Aazadi?

Basharat Peer's first book, Curfewed Night, is reportedly flying off racks in bookshops across the country, and I can see why. To be extremely brief, the book is about Kashmir. But it is not a strictly political or military account, nor is it a historical account seeking to determine whether Kashmir really should be a part of India or not. It is instead a book which tells stories, stories of ordinary people, people who are tortured, who are forced to leave their homes, whose lives are ruined; stories of girls who remain unmarried because there are no men left to marry, of parents who wished they had daughters because their sons never came home. As an Indian, it is painful reading Curfewed Night. It is painful because Peer says things that most Indians don't want to hear. Through his stories he says that Kashmirs don't want to be a part of India, that the Indian military has committed human rights abuses on an unparalleled scale in Kashmir. He even talks about how Kashmirs cheer for any team, even England, when they are playing against India. And he writes in a manner in which you feel he is saying nothing but the truth. Curfewed Night is, I believe, compulsory reading for every Indian.

How then do we reconcile Curfewed Night with what happened in Srinagar today. Omar Abdullah was sworn in as Chief Minister after an election in which more than 60% of the electorate braved the sub zero temperatures to come out and vote. A 60% turn out is impressive anywhere in the world. It is unprecedented in Kashmir. The vote threw up, as expected, a hung assembly. In the Jammu region, the BJP, riding on the Amarnath controversy made great gains. The valley remained split between the PDP and Abdullah's NC. And the Congress, playing kingmaker as it did last time round, decided to support the NC. I shall not discuss here why voters voted the way they did or why the Congress acted the way it did. Instead I wish to ask what such a high turnout means for the future of Kashmir.

Here is what I think it does not mean. It does not mean that support for separatism is dead. It does not mean that Kashmirs have given up on their demand for 'aazadi'. It does not mean that Kashmirs like India. A look back at the protests in Srinagar last summer bears testimony to this fact.

But it does mean that India should not get out of Kashmir (despite whatever various journalists might have had to say last summer), that Kashmirs want their basic grievances addressed, that the Abdullahs have genuine support in Kashmir, especially in rural areas, and that the Hurriyat must move quickly if it wants to remain relevant in peoples minds.

And here is why it does mean all of the above:

Why should we not give Kashmir up? Because we have no one to give it up to. The people of Kashmir do not want to be a part of Pakistan. They have shown by this vote more than anything else that they have faith in democracy. What democracy will they get in Pakistan? Their Kashmiri brothers in PoK remain controlled by Islamabad. All elections in PoK are an eyewash. To join Pakistan would mean substituting rule from Delhi with rule from Islamabad, and much as Peer may write about Kashmiris cheering Pakistani cricket teams, I think even he would agree that some form of local democracy is better than none at all.

Why do Kashmiris want basic grievances addressed? Because for close on 20 years, they have been systematically ignored as Kashmir has turned into a battleground between the military and the militants. A boycott of elections is useless because the Hurriyat (which calls for it) doesn't talk about development. It only talks of freedom. Talk of freedom is fine, but what happens when you cant find a job, get 2 square meals a day, don't have proper access to health care? The people of Kashmir may desire freedom. But they also desire development, and hence the vote.

The support for the Abdullah's has not diminished, no matter how many times Farooq presses the self destruct button. And the Abdullah's do provide a credible alternative to the Hurriyat. If the Hurriyat were to enter elections, they may not get more seats than the NC and the PDP.

For all these reasons the Hurriyat must move to remain relevant. (By the Hurriyat here I mean the moderate wing). They must enter the Indian political setup and campaign for their demands from within. The voters have already legitimized the Indian system of democracy, even if they haven't reconciled themselves to permanent Indian rule. Yet will the Hurriyat act? I believe that their lack of widespread support outside the major cities like Srinagar, and the fact that many of the Hurriyat leaders have their fingers in the pie, (Kashmir receives huge amounts of money from the centre, certainly this doesn't trickle down to the masses and the Hurriyat leaders live in palaces. Do the arithmetic yourself) prevents them from doing so.

While many Kashmiris may desire their land to become a Switzerland of the East, I think most understand that that is impossible in the near future. An independent Kashmir would have to be guaranteed by at least India, China, Pakistan and the US. When these countries cant agree on anything right now, what hope is there for them to agree on Kashmir. The fact that they have voted in such high number is thus a positive sign. The government must make good on its promises, the army must strive to interfere as little as possible with daily life in Kashmir, and ultimately relations with Pakistan must improve so that the LoC can become an open border and economic ties can strengthen between the two Kashmirs.