What should Kashmiris do now?

Kashmir, India, Pakistan, and China – Confrontation is not the option

Basic Premise. Kashmir is a dispute between Pakistan and India. It is a business enterprise for some both inside and outside Kashmir. It is a means of entertainment for many Kashmiris. Yet there are some, outside and inside Kashmir, who fervently seek its resolution. This paper is dedicated to them.

Kashmir dispute is interconnected with India-China boundary (called LAC – Line of Actual Control) dispute.

As and when India enters a rapprochement with China and Pakistan, the threesome would attempt to build a shared destiny for their peoples. Then, chances of resolution of LAC and Kashmir disputes would brighten up.

China is poised to replace USA as the foremost geostrategic player of the world (world’s leading power with capability and national will to influence geopolitical events in its neighborhood and beyond – Pravin Sawhney). Pakistan is the pivot (a deciding factor; something central upon which everything else depends; geopolitically a country whose geography gives it a special significance vis-à-vis the success or failure of global strategy of a geostrategic player – Pravin Sawhney) upon which Chinese global strategy depends because China’s game changing One Belt (land route) One Road (sea route), OBOR, economic connectivity project is dependent upon the success of China Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC). Failure of CPEC would mean disaster for OBOR. Failure of OBOR would bring about a sort of stillbirth for China’s grand strategy (called China Dream) of establishing its influence through a win-win trade and commerce relationship with countries of the world whom till now USA used (rather abused) to dominate them with its overwhelming military power and by feeding conflicts among them. The US was in the habit of hiding its imperialism under the cloak of spreading democracy the way the British hid their imperialism under the garb of civilizing the barbarians. They called their “civilizing” enterprise as White Man’s Burden meaning that they were doing the world a favour by enslaving it. When they subjugated a country, its people had no alternative but to pay obeisance to pirates, marauders, and looters – and that is what the pioneers of the East India Company were (p.38 The Rise of British Power in India Mountstuart Elphinstone; p.24 Princely India and Lapse of British Paramountcy V. B. Kulkerni). They looted more than half the world. When they took Bengal (encompassing todays Bangladesh, Indian Bengal, Bihar, Jharkhand, Orrissa) in 1757, it was the richest province in the world. For next hundred years they subjugated and progressively looted the entire sub-continent. The provinces of India they ruled longest were the poorest when they granted independence to India and Pakistan in 1947. Bengal, having been ruled longest by them, was, therefore, the poorest in 1947. Also, they created conflicts.

The US, as the worthy successor of the British, stoked British-produced conflicts. Also, it talked democracy but supported dictatorships especially in Muslim countries. The kings of Muslim countries invoke religion to block the encroachment of democracy lest their subjects might be transformed into responsible citizens who demand their rights (Islam and Democracy Fear of the Modern World Fatema Mernissi). The US had no issues with such Muslim kings, nor with the mullas who worked for the latter, as long as the former purchased weapons – (to be used against Muslims).

Kingship is in itself is not something un-Islamic. Many Biblical prophets (peace be upon them) were kings. If kingship had been un-Godly, then God would not appoint kings as his messengers.

Islam does not preach any system of government. It is non-committal in this regard. It leaves the decision to the discretion of people as to what sort of government they would like for themselves. The companions of the Prophet, upon whom be peace, also had the discretion to decide as to what sort of government they would adopt for themselves after the demise of the Prophet (peace be upon him). They settled for caliphate. Since there was no law in Islam in prescription of the procedure of appointment of the head of the state (caliph in their case), every time a new kind of procedure was adopted. Thus the procedure adopted in the appointment of first caliph (Hazrat Abu Bakr, peace be upon him) was “proposal and secondment”; in the second, nomination by the incumbent of his successor (Hazrat Umar, peace be upon him); in the third, nomination of a group of six electors by the second caliph among whom one (Hazrat Usman, peace be upon him) was appointed after a sort of vote taking in the City (Al Madina); in the fourth, ascension of one of the remaining five (Hazrat Ali, peace be upon him) after the assassination of the third caliph which became controversial followed by civil war. By and by caliphate gave way to dynastic kingship. We now live in the time of democracy. Democracy is neither Islamic nor un-Islamic.

However, politically ambitious right-wingers who are not sure of becoming rulers through democratic means, find it convenient to denounce democracy as un-Islamic without making clear as to what was Islamic in their understanding. They sell the notion of caliphate but never tell you how they would appoint caliph. People, especially youth, fall into their trap and take to killing and getting killed. This has resulted, among other things, in the stigmatizing of Islam.

Just as Islam has its share of self-appointed guardians, so is the case with democracy. The US happens to be its self-appointed guardian. In the first decade of the current century, it exported its own model of democracy to Afghanistan and Iraq. Simultaneously, with the help of its allies, it unleashed non-state actors against Iraqis and Afghans (and also against others) in the shape of Black Water and Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (Saudi, UAE weapons end up with armed groups Dilyan Gaytamdzhiev Al Jazeera).

Till recent times the US was the major, in fact, only important geostrategic player since the dismantling of Soviet Union in 1990. The US cherished a unipolar world (world dominated by only one superpower). So long as the US remains the only leading power of the world, no conflict would ever be resolved.

China, the new emerging superpower, on the other hand, doesn’t subscribe to a unipolar or bipolar world. It would prefer a multipolar world. Moreover, it has no ideological baggage to carry, not even Mao’s communism. It doesn’t care if its trading partner country is a dictatorship or a democracy.

China, unlike the US, wants peace between India and Pakistan, its immediate neighbours – for the sake of CPEC. In the past, India and Pakistan remained at each other’s throats (they are still) because of Kashmir Dispute. The US supplied weapons to Pakistan in 1950s in the name of containment of communism. Pakistan intended to use these against India; and the US knew the fact. Post-1962 Chinese invasion of India, USA assisted India. Instead of resolving disputes with China and Pakistan, India wriggled out of Bhuttoo-Swaran Singh Kashmir talks that it had offered to Pakistan as an incentive against (Pakistan’s) launching a simultaneous attack on them. Examples of thus USA stoking conflicts could be multiplied. Palestine-Israel is another conflict which defies resolution because of USA’s support to Isreal’s intransigence.

In 1950s the US instigated and armed (initially with Pakistani help) the Tibetans to rise against China. Ending 1960s they pulled away their support from Tibetan resistance and set up (again with Pakistani help) diplomatic relations with China, thereby leaving Tibetans high and dry (and India trapped in the Tibet dispute).

Present-day global level Islamophobia is another example of how USA first used Muslim non-state actors, describing them as Mujahideen, against Soviet Union in Afghanistan in 1980s to win its Cold War against the Soviet Union. With Soviet Union dismantled, it (the US) raised the bogey of clash of civilizations in which Islam and its followers were projected as a threat to the world (The Clash of Civilizations and the remaking of World Order Samuel Huntington).

China escaped unhurt during the last three decades because the main brunt of the US’s grand strategy was received by Islam and its followers. Not that Muslims were a clean lot. Most of the terrorism perpetrated on non-State level was perpetrated by them through these three decades, that too mostly against Muslims because they struck mostly in Muslim countries. State level terrorism is practised by majority of countries, USA being the master of all; in addition to waging endless wars it was a past master in the art of using non-state actors. Pakistan is a born expert in using non-state actors gaining little from indulging in such a game. India also used non-state actors from the beginning starting in September 1947 with Samaldas Gandhi-led Junagarh Liberation Army.

Muslims received enough bashing – in fact they are at the receiving end even now – at the hands of their own terror masters and at the hands of the US and, under its influence, at the hands of European White and Indian Hindu supremacists. Since in the meantime China got a window of opportunity to rise peacefully, it outmarched everyone including the US to become the economic and military superpower of the world.

But the US is not yet prepared to accept a bipolar or multipolar world.

China, the emerging superpower, seeks to influence the world through trade and commerce rather than through stoking conflicts. Trade demands peace. Therefore, it has resolved most of its land boundary disputes. The exceptions are Bhutan and India. With India it has a very contentious border issue. Both have differing perceptions of the border line, the LAC. For example, India maintains that it has a 1597-km-long LAC with China in the Western Sector (Ladakh) basing its contention on 1865-Johnson Line. China states that it has no boundary at all in Ladakh! The truth is that they have a (plus/minus) 500-km-long boundary line in Ladakh according to my guess. I base my guess on the fact of distance being 320 kilometres between Demchok to Doulat Beg Oldi (p.10 Dragon at our Doorstep Pravin Sawhney/Gazallah Wahab). Add to this the length of Shaksgam side of Saichin Glacier in the north; and the length of LAC from Demchok moving south-westerly via Chumar to the north-eastern corner of Himachal Pradesh.

China also has differences with neighbours over maritime issues. Here the US comes into the picture again.

The US is still very powerful militarily. In theory, it has a stranglehold on Chinese trade and commerce that passes through Malacca Strait, a narrow sea lane situated between Malaysia and Singapore on one side and Indonesia on the other side. The US would count on support from its close allies, Australia, Japan, and India, should such a doomsday scenario become a reality.

