New Delhi can capitalise on an environment of compromise
Arjimand Hussain Talib
There is a sixth century fable which tells about a boy playing in the fields, and who got stung by a nettle. The boy ran home to his mother, telling her that he had just touched that nasty weed, and it had stung him.
“It was just your touching it my boy,” said the mother, “that caused it to sting you; the next time you meddle with a nettle, grasp it tightly, and it will do you no hurt.”
There is a key lesson in this story on why embracing a new approach on Kashmir by New Delhi and Islamabad may not be as catastrophic as made to be. Something very significant happened at the end of the week. There are some real openings for hope.
The Allahabad High Court’s verdict on the Babri Masjid demolition case is arguably far from perfect. But the response from Indian masses has been unexpectedly mature – belying the apprehensions about mass unrest.
There is a viewpoint that the reason there was no unrest is because the verdict has been interpreted as being overly favorable to the majority Hindu community. But this viewpoint is questionable. Both the parties to the dispute have already said that they are dissatisfied with the verdict, and, hence, will appeal before the Supreme Court.
The fact is that despite the differing perceptions, the overwhelming public opinion is that of accommodation. There were no mass celebrations or expressions of disquiet from any side. Indian intellectuals are saying that the reason for this attitude is that India has actually come a long way since 1992. The generation that was believed to be driven by religious jingoism and passion seems to have really been subdued by the new culture of accommodation and tolerance. India, there is a widely-held belief, has changed.
One of the classic responses to the verdict was heard from Indian Supreme Court’s leading lawyer Rajeev Dhawan, who called the Allahabad High Court’s verdict as a “Panchayati style justice.” He opined that he saw the verdict based on a compromise solution rather than basic principles of natural justice. Even as he argues that the legal process on the case was supposed to establish the ownership of the land in dispute, and not go beyond the standard legal practice, he acknowledges the decision as “consensual.”
Then there are other viewpoints, which are besides the point here. One being that the verdict is patently unjust with Muslims. Two, that despite the court granting possession rights to the Muslim Waqf Board over one third of the land, in practice the land will be actually used by the Hindus.
There is another opinion which believes that the matters of faith cannot be subject to legal scrutiny and analysis. And that religious beliefs are beyond the worldly legal considerations of proof and legal logic.
People are entitled to have their own opinions, but the point here to make is different. The environment of peaceful consideration of the judgment in India – if not its complete acceptance - makes a strong case for an out-of-box thinking on Kashmir today.
There are always people who have been propounding doomsday scenarios in case New Delhi chooses to think beyond that traditional ‘box.’ The theories surrounding that doomsday scenario may well be a myth if the response to an extremely sensitive issue like the Babri Masjid verdict is anything to go by.
There are compelling reasons why thinking out of the box is a dire necessity today.
The happenings since 2008 in Kashmir in general and those since June 11 this year in particular have changed many things. The gulf between an average Kashmir and the Indian state has deepened considerably. For India, the biggest matter of worry must be the estrangement of Kashmir’s ‘generation next’, whose thinking has gone even beyond what their elders have nursed.
It is very much within the hard and soft power of the Indian state to manage the brewing alienation and unrest in Kashmir. But it needs to come in terms with the reality that it cannot resolve this issue as such. It will always have a crowd available in Kashmir which provides its rule a critical mass necessary to keep things going, but it is unlikely that it will be able to create a respectable acceptance and legitimacy to its current brand of rule in Kashmir.
Then there is the external image factor. India – despite its oft-talked about vices of mass deprivation, caste system and alienated poor communities – is seen as one of the emerging global economic powers, if not a political or military one. It is mostly respected for its democracy and a political culture which are not to be found everywhere. But Kashmir dents its image of being a land of Gandhi and Buddha.
And look how far people are going about this country. An article in Jerusalem Post “Why isn’t India a pariah state?” by Rob Brown on 19 September explains that. Rob wrote “But what the world is never told by The New York Times, nor by most other supposedly liberal organs, is that New Delhi’s response to such civil disobedience has been far more savage and brutal than anything authorized in Jerusalem or Tel Aviv, leading in the past to serious armed insurrection (often incited by Pakistan).”
And then there are pragmatic Indians themselves. Consider this thought from a recent essay by Pankaj Mishra, “The killing fields of Kashmir dwarf those of Palestine and Tibet. In addition to the everyday regime of arbitrary arrests, curfews, raids and checkpoints enforced by nearly 700,000 Indian soldiers, the valley’s 4 million Muslims are exposed to extrajudicial execution, rape and torture, with such barbaric variations as live electric wires inserted into the p----.”
So let the nettle be held firmly. And sure nothing is going to happen.
Sunday, October 3, 2010
UN OCHA and Kashmir
Thinking beyond the UNMOGIP, and its mandate
Arjimand Hussain Talib
A spokesperson for the United Nations (UN) Secretary General said last week that their office was closely monitoring the on-going situation in Kashmir. He further said they were in regular touch with the UN Military Observers’ Group (UNMOGIP) office in Srinagar. But what beyond that?
The unrest and the civilian killings in Kashmir over the last one month are colossal in scale. The state actions in containing demonstrations of unarmed civilians are extraordinary. The use of live ammunition on unarmed protesters, army deployment prolonged curfews, widespread detentions, media and communications curbs, etc. signal to an extraordinary political and humanitarian situation. Although the unrest has received some degree of international media attention, yet the international community remains as oblivious to the happenings in Kashmir as ever before.
There are basically two reasons why the international community is not so concerned about the current Kashmir situation. One reason is that there is almost negligible advocacy at international level for an international intervention. If at all there is some advocacy by a handful of groups that is symbolic and ill guided. Globally, Kashmiri Diaspora is largely ill-organized. Facebook activism is no substitute to other recognized methods of advocacy.
Another reason has surely something to do with 9/11. Kashmir has acquired an image of a place which is part of the “problem”, read “international terrorism”. There are fewer takers for the argument that Kashmir’s unrest is driven by a peaceful nationalist movement – seeking a change in political status quo and tight military control. There are hardly any takers for the argument that if unaddressed Kashmir will impact Pakistan and Afghanistan’s stability.
On another plane, the current international indifference has also something to do with the obsession of Kashmir’s political groups in looking exclusively at the UN’s political resolutions on Kashmir. It is a fact that the UN continues to portray Kashmir as a disputed region in all its maps. Its communications also recognize it as such. But there is a technical difference between depiction of a region as ‘disputed’ and ‘conflict affected’. The ‘disputed’ status, despite its own political significance, does not necessarily underline humanitarian urgency. Designation of Kashmir as a ‘conflict zone’ would do that.
The question here is why hasn’t such thing happened so far? Naturally, the governments in New Delhi and Srinagar would not do that. Those advocating for Kashmiri right to self determination and safeguarding of their human rights at home and abroad have missed an important point over the years: the role of UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) in Kashmir. And also the absence of the UN Cluster System and a Humanitarian Coordinator (HC) in Kashmir
The United Nations’ Military Observers’ Group in India and Pakistan (UNMOGIP), based in Srinagar and Muzaffarabad, has a limited mandate. Their primary work is to report any violations or change in the status quo of the Line of Control (LoC).
OCHA as an arm of the UN Secretariat which has a broader mandate - to “mobilize and coordinate effective and principled humanitarian action” to alleviate human suffering in emergencies, which includes conflict situations. Importantly, one of its missions is also to “advocate for the rights of people in need.”
Beyond humanitarian coordination, what is required in Kashmir today