AZADI -A MISNOMER MISLEADING THE YOUTH OF KASMIR
Azadi cannot be an end in itself; it can at best be a means to an end. The end must be raising the standard of living of the people and giving them better lives. Azadi is a good thing if it helps attain that end, but not otherwise. So azadi for people can be both a good thing and also a bad thing.
To explain there are two historical examples in this connection.
Kashmir was only independent till 1587, and never thereafter. In 1587, the last independent Kashmiri king Yusuf Shah Chak was deposed by the Mughal emperor Akbar who incorporated Kashmir into the Mughal Empire. By being deprived of their independence in 1587, Kashmiris benefited, because by becoming part of the huge Mughal Empire they got access to a huge market for their handicraft and horticulture industry. Thereby they definitely benefited economically. The Shalimar, Nishat and Chashme Shahi gardens were built by the Mughals with their superior technology, not by Kashmiris, and this superior technology certainly benefited Kashmiris.
The ancient Romans conquered many countries in Europe, but people of those countries benefited by being deprived of their independence, because from tribal barbarism in forests they entered civilization. By becoming part of the Roman Empire they got access to Roman technology (which built roads, bridges, aqueducts etc) and thereby their standard of living rose. If Kashmiris can prove by logical arguments that azadi for Kashmir will raise the standard of living of Kashmiris and give them better lives I will support their demand, but merely parroting ‘ azadi’ does not convince me. On the contrary, it will greatly harm Kashmiris and following are the reasons:-
(i) The separatist leaders and militants in Kashmir have Islamic fundamentalism as their ideology. So if Kashmir becomes independent under their leadership it will be thrown back into the dark middle Ages, instead of moving forward. Sharia law will be imposed, women will be compelled to wear the burqa. Thus far from getting better lives, Kashmiris will suffer.
(ii) Kashmir has a huge handicraft industry and the market for their products is in the hundreds of towns in India. Even in Kovalam beach in the Southern Indian State of Kerala, there are some shops of Kashmiris who bring their handicrafts (shawls, carpets etc) from Kashmir to sell there. Similarly, in almost every one of the hundreds of towns in India there are such shops of Kashmiris. What will happen if situation changes? Then this huge market will be cut off for the Kashmiri handicraft (and horticulture) industries, inevitably leading to their closure, throwing lakhs of people out of employment. Have Kashmiris ever thought of this?
(iii) Kashmir is too small to survive as an independent state. Some Kashmiris cite the examples of small European Countries, but these have their own historical backgrounds. If Kashmir is separated from India it will inevitably come under the Pakistani or Chinese jackboot. When questioned about the missing J&K flag and Pakistani flags being flown, if the demand is for a separate nation, answers varied from ignorance to stating that the Pakistani flag was flown solely to irritate India. In no case do locals consider Jammu or Ladakh as a part of their so-called azad state. For them, Kashmir is a separate entity and would remain so. They seek freedom for Kashmir, solely on religious grounds, being a Moslem majority region, in apredominantly Hindu nation.
(iv) Their main fear always remains of a Hindu dominated government changing local demography. Political statements on return of Kashmiri Pandits and establishment of ex-servicemen colonies only add to rumours of a changing demography. This is further impacted by Pakistani propaganda playing on similar lines. Thus, fear of losing religious identity drives the agitation. I wonder if this fear is the result of historical baggage when an originally Muslim majority region of Kashmir was under the Dogra King of J&K, who opted to join Hindu majority India. It could be that this is what creates an inborn fear of a similar fate in the days ahead.
(v) The terrorists too have added fuel to the existing state of confused minds. They are broadly in two categories. The majority are affiliated to Pakistan-sponsored groups, hence support joining Pakistan, basically on religious ethnicity.
(vi) A newly raised local outfit seeks a caliphate, based on ISIS ideology. Presently, differences have not broken out into the open, which may enhance the rift between groups, which could be exploited.
(vii) The youth have been misguided, pumped in with feelings of jihad, with a belief that Pakistan supports their freedom struggle. They have no true idea of what they desire, solely the fact that a Muslim dominated Kashmir should not remain a part of India. Whenever India gloats on the Army’s success in eliminating militants, the Pakistani media claims it as staged killing. This would be more acceptable locally than the true version, as news from Pakistan carries more weight than Indian news. From the above, some facts emerge. It is azadi from India, with no clear future aim, hence indicating anger against the Indian state. The locals only seek azadi for Kashmir, not for complete J&K, hence do not consider the state as one entity.
(viii) The youth are confused and incited by Pakistani propaganda, lure of easy money, spread of rumours and religious sentiments. Terrorism is supported only because it assists in their struggle against the Indian State. Pakistan has understood this aspect, realizing that it is a small region which is impacted by this struggle. Hence, it has been recently attempting to increase infiltration in south of the Pir Panjal, seeking to spread terrorism and impact demographic changes. These attempts are being ruthlessly curbed by India and would continue in the days ahead. This part of their strategy must fail.
This opens options and avenues to the government to seek solutions. Since they seek azadi for Kashmir, the government can seriously consider revoking article 370 for the Jammu and Ladakh regions. This would indicate to the locals that Kashmir is a separate entity and a unique region in India. It would also enable development in other parts of the state where the article is lifted, creating a financial rift within the state, may be impacting mindsets. Secondly, interacting at the grassroots levels, mainly with students, in the form of open debates on their interpretation of azadi and why they desire it, could result in eliminating the fruitlessness of their actions. These forums could be exploited to drive home a point that independence of Kashmir would neither be acceptable to Pakistan nor India, hence could lead them nowhere.
Thirdly, isolation of the Hurriyat, blocking their funding, would seriously impact violence in the state. Finally, perception management by projecting information of Pakistan’s duality in their independence struggle, mistreatment by terrorists and blocking of foreign channels beaming anti-India and jihadist propaganda may change mindsets. But demand for azadi is wrong, and instead Kashmiris should demand reunification of India along with POK under Indian Government, of which Kashmir is a part. That alone is the correct path for them.
