Some action is better than no action. But this action was a big one, shaking the very status of the state of Jammu and Kashmir under India’s control.
The dillydallying over the Kashmir problem for over 70 years got some kick from the government of India with the announcement two years ago when Article 370 was removed from the Constitution.
This very article gave special status within the union of India. This special status meant significant autonomy to J and K, which no other state in India has.
Besides the abrogation of Article 370, the Indian government also bifurcated the state into two central-controlled Union Territories.
One is the Jammu-Kashmir region, and the other is Ladakh.
Was Article 370 ever helped the people of the state in terms of socio-economic conditions?
Or did it ever give some autonomy to Jammu and Ladakh regions within the state?
Did Article 370 help in resolving the Kashmir problem. The one answer to all these questions is NO.
Not because anything was wrong with the article, rather I support it. Even to the extent that this kind of provision should be granted to every state in India.
Autonomy is the key that can guarantee the unity of India by respecting its linguistic and cultural diversities.
The special status under Article 370, instead of honouring its intents, was underhandedly and even unethically exploited by the Kashmiri leadership, more precisely by the Valley politicians.
And over the years the Kashmir Problem has become a full-fledged industry controlled by the few families of the Valley and terrorists within the state and across from Pakistan.
Will all the removal of Article 370 solve the perennial Kashmir Problem? The answer is no.
Because Jammu and Kashmir are two separate identities. Keeping them together without giving regional autonomy to the Jammu region will keep the frustrations of this region alive.
Jammu could be the clue to the Kashmir tangle if it gets a fair share of the power within the state.
And then there is the “Azad Kashmir” factor also, which is still legally part of the erstwhile State of Jammu and Kashmir.
( Promod Puri resides in Vancouver, Canada, originally from Jammu. He is a journalist, writer and author of Hinduism beyond rituals, customs and traditions. Websites: promodpuri.com and progressivehindudialogue.com)
Since India and Pakistan have finally embarked on the path of reconciliation and dialogue, it is time to reflect upon and identify the major roadblocks which have the potential to hinder forward movement once again.
These hurdles include: a top-down approach, limited infrastructure for peace-building and, more importantly, the absence of Kashmiri representation and limited support of all the stakeholders. It is a sad reality that, despite periodic engagement in dialogue, both India and Pakistan have remained unable to yield any tangible results, particularly in the context of the Kashmir dispute and Siachen.
In the present circumstances, it is imperative to find the key entry points which might help both countries initiate a continuous, uninterrupted and insulated dialogue process, ensuring the involvement of all stakeholders in the process including the political and civil society representatives.
A major obstacle is the tendency of a top-down approach. Most of the time, the top leadership initiates talks which is a top-down approach, with its own limitations. The civil-military bureaucracy plays a vital role in constructing the contours of the dialogue process which is conservative in terms of generating fresh thinking and is also averse to new ideas for the engagements. A well thought-out and properly structured peace process, involving citizens and multi-layer stakeholders, has not been formulated so far.
Additionally, seven decades-long acrimonies and rifts among the leaders resulted in the creation of some permanent infrastructures meant to undermine and compete with each other at the diplomatic level for economic gains.
Secondly, the institutional structures for the peace process have not been created so far; these could have served as a platform for dialogue and cooperation. Instead of creating institutions to promote dialogue and reconciliation, prevent conflict and enable mediation; heavy investment is made to prevent each other’s socio-political growth and damage international standing.
Third, several accounts acknowledged the significant role played by the secret backchannel set up by the two governments to resolve contentious issues and find a common ground for the settlement of the Kashmir issue during 2004-2008. However, the delay in the pronouncement of what was agreed on made it redundant as the altered political environment in both countries made it infeasible to make things public.
Fourth, several dialogues and even summit meetings hit a dead end quickly because these were not mutually planned and well-designed, and there was no strategy to contain backlash in case of failure. Conversely, both New Delhi and Islamabad tried to outmaneuver each other at all meetings instead of focusing on resolving the contentious issues. Regrettably, politics was played to address the domestic audience and larger regional interests were conveniently compromised.
For instance, in July 2009, on the side-lines of a Non-Aligned Movement summit in the Egyptian resort of Sharm el-Sheikh, then Indian PM Manmohan Singh acknowledged Pakistan’s apprehension about alleged Indian involvement in insurgency reported in Balochistan. Likewise, in July 2015; the prime ministers of India and Pakistan, on the side-lines of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization summit in the Russian city of Ufa, issued a joint statement which outlined the future course of action to normalize bilateral relations; they mentioned that both sides should strive to combat terrorism. Pakistani media and politicians accused the then PM Nawaz Sharif of accepting Indian terms by including the term ‘terrorism’ in the joint statement, without mentioning Kashmir in particular.
Almost all the meetings of the Indian and Pakistani leaders are intensely followed by their respective media which largely promotes the traditional narrative, often led by ex-government officials who are generally driven by the popularity syndrome instead of balanced thinking. The media has thus made it virtually impossible for the political leadership to think creatively to find new ways of engagement. In this background, both countries have to carefully manage their domestic media, besides ensuring solid support from the opposition parties.
Last but not least, since the LoC ceasefire implemented on February 25, Kashmir has not witnessed any respite in violence or state-led repression. Thousands of Kashmiris are still in jails or under house arrest despite the growing danger of the Covid-19 pandemic.
The dialogue process between India and Pakistan cannot yield the desired results unless the Kashmir Valley witnesses some noticeable changes such as the release of prisoners, exercising zero tolerance to human rights violations and creating space for political activities run by people with all shades of political attachments and opinions.
Baroness Knight of Collingtree asked Her Majesty’s Government: What steps they are currently taking to help end the Kashmir dispute. Here are a few responses from the parliamentarians.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean Minister of State (Middle East), Foreign & Commonwealth Office, Minister of State (Middle East)
My Lords, we fully support India and Pakistan in their discussions on Kashmir, as part of the composite dialogue process. As a friend of both countries, the United Kingdom Government and, in particular, my right honourable friends the Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary have stressed our support for the confidence-building measures and the constructive nature of the exchanges under the composite dialogue. We note the recent inter alia agreement on prisoner repatriations and welcome the launch on 28 December of the second round of talks.
Baroness Knight of Collingtree Conservative
My Lords, is the Minister aware that the most appalling human rights violations continue in Kashmir day after day? Has she been told, for instance, that, on the night of 20/21 December last, Indian troops barged in to the home of a 70 year-old woman and repeatedly raped her through the night? Does the Minister know that an Indian army major raped a mother and her 10 year-old daughter in Handawara nearby? Is not 60 years enough for the Kashmiris to suffer like this? Could not more be done to try to end such suffering?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean Minister of State (Middle East), Foreign & Commonwealth Office, Minister of State (Middle East)
My Lords, indeed, I am aware of the reports of human rights violations. The particular incident of rape to which the noble Baroness drew our attention took place in the Handawara area of Indian-administered Kashmir last November. The Indian army conducted a court martial. An army officer was cleared of rape but found guilty of misconduct and I understand that the court martial recommended his dismissal from the army.
