J&K: Truth lost in translation

Although the interlocutors appointed by the Centre have so far denied it, the media has been persistently reporting that pre-1953 status is being recommended for Kashmir.
The crux issue in Kashmir has been obfuscated by virulent propaganda and misrepresentation of facts. The common thinking is that Kashmir has a Muslim majority and the people there want to break away from India and join Pakistan or become independent.

This is contrary to ground realities. In 2002, a Mori poll conducted by a British NGO under the patronage of Lord Avebury, a known protagonist of Pakistan, found that 61 per cent of the population of the Valley wants to remain in India, six per cent wants to join Pakistan and 33 per cent is undecided. Even if we do not give credence to this survey, we cannot ignore the fact that the Valley Muslims, referred to as Kashmiri Muslims, are a minority in Jammu and Kashmir. They constitute about 45 per cent of the population. Other Muslims, like Gujjars, Bakherwals and Kargil Shias, are 20 per cent.
Non-Muslims, that is Hindus, Sikhs and Buddhists, are 35 per cent. The silent majority among the Valley Muslims is of Sufis who are being gradually marginalised. The Sunnis constitute the bulk of the intelligentsia and hold the levers of political and economic power. It may be mentioned that the office of J&K chief minister has been a monopoly of Kashmiri Muslims. Senior Congressmen of the state once met me to express grave reservations at Mr Ghulam Nabi Azad being appointed chief minister. I pointed out that he was a son of Jammu, educated in Kashmir, and a son-in-law of Kashmir, an ideal combination for CM. He was not allowed to complete his full term.
The people in the Valley are often misled by false propaganda projecting threats to Islam. This happened in 1963 when the Holy Relic at Hazratbal had disappeared, and again in 2008. On the latter occasion, it was alleged that Hindus were going to be settled on a 100-acre plot of waste land to change the demography of the Valley, like Israel had done in Palestine. This despite the fact that this land is unapproachable and uninhabitable eight months of the year. This plot had been given on lease for `2 crore.
The ownership was to remain with the state government and it was stipulated that no permanent structure was to be put up on that plot. At that time Omar Abdullah, in an emotional outburst in Parliament, had asserted that they would give their lives, but not their land. This only exacerbated matters.
Delhi has never had a road map for a solution of the Kashmir problem beyond reiterating that Kashmir is an integral part of India and a solution will emerge through dialogue. It has no media policy, with the result that we have been losing the media war internationally, nationally and regionally. Not only do we not effectively counter hostile propaganda, we fail to project our national viewpoint on Kashmir. The Valley press is often more anti-India than the Pakistan press. They assert that Kashmir has never been a part of India, forgetting history and that Srinagar was founded by Emperor Ashoka.
They put facts on their head when they state that the Indian Army invaded Kashmir on October 26, 1947 and Pakistan sent raiders to help the freedom struggle. They maintain that Kashmiri Pandits were made to move out from Kashmir in 1989 by India to give the freedom struggle a bad name and, of course, ignore that their 100 odd temples were vandalised.
As regards Kashmir reverting to pre-1953 status, those making this demand do not want the restoration of the Dogra dynasty. They are asking for an elected Sadr-e-Riyasat.
What is being demanded implies permits for other Indians to enter Kashmir, for the Indian flag to not be flown in Kashmir, for the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, Election Commission and Comptroller and Auditor General to be withdrawn from Kashmir, a Prime Minister for the state and no IAS or IPS officers in Kashmir. In other words, it involves breaking political links with India as far as possible while continuing with maximum economic assistance from New Delhi, and, while demanding maximum autonomy at the state level, letting autonomy at the regional and panchayat levels remain neglected. The self-rule demand involving dual currency (India and Pakistan) and a joint Upper House in Kashmir with Pakistan goes a step further, giving Pakistan a foothold in Kashmir.
There appears to be a consensus on maintaining the territorial integrity of the state, but this can only be the residual part comprising the Indian administered part. Given the present international scenario, it is not practicable to recover the Pakistan- and China-occupied areas of J&K. Article 370 may continue, but putting back the hands of the clock and loosening political links with India can only be suicidal. Appeasement whets the appetite for more. In any case, a constitutional amendment will require a two-third majority in Parliament, at present an obviously impracticable proposition.
There can be no change in the present Centre-state equation. Good governance, economic development and maximum autonomy at the regional and panchayat levels need to be ensured.
There must also be a robust media policy to counter false propaganda. It must be repeatedly brought out that notwithstanding few unfortunate incidents, for which the guilty are being duly punished, the Indian Army’s human rights record in Kashmir is far superior to that of the US Army in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the Pakistan Army’s in Balochistan and Waziristan, leave alone what happened in Vietnam and in East Pakistan. The fate of Sufis in Pakistan should be highlighted in Kashmir.
Internationally, we need to emphatically project that we are not only fighting to uphold secularism in Kashmir but also serving the interests of the international community by fighting against international jihad, to which the US seems to be succumbing in Afghanistan.

The author, a retired lieutenant-general, was Vice-Chief of Army Staff and has served as governor of Assam and Jammu and Kashmir.