Author: Mumtaz 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
since threat of militant and monitory 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 monitory
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 New Delhi may have not complied its commitment
but military regimes have long record of viiolating 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 thay 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 misadventure
in Argil 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 course of military's record suggest otherwise because solution
or compromise with India can only be achieved if broader interests of the
people is taken into account. But as any compromise ultimately undermine
the role and power of military institution that causes conflict with the
peace and confrontation in the military regime in Pakistan.
Apparently there are no such factors
that could supplement the efforts to pursuade 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 nationalism
but its policies gradually generated frustration among Kashmiri's today
toward Islamabad. And further esrangement and frustration is bound to follow
as both sides inching toward the normalization of relations. The military
rulers tactically kept the political division here in its contolled parts.
As Hurryat chapter in Islamabad was created and indirectly support from
pro-Pakistan kashmiri leaders was offered but direct participation was
not allowed fearing that direct presence from its controlled Kashmir will
bring issue of Pak controlled parts in limelight.
As many enlightned Pakistani political
analysts are critical to military's policy and rightly argue that Islamabad
better ensure first its own security and stability before capturing Kashmir.
And they fear lest Islamabad rulers policy over Kashmir ultimately should
not cost the integrity of country one more time, as their policy cost East
pakistan. The fear of political observrs 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 last one decade's 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. While in proxy war Kashmir lost a generation of its youth, and
sponsor of proxy militancy eventually had to call terrorist by Musharaf
regime under the growing prssure. 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 chases 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 part should allow first its two controlled
parts Azad Kashmir and Gilgit Baltistan to be reunited and have joint Legislative
Assembly, judiciary and other rights like in Indian Controlled Kashmir
all three regions Jammu, Valley and Ladakh have. Despite the blames
people identity and regional unity has 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 does
not allow its own controlled parts where both parts Azad Kashmir and Gilgit
Baltistan has all Muslim population and Islamabad had assumed the control
under UNCIP resolutions that ensure if the people's basic rights are protected.
But Islamabad in its controlled parts cts 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 are not
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.
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 to forbidding
other school of thought to contest elections, seeking official jobs declining
basic right to Gilgit Baltistan, and not complying the verdict 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. 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