THE ONLY NEWS MAGAZINE THAT COVERS ENTIRE JAMMU & KASHMIR INCLUDING POK

HOME SUBSCRIB NOW ARCHIVES VAISHNO DEVI GUIDE CONTACT US ABOUT US Jammu Kashmir Ladakh Home Dec-31st-2009 Nov-30th-2009 Feb-28th-2009 jan-31st-2009	Online Edition

COVER DEC 31st 2009

REGULAR

NewsBag

BACK COVER

Opinion

Quiet Dialogue in Kashmiri People’s Court

Dr. Syed Nazir Gilani

The instrument of dialogue has been used at all levels in human history to settle disputes of all manners. United Nations adopted a resolution and named the year 2001 as the year of Dialogue Among Civilizations. A number of International organizations in particular Foundation for Dialogue among Civilizations, Alliance of Civilizations, and Centre for Dialogue and Institute for Interreligious Dialogue are pursuing and perfecting the science of dialogue. Dialogue Among Civilizations is also the title of a book published in Persian by Mohammad Khatami. The theory in its current form was first introduced by Mohammad Khatami, former President of Iran. He originally introduced the idea of Dialogue among Civilizations as a response to Samuel P. Huntington’s theory of Clash of Civilizations.

The art of dialogue is not within the competence of every man and woman. It has its own substantive basics and has to be endorsed by a free flow and disciplined knowledge of language and the subject. It is on this point that heads of a country don’t enter into a dialogue but have to surrender the art to experts in various disciplines. Affairs of life in a country are handled within a broad spread of common and specialized in put.

In Kashmir when there is a growing hype around a ‘Quiet Dialogue’ going on in the name of the people of Kashmir, we seem to be faced with a crisis of intense self-legitimation and self-justification. This is the beginning of a denial to others that they too exist and have a role to play. It is good that the executive members of Hurriyat (M) namely, Professor Abdul Gani Bhat, Moulana Abbas Ansari, Shabir Ahmad Shah, Bilal Gani Lone, Mukhtar Ahmad Waza, Syed Aga Syed Al Hassan sat to discuss the question of dialogue and to finalise the team that would visit Pakistan.

Even if one allows these leaders the benefit of doubt that they have an exclusive right to keep the script of this dialogue a secret and are above all democratic restraints to nudge pass every man and woman, every discipline of opinion in Kashmir and enter into a ‘secretive dialogue’ with India which they have been describing as ‘untrustworthy’, there still remains a serious issue to be reconciled. How can Kashmiri leaders share the basic script of their case with the establishments of India and Pakistan and refuse to trust their own people. What would be the fate of their jealously guarded secret if the people and the various opinions spread in all sections of life in Kashmir and abroad smell rat in the process of dialogue and decide to withdraw their trust from these leaders? There is again a possibility that the people might at a later date refuse to validate the script of this dialogue if they discover that it is in part or in absolute at war with their best interests. The two establishments in Delhi and Islamabad can’t succeed to cradle this leadership for long on their air waves or TV screens.

A good leadership would not run with the hare and hunt with the hounds. It has to take stock of the details of its competence to match up to the Indian and Pakistani establishment in reason, language, knowledge of the case and art of a disciplined argument. A critical look at the six leaders namely Mirwaiz Umar Farooq, Professor Abdul Gani Bhat, Moulana Abbas Ansari, Shabir Ahmad Shah, Bilal Gani Lone, Mukhtar Ahmad Waza and Syed Aga Syed Al Hassan makes them different individuals in the understanding of the case, language skills required to formulate the argument and confidence which would make them comfortable during the discipline of the dialogue. Professor Abdul Gani Bhat undoubtedly has the discipline of language and articulation on his side. How far would the rest take a bold and honest decision in principle and allow him to be the lead person is very difficult to answer. Would the others show a voluntary grace and accept to supplement Professor Bhat in the process? If each one of them decides to remain on the boil in a dialogue, it would be unstructured and unpunctuated exercise and would only stand to benefit the opposition.

The other important question that every common man and woman and members of civil society in various disciplines of life in Kashmir need to be reassured about is the competence in the art of dialogue of these leaders. A secret dialogue could not be entrusted to people who seemingly don’t have express ability in the science of dialogue. In that case would the six leaders play ‘jack of all trades’ or engage a team of experts from Kashmir, India, Pakistan and from among Kashmiris domiciled in various other countries around the world. Involvement of non Kashmiris too needs to be carefully considered.

The present face of Kashmiri leadership is rightly accused of being a ‘gini’ bottled by the establishment. The claim may not be true in its entirety but there is no doubt that they have not been as independent as one would normally expect a leader to be. At times decisions are taken in their name and they read about them in the press. Their number two’s in Islamabad exist in name and not in deed. The broad spread of Kashmiri voice outside Kashmir is equally skillfully crafted and vehemently controlled as a subordinate political culture. This voice is his master’s voice and they are paid like any other employee in any other Government department in Pakistan.

