Reneging Article 370
inam ul rehman
Unlike match fixing where the outcome of the match is decided, and needs most influential players to be part of it, spot fixing is betting about some parts of the game without the support of influential players and does not necessarily impact the outcome.
When the US Department of State declared chief of the United Jihad Council, Syed Salahuddin, as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist on June 26, 2017, no one in Kashmir asked what interest the USA has in it. It was in keeping with the tradition of “we know it is India’s conspiracy”. Salahudidn is neither an ideologue nor a fighter, never attacked or threatened American interests, and believes in democracy. By declaring him as its enemy wasn’t the USA getting directly involved in the Kashmir dispute? It means that India has to accept Kashmir as an international dispute because the US bracketed Salahuddin among its enemy, which also ticks the vital column which the Pakistan backed Hurriyat Corporation wants (https://kashmirobserver.net/2016/local-news/geelani-writes-world-leaders-lists-6-cbms-8632)
Two years later, the US president Donald Trump declares that he is ready to mediate for the settlement of Kashmir conflict between India and Pakistan (https://in.reuters.com/article/india-usa-kashmir/trump-touches-off-storm-in-india-with-kashmir-mediation-offer-idINKCN1UI0IL). And this settlement is not to give independence to Kashmir, or merge it into Pakistan. With Trump’s announcement on mediation the veil of secrecy has been taken off.
In fact, way back in April 2007, a US state department official revealed that both the countries had accepted the “main elements of a settlement”, but, said the official, “whether they would be willing and able to muster the political will to bring that revolution about”. (The limits of influence: America’s role in Kashmir by Howard B Schaffer). According to ambassador Schaffer it was on the US recommendations that roads were opened, bus service launched, people to people contact developed, even the dry port for which Dr Haseeb Drabu took credit was the brainchild of the US!
Immediately after Trump’s mediation offer the Indian state reneged the Article 370, separated Ladakh from Jammu and Kashmir, and made both of them as union territories, the former without legislature and the latter with a legislature. While the state has held its territory firmly it has been successful in regularly changing the goal posts of the Kashmiris.
From 1953-75, Kashmiris demanded plebiscite but the state kept downgrading the autonomy which Kashmiris enjoyed upto 1953. Then with the signing up of Indra-Sheikh accord, Kashmiri leaders made the Congress party its enemy, and demanded restoration of pre-1953 position. Now from 2019, Kashmiri leaders are fighting for domicile rights, restoration of Articles 370, 35A, and think that the BJP is enemy rather than the state! This flip-flop has always been a bane for Kashmiri resistance.
A few days later the Prime Minister of India, Narendra Modi, in a speech said that 42,000 innocent people have lost their lives in Kashmir over the past three decades, and once the situation in Kashmir normalises statehood would be returned. It was a significant sentence in his otherwise drab monologue. The official figure of 42 thousand killed include militants, local and foreign, civilians, and Indian security forces. To classify militants as innocents is a huge statement coming from the PM of India, who is also a leader of the militant Hindu organisation, RSS. This sentence of his was maybe aimed to assuage the fears of stakeholders in Kashmir, and Pakistan.
Connecting the dots
In a fledgling Urdu news magazine of the daily Greater Kashmir, “Nawa-e-Jhelum” there appeared a cover story on Afghanistan and Kashmir of March 4, 2018 issue. Inside the pages one story was titled, “The Taliban’s offer of peace talks: can Pakistan bargain successfully on Kashmir?” (http://epaper.nawaejhelum.com). The second story was, “After the Taliban it is the United Jihad Council? If the peace process in Afghanistan succeeds Kashmir is next” (http://epaper.nawaejhelum.com). Ostensibly the byline on both the write-ups mention “Nawa e Jhelum” desk!
Important points of these two articles:
US president’s hard policy toward Pakistan has forced the Taliban to offer peace talks since the latter fears that Pakistan may withdraw its support under pressure!
Pakistan kept the US forces engaged in Afghanistan for 17 years!
For Kashmir Pakistan has always bargained with America in Afghanistan! “But nothing has been achieved as far as Kashmir is considered.”
