Divisions between Kashmir, Jammu and Ladakh

J&K's Collective Suffering

Are Kashmir, Jammu and Ladakh really incompatible?

DATELINE SRINAGAR BY ARJIMAND HUSSAIN TALIB

Rational human thought makes the difference between self-interest and want clear. When we humans mature through our early days, we learn that being conscious of one’s interests as an individual and as a community is but natural. But when this consciousness reaches the level of obsession of racial superiority, and assumed victimhood, it borders a sort of narcissism. That sort of narcissism is what, sadly, seems to have gripped the J&K state today.

The unsettled nature of the political status of J&K is a reality. The massive exploitation of its resources by New Delhi - and to some measure by Islamabad - has enlarged the debate on political justice in the state. However, the discourse on regional, sub-regional and ethnic identities is a new construct, which has served two purposes.

One, it has created a ‘complex’ issue out of a simple issue of self determination of this formerly Princely State. Two, it has sought to create an aggressor out of the victim – the Muslims of the J&K state.

The result is tragic. Today almost all the communities in the state are up in arms against each other - making use of regional, sub-regional and ethnic identity cards to promote their economic interests.

The process of manufacturing identities and divergent political goals in the state has been going on on an industrial scale for many decades now. Who is responsible for this? New Delhi? State governments? Both? The implanted bureaucracy? Or it has been a natural process of political evolution?

This debate is not only important for that we have for long remained a good example of syncretism; this debate is critical because we live in a fiercely interdependent and integrated world. Preserving one’s own identity while working in a multi cultural system is very much possible in today’s world. There are ample examples of such systems working well throughout the world. Then why some sections of Jammu and Ladakh regions do not want to co-exist with Kashmir? Or why doesn’t a section of Kashmiri Pandits want to live with Kashmiri Muslims side by side again?

The three-day intra-J&K workshop at the Jammu University last week, organised jointly by the Jammu University; IPCS, New Delhi and the British High Commission provided answers to many of these questions. Many questions, as expected, continue to remain unanswered.

Any such exercise debating regional, sub-regional and other ethnic ‘aspirations’ of J&K is normally interesting. Importantly, what added to the richness of the deliberations was the presence of a few former civil servants, including a few chief secretaries, and their input to the discussions.

Any intra-J&K debate has two essential backdrops. One, that it holds the larger question of ‘Kashmir dispute’ ransom to internal political disagreements, which are not all necessarily natural. Some are manufactured too. Two, it degenerates the larger issue of political emancipation based on inclusive right to self determination into a majority-minority debate.

This tendency of degeneration must bring us back to two fundamental questions. One, why can’t we contemplate a discourse which talks of political inclusiveness and equal citizenship rather than the narrow majority-minority rights? Why for heavens sake we in J&K can’t think of an inclusive polity as an alternative to the narrow regional, sub regional and ethnic-based competitive politicking?

Two, are Islam, Buddhism and Hinduism so incompatible and irreconcilable that the state cannot think of a common future based on our common history and heritage? Why do we demonize Kashmiri Muslims – the real oppressed ones – as the aggressors? Why do we reject their quest for collective justice and the state’s territorial integrity and political inclusiveness as a ‘dangerous ideology’? Is being inclusive radical?

The discussions at the workshop began with an underlying assumption that we guys are not questioning our common future. Yet there were layers and layers of opinions and aspirations. Sadly, a common future is not a widely shared vision.

In the discussions a former senior-most civil servant of the state shared an interesting ‘thought’. To him, he said, the creation of ‘District Autonomous Councils’ on the pattern of the Ladakh Autonomous Hill Development Council (LAHDC) for all the districts was the best solution to ‘J&K’s problems’. And it opened a floodgate of questions.

Where would this Balkanisation of sorts lead us to? Would there be an end to this competitive quest for best economic opportunities? Would such autonomous councils satiate the thirst for control over power/resources? Isn’t the canard of regional and sub-regional ‘identity’ being used as a façade for competitive political domination in J&K state today? Isn’t this trend serving to make the larger question of Kashmir’s right to self determination fuzzy?

