To See an End of Blood Bath in Kashmir by Amit Chakraborty

TO SEE AN END OF BLOOD BATH IN KASHMIR

by Amit Chakraborty

In last few years, may be six or seven, many resolutions have been passed
either in the association of Civil Liberty Movement Activists, Human Right
Activists or Women Right Activists of the subcontinent and or similar
international community in different fora in the world arena and the
sub-continent. All such resolutions are repetitive in nature and in the main
urge upon all the parties concerned to eschew violence and sit for
negotiated settlement through BI-partite and tri-partite dialogues while
ensuring civil and democratic rights of the people concerned. There was no
dearth of serious concern followed by good wishes for the plight of Jammu &
Kashmir and its people and the animus relationship between the two immediate
neighbours in all these well-drafted, well-articulated resolutions.

However, can all the good wishes of all the saner people over the
subcontinent or so to say of the world community put 'Humpty Dumpty'
together again? I am referring to the ground realities in Jammu & Kashmir
including the other part across the line of control. Senior civil
libertarian like Balraj Puri spelt out such despair in his conversation with
Communalism Combat (Nov.'99 issue) when he commented Ñ I now fear the
political eclipse and redundancy of saner voices such as mine in such a
situation.â The ground realities in Jammu & Kashmir including the other
part across the line of control had a great, if not the greatest, fall from
the normalcy during last ten or twelve years. And is continuing to fall to
an abysmal low.

What are the ground realities in Kashmir now? It has become the blood
haunting playground of Indian army, police and security forces on the one
hand and the militants backed by Pakistan on the other. The militants are
also aided and abetted by the religious fundamentalists based in Pakistan.
Thousands of people were killed; many more are now being killed almost daily
in the crossfire of the forces and the militants. Loss to public and private
property has been immense. Rape and molestation of women is not considered
here as a crime to humanity but a method to subdue the adversaries. Ongoing
militancy, torture and violence perpetrated by the militants, security and
armed forces have caused a situation of death and destruction all around the
valley.

In such a scenario of death and destruction all around, movements on
democratic issues have totally been redundant. One can mark only a sort of
feeble stir in the civil society of the valley on issues of human right
concerning brutal murder and disappearance of the people, torture in the
army barracks, rape and molestation of the women. Alienation of the common
people from the movements on democratic and human right issues appears total
and complete. Nevertheless, their grievances and agonies have made them more
and more supportive for the militants and adversaries of the Indian rule and
connection. One-time leaders of the mass movements in the valley, who
suffered a lot in the hands of the army and the administration, have little
or no mass base now. Their movements and political stands are now
controlled, even dictated by the militants. Kashmir valley today is passing
through a situation where fundamentalist militant violence is taking on the
semi-fascist and fundamentalist state violence. The straight way fight
between these two violence do not allow any space nor any scope to
non-violent democratic movements. Mere good wishes for developing democratic
movements or passing some resolutions to that effect can hardly win any
space for the development of a vibrant civil society in the valley today.
Had the violence been eschewed by any of the confronting parties, at least
for the time being, there would have been some scope and space for
developing democratic movements in the valley. Such a possibility, if not
impossible, appears to be a distant reality at present.

Source of violence

Violence is the basic characteristic of the militants. Militancy can not
sustain by giving up violence. On the other hand state by nature becomes
violent when its authority is challenged, its system is at stake, when
reconciliation of the contradictions is impossible within the organisms of
state mechanism. In the present situation none of the two confronting
parties in the valley i.e., the militants and the state of India can be
expected to give up violence at the cost of their own existence.

Government of India is having total control on the maximum part of earlier
princely state of Jammu & Kashmir, including the valley as a whole for more
than 52 years. But, fact remains that in spite of its total control,
Government of India failed miserably to legitimise its role to the people of
the valley. The population of the valley, predominantly a Muslim population
can not consider India anything other than an aggressor. (On the basis of
1981 Census 63.96% population of Jammu and Kashmir is Muslim; In the valley
it is 90%, in Ladakh it is 48% and in Jammmu 34%). Exploitation,
unemployment, poverty, starvation, illiteracy, lack of common welfare
facilities for the people and corruption & nepotism of the persons at the
helm of government and state affairs in Jammu and Kashmir are almost similar
to the rate of those social vices as prevalent in other parts of India. Save
and except the secessionist approach and attitude in parts of North East
India, such deceit of the common people developed some sort of democratic
and political movement in other parts of India. However, barring some
periodic and sporadic instances, all these movements, in the main, led to
assertion in the ballot boxes during the parliament and assembly elections.
However, in Kashmir valley the story was different. All these social vices
have alienated the common people increasingly from India as a whole. For
this all credits are due to the possessive and occupant role of the State of
India and its lack of confidence in the people of Kashmir combined with
PakistanÇs persistent endeavour for fanning the fire of discontent among the
people of the valley and the allurement of Islamic brotherhood. In the
valley what started as Kashmiri protest movementÇhas increasingly been
epitomised by a Pakistani Muslim flavour.Ç " Just like the RSS and BJP
have assumed the sole monopoly on the Indian point of view. On both sides
extremists have taken over." (Quoted from the renderings of Balraj Puri
published in November issue of CC.)

