|
Collin Powell Visit And Realities On Ground
Hamid Bashani
The
US Secretary of state Collin Powell trip to India and Pakistan is
the latest leg of a marathon Diplomatic offensive spearheaded by the
United States to ease bristling tension between nuclear capable
archrivals over the Kashmir issue. There is saber- rattling and
situation on ground is as complex and unpredictable as it was months
ago during the visit of Deputy Secretary of state Richard Armitage
and defense secretary Donald Rumsfield. This time, however, Colin
Powell shows higher degree of optimism based on his hard work and
enormous time he spent over the telephone talking to the Indian and
Pakistani leaders.
There
are serious differences on the issues of cross border infiltration
and forthcoming polls in Jammu and Kashmir.
The government of India rules out any possibility of
de-escalation and normalization of relation with Pakistan without
making sure that Pakistan has exercised its full leverage on
militants and infiltration across the line of control has been
completely stopped. Although the government of India initially
admitted a drop of almost a third in incursion by Pakistan based
militants in Indian Part of Jammu and Kashmir between may 27 and
June 23,but in the last week of June declared it a temporary phase
and said that the infiltration is continuing without substantial
change.
New
Delhi blames General Musharraf for his failure to honor his
commitment and tackle the problem of infiltration, which it thinks
was completely under his control. New Delhi believes that on the
question of cross border terrorism and infiltration, General
Musharraf has a lot of room to play with ambiguities and continue
the policy pursued in the past. India ‘s deputy Prime Minister
L.K.Advani has taken relatively a tougher stand on the issue and
said that it was not enough to just stop infiltration across the
border; Pakistan must completely dismantle the training camps and
terrorist infrastructure from its territory, if it was serious to
normalize the relation with India.
During
The visit of British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw on July 18th,
India re-affirmed that it did not propose to make further moves to
de-escalate the military standoff with Pakistan until it took steps
to permanently stop what it says is a steady flow of cross-border
infiltration. India’s External Affairs Minister Yashwant Sinha and
National Security Adviser Brajesh Mishra drew Straw's attention to
the killings of 29 innocent people in Jammu and told him that
Islamabad needed to show that it was acting on its commitment to the
international community to plug intrusion and cross-border
terrorism. Apparently, India intends to maintain this position on
the issue of infiltration and the infrastructure for militants in
the jurisdiction of Pakistan.
Pakistan
on the other hand, says it has already taken all necessary steps to
control the problem and no cross border infiltration at the line of
control was going on. It even goes a step forward and asks for any
neutral or UN observers to verify the charges of cross border
infiltration. Pakistan insists that it has fulfilled it commitment
and the time is right for de-escalation and a dialogue with India,
where all issues between the two sides, including the core issue of
Kashmir should be addressed in a meaningful and purposeful manner.
The US State Department spokesman, Richard Boucher, upheld Pakistan
statement on July 19, and affirmed that there had been a
“significant decline in the infiltration along the Line of
Control”.
Despite
the US support Pakistan’s claim that it would not let the
territory under its control to be used for terrorist activities, is
negated and contradicted by militant outfits on ground. The United
Jihad Council, a Muzaffarabad based umbrella organization for
several militant groups, is fully functional in Muzaffarabad, the
capital of Pakistan administered Kashmir. A dominant constituent of
the united jihad Council and powerful militant group, Hizbul
Mujhideen maintains its offices and openly launches the campaigns to
raise the funds and recruitment for its operations. A top-ranking
militant has recently told the Reuters that they have enough
fighters; munitions stockpile and supply to operate without
Islamabad’s support for next five years. Pakistan calls it
free-lance militancy and maintains that there are some indigenous
Kashmiri groups operating in the semi-autonomous territory of
Pakistan administered Kashmir, and they are not under Pakistan’s
control.
