Author: Editorial
Publication: Kashmir Sentinel
Date: May 1st - 31st, 2004
India faces three challenges in
Kashmir. One, to defeat the Pakistani game which seeks secession of Kashmir
on religious principle. Secondly, to defeat the local forces of Muslim
communalism and fundamentalism and lastly, to see that no group feels discriminated
against. The way the Indian state tackles the challenges in Kashmir will
have profound bearing both on Kashmir's future as a secularist society
and also as a part of India. It is worrisome that during the past fifteen
years there has hardly been any serious exercise to understand the issues
at stake in Kashmir. The result is that weaving myths has come to substitute
nation-building exercise in Kashmir.
Unconditional dialogue with Hizbul
Mujahideen and the opening of Muzaffarabad road, it is argued, would usher
peace in Kashmir. There can be no delivery of peace short-term or long-term
unless Jamaat-i-Islami and its support structures are marginalised and
rendered ineffective for any mischief. This theofascist formation poses
threat not only to religious pluralism but also holds back the secularisation
of Valley's mainstream politics. Any dialogue with Hizb will only serve
to accord legitimacy to Jamaat's politics. It will also erode the credibility
of Indian state and make mess of its counter-insurgency efforts.
The hype on opening of Muzaffarabad
road is also misplaced. The impact of partition on Kashmir, so far as division
of families is concerned, was negligible. The opening of this border road
holds no economic benefits for Kashmiris. They have much more to gain from
many times bigger market in India.
The opening of the road at a time,
when Pakistan continues to seek its stability through balkanisation of
India, will open floodgates of subversion and make Kashmiris further emotionally
distant from India. Hostile imperialist powers will mount pressure for
dilution of sovereignty over Kashmir as the next logical step to 'porous
borders'. BJP led NDA government gave go by to national interests by giving
precedence to populism over strategic thinking.
Autonomy, which links accession
with Muslim majority character, is also being advocated as a politically
feasible demand to reverse the process of alienation among Kashmiris. It
is ignored that alienation itself is the consequence of pursuit of politics
of Muslim identity and autonomy. If religious-based politics in India is
politically incorrect, it should be so in Kashmir as well. Haven't
we often said that Kashmir was the secular crown of India?
Demand for autonomy is a politically
destabilizing proposition on many counts. It will loosen India's control
over Kashmir and will be a step towards secession. With lesser direct control,
national security would be compromised. It will provide an opportunity
to inimical foreign powers, particularly particularly U.S. to fish in troubled
waters. Greater political autonomy will lead to a system of oligarchy and
further fortify Muslim precedence. This will push non-Sunni groups into
the political junkyard and undermine the stability of the state.
Autonomy will generate ghettoist
culture, with far reaching consequences for economic development of
the state. Decades of mindless trade unionism paved way for de-industralisation
of West Bengal. Industrialists do not invest for peace'. They invest
for profit. Unless there is political stability and forward looking culture,
no industrialist howsoever patriotic, would risk investing his capital
in Kashmir.
Attempts are also being made to
link rise of secessionism to growing unemployment. If this were true,
how do we explain the presence of boys in the age group of 14-18, government
employees including bureaucrats, professionals and lumpen elements--the
groups which have nothing to do with unemployment, as the mainstay of the
secessionist movement. This myth is being perpetrated to further marginalize
non-Kashmiri groups from state services and shift the focus from jihadi/muslim
identity politics as the basis of the secessionist sentiment. Weaving myths
may serve well the needs of populism. It can be destabilising for nation-building
process.
