If the special status of IOK is revoked
Pakistan must be careful while accepting American mediation offer on Kashmir
A masked Kashmiri mourner holds up a Pakistani flag as others shout anti- Indian slogan. PHOTO: AFP/FILE
The recent visit of India’s national security adviser Ajit Doval to the India-occupied Kashmir (IoK) is likely to push the Modi regime to abrogate the so-called special status granted to the disputed region under Article 370 and 35-A. The decision to deploy another 10,000 paramilitary troops is a pre-emptive measure by New Delhi to deal with possible repercussions if the special status of IOK that has been granted in the Indian Constitution is annulled by the Supreme Court or Parliament.
Doval, along with the Indian Home Minister Amit Shah, are working overtime to implement the BJP manifesto of ending IOK’s special status as it argues that Article 370 and 35-A are an impediment to integrate the region with the Indian Union and obstructs development particularly in the Muslim-majority valley. All the Kashmiri political parties, including the National Conference, the People’s Democratic Party and the Jammu and Kashmir People’s Movement, are vehemently opposing the BJP’s drive to end IOK’s special status. The IOK’s former chief minister asked New Delhi to wait for the verdict of the Supreme Court where scores of petitions challenging Articles 35-A and 370 are pending. He logically argued, “Why should you hurry? We will respect the decision of the Supreme Court as we have always done.”
Why are Articles 370 and 35-A termed a “red line” by the Muslim Kashmiri leaders which, if crossed, can unleash a fresh outbreak of violence and end Jammu and Kashmir’s union with India? What will be the ramifications of doing away with these clauses in the Kashmir Valley and on India’s relations with Pakistan? Is the Modi regime not following the Punjab model of suppressing the Sikh nationalist insurgency of 1980s, while attempting to finish off Kashmiri militancy once and for all? These are the questions which are raised by those who are highly concerned by the Modi regime’s intentions of undoing Article 370 and 35-A.
According to the original Article 370 of the Indian Constitution, the former princely state of J&K will have an autonomous status within the Indian Union with its own president and prime minister. The Centre will only control areas of foreign affairs and defence. This aspect of Article 370 eroded soon after its ratification and New Delhi began to seek more control over the affairs of J&K. Article 35-A preserved the special status of the occupied region whereby no Indian national was allowed to buy a property or cast a vote in the elections. Both these articles were described by the BJP as a major obstacle to absorb IOK in the Indian Union and several petitions were filed in the Supreme Court to revoke such articles.
Since the BJP has a two-thirds majority in the Lower House and will gain the same in the Upper House by 2021, it is confident that it can revoke Article 370, and will have support from IOK’s state assembly if the presidential rule there ends and fresh elections are held. Once both articles are revoked, the Indian state can easily alter the demographic complexion of the Kashmir Valley — which is a main center of resistance against the Indian occupation — by settling millions of non-Muslims, transforming the Muslim majority in the valley to a minority (similar to the policy adopted by Israel by settling Jews in the occupied West Bank resulting in a changed demographic).
As quoted in the National Herald, “During his three-day tour, Doval had held detailed discussion with senior officers of the state administration, police, paramilitary force, army, state and Central Intelligence Agencies.” Doval’s visit to the valley was meant to ensure that any retaliation that occurs after revoking the two articles is dealt with an iron hand. Therefore, “An elaborate contingency plan has been worked out to take care of even the minutest details. How the law and order situation would behave, the response of the over-ground and underground separatist cadres and also the response of the mainstream political leader. The entire operation to deal with the law and order fallout in the aftermath of the abrogation of Article 35-A has been code named.” Doval’s visit and discussion with top-ranking security personnel in Srinagar made sure that, “All sensitive installations including the airport, radio station, Doordarshan Kendra, essential services like hydro-power generation projects, power grid stations, water supplies, hospitals, paramilitary camps and the state police posts are getting additional paramilitary deployments for extra-ordinary security cover. The state police will play a major role in security and law and order maintenance and the Army would stand for any assistance the civil administration might require to maintain law and order in the Muslim dominated Valley of Kashmir.”
If Article 35-A is removed, there will be no legal bar for Indian nationals in settling in the Muslim-majority Kashmir Valley, and become part of state elections thus ensuring a demographic transformation in that volatile region of J&K. Jammu and Ladakh have a non-Muslim majority and it is only the Kashmir Valley which needs to be demographically altered by settling Hindus and other non-Muslim communities to ensure the Jammu issue turns to India’s advantage.
Two arguments can be given about the Indian desperation to undo Articles 370 and 35-A. First, in his second term, Modi and other hawkish BJP leaders want to implement their party manifesto of absorbing IOK in the Indian Union. BJP’s calculation is if they start the process of revoking the articles now, it will take several months to take this to its logical conclusion. Second, despite the warnings given by Kashmiri political parties of leaving the Indian Union if special status of IOK is removed, the BJP thinks the time is ripe to implement their election manifesto which will be welcomed by those who want to permanently settle in J&K and buy property for investment purposes.
When Pakistan’s PM paid an official visit to the US to meet President Trump, the latter said that PM Modi had requested him to mediate with Pakistan to resolve the Kashmir dispute. This shocked Indian leaders to hear President Trump quoting their PM for something that is not in New Delhi’s policy. But Pakistan should consider any ulterior motive Modi may have in seeking American mediation to declare the LoC as an international boundary. India is certainly not interested in altering the territorial status quo in IOK and is willing to forgo its claim over Pakistan-controlled AJK and Gilgit-Baltistan if Islamabad agrees to accept LoC as an international border. If Trump is ready to compel Pakistan to accept this, it will put Islamabad in a very dangerous situation.
