Connect with us

South Asia

India, Pakistan and Hope for the Future

Published

on

Recent developments along the India-Pakistan border have grabbed the attention of the world have caused a steady build up of fear and uncertainty in both countries. The 18 September attack on an Indian army base in Kashmir and subsequent unravelling of diplomatic and military tension between the two nation has the caused a steady build up of tension and fear in the corridors of power in New Delhi, Islamabad and Rawalpindi.

With Pakistan denying the surgical strikes and India refusing to prove them wrong and providing proof, the conflict has been kept controlled. If there is any hope to keep the conflict controlled, and prevent it from full-scale war, Nawaz Sharif must be able to a fine line between coaxing India and satisfying his military. Pakistan must realize the futility and irrationality of protecting militants and terrorist groups, and for its betterment seek to dismantle its traditional, use of militants to conducting its foreign policy.

In the aftermath of the attack on the Indian army base by Pakistan-backed militants, India has adopted a multi-pronged retaliatory response by unleashing diplomatic hell on Pakistan at United Nations and by conducting surgical strikes on terrorist camps along the border. At the UN, asking it to abandon its dreams on Kashmir and ‘introspect on Balochistan’ instead. External Affairs Minister, Sushma Swaraj, lead the tirade against Pakistan stating that the world knew where terrorism and it was time for the world to isolate those nations which nurture, peddle and export terrorism. Not surprisingly, Pakistan responded to Swaraj’s ‘litany of lies’ and accused India of diverting attention from its ‘atrocities in Kashmir’.

By reaching out to fellow SAARC nation countries, New Delhi has successfully ensured the postponement of the summit in Islamabad by withdrawing from the summit and having Afghanistan, Bhutan, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka follow suit. All countries have stated their inability to attend the summit given the security environment that is not conducive to regional cooperation. On a bilateral front, India has had discussions over withdrawing Pakistan’s Most Favoured Nation Status (MFN) status and changing its stance on the Indus Water Treaty. While it has chosen not to act on those aspects of the relationship as of now, it has sent Pakistan a strong message: it will not hesitate in enforcing all forms of pressure in the future.

Ten days after the attack, India launched pre-emptive surgical strikes against terror camps along the LoC that had “positioned themselves at launch pads” ready to infiltrate and carry out attacks in Kashmir. By stating the pre-emptive nature of the strike and the fact that it does not plan to conduct any more such strikes, India ensured that the strike was not seen as an offensive attack on Pakistan territory, a move which may have escalated the conflict rapidly. Pakistan has denied the strike and has flown in foreign and domestic journalists to the LoC to prove their point. What does this mean? With India saying it conducted strikes and Pakistan saying it didn’t, where does it leave the two countries and what are the repercussions?

First, it allows the Pakistan narrative to flourish domestically. It has caused Pakistanis to further doubt India’s integrity and has raised questions as to why the Indian government has not provided greater details of the nature of the strikes and/or evidence that they happened. This suits Islamabad and Rawalpindi as they are no longer forced to respond to something ‘India made up’. Second, it allows the conflict to remain as is, and avoid further escalation of military confrontation. The truth about the strikes is known only to a select few in each country and by not providing proof of the strikes, both countries have jointly kept the conflict in control for the time being.

As the calls for providing evidence of the strikes in India gets louder, the government may be pushed into a tighter corner and forced to provide irrefutable evidence. While any evidence India provides will be refuted by Islamabad, it may provoke the sleeping dragon in Rawalpindi. The army may be forced to react to save face, if it is proved that the Indian army entered Pakistan territory. Any sort of military retaliation from Pakistan will force the right-wing nationalistic, ‘tough-on-Pakistan’ Narendra Modi government into a retaliatory war.

However, in an unprecedented move, the Nawaz Sharif government has warned the military about Pakistan’s increasing isolation. In a report by DAWN, the civilian government has sought agreement with the military on certain matters of the state, including non-interference of the military in law-enforcement cases against militant groups. Nawaz Sharif has also directed for fresh attempts to be made to wrap up the Pathankot and the Mumbai 26/11 cases and has also made a case for cracking down on the Haqqani Network, highlighting the increasing United States pressure that has already caused a deterioration in relations.

