Now that the Supreme Court of India has upheld as constitutionally valid the Government of India’s decision to strip J&K State of its special status, and its simultaneous downgrading and bifurcation, it is time for all parties to introspect.Supreme Court’s failure in 2019 to issue a status quo ante order against the dismemberment of the State of J&K and consequent emergence in its place of Union Territories of Ladakh and J&K, had set the course for the December 2023 decision in favour of the Centre Government.The emasculation of Article 370 of the Constitution of India may provide the BJP-led Indian Administration with a sense of triumphalism and also expectation of an increased number of popular votes in the upcoming Indian general elections – apparently the real motivation – but the fact remains that Kashmir issue (listed in the UN as an international dispute with UN’s mediation requested by the Government of India itself) has not been concluded.People of J&K (mostly the Muslim of Kashmir Valley), despite sacrificing life in the name of obtaining right to self-determination, ultimately lost even their extant political rights. This was not for the first time that they lost even what they had. It had happened in 1960s. It shouldn’t have happened a second time. Lessons should have been learnt. Accepting interpretations as the religion rather than studying and trying to understand true religion; mixing religion with politics rather than keeping it away from the affairs of the state; endowing infallibility to politico-religious demagogues instead of questioning them; hero worshipping cult personalities who should be ignored; subscribing to personalistic politics rather than strengthening impersonal political institutions and cultivating independentmindedness; either voting for political elites in the expectation of patronage or boycotting elections rather than learning to vote with feet to kick the incumbents out of power; treating politics as a means of entertainment evidenced by politically hypocritical behaviour of supporting at the same time the slogans of autonomy, independence, accession to Pakistan, joint control; rejecting the Constitution of India out of hand and then weeping and whimpering over the derogation of its Article 370; are the common political errors that Kashmiri Muslims committed.
The other factors that contributed to the deplorable state of political affairs in J&K State were foreign money and foreign dictation. This brings Pakistani agencies into Kashmir politics – (India agencies being already there). Pakistan, instead of becoming a model country for the world, especially the Muslim world (having been fathered by such personages as Sir Mohammad Iqbal and Mohammad Ali Jinnah), became a cause of creation of international disputes. In 1947 Pakistan allowed tribesmen to invade Kashmir. Their invasion landed major portion of J&K State, especially the Valley of Kashmir, the main bone of contention, into India’s lap. A dispute was born which India converted into an international one by inviting UN’s mediation. In 1950s Pakistan became a geopolitical pivot for America. A geopolitical pivot is a weak state that allows its geographical location to be used as a geostrategic tool by a geostrategic player. A geostrategic player is of necessity a powerful state economically, militarily, politically. Geostrategy is the longterm management of geopolitical interests. Geopolitics is a wider field which deals with the effects of geographical location (and demographic makeup) of country/countries on international political relations, and political behaviour.
With its massive economic might – it produced about 50% of world GDP – the U.S. policy was to co-opt the corrupt and self-serving political elites of weak states – Pakistan those days was one of the newest state to emerge on the face of earth. The U.S. wanted to thwart the rise of Maoist China. Pakistani establishment vigorously assisted it in instigating and arming the Tibetans to rise against China. In fact Pakistan delivered the Tibetans to America to receive military training there (P.330 Dragon on Our Doorstep Pravin Sawhney & Ghazzala Wahab; pp.167, 173 & 188 The Noodle Maker of Kalimpong Gyalo Thondup & Anne F. Thurston). During the course of the same decade Pakistan Military interfered in the politics of Pakistan State and also entered business. For now, Pakistan is both economically and politically unstable, with both economy and politics hostage to an overly large military force. Pakistan has overtime turned into a militaryguided kleptocracy. Military places its puppet on the seat of Prime Minister one day, puts him behind bars the next day, and then sends him into exile the next. In such an atmosphere Tehmina Durrani’s My Feudal Lord-type politicians have become the lot of Pakistan who pretend to be patriots when in power; and when they are out of power, they conspire with foreign intelligence agencies against Pakistan. Also Pakistan Military has produced its own set of landed feudal lords by allotting huge parcels of land to its generals upon their retirement. Thus, it strengthens the pre-existing bane of feudal landlordism on the society (Military Inc. Ayesha Siddiqa). During 1960s, Pakistan military establishment, fixated with Kashmir, supported Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah and his partisans in their bid to demand plebiscite in J&K, the conduct of which plebiscite Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah had sabotaged by blocking in 1949 (with the help of India’s Prime Minister Pandit Nehru and Home Minister Sardar Patel) the appointment of UN-nominated Plebiscite Administrator when a plebiscite was possible (p. 261-63 Sardar Patel’s Correspondence Vol. I New Light on Kashmir Ed. Durga Das; p.526 Aatashi-Chinar Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah & Mohammad Yusuf Teng).After 1949, Plebiscite was/is a mere slogan meant to keep relevant otherwise politically irrelevant demagogues.
