THE SECULAR NATIONALIST MOVEMENT IN JAMMU KASHMIR; A time for reflection, redefinition and reorientation. THE NEED TO FORM A UNITED FRONT. by Nazir-Ul-Haq Nazish
The recent constitutional changes introduced by the so called ‘democratically elected’ government of Pakistan, in Gilgit and Baltistan have profoundly altered the status of these territories of the divided and disputed state of Jammu Kashmir. Hitherto, these parts of the state were called by the Pakistani establishment as ‘The Northern Areas’, and have been ruled by the successive governments of Pakistan, as a colony, under various Acts. The people have been deprived of basic political rights of franchise with socio - economic deprivation suffered by the entire population, since 1948. These parts were annexed under a lease agreement in April 1948 (a remnant of British Imperial legal instrument), with the then president of Azad Kashmir, which itself has a semi- colonial status as a Pakistan controlled territory without having a constituent assembly of its own. It is governed, instead, by a federal Act of Pakistan legislature with very limited powers confined to local administrative sections of the AJK part of the state.
The appointment of a governor in Gilgit Baltistan is not only a flagrant violation of the trust obligation Pakistan holds in the UN, it exposed the true nature and intentions of Pakistani political establishment. It also reveals the weaknesses of Kashmiri Nationalist movement to assert their stance and affect any change in the policies of the colonial masters.
It is obvious, by now, that, since the inception of conflict in Jammu Kashmir over sixty two years ago, and its passage through time and space into various phases, the
Nationalist movement has been divided into religious and secular sections. The roots of this division lie in the developments that took place during the 1930s in the state, to which we’ll return.
The ruling elites in both India and Pakistan, having assumed the role of protagonists of the dispute, have always defined the interests of the people of the state within the framework of the geo-political discourse emanating from their perceived national interests. This excludes or marginalizes, from their discourse, the actual victim of and principal party to the conflict, namely the 16 million citizens of the state. This version of the nature of the conflict, the issue of the legitimacy of the rights of representation, have been readily accepted, enthusiastically reciprocated and actively promoted by a section of the Kashmiri political and religious elites. In other words this section of the elites of the Jammu Kashmir society has identified its interests as coinciding with those of the rulers in India and Pakistan, which occupy the various parts of the divided state, rather than with those of the16 million people of Jammu Kashmir State.
The other elements of the national movement in both parts of the divided state, which claim to be the true custodians of the national interest and its true representatives, have equally failed to assert themselves, in any meaningful way, in the process of resolution of the conflict.
All the contenders have disappointed the aspirations and hopes of the ordinary millions of Jammu Kashmir citizenry and squandered away the opportunities, in particular, they have buckled under the pressures, persuasions – through dissemination of disinformation - and the allurements by the coercive apparatuses ( the Agencies) of the states of India and Pakistan, on the both sides of the divide. Some of these actors are entirely dependent on the Agencies for their political life and career; the others have fallen victims to the Agencies’ tactics of inflating the egos and psycho fancies of the pseudo scholars/intellectuals, who are self glorifying by churning out publications highlighting the repeated history of enslavement of the great Kashmiri people. Their whole discourses and political enterprises are devoid of any strategic vision, with concrete analysis of the actual and real conditions with any insights for future directions to unify the fragmented elements of the nationalist movement. Yet, there are those who, time and time again, having suffered set backs caused by internecine splits and divisions, are disillusioned and have become inactive.
It is this failure that has prompted this intervention to address the complexities involved and point out some possible directions for future progress. The focus of attention in this paper will be on the secular section of the nationalist movement.
The secular/democratic nationalist movement needs to pause, reflect and take stock of its practices over the period of time of its existence. As a starting point, it needs to examine its notion of ‘Nation’ and its relevance to the diversity of the Jammu Kashmir State, a diversity that encompasses religious, cultural, linguistic and ethnic heterogeneity. Hitherto, the secular movement has failed consistently to propagate an idea of nation, which reflects this material reality. All its political conduct has been predominantly couched in a discourse which attempts to glorify the thousands of years of Kashmir’s past; a reference to past glory which inevitably invokes the memories and touches the emotions of a singular religious community – the Muslims – and which consequently alienates the millions of others. The citation of the Kashmir region and its past history as the sole reference point for national identification excludes and alienates the inhabitants of the other regions: Jammu, Laddakh, Poonch and Gilgit Baltistan, for example. This religious, historical and geographical notion of Nation is not inclusive but, rather, exclusive. It does not articulate the aspirations of all those non-Muslims – the Bhudhists, the Hindus, the Dogras, the Pundits and the Sikhs - nor does it inspire the millions of inhabitant of the non-Kashmir regions. Therefore, it does not unite, but rather divides. Since there is no single nation, in the State of Jammu Kashmir constituted by a single factor, but rather a diversity of cultural, ethnic and linguistic communities bound together by their association with the state of Jammu Kashmir (a legal and sovereign entity created by British Imperialism in 1846), the only idea of nation which is able to unite this diversity has to be anchored in an association with this state they once had; and which has been divided and occupied by the more recently created neighbouring sates: India and Pakistan. The task for the secular nationalist movement was and still is to mobilise this diversity of nationalities as politically united nation to re-claim the lost sovereignty of the state that existed before 1947. In this context, therefore, it is nationalist movements, which galvanise the heterogeneous ethnic/cultural nationalities - through articulating the common symbols – into politically unified nations that take control of the state as sovereign authorities.
