From CBMs to OBMs

Pakistan’s Act 74 and India’s adherence to a solution within it’s constitution are both closed doors with little space to breath within.

If civility is the hallmark of democracy and human nature dictates that what is precious will be coveted by others; India, Pakistan and China have a clear conflict of interest with the population of the erstwhile State of Jammu and Kashmir. Their conflict of interest with each other as sovereign States has to be uniformly seen as secondary (at best) by the people of this divided State.

A fact perhaps not highlighted enough is that each region was denied the opportunity to make an un-coerced, free of external influence and informed choice on how they wanted to proceed from a princely State governed by an all-powerful Maharajah with limited-though progressive for the times–franchise to a modern representative democracy.

Making clear that a genuine semblance of a State existed, architectured by institutions and a definition of boundaries along with continuity of governance since 1846 should have been reason enough to restrain India and Pakistan from coveting the region. More so, Britain as suzerain should have resisted from trying to compel the Maharajah to make a choice of either India or Pakistan, neither of which suited the ruler or the collective interest of his subjects. In essence the legitimate stakeholders of the State were denied a clear opportunity to make their aspirations clear.        

Every intrigue that boiled in the State pre-partition was given opportunity to infuse and forment once Pakistani and Indian troops entered to make it a battleground for competing national identities. Even UN involvement conceded to understanding the nature of the problem as an Indian and Pakistani territorial problem, formally characterised by the institutional nomenclature UNCIP (United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan). Sixty-four years have certainly complicated matters: what could have been an uncomplicated transition from autocracy to democracy has been a series of wanton abuse of democratic principles by Pakistan, India and China. Certainly not an ongoing process with open ended possibilities. Pakistan’s Act 74 and India’s adherence to a solution within it’s constitution are both closed doors with little space to breath within. The United Nations has also not adhered to it’s charter by making the collective decision of the people of the State paramount in determining their future.

The idea of progressing from CBMs (confidence-building measures) to OBMs (ownership-building measures) is to revert the problem-solving ambit back into the hands of the primary stakeholders viz. The 20 million or so people living across the breadth of the divided State. The majority of us have not been convinced by what we’ve witnessed since 1947 and are fed-up of being confused sans solutions. The frustration of an uncertain future with limited ability to change things for the better is an unaffordable disability in this day and age. It has taken India and Pakistan close to 64 years to devise a tenuous mechanism in the form of CBMs that manages a conflict (their conflict). Resolving the conflict has it’s key buried deep in public opinion of the State. The underlying argument is that the ultimate arbiters of India, Pakistan and China’s presence here are the people that live within.   

Inherently, CBMs were specific confidence-building measures between India and Pakistan. In all the five disparate regions of the former State of Jammu and Kashmir, we don’t specifically require confidence, we demand ownership. Much of the movement across the LoC via permits (approximately 16,000 since the inaugral bus service on April 7, 2005) has not only been trouble-free, it has given a taster of what an un-divided Kashmir can reap for the population. Cross-LoC movement didn’t re-ignite the communal inferno that engulfed this territory in 1947. It’s roots always stemmed from activity in British India pre-partition and the nascent nation states of India and Pakistan had a clear motive in exporting it here.

Therefore a need for OBMs. If we begin on the road to ownership, after some initial hurdles the gradual economic pace of our region will speed up as will clarity on how to develop our institutions. That pace will be more sure and direct than the current Indo-Pak CBMs, which are very slow and their ultimate direction is to cement an agree-able method of co-existence between the nation-states of India and Pakistan in Kashmir. If the ownership route is not adopted, it could ultimately result in our surrender to their joint ownership or even tripartite if you include China.

Bringing the Pakistani-adminstered Kashmir context into closer focus. Current Indo-Pak CBMs give zero civil space to create and invent initiatives that will help uplift the local population. The political set-up persists in conforming to Pakistan’s strategic (military) objectives and we have already lost three generations for want of a political roadmap for the future of our society. Pakistan’s pretext of a Indian invasion still holds the legitimacy of a rubber stamp amongst most if not all members of the local power set-up here.

Travelling throughout the territory it is abundantly clear that matters of governance are not being dealt with according to the population’s aspirations. Each and every government department consistently laments that they don’t have the resources or the necessary "clearance" to embark on initiatives demanded by the public.

Hardly a day passes by without some issue of infrastructure development, administrative negligence or the Pakistani State’s inability to deliver coming to notice. Preserving the boundaries they control along with the mind-sets of the people that habitate within has always taken precedence over all else. For example, a 10 kilometre stretch of road between Holaar (a town by the River Jhelum) in Pakistani-administered Kashmir and Beor in Pakistani Punjab is a major route from Kotli to Rawalpindi. This particular route generates quite possibly the highest volume of trade and tax revenue for the Pakistani government, yet it’s been many a year since that road has yet to mature as a road.

