IGNOU BPSE 143 Solved Assignment 2022-23

INTRODUCTION

Jammu and Kashmir is a heterogeneous state with varied geographical regions and sub-regions, representing different climates, flora and fauna. People possess different ethnic backgrounds, profess different faiths, follow different cultural traditions and speak different languages. What is more significant is that people living in these regions are yet to attain a uniform level of development. The internal politics of the state, marked by inter – regional tensions, has influenced the attitude of the people on the question of their external affiliations. In each of the three regions of the state, a different attitude to the question of accession can be clearly noticed from the very day of the state’s accession with India.

Before independence, inter- regional and interreligious tensions became pronounced immediately after Jammu, Kashmir and Ladakh were welded into a single political entity with full backing from the colonial supremacy. As the Dogra rulers were fundamentally despotic, feudal and sectarian, the people of the State, particularly Muslims, got alienated and fought against the Dogra domination which culminated in the termination of Dogra Raj in 1947. However, till date the Dogras did not compromise with this, what they regarded humiliation to their collective pride. It is not therefore surprising that they harbour the dreams of carving out a separate state for Jammu and the anti-Kashmiri sentiment has become a fertile ground for ‘conflict entrepreneurs’ of Hindutva forces. But this sentiment is restricted among the Hindu populated areas of the Jammu province. In fact, they demand sub-regional autonomy to safeguard their political, cultural and economic interests from the monopolistic political tradition. Similarly in Kashmir, the political leaders both extremist and mainstream have totally failed to accommodate the minority aspirations of the other two regions and to form a single state. This led to the estrangement demands from the other two regions- Jammu and Ladakh. Since independence, the regional demands from Jammu were in the form of demand for abrogation of Article 370 and the slogan of “Ek Desh Mai Do Pradhan, Do Vidhan, Do Nishan Nahi Chaleyga Nahi Chalega” (in a single nation, the two presidents, two states and two symbols cannot be tolerated in any how). This voice has become louder again with the eruption of land controversy over the Amarnath land issue in Jammu, an agitation sponsored by Hindutva forces in August 2008. While in Kashmir, the Extremist groups took the stand and thus the two communities again got alienated.

Last twenty years of political uncertainty in Jammu and Kashmir have created regional tensions at large. Of late, these tensions have created impressions that the state may soon fall apart. More painful is the fact that these differences have sharpened the communal divide. Amaranth land row in 2008, stands as an example of intolerance that the two main regions of Kashmir and Jammu have imbibed over a period. This divide was not only confined to these regions but has taken over the whole politics of the state up to the district level. It is true that some rulers from the Kashmir region in the past have not acted according to the needs and aspirations of some of the people of Jammu and Ladakh. However, it is also true that Jammu and Ladakh regions always have had New Delhi’s political and administrative favours on their side. New Delhi’s such proximity and special favour to Jammu and Ladakh have bred feelings of psychological and political siege among Kashmir’s civil society and political leadership. This feeling is reinforced with each passing day. Whenever there is a movement against Kashmir, the agitator would often allege that people of both Jammu and Ladakh regions do not receive any fair and equitable treatment. They insist that the Government should ensure a sense of equality among the people of three regions and the existing regional identities should be maintained and kept intact. Therefore, the entire fabric of politics in the state has been mainly based on two issues; the relationship between the Kashmir valley and the centre on the one hand and the relationship between the Kashmir valley, Jammu and Ladakh regions within on the other. As Hari Om says, “A sort of local nationalism had developed in all the three regions of the state”. The unsettled nature of the political status of Jammu and Kashmir is a reality.

The massive exploitation of its resources by New Delhi and to some extent 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 that has served two purposes. First, it has created a ‘complex’ issue out of a simple issue of self-determination of this former princely state. Secondly, it has sought to create an aggressor out of the victim- the Muslims of the J&K state. The result is tragic, as 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. Notwithstanding that decolonization and partition of British India into the nation states of India and Pakistan have been at the root of the most entrenched political problems in the Indian sub-continent. The eruption of militancy in the state of Jammu and Kashmir, besides the other causes, is an offshoot of undemocratic and inexpedient policies of the Indian political leadership towards the state. Both the principles of democracy as well as that of political expediency were relegated to the background. Groups like Jamaat-e-Islami even decided (in the early 1970s) to contest elections so that they could articulate their demands as elected representatives. Syed Ali Shah Geelani, the hard-line separatist leader, himself was elected to the State Assembly as a candidate from the Muttahida Muslim Mahaz (The Muslim United Front) in 1987.The election proved to be a turning point in the history of the Kashmiris Struggle for self-determination.

The Muslim United Front was poised to win the elections by a considerable majority but this election was sabotaged by the Government of India, which feared that Muslim United Front would refuse to toe its line if it came to power.3 The widespread rigging of this election in Jammu and Kashmir (as well as previous ones) and the indiscriminate arrests and brutal treatment of Muslim United Front workers and candidates mobilized the Kashmiris, “that peaceful methods of democracy to articulate their grievances would never work due to Indian intransigence”. Thus, the people of Kashmir started perceiving that a truly democratic government will never come to power in the state, for such a government reflecting the genuine aspirations of the majority of the people of Jammu and Kashmir would advocate the state’s separate identity from India. Thus, it was in 1989 that some Kashmiri youth joined the existing club of those who adopted militant path with the perception to force the Indian government to allow the people of Jammu and Kashmir to determine their own political future.5The insurgency in Jammu and Kashmir has extracted an enormous price from the people of the state and was fuelled by the systematic erosion of democratic as well as human rights. Thus the militancy in the State of Jammu and Kashmir can be explicated to this background of historical distrust that has secluded the relationship between the State of Jammu and Kashmir and India.