This is a silver lining on what has been a grey, foreboding cloud. While it remains unlikely that the military will buckle down it is vital for Pakistan’s civilian government to make an attempt to loosen the military’s grip on certain conditions laid down by India and the US. Cracking on terror groups such as Jaish-e-Mohammad, Lashkar-e-Taiba and the Haqqani Network will not only demonstrate the power of the civilian government, but it will earn Raheel Sharif and his men, new found respect amongst the people of Pakistan. The military’s counterinsurgency operation Zarb-e-Azb, which has been in effect since 2013 has been in full swing cracking down on terror camps in the tribal areas bordering Afghanistan. While the military’s communicating wing, has played a highly successful campaign in highlight the Pakistan military’s determination and resolve to root out militants and terrorists that threaten the country, the absence of any action against the Haqqani Network and JeM is jarring and obvious. Although Pakistan cannot overtly demonstrate that it is listening to what India is saying, showing India and the world, some goodwill will help Pakistan redeem itself in the world’s eyes. Not to mention, it will do Pakistan a whole of good domestically.

Both India and Pakistan would do well to remember that their problems will be far better resolved, if they are able to work in tandem, seeking solely diplomatic solutions. India must remind itself of its ultimate goal vis-à-vis Pakistan. New Delhi’s aim is not the military destruction of Pakistan, but to exert enough pressure that it abandons its use of terrorism as an instrument of foreign policy. It must humbly recognize that surgical strikes are not strategic game changers in the conflict, but psychological maneuvers that are directed to coerce Pakistan to give up its policy of supporting militants. If history has taught us anything it is that, Pakistan is so quintessentially bipolar in his governance that it is highly optimistic to assume that the military will let civilian government dictate terms to it. It is therefore unlikely that given the present situation, Pakistan will bow down and ‘give in’. Pakistan military intelligence agencies have been providing militant groups with support for many, many years. Their alliances with militant leaders such as Sirajuddin Haqqani, Masood Azhar and Hafiz Saeed have been sacrosanct. If the military allows civilian law enforcement agencies to act against such militant groups, the backlash will brutal and dangerous on their part.

That being said, in the spirit of discussing an optimal and ideal situation to get out of the current mess, if the civilian government in Pakistan is able to put enough pressure on the military to give into certain demands, Nawaz Sharif will be relieved having saved the country from conflict and diplomatic humiliation, however the credit will go to Raheel Sharif. The army chief will end his tenure on a high, his popularity soaring having been true to his word of rooting out militancy in Pakistan and saving the country from international isolation. In India while the army will continue to be praised for its heroism, all our aware od the political bidding behind the strikes. The Narendra Modi government will be able to pat itself on the back for successfully exercised strategic restraint against Pakistan and having shed any sort of domestic doubt that they are a government that are “too soft” on Pakistan.

Pakistan must realize that it cannot draw out and postpone the inevitable. It must seriously take down all terror and militant infrastructure in the country and disregard terrorism as an instrument of foreign policy. For far too long, the military has propagated the belief that it is doing everything it can to take down terror infrastructure in the country. While the United States has pressurized it to do more, by blocking subsidized sale of military equipment and repeatedly reminding it of its promises, Pakistan must give up its game for its own good. Irrespective of what it wants from India vis-à-vis Kashmir, it must realize that only by sincerely committing to absolving terror from its territory can it find its redemption.

Then and only then, can both India and Pakistan begin to rehash their problems.

Continue Reading
Comments

South Asia

A long way of solidarity: a voice for the voiceless Kashmiris

Avatar photo

Published

on

Friday prayers in Srinagar, Jammu and Kashmir. © John Isaac

Every year on February 5 Pakistan observes Kashmir Solidarity Day. It aims to demonstrate Pakistan’s support and solidarity with the people of Indian-occupied Kashmir, and their continuing liberation struggle, and to honor Kashmiri martyrs who sacrificed their lives fighting for Kashmir’s independence.

Every year, on Kashmir Solidarity Day, Pakistan expresses its political, moral, and diplomatic support for the righteous fight of our Kashmiri brothers and becomes its voice in the international forums.

Kashmir’s discord carries historical as well as contemporary events that hinder its political future.

Historical account of the humiliation of Kashmir’s people

The history of conflict dates back to 1947. In the June 3 plan, the princely state offered a choice between India and Pakistan. Maharaja Hari Singh deceived Pakistan and ceded Kashmir to India through a standstill agreement, which sparked an uprising of Pashtun tribesmen and the Hindu nationalists and RSS to organize a program against Muslims, killing between 20,000 and 100,000 Muslims. On October 27, 1947, Indian troops landed in Kashmir to fight against the Pashtuns and the local armies; this led to the first India-Pakistan war. During the war, India’s prime minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, promised a referendum: “The fate of Jammu and Kashmir is ultimately decided by the people; the pledge we have given is not only to the people of Kashmir but also to the world.” “We will not and cannot back out of it.”

