Asia

Banyan

Kashmir's demoralised moderates

The costs of moderation

Aug 25th 2010, 12:32 by Banyan

A FEW years ago a senior Indian official, well-placed to know and shape the government’s policy on Kashmir, sketched for me an optimistic scenario for a future settlement there. Politics in the state, he said, would be dominated by four up-and-coming young leaders.

Two—Omar Abdullah and Mehbooba Mufti—were already in the “mainstream”—that is, they belonged to parties that accepted the Indian constitution and contested elections. Two—Umar Farooq and Sajjad Lone—were separatists, whose parties rejected the constitution and boycotted elections. But they were moderates, who had taken part in dialogue with India. It was not a stretch to imagine they could be drawn into the mainstream.

It is interesting to reflect on what has become of this cheery vision. Mr Abdullah, the third generation of his family to play a leading role in Kashmiri politics, is indeed chief minister, after his party won elections in 2008. But he has had a bad few months, seeming unable to cope with the wave of protests afflicting the Kashmir valley, with no strategy other than to beg the central government for more troops. When someone threw a shoe at him in at an Independence Day parade on August 15th, many seemed sorry he missed his target.

Ms Mehbooba, whose father, Mufti Mohammed Sayeed was chief minister from 2002-05,  is now leading the state opposition, and is among Mr Abdullah’s fiercest critics, accusing him of “wanting Kashmiris to taste humiliation and defeat”. Some of her language recalls that of the separatists, but she says she remains an Indian nationalist, wanting Kashmir to enjoy autonomy, not independence. She admits that, like all the other political leaders, she has lost credibility because of the failure to produce real change.

Umar Farooq, the Mirwaiz, or hereditary spiritual leader of the Kashmir valley’s Sunni Muslims, is an angry man these days. I visited him in his house, which always resembles a fortified prison (his father, also a moderate, was killed for that reason, and the Mirwaiz has long been at risk himself). The house is now in fact a jail. The Mirwaiz has been detained there for two months, presumably to stop him leading large demonstrations. He thinks the protests might die down after the celebration of Eid at the end of Ramadan. But it would only be a temporary respite: “We don’t want peace; we want a solution.”

Sajjad Lone, son of another murdered moderate, is not under house arrest. He is a frequent guest on Indian television. This irritates many of his thousands of “friends” on Facebook, some of whom already saw him as a traitor for having stood, unsuccessfully, in a parliamentary election last year. He says that after reading the abuse on Facebook, he checks the profiles of his critics. “They like Bryan Adams, Maradona and stone-pelters,” he says, referring to the young firebrands at the forefront of the protests.

Like Ms Mehbooba and the Mirwaiz, he takes the youthful protests as in part a rebuke to himself and other political leaders. India was very good at sowing dissension among the separatists (who were pretty good at it themselves to start with). The failure of the moderates to win what their critics saw as real concessions from Delhi has undermined their credibility. Hardliners, notably Syed Ali Shah Geelani, who refused to join “unconditional” talks with India, have been “vindicated”, says the Mirwaiz.

Two other moderate separatists, Shabbir Shah and Yasin Malik, have also been locked up. Mr Malik, once a charismatic leader of the armed insurrection, gave up the gun in 1994, but was never trusted enough by India to make that unnamed official’s wish-list of future leaders. He was freed from jail this week, in ill health.

One effect of the current crisis is to push the moderates closer to the hardliners. The mainstream politicians, too, find themselves under growing pressure to show which side they are on. That leaves the sickly, elderly frame of Mr Geelani—principled, dogmatic and unyielding—calling many of the shots. It is hard not to see this as a failure of Indian policy: at every stage they have undermined the credibility and standing of the very moderates it would have been in India's interests to help.

Not that Mr Geelani’s policy shows much sign of success. More than 60 protesters have been killed, and all that has been achieved is a heightened awareness of Kashmiri frustrations. So it is also hard not to agree with Mr Lone: “We know how to render sacrifices. But somewhere down the line it becomes the end, not the means.”

