With the curfew clamped almost for much over a month now in South Kashmir valley, the situation has taken the worst turn. It is not befitting the democracy. It is true that Kashmir has never been like any other normal state in the Indian union. The instant apparent trigger has been the killing of terrorist Burhan Wani. There have been several general elections in Jammu-and-Kashmir (J & K) state since independence to entrench democracy in tune with rest of India. Different political parties got majority to rule the state and to bring the state in tune with the rest of India. Kashmiri people had thus ample opportunity to express themselves, choose their leaders and get ruled democratically like rest of Indian states. There has been one single or combination of parties, except the BJP, that ruled the state in the last so many decades.
In 2015, however, the election results were quite astonishing. The BJP got the second largest number of seats and have formed the government with PDP as the major constituent. BJP’s deputy chief minister in ruling position was never imagined by the separatist elements in the valley. By the recent agitation, it might have instigated the agent provocateurs to create trouble to teach a lesson to BJP government at the centre.
The BJP is the only political party whose main plank since independence regarding the status of J & K has all along been abrogation of Article 370 of the constitution, and to remove special status of the state and make it like any other state in the Indian union. The special status enabled them initially to call their Chief Minister as Prime Minister; their flag was different than our national flag; their constitution was totally different. All these were diluted because of martyrdom of the then President of Bharatiya Jana Sangha, (the earlier form of BJP), Dr Shyama Prasad Mukherjee, in 1953. The special status was further eroded by applying many other constitutional provisions to bring J & K in line with other states. But still they have the protection of Article 370 that makes it different from other states. Yet it is still not digested by the anti-India and pro-Pakistani secessionists in the valley at all. They always use whatever opportunity is available to express their anger against India and their desire to be either independent or a part of Pakistan.
This view is held by a small but sizable vociferous communal Muslim group, particularly in the valley, who owe their allegiance to Pakistan. They are pampered and financed by Pakistan for their anti-India activities. They create problems every now and then challenging the authority of India and hence anxiety remains. The latest is to accord Burhan Wani as a martyr for Kashmir when in reality he is a terrorist who acted against India with Pakistan’s active help. Pakistan is known to train and infiltrate terrorists in India, Afghanistan, and also use them even in Pakistan itself. They carry out their terrorist activities as designed by Pakistan. Now they are able to produce terrorists from within India out of the radicalized Muslim population. They challenge accession of Kashmir with India as illegal, immoral and unethical. According to them liberating Kashmir from India is part of the unfinished agenda of the partition that created Pakistan out of traditional India that is Bharat.
Many of Kashmiris insist on their freedom with a guarantee from both India and Pakistan. In this case, the Hindu majority Jammu and Buddhist’s majority Ladakh region’s feelings are not taken note of. The Jammu section all along, since independence, has been agitating to bring J & K at par with other states in Indian union.
There is a small group in the valley who calls themselves as citizens of Pakistan. At present, they openly raise ‘Pakistan zindabad’ slogans. Even ISIS flag is hoisted in the valley on and off. The Friday prayers in Mosques often become the flashpoint to start an agitation on any emotional issue. The gullible Muslims are thus taken for a ride in creating troubles. The secessionists keep regular contact with Pakistan embassy in India and with the Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) agency who is chiefly responsible for infiltration and terrorist activities in India.
As a part of their agenda, they drove out the Kashmiri Pandits (4 lacs in number) totally from the valley in 1989-90 to free it of Hindus. Now the valley has almost whole Muslim character. The Government of India (GOI) could not do anything then and even until today about this exodus. No political party except the BJP has ever even tried to bring the Pandits back into the valley. Lately, Pakistan helps the anti-Indian element there by way of their roji-roti when it is lost due to participation in agitations. Even well-educated youth take part in such agitations. The number participating in these agitations is so large that no action is possible against them within a democratic set-up, except to kill the demonstrators as anti-socials.
