When will people of Kashmir learn? Dr Shabir Choudhry

When will people of Kashmir learn?

Dr Shabir Choudhry 13 December 2011

‘Myth’ is that people of Kashmir are very intelligent, freedom loving and tolerant. I know some people will get upset by my opening sentence; but no matter how many people get upset by this, I will call it a myth until it is proven to be true.

People who are intelligent and freedom loving do not remain occupied and oppressed for so long. People who are tolerant do not invite foreigners to attack their country and request new rulers from outside the boundaries of Kashmir; and do not become so intolerant that minorities feel unsafe in their homes and people feel frightened to express their views.

People with tunnel vision, twisted mind and loyalties outside the boundaries of Kashmir fabricate history and tell us that our slavery started with occupation of the Sikhs, as Sikhs were non Muslims and they ended Afghan (Muslim) rule in Kashmir. However, true sons of soil know, although Afghans and Mughals were Muslims, but they were also occupiers and they brutally oppressed people of Kashmir. Apart from that they did not go there to advance cause of Islam, as Kashmir was already a Muslim country; and perhaps better Muslims than Mughals who invaded Kashmir in 1586.

After the Sikh rule Maharaja Gulab Singh established State of Jammu and Kashmir which unlike other Princely States enjoyed greater autonomy - short of complete independence as the British were responsible for defence. After the end of the British Raj in India, the British Paramountcy or whatever pacts the Maharajah had with the British came to an end; and Jammu and Kashmir emerged as an independent State on 15 August 1947.

The Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir concluded a Standstill Agreement with Pakistan and also offered India to have a Standstill Agreement. India wanted to discuss this matter further, but on 22 October 1947, in violation of the Standstill Agreement Pakistan launched a tribal attack on Jammu and Kashmir. This unprovoked and naked aggression resulted in death of thousands of innocent men women and children; and the Maharajah fearing fall of his summer capital Srinagar, asked India for help.

This help was only made available when the Maharajah signed an Instrument of Accession which was provisionally accepted and had to be ratified by the people of Jammu and Kashmir. Indian army reached Srinagar on the morning of 27 October and started fighting the raiders. This resulted in the first Kashmir war between India and Pakistan, in which people of Jammu and Kashmir suffered immensely and the State was forcibly divided between the two countries; and once again we lost our independence.

Important point to note here is that we lost our independence in 1586 because our stronger Muslim neighbour of the time – Akbar the Great invaded our country. After centuries of slavery, exploitation and oppression we achieved our independence on 15 October 1947. This time again, we were attacked by a stronger Muslim country – Pakistan, which resulted in ‘Provisional accession’ with India and eventual forced division of the State of Jammu and Kashmir.

This is not to suggest that India did not want to make Kashmir part of India, however, fact remains it was Pakistan which violated the Standstill Agreement and attacked our country and trampled our integrity and independence. In other words entry of Pakistani troops in to Jammu and Kashmir territory was against the wishes of the Kashmiri Ruler; and entry of Indian troops was on the request of the Ruler. No doubt the Indian troops have gone far beyond the terms of the treaty and are responsible for human rights abuses; but we must not twist facts to justify the initial aggression, which is source of our miseries since 22 October 1947.

Instead of blaming the aggressor for heinous crimes committed against innocent people of Jammu and Kashmir, ‘intelligent’ people of Kashmir were persuaded in name of religion to glorify the aggressor. It is unfortunate that even now in 2012, ‘intelligent’ people of Jammu and Kashmir cannot differentiate between a friend and a foe. Despite enormous ‘sacrifices’, death and destruction they are not sure what they want, as some want accession to Pakistan, some want accession to India, some want independence; and some are happy with the status quo as this serves their interests.

If there was only one occupier then we could have achieved independence a long time ago. Similarly, if Jammu and Kashmir was not multi religion and multi ethnic then it would have been easy to decide our future. Those who advocate Islamic state forget that there are followers of other faiths in Kashmir; and even within Islam there are many sects negating each other, so we cannot have practically advance religious solution unless we want create more chaos and divide the State on religious lines.

Leaving out options of becoming independent and joining India, let us see what option of joining Pakistan has to offer people of Jammu and Kashmir. First it will divide the State on religious lines, as Buddhists of Ladakh and Hindus and Sikhs of Jammu province would not like to join Pakistan, as their interests would not be protected there; and plight of non Muslims in Pakistan is a big deterrent to them.

People of Jammu and Kashmir, especially Muslims, living on the Indian side of the divide need to think that Gilgit Baltistan is directly ruled by Pakistan since 1947; and if the Pakistani rule was anything near to be being good then people of that region would not say that they are occupied and ruled by draconian laws without rights to fundamental rights. Similarly people of so called Azad Kashmir are not happy with what Pakistani government and secret agencies do to exploit and oppress them.

