In light of the ‘new autonomy report’ Shams Rehman glances at what was there before and what seems to be in the offing.
Following the division of Kashmir (entire state) under the Indian and Pakistani military, bureaucratic and political machinery, both 'Kashmiri' governments had full autonomy. Although National Conference and Muslim Conference given up on the idea of 'independence' they never compromised the autonomy and identity of Kashmir state embedded in the State Subject Law. On the Pakistani side while Pakistan separated Gilgit and Baltistan from ‘Azad’ Kashmir and ruled these areas directly from Islamabad, the rest of the areas were organised under 'Azad' Kashmir and still have Prime Minister and President along with Supreme Court and other features of an independent government minus independence. The Gilgit and Baltistan are recently given their name back with some more political rights i.e. right to elect their own representatives of course with many shortcomings and irregularities.
The Indian side of Kashmir also had President (Sadar E Riyasat) Karan Singh and Prime Minster Sheikh Abdullah. Indian Jurisdiction was confined to defence, foreign affairs, communication and currency.
However, the government of India gradually eroded the autonomy of Kashmir through various carrot and stick tactics. Currently, the Indian side has relatively strong political parties ? NC and PDO ? that, if work together, are capable of getting that autonomy back. However, at present NC which is coalition government with Congress is not in position to go for ‘self rule’ and has to work within the framework to be defined and determined by the Congress. At the same time the role upsurge in agitation and armed resistance in IOK has played in bringing autonomy issue back on agenda must not be overlooked. For India needs ‘autonomists’ and ‘self-rulist’ against ‘indepdendists’ and ‘accession-ists’ (to Pakistan).
On the Pakistani side Pakistan has appointed Governor and Chief Minister in Gilgit Baltistan which portray these areas as province. However, Pakistani government has assured protesting Kashmiris that this does not change the status of these regions in relation to the State of Jammu and Kashmir and Tibet Ha'. How much this assurance can be trusted on this side brings similar responses from Kashmiris as to the question how much Indian government can be trusted on ‘autonomy’ and ‘self-rule’ in IOK. The good thing is that the regions of Gilgit and Baltistan and Hunza, Yasin etc. ( Balwaristan) have more political and legislative rights than before.
Against this context one possibility that is becoming increasingly obvious is makiing the division of the state (status quo) permanent with the mutual agreement bwteen India and Pakistan under international pressure.
The other possibility is that Gilgit Baltistan, Jammu and Ladkah will be separated from Kashmir and integrated into Pakistan and India respectively. The argument for this is that the tendency amongst people in these areas to identify themselves with Kashmir is almost nonexistent. Therefore, why force them to stay with Kashmir against their will? Although Kashmiri nationalists and pro independence can argue against that but when the pro independence parties are virtually nonexistent in these regions AND seemingly Huriyat leadership is also in agreement that these areas can go their way then the independent state argument does not stand much chance to prevail.
Taking the voluntary identification argument further leaves the Kashmir Valle and its surrounding areas including Azad Kashmir. Now looking from ‘outside’ and ‘above’ it evident that majority of the State Subjects in these regions do share a political Kashmiri identity. However, have been living under different administrative, legislative and political setups for over 60 years. Therefore, unless there is a strong movement on both sides for unification I don’t think the decision makers at the top of International system will be particularly keen in uniting the two Kashmirs. The most can be offered is further improvement in the flow of people and goods across the division line. However, if there is a strong and sustained political, democratic and peaceful mass campaign across the division line for unification India has to agree on the unification of these two regions. However, Pakistan although apparently agree that it is up to Kashmiris, would like to have 'Azad' Kashmir made into a Pakistani Province and leave only Valley to become a semi Independent State. Reading into Mir Waiz Umar Farooq’s reaction to Gilgit Baltistan issue, the Huriyat leadership appears ready for that solution. However, the reaction to such Pakistani attempt in 1970s by the most popular Pakistani leader ZA Butto tells that even if Hurriyat leadership accept such a move the ‘Azad’ Kashmiris in AJK and across the world won’t let their autonomy and (azad) Kashmiri identity taken away. Furthermore, many of us friends here in UK always wonder why there is no movement at all for opening travel and trade routes between Jammu and Mirpur?. Does the rhetoric of Kashmiriyat, secularism, progressivism in reality remain an emotional momentary phenomenon that evaporates in the air soon after the dispersion of demonstrations and meetings?
In this context what should be the common demands of those Kashmiris across the division line and world who have been and are still striving for a united independent democratic State of Kashmir? An outline based on various proposals from different perspectives over the past two decades is suggested below for the consideration of all those who would like to see a peaceful, just and democratic route to solve Kashmir tangle.
