Jammu and Kashmir: News and Discussion

[Energon]

Indian political groups have both the resource and the organizational ability to mobilize the kind of response i was talking about,but yes there is a consensus of unwillingness to venture such a strategy.However the constant and visibly vociferous refrain of Azadi and our unwillingness to counter it on the streets will lead to greater tragedy in the future.Fear and proprietary must not prevent us from the taking the right decisions and making right moves.Talks about autonomy and back channel dialogue etc only vitiate the atmosphere against us and undermine our expressed intent about Kashmir being a settled matter.

Article 370 is completely redundant and is a disabling impediment in any attempt to integrate Kashmir into 21st century Indian economy.If anybody thinks Kashmir is going to build a real economy rowing tourist houseboats or ferrying pilgrims then they are seriously mistaken,nor can Kashmir envisage log term growth oriented,job creating economic development on central govt hand out.Even Kashmir were a independent country they have to attract private capital,private entrepreneurs willing to invest in the state and generate long term job and growth.no Indian entrepreneur,even an Ambani,will ever invest in state where even the most basic of assets(a piece of land)is not in his possession.There are also several legal issues,result of the above said Article,which pose serious question about integrating Kashmir's economy with the rest of the Indian mainstream.

Article 370 must go and tomorrow Kashmiris(or those who support the Article)will thank their fellow countrymen for showing wisdom.

I completely share your opinion of Article 370, I just don't think it's going anywhere. Also, since I've never asked you this before, what action (detailed if possible) would you like to see been taken in order to counter this menace in the streets?

 

[Rage]

JKNPP to celebrate accession of state to India on Oct 26-27
PTI | 02:10 PM,Oct 14,2010


Jammu, Oct 14 (PTI) The Jammu and Kashmir National Panthers Party (JKNPP) has today decided to celebrate accession of the state to India in 1947, during the upcoming 63rd anniversary celebrations of the party. "JKNPP shall celebrate the anniversary on the state's integration with India with great pomp and show in all the 22 districts on October 26, the day Maharaja Hari Singh signed the instrument of accession on October 26, 1947," party Chairman Bhim Singh told reporters here. He said that on October 27, the party shall organise a historic public meeting in Jammu-the winter capital of the state, where all nationalists and political parties shall be invited. The JKNPP Chairman said that the party has appealed to all the political parties, social organisations, NGOs and the educational institutions to take out victory rallies with the tricolour flags to show that Jammu and Kashmir is an "inseparable and integral part" of India. Asserting that the finality of accession with India cannot be challenged, Singh quoted Article 3 of the state Constitution which says "Jammu and Kashmir is and shall remain an integral part of India". Meanwhile, reacting to the appointment of the interlocutors by Centre to carry dialogue process with different groups here, he said "it is only a process of appointing unemployed bureaucrats and media persons, who do not have basic knowledge about geography and history of greater Jammu and Kashmir." PTI MKB DK


http://ibnlive.in.com/generalnewsfe...ion-of-state-to-india-on-oct-2627/412762.html

 

[ejazr]

I have a similar take as Energon here. Thre are many things I would like to change in the A370 such as extending Vigiliance comitte and lokyukta powers to J&K as well as other central bodies like NHRC, census,Supreme court, Right to information and Information comissioners and so on which would infact be beneficial for the locals and will integrate J&K better. Other safe gaurds like J&K maintaining its ethinic and cultural demographics---the idea of Kashmiriyat if you will--- should be provided as well. But neogitating this is a long term process and has to be done with local collaborators or partners.

The point is that is the article 370 debate the right debate at THIS point in time? IMO we cant say that the insurgency is over just because violence levels have gone down. Until there are safe havens in Pakistan and takfiri groups like Hizb and LeT are active we cant really say that we have won the insurgency over. Debate on article370 is a peace time process, right now we are in a conflict situation and need to get some really basic things right like getting majority of the population protected so that those who are pro-government are not threatened and so on. Security is of paramount importance at present.

For example, in the recent unrest, many Indians from outside J&K had to flee the valley, lot of them govt, employees. Similarly a lot of pro-Indian or rich Kashmiris moved to Jammu. This internal displacement is because of lack of security. Once security is fine, people from all over Indian and the world can come to KAshmir and live there and become part of the economy with out with article 370. Right now a massive recruitment of locals from Kashmir, Jammu and Ladakh is needed to develop and significant and strong crowd control force with the latest equiment and latest training with a population-centric focus.

Before ecnomic needs, consitutional amendments and negotiations with sepratists, getting an upper hand on the security matters is of paramount importance.

 

[ejazr]

Gani Bhat says can't implement UN resolution on Kashmir

Muslim Conference (MC), an important constituent of the moderate Hurriyat Conference, stirred up a hornet's nest in separatist circles on Thursday by asserting that "implementation of the UN resolution on Kashmir is conditional to the mutual consent of India and Pakistan, which perhaps seems unlikely at this juncture".

"The UN resolution testifies that Kashmir is a dispute. Unfortunately, its implementation has been made conditional and seems unlikely at this stage. Therefore, the issue should be resolved throughnegotiations to avoid a war between the two nations," reads a resolution adopted by MC's executive committee presided over by president and former Hurriyat chairman Abdul Gani Bhat.

MC's stand has touched a raw nerve of hardliners, who want the UN resolution to be made the basis for any negotiation on the Kashmir issue.

Hurriyat hawk Syed Ali Shah Geelani, who spearheads the current agitation in which around 110 people have died so far, has made it a starting point for any negotiation without informing the people about the conditions associated with the "non-binding resolution".

The preamble of Geelani's five-point proposal for reviewing the agitation hinges on this resolution, because he wants the Centre to accept Kashmir as an international dispute.

But MC has taken a different line. "The current movement is the only way to find a solution to the Kashmir issue. But it cannot succeed unless it is supported by meaningful negotiations," an MC spokesman said.

"Kashmir should be declared a territory of peace where the leadership in India, Pakistan and both parts of Kashmir provide guarantees for ending violence," he said.

 

[S.A.T.A]

I completely share your opinion of Article 370, I just don't think it's going anywhere. Also, since I've never asked you this before, what action (detailed if possible) would you like to see been taken in order to counter this menace in the streets?

