`WE WILL NOT ALLOW J&K TO BE TURNED INTO A CONCENTRATION CAMP FOR HINDUS'

--DR AJAY CHRUNGOO

(Dr. Ajay Chrungoo currently the Chairman of Panun Kashmir, the frontline organisation of Kashmiri Pandits needs no introduction. He along with his group founded Panun Kashmir in 1990 to spearhead the campaign for Homeland demand. Dr Chrungoo has played a key role in focussing international attention on Ethnic cleansing of Kashmiri Pandits. In 1994, his spirited intervention in Geneva contributed its part in defeating the Pakistani gameplan. His keen insights into the different aspects of Kashmir crisis has won him wide acclaim. Kashmir Sentinel talked to him at length on different issues pertaining to Kashmir Crisis. Below are the excerpts of the interview.)

KS: Both the Govt. of India and Hizbul Mujahideen sound optimistic about the resumption of dialogue. Do you look at recent events as a turning point in the decade-long-proxy war?

AC: Surely not. It would be engaging in self-deception if we were to see a tactical move taken by Hizbul Mujahideen as a strategic gain for India. Those who are familiar with the history of terrorist movements know well that the groups waging war against the state, under adverse situations, resort to tactical retreats to consolidate their organisations. In any case, the ceasefire and its subsequent revoking need to be seen in their proper prospective.

KS: Can you elaborate?

AC: Kargil aggression and its aftermath need to be analysed properly. There was qualitative and quantitative escalation in the terrorist violence. Indian diplomacy made some gains in driving home to the international audience that the ongoing separatist campaign in Kashmir was an amalgam of pan-Islamism and narco-terrorism, nurtured and perpetuated by the military-intelligence establishment of Pakistan. In fact, Qazi Hussain Ahmed, the chief of Pakistan Jamaat-Islami is on record having said, "A great Islamic state spreading from Kashmir to Central Asia would emerge after the independence of Kashmir". But Kargil also sharpened the western focus on Kashmir. This should not be ignored.

Q: Are you referring to Anglo-American involvement:

AC: Anglo-American blackmailing on the bogey of nuclear war has remained unrelenting. India took a firm line that it will not talk to Pakistan unless it stops sponsoring cross-border terrorism. Americans tried to influence India diplomatically as well as through its track-II henchmen, They have been opining that engagement with General Musharraf, a "moderate" can relieve pressure on him fromhardliners like Lt Gen Aziz and Lt Gen Mehmood, the blue-eyed boys of Jamaat-Islami. India refused to buy this line. The recent moves of Pakistan and Hizbul Mujahideen are the response to this post-Kargil scenario. Hizb strategy was based on three imperatives. One to seek the legitimacy for the ongoing terrorist campaign as an "indigenous ethnic group" fighting for "self-determination. Secondly to appear as a "responsible group" ready for dialogue while keeping all
options open for escalating Jehadi violence. And lastly to sufficiently
undermine India's argument not to talk to Pakistan till it stopped cross-border terrorism.

KS: Do you imply that the Hizbul ceasefire offer was a trap? In the counter-insurgency campaign, don't you feel that neutralizing an influential terrorist group is an important strategic gain?

AC: Whether ceasefire move has strengthened or weakened Hizbul Mujahideen militarily, is premature to speculate. But politically this outfit has been strengthened. By according HM, the legitimacy of being an indigenous group of "ethnic Kashmiris" willing to broker peace what is the message we have conveyed internationally. Hizbul Mujahideen, continues to remain the military wing of Jamaat-e-Islami, holding rabidly fundamentalist ideology. Is it not a fact that in massacre after massacre of the non-Muslim minorities, be it Sangrampora. Wandhama or Prankote etc, we have been holding Hizb responsible for ethnic-cleansing acts. Indian policy-makers have been overlooking the experience of "peace initiatives" in other conflict
zones of the world, facing the spectre of Islamist and separatist terrorism.

KS: Do you refer to Palestinian-Israeli' engagement?

AC: Our Home Minister and Foreign Ministers have visited Israel recently and engaged themselves on wide-ranging issues of mutual interest. Israelis refused to talk to Palestinians till they were assured on two counts. One, that PLO charter, which sought destruction of Israel would be amended. In the `Wye Accord',what Israelis emphasised should have served as an eye-opener for our think-tanks. Israelis sought concrete assurances that the "peaceoffers" of Palestinian were not tactical moves and the Palestinian leadership should first internalize the desire to live in peace with Israelis.