The hunger of civil society to reform the administrative structure, conduct accurate research on the economic resources of the State, adopt a hands-on approach to infrastructure development, open old routes to other parts of the divided territory is such that the governing structure is simply not equipped to deliver. Taxation can most certainly not be equated with representation. The need for ownership is greater now than ever.

The crucial tipping point in one’s view is when civil society here will gain access to State resources that are otherwise diverted to private coffers. Adopting a transparent and consultative mechanism to prioritise where resources should be allocated would not only give the necessary vibrancy to civil society, it would finally embark us on the road to progress. In the meantime, all our efforts will continue to resemble the efforts of our previous lost generations.

Finally, though recognising that India and Pakistan’s fig leaf is Kashmiri independence- as it entails political as well as territorial loss for both countries – it also enables both countries to exude confidence and maturity to accede to the will of the people, over whom governance will always be fraught with discord and characterised by an unsettled dispute. By Kashmiris taking ownership, the era of genuine post-colonial governance could be ushered in, bringing opportunity for the bereaved masses of the two fledgling democracies too. Otherwise, the opportunity cost will always be directly borne by the opportunity-hungry masses throughout the region.   

...

Author is a writer, broadcaster and activist working for civil society development in Pakistani administered Kashmir and can be mailed at sahaafi@gmail.com.

This article was first published in Rising Kashmir (a Srinagar-based English daily) on the 20^th of April 2011.

The subject matter of this article was referenced about 20 days later in the following news report by Kashmir Media Service (KMS):

London, May 11 (KMS): Kashmir Centre London held a roundtable meeting in the House of Lords, which was chaired by Lord Qurban Hussain.

Professor Richard Bonney, Emeritus Professor of the University of Leicester, presented his paper ‘The Future of Kashmir: from CBMs (confidence-building measures) to OBMs (ownership-building measures)’ in which he stressed the need to ‘develop mechanisms whereby the genesis, planning and implementation of future measures for peace rest with the people of divided Kashmir’. He went on to say that it was imperative that the Kashmiris themselves not only needed to understand the confidence building measures but also had to claim ownership of that which was to be of the greatest importance to them.

Link:

Professor Richard Bonney also critiqued the concept of OBMs or Ownership-Building-Measures in his blog:

Link:


This article was also published by World Kashmir Awareness Forum:

Link:

Accommodating China in Kashmir

Noticing that there is a grand conflicting interplay between two emerging economic powers (India and China) combined with the dilemma of a superpower (U.S.A.) that has invested so much in the region and not forgetting the tussle between arch-rivals India and Pakistan, this has all the ingredients of a major conflagration at some point.

The anti-totalitarian sentiment that has swept North Africa is such a focal point of global discussion, so much so that reverberations of mass protest have been felt in Beijing too. Whilst it is clear that the great Chinese  behemoth is in no mood to relent to democratic aspirations amongst it's citizens, it is equally clear that it has delivered economic opportunity, education and healthcare on a scale much greater than any of it's immediate neighbours in South/Central Asia. Therein lies one of the many conundrums that characterise the ascent of China as a major global power.

After more than a century of external interference and intrigue into it's affairs, the region that had historically enjoyed high volumes of trade with the rest of the world, re-merged as the People's Republic of China on the 1st of October 1949, under the chairmanship of Mao Zedong. China's relationship with India and Pakistan since, hasn't resembled a straightforward, linear curve.

The appellation of brother, though now firmly attached to the China-Pakistan friendship was initially invoked to describe the relationship between India and China. That changed during the 1962 Indo-China War that resulted from China's incursion into Aksai-Chin, ostensibly to build a highway. It should be elaborated here that though the territory cited above (14,380 sq miles) was a part of the erstwhile Dogra State of Jammu and Kashmir, the Chinese had never accepted the British-negotiated boundary in the 19th century. This loss of territory by India seemed to have a positive impact on Sino-Pak relations subsequently, to the extent that Pakistan decided to unilaterally cede further Kashmiri territory to China in the shape of the Trans-Karakoram Tract (2,239 sq miles) in the following year viz. 1963. Needless to add, the accompanying border agreement between China and Pakistan wasn't recognised by India. Even less needless to add, is the absence of consultation with the Kashmiri public.

