Kashmir Affairs - Security & Conflict Analysis of Kashmir

continued from >>> 1
‘Real Democracy’: Pakistan’s Post-Musharraf Kashmir Policy

Murtaza Shibli
(April 2008)

‘Asif Ali Zardari: Boomerang Effect
While the negotiations for the new government were full on, Asif Ali Zardari was being courted by the American diplomats on daily basis trying to influence him to stay away from Nawaz Sharif and accept a deal with Musharraf on the basis of a working relationship.⁴⁰ The Americans also reportedly wanted his assurances on the India-Pakistan ‘peace process’ and that the future government will continue with Musharraf’s Kashmir policy. Under intense US pressure, Asif Ali Zardari, in a television interview with the leading Indian journalist Karan Thapar on CNN-IBN’s Devil's Advocate programme, said that “Kashmir issue should be left aside for future generations to solve and right now India and Pakistan should focus on improving the bilateral relations by strengthening trade and economic ties.”⁴¹ He also opined that “normalisation of relations between the two countries should not become hostage to the Kashmir issue.”⁴²

The reaction that followed was unprecedented and gave a strong indication of the pent up anger that Musharraf’s Kashmir policy had created. Zardari’s statement led to strong condemnation from all the Kashmiri groups - pro-freedom, pro-India and resistance militant groups alike. Even those who were die-hard supporters of Musharraf only days ago lent their support to the growing condemnation indicating that they can’t remain oblivious to the new political realities. The United Jihad Council (UJC), conglomerate of 13 militant outfits termed Zardari’s statement as “political immaturity”, accusing him of not knowing anything about his country’s changing policies and being “unaware about the history and ignorant about the Kashmir issue.”⁴³ The chairman of the Hurriyat conference (G) Syed Ali Shah Geelani said that Zaradari’s statement will have no affect on the disputed nature of Kashmir adding “He can talk whatever he wants, who cares.”⁴⁴ Pro-Musharraf Hurriyat leader Shabir Ahmad Shah termed the statement irrelevant while Abbas Ansari said “till Kashmir issue is solved, the distances [between India and Pakistan] would not vanish.” Later the Hurriyat Conference (M) called its Executive Council meeting which expressed deep concerns over Zardari’s statement and said that Zardari’s statement “was not in line with the Pakistan Peoples Party's Kashmir policy.”⁴⁵ Pro-Musharraf JKLF led by Majid Tramboo strongly condemned Zardari’s unrealistic statement. Commenting on Zardari’s statement, the spokesman of the group said that it “gives an indication about his political bankruptcy. We have not given him any mandate on Kashmir issue [so] he should mind his own business.”⁴⁶

Zardari even drew flak from the pro-India politicians. Chairman of the Peoples’ Conference Sajad Gani Lone called it an “idealistic statement”, urging “the people to protest.”⁴⁷ Leader of the opposition in the pro-India Kashmiri Assembly and the National Conference senior functionary, Abdul Rahim Rather told Kashmir Times that his party was “pretty upset”. Elaborating, he said, “How else can we react to such a statement when our people are getting killed because of the non-resolution of the Kashmir issue between India and Pakistan?”⁴⁸ Omar Abdullah, President of National Conference “warned that freezing Kashmir without finding a solution would prove dangerous not only for India but for Pakistan as well.”⁴⁹ Another prominent pro-India politician and chairperson of the People’s Democratic Party (PDP), Mehbooba Mufti questioned the need for issuing such statements saying that the resolution of Kashmir needs to be carried forward rather than putting in cold storage.⁵⁰

Sardar Qayoom Khan, the octogenarian Azad Kashmiri politician and former Prime Minister, who is known for making U-turns also lashed out at Zardari. Khan who had joined Musharraf’s Kashmir policy ditching his old avatar of Mujahid-e-Awwal had previously condemned Kashmiri militants and declared ‘end of Jihad’ in Kashmir, calling it a futile exercise. Under the new political order, Sardar Qayoom took strong exception to Zardari’s statement warning that “friendly relations between India and Pakistan would always be short-lived and unpredictable until the root cause of all problems - Kashmir issue was resolved.” and went further to justifiy the need for militant resistance; “militancy... should remain ... a force to reckon with for forcing India to agree on a negotiated settlement of the issue.”⁵¹