I think it was Roosevelt who said 'we have to fear nothing but fear itself'(or sort of it).While Kashmiri observers agree that Article 370 is retrograde and is mostly an albatross around our neck,but it the fear as to how the valley will respond that keep us seriously reviewing the provision.There is fear that the valley will erupt and there will be unprecedented violence and all sorts fear mongering is generated to obfuscate the real facts.The sense of alienation that is said pervade in the valley,which brings a large section of the valley to the streets at the slightest of provocation, did not develop yesterday or in 1989.

In a sense we helped instill that alienation by providing for Kashmir to be treated as a constitutional colony,a sovereign state within a sovereign state.The problem ofcourse was few Kashmiris understood that this position was untenable.While Kashmir was, politically speaking, an empowered state just short of full national sovereignty.Economically and geographically however Kashmir was completely dependent on factors and entities outside its borders.The autonomy that Kashmiris sought, and that the center gave them, was in effect a voluntary political alienation from the rest of the country.It was inevitable that other factors invariably resulted in kashmir's economic and social alienation.

Kashmiris wanted maximum political autonomy(which is keep the Article 370)but also accrue all the benefits that come from being part of the economy of a billion people.This was clearly not going to happen and when it didn't happen,Kashmiris understood(or rather misunderstood)that the constitutionally provided autonomy was hollow.

@Ejazr and Energon
Kashmir's integration with India,which is long overdue cannot happen in a political/constitutional vacuum.There cannot be a segmented integration,it will not work and will only result in more lost time and oppurtunity.One cannot hug another person while keeping a distance.Ejasr raised question about how he Article 370 ensures the idea of Kashmiriyat prevails(meaning the valley remains exclusively Kashmiri,ethnically and demographically)i think that is the crux of the matter with regarding the Article 370 and the people of Kashmir,the fear that without the constitutional provision the valley will be overwhelmed by ethnic non Kashmirirs.

There is no Article 370 in Punjab,there is no article 370 in Uttar Pradesh,there is no Article 370 in Bengal or Tamil Nadu or Kerala and it is quite obvious that Punjab continues to be overwhelmingly Punjabi,Uttar pradesh overwhelmingly Hindawi,Bengal overwhelmingly Bengali,Tamil Nadu overwhelmingly Tamilian and Kerala overwhelmingly Malayali. I don't believe Kashmir is anymore resource rich than any of these above mentioned states,so much that Indians would flood to the valley to make their homes in the valley.The fear may have been relevant at the dawn of independence and hence the Article 370,but it is now redundant because the such threat to Kashmir's cultural/demographic identity simply does not exist.

We cannot tie ourselves into a constitutional bind on a patently irrational fear.

The unemployed men on the streets of the valley,burning and pillaging are the consequence of slow process,its remedy also will be drawn out.But if the solution is integrating Kashmir with the mainstream more comprehensively,it must start with the undoing of the Article 370.Armed militants can be dealt by the armed forces,unarmed separatist on the streets must be challenged by unarmed nationalist forces drawn from the rest of the country.Nationalism in the valley cannot be an exclusively Kashmiri affair,space must be denied to anti national forces.

 

[The Messiah]

They need jobs and need to enjoy the prospering Indian economy. Its as simple as that.

 

[ejazr]

@SATA

I have been interested in understanding what article 370 actually means here and done a bit of research on it myself. Taking your analogy about the cart before the horse, I humbly believe that the A370 is not even on the road to peace where you would put the cart before the horse. The article needs to be looked at in the big picture. Now the discussion wether the article 370 will apply or not in Kashmir will be with those who are pro-India in the first place. We are talking about tackling sepratist sentiment here and hence the article 370 being a non sequitor so to speak in this case. The valley has already exploded in discontent although mainly around HR issues, but the article 370 that governs centre state relations which is of concern for the pro-India people. So basically instead of tackling mesures to reduce sepratist support it seems we are going of on a tangent and focussing on pro-India part of the J&K population.

You mentioned states that dont have special status and privillages, but did you know that there are other states that do have such "special status". Quoting Najeeb Jung's recent article in TOI: There is no sensitisation to affirmative action and no dissemination of information that, if there is Article 370 in Kashmir, there is also Article 371-A for Nagaland, 371-B for Assam, 371-C for Manipur, 371-D for Andhra Pradesh, 371-F for Sikkim, 371-G for Mizoram, 371-H for Arunachal Pradesh and 371-I for Goa. All these Articles grant special rights and privileges to these states depending on their culture, society and history. But society has not been adequately sensitised, with the result that now governments are concerned that any special package offered to Kashmir will be perceived as weakness and, therefore, have a political fallout.


Some people wrongly believe that the article 370 is actually being implemented as of now. 370 has been much diluted, some leagally by the various accords with Sheikh Abdulla which apply right now. Some illegally by the constant interference in elections by the centre in J&K. This interference and rigging of elections was probably the biggest mistake ever made. For example we can see that even the hint of interference in centre in state relations results in harsh backlash in the recent Karanataka case. So J&K was given a "special politcal treatment" here in a negative sense due to various presidential decrees.

The other misperception is that article 370 some how guarantees land acquistion to people of J&K alone. But this is only indirectly. This law was passed by Maharaja Hari Singh govt. and that is part of J&K consitituion and even if 370 is removed, the J&K legislature can pass law on land use if people of J&K including jammuites and ladakhis feel this is an important provision to have. Just like there is a similar law in Himachal Pradesh on agricultural land acquistion by no Himachalis. You don't need article 370 if the state legislature is adamant on controlling land acquistion. Another example is the West Bengal govt. and the TATA nano issue, even when land was given, the farmers did not allow it to happen courtesty Mamata magic. Besides the J&K legislature was one of the first states to pass land reforms as well.

At present A370 doesn't prevent an Indian citizen to go to J&K whenever he/she likes and many visit in peacetimes or pilgirmages without problem. You have people from all over India going to work in J&K govt. services to just plain beggars and hawkers to earn a living. A370 doesn't prevent these people for example from UP and Bihar going there. So what will happen if A370 is removed, what change will it happen on the ground? As you said, its wrong to expect a mass migration of people settling down in J&K, espicially if the security situation is so bad.

