High Court judgements - A significant development

High Court judgements - A significant development

The two rulings read and looked at together in their totality make it clear that JK State constitutionally has a position of its own,

In a significant development last week JK State High Court adjudicated on Article 370. Though the judgement is 370 specific, it could affect judicial verdicts on a wide range of articles applicable to JK State, including the all important Article 35 A. Divisional bench of State High Court, including Justice Hasnain Massodi and Justice Janak Raj Kotwal ruled on several articles affecting article 370. The judgment is wide ranging, we may, however, focus on a part of it that could affect Article 35 A. The said article is facing the onslaught of Sangh Parivar, a unit of which has made an appeal to Supreme Court praying for ruling on Article 35 A. It is pleaded in the petition that Article 35 A has not passed through a parliamentary process, hence its application may not be constitutionally valid. The judgment of State High Court on Article 370 and earlier on ‘Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest (SARFAESI) Act’ could have a bearing on how the honourable courts view Article 35 A.

Justices Hasnain Massodi and Justice Janak Raj Kotwal ruled that,  'President under Article 370 (1) is conferred with power to extend any provision of the Constitution to the State with such “exceptions and modifications” as he may deem fit subject to consultation or concurrence with the State Government'. The stress is on President having such a power in consultation or concurrence with the State Government. The judicial verdict bypasses a parliamentary process, while as in the plea to Supreme Court vis-à-vis Article 35 A, the stress is on the parliamentary process. The divisional bench of JK State High Court on powers of President in consultation with JK State government further ruled that,  “And such power would include one to amend or alter the provision to be applied, delete or omit part of it, or make additions to the provisions proposed to be applied to the State. Such power would extend even in case of provisions of the Constitution already applied,”. The power thus is restricted to the President in consultation and concurrence of JK Government. The plea in Supreme Court praying for a parliamentary process may not hold, given the significant High Court verdict. 

            The High Court verdict further ruled on Article 368 Clause (2) that concerns the parliamentary process in amendment of constitutional provisions, ''In the circumstances'' the court held, ''additions made to the existing Constitutional provisions through various Constitution (Application to Jammu and Kashmir) orders on their application to the State like Proviso to Clause (2) Article 368, fall within four corners of Article 370(1)''. While adjudicating on Clause (2) Article 368, honourable High Court has ruled that in their application to the State like Proviso to Clause (2) Article 368, fall within four corners of Article 370(1). We may first look at what does Clause (2) Article 368 hold, it says, 'Any amendment of this Constitution may be initiated only by the introduction of a Bill for the purpose in either House of Parliament, and when the Bill is passed in each House by a majority of the total membership of that House present and voting, it shall be presented to the President who shall give his assent to the Bill and thereupon the Constitution shall stand amended in accordance with the terms of the Bill'. This falls within the parliamentary process, while as Clause (1) Article 370 remains limited to Presidential order with the consultation and concurrence of JK State Government. 

We may now look at the JK High Court ruling on ‘Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest (SARFAESI) Act’ enacted by Parliament in 2002 on which another division bench including Justice Muzafar Hussain Attar and Justice Ali Muhammad Magrey provided the ruling, earlier in this year. Honourable Court ruled that 'SARFAESI) Act’ cannot be applicable to Jammu and Kashmir owing to its own constitutional position. The landmark judgment followed barely days after Jammu Kashmir Study Center (JKSC) close to RSS proposed to take call on Article 35 (A) pleading that it was incorporated through a Presidential Order on May, the 14th 1954 bypassing Parliament. High Court judgment cites Constitution of India and holds, ‘’Article 35 (A) which has been applied to State of J&K, clarifies the already existing constitutional and legal position and does not extend something new to state’’. Thus it clearly implies that the relationship stands already defined as per provisions of Article 370. Article 35 (A) re-enforces it. Honourable High Court further holds, ‘’the provision clears the constitutional relationship between the people of rest of country with people of J&K. The citizens of State of Jammu and Kashmir have their own constitution and their sovereign character which cannot be challenged, altered or abridged’’. 

