The irony is that the proposal of self rule for Kashmir, synonymous with democracy, is coming from a General who is ruling his country with an iron fist. Look what is happening in Baluchistan, the largest but most backward province of Pakistan. The people there are up in arms for autonomy. General Musharraf, on a visit to Quetta, has bluntly said Baluchis must give up their agitation. Else “they will not know what hit them from where”. The Baluchis are now planning to approach the International Court of Justice against ‘forced annexation’ of the area by Pakistan in 1948.

The situation in Gilgit, Baltistan and the rest of Northern Areas, which were a part of erstwhile princely state of Jammu and Kashmir, is no different. The area is ruled from Islamabad. It has no elected local body. As far as POK is concerned one only needs to go through the 10 page report of the European Union on Kashmir drafted by Emma Nicholson, a British Member of the European Parliament. It is highly critical of the “human rights situation in Pakistani administered part of Kashmir”. The report “regrets that Pakistan has consistently failed to fulfil its obligations to introduce meaningful and representative democratic structures” in its part of Jammu and Kashmir.

Says the Nicholson report, “India is the world’s largest democracy at local level, whereas Pakistan still has to show that it is respecting democratic principles” in the area of Kashmir under its occupation. Jammu and Kashmir has vibrant democratic institutions with a guarantee in the Indian constitution that its separate identity is to be respected. No wonder then that the report does not even make a mention of General Musharraf’ self-rule and demilitarization proposal.

It is not that the Emma Nicholson’s is a stand-alone report. Recently, the two Human Rights Watch reports on Kashmir criticized the Pak backed militants and highlighted Islamabad’s role in providing training and other infrastructure support to them. Other international watchdogs have come out with similar observations about Pakistan and POK.

The proposal of self-rule from such a source, therefore, lacks credibility. But assuming, for the sake of argument, that the General is sincerely interested in resolving the Kashmir issue, let us examine the proposal. It envisages making the borders irrelevant which India too stands for. For that better people- to-people contact and more trade across the Line of Control (LOC) is the right course. Unfortunately, Pakistan is standing in the way of Free Trade Area envisaged for the SAARC countries, forget about reciprocating MFN status India had accorded to it long years ago.

Now for Musharraf’s insistence on demilitarization. Will it apply to the entire erstwhile Jammu and Kashmir and that means the Northern areas of Gilgat and Baltistan? What happens to the 40,000 sq km of Kashmir Pakistan had handed over to China for the construction of Karakorum Highway? Will Pakistan, which itself is not a democracy, allow these areas to be run democratically. Why does Islamabad not even agree to authenticate the military positions the two countries hold on the Siachen glacier, and thus facilitate demilitarization of the region, to begin with?

Within Pakistan there are no visible indications of a move towards democracy. Elections have not taken place nor is one, in sight, despite General Musharraf’s promise of holding it next year. Baluchistan is on fire and the movement for self- determination there is at its peak, after the brutal assassination of Nawab Akbar Khan Bugti and the refusal of Pakistan Government to even hand over the body to his family. What kind of a self- rule is the General talking about?

Hurriyat leaders in Srinagar say “they support a federal structure of governance and will later define the relationship of this body with the Governments of India and Pakistan. That means even the Hurriyat is not clear about how to implement the proposal. How can it expect a formula to work for which decisions have to be taken “Later”?

Political leadership in J&K is divided. The National Conference stands for ‘autonomy’, which in essence means a return to the pre-1953 position. Yaseen Malik advocates the third option that is independence, which has been ruled out by both India and Pakistan. The PDP of Mufti Mohammad Sayeed is all for the self-rule, which, according to it, is the only solution to the vexed issue. Ask its leaders about the self- rule road map. You are met with blank stares.

This is not to suggest that all is well with the democratic structure in Jammu and Kashmir. Surely a lot needs to be done to make public representatives genuinely accountable. The point is the General cannot be a devil’s advocate. Certainly, it does not lie in Pakistan’s mouth to talk about democracy, democratic institutions and self-rule.

There can be no denying that the time has come when India and Pakistan need to resolve all outstanding issues to usher in an era of lasting peace and friendship. This will remain only a pipe dream until Pakistan removes the trust deficit vis-à-vis India. Unless that stage is reached, forward movement will only be in fits and starts with no early resolution of issues in sight.

Printer-Friendly Version