Independent India is a young country compared to decadent Japan, Australia and the US. It has a potential to grow like China. There was a time when India (with Pakistan and Bangladesh being part of it then) ruled by Mughals produced 25% of world GDP – and China those days produced 50%. China is growing. India is lagging economically – (with Bangladesh and Pakistan nowhere in the picture economically). India cannot achieve its real potential unless it frees itself of its vicious disputes with neighbours, who look upon India as a regional bully and its ambassadors as arrogant viceroys (Dr. Happymon Jacob Greater Kashmir October 4, 2015).

India has its own misplaced notions and ambitions that prompt it to distort historical facts. Even if India were to decide to change its attitude, the US would instigate it against China – US is inimical to CPEC. India’s hostility with China is beneficial to the US in many ways. US and its allies sell weapons to India and thus enables international weapons manufacturers to earn money and provide employment to citizens of their countries. This results in unemployment and poverty in India. These weapons embolden India to make maximalist claims on border issue with China.

China views India as pivot in the US’s grand strategy to contain China’s rise (p.163 Dragon at our Doorstep Pravin Sawhney/Ghazala Wahab). Should India acquiesce to play the role of pivot against China, the latter would attempt to cut India to the status of an insignificant power in South Asia, even below in rank to Pakistan. Pakistan is the pivot of China’s OBOR dream project which is premised on peace because trade and commerce demand peace. Indian pivot to the US’s containment of China strategy is a zero-sum game which is premised on war games – war games between China and India.

India would have to fight its own wars. The US will not come to fight its wars – remember 7-Fleet-India-Pakistan-Bangladesh-War-1971. India must rise militarily on its own feet rather than rely on academic containment exercises against China like the Quad (short for quadrilateral, having four sides – in this case India, the US, Japan and Australia). Even if the Quad were formalized into a treaty organization like the NATO, India would have to alone fight its war with China.

India would like to have 1865-Johnson boundary in the north (Ladakh) and the so-called McMahon Line in the north-east. McMahon Line is an invention of 1930s by Olaf Caroe, a British imperialist functionary (who became Governor of NWFP in 1946 and had to be transferred on the demand of Pandit Nehru just before India-Pakistan referendum in the province in 1947 because the latter apprehended that he would rig the vote in favour of Muslim League). There is no such thing as McMahon Line. It is 1914-Red Line. Even Red Line has no validity in international law. Nor has Johnson Line any validity. Here we must stop and go into history of relevant boundary lines to understand the issues better.

Often, we hear of a traditional boundary south of Pongong Tso (Tso signifies lake) in Ladakh. This traditional boundary could be located (for academic purposes) with the help of Ghulam Rasool Galwan: “Now we travelled three days. From that place was one march to Shushul, is the border of Ladakh (p.183 Servant of Sahibs)”. But this “traditional boundary” of Ladakh was not acceptable to Tibet and China. The 1842-Treaty between Gulab Singh’s Jammu (Jammu was part of Lahore Sikh State) forces and Tibetan (Tibet was under the suzerainty of China) forces was not a boundary treaty. It was a treaty of friendship and peace (p. 234 Gulabnama Kripa Ram). If there had been what is called an international boundary, there would not be a need to appoint boundary commissions. This the British did post-March-1846 Treaty of Amritsar which created Gulab Singh’s Kashmir State (also known since ending 1930s as Jammu and Kashmir State) as part of British empire. They appointed a Boundary Commission in June 1846 when Gulab Singh had not even occupied Kashmir Valley given the resistance put forth by the de facto Sikhashahi Governor, Sheikh Imamuddin.

The British invited the Chinese to take part in the identification of the Ladakh-Tibet frontier. Chinese ignored the invitation (pp.24-25 History and Diplomacy India-China Boundary Problem A. G. Noorani). Those days the European powers – Foreign Devils as the Chinese called them – treated China as a football to be kicked at will. So, China avoided them lest it might get trapped into unequal agreements.

The British appointed another Boundary Commission in 1847 and then another in 1867. So, the boundary that the British called traditional boundary in Ladakh was a unilateral exercise never acknowledged by Tibet and China as genuine.

North of Pongong Tso there was never any boundary. In 1864 the ruler of Kashmir State, Maharaja Ranbir Singh, taking advantage of civil war in Eastern Turkistan, sent his forces across Karakoram range in Ladakh to the southern base of Kunlun mountain range where they occupied Shahidullah (Xaidulla). They established a fort on the left bank of Karakash river (p.322 The Great Game Peter Hopkirk; p.22-23 Kashmir A Disputed Legacy Alastair Lamb; p.203 Maharaja Ranbir Singh S. S. Charak). In 1865 a British surveyor, W. H. Johnson, produced the first ever map of the region. He drew a line that extended the frontiers of Kashmir State (beyond Karakoram range) up to Kunlun mountain range thereby showing Aksai Chin, Shaksgam Valley, Raskam Valley, and Shimshall Valley, as parts of Kashmir State. He was censured by the British Government of India. Meantime, Kashmir State forces withdrew under British pressure from Shahidullah and East Turkistan troops led by Yaqub Beg demolished the Shahidullah fort (p.89 Cashmere Misgovernment Robert Thorp). Johnson Line was a unilateral exercise which had (and has) no validity in international law as a boundary.

A boundary is set up with the concurrence of two parties. Unilateral lines are no more than claim lines.

In 1892 the Chinese erected a boundary pillar with a sign board on Karakoram Pass above Daulat Beg Oldi; the sign board declared in Turkish and Khitai (Chinese) that the pillar was under the sway of Emperor of China (p.78 History and Diplomacy India-China Boundary Problem A. G. Noorani). Again, since this was a unilateral exercise on part of China, undertaken without taking Kashmir State and British Empire on board, the boundary pillar had no validity in international law.

Meanwhile, the British felt that the hold of Chinese was weak in Eastern Turkistan, what was since 1884 called Sinkiang (Xinxiang). Russain agent, Petrovsky, exercised immense influence there while as George Macartney, British Consul, was not even recognized as Consul. So, the British wanted the Chinese to bring entire trans-Karakoram range under their firm control. Pursuant to this wish, they, through Claud Macdonald, the British Ambassador to Peking (now Beijing), offered in March 1899 a boundary line, better remembered as Claud Macdonald Line, to the Chinese which ran along the Karakoram watershed (P.113-115 History and Diplomacy India-China Boundary Problem A. G. Noorani). This put Aksai Chin no-man’s land inside Sinkiang. Since the Chinese neither accepted nor rejected the Line, it remained a unilateral British exercise, hence not valid internationally.

The way the British feared extension of Russian influence in Sinkiang, they also feared in a similar way about Tibet. They invaded Tibet in 1904 to end the machinations of the Russian agent Agvan Dorjiev who had brought the 13th Dalai Lama, ruler of Tibet, under his influence. In 1913 they called a conference at Simla and invited Tibet and China to join. China, that had recently become a republic, did not want to join. The British threatened them that they would withhold recognition to republican China if they did not fall in line. So, China nominated their representative (Ivan Chen) for the Conference and the British extended recognition to their republic. The Simla Conference lasted months and was presided by Arthur Henry McMahon. McMahon drew, in 1914, two lines: one, Blue, inside Tibet; and one, Red, around Tibet, dividing it into Outer and Inner Tibet. The Red Line started from north-eastern corner of Bhutan and went east to Burma. Thence it rose northward and then circled around whole of Tibet going west ending at Kunlun mountain range (p.p.196-200 McMahan Line Gen. J. J. Singh). This put Aksai Chin inside Tibet. The Conference failed. Hence the 1914-Red Line had no international validity.

Meanwhile, the Simla Conference and the Red Line were forgotten under the shadow of the Great War, 1914-19. In 1930s, Olaf Caroe, Deputy Secretary, Indian Foreign Department, resurrected part of the Red Line from Bhutan to Burma and called it McMahon Line. He indulged in what was thenceforth called “cooking the books”. He got 14th volume of 1929-edition of Aitchinson’s Treaties (Collection of Engagements, Treaties, and Sanads) reprinted in 1939 and included the so-called Simla Convention 1914 in it which the original 1929-edition did not contain. But this new volume still bore the date 1929. He then made arrangements to replace the original volume 14 of Aitchinsons’ Treaties with the fudged one in the various libraries of Britain including those of the House of Commons and the House of Lords (pp.73-74 Kashmir A Disuted Legacy Alastair Lamb; p.199 History and Diplomacy India-China Boundary Problem A G. Noorani).

This kind of “cooking of books” was repeated by V. P. Menon, independent India’s States Secretary, in 1947 in connection with Instrument of Accession of Jammu and Kashmir State.

A Convention is a treaty. Treaty had not happened in 1914. So, the map drawn by Arthur Henry McMahon could at best be called Simla Conference Map rather than Simla Convention Map.

Despite “cooking of books” the maps printed by the British showed India-Tibet/China boundary line as “undefined”. This practice continued right up to 1954. (Tibet was de facto a free country from 1913 but the British, or any other country, did not recognize it as a de jure independent country; on the contrary they recognized China’s supremacy over Tibet).

