The fate of peace process?
By Mumtaz Khan
As India and Pakistan are inching toward peace process since Indian Prime Minister had offered the hands of friendship to Pakistan during his visit to Srinagar last year that followed by Indian governments12 points confidence building measures package latter in last year. The initial response of Pakistan was guarded but helped to improve relations in restoring diplomatic, rail and road links. Emboldened by India,s initiatives and push from US Pakistan announced ceasefire during the Ramdan Eid reciprocated by India sparked off the momentum to formalize the initiatives. However, despite these initiatives fate of the peace initiatives had greatly linked with the Vajpaee�s participation to the SAARC Summit in Islamabad, and his meeting with the Pervez Mushraf. The prospective Vajpaees�s visit and meeting with Mushraf was also linked with Islamabad�s assurances on certain issues tha t India had been insisting upon to before talking formally, not to raise Kashmir issue on SAARC platform, end of cross-border infiltration and terrorism, to which Mushraf was shy of talking to. The reason was not that Mushraf was strong supporter of Kashmiri militancy rather forced by the situation he had created against the Lahore Declaration and had accused then Prime Minister Nawaz to sell-out Kashmir when Nawz had signed the Lahore Declaration with the Indian Prime Minister. The interesting point is that Nawaz Sharif had not to make as many concession as Musharaf had to, to pursuade Indian leadership to resume the dialogues, from declaring militants to terrorist, banning them and pledged that he wouldn�t allow terrorists to use its controlled territory. While Mushraf hinted to set aside UN resolutions to persuade Vajpaee to attend the SAARC Conference.
However, Mushraf maintained his public posture not to desist supporting from Kashmir militancy but meantime he kept his back channels open with India. As Mushraf knew that he may no longer be able to maintain this posture since impending pressure from the US was to follow as nuclear proliferation issue was to catch international attention and condemnation was on the way. India�s silence over whole of nuclear episode of Pakistan indicates about its pre-knowledge of possible developments to take place and probably had received some signals that Pakistan regime was inclined to make concessions on Kashmir and ready to take CBMs measures. As there are reports that four intelligence agencies had collaborated including CIA, MI5, Mosad and RAW to gather and monitor the information of Pakistani top nuclear Scientist A.Q. Khan�s network.
The Indian reaction on Pakistan�s nuclear crisis was unexpected as they almost ignored the entire episode and demonstrated unconventional generosity toward its archrival, which was clear indication that India had sought some assurances not only from Pakistan but also from Washington. Although, post 9/11 had not left enough room for Mushraf to continue to harp on his old rhetoric since Islamabad policies were completely in disarray and tatter. As ISI�s vision of dreaming of seeking strategic depth in Central Asia after securing Afghanistan through Taliban, and liberating Kashmir through proxy militancy had backfired. And whatever room for political manoeuvring Mushraf had in the post 9/11, nuclear proliferation crisis has closed that chapter too.
While India�s regional and global ambitions are undermined by the rapidly growing Chinese economic and military power that left Indian policy makers to grapple with the emerging situation how to meet growing Chinese challenges they are facing in its neighbour. As Pakistan is not a challenge rather problem for India in terms of its economy and military but China is the real challenge. And if India fails to demonstrate its leadership ability to meet growing expectation and to fill the power vacuum that Chinese rapid economic and military growth has created can further challenge to Indian ambitions. While failing to resolve the issues with Pakistan undermines Indian leadership�s vision to be world contender despite the fact that Islamabad�s reputation has never been as a stable and civilised state. Although, West and US recognize the odds Indian leadership faces in the form of Pak -Sino friendship based on the mutual Indian enmity. But it is the test of vision of Indian leadership how it address these challenges before seeking its place among the world players.
But for Indian policy makers another perspective persist that conceding any concession to Pakistan on Kashmir may not enhance the prestige of India rather will be seen as sign of weakness that may further undermine its image as regional power, and diminish the prospects of any departure from its stated policy on Kashmir.
