Dangerous Lures
of Delhi Atmospherics
By Dr Shireen M. Mazari
There
is a strange lure that India seems to have on Pakistanis
of many shades and opinions -- and this is especially
noticeable now in the wake of the fast-paced "peace"
process. In fact, at the rate developments are taking
place, the peace process is fast beginning to look
like an "appeasing" process.
On Kashmir we continue to hear the hackneyed diatribes
of the Indian leadership regarding infiltration
across the LoC. How this can be happening despite
the construction of a three-layered, illegal fence
by India along the same LoC is difficult to comprehend.
However, clearly India's inability to accept the
fact that indigenous Kashmiris will not accept Indian
occupation and will continue to fight it prevents
them from having a more realistic take on the Kashmir
issue.
What is totally inexplicable is what happens to
Pakistanis and Kashmiris from AJK when they go to
India. Take the statements that came from New Delhi
in the press, quoting one of the Old Guard of Kashmiri
leaders in AJK -- Sardar Qayyum. In New Delhi for
a meeting of Kashmiri leaders, he was quoted as
saying, "There is no jihad in Kashmir. The
terrorists are being employed by those with vested
interests…" Now why would this "Mujahid-i-Awal"
suddenly declare the jihad in Kashmir as over? Has
Kashmir been liberated from Indian occupation? Have
the Kashmiris been given the right to exercise self-determination?
Has India allowed the resolution of the Kashmir
conflict in accordance with UN Security Council
resolutions? If the answer to all these questions
is in the negative then how has a struggle for basic
human rights and the implementation of a UN Charter
provision of self-determination suddenly lost its
legitimacy in Sardar Qayyum's eyes?
Of course, on his return from New Delhi, in the
face of a critical press in Pakistan, Sardar Qayyum
denied having equated the Kashmir jihad with terrorism,
but he did not deny the rest of his statements.
So something clearly is amiss.
After all, what has changed on the ground that has
altered the character of the indigenous struggle
in Occupied Kashmir? Merely the commencement of
the peace process and the bus service across the
LoC? Or is it the Indian government's decision to
talk to the now-divided APHC leadership of Occupied
Kashmir? Or was it the atmospheric in the Delhi
conference of Kashmiri leaders that allowed Sardar
Qayyum to be misquoted on the Kashmiri struggle?
Nor is that all. The worse was his declaration that
the peace process between Pakistan and India "could
be derailed if these militants acquire weapons of
mass destruction". (Interesting how the mujahideen
and freedom fighters of yesteryear are now "militants"
for Sardar Qayyum.)
What exactly was he alluding to if not the Western
phobia that somehow Muslim militants can access
WMDs? One can compare this statement to the irresponsible
bragging our politicians used to do in the early
years of our nuclearisation when they threatened
the use of nuclear weapons at the least provocation
-- or even imagined provocation. That certainly
did little to bolster Pakistan's claims -- based
on reality -- that we had strong command and control
structures safeguarding our nuclear assets. Now
again there is this dramatic statement which has
unintended consequences extremely damaging especially
for Pakistan. Don't these leaders ever think of
the consequences of such statements?
But Sardar Qayyum was not done with his new approach
to the Kashmir issue. Delhi atmospherics seemed
to be with him when he addressed a press conference
on Wednesday, 28th September, in which he declared
that both Pakistan and India should withdraw their
troops from Kashmir and work for the rehabilitation
of Kashmiri refugees. How he could compare an occupation
force with the presence of Pakistani troops in AJK
is amazing but it seems on this issue he was a trifle
confused, if the news reports are to be believed,
because he went on to then state that while a solution
to the Kashmir issue was not possible at present,
Kashmiris wanted the state to accede to Pakistan.
To add to the confusion he also supported a future
Kashmiri government headed by ex-Indian minister,
Karan Singh, provided India withdrew its forces
from Occupied Kashmir. As he put it, "It will
not be a bad deal to have Karan Singh as Kashmir's
ruler if India withdraws its army from Occupied
Kashmir." Since he talks of a deal and does
not qualify Kashmir in terms of the Indian-Occupied
part, is he referring to Karan Singh taking over
as ruler of the whole state of Jammu and Kashmir?
Clearly something happened in Delhi to impact Sardar
Qayyum, whom one has respected and admired for many
years as a stalwart of the Kashmiri struggle. But
this struggle continues in altering forms and will
surely do so till India ends its occupation of Kashmir,
so why this drastic turnabout on the part of Sardar
Qayyum? Of course there has to be a political solution,
not a military one and this is the time for the
political ascendancy of the struggle. But one cannot
simply condemn the mujahideen -- who incidentally
have always been careful in selecting their targets
in terms of the Indian military, as Indian investigations
into civilian massacres like Chattisinghpora have
proven -- by terming their jihad as terrorism. This
is an insult to the memory of those indigenous Kashmiris
who gave their lives to rid themselves of Indian
occupation. And these martyrs are different from
the renegade groups supported by Indian security
forces that deliberately target civilians in order
to shift the blame on to the mujahideen. It is Indian
investigations that have substantiated this state
of affairs.
But then why blame Sardar Qayyum for being taken
in by Delhi atmospherics. Many others are equally
struck by the overall atmospherics of the "peace
process". In Sana'a, Yemen, the head honcho
of the Sherezade Hotel in Islamabad is rumored to
have declared that he was not prepared to say anything
regarding India and the OIC that would get him "bad
press" in India. Is the India lure really so
strong within our society and officialdom?
Of course peace is necessary and clearly the present
process is strong, but we need to move beyond atmospherics
and tactical CBMs, to some concrete results on conflictual
issues also. The peace process cannot be allowed
to act as "buying time" by India as happened
in the case of the Baglihar Dam issue. After all,
President Musharraf has correctly stated that we
are seeking a conflict-resolution approach to the
dialogue process. And, as he pointed out, India
is seeking "conflict management". With
this basic difference in approach, we need to be
careful not to get sucked into the Indian game plan
simply because things are happening too fast. If
all economic and trade goals of India are achieved,
where would be the incentive for conflict resolution?
So let us try and shake out of the Delhi atmospherics
and do a reality check on the long-term direction
we are taking, or being taken on, in the present
peace process.
(The writer is director general of the Institute
of Strategic Studies in Islamabad. Courtesy The
News)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