There are “experts” who maintain that Tibet’s representative, Lonchen Chatra Paljor Dorje, had accepted the so-called McMahon Line in 1914 and ceded what they called “South Tibet” to British India. If this line of argument be taken as correct, then the Tibetans should have wound up their administration of what they called South Tibet – (Tawang and thereabouts; this area had been incorporated into Tibet in 1640s in the time of the Great Fifth Dalai Lama with Mongol/Chinese help; and in 1914 Tibet was not a de jure independent state to enter into a treaty arrangement).

Tibetans did not cede South Tibet in 1914. They continued to administer it right up to February 1951 when Major R. Khating of Assam Rifles launched an invasion and evicted them from that place (p.330 Dragon at our Doorstep). Again, if they had accepted the so-called McMahon Line, then in 1947 they should have welcomed India’s independence. They did no such thing. Rather they demanded from India in October that year the return of their lost territories Ladakh, Sikkim, Bhutan, Sayul, Walong, Pemakoe, Lonag, Lapa, Mon, and Darjeeling (p. 109 The Great Game in the Buddhuist Himalayas Phuchok Stobdan; pp.53-54 My Years with Nehru The Chinese Betrayal B.N. Mullik). Thereby they proved that they did not cherish Independent India as a neighbour. So much about their acceptance of the so-called McMahan Line.

In 1954 Prime Minister Nehru issued orders for burning the maps that showed India-China (China had re-entered Tibet in 1950) boundary line as “undefined”. Henceforth, India printed maps showing well-defined boundary instead. These showed “South Tibet” in the north-east called North East Frontier Agency (NEFA) on Indian side and Aksai Chin in the north (Ladakh) as Indian territory. It was a time when China was constructing a highway through Aksai Chin connecting Tibet with Kashgar via Haji Langar and Shahidullah along Karakash river.

As against Pandit Nehru’s unilateral tinkering with maps, China printed maps showing Aksai Chin, NEFA (South Tibet) and other disputed areas along the boundary line as Chinese territory. These were unilateral exercises which only increased suspicions (despite 1954 Panchsheel Agreement of friendship) between the two countries which led to India’s Forward Policy in 1958, India’s welcoming of Dalai Lama and his flock in March 1959, Chinese Claim Line in 1959 and Chinese invasion of India in 1962.

No Line claimed by China or India has any international validity. Even the 1963-China-Pakistan-Boundary-Line between Gilgit-Baltistan and Sinkiang (running along 1899-Claud Macdonald Line) is only a provisional line subject to final resolution of Kashmir dispute because Gilgit-Baltistan is part of the overall Kashmir dispute rather than integral part of Pakistan. CPEC runs through this disputed territory of Kashmir State. The Kashmir dispute and LAC dispute are inter-related in Kashmir State. Before proceeding with Kashmir dispute, one positive thing about China and one more point about boundary lines.

In March 1890 the Sikkim-Tibet border, about 200 kilometers long, was delineated by China and the British, the respective suzerain powers of Sikkim and Tibet through Anglo-Chinese Convention signed at Calcutta (p.22 The McMahan Line Gen. J. J. Singh). This is the only line that has an international standing.

The positive thing about China is that it proposed a “package deal” in 1959 (Chao En-lai Package Deal). China was prepared to concede “South Tibet” to India and in return expected India to concede Aksai Chin to China. If India had accepted the “Package Deal” the boundary line in eastern Ladakh would run along Karakoram range with China retaining Karakash valley from the source of Karakash river on the far side of Karakoram range; and, Galawan River Valley from the river’s very source on this side Karakoram range would be Ladakh territory.

India did not even consider the Chao En-lai proposal. India again rejected it when Deng Xiaoping offered it in 1980. India wanted both Aksai Chin and NEFA – what is called “chit bhi meri, pat bhi meri – heads I win, tails you lose”.

This “heads I win, tails you lose” policy resulted in China grabbing in 2020 the entire Galawan Valley right up to Galawan estuary where the river empties its contents into the Shyok river. Plus, China claims more territories in Ladakh and in “South Tibet” – former NEFA now Arunachal Pradesh.

The reasons for India not considering the “Package Deal” offered by China could be that a boundary line would have to be negotiated and a treaty signed to give it international status; but, according to my guess, India feared it might have to accept Kashmir State as a disputed territory in the boundary treaty with China. This would be a negative point in the treaty viewed from Indian perspective. But this treaty would have a positive side also in addition to ending the boundary dispute. That is, that the Mao Tse-Tung’s “Palm and Fingers” theory would be buried underground. It was contended, especially by Tibetan exiles to frighten India, that Mao considered Tibet as the palm of China’s hand and Ladakh, Nepal, Sikkim, Bhutan, and NEFA (“South Tibet”) as its fingers; and that it was China’s responsibility to liberate these territories.

Taking the story of boundary lines a little forward, in November 2019 India, after unilaterally merging J&K State and simultaneously splitting it into two Union Territories, published maps of UT of J&K and UT of Ladakh, showing Gilgit-Baltistan in the west and Aksai Chin in the east as parts of the latter ( UT of Ladakh); and Pakistan occupied Kashmir (POK)/Pakistan administered Kashmir (PaK) as part of the former (UT of J&K). Pakistan reacted in 2020 with a map of its own showing the entire former Princely State of J&K as part of Pakistan while leaving Ladakh’s eastern border undefined leaving thereby the door open for the Dragon to make military excursions across LAC; and also erasing the Line of Control with Indian-administered parts of the State.

Already India’s unilateral merger of J&K State and its dismemberment into two UTs had violated 1972-Simla Agreement to the extent of making LoC untenable, because LoC was a result of Simla Agreement that laid down maintenance of status quo till the resolution of Kashmir issue (Ladakh Standoff, Kashmir, and the Ghost of August 5 Dr. Happymon Jacob).

Recently (October 2020 when I was in the process of writing this paper) Prime Minister Imran Khan of Pakistan announced that his government would merge Gilgit-Baltistan as a Provisional Province. It seems Pakistan is trying to make the most of India’s merger, in August 2019, of J&K State with the Union.

For many years now Pakistan was under Chinese pressure to merge GB as a Province of Pakistan because China did not want CPEC to pass through disputed territory. So, ending 2015 Nawaz Sharif-led Government of Pakistan had made up its mind to merge GB. When I got wind of the affair, I, in the capacity of a State Subject/Citizen of J&K State, wrote a mail to President Mamnoon Hussain of Pakistan demanding therein to hold a regional plebiscite in GB before effecting its merger with Pakistan. Being a commoner, my mail would have been thrown into the dustbin. But it was published in Kashmir Reader on January 11, 2016 (under the title An Open Letter to His Excellency the President of Islamic Republic of Pakistan) and in Rising Kashmir on January 12, 2016 (under the title Gilgit-Baltistan Conundrum). Publication of my mail constrained Kashmiri “separatists” to issue, for formality sake, statements against Pakistan’s proposed merger of GB. Resultantly, GB became a hot issue then.

For now (2020), should Prime Minister Imran Khan-led Government of Pakistan merge GB as a Province, provisionally or permanently, it would be same as the unilateral exercise perpetrated by India on August 5, 2019 which Pakistan has been denouncing since then as illegal.

Going back to publication of new Kashmir maps by Pakistan in 2020 and by India in 2019, it must be made clear that such maps have no validity in international law because both are unilateral exercises.

Now, before moving to Kashmir story, let us first go back to Malacca sea lane. China’s sea-borne traffic with immense merchandise passes through this sea lane. And China has fears, because of the US, that it might be blocked which would put China to huge losses and lead to war. So, China sought alternatives. One alternative is the CPEC which connects Arabian Sea with Kashgar. Kashgar is further connected with Tibet via Aksai Chin Highway that moves round Ladakh close to the border with India. The other alternative that China intends to construct is the Kra Canal or Thai Canal. This Canal is intended to be constructed across Southern Thailand’s Kra isthmus (isthmus, (opposite of strait), is a narrow land strip surrounded on either side by two seas – in this case Andaman Sea in the Indian Ocean and the Gulf of Thailand in the South China Sea in the Pacific Ocean). The Kra Canal would be 128 km long, 450 metres wide, and 25 metres deep. It will save China’s ships 1200 km by avoiding Malacca Strait (China’s Malacca Dilemma Tilak Devasher).

But there is a hitch. If the canal is constructed, it will physically separate southern Thailand from the mainland. This part of Thailand, called Patani, was annexed by Thailand in 1902. It is infested with Malay Muslim separatism, and Muslim-Buddhist communal contention. Another reason why Thailand hesitates to let China construct this canal is the intense propaganda unleashed against China, that Chinese investments are a device to trap smaller countries in debt. This propaganda is currently also in the air about Pakistan being trapped by China in a debt trap through CPEC. Pakistan has spurned this propaganda and proceeded further with CPEC with gusto. Consequently, CPEC is blooming. CPEC will enable China to send bulk of its merchandise via Gawadar instead of Malacca Strait. Gwadar is going to be the hub of world’s commercial activities as China is the largest trader in the world. CPEC is a reality as compared to Kra Canal which exists only in the realms of possibility. Even so, Kra Canal cannot compete with CPEC in terms of reducing shipping distance and travel time.