Asif Zardari couldn’t resist the barrage of criticism and had to ‘clarify’ his position. Retracting from his old statement, he described Kashmir as an integral part of Pakistan and the Kashmir issue as the reason for the founding of the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) by Zulfikar Ali Bhutto and said “I started my political mission from Shaheed Benazir Bhutto’s grave at Garhi Khuda Bhuksh. If I have to keep her trust, how can I betray the trust of 90,000 other martyrs who have lost their lives in Kashmir?”⁵²

Zardari made subsequent clarifications to assuage the tempers. He also claimed that his father Hakim Ali Zardari fought as a volunteer in the 1948 war to liberate Kashmir and was proud of that.⁵³ The Executive Director of Kashmir Centre Washington, Ghulam Nabi Fai expressed satisfaction over the statement saying “the clarification by the PPP ... has been viewed as reassuring by the general public in Pakistan as well as in Kashmir.” Fai, who is well known for his caution and conformism, was surprisingly firm and also advised Pakistani leaders “in responsible positions ... to exercise discretion when issuing statements that may undermine Kashmiri aspiration.” and demanded that the Kashmir conflict must be resolved prognosticating that any “attempts at conflict management will never succeed.”⁵⁴

The American ‘meddling’
The proverbial trio of Pakistan’s politics - Allah, Army and America seems to have been reconfigured in reverse order with the Americans enjoying on the saddle. The US influence is so powerful that they virtually seem to be running every aspect of Pakistani life as allowed by Musharraf in his last eight years of rule. They are said to have unacknowledged military basis, secret prisons and torture centres with powers to detain Pakistani citizens and thousands of secret agents running around in the country without any legal or bureaucratic fetters. This is the main reason that the Americans are said to be against the reinstatement of Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhary who was adamant in upholding the law and wanted to know the fate of thousands that have gone missing in Musharraf’s regime with many of them ending up in secret American prisons and torture cells. The majority of the Pakistanis see the US and its ‘War on Terror’ the main reason for problems in the tribal areas and resultant suicide bombings. Speaking at a Kashmir rally on 5 February in Lahore, Jama’at-e-Islami leader Liaqat Baloch “castigated President Musharraf for acting as a tool in the hands of Washington to make Pakistan a failed state as per US agenda.”⁵⁵ Many also blame US pressure for Musharraf’s U-turn on Kashmir. Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz leader, Dr Azim ud Din Zahid while speaking at a meeting to commemorate Kashmir Solidarity Day said “on the direction of the US administration, moral and financial help to Kashmiris was stopped.”⁵⁶

The American support for Musharraf - from sacking of the judges to the imposition of Emergency and tacit approval for his crackdown on the secular civil society has given rise to massive anger against the US. Such sentiments are no more confined to the Islamist fringe groups. As the first election results were out, former Army Chief General Mirza Aslam Beg called it a decision against America in his comment on the Pakistani television channel Geo TV, saying that the next Prime Minister will be elected by the people of Pakistan and not by the US.⁵⁷ by the election results, when the calls for Musharraf’s resignation grew louder, the US Secretary of the State Condoleezza Rice openly came to the rescue of General Musharraf; “The President of Pakistan is Pervez Musharraf ... And so, of course, we will deal with him. We will continue to pursue the American interests, which are for a stable and democratic Pakistan.”⁵⁸