This specificity of the valley acted as the seedbed for germination of
religious fundamentalism in Kashmir, hitherto a land of non-orthodox
religious minded simple common people under the influence of Sufi variety of
Islamic school of religion. In the given backdrop of role of India as an
occupant state in the valley religious fundamentalism can find natural
outburst in militancy and militancy only. More so, when it is aided,
abetted, guided and controlled by the forces and fissures from across the
border. Some of us try to make out some distinction between militants and
religious fundamentalists. But in valley to day no such distinction is
visible.

Talks and Negotiation

Civil Society movement activists like us insist for talks and negotiation
between the confronting parties to ensure a negotiated settlement on Kashmir
problem. When two forces interact with each other at some angularity there
can be a new resultant force as per rule of parallelogram of forces. The new
resultant force will have its character altogether different from those of
the interacting forces. In socio-political science also, when two different
social forces, having some common point of angularity in between them,
interact with each other, the resultant force emerges in the shape of
negotiated settlement.
However in Kashmir, confronting forces are acting against each other
straightway in opposite direction. They do not have any common angular point
in between them. How there can be a negotiated settlement when there is no
common angularity in between them?

Let us take the case of Pakistan and India:

Both India and Pakistan are desirous to have Kashmir, as part of it's own.
The same and identical desire of the two countries has made them involved in
wars repeatedly. Latest being the ålimited warÇ or åwarlike situationÇ in
Kargil. There will be no war and that India and Pakistan will resolve all
the problems between them including Kashmir problem through bilateral
negotiations sounds quite optimistic. Pakistan demands for inclusion of
Kashmir problem in the negotiation. Whereas India's stand point for the
basis of bilateral negotiation is the 'Simla Agreement', signed between the
two the than Prime ministers in the year 1972, where Kashmir problem finds
no specific mention. India considers Kashmir problem to be its internal
problem and there can be no role of Pakistan in solving the problem. It has
termed Pakistan to be the perpetrator of åProxy WarÇ in Kashmir. Of late
India has declared that if Pakistan does not end its åProxy WarÇ in Kashmir
there will be no dialogue with Pakistan. Under the circumstances can there
be any negotiated settlement on Kashmir issue between India and Pakistan?

India and Kashmiri Militants

When India and Pakistan fought for the first time in the year 1948-49
for annexation of Kashmir to their respective homeland, United Nations
adopted a few resolutions for enforcing Cease-fire in Kashmir. These
resolutions called for solution of the Kashmir problem in accordance with
the wishes of the people of Kashmir to be read through a plebiscite. The
Militants want to secede from India to join with Pakistan. So holding of
plebiscite in Jammu and Kashmir is their only demand. How Government of
India, who considers Jammu and Kashmir to be an integral part of India, can
enter into negotiation with the militants for holding plebiscite in Kashmir?
Militants are also never in a mood to enter into dialogues with Government
of India. They feel that if they enter into dialogue with Government of
India they will have to eschew violence and thereby cut the blood vessels of
their very existence. They are also fearful of being outwitted by the mighty
diplomacy of the Government of India.

However, at the constant pressure from White House the Indian government has
now released the top All Parties Hurriyat Conference (APHC) leaders of
Kashmir and also started preparing for talks with them. As the report goes,
the Indian government has already chosen a team of experts who would talk to
the APHC leaders. The APHC leadership is in a state of confusion and is
sharply divided over the issue of talks with the Indian government. It finds
itself in a tight corner as it cannot afford to overlook the American pressures to
start negotiations with Delhi nor is it prepared to negotiate with the
latter within the provisions of the Indian constitution. We have also seen
reports that the militants have issued åFatwaÇ to the APHC leadership
against any talks with the Government of India. If there be any negotiated
settlement between the APHC and Govt. of India at all without the sanction
of the militants, it goes without saying that, the same wonÇt be able to
solve the problems of militancy, religious fundamentalism and violence in
Kashmir.

