2016 Kashmir Intifida- Case For UN

Where  We Erred 

Z. G. Muhammad

“Every step toward the goal of justice requires sacrifice, suffering, and struggle; the tireless exertions and passionate concern of dedicated individuals.”  For past sixty-seven years, this is exactly, what we the people of Jammu and Kashmir have been doing. Time and again we have not allowed them to ‘write us down in history with their bitter and twisted lies’ but   to use a poet’s words every time   like a   ‘black ocean, leaping and wide we rose   leaving behind nights of terror and fear.’

In 1947, notwithstanding our cries for justice getting drowned in the din of the gunfire and cacophony of some leaders captivated by the lust and lustre of power we continued to resist at individual and collective levels. Suffered political apartheids, persecutions, exiles and detentions. From Jammu hundreds of thousands were driven out like herds of cattle by ferocious predators in the African jungles. Equally, a good number of strong voices of dissent exiled from Kashmir province. For raising voices against coercing the people to submit to the deceitful and foisted decisions after October 1947, more than ten thousand people were put in dungeons. Notwithstanding, the lead characters suffering nemesis for their villainy in 1947- nothing changed for the beleaguered people of the State.  Every “gubernatorial” change made to perpetuate the denial of justice to people of the state in fact brought   mountains of miseries and sufferings. History stands witness that the people refused to bow down before the State despite it using all crude and cheap coercive tactics to break their will and determination.  Instead, Kashmiris choose to resist and make most precious sacrifices at all important junctures. In support of their cause, the people for forty-two years continued peaceful struggle with all its crests and troughs, marked by protests, black days and civil disobediences. In 1989, the contours of the movement changed after youth took to the arms. In keeping with changes affecting global politics in the post 9/11 scenario, there was a paradigm shift during 2008, 2009 and 2009 in as much the movement for self-determination attaining a new avatar – that is internationally known as the ‘intifada.’

True, during the nineties, the movement did find support at the international level in the media and on the diplomatic front. The United State’s largely changed its post-1962, India-China war policy towards Kashmir and renewed its support for the right to self-determination of people of the state as it had done at the time of the United Nations passing one after another resolution.  The 2008-2010, ‘Intifada’ and chilling killings of 116 teenagers during 2010 did cause a stir in the international media and invoked statements from the highest in the world.  But, this ‘Intifada’ did not give us the requisite diplomatic mileage that would have made the   Security Council to take a Suo Motto cognizance of the Dispute pending on its agenda.  Moreover,   hold a special session as it has been doing whenever global peace is threatened. The majority of the strategic experts across the globe recognize Kashmir as a ‘most dangerous place in the world’ and see the Dispute as a nuclear flashpoint.   The question arises, where did we err? That prevented our movement gain needed diplomatic mileage.  To answer this one needs to recount briefly genesis of the Dispute.

People of the state are ipso facto primary party to the dispute, but they cannot represent their case before the United Nations. The UN resolutions that guarantee the right to self-determination to people of the State also recognize India and Pakistan as parties to the Dispute. India, despite being a signatory to the international agreement and the resolutions on Kashmir reneged its commitment. So, it is Islamabad only that could because of the 2008 -2010 Intifada taken Kashmir Dispute to the floor of the Security of Council. Or it could have asked any friendly country or a member country of the OIC for introducing a resolution in the Security Council. Suffering from acute diplomatic inertia, Islamabad did not even contemplate that the 2010 “intifada” in Kashmir with such a strong international press in favour provided it an opportunity for taking Kashmir to the United Nation’s Security Council.

It was true in 2010; General Musharraf was not on the scene, but his ghost loomed large on the country’s foreign policy more particularly his Kashmir policy. His formula on Kashmir based on his personal idea that was initially seen as ‘irresponsible statement’ and was not endorsed by the Parliament continued to make rounds in the media and Pakistan Foreign Office. The debate on ‘alternatives’ solutions other than the UN held a plebiscite in the State kick-started by Musharraf on 25 October 2004 continued to be orchestrated by a group of columnists and journalists. The democratic government instead of depending on its Foreign Office continued to be caught up in the backchannel discourse started by Musharraf by nominating one of his class-fellow a novice on Kashmir and international affairs. The back channel dialogue has in fact diluted the Kashmir cause. Millions of dollars were expended on these; back channels rendezvous in various countries. Interestingly, these back channel jamborees of former diplomats, academia, and former sleuths have not made any contribution to the resolution of the Kashmir Dispute but instead created just vested interests. Had Islamabad, in 2010, been able to cage ghost of the former President, unburden itself of his half-baked ideas and taken 2010 Intifada to the UN, it would have at least taken Kashmir out from the back burner.

True, compared to previous years, Kashmir during 2015 and the first half of 2016,   remained in a debate in the United Nations and its allied forums.  The     New York Times described the July uprising as ‘Kashmir in Crisis’ and forewarned that ‘a failure to address will only push more young Kashmiris into militancy, and make impossible a political solution’. This uprising provides yet another opportunity for bringing the problem before the United Nations for the resolution and taking New Delhi out of denial mode.