KS: But with Hizbul Mujahideen neutralised don't you feel that
the Indian security forces would be better placed to fight`Jehadi' outfits?

AC: In the type of proxy-war that we are facing in J&K, this type of ceasefire doesn't mean much. Experience of JKLF ceasefire in 1994or that of Muslim Janbaz force is already before us. Then what is the mechanism to draw a line between Hizbul Mujahideen and other terrorists. Hizb has also been saying that this ceasefire does not imply surrender. It is quite possible that Jehadi outfits would use the immunity offered by security forces to Hizb, to escalate violence. Secondly the complacency in-built in a situation of ceasefire can blur the focus of counter-insurgency operations.

KS: Then, what are the compulsions for the Centre to welcome `unconditional' dialogue with Hizbul Mujahideen?

AC: The ceasefire bait seems to be an imposed phenomenon. It is an open secret that the American are brazenly trying to push forward their geo-strategic designs in this region, using nuclear issue as a weapon of blackmail. We are trying to pull wool over the eyes, if we think that the American efforts in the subcontinent are benign. The Indian policy makers are trying to gloss over the basic incompatibility between US approach and India's nationalistic position on Kashmir. America besides reiterating its basic stand on Kashmir in consistence with its hegemonic interests, has also been following a consistent policy of patronising Muslim subnational/separatist and fundamentalist movements, be it Kashmir, Chechnya or Kosovo. Who created Taliban? Contrary to the general assessment, the US has not abandoned Pakistan.

KS: Observers have also referred to the growing schism between Hizb and Pakistan Jamaat-i-Islami, Hurriyat-Hizbul divide and possible split within Hizbul Mujahideen. How do you visualise the impact of these developments on the outcome of proxy-war?

AC: The controversy between Pakistan chapter of Jamaat Islami and Hizb relates primarily to the attitude to be adopted towards America. Kashmiri fundamentalistoutfits emphasise close collaboration with Americans till "Jehadi objectives" in Kashmir areaccomplished. The statements issued by their leaders recently give an impression that they want anti-American part of the Jehadi campaign to be shelved for sometime, as was done earlier in Afghanistan. Hurriyat-Hizbul dichotomy witnessed recently is part of an internal power struggle in the separatist camp and is a game of one-upmanship.The implications of such diferencesare contrary to what GOI wants us to believe. It will certainly not help in the improvement of the situation.

Q: Why?

AC: These differences, have the potentiality, as we have seen on the issue of greater autonomy, of unleashing a wave of competitive secessionism and communalism. Both the growing divergence between Hizb and Hurriyat or a possible split in the Hizb will not help unless there is ideological undermining of the fundamentalist and separatist agenda. Splits are a double-edged weapon, and have at times lead to the creation of cohesive groups with a focussed agenda and unleashing of more violence. Pakistan-manipulated terrorist violence in Afghanistan passed through a similar phase. It had greater leverage with smaller outfits, which in turn had more
dependence on Pakistan. Bigger outfits have their own problems. These are unwieldy and have problems of internal power struggle. This in turn leads to inertia. So India should not, as a matter of strategy, read too much in splits.
It should, infact, create counter-insurgency groups, having an ideological focus that is compatible with nation-building and long-term security needs.

KS: Ceasefire `deals' do you feel have no role incounter-insurgency strategy?

AC: It is imperative that the ceasefire `offer' is linked bythe GOI to conditionalities. An accountability vis-a-vis internal environment be sought from the terrorist groups. We should not create a situation, where there is chance for escalation of violence and at the same time there is no accountability. The neutralised group must counter other terrorist groups and actively aid the security forces in this task. Israelis with clear thinking on this issue ensured that PLO targeted other terrorist groups, including Hamas. Only in such a situation the ceasefire can hold on. Secondly, the group that is involved in `peace talks' must be prepared to counter andresist attempts at ethnic-cleansing operations against the minorities. It must demonstrate clear commitment on restoring religious pluralism to the perceptions of the victimised minorities. Symbolic gimmickswon't do. And lastly, even while engaging in dialogue, the centre must be clear that no ideological respectability is bestowed on rabidly Islamist and communal groups in the Kashmir valley.

KS: Was the ceasefire issue mishandled from the very word go?

