Editorial

UN Resolutions on Kashmir: Recent Skirmishes in the Camp of Kashmir’s Freedom Politics
By Dr. Syed M. Inayatullah Andrabi
Email: [email protected]

In recent months the United Nations Security Council Resolutions (UNSCR) on Kashmir and their effectiveness to resolve the Kashmir problem has once again become a subject of controversy in the freedom camp of Kashmiri politics. Some have openly come out against these resolutions, casting doubts over their effectiveness while at the same time acknowledging their inherent worth. Others have sharply reacted to it, reiterating the established view that UNSCR are the main, if not the only (the other nearest option being Tripartite talks) solution to the Kashmir problem. This is not the first time such skirmishes have been witnessed; let us therefore take a closer look into this matter and assess what it is all about.

It often happens that when a serious issue becomes a part of popular discourse, it gets loaded with all sorts of confusions. Kashmir issue is no exception and it is mainly, if not wholly, because of this fact that such controversies as the one relating to UNSCR keep coming up from time to time. In order to understand such matters – that is, matters that are complex or have acquired complexity, one has to adopt an approach of isolating the threads which though distinct, are constituent parts of the overall argument and therefore mutually interlocked. For the sake of understanding we have to untie the knots and examine the individual threads. We can identify three threads here: one, the Problem itself; two, the Solution of the problem and three, the Approach to the solution.

As far as the problem is concerned, we, as aware and conscious beings with a definite outlook on life, should have a view about it and not just a view but a firm conviction according to the timeless standards of truth and justice. Conviction does not need to be popular; if I see an innocent person murdered, I will regard it as an evil act even if the whole world should disagree and even if at some stage, I also give up my position, the act itself will continue to remain evil because evil is intrinsic to it and does not depend on mine or anyone else’s endorsement.

As regards the two other elements, namely, the Solution and the Approach, there is no intrinsic good or evil in these; their goodness or lack thereof depends on their capability to produce results. Thus any solution can be regarded as the best solution if it succeeds in fully resolving the problem, i.e. the problem in question should cease to exist once the solution has been applied to it. There is a practical angle as well: solutions have always to be commensurate with the tools and resources (which includes the capacity to subsequently generate further resources) available in a given situation, at a given point in time.

The third element, namely Approach, is simply the best strategic course of action leading to the solution. We must remember solutions are not brought about instantly by one single action; a host of co-ordinated and highly strategised steps are required for a solution to be ultimately translated into reality. For instance, if there was a problem with a room and the solution to it was emptying the room of all its contents, the approach cannot be removing things in a haphazard manner; one needs to work in a proper, orderly fashion. Removing large items like a bed or table may require the smaller items lying in the way to be removed first. An approach can be regarded as the best if it definitely leads to the solution, minimises costs, maximises results and always presents a realistic roadmap to arriving at the solution. The Solution, and the Approach, both relate to the practical and strategic domain and like any other activity in the practical domain, both must fall within the broad parameters of what is lawful but their worth also depends on their effectiveness and usefulness. The three elements described can be seen as three distinct threads by observing the example below:

Supposing there is a building that has been uninhabited for a while, is old and unkempt and thus at constant risk of collapse. Additionally, owing to the storage of chemicals and other such substances, gases are seen leaving the building. Local residents have discussed, deliberated and finally concluded that this building poses a serious hazard to the community. In such a scenario, the existence of this building is the problem. It has been further decided, after due deliberation that the best solution is the demolition of the building. The question that now arises is how exactly to go about doing that? What is the precise approach that will lead to the solution because depending on the tools and resources available, there may be more than one possible approach. If the locals have access to huge machinery, they may choose to bring down the building by dynamiting it. That will require some technology but it will be short and decisive: a single blast and the problem is resolved. But if the people of the locality are not as resourceful, they will have to search alternate ways which may be far more tiresome and time-consuming as well as require a greater resolve, hard work, constant effort, and steadfastness. This is the decisive moment at which people must decide if they wish to proceed with the demolition of the building along with all the costs, or if the better option may be to rethink the issue and consider other alternative solutions to resolve the problem. In the life of communities and nations, this is not a one-among-many decision, it is the decision. It involves a trade-off with consequences that span generations. While rethinking in itself is completely legitimate, if such a decision buys some ease and comfort for people at the cost of compromising the safety and security of future generations, it would be nothing short of a criminal act, based either on short-sightedness, vested interests or both.

After this conceptual intro, we can now proceed to specifically discussing Kashmir: here too, we will attempt to discern the various threads of problem, solution, and approach from the package called the ‘Kashmir Issue’.

As regards the problem, legal formulations aside, let us consider the reality of it. That is, let us ask what – in real terms- is it that has been agitating the minds of the Kashmiri people and has been unacceptable to them all along the past six decades. The answer will be that the people of Kashmir are not at ease nor have they felt comfortable in being a constituent part of the state of India that emerged in 1947. This situation happened to them in the way that an earthquake or flood might; they didn’t opt for it. Kashmir was brought under Indian control by an armed invasion and over six decades down the line, things have not changed much: India continues to hold on to Kashmir by sheer use of force albeit under a democratic façade. So Kashmir’s current political status as a constituent part of India is the problem.

