Defusing Kashmir crisis

It took the government over a month to respond to the ongoing spate of violence in Jammu and Kashmir where over 60 civilians have died and many more maimed.

The government indicated its concern and willingness to address the issues involved during the Parliament debate, but what emerged from the debate and responses of Prime Minister Narendra Modi and ministers Rajnath Singh and Arun Jaitley was a consensus on the end, but not the means, to resolve the crisis. Unanimous resolution apart, no concrete action seems forthcoming.

There was reiteration of the given – that there could be no compromise on national security, that “people of India love Kashmir,” as Modi put it, and later, readiness to offer a hefty money package. But the core issue remained largely un-addressed. When the diagnosis was not clear, the cure could not be.

An outcome of this was Pakistan’s Independence Day (not India’s) being observed in the Valley. Not ready to commit on how to tackle the domestic strife, the government took the easier option of a diplomatic counter-offensive against Pakistan in response to the one launched by the latter. Thus there was reiteration of the stand that Pakistan–Occupied Kashmir (POK) is also an integral part of India (there has been a parliamentary resolution before on the entire J&K being part of India).

For good measure, the unrest in Balochistan was thrown in to counter Pakistan’s diplomatic pinpricks like the hostility shown to Rajnath Singh during the latter’s brief Islamabad visit for a SAARC meet and the provocative attempt to send a medical mission to the Indian-controlled Kashmir for those injured by the action of the Indian security forces.

Additionally, India had to act to counter the success of Pakistan’s drive that had the United Nations High Rights Council (UNHRC) seeking to send a fact-finding team. The body is currently headed by Prince Zeid Ra'ad Al Hussein, a Jordanian diplomat.

Although civil servants are expected to function independent of the country they belong to, Jordan’s proximity to Pakistan is well-known. The Kashmir issue has lost the earlier sting among the international community, but it does create discomfort to India each time there is a prolonged phase of violence.

A discussion in Parliament was overdue and needed to be conducted before the Monsoon Session ended. The Supreme Court had made serious observations asking the government to adopt “a humane approach” to the situation and strike a balance between tackling of violence by the security forces and their targets-cum-victims, the civilian population.

The same day, August 9, Modi indicated a likely change of stance in the government’s approach at a meeting in Madhya Pradesh. During the Rajya Sabha debate, “winning the hearts and minds” of the people of the State was repeatedly stressed. Members specially demanded an alternative to the use of pellets by the security forces that maimed and blinded the protesters, including women and children.

Blindness is worse than death, as some members said. Debates over, the government did not give any assurance that the use of pellets would end. The security forces’ killing of Hizbul Mujahideen militant Burhan Wani has caused an unprecedented situation wherein the Kashmiri youths are not just throwing stones.

They have lethal arms. It is worrisome that they seem to have lost the fear of the security forces judging from the way police and CRPF personnel have been caught and thrashed. Unmoved by the events there and well-meant warnings, the rest of India seems unconcerned. Indeed, we are like the blind people exploring the shape and size of the elephant.

The nation observed its 70th Independence Day this week. The Kashmir issue is as old. To say that India has the territory, held at heavy cost, but not the hearts and minds of the State’s people could invite the charge of being “anti-national,” but that unfortunately, is the reality. No matter which party rules in New Delhi and Srinagar, it has been mishandled.

As for the Pakistan factor, it would be foolish to ignore it. But it would be equally foolish to blame Pakistan alone for what is happening in the Kashmir Valley. Pakistan’s support for Kashmir’s ‘Azadi’ began with the 1947 invasion by Afridi fighters unleashed with British connivance. The governments in New Delhi and Srinagar need to take these factors as the basics while devising any Kashmir strategy.

It took Modi four weeks of turmoil to speak up. He regretted that hands of Kashmiri youths that should be operating laptops were lobbing stones. He did not elaborate on why this had happened and who put the gun, instead of laptop, in the hands of the young.

But he has indicated a broad direction by invoking former Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee on Insaniyat, Kashmiriyat aur jamhooriyat. The words and the spirit behind them are laudable. It is now for Modi and his government to translate them into concrete action.

Interpreting the three words, Insaniyat is already sought by the Supreme Court. The use of force needs to be tampered. Jamhooriyat is there in the form of an elected government. After past elections that were ‘managed’ from Delhi and are at the root of much of the problem in the State, the last few, starting with the one in 2003 under Vajpayee’s NDA regime, credible elections have given genuinely representative governments. The goal of both Modi and Mehbooba should be to strengthen this.

The question of Kashmiriyat, however, is the most complicated part of the problem because BJP and its parent, Bharatiya Jana Sangh, have historically differed with the Congress on this issue. The State has enjoyed (critics say it is badly diluted) special status under Article 370. The Nehru government had devised it because of the special circumstances under which the State acceded to India. The Jana Sangh under Shyama Prasad Mukherjee had opposed it and Mukherjee died during that campaign in Srinagar.

If the Congress carries the historical baggage of giving that special status, the BJP has one, too, of opposing it. Now that it is in power and Modi enjoys a massive parliamentary majority (unlike Vajpayee, when the issue of diluting or repealing Article 370 was held in abeyance), a positive approach needs to be devised, without the jingoism of the past and the present.

It is easier said than done, but the Modi Government will have to decide, if not immediately, over a period. In effect, Kashmiriyat would have to translate into autonomy for the State. When P Chidambaram talked of this last month, he was roundly condemned by the BJP. Assuming that Chidambaram’s proposal was found jarring amidst violence in the Valley, it is time to look it at it dispassionately.

Autonomy is the best bet to resolve the Kashmir imbroglio. It could satisfy the larger aspirations of the people. Satisfying everyone on every issue would be impossible, but if worked out honestly and enforced diligently, it can strengthen the State government and isolate – largely but not completely – the separatists. Its good working would make them redundant.

For this, Modi and BJP are well-placed, sharing power in the State. Since BJP and Mehbooba’s PDP are divided on the Jammu and Kashmir regional lines, Modi would need to reconcile the differences among them and present them a larger picture. The present adversarial relationship between the coalition partners would have to end.

If this is achieved, countering Pakistan and its policy of causing trouble in the Valley by infiltration and propaganda would weaken over a period. It will also secure national borders with Pakistan. This is difficult, but doable. Indeed, doing it, with diligence and effectively, is the only solution.

If Modi plays the statesman, if he can persuade his party and above them, their mentor RSS, then he can hope to hand over laptops to the Kashmiri youths.