5.2) Creating a Proxy Political System: 'Purposes' in the Present Situation

What India is doing now in Kashmir should be seen in the light of what it has been doing there in the past. India is going to put a 'political system' in place using the same old instrument--- The NC. For the real control of Kashmir ,India will not rely on this system. It will continue relying on army and other coercive agencies, but nevertheless , this system will have its own 'purposes' to achieve and India will use it for those purposes.

5.2.1) First Purpose: Subversion

The first purpose of proxy political system is subversion. As mentioned above , this has been one of the main purposes of this system in Kashmir. However, this time the purpose and the process of subversion has been to be seen in the context of the situation created by the present freedom movement in Kashmir. When the present freedom movement started in 1989, India initiated a military process with Armed Forces as the instrument to crush it . But, as was expected , it has been only able to partially contain it. Now, with the old process still on, India is initiating a new i.e. political process with NC (instead of Armed Forces) as the instrument to subvert and totally eliminate the freedom movement. This is because of a universally accepted principle that militarily an armed guerrilla movement can only be contained, not eliminated; elimination is achieved politically. Looked this way, reinstatement of NC in Kashmir can be a beginning of the beginning. With its coming to power , a process of subversion will start. NC will serve as a magnet for all the evil and filth of Kashmir. The selfish and the politically ambitious elements--- new and old--- will join together into a sort of a counter 'movement' with NC in the vanguard to discredit the freedom movement and all that goes with it.

5.2.2) Second Purpose: Providing a Democratic Face

Second purpose of the proxy political system that used to be an important purpose in the past was to provide an 'acceptable' face to India's presence in Kashmir. In the present circumstances, it would also mean that an 'elected government' will serve as a democratic facade for India to continue with its militaristic agenda in Kashmir. Some people think this to be the main purpose of India's political exercise in Kashmir. However, we take the view here that this has not remained a very important purpose, now, for two reasons: First, in the changed global situation India can , without any democratic pretensions, 'justify'

its ruthless military actions openly on the basis of its 'national security' demands. In fact, India wants to be seen as tough and ruthless , when it comes to the question of 'national security' and interest and it has always put Kashmir on top of its 'national security' agenda. India's detailed articulation of its 'national security' perception at the recent CTBT deliberations (cf. 1.4.4.1) should be taken quite seriously and as relevant to what is being said here. Second, although in the past the proxy political system in Kashmir almost successfully camouflaged the fact of India being an aggressor there, yet in the recent years, India's position as an occupationist force stands so exposed before the people of the world at large that no proxy systems in Kashmir can hide it now.

5.2.3) Third Purpose: An Institutional Proxy Presence

The third, and in the present circumstances ,the most important purpose of political exercise in Kashmir has to be seen in the context of India's political need of having an institutional presence through some sort of 'legitimate' entity in the present political spectrum of Kashmir .With the emergence of the present movement, India has been almost politically dislodged from Kashmir. No doubt there have been mischievous elements all along, scattered and working clandestinely with a hidden Indian agenda, but there has not been a formal entity openly active with a declared pro-India program. Now in a final solution of Kashmir when and if it comes to the question of ascertaining the 'wishes' of Kashmiri people, India in that event desperately needs an entity in the political arena of Kashmir that can represent exclusive Indian interest. India cannot find a better and a more suitable candidate than NC to fit in the slot. But, NC as a party has been absent from the political scene and India needs to reinstate it first. This is precisely what India is aiming at by declaring the restoration of internal autonomy to Kashmir . India has not spelt out any details of it publicly, but that hardly matters . What is important is that it has given NC something ' new ' to sell in the political market , and when it is NC with such a new item in its political kit , it is likely to be perceived by people as a step in the forward direction. Struggling in the past seven years with extreme sufferings and torture, people have developed a keen sense of direction and they believe they have moved ahead. They are less likely to be averse to anything, which they perceive somehow to be compatible with their sense of having 'moved ahead'. It is important to note that the people in Kashmir , at the psychological level relate to NC and APHC (The All Party Hurriet Conference--The political umbrella of the present freedom movement) in two different frames of mind. In the frame of mind , they relate to NC, they look at autonomy or pre-1953 position in relation to the position of 1989, when NC ruled last and pre-53 position being better than 1989 position is perceived as an 'advance' which somehow fits into their sense of having 'moved ahead'. On the other hand, in the frame of mind , people relate to APHC, autonomy is viewed in relation to complete independence from India and the former being decisively low on the scale, is perceived as a climb-down and, therefore, incompatible with the peoples' sense of having 'moved ahead'. People will be averse to anything which they perceive as a step backward. Here lies the importance of India's autonomy declaration for NC. The latter will be reinstated as a political entity through 'elections' and thus in any 'settlement' where the aspirations of Kashmiri people will have to be ascertained, India will insist on NC to be regarded as the only 'democratically elected legitimate' entity. Now, one can also understand why did U.S. and Britain openly support India's election moves in Kashmir. They knew fully well the destructive potential of the 'peaceful democratic' weapon--- the elections--- for the present freedom movement in Kashmir. They knew it was going to corner the APHC: if APHC participated in elections, they would draw a blank because people would see it as a betrayal; if they boycotted, they will be necessarily yielding the 'democratic' political space to NC and thus in practical terms, elections in either case would not mean anything other than the reinstatement of India's proxy elements in Kashmir, thus substantially strengthening India's position there. Supporting India's election moves, therefore, amounted to helping India in the most crucial way--- the way it desperately needed to be helped. True, the political space that NC gets through 'elections' is illegitimate, but then these are the powers--- U.S, Britain etc. etc. who remain at the helm of affairs and become the arbiters in the final 'solutions' of our problems, be it Bosnia, Palestine or Kashmir, and who decide on the question of what is legitimate and illegitimate.