|
|
|
|
Drawing a bead on
Kashmir
By Sultan Shahin
NEW YORK - While a permanent solution is
still a long way off, the Kashmir peace process is
certainly taking deep roots. Nothing could
illustrate this better than the soft and realistic
attitude of well-known Kashmir hardliners during a
two-day conference of politicians and scholars
from the United States, India, Pakistan and both
sides of Kashmir to discuss options for the
solution of the Kashmir problem held under the
shadow of the United Nations headquarters in New
York last week.
Dr Ghulam Nabi Mir, the
new head of the World Kashmir Freedom Movement,
which has offices in capitals around the world,
clearly pointed out that militancy has failed and
that it is time to move forward. Pakistan's
representative at the UN participated in the
conference, though his Indian counterpart did not.
Even among the options for Kashmir
discussed and thoroughly debated in the
conference, realism and an awareness of the ground
realities seemed to be the order of the day. A
confrontational approach was strictly prohibited
and neither the speakers nor the audience
disappointed the organizers, the US-based
International Educational Development and the
Kashmiri American Council.
A couple of
people did talk about atrocities perpetrated by
Indian security forces in emotional tones, but
they were firmly told that while the organizers
respected their sentiments, this was not a venue
for talking about what happened in the past or
even talking about the Kashmir problem from the
perspective of the past.
The tone of
realism and a sincere desire to explore options
for Kashmir was set by the chief organizer of the
conference, Dr Ghulam Nabi Fai of the
Kashmiri-American Council, who stressed the
following repeatedly at the very outset: "Since we
are concerned at this time with setting a stage
for settlement rather than the shape the
settlement will take, we believe that it is both
untimely and harmful to indulge in, or encourage,
controversies about the most desirable solution.
Any attempt to do so at this point amounts to
playing into the hands of those who would prefer
to maintain a status quo that is intolerable to
the people of Kashmir and also a continuing threat
to peace in South Asia. We deprecate raising of
quasi-legal or pseudo-legal questions during the
preparatory phase about the final settlement. It
only serves to befog the issue and to convey the
wrong impression that the dispute is too complex
to be resolved and that India and Pakistan hold
equally inflexible positions. Such an impression
does great injury to the cause."
He noted
with satisfaction that the two leaders, Indian
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Pakistani
President General Pervez Musharraf, undertook in a
September 2004 joint statement issued by India and
Pakistan in New York to "explore possible options
for a peaceful negotiated settlement of the Jammu
and Kashmir issue in a sincere spirit and
purposeful manner". He added: "We hope that the
two leaders realize that there can be no 'peaceful
negotiated settlement' without the full and active
participation of the Kashmiris living on both
sides of the ceasefire-line as well as those
belonging to the Kashmiri diaspora."
He
welcomed the bus service across the Line of
Control (LoC) that separates the Indian and
Pakistani-administered parts of Kashmir the and
other confidence building measures (CBMs) and
congratulated the two governments for creating an
atmosphere of goodwill in which dialogue can take
place. But, for him, the bus service was not an
end in itself; it was merely a means to an end,
which is securing the legitimate rights of the
Kashmiri people.
He said: "It is almost
impossible to find a solution that will take care
of all the sensitivities of both India and
Pakistan. Both will have to give in order to
secure the future of 14 million Kashmiris on both
side of the border." He also talked about
Kashmiriyat - the spirit of inclusiveness
for which Kashmir is famous - and mentioned the
fact that the struggle for self-determination was
started by Kashmiri pandits (Hindu
Brahmins) of great stature like Ram Chandra Kak
and Prem Nath Bazaz, who are considered the
founding fathers of Kashmiri struggle.
Some effort was made to defend militancy
by the United Jihad Council headed by
Pakistan-based Syed Salahuddin. Barrister Majid
Trambo, who runs a Kashmir center in Brussels,
said that according to international law the
victims of occupation have a right to inflict
injury on the occupiers. But violence on civilians
by anyone is prohibited by international law and
is condemnable, he added.
