By K.N. Pandita
The Dawn of December 6 published full length statement of Nafees Zakaria, Pakistan Foreign Office spokesman that dealt with current Indo-Pak relations focusing on Kashmir issue.
Many flaws are seen in the statement. As it flashlights some new aspects of relationship, it would be in fitness of things to put the record straight.
The statement begins with inviting world community’s attention to India’s “abuse of human rights in Kashmir”.
Human rights abuse in Kashmir began in 1998-90 with armed and indoctrinated Pakistani Islamist jihadis clandestinely infiltrating into Kashmir and beginning their jihad with the massacre of minuscule Kashmiri Hindu minority members resulting in the ethnic cleansing of Kashmir valley. In the second phase of these violations, local sympathisers of mission jihad looted and torched the vacated houses, shops, and structures of the extirpated religious minority community which, as they said, was the purpose of jihad.
India, in deference to the constitutional imperative of protecting lives and properties of its citizens, had to react militarily to this grave situation precisely in a manner in which Pakistan army is dealing with the TTP in North Waziristan. If Pakistan army’s action in PK is “abuse of human rights, then, of course, India will be charged for the same crime.
For understanding what the “abuse of human rights” precisely means in all its facets, we would suggest the Pakistani spokesman to go through Hamudu’r Rahman Report about Bangladesh war.
The spokesman has revealed that friendly countries like the US, Iran and China are ready to offer their good offices for mediating between the two adversaries. It is an interesting revelation.
China has illegally grabbed in Shaksgam of Aksaichin region a big chunk of the territory of original princely State of J&K to which India has lodged protest. Additionally, Pakistan ceded more than five thousand square kilometres of Aksaichin territory to China under an agreement. The ceded territory facilitated China linking Tibet through railway line. India has been protesting against this illegal deal.
China twice scuttled India’s move in the Security Council asking it to designate Pakistan-based terrorist organization Jaish-e-Muhammad and its chief Azhar as terrorist for instructing its suicide bombers to attack an Indian military camp at a place called Uri in Kashmir valley. JeM has publicly said that it is carrying jihad to Kashmir.
By vetoing against India, China has clearly indicated that Beijing supports jihdism and armed insurgency in Kashmir.
How will India accept China, an aggressor in illegal occupation of Aksaichin, becoming the arbiter of Kashmir dispute? Moreover, China has made her strong physical and military presence in the disputed territory of Gilgit and Baltistan (under illegal occupation of Pakistan) under the pretext of building infrastructure for the region. China’s presence in a big way.
As regards Pakistan’s second nominee viz. the US, people usually have short memory. Pakistan has been and continues to be an ally of the US in various military pacts, Baghdad Pact, CENTO, SEATO and more importantly, Pakistan became the hand tool of the US in promoting and proliferating Islamic religious extremism and mujahideen cult in the region, which carried in its womb the seeds of Islamic fundamentalist ideology that has gripped the entire Muslim ummah of contemporary times. The Kalashnikovs that have brought destruction to Kashmir and put thousands of her youth into their graves are actually those which the Pentagon and CIA had put in the hands of Pakistan’s army and ISI leaders. US meticulously avoided confirming that so-called Kashmir freedom fighters were actually Pakistan sponsored terrorists fighting for separation from India and accession to Pakistan.
The third country Pakistan has named as possible mediator is Iran. Iran will be only proving its hypocrisy if she agrees to become a mediator. Iran chose to be an unimpressive watcher of Pakistani fanatical Sunni organization Lashkar-e-Jhangvi targeting Pakistani Shia and daring them enter a Sunni mosque. While Iran is virtually militarily engaged in struggle against overwhelming Sunni power banks in Lebanon and Syria, she is soft paddling with Shia oppressors in Pakistan. Iran never questioned Pakistan receiving huge military aid and armaments from the US that has the potential of leading to power imbalance in the region. Moreover, Iran is one of the OIC member countries that have been regularly signing anti-India resolutions on Kashmir in OIC summits despite India explaining to her at length the ins and outs of Kashmir dispute.
