While
days lengthen in rest of India, nights keep getting longer in Kashmir -more home-grown
separatists, more 'pebbles vs pellets' casualties, more vacuous 'moohtod jawab'
and surgical strike rhetoric, more curfews, more internet and TV channel bans,
nocturnal raids and what not ! A lame duck Chief Minister cocooned in secure ,cordoned off
VIP areas of Srinagar darkens the nights further and adds to Delhi's nightmare.
One
expected better from a new political dispensation of the same genre at Centre
and State, at least a refreshingly different approach to bear on the dystopia. One
sees little evidence of it. Past regimes at different times twiddled with
one or more of three approaches without much success- diplomatic engagement with
Pakistan, the alma mater of terror groups operating in Kashmir, taking out the
militant leadership, and political dialogue with home stakeholders. Modi sarkar treads the same old beaten path. Only, each approach is being tried in
isolation by turns, not in simultaneity.
First it
tried honeymooning with Pak. Not easy for a regime riding to power outraging
'weak Manmohan', ' one head for ten' and promising good use of its '56" ka
chhati’. To its credit, it did. Against its grains it invited Nawaz Sharif to
its swearing in, Mr Modi 'airdropped unannounced' to Lahore for Nawaz's
birthday, and the two did well publicised photo ops and ‘optical’ hand waves under international gaze. Nawaz was condoned for Pak’s Kargil
misadventure. Some say Kargil was Musarraf’s doing which begs the question, why
then invest political goodwill on Nawaz?
Then the Pathankot shock. Still ,PM gave Pak a long rope, allowing for the first time, Pak intelligence to do investigations inside our air base without seeking reciprocity of investigations by Indian cops in Pak territory. Uri was the last straw on camel’s back leading to an avenging surgical strike by Indian army across the LOC that inflicted undisclosed damages on terror havens within Pak. 2014 status quo ante stood restored. Recent beheading of two Indian jawans by Pak will bring back echoes of Mr Modi words spoken in 2013 “The soldiers of our nation are beheaded and after a few days the Prime Minister of that nation is treated with chicken biryani,". Another shot at detente looks pretty remote.
Though Indian good neighbourly overtures were so cruelly rebuffed by Pakistan, tragically, there was very worryingly no international condemnation of Pak perfidy. So, as
before, we are stuck with a neighbour hell-bent on 'bleeding India through
thousand cuts'. Neither Pak nor terror groups took the
underlying message in our surgical strike. Terror attacks and unrest at LOC
continue at elevated levels, taking heavier toll of our valuable fighting
assets and more unmitigated hardships for residents. Pak isolation as the
'mother ship of terrorism' is nowhere in evidence. The first beaten up vintage approach
stays beaten.
As for Kashmir,
it stepped into the millennium with the dreaded cordon and search operations,
CASO, at doorsteps. In 2017, CASO is back, this time maybe in perpetuity as an
operative part of army's on-going strategy. After burying engagement with
Pak, the regime now is solely focused on eliminating militants.
Is this
the way forward - effective area domination and patrolling of streets by armed
forces or in
other words brazen exhibition of muscularity to subdue Kashmiris into making the right choice between ' terror and tourism’ as the put it? isn’t this yet one more of the beaten paths? Further, one can legitimately ask, why the area domination stuff hasn’t already happened? The Armed Forces (J&K) Special Powers Act 1990 granted the armed forces in disturbed areas omnibus powers of search and seizure, arrest, and even to kill on mere suspicion with impunity. Considering the massive deployment of armed personnel, and making liberal allowances for difficult terrain and a hostile populace, twenty-seven years is a long enough time for the army to have done it. In recent times, it has been found wanting in warding off sneaking terror attacks inside its very own campuses, or to
effectively sterilise areas en route its convoys. An India Today report listing major terror attacks shows that in 14 years from 1999-2013 there were just four attacks on army camps and one attack on its convoys whereas in two years and four month, 2014-2017(April) there were ten attacks on camps and three on convoys, a quantum jump, indeed. In itself, this is a telling evidence of growing alienation of kashmiris with rest of India.
other words brazen exhibition of muscularity to subdue Kashmiris into making the right choice between ' terror and tourism’ as the put it? isn’t this yet one more of the beaten paths? Further, one can legitimately ask, why the area domination stuff hasn’t already happened? The Armed Forces (J&K) Special Powers Act 1990 granted the armed forces in disturbed areas omnibus powers of search and seizure, arrest, and even to kill on mere suspicion with impunity. Considering the massive deployment of armed personnel, and making liberal allowances for difficult terrain and a hostile populace, twenty-seven years is a long enough time for the army to have done it. In recent times, it has been found wanting in warding off sneaking terror attacks inside its very own campuses, or to
effectively sterilise areas en route its convoys. An India Today report listing major terror attacks shows that in 14 years from 1999-2013 there were just four attacks on army camps and one attack on its convoys whereas in two years and four month, 2014-2017(April) there were ten attacks on camps and three on convoys, a quantum jump, indeed. In itself, this is a telling evidence of growing alienation of kashmiris with rest of India.
