{"id":10473,"date":"2012-02-04T14:51:27","date_gmt":"2012-02-04T09:51:27","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/jworldtimes.com\/old-site\/jwt2015\/?p=10473"},"modified":"2017-04-15T14:58:37","modified_gmt":"2017-04-15T09:58:37","slug":"kashmir-the-primary-india-pakistan-conflict","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.jworldtimes.com\/old-site\/others\/kashmir-the-primary-india-pakistan-conflict\/","title":{"rendered":"Kashmir The Primary India-Pakistan Conflict"},"content":{"rendered":"

To retrieve the agreement on Kashmir does not mean mindlessly adhering to every period and comma in it; it does not exclude taking cognizance jointly of the changes that have occurred and making suitable amendments by mutual acceptance.<\/h3>\n

\n

Mr. Chairman, Fellow Panelists: First of all, I wish to express my deep appreciation to the conveners of this Forum for selecting its theme and inviting me to speak on it.\u00a0 Though diverse conferences are being held with diverse orientations and from diverse motives on the subject we are dealing with, I still regard it a great misfortune for the country and people known as Kashmir that they should still be so little understood, their plight heard about with apathy and their story easily forgotten or subsumed under other topics. Ruled as the world is by certain dominant elements and the policies and postures issuing from their entanglements, it is hard to keep international attention focused on a people and\u00a0 their situation in the light, not of power strategies but of undying principles of peace and justice, the principles that were enshrined in the United Nations Charter. In the present case, people were first turned into a dispute and then the dispute was consigned to oblivion.<\/p>\n

Why do I say that Kashmir is so little understood? Well, it is painful to notice that many commentators on the subject, some with good intentions, do not know, or do not care to bear in mind, the vital distinction between ‘Kashmir’\u009d and the ‘State of Jammu and Kashmir\u009d. The former is an entity, known as the Vale of Kashmir or the Kashmir Valley and by its own inhabitants as ‘Kasheer’, which has sustained an independent existence and settled continuity over centuries and whose individuality as defined\u00a0 by its terrain, its customs, its language, its literature and its memory has been historically established and recognised.\u00a0 The latter, by contrast, was a product of the accident of a sale deed conducted by British colonialism in mid-19th century which, by sheer logic, should have disappeared with the end of that colonialism. The fact that, even though the erstwhile State has now decomposed, the Indian\u00a0 government still feels compelled to retain that outmoded term exposes some of the artificial contrivance in its attempted inclusion of the territory involved. What was called the State is a conglomeration of at least six different ethnic zones, not all of which feel, or could possibly feel, the same pull towards either affiliation with Pakistan or\u00a0 India or independence. No sane Pakistani has ever envisioned one of these zones, say Kathua as part of Pakistan; by the same token, no sane Indian would\u00a0 wish to include several others of these alien zones, say Gilgit, in India, unless it were for the insane design of gobbling Pakistan.\u00a0 It follows\u00a0 that what is being talked about as the ‘Kashmir dispute’\u009d\u00a0 has never had any existence in reality for large parts of the State of Jammu and Kashmir as it stood in 1947.\u00a0 What, however, has not been settled, what is very much the heart of the matter, what is, indeed, the cause of the death and depredation of the last more than six decades. is the\u00a0 conflict over the status and future of Kashmir as historically known, i.e. the Kashmir Valley and its adjacent Kashmiri-speaking areas.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