The 1960's had further intrigues in store that affected the India-Pakistan-China triangle. For example, in the 1965 Indo-Pak War, China is reported to have gone as far as threatening to open a second front against India. Earlier, there is evidence to suggest that China had made 'diplomatic' efforts to woo the Kashmiri political leadership on either side of the LOC, to militarily oust India from the Kashmir Valley. In seperate instances, the Chinese conducted talks directly with Sheikh Abdullah, with a representative of K.H. Khursheed and directly with Sardar Qayoom and Abdul Khaliq Ansari. The idea was to send batches of youth to China for training, once a batch had been prepared, it would be followed by another. Apparently, the reason cited for breakdown of talks on this side of the LOC was that contrary to Chinese insistence not to involve Pakistan in the scheme, at least one of the members decided that seeking advice from Pakistan was unavoidable.

As time moved on, India and China's rivalry became increasingly pronounced. The 1970's witnessed American support for China while India allied itself with the Soviets. India's traditional support for the 'One China' policy has also fallen victim to the dip in relations between the two countries. India's decision to grant asylum to the Dalai Lama was a reversal of India's initial stance of recognising Tibet as a part of China. More importantly perhaps, post Cold-War India's relationship with the U.S. is seen by many to be a

form of bulwark against the rise of China.

On China's part, they inevitably saw increasing strategic mileage in bolstering Pakistan and making efforts to constrain India. Redressing the balance of power by aiding Pakistan in it's efforts to acquire nuclear weapons and missile technology was a move in this direction. China has also - almost - managed to deftly utilise soft and smart power to achieve what Soviet Russia couldn't do with a military juggernaut in the 1980's. Namely, to access the warm waters of the Gulf by taking the burden of infrastructure building from the Pakistanis. This move also complicates if not stutters American interests in Pakistan. The Sino-Pak relationship also enjoys the blessings of the right-wing 'Islamist' brigade that in normal circumstances wishes to disrupt any relationship between Muslims and Non-Muslims.

How does all the above relate to Kashmir?

Noticing that there is a grand conflicting interplay between two emerging economic powers (India and China) combined with the dilemma of a superpower (U.S.A.) that has invested so much in the region and not forgetting the tussle between arch-rivals India and Pakistan, this has all the ingredients of a major conflagration at some point. The starting point of potential conflagration would be the region of Gilgit Baltistan. It is highly unlikely that India and the U.S. would be comfortable with a road and possible rail link between China and the Arabian Sea. It is little wonder that the Pakistanis (and Chinese) are nervous about current discussions taking place in the U.S. about increasing Chinese 'encroachment' into the Gilgit Baltistan region and a rumour that activists - hailing from this region in exile - have been given the green signal by the Americans to move for an independent State. 

Judging from comments made by various Pakistanis on the issue, it seems they still have trouble linking the denial of constitutional and economic rights to the people of Gilgit Baltistan, in relation to how they perceive Pakistan's presence. That matters little to China but if Pakistan considers itself a democracy, it has to relent to the collective decision of the people in the region. It cannot simply assert what it perceives to be it's national interest and expect the public of Gilgit Baltistan to simply adhere.

Pakistan hasn't felt any compulsion to ask the Chinese to employ maximum local labour  and transfer technology wherever it is building roads, tunnels and bridges in the region.  That would not suit it's interests. The Pakistanis are happy to enjoy royalties - shared by a corrupt few – for the simple task of allocating work and territory to the Chinese. If the  people of Gilgit Baltistan had constitutional and economic rights (by extension – independence) the scenario that is emerging would be difficult to imagine. Similar arguments can be made with reference to Chinese infrastructure work being carried out in Pakistani-administered Kashmir. 

While the governments of India, China, Pakistan and the U.S. for that matter, continue to trade, conduct infrastructure-building agreements and apply self-fulfilling policies: the rage and bubbling lava that emanates from the absence of a clear, constitutional and self-determined existence for the territory bounded into the 'Kashmir Issue', continues to  rise incessantly. While all the aforementioned sovereign countries continue indulging in their strategic calculations minus the aspirations of the people that reside in these territories, the concept of a neutral Kashmir becomes increasingly rational.

China's increasing water shortages and rapid desertification give further explanation for their forays into the 3rd pole. Their incursions into Ladakh have gained further momentum as they secure an increasing share of territory in Gilgit Baltistan. While the presence of India, Pakistan and the U.S. in the region may be curtailed - at least in theory – using democratic means of resistance, it is a challenging thought to comprehend as to how authoritarian Chinese presence in the region could be controlled. Engaging the international community would be imperative as engaging the Chinese in one's experience has thus far proved to be futile.

For those in our region who see the beneficial aspects of China's relationship with Pakistan (be it economic, to counter America and/or India) and praise China's tactic to issue stapled visas to travelers from the Kashmir Valley, should understand that though in the short-term, it may appear as if China's role in Kashmir is benevolent, it is highly unlikely that a country that doesn't respect the freedom of it's own people is going to subscribe to the aspirations of freedom of it's neighbours.   