Pakistan’s
argument is unconvincing in view of fifty-five years history of
relationship between Azad Kashmir and Pakistan, which proves nothing
but a clear record of Pakistan’s strong administrative and
political grip over the territory. It has repeatedly exercised its
complete supremacy by deputing joiner army officers to dismiss and
arrest elected Prime ministers and presidents of Azad Kashmir. It
has also appointed several army officers on top jobs including
preset president of Azad Kashmir, who was the serving general at the
time of his appointment. The situation becomes more complex when
Pakistan’s statements do not match with the actual activities on
the ground.
On
July 18th at a public meeting held in Muzaffarabad, the capital of
Azad Kashmir, to commemorate the passage of a resolution of
accession of Kashmir to Pakistan by the Muslim Conference, a top
APHC leader Ghulam Mohammad Safi shares the stage with Pakistan’s
federal minister for information and media development, Nisar Memon,
and glorifies the fundamentalist terrorist outfits by calling them
holy worriers and stresses that Islamabad should also project the
"militancy" in held Kashmir as a legitimate struggle of
the Kashmiris and not show any "apologetic approach" in
this regard. In this public meeting, the Federal Minister insists
that there was no change in Pakistan's Kashmir policy and it would
be "unjust to dub the freedom movement as terrorism. The
statement not only contradicts the US/Pakistan stand on terrorism
and negates president Musharraf’s claim of a new and different
approach toward the militancy in Kashmir, but also raise serious
question of credibility and exposes double standard policy and a
state of confusion existing within the establishment On the issue of
Kashmir elections, Pakistan’s policy is still highly influenced by
militants and pro-militancy factions of its civil and military
bureaucracy.
Since
January this year, the main focus of militant outfits has
fundamentally changed. In the new political scenario the militants
are concern about their survival and they are only fighting a war of
their own existence. They can clearly visualize the catastrophic
effects of election on their existence and therefore desperately
trying to derail the whole political and diplomatic process. Hizbul
Mujhideen has a started its campaign to sabotage the forthcoming
assembly elections and has asked the APHC to either launch an
anti-election campaign or quit. As the time for forthcoming poll is
approaching, the rift between the militants based in Pakistan
administered Kashmir and 23 parties conglomerate, Hurriyat
Conference is deepening. Militant’s frustration grows when they
see no room in future political set-up of Kashmir if the election is
successfully held and rectified by international community. Contrary
to its past policy and practices, this time the government of India
has shown unprecedented flexibility on the issue of permitting the
NGOs to monitor the election. Chief election commission, Mr J.M
Lyngdoh has issued an open invitation to all interested national and
international human rights watchdogs and people working with concern
NGOs to monitor the elections in Jammu and Kashmir. It leaves no
room for APHC to accept the dictation from Muzaffarabad based
militants and continue its policy of boycott under the fear of
rigging and unfairness. This situation puts the militants and the
APHC at odds and leads towards ultimate split, leaving the militants
as political orphans and the APHC without substantial power base.
There
is clear possibility that finally under the enormous pressure, some
influential constituent members of the APHC will contest the
elections, and trigger a process of division in the conglomerate.
The APHC has been under the great influence of militants, which
through their activities have been providing the favorable
conditions to APHC to expand and keep its influence in Kashmiri
politics. Pakistan has been extensively interacting with the APHC to
take a position on different issues in Kashmir since 1993.
