It is none of my concerns, it should not be- who visits which country and meets whom. It would be intruding into personal affairs of a leader—tall or dwarf or a “foot-leader” or “theorist or disciple” if I question his private visit to any state capital, Islamabad included. It is not my cup of tea to snoop or tab a leader’s visit but for it affecting me or my progeny as an individual as a member of a society or a nation. Or, but for it not aimed at weaving cobwebs around the ‘cherished and well defined people’s narrative’ and creating confusion for some short-term personal gains. It is an admitted fact; “confusion” has been used as statecraft as well as a ‘diplomatic’ weapon to procrastinate resolution of the Kashmir dispute. Sometime back, in my column I quoted in detail from Prem Bhatia’s book, about Swaran Singh using the ‘weapon of confusion” to outwit the wittiest Z. A. Bhutto. The weapon of confusion has not been used only at the diplomatic level but also at the political level by creating alternative discourses to defeat the people narrative and strengthen the “dominant narrative”. A closer study of sixty-five years political history testifies that how different alternative discourses were conjured at different points of time to subvert the people’s narrative. I do not know if Kashmir leadership was sucked into these ‘alternative discourse’ weakening the ‘main narrative’ out of naivety or purposely–it is a matter of research. Getting sucked into the ‘alternative discourses’ has harmed the peoples cause. Moreover, it has also delayed the resolution of the Problem. History, also testifies, Kashmir leaders have been like a big rodent who need just a small bait to it, it find themselves in a mousetrap. Nevertheless, it makes no sense getting remorseful after having been entrapped to death. In 1968, one sentence of Loknayak Jaya Prakash Narayan at the State Peoples Convention organized by Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah was sufficient to derail the ‘people’s narrative’. This sentence also turned to be an epitaph for the movement led by the Plebiscite Front and causing the 1975 Indira-Sheikh Accord. Sheikh Abdullah `lamenting this accord on his deathbed’ or his nephew stating after thirty seven years that he had not been signatory to the agreement for Power cannot alter the course of history. The Musharraf formula was nothing but as the saying goes, “a clever general in the face of a defeat declares victory and retreats.” It was as good a booby trap as Indira-Sheikh agreement that ensured nothing but status quo. Pakistan former Ambassador Munir Akram in his article “Kashmir in Cold” published in Dawn on 1 April 12, called the 2007 situation in Pakistan as ‘blissful for Kashmir’. To quote him: The efforts by Pakistan to evolve a bilateral solution through ‘back-channel’ diplomacy were equally ill-considered. The solution’ would have legitimized the status quo and forever forsaken the rights of the Kashmiris. Blissfully, it was spurned by India as Pakistan descended into political chaos after 2007.” Many an eminent Pakistan experts saw it as cheating Kashmiris of their rights. Javid Hussain a former Pakistani in 2007 in a very long article on Kashmir described it as a “sell-out, of course, that would be a tragedy of historic proportions.” Surprisingly minus a few powerful dissenting voices the Musharraf formula was supported by those pledged to ‘right to self-determination’ and those pledged to finality of accession with India. But surprisingly some leaders across the divide continue to be under the spell of genie and are looking for some Aladdin lamp to resurrect the ghost. The state of perplexity of the APHC (M) about remaining relevant is understandable and its urgency of sending team of five to Islamabad does not seem contradictory to its dilemmas. The APHC (M) leaders have been visiting Islamabad is not something new. The hullabaloo has been over the statements relating the visit made by some of the vocal members of the conglomerate. These statements when read between the lines seem a deliberate attempt at confusing the people and using the trusted ‘weapon of confusion’ for rerouting the main narrative.
Taking refuge under phrases like “geo-political changes” it has been very subtly suggesting the irrelevance of the UN resolution and availability of unidentified options: “we have many options to explore.” Its main agenda will be to tell “Pakistan to legitimize Kashmir as third party,” as “United Nations resolutions talk about only of two options.” True, it is naive to ask Islamabad to amend the international agreements on Kashmir arbitrarily but by all stretch of imagination, there seems a method in this naivety. This naivety borders on the make-believe world that people cannot understand the underlying meanings of such statements.
Even simple downtown boy understands “in accordance with UNSC “agreements”, Kashmir and Kashmiris are already the central party in the dispute as they alone can decide their future through an impartial plebiscite.” “The resolution of the UNSC, agreed by and this a binding upon Pakistan and India.” To alter these agreement the five member APHC(M) team, M-5 as it has come to be known will have to persuade Pakistan or any other country including USA who has been co-sponsor to the 1949 UN resolution on Kashmir to introduce a fresh resolution in the UNSC to amend the “agreement” on Kashmir.
The mission of M-5, to Pakistan for asking them to recognizing Kashmir as third party is like putting cart before the horse in as much as the Constitution of India does not regard the state of Jammu and Kashmir as a disputed territory. The article one of the Constitution like all other states recognizes Jammu and Kashmir as its territory- ‘integral part’. True, with article 370, conferring it a bit different status. This article stands only in name, in his book Article 370; A G Noorani in great detail explains the “ineffectiveness” of this article. Long before Indian Home Minister Nanda had said only “shell” of 370 exists.
The Constitution of Pakistan (1973) looks at it differently, under its article 257, says “When the people of the State of Jammu and Kashmir decide to accede to Pakistan, the relationship between Pakistan and that State shall be determined in accordance with the wishes of the people of that State.”Former Pakistan Foreign Secretary, Shamshad Ahmed commenting on this provision writes, “A careful reading of this Article would confirm that the final arbiters of the future of Kashmir are the Kashmiri people without whose participation in the settlement there will be no solution of this problem.”
Munir Akram, who for his assignment as Pakistan Ambassador in UN understands every nuance and complexity of Kashmir wrote in an article to quote him: “Today, Pakistan is even weaker than during his quixotic endeavour to achieve a ‘final solution’. It is preoccupied with addressing the challenges posed by the US-NATO war in Afghanistan and the frontier regions of Pakistan. It would find it difficult to muster the political, military and diplomatic resources to seriously address the Kashmir dispute. As the Chinese proverb says: ‘When you have the wolf at the front door, you can’t worry about the fox at the back door’.”
I believe that APHC (M) instead of going to Islamabad should camp in New Delhi to plead before the GOI for the resolution of the problem and after some success at New Delhi it can think of going to Islamabad-otherwise it is putting cart before the horse.
Z.G.Muhammad is a noted writer and columnist.