 

You must be logged in to post a comment.
Please login or sign up for a free account.
1-20 of 30
Anirud wrote:
Aug 26th 2010 8:39 GMT

The current crisis in Kashmir is the direct result of a paralyzed government that refuses to be nudged nay thrust into action. It is a failure of leadership. Inasmuch as The Economist and other newspapers heap encomia on the "sage-like" prime minister, the man allowed matters to reach the precipice in many areas and issues through inaction and indecision disguised as the taciturnity of the wise one. The Indian government should have acted in Kashmir much earlier, keeping its "re-constructionist" promises. It did not, and cloaks itself in secrecy, pointing to insurmountable difficulties and threats when anyone questions its position. Successive Indian governments, supported by their very able bureaucrats, have done this before, delaying action until the end, at which point a radical decision will be implemented post-haste, leading to long run disasters. We do not learn.

Theosophist wrote:
Aug 26th 2010 9:04 GMT

Kashmir is personification of the great Indian indicision .. our inability to act quick and act decisive. We have let the situation spiral out of control since 1990's and this Kashmir like situation could very well happen with any other state if not dealt. You can see signs of regional chauvinism in maharashtra, TN already had it, you can see the Gujjars protesting violently for reservations and the government looking clueless.
I sometimes tend to agree with Mr.Murthy that IAS should be scrapped. The politicians are anyways useless.. and it will take a revolution of sorts to change the way we do politics in this country but atleast we could change the way our managers.. the bureaucrats... are selected and groomed.
Kashmir, today, needs a fresh page to analyse. The old horses can no longer run the show. We have to start treating this as our own state rather than a territory under possession and use non lethal force, allow greater inter mingling of populations and capital flows.
We need a new begining.
I dont think India could afford or would attempt to provide an independent status to Kashmir but there are several milestones to be achieved within the Indian constitution that we need to deliver upon. And not just limited to one set of the Kashmir population, you cannot forget the displaced Pandits.

Peter Sellers wrote:
Aug 26th 2010 10:23 GMT

I have long maintained that no solution to the Kashmir issue is possible without first going back to first principles ie to the basis of partition.

Indians cannot have it both ways (disclaimer: I am an Indian). At the time of partition, when the Nawab of Junagadh opted to join Pakistan, Nehru insisted the state should remain in India on the basis of its majority Hindu population.

In the case of Kashmir, however, the Indian government has consistently denied Kashmiris the right to a plebiscite to determine which country they should be a part of (or whether they should be independent), although this was mandated a long time ago by a UN resolution.

In my view, India is hanging on to a piece of territory to which it has no right. In the process, it has caused and is continuing to cause, untold misery to countless people and to itself.

CatIndian wrote:
Aug 26th 2010 10:48 GMT

@ Peter Sellers

If nations started looking so much into past, than Maoris and Aborigines in countries like Australia and New Zealand should also fight for its freedom (radicals in these countries still talk about freedom though) cause conceptually its still a British colony.

India thinks Kashmir is fully a part of India so I don't see any use going back to history. It adds no value to the issue in 2010.

aryabhatta wrote:
Aug 26th 2010 10:50 GMT

@Peter Sellers: Plebiscite would have carried any meaning only when the situation in the state remained as it was at the time of the partition. In 1948, after the Qabaili Raid, there was no way a unified unbiased Plebiscite could have been carried out.

In my opinion the real turning point was the house arrest of Sheikh Abdullah, probably the only steadfastly Indian force in the valley.

HinduKafir wrote:
Aug 26th 2010 11:56 GMT

Lets us get this straight

When USSR fell in 1991, Kashmiri's thought that indeendence is near. like all central asian republic

They made two mistakes

1. Took up the gun
2. Underestimated the will of the Union of India

And worst their inspirations are the most rabid Rusian supporters today.

