Connect with us

South Asia

The Kashmir imbroglio: Concerns and Way out

Published

on

Kashmir is the valley of enormous beauty with beautiful and serene valleys, enclosed by the mighty Himalayas and lofty mountains, with the heart-enthralling scenes of beautiful meadows and low-lying areas, but the state has manifested into an intractable problem of the Asian sub-continent, posing challenges of a continuous struggle day in and day out. Although, it is known by the Switzerland of Asia through its beauty, yet, there is a different side of the story turning its glamour upside down. Kashmir is the burning issue of the subcontinent that continues to haunt relations between India and Pakistan. It is also one of the oldest issue in the UN history. Despite a series of UN resolutions, India and Pakistan have been unable to resolve this imbroglio.

Prior to accession with the Union of India, the state of Jammu and Kashmir was a princely state. Through the historical chronicles, we come across the instances that the people of the state have been ruled by a different number of rulers over the period of time. The first Muslim ruler of Kashmir was Shah Mir who laid foundation of the Shah Mir dynasty. Kashmir was also part of the great Mughals empire from 1586 to 1751.Later on, until 1820,it was under the reigns of Afghan-Durrani empire.Ranjit Singh annexed Kashmir at that point of time. The treaty of Amritsar signed on 15 march 1846 was a grim chapter in the history of Kashmir under the provisions of which Raja Gulab Singh after the first Anglo-Sikh war purchased the vale from the British and became its ruler .The rule of his descendents continued under the paramountcy of the British till the partition of India in 1947, when the erstwhile princely state was claimed by the respective descendents of the partition. That issue at stake continues till today without a glimmer of hope between India and Pakistan, leaving the aspirations of the masses to fly in air with each passing day. The instrument of accession signed by the Maharaja with the Union of India was a turning point in the annals of history where the erstwhile state was acceded with India after the guerrilla attack.UN was invited at that time to mediate on the issue. In 1948, a ceasefire was agreed upon under the auspices of the UN.Unfortunately, the referendum was never conducted which heightened the state of hostility between India and Pakistan. The two nuclear states of India and Pakistan have fought three wars over Kashmir including the Kargil war. In 1987, insurgency erupted in the state of J&K. Dixon plan was a failed attempt from the UN to meditate on Kashmir. According to A.G.Noorani,the people of Kashmir are very much party to the problem.

In all these preceding years, Kashmir has been on a tumultuous journey of agonies and pain. The Amarnath land controversy over the transfer of land was an unfortunate episode in 2008 which consumed 40 people leaving behind a tale of pain and suffering for the respective families.2009 and 2010 also carried on the legacy of protests and killings. The year of 2016 was a historic and a turning point in the state which brought about a paradigm shift in the dynamics of the political thinking of the masses and affected a change of thinking, creating much more alienation of the people from mainstream India. This not only affected the life of the people, but also added a chapter of tragedy to the flashpoint of Kashmir.

Over the years of  political churnings and establishment of new regimes after the conduction of the elections, the people have attained a political maturity .The double dose of autonomy and self rule proposed by NC and PDP have found very little take from the mainland of India.Although,the political establishment at New Delhi appointed three interlocutors in the past,but,what transpired after the provision of their reports is still shrouded in a political mystery. Since its inception, both India and Pakistan have tried to solve the issue of Kashmir. A number of bilateral negotiations have been initiated at different levels to settle the protracted issue. Kashmir problem dogged with near perpetual instability, posing a grave risk to the peace and stability of South Asia in particular and the whole continent in general. Time is testimony to the fact that an environment of peace and reconciliation has been a sine qua non for the redressel and resolution of the issues, be it local or universal. The parties to the problem at stake, that is India and Pakistan cannot remain mute spectators to this imbroglio. A sort of acknowledgement of the problem from a humanitarian perspective is need of the hour.Blame games, face-offs and broken promises are in no way remedies to the problem. What is actually a solution is to sit across the table to have a meaningful and a multi-pronged strategy of the dialogue to contain the problem and resolve it for once and all. The leadership of the separatist chamber has also to be invited, being a major party to the redressal. Also, the appointment of the interlocutor is a good step. But, the reports should be heed to and not be put into the backburner. For how long will the valley bleed? Time has to ripe to fructify the peace in the state. The loss of the youth is the loss of the humanity, for it alienates and creates a concurrent of nationalism .The alienation of the people has to do away with.

