THE Kashmiris are in as the third and politically the most decisive party to the dispute. And there is just no getting back regardless of the shape of the final outcome and timing of the settlement of the Kashmir dispute.

“We take the centre-stage”, declared Mirwaiz Omar Farooq at a seminar in Karachi. He termed the Kashmiri people as the ‘principal stakeholders’ in the business who would not wait for India and Pakistan to decide everything on their behalf.

This is easily a quantum leap from the legally, diplomatically and historically bilateral nature of the dispute to a trilateral status. Even the UN commission for a final settlement of the dispute via a plebiscite, formed under the Karachi Agreement of April 1949, scrupulously excluded the Kashmiris from its formal name and style. It was (and continues to be) known as the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan (UNCIP).

Neither the Tashkent Declaration of January 10, 1966, nor the Shimla Agreement of July 2, 1972, recognized Kashmiris as the third party. The latter even reinforced the bilateral character of the dispute by virtually excluding the UN for a final settlement. The on-going India-Pakistan peace process remains essentially bilateral in nature, with the Kashmiris restricted to the sidelines. However, the Kashmiris now insist on having a ‘free hand’ in seeking a solution of the dispute.

Mirwaiz, the hereditary ‘pesh imam’ of Srinagar’s main Jama Mosque, bases his political stature on the spirited reassertion of “Kashmiriat” — essentially an ethno-cultural secular formulation. Not once in his nearly hour-long speech in Karachi did he mention Islam or Islamic ideology as the corner-stone of the Kashmiris’ freedom struggle.

Quite significantly, the All Parties Hurriyat Conference, unlike the All Jammu and Kashmir Muslim Conference, skips the Islamic motif from its nomenclature. This is quite in line with other second-line forces like the Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Front (JKLF) also seeking to project their struggle as an overwhelmingly nationalist upsurge based on Kashmiriat.

Now what is Kashmiriat? Lacking a formal definition as yet, it can be loosely defined as a prism of Kashmiri language and culture from Jammu to Srinagar and Gilgit to Ladakh,regardless of the local variations of language, faith and culture. Any idea of a divided Kashmir would be abhorrent to the APHC. Mirwaiz would call it the ‘united states of Jammu and Kashmir’. He spoke categorically of their desire to be ‘citizens of a united states of Jammu and Kashmir’, and called upon India and Pakistan to give a free hand to Kashmiris to achieve their goal.

In Pakistan and Azad Kashmir, the principal exponent of the idea happens to be Sardar Abdul Qayyum Khan, the ‘Mujahid-i-Awwal’. A master of realpolitik, Sardar Qayyum also claims to have more than one card (option) up his sleeve beyond the UN resolutions for a settlement of the issue.

The Mirwaiz would opt for a ‘triangular’ mode for a settlement if there was no immediate agreement on a tripartite mode. Thus would enable the three parties, India, Pakistan and the Kashmiris, to engage one another simultaneously.

All the three parts of the Kashmir triangle would need to be placed on an equal footing to form a composite, tripartite whole.

Till that happens, however, Mirwaiz would have the on-going talks between the parties to go on regardless, because any break or stalemate in the process might well roll it back to square one. That indeed would be nothing less than a disaster.

In addition to the India-Pakistan-Kashmiri triangular jigsaw puzzle, there is yet another complex involving intra-APHC dissensions — its status vis-a- vis the ‘elected’ state government and relations with erstwhile Azad Kashmir-based Mujahideen groups. The APHC delegation called on Hizbul Mujahideen chief Syed Salahuddin before leaving Azad Kashmir. At least Verbally, Syed Salahuddin remains as committed to his jihad credo as before in spite of the dismantlement of his jihadi infrastructure by the Pakistan government.

The peace process notwithstanding, Mirwaiz still does not see ‘any light at the end of the tunnel’. His statement stands in contrast to President Musharraf’s declaration in Sydney that he sees ‘light at the end of the tunnel’. The divergence between the two perceptions is significant.

It would be hardly realistic to expect the Kashmiris to go along with Pakistan every time irrespective of their support for the Pakistani position on the issue. There are mavericks in their own rank and file such as Yasin Malik, Shabbir Shah, Syed Ali Gilani and others — each with his own view of the picture. Syed Ali Gilani, a consistent supporter of Pakistan, would not be too happy after the bus ride undertaken contrary to his wishes. Whether or not the Kashmiris are ‘centre-stage’ as the Mirwaiz claims, they can’t be upstaged in the acts and scenes to come.

