by Tapan Kumar Bose
The current situation:
In the current round of “war diplomacy” (using the threat of war to push the western states into action) the Indian state seems to have emerged victorious. The Americans and the British are now supporting New Delhi`s claim that the movement in Kashmir valley is totally Pakistan sponsored. The British Foreign Secretary during his recent visit to Pakistan characterised the struggle in Jammu and Kashmir as “terrorism dressed as freedom struggle“. The American and the British hostile reaction to President Musharraf`s recent attempt to qualify his “commitment” to ending cross border terrorism as not a “permanent one”, is an indication of the hardening of the attitude of the western states. It seems that President Musharraf made these comments to assure the Pakistani people that he was not about to abandon the five-decade-old commitment of Pakistan State to the Muslim brothers and sisters in Jammu and Kashmir. Kashmir as we know is deeply imbedded in the national ideology of Pakistan. Almost all Pakistanis, including those who oppose the policies of the religious fundamentalists and the military establishment, believe that with the end of militancy the twelve year old struggle for self-determination in Indian administered parts of Jammu and Kashmir will be completely crushed by the Indian state. It is the popular pressure, which is forcing President Musharraf to seek an international guarantee for intervention or mediation in Kashmir.
This is the era of “free market democracy”. The protagonists of this new world order in the making have already launched “Global War Against Terrorism”. In these times the offer of stopping support to a militant movement, which has already been dubbed as “terrorism”, can no longer be used as a bargaining chip for humanitarian intervention. If President Musharraf´s objective is to create a Kosovo type American humanitarian intervention in Jammu and Kashmir, he has to find another way to do so. And, if he is taking on the role of the defender of human rights of the people of India administered Jammu and Kashmir, he has to explain a lot to the world and his own people to whom he has denied those very rights as a military dictator. The truth is that neither President Musharraf nor Mr. Vajpayee wants to empower the ordinary peoples of Jammu and Kashmir under their respective control. Moral arguments are used to advance “national interests”. In this deadly game of chess, both sides use the people of Jammu and Kashmir as pawns to be sacrificed. In this round Pakistan has lost. Its immoral acts – support to terrorists stand exposed. India has gained the high moral ground. For the present, it has convinced the world that it was the victim of state sponsored terrorism. Emboldened by this victory, the Indian government is in no mood to resume dialogue with the Musharraf regime in Pakistan. It is obvious that they will try to extract every advantage that they can from this situation.
Having successfully shifted the focus of the discussion on the Kashmir dispute from the “internal causes” to “external interference” the Indian government is not willing to give any space to the militants or any other group which has sympathy for the militants including the APHC. The message that the Indian government is sending to all supporters of the movement for self-determination in Jammu and Kashmir is clear, “the accession of Jammu and Kashmir to India is a settled issue. Those who question it are doing so only at the behest of Pakistan. These people are anti-national and criminal elements”.
Participate in the election or be termed a terrorist:
Clearly the Indian government does not want to talk to the APHC and others as it feels that talking to these people would amount to according some form of legitimacy to these political and militant organisations. However, the Indian government has indicated that it will be magnanimous to those who are willing to give up their support to Pakistan sponsored terrorism. Should these people decide to join the main stream of politics in the Indian administered Jammu and Kashmir and participate in the coming elections to the legislature of Jammu and Kashmir, they will be pardoned.
The Americans and other western states, the defenders of “free market democracy” have also told the APHC and other groups that they must participate in the coming election to the legislative assembly of Jammu and Kashmir in order to prove their legitimacy. It is becoming increasingly clear that the western governments will marginalise those who will boycott the elections to the Jammu and Kashmir legislative assembly.
A fractured movement – Lack of national consensus:
The present “struggle” in Jammu and Kashmir began essentially as a spontaneous mass upsurge during the late eighties. Various militant organisations, which claim the responsibility for this “struggle” and demand its leadership today, had joined the “struggle” at different stages on later dates. It will not be incorrect to say that the mass upsurge had preceded the militancy. In fact as militants took over the leadership of the struggle, the masses slowly returned to their homes. The divide between the masses and the militants became even more pronounced with the unleashing of mass terror by the Indian forces and the entry of Pakistan, initially as a supporter and later, as the controller of some of the militant organisations. As the agenda of the Pakistan government and its agencies unfolded, it created division between the ranks of the militants on ideological and religious lines. The masses too were divided. The militarisation of the civil spaces by the Indian state as well as the militants put an end to open debates or discussions on the “national objective” which is essential for the development of a national consensus. The civil society was marginalised and put into shackles by the forces of the Indian state, the militants and the agencies of Pakistan. The killing of a few moderate Kashmiri intellectuals broke the civil society´s morale. Except vocalising their protest against the excesses of the Indian forces and pledging their support for the movement for self-determination, the middle classes of Jammu and Kashmir did little else. They remained silent even when they realised that path being followed by some of the militants was wrong, that the attacks on the minorities was immoral and counter productive, that the armed groups of religious fundamentalist who had taken over the leadership of the movement were subverting the secular character and tolerant values of the Kashmiri society. The burden of this guilt of silence and the need to pragmatically compromise with the agencies of the Indian State for their daily needs often turned them against each other. They began to see conspiracy and hidden hands behind every attempt to re-build the institutions of the civil society. They shunned all attempts to build a national consensus for peace and reconciliation as “opportunistic”.
