| October 18, 2008 | Saturday | Shawwal 18, 1429 |
|
Peace in our time?
WHILE we in Pakistan are focused on the violence in our tribal areas, as well as on the suicide attacks in our cities, it has been a long, hot summer in Indian-administered Kashmir.
Before this latest round of unrest, the conventional wisdom was that the rebellion in the valley was waning. In the current protests, the younger generation seem to be in the forefront and, unlike many of their parents, they want independence and not union with either India or Pakistan. The Kashmiri struggle had always contained a strong element that wanted the people of the valley to go their own way, but over the years, pro-Pakistani groups, frequently supported by Islamic parties and intelligence agencies in Pakistan, had threatened to hijack the movement.
In the last few years, however, as the cross-border movement of militants slowed in the wake of 9/11, it had appeared that the fervour for freedom had ebbed. It is clear now that passions remain high, and it only needed a spark to rekindle the torch. This was provided by the government’s decision to transfer 100 acres of land to a Hindu trust to create facilities for pilgrims. In a land where demography is destiny, the move was bound to provoke a strong backlash.
Against this background, Asif Zardari’s choice of words to describe the Kashmir uprising in New York during his recent visit was unfortunate. While there are certainly many terrorists who have committed atrocities in Kashmir, there is a strong element of idealism as well. In the current protests, in particular, thousands of young Kashmiris are determined to wage a peaceful struggle.While it is true that one man’s freedom fighter is another’s terrorist, we do need to tread a fine line here. It has been convenient for successive governments in New Delhi as well as the mainstream Indian media to label all the protestors ‘terrorists’. This makes it seem to the outside world that these are all violent, unreasonable people whose demands should be rejected. However, this simplistic approach denies the real history of the protests, as well as India’s own blunders and brutality in dealing with Kashmir over the last 60 years.
But we are where we are, and cannot rewrite the past. Instead of apportioning blame, we need to see how this complicated, simmering dispute can be resolved once and for all. Above all, we must make sure this issue does not continue to prevent normalisation of ties between India and Pakistan, as it has these last six decades. Zardari spoke of this recently, and was attacked by the Pakistani media for calling a spade a spade.
Kashmiri groups see the ongoing tension between the two neighbours as one way to apply pressure on New Delhi to make concessions. But four wars and countless rounds of talks have shown that Pakistan cannot force India to give ground. As the disparity between the two countries increases, Pakistan’s leverage is further reduced. Ultimately then, Kashmir’s fate is in its own people’s hands. Perhaps if we can detach it from the Indo-Pak rivalry, there is a better chance that Kashmiris can shape their own destiny.
During his years in power, Musharraf did try and resolve the problem, putting a number of proposals on the table. Perhaps his biggest contribution to the peace process was to move beyond the UN Security Council resolutions. Over the years, these had become irrelevant, but were articles of faith to the Pakistani establishment. By limiting the options before the Kashmiri people to union with India or Pakistan, the resolutions did not visualise an independent Kashmir, something most Kashmiris seem to want.
Clearly, given India’s constitutional and political constraints, total independence seems a distant dream. Kashmiris have to realise that compromise is a necessary part of all negotiations. Equally, the Indian establishment must see that keeping 600,000 troops in Kashmir indefinitely is no solution either. And Pakistan, although it is an interested party, must understand that it is a third party, and must not scuttle any understanding that emerges, even if it is not to its liking.
All three need to see that while we squabble in our backyard, the world has changed beyond recognition. For easily quantifiable reasons, all three need peace. Kashmir desperately needs tourists to visit its lovely valley and mountains to prosper. And tourism only thrives under peaceful conditions. India would like to sort out this issue if it is to play its rightful role on the world stage. And Pakistan requires peace on its eastern border if it is to fight the extremist threat within and on its Afghan frontier.
Beyond these pressing compulsions is the larger threat posed by Islamic extremism to the entire region. This cannot be fought piecemeal: just as these terrorists do not recognise international borders, the response must be transnational.
Then there is the economic dimension to the conflict. Normalisation would finally unlock the vast potential for trade and tourism in South Asia. Thus far, Saarc, the regional grouping, has been largely ineffective because of the bickering between India and Pakistan. But should leaders in the two countries finally show some maturity and break the deadlock, immeasurable benefits could result.
So what could be the contours of a settlement that would be acceptable to all three parties? There has been much talk of softening the Line Of Control, and allowing Kashmiris to come and go. Although a bus service was started a few years ago, bureaucratic controls have restricted traffic to a trickle.
Unfortunately, hawks on both sides make sure that any positive mood is rendered meaningless. Spies and soldiers have a vested interest in keeping tensions high. Unless politicians can rise above short-term interests and take bold decisions, we will remain frozen in our self-defeating postures.
India has the advantage as it is more powerful, and can therefore take unilateral steps without fearing losing its edge over Pakistan. In addition, the political leadership in New Delhi controls the military in a way we in Pakistan can only dream of. But this also means the government has to carry most of the opposition with it before it makes any concessions. In Pakistan, the decision-making process is both easier and more complicated.Ultimately, however, it’s all about vision, political courage, and the desire to bury the past.
irfan.husain@gmail.com