Senator Mushahid
Hussain, a former minister of information and now
chairperson of the Pakistan Senate Defense and
Foreign Relations Committee, suggested that talks
with Salahuddin should be initiated if the peace
process is to have any relevance. It is a measure
of the realism of the Indian side as well that
Dileep Padgaonkar, former editor and now
consulting editor of India's largest circulated
daily newspaper the Times of India, supported the
idea and added, "India had already started the
process of talking to militants of Syed
Salahuddin's group called the Hizbul Mujahideen
several years ago, though unfortunately the
process could not be taken to its logical end."
Dileep Padgaonkar regretted that Kashmiri
leaders were not allowed to travel to the
conference. But he pointed out that Mirwaiz and
Ghani Bhat had indeed been allowed to go to
Kathmandu for a conference. No forward movement is
possible on Kashmir, he said, without the
normalization of relations between India and
Pakistan. Also, no forward movement is possible
without Kashmiris' concern being addressed.
Padgaonkar continued, "Somebody talked
here about ground realities. Yes, there is
alienation from India in the Valley; but it is
also a ground reality that this alienation does
not automatically translate into a desire to
accede to Pakistan. As Dr Fai also mentioned, he
pointed out, there is alienation from Pakistan in
the Pakistan-administered Kashmir as well. This is
also a ground reality that should not be ignored.
Musharraf told me in Lahore recently that
converting LoC into an IB [international border]
is not possible. Manmohan Singh has said that any
solution that tinkers with territoriality will not
be acceptable. These rigid positions have to be
addressed."
Referring to the massive costs
of facing militancy, Padgaonkar said, "India
cannot, it has been said, continue bleeding in
Kashmir forever. But that is not correct. The cost
of fighting militancy has been taken into account
in our economic management systems. But India, of
course, does not want Kashmir bleeding. India
cannot claim to be a vibrant democracy if Kashmir
continues to be what it is. However, it is good
that ceasefire is holding. The bus service has
been widely welcomed. Get going the dialogue at
various levels. Kashmiris among themselves;
India-Pak; India-Kashmiris, Pak-Kashmiris, back
channels, etc."
He suggested a whole slew
of measures that can be taken to end alienation:
Any solution has to be least unacceptable to
both governments.
Minimum understanding on promoting democracy,
human rights, regional and ethnic sensitivities,
fighting gender discrimination, ecology
protection, etc.
Rehabilitation of Hindu pandits and
Muslims who had to flee violence.
Institutionalized dialogue between elected
bodies on both sides of the LoC.
As Dr Fai said, uphold the finest elements of
Kashmiriyat between whatever borders
required.
Uninterrupted and uninterruptible dialogue
process.
Pakistan's representative in the
UN, ambassador Munir Akram, made the following
points: "The political atmosphere is better today
than it has been for a very long time. There is a
lot of popular support for solution and dialogue
after the confrontation of 2002. There is
recognition in New Delhi that there is no military
solution. There is also recognition that neither
of the two countries can achieve their full
economic potential without peace and solution. The
two now have to manage their relationship in a
nuclear environment. Nuclear war is unthinkable.
There is need to oppose terrorism and extremism on
both sides. Process of normalization has, however,
been so far a Pakistan-driven phenomenon. Pakistan
took all the initiatives; ceasefire, etc.
Islamabad worked hard to evolve a work program.
Progress in dialogue on Kashmir has not been very
successful so far; CBMs, of course, nuclear CBMs
also, but on the central issues, on Kashmir in
particular Indian position remains unchanged.
India basically desires a status quo resolution."
"Could it be," Akram wondered, "that India
wishes, as Mushahid Hussain said, merely to buy
time? But this would be the most dangerous term on
which to pursue the relationship. A management of
India-Pak relationship without solving the Kashmir
issue will be a difficult proposition. We are
large countries living cheek-by-jowl. There are
several plans to solve the issue. Yusuf Buch plan,
Dixon Plan, Kathwari Plan, etc. We need to keep on
showing that there is progress, otherwise the
whole process will collapse. This process can help
stop Kashmiris being called terrorists. Pakistan
believes that Kashmiris are the principal party.
Any solution that doesn't involve them cannot
succeed. There is a role for external powers -
essential for US and Europe to be able to continue
to encourage the two countries to carry on the
peace process. So far the international community
has been intimidated by India and others to stop
acting on UN resolutions."