It is important to welcome the strategy published by the Indian Ministry of Home Affairs at the end of last year, which included steps to initiate prompt, expeditious and transparent inquiries into human rights abuses and to give further training for the Indian armed forces in this important area. There has been a little improvement, but considerable concern remains about the abuse of human rights.
Baroness Falkner of Margravine Liberal Democrat
My Lords, we, too, express concerns about ongoing human rights violations—and 60 years is a long time—but we particularly welcome the Government’s approach to facilitating the composite dialogue. Does the Minister agree that the wishes of the Kashmiri people must be paramount as this process moves forward? In recognition of genuine concerns over cross-border terrorism, would it not be a good idea if the UN peacekeeping and monitoring forces, which have been in place for some 55 years, had a more active role in patrolling the line of control, so that confidence-building measures can have real teeth?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean Minister of State (Middle East), Foreign & Commonwealth Office, Minister of State (Middle East)
My Lords, I acknowledge the points made by the noble Baroness regarding human rights. It is important to note that we regularly raise our concerns on those issues—and not only with the Indian Government because there are issues regarding killings on the Pakistani side, about which President Musharraf himself recently made a statement. So I would not wish your Lordships to think that the problem is all on one side.
The last time we discussed this matter in your Lordships’ House on 9 December, the noble Baroness asked me a similar question about the Kashmiri people. Of course their views need to be taken into account, but since that discussion, civil society has come together in Kathmandu, and these issues and what is happening have been discussed among the Kashmiris. Also, the meeting in Islamabad on 28 December between the foreign secretaries took the issue forward to a considerable extent. That process now holds more promise than when we last discussed this issue.
Lord Howell of Guildford Shadow Minister, International Affairs, Shadow Minister (Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs)
My Lords, we are all shocked by the abuses and atrocities that my noble friend Lady Knight mentioned, but would the Minister agree, which I am sure she does, that on a broader plane, things are moving forward? Local elections took place yesterday in the Indian part of Kashmir, despite calls for a boycott and some riots. Meetings are taking place this weekend in Bangladesh between the heads of state or foreign ministers of India and Pakistan. There is a kind of peace process and that is a considerable advance on the threat to drop nuclear bombs on each other with which we were dealing only a few months ago. Will the Minister undertake to give maximum support, in so far as we can if we are asked, to this gradual confidence-building process? It seems to me that if we work hard at it, it is an area in which we might get some good news instead of bad.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean Minister of State (Middle East), Foreign & Commonwealth Office, Minister of State (Middle East)
Yes, my Lords, I thoroughly endorse what the noble Lord said. Exactly the same points were made by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister when he met the head of the Indian Government in September last year and the head of the Pakistani Government in December last year.
This round of talks, which was launched on 28 December, is very important. It deals with a range of issues, including Kashmir, and builds towards a meeting of foreign secretaries later this year. It involves important confidence-building measures and expert dialogue on the nuclear issue, which the noble Lord raised, on the transport links between the two countries, and on working further on trade issues between the two countries.
I endorse what the noble Lord said. It is important that, while acknowledging the issues raised by the noble Baroness in her initial Question, we look to positive moves forward on the issue of Kashmir.
Lord Kilclooney Crossbench
My Lords, now that a new programme to encourage tourists to return to Kashmir has been announced, what travel advice has been given to UK citizens?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean Minister of State (Middle East), Foreign & Commonwealth Office, Minister of State (Middle East)
My Lords, I do not have travel advice readily to hand. I acknowledge that it is an important question and I shall ensure that a copy of the current advice is placed in the Library of your Lordships’ House. However, I shall do so with the caveat that travel advice changes regularly. Should incidents arise, it is important to ensure that people who are considering travelling to Kashmir do not rely on advice which may be even only a week old. It is very important to keep checking the travel advice.
No Modus Operandi for Seeking Solution to Liberate Kashmiri Muslims
Authors: Dr. Humaira Masood Muneera Sultana Dr. Muhammad Muzaffar
Introduction : This Kashmir is a bone of contention between the two South Asian players, India and Pakistan since their emergence on the globe in 1947. Both states failed to resolve the issue cordially. Round the years, the human rights violation of Indian armed forces in Indian held Kashmir (IHK) is a source of extreme concern for Pakistan. The provision and utilizations of promised right of self-determination is the only way which brought peace and harmony in Kashmir particularly and in the region generally. The failure of Bilateral efforts of India and Pakistan to determine the Kashmir issue has been made certain groups like, pro- Pakistan, pro-India, pro-independence of Kashmir who claimed to be the rightful owner of the issue. Their presence in the area of concerned parties (Pakistan, India and China) helped them to strengthen and propagate their point views among the domestic/international forums. United Nations should play a constructive role for holding a free and fair plebiscite in Kashmir according to its dates back Resolutions yet nothing viable suggested or implemented by this international agency. This study highlights the different perspectives of Kashmir conflicts which deprived the Kashmiri people from their basic rights like right of self- determination, right of life and property, right of communication. The failure of India/Pakistan for solution increased the miseries of Kashmiri people. The valley of Jammu and Kashmir is currently divided among three powers of Asian region, majority of which (45%) is under the illegal control of India and the rest of the area was controlled by Pakistan and China tarate of 33 % and 22% ,separately (Vivek & Sethi, 2003).
The current division of Kashmir was rooted from the uprisings against the government of the last Dogra ruler of Jammu and Kashmir, Hari Singh, and the Indian intervention in Kashmir in October1947. At present, the conflicting area is divided into five regions, two regions are managed by Pakistan, commonly known as Gilgit-Baltistan and Azad Kashmir, while rest of three are occupied by India and mostly known as Indian held Kashmir, (IHK) (Kashmir Region – New World Encyclopedia, n.d.).
A control line that also called a ceasefire line between the areas managed by Pakistan and India established in 1948 by UN and provided the both states right to assert their respective claim on the controversial area of Kashmir (Mahajan, 1950). This geographical division of Kashmir between two neighboring rival states does not make it a sheer territorial dispute but it also involves political maneuverings, cultural differences and economic discrepancies expending century’s historical tussle in the whole sub-continent. The IHK is itself seemed to be divided into three regions (Jammu, valley, Ladakh), the recent years conflicts only represent the intensification of ethnic, religious, economic, and political diversities in the area. (Parashar, 2004, pp. 278–296).
These multiple issues hinder the progress towards the solution of both states linked to the issue of Kashmir. A part from macro level structural division the Kashmir, the conflict has some micro level implications for the people of both Pakistan and India besides Kashmiris. The transformation of Pakistan /India from neighbors to nuclear neighbors has increased the importance of Kashmir issue which up till now proved to be the core conflict between the two countries of south Asia.
