feeds from sacw.net
print versionhttp://sacw.net/pipermail/sacw_insaf.net/2000/000648.html
Himal, June 2000
Special Issue on Kashmir
NO DOMINOES WILL FALL
by Balraj Puri
The release of the leaders of the All Party Hurriyat Conference is welcome. But why in the first place were they put under detention, just after the parliamentary election in 1999 were over? And why have they been released in instalments? Union Home Minister L.K. Advani has said that the release was not a casual action but was "an initiative towards peace and normalcy in Kashmir". Citing the example of talks between the Government of India and the Naga rebels and Bodo militants, he expressed his government’s willingness to talk to the militants in Kashmir "on every demand, legitimate or perverse".
Asked about the demand for restoration of pre-1953 position in Jammu and Kashmir, Advani said talks could cover even this aspect, the basic parameter being the need to remain within the Indian Constitution. This is certainly a distinct advance over the traditional Bharatiya Janata Party position, which has held that abrogation of Article 370 is the solution to the Kashmir problem, and over the recent statements by the leaders of the Jammu BJP and by other members of the parivar in which they have equated the demand for autonomy with that of azadi and treason.
But is this advance far enough to the ground where the Hurriyat can reach? Can it afford to accept the terms of settlement that Farooq Abdullah’s National Conference has been demanding from the Centre? There are obvious and formidable difficulties on both sides to changing their declared stands too drastically. Despite much media speculation, not much is known about the groundwork done by mediators preceding the release of the Hurriyat leaders. Yet, some tentative suggestions may be made to whosoever may care to consider them.
The release of the Hurriyat leaders should not necessarily be linked to a settlement, and even if no basis is found for talks they are entitled to remain free unless they break a specific law. In fact, the other political leaders in detention against whom there are no criminal charges should also similarly be released.
Talks at any level should be held without any pre-condition on either side. When prime minister Narasimha Rao, in an earlier time made an offer for unconditional talks, the Hurriyat unfortunately rejected it and demanded trilateral talks which included Pakistan. The fear then was that the offer of unconditional talks might never be repeated. Besides, the suggestion of trilateral talks could be made at the beginning of the bilateral talks with the Centre, so it should not be put forward as an obstacle. Moreover, the Hurriyat leaders could continue to have talks with the Pakistani government through its High Commission in New Delhi, as they had been doing.
This time, the Government of India must be urged not to insist on the condition of the parameter of the Indian Constitution; just as it has set no conditions for talks with the Naga rebels. As the talks begin, the government can try to convince the dissidents why it is not possible or desirable to trascend that parameter. The first item on the agenda, formal or informal or at the track-two level, should be de-escalation of violence on both sides. At the very least, there should be an agreement to end violence against innocents. Let nobody be threatened or killed for religious and political belief.
An atmosphere needs to be created for a multi-layered dialogue on a variety of related problems which were put in a cold storage awaiting final agreement about the status of the state, but which have complicated a settlement on the main problem itself. The question of inter-regional relations within Jammu and Kashmir and return of migrants to the Valley, if tackled, would actually facilitate a discussion on the status of the state.
Unlike the days of Jawaharal Nehru, Indira Gandhi and Sheikh Abdullah, there is no single leader or party in India or in Jammu and Kashmir to take up decisions on behalf of the respective people. Therefore, widespread consultations at the national level (with non-BJP parties) and the state level (with non-Hurriyat parties in Kashmir Valley and the leadership in Jammu and in Ladakh) must proceed on all related issues before a breakthrough is made.
Finally, India-Pakistan talks need not be postponed indefinitely. The recent peace initiatives at the non-official level, one may hope, will recreate the Lahore spirit in which a meaningful dialogue can be resumed between the two estranged neighbors, inseparably linked with shared history and future destiny.
o o o
Frontline
Volume 17 - Issue 02, Jan. 22 - Feb. 04, 2000
COVER STORY
Alienation and the revival of militancy
Militancy in Jammu and Kashmir is sustained in some measure by a sense of alienation among the people of the State and the absence of democratic outlets for popular discontent.