Possible solutions of Kashmir problem

When we talk about negotiated settlement of Kashmir problem we definitely
visualise some possible solutions of the problem. But we need to explore the
acceptability of those solutions among the parties concerned.

1. Holding Plebiscite as per the UN Resolution of 5 January,1949 :

UN resolution for plebiscite had two options only. The people of Jammu and
Kashmir could decide either to join with Pakistan or with India. In the
resolution there was no scope for deciding in favour of free and independent
Kashmir. åRight to Self DeterminationÇ of the people of Kashmir became
limited within the two choices of either joining with Pakistan or India.
There were many more conditions and directions in the resolution to be
carried over by the Government of India and Pakistan which they never
obliged. The UN appointed administrator for holding plebiscite; the
Governments of India and Pakistan never could come into agreement for
implementing the decision of plebiscite. While Pakistan was demanding
immediate implementation of the plebiscite decision, India fought all out to
make it conditional to the withdrawal of Pakistani army from the parts of
erstwhile princely state of Jammu and Kashmir. Subsequently India and
Pakistan carried on with concerted initiatives to naturalise the parts of
Jammu and Kashmir, annexed by them, with their respective mainland.
International communities also became divided in their opinion on Kashmir
issue. However, after 51 years of passing the UN resolution, as the
situation stands now, the original resolution in its entirety hardly can
solve the dispute. Neither it can satisfy all the parties of dispute,
including the people of the valley, Jammu, Ladakh and Pakistan occupied
parts of Kashmir. The UN resolution for plebiscite, not in its entirety, has
a popular support in Pakistan. Such support for the resolution is not
available in India.

2. Division of Kashmir between India and Pakistan along the existing Line of
Control :

UK and USA first mooted such a proposal jointly on 9 April 1963. It was
strongly opposed by the than Prime Minister of India, Jawaharlal Nehru and
also by Pakistan. As a result, UK and USA both regretted for their proposal
and assured to co-operate the BI-partite process of negotiation for solution
of the problem.
Neither India nor Pakistan can officially agree to a solution like division
of Kashmir between the two countries along the LOC, as it exists now,
permanently. Division of Punjab and Bengal during partition, as the history
illustrates, brought on catastrophic experience in the sub-continent.
Division of Kashmir will also make way for repetition of the same traumatic
historical experience. However, this is not the reason for the unwillingness
of the political leadership of the two countries to accept such proposal.
Fact remains that the political leadership of both the countries, either in
power or aspiring power, has always established the task of freeing the
other part of Kashmir as a sacred patriotic task. In order to fulfil this
sacred task the leadership of the two countries has generated a systematic
campaign of malice and hatred against the other. As a result, 'liberation'
or 'salvation' of the other part of Kashmir has been epitomized as the index
figure of åpatriotismÇ and 'national chauvinismÇ in both the countries.
Common people of the two countries are swayed by these feelings. Whatever be
the ground realities, if any of the political leadership in the two
countries accepts LOC as the permanent border of Kashmir between India and
Pakistan he will risk, as the case may be, loosing the political power or
achieving it.
A section of the intelligentsia and ruling elite in both the countries may
opt for such a solution. But the general public opinion will not be in a
mood to accept this solution.

3. Giving away the valley to Pakistan :

The Muslim majority of the Kashmir valley, the Hindu majority of Jammu and
the Buddhist majority of Ladakh might be accepting this type of solution if
it brings an end of blood bath. Pakistan and the militants of the valley may
also be satisfied with such solution. But Government of India under no
circumstances can accept such a solution. It will put Government of India in
a predicament with respect to brewing secessionist movements in Northeast
and some other parts of India. Besides, such a solution will repeat the
traumatic experience of åafter 47Ç influx and outflow of a huge number of
population as refugees.

4. To make Kashmir an independent state :

Though the believers of 'Self Determination Doctrine' in India, Pakistan and
the valley may like the idea, but neither the Government of Pakistan nor the
Government of India will like to see Jammu and Kashmir as an independent
state. Public mood in general either in Pakistan or in India is also not in
a position to support such a move. To the general Kashmiris even, the demand
of åIndependent KashmirÇ does not create much sensation. They are more in
favour of joining with Pakistan

All the above solutions except the last one treat the people of Jammu and
Kashmir as an appendage either to Pakistan or India. The two countries fight
for gaining control over the other part of Kashmir. But none, it appears, is
at all concerned about the aspirations and expectations of the people of
Kashmir on both sides of the LOC. International community does not take much
note of it. The Kashmiris on both sides of the LOC are subject to military
rule either in truest sense of the term or in disguise. The freedom of the
Kashmiris in 'Azad Kashmir' is limited within the boundary line drawn by the
Pak army. And the process of democratisation in the Indian part of Kashmir,
the 23rd state of the Republic of India, is anybody's guess. Any solution
where the role of the people is not guaranteed and the true expectations and
aspirations of the people are not taken care of will do no justice in the
end to the people of the disputed territory and the sub-continent as a
whole.