Kashmir Issue Ideological and interest level differences between India and Pakistan besides British colonial legacy has complicated the solution of Kashmir conflict. So, the simple demand of right of self-determination has been transformed into a multi faceted conflict between the neighbors. According to the Indian Independence Act of1947, notonly the two new states named as – India and Pakistan- emerged on the glob but also it ended the British control overthe584 princely states of Indian region. Princely states were given three option for the decision of their future, in which third option (to adopt the position of an independent state) was considered as non-acceptable, and they had left to choose whether to join India or Pakistan (Ernst &Pati, 2007). The last British Viceroy, Lord Mount Batten explained it in his policy statement that “rulers of Princely states have a choice to join one or other dominion in respect to geographic situation of the state as well as public interests”(Copland, 1991, pp. 38–69).
This categorical announcement of viceroy decided the fate of 584 princely states while Hyderabad, Junagarh and Kashmir remained undecided. Their indecision treated by newly emerged Indian state through different means and settled them by forces, only Kashmir remained unresolved due to the resistance from local Muslim population. (Mahajan, 1950) This unfinished agenda of partition was caused many direct wars and regular border violations on LOC between Pakistan and India. This conflict could be avoided between the neighboring states if that right which was exercised by the people of 584 Princely States, is also allowed the Kashmiri people to use for their future.
UN resolutions -after Indian involvement of that international agency- also failed to give Kashmiri people that right of self- determination which was recognized by the both parties at the early stage of the conflict (Dar & Muzaffar, 2019). After 1948 war between India and Pakistan, two significant developments were happened, firstly, UN active involvement for the solution of the issue although it lasted only till 1960s. UN failed to provide any substantial formula for the solution of the conflict as all its recommendations because India refused to accept any international mediation on the issue.(Aḥmad, 1955) The reason behind the Indian blunt refusal for any solution was the manipulation of Kashmir politics in its favor through handful Kashmiri leaders and with the presence of large army in the area. The early years of twenty first century brought a hope of Kashmir is when President Pervez Musharraf and Prime Minister Atal Behari Bajpayee met in Islamabad and decided to start bilateral dialogues on all issues including Kashmir. President Musharraf four point formula on Kashmir was highly discussed during that period and certain practical steps were also taken regarding it (Affairs, 2008). Yet as history tells that the indecisiveness in power games always find reason of withdrawal from the consequences, so these efforts for “normalization” of relations between India and Pakistan received a major setback with terrorist attack in Bombayon26November2008 (Levy & Scott-Clark, 2013). That attack halted all dialogue between the two countries because India blamed Pakistan for terrorist attack in usual practice. A renewed effort for a dialogue was made in second decade of twenty first century yet they could not sustain and later the presence of Narendra Modi as Indian Prime Minister, stamped the failure of dialogue because under him, the Hindu extremists and Ultra Nationalist have become very vocal in their criticism against Pakistan. So, as long as Prime Minister Modi policies do not change, there is hardly any chance of India and Pakistan dialogue which means the Kashmir issue remains unresolved (Modi’s Grand Strategy in Kashmir?, 2019). The nuclearization of the region of South Asia is considered very critical for global peace as its two neighboring state has not only possessed a large number of nuclear arsenal but also ready to use them as deterrence. Pakistan policy of ‘first use option’ is symbol of it (Ganguly & Kapur, 2012).The issue of Kashmir remained unresolved which can trigger a nuclear war any time between India and Pakistan because their previous wars record indicated that any political need in India brings them on verge of a new war. The stance of both of the states about Kashmir is not giving any solution. The Indian point of view about Kashmir is more ethnic and rigid as compared to Pakistan. India considers that Kashmir is an integral part of its union and Pakistan rejected its claim keeping the spirit of partition and Indian independent Act in mind(Char et al., 1996). According to the partition plan, Kashmir should be the part of Pakistan due to majority Muslim population, geographical proximity and the main motive behind the partition –Two Nations Theory – Hindu and Muslims of India are two nations which needed their own homelands for survival. The Muslims of Pakistan as well as of Kashmir consider that without the annexation of Kashmir with Pakistan, the partition process would be incomplete because its current position is challenge to the Two Nation Theory(Affairs, 1977). On the other side, the Indian hegemonic designs in the region formulates its relation to its neighbors which has further become more rigid due to its growing international influence. Besides, Religious character, ethnic diversities and incomplete nation building has great influences on Indian foreign policy(James &Özdamar, 2005). India’s stance on Kashmir Issue With the passage of the time, the complexities and stakes of the concerned parties of Kashmir conflict began to rise. For India, initially, it was support for Dogra Raja for his ‘so-called’ signature on Agreement of Accession about which a well renowned scholar Alaster Lamb claimed that it had not been signed between India and Kashmir (Lamb, 1991, pp. 150–151). Later, it has become a matter of prestige for India to maintain its claim to secular democracy (Budania, 2001, p. 92), national unity and regional hegemony. That’s why, most of Indian leaders has believed and propagated widely through the years that “Kashmir is an integral part of India” and the current Modi Government’s decision for the revocation of special status of Kashmir under the Article 370 of Indian Constitution Act was a stamp on their beliefs. To prove their claim on IHK, Modi government imposed curfew and cut off all communication lines in the area which created an unrest and violent reaction internally in the area. This current development of Indian policy is, in fact the continuity of previous official policies regarding IHK, like, the deployment of large number of forces(Das, 2019) and labeling of the indigenous movement of Kashmiri people as a terrorist activity sponsored by Pakistan are common methods. The objective behind all these activates was, to prove its claim in the area and presented the movement to rest of the world as religious war between Muslims and Hindus imposed by Muslim fundamentalists (Yusuf, 1994, p. 249). India has employed a very rigid policy about the solution of Kashmir issue. Different strategies are used for the continuous occupation on Kashmir which started from the international mediation in 1948 yet it never accepted any international solution in later years. Secondly, Pakistan has become a scapegoat for India for the non- solution of Kashmir conflict as every existed problem there is directly or indirectly blamed to Pakistan by Indians. The strategic location of Kashmir is very important for India as it provides not only a route to the Central Asian States but also an opportunity with significant location to India for spying to Pakistan and China, Siachen Glacier is the main Pakistan Social Sciences Review (PSSR) March, 2020 Volume 4, Issue 1 171 boundary between India and China. The loss of Kashmir means loss of geographical edge on both neighbors with the probability to become a direct target of Pakistan and China (Kalis & Dar, 2013). Water resources, another future war factors among states in coming centuries is also a source which force India to not back off its claim on Kashmir as its integral part of united India and never ever agreed to alter its status. The presence of Pakistan in lowland regarding its water reservoirs’ general placement which mostly linked to Kashmir region, provides India a tool for exploitation as it did during Indus basin treaty and continuous of construction of many dams on the region to damage the