Also, it is a fact that the APHC and other political groups have not tried to build a broad consensus on the “national objective”. Nor have these groups tried to generate a public debate on the nature and the scope of the national objective. Every polity functions on the basis of an agreed consensus. The constitution is the embodiment of this consensus. Under normal circumstances, it is not necessary for a group of persons to seek prior approval of the people for forming a political party. However, the situation in Jammu and Kashmir is not normal. The APHC and other “groups” are not ordinary political parties trying to obtain peoples` mandate for forming a government under an accepted constitution. These “groups”, whether it is the APHC or those outside the APHC, are trying to seek a revolutionary change in the political status of the territory of Jammu and Kashmir and the fortunes of its people. They are also challenging the authority of two recognised nation states – India and Pakistan in the name of the “people” of Jammu and Kashmir.
People, Territory Nation and State:
We should be aware that international law is the playground of states. The “people” do not have a “legal” status in international law or international relations. Broadly speaking, in international law the “people” are defined as a “nation” without a state. When a “people” get their “territory” and establish a “state” of their own, and when this “state” is recognised by other established states, then and only then does the “nationhood” of a “people” get the due recognition in international law. This is how a “people” enter the community of nation states. East Timor, as we all know, become a new member of this select community of nation-states not by struggle and sacrifices alone. I am not belittling the sacrifices of the people of East Timor. But the reality is that till the west decided to support the East Timorese people, they remained in wilderness. The peoples of Tibet, Chechnya, Afkazia, Ingusthia, Kurdistan and the many other equally deserving “peoples” are yet to achieve the right to self-determination. No one, including President George Bush, denies the Palestinian peoples` right to have their own state. Yet we see how the powerful members of the community of states are kicking around this legitimate demand as a football.
In case of Jammu and Kashmir, the west seems to have accepted the Indian claim that the struggle for self-determination of the people of Jammu and Kashmir is “Pakistan sponsored terrorism”. Attempts are being made to link the dreaded Al-Qaeda with the ongoing struggle in Jammu and Kashmir. The past fifty years should be an object lesson for us that no state has been punished for denying democratic rights to its people, except when economic and geo-political interests dictated such action by world powers. The trial of Milosevic is not the rule. President Putin of Russia is being rewarded for equally heinous crimes against the peoples of Chechnya. In fact the protection of the butcher of Chile, General Pinochet, is the norm.
In Jammu and Kashmir we are also dealing with a situation where the population of the territory is not only physically divided, it is also divided in its loyalty to the existing states. This division is also acutely reflected in the people`s interpretation of the “national objective” or objectives – Azadi, Accession to Pakistan and Accession to India. There are many unresolved questions, for example, the protection of the rights of linguistic, ethnic and religious minorities, forms of sharing of political power between the different regions of Jammu and Kashmir and the type of future relationship with India and Pakistan. The task of building a national consensus is not going to be an easy one. It has to address all these issues before a set of “national objectives” can be defined and a consensus built around these.
It will not be out of context to look at the developments in Northern Ireland, Sri Lanka and Nagaland. The decades long struggle of the Irish Catholics in northern Ireland, which received moral, political and financial support from the powerful Irish immigrants lobby in the USA, was seen as one of the most powerful struggles for self-determination in the post Second World War period. The Irish Republican movement, like the movement in Jammu and Kashmir, had followed a similar curve of internal disagreements, sectarian struggles and internecine wars. The Republicans have killed several of their compatriots on suspicion of betrayal of the cause. Yet this struggle finally had to come to terms with the need to make a compromise, to give up some of their objectives in order to achieve a negotiated peace that would protect some of their basic rights. It needs to be understood that De Velera, Gerry Adams and the others who supported the Good Friday Agreement did not betray the Irish Republican cause. It is equally correct to point out that these agreements and the settlement could not have come about if it was not backed by a national consensus of the Irish Republicans.
