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."