CPEC is a thorn in the side of the US. The latter would like to sabotage CPEC. The 2020-boundary faceoff between China and India (a direct consequence of India’s tinkering with status quo in J&K State in August 2019 and publication by it of new maps of UTs of J&K and Ladakh followed by its bluff and bluster that it would liberate all territories of the State illegally occupied by China and Pakistan) has provided the US with an opportunity to repeat its geostrategic policy of stoking conflicts. Without burning its own skin, it would like to pitch India (Elephant) against China (Dragon). If that happens, Pakistan might not be able to escape unscathed – the US will not allow it to escape unscathed in that case. The net result would be consumption of all the three neighbours – Pakistan, China and India. The Chinese might like to pitch Pakistan against India while supporting them with war material to enable them to sustain a long war against India. Normally India and Pakistan cannot fight a conventional war for more than ten to fifteen days. Their economies cannot sustain a two-week war. But with Chinese and US support they might destroy each other. Consumption of Pakistan would signify destruction of CPEC and OBOR. It would be a massive defeat for China.

China’s stated policy is to fight in self-defence. CPEC is the flagship and standard bearer of OBOR. OBOR is the soul of China’s grand strategy called China Dream. If OBOR/CPEC is threatened, China cannot not afford to remain a by-stander in a Pakistan-India war. All in all, the only country that will emerge victorious in the long run would be the US. Its numero uno global status would be ensured – at the cost of consumption of India, Pakistan and China.

This without the use of nukes. If nukes are used, then all grand strategies would melt along with all countries and their peoples.

Let us now take the “head I win, tails you lose” attitude of Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru into account vis-à-vis Kashmir. On May 11, 1947 he (Pandit Nehru) was the only Indian functionary who attended Viceroy’s top-secret Staff Meeting in the capacity of Chairman (Prime Minister) of Viceroy’s Executive Council in which meeting Viceroy Mountbatten suggested that Gurdaspur district, despite its slight Muslim majority, should be awarded to East Punjab to give road access to future independent India to Kashmir State. It was a time when the Partition of British India had not been formally decided. When Deputy Secretary Ian Scott vehemently opposed the suggestion, the Viceroy said that he would get Gurdaspur awarded to East Punjab/independent India with the help of Punjab Boundary Commission (pp. 759-60 Transfer of Power Vol. X).

In June 1947 Viceroy Mountbatten visited Srinagar, and on behalf of M. K. Gandhi and Pandit Nehru, warned the Kashmir State’s ruler, Maharaja Hari Singh, not to declare independence (p.120 Mission with Mountbatten Alan Campbell-Johnson).

In the first week of August 1947, M.K. Gandhi visited Srinagar for a couple of days. No sooner did he leave the State, Maharaja Hari Singh dismissed and put under house arrest his Kashmiri Pandit Prime Minister, by name Rai Bahadur Rama Chandra Kak. Pandit Kak was neither for India nor for Pakistan. Also, the Maharaja imported Prime Ministers and Deputy Prime Ministers from India.

On August 15, 1947, Jammu and Kashmir State became an independent country with the expiry of 1846-Treaty of Amritsar. As a matter of course the title of Maharaja Hari Singh to rule over Kashmir State should also have expired because his dynasty enjoyed British-delegated authority on the State under British protection. This did not happen. He continued to rule because he had a well-equipped and experienced 13000-strong army.

Instead of allowing the people of Jammu and Kashmir State, who were described as State Subjects, to decide their own future, he desisted from taking any decision. He preferred to wait for a pretext to accede the State to India. India had no excuse to enter Kashmir State. India wanted an excuse. In September 1947 India got its chance. Pandit Nehru received intelligence reports that Pakistan ruling party, the Muslim League, had plans to send Tribesmen into Kashmir by ending October. Instead of taking steps to avert Tribal invasion of Kashmir, he wrote on September 27, 1947, to Home Minister Sardar Patel to be ready to take Kashmir under the pretext of saving it from Tribesmen (p.49 Sardar Patel’s Correspondence Vol. I).

Thus Pakistan furnished an excuse to both India and the Maharaja by allowing, on October 22, 1947, the communally surcharged Tribesmen to enter Kashmir under the excuse of genocide of Muslims in Jammu division of Kashmir State. Pakistan should either have left Kashmiris to the wolves or waged open war against the State. Using non-state actors resulted in unleashing rape and rapine in Muzaffarabad and wastage of precious time. The tribesmen preferred spending time in wholesale killing and abduction of non-Muslim women. They killed Hindus and Sikhs in hundreds and kidnapped about 200 non-Muslim women (pp.893-98 Kashmiris Fight for Freedom Muhammad Yusuf Saraf). With the result they arrived Baramulla belatedly on October 26 still about 60 km short of summer capital Srinagar. On October 27, 1947, Indian Army landed in Srinagar. India claimed to have procured accession from the Maharaja one day previously, i.e., on October 26. This claim falls under the category of “Cooking of Books”.

Either Maharaja Hari Singh could tell when he signed the Instrument of Accession. Or, the India’s States Secretary V. P. Menon, whose job it was to procure signatures from various Princes on such instruments, could tell when the Maharaja signed the document of accession. V. P. Menon wrote in his book The Integration of the Indian States that he visited winter capital Jammu on the afternoon of October 26, accompanied by J&K State’s Prime Minister, Mehr Chand Mahajan, and procured the signatures of the Maharaja. Mehr Chand Mahajan writes in his book Looking Back that they did not visit winter capital Jammu on October 26. So, when did the Maharaja sign? Mehr Chand Mahajan writes that J&K’s Deputy Prime Minister, Ram Lal Batra, flew to Delhi on October 24 taking along a letter of accession. Then in the same book, he writes that the Maharaja signed the Instrument of Accession on October 25. So, we have three accessions (BJP’s Accession Festival has no uniform date December 25, 2015 Kashmir Reader).

Actually, Mehr Chand Mahajan, and V. P. Menon; and Sheikh Abdullah and D. N. Kachroo of All-India States Peoples Conference; and Willian Cranston of British High Commission, visited Jammu on the morning of October 27 (p.91 Birth of a Tragedy Alastair Lamb; Rival Versions of History Prem Shankar Jha). And now the reader may himself make a guess about the Instrument of Accession’s signature date. Pakistan refused to acknowledge the Accession as valid.

A couple of days later, Maharaja Hari Singh appointed Sheikh Abdullah and a host of renegades as Emergency Administrators of J&K State. Ending 1947 Prime Minister Pandit Nehru took Kashmir to the UN. Why? Because he wanted to get Pakistan condemned as an aggressor and in the meantime settle some other issues like Junagarh and Hyderabad according to the principle of “Heads I win, tails you lose”.

At the UN India proposed plebiscite for Kashmir. This was strange. Over 80% Muslim majority J&K State would vote for joining Pakistan. He knew this fact. Either he shouldn’t have entered Kashmir, or he should not have talked of plebiscite.

The UN Commission for India and Pakistan (UNCIP) through its second Resolution dated January 5, 1949, decided, among other things, that there would be a plebiscite conducted under the aegis of the UN; for this purpose the UN Secretary General would nominate a Plebiscite Administrator; and the Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir would then appoint the PA-nominate as PA with full powers; PA would keep Pakistan administered parts of J&K State under surveillance as to oversee the work of Local Authorities, etc.; Pakistan would withdraw all its forces, regular or otherwise, from J&K State territory; and after Pakistani withdrawal of all forces, India would withdraw bulk of its forces from J&K State; and so on and so forth.

The matter stuck when Maharaja Hari Singh failed to appoint UN-nominated Chester Willian Nimitz of USA as PA with full powers.

Why did not the Maharaja appoint the PA with full powers? Because he thought realistically what India and Pakistan had failed to do. J&K State was a Muslim majority State. Yet there were non-Muslim majority districts. For example, Leh in Ladakh had a Buddhist majority; and a couple of districts in Jammu Tawi division had Hindu majorities. Pakistan had no moral right to annex them based on a majoritarian vote.

Plebiscite would not have resolved Kashmir Dispute. On the contrary it would have created two new disputes – in Leh and Jammu Tawi.

For such reasons Maharaja Hari had started talking in terms of zonal plebiscites to save non-Muslim majority Jammu from going into the lap of Pakistan. But Since Prime Minister Pandit Nehru never intended to allow any plebiscite, zonal or unitary, he informed Home Minister Sardar Patel about the Maharaja’s demands of zonal plebiscite and about Sheikh Abdullah’s opposition to any kind of plebiscite (p.262 Sardar Patel’s Correspondence Vol. I). The latter was a harsh opponent of the notion of plebiscite because that would bring about the dead end of his political career. Pandit Nehru also suggested to Sardar Patel that the best way to avoid plebiscite would be to send the Maharaja outside the J&K State. This was duly done in June 1949. It was in this missive that Pandit Nehru wrote to Sardar Patel: “The prize we are fighting is the Valley of Kashmir”.

Pandit Nehru did not want to give up Kashmir Valley – the Maharaja was prepared to do that. So, the plebiscite did not happen, notwithstanding India’s propaganda line that it did not happen because Pakistan did not withdraw forces from J&K State territory.

