This is in response to Happymon Jacob’s article “”Returning to Kashmir” published in GK on 27 January 2019. His article is in the backdrop of his long three year break from Greater Kashmir. Yes! I remember you Prof. Jacob, and your scholarly columns in GK. One feels delighted when people like you in the academic world write on Kashmir, and on Indo-Pak relationship.
Though, we Kashmiri students and those who are in academic courses always used to read your thought-provoking, analytical and much-needed scholarship in the national daily The Hindu all these years on different issues, mostly of strategic importance. At the same time, I am also one of your fans who see your new assignments like your association with ‘India-Pakistan track-Two diplomacy’ and with “National Security Conversations” TheWire.in very keenly.
However, let me remind Prf. Jacob, this was the period (three years) when Jammu and Kashmir was burning in protests and killings that unfortunately still continues. This was the era when Greater Kashmir and Kashmir was in need of scholarship like Prof. Jacob. But unfortunately the author preferred to take a long break of three years.
Let me ask the author a query? Does he feel, by interacting with the people across the region, and globally, he has changed his viewpoint that he had three years before, about Kashmir? If yes, what are those changes? Please do elaborate in your forthcoming write-ups.
In this column the author remarks; “neither did the coalition live up to its promises nor did it serve Kashmir’s interests”. But the question arise which single party or coalition governments have served the state, and fulfilled their promises since the state entered into contested constitutional relationship with India. So expecting good from the BJP-PDP coalition is unfair. The fact is all the governments since 1948 have served the interests of Delhi in Kashmir and I agree with the author that “Kashmir today is worse off, and the BJP-PDP coalition is partly to blame.”
The author further argues that “Pakistan is back to Kashmir with a vengeance, sensing an opportunity.” But it is quite reverse. At present, Pakistan is in no mood of “vengeance” and “opportunity”. Had that been the case, the number of militants, not more than 300, would have crossed thousands; if Pakistan would have sent arms and ammunition, as Pakistan used to give during the 1990s. Second, Pakistan has time and again tried to boost her friendship with India by signaling many peace building initiatives like Kartarpur. So the argument that “it will continue to do what it does in Kashmir” seems weak and flawed. Instead, New Delhi’s response was/is quite belligerent.
In yet another surprising use of the terminology, the author seems to be more inclined towards mainstream Indian political parties, and also victim of a propagandist media; Jacob calls the Kashmiri homegrown rebels/militants (who even are not well trained nor have sophisticated weapons) as ‘terrorists’. The question arises if Prof. Jacob uses such terminology, what can the people of Kashmir expect from Delhi that has always crushed dissent with brute force.
Nevertheless, the author has beautifully summarized the global and regional political changes that took place during all these years in a precise manner in the last paragraph of the article While I expect that Prof. Jacob enriches us with his thought-provoking and well-researched articles in Greater Kashmir and in National daily The Hindu, on these issues. But at the same time I also expect from him to dissect the things related to Kashmir in an objective and fair manner, especially the use of vocabulary and terminology that shape the policies of the Delhi towards Kashmir.
Post Script: I welcome Prof. Jacob’s return to Greater Kashmir, and Kashmir, but with a difference. I also welcome his scholarly works—two books. I hope these academic accounts will break the ice between both the countries.
Javid Ahmad Ahanger is doctoral fellow Department of Political Science Aligarh Muslim University.
ahanger.javid786@gmail.com