Kashmir: is peace possible?

By Asghar Ali Engineer

PEACE SHOULD be the top priority in Kashmir today. Everything else could be settled during negotiations. Ramzan is the month of engrossing oneself in prayers and fasting. It is known as sharullah i.e. month of Allah, a month which should be devoted to all causes dear to Allah and dearest to Allah is salam - peace. Some militants argue that even the Prophet fought the battle of Badr during Ramzan so what is wrong in fighting during this month? The Prophet fought a short battle to avert danger to the existence of Muslims in Madina and this battle was inevitable. The very parallel cited is wrong. And in Kashmir the violence has degenerated into endless killing.

Every time there is a move for peace, the killing starts. This time too innocent Sikh drivers were pulled out of their vehicles and shot? Extremist violence in Kashmir cannot qualify as jehad. First, the Koran does not use the term jehad for war or violence or killing, for that matter. For that, qital has been used or its derivatives. Jehad means utmost efforts to promote justice, goodness, benevolence and to control base desires.

Violence will not solve the Kashmir question. Ultimately, it is a political solution which will bring about the final resolution of the Kashmir problem. In this age of democracy and human rights, violence has a very limited role. The Kashmiri people have made enough sacrifices. More than 50,000 people have already been killed in this senseless violence. How many more will have to lose their lives? And with all this can Kashmir achieve its freedom through violence? Ultimately it will have to be resolved through negotiations. Then why not negotiations now to save many more innocent lives?

The people of Kashmir are also tired of this violence. They desire peace intensely. But they cannot speak out freely. If the extremists are fighting - as they claim - for freedom of the people of Kashmir, why this fear?. Even the newspapers from the Valley cannot publish what they want. Given this culture of violence and extremism what will be the quality of freedom in Kashmir if it is subsequently won?

Violence brutalises the human conscience. Those countries in Asia and Africa which won their freedom through violence - for example Algeria - have a legacy of brutal killings. The people of Algeria have never enjoyed real freedom. They have witnessed a highly authoritarian rule right from beginning. There are many more such examples.

India won its freedom through the involvement of the masses and it developed a culture of political democracy which has survived despite hurdles. The people of Kashmir had an excellent opportunity in 1990 to fight for their demands democratical. But they lost that chances by taking up guns. They thought ``we will take up guns and azadi (freedom) will be ours''.

It is in view of all this that Mr. Vajpayee's ceasefire offer should have been built on for peace in the Valley. Four former Prime Ministers, Mr. V. P. Singh, Mr. Deve Gowda, Mr. I. K. Gujral and Mr. Chandra Shekhar, have also welcomed the Ramzan ceasefire. When the offer was made even the Hizbul Mujahideen chief, Syed Salahuddinc went into huddle with his top commanders to consider its consequences.

Some Hizb sources said - though off the record - that a majority of those at the strategy meeting viewed the offer as exactly what they had wanted to get the negotiation process started and felt that the Hizb should respond positively. But the fear was that if any such public statement was issued the outfit might split.

It is also reported that the Valley-based commander, Mr. Abdul Majid Dar, was pressing Mr. Salahuddin to take a stand, but the latter had been saying that the Indian Government should take the lead and hold out something more than a ``tame surrender''. If the latest offer came with a package that could meet some of the Pakistan-based Hizb leadership's concerns, the group could have welcomed it. But if the package was announced what was there for India to negotiate? The most important thing is ceasefire and this opportunity should be seized by the militants to negotiate a durable solution and build peace.

If the Government of India puts a stop to the gross violations of human rights of the people of Kashmir it will earn further support not only internationally but also from the Kashmiris themselves. The Kashmiris by now know fully well that the militants cannot be their saviours as now they are fighting for their own survival rather than for the freedom of the people.

If there is any honourable solution within the framework of the Indian union they will welcome it. But the very first condition for this is a stop to the excesses by security forces. Today the people of the Valley are deeply alienated from the Government of India.

The ceasefire is a necessary but not sufficient condition for restoring permanent peace in Kashmir. The Government of India will have to reflect deeply on its now policies in Kashmir. And this not only in respect of the behaviour of the armed forces but also about a political solution. By now it should be at least clear that there is great deal of dissatisfaction with the status quo. For a permanent peace, the status quo in Kashmir must change. Whether it is complete autonomy as was demanded by the Kashmir Assembly and going back to the pre-1953 position is matter of detailed negotiation. But the Central Government cannot insist that a permanent solution be found without seriously rethinking the present policy framework.

The people of Kashmir have suffered intensely in the last one decade. The price has been too heavy for them and they cannot be expected to accept too little. As Mr. Vajpayee has displayed statesmanship by offering a unilateral ceasefire he should show further magnanimity by offering a package to the people of Kashmir which would be in keeping with their honour and dignity. It will go a long way to reduce the feeling of alienation, if not eliminate it altogether.

Of course this is easier said than done. Mr. Vajpayee's own party, the BJP, may not go all the way with him. Dissidence is already surfacing in the RSS. Many hardcore elements in the RSS are not happy with the Vajpayee Government on several issues, including the appeal to Muslims to support the BJP. On top of it if he crosses the ``Laxman Rekha'' on the Kashmir question there may be virtual revolt. In fact it is such dilemmas which continue the conflict in the Valley. It is so difficult to overcome them. The militants also face similar dilemmas. They would split if they accept solution lesser than what they have been fighting for all these years.

But both sides will have to take risks. Social stability is built on a complex set of compromises. The world would have been full of conflict and bloodshed without these compromises. South Asia runs the risk of becoming a nuclear flashpoint if a bold compromise is not made by both sides in the interest of peace.

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : Opinion
Previous : Spectre of imports
Next     : Talks with Pakistan