On the
rebuttal, Padgaonkar mentioned apprehensions in
India that Pakistan was trying to gain on the
negotiating table what it failed to obtain on the
battlefield. But of course, this never happens, he
reminded the Pakistani interlocutors.
The
conference also included Kashmiri pandit
speakers and called for the honorable return of
the displaced Hindus and Muslims. In an apparent
manifestation of a Kashmiri desire to include all
sections of society in the dialogue process,
US-based Kashmiri pandit leader Vijay
Sazawal was made a full participant in the entire
process, including being made a member of the
drafting committee for the conference's New York
Declaration. Other members of this committee were
Mushahid Hussain, Dilip Padgaonkar and Dr G N Fai.
The sea change in the hardline Kashmiri
and Pakistani leaderships' attitude becomes
apparent from the fact that stock phrases like
"Kashmiris' right to self-determination", and the
demand for a "plebiscite being held according to
the UN Resolutions of 1948", etc were not included
in the final declaration and were not even
discussed much during the conference. Some
participants, particularly Dr Akram Dar, an
Ohio-based physician and member of the
Kashmiri-American Council's Executive Board,
warned that without basing their struggle on UN
resolutions and calling for self-determination
through plebiscite their struggle would stand
nowhere.
Some speakers, particularly from
Pakistan, attributed the initiation of the current
peace dialogue to the nuclearization of the region
in 1998 that led to renewed international pressure
on India and Pakistan to resolve the underlying
Kashmir dispute. Mushahid Hussain, for instance,
said the 1998 nuclear tests by India and Pakistan
had created a "balance of terror" that has
resulted in strengthening the movement for peace
in the sub-continent.
Hussain said the
"stakes are higher in Kashmir than in other
conflicts like Northern Ireland because of the
nuclear factor on both sides ... It is this that
has forced the two countries to come to the
negotiating table. [The] nuclear factor has given
Pakistan the self-confidence to deal with India.
This balance of terror strengthens peace. Two
recent reports emanating from the US, released on
December 3, 2004, by a UN secretary
general-appointed committee and the other on
December 16, 2004, by the National Intelligence
Council of the Central Intelligence Agency, have
linked Kashmir problem to Palestine. They say that
unless issues like Kashmir and Palestine are
resolved, world peace is impossible."
One
regret expressed by all sides was the inability of
India-based separatist Kashmir leaders to
participate in such conferences. In its
declaration too the conference regretted that
Kashmiri leaders, including Syed Ali Shah Geelani,
Mohammad Yasin Malik and Shabbir Ahmad Shah could
not participate in the conference, ostensibly
because the necessary travel documents were not
made available to them on time. The conference
urged the government of India to grant visas to
all the members of the India-Pakistan-Kashmir
steering committee to visit New Delhi so that the
global discourse on Kashmir proceeds forward as
scheduled.
Asia Times Online was able to
catch up with one top Kashmiri leader, Mirwaiz
Omar Farooq, former chairman of the federation of
separatist parties, the All-Party Hurriyat
Conference (APHC) in Washington. He was scheduled
to address the New York conference but had not
been able to do so as his flight was delayed in
Tehran on account of an earthquake in Iran. The
APHC is now split between hardliners like Geelani
of the Jamaat-e-Islami and the rest who are
considered moderate and realistic. He sounded
quite optimistic and welcomed the recent
confidence building measures announced by India
and Pakistan, including a bus service linking both
parts of the divided state of Jammu and Kashmir.
He added that the bus link would put a greater
focus on the Kashmiri struggle for justice rather
than taking the focus away from it, as some
Kashmiris and Pakistanis feared.
Asked by
Asia Times Online if he shared the apprehensions
expressed by some Kashmiris that Pakistan was
preparing to sell out Kashmiri interests in lieu
of some trade concessions from India under US
pressure, Mirwaiz said in his view there is a
distinct change in Pakistan, but it is for the
good of Kashmiris. He then made the following
revelation, "When I met President Musharraf in
Amsterdam recently, he told me that Pakistan's
focus has changed from acquiring the Kashmiri land
and seeking its accession with Pakistan to doing
something that would benefit the people of
Kashmir, respecting their own wishes."
