This week's issue under dicussion is the India and Pakistan stand off on the shared border and the Kashmir Issue.
Part I: India's Faulty Stance By Amir Qureshi
Part II: India’s Cease-fire in Kashmir: A flawed policy of appeasement? - A viewpoint by Dr. Subhash Kapila
India's Faulty Stance
by: Amir Qureshi, Birmingham, AL. , USA
The recent tensions on the border between India and Pakistan have brought the Kashmir issue again to the fore. The threat of a nuclear war raises the stakes of humanitarian crisis, for all the parties involved in this conflict. However, time has also come for the world community to look at this issue more closely. A better understanding of the issue is essential before an educated assessment can be made about the current situation. A solution to the Kashmir problem must take into account the wishes of the people of Kahsmir, whose fate will be decided in any solution to the conflict.
The people of Kashmir, since 1948, have been denied their democratic right to decide if they want to be with India or Pakistan. After 40 years of deprivation of their rights and continued atrocities committed by the Indian army, which are well-documented by International human rights groups, some of the Kashmiris resorted to violence against the Indian military and took up arms. India calls their armed struggle, ‘terrorism’ and says that the perpetrators of any terrorist incident in Kashmir have at one point infiltrated through the Pakistan-administered Kashmir, which is meant only to defame a legitimate armed struggle for freedom. India is using September 11 terrorist incident as means to have this armed struggle branded as terrorism. On the other hand, Pakistan has repeatedly asked for United Nation’s peacekeepers or observers to be installed on the Line of Control (which divides Indian and Pakistani- administered Kashmirs) to check if the Government of Pakistan is helping insurgents cross the L.O.C. However, India does not approve of a United Nation’s presence in the Indian-administered Kashmir. Moreover, it does not allow a United Nation’s group to open offices in their part of Kashmir, while there’s already one in Pakistan. In the past, Islamic radicals have once in a while made their way through the Line of Control from Pakistan to India, whom President Musharraf is trying his best to stop. But even India acknowledges that 'some' of the armed resistance to its army in Kashmir comes from the local Kashmiris.
Kashmir is a 'disputed-territory' declared by the United Nations and agreed to by India and Pakistan in their agreements in the past, it is neither India's nor Pakistan's, contrary to the Indian claim that it is an ‘integral part of India according to India’s constitution’. When two countries are fighting over a province, the only logical solution is to ask the people of that province what they want, this solution has also been set forth by the United Nations. However, India, which claims to be a democracy, continues to deny the people of Kashmir their democratic and birth right to determine their future by themselves.On the other hand, Pakistan’s official stance has always supported such a solution. The only reason why India wouldn’t hold a plebiscite in Kashmir, also mandated in the U.N.’s resolutions, is because it knows that with a heavy presence of Indian military in Kashmir and the prevalent sentiments of the Kashmiri people, they will opt for independence or an accession to a Muslim-majority Pakistan.
Moreover, India continues to cover-up the atrocities it commits against the Kashmiris by keeping the international media from entering there. Extra judicial killings, involuntary disappearances, arbitrary detentions, rapes and torture continue to be reported on a large scale. The Kashmiri leaders have been repeatedly harassed and physically intimidated. This only goes on to show how inhumanely Indian security forces act against the Kashmiri people. International Human Rights Groups have published several reports year after year on the Indians' human rights violations. Recently, India passed a law that gave extra-ordinary judicial powers to the 600,000 Indian military personnel in Kashmir, this law was flayed by all International human rights groups. Hence, adding to the misery of the Kashmiri people, thousands of whom have died in extra-judicial killings by the Indian security apparatus.
In 1948 when war broke out between India and Pakistan over the Kashmir issue, the United Nations intervened to broker a ceasefire. At that time, United Nations passed resolutions, also backed by India, to hold a plebiscite in Kashmir to ask the Kashmiris what they want, independence, merger with Pakistan or a merger with India. Fifty four years later, a just and a democratic solution to the problem demands that the people of Kashmir should be given their right to choose.
|
 |
India’s Cease-fire in Kashmir: A flawed policy of appeasement? - A viewpoint
by Dr. Subhash Kapila
India is being treated to a strange spectacle on Kashmir policy i.e. the announcement of a cease-fire and its extension commencing from November 2000 and with the possibility of another extension to be announced on the forthcoming Republic Day.
Cease-fire normally occurs between two parties to an armed conflict, when both have run out of steam psychologically or materially. Cease-fire also occurs when there is an imposition by external powers if the armed conflict has the potential to overspill and destabilise regions or regional security. Lastly, Cease-fire also occurs unilaterally when the weaker party to an armed conflict submits and sues for peace.