Even if the GOI wants some action the state government practically refuses to take action against them. The federal structural of India is thus challenged and the GOI and the rest of Indians are left with no alternative but to watch the situation helplessly. It is due to their special status. That is why after the ouster of Kashmiri Pandits from the valley, when the situation became grim, GOI promulgated AFSPA, to enable the military to take unilateral legal charge of the situation as and when necessary for maintaining peace. The army men are humans and have all the emotions of humans like any other Indian. Occasionally, they might commit some excesses as anyone could. But such instances are blown out of proportion to whip up emotions against the army and the AFSPA act itself and thereby India as a whole. Unfortunately, the media, the non-BJP parties and the left intellectuals make a hue and cry of it that prevents the GOI from taking any action even if it is in national interests. The radicalized Muslim population considers India occupying Kashmir. The pro-Pakistani element, therefore, wants AFSPA to be repealed. But all types of governments in Delhi from 1989 have stoutly refused to withdraw the act. There is at least all India unanimity on this issue.
The present agitation was more openly supported financially and guided by Pakistan to bring the Indian government on its knees. They threw stones and even grenades at the military deployed under AFSPA. Thousands of military personnel were injured. The military had no alternative but to fire and in which by now more than sixty civilians have been killed and thousands, both civilians as well as armed personnel, were injured; some even lost their eyes due to the rubber bullets. The situation still refuses to come to normal.
All right thinking people including all political parties are worried. On 10th of August 2016, Rajya Sabha discussed the issue and resolved to solve the issue by healing touch, dialogue engagement. All previous governments have so acted and even the BJP led NDA government is doing the same. On 12th August all party meeting under the chairmanship of PM Narendra Modi resolved to solve the problem by the same means. The BJP led GOI assured to follow the path laid down by Vajpayee earlier, based on insaniyat, jamhuriat and Kashmiriyat. There is nothing new that has been suggested by any political party, including the ruling BJP, in spite of the grave situation. All these old solutions have already been exhausted long ago and the secessionists did not budge from their position of Azadi. Vajpayee's solution is merely a political slogan to keep the mouth of the intellectuals and the opposition parties shut.
Anyway, what are these routes? Has any government in the past behaved against these three principles, leave alone Kashmir, anywhere in India? What is so great about this route? It is only to reiterate that government of the day has to work within the legal framework. Even otherwise media does not allow any government to act illegally. It pounces on such illegal activities with a hue and cry. The government can’t commit atrocities or else human rights will be violated and which will be another trouble for the rulers. Even if one believes in these principles as something special, has anyone any clue as to how to apply these principles to solve the Kashmir problem? With whom it is to be discussed? Is it the secessionists? Are they prepared to come to the table for negotiations within the above framework?
All the political parties, the so-called liberal intellectuals, and all the humanitarian groups have only suggested that there should be dialogue with the agitators to solve the impasse. Has anyone, sitting in Delhi, ever refused to talk and discuss the agitator’s demands in the past or even in the present? All they have insisted is to discuss the problem as of India and therefore within the constitutional framework. But the agitators refuse to obey constitution; they follow instructions from Pakistan.
Let us admit that all such avenues are long back exhausted. Has anyone anything new to solve the problem? Do they admit that they are all clueless on Kashmir? The newspaper columnists demand that new routes be tried without giving any new way out. The reality is no one has a specific solution to the problem simply because the secessionists want nothing short of freedom from India’s clutches and nobody dare give them that. Hence the situation, on the whole, is too grim. The secessionists are adamant on their demands. In short, India seems to have no acumen and prudence left now to tackle Kashmir problem while keeping the Article 370 intact.
In order to find the solution of Kashmir problem, one must understand the history of J & K against the backdrop of partition and independence and how it acceded to Indian union. British partitioned India on the basis of contiguous areas of Muslim majority population as Pakistan. It left hundreds of the princely states to join anyone or stay independent. It must be understood that in spite of unified British administrative control of Indian Territory, as their colony, many such princely states, distributed all over India, were enjoying some freedom under the control of the resident British adviser in each riyasat.