I seriously think that BJP did some innovative thinking this time by being the first politcal party to reach out to Kashmiri youths and hold a session with their party leaders no matter how it went. This is the type of innovative and out of box thinking we need from an opposition party. They have also made the right noises on making sure HR violations be taken care of e.t.c. But IMO they are wasting too much politcal capital and time and energy on getting article 370 abrogated when similar aticles are applied to a number of other states. There is no need to be so emotionally wedded to this when 6+ other states have similar special provisions.

And ESPICIALLY because the sepratists are not negoitaiton on what 370 should or should not cover. This negotiation will start once there is enough momentum when majority of the "Sepratists" have accepted the ground rules that there will no change on Internation borders and be under the Indian union. Then people will realise that a broader association with centre espicially when it comes to National comissions for women, children, SC/ST, human rights e.t.c. and corruption vigilance comissions e.t.c. will be an imporatnat component. Eventually devolution of powers to sub-regional sections and then finally to Panchayat level should be the goal.

 

[ejazr]

Kashmir: Why India has nothing to fear

Contrary to established punditry, the Jammu and Kashmir [ Images ] "crisis" is bottoming out and could soon move towards normalcy, hope and reconciliation.

One may expect desperate efforts by both internal and external actors to undermine the peace initiative that Delhi and Srinagar are jointly fashioning. This could delay but need not deny progress, provided the government, learning from the recent past, perseveres and does not allow the process to be vetoed by spoilers.

The so-called "intifada" began in June in the midst of a promising tourist season, an untroubled Amarnath Yatra [ Images ] and a resumption of Indo-Pakistan contacts that presaged restarting the dialogue that was interrupted by 26/11.

Islamabad [ Images ] failed to gain much mileage from the bogus water jihad it orchestrated earlier in the year, partly to divert attention from mounting problems at home. In the Valley, efforts were made to restart the quiet talks that the Hurriyat had broken off in panic after an attempt on the life of one of its moderate interlocutors Fazle Haq Qureshi. All manner of vested interests felt threatened by these trends.

The fake encounter at Machhil was a military disgrace and those guilty of such crimes must be brought to book. But this episode alone could not have triggered violence. Earlier, the Amarnath Yatra Board land "scandal" had momentarily aroused passions in the Valley and Jammu on false premises. The alleged Shopian "rape" scandal, too, did not survive hard evidence of its fabrication.

The sudden burst of stone pelting thereafter was attributed to angry youth who have only known conflict and grief. They resent living in a militarised environment and seek azadi, variously interpreted as self-determination, independence or a "political settlement". These could have been the subject of dialogue.

Instead, Friday congregations formed processions that targeted symbols of state and property, provoking a cycle of repression and violence. Processional calendars were issued, routes and targets defined and, with advance planning, stones handily found as and where required.

Those who criticised and mocked the state did nothing to restrain the mobs. Tragically, some innocent youth and passers-by were killed. If the situation was mishandled and non-lethal methods were used to quell the rioters, those behind the agitation wanted blood on the streets.

The Centre finally sent an all-party delegation to Srinagar that circumvented the separatists' boycott by visiting Hurriyat leaders in their homes. An ensuing all-Party meeting in Delhi led to the announcement of plans to relax or lift curfew, redeploy security forces, consider softening the Armed Forces Special Powers Act, downscale bunkers and check points, offer ex-gratia payments and compensation for fatalities, reopen schools, and set up a group of interlocutors to conduct a broad-based dialogue.

Much else could follow, including the implementation of the recommendations of the prime minister's earlier five working groups.

Fear still stalks parts of the Valley with Geelani and the Mir Waiz rejecting the proposed action plan as eyewash. Parents fret that their wards will not be safe going to school. Geelani insists on public acceptance of Kashmir as an "international dispute" -- his way of saying that Pakistan must be fully involved as an equal party.

This is meaningless verbiage.

J&K is a dispute but it is not the fact but the nature of the dispute that is in contention. Under the governing UN Resolution of August 13, 1948, now dead, Pakistan is the aggressor that was to quit Pakistan Occupied Kashmir (POK) and the Gilgit-Baltistan Area, disarm and disband the so-called Azad Pakistan forces and hand over the civil administration to India [ Images ] for governance under UN supervision. Pakistan's wholesale default, its demographic manipulation and the changed geo-strategic environment precluded the proposed plebiscite.

The Mir Waiz and Yasin Malik (of the Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Front) posit azadi as the starting point of dialogue. But J&K was in fact independent from August 15 to October 22, 1947. It was Pakistan that altered that fact by force and fraud and, failing, tried again in 1965, and yet again by means of cartographic aggression in Siachen and subsequently in Kargil [ Images ] and through continuing cross-border interventions.

As for greater federal autonomy for J&K and intra-state autonomy, down to the local level through more fully empowered panchayats, the "sky is the limit". Articles 258 and 258-A provide for the Centre and states to entrust powers up and down the federal chain as evident in the rich brew of graded devolution incorporated in Articles 371 and 371 A to 371-I as well as through inter-state devolution to regional and sub-regional units and non-territorial entities extant in the Northeast.

Insistence on talks "within the framework of the Constitution" merely implies that any solution must enjoy sufficient national consensus to win a two-thirds majority in Parliament and, where necessary, to be adopted by one half of all state legislatures.

The BJP is mistaken in thinking that Article 370, a mechanism for adjusting Centre-State relations with reference to J&K, weakens its "integration" with India. This is fully secured under Article 1 and Schedule I of the Constitution.

The clamour to remove Omar Abdullah by fiat from Delhi is misplaced and will only confirm the jibe that the J&K government is a mere puppet.

The internal dialogue now proposed must be uninterrupted. All elements should be invited to join the process. But none can claim a veto and any settlement will have to win popular endorsement through fair and free elections.

India has nothing to fear if J&K is governed by the terms of the 1952 Delhi Agreement with Sheikh Abdullah or even by just the original heads of accession -- external affairs, defence and communications. Most people in J&K would probably prefer a broader rather than minimal association with the Union. Jammu and Ladakh or sub-regions within them can win different degrees of autonomy or association with the Union through the mechanism of Articles 258 and 258-A.

Islamabad may huff and puff as the ascendant military and mullahs underscore their relevance. This will further expose Pakistan as a rogue state, given to doublespeak and unable even after 60 years to patch together a credible identity that defines it as something more than India's "other". Few in Kashmir now look on it with affection or trust. The sorry plight of PoK and Gilgit-Baltistan is cautionary.

