|
It
is astounding that American Kashmiris have been able to pass-off
terrorism in Kashmir as some kind of a freedom struggle. But, what
is more intriguing is that You-Know-Who – the so-called leader of
the global war against terror – perhaps, seems to be buying the
argument. Kashmiri American, Ghulam Nabi Fai – he has been
actively raising funds and sending money to Kashmir to fuel
militancy -- of the Kashmiri American Council, has well-built
Pakistani links and is associated with the fundamentalist
Jamaat-e-Islami. He has been advocating a role for separatist
Kashmiri leadership in any future dialogue between India and
Pakistan.
Fai is being
mentioned in the both political and diplomatic circles, both in New
Delhi and Washington with alarming frequency for his extremely
pro-active role and is known to have garnered tacit support for
various influential Senators, Congressmen, lobbyists, and of course
two very influential think-tanks – Centre for Strategic and
International Studies and Stimson Center – to name a few, for his
sinister plans to bring about partition of J&K on communal
lines.
IN THE LAST
WEEK OF MAY, this year a high level delegation of the You-Know-Who
Embassy, New Delhi comprising of Political Counsellor, Mathew G
Boyse, Secretary Political Affairs, William P. Hurd met JKLF leader
Yasin Malik for over an hour. The specifics of what exactly
transpired is not exactly know, however it is reliably learnt that
the discussion widely revolved around the specifics of the “Chenab
Plan”. That this was more than a routine meeting assumes
significance from the fact that straight away after this
not-so-secret meeting, JKLF embarked on a signature campaign to
ascertain the wished of the people of Kashmir. Is there a
connection?
Overall, emboldened
by an overwhelming response from You-Know-Who, APHC has, meanwhile,
decided to open its branches in United States and some European
countries, Middle East and Far East. It has been reliably learnt
that moves are afoot to rope in prominent non-resident Kashmiri
leaders who are actively working for the Kashmir cause to head the
offices in New York, London, Toronto, Brussels, Kualalumpur, Jeddah,
etc.
Did I hear you ask, where the ideologue of the militant outfit,
Hizb-ul-Mujahadeen, Syed Ali Shah Geelani is these days? Well, he
is certainly not hiding. Geelani has been simply asked by the
friends of You-Know-Who to lie low for sometime. He has no role,
whatsoever, to play at this stage. Stage I of the act – to arm
twist India led by BJP in making maximum concessions on Kashmir –
is strictly for those who qualify a peaceniks in the so-called
‘movement’. It will only be after the Stage I is a resounding
success – Muslim majority areas of J&K are accorded a
quasi-sovereign status – that the services of the likes of
Geelani’s are likely to be pressed into service.
Building on the
success of Stage I, the role of hawkish elements like Geelani, would
involve capitalising on the gains, to launch a radical program,
which would pave the way for the integration – yes – of Kashmir
with Pakistan. Amen! After all, the integration of a
‘semi-independent’ Kashmir with Pakistan should be cakewalk.
There you see Mr. Geelani all smiles. Need I say more?
THAT THESE
HECTIC BEHIND the scene parleys may be finally have paid dividends
became evident on June 13, 2003 when the India Deputy Prime
Minister, L K Advani, in a lecture delivered at Chicago, said that
India was ready for a “compromise” on J&K. His give-and-take
talk to achieve peace must have surely brought 1000-watt smiles on
the faces of APHC and company. And, more importantly the
You-Know-Who administration, who, it seems, played an important role
in impressing upon him (Advani) the need to give a little more
leeway to Pakistan on Kashmir so that they can tone down the jehadi
elements in Pakistan. How else can one, otherwise explain the
placatory sound-bites of Advani, who is known for his hard-line
gospel on Kashmir and has, time and again, advocated the abrogation
of article 370, which gives special status to the only
Muslim-majority Indian State.
His conciliatory
pep talk has made peaceniks very happy, indeed. Not to be left
behind, even the warmongers are feeling ‘glad’. President
Musharraf – in his own words – is “ very glad that he (Advani)
is prepared to make ‘compromises’ on Kashmir.”