Aug 26th 2010 12:04 GMT

TFWIW I always thought Geelani was a "kachcha aadmi" I.e. RAW (Research and Analysis Wing!) man ;-) This will also blow over like it always does in Cashmere ;-)

nkab wrote:
Aug 26th 2010 12:33 GMT

“Return to sender, address unknown” as popular lyrics goes, Indian occupied Kashmir is historically a part of PaKistan. It was "sent" to India by some strange twist and turn of colonial rule consequences.

It should be returned to Pakistan for the eventual good of all folks there and all Indian people at home. The big bucks money save could be otherwise used to improve the lot of a lot of good, decent but less than prosperous class of Indian people.

GarethJo wrote:
Aug 26th 2010 12:52 GMT

The issue is I think always because of politics.. at both ends, nobody really cares to solve the issue instead putting in hot fire.. though lots of development is going on and now a days there is peace and occasionally any issue.. let's hope to resolve...

Gareth
CNM Online
http://www.cnmonline.co.uk

Aug 26th 2010 1:44 GMT

@ nkab

"It should be returned to Pakistan for the eventual good of all folks there and all Indian people at home."

Ha ha ha. If wishes were horses beggars wud ride :-) No pun intended ;-)

AB ve wrote:
Aug 26th 2010 2:20 GMT

Its a crisis of strong credible leadership in Srinagar as well as in Delhi (as in rest of India).
Lack of leadership looks like a global phenomena, from US to Japan, Australia, EU, you don't find political leaders because every one is so worried about the economy.

nkab wrote:
Aug 26th 2010 2:23 GMT

commonsensical wrote: Aug 26th 2010 1:44 GMT

“@ nkab
"It should be returned to Pakistan for the eventual good of all folks there and all Indian people at home."

Ha ha ha. If wishes were horses beggars wud ride :-) No pun intended ;-)”
----------------------------

See, you are a good writer just as I figured with many of your comments quite a while back. Why not weed out all that wud stuff for the good for good? :-)

manbearpiggy wrote:
Aug 26th 2010 4:06 GMT

@nkab: The problem with your "return to sender" suggestion is that Kashmir was never part of Pakistan.
If Pakistan had withdrawn its troops and tribal militia from the state of Jammu and Kashmir as recommended by the Aug 1948 UN Resolution, a plebiscite could have been held then.
But since the scope of the resolution included pro-India Ladakh and Jammu regions, and since the common expectation is that the population of the Valley and Gilgit-Baltistan would opt for independence rather than joining either Dominion, it would have been foolhardy for Pakistan to allow the conditions for plebiscite to evolve.
The narrative has been shrewdly shifted to the opinion that India backed away from the plebiscite it had promised, while it is Pakistani actions that are preventing the conditions necessary for a plebiscite to develop.

On the Indian side of the valley, it has been a case of "be careful what you wish for, you might get it". The single most important reason hampering economic development of the state is the law that no non-Kashmiri can own property in the state. This prevents almost every Indian industry or business to operate in the state, thus keeping it in an economic situation of the 40's.

It is pointless for India to hold on to the promise of maintaining the demographics of the state. It is hurting rather than helping the state. AJK and GB no longer have 1948 demographics, and the Karakoram tract and Aksai Chin is Chinese.
Enable the state's people to participate in the Indian economy and the rebellion will die a natural death.

What they want is independence. Independence from poverty, economic stagnation and corruption.

On a related topic, there is a shoot-at-sight order in Gilgit Baltistan since yesterday. Apparently there were some riots and killings in Gilgit. There is a curioius media gag on this development.

Aug 26th 2010 4:37 GMT

If India wants to sort out the Problems in Kashmir, merely using the moderates as a front is an inefficient and rather cowardly way of going about it.
The Kashmir Valley has been isolated for all these years. Various pockets of India have seen phenomenal development and the Kashmiris are being left out.
India needs to do more than just send its troops in at various intervals. It's about time commerce and trust is instilled there.
India needs to prove to Kashmir that we will change for the better. Soon.

