A Kashmiri Solution for Kashmir by Eqbal Ahmad
India’s failures in Kashmir have been getting worse since Jawaharlal Nehru. The newly independent liberal government decided to trust the hated and oppressive Maharaja. Hari Singh’s decision to join the Indian Union. Pressured by a military showdown with Pakistan, Delhi brought the dispute to the United Nations. Then promised abide by the Security Council resolution that called a plebiscite to allow to decide between joining India or Pakistan. India broke that promise.
Delhi’s only asset in those early years had been Sheikh Mohammed Abdullah cooperation. For his opposition to the unpopular regime of the Maharaja and his defense of land and labor reforms in the Sheikh and his party, the National Conference, had become the embodiment of inationalism.
As Chief Minister enacted land reforms in 1950, which further improved its position with the overwhelming rural and disinherited population of Kashmir. But this national hero He was jailed in August 1953 after he began demanding more autonomy.
Except two brief periods of freedom, remained a prisoner of India for 22 years, until February 1975, when the sheikh became prime minister after signing an agreement with the first Minister Indira Gandhi.
Ms Gandhi was able to defang the Lion of who allied with the ruler Indian National Congress. The only freedom that he, and his heir apparent Farooq Abdullah, exercised during his second term was the freedom to be scandalously lenient and participate in corruption. Fueled anger and a sense of humiliation about how his vaunted “lion” had been domesticated in the hands of the Indians.
In addition, they had you have been denied not only the right to self-determination, a right asserted by the United States Nations, but now they were also witnessing the disintegration of their historic party, conference. This was taken as another assault on his identity and, As often happens in such circumstances, nationalism reinforced in the face of India.
In addition to political disenchantment, the alienation of India’s is steeped in history, economics, and psychology. The problem is not communal, though sectarian Hindus and ideologues would like to see it in these terms. The last phase discontent followed significant social changes in Kashmir.
The governments of Sheikh Abdullah and Ghulam Mohammed Bakhshi liberated the from the feudal controls, and helped expand a middle class.
More and more young people from received education, but their social mobility remained restricted due to the growth did not accompany the agrarian reforms and the expansion of educational facilities. Rebellions they are usually started by the hopeful, not the abject poor.
The roots of the popular uprising of 1989 lie in the abandonment of and New Delhi’s excessive manipulation of politics. However, India faces insurgency as rulers normally do – with accusations of external subversion, brutality illegal force and machinations. Above all, it denies reality.
Kashmir in partition The reality is that the moral isolation of New Delhi from the people is total. and irreversible. It could be reversible if India contemplated a different relationship with Kashmir, one that significantly satisfies aspirations self-government, but so far New Delhi has shown no inclination in this direction.
But can India’s loss translate into Pakistan’s gain? The answer is that it cannot. Politics Islamabad manufacturers like to believe otherwise, and this is not unusual. It is enough It is common for rival countries to view their contest as a zero-sum game in which the loss one side translates into profit for the other. However, history shows this assumption be false, and the gains and losses of rivals are rarely proportional; are determined by circumstances of history, politics and politics.
The record of India offers a chronicle of failures, but none of them have accumulated to the benefit of Pakistan. Rather, Pakistan’s policy has suffered from its own flaws. Three features made a Early appearance in Islamabad’s Kashmiri politics. One, although Pakistan’s decision the doers know that the problem is fundamentally political, since 1948 they have approached in military terms.