...

Author is a writer, broadcaster and activist working for civil society development in Pakistani administered Kashmir and can be mailed at sahaafi@gmail.com 

This article was first published in Rising Kashmir (a Srinagar-based English daily) on the 9th of March 2011

...

This article was also published by World Kashmir Awareness Forum:


http://www.kashmirawareness.org/accommodating-china-in-kashmir/

The growing relevance of Turkey

It's policy of relative pragmatism has shown that it has developed a fine art of balancing what most others get muddled up, in either action or interpretation viz. Islam and secularism, Asia and Europe, modern and ancient. 

Turkey's history, geography and demographic content have throughout the years, compelled one to maintain a keen eye on it's political performance and extent of influence in the world. Witnessing the toppling of regimes languid in governance and ruthless in repression in it's vicinity, portends a global scenario where the discussion of freedom, secularism, human rights and the role of Islam in Muslim majority societies will adopt a frenetic pace. Understanding how Turkey went through the motions of a moribund 'Khilafah' through much of the 19th century before withstanding ultra-secular surgery in the 20th century provides little of historic significance, until one studies the astonishing rise of the Justice and Development (AK) Party under Recep Tayyip Erdogan in the 21st century.  

Before counting it's key achievements and it's growing relevance to the freedom 'charge' in the Middle East as well as our conflict-ridden region, it would be essential to emphasise the oft-repeated mantra of this writer about the contemporary relevance of delivery of good governance; underpinned by economic efficiency as opposed to charmed rhetoric, religious (Islamic) or otherwise. No country in the 'Muslim World' embodies that sentiment or fits that description more aptly than Turkey. Coupled with it's rising influence in global politics, there is little else in terms of a role model for Muslim-majority states to aspire to. Indeed, in a recent conversation with one of Pakistan's senior-most (albeit retired) foreign service officials, yours truly posed a question as to which country in the world could save Pakistan from it's current dire predicament? Though he hesitated in response, he heartily agreed with my suggestion of Turkey.

In a discussion with Mirwaiz Umar Farooq outside his residence in the summer of 2009, one sensed a lack of direction in what he perceived to be the way forward for his 'constituency'. In his own nuanced manner, he shared the indignation conveyed to him  regarding various facets of the 'Muslim World'. This writer cynically suggested that rather than take influence from Pakistan, which in this writer's opinion has - at the best of times - difficulty in distinguishing between it's elbow and the rest of it's arm, that he would be better advised to solicit advice from Turkey. Many an example of the substance of Turkey's diplomatic credentials were put to him. Though he cited issues related to confiscation of his passport by the Indian authorities at the time, one does wonder whether or not he heeded that advice in due course.

This coming June, Turkey's third general elections of the 21st century are due. Opinion polls suggest that Erdogan's AK Party - which some foreign commentators somewhat frivolously refer to as 'mild Islamists' - will return to power for an unprecedented third term. There is more than a hint of envy directed towards the way Turkey - under the AK party - has turned around not just the economy, curbing inflation (omitting the dreaded multiple zeros that the Turkish Lira was famous for), drastically curbing government debt, increasing per capita income; that it has changing the whole nature of negotiations for EU membership, from a hitherto utter wanna-be European country, to one that is assertive in it's identity and confident in it's aspiration, to be the indispensable hub between European and Asian markets.

The manner in which Erdogan has curbed the ultra-secular yet deficient in governance traits of the military, erstwhile politicians and judiciary is nothing short of remarkable. Turkey made it through the financial tsunami of the recent past virtually unscathed. It's 5% rate of growth has only been bettered by India and China. No mean feat.

How Turkey has dealt with conflict (both internal and external, East vs. West, current as well as historic) shows how serious it is to re-align it's importance as well as integrate with the world. It has displayed a pro-active stance, subtlety and forthrightness in foreign relations as and when it deemed appropriate. It mattered little who their counterpart was. The Kurds, Armenia, Greece, Israel, Iran, the Arab World, the Europeans or indeed the Americans, all bar none have been creatively engaged. The old Ottoman pedigree has resurfaced at times it seems. Furthermore, the Turkish army in Afghanistan is probably the only external force that maintains respect from all sides of the conflict. Meanwhile, the Turkish business community (religious and otherwise) when not painstakingly searching for global markets old and new, are waxing lyrical about the AK party.

It's policy of relative pragmatism has shown that it has developed a fine art of balancing what most others get muddled up, in either action or interpretation viz. Islam and secularism, Asia and Europe, modern and ancient. Modern Turkey's relevance to a burgeoning mass freedom movement in the Middle East should be all too clear. With respect to our region, yours truly has on numerous occasions in the past few weeks half-jokingly suggested to Pakistani friends to facilitate a 'Turkish Handover' of Pakistan. On a more serious note, as Turkey becomes more relevant in Central Asia and further East beyond Turkmenistan, a neutral Kashmir would be the ultimate trading hub enabling smooth cross-movement of trade, ideas and people.

