Published On: Mon, Jul 6th, 2015

Dulat – The Fauq of Kashmir?

Share This

By Dr. Syed Nazir Gilani –

RAW and the broad spread of IB are an undeniable reality in and outside Kashmir.  The responses coming from the militant and separatist leadership on the interview of former RAW chief A S Dulat and on revelations in the book “Kashmir The Vajpayee Years” authored by A S Dulat and Aditya Sinha are over simplification.

Our leadership lags behind in the understanding of their case and it is less knowledgeable  about the happenings in the habitat (Valley). In particular Kashmiri leadership has yet to respond to the fact that RAW and IB (with the help of State police) have started profiling the Muslim families in the Valley. It shows that  our leadership falls far behind as against the continued improvement by the State in its mechanism to humble and control the local population.

Kashmiri leadership may have been unfairly caricatured by President Musharraf on various occasions and in particular one referred by Dulat that they were advised by Musharraf in 2007 to ‘come out of comfort zone’, do not seem to learn from the concurrent narratives on Kashmir. Dulat’s book needs a thorough reading. Thereafter it could be either questioned on its veracity or used as a litmus test to evaluate the two competing narratives, namely the Kashmiri narrative and the Indian narrative.

Dulat unlike the majority of Indian officers (police cadre) discussed by R K Yadav former RAW officer in his book Mission R & AW is seemingly Munshi Muhammad Din Fauq of Kashmir. He has had more interaction and resources at his disposal and has lived in better times as compared to Fauq to write a brief history. There could be no challenge to facts. The only litmus test would be whether Dulat’s claim that Kashmir runs in his veins is verifiable or not. There are many Indians like late Justice Vithal Mahadeo Tarkunde and Justice Rajinder Sachar who have supported  the rights movement in Kashmir and unlike many others have succeeded to nudge pass the communal Indian sitting deep down in Indian  hearts.

Dulat has to prove that that he has succeeded to remain less anti-Muslim, less communal, has not soiled his hands in the blood of innocent Kashmiris, or been behind the campaigns like “Kashmir for Kashmiriat” a project assigned to a few Kashmiri Pandits and some Muslims in early 1990s to assassinate the characters of non-conforming distinguished Muslim Kashmiris involved in the support of the right of self-determination at the international level. He has to show that he has not been part of arrests and torture of elderly members of families of these Kashmiris, who highlighted the violations of human rights. Persecution of these families in Kashmir is documented in para 207 of UN Document E/CN.4/1997/7/Add.1 dated 20 December 1996. Government of India informed he United Nations that this family was harbouring militants and was having an arms dump in their orchards. It was a planted lie that RAW wished the state to present at the international forum in January 1996.

RAW is not only a reality but has been duly endorsed by Kashmiri leadership and Pakistan as a reality in the politics of Jammu and Kashmir. How RAW (and IB) manipulates an individual or an organization in and outside Kashmir depends on the individual and the organization. Where the two (Individual and organization) have graduated over the years and are not post 1990 appearances, the interaction could be genuinely in accordance with their respective strengths of understanding and character. Whiskey and Champagne evenings would not prevail upon the character of respective stands. Dulat is right that Indian money has been able to buy their way into many disciplines in Kashmir and into many other areas of influence outside Kashmir. However, it is also an undeniable fact that RAW and IB could not buy the overwhelming sentiment of a common Kashmiri that he has to be treated as equal for the right of self-determination.

Militant and political leadership in and outside Kashmir (and others) has to revisit its narrative and manner of oversimplification that there is no role for RAW and IB. Hurriyat has participated (chaired) the 25-26 November 2000 conference in Gurgaon on “Next step in Jammu and Kashmir: Give Peace A Chance”. It was sponsored by the International Centre for Peace Initiative Mumbai – India and Institute of Regional Studies Islamabad – Pakistan. The ten principles listed in the joint India-Pakistan document titled “The Beginning of the Future” recognise RAW more in the resolution of Kashmir dispute than the people of Jammu and Kashmir.