Leaving that aside, now let us see what Pakistan is in view of Pakistani people: Col Riaz Jafri, who was the Principal Staff Officer to late Major General Rao Farman Ali Khan – in charge Martial Law (Civil Affairs), wrote in article, ‘Fall of Dacca’:

'Not only, that the Bengalis were treated as unequals, but it is also a fact that they were the major revenue earner for Pakistan....... The highest in authority were guilty of being too greedy, power hungry and selfish. Unfortunately we all treated East Pakistan as a colony and never granted them their justly deserved status of being the major human organ of Pakistan’s body – 54 percent of the population. As power barons of the Federal government mostly hailed from West Pakistan they never shared the power willingly or happily with their Bengali brethren.' Source - http://k4kashmir.com/?p=6294

Bakhtiar Qayyum, who served the Pakistani establishment at a senior level for 30 years, writes:

‘Pakistan is passing through a very critical stage of its existence. Voices are coming from all directions that this country is very soon going to collapse. Terrorism, Talibanisation, crumbling economy and the deteriorating law and order situation are just the few indicators telling of the bleak situation….Societies and countries built on hatred cannot sustain for long. Only those which have live and brotherhood in their foundations last for ever.’ Source: Liberty International, November 2011, page 8

MURTAZA RAZVI, staff member of famous English daily ‘Dawn’, writes: Given our internal rifts, political, religious, sectarian, government-military related heartburns, bad governance and with foreign policy in a shambles, Pakistan is becoming increasingly isolated from the rest of the world. … Who needs external enemies when we have become self-sufficient in creating armies of enemies from within, most with a divine mission to wage jihad on one another, or running over our borders in utter desperation to raise a spectre of horror in our neighbourhood? Any news emanating from Islamabad on the global grid is expected to be bad news or ‘news of the weird’ at the very least. All this while we have a tireless ability to put out more and more of the same variety and then cry ourselves hoarse about our tumbling image abroad.’ Source: Dawn, 9 December 2011

Asian Human Right Commission writes: ‘During the year, in Karachi, capital of Sindh alone, 1800 persons were killed and political parties from ruling coalition were involved in ethnic target killings. The minister of interior says that during two years 3938 people were killed in Karachi city. In Balochistan during the year disappearances by the plain clothed persons continued and more than 100 persons were disappeared. Around 100 missing persons were extra judicially killed and the family members of the victims claim that these persons were abducted by law enforcement agencies.’ Source: http://www.humanrights.asia/resources/hrreport/2011/AHRC-SPR-008-2011/view.

These are only few examples of the situation, and I am sure some people can come up with similar things about India; but that is not the issue here. What we, as citizens of Jammu and Kashmir State, have to see is what is best for us. There are problems joining India and there are problems joining Pakistan. As intelligent human beings we should determine our priorities and care for our interests and not interests of our neighbours, be it in name of religion or democracy. We must not allow our neighbours and their agents to fool us anymore and opt for united and independent Jammu and Kashmir.

Writer is Director Diplomatic Committee of Kashmir National Party, political analyst and author of many books and booklets. Also he is Director Institute of Kashmir Affairs.Email:drshabirchoudhry@gmail.com View: www.drshabirchoudhry.blogspot.com www.k4kashmir.com

When will people of Kashmir learn? Dr Shabir Choudhry

When will people of Kashmir learn?

Dr Shabir Choudhry 13 December 2011

‘Myth’ is that people of Kashmir are very intelligent, freedom loving and tolerant. I know some people will get upset by my opening sentence; but no matter how many people get upset by this, I will call it a myth until it is proven to be true.

People who are intelligent and freedom loving do not remain occupied and oppressed for so long. People who are tolerant do not invite foreigners to attack their country and request new rulers from outside the boundaries of Kashmir; and do not become so intolerant that minorities feel unsafe in their homes and people feel frightened to express their views.

People with tunnel vision, twisted mind and loyalties outside the boundaries of Kashmir fabricate history and tell us that our slavery started with occupation of the Sikhs, as Sikhs were non Muslims and they ended Afghan (Muslim) rule in Kashmir. However, true sons of soil know, although Afghans and Mughals were Muslims, but they were also occupiers and they brutally oppressed people of Kashmir. Apart from that they did not go there to advance cause of Islam, as Kashmir was already a Muslim country; and perhaps better Muslims than Mughals who invaded Kashmir in 1586.

After the Sikh rule Maharaja Gulab Singh established State of Jammu and Kashmir which unlike other Princely States enjoyed greater autonomy - short of complete independence as the British were responsible for defence. After the end of the British Raj in India, the British Paramountcy or whatever pacts the Maharajah had with the British came to an end; and Jammu and Kashmir emerged as an independent State on 15 August 1947.

The Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir concluded a Standstill Agreement with Pakistan and also offered India to have a Standstill Agreement. India wanted to discuss this matter further, but on 22 October 1947, in violation of the Standstill Agreement Pakistan launched a tribal attack on Jammu and Kashmir. This unprovoked and naked aggression resulted in death of thousands of innocent men women and children; and the Maharajah fearing fall of his summer capital Srinagar, asked India for help.

This help was only made available when the Maharajah signed an Instrument of Accession which was provisionally accepted and had to be ratified by the people of Jammu and Kashmir. Indian army reached Srinagar on the morning of 27 October and started fighting the raiders. This resulted in the first Kashmir war between India and Pakistan, in which people of Jammu and Kashmir suffered immensely and the State was forcibly divided between the two countries; and once again we lost our independence.