If that be so, and which is true, in which category of the above, does one place India’s much vaunted and highly publicised current Cease-fire offers on Kashmir?
The first category does not apply as the Cease-fire has not been jointly arrived at. The view that the Kashmir problem is a nuclear flashpoint endangering regional and global security is a myth.(1) Hence imposition by any external power/powers if any are unjustified. India needs to resist any such impositions, since they impinge on India’s national security interests. India does not fall in the third category for a very good reason that the Indian Army is not a tired army. It could hold the Kashmir Valley and yet bring the war in Kargil in 1999 to a successful conclusion. The Indian Army has been inflicting heavy casualties and attrition on both the Pakistani and foreign Jehadis as well as the local Kashmiri Valley Muslim militants.
Indian government’s unique selling point (USP) on Cease-fire policies:
The Government seems to have adopted its current Cease-fire policy independent of any of the above categorisation. The media has been persuaded to sell the government’s policy on the following lines.(2)
* The Kashmiri people (read Valley Muslims) will develop a stake in this peace initiative.
* Cease-fire offer and readiness for talks would create a rift between the Jehadi and the local Valley militants and among the Valley militants themselves.
* The Government is in a no-win situation in Kashmir despite inflicting high kill rates on militants.
* India’s truce initiatives proved internationally beneficial for India with western countries appreciative of such overtures.
Cease-fire policies based on this approach are flawed as they impinge on certain constitutional issues, national security interests and India’s foreign policy postures. Besides, they smack of appeasement of terrorists and separatists.
Constitutional Aspects:
Kashmir is constitutionally non-negotiable and this is substantiated by:
* Instrument of Accession, October 27, 1947.
* Indian Constitution adopted on January 26, 1950. Article 1 made whole of J&K State a permanent part of India.
* Reaffirmed by J&K State Constitution in 1956.
* Indian Parliament’s Special Resolution (unanimously passed) 1994 stipulated that the territorial integrity of the whole of J &K State was non negotiable.
"The whole of J&K being a part of the Indian Union has the imprimatur of Indian Parliament and the Government of India has obviously to respect the decision of Parliament as final and inviolable." (3)
National Security Interests:
National security interests demand that:
* India’s sovereignty and territorial integrity are inviolable.
* External and internal security threats are met with resolute force and political will.
* Security forces in the implementation of the above are not hamstrung with one hand tied politically.
* In a proxy war situation, like in Kashmir, no time is given to Pakistan or the terrorist groups to regroup or recoup losses by Cease-fire interregnums.
* India does not project an image of a ‘soft state’.
What we see in Kashmir is ,that the Pakistan Govt., the terrorist Jehadi organisations and the Valley terrorists have questioned, threatened and violated India’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. Even ethnic genocide was being indulged in. Initiation and promotion of truce initiatives with such entities are against the logic of India’s national security interests and an insult to the thousands of sacrifices made to deter aggression both external and internal.
The Indian Army predominates the tactical military situation in J & K. Cease-fire and peace initiatives should come from the other side. India’s lead in such a situation, besides demoralising the armed forces will further strengthen the perceptions of Pakistan and terrorist organisations that India is a ‘soft state’ and ever-ready to appease its enemies.
Political Policy Contradictions:
Currently, India has no compulsions to depart from the three policy principles it had so far adhered to and these are:
* The Kashmir issue is a bilateral one and no scope exists for third party involvement, external or internal.
*No talks on Kashmir with Pakistan until the proxy war and state-sponsored terrorism from Pakistan, ceases.
*Final resolution if any will have to be within the purview of the Indian Constitution.
The Pakistan Government, the Pak Jehadi terrorist organisations, the Valley terrorists and separatist organisations, contest and challenge the above precepts. No indicators to the contrary are visible. India’s Cease-fire initiatives targeted against these entities are therefore flawed.
The Indian Government should also be aware that no amount of political liberalism that it may display of the Western variety can soften the "Jehad" impulses of the terrorist organisations, separatist groupings or of Pakistan. Their political and strategic cultures are feudal. Hence these do not match with political liberalism. (4)
India needs to realise that the feudal mind-set and fundamentalist approach of all these three entities cannot be altered by soft approaches. They only understand strong responses. This view stands reinforced by articulation of the former Indian Foreign Secretary: "Why, then, is there still the rather pathetic belief in the minds of many of the Indian intelligentsia that all problems with Pakistan can be resolved in a rational manner through patient negotiation? And why does that belief persist after three wars(now four) waged unsuccessfully by Pakistan against India with the sole aim of snatching away Kashmir."(5)
Other Contextual Issues:
Other contextual issues which would draw attention from both external and domestic policy analysts are briefly touched below:
* The Government has no justification in opening dialogues with the Hurriyat and the Hizb (one a terrorist organisation and the other a separatist one, both looking for independence) when it rejected in July 2000, the lesser demand of more autonomy within the Indian Constitution of a constitutionally elected J & K Government.
