Kashmir: Time for a Radical Approach?

temporal sahib
this is one of those articles where the heading is the most powerful statement, the rest just an anticlimax..May be this ikhbari style colum-nigaari isn`t your cup of tea..

that should be the solution. LoC as the border. to allow a piece of land drive a wedge into the lives of people is dispicable.

as a Pakistani, i feel no dignity in justifying my country`s stance on Kashmir while the lives of the rest of the people get destroyed.

temporal wrote, ``The most obvious one would be to bring in a bilateral or multilateral commission that would recommend turning what is de-facto into de-jure border.``

I don`t think India has any problem with turning what is de-facto into de-jure border. But Pakistan`s military establishment does. It needs India as an eternal enemy to justify the usurption of a disproportionate share of the Pakistan`s wealth for the Military.

India is the status quo power via-a-vis Pakistan. From the time Jinnah unleashed the tribal militias of Pathans on to the princely kingdom of Jammu & Kashmir to the time General Musharraf went behind the back of his civilian bosses to start the Kargil war, it is Pakistan that has always tried to alter the status quo to its advantage. If Pakistan could assure India that it would not try to alter the LoC, I am pretty sure India would be more than happy to forgo its claims on PoK (Pak occupied Kashmir).

It is interesting to note that it was Pakistan that started the cycle when it violated the standstill agreement with the King of Jammu & Kashmir by unleashing tribal militias and Pak soldiers on the kingdom. And this is how it has been recapitulated in a recent DAWN article:

Excerpt from Article in DAWN (07/27/99):

Kargil - before and after
By Zafar Iqbal

``MILITARILY, the critical point which was supposed to have created the
Kashmir problem was the hiatus in the tribesman`s march towards
Srinagar when they stopped for a bit of ``rest and recreation`` (R&R) at
Baramulla about a dozen miles from Srinagar airport. Their concept of
recreation included a diversion into some looting and pillage and
possibly a bit of rape on the side.``

``Anyway, whatever the truth, this window of opportunity permitted the
Indians to capture Srinagar airport and bring in reinforcements; at
least so the story is told. The ultimate result was the cease-fire
line.``

The DAWN author makes no bones about why and how Pakistan violated the standstill agreement it had with the King of Jammu & Kashmir.

There is a need for a change in the mindset of Pakistan`s ruling oligarchy of which the linchpin is the army. It had started off on the wrong foot when in 1947 it spread the word, ``Haske liya Pakistan, ladke lenege Hindustan.`` Flushed in its belief in the theory of ``martial races`` Pakistan`s army officers spread the word that one Pakistani soldier is more than a match for ten ``Hindu`` soldiers. And to this day, there are those in Pakistan that articulate the dream that the Pakistani flag will one day fly atop the Red Fort in New Delhi. It is Pakistan`s irredentist dreams that had led it to unilaterally lay claim to Siachen.

Peace will not be far behind if and when Pakistan`s rulers stop trying to alter the status quo with force.

India is a status quo power. Regardless of its current public stance, India will gladly agree to giving up her claim on PoK and turning the LOC into a permanent international border. It is Pakistan that feels that it must acquire the entire Jammu & Kashmir to ``finish the unfinished business of partition.``

Pakistan`s ruling elite has a vested interest to paint India as the eternal enemy of Pakistan. It will continue to do so even if India were to aquiesce to the permanent exile of all residents of Jammu & Kashmir whose ethnicity, ideology or faith does not meet the approval of Pakistan`s ruling elite and even if India were to hand over the entire state of Jammu & Kashmir on a platter to Pakistan.

When Pakistan`s military swears by:

(1) the ``martial race theory``
(2) asserts that one Pakistani soldier can take care of ten ``Hindu`` soldiers or,
(3) promises compatriots that they will unfurl Pakistan`s flag at the
Red Fort,

it does so, not because it believes in the bluster, but because that makes it easier for the military to usurp a disproportionate share of the country`s wealth for the Kakul kleptocrats.

In real life, Pakistan`s military has always been far tougher on its own citizens, most of them unarmed, than on armed soldiers of ``enemy`` countries. Thus, General Tikka Khan is far better known to the world as the Butcher of Bengal and as the Butcher of Balochistan than as the Knight in shining armor who will ride his big white horse to the Red Fort to unfurl Pakistan`s flag.