Important point to note here is that we lost our independence in 1586 because our stronger Muslim neighbour of the time – Akbar the Great invaded our country. After centuries of slavery, exploitation and oppression we achieved our independence on 15 October 1947. This time again, we were attacked by a stronger Muslim country – Pakistan, which resulted in ‘Provisional accession’ with India and eventual forced division of the State of Jammu and Kashmir.

This is not to suggest that India did not want to make Kashmir part of India, however, fact remains it was Pakistan which violated the Standstill Agreement and attacked our country and trampled our integrity and independence. In other words entry of Pakistani troops in to Jammu and Kashmir territory was against the wishes of the Kashmiri Ruler; and entry of Indian troops was on the request of the Ruler. No doubt the Indian troops have gone far beyond the terms of the treaty and are responsible for human rights abuses; but we must not twist facts to justify the initial aggression, which is source of our miseries since 22 October 1947.

Instead of blaming the aggressor for heinous crimes committed against innocent people of Jammu and Kashmir, ‘intelligent’ people of Kashmir were persuaded in name of religion to glorify the aggressor. It is unfortunate that even now in 2012, ‘intelligent’ people of Jammu and Kashmir cannot differentiate between a friend and a foe. Despite enormous ‘sacrifices’, death and destruction they are not sure what they want, as some want accession to Pakistan, some want accession to India, some want independence; and some are happy with the status quo as this serves their interests.

If there was only one occupier then we could have achieved independence a long time ago. Similarly, if Jammu and Kashmir was not multi religion and multi ethnic then it would have been easy to decide our future. Those who advocate Islamic state forget that there are followers of other faiths in Kashmir; and even within Islam there are many sects negating each other, so we cannot have practically advance religious solution unless we want create more chaos and divide the State on religious lines.

Leaving out options of becoming independent and joining India, let us see what option of joining Pakistan has to offer people of Jammu and Kashmir. First it will divide the State on religious lines, as Buddhists of Ladakh and Hindus and Sikhs of Jammu province would not like to join Pakistan, as their interests would not be protected there; and plight of non Muslims in Pakistan is a big deterrent to them.

People of Jammu and Kashmir, especially Muslims, living on the Indian side of the divide need to think that Gilgit Baltistan is directly ruled by Pakistan since 1947; and if the Pakistani rule was anything near to be being good then people of that region would not say that they are occupied and ruled by draconian laws without rights to fundamental rights. Similarly people of so called Azad Kashmir are not happy with what Pakistani government and secret agencies do to exploit and oppress them.

Leaving that aside, now let us see what Pakistan is in view of Pakistani people: Col Riaz Jafri, who was the Principal Staff Officer to late Major General Rao Farman Ali Khan – in charge Martial Law (Civil Affairs), wrote in article, ‘Fall of Dacca’:

'Not only, that the Bengalis were treated as unequals, but it is also a fact that they were the major revenue earner for Pakistan....... The highest in authority were guilty of being too greedy, power hungry and selfish. Unfortunately we all treated East Pakistan as a colony and never granted them their justly deserved status of being the major human organ of Pakistan’s body – 54 percent of the population. As power barons of the Federal government mostly hailed from West Pakistan they never shared the power willingly or happily with their Bengali brethren.' Source - http://k4kashmir.com/?p=6294

Bakhtiar Qayyum, who served the Pakistani establishment at a senior level for 30 years, writes:

‘Pakistan is passing through a very critical stage of its existence. Voices are coming from all directions that this country is very soon going to collapse. Terrorism, Talibanisation, crumbling economy and the deteriorating law and order situation are just the few indicators telling of the bleak situation….Societies and countries built on hatred cannot sustain for long. Only those which have live and brotherhood in their foundations last for ever.’ Source: Liberty International, November 2011, page 8

MURTAZA RAZVI, staff member of famous English daily ‘Dawn’, writes: Given our internal rifts, political, religious, sectarian, government-military related heartburns, bad governance and with foreign policy in a shambles, Pakistan is becoming increasingly isolated from the rest of the world. … Who needs external enemies when we have become self-sufficient in creating armies of enemies from within, most with a divine mission to wage jihad on one another, or running over our borders in utter desperation to raise a spectre of horror in our neighbourhood? Any news emanating from Islamabad on the global grid is expected to be bad news or ‘news of the weird’ at the very least. All this while we have a tireless ability to put out more and more of the same variety and then cry ourselves hoarse about our tumbling image abroad.’ Source: Dawn, 9 December 2011

Asian Human Right Commission writes: ‘During the year, in Karachi, capital of Sindh alone, 1800 persons were killed and political parties from ruling coalition were involved in ethnic target killings. The minister of interior says that during two years 3938 people were killed in Karachi city. In Balochistan during the year disappearances by the plain clothed persons continued and more than 100 persons were disappeared. Around 100 missing persons were extra judicially killed and the family members of the victims claim that these persons were abducted by law enforcement agencies.’ Source: http://www.humanrights.asia/resources/hrreport/2011/AHRC-SPR-008-2011/view.