Why do I say that Kashmir is so little understood? Well, it is painful to notice that many commentators on the subject, some with good intentions, do not know, or do not care to bear in mind, the vital distinction between ‘Kashmir’\u009d and the ‘State of\u00a0 Jammu and Kashmir.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
This point may strike some as either academic or elementary.\u00a0 It is neither. In fact, ignoring it would doom any effort to resolve the tragic conflict on a basis of just principle. Some consequences of disregarding it, although only in thinking, have already become apparent.\u00a0 One of these is the suggestion of partitioning\u00a0 the State of Jammu and Kashmir between India and Pakistan along the Line of Control\u00a0 as the basis of a settlement\u00a0 of the dispute. This suggestion may have some attraction for the ignorant and the unwary as well as for those who wish to settle the dispute on India’s terms in a disguised form. But few others can possibly lend any weight to it. First, as the Line of Control does not run through Kashmir—the Vale falls entirely on one side of it—the suggestion seeks to gift the territory in dispute in one fell sweep to one party– India–and to dismiss the respective claims of\u00a0 the other two parties ‘Pakistan and Kashmir\u00a0 while assuming an air of impartiality.\u00a0 Second, it purports to partition a mythical entity, the State of Jammu and Kashmir, while it seals the fate of an actual living people, the people of Kashmir.\u00a0 Third, it is obviously mistaken about the Line of Control.\u00a0 This Line does not represent any kind of provisional border negotiated at any point between India and Pakistan. On the contrary, it is but a glorified term conferred on the line demarcated in 1949. That line, truthfully described as what it — a cease-fire line– was drawn under the aegis of the United Nations Commission, preparatory to the withdrawal of forces by the parties and the holding of the plebiscite jointly agreed by them.\u00a0 It was meant to keep the fighting stopped while the parties proceeded to further steps towards conclusive peace. Pakistan accepted the revised, pretentious and patently misleading term–the Line of Control–when, having suffered a shattering military defeat in 1971, it sought to obtain the evacuation by India of some newly occupied territory and the release of some 80,000 war prisoners.\u00a0 Despite this change,\u00a0 not in substance but in nomenclature accepted under huge\u00a0 duress, the accompanying agreement did not even by faint implication foreclose a definitive settlement or grant a permanence to the newly described line.\u00a0\u00a0 I remember a distinguished Kashmiri leader, the late Abdul Gani Lone, remarking that the first thing a liberated Kashmir would do would be to efface this line of iniquity which has erected a wall between parent and offspring, sibling and sibling. Most people in the Valley look upon the Line of Control as the line of conflict; few can imagine that any peace-loving person or group or state would wish to perpetuate it.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
\n
In any biography of the Kashmir dispute, one of the milestones mentioned must be the recommendation made by the Security Council for a settlement on the basis of the will of the people as impartially ascertained through a plebiscite under the control\u00a0 of the United Nations. This is, of course, as it should be but there is constant danger of the fact\u00a0 being obscured that the Security Council did not pull this recommendation out of thin air nor was it inspired by the idealistic promptings\u00a0 of either\u00a0 the Council or the leadership of the world powers.\u00a0 If it were so, India would have been within her rights to question why the formula should be held to be sacrosanct and immune from repudiation. But the proposition was squarely based on what the contestants themselves –both of them– demanded separately; the only thing the Council\u00a0 supplied was\u00a0 the mechanism of setting the stage for, and organising, the required plebiscite. It is a unique characteristic of the Kashmir dispute that it is\u00a0 one on which the parties have recorded their\u00a0 voluntary agreement on the principle as well as\u00a0 the lines of the desired settlement .\u00a0 This happened more than once, first, spontaneously in official exchanges between the parties; second, when India approached the Security Council and Pakistan followed; third, when the Council appointed a Commission which adopted two resolutions\u00a0 and the parties conveyed their acceptance of them in writing. The dispute\u00a0 erupted into a major conflict only when one of the parties, India, reneged on that agreement.<\/p>\n

The\u00a0 official exchanges, I mentioned, are categorical, not twisted by if’s and but’s\u00a0 on either side. The assurances solemnly\u00a0 given by India are numerous.\u00a0 I may cite just\u00a0 three of them here.<\/p>\n

One, on the\u00a0 same day that India marched its troops into Kashmir, 27 October 1947, Jawaharlal Nehru, the prime minister of India and the originator of her Kashmir\u00a0 project, sent this message to the prime minister of Pakistan:<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/div>\n
No sane Pakistani has ever envisioned one of these zones, say Kathua as part of Pakistan; by the same token, no sane Indian would\u00a0 wish to include several others of these alien zones, say Gilgit, in India, unless it were for the insane design of gobbling Pakistan.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
I should like to make it clear that (the) question of aiding Kashmir in this emergency is not designed\u00a0 in any way to influence the State to accede to India.\u00a0 Our view which we have repeatedly made public is that the question of accession in any disputed territory or State must be decided in accordance with (the) wishes of the people and we adhere to this view.\u009d<\/p>\n

Four days later, he sent the following telegram to the same addressee:<\/p>\n

Our assurance that we shall withdraw our troops from Kashmir as soon as peace and order is restored and leave the decision regarding the future of this State to the people of\u00a0 the State is not merely a promise to your government but\u00a0 also to the people of Kashmir and to the world.<\/p>\n

That these messages to Pakistan did not\u00a0 merely reflect\u00a0 a stance adopted for foreign consumption was made clear by\u00a0 the broadcast to the nation Mr. Nehru made on November 2, 1947:<\/p>\n

We have declared the fate of Kash mir is ultimately to be decided by the people. That pledge we have given not only to the people of Kashmir but to the world.\u00a0 We will not and cannot back out of it.<\/p>\n