by BALRAJ PURI
sacw.net/pipermail/sacw_insaf.net/2000/000457.html
o o o
http://sacw.net/pipermail/sacw_insaf.net/2004/001977.html
The Times of India - July 30, 2004
KASHMIR ROADMAP: CONGRESS IN DANGER OF LOSING ITS WAY
by Balraj Puri
The Congress-led UPA government has certain advantages over its political predecessor in dealing with the situation in J&K state. Since the Congress, unlike the BJP, not only has a presence in Kashmir valley but also other Muslim-majority parts of the state, it can provide a far better link between the Muslims of the state and the people elsewhere in the country. The party has a similar advantage vis-a-vis other regional Valley-based political outfits, since it exists in all parts of the state and can thus be a fit instrument of emotional integration between its three regions.
However, the UPA government has somehow failed to press home its obvious advantages. Instead, it has managed to further strain its state-level coalition with the PDP. While the Congress is competing with the BJP in catering to the populist sentiment in Jammu, the PDP is competing with the National Conference in the Valley. Two recent instances show how the coalition partners are divided along regional lines. First, a PDP minister supported the public protest against the decision of the State Public Service Commission to reduce the share of the Valley in state administrative services.
Second, Congress ministers resigned in opposition to the reduction of the period of Amarnath yatra from two months to one.
Indeed, all recruitments, promotions and development activities are now being viewed by the coalition partners from the narrow viewpoint of their respective regions. That the state cabinet has not met for almost five months is an eloquent commentary on the way the government is functioning.
While Jammu’s politics has always centred round the issue of regional discrimination or ’Kashmiri domination’, such issues have received a fresh impetus even in the Valley due to two factors. First, as the role of militancy and secessionist politics in articulating popular discontent shrinks, the latter is getting diverted into regional claims and complaints. Second, the presence of the Congress-led government at the Centre has enhanced the weight of the predominantly Jammu-based party in the state coalition.
The first task of the Congress is, therefore, to restore normal governance, and ensure a cohesive and smooth functioning of the cabinet as well as the coordination committee. The latter end is hardly possible in the current situation when a non-resident PCC president also doubles up as president of the coordination committee. Then there is the need to replace the present highly centralised and unitary constitution of the state by a federal and decentralised system to remove the root cause of regional tensions and consequent misgovernance and other complications in state politics.
Jawaharlal Nehru was the first national leader to appreciate and accept my plea for regional autonomy in the state, to prevent what I believed was the explosive potential of regional tensions. On July 24, 1952, he, in the presence - and with the consent - of Sheikh Abdullah, declared at a press conference that "the state government was considering regional autonomies within the larger state". The Praja Parishad, a Jana Sangh-affiliate, rejected the suggestion with a powerful agitation which instead sought the solution of the Jammu problem in the abrogation of Article 370.
Later, the outline of an internal constitution for the state, drafted by me and unanimously adopted by J&K People’s Convention - called by Sheikh Abdullah during his days of estrangement with India in 1968 - provided for regional autonomy and a further devolution of power to districts, blocks and panchayats. This convention had the representation of the entire political spectrum in the Kashmir region. The idea of regional autonomy was also backed by Nehru, Jayaprakash Narayan and the Left parties. But the Jana Sangh strongly denounced the move for "it would benefit only the supporters of Sheikh Abdullah and pro-Pakistan elements".
Before agreeing to handing over power to Sheikh Abdullah in 1975, Indira Gandhi wanted to ensure that he would be acceptable to the people of Jammu. On his part, Abdullah reiterated his commitment to regional auto-nomy at a convention of representatives from Jammu and Ladakh. But when Rajiv Gandhi moved the 73rd constitutional amendment, aimed at ensuring the decentralisation of power from district to the village level, it was not made applicable to J&K state. The Congress-led UPA government should pick up the thread where Nehru, Indira and Rajiv left it; so that power is shared among the three regions of the state and is further devolved to districts, blocks and panchayats.
By now, the people of Jammu are convinced that the abrogation of the Article would not safeguard their interests. Likewise, the people of Kashmir have also learnt that their autonomy and identity cannot be protected until the autonomy and identity of Jammu and Ladakh are guaranteed.