The Taliban’s peace offer is good for Kashmir!
Pakistan’s defence and economic ties with the People's Republic of China has given a stern answer to America’s ‘do more’ ‘with no more’”!
Cooperation with China coupled with Pakistan ascendency in Afghanistan has forced India to be flexible on Kashmir!
“If the Pakistan’s plan of bargaining succeeds, Kashmiris would heave a sigh of relief after years of strangulation.”
The second write-up is mostly a repetition of the first one.
But author condescendingly asks: In lieu of successful peaceful negotiations in Afghanistan what is America going to offer Pakistan? “If Pakistan is able to put the hard bargain on the table there are chances that after Kabul it is the turn of Kashmir. Chances of militant movement turning into political are bright with the UJC emerging as the potent political force like the Taliban, and Salahuddin along with his associates may come to Kashmir triumphantly, cases would be withdrawn, there will be exchange of prisoners. Remember Kulbushan Jadhav (alleged Indian spy) is still in the custody of Pakistan.”
Sensing that if this deal is pulled off successfully, they write, there will be division of opinion because the UJC and the Hurriyat would emerge as the largest potent force which would be irritant for pro-India parties. Even if, caution anonymous writers, pro-India parties are included in this grand structure there is no guarantee that they would not derail it. But a grand alliance (between pro-Pakistan lobby and pro-Kashmiri electoral parties) should be formed in Kashmir. It stresses that elections and the resolution of Kashmir should be fused together! Then it asserts that since Pakistan would not accept the current status quo, the UN on the insistence of Pakistan has to conduct elections in both the divided parts of Kashmir. Once election results are approved then those elected will be given mandate to decide on Kashmir. “At that time,” write the anonymous author/s condescendingly, “Kashmiris will realise that they should have done their homework long back.”
The things mentioned in the cover story are almost similar to what the US ambassador has written regarding what India Pakistan agreed in 2007.
But if you think its an outrageous write up that claims Salahudin along with his coterie can come to Kashmir and join the election process then look at Hafiz Sayeed of the Lashkar-i-Toiba in Pakistan. Sayeed would openly declare democracy as kufr (not believing in Allah and His Messenger (SAW). Salahuddin holds no such claims. He has contested elections and believes in democracy. So, it is not a big thing to rehabilitate the UJC chief. The parent party of the Hizb-ul-Mujhaideen (the largest indigenous militant group of which Salahuddin is the lifetime chief), Jamaat-i-Islami has no objection to contest elections in Kashmir, as well. Its former head, Mohammad Abdullah Wani, in an interview, said, “Jamaat needs peaceful environment to contest elections” (http://kashmirlife.net/jamaat-e-islami-needs-peaceful-environment-to-contest-elections-issue-45-vol-06-72231/). The Jamaat has contested elections even in the 70s when the then pro-resistance party gave election boycott call. Even in the notorious 87 elections, which the Jamaat says were rigged, its MLAs refused to resign in protest but “run without shoes to take oath to protect the Indian sovereignty and uphold its constitution”.
After these write ups appeared, Syed Ali Shah Geelani, Mirwaiz Umar Farooq, and Yaseen Malik, file a joint petition in the State Human Rights Commission over shifting of prisoners to outside jails, addressing the commission “May it please your Honor and the commission”! Now those who claim to fight the Indian state are pleading before its institutions to save its skin.
Here is another example. On March 13, 2018, the JK high court bar association said that it is, “treachery and betrayal with the sacrifices given by the people of Kashmir for achieving their right of self-determination.” If you think that this statement came in response to any pro-resistance leader joining pro-India politics, you are wrong. This statement, from one of the constitute parties of the Hurriyat, was in response to the then finance minister of Jammu and Kashmir, Dr Haseeb Drabu, who reportedly said that Kashmir is a social issue rather than a political one (http://www.greaterkashmir.com/news/kashmir/hcba-ridicules-drabu-s-kashmir-not-a-political-issue-statement/278566.html).