Yes, sixty-four\u00a0 tumultuous years have passed since these words were spoken. But however distant, even surrealistic, they may sound to some in the different foreign offices today, they remain\u00a0 indelibly inscribed on Kashmiri consciousness. Furthermore, consciences are not extinct in a country as intellectually alive as India which are deeply touched by these promises.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/div>\n
\n
Yes, more than six decades have elapsed, since a detailed agreement was formulated.\u00a0 But international agreements do not lapse with the passage of time anymore than do national constitutions or laws; if they did, all life would be quicksand. Nor do they become obsolete because they have been dishonoured.\u00a0\u00a0 If the agreement on Kashmir looks to have been lost in a welter of current preoccupations, it is not beyond retrieval. The key to\u00a0 dependable peace in South Asia, to ending the untold suffering ‘directly or indirectly’ caused\u00a0 by the Kashmir conflict in that most populous region, lies in retrieving it. This is\u00a0 so because nothing will serve as a substitute for the principle it embodied: the decision of people’s status and future in accordance with their will impartially ascertained. A note both of caution and clarity is necessary here. To retrieve the agreement on Kashmir does not mean mindlessly adhering to every period and comma in it; it does not exclude taking cognizance jointly of the changes that have occurred and making\u00a0 suitable amendments by mutual acceptance. The resolutions of the Security Council and the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan were based on the concept of Jammu and Kashmir as an internally homogenous entity.\u00a0 It was not a concept the Council or the Commission itself invented; it was one that both India and Pakistan had adopted implicitly, though some half-expressed ideas of parts of the State splitting off from it were in the air.\u00a0 Time has disclosed that the concept had little correspondence to reality.\u00a0 Instead of a single plebiscite deciding the future of all the ethnic zones on a ‘one-size-suits-all’ basis, a way has to be found to enable each zone to express its will independently of other zones. This is not as complicated as it\u00a0 may sound to those unacquainted with the composition of the disputed territory; the eventual result of the plan will be as simple as that of the course of action envisioned\u00a0 in 1949.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 But it will be sounder in popular acceptance.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
To retrieve the agreement on Kashmir does not mean mindlessly adhering to every period and comma in it; it does not exclude taking cognizance jointly of the changes that have occurred and making\u00a0 suitable amendments by mutual acceptance.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
A plan exists with this\u00a0 revised orientation but its success, as that of any alternative, requires six conditions, all easily obtainable. One, it should\u00a0 transparently adhere to the fundamental principle of self-determination. Two, it should not rest on unstated understandings which any party can\u00a0 claim not to have shared and hence repudiate. Three, it should take utmost care not to admit the influence or domination of any zone over another. Four, by itself, it should neither foreclose nor promote any particular prefer ence by any zone. Five, rather than trying to finesse the issue of sovereignty as the effort by General Musharraf did which ended in smoke, it should recognise that the fundamental question is the right of any party or of none to station a single soldier in the territory of the former State without the invitation or consent of its inhabitants. Six, it should not try to take advantage of Pakistan’s\u00a0 present difficulties and try to read her out of the Kashmir equation.<\/p>\n

In this context, a few necessary considerations seem to be at present confused or lost sight of.\u00a0 Pakistan’s relationship with Kashmir, deeply rooted in history and culture and social relations, has been consecrated by the blood of thousands and the sacrifice of\u00a0 vast treasure.\u00a0\u00a0 It seems to be forgotten that the society that is Pakistan was deeply involved in Kashmir long before the state that is Pakistan came into being. Indeed, it was only some sordid intrigue under the last British viceroyalty that Kashmir was split from Pakistan; had matters been allowed to take a natural course, Kashmir\u00a0 would have been as much a part of Pakistan as Punjab or Sindh.\u00a0 In this respect, looked at from one angle, Kashmir’s cause is Pakistan’s own cause. But, viewed from another angle, if the cause of Kashmir’s freedom figures on the international agenda today, it is due to Pakistan’s devoted endeavours in the face of opposition from India and apathy from others.\u00a0 However, it is an unwarranted inference, implying an extremely short-sighted view, that Kashmir’s cause depends totally on Pakistan; should\u00a0 pressure be brought on Pakistan to cease her advocacy and support, the Kashmir issue will not evaporate but become matter for unpredictable non-state actors to handle.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/div>\n
Instead of a single plebiscite deciding the future of all the ethnic zones on a ‘one-size-suits-all’ basis, a way has to be found to enable each zone to express its will independently of other zones.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
At the present stage, whatever may be the real impulse and intent of the US policy,\u00a0 the prevailing public impression is that it\u00a0 is governed by the strategic partnership between the US and India, with the latter\u00a0 envisioned as a counterweight to\u00a0 China.\u00a0 If this relationship is, as\u00a0 President Obama has lyrically called it, ‘the defining partnership of the 21st century’, then those in charge of its conduct on either side\u00a0 cannot\u00a0 remain heedless of the voices of sanity and reason emanating from India itself.\u00a0 Let me quote a\u00a0 few:<\/p>\n

