In an informal discussion earlier this year, a top Pakistani official based in London swanked about his contacts in India. From Indian media bigwigs and business magnates to politicians, he claimed to know everyone.
Unquestionably the Track II-III talks or what are now off-the-track talks on Kashmir have for god-knows-how-many-years involved many players from both the countries, mostly to the advantage of India.
Why to the advantage of India? Because New Delhi has smartly avoided a serious dialogue to settle Kashmir dispute while engaging Islamabad through Track I-II, cultural and media exchanges and other programmes. To Kashmiris these activities are sweet nothings. Those representing India thus become confrères worth swanking.
However, one piquing remark the official made about Kashmir was that India is ready to transfer the territory to Pakistan “provided we do business with them”.
“Actually it’s business that they want, not Kashmir,” he said.
I went in a quick self-talk mode.
China remains India’s biggest trading partner yet both countries continue disputing the borders of frontier Arunachal Pradesh and Aksai Chin (part of Kashmir annexed by Chinese in the war of 1962 against India). India continues to host exiled Tibetan government in Himachal Pradesh, much to the frustration of the Chinese.
The trade remains intact, so do the territorial and political disputes.
India handing over Kashmir to Pakistan for an inconsequential sum earned from trading with Pakistan is only a wishful thinking. If the cream of Pakistan thinks so, one can imagine what below-the-cream fancy.
That India and Pakistan must back the role of trade in bringing them closer is often argued in columns in Indian and Pakistani papers. There is very less focus on solving disputes first. Business, it’s argued, will overcome political and territorial disputes.
If we look at the Europe of 1913, it thrived on global trade. The war between the “civilised” states seemed impossible. Yet a year later, the Europeans slaughtered each other in a war that spanned continents, claiming over 35 million lives and billions of dollars. The assassination of Austria’s Archduke was enough to set entire world up in flames.
Business could only stretch the stalemate. It may not end political or border disputes.
The point is there is very less informed discussion happening within Pakistan over Kashmir dispute. The wavering stance of Pakistani state over Kashmir is demonstrable. Sometime its intelligentsia and media add to the confusion by launching uninformed arguments on Kashmir. The new normal offers speculative comparisons of the rebels Pakistanis detest to those Pakistan see as freedom fighters of Kashmir. From the blinkered binoculars, Pakistani columnists and thinkers – who may seem “sympathisers” of Kashmir struggle -seek to bracket all rebels in one cubicle.
Consider Marvi Sirmed’s piece, for example. It used Burhan Wani’s killing as metaphor to explain “terrorism” in Pakistan. Angered by Abdul Sattar Edhi and Burhan Wani comparison, she went ahead to write: “Wani’s stated objective as per his various writings had been to unfurl the flag of Islam, establish an Islamic state and wage Jihad in Kashmir, Afghanistan and everywhere else where the forces of ‘Kufr’ were subjugating Muslims.”
Many Kashmiris wonder how did she manage to access Wani’s “various writings” (that do not exist in public domain) while sitting in Pakistan. Or was it mere concoction to put across a message, a favourite pastime?
Similarly, learned Pakistani author Ayesha Siddiqua tried to remind Kashmiris about the state apparatuses around the world, to whom, “struggles are no more struggles but acts of terrorism”. Thanks for the reminder but it has now become a cliché. Instead of an informed, honest and historical evaluation of the Kashmir dispute, the space was wasted in starting the piece with “Can we help Kashmir?” and ending it with the same question.
Another dangerous attempt to criminalise Kashmir’s struggle came from Kunwar Khuldune Shahid, who warned: “No occupier in the history of humankind has given up an inch of territory, just because it was the ‘right thing’ to do.” The piece appeared in The Nation and was later pulled down.
This Kashmir “sympathiser” suggested adopting “realism” to battle the opposition in a political arena notwithstanding the fact that Kashmir has already tried this option before the armed rebellion began in 1989.
Physicist Pervez Amirali Hoodbhoy also offered his share of ridiculousness after Burhan Wani’s killing and subsequent siege of Kashmir.
Kashmir, where people are mourning over 60 killings, have observed strikes for three weeks now in favour of total Independence of Kashmir from India or plebiscite in the region, wave green and Pakistani flags, use stone pelting and graffiti to remind the Indians and the UN of the promises made, Hoodbhoy’ tried to market Indian journalist Prem Shankar Jha’s suggestions in his piece.
Jha has never advocated for Kashmir’s Independence or plebiscite. Yet Hoodbhoy chose to peep into Kashmir through New Delhi-based Jha’s observations.
In his suggestions, Shankar Jha called for erasing Indian police’s history sheets in Kashmir “to give them respite for fear”, support to pro-Indian politician Mehbooba Mufti (who in opposition campaigned against custodial torture and pellet guns, mourned at dead militants’ homes but took a U-turn as unified command head of the Indian soldiers in Kashmir) and “suitable technology” to police to deal with stone pelters.
I wonder how can Hoodbhoy appreciate and endorse these ludicrous advices.
It’s these dangerous narratives that shape the public and official opinion in Pakistan. To criminalise Kashmir’s independence movement further, Indian intelligentsia often use same pieces to defend India’s performance in Kashmir.
More than any kind of support, Kashmir would want sincere discourse on Kashmir dispute emanating from Pakistani thinkers rather than half-baked, dishonest and ignorant opinions.
Baba Umar, a Kashmiri journalist can be reached @BabaUmarr
