Brig (R) Asif Haroon Raja

KASHMIR is the oldest and most intractable disputes in the world; older than Gaza. Forcible occupation of two-third Kashmir by Indian forces in 1947 against the wishes of Kashmiris impelled freedom fighters and Pak troops to get Kashmir freed from its stranglehold. When India saw that it was on the verge of losing the battle, it sought intervention of United Nations. United Nations Security Council (UNSC) Resolution of 21 April 1948 clearly states that the question of accession of Jammu and Kashmir (J&K) to India or Pakistan should be decided through the democratic method of a free and impartial plebiscite.

Subsequent UNSC Resolutions reiterated the same stand. United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan (UNCIP) Resolutions of 3 August 1948 and 5 January 1949 reinforced UNSC Resolutions. However, despite Nehru’s repeated pledges that right of self determination will be given to the people of Kashmir, Indian leaders have mulishly held on to their uncompromising stance that Kashmir is an integral part of India. In defiance of UN Resolutions, they sing this song ad nauseam ignoring the fact that Kashmir is an internationally recognized disputed territory and Kashmiris hate them and long to join Pakistan. They get highly disturbed when Pakistan or any other country reminds them of this hard reality. They are fuming ever since China has started treating Indian officials serving in disputed territory accordingly.

After 2008 manipulated state elections in J&K, Indian leaders had proudly claimed that majority of Kashmiris were least interested in violence and had accepted Kashmir as part of Indian Union. They declared that armed insurgency had for the most part been successfully crushed, cross border movement from Pakistan effectively blocked and Kashmir was no more an issue. Drums are beaten by Indian leaders after every stage-managed election held under shadow of guns and boycotted by majority that a popular mandate has been won from people of Kashmir. Indians forget that neither military force had ever quelled popular movements nor military occupation justified. Who doesn’t know that Indian intelligence agencies have had a big role in shaping phony political parties and politicians having no roots in the masses, holding fraudulent elections and installing puppet regimes detested by the people?

No sooner these tall claims were made the whole Kashmir valley resounded with chants of ‘Azadi’, following Amarnath Shrine Board dispute in summer of 2008 which coalesced into a massive non-violent uprising. Tens of thousands of unarmed protestors from all walks of life with placards in their hands defied gun totting security forces and marched through the streets of Srinagar protesting against state atrocities and injustices. Instead of redressing their grievances, Indian forces fired indiscriminately at the crowds. Volleys were fired not to scare and disperse the crowds but to kill innocent people since value of a Muslim Kashmiri is no better than a sewer rat. One of the reasons behind enacting Mumbai drama on 26/11 was to deflect the attention of the world from Kashmir and to exert pressure on Pakistan to stay out of it.

Another round of protest marches led by young people triggered in summer of 2009. This flare up coincided with unfolding of vicious propaganda war against Pakistan Army from August 2009 onwards. It was alleged that Pak Army had committed large-scale human rights violations in Swat. Stories about unearthing of mass graves, bodies found dumped along roadsides carrying marks of torture, corpses found with hands tied behind backs, and some corpses beheaded were splashed. Western media and RAW cultivated writers in Pakistan backed up the theme and series of articles appeared in local and international print media. Idea of this false projection was to cover up brutality of Indian forces against unarmed adolescent Kashmiris.

Making good use of their draconian laws they pickup slogan chanting young men on charges of arson, torture them in Kashmir under siege secret dens and later kill them in fake encounters. This gory practice of missing persons and fake encounters has been going on since triggering of armed resistance in late 1989. Since then, Indian forces have been killing Kashmiris like flies. Figure of missing persons run in thousands, while number of killed persons has overshot 100,000. Hardly any missing person has rejoined his family. Each fake encounter is presented as a clash with armed militants and those shooting the handcuffed prisoners are rewarded for bravery. Huge numbers of unmarked mass graves and marked graves stand witness to the atrocities of Indian security forces.

Besides killing every able bodied person or maiming them for life through torture, rape is being used as a weapon to break the will of the Kashmiris. Thousands of women and young girls have been raped. There have been numerous incidents of gang rape reported by Amnesty International (AI) and NGOs. AI has reported criminal activities of police and Indian security forces and has also reported that almost every house in Kashmir has been traumatized. They are living in a prison house and are being constantly punished on account of asking for right of self determination.