Part I of Phase 1 of the resolution process authored by the two institutions of India and Pakistan does not ascribe any role for the people of Kashmir. Hurriyat which was fully represented at the Gurgaon Conference in India did not raise any objection to the disturbing stipulation number two under Part II of Phase 1 which proposes that “Talks between GOI and All Parties Hurriyat Conference (APHC), besides other Kashmiri groups, with a limited and clearly spelt out agenda as suggested here: (1) to discuss the process and not substance of resolving the Kashmir conflict”.

Hurriyat had done no homework for the conference and therefore did not realise that it was being accepted by Government of India to discuss the process and had to be left out of the substantive resolution of the conflict. Hurriyat has also accepted a role for RAW in the stipulation five of Phase 4. The issue of ascribing no role to the Kashmiri leadership (People) in the substantive resolution of the conflict was however, raised by JKCHR in its paper during  the session chaired by Justice Rajinder Sachar.

ISI and RAW have been designated a role in phase 4 of the joint  paper prepared by the Institute of Regional Studies, Pakistan and International Centre for Peace Initiatives, India on “The Beginning of the Future”, circulated at the 25-26 November 2000 International Symposium on “Next Steps in Jammu and Kashmir : Give Peace a Chance”. Kashmiri leadership has participated in this International Symposium and has duly subscribed to this wisdom designating roles of the two institutions.

The appraisal of ISI and RAW roles in Jammu and Kashmir is important. ISI may have differences with the manner of work of various individuals and organization working on Kashmir. It does not see every Kashmiri Muslim and every Kashmiri Pandit as a legitimate target. As against this RAW has an ongoing reflex to use the local Kashmiri Pandit to spy on a Muslim and profile him to subjugate and humble. Indian RAW and IB does have erring officers as described by R K Yadav in his book “Mission R & AW” and the likes of Dulat (if he is an exception) are scarcely fit to serve in Jammu and Kashmir.

At the end of the day Dulat too is one peel of the Indian onion. He has failed in his book to admit that Indian soldier admitted provisionally into the State to  defend the territory, protect life, property and honour, has in fact acted outside the terms of admission and has participated in the death of a generation of Kashmiri Muslims.

Let us concur with HAPPYMON JACOB who wrote in his piece “RAW Revelations” that Dulat not only understands the Kashmir conflict extremely well but also has a ‘constructive’ and ‘peace-building approach’ to Kashmir. There is a genuine resistance to this belief because Dulat does not recognize the jurisprudence of the Kashmir case. The most important of all is to have the kind of Government at Srinagar envisaged by the UN Resolution of 21 April 1948 and to admit that the Government of Jammu and Kashmir and the political parties in Kashmir remain under the caution of UN Resolution of 30 March 1951.

Dulat and many others in Delhi administration fail to accept that an Indian citizen was required a permit for entry into Jammu and Kashmir until April 1959. This position could not have been changed, if there were a Government as envisaged by the UN Resolution in 1948 and the UN Resolution of 30 March 1951 restrains the Government to take any such decision. Indian army or any other Indian presence in Jammu and Kashmir (Indian side) is restrained by the four duties listed in the terms of admission (which is now justiciable) and UN Resolution of 21 April 1948 sets out stipulation on the number, behaviour and location of Indian army in Kashmir.

Even by the standards of Autonomy Report of the State Government (NC), Kashmir has a provisional ‘accession’ with India and it has not merged into the union. Indian claim on Kashmir has no merit because it is in control of only a part of the territory and that control remains justiciable under UN supervised plebiscite. The infirmity of the J & K Government at Srinagar is recognised under article 48 of J & K Constitution and the UN. Dulat’s vision has failed to free itself from the dusty A4 size notes that RAW keeps on Kashmir. His view is a routine reflex of Indian view. Kashmiri and Pakistani view is that future of Kashmir remains justiciable under UN supervision. Dulat’s narrative is contemporary. We should have honesty and courage to differentiate between facts and opinions.

    Print This Post Print This Post

Leave a comment

XHTML: You can use these html tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>