Early Times Report
JAMMU, Apr 2: There are, unlike separatists like Syed Ali Shah Geelani, Mirwaiz and Yasin Malik, some serious persons in the Valley who have the guts to say what is right and what is wrong and take cudgels with those who call themselves the representatives of the people of Jammu and Kashmir. They appreciate the ground realities in the state and assert that these separatists do not enjoy universal support even in the Valley and that the non-Muslim communities in the state such as Hindu, Buddhist and Sikh communities will not any accept any solution that Pakistan or the Kashmiri Sunni leadership. They urge these separatists to realize their mistakes and work accordingly.
Only the other day, a Kashmir-based critic of separatists and their approach came out with a somewhat reasonable critique suggesting that these separatists will never achieve their goal, notwithstanding the fact that he also stands for a different dispensation for the whole of the state. Actually, he attacked those who participated in the seminar, which was organized by the Jammu and Kashmir Bar Association, Kashmir, on March 27. The seminar was organized to commemorate 19th death anniversary of the so-called human rights activist and lawyer Jaleel Andrabi whose body was recovered from river Jhelum on this day in 1996.
"Is Kashmir a problem for Kashmiri Muslims alone; have the non-Muslims no place/role in this old tangle?", the critic asked. He also questioned those in the Valley who say that "Kashmiris have a religious affinity with Pakistan" and Kashmir must become part of Pakistan. "But why would a non-Muslim choose Pakistan?", he asked them this pertinent question and said: "Stakeholders in the Kashmir imbroglio aren't 'us' alone but millions of people here and across the border and the parts that China has been occupying for long".
He further said: "No doubt, Kashmir is a Muslim majority place, but Kashmir tangle is neither Muslim specific, nor Kashmir centric. Kashmir conflict is not of the Kashmiris alone, it's about a state that enjoyed freedom much before India got her independence in 1947. This exclusive approach sends wrong signals. Our struggle has remained Kashmir centric when it should have been an all-inclusive battle. Non-Muslims have remained out of the tangle because Pakistan is no alternative to them. Among the Muslims also there are many who would not like to go with Pakistan. Why, then, do we talk about us, Kashmiris, only. There should be no problem with people who hold their own views about Kashmir's affinity with Pakistan, it can't be generalized. It doesn't have a universal appeal in Kashmir. If the right to self-determination is given, it can't be for Muslims alone. All of us -Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs and other communities -- must be on board when a solution has to come".
So much so, he said that those who participated in the seminar were "partisan" and "uni-directional" and that they believe "as if Kashmir belonged to Muslims alone". "There is a need to ponder over our approach to the problem. The way we talk about Kashmiris only lends credence to India's views that Kashmir is not a political problem but a sectarian conflict," he said. He didn't stop just there. He further emphatically said: "The UNO promises plebiscite to all, not just one community. It is an either-or situation, choosing between India and Pakistan. If Muslims choose Pakistan, obviously, Hindus will choose India. Will that be a solution? How do we know that even Kashmiris will choose Pakistan, if ever they are given a choice? Kashmiri Pandits, Jammuites, Bodhs and other communities will never opt for Pakistan".
The critic also took on those who in Kashmir say that Jammu and Kashmir was a trilateral issue between India, Pakistan and Kashmiris and said Jammu and Kashmir is a bilateral issue. He, in fact, endorsed the New Delhi's view point. To make his point, he said: "When we insist on the UNO resolutions, we forget that they recognize the Kashmir issue as a bilateral problem where Kashmiris have no role except as voters in a referendum. When we say that there can't be any 'out of the box' solution, we have to agree that the Kashmiris can't act as a third party".
He also referred to the much talked about the third option and said that "if we follow this path, we will have to wait till the two countries (India and Pakistan) reach an agreement on the plebiscite, a dream that we have been having for ages now"; and that "if we want an out of the box solution, a third option opens and, that is, what most Kashmiri would, perhaps, choose -- Independent Kashmir". At the same time, he said: "That's (independent Kashmir) a very big problem. Neither Pakistan nor India is in favour of an independent Kashmir. If ever that happens, Pakistan will have to give up its part of Kashmir, and they will not do that".
The critic of Kashmiri separatists and their supporters in the Jammu and Kashmir Bar Association, Kashmir, was right when he said what he said. What he said was based on ground realities. But the question to be asked is: will Kashmiri separatists accept the ground realities in the state? The answer has to be no. For, such a realization for them would mean the rise of a situation under which they would lose their importance; they would not make worldly gains. The only alternative left is that the Indian state has to isolate them and act against them under the law of the land. The law clearly says that thee is no place whatsoever in the Indian scheme of things who work against the Indian state. |
