KASHMIR AGAIN
nkdat...@my-dejanews.com
> South Asia and Solutions
>
> Mansoor Ijaz in his opinion column (LA Times, March 1, 1999 "Perspective
> on South Asia") writes of "bold political initiatives" necessary to
> resolve the dispute between India and Pakistan by the current
> leadership there, yet he himself really suggests nothing really bold or
> new. He concludes by not only giving
> India the benefit of doubt, but a permanent status quo, something that
> the Indians currently desire the most.
Mansoor Ijaz deserves far more credit than Mr. Ras Siddiqui is willing to give
him for suggesting something really bold or new. The ruling oligarchy in
Pakistan has axiomatically assumed that the 3 million Muslims in the Kashmir
Valley have a religious obligation to sever ties with not only India but also
with the quarter million Pandits of the Valley and become Pakistani citizens
instead. Mr. Ras Siddiqui, himself, hasn't been able to free himself of
this mindset. Mansoor Ijaz has been startingly bold and new in suggesting
that annexation of Kashmir by Pakistan is not a prerequisite for peace.
Kashmiriyat has been known for centuries for its tolerant and eclectic
tradition. Kashmir cannot afford a solution that does not take this into
account. It cannot afford to repeat the mistakes that Sindh made in 1947.
Kashmir deserves secular democracy to do justice to Kashmiriyat. Annexation
by Pakistan will be a regressive step. Kashmiris, be they Muslims or Hindus,
will not fare any better than the Sindhis (Hindus and Muslims alike) have
since 1947 if their ancestral land is annexed by Pakistan.
Here is an article that should give a better perspective of the issue,
especially to those who truly wish the Kashmiris well:
##################################################################
The Horizon
30th October, 1998
Self-determination Isn't Always Sacred
by Pravin Satsangi
Self-determination is fast becoming the most abused concept of our
times. When Woodrow Wilson coined the word, it was to verbalize his
compassion and concern for fellow human beings. But the political
arm of terrorists,like those in Kashmir, use the word in a way that
is a travesty of the lofty principles that had animated President
Wilson and is a cruel mockery of human rights. No one can possibly
be left in doubt about this once he witnesses the plight of the
quarter million Kashmiri Hindus who have had to flee their ancestral
home in the face of fanatical terrorists from abroad seeking
self-determination for the Muslims in Kashmir.
The political representatives of the terrorists in Kashmir weave
the word "self-determination" into their righteous chants in a
clever public relations effort to glean support for their goal of
turning Jammu and Kashmir in the mold of ethnically cleansed
Pakistan. The world needs to be informed that self-determination
of "their" people is ruthlessly violating the human rights of others.
Self-determination is indeed a basic human right. But it loses its
sanctity when self-determination of a group implies marching orders
for the rest. Ofcourse, people don't leave their homes voluntarily.
They have to be persuaded. That means killing them untill everybody
gets the idea.The massive ethnic cleansing of 1947 in Jinnah's Pakistan
is an example of self-determaination of this evil variety. Pakistan lived
upto its name by becoming a "cleansed land" within weeks of independence.
And now Kashmir is taking a leaf out of Jinnah's book. Self-righteous
chanters of "self-determination" with direct Pakistani assistance seem
well on their way to stamping out religious diversity from Jammu and
Kashmir.
Will we never learn the cruel lessons of history? The previous UN
Secretary General Boutros-Ghali put it about as bluntly as could
be: "If every ethnic, religious or linguistic group claimed
statehood, there would be no limit to fragmentation. Peace,
security and economic well-being for all would become even more
difficult to achieve."
Self-determination for a group must never sanctify the violation
of human rights of another. Automatic self-determination, for
whosoever shouts the loudest, is a sure recipe for tragedies like
Kashmir. It is the greatest of evils to allow one person's
self-determination to degenerate into his neighbour's extinction.
Kashmir desperately calls out for respite from fanatical terrorists
from abroad who have turned the land into a living hell.
Abraham Lincoln courageously faced down those that chanted
"secession" to perpetuate the evil of slavery. We, too, must summon
the courage to confront those that chant "self-determination" in
heedless pursuit of Jinnah's evil ideology of religious apartheid.
##################################################################
It goes to the credit of Mansoor Ijaz that he has been willing to
suggest something that is startingly "bold and new" for a Pakistani.
Pakistan's ruling oligarchy will do well to read the article.
> No mention is made of the basic wrong done to the Kashmiri people for
> over half a century or their
> payment for freedom from Indian rule with 30 to 60 thousand lives
> (estimates vary) in the last decade.
> Once again to inform the readers, there is and has been a very dirty war
> going on in Kashmir since 1989.
The year 1989 is a give-away. This was about the time when the Russians
admitted defeat in the Afghan War. This was the time when the warriors
who had assembled in Afgahnistan from all over the world suddenly
found themselves in need of a new war. The ISI diverted as many as it
could to Kashmir which has been bleeding ever since. And so have been
places like Karachi and even New York (World Trade Center). The
Kalashnikov culture spawned by the war in Afghanistan has brought
grief to a lot of people all over the world.
