Daily Times

The status of Indian-occupied Jammu & Kashmir (J&K) has garnered much debate over the past one year since the Narendra Modi-led right-wing regime abrogated Articles 35A and 370 of the Indian Constitution which granted special autonomy and exclusive rights to Kashmiris residing in the decades-long disputed region.

Legally called the Jammu & Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019, the step has had grave ramifications on the region’s stability. This has been further fuelled by the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Order, 2020 that made drastic changes to domicile laws with demography being the casualty, drawing much criticism from both Kashmiris and Pakistan itself.

To understand the situation and pan out any potential outcomes, this piece shall provide a perspective on the diplomatic angle with views provided by some key people closely watching the situation in J&K.

While there’s been a special attention on highlighting widespread human rights violations and draconian restrictions in Indian-occupied J&Kby the global media and rights organisations such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch (HRW) post-August 2019 actions, no substantial diplomaticprogressoccurred to resolve the matter amicably.

Though Pakistan, being a party to the Kashmir conflict, had remained on the forefront in trying to shapeits narrative in the media and international forums such as the United Nations (UN), its diplomatic effectiveness remains average at bestowing to several factors such as India’s increasingly influential role in a globalised economy, institutional limitations of Pakistan’s Foreign Office and an ‘image problem’ for Islamabadthat resulted from historical misadventures and policies linked to militancy that proved costly for the region.

Islamabad’s Kashmir diplomacy needs an additional boost. Specifically, a special envoy (similar to that on Afghanistan) should to be appointed on priority who can solely focus on handling J&K affairs

Nevertheless, one could say thatPrime Minister Imran Khan has reshaped the country’s international perception towards the positive sideto a limited extentby taking up bold foreign policy measures that stabilised Islamabad’s previously frosty ties with Washington through backdoor diplomacy facilitated by Pakistan’s Ambassador at-large for Foreign Investment Ali Jehangir Siddiqui (who previously served as the country’s envoy to the United States) and Saudi Crown Prince Mohammad Bin Salman (MBS).This led to US President Donald Trump’s mediation offer on resolving the J&K dispute. It’s another story that it backfired when New Delhi denied/refused and chose to proceed with revocation of Articles 35A/370 and bifurcation of Indian-occupied J&K.

Moreover, Islamabad became closer to other key strategic allies such as Ankara and Beijing whichprovided unequivocal support for its longstanding policy on Kashmir which focuses on the region’s right to self-determination under relevant UN Security Council (UNSC) resolutions. Kuala Lumpur backed as well for a while at the cost of its trade ties with New Delhi until Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad resigned earlier this year over internal political turmoil. His support on Kashmir remained crucial for Islamabad as long as he was in power despite some setbackssteered by Riyadh which feared a new bloc in making.

Notably, the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation’s (OIC) role on J&K had been under great scrutiny by Pakistani diplomatic circles which were dismayed on its apparent ‘failures’ especially when the country’s Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi publicly expressed his displeasure a couple of weeks ago. Reportedly, Riyadh was much annoyed and its diplomatic mission in Islamabad privately went around complaining about the host government (an unusual gesture against diplomatic norms). Of course, this resulted in firefighting diplomacy but how exactly did such a situation arise? Notably, the Saudis increasing cosiness with India in light of economic interests played a key role in Pakistan looking elsewhere for its J&K diplomacy in Post-August 2019 scenario.

But one key point needs a thorough review and that is Islamabad’s haphazard approach on J&K despite PM Khan’s personally clear stance which focuses on the region’s right to self-determinationthat was even promised by the then Indian Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru who chose to look the other way for strategic reasons.

Last September, I happened to be in New York City for covering the 74th UN General Assembly (UNGA) session. In one of PM Khan’s pressers, I availed an opportunity to ask for a solutionon Kashmir crisis in light of past proposals such as General (retd) Pervez Musharraf’s four-point formula whichproposed a joint administration of the disputed region. The prime minister rather chose to talk about human rights violations and offered no proposal to discuss in response to my question. It was understandable since India’s illegal actions in the disputed region essentially kept some eight million Kashmiris confined to their homes with brutal tactics being employed by the Indian military to subdue any rebellion or protests.

