Hindu Vivek Kendra
A RESOURCE CENTER FOR THE PROMOTION OF HINDUTVA
   
 
 
«« Back
Pakistan loses Kashmir and Kashmiri's

Pakistan loses Kashmir and Kashmiri's

Author: M.Mumaz Khan
Publication:
Date:

The Kashmir conflict has been in international limelight since proxy militancy erupted and violence continue to catches the international attention. Two sides have their own interpretation in their defence. India calls it cross-border terrorism and Pakistan calls it Jihad. The Kashmiri's are equally divided over the nature of militancy. However, Pakistan supported groups in Indian controlled part of Kashmir and Pakistan controlled Kashmir, subscribe Islamabad's policy on Kashmir irrespective of their political public posture whether pro-Pakistan or pro-independence. These groups are major recipient of Pakistan's monitory, military and political support that has greatly undermined their political independence and ability to truly represent the aspirations of Kashmiri's. These Pakistan's supported groups though, have widely been projected by Islamabad official media and foreign office as sole representative of Kashmiri's, in order to neutralize and marginalize the other schools of opinion in both sides of Kashmir those do not subscribe Pakistan's policy. The Pakistan supported groups political unity lie in the control of Islamabad so far threat of militant and monitary incentives ere unifying factors. But as militancy declines cracks of division among them begin to appear and accusations against each other have begun to set off. Though, Islamabad still exercise reasonable control on Srinagar based APHC group and will succeed to keep them together for another short span of time but its eventual political death cannot be stopped as soon as India-Pakistan enter into the meaningful dialogues. However, there is question mark about the peace process exist?

But despite Pakistan's massive monitary and political investment on these pro-Pakistan groups have failed to overcome the barriers and constraints their policies have created and undermined their political acceptance not only among non-Muslim Kashmiri's but equally failed among the Muslims Kashmiri where they are based. From Jammu to Ladakh, and from Pakistan controlled Azad Kashmir to Gilgit Baltsitan including valley they are politically non-existent. In the Valley their apparent political presence owing to the Pakistan's official and non-official media propaganda than to the real public support.

The September 11, terrorism has not only discredited seminaries and Jihadi militants in the Western world but in Kashmir not only Jihadi's but West also asking Pakistan to put lid on its support and cross-border infiltration. However, pressure wielded to press Islamabad to renounce extremists and ban them but Islamabad still manages to buy time until threat of Al-Quaeda recedes and its main cadre is at large mainly believed to be hiding in Pakistan.

Now military regime emphasis on the centrality of Kashmir issue is neither aimed to benefit Kashmiri's nor serve national interest rather to seek justification to the military's policy and confrontation with India. The fact is that dialogues will go nowhere in future since in past military has violated all the Agreements what Pakistan's elected governments had made with India. Military Generals assume that no other political force in Pakistan including Kashmiri have right to deal on Kashmir except them irrespective of their political and constitutional legitimacy.

The military is more interested in blame games against New Delhi than any meaningful initiative and resolution of conflict. The Islamabad argues that New Delhi is averse to the aspiration of Kashmiri's and also its international commitment it had made. But military rulers missing the fact that if New Delhi have not complied its commitment but military regimes have long record of violating the series of Accord its elected governments had made with new Delhi. The military regime has developed its image within Pakistan and outside the country as breaker not keeper of any promise whether they had made with its own people or another nation.

The Simla and Lahore Agreements had been concluded by the two Pakistan's heavily mandated governments one in 1972 and one in 1999' but both were violated by the military self-imposed rulers, first by the General Zia ul Haq when he launched proxy militancy in Kashmir, and second by the current ruler Pervez Mushraf who did misadventure in Kargil when Nawaz Sharif entered into a Lahore Agreement with Indian PM. This has been the longstanding view inside and outside the Pakistan that no civilian government in Pakistan can strike deal with India over Kashmir except military, how far such views are valid need close analysis. But as past record of military course of actions suggest otherwise. Because solution or compromise with India can only be achieved if larger interests of the people are taken into account. But as any compromise ultimately undermine the role and power of military institution in Pakistan that causes conflict with the peace over confrontation in the military regime in Pakistan.