The two rulings read and looked at together in their totality make it clear that JK State constitutionally has a position of its own, which cannot be 'challenged, altered or abridged' as per the JK High Court verdict. The judgment on Article 370 is causing political ripples. It is reported that Home Ministry in Delhi has asked for a copy of the ruling, which adjudicated on sovereignty, which exists in case of JK State albeit in a limited manner. This makes the judgment a significant development.

Yaar Zinda, Sohbat Baqi [Reunion is subordinate to survival]

http://www.greaterkashmir.com/news/opinion/story/199108.html

Azad Kashmir - Free In Name Only

Azad Kashmir - Free In Name Only

October 14th, 2015. \\ World. \\ Tags: Kashmir, India, Pakistan, China.

This year, on October 22nd, the ongoing conflict in Kashmir will have been running for 68 years. It is a conflict that has claimed many thousands of lives, that has seen some of the worst of human rights abuses, and which threatens to bring India and Pakistan - both nuclear powers - to war for a fourth time.

Following the end of British rule in 1947, the state of Pakistan was created alongside India. States were allowed to choose whether to join India, Pakistan, or to remain independent. Whilst Hari Singh, the Maharaja of Kashmir, favoured independence, Pakistan had anticipated the annexation of Kashmir to it’s own territory. Due largely to the procrastination of the Maharaja, a Hindu, events spiralled out of control, and Muslims in the state revolted. Local militias and Pakistani forces attempted to occupy the city of Srinagar, but were checked at Uri, in the west of Jammu Kashmir. The Maharaja turned to India for military assistance, prompting intervention by Pakistan, and the first conflict between the two nations began.

The war continued until 1948, when India sought help from the United Nations. The result was UN Security Council Resolution 47 (21 Sept 1948), which called for a withdrawal of troops, and for a plebiscite, or referendum, whereby the Kashmiri people could decide their own future. Pakistan failed to withdraw it’s troops, the plebiscite never happened, and the conflict between what is now a divided nation, occupied by Indian and Pakistani troops, and partially administered by China, which does not accept that the region of Aksai Chin is a part of Kashmir at all, rages on.

Whilst in simplistic terms the ongoing dispute and resultant conflicts may by seen as the continuation of the disagreements that followed independence, the dynamics driving the matter may have changed. There may now be both political and commercial factors standing in the way of a resolution. Kashmir, and its abundant natural resources, appear to be up for sale, and it is not the Kashmiris themselves who are doing the selling.

China has committed the substantial sum of $ 45 billion towards what is know as the China Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC). This corridor, which will connect China’s north-western region of Xinjiang to the Pakistani port of Gwadar, will develop transport, communications, and energy infrastructure in Pakistan. It is also intended to improve intelligence sharing between the two countries, who are becoming ever closer. CPEC will be a huge strategic asset to China, and it represents the country’s largest ever such overseas investment.

CPEC will run directly through Azad Kashmir, which is controlled by Pakistan.

A close look at the individual projects that comprise the project show an emphasis on water infrastructure. China is facing an impending water shortage crisis. It has a agricultural sector that consumes very high quantities of water - rice and cotton especially - its growing energy requirements require water and it has a huge and growing population. The aquifers are drying up, and China must soon take its water from somewhere else. Kashmir has water in abundance, and a relatively small population.

The Neelum-Jhelum Dam, currently under construction 40 km north of Muzaffarabad, the capital of Azad Kashmir, is being built by a Chinese consortium, and is due to be completed in 2016. Much of the work on this, and other projects in Azad Kashmir, is being undertaken by the Construction Corps of the People’s Liberation Army (PLA).

Azad Kashmir is also rich in valuable minerals, such as Gipsum, Lemonite, Mica, Marble, Ruby, Turmaline, Bentonite, Yello Ocher, Pyrites, Limestone and Dolomite. It has an abundance of wildlife that can rarely be found elsewhere. Many of its native species are endangered.

