...as we try and forge ahead in this conflict-ridden region with limited civil space and access to our resources, further handicapped by India and Pakistan's insistence on a top-down approach: will the current generation succumb to 'might is right' (even though it evidently doesn't have any answers) or will they be able to conjure up creative solutions to assert 'people's right' and break the impasse that an under-reported dichotomy of nationalists and loyalists has delivered thus far?
In an effort to crystalise views and
thoughts that widely differ within and across regions of the erstwhile Dogra
State of Jammu and Kashmir, it could be useful - though not immune from
controversy - to apply a binary distinction to the citizens residing in this
disputed territory viz. nationalists and loyalists.
A recent two-day conference in
Muzaffarabad magnanimously entitled, "International Conference on Kashmir
in Emerging Global Perspectives" was an opportunity to assess whether the
primary stakeholders in the (Kashmir) issue, namely the citizens of the
territory as well as the secondary stakeholders, namely the governments and
citizens of India and Pakistan; were gradually moving towards what could be
generally termed as a concrete resolution. After all, most opinion and
commentary irrespective of it's origin, is unanimous in stating that the
resolution of Kashmir holds the key to socio-economic development, peace and
security in the region.
Perhaps the foremost indicator of
whether real progress in the resolution discourse is emerging is to ascertain
whether or not a traditional 'top-down' approach adopted by India and Pakistan
(thereby acting as primary rather than secondary stakeholders) has given way to
a 'bottom-up' approach whereby the primary stakeholders have the necessary
democratic space and access to resources to devise that sustainable yet elusive
solution. Judging from the proceedings at AJK University and other events
emerging this week i.e the detention of Gautam Navlakha at Srinagar Airport and
India's distaste for The Economist's mapping of the region, the answer is
contended to be an emphatic 'NO'.
A continuation of a top-down approach
that simultaneously marginalises nationalists and rewards loyalists is a tactic
that may make enduring rational sense to the conflicting economic and security
concerns of India and Pakistan. However, it is an approach consistently yet unfruitfully repeated since
the 1930's a la Muslim Conference/Muslim League and National
Conference/Congress, albeit now with a larger variety of agents. Whether it can
endure in an age of open information and the high moral ground of peaceful
resistance is a test that is yet in it's infancy.
Despite the grand scale and expense of
the conference in Muzaffarabad and it's blessings from the powers-that-be in
India and Pakistan, notable for their absence were representatives from Gilgit
Baltistan who don't necessarily see themselves as a part of Kashmir but
certainly consider themselves to be a part of the Kashmir Issue. The essence of
free academic thought should have ensured their involvement. A sole
representative from Ladakh and the absence of representatives from Doda,
Kishtwar and Rajouri amongst others, added to the academic injustice. The
exclusion of nationalists in AJK including some who were dissuaded from
attending and presenting papers to the conference, further points to a
'controlled environment'.
Nevertheless, despite the persistent
'top-down' approach to conflict resolution and the lack of comprehensive
representation of all affected areas, the exercise was by no means futile. Much
as the CBMs between India and Pakistan have induced limited travel and trade
across the LOC, it would be wholly wrong to outrightly condemn them for their
restrictive structure, as at least some citizens have benefitted who hitherto
had no recourse. Likewise, though many aspects of this Kashmir Conference were
limiting, it was considerably more than what had taken place for most of these
past sixty-four years. Essentially, measures conducted so far by India and
Pakistan have to be judged in a relative sense. Being absolute would
undoubtedly frustrate us in the manner of previous generations.
The idea of cross-LOC interaction
including journalists, academics and members of civil society from Delhi (as
well as Kashmiris from the diaspora) in an academic environment in
Muzaffarabad, may have been unthinkable some years ago. It could even be termed
as a precursor to the possibility of Kashmir providing the venue for free, open
political space for Indians and Pakistanis. A space restricted in India and
Pakistan by their conflicting national interests. For those who've recommended
Kashmir to be a bridge between India and Pakistan, one cannot think of a more
effective means of realising that aspiration. Indeed, witnessing the exuberance
of cross-LOC interaction from close quarters at this forum led one to imagine
that anything was possible.
Aside from these rare conferences and
one must appreciate the selectivity involved in such exercises, there is scant
opportunity for interaction between the primary stakeholders of the Kashmir
issue. Just as stone-pelting has been considered to be a reactionary tactic to
the lack of democratic/civil space for the Valleyites, occasional verbal abuse of
Pakistani State machinery on this side of the LOC is a reaction to the
exclusion of meaningful political expression. A protest outside AJK University
a day before the two-day conference was an example of that.
Meanwhile, in spite of the diverse
viewpoints and multiple narratives that emerged from the conference, including
those views that were allegedly sponsored; there was a definite strand in
almost all conversations that a lack of independent thought existed. There was
also an indication by some that the prevailing socio-economic structure (either
side of the LOC) stifled people's natural as well as national instincts. The
inability of India and Pakistan over the years to engage with independent
minded people throughout the territory further restricts the scope needed to
find a sustainable solution. It was clear that bilateralism buttressed by
loyalists wasn't going to take us in that direction.
In the closing ceremony of the
conference, one was desperate to analyse what sort of follow-up would ensue. Would
there be an acceptance of greater and unfettered intra-Kashmir dialogue? Would
there be a new understanding and empathy for the people that have suffered due
to India and Pakistan's stated economic and security concerns? Or will
intransigence persist? Hearing the AJK President Zulqarnain reminiscing about
his childhood visiting Jammu and Srinagar and his lamentation over not having
the opportunity to re-visit since 1947, seemed to prise out the emotional bond
that binds people of the erstwhile State and hovers way above the slogan of
'Kashmir banega Pakistan' (Kashmir will become Pakistan). His intention to
further the plea of introducing a smart (identity) card for citizens throughout
the State to enable them hassle-free cross-LOC movement with a similar document
for vehicles, seemed genuine and full of promise. He re-iterated that he would
put this heart-felt suggestion to the Government of Pakistan and hoped that his
counterparts on the other side of the LOC would make a similar suggestion to
the government of India. His impassioned plea could not have been expressed
better by a nationalist, one thought.
Finally, as we try and forge ahead in
this conflict-ridden region with limited civil space and access to our
resources, further handicapped by India and Pakistan's insistence on a top-down
approach: will the current generation succumb to 'might is right' (even though
it evidently doesn't have any answers) or will they be able to conjure up
creative solutions to assert 'people's right' and break the impasse that an
under-reported dichotomy of nationalists and loyalists has delivered thus far?
...
The writer is a writer, broadcaster and activist working for civil society development in Pakistani-administered Kashmir and can be mailed at sahaafi@gmail.com
This article was first published in Rising Kashmir (a Srinagar-based English daily) on the 1st of June 2011