Further, the secular movement has failed to draw distinction between its idea of a state and its future development and that of the religious movement’s notion of the future of the Muslims in Jammu Kashmir State. A Muslim faction of the movement in the State was and still is solely concerned with the future destiny of the Muslims in the state inexorably tied with the two-nation ideology, which emerged in colonial India during 1940s. This faction of the Muslims in the State was and still is not concerned with the safeguarding and restoration of the Sovereignty of the State and 16 millions of its inhabitants. It, therefore, is clear that its loyalties never rested nor they still do with the sovereign state of Jammu Kashmir and its pluralistic society, but rather with the newly created dominion of Pakistan. As a consequence, its support was and still is confined to the minority of the Muslim section, and by implication it alienated and still does all the non-Muslim sections of the state. The demands and solutions to the conflict, as propagated by this section, inevitably lead towards the further divisions of the state rather than its reunification.
The present secular movement, in contrast to the religious faction, has inherited and is custodian of the legacy of the democratic movement in the states of the 1930s period. The agenda of this movement was threefold:
1. To enrich and enhance the pluralistic fabric of the entire Jammu Kashmir civil society bounded in the legal/sovereign entity as existed since 1846;
2. To democratise the political structures of the entire institutions of the state under the autocratic rule of a monarchical dynasty; and
3. To empower its citizens thorough a programme of transfers of sovereignty to the representatives of the entire population; institute the socio-economic, legal-educational and land reforms. This was therefore an inclusive movement in its scope and character. It articulated the aspirations of the diversity of Jammu Kashmir multi-dimentinal society. As a consequence it attracted in its ranks all shades of religious/cultural opinions including those of the celebrated ones: Bazaz, Budh Sing. Roshan lal etc. But it failed, partly due to the outside interventions and partly because of the corruption and incompetence of some of the elites in its ranks.
The successor of this movement, the present-day secular nationalists have done no better. They have not transcended the narrow bounds of national identification confined to religico-geographic factors. It, therefore, is imperative at this juncture that the secular/nationalist movement reviews its discursive practices strictly. It must redefine its idea of nation, which incorporates the diversity of Jammu Kashmir State, and articulates, in return, their hopes and aspirations.
If it is true to its conviction and commitment to the reunification of the sovereign entity: The State of Jammu Kashmir as existed since 1846, and has been divided since 1947, the secular nationalist movement, then, has to get out of its bunkers in the Valley, Muzaffarabad and Mirpur, and reach the millions scattered across the regions of Jammu, Laddakh, Gilgit and Baltistan. The sixty two years of divided history and foreign occupation has eroded their aspirations and loyalties they once had, perhaps loosely, with their nation-state. They even feel and believe, in the absence of any clear alternative, that their destinies are inevitably and eternally intertwined with those of their conquerors. These obvious material facts do not deem any competent analyst to dip their fingers or feet in minus fourty degree temperature in Laddakhi soil, for example, to understand the multifarious underlying causes for the alienation of its people.
The secular/nationalist movement must, therefore, at this juncture, review its entire past history of practices and reinvent its notion of nation and reposition its political programme and strategy to appeal effectively to the diversity of Jammu Kashmir masses. This is a mammoth task, which it cannot accomplish by cocooning itself in the bosoms of converted few and showered by their ever-irrelevant hyperbolic discourse and eulogistic cacophony.
The starting point, therefore, for this reviewing, reinventing and repositioning of its history, ideology and political programme with comprehensive strategies (short terms and long terms) respectively, is to initiate a process of genuine consultations and open exchange with the diversity of entire Jammu Kashmir population, to seek a consensus leading to the union of various fragmented elements rather than continuing solo political activism leading to a cul – de – sac of national waste and loss.
