Rights and wrongs: When will peace dawn in Kashmir?

Human rights violations have a lot to do with the uncertain future of Kashmir. They lie heavily on the people's mind. Their confidence is shaken and they do not see anything in the shape of settlement on the horizon. They are tired and exasperated. Therefore, even a small incident raises their temperature.

In Srinagar, violations of human rights may have lessened but in the countryside there is reportedly no let up. The government may deny the allegations. But when a person like Farooq Abdullah, former Chief Minister of the state, says repeatedly that "the killing of the innocent by the army forces us to think whether signing of the Instrument of Accession by my father, Sheikh Abdullah and Maharaja Hari Singh, was fair, straight or not" means that he too feels that the limit has been crossed.

It is no use feeling horrified over his remark. He does not become "anti-India" ecause he has said that the guilty in the security forces should not be spared. He has just poured his heart out. The government should take note of his anguish. It can well be argued that the odd killings should not lead to questioning the basics. Even the constitution assembly of Jammu and Kashmir had endorsed the accession and had said that the question of integration could not be reopened.

I know the accession of Kashmir to India is a sensitive point with us. Anybody questioning it is criticized in the worst language possible. Yet, the fact remains that the accession does not condone violation of human rights. The number of people tortured or killed is not small. It runs into thousands. In such a situation in the Kashmir valley, it is but natural for the people to look back and wonder whether their forefathers were right in opting for India.

This does not mean that they want to join Pakistan. The question they ask after every human rights violation is: When will all this end? After Prime Minister Manmohan Singh gave an undertaking that the tolerance over the violation of human rights would be zero, it should have been so.

True, cases have been booked against security men for the reported excesses and even investigations have been held. Yet, the Kashmiris shrug their shoulder and say that this is a familiar exercise which they have gone over many a time before. Hurriyat leader Mirwaiz Umar Farooq has not touched the question of accession but has said that "they (security forces) kill with impunity and the law of the jungle prevails."

These are strong words but he would have sounded more credible if he had condemned the killing of an army major the other day. Individual terrorism is as bad as state terrorism. Kashmiri leaders attack the latter, not the former. Moreover, individual terrorism has come to be associated with fundamentalism all over the world and attacked unequivocally. The Kashmiri leaders would get heard if they were to denounce extremism.

Official inquiries are not believed. New Delhi should request South Asia Human Rights (SAHR), headed by former Prime Minister Inder Gujral, to look into the killings and other allegations. Hundreds of people are said to be missing. SAHR should go into their cases as well. Whatever the inquiry and at whatever level, it will remain one-sided if the grievance of Kashmiri pandits remains unheard. Thousands of them have been living in camps for years. They should be rehabilitated in the valley. If the Kashmiri leaders were to take the initiative, the misgivings about the pandits in the valley would disappear.

Some Kashmiri leaders told me once that the future of pandits would be decided when the future of Kashmir would be decided. I hope they have changed their mind as they have said so. The settlement of Kashmir, as I see it, will be a long haul. It is heartening to learn that India and Pakistan are discussing Kashmir. I do not know how far the back channel has helped them to go ahead. I was told by a high-up a few weeks ago that the "80 per cent of distance has been covered."

Whatever that means, it indicates a substantial progress. One salient feature of the understanding reached is that the Line of Control (LoC) will become the international border and will be softened. When Sardar Abdul Quyum, former Prime Minister of Azad Kashmir, was in Delhi last, he told me he would not oppose the settlement on converting the LoC into a permanent border. Unstable domestic situation in Pakistan stalled the talks. I have learnt that slowing down of the process was at the request of Islamabad. The outcome of elections in Pakistan has to be awaited.

Some may argue that the solution would have been concretized by now if President Pervez Mushraff's proposals had been accepted. His proposal made borders between the two Kashmir irrelevant and ruled out any division on the basis of religion. Such an arrangement would not have lasted without the involvement of Pakistan's political leaders. I wish that political conditions in Pakistan would settle down by February-March because India may be for a mid-term poll if the CPM carries out its threat to withdraw its support to the Manmohan Singh government if the talks on the India-US nuclear deal were not wound up by Dec.31.

At some stage, the people of Jammu and Kashmir will have to be associated with the talks so that the agreement, if and when reached, has their endorsement. Any settlement without their involvement will be Hamlet without the Prince of Denmark. New Delhi has held one meeting with the Hurriyat leaders and some others. Islamabad has not yet talked to the people in Azad Kashmir and the Upper regions. The people in the two countries are yet to be told what the governments have been cooking. Even if the common man on both sides is sick and tired of the Kashmir problem, the elite, parochial and prejudiced, would like to have their pound of flesh.

The solution which has evaded both countries for 60 years looks like delaying further. It would have been better if New Delhi had unilaterally reverted to the 1952 status when Kashmir had with it all the subjects, except external affairs, defence and communications.

Some parties like the BJP may oppose New Delhi for going back to that status. Such opponents have to be brought round. I see no better solution than the 1952 one. Both the countries should give to their side of Kashmir the type of autonomy which the Indian side of Kashmir had enjoyed before Sheikh Abdullah was arrested for asking New Delhi to make its promise on autonomy good. Yet, whatever the solution and how much time it takes human rights violations cannot be tolerated. The people in Kashmir feel helpless and shorn of dignity.