The Hindu Business Line : Demilitarisation and autonomy in J&K

India should insist that it will consider Gen Musharraf's proposal for "self-governance" in Jammu and Kashmir only if elected rulers in POK and the Northern Areas enjoy the same powers and autonomy as the Chief Minister of Jammu and Kashmir. More important, New Delhi should never forget that the ruling elite in Pakistan regard subtlety and politeness as manifestations of indecision and weakness, says G. Parthasarathy.

AMONG the over 30,000 people who have died in terrorist violence in Jammu and Kashmir since militancy became rampant are two distinguished political leaders — Mirwaiz Maulvi Mohammed Farooq, assassinated in May 1990, and Mr Abdul Ghani Lone, gunned down on May 21, 2002.

Mirwaiz Mohammed Farooq was killed by the ISI-backed Hizb ul Mujahideen because of his refusal to toe Pakistan's line. And Abdul Ghani Lone was killed by a hit squad after the ISI-sponsored United Jihad Council in Muzaffarabad decided to eliminate him for refusing to obey ISI diktats.

Lone had made it clear in a meeting with Gen Musharraf and in his comments while visiting Pakistan for the marriage of his elder son, that he favoured dialogue with New Delhi and that jehadi groups like the Lashkar-e-Taiba should end terrorist violence and "leave us alone".

Lone was also mulling over the possibility of participating in elections to the J&K Legislative Assembly — elections the ISI was determined to undermine.

Apart from Lone, the ISI-supported jehadi groups killed 31 activists of the National Conference, two PDP members and one Congress Party member in the run up to the 2002 elections. The large voter turnout and the internationally acclaimed fairness of the 2002 elections was a slap in the face of the ISI, administered by the people of Kashmir.

Mirwaiz Umar Farooq and Bilal Ghani Lone are sons of the two leaders assassinated by ISI-supported terrorists. But, after listening to the statements of the Mirwaiz and Mr Lone during their current visit to Pakistan as leaders of the Hurriyat Conference, one cannot help being astonished that they appear to have forgotten who killed their fathers. They are now virtually joining hands with those who engineered the deaths of their respected fathers.

While in Pakistan, the Mirwaiz repeatedly echoed the views of Gen Musharraf on the need for "self governance" and "demilitarisation" in Jammu and Kashmir. He sounded more like the General's Information Minister, Mr Sheikh Rashid, than a Kashmiri leader voicing an independent viewpoint.

More importantly, he has said that that "self-governance" and "demilitarisation" are merely interim measures and that any solution will involve the division of Kashmir into five "entities," called the "United States of Kashmir," with each "entity" having its own flag, police and legislature.

This proposal, mooted by the Washington-based Kashmiri businessman Farooq Kathwari, also envisages a "Kashmir Authority" to regulate trade and movement of people. Both the Mirwaiz and Gen Musharraf supported the concept of dividing Kashmir on religious and sectarian lines at the OIC Conference in Saudi Arabia.

Gen Musharraf's strategy is now clear. He will continue to support terrorist activities in Jammu and Kashmir and elsewhere in India. He will make Hurriyat leaders toe his line and support proposals for "demilitarisation," involving the withdrawal of Indian forces from urban centres like Kupwara, Baramulla and Srinagar.

Effective control of these centres will then pass into the hands of well-armed jehadis who cannot be tackled by the local police and can intimidate politicians like the Mirwaiz and Mr Bilal Lone to obey their instructions. At the same time, he will make efforts to forge unity between the Hurriyat and the fundamentalist Syed Ali Shah Geelani by facilitating contacts in Saudi Arabia.

There are, of course monetary incentives, for those who fall in line with ISI policies. A Pakistani friend of mine, who hails from Kashmir, noted after a recent visit to Srinagar that he was amazed to see how affluent many of those advocating a "freedom struggle" had become after militancy and violence commenced in J&K in December 1989. Not surprisingly, Mirwaiz Farooq waxed eloquent in Islamabad and Lahore about alleged human rights abuses in Jammu and Kashmir, while turning a blind eye to the repression of Shias in the Northern Areas of the State.