PM Khan’sop-ed on J&K in the New York Times and UNGA speech at the time attracted much attention especially when he’s widely popular amongstKashmiris on both sides of the Line of Control (LoC) and abroad.

Tony Ashai, a prominent Kashmiri-American architect based in Los Angeles and originally from Srinagar, who’s not only close friends with PM Khan but Bollywood biggies such as Shahrukh Khan as well, offered me a robust take on the current geopolitical situation in hishomeland.

A while back he was harassed by sections of the Indian media which accused him of working with the Pakistani intelligence. He considered it an unfortunate turn of events but didn’t take them seriously as he believes that most of the Indian media only works to ‘entertain’ rather than do serious journalism (which is true since India’s media is highly polarised nowadays with right-wing stance increasingly taking clout with utter disregard for facts). Yet he still believes that there are journalists out there determined to find the truth who owe to be respected in the long-run.

He stated that Kashmiris need to be more vocal and voice their opinion on whatever media they can find. ‘If none is available, become more vocal and perhaps someone will likely hear it,’ he said.

He emphasised that India could be forced tonegotiate on Kashmir only if there is some sort of aninternational pressure, implying multilateral diplomacy. This was in context of his opinion that Pakistan using the UN’s platform does a lot to boost the morale of Kashmiris, but it has little to no effect on ground since India gets more determined to do the opposite of what Pakistan desires.

Ashai had a clear message for Islamabad that it needs to chalk-out a strategy forforcing New Delhi to talk. In his view, this requires help from Pakistan’s close allies such as China. Notably, he believes India shall only negotiate if it has to something to gain by resolving Kashmir or loseby keeping the dispute unresolved. As a pacifist, he prefers diplomatic options rather than any kind of conflict.

But what now? Is there any solution on hand with direct involvement of Kashmiris in deciding the future of their homeland? This is what Islamabad needs to ponder upon for any tangible progress with multilateral diplomacy by globalpowers such as the United States being the key since New Delhi refuses to play by the rules. For this, Washington needs to understand the gravity of the situation if it wishes for a stable and peaceful South Asia especially when it’s already engaging with the Afghan Taliban via Islamabad and Doha.

On the other hand, Gupkar Declarations I and IIpresented by some influential political parties based in Indian-occupiedJ&K seek reinstation of Articles 35A/370 rather than a plebiscite but not all Kashmiris are onboard in this regard since historical missteps need to be reviewed. Even the 1972 Shimla Agreement is history with August 2019 actions (to be fair, it became ineffective decades ago with Operations Ababeel & Meghdoot). Hence, a UN-mandated plebiscite has become necessary more than ever.

Former Pakistani envoy to the US, the UK and the UN Dr. Maleeha Lodhi offered an interesting take on what Pakistan should do next. Before being unceremoniously removed from the UN owing to internal politics at the Foreign Office(just two days after PM Khan’s departure from New York), she played a vital role in lobbying for a special UNSC meeting regarding J&K disputeon 16th August 2019 with Beijing’s support. This was touted as a diplomatic success back home since an exclusive UNSC discussion on J&K was held after 54 years.

While offering her stance in keeping view of COVID-19 crisis, Ambassador Lodhi stated that the challenge ahead is how to press Pakistan’s Kashmir policy, preserve a principled position and mobilise support from the international community when the issue has been internationalised in an unprecedented way especially when the focus of the global community is going to remain inwards for some time to deal with the fallout of the pandemic.

In her opinion, three things are important: Firstly, Pakistan needs to evolve clarity in her Kashmir policy and above all in the objectives being sought. Is it an end to the lockdown, reversal of abrogation of Article 370, end to human rights abuses or the attainment of the right of self-determination? Surely it is the latter while in the meantime seeking an end to human rights atrocities. Secondly, she emphasised on consistency in Islamabad’s diplomatic campaign on Kashmir; not an on-off approach in the post-Pandemic world. In her view, it needs to match the noise made at home with real efforts overseas by pushing the boundaries at the international level. Her third proposal is crucial in the context of human rights.

‘Among the many diplomatic steps Pakistan needs to take one is especially urgent otherwise there is the danger that Kashmir fades from international focus and the spotlight will shift elsewhere; this is to call for a special session of the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva exclusively on Indian-occupied J&K,’ she strongly demanded.

