asianaffairs-Feb 2008

                                The Kashmir Conundrum

How Musharraf has united Kashmiris against Pakistan

With his policies, Musharraf has transformed pro-Pakistan Kashmiris into pro-independence and pro-Kashmir Kashmiris, comments Shabir Choudhry

  The strategically important and resource-rich state of Jammu and Kashmir was important to both India and Pakistan in 1947. Sixty years later, when the state is still forcibly divided and is a source of tension in the region, its importance to them has not declined.
   Both countries worked out their strategies to acquire Kashmir even before they became independent themselves, and this struggle to wrest Kashmir created mayhem in which the people of Jammu and Kashmir suffered immensely. The suffering and miseries of the people have not ended although tension and rivalry between the two countries have declined because of internal and external pressures.
   India claims Kashmir on the strength of provisional accession, which was never ratified. Pakistan claims it because Jammu and Kashmir is a Muslim-majority state, even though Kashmir was not part of the demand for Pakistan and the Two Nations Theory did not apply to the Princely States, including Jammu and Kashmir.
   Whether or not the accession was legal and final, India is not prepared to let Kashmir go, as in its opinion its hold on that state strengthens India’s secular credentials. India also has other strategic and economic reasons for keeping Kashmir, and has made this territorial integrity part of its constitution. Also, no government can muster enough political support to make changes to the constitution that affect the country’s hold on territory.
   Pakistan, unlike its declared policy on Kashmir has economic and strategic aims in the state. Also, it is believed that its Kashmir policy provides justification for the establishment of Pakistan, and this requires a constant anti-India stance, which must promote policies of communalism and hatred between the two countries. Pakistani governments have advanced this policy successfully under the cover of Kashmiri people’s right of self-determination.
   Pakistani agencies articulated their Kashmir policy with care and dedication, and despite their exposed designs on Kashmir, many Kashmiris till recently believed that Pakistan was serious and sincere in getting them ‘liberated’, even though these rights were denied to the Kashmiri people in areas under Pakistani control.
   Initially, Pakistan had an edge over India as the majority of the Muslim population had a soft corner for Pakistan. Also, Pakistan had a Standstill Agreement with the Maharaja of Kashmir, which provided legal access to Pakistan in all parts of Jammu and Kashmir. But thanks to Pakistan’s military activism this advantage was lost after the failed tribal invasion.
   This military activism brought trouble, destruction and misery for the people of Jammu and Kashmir. The state was forcibly divided between India and Pakistan, and the efforts of both countries to make Kashmir part of their nation added to the problems of the people of the state.
   Leaders of both countries claimed to speak for the people of Jammu and Kashmir, and represented what they thought were the wishes of the Kashmiri people at the UN and other international meetings. While the right of self-determination of the Kashmiris and the future of the state were being debated Pakistan ensured that the people of Kashmir were deprived of their fundamental human rights.
   Pakistan proposed, and the UN Security Council accepted, that the people of the state should get the right of accession to either India or Pakistan. Perhaps the people of the state were not deemed fit to enjoy the fruits of independence. However, when the Pakistani leaders realised that they might lose the vote in a future referendum they refused to honour pledges made in the UNCIP Resolution on 13 August 1948.
   The main reason for this was the fear that with Sheikh Abdullah, the most popular Kashmiri leader as head of the administration in Kashmir, they might not get the required votes to legally get Jammu and Kashmir. Sheikh Abdullah had no illusions about the Pakistani designs in Kashmir and did not want to become part of Pakistan because of ideological, political and personal reasons.
   Part 2, section A, of the UNCIP resolution demanded of the government of Pakistan to withdraw ‘its troops from the State’. Paragraph 2 said: ‘The Government of Pakistan will use its best endeavour to secure the withdrawal from the State of Jammu and Kashmir of tribesmen and Pakistan nationals not normally resident therein who have entered the State for the purpose of fighting.’
   The resolution also demanded of the government of India to ‘withdraw the bulk of their forces from that State in stages to be agreed upon with the Commission’, once the government of Pakistan had completely withdrawn its troops, the tribesmen and other Pakistani nationals who went there for the purpose of fighting.
   Events of the mid-1950s changed the whole scenario in Kashmir and South Asia. Sheikh Abdullah was deposed and imprisoned, leading to anti-India demonstrations. Pakistan joined Western military alliances of SEATO and CENTO, and subsequently the Kashmir dispute became a part of the Cold War politics. The Soviet Union changed its policy on Kashmir after 1955, leading to use of its first veto on a resolution on Kashmir in 1957. Earlier, by and large, the Soviet Union was neutral on the issue of Kashmir.
   Some people might agree with the view that anti-India feelings and the alienation of Kashmiris were manipulated to wage a ‘proxy war’ against India. Some even believe that the main purpose of this exercise was to keep India ‘engaged’ and ‘bleeding’, and the ‘liberation’ of Kashmiris was never on the agenda. However, one might accept that till mid-1992/3 the majority of the people of Jammu and Kashmir wanted to join Pakistan.
   This started to change when the people of Jammu and Kashmir began to understand the game plan. The trend was hastened especially with the return of ‘mujahids’ to the Valley. They explained their experiences and stories to unravel the myth that Pakistan was their well-wisher and sincerely wanted to liberate them from the ‘clutches of India’. The majority of the people agreed that the Kashmir dispute was political in nature and religion had no role in it, although attempts have been made to ‘Islamise’ and ‘Talibanise’ Kashmiri society and polity.
   The people of Jammu and Kashmir have always been split in three political camps, namely, pro-Pakistan, pro-India, and pro-independence. With time the vote bank of the pro-independence camp has dramatically increased and the pro-Pakistan camp has decreased, especially under the Musharraf regime.
   Musharraf’s entry in the Kashmiri and Pakistani politics came with the Kargil fiasco. His army failed to invade Kashmir, but once again, benefiting from the rich experience, he invaded his own capital and trampled democracy and human rights in his own country. Musharraf and his forces have trampled human rights, silenced the opposition, attacked and muzzled media personnel, dishonoured and humiliated the judiciary. Tragically, he still feels proud of his deeds.
   He was unequivocal in his message to the people of Jammu and Kashmir that he was not interested in their fundamental rights, including the right of self-determination, that he was more interested in prolonging his rule and division of the state so that he could boast that he had added to the territory of Pakistan. All his proposals regarding Kashmir lead to division of the state, possibly on communal lines.
No Kashmiri can accept that. Whatever the future of the state the people of Jammu and Kashmir believe that the state must remain as one political entity and must not be divided.
   Musharraf has thus transformed pro-Pakistan Kashmiris into pro-inde-pendence and pro-Kashmir Kashmiris. This is something Kashmiris have been working on for many years in the face of considerable odds. But Musharraf has done it within a few years. Thank you very much, Musharraf.

top