The Kashmir conflict assumes dynamic forms with each passing day. The recent recruitment of meritorious and dynamic qualified youth into militancy has set alarm bells not only in the local circles, but also at the national level triggering widespread debates, counter-debates and narratives, trying to uncover the root genesis of the problem at large. The Kashmir issue if analysed in its totality and put to the table of dissection and vivi-section,is the longest South Asian issue which refuses to calm down in the contemporary times and calls for a comprehensive analysis and a pragmatic approach for its resolution permanently once for all, sans lackadaisical heed and a no-point direction from the political and administrative quarters of both India and Pakistan.

Although, the side of Pakistan and the leadership of Hurriyat Conference have, time and again sought the world attention to play their part in the resolution of the Kashmir conflict, but, the leadership of India always reiterate their view of a no third party intervention .Over the years, Kashmir has become a symbol of agonies,pains,sufferings,tragedies and what not. The instability of the region ascribed to the political manipulations has added fuel to the fire over the course of these years.Today,when the world is enmeshed in its own state of conflict, the conflict of Kashmir cannot be put to backburner and draped by political manuevours.The vocal politics has to metamorphise into a politics of compassion on paper to give a touch of care for the sufferings of yore,to pledge an end to the vicious cycles of killings and to recognise this monster and have a bargain for peace with a vision for the prospective future of Kashmir,including its sister concerns of Jammu and Ladakh region.after all, peace comes from within, one need to explore it and not without.

To fructify the dream of a microcosm painted with the colours of peace and development within the macrocosm of grand nationalism, the confluence of one and all is the need of the hour, especially, with a bigger role over the horizon of the fourth pillar and third eye, that is, media within the pursuit of humanitarian horizon and aloof of we vs. they. Unfortunately, Media of the mainland India has played a very negative role in portraying the valley of Kashmir during all these years and added a current of hyper-sensationalism of the miniscule issues, leaving behind the real aspirations of the people aside. This has not only manifested in the negative image of the Kashmir valley, but added an element of otherwise image on the main spectrum of the collected psyche of the people of the rest of the country. This step-motherly treatment should subsume with an ethic of care and concern, lest, time takes the cogs out of wheels in a different way.

After the triumph of Imran Khan, to be Prime Minister of Pakistan, there is now a renowed focus on the Kashmir problem. Will he be able to solve the problem of Kashmir is a million dollar question to ponder upon. Both India and Pakistan have to come across a viable-cum-meaningful dialogue to resolve the pending issues, including the problem in Kashmir for the greater good of the people, particularly the masses of valley.

The author has done M.Sc.(Biochemistry),B.Ed from Jamia Millia Islamia New Delhi,M.A.(History) and also qualified CTET from CBSE. Previously,he was also working as a project trainee at JNU,New Delhi.He writes for a number of platforms on socio-politico-economic issues and currently works in J&K, government education department. He can be reached at abidjmi121[at]gmail.com

Continue Reading
Comments

South Asia

Pakistan’s Increasing Tilt towards China

M Waqas Jan

Published

on

In a recent interview with the Washington Post; Prime Minister Imran Khan was asked what kind of relationship he wanted from the US. He responded by pointing out Pakistan’s long and storied relationship with China as an example of a successful and mutually beneficial relationship. He explained how Pakistan’s relationship with China, unlike the US was not one-dimensional and built more on trade, respect and mutual cooperation. In doing so he in effect presented the underlying reasons why China is often termed as Pakistan’s ‘All-Weather’ friend.

