| |
The
third force in the Kashmir equation
By Syed Saleem Shahzad
 KARACHI
- The latest efforts between Islamabad and Delhi to set in motion a new round
of peace talks to resolve the Kashmir impasse are being widely hailed as a
breakthrough for the two countries, although some analysts maintain that a
paradigm shift in India-Pakistan relations and serious efforts on Kashmir will
turn out to be the the outcome of a larger United States agenda in South Asia
in which the India-China-Pakistan nexus features prominently.
The US had publicly declared that once it had settled its business in Iraq, it
would increase its focus on South Asia and the Kashmir dispute that has for so
long been a barrier to the peaceful coexistence of India and Pakistan, let
alone a threat to the stability of the whole sub-continent.
Accordingly, it came as no surprise when, almost overnight and coinciding with
the demise of the Saddam Hussein regime, nuclear-armed India and Pakistan
dropped their bellicose bellowing and started to talk about talking to each
other. This also coincided with visits by several senior US officials to the
region, most recently that of US Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage.
Possible solutions to the Kashmir imbroglio have dominated discussions of late,
with various theories on its division along ethnic, religious and geographical
lines being floated on both sides of the divide. Unlike in the past, though,
the proposals have not immediately been officially shot down.
The bulk of the Kashmir region is divided between India and Pakistan, with
China administering a small region. Indian-administered Kashmir, which is
predominantly Muslim, has been subject to cross-border militant attacks for
over a decade by those seeking to have it incorporated into Pakistan, while
there is also a strong independence movement in the Valley to see the state
gain full autonomy from Delhi.
Many of the division plans have been raised by think tanks, but most recently
the premier of Pakistan Azad (Pakistan-administered Kashmir), Sikandar Hayat
Khan, suggested a Chanab river trusteeship formula, provoking serious debate
and heralding that something big is going to happen in the region.
The Chanab river is one of the five tributaries of the shared Indus river,
whose headwaters lie in the Himalayan territory of Kashmir. Under the 1960
Indus Waters Treaty, Pakistan is supposed to get exclusive use of the Chanab,
but now India plans to build a dam on it.
On May 20 Khan said that Kashmir should be partitioned in such a way that the
Muslim majority areas would be allowed to join Pakistan, and the areas where
Hindus and Buddhists are in the majority should remain with India.
If put into effect, most of the areas that are already in Pakistan's control
would remain with it. However, Pakistan would also get most parts of Jammu and
Kashmir state (Indian-run Kashmir), including the summer capital, Srinagar.
India would retain most of the Jammu region, as well as Ladakh and some of the
areas adjoining it. At present India holds about 45 percent of the disputed
region, Pakistan over 33 percent and China the remainder.
Both India and Pakistan have refused this formula in the past, but the manner
in which it has now been floated has made people take notice. The US is known
to favor this solution, which they call the Chanab formula.
Commenting on this to Asia Times Online in Islamabad, former Pakistan Azad
Kashmir premier Barrister Sultan Mehmood maintained, "[This theory] is
something that must have been taught to a person like Sikander Hayat as
everybody knows that he is not capable of floating such kind of theories."
Asia Times Online also spoke to a former director-general of Pakistan's
Inter-Services Intelligence, Lieutenant-General Hameed Gul, who makes it his
business to closely follow current affairs.
If General Akhtar Abdul Rehman (former chairman of the joint chiefs of staff
committee of Pakistan who was killed in an unexplained plane crash along with
General Zia ul-Haq in 1988) is considered the architect of an "international
Muslim brigade" concept for the liberation of occupied or oppressed Muslim
states - an idea that grew in Afghanistan and spread all over the world,
including Kashmir - Hameed Gul is the man who turned theory into action.
Although he retired in the early 1990s, Gul's views still carry considerable
weight in important quarters in Pakistan.
ATol: You recently termed the Chanab formula a "US conspiracy
against China". Please elaborate.
Gul: Yes, I believe that through the implementation of this
formula the US wants to use both India and Pakistan against China, and this
theory is deliberately perpetuated by the US. Under this formula, India would
keep its military presence in all the non-Muslim majority areas, including
Jammu and Ladakh, where Buddhists are in majority, and which borders China. The
Muslim-majority Kashmir Valley will go to Pakistan.