These are only few examples of the situation, and I am sure some people can come up with similar things about India; but that is not the issue here. What we, as citizens of Jammu and Kashmir State, have to see is what is best for us. There are problems joining India and there are problems joining Pakistan. As intelligent human beings we should determine our priorities and care for our interests and not interests of our neighbours, be it in name of religion or democracy. We must not allow our neighbours and their agents to fool us anymore and opt for united and independent Jammu and Kashmir.

Writer is Director Diplomatic Committee of Kashmir National Party, political analyst and author of many books and booklets. Also he is Director Institute of Kashmir Affairs.Email:drshabirchoudhry@gmail.com View: www.drshabirchoudhry.blogspot.com www.k4kashmir.com

Empowering Azad Kashmir, Javaid Hayat

Empowering Azad Kashmir

South Asian News Agency (SANA) ⋅ December 13, 2011 ⋅

• Share/Save

Javaid Hayat

Nation-states are recognized by the international community as sovereign states as per the ‘Westphalian sovereignty’ concept. Notwithstanding, there are political entities on the world map, which are mostly driven by conflict or crisis and disputed or tangibly controlled by external powers. The Azad state of Jammu & Kashmir (AJK) is one of them. Defining AJK in a legal and constitutional context under United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan (UNCIP) resolutions on Kashmir and in international relations remain a dilemma. At the time of the formation of the Republic of Azad Kashmir on 24 October, which intended a transition from autocracy to democracy, the provisional government of Azad Kashmir made a declaration that “The new government represents the united will of Jammu and Kashmir State. The provisional government entertains sentiments of the utmost friendliness and goodwill towards its neighbouring dominions of India and Pakistan and hopes that both the dominions will sympathise with the people of Jammu and Kashmir in their efforts to exercise their birth right of political freedom. The provisional government is further anxious to safeguard the identity of Jammu and Kashmir as a political entity”.
In present context, it is difficult to define the status of the ‘Azad State of Jammu & Kashmir’. It is not a sovereign state as it looks from the outset as it has a president, a prime minister, flag and national anthem and Supreme Court that shows a symbolic statehood. Despite this, however, it lacks sovereignty and empirically possesses limited statehood. Sovereignty is generally defined as recognition of the claim by a state to exercise supreme authority over a clearly defined territory and declaration of recognition from the international community, which is not the case with this territory. However, it can be considered a non-recognized quasi-state, a sui generis, a territory with disputed and fragile statehood, a de facto and a splinted protectorate of two neighboring powers, a demarked entity with multi-ethnic, religious and political identities alongside the Line of Control (LoC). Azad state of Jammu & Kashmir is sharing sovereignty with nation-state of Pakistan but it is not constitutionally part of Pakistan. It is neither a province nor an agency of Pakistan but has a government of its own, even though it is protected, administratively controlled and economically dependent on Pakistan.
Talking about legitimate political and constitutional rights of the people of AJK is not a new phenomenon rather since for the several decades these issues were raised by the nationalist forces of AJK but it got momentum when a former prime minister of AJK Raja Farooq Haider, who belongs to the ideology of state accession with Pakistan, spoke up and demanded for redefining the political and constitutional relationship between Muzaffarabad and Islamabad. The political and constitutional relationship between the government of Azad Jammu and Kashmir and government of Pakistan is a complex rather ambiguous, power- sharing system based on Interim Act 1974. The political leadership of Azad Kashmir has a ‘history of surrender’ since the establishment of so called ‘Azad State of Jammu & Kashmir’ in 1947. Despite the independence declaration of October 24th 1947 through which a new ‘revolutionary’ government was formed and claimed to be legal heir or successor of dethroned Maharaja Hari Singh, it surrendered the sovereignty while signing the Karachi agreement in 1949. Critics says, the government announcements of the 24th of October 1947 (and the 4th of October prior to that) were error-prone by design, disruptive, non-consultative, opportunistic and took the Kashmiri nation away from a genuine transition from autocracy to democracy (Shakshi Raaj to Awaami Raaj).
The power-sharing mechanism between AJK and government of Pakistan was initially based on the Karachi agreement (1949) and currently under interim constitution Act 1974. A detailed study of this ambiguous relationship has clearly indicates a ‘systematic and organized hypocrisy’ as Kashmir council holds exclusive powers over the AJK government and AJK assembly. The Azad Kashmir assembly, which is an elected forum, is only responsible for dealing with day to day affairs in given legal setup. The aim of establishing of Kashmir council was building bridge between AJK and the federation of Pakistan to overcome legal ambiguity and smooth functioning of governance issues in the territory of Azad Kashmir. However, since its inception it has failed to perform for the purpose it was made for rather it become a source of contention between the parties. All powers and responsibilities that usually should lie with an elected government for economic prosperity, transparency and other inevitable challenges regarding governance are given to AJK council, which is by default headed by the prime minister of Pakistan, who is neither elected by the people of Azad Kashmir nor accountable to the any institution or judiciary of AJK.
The ‘carrot and stick’ policy adopted by the federation of Pakistan through the Kashmir council is not only creating resentment and sense of marginalization, but depriving the people of AJK their legitimate rights. In my personal encounters with many political leaders, civil society activists, legislatures, academics, bureaucrats and journalists most of them have acknowledged growing political resentment and sense of deprivation among the people of AJK. Moreover, many indicated that this is not only because of ongoing conflict of Kashmir since several decades but due to the lack of political will and vision of leadership of Azad Jammu & Kashmir. Despite of having reservations and fear, the overwhelming majority of political forces of AJK have agreed and admitted, if not publically but at personal level, the need to revisit and redefine the current imbalanced relationship under Act 1974 but question always arises who will tie the bell on cat’s neck? Besides many of nationalists parties, the outspoken Raja Farooq Haider and Sardar Khalid Ibrahim have always criticized negative and unnecessary role by the Center and Ministry of Kashmir Affairs and its associated agencies into making and breaking approach for having their own ‘friendly- driven puppets’ in order to run this territory of Azad Kashmir. During his nine month premiership Raja Farooq Haider had opened a Pandora box while addressing to media and public proceedings regarding the rights of the people of AJK particularly on ownership and royalty rights from Mangla dam and Nehlum Jehlum hydroelectric project.
Democratic norms and practices are pre-requisites for peace building and good governance. It is agreed by many scholars that participatory governance is required because traditional ‘representative’ democracy has failed to meet with emerging challenges of people’s participation into decision-making and accountability factor particularly in disputed territories and conflict zones. Given the current controlled democratic governance structure in Azad Kashmir under Act 1974, which tides hands of AJK assembly to exercise its limited powers, whereas the Kashmir council retains exclusive financial and legislative powers, seems impossible to form a participatory governance structure.