Apparently there are no such factors that could supplement the efforts to persuade military in Pakistan to give up its political interests and let the democratic voice and mandate define the future path of country. As US can exercise limited influence on military only to avoid any immediate military confrontation but cannot bring military institutions in line. While Pakistan military understands that Washington relies more on military institutions than the democratic no matter apparently how much its emphasis is on democracy. However, Pakistan's warm relations with Washington will ultimately be chilled, as Pakistan desires that Washington should view New Delhi with Islamabad's angle of hostility.

However, if military regime had managed to line up Kashmiri during ongoing proxy war in the disguise of nationalism but its policies gradually generated frustration among Kashmiri's toward Islamabad. And further estrangement and frustration is bound to follow as both sides inching toward the normalization of relations. The military rulers tactically kept the political division intact between Indian controlled and Pakistan controlled Azad Kashmir despite the opportunity of promoting political unity and understanding between across line of divide since so-called Hurryat chapter in Islamabad had been established. But Islamabad had them lend indirect support from its controlled Kashmiri leaders but direct participation was not allowed fearing that direct presence from its controlled Kashmir will bring issue of Pak controlled parts in limelight too.

As many enlightened Pakistani political analysts are critical to military's policy and rightly argue that Islamabad better ensure first Pakistan security and stability before capturing Kashmir. And they fear lest Islamabad ruler's policy over Kashmir ultimately should not cost the integrity of country one more time, as their policy cost East Pakistan. The fear of political observers in Pakistan is well-founded and need to heed seriously because miracles every time won't take place to help Pakistan's economy. And nuclear alone does not provide security unless it is accompanied by the strong economy, technology and political stability. Pakistan was at the verge of bankruptcy prior to 9/11, when US sanctions were in placed but fortunately 9/11 instead of inviting further trouble due to military regimes pro-Taliban and internally supporting extremists' policy, bailed out Pakistan. And current Pakistan's foreign exchange reservoirs are not result of military regime's performance rather equally result of 9/11. But in last one decade grim economic record shows that Islamabad's proxy war against India has not benefited Pakistan politically or economically, nor Kashmiri's. In the last one decade Pakistan's economy has weakened and political instability has grown where democratic institutions are crumbling and extremists are on the rise. Country is politically in quagmire where recent so-called elections if created a dummy parliament under military control but still is ruled through the LFO. While in proxy war, Kashmiri lost a generation of its youth, and Mushraf eventually had to denounce them as terrorists under pressure. In this course of conflict Indian economy steadily grew, its foreign investment increased and India also enhanced its international image in software technology while its citizen are not being chased or suspected as terrorists. While due to the Pakistan's military regime's policy of promoting Talibans in Afghanistan, and extremists in Kashmir, today common Pakistani is vulnerable all over the world and being chased and suspected as terrorist. The outcome is the policy of Pakistan military regime's to support and promote extremists in Pakistan to marginalize and neutralize the democratic forces to remain at the helm of affairs.

The dynamics of conflict suggest that Pakistan's failures over Kashmir are not confined to its economy but the magnitude of political failure is quite greater than what is currently invisible especially, after the Kargil misadventure and 9/11. The losses are not only that almost 50,000 thousand Kashmiri youth was lost due to the proxy war but also in Kashmir social fabric and infrastructure was destroyed whose effect gradually are, and will be felt in days to come. Kashmiri's bewilderment about the designs of Pakistan will also have impact in future politics of Kashmir.

While Islamabad's obvious frustration over failure on its strategy to involve third party (mean US) by internationalizing the conflict, badly failed when White House categorically denied from mediation and keep telling Islamabad to deal bi-laterally with India and seek guidance from Simla and Lahore Agreement. While it has been Islamabad's utmost desire during this militancy to undermine the significance of Simla and Lahore Agreement and to return UN Resolutions badly failed to bear the fruits when Kofi Anan suggested Islamabad to deal with India according to Simla and Lahore Agreement during his visit to South Asia last year, and refrained to talk about the UN resolutions. And similarly as in past 14 years of militancy as much as Islamabad endeavoured to undermine the sanctity of LOC and Simla and Lahore Agreement by building pressure of militancy, its sanctity further urged by the international community.

While White House repeated suggestions to Mushraf to rein the cross-border infiltration is clear disagreement with Islamabad policy of supporting militancy.

