Author: M.V. Kamath
Publication: The Free Press Journal
Date: September 5, 2002
URL: http://www.samachar.com/features/050902-fpj.html
Hasn't the time come for all of
us to face some facts? And the `all' refers not only to the political parties
in Kashmir but to the United States and Britain as well. The United States
especially. Washington needs to be reminded that had it played fair with
India when it first took the so-called Kashmir issue to the U. N. Security
Council, there would have been no Kashmir problem today. The fact is that
Pakistan did have a hand in attacking Jammu & Kashmir after the Jammu
& Kashmir ruler had acceded legally to India. So far as the ruler was
concerned there were no ifs and buts. The accession was com-plete.
Were the United States and its partner
the United Kingdom fair and honest, the Security Council would have summarily
asked Pakistan to vacate its aggression and behave itself. And the matter
would have been resolved then and there.
But that did not suit the Western
powers. Instead of dispensing with justice, the western powers (and they
include France as well) sought to blaspheme India and put it on the defensive.
Believing that it had the western world solidly behind it, Pakistan waged
three wars only to lose all three of them. Having learnt that it can never
take India head-on militarily, Pakistan did what came easily to it: it
took to terrorism and in the last ten years it had been responsible for
the death of over 60,000 Kashmiri civilians and that number includes women
and children. The Western world maintained a discreet silence when this
murder and mayhem went on, not willing to lift its little finger to admonish
its client. It was only after the September 11 assault on its own citadel
that the United States woke up to the fact that terrorism needs to be fought.
Let this be plainly stated: Pakistan
has no `locus standi' in the matter of Kashmir. There is no reason why
India should hold talks with Pakistan, `even if it halts cross-border terrorism.'
Whatever talks India needs to hold, that will be with the people of Jammu
& Kashmir. It is a point that the Hurriyat leaders should come to under-
stand.
And the west must also be firmly
told that its continued backing to the Musharraf regime is not being appreciated
in Delhi. What that backing shows is that the United States is interested
only in its own welfare and not that of India. Even as Armitage was holding
talks with Musharraf and his gang, a band of murderers had mowed down some
innocent shepherds, on the Indian side of the Line of Control. The United
States, besides, knows fully well that bin Laden is alive and kicking and
is living somewhere within the boundaries of Pakistan.
But then what does Washington do?
On 23 August the United States signed an agreement with Pakistan for re-scheduling
of its debt to the tune of $ 3 billion! Of this lot $ 2.3 billion was construed
as Official Development Assistance (ODA) to be repaid in 38 years. The
remaining $ 700 million has been treated as non- offi-cial development
assistance to be repaid over 23 years. It may safely be presumed that neither
lot will ever be repaid.
Washington is not fooling anybody.
What is sickening is the fact that Washington continues to treat Musharraf
as a democrat when the man is worse than Iraq's Saddam Hussain. Musharraf
has become a virtual dictator. There is nothing that he cannot do, from
sacking his Prime Minister, dismissing the Parliament and laying down the
law for every citizen.
From Washington there is not a whisper
of protest, against this wholesale murder of democracy.
For all that, Musharraf is a man
scared of his own people. He did not even dare to address a public rally
on Pakistan's Independence Day. A visibly terror-strick-en president shifted
the venue of his address to a heavily- guarded hall where only a selected
audience comprising of ministers, high officials, diplomats and their wives
and children were permitted.
There have been three attempts on
his life in the past six months. If the Baluchis and the members of the
MQM had their way Baluchistan and Sind will be independent tomorrow. Everyone
knows that Musharraf's writ does not run in the North West Frontier Province
(NWFP). And it is this man who wants to be given the right to speak for
his `brethren' in Jammu & Kashmir. Has he forgotten how Pakistan treated
his ``brethren'' in Bangladesh where Pakistani forces killed over 3 million
Bengalis and raped countless Bengali Muslim women? Has he for-gotten the
thousands of Baluchis who were killed between 1962 and 1975? Whom does
Musharraf represent except a handful of Army officers thirsting for revenge
at their defeat at Indian hands in three major wars? That is only one aspect
of the Jammu & Kashmir issue.
The other is the role of the Hurriyat
leaders. They represent no one but themselves. Their importance is strictly
confined to the Kashmir Valley. They do not and cannot speak for all of
Jammu & Kashmir. In all these fifty odd years the two most neglected
parts of the old state are Jammu & Ladakh. Jammu has more voters than
has Kashmir but Kashmir provides more members to the Legislative Assembly
(46) than Jammu (37).
At the secretarial level Kashmiris
hold more positions (31) than people from Jammu (4). Ninety per cent of
the employees in the Civil Secretariat are Kashmiris. Both the people of
Jammu and Ladakh have many such grievances but the media talks of Jammu
& Kashmir as if neither Jammu nor Ladakh exists. Most of the economic
assistance given by the Centre to the state is hogged by Kashmir and the
voice of Jammu & Ladakh is seldom heard.
If, as the word goes, Kashmir wants
``autonomy'' why shouldn't the peo-ple of Jammu and Ladakh also have the
right to say that they do not want autono-my under Kashmir, but full and
unabridged association with the rest of India? The Ladakh Buddhist Association
representing the majority Buddhists in the region long ago had requested
for central rule. Similarly the Jammu Praja Parishad had demanded statehood
way back in 1948.
If the Hurriyat wants autonomy,
then the voice of the Ladakh and Jammu parties also needs to be heeded.
And consider this: over 4 lakh Kashmiri Pandits have been driven out of
Kashmir and live in conditions worse than that of the Muslims in the camps
in and around Ahmedabad.
What is going to be their fate?
It is all very well to say that Kashmiris should not be alienated. Neither
should the people of Jammu and Ladakh. They should get their place of honour
in Srinagar. Under no circumstances should Jammu & Kashmir be equated
with the Hurriyat. That would be the greatest crime committed against the
people of that unfortunate state.
Under autonomy, the state would
have its own constitution; its administrative set up would be independent
of the IAS and IPS. It would have its own legal structure. Only Defence,
External Affairs and Communication and related ancillary matters would
be wie their own constitution and in South Africa too, provinces are permitted
to have their own constitutions.
What is forgotten is that the people
of the United States are all Christian and there is no division among them
along religious lines. Such a division exists in Kashmir.
There is much to be said for the
trifurcation of Jammu & Kashmir. May it be remembered that the old
states of Mysore and Hyderabad had lost their identity. Old Mysore was
linked with districts from Bombay and Madras provinces and what constituted
old Mysore lost its distinct identity. What is today Andhra Pradesh has
little to do with the Hyderabad of the Nizam.
If Mysore and Hyderabad can lose
their distinctive identities, why shouldn't Jammu & Kashmir? Talk of
Kashmiriat is so much hogwash. The people who drove the Kashmiri Pandits
out of their homes were Kashmiris themselves. What happened to their Kashmiriat?
Of course, it would be nice if Jammu & Kashmir remains one unit; it
would be nicer if the Hurriyat participatesriat. But is the Hurriyat listening?
Presently the Hurriyat is showing
itself subservient to Pakistan, a role not acceptable to Delhi. It wants
Pakistan to be a party to any serious talks on the future of Jammu &
Kashmir. How can India accept that silly demand? In all this one m he will
come to realise it some day. But it had better be soon in his own interests
as in the larger interest of peace in south Asia.