The response of the Manmohan Singh Government to Gen Musharraf's posturing has, unfortunately, been hesitant and timid. New Delhi has allowed the General to set the agenda and has reacted to his constant stream of "proposals" rather than being pro-active and moving in a direction that suits its interests, priorities and perceptions.

The most notable example has been New Delhi's inability to focus attention on the General's constant refusal to open the land route between Kargil and Skardu in the Northern areas for tourism, trade and travel. Gen Musharraf obviously has much to hide about the repression he has let loose in Gilgit and elsewhere, as all foreigners are barred from travel to the Northern Areas.

The response to Gen Musharraf's proposals for "self-governance" has also been unimaginative and hesitant. New Delhi has evidently not undertaken a comprehensive study about how Pakistan Occupied Kashmir (POK) and the Northern Areas enjoy no autonomy and are virtual colonies of Islamabad.

While Gen Musharraf claims he respects the "wishes" of the people of Kashmir, and his Prime Minister, Mr Shaukat Aziz, claims that the people of POK enjoy "freedom," the POK Constitution specifically provides that "no person or Party in "Azad" Kashmir shall be allowed to propagate against, or take part in activities prejudicial or detrimental to the ideology of the State's accession to Pakistan".

The JKLF leader Amanullah Khan was incarcerated for protesting against this provision. While POK ostensibly has an elected Legislative Assembly, real power is wielded by an "Azad Jammu and Kashmir Council" presided over, not by the "Prime Minister" of POK, but by the Prime Minister of Pakistan, who nominates five of the 13 thirteen members of the "Council". The rules made by the "Council" are not subject to judicial review. The so-called "Prime Minister" of POK does not even have the powers of a Section officer in the Ministry of Kashmir Affairs in Islamabad, either on finances or appointments. The POK Government merely implements decisions of the "Council". Virtually all economic progress in POK is primarily because of remittances from the over half a million "Mirpuris" living abroad.

If POK has its autonomy effectively circumscribed because it is ruled by a "Council" headed by Pakistan's Prime Minister, the Northern Areas are, for all practical purposes, a colonial territory.

With a population of around 2.8 million, people in the Northern areas have no fundamental legal, political or civil rights. The region is governed by the Frontier Crime Regulations, making it mandatory for its people to report all their movements. There are no empowered representative institutions and the Federal Minister of Kashmir Affairs is its Chief Executive.

New Delhi should now insist that it will consider Gen Musharraf's proposal for "self-governance" only if elected rulers in POK and the Northern Areas enjoy the same powers and autonomy as the Chief Minister and the Legislative Assembly of Jammu and Kashmir. India should demand the disbanding of the Kashmir "Council" and the Muzaffarabad-based United Jihad Council.

It should also be made clear that Sunni settlers brought into the Northern Areas since the 1980s should leave the territory, as we cannot countenance forcible demographic changes in a territory we regard as an inalienable part of India. Finally, we should insist that institutional arrangements have to be put in place to end the isolation of the people of the Northern Areas by permitting trade, travel and tourism across the Kargil-Skardu sector. Subtlety, understatement and excessive politeness are regarded by military rulers like Gen Musharraf as manifestations of indecision and weakness. New Delhi should never forget this in dealing with the ruling elite in Pakistan.

(The author is a former High Commissioner to Pakistan.)

More Stories on : Foreign Relations | Politics

Article E-Mail :: Comment :: Syndication :: Printer Friendly Page

Stories in this Section
Demilitarisation and autonomy in J&K

Well-oiled diplomacy

Parking funds in new slots

Farm ills: Globalisation not to blame

Ill-advised obstruction

Nuclear deal: Much ado for marginal gain

Unenterprising NRIs

Overseas citizenship

Voting rights for NRIs

Octroi in VAT

EPF rate