Mr Dulat, Kashmir is not a Peg of Johny Walker Whisky

The latest addition to Indian narrative on Kashmir, A.S. Dulat’s book titled “Kashmir The Vajpayee Years”, recently hit the stands. Kashmiris expected revelations because the author had formerly headed India’s premier intelligence agencies, the Intelligence Bureau(IB), and the Research and Analysis Wing (RAW). But they were disappointed because the book did not offer much. They already knew more than what is “revealed” in the book.

Not only does the book contain nothing new, it makes sweeping statements revealing the typical status quo-istic establishment mindset. For example, according to the author: everything in Kashmiri is crooked except poplar trees and Farooq Abdullah; the falling apart of Sheikh Abdullah and Nehru is inexplicable; Vajpayee would have resolved Kashmir Dispute, but; etc., etc.

As I went through the book I found out a devil’s mind in operation. What he could not achieve during his days of operation he is now trying to get it through his own hyperbole version.

A. B. Vajpayee

He was a sweet tongued politician who could mesmerize anyone with his saccharine words. But in reality he was the RSS Pracharak who instigated in 1992 the demolition of the 16th C. Babri Masjid; and who as Prime Minister in 2002 allowed ethnic cleansing of Muslims to take place in Gujarat when he should have invoked Articles 356 and 357 of Indian Constitution, dismissed the Gujarat Government and put down disturbances. He did nothing. That he desired to resolve Kashmir Dispute is a mis-perception. What he actually wanted was to introduce Livingston Proposal so as to sidestep the self-determination discourse in Kashmir.

My contention is based on this: When he visited Lahore in the famed bus, he reached a private understanding with PM Nawaz Sharif of Pakistan on February 20, 1999 to find a viable solution of the Kashmir Problem by the end of the year. Both decided to nominate one person each to discuss fresh conflict resolution approaches. Niaz A. Naik and R.K. Mishra held nine rounds of discussions between March 3 to June 27, 1999. After considering various options, Mishra and Naik arrived at Chenab Partition Plan which implied that the Valley of Kashmir, the main bone of contention, could become part of Pakistan. At this juncture Naik met Vajpayee, and broached the Partition issue to him. Vajpayee just didn’t say anything. He simply asked Naik to consider Livingston Proposal (Kashmir in the Shadow of War Robert Wirsing; Pakistan’s Drift into Extremism Hassan Abbas pp.168-69).

However, after Kargil War India spread the word that General Musharaf’s misadventure sabotaged the resolution of Kashmir Dispute. The fact is that Kargil War sabotaged Livingston Proposal. Indian State in any way was not interested to grant right of self-determination to Kashmiris.

Interestingly the same General Musharaf adopted Livingston Proposal in 2003-4. But by then he was an international outcast keen on mending his own image. Besides the Kargil fiasco had given Pakistan a reputation of being an irresponsible nuclear power.

Musharaf re-branded Livingston Proposal as Four Point Formula. Many others cloned Livingston Proposal with names of their own. In 2006 Sajjad Lone called it “Achievable Nationhood”; and in 2008 Mufti Sayeed the “Self-Rule Framework”.

Livingston Proposal was the brainchild of Kashmir Study Group. A successful Kashmir-born American businessman, Farooq Kathwari, set up the KSG in 1996 at Livingston New York. The KSG met in November-December 1998 and produced a one-page document titled “Kashmir - A Way Forward”. It proposed setting up in the former Princely State of Kashmir a self-governing sovereign entity without international personality that would comprise of Indian administered Kashmir and Pakistan administered Kashmir on either side of the LOC across which people could travel and trade (of course after being strip searched).

Establishment of a “sovereign entity one without international personality” is an impossibility because one of the cardinal attributes of sovereignty is “international personality”. The term “international personality” sounds bombast and incomprehensible. But if the term is properly used then it is easily understood. The actual term used should be “international legal personality” which signifies that the entity could sue and be sued under international law.

According to Livingston Proposal Kashmir would not be an international personality. Nor one entity. Because it would continue to be divided by LOC and administered by India and Pakistan on either side of this frontier. Therefore Livingston Proposal was status quo-istic, of course with some cosmetic changes.

Since India feared that they may have to face the same terrible fate as Soviets did in Afghanistan and Americans in Vietnam, they were very keen to clutch at straws like Livingston Proposal. They didn’t actually want to give up Kashmir because of its water resources and hydro-power potential; and because they thought it would be a great blow to their prestige to bow down to Pakistan which they arrogantly called “ek sala machhar”. Thus they were/are caught up in a dilemma.

Livingston Proposal gives out a semblance of resolution yet it does not entail ceding Kashmir. Therefore, the Indians became, since Vajpayee’s time, overly keen to see it implemented. Those who support it become their blue eyed boys. For example, General Musharaf in spite of Kargil; Sajad Lone; Mufti Sayeed.

But Kashmiris under Geelani’s leadership rejected it and Dulat accuses them of being crooks.

The falling Apart of Sheikh Abdullah and Nehru

Their falling apart is easily explained. Sheikh supported India in October 1947 because in a Pakistani Kashmir he could not rise to power even in a dream. The UNCIP’s Plebiscite Resolution of January 5, 1949 envisaged appointment of a Plebiscite Administrator with full powers which entailed prior dismissal of Sheikh Abdullah. Plebiscite would have returned a verdict in favour of Pakistan. That would be Sheikh’s doom. So he supported Nehru to the hilt to avoid the appointment of Plebiscite Administrator. Also he gave full support to Nehru in changing Kashmir State’s relationship from Instrument of Accession to Article 370 of Indian Constitution.

