|
India Will Come To Regret Today’s Annexation Of Jammu And Kashmir
The right-wing nationalist Hindutva government of India under Prime Minister Narendra Damodardas Modi just revoked autonomy for Jammu and Kashmir. This will create a civil war that could easily evolve into new conflict between the nuclear armed India and Pakistan.
 Jamma & Kashmir – bigger
A bit of history is necessary to understand the issue:
At the time of the British withdrawal from India, Maharaja Hari Singh, the ruler of the state, preferred to become independent and remain neutral between the successor dominions of India and Pakistan. However, an uprising in the western districts of the State followed by an attack by raiders from the neighbouring Northwest Frontier Province, supported by Pakistan, put an end to his plans for independence. On 26 October 1947, the Maharaja signed the Instrument of Accession joining the Dominion of India in return for military aid. The western and northern districts presently known as Azad Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan passed to the control of Pakistan, while the remaining territory became the Indian state Jammu and Kashmir.
The Instrument of Accession was limited to certain issues. It did not dissolve the autonomous state:
The Instrument of Accession signed by then-Maharaja Hari Singh of Kashmir in October 1947 specified only three subjects on which the state would transfer its powers to the Government of India: foreign affairs, defence and communications. In March 1948, the Maharaja appointed an interim government in the state, with Sheikh Abdullah as the prime minister. The interim government was also tasked with convening a constituent assembly for framing a constitution for the state. In the meantime, the Constituent Assembly of India was conducting its deliberations. In July 1949, Sheikh Abdullah and three colleagues joined the Indian Constituent Assembly and negotiated the special status of J&K, leading to the adoption of Article 370.
This article limited the Union’s legislative power over Kashmir to the three subjects in the Instrument of Accession. If the Union government wanted to extend other provisions of the Indian Constitution, it would have to issue a Presidential Order under Article 370. The state government would have to give prior concurrence to this order. Moreover, the constituent assembly of J&K would have to accept these provisions and incorporate them in the state’s constitution. Once Kashmir’s constitution was framed, there could be no further extension of the Union’s legislative power to the state. This secured J&K’s autonomy.
Incidentally, this was the reason for listing the provisions of Article 370 as “temporary” in the Indian Constitution: the final contours of the state’s constitutional relationship with the Union were to be determined by the constituent assembly of J&K.
Today Amit Shah, the leader of India's Upper House, announced the unilateral revocation of Article 370 (and the related Article 35a).
Home Minister Amit Shah announced that the government has issued a notification in effect scrapping Article 370 from the Indian Constitution. Article 370 of the constitution is a ‘temporary provision’ granting special autonomous status to Jammu and Kashmir.
Furthermore, the government also ordered the division of Jammu and Kashmir into two Union Territories. While the Union Territory of Ladakh will be without a legislature, the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir will be with a legislature. “We have four bills on Kashmir. We are ready to discuss everything and give answers on everything,” Shah said, amid chaos in Rajya Sabha.
The move created an uproar (vid) in the parliament.
J&K is majority Muslim. It is of strategic importance as the headwaters of Pakistan's main water source, the Indus river system, are situated in J&K's mountains. Pakistani nationalist believe that it should be part of their state.
 Jamma & Kashmir – bigger
When the U.S. incited and supported Muslim extremists to attack the Soviet Union in Afghanistan, the movement spilled over into Pakistan and J&K. During the 1980s and 90s a Muslim insurgency, supported by Muslim Pakistan, fought against Indian soldiers. Hindu inhabitants of J&K were pushed out. The 12.5 million inhabitants of J&K are since under Indian occupation. Between 500.000 and 700.000 Indian soldiers are stationed in the state. During the last decades the conflict largely ceased and there were recently not big incidents. Up to today Pakistan had no current interest to escalate the issue.
But the fascist Modi government, just recently reelected, needs to feed its radical Hindutva base. J&K's special status protected its inhabitants from overwhelming migration of Hindus from main India. Modi will now push his followers to move into the state. His aim in the end is to create a majority Hindu state in a currently majority Muslim one.
Last week India ordered all tourists to leave J&K. Since yesterday all communication lines to J&K are cut. Local leaders were put under house arrest and all schools and public institutions are closed. Thousand of troops were additionally send into J&K.
It is inevitable that the actions today will lead a new insurgency in J&K and beyond. Even if Pakistan's Prime Minister Imran Khan does not want to support a new guerilla army in J&K, the military and other nationalist Pakistanis will push to supply it with everything that is needed.