America as a Mediator

No solution of Kashmir problem emerging in last fifty-two years, there is a
cry for solving the problem through International mediation. In the past,
Delhi has vehemently rejected any outside involvement in Kashmir and has
constantly maintained that the belligerency with Pakistan must be resolved
bilaterally within the parameters of the Simla agreement of July 1972 and
without any reference to Kashmir problem. But to Pakistan, Kashmir issue is
the main bone of contention and it prefers 'third party mediation' for
resolving the dispute. It is Pakistan's considered view that UNÇs
resolutions for plebiscite in Kashmir will find a dent if there is third
party mediation to resolve the problem. Pakistan also believes, if there
will be a plebiscite in Kashmir the automatic choice of the Kashmiris will
be for joining Pakistan. With this expectation Pakistan fans the fire of
fundamentalism, conflict and unrest in Indian part of Kashmir. The axiom
is -- the more there will be trouble in Kashmir the greater will be the
scope of International mediation to resolve the problem. However, day-
by-day it is getting hard for India to continue with its rejection policy.
In the wake of emergence of a unipolar world and the internationalization of
Islamic terrorism, the rigidity of the Indian government is receding.

During his recent visit to the sub-continent, President Bill Clinton showed
a willingness to mediate between India and Pakistan, along with an urgent
desire to see tensions reduced between South Asia's two nuclear-armed
rivals. Report says "Despite rising tensions along the Line of Control (LOC)
dividing Indian-and Pakistan-controlled Kashmir; increased militancy in the
Indian-controlled sector of the disputed province; and India's consistent
refusal to resume talks with Pakistan, Washington is sponsoring a round of
intensive secret diplomacy intended to bring Delhi, the Kashmiri militants,
and Islamabad to the peace table."

"Sources disclose that the White House
is using the services of an American-Kashmiri who is constantly shuttling
between Delhi and Islamabad and Washington. Encouraged by the positive
response to his efforts, President Clinton is reportedly considering
nominating a personal secret representative to monitor and assist all
parties involved in the negotiations."

Present Delhi regime is using the US's mediation over Kashmir as a
bargaining chip for securing American backing for a permanent Indian seat on
an expanded UN Security Council and the growing Indo-US understanding has
created a congenial atmosphere of trust between Delhi and Washington. On the
other hand US business lobby is putting pressure on Washington for mediating
in Kashmir problem. The US business lobby has deep interests in the huge
Indian market, and without peace in the region it will be difficult to tap
its lucrative potential.

The Sikh carnage in Jammu and Kashmir during President ClintonÇs stay in
India will make every one suspicious about the positive result of US
mediation in Kashmir problem. Moreover the track record of Washington as a
mediator is not at all inspiring. Some Kashmiri leaders, having little
followings, may like to see USA in the role of a mediator. But the same can
not be said about the militants? Militants are basically Islamic
fundamentalists. And Washington has a declared policy against terrorism of
Islamic fundamentalists. Figuratively speaking, the militants will not
prefer WashingtonÇs role as a mediator. Lot will depend on the support bases
of the militants in Pakistan and how does Pakistani authority comes into
terms with the religious fundamentalists there.

For their anti-imperialist tradition and because of AmericaÇs imperialist
role, the public sentiment in the subcontinent will never approve of
WashingtonÇs role as a mediator in the Kashmir problem. Any such move have a
potential of backfiring and thus may farther jeopardise the whole situation.

Looking beyond conventional ways of solution of Kashmir problem

In spite of all the complexities of the solutions of Kashmir problem serious
and sincere efforts must have to be taken to diffuse the åblood-haunting
situation' in Kashmir first and next to resolve the problem permanently. No
body can wish away the role of Pakistan in solving the Kashmir problem.
Number of times India and Pakistan have fought with each other for Kashmir.
Kashmir is the main source of continuous belligerency between them. Ksahmir
dispute is a great obstacle in creating an era of peace and friendly
relation between India and Pakistan.