Recounting the potential pitfalls that Turkey has managed to skillfully subside would be useful - admittedly through a long drawn out process of trial and error – 85% of Turkish respondents to an AP-Gfk poll described religion (Islam) to be an “extremely” or very “important” part of their lives. In the same vein, 65% of poll respondents wanted religious leaders to stay out of government. Much of Turkey's public and some in the outside world notice Turkey's slant to the 'East' yet simultaneously they recognise the importance of association with Europe, not least for inspiration in terms of continuously improving institutional mechanisms for human rights and the economy.

It would be grossly inappropriate if Turkey's relevance to Pakistani-administered Kashmir were not touched on. In this respect, when the earth-shattering earthquake of October 2005 befell this territory, Recep Tayyip Erdogan was the first foreign dignitary to surface in Muzaffarabad. Turkish relief and rescue teams were fast and frenetic in their work. They topped off their contribution by building a whole new administrative block sans involvement of the local population in construction. Perhaps an indication of how wise they were. They had no doubt heard stories of how essential building materials get siphoned off amidst the hustle and bustle of construction. The 'finished product'  could arguably be descibed as the most stoic example of infrastructure building in the area since the Dogra Era. 

To end this piece by paraphrasing Turkey's most notable author and critic of our times, would go some-way in re-vitalising the essence of the message delivered. Orhan Pamuk describes Turkey as no longer being as poor as it once was. "No longer is it a peasant society ruled by its army, but a dynamic nation with a strong civil society."

...

Author is a writer, broadcaster and activist working for civil society development in Pakistani administered Kashmir and can be mailed at sahaafi@gmail.com

This article was first published in Rising Kashmir (a Srinagar-based English daily) on the 23rd of February 2011

Britain's responsibilities in Kashmir

The notion of Britain having any kind of responsibility in solving the 'Kashmir Issue' would alarm much of the right-wing in Westminster as it would the Indian State, never lax in confronting the advocacy of successive British Foreign Secretaries in the 'labour years', from the late Robin Cook to the most recent David Milliband. Those who do urge and encourage Britain's involvement have traditionally been prospective members of the UK parliament, from constituencies with a heavy weightage of voters originating from Pakistan or Kashmir. There also happen to be various parliamentary committees and what could be loosely described as lobby groups that highlight the right of self-determination, UN resolutions and Indian atrocities in the Kashmir Valley.

Before one looks at certain aspects of Britain's historic role in Kashmir, it is important to recognise that most activity that has solicited or rebuffed Britain's role has invariably – either directly or indirectly – alluded to the 'Kashmir Issue' as being a territorial dispute  between India and Pakistan. The rebuffers generally support India's position while the  solicitors endorse Pakistan's position. 

The concluding stalemate on each occasion can be reasoned by the sanctity of the right to self-determination of Kashmiris being diluted into the national interest of Pakistan and as an 'unfinished agenda of partition'. The UN resolutions (of which no Kashmiri representing Kashmiris was consulted on) despite the sterling efforts of Owen Dixon, Frank Porter Graham and others; could not fit Kashmir into  either of two boxes named India and Pakistan. Pakistan's agreement in Simla to confine the issue to bilateral discourse is constantly cited by India as reason to refrain from the UN as well as international mediation in general. The concept of Indian atrocities is also pushed into bilateralism by India's repeated assertions of cross-border militancy fuelled by Pakistan. The stalemate in one's opinion is further compounded when certain interests in AJK (which includes the ruling class) and amongst the migrants of the Valley, stand resolutely behind Pakistan and parrot the same old rhyme.

Though India detests outside interference, never mind a colonial sense of responsibility on the part of Britain, it also happens to be far more integrated with the world. India is  Britain's second largest foreign investor after the United States. The widely held perception that Pakistan is on the wrong side of the (global) fence of terrorism and has not developed institutions for governance and economy, make the country's stance to solicit international mediation on Kashmir rather remarkable. It can be clearly seen what prompted Thomas Pickering, a former ambassador to New Delhi to treat "The US role in the Kashmir conflict to be as subliminal as possible."

Given that Kashmiris have not been allowed to determine their own fate and understanding that governments (including Britain), tend to cloak the defence of their national interest in altruistic rhetoric, it becomes imperative for people in Kashmir to dis-engage from the prism of Indo-Pak politics. If they remain within that prism, their aspirations will remain a distant tertiary ideal to wider political and strategic imperatives exercised by global and regional powers. 