Mian Abdul Qayoom heads the HCBA. He is dear to Hurriyat chairman, Geelani. What prompted him to accuse a pro-India politician of “treachery and betrayal with the sacrifices”? It is a question that intellectuals, pro-freedom, pro-Pakistan people, Hurratified journalists, should have asked to Mian Qayoom. But no one did.
How did the Kashmir conflict reach to this?
In 2014, al Qaeda announced the formation of its franchise in the Indian subcontinent. Immediately after its formation many things took place in Kashmir. The firebrand Hurriyat leader, Masarat Alam Bhat, was released on March 6, 2015 (https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/groundwork-for-masarat-alams-release-done-before-mufti-sayeed-took-charge-sources-tell-ndtv-745354). A month later to the surprise of the people the trio of Geelani, Mirwaiz Umar, Malik, together share a dais at a mourning of a youth who was killed by Indian forces (http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/other-states/jk-separatist-leaders-share-dais-after-seven-years/article7123952.ece). Geelani, an Islamist, whose militant party denounced Malik, termed his party as irreligious in the 90s and killed his party’s militants because of it, now joins him! This unity was no doubt pushed by Pakistan. And the release of Alam and other political prisoners may have been orchestrated by Indo-Pak efforts. The coming together of Geelani, Mirwaiz, and Malik put brakes on the leakage of news coming from closed-door meetings with government emissaries, or Track II personalities. Slowly the second rung leaders of both the Hurriyat factions that include, Shabir Shah, Nayeem Khan, et al, were arrested. Remember in spot fixing you need only a limited number of players.
Things were going according to the plan when militant commander Burhan Wani in his first video message asked the people of Kashmir to fight for the establishment of Khilafat. Hurriyat insiders say it ruffled the leadership, which in turn sent a former militant to counsel Burhan to refrain from such utterance. But Burhan refused to bow down. A few months later Burhan along with his two associates was killed, protests in support of militant activities reached to its crescendo. Due to regular protests in favour of militants the counter insurgency grid of the state got paralysed during those six months. Slowly, as the conflict managers, the Hurriyat was able to bring the situation under control.
But there was shock for the Hurriyat, Pakistan and India. Out came Zakir Musa with renewed call for establishment of Khilafat throwing Pakistan and its client party Hurriyat in disarray. Before these two, many militant commanders died fighting for it during the 90s. The Hurriyat initially thought it was a reckless uttering which would find no takers in Kashmir, or he would be maligned as an enemy provocateur just like Qayoom Najar. But Musa proved iron willed and refused to budge from his demand of Shariyat ya Shahadat. The Indian authorities worst nightmare of Kashmiris becoming radicals: renouncing democracy, secularism, and the nation state had come true. Shortly afterwards global outfit, al Qaeda in the Indian subcontinent, in June 2017, took Musa under its umbrella.
It drastically altered the situation in Kashmir. For once, the Hurriyat was no longer in control of militants. Although the police reports try to negate that al Qaeda has a significant presence in Kashmir but the ground situation for the past one-decade is pointing differently.
The waving of black flags which al Qaeda uses, and made famous or notorious by ISIS, was not done, as is the usual chatter, in 2014, but two years before it the same flag was also waved in Kashmir during anti-Israel protests. No one objected to it. Since many journalists, and newspapers in Kashmir are Hurriyatfied they did not notice the flag. In fact, a few witnesses said that some months later the same flag again made appearance during the protests on the hanging of Afzal Guru, but journalists in the Valley were unable to note its significance!
This digression toward the flag is to emphasise that the tehreek was becoming glocal, but the Hurriyatfied newspapers in Kashmir were busy in selling the canard that the tehreek in Kashmir is secular and for independence!
How are glocal militant organisations al Qaeda, ISIS, different from others?
For any state it is easy to control rebel groups if they are remote controlled by another state. This has happened and is happening. Kashmir is a prime example of it. In September 2018, talks were called off following the killing of three SPOs by the Pakistan backed Hizb militants (https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/india-calls-off-meeting-between-sushma-and-pakistans-foreign-minister/article25008026.ece+) Since then the killing of SPOs has been winded up. During the 2019 Indian parliamentary elections in south Kashmir the Pakistani backed militants did not fire a single aerial shot ostensibly on the directions of Pakistan.
