 |
Al-Ahram Weekly 15 - 21 July 1999 Issue No. 438 
|
||
Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 |
| ||
|
Al-Ahram Weekly 15 - 21 July 1999 Issue No. 438
|
||
| Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 |
| ||
Egypt Region International Economy Opinion Culture Profile Features Travel Living Sports Time Out Chronicles People Cartoons Letters Divided and unruly
By Mahmoud MuradFor forty five days, the gunfire exchanges in the Kargil mountains in Kashmir have not ceased. The bleak landscape is shrouded in smoke. Fears that the war may spread to engulf the entire South Asian region were quelled, however, when Pakistan recently agreed to tighten the reins on the Islamist infiltrators whose intrusion into Indian-held territory had provoked New Delhi's all-out retaliation. As a mounting number of aircraft crash, and whole villages are displaced and evacuated, the scene is a pathetic blend of tragedy and farce.
The international community is responsible for the protection of human rights. But goodwill gestures and statements urging restraint have proven to be as hollow in the case of Kashmir as they are elsewhere. Action is only forthcoming when the strategic interests of Western powers, especially the United States, are threatened.
In Bosnia-Herzegovina, the international community failed to intervene until the cause was already lost. In Kosovo, the superpowers reacted only after their hesitation had ensured the disintegration of the region and the devastation of its Muslim population. When they did act, it was not out of humanitarian feeling, but so as to foil any further strengthening of the Russian-Yugoslav alliance which threatened the very heart of Europe.
Kashmir is another story. Its location in Asia, the continent which promises to be the world's economic powerhouse in the next century, is in itself sufficient pretext for the superpowers to feel tempted to shackle its progress. The well-being of India's neighbouring Hindus, as of Pakistan's Muslims, means little to the Western powers, for whom the destabilisation of the two South Asian rivals can only seem advantageous. Thus commander-in-chief of US Central Command, Gen. Anthony Zinni, who was supposedly engaging in shuttle diplomacy to defuse tensions between the two countries, was obliged to tell the press that he had failed to win consent for US mediation. But this was just the cover story: Zinni's real mission was to check and verify specific information provided by the CIA and other US intelligence reports on military activity in the region.
US reports had from the beginning disclosed that US intelligence and armed forces were masterminding the operation in Indian-controlled Kashmir. The reports added that the Pakistani armed forces had carried out these orders secretly, without notifying Islamabad. Their main aim was to take advantage of the current instability in New Delhi, caused by the covert and overt struggles between the ruling Janata Bharatia Party (JBP) on the one hand, and the formidable opposition Congress Party on the other, as well as by the decision to hold early general elections at the end of September.
Kashmir has long been a bitterly disputed region. Jaswant Singh, India's foreign minister, told Al-Ahram Weekly that Kashmir was an integral part of India and was not negotiable under any circumstances. At the same time, Sartaj Aziz, the Pakistani foreign minister, assured the Weekly that Kashmir was simply the creation of a conspiracy.
The writer (left) with the Pakistani foreign Minister Sartaj Aziz
While both parties are implicated in the present mess to some extent, the British alone must bear full responsibility for the root of the evil which is torturing Kashmir. In time-honoured fashion, the colonial power made sure to create an enclave of hostility and tension in an area from which they were compelled to withdraw, after having thoroughly plundered its natural resources. Little wonder, then, that border disputes seem to follow, wherever the British go. What happened in Kashmir is the mirror image of British policy in the Arabian Gulf and Africa.
Kashmir covers nearly 240,000 square kilometres of largely mountainous terrain. Historical sources have it that Islam was brought here in the eighth century of the Hijra by a Turkeman Muslim named Leyl Shah. The ruler of the province at that time, Renjen Shah, converted and adopted the name of Sadr-Eddin. Kashmir was attacked by the Sikhs in 1819, and a bloody battle ensued, sealed by a Sikh victory. Conflict persisted until 1847, when the British undertook to rule Kashmir along with the entire Indian subcontinent. They wasted no time in implementing their notorious policy of "divide and rule", thus sowing the seeds for many a future conflict. Within a single year of their occupation, the British had sold the entire province, with its land, population and natural resources, to a Maharajah called Julal Sikh for the amount of seven and a half million rupees. The sale was arranged so that it did not entail surrendering sovereignty over the province, which remained the prerogative of the British, but granted the new "owner" the right to exploit its resources, along with the duty to obey British orders.
Thus, although the majority of the population were by then Muslim, Kashmir was placed by the British under a non-Muslim regime. This remained the situation until the province was divided in 1947. In the words of Pakistani Foreign Minister Singh, "Turning over Kashmir to Pakistan would have been the only logical thing to do". But, with British support, India was able to obstruct the implementation of the decision, and Indian troops soon occupied the greater part of the province, leaving only 12,000 square kilometres under Pakistani rule. The border between the two sectors of Kashmir thus came to be known as the "Line of Control."
During our discussion of the situation, India's foreign minister, Jaswant Singh, explained that Pakistan had been sending infiltrators and regular soldiers across the Line of Control and into Indian-controlled Kashmir for almost a decade. The Indian forces, he said, were determined to fight on to crush the invaders. The Pakistani forces thus had only two alternatives: to pull out of the Indian-controlled areas, thus restoring the status quo, or face annihilation.
While India and Pakistan both have equally violent objections to an independent Kashmir, Pakistan is urging the problem be solved through the implementation of a 1948 UN resolution. India, on the other hand, believes that the Simla agreement, along with the Lahore agreement signed last March, have together abrogated the UN resolution, which prescribed that the two states resolve their differences through dialogue and bilateral talks.
If they should ever be given the choice, it seems more likely Kashmir, with its Muslim majority, would opt to go with Pakistan. Yet despite all this talk of what is best, and who wants what, in all the discourses of all the politicians on both sides, the people of the province themselves seem to have been totally marginalised. How long can their voice continue to be stifled?