Since the elections, the American influence in Pakistan has become more pronounced, open and corrosive. Soon after the results, it was a strange scene to see the American diplomats literally taking charge for the formation of the new government as well as trying to block potential political alliances. The American Ambassador in Islamabad, Anne W Patterson openly held meetings with the Pakistani politicians suggesting future role for Musharraf. On 25 March, the day the new Prime Minister Makhdoom Syed Yousuf Raza Gilani was sworn in, the American presence in Islamabad was felt very strongly and raised a lot of suspicion that they are trying to hijack the democratic government. When the Pakistani politicians were busy in forming the new government, the US Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte along with Assistant Secretary of State for South and Central Asia Richard Boucher held meetings with Pervez Musharraf, Chief of the Army Staff and top politicians of the new coalition government including Prime Minister Gilani, Asif Zardari and Nawaz Sharif.⁵⁹ Former Pakistani Foreign Secretary Riaz Khokhar called it ‘crude diplomacy’. In his comments with the leading Pakistani anchor Kamran Khan in Aaj Kamran Khan Ke Sath he accused the Americans of arm twisting. In the same programme, Pakistani analyst Shafqat Mehmood commented that Americans are showing the power and influence they have got in Pakistan. Frustrated by this brazen behaviour, Kamran Khan threw a very strong and emotive question at the Pakistani audience; “Where is our honour and dignity?”⁶⁰
Former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif could not tolerate the US pressure on the Musharraf issue and he told the US delegation that he “considered Musharraf an unconstitutional and illegal head of state.” Sharif later told a press conference that the “new government would review Pakistan’s role in the War on Terror after holding a debate in the parliament and that Pakistan will not play in the US hands.”⁶¹ The timing of this visit by the US envoys caused outrage with the newspapers decrying the visit as ‘American meddling’ and protestors in at least three cities burning the US flag and waving banners demanding that the envoys go home. Leading English daily The Dawn titled its editorial about the visit as American Impatience terming the arrival of the US envoys “in indecent haste”, not “in keeping with diplomatic propriety” and calling its objective as “undesirable”.⁶² Another leading newspaper, The News urged the US officials to “restrain themselves in further meddling in Pakistan’s affairs.”⁶³

Given the US influence, its strong presence in the region and its closest ties with India, the new government would be severely restricted and limited in any approach that tries to deal with the Kashmir issue differently from the previous government, knowing the fact that the US is committed to pursue Pakistan to abandon Kashmir in totality.

‘National Consensus’ - The Balancing Act
As the anti-Musharraf political forces moved to centre stage, the Army Chief, who was considered a Musharraf ally also started to make more pronounced statements indicating a move from his predecessor’s policies. Therefore, when General Pervez Ashfaq Kiyani made open references to ‘National Consensus’ on Kashmir, it was seen as an indication of a possible shift. During his visit to a forward location near the Line of Control (LoC) in Azad Kashmir on 12 February, General Kayani while addressing Army officers highlighted the “national consensus” that exists on Kashmir and “reaffirmed commitment of Pakistan Army to the Kashmir cause, in line with aspirations of Pakistani nation.”⁶⁴

Kayani’s statement was widely hailed in Pakistan as well as in Kashmir. The Hurriyat Conference (G) Convenor, Mohammad Farooq Rehmani “warmly welcomed the statement”⁶⁵ and many Pakistani newspapers praised it in their editorials. The English daily Pakistan Observer called his statement as reassuring on the basis that some recent statements, by certain political quarters, which were disapproved by the people of Pakistan. Observing that for the last 60 years the people of Pakistan and the armed forces had a strong commitment to the Kashmir cause, it called the assurance by the COAS [Chief of the Army Staff] as “satisfying for the people of Pakistan as well as to the Kashmiris”, and hoped that “the new political leadership would keep the resolution of Kashmir issue as the top priority on its agenda while dealing on different issues with India.”⁶⁶ Leading English daily The Nation called the statement as heartening and a demonstration of affinity all the soldiers of the armed forces feel for the Kashmir cause. The paper affirmed Kayani’s statement that there is a national consensus on the issue adding that the genuine political forces agreed on the right of self-determination of the people of Kashmir. Criticizing Musharraf regime’s initiative of peace process, the newspaper observed that “All the miscalculated and overly conciliatory efforts of the regime have been met by Indian smugness and aggression every step of the way” and “sincerely hoped that these leaders can counter some of the damage done on this front by the previous leadership.”⁶⁷