The role of civil society is always been crucial for strengthening democracy and empowering the governance for social development that unfortunately AJK has been lacking from many decades. However, some significant interventions have been made by the civil society that includes local media and civil society organizations of AJK. For example, a blogger, writer and civil society activist Tanveer Ahmed, who heads Kashmir civil society forum and Kashmir One Secretariat, have successfully conducted many advocacy sessions and raised awareness on citizen participation and good governance in AJK. A non-governmental forum called Center for Peace and Development Reforms (CPDR) has taken a lead and proposed an appraisal for political and constitutional empowerment of AJK and Gilgit Baltistan. A former Chief Justice Supreme Court of AJK Manzoor Hussain Gillani, who heads The Association for the Rights of People of Jammu and Kashmir (ARJK), has been vocal for streamlining the current confused relationship of Azad Kashmir with government of Pakistan. In his views, all subjects and powers, which parliament of Pakistan delegated to the provinces after 18th and 19th amendments, those all need to be given to AJK assembly and AJK government by amending the Constitution of Pakistan. He argue that this must not negatively affect the Pakistan’s stance on the Kashmir conflict and AJK must be treated like other provinces of Pakistan in terms of giving rights and voice into the decision-making forums of Pakistan but should not be declared as province. Many of political heads of AJK don’t share this view and criticize by arguing that such would be harmful for the Kashmir case at the international level. Nevertheless, the overwhelming majority of opinion leaders are in favor of restoring Act 1970, which provides quantum of autonomy with some necessary amendments, such as an interim arrangement until the final settlement of the Kashmir conflict.
It seems obvious that a new social and legal contract is required as the current political, administrative, and judicial structure in AJK based on interim Act 1974 is unworkable, non-progressive and non-accountable. The political forces of AJK should come up with solid and workable proposals for wide-reaching autonomy for AJK. They must understand that political and economic empowerment drives from constitution for which a political will and struggle is essential that unfortunately is lacking in current political leadership of Azad Kashmir. Moreover, the policy-making authorities sitting in Islamabad must realize that depriving the people of AJK from their legitimate rights and treating them as second class citizens, even though after 18th and 19th amendments in Pakistan, would fuel pubic sentiments for a violent struggle. The government of Pakistan must understand that rights of the people of AJK cannot be held hostage because of the Kashmir conflict at large. Given the conflict-centric approach and the Kashmir conflict, whose destiny yet to be decided; only a wide-reaching autonomy could help to address the legitimate rights of the people of this region and empower its governance structure.

The writer is currently a PhD candidate at Otto Suhr Institute of Political Science, Freie University, Berlin and Georg Zundel scholar at Berghof Conflict Research, an international think-tank based in Germany. He can be reached at jadee012@gmail.com

__._,_.___

The debate on Kashmir, Huma Yusuf

GHULAM Nabi Fai, the director of the Kashmiri American Council, last week pleaded guilty to secretly receiving $4m from the ISI to lobby for Kashmiri independence in Washington.

He explained to a Washington court that his actions were not sinister, and that he was simply trying to work towards a peaceful solution of the Kashmir dispute. While New Delhi has welcomed the prosecution, the Pakistani public has been largely sympathetic, hailing Fai’s dedication to a noble cause and championing the work of the KAC.

The contrasting reactions to Fai’s transgressions are a good reminder of how divisive the Kashmir issue remains, even among liberal Pakistanis and Indians who otherwise favour normalisation of the bilateral relationship. I had an opportunity to see this divisiveness in action a few weeks ago at the Frontline Club in London. A panel discussion titled ‘Kashmir: South Asia’s Palestine?’ brought together journalists, writers and an academic to reflect on the dispute and prospects for future resolution.

