AT the outset, before the grand battle began, everyone was given an option to let Kashmir fight its battle on its own terms, with its own resources. The proposal was greeted with a lot of indignation. How could the Kashmiris be left to battle it out alone in the wake of the most cruel treatment that they had been subjected to. It was our choice to be a part of their struggle.

The idea of ‘abandoning’ Kashmir was rubbished. It had to be a collective fight. All kinds of strategists and warriors, ummah-lovers and pro-jihadi elements jumped into the ideological fray, flexing their muscles in an effort to scare off the intimidators. This was then — at a time when it was fashionable to talk about all kinds of ways and methods to secure freedom for Kashmir.

The times have undergone many changes since then. Now, amid fewer signs of seething anger as opposed to the past, what is in vogue is an ambiguous stand on Kashmir. All kinds of theories are tried to avoid having a firm commitment on Kashmir. You may call them our little escapes where aspirants are not bothered about just how atrociously oppressive the removal of Article 370 or 35-A is. They have their own reasons to appear to be existing at a distance from where the real debate is or should be.

The classic screen some Pakistanis are seeking to hide behind right at this moment of extreme tensions can be named the tit-for-tat formula. This is where anyone who comes out calling for Kashmiri liberation is quickly reminded of how he or she had been guilty of not having a matching response on other questions, some suggested to be closer to these respondents than Kashmir: ‘Kashmir brings the strongest protest out of you. Why do you keep quiet over the situation in Balochistan? Why don’t you show the same concern for Ali Wazir and Mohsin Dawar that you have for Kashmiri leaders?’

The tit-for-tat bunch happens to be one of the most in-your-face groups that is nowadays combating a simple pro-people stance on Kashmir.

Now you can try differentiating one situation from the other, or take the simpler route: ‘We have raised questions over Balochistan and over the state’s treatment of the PTM. Now do we qualify to chant a few slogans about the Kashmiris who have just been thrown under the bus en masse?’ You can always trust the tit-for-tat group to come up with another objection crafted seemingly by the most cynical of minds primarily looking to avoid stating a firm position.

This tit-for-tat bunch happens to be one of the most in-your-face groups that is nowadays combating a simple pro-people stance on Kashmir. There are other, equally efficient escape routes available to those who do not feel up to naturally standing by the underdogs fighting Mr Narendra Modi’s attempt at overwhelming the Kashmiri people.

One particular group which enjoys quite a lot of support relies on the age-old technique of maligning the politicians. ‘Look at these politicians. All they are good at is fighting each other. They are not good enough to take on the Indians on Kashmir.’ Once this diagnosis is out there, members of the public are supposed to resign to the futility of placing their trust in the political leadership for an earnest showdown over Kashmir.

Incidentally, this blame-the-politician strategy leads to some of the choicest decorations, worthy of being exhibited in the world’s greatest museum of hypocrisy. The politicians — and these poor souls alone — are quite often branded as the ruling class. The narrow definition excludes all others with claims of nursing ruling ambitions in one stroke — just as the simplest escape theories come up with the most unrealistic remedies for the Kashmiris who have a long history of being betrayed.

Not the least strange has been the solution which says that the economics — or capitalist forces at work against each other — will eventually find a way out of the spot that the valley has been unfortunately stuck in for the last so many decades.

This easy escape route to nowhere has been on the list of top-ranked answers to the Kashmir dilemma. It has once again been forwarded as a panacea after Prime Minister Narendra Modi revoked Articles 370 and 35-A. Under this the Kashmiri people are required to negotiate their own terms for release of captivity from Indian rule without any help from other quarters.

It is perhaps the members of this last group who come closest to accepting the Indian annexation of Jammu & Kashmir and they are quite alike in their thinking to another group — the most dangerous one which sees all struggle against the powerful and mighty as futile. The fact that underpins the position of this group has everything to do with the size of the opponent you are up against.

This last-mentioned collection brings together souls who believe that India and the Western world are loaded against the Kashmiri people seeking to exercise their right to live freely of their will. Thus they advise the campaigners to strike some kind of a deal and prevent generations of Kashmiris from being exposed to the wrath of the radical Indian government led by the Bharatiya Janata Party.

These are some of the prominent guides, offering their services to anyone looking for a safe refuge in times where there is increasing pressure on all to come up with a line on Kashmir. There are indeed other groups proposing their own defences on the issue in these times of turmoil.

These groups generally have little time to announce their views on the most original demands of the Kashmiri people who have always been heaped with all kinds of advice. Some of the ways suggested by these advisers may well be worthy of some evaluation. The basic requirement is that the justness of the cause of the Kashmiri people be first recognised before they are asked to ponder over all ideas for their release from subjugation.

The writer is Dawn’s resident editor in Lahore.

Published in Dawn, August 9th, 2019