Kashmir, in the North West, cradled among the Himalayas, never fails to enchant and surprise with the wonders that truly make it a paradise of the World. Surrounded with high mountains, beautiful peaks, high flowing springs and the pristine forests, is a sight to behold. The people are warm and charming. The undivided state included, besides the Jammu region, Ladakh, Gilgit, Hunza, Nagar, Punial and Yasin besides Mirpur, Muzaffarabad and Poonch. Ka of Kashmir is water, and shimeera is drained. Tradition has it that Kashmir, originally a lake, was drained by the great saint, Kashyapa. King Ashoka of Maurya dynasty, is credited with founding the city of Srinagar around the year 250 BC. With the death of the king Udayan Dev and his brave wife, in 1339 the Hindu rule in Kashmir came to be disrupted with the Muslim rule prevailing for the next 200 odd years. The roller coaster ride saw the rule shifting from Hindus to Muslims to Afghans, to Sikhs, to Dogras and again Hindus. People of various faiths through the ages, lived happily, traded together, shared relationships and their agonies together. What then, went wrong with a prosperous State, where we see constant strife and killings today? Is aggression a biologically programmed part of human nature? Is organised violence an intrinsic part of any human society? Is it a function of how societies are organised, and of their acquired values and ideals?
The Srinagar Police reported recently that a 22-year-old tourist from Tamil Nadu died when a mob went on the rampage near Narbal on the outskirts of the city. Surely the conflict and strife cannot spill into civilian areas. The perpetrators must be brought to book and speedily too. Should even tourists need police escort henceforth? The collateral damage to economy, to the livelihood of people, and credibility of the State and governance must be paramount in decision making. Collateral beauty of humanity, of mankind suffers in the process is another matter.
Ever since the pre-independence India was partitioned, to fashion out the contemporary India and Pakistan, there have been several armed conflicts between the two, resulting in loss of life and property on both sides. The epicentre of the conflict has always been Kashmir. We have been forced to defend and fight three wars since then, including the Wars of 1947, 1965, and the Kargil War of 1999. The 1947 war even, saw the western part of J&K being occupied by Pakistan. China occupying the easternmost part of J&K was a blow to the Indian pride. There was also the liberation war in Bangladesh, where India was drawn into an armed struggle in 1971, sparked by the rise of the Bengali Nationalist and self-determination movement in what was then, the East Pakistan. The largescale influx of refugees into the Indian side could not have seen us as being mere mute spectators. The consequent full-blown war resulted in the independence of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh. The war ended in December 1971, after West Pakistan surrendered to the Indian Army. It speaks volumes of the magnanimity of the Indian side, its adherence to the basic tenets and value systems, its faith in people’s freedom and liberty and its own belief in the constitutional propriety that controls the delicate balance of international relations. The innumerable skirmishes have left the “Kashmir ki Kali” to wither somewhere in our backyard.
Kashmir, a princely state acceded to India which is said to be provisional, and conditional. Mountbatten, the then Governor General of India, accepting accession, is said to have agreed that India would conduct a plebiscite, by a reference to the people, as the accession was disputed. This raises some pertinent questions. If the then princely state did accede to India, irrespective of some people contesting it, does it not pre-empt any further discussion? Where is the need for a plebiscite then? Even the plebiscites, are at most notional and will be buried in the din and cacophony of fear and violence. The so-called conditional accession, genesis, for future conflicts, saw the state have a different constitutional status to other, over 562 Indian princely states, which also ended their British paramountcy by merging into the Union of India.
Article 370 was drafted in the Indian constitution granting special autonomous status to the state, as per Instrument of Accession. It specified that the State must concur in the application of laws by Indian parliament, except those that pertain to Communications, Defence and Foreign Affairs. Central Government could not exercise its power to interfere in any other areas of governance of the state. This proved a second impediment to integrating people and societies in the mainstream. The divide between communities only grew, because of the various provisions that aided and abetted mistrust between them and others.
In October 2015, J&K High Court ruled that article 370 is “permanent” and that J&K did not merge with India, the way other princely states merged, but retained special status and limited sovereignty under Indian constitution, raising more questions than it answered. Why did it take almost 60 years to interpret Article 370, as being permanent? The Supreme Court on 3rd April this year, said Article 370 of the Constitution, conferring special status on J&K and limiting the Central government’s power to make laws for the state, had acquired permanent status through years of existence, making its abrogation impossible. Is it a normative law that something existing for certain number of years acquires the status of permanency? If so, does it not open a Pandora’s Box? Is this not a fit case for filing a review? The Article was enshrined as temporary, and transitional. Even if the earlier constituent assembly in 1957, failed to abrogate it, could it not have been revoked by the new Constituent Assembly?
India has variously been ruled by several kings following different faiths, different ideologies, across centuries of history. Does it make any of them ruling for most number of years, more legally tenable, than any others who ruled for lesser number of years? History cannot imprison mankind in its halos and leave them to wage perpetual battles, for the same history is also privy to people of a certain faith congregating under the ruler of similar faith. When the rulers change, the lower dispensations also tend to change, driving more perturbations within societies.
In 1819, the Sikh ruler Ranjit Singh’s conquest of Jammu and later his transfer to the next in line Raja Gulab Singh saw rule of Sikh kings. Following the war of 1845, it was ceded under the Treaty of Lahore to the East India Company, which later transferred it to Maharaja Gulab Singh, through the Treaty of Amritsar. From then on, until the 1947 Partition of India, Kashmir was ruled by the Maharajas of the princely state of J&K. At the time of the British withdrawal from India in 1947, Maharaja Hari Singh, the ruler of the state, signed the Instrument of Accession joining the Union of India in return for military aid.
Pakistan, which never reconciled with the accession to India, waged many a private and pitched battle along with local tribesmen and wrested control of most of the western parts of the State, by October 1947. The war ended in 1948, with uneasy peace prevailing. The hills in Kashmir are strategically important to us being natural barriers to invasion. The hills of Kashmir slope into the crucial region of Punjab on both sides of the border making control of hills important. Indus water is extremely crucial for northern India. Who then can dispute Kashmir’s strategic importance? Effective strategy hence assumes a monumental value proposition.
A State with a literacy rate in excess of 75%, a GSDP of about 25 billion USD, agriculture on decline, predominantly dependant on tourism and handicrafts and with an unemployment rate of 13.2 %, higher than National average, with 24.6 percent population in the age of 18-29 years, cannot certainly be engaged in internal skirmishes, leave alone external ones. (Continued:)