How then does Pakistan imagine that India will accept Iran as a mediator in Kashmir dispute?
Then the Pakistani spokesman talks about dialogue. If India did not want resolving disputes through dialogue, Prime Minister Modi would not have ventured unscheduled visit to Lahore. What he talked to his Pakistani counterpart was to stop sending jihadis, stop firing and shelling on the border and dismantle terrorist structure in the country so that peace is talked about. In response, Pakistan engineered Pathankot, Uri and Nagrota etc. Former Prime Minister Vajpayee, too, had travelled by bus to Lahore and his visit was rewarded by Kargil.
Pakistani foreign office spokesman should ask himself who is out to scuttle the process of dialogue. He wants a “sustainable and result-oriented dialogue”. What does that mean? In October 1947 Pakistan armed tribesmen and provided them all logistical support to invade and annex Kashmir. They miserably failed to do so. Pakistan waged two more wars to snatch Kashmir but failed and finally initiated proxy war in 1990 which has not only failed but exposed Pakistan as the epicentre of international terror. The world now knows Pakistan as the powerhouse of terrorism. What does it mean to have “sustainable and result-oriented dialogue?
The real question that puzzles New Delhi is with whom should it hold a dialogue. There are three power centres in Pakistan via “elected” government in Islamabad, GHQ in Rawalpindi and Chinese mentors in Beijing/Gilgit. This trilateral power centre scheme caters to discordant rather than known parameters of nation building. A regime that functions under the looming shadow of military rule cannot be expected to take any final decision on a matter which is claimed by the army as its exclusive domain. Pakistan’s stand for mediation by external agencies and simultaneous bilateral dialogue is actually a mechanism for dialogue among the trilateral power centres of that country, inherently at loggerheads.
Pakistani spokesman says that his country wants the dialogue process to lead to “resolution of the Kashmir dispute in accordance with UN Security Council resolutions and wishes of the Kashmiri people”. UN Resolution proposes calibrated resolution of the dispute starting with the withdrawal of troops and all fighting forces from Pakistan occupied Kashmir. Pakistan did not withdraw a single soldier or fighting individual from PoK till date. Not only that, she has established scores of terrorist training camps and launching pads in PoK closest to the LoC. That is how she has trivialized and made redundant the resolutions that the spokesman has invoked.
Shimla Agreement supersedes SC resolutions. Former UN Secretary General Kofi Anan had made it clear during one of his visits to Pakistan that the Security Council Resolutions had lost their relevance in the light of bilateral agreement signed by the parties in Shimla. And as far as the wishes of the people of Jammu and Kashmir, they have freely expressed it in the course of numerous elections held for J&K Legislative Assembly.
As far the accusation that India is maligning Pakistan, the truth that Pakistan is maligning herself is not hidden from anybody. Pakistan plays host to people like Hadley and Dagwood. Pakistan gives VVIP treatment to the chiefs of terrorist groups of LeT, HM, JM, LJ and dozens of other less spoken about extremist groups. Pakistan funds, patronizes and provides safe haven to Haqqani group engaged in terrorist activities in Afghanistan.
Why is it so? The answer is simple. Pakistan army uses them as its tools to keep Indo-Pak/ Pak-Afghan acrimonious pot simmering. Then only can they manage to grab lion’s share in the annual national budget of Pakistan and run parallel government with no mechanism of checks and balances. That is why observers say that Pakistan army is a state within a state.
In final analysis, Pakistan has begun to realize how on terrorism count she stimulated her isolation in the world community. Just by saying she offers dialogue to India is not going to endear him to world community. What actually will endear her to international fraternity is dismantling terror structure meant for subversion in Afghanistan or Kashmir or Baluchistan and punishing the elements that are out to disrupt peace in the subcontinent.