Kashmir pines for dignity

I know the accession of Kashmir to India is a sensitive point with us. Anybody questioning it is criticized in the worst language possible. I am, however, surprised to find lack of furore over a remark by Farooq Abdullah, former Chief Minister of Jammu and Kashmir. He has said repeatedly that the killing of innocent people 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."
Coming as it does from a person like Farooq Abdullah the remark is a point to ponder over. It is no use feeling horrified. He does not become "anti-Indian" because he has said that the guilty in the security forces should not be spared. It can well be argued that the odd killings should not lead to the questioning of basics which even the constitution assembly of Jammu and Kashmir had endorsed and which had said that the accession could not be reopened. Yet, the fact of accession does not condone violation of human rights.
One, the number of those killed is not negligible. It runs into thousands. Two, in the situation that prevails 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 - this time the killing of a youthful baker at Damhal Hanjipur, south Kashmir in the "cross firing"- is how will all this end.
When Prime Minister Manmohan Singh promises that the tolerance over the violation of human rights will be zero, it should have been so. True, a case has been booked against some army men and an investigation has been ordered. Yet, the Kashmiris shrug their shoulders and say that this is a familiar exercise which they have gone over earlier.
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 jungle prevails." These were strong words but he would have been 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 he former. Moreover, individual terrorism has come to be associated with fundamentalism all over the world and condemned unequivocally. Kashmiri leaders would get heard if they were to denounce it.
A popular leader, Yasin Malik, has taken to the Gandhian way to draw attention to human rights violations. He has undertaken a two-day fast. He was the first militant who has turned Gandhian now. Official denial of violations will not do for him or other Kashmiri leaders. The inquiry ordered by the government may not carry weight. New Delhi should request South Asian 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 them as well. Whatever the inquiry and at whatever level, it will remain one-sided if the grievances of some 50,000 Kashmiri pundits remain unheard. Most 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 them would disappear. Some Kashmiri leaders had once said that the future of pundits would be decided with the future of Kashmir. I hope they have changed their mind as they have hinted here and there.
Human rights violations have a lot to do with uncertain future of Kashmir. Talks are taking place between India and Pakistan. But I do not know how far the back channel has helped the two sides find an amicable solution. I was told by a high-up a few weeks ago that "80 per cent of distance had been covered." Whatever that means, it indicates substantial progress. One salient feature of the understanding reached is that the Line of Control (LoC) will become the border and it would be softened. When Sardar Abdul Quyum, former Prime Minister of Azad Kashmir, was in Delhi last, he said he would not oppose if the settlement was reached on converting the LoC into border.
Unstable domestic situation in Pakistan had stalled the talks. I am told that slowing down of the process was at the request of Islamabad. The outcome of elections in Pakistan will have to be awaited now. Some may argue that the solution should have been concretized when President Pervez Mushraff was at the helm of affairs. He had proposed a settlement which would make borders in Kashmir irrelevant and rule out any division on the basis of religion.
Yet, the arrangement like this without the involvement of political leaders in Pakistan would not have lasted. The thread can be picked up after elections there. I hope that political conditions in Pakistan would settle down by February-March because India may be in for mid-term polls if the Left withdraws support to the Manmohan Singh government as it has threatened it to wind up the talks on the Indo-US nuclear deal by December 31. In such a scenario, any dialogue on Kashmir will have to wait for the election in India. At some stage the people of Jammu and Kashmir have to be associated so that the settlement, if and when reached, has their endorsement. Any settlement without their involvement will be like 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 in the upper regions.
Public in the two countries is 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 its pound of flesh. The solution which has evaded both countries for 60 years will not be easy to reach.
It would have been better if New Delhi had unilaterally reverted to the 1951 status when Kashmir enjoyed autonomy. It had all the subjects except three - external affairs, defence and communications. Some parties like the BJP will oppose going back to that status. Yet they have to be brought round. I see no better solution than the two countries giving to their side of Kashmir the type of autonomy which the Indian side of Kashmir enjoyed till 1952 when Sheikh Abdullah was arrested for asking India to make its promise on autonomy good.
Yet whatever the solution and how much time it takes, human rights violations cannot be tolerated. People feel helpless and shorn of dignity.
Kuldip Nayar is an eminent Indian columnist.