Kashmir – an ‘international’ or a ‘bilateral’ issue?
It does not matter if India says it is a bilateral issue. Kashmir is a disputed region and the issue can only be resolved keeping in view the UN resolutions. India is trying to avoid the issue but the world community is paying attention, says Mushahidullah Khan
With India imposing pre-conditions to hold a dialogue with Pakistan, the relations between the two neighbouring countries are at a standstill. Just when Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif decides to appoint a 22-envoy special team to raise the Kashmir cause at international level, including the United Nations (UN), Indian Minister of State for External Affairs MJ Akbar says “Pakistan must not ‘internationalise’ the Kashmir issue, it is a ‘bilateral’ one”.
Exchange of barbs from both sides of the border have spurred the tensions which have been on a rise ever since the attack at Pathankot airbase early this year. In an array of events, Pakistan dedicated its Independence Day on August 14 to the cause of “independence” in Jammu and Kashmir, to which New Delhi accused Islamabad of exporting “international terrorism, cross-border infiltrators, weapons, narcotic and fake currency” while Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi in his Independence Day speech openly came out in support of “independence” of Balochistan, Gilgit Baltistan and Pakistan occupied Kashmir.
While Pakistani side is making all out efforts to involve world community in the issue, India is pressing that it is a bilateral one and is neither ready to accept any international intervention. This Indian stance was earlier depicted when Foreign Minister Sushma Swaraj had asserted that all outstanding issues, including Kashmir are part of the composite dialogue between the two countries which had not yet resumed, and that India does not recognise a third party in talks with Pakistan.
In the latest developments, Prime Minister Sharif claims to stand behind the special envoy team with an aim to shake the collective conscience of the international community during his upcoming address at UN this September. Opposing each other’s views, a deadlock remains in dialogue between both the sides.
DNA talked to Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz Senator Mushahidullah Khan to know government’s view on Indian claim of Kashmir being a ‘bilateral issue’.
“It does not matter if India says it is a bilateral issue. Kashmir is a disputed region and the issue can only be resolved keeping in view the UN resolutions. India is trying to avoid the issue but the world community is paying attention,” Mushahidullah said.
He said the Kashmiris chant slogans in favour of Pakistan and citing how Pakistan’s flag was hoisted in Bihar and Sri Nagar earlier, and in Rajasthan on Pakistan’s Independence Day, he said these facts cannot be denied. About India’s claim of Simla Agreement, he said it was signed 50 years back, it has become irrelevant and infructuous in the present situation.
When asked about the deadlock in dialogue, he said, “Nothing is ‘dead’, there is only a ‘lock’ from the Indian side as it does not accept the Kashmiri’s right to self-determination and is not even ready to talk to the Kashmiri Hurriyat leaders.” The Indian side refuses to hold a dialogue despite claiming to be the largest democracy of the world, Mushahidullah said, adding that Clause 370 of Indian Constitution also grants special autonomous status to the state of Jammu and Kashmir.
War is not the solution I want but unless you are prepared to die, you will never get a fair peace. Better dead than living under Modi rule, says Zafar Hilaly
About the chatter that Modi could join the upcoming Saarc Summit in November, Mushahidullah said it does not make a difference if he comes or not. Great leaders reconcile and do conflict resolution. This Indian attitude has caused more loss to India than to Pakistan and more blood has spilled on Indian soil, whose responsibility lies on its leadership.
Stressing the need to address the grievances of Kashmiri people, the senator said their desires should prevail. India can ask the people of occupied Kashmir as well as Azad Jammu and Kashmir as to what they want, he added.
“The issues Pakistan is raising regarding Kashmir are not bilateral. They are about human rights, death and destruction by the Indian army and indiscriminate use of state power against people in the Valley,” said political scientist Rasul Bakhsh Rais while talking to DNA.
The deadlock can only end when India stops the use of force on Kashmir and there is a change in the current anti-Pakistan policies of Modi government, he said, adding, “We know that solution is in bilateral talks but when we insist to hold a dialogue, India simply refuses to include Kashmir in the agenda. Pakistan has domestic compulsions and in view of the situation on Kashmir, bringing the issue to international attention is the only option.”
India says it is a bilateral issue because according to India, the Simla agreement states that India and Pakistan need to discuss a final settlement. However, our stance is that Simla agreement also states that all agreements necessarily must be according to the UN charter. As Kashmir is a UN recognised dispute, its settlement must be in accordance with United Nations Security Council’s resolutions, said Zafar Hilaly, political analyst and diplomat, while talking to DNA.
“Either the two countries agree on a solution: the UN imposes one; or one or the other ceases to exist or is defeated in war and the territory is annexed. However, the later alternative can only become legal if the UN agrees,” he said when asked how the deadlock between the two countries can end.
“I used to think it would be a minor miracle if we managed to avoid war but now I think it will be a major miracle. India is so strong conventionally that we would have to go nuclear very early on in a war to avoid defeat. I, therefore, believe we should strike first,” Hilaly said when asked how war can be a solution to the dispute. “Of course the outcome would not be favourable to us but then making sure nothing will live in Delhi and Bombay, neither man nor beast for a hundred years, should be a sobering thought for India,” he said.
“War is not the solution I want but unless you are prepared to die, you will never get a fair peace. Better dead than living under Modi rule,” the analyst concluded.
The Indian side seems to undermine the severity of the situation as it is least bothered of the fact that some 90 people have been killed and hundreds have been blinded in recent clashes in occupied Kashmir at its hands, which is a sheer violence of international human rights. This has been pointed by Sushil Aaron of Hindustan Times as “the Modi government has evidently scrubbed out nuances in its reading of the situation and is wholly blaming Pakistan for the crisis”.
It is better that India soon comes to the policy of table-talk and discuss all outstanding issues with Kashmir as a priority. In the war of words between India and Pakistan, only Kashmiris are paying the price. Pakistan is wide open for a ‘bilateral’ dialogue too, but India’s pre-conditions and reluctance does not seem to ease the tensions any time soon. India needs to change its course before the international community holds it responsible for the ongoing violence in Kashmir while Pakistan needs to consider the ‘pre-conditions’ India is imposing for a dialogue and address its allegation of promoting cross-border terrorism at the earliest. Strategic stability and friendly relations with neighbouring countries are the key to regional security as war can only bring destruction and nothing else.