The Pakistan's Kashmir policy has not only internationally criticized but now Kashmiri along the line of divide raising question whether Pakistan military institution is fighting for what it apparently claims, or Kashmir tangle with India serves military institution's interests. Not only Kashmiri but in the West enlightened people argue that the regime usurp the democratic rights of its own citizen and suppress the democratic aspirations of its own people and disregard the mandate and constitution of its own country, can advocate the aspirations of kashmiri's? They say that military regime before demanding right to self-determination for Indian controlled part should allow first its two controlled parts Azad Kashmir and Gilgit Baltistan to reunite and have joint Legislative Assembly, judiciary and other rights like in Indian Controlled Kashmir all three regions Jammu, Valley and Ladakh have had. Despite the blames people's identity and regional unity have not been divided and undermined in Indian controlled Kashmir. Pakistan should also allow people of both parts to carry out joint political activities. But if Military regime is averse to allow to reunite its controlled parts, where both parts Azad Kashmir and Gilgit Baltistan have all Muslim population, its claim of Kashmiri aspirations are merely eyewash. Islamabad had assumed the control under UNCIP resolutions that clearly laid down to ensure if the people's basic rights are protected. But Islamabad acts in its controlled parts against the aspiration of people since constitution of Pakistan and interim Constitution of Pakistan controlled Azad Kashmir forbid the people to propagate political views that are detrimental to the state's accession to Pakistan. The Islamabad claim about right to self-determination do not meet the criterion of jurisprudence of right to self-determination when it is pre-determined and ask people to follow blindly Pakistan's pre-determined ideology "Kashmir's accession to Pakistan. People those disagree with the pre-determined ideology of Islamabad in her controlled parts are not only denied to participate in the elections or seeking official job but ruthlessly suppressed and victimized.

The other part Gilgit Baltisan do not fall in the purview of Pakistan constitution neither in Pakistan controlled Azad Kashmir nor they have any constitution to govern the disputed region according to the democratic norms. The issues in Pakistan controlled parts now occupy more centrality about the practices of Pakistan in its controlled parts as Islamabad disputes Indian control and practices as unfair and undemocratic. In the coming days it seems Islamabad will confront issues of serious nature in its controlled parts if India has to redefine the nature of relationship with its controlled part, Pakistan should make up its mind to re-write and redefine its relationship where it exercises its extra-sovereign rights in areas which Islamabad recognize as disputed territory. The sovereign rights Islamabad failed to exercise in its federating units Islamabad override its jurisdiction and limits that UNCIP resolutions impose on Pakistan, and basic rights of people to which Pakistan demand to implement from India.

Secondly, Islamabad should need to study carefully the legal aspects of its control since India and Pakistan's presence in Kashmir is under two different jurisprudence that makes Pakistan's position legally more precarious. As presence of India in Kashmir is not owing to the UNCIP resolutions rather under the instrument of accession while Pakistan owes its presence to UNCIP resolutions, and its nature and status will not be changed unless Pakistan withdraws from UN resolutions. And if Islamabad insists to adhere to it Islamabad many acts and practices fall beyond the purview and mandate it has had under UNCIP, ranging from Mangla Dame to its unconstitional practices in Gilgit Baltistan, forbidding other school of thought to contest elections, seeking official jobs, declining basic right to Gilgit Baltistan, and not complying the verdicts of Azad Kashmir High Court and Pakistan supreme Court on Gilgit Baltistan.

So there are many questions of serious nature Pakistan will have to address in future if wants people under its control shouldn't feel discriminated and deprived. The grievances against Pakistan's practices are very much there and as some indicators unfold that India and Pakistan may have to deal their controlled parts separately and allow people more political space where their political identity shouldn't be diluted and undermined or compromised. Both parts may have to re-write the nature of relationship unless any just and durable solution if possible.

The Islamabad rulers in this proxy militancy has not lost the goodwill of Kashmiri's for Pakistan but also lost Kashmir if any remote hope was there prior to the militancy. The tangle Pakistan may not resolve with India but it may have been resolved among the Kashmiri's who have graduated politically during this proxy militancy and learnt about the motives of both countries. The Kashmiri have learnt that bullet has only increased the miseries and agonies, and ballet's opposition will further supplement it.

M.Mumaz Khan
1113-7 Glamorgan Ave
Toronto M1P 2N1
Canada
Mumtazkhan88@yahoo.com
 


Back                          Top

«« Back
 
 
 
  Search Articles
 
  Special Annoucements