Contesting Kashmir, by Dr Niaz Murtaza.
GIVEN the ulterior agendas of global powers like the US, the UN record
of resolving the status of contested domains is poor. Eritrea, Kashmir,
Palestine, East Timor and Western Sahara’s fates languished at the UN for
decades. Eritrea and East Timor gained freedom, not primarily due to the UN or
even their freedom forces, but because their occupiers — Ethiopia and Indonesia
— collapsed temporarily.
The cases of Kashmir, Palestine and Western Sahara, occupied by strong,
US-allied states, remain unresolved. Other freedom drives with mixed popular
support in strong states — eg in Turkey, India and Pakistan — have not even
made it to the UN agenda.
But some states got freedom without ever being on the UN agenda. Nearly
a dozen did so easily, but only because the ex-USSR collapsed. Bangladesh
became free with the helping hand of a powerful neighbour; Kosovo only after
relentless US bombing of Serbia. Showing maturity which often eludes even
democracies, Sudan’s autocratic regime let South Sudan go, despite little new
external pressure.
History has lessons for India and Pakistan.
This history has lessons for India and Pakistan. Those for Pakistan are
immediate. No strong state has ceded land recently to its arch enemy through
bilateral or multilateral talks or overt or covert war. Afghanistan’s freedom
came not from the fabled bravery of the ‘mujahideen’ but USSR’s lack of
emotional investment there and the creeping collapse of communism. India is a
rising, not decaying, power and is emotionally invested strongly in Kashmir.
Thus, the chances of India ceding Kashmir due to bilateral or multilateral
talks or covert or overt war are near zero.
Yet talks are the best bet even if they do not ensure success. They
allow Pakistan to escape global rebuke for and the domestic blowback from
hosting militants. Decades of space for anti-India and Afghan militants has not
given India-held Kashmir freedom or Pakistan strategic depth in Afghanistan
against India. It has boosted India’s global portrayal of Kashmir as a
terrorism case. In a self-fulfilling prophecy, it has ironically given India
strategic depth against Pakistan in Afghanistan. For this, our physical and
ideological defenders must be held accountable. But their accountability in
Pakistan is even less than that of corrupt politicians.
We may chafe at the silence of Western democracies at Indian atrocities
in Kashmir. But it may help reduce the hurt if we remember that Western powers
also remained largely silent when we committed atrocities in Dhaka since we
were a US ally then, as India is today. In fact, they also remain largely
silent even today at atrocities in Balochistan.
But of course tens of thousands of people do not periodically take to
the streets shouting “azadi, azadi” in Quetta as they do in Srinagar, making
silence on Kashmir more odious. Terrorism involves killing civilians. So which
is terrorism and more condemnable: the killing of 18 soldiers in Uri or the
killing of 80-plus civilians elsewhere in India-held Kashmir?
The lessons for India are less immediate, yet crucial. Yes, there is
little chance of it losing Kashmir soon. Yet, its Kashmir position is largely based
on might-is-right rather than ethics, logic or legality. No major power accepts
its position of endlessly referring to Kashmir as its integral part, not even
its close regional allies Afghanistan and Bangladesh. The world still considers
it disputed territory despite India’s growing global clout, reflecting the
absence of even an inch of progress despite decades of Indian efforts. That
principles are closer to Pakistan’s basic position on Kashmir (but not its
current strategies) is refreshing for a state whose policies are so often
unprincipled.
The lack of alternative views on Kashmir in more democratic India is
odd. Pakistani liberals critique their country’s security policies far more
openly despite greater risks here. Forget hawks, even Indian liberals argue
cockily that Pakistan cannot liberate Kashmir, implicitly accepting the lack of
principles in India’s position. The knee-jerk response to this jingoism is that
neither can India liberate Azad Kashmir or the part controlled by China.
A more sensible response is that even if the world does not run mainly
on principles, they are not entirely absent from the global political calculus.
As India becomes a bigger power and more aligned with Western democracies, such
an absence of principles will bite. The process can be hastened if Pakistan
reins in militants, for the global focus will then be on Indian atrocities.
Ironically, Pakistan itself is delaying this outcome.
But ultimately India will realise that territories do not become one’s
integral part by repeated unilateral declarations but by local and global
acceptance. To gain global legitimacy for its Kashmir claims, it will
eventually have to talk with Pakistan and the Kashmiris. Not the aggression of
the hawk but the patience of its cousin eagle, as shown so well by China on
Taiwan, will serve Pakistan more in contesting Kashmir.
The writer heads INSPIRING Pakistan, a progressive policy unit.
Published in Dawn October 11th, 2016
http://www.dawn.com/news/1289284/contesting-kashmir
No comments:
Post a Comment