In fact, the very notion of China being an ‘All-Weather’ friend is borne in contrast out of the US’s more fair-weather and sporadic approach to Pakistan. This approach has been evident in Pakistan’s long-standing complaints of how after helping the US repel the Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan, Pakistan was left to pick up the pieces as the US unilaterally withdrew from the region, leaving behind a devastating humanitarian and political crisis. The last two decades’ war on terror for which Pakistan once again allied with the US is also following a similar blue-print, which the Prime Minister made clear was an example of history repeating itself. In defining his country’s most recent reservations against the US, he made it clear that Pakistan would no longer serve as a hired gun for the US, and desired a more equitable relationship based on mutual respect.

Considering how Pak-US relations have deteriorated over the last few years, the Prime Minister’s remarks come as little surprise to observers who have witnessed this uneasy partnership throughout its peaks and troughs. Yet, what’s striking is the fact that this is perhaps the first time that a Pakistani head of state has directly presented its relations with China as the ideal blue-print for which to measure the long and troubled history of Pak-US relations.

In contrast, the official narrative ascribed to the Pak-China bilateral framework, has stood out amongst diplomatic and policy-making circles due to the broad poetic license that has more recently been attributed to it. The oft-quoted phrase of how Pak-China Friendship is ‘higher than mountains, deeper than the ocean, stronger than steel and sweeter than honey’, has been repeatedly used by officials representing the highest levels of government, from both countries to emphasize the far-reaching significance of their bilateral relations.

This includes their significance both within a more localized context, as well as a broader more regional context as evident in the $62 billion China Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC). The corridor which promises an end to Pakistan’s development woes focuses instead on fostering peace and stability through economic growth and development. This is as opposed to the more security and strategically driven approach of the US, which has seen the region become increasingly violent and militarized. It is based on this difference that CPEC has been widely hailed as a viable solution to the relative instability and insecurity that has for years characterized the South Asian region.

However, over the past few months, Pak-China relations have themselves undergone an uncharacteristic period of friction and uncertainty. Interestingly, one of the major reasons behind this friction has been none other than the newly elected Prime Minister himself. As part of his anti-corruption campaign rhetoric leading up to the elections, he had promised greater over-sight and transparency with regard to Chinese investments under CPEC. This came at a time where growing trade and economic tensions between the US and China, had led to greater scrutiny and broad reservations against China’s rising influence the world over. Calls to re-evaluate China’s investments were echoed across countries such as Malaysia, Sri Lanka, Myanmar and Kenya; with allusions to unsustainable loans and China’s ‘Debt Trap Diplomacy’ doing the rounds amidst key influencers and policy-makers across the globe. Pakistan’s rising debt too was linked to CPEC projects by none other than the US secretary of State, who had ruled out the possibility of US loans being used to bail out Chinese bond-holders in Pakistan.

Prime Minister Imran Khan has since gone to great lengths to dispel such sentiments, as was evident in his official visit to Beijing last month. In all his statements, he has been careful in acknowledging the benefits of China’s strategic partnership with Pakistan, and has lauded China’s tremendous achievements in eradicating poverty; something that he wants to emulate as part of his own government’s policies. His recent statements in the above-mentioned interview too, are based in part on these same reasons.

Taken together, the PM’s statements thus present a clear and very public declaration that the Pakistani government is quite willingly choosing to side with China in the ongoing US-China economic rivalry. Unlike before where Pakistan had to carefully balance its strategic relationships between China and the US, China’s grand overtures and the US’s more inward focus on ‘America First’ have accelerated Pakistan’s gradual tilt towards China. With the US-China rivalry currently seeming far from any sort of resolution, Pakistan’s need to pick a side in favor of the other represents a clear indication of which side the government believes its long-terms interests lie with.