During Constituent Assembly debates, 1949-50, it was made clear to him that under Article 370 Kashmir would be merged with India albiet gradually and with the concurrence of a provincial Constituent Assembly. He accepted even that because he was desperate to avoid Plebiscite.

Although UNCIP left the sub-continent by the end of 1949, Plebiscite or Regional Plebiscites became a possibility in 1950 when UN Mediator Owen Dixon arrived. Instead of resigning from Prime Ministership to facilitate Dixionian Plebiscite he abolished jagirdari to turn the mind of Kashmiris from Dixon.

Nehru condoned this action of Sheikh although it had hit Hindu jagirdars very severely because they were not paid any compensation. Then together with Regent Karan Singh and Prime Minister Nehru he enacted in 1951 a fraudulent Constituent Assembly election which converted the General Council of National Conference into Constituent Assembly without actual voting.

Now was the time to work for gradual merger of Kashmir with India as per the policy laid down in Article 370. But by now two things had happened. One, the talk of Plebiscite had gone into cold storage; and two, Sheikh thought he was now an elected Prime Minister. And when Gopalaswami Ayyengar suggested in April 1952 that powers of Indian Supreme Court and Auditor General should now be extended to Kashmir, Sheikh lost his temper against New Delhi. He took the suggestion as an unwarranted encroachment upon his authority. In this way Sheikh and Nehru fell apart. It was a clash between Nehru’s imperialism and Sheikh’s self-interest. There were no principles involved.

Endorsement of Accession

The Constituent Assembly passed a resolution in February 1954 in ratification of Accession. They were un-elected. They had back stabbed Sheikh Abdullah to whom they owed their existence. At the time of passing of this resolution Sheikh was in jail. Neither Sheikh nor the CA had any mandate to endorse Accession on behalf of Kashmiris. For that matter the elected Muslim Conference members of Praja Sabha had, on July 19, 1947 passed a resolution in the home of Sardar Ibrahim of Rawlakot, at Abi Guzar Srinagar in favour of Accession to Pakistan.

Under the principle of self-determination the future disposition of Kashmir is got to be decided by Kashmiris directly because it concerns the future of millions of people. It is not a matter of Johny Walker Whisky.

Poplar Trees and Farooq Abdullah

Since the time of first election in 1951 under Indian administration of Kashmir, it has been the IB that decided who would contest the elections; who would win; and who would lose; and who would rule; etc. During Vajpayee days they promised Farooq Abdullah that he would be made Vice-President of India and his son Chief Minister of Kashmir. During that time Farooq regime crushed Kashmiris to pulp.

But when the time of becoming Vice President came, nothing of the sort happened. Farooq even lost Chief Ministership. Farooq blamed IB for his oustal from power. So, calling everyone in Kashmir as a crook and describing poplar trees and Farooq Abdullah as the only things that be straight, is actually an apology to Farooq Abdullah by A. S. Dulat, being an IB man. But he perhaps forgot that while apologizing to Farooq he grossly insulted the whole Kashmiri people who hold the same Farooq (along with Jagmohan, Rajiv Gandhi, and Indira Gandhi) responsible for the wholesale destruction of life in post-1987 Kashmir.

Furthermore, A. S. Dulat has tried to malign all and sundry who do not agree with Indian establishment’s point of view on Kashmir, be they resistance leaders who have undergone tremendous hardships while conducting self-determination movement; or be it Pakistan.

Mr. Dulat warns Kashmiris that Pakistan has no sympathies for Kashmiris; and that it has an eye on Kashmir waters. But the truth is that being a riparian State, Pakistan has a natural right on Kashmir waters. God has made this dispensation. Man is not entitled to change it. Whether Kashmir continues to remain under Indian Administration or not, Pakistan will always have equal rights on Kashmir waters. Kashmiris would never like to impound water to thirst Pakistan.

Water never actually flows down the Jhelum. It moves in circles. It goes to Pakistan by land and returns to Kashmir by air. It is a relationship that God has created. Man cannot undo it, no matter how many different maps he may draw on the face of the globe.

Mr. Dulat diminishes the value of his own book by indulging in far fetched accusations like the ones that General Musharaf had a hand in the hijacking of flight IC-814 from Nepal to Dubai; or in the Mumbai terror act of 26/11.

Missing Things

Kashmir Police couldn’t have asked Afzal Guru to accompany someone to Delhi in 2001 without IB’s knowledge.

If IB had wished they could have exposed Shopian rapists in 2009 in a matter of days.

Who knows who were the hawks that lifted Kasab in their talons from Nepal in 2006 and dropped him in Mumbai in 2008? Only six persons had arrived in the terror boat of 26/11 via Arabian Sea. Yet India claimed to have killed 10 terrorists on that day. Where did the others, including Kasab, come from?

Who knows who were the paymasters to instigate Jaish and other Al Qaeda affiliates to launch terror in Pakistan?

If Pakistan supported the Taliban in Afghanistan, who supported the Northern Alliance?

Who supported Baluch insurgents?

Who supported Karachi gangsters?

Throwing some light on these would have added tremendous value to Mr. Dulat’s book.