Central to CPEC is the existing Karakoram Highway, which is currently being widened from 10 metres to 30 metres, enabling it move heavy, and possibly military vehicles from China to Gwadar Port, situated on the Arabian Sea in the Pakistani province of Balochistan, the capacity of which is also being significantly increased. PLA soldiers are reported to be stationed near to the Khunjerab Pass, on the Azad Kashmir side of the border, close to the Karakoram Highway. Chinese military officials are also, it is reported, to be found at Gilgit, the Pakistani military headquarters in the region. When questioned on the matter recently by the New York Times, Chinese officials did not deny the presence of elements of the PLA in Azad Kashmir.

“Although ‘azad’ means ‘free,’ the residents of Azad Kashmir are anything but, The Pakistani authorities govern Azad Kashmir with strict controls on basic freedoms.” - Brad Adams, Asia Director of Human Rights Watch (2006)

Speaking to EU Today, Jamil Maqsood, Foreign Affairs Secretary of the United Kashmir People’s National Party, said “In Islamabad, foreign policy is being taken over by the military, and China is increasingly influencing that policy”. He further told us “When it comes to our land and our resources, it is the Kashmiri people who are the stakeholders, but when these matters are discussed in Islamabad, or elsewhere, we are not even invited to the table”.

The US has also been subject to criticism for supporting the Pakistani economic exploitation of Kashmir. In October 2014, the government of India lodged a protest with the US government for supporting infrastructure projects in the region. Earlier that month, in Washington DC, US special representative for Afghanistan-Pakistan Dan Feldman, US ambassador to Pakistan Richard Olson, along with other key officials had attended a conference organised to raise investment funding for construction of the Diamer-Bhasha Dam.

Both China and Pakistan will benefit strategically from the situation that we now see developing. In a few years time, Islamabad will effectively own Azad Kasmir with the political, economic, and military backing of China.

And so now it would appear that the long suffering people of Kashmir, for nearly seven decades pawns in a violent political struggle, now face a new threat: economic colonialism. They, their land, their natural resources, and their cheap labour are all now seen as little more than investment opportunities. 

http://eutoday.net/news/water-wars

China’s ‘New Silk Road’ Vision Revealed, by Shannon Tiezzi

China’s ‘New Silk Road’ Vision Revealed, by Shannon Tiezzi 09 May 2014

A new series in Xinhua offers the clearest vision yet of China’s ambitious “New Silk Road.” On Thursday, China’s state-owned Xinhua News Agency unveiled an ongoing feature entitled “New Silk Road, New Dreams.” The series promises to “dig up the historical and cultural meaning of the Silk Road, and spread awareness of China’s friendly policies towards neighboring countries.” The first article [Chinese] was titled “How Can the World Be Win-Win? China Is Answering the Question.”

The Xinhua series promises the clearest look so far at China’s vision for its Silk Road Economic Belt as well as the Maritime Silk Road. One of the most intriguing pieces released Thursday was a map showing China’s ambitious visions for the “New Silk Road” and “New Maritime Silk Road.” It’s the clearest vision to date of the scope of China’s Silk Road plan.

According to the map, the land-based “New Silk Road” will begin in Xi’an in central China before stretching west through Lanzhou (Gansu province), Urumqi (Xinjiang), and Khorgas (Xinjiang), which is near the border with Kazakhstan. The Silk Road then runs southwest from Central Asia to northern Iran before swinging west through Iraq, Syria, and Turkey. From Istanbul, the Silk Road crosses the Bosporus Strait and heads northwest through Europe, including Bulgaria, Romania, the Czech Republic, and Germany. Reaching Duisburg in Germany, it swings north to Rotterdam in the Netherlands. From Rotterdam, the path runs south to Venice, Italy — where it meets up with the equally ambitious Maritime Silk Road.

