Author: Kanwal Sibal
Publication: The Telegraph
Date: September 2 , 2008
URL: http://www.telegraphindia.com/1080902/jsp/opinion/story_9760452.jsp
- Borders are relevant till the reasons to
violate them disappear
The current turmoil in Jammu and Kashmir began
with the blatantly communal reaction in the valley to the decision to transfer
a mere 40 hectares of land to the Amarnath Shrine Board for creating temporary
structures for the convenience of the pilgrims. That the valley Muslims could
at all believe that this decision could have the potential, even remotely,
to change the demographics of Jammu and Kashmir, is astonishing. For 60 years
the government of India has meticulously observed its constitutional obligations
to not disturb the demography of Jammu and Kashmir by permitting Indians from
the rest of the country to purchase property and settle down permanently in
the state. That separatist propaganda can so easily negate this record of
good faith shows how futile it is to continue making core concessions to win
the hearts and minds of the valley Kashmiris.
China, in Tibet next door, has changed the
territory's demography by settling Hans there in large numbers, reducing the
Tibetans to a minority in Lhasa. It is ruthlessly exploiting Tibet's natural
resources, ignoring environmental norms. China has interfered with the practice
of Lamaist Buddhism, destroying numerous monasteries during the Cultural Revolution
in a bid to "modernize" Tibet. Its policies are guided essentially
by security considerations, to establish an iron grip on the territory and
neutralize any challenge to its authority there.
India's policies have been incomparably more
humane than China's. India could have steadily changed the state's demography,
early after Independence, by settling there the Sikh population displaced
from Pakistan. After 1965 and 1971, India could have taken hardheaded security-related
decisions to ward off future dangers. India took no decisions with demographic
implications even with Pakistan openly abetting terrorism in Jammu and Kashmir
post-1990 and introducing a new level of challenge to the Indian State. The
reverse demographic change brought about by the eviction of the Kashmiri Pandits
from the valley has still not been undone.
The land in question at unlivable heights
belongs to the Jammu and Kashmir state, not to any single religious community.
Those "nationalist" Kashmiri leaders, who argue that their opposition
is not "communal" as they oppose not the yatra but the transfer
of land, are being specious. How can they oppose the yatra? Even the Chinese
government allows the Mansarovar yatra, and that too in Tibet, the source
of territorial tensions between India and China. Why does the valley oppose
the land transfer? Because the decision is not that of a legitimate government?
Because displacement of already settled people will take place? Because no
precedent exists for any transfer of "forest" land for a public
purpose? Because the reason for transfer is not good enough as more facilities
for the pilgrims are not necessary? Or do the valley inhabitants consider
that the land itself is "Muslim" and its use for offering better
facilities to Hindus from outside is simply not palatable? Don't the Hindus
of Jammu and Kashmir have a say in the matter as citizens of the state?
Many ascribe the alienation of the Kashmiris
to India's shortchanging them regarding democracy by rigging elections. But
any "rigging" affects the entire state, not a particular community.
Why should one community feel specially aggrieved? Have the people of Jammu
or Ladakh been alienated because Indian democracy has let them down? Once
again, the real reasons are being obfuscated in order to find an exculpation
for the militancy of the Muslim community. Separatist feelings in the valley
existed long before any disenchantment with Indian democracy set in. Militancy
was inspired by the rise of religious extremism in the region following the
success of the Taliban. Sheikh Abdullah was not a paragon of democratic conduct.
Those who practise mosque-based politics are not democrats. The insistence
on Article 370 was motivated to a degree by a desire to rule Jammu and Kashmir
as a fiefdom, outside the influence of India's more egalitarian constitutional
democracy. During the current turmoil, the street mobilization of people through
the network of mosques is not democracy in action. Is Geelani's Islamic ranting
compatible with democracy? Mirwaiz is by no means a secular democratic leader.
The demand for self-determination should not be conflated with democracy.
After all Pakistan, whose own democratic credentials are questionable, has
been in the forefront in asking for self-determination in Jammu and Kashmir
- but not in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir. Self-determination is a political
tool for the separatist agenda. If the Muslims were not in majority in the
valley would they ask for self- determination?
The Indian government, faced with the extremely
difficult challenge of controlling a state with separatist leanings buttressed
by powerful foreign forces, may not have always acted according to the democratic
rule-book. But in so many other ways it has shown remarkable sensitivity to
Kashmiri aspirations, and so a total view should be taken. The problem in
essence is the capacity of the valley Muslims, with their overwhelming local
majority, to pursue a self-centred agenda, unmindful of the larger interests
of Jammu and Kashmir, its Hindu and Buddhist population, or of the nation
as a whole. If the population of the valley were Hindus and not Muslims, would
shortchanging them of democracy have led to secessionism? Would reconciliation
have eluded both sides for 60 years? Why is a compromise not possible?
The powerful agitation in Jammu against the
decision to rescind the land transfer and the temporary dislocation of movement
of goods to and from the valley has incited full-blown secessionism there.
Propaganda about the so-called economic blockade of the valley was unleashed
to provoke a separatist surge. The aim of the secessionists was to go on the
offensive by creating an emotive issue and deflecting attention away from
their own initial guilt. The valley Muslims have long disowned any responsibility
for the exodus of the Pandits. The government of India's inability to redress
the situation has in all likelihood contributed to the lack of regard in the
valley for the religious sentiments of the Jammu Hindus on the land transfer
issue. The moment there was some show of strength in Jammu, the valley Muslims
have retaliated with a seditious campaign of massive proportions, knowing
killings in police firing will reinforce the sense of victimhood of the community,
besides drawing international attention to their cause.
India's internal peace and security and its
international reputation have suffered at the hands of the Kashmiri secessionists
for decades. Their challenge to the Indian State and popular sentiment continues
unabated. The government's task is no doubt inordinately difficult. But laws
must be enforced, otherwise democracy, already a 'soft' system of governance,
can slip into non-governance. Why are we giving a free run to the secessionists?
Their pro-Pakistan demand for opening the Muzaffarabad road mocks at our sovereignty.
It is a logical extension of policies to encourage cross-contacts over the
line of control without first firmly controlling the political situation on
the ground on our side. Why nurture the notion of a united Kashmir? Why help
the Kashmiris create a common platform with Pakistanis in PoK? Will this make
the Kashmiris as a whole more loyal to India? Borders remain relevant until
the reason to violate them disappears.
- The writer is former foreign secretary of
India (sibalkanwal@gmail.com)
* This Article Was Written A Week Before The
Amarnath Agreement