Coming to Britain's historic role and it's provision of tutelage and suzerainty, which gave it paramountcy over the Dogra State. It had monitored from close quarters how the first Dogra Maharajah (Ghulab Singh) (with his taking of Rajouri in 1821) had carefully linked disparate territories into what later emerged as an interwoven whole when the final piece of the puzzle, namely the Poonch Jagir was integrated into the Dogra State by his great grand-son Hari Singh in 1936. Making a nation state out of a diverse ethnic, regional, linguistic and religious mix from a plethora of 'Rajwaaras' (principalities) was a major achievement. A sort of feat that many modern nation states find challenging. 

The British despite their visible frustration (with Pratap Singh in particular – devolving his powers by installing a British Resident from 1889 to 1905) at the weak standard of governance in the State, also witnessed the formation of separate electorates based on religious identity, imported by Hari Singh (one of his numerous titles was interestingly Sipar-i-Saltanat-i-Inglishia – a soldier of the British Crown) from British India in 1934. This concept is what some historians perceive as fueling the seeds of partition in the Indian sub-continent. While some consider the 3rd of June 1947 Indian Independence Act to have given the option of staying independent, for princely states upon lapse of British paramountcy and outside of the two dominions of India and Pakistan, it is hard to imagine how the Maharajah could have done much more than delay the inevitable. Immunity from the communal yet internecine conflict that engulfed Hindus and Muslims in India and Pakistan were bound to affect the diversity of Kashmir. It was just a matter of when rather than if.

While some go as far as suggesting that Kashmir was divided by design, it could be argued that if the British willed, they could have navigated the Dogra State away from the messy prospect of joining one or the other dominion, knowing full well that either choice would invite the ire of one of the religious communities whose fate was at stake. The British could have certainly refrained from pressurising the Maharajah to accede to one or the other. They could even have maintained paramountcy over the State and further immunised it from India's partition. There are even suggestions that the British had something similar in mind much before partition viz. maintaining the independence of the Dogra State. Whether that idea changed during a game of polo between Hari Singh and his English playmates? was a result of a supposed outburst by Hari Singh whilst speaking at the 1930 Round Table Conference in London - in favour of Indian Independence – or some other reason? is yet to be clearly established.

Britain understands as much as anybody that the 'Kashmir Issue' is unlikely to be solved bilaterally and the role of the international community is at best going to remain marginal. It equally understands that an increasingly aware public in Kashmir will not tolerate the prevailing stalemate and it's genuine desire for de-militarisation and to carve out a future of it's own doing. The Kashmiri public is no longer silent when it hears of yet another Indo-Pak parley, that promises to find a political settlement to Kashmir which the people of Kashmir will find acceptable. Indeed, at a recent Jamaat-e-Islami convened Kashmir Conference in Islamabad, one was witness to a barrage of criticism directed at Pakistani state policy on Kashmir, not least the concern that Pakistan has always pursued Kashmir within the context of it's own interest and has consistently failed to acknowledge the interests of the Kashmiri public. More than an indication was given that Kashmiris will pursue their own path to salvation, distinct from Pakistani interference.

Britain's responsibility lies partly by way of it's historic involvement in the region. It can do much to help open up civil space in Kashmir and assist the public in developing the tools necessary for adopting transparent and accountable governance. It would understand that the major reason why there are as much as 600,000 British citizens of AJK origin in Britain is because they are deprived of those very opportunities that they ventured out for from their homeland. The idea that what matters 'there' matters 'here' gains increasing momentum in a globally interconnected world. Input into matters as far-ranging as money laundering to protecting the environment are where Britain can play an important role.

On the home front, Britain could assist in conflict resolution by recognising the need for a separate identity for Kashmiris as opposed to Pakistanis. One of the many dangers of not doing so will prompt statements like the following by Adaalat Ali (A prominent activist for the Kashmir National identity Campaign in Britain), “British foreign secretaries can’t really justify their questions because it seems that they are speaking on behalf of Pakistan rather than their Kashmiri voters.”

Recognising that Kashmir's strategic importance makes it unthinkable for the nuclear powers of India, Pakistan and China to give up territory and the international community's unwillingness to contest that: there is obviously a limit to what Britain's responsibilities could be. The bulk of that responsibility remains with the people of Kashmir to creatively and constructively re-build their existence that will gradually make a neutral, independent Kashmir an indispensable utility for the world. 

Author is a writer, broadcaster and activist working for civil society development in Pakistani administered Kashmir and can be mailed at sahaafi@gmail.com. 

This article was first published in Rising Kashmir (a Srinagar-based English daily) on the 9th of Feb 2011.