But this is not as simple as it looks. If India keeps its military presence in
Ladakh, what would be its supply line? Aerial routes do not work in this
region. There is no substitute land route at all which India could use to keep
its military presence in the region. The only way is the Kashmir Valley. If
India and Pakistan are forced into this formula, it would be inevitable for
both countries to strike a deal under which India would be allowed to use the
Kashmir Valley as a land route to maintain its supply lines for it to maintain
its military presence. And where is this? At a point which borders China [and
which is disputed between India and China].
Now let's suppose we allowed Indian troops to use a Pakistani land route to
keep its military presence near Afghanistan, would it not be termed a military
cooperation or alliance against Afghanistan? So in this case, if this Chanab
trusteeship formula applies, Pakistan would have to give a land route to Indian
forces for them to keep their presence in Ladakh, and it would be tantamount to
a military alliance against China, which is exactly what the US designs are.
ATol: How come you see this formula as perpetuated by the US?
Gul: Interestingly, none of the formulas floated recently were
developed by India or Pakistan. Most of the formulas are propagated by groups
or individuals who have no direct role in Kashmir. But these views are given
great importance. What does it reflect? Obviously an external influence is
working. Just take the example of this Chanab formula. Can India agree on a
division of Kashmir on a religious basis? It would be the antithesis of the
Indian establishment's mindset, which opposed the partition plan of British
India in 1947 on a religious basis. You know, according to a survey, only 11
percent of Pakistanis are of the view that India should be annihilated, but in
India 37 percent of the population views that Pakistan should cease to exist as
state. With this kind of opinion in India, would it support this kind of
formula which demands a division on a religious basis. For the last 700 years,
Kashmiri Pundits [Brahmins] have wanted their Kashmir identity, would they
suggest such a division plan. This is a pure US-sponsored formula based on its
own vested interests in the region.
ATol: As far as the Pakistan army is concerned, one of the main
reasons for its existence is Kashmir. How would it react?
Gul: This kind of a U-turn on Kashmir would bring about drastic
effects. I tell you, it would be a different case compared to Afghanistan
[where Pakistan reversed its support of the Taliban]. Afghanistan does not
belong to us, but Kashmir is ours and any compromise on Kashmir could lead to
battle ... I am sure.
ATol: You have mentioned a U-turn. You know Pakistan-based
organizations like Lashkar-i-Taiba, Jaish-i-Mohammed and Harkatul Mujahideen
etc have been outlawed and now their supply lines to Kashmir have been stopped.
What is the impact of this?
Gul: It will complicate the issue. They have banned these
organizations, banned them from collecting funds for jihad and cut their supply
lines in Indian Kashmir. It has trapped their fighters in Indian Kashmir
without supplies. The outcome will not be surrender, but in fact they will make
desperate attempts of any kind that could derail the peace process between
India and Pakistan.
ATol: The other day I spoke to Amanullah Khan, chairman of the
Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Front. He feels that the All Parties Hurriyat
Conference (APHC) - a separatist umbrella organization - has no representation
among minorities and the pro-Kashmiri elements, like Farooq Abdullah. Thus the
APHC is not a fully representative body.
Gul: Yes, I agree this issue has been ignored. Representation of
the 170,000 Buddhist population and about 1,718,000 dogra [hill people]
population in the Kashmiri struggle should give a space, but how come the
pro-Indian factor is given representation in the APHC? You know that people
..... have no role in the Kashmiri struggle sitting in Pakistan inventing new
theories every now and then. They always sing that the Kashmiris are sick of
these circumstances. The people sitting in Pakistan are sick and tired of the
circumstances, but have the Kashmiri fighters who are making sacrifices ever
given such statement? No. They are still obsessed with their struggle until an
ultimate result. These psuedo-intellectuals want compromise on Kashmir with
little gain, while the real game players sitting in the Kashmir Valley do not
share their views at all and they hold their own agenda.
(Copyright 2003 Asia Times Online Co, Ltd. All rights reserved. Please contact
content@atimes.com for information on our
sales and syndication policies.)
|
| |
|
|
 |
|