The latter became PoK (Pakistan occupied Kashmir) for India, Azad (Free) Kashmir for Pakistan, and PaK (Pakistan administered Kashmir) for the UN. Rest of the State came to be called J&K on Indian side, Indian occupied Kashmir on Pakistan side, and Indian administered Kashmir for the UN.

Irrespective of whether or not the Maharaja had the right to decide accession of J&K State after the expiry of 1846-Treaty of Amritsar, J&K State did not become part of India by Maharaja’s signing the Instrument of Accession with it. It became a protectorate at the most. By procuring accession of J&K State, India obtained authority on Central subjects of Defence, Foreign Affairs and Communications. J&K State continued to be a separate State as it had been during the British Raj with the British enjoying paramountcy/supremacy/suzerainty over it.

J&K State became territory of Union of Indian ending 1949 through Article 370 of the Constitution of India whose Clause (1) sub-clause (c) applied Article 1 of the Constitution of India that dealt with territory of India: “The provisions of Article 1 and of this Article shall apply in relation to that State”. This was a purely temporary and transitional measure because Paragraph 3 laid down that Article 370 could be abrogated with exceptions (i.e. with the exception of Article 1) or in toto (i.e. along with Article 1) at the recommendation of future Constituent Assembly of J&K, to be convened in future.

Kashmiri demagogues of the time were concerned with personal aggrandizement. They knew what Article 370 was all about because it had been promulgated during summer of 1949 in consultations with them. Yet they never educated the J&K State people about it.

Here it suffices to mention that the Constituent Assembly of J&K convened in 1951 through a fraudulent election, wasted time imposing National Conference (NC, the ruling party whose general council had been turned into Constituent Assembly through election fraud) party flag on J&K and replacing monarchy by republicanism, instituting the position of native elective Sadar-i-Riyasat (President of the State) in place of the position of Maharaja. A fooling tactic of ruling NC was to project the idea of “republic of Kashmir within republic of India”; another fooling tactic was “Abolition of Dynastic Rule”. By the way the first native elective Sadar-i-Riyasat was a dynast of the first order. He was son of the Maharaja. And the State Flag was National Conference party flag.

The job of the Constituent Assembly was to decide on abrogation of Article 370 by 1956 when its five-year term would end. Instead they played court intrigues against one another.

The Constituent Assembly left the Article 370 un-abrogated. Instead they applied more of the Constitution of India to Jammu and Kashmir State via Indian Presidential Order called the Constitution (Application to Jammu and Kashmir) Order, 1954, (CO54), and then promulgated in 1956 a separate and subordinate Constitution for J&K. This Constitution had 147 Sections. Section 147 was un-amendable (in addition to two other Sections). This Section demanded continued existence of the position of Sadar-i-Riyasat. Even so, the position of Sadar-i-Riyasat was replaced by Governor who would be a nominee of the President of India.

Fast forward half a century, during which time the same people who had boasted of setting up a “republic within republic” and of securing legislative autonomy for Kashmir State, eroded that autonomy progressively through half a century of Constitution Amendment Orders – the latest was issued in 2017 by Miss Mehbooba-led Peoples Democratic Party-Bharatiya Janata Party (PDP-BJP) coalition government duly supported by pro-plebiscite leader Syed Ali Shah Geelani. Next year (2018) PDP-BJP coalition government was prematurely dismissed by Governor S. P. Malik.

On August 5 and 6, 2019, the BJP-led Government of India unilaterally abrogated provisions of Article 370 (and CO54). This resulted in J&K provincial Constitution becoming irrelevant. Remember, whereas they abrogated CO54 out of existence, they did not abrogate Article 370 out of existence. They only changed its content. It exits even now in a changed form: “370. All provisions of this Constitution, as amended from time to time, without any modifications or exceptions, shall apply to the State of Jammu and Kashmir notwithstanding anything contrary contained in Article 152 or Article 308 or any other Article of this Constitution or any other provision of the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir or any law, document, judgment, ordinance, order, by-law, rule, regulation, notification, custom or usage having the force of law in the territory of India, or any other instrument, treaty or agreement as envisaged under Article 363 or otherwise".

The net result of this constitutional measure on part of Delhi administration was that prior to August 5, 2019, the provisions of the Constitution of India applied to J&K State with exceptions and modifications spelt out in CO54. For example, Article 3 of the Constitution of India gave Parliament of India the authority to dismember a province (called State in India). This Article applied to Jammu and Kashmir State with a modification in light of CO54, i.e., that the Parliament would need J&K Assembly’s prior concurrence to such a measure. Since this rider no longer remained post-August-5-2019-abrogation of CO54, they simultaneously bifurcated Jammu and Kashmir State into two Union Territories (UTs) without asking for State Assembly’s concurrence (which anyway did not exist, the State being under Governor’s rule).

BJP Government of India came under a salvo of criticism for taking such a unilateral and harsh step. Yet to be fair to BJP, it needs to be mentioned that BJP had forewarned Kashmiris on scores of occasions that they meant to abrogate the special position that J&K State enjoyed. Yet the people of J&K State in general and “separatist” politicians in particular failed to think out a strategy and take any pre-emptive measures.

Changing or modifying strategies entails continuous thinking. It is a very tiring exercise and yet there are no guarantees that the new strategy would yield fruit. Yet political development demands that such exercises should be done regularly. Otherwise pollical decay sets in.

I met JKLF Chairman Mohammad Yasin Malik at his Bund Office ending 2017 (the year I wrote India-Kashmir Constitutional Relationship – Article 370) and tried my best to make him understand that in-toto abrogation of Article 370 (i.e. including Article 1) would mean, in theory, the end of India-Kashmir Constitutional relationship; and abrogation of Article 370 with the exception of Article 1 would signify continued application of Article 1 (territory of India) to J&K State directly and its consequent merger with India. I suggested him election participation on the platform of abrogation of Article 370; and that the State Subjects should be allowed to decide whether the Legislative Assembly should recommend abrogation of Article 370 in toto or with the exception of Article 1. I gave him copy of my book with a request to consider abrogation of Article 370 and election participation. He patiently listened and did not utter a single word.

Also, I wrote columns on the subject which were published in newspapers. Nobody took cognizance.

So, I take the opportunity to emphatically state here that the State Subjects cannot excuse themselves that no one showed them how to try to pre-empt the BJP’s abrogation strategy.

I don’t know what Mohammad Yasin did with my book and my suggestions. But I was disappointed when he called for boycott of local bodies elections in 2018. I was the more disappointed when Lethpora (Pulwama) car bomb explosion happened in February 2019. The result of these two actions, in my opinion, was prompting the premature tinkering with Article 370 in August 2019 by the BJP Government of India.

The State Subjects accepted “mainstream” interpretation of Article 370. Right up to 2017 the “mainstream” politicians maintained that abrogation of Article 370 would take India-Kashmir Constitutional relationship back to the Instrument of Accession. I challenged this interpretation in my column Abrogation of Article 370 (April 10, 2017 Pakistan Today). Then I wrote India-Kashmir Constitutional Relationship – Article 370 through which book I highlighted my interpretation of Abrogation of Article 370; and also suggested election participation. Sometime that year, the “mainstream” changed their stance. Now they started saying that abrogation of Article 370 would bring about a break in India-Kashmir Constitutional Relationship. It was a wrong interpretation. I again spelt out my interpretation of Article 370 in 2018 and suggested election participation. This was published in Rising Kashmir on December 30, 2018, under the title If Article 370 is abrogated? and in Pakistan Today under the title Alternate Ways of Self-determination). I challenged Miss Mehbooba Mufti’s interpretation of abrogation of Article 370 as late as April 2019 through my write up Why I voted; but voted NOTA ( Kashmir Times) in which I wrote that if Article 370 were abrogated with the exception of Article 1, Kashmir would get merged with the Union of India.

In sum, the role of both “mainstream” and “separatist” camps, although different, worked for BJP, especially the rejectionist hartal, chalo, election boycott philosophy of “separatists”. It brought political stagnation and decay to Kashmir. I warned Kashmiris through my write ups published in various newspapers that following politicians blindly, would one day bring them barbadi (destruction) rather than azadi (freedom). No body listened.

BJP Government abrogated Article 370 but not with the exception of Article 1. They abrogated its provisions with the exception of entire Clause 1 (whose sub-para (c) contained reference to Article 1, that dealt with territory of India) which resulted in Article 370 still being extant, which in turn resulted in Articles of Constitution of India still applying indirectly to J&K.

My thesis was that Article 370 should be abrogated out of existence, whether in toto or with the exception of Article 1 (territory of India) to be left to the people of the State to decide. I called my contention as “Alternate way of self-determination”. Election participation was a must according to my thesis.

Article 370 still exists. Now, What if this Article 370 is actually abrogated out of existence? Abrogated it will be. That is my conviction, if all goes well for BJP Government.

What should the people of J&K do now, now that Legislative Assembly elections are in the offing. Will it matter as to what happens on ground zero Kashmir in the face of geopolitics? It is important as to what shape the Great Game will take especially the part of it centered on and around Kashmir. Also, it is equally important as to what happens on ground zero Kashmir.