1. India and Pakistan to accept that the future of entire state of Kashmir (Kashmir Valley, Jammu, Ladakh, Gilgit Baltistan and Azad Kashmir) is to be decided by over 16 million Kashmiri State Subjects in all parts of Kashmir and living in diaspora across the globe;
As it stands Pakistan agrees to this and publically argues for the right of Kashmiris to self determination. However, as mentioned above Pakistan will agree to other options if asserted by the international community arguing that Indian can only go to this extent for example ‘status quo’ and not that one unification or any change in ‘borders’. Therefore, if Kashmiris want more than that then they have to find ways and means to campaign for that.
2. Free all detainees and political prisoners and disclose details of all those Kashmiris who have been disappeared. This also include the ‘release’ of Afzal Guru ( who is clearly wrongly convicted) and remains of Maqbool Bhatt from Tihar prison Delhi for his proper burial in Kashmir wherever his family would like him to be buried;
3. Remove armies from Urban and Rural dwellings;
4. Open all traditional routes for the flow of all the State Subjects and goods across the state;
5. Hold free and fair elections in all three legislative units (a) Gilgit Baltistan or Pakistani Occupied Northern Kashmir (b) Azad Jammu and Kashmir (Pakistani Occupied Southern Kashmir (c) Jammu and Kashmir (Indian Occupied Kashmir). Every State Subject should have equal right of participation regardless of political persuasions with transparent registration of voters, equal media coverage and monitoring by agreed international civil, legal and democratic bodies;
6. All these elected bodies should have autonomy over their local resources and affairs regardless of the final decision about the future of the entire state. For example even if eventually state becomes divided and these units go to India or Pakistan they should have their autonomy recognised and respected. If the state stays united still these governments should maintain their autonomy. In any case the royalty for the use of their resources must be paid to these governments. The regions of Ladakh and Jammu might also like to opt for local legislative assemblies?
7. After an agreed period free and fair elections to elect representatives of the entire state should be held again with equal participation of all political persuasions and under international supervision with a clearly expressed and agreed mandate to represent Kashmiris at any deliberations between India and Pakistan or China or other relevant international forums on the future status of Kashmir State.
8. Diaspora Kashmiris needs to be consulted and represented throughout the process AND their Kashmiri identity must be recognised and included in the ethnic monitoring systems in the countries of their settlement including national census 2011 in UK.
9. As per international legal framework the UNCIP Resolution of 13th August 1948 and Proposals by the UN President provide space for the above roadmap to be developed.
Author can be reached at: shamakashmiri@yahoo.co.uk
Following the division of Kashmir (entire state) under the Indian and Pakistani military, bureaucratic and political machinery, both 'Kashmiri' governments had full autonomy. Although National Conference and Muslim Conference given up on the idea of 'independence' they never compromised the autonomy and identity of Kashmir state embedded in the State Subject Law. On the Pakistani side while Pakistan separated Gilgit and Baltistan from ‘Azad’ Kashmir and ruled these areas directly from Islamabad, the rest of the areas were organised under 'Azad' Kashmir and still have Prime Minister and President along with Supreme Court and other features of an independent government minus independence. The Gilgit and Baltistan are recently given their name back with some more political rights i.e. right to elect their own representatives of course with many shortcomings and irregularities.
The Indian side of Kashmir also had President (Sadar E Riyasat) Karan Singh and Prime Minster Sheikh Abdullah. Indian Jurisdiction was confined to defence, foreign affairs, communication and currency.
However, the government of India gradually eroded the autonomy of Kashmir through various carrot and stick tactics. Currently, the Indian side has relatively strong political parties ? NC and PDO ? that, if work together, are capable of getting that autonomy back. However, at present NC which is coalition government with Congress is not in position to go for ‘self rule’ and has to work within the framework to be defined and determined by the Congress. At the same time the role upsurge in agitation and armed resistance in IOK has played in bringing autonomy issue back on agenda must not be overlooked. For India needs ‘autonomists’ and ‘self-rulist’ against ‘indepdendists’ and ‘accession-ists’ (to Pakistan).
On the Pakistani side Pakistan has appointed Governor and Chief Minister in Gilgit Baltistan which portray these areas as province. However, Pakistani government has assured protesting Kashmiris that this does not change the status of these regions in relation to the State of Jammu and Kashmir and Tibet Ha'. How much this assurance can be trusted on this side brings similar responses from Kashmiris as to the question how much Indian government can be trusted on ‘autonomy’ and ‘self-rule’ in IOK. The good thing is that the regions of Gilgit and Baltistan and Hunza, Yasin etc. ( Balwaristan) have more political and legislative rights than before.
Against this context one possibility that is becoming increasingly obvious is makiing the division of the state (status quo) permanent with the mutual agreement bwteen India and Pakistan under international pressure.
