Asia
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.”
In this blog, our Asia correspondents and our Banyan columnist provide comment and analysis on Asia's political and cultural landscape. The blog takes its name from the Banyan tree, under which Buddha attained enlightenment and Gujarati merchants used to conduct business
Advertisement
- Americas view | The Americas
- Babbage | Science and technology
- Bagehot's notebook | British politics
- Banyan | Asia
- Baobab | Africa
- Blighty | Britain
- Buttonwood's notebook | Financial markets
- Cassandra | The World in 2012
- Charlemagne's notebook | European politics
- Clausewitz | Defence, security and diplomacy
- Democracy in America | American politics
- Eastern approaches | Ex-communist Europe
- Free exchange | Economics
- Game theory | Sports
- Graphic detail | Charts, maps and infographics
- Gulliver | Business travel
- Johnson | Language
- Leviathan | Public policy
- Lexington's notebook | American politics
- Multimedia | Audio, video and videographics
- Newsbook | News analysis
- Prospero | Books, arts and culture
- Schumpeter | Business and management
Most commented
- Tibetans and the Chinese state: No power to pacify
- Birtherism 2012: To the nation born
- Syria: Moscow rules
- Hong Kong and the mainland: Dogs and locusts
- Israel and Iran: Closer to take-off
- Barack Obama, Catholics and contraceptives: The accommodation
- The Republican nomination: The Santorum surge
- Will the euro survive 2012 intact?
- Islam and homosexuality: Straight but narrow
- Catholics and contraceptives: Relishing the culture wars
Over the past five days
Most recommended
- America, Syria and the UN: This is what foreign-policy success looks like
- Scientific publishing: The price of information
- JAS's cartoon: The week ahead
- Quick Study: Daniel Kahneman on economic decision-making: Can we ever trust instinct?
- Syria: Moscow rules
- Syria's crisis: The UN stands divided
- JAS's cartoon: Auditions for the Elysée
- Etymology: Etymology man!
- Protests in Cairo: The beautiful game turns ugly
- Competition in Chile: The shine comes off
Over the past seven days
Advertisement
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.
Readers' comments
The Economist welcomes your views. Please stay on topic and be respectful of other readers. Review our comments policy.
Sort:
In the article, Ms Mehbooba said she has "lost credibility because of the failure to produce real change." Would something positive happen if the protester's demands were met?
What changes and conditions would produce peace in Kashmir? How can the Kashmirs and their government move towards peace and domestic tranquility?
Do any well-informed readers have some cogent thoughts along these lines?
- IndianAtheist seems to propose that these "protest are part of an Islamic guerrilla movement: it's a military move to force the government to cede the region to Pakistan as a province. Giving into any demands would only encourages more bloodshed."
MUSLEM MAN. Agrees on the other side of the debate and says "India should give up."
Is this a guerrilla war being intractable and the sides unable to reach a compromise?
There exist examples in recent history of bitter enemies finding a way to love together in peace: Mothers of Protestant and Roman Catholics in Northern Ireland united and developing a peace plan. With the help of religious leaders who were trustworthy, in the early 21st century South Africa was able to develop a strong government after apartheid was abolished and Nelson Mandela became president.
- A BANGLADESHI, in response suggests that the Kashmirs are pawns in the struggle between Pakistan and India to control the region. In other posts he acknowledges old pains that each side has suffered.
However, in other posts he proposes that interfaith understanding and cooperation may bring about peace.
QUESTION: That's a promising idea. What action can individuals and groups do to build interfaith understanding, peace and harmony between the faiths in Kashmir?
SANJIV SABHLOK suggests two ways of providing peace:
Either
1. An overwhelming police action of the Indian army to establish peace. His concern is that, although it may disarm the rebel factions and promote safety. Some may resent the incursion and see it as an invasion of their homeland. He sees this as a matter of Indian sovereignty, and no business of Pakistan's. Perhaps India could negotiate a peace between groups with Pakistan's help. If India made a concerted humanitarian effort to help Pakistani flood victims, their newspapers might encourage cooperation in this effort to promote harmony in the region.
