Drawing Parallels, Niloofar Qureshi
October 27, 2013 by Team SAISA
2 Comments
2 Comments
Image courtesy Reuters
Ever since the Kalashnikov first made its entry into Kashmir over two
decades ago, there has been much debate on the usefulness of an ‘armed
struggle’ in getting us ‘azadi’. However, while one cannot predict its efficacy
in the times to come, one thing is certain- it has certainly not worked until
now and there are no indications that it would, in the near future. There is no
doubt that armed resurrections have succeeded elsewhere, but then, Kashmir is
no Afghanistan or Iraq. Readers will recall that the Russians withdrew from
Afghanistan primarily because it realised that it was foolish to continue
suffering losses for the sake of a country that was not theirs and the
Americans felt the same in Iraq. However, since India claims Kashmir to be its
‘integral’ part and despite the UN resolutions, obstinately defends this
unilateral view, it has no option but to hold on to J&K at all costs.
Another reason for Russia and America to withdraw from Afghanistan and
Iraq was the mounting domestic opposition to the large number of its military
personnel being killed, maimed or injured in what was perceived by the public
to be a ‘senseless war’. During its nine years in Afghanistan, Russia lost
about 15000 soldiers, while around 35000 of its military personnel were injured
and this averages to more than 1500 deaths and 3500 injuries annually. In
Iraq, the American armed forces casualties were more than 4000 personnel killed
and 32000 wounded, which averages an annual casualty rate of more than 450
killed and about 3,500 injured. With its present military capability, it is
very unlikely that the HM as well as the other constituent members of the UJC
would be able inflict such heavy losses on the Indian security forces. Even if
they are able to do so, unlike for the Russian and American public which had
little love lost for Afghanistan or Iraq, Kashmir is an emotional issue for
Indians and for its sake, no ‘sacrifice’ is considered too much.
The mujahideen succeeded in Afghanistan, as they were armed to the teeth
with sophisticated weapons that included the deadly ‘stinger’ anti-aircraft
missiles. In addition, they also had access to precise military information
regarding Soviet troops, thanks to the information acquired through US
satellites and advanced military interception facilities, which were freely
made available to them by the CIA. In Iraq, the Americans suffered heavily as
they were faced with a host of indigenous terrorist outfits with divergent
ideological and sectarian backgrounds, as well as foreign groups- with Iran
allegedly playing the role of their benefactor, just as America had done during
the Russian occupation of Afghanistan. Therefore, if Syed Sallaudin is
determined to take the ‘armed struggle’ to its logical conclusion a la
Afghanistan and Iraq, then he has only two options. The first would be to
replicate the ‘Afghanistan model’ by getting the wholehearted military support
of a nation capable of providing an unlimited supply of modern weapons to his
mujahideens and the second, by adopting the ‘Iraq model’ which would entail
enlisting the support of foreign militant groups.
While America, on account of its influential position in the
international community could disregard world opinion and openly support the
mujahideen fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan, no ‘lesser’ nation would ever
risk international ostracisation by following this example. Thus, Sallaudin has
only one option left for waging a ‘meaningful’ armed struggle in Kashmir and
that is by inviting foreign terrorist groups to join the ongoing ‘armed
struggle’ in Kashmir. This is a distinct possibility, as there is precedence of
‘mehmaan mujahideen’ (‘Guest’ fighters) fighting the security forces in Kashmir
and with the withdrawal of American troops from Afghanistan, there would be no
dearth of such mujahideen who would readily be willing to oblige. However, this
option will obviously come with ‘strings attached’, as the foreign fighters
would be fighting for the cause of establishing their religious ideologies and
not for the purpose of giving the Kashmiris their ‘right to self
determination’.
The ‘armed struggle’ has caused numerous deaths and immense destruction
while giving New Delhi the much-required justification for its huge military presence
in Kashmir. The international community does acknowledge that J&K is the
most “militarised zone” in the world and the Amnesty International does
regularly issue statements like, “Indian authorities must take responsibility
and initiate independent, impartial prompt and efficient investigations into
serious allegations of human rights violations in Kashmir.” Yet, the fact
of the matter is that besides offering occasional sympathy, no one is taking
any concrete measures to resolve the issue, which, as per the European Union’s
has converted Kashmir into a “beautiful prison.”
In light of the US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s “keeping snakes
in the backyard” comment and President Obama’s recent refusal for US
intervention to resolve the Kashmir issue as requested by Nawaz Sharif, the
time has come for serious introspection on use of violence as part of the
movement for the ‘right to self determination’. Sallaudin until now has shown
no inclination towards calling-off his ‘armed struggle’ and one needs to
respect his unwavering conviction and deep sense of commitment towards the
Kashmir cause. However, there is also a crying need making major changes in the
strategy of the ongoing struggle so as to gain greater international support
for this cause and thus it is incumbent on the intelligentsia and civil society
to intervene and attempt to persuade the adamant UJC chief and Hizb supremo to
reconsider his stand. And if Sallaudin does introspect on the role of his
‘armed struggle’ then he would realise its futility as well as the immense
import of his own perceptive observation that, “We are fighting Pakistan’s war
in Kashmir!”
http://saisaonline.org/analysis/drawing-parallels/
No comments:
Post a Comment