Starting an informed debate on Kashmir, by Dr Radah Kumar

Posted by on July 5, 2012 in Kashmir | Comments Off

Starting an informed debate on Kashmir, by Dr Radah Kumar

http://www.dailykashmirimages.com/news-starting-an-informed-debate-on-kashmir-28289.aspx

The wide range of opinions on the interlocutors’ report indicates that serious dialogue is possible and must be encouraged over the past month, there has been a series of responses to the Report of the Group of Interlocutors for Jammu and Kashmir. When we wrote the report, it was evident to us it would please none in whole, but might please many in part. On the plus side, The Hindu, the Times of India and the Hindustan Times ran editorials calling for action on the report. It has been welcomed, in varying degrees, by the People’s Democratic Party, the State Congress, the Samajwadi Party and the Janata Dal (United), most of the minorities in the State, be they religious, linguistic or cultural, sections of civil society, migrants and refugees, women and groups such as the cross-LoC traders or Chambers of Industry.

Constructive criticism Constructive criticism, distinguishing between contentious and acceptable elements of our report, has been voiced in editorials and opinion articles in the Valley newspapers  and Jammu newspapers.

On the negative side, there have been denunciations from the Bharatiya Janata Party, the Panthers party, Panun Kashmir, and some others. To the first round of critical comments — “nothing new”, Article 370 cannot be the baseline, regional devolution is divisive, and there should be no discussion of Pakistani-held parts of the State — new criticisms have been added, focussing on the proposal for a Constitutional Committee; the talks roadmap; and our discussion of human rights.
The bulk of criticisms indicates a profound misreading of our mission, which was to dialogue with the widest possible section of the people of Jammu and Kashmir and report on what could be done. Given the extremely volatile conditions at the time, we exceeded our mandate to suggest immediate actions, and went so far as to take up grievances case by case. This part of our mission comprised day-to-day confidence building and should be set apart from the report that we submitted in October 2011, though some of it is summarised in Chapter I.

The report itself puts together the various recommendations that came out of our interlocution, across the State and with every community, group and party except the Hurriyat, the JKLF and allied groups in the Valley, who chose not to meet us and whose views are therefore not summarised in the report. To my knowledge, such an exercise has not been conducted earlier, and it opened a vital channel of direct communication between New Delhi and the people of the State.
It was not the purpose of the mission or of the report to add something “new” to the sum of knowledge on the issue. Indeed, it is both fallacious and harmful to demand newness from a group whose mandate is to revive and/or accelerate a peace process. Rather, the task for the report was to seek a framework in which the diverse aspirations of people could be accommodated, identify commonalities between the various party and community positions, and suggest action plans for the Government of India drawn from a review of prior or ongoing peace initiatives and lacunae.
We found broad agreement on CBMs, reviewed their implementation, and suggested how they could be pushed at a faster pace. Political proposals were more contentious. There were commonalities in the stated positions of the two major regional parties as well as parties such as the SP, the Communist Party of India (Marxist) and the JD (U), but also divergences. Some of the divergences, we felt, could be reconciled. We also found that sectoral demands — of the minorities, gender, traders, refugees and migrants, to cite but a few — could be accommodated by all, in principle. The issue was to get them into practice.

Leaving aside divergences, winning a political consensus on commonalities could not possibly be achieved in a year, especially such a volatile year, and to accuse us of failing to bring all the stakeholders on board is silly. Those that have engaged in such an endeavour for years will agree that the obstacles to consensus are formidable and to overcome them would require a coordinated effort between government, political actors and civil society.

Concerning Article 370, autonomy, regional councils and panchayati raj institutions, our report saw them as interlocking measures. Only a tiered system of devolution, we believed, would fulfil the diverse aspirations for self-rule in the State and make the restoration of autonomy in its original spirit acceptable. Given the wider debate on Centre-State relations that India is presently engulfed in, we felt the time was propitious for this discussion. Recognising aspirations for integration into the global economy and world of ideas, we added new elements to the historic issues.
Constitutional Committee

The Constitutional Committee was proposed in this context. Contrary to postponing decision-making, a Constitutional Committee should speed it. Any settlement has to be accepted by the principal stakeholders if it is to work and if it is not given constitutional validity, then it will not have been committed to. We suggested a six-month time limit in order to stress deadlines in a process that has stretched tragically long.

The most serious criticism of the Constitutional Committee is that it will make it more difficult for the “azadi” groups to enter talks. While this point is well taken, the position that talks must be “outside the ambit of the Indian Constitution” makes sense only if viewed as a statement on process.
The ideal process is indeed one in which no red lines are set at the outset of talks, and the stakeholders are allowed a period of ambiguity during which they can narrow their differences. But how long can constructive ambiguity be maintained without becoming counter-productive? Nearly 20 years have passed since Prime Minister Narasimha Rao promised “the sky is the limit”, and the failure to move beyond ambiguity since then has left bitterness and cynicism in the State. Sometimes, momentum towards resolution can be injected only through measures that appear to set red lines but actually force the pace of talks.