Their miseries are never ending since they can neither escape from the open prison nor their cries can be heard by the world. Biased US and Western media, think tanks and NGOs have remained mum over massive abuses of human rights occurring in Kashmir and in Gaza since perpetrators of crimes are non-Muslims and victims are Muslims. Instead of coming to the rescue of the bereaved, the US and western world are patronizing and encouraging India ruled by devilish Brahman rulers to continue with their reign of terror and cleanse the erstwhile paradise on earth now turned into hell from the presence of Muslims. India and Israel are two sides of the same coin and qualify to be declared terrorist states because of their callousness and barbarism but are treated as darlings by Christian world since Muslims are their common enemies.

Indian Police and paramilitary forces deal with the protesters under non-bailable Public Safety Act 1978 (PSA), which authorize them to arrest anyone on a flimsy charge, award two-year imprisonment through court and re-arrest the accused upon release. Even freedom of expression and right to protest peacefully is declared a crime. PSA is applied on minors as well. There were large numbers of cases where adults and minors were arrested and re-arrested several times under PSA. Apart from black law of PSA, Indian Army has license to kill without fear of accountability under Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA). Security forces have never bothered about human rights violations since their gruesome acts are shielded by their political government, psychological warfare, USA and western world.

Indian forces are not differentiating between armed freedom fighters and unarmed protesters resorting to non-violent means to seek freedom. They are applying black laws on teenagers with equal impunity. Massive crackdowns have been unleashed; shoot at sight orders given and Kashmiri leaders’ house arrested to stifle protests. Continuing with its past practice of blaming Pakistan whenever Kashmiris raised their voice against India’s atrocities, India promptly blamed Pakistan that it was instigating the teenagers. —Opinion-Maker

alleged that cross border movement had increased.

The new round of protests started in the wake of killing of a student on 11 June. Stone-pelters have introduced a new phenomenon of resistance against which Indian military has no solution other than resorting to old method of brutal force. Soldiers and police are so fond of firing indiscriminately that they automatically aim at chest and above not realizing that protesters are teenagers carrying stones in their fists. Their hearts does not soften even when they see small boys as young as 8-10 years writhing in pain after getting hit by bullets. It is worth noting that in all the protests since mid 2008, not a single Indian policeman or soldier got killed at the hands of protesters. India is flabbergasted and doesn’t know how to justify its high-handed actions against youngsters and how to project them as terrorists. It can no more shed crocodile tears that it is victim of terrorism. Indian leaders have now started to whisper that stones are made in Pakistan and provided by ISI which are lethal and a threat to world security.

An increasing number of women moved by the extraordinary motivation of youngsters have joined them and are talking part in demonstrations enthusiastically. Hundreds of women and girls, some carrying sticks and stones, are seen regularly out in the streets chanting ‘we want freedom’, and ‘blood for blood’. Participation of women has added yet another dilemma for the police and paramilitary forces struggling to control protests.

Since 11 June 65 persons have been killed. Ignoring daily deaths of small boys aged between 8 and 17 years at the hands of Indian troops, Manmohan Singh tried to appease agitating Kashmiris by offering dialogue on autonomy and an economic package and rhetorically assuring them that there will be ‘zero tolerance’ for human rights violations. Mirwaiz rejected his offer and said that autonomy was not a solution to Kashmir issue. He said that no solution is acceptable to Kashmiris other than freedom. He demanded revocation of AFSPA, PSA, Disturbed Areas Act (DAA), and withdrawal of armed forces. Anger of the younger generation in Kashmir can no longer be doused through hypocritical rhetoric or even by pep talk of elder Kashmiri leaders. They are determined to break the walls of prison house and breathe freely.

Pakistan is equally determined to find a just solution to this chronic dispute. No amount of RAW sponsored pressures in the form of target killings in Karachi and Balochistan, suicide attacks in Lahore and elsewhere and building of dams on rivers would dilute affections of Pakistanis for Kashmiris. India must understand that if it is really worried about terrorism and is sincerely aspiring for peace as is being preached by Aman ki Asha preachers, without resolution of Kashmir dispute this objective is next to impossible.

Ramla Akhtar

I JUST had an Aha! moment about what’s-the-problem-with- sustainability. Consequently, I saw how can that “problem” be fixed instantly. Because that problem does not lie in nature. The ‘problem’ is how we define sustainability.

This is the current Wikipedia definition and by design, it’s the current definition of the collective humanity: “Sustainability, in a broad sense, is the capacity to endure. In ecology, the word describes how biological systems remain diverse and productive over time. For humans it is the potential for long-term maintenance of wellbeing, which in turn depends on the wellbeing of the natural world and the responsible use of natural resources.”

Additionally, this is a widely popular theory in business schools: “When applied to business, [sustainability] refers to the ability of an organization to stay profitable over a long period.”

