"Confidence Building Measures sans Kashmiris" By: Idrisa Pandit

Any modus vivendi between India and Pakistan would have little effect on the long-term stability of the region because it excludes a crucial party to the conflict: the Kashmiri people (Kumar, 2005)

This statement by Manav Kumar summarizes the fate of all efforts at any Confidence Building Measures on part of India and Pakistan. CBM’s barely capture the imagination of average Kashmiris who have always been treated as outsiders to any deliberations about their political fate. Political posturing by the two nations of Indian and Pakistan, and all CBMs have been nothing more than posturing, have little bearing on the everyday life of Kashmiris. Kashmir currently is, as Kamal Chenoy puts it, hostage to the two “bitterly contending nationalisms” (Chenoy,2006) of India and Pakistan both making a claim over Kashmir, one using the faith of the majority community as a claim to its territory and the other using the fear of crack in their national secularism were they to let go of the Muslim majority Kashmir.
Add to the contending nationalisms, obsession with historical memories, namely the bitterness over the partition of the country, deep rooted fear and suspicion of each other, every step forward tends to stall. Since both India and Pakistan consider the issue of Kashmir a bi-lateral issue, and interference by any outsiders who could help the process along anytime they get stuck in the past, or their trust in each other dwindles, seems to be bleak. Kashmiris often pin hopes in the West or the Middle East to use their influence in impressing upon the Indian and Pakistani authorities to resolve the issue of Kashmir in consultation with Kashmiris, unfortunately no one has come forward strongly enough to advocate the desires and wishes of the people of Kashmir.
If there was any outside support or pressure to get the Kashmir issue resolved, it has dramatically diminished in the post 9/11 world of the so-called “global war on terror”. In order to gain sympathy and support for its policies in Kashmir, India has conveniently labelled the popular uprising in Kashmir as a terrorist movement. In the post 9/11 world a shift occurred in approach to the Kashmir dispute. In the name of fighting terrorism in Kashmir, India succeeded in convincing the world that Kashmir was a problem that they had to deal with internally just as America has to deal with terrorists elsewhere. As a result, India’s claims on all of Kashmir became more popular and denial of plebiscite gained strength.
Given that both India and Pakistan consider Kashmir a bi-lateral issue, they have resisted outside intervention and help in resolving the issue of Kashmir. The US government could not actively engage in the issue of Kashmir as it would appear hypocritical to be supporting “terrorism” while they were engaged in uprooting terrorism elsewhere in the world.
With President Obama, the hope of change for many around the world, there may or may not be any change in the US policy towards Kashmir. President Obama has appointed a seasoned diplomat, Richard Holbrooke as a special representative for Pakistan and Afghanistan, “yet his public description of responsibilities has been carefully worded to avoid mention of Kashmir, because India’s government has long rejected outside mediation of the conflict… (Coll, 2009). This attitude was affirmed by the statements of Secretary Clinton on her recent visit to India when talking to reporters in Mumbai, she sated that. “the US is very supportive of al efforts in the fight against terrorism. At the same time, we are not going to in any way pressurize to restart (Indo-Pak) dialogue as it is for these sovereign governments to decide”. (Outlook India, July 18,2009 ). In an interview with Dawn News, Secretary Clinton mentioned that “disputes between India and Pakistan, which are historical and long standing, should be looked at with fresh eyes, and there should be an effort to build some mutual trust”. (Outlook India, July 18, 2009)

No where in these statements is there a mention of the wishes of either the people of Kashmir or any word about their misery and pain. There was also no mention in Secretary Clinton’s remarks regarding the alienation that has been created in the Kashmiri psyche through repeated violation of basic human rights in Kashmir. The US approach can be summarized on the sidelines approach. The advice given by US political advisers during the time of back channel negotiations was to “keep hands off” as is related to Steve Coll by Ashley Tellis, a political adviser in the US embassy. Will this approach change in anyway in the Obama administration, only tiem will tell.

The most dramatic shift in Pakistan’s stance on Kashmir was demonstrated in Musharraf’s proposed solution in which, for the first time, he mentioned that Pakistan would give up its claim on Kashmir as long as India accepted some of its proposals for peace which involved
a. phased withdrawal of troops
b. demilitarizing all or parts of Kashmir
c. dividing Kashmir into seven geographical areas (five of which are under Pak control and two under Indian control)
d. self-governance for locals
e. considering a new approach of perhaps joint supervision involving Pak, India, Kashmir and a UN mandate.
Musharraf defended his proposal as something that would benefit both India and Pakistan and as he says, “I wasn’t just giving concessions—I was taking from India as well”. (Coll, 2009)
While this proposal which caused a great deal of uproar in many quarters, we now know was not merely a figment of Musharraf’s imagination, rather it was a result of looking at the Kashmir issue from a realistic point of view, with “fresh eyes” and striking a compromise, and the participants of this proposal were representatives of both governments of Pakistan and India. It is the “paradigm shift” that the two countries secretly arrived at after years of negotiations and numerous meeting in secret locations outside of the subcontinent in what was called “the back channel”. A detailed analysis providing an insight into the nature and subject of these negotiations is documented by Steve Coll in his New Yorker article of March 2009. Both Indian and Pakistani officials, whom Steve Coll interviewed, confirmed that the back channel talks were close to an agreement on Kashmir only to be thwarted by fall of the Musharraf government. What we also find out from his report is that both Prime Minister Singh and Musharraf held discussions with Hurriyat and other separatist groups. Omar Farooq of Hurriyet tells Steve Coll that he found “Musharraf was someone who was willing to think out of the box”. One wonders if this out of the box solution was in reference to the proposals made public by Musharraf. If so, how much of this proposal was shared by the Kashmiri leaders with their people. Did they also keep them in the dark and just assumed that one more time the people would accept whatever was imposed on them? Did these leaders have a strategy to make the Kashmiri public accept this proposal? In the same vein, did the leaders of India and Pakistan have a plan for making their people buy into the proposal?
When one refers to the separatist leadership in Kashmir, there is no one speaking with one voice, there are multiple voices, although the majority of people in both factions of Hurriyet have maintained the centrality of right of self-determination in resolving the issue. A unified leadership with a single vision and a concrete proposal for resolution in accordance with the wishes of the people has yet to emerge. A document that could clearly state the goals of the Kashmiri struggle with signatories from various factions has yet to surface. The state of leadership is well summarized by Manav Kumar as a group of people “struggling for influence”. The Kashmiri leadership has been marginalized within Kashmir to a large degree. People’s faith in them, in my estimation, has dwindled and there is no single group that can claim that they represent the interests of Kashmiris, especially the new generation. If the cause of Kashmir as an issue of justice is to advance, Kashmiri leaders, irrespective of their differences, as true representatives of their people must speak with one voice and involve the civil society from all sections and regions in order to come up with a proposal that they can present to the governments of India and Pakistan as well as the world. This has to be an open consultative process if people’s faith in leadership is to be restored and exploitation of one person or group over another by various interest groups is to end.
Now that the new administration is in power in Pakistan and there are signs that talks have resumed, we will have to wait and see how the “back channel” negotiations and proposals will figure. Will they start afresh or modify what was begun?