Underfed, malnourished, common people of the sub-continent, who are victims
of all sorts of social vices like unemployment, illiteracy, inadequate
medical treatment and so on can ill afford continuous belligerency between
India and Pakistan leading to the loss of life of the common people (be it
an army man or a man from war torn area) and precious wealth of the
sub-continent. So, all the Avenues, conventional or unconventional, have to
be explored to ensure peace and tranquility in Kashmir, to ensure peace and
friendly relation between India and Pakistan.

Such an unconventional avenue can be asking for 'Advisory Opinion' on the
issue from ' International Court of Justice ', more commonly known as 'World
Court', at Hague. World court is the highest legal authority in the
organisational set up of the United Nations. The General Assembly of UN can
ask for an advisory opinion from the court on any legal question by passing
a simple resolution in its meeting to that effect. The court, however, can
refuse to give such opinion but only under "compelling reasons". The UN or
any of its member state has the liberty to accept or reject the opinion of
the court, when given. But the authoritative aspect of the opinion of the
world court as a supreme statement in the arena of international law can not
be taken lightly.

On Kashmir question the world court may be assigned with the job of giving
its advisory opinion as per international law and standards. Both India and
Pakistan may appear before the court to justify their claims over Kashmir or
part of it. The views and aspirations of the people of Kashmir can be placed
well before the court. The militants of the valley also may have a fair
chance to place their views. All the UN resolutions and bilateral treaties
and agreements on Kashmir can be discussed debated, interpreted most
elaborately. After giving due consideration to the views and claims of all
the concerned parties, the documents made available and the ground
realities, we may expect, the court will declare its verdict.

Following are the possibilities that may arise out of the world court
verdict:

1.The verdict may go in favour of India and against Pakistan or vice-versa;

2. The verdict may go against both the countries. (In favour of Independent
Kashmir)

In the event of the first possibility the aggrieved country will definitely
reject the verdict. And in the event of the second possibility both the
countries will reject the verdict. In doing so either of the two countries
or both will bear the risk of being isolated from the international
community. When globalisation is the rule of the day, how long either of the
countries or the both can risk such isolation is the question.

Question may arise regarding the guarantee of all the concerned parties
appearing before the world court. If the previous stands and statements of
the concerned parties are of any standard, problems with Pakistan and the
Kashmiri leadership (including the militants) can be ruled out. If India
prefers the absentee role in the world court it will not gain anything.
However, recent developments such as IndiaÇs offer of negotiation to the
Kashmiri leaders, WashingtonÇs role of mediation with tacit approval from
Government of India suggest that India will not be too obstinate to avoid
the International Court of Justice on Kashmir problem.

The process of getting a verdict from the World Court may take quite some
time. When all the disputing parties decide to approach the forum of the
World Court for conflict resolution a congenial atmosphere for eschewing
violence from all concerned will certainly emerge during the period in
between. Any of the parties failing in its task to this respect will
definitely put its own position at stake.

Eschewing of violence shall have to be followed by :

Measures to ensure normalcy in the disputed and trouble-torn areas;
Release of all political prisoners in the valley;
Arrange for return of all the persons displaced from the valley to their respective places;
Arrange for proper and just rehabilitation of all the victimised persons irrespective of class, caste, gender and religion;
Removal of all hurdles to free travel between two parts of erstwhile princely state of Jammu and Kashmir across the LOC;
Right of expression and right to information to be guaranteed.

In addition, India and Pakistan should take steps to :

Demilitarise the border area in between them including the LOC in Jammu and Kashmir;
To initiate dialogue for restoration of friendly normal relationship between the two countries;
To remove all hurdles for free travel of the citizens of one country in the other country;
Allow exchange of views and information between the citizens of two countries through all possible means including the print and visual media.

Conclusion

In view of all above it wonÇt be difficult to discern that åboth in India
and Pakistan the Kashmir issue has totally been hijacked by the military
establishment, nationalist hawks, religious fundamentalists and the
militantsÇ. Saner voices for democratic and political movements have no
bearing in Kashmir today. All these combined resulted into unending blood
bath and crossfire forfeiting any scope to develop civil society movements
on human right issues and also on socio-political issues in Kashmir. The
other effect being the continuous belligerency between two immediate
neighbours of South Asia exposing the region to a threat of nuclear
holocaust.

The need of the hour is to initiate the process of conflict resolution like
submitting before the åWorld Court of JusticeÇ for just and sustainable
peace. All the conflicting parties should realise that unending conflict,
crossfire and belligerency will ultimately peril their interest only. The
civil society movement in the sub-continent should take care so that all the
disputing parties in Kashmir come to reasoning and submit before the process
of conflict resolution.

May 28, 2000.

Return to South Asia Citizens Web