Shawdesh Desk:

EVEN though India has finally annexed Kashmir, the war is far from over. I must sympathise with the Pakistanis holding the other part of Kashmir. They now face a daunting task ahead which has proved devastating for their diplomacy in the short run. To say the least, is this not a gross violation of international morals, treaties and human rights? And finally, is it really a Pakistani problem, to begin with?

What must be explored from the outset is the influence of a movement that began gaining grounds in the 1970s. In 1973, the Middle Eastern countries exhibited an oil blockade against America for the cause of Palestine. In 1979, Iran witnessed a popular revolution by the Islamists and Afghanistan was invaded by the Soviet Union.

These movements were exacerbated in the aftermath of September 11, 2001 — with the fall of Iraq, Syria, Libya and Egypt revolutions among others. Yet, despite continued efforts by the Arab republics — in Palestine, the Pakistani state in Kashmir and the Iranian efforts in the Middle East more broadly — efforts to promote pan-Islamism has been a complete and total failure.

The only Muslim countries that turned away from this ethno-religious philosophy — namely Malaysia, Turkey, Indonesia, Bangladesh and Turkmenistan — have enjoyed any success in developing their economies. While we may not appreciate nationalism, we must accept it as the dominant philosophy of the modern state. It must be remembered that Westphalian peace in Europe had in the course of time transformed small countries of the tiny continent into great colonial powers.

The ability to avoid war with neighbours was vital for the colonial era to bloom. Yet, after years of rallying around pan-Islamist concepts, Pakistan failed to appreciate the importance of simple, regional peace.

One must understand that politics of a nation-state outside Pakistan borders, be it India, Israel or America, is of no material concern to the starving, struggling and impoverished populace on both sides of the India-Pakistan border. Despite Pakistanis’ cry for a plebiscite in Kashmir, raised on all platforms for more than seven decades, the only realistic solution to the problem was reduced to maintaining the borders at their current levels. Status quo, however, has lasted for nearly seven decades.

Neither India nor Pakistan would be willing to agree to a solution requiring them to cede territory that for seven decades had been claimed as part of their nation-state. As for notion of an independent Kashmir, pseudo-liberals must understand that a small nation such as Kashmir, being in charge of the entire Pakistani water supply, would never be acceptable to Pakistan either. Any more questions?

Moreover, if gross violations against minority Muslim populations was really an issue, why have the Pakistanis remained silent on Turkey’s persecution of the Kurds, the Chinese atrocities against Uighur’s in Xinjiang, the annexation of Kalat, Syrian tyranny under Assad and the Hazara genocide in our own backyard? Do Muslims only get persecuted when the perpetrator is an ‘unfriendly’ nation? In their struggle for Kashmir, Pakistan has already fought three wars in 1947, 1965 and 1999, to no avail.

In more than 70 years, this never-ending cycle has impoverished population, on both sides of the border. On a per capita basis, Pakistanis stand officially poorer than Bangladesh, Bhutan, Sri Lanka, Kenya, Nigeria, Uzbekistan, Mongolia, Vietnam, Laos and Egypt. Due to the Pakistani state’s soft hand on Kashmir, it has gained a reputation for funding terrorism, wooing away any possibility of significant foreign investment and trade.

Finally, instead of imparting education, the Pakistani state has relentlessly continued a campaign of supporting militant camps under the guise of seminaries in order to assist in an impossible war.

More so, let us see what Kashmir has ever really gained out of these actions. Today’s average Kashmiri, residing in the Pakistan-administered Jammu and Kashmir or Britain has no memory of a united Kashmir. History of this ideal is now as ancient as the fate of the mentally retarded in Saadat Manto’s immortal short story titled ‘Toba Tek Singh’.

There is a strong argument. The Kashmiris who have unofficially been part of Pakistan since 1947 have no right under the current Pakistani constitution, unless they move out of Kashmir, to determine federal policy because they have no representation in the national assembly.

Kashmiris have not had the ability to develop as a province of the country, by virtue of hanging in limbo, holding on to the promise of a united Kashmir. To be very candid, Kashmir was not the only province/state split up by the partition. More than 10 million Punjabi and Bengali families were separated by an artificial divide. But no one really ever brings up visitation rights to Jalandhar or Calcutta.

That said, Pakistan has a strategic interest in maintaining control over the waterways which run through Kashmir. Any effects of annexation must be neutral in their impact on the Indus Water Treaty.

Since this is a real national interest concern, the Pakistan government should obtain guarantees from the international community, the United States, India and China specifically, to protect the water flows which cultivate the economy.

Additionally, Pakistan should appeal to the UNHCR in order to make arrangements for the much-anticipated mass migration into the Pakistan-administered Jammu and Kashmir and other parts of Pakistan. If Pakistanis are serious about our commitments to help Kashmir, they cannot accomplish them without opening our borders to those fleeing Indian persecution.

In their stubborn struggle to support the pan-Islamist fight for a larger Kashmiri freedom, Pakistan’s leadership has denied democracy and development to more than six million people that have inhabited their own country.

Instead of continuing to fight a battle that most likely will not draw a result in their favour, it is imperative that they should start fixing the things that they can to their end. While the Indian annexation might certainly be a violation of human rights, there is a huge silver lining missing in all the hullabaloo — the possibility of long-lasting peace in the subcontinent.

Will the leadership on both sides of the border heed the genuine aspirations of the Kashmiris? Perhaps, ‘yes’ and perhaps, ‘no’.