Rarely have I attended such an impassioned event. Mirza Waheed, author of The Collaborator and former BBC journalist, represented the Kashmiri point of view and talked eloquently about the appalling human rights situation in the valley and the Indian government’s brutal, and therefore counterproductive, response to peaceful demonstrations in Kashmir last year. He warned that the situation in the valley had reached a turning point: if steps towards resolving the dispute keeping Kashmiri desires in account were not taken, a return to militancy was possible, or even likely.

Ashis Ray, a Times of India journalist, challenged Waheed’s depiction of Indian excesses and took issue with the use of the word ‘occupation’ to describe Indian presence in Kashmir. Ray also pointed to numerous elections in the valley as a sign that Kashmiris had elected to participate in a democratic India and thus enjoyed a political voice via the ballot box. In a
gasp-inducing moment, he dismissed the deaths of peaceful Kashmiri protesters as ‘collateral damage’. Between these diametrically opposed views lay the perspectives of other panelists, Al Jazeera correspondent Imran Khan, former Times reporter Subhash Chopra and SOAS lecturer Lawrence Sáez.

It was evident through the discussion that one person’s truth was another person’s myth; one’s experience, another’s propaganda. Participants were unable to agree on historical timelines, the voter turnout at particular elections, the frequency of rape of Kashmiri women, and almost everything else. Disputations over the most basic facts — for example, the number of Indian troops present in the valley — seemed surreal among a panel of journalists and writers affiliated with reputed international publications.

The he-said, she-said tenor of the discussion re-emphasised just how well-entrenched state-created narratives about the Kashmir issue are on both sides. Honed over the decades, these narratives have replaced history and fact with emotive symbolism that serves the interests of the concerned state. On the Pakistani side, the story of grave injustices being committed against Muslims by a non-Muslim colonial state is an echo of Pakistan’s own creation story that helps validate the past and bolster the country’s Muslim identity. Across the border, the integration of a Muslim-majority state into a post-Partition India helps reaffirm the success of pluralistic democracy.

More importantly, on both sides of the border, the Kashmir issue helps rally publics around armies, justifies excessive defence expenditure and allows governments to portray themselves as the good guys as opposed to the rival militants/oppressors, depending which side of the Line of Control you’re on.

In this context, the panel’s response to one question from the audience surprised me. When a young woman asked what role Pakistani and Indian civil society can play to help facilitate a resolution to the Kashmir dispute, all the discussants mumbled responses about the first responsibility lying with armies, governments, international arbitrators, Kashmiri political parties and, of course, Kashmiris themselves.

On this point, I disagree. Civil society in both Pakistan and India can play an integral role by helping debunk, refine and update ingrained state narratives. As the Frontline Club panel demonstrated, a coherent, productive conversation about Kashmir is almost impossible because each side’s talking points are in direct opposition to the other’s. Ironically, these talking points have been formulated with little regard for history or the actual experience of the Kashmiri people.

Civil society actors can address this rhetorical anomaly by raising simple questions in order to re-articulate old narratives in light of present Kashmiri desires. In an age of online social networking, wiki-media and other interactive platforms, there’s no excuse for publics not to communicate and develop nuanced and multifaceted — rather than contradictory — interpretations. By circulating in cyberspace and independent media, these fresher narratives can start to re-centre foreign policy. A grass-roots approach to changing the thinking on Kashmir could be more effective in the long-term than Fai’s high-level politicking.

More importantly, civil society actors can add the most important missing element to the equation: the Kashmiri voice. As Waheed stressed in his comments, Kashmiris are starting to document their own version of events — in novels, memoirs, verse, blog posts, tweets, radio shows and more. It is incumbent on Pakistani and Indian publics to consume, translate and debate output from the valley so as to better align national narratives with the actual experience and desires of Kashmiris.

By acknowledging and amplifying the Kashmiri perspective in the South Asian public sphere, civil society can help reconfigure the dispute as a trilateral, rather than bilateral affair. After all, any successful resolution to the Kashmir dispute requires three parties to negotiate together: Pakistan, India and Kashmir as the principal party. To get to that point, all stakeholders will have to learn how to talk to — rather than at — each other.

The writer is a freelance journalist.

huma.yusuf@gmail.com http://www.dawn.com/2011/12/12/the-debate-on-kashmir.html

The debate on Kashmir, Huma Yusuf

GHULAM Nabi Fai, the director of the Kashmiri American Council, last week pleaded guilty to secretly receiving $4m from the ISI to lobby for Kashmiri independence in Washington.

He explained to a Washington court that his actions were not sinister, and that he was simply trying to work towards a peaceful solution of the Kashmir dispute. While New Delhi has welcomed the prosecution, the Pakistani public has been largely sympathetic, hailing Fai’s dedication to a noble cause and championing the work of the KAC.

The contrasting reactions to Fai’s transgressions are a good reminder of how divisive the Kashmir issue remains, even among liberal Pakistanis and Indians who otherwise favour normalisation of the bilateral relationship. I had an opportunity to see this divisiveness in action a few weeks ago at the Frontline Club in London. A panel discussion titled ‘Kashmir: South Asia’s Palestine?’ brought together journalists, writers and an academic to reflect on the dispute and prospects for future resolution.

