-military forces to crush any popular expression by the Kashmiris for
independence. Far from the reality and devoid of any objective assessment of
situation on the ground, New Delhi is committing a series of blunders to deal
with an issue which is not confined to law and order problem but has a
conglomeration of political, economic, religious, cultural and territorial
dynamics.
Predictably,
Sharma’s appointment as an interlocutor to unleash the
process of dialogue with all the stakeholders in the Kashmir conflict failed to take
off. Pakistan’s reaction to his appointment was also understandable
as the issue of J&K without the involvement of Pakistan cannot be resolved.
In the meantime, the Muslim Kashmiris of the Valley are protesting on daily basis
against the Indian occupation military; are facing pallet guns; killings,
injuries, detention, torture and other serious violation of human rights
against the women population.
Without promoting inter- and intra-Kashmiri dialogue;
softening of line of control, withdrawal of forces of India and Pakistan, and
the deployment of UN peacekeepers conditions for peace cannot be created in
that volatile region
Since
1990 when popular uprising or Kashmiri Intifada began till now more than
100,000 Kashmiris have given their lives for freedom; thousands have been
injured including those who lost their eyes because of the use of pallet guns;
thousands have been detained and displaced. Yet, the Indian government is
confident that it can control the situation and prevent the secession of Valley
from India.
It
is true that the conflict of Jammu & Kashmir is very complicated because of
the parties involved in that conflict with rigid positions and the issues which
deepen the level of violence in that once Valley of Paradise. India and
Pakistan, apart from China, are the main players but the real stakeholders of
conflict in J&K are the people of that region. When the real stakeholders
are not on board one cannot expect any plausible resolution of such an
intractable conflict like Jammu & Kashmir. By appointing interlocutor
the situation on the ground in J&K cannot improve because those who are the
real stakeholders, particularly living in turbulent Valley of Kashmir, have
rejected any move of New Delhi which doesn’t address
the main issue, i.e. independence from the oppressive rule of India. Since
August 1947, the people of Jammu & Kashmir are part of a human tragedy
which struck them when J&K got divided along the ceasefire line following
1948 Indo-Pak
war. Divided families on both sides of the line became a victim of the British
manipulation of drawing borders between the emerging states of India and
Pakistan.
Kashmiris
are the real stakeholders in the age-old conflict between India and Pakistan
because of the two main reasons. First, millions of Kashmiris on both sides of
the fence have enormously suffered in the last seven decades because of armed
conflict between India and Pakistan and the ruthlessness of the Indian security
forces particularly since 1990. Since they are the sufferers of the conflict,
it is their legitimate right to be included in any process which aims to seek
normalcy and restore peace in the region of J&K. It will make no
difference if Dineshwar Sharma, as the interlocutor embarks on holding dialogue
with different Kashmiri groups because a vast majority of them do not recognise
the legitimacy of the Indian government and will not talk to him. It would have
been better had New Delhi, instead of appointing a former Director of
Intelligence Bureau appointed a respectable and influential personality to act
as a bridge between the Indian government and the Kashmiri groups.
Second,
without the involvement of Kashmiri groups both moderate and hardliners, no
peace initiative on J&K can reach its logical conclusion. Therefore, the
initiative which was launched by the then President General Pervez Musharraf in
October 2004 in which he talked about ‘out of box’
solution by providing a road map in which as a first step the withdrawal of Indian and Pakistani
forces from their respective areas; holding of inter and intra-Kashmiri
dialogue; softening of the line of control; election of the parliament of
Kashmir and subsequent handing over power to Kashmiris representing the
parliament composed of all the five regions of Jammu & Kashmir like Jammu,
Valley, Ladakh, Azad Kashmir, Gilgit and Baltistan, will create conditions for
peace in J&K pending its final solution.
Unfortunately,
the government of Atal Vehari Vajpapae failed to positively respond to
Musharraf’s proposal for peace in J&K and that opportunity
was missed. Therefore, without promoting inter and intra-Kashmiri dialogue;
softening of line of control, withdrawal of forces of India and Pakistan and
the deployment of UN peacekeepers conditions for peace cannot be created in that
volatile region.
If
Kashmiris are the real stakeholders for any resolution of the Kashmir conflict,
two major requirements should be met by them. First, they should, regardless of
ethnic, lingual, religious and sectarian contradictions must seek unity among
themselves. Unless, Kashmiris are united on both sides of the line of control,
the vision for an independent Kashmir would remain unrealistic.
Second,
Kashmiri diaspora living in different parts of the world also needs to develop
consensus along with their counterparts in the Indian and Pakistani controlled
parts of J&K to seek a united stance for an independent Kashmir because a
future state of J&K, if partitioned along religious lines, can deepen the
state of conflict in the region.
The
identity of Jammu & Kashmir requires that it should have a separate state
managed fairly by the representatives of the five regions of J&K while
having peaceful relations with their neighbours, India, Pakistan and China.
Although, it will be a landlocked state yet its viability will depend on the
leadership of J&K that how successful it is to unite the people and
concentrate on the process of human and social development.
The
writer is Meritorious Professor of International Relations at the University of
Karachi. E. Mail: amoonis@hotmail.com
Published
in Daily Times, November 24th 2017.
No comments:
Post a Comment