During the 80s when the Khalistani militants of the Punjab increased urban offence India decided to strike back in Pakistan to rein in these militants (https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/indias-new-language-of-killing/article5963505.ece). This ploy was successful. It has always proved to be.
When the government of India finally scrapped articles 370. 35A, Pakistani prime minister, Imran Khan, in his September 18 speech told his audience: "If someone from Pakistan goes to India and he thinks he will fight in Kashmir ... the first person he will be inflicting cruelty on is the Kashmiris. He will have acted as an enemy of the Kashmiris." (https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/09/khan-warns-pakistanis-joining-anti-india-fight-kashmir-190918155507989.html)
A month later on October 27, a day when in 1947 Indian army entered the erstwhile state of Jammu and Kashmir, and generally observed as a day of strike in Kashmir, Khan made his stand clear that any armed movement in Kashmir is against the interest of Pakistan: "Some elements in ‘Azad Jammu and Kashmir’ are instigating Jihad and armed struggle against the Indian forces which will deal a great amount of damage to the Kashmir cause, and is against the interest of Pakistan as well." In the same video message Khan said that the fight in Kashmir is political thus depriving legitimacy of Islamist pro-Pak militant organisations like the Hizb, LeT, and JeM. (https://tribune.com.pk/story/2088249/pm-imran-takes-nation-confidence-kashmir-issue).
Since, al Qaeda, and ISIS have no state backing they operate on their own. Their working mechanism is different. No state can put pressure on other state to rein in them. These two organisations through their striking capabilities have made borders invisible for them.
The coming of these two global outfits in Kashmir may have forced the US to push India-Pakistan to expedite the dialogue process and settle the issue. Much like in the 90s when the US, along with China, Russia, and Pakistan coerced the warring factions of mujahedeen in Afghanistan to form a joint government to thwart the Taliban.
The Afghan, CPEC connection
Most states in dealing with conflicts and problems work like doctors. For the Indian state, the Taliban (al Qaeda and the Taliban are indistinguishable now) ruling Afghanistan once again is dangerous for the Kashmir conflict. The Taliban taking over means that militants fighting for the establishment of Sharia–anywhere in the world–now have a safe sanctuary in Afghanistan.
To thwart al Qaeda, and Islamic State in Kashmir the Indian state needs a bulwark against it. Since al Qaeda bases its fight on the basis of Islam, state thinks a counterforce coloured in Islam can curb its influence and thwart the plans of former. The National Conference, Peoples Democratic Party, Peoples League, and co, do not possess this material. The coming together of pro-India parties, and then arresting its leaders seems an orchestrated move to create ripples of sympathy for them.
But the state needs a party which is Islamic in colour, but adhere to democracy, is ready to participate in elections, and wean away youth from these radical organisations. For all this to happen something was to be done. This the Indian state did by separating Ladakh from Kashmir, and Pakistan is in process of amalgamating Gilgit Baltistan, and Pak administered Kashmir.
The China Pakistan Economic Corridor was always going to impact the Kashmir conflict. Pakistan stamped its approval of status quo, with one part of Kashmir to remain with India and other with Pakistan, when it allowed communist China’s CPEC project to passage through the disputed territory of Gilgit Baltistan, and Pak administered Kashmir. No country in the world invests heavily in a conflict territory unless it gets firm assurance that status quo will not be altered. With India deciding to up the ante of annexing the Pak administered Kashmir, China’s recent incursion into Ladakh may have been a tactic to warn India not to break the status quo.
For a long time a discourse was going on: why are the Kashmir based electoral parties and the Hurriyat not coming together to fight the dominance of the Indian state? When the Indian state threatened to remove the Article 370 all of them, barring the Hurriyat, came together to protect it. But, remember it was the Hurriyat which started the process of hartals against the amendment in the Indian constitution in the form of revoking Article 35A!