Earlier, I defined sustainability in the January/February issue, in the feature ‘How Collaboration Can Save the Planet – And Your Business’, as follows: “Everything on this planet is part of a cycle of birth-death-regeneration. There is a water cycle, a carbon cycle, a consumption cycle. Money, too, revolves. It is spent-earned-spent. A cycle is a complete loop. The very definition of “un-sustainability” is an incomplete loop – a cycle broken by excess (accumulation) or by withholding (depletion). Simply defined: Sustainability is “the act of elements revolving in an effortless cycle.”

The Problem? Time

Comparing the two definitions, the problem with popular definitions of sustainability stands up like a prickly cactus thorn to attention: The problem with popular definitions of sustainability is that they are time-based.

‘Forever’ is not what sustainability is. Sustainability has nothing to do with time. Sustainability has to do with the “ability to sustain”.

The Two Tyrannies of Time There are two natural, contrary outcomes of time-based definitions, both of which justify giving up the notion of relating sustainability with time:

1. Short-Term Gratification

The justification of short-term behaviour. Because that would be the rational thing to do for those who sincerely cannot perceive what 10, 100, or a 1,000 years mean. Short-term behaviour makes sense. Greed and fear are the consequences of a focus on “time”.

2. Long-Term Tradition

The preservation of tradition for the generations to come. This is the opposite of short-term behaviour. In this scenario, people take a higher path – apostrophes intended – and decide to create a way for how their children, grandchildren, and their generations will live henceforth. They attempt to create a perfect system. In remote geographic locations, they can – because newcomers do not visit them. In accessible geographic locations, they become adamant traditionalists. “Our ancestors perfected a way of living,” the subsequent generations will say, “and it cannot be changed. It is the way of life.”

All “ways” of life have an expiration date, after which they become extinct, or they evolve. Only ‘life’ itself sustains, not one way or another. Life is the phenomenon of the change of ways, and yet the continuation of existence.

Whether it’s the short term, or the long term – both are tyrannical, fundamentally harmful at any given time, and inappropriate.

This is the definition of the word ‘sustain’ found in the Merriam-Webster online dictionary:

1. To give support or relief to

2. To supply with sustenance: nourish

3. Keep up, prolong

4. To support the weight of;

5. To buoy up. For example, sustained by hope

6. To bear up suffer, undergo

7. To support as true, legal, or to allow or admit as valid

8. To support by adequate proof: confirm

Of these eight definitions, only the third definition has to do with the notion of time. Other online dictionaries have additional definitions. For instance, the Free Dictionary adds: “To support the spirits, vitality, or resolution of; encourage.” Dictionary.com has a definition that elaborates upon this in a way that the concept of ‘time’ is removed: “To keep up or keep going, as an action or process: for example, to sustain a conversation.”

Another interesting definition is: “To support the spirits, vitality, or resolution of; encourage.”

This improves, also, upon the way I understood sustainability earlier. Sustainability is still “the act of elements revolving in an effortless cycle”. “Enabling continuous giving” only looks at it from another angle. Which is, “What can we do?”

We need to answer this question because we ask this question. We ask this question because we are humans. We are sentient. And we want to do something.

Experiencing Sustainability: An Exercise

Sustainability is not ‘linear’ and it is not time-based. It is ‘cyclic’, it is right now. The best way to understand it may be to visualize it. Stand in a space, literally or mentally, and imagine these two scenarios:

1. You are standing in the middle of a long, wide road. Visualise yourself as a spot somewhere on this line, which represents a road. You are a spot travelling down the long road, having already travelled a long distance which is now behind you.

2. You are standing in a field. Extend both your hands outwards, spin, and imagine the whole, wide world around you. Right now. A big, round circle, radiating outwards from you. Feel free to imagine yourself to be the queen or king of the world.

How do these two scenarios make you feel?

It is when we experience that whole, big, circular nature of the elements of life, of the whole world, in one instant – as in the second imagery – that we begin to understand the nature of sustainability. When you perceive the world in this way, you will want the entire world to do well, because it will be your world.

This still requires work. It requires giving and contribution. It requires personal character and benevolence to live in such a world. It requires the ability to truly accept responsibility. It is also about experiencing the abundance of life, in the now. To think of ourselves is not to think of ourselves in terms of taking from others, but in terms of giving.

Sustainability is Harmony

If a major trouble with the world today is due to errant human behaviour, then this implies that corrected human behaviour shall prevent, stop, and in instances even reverse the damage. Indeed we can look forward to a harmonious co-existence.