In South Asia, the once invincible LTTE is now negotiating with the Sri Lankan government for peace and an acceptable political settlement for the Sri Lankan Tamils within the framework of the Sri Lankan State. In India`s Northeast the Naga nationalists who have been fighting against the combined strength of Indian army and a whole horde of paramilitary forces for about five decades, have now entered into political negotiation with the Indian government for a peaceful solution to the Indo-Naga problem. During the past five years of cease-fire, the leaders of the Naga nationalist movement have been engaged in a dialogue with the leaders of Naga civil society on the kind of peace and political settlement that the Naga people would like to achieve at this stage through negotiations. This process of internal dialogue has already produced significant dividends for the Naga civil society in the form of reconciliation of inter-community conflicts. It has enhanced their ability to address the government of India and other communities in the northeast in a united manner and discuss peace in the framework of justice and reconciliation. It has also prevented the collapse of the cease-fire, despite provocations by both sides.
The Independent Peoples´ Election Commission – A lost opportunity:
When the APHC announced the plan to form an independent Peoples´ Election Commission to seek the mandate of all peoples of Jammu and Kashmir to represent them in a political dialogue with India and Pakistan, I and some of my colleagues felt encouraged. We felt that through the process of seeking the peoples´ mandate the APHC and other groups would begin a new democratic process that would go a long way towards building a national consensus. My colleagues and I agreed to serve on this Commission as we felt that this work will build a bridge between the different regions of Jammu and Kashmir as well as between the peoples of India and Pakistan. Helping the APHC and other groups to gain “legitimacy” in the eyes of the governments of India, Pakistan and the west was not our primary objective. We were keen to be a part of a process, to the possibility of a truly representative leadership to emerge in Jammu and Kashmir.
As the Peoples` Commission we wanted to put forward the idea of creation of a “National Peoples` Council for Freedom, Peace and Reconciliation” in Jammu and Kashmir. This people´s democratic forum would have given a new life to the moribund political process in Jammu and Kashmir. This National Council comprising directly elected representatives, could be given the mandate to define the “national objective” through a process of consultations and engagement with different sections of the people all over the territory of Jammu and Kashmir. It could also be given the mandate to decide on priorities and strategies for achieving the agreed national goal or goals. The delegates to the National Council could be elected by the people of Jammu and Kashmir directly at the district level through elections conducted by the Independent Peoples` Election Commission. This process would have given the “people” of Jammu and Kashmir an opportunity to create their own national institution through a democratic process. This would have also demonstrated to the world the falsehood of Indian attempt to discredit the struggle and sacrifices of the people of Jammu and Kashmir as Pakistan sponsored terrorism.
Mahatma Gandhi adopted a similar strategy in the early days of Indian national movement. He changed the character of the Indian National Congress from that of an organisation of elite to a mass organisation. He took the Congress to the people. He opened up its membership to all sections of the society irrespective of their economic status, religion, caste and political ideology. He introduced direct elections to the District Committees of the Congress. All those who paid their “four anna” membership were eligible to contest and vote. Women got their right to vote in the direct elections to the District Committees of the Congress even before the British women got their right to vote. Gandhiji built the Indian National Congress as a coalition of all sections of Indian people. The communist party, the socialists part, the organisation of landlords, trade unions, organisations of the peasants, the Muslim League and even those groups who subscribed to armed struggle were members of the Congress at different times. They participated in the elections to the District Committees, Provincial Committees, the All Indian Congress Committee and even the highest body of the Congress, the Working Committee. As we know, senior members of the Communist party of India and the Muslim League were elected to the Working Committee of the Congress. The Congress thus emerged as broad coalition of divergent interests that was committed to overthrowing the yoke of British imperialism. It is true that the character of the Indian National Congress changed subsequently as it developed a more partisan. But that is a different story. However, it is important to recognise that initial work Gandhiji in building a national consensus for independence through the Indian National Congress that finally shook the British and they knew that they would have to go.
Predictably, the Indian government rejected this proposal at the initial stage. Understandably, the Pakistan government also showed no willingness to allow the Independent Peoples´ Election Commission to function in the areas of Jammu and Kashmir under its control. The large- scale arrest of the members of APHC´s executive on all kinds of real and false charges, the killing of Mr. Abdul Gani Lone who was calling on all parties, the Indian government and the militants to declare voluntary cease-fire and allow the beginning of a political dialogue further jeopardised this important initiative. APHC and most of the other pro-Azadi and Self-determination groups are in confusion. Having followed a policy of trying to engage primarily with the governments of India and Pakistan they seem to have lost the capacity to be pro-active. They are merely reacting to the various moves and counter moves of Indian government. APHC´s latest suggestion that they should be allowed to go to Pakistan to talk to the leadership of the Jihad Council and persuade them to declare cease-fire has very few takers today.