The purpose of CBM’s is to create confidence, a change in attitude, end mistrust and engender cooperation between rivals. CBMs are recourse to finding a way out, exploring the dispute with an open mind and an approach where one is willing to lose some and gain some. At the same time there has to be a common goal, which in this case is peace and stability in the subcontinent, a dangerous nuclear flashpoint. In the reconciliation work I do with individuals, recognizing that there is a problem is a first and essential step, and it is no different between nations. Mutual trust and transparency and cooperation can never be built overnight which is why it has to be an ongoing process that continues in spite of who comes to power in both India and Pakistan. A framework for peace building that is derived out of consultations with all parties, who acknowledge that there is a problem and which includes the aggrieved, meaning the people of Kashmir, will be the only long lasting peaceful solution. The benefit of continuing this conversation with agreed upon goal of peace and security of the region, and supported by all nations and people that care for peace and justice should be obvious to leaders of both India and Pakistan. India, an emerging super power in the South Asian region cannot afford to have an illiterate population more than that of Sub Saharan Africa nor can it afford in this 21st century to have more than half its population malnourished. Nor can Pakistan continue to have mounting foreign debt and a severe shortage of basic amenities for its population. (Hilali, A.Z. 2005). Eradication of poverty ought to be the primary goal of both nations—let them feed their poor, not the arms race. If the Kashmir issue is left unresolved and Kashmiris are treated as irrelevant and superfluous to the efforts of confidence building, constant turmoil will keep both countries on edge and South Asia will continue as the most militarized zone on earth and continuing hostilities may bring the nations to the brink of a nuclear war.

Kashmir is not normal, despite the efforts of the Indian government to hide the facts from the world. As long as India continues to portray a façade of normalcy in Kashmir to the international community and the Indian media plays a complicit role by covering the governments record of torture and extrajudicial killings and disappearances, Kashmir, as Meenakshi Ganguly, a Human Right’s Watch senior researcher puts it, “is going to be where justice failed the promises of Indian democracy.” (Coll, 2009)
None of the band aid solutions will aid a long term peace process. Symbolic gestures such as opening the Muzaffarabad Srinagar bus service, or opening the trade route are all steps towards bringing a bit of normalcy to the lives of Kashmiris on both sides of the LOC, something that is needed for families to end their decades long cruel and abnormal separation, and for traders to promote their goods with their own people but they can never be a replacement for the ultimate issue, which is solving the problem of Kashmir according to the wishes of its people. Assuming that with economic resurgence, the problem of Kashmir will disappear is a delusion. Socio-economic measures and development efforts have to follow, not precede, the political efforts at settlement. Trade cannot be used as a bribe to overshadow the political issue. Trade is good for normalization after the political settlement has occurred, or at least alongside initiation of the political process. Nor will fake elections in Kashmir become a substitute for plebiscite, the right to decide through democratic means the political future of Kashmir. The scars of the Kashmiri people are too deep to heal with the balm of economic prosperity alone. No Kashmiri, save the opportunists, is ready to forget the sacrifices of their brothers and sisters who were murdered, molested, tortured or those that vanished in thin air. The “Zulum parast” (worshippers of tyrants,) a Sir Walter Lawrence described Kashmiris, have now transformed into “Azadi pasand”. Kashmir power brokers will have to seek their power from the people, the millions of people who last year marched on the streets of Kashmir peacefully. These are people not interested in shedding blood to earn their freedom to live in dignity, but people who will not accept humiliation and subjugation. Intransigence on part of all parties, whether it concerns unwillingness to redraw the maps, indisposition towards plebiscite or aversion to nonviolent struggle will all be hurdles in the path of reconciliation and peace building. Hence all three parties must give a little to see this intractable conflict brought to a speedy resolution, I hope and pray sooner than later, may be in my lifetime.



References
Chenoy, Kamal. "Contending nationalisms: Kashmir and the prospects for peace. " Harvard International Review. 28.3 (Fall 2006): 24(4). Academic OneFile. Gale. WATERLOO PUBLIC LIBRARY (CELPLO) (ON). 18 July 2009

Coll, Steve. "The Back Channel. " The New Yorker. 85.3 (March 2, 2009): 38. Expanded Academic ASAP. Gale. WATERLOO PUBLIC LIBRARY (CELPLO) (ON). 20 July 2009


Hilali, A.Z. "Confidence- and security-building measures for India and Pakistan. " Alternatives: Global, Local, Political. 30.2 (April-June 2005): 191(32). Academic OneFile. Gale. WATERLOO PUBLIC LIBRARY (CELPLO) (ON). 18 July 2009

Kumar, Manav. "The hidden conflict: false optimism and silent strategy in Kashmir. " Harvard International Review. 26.4 (Wntr 2005): 36(4). Academic OneFile. Gale. WATERLOO PUBLIC LIBRARY (CELPLO) (ON). 18 July 2009

Outlook India, No pressure for Indo-Pak Talks: newsoutlookindia.com.