major source of development of an agrarian country like Pakistan. These are some apparent reasons which indicate why India is not ready to discuss Kashmir issue even in bilateral relations talks with Pakistan even after recognizing in Shimla Agreement in 1972. So they believed, If Pakistan has desired to hold talks on Kashmir issue only negotiation will be made about Pakistan administered Kashmir territory. Indian popular excuse to hold talks is that Pakistan’s involvement in ‘insurgent’ activities in Kashmir. The only solution in Indian view is that Indian administered Kashmir territory is integral part of India and Pakistan should accept it. They will never ever go for the ways of losing this territory or its complete independence options (Zutshi, 2017, p. 122). Pakistan’s Stance on Kashmir Issue To Pakistani perspective, Kashmir must become the part of Pakistan due to the partition plan requirement, one its majority of population was Muslim and it has close geographical and strategic links with Pakistani area. Yet, India is occupying the Kashmir without any solid reason for more than seven decades and succeeded to show Kashmir as its integral part by using the controlled media policy. Pakistani as well as Kashmiri leaders declared the accession of Kashmir as the biggest fraud of twentieth century which continued after the two decades of twenty first century. Pakistani leaders consider Kashmir as unfinished agenda of British colonial legacy while it has become a lifeline and jugular vein due to geographic importance of the region and religious link among the people of both sides of border. Pakistan government and people are committed to provide moral, political, economic and diplomatic support to people of Jammu and Kashmir who are continuously struggling to achieve their final destination, the right of self-determination (India: “Everyone Lives in Fear”: Patterns of Impunity in Jammu and Kashmir, Vol.18, 2008, p. 214). For Pakistan, the support of Kashmiri Muslims is matter of its own existence on much level, ideological, strategic, and political. Pakistani support for all the oppressed communities struggling for their independence as evident from the early days of its creation (Aḥmad, 1955). Kashmiri is not an exception. Indian forces, record brutalities on Kashmiri people and the silence of international community forced Pakistan to stand with the goals with which this state has been demanded and acquired. This ideological support also entangled with the need of security for the new Muslim state as it’s so vulnerable if Kashmir remained under Indian occupation. Its strategic and geographic position can’t consider be secured. The absence of Kashmir from Pakistan also can challenge its relations with No Modus Operandi for Seeking Solution to Liberate Kashmiri Muslims 172 China as silk Route and current China Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC). So Prime Minster Liaqat Ali Khan was write to call it as “Cap on the head of Pakistan” which put Pakistan on the mercy of the mentality of Indian Government (Kalis, & Dar, 2013, pp. 119–120). Water resources are not only importance for India but for Pakistan, too. It’s all water reservoirs rooted from IHK. Sardar Sikander Hayat, Prime Minister of AJK was partially seemed to be right when mentioned that in March 6, 2003, “without the rivers of Kashmir Pakistan will become desert. The freedom fighters of Kashmir are in reality fighting for Pakistan’s water security”. Four out of five rivers of Pakistan which irrigated the most of fertile land has their bases in IHK. How an agriculture country felt to be secured when its life line based on another country which enmity proved more than once. This insecurity which created in the region due to the Kashmir issue is the main hurdle in bilateral relations between Pakistan and India. To meet this challenge of insecurity both states are spending huge amount of their budget son defense which directly caused an arm race in the region. Unfortunately, this arms race later transferred from traditional to nuclear after 1998 when both states announced their nuclear status through nuclear explosion in May 1998. This huge spending on defense affects the welfare of the population of both countries which major part is living below the poverty line. The condition is worse in India than in Pakistan (Verma, 2009, pp. 46– 50)(Experts, n.d., p. 16). The nuclearization of Kashmir issue has become a major source of destabilization of south Asian region because now the outbreak of war will be terrible for the world peace.
The non-solution of the Kashmir issue not only influenced the life of the population of two countries but also the regional stability, too. Almost all research reports revealed that there can be no peace and prosperity in the region without solution of outstanding problems, top of them is Kashmir, between two nuclear powers of the region- Pakistan and India. Most of the researchers are agreed that regional organizations like SAARC cannot growt o leading regional development and economic integration without good relations between India and Pakistan (Fayaz, 2016). Human Rights Violation in Kashmir IHK has become a case study for human right violation in the world, from rejection of right of self –determination to forced disappearance, sexual assault on women and children, mass killing, torture and so on. International human right organizations like Human Rights Watch, Asia Watch and Amnesty International published reports regarding the situation of human right in Kashmir yet India is successful to blame Pakistan for supporting the struggle of Kashmiri people to cover in human acts of Indian forces. India is responsible for worst human rights violations and state terrorism in Kashmir currently, communications cut off for more than eight months after the revocation of Kashmir ‘special Status in Indian Act is the classical example of it but it is the policy of deception adopted by Indian to “mislead the world and attaining the sympathy of international community to continue its repression in the Indian held Kashmir”(Pervez, 2013).
In August 2019, when Modi Government according to its election campaign rhetoric for the correction of the “historical Blunder”(Article 370: What Happened with Kashmir and Why It Matters – BBC News, 2019, p. 37) not only revoked the special constitutional status of Jammu and Kashmir but also split the IHK into two separate federally-governed territories, named as Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh. But before announcing the decision, the Indian government deployment of additional troops in the area, shutting down the internet and phones services, and placement of thousands of people in preventive detention, including elected leaders made it clear to the world that they were expecting severe reaction against their decision. All the actions, although create a little stir globally and caused international condemnation yet it was beyond hue and cry. The imposition of curfew in Kashmir by Indian government practically turned the IHK as a biggest sub jail of the world. International human right published a 43 pages report about the situation of human right and asked the two governments to follow the UN recommendation for the maintenance of basic right of people. Indian government as ‘routine’ rejected the report calling it “false and motivated narrative”(Avenue et al., 2019). OHGHR reported about the use of Pellet-firing shotgun on civilian excessively after July 2016 as a crowd control weapon which raised the number of injuries and death. The report also mentioned India Armed Forces Special Act ( IAFSA for Jammu and Kashmir) of 1990 which prohibit the prosecution of armed personal into civilian courts is also a “key obstacle in accountability” because it provide protection against any human right violation. Public safety act is also another symbol of human right violation as it allowed the Administration to detain a person for two years with any charge and trial. The tragedy further enhanced when in 2018, it also decided they can be detain outside the area too (A “lawless Law” A ‘Detentions under the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 2011). The UN human rights office also reported that armed groups were responsible for all types of human rights abuses like kidnappings, killings of civilians, sexual violence, recruitment of children for armed combat, and attacks on political workers of different organizations in Jammu and Kashmir. Human rights violation in IHK is one of the