Kashmir: Lesson from international conflicts
Muhammad Sa’ad

KOSOVO’S independence has galvanized the freedom movement in Kashmir. If two million Kosovans could exercise right to self-determination, why the much larger population in Kashmir couldn’t. For about three decades, India has denied Kashmiris their right to determine their fate by expressing their will in a plebiscite to be held under UN auspices. India says that the occupied Kashmir’s constituent assembly has voted for accession to India. As such, it is no longer necessary for her to let the promised plebiscite be held in Kashmir. India’s attitude has been severely criticised by participants at various international conference, including one recently held at Islamabad.
India’s arguments about accession of the disputed state are untenable. It is the Treaty of Amritsar (1846) which entitled Gulab Singh to rule Jammu and Kashmir State. This treaty stands lapsed under Article 7 of the Independence Act. The Act was passed by British Parliament on July 18, 1947 to, assent to creation of independent states of India and Pakistan. The Article 7 provides that with lapse of His Majesty’s suzerainty over Indian states, all treaties, agreements, obligations, grants, usages and sufferances will lapse. Mountbatten deliberately kept mum about this reality for considerations of political expediency. He was not ‘politically naive, much less a fool’ not to realise this truth. According to his biographer, Ziegler, Mountbatten had a ‘powerful, analytic mind of crystalline clarity’. But, he ‘was a man who preferred falsehood to truth’.
Even the ‘Instrument’ of Accession is void for several reasons. The Independence Act required intention of accession to be absolute and crystal-clear. But a stray glance at the ‘Instrument’ would make it clear that it is equivocal. The ‘Instrument’ expresses ‘intention to set up an interim government and to ask Sheikh Abdullah to carry the responsibilities’ with maharajah’s prime minister. The last sentence in the ‘Instrument’ is ‘In haste and with kind regards’. Handwritten corrections on the text of the ‘Instrument’ speak volubly about the wavering state of the maharajah’s mind. As such, this so-called instrument, extracted under coercion and duress, is invalid under law.
The accession resolution, subsequent passed by the occupied Kashmir’s ‘constituent assembly’, also, is ipso facto void. This resolution violates the Security Council’s resolutions forbidding India not to go ahead with the accession farce. Aware of India’s intention to get the ‘Instrument of Accession’ rubber-stamped by the puppet assembly, the Security Council passed two resolutions to forestall the foreseeable ‘accession’ by the puppet assembly - Security Council’s Resolution No 9 of March 30, 1951 and affirmative resolution No 122 of March 24, 1957 outlaws accession or any other action to change status of the Jammu and Kashmir state.
The unilateral ‘accession’ being un-authenticated by the United Nations amounts to violation of the Security Council’s directive. This accession is, in legal parlance; a nullity. Yet India insists that the accession farce is ‘sacrosanct and final’. India says that the international-law principle of rebus sic stantibus (‘things as they stand’) absolves her from obligation to hold a plebiscite. The truth is that Indian itself is guilty of bringing about a fundamental change in the circumstances. An intractable roadblock to holding the plebiscite is lack of consensus among India’s political parties. Plebiscite or any other solution which varies India’s hard-line position is unlikely to be approved by India’s parliament - Bharatya Janata Party, Jan Singh and Shiv Sena oppose even the slightest mention of plebiscite or self-determination as treason. They rather want abrogation of even the eye-wash ‘special status’, conferred on the Kashmir state. The fanatic Hindu parties want total integration of the state with Indian Union. The successive governments at the centre had to tow the fanatics’ line to keep the coalition governments afloat.
Not to speak of holding a plebiscite, India’s central government has been helpless in even giving internal autonomy to the disputed state, as resolved by the Sarkaria Commission and the puppet assembly. The Commission’s Autonomy Report was rejected by India’s Union Cabinet on March 24, 1983. In view of India’s nonchalance towards the plebiscite demand, president Musharraf had proposed self-rule for the Kashmir state under his four-point formula. His proposal received a lukewarm, nay an apathetic response, from India.
Analysts at the Pugwash conferences have suggested that insights from international conflicts should be used to evolve a consensus solution of the Kashmir imbroglio. Two common lessons from the settled or lingering international conflicts are that violence begets violence. It is negotiations with open minds, not oyster-shell minds and iron-clad hard-line positions that facilitated or could facilitate solution of a conflict. Take South Tyrol. It got solved because of flexible attitudes of the rivals, renunciation of hard-line positions, judicious application of institutional principles (segregation and integration) under an international guarantee, and multilateral (not bilateral) negotiations. Positive mediatory role by the European Union serVed -as a catalyst. It is hard to think that SAARC, because of ostensible fetters to its charter, could playa similar role.
Kashmir issue appears to be more complex than South Tyrol. So, it calls for greater resilience - South Tyrol had only three major linguistic groups, facilitating ethno linguistic division of the disputed territory. But, socio-religious or -ethnic milieu in Kashmir is very complex - predominantly Muslim Valley (sunni majority with sizable shia minority). Ladakh has two districts, one with Budddhist majority, and the other with shia majority. Three districts of Jammu have Muslims (gujjars and bakelWals) in majority. Besides, Muslims and Hindus, Jammu has a sizable population of sikhs. Even political complexion of Kashmir’s political parties is more intricate and heterogeneous than the South Tyrolean parties. The pro-independence Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Front aims at re-unifying ‘all parts of the forcibly divided state and becoming a UNO’s full fledged member. Simultaneously, the constituent groups within the JKLF have dozens of independence versions.
Even pro-India parties like National Conference, Panthers’ Party and Patriotic People’s Front has differences within and with Indian Union. The bitter lesson from Israeli Palestine conflict is that violence entails no political achievement. The lesson from Northern Ireland is that it is not possible to suppress popular will by brute application of force. “Outbreak of militancy in Kashmir was result of Indian army’s brutalities against Kashmiris. This freedom struggle is akin to revolt in Northern-Ireland cities and towns against police brutalities and judiciary’s injustices in 1968. The pointer from Sri Lanka-LTTE dispute is that the LTTE could not secede from Sri Lanka despite armed struggle since 1990. Avid readers, interested in detailed comparison of Kashmir imbroglio with international conflicts, may refer to Koithara’s Crafting Peace in Kashmir (pp. 242-43, pp. 170-176 ibid.). We have noted that no solution snugly fits into the Kashmir crucible. Yet, each solution could serve as stimulus for a receptive mind. One could understand political compulsions accounting for Indian leaders’ hesitation in solving the Kashmir problem. India should, for the time being, agree to president Musharrafs four-point solution, as a prelude to holding the plebiscite. By so doing, Indian government could tell its people and coalition partners that they have not ceded any territory to Pakistan, or altered Kashmir border.

