The future of Kashmir has to be settled peacefully

In the final analysis a lasting solution can arise only through a political process, not through clash of arms

In 1947, the Kingdom of Jammu and Kashmir was asked to join with either India or Pakistan. But Maharaja Hari Singh, the unpopular Hindu ruler of the Muslim-majority region, wanted to stay independent. However, local armed uprisings that flared in various parts of Kashmir, along with a raid by tribesmen from northwestern Pakistan, forced Singh to seek help from India, which offered military assistance on condition that the Kingdom link itself to India. The ruler accepted, but insisted that Kashmir remain a largely autonomous state within the Indian union, with India managing its foreign affairs, defense and telecommunications.
The Indian military entered the region soon after, with the tribal raid spiraling into the first of two wars between India and Pakistan over Kashmir. The first war ended in 1948 with a United Nations (UN)-brokered cease-fire. Nonetheless, Kashmir was divided between the two young nations by the heavily militarised Line of Control, with the promise of a UN-sponsored referendum in the future. In Indian-controlled Kashmir, many saw the transition as the mere transfer of power from their Hindu king to Hindu-majority India. Kashmiri discontent against India started taking root as successive Indian governments breached the pact of Kashmir's autonomy. Local governments were toppled one after another, and largely peaceful movements against Indian control were suppressed harshly.
Pakistan regularly raised the Kashmir dispute in international forums, including in the UN. Meanwhile, India began calling the region an integral part of the nation, insisting that Kashmir's lawmakers had ratified the accession to New Delhi. As the deadlock persisted, India and Pakistan went to war again in 1965, with little changing on the ground. Several rounds of talks followed, but the impasse continued. In the mid-1980s, dissident political groups in Indian-held Kashmir united to contest elections for the state assembly. The Muslim United Front quickly emerged as a formidable force against Kashmir's pro-India political elite.
However, the United Front lost the 1987 election, which was widely believed to have been heavily rigged. A strong public backlash followed. Some young United Front activists crossed over to Pakistan-controlled Kashmir, where the Pakistani military began arming and training Kashmiri nationalists. By 1989, Kashmir was in the throes of a full-blown rebellion. India poured more troops into the already heavily militarised region. In response, thousands of Kashmiris streamed back from the Pakistani-controlled portion with weapons, staging bloody attacks on Indian security forces and pro-India Kashmiri politicians.
Indian soldiers, empowered with emergency laws giving them legal impunity, carried out a brutal military crackdown, leaving Kashmiris exhausted and traumatised. More than 68,000 people have been killed since then. Kashmir rebels suffered a major setback after 9/11, when the US pressured Pakistan to rein in the “militants”. Indian troops largely crushed the rebels after that, though popular demands for "Azadi," – freedom – remain ingrained in the Kashmiri psyche. In the last decade, the region has made a transition from armed rebellion to unarmed uprisings, with tens of thousands of civilians repeatedly taking to the streets to protest Indian rule, often leading to clashes between rock-throwing residents and Indian troops.  
The protests are usually quelled by force, often resulting in deaths. In 2008, a government decision – later revoked – to transfer land to a Hindu shrine in Kashmir set off a summer of protests. The following year, the alleged rape and murder of two young women by government forces set off fresh violence. In 2010, the trigger for protests was a police investigation into allegations that soldiers had shot three civilians dead, and then staged a fake gun battle to make it appear that the dead were “militants” in order to claim rewards for the killings. Over those three years hundreds of thousands of young men and women took to the streets, hurling rocks and insults at Indian forces. At least 200 people were killed and hundreds wounded as troops fired into the crowds, inciting further protests.
The crackdowns appear to be pushing many educated young Kashmiris, who grew up politically radicalised amid decades of brutal conflict, toward armed rebel groups. Young Kashmiri boys began snatching weapons from Indian forces and training themselves deep inside Kashmir's forests. Despite that, the number of armed rebels has apparently remained tiny, with security experts estimating there has not been more than 200 for the last several years.