David Wolfe: Kashmir Peace Conference Remarks July 24th The Gold Room, Rayburn House Office Building, Washington DC

This is the first time in my four-year involvement with the KAC, and as a coordinator of this conference since 2005, where I have been asked to express my views regarding the subject of Kashmir. For those of you who don’t know, I was a NE Asian Human Security, Conflict Resolution and Post-Conflict Reconstruction Specialist, who speaks Japanese and can have a lengthy discussion regarding history, literature, non-proliferation etc, regarding the East Asian region. However, I feel blessed to have come into contact with the Kashmir issue via a chance meeting with Dr. Fai at the United Nations in February 2005, whom I consider my mentor, and dear friend. This then led to working with Dr. Angana Chatterji and Dr. Richard Shapiro who have both given me guidance, knowledge and support despite professional setbacks I have endured due to my commitment to the Kashmir Issue, it is worth it. So my remarks today will be a meeting of my two worlds, but comes after a year long reflection following my trip to IJK, my experiences I encountered both positive and negative, and the understanding of how a people can be on the brink of violence at any moment, which I eerily felt for the five weeks I spent on the ground.

Earlier this year while accepting an award in Israel for achievement in literature, the famous Japanese novelist Haruki Murakami gave a compelling analogy meant for Israel-Palestine, however I believe will give you an understanding of where I stand in terms of non-violence, and specifically the Kashmiri people. Murakami said: "Between a high, solid wall and an egg that breaks against it, I will always stand on the side of the egg. Yes, no matter how right the wall may be and how wrong the egg, I will stand with the egg. Someone else will have to decide what is right and what is wrong; perhaps time or history will decide.”

When I traveled and in a sense lived with a family in IJK, I was the guest of my very dear friend Mohammad Yasin Malik and and lived with the family of Ghulam Rasool Dar, whom will be in my thoughts for the rest of my life. Yasin, without manipulation gave me free reign to seek out for myself what the people felt with regards to occupation, violence, non-violence and the fears that came with daily life in the valley. I also spent time with Syed Ali Geelani and Mirwaiz Umar Farooq, whom I also consider a dear friend, in order to understand all perspectives of the separatists, as I learned from the common shop-keeper, professor, student, both male and female, or house wife to gain a well rounded perspective in an attempt to form my own assessment of reality. In fact, I was placed under house arrest and roughed up a bit by SP and CPRF personnel for doing so. However I feel I was able ascertain most of the answers to the questions I had asked myself. I raised this very question to all of them. “Do you ever feel as if the non-violent movement will fail?” The answers varied. Mirwaiz, of course, as a religious man, stays the course he always had. Though he does live a sheltered existence, he stands with the non-violent movement, but knows at anytime he could summon the youth to pick up arms and fight once again.

Geelani-sahib, as most of you know, does not advocate violence, but reserves the right to retaliation and self-defense. A point that he and I disagreed. This experience is the core reason why the Murakami quote resonated with me so deeply. I am a believer in nonviolence. However, if Geelani decided violence is the only answer to solving the problem, no matter how much I vehemently disagree with his assessment, I will stand with him. In the end Geelani-sahib did kiss me on the forehead and called me his son, which in my own heart felt like I had been baptized again, and will forever be highlight in my life. By the way, I was raised Christian and spend a lot of time with Muslims so I have my own internal struggle as well…

Yasin Malik for me is one of the few who can legitimately answer this question. Yes I have my bias, however he has tried the strategy of ending the non-violent movement and pick up the gun, and returned to non-violence. He understands first hand that this is a losing proposition, and continues this as justification for his continued stance despite the continued house arrest, detention and violence by the Indian Military against the Kashmiri people, and himself specifically.

However, the Kashmiri people left me with a feeling of indifference. They were exhausted by the occupation, yet not spiritually broken. They resisted violence, but understood it’s possible necessity should that time come. And finally, they were unsure of the commitment of the separatist leadership, with the exception of Yasin Malik, whom everyone across the board felt had served his time, given his sacrifice and had accepted possible death for his non-violence struggle since he had faced while serving as a militant leader.

As a specialist in Conflict Resolution and Human Security, there are indicators that signify the core of why violence exists in any given area. That armed conflict and violence are not inherently found in any culture, religion or political movement.

You see violence is cyclical in nature. Unless the cycle can be broken, there will never be a viable solution. I firmly believe that the people in IJK have been able to disrupt that circle, and start a new line outside of the circle with their non-violent movement surviving the violence of last summer perpetrated by the Indian Military. Remember, 68 people died during non-violent protest, including Sheik Aziz.

I also believe, that India and Pakistan are the only actors in this conflict that are keeping that circle in motion. Whether it be ISI and Pakistani military funded militants who commit what I like to call “mosquito” attacks on the military, the Indian military using fake encounters to justify killing an innocent, or the occasional skirmish that happens when two militaries face each other down with soldiers who are brainwashed into false pretenses about the other. When violence does occur in Kashmir, the recipient of the response regardless of who initiated the violence, are the people of the Valley, and no one else. With all do respect to people in AJK, please dismantle and demobilize the militants in AJK. Their actions are continuing the suffering of the very people they supposedly are fighting for, and a people who have given employing violent struggle as a means to an end. It’s time the people of AJK, the ISI and the Pakistani Military got with the program. I hear your cries of injustice, but are you achieving any form of justice for the people in the Valley?

The people in the Valley receive the cyclical retaliation from the Indian Army due to, frankly speaking the actions of an outsider who obviously does not share the same value as the Kashmiri in the Valley. If the people in AJK did share that value and a belief in non-violent struggle, then groups like Lashkar e Taiba, Jaish e Muhammad and Hizbul Mujahideen would no longer be carrying out operations in IJK. This might be naïve to believe, but I put my faith into the actions of those on the ground, and what I have continued to witness is a failure to fundamentally support the people in IJK with their continued efforts, despite being labeled militant, terrorist or extremist, when those labels are meant for the actual actors of the violence, who do not come from the Valley, but from the other side of the LoC, or the Indian Military and government.

I know the non-violent struggle has taken it’s toll on the Kashmiri people to the point of exhaustion, but giving up on non-violence is to give up on the principles that they continue to stand for, and serve as an example that sets the Kashmiri apart from any other party in a conflict in the world today. In my opinion, there is no “what next” or “then what” to the question posed to this panel. The non-violent struggle is painful, it comes with sacrifice, it comes with death, torture, rape and the most despicable acts that human beings can perpetrate. Agreed, these are words that come easy from an American whose struggle is to lose twenty pounds or quit smoking cigarettes, but I have seen the resolve in the faces both young and old. It’s that face that keeps me from abandoning the issue regardless of the professional price I may pay for doing so.