major hindrances in the peace building process regarding the conflict. Pakistan and peace loving world are concerned regarding the violations of human rights in the area. The provision of the basic rights for the people in the area is pathetic and international organizations have many a times highlighted the issue yet no practical set was taken to minimize the miseries of Kashmiri people by the both governments and international community(Demand That the Indian Government Lets Kashmir Speak, n.d.)). Role of Major Powers Princely state of Kashmir, under the government of Raja Hari Singh had to decide according to partition plan either they wanted to join India or Pakistan. This simple equation turned into a long lasting unresolved issue till today because the armed intervention from Indian side and Pakistani resistant turned into a war between the two emerged states. It was India which politician decided to involve the international community for the solution of a simple right of self-determination. After seven decades, international community failed to come up any viable solution for the conflict. Kashmir issue was remained on international radar in early years of cold war yet Eisenhower’s determination in 1954 to keep Pakistan in western camp stamped the fate of Kashmir conflict as Soviet Union decided to endorse Indian point of view and made it clear that it intended to Veto any resolution on Kashmir conflict which was not acceptable to India. Tashkent Declaration in 1966 after India –Pakistan war on Kashmir in 1965 was last serious effort of international powers involvement in the issue mainly through Soviet mediation without any conclusion. Later, Shimla Accord which was signed in 1972 between Indra Gandhi and Z. A. Bhutto, announced to the world, a bilateral solution would be found in future for Kashmir conflict, first. Yet now, it can be said that there are certain agreements which were made long ago, are needed to be revisited, refreshed and reiterated to make them workable, tangible and fruitful for the nations for which they exist (Iqbal, 2016). After a violent uprising in Kashmir in 1989, international community generally and as a lone super power, US specifically intervened in the conflict. Yet its attitude was not sympathetic towards Pakistani point of view because India was offering larger business opportunities to global market which nobody ready to miss for an old unresolved issue. Nuclearization of India and Pakistan arsenal in 1998 and the linking issue of Kargal war forced the American President to intervene personally and guarantee for the workable solution of Kashmir conflict in reciprocity. It is believed that only US has the combination of political clout and diplomatic and economic resources to force India and Pakistan to reach some agreement on conflict but its lack of interest just increased the miseries of people of Kashmir (Schaffer, 2008). UN Security Council Kashmir conflict is a great challenge for the international body, UN which was established to maintain peace and human right in the world without any political, ethnic or racial discrimination. Yet, its success level is so questionable regarding the solution of different conflicts. India is refusing from last six decades to internationalize the Kashmir conflict but it is also Indian government which after few weeks’ efforts to make this imperialistic occupation perpetually by force presented the issue in, January 1948 in UN. The UN Security Council appointed the United Nations Commissions on India and Pakistan(UNCIP)to examine the Kashmir issue and suggest ways to settle it(Lamb, 1991). The deciding powers behind the UNSC was US, USSR, china, Britain and France, among them Britain were mainly responsible for the issue, so US and France relied on British judgment for the solution while Soviets who initially remained aloof and later showed tendency towards Indian point of view due to Pakistan’s entry in the western alliance system of cold war. UNCIP initially presented many recommendations, established LOC and Military Observer Group (Subbiah, 2004) but all its suggestion and recommendations was dismissed by Indian government which was till then succeeded to manipulate the situation in IHK. Pakistan’s involvement in cold war in favor of US led Western camp ended all hopes of any practical role for UNSC during cold war because it provided India a undivided support of Soviets and an excuse to rejects all options for solution of the conflict.
The role of Media The role of media is considered as a watch dog in democratic set up which highlight their respective government’s achievements and make them accountable for their failures. It also helps the government in shaping the public opinion for certain points, yet this fact also can’t be ignored that it works as the basic tool to propagate someone as hero and villain too and can fabricate any issue positively or negatively. Today, even Media can be used as a tool to normalize the tension between competing forces within one state or among the states. Its preventive, constructive and active role in conflict cannot be denied yet the story regarding Kashmir issue is different. Media either it is India or Pakistan or international. Is not playing its recommended or needed role regarding the conflict? The language and presentation of media for any event help to perceive it as a mediator between these forces (R.K, 1997). The role of media regarding Kashmir issue is seemed to be bit partial, biased and official because both states India and Pakistan linked the conflict to their national interest so any presentation which damaged their point of view can’t be allowed. So Indian media presented that picture which their government allowed them and in which everything worst happened in their respective region is due to Pakistan and its sponsored organizations under the umbrella of its security agencies. While Pakistani media focused and highlighted that news which showed that India is an occupier and aggressor and violator of human rights IHK. According to Adil Altaf, the presentation of media houses the presentation of events like killing of innocent people, mass rapes, So pore shoot out, Gawkaadl Massacre, Asia-Nelofer rape case, the tragedy of Kunana Poshpra in totally vertical then the original sense of the tragedy which not only lose faith on them but also kept rest of the world in dark from the original situation in the valley (Altaf, 2019). A Germen news channel DW have done a research on media role on Kashmir issue and found it “controversial”. According to one of the speaker of the research “Pakistani media is in denial mode while Indian media is finger-pointing mode without any real clue (Welle (www.dw.com), n.d.) the research also pointed out that Indian media has become “a veritable arm of the state and its military might”. The media regarding Kashmir conflict avoid any fact finding mission rather it is reported that one of Indian journalist resigned and protested when its media house owners insisted him to rewrite the report ignoring fact in favor of Indian government stance. In 2014 a study published on the name of “Partial Journalism” by (Dr Danish Nabi, 2014) in Trends in Information Management (TRIM) which concluded that the Indian national press has given a lower profile to the strikes in Kashmir Valley “either by not publishing the news stories about strikes; or by representing the strikes as “sponsored” programs of resistance leaders, “crippling” or “halting” the normal life; or by diluting the details about strikes”. Besides India/Pakistan median the role of international media is also very important in handling the Kashmir issue. An archives site on internet provide two years archival information on Kashmir issue. (The Coverage of Kashmir Issue on International Media – Archive, Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf, n.d.) A bird eye of view of the site told the viewer that mostly information published in Al-Jazeera and New York Times which mostly presented Indian point of view. Conclusion The world has witnessed many transformations in last seventy years, cold war started and ended, globalizations changed the world into a global village, Asian