Now, what is the solution. Simple: changing the political status so that Kashmir no longer remains a part of India- in other words, to end India’s sovereignty over Kashmir. If this is done, the problem will cease to exist.

After identifying the problem and stating the solution, the next task is how to go about it. What is the approach that will lead to the solution? It is at this stage that the topic of UNSCR comes in. UNSCR, we must bear in mind, are not the solution per se, they provide a method and means to the solution. It is relevant to note here that UNSCR are only indirectly related to Kashmir; their direct relationship is to the then newly-emerged domains of India and Pakistan and the state of war that existed between the two. These resolutions originated not in response to a plea by the then princely state of Jammu & Kashmir calling for UN intervention in response to invasion, rather it was in response to India’s complaint that its territory had been invaded by Pakistan and thus the UN should intervene. To India’s utter shock and frustration, the UN did not follow India’s wishful thinking of Kashmir being an integral part of India like Bihar but instead proposed a plebiscite that would ascertain whether the people of Kashmir wished to accede to India or Pakistan. The binary choice was owing to the particular context: the UN, to put it simply, asked India and Pakistan not to fight over Kashmir because it was, as a matter of fact neither India nor Pakistan’s land but a sovereign political entity whose people were entitled to decide such a matter, following the demise of the Dogra Empire. Thus by sheer luck, Kashmiris, by being granted an opportunity to vote on their political future, had access to a resource which is not easily available otherwise, and would require much hard work and struggle. Going back to the earlier example of the hazardous building, this was like having access to the big dynamite machinery to swiftly solve the problem except this time, something unfortunate happens: the enemies of the community create road blocks in the way of the machinery therefore making it impossible to reach the site. This imposed a new task upon the locals; exerting all their effort into removing the blockade. At this point crops up the previous vital question of whether to continue with their efforts to remove the blockade or search instead for a new approach to bring about the demolition of the building. This precisely is the analogy: the UN not only passed the resolutions, it went ahead with their implementation until impediments were thrown in its way, chiefly by India in collusion with its proxies in Kashmir, with the result that a resource that we were luckily granted access to remains, effectively, unavailable to us. The critical question now is whether to strive for its availability or look for another resource. The relevance and legitimacy of this question increases with each passing day. It may be recalled that back in 2004 the then president of Pakistan, Pervez Musharraf made some similar controversial statements about UNSCR and plebiscite, to which I immediately commented and I reproduce it here: “Plebiscite, it should be noted, is not part of the Pakistan’s stand on Kashmir; it has been and still is for most of the supporters of Kashmir cause and for Pakistan as well, a preferred tool and a practical mechanism for the solution of this issue. It is not part of our conviction on what the dispute of Kashmir is; the core of that conviction is that India’s presence in, and sovereignty over, Kashmir is completely illegitimate, and must be ended. Since it is not a matter of belief or conviction where the value is intrinsic, we have to look for the value of plebiscite in its capacity to deliver the results, its ability to unlock the issue and set the ball rolling. If it fails in that, it gets devalued, I am afraid.” Eight years down the line, talk of a solution has become even more urgent and we must remember this urgency will go on increasing as the problem continues to fester. People cannot live with problems forever, least of all a problem so central to their lives as the Kashmir problem. The voices for rethinking will definitely arise and should do, but what is absolutely essential is a solid sense of responsibility and commitment on both sides – the proponents and opponents – of new solutions and approaches.

We can safely assume that within the freedom camp there are groups who will articulate new solutions and strategies and those who will oppose it and insist on the classical paradigm, i.e. UNSCR .Those who articulate new ideas should do so after due homework and with a great sense of responsibility. It is not enough to offer a new way of coming out of a difficult situation; what is equally important, if not more, is a clear guarantee that this new solution leads to the proper destination. That is, the new solution won’t only change the situation for the better but will also resolve the problem underlying the present state of agony. It will be purely selfish if new solutions are offered only with the view of changing the current situation and bringing about so-called peace without fully addressing the core problem and ensuring that it is justly resolved. We call it selfish because such solutions only serve to complicate the problem and would simply transfer the burden onto our future generations, leaving them with a Kashmir Problem that is many times more complicated. The onus of explaining to people how a new solution, a new approach not only works (as opposed to the classical ones which are considered not to have worked) but also how it resolves the underlying problem, lies squarely with the proponents of new solutions. That is where the responsibility factor comes in.

Those opposing the new solutions have their own burden of responsibility: they cannot oppose new voices purely for the sake of taking the moral high ground and/or playing to their respective galleries; they will need to come up with a convincing argument and realistic explanation of how the classical solutions and approaches can be made to work. The onus on them, though different, is no less heavy: if their solutions are trusted to solve the underlying problem, they in the first place, will need to get their own minds clear about how these solutions will be made to actually work and then make a credible case. Such a case should clearly reflect their concern for the people’s sufferings and their understanding of the political realities inside and outside Kashmir. Neither adherence to old solutions and approaches nor offering new ones is intrinsically wrong as long as their advocates, first, understand the merits and strategic wisdom of their respective approaches, and then own up the responsibility of clearly arguing them out before the public at large.