If the Kashmiri were to once again start an internal uprising, pick up arms and fight the Indian occupation, I would not be surprised, and I can assure you I would support their cause for self-determination regardless because of the just nature behind its meaning, but I would be disappointed that they failed in what they have continued for so long and serve as an example of strength, courage, honor and dignity. As previously stated in the Murakami quote, “the egg may be wrong” and this is what I mean because I believe in the real power rests with those who practice non-violence. However, I will stand with the egg.

The Kashmiri have stared humiliation in the face, and smiled that innocent smile that you see on all their faces knowing that they are right, which forever guarantees their dignity. That the egg may appear to be broken, but the wall will never be justified in not allowing flexibility or padding to prevent it from doing so.

So to some up my opinion, the response of “then what” or “what next” would be to accept violence as an option, or logical next step. In my opinion, this is a short cut, an easy answer that will only score low marks on the exam of life. You are either non-violent or you are not. If people are martyred as part of the movement, then their place in heaven will be solemn and beautiful. Can any religious person honestly go to the pearly gates and justify breaking the second commandment handed down to Moses, “Thou Shalt not Kill.” For a religious person, this is part of God’s test, God’s rules, God’s “Bill of Rights”. To turn to violence in my opinion is to fail God’s test, and a continuation of the evil and ills that have continued for the past 62 years.

"Kashmir Issue: Regional & International Dimension"

By
Dr. Ghulam Nabi Fai
August 3, 2009

With every passing conference, we have constantly strived to improve ourselves owing to a belief that stagnation leads to decline. Onwards from that, this Tenth International Kashmir Peace Conference shares the eternal commitment and resolve of encouraging a peaceful resolution to the disputed territory of Jammu and Kashmir in which the aspirations of the people of Kashmir may be paramount. However, it does so in the spirit of reconciliation, not confrontation; equality, not discrimination; and hope, not despair. It is our firm conviction that wisdom will guide decisions rather than myth, superstition or deceit.

Overall, our purpose is to encourage the bringing together of scholars, academics, diplomats, from India, Pakistan and Kashmir as well as policy making personalities in Washington, D.C. Our spirit is of understanding, our heart is motivated by justice for Kashmiri peoples’ right of self-determination and mind recognizes the necessity of building bridges of peace and avoiding war.

We are optimistic that this conference is only the first step, in the long journey towards peace, which may, realistically, only be achievable by establishing a peace process that includes the governments of India, Pakistan as well as the accredited leadership of the people of Jammu and Kashmir. This may not happen without the deeper engagement of the United States with both India and Pakistan.

We have invited distinguished delegates from India, Pakistan and from both sides of the Ceasefire Line in Kashmir. They undoubtedly have varied and diverse experiences and expertise. So we do expect different presentations during the conference. It is simply because there are more than one parties involved with the dispute. In having the distinguished speakers from India, Pakistan and Kashmir share the podium, we want the beginning of a dialogue that can truly lead us out of the terrifying situation into a peaceful and diplomatic resolution.

So the objective of the conference is to create an atmosphere for dialogue – the dialogue that should take place between people with different opinions and different sides in conflict. This means making sure that there is a peace process in south Asia and there is free exchange of views and opinions, however, different but in an atmosphere that is free from fear, terror, intimidation and most importantly devoid of any blame game and accusation.

Hence, the aims and objectives of this conference are not to speak against one government or another. On the contrary, our main purpose is to facilitate a sincere dialogue in the form of a peace process to resolve the Kashmir issue that will ultimately bring peace and prosperity not only to Kashmir but also to the region of South Asia – home to one fifth of total human race.

So our primary motivation is: to establish a peace process that includes major stakeholders along with the movers and shakers in Pakistan, India and Kashmir. In that regard, we are entirely aware that a peace process has been initiated between India and Pakistan. That peace process has chosen to emphasize confidence building measures, increased economic trade and bus travel between Srinagar and Muzzaffarabad. Following the first high-level meeting of government officials from both countries, some success was achieved in recognizing the following key principles:

First, a commitment to peaceful methods of conflict resolution in South Asia;

Second, rejection of all forms of extremism that are engulfing Afghanistan, India, Pakistan and Kashmir;

Third, a just resolution concerning the Kashmir dispute in accordance with the will and wishes of the people of the territory.

The importance of these peace initiatives cannot be overstated, particularly when considering the link between stability and American socio-economic and geo-political interests. Sadly, the potential for violence is ever-present which could catapult South Asia towards uncontrollable de-stabilization.

The requisite need for Obama Administration with all other stakeholders is to prevent the further destabilization of south Asia and fulfill its moral obligation to mandate a peace process in Kashmir thereby, also protecting American interests in the region.

Here it is important to note that there has always been bipartisan expression of support for the U.S. position toward Kashmir. It is apparent from: When the Kashmir dispute erupted in 1948, the United States championed the stand that the future status of Kashmir must be ascertained in accordance with the wishes and aspirations of the people of the territory. The U.S. was a principal sponsor of the resolution # 47, which was adopted by the Security Council on 21 April 1948, and which was based on that unchallenged principle. Following the resolution, the U.S. as a leading member of the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan, adhered to that stand.

The clarification made by President George W. Bush on February 22, 2006 that the United States supports a solution of the Kashmir dispute acceptable not only to India and Pakistan but also to “citizens of Kashmir;”

As a candidate President Obama said “I will continue support of ongoing Indian Pakistani efforts to resolve Kashmir problem in order to address the political roots of the arms race between India and Pakistan;” He also mentioned on October 30, 2008, “We should probably try to facilitate a better understanding between Pakistan and India and try to resolve the Kashmir crisis so that they can stay focused not on India, but on the situation with those militants;”

US Under-secretary of State, William Burns, said in New Delhi on June 18th, 2009 that ‘“The US favours resumption of dialogue between India and Pakistan and wants the Kashmir problem to be solved keeping in view the aspirations of the Kashmiri people”. And Secretary of State, Mrs. Hillary Clinton said in Mumbai, India on July 18, 2009 in, “The decision (on Kashmir) has to be between India and Pakistan and it must take into account feelings of people of Kashmir.”

The urgent necessities to help put the issue of Kashmir on the road to a settlement are:

(I). India and Pakistan must include the genuine leadership of the State of Jammu and Kashmir in all future talks between these two countries. That means that talks need to be tripartite - India, Pakistan and the people of Kashmir.