economies began to challenge the western world, many conflicts were started and ended, many wars were fought and reached its ends yet Kashmiri people miseries are still there and increased with the rising political and ideological extremism within Indian government and state machineries. UNSC which imposed sanctions on Iraq and Iran to bring them on the negotiation table and signed international agreement, which launched attack on Iraq and Afghanistan to get its objectives failed to force India to accept any suggestion or recommendation for the solution of Kashmir Issue. US, being unipolar super power, deciding the fate of many states after 1990, also did not offer any mediation or solution for the issue. Besides, many times encourage India through its weak diplomacy to maintain statuesque in the valley which increased the violation of human right in IHK. India which claimed to be the biggest democracy with secular constitution failed to give the right of self-determination to Kashmiris which it recognized itself in UNSC. Pakistan with its 6th largest army with nuclear arsenal, so- called friendship with US, China and Muslim world could not succeed to get a solution which brings Kashmiris in peace and stability in the region. This discussion can’t be ended, no proposal or plan will be executed until the concerned parties sat on the table, ignore their vested interests and decide something for the benefit of humanity. References Amensty International, (2011). A “lawless law” A ‘Detentions under the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act. (2011). Affairs, P. M. of F. (1977). White paper on Jammu and Kashmir dispute. Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Govt. of Pakistan. Affairs, P. M. of F. (2008). Foreign office year book. Ministry of Foreign Affiars, Govt. of Pakistan. Aḥmad, M. (1955). The United Nations and Pakistan. the Times Press. Altaf, A. (2019). Kashmir Issue and Media Representation. International Journal of Science and Research (IJSR), 8(2). Article 370: What happened with Kashmir and why it matters—BBC News. (2019, August 6). https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-49234708 Avenue, H. R. W. | 350 F., York, 34th Floor | New, & t 1.212.290.4700, N. 10118-3299 U.. (2019, July 10). Kashmir: UN Reports Serious Abuses. Human Rights Watch https://www.hrw.org/news/2019/07/10/kashmir-un-reports-serious-abuses Bhat, K. A. (2017). Special Status of Jammu & Kashmir: Article 370: An Indepth Analysis. Educreation Publishing. Budania, R. (2001). India’s National Security Dilemma: The Pakistan Factor and India’s Policy Response. Indus Publishing. Char, P. R., Cheema, P. I., &Iftekharuzzaman. (1996). Nuclear-non-proliferation in India and Pakistan: South Asian Perspectives. Manohar. Copland, I. (1991). The Princely States, the Muslim League, and the Partition of India in The International History Review, 13(1), 38–69. JSTOR. Dar, H. M. & Muzaffar, M. (2019). Kashmir Conflict: A French Perspective, Orient Research Journal of Social Sciences, June 2019, Vol.4, No.1, 158-172. Das, S. (2019, July 27). Additional CRPF, BSF companies deployed in Kashmir. Livemint. https://www.livemint.com/news/india/additional-crpf-bsf-companies-deployedin-kashmir-1564167346681.html Demand that the Indian government lets Kashmir speak. (n.d.). Retrieved May 8, 2020, from https://www.amnesty.org/en/get-involved/take-action/let-kashmir-speak/ Dr Danish Nabi. (2014). ‘Partial Journalism’—A study of national media of India and Kashmir conflict. Trends in Information Management (TRIM), 10(01), p 13-23. Ernst, W., &Pati, B. (2007). India’s Princely States: People, Princes and Colonialism. Routledge. Experts, D. (n.d.). Quick Glimpse of India & the World 2018. Disha Publications. Fayaz, S. (2016). Kashmir Dispute between Pakistan and India: The Way Out. The Dialogue, X1(1). Ganguly, S., &Kapur, S. P. (2012). India, Pakistan, and the Bomb: Debating Nuclear Stability in South Asia. Columbia University Press. India: “Everyone Lives in Fear”: Patterns of Impunity in Jammu and Kashmir, vol.18. (2008). https://www.hrw.org/reports/2006/india0906/ Iqbal, C., M. (2016). Can the Principle of Coexistence between India and Pakistan Help to Achieve Peace and Prosperity in the Region. Journal of Research Society of Pakistan, 53(2), 219–226. James, C. C., &Özdamar, Ö. (2005). Religion as a Factor in Ethnic Conflict: Kashmir and Indian Foreign Policy. Terrorism and Political Violence, 17(3), 447–467. https://doi.org/10.1080/09546550590929219 Kalis, N. A., & Dar, S. S. (2013). Geo-political Significance of Kashmir: An overview of Indo-Pak Relations. IOSR Journal Of Humanities And Social Science (IOSR-JHSS), 9(2), 115–123. Kashmir Region—New World Encyclopedia. (n.d.). Retrieved May 10, 2020, from https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Kashmir_Region Lamb, A. (1991). Kashmir: A disputed legacy, 1846-1990. Roxford Books. Levy, A., & Scott-Clark, C. (2013). The Siege: Three Days of Terror Inside the Taj. Penguin Books Limited. Mahajan, M. C. (1950). Accession of Kashmir: The Inside Story. Sholapur. Modi’s Grand Strategy in Kashmir? – Foreign Policy Research Institute. (2019, September 13). https://Www.Fpri.Org/. https://www.fpri.org/article/2019/09/modis-grand- strategy-in-kashmir/ Parashar, P. (2004). Kashmir The Paradise Of Asia. Sarup& Sons. Pervez, M. S. (2013). Security Community in South Asia: India-Pakistan. Routledge. R.K, M. (1997). The Media’s Role in Preventing and Moderating Conflict. Institute of Peace, washington. Schaffer, H. (2008). International Community and Kashmir. http://www.operationspaix.net/DATA/DOCUMENT/5412~v~The_International _Community_and_Kashmir.pdf Subbiah, S. (2004). Security Council Mediation and the Kashmir Dispute: Reflections on its Failure and Possibilties for Renewal. 27(1), 173–185. The coverage of Kashmir Issue on international media—Archive | Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf. (n.d.). Retrieved May 9, 2020, from https://www.insaf.pk/news/kashmir- coverage-archive Verma, B. (2009). Indian Defence Review. Lancer Publishers. Vivek, S., &Sethi, R. (2003). (2003). India, Pakistan, and the Kashmir Conflict: Towards a Lasting Solution. https://web.stanford.edu/class/e297a/India,%20Pakistan,%20and%20the%20Kash mirk.pdf Welle (www.dw.com), D. (n.d.). How Indian and Pakistani media are covering Kashmir unrest | DW | 20.09.2016. DW.COM. Retrieved May 9, 2020, from https://www.dw.com/en/how-indian-and-pakistani-media-are-covering-kashmir- unrest/a-19562791 Yusuf, K. F. (1994). Perspectives on Kashmir. Pakistan Forum. Zutshi, C. (2017). Kashmir: History, Politics, Representation. Cambridge University Press.
Editor’s Note: This research paper was published by Pakistan Social Sciences Review in March 2020. The document can be found here
Sushil Aaron// India’s insistence on keeping a distance from China’s huge infrastructure enterprise called the One Belt One Road (OBOR) initiative is quite intriguing. Delhi is yet to disclose if it will participate in the Belt and Road forum at Beijing in May that will be attended by several heads of state and representatives. India’s detachment will seem particularly odd in the years to come as the infrastructure emerges on the horizon – as OBOR aims to build land and sea links between China and Europe through roads, railway lines, power projects and ports in potentially over 60 countries.
China has indicated that it would like India to participate in the enterprise but Delhi has balked on essentially two grounds: One that the China Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), a flagship project of OBOR which runs between Xinjiang and Gwadar in Balochistan, goes through territories India claims, namely Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK) and Gilgit-Baltistan. Delhi has also indicated that it sees OBOR as a unilateral, national initiative of the Chinese which other countries are not obligated to buy into.
India’s first objection is about reaffirming unenforceable claims of sovereignty at the expense of exploring alternative futures – in this case the prospect of integrating South Asia with the Eurasian landmass. Delhi’s reiteration of its claim to PoK may be politically useful but that claim does not really improve its chances of getting back the territory and neither will India’s objections stop China from pressing on with building infrastructure in Gilgit-Baltistan.
On the contrary, if the Narendra Modi government still paid lip service to Manmohan Singh’s formulation about Jammu and Kashmir that “borders cannot be changed, but they can be made irrelevant” then that would have offered room to coexist with OBOR and CPEC – but since the Modi government is focused on isolating Pakistan on the issue of terror and is adopting a hardline policy internally in Kashmir it has no justification left to explore the opportunities that CPEC and OBOR afford.