But news emanating out of Kashmir over the past few months should be a matter of utmost concern. Delhi and Srinagar, but for different reasons, seem to be unwilling to admit to the gravity of the situation that is developing in the Valley. However, if those in power at the Centre and in the State fail to heed the lessons of history, merely hoping against hope that things will settle down, it could be a costly mistake. Those familiar with Kashmir’s history would be aware that violence in Jammu and Kashmir generally tends to come in “waves”. Since the late 1980s, there have been at least four such distinct “waves”. Each wave had its own characteristics, but the common thread was opposition to “rule” from Delhi.
Dissatisfaction is writ large across the State. The degree of resentment against the Indian state is probably at one of its highest points ever. A feeling has been deliberately generated that Delhi currently shows even less understanding of the concerns of locals than many of its predecessors. A major difference between what is happening today and what occurred during previous “waves” is the impact of widespread Islamic spirit among the Muslims across the Valley. Radicalisation of Islamic youth in the Valley is today at an all-time high.
When news spread in early July 2016 that Indian troops had killed a charismatic commander of Indian-controlled Kashmir's biggest rebel group, the public response was spontaneous and immense. Tens of thousands of angry youths poured out of their homes in towns and villages across the Himalayan region, hurling rocks and bricks and clashing with Indian troops. A strict curfew and a series of communications blackouts since then have failed to stop the protesters, who are seeking an end to Indian rule in Kashmir, even as residents have struggled to cope with shortages of food, medicine and other necessities.  
On August 19, 2016 clashes erupted in at least 20 places after government forces fired tear gas and shotguns to stop protesters who tried to march on the main roads. The clashes, with protesters mostly throwing rocks and government forces responding with bullets and shotgun pellets, has left more than 60 civilians and two policemen dead. Police pellets hit more than 100 persons in the eye, resulting in blindness. About 3,000 civilians have been injured during the protests and hundreds of members of various government security forces. But Kashmir's fury at Indian rule is not new. The stunning mountain region has known little but conflict since 1947, when British rule of the subcontinent ended with the creation of India and Pakistan.   
We are concerned at the inhuman handling of strife in Kashmir. The sense of outrage the Valley witnessed on a revel’s death was of a kind not seen for a long time. The police response was so grossly disproportionate to the situation that the victims drew sympathy even from Kashmiri Pandits who had fled the state after revels targeted its members in an earlier phase of clashes. The state of Jammu and Kashmir has been subjected to contrary pulls and pressures since its Hindu maharaja toyed with the idea of an independent state while Sheikh Abdullah’s National Conference, which led the movement against his rule, favoured accession to India.
Pakistan claimed Kashmir because of its Muslim majority. A raid by tribesmen, forced the maharaja to accede to India and the people rallied behind Sheikh Abdullah who took charge of the administration. Sheikh Abdullah’s arrest and removal in 1953 following reports that he was seeking independence for the state with US support pitted his followers against India. They kept the plebiscite demand alive until Indira Gandhi reinstated Sheikh as Chief Minister in 1975. Communal elements on both sides of the India-Pakistan border tend to view Jammu and Kashmir as a piece of real estate. Enlightened administrations must recognise that the problem is one involving hapless victims of history. In the final analysis a lasting solution can arise only through a political process, not through clash of arms, and allowing Kashmir its independence peacefully.
Let landlocked free Kashmir freely decide within the framework of an effective SAARC in a peaceful South Asia – hither to unknown since 1947 – whether it will use Karachi or Mumbai port or both to use Arabian sea as a sea route to the external world. From historical perspectives and experiences Bangladesh as the birth place of SAARC has a moral obligation and responsibility to sympathise with the cause of the Kashmiri people since it has also suffered the same kind of atrocities for nine months long Liberation War as the Kashmiri people have been suffering for about seventy years – Arundhoti Roy puts it like this: “The voices of the slain are afloat in India”.