When we get out of obstructing the cycles of nature, eliminate our time-based fears and thereby let go of our greed and fear, let things be and learn to live with the vast, thriving, abundant planet – then we shall be able to hold it up. To nurture ourselves and our fellow elements on the planet. To partake in supporting the weight of existence as animals, plants and mountains and rivers have been doing far before humans first appeared on the planet.

To, in short, sustain the other and thus sustain ourselves.

Paul D. Wolfowitz

VICE President Joe Biden, who travelled to Iraq this week to mark the formal end of United States combat operations there, has claimed that peace and stability there could be “one of the great achievements” of the Obama administration.

Of course, the largest share of credit belongs to the brave men and women of the American military, who have sacrificed so much and persevered through so much difficulty. Credit also goes to the Iraqi Army and police forces who have fought bravely and increasingly well, and to Iraq’s people, who have borne a heavy burden. But it is good that President Obama and his administration also claim credit, because success in Iraq will need their support.

My hope is that the president understands that success in Iraq will be defined not by what we withdraw, but by what we leave behind. At a minimum, we need Iraq to be a stable country, at peace both within its borders and with its neighbours. And we should help Iraq to one day become a leader of political and economic progress in the Middle East.

The aftermath of another American war is instructive. Fifty-seven years ago, an armistice ended the fighting in Korea — another unpopular conflict, far bloodier than the Iraq war, although shorter. Civilian casualties were horrendous, and the United States and its allies suffered more than half a million military casualties. The South Korean Army took the heaviest losses, but the United States also paid a high price: 33,739 killed or missing in battle and 103,284 wounded.

Gen. Dwight Eisenhower won the 1952 presidential election, in part, on a promise to end the war. According to a poll taken in April 1953, three months before the armistice was signed, 55 per cent of the American public thought the war had not been worth fighting, whereas only 36 per cent thought that it had.

Yet when the war was over, the United States did not abandon South Korea. We had done so in 1949, when our post-World War II occupation of Korea ended, opening the door to North Korea’s invasion the following year. This time, instead, we kept a substantial military force in South Korea.

The United States stuck with South Korea even though the country was then ruled by a dictator and the prospects for its war-devastated economy looked dim. With all its failings, South Korea was nevertheless a haven of freedom compared with the bleak and brutal despotism of North Korea.

We also understood that stability on the Korean Peninsula was critical for the peace of an entire region — a region that involved Japan as well as the Soviet Union and China. Most important, abandoning South Korea would have risked squandering all that had been gained.

Although South Korea has assumed the principal responsibility for its own defence, there are still 28,500 American troops on the peninsula. Our continued commitment prevented another war and today South Korea is a remarkable economic success story. A series of democratic elections, starting in 1987, have made it a political success story as well.

Some similar considerations apply to Iraq today. First, Iraq occupies a key position in the Gulf, a strategically important region of the world — a position that is all the more important because of the dangerous ambitions of Iran’s rulers.

Second, whatever the failings of Iraq’s democracy, it bears no comparison to the regime that other hostile elements would impose. With all its imperfections, Iraq today is more democratic than South Korea was at the end of the Korean War, and more democratic than any other country in the Arab Middle East (with the possible exception of Lebanon).

We have withdrawn so many of our troops and relinquished a combat role because Iraqi security forces have been able to take on most of the security burden. Their numbers have grown from about 320,000 in December 2006 to more than 600,000 at the end of last year; they are also becoming more capable.

Of course, numbers are only part of the story, and Iraqi security forces still need assistance from the American military. Not surprisingly, the enemy has increasingly focused its attacks on Iraqi soldiers and police officers as the United States withdraws, although Iraqi losses are still far below what they were earlier in the war. Since June 2003, about 10,000 Iraqi security forces have been killed, twice the total of the United States and the entire international coalition.

Even as our combat commitment ends, our commitment to supporting Iraq must continue.—KT

That means continued political support, including offering our help in resolving the current stalemate over forming a government. (It’s worth remembering that much of the difficulty the Iraqis are encountering arises from a Constitution and electoral system that the international community helped design. Moreover, this example of peaceful negotiations to create a government is something new in the Arab world.)

Our commitment must also include continued material support, particularly in the form of military and technical assistance. And though we have agreed to withdraw all our troops by the end of next year — a pledge that we must honour if the Iraqi government so desires — we need to remain open to the possibility of a mutually agreed longer-term security commitment or military presence for deterrence and support.

It is well worth celebrating the end of combat operations after seven years, and the homecoming of so many troops. But fully abandoning Iraq would damage the interests of the United States in the region and beyond. Maintaining a long-term commitment, albeit at greatly reduced cost and risk, is the best way to secure the gains that have been achieved with so much sacrifice.