The Maritime Silk Road will begin in Quanzhou in Fujian province, and also hit Guangzhou (Guangdong pronvince), Beihai (Guangxi), and Haikou (Hainan) before heading south to the Malacca Strait. From Kuala Lumpur, the Maritime Silk Road heads to Kolkata, India then crosses the rest of the Indian Ocean to Nairobi, Kenya (the Xinhua map does not include a stop in Sri Lanka, despite indications in February that the island country would be a part of the Maritime Silk Road). From Nairobi, the Maritime Silk Road goes north around the Horn of Africa and moves through the Red Sea into the Mediterranean, with a stop in Athens before meeting the land-based Silk Road in Venice.

The maps of the two Silk Roads drive home the enormous scale of the project: the Silk Road and Maritime Silk Road combined will create a massive loop linking three continents. If any single image conveys China’s ambitions to reclaim its place as the “Middle Kingdom,” linked to the world by trade and cultural exchanges, the Xinhua map is it. Even the name of the project, the Silk Road, is inextricably linked to China’s past as a source of goods and information for the rest of the world.

China’s economic vision is no less expansive than the geographic vision. According to the Xinhua article, the Silk Road will bring “new opportunities and a new future to China and every country along the road that is seeking to develop.” The article envisions an “economic cooperation area” that stretches from the Western Pacific to the Baltic Sea.

Despite this expansive goal, it’s not quite clear yet exactly what will tie together the disparate countries along the New Silk Road (both on land and at sea). China has discussed building up infrastructure (especially railways and ports) along the route, yet the Xinhua article specifically says the vision includes more than simply speedy transportation. China envisions a trade network where “goods are more abundant and trade is more high-end.” Beijing expects the economic contact along the Silk Roads to boost productivity in each country. As part of this vision, China has repeatedly stressed its economic compatibility with many of the countries along the planned route, and offered technological assistance to countries in key industries.

China also envisions the Silk Road as a region of “more capital convergence and currency integration” — in other words, a region where currency exchanges are fluid and easy. Xinhua notes that China’s currency, the renminbi, is becoming more widely used in Mongolia, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Vietnam, and Thailand. Yet the article does not call for the renminbi to become the Silk Road’s primary currency, but rather hopes that local currencies will be the dominant means of economic deals.

From economic exchanges, China hopes to gain closer cultural and political ties with each of the countries along the Silk Road — resulting in a new model of “mutual respect and mutual trust.” The Silk Road creates not just an economic trade route, but a community with “common interests, fate, and responsibilities.” The Silk Road represents China’s visions for an interdependent economic and political community stretching from East Asia to Western Europe, and it’s clear that China believes its principles will be the guiding force in this new community. “China’s wisdom for building an open world economy and open international relations is being drawn on more and more each day,” Xinhua wrote.

But for all the ambitious talk, details remain scarce on how this vision will be implemented. Will the land- and sea-based Silk Roads be limited to a string of bilateral agreements between China and individual countries, or between China and regional groups like the European Union and ASEAN? Is there a grander vision, such as a regional free trade zone incorporating all the Silk Road countries?  Or will China be the tie that binds it all together, with no special agreements directly linking, say, Kazakhstan and Germany?  http://thediplomat.com/2014/05/chinas-new-silk-road-vision-revealed/

US Exploring Deal to Limit Pakistan’s Nuclear Arsenal, By DAVID E. SANGER

US Exploring Deal to Limit Pakistan’s Nuclear Arsenal

By DAVID E. SANGER  OCT. 15, 2015

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration is exploring a deal withPakistan that would limit the scope of Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal, the fastest-growing on Earth. The talks are the first in the decade since one of the founders of its nuclear program, Abdul Qadeer Khan, was caught selling the country’s nuclear technology around the world.

The talks are being held in advance of the arrival of Pakistan’s prime minister, Nawaz Sharif, in Washington next week. They focus on American concern that Pakistan might be on the verge of deploying a small tactical nuclear weapon — explicitly modeled on weapons the United States put in Europe during the Cold War to deter a Soviet invasion — that would be far harder to secure than the country’s arsenal of larger weapons.

But outside experts familiar with the discussions, which have echoes of the Obama administration’s first approaches to Iran on its nuclear programthree years ago, expressed deep skepticism that Pakistan is ready to put limits on a program that is the pride of the nation, and that it regards as its only real defense against India.