           
The writer is a retired Professor of Economics, BCS General Education Cadre

The future of Kashmir has to be settled peacefully

In the final analysis a lasting solution can arise only through a political process, not through clash of arms

In 1947, the Kingdom of Jammu and Kashmir was asked to join with either India or Pakistan. But Maharaja Hari Singh, the unpopular Hindu ruler of the Muslim-majority region, wanted to stay independent. However, local armed uprisings that flared in various parts of Kashmir, along with a raid by tribesmen from northwestern Pakistan, forced Singh to seek help from India, which offered military assistance on condition that the Kingdom link itself to India. The ruler accepted, but insisted that Kashmir remain a largely autonomous state within the Indian union, with India managing its foreign affairs, defense and telecommunications. The Indian military entered the region soon after, with the tribal raid spiraling into the first of two wars between India and Pakistan over Kashmir. The first war ended in 1948 with a United Nations (UN)-brokered cease-fire. Nonetheless, Kashmir was divided between the two young nations by the heavily militarised Line of Control, with the promise of a UN-sponsored referendum in the future. In Indian-controlled Kashmir, many saw the transition as the mere transfer of power from their Hindu king to Hindu-majority India. Kashmiri discontent against India started taking root as successive Indian governments breached the pact of Kashmirs autonomy. Local governments were toppled one after another, and largely peaceful movements against Indian control were suppressed harshly. Pakistan regularly raised the Kashmir dispute in international forums, including in the UN. Meanwhile, India began calling the region an integral part of the nation, insisting that Kashmirs lawmakers had ratified the accession to New Delhi. As the deadlock persisted, India and Pakistan went to war again in 1965, with little changing on the ground. Several rounds of talks followed, but the impasse continued. In the mid-1980s, dissident political groups in Indian-held Kashmir united to contest elections for the state assembly. The Muslim United Front quickly emerged as a formidable force against Kashmirs pro-India political elite. However, the United Front lost the 1987 election, which was widely believed to have been heavily rigged. A strong public backlash followed. Some young United Front activists crossed over to Pakistan-controlled Kashmir, where the Pakistani military began arming and training Kashmiri nationalists. By 1989, Kashmir was in the throes of a full-blown rebellion. India poured more troops into the already heavily militarised region. In response, thousands of Kashmiris streamed back from the Pakistani-controlled portion with weapons, staging bloody attacks on Indian security forces and pro-India Kashmiri politicians. Indian soldiers, empowered with emergency laws giving them legal impunity, carried out a brutal military crackdown, leaving Kashmiris exhausted and traumatised. More than 68,000 people have been killed since then. Kashmir rebels suffered a major setback after 9/11, when the US pressured Pakistan to rein in the militants. Indian troops largely crushed the rebels after that, though popular demands for Azadi, freedom remain ingrained in the Kashmiri psyche. In the last decade, the region has made a transition from armed rebellion to unarmed uprisings, with tens of thousands of civilians repeatedly taking to the streets to protest Indian rule, often leading to clashes between rock-throwing residents and Indian troops. The protests are usually quelled by force, often resulting in deaths. In 2008, a government decision later revoked to transfer land to a Hindu shrine in Kashmir set off a summer of protests. The following year, the alleged rape and murder of two young women by government forces set off fresh violence. In 2010, the trigger for protests was a police investigation into allegations that soldiers had shot three civilians dead, and then staged a fake gun battle to make it appear that the dead were militants in order to claim rewards for the killings. Over those three years hundreds of thousands of young men and women took to the streets, hurling rocks and insults at Indian forces. At least 200 people were killed and hundreds wounded as troops fired into the crowds, inciting further protests. The crackdowns appear to be pushing many educated young Kashmiris, who grew up politically radicalised amid decades of brutal conflict, toward armed rebel groups. Young Kashmiri boys began snatching weapons from Indian forces and training themselves deep inside Kashmirs forests. Despite that, the number of armed rebels has apparently remained tiny, with security experts estimating there has not been more than 200 for