The Kashmir insurgency - one of the world's longest-running conflicts - began 20 years ago this week. And it was the shockwave from the fall of the Berlin Wall that gave young Kashmiris the confidence to take on the Indian state, the BBC's David Loyn says.
Simmering discontent over this unfinished business left over from the partition of India in 1947 turned into a full-scale insurgency after the kidnap of Rubiya Sayeed, the daughter of the Indian home minister, on 8 December 1989.
She was released a few days later in exchange for five militants held in an Indian jail.
A police crackdown on victory celebrations was the spark that lit the fuse of the conflict.
One of the militants who took up the gun that week, Mukhtar Baba, said that he and his friends had the confidence to take on India because of events in Europe.
"The German people stood up against that man-made Berlin wall, so we thought why don't we, and we started that armed struggle here," he says.
The then chief minister of Indian-administered Kashmir, Farooq Abdullah, says he saw the trouble coming.
“ It is not a battle between Kashmiri independence and India, but between the secular forces of India and the fundamentalist forces which are wanting to get hold of the Kashmir valley ”
Afsar Karim Retired Indian general
"It was not only the Berlin Wall, I think the main thing was the Russian defeat in Afghanistan. They felt if a power like Russia can be thrown out, why not India," he says.
He addressed a packed public meeting to try to warn Kashmiris of what was to come.
"I told them, 'what you are doing is wrong. It will not lead you to any place other than the destruction of our state; our houses will go; our villages will be blown up; innocent people will die; many of our womenfolk will be raped and murdered'," Mr Abdullah says.
Differing goals
Twenty years on, there are no reliable estimates of the number of people killed, but it is generally believed to be upwards of 50,000.
The Kashmiri-based International People's Tribunal on Human Rights has recently called for a thorough investigation of mass graves of bodies buried by Indian security forces.
The Indian government has rejected the findings, but the head of the research group, Khurram Parvez, says that much still has to be revealed. He has estimated that one in 10 people living in the Kashmir valley has been tortured.
From the beginning there were differing goals for those who took up the gun.
Some wanted Pakistan to take over all of the original state of Kashmir, but most wanted unification of the two wings of the original state in a separate new independent country.
Global jihad
As the insurgency ground on, from the mid-1990s the Indian state faced a new threat. Among the Kashmiri youths coming across the Line of Control after training on the Pakistani side were battle-hardened Islamist warriors who had come to fight a jihad. They were Arabs, Afghans and Pakistanis.
I met some in Indian custody in 1994, including the alleged military commander of a new guerrilla group - the Harkat ul-Ansar. His name was Sajjad Afghani - (Sajjad "the Afghan"), and he proved to have a very limited political agenda.
He was fighting not for Pakistani control of Kashmir but for a global jihad.
We did not know it then, but this kind of thinking was about to take centre stage in world politics.
So while the fighting in Indian-administered Kashmir may have been inspired by the end of the Cold War, it provides a direct link with the new conflicts of the 21st Century.
Big change
Pakistan's repeated and strong denials that they backed militant training camps were rejected by the incoming administration of US President Bill Clinton in 1993, who demanded that the camps should close, threatening to put Pakistan on the list of "state sponsors of international terrorism".
Conveniently enough, the chaos of the civil war in Afghanistan meant that the camps should be shifted there, and when Osama Bin Laden reappeared in the region in 1996 he was given control of some of this training.
Retired Gen Afsar Karim, one of India's leading defence analysts, says that this development was the most threatening aspect of the Kashmir conflict.
"It is not a battle between Kashmiri independence and India, but between the secular forces of
India and the fundamentalist forces which are wanting to get hold of the Kashmir valley."
The war has seen a big change in Kashmiri society. There is a new seriousness of intent in Islamic practice here in a place once famous for more tolerant liberal ways.
A women's movement, the Dukhtaran-e-Millat (Daughters of the Faith), holds classes to try to change the ways of Kashmiri women to a more rigorous lifestyle including covering every part of their body.
Their fundamentalist world view includes a demand for Pakistan to control all of Kashmir. They also believe that 9/11 was an attack carried out by America on itself.
One of their leading members Naheeda Nasreem, dressed all in black, including black gloves, says: "Is there any proof it was done by any Muslim? We think it might have been done by them. The Taliban and other forces are working at the behest of America and Israel. Why are the Taliban terrorising Pakistan? This is only on at the behest of America. They sent some people dressed as Muslims."
'Sky's limit'
Most of the original militant groups have turned away from violence. They are waiting for the result of a peace process that has been called "quiet diplomacy" backed by US President Barack Obama.
Both Pakistan and India now appear ready to compromise. On a recent trip to Srinagar, Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh told a secessionist politician that - apart from the border itself - anything could be negotiated.
"The sky's the limit," he said.
There is some impatience for progress, and the Chairman of the Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Front, Yasin Malik, warns that if there is no progress, then it will be hard to stop young Kashmiris from returning to violence.
He has tried to lead a path of non-violent resistance, but knows of the impatience of Kashmiris for a settlement.
