Kashmir continues to bleed for all historic failures
It is unprecedented. Kashmir is a reflection of huge accumulated anger over decades. Stone- pelting is an expression of disillusionment and hopelessness.
The youth want to be heard but nobody is listening. Guns and pellets in reply to stones and anger are unfortunate; it has inflamed the worsening situation. There is a deep feeling in Kashmir that the response would have been different in similar situations elsewhere.
An entirely new generation has emerged in the last 27 years of turmoil. Still, the slogan of ‘ aazadi’, which means an independent Kashmir, has a huge pull. Islamisation is also taking place.
The present unrest is the result of deep alienation caused by the long history of broken commitments and denial of justice to the people. initially recognized the uniqueness of Jammu & Kashmir and thereby provided constitutional safeguards under Article 370 of Constitution to provide special status to the state. After 1953, centralizing and denial of autonomy began.
Article 370 was subverted. The constitution application to J& K order of 1954 took off subjects in the Union list out of the purview of the state legislature. There were 42 constitution ( application to J& K) orders extending to the scope of central intervention and laws which were not envisaged at the time of adoption of Article 370.
The late Prime Minister Narasimha Rao had promised the “sky is the limit” as far as autonomy is concerned. He would settle for anything less than independence.
His successor Deve Gowada had also promised during the UF government, maximum autonomy. Former Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee offered talks with all within the ambit of Insnaiyat but nothing seemed to move. The problem which needs an amicable settlement has definitely no simple or readymade solution but sustained and serious dialogue at different levels.
Vajpayee government started the IndoPakistan dialogue and UPA proceeded with the composite dialogue. Talks were held with separatist leaders but no progress could be made as the Centre had no political agenda to offer.
The last effort was the roundtable talks by the UPA government, which did not see the participation of the s e p a r a t i s t s . Recommendations made by the working groups formed by the UPA government also did not see the light of the day.
The result has been a surge in mistrust and doubts on the sincerity of the Indian establishment towards Kashmir.
The Centre’s approach to Kashmir through the prism of security will be counterproductive both for the people of J & K and India. Democratic and secular forces must demand an immediate end to the regime of repression in Kashmir and the dismantling of the oppressive security apparatus. This must be accompanied by immediate steps to initiate talks with all shades of political spectrum, including separatists in the state.
Kashmiris cannot he held hostage to an India- Pak confrontation. Instead of a chauvinist posture, the Modi Government must take up the thread of talks with Pakistan as it was decided by the two countries last year.
Islamanization in certain sections, it would be wrong to suppose that there are no reasonable and moderate voices. If extremists are gaining ground, it is because Delhi continues to be seen reluctant in restoring what it has taken away without popular sanction.
The partition did not solve the problem of communalism but made it permanent in the form of religious bigotry and terrorism in Pakistan and increasingly as a furious majoritarianism on this side of the border.
Kashmir Valley is one of the three distinct regions of the state. The Line of Control divides the Jammu region while leaving intact the Kashmiri- speaking region in Indian sides. Within the northern region Ladakh is on the Indian side whereas Gilgit, Baltistan and Skardo are on the Paksitani side.
On the eve of partition, Jammu was paralysed by communal riots and the people were largely polarized on communal lines. But not a single communal incident took place in Valley.
Gandhiji paid a unique tribute by acknowledging that Kashmir was the only ray of light in the benighted subcontinent.
But alas that tolerant Kashmir has continuously been targeted by both the nation states.
What happens in Kashmir is of course a matter of life and death for Kashmiris. It has also been, from the very beginning a test case for claims of two nation states and it is in Kashmir that competing claims of territory and beliefs proved the most intractable.
The author is member, central committee, CPM, and member, J& K Legislative Assembly