This slogan ensured foreign funding to political elites of Kashmir and suffering for commoners. (Pakistan may demand resolution of Kashmir issue through plebiscite or through bilateral negotiations, having been promised by India in the UN in 1948-49 and at Simla in 1972 but it is strange that Kashmiris demand so even as they supported Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah in 1949 and again in 1975 when he dumped the plebiscite slogan for personal power; at the most Kashmiris could demand that the two countries resolve the issue because it impacted them adversely). In 1990s Pakistan supported S. A. Geelani who demanded Plebiscite in Kashmir.
In 1949, the plebiscite year, S. A. Geelani was a protégé of Moulana Masoodi, NC Party General Secretary, who lived at NC headquarters, Mujahid Manzil, for about four years, free board and lodge; and education and government job besides (pp.141 & 151 Wular Kinare S. A. Geelani Vol I). During 1960s, S. A. Geelani and his Jammati Islami party seldom supported the Plebiscite Front which was run by his former patron Moulana Masoodi and his boss Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah. Also Pakistan attempted in 1965 to militarily grab Kashmir but failed. Ending 1960s, Pakistan military establishment helped the US to set up diplomatic relations with Peoples Republic of China – Pakistan had meantime mended its relations with China. The US helped Maoist China to get the permanent seat of the Republic of China in the UN which was till then held by Taiwan. This measure on part of Pakistan-assisted-U.S. left Taiwan’s security more vulnerable and Tibetan resistance in the lurch. At the same time it emboldened China vis-à-vis both. What did Pakistan get in return? In 1971 India gave Pakistan a thrashing and broke it into two. Neither China nor the US came to its assistance. East Pakistanis/Bengalis wanted a riddance from West Pakistanis because the latter had denied them democratic equality. Instead of setting own house into order, Pakistan had ventured to meddled in Tibet and Taiwan affairs. What Pakistan lacked (and lacks even now) was political democracy and economic development, two most significant dimensions to keep a country together. For now Pakistan has an uncertain future with many having prophesied its demise the USSR way in coming years.During the 1980s, Pakistan military establishment helped the US to bog down the Red Army in Afghanistan. It goes without saying that Pakistan had a right to take the USSR head on inside Afghanistan, with or without foreign assistance, to pre-empt a Communist invasion of Pakistan. During Afghan war Pakistan fine-tuned its policy of geostrategic assets and geostrategic depth. Pakistan’s geostrategic depth was/is focussed on denying influence in Afghanistan to Tajikistan, Iran, and India. (Geostrategic assets include the nonstate actors who fight in place of Pakistan Military leaving the latter free to indulge in land grabbing, business activities, and politics.)
Their major geostrategic assets in Afghanistan were the cadres of Hizbi Islami led by Gulbudeen Himatyar Khan, the Butcher of Kabul. The latter was a multiple agent who milked quite a few military intelligence agencies of the world like the CIA, MI6, ISI, etc., etc., (Mushahid Hussain Sayyid to Saleem Safi Jirga Geo TV). By 1994, they discarded the Hizbi Islami and adopted the newly emerged Taliban as their own boys, own sons, when they should have actually countered the rise of religious extremism. Taliban converted Afghanistan into a safe haven for all the “gentlemen of the Muslim world” including Osama bin Laden who came there in 1996 from Sudan. The U.S. was happy because it wanted to construct oil pipeline through Afghanistan from Turkmenistan. Pakistan discarded these “gentlemen” under U.S. pressure in the aftermath of 9/11 attacks. It is a way with geopolitically pivotal states, being weak, to be manipulated by big powers. During the two decades that America and allies were busy fighting the Al Qaeda and the Taliban, the US allowed political space to India in Afghanistan. India spent billions in the reconstruction work in Afghanistan (no matter how many farmers committed suicide back home). Pakistan, now in the grip of terrorism, blamed it on India. Pakistan’s entry into America’s War on Terror in Afghanistan and simultaneously its offering talks to Prime Minister Vajpayee of India and de-escalating in Kashmir had resulted in terrorists turning on Pakistan itself. It was a messy situation for Pakistan.
