DMK Forces To Ponder Over The Afzal Question

The mask finally came out today. It became clear to everyone within India and outside that this Indian government handles its diplomatic relations on the basis of internal politics and aspirations. The Dravida Munetra Kazhagam has withdrawn support to the UPA government led by Manmohan Singh over the issue of alleged killing of LTTE (Liberation Tigers of Tamil) by the Sri Lankan establishment. The open secret lies unravelled now.

It would be interesting to listen to those voices, which questioned the validity of Pakistan's National Assembly in passing a resolution condemning hanging of Afzal Guru. Our Parliament wasted no time in giving a befitting reply by passing another resolution condemning the Afzal resolution of Pakistan's National Assembly. And, everyone including this writer has reliably learnt that the DMK under M Karunanidhi voted favouring the resolution passed by Parliament. Now, where is the so-called ethical or moral difference between the equations.

We generally elect our leaders on the basis of our ability to believe or disbelieve in them, and we judge our leaders on the basis of their past (the most recent) performance. Sometimes, their intent also plays a significant role in the election process. Now, let's think separately the intent and performance of our political class in the aforesaid two cases, and then have a look at the real diplomatic and political spectre.

The Afzal Resolution
 
National Assembly of Pakistan passed that resolution because of two broad reasons: one, Afzal's connection to Kashmir (and attack on Indian Parliament) and two, religious appeal, which played the key role in partition and subsequent political confusion over the status, standing and stature of Jammu and Kashmir.

First of all, Pakistan feels that Kashmir is an Islamic problem and that's why an unfinished agenda of the partition and hence, it has its stake in deciding the fate and future of the state. It has fought not less than three wars on this issue, and has been supporting, helping, channelizing, designing and propagating terrorism in Jammu and Kashmir and rest of India.

So, when someone from the same school of thought carries out or allegedly helps carrying out an act of terror, Pakistan is bound to have some hand in the act and stake in the future of the same person. It may present a different face to the world but within, it knows the reality. Hence, Pakistan’s resolution on Afzal Guru, whose hanging was confirmed by the Supreme Court and executed by the Indian government.

The resolution was viewed as an affront on India by millions of electors or stakeholders in our democracy. Sensing their mood, the elected ones showcased their intent in snubbing Pakistan with a counter-resolution asserting that "Jammu and Kashmir has been and shall always remain the integral part of India", that hanging of Afzal Guru.was an internal matter of India, and also that Afzal Guru was a part of the conspiracy hatched in Pakistan and sponsored by Pakistani establishment that saw attack on Parliament. Isn't there some inherent contradiction in our approach?

The Tamil Angle
 
Now, consider the government's stand on Sri Lanka's approach in dealing with remnants of LTTE, which was a proscribed outfit in India till it existed in force. The island nation's government has been accused of committing war crimes on the surrendered members of LTTE and the Tamil population of the Elam region. It is a serious human rights issue of international importance. But, it is happening within the sovereign boundaries of Sri Lanka and hence, an internal matter of that country. But then, the population involved is Tamil, which evokes emotional appeal across the international waters in an Indian state.

Tamil Nadu is under AIADMK rule while DMK is in opposition and so, quite naturally it feels the pulse of Tamil people's emotion and anger. The same DMK has been a partner in all crimes with other UPA partners at the centre. It could easily dictate the matters vis-a-vis India's southern neighbour in past nine years. But, in the wake of Italian marine goof up, better sense has started prevailing over the UPA government. So, after going far ahead of expressing concern over human rights' issue in Sri Lanka, the Manmohan Singh government has finally decided to see whether antagonizing the island nation is in India's favour given the Chinese propensity in the region.

If India genuinely felt that Pakistan's National Assembly's resolution on  Afzal was an attack on India's sovereignty, can it forget the same principle in dealing with Sri Lanka simply because DMK is part of the ruling coalition? And, if India can interfere with Sri Lanka (to safeguard its strategic interest) why can't Pakistan do same with India? Also, why should India choose/ pick the nation with which it has to interfere; simply put, why does India choose not to apply pressure on Maldieves, Italy, Nepal or Bangladesh for that matter to safeguard its strategic interests, while it goes on to interfere with an essentially (going by India's own definition) internal matter of Sri Lanka?

The present politico-diplomatic-strategic state of affairs of the UPA 2.0 points to utter indecision. The government seems to be so indecisive that it has failed to realize that indecision was its earlier decision. Under the circumstances, can India be taken seriously on the matters of external affairs, outside or within?