When Pakistan`s military breathes fire, it is to ``prove`` to Pakistani citizens that the military is indispensable to the nation`s welfare. But this is nothing but a fraud because the primary aim is to make sure that Pakistan`s army can continue steal a disproportinate share of the country`s wealth for itself.

I have no reason to believe that Pakistan`s ruling elite cares any more for justice in Jammu & Kashmir than it cares for justice for the residents in Pakistan itself or for justice to the ``Biharis`` left to rot in refugee camps for 3 decades.

Those that had preached, ``Haske liya Pakistan, ladke lenge Hindustan,`` on the morrow of independence, those that continue to preach, ``One Pakistani soldier is more than ten ``Hindu`` soldiers,`` will not change their tune or stance even if Jammu & Kashmir is handed over to them on a platter. They have a strong need to have India as an enemy country to justify the usurption of a disproportionate share of the nation`s wealth for themselves.

Pakistan`s military lobby was strong enough to force the break-away of the majority of Pakistanis in 1971 in order to preserve its own interest in the rest of the country. Today, it is just as determined to perpetuate conflict with India and for the very same reason. Jammu & Kashmir is merely the most convenient excuse at the moment. But, in its absence, it won`t take long for Pakistan`s military to find yet another excuse.

Pakistan`s ruling elite ought to ponder over the fact that here is a limit to what the people will tolerate. When the Kakul kleptocrats exhausted the patience of the long suffering ordinary citizens of Pakistan, the Tsunami of their wrath did not spare even the Ayub Khans and the Yahya Khans. It will not spare Pervez Musharraf either.

If Pakistan`s ruling elite can let a quarter million stranded ``Biharis`` (who consider themselves Pakistanis) to rot in refugee camps for decades, it cannot possibly care for Kashmiris who don`t even call themselves
Pakistanis.

The ``Biharis`` will not come with any real estate - naturally Pakistan`s ruling elite doesn`t want to touch them even with a 10 ft pole.

Funds were set up in Pakistan, and even in Saudi Arabia,to finance the repatriation of these hapless ``Biharis``. The Rabita trust was one such fund. And General Pervez Musharraf was himself on its board. I don`t know how much fund was collected by the Rabita trust for the purpose
over the years. But I was not very surprised to be told ruefully by a Mohajir-Pakistani acquaintance that in the post 9/11 era, the funds of that trust have been frozen on orders from the American government because they were being misused to promote terrorism.

And that, in a nutshell, spells out the real tragedy. Pakistan`s ruling elite has never lacked in funds to promote jihad in Afghanistan or Kashmir. But they had not a penny to spare for the repatriation of the hapless
``Biharis`` !!

Pakistan`s ruling elite has been demanding a plebiscite as the panacea to end all injustice in Jammu & Kashmir. But what constitutes a fair plebiscite? Ensuring the fairness of the mechanism of casting and counting of votes is a part of it. But a fair plebiscite in Jammu & Kashmir needs to be much more than that.

A plebiscite cannot be fair if it allows the majority to infringe on the fundamental rights of an unpopular person or minority. Thus, even if a referundum in Iran were to validate Ayatollah Khomeni`s fatwa against Salman Rushdie, it will not turn the deadly fatwa into fair and democratic action.

The plebiscite that Pakistan`s ruling elite demands in Jammu & Kashmir cannot be fair, in spite of every thing, if they are merely the means to destroying the age old regious diversity of the land.

``Kashmir Banega Pakistan`` is not a slogan of the Kashmiris, by the Kashmiris and for the Kashmiris. It is a slogan engendered and nurtured in the cantonments of `Pindi, Lahore and Sialkot that aims to impose the religious homogeneity of Pak occupied Kashmir (PoK) on the rest of Jammu & Kashmir as well. Here`s an article that articulates the pitfalls of plebiscite on the plank of ``self-determination.``


The Horizon
30th October, 1998

Self-determination Isn`t Always Sacred
by Pravin Satsangi

Self-determination is fast becoming the most abused concept of our times. When Woodrow Wilson coined the word, it was to verbalize his compassion and concern for fellow human beings. But the political arm of terrorists,like those in Kashmir, use the word in a way that is a travesty of the lofty principles that had animated President Wilson and is a cruel mockery of human rights. No one can possibly be left in doubt about this
once he witnesses the plight of the quarter million Kashmiri Hindus who have had to flee their ancestral home in the face of fanatical terrorists from abroad seeking self-determination for the Muslims in Kashmir.