In the whole
episode it is not difficult to comprehend the ‘give part’ as far
as India is concerned. That is easy. But, what is India going to get
in return? Probably, peace of mind? Will the Man of Iron, L K Advani
– mind you even iron rusts – please care to explain the ‘take
part’ to the people of this country.
The groundwork for
adopting a more conciliatory approach – in line with the wishes of
You-Know-Who – was set rolling as early as March this year, when
Advani hinted at some kind of a compromise deal. He said – while
referring to the brief of N N Vohra – that he (Vohra) among other
things would “explore the option of devolution of greater powers
to the state (J&K).” Now, purely from BJP’s point of view,
why should you do that; that is if ‘principles’ which you swear
to stand by mean anything to you? After all, abrogation of the
controversial article 370 is very much on its agenda (at least that
is what we are given to understand, and led to believe). You cannot
do away with article 370 due to the compulsions of the coalition
politics – that is understandable. But, why should BJP undertake
an exercise – devolve more powers to J&K – which will make
abrogation of article 370 next to impossible, that is, if BJP is
sincere about its past commitments.
There is more.
Advani in the same statement noted that there was a strong case for
devolution of more powers to the states, more so far J&K ……
which has (have) a ‘special history’, which must be taken note
of. Special history? What special history are we talking about? Even
the Nawabs and the Nizams – Advani loves Sardar Patel for cutting
them to size – or for that matter even Scindia’s of Gwalior have
a ‘special history’. So, what about them? His changed script –
at the behest of You-Know-Who – not only belittles his own gospel,
but also is a sure-short recipe for disaster, which can only lead to
the balkanisation of India. Just because J&K is a
Muslim-majority state does in no way mean that it has a ‘special
history.’
THE BIG PROBLEM,
BOTH for Vajpayee and Advani is that they cannot undo the history of
its own party, especially BJP’s predecessor, Bharateeya Jan Sangh,
who played an instrumental role in 1952. Teaming up with Praja
Parishat, in those days the political front of the Sangh in Jammu
& Kashmir, BJS agitated against the special status to the state
of J&K; and had to pay a profound price in the death of Dr.
Shyama Prasad Mukherjee, the founder-president of the party, in
Srinagar jail. He died under dubious circumstances, after being
incarcerated there for having led a batch of satyagrahis defying the
ban on his entry into the State.
It seems – again,
purely from BJP’s point of view – that they are willing to
forget even the sacrifices of its own founder President – Shyam
Babu he was popularly called -- for which I am sure they are not
going to earn any brownie points.
MEANWHILE
MUSHARRAF IS TURNING out to be a “big pain in the ass” for
the Indian establishment, especially the PMO. While I write this,
Musharraf has extracted a whopping – five year -- $3 billion
package from You-Know-Who, half which goes for the defence (George,
are u listening?) matters, for Pakistan’s cooperation in the
global war against terror; this is what you call a win-win
situation. But that is not the only cause of worry for New Delhi. It
is his ‘K’ remark that is making India uneasy.
Musharraf has not
only justified Kargil war in the most explicit way, a head of the
state can, but even remains non-committal about another Kargil-like
invasion, in the near future. Not only that, he even made the threat
all the more explicit when he said that ‘its only when peace
fails, violence occurs in “any form”’. Any form, mind you!
Interesting. (Seema Mustafa of Asian Age will perhaps not agree with
my interpretation, which has perhaps, more to do with the fact that
she is interacting far too often with Ram Jethmalani, President of
the India Chapter of PML – QA)
Talk of Kargil, and
this sends our Prime Minister, Vajpayee in frenzy. He just cannot
stand the ‘K’ word. Coming this time from the horse’s mouth
– Musharraf is considered to be the architect of the Kargil war
– Vajpayee lost his cool. And made those famous remarks that
Pakistan is preparing for a “fourth defeat”. Fourth defeat? I
thought it should have been fifth, that is if one includes the
Kargil war. Perhaps, Vajpayee does not consider the outcome –
pushing back of Pakistani army onto the LoC – as a victory. How
very enlightening! Thanks.