OR
2. (a) Efforts to develop the Economic prosperity of the region to manufacture something needed for export and (b) efforts to develop cultural cooperation between faiths in Mohandas Ghandi fashion.
COMMONSENSICAL seems to suggest that the locals want independence, not to become part of Pakistan. He writes that the Pakistanis have given a part of their area of the Kashmir valley to Chinese control The Chinese army has rolled into the area.
NKAB says that the Kashmirs were promised a plebiscite to determine which country they joined. The UN tried to conduct the vote but it was never allowed, each time either Pakistan or India protested.
Sarhadi wrote: Neru promised a plebiscite but never delivered. He blames the problem on the lack of development of local talent in Kashmir politics. Too many leaders are seen as terrorist or guerrillas rather than political leaders who speak for different Kashmir communities.
THEOSOPHIST points out that private as well as public investment is necessary to improve jobs. For factories to be built, peace must rule. Foreign investors aren't going to go to Kashmir if its a war zone. Consequently, peace is necessary for prosperity.
So that's the $50,000 question, "How do you promote peace in the area so economic development can follow?"
@Peter Sellers, Is it not a tragedy the Kashmiris whose is country it is has never been taken into confidence. Its is a fight between India and Pakistan who both occupy part of it and enjoying the sacrifices and suffering of Kashmiris. For and against Views by the occupiers are being reflected here.
Kashmir was always Pakistan's and will always be Pakistan's. India should give up.
In my view, the main reason why the problem of giving autonomy to the Kashmiris has become so intractable is that they have defined “Kashmiriyat” more in religious (i.e. Islamic) rather than cultural / linguistic terms. This has allowed radical Islamists to grab control of the Kashmiri movement for “Azadi” and yoke it to the larger cause of achieving a triumphant return to the Golden Age when Islam was at the peak of its glory.
“Moderate” Kashmiris (such as they are) have been unable or unwilling to prevent the forcible uprooting and displacement of Kashmiri Hindus from the Kashmir Valley. While violence is equally condemnable regardless of who the perpetrators or victims are, the systematic, unspeakable atrocities perpetrated on the hapless Kashmiri Hindus by their Kashmiri Muslim brethren have, sadly, never received even a small fraction of the publicity that acts of violence (by security forces) upon Kashmiri Muslims routinely receive. The Indian media (print as well as electronic) has been and continues to be culpable in this unbalanced coverage, in spite of the presence of a number of prominent (displaced?) Kashmiri journalists.
Having allowed their struggle for autonomy to become part of the larger Islamic Cause, and having given a foretaste of the fate that awaits non-Muslims (in the Valley as well as in Jammu and Ladakh) should they achieve their goal, in my opinion the Kashmiri Autonomists / Azadists have forfeited their right to be treated as serious interlocutors by any Indian government in its right senses. Make no mistake: Even the smallest concession made to them will be trumpeted as a victory for Islam and whet their appetites for more, with incalculable consequences not only for the Indian subcontinent but for the world at large.
I think the time has come to call a spade a spade and stop the endless charade of talks about autonomy. Article 370 of the Indian Constitution has long outlived its usefulness, if it ever had any. It has positively hampered and stunted the economic growth of Jammu & Kashmir, and has helped to create large hordes of unemployed youth, readymade cannon fodder for the Islamist radicals.
Interesting piece by Selig Harrison in NYT.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/27/opinion/27iht-edharrison.html?_r=2&scp...
"While the world focuses on the flood-ravaged Indus River valley, a quiet geopolitical crisis is unfolding in the Himalayan borderlands of northern Pakistan, where Islamabad is handing over de facto control of the strategic Gilgit-Baltistan region in the northwest corner of disputed Kashmir to China."
"The entire Pakistan-occupied western portion of Kashmir stretching from Gilgit in the north to Azad (Free) Kashmir in the south is closed to the world, in contrast to the media access that India permits in the eastern part, where it is combating a Pakistan-backed insurgency. But reports from a variety of foreign intelligence sources, Pakistani journalists and Pakistani human rights workers reveal two important new developments in Gilgit-Baltistan: a simmering rebellion against Pakistani rule and the influx of an estimated 7,000 to 11,000 soldiers of the People’s Liberation Army."