Apparently Musharraf seems aware that some
Kashmiris' alienation from India does not
automatically translate into a love for Pakistan,
as Padgaonkar put it in his address to the
conference.
Asia Times Online raised
another contentious point with the Mirwaiz. Former
prime minister and president of the portion of
Pakistan-administered Kashmir that is known as
Azad (independent, free) Kashmir, Sardar Abdul
Qayyum Khan, told AToL a couple of months ago in
Muzaffarabad, the capital of Azad Kashmir, that in
order to further the peace process, Kashmiris
should be looking for an "interim" and not a
"permanent" solution. The word permanent raised a
number of questions of principle and issues of
sovereignty and history got involved, complicating
the issue beyond redemption.
Asked to
comment on this suggestion, Mirwaiz said: "I have
no problem with that, except that a solution
cannot be 'interim'. It should therefore be called
an interim arrangement." Obviously he had
differences only with the semantics, not with the
spirit of the realistic and creative suggestion
made by Sardar. This can only be a good augury for
the Kashmir peace process that the top leaders of
both sides of the divided Kashmir state agree on
such vital and fundamental issues.
Interestingly, ambassador Dennis Kux of
the Woodrow Wilson Center for International
Scholars and author of several books on South Asia
also made a similar recommendation: "Don't touch
the solution issue now. People will start arguing
around principles." He was for taking a long-term
view. He said, "Fifty-eight years ago we began the
journey. Hopefully it takes less than that to
solve it. Examples of Palestine, Cyprus, Sri Lanka
and Northern Ireland can be cited. Seventeen years
have already passed since the Good Friday
agreement in Northern Ireland. But things are
still taking shape." He praised Farooq Kathwari's
Kashmir Study Group for having made some concrete
suggestions.
There may be no way of
finding a solution in 24 hours, as Professor Nazir
Shawl, the executive director of Kashmir Center in
London, claimed possible if there were political
will on the part of India and Pakistan. However,
there may be emerging a way in which a solution,
even if interim, can be found perhaps within 24
months.
Permanent solutions involve far
too many complicated questions involving
principles that cannot be resolved in a hurry.
Neither India, nor Pakistan nor China, would be
prepared to let go of the Kashmiri land they
administer as a result of different historical
processes. In view of the nuclear factor, a war to
solve the issue has already been declared, even in
this New York Conference, as unthinkable and not a
realistic option.
It is heartening to see,
therefore, that Kashmiri people and their friends
appear to be prepared to work with the governments
of India and Pakistan to make the present borders
largely irrelevant rather than trying to create
new borders, which would inevitably create newer
tensions as well, even if it were possible to
create them in the present context.
This
correspondent has had an opportunity to talk to
the common people of Kashmir on both sides of the
LoC. They are sick of politicians of all hues and
color. They consider all politicians, including
"freedom fighters", as corrupt and self-serving,
as some of them have acquired huge properties
during the last years of militancy and have not
desisted even from engaging in conspicuous
consumption.
What they really need, as
many Kashmiris in both India and
Pakistan-administered Kashmir told AToL, is peace
and security, education and development, no matter
provided by whom and under what name. It would
therefore be only in the fitness of things and
consistent with the wishes of the people of
Kashmir in whose name all politics is being played
that the political activists don't try to change
borders Kashmiris have lived with for over half a
century; just try to make them irrelevant, not
only in Jammu and Kashmir but, if possible, in the
entire South Asia.
Sultan Shahin
is a New Delhi-based writer.
(Copyright 2005 Asia Times Online Ltd. All
rights reserved. Please contact us for information
on sales, syndication and republishing.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
All material on this
website is copyright and may not be republished in any form without written
permission.
© Copyright 1999 - 2005 Asia Times
Online Ltd.
|
|
Head
Office: Rm 202, Hau Fook Mansion, No. 8 Hau Fook St., Kowloon, Hong
Kong
Thailand Bureau:
11/13 Petchkasem Road, Hua Hin, Prachuab Kirikhan, Thailand 77110
|
Asian Sex Gazette South Asian Sex News
|
|
|