Pakistan must be careful while accepting American mediation offer on Kashmir, as it will question Pakistan’s stance that the Kashmir conflict needs to be resolved according to the aspirations of the Kashmiris and as per the UNSC resolutions. India’s interest in American mediation is merely restricted to its resolve to maintain territorial status quo by transforming the agreed LoC according to the Simla Pact of July 1972 as an international border and nothing beyond that.
Published in The Express Tribune, August 2nd, 2019.
Doval, along with the Indian Home Minister Amit Shah, are working overtime to implement the BJP manifesto of ending IOK’s special status as it argues that Article 370 and 35-A are an impediment to integrate the region with the Indian Union and obstructs development particularly in the Muslim-majority valley. All the Kashmiri political parties, including the National Conference, the People’s Democratic Party and the Jammu and Kashmir People’s Movement, are vehemently opposing the BJP’s drive to end IOK’s special status. The IOK’s former chief minister asked New Delhi to wait for the verdict of the Supreme Court where scores of petitions challenging Articles 35-A and 370 are pending. He logically argued, “Why should you hurry? We will respect the decision of the Supreme Court as we have always done.”
Why are Articles 370 and 35-A termed a “red line” by the Muslim Kashmiri leaders which, if crossed, can unleash a fresh outbreak of violence and end Jammu and Kashmir’s union with India? What will be the ramifications of doing away with these clauses in the Kashmir Valley and on India’s relations with Pakistan? Is the Modi regime not following the Punjab model of suppressing the Sikh nationalist insurgency of 1980s, while attempting to finish off Kashmiri militancy once and for all? These are the questions which are raised by those who are highly concerned by the Modi regime’s intentions of undoing Article 370 and 35-A.
According to the original Article 370 of the Indian Constitution, the former princely state of J&K will have an autonomous status within the Indian Union with its own president and prime minister. The Centre will only control areas of foreign affairs and defence. This aspect of Article 370 eroded soon after its ratification and New Delhi began to seek more control over the affairs of J&K. Article 35-A preserved the special status of the occupied region whereby no Indian national was allowed to buy a property or cast a vote in the elections. Both these articles were described by the BJP as a major obstacle to absorb IOK in the Indian Union and several petitions were filed in the Supreme Court to revoke such articles.
Since the BJP has a two-thirds majority in the Lower House and will gain the same in the Upper House by 2021, it is confident that it can revoke Article 370, and will have support from IOK’s state assembly if the presidential rule there ends and fresh elections are held. Once both articles are revoked, the Indian state can easily alter the demographic complexion of the Kashmir Valley — which is a main center of resistance against the Indian occupation — by settling millions of non-Muslims, transforming the Muslim majority in the valley to a minority (similar to the policy adopted by Israel by settling Jews in the occupied West Bank resulting in a changed demographic).
As quoted in the National Herald, “During his three-day tour, Doval had held detailed discussion with senior officers of the state administration, police, paramilitary force, army, state and Central Intelligence Agencies.” Doval’s visit to the valley was meant to ensure that any retaliation that occurs after revoking the two articles is dealt with an iron hand. Therefore, “An elaborate contingency plan has been worked out to take care of even the minutest details. How the law and order situation would behave, the response of the over-ground and underground separatist cadres and also the response of the mainstream political leader. The entire operation to deal with the law and order fallout in the aftermath of the abrogation of Article 35-A has been code named.” Doval’s visit and discussion with top-ranking security personnel in Srinagar made sure that, “All sensitive installations including the airport, radio station, Doordarshan Kendra, essential services like hydro-power generation projects, power grid stations, water supplies, hospitals, paramilitary camps and the state police posts are getting additional paramilitary deployments for extra-ordinary security cover. The state police will play a major role in security and law and order maintenance and the Army would stand for any assistance the civil administration might require to maintain law and order in the Muslim dominated Valley of Kashmir.”
If Article 35-A is removed, there will be no legal bar for Indian nationals in settling in the Muslim-majority Kashmir Valley, and become part of state elections thus ensuring a demographic transformation in that volatile region of J&K. Jammu and Ladakh have a non-Muslim majority and it is only the Kashmir Valley which needs to be demographically altered by settling Hindus and other non-Muslim communities to ensure the Jammu issue turns to India’s advantage.
Two arguments can be given about the Indian desperation to undo Articles 370 and 35-A. First, in his second term, Modi and other hawkish BJP leaders want to implement their party manifesto of absorbing IOK in the Indian Union. BJP’s calculation is if they start the process of revoking the articles now, it will take several months to take this to its logical conclusion. Second, despite the warnings given by Kashmiri political parties of leaving the Indian Union if special status of IOK is removed, the BJP thinks the time is ripe to implement their election manifesto which will be welcomed by those who want to permanently settle in J&K and buy property for investment purposes.
When Pakistan’s PM paid an official visit to the US to meet President Trump, the latter said that PM Modi had requested him to mediate with Pakistan to resolve the Kashmir dispute. This shocked Indian leaders to hear President Trump quoting their PM for something that is not in New Delhi’s policy. But Pakistan should consider any ulterior motive Modi may have in seeking American mediation to declare the LoC as an international boundary. India is certainly not interested in altering the territorial status quo in IOK and is willing to forgo its claim over Pakistan-controlled AJK and Gilgit-Baltistan if Islamabad agrees to accept LoC as an international border. If Trump is ready to compel Pakistan to accept this, it will put Islamabad in a very dangerous situation.
Pakistan must be careful while accepting American mediation offer on Kashmir, as it will question Pakistan’s stance that the Kashmir conflict needs to be resolved according to the aspirations of the Kashmiris and as per the UNSC resolutions. India’s interest in American mediation is merely restricted to its resolve to maintain territorial status quo by transforming the agreed LoC according to the Simla Pact of July 1972 as an international border and nothing beyond that.
Published in The Express Tribune, August 2nd, 2019.