The other possibility is that Gilgit Baltistan, Jammu and Ladkah will be separated from Kashmir and integrated into Pakistan and India respectively. The argument for this is that the tendency amongst people in these areas to identify themselves with Kashmir is almost nonexistent. Therefore, why force them to stay with Kashmir against their will? Although Kashmiri nationalists and pro independence can argue against that but when the pro independence parties are virtually nonexistent in these regions AND seemingly Huriyat leadership is also in agreement that these areas can go their way then the independent state argument does not stand much chance to prevail.
Taking the voluntary identification argument further leaves the Kashmir Valle and its surrounding areas including Azad Kashmir. Now looking from ‘outside’ and ‘above’ it evident that majority of the State Subjects in these regions do share a political Kashmiri identity. However, have been living under different administrative, legislative and political setups for over 60 years. Therefore, unless there is a strong movement on both sides for unification I don’t think the decision makers at the top of International system will be particularly keen in uniting the two Kashmirs. The most can be offered is further improvement in the flow of people and goods across the division line. However, if there is a strong and sustained political, democratic and peaceful mass campaign across the division line for unification India has to agree on the unification of these two regions. However, Pakistan although apparently agree that it is up to Kashmiris, would like to have 'Azad' Kashmir made into a Pakistani Province and leave only Valley to become a semi Independent State. Reading into Mir Waiz Umar Farooq’s reaction to Gilgit Baltistan issue, the Huriyat leadership appears ready for that solution. However, the reaction to such Pakistani attempt in 1970s by the most popular Pakistani leader ZA Butto tells that even if Hurriyat leadership accept such a move the ‘Azad’ Kashmiris in AJK and across the world won’t let their autonomy and (azad) Kashmiri identity taken away. Furthermore, many of us friends here in UK always wonder why there is no movement at all for opening travel and trade routes between Jammu and Mirpur?. Does the rhetoric of Kashmiriyat, secularism, progressivism in reality remain an emotional momentary phenomenon that evaporates in the air soon after the dispersion of demonstrations and meetings?
In this context what should be the common demands of those Kashmiris across the division line and world who have been and are still striving for a united independent democratic State of Kashmir? An outline based on various proposals from different perspectives over the past two decades is suggested below for the consideration of all those who would like to see a peaceful, just and democratic route to solve Kashmir tangle.
1. India and Pakistan to accept that the future of entire state of Kashmir (Kashmir Valley, Jammu, Ladakh, Gilgit Baltistan and Azad Kashmir) is to be decided by over 16 million Kashmiri State Subjects in all parts of Kashmir and living in diaspora across the globe;
As it stands Pakistan agrees to this and publically argues for the right of Kashmiris to self determination. However, as mentioned above Pakistan will agree to other options if asserted by the international community arguing that Indian can only go to this extent for example ‘status quo’ and not that one unification or any change in ‘borders’. Therefore, if Kashmiris want more than that then they have to find ways and means to campaign for that.
2. Free all detainees and political prisoners and disclose details of all those Kashmiris who have been disappeared. This also include the ‘release’ of Afzal Guru ( who is clearly wrongly convicted) and remains of Maqbool Bhatt from Tihar prison Delhi for his proper burial in Kashmir wherever his family would like him to be buried;
3. Remove armies from Urban and Rural dwellings;
4. Open all traditional routes for the flow of all the State Subjects and goods across the state;
5. Hold free and fair elections in all three legislative units (a) Gilgit Baltistan or Pakistani Occupied Northern Kashmir (b) Azad Jammu and Kashmir (Pakistani Occupied Southern Kashmir (c) Jammu and Kashmir (Indian Occupied Kashmir). Every State Subject should have equal right of participation regardless of political persuasions with transparent registration of voters, equal media coverage and monitoring by agreed international civil, legal and democratic bodies;
6. All these elected bodies should have autonomy over their local resources and affairs regardless of the final decision about the future of the entire state. For example even if eventually state becomes divided and these units go to India or Pakistan they should have their autonomy recognised and respected. If the state stays united still these governments should maintain their autonomy. In any case the royalty for the use of their resources must be paid to these governments. The regions of Ladakh and Jammu might also like to opt for local legislative assemblies?
7. After an agreed period free and fair elections to elect representatives of the entire state should be held again with equal participation of all political persuasions and under international supervision with a clearly expressed and agreed mandate to represent Kashmiris at any deliberations between India and Pakistan or China or other relevant international forums on the future status of Kashmir State.
8. Diaspora Kashmiris needs to be consulted and represented throughout the process AND their Kashmiri identity must be recognised and included in the ethnic monitoring systems in the countries of their settlement including national census 2011 in UK.
9. As per international legal framework the UNCIP Resolution of 13th August 1948 and Proposals by the UN President provide space for the above roadmap to be developed.
Author can be reached at: shamakashmiri@yahoo.co.uk
Posts
0 comments:
Post a Comment