[Reader-list] Kashmir's people at centre stage (Hindu)

[taraprakash]

There is not much to like in a bourgeois democratic system. I don't 
differentiate there between Kashmir and the rest of India. A poet once said 
about democracy:
Jahan janta ki janta dvara
Aisi taisi hoti hai
Vahan democracy hoti hai.

Democracy is where people make a mess of people's life (sorry for this crude 
translation). I see no place in the world where people are not cynical about 
electoral politics. Ironically, those who gain the most out of a democratic 
regime, are more cynical of it. Do we ever hear someone praising a 
democratic government except for those who have political and/or economic 
interests? Yet it seems to be the best option out of the available ones 
(even in Kashmir) But, of course, people do have different opinions.

Here is another article on this from today's Hindu.

Democracy and the peace process in J&K

Praveen Swami

New Delhi must break with a script which has led to a breakdown of 
democratic institutions and engendered a dysfunctional political culture.

Speaking from atop his wooden throne in Srinagar’s Jama Masjid earlier this 
month, Mirwaiz Umar Farooq delivered a stinging attack on politicians who 
will
contest the Jammu and Kashmir Assembly elections next month.

“I want to ask the Prime Minister of India,” the cleric and secessionist 
politician said in his October 10 sermon, “whether it serves any purpose to 
hold
discussions with leaders who do not dare move among the masses unless they 
are protected by a cordon of guards.”

Mirwaiz Farooq’s fighting words would have had a great moral force had it 
not been for one uncomfortable fact: he is among the ranks of politicians he 
railed
against. Like his secessionist colleagues Sajjad Gani Lone, Bilal Gani Lone, 
Abdul Gani Butt and Aga Syed Hassan, the Mirwaiz is protected by the Jammu
and Kashmir police. In addition, the Mirwaiz—whose father was assassinated 
by jihadists — has invested in a bullet-proof car.

Early next year, notwithstanding the anti-election campaign that has now 
been unleashed by secessionists, an elected government will again hold power 
in
the State. Influential figures in New Delhi’s policy establishment have been 
suggesting that once the rituals of democracy are done with, New Delhi, 
along
with Islamabad, must get down to the real business of hammering out a peace 
deal with the very politicians who are seeking to obstruct the elections. 
While
the new government goes about fixing roads and sewers, this line of thinking 
has it, the big boys will fix Jammu and Kashmir’s future.

If New Delhi is in fact serious about peace-building in Jammu and Kashmir, 
it must break with this script — a script which over the last six decades 
has
led to a breakdown of democratic institutions in the State and engendered a 
near-clinical dysfunction in its political life. Instead, the politicians 
who
are elected this winter must be pushed to come up with a workable vision of 
the State’s future — and encouraged to negotiate its contours and content 
with
their counterparts in Parliament.

Ever since Independence, New Delhi had sought to secure Jammu and Kashmir’s 
accession to India through a series of backroom deals. Politicians were 
cajoled
— and sometimes coerced — to sign agreements in 1952, 1966, 1971 and 1975. 
Not one was debated and ratified by an elected body.

Deceit and betrayal

It takes little to see what drove this unhappy story. Prime Ministers, from 
Jawaharlal Nehru to P.V. Narasimha Rao, were driven by the need to defend 
India
against Pakistan’s covert war in Jammu and Kashmir. In their vision, the 
proper role of the elected governments in Jammu and Kashmir was to dispense 
patronage,
and thus undermine dissent — not deal with the issues which drove the 
conflict.

When Jammu and Kashmir saw the restoration of democratic governance in 1996, 
this paradigm continued to shape New Delhi’s policies. Soon after he took 
office,
Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee set about seeking a deal with the All 
Parties Hurriyat Conference (APHC) — a secessionist coalition cast as the 
sole
representative of Kashmir’s authentic, secessionist sentiment.

Prime Minister Vajpayee’s peace efforts, although helped along by 
generously-funded covert funding to the APHC leadership, achieved little. 
Hemmed in by
hawks in his Cabinet, Mr. Vajpayee was in no position to make significant 
political concessions. APHC leaders, for their part, faced massive coercive 
pressures
from jihadist groups like the Hizb ul-Mujahideen and the Lashkar-e-Taiba. In 
essence, the APHC and the Government of India played for time. Both hoped
that negotiations with Pakistan would lead to an agreement that would end 
the conflict by gifting the secessionists power within an autonomy-based 
framework.
Apprehensive of just that outcome, the National Conference began adopting 
increasingly intransigent postures, hoping to frustrate a New 
Delhi-Islamabad-APHC
deal. Even as New Delhi talked to the APHC, though, it rejected the National 
Conference’s calls for a dialogue on autonomy — souring relations with the
most important player in State politics.