Marriage in Egypt is a minefield
Linda Heard

LIKE young people all over the world, getting married features high on the itinerary of most Egyptians in their twenties. But in most countries, tying the knot isn’t the often-insurmountable hurdle it is here due to a combination of poverty, antiquated customs and meddling from family members. Due to high unemployment, low wages and inflation, young men are being forced to delay getting married often until their 30s or even 40s, which means many girls of marriageable age are being left without a suitor. Selma (not her real name), the 26-year-old daughter of an Alexandrian lawyer, a bright and personable young woman, told me she fears being left on the shelf as there are not enough young men around with the wherewithal to marry while older men still seek brides in their late teens or early twenties.
This situation is driving many would be brides to seek a potential partner on the Internet, which they often do without telling their parents. The problem is the Net is infested with unscrupulous individuals who use lies as their currency. Just over a week ago, my husband received a call from a friend who asked him to help his daughter’s Egyptian American fiancé retrieve his confiscate driving license from the police. My husband met up with the New Yorker but became suspicious that he was already married when the 35-year-old designer said he had no intention of taking his new bride to the US and was caught out in a couple of blatant untruths as to his background.
Reluctant to see our friend’s daughter in trouble, we both did some sleuthing and discovered that the man was 41-year-old, rather than 35 and had been married and divorced twice before in Egypt with one daughter per marriage. Worse still, he lived with his wife and son in the US, who knew nothing about his former marital life or his fiancé. Needless to say, when our friend and his daughter had recovered from the shock, they were delighted to have been saved from this Walter Mitty character, who, as it turned out the girl had “met? on the Net. Overly long engagements put further pressures on couples, many of which split up before the wedding day. A case in point concerns Dina (not her real name), a stunningly beautiful, educated and gentle young woman, the only daughter of impoverished parents, who have lived in the same roof hut throughout their lives.
Three years ago, Dina met her soul mate Mustapha (not his real name) in college and within days he turned up at her home with his parents to ask for her hand. Her mother and father were overjoyed. They had saved up all their lives for this moment and spent a large part of their savings on a lavish engagement party in a hotel. This was surely a marriage made in heaven. Every time I saw Dina with her beau she radiated. Both are serious young people committed to their future together and determined to observe the proprieties demanded by the society in which they live. Mustapha invested his savings in a small, unfinished apartment with concrete walls and floors and no window pains.
Dina combined her studies with a part-time teaching position and both poured every spare pound into the purchase of furniture and household goods. Every chair represented a step closer to their goal of being together; every plate became a treasure to be displayed to family and friends. But three years on, the atmosphere has changed. Both sets of prospective in-laws are no longer on speaking terms. They rowed too many times over who should pay for what. Mustapha is fatigued and has lost much of his initial enthusiasm. Dina became so focused on setting up house that she began to nag Mustapha to work harder and save harder in order to buy that washing machine or fridge on schedule. When I last spoke to her, she told me tearfully that she had removed her engagement ring. They still don’t have the money for a wedding. The hill is too high to climb and they’re both too exhausted to make the effort.
It’s a different story for the wealthy. I was recently invited to the wedding of a neighbor’s daughter, a doctor. She was engaged for two years to another doctor and, like Dina and Mustapha, they used the time to create their dream home. But in this case, as soon as the strains of a long engagement began to take their toll, their affluent parents got together and decided to bring the wedding forward. As I write, they are honeymooning in Malaysia and will return to a luxury apartment with a panoramic view of the Nile and a weekend villa in the countryside gifted by the boy’s family. Who said money couldn’t buy love? It seems to me that the poor are victimized when it comes to marriage. With rocketing property prices and rents a home is at a premium while putting on a wedding ceremony for up to 200 guests is unrealistic for people, whose average wage is between $50 and $400 a month. Egyptians are deeply concerned about this problem with reports of young men unable to afford a wife committing suicide. Some charities and businessmen have organized mass weddings to alleviate expenses for the less well off but many families are too proud to take advantage of this charitable scheme. Such difficulties have bolstered secret or “orfi” marriages, whereby both parties sign an unofficial marriage contract, which can be torn up and forgotten as though the union never happened. If a woman wants to legalize this type of marriage, say, when a child comes along, it can often be a long and costly process.—Arab News