Liveinhope wrote:
Aug 26th 2010 11:44 GMT

Funny thing about this Kashmiri Muslims.

I gave a job to one young Kashmiri girl in Australia, One who would never get a job any where else because her muslim name.

Her behaviour was excellent.... But her parents behaviour towards me was Atrocious, and for no reason at all.

Theosophist wrote:
Aug 27th 2010 4:54 GMT

@Priya Sreenivasan: For economic activity to happen, you should have a conducive atmosphere. The state can deploy its machinery but for private investment to be ploughed, you have to drop the gun (and now the stones)
Example: Even if we assume that the US and Nato countries have the best of intentions for Afghanistan, unless the taliban and the locals donot desire to be included, you would not see life changing in that country.
I thnk you have been away from reality for too long. What India needs to send strong signals, and i dont mean shoot at sight for the locals, to our neighbours and trouble mongers that we are here to stay and not tolerate the meddling.

vzdevek wrote:
Aug 27th 2010 9:00 GMT

An excellent proof that any apeasment policy towards Islam and Muslims in completely misguided and luckily bound to fail, laying bare the true criminal nature of this fascist religion.

Peter Sellers wrote:
Aug 27th 2010 12:16 GMT

@ CatIndian

The analogy is not an accurate one.

Maoris, Aborigines and Native North Americans had their lands colonised by European settlers and it is true they have far more rights than have been given to them. But there is no parallel here with the partition of India.

India was partitioned along religious lines. Period. And religious differences are the most intractable problems of all to solve. In fact they are almost insoluble. Northern Ireland is still simmering after 400 years, Palestine is an insoluble quagmire and Kashmir, likewise. (I personally do not subscribe to any religious ideology. In fact I think religion is at the root of most major problems in the world today, but that is another issue).

Where religion has not been involved, several countries have re-united eg North and South Vietnam and East and West Germany. It is a question of time before the two Koreas are reunited.

The most sensible thing to happen in South Asia would be for India and Pakistan (and possibly Bangladesh) to reunite. They would then be a true counterweight to China but because of religion this will never happen. Pity.

Aug 28th 2010 3:10 GMT

@ Peter Sellers

"The most sensible thing to happen in South Asia would be for India and Pakistan (and possibly Bangladesh) to reunite. They would then be a true counterweight to China but because of religion this will never happen. Pity."

Ha ha ha. Maybe they can join the Brit-Paks and become part of UK eh ;-) No offense but few people even in India harbor this fantasy of "reunification". The current PM who was born in the territory dat is now Pak mite be 1 ;-) In any case if you haven't gotten the memo India is a secular country unlike Pak which is an Islamic Republic. All the more reason y Kashmir, atleast east of LoC, shud be part of India.

The more Pak goes down the drain and the more power disparity with India increases the better it is for India. My only advice would be for GoI to build tall fences along the border and get some good ammo in case anyone has some ideas ;-)

Peter Sellers wrote:
Aug 28th 2010 3:39 GMT

@ Commonsensical

"All the more reason y Kashmir ....... shud be part of India".

Are you sure of your thesis?

Your formula is: violence, violence and more violence.

They are still fighting in Northern Ireland after 400 years (although there seems to be a temporary truce).

1-20 of 30

About Banyan

In this blog, our Asia correspondents and our Banyan columnist provide comment and analysis on Asia's political and cultural landscape

Advertisement

Advertisement

Latest blog posts - All times are GMT

Kabuki comes home
From Asia view - 1 hrs 55 mins ago
Link exchange
From Free exchange - March 2nd, 21:42
An abundance of activity
From Multimedia - March 2nd, 21:14
About that Goldman estimate
From Free exchange - March 2nd, 21:10
More from our blogs »
Products & events
Stay informed today and every day

Subscribe to The Economist's free e-mail newsletters and alerts.


Subscribe to The Economist's latest article postings on Twitter


See a selection of The Economist's articles, events, topical videos and debates on Facebook.

Advertisement