The political representatives of the terrorists in Kashmir weave the word ``self-determination`` into their righteous chants in a clever public relations effort to glean support for their goal of turning Jammu and Kashmir in the mold of ethnically cleansed Pakistan. The world needs to be informed that self-determination of ``their`` people is ruthlessly violating the human rights of others.

Self-determination is indeed a basic human right. But it loses its sanctity when self-determination of a group implies marching orders for the rest. Ofcourse, people don`t leave their homes voluntarily. They have to be persuaded. That means killing them untill everybody gets the idea.The massive ethnic cleansing of 1947 in Jinnah`s Pakistan is an example of self-determaination of this evil variety. Pakistan lived upto its name by becoming a ``cleansed land`` within weeks of independence. And now Kashmir is taking a leaf out of Jinnah`s book. Self-righteous chanters of
``self-determination`` with direct Pakistani assistance seem well on their way to stamping out religious diversity from Jammu and Kashmir.

Will we never learn the cruel lessons of history? The previous UN Secretary General Boutros-Ghali put it about as bluntly as could be: ``If every ethnic, religious or linguistic group claimed statehood, there would be no limit to fragmentation. Peace, security and economic well-being for all would become even more difficult to achieve.``

Self-determination for a group must never sanctify the violation of human rights of another. Automatic self-determination, for whosoever shouts the loudest, is a sure recipe for tragedies like Kashmir. It is the greatest of evils to allow one person`s self-determination to degenerate into his neighbour`s extinction. Kashmir desperately calls out for respite from fanatical terrorists from abroad who have turned the land into a living hell.

Abraham Lincoln courageously faced down those that chanted ``secession`` to perpetuate the evil of slavery. We, too, must summon the courage to confront those that chant ``self-determination`` in heedless pursuit of Jinnah`s evil ideology of religious apartheid.

[In the meantime foreigners are selling us big ticket armaments, our defense honchos are becoming fat and business leaders fatter.]

Well, I saw a soldier (not a regular policeman) standing guard in front of an apartment complex near my home. It seems the retired Indian Army chief has moved there.

That is what our defence honchos get for 35 years of service. A flat worth maybe $120,000 in Chennai from his savings.

Musharraf bungled it up at Agra. He should have come back with a piece of paper normalization relations between the two countries. People to people contact, trade and commerce and so on.

On this issue, I agree with India`s stance.

At present, there is a no statesman on either side who can look beyond his nose. BJP needs an issue for votes and Pakistan army needs an issue to justify itself.

This is a hangover from the colonial past and let it rest for the present as it is. There are more urgent issues such as poverty and illetracy on both sides.

If China can wait for a decades/century to get its issues resolved peacefully, so can we.

Too much has already been lost. There isn`t much support for an independent Kashmir in the powers that be in Pakistan either. Neither India nor Pakistan have full Kashmir. Kashmiris may not be happy about India and Pakistan holding parts of Kashmir but the state had been quiet until 1980s. The development of industry in Kashmir had lagged but the state did receive the largest share of Federal funds per capita.

Changing the status quo at this time will uncover very deep wounds that time is beginning to heal. New generation in India doesnt carry the baggage of partition. New generation of Pakistanis should also be the same. Rehashing partition at this time should be the last thing on our minds.

temporal,
a good try here. Especially liked:
``Both nations have clouded the ideals of Gandhi and Jinnah. Aside from their portrait hung in all government offices their only practical legacy is etched on the 500 rupees note to facilitate corruption.``

The Challange lies in the turning the LOC into a permanent border.

Without the creation of a ``Kashmiri Entity`` it will be difficult.

A state that is Part Indian and Part Pakistani in landmass but Kashmiri in

identity (meeting at the LOC) is our best bet.

The state will have a local identity but no international personality.