The support in the NDA manifesto for the creation of autonomous regional councils in J&K state, at the obvious behest of the BJP, and the evasive reference to Article 370 in the party’s manifesto - after vilifying the idea of regional autonomy and its sponsors for over 50 years - should facilitate the task of the Congress-led government in federalising and decentralising the
state administration. The committed support of the Left on the issue will, if anything, make things easier. It’s time for the Congress to act.
o o o
https://www.mail-archive.com/sacw@insaf.net/msg00198.html
South Asia Citizens Wire | 23 September, 2004
The Hindustan Times - September 23, 2004 | Op-Ed.
CLEAR THE AIR
Balraj Puri
September 22
Manipur has reminded us again that human rights violations are the surest way to alienate people and consolidate mass support for insurgents. This is true of Kashmir as well. Earlier, when the Hurriyat Conference was united, its leaders had complained that by raising the human rights issue, attention was being diverted from the azadi movement. People were also led to believe that some human sacrifices were inevitable for the cause.
Now when azadi is no more round the corner, separatist groups and mainstream parties vie with one another to protest against incidents of human rights violation. Thus, when the alleged torture of a female student by the police in Handwara on July 9 came to light, there were large-scale protest demonstrations. Forest Minister Sofi Ghulam Mohi-ud-Din, who belongs to the area, offered to resign if he failed to get the culprits punished. Within two days, three special police officers (SPOs) were dismissed and two police officers were attached even as an inquiry was ordered.
Pakistan’s main plank on Kashmir at international fora has been the issue of human rights. India, on the other hand, lays the blame for the turmoil in the state on cross-border terrorism. In reality, terrorism and human rights violations are not two different phenomena. Their victims may, however, be different. While ceasefire between the armed forces and militants may again be attempted and pressure may continue to be exercised on Pakistan to stop export of terrorism, the issue of innocent killings can be isolated from other killings. It can be tackled through mobilisation of opinion within Kashmir, in the rest of the world and even within Pakistan.
As a person who has been monitoring human rights violations in Kashmir since the start of militancy, I had no hesitation in exposing excesses of the security forces, which were more pronounced in the first phase. Such excesses alienated the people, defamed India abroad and undermined the morale of the forces. But while the activities of the human rights activists, national and state human rights commissions, independent judiciary and free media helped in improving discipline among the forces, the new brand of militants, mostly non-Kashmiris who were more brutal, were under no discipline.
The latest phase of militancy, which started in 1998, was marked by a series of mass killings - at Parankote in Udhampur district, Chapanari in Doda, Wandhama in Srinagar, Chattisinghpora in Pulwama, Nandimarg in Anantnag and Kaluchak, Rajiv Nagar and Sunjwan in Jammu. The death toll ranged from 25 to 35 in each case. Their only crime was that they were Hindus or Sikhs. At Kotchadwal in Rajouri and Marah in Poonch, militants killed 15 and 13 Muslims respectively, as they were suspected to be informers of security agencies. Other Muslims killed were members of mainstream parties and their relations. Even secessionist leaders, who developed differences with the Pakistan establishment, were not spared.
That human rights violations continue to be committed by either side is objectively recorded by the Amnesty International. According to its report 2003, the PDP-Congress administration had initially raised hopes that human rights violations in J&K would be a thing of the past. "However, soon afterwards there were reports from Baramulla that security forces opened unprovoked and indiscriminate fire killing one person and injuring two others. Since then, human rights abuses by the security forces and police have continue to be reported almost daily."
The report adds: "[These] persisted at high-level with a reported 344 civilians killed in a targeted and indiscriminate way. Torture, including rape and beating of the civilian population by members of armed political groups (militants), also continued to be reported throughout the year. They failed to abide by standards of international law and many civilians were killed as a result of indiscriminate violence... Militants were also reportedly involved in criminal activities, including extortion."
At one stage, separatist groups attributed the killings of innocent Hindus and Sikhs to the security forces "to defame the freedom movement". When militants killed four tourists at Pahalgam and an engineer of Indian Railways Construction International Limited and his brother in Pulwama and Maulvi Mushtaq, uncle of Mirwaiz Maulvi Umar Farooq, in Srinagar, the identity of the killers was evident to all. But when three buildings of an Islamic school run by Mirwaiz, along with rare documents and books, were set ablaze, there were oblique references to the culprits.
