news details |
|
|
| Relation between 9/11 and problem of Kashmir | | |
Dr. Rajkumar Singh
In the recent past India has been considered increasingly as an emerging power and a key stabilising player in the South Asian subcontinent. In the situation the international community is no longer keen to discuss Kashmir or force a solution; it knows India will not be pushed. The stress is now on India and Pakistan finding their own answers, and not much attention is being given to the wishes of the Kashmiris themselves. However, the event of 9/11 proved a turning point not only in the history of America but in the concepts of Kashmir issue too. The dynamics of Kashmir conflict have undergone a drastic change since 9/11 due to dramatic changes brought by US War on Terrorism in the region. The US focus on fighting terrorism, extremism and Islamic fundamentalism, most of the times all linked together has put tremendous pressure on Pakistan’s Kashmir policy. The event of September 2001 had helped create a favourable environment for India in three ways. First, India could succeed in framing Pakistan as a part of the problem of terrorism, as there was an organic link between Pakistan’s support for radical Islamic groups in Kashmir and Afghanistan. This has highlighted the role of Pakistani intelligence agencies in supporting the Taliban and other radical Islamic militants operating in Kashmir and Afghanistan. Second, India has been able to get the US support in fighting terrorism and both countries have been applying joint pressure on Pakistan to abandon support for such radical Islamic groups operating from Afghanistan and Pakistani controlled territories. Third, the distinction between terrorists and freedom fighters has been blurred in the post-9/11 phase. In the name of freedom fighters, these radical groups are involved in terrorist activities. With the blurring of distinction between freedom struggle and terrorism, international community has become more intolerant to terrorism.
Difference of perception
In broader sense India argued the resistance in India-held-Kashmir is primarily a issue of terrorism and that Pakistan is sponsoring and supporting “Cross-border-terrorism” in Indian Kashmir. Even before 9/11 and US war on terrorism, India had consistently accused Pakistan of waging “proxy war”, “low- intensity conflict” and “cross-border-terrorism” in India- held Kashmir. The event of 9/11 provided India a golden opportunity to push forward its own agenda of counter-terrorism in Kashmir. Consequently, India tried to combine the issues of War on Terrorism and Kashmir so as to draw maximum benefit from the changed international opinion in favour of fighting terrorism, lock stock and barrel. In line India strongly contested in Pakistan’s inclusion in the US war on terrorism and repeatedly urged on the US to include Kashmir in its war on terror. New Delhi also questioned Pakistan’s credentials in becoming partner is US counter terrorism strategy while being a “source” “hub” or “epicenter” of terrorism and offered unconditionally to the US, all material and operational support for its military campaign against terrorism in Afghanistan.
In past decades Pakistan has always looked at Kashmir struggle as a freedom struggle and supported the right of self-determination for the Kashmiris and pledged moral, Political and diplomatic support to the Kashmir cause. Ever since 1990 uprising in India-held-Kashmir, Pakistan stepped up its support for the Kashmiris that allegedly included material support to the fighters in Kashmir. In the context Pakistan was deeply concerned about the potential fallout of 9/11 on its Kashmir cause that unleashed US global war on terror and included Pakistan, its regional ally, in this fight. After 9/11 Pakistan cleverly drew a distinction between freedom struggle and terrorism and made concerted effort that War on Terrorism (WoT) should not affect the Kashmiris fight for the right of self-determination. Pakistan distinguished between the “acts of legitimate resistance and freedom struggles and acts of terrorism”. Pakistan’s concern flowed from its principled stance and support to the freedom struggle in Kashmir, which increasingly came under pressure from India and world opinion after 9/11. At the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) Musharraf observed: ‘the just struggle of a people for self determination and liberation from colonial or foreign occupation cannot be outlawed in the name of terrorism.’
Aim of Pak policy
In the same year (2002) Musharraf in his speech at the South Asian Association for Regional Co-operation (SAARC) Summit, stated, ‘We regard terrorism as a grave threat to civil society. We abhor violence, we are determined to eliminate terrorism and therefore, fully implement the SAARC Convention for Combating Terrorism. Thus, Pakistan has adopted dual policy in relation to terrorism in Kashmir. Within the broader international setting Pakistan has repeatedly condemned terrorism in all forms and manifestations, but strongly believes that terrorism or terrorist activities cannot be eradicated unless the causes of terrorism are removed. There are at least five elements in Pakistan’s definition of terrorism, First, Pakistan considers terrorism a threat to humanity and human civilization and in principle condemns all acts of terrorism anywhere in the world. Second, Pakistan maintains that the root causes of terrorism should be addressed as a part of the international campaign against terrorism. Third, the fight against terrorism should include “State terrorism” implying case of Kashmir, Fourth, a distinction should be drawn between freedom struggles and terrorism. Fifth, a distinction should be made between the Islamic religion and terrorism.
Interference of foreign powers
But in post-9/11 period Musharraf, although slowly, came to the ground realities in Kashmir. Earlier the Pakistani military establishment had a wrong perception that as long as Pakistan co-operated with the United States against Taliban and Al Queda, Washington would turn a blind eye to its policy in Kashmir. This proved to be a miscalculation as there was a growing recognition within Pakistan that proxy war and the use of terror, violence and religious extremism in Jammu and Kashmir are not globally accepted, but are counterproductive, in almost everyway. Gradually even Musharraf had realised that Pakistan’s support for insurgency only helped undermine the political credibility of militants. Under growing Indian/US international pressure, Musharraf defined parameters for Kashmir struggle, while keeping the commitment to Kashmir cause intact. In his 12 January 2002 speech, Musharraf pledged, ‘No organisatation will be allowed to indulge in terrorism in the name of Kashmir.... Anyone found involved in any terrorist act would be dealt with sternly. Strict action will be taken against any Pakistani individual, group or organisation found involved in terrorism within or outside the country. He banned Lashkar and Jaish that India alleged were involved in such activity but at the same time, reiterated Islamabad’s commitment to Kashmir struggle, ‘Kashmir runs in our blood.... We will continue to extend our moral, political and diplomatic support to Kashmiris. We will never budge an inch from our principled stand on Kashmir. However, the external pressure to roll back the Jihadi culture and cross border terrorism had, no doubt, demoralised the groups operating in India. Equally significant, the world community has made it clear to Islamabad that regardless of the moral legitimacy of Pakistani claims on Kashmir, its policy of waging a low-intensity war using Islamic fundamentalist proxies in Jammu and Kashmir is unacceptable. What makes the situation worse for Musharraf was Pakistan’s domestic elites stand divided on his Kashmir policy. The Islamic parties want him continue the Jihadi in Kashmir while mainstream opposition parties and liberal intellectuals were in favour of dismantling the Jihadi infrastructure and had made a strong case for terminating the insurgency in Indian Kashmir. These liberal intellectuals and mainstream politicians were of the opinion that so long as the military-intelligence establishment continues to allow such militant groups to operate from within the Pakistan-occupied territories to continue their operations in Indian Kashmir, Pakistan will be unable to achieve domestic and external peace. For decades, Pakistan tried simultaneously to be both Islamic and modern. Modernism demands secularism even where a state religion exists. Now, after September 2001, Pakistan could no longer ride both the horses. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
STOCK UPDATE |
|
|
 |
| BSE
Sensex |
 |
| NSE
Nifty |
|
|
| |
CRICKET UPDATE |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