Continue Reading

South Asia

Sirimavo of Sri Lanka: Refocusing on World’s first Women Prime Minister

Published

on

Authors: Srimal Fernando and Pooja Singh*

In 1970s, there was a time when Sirimavo Bandaranaike caught the global attention and her premiership was one of the most momentous times in Sri Lanka’s political history. On 21 July, 1960, she became the first ever woman Prime Minister of Sri Lanka (formally known as Ceylon) and the world. Even today nearly half a century later, Sirimavo’s name is remembered among the thousands of Sri Lankans and among the Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP) supporters. Thus the Sri Lankan voters expectations about Sirimavo rose within no time after the unfortunate assassination of her husband S.W.R.D. Bandaranaike in 1959.

In the summer of 1970, the Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP) , the Lanka Sama Samaja Party (LSSP) and also the Communist Party (CP) was sweeping electorates in a general election by winning 115 seats out of 151. In essence, Sirimavo’s administration presented far-reaching constitutional and socio-economic reforms that were suitable for a small island nation.  In fact Mrs. Bandaranaike handled the transfer of island nation becoming a republic under a new constitution tactfully. In this context, Dr. N.M. Perera, Felix Dias Bandaranaike, Philip Gunawardena was some of the primary shapers of her administration. At that time, unlike her predecessors, the former premier showed great interest in developing cement, paper, steel and chemical industries. Despite promising signs under her leadership, uneven inequalities from 1948 to 1970 and economic stagnation created tensions within rural masses. Surprisingly, a coup in 1971 by the southern insurgents headed by Rohana Wijeweera, the leader of the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP) shattered the hopes of Bandaranaike government for a short time. Although coup was unsuccessful because of Sri Lanka’s military support to premier’s rule.

It is noteworthy to mention Sirimavo era solidified Sri Lanka’s foreign policy in the coming decades, which set the stage for the island to increase bilateral ties with India and China. In fact, Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi was a trustworthy friend of Mrs. Bandaranaike. This period also saw the closest bilateral relations between the neighbouring countries. Especially, Mrs. Bandaranaike was a giant among Non-Alignment leaders. In the summer of 1976 at the fifth Non Aligned Movement (NAM) summit held at the Bandaranaike Memorial International Conference Hall(BMICH) in Colombo, Mrs. Bandaranaike stated, “The non-aligned countries should fight against injustice, intolerance, inequality, old concept of empire and intervention.”

On the domestic political scenario, the opposition leader J.R. Jayewardene and his deputy Ranasinghe Premadasa had been outspoken critics of Sirimavo Bandaranaike policies. When she lost 1977 general elections, it was extremely a difficult situation for Mrs. Bandaranaike and for the Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP) coalition partners who had developed a remarkable sense for socialist political culture within the multicultural society in  Sri Lanka. Seven years later Mrs. Bandaranaike had lost her civic rights, the party hierarchy nominated veteran SLFP stalwart Hector Kobbekaduwa for the forthcoming referendum. The Referendum results did not reflect the true situation. Then while the    atmosphere began to change in the island country after the eruption of ethnic conflict and signing of the Indo-Lanka accord. This scenario caused strong anti-United National Party (UNP) regime change feeling.  In a closely fought presidential election in 1988, the SLFP leader Mrs. Bandaranaike lost to UNP presidential candidate Mr. Premadasa. There were no immediate solutions to the crisis in Sri Lanka under Premadasa’s presidency.  Hence  in  the South, due to the JVP uprising and the Tamil tiger (LTTE) attacks in Northern and Eastern provinces, conditions inside the Island nation was going from bad to worse.

At the same time, the crisis in the Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP)  came to surface and the party was divided into several wings.  Thus, the time had come for SLFP party unity for doing away with the seventeen years United National Party (UNP) rule. Mrs. Bandaranaike was convinced that it was time for a new generation of party leadership. She opened the corridors of political power to Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga, Mahinda Rajapaksa, and Maithripala Sirisena who later became presidents of Sri Lanka. In late years, Mrs. Bandaranaike was a prime minister for a short time from when her daughter Mrs. Kumaratunga was president. On the Foreign Policy front she reworked strong bilateral ties with India and China and her policies remained important for Non Aligned Movement (NAM) nations and for India  and China ties with Sri Lanka. After more than fifty years of service to the Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP), to the nation many of the Sri Lankan’s were finding it hard to come to terms with Sirimavo’s sudden death on 10th October, 2000.Late premier Sirimavo Bandaranaike’s pragmatic policies mattered very much for the South Asian island nation, the region and to the world at large.