Regarding her first proposal, it is pertinent to point out that Foreign Minister Qureshi’s recent endorsement for Gupkar Declarations defies Islamabad’s longstanding policy for a plebiscite. Perhaps, the minister needs to brush up his history knowledge since the logic is severely conflicting.

Anewly released political map and renaming a highway in Islamabad grabbed much attention last month. The map itself is a part of legal standing and contrary to initial scepticism, it did help Pakistan at the SCO National Security Advisors’ virtual meeting held on 15th September 2020 when India’s NSA AjitDoval walked out in protest over the forum accepting Pakistan’s position.

Nevertheless, Islamabad’s Kashmir diplomacy needs an additional boost. Specifically, a special envoy (similar to that on Afghanistan) should to be appointed on priority who can solely focus on handling J&K affairs.

Lastly, I also took views from Michael Kugelman, a Washington-based scholar specialising on South Asian affairs and associated with the Wilson Center, a prominent think tank.

He believes that India may consider its revocation of Kashmir’s special status as a purely internal matter meant to bring a degree of ‘normalcy’ to a volatile region. ‘What we’ve seen over the last year is that the move has only further embittered an already alienated population, setting the stage for future tensions and unrest in Kashmir. And the move has also worsened New Delhi’s relations with its two main rivals, and likely contributed to its current border crisis with China. This doesn’t sound like normalcy to me,’ he added.

Couldn’t agree more since New Delhi’s actions had not only antagonised Kashmiris and Pakistanis but the Chinese as well since they had vital stakes in Ladakh, just north of J&K.

He further mentioned that the domicile laws strengthen the argument of those-including most residents of the Kashmir valley-that believe theArticle 370 move was more about opening up a pathway to demographic change in India’s only Muslim majority region than about bringing about stability and prosperity.

‘The fact of the matter is that it will now be easier for Indian Hindus from outside Kashmir to become permanent residents. In this context, one can make the case of the Article 370 repeal being a milestone achievement for Hindu nationalism more so than a mere administrative move to make the region a union territory. This all has some profound implications for demography in the coming years, if large numbers of people take advantage of these new domicile laws,’ he emphasised.

Given how religiously motivated nationalism mixed with Nazism is a state policy in India, Kugelman’s take cannot be brushed off.

Regarding Pakistan’s approach, he mentioned that it has waged an aggressive diplomatic campaign to get the world to support its position on Kashmir but hasn’t gained much traction.

‘There’s been plenty of global media coverage, some resolutions and statements from national legislatures and global forums focused on the Kashmir human rights situation, and some very real support for Pakistan from a handful of states. But Islamabad has gotten back very little in a concrete sense from this global response-which at any rate has been more muted over the last few months,’ he added.

Kugelman stressed upon the fact that most key capitals continue to see Kashmir as an internal issue that they don’t want to touch with a bargepole. Notably, he believes that they don’t want to antagonise India by internationalising Kashmir anymore. ‘So, at the end of the day, there’s little Pakistan can do diplomatically. And eventually Pakistan will have to grapple with a complex policy question: What is Plan B?,’ he emphasised.

That’s aptly the question which Pakistan needs to answer given its limitations to counter India diplomatically regardless of some small victories. Even the best of diplomats and leaders have constraints when a state is unable to factor in its own historical blunders.

Foreign policy in today’s world is defined by economic and security interests rather than moral obligations which have little to no weightage from pragmatic perspective unless a state is powerful enough to take on others. A harsh reality which requires deep introspection for diplomats across the world.

What’s common in the views provided by all three observers quoted in this piece is that a robust and concrete strategy is required to resolve the complex dispute. This should not only be Pakistan’s sole responsibility though as long as it plays all the right cards to secure tangible multilateral diplomacy with its leadership providing singular messaging rather than divergent and incoherent approach as witnessed recently. I used to believe in a bilateral solution until a couple of years ago but then realised that it’s impossible given the region’s complex dynamics.

This is the time for the world to step in since a Nazi-inspired BJP regime’s increasingly fascist policies across the subcontinent have burned all bridges of peace and reconciliation that could pave way for nothing but despair and destruction.

The writer is Associate Editor (Diplomatic Affairs), Daily Times. He tweets@mhassankhan06