A Solution for Kashmir from Kuldip Nayyar

Dawn, December 24, 2005
No let-up in feudal attitude
By Kuldip Nayar

A FRINGE of liberals is emerging in Pakistan. They need to be supported by India through unilateral steps in the way of liberalizing visas and reducing tariffs on products from across the border. I noticed the change when an audacious questioner from the audience in Lahore asked me after my lecture on political options in Kashmir why Islamabad had not stopped sending jihadis into the Indian side of Kashmir.

Yet another question from the floor was why I had not mentioned Gilgit and the Northern Areas when talking about Kashmir on the Pakistan side. He was from Gilgit and said that miserable conditions had prevailed there since Islamabad took control of the area. I have been going to Pakistan since 1951 but never before had I heard such talk beyond the drawing rooms. I find the distance between government and people increasing. Not only that but it appears both are trying to acquire more space than they occupy at present. The nation seems to be at war within itself, at every tier of society. For example the controversy over the construction of Kalabagh.

The old religious fervour is there in one form or the other. Textbooks still preach hatred against Hindus, but serious efforts are on to rewrite them. Private schools have already revised new textbooks which do not disseminate past prejudices. The maulvi may be a pejorative term and very few join issue with him, but the combination of his parties, Muttahida Majlis-i-Amal, rules over the NWFP and has a solid presence in the National Assembly. But it is generally said that they are a creature of President General Pervez Musharraf who uses them against India.

Nonetheless, feudal behaviour continues to prevail in every segment of society. Military commanders, politicians and bureaucrats act like masters in their domain, not allowing dissent. This is the main reason why institutions have not come up. A few which have, lack credibility because they are at the beck and call of rulers. The military is most to blame. It has tried to put the gloss of democracy over authoritarianism — achkan over khaki uniform. The military itself has become a problem, although it tries to give the impression that it is solving problems. Yet it is the only institution that works, despite its initial failure at relief and rehabilitation for the earthquake victims in Azad Kashmir.

True, adverse relations with India have made people dependent on the military and they have a feeling that it stands between them and India which is not trustworthy. However, the price the military exacts is heavy: it has most of the top civilian positions, most of the big contracts and most control over expanding businesses.

The judiciary is a check, but in a country where the military has been in power for more than four decades, judges have been overwhelmed at times.

No military coup — Pakistan has had three of them — has been held unconstitutional. It is impressive to find the Supreme Court directing federal and provincial governments to ensure implementation of judgment on prohibition of wasteful and exorbitant wedding feasts. (I wish we could emulate the example). Still, the judiciary seldom locks horns with the military.

However one may blame the military, it is a product of the feudal attitude that prevails in Pakistan. The talk of Musharraf’s exit is laced with the return of Benazir Bhutto or Nawaz Sharif. Issues are not discussed, personalities are. My fear is that if one of them — Benazir or Nawaz Sharif — were to return to power, the feudal outlook would not change. They would use their parties in the same way as they did when they were in power in the past. The party is the means, they are the ends.

The media is free and there is an explosion of TV networks. Journalists have never had it as good as now because their salaries have trebled. One thing distinctive about the Pakistani press is that it is conscious of the limits beyond which it cannot go. The government, too, issues “advice” on what not to use.

The press has dutifully obliged. Still, Foreign Minister Khurshid Kasuri is correct when he says that the Pakistan press is far more critical of its government than the Indian press which he described as “pro-establishment.”

In my lectures on Kashmir, one at Lahore and the other in Islamabad, I proposed a solution to the problem: that Azad Kashmir, Gilgit and the Northern Areas should be merged into a state and integrated with Pakistan.

The state should enjoy power over all subjects, except foreign affairs, defence and communications. Similar autonomy should be given to Jammu and Kashmir. The sovereignty of the first should vest in Islamabad and of the second in New Delhi.

The LoC between the two Kashmirs should be abolished and the two can jointly have trade offices abroad, an international airline and directly seek aid from foreign countries or the World Bank. The representatives elected to the Pakistan National Assembly from the integrated state of Azad Kashmir should sit in the Lok Sabha and those elected from J&K to the Lok Sabha in the National Assembly.

The formula in Pakistan did not evoke any official reaction, except that it could make a basis for a solution. Many Pakistanis met me after the lecture, both in Lahore and Islamabad, to convey their favourable response. Some said ultimately such a formula would solve the Kashmir problem.

I think that it should be saleable in India because Jammu and Kashmir has already a special status and the instrument of accession gave New Delhi only three subjects: foreign affairs, defence and communications. Moreover, the Kashmir problem would be out of the way once and for all.

However, the best way of selling such a formula is to increase people-to-people contact, which appears to be lessening day by day. The impression in Pakistan is that India is not “flexible” and, to quote opposition leader Maulana Fazlur Rahman, “New Delhi has not reciprocated Pakistan’s gestures even by an iota.”

I was criticized by a retired lieutenant-general when I said that Indians and Pakistanis were “similar” people. His argument was that since they were not similar, they left India and created a new country.

I wondered whether religion made people from the same subcontinent different. We have the same history, speak the same language and enjoy the same food. As for me, I have spent my youth in Pakistan studying in the same colleges as the Muslims did. On this side, there are as many followers of Islam as in Pakistan. I have close friends in the community on both sides. How am I not similar?

The writer is a leading columnist based in New Delhi