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.
By
Courtesy: Newsbharati
No comments:
Post a Comment