"For God's sake, don't give our next generation a sense of defeat. If you are giving them a sense of defeat you are pushing them for another revolution," Yasin Malik says.
With Thanks To BBC.co.uk
Now compare the situation of Kashmire with that of Baluchistan. You will probably find a striking similarity. Baluchistan has undergone 5 full-fledged military operations resulting in more than 20000 deaths, though unconfirmed. Today , as Baloch alleges, more than 8 thousand people are missing and in Kashmir 8 thousand people are missing as alleged by them.Both Kashmir and Baluchistan are facing colonial treatment by their respective occupier states.Now see Pakistani double standard they are working hard for self determination of Kashmir's people while at the same time enslaving Baloch in Baluchistan.Kashmir's people are doing Jihad against tyrant. Baloch,too are doing Jihad against tyrant state of Pakistan.. Berlin wall is also source of inspiration for Balochs as their half part is with Iran, as is Russia's defeat because if Russia can be thrown out why can't be Pakistan troops. The only difference is Kashmire cause is being sponsored by Pakistan while there is no one,internationally, to sponsor Baloch cause. I have deep affection for all Muslims living around the world, thereupon, I don't want them to live in state of oppression be it by non-Islamic state or be it by Islamic state.Regards.
ReplyDeleteDear Mr Khosa,
ReplyDeleteThere are fundamental differences between Kashmir & Baluchistan. Kashmir is a disputed territory between two states i.e. India & Pakistan. Pakistan and India have fought wars over Kashmir. Pakistan has not fought another country for Baluchistan. Pundit Nehru took the issue of Kashmir to United Nations in 1948 and promised plebiscite. There was no ruler who took Baluchistan to UN or any other international forum for that matter.
If anything, Balochistan's situation is more similar with Assam, Meghalaya, Tripura, Mizoram, Manipur, and Nagaland.
Many Thanks for your comments.
Dear sikander,
ReplyDeleteCan you prove India's Hand in Balochistan uprising. I can give you tons of evidence on Pakistani state actor's involved in 26/11 Mumbai carnage? what has pakistan done? even the 26/11 judicial proceeding is banned for media coverage creating an impression that pakistan is not serious about it or they are hiding something. I am sorry to say but you have a prejudice view against India. you are so india-centric. Please try to compare the development done in Pakistan occupied kashmir as compared to state of Jammu and Kashmir before drawing any conclusions. Also I am sure you must be knowing about article 370 of indian constitution. Pakistani government was always ignorant for development of balochistan and now they are paying its price. When you dont have any one to blame for you turn to India.Kashmiris in India have more chance for development and democracy then your pakistani occupied kashmir which only flourished as terror haven for exporting terror to India. Its very easy to live in different country and write articles on based of half cooked evidence.
THIS IS NOTHING ONLY CHEAP POLITICS , AND IF POLITICS WILL STOP THEN BOTH INDIA AND PAKISTAN CAN MAKE A SINGLE COUNTRY AND BREAK THE BORDER.....
ReplyDeleteDear Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteThis is the problem, Indians like you in your schools have been taught that Pakistan was a great injustice to India. Let me tell you categorically,Pakistanis would like to stay independent & would not like to have the same fate as Kashmiris & Indian Muslims. Please read the Sachar commission report. You want Pakistan but you are barely hanging on to Kashmir.
Dear Mr. Hayat,
ReplyDeleteAs an Indian (born Muslim) I cannot for the life of me understand the basic premise of Pakistan's claim to Kashmir. And I have talked this over with many Pakistani friends and its always the same... "Kashmiri Self-Determination".
But thats just incorrect... Kashmiri also includes Kashmiri Pandits and Kashmiri Sikhs... Not to mention the Buddhists... So in 1947 Pakistan sent irregular fighters (and that was an invasion against a perceived accession of Kashmir to India as the Raja was still undecided) to capture Kashmir by force... was opposed by Kashmiris first and then the Indian forces as they flew in and today all of Pakistan calls the Indian side of Kashmir occupied and the actual occupied region Azad!
Its crazy! Pakistan invaded a free Kashmir in 1947! And for this talk to Azadi... lets be honest... this is a Kashmiri Muslim problem... not a Kashmiri problem per se...
"Pakistanis would like to stay independent & would not like to have the same fate as Kashmiris & Indian Muslims"
Well I really don't know what you are talking about... sure we have our problems but Indian Muslims are more in number than Pakistani muslims and we are not really doing as badly as you think... Infact... We are quite well... atleast the ones who try...
A little less bias and more realistic approach would be much appreciated.. :-)
Dear Ahmer,
ReplyDeleteThanks for your comment.
I have nothing to say about Indian Muslims as I have no right to comment on their "Indianness". But there is a difference between a Kashmiri & Indian Muslim. Indian Muslim is an Indian who happen to have Islam as their religion. Kashmiri Muslims are not Indians so there is no question of confusing them with Indian Muslims.
Please grow your knowledge before commenting any thing.
Delete