India referred the dispute to the United Nations a little more than two months later. A resolution passed on August 13, 1948, asking both nations to withdraw their forces; once that happened, a referendum was to be held, allowing the people of Kashmir to decide their political future. But the Indian troops were never withdrawn, and the referendum never happened. On January 1, 1949, the ceasefire was agreed upon, and Kashmir became a disputed territory. Over the next 70 years, India and Pakistan fought three wars over Kashmir.

In Indian-administrated Kashmir, India maintains around 600,000 troops in Kashmir, who have committed human rights violations like rape, torture, and enforced disappearances that continue today. The number of people killed in Kashmir is estimated to be between 50,000 and 100,000, which shows the ruthlessness of the so-called largest democracy in the world.

Situation after the abolishment of articles 370 and 35A

On August 5, 2019, the Indian government abrogated Article 370 and Article 35A of the Indian Constitution, which granted Jammu and Kashmir a special status and autonomy. The Indian government enforced a curfew, disrupted communication connections, arrested political leaders, and deployed extra soldiers in the area, generating widespread resentment and demonstrations.

Since the abolition of Articles 370 and 35A, human rights abuses and violations in Kashmir have increased significantly, with claims of widespread mass arrests, torture, and extrajudicial executions by Indian security personnel. The Indian government has also restricted freedom of speech, assembly, and the press, making it impossible for citizens to openly express their thoughts and report on the state of the area.

In addition, the Indian government has been accused of fostering demographic changes in the area through the settlement of Hindu migrants, which has resulted in a fall in the percentage of the Muslim population and degradation of the Kashmiri people’s distinctive cultural and religious identity.

International human rights groups have shown concern about the situation in Kashmir and demanded an independent investigation into the reported human rights breaches and abuses. About 87 civilians have been killed by the Indian forces since the abrogation of Article 370. The international community has also advocated for a peaceful settlement to the issue that takes the Kashmiri people’s rights and interests into consideration.

The situation in Kashmir remains severe, and the continuous violence and human rights violations continue to provide the international community with a formidable task. The region’s political future is still unknown, and a sustainable resolution to the war has not yet been found.

Pakistan’s Advocacy for Kashmir

Pakistan has made several attempts to resolve the ongoing conflict in Kashmir and has sought international backing for its stance on the matter. Pakistan has repeatedly discussed the Kashmir issue at the United Nations and other international forums, stressing the need for a peaceful settlement of the conflict based on the self-determination principle and the right of the Kashmiri people to choose their destiny. Pakistan has also made diplomatic attempts to garner international support for its viewpoint, notably via the Organization of Islamic Cooperation and the Non-Aligned Movement.

Pakistan has also endeavored to provide political, diplomatic, and moral assistance for the Kashmiri resistance movement. India has accused Pakistan of financing terrorism in the area based on information that Pakistan supports separatist organizations in the region. Pakistan has denied these allegations and advocated for a peaceful settlement according to UN Resolution 47 (1948), which calls for a ceasefire, and UN Resolution 51 (1948), which calls for a plebiscite to be held in the region to determine the will of the Kashmiri people.

Despite these attempts, the situation in Kashmir remains unresolved, and a permanent resolution to the conflict has not yet been reached. The issue remains a significant source of conflict between India and Pakistan and a problem for the international community.

Conclusion:

Kashmir’s political future remains uncertain and is the subject of ongoing discussion and negotiation between India and Pakistan, as well as international engagement.

Currently, the territory is split between India and Pakistan, with India administering the greater part and Pakistan the smaller. The Line of Control (LoC), which divides the two managed territories, has often been the scene of tension and bloodshed.

There have been appeals for a peaceful conclusion that takes the rights and interests of the Kashmiri people into consideration. Some have suggested the concept of “self-determination,” in which the people of Kashmir would have the right to choose their destiny through a referendum or a negotiated solution between India and Pakistan.

Kashmir’s political future is unpredictable and vulnerable to the continuous dynamics of the war as well as the shifting political and strategic objectives of the major regional countries. The international community still has a big part to play in finding a solution, and India, Pakistan, and the other countries in the area are likely to have to be involved and support any lasting solution.

Continue Reading

South Asia

Sri Lankans deserve a clean break from the past

Avatar photo

Published

on

The decision of former president Maithripala Sirisena to run for president pits two unpopular, establishment candidates against one another. With both Sirisena and Ranil Wickremesinghe involved in past political turmoil and the current economic crisis, Sri Lankans deserve a clean break.