Towards a neutral Kashmir

Intent in English

Intent in Urdu

A neutral Kashmir – a natural equilibrium

This was the first of what were a series of weekly opinion pieces for the Srinagar-based English daily 'Rising Kashmir'..........The weekly opinion title was later described as 'Across LOC' in January 2011...  

...an independent and neutral Kashmir must find appeal and objectivity not only with the masses of India and Pakistan but with the global community at large.

Glasnost fueled by youtube, facebook, blogger, twitter and others has brought us to a point in history where the people of Kashmir can either grasp a well-laid opportunity to dictate their own political future or continue languishing in the almost un-interrupted existential angst that has dogged them since the Moghul emperor Akbar's conquest in 1586.

Events in the past year - in particular – have contained all ingredients bar a road-map for governance and a clear definition of our national question. The attempt here is to do just that; or at the very least, give a pointer to the direction that the generic Kashmiri community (looking beyond the Vale too) must face in order to fulfill it's collective aspiration of making it's free will paramount in the whole scenario. 

The following adjectives come immediately to mind: neutral, independent, integrated, transparent and engaged. 

Neutral so that our territory is not subjected to the needs of others. That we don't become the proverbial pawns on a geo-strategic chessboard. An Independent status is absolutely necessary for us to take full responsibility for our actions and the fate of our destiny. Defining our territory necessitates that we remain united and integrated. The requirements of modern day good governance insist that our public representatives are transparent in what they do in our name. Engagement of all our citizens in the development of our territory within and with the global community - to meet our current human resource deficiency as well as to explore opportunity - is similarly indispensable. 

What our most direct occupiers viz. Pakistan and India have proved on ample occassions throughout their occupation since October 1947, is that they cannot simulate their security mind-set with the increasing urge of our population for civil space. Their fascination with the 18th and 19th century nation -state of Europe has not withered over time. While they exploited communal chasms within our community and thus laid the basis for our division, they utilised whatever energy and resources they could muster (enfeebling their own masses as well as ours in the process) to sustain their occupation. It's a zero sum game. Our needs and objectives cannot possibly tally with theirs. Pakistan's use of the territory they refer to as AJK (Azad Jammu Kashmir) as a forward military position (and launchpad) and India's response to subsume the Vale of Kashmir into a giant military cantonment - with it's inherent repression - left virtually nothing for a 5,000 year old civilisation to grasp onto.

Discussing and mapping out our future necessitates underlying where the battle-lines should be drawn. On one side of the barrier are the perils of brute military force and their roving clandestine agencies, Machiavellian realpolitik and local opportunistic facilitators of the occupation. On the other side are the genuine students of our integrated history, the public activists hell-bent on creating civil space and those working day and night to bring to life a format for transparent, accountable, representative, non-discriminatory and meritocratic governance.

Furthermore, Kashmiris should realise that drawing our roadmap involves conceptualising a vision of re-shaping the region from the Trans-Karakoram Tract to Trivandrum. The public of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh would be instant beneficiaries of an Indo-Pak military withdrawal from Kashmir. The phase of concealed governance allied with exhorbitant defence expenditure would give way to a relocation of resources towards human development. The tragedy of the Kashmir imbroglio has been a net disaster for the whole region save a small section of the total population: which now amounts to close on 1.5 billion.

While the suggestion for our southerly neighbours would be to move towards small federations (for ease of representative governance), it would also by logical extension require the re-integration of Punjab and Bengal. After all, the partition of 1947 not only vertically split hitherto integrated territories in two, it also gave authenticity (sic.) to the two-nation theory. A theory that has proved a bane for us in Kashmir and which many of us still cannot see beyond.

In our pursuit of defining our national question and developing a structure of good governance, it is imperative that we begin by defining and agreeing on the outlines and contours of our territory. Does it refer to the oft-cited 84,471 square miles of territory quoted by nationalists? Is it the Treaty of Amritsar defined east of Indus and west of Ravi? Does it include Shenaki Kohistan? Chitral? Hazara or even Murree? Obviously, far from the writer deciding, this point must be discussed through public forums and a conclusion drawn, based on the will of the people in all the areas aforementioned.

The suggestion for structure of governance involves organising the territory (confederation) into three units. Jammu in the south (which could include the superficially demarcated territory currently referred to as AJK – upto Poonch), the Vale in the centre (which could include the districts of Muzaffarabad, Neelam and Hattian in it's jurisdiction) and the Northern Territories (re-naming it appropraitely if they so desire) comprising of Gilgit to it's west, Baltistan at it's centre and Ladakh in it's east. 