During his first years in office, Prime Minister Singh’s policies closely 
mirrored those of his predecessor. He once again initiated negotiations with 
the
APHC, and authorised a covert programme to reach out to hardline 
secessionists outside its fold. As before, the APHC refused to bring to the 
table a road
map for dialogue. And mirroring the actions of the National Conference 
earlier, the People’s Democratic Party turned to Islamist ideas and 
practices in
an effort to stave off the political consequences of a New Delhi-APHC deal.

In 2006, the Prime Minister finally departed from the tried and tested path, 
realising that it led only to certain failure. Instead of seeking a deal 
with
the APHC alone, he now reached out to the full spectrum of political opinion 
in Jammu and Kashmir. Following all-party conferences in New Delhi and 
Srinagar,
the Prime Minister set up five Working Groups on the conflict. Four of the 
groups — on social confidence-building measures, the cross-Line of Control 
relationship,
economic development and governance — submitted their reports last year.

But the critical fifth group, which discussed Jammu and Kashmir’s 
constitutional relationship with New Delhi, has not met in over a year, let 
alone submit
a report.

Part of the reason was that major political parties in Jammu and Kashmir 
have not been able to arrive at a shared vision of the future. National 
Conference
leaders reiterated their controversial 1999 proposals for wide-ranging 
autonomy within the Union of India, but offered no blueprint for addressing 
the
anxieties of those residents who opposed this agenda. For its part, the 
People’s Democratic Party called for self-rule, but submitted only a 
blueprint
for devolution of powers to district and regional bodies—not a map for 
transfiguring Jammu and Kashmir’s relationship with New Delhi. Bharatiya 
Janata
Party representatives called for the abrogation of Article 370 of the 
Constitution (which confers a special status on the State), while the 
Congress said
nothing at all.

New Delhi’s failure to push the fifth Working Group also stemmed from its 
hope that the APHC could still be made to sign on to an emerging 
India-Pakistan
deal. At secret meetings which began in 2005, Prime Minister Singh’s envoy, 
SK Lambah, and his Pakistani counterpart, Tariq Aziz, arrived at five points
of convergence. First, the two men agreed that there would be no redrawing 
of the Line of Control. Second, they accepted that there would have to be 
greater
political autonomy on both sides of Jammu and Kashmir. Lambah and Aziz also 
agreed that India would begin troop cuts in response to de-escalation of 
jihadist
violence, cooperatively use resources like watersheds, forests and glaciers, 
and, finally, open the LoC for travel and trade.

>From the outset, the APHC rejected participation in the Prime Minister’s 
round-table dialogue, refusing to accept that it was just one of several 
political
voices in Jammu and Kashmir. Speaking after a February 20, 2006 meeting 
where the APHC rejected an invitation to participate in the Delhi 
round-table conference,
Mirwaiz Farooq said that while “the Hurriyat is not averse to New Delhi’s 
consultation process with others,” it “believes that for permanent 
resolution
of the Kashmir crisis, the governments of India and Pakistan shall have to 
essentially deal with those people who have been treating Jammu and Kashmir
as a disputed territory from day one.” Before the subsequent Srinagar 
conference, Prime Minister Singh’s advisors have long claimed, Mirwaiz 
Farooq tempered
that stand and agreed to join in the discussions. However, the APHC backed 
out at the last moment.

Since then the Mirwaiz’s position has hardened. In the midst of this summer’s 
communally charged Shrine Board protests, he signed a secret June 19 
agreement
with Syed Ali Shah Geelani dropping the option of direct talks with the 
Government of India — the Islamist patriarch’s long-standing bone of 
contention
with the APHC.

In his sermon, Mirwaiz Farooq lashed out at “the accords and agreements 
signed by Sheikh Muhammad Abdullah, Bakshi Ghulam Muhammad and Syed Mir 
Qasim with
New Delhi, which the people of Kashmir have never accepted.” Agreements like 
these, the Mirwaiz said, bred a culture of “deceit and betrayal.” He is 
right,
but he omitted to mention that secessionists were just as complicit in this 
corruption as pro-India politicians. Groups like the APHC are reluctant to
engage in a genuine dialogue precisely because it will be substantive. Few 
among the secessionists have a workable vision for the future; those who do
have are willing to risk the consequences of articulating one.

As things stand, it appears that the APHC and other secessionists want a 
deal which hands them power, not a real dialogue — a replay of the New 
Delhi-Srinagar
pacts involving Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah, which they claim to abhor. Whether 
the APHC likes it or not, the National Conference, the Congress and the 
People’s
Democratic Party do speak for substantial sections of Jammu and Kashmir. 
Accepting this plurality of voices is a prerequisite for a meaningful peace.