Currently,
Pakistan completely depends on the APHC for its diplomatic and
political maneuvering on Kashmir and insists that the conglomerate
is the unchangeable representative of the people of Kashmir. This
policy is leading Pakistan into exactly the same situation as it
faced in Afghanistan due to its unconditional support to Talibans
and ultimately experienced a catastrophic failure. Pakistan would be
unable to sustain its policy of opposing the Kashmir elections
specially when India has shown flexibility and willingness to work
with international community to bring the required credibility in
the process. There is a great confusion in the APHC and Pakistan’s
policy on election in Kashmir. First of all, election is not a
privilege or special constitutional arrangement for the people of
Kashmir. It is their fundamental democratic right to choose a regime
for their day-to-day administrative affairs. The exercise of this
right do not in any way jeopardize the right to self-determination
or any other democratic right they may have through regional or
international agreements, resolutions or laws. In fact, this debate
was closed on March 30,1951 when UN security Council adopted a
resolution that the election for a Kashmir Constituent Assembly is
not a substitute for a free and impartial plebiscite to be conducted
under the auspices of the United Nations as envisaged in its
resolutions which were agreed to by India and Pakistan. Since 1951
several elections were held in Jammu and Kashmir with full
participation of people and leadership including some top figures
that are currently leading the APHC. If this repeated process could
not become a substitute for the right of self-determination and did
not change the disputed status of the State of Jammu and Kashmir, it
would not do so because of the forthcoming polls. Second of all the
right of self-determination do not apply only to the 6 million
people living on 53700 square Miles Indian administered Jammu and
Kashmir. This right applies to the 12 million people living on
85,000 square Miles of former state of Jammu and Kashmir; including
Pakistan administered Kashmir and Gilgit-Bultistan.
Pakistan
has conducted several elections in Kashmir under its administration,
including the latest in July 5,200I. On the other hand, no elections
were ever held in Gilgit-Bultistan, and the people of these areas
were never given a chance to exercise their democratic rights
including right to vote, but this situation neither adversely effect
their right to self-determination nor it changed the disputed status
of these areas. Thirdly,
the government of India has no reasonable grounds to believe and
insist that the election process could be a substitute to the
exercise of right to self-determination. All recognized democracies
of the World are bound by their constitutions to conduct the
election regularly without undermining the universally accepted
democratic rights of their people, including the right to
self-determination, and India is no exception. The government of
India has a constitutional obligation to conduct a free and fair
election not only in Kashmir but also in all over the India and has
no legal moral or political grounds to ask its people to surrender
their democratic rights in exchange of elections or for any other
right granted by constitution of the country or international
treaties and resolutions.
The
election in Jammu and Kashmir would be held within the framework of
Indian constitution. This election cannot be used to address the
extra-constitutional political and diplomatic issues including the
Kashmir issue. India must learn from its mistakes and admit that it
is not possible to control the people through military might and use
of Repressive means, and it is equally impossible to trick and force
them to submission. India has no need to be defensive and shy on the
question of right of self-determination. As a well established
democracy, instead of playing tricks and dance around the question
of right of self determination and election, it must take a
progressive and constructive stand on the issue and ask the people
of Kashmir to first put the question of right to self-determination
in its correct historical, legal and political perspectives, and
make sure that there is a political process on place and peaceful
conditions are existing, completely free from sectarian and
religious influence and hatred,
before asking to exercise this right At the same time for the
APHC election is a golden opportunity if it really enjoys the degree
of popular support it claims, especially when the government of
India is willing to provide opportunity to make sure that the
election would not be stolen.
A
democratically elected APHC would have more rights and stronger
reasons to fight for the democratic right of self-determination than
the APHC, which has never gone through a recognize democratic
process to prove its representative character and credentials. There
is no contradiction between the right of self-determination and
right to vote. Both are inalienable democratic rights, and the
exercise of one does not undermine other. Those who harbor the fear
that the election process will undermine the right of
self-determination are ignoring the fact that a free and democratic
culture is a prerequisite for a free exercise of the right of
self-determination, and election is the only venue and prerequisite
for a free and democratic culture. On the name of Kashmir issue, and
under the pretext of struggle for the right of self-determination,
the people of Kashmir should not be deprived of the democratic
rights they are already enjoying or may enjoy in future as the
result of a free and fair elections.
In
fact, election is in the best possible interest of all concerned
parties. The APHC and its well-wishers must change their policy of
boycott and concentrate their energies to engage in political
process and diplomatic efforts for transparent elections and
dialogue for political and peaceful resolution of the
issue.
>>>
back | 