In Kashmir people are either transactional voters led by the clientelistic patronage driven politics of the “mainstream” politicians (they are called “mainsteam” for convenience sake as they take part in power politics through periodical elections, not because they are pro-India; their special characteristic is that when in power they describe Jammu and Kashmir as an integral part of India and a dispute when out of power; their political grandsire, Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah, was a harsh opponent of plebiscite when he was Chief Emergency Administrator/Prime Minister of J&K from November 1947 to August 1953; and patron of plebiscite slogan when out in the wilderness). Or they (Kashmiris) are rejectionists led by “separatist” politicians. The latter are/were called “separatist” because they rejected the Constitution of India; rejected elections; rejected dialogue; demanded at the same time secession of Jammu and Kashmir from India; and status quo-istic 4-Point Formula of President General Pervez Musharaf of Pakistan; simultaneously they demanded plebiscite and ispar-uspar-azadi, complete independence; accession to Pakistan; establishment of caliphate; and also brooked no interference with Article 370 of the Constitution of India and the Article 35A of CO54 without believing in those statutes; that would seem contradictory; that is what “separatism” actually was all about.

“Separatist” camp is now almost extinct. It seems rather difficult that they would be in a position to stage a comeback and resurrect rejectionist hartali street agitation. If they did, many Kashmiris would enjoy it for the sake of change from the stifling atmosphere unleashed by New Delhi administration in J&K since August 2019. “Separatists” don’t need votes, they need slogan raising clowns. The latter were never in short supply in Kashmir.

A slogan is a catchy and attractive phrase, empty of real substance, and therefore misleading.

In 1975 Kashmiris in their thousands raised the slogan “Rai shumari barekh dabas, Alweh babas Mubarak”. As a child I have seen thousands riding empty trucks passing before Astan Sharif Natipora adjacent to which shrine of the saint (peace be upon him) I lived then. They raised this slogan in so high a pitch that it seemed their sound waves would pierce the sky. What did this slogan mean? Sheikh Abdullah was popular those days as Alweh Bab (Father figure who advised eating home grown potatoes to cultivate self-respect rather than importing rice – rice, staple and favourite of Kashmiris, was imported from India; India was his adversary for having shunted him out of power in 1953). Through the above slogan they congratulated Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah for dumping plebiscite slogan. These were the same slogan raisers who had made hue and cry (and consequently suffered a lot at the hands of armed forces: Kashmir Police, Punjab Police, Indian Army) for 20 long years that a plebiscite should be conducted in J&K State under UN aegis at an earliest. Their slogan then used to be: “Raishumari forun karo”. Now in 1975 they were celebrating the dumping of the plebiscite slogan.

Problem with Kashmiris is that they waste time in empty slogan raising. This naturally results in their brain going into deep freeze and losing capability to think and act properly. In 1965 when the institution of Sadar-i-Riyasat was abolished unconstitutionally they wasted time slogan raising and social boycotting against what were called Sadiq-supporters who were Congressmen and Sadiq, G. M., was Prime Minister self-demoted Chief Minister. Had Kashmiris not wasted time raising empty slogan, they would have got time to think. Consequently, they would have challenged the unconstitutional abolition of the institution of Sadar-i-Riyasat in various courts of law and in the State Legislative Assembly. Instead they boycotted elections courtesy of Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah’s instructions. He was the patron of Plebiscite Front Movement during the time he was out of power equation. Pre-1947 he was the leader of what they called “freedom struggle”. If there had been no political struggle in Kashmir that was incepted in 1931, perhaps Kashmir’s political fate would have taken a better turn in 1947. In fact, Kashmiris have, in my opinion, wasted 90 years since 1931 in slogan raising. Slogan raising is an entertainment that leaves Kashmiris bereft of thinking power.

Taking the account of slogan raising forward, in June 1949 Kashmiris made merry that the Maharaja, apparently their tyrant, had been banished from the State. If they had been a thinking lot, they would have opposed his banishment. They would have demanded that he appoint Plebiscite Administrator. They did not such thing. It was these very slogan raising fellows who, post-August-1955, boycotted elections and demanded plebiscite: “Raishumari forun karo”.

Post-1975, these very people or their descendants participated in elections and raised the slogan: “Yinah Baba soun gatsih malalai, chai chenai vote karai hawalai” meaning that they would vote for Sheikh Abdullah before taking morning tea.

Simultaneously, they raised slogan: “Aleh kareh, Wangan kareh – Sheikh kareh Sheikh kareh” meaning that Sheikh Abdullah had their mandate to do with them what a vegetable vendor, or a chef, or a housewife did with vegetables like brinjal and lockey. And later day descendants of those people accuse Sheikh Abdullah of betraying them. He did what they asked him to do.

In 1947, National Conference, the largest political party of the State, vigorously supported Sheikh Abdullah in his quest for power. Sheikh Abdullah knew that he could not become ruler of an independent Kashmir nor of a Pakistani Kashmir. Therefore, he supported India in 1947. That was the only way he could become ruler. He fooled the world by saying that he had preferred M. K. Gandhi’s India to M.A. Jinnah’s Pakistan. It was a ruse. Post-1955 he became patron of plebiscite slogan against India. India was same India of M.K. Gandhi. So, what did he want in 1955? Political power. NC supported him vigorously, other supported him by not opposing him, by remaining silent.

Another example: In 2008 Kashmiris did ragda – a term which I fail to translate. Still I try to: could be translated to figuratively mean “extreme degree clownishness”. Ragda provided a mega dose of entertainment to entertainment starved Kashmiris. They raised slogans: Kon karega tarjumani, Syed Ali Geelani (Syed Ali Geelani would be our representative); Jo National ka yar hei, gadar hei, gadar hei (NC supporters are traitors). They raised similar slogans about PDP and Congress supporters. Couple of months later they voted for Congress, PDP, and NC, forgetting about Syed Ali Geelani whom they had declared as their representative and who had announced election boycott.

Now, the reader could pose a question: On what grounds did I maintain that same people described S. A. Geelani as their representative and then voted for the political parties whom they described as traitors? My answer would be that I have seen people myself sailing two boats at the same time. In 2008, during the famous Idgah March I saw a person sitting along with another person upon a gate pillar inside Idgah Maidan where I had gone to observe things for myself. The duo were making an announcement on a portable loudspeaker: Hartal jari, Ttsanderwar Lal Chowk chalo (general strike to continue; protest march (chalo) to Lal Chowk on Monday). Government imposed curfew to foil further protest demonstrations. After some time, when life returned to “normal” this same person wore a black band around his left arm in the office as mark of protest – this in compliance to “separatist” appeal. Meanwhile, the Government announced elections and an incentive of ten thousand rupees to an employee attending election duty additionally to what they would otherwise get. And lo, what happens, this same person volunteered for election duty along with others for the sake of rupees ten thousand. Majority of the people who did ragda that year were of this category.

After the election I asked a south Kashmiri as to why had he voted when he used to boast that he was a staunch supporter of Azadi (freedom). He answered that he was for election boycott, but when he saw NC supporters openly venturing out to vote he went to vote for PDP because he wanted to see the NC defeated. Only later it transpired that elements among boycott-wallas had secretly asked people to vote for PDP. Still later, I learnt other lessons. Those who joined funeral processions of slain militants in large numbers were also the first to fall in lines at polling booths to vote for “mainstreamers” in expectation of patronage.

Furthermore, during election time, crowds could be seen shouting “Mufti Sayeed aage badho, Ham tumhare saath hein”. They would be the same people who formerly raised slogans, “Hizbul Mujahidden aage badho, Ham tumhare saath hein”; “Lashkar-e-Toiba aage badho, Ham tumhare saath hein”.

One more example: On the election day when Srinagar went to polls in 2008, an anti-election demonstration was stage managed in the afternoon at Natipora to frighten PDP voters – NC supporters had cast their votes early in the morning, their principle being: “Yinah Baba soun gatsi malalai, Chai chenai vote karai hawalai”. Many protesters who participated in the demonstration at Natipora (their photograph was published by Greater Kashmir next day) had eaten salt continuously for previous ten days at the home of PDP candidate and had taken vigorous part in his election campaign - (they were the former ragda-wallas). Yet on the election day they staged a U-turn. By the way, this candidate was my childhood friend, next-door neighbor, and a very important member of our Dilsoz Football Club, on which platform we played together throughout our football lives. Yet I did not vote for him because that would mean endorsing PDP and the “mainstream” politics while as I considered voting for them to be a great dis-service to oneself and the State. We are still very good friends.

“Mainstreamers” need votes to get into the corridors of power. For this purpose, they need clients to mobilize voters in exchange for patronage – it might be a money payment, a promise of a works contract, a government job, and so on and so forth – mostly promises only, seldom delivered. “Mainstreamers” are adept at running clientelistic networks (Kashmir’s Clientelistic Insiders and Faction Running Outsiders December 15, 2018 Kashmir Times).

