November 7, 2004

Gen Musharraf’s latest move on Kashmir has once again evoked an understandably muted response from India, and an equally understandably vocal condemnation from the local politicians. To the man on thestreet, Kashmir doesn’t matter much anyway

PRESIDENT General Pervez Musharraf has made a tectonic shift from our hackneyed stand on Kashmir, that a plebiscite should determine the ultimate fate of Kashmir, by suggesting that other options for solution of the core issue should also be examined, including granting independence or joint supervision by India and Pakistan. Is it a desperate attempt on the general’s part, or is it a public relations exercise at breaking the logjam?

Confidence-building measures favoured by India as a substitute for progress on Kashmir have been held hostage by Pakistan to progress on the core issue. That is why all the rounds of talk between the two countries have produced mere statements, and no progress.

The government appears to have reached a point where it may have lost patience with India on Kashmir. Huge banners displayed in Islamabad, which condemn India for brutalities in the occupied Kashmir and demand political and human rights for the Kashmiris, cannot but be an orchestrated move seem to support the ‘impatience’ thesis.

The latest shift by the Chief of the Army Staff may perhaps be a device to draw world attention to him and the core issue. Cynics say that he may only be trying to divert domestic public opinion away from the failure of governance, including the latest obsession of the opposition with his uniform.

The shift appears to have drawn criticism both here and in India. The Indian response was restrained and mild. India reacted unfavourably to the general’s generous offer and has dismissed the idea almost contemptuously by saying that it was ready to discuss General Musharraf’s latest proposal on Kashmir as part of the on-going peace process, but hastened to add that no good would come by conducting the talks through media.

India’s Foreign Ministry spokesman is reported to have said, “We have heard these comments. We don’t believe that Jammu and Kashmir is a subject on which discussion can be held through the media. So, if there are any proposals, suggestions regarding that, composite dialogue is the forum.” BJP’s reaction was sharp. It rejected any move that compromised India’s sovereignty over Kashmir.

The Indian Prime Minister had also recently stated that any solution to the Jammu and Kashmir issue couldn’t be based on re-drawing of boundaries. And it is just that — re-drawing of boundaries — that Pakistan is after. So no amount of sweet talk from Pakistan would persuade India to hand over Kashmir, which the latter failed to take militarily. Status quo suits India, which can sit tight without conceding anything. The price, diplomatic or military, that the occupation involves, India is prepared to pay.

In Pakistan the departure from our principled stand has upset some people, particularly the so-called rightists. One of the senior leaders of the government tried to preempt the Mutahidda Mjalis-e-Amal (MMA) by issuing a statement from London that the MMA was not opposed to new ideas on Kashmir.

Swiftly contradicting Secretary General Mushahid Hussain, ARD and MMA reacted negatively to the unilateral declaration from the Presidency. They hold that India had not stepped back even an inch from its position on Kashmir, then why should the general take unilateral steps of granting concessions.

General Musharraf, they say, has no mandate, legal or illegal to impose a solution on Pakistan. It was also alleged that no person could sell the country’s interests under the cover of his military uniform. Remember it was a also military ruler who gave away three eastern rivers of Pakistan in 1960; then East Pakistan in 1971; and, yet, Siachin in 1980s.

Jamaat-i-Islami has accused the general of unveiling an American roadmap aimed at dissolving the issue rather than resolving it. Even the leaders of Azad Jammu and Kashmir, not to be left behind and long since used to the status quo, which suits them, criticized the new direction the general has taken.

JKLF Chairman Amanullah Khan have expressed satisfaction at independence proposals as well as Gilgit and Baltistan having been accepted as part of Kashmir. That is a loaded welcome. Some other leaders of occupied Kashmir also welcomed the shift in Pakistan’s stand, if only as a means of nudging India towards a serious dialogue.

And one cannot take cudgels with the general in seeking some other solution to the Kashmir issue. Whether people share the perception of the rulers with reference to Kashmir being the core national issue is another matter. A recent survey conducted by USAid showed only 16 per cent people of Pakistan showed interest in Kashmir. The last 57 years we have badgered the issue morning till evening besides going to a few wars and an intellectual ennui has set in. People yawn at the mention of this issue and avoid reading leaders’ statements on the subject. Cynics point out that no one wants a resolution of the issue because his or her own position is better served by ferociously defending the status quo.

All the past attempts by Pakistan to wrest control of occupied territories from India have been miserable failures, and may have sealed the fate of the troubled territory to suffer the status quo for some more time to come. The last attempt was the Kargil, which brought us to the point of begging the United States on our bent knees to bail us out. The favourite doctrine of our security outfits that acquisition of nuclear weapons has proved to be prophylactic against war and has made our defences impregnable is belied by the Kargil adventure. Although it may be argued that the adventure did not escalate into full-scale war may be due to our coming out of the nuclear closet.

The demand for division of Kashmir on religious lines is an outdated idea. No countries have been created on the basis of religion except Israel and Pakistan. That was more than half-a-century ago. The possibility of other countries emerging on the same basis is remote, particularly after 9/11, when all Muslims are perceived either as terrorists or at best militants. Even the division of former Republic of Yugoslavia has been done into mixed republics. If the cause of Palestinians, which is so much stronger, receives scant attention from the world, why should Kashmir?

