The Indian
Scheme of Things
By Dr Shireen M. Mazari
It has been apparent
for some time now that since the dialogue process
recommenced between Pakistan and India, the latter
has adopted a devious and indirect approach —
the line of least resistance on the part of Pakistan,
as Liddell Hart would have put it — towards
seeking resolution of Kashmir on its terms. There
have been multiple tacks on this approach, some
overt and some covert — but all aimed at getting
de facto recognition of the status quo given that
de jure recognition of the same is not a possibility
even in the most conducive of atmospherics that
could possibly be created.
In terms of overt efforts, while Pakistan has moved
to demanding demilitarization and self-governance
as interim measures, which could create a better
climate in which to seek a final resolution of the
Kashmir conflict, the Indians are making the self-governance
issue an end in itself — even as they continue
to ignore the demilitarization CBM sought by Pakistan.
The latest salvo fired in this regard came from
Kuldip Nayyar, in Islamabad, when he suggested that
self-governance was the only possible way to resolve
the Kashmir issue! What exactly is meant by self-governance?
The Indians are very clear that it refers to autonomy
for the Kashmiris, but under the Indian Constitution
— a situation that prevailed in Indian Occupied
Kashmir (IOK) till 1953. Pakistan has accepted the
self-governance principle for AJK, as an interim
measure which is why it has never sought to bring
AJK within the permanent purview of the Pakistan
Constitution.
Under this framework, all that self-governance would
do is at best create a more conducive political
environment for the Kashmiris, but within the prevailing
control structure of the Indian Constitution for
Kashmiris in IOK and AJK’s linkage with Pakistan.
So self-governance does not in any way deal with
the issue of the Indian occupation of Kashmir and
the right of self-determination of the victimized
Kashmiris –- all necessary to resolve the
conflict. Therefore, at best, it can be an interim
measure. But again we in Pakistan need to be careful
when we talk of self-governance for Kashmiris. We
can ensure this in AJK but we can only express a
hope that India will do the same, as an interim
measure, in IOK. If we make this a formal issue
to be discussed between the two states, then we
are giving de facto recognition to the Indian Occupation
of Kashmir — which is exactly what India would
want. Hence their efforts to submerge us in this
self-governance issue, with our refrain of "interim
measure" soon becoming a mere whimper, lost
to all but the keenest of ears — and we know
the international community lacks such acute sensitivity.
So we need to continuously point to the limitations
of this notion even as we commend it temporarily
to provide greater political breathing space to
the Kashmiris.
Incidentally, Mr Nayyar’s claim that the partition
of Kashmir along religious lines goes against the
secular policy of New Delhi is nonsensical because
India used the religious argument to take control
of Hyderabad and Junagadh, so where it suits India,
it is quite happy to use religion despite its claims
to secularism. Indians also seem to suffer from
a convenient amnesia regarding the reality of the
LoC — that is, it is merely a ceasefire line
and not a border, so it can be neither a "soft"
nor a "hard" border.
Linked to the self-governance issue is the issue
of movement of people across the LoC. Pakistan has
rightfully been pushing for greater access to Kashmiris
across the LoC — especially in the wake of
the earthquake tragedy but if Indians and Pakistanis
are going to cross the LoC this raises a series
of legal issues. Will they use passports? If so,
then they will be giving de facto recognition to
the sovereignty of Pakistan and India over AJK and
IOK. If such movement is allowed, then investors
and traders will also begin coming across the LoC
so we would have Indian investors in AJK —
the likelihood of Pakistanis investing in IOK will
not be a possibility for some time given the Indian
Occupation and emergency rules. At the end of the
day, such developments will also create a de facto
recognition of the status quo as a solution since
there will be no impetus for seeking another solution
with trade and political movement being conducted
across the LoC as if it were a border! The Indians
know the logic of the policy of opening up of the
LoC to non-Kashmiris including political elites
from Pakistan and India but are we also now prepared
to go along with this ploy which will inevitably
bolster the status quo?
Another ominous development is the statement coming
recently from New Delhi from the IOK’s Chief
Minister, Ghulam Nabi Azad that international flights
would start from Srinagar in two years. This would
clearly give legality to India’s occupation
because any foreign airliner that landed in Srinagar
would be accepting the writ of the government there
— that is, the Indian occupying force. Once
India has notified the International Civil Aviation
Organization (ICAO) of the airports available for
international traffic, through its national civil
aviation authority, it will be on the ICAO list
of international destinations with ICAO determining
air lanes and so on. Even unused airports are in
the ICAO logbook, once their name has been sent
there. There is a need for Pakistan to do something
to counter this indirect approach of India to get
legal recognition for its occupation of Jammu and
Kashmir. This must be opposed in ICAO. At the very
least a letter should be sent to ICAO in the form
of an indemnification document to protect our legal
position on Kashmir.
Worse still, if Pakistanis, and one hears some are
contemplating this damaging move, were to fly from
within Pakistan directly to Srinagar, we would have
played the game India wants us to play. That is
why foreign policy must be guided clearly from one
central source and not be decentralized or privatized.
Of course, there is also talk of Muzaffarabad becoming
an international airport. We should not expect the
Indians to protest because this would only bolster
the Indian position of seeking the status quo as
a solution to the Kashmir conflict. But again our
position will certainly be compromised. Unless we
are extremely careful on how we move on Kashmir
— and there is no reason for us to show an
unseemly haste — we can be in danger of allowing
state practices to gradually dilute our legal position
on Kashmir to an extent where the status quo and
Indian occupation of Kashmir becomes a legal reality
for all intents and purposes.
Tailpiece: It was interesting to see one retired
bureaucrat supporting another. As long as the bureaucratic
brotherhood overrides rationality, the PCB chief
can break all propriety, as he did recently in hiring,
against the advice of the PCB sub committee, Mushtaq
Ahmed as a bowling consultant and the wife of the
Pakistani team’s physio as the new physio
for the women’s team. We also seem to have
a penchant for hiring wives of foreigners working
in Pakistan!
(The writer is director general of the Institute
of Strategic Studies in Islamabad. Courtesy The
News)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