India�s recent move to improve its relations with China, where both countries have recognized the significance of bilateral relations and agreed to resolve outstanding issues peacefully, indicates that Indian policy makers have decided to overcome the political barriers that undermine its economic potential and political agenda. The Sino-Indian normalization of relations is not good sign for Islamabad but it further strengthens the New Delhi�s position to deal with Pakistan while bringing more pressure on Islamabad who seems to be losing her last and lonely friend. As China is somehow concerned with growing extremism in Pakistan that poses equally threat to the Chinese security and integrity, to which it has expressed with Islamabad.
But taking all the factors and current global and regional political developments into consideration, can change the course and fate of present peace initiatives between India and Pakistan. Has any state indicated change in policy that may bring about any consensus over the disputed state. No political analyst can ignore the past record of bilateralism of both countries in order to draw a rational conclusion taking variety of other factors into account that contribute in policy making. There are no doubt that global and regional political scenario have dramatically changed since 9/11 where many countries had to abandon their policies in the wake of post 9/11 campaign against the terrorism, and Pakistan is one of them.
The 9/11 has positive and negative political implication on Pakistan�s policies but future perhaps will be the better judge to decide whether country has benefited the country but again depends on the policies of rulers. 9/11 can proved to be mile-stone in the history of Pakistan, which either can be result into disastrous or turn out to be a guarantor besides the immediate economic gains what military regime has achieved at the cost of its decision to renounce its so-called policies to support Taliban and militancy in Kashmir.
As presently Pakistan President Mushraf shows inclination to put the country on right path of building its image as moderate state by rooting out extremism, reforming madras�s, banning terrorist organizations, and externally seeking peace with India by showing flexibility on Kashmir. First, if he is true to his words and not buying time for himself and not doing under pressure its results ultimately can benefit Pakistan. But what if he is gone in the wake of assassination attempt or coup. if current policies are sincerely carried forward by musharaf or his successors Pakistan will certainly be beneficiary but again depends if country�s military elite is ready to sacrifice its vested political interests for the sake of people and country�s civil rule. While Pakistan�s nuclear deterrent has become its hazard and problem for itself.
9/11 may have forced to do Pakistani rulers what 56 years its people have failed to do despite their deep desire.
However, take a quick glance of past bilateralism has not succeeded to overcome the barriers and write any new history between these two countries. While both states pursue narrow and static policies on Kashmir since Kashmir dispute demands a holistic human approach to resolve this issue. As two states have different approaches and angles to view Kashmir conflict that is real impediment in the solution. In Pakistan for last 56 years its leadership, first of all failed to create any consensus that who should rule the country, and second they failed to review its policy failures not only on Kashmir but as wholesome, and not ready to take fresh approach to evolve policy consensus that serves its national interests, instead of depending on anti-India bashing whether it be Kashmir, nuclear, economy, or intra-provincial political issues. While fact is that in this anti-India ba shing has cost Pakistan heavily from territorial integrity to economy and politically while India has progressed steadily in all fields. India�s policies do not revolve around Pakistan and in some ways India had decided to accept status quo and stop fighting. But what both states share that they do not susceptible to grant any concession to Kashmiri�s.
As genuine hope for peace can be attached if both countries are ready to change their stance and inclined to view it with human problem which are Kashmiri. But if both states are still not ready to accept it as human issue, and are not inclined to make any concession to the Kashmiri, they will not be able to reach any acceptable agreement that last long.
People are genuinely concerned and Question about the fate of present initiatives or dialogues, and question how and why current initiatives could be different than previous ones. They argue that when both countries were conventional military powers, and India being superior and larger convention power has had military edge over Islamabad to dictate its decision. Now that Pakistan being nuclear power where nuclear deterrent believed to be working well in the favour of Pakistan that contained the war between two countries otherwise war seemed to have been inevitable in last one decade. Many analysts argue that when Pakistan understands that its nuclear deterrent has forced India to exercise restraint why Pakistan would accept any pressure and withdraw from the Kashmir. While some argue resolution of conflict with Pakistan is India�s need not Pakistan as India has regional and gl obal ambitions while Pakistan is a country, which has no policy so far to pursue nor its rulers seem to be serious to ponder over policy rationales.