These riyasats were not aware of the problems and the need of unification of India in the modern times even after long freedom struggle. They had neither the right perception of Indian unifying ethos (in fact Hindu) nor the lacuna thereof that bonded the country in the past, nor the modern rise of nation-states. Hence there was still the tendency in these riyasats to remain as independent kingdoms even after India got independence. The Jodhpur king, with majority Hindu population, after independence, probed the idea of the merger with Pakistan to get some extra benefits. Luckily he did not go further. What would have happened to him and his Hindu population if he had gone that way?
Sardar Patel, the then Home Minister of India, had a better appreciation of Indian history and problems and the need for its unification, far more than anybody else, including Nehru. He intelligently impressed the more than five hundred such riyasats to accede to India and they rightly followed his advice. Thereby India for the first time came under unified administrative control after the fall of Maurya Empire some two thousand three hundred years ago.
There were, however, three exceptions. One was Junagarh in Gujarat where the king was Muslim but the vast majority of his subjects were Hindu. He fled to Pakistan against Hindu agitation, perhaps clandestinely directed by Patel. It finally acceded to Indian union. The second was Hyderabad state under Nizam but with Hindu majority and surrounded from all sides by India that is Hindus. Patel ordered police action and acceded it to India. Nehru was not in favour of such action to maintain his image as a liberal intellectual at the international level, perhaps at the cost of even national interests. Many instances of his life can easily fortify this argument.
The third case was of Jammu and Kashmir which was ruled by a Hindu king with Kashmir valley region having majority Muslim population, Jammu region with majority Hindu population and Ladakh with majority Buddhist population. It stayed as independent for a while. Being contiguous with Pakistan, the Kashmir region was readily invaded by armed Kabailies from Pakistan, immediately after independence, to annex it. The Kashmir Maharaja realized that it was not possible for his forces to stand the attack and maintain independence. Hence he approached Indian government for military help.
Patel asked him first to sign the deed of accession to India and then only he would get the required help. Initially he was hesitant (perhaps because of lack of foresight and historical need of unity of India) but finally he agreed. The then chief of RSS Guruji Golwalkar was quite influential in persuading him to accede. Then Patel sent forces and they started vacating the Kashmir of the invaders. Nehru was upset and by the time the invaders were driven out fairly far he approached UNO for a peaceful solution. First, it enforced the cease-fire that was readily and wholeheartedly accepted and enforced by India. A part of Kashmir thus remains under Pak-control and the remaining with India. The line of control is the border in Kashmir between India and Pakistan occupied Kashmir. The present-day Kashmir imbroglio has its origin here. And hence it is Nehru’s legacy.
Sheikh Abdulla, leader of Kashmiri Muslims and a fast friend of Nehru, in reality, a believer in Kashmir’s independence then became the Prime Minister of J & K immediately thereafter. When Constitution of India was being drafted he impressed Nehru to give special status to J & K and for which Article 370 was inserted in the constitution. Many members were against it. Nehru then had promised the constituent assembly that it would be a temporary thing and shall wither away with time. Nehru’s prophecy proved totally wrong and that is his worst legacy to be faced now.
Although several legal provisions have since been applied to Jand K to bring it at par with other states, yet fundamentally it remains a special state. Since then the vociferous Muslim population of Kashmir has been indicating, agitating if possible, troubling the Indian administration to let them free of Indian control. Sheikh Abdulla was then jailed for over a decade. But the intelligentsia and media insisted on forming a popular government in J & K in tune with democracy. But nobody, except the BJP, thought of abrogating the Article 370 to solve the problem once and for all. Finally, he was released to become chief minister. After him, his son Farrukh Abdulla was donned by him to become the CM.
In his regime the secessionists became bold and that finally resulted in Pandit’s exodus in 1989. Now with financial help and infiltration of terrorists from Pakistan, they feel strong enough even to challenge the military. After Farrukh his son Omar Abdulla became CM but that drifted the situation in worst direction.
The extremist Muslim element now has a say in Kashmir valley in spite of the democratically elected state government. Even the rulers have all along been entirely those who supported the secession, directly or indirectly, because only those who support their cause get elected in the valley. Kashmir has disproportionate representation in the assembly as compared to Jammu and Ladakh regions, in terms of population, and hence even the elected state government is at the mercy of the secessionists. One must understand that the constitution of India has not been of much help to curb the anti-India feelings there.