> Kashmir is now not a State in India but
> militarily occupied territory. It takes only a reading of Amnesty
> International Reports and to contact the Physicians for Human Rights to
> find out what is and has been going on in Indian held Kashmir.
No reading of the reports can be complete if it ignores the plight
of a quarter million non-Muslim Kashmiris who have been forced
to flee from their ancestral land in the Valley. Even as Sharif
and Vajpayee were discussing peace in Lahore, armed mercenaries
were busy wiping out entire families for the "crime" of being
non-Muslim Kashmiris.
> No
> "Korea-like demilitarized buffer zone" can be acceptable to the
> Kashmiris as a solution to their cry for freedom from India. And the
> possibility of a Osama Bin Laden taking refuge in Kashmir, a ploy which
> will work well on American readers has been making the rounds in a
> wishful Indian news media for quite some time. One can only wonder why
> it was repeated here in this article?
Mr. Ras Siddiqui has not offered any proof that Mansoor Ijaz repeated it
for reasons other than that it is a fact. Mr. Ras Siddiqui cannot be
"bold or new" if he fights shy of facts.
> The fact remains that unlike Kosovo, Chechnya, or even Northern
> Ireland, the United Nations
> on more than one occasion had promised the Kashmiris a plebiscite/vote,
> a choice of joining one
> of two countries (India or Pakistan), something that the Indians are
> almost sure that they will lose in.
This has been debated enough in the newsgroup. The plebiscite was not
held because Pakistan failed to keep its part of the bargain, namely,
withdrawl of all Pakistani soldiers from Kashmir. Pakistani soldiers
never had any legal justification to be in Kashmir. And they still don't.
If Pakistan truly wishes to force a plebiscite on India, it is well within
its power to do so. Pakistan's ruling oligarchy can choose to be "bold or
new." It can withdraw all Pakistani troops from POK (Pakistan occupied
Kashmir). It can hand over POK to the United Nations for the purpose of
holding a plebiscite which promises independence as a choice. This is sure
to force India to do the same in the part of Kashmir under its control.
But Pakistan's ruling oligarchy will never dare to do that. It has not
cared to bring home the quarter million "Biharis" who have been living
in refugee camps in Bangladesh since 1972. "Biharis" will not come to
Pakistan with any real estate. That is why they have been allowed to rot
in refugee camps for well over a quarter of a century.
General Tikka Khan was brutally frank about the thinking of Pakistan's
ruling oligarchy when he said in 1971 that he was interested only in East
Pakistan but couldn't care less for the East Pakistanis. Pakistan's ruling
oligarchy covets Kashmir but it couldn't care less for the Kashmiris.
Respect for Kashmiris and for Kashmiriyat is a pre-requisite for any
"bold or new" suggestion. I commend Mansoor Ijaz for his "bold and new
suggestion." I wish Mr. Ras Siddiqui had it in his heart to do the same.
> And there is a further complication
> of religious demographics and areas inhabited by the three main groups
> in Kashmir.
> The Jammu area has a Hindu majority, and in all probability wishes to
> stay with India. Ladakh is a Buddhist majority area, which may also want
> to stay with India. That leaves the Muslim majority Kashmir Valley with
> some adjoining districts in Ladakh and Jammu that want out of the
> "World's largest Democracy" (India).
> If any bold initiatives are needed, it is for India to take them,
> keeping in mind the above demographic facts and geography.
That is a cop out. There is no reason why Pakistan cannot take a bold
initiative on its own. Pakistan's ruling oligarchy would do well to take
another look at Mansoor Ijaz's article.
> The
> conversion of the current line of control in Kashmir into a permanent
> border will please the Indians. But if this was a solution then why do
> we still have this problem after over 50 years? Many Pakistanis, and the
> majority Kashmiris will not find this acceptable. An anxious world
> within the backdrop of last year's nuclear tests is looking for a
> permanent solution instead of a permanent problem. One way is to let the
> Kashmir Valley and some adjoining districts in Ladakh and Jammu become
> independent. Another is to let them join Pakistan. These are "bold
> initiatives" that could possibly work.>
> To conclude, this writer welcomes the "Bus Diplomacy" begun at Lahore
> with the visit of Indian Prime
> Minister Vajpayee there in February. But the word "Bus" in the Urdu and
> Hindi language spoken in the region also means "Enough". So I can only
> find myself in agreement in that translated context also. "Enough" is
> the right word now to stop a fifty year old cause of hatred.> The world
> will have to assist India and Pakistan in being bold and creative
> instead of showing it's willingness to sell out the legitimate
> aspirations of the Kashmiris because they have no oil and are the
> weakest of the parties involved.>
Yes, Kashmir does not have oil. But neither does Pakistan or India.
The subcontinent would be ill-advised to wait for the world to solve
its problem. God helps those that helps themselves. No solution
will be just if it is not based on the tolerant and eclectic tradition of
multi-religious Kashmir. Secular democracy seems to be the only just
solution for Kashmiris. Annexation by "Islamic" Pakistan will be a
step backwards.
>
> Ras H. Siddiqui 3-1-98
>
> A Pakistani-American writer and journalist based in Sacramento
> California
>
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own