The Valley of contention

As India and Pakistan celebrate their 70th Independence Day, war of words has, once again, escalated between the two countries. And as usual Kashmir is the focal point. But this time India has changed the terms of discourse rather dramatically. Prime Minister Narendra Modi has made it clear that while his government was willing to talk to anyone with an “open mind” and was keen to normalise the situation, there won’t be any major concessions in dealing with the protests in Kashmir. Strongly rejecting Pakistan’s bid to present itself as an involved party, Modi has made the point that Islamabad’s own human rights record did not give it such leeway. He has also suggested that there was a need to track persons who had fled Pakistan Occupied Kashmir (PoK) so that their accounts could be publicised. PoK, he has said, was the fourth part of Jammu and Kashmir, along with Ladakh, Jammu and the valley. Modi government is also keen to bring to the attention of the world the plight of Balochistan. New Delhi is now clear that if Pakistan continues to meddle in Kashmir and incite violence and terror, India will be forced to expose the atrocities its neighbour commits in restive Balochistan. India’s approach was welcomed by activists in Balochistan who blame Islamabad for their plight.

In his address earlier this month to the Home Ministers Conference of SAARC countries in Islamabad, Indian Home Minister Rajnath Singh raised the issue of Pakistani support for terrorism on foreign soil, arguing that “one country’s terrorist cannot be a martyr or freedom fighter for anyone. I also speak for the entire humanity —not just for India or other SAARC members — in urging that in no circumstances should terrorists be eulogised as martyrs”.

Last month, Pakistani government declared July 19 a “black day” in memory of the slain Hizbul militant Burhan Wani and Pakistani Prime Minister did some grandstanding by declaring at a rally that “we are waiting for the day (when) Kashmir becomes (a part of) Pakistan”. Indian External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj had promptly hit back accusing Sharif of advancing the “despicable design” of destabilising South Asia by exporting “dirty money and dangerous terrorists”. New Delhi was making it clear that sections of Pakistani establishment can dream on but it has no locus standi on the issue. 

There has already been a face-off at the United Nations (UN). Slamming Pakistan for raising in the UN the issue of the killing of Burhan Wani, India had said Pakistan “extols” the “virtues” of terrorists and uses terrorism as a state policy towards the “misguided end” of coveting the territory of others. India’s Ambassador to the UN, Syed Akbaruddin, was responding to the remarks made by Pakistan’s envoy Maleeha Lodhi on Kashmir and Wani’s killing during a debate on human rights in the UN General Assembly. In her statement, Lodhi not only raised the Kashmir issue, but also mentioned the “extra-judicial” killing of Wani, whom she described as a “Kashmiri leader”, by Indian forces. Other senior Pakistani officials had also been using the turmoil to further their agenda so as to take advantage of the tensions in the Valley. Pakistani Prime Minister’s adviser on foreign affairs Sartaj Aziz too had suggested that “India cannot suppress the voice of Kashmiris — who are struggling for their just right of self-determination by using brutal force and committing human rights violations in the Occupied Kashmir.”

Indian security forces have been facing turmoil in Kashmir since protests erupted after the killing of Hizbul Mujahideen commander Burhan Wani on July 8. Sixty five people have been killed and more than 5,000 wounded, including Indian security forces. Between the curfew imposed by the government and calls for a shutdown by separatist leaders, normal life remains paralysed. Even as the Indian government has taken steps to ensure a return to normalcy in Kashmir, it has taken a strong stand against Pakistan’s role in the ongoing tensions in Kashmir. Indian Home Minister Rajnath Singh, while visiting Kashmir last month, had addressed Pakistan directly when he said that “you [Pakistan] yourself are affected by terrorism. You had to storm the Lal Masjid to kill the terrorists. But on the other hand, you appeal to Kashmiri youth to take up arms.”

It is clear that no Indian government is in a position to allow Kashmir’s secession from India for fear of encouraging secessionist movements elsewhere in the nation. India’s democracy and secularism would receive a body blow if India accepted the idea that because Muslims are the majority in a state they should secede. In this light, if there has been success in the India-Pakistan “peace process” in the last few years, it’s been a recognition on both sides that territorial changes are strictly out of bounds. Moreover, there will be broader geopolitical ramifications of an independent Kashmir which will remain dependent on the kindness of its neighbours. India, Pakistan and even China will try to enhance their own strategic interests and compete for the loyalty of Kashmir. It is not readily evident if an independent Kashmir would not be as much of a bone of contention between India and Pakistan as the present state of affairs. Islamist extremism would get a boost worldwide even as India, already under assault from rising Islamist fundamentalism, will find it difficult to manage growing tensions between Hindu extremists and Islamist radicals. It is not an exaggeration to suggest that it would be the end of India as the world has come to know it.

Pakistan’s narrative on terrorism is no longer acceptable to the world at large and in danger of losing the Kashmir card, the Pakistani government has gone all out to exploit the killing of a dangerous militant. In the process, Indo-Pak relations, which under Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif had once seemed on a mend, have once again regressed where a verbal tit-for-tat is the new normal. The loss is entirely of ordinary Kashmiris who find unable to come out of the grip of violence. 

The author is a Professor of International Relations at King’s College London