the last several years. But news emanating out of Kashmir over the past few months should be a matter of utmost concern. Delhi and Srinagar, but for different reasons, seem to be unwilling to admit to the gravity of the situation that is developing in the Valley. However, if those in power at the Centre and in the State fail to heed the lessons of history, merely hoping against hope that things will settle down, it could be a costly mistake. Those familiar with Kashmirs history would be aware that violence in Jammu and Kashmir generally tends to come in waves. Since the late 1980s, there have been at least four such distinct waves. Each wave had its own characteristics, but the common thread was opposition to rule from Delhi. Dissatisfaction is writ large across the State. The degree of resentment against the Indian state is probably at one of its highest points ever. A feeling has been deliberately generated that Delhi currently shows even less understanding of the concerns of locals than many of its predecessors. A major difference between what is happening today and what occurred during previous waves is the impact of widespread Islamic spirit among the Muslims across the Valley. Radicalisation of Islamic youth in the Valley is today at an all-time high. When news spread in early July 2016 that Indian troops had killed a charismatic commander of Indian-controlled Kashmirs biggest rebel group, the public response was spontaneous and immense. Tens of thousands of angry youths poured out of their homes in towns and villages across the Himalayan region, hurling rocks and bricks and clashing with Indian troops. A strict curfew and a series of communications blackouts since then have failed to stop the protesters, who are seeking an end to Indian rule in Kashmir, even as residents have struggled to cope with shortages of food, medicine and other necessities. On August 19, 2016 clashes erupted in at least 20 places after government forces fired tear gas and shotguns to stop protesters who tried to march on the main roads. The clashes, with protesters mostly throwing rocks and government forces responding with bullets and shotgun pellets, has left more than 60 civilians and two policemen dead. Police pellets hit more than 100 persons in the eye, resulting in blindness. About 3,000 civilians have been injured during the protests and hundreds of members of various government security forces. But Kashmirs fury at Indian rule is not new. The stunning mountain region has known little but conflict since 1947, when British rule of the subcontinent ended with the creation of India and Pakistan. We are concerned at the inhuman handling of strife in Kashmir. The sense of outrage the Valley witnessed on a revels death was of a kind not seen for a long time. The police response was so grossly disproportionate to the situation that the victims drew sympathy even from Kashmiri Pandits who had fled the state after revels targeted its members in an earlier phase of clashes. The state of Jammu and Kashmir has been subjected to contrary pulls and pressures since its Hindu maharaja toyed with the idea of an independent state while Sheikh Abdullahs National Conference, which led the movement against his rule, favoured accession to India. Pakistan claimed Kashmir because of its Muslim majority. A raid by tribesmen, forced the maharaja to accede to India and the people rallied behind Sheikh Abdullah who took charge of the administration. Sheikh Abdullahs arrest and removal in 1953 following reports that he was seeking independence for the state with US support pitted his followers against India. They kept the plebiscite demand alive until Indira Gandhi reinstated Sheikh as Chief Minister in 1975. Communal elements on both sides of the India-Pakistan border tend to view Jammu and Kashmir as a piece of real estate. Enlightened administrations must recognise that the problem is one involving hapless victims of history. In the final analysis a lasting solution can arise only through a political process, not through clash of arms, and allowing Kashmir its independence peacefully. Let landlocked free Kashmir freely decide within the framework of an effective SAARC in a peaceful South Asia hither to unknown since 1947 whether it will use Karachi or Mumbai port or both to use Arabian sea as a sea route to the external world. From historical perspectives and experiences Bangladesh as the birth place of SAARC has a moral obligation and responsibility to sympathise with the cause of the Kashmiri people since it has also suffered the same kind of atrocities for nine months long Liberation War as the Kashmiri people have been suffering for about seventy years Arundhoti Roy puts it like this: The voices of the slain are afloat in India. The writer is a retired Professor of Economics, BCS General Education Cadre