Therefore, under these circumstances the various variables namely ‘secret dialogue’, competence in the discipline of dialogue, language skills, knowledge of the case and a controlled culture of politics established outside Kashmir, all add to a desperate need of common citizen’s intervention in making sure that the basic script of the dialogue is shared with the people of Kashmir well before it is revealed to the two establishments in Delhi and Islamabad. People need to know about the details as to who is going to resource our leaders during the process? There is no harm if India or Pakistan has been resourcing them severally or collectively so far. It is high time that we seek out independent or country collective resources for them.

The people of Kashmir should not compromise on the question of independence of resources. They should raise these resources within the capacity of the community. If they fail, a request or a general appeal could be addressed to UN, European Union, and Commonwealth, OIC and various institutions and individuals in India and Pakistan for raising funds in a transparent manner. All is not well at this stage. We can’t afford to let go a ‘pound of flesh’ for being resourced in 2009.

Author is London based Secretary General of JKCHR — NGO in Special Consultative Status with the United Nations.

Obama's Afghan war

By: Adnan Gill

About half a century ago, an ambitious and charismatic American president inherited a confined war. Soon, he owned the war! His name was John F Kennedy. About 50 years later, another brilliant and charming president has owned another inherited war, the Afghan War.

Once President Kennedy pledged: "Pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and success of liberty." He asserted: "Now we have a problem making our power credible and Vietnam looks like the place." And just like that, he owned the Vietnam War.

President Barack Obama warned: "Our security is at stake." He spelled out the goal for the war: "We must deny Al-Qaeda a safe haven." In this context, the president identified the battlegrounds too. He said: "We are in Afghanistan to prevent a cancer from once again spreading through that country. But this same cancer has also taken root in the border region of Pakistan. That is why we need a strategy that works on both sides of the border." Though he failed to mention how Taliban will be beaten or how Osama bin Laden will be captured. Moreover, there was no explanation of how America planned to wage war on the Pakistani side of border. Even though, the Gallup survey, showed 55 percent Americans disapproved the continuation of the war, President Obama decided to extend the war.

Reverse the clock 30 years back. The Soviet Union ignored the harsh lessons of history by entering the ‘graveyard of empires’. They entered Afghanistan with an initial force of 80,000 soldiers. But at the height of occupation, the ‘limited contingent of the Soviet forces’ tipped the scales with some half a million personnel. In addition, the Afghan forces were raised to approximately 300,000 men. The occupation indeed came at a punishing cost of about 15,000 Soviets dead, 469,685 sick and wounded, and some 500 MIA. Needless to say that, the war of choice bankrupted the mighty Soviet empire, which hastened its ultimate disintegration.

So far in the eight years of the War on Terror, 849 Americans have been killed in Afghanistan, Pakistan and neighbouring Uzbekistan. A haunting reminder of Mission Creep became obvious by the president's pledge to shift the focus of war from fighting Taliban in Afghanistan to hunting terrorists allegedly growing stronger inside Pakistan. Could it be another wild goose chase, like the Iraqi Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) hunt? Certainly, time will tell.

The 2001, Afghan invasion was spearheaded by a dozen or so CIA’s Special Activities Division's operatives. By March 2009, the strength of International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) stood at approximately 61,960; out of which about 29,820 troops are from the US. In addition to the already ordered 17,000 combat troops, President Obama promised additional 4,000 troops for training of the Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF). Now another 30,000 are on their way to Afghanistan.

Just like the Soviets, who also tried to raise Afghan armed forces; the coalition too is building ANSF. Obama declared: "We must reverse the Taliban's momentum....And we must strengthen the capacity of Afghanistan's security forces and government." The problem with Obama's exit strategy is that it heavily banks on ANSF's capability to assume security mission from the US forces. Soviets learned a bitter lesson the hard way; Afghan forces could not be relied upon. However, current trends do not bode any better in case of ANSF either.

If history is any guide, similarities like Mission Creep, vague objectives, and confusing exit strategies are proven recipes for losing wars. Nonetheless, all is not lost. Going back to reliable American allies like Pakistanis and proven strategies could still save the day. A recipe to wining the war is very simple:

Dust off the shelved list of the ISI contacts to formulate a winnable strategy. Tell India to immediately cease from destabilising Pakistan, and to dramatically reduce its footprint in Afghanistan. Reserve Predator attacks for the most wanted terrorist leadership only. Stop supporting military-political dictators in Pakistan. Encourage formation of a national Afghan government. Involve tribal leaders in nation building. Above all, stop alienating highly territorial tribals through brute military force; which more than often multiplies civilian casualties.

Mr President, if you will win the hearts and minds of the masses, tired of violence and hungry for peace, they will win the war for you.

The writer is a US-based journalist.

Subscribe Now

Latest World Headlines

BACK| CONTACT US| ADVERTISE WITH US| ABOUT US