Despite reservations and pacifism persist about the fate of present peace initiatives albeit one positive and healthy development has been witnessed with the fresh initiatives that both sides have recognized the significance of the CBMs first time before touching to thorny issue, and some steps are being taken to overcome the mistrust and hatred that exist between both countries. But some risks are involved in the current peace initiatives since Pakistan regimes conflicting statements signal their unhealthy approach as they have not yet developed any consensus over policy, and peace initiatives appear to be single man show. As on the one hand Mushraf has indicated his inclination to demonstrate flexibility over Kashmir with India while on the other hand he still makes false promises and gives false hopes to Kashmiri people to solve issue according to the Kashmiri aspirations. T he fact is that it is not only India that opposes Kashmiri aspirations but Kashmiri aspirations do not suit either country and neither will be ready to renounce its control over their respective controlled territories. The UN resolutions equally do not represent the aspirations of Kashmiri people when resolutions attach strings to restrict the right of choice and confine and conditional them with India or Pakistan. But insist or emphasis on UN resolutions by the Kashmiri does not mean resolutions reflect the Kashmiri�s aspirations rather it is the only legitimate tool in the hands of Kashmiri�s of different schools of opinion to challenge the control of both countries over their respective parts. There is no doubt that Pakistan ruling regimes internal political feuds have largely misused the UN resolutions against India, and subsided effective Kashmiri voices on international forums by restricting this right in its controlled parts of Azad Kashmir-Gilgit Baltistan.
But now as Islamabad appears to prepare itself to set UN resolutions aside and deal with India what suits to its ruling cliques or undefined national interests, clearly conflicts to the Kashmiri aspirations and continued misuse of term can greatly disturb the efforts and undermine the initiatives if clear and open approach has not been taken. The deceptive policies of Islamabad will ultimately weaken the position of Islamabad not only among the Kashmiri�s but also among the international community.
Kashmiri�s are not averse to the peace, and perhaps they are more eager for peace than India or Pakistan since they have lost generation of youth but also confront to a situation where its culture, traditions, history of tolerance and communal harmony has been badly disturbed and destroyed. But they may certainly claim to be right heirs of Kashmir to decide its future not because they laid their lives but because they wish to preserve their political identity linked with the thousands of years old history and culture. Question is that how their identity can be protected by being a divided entity?
The other notable point is that Kashmiri�s have never shared Pakistan�s military anti-India communal agenda since in three parts of Kashmir there are people who subscribe different schools of opinion including pro-India, pro-Pakistan and pro-independence. Their ratio could vary but no single party can make claim having full support of Kashmiri�s. There are people who seek Kashmir�s accession with Pakistan apparently for being co-religion. But fact is that their ostensible pro-Pakistan posture is self-serving since Islamabad and New Delhi both politically and financially benefit their proxy politicians and put them to the power into their respective territories through the proxy politics in order justify their control.
However, their arguments being-co-religion in today�s world do not fall inline since East Pakistanis had to seek independence as their dreams of brotherhood were badly shattered when West Pakistan�s domination deprived them from their economic and democratic rights. In present Pakistan political, economical and sectarian issues also help to understand the priorities of nationalities that constitute federation of Pakistan. While pro-Indian school of thought support accession with India along the secular and democratic lines sounds better than pro-Pakistani viewpoint. But India�s flawed and proxy democracy in Kashmir has alienated and disappointed people from the Indian rule. The third pro-independence viewpoint carries wider and broader appeal for all schools of thought but in the last 15 years of practice of so-called pro-independence school of thought political organization, t hat claims to be the pioneer of militancy, practices have widely discredited this viewpoint in the eyes of common Kashmiri and international community. The pro-independence political organization have largely painted its image during proxy militancy as more communal and anti-India nationalism by not only attacking, and forced hundreds and thousands of Hindu Pandits to flee from Valley but killings of secular, pro-democracy and pro-India academics, politicians and other activists by them has left stigma on pro-independence school of thought. While genuine progressive nationalist political organizations do not suit either of country as they fear they may succeed to carry wider appeal for all people of Kashmir of all faiths, and projecting somehow this pro-communal so-called pro-independence groups they have succeeded to undermine this school of thought.
