Looking Beyond The Obsession With Kashmir

The Dawn

May 15, 2006

By Jawed Naqvi

SOMETIMES it is actually tempting to agree with India’s critique of Pakistan that its obsession with Kashmir makes Islamabad’s diplomacy look rather unifocal. There are better arguments though than the patently Indian one to endorse the view that there is indeed an obsessive fixation that doesn’t allow Pakistan to look beyond Kashmir.

Often enough in recent weeks we have heard Kashmiri resistance leaders like Yasin Malik speak about a Nagaland-style dialogue between Kashmiris, including armed militants, and the Indian government. We haven’t heard of any response to this from either Islamabad or New Delhi.

As far as Islamabad is concerned its dispute with India is solely over the right of Kashmiris to opt for self-determination. It is unclear why, if the principle of self-determination is truly sacrosanct, it shouldn’t apply to, say, the Tamil separatists in Sri Lanka. When we asked President Musharraf about this anomaly some time ago he claimed the issue was an internal affair of Sri Lanka. Well, remember that he was returning from a goodwill visit to Colombo the day he took power, after offering military aid to President Kumaratunga. So much for scrupulously avoiding interference.

It is true that both India and Pakistan once gave moral and political support to movements like PLO and SWAPO under the canopy of the Non-aligned Movement. But their sincerity towards the Palestinians’ right to self-determination has waxed and waned with time, instances of which are too embarrassing to recall here. And see how both India and Pakistan are currently looking for ways to thwart a popular uprising against the king of Nepal, and are virtually identically trying to find a way to keep the Maoists out of power and the king intact even if with ceremonial powers.

The moral of the story is that popular movements aspiring for self-determination or other democratic ways to savour sovereign rights may not necessarily get the approval of those that claim to otherwise support the moral principles involved in these quests.

This is where Yasin Malik’s suggestion that a Nagaland-style dialogue be initiated between the Indian government and Kashmiri militants runs into rough weather. The argument on its own is sound. India has been holding talks with Naga ‘rebels’, who are waging an armed struggle for independence. These talks have been held mostly in third countries.

So it makes for an ideal format for talks with Kashmiris too. Moreover, the Indian caveat on terrorism for such talks to commence doesn’t seem to apply to the Naga negotiations.

Last week senior Naga representatives were accorded a hearing at the conference hall in Westminster by a group of MPs known as the British Parliamentarians for Self Determination. A summary of the Naga presentations would be useful to understand their contention and how it may be similar or different vis-a-vis the Kashmir situation.

Nagalim, the name for their unrecognised homeland, straddles 120,000 square kilometres. It is bound by India in the west, Myanmar in the east and the south and China in the north. It has a population of about four million, of which 95 per cent are Christians. Nagalim stands as a corridor between the two regions of the South Asia and South East Asia.

According to last week’s presentation, the Nagas claim to share a close racial, social, historical and cultural affinity with the South East Asian people.

“The Nagas are not Indians racially, historically, culturally and politically,” their leaders claimed.

It was in 1832 that the British colonial forces intruded into the Naga territory, where the Nagas put up tough resistance for 48 years. However, the British forces finally occupied a part of Naga areas, but the rest remained uncontrolled and unadministered, “which is as free as ever”.

On January 10, 1929, the Nagas under the banner of the Naga Club submitted a memorandum to the Simon Commission sent by the British parliament to express their national aspiration. It stated that the Nagas should be left alone to determine their own future by themselves.

On July 15, 1947, Naga delegates met Mahatma Gandhi at Bhangi Colony, Delhi, where he stated: “Nagas have every right to be independent. I believe in the brotherhood of man, but I do not believe in forced marriage and forced union. If you do not want to join the union of India, nobody will force you to do that, the Congress government will not do that”.

Sri Rajgopalacharya, the first governor-general of independent India, told the Naga delegation in Shillong, “India wants to be friendly with the Nagas. Nagas are at full liberty to do as they like, either to become a part of India or be separated if it would be best for their interest to be isolated”.

After 67 years of British occupation, Nagas in the occupied areas declared independence on August 14, 1947, one day ahead of the Indian independence. This information was sent to UN with a copy to the government of India. UN’s acknowledgement was received from Salt Lake, USA. The cable read:

“Benign Excellency (.) Kindly put on record that the Nagas will be Independent (.) Discussions with India are being carried on to that effect (.) Nagas do not accept Indian constitution (.) The right of the people must prevail regardless of size”.

According to the Naga version, the Indian government betrayed the commitments given to the Naga delegates, refusing to recognise Naga independence on the plea that it was the handiwork of a few Naga leaders. In 1950, the Indian Constituent Assembly invited the Nagas to join the Union of India, which was rejected outright by the ‘Naga people’.

“The Nagas thereafter conducted a plebiscite on May 16, 1951, wherein 99.9 per cent voted in favour of sovereign independent Nagalim. The result was dispatched to the president and prime minister of India. It was also sent to the UN secretary-general.

“Suppressing the democratic and non-violent approach of the Nagas the government of India forcibly conducted the first and second Indian general elections in 1952 and 1957, but the Nagas boycotted both the general elections and many others.

“Thereafter, according to the Naga story, the Indian state started deploying hundreds of thousands of its armed forces to conduct military campaigns all over Nagalim beginning from 1954.

“In the process 250,000 innocent Nagas were killed. But their attempts to subdue the Nagas through military might were all futile exercises as the Naga people refused to accept the Indian constitution.”

In pursuit of its political strategy the government of India convinced some ‘opportunists’ to sign ‘the Sixteen Point Agreement’ that created the present Nagaland state in 1963. It was, however, rejected by the ‘Naga people’.

General Thimaya, the then chief of Indian Army who conducted military operations in Nagalim observed and declared, “a) Naga problem is political issue b) treating Naga issue as law and order problem would be wrong and c) therefore, it needs political treatment apart from military treatment”.

So the cycle of talks, followed by perceived betrayals goes on and on. There are so many similarities with Kashmir, and there are differences too. Is the movement for an independent Nagaland, which incidentally has the support of the Christian right in the United States, a revolutionary quest, or is it a revanchist idea out of tune with Indian democracy. Let there be a debate among our Kashmir-centric intellectuals. And call in Yasin Malik too.



****


From the archives of The Hindu, published last week.

“Dated May 8, 1956: Pakistan’s assurance:

“The Indo-Pakistan conference on minority exodus concluded in Dacca on May 6. A communiqué issued at the end of the conference said the representatives of the two countries agreed that the primary responsibility for the migration of minorities should be held by the country from which such exodus took place. The communiqué stressed that the minorities should look forward to their own country only for their safety and must pledge loyalty to the country where they were living. The Pakistani delegation reiterated that the minorities were their trust and had to lead a life honourably as full citizens of Pakistan, as guaranteed under Pakistan Constitution.”

jawednaqvi@gmail.com