AC: You can draw your own conclusions. For the first time in twenty-five years the nation demonstrated a rare national consensus in opposing the greater autonomy demand voiced by National Conference. This demand was seen as one attacking the very essence of Indian nationhood, both in its ideological as well as strategic dimensions. Kashmiri Muslim elite was stunned by the display of this strong nationalist resolve. Govt. of India should have allowed the impact of this response to percolate down to the people in Kashmir. This would have in turn refocused attention of Kashmiri Muslims from Muslim identity politics to issues of participatory democracy, secular governance and religious pluralism.

KS: There is a debate in the country that attributes Kashmiri Muslim alienation to the denial of political and constitutional autonomy to Kashmiris. Do you subscribe to this?

AC: You are simplifying a complex issue. A motivated group, that comprises sections of left and Gandhian-Socialist liberals is at the Centre of this debate. The politics of the left in this country, has hovered round the issue of conspiracy. These sections have been trying to gatecrash the conspiracy theory into the alienation factor in Kashmir. We have to understand that building false consciousness of alienation has remained integral to the success of Muslim identity and fundamentalist movements. It has remained integral component of Jehadi wars. Kashmiri Muslim separatistphenomenon cannot be delinked from this. You have to decide who is alienated and the motivating factor in this alienation.

Q: Please Explain.

AC: Demographically, Kashmiri Sunnis constitute less than forty percent of Valleys population and in J&K its strength is not more than 22 percent. It also holds monopoly of political, economic and administrative power over all the three regions of the state. Yet it is this very group that feels alienated and has been contributing to the separatist politics over the years. The pursuit of communal-separatist politics suits the elite of its group to maintain its all-round ascendancy. In fact GOI has also been pampering this very elite, over the last five decades, at the cost of Kashmiri Pandits, Ladhakis, Jammu and other non-Sunni groups in Kashmir. There has been intense socialisation of Kashmiri Muslims masses on the imperatives of Islamic Jehad. Besides this main factor there are other factors which need notice as well.

Q: What are these factors?

AC: The internal power struggle within Kashmiri Sunni Muslim Society has also influenced the contours of secessionist and communal politics. For understanding this `alienation' factor, youhave to address two important linkages--heterogenity of Kashmiri society as well as class stratification within Kashmiri Sunni society. The many hierarchies within Kashmiri Sunni Muslim middle class are Rural vs Urban divide, aspirations of common man vis-a-vis ruling elite and lastly the Abdullah clan vs non-Abdullah elite groups. All these have underpinned the internal power struggle, which could not be resolved due to weak democratic institutions, non-functioning civil society and patronage to personalised and communal politics by the Centre.
This had bearing on the course of separatist and communal politics. If you want to go deeper sociologically, you will find that elite groups of alien castes in Kashmiri Sunni society, have been more vehement in pursuing fundamentalist and communal agendas.
The left and the people like George Verghese, PS Jha, Muchkund Dubey etc have been looking not at the base, while explaining the alienation phenomenon. They have been mistaking wood for the trees. They have totally ignored the issues of Muslim Identity politics in shaping the conscionsness of alienation of Kashmiri Muslims. At the same time their views on the issues of democracy, economics and
governance are distortions.

KS: In your view then what are the Routes to Normalcy in Kashmir?
AC: Foremost in our quest to find solution to the crisis in Jammu and Kashmir is to correct our premises. The challenges in the J&K are in fact the fundamental challenges to Indian civilisation and the nation state. The relentless bid of the Muslim power to extend towards east forms the core of this Jehadic war. Unfortunately the national opinion still ignores this reality and has tended to trivialise the issues. Issues like unemployment or unfulfilment of so-called historical promises are factually incorrect and serve only as diversionary ploys.
There has to be a firm and not half-cock military response to the armed Islamist terrorism operating in J&K. Its linkages internally in J&K and support structures in rest of India need to be smashed. There has to be no compromise with any group except on surrender. Secondly, the formulation of Kashmir policy has to be based on the sociological complexities of J&K. The edifice of secular and participatory governance has to be rebuilt by undermining and delegitimising in Kashmir all forms of separatist and communal politics. Those who pursue or support separatist politics must be made to pay the price for it.Lastly, the position of the nationalistic groups, who have to play a vanguard role in ensuring the security of this Northern Frontier, must be strengthened by according full legitimacy to their aspiration.Reorganisation of the state by its quadripartiion is therefore an imperative necessity. We want Kashmir to be divided and Pandits settled in Panun Kashmir with a Union Territory Status.

Q: Are you suggesting a fundamental shift in National Policy?

