Let India agree to an independent Kashmir first; Pakistan can be persuaded

Amberish K Diwanji in London

The Labour party victory in Britain is good news for the many ethnic Kashmiris present here -- especially for those who had been demanding a plebiscite in Kashmir. All the 20-odd such groups are now hopeful the new government will be more sympathetic to their cause than previous Conservative governments.

"Labour has a history of supporting causes; after all it was a Labour government that gave freedom to India and Pakistan. So maybe in the 50th year of our Independence, they will help Kashmir achieve freedom!" World Kashmir Freedom Movement president Dr Ayyub Thukar told the Rediff On The NeT, "But we don't want to force a solution, we want a peaceful one with goodwill on all sides."

Zafar Khan, the Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Front spokesman in the UK, also said he was hopeful, following the change at 10, Downing Street. "Labour has said it will seek a solution to the Kashmir issue, and we expect them to do something."

In the run-up to elections, many Labour MPs had time and again raised the Kashmir question, and even demanded the implementation of the United Nations resolution (read plebiscite) in Kashmir. Political pandits had then dismissed it as an electoral gimmick in constituencies where there was a strong ethnic vote bank.

However, a diplomatic source in Britain stressed a change in government did not infer a change in foreign policy. He pointed out Indo-UK ties were strongly established and the official Labour policy on Kashmir was quite different.

A Labour party spokesman also said the government would offer its help only if invited by New Delhi. This was also declared at the party's national executive conference in 1995, and not much should be read into individual members's declarations.

However, despite the official statements, many of the Kashmiri groups expect more from Tony Blair and his foreign secretary, Robin Cook. Moreover, with many more Labour MPs who relied heavily on ethnic votes dominating the House of Commons, the Kashmiri groups stand a good chance of getting the issue addressed.

Also, if Britain has a new prime minister, so does India -- I K Gujral, whose origins, incidentally, are in the Pakistani Punjab. Thukar clearly welcomes Gujral's presence, saying he is a different person from someone like L K Advani, who, he said, has a feudal approach. Thukar is also pleased at the presence of south Indians in top posts.

"For years India was governed by north Indians for whom Partition and its horrors are still a part of memory. But south Indians (referring to former prime ministers P V Narasimha Rao and H D Deve Gowda) do not carry any such emotional baggage in dealing with Kashmir, and are more understanding."

Thukar, however, does not expect much from Gujral given his weak and unstable government. "Nevertheless, he can set the tone for better future relations between India and Pakistan, which will help the Kashmir cause."

And even the state of Jammu and Kashmir, after seven years under central rule, now has its own government in Srinagar, led by Dr Farooq Abdullah. However, both Thukar and Zafar Khan are dismissive about him and the elections.

"Dr Abdullah has been in power for over 10 months now, but what difference has he made to the lives of the people? Even today, people are getting killed daily in the valley, the women are getting raped. It is as bad as before," said Khan. He doubted the authenticity of the elections, pointing out with over 700,000 troops in the state, it could hardly have been free and fair.

Thukar claimed Abdullah has no work in Srinagar and pointed out he had appointed two military advisors. He put the number of people killed daily at between 10 and 15, and said the militants were now targeting the security forces and not civilians.

While independence for Kashmir remains their ultimate aspiration, for the present, they want the ban of intra-Kashmir migration lifted. This, they feel, will go a long way in resolving the differences between the people. "Let people first be free to migrate from both sides back and forth, let them live together even as separate countries, then we can find a solution," said Thukar.

Zafar Khan, a senior lecturer in community relations and South Asian studies at Luton University, said, despite the line of control dividing the state, the people are united and one in their aspirations. "The JKLF has always spread the message of all Kashmiris being one with a common nationhood," he said.

The involvement of Kashmiri people in any Indo-Pak talks over Kashmir is primary in their demands. "A solution not taking into account the wishes of Kashmiris will not be acceptable. That is why the JKLF opposed the Indo-Pak talks (in 1997 May)," said Zafar Khan.

There is no denying that the idea of their own independent state has caught the imagination of the Kashmiri groups. Whether it will ever happen, or is it feasible, are questions to be dealt with after liberation. "To achieve freedom, we need to understand the fears of India and Pakistan," said Thukar. "Certainly, India is worried by the implication of a silk route, and will need safeguards. But it is important for India to understand an independent Kashmir will not be a threat but a bridge of understanding in the subcontinent."

Khan added: "An independent Kashmir will bring lasting peace in the subcontinent. It will be a neutral country, the Switzerland of Asia." The JKLF spokesman was confident that such a Kashmir would thrive. "Economic development can only follow after political freedom," he added.

There are fears that an independent Kashmir would become increasingly fundamentalist, hurting its minorities, especially the Kashmiri pandits. "All Kashmir leaders have asked the Kashmiri pandits to return to the valley, it is their home," said Zafar Khan, adding, "A free Kashmir will safeguard the interests of all its people. Kashmir has always been a pluralistic and multicultural society and there is no reason for that to change."

Khan blamed former Jammu and Kashmir governor Jagmohan for the migration of Kashmiri pandits, and said he deliberately drove them away. "He did it for two reasons: one, to communalise the situation; and two, so that when he retaliated against the militants, no non-Muslim would be killed in the process."

"Since it was the Indian State that drove the pandits away, it should bring them back too," he added, "The pandits have always supported the ruling establishment, whether it was the Sikhs, the Dogras or India, and in doing so, alienated themselves from the masses. The pandits must identify themselves with the Kashmiri people."

Khan and Thukar wanted India to pull out its troops and civilian officials and hold a plebiscite, something that India is committed to do under the UN resolution. "After both sides pull out troops, all groups should be allowed to build up public opinion and then a plebiscite can be held to determine the wishes of the people," said Khan.

Would Pakistan agree to an independent Kashmir? "Even the pro-Pakistan groups have agreed to letting the Kashmir people make the final choice," said Thukar. "Since most of the violence is in India, let it agree first; Pakistan being much smaller, will not be difficult to persuade."

Khan seconded this view. "Sardar Abdul Qayyum Khan, who is easily the most respected leader in Azad (Pakistan-occupied) Kashmir has said if the Kashmiris want freedom, then Pakistan will have to grant it," he said.

Khan added the JKLF has taken great pains to convince the other groups that an independent Kashmir is far more possible than a Kashmir inside Pakistan. "The other parties also realise this now, and therefore are agreeable to the idea of independence rather than becoming a part of Pakistan."

Realising dreams is not an easy matter, and perhaps the Kashmiris in the UK, so far away from Srinagar, are chasing a mirage. So is there a solution? Khan is adamant the status quo is simply unacceptable, despite the tremendous loss the state has suffered over the past decade.

"There is no price on freedom," he said. "The present movement is a people's movement, and it will survive as long as the people want it. And we know from our travels and contact with Kashmiri people on both sides of the border that they want freedom."

Thukar said all the parties concerned should sit down and talk, and ensure that Indian interests are not hurt. To achieve that, he has a suggestion: "Let Ladakh and Jammu merge into a zone under India, and Azad Kashmir and the valley be merged and turned into a protectorate."

Half a century ago, it was a Labour government that sowed the seeds of the Kashmir conflict. One will have to wait and see if the new Labour government is allowed any role in resolving the situation it helped create. And for those who believe in destiny, perhaps it was fated that India and Pakistan should both have, for the first time, prime ministers from the state that suffered the most during Independence and Partition, Punjab, which adjoins Kashmir. It was the way the Punjab was partitioned that allowed India access to the valley. But that is another story.