The discussions are being led by Peter R. Lavoy, a longtime intelligence expert on the Pakistani program who is now on the staff of the National Security Council. At the White House on Thursday, Josh Earnest, the press secretary, was asked about the talks and broke from the administration’s previous position of refusing to comment.

“A deal like the one that’s been discussed publicly is not something that’s likely to come to fruition next week,” he said. “But the United States and Pakistan are regularly engaged in a dialogue about the importance of nuclear security. And I would anticipate that that dialogue would include conversations between the leaders of our two countries.”

The central element of the proposal, according to other officials and outside experts, would be a relaxation of strict controls put on Pakistan by the Nuclear Suppliers Group, a loose affiliation of nations that tries to control the proliferation of weapons.

“If Pakistan would take the actions requested by the United States, it would essentially amount to recognition of rehabilitation and would essentially amount to parole,” said George Perkovich, vice president for studies at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, who has maintained contacts with the Pakistani nuclear establishment.

“I think it’s worth a try,” Mr. Perkovich said. “But I have my doubts that the Pakistanis are capable of doing this.”

David Ignatius, a columnist for The Washington Post, first disclosed the exploratory talks in a column a week ago. Since then, several other officials and outside experts have talked in more detail about the effort, although the White House has refused to comment.

The activity of Mr. Khan, who lives in retirement in a comfortable neighborhood in Islamabad after many years of house arrest, prompted more than a decade of American-led punishment of Pakistan’s nuclear enterprises. He ran what amounted to the world’s most sophisticated black market in the equipment needed to make nuclear fuel, and he did business with Iran, North Korea and Libya.

When Libya turned over the equipment it bought, in late 2003, it included a nearly complete design for one of China’s first nuclear weapons.

Pakistani officials denied that any of the country’s leaders knew of Mr. Khan’s black market activities, a story American officials did not believe because some of the equipment was shipped on Pakistani Air Force cargo planes. While Mr. Khan is not under formal restrictions today, he has not left Pakistan in years and has been prohibited from talking to most outsiders.

Even before entering office, President Obama was interested in addressing the Pakistani nuclear problem, considered by most proliferation experts to be the most dangerous in the world. But until now, most efforts to manage the problem have been covert.

During the Bush administration, the United States spent as much as $100 million on a highly classified program to help secure the country’s nuclear arsenal, helping with physical security and the training of Pakistani security personnel. Those efforts continued in the Obama years, with State Department, Energy Department and intelligence officials meeting secretly, in locales around the world, with senior Pakistani officials from the Strategic Plans Division, which controls the arsenal.

They used those sessions to argue to the Pakistanis that fielding the small, short-range nuclear weapons, which Pakistan designed to use against an invading Indian ground force, would be highly risky.

American officials have told Congress they are increasingly convinced that most of Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal is under good safeguards, with warheads separated from delivery vehicles and a series of measures in place to guard against unauthorized use. But they fear the smaller weapons are easier to steal, or would be easier to use should they fall into the hands of a rogue commander.

“All it takes is one commander with secret radical sympathies, and you have a big problem,” said one former official who dealt with the issue.

The message appears to have resonated; an unknown number of the tactical weapons were built, but not deployed. It is that problem that Mr. Lavoy and others are trying to forestall, along with preventing Pakistan from deploying some long-range missiles that could reach well beyond India.

But American leverage has been hard to find. Unlike Iran, Pakistan never signed the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, the international agreement that prohibits nations, except for existing declared nuclear states like the United States, from possessing a nuclear arsenal. Pakistan is not alone in that distinction: India and Israel also have not signed.

(North Korea has twice declared that it has withdrawn from the treaty, in 1993 and 2003.)

Ordinarily, any country’s refusal to sign the treaty would preclude American nuclear cooperation. So Pakistani officials remain angry with the American decision to enter an agreement with India in 2005 allowing India to buy civil nuclear technology, even though it remains outside the treaty and put no limits on its nuclear program.