(ii). Without detracting from the necessity of trilateral negotiations, Kashmiri leadership should be ready for a preparatory dialogue with the Indian Government provided an environment of non-violence is established. This can be done by:

a. The immediate and complete cessation of military and Para-military actions against the civilians’ population;

b. Withdrawal of the military presence from towns and villages;

c. Dismantling of bunkers, watch towers and barricades;

d. Releasing of political prisoners, including Mr. Shabir Ahmed Shah whose only crime is his reconciliatory efforts to bring two Hurriyet Conferences closer;

e. Annulling various special repressive laws;

f. Permitting to travel abroad without hindrance, Kashmiri leadership who favor a peaceful resolution;

g. Issuing visas to the Diaspora Kashmiri leadership to visit Jammu and Kashmir to help sustain the peace process.

(iii). There cannot be and should not be any condition from any party, other than commitment to non-violence and to negotiations.

(iv). In order to create a conducive atmosphere for talks, Kashmir needs to be demilitarized one hand and de-terrorized on the other.

(v). During the latest phase of the freedom struggle, in particular in 2008 & 2009, virtually whole population of Srinagar (capital city of Kashmir) - men, women and children - came out dozens of times on the streets to lodge a non-violent protest against the continuance of Indian occupation. At times, the number of people exceeded 1 million. Certainly, terrorists cannot compose the entire populations of the major towns of Kashmir. And one million people reflect the true nature of the spontaneous, indigenous, non-violent and peaceful Kashmiri resistance movement and not a movement of terrorism. This popular, indigenous and non-violent movement in Kashmir needs to be supported and acknowledged by the international community to help push a fair settlement of the lingering Kashmir dispute.

If we want the real peace, if we want the sincere settlement of the Kashmir problem then all parties to the dispute - India, Pakistan and the people of Kashmir - will have to show some flexibility, will have to make some sacrifices and will have to modify their stand on Kashmir. It is almost impossible to find a solution of Kashmir problem that respects all the sensitivities of Pakistan, that values all the sentiments of India and that keeps in tact the whole state of Jammu and Kashmir. But does that mean that we cannot find an imaginative solution of the Kashmir problem. Yes, we can. Yes, we can. But that solution demands flexibility, sacrifices and modification of the stated positions of all parties concerned.

Now is the time for the Obama administration to develop its positive and principled approach to the Kashmir problem into a tangible strategy. In this regard, an appointment of a special envoy on Kashmir would go a long way to hasten the progress of peace and reconciliation in the region of South Asia, particularly India, Pakistan & Afghanistan.

Kashmiri American Council/Kashmir Center Observed Anniversary of Sheikh Abdul Aziz

WASHINGTON, DC. August 11, 2009. The Kashmiri American Council/Kashmir Center is honored to pay homage today to a giant of a man who gave that last full measure of devotion in unflagging pursuit of a just and noble cause. The anniversary of Sheikh Abdul Aziz is celebrated all over the world to remind the Indian leadership that the mission of Sheikh Abdul Aziz – the right of self-determination of the people of Kashmir - never dies.

Dr. Ghulam Nabi Fai, Executive Director, Kashmiri American Council/Kashmir Center said that Sheikh Abdul Aziz was a popular leader who was assassinated at the age of 52 when he was leading a peaceful procession in order to cross the Ceasefire Line – a line that is in fact a line of conflict. Sheikh Sahib was gunned down by Indian soldiers along with 9 innocent Kashmiris because he wanted to remind the world about the right of self-determination that was agreed upon by both India and Pakistan, and championed by the democratic powers, including the United States.

Dr. Fai emphasized that in sharp contrast to many political giants, Sheikh Sahib was self effacing, not self aggrandizing. He taught unity and compromise with the wisdom that if we do not all hang together, we will assuredly all hang separately. It was his spectacular success in unifying various ranks that frightened the enemy into plotting his dastardly death in 2008.

The charismatic Sheikh Sahib was also imprisoned scores of times for the sole "crime" of speaking out the truth, never compromising his principles and calling for justice, said Fai.

The Executive Director warned that Kashmir problem has caused immense hardships to the people of the region of South Asia; the people of Kashmir in particular have been subjected to the worst kind of barbarous and inhuman treatment. Government of India should see the reason and take steps to resolve this question by accepting the APHC’s demand of tripartite talks - Governments of India and Pakistan and the leadership of the people of Jammu & Kashmir - without further delay. Government of India should also listen to India’s prominent personalities, like Vir Sanghvi who wrote in Hindustan Times, “If you believe in democracy, then giving Kashmiris the right to self-determination is the correct thing to do.”

The people of Kashmir will never forget the selfless contribution and the tireless efforts of Sheikh Abdul Aziz. His efforts will remain forever a milestone in the history of the freedom struggle of Kashmir. Let us all rededicate ourselves to the vision of the Sheikh Abdul Aziz and continue our struggle in unity with full faith in truthfulness and fairness of the cause of Kashmir, Fai concluded.

Part III: Economic Security for Civil Society to Effectively Combat Human Security Concerns

When it comes to improving the security situation in any society, it all begins with economics. Most people think of economics in terms of foreign direct investment, economic aid, the World Bank, IMF etc. However, when in societies such as Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, China or Iran, the stability and security in these states hinges on the quality of life that people must sustain for survival. It may even amaze many people to understand that if the majority of citizens in South Asian states were granted access to basic food necessities (grains, cereals, vegetable, fruits), basic education for their children increasing at the very least literacy (K-8) and some form or employment or trade opportunity, then the ability for those societies to prosper will become incredibly sustainable.

The recent uprising in Xingjian Province in Western China by the Uygur population stemmed from blatant policies of discrimination against this ethnic and Muslim sector of the population by the Han Chinese authority. For decades, stability in Xingjian for the most part was a sustainable existence. There were obvious concerns by the ethnic minority Uygur population that discrimination was taking place by the ruling Han. However, the Uygur’s never turned to violence, but did become a more isolated society and turned inward, rather seeking greater inclusion into mainstream Chinese society. Despite a lack of evidence, the Chinese Government has labeled the Uygur population as a terrorist minority following the 9/11 attacks, based on religious affiliation and the informal transient labor and trade sector with neighbors in Afghanistan. As the access and quality of life deteriorated in Xingjian province, so did the human security situation. The result was on full display this past month in the form of the riots in Guangdong and Urumqi.