The liberal and left-oriented intellectuals keep on harping on negotiated settlement without knowing what that would be in Indian interests. Do not forget that the same type of intellectuals had earlier readily conceded to the demand for partition as the best way out to get independence. They never analyzed what went wrong in the independence movement that led to partition. The paramount need before any nation is to weigh humanitarian considerations against short term and long term security needs. The secessionists are adamant on their demand for freedom from India. What is the way out? Still engage, have dialogue, and what is expected of it?
One should recollect that China ruthlessly killed hundreds of their own citizens in the Tinanmann square, disregarding humanitarian considerations, but in their own national interest, whatever that meant to them. Margaret Thatcher similarly sent British forces to protect the far off Falkland islands to protect national honour. The Soviet Union did many such things in national interests. China grabbed lot of Indian Territory of Aksai Chin and Tibet and ousted many of its residents to protect long-term national interests.
Humanitarian considerations never came in their way for protecting national interests. The latest is that it has declared the South China Sea, strategically very important international maritime route, as its property in terms of purely national interests and domination as a super power. They did not bother about the international opinion. Everything must be done in national interests and not out of mere humanitarian considerations.
Hindus all along have been known as excessively humanitarian because of their cultivation as accepting entire humanity as one family (vasudhaiva kutumbkam). Being dominated by Hindus, the same legacy continues in all political parties in India. (At least on that account they should declare India as Hindu Rashtra). Only BJP is exceptional who consider national interests superior to humanitarian considerations. Nehru was more conscious of humanitarian interests even at the cost of national interests and hence the Kashmir imbroglio of today.
How can mighty India talk with those who are out to destroy national integrity? What will emerge from talks with the secessionist groups when they have clearly stated that they will stop at nothing less than azadi of Kashmir? So even if negotiations are carried out we will have to give in something in the direction of azadi; next time something more and so on till their aim is realized. Are we going to fall prey to this tactic of theirs supported by the so-called intellectuals in the media? It may be expedient for the time being for those who are out to project themselves as saviours of Muslims. But it is surely not in national interests. Their argument is that they are a minority; in fact, they are in majority in Kashmir and they have committed lot of atrocities on minority Hindus there. Yet they are treated as minority. By posing as Muslim saviours all political parties except the BJP would like to ensure Muslim votes in rest of India. Hindus have all along been very liberal towards Muslim invaders. What they got in return?
The fundamental aim of true Muslims is to convert all the rest, in particular the Hindus, into Muslims. True all Muslims are not like that. But those who are not never express themselves against it for the fear that the extremist element will physically harm them. There may also be a gut feeling that it is good if all Hindus are converted by others. They do not conceal that pleasure. How solution will be found out by give and take as is proposed by the liberals. It will only be ‘give’ and no ‘take’.
The problems of India at unification are many. It needs long term strategy and calm action in the national interests. There is no point in being liberal at the cost of unity and integrity of India. Such people believe that the constitution is good enough to guarantee national security. It is the people who are patriots and, when united in national interests, alone can be guarantee of national security and not the constitution. We have already suffered by Nehru’s liberality by way of Chinese aggression. It was a humiliating defeat. Kashmir imbroglio is another extreme example of his liberality at the cost of national security. We have lost lot of our territory for being liberal to China. Nehru described it as that land where not even a blade of grass grows. For that blunder we are now heavily paying in terms of money and lives of militia. History has a lesson for us that national interests cannot be served by liberal give and take. All thinking must be in line with long term national interests, more particularly the security considerations. It must always be a hard bargaining. It is very obvious to see that even in commerce and economics all nations follow this principle tooth and nail. Against this background solution of Kashmir problem need to be first understood and then resolved.