A review of the past twenty years of violent and armed conflict with attempts to ascertain its efficacy for future phases of struggle, and identification of hitherto gains and losses to whom then becomes the pre requisite of this process. The following observations are offered for serious considerations and criticisms:
1. The armed struggle was an infantile adventurism without an independent and united national platform in control of economic means with political objectives and military aspect of planning and operational nature.
2. It was instituted at a juncture when the world balance of power had shifted against it as a legitimate means to be deployed by nationalist movements to achieve their political ends. It, therefore, failed to gain any credible support from the international community. It was for this reason that the Kashmiris were dubbed as terrorists rather than freedom fighters;
3. Despite repeated warnings, it was initiated prematurely without the establishment of a national forum of political leadership responsible for the political objectives, strategic goals and operational command and control;
4. It, therefore, follows that from its very inception to the present it was in the command and control of the external vested interests, which manipulated the genuine indigenous discontent ant resistance and exploited it for its own gains.
5. It was propagated and publicised as a religious Jihad against the Hindu India. The dominance of the movement under Jihadi groups and their political representative made this label tick forever.
Keeping the above observations in mind it is easy to understand and analyse the consequences, which followed:
a), the movement was actively presented to the outside world by the vested interests, and as such perceived as the religious separatist one;
b), in the absence of its support in other regions than in the valley it alienated the non Muslims of the valley as well as of non valley other regions of the state;
c), since it was directed against the occupation of the one of the two occupying states, and since there was not even a political peaceful resistance against the occupation of the other state, it failed to ignite the sentiments of the non Muslim population of the entire regions of the Jammu Kashmir State.
d) And finally, the political organ of the armed struggle in Indian occupied Kashmir: Hurriet Conference, which was created by the Inter Services Intelligence (ISI) agency of the Pakistan State’s coercive apparatuses, has never managed to dislodge the perception of its being subservient to its paymasters. Despite ample opportunities during the two decades of its existence, it never established its independence, in political financial or policy matters from the ISI.
In the light of the above analysis the task facing the secular national movement is daunting one. If its claim of the reunification of the State is to be taken seriously it then has to reposition itself in the national political space in such a way that must attract the entire diversity of the Jammu Kashmir population including millions of non-Muslims. The only way forward for this agenda is a peaceful but active resistance. In order to bring the diversity of Jammu Kashmiri population closer to its ranks it must adopt a consistence programme and strategies of re-unifying the heterogeneity of its divided state. This would not happen in a single act but rather requires a long protracted struggle.
Finally, the secular nationalist movement must strive to create a National United Front: a political platform economically and politically totally independent of external pressures, and representative of political, religious, ethnic and cultural diversity existing in the Jammu Kashmir State. It must, therefore, initiate the process of pre-figurative politics by creating the national political institutions, which would lay down the bases for a unified federal state capable of representing the aspirations and interests of the diversity. These institutions need to be developed under the supervision of experts in the field of political science, economics, medicine, engineering, education, ecology and environment.
The task of these expertise based national institutions would be to counteract the anti-people programmes and strategies of the occupying states and their sponsored regimes, in both side of the control line, and present pro-citizen model of freedom, liberty, equality and empowerment. Thus interpreting and articulating the interests and aspirations of the diversity of the state citizenry
This United Front can then initiate a process of dialogues with both the representatives of the occupying states challenging the legitimacy of their national interests compered with the interests of the principal party to the dispute: the 16 millions people of the state. The national interests of the India and Pakistan cannot have apriori claim or treatment over and above the interests of the people of the state. These have to be contextualised within the primacy of the interests the Jammu Kashmir people. It is in this new beginning that a representative national forum can present its case to the democratic forces inside India, Pakistan and the world abroad. Only then it has the chances of materialising the art of the possible in the field of politics.
The restoration of the sovereign status, and the reunification of the divided state have never been nor they presently are options to be considered by India, Pakistan and the sections of Jammu Kashmiri political/religious opinion loyal to either India or Pakistan. General Musharraf and his successors have publicly ruled out ‘third option’ as part of the agenda for talks. It is only secucalar/natiobnal movement, which aspires to a democratic, united and federated sovereign state as a durable solution that can offer the security and stability not only to the millions of citizens of the state, but also, as a consequence, a stable and prosperous future to the billions of masses in India Pakistan and the South Asian region as a whole. It therefore depends on the leadership of this section of the nationalism in the state as to how it repositions itself in the political theatre manoeuvred by the chief protagonists in the Sub-continent, and demonstrates that not only it understands, but is capable of mastering the ‘politics as the art of the possible’.
