Kashmir’s youth-led protest movement has changed the Kashmir dispute, but it remains to be seen whether it will lead to a faster or slower resolution. Kashmir has united behind their courage and conviction, but to an outside observer a solution seems away, not closer.
What went wrong?
First, India lost the political initiative. Prime Minister Vajpayee and General Musharraf had agreed on the general framework of a Kashmir settlement involving reunification and maximum autonomy, but it was put on hold when Geelani rejected the agreement and Musharraf’s tenure ended. The Indian government decided it had to wait until Pakistan sorted its affairs out and it could renew discussions. The Mumbai attack further delayed matters.
Second, India lost the moral high ground. Any Kashmir settlement requires not only consensus support in both India and Pakistan, but also a supporting consensus in Kashmir. To create a Kashmir consensus favoring unity and autonomy, two policies were vital: one, a series of “confidence building measures”, and, two, fast and sure protection of Kashmiri human rights. It started well, but instead of capitalizing on the major reduction in militant activity by expanding its CBMs and reducing the military presence, everything again was left on hold. The upshot was the youth demonstrations, youth demanding action now. The killings since have destroyed India’s moral position.
How can it be fixed?
First, India must recapture its moral standing if it is to persuade Kashmiris that anything less than independence could be tolerable. Kashmir’s protesting youth, and the unanimity with which Kashmir opinion supports them, are giving message that India should endorse, not oppose. They want action now, peace now, opportunity now, and an end to endless politics and dialogue. Omar Abdullah and Home Minister Chidambaram may be of the same opinion, but, strangely, instead of leading the parade, they shoot it. India and Omar Abdullah need to change sides, and to start making change happen.
It must take control of the police. This is done by making prompt and public suspensions of officers whose cops fire without authorization, and by prompt prosecution of policemen who fire without orders. The complete absence of prompt and visible and severe governmental corrective measures has left it no credibility. Endless investigations do not restore public faith, but fair trials and just sentences can. Having taken control, it must disarm the police when confronting the protesting crowds. It is not unlawful to protest and march peacefully. Just as it is better to throw shoes than rocks, so also it is better to allow marches than to shoot unarmed demonstrators. If the demonstrators are peaceful, the police should assist in escorting them to their destination. If the demonstrators are unruly, the police should use the usual means of controlling unarmed civilians: lathis, tear gas, fire hoses, and the like. If the marchers begin attacking buildings or others, then and only then should they be confronted with lethal force, and then in the form of an armed squad drawn up in front of them, commanded by an officer, who first orders a warning volley over their heads. Never should the decision to use lethal force against unarmed demonstrators be left to individual policemen.
Second, Kashmiris must come to terms with their location. Kashmir is bordered by five nations, all of them opposed to Kashmiri independence. Were Kashmir to become independent, a struggle between them for influence and eventual control would ensue, for none of them could abide the possibility of a hostile Kashmir and would see Kashmir’s weakness as an opportunity. Kashmir already is divided three ways between its neighbors. Without India’s security umbrella, Kashmir would be a sitting duck.
Nor can India agree to Kashmiri independence. It is legally a part of the Indian Union and its status is written in the Indian Constitution. To change that, the Indian Parliament would have to amend the Constitution, which takes a two-thirds vote. A two-thirds vote is out of the question without BJP support, and the BJP will never agree to that. They are even questioning autonomy lest it lead to independence. As both PM Vajpayee and Manmohan have repeatedly said, borders cannot be changed.
We may hail the ideal of self-determination, but Kashmir, if it is wise, will forego a futile and endless campaign for independence. Independence simply is not available now, nor in the foreseeable future, nor can any number of marches and killings make it available now. For now, Kashmir should take what is on offer, readily available: reunification, democratic reforms, self-government; and put off independence to a more peaceful day.
India let things drift, and things came apart. To put them back together, India must catch up with public opinion in Kashmir and shift from wartime to peacetime methods. In turn, Kashmiris needs tell all their leaders to get on with negotiations and bring home peace.

(Author is a retired deputy attorney general of California and lives in Kettenpom, California)

Lastupdate on : Mon, 6 Sep 2010 21:30:00 Mecca time
Lastupdate on : Mon, 6 Sep 2010 18:30:00 GMT
Lastupdate on : Tue, 7 Sep 2010 00:00:00 IST