BY RAM PUNIYANI

After two successful, democratically held elections, it is perhaps time for the Indian army to retreat from Kashmir. Also, army men found guilty of violence against locals must be punished.

ON MAY 29, 2009 in Shopian Kashmir, two girls, Nilofer and Asiya, were raped and murdered although the administration tried to pass it off death due to drowning. The valley erupted with protests with their favourite slogan of several years, “Hamen kya chahiye? Azadi!” (What do we want? Freedom!). Every time there is injustice in the valley, the people repeat this old demand. The last time the people demanded freedom was at an agitation before the Amarnath Yatra when the pro BJP governor proposed that a vast stretch of land be acquired for the shrine.

The present incident of rape and murder is very disturbing as it exposes the role of the army, paramilitary forces and in attempting to cover up the crimes of the armed forces. This is very insulting to the people of Kashmir, especially considering the tragic plight of the Kashmiris, more so the Kashmiri women, at the hands of people with guns - both the militants and the army. The rising militancy in Kashmir has led to the deployment of a large number of armed forces into Kashmir and in the last two decades in particular, we have seen hundreds of lives lost and have heard of the untold sufferings of people caught in the cross-fire of militant-terrorist outfits and the Indian armed personnel.

SEPARATISM

THE popular perception is that the Kashmir issue is due to the separatism of Muslims and the major culprits of this separatism is Islam and Jihad. Kashmir has been mired at the very beginning by the ultra nationalism of Hindu right-wingers pressuring the Indian government to abolish Article 370 and fully merge Kashmir with India. After the tragic partition of India, Kashmir’s Raja Harisingh decided to remain independent. Hindutva forces in the valley said that a Hindu kingdom Kashmir (since the king was a Hindu) should not merge with secular India.

When Pakistan’s army, disguised as tribals, attacked Kashmir, the people of Kashmir, represented by the National Conference led by Sheikh Abdullah, did not want to merge with Pakistan. In the face of aggression, Maharaja Harisingh appealed to the Indian government to send its army to protect Kashmir from the attack by the Pakistan army. At the insistence of Sheikh Abdullah in particular, the army was sent after the Treaty of Accession was signed. With the Indian army’s intervention, two-thirds of Kashmir became part of India with all the clauses of autonomy under Article 370. At the general elections, Sheikh Abdullah swept the polls and became the chief minister of Kashmir. He must be credited as being one of the most progressive leaders of the time as he was determined to undertake land reforms, which he did once he came to power.

MERGER

IMMEDIATELY after the Treaty was signed, Shyama Prasad Mukherjee, the leader of Hindu Mahasabha, started campaigning to abolish the clauses of autonomy and forcible merger of Kashmir with India. This pressure had its own effect on the change in attitude of Indian Government which, over a period of time, hardened towards the autonomy clauses. With the development of such an attitude, Sheikh Abdullah began to regret his decision of accession and did a rethink and started talking to several countries, including the US and China whereby the Indian government declared him anti-national and imprisoned him for many years which, in turn, led to the alienation of the Kashmiri people. On one hand, Kashmir has been victim to global imperialist policy and on the other, attempts have been made to go back on the promise of autonomy. The US was clear that in a geographically crucial area, Kashmir which shares borders with many countries, could be left alone and so Pakistan did everything possible to help disgruntled elements in Kashmir to create trouble in the valley. Later events highlighted the inclination of India and Pakistan as powers trying to grab the real estate called Kashmir, which was not viewed as a land constituted by people with their own aspirations, but as a piece of property.

PANDIT NEHRU

IN all fairness, it must be admitted that till Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru was alive, he cautioned restraint and believed in winning over the hearts and minds of the people of Kashmir. For even during his tenure, pressure of ultra nationalists inside and outside the government was prevalent and the army was gradually projected as the answer to solving the problem in Kashmir. Ironically, Pakistan (which so far has been in chains under the rule of its army, its mullahs and America), named the part of Kashmir under its control as Azad Kashmir (Independent Kashmir)! And freedom for the remaining part of Kashmir - under India’s jurisdiction - has been the favourite theme of most of the dictators ruling the roost in Pakistan, of course with due support from Uncle Sam. What an irony; dictators talking of freedom! The trajectory of events is long - Sheikh Abdullah’s concern of autonomy changed to independence in the 1970s. Thereafter, in 1980-1990 it transformed to an armed struggle for Azad Kashmir.

Interestingly, after the defeat of Al Qaeda elements in Afghanistan, many of them turned their attention to Kashmir and partly communalised the issue. The theme of the Kashmir struggle has mostly been Kashmiriyat, a concept which incorporates the values of Vedanta, Buddha and Sufis.

SIGNS OF CHANGE

INDIA kept sending more and more armed personnel to ‘solve’ the problem of Kashmir which resulted in the ratio of one Indian soldier for every 6-7 Kashmiris. What can life be under such circumstances when an army should fight an enemy and move on and not stay on in any particular place for a long duration? When an army dominates an area for a long period of time there are deep rooted problems since no army is a holy cow! From times immemorial, apart from other activity, an army plunders and rapes though it is wrong to tar all the armed personnel with a single brush, it is also true that a section of the army’s behaviour towards women has not been too gentlemanly to write home about. Whether it is the case of Manorama in the north-east or the case of Nilofer and Asiya in the north-west, the tales are tragic.

The good news from Kashmir valley is that the last two elections have been conducted fairly democratically and even the separatists, like Sajjad Lone, are now opting for a democratic system with a changed equation in Pakistan with emerging democracy there, however, fragile. These are healthy signs. It is time that the army is withdrawn immediately and sent back to its barracks rather than continue the havoc in Kashmir. The government must push forth a democratic process in the valley and those guilty of violence against women and their protectors must be punished. Let us hope the Home Minister’s promise does not remain merely on paper.