* Pooja Singh, a scholar of Masters in Diplomacy, Law, Business at Jindal School of International Affairs, India.

Continue Reading

South Asia

Indian Human Rights violation in Kashmir

Adeela Ahmed

Published

on

In International conflict management, the models and approaches to solve the deep-rooted issue are vital and applicable but these models became fragile if any one of the belligerent states lacks the intent to solve any tangible solution. India rigid stance of avoiding any Peace Talks on Kashmir issue is the main irritant between rivalries which derails the conflict resolution. It is far important for rivalries to elucidate the dispute to move ahead.  Because it is ultimate truth that all the conflict and crises have an alternate way of tenacity.

In South Asian framework, Indian strategic ambitions are the main stumbling block in the way of Kashmir Resolution. While in the Global framework, major powers like Russia and USA military and then ideological interests compels states not to play any significant role for the resolution of Kashmir conflict.

Kashmiri Freedom Movement started from 1931 and still in 2018 it is constantly being exploited in the hands of Indian aggressive leaders. From 87 years, Indian barbarism is not a top-secret. Indian wanted to sideline and suppress the Kashmir issue in the prism of their national interests but the issue will remain alive with determined efforts of the Kashmiri and Pakistani people, human right activists, political and military leaders. The issue of Jammu and Kashmir must be resolved as per aspirations of Kashmiris.

Pakistanis and Kashmiris across the world chronicled their protest against Indian brutality and illegitimate occupation in Kashmir. Struggle for freedom of Kashmiri people will one day succeed by the grace of Almighty Allah.  Each day is like a black day until the resolution of Jammu and Kashmir with the consent of Kashmiri people.

There are many pragmatic choices for the resolution of Kashmir issue but the real dilemma is that India is not ready to come on Table for Peace talks due to their hegemonic ambitions. Recent Talks at UNGA 73rd session was also negated by Indian. As a rational nuclear state, they should realize that Kashmir is a nuclear flashpoint. Both the nuclear states should talk constructively and negotiations are the only way forward in which mutual national interests must be considered.

In 1948, it was India who went to United Nations and then it was decided unanimously a plebiscite in Kashmir. It is the right of every Kashmiri to decide his destiny indigenously. As there are no law enforcement agencies of international organizations to implement its resolution but the role of P-5 states can facilitate for resolution. Till now no such role is played by them but the importance of UN forum cannot be negated as states like Pakistan can raise their voices at international level against Human Rights violations.

The Indian occupational forces under the cover of Armed Forces Special Protection Act (AFSPA) and other black laws frequently involve in religious cleansing of Muslims. After the martyrdom of Burhan Wani in 2016 Indian forces started using most dangerous weapons of pellet firing shotgun. Where are Human Rights Law against the killing of innocent Kashmiris? The lives of Kashmiris are as important the people killed in 9/11, London attacks, in Mumbai attack or a single Indian soldier. The US fought the war on terror and still engage in most complex war but What about Terror of India in Kashmir. Kashmir needs not to be forgotten at all. US Secretary of State Michael Pompeo asked Pakistan to abandon terrorist attacks into India but from Where Kashmiri demand Freedom. The US needs to let her interest go, at least for once, to settle the Kashmir issue. For Pakistan, it is not just a matter of territorial importance but relates to the lives of Kashmiri people who are suffering at the hands of India’s state terrorism.

Modi government is supporting to have Direct Talks with the Taliban, but when it is about Kashmir, they became silent. There is a dire need for the Indian government to review their mindless Kashmir policy. Kashmiri people must be given the right of plebiscite to decide them their destiny. Pakistan’s foreign policy is on right direction that the tools of diplomacy need to be improved for better results and peace process is the only way forward.

Continue Reading

Latest

Trending

Copyright © 2018 Modern Diplomacy