Eventually, differences developed even within the militant camp. When Harkat-ul-Mujahideen was involved in a case of torture and rape of one Mariam in Doda, the Hizbul Mujahideen is reported to have asked the reason. It was told, "You fellows are too soft. You start vomiting when we give such treatment to an informer. We know that Mariam was not an informer but her brother was."
Pakistan is becoming impatient for a solution to Kashmir. Instead of evading a discussion on Kashmir and human rights violations, India should insist on making it the first item of the agenda. It is time to relax a ban on Amnesty International work in J&K, at least on a case-to-case basis. A word of condemnation by such an organisation will carry far more weight in the rest of the world than a diplomatic campaign by the Indian government.
In the first phase, India and Pakistan should agree to condemn killings of non-combatant and unarmed civilians for their religious or political beliefs by either the militants or the security forces. This should be followed by similar condemnation of collateral damage in armed operations, that is killing of innocents in cross-firing or Eid blasts that are aimed at the security forces. Finally, complete withdrawal by the militants and the return of the army to the barracks. Then would the stage be set for a discussion on the political aspects of the problem.
o o o
https://www.mail-archive.com/sacw@insaf.net/msg00471.html
Deccan Herald
June 21, 2006
CHALLENGES IN KASHMIR
By Balraj Puri
Power devolution to J&K and its regions is a logical step forward within constitution
The Prime Minister’s suggestion at the second round table conference of power sharing among the regions of Jammu and Kashmir was perhaps the significant move for internal reform. Regional imbalances and the Centre-State relations add to complications prevailing in the state. Conscious
of this fact I pleaded for recognition of regional identities with Nehru in my meeting with him on April 14, 1952. I also reminded him that "the greatest problem of the state is to maintain cordial relations between its constituent units."
On the eve of Nehru-Abdullah agreement on Centre-State regions in July 1952, called the Delhi Agreement, I reiterated my demand for regional autonomy. The Prime Minister announced a press conference on July 24, 1952, in the presence of Abdullah that "the state government was considering regional autonomies within the larger state."
Regional identities
Unfortunately the Nehru-Abdullah agreement was opposed by the Bhartiya Jana Sangh, Hindu Maha Sabha and Ram Rajya Parishad and their ideological protégé the Jammu Praja Parishad which neither recognized regional identities nor a distinct identity of Kashmir. They started an agitation for abrogation of Article 370 of the Constitution, which guaranteed autonomy of the state within India and withdrawal of commitment to regional autonomy in November 1952.
Dr SP Mukerjee, founder president of the Bhartiya Jana Sangh, who led the agitation was arrested on entering the state. However, Mukerjee offered on February 17, 1953, to withdraw the ongoing agitation in Jammu and accept the Delhi Agreement "if the principle of autonomy would apply to Jammu as a whole and of course also to Ladakh and Kashmir." This was precisely the assurance I got from Nehru and Abdullah.
However Mukerjee’s death triggered demonstrations by Hindu parties in Jammu and some towns of north India demanding "quatil Abdullah ko phansi do" (hang Abdullah, the murderer). This caused a great provocation among Kashmiri Muslims who thought that they had fought against Pakistan, a Muslim country to join India and now their leader was called a murderer. This was one of the factors that alienated Abdullah, who sought options other than India, leading to his dismissal and detention. Thus the first emotional rupture between Kashmir and the rest of India was caused.
State’s autonomy
The Jana Sangh resumed its opposition to the state’s and regional autonomy, which added further complications to the Kashmir problem. In October 1968, Sheikh Abdullah, as leader of the Plebiscite Front convened the J&K State People’s Convention to discuss the future of the state. It was inaugurated by Jayaprakash Narayan. The Sheikh accepted my plea to discuss the future of regions ahead of the state’s future.
Being the only member on the convention’s steering committee from Jammu, I was asked to draft an internal constitution of the state that pleaded for a five tier constitutional set up for the state apart from regional autonomy. The formula envisaged further devolution of power to the districts, blocks and Panchayat.
