Entire
State Of Jammu And Kashmir
Is Disputed
By Dr Shabir Choudhry
05 October, 2007
Countercurrents.org
Before
we can make any progress on Kashmir we need to understand what is the
Kashmir dispute, as different people have different definitions of the
Kashmir dispute. Also we want to define what we mean by Kashmir.
When we refer to Kashmir
we mean the State of Jammu and Kashmir, as it existed on 14th August
1947; and the entire state, in our view, is disputed which includes
areas of Gilgit and Baltistan, Azad Kashmir, the Valley, Jammu and Ladakh.
Kashmir dispute, whether
you call it India and Pakistan problem or give it any other name, is
essentially related to national identity and future of people of Jammu
and Kashmir. To make it further clear it is an issue of right of self
– determination, which is our birthright and doesn’t have
to be granted by anyone.
United Nations is supposed
to be guardian of human rights. It is there to protect and promote human
rights and that includes fundamental right of self - determination,
from where all other political, social, economic and cultural rights
emanate.
It is unfortunate that we
Kashmiris never had an opportunity to present our case to the UN. India
and Pakistan presented their case on Kashmir in the UN, not to protect
and advance interest of the people of Jammu and Kashmir, but to protect
and promote their national interest, which was in conflict to the national
interest of people of Jammu and Kashmir.
It was on the floor of the
UN where we lost our right of self – determination, and in its
place we were given a right of accession wrapped as self – determination.
Many Kashmiris were persuaded to buy that as it was presented to them,
but thinking Kashmiris were able to distinguish the difference between
the two and rejected it.
It is a long and complicated
story why the UN could not even get its own resolutions implemented
and give people of Jammu and Kashmir right of accession. Ok, we understand
these resolutions were passed under chapter six and therefore they could
not be implemented by force, as it was the case with certain other resolutions
passed under chapter seven.
But fact however remains
that it was government of Pakistan that first refused to withdraw its
armed personnel from the areas of the state occupied by Pakistan. A
complete Pakistani withdrawal in accordance with the UNCIP resolution
of August 1948, had to be followed by a withdrawal of ‘bulk’
of Indian forces and subsequent plebiscite where the people of Jammu
and Kashmir had to decide whether they wanted to become Pakistanis or
Indians.
That never happened and later
on Kashmir became a part of the ‘Cold War’ politics, and
that provided India an opportunity to change its stance on Kashmir.
They started calling Kashmir its ‘integral part’, even though
the accession to India was ‘provisional’ and had to be ratified
by the people in a referendum.
The slogans of ‘integral
part’, and ‘sha rag’, meaning a jugular vein dominated
and controlled politics of Jammu and Kashmir, and to large extent politics
of India and Pakistan.
It is not possible to give
all the details regarding the Kashmir dispute here. Fact however is
that it has been a bone of contention between the two countries since
1947, and has been the major source of tension and instability in the
region. There have been many attempts to resolve it through bilateral
talks, wars, armed struggle, proxy war and international covert or overt
involvement, but to date there is no breakthrough.
In my view, after the involvement
of the UN, Baroness Emma Nicholson and the EU took first major international
initiative on Kashmir, which culminated in the form of that report on
Kashmir that is still known as Emma Nicholson report, even though the
EU Parliament with thumping majority passed it. That report by no means
is perfect, and I hope its author will also agree with this. But it
does provide us some new bases to consider the Kashmir dispute in new
and much changed world when UNCIP resolutions were passed in late 1940s.
It is true that the EU is
not the UN. Both institutions have different mandate and different roles.
But with time role and influence of the EU is increasing. The EU has
its own experience, strength and influence, and can help us to promote
culture of peace, dialogue and mutual coexistence.
If we are sincere to resolve
the Kashmir dispute and have peace and stability in the region, and
yet are unable to make the desired progress, then we should not shy
away from seeking outside help and advice, be it direct or indirect.
Both governments and Kashmiri
leaders claim that they are sincere in resolving the Kashmir dispute.
They also claim that they are well-wishers of the people of Jammu and
Kashmir. Let actions speak louder than words. Anyone can claim to be
your friend, but as thinking people and people with future at stake,
we need to see who is our real friend and who is pretending to be our
friend. The criterion for this is very simple to analyse this friendship.
Kashmir dispute, as we understand,
is a political one. It relates to nations right to determine its future
without any restriction imposed on them. Those who have transformed
the dispute to a religious one cannot be our friends, as it has created
new problems for us and have paved way for division of the State on
religious lines.
Those who brought Jihadi
warriors from various parts of the world, in my view, are not our friends
as the Jihadi culture brought extremism and hatred, and that changed
fundamental character of our struggle; and made it part of Islamic fundamentalism
whatever that means in the context of the world today.
We also need to consider
view of those who advocate that Kashmir is an issue of economic development.
Yes, like any other society and nation we also want economic development,
but the Kashmir dispute in reality is not an economic issue.
Economic development comes
as a result of investment, be it domestic investment or external; and
investors WILL NOT investment in an area where there is political instability,
armed conflict or a civil war. Political stability with proper planning
brings investment and economic development.
So it is not complicated
like egg and chicken situation - which came first, we know there has
to be political stability first before we can embark on economic development.
I am sure if Kashmiris are masters of their own destiny, and if Kashmiri
economists plan with a Kashmiri interest in mind, they can within a
few years make Kashmir economically stable.
I understand both India and
Pakistan, rightly or wrongly, have vested interest in Kashmir, and some
sections of the Kashmiri community have also become part of this vested
interest. It is believed that the biggest hurdle in the way of peace
and resolution of the Kashmir dispute is this vested interest. To some
the Kashmir dispute has become a lucrative business, and this entrepreneurial
thinking and approach must change if we are to make any progress in
resolving the Kashmir dispute.
Also if we are to make any
progress then we, people of Jammu and Kashmir, have to think as Kashmiris,
and protect and promote a Kashmiri interest. We should not become foot
soldiers of India and Pakistan. Let India and Pakistan defend their
national interests and let us defend our interest, our identity and
our future. I end with this quote of Khalil Gibran:
“Pity on a nation which
is divided into number of groups and each group calls itself the nation”.
Email:[email protected]
Leave
A Comment
&
Share Your Insights
Comment
Policy
Digg
it! And spread the word!
Here is a unique chance to help this article to be read by thousands
of people more. You just Digg it, and it will appear in the home page
of Digg.com and thousands more will read it. Digg is nothing but an
vote, the article with most votes will go to the top of the page. So,
as you read just give a digg and help thousands more to read this article.