Slow foxtrot with India

By M.P. Bhandara

GIVEN our roller-coaster relationship with India, most people are curious if the current ‘Slow Fox Trot detente’ will lead to a settlement on Kashmir. The Indians would like to spin the Confidence-Building Process (CBP) as long as it takes, before addressing the core issue.

I have during recent visits to India tried to access how much India is likely to give. What sort of an overall framework do they have in mind? In any negotiation — especially a long-drawn one - one’s goal posts must be moderated by a realistic assessment of what is achievable. If you ask for the moon, to quote the ancient Chinese poet Li Po, you end up “embracing the moon in the Yellow River”.

India is not likely to agree to any change in the constitutional status of Jammu and Kashmir. I am afraid the buck stops there. From India’s point of view, the past is now a closed chapter. Our Kargill misadventure appears to have put the seal of finality. The Indians argue that Kargill, following on the heels of the Lahore Declaration, was an intrusion in bad faith; 4,000 Indian troops died in a difficult but successful operation. Territory retained or won by arms cannot be given away on the table.

Should we accept that the buck stops there? Before I attempt to answer this question, I would like to share with the reader a nugget of history, hitherto unknown to me. Apparently, after Sheikh Abdullah’s arrest in 1953, Nehru is said to have informed Mohammad Ali (Bogra), our then prime minister, that an Asian plebiscite commissioner was acceptable; we turned down the suggestion on the ground that Admiral Chester Nimitz of the US had been appointed by the Security Council, and none other was acceptable to us. If this was indeed a fact, was this not another event in the chain of missed opportunities for Pakistan?

Should we surrender to the principle that might is right? I don’t think so. The struggle must continue in ways that are morally and legally defensible. What cannot be cured must be endured, at least till the paradigm changes, in a world or regional context.

But in our self-righteousness on Kashmir, let us recall a bit of our own history — when the boot was on our leg.

For 225 days after partition, Kalat was an independent state. A series of envoys failed to persuade the Khan to accede to Pakistan. So what did we do? We sent in the army and the Khan signed on the dotted line. Is it open to the Baloch to say that since accession was obtained by coercion, the question should be reopened? Certainly not. Accession, whether by force or fraud is a closed transaction. The case in Jammu and Kashmir (J&K) is not exactly similar.

The Maharaja too was playing for independence. We made the tragic mistake of letting loose the marauding tribals into the Valley; the Maharaja was left with little choice but to sign on the dotted line acceding to India. The Indian case for Kashmir rests on this paper thin document of accession, just as the Kalat case rests on a similar piece of paper. We had a civil war-like situation is Balochistan in the 1970s, just as the Indians have been at war with the Valley Kashmiris for the past two decades.

The modern nation state worships territorial sovereignty. Disgruntled ethnic groups have either to be persuaded by arms or by other means to fall in line. No nation state is a liberal entity when it comes to the protection of its geographic borders. Legal casuistry, brute force, wholesale violations of human rights, fraud, Gobellsian propaganda, white lies, bribery form part of the repertoire of the Second and Third World countries to hold on to their territorial sovereignties.

Like Lady Macbeth, all nations say ‘what is done cannot be undone’. To take another example from our history: we bought Gwadar from the then impoverished Sultan of Oman in 1955 for a paltry sum of money. A typical transaction of the old world, which reminds one of a similar transaction leading to the sale of Kashmir by the British to Maharaja Ghulab Singh in the 19th century.

The original residents of Gwadar are content being in Pakistan, but, what if they are to say some day in the future that they were sold like cattle and demand the right to belong to Oman or us. Would we call a referendum to determine the wishes of the inhabitants or act according to the dictum of Lady Macbeth?

This is not to say that historic injustices of the past cannot be overcome in the future. History tells us that they are but in ways that cannot be foretold in the present. There is an ebb and flow in history. The historic injustices of Russia in Central Asia, of France in Alsace and Lorraine, of European and Japanese colonialism in Asia were all overcome by a turn of world events.

What then should be our goal posts for the time being in J&K? To begin with, we need clarity. The problem of J&K is Valley-specific. Apart from this area, there are no major separatist problems in any of the other parts of the old J&K state which include Laddakh, Jammu, Punjabi speaking Kashmir, Gilgit and Baltistan. In my past articles appearing in this newspaper, I have suggested that India and Pakistan, by mutual agreement, award to one another the parts of the old state, which are well integrated in the respective countries, so as to shrink the area of dispute. This, by itself, would be a giant step forward in the direction of conflict resolution. On the Valley dispute, the Shimla format accepted by both countries can be used to fill the central crack.

Our present goal post must aim for a reduction of the Indian army in the Valley to the level obtaining in the mid-’80s and the election of the moderate APHC (All Parties Hurriyat Conference) to positions of power. The hardliner in the APHC is Mr. Gilani, who, no doubt, has a sizable following in the Valley. This elderly gentleman belongs to the school that does not believe in political compromise.

Let him and those like him remember that there would have been no Pakistan if the Quaid had not accepted “a motheaten Pakistan”. It was a major compromise. In the interest of the Valley population, Mr. Gilani should consider his party, if not himself, to take part in a free election provided it is manifestly free and fair. The Valley does not need any more arms. It needs massive investment in infrastructure and employment opportunities.