Read it all. It ain't that long!
@ Peter Sellers
"That is for the Kashmiris themselves to decide."
Sure when conditions are rite. Not when people are afraid of and oppressed by the jehadis.
If someone had bothered to do an opinion poll in 1942 France despite the Resistance and all majority would have probably approved of the fascist Vichy regime. Doesn't mean it was "good" or "right" for the French people.
@ 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……”
Thanks for the account from you. But if you also believe the account of Wikipedia, then neither was it part of India until 1948 and the whole thing is still a lingering question pending an UN sanctioned plebiscite that has not been held till today due to objections of India or Pakistan on some improbable conditions, effectively killing the UN resolution.
But Kashmir residents are mostly Muslims, and India has failed miserably for 60 years to provide decent livelihood for these people in Indian held Kashmir.
My point is, given the situation, why keep them collared at gunpoint (with so many troops stationed there I mean) and not letting them go and make a go of it on their own?
Might as it may, it’s not like India has already put most of its own poverty problems of some 500 m people at home to bed already—it’s not likely India will be able to furnish improvement of people’s lives there any time soon. Besides, Indian subcontinent was made of hundreds of princely states before the creation of India and Pakistan anyway.
And when enough is enough for India, before it forces itself into some unattainable corner of no way out?
Thank you Banyan for this article which touches a very important dimension of this problem And thank you Anirud for your honesty. Finally, rational Indians are realising that Kashmiris my be separatists, anti-Indian, fundamentalists or whatever, it is the failure of the government in New Delhi that is making this problem intractable. In particular the current rule by the tiumvirate of Sonia Gandhi, Rahul Gandhi and Dr Manmohan Singh has exacerbated this peculiar Indian political disease. No action is seen to be the best course of action. Many of the chronic problems facing India are chronic because of the lack of timely political action. In the context of Kashmir, Congess is doubly culpable:
1. It refuses Kashmiri leadership (oth elected and non-elected) the kind of political space that politicians in Tamil Nadu, West bengal, UP and in other states take forgranted;
2. Having sown the seeds of the right of self deermination into Kashmiri minds (it was Nehru who promised plebiscite to Kashmiris), it is failing to address the core problem and delivering an alternative vision. Brute state force will not make Kashmiris forget the political romise made by the first Indian Prime Minster. Politics is not a joke.
If India really wants to resolve the Kashmir issue, it has to allow a new generation of nationalist Kashmiri leaders to emerge without any constitutional or political shackes around them. In short, India needs to stop choosing who leads Kashmiris and let Kashmiris decide that. If that were to happen, I can assure you, Mehbooba Mufti and Omar Abdullah will not feature on that List. Both Mehbooba Mufti and Omar Abdullah are widely seen as creatures of Indian intelligence agencies. Even Sajjad Lone has ruined his credentials of late. My sense is even the last crop of popular leaders like Geelani, Shabir Shah, Yaseen Malik, Umar Farooq and Nayeem Khan are fast becoming irrelevant largely because India has spent enormous energy to divide this lot rather than using them as a bridge to reach Kashmir masses. India may yet come to regret this. For the new generation of young Kashmiris are more determined, less flexible, more aware of their rights and, more importantly, are ready to scarifice their lives for their rights.
That is for the Kashmiris themselves to decide.
@ Peter Sellers
"Are you sure of your thesis?
Your formula is: violence, violence and more violence."
Yes to ur question. Whether there is violence or NOT shouldn't be the arbiter IMO. Whether it's the rite thing to do should be. Let me give an analogy here.
Take Afg. I am sure that if u take some ground level data and analyze it u would find that there has been much more violence under Russians and today under US than during the Taleb rule in the 90s. Does that mean people were better off under the cavemen? Heck no!
Likewise I believe that Kashmiris in the valley (and many of them do as well) would be better off accepting themselves as part of India instead of forming an Islamic Republic of Kashmir or worse yet become part of terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan.
@ 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).
@ 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 ;-)
@ 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.
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.
@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.
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.
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.
@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.
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? :-)
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.