When it came to the presentation of the Ladakhi viewpoint, it began with a rather categorical assertion – that they do not wish to remain with the Kashmir region, or identify with the region’s political goals, under any circumstances.

However, there were voices of disagreement from within the region too. The Muslims of Kargil do not share this vision, we were told. Muslims from Zanaskar and Leh itself do not necessarily share this vision of isolation. To them, this viewpoint – as propagated by the LAHDC – represents a centralised system of top-down political manoeuvring.

Ladakh’s Buddhists, however, see this polarisation within the region as a ‘process of ‘democratisation’. They have some other opinions too: ‘Ladakhi Muslims who had chosen to migrate to Kashmir Valley must learn a lesson from the ill treatment they got from Kashmiri Muslims there’. To LAHDC, ‘all Ladakhis’ future lies in Ladakh and its identity.’ To them, ‘LAHDC remains the best model of governance in the whole of India’. ‘Such a model, if implemented in other regions of the state, would not work’, because ‘Ladakhis are wiser, live values which are far more sophisticated than others in the state’. And, if Ladakh got statehood, ‘it would be the best state in the whole of India’.

This perception, I found, has many takers outside the LAHDC as well. A few former civil servants of the state showed their silent admiration for this thought by nodding their heads.

Ladakh’s Buddhist community also has a few words of caution both for Srinagar and New Delhi. That if Ladakh’s Buddhist aspirations continue to be dishonoured, a time might come when the Chinese might just walk over to the Zojila Pass. ‘Kashmiris must realise, Ladakh is a buffer between them and an ambitious China’, we were told.

And then Chinese Mahayana Buddhism was getting very popular in Ladakh each passing day. Alarm bells are ringing.

To be concluded next week
Feedback at arjimand@greaterkashmir.com

Who needs to access information under J&K RTI Act?

Unacceptable!

The debate on the legal definition of who can access information under J&K RTI Act, 2009 in J&K has some sub text as well. That sub text has serious political implications for the subjects of the J&K state. It is important that we remain sensitive to those aspects of the debate.

Firstly, the erosion of the special status of the J&K State within the Indian union (as enshrined in the Article 370 of the Indian Constitution), in the post-1953 era, and mainly in the post-1975 era, has sought to bring certain uniformity of the state laws with the Indian union. Such uniformity has resulted in J&K state's disempowerment with regard to key decision making regarding its natural resources, environment, political economy, international trade, etc. Furthermore, such 'tendency of uniformity' has eroded the disputed status of the state.

The cumulative effect of this process of disempowerment and eosion has been a serious loss of sovereignty to the J&K state. The reason today we are unable to even decide about the matters of our own resources and identity is that we have been disempowered by the same process. And today the desperate struggle of the political forces of the state, including that of the ruling National Conference, PDP, etc. in reversing all that is symbolic of that collosal injustice.

While in principle we must stand for qualitative establishment of democratic values and human rights in J&K, bringing in 'uniformity' of J&K state's governance laws with that of the union of India just for the sake of uniformity under the current unjust political system is unacceptable to we Kashmiris.

Secondly, on the issue of RTI, I think replacement of the term 'those residing in the state' by 'the State subjects of the J&K state' would be more apt. If we open up the issue of J&K's information access by non-state subjects (though in principle there is nothing wrong in that), it would result in further erosion of the state's residual political sovereignty. Such a process has to be two-sided. Almost all aspects of information related to the union of India's business in J&K (that of its road communications, defence, hydropower, land occupation, telecommunications, etc.) remain out of the reach of J&K's state subjects in the name of 'national interest', legally shielded by instruments like the Official Secrets Act.

Having said that, our sensitivity to this political aspect is highly desirable. We also need to enlarge the scope of our discourse on RTI in J&K (which we tend to see from the prism of normal centre-state issues in India) to Kashmiris' access to union of India's business in the state.

A further loss of J&K's political sovereignty is unacceptable to we Kashmiris.

In solidarity

Arjimand Hussain Talib