AC: Yes. The paradigm of nation-building, hitherto being followed in Kashmir, is seeking accommodation with some form of Muslim subnational communalism. Nationalistic groups too are being advised to do the same in the name of "pragmatic politics" and abandoning `hardline' options. There has to be a paradigmalshift in our thinking. We have to have faith in secular nation-building approach in Kashmir. If this approach is good for any multi-ethnic, multi-religious society elsewhere, it can be good for Kashmir too. The results would be slow but long-lasting. Our concerns in Kashmir should be to defeat communal and separatist politics in all its manifestations and not to seek mere commitments on support to accession. At the economic level, the transition of polity in this part of country from a mercantile bureaucratic mode to a vibrant industrial one, has to be hastened. The rentier class continues to be the chief propeller of separatist politics.

KS: Your organisation, Panun Kashmir along with Ladakhi Buddhist Association and Jammu Joint Students Federation launched recently People's Initiative for Peace and Unity, (PIP). How do youvisualise its role in the emergence of new paradigm of nation-building in J&K?

AC: PIPU's crucial role in crystallizing the national consensuson autonomy issue is being gradually acknowledged. PIPU strongly
believes that autonomy demand is essentially an effort to get constitutional and political legitimisation to Muslim subnationalism in Kashmir. To concede such a demand has serious ramifications for the stability of Indian nation-state and Kashmir's integrationwith India. We want GOI to recognise non-Muslim population groups in J&K, who, constitute more than 45 per cent of states' population. They cannot be held hostage to the whims of Muslim identity politics. More specifically the genocidal attrition against these marginalised groups has to be addressed by the nation in its all sincerity.

KS: In what way, the emergence of Panun Kashmir has altered the national discourse on Kashmir and Kashmiri Pandits?

AC: If today there is `The Pandit Question', it is becausethere is Panun Kashmir. We, in Panun Kashmir, have been primarily trying to locate the broader context in which Pandit ethnic-cleansing has taken place. For reversing the ethnic-cleansing process on a long-term basis, all those factors which have contributed to the weakening of the security of northern frontier, rise of communal and separatist politics in Kashmir, and retarded Kashmiri Pandit resistance to the attempts at their social-political destabilisation since 1947, need to be addressed. The ideology of Panun Kashmir is related to these issues. How can Pandits survive in a nation-building model, which legitimises communal politics and attrition of minorities? Panun Kashmir rejects that position, which advises minority groups to find space for survival within the operatives of Muslim communalism. Governor Saxena and some senior ministers in the Union Cabinet have time and again reiterated that in Kashmir India is fighting the battle for retrieving ideological foundations of its nation-state. But this has to be seen on the ground. If the nation-building model continues to be based on seeking accommodation with some form of Muslim subnationalism, then on what logic can we claim that India opposes two-nation theory. PK wants greater national sensitivity on
this.
We have also been trying to build national opinion against dubious track-2 diplomacy and international intrigues in the region. PK has been successful in developing greater sensitivity on Pandit Question and the securing of Northern Frontier, but has still a long way to go. At the community level, PK has been trying to overcome a fundamental distortion in Pandit psyche, which crept during last five decades. This distortion glorified apolitical approach to its destabilisation and found virtues in groups or situations, which were responsible for its destabilisation.

KS: Where does Panun Kashmir stand today?

AC: Survival of Panun Kashmir is critical to the survival of resistance against disguised and committed hierarchies of secessionism. The community today is more aware, than it used to be about its real stakes. This has led to the sharpening of the community consensus on fundamental issues. It is this consensus which is dictating agenda for its leadership. Groups which went all out to debunk the homeland demand and engaged in worse slanders, have all of a sudden become its protagonists. Even those who are striving to undermine the strategic agenda of homeland demand, have to swear by `Margdarshan' to survive in community's struggle. Weare today, better placed to carry the homeland struggle to the nextphase, but then new challenges have emerged.

KS: What challenges?

AC: First and foremost is the temptation to resort to populism. The agenda of Panun Kashmir is a revolutionary concept and not an issue of expediency. Why certain persons are trying to counterpoise such intriguing concepts like `return modules', `three-tier formulae', `geopolitical restructuring', `townshipsproposal' etc against the homeland demand, even while going in public as ardent supporters of Panun Kashmir? We need to be on guard and the exact motivations for undermining the homeland agenda need to be ascertained. Secondly, there is a race going on among some Pandit groups to find space in the ongoing dialogue between the Centre and the separatists. This is the time to sharpen the focus of our struggle. We have seen how such dialogues with skewed agenda have harmed our community and patriotic groups in Doda in the recent past.