In fact though this move the APHC has further weakened its position. Instead of offering to go to Pakistan to talk to the Jihad Council over which it seems to have virtually no influence, the leaders of APHC should have called for an all round cease-fire, release of all political prisoners, return of the solders to the barracks and similarly return of the militants to their homes. It should have asked all concerned parties to allow the Independent Peoples´ Election Commission to do its work so that a national consensus could be built through a democratic process, which has been denied to the peoples of Jammu and Kashmir by all parties, India, Pakistan and the militants.
The tragic reality of Jammu and Kashmir today is that the leadership of the movement remains cut-off from the masses. Most of these disparate groups are unable to trust each other and as a result are unable to come to a consensus on political issues or strategies of struggle. Under pressure of the Americans, President Musharraf is clamping down on the militant organisation in Azad Kashmir. The Jihad Council, which until recently received substantial material and moral support from the official and unofficial agencies in Pakistan is unable to see its future. Some of them may be worried about their immediate future. The manner in which, the Talibans and Pakistani supporters of the Taliban were sacrificed by Pakistan government at the altar of the global war on terrorism cannot evoke any confidence in the hearts of the militants sitting in Azad Kashmir today. The Indian policy of squeezing Pakistan with the help of America and the west has the potential of pushing the militants to desperation. We are already witnessing an increase in the militant activities in Indian held Jammu and Kashmir. President Musharraf has also indicated that he cannot control all the Jihadi groups effectively.
The boycott call – Is this the only option?
The militants, as expected, have already given a call for boycotting the elections to the legislative assembly of Indian administered parts of Jammu and Kashmir. They have even threatened to kill the participants. Under these circumstances, the APHC will be forced to repeat the call for boycott. This will help the Indian government`s game plan. The boycott call will create confusion among the ordinary people of the valley. Many will refrain from participating in the elections out of fear. This will give the Indian government an opportunity to carry out a sham of an election with an un-revised voter`s list. As we all know, the voter`s list of Jammu and Kashmir has remained virtually un-revised since 1983. Only a partial or a cosmetic revision was done before the 1987 elections. The 1996 elections did not require any such revision as this election was basically held by the armed forces. Since then very little work has been done to update the voters list.
As people will remain away from the electoral process no one will challenge the authenticity of the voters list. Very few objections will be filed. If the boycott call remains in force, the majority of the voters in the valley will also not go to get their voter`s identity cards. If elections are held under these circumstances there will be little chance to effectively challenge the fairness of the election.
Towards an active non-violent struggle:
There are many ways to express decent and register protest. Boycott is a form of passive resistance that involves essentially a “negative” action. There are many other ways that a people can express their resentment against a repressive regime through assertive political action. The coming election to the legislative assembly provides the opportunity to organise mass movement on so-called “legitimate” political issues.
For example a mass campaign may be organised to examine the voter`s list. The people should be asked to identify incorrect entries and deletion of names of bona-fide voters. Objections against such irregularities in the voters list should be filed in an organised manner in order to compel the concerned authorities to properly revised and updated before holding the election. These are forms of legitimate political action.
Demanding transparency at all stages of the electoral process will be another way of advancing the process of peoples` resistance in Jammu and Kashmir. Similarly, people should besiege the outlets set up for preparing the voter`s identity cards. These identity cards will be a valuable resource in exposing electoral fraud.
The organisers of this non-violent struggle in Jammu and Kashmir should call on the civil liberties organisations of India to assist them in this struggle for making the process of election free and fair. They should also call for the presence of observers from the neighbouring countries of South Asia to see how the Indian state is responding to these legitimate demands of the people of Jammu and Kashmir. This could also become the first step towards building a coalition of civil society organisations for the defence of democracy and fundamental freedoms of the people of Jammu and Kashmir.
The Chief Election Commissioner of Indian has said that the people have the democratic right not to participate in any election. However, if the people of Jammu and Kashmir do not want to participate in this election, instead of just boycotting the polls they could organise a mass campaign for casting “invalid votes”. The voters can en-mass invalidate their ballot papers as a mark of protest. This will strengthen the struggle the peoples of Jammu and Kashmir and prove the hollowness of the Indian claim that the struggle of the people is totally Pakistan sponsored.
As the history of the nation-states shows us there is nothing sacrosanct about the existing boundaries of states. These boundaries have been formed and reformed several times. Many powerful nation states have disintegrated. It is not the territorial boundaries, but the people who constitute the nation. And, as Bertrand Russell had said, “the people are only permanent force in history”. The indomitable urge for freedom in the people is the motive force for change. However, it is also important to recognise the need to temper this urge for freedom with principles of justice and reconciliation. Without which there can be no true freedom and sustainable peace.