Delegates of the convention, Kashmir valley’s most represented political gathering, unanimously accepted the draft constitution. The Praja Parishad and its patron the Jana Sangh rejected the draft constitution as it would strengthen disintegrating forces.
The state government-appointed Regional Autonomy Committee (headed by me) was another defining exercise. Studying various experiments in India and abroad, I had discussions with top experts of international law and social scientists of the country. The draft report more precisely defined powers at various tiers of the administration. It also called for safeguarding interests of every ethnic identity in the state and prescribed an eight point formula for objective and equitable allocation of funds at various levels. It may not be the final word, but could be the basis for further discussion.
o o o
https://www.mail-archive.com/sacw@insaf.net/msg00464.html
The Times of India
May 30, 2006
KEEP TALKING
Balraj Puri
Prime minister Manmohan Singh was greeted by deserted streets in Srinagar when he went there to hold the round-table conference. Neither he nor his predecessor had received such a hostile reception in recent years.
Obviously the hostility was not directed against him but against the round-table. Throughout Singh’s stay, militant attacks continued. Apart from the security establishments, the targets included 13 civilians and tourists.
The month had, in fact, started with a massacre of 36 civilians, all Hindus, in a single day in the hilly areas of Jammu. It had shocked people all over the state.
First, the magnitude of killings was almost unprecedented. Second, the tragedy had followed a period of comparative lull. The April by-elections were the most peaceful polls ever held since the onset of militancy in Kashmir.
The record polling was no less due to cooperation of militants. This was acknowledged by candidates of mainstream parties. Even the separatist parties recognised the legitimacy of the election.
They argued that people who pay taxes had a right to elect their representatives who would monitor how their tax money was spent.
The conclusions drawn by policy-makers that the elections showed that people were reconciled to recognise the authority of elected representatives to decide the future of the state was strongly resented by the people and separatist parties.
But nobody in New Delhi had an idea of this resentment and the strong reservations regarding participation in the round-table. In fact, government was hopeful that separatists, particularly the Hurriyat led by Mirwaiz, would participate in discussions.
Again, there was an element of mystery about the way Hurriyat postponed its decision till a day before the round-table started. Did it wait to see popular reaction and the militants’ position?
In any case, the failure to anticipate the Hurriyat’s decision is fairly obvious. The conference, however, noted the importance of tackling violence.
The PM’s commitment to zero tolerance to human rights violations is categorical and, therefore, welcome in this context. However, one must rethink the division between violence committed by security forces and terrorists.
The nature of act is more important than who commits it. In no case, abuses by one side are a justification or a provocation by the other to commit similar excesses.
There could even be joint watchdog committees to carry on a campaign against excesses by either side. The time is also ripe for India to remove restrictions on international human rights bodies like Amnesty International and Asia Watch.
Demilitarisation, initially mooted by President Pervez Musharraf, and supported by some mainstream parties in Kashmir also needs to be discussed.
At the start of the peace process, he had assured that Pakistan would not be used for cross-border terrorism. Now he assures that infiltration would stop if India accepts demilitarisation.
Does the new condition imply that Pakistan is no longer in a position to check activities of militants? Its implications should be debated.
Finally, the round-table decided to set up a working group to study concrete measures to evolve harmonious relations between the regions of the state, first recognised by the Delhi agreement between Jawaharlal Nehru and Sheikh Abdullah in 1952.
Regional tensions have been the main source of vitiating Centre-state relations and creating other complications. The PM said that the working group would "deal with effective devolution of power among different regions to meet regional, sub-regional and ethnic aspirations for ensuring good governance and forging efficient ties between Srinagar and New Delhi".
Studies already done on the subject could be the basis for such an exercise. An offer may be made to separatists to either cooperate with such official exercises or to interact in parallel fora.
A dialogue on an appropriate system to remove internal tensions and to create harmony within the state is not only essential but also a prerequisite for a solution to the Kashmir problem.
The writer was an invitee to the round-table conference on Kashmir.
- Gun Culture Haunts Kashmir
- by Balraj Puri
Appeared in the Times of India 20 may 2006
[scanned for sacw.net archive]