Nor should the establishment of such a committee narrow or limit the options for the “azadi” groups. The dialogue track remains open to them, unconditionally, as it did before. In the roadmap section of our report, we stressed the importance of engaging them at whatever level they wish, on an agenda to be mutually determined. What we suggested, in fact, is two parallel resolution tracks: one engaging the elected representatives and the other engaging the “azadi” groups. As they progress, the two tracks may converge, or one may overtake the other.

Similarly, we discussed Pakistani-held Jammu and Kashmir and the India-Pakistan talks because that is the best way to get a settlement for the whole of the former princely state, and in prior rounds they contributed to a peace process. Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee himself initiated talks with Pakistan on Jammu and Kashmir on the grounds that war is unthinkable (except under severe provocation of terrorism).

Plain misrepresentation

Some criticisms are plain misrepresentation. We have been accused of ignoring the Pandits and PoK refugees, but we actually made detailed recommendations on both. According to a creative act of cut and paste, we put the figure of disappeared persons at 200. In fact, we mentioned that the Association of Parents of the Disappeared had documented 200 cases out of thousands of complaints, and the government could begin with these. In our discussion of unmarked graves we did not dispute figures; we recommended a judicial commission.

We have been criticised for being weak on justice and reconciliation. On the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, we said the army had three options: repeal, amend or gradually lift as suggested by Chief Minister Omar Abdullah, and urged a speedy choice. We also recommended amending the Public Safety Act (the State Assembly has amended PSA, while the AFSPA amendment is concretising). Moreover, we supported transparent court martials for Pathribal and Macchil (now agreed by the army), and reforms in troops deployment and operating procedures. Finally, far from “trivialising” the truth and reconciliation concept, we actually echoed Bishop Tutu on it.

This is not to say that there are not many faults in our report. For example, Gandhiji would have asked us, “where is atonement?” That is why the government has done the right thing in releasing the report and calling for an informed debate on it. All those who talked to us — and those who did not — now have the chance to add to or amend what we said before the government takes a policy decision rather than after.
Many of the opinion pieces on Jammu and Kashmir have taken this point on board. Of three harshly critical pieces, one said our recommendations should be implemented to demonstrate credibility, another said condemn the report but introspect about your own lapses, and a third said the call for informed debate should be responded to. Several others did not comment on our report but took off from the debate it generated, including a very thoughtful piece on the role of the media. These voices indicate that a truly serious dialogue can indeed be encouraged.
Radha Kumar was a member of the Group of Interlocutors for Jammu and Kashmir and is Director of the Delhi Policy Group and the article was first published in The Hindi.

