The Valley is elsewhere

As is obvious, there are two aspects to the mess that exists in Kashmir today: the problems created by Pakistan and the problems between India and its people in the state. While the two are not mutually exclusive any prudent political initiativemust necessarily separate the two. Dealing with Pakistan and the proxy war it has unleashed in the Valley, surprising it may seem, is the easier part of the problem. But its success will depend on the manner in which New Delhi is able to succeed in a policy to win back the hearts and minds of the Kashmiri people.

Despite the recent escalation in violence and the fillip given to militancy by New Delhi’s capitulation at Kandahar, there exists an opportunity for an enlightened political initiative towards the state of Jammu and Kashmir. It is the mood of the people in the state, and especially in the Kashmir Valley, that adds weight to the need for such a policy.

Three indices are particularly relevant. First, today there is an overwhelming Kashmiri sentiment against violence, irrespective of its origin. Militancy has lost a great deal of popular legitimacy. “Peace with dignity” is the slogan that perhaps most suitably captures the prevailing mood of those who live in Kashmir. Moreover, there is hardly anysupport for foreign militants.

Indeed, reports that Pakistanis and Afghans belonging to the dreaded Lashkar-e-Taiba may be in control of the militancy, has generated deep discomfiture among significant sections of the Valley.

Second, there is an equally strong disillusionment with Pakistan. The political and social conditions prevailing within Pakistan have not gone unnoticed in the Valley. The virtually total absence of a civil society, the deep ethnic conflict in the Sindh and other areas, and the almost Orwellian control that is exercised in Pakistan-occupied-Kashmir, have left a deep impression on the Kashmiris. The coup by General Pervez Musharraf has strengthened the growing feeling that a country whose commitment to democracy is so weak and imperfect can hardly be a real supporter of the democratic aspirations of the people of Jammu and Kashmir.

Finally, there seem to be genuine, all-pervasive, desire to recover the social capital lost in the last decade, and to restore Kashmir’s traditionalsociety based on ideas of peaceful coexistence and the common syncretic identity of Kashmiriyat. While it will not be easy for Kashmiri Pandits to be rehabilitated in the Valley, it is clear that the ordinary Kashmiri Muslim recognises, more than ever before, the deep cultural and social loss that has been caused by the departure of this important minority community.

New Delhi could even now capitalise on this window of opportunity, which is fast closing, by unilaterally announcing a package to restore political autonomy to the state as well to ensure its economic revival. The former need to be done through detailed negotiations, or through an amendment of the Constitution, but given Jammu and Kashmir’s special status — can be simply implemented through a Presidential ordinance.

Most observers do not seem to recognise that it is possible to strike a harmonious balance between the need to integrate Jammu and Kashmir within the national mainstream and the state’s demand for autonomous self-governance. Ifthis balance is struck, Jammu and Kashmir could become a model of “co-operative federalism”, a special model that could be gradually applied to other states of the Union.

New Delhi should unilaterally declare the Line of Control as the international border. While such a move by India may mean going against the unanimous parliamentary resolution that calls for reclaiming the territory under Pakistan’s occupation, a permanent division of Jammu and Kashmir along the present Line of Control, with minor adjustments if need be, is (for a variety of reasons) the only realistic, practical and just settlement of the problem that has defied a solution for more than half a century. True, this may not leave New Delhi with a bargaining chip in future negotiations. The point, however, is to realise and recognsise that there should now be no question of talking with Pakistan about Kashmir and the issue should no longer figure in any talks with Islamabad as and when they occur.

Also, New Delhi must allow access to anyNGO or group of eminent people who want to observe the election in Jammu and Kashmir or any other part of India. This will satisfy the demand of the All Party Hurriyat Conference, which apparently has agreed to participate in the elections if they are monitored by international observers. Simultaneously, New Delhi must announce a general amnesty for militants who give up arms and are willing to join the political process.

All these unilateral initiatives will, of course, not resolve the problem of terrorism, or end the problem of foreign militants. But then the battle against terrorists will reduce itself to being a law and order problem that will be fought primarily by ordinary Kashmiris rather than security forces from outside the state. Will the government show the political will and imagination to articulate such a policy?

The writer is an associate professor of international studies at JNU