And mind you,
we have among the most professional armies in the world. So, it's not simply a
matter of inefficiency. Armies are conditioned to take on enemies beyond its
borders where its operations are not fettered by niceties of human rights or
law. All is fair on enemy territory. But it can never have the same freedom in
domestic operations. It may not shoot down but only shoo off stone-pelters.
Armies win territories, quell unrest, but never keep domestic peace for
indefinitely long periods. There is much evidence around to substantiate this
plain truth.
Kashmir
needs out of box thinking. One such could be gradual 'ulsterisation'. An army
that speaks in tones like ' ......displaying flags of IS and Pakistan, then we
will treat them as anti-national elements and go helter-skelter for them’ or
'those who obstruct our operations during encounters and aren’t supportive will
be treated as over-ground workers of terrorists' comes across more as an army
of occupation than an 'Indian' army. Ulsterisation will lead to gradual
replacement of it by army units raised from carefully selected local recruits.
These units may be more acceptable hence more likely to get local
support. Besides, it would gainfully employ the youth who are now getting
brainwashed into terrorism to take off from where Paki mujahideen of
yesteryears left. Already J&K has the highest unemployment rate in the country.
As many as 27K govt vacancies lie unfilled.
But not
the least, it would reduce casualties of army personnel from rest of India. The
bodybags arriving from theatres in the valley are inflaming puerile hatred against valley Kashmiris and those Kashmiris,
particularly, students living outside the state. Whipping up hysteria merely
complicates reconciliation.
Building
domestic peace is the realm of politics. This is even truer in the scenario of
a hostile populace egged on by a nasty neighbour with emotional and religious
ties to it, and one waging a relentless war 'by other means'. Our Northeast hold
a valuable lesson. It too is in much the same boat. But it has relative peace largely
due to political breakthroughs with separatists. Rajiv Gandhi's
Mizo accord settled Mizo insurgency without any loss of sovereignty. A new
Mizoram state with the insurgent chief Laldenga as CM brought peace. In a like
manner, Rajiv-Longowal accord suffocated Khalistan cries once and for all. Of
course, in both cases, the army chipped in by doing what it knows best -
'softening up’ the opposition.
On its own the army can do little to bring lasting peace. As long as Sheikh Abdullah, notwithstanding his
oft flirtations with the 'independence’ idea, was around pro-India voices could
be heard in the valley. Since then Kashmir has only been hemorrhaging goodwill
for 'Hindustan'. Mainstream parties are increasingly feeling the disconnect with masses. Even PDP, once the voice of sympathy for the azadi cause in South
Kashmir , finds its turf overrun by home bred militants.North Kashmir seems
no better as evidenced from people's participation in the just concluded
Srinagar LS bye- election- a record low of 7% .In 2014, the voting percentage for
whole of Kashmir was 49%. The down slide is disconcertingly steep .Kashmir
urgently needs a charm offensive to accompany the disarm offensive of the army. Mr
Modi is committing a great folly by relying only on the latter ignoring the
former. In this connection, the following words of Nehru, reproduced in the
book ‘India after Gandhi’ by Ramachandra Guha sound truly prophetic,
“but however,
much we may want this(Kashmir), it cannot be done ultimately except through the
goodwill of the mass of the population. Even if military forces held Kashmir
for a while, a later consequence might be a strong reaction against this.”
There is
no alternative , TINA , to reconciliation and statesmanship in cutting the Kashmir knot.
One last
thought on history of the imbroglio. The India Independence Act lifted
Crown's suzerainty over princely states and lapsed all obligation to it . It
did not, however, require them to join one or the other of the new dominion. So staying independent was an option, however unviable. Maharaja Hari Singh chose
to be an independent ruler from 15.08.47 to 27.10. 1947, the day
Lord Mountbatten accepted his instrument of accession with a remark, “it is my
Government's wish that as soon as law and order have been restored in Jammu and
Kashmir and her soil cleared of the invader the question of the State's
accession should be settled by a reference to the people.” Those who calumniate
Pandit Nehru for agreeing to a plebiscite in UN miss the point, plebiscite was
a fait accompli. It will be naive to
believe that a Governor General, that too a British, of the dominion (India was
still a dominion ) would not have had his say in this and the decision to refer the matter to UN. For Nehru,
too it was a case of TINA, there is no alternative!