Rarely have I attended such an impassioned event. Mirza Waheed, author of The Collaborator and former BBC journalist, represented the Kashmiri point of view and talked eloquently about the appalling human rights situation in the valley and the Indian government’s brutal, and therefore counterproductive, response to peaceful demonstrations in Kashmir last year. He warned that the situation in the valley had reached a turning point: if steps towards resolving the dispute keeping Kashmiri desires in account were not taken, a return to militancy was possible, or even likely.

Ashis Ray, a Times of India journalist, challenged Waheed’s depiction of Indian excesses and took issue with the use of the word ‘occupation’ to describe Indian presence in Kashmir. Ray also pointed to numerous elections in the valley as a sign that Kashmiris had elected to participate in a democratic India and thus enjoyed a political voice via the ballot box. In a
gasp-inducing moment, he dismissed the deaths of peaceful Kashmiri protesters as ‘collateral damage’. Between these diametrically opposed views lay the perspectives of other panelists, Al Jazeera correspondent Imran Khan, former Times reporter Subhash Chopra and SOAS lecturer Lawrence Sáez.

It was evident through the discussion that one person’s truth was another person’s myth; one’s experience, another’s propaganda. Participants were unable to agree on historical timelines, the voter turnout at particular elections, the frequency of rape of Kashmiri women, and almost everything else. Disputations over the most basic facts — for example, the number of Indian troops present in the valley — seemed surreal among a panel of journalists and writers affiliated with reputed international publications.

The he-said, she-said tenor of the discussion re-emphasised just how well-entrenched state-created narratives about the Kashmir issue are on both sides. Honed over the decades, these narratives have replaced history and fact with emotive symbolism that serves the interests of the concerned state. On the Pakistani side, the story of grave injustices being committed against Muslims by a non-Muslim colonial state is an echo of Pakistan’s own creation story that helps validate the past and bolster the country’s Muslim identity. Across the border, the integration of a Muslim-majority state into a post-Partition India helps reaffirm the success of pluralistic democracy.

More importantly, on both sides of the border, the Kashmir issue helps rally publics around armies, justifies excessive defence expenditure and allows governments to portray themselves as the good guys as opposed to the rival militants/oppressors, depending which side of the Line of Control you’re on.

In this context, the panel’s response to one question from the audience surprised me. When a young woman asked what role Pakistani and Indian civil society can play to help facilitate a resolution to the Kashmir dispute, all the discussants mumbled responses about the first responsibility lying with armies, governments, international arbitrators, Kashmiri political parties and, of course, Kashmiris themselves.

On this point, I disagree. Civil society in both Pakistan and India can play an integral role by helping debunk, refine and update ingrained state narratives. As the Frontline Club panel demonstrated, a coherent, productive conversation about Kashmir is almost impossible because each side’s talking points are in direct opposition to the other’s. Ironically, these talking points have been formulated with little regard for history or the actual experience of the Kashmiri people.

Civil society actors can address this rhetorical anomaly by raising simple questions in order to re-articulate old narratives in light of present Kashmiri desires. In an age of online social networking, wiki-media and other interactive platforms, there’s no excuse for publics not to communicate and develop nuanced and multifaceted — rather than contradictory — interpretations. By circulating in cyberspace and independent media, these fresher narratives can start to re-centre foreign policy. A grass-roots approach to changing the thinking on Kashmir could be more effective in the long-term than Fai’s high-level politicking.

More importantly, civil society actors can add the most important missing element to the equation: the Kashmiri voice. As Waheed stressed in his comments, Kashmiris are starting to document their own version of events — in novels, memoirs, verse, blog posts, tweets, radio shows and more. It is incumbent on Pakistani and Indian publics to consume, translate and debate output from the valley so as to better align national narratives with the actual experience and desires of Kashmiris.

By acknowledging and amplifying the Kashmiri perspective in the South Asian public sphere, civil society can help reconfigure the dispute as a trilateral, rather than bilateral affair. After all, any successful resolution to the Kashmir dispute requires three parties to negotiate together: Pakistan, India and Kashmir as the principal party. To get to that point, all stakeholders will have to learn how to talk to — rather than at — each other.

The writer is a freelance journalist.

huma.yusuf@gmail.com

Zardari will return in a style, Dr Shabir Choudhry

Zardari will return in a style

Dr Shabir Choudhry 11 December 2011

Last week it appeared that Asif Zaradri, President of Islamic Republic of Pakistan and Supreme Commander of armed forces was on the run to save his life, not because he was under attack by some enemy country, but because he feared that institutions of his own country will take some action against him and might put him behind the bars.

Asif Zardari very mysteriously left the country for Dubai under pretext of ‘ill health’. His ruling party and all Presidential staff looked unprepared for this sudden departure and were in shambles. They were contradicting each other as to what was wrong with their leader and the President, and failed to provide satisfactory replies. They looked part of a team that suffered a defeat and did not know what justification to provide to their supporters.

Whereas this news created chaos in Pakistan; it also unnerved many outside the country as well because Pakistan - a nuclear country with unstable government is an important partner in war against terrorism. However, relations between Pakistan and the United States deteriorated over the months due to conflicting interests and continued violation of Pakistani territorial integrity; and it looked that both were heading for some kind of armed conflict.