This prediction is likely to come true:
1. [..] I feel reasonably comfortable making the following prediction: strictly seen from the perspective of maintaining the current territorial status quo in Kashmir, the Indian state will come to regret this decision within a decade. Even if it holds on to the state in its entirety, it just made its job a lot tougher and costlier. I also think it has opened up wiggle room — diplomatically and legally — that did not exist before.
2. Relatedly, I believe no institution is happier today than [Pakistan's Military General Headquarter]. No, not even the RSS or Times Now or Republic TV. Congrats to Modi and Amit Shah for doing more for Pakistan's position than anyone in Pindi could have hoped for. There's a dissertation and a half waiting to be written on popular right wing nationalism at home leading to dumb and overreaching shit abroad (I can think of some recent cases).
3. Anyone in Delhi or DC or on anywhere else who tries to pin this on any "external threat" should never be paid attention to again. Trust me, I'm more than aware of the times when Pakistan's behavior has been key to how India behaves in Kashmir, but this time ain't it.
The Indian Express has live update of the situation. The Dawn from Pakistan also provides live coverage.
Also regarding Indians’ pathetic attempts to portray Kashmiris sick of Indian atrocities as ‘radicals’ (thus appealing to the very prominent leftist bias that Islamists must be extremists in every scenario):
https://scroll.in/article/836632/why-does-india-consistently-push-the-false-narrative-of-radicalisation-in-kashmir
‘But radicalised by what? The growing influence of “radical Islam” (read Wahhabism or Salafism and the Jamaat-e-Islami) and groups like Al Qaeda and the Islamic State, a prolonged exposure to violence, the erosion of Kashmiriyat (a dubious recent invention), have all been offered as the causes. A few who have the scruples but cannot breach the sacrosanct nationalistic line call it “anger”. All these labels pre-suppose that a Kashmiri is incapable of articulating any political position unless worked upon by external influences or some behavioural maladjustment that triggers anger.’
‘No theory has more forcefully and consistently been pushed as the one that maintains that the “weakening of Sufi Islam” and the “spread of Wahhabism” has radicalised the youth to the extent that all they seem to do is to participate in anti-India protests, post so-called seditious posts on Facebook, support the Pakistani cricket team, throw stones, pick up arms or come in between militants and soldiers during a gunfight.’
‘Nothing but ignorance of religious movements in Kashmir informs this line of thinking (or unthinking). The Ahle-Hadith or Salafi movement in the Kashmir Valley is 120 years old. The first Ahle-Hadith mosque was established in Srinagar in 1897. The founder of the movement, Anwar Shah Shopiani, a native of Shopian district in the Valley, had been influenced by the Salafi movement in the then undivided Punjab. Hence, more than a Saudi-funded ideological import, the Ahle-Hadith movement was inspired by similar strains in India and such Indian Ahle-Hadith scholars as Moulana Sonaullah Amritsari, Abdul Qasim Banarasi, Abdul Aziz Rahimabadi besides earlier reformers like Shah Waliullah Dehlavi and Syed Ahmad Barelvi.’
‘Another founding Ahle-Hadith leader, Sayed Hussain Shah, whose father was a caretaker of a shrine in Srinagar, received his education in Amritsar. The Jamaat-e-Islami and the Deobandi school, which are also associated with political Islam, developed in India.’
‘The Ahle-Hadith movement in Kashmir has thus seen the Dogra monarchy, the anti-monarchy Quit Kashmir movement, Partition, the genesis of the Kashmir dispute, the plebiscite movement led by Sheikh Abdullah, the rise of the separatist Muslim United Front, three wars over Kashmir, the armed insurgency of the 1990s, and the formation of the Hurriyat Conference. During these turbulent 12 decades, the only time the Ahle-Hadith leaders participated in any of these events in a major way was when the largest Ahle Hadith organisation, Jamiat-e-Ahle Hadith, became one of nearly two-dozen constituents of the undivided Hurriyat in the mid ’90s. However, after the Hurriyat split, the Jamiat did not join either of the factions. Along with the Jamaat-e-Islami it had attempted to unite the two, but its leaders abandoned even those efforts after the assassination of its president Moulvi Showkat by militants.’
Furthermore:
‘None of the first-rung leaders of the Hurriyat Conference is a Wahhabi. The second rung too has not more than three or four leaders from the Ahle-Hadith. (Interestingly, Javed Mustafa Mir, a legislator of the ruling Peoples Democratic Party is from the Ahle Hadith.) Not a single militant in the recent past has emerged out of any Ahle-Hadith madrassa in the Valley. There is a single Salafi theology school in Srinagar, which is perhaps the only religious institution that had been cleared by the government for foreign funding.