If we are the largest democracy on the planet then how can we hang on to a people who have no desire to be part of India? Why are we still hanging on to Kashmir if the Kashmiris don’t want to have anything to do with us? The answer is machismo. .. Is the future of India to be\u00a0 held hostage to a population less than half the size of the population of Delhi? If you believe in democracy, then giving Kashmiris the right to self-determination is the correct thing to do. And even if you don’t, surely we will\u00a0 be better off being rid of this constant, painful strain on our resources, our lives and our honour as a nation.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/div>\n
Mr. Vir Sanghevi in Hindustan Times, August 16, 2008.<\/p>\n

‘On August 15, India celebrated independence from the British Raj. But Kashmir staged a bandh demanding independence from India.\u00a0 A day symbolising the end of colonialism in India became a day symbolising Indian colonialism in the Valley….After six decades of effort, Kashmiri alienation looks greater than ever.’<\/p>\n

Mr. S. S. Aiyer in Times of India August 17, 2006.<\/p>\n

‘The people of Kashmir have shrugged off the terror of living their lives in the gun-sights of half a million heavily armed soldiers in the most densely-militarised zone in the world…(Their) non-violent mass protest against military occupation\u00a0 is nourished by people’s memory of years of repression, in which tens of thousands have been killed, thousands have been ‘disappeared’, hundreds of thousands tortured, injured and humiliated….The Indian military occupation of Kashmir makes monsters of us all….. India needs azaadi from Kashmir as much as, if not more than, Kashmir needs azaadi from India.’<\/p>\n

Arundhati Roy in The Guardian August 22, 2008<\/p>\n

Kashmiri Muslims suffer every day the misery and degradation of a full-fledged military occupation…A new generation of politicised Kashmiris has now risen; the world is again likely to ignore them–until some of them turn into terrorists with Qaida links .A survey by Doctors Without Borders in 2005\u00a0 found\u00a0 Muslim women in Kashmir,\u00a0 prey to the Indian troops and param-ilitaries, suffered some of the most pervasive sexual violence in the world.\u009d Pankaj Mishra in the New York Times, August 8, 2008.<\/p>\n

It is painful but necessary for retaining a sense of reality to get a glimpse or two into the school for\u00a0 unrelenting sadism that is maintained by the Indian military occupation in Kashmir. Here is one we get from an account prepared by an Indian humanist of distinction (I am abbreviating it):<\/p>\n

‘A mother, (when) reportedly asked to watch her daughter’s rape by army personnel, begged for her release. They refused. She pleaded that she could not watch, asking to be sent out of the room or be killed. We were told that the soldier pointed a gun to her forehead, stating he would grant her wish and shot her before\u00a0 they proceeded to rape her daughter.’<\/p>\n

Dr. Angana Chatterji in daily Etalaat November 7, 2000.<\/p>\n

Reportedly, the State Department has labelled the\u00a0 violence and repression as ‘an internal Indian matter.\u009d A knowledgeable American analyst, Robert Grenier\u00a0 in Al Jazeera of July 14, 2010, calls the posture ‘craven’\u009d.\u00a0 When one contrasts it with the legitimate interest with human rights in Arab States\u00a0 evinced and\u00a0 acted upon by the US,\u00a0 then one loses all faith in protestations of moral concern underlying American policies and attitudes.\u00a0 Then, as a Kashmir-born, I feel acutely distressed.\u00a0 As an American, I\u00a0 feel\u00a0 simply outraged.\u00a0 That it should happen during the presidency of\u00a0 Barrack Obama\u00a0 beggars belief.<\/p>\n

Ambassador M. Yusuf Buch is the former Senior Advisor to the United Nations secretary-general. This paper was presented at the ‘Carnegie Endowment for International Peace’ Washington, D.C. at a seminar, entitled, ‘Kashmir and the Regional Jigsaw Puzzle for Peace’\u009d organised by AMA Foundation.<\/p><\/div>\n

\n
By: M. Yusuf Buch<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

To retrieve the agreement on Kashmir does not mean mindlessly adhering to every period and comma in it; it does not exclude taking cognizance jointly of the changes that have occurred and making suitable amendments by mutual acceptance. Mr. Chairman, Fellow Panelists: First of all, I wish to express my deep appreciation to the conveners …<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":96,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[7750,4],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.jworldtimes.com\/old-site\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10473"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.jworldtimes.com\/old-site\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.jworldtimes.com\/old-site\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.jworldtimes.com\/old-site\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/96"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.jworldtimes.com\/old-site\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=10473"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.jworldtimes.com\/old-site\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10473\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.jworldtimes.com\/old-site\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=10473"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.jworldtimes.com\/old-site\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=10473"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.jworldtimes.com\/old-site\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=10473"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}