But again question arises that neither country would support this idea, as Pakistan�s immediate concerns and interests with Kashmir are deeper than India from its water resources to the geo-strategic importance of Gilgit Baltistan. Pakistan position becomes vulnerable if genuine pro-independence forces dominant. While at present disputed status of controlled territories equally does not support Islamabad because it legitimizes Kashmiri�s right to challenge every single act of the government of Pakistan takes internally to exercise its extra-Sovereign right. In the past Pakistan had not confronted to any internal political opposition in its controlled parts or on any international for a because of lack of political awakening and education, and Pakistan had successfully managed to divert public attention toward the Indian occupation.
In last 15 years of proxy militancy in Indian controlled Kashmir people under Pakistan�s controlled territories have graduated politically and have been more vocal to economical, political discriminatory acts, and violations of fundamental rights by Islamabad. The international forums like UN Human Rights Commission that Pakistan initially used to expose Indian human rights violations but continued practice dragged other Kashmiri ex-patriots in overseas to raise violations of fundamental rights taking place in Pakistan controlled territories at UN human rights Commission and with UN Secretary General.
While issue of Mangla Dame�s extension forced Kashmiri expatriates to rise against Pakistan in Europe and North America that perhaps contributed to change in Islamabad�s perception. The continued disputed status and Pakistan�s control under UN resolutions appears to be disturbing for Pakistan than India as growing awareness among Kashmiri�s about their economic, political, cultural and constitutional rights bring them directly into the confrontation with Islamabad to denounce its unconstitutional acts. The presence of UN resolutions provides legitimacy to Kashmiri not only against India but equally against Pakistan to challenge its acts those violate their rights.
While Islamabad�s 14 years financial investment on the APHC couldn�t help to maintain its political control on them and eventually Pakistan itself had to brand them anti-movement that exposes tactics of Pakistan how it discredits Kashmiri if they are not tuned accordingly. The statement of Pakistan�s foreign minister Khurashid Kasuri leaves no illusion of Pakistan�s approach toward Kashmiri�s, when he asked both countries �to stop playing their favourites�. This statement exposes the nature of leadership Kashmiri provide, and freedom they want.
Coming back to seek the answer about the fate of dialogues might need to take stock of political developments on international arena into consideration that have changed the nature of present initiatives. As cold war is over, and lone global power era has dawned that plays primary role in determining and defining the policies and nature of relationship among the regions and countries. The present Mushraf�s conciliatory tune toward India is not a result of any goodwill rather it is the result of US mounting pressure and policies to which Collin Powel has acknowledged in its article in Foreign Affairs Journal. India has no reason to cease this opportunity since concessions and assurances are from Pakistan�s sides. The nuclear proliferation issue of Pakistan and US generosity toward Mushraf regime indicates that Mushraf has conceded many demands including peace with India. T he current confidence building measures (CBMs) with India are taking place under US pressure and the fate of peace process is based on two assumptions, first, as long as US genuine interest in peace lies efforts may succeed. Second, what lesson Pakistani rulers learn from current developments and bring about change in its policy and reconstruct it accordingly so that every time they may have not to do under carrot and stick. .
As South Asian region is receiving more attention since extremism, terrorism and nuclear issues are dominating and occupying the centrality in White House. The current initiatives between India and Pakistan will not be guided by the aspirations of Kashmiri�s, or Islamabad�s interests rather to neutralize the forces posing threat to the global security and peace.
Mumtaz Khan
Vice-Chair
International Kashmir Alliance
Ph: 416 889 0388
[email protected]
HOME PAGE