Ras

Excerpt from Article in DAWN (07/27/99):

Kargil - before and after
By Zafar Iqbal

``MILITARILY, the critical point which was supposed to have created the Kashmir problem was the hiatus in the tribesman`s march towards Srinagar when they stopped for a bit of ``rest and recreation`` (R&R) at Baramulla about a dozen miles from Srinagar airport. Their concept of recreation included a diversion into some looting and pillage and possibly a bit of rape on the side.

Anyway, whatever the truth, this window of opportunity permitted the Indians to capture Srinagar airport and bring in reinforcements; at least so the story is told. The ultimate result was the cease-fire line.``

temporal jee,
very good article in deed.i will come back

Question: If desi governments resolved the issue of Kashmir with radical approaches, how would they disguise bad governance by those in power?

Answer: Those in power are just diverting attention from those who rule, so Kashmir is somehow linked to a solution for good governance in both countries.

With the Iraq war on, never a better time in the last few years than now to improve governance. Point is, will we realise it?

temporal:

Before getting into the discussion, the problem has to be defined. What is the Kashmir problem?

1) Kashmir should have been given to Pakistan because it was a Muslim majority state.

2) Kashmir is a problem because it is a Muslim majority state in India.

3) Kashmir is a problem because Kashmiris are unhappy living within India.

4. Kashmir is a problem because Pakistani military establishment has found it most useful to dominate the civil society in Pakistan

5. Kashmir is a problem because India has not treated Kashmiris badly and they are unhappy.

The problem could be one of them, some of them or all of the above.

Lets dissect each one by one.

1) It is true that Kashmir had Muslim majority state and did not end up in Pakistan. The problem is that legality of Muslim majority going to Pakistan was agreed upon by two makor political parties with colonial government. Whatever, Jinnah, Gandhi or Nehru said or agreed upon was before partition and in the absence of Pakistan and India prior to August 14, 1947, they spoke as leaders of major parties and not nations. Once partition happened, all the movement leading to independence became part of history. The outstanding issues between two countries should have been agreed upon between two governments of independent nations to have legal basis for discussion and taking it to international body like UN. Because Jinnah and Nehru agreed upon something in the presence of British have no legal status once both became head of state of their respective nations. This would be akin to considering all my posts as Pakistani government policies if one day I become Prime minister of Pakistan. Did Nehru and Jinnah agree after independence about giving Muslim majority areas of India to Pakistan and Hindu majority districts of formr East Pakistan, Sikh majority areas of Panjab and Hindu majority districts of Sindh to India?
It is not smart to expect Pakistan and India trading territories once both imposed their currency and administration on all of their countries. It is absically pulling the plug on issue. Pakistan did raise this issue and went to war unilaterally.

2) There is no logic to handover KAshmir to Pakistan now because Kashmir is a Muslim majority state. Many countries around the world have minorities and minorities dominated states. Whole world would be turn upside down if majority-minoiry is made a basis for giving right of self determination. That right once might lead to one result and another time another. Qubec in Canada has come very once to achieve 60 percent vote for breaking away. The independence is usually irreversible no matter if people change their mind as they often do based on situation. Immediately after the fall of Soviet empire, Leningrad voted to change name to St. Petersburgh with 50.4 percent majority and now they would vote for Leningrad again if given the chance. Nobody asked Lyallpuris to change the name to Faisalabad but government would not like to have vote on this topic, even if Faisalabad might win now over Lyallpur.

3. If Kashmiris are unhappy living within India then it is internal Indian problem just as East Pakistan was Pakistan`s internal problem which India did not respect. If it is this a tit-for-tat , that is fine with me as a Pakistani but beyond that it is difficult to get rest of the world agree to me.

4. Enough has been said about the role of Kashmir in the military domination of Pakistani civil society. Most Pakistanis do not like it and no military dictator has ever achieved majority Pakistanis support - Musharraf referendum a case in point. That is why, outside religious plitical parties, Kashmir gets only luke warm support from mainstream political parties with regional and leftist parties almost moot on this issue. The Balochi, Sindhi or PAshtun nationalists hardly put Kashmir on thier agendas. Theoretically a party of Panjabis along the line of MQM would quietly oppose it for the reason fo diluting their strength at the national assembly level.