ONE OF THE
PROBLEMS FOR the Indian establishment has been its inability to
'define' the Kashmir issue. The specifics and dynamics of the vexed
Kashmir issue are far more deep rooted that the usual attempts to
define concerns, and the controversies, that are being passed off as
realities. Kashmir – as an issue – is fundamentally a symbol of
ideological dispute between Indian and Pakistan over the success or
failure of the two-nation theory (Muslims and Hindus can not
coexist) on the basis of which Pakistan was established as a
separate entity for the Muslims of the undivided India.
The separation of
the East Pakistan and creation of Bangladesh, over 20-years-ago, did
demonstrate that, at times, regionalism could prevail over religious
cohesiveness as a binding force. But, India, tends to overemphasise
the significance of this more-than-20-year-old event –
conveniently, perhaps – to justify the success mantra of her
rejection of the two-nation theory, which served as the basis for
the establishment of a pluralistic society and polity, with India
ending up having more Muslims than Pakistan has (No offence meant).
So whose
ideological theory – India’s or Pakistan’s – is right, and
will prevail at the end of the day? The answer to his
more-than-56-year-old question – unfortunately lies in the
resolution of the vexed Kashmir issue. Should J&K – the only
Muslim majority state of the Indian union – continue to remain
with India, the Indian position is reinforced, ideologically
speaking.
However, should it
happen that Muslim-majority areas of the state of J&K accede to
Pakistan or gain freedom (theoretically the degree of freedom is not
of consequence), that is where things start to get tricky, very
tricky, not only for the Indian establishment but for a very
important component of our pluralistic society – the Indian
Muslims. The scenario would mean that the underlying principle, on
the basis of which India was founded, would hold no meaning, and
hence become null and void. What does that mean? It means that after
56 years India has come around to accept the Pakistan’s
ideological stand that Muslims and Hindus cannot coexist.
However, two-nation
theory cannot – should not be – be selectively applied (to
J&K). And that is where the most painful part comes into play.
It would be unfortunate that for the actions of the Kashmiri Muslims
(here and hereafter I am generalising for the sake of theoretical
simplicity), Indian Muslims will end up paying a price? The price
would be that they would lose the right to be a part of the Indian
society. And, as such, should India lose J&K because of the
Muslim character of the state, Indian Muslims – in 1947 they had
choice, whether to remain in India or Pakistan – have no choice
but to transport themselves to Pakistan.
In other words, to
put it plainly, Pakistan will end up getting what it wanted the most
all these years – Kashmir. But it does not come alone. Islamabad
will also have to accept Muslims from other parts of India. What we
are looking at is second partition? That is what we are looking at
should India have to part ways with Kashmir, in any form. The future
of the Indian Muslims is very much – whether we like it or not –
linked to how events unfold hereafter in J&K; and more
importantly, the way the Kashmiri Muslims conduct themselves will
have a deep bearing on how Hindu-majority Indian look at their
Muslim brethren.
Are some half
forgotten lessons of the past becoming relevant again? The above
scenario would mean many things (to interpret correctly, I lack both
the authority and competence) but the most important would be that
the unfinished business of the partition would be finally over.
And, India and
Pakistan lived happily ever after?
POSTSCRIPT:
Kashmiri Muslims accepted, in principle, the two-nation theory in
1989-90, when in a well-planned and executed pogrom of the minuscule
Kashmiri Pundit minority – who lent pluralistic charter to the
society and polity in Kashmir – was made to flee the Valley and
seek refuge in the “Hindu-majority” parts of India. (JKLF, who
these days pose as peaceniks, was instrumental in killing hundreds
of KP’s).
Why has India
chosen to remain silent over ‘this’ acceptance of the two-nation
theory, which rubbishes the ‘principle’ and ‘values’ on
which the Republic of India stands? To answer this (question), I
again am constrained to say, I lack both authority and competence. |