This form of civil uprising in the region has not just found it’s way to the doorstep of central governments either. The Taliban also have found out first hand what happens when the desperation of civil society turns on those assuming responsibility for that population. In the SWAT Valley, Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) and Northwest Frontier Province (NWFP) of Pakistan, people have grown tired of the inability of the central government to once and for all bring stability to the region, and doubly tired of the Taliban’s intimidation and forced control of the population, leading to the formation of local militia’s. The significance has been the progress these newly formed militias have achieved compared to that of the government in rooting out the Taliban. This proves that when people are pushed to their limits, the basic necessity of survival will win out over any political entity, violent or otherwise.

Both of these examples are the result of bad economics, education and public infrastructure by either the central authority, or the militant organizations that have nothing to offer other than an extreme ideology and a negative human development index. Moreover, it questions the government’s ability to understand that regardless of the societal makeup, communities want to improve. They want to see development and advancement for their children. This does not mean that these communities want to be ‘westernized’, but it does mean that they do believe they can have sustainable growth within their own communal and social dynamic through flexibility and adaptation to fit specific social norms and requirements.

There are multiple examples found throughout the region. In Sri Lanka, the Tamil situation was the result of mass discrimination against the Tamil population, and complete disregard for their legitimacy as an ethnic group. Of course, this does not excuse the reign of terror that Tamil forces conducted on the general Sri Lankan population, and non-Tamil communities within the Tamil areas of Sri Lanka. However, it goes to the heart of the belief that when a population feels they are not being granted an ability to grow as a society, they will resort to desperate means in order to achieve their objectives.

In India, these examples are found throughout the sub-Continent. In Kashmir, Bengal and Orissa, the people have resorted to both violent and non-violent means of communal response. In Kashmir, following a brutal and often bloody uprising from 1988-1995, the struggle has maintained a non-violent stance despite militants coming across the LoC from Pakistan at the behest of Pakistani military and intelligence personnel. Moreover, the violent and oppressive means that the military and security forces continue to employ to dominate Kashmiri life and culture. In Bengal, the Naxalite population has resorted to full militant struggle for independence. In Orissa, the attacks on all non-Hindu’s, specifically Christians, and the propaganda in local media, also led to state wide protest. Most of the problems in India are the result of Hindu extremism propagated by the Bhartiya Janata Party (BJP) or their more extreme subsidiary the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS). It must be noted that these two powerful political groups are more nationalist in nature rather than religious extremists. However, their propaganda of violent action against non-Hindu communities makes their ideology appear more in line with the Taliban than say the Stalinist regimes in other parts of the world.

In all of these cases, civil society was pushed to the brink or responding either in a violent manner, or in the case of Kashmir, strikes shutting down the whole Valley in an attempt to finally get the world to take notice of the situation. In a recent conference in Washington DC regarding Kashmir, one panel was posed with the question, “When non-violent movements fail, what’s next?” The answer more than likely is not very trivial to people living in the West or the developed world. However, unless analysts, academics and politicians attempt to walk in the shoes of the disenfranchised in any given society, the conclusions will always appear to be simple, without realizing the complexities that a society faces ethnically, religiously, politically and economically. In every case within South Asia, the model continues to mirror that of the colonial model, which created the problems that still exist today.

In order to solve the problems regarding economic and social development, human security, food scarcity and education in South Asian communities, civil society must have greater input into the sustainability of proposed actions. A new trend must begin to emerge where confidence-building measures (CBMs) target the ground realities of civil society. Human migration, informal labor sectors and inner tribal trading must be addressed in a pragmatic manner in order to bring realistic solutions to the daily problems faced in the most dire of circumstances. This will come in relaxed border restrictions through centralized registration based on trust and free of intimidation by the central authority, discrimination and/or racism. Finally, the corruption throughout the bureaucratic agencies of the central governments must be addressed and dealt with swiftly and without prejudice. In fact, this problem is at the heart of all the other problems.

What we find in South Asia today, are governments whose perceived understanding of governance is the model left behind by colonial powers. Exploitation, racism and cultural exclusivity plague the day-to-day activities of civil society in every nation state in the region. The assumption that these populations are in some way homogenous in nature and not filled with the diversity one might find in the United States is patently false. In fact, the melting pot theory may even hold more substance in South Asia than any part of the world. Unfortunately, the ruling classes who are left in charge following either a dictator, oppressive regime, ruling political party or otherwise have left nothing but poverty, despair and corruption in their wake, and a future mess for the international community to try and solve.

Until the nation states of the region come together in a cooperative manner, address the petty differences that continue to obfuscate the situation in the region; changes will never have a sustainable outcome. The answers to these problems must come from within. The animosities towards western nations who are viewed as the cause of the problems today are valid. However, it is time that these governments keep blaming the West, and come up with viable solutions for all of their people.

Part II: Cross-border trade, informal labor migration and citizen registration for border crossing management efforts

In order for the people within the South Asian region to gain confidence regarding their own security, governments must reduce restrictions in cross-border trade, affairs and labor migration. Hence the reasoning confidence building measures (CBMs) necessitate the targeting of local communities, rather than the status quo of CBMs among centralized governments. Of course, given the regional security complications, this will be no easy task to complete. However, in order to bring populations more into the mainstream and avoid the psychology of ‘criminalization’ of the average citizen due to inspection, regional authorities need to establish a unified registration system to alleviate such concerns. The social, cultural and religious ties among various groups will allow enable the ability to trade within their own communities across borders.

For example, the opening of cross border trade across the Line of Control (LoC) in Kashmir resulted in some minor gains. Of course, there have been complications with regards to who can get the permit to cross the LoC.. Moreover, the level of bureaucracy, limitations of which goods can be traded and the strains placed on the Kashmiri traders on both sides of the LoC continues to hinder the progress. However, the result of trade has increased economic gains within the region, and shows clearly that the political problems between India and Pakistan are not between the people on the ground.

The same can be said between Pakistan and Afghanistan. In fact, there are greater cultural ties between the Pashtun tribes in Afghanistan and Pakistan’s SWAT Valley, Northwest Frontier Province (NWFP) and Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA). Additionally, the projected surplus in the production of wheat in Afghanistan should be a useful asset for the central governments to establish some form of regulatory method to increase cross border trade[1].