The man who galvanised last year’s uprising in four southern districts of Kashmir was Sarjan Barkati, a Sufi preacher. He is still in jail. That is why many people who are active in the resistance privately begrudge the political inertness of the Kashmiri Ahle-Hadith whose counterparts in West Asia are synonymous with political Islam. Many observers therefore believe that creating an Islamist bogey in Kashmir is the unconscious desire of the State, if not part of the counterinsurgency project. It serves the Indian state to dismiss pro-freedom demonstrations and stone throwing by schoolgirls as an outcome of radicalisation, preferably religious, instead of having to acknowledge it as an act craving political change.’
‘By 1990, when the armed insurgency started in Kashmir, about 550 of the total 750 Ahle-Hadith mosques affiliated with the Jamiat-e-Ahle Hadith had already been set up across Jammu and Kashmir. Srinagar alone had more than 30 by then. Both the Jamiat-e-Ahle Hadith and Jamaat-e-Islami actually were at their zenith before the insurgency started. Their religious programmes got significantly curtailed because of the situation and also because of persecution. Dozens of Jamaat men were killed by government forces and the government-sponsored Ikhwan militia, forcing hundreds of families to migrate to Srinagar from rural areas.’
‘Referring to former US President Bill Clinton’s foreword to Nelson Mandela’s book, The Long Walk to Freedom, Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Front chairman Yasin Malik, said: “Clinton recalls that when he asked Mandela why the ANC [African National Congress] resorted to violent means, the African leader told him ‘that the nature of the struggle is not decided by the oppressed people but by the oppressor’.”’
‘Malik, whose organisation gave up arms in 1994, added: “In 2008 Kashmir made a transition to a peaceful struggle. How did the state respond? Since then we have been shouldering the coffins of our youth.”’
‘He continued: “The majority of the militants who have been killed in recent times had been forced to pick up arms when the state agencies went after them and turned the lives of their families a hell for the sin of having resisted peacefully during 2008 or 2010.”’
Posted by: Agha Hussain | Aug 5 2019 10:34 utc | 7
Since I was at the age of having a political opinion, Jammu and Kashmir were part of a collection of areas under constant conflict.
…
Posted by: Sunny Runny Burger | Aug 5 2019 18:13 utc | 44
Thanks for the reminder. Your use of the term ‘constant conflict’ reminded me of a military doctrine I stumbled upon in the early Noughties which was called Constant Conflict. The only thing I could remember about it, today, was that it was written by a psychopath and I did NOT like what the author was proposing.
I went looking for a piece of prose called Constant Conflict and found a reference to the piece I was looking for at…
https://katehon.com/article/ralph-peters-concept-constant-conflict
It’s dated 16.04.2016 and names the author as Retired Lieutenant Colonel of United States Army Ralph Peters and summarises the crux of Peters’ thesis and and his background/mission statement. It also provides enough info to find the original 1997 article here…
https://ssi.armywarcollege.edu/pubs/parameters/articles/97summer/peters.htm
The article concludes thus and there’s a footnote…
…
“The next century will indeed be American, but it will also be troubled. We will find ourselves in constant conflict, much of it violent. The United States Army is going to add a lot of battle streamers to its flag. We will wage information warfare, but we will fight with infantry. And we will always surprise those critics, domestic and foreign, who predict our decline.”
—
Major (P) Ralph Peters is assigned to the Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Intelligence, where he is responsible for future warfare. Prior to becoming a Foreign Area Officer for Eurasia, he served exclusively at the tactical level. He is a graduate of the US Army Command and General Staff College and holds a master’s degree in international relations. Over the past several years, his professional and personal research travels have taken Major Peters to Russia, Ukraine, Georgia, Ossetia, Abkhazia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Croatia, Serbia, Bulgaria, Romania, Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Pakistan, Turkey, Burma, Laos, Thailand, and Mexico, as well as the countries of the Andean Ridge. He has published widely on military and international concerns. His sixth novel, Twilight of Heroes, was recently released by Avon Books. This is his eighth article for Parameters. The author wishes to acknowledge the importance to this essay of discussions with Lieutenant Colonels Gordon Thompson and Lonnie Henley, both US Army officers.
Reviewed 8 May 1997.
Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Aug 6 2019 4:48 utc | 79
|