Najm us Saqib
It was Modi’s government. It was Modi’s media. It was Modi’s administration. It was Modi’s fever all over India. How come we didn’t know that it was bound to be Modi’s legal system as well? The cycle is complete now. The Indian Supreme Court has come up with an expected verdict, validating the steps taken by Modi’s government on 5 Aug 2019. In other words, the continued occupation of a disputed territory has, thus, been ‘legally’ declared a part of India. Internally. It is not a new development. In fact, it is an endorsement which was thought appropriate to come by to primarily convince the people of India and the international community that look, even our Judiciary has permitted us to disregard the UN Security Council’s resolutions and all norms of International Law. Not only has the Court affirmed our unilateral annexation of a disputed territory but also has very kindly given us a roadmap for running the State. End of story.
Let there be no doubt about BJP’s designs to make the ‘biggest democracy of the world’ capable of increasing its influence in every possible direction, by hook or by crook. Come what may, India aka Bharat, particularly under Modi, is likely to continue following the narrative built around its Hindutva and RSS ideology. Keeping the façade of democracy intact, India’s designs to achieve the hitherto elusive status of a major regional power has recently touched unprecedented heights. Illegally annexing a disputed territory is just one of its many ‘Pro-democratic’ overtures.
Challenging Canada and the US in their respective territories by conducting or plotting assassinations of foreign citizens or throwing the findings of EU DisinfoLab in the dustbin with contempt, manifestly prove that India could get away with any misadventure it may feel like undertaking at any given time. And against anyone. On the other hand, the absence of any corresponding reaction from the world’s major powers is intriguing, to say the least. It seems they have acquiesced to the new look ‘Shining India’ and its ‘Brand’ as such without raising any concerns. The people of Jammu and Kashmir and the minorities in India should, therefore, not expect any favourable response from the International Community. For all practical purposes, it is going to either keep quiet by looking the other way or treat it as India’s ‘internal’ matter. End of story.
Clearly, India is not concerned about losing its credibility in the international arena as a peaceful, law-abiding democracy. Neither does it seem pushed about the future of the subjugated people. Deprived of every right, the people of Jammu and Kashmir have once again been left high and dry under the watchful eyes of the United Nations. Let the Universal Declaration of Human Rights keep crying, ‘All are equal before the law’ and that everyone is entitled to ‘a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal.’ A question: If ‘everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution’, would the Kashmiris be allowed to avoid any further persecution and ‘enjoy’ this privilege?
Pakistan has categorically rejected the Indian Supreme Court’s verdict as well as Indian plans that are ‘bound to fail’. Not acknowledging the supremacy of Indian constitution over a disputed territory, Pakistan has reiterated its unchanged principled stand on the Kashmir dispute and vowed to continue its political, moral, and diplomatic support to the people of Kashmir.
Is that enough? That is the question. Has rendering ‘political, moral, and diplomatic support’ produced any tangible results? Kashmir is no longer a dispute that one could address purely in the diplomatic domain. In the emerging ‘legal’ environment in India, one strongly feels that the hapless people of Jammu & Kashmir need some legal support as well.
As is evident, India is already behaving like a superpower. The argument seems to be: if the US could have its way in almost any part of the world barring a few honourable exceptions, and Russia could annex Crimea and proceed with its ‘Special Operation’ in Ukraine, why couldn’t India flex its muscles? The question is: has the US and other big powers including China have acquiesced to what India is up to? Has it been provided with the desired space to play ball? What could Pakistan do if tomorrow India becomes a permanent member of UN Security Council or attacks Pakistan to annex AJK or unilaterally make changes to the Indus Waters Treaty?
Under the ensuing possible scenario, therefore, Pakistan must examine its options. To begin with, India must not be underestimated. Pakistan must not forget that it happens to be the only pebble in the shoe as far as India’s overall objectives in the region are concerned. Jayshankar said that Pakistan was ‘irrelevant’. That does not necessarily mean India has ceased to be an enemy. Similarly, revisiting the 2003 LoC ceasefire agreement should not be construed as a permanent truce. Future false-flag operations must also not be ruled out. Wisdom demands that anticipating any Indian misadventure must form a vital part of Pakistan’s preparedness.
If war is not an option, all stakeholders along with related Think Tanks may like to get together to discuss and come up with a new strategy and a doable plan to deal with the enemy particularly with reference to Pakistan’s principled stand on the Kashmir dispute. That would require some hard work and tough decisions. One of the tough decisions is to separate emotions from ground realities. The other is to follow the age-old pearl of wisdom ‘keep your friends close and the enemies closer’. Efforts could be made to try changing the present ‘stale mate’ situation and seek the path of normalisation of relations, leading to recommencing of bilateral trade. Those who propose to normalise relations with India must also tell us a practical modus operendi as well. Easier said than done. To start with, do you have some plan of action to make Pakistan ‘relevant’ for India? Why would India sit with you on any negotiating table?
And those who suggest forgetting about Kashmir may first propose how to forget about the past. They may also suggest a way out to do away with the trust deficit both countries are carrying as a monkey on the shoulder.
The best course of action involves the toughest decision. Let Kashmir live on but in the meantime, focus on putting your own political and economic house in order in the real sense of the word. This is the only way you could safeguard your national interests without any outside assistance. Good speeches only inspire. Actions speak louder than words.
Courtesy
