From Mountbatten
to Emma Nicholson
By Dr Shireen M Mazari
The EU Rapporteur
on Kashmir, Baroness Nicholson has shown in her
report "Kashmir: present situation and future
prospects" that politicians of British origin
continue to be afflicted by three major traits of
their now-dead imperialism -- duplicity, deceit
and deception -- at least when it comes to Pakistan
and Kashmir. The historical record on Mountbatten's
deceit and deception on Kashmir is an established
fact and the Nicholson Report on Kashmir shows the
same characteristics and is filled with half-truths
and distortion of facts -- if not outright lies.
To call it controversial is giving it too much credit.
Before one goes into the highly questionable process
which finally produced this report, let us look
into some of the passages of the report that prove
my contentions regarding the content.
The preamble is interesting in that it specifically
refers to certain European Parliamentary resolutions,
including those on the EU-India strategic partnership
and EU's economic and trade relations with India
as well as the 2004 resolution on the situation
in Pakistan. So right from the start, the bias is
built-in given that the Indo-EU strategic partnership
is a major factor motivating the report as is the
issue of Pakistan's internal matters -- a biased
start if ever there was one!
The report then goes on to declare, still in the
preamble, that "whereas much of Jammu and Kashmir,
in particular Azad Jammu and Kashmir, suffers from
abject poverty…" Now most data would
point to Occupied Kashmir as being particularly
suffering from abject poverty, but we know what
the intent of the Baroness was.
For those still willing to give some benefit of
objectivity to the Baroness, the section on the
October 8, 2005, earthquake should be an eye-opener.
While the Pakistan government is berated for its
inadequate response which, according to the Baroness,
allowed "extremists" to move in, the Indian
government is commended for its competence in the
emergency -- despite Indian press and eyewitness
accounts to the contrary. Where the Baroness picked
up her information is known and discussed below,
but clearly it is incorrect. Of course, the Baroness
also uses the opportunity to condemn Pakistan for
only offering minimal basic "rights" (her
inverted commas) to the AJK Kashmiris, no political
rights and so on. The fact that Pakistan has not
usurped AJK and made it an integral part of Pakistan
as India has done, quite contrary to UN Resolutions,
which incidentally are cited as a reference point
for the Report in the preamble, is condemned also
by the Baroness. In contrast, there is not a word
about the suffering of the Kashmiris in Occupied
Kashmir after over a decade under the repression
of Indian security forces. Ironically, she actually
commends Article 370 of the Indian Constitution
which is one of the reasons why the Kashmir dispute
is facing difficulty in being resolved.
In fact as one goes through the Report, there is
less on ways to bring about a resolution of the
Kashmir dispute and more on condemning Pakistan
-- including on issues unrelated to the dispute
such as the Hudood Ordinance and the "difficult
situation faced by homosexuals"! Just out of
curiosity how many homosexuals did Nicholson interview
to come to this conclusion? These are just some
of the examples of the truth distortions and incorrect
statements contained in the Report.
In a similar vein, some recommendations also have
little to do with resolution of the Kashmir dispute.
For instance, Nicholson recommends exchanges between
the national defense colleges, a Joint Pakistan-India
Parliamentary Committee and cultural and other exchanges
already on the dialogue agenda. Not much here on
actual modalities for conflict resolution.
Why is that so? Because the objective of Baroness
Nicholson is not to suggest conflict resolution
beyond the legitimatization of the existing status
quo. In fact, the Report of the Baroness echoes
the ideas of the Delhi Policy Group (DPG) publication
on "Frameworks for a Kashmir Settlement"
which cleverly seeks to force a solution within
the Indian Constitution. The link between the DPG
and Baroness Nicholson is not surprising since Radha
Kumar, the co-author of the DPG publication, effectively
devised the Baroness's agenda in India and stayed
by her side throughout in Occupied Kashmir as well
as in New Delhi. So much for confidentiality. That
is why the Baroness never met the any of the Hurriyat
leaders -- neither from the JKLF, JKDPF or any other
faction. She only met the pro-India leadership.
She then basically lied to the European Parliament's
Foreign Affairs Committee in a meeting on 28 November
when she insisted she had met the Hurriyat leaders
in Srinagar.
The DPG also helped the Baroness organize a post-Report
Conference in Brussels where, inexplicably, the
Afghanistan ambassador was invited! It is absurd
for a European Parliamentary rapporteur to be publicly
aligning with a party which has a direct linkage
to the issue of the rapporteur's report. But it
was absurd for Nicholson to have been appointed
rapporteur in the first place -- she apparently
volunteered her services -- given that she is a
founding member of the EU Parliament's Friends of
India Group. Additionally, her South East England
constituency has a large population of Indian origin
-- almost 3 per cent in contrast to a less than
one percent body of Pakistani-origin constituents.
So the India connection is strongly ingrained in
Baroness Nicholson.
It is not that there is something inherently devious
about Nicholson, but in the context of South Asia
and Kashmir she is simply following British imperial
tradition -- a tradition that renders her highly
biased and unsuited as a credible rapporteur on
Kashmir. Therefore, her appointment and the strange
manner in which the Report was written begs the
question as to what is the EU agenda on Pakistan
and Kashmir?
Meanwhile, linked to all these goings-on, there
seems to be a needless confusion arising in Pakistan
over the Siachin issue. India has now rejected the
format of the 1989 blueprint for an agreement and
instead is demanding that Pakistan authenticate
the positions from which Indian troops withdraw.
This cannot be acceptable to Pakistan since it would
effectively legitimize Indian occupation of the
Glacier. In our present mode of reaching out to
India as much as we can, there is some talk of a
"compromise" whereby while we would not
formally authenticate the positions of Indian withdrawal
in an agreement, we would add an annexure where
we would give a schedule of disengagement, which
means stating each position from where withdrawal
takes place. Now, legally, under international law
and the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties
(1969), any exchange of documents and correspondence
is to be regarded as a treaty obligation. While
Pakistan and India are not Parties to this Treaty,
the Treaty is regarded as a declaration of customary
international law. So unless a detailed textual
provision is added, narrating our position clearly,
the envisaged annexure will be as good as authenticating
withdrawal positions. Therefore, we should stick
firmly to our 1989 position on Siachin and not be
in an unseemly hurry -- given India's increasing
hard line approach on conflict resolution. We need
to be wary of the diplomatic games India is playing
in a most offensive manner and not become victims
of a needless weariness.
(The writer is director general of the Institute
of Strategic Studies in Islamabad. Courtesy The
News)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
