One reason India and Pakistan can’t resolve
the Kashmir issue is how the two interpret the Simla Agreement of
1972. The treaty put an end to the 1971 Indo-Pak war, thus endorsing the
separation of East Pakistan as Bangladesh. The world takes cognisance of this
treaty whenever a dispute erupts between the two South Asian rivals. What
Pakistan conceded — without Pakistanis feeling too bad about it — was the text
in the treaty:
“That the two countries are resolved to settle their differences
by peaceful means through bilateral negotiations or by any other peaceful means
mutually agreed upon between them.”
Pakistan
takes the official line that the above text doesn’t preclude its right to
address international fora on the Kashmir issue because Simla Agreement doesn’t
invalidate the UN Security Council resolutions on Kashmir. The stance, as
explained by a foreign office spokesperson in Islamabad, in 2014, was:
“Countries are condemned every year on various forums in the UN, on one issue
or the other, for violating the UN General Assembly and Security Council
resolutions”. This has been repeated in Islamabad on September 2: “Simla
Agreement can’t change UN resolutions.”
But who is going to finally decide whose point of view is valid?
Has the Kashmir issue been “bilateralised” or is it still open to a
“multilateral” solution? Whether one likes it or not, the decision on this
issue will always be political. Where does the world stand on Kashmir in 2016
as the Valley erupts again and India is crushing the Kashmiri protests with
brute force? The pictures that the world sees of the latest outbreak are not
pleasant and many in India are pained by what the TV channels are carrying
daily into their bedrooms. Nationalism cannot be the permanent carapace of
conscience.
But
Pakistan is in a much worse position. If the Kashmiris want to make a case
in front of the court of international opinion — and Pakistan wants that — they
should be told by Pakistan not to raise the Pakistani flag when fired upon by
Indian troops. The world simply looks away when a reference to Pakistan crops
up. The “liberators” of Kashmir — the jihadis in Pakistan’s proxy war —
carry UN bounty on them and are roaming around in Pakistan despite its commitment
under the National Action Plan to get rid of “armed militias”. Unlike in the
past, many columnists are asking for action against men like Masood Azhar and
Hafiz Saeed.
In
June 2000, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) rejected Pakistan’s application
against India in the Atlantique case on grounds of lack of jurisdiction. In
1999, Pakistan had brought up the shooting down of a non-combat aircraft within
Pakistani territory by India, which killed 16 crew members. The case couldn’t
proceed because of the “optional clause” of the court allowing the target state
to disavow jurisdiction. But then the court did something very significant. It
reverted to the irreducible political nature of the enforcement of
international law under the UN system by referring to the Simla Accord and the
Lahore Declaration of February 1999 under which India and Pakistan are morally
obliged to settle their “differences” bilaterally in light of Article 2 of the
UN Charter.
But
facts will intervene despite whatever decision Pakistan takes about
internationalising the Kashmir issue. Pakistan had begun using its proxy
warriors right after 1947. The cross-border covert war began hurting the world
after terrorism, learned in Pakistani and Afghan training camps, spread out to
Europe and America. As Pakistan faces internal disturbance by terrorists —
who once formed its foreign policy tools – it is becoming aware of the futility
of posing as a rights advocate against India and Bangladesh. Increasingly,
Pakistani intellectuals are asking the state to cleanse itself of terror before
regaining the confidence and sympathy of the international community.
No comments:
Post a Comment