Kashmir: Militants, Panchayat, Pakistan and Problem

Two incidents or coincidences pertaining to Kashmir problem have brought back the centrality of the long standing dispute between India and Pakistan, as well as among the political regime and people in the country into focus. The first set of incidents is rather disturbing as it has thrown the democratization of Kashmiri politics completely out of gear. Lashkar-e-Toiba militants have threatened the Panchayat leaders and carried out the threats by killing Sarpanches and Panchayat members in the valley forcing more than fifty resignations within a couple of days. The state government has clearly failed to infuse confidence among the elected representatives that it is equipped to deal with the militants, on one hand and that it can provide security to all including the Panchayat leaders, on the other. Fear, confusion and blame game have taken firm roots in Jammu and Kashmir.

Second incident is not at all surprising but looks part of the same strategy, ostensibly formulated across the border. While democracy takes a backseat in the Kashmir valley, Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari has raked up the issue of self determination by the people of Kashmir. Zardari has reiterated Pakistan’s support to Kashmir’s separatists. Incidentally, the intelligence and security agencies, and politicians have pointed fingers at the Pak-based LeT, generally supported by Pakistani establishment, for the recent killings of Panchayat members in the Kashmir valley.

These two separate looking developments throw a pattern, which many, including this author, cannot deny. This warrants rewinding tapes of time and taking a look at the origin of the K-issue.

(Hereunder, I am reproducing a piece written (by me and rejected by a reputed journalist of a very reputed news organization) long back in 2004-05. But, somehow, I find it relevant today. I agree that were I to write this again, I may improve its structure a bit.)

Kashmir  ……. whenever this word is uttered, a part of our conscience and sentiment gets stirred up. We start feeling like having been cheated. We become staunch nationalists. We get angry and confused. Ironically, we seldom have a real understanding of the problem called, Kashmir, but we feel deeply about it.

                               Whether we wish it or not, whether we like it or not, it’s a fact that in this age of global terrorism the problem of Kashmir is more like global issue. All the five so-called major powers of the world are directly or indirectly interested and to some extent involved in it. The U.S. and Russia (erstwhile U.S.S.R.) have been interested in it since the days of cold war. For that they have had their own understanding of the international milieu and hold-sharing game. Although China has never expressed anything explicitly but on every bilateral platform sharing with India or Pakistan it has shown some concern about Kashmir. As for the U.K. everyone agrees that the Kashmir problem is a legacy of British colonialism.

                            When the British withdrew from India, three states were ostensibly born: India and Pakistan on the basis of the infamous two-nation theory, and Jammu and Kashmir. The ruler of the third entity, i.e. Kashmir decided not to go along communal lines and declared his state as independent to preserve its composite culture and life-style. Or, may be, he did not want to give up his royal and princely character. Maharaja Hari Singh was willing to join neither India as he felt his majority Muslim subjects would not like joining a Hindu-majority nation, nor Pakistan, which as a Hindu he was personally averse to. On the other hand, Pakistani leader Muhammad Ali Jinnah coveted the Himalayan kingdom, while Indian leaders Mahatma Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru hoped that the kingdom would join India. That is why Hari Singh thought of making Jammu and Kashmir an independent nation, and did not make his decision by August 15^th to merge with either.

Anyway, the result was the same, i.e. the birth of three different states or nations for that matter. Though, all were not admitted into the U.N.O. as separate entities. But then who knows, had the tribal invaders mixed with the Pakistani army not invaded Kashmir, it would have emerged as a separate nation. And, our nationalist feelings for Kashmir would not have developed even. But that was not to be and India fought three wars (excluding 1971-war) and hundreds of skirmishes, without getting any solution. However why the able leadership of the two countries could not reach to a solution is itself a mystery.

.

                              Take a look at history. Pakistan sponsored militia-invaded Kashmir in September 1947 under the guidance of Major General Akbar Khan of Pakistani Army. This was an unbearable shock for the King of Jammu and Kashmir, Hari Singh.  He did not have enough means to protect his state or himself. At that time, the King did not have too many options to turn to. After hurried deliberations, the King asked the Indian government to come to his rescue. Interestingly, the Indian leadership headed by Pt. Nehru and Sardar Patel did not accept the request immediately. They first asked the King to sign a treaty for merger with India saying that similar treaties had been signed by other princely states. This treaty with the King is known as the Instrument of Accession.

                                                   The Instrument of Accession was signed in October 1947.  And, only after that India took the task of protecting Kashmir, rather India. Indian forces landed on the territory of Kashmir. But by now Pakistan backed forces had occupied almost one-third of Kashmir. Here, behaviour of the Indian leadership looked quite baffling.

                                                India decided to protect the capital of Kashmir and the princely house there. It did not wish to push Pakistani forces beyond Kashmir, by now the territory of India. Considering the comparative strength of the troops, India could easily have driven out Pakistanis forces and thus nipped the Kashmir problem in the bud itself. This was a fatal blunder committed by new India. We need at first to accept this with an open and non-maligned hearts. It is difficult to ascertain that who was responsible for this decision. May be, the logic for this happening lay in the fast changing history of India then. As our leaders of the time, though were great nationalists and had brought us independence, but perhaps could not understand the meaning of Kashmir’s merger with India.