— The writer is a retired brigadier of the Pakistan Army.

GILGIT, June 21: Two foreign wildlife experts have diagnosed and suggested medication for a mysterious skin disease that has killed several ‘endangered’ blue sheep and affected many others, including the cattle in Shimshal valley, close to China border, about 250km north-west of Gilgit, Dawn reliably learnt.

Internationally recognized veterinarians Dr Michael Woodford and Dr Keith Powell of England obtained specimen from a dead blue sheep and tested them in the National Veterinary Research Laboratory (NVRL), Islamabad, recently and found that the disease is an atypical ‘Sarcoptes’ scabious infection Sarcoptic Mange, which is caused by a microscopic parasitic mite that burrows into the skin causing intense irritation.

When it attacks an exotic species like the blue sheep, it causes an acute and violent pathological reaction that can be so severe that the animal stops feeding and eventually dies.

The disease first surfaced in 1996, when the local people found that the blue sheep, were suffering from an ailment, which didn’t appear seasonal. However in 2000, the local shepherds again found the symptoms of the disease among the blue sheep and informed Dr David Butz, a Canadian social geographer who visited the valley.

“The population of blue sheep, which the IUCN has listed in the ‘endangered’ category on the Shimshal Pamir, is unknown. However, it is believed that there may be about 1,500 blue sheep in the valley”, an IUCN document said.

Hunting of Blue sheep, pseudois nayaur, in the Northern Areas is strictly prohibited under Wildlife Act, 1973.

In this region, besides local communities, some non-government organizations are also active in conservation of the endangered species for the past some years.

The experts feared that the chronic disease might infect other domesticated animals like goats, sheep and yaks belonging to the communities living in Shimshal and other areas.

Dr Michael Woodford and Dr Keith Powell also examined livestock of the area and found that they were mildly affected by the skin disease. The question now arises: did the domestic livestock transmit the disease to the wild blue sheep or vice versa? The answer to this question remains to be answered.

The Project Manager of the Blue Sheep Disease Investigation Project, Dr Michael Woodford, has contacted the Aga Khan Rural Support Programme (AKRSP) and would shortly be preparing a project proposal for funding for conducting a follow-up of the blue sheep disease investigation.

This follow-up will probably include the treatment by injection of all the sheep and goats and may be of over 1,000 yaks grazing on the Pamir as well.

Treatment of the blue sheep is a difficult job but Dr Woodford is investigating the possibility of arranging for manufacturing of a special ‘Salt Lick’ containing a drug, that, when eaten by the blue sheep, will kill the ‘mange mites’ which causes the disease.

This medicated ‘Salt lick’ will take some time to prepare and will have to be tested for efficacy and safety on domestic livestock first.

If the medicated salt lick proves to be safe and effective and cures the affected wild blue sheep, this will be a breakthrough in the treatment of a severe and often fatal wildlife disease.

ISLAMABAD: The recently concluded trip of the Hurriyat leadership to AJK and Pakistan, has initiated a new process of consultations on the Kashmir dispute.

As expected it has led to clarity on some issues and confusion on others.

A few things now seem quite clear. One, people in occupied Kashmir have had enough and are now desperate for a way out of their predicament. Two, both the Pakistani and Kashmiri leaderships have decided to seek a solution to the dispute by moving beyond the UN resolutions. Three, the issue is bound to become more complex with questions lurking about the need for a democratic mechanism to determine the wishes and aspirations of the Kashmiris.

“We want a way out, not a sell-out” was the message of APHC Chairman Mirwaiz Umar Farooq to his critics.

The Kashmiri people today want answers, he told his various audiences during his visit here. One point which he underscored while in Pakistan was that what Kashmiris appreciated the most about Pakistan was its ‘unconditional support’ and which was not linked to accession to Pakistan. Both the Hurriyat and Pakistani leadership agreed that status quo on Kashmir was totally unacceptable as was a military solution or any which would convert the LoC into a permanent border.

