Durable peace is possible only when the root causes for its absence are addressed. India and Pakistan should sit, discuss and sort out all pending issues. The people of both countries want peace and are against persisting tensions. Interview with Arun Kumar
Liberation: Regarding UN resolutions on Kashmir, particularly the call for a plebiscite, what is AIPSO’s understanding of a progressive Indian position that could accommodate Kashmiri aspirations for greater autonomy or self-determination?
The AIPSO is of the strong opinion that the aspirations of the Kashmiri people can be realised only when the promises made by the Indian State at the time of accession are honoured. The history of Kashmir and the circumstances in which the province agreed to become part of the Indian Union needs to be understood. The people of Kashmir fought against the feudal king and demanded the implementation of radical land reforms at the time of their accession. In spite of the raging religious sectarian violence around Indian independence, Kashmir remained largely unaffected. Most importantly, the fact that the king was a Hindu and majority of the peasants were Muslims, also did not create a division in the society on religious lines. The struggle against the King remained a struggle against feudal oppression and for freedom from his tyrannical rule. It is against this background that the decision of Kashmiris to join the Indian Union has to be understood. All they demanded at the time of accession was to respect their culture, the particularities of their society, a recognition of their struggle and a system that would enable the realisation of the demands of that struggle. Article 370 in the Indian Constitution guaranteed them all these things through granting them autonomy in many aspects of governance, within the broad framework of Indian Union.
Liberation (red): How does AIPSO analyse the motivations and consequences of the Indian government’s 2019 decision to revoke Kashmir’s autonomy and reorganize the region? What have been the impacts on local rights and dissent?
The AIPSO was always against the abrogation of Article 370, while the BJP and its parent organisation the RSS were always for its removal. So the positions of the government and the AIPSO and many other peace-loving, progressive sections of the society are always diametrically opposite on the question of Kashmir. It should be remembered here that the RSS and it’s sister organisations were supporting the King during the anti-feudal struggle of the Kashmiri peasants. In fact, the RSS was always in support of all the Hindu-ruled princely States in British India, which in reality meant almost all of them, except like Hyderabad (a notable exception). The RSS was unable to accept the loss of a Hindu ruler and the granting of autonomy to the only Muslim majority province in independent India. The dream of the RSS, as was recently expressed by its Supremo Mohan Bhagwat is the establishment of a Hindu Rashtra (A Hindu State). It is not for India remaining as a secular state. It is in this framework we have to locate their deep-rooted hatred for Article 370.
Once the Article 370 was abrogated, people in Kashmir and also all of us who love this country for its rich diversity were appalled. This is reneging on the promise made to the people of Kashmir. We of course recognise the fact that the Union governments since independence did not put in a real effort for implementing the provisions specified in the Article 370. We, and the people of Kashmir, were always demanding the implementation of the Article 370 in letter and spirit. The more it is violated the more dejected the people of Kashmir became. The more their demand for autonomy was suppressed, the more the sense of betrayal engulfed them. The capitalist path of development adopted by the Indian state also created inequalities and discontent among the people. Pakistan, all kinds of religious fundamentalist elements and extremists, fished in these waters and tried to sow seeds of dissension. The abrogation of Article 370 and suppression of dissenting voices increased the sense of alienation in the people of Kashmir.
Liberation (red): Has AIPSO been involved in or aware of any dialogues or initiatives between progressive forces in India and Pakistan aimed at finding a peaceful path forward that respects the rights of the Kashmiri people?
Unfortunately, there has been no dialogue between the people of both the countries for many years, as people-to-people relations were the first casualty of tensions.
Liberation: Considering the rise of nationalism in both India and Pakistan, particularly in India, what is AIPSO’s assessment of the prospects for a durable peace in the region, especially concerning the heightened risk of military or nuclear confrontation?
Durable peace is possible only when the root causes for its absence are addressed. The two countries should sit, discuss and sort out all pending issues. The people of both countries want peace and are against persisting tensions. People, particularly those residing near the borders, know the costs of war or the price of tensions at the border. It is the common people who are losing their lives, homes and livelihoods due to constant shelling. Reports in the media indicated that due to the closure of border at Attari, nearly 5,000 workers who are dependent on cross border trade, lost their employment. So, nobody wants a war.
Liberation (red): Given China’s presence in Kashmir and India’s evolving strategic alignment with the US (including the Quad), how does AIPSO view the potential for India adopting a more independent foreign policy to de-escalate tensions and foster a resolution in the region?
India’s strategic alignment with the US and membership of QUAD occurred in the wake of the collapse of the Soviet Union. One needs to remember the role of the US, when India was supporting Bangladesh’s liberation struggle in 1971. The US sent its warships to threaten India from assisting Bangladesh’s liberation struggle against Pakistan. The US was always considered close to Pakistan, rather than India. Furthermore, the US did not like India playing a leading role in the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM). India was not only a founding member of the NAM, but also one of its important voices. It is for this reason, countries in the global South considered India to be their friend. All this changed after the collapse of the USSR and the introduction of neoliberal policies. India gradually moved closer to the US and post-2008 (when India signed the civil nuclear deal with the US), it became its strategic partner and a key cog in its Indo-Pacific strategy. Though the US continues its relations with Pakistan, the weight of India grew. Now, with China emerging as the main competitor, the importance of India for the US increased. Indian foreign policy underwent a drastic revision and is now completely aligned with the US interests. So much so that US claims that it had played a crucial role in enforcing the ceasefire between India and Pakistan.
Liberation (red): UN Security Council Resolution 80 called for the demilitarization of Jammu & Kashmir. Does AIPSO support this resolution, and what are its views on the high levels of military presence and associated human rights concerns in the region?
AIPSO is against internationalisation of the Kashmir issue. We want the issue to be settled bilaterally, through negotiations between India and Pakistan. Once talks take precedence and issues are gradually sorted out, terrorism will not find a fertile ground in this region. Then, there will be no reason for military presence and no excuse for violating human rights.
Liberation (red): Considering the historical context of British colonialism and the partition, what is AIPSO’s perspective on the long-term impact of these events on the current Kashmir issue? Does AIPSO believe there is a role for the UK to play in addressing this historical legacy?
All the existing tensions/conflicts anywhere in the world today are thanks to lingering colonial legacy. As stated earlier, any issue between India and Pakistan can be and will be settled bilaterally. There is no space for any third party intervention or mediation, be it the US or the UK. We have seen enough of colonial/imperial meddling in our region. Hopefully, our governments too, have learned their lessons and will honour the popular consensus against third-party intervention.
Arun Kumar is General Secretary of the All India Peace and Solidarity Organisation
(AIPSO). Founded in 1951, AIPSO is a key member of the World Peace Council.
Photo: Farming in Kashmir, India. Radical land reform, respect for their culture, the particularities of their society, a recognition of their struggle and a system that would enable the realisation of the demands of that struggle were key demands of Kashmiris at the time of accession in 1947 / sandeepachetan.com travel photography
This article first appeared in Liberation journal.
The views expressed in the articles published on this website do not necessarily represent those of Liberation
Support our work – donate, become a member, affiliate your local organisation’s branch or volunteer
