Contextualizing the Kashmir Politics
Noor Ahmad Baba

Defining political context in case of Jammu and Kashmir is difficult as it involves complex dimensions; some of them rooted in developments of pre-partition days of the sub-continent. Jammu & Kashmir as it is known today evolved during the Dogra era/period (1846-1947). Under this regime, Jammu & Kashmir emerged into a heterogeneous polity with different regions and different ethnic groups differently related with the ruling dynasty and the state. The Dogra dynasty, on account of the very nature of the state formation and also because of the character of its politics, became discriminative in character. National movement under the leadership of Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah gained the secular, socialist complexion that was manifested in the programme of Naya Kashmir (New Kashmir) that the party adopted in 1944. This was a very profoundly radical programme aimed at social, economic and political reconstruction of the state and political empowerment of its people within an independent state. There is some evidence to suggest that at the crucial juncture in 1947, Sheikh Abdullah had supported accession to India in the hope of securing a meaningful autonomous status for the State, which he thought to be necessary for translating his vision of Naya Kashmir into actual practice However, eventually the people and the leadership were disappointed in respect of the commitments that Indian leadership made in relation to Kashmir.

In India there has never been a consensus on using autonomy as a strategy of Nation Building. It was viewed as a potential source of the problem. It was for this reason that when because of special circumstances, an autonomy solution was worked out to regulate the relationship of Jammu and Kashmir with the Union of India; it was seen as aberration and a potential threat to the unity of the country. Because of this thinking, from the very beginning, various forces became active within and outside the state against the autonomy. As a result of these pressures for the erosion of the autonomy, shortly after the adoption of the constitution in 1950, the cordiality between the governments headed by Shiekh Abdullah (whose endorsement of accession was crucial for India) and Pandit Nehru was being replaced by anger, open hostility, bitterness and frustration vis-a-vis each other. The political events of 1953, that led to the dismissal of Sheikh Abdullah, the most potent advocate of the state’s autonomy, started casting their shadow on this position. This facilitated the process of greater merger of the state within the Indian Union, beginning with the presidential order of 1954.

Such attitude of the centre undermined the legitimacy of the Indian State vis-à-vis the people of Kashmir. This is why, in spite of greater legal integration, State authority remained fragile and dependent on coercive agencies. This feeling of betrayal has gone deep into the psyche of the people of Kashmir. The gradual alienation of the people from the existing political dispensation was reflected in electoral mal practices and the non functional democracy. State authority rested on the continued repression leaving very little of elementary civil and political rights to its people. Combination of all these factors contributed to present phase of Kashmir crises. In addition, the continued dispute on and in Kashmir has greatly undermined normal and the natural process of its economy. Kashmir in spite of being gifted in terms human and natural resources has remained underdeveloped. Several distortions crept into its economy. There is a strong perception, supported by some evidence, that dependant development was consciously introduced and promoted in the state. Corruption was also introduced as a mechanism of reward for loyalty in the absence on credible legitimacy. Economy also suffered on account of the closure of the all weather road that had historically connected Kashmir with the rest of the world. It could be greatly useful to some sectors of Kashmir economy.

Kashmir has been historically characterized as a very tolerant, peaceful and even one of the docile societies in the world. Prior to 1989 eruption of militancy Kashmiris were known for their civility, tolerance, accommodativeness and intrinsic secular character. At the core of it Kashmiri society still retains these qualities. Even during the bloodshed of 1947 Kashmiris had exhibited tremendous tolerance and harmony. However, it is a series of disappointments that pushed it to the course of militancy. In addition, whatever its causes may be, consequences of any violence are mostly undesirable and harmful to the general society. We the people of Kashmir have undergone the traumas associated with violence. In all these years of violence, Kashmiri society has suffered physically, mentally, psychologically, economically and socially. There is a huge area to work for rehabilitating the traumatized Kashmir society. The problem is enormous. There is tremendous need that India and Pakistan, occupants of the divided Kashmir, to join together to address this Human tragedy. The whole society needs rehabilitation in social, economic and political terms. Present plight of the state and its people need to be understood in the above referred context