Under that agreement, India’s nuclear infrastructure was split with a civilian program that is under international inspection, and a military program that is not.

Pakistani officials have demanded the same arrangement.

That does not appear to be on the table. Instead, the United States is exploring ways to relax restrictions on nuclear-related technology to Pakistan, perhaps with a long-term goal of allowing the country to join the Nuclear Suppliers Group, which regulates the sale of the technology. That would be largely symbolic: Pakistan manages to import or make what it needs for its nuclear arsenal, and China has already broken ground on a $9.6 billion nuclear power complex in Karachi. Mr. Sharif presided over the ceremony.

William J. Broad contributed reporting from New York, and Julie Hirschfeld Davis from Washington.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/16/world/asia/us-exploring-deal-to-limit-pakistans-nuclear-arsenal.html?_r=0

Give up terrorism and then let’s talk: Sushma to Pakistan

Give up terrorism and then let’s talk: Sushma to Pakistan

India on Thursday countered Pakistan Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif’s four-point peace initiative with a one-point offer. “We don’t need four points, just one — give up terrorism and let’s sit down and talk,” external affairs minister Sushma Swaraj said in an address to the UN general assembly.

In his UN speech on Wednesday, Sharif had proposed a four-point initiative: demilitarization of Kashmir, ceasefire along the Line of Control, affirmation to not use force and withdrawal from Siachen.

Reaction from India was sharp and swift. It rubbished elements of the initiative and attempts by Sharif to portray Pakistan as a victim of terrorism, and blame India for its troubles.

Swaraj rejected his initiative in toto, saying there was just one issue that needed to be taken care of. “Talks and terror cannot go together,” she said, adding that this was what was discussed and decided by Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Sharif in Ufa, Russia, in July.

The national security advisers of the two countries can meet and discuss all issues connected to terrorism and the directors general of military operations can meet to tackle the border situation, she said.

“If the response is serious and credible,” the minister said, “India is prepared to address all outstanding issues (which includes Kashmir in diplomacy-speak) through a bilateral dialogue.”

“None of us can accept that terrorism is a legitimate instrument of statecraft,” she said, drawing attention to India’s frustration with continued cross-border terrorism despite assurances.

Read: India’s 5-point rebuttal to Pak PM Sharif’s New York speech

She said these attacks are “meant to destabilize India and legitimize Pakistan’s illegal occupation of parts of the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir”.

The mastermind of the Mumbai 2008 attacks walks free, she said, calling it an “affront to the entire international community”.

In an earlier response to Sharif’s offer, foreign ministry spokesperson Vikas Swarup tweeted, “To demilitarize Kashmir is not the answer, to de-terrorize Pakistan is.”

On Sharif’s claim that Pakistan was a victim of terrorism, India said in a right-to-reply statement in the UN, “In truth, it is actually a victim of its own policies of breeding and sponsoring terrorists.”

“Pak PM gets foreign occupation right, occupier wrong,” Swarup said about Sharif’s charge of “foreign occupation” in Kashmir. “We urge early vacation of Pak-occupied Kashmir”.

Relations between the neighbours have plummeted in recent days and weeks amid tension and firing along the border and cancellation of high-level talks. Both have withdrawn into their respective corners, saying it’s for the other side to make the next move; a long way from the optimism following talks in Ufa. Also, the August 24 NSA-level talks between Sartaj Aziz and his Indian counterpart Ajit Doval were cancelled after Pakistani high commissioner Abdul Basit invited Kashmiri separatists to a tea reception.

In his speech, Sharif had sought to portray Pakistan, and himself, as more keen on peace than India. He had said after taking office in June 2013 that normalization of ties was one of his first priorities.

He had reached out to the Indian leadership, he said, yet “today ceasefire violations along the LoC and working boundary are intensifying, causing civilian deaths”.

“Wisdom dictates our immediate neighbour refrain from fomenting instability in Pakistan,” he said, concluding his attempt to take the moral high ground.

India’s response was sharp and unsparing. “Pakistan’s instability arises from its breeding of terrorists. Blaming neighbours is not a solution,” Swarup said.