From grandiose Azaadi slogans to protect demography!
The fight in Kashmir since 1989 is for the secession from India. Now, a consensus is being developed in which protecting the demography of Kashmir is given preference over the secession. Repelling of the Articles 370, 35A is now touted as the existential crisis for the Kashmiri people. The fight in Kashmir has now been turned against the BJP. It means that the Hurriyat may join electoral politics on the plank to keep the BJP away from gaining power in Kashmir, to stop demographic changes, and possibly to get both the statehood and Article 370 back. Already pro-Pakistan militant groups, HM, and the Lashkar-i-Toiba, have put up posters in support of the continuing strikes against the reneging of Article 370, and removal of statehood to Kashmiris. This way people would not say that the Hurriyat betrayed Kashmiris. It gels with what the anonymous author/s had stated above.
It seems a grand peace process of status quo would commence in which Kashmiris will be told that they should take it as a breaking of status quo, utilise the time to prepare for final battle, and not defy the might of the Indian state for sometime until appropriate time comes. It is expected that supporters of each of these parties would generally abide by this dictum.
The entry of the Hurriyat in electoral politics will also provide bulwark against the emerging al Qaeda, and Islamic State ideology in Kashmir.
The utility of the dialogue process
In April 2017, Germany’s non-profit organisation, Friedrich Ebert Foundation, committed to democracy, organised a conference between India, Pakistan, and Kashmiri representatives. According to newspaper reports “Speaker of Pakistan administered Kashmir assembly asked to form the group consisting of the representatives of both governments ruling two parts of Kashmir besides the Hurriyat leaders so they could suggest Islamabad and Delhi to resolve the issues,” (https://www.thenews.com.pk/print/198031-Pak-India-track-2-talks-held-in-Dubai). It is exactly on the lines of what the weekly Nawa-e-Jhelum story proposes. Two months later the Indian army started its “operation all out” against 300 odd militants (https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/kashmir-terrorism-all-out-plan-lashkar-hizbul-jaish-militants-984216-2017-06-22). The “operation all out” got endorsement when in July 2017, Conciliation Resources, a British NGO working for the worldwide peace and reconciliation, held a conference in which men from powerful intelligence agencies of Indo-Pak, politicians from India, Pakistan, and Kashmir, Hurriyat members, and human rights activists from both sides took part. During this three-day conference held in Dubai, the members resolved the end of militancy in Kashmir and confidence building measures to solve the Kashmir conflict (https://kashmirreader.com/2017/08/16/divided-parts-kashmir-unanimous-call-end-militancy/). The UJC chief Salahuddin condemned this conference, and, as is his wont, termed the members on the payrolls of Indian agencies! If the same person had said such a thing a decade earlier it would have meant a death sentence for all the participants from Kashmir. But not this time.
Then, comes the question, why are India, Pakistan, and Kashmir politicians reluctant to say this in public that almost a solution has been agreed upon by all the concerned parties?
“The hope,” writes Ameya Kilara, scholar with the Center for Public Leadership at the John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, “is that once these selfless heroes shake hands on a deal, their political masters will sign an agreement with shaky hands, before announcing to the world that peace has been delivered” (http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/an-open-letter-to-the-people-of-india-on-the-kashmir-issue/article5885007.ece)
The Indian state has won this battle, too. But as we know in conflict the time is measured in decades. The war to end the rhizome Kashmir conflict, as Praveen Swami reported in 2017 on AQIS threat, will be fought in mainland India. (https://indianexpress.com/article/india/war-on-indian-cities-key-to-victory-in-kashmir-al-qaeda 5000310/#:~:text=In%20A%20video%20released%20online,waging%20war%20on%20Indian%20cities.&text=The%20jihadist%20also%20appeals%20to,allegiance%20to%20the%20Islamic%20State). It will be deadlier, costlier, and may see many South Asian states come together to fight the forces of Khilafat.
Image courtesy: Getty Images, and The Hindu
Note: The write up was written in August-September 2019, but due to the internet blockade in Kashmir was unable to post it. A few points have been updated from the original script.