Eventually Pakistan adopted the policy of “running with the hare and hunting with the hound” vis-à-vis the Taliban and America. Pakistan military worked relentlessly to obtain geostrategic depth in Afghanistan and, apparently, it seemed to have succeeded in August 2021 when its Taliban protégés set up control in Kabul. However, this success was more apparent than real. In reality it was/is the Afghan Taliban who got geostrategic depth inside Pakistan. As they consolidated their position in Kabul, Pakistan’s own share of Taliban (the TTP) got emboldened to kickstart Talibanization process in Pakistan to convert the country into an Emirate. After all if a Pashtun-dominated Emirate was good for a multi-ethnic Afghanistan – Pashtuns constitute about 40% of Afghanistan’s population – then a Pashtun-dominated Emirate should be good for multi-ethnic Pakistan also – Pashtuns constitute less than 20% of Pakistan’s population. On the contrary if a Pashtun-dominated Taliban emirate is undesirable for Pakistan, then it should be undesirable for Afghanistan also –(federalism, not Islamism, would be an antidote to ethnic tension in both countries). Rather than following the flawed policy of geostrategic depth inside Afghanistan, Pakistan government would do better to strike at the springboard of Talibanization by encouraging the coming into existence of an inclusive government in Kabul. In any case Talibanism is doomed in Afghanistan. Taliban would most probably fragment, sooner or later, over the issue of political succession. If the companions of the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) could not resolve the issue of succession effortlessly and amicably to the satisfaction of all Muslims, Taliban kis khet ki mooli hein.
Kashmir: During 1990s Pakistan Military used the experience gained inside Afghanistan to bog down Indian Army in Kashmir. In the matter of a decade the Indian Army’s conventional war fighting capability had got blunted (p.281 Kargil From War to Victory General Ved Prakash Malik; p. 243 Courage and Conviction General Vijay Kumar Singh). But then Pakistan Army had by then also dented its own military professionalism by indulging in business activities and manipulation of the country’s politics. In Kashmir, Pakistan simultaneously supported the slogans of complete independence of J&K, J&K’s accession to Pakistan, J&K’s joint management by Pakistan and India. Kashmir was a veritable industry of conflict! Also Pakistan escalated proxy war in Kashmir at will. It continued deploying non-state actors even after JKLF’s abjuration of violence in 1994. Around 2003 it de-escalated. A decade later it escalated again. Pakistan Military justified its huge strength in terms of number of personnel – about 600,000 in all – on the contention that it ensures security to Pakistan vis-à-vis India. The truth is that India is not going to invade Pakistan and repeat 1971 because breaking Pakistan would bring anarchy to the region and create political vacuum. Political vacuum and anarchy would in turn attract all sorts of geopolitical actors, state and non-state, to the region. A destabilized Af-Pak region would be a nightmare for India. States go to war to satisfy war aims. Destabilizing its immediate neighbourhood could not be the war aim of India. The 2016 border raid (called Surgical Strike) and the 2019 Balakot air strike (not called surgical strike) were motivated by electoral politics rather than national security. Besides Pakistan has nuclear weapons which should be sufficient to deter an outright Indian invasion.
On the flip side, Pakistan would not invade India. India also has a nuclear deterrent. Pakistan did not invade India in August 2019 when Prime Minister Modi took a bite on their shah-rugjugular-vein-Kashmir, chewed it and then swallowed it. The long and short of this all is that both parties are fooling people – BJP-led Indian government to project a muscular image of itself to garner popular votes; and Pakistan Military to justify its huge numbers of personnel. Besides, Pakistan Military justified/justifies an arms race with India – but to what purpose!? Now, suppose India invades Pakistan, there would be no guarantee that Pakistani Military generals would lead their men in war. They might repeat 1971. Their predecessor generals Tej Singh, Lal Singh and Ranjoor Singh, in the Punjabi dominated Lahore Sikh State Forces, ran away in 1845-46 from the battlefields of Mudki, Aliwal, Ferozshahr, and Sobraon; and Sheikh Imamud Din surrendered in Kashmir six months later. There is a pattern of surrender of generals in the war history of the region. Why couldn’t Pakistan and India live together as good neighbours and resolve their outstanding issues amicably. Pakistan did what it did. Kashmiris played clowns by hero worshipping rabble rousers. But India! Gandhiji’s democratic India! India took advantage of the cornered position in which the Maharaja of J&K was placed subsequent to tribal invasion from Pakistan side.