The three units of the confederation would each have an assembly (suggestion is Jammu, Srinagar and Skardu respectively) which would exercise full fiscal control, first right over their natural and human resources and in all other matters of governance. Each unit would also have an independent judiciary, including a higher appellate court. Only those matters which are of collective concern to the whole confederation would be decided by an Upper House (Council) that would have proportionate representation from each unit (based on a combination of land mass and size of population). This Upper House would rotate it's sitting throughout the confederation i.e four months of the year in each unit.

At this point it may be appropriate to describe the caveat (or more pointedly) subterfuge periodically exercised by India and on rare occassion by Pakistan vis-a-vis defence, communications and foreign affairs. This is an outdated ploy and totally irrelevant (autonomy minus 3 if you will) to our current predicament. The people of Kashmir (the term is used generically to refer to the whole territory. Jammu and Kashmir is a legacy of Dogra rule, as they belonged to Jammu. This term discounts the Northern Territories from it's title, is slightly complicating and by using Kashmir, we not only simplify our name, it gives ownership to the rest of us who don't hail from the Vale). It is important to note that this caveat was introduced by the outgoing 'British Raj' doled out for the purposes of not inviting a whole deluge of sovereign States to announce their independence in the wake of the 3rd of June 1947 - Indian Independence Act (announcement). A different time, place, context and rationale, utterly untenable in our scenario.

Meanwhile, the genuine concerns of the non-muslim minority which includes Hindus, Buddhists and Sikhs amongst others, could best be addressed (as well as the schisms between Sunnis, Shias, Ismailis and NoorBakshis. Not forgetting the differences amongst Sunnis viz. Barelwis, Deobandis, Salafis, Ahle-e-Hadith etc.) by not including any reference to Islam in the constitution. It is crucial that every sect, denomination and religious group feels free to exercise their faith un-hindered. It is equally important that no preference or discrimination occurs in matters of justice, economic opportunity and delivery of security. Scope for positive discrimination would be provided for those marginal groups or classes of people that have been historically marginalised or neglected.  

In order to bring ourselves to the point where serious re-integration and re-definition of our territory is concerned, it is important that activism continues to penetrate through the suffocating structures imposed by our occupiers. This must be done in a civil (orderly and peaceful) manner, taking cue and inspiration from the young Valley-ites that donated their life for this cause, throughout this summer. Taking communal or sectarian positions or partaking in concealed activity that emboldens our occupiers is a clear no-no.

For those amongst us who facilitated the occupiers - and by consequence - who have benefitted from the diabolic structures put up by the latter, must be prepared to face a new environment of transparency and introspection, albeit in a civil manner. They should realise that honour, dignity and respect of a people (nation) is directly related to their conduct and integrity amongst their fellow citizens as well as with the global public at large. They should also bear in mind that their anxiety about slim economic opportunity is a direct consequence of the occupation. When we are free, accountable and responsible, we will come to realise the abundance of economic opportunities awaiting us.

The final part of this commentary should focus on geo-politics and the harsh reality of Chinese insecurity, American anxiety, Indian fear, Russian timidity and Pakistani foolishness that acts as a collective stumbling block to our freedom. This is what public power (via peaceful agitation) has to overcome. Furthermore, an independent and neutral Kashmir must find appeal and objectivity not only with the masses of India and Pakistan but with the global community at large.

Whilst understanding that the most important geo-strategic stumbling block to our path to freedom is the economic tussle between China and the U.S.A in our midst (India and Pakistan have a secondary role in that respect), it is with determined hope that this writer - in various deliberations with important stake-holders in the international community - has found mild favour with the concept of a neutral and independent Kashmir, nestled in the middle of Asia.

The difficulty is in the implementation of course. Our people would do well to study the similarities between Switzerland and Kashmir, particularly it's role as a facilitator for conflict resolution in war-ravaged Europe.

In short, balancing and harnessing the needs and potential of Asia with the addressing of our historical exposure to foreign military forces by forming a neutral Kashmir would lead to a natural equilibrium. 

...

The writer is a writer, broadcaster and activist working for civil society development in Pakistani-administered Kashmir and can be mailed at sahaafi@gmail.com

This article was first published in Rising Kashmir (a Srinagar-based English daily) on the 24th of November 2010

This article was re-titled as "The United Federation of Jammu and Kashmir" on December the 3rd 2010 by Vijay Sazawal, a Kashmiri Pandit living in the USA and running a website named Kashmirforum.org

He also commented that:
"Tanveer’s sense of idealism may be a bit unrealistic, but his love for motherland is unquestioned."

The article can be read at the following link:

http://www.kashmirforum.org/united-federation-of-jammu-and-kashmir/

....

Further reading:

"FROM CANTONMENTS TO CANTONS"

- A Modest Proposal for Kashmir

Specially invited presentation at the Kashmir Panel of the

UN Hague Appeal for Peace Conference, May 11. 1999

by Kathy Arlyn Sokol

....