Pakistan’s obsession with Kashmir is unfortunately limited to the land Kashmiris occupy and not the people. Why else would it hark on the theme for the last 57 years that Kashmir is a part of Pakistan without taking into account the wishes of Kashmiris, who appear to favour independence. It all started with Mughal Emperor Akbar, who enslaved the Kashmiris in 1586.

Kashmir is groaning under foreign occupation for ages now. Which Kashmiri, given half a chance, would opt for Pakistan ruled by the military where constitution is no more than a piece of paper, where human rights are not respected and where the treatment of three smaller provinces is proverbially step-motherly? Why would Kashmiris opt for India either, and thus exchange one set of master for another?

We are very fond of demanding democratic and human rights for the Kashmiris, while refusing to agree to allow the same to the people of Pakistan. Ongoing military operations in South Waziristan are no less serious than anything in Kashmir.

Kashmir has snared the people of Pakistan to the mindset of security apparatchiks. A number of possibilities have been explored on Track II, away from the public eye. The new formula is a part of that dialogue. The UN resolution of August 13, 1948, which Pakistan desperately wants implemented through plebiscite to determine the will of the people, does not preclude independence. Then there is the Chenab formula, which postulates division of Kashmir along the Kashmir rivers. Hizbul Mujahideen has decided to discuss the unilateral pronouncement of the Presidency to hold threadbare discussion before offering a unified reaction.

The best solution that is feasible and might be acceptable to both the countries is to open the borders between the two divided Kashmirs into allow people free movement. This model may perhaps prove to be fruitful for the two countries to follow along their international borders. But would it be acceptable to India? Kashmir is being portrayed as a terrorist and Islamic fundamentalist movement. Pakistan’s so-called moral support extends to material help and it has come under tremendous pressure, both from the US and India, to stem the tide of cross-border militancy.

Even if Kashmir is resolved to our entire satisfaction, a fat chance, we would have enough to fight over. Communal divide had been written in concrete when we attained independence. Not only did Pakistan acquire a non-secular status by becoming Islamic republic, but also went forward by styling history and economics as Islamic. Islamic banking is in full swing. Physics and chemistry may be next.

It seems the government of Pakistan has realized the futility of the entire peace process, which it, in its naivete, thought would yield Kashmir on a platter. It has raised the ante by focusing on the issue through press statements to nudge India forward. But India has no compulsion to grant the wishes of Pakistan.

Somehow, the general is seized of the idea that because of close relationship with the United States, which is more in the nature of patron-client relationship, Pakistan occupies an important geo-political position and cannot therefore be disregarded. Its nuclear status has further reinforced this mindset. But this amounts to looking at the geopolitical situation in isolation.

In the new world order, post 9/11, a new set of rules for conduct of foreign policy has evolved. India has been assigned the status of strategic partner with whom the US has carried out some major military, naval and air force exercises, and Pakistan is a mere ally in war against terror. This is only meant to say that it is obliged to do the bidding of the super power. It has been rewarded with the honour badge of non-NATO ally, which perhaps would entitle it to obtain some outdated military hardware. Otherwise the status is a diplomatic albatross round its neck. There is no free lunch.

Going by history, one can say with certainty that the next ten years are not going to yield a solution that Pakistan is seeking. To quote J.N. Dixit, who is a cabinet minister in the present government of India, responding to our demand for plebiscite, “the whole of Jammu and Kashmir acceded to India, and if we are going to talk in legal terms, then the whole state should become united and become part of the Indian republic. All these legalities are not going to make an iota of difference. Everybody who has a sense of history knows the legality only has relevance up to the threshold of transcending political realities”. Words, words and words. They hide the mindset of the Indians who don’t want to part with any part of Kashmir.

According to Victoria Schofield, in Kashmir in the Crossfire, the rest of the world is either unable or unwilling to assist the Kashmiris in what they perceive to be a just cause. “No country was willing to risk its entire agenda with New Delhi over the Kashmir cause”. It is by now clear that the two countries are incapable of carrying on meaningful dialogue and be able to see the other’s point of view. Victoria Schofield has concluded her book by saying that “without a generally acceptable settlement, the Kashmir issue is likely to remain indefinitely on the international agenda of unresolved conflicts, which may yet become more explosive”.

Professor Alastair Lamb had questioned the validity of the instrument of accession. According to him, in Incomplete Partition, the final British administration in India failed to pay adequate attention to the problems for the future of the subcontinent inherent in nature of the state of Jammu and Kashmir. May be this is what they intended, having divided the subcontinent on communal lines they wanted to make sure that they continued to deal as a neo-colonial power with a house divided against itself.

According to Lamb, it would have been quite possible for the last British ruler to devise a scheme for the deconstruction of the state of Jammu and Kashmir. The Punjab faultline cuts across an elaborate irrigation system, where all the rivers flowing into the subcontinent first pass through Kashmir. A partition line without reference to irrigation consequences was bound to be problematic.

To hold progress on confidence-building measures hostage to the single issue amounts to hurting oneself. The world will pass us by unless we concentrate on economic progress starting with human and social development.

Please Visit our Sponsor (Ads open in separate window)