 

[S.A.T.A]

@ Ejazr

It would be patently misleading to compare the special provisions of the Article 371 and 370 and then draw similarities between them.I think with the exception of Nagaland and Mizoram,the article 371 does not prevent the automatic application of the Indian constitution in totality or subject any such application ,completely or partially,to the approval of respective state legislatures.It isn't mere coincidence then that Nagaland and Mizoram find themselves in the same separatists pickle as Kashmir.

The special provision also covers such state as AP,Gujarat and Maharashtra among others,are we to believe that the Kashmir has the same constitutional status as the above mentioned states.Indian constitution simply does apply in the state and where it does it subjected to modification upon the whims of the state legislature(something that isn't exist in the case other states).ironically according to the jammu and Kashmir state constitution,the state is not even secular because the J&K state Constitution does not have the term 'secular' in its preamble.This is the degree of dichotomy that exists.

The impression i get is a section of this country is ready to compromise to the degree where the notion of nationhood is reduced to fig leaf semantics.Please don't institutionalize separatism


P.S:If i have somehow managed to create an impression that i represent BJP or express its point of view,then i must clarify that impression is wrong.Although i do strongly espouse views which the BJP allegedly once subscribed to(or still pays mere lip service for),still any similarity of opinion is coincidental

 

[ejazr]

School For Moderation

A Deoband resolution on Kashmir talks sense, dispels stereotypes
Neelabh Mishra

In the bestiary of Islam-haters, whether of the international or the desi, Hindutva variety, one of the worst demonisations is that foisted upon the Deoband school. The historic Darul Uloom seminary in Deoband, Uttar Pradesh, is wrongly projected as an important fount of extremist, militant Islamic politics, whether of Bangladeshi, Kashmiri, Pakistani, Afghan or Central Asian provenance. Some jehadi groups, it is true, have arrogated to themselves a dubious legitimacy by claiming adherence to 'true' principles of the Deoband school of thought. The Darul Uloom, however, has consistently distanced itself from jehadi groups and from any form of terrorism.

Recently, the Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind, a powerful group of clerics from the seminary—not one to hesitate from engaging with issues of social or political significance—adopted a calibrated resolution on Kashmir. Unfortunately, it is bound to have no effect on both Islam-baiters and jehadi groups: the former will concoct conspiracy theories, the latter will ignore it altogether. But what the clerics have done is to courageously negotiate the complex and difficult space between the Indian establishment's hawkish sentiment on the Kashmir issue, the majoritarian 'nationalist' sentiment, the separatist sentiment of Kashmiri Muslims, and the guardedness of Muslims in the rest of India.

The Indian establishment and those adhering to the nationalist sentiment will not digest the resolution's demand that the Armed Forces Special Powers Act be withdrawn from Kashmir, the security forces and barricades in civilian areas be removed, the Public Safety Act be repealed and an independent inquiry commission investigate human rights violations and the disappearance of thousands of young men. In fact, these are demands voiced by most independent rights groups, whether Indian or international; there's nothing Muslim or 'communal' about them. Separatist groups, on the other hand, have rejected the clerics' recommendation that a solution be found within the framework of the Indian Constitution and that the interests of the Kashmiri people are not separate from that of Muslims in the rest of India. They see the Darul Uloom as failing to appreciate the Kashmiri Muslim's true aspiration—azadi. Be that as it may, the 11-point resolution demonstrates commendable even-handedness: it condemns the lethal crowd-control methods of the security forces and at the same time appeals to Kashmiri protesters that they adopt peaceful means to fight for their rights.

Even without joining issue with any of the positions on the Kashmir dispute, an empathetic reading of the Deoband initiative in order to understand and appreciate its significance is possible. First, it draws attention to the plurality and the regional divides in the perceptions, opinions and voices on Kashmir within the Muslim community—even within its most traditional sections, including the clerics. This runs against the stereotype of Muslims being bound by a herd mentality that runs across the subcontinent, a stereotype that more than hints at communal conspiracy. Another stereotype the resolution challenges—through its careful attempts to disentangle the numerous threads in the Kashmir knot—is that of the community responding sentimentally and in sectarian fashion to complex, historical issues, of being incapable of considered analysis. Even more significantly, the resolution underlines another important point: if Pakistanis, and even non-state-sponsored militants from other Muslim countries, feel it is their right to intervene in Kashmir in ways they deem appropriate, Indian Muslims, too, have the right to intervene and be heard.

The Deoband view may yet be heavily contested—by Kashmiris, Muslim and non-Muslim, and by India and Pakistan and their peoples—but it will be easy to agree with and build a consensus around at least some of what the resolution says. The most obvious of which is that repression and violence will not work. Rejecting what's not to their liking, all sides will still find in the resolution something they like. The Pakistan angle to the Kashmir issue—Pakistan has its fair share of those who swear by Deoband, though they are obviously not pleased with the resolution's insistence on a solution within the Indian Constitution—will probably require a different kind of effort. But the parties within the present territorial boundaries of India are sure to see in the Deoband initiative an opportunity for a kind of back channel towards resolution of the Kashmir problem. One initiative could mean nothing, but through it one may perhaps reach a window of hope, a vista of opportunities, some of it obvious, some calling for effort and innovative response.

 

[Virendra]

Gentlemen,

IMO, the angle of Indian constitution cannot be weighed out of the table whenever Kashmir is discussed.
Reason, India is a secular state run by the dictat of this very constitution and Kashmir is a province of India.
Now deciding the fate of the entire state (IOK, POK) without keeping the constitution on table will lead to solutions based on narrow values.
Bottomline, ownership of the land in a secular nation cannot be decided on basis of religion. This notion will (rightfully) always oversee any solutions the Indian side proposes or ponders upon.
What happened has happened and for many reasons we may not indulge into disturbing the status quo. But our stand is clearer than ever - todays India will not be divided on basis of religion.

Coming to the problem at hand, I think mistakes have been made and since they've been made within the house they should be admitted with virility to save the house.
A very long stay under the muzzle can frustrate any one and then who's muzzle it is won't matter at all.
I'm not that cognizant and experienced to give a solution but know one thing; problem is socio-political and hence needs an equal involvement of Politicians and Kashmiris if we're to see a solution.
As for Deoband, an average solution accepted is better than the best solution discarded. I hope they've learned their lesson.

