Will 'azadi' solve Kashmir’s problems?

A section of the Indian intelligentsia now believes that the only way to end the strife in Kashmir is to give in to the increasingly shrill demands for ‘azadi’. Speak Up gets Mumbaikars to react to this point of view

There are more mature options for federal India
The question of azadi cannot be seen without contextualising it in the international situation and against the backdrop of Indo-Pak relations. Secondly, there is a lot of possibility within India's constitutional framework to resolve the Kashmir issue by granting as much autonomy as its people want.

Suppressing the mass resentment against Indian rule is not the solution either. This resentment has been simmering for some time now and has erupted in the form of an agitation. We need to make a distinction between the militant activity in the valley and the mass protests happening there.

There is a newer generation of Kashmiris that is now rising against Indian rule. But this is partly because of the last 20-25 years of militancy as well. Secondly, the exasperation and frustrations of the Kashmiri youth are also related to the overall mismanagement of the state and the bad administration it has seen. More than the military, it is the issue of how political parties — both based in Kashmir and in Delhi —have handled the Kashmir situation. The Congress is more to be blamed because of the frequent mixing of its internal factionalism with maladministration in the Valley.

The communal lines that divide Jammu and Kashmir can be erased. This is the first time that one came across such a clear communal divide, particularly in the Jammu region. This can be overcome because there is a long history of coexistence in Jammu and Kashmir as well. Civil society and the Indian state should remember this before assuming that this communal bridge cannot be bridged anymore.

There are two bases for considering autonomy: one is the original 1953 situation from which the Indian state deviated and the second is the original recommendation of the Balraj Puri Commission on autonomy. The latter suggested two tiers of autonomy, one for the state of Jammu and Kashmir vis-a-vis the Indian state and the other for the regions within the state ie Jammu, Ladakh and the Valley. If this framework is accepted then I do not think that there would be any great strain on the Indian Constitution or federal structure.

Increasingly scholars and politicians all over the world now accept the Indian experiment of asymmetrical federalism wherein all states are not treated on par for historical, cultural and political reasons. So giving Kashmir special status would not weaken federalism, it would strengthen it. Only a mature State is prepared to give autonomy to its regions, parts or segments and thus bring down the intensity of militant separatist movements.

Organising elections in J&K would be tough now. But we should not forget that the last two elections were successful and held in a very fair, free and non-partisan manner.
—Suhas Palshikar. Professor of Political Science, University of Pune

The situation has to be handled delicately
Despite the tension and the mood prevailing in Kashmir right now I don't think the Indian government should give in to this demand for azadi. The common Kashmiri has never been this aggressive in demanding freedom from Indian rule. But instead of using the divide and rule policy that the BJP specialises in, we should handle the issue delicately. I don't believe that the majority in Kashmir want 'independence'. For so many years they have been identified as Indians and suddenly they see themselves as totally autonomous or worse, as Pakistanis? Right now with terrorism raging across the world and in India, we should keep India together.                 
—Shabeena Khan

How much more can India yield?
What kind of independence does Kashmir want? Do they want independence to join Pakistan or become an independent country? Jammu and Kashmir as a state is given a lot of subsidies and facilities by the Centre. No other state is this pampered. For instance, no outsiders can buy property there but a resident of J&K can buy land anywhere in the country. Diverse elements make up India but if we agree to Kashmir now others might start to demand ‘freedom’ too. What about Gorkhaland then? The more we yield, the more Kashmir will demand. The Sialkot route through which Kashmiris want easy access to Pakistan will only create a passage for militants.
 —Anupma Sharma

How will they survive?
I am sure that if Kashmir is granted its demand for azadi other groups and regions will follow suit. There are secessionist groups in the North East too. Will we buckle in there too? But I doubt if Kashmir has the resources to be an independent state. They have no great politicians, how will they create a stable government? Other than tourism, they have no industries. So how will they survive? If Kashmir were to be an independent country, it wouldn’t be economically prosperous. I do not think they have the resources to survive on their own. Maybe right now it seems as though we are riding rough-shod over the popular demand in Kashmir but I don't think those demanding azadi have thought through the whole idea.
—Rayomand Karkaria

So much effort wasted
Are we now reduced to being a nation of cowards? Why have we been protecting Kashmir for 60 years? What about all the jawans who sacrificed their lives for it? There is certainly no way that we can let go of Kashmir. PoK is already full of terror groups and now a nation as strong as India cannot even protect the rest? Pakistan needs to be put in its place for stirring trouble in Kashmir. In fact we should fight the militancy festering in PoK instead of giving up on Kashmir. Also, I feel the people of that land feel neglected. The government needs to give them more facilities so that they can integrate with the rest of the country.
—Hemal Rajgor

No point in hanging on
Kashmiri pandits had to leave their homes and belongings because of the militancy there. Now, it seems that those who live there do not consider themselves a part of India. They do not value the army's efforts to put down militancy. Like Tibet, they are not happy being part of a larger nation and will continue to protest till they are free to do as they please. Besides, there is no point in holding on to a land that is the hub of so much violence and militancy. The entire new generation in Kashmir hates the idea of Indian rule. So, if they want freedom, let them have it. The sad part is that even if Kashmir gets freedom, it won't be able to survive as an economically prosperous place. It will have tourists but what about stability?
—Debojit Roy

It’s integral to India
This is not the first time we have faced insurgency in J&K. If Kashmiris are so eager to detach themselves from the Indian state they should be allowed to so do. I don't think that it will be an easy option. After all, Kashmir has been an integral part of India for so long. It is a small, unstable state and might not be able to survive on its own. I don't think they have calculated all the consequences of declaring themselves independent. If we agree to this demand now, what guarantee do we have that other regions and groups won't ask for the same? We have to study the consequences of any radical move before we undertake it.
—Nina Chauhan