This is how clientelistic machine politics works: In countries like India and Pakistan programmatic political parties seldom exist. And voters are what are called transactional voters. They vote keeping their immediate self-interest in view. And political parties cater to such voters rather than pursue programmatic agendas. In such countries enterprising persons prefer politics as a career rather than professions (of lawyers, journalists, doctors, engineers, chartered accountants, etc.) or business to become rich and influential. They proceed to organize followers around some high-falutin idea/slogan. In this way a personal political party is born. However, such politically enterprising persons need to be charismatic persons endowed by nature with such capabilities as lying with ease, crowd pulling, and rabble rousing in the name of the idea. The idea is sometimes mixed with a religious tinge. The relationship thus established between party boss and his followers is one of patron and client. Such relationship is called “clientelism”. Since politicians must contest elections to come to power, they are required to dispense patronage to clients who in turn manage political campaigns to mobilize voters in exchange for individual benefits like cash payments, promises of jobs, contracts, etc. (pp.86-444 Political Order and Political Decay Francis Fukuyama).

Modern clientelism is akin to old time jagirdari (feudalism). Under jagirdari a similar patron-client relationship subsisted between a jagirdar (feudal lord) and kashtkar-gulam (serfs). It was the duty of the serfs to live, work, and die for the benefit of the feudal lord. Modern day political clients and common voters whom they mobilize on election day are serfs of political feudal lords for whose benefit it is their duty to live and die. Remember, how many clients of PDP and NC were killed in the past 30 years for the benefit of political dynasties.

Clientelism is primitive like feudalism because it encourages personalism. While as modern politics is expected to be impersonal. A political party is expected to belong to the general public not to a cult personality to be passed on as inheritance to their descendants. And voter preferences are supposed to reflect general views about what is good for the country and the people.

Generally speaking, the political philosophy of programmatic parties rests on delivering public services from national defence to internal order, rule of law, industrial infrastructure, re-distribution of resources from the rich to the poor, pollution free environment, health care, education, electricity, drinking water, roads, etc. However, in Kashmir a programmatic party should work, among other things, on two things first and foremost: i) abolition of patronage politics (i.e. execute political reform); and ii) taking the K-word to the Legislative Assembly (struggle for peaceful resolution of Kashmir dispute).

Impersonal programme-based politics is the final stage in the development of democracy. Clientelism is the early stage of democracy. Kashmir has yet to graduate from clientelism to modern democracy. One of the reasons for this failure is personalism and the other is election boycott philosophy.

Clientelism strengthens elites which results in the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer. Also, it serves as a haven of refuge for criminals. Clientelism results in large scale corruption. Politicians and their election campaign managing clients receive cuts (commission) from works contractors. They make laws in such a way as helps them to distribute state resources among themselves. Also, they capture and control every state institution especially judiciary and police. The latter work as arms of the political party in power rather than the guardians of law and order. The ruling political party captures the judiciary by appointing political workers as Standing Counsels, Advocate Generals and outright Judges.

Voters in clientelistic democracies often complain of corruption and lack of proper services although it is their vote that nourishes the system in the first place. They avoid blame by saying that they had voted for better roads, better supply of water and electricity (what they call sarak, pani, bijli) although they know that provision of these services is the routine function of governments in which field dictatorships perform better – compare non-democratic China with clientelistic India and Pakistan and see the gap in the provision of these services.

India is the largest clientelistic machine in the world. That is why corruption is endemic and people are poverty stricken. However, it is their own vote that sustains the system that seldom cares for their welfare. Many among them vote based on biradari (affilition based on caste, religion, or tribe, etc.).

One of the reasons why Kashmir dispute became vicious and defied resolution has been clientelistic politics of the “mainstream” who, when in power, described Kashmir as an integral part of India, and when out of power, stoked passions against India. The other reason for non-resolution of Kashmir Dispute is the extremism, rejectionism, maximalism, of the “separatists”.

Adopting maximalist (everything or nothing) stance, rejecting institutions, and extremism are shortcuts to become popular. Also, it fetches foreign money because foreign agencies adopt rejectionists as their own darlings. However, they don’t give money to enable these politicians to achieve their stated goals – which in case of Kashmir would be resolution. They give money to play their own Great Game. The net result of accepting foreign money is that it becomes easy to run personalized political factions, but it never helps achieve the stated goals. Just go into a flashback over the previous 90 years of Kashmir history and see for yourself. The first foreign agency to provide money to Kashmir politicians in 1931 itself was the Ahmadi hqs, Qadian,, Punjab, in the name of mulberry leaf jugglery – what in Kashmir is famous as “paneh vethran chui lekhith…it is written on the leaves of mulberry trees that …”; second was Congress Party of British India 1934-onward so as to get Muslim Conference butchered; third was the Punjabi Communists who wanted to turn State Subjects of J&K State into laboratory rats to experiment their ideology upon; fourth was Pakistan 1955-onward in the name of plebiscite slogan, and so on and so forth. What did Kashmiris achieve in these 90 years? Nothing.

Although politicians lose their independence of judgement by accepting foreign money because foreign funded signifies foreign dictated, yet they prefer being dictated because by and by they develop entrenched interest in the status quo. Foreign money feeds their extremism and maximalism. Maximalist stance soon becomes a hurdle and a deterrent when it comes to dialogue. Perforce they turn rejectionist when invited to dialogue for resolution of issues.

During the past three decades most of the unaccounted money came from India. India, admittedly, used to spend 106 crore rupees (one crore=10 million) annually on the weal and welfare of elements among “separatists” whom it (India) simultaneously described as Pakistani agents!

Also, India encouraged a particular sect of right-wingers in Kashmir to counter other sects (p.185 Dragon at our Doorstep Pravin Sawhney/Ghazala Wahab).

Let the inflow of foreign money into J&K stop, the worth of foreign-funded right-wingers and politicians will come out in real colour. Most of them will forget about politics and religion.

“Separatist” camp came into existence in Kashmir in 1988-89 when JKLF pioneered armed revolt in Kashmir. They also played with ideas to mobilize support.

JKLF gave the idea of azadi in the sense of complete independence of former Princely Jammu and Kashmir State. It was soon displaced by Hizbul Mujahideen. The latter played the already existing idea of accession of the State to Pakistan, and mixed with it, the idea of setting up an Islamic caliphate. There was a mushroom growth of “separatist” factions in early 1990s around these ideas.

Ending 1990s Mufti Sayeed set up Peoples Democratic Party. He played the idea of “healing touch” for wounded Kashmir, wounded by a decade of insurgency and counter insurgency. When out of power in 2008, he played the idea of Self-Rule Framework for Kashmir. After his death, the PDP passed on to his daughter, Miss Mehbooba Mufti, as paternal heritage.

Previously, Shiekh Mohammad Abdullah had played the ideas of Kashmir’s “separate identity” and “responsible government” to justify establishment of National Conference in 1939 in place of Muslim Conference perhaps because he could not personalize the latter. In 1944, when his former Congress paymasters were in jails for launching Quit India Movement against the British, he played the idea of “Naya (New) Kashmir” socialist constitutional monarchy with Maharaja Hari Singh as titular head of the State. In 1950s and 1960s he ran his political enterprise in the name of plebiscite. Post-1975 he revolved around the ideas of “preservation of special status” and “restoration of pre-1953 autonomy”.

As of now, October-November 2020, all mainstream political parties (minus one), collectively called Peoples Alliance for Gupkar Declaration (PAGD), have thrown the idea of “restoration of pre-August 5, 2019 position”.

In March 2020 Mohammad Altaf Bukhari set up Apni-Own Party. He played the idea of “restoration of statehood” to Jammu and Kashmir, implying that he had accepted the August-2019-unilateral constitutional measures of New Delhi administration and the separation of Ladakh from J&K State; or he would have preferred the demand of “restoration of J&K State ante-August-5-2019”.

The “separatist” camp has almost gone extinct, as stated earlier. Only militants are now fighting against Indian armed forces. The question is: “Would it be possible for 600 militants, who are not properly equipped or trained, to throw out the second largest army of the world from Kashmir, when 600,000 strong Pakistan army, that possess weapons ranging from the smallest kind to the biggest nuclear bombs, could not displace Indian Army from Kashmir. Then what is the purpose of their fighting? It seems to be this: Irrespective of whether their number is 600 or just 60, their presence has excused Indian Army to remain busy with counter insurgency operations. This is easier than fighting on the boundary. Fighting on the boundary means to face tanks and rockets and missiles. Fighting inside Kashmir against a couple of boys holed up in a house is easy and fetches rewards and promotions. They have become so greedy of promotions and rewards that they sometimes kill non-combatants and pass them as dreaded terrorists. Remember Shopian killing of three cousins in September 2020; remember Machhil encounter 2010.

This situation has resulted in placing Pakistan Army in good humour. They think that they have managed to keep Indian Army engaged inside Kashmir leaving them (the Pakistan Army) carefree on the boundary.

But Indian Army’s policy is to manage Kashmir by fighting on sub-conventional level (the level of counter insurgency operations) to check violence inside Kashmir within manageable limits. They know that Pakistan Army, being very small compared to them (Indian Army), cannot think of going to a full-scale convention war against India over Kashmir.