Regards,
Virendra

 

[ejazr]

@ Ejazr

It would be patently misleading to compare the special provisions of the Article 371 and 370 and then draw similarities between them.I think with the exception of Nagaland and Mizoram,the article 371 does not prevent the automatic application of the Indian constitution in totality or subject any such application ,completely or partially,to the approval of respective state legislatures.It isn't mere coincidence then that Nagaland and Mizoram find themselves in the same separatists pickle as Kashmir.

I was pointing out that the states do have special status and in some cases laws passed by centre may not apply unless ratified by the local assembly. Its about centre-state realtions but this is after you have a pro-India population. For example, you have similar special clauses for Sikkim, but the negotiation of centre-state relations was after the Sikkim national parliament decided to accede to India

The special provision also covers such state as AP,Gujarat and Maharashtra among others,are we to believe that the Kashmir has the same constitutional status as the above mentioned states.Indian constitution simply does apply in the state and where it does it subjected to modification upon the whims of the state legislature(something that isn't exist in the case other states).ironically according to the jammu and Kashmir state constitution,the state is not even secular because the J&K state Constitution does not have the term 'secular' in its preamble.This is the degree of dichotomy that exists.

This is the first time I am reading about this argument that some how J&K is not a secular state. Clearly as J&K is part of the union of India in article 1 of the Indian consitution, then automatically J&K is part of the secular state as of now. And no one has any confusion about it. Even Geelani the hardline sepratist reiterates that according to him we cant be part of a "secular state". In other words even he accepts that J&K at present is part of a secular state.

Besides, the subjects covered by state has been clarified in various accords and article 370. So just like many states can pass laws on state subjects, the J&K legislature has similar rights. But when it comes to say defence, foreign affairs e.t.c. Laws passed by the Indian constitution automatically apply to J&K.

The impression i get is a section of this country is ready to compromise to the degree where the notion of nationhood is reduced to fig leaf semantics.Please don't institutionalize separatism

Again, like I mentioned wehave to clarify what we mean by autonomy. All governance is local and in an ideal case, most of the powers are vested at the panchayat level. We were able to get a legup and finish sepratist movement in nagaland and manipur because the GoI agreed to offer some sort of autonomy mainly around the cultural and ethinc identity. This strengthed their bond with the Indian union.

On the otherhand if we are talking about say, two PMs and seperate passports and things like that, then that is a non-started. This is sepratism and not autonomy. So it basically depends on what is being negotiated.

But the primary issue AT THIS POINT IN TIME is not about centre state relations which is what A370 is about. Its about countering the insurgency. We are still in the middle of a insurgency and need to work on it using population centric startegies, securing the population and creating space for mainstream parties. Like I mentioned earlier A370 is to be negotiated with pro-India people, not the sepratist. It doesnt matter if you revoke it or not, they wouldnt give a damn.

P.S:If i have somehow managed to create an impression that i represent BJP or express its point of view,then i must clarify that impression is wrong.Although i do strongly espouse views which the BJP allegedly once subscribed to(or still pays mere lip service for),still any similarity of opinion is coincidental

Well the only reason I talked about BJP was its the only politcal party that holds this view (maybe shiv sena as well but I havent heard them speak on this issue). So in a sense in the politcal environment its a minority viewpoint. But still looking objectively at the work BJP has done barring a few things in power, they have done an overall better job than the Congress.

The only wrong thing that they did was actually considering a communal (aka the chenab formula) division of J&K where Jammu and Ladakh would be made part of India and the valley and muslim majority parts would be handed over to Pakistan effectively. This was probably a hangover from the RSS veiwpoint which holds similar views but thankfully was rebuffed by different sections including the military.

The positive work that they have done is many, please go through this article http://www.defenceforum.in/forum/sh...eds-is-justice?p=186805&viewfull=1#post186805, parrticularly the part highlighted in red. The most important point being said is that BJP allowed free and fair elections to take place. While the Congress always connived with the NC or other actors to hold power in the state.

 

[S.A.T.A]

You are obfuscating the fundamental fact that J&K is the only state to have a separate constitution in the union and the elected members of the state owe their allegiance to the constitution of the state of jammu and Kashmir and not to the constitution of India.comparing Sikkim and Kashmir is again misleading,The special provision provided in Article 371 with regard to Sikkim is only in reference to fixing the size of the legislature of the sate assembly,otherwise Indian constitution applies uniformly in the state.The only time Indian govt was restricted to matters concerning defense and foreign affair of Sikkim was when Sikkim was an Indian protectorate(but still an independent kingdom).This what we have managed to reduce our role in Kashmir,Kashmir is now a mere Indian protectorate that too 60 years after supposedly acceding to India.

The British raj also had a similar control over Kashmir,which was restricted to defense, foreign affairs and communication(and so it was with several hundred princely states).Is British Raj style governance then going to be the fulcrum around which india is going to carryout its nation building.The Instrument of Accession,which was signed by over 500 independent princely states signed with the Indian government,also restricted the governments role to just defense,foreign and communication,but in our infinite wisdom we decided to do away such restriction,how is Kashmir any different.

the only reason Kashmir is being treated with constitutional kid glove is because its a Muslim majority region,that apparently makes it different.fighting insurgency in Kashmir has and had nothing to with article 370.Integrating Kashmir into indian mainstream,while article 370 applies, is like herding a wayward cow,grazing in the open field,into the cowshed without a rope or collar.The longer we delay the tougher we will find it rescind it.After all wasn't it Pt Nehru who famously said the "Article 370 Ghiste Ghiste Ghis Jayengi" and we are still at it today.

I'm reminded what Dr Ambedkar is reported to have told Sheikh Abdullah regarding Article 370....

"You wish India should protect your borders, she should build roads in your area, she should supply you food grains, and Kashmir should get equal status as India. But Government of India should have only limited powers and Indian people should have no rights in Kashmir. To give consent to this proposal, would be a treacherous thing against the interests of India and I, as the Law Minister of India, will never do it."

