Pakistan News and Discussion-8

[Guest]

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Killing Kashmir with “self-governance” </b>FT
Khalid Hasan
privateview 
I did not have the opportunity to have a one-to-one with President Pervez Musharraf (except at a UN press conference but the question I had in mind was asked by someone else). Had it come my way, I would have asked him to ship a few of his boxes to India so that someone out there could also do “out of box” thinking on Kashmir. So far, all the thinking and all the boxes have been found in Islamabad, more particularly, in the General’s backyard.

<b>The UN Security Council resolutions on Kashmir were all but kissed goodbye by Gen Musharraf at an iftar party held at the evergreen (and ever black-headed) Sheikh Rashid Ahmed’s farmhouse in Islamabad last year</b>. I do not recall much of a reaction from the opposition, whose sole contribution to Pakistani parliamentary politics has been walking out every five minutes in protest so that the government can have a free run. Many of its members could do with the attentions of a barber and some of its women members are likely to be mistaken by the unwary for hooded bandits, since they keep themselves covered at all times. The leader of the opposition – why is there a stench of fumes in the air? – hunts with the hounds and runs with the hair, no small achievement for a man of his girth.

In his book In the Line of Fire, Gen Musharraf sets out his self-governance formula in some detail and those still interested in Kashmir will do well to look it up. Whether they beg, borrow or steal, the General’s maiden effort at writing (he is not to be held responsible for most of it), is their business. The reaction to Gen Musharraf’s “out of box” ideas in India has been no, no, no and then another no. His messages have either been ignored or dismissed. <b>The Indian parrot – if I may be forgiven for flying into the realm of the winged ones – knows only two words when it comes to Kashmir: Atoot Ang . And that is all we have heard from New Delhi. Kashmir is an integral part of India and, therefore, it is not negotiable, “but we are always prepared to talk about Kashmir.” Alice would have asked: “if it is not negotiable, dear Mr Mad Hatter, then what are we going to talk about?” Unfortunately, we have no Alices in Islamabad, only a certain snake lady who hisses at all and sundry in the name of patriotism and scholarship. Angels and ministers of heaven, help us!</b>

Indian rejections and contempt notwithstanding, voices continue to be raised from our side pushing self-governance as a “solution.” At the last conference held on Kashmir in Washington this July by the Kashmiri-American Council, an entire paper was devoted to self-governance by a gentleman based in Brussels for the ostensible purpose of selling the Kashmir cause to Europeans. What he is actually selling is a can of worms. He is Barrister Majid Tramboo, Executive Director, Kashmir Centre, Europe and leader of the Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Front. Mr Tramboo is as much a barrister as Sultan Mahmood Chaudhry is. Neither has ever practised law, but what of it; at least they have gained a nice, respectable suffix to their names. Barrister Tramboo’s operation is financed through sources unknown but I would advise that no one be so foolish as to go asking at the Invisible Soldiers Inc in Islamabad unless he wants to get himself a bloody nose.

Barrister Tramboo’s paper, which raised no more than a few heckles, was a barefaced effort to ditch the pivot on which the Kashmir issue has revolved since 1947, namely the right of self-determination, and replace it with “self-governance.” He argued that since 9/11 “organised crime” had found its way to “the realm of activists of self-determination, thus providing incentive for occupation authorities to embark on more restrictive – some would say repressive – policies against activists for freedom.” According to him, the world is not easily going to recognise a new state as it will bring instability to the region where such a state is established. It will also be a “dangerous precedent.” Hence the need for “new concepts.” He argued that self-determination had been “one of the most prevalent causes of international and inter-state crises” since the mid-19th century. Freedom struggles, he added, had caused “tremendous human suffering and destruction in. . . Jammu and Kashmir.” The “War on Terrorism” had only “hampered the possibilities for self-determination” and the “freedom fighter” of the past is now a “terrorist.”

Barrister Tramboo wrote that it was important to find a Kashmir solution that accepts the “national interest” of the “powers concerned” (for which, read India). In effect, the Kashmir struggle is now reduced to protecting the “national interest” of India. There had to be found, therefore, he wrote, “a feasible and acceptable alternative to full classical self-determination . . . in line with the emerging, globalised international system.” He said self-governance was “more positive, extensive, humane and forward looking than classical self-determination.” Self-governance, he added, was also “inherently democratic” and combined with regional integration it “ought to ascertain the cultural independence and human rights of any minority within” a community. He then went on to plug the theory of “multiple identities”, which amounts to saying that there is more to Kashmir than the Kashmiris of the Valley. The only people in the former State of Jammu and Kashmir who have consistently struggled for self-determination since 1928 are the Kashmiri-speaking people of the Valley.

Barrister Tramboo, speaking for those who sponsor him, wrote, “The introduction of multiple identities as part of ‘self-governance plus regional integration’ is supposedly on offer as a possible solution of the traditional Kashmir problem. Instead of making a decision on the territory and searching (for) a solution for redrawing external boundaries, self-governance plus regionalisation could be introduced to permit the Kashmiris and those on either side of the Ceasefire Line to keep their sovereign territories and (it) could spare India to give up completely what it considers within its borders. This possible solution is aimed to [ sic ] avoid a redrawing of international boundaries. No territorial change would take place and it could be considered to arrange [ sic ] for international assistance to monitor borders or help prevent influx on either side of criminal elements (for the last phrase, please read ‘freedom fighters’).”

Barrister Tramboo concluded his case with the assertion,<b> “The concept of self-governance is absolute and ultimate in itself and (in) no way should be deemed as a step to self-determination. On the contrary, it is a substitution [ sic ] for self-determination.”</b>

So there you have it. The cat is out of the bag. But has anyone in Pakistan even noticed?
<i>This is a regular column by TFT’s Washington correspondent. He can be reached at khasan2@cox.net</i><!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->