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