Kashmir – a land that can’t be suppressed

Decades of violence and repressive tactics have left the region volatile

 

After that Kargil happened, cross border terrorism by jihadis gave India an edge to tell the world that Pakistan by sponsoring cross border terrorism is an aggressor. Now both the establishments are following the policy of running with the hare and hunting with the hounds

 

The ebb and flow of Kashmir conflict in world arena, on one side is the sheer reflection of atrocity and savagery faced by innocent civilians of Kashmir but on the other hand depicts the inconclusive peace talks and non-plausible solution towards the Kashmir conflict. This latest wave of armed violence and brutality of Indian forces on Kashmiri people have surpassed all previous incidents of savagery. Many Kashmiris died in this current wave of violence triggered by slaying of Burhan Wani. This human rights abuse ranges from use of live ammunitions, pellet guns, tear gas, mass killings and use of rape as weapon of war.

While commenting on the issue, Wajid Shamsul Hasan, Former Pakistani High Commissioner to United Kingdom told DNA that Indian Occupied Kashmir has been under the siege of the Indian army since many years. As the indigenous resistance and voice of the Kashmiri people for intifada increases, Indian government gets jittery and its occupying soldiers get berserk. There have been over 100 thousand killings, mass graves tell a horrific story. Rapes of innocent women are rampant.

Situation in Kashmir is very volatile, no amount of suppression seems be defusing the occupied state. The freedom movement seems to have reached a defining moment. Writing on the wall written with the blood of the freedom fighters should open the eyes of the Indian government and hold negotiations with the three parties on the basis of UN resolution. It was after all Indian Prime Minister Jawahar Lal Nehru who had sought UN intervention, cease fire and accepted UN resolutions for the right of self-determination. His betrayal of UN resolutions has brought the issue to a state of implosion hitherto unknown in the occupied state.

Tracing back history, he told that Pakistan is often accused of interference. There is no doubt in 1965 General Ayub tried to externalize the issue by sending Pakistan army commanders. That attempt failed, resulted in a bigger conventional war, ceasefire and then peace through Tashkent Declaration. It was definitely better understanding of the issue by Prime Minister Indira Gandhi that she did not press for its permanent solution at Simla in negotiations with President of Pakistan Zulfikar Ali Bhutto. It was ZAB’s statesmanship and Indira Gandhi’s that brought about an agreement that has been responsible for peace in the region for the last 42 years.

Indira Gandhi could have imposed a dictated settlement on a vanquished Pakistan with its army totally defeated and demoralized. Bhutto convinced her that such treaties start with inbuilt portents for a future war- his example being treaty of Versailles which had deeds of World War II.

As such both the leaders agreed to have it sorted out bilaterally without prejudice to the UN resolutions. Siachin occupation by the Indian forces in 1984 once again forced the Kashmir issue to become externally explosive situation.

Both Prime Ministers Benazir Bhutto and Rajiv Gandhi agreed to demilitarize Siachin but the whole idea was subverted. There is lot of wisdom in the oft repeated conclusion of professor Dr Nyla Ali Khan; she is granddaughter of Sheikh Abdullah family that both the establishments in the two countries do not want to have a solution of the Kashmir issue as it is thriving business for them.

Talking about third party mediation, he said that attempts in the past have been made through mediation. Last time was in 1997 when British Foreign Robin Cook offered his mediation on the basis of Labour Party’s resolution of October 1995 to treat Kashmir issue as unfinished agenda of the partition that was brought about by the Labour government in 1947. He described it its Labour Party’s moral responsibility to have it resolved on the basis of the right of self-determination.

After that Kargil happened, cross border terrorism by jihadis gave India an edge to tell the world that Pakistan by sponsoring cross border terrorism is an aggressor. Now both the establishments are following the policy of running with the hare and hunting with the hounds.

UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon has offered his good offices for facilitating bilateral talks as India insists. Stalemate at that, with blood flowing in the occupied state – the developments forewarn of an more serious conflict than ever before between two nuclear counties. It is time under UN Secretary General bilateral talks be resumed, all proposals made at various times be discussed and a way be found acceptable to the three parties as permanent solution.

To the surprise of both India and Pakistan- the people shall go for third option. Lack of trust between the two countries has remained the main hurdle. It can be achieved by following Chinese formula of having increasing trade with India despite its border dispute.

However, Sualiha Nazar, an expert on foreign policy in a candid conversation with DNA said that third party intervention is not required. What is required is to truly listen to the demands of the Kashmiris. The more the Indian government tries to stifle their voices, the more hatred it will breed. Today it was Burhan Wani’s death that sparked this underling anger, tomorrow it will be something else. This is violation of human rights, plain and simple. And it needs to stop now. Else, it will remain a black mark on the country that claims to be one of the biggest democratic states in the world.

Lawyer Babar Sattar, in his weekly op-ed for The News wrote that “At the end of the day, painful as it is watching Kashmir burn, its future rests more on the perseverance of the Kashmiris and their commitment to their struggle for dignity and equality and refusal to live as subjugated people than anything Pakistan chooses to do. We must raise our voice for them – not because we believe we have a historical right to control the territory comprising Kashmir, but because we believe that their struggle is moral.”

Babar wrote that it is in this perspective that we must extend diplomatic and political support to Kashmir and ask the world, and thoughtful Indians, if they are not pained by the denial of fundamental rights to the Kashmiris.

He wrote that we must not narrowly approach or project the Kashmir issue as a territorial dispute between India and Pakistan. Kashmir isn’t a property dispute between neighbours. It is a human rights tragedy where people are being denied fundamental rights that have now come to be seen by the civilised world as inalienable.