Hence time has come to call “spade a spade” with respect to Kashmir. PM Modi has rightly said that Kashmir means Jammu, Ladakh, Kashmir valley and Pak-occupied Kashmir (PoK). Hence seceding any part as per the demands of terrorists is out of question, no matter what is the cost to be paid for it. Remember at what cost we protect Siachin? How many lives we have already sacrificed for its protection? It is in national interests. As long as Kashmir, for that matter any other area of India, is overwhelmingly Muslim in population, trouble seems to be the order of the day. The same things are observed in many small pockets in the states like UP, Bihar, Assam, West Bengal and so on where Muslims are in a great majority. But the state governments there have to act using force under media pressure. But the problems get solved there for the time being and not permanently. It has not been possible to solve the problem using force in J & K so far because of the enormity of the problem and its contiguity with Pakistan.
The only solution to such problems is to transform the demography from Muslim majority into Muslim minority. The intelligentsia and the media are bound to react negatively on such suggestion and vouch for nationalism of a minor lot of Muslim hooligans there. Hence there is only one solution to Kashmir imbroglio and that is to abrogate Article 370 and bring it at par with the rest of the states in India; allow others to settle there and thereby bring Muslims into a minority. No group, party other than BJP, the media and some international sections would allow it readily. That is the litmus test of nationalist government at Delhi.
The problem with India is that it does not have a clear perception of nationhood. Here even anti-nationals are treated as nationalists. The JNU affair is its typical example. The intelligentsia does not want to define nationhood as Hindu. Else they will be branded as communal and for them no abuse is worse than being called communal. It is their creation. They feel that our constitution is our nationhood. The constitution guarantees independence. Yet the problems of Manipur, Nagaland, Khalistan and Kashmir have become headaches for the government since independence. Constitution has not been able to solve them. Those who are anti-national would like to secede from Indian union using the same independence guaranteed by the constitution. It is the tragedy of our constitution.
The fact that we accepted partition to get independence inspires them to try to secede. Our intellectuals stand behind such forces in the name of liberalism. That is how JNU professors teach that India is an occupying force in Manipur, Kashmir, Nagaland and so on. Do not forget that extreme liberalism of Hindus in the history finally made them slaves for more than one thousand years. Hindus do not want to learn from history. In fact, they do not believe in history older than the period of independence. The insistence of media on dialogue with secessionists and Pakistan to solve the Kashmir problem lacks of basic understanding of Muslim psyche and the principles on which partition was accepted by majority Hindus.
Let us first understand that there is no solution to Muslim problems anywhere in the world when they far outnumber the rest. Kashmir valley is the typical case in point. The recent Kairana episode in UP is its typical example on the small scale. The only solution for the problems created by them is to change the demography into their minority. This is the only solution for Kashmir. It can be done by first abrogating the Article 370 that gives special status to Kashmir. Then it will be possible to allow others to settle in the valley to make them demographically like other regions in India. This is the only and sure guarantee of solution of Kashmir problem.
Our intellectuals are scared at such ideas since their crooked liberalism (in fact anti-nationalism in disguise) shall be the first victim of such approach. They will oppose it tooth and nail. They will prefer to sacrifice money and men in any amount to pleading their view. They themselves do not have to sacrifice anything, leave apart life. On the whole, their actions are bound to harm national security.
The liberal Hindus need to understand the duniadari in this world as Israel has understood. Had the Israelis not understood, they would have been wiped out of existence by now. Hindus have already been wiped out of Kashmir valley. Are we prepared to deal with it sternly? Alternative is to keep losing money and men for maintaining Article 370 intact. All except the BJP are living in fantasies about J & K as is the present case. It has been so all these years. With BJP majority rule at the centre, the problem can be viewed in more appropriate and practical way disregarding the criticism in media. Great visionaries take gambles in national interests.
This is extremely radical solution of J & K imbroglio. It has not yet been suggested by anyone except the BJP and RSS in the past. It is based on realism. How far this solution is acceptable to all other political parties? How will the so-called intellectuals respond to it? How will media spoil the environment at this suggestion? How strong is the government of the day to venture on such a path to ensure national security and integrity?
The solution to Kashmir imbroglio lies in answering these questions. Until then let us stand the worst legacy of Nehru and consequently stand national humiliation, including loss of money and men. Hindus have yet to learn proper lessons from their own history.