Perspective of a person from JAMMU in midst of article 370 saga

Since we heard home minister Amit Shah with his speech in upper House of Parliament we have seen reactions from almost everyone. Many in “rest of the INDIA” welcomed the decision and had raving reviews on this biggest decision on fate of the state of Jammu and Kashmir. However, we had other side as well from so-called liberals, they think that this decision is un-democratic and doesn’t comply with the UN resolution. I would like to provide my views on the decision. Since the decision of abrogation of article 370, I have answered many questions like “How do I feel about the decision”, “What does people of Jammu feel ?”, “How are things back home ?”, “Will things improve for you guys ?” etc., from my friends.

I thought of writing my views on the decision and share it with the world because I think it is really difficult to know the raw emotions and feeling of people for whom this really matters. I feel in the media its always filtered emotions with some propaganda behind the news. Political parties will always have biased answer to these questions and everyone one else doesn’t know the background to understand the situation.

Before passing judgement on the this decision it would be wise to know the history and some facts about it. Let’s test your knowledge on Jammu, Kashmir and Ladakh matter. Have you read the UN revolution on Kashmir matter ? Ok, stop reading now for 2 minutes and think about it. Well, I know …. I know this is a difficult one. Now, think about what you know about the UN resolution ? Do you know it is 3 sequential steps approach and key to the resolution actually lies in Pakistan’s hands. If you didn’t know about it then here are some facts about it.

The UN resolution on Jammu, Kashmir and Ladakh conflict. In brief, during the Independence King of Jammu and Kashmir refused to pledge his allegiance with neither Secular India nor country created on the basis of religion – Pakistan. You might think that why didn’t he decide, it was an easy decision for him. Joining the Union of India was the obvious choice. However, things in reality were not so black and white. There is a long story about his decision to refuse both the newly created countries (If you want me to cover this topic please let me know in comments section). To stick to the question on this present decision, just keep in mind that there were four main protagonists in the story. The King himself, Pandit Nehru, Shiekh Abdullah and Mountbatten. The king didn’t like Shiekh Abdullah who was a pro-India Muslim popular leader and Sheikh was a close friend of Nehru whom King did not get along well either.

Everyone knows that when Britishers left, Pakistan planned a coup against the Hindu King of Muslim majority region and Maharaja Hari Singh was advised by Mountbatten to sign the Letter of Accession with India in favor of Receving military assistance from India. But, the thing that not everyone know is that, it was Nehru’s decision to add a clause that “The there will be a referendum conducted which will decide the fate of the disputed region”. He was confident that he has support of people as Shiekh Abdullah was his friend and a close compatriot. Coming back to the question of UN resolution which states that:

1. Pakistan’s should demilitarize the region it holds (PoK)

2. India should demilitarize the region after that but with limited force to fend of any attack from Pakistan.

3. Referendum should be conducted to decide the fate of the region.

These three points are in sequence. Pakistan who complaints about this decision and points to UN resolution on this matter never agreed for point one and that is the only reason the referendum never happened.

So, let’s talk about my views. Being an Indian first with the dream to see this conflict resolved, I welcome the decision. We have had article 370 for so many years and the ground reality is not good. There are no jobs for youth, higher education institutions are average and too many people with free time and as elders say empty is devils den.
Just sitting idle and hoping that things will one day be better is just plain stupid. Something has to be done, without trying we will never know if things will improve.

Although, I like the decision I still think it could have been done in a better way. I know all those people will say that “I am giving Pakistan a leverage to use it in international forums” but why are we even talking about our noisy neighbor. If you have a problem at home you don’t think that lets not argue because neighbor might hear us. We argue so that we become better, we learn about other peoples thought process and if required handle the situation better. You agree to me or not but the fact is not everyone supports the decision and I believe it is totally fine to have different point of views. I am sure that all those people who doesn’t agree with the decision will agree that they want to make sure people rights are not violated and in the biggest democracy there are no decision without consensus. Just because some people doesn’t agree it is not wise to label them as anti-national. Irrespective of your religion, caste, gender, skin color, hair color and status no-one wants bad thing to happen to our nation.

I do not want to comment on the timeline in-order to avoid any political bias, since when protesting against government decision has become anti-national movement. We are a democracy and we use to protest about everything be it corruption, oil/gas prices, government policies etc. But, nowadays if you just say that you don’t agree that demonetization was good or bad for our economy you are labeled as anti-national.

Again if you agree or not with me, but the fact is not everyone in Jammu, Kashmir and Leh are ecstatic about the decision. History has reminded us at every opportunity that sense of identification and association with the motherland is very formidable force. This the reason we get so many divisions and revolutions. Everyone deep down identifies themselves with their country, family, region etc. There is nothing wrong with that, it is something that builds patriotism and brings people together.

We promised Kashmiri’s that we will preserve their identity and with this decision we have taken away their identity. They were promised that they will have their Nishaan(flag) and kanoon (law). And, with this decision we have taken that away from them.

“Right to react” – Don’t take this away from people. Just don’t make good things visible, hear everything. How many times in our lives it has happened that we thought something is bad for us but later on after listening to other side we changed our minds. It happens all the time in our daily life for trivial decisions. What about the most the important decision of someone’s life and they are not allowed to react. If we believe in what we are doing convey it to other party. I am not saying that don’t take decisions but let people react with what they feel until they are not violent.

One last thing, everyone is calling this a historic decision. We cannot decide in present whether it is a historic decision or not. Only, future will tell us if this was “historic”.