Acts of defiance and big blunders
India’s iron grip over Kashmir continues to breed resentment among the Kashmiris which expresses itself in the form of protests and confrontation with the law enforcement agencies. The raising of Pakistan’s flags during several rallies this year was also an act of defiance.
Kashmir has a long history of struggle against foreign rulers. In the ‘20s of the last century the Kashmiris launched a struggle for freedom from the brutal Dogra rulers who had come from outside to rule Kashmir. The movement peaked in 1931 when over twenty freedom fighters were killed in Dogra forces’ firing. The rise of Hindu nationalism in India soon after Partition and the demand that the special status given to Kashmir in the Indian constitution be withdrawn further alienated the Kashmiris. This even made Kashmiri nationalist leader Sheikh Abdullah rethink his pro-India policy.
Other factors too contributed to the alienation among the Kashmiri population. These included repeated interventions in the affairs of Kashmir by the union government, including rigging in the elections that led to the 1987 insurgency. With the passage of time separatist parties gained further ground.
During this period several international figures took note of the human rights violations by India. Western newspapers published reports of atrocities in Indian controlled Kashmir while there was wide spread support for the Kashmiris’ right of determination
What damaged the Kashmiri separatists’ cause, both domestically and internationally, was the induction of terrorist groups in the Valley. This was a big blunder. The terrorist networks kidnapped and killed foreigners. They introduced extremist tendencies in an otherwise tolerant society. They replaced the nascent secular forces resisting Indian occupation and instead gave a religious colour to the struggle for self-determination. Elements under their influence forced the remnants of the Pandits to leave Kashmir. Practicing an extreme and alien interpretation of Islam, the terrorist groups also contributed to the heightening the sectarian differences in Kashmir.
What damaged the Kashmiri separatists’ cause, both domestically and internationally, was the induction of terrorist groups in the Valley
The induction of the terrorists had another damaging impact also. It provided India an excuse to malign Pakistan all over the world by accusing it of inciting trouble in occupied Kashmir through its militant proxies who had their origins and headquarters in Pakistan. Inside occupied Kashmir the charge of being a supporter of the terrorists was often used to arrest, torture or kill otherwise peaceful protestors.
The Operation Zarb-e-Azb, aimed at cleansing the North Waziristan Agency which had become the hub of international terrorism, improved Pakistan’s image abroad. The country was seen to be doing the right thing. The formulation of a consensus National Action Plan and apex committees to implement it in the rest of the country were also welcomed as right steps towards the elimination of terrorism.
Cherry picking on the part of those on the helm of affairs, however, indicated that only one category of terrorists, i.e., those involved in attacks inside Pakistan were being targeted. Some, it was maintained, were spared to abduct, torture and kill Baloch separatists while others were allowed to continue to operate in India and Afghanistan.
The policy provided an occasion to India and Afghanistan to claim that Pakistan continued to use terrorism as an instrument of state policy and its ties with a section of the terrorists remained intact. India also maintained that instead of being the primary victim of terrorism, in truth, Pakistan was actually a victim of its own policies of breeding and sponsoring terrorists.
If the idea behind the four proposals made in Nawaz Sharif’s address was to bring India to the negotiating table, what has happened is the opposite. Throughout the presence of the Pakistani and Indian delegations in New York during the UNGA session no meeting was held between the two countries at any level. If the idea was to put India on the defensive in the General Assembly this too has failed.
The Indian reaction was extraordinarily strident. A stinging statement was issued the day Nawaz Sharif delivered his address by the first secretary of India’s permanent mission to the UN in exercise of Right of Reply. The statement accused Pakistan of breeding and sponsoring terrorists.
A day later came the riposte from by the Indian minster of external affairs. Sushma Swaraj rejected the four-point peace plan for Kashmir proposed by Pakistan. We do not need a four-point proposal, she said. We need just one: give up terrorism and let us sit down and talk. This will resolve all the problems.
Playing on the front foot the Indian side tried to shift focus onto terrorism instead of militarisation in Kashmir. Swaraj said the talks between national security advisers on all issues related to terrorism should be held, as well as an early meeting of senior military officials to address the situation on the border. “If the response is serious and credible, India is prepared to address all outstanding issues through a bilateral dialogue,” she said.
India has come up with a new strategic approach, altogether different from the one employed by Manmohan Sigh’s government. It now accuses Pakistan of distorting facts and blames it for continuing to use terrorism as an instrument of statecraft. It asks Pakistan to vacate the part of Kashmir under its control.
If the idea behind the four proposals made in Nawaz Sharif’s address was to bring India to the negotiating table, what has happened is the opposite
Being mired in regional disputes that could lead to a war is a disqualification for a country aspiring for the UN Security Council’s permanent membership. And India was moving fast during the UNGA session. It pushed the envelope on behalf of G4 on the long pending issue of reforms in the UN and expansion of the Security Council by hosting the G4 Summit in New York after a decade. For the first time, the issue of UN reforms and expansion of the Security Council has gone out of an informal circuit of the Security Council to formal text-based negotiations in the 193-member General Assembly.
The continuing stand-off with Pakistan would be a disincentive for potential investors who always investigate the security situation before committing their money. A resort to war would upset Modi’s plans for the Indian economy. Anyone who cares to go through the investment statistics during the Pak-India wars or the year-long 2002 military standoff would find that the rate of investments registers a steep decline in situations of the type in India.
Pakistan needs dialogue because of its own peculiar situation. The escalation in tensions on Pakistan’s eastern border would take away attention and much more from the ongoing Operation Zarb-e-Azb. This would provide opportunities to the terrorists to break out of the encirclement in North Waziristan and increase attacks in Punjab and Karachi. This could nullify the successes achieved after great sacrifices.
Despite repeated attempts over the years, Pakistan has been unsuccessful in getting the United Nations or the five permanent Security Council members to consider any reference on Kashmir. The subject was last discussed by the UNSC in 1971. Pakistan’s references and pleas to UN committees to take up the dispute have been disregarded with every permanent member including China counselling both countries to resolve the issue bilaterally.