Kashmirs tragic divide

By A.G. NOORANI IF the prospects of success at the inter-governmental level seem none too promising, the omens within Jammu & Kashmir are none too bright either. In fact, the situation is worse than ever before. The people yearn for guidance from their leaders. But their leaders are hopelessly at loggerheads with one another. A debate on their unity commenced recently. Judging by past form, it is most unlikely that it will yield any results. The unionists, the National Conference in power in coalition with the Congress, and the main opposition group, the Peoples Democratic Party, are preparing to fight it out in the elections to the assembly in Srinagar and to parliament in 2014. The separatist leaders are barely on speaking terms with each other. The debate was initiated on Sept 17 in Srinagar by none other than Ashraf Sehrai, secretary general of the Tehreek-i-Hurriyat led by Syed Ali Shah Geelani, at a function to launch a book. He was provoked by a speech by a former general secretary of the bar association, G.N. Shaheen. He castigated the separatist leadership of Kashmir for lack of unity. Shaheen suggested that all separatists should unite on one single platform to carry forward the movement to its logical conclusion. He did not define what that logical conclusion should be. His plea for unity stung Sehrai to the quick: I, too, have many things to say on unity. A lot of secrets are buried in my heart. The occasion does not warrant that I should expose those secrets or use them against someone. He proposed: Let some one organise a mehfil -i-mubahisa (a meeting for debate) where we can discuss all these issues. A meeting of this kind has some meaning if the leading participants have the desire and will to unite. Of this, there is not the faintest sign. Far from coming closer in the multiple crises that have played havoc with the lives of the people, ever since the feckless Omar Abdullah was planted as chief minister by New Delhi, they have drifted further apart. An informed correspondent, Shah Abbas, noted in the excellent Srinagar weekly Kashmir Life on Sept 22: Separatist camp is now divided to the extent that even the 2010 uprising and the hanging of Afzal Guru could not reunite it. The accord on unity and coordination between Syed Ali Shah Geelani and Mirwaiz Maulvi Umar Farooq in July 2008 came unstuck as did the coordination committee and the Muttahida Majlis-i-Mushawarat (united forum for consultation) in 2013. There is no real ideological divide between the two top leaders. On May 17, 2013 the Mirwaiz said that Kashmir was a natural part of Pakistan. Last month, Geelani declared that Kashmir was a natural part of Pakistan. In this they are being more royal than the king.

Both swear by the UN resolutions. Irresponsible demagogy has debased political discourse in Kashmir; and not among the politicians alone. To begin with, Pakistan has never claimed that the territory of Indian Jammu & Kashmir as its natural part. Its demand rests on the peoples right to sel f-determination as agreed upon between India and Pakistan in 1947 well before the UN was seized of the matter and before it yielded its many resolutions none of which is enforceable by it. In 2013, not one of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council have endorsed any of the plebiscite resolutions of the UN Commission for India and Pakistan (1948-49). The ceasefire resolution of Sept 20, 1965 sought to address the political problem underlying the present conflict. The Security Councils resolution of 1998 after the nuclear tests by India and Pakistan also did not refer to the resolution of old. Prof John W. Garver made a careful survey of the evolution of the Chinese position with regard to the Kashmir question during the 1989-1990 crisis when militancy was at its peak. The last time that the Chinese leaders mentioned the relevant decisions of the United Nations was in February 1990 during the visit of the distinguished diplomat Iqbal Akhund to Beijing. He was national security adviser to Benazir Bhutto. Subsequently, Beijing was content to urge a dialogue or negotiations between Pakistan and India. Does this shift or the one by the United Nations weaken Kashmirs inalienable right to decide its future? Certainly not. In the last two decades, Pakistans diplomacy on Kashmir has been realistic. But Geelani issued on Sept 16 a protest calendar avowedly to keep the struggle alive. It comprised a march to the offices of the UN observers in Srinagar and a memorandum to Ban Ki-moon the secretary general. It is not the movement but the leaders who need to keep themselves politically alive before an increasingly sceptical people. As Shah Abbas points out the larger fact on ground is that people now do not pay any heed to the protest calls of separatist leaders. Even the security authorities do not impose any restrictions on the movement of common people whenever the separatists call for any challo or protest. An oppressed, downtrodden people do not deserve leaders with monumental egos each of whom tries to become the sole spokesman of Kashmir. They will not agree even on a simple programme to demand unitedly respect for the lives of the people and for civil liberties through an agreed minimum common programme for a united front. New Delhi profits by the divides among Kashmirs politicians and rivets its control over the area with greater ease.

In all the years, the Kashmiri separatists have signally failed to evolve any constructive, viable strategy. Implicit in their strategy is the foolish assumption that they can force India to quit Kashmir. It is an assumption which Pakistans leaders do not share. Hence, their constructive approach in contrast to the separatist leaders all or nothing policy.