India’s new ploy in old battle
Zaineb Khan

MATTHEW Kahane, the UN resident and Humanitarian Coordinator in Nepal has said that the arrest of Jashu Kumar Yadav, acting in-charge of joint Janatantrik. Terai Mukti Morcha, from Laukaha, bazar of Bihar indicates that the aimed groups operating in Terai are carrying out their activities via Indian soil. The attempts made by the Indian Border Security Force to save Yadav from being arrested only reinforce the notion that there is a nexus between the Terai-based armed groups and the Indian establishment. In an interview with the Indian newspaper, he said, “Some of these groups that are making life difficult in Terai may have some kinds of links with North-India... it would be enormously helpful if the Indian authorities are able to keep these people under control.” Interestingly, Mr. Kahane has been called back by UN, prematurely, after these comments were publishedby’vqrious newspapers.
India is creating problems in Terai area through armed groups who are” now openly talking of a separate “Madhesi state”. A regional party named Terai Madhesh Loktantarik Party (TMLP) has been launched in Terai area. The party is fully backed by India. According to the Nepal media, Prime Minister Koirala lent credence to the allegation of some experts that India is bent upon capitalizing oil the havoc in Terai to magnify her influence in Nepal. India is providing large quantity of am1S to Maoists rebels. She has a long porous border with Nepal which facilitated the arms supply and movement of Maoists to and from India. Massive amounts of weapons, large enough to equip thousands of Maoists soldiers have been supplied by India. In fact, the weapons that the Nepali Maoists get are of superior quality, which can only be provided by the
Indian government. India is selling her unwanted weapons, which are expensive to destroy, to Nepali Maoists to earn profit. C. P. Mairiali, the president of United Left Front, Nepal, while talking to media has categorically blamed India for fueling up the Terai crisis. He said that there is firm proof that Indian establishment is allocating funds in Nepal’s Terai through consulate office in Birgunj. India has been supporting arms to the establishment as well as anti-establishment groups in Nepal since 1950. To initiate armed struggle, RAW had provided one truck of arms to B. P. Koirala. Koirala later revealed it in his, biography. From Ramraja Singh, who carried out bomb blast in 1986, to Maoists and now Terrain rebellions have been receiving safe shelter in India. In addition to it, to maintain her influence over the parties she has started using many other dirty tactics. Many CPN leaders’ kids are said to be studying in India, under the Indian scholarship.
The former Nepalese Foreign Minister Rameshnath Pandey shunned Indian hegemonic design in the region and expressed his views regarding Indian interference in Nepal as: “The Nepalese people do not accept interference. History shows that we are capable of solving our internal problems”. He further said: “I would not go that far but India should not try and export its political ideology. One size does not fit all”.Indian support to Nepali Maoists contradicts her claim to neutrality. India should adopt a policy of non-interference in the internal affairs of other countries. India shoLitd respect Nepal’s sovereignty as an independent state.