Since the revocation of Articles 370 and 35A, the intellectual class is mired in criticisms, predictions with some praising the move. Newsrooms filled with enthusiasm and appraisal hailing the move was projected as the voice of India as well as Kashmiris. Other news outlets took a much cautious approach while sidelining celebratory environment. To their credit, they entered the ground to counter the supposed situation of normalcy as the thrilled Home Minister Amit Shah hailed in the “people’s house”. Let’s try to analyse the facts and understand the situation in Kashmir.
Historical Background
Since the time of Kashmiri accession into India, there is a major theory surrounding the mindset of the then Prime Minister of Kashmir, Sheikh Abdullah. The theory suggests that Abdullah inherently intended to secede from India because of the notion that “Muslim majority Kashmir was incompatible with the Hindu majority India”.
Vappala Balachandran, former special secretary to the cabinet secretariat, describes the events which support this theory. D.N. Mullik, the then IB officer in Kashmir, recalls the incidents which potentially explains this theory: Pakistan supposedly subverted two leaders of National Conference namely Pir Maqbool Ghilani and Ghulam Mohiuddin Karra who subsequently went ahead to form pro-Pakistani political conference in 1949.
Sheikh Abdullah was allegedly indulging in the discussion of “independence” with foreign correspondents namely Michael Davidson and Ward Price. Then the event which finally fuelled Sheikh Abdullah to exploit his allegedly toxic views was the agitation of Praja Parishad in 1952-53, where forceful accession and integration of Kashmir was demanded led by Shyam Prasad Mukherjee. These events lead us to understand the subsequent political drama which ensued between 1953 and 1964, which potentially led to the Islamisation and insurgency in Kashmir.
Kashmir Conspiracy Case
Following the IB officer report on the alleged mischievous anti-India behaviour of Sheikh Abdullah, the then central government led by Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, reluctantly decided to pursue criminal conduct against Sheikh Abdullah. Balachandran describes an incident where IB officer Mullik conveyed the cold relationship which existed between Sheikh and himself to Bakshi Ghulam Mohammad and D.P. Dhar, as he was investigating Sheikh’s conduct under Nehru’s directions. Mullik was informed by the two gentlemen to convey to Nehru, “the Sheikh was using this agitation as an excuse to get out of his previous commitments to India.” Finally, on August 3, 1953, Sadr-i-Riyasat Karan Singh who was installed after 1951 elections, dismissed the government of Sheikh Abdullah and arrested him.
The eventual formation of plebiscite front in 1955 by Sheikh’s closest aide, Mirza Afzal Beg for the unconditional release of Sheikh Abdullah and independence of Kashmir attracted irk from the central government. The release of Sheikh in January 1958 for “unknown reasons” as R.K. Yadav writes, made the first discontentment of Sheikh Abdullah evident in public when he allegedly openly asked for the boycott of Republic Day functions after his release.
However, Sheikh Abdullah was re-arrested in 1958 on the grounds of seditious activities and coordination with plebiscite front of Mirza Afzal Beg, which was famously called Kashmir Conspiracy Case. The major players who influenced future of Kashmir, Begum Akbar Jahan Abdullah, the wife of Sheikh, his close aides namely Pir Maqbool Ghilani, Ghulam Mohammad Chikan, Mirza Afzal Begum etc. were allegedly colluding with Pakistan to launch insurrection against the Indian state through the usage of propaganda, military explosives etc., while Sheikh was imprisoned initially.
The trial began in 1959, and the famous Hazratbal disappearance episode forced Nehru to abandon the case in 1964 and thus Sheikh was released.
The climax of the famous political drama in the 20th century wrote the future of Indian politics and relations with Kashmir.
Post Sheikh Kashmir
While Sheikh Abdullah’s return to Kashmir invited massive popular legitimacy to his political future, it sowed the seeds of discontentment towards Indian State among the Kashmiri people.
Sheikh Abdullah governed Kashmir till his death in 1982. Farooq Abdullah, Sheikh’s son soon resumed the authority. However, the alleged rigged election of 1987 spearheaded by the then Rajiv Gandhi government in favour of Abdullah instigated the political instability, and thus gave rise to the militancy in the Kashmir valley. The very reason Abdullah wanted to align with Rajiv Gandhi was to retain the lost power by his brother-in-law G.M. Shah following collusion with Indira Gandhi government.
The armed insurgency by the political opponents of Abdullah in 1987 elections supported by Pakistani elements—where Pakistan had vested interest—thus gave rise to the militant insurgency of Kashmir.
The combined notions of establishing Islamic caliphate through Islamic fundamentalism spread initially by Sheikh Abdullah and the election debacle of 1987 ensued militant struggle in Kashmir.
The aggravation of Azad Kashmir combined with Islamic militancy aided by Pakistani elements, supported by the lost dissidents of Abdullah, challenged the entire premise of Kashmir being a part of India.
The subsequent exodus of Kashmiri Pandits from Kashmir valley resulted in nearly 500,000 members of the community either being murdered, women subjected to rape and orphanization of children. The Kashmiri valley with its proximity to Islamabad and the presence of Pakistani-aided militant organizations or non-state actors, thus scripted the future challenge to Indian union and Kashmiri integration.
Contemporary Challenges To Kashmiri Integration
The rise of non-state actors like Harkat-ul-Jihad-al-Islami, Lashkar-e-Taiba, Hizbul Mujahideen, Harkat-ul-Mujahideen, Al-Badr, Jammu Kashmir Liberation Front, ISIL-KP etc. have posed and still pose a major security challenge to India.
To analyse the current situation, we must understand that every situation witnesses one particular actor and ideology driving that actor, which derives legitimacy. The historical events mentioned above delivered major legitimacy to the Kashmiri separatism in the late 20th and the beginning of the 21st century.
The various actors influencing Kashmiri situation are Pakistan-backed militant organizations, differing aspirations of Jammu and Ladakh as opposed to Kashmir, the Indian government under BJP etc. The opinion of the Ladakh region supports accession into India, despise the militancy of Kashmir and are stakeholders in the issue of Kashmir. Jammu and Kashmir have the presence of separatist tendencies due to their proximity to the Azad Kashmir region heavily influenced by Pakistan-backed militant extremists.
The government’s decision to unilaterally abrogate Article 370 and 35A has major implications:
- The threat of external security threats manifesting as internal security threats (Militancy);
- Further alienation of Kashmiris and thus legitimisation of separatism due to the historically implicit notion of India being an occupying power among Kashmiris;
- The intensifying notion of Indian government holding Kashmir submissive in return for economic prosperity and security.
The lockdown of Kashmir with the imposition of section 144 IPC, imprisonments of nearly 4000 Kashmiris since the decision on August 5th and historic “atrocities” committed by the Indian State and the frequent erosion of autonomy guaranteed to Kashmir will only legitimize separatism and its proponents.
The utilitarian, combined with majoritarian viewpoint, gives a sense of satisfaction to the countrymen while the necessary stakeholders are kept in the dark. This exact attitude of the political class has consistently alienated communities from meaningful dialogue and given rise to militant extremism, now posing as a significant national security threat.
The actual result of this decision will only be available for serious spectators after the total and complete relaxation of impositions.