And i must agree with Dr Ambedkar

 

[Energon]

The unemployed men on the streets of the valley,burning and pillaging are the consequence of slow process,its remedy also will be drawn out.But if the solution is integrating Kashmir with the mainstream more comprehensively,it must start with the undoing of the Article 370.Armed militants can be dealt by the armed forces,unarmed separatist on the streets must be challenged by unarmed nationalist forces drawn from the rest of the country.Nationalism in the valley cannot be an exclusively Kashmiri affair,space must be denied to anti national forces.

As you rightly point out, source of all the ills faced by the Kashmiris is the article 370 itself. However it has a highly potent social significance, misdirected as it may be, which cannot be blatantly ignored. All indicators thus far pretty much guarantee that the repudiation of Article 370 would result in large scale violence which would then trigger a highly predictable sequence of events. Kashmir will undoubtedly become the centerpiece of global Islamic jihad and subsequently serve as a God send solution to Pakistan's internal crisis. Based on the current capabilities of the Indian establishment it can/will only be countered through an overwhelmingly messy and sloppy suppressive response by the armed forces. Given the large tooth to tail ratio of the Indian armed forces and the lack of adequate preparation, training or equipment would mean that the military would take heavy losses in the beginning which will then trigger more violent retaliation ending in a clusterf**k. This scenario is by no means an irrational fear, it is pretty much a guaranteed outcome. Now the question remains, would such a venture be worthwhile for present day India in order to finally achieve its destined boundary by absorbing Kashmir through force? The answer is an incontrovertible no.
Territorial suppression through force is an option limited only to a few:

• Insular nations who do not have any stake in the globalization process (eg. North Korea, Somalia, Sudan, an assortment war torn African states etc.)
• Authoritarian and oppressive states that are immune to internal pressure and who possess total control over it's people and the media. (eg. Russia, Iran, Israel)
• Nations that are overwhelming dominant when it comes to global economy and global politics (USA and China).

India can ill afford any such venture given that it no longer falls into any of these categories (use to be part of category 1). The outfall from the heavily televised brutal violence triggered by the now legitimized Kashmir independence movement would pretty much abort all the gains India has made off late on the global political spectrum. The resulting economic collapse would also trigger an internal backlash that no government will be able to withstand.

Also I do not know what you mean by an unarmed nationalist force drawn from the rest of the country. As of now, organized nationalism in India is overwhelmingly controlled by Hindu chauvinists who also happen to excel at mob violence. It is unrealistic to expect any sort of a non violent confrontation in the streets. More likely than not, it'll be an all out Rwanda style civilian battle. Furthermore, since the American civil war, nationalism as a medium to settle an internal matter has shown to pretty much assure a disaster.

I can say with a degree of certainty that what you propose is simply not feasible.

IMHO A gradual but sustained movement aimed at slowly invalidating intractable differences through a variety of economic incentives offers the best chances of a positive outcome.

 

[S.A.T.A]

@Energon

even if the fear of a large scale violence is entirely irrational,if and when the Article is repudiated, it certainly is an exaggerated fear.Similar fear of unabated violence in the aftermath of the Baburi Masjid verdict resulted in a siege like atmosphere all over the country,eventually the verdict came and the days and weeks went of peacefully.If we come to agree that the Article 370 doe not enable the country to positively engage the valley and that its abrogation eventually will benefit the people in the valley,why should the fear of an imagined violence prevent us from doing what needs to be done to save the valley.may be we should spend more energy on making the people in the valley become aware as to why the article was defunct and does not contribute to their overall safety and security.

Surely we can make several special provisions where local boys and girls get reservation for seats in valley's colleges and universities or assure job reservation in govt posts.affirmative provision can be enabled without the need to resort to extra constitutional measures.

Often India's domestic challenges and our national response to them are measured in terms of international reaction and affirmation,what is the need for that and how is it going to help us address those challenges.Too much premium is placed on international reaction rather than need to adopt effective policies.To quote Sardar vallabhai patel "If we cannot have confidence in our own strength, we do not deserve to be a nation."

 

[Energon]

even if the fear of a large scale violence is entirely irrational,if and when the Article is repudiated, it certainly is an exaggerated fear.Similar fear of unabated violence in the aftermath of the Baburi Masjid verdict resulted in a siege like atmosphere all over the country,eventually the verdict came and the days and weeks went of peacefully.If we come to agree that the Article 370 doe not enable the country to positively engage the valley and that its abrogation eventually will benefit the people in the valley,why should the fear of an imagined violence prevent us from doing what needs to be done to save the valley.may be we should spend more energy on making the people in the valley become aware as to why the article was defunct and does not contribute to their overall safety and security.

But that's the thing, the fear of violence isn't imagined by any measures, it is pretty much guaranteed. The reason there was no violence in the wake of the Baburi Masjid verdict is because the socioeconomic priorities of a heterogeneous population outweighed the desire for paralyzing violence. This merely reinforces my hypothesis that economic opportunity is by far the best motivator for stability and social harmony. Either way it is impossible to draw any meaningful parallel here in order to successfully predict potential disaster.

Unlike the rest of India, Kashmir has been a full fledged war zone for over two decades with an actual siege orchestrated by over half a million soldiers. There is now an entire generation of Kashmir youth born into the conditions of a brutal armed conflict. There can be no comparisons drawn between a free nation and a war zone occupied by over half a million troops. The siege mentality of the Kashmirs is very much real, unlike the imaginary "threats" percieved by paranoid communal leaders elsewhere. Furthermore the lack of economic opportunity (even if on account of article 370) and an embattled homogeneous population is a perfect recipe for disaster.

Yes, the article 370 is an impediment for Kashmiris and non Kashmiris alike, and efforts need to be made to highlight its pitfalls. However an impromptu abrogation followed by a forceful invasion (which is what it will essentially be) is not going to achieve the desired result.

Surely we can make several special provisions where local boys and girls get reservation for seats in valley's colleges and universities or assure job reservation in govt posts.affirmative provision can be enabled without the need to resort to extra constitutional measures.

Actually no, I have no doubt that these state sponsored appeasement measures are entirely useless. This tactic is a throwback to the British Raj and has outlived its purpose. Reservations and other non meritocratic provisions only results in a sub standard workforce that does not pay electricity bills. Sure the representation of Kashmiris in central governance ought to be promoted, but reservations and quotas are not the way to go about it.