                                         This was not the only mistake that India committed. India took the matter to U.N.O. It is often said that India did so on the advice of the then viceroy Lord Mountbatten, the person most probably responsible for the decision of protecting only the capital and princely house of Kashmir. India could have resolved the matter with Pakistan in the light of the India Independence Act of 1947 whereby India’s legal position was strong in the wake of the Instrument of Accession already signed between Jammu and Kashmir and India. The Act provided that any of the princely states could join India or Pakistan by choice, the only prerequisite being the geographical continuity of the princely state with the merging nation. Thus, Kashmir had legally become an integral part of India because the King of Kashmir was the legal head of the state and his decision of merger was legal under the India Independence Act. Obviously the India Independence Act would have invalidated the Pakistani attempt of sabotaging Kashmir.

                                                     Further, even at U.N.O. India complained in a manner that was short on research and logic. Here, India filed the case under Article 37 instead of Articles 36 and 51. Simplified, Article 36 refers to the invasion of a sovereign territory by an outside power. While Article 37 refers to the invasion of a territory disputed between the two countries, one of them. Thus by filing the case under Article 37 India legally accepted the disputed status of the territory of Kashmir. This step was in a way a negation of the India Independence Act, the very Act that was the legal source of the creation of an independent and sovereign India from the British Empire. Simply put, despite Kashmir becoming an integral territory of India, the government of India admitted at the UNO that a part of it was not surely under its sovereignty.

                               Later on, Indian leaders realized the blunder but by then the problem had born. The UN Resolution was passed. It asked for the appointment of two neutral observers by the U.N.O., and holding a plebiscite in Kashmir to determine the democratic will of the resident population. But, it also clamped two conditions. One, that Pakistan should withdraw its troops from Kashmir and second, having seen that India should do the same before actual plebiscite could be held. Since, Pakistan never thought of going back, so India was not bound to either withdraw or hold plebiscite. Though, India has been holding parliamentary and state elections there and it is forwarded as a sort of plebiscite by the Indian think tank. But, technically nothing could be done on the U.N. Resolution.

                                  Perhaps all the politicians at the helm of affairs have clearly understood this technical complexity of the issue and hence most of them have just played with the issue and people’s sentiment for Kashmir. They first sensitized the issue by projecting it as the symbol of national prestige and honour. Although they have generally overlooked the similar problem of Aksai Chin. The reason is simple, that Kashmir could be easily related to the psyche of the two- nation theory.

                                                            Before going for any concluding thought it would be better to have a look at one integral part of the same problem, i.e. the Siachin issue. It takes us back to the U.N. Resolution of 1949. It provided for a Line of Control, a position held by the two countries when they accepted the ceasefire as per the resolution. The LOC is a demarcated line up to a point in the Karakoram Mountains called NJ-9842. Demarcation could not be carried out beyond this line because of the geographical adversity of the territory. The UN Accord says that beyond NJ-9842 the line of control would follow the crest line of the Saltotras and Siachin ranges towards northeast up to the border of China. But, the tangle here is that the crest of these ranges does not go along northeast direction. Rather, it takes a backward turn to north and a bit northwest. Here Pakistan is stuck at northeast direction while India favours crest line demarcation. But the problem had not been realized here till 1984.

          In 1984 a French mountaineering group applied with the Indian government for a research tour of the Siachin but the government of India turned down the request. The same group approached the Pakistani government, which permitted them to do so. India thought it as an incursion on Indian Territory from the Pakistani side. So, the Operation Meghdoot was carried and the Indian army occupied the crest line there. Here, India is in advantageous position after having occupied the crest line physically but the cost is enormous. There is one more chink here. Pakistan has gifted about 10,000 sq. km. of area in the Karakoram region to China for developmental purposes. The land, obviously, is claimed by India. The strategic importance of the gift is more than the physical one if seen in the light of Chinese occupation of Aksai Chin.

                                            Obviously, the complexities involving Kashmir are not easy to comprehend and resolve. To add, Pakistan has created the headache of sponsored terrorism. In fact, terrorism has given a new dimension and publicity to the Kashmir problem. It has forced all the concerned powers to look at the problem afresh. Its devastating and negative nature has also convinced the world of India’s stand on it and has unmasked intention of Pakistan, which has now allowed terrorism to move from institutional framework to individual mode. The latest killings of Sarpananches and elected Panchayat members by LeT sponsored militants make this point amply clear. The governments of India and Pakistan must look forward to resolve the issue for the mankind on the sub-continet.. Though, it is highly improbable to predict any amicable solution, and that only the brains of an Aristotle or a Chanakya can do so.