Skip to main content

Will New Delhi henceforth be guided only by mistrust in dealing with people of Kashmir?

By Anand K Sahay*
My recent trip to Kashmir has revealed a picture that can only fill one with gloom and dread. Grave political uncertainty and psychological disarray at the level of ordinary people is the standout impression.
At issue are the future of the lives of the people in the Valley, and the quality of the relationship with India they might be forced to endure in the aftermath of the “great betrayal” of August 5, the day on which our Parliament rubbished Article 370 of the Constitution and proceeded with steps for the reorganisation of J&K state.
In order to just hang in there, will New Delhi henceforth be guided only by mistrust in dealing with the people of Kashmir? Will a militarised dispensation, under which will flourish the “new politics” conceptualised by the likes of Amit Shah, the Union home minister, be the new normal?
“We are back at 1947,” said a disgusted journalist in the north Kashmir town of Baramulla. The sentiment is encountered across the famous, and now deeply troubled, Vale of Kashmir. (Identities of the people spoken to for this report cannot be disclosed for fear of consequences for them.)
On October 26, 1947, forced by military circumstances imposed by newly created Pakistan and having being thwarted in his design to remain independent, the J&K ruler, Maharaja Hari Singh, had signed the Instrument of Accession to join his kingdom with newly independent India under specific conditions.
The essence of this document was formalised in the shape of Article 370 after prolonged debate in India’s Constituent Assembly -- which means a compact was arrived at, and now stands violated.
The question people in Kashmir have begun asking is whether the choice made by them in 1947 needs to be re-visited. “It has been an illusion,” they say.
With Sheikh Abdullah marshalling popular opinion, in 1947 the Kashmiris put their faith in secular India rather than Islamic Pakistan, although the latter has continued to attract the allegiance of a small section since then. This section has now come alive.
Adherents of Jamaat-e-Islami, a religio-political outfit which believes in merging with Pakistan, now expect to command greater attention
It is perhaps the only set of people in the valley that is pleased about the Modi government’s troubling recent decisions on Kashmir since these have led to disorienting the people wholesale. Adherents of the Jamaat-e-Islami, an influential religio-political outfit which believes in merging with Pakistan, now expect to command greater attention than before.
The speech of Pakistan Prime Minister Imran Khan in the UN last month elicits nothing but praise. A young woman lawyer said, “The Pakistan PM spoke about the crisis that hit us after August 5- the jailing of thousands, the communications blackout. He is the only one who spoke about us. Modi, on the other hand, spoke about “shauchalya” (toilets) at the UN! He could have talked about peace but didn’t.”
Said a north Kashmir villager who gets by as an electrician, “Imran Khan has his own interests. We understand that. The people of Kashmir have never been with Pakistan. The show of Pakistan flags in protest rallies, unless the Jamaatis are involved, is only to cock a snook at New Delhi. But now we realise India is not a friend. The trust of 70 years is gone. What was the need for all this? We have been made fools. God knows what the future holds.”
Khan’s speech has appealed even to those who did not hide their pro-India sentiment in a conflict zone. This lot seems to have swung to the side of “azadi”, a word with wide connotations, the most common being freedom from military searches and pervasive military presence that hits day-to-day life and wounds the dignity of people.
Crudely etched in Urdu on a side of the wooden table in a lawyer’s small office in Shopian in south Kashmir, the valley’s most disturbed district, where a killing took place hours after I departed, is the lament “Ghulam Kashmir”-- Kashmir Enslaved. encapsulating feelings in the wake of August 5.
(To be concluded)
---
*Senior Delhi-based journalist, who was recently in Srinagar, Baramulla and Shopian. This is the first article in a series on ground realities in Kashmir following the August 5 crackdown. A version of this article has appeared in the “Asian Age”

Comments

TRENDING

To Sonam Wangchuk: 'Will undertake 70 hour solidarity fast in Gujarat'

By Martin Macwan *  Dear Colleague Sonam Wangchuk, I have never met you personally. I wrote a short article at the time of your arrest. Your work correctly introduces you. There is truth in your words. You have embarked on a fast, following the footsteps of Gandhiji. Your intention is to make people think. Your demand is reasonable; I believe that the resignation of a single education minister will not improve the state of education in India. However, the question you have raised is extremely important for the future generation of the marginalized. Education is the key to power, development, and progress, which empowers a citizen.

US civil society coalition slams Hudson Institute for hosting RSS leaders

By A Representative   The Hudson Institute ’s “New India Conference,” held on April 23, featured senior figures from India’s ruling political ecosystem, including RSS General Secretary Dattatreya Hosabale and BJP foreign affairs head Vijay Chauthaiwale . The event also included U.S. officials and former diplomats such as Kurt Campbell, Kenneth Juster, and Nisha Biswal, alongside India’s Ambassador to the U.S., Vinay Kwatra.  

Remembering Rampur ka Tiraha: State violence and the birth of Uttarakhand’s struggle

By Vidya Bhushan Rawat*  In the turbulent political landscape of the early 1990s, India witnessed events that reshaped its social and regional equations. After the Babri Masjid demolition in 1992, Uttar Pradesh politics shifted dramatically, bringing the Samajwadi Party–Bahujan Samaj Party coalition to power in 1993 under Mulayam Singh Yadav. But the partnership was uneasy. Mulayam was never entirely comfortable playing the “Mandal card.” While Kanshi Ram and the BSP had consistently demanded the implementation of the Mandal Commission recommendations, Mulayam hesitated, wary of how the move might play out.