The fact of the matter is that the solution to the Kashmir impasse does not lie with the government alone, in fact it has already proven to be ineffective. Nor does it lie with bigoted saffron- hypernationalists, who unfortunately are the face of Indian nationalism. The most plausible movement toward resolution can only come through gradually increasing people to people contact motivated by economics and nothing else. If any provisions are to be made, it should be here. The involvement of the state should be limited to border security, basic law & order and infrastructure management. Other than that it should merely be the facilitator of economic activity.

Often India's domestic challenges and our national response to them are measured in terms of international reaction and affirmation,what is the need for that and how is it going to help us address those challenges.Too much premium is placed on international reaction rather than need to adopt effective policies.To quote Sardar vallabhai patel "If we cannot have confidence in our own strength, we do not deserve to be a nation."

As I mentioned in my post earlier, only a few select categories of nations can be immune to international pressure. India is not one of them. India is one of the biggest beneficiaries of globalization and can ill-afford any snafus at this point in time.
If credence is to be given to Vallabhai Patel's statement in present day conditions, then it obvious that India's greatest strength remains its people who have the exceptional ability to barter, negotiate and compromise their way toward a successful outcome. Government and paranoid hypernationalists if anything have shown themselves to be an impediment.

 

[ejazr]

Rural Kashmir has given thumbs up to education

The last three months' turmoil in Kashmir took a heavy toll on everyday life of ordinary people. As is often the case in areas of conflict, the worst hit and the most vulnerable have been the children.

With the schools not allowed to function properly, anxious parents cloistered their wards at home, as they faced a disturbing scenario of uncovered syllabus and perhaps even the possible loss of an academic year.

Mercifully, after a long gap of 100 days, schools in Srinagar and parts of the valley re-opened signaling a phase of peace, normalcy.

Perhaps now it's a good time to ponder whether all is well with the education system in the state, not only in times of stress but in its normal functioning.

Does the education system, which is widely accepted as the key to the development of any region, really reach the children in districts, in rural pockets of Kashmir? Is the opening of schools in the valley enough reason to cheer for the hundreds of students across Kashmir?

In 1975, the J and K State Board of School Education was constituted with a view to make elementary, secondary, higher secondary education accessible to all. The vision was far-reaching and the purpose lofty.

Let us remember that this was also a different period of Kashmir's turbulent political history, long before militancy had set in. To nurture talent in the youth, ingrain the best values in them and enable them to join the mainstream in the country were the guiding principles. The introduction of professional courses and university level education was also visualized at that time.

Today, that dream seems far-fetched. For children in rural areas as in the border district of Kupwara, school systems are in shambles.

In Kunnan village, a mere seven kilometer from the district headquarters, it is a story of neglect of basic facilities. Abdul Aziz Shad, Numberdar or, the village headman of the village, said, "There are 400 houses in our village. But even with such a large population, we have been ignored by the government, whether it is education of healthcare facilities. We approached concerned authorities and political leaders many a times but sent back with promises. I wish we had educated youth --they would have certainly helped the village."

Kunnan village as indeed the whole of Kupwara district, in fact Kashmir itself, today has a role model in Dr. Shah Faisal, who recently made his region proud when he topped the Indian Administrative Service (IAS) exams.

Sadly, the situation of schools in Faizal's home district is far from desirable. Ghulam Muhammad Dar from Kunnan says, "We have two schools, a primary and a middle school in our village. But there are no facilities available. The quality of teaching is very poor. Besides, the students don't have proper seating arrangements."

The primary school in Dar Muhallah bespeaks this sorry state. Basheer Ahmad Lone, the school headmaster recalls that the school was opened in 2005 under Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA) or, education for all scheme with only 33 students. Though the number of students gradually increased to 66, the infrastructure remained the same.

The school is today being run in a rented place which is in bad shape. There is no toilet; no playground, no drinking water facilities.

Lone says, "I am also suffering with the children. Who should I go to narrate this story? When I visit education department, officials avoid me. The progress of children is suffering."

Villagers, who would like to send their children for quality education, know in their hearts that this remains elusive; it is the preserve of only those who can afford private schools for their wards.

Lone is quite categorical when he says, "While government schools lack in basic facilities, private schools even have playing facilities. Our children have talent, but no means to nurture it".

The contrast is painful. Muhammad Irfan, a villager says, "Private school delivers 100% result in standard VIII every year. In government school only three students of the total 33 passed in 2009."

Nilofar Jan, supervisor of the Anganwadi centre perceived it from the larger perspective of education playing a crucial role in enabling the village children to join the mainstream of society. Sadly, there is much to be desired in the quality of education these children are getting.

"The question is in this age of computer and technology, if children are deprived of basic facilities can one say that the Education Board is fulfilling its responsibilities? Are these only tall claims on paper?," she asks.

So is there any room for euphoria because schools have opened in the valley after a long gap? No, this merely indicates that the conditions, which prevented normal functioning of schools, have been removed. This has been lauded by different sections of society within Kashmir about the value of education, the importance of regularity in school routines and curriculums. What one is not hearing are voices addressing the gross lacuna on the ground.

According to Charkha Features, euphoria apart, there is something telling about the pattern of response to the reopening of schools and educational institutions. The Minister for Education, Peerzada Mohammad Sayeed, recently stated that in all 80 per cent students attended schools in rural areas whereas urban centers recorded a 30-40 per cent attendance. This surely indicates that despite the violence that has wracked the region in recent months nd the complex tapestry of political forces in the state today, rural Kashmir has given thumbs up to quality education. By Basheer Ahmad Peer (ANI)

 

[S.A.T.A]

@ Energon

Let me be forthright in expressing my disappointment to find certain unacceptable generalization and accusations in your post.Indian troops have not 'Orchestrated a siege like atmosphere in Kashmir' and most certainly Indian troops are not occupying the valley(as if Indian army has ingressed into a sovereign nation).Indian army and allied state and central security forces are merely performing their constitutional duty trying to restore the rule of law which was(and continuous to be)be seriously threatened by armed terrorist(who receive external aide.You have completely bought the separatist argument the role of indian security forces hook, line and sinker.