KS: Are you opposed to Pandits being part of the dialogue process?

AC: Dialogue with whom is the basic issue that needs to be settled. Yes, there is need for dialogue. The first step in this dialogue is the dialogue with the leadership of the nation. Pandits have to be sure whether the leadership of the country has clear vision about the real stakes in Kashmir. In these stakes, where does this leadership place the return and survival of one million strong Pandit community? Is this leadership prepared to undertake those measures, which can help the exiled community's return on long-term basis? Theconcept of Pandits simply as a bargaining chip in the dialogue process does not belong to Panun Kashmir's dictionary. We need to be heard as agroup, by our own right and recognised as a community with legitimate aspirations. The nation has to understand that Pandits were pushed out from the Valley because we constituted the civilisational frontline and the vital element for ensuring the survival of pluralism in Kashmir's social polity. Kashmir has remained a`prison house of minorities' since 1947. We do not want it to be turnedinto a `concentration camp for minorities'. This is the vision,that defines our stand on the dialogue process.

KS: Why is PK adamant on carving out of Panun Kashmir to the North and East of river Jehlum.

AC: As I have already elaborated, strengthening of `NorthernFrontier is crucial for nation's security. The particular area we are demanding will strengthen the security environment based on this concept. It is crucial for our community's survival also. Letthere be a national debate on this.

KS: How have the Diaspora Pandit groups related themselves to your
struggle?

AC: Beyond doubt, they have demonstrated empathy and concern and tried to identify with us. This interaction, infact, has given positive dimension to their `cultural hunger' also andreinforced their search for `roots'. Within the country, we havereceived full support from these groups.

KS: Your organisation has been somewhat critical of the role played by overseas Pandit groups?

AC: Pandits living outside the country have also been feeling concerned over the community's ethnic-cleansing. They have also helped the community and the nation on Kashmir crisis. However,PK's relationship was confined to those groups who responded to our agenda immediately. As the PK's struggle developed, the experience of working with these groups brought home to us that they visualised PK agenda more as an agenda of expediency or bargain, rather than as a commitment to community's legitimate aspirations. We feltalarmed, when suddenly some of the articulate members of these overseas groups while visiting Delhi and Jammu, began talking about`confederation proposals' and `porous borders' and compromises with Muslim communal and separatist groups. Around the same time, they made determined attempts to subvert PK agenda and create pliant leadership, which would go along with them to push through their agenda. It is amazing, that far away Pandit groups, in the face of total opposition by displaced Pandits, should come and advise NHRC about taking back three thousand Pandit families under `coercion'.While talking about the dubious role of overseas organisations, we are not absolving such persons here, who provided space to them to operate. It is humiliating that the Pandit leadership in Jammu has to be seen surviving on the basis of its recognition by the Pandit groups in Europe and America. The great Palestinian scholar, Edward Said has eloquently written on how `incomprehension' and`betrayal' are the worst enemies of a community fighting genocide.

KS: United struggle of the Pandit community would be better placed to help us reach the goal? Please comment.

AC: Cliches of unity and democracy have been used from time to time in the name of strengthening the community's struggle. Why is itthat such talk comes only when there are concerted efforts at agenda building or when there is greater sensitivity on relevance of Pandit factor at the national or international level. As a matter of fact, we stand for transparency, unity and democracy as active principles and not as cliches to run down the struggle and slander the leadership. A smaller group with a well-focussed agenda at times, is a better choice than a bigger group with no agenda. I believe that democratic functioning in the organisation, should in the ultimate lead to strengthening of unity and struggle. You have got to appreciate that Pandit organisations which have written constitution or go through periodic elections have also been the most ineffective ones with no specific agenda or commitment to struggle. Democracy unity and agenda building have to go together.

KS: About transparency?

AC: Movements in infancy have their own incubation period in achieving the commensurate levels of transparency. Transparency is the oxygen to the movement. It has broader connotation and implies scrutinising the role of leadership in handling the given agendas, accountability of finances and evolving institutions which internalize transparency. Late Pandit Shiv Narain Fotedhar, once in despair, referred to the intrinsic sickness factor of `Nishkam Nindya' (compulsive criticism) and `Gumnam Patr' (writinganonymous letters to the leaders). This observation is our experience as well.