Thus, the India-Pakistan game would go on and on. India will gain time as it has been gaining time since 1949-Plebiscite Resolution. Pakistan will stoke insurgency being a born expert in the field. The situation could be described as “No War No Peace” or “A State of Perpetual War”. In this game India is the winner.

India has gained in Kashmir through its game of time biding. The Instrument of Accession gave authority in the Jammu and Kashmir State to India on central subjects of Defence, External Affairs, and Communications, which encompassed twenty entries in the field of legislation (see Schedule of Instrument of Accession). When Article 370 substituted the Instrument of Accession in November 1949, it extended the fields of legislation to 80 odd entries to be covered under three central subjects of Communications, External Affairs, and Defence, in addition to applying Article 1 of the Constitution of India and thereby declaring the State to be territory of India – vide Constitution (Application to Jammu and Kashmir) Order, 1950 (CO1950). Till then the State was a protectorate of India, not part of India. India enjoyed what is called suzerainty/supremacy/paramountcy over the State. In 1954, the CO1950 was substituted with the Constitution (Application to Jammu and Kashmir) Order, 1954 (CO1954). It applied almost whole of the Constitution of India to Jammu and Kashmir State, albiet with exception and modification. However, one clause of this Constitution Order, i.e., Article 35A, being a saving clause, safeguarded the local citizenship law called State Subjectship Law/Permanent Residency Law. The legislative autonomy of the State was further diluted through 48 Constitution Amendment Orders passed from 1956 to 2017, even during the time when the so-called symbols of resistance, Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah and Syed Ali Shah Geelani, were members of the Legislative Assembly.

So, it was here on the ground zero that India, with the help of local politicians and their serfs, diluted Kashmir Dispute. Kashmir is an international dispute listed at the UN. Therefore, it is very important as to what happens on the ground zero Kashmir.

All through these years, when Kashmir Dispute was being diluted by India, Pakistan remained busy with strategic depth and strategic assets policies. It thereby achieved little. In fact, it got dismembered in 1971 at the hands of India. And of late, India got an issue, courtesy of Pakistan’s strategic assets policy. They (India) started maintaining that the core issue between them and Pakistan was “terrorism” rather than “Jammu & Kashmir”. In this way India also succeeded in overshadowing the Kashmir issue. In 1947, Pakistan’s use of non-state actors (strategic assets the tribesmen) paved the way for India’s entry into Kashmir.

In August 2019 the Government of India abrogated provisions of Article 370 and the CO, 1954, thereby merging J&K State with India and ending the remnant of its legislative autonomy.

India simultaneously dismembered the State into two Union Territories followed by promulgation of new laws pertaining to sale and purchase of land, which is alleged to be intended to change the demography of the State. This would be the last stage in India’s strategy for dispute termination.

So, it is important as to what happens on ground zero Kashmir.

Kashmiris would have to promote programme-based politics. Kashmir needs institutions not cult personalities. Persons may come and persons may go, but the institutions should be allowed to continue but not stagnate and decay. Even institutions need changes to keep them dynamic.

It often happens that institutions created for some purpose end up achieving the opposite purpose. For example, armed revolt was started apparently to throw out Indian armed forces. But prolonged armed conflict became an invitation to more and more of them. Resultantly, the strength of Indian armed forces increased manifold compared to what it was in 1988-89. Towns, villages, and even wildernesses are now extra-heavily militarized.

Again, when in 1988-89 JKLF pioneered the armed revolt, killing (although in itself a very bad thing) was justified as a means to an end – the end being azadi, freedom. Later on, killing and getting killed became an end in itself when the scriptural term “jihad” received its 21st century interpretation.

The pre-1947 political struggle was apparently aimed at achieving the goal of responsible government. What Jammu and Kashmir State got in 1947 was an extremely irresponsible bunch of ruthless renegades to rule it.

The 1955-Plebiscite Front movement was launched to challenge India’s position in Jammu and Kashmir; yet the same ended in 1975 by clowns accepting the State as an integral part of India.

Political development signifies that institutions should be changed when the conditions in which they were created cease to exist. Otherwise political decadence and stagnation sets in.

Kashmiris need to be perceptive. Since their political institutions have stagnated, they should have the gumption either to reform them or replace them with new ones.

Of course, even institutions need leaders. But leaders should change places after completing fixed terms. No single person should be elevated to the position of chairperson of the political institution/organization for more than one term. Every chairperson should be responsible for transforming Kashmir from a politically dead nation of serfs to a thinking lot. Every new chairperson should be duty bound to contribute his bit towards political rejuvenation/rebirth and to step down gracefully at the end of his term, which in no case should be more than one year.

No person should be allowed to put religion to political use. S. A. Geelani and Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah became cult personalities primarily by putting religion to political use. Political institutions should be inclusive meant for all State Subjects of J&K.

The right-wingers are exclusivists and sectarian, to whichever religion they might belong to. They are intolerant of independent thought and differing viewpoints. They sent everyone to hellfire that does not belong to their sect. They believe in disenfranchising those who happen to be not their supporters. For example, Hindutvavadis of India seek disenfranchisement of those who do not support them. The Taliban seek disenfranchisement of Uzbeks, Tajiks, Hazaras, non-Muslims, women, and even non-Taliban Pashtuns.

Political institutions should be meant for the weal and welfare of all without discrimination of any sort, whatsoever.

J&K needs to reform its clientelism (patronage politics) of the “mainstream” and rejectionism (election boycott) of the “separatists”. One person cannot achieve this feat. Only a large coalition of committed reformers can do so and that too with difficulty. First and foremost, J&K needs an inclusive, cadre-based, cadre-funded, independent-minded, programmatic, election-participating party to guide people politically.

This will help the people of Jammu and Kashmir to launch a “non-contact” struggle (education and election participation) with the result there would be little casualty on their side. On the other hand, “contact struggle” (militancy, street agitation) will impose huge casualties on Kashmiris without any corresponding political gains.

Local politicians will not like the idea of political reform because their personal enterprises would be endangered. Nor will the foreign agencies like the idea, because in that case money would not buy them influence in Jammu and Kashmir.

It is difficult to maintain/sustain a cadre-based political party without commitment. Comparatively it is easier to run a personalized political enterprise. That is the reason there are limited number of political parties, just two or three, in the European developed democracies while as there are unlimited number of personalized dynasty-based political parties in clientelistic countries. Personalism is the reason why there are too many political parties because political adventures desire to become cult personalities and own parties to be passed on to sons and daughters as patrimony. So, they leave no stone unturned to keep and maintain personal parties.

Now what should Kashmiris do? They should either shun both camps, “separatist” and “mainstream”, and go for an overhaul of political strategy; or, alternatively, they should do nothing and leave everything to God. Doing nothing would be better than behaving as political serfs and clowns for the benefit of some political feudal lord.

Now what should India and Pakistan do? They should forget about General Musharaf’s 4-Point Formula (like the Achievable Nationhood of Sajjad Lone, Self-Rule Framework of Mufti Sayeed, 4-Point Formula is another name for Kashmir Study Group’s suggested roadmap Kashmir – A Way Forward, Livingston, December 1998). It was something worthless because it kept LoC intact. LoC converted Jammu and Kashmir State, especially Kashmir Valley, into a prison. The only natural way out of and into Kashmir Valley was Jhelum Valley route (Srinagar-Muzaffarabad Road). LoC dropped an iron curtain on that, and thereby, converted Kashmir into a prison house and Kashmiris into prison inmates. The LoC should be erased from the map and from the ground and Jammu and Kashmir allowed to connect to CPEC.

Now what should Pakistan do? Pakistan should once for all shun the policies of strategic assets and strategic depth.

Now what should India do? India should sit on the table with Pakistan and try its best to sort out all issues simultaneously.

Now what should India do about the LAC dispute? On the one hand, India is officially committed to One China policy, and on the other, it seeks membership of a potential security architecture called the Quad meant to contain China. The Quad is the anti-thesis of One China policy. One China policy and Containment of China policy can’t go hand in hand. India should approach China and ask for revival of “Chao En-Lai Package Deal”. As a quid pro quo India could offer to join CPEC-OBOR as an equal partner, and to shun confrontation with China on Tibet question (Tibet dispute was a creation of CIA).

China claims tall that it is a brotherhood of five races, Han, Manchurian, Mongol, Tibetan, and Uighur. The last two – the Uighur and the Tibetan – happen to be small and less equal while as the Han is the big and more equal brother. India, as an equal partner, could ask China for ensuring dignified status to Uighurs and Tibetans. The 14th Dalai Lama does not seek independence from China. He seeks autonomy. Furthermore, India should refrain from playing what is called the Dalai Lama card. Whenever, and wherever, the 15th Dalai Lama is found, be it Tibet, Mongolia, Arunachal Pradesh, or Ladakh, China will claim its right to supervise the process of search and confirmation. Even during the so-called independence period of Tibet when the present Dalai Lama (born 1935) was found, the searching process from 1938 to 1940 was supervised by Chinese envoy General Wu Zhangxin (p.57 The Great Game in the Buddhist Himalays Punchok Stobdan). India could serve Tibetans better by joining hands with China.