The visit was seen by many in Pakistan as a cathartic experience for the Hurriyat leaders who poured their hearts out and did some straight talking, especially JKLF chief Yasin Malik. The big surprise for them was the unflinching support, respect and love the Pakistani people had for them. They were overwhelmed by it and admitted that the depth of these sentiments were far beyond their expectations. Hence the ‘disconnect’ has gone, as a keen observer aptly put it. One view in official circles in Islamabad is that contrary to Indian calculations, Pakistan will actually gain from this visit.

The 37-year-old Yasin Malik, although a part of the nine-member Hurriyat delegation, remained a lone ranger. He had a separate audience with both the president and the prime minister.

His behavioural pattern remained the same at official or private functions. He would say his bit and make an early exit.

His disillusionment at the non-inclusion of Kashmiris in the ongoing dialogue process was all too evident and he was dressed in black on most occasions as a mark of protest against the human rights abuse in the valley.

The story of his turbulent freedom struggle and torture was written all over his face. His strong disapproval of the recent developments on the Kashmir front was also conveyed through his body language. He stood apart in every group photograph taken of the delegation, clearly showing his discomfort and disenchantment.

Apparently given his rather disgruntled posture and expression in the delegation’s photograph with President Musharraf, an attempt was made from some quarters to discourage publishing the photograph in newspapers the next day.

A glaring omission from the Hurriyat delegation was that it did not include a single Kashmiri woman representative. Given that women are the most vulnerable group in occupied Kashmir, many here were disappointed at their absence. This was noticed not just by women but also by men who are aware of the key role Kashmiri women have played in the freedom struggle and the countless sacrifices they have made over the years.

At a Dawn symposium in Islamabad when the head of the APHC delegation, Mirwaiz Umar Farooq, was asked this question by human rights activist Tahira Abdullah, he sounded rather paternalistic. Acknowledging women’s contribution, he promptly pointed towards a Kashmir University professor from Srinagar, Dr Hamada Nye, sitting in the audience and said an able representative of Kashmiri women was present on the occasion. However, to his embarrassment the professor declared that her presence had nothing to do with the Hurriyat delegation’s visit. She said she had come on the invitation of the Institute of Strategic Studies, Islamabad (ISSI), to participate in a conference on the Kashmir dispute.

Mirwaiz then took the defence that it was not the first trip, and next time women would be included in the delegation.

Some interesting facts and statistics on the state of human rights in occupied Kashmir were disclosed by Indian speakers at a recent ISSI conference. According to Gautam Navlakha of India’s Economic and Political Weekly, despite the Nov 2003 ceasefire between Pakistan and India, more personnel, weaponry, equipment, surveillance, fencing had turned held Kashmir into a huge military camp.

The troop reduction in the valley following the Indian prime minister’s visit in November last year had been offset by the induction of additional paramilitary forces, he pointed out.

Mr Navlakha illustrated the obtrusive control that the security forces had over public and private lives in J&K in the following manner: “There is heavy deployment of Indian security forces whose number exceeds 500,000. The army has three corps in J&K. Permission to carve out a fourth corps has been granted. Of these 15 and 16 corps are engaged in counter-insurgency. In addition there are at least 150,000 central paramilitary forces, 50,000 Rashtriya Rifles, 60,000 J&K police, 2,486 village defence committees, each with a minimum of 12 persons, and 18,000 SPO’s. And 3000-4000 ‘sarkari’ militants.”

An interesting point he made was that instead of curtailing their role, the Indian forces were consolidating their role by taking on jobs of civilians. Apart from running medical camps, taking children on conducted tours of India, operating schools, they are entrusted with funds for building roads as well as constructing 1,000 micro hydel-power projects. It was disclosed that out of 1,389 cases of human rights violations filed against the Indian army and of which 1,371 were investigated only 32 cases were found to be true. There has been not a single instance when someone has been convicted, let alone prosecuted, he said.

It was also pointed out that a former chief justice of the J&K High Court, Syed Rizvi, had lamented the fact that about 2,000 orders issued by his court had not been complied with. No contempt of court proceedings took place against the Indian forces for such acts of defiance.

Today, questions are being raised with reference to the absence of a human rights’ ‘dividend’ for Kashmiris despite the ongoing process of normalization and a plethora of confidence-building measures. And these questions are bound to continue till there is tangible improvement in the human rights situation in occupied Kashmir.

A Jawaharlal Nehru University professor, Kamal Mitra Chenoy, summed it up rather well when he said the peace process cannot go far without actual peace on ground.