Harping on Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s demand for the expansion of the UN security council, Swaraj said “if security, development and international peace is to be maintained, then security council needs to be reformed”.

“We have to include more developing nations in the decision making structures of the security council,” Swaraj said.

http://www.hindustantimes.com/india/terror-and-talks-can-t-go-hand-in-hand-sushma-s-message-to-pak/story-nZU8VHivgseQ1VWo1B3TgL.html

The Crown Princes of Kashmir, Andrew Whitehead

The Crown Princes of Kashmir, Andrew Whitehead

Kashmir dispensed with princely rule two generations and more ago - yet there are plenty of crown princes still at hand. The political order has changed utterly but there's no shortage of aspirants to power whose status has in large part been inherited.

That was brought home to me while reading the new and much talked about book by A.S. Dulat, the former head of the Research & Analysis Wing (RAW).  In Kashmir: the Vajpayee years, Dulat asserts that the 'four likely players for the future in Kashmir are Omar Abdullah, Mirwaiz Umar Farooq, Mehbooba Mufti , and Sajad Lone. 

You can argue with that, of course. Shouldn't someone from the Geelani-wing of Kashmir's politics be part of the mix? And you could take the view that a former intelligence chief, whose professional life has been about advancing Delhi's cause in Kashmir, is not a disinterested observer.

A.S. Dulat, however, has spent a lot of time talking to Kashmiris of all political hues. His assessment - which he defended at the London launch of his book, where I moderated a discussion between him and Dr Farooq Abdullah - deserves attention. What is particularly striking is that all four of those he names as key players in Kashmir's future are dynastic political figures. Indeed, two of them are third generation political leaders. 

Princes and maharajahs are no longer our masters. Those royal families around the world that continue to rule are, with a handful of exceptions, simply emblems of national identity. And those that have airs and graces but no throne - there are a few - seem as if they are stranded on some Jurassic Park of human governance, living fossils from a bygone era.

Yet the hereditary principle, that political power comes down from father to son (and just occasionally to daughter or son-in-law), or moves within the household from husband to wife, remains evident in dictatorships and democracies alike.  

Sons and daughters of political families should not of course be discouraged from entering public life or disqualified from office. They may well have imbibed a sense of civic duty, and they in any event now require the endorsement of an electorate. But politics is too often a family business and that limits the space for others to make their mark. To put it bluntly, the preponderance of political dynasties constrains the democratic process.

The Indian National Congress, one of the most successful political parties anywhere in the world - the movement which achieved India's independence and has dominated post-independence politics - has cleaved to one family with an allegiance which feels intensely anti-meritocratic. If Rahul Gandhi makes it to the top job, he will be the fourth successive generation of that family to lead the country. The world's biggest democracy is also the most dynastic.

American politics is also more about family than makes political sense. Going as far back as 1989, the only incumbent of the White House other than a Bush or a Clinton is the current one, Barack Obama. And both a Bush and a Clinton are in contention to succeed Obama. There's a real prospect that the only choice American voters will face in next year's Presidential election will be between these rival dynasties.

It's not quite the same in Britain. You have to go back well over 200 years, to the era of the Pitts and the Grenvilles, to find families in which both father and son became prime minister. But of late, a different form of dynasty has resurfaced - not about surname but school tie. David Cameron is the nineteenth British prime minister to have attended the elite and hugely expensive Eton College - his great rival within the Conservative party, Boris Johnson, hopes to be the twentieth.

Part of the issue in Kashmir is the sad and troubling propensity for political violence. Two of Dulat's  four likely brokers of Kashmir's future have taken on the mantle of a murdered father - and as well as the profound personal tragedies here, the distorting of the political process through premature and violent death clearly puts enormous pressure on the next generation to carry forward the father's standard.

That has been evident across South Asia - in India, Sri Lanka, Pakistan and Bangladesh. When a leader dies violently, the political legacy is championed most keenly within the family. Often wives and daughters have taken on that role. Indeed, one seasoned political observer has suggested that political dynasties have served to give women greater space in public life: 'being part of a clan has helped women break through glass ceilings', says the Berlin-based writer Leonid Bershidsky. 