Rather than denying military assistance to the Maharaja or sending military assistance to repel the invasion, India made the condition of formal Accession a pre-requisite to military assistance. Having secured the Accession and capturing better part of J&K State, the Government of India took the Kashmir issue to the UN with an offer of plebiscite. Then in 1949, they took advantage of Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah’s power thirst and propitiated him by sending the Maharaja into exile lest the latter might formally appoint the UNnominated Plebiscite Administrator. In 1972 the Government of India obligated itself at Simla to resolve Kashmir issue with Pakistan through bilateral negotiations. Rather, they once again took advantage of Sheikh Abdullah’s power thirst and entered into a power sharing bargain with him. Concurrently, they bribed Kashmiri political elites with crumbs of political power and gotthem to divest J&K of its semi-independent autonomous status which it enjoyed post-Accession. In 2019, Government of India ended its federal relationship of J&K State by derogating the Article 370 and thereby terminated the State and its legislative autonomy.Geostrategically, India’s ambition is to dominate the Indo-Pacific region to rival China. It considers itself a pole, competing side, in geopolitical arena which it is not. What to speak of China, even the bankrupt Pakistan is not prepared to accept India’s hegemony. Besides the latter demands territory –Kashmir. American geostrategy is to prevent the emergence of any dominant power to challenge its global superpower status, no matter the potential rising power be a friend or a foe. It has already bogged down Russia in Ukraine. It wants to contain the emergence of China by using India. India overestimates its economic and military power.
India’s military power and economic power were exposed in 2020 when China effected multiple intrusions in eastern Ladakh and ousted India’s patrolling rights on 2000 square kilometres of territory from Depsang Plains to Demchok. India responded by banning Tiktok! India’s economic power is no match to that of NATO countries, South Korea, or Japan. America has reduced Japan to the status of a dependency. It is a hurdle in the way of Japan becoming a military super power. Similar is the case of South Korea. If it unifies with North Korea, the unified Korea would be a superpower. America has reduced NATO members into henchmen. It uses NATO as its own strong arm. America would never allow NATO members to become stronger than itself, individually or collectively. India stands no comparison with NATO members, South Korea, or Japan, in terms of economic development or access to technology. At the most India would stand a comparison with Ukraine in terms of its utility as a geopolitical pivot for America. American aim is to bog down China on the LAC along the Himalayas and in the Indo-Pacific region. In the Pacific region America would not recognize the independence of Taiwan because its official position is that Taiwan is part of China. It will not allow China’s unification with Taiwan either.
The U.S. aim is to pitch India against China. Should India refuse to play American game, then the Americans would manipulate India using the instrument of “Hindutvawatch”. So the remedy for India would lie in correcting own house by suppressing right wing extremism in the country.If China, India, and Pakistan, generate some will to amicably resolve Kashmir and LAC to the satisfaction of all parties including the people of J&K –which must be possible – the U.S. would try to put spanners in the works because America would read it as a denial of its global sarpanch-khadpanch arbiter status. In that case no one would mourn the death of sole-global-level superpower-status of America (which is in the offing), the way no one condoled the demise of the Soviet Union. Conversely, if America supports such a course, it may ensure future deference for itself in Asia even after it ceases to be the sole global superpower. Inside Kashmir. “Separatists” are a goner. The remaining political camp called the “Mainstream” were responsible, from Prime Minister Sheikh Abdullah to Chief Minister Sheikh Abdullah to Chief Minister Mehbooba Mufti, for the erosion of semi-independent autonomous status of J&K through helping New Delhi administration to pass 50 odd Constitution (Application to Jammu and Kashmir) Amendment Orders. Retired General Vijay Kumar Singh said in September 2013 to Arnab Goswami on Times Now that Indian Army paid money to Ministers of J&K right from 1947 to get different jobs done. No one refuted the General’s statement!For now Kashmiris are, as always, a leaderless lot, and, as always, susceptible to demagogic exploitation. There is tension. There is suffocation. If they indulge in violence to vent their frustration/grievances, the worse for them. The response would be disproportionate and no gains, as happened previously. Rather it is time to understand that there is difference between the terms “restoration of former State” and “restoration of statehood and election process”. In the latter case, elites would contest elections to ensure a life of luxury for themselves at public’s expense. Nothing more. Hence it is time to be cool. It is high time for political reform. *