Pakistan is a vital part of the process. It must dismantle militant organizations nesting in Kashmir and Pakistan with a stronger hand. Pakistan army may even consider active cooperation with the Indian army to prevent militants from crossing over into Kashmir.

A reciprocal agreement on reducing the levels of the Indian army and the closure of liberation camps is something that should be quietly negotiated by the special representatives of President Musharraf and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. The process should be verifiable by either side. Militants basically need a job; they should be absorbed in our para-military forces, including those of non-Kashmiri origin.

A general amnesty is required to absorb the militants into the political and civil society mainstream on both sides of the LoC. Terrorism will die a natural death once a truly popular government in Srinagar uses its own police force to take care of the residual militancy.

The Indians do realize that the Muslims of the Valley are very alienated from India. The heavy hand of Indian security forces found its ready response in what is described as terrorism. Who would not be a terrorist, if he saw his family molested or home pillaged by merciless heavy-booted aliens? Since the 1980s Kashmir has been a garland of thorns for India. If the Indians are wise, they will promote real autonomy in the Valley as envisaged by their own constitution. In brief, the Indians should climb down the some ladder, step by step, that it climbed up post-1953.

An autonomous Valley, with a minimum of Indian control, will be de jure part of India; but, de facto a part of Pakistan. Such is the case in South Tyrol, wherein a Kashmir-like problem existed between Austria and Italy. Real autonomy has smothered the vanities of sovereignty.

The writer is an MNA. E-mail: murbr@isb.paknet.com.pk

Assalam Alaikum,

Since the writer is MNA, and with his suggestions in the last para's definitely prove himself an illiterate about the ground realities in Kashmir, like other Politicians Mr. Bhanadara does too live in LA'LA land.

As far as Pakistan is concerned, the politicians always expected the west to come and solve the problem of Kashmir, and the Generals were too busy thinking of ruling the country, they forgot to protect it. It is no doubt in my mind that the prolonged problem of Kashmir is the biproduct of missed opportunities on the part of Pakistan. India at all occassions used its military might to claim Kashmir as its integral part, and on international platform used so called never ending diplomacy to avoid any decision on Kashmir.

Kashmir problem would have been solved by now, if Pakistan would have taken an more aggressive army stance in Indo-Pakistan war of 1947, yet we were day dreaming at the UN to solve the issue. 1965 War, brought another opportunity but our GORA master asked us to come to negotiating table with India. Kargil, yet another mishap where Mr. Nawaz Sharif, went to washington and signed the death warrants of thousands of Kashmiris, and gave India an impression that Kashmir is for your to keep. So if the writer is suggesting the same thing as what Mr. Nawaz Sharif did during Kargil, than yes we should disband all the so called terrorist groups and help India keep Kashmir, and I think our rulers can care less about it.

In all honesty I never seen a country in the world like Pakistan, where the government supports the cause of Kashmir yet bans the organizations who are staging the arms struggle to keep the cause alive as terrorist organization, nothing but hypocricy, better yet they should move out to New Delhi from Islamabad. These so called CBM's, are nothing but a ploy from India to engage Pakistan in never ending mumbo jumbo diplomacy, and achieve other things that are beneficial to it such as upperhand on exports to Central Asia via Pakistan, gas pipeline, and most of all inject us with its culture and identity through BOLLYWOOD, and many more, so the reality of Kashmir can be put in the back burner until it becomes irrelevant to Pakistan.

I think there is lesson to be learned here, that Kashmir could have been solved by mean of armed struggle and may be a conventional war, but its too late. It's too late to be having a conventional war, since it does not serve neither of our interests, and it cannot be solved by diplomacy because it does not serve Indian interests, so one can hope and pray, as we are good at it. But it would be a grave mistake to disband any groups, because they are the people who are keeping this issue alive.

By the way, if you analyze detente in entity it was no better than CBM's, where the US had upper hand in global economy and such, and defeated USSR by such means. By making the USSR realized you may have the army and weapons to defeat us but you will never be strong economically, therefore don't let you people starve to death.

Thanks.

Salaam,

Thanks for replying. I appreciate your vigour. Your points are all correct and agreed upon.

In my opinion, Kashmir is no more for us. India won't ever hand it over.

However one thing that clicks my mind is that India has adopted the policy of China (Development at home, peace abroad). So India has been consistently stuffing in lolly-pops of CBMs in Pakistan's mouth whenever needed.

If we want Kashmir.. only terrorists can help us. When India will face incidents like 9/11 or 7/7, it will suffer serious shocks on its economy and its development.

Only such incidents can bring sincerity in India's stance to solve Kashmir Issue.

Regards,
Adil Memon

If somebody is reading this.. please inform Osama about my plans !

__________________
"The race is not over because I haven't won yet."

Adil Memon
Police Service of Pakistan (P.S.P)
37th Common Training Program

fully agreed to adil's points.....
if adil's assertions are seen indecent by someone,,,,
to me the decent way out is to devise a way to make the Brahamans ,wag their tails like bone-hungry stray dogs behind us, the way they did for 1000 yrs b4 the british raj,,,
but my claims tantamount to the same ones, as have already been asserted by adil