ANKARA
India’s strategic community is divided over the implications of the Modi-led government’s recent move revoking the special status that ensured autonomy and separate citizenship rights to Jammu and Kashmir. The move has already ratcheted up tensions in the region.
While Kanwal Sibal, a former foreign secretary, described the move as “bold and historic”, A. S. Dulat, the former chief of India’s Intelligence Research and Analysis Wing (RAW), said it was fraught with serious consequences.
N C Vij, a former army chief, claimed that the issue of Kashmir was now over by this bold move. Former Ambassador P Stobdan said separating Ladakh from rest of Jammu and Kashmir will help India to settle the boundary question with China. The move is also casting a shadow over New Delhi’s ongoing negotiations with insurgent groups in the Christian-dominated northeastern state of Nagaland.
Sibal, who served as India’s top diplomat from 2001-2002, said the latest move has now ended the scope of discussing Kashmir with Pakistan. “Pakistan might also approach the UN or the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) on the issue, but it is unlikely to receive much support given India’s improved ties with Gulf countries,” he said.
Moreover, he added that this move has squashed any remaining scope for having any comprehensive dialogue on Kashmir. “Pakistan has been outflanked by India”, he said.
Speaking to Anadolu Agency, Dulat, known as a deft hand on Kashmir affairs in Indian intelligence, said a huge crisis may develop in the region.
“My apprehension is, and I hope I am wrong, the recent steps in Kashmir will only increase violence. I don’t think anything major will happen in 10-15 days. But these measures have made the rest of India more vulnerable,” he said.
Dulat, who was also an adviser on Jammu and Kashmir affairs to former Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee, said he does not forecast any immediate violence.
“I know the Kashmiri psyche well. A Kashmiri, when he is under pressure, will just bury his head in the sand and lie low. And then he will get up again. He does not give up,” he said.
‘Feeling of betrayal’
Wajahat Habibullah -- an author and a retired top civil servant who has served in Kashmir for over 30 years -- said the government should have followed a democratic process to bring constitutional changes in the statute book.
“The measure should not have been introduced in parliament in complete secrecy. What the government has achieved is creating a feeling of betrayal among a section of our people and foreboding among well-wishers of Kashmir,” said Habibullah, who also served at the Indian Embassy in the U.S.
Former Foreign Secretary Shyam Saran, who led the peace process with Pakistan during his tenure from 2004-2006, said the step to downgrade the status of Jammu and Kashmir from a state to a union territory amounted to “demeaning and humiliating” the population.
Saran said though the step will further increase the popularity of Prime Minister Narendra Modi in the rest of the country, the move will trigger increased militancy and violence in the region.
He said India’s clout at the global level is due to its growing economy. “If it continues to slow down, then the fallout of this decision may be difficult to handle,” he added.
Alok Joshi, a member of India’s National Security Advisory Board (NSAB) and also a former intelligence chief, said in the absence of any credible leadership in Kashmir, there may not be the threat of a civil movement, but the radicalization of youth will pose a problem.
“Pakistan-based militant groups will certainly be encouraged to target military assets in the region. Now that the administration is to be directly in the hands of New Delhi, all efforts will be made to deny them any legitimacy,” he said.
At a point when the Afghan peace talks with the Taliban are reaching a critical point, Joshi said, India should prepare itself for more active involvement of the Pakistani deep state in Kashmir and beyond.
“The only way to counter is by raising the costs of such activity on the LoC [Line of Control] as well as in the hinterland,” he said, referring to the de facto border dividing the disputed Kashmir valley.
Need for ‘positive actions’
Ashok Bhan, former police chief of Jammu and Kashmir, said revoking the special status will add to alienation, mistrust, and questioning of the government's democratic credentials in Jammu and Kashmir.
“The moot question is how the government will deal with the fallout of these developments on the psyche and further alienation of Kashmiris. While the government, through the display of its resources, capacity, and will, seems well prepared to successfully deal with any initial fallout, the situation will need a close watch once restrictions are relaxed,” he said.
Former Ambassador P Stobdan asked the government to take a series of “positive actions” to address the anger in Kashmir. “The first step is to set something positive in motion by engaging in a dialogue process. Kashmiris are not sufficiently empowered; even a political representation in New Delhi is missing. This leaves no space even for ordinary people to communicate with the leadership,” he said.
He also recommended revival of the traditional trade routes of Kashmir and repealing of draconian laws like the Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA) and, especially, the Public Safety Act (PSA), which has led to the wrongful detentions of thousands of young people without charge and trial. He said these laws served no purpose.
“Only a perception change can now prevent further rise of anti-India sentiments. A careful appraisal of building an alternative is needed to prevent Kashmir from being alienated irrevocably,” he argued.
Significantly, Stobdan, who hails from Ladakh, said separating the territory from the rest of Jammu and Kashmir will open ways to settle boundary dispute with China.
Over many years, Beijing has been proposing that India abdicate its claim on Aksai Chin. India sees China as occupying 38,000 square kilometers ( approx. 14670 sq miles) of its territory in Aksai Chin, while China claims 90,000 sq km (approx. 34750 sq miles) in Arunachal Pradesh.
Dai Bingguo -- China's long-time negotiator on the border talks, who retired in 2013 -- had said that a boundary settlement was possible if India agreed to make concessions in the eastern (Ladakh) sector.
The Indian Constitution confers on the Indian government sweeping power in the field of foreign affairs under Article 253. Since this provision was not applicable to Jammu and Kashmir, New Delhi was not able to exercise external sovereignty, while negotiating with China
Nagaland peace talks
Using the cricket parlance, former army chief N C Vij said the triumvirate in the Indian security structure -- Prime Minister Modi, Home Minister Amit Shah and National Security Advisor Ajit Doval -- have finished the game, played on the turf of Jammu and Kashmir.
Defending the decision, Vij said the special provision was coming in the way of development of the region.
“Despite massive money being pumped by New Delhi -- over 27,000 rupees ($378) per person as compared to 8,000 rupees ($112) per person in the rest of the country -- the state has really not flourished like the other states of India. There is acute unemployment. There is virtually no industry in the state as these provisions prevented any industry from being set up. Rampant corruption is the greatest curse,” he said.
However, Bharat Bhushan, a political commentator, has drawn attention to a possible fallout on problems in India’s northeast, where the Indian government is engaged in dialogue with insurgent groups.
“An immediate fallout of the removal of the special status of Jammu and Kashmir will be on the Nagaland peace talks, making an early settlement difficult,” he said.
The Indian government is currently trying to renegotiate the nature of the federal relationship with Nagaland promising more autonomy, which it abrogated in Jammu and Kashmir. More than 98% of the people in Nagaland identify themselves as Christians.
In a framework agreement signed between the insurgent group National Socialist Council of Nagaland (NSCN) and New Delhi on Aug. 4, 2015, the two sides agreed on three broad issues: One, that the Naga situation was unique; implying that any settlement with the Nagas would not be predicated on what was done with other states or with other demands for autonomy. Two, that sovereignty would be defined by a clear sharing of powers -- meaning that while the Naga people remained sovereign, the exercising of sovereignty demanded that the State, Union and Concurrent Lists of the Indian Constitution be redistributed. There are two other issues on which the Nagas are unwilling to give up -- a separate flag and a separate constitution.
Bhushan said the proposals on the table have received a setback after the developments in Jammu and Kashmir. “A separate and official Naga flag seems out of the question, especially if the NSCN flag is adopted bearing as it does the Star of David, which underlines the Christian majority of the Naga areas,” he said.