Across the region, it's difficult to think of women leaders who have achieved success without being related to a male political leader. Mayawati and Mamata Banerjee are the ones that spring to mind as breaking the dynastic mould and making their own way.

On balance, Bershidsky argues, the darker side of dynastic politics outweighs what might be seen as the positives of family rule. 'Wherever there are dynasties, there's less competition for votes. There's nothing wrong with members of prominent political figures wanting to serve the country. But there's nothing wrong, either, with voters rejecting self-perpetuating government.'

India's recent history is full of examples of voters rejecting dynastic leaders as well as embracing them. But the occasional assumption that parties and movements are family fiefdoms, and the confusing of the interests of dynasties and of those they claim to serve, chips away at confidence in the political system.

Democracy is not simply about elections. It is about the principle that those who are not born to position and privilege can aspire to lead and represent their communities as much as anyone else. 

(Andrew Whitehead is a distinguished journalist. He worked with the BBC as correspondent for 35 years and later as Editor of BBC World Service).

http://risingkashmir.in/news/the-crown-princes-of-kashmir/

UNGA address Nawaz proposes agenda to diffuse tensions with India

UNGA address Nawaz proposes agenda to diffuse tensions with India

APP | IRFAN HAIDER 

 “Cooperation, not confrontation, should define our relationship with India," said Nawaz.

Yet today ceasefire violations along the Line of Control and the Working Boundary are intensifying, causing civilian deaths including women and children, he added.

“I want to use the opportunity today to propose a new peace initiative with India, starting with measures that are the simplest to implement.”

Nawaz suggested that Pakistan and India should formalise and respect the 2003 understanding for a complete ceasefire on the Line of Control in Kashmir.

For this purpose, he called for UNMOGIP’s expansion to monitor the observance of the ceasefire.

Secondly, the premier urged both the countries to reaffirm their resolve that they will not resort to the use of force under any circumstances. He pointed out that this is a central element of the UN Charter.

Nawaz also proposed that steps should be taken to demilitarise Kashmir.

“Pakistan and India should agree to an unconditional mutual withdrawal from Siachen Glacier — the world’s highest battleground,” he said.

Nawaz said an easing of threat perceptions through such peaceful efforts will make it possible for Pakistan and India to agree on a broad range of measures to address the peril posed by offensive and advanced weapons systems.

“Pakistan neither wants to, nor is it engaged in, an arms race in South Asia,” he asserted.

As a responsible nuclear weapon state, Pakistan will continue to support the objectives of nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation, he added.

Nawaz said South Asia needs strategic stability and this requires serious dialogue to achieve nuclear restraint, conventional balance and conflict resolution.

"Pakistan looks forward to playing its part to build a brighter era of peace and prosperity in South Asia."

Referring to the menace of terrorism, Nawaz emphasised the need to address the underlying causes of the challenge.

He pointed out that Muslims are suffering across the world: Palestinians and Kashmiris oppressed by foreign occupation; persecuted minorities; and the discrimination against Muslim refugees fleeing persecution or war.

Pak-Afghan relations underwent a positive transformation after the advent of the national unity government in Kabul, said Nawaz.

"Pakistan made strenuous efforts to facilitate the process of Afghan reconciliation. Dialogue did open between the Afghan Government and the Taliban, which was an unprecedented first.

"But it was unfortunate that certain developments stalled the process. Thereafter, militant attacks intensified, which we unequivocally condemn," he stressed.

Nawaz said, "Pakistan greatly appreciates China’s proactive role in promoting peace and prosperity in Afghanistan and our region."

"The China-Pakistan Economic Corridor, announced during President Xi Jinping’s visit to Pakistan earlier this year will spur regional economic integration and bring prosperity to the entire region and beyond."

http://www.dawn.com/news/1209979/unga-address-nawaz-proposes-agenda-to-diffuse-tensions-with-india