The LoC Issue
By Dr Shireen M Mazari
The Pakistan government has shown
a welcome sensitivity to the changed national dynamics
in the wake of the earthquake tragedy by postponing
the purchase of F-16s from the US. But some developments
in terms of India can become a cause of concern
for us in the long term -- including Indian attacks
against Pakistan in the IAEA and the developments
along the LoC.
The agreement by Pakistan and India to "open"
the LoC at five points for what was cited as humanitarian
purposes was welcomed as a substantive Kashmir CBM
which would alleviate some of the trauma of the
earthquake victims on both sides of this ceasefire
line. But the manner in which the Indian side is
implementing the agreement raises a whole series
of questions about Indian intent. So far it seems
the Indians basically want to use the LoC issue
as a public relations exercise by sending across
relief goods but not moving fast enough on allowing
the movement of people. Of course the net result
has been that protests have begun by divided families
who wish to seek their relatives on the other side.
As some have claimed, it is not aid they are seeking
across the LoC but their family members. On this
count the Indians have so far shown a dubious intent.
Beyond the immediate humanitarian purpose of allowing
divided families to link up in the aftermath of
the earthquake tragedy, it has been interesting
to see how people in both Pakistan and India have
welcomed this development relating to Kashmir --
and primarily for very different reasons. The Indians
feel this will eventually, de facto, make the status
quo permanent and therefore they will have the Kashmir
"solution" they are seeking. Many Pakistanis,
on the other hand -- beyond a few Indophiles -–
feel that this development is an alteration of the
status quo and as such it undermines the Indian
position that "borders cannot be altered"
and will eventually alter the status quo in Kashmir.
How tenable is this argument? To begin with, how
rational is the assumption that opening of the LoC
is a change in the status quo -- that is in the
occupation of the major part of the state of Jammu
and Kashmir by India? The simple answer is: none
at all. Opening up of the LoC is being done with
the agreement and active cooperation of India and
in fact it strengthens the position of India as
an occupying force. After all, we are accepting
Indian material assistance across the LoC as well
as allowing the movement of people under Indian
supervision. All this lends de facto acceptance
of the Indian Occupation of Kashmir and, therefore,
strengthens rather than weakens the status quo.
For the Indians, the opening up of the LoC has no
similar issues attached because they would like
to see the status quo transform itself into the
"solution".
Ironically, and one assumes unwittingly, some of
our officials are also lending credence to this
perspective that the opening up of the LoC strengthens
the status quo. As a senior Pakistani official suggested
the border posts could become a long-term fixture.
"After a year maybe you will find a big terminal
coming up here. It's quite possible", the official
was cited as saying. "We are doing things with
an element of permanence in them." The fact
that we are referring to the temporary check posts
as "border posts" is revealing, since
border posts only exist on international borders
and, our traditional position has been a principled
one that the LoC is not an international border
but merely a ceasefire line which has never been
recognized as a permanent division by the Kashmiris
themselves. So when did we move away from this and
effectively towards accepting the LoC as a permanent
"border"? And the more we regulate the
movement of Kashmiris through formalized documents,
the more we will strengthen the status quo.
However, even if we were to presume that by some
bizarre logic the status quo on Kashmir would be
altered by these new openings along the LoC, will
this change necessarily be to the benefit of Pakistan
and the Kashmiris in the long run? After all, while
goods going across the LoC in terms of humanitarian
assistance are a welcome step, if this becomes a
permanent feature in terms of trade and investment,
it will certainly be the last nail in the coffin
of the quest to attain Kashmiri self-determination
and a just solution of the conflict. After all,
with trade and movement of people across the LoC
-- and this latter development will eventually result
in passports being used by Indians and Pakistanis
across the LoC, as is clearly in the Indian design
--what pressure will there be on India to "resolve"
the issue? As far as the Indians are concerned,
the issue will have resolved itself in terms of
the division of Kashmir effectively having become
permanent in real terms. After all, trade and movement
of people through "border checkpoints"
will bring a semblance of normality to the LoC as
a "border" -- which has been the Indian
position all along. However, Indian occupation of
Kashmir will not alter just as Indian proposals
for the granting of greater autonomy to Indian Occupied
Kashmir will not alter the political status of that
territory in terms of its Occupation by the state
of India.
It is in this connection that there are voices of
concern being raised about the growing US military
presence in AJK as well. While we will always be
grateful for the tremendous US military assistance
provided in the wake of the October 8 earthquake,
why should continuing US humanitarian assistance
come in the form of an increase in the presence
of US military personnel? Are there no civilian
US agencies that provide humanitarian assistance
abroad in terms of reconstruction and rehabilitation?
After all, there is the laudatory civilian Habitat
program that does tremendous work across the world,
to name just one civilian US assistance program.
So why should all US assistance to Pakistan and
Kashmir be given a military framework? Could there
be some mapping and other strategic side objectives
in the sensitive strategic region? Would these help
the Indian objective of transforming the existing
status quo into the final "solution" with
a few readjustments along the LoC? Here the China
factor is also an important consideration.
So, at the end of the day one has a terrible sense
that the Indian assumptions relating to the openings
along the LoC may have more rationality and sustenance
in them than the hopes being voiced in Pakistan
that this development is a change in the status
quo and any alteration of the status quo is good
for the Kashmiris and Pakistanis. Worse still, we
should expect India to play the humanitarian issue
to the full in propaganda terms -- as it is already
doing. For us, the human tragedy is too intimate
and vast to exploit in such terms. However, given
the ferocity of the diplomatic attack against us
in the IAEA even while we were reeling under the
immediate impact of October 8, we should surely
be better placed now to see Indian designs for what
they really are. (Courtesy The News)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