While a presidential election cannot be held until 2024, the Sri Lankan Electoral Commission recently announced local elections for February. With no popular mandate and as the only member of his party, President Wickremesinghe is expected to face an embarrassing defeat in the poll, but it is unlikely to bring down the government.

The announcement that Sirisena would run as president comes at a pivotal time for Sri Lankans.

Wickremesinghe warned this week that the Sri Lankan economy could contract by up to 4% this year, after shrinking 11% last year.

Last year, the island nation descended into turmoil, with an economic collapse leading to its worst crisis in years. Foreign currency shortages, runaway inflation and a recession left the government unable to make debt repayments and left Sri Lankans desperately short of food and fuel.

This led to unprecedented unrest, particularly in the capital Colombo, resulting in the deaths of protesters and police, with hundreds more injured or detained. The protests culminated in the storming and occupation of the presidential palace, forcing Gotabaya Rajapaksa to flee the country, with Wickremesinghe replacing him as president.

Sirisena has a chequered history in Sri Lankan politics.

Sirisena was part of former President Mahinda Rajapaksa’s cabinet before defecting to the opposition and winning a surprise election victory against Rajapaksa in 2015.

As President, Sirisena formed a close partnership with Wickremsinghe, appointing him Prime Minister, before the two spectacularly fell out. This culminated in the sacking of Wickremesinghe in 2018, replacing him with Mahinda Rajapaksa. At the time, Wickremesinghe claimed that the move was “unconstitutional”.

This led to a constitutional crisis and power struggle between Wickremesinghe, Rajapaksa and Sirisena, with the former President dissolving parliament and calling snap elections. Sirisena then decided to not seek re-election, leaving office in early 2019. He was replaced as president by Mahinda’s brother, Gotabaya Rajapaksa.

Recently, the Sri Lankan supreme court ordered Sirisena and several other top government, police and intelligence officials to pay millions of rupees in compensation to the victims of the 2019 Easter bombings in Colombo. The court found that Sirisena, as former president, ignored multiple warnings about an imminent terrorist attack weeks before the deadly event took place.

But Wickremesinghe is also no saint.

Wickremesinghe, a six-time prime minister, won a parliamentary vote with the backing of the Rajapaksa’s Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna party to replace Gotabaya Rajapaksa in July 2022. For this reason, he is accused of owing his position to the family.

Upon gaining the presidency, Wickremesinghe immediately cracked down on protesters, condemning the protests as “against the law” and calling protesters “fascists”. Under his watch, more than 140 protesters have been arrested and its leaders driven into hiding.

In August 2022, the United Nations condemned his government’s crackdown on protesters. The UN also criticised the repeated use of emergency measures, such as curfews, calling them a “misuse of emergency measures”.

The president has also been accused of delaying this poll, claiming the economically crippled country cannot afford to spend 10 billion rupees on a local election. However, the election commission decided to proceed despite the president’s request. Nonetheless, this raises doubts about Wickremesinghe’s respect for the democratic process.

What Sri Lankans desperately need is political stability and good economic management so the country can dig its way out of its worst crisis since independence.

Sirisena and Wickremesinghe offer neither. The former is struggling to finalise a bailout deal with the International Monetary Fund and both are notorious for poor political decision making and unpopular with a public desperate for change.

Therefore, Sri Lankans are faced with two establishment candidates who only offer more of the same.

The solution, at least for the time being, is for Wickremesinghe to call a presidential election so the next president has a clear mandate by the people. This will assist in forming a stable government and in bailout negotiations with the IMF.

Power also needs to be decentralised through ambitious political reforms that allow for wider participation and decision making in parliament. While, admittedly, this would be difficult under both Sirisena and Wickremesinghe, it is the first step in dealing with corruption and nepotism in Sri Lankan politics.

Presidential candidates serious about solving the countries problems also need to focus on key issues, such as rebuilding the economy, accountability for human rights and rebuilding political integrity and public trust.

Only once this is achieved, and Sri Lanka has shed itself of its dysfunctional political past, will it be able to recover.