Instead of empowering secessionists by starting a renewed engagement with 
the APHC after the elections, New Delhi would do well to turn, instead, to 
the
politicians chosen by Jammu and Kashmir’s people to represent them.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "inder salim" <indersalim at gmail.com>
To: <reader-list at sarai.net>
Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2008 2:07 PM
Subject: Re: [Reader-list] Kashmir's people at centre stage (Hindu)


> dear Tara
> it is indeed impossible to ignore the Election in kashmir.  And we all
> know there will be more and more exchange of thoughts, angry exchanges
> as well, about this coming kashmir.
>
> 1. Besides many other benefits, The real word 'Democracy' has done one
> big thing in India: the change of guard has happened without a large
> scale bloodshed.   ( rigging was part of it )
>
> 2. In kashmir too, it did happen on similar lines, but because of this
> ' kashmir conflict ' it will look different from the rest of elections
> in India.  ( Rigging was part of it )
>
> 3. In kashmir, there will be many news things, many new surprises in
> the coming election, before and after the results as well.
> The ritual of elections will be witnessed by masses with an added
> sync-ism, since everybody knows what elections mean in kashmir.
>
> 4. The predictable winner is NC, with PDP following, Congress has no
> chance, in jammu,  BJP is gainer.
>
> The anti-election campaign by Hurriyat will be noted by international
> observes this time more than it was previously.
>
> Having said, from experience so far, it would be futile to suggest the
> participants o remain cool  while expressing their opinions on
> kashmir. as some amongst us are likely to link this anti-election
> thing as anti-national.
>
> the anti-election thing must be seen as part of democratic process, but
>
> love
> is
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 9:02 PM, taraprakash <taraprakash at gmail.com> 
> wrote:
>> Kashmir's people at centre stage
>>
>> In less than four weeks' time, millions living in what is sometimes 
>> described as the most dangerous place on earth will make their way to 
>> polling stations
>> stretching from the shadows of Siachen to the sun-baked plains of Samba. 
>> More than a few voices had called for deferring the elections until next 
>> summer,
>> fearing that the still-raw wounds of the violence Jammu and Kashmir saw 
>> this summer could lead to a poor voter turnout and a verdict polarised 
>> along communal
>> line s. Others were worried that terrorist violence, or an anti-election 
>> campaign by secessionists, could lead to more bloodshed. All these 
>> concerns are
>> legitimate. But by ordering that elections to the State Legislative 
>> Assembly be held in time to avoid the imposition of central rule, the 
>> Election Commission
>> of India has made a courageous and principled decision that places at 
>> centre stage the right of the people to shape their own future.
>>
>> Without doubt, the poll process will face many severe challenges before 
>> the seven-phase election is completed in December. But the fact that fear 
>> has not
>> been allowed to derail democracy is something of a triumph in itself. For 
>> decades, elections in Jammu and Kashmir were used as instruments of some 
>> cause:
>> to bring a particular party to power, for example, or for demonstrating 
>> the legitimacy of the State's accession to India. Ever since 1996, when 
>> democracy
>> returned to the State after an extended breakdown brought about by 
>> jihadist violence, elections have been cast as a tool for peacemaking. 
>> The ECI's decision
>> underlines the fact that while elections may indeed yield desirable 
>> outcomes, this is not their raison d'étre. By making clear that democracy 
>> is not contingent
>> on circumstance or result, the ECI has helped the healing of the 
>> dysfunctions that came to characterise J&K's political life because of 
>> the decades-old
>> subversion of democracy. The elections will, moreover, make clear to 
>> political parties in Jammu and Kashmir that they - not New Delhi or for 
>> that matter
>> Islamabad - are the principal architects of the State's destiny. Over the 
>> summer, the Congress-People's Democratic Party alliance government paid 
>> the price
>> for the two partners' political opportunism and failure to challenge the 
>> forces of religious and ethnic chauvinism. Now, the people of the State 
>> will have
>> the opportunity to assess that record and decide who might have the best 
>> vision for the future. In 1996 and 2002, terrorist violence claimed the 
>> lives
>> of almost 200 political workers from most major parties, who put their 
>> lives on the line to campaign for their beliefs. Ensuring that there will 
>> be an
>> elected government in Jammu and Kashmir before the New Year is a fitting 
>> tribute to that sacrifice.
>> _________________________________________
>> reader-list: an open discussion list on media and the city.
>> Critiques & Collaborations
>> To subscribe: send an email to reader-list-request at sarai.net with 
>> subscribe in the subject header.
>> To unsubscribe: https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/reader-list
>> List archive: &lt;https://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/>
>
>
>
> -- 
>
> http://indersalim.livejournal.com
> _________________________________________
> reader-list: an open discussion list on media and the city.
> Critiques & Collaborations
> To subscribe: send an email to reader-list-request at sarai.net with 
> subscribe in the subject header.
> To unsubscribe: https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/reader-list
> List archive: &lt;https://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/>