The utility of General Kayani’s statement can be seen at multiple levels. There is a strong argument that because of the ‘War on Terror’ and U-turn on Kashmir, the Army is unpopular and therefore it wants to get back into the good books of the people by latching on to Kashmir. There have been many public calls to the new Army Chief from various political and social quarters about many issues including Kashmir and the ‘War on Terror’. While General Kayani cannot afford to make a statement over the ‘War on Terror’, Kashmir remains the only plausible choice. Hard posturing on Kashmir would certainly soften the image of army among the local people including Islamic fundamentalists who could thus be persuaded not to attack their own army. statement could also be seen as a subtle rebuff to the US and an attempt to curtail their unwarranted and crude influence in the Pakistani affairs mainly Kashmir. By highlighting ‘consensus’, Kayani sought to place Kashmir in the centre of his nation’s conscience that cannot be bartered away under any outside pressure.

Another function of Kayani’s statement could be to re-assert the Army’s traditional role and authority on the matters of defence as well as Kashmir while the civilian government with a strong mandate has taken over. Previously, the Army has viewed any bonhomie of its politicians with India with suspicion; “Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto was pilloried for being “pro-India” when she attempted to reach an understanding with her counterpart [Indian Prime Minister] Rajiv Gandhi in 1989. Her party was accused of being a “security risk” by the state’s intelligence agencies.” Similarly when “Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif ... tried to reach out to his Indian counterpart Mr Atal Bihari Vajpayee in 1999 ... the [Pakistan Army] ...was busy executing its disastrous Kargil Operation in Kashmir.”⁶⁸

General Pervez Kayani sent another subtle but strong message about his priorities and persuasions. On Pakistan Day, 23 March, he hosted a reception in honour of the retired Army officers who attended in a large number. Many of these retired officers have publicly criticised Musharraf’s Kashmir policy and called for his resignation. Speaking at the occasion, the Army Chief reiterated that the “Army will always live up to the expectations of the nation”⁶⁹ sending a message of defiance against Musharraf while at the same time seeking reconciliation with his nation.
Kashmiri Response
Pakistan has always been an important factor in the survival and existence of the Kashmiri political struggle. Whether rightly or wrongly, Pakistan has fired the imagination of Kashmiri people and despite the lack of uniformity in its approach, Pakistan remains a major emotional force for Kashmiris that is deeply embedded in their psyche. Commenting upon the recent elections and its effect on Kashmir, pro-India politician Mehbooba Mufti acknowledged the role and function of the symbol of Pakistan in the Kashmir’s socio-political landscape; “We have a sentimental and geographical affinity with Pakistan.”⁷⁰

However, this ‘sentimental’ relationship touched nadir during General Musharraf’s rule. In the aftermath of 9/11, he not only gave up support for the Kashmiris’ freedom and self-determination, but also branded Kashmiri resistance fighters as terrorists.⁷¹ The change meant that the Kashmiri ‘freedom fighters’ in Pakistan and Azad Kashmir were hounded, tortured, arrested and even killed. In March 2006, the ISI arrested and threatened Syed Salahudin, the chief of Hizbul Mujahideen along with many other prominent Kashmiri resistance leaders who were protesting against Musharraf’s Kashmir policy.⁷² In mid 2006 when I visited the Indian side of Kashmir, there was a strong feeling that Pakistan was sharing information about the Kashmiri militants with their Indian counterparts and thus helping the Indian Army to liquidate the last vestiges of Kashmiri resistance. negative views have persisted in the recent and popular Kashmiri imagination leading to serious trust deficit. Therefore, even if the new Pakistani government and the Army will seek to change that perception, it would find it harder to gain broad reception among the Kashmiris. Under the best circumstances, the die-hard pro-Pakistanis like Syed Ali Geelani may fall in line, but the majority of Kashmiris will wait and watch cautiously, till Pakistan makes some strong and tangible moves that could be seen or interpreted as credible.

continued on page >>> 3