Delhi’s attempt to represent OBOR as merely China’s “national initiative” downplays or underestimates the transformative potential of the enterprise. There is a lot of commentary on OBOR circulating on the web but one recent paper by Peter Cai offers a very good reminder of its potential. In his analysis for the Lowy Institute for International Policy titled “Understanding China’s Belt and Road Initiative” Cai argues that notwithstanding strategic calculations behind OBOR, some of the enterprise’s key drivers “are largely motivated by China’s pressing economic concerns.” It is these economic imperatives that confirm the durability of China’s ambitions, which will have far-reaching implications for Asia and the world.
In Cai’s reading, there are essentially three economic reasons for OBOR. One is that China wants to use connectivity and infrastructure development in neighbouring regions to address regional imbalances within China, particularly between landlocked western provinces and the prosperous sea-facing regions in the east. Beijing reckons, for instance, that a poor restive province like Xinjiang will over time develop through improved infrastructure, exposure to market pressures and trade via Pakistan, which the CPEC will enable.
This promise of connectivity has fired the interest of provinces in China. President Xi Jinping has put his authority behind OBOR and hence “all levels of the Chinese Government, from the national economic planning agency to provincial universities, are scrambling to get involved in OBOR”. Cai writes that “nearly every province in China has developed its own OBOR plan to complement the national blueprint… Many see it as a golden opportunity to obtain cheap funding and political support for their own infrastructure projects under the banner of OBOR.”
Two, China’s comparative advantage as low cost manufacturing base is ending as wages rise in the country and hence its leadership “wants to capture the higher end of the global value chain.” To this end, China needs to upgrade its industry, make it more innovation and quality-driven with a view to export high-end Chinese manufactured goods to countries in the neighbourhood participating in OBOR – at the expense of Western-manufactured goods. Importantly, Beijing will not only export higher-end goods via OBOR, it also wants to “encourage the acceptance” of Chinese technological standards as part of its ambition to “become an innovation-based economy and a leader in research and development”.
One area where China already achieved success is in high-speed railway technology, where the government has mobilised 10,000 scientists and engineers to incorporate foreign technology and develop its own. China robustly markets this technology abroad; a recent column in the Global Times notes that while India has chosen Japan for its first high-speed railway project, it “doesn’t mean that it is in India’s best interest to bar China from entering into partnerships on other bullet train projects”. It pointedly says that “India actually needs China more than China needs India in the arena of steel rail manufacturing and train technology”. China is building the 142km Jakarta-Bandung high-speed railway line in a project that will adopt “Chinese standards, Chinese technology and Chinese equipment”. Beijing is also pushing for acceptance of its standards in the fields of energy and telecommunications.
OBOR also helps China address the problem of excess capacity it has faced since the 2008 financial crisis. Chinese firms borrowed heavily when credit was available and now are saddled with overproduction; for instance in 2015 the country produced more excess steel than the combined production of the US and European Union. Neighbouring countries are not in a position to import such volumes but Cai argues that OBOR “is less about boosting exports of products such as steel and more about moving the excess production capacity out of China.” He writes that “Beijing wants to use OBOR to migrate whole production facilities”, a point Chinese Premier Le Keqiang made to ASEAN countries in 2014 when he said that China would like to move its surplus equipment in steel, cement and pleat glass to countries in Southeast Asia via foreign direct investment, so that they can build their infrastructure and produce goods locally. Chinese officials say that this strategy has been informed by China’s own experience of industrialisation in the 1980s when it “imported second-hand production lines from Germany, Taiwan, and Japan”.
OBOR is, of course, not without its challenges. The main concern is the availability of funds to achieve such ambitions as Chinese financial institutions may not want to risk losing money on projects where the rates of return are yet unclear. But there is little doubt that OBOR is a legacy-defining enterprise for President Xi Jinping, and as noted, the entire Chinese government is getting geared to try and make it happen.
India’s strategy so far has been to either ignore the ambitious scope of OBOR or resent Pakistan’s involvement in the flagship CPEC project. This approach does not serve its interests well. For a country that is quite self-conscious about its international image, it looks exceedingly odd for India to idly watch as China sets about altering the landscape around it, consolidating links with the neighbourhood and populating it with its personnel, equipment, technology and standards. Delhi’s approach also does not make sense since the nature of US commitment to Asia and India is in some doubt given Donald Trump’s views on security alliances, H1-B visas, outsourcing and reviving American manufacturing. China clearly looks set to step into the vacuum that the US is creating in Asia through its isolationist, unpredictable President – and OBOR appears to be vehicle that will accelerate China’s influence in the age of American distraction.
All this will affect India profoundly. This is really in some ways less about America and more about where Asia is headed. China is attempting to integrate South Asia with the Eurasian landmass and India ought not to be steering entirely clear of such an endeavour. This is not to say that India should acquiesce with all of China’s plans or that it cannot seek greater clarity from Beijing about its plans – but Delhi ought be mindful of the risks of having no stake in a transformative enterprise that most countries in the neighbourhood will inevitably be drawn into.
Two things need to happen for India to move in the direction of eventually participating in OBOR. India and China need to ensure that their differences on political questions do not prevent both sides from advancing economic cooperation, something both countries have struggled to lately. More crucially, the Modi government may need to consider the future of its Pakistan policy, because the possibility of India benefiting from regional connectivity by land would entail a measure of normalised ties with Islamabad. As noted, the BJP government has focused its policy on isolating Islamabad on the issue of terrorism. Pakistan is now not as isolated as Delhi would hope, and India, with its millions of unemployed youth, cannot blithely ignore the economic headwinds that will change Asia. Hardline approaches to Pakistan and Kashmir may be good domestic politics for the BJP, but they are not the geopolitics India needs for its future.- Hindustan Times News.
M.Ashraf – Srinagar (Daily Greater Kashmir) Presently, the China Pakistan Economic Corridor is the hot news. The project is being implemented by China and Pakistan at an accelerated pace. Work in full swing started on it in 2015 after an agreement was signed between China and Pakistan to link the warm waters of the Arabian Sea to China and Central Asia. CPEC projects will provide China with an alternate route for energy supplies, as well as a new route by which Western China can conduct trade. Pakistan stands to gain due to upgrade of infrastructure and introduction of a reliable energy supply. It is said that the plans for the corridor date back to 1950 and motivated the construction of Karakoram Highway in 1959. The CPEC was formalised on November 13, 2016 when the first Chinese convoy carrying 250 containers arrived in Gwadar for export to Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, the UAE and the EU. The Chinese exports via Malacca Straits have not only been lengthy but also subject to risk due to the problems in the area. The new corridor is a big boon for Chinese from all angles. It will also allow the Central Asian countries to have an alternate route. Pakistan will have a tremendous impact in every possible way including abundance of energy from which it has been suffering.
In fact, the development of this economic activity would be a boon for the entire South Asian region. One would have expected that India which from the time of Pandit Nehru has been trying to lead South Asia for development would welcome the setting up of this economic zone. On the contrary, the Indian side has been feeling uncomfortable with the setting up of this economic corridor. Unfortunately, they have been facilitating the re-colonisation of the country by the western powers especially, the Americans through a corporate culture. There is still time to take a bold initiative and offer to join this important economic activity which could sort out the age old political problems facing the sub-continent. Ironically, all the earlier Indian supporters including Russia are keen to join the corridor.