Continue Reading

South Asia

A Hybrid Political System for Pakistan: A Proposal

Avatar photo

Published

on

The political system of Pakistan is an amalgamation of Islamic, British, and Indian influences, shaped by a multifaceted array of religious, ethnic, and regional factors, making it a culturally rich and ever-changing landscape. Pakistan is renowned for its powerful military establishment, which has traditionally wielded significant influence in determining its political direction. The nation’s political history is characterized by cycles of military rule, punctuated by several coups, followed by phases of democratic rule, though the military has continued to exert a significant degree of influence in the country’s politics. Furthermore, Pakistan has had to contend with the pernicious threat of extremism, with various militant groups operating within its borders and perpetrating terrorist attacks, which have destabilized the nation’s political, social, and economic stability.

This article aims to shed light on the challenges faced by the political system in Pakistan, specifically concerning the current political turmoil the country is experiencing. It also suggests a potential solution to stabilize the system and bring about a revolution in the way politics is conducted in Pakistan

The challenges faced by Pakistan’s democracy are compounded by the elite classes’ actions. The country is currently facing significant upheaval, which can be attributed to several factors. The lack of solid democratic institutions, frequent military takeovers, and the involvement of powerful military and civilian elites are among the underlying causes of the country’s political instability. Additionally, ethnic and regional conflicts, poverty, and economic growth issues further exacerbated political instability. The ongoing conflict in Afghanistan, as well as political unrest in neighboring countries, have also had an impact on the country. Furthermore, Pakistan’s history of military control, political corruption, and a lack of a deeply ingrained democratic culture have all contributed to the volatility in its political system.

The current political quagmire that plagues Pakistan is multifaceted, primarily stemming from a dearth of political acumen and a paucity of commitment on the part of leaders to prioritize the exigencies of the populace over their own personal and factional interests. This has led to a diminution of public confidence in the political system and government officials. Furthermore, the military’s prolonged political intervention and sway history has exacerbated a lack of democratic stability and accountability. Another critical conundrum that has impeded the country’s political evolution is the preponderance of corruption and nepotism in every government agency, rendering it difficult for citizens to repose trust in government officials. As a result, there is a burgeoning loss of faith in institutions of all varieties, with people losing trust in the government, corporations, and political leaders.

Furthermore, the failure of successive governments to address the issue of corruption has further undermined public trust in the political system. The permeation of corrupt practices in every government institution has made it difficult for citizens to have faith in government officials, leading to a general disillusionment with the political system. Additionally, the lack of transparency and accountability in government operations has enabled corrupt officials to operate with impunity, further eroding the public’s trust in the political system. The aforementioned issues have resulted in a political climate marked by a lack of stability and continuity, hindering the country’s economic and social development. It is imperative that the political class and other stakeholders work towards addressing these issues to ensure that the political system can effectively serve the people’s needs and promote the country’s long-term stability and prosperity.

Proposing A New Way to get stability in Political System?

A hybrid political system combines characteristics of many political systems, such as democracy and autocracy. Two examples are a semi-presidential system, which combines a prime minister and a president, and a federal system, which combines a central government with regional administrations. Hybrid systems can also include components of other kinds of democracy, such as a parliamentary system combined with a robust presidential system. These systems are frequently viewed as a compromise between competing political ideologies or as a means of balancing the strengths and shortcomings of various systems

If the official replaces the current political system with a hybrid one, it could be very beneficial. One of the main advantages of a hybrid system is that it allows for a balance of power between the legislative and executive branches of government. In a presidential system, the executive branch is separate from the legislative branch, with the president having a lot of power. In a parliamentary system, however, the executive branch is accountable to the legislative branch. In a hybrid system, the executive branch has some independence from the legislative branch but is still responsible for it. This helps to prevent too much power from being concentrated in one person or group and also helps to protect citizens’ rights and to avoid abuse of power.

An additional benefit of implementing a hybrid system is that it may facilitate more efficient decision-making by leveraging the strengths of both presidential and parliamentary systems. In a presidential system, the separation of powers can result in stalemates and prolonged indecision, while in a parliamentary system, the government can swiftly collapse if it loses the legislature’s support. A hybrid system, on the other hand, can offer a balance of stability and agility, allowing for more prompt decision-making while maintaining the accountability of the executive branch. Furthermore, considering Pakistan’s history of military involvement in politics, a hybrid system can provide a mechanism to hold the military accountable to the civilian administration and reduce the likelihood of military intervention.

It is imperative to acknowledge that a hybrid system may not be the ultimate remedy for all of Pakistan’s issues, and its successful operation would require meticulous planning and execution. Nevertheless, this system could potentially provide a glimpse of sustained stability in Pakistan’s political landscape, and it is incumbent upon the authorities to consider this system as a viable option to circumvent further obstacles.

Continue Reading

Publications

Latest

Trending