Your notion of barter and negotiation is other wise known as appeasement and history is testimony to what happens when you appease what which is wrong and.The fear of violence is what forced the Indian nationalist leadership to concede to the partition plan,but partition itself resulted in one of the biggest civil carnage that modern times witnessed.Let fear not turn us into into cowards,if you appease one person because he threatens to visit violence upon you then tomorrow you will have to contend with ten who will want to hurt.the Tragedy of Kashmir is the consequence of such an appeasement and there will be no peace and no end to violence until Kashmir is completely and comprehensively integrated into the national mainstream.

Indian security forces dispensing their duty are an 'occupation army,Indian government is an impediment, nationalist cannot provide a solution(because by default nationalist will only offer a solution that's in the national interest)so who are we to turn to a solution,the Gilani's,the andrabi's,the Mirwaiz's ?....are we now to kneel before these thugs and beg their favor for peace.....India knows better.

 

[Energon]

@ S.A.T.A
I apologize if I've offended you with certain observations, clearly none of this is meant to be personal. However I cannot renege upon my assertions based on the evidence thus far. Any and all objective literature I have seen on this matter clearly indicates that the siege situation is very much real as is the number of over half a million armed troops. The escalating violence, human rights violations and extrajudicial killings are all known sequale of large scale military deployments in regions affected by sustained low intensity warfare. Kashmir is no exception. An occupation is by no means limited to the ingress of an armed force into a sovereign state, it is only defined as a geographical area effectively placed under the control of a hostile military, as in the case of Kashmir. I have no doubt that there are many representatives of the state (judicial, legislative, judiciary, military, law enforcement, administrative) who are well intentioned and perform their duties as required, nor do I believe this was the original intention. However to conclude that the military and central security forces are there to fulfill their constitutional duty by enforcing the rule of law would be counterfactual in the light of the gross extrajudicial violence at their hands. This is also hard to believe considering India's unreformed police force is far too primitive to enforce law and order anywhere else, even when not a war zone.

Where we differ is in recognizing the dimensions of this conflict. As far as I'm concerned this is by no means a black and white situation. Clearly this situation is complex and exists in multiple shades of gray, for if that weren't the case, it would have already been resolved. Unfortunately the Indian state has assumed this obtuse approach and pushed itself in a corner. This paradigm has also been heavily inculcated into the national psyche with peculiar results. Essentially the "Indian" view dictates that one cannot acknowledge the occupation and atrocities committed by the armed forces for that would validate and endorse the sole alternate view espoused by the separatists. Subsequently the only pro Indian solutions are to either pressurize Kashmiris into peacefully accepting subjugation or subjugate them by force. The first view is then assigned to misguided international allies and the liberal sections of the society and the latter to the stalwart nationalists. The sole alternate separatist view is ascribed to enemies of the state, particularly perfidious Muslims and hostile foreign powers who seek to harm India. This is asinine. Not only has it forced the Indian government to perform all sorts of diplomatic circus antics to constantly save face, but it has also made the Indian people more chauvanistic, insecure and paranoid. Furthermore it has given the genuinely anti-Indian entities like Pakistan and an assortment of terrorist groups the perfect opportunity to further their interests. And amidst all of this, the vicious cycle perpetrated by the core etiology of economic stagnation, unemployment, lack of education combined with violence and human rights violations by armed force personnel goes entirely unchecked.
There can be no resolution to this impasse unless these core issues are resolved. And the first step is to take stock of the situation for what it really is, not what some people want it to be. No matter what we say, Kashmir is under siege and occupied by a vast army that has become hostile due to various circumstances.

 

[Energon]

Just to clarify my position, I do not support secession. Kashmir as an independent state is likely to end up being a burden. Landlocked states with treacherous terrain but also with concentrated areas of arable land suited for cash crops, that have no industrial pedigree, or strong institutions, that have been centers of sustained violence with at least one or more generations born into an active state of war and where illiteracy is rife have a very poor chance of succeeding. This combined with a harrowing history of exogenous jihad and a predominantly Muslim population which has been covertly pushed toward a more virulent alien interpretation of Islam is recipe for disaster; one that will affect India the most. I say this not out of bias for or against anyone, but based on documented facts.

In short I do not support succession, but neither do I endorse this notion that Kashmir should be absorbed into India simply because of an outstanding requirement where the people of the entire region need to be united under one nation out of some sense of destiny and/or through divine sanction. I have as yet to uncover any evidence supporting this.

Societies (nations or otherwise) are bound together primarily by a social contract of mutual benefit where the currency is incentive, not supernatural directive. This is all the more critical in a multi ethnic, multi cultural and multi faceted country like India. India thus far has been a large beneficiary of this arrangement, and this is because its inhabitants have developed a unique and sophisticated method of establishing these contracts despite their differences through dialogue**. It is important to note that dialogue, barter and negotiations are not synonymous with appeasement. Appeasement is concession motivated by fear not mutual benefit, and where the cost benefit ratio is skewed in the favor of one side. And yes, history shows the disastrous consequences of unabated appeasement.

Troubled areas such as Kashmir, the North East or vast swaths of hinterlands affected by the "maoist menace" have one thing in common. The contract is very weak because of lack of incentive. Likewise, genuine solutions are more likely than not to be found in policies that help increase the incentive, not decrease it. Clearly incentives tacked on to gun barrels do not work too well in this day and age.

In terms of how I "justify" my stand despite the suffering of the Kashmirs or Pakistan's concerns... I do so based on pragmatism. There is a lot of incentive for India to hold on to Kashmir (secure natural resource, tactical purposes etc.). On the other hand there is very little incentive to let Kashmir remain an independent state because of the reasons listed earlier. There is also a lot of incentive for Kashmirs to benefit from booming economic prosperity in India and make a significant contribution.

Pakistan has no real incentives to offer to the Kashmiris. If anything, merging with Pakistan would essentially ensure a cataclysmic failure. Unfortunately the Pakistani establishment has wasted the precious opportunity by turning their part of Kashmir into a base of institutionalized terrorism and radicalism for "strategic reasons" at the expense of all socioeconomic progress. I can understand why Pakistan is interested in Kashmir and perhaps why they initiated military action... however they lost, and that is life.

** Social contract through dialogue observation is not an original thought, it's sourced from Amartya Sen's works. Sorry for not disclosing this earlier, did not mean to plagiarize.