The most important constituent of the corridor is the road and rail link that would be passing through Gilgit-Baltistan which has been part of the erstwhile state of Jammu & Kashmir. Interestingly, Kashmir getting a connection to this link which has in fact been the historical route of trade between Kashmir and China till 1947 would be a big boon to the otherwise physically and politically isolated Kashmir Valley. The traders from Yarqand, Kashgar and other places used to come regularly to Kashmir with their long lines of Bactrian camels. The Zoji La route was the famous caravan route for trade with the Central Asia and China including Yarqand, Kashgar, and Sinkiang and so on. The Hajis from Yarqand used to go to Makkah through Kashmir. There was a Sarai of Yarqandis in Safakadal known as Kak Sarai where one could see lines of Bactrian camels (Double Humped) which used to come from Yarqand and other places. In fact, a large number of refugees from the Chinese Revolution in 1949 came from Sinkiang and Yarqand to Kashmir. They ultimately migrated to Turkey and other places. Some remained here. This route was a small branch of the historically famous Silk Route.
Incidentally, Kashmir has had strong relationship with China in the past. The Annals of Tang dynasty of China know Lalitaditya-Muktapida under the name of Mu-to-pi, as the King of Kashmir who sent an embassy to the Chinese court during the reign of Emperor Hiuen-tsung (AD 713-755). The main purpose of the embassy had been to seek alliance of the Chinese rulers against Tibet. Ambassador U-li-to whom Mu-to-pi had sent to the imperial court distinctly claimed for his master repeated victories over Tibetans. The auxiliary Chinese force of two hundred thousand men which the Kashmir King invited to his country and for which he proposed to establish a camp on the shores of Mahapadma or Volur Lake, was meant for further operations against the common foe. There is evidence that the Tibetans had established a powerful empire at that time and had threatened both Kashmir as well as China. As there is no evidence of any Bhautta invasion of Kashmir, one must assume that Lalitaditya’s expeditions towards north were real and lasting and checked the Tibetan march towards Kashmir. Lalitaditya had also subdued Kashmir’s immediate northern neighbours, the Dards. The Dard tribes have from very early times to the present day inhabited the mountain territories immediately adjoining Kashmir to the north and north-west. The very safety of the valley has many times necessitated expeditions against these areas.
As has been opined by many experts, the setting up of this corridor which passes through a part of Kashmir may ultimately help in resolving this age old problem and bring peace not only to the valley but the entire sub-continent. The example of the European countries shows that it is ultimately the economic considerations which take precedence. If after fighting two destructive world wars all these countries finally came together to form the European Union, why can’t India and Pakistan which too have fought a number of wars come together to ameliorate their economically backward masses? We did fight the colonialists and got rid of them but they came back as neo-colonialists through various economic handles with local collaboration. Those people instead of ameliorating our economically weak status created discord and disputes and supplied us weapons to fight each other. This helped them keep their own economies running at our cost. It is time for a rethink if we want to survive and progress. Kashmir could become a free trade zone for the Corridor and practically take on the role of Switzerland through those destructive wars. Let there be an open debate on the subject.
From Beijing to Guangdong and Shanghai to Chengdu , Eastern China is overcrowded, brimming and desperate to expand. Even with a reduced growth target the country needs to adjust its fiscal policy measures with a renewed pledge to economic prosperity goals. Economy is not a sole headache for self-centred leadership of the Communist Party of China (CPC). The list of worries goes beyond economic agenda. International trade, regional political nexus in the South China Sea region and trade liberalisation are a few to name.
The economic, cultural and social background of the mega-cities development of China’s provides ample evidence of the success of country’s mechanisms of governance and urban growth strategies. However, China’s economic power in western half of the country is yet to be exploited. The Chinese government envisions a new era marked by the theme of peace, development, cooperation and mutual benefit, it is all the more important for it to carry on the Silk Road Spirit in face of the weak recovery of the global economy, and complex international and regional situations.
The Belt and Road Initiative is a well planned, strategically significant and economically viable option that will set China’s role in a multipolar world. The region expanding from Chengdu to Yunnan and Gangsu to Kashgar, which is bigger than Europe in size is yet to be explored, tapped and plugged with prosperous China. Thus, several regions in central and western China are in need of a quick surge in economic activity.
The growth targets for infrastructure development in Inner Mongolia, Yunnan, Chongqing and Shaanxi are ambitiously high. As China comprehends the Belt and Road Initiative will further its agenda to Central Asia and the Middle East, China’s western inland regions are desperatedly looking for speeding up projects involving construction, engineering and transportation.
The mega cities on China’s well-developed eastern coast has less potential to attract further expansion, while central and western regions will continue their high-speed growth in investment in future. By tapping into these unexplored and unpaved regions, both internally and externally, China can pursue a target that matches to it’s economic might.
However, what is lacking in this design is an ostentatious expression of an intention to embark upon these projects . Arguably, it reflects China’s age old policy of not being over ambitious when riding on a rocky roller-coaster of economic and development growth.
In an age of rising protectionism and anti-globalisation , China’s political backing to those regions that have never been on the radar of powerful global economic giants, can be a blessing in disguise for them. The regional neighbours of China which are less developed, scarcely populated or hitherto unknown to the world are equally promising, attractive and well-suited to the agenda. Apart from densely populated countries such India, Pakistan, Iran small regional small pockets like Kyrgyzstan, Mongolia, Jammu and Kashmir, Nepal and Tibet can be for more attractive locations for meeting growth targets than China’s internal dispersed regions.
China’s ambitions for regional development, cooperation and advancement in various sectors may not necessarily be exploitative in nature as is brandished in regional and international press. Any of the world power-houses is too good to be branded as highly responsible, intrinsically positive in its political or otherwise agenda and comfortably sitting on a moral high ground. Why is it not good for China to take one step forward and extend a helping to those smaller nations and countries who have not yet been able to be fairly and equally benefited from their immediate circle of influence?
So, will it be too optimistic or dangerous for people of Jammu and Kashmir region to reflect upon a possibility of closer economic, social and cultural ties with China? Luckily, history has a whole lot of conceptual, experiential and thematic areas to look into such possibilities. For people of Jammu and Kashmir and adjoining regions, the time has never been so ripe to be open for a realistic, pragmatic and tactical change in their direction.
China’s role in the global context has grown in terms of its output, trade and now its voice and leadership in sustainable and inclusive development, and resolve to pursue low carbon pathways. A further paradigm shift is anticipated in the role and influence of China, as it delivers on the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) […]
Jammu: With Parliamentary by-polls only three weeks away, Jammu and Kashmir Chief Minister Mehbooba Mufti is back at raising emotive issues, suggesting to New Delhi to avail the benefits of China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC). Describing Jammu and Kashmir as the gateway to Central Asia, she said it could become a corridor of economic activity in the […]
Insight on Kashmir 