Hindu Vivek Kendra
A RESOURCE CENTER FOR THE PROMOTION OF HINDUTVA
   
 
 
«« Back
Kashmir: dangers and prospects

Kashmir: dangers and prospects

Author: Prof. Khurshid Ahmad
Publication: Dawn, Karachi
Date: February 15, 2001

THE Kashmir movement has entered a critical and decisive phase. It is, therefore, imperative to analyze the current situation in the light of global trends, twists and turns of diplomacy and conditions prevailing in the country; and to identify the dangers facing Pakistan and the Kashmir movement. It is also necessary to give an outline of the required strategy for facing these conditions so that future opportunities can be made use of.

The issue of Kashmir is not merely territorial; it is of saving the jugular vein of Pakistan and the future of 12 million people. The principle and the formula under which Pakistan and India achieved freedom from British rule in 1947 apply in determining the permanent status of Jammu and Kashmir. India is in occupation of a big portion of the state in violation of the United Nations' resolutions as well as its own pledges and guarantees. Kashmiris have never accepted this occupation even for a moment. They have been waging a political struggle against this since day one and when the Dogra rulers and the Indian leadership tried to establish military control on the people, they revolted and got one-third of the state liberated.

The popular struggle continued until the system of oppression and suppression resulted in a situation where there was no option but to start jihad. This is continuing since 1989 and it is the result of this jihad that Indian rulers have now started talking about 'some solution'. It is because of the struggle and sacrifices that India now talks about ceasefire and peace.

Pakistani nation and Kashmiri Muslims are all for peace, but peace is not merely the absence of war. Peace can be achieved only on the basis of truth and justice. Ceasefire is not the issue; the issue is to remove those causes and conditions that have compelled the people of Jammu and Kashmir to rise in arms against the Indian military onslaught.

India is interested only in releasing the pressure of the movement while the people seek a just solution as to their political future to be decided with the exercise of free will that is to be ascertained through a plebiscite under the international auspices according to the UN resolutions. Thus, the start of talks is not the issue. There have been scores of rounds of talks during the past 50 years, and all have been inconclusive. Only talks focusing on the real problem and held within an appropriate framework alone may prove useful and productive.

Refreshing the basic facts in mind is essential for developing an understanding of the current phase of the Kashmir issue, and dangers and prospects that lie ahead.

First, though India may keep repeating that Kashmir is its integral part, the fact is that Jammu and Kashmir is a disputed territory - a fact which the UN, the European Union and the OIC all have accepted. Even India has admitted in the past that the dispute needs a solution. Then, the matter is not about the Line of Control (LoC) and making it an international border; it is about giving an opportunity to the entire state to decide its future.

The UN resolutions provide that legal, political and ethical framework through which the Kashmiri people can decide their future. Tripartite talks are necessary, but their objective should be to do the needful for the implementation of the UN resolutions, and not to start a new debate.

Second, the basic point is that if India, especially its bigotted BJP leadership, is showing its intention for talks, it is for three reasons:

First, despite the forceful occupation of the territory for 53 years and unrestrained use of military might especially for the last 12 years, India has failed to suppress the will of the people of Jammu and Kashmir. It is now being admitted at every level that the people are not ready to live with India under any circumstances. For India, therefore, there is no military solution to the problem. Economically, too, it is proving to be a costly game.

Second, Pakistan's principled and firm stand as well as its becoming a nuclear power along with India has forced New Delhi to realize that it cannot achieve its objectives only by increasing its war effort.

Third, the new trend of the world opinion is forcing India to take interest in the Kashmir dispute just to make the region safe from the danger of nuclear war. World conscience was asleep, it was the show of nuclear capability that forced the P-5, G-7, and the UN Security Council to begin to take interest in the issue. In spite of this realization, the effort is not for seeing at the issue in its real perspective but to find an alternative way that may defuse the issue. Nevertheless, international pressure is acting as a catalyst.

It is because of these three reasons that 'some solution' is being talked about and pressure on Pakistan is increasing with every passing day, which has assumed an overpowering dimension, especially because Pakistan's economy is not in good health. The military regime is doing all what it can for its international acceptability. In this perspective, the need is to understand what is meant by the so-called 'Oslo process', and what are its implications for Kashmir.

The Camp David process was started in 1978 and the Oslo process in 1993, but it came to a close in 2000. Palestinians had to launch Intifada al-Aqsa that has infused a new spirit into the Palestine issue. It seems appropriate that important aspects of this process are explained so as to benefit from the Palestine experience:

(i) Instead of a comprehensive and all-inclusive solution to the Palestine problem, the issues are sorted out through an incremental and piece-meal approach. The main issue and its permanent nature are taken up the last. Confidence-building measures are taken, peace is achieved in exchange for pieces of land, and thus a solution is arrived at, if at all, very slowly.

(ii) The United Nations resolutions are put on the back burner, and new options are discovered through talks.

(iii) International institutions and governments are kept out; only the Israelis and the Palestinians try to find a solution with American assistance. Other Arab countries are excluded one by one; they should separately enter into agreements with Israel and accept Israel's existence as legitimate. They, however, should have no role in resolving the Palestine issue, which should be resolved only through 'bilateral talks'.

(iv) The establishment of a Palestine sate and the questions of the status of Jerusalem and sovereignty are delayed while the issues of limited powers, partial control, economic development, and trade are taken up first.

(v) 'Elimination of Terrorism' is declared to be the most important issue. The Palestinian Authority is, thus, obliged to guarantee Israel's security and rein in resistance forces. The freedom movement is likened to 'terrorism', and peace and Israel's security are brought under a joint sovereign strategy.

(vi) During this long peace process, Israel had the opportunity to set up new settlements in Arab lands and while it could retain control and sovereignty over 78 per cent of Palestine (i.e. since before 1976), the control of only 3 per cent and then of 27 per cent of the remaining 22 per cent, which consists of the Gaza Strip and West Bank, was to be handed over (without sovereignty) to the Palestinians. Practically, however, Palestinians have achieved only 40 per cent of the West Bank and 80 per cent of the Gaza Strip from the 22 per cent of what is left of Palestine. The rest is still occupied by Israel. Moreover, since the Camp David and Oslo accords, about 200,000 Jews have been accommodated in Israeli settlements.

(vii) Extraction of new concessions from the Palestinians at every new stage of the peace process, and Palestinians' political, military and economic dependence on Israel.

(viii) Delaying the final stages by three to six years and keeping the real issues of Palestine's sovereignty, the status of Jerusalem, and the return of five million Palestinian refugees wide open.

(ix) New ideas were presented continually throughout this entire process. 'Control without sovereignty', 'joint sovereignty', 'divided sovereignty' these are mere empty, though well-sounding words.

Palestinians are, therefore, realizing that they could achieve nothing except humiliation. Recently, Sharon himself said: "Oslo is dead."
 


Back                          Top

«« Back
 
 
 
  Search Articles
 
  Special Annoucements