5. There is definitely some truth to mistreatment of the democratic rights of the Kashmiris with Pakistani style election rigging common in Kashmir. It is still an internal Indian problem.

The bottomline is that justification for going to war over it or inserting terrorists in Kashmir does not exist nor did India and Pakistan had any justification for capturing Siachen and starting Kargill war, respectively. Both nations must be fair to their population irrespective of religion. Both people having found security in the nuclear weapons deserve to divert all attentions to uplifting the standard of living and basic human rights and that should be of prime importance.

Temporal:

Pardon my saying so, and I do not mean it in the wrong way, but this article is a copout.

I agree with everything you say here. Which reasonable person would not? Yes, we need a solution to Kashmir. Problem comes in delineating the solution. That you have stepped away from.

You see, it is easy to blame the politicans and the establishment. But even in the establishment there are people who have tried. Well meaning people, intelligent people. We may call our leaders and the bureaucrats fools, but that too is a copout.

The issue is intractable. Honestly, I do not even blame Pakistan for taking advantage of the insurgency which was home grown to begin with. The Indian gov`t screwed up one too many time. Guess they could no make up their mind, to be soft like Canada or hard like China.

I think India has an advantage, not because of it`s size, but because of it being a status quo power. The Indians too have learnt a lesson. If peace is achieved, a central government would think 100 times before dismissing a Kashmiri gov`t. But both sides are not tired yet.

We all agree on the need of a solution, but we cannot create one to satisfy the power centers. You say time for a radical approach, and yet you shy away from offering one. Why?

temporal saheb:
I agree with you in general.
I think that India should give up its formal stance that it will not accept outside interference on the Kashmir issue. I said ``formally``, because it has informally accepted American intervention since the Kargil war. The earlier Indian suspicion of outsiders was understandable as India and the U.S were on the opposite side of the cold war. But in the new geopolitics, India should not have any such suspicions. And the outside mediation will most likely result in, as you say, de jure recognition of the de facto borders, with some minor adjustments to placate the Pakistanis, and greater autonomy for Kashmiris.
The new geopolitical situation makes it imperative that India and Pakistan should see the danger from outsiders and not give the world`s sole superpower an excuse for ``regime changes`` on the subcontinent. Pakistan faces the more immediate threat in this regard because it, including its state agencies, is correctly viewed as a breeding ground for Islamic jihad. But India should also know that America would not like any regional power to get too big for its boots. The American interests may coincide with that of India today but this situation may not last for ever.
Pakistan keeps saying that it wants to have a dialogue with India. But such a dialogue will be meaningless if it turns into another Lahore or Agra. It would be more useful if the two countries agree to reestablish people-to-people contact. This alone will make it easier for the leaders of the two countries to sell any compromise on Kahsmir to their respective peoples. But Indians, and not just Advani & Co., will not now accept even any normalising of relations between the two countries until they are convinced that Pakistan has stopped recruitment and training of those causing mayhem in Kashmir. Will any Pakistani govt. be willing and able to do that?

Another pathetic article refusing to accept the reality. Kashmir is only a symptom of a fundamental problem. Why did pakistan create taliban. Why are 200 pakistanis in afghan prisons. Why did one pakistani was sent to the US, killed and brought back, legally. Why are the chehnians in pakistan collecting funds. Why is dawood ahmed a honoured guest in pakistan.
Any one who cannot find a common thread linkin all of the above to kashmir problem is a rank idiot. Kashmir, afghanistan, chehniya, hopefully iraq are the bassic needs for the children of an ideology called TNT to meet their inner cravings.

pro long deliberation united nation ordered cease fire in 1949,fate of disputed state to be deceided according to the will of of the people of the state .MR NEHUR himself decleared accassion of kashmir will not be a marriage of comprise,but in the form of plebsite as annalciated by security council,passed anonymously by all members.it is the pledge that people of J&Kare lying down their lives .india has agreed for plebsite and adhere to it for some year,slowly and gradually broke the promise.india must remember non violance teaching of mahatama GHANDI.both india and pakistan hands off from kashmir .declear independant state.that would bring peace,harmony and prosperity,not only to india,pakistan and kashmir but to the subcontenent