About K4Kashmir

PROFILE OF Dr SHABIR CHOUDHRY Dr Shabir Choudhry was born in Nakker Shamali (near Panjeri) in District Bhimber, Azad Kashmir. He went to UK in 1966, and holds a dual nationality. Dr Shabir Choudhry has done extensive research on the issue of Kashmir and Indo Pakistan relations. He passed BA Honours in Politics and History, and Mphil in International Relations (title of the thesis, ‘Kashmir and Partition of India’); and title of his PhD thesis is ‘Kashmir- An issue of a nation not a dispute of a land’. Apart from this Dr Shabir Choudhry passed Post Graduates Certificates in Education, and NVQ Assessor’s qualifications; and taught English in London. Political Achievements Founder member of JKLF (Jammu Kashmir Liberation Front established in 1977) and got elected as a Press Secretary in 1984. • Became its Secretary General in 1985, and resigned from this post in 1996. • Got elected President of JKLF and Europe in May 1999, and decided not to contest in elections of July 2001. • Said good - bye to the JKLF as it is in many groups and is largely seen as advancing a Pakistani agenda on Kashmir dispute, and set up a new party Kashmir National Party in May 2008. . At present, he is: • Spokesman Kashmir National Party and Director Diplomatic Committee; • Founder member and Director Institute of Kashmir Affairs; Previously • A founder Member and Trustee/ Director of London based registered charity, Kashmir Foundation International and resigned from this position in August 2001. • Regularly take part in the Sessions of the UN Human Rights (Commission) now Council in Geneva; and address various conferences and seminars to oppose violence and highlight the Kashmir cause. • Have addressed dozens of seminars and conferences in the British Parliament, European Parliament and other important capitals of the world on issue of Kashmir, violence and terrorism. • Addressed as a key note speaker in a Conference at New Delhi arranged by Jawahar Lal Nehru University. • Participated in a Round Table Conference on Kashmir, organised by Socialist Group of European Parliament in Brussels in 1993. • Addressed as a Chief Guest in a seminar on issue of Mangla Dam during the UN Sub Commission’s proceedings in August 2003. • Addressed as a key - note speaker in a seminar on the issue of Gilgit and Baltistan, organised by Association of British Kashmiris. • Addressed as a keynote speaker on human rights conference in Paris in 1991. • Addressed at Cambridge University as a Chief Guest in a conference on Kashmir in 1990. • Addressed as a keynote speaker at New Delhi conference on Kashmir, which was part of Track Two diplomacy in November 2000. • In September 2008, addressed a Conference arranged by Interfaith International in Geneva, topic of which was: “Kashmir Issue, Terrorism and Human Rights”. • Addressed as a speaker in a NGO Conference on Self - Determination in Geneva in August 2000. • Addressed as a keynote speaker in a fringe meeting of Liberal Democrats at their Annual Conference in Brighton in 1995. • Participated in World Human Rights Conference in Vienna in 1993. • Before President Clinton's visit to India and Pakistan in 2000, lead a JKLF delegation to the State Department to discuss Kashmir dispute and situation in South Asia. • Also had two rounds of meetings with senior State Department officials before President Musharraf’s meeting to Washington in June 2003. • Apart from that had meetings with senior officials including Ministers of different countries, and also held many meetings with the State Department and Foreign and Commonwealth Office officials on number of occasions. • Played important role in advancing a Kashmiri perspective on the issue of Jammu and Kashmir; and also helped Baroness Emma Nicholson with her report ‘Kashmir: present situation and future prospects’, which was adopted by the European Parliament in May 2007. • Won first prize in an essay competition in Urdu in 1976. It was organised by High Commission of Pakistan in London, and title of the essay was 'Qaaid-e- Azam's role in Islamic History'. • Apart from that have addressed conferences in Brussels, Geneva, Toronto, Islamabad, Delhi, and Publications • Got first Urdu novel ‘Fareena’ published at the age of eighteen. • Second Urdu novel ‘Bay-Khataa’ which was about the problems of Asian youths living in UK published in 1983. • Third Urdu book ‘Pakistan and Kashmiri struggle for independence’ published in 1990. • Fourth Urdu book is also on Kashmiri struggle, 'Is an independent Kashmir a conspiracy?' • Apart from that has twenty five books and booklets published in English on various aspects of the Kashmiri struggle. • Recent publications are: Kashmir dispute as I see it • Different perspective on Kashmir • JKLF visit to Pakistan Administered Kashmir • Kashmir Needs a Change of Heart • If not self - determination then what? • Emma Nicholson report- who has won? • Struggle for independence, Jihad or proxy war (Introduction by Baroness Emma Nicholson) • Why 22 October 1947 is important in Kashmiri history? • New dimensions of the Kashmiri struggle. The following books are published by a German company and available on www.amazon.co.uk • New Round of the 'Great Game', ISBN 978-3-639-33084-7 • Liberation Struggle, Jihad or a Proxy War, ISBN 978-3-639-33424-1 • Kashmir Dispute: New Dimensions and New Challenges ISBN 978-3-639-33566-8 • Kashmir Dispute and Peace in South Asia ISBN 978-3-639-33732-7 • Terrorism, Kashmir Dispute and Possible Solutions ISBN 978-3-639-34239-0 • Kashmir And The Partition of India, (my Mphil research) ISBN 978-3-639-34801-9 • Kashmir – an Issue of a Nation not Dispute of a Land, (my PhD research) 978-3-639-35593-2 • Are Kashmiris part of the Kashmir Dispute? 978-3-639-37225-0 • A brief background Dr Shabir Choudhry was born in a small village called Nakker Shamali (near Panjeri) in District Bhimber, Azad Kashmir. He went to UK in 1966, and like other people from the region, holds a dual nationality. He left secondary school in 1970 with no qualifications and began his life as a textile worker. In 1975 he started part time studies and passed Matriculation from Government High School Panjeri, passed ‘O’ and ‘A’ levels from UK, and resumed full time degree course in 1981, and passed BA (Hons) in Politics and History in 1984. He continued full time and part time jobs until he got his Mphil. He passed his PGCE (Post Graduates Certificate in Education) in 1990, and then started full time job as a Lecturer. Due to health problems he resigned from teaching in 1999. At present he is self - employed, provides private tuition, translation and interpretation and consultancy. Through out his adult life he has actively worked for the cause of Kashmir, and even during long illness he effectively carried out his responsibilities as a leader of the JKLF, a ‘prolific writer’ and consistent campaigner of Rights Movement and peace in Jammu and Kashmir and South Asia. Dr Shabir Choudhry Email:drshabirchoudhry@googlemail.com Telephone: 0044 (0)7790942471

Comments are closed.