* The Hurriyat is politically a disparate group with no political standing in J & K except with the extremist groups of the Valley. It is inconceivable as to how the Hurriyat can emerge as the main spokesmen of the entire J & K State.
*Even Robin Raphael, Assistant Secretary of State for South Asia in the first Clinton Administration had advised the Hurriyat (APHC) to be constructive when it boycotted the 1996 elections. Raphael stated: "We, in talking to them, have urged that they also view this period as an opportunity to refine their political vision and to participate in society and to take a constructive approach as Kashmiris."(6) The Hurriyat has yet to define its political vision.
* Political alienation of the Valley Muslims is not a new phenomenon. This continues despite India providing per capita central grant assistance to Kashmiris 14 times more than what goes to a poor state like Bihar. (7)
* The answers to the above lie elsewhere; not in appeasing terrorist and separatist organisations.
Conclusion:
Analytically, the Indian Government’s objectives prompting the current Cease-fire initiatives reflect a flawed approach. Peace in Kashmir is not desirable at the cost of compromising or disregarding constitutional provisions, national security interests or political policy precepts thoughtfully defined.
Pakistan attempted to impose a Vietnam type war on India and subtly tried to propagate it as such. Regrettably, a section of the Indian media and elite bought this version and have persuasively tried to shift India’s policy directions. But then Kashmir is not Vietnam(8). The comparison is absurd. The Indian Army, by all indicators stands resilient to crush the terrorist activity in Kashmir and the Police forces in other states also where terrorism has attempted to spread its tentacles.
The Government of India should not fall into the traditional Indian mind-set of jumping into soft solutions for complex problems, especially when the problem has wider strategic overtones.
Further, such truce initiatives, not only generate perceptions of India as a soft state but also raises high level expectations, inconsistent with reality or what India can concede. While brownie points may have been obtained from western friends, the after math of such truce initiatives leave a bitter trail for our security forces to re-establish supremacy, and sourness politically, at all levels.
Peace in the Kashmir valley can be attained only when the bitter years of Jehadi terrorism impact on the Kashmiri Muslim populace of the Valley to the extent that it dawns on them that like the rest of India’s Muslims, they are not a breed apart, but have to synchronise their interests and aspirations within the Indian Constitution. That point in time should not be far, provided the Indian nation state continues to be resolute that no quarter would be given to terrorists, separatists or secessionists.
22. 01. 2001
Notes:
1. For a detailed analysis of this myth, see Dr. Subhash Kapila, " The Myth of Kashmir as a Nuclear Flashpoint", New Delhi, Institute of Peace and Conflict Studies, Article No. 327, dated 21 Feb, 2000,(http://www.ipcs.com) p.3.
2. Ramesh Vinayak"A Zig Zag Road: The second truce in five months raises hopes but with Paksitan based militants unrelenting, it will be a tortuous process"., New Delhi, India Today, December 11, 2000 ,pp 36-38.
3. L.P.Singh (former Union Home Secretary, Governor and Ambassador)., "The Line of Feud".,Hindustan Times, 14 November, 98. p13.
4. Taken from Dr. Subhash Kapila., " The Kashmir Drama: The need for Indian Wariness." South Asia Analysis Group,Paper no.132 of 8.7.2000.(http://www.saag.org) This paper carried an analysis of the first cease fire announced by the Hizbul in July 2000 and has a relevance to the current analysis.
5. A.P.Venkateswaran, Dealing with Pakistan",The Hindustan Times, 20 February 1999, p.13. The Kargil war which followed after the publication of this article further reinforces the views of the author.
6. Robin Raphael quoted in despatch from Washington by T.V.Parasuram, dated 13 December, 1996, published in Economic Times, New Delhi on 14 December 96.
7. Arun Shourie, Minsiter of NDA government in an interview to Vidya Subramaniam, published in Q&A, The Times of Inda, New Delhi, dated 8th July 2000. Also see N.B.Grant in "Flaws in India’s Kashmir Policy", published in the Hindustan Times dated 11 September 1991.
8.Dr. Subhash Kapila "Kashmir is not Vietnam: Comparison is absurd" in South Asia Analysis Group Paper No. 160 dated 16.11.200 in saag.org.
SEND IN YOUR ARTICLES
PAKISSUES EMAIL
Link to Arsalan's Den
Arsalan's Den
|