No doubt Azif Zardari was under extreme pressure over the past few weeks, and that exacerbated his health. Tension and political pressure gave him sleep less nights, no doubt, but doctors in Pakistan were quite capable of treating him in Pakistan, so why fly out to another country. Did he not trust the Pakistani doctors, or he thought some unforeseen powers might harm him even when he was treated. It looks he wanted to leave the country under cover of the illness. If he was seriously ill, flying out to another country could only add to his health problems. No sane doctor will advise a patient with heart attack or stroke to take three hours flight to another country, as that has its own dangers.

It appears that the ‘treatment’ which Asif Zardari’s ailing political health and declining political fortunes required was not available in Pakistan. Power brokers or ‘specialists’ who can provide power booster to Azif Zardari and save his Presidency hold surgeries in Dubai. He had to travel to Dubai, even if that meant taking some risks; and tell them nature of threat to his Presidency and Peoples Party government.

There are five important people with power and influence in Pakistan, namely General Kiani who has a power base in Rawalpindi, Nawaz Sharif with a power base in Punjab, Imran Khan with a power base in Aab Para, Chief Justice with a power base in Supreme Court and Asif Zaradri with a power base in UAE.

Prime Minister Gilani, though legally a Chief Executive of Pakistan, has a limited role as he derives his powers from Zardari House. His main task is not to govern the country for benefit of the people, but to provide support to Zardari and company and cover all the marks and tracks leading to Zardari and Bhutto family. Of course he was given a free hand to make whatever he can for himself and his family.

Anyhow Asif Zardari made it to Dubai, and once again became focus of attention around the globe. Among conflicting news about his health it was learnt that he was recovering well - why not, specialists knew what to do; and within few days his team back home was in a position to boast that Asif Zaradri is not among those who run away in fear of his life.

It is presumed that he told the specialists that he has done everything he promised to do, and has, in fact, done some extra bits to demonstrate his worth and ability. In return he was assured that there would be no military intervention, and no other action to dethrone him, at least for five years. He must have told them that instead of getting some bonus for his performance, and for doing extra bits, he was being forced out of office. He must have told them that his down - fall will have very serious repercussions on war on terrorism; and could bring havoc to the entire region.

Peoples Party government and Asif Zardari’s other colleagues and friends have recovered from the shock of his sudden departure to Dubai. They now feel confident that despite serious cases against them in the Supreme Court, Memogate, Salalabad attacks by NATO, Abbotabad fiasco and with many other things there is no immediate threat to their government or at least to their President.

Many members of the Pakistani establishment and some opposition leaders believe that Zardari was the man behind the Memogate; and in their view this is treason. Critics believe he is against the army and the ISI; and by hook or crook wants to bring them under his control. However some analysts question why the army would want him out when he does exactly what he is told.

In any case, even if he was behind many alleged ‘crimes’, can he be removed legally. There could be no impeachment of the President, as the required numbers are not there in the Parliament. He is not the kind of person who would resign as a result of political and other pressures. One can dislike him or hate him, but credit goes to him that he is a fighter and shrewd manipulator with strong nerves.

Of course, the Supreme Court can take some action which could end his rule. But the question is, won’t that give the most corrupt and unpopular government a justification to go to the people and create chaos in the country, even leading to some kind of civil war by playing the Sindh card.

This kind of action could be unpopular even among some lawyers and some sections of the establishment, which could further divide already embittered and deeply divided society. Some sane voices are saying that we have tolerated worst kind of corruption and maladministration in the past four years, can’t we wait another 5-6 months as the government will be forced to hold elections after the Senate elections in March 2012.

In view of some it is better to get rid of the government as soon as possible, especially before the Senate elections, as that would strengthen their political position in the Upper House no matter what the outcome is of the next general elections. The other view is that it would be unwise to make a political martyr when his government is unpopular and has failed to deliver to the people and will not be in a position to win the next general elections which they will have to hold after March Senate elections.

In my view Asif Zardari knows what is at stake – he knows what life is like in Pakistani jails. Even when he is fully ‘fit’ and despite assurances and power boosters he will play safe; and won’t go to the President House until he gets a green signal which could take a few more weeks. Important events are unfolding in Pakistan in the form of Supreme Court cases, NRO, Memogate investigation and Abbotabad Commission report; and he is not a fool to rush to Pakistan when the exit route is not assured.

It will be safe for him to stay in Dubai, take rest, plan his next move by closely observing the situation and start his offensive while resting in Dubai. His team and government have recovered from the initial shock, and are getting its act together. They have great experience in fighting legal cases and delaying the final outcome especially when the going is not favourable. They have also mastered the art of making deals with various stake holders. They also know how to win public support and play ‘victim’, all they need is some assurance from President Zardari that is physically still sound and plans to come back.

In view of the above, in my opinion, Asif Zardari is out of danger and he will return to Pakistan in a style; and possibly with more power and influence. His return and increased power and influence will weather the political storm; and will help him to plan his second tenure as a President.

Writer is Director Diplomatic Committee of Kashmir National Party, political analyst and author of many books and booklets. Also he is Director Institute of Kashmir Affairs.Email:drshabirchoudhry@gmail.com

View: www.drshabirchoudhry.blogspot.com www.k4kashmir.com