Stop the bureaucratic madness

The complaints in the Kashmiri cross border trade agreement mainly stems from complications generated either by bureaucrats in the central government, or military personnel monitoring the border who do not have the justification or a reason for prevention. Reports of 70-80 trucks on the Pakistan side waiting for approval by the government was an initial blow to cross border relations because the majority of goods crossing the border are from the Indian side[2]. However, the Indian authorities have placed restrictions on certain commodities that can be traded across the border, specifically cardamom and coconut[3]. Since the original idea of the CBMs targets boosting confidence among the local populations, it lacks justification by both India and Pakistan to create complications for the local population. If the reasoning was due to security concerns, that would carry possible legitimacy. However, the continued lack of justification to those seeking to trade across the LoC reeks of political unwillingness to actually see progress in the sixty year old stand off between India and Pakistan.

The issues in cross border trade across the Pakistan Afghanistan border are undeniably much more complicated. The problem of Taliban and insurgent militant organizations streaming across the border are a problem for military and security forces on both sides. However, militants rarely use the traditional road systems to cross the borders due to the frequency of patrolling by the Pakistani Military and NATO/US Forces. Therefore, regulatory measures are a viable option for the two governments to move forward with the agreement reached between the Zardari and Karzai Governments following their trilateral meetings with President Obama in May[4].

Once again, the point of the cross border trade is to alleviate the strains of the ongoing conflicts in the region on the regional communities, the vast majority of which are not participating in any form of militant movement. The fact that these so-called CBMs are being restricted due to bureaucratic foot dragging undermines the whole notion that these are CBMs created for local communities. The greater the ability the people within the Pashtun tribal areas have in restoring a sense of normalcy and rejecting the threats and intimidation by the Taliban and insurgents, will pay dividend in cooperation with governments to help combat extremism. Essentially, communities need to be part of the solution for sustainable development growth leading to greater regional security.

Legitimizing informal and migrant labor sectors

Informal and migrant labor within the South Asian region has continued for centuries. Look no further than the Uyghar’s captured by US Forces entering Afghanistan from Pakistan in search of work. Since the Uyghurs in question were technically Chinese, and Muslim, there was a belief that they were entering Afghanistan in order to join insurgent groups[5]. Unfortunately for these men, they were unable to return home out of fear of being labeled a terrorist due to their length incarceration in Guantanamo Bay. However, they are a prime example of the informal and migrant labor that occurs across all the regional borders.

Few admit that ethnic and tribal groups do not recognize the borders drawn in the region by the British Government during decolonization. Many of these ethnic groups have functioned for centuries, relying on one another for labor, trade, education, and in some cases food assistance. This inter-regional alliance among groups needs continued fostering, but can also be regulated in a way that groups do not feel violated or insulted by a central government that provides little facilities in terms of goods and services.

The legitimizing through transparent registration free of extortion and corruption, the economic impact for centralized governments should produce robust gains in economic growth, cross-border alliances among states and the possibility of greater regional security. States need to work with one another at better facilitation measures regarding cross border interaction. There is recognition of the security dilemma that these cross border migrations pose to central governments. On the contrary, granting a community greater opportunity to goods, services and income can only increase the psyche that central governments are working towards the betterment for their people, and not just their constituencies.

---

[1] http://www.irinnews.org/report.aspx?ReportId=84801

[2] http://blog.taragana.com/n/kashmir-traders-fear-closure-of-trade-with-pakistan-121515/

[3] http://blog.taragana.com/n/cross-border-trade-between-kashmir-and-pakistan-hit-72819/

[4] http://islamabad.usembassy.gov/pr-09050803.html

[5] http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2008/06/30/uighurs-guantanamo

Ending the colonial state of mind: A Three part look at constructive measures for peace in South Asia

The next three postings will be a series of ideas addressing how to combat militarism, poverty and societal fracturing within South Asia by addressing colonial legacy and the psychological impact still felt throughout the region from a people’s perspective, and not exclusively the nation state. Additionally, South Asia in this context includes, India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Kashmir, Iran, the Caucus States and China (Xingjian).

Part I: Ending the Colonial Legacy via Community Targeted CBMs

Many of the problems facing South Asia today are a continuation of the colonial legacy left behind by the British Empire. A common mistake made by political scientists and development organizations resides in the inability to recognize that elements of the colonial past still haunt the development of these societies in the modern era. In fact, the way in which central governments throughout South Asia govern is deeply rooted in the colonial model. A prime example of this can be found in India with regards to Kashmir, or in Pakistan with regards to the SWAT Valley, Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) and the Northwest Frontier Province (NWFP).

These areas are not so much governed, as they are subjugated to a central authority. Like that of the colonial master, the central government rejects any notion of social framework that existed prior to the creation of the state itself. This form of governing clearly mirrors the way in which the British governed their territories. Moreover, the lack of development is directly associated with a lack of respect, if not racism towards these local communities, not unlike that of colonialism.

The only way this legacy can be fully extracted from the psyche of the average citizen is through the employment of Confidence Building Measures directed at the community level. Essentially, until the modern South Asian nation state can govern their citizens based on respect for all citizens, regardless of religion, ethnicity, race and gender; any development will fail to fully develop into a functioning peaceful state.

Utilizing CBMs to instill public confidence

Confidence Building Measures (CBMs), the hallmarks of progress in negotiations, are often recited when attempting to show progress between India and Pakistan, Pakistan and Afghanistan, etc. However, quite often the CBMs failed to address the more localized issues that continue to threaten stability throughout the South Asian region, specifically poverty. Militant organizations in the region have proven without a doubt, that in order to win South Asia, you must control the local population through exploitation of cultural dynamics. Village by village, province by province; by taking short gains and expanding into greater regional control, groups like the Taliban, al Qaeda and Lashkar e Taiba have shown nation states why they are winning, and major military operation are failing.

Militant organizations are not offering any traditional form of CBMs; on the contrary their only offerings come in the form of fear and intimidation, for so-called ‘protection’ of their cultural identity from western imperialism. Militant groups are able to exploit the corruption of local and national governments in order to achieve their long-term goals. The only way that sustainable security and development will be achieved; primarily will result from states targeting CBMs to the people on the ground, and where evidence of progress can be evaluated.

The same can be said in Indian Administered Kashmir. The name itself lends itself to the notion of being a colonial state. Furthermore, the reference by the Indian Government to Kashmir as the ‘crown jewel of the princely states’ implies nothing less. When India does negotiate with Pakistan, CBMs are always a tool for greater cooperation between the two disputing powers, and not for the Kashmiri people. Of course, there was the Srinagar-Muzzafarabad Bus Service across the Line of Control, but token measures over a sixty year span of conflict over the region hardly grants the local population any feeling of confidence that they are at all a part of the discussion.

It must be stressed that Kashmiri society continues to reject militarism as a means to combat this policy, and utilize the non-violent tradition that led to partition of the sub-Continent from British rule. A prime example are the strikes and protests that took place last summer, where all violence was perpetrated by the Indian military without retaliation by the Kashmiri people. Any militancy within Kashmir is conducted by groups who have little to no relevance within Kashmiri society, and are not Kashmiri themselves.

Additionally, the same can be said for the majority of militancy throughout South Asia. Whether discussing Afghanistan, Pakistan, India or Kashmir, militant and extremist ideology did not originate there. The militant movement stems from Arab groups and Arab influence that is not South Asian in origin. These groups have just utilized and exploited culture and religion as a mechanism for their ideology of hate. If the international community really wants to pacify the region and bring an end to these organizations, they will begin employing localized CBMs as a tool rather than the gun. Only then will a change begin to be actualized.

Disconnect with Ground Realities

In South Asia, most politicians fail to understand the ground realities that communities face for two main reasons. The first being a failure to empathize with their subjects due to a life experience embedded in privilege, protections and lack of understanding how to address localized issues. The second typically comes from widespread corruption of the local leadership who serve their own self-interests rather than the purpose of a better community. Without a doubt, these are two key elements in the failure to stabilize Afghanistan, Pakistan, India and Kashmir.

It goes without saying that CBMs between states are necessary for long-term stability, especially in South Asia. However, the CBMs between all of the regional states, India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran and the Caucuses, are aimed at ensuring short-term political needs to win elections, and not aimed at alleviating the human security elements in the most crucial areas of the state. The adverse impact that failing to stabilize local communities on the micro level has in improving the overarching macro level goals of a sustainable future for the region remain obvious.

The common linkages to security issues found throughout the region should enable states to take a macro level regional approach towards greater cooperation. However, only through the employment of cooperative measures to assess, monitor and evaluate the gains at the local level can success be achievable. This will necessitate addressing the ‘top down’ institution of corruption within states before any legitimate development efforts can gain a foothold, let alone any form of regional cooperation. The first CBM that can offer the people within the South Asian region will be to undo the corruption model that western states have employed to ensure their control over the governing authority at the expense of its citizens.

CBMs for Warlords Rather than People

Institutions at both the local and national level are highly underdeveloped due to institutional corruption ensuring the ruling class’ longevity. The highly developed corruption model found throughout government institutions in South Asia come in the forms of positional appointments, extortion and once again, a failure of understanding that short term stability will lead to long term success; the only guarantee for long-term political control. Rather than addressing the corruption issue from the outset, a sustainable CBM for the people, the employment of warlords continue to be the institutional model.

Of course, corruption remains the catalyst and source for the problems in the region. For example, in Afghanistan, former ‘warlords’ such as Hamid Karzai and the rest of the Northern Alliance were granted legitimacy due to their opposition to Taliban rule. Rather than showing understanding of the most important fabric in Afghan society, ‘Pashtunwali’ (Pashtunwali is the tribal social structure found in Afghanistan and parts of Pakistan), the Bush Administration employed the services of warlords as the new ‘garrisons’ of Afghanistan. Had the administration utilized this already known aspect within Afghan culture, the situation found in Afghanistan might look entirely different.

Following the removal of the Taliban from power, the anointing of Karzai as de facto leader in Afghanistan paved the way for corruption to once again plague any form of stability for the Afghan people. The same mistake was continued by Pakistan in the SWAT Valley and Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA), from the Government of Pakistan’s negotiations with the Pakistan based Taliban.

Taking down the Taliban was not a difficult task for the US Military. However, rather than addressing the wishes and needs of the people, and extracting the mindset of the Afghani people that the US was yet another colonial power looking to exploit them, the focus primarily targeted the Taliban and Al Qaeda. Had the United States addressed the needs of the people initially, the Taliban would have permanently lost any foothold necessary to sustain any kind of long-term campaign.

This was a key CBM that should have been employed from the outset. If the intention is to liberate people from an oppressive regime, the option of replacing one oppressor for another should not be considered. Unfortunately, the shortsighted approach to Afghanistan following the invasion in 2001 ensured that the Taliban would not fully be eliminated from the equation. This colonial approach instituted by western powers over the region was a continuation of mistakes the British Empire left in place. One would have hoped that given British involvement in Afghanistan, they would have given greater insight as to why they failed, and Afghanistan became known as a place where ‘empires go to die.’

Regional Cooperation for Micro-Alleviation

The necessity of regional cooperation to meet modern security and development goals will require robust pragmatic approaches at the local level for sustainable gains. For example, the greatest threat to regional security in South Asia is poverty, an issue that militant groups continue to exploit with incredible efficiency. Groups such as the Taliban are able to exploit the ‘Pashtunwali’ mainly because they understand the power it holds within Afghan society, The idea of a ‘western’ style rule within the region will always fail due to the contradictive nature in which the two societal structures function.

However, the cultural linkage between states grant regional institutions an ability to work together to alleviate poverty, unemployment and a lack of educational institutions. Regional alliances have proven to be a successful tool for the Taliban and other extremist elements, by utilizing the cultural tendencies as form of CBMs. As previously stated, what extremist groups are offering are not CBMs by any traditional sense, but by showing communal respect, they are able to win allegiances of communities who otherwise do not subscribe to their ideology of hate. If governments would use these cultural ties to their advantage, the progress would show robust improvement.

The development complications in South Asia continue to baffle western powers and organizations. However, a continuation to fail to address the needs of the people within the societal framework remains the very reason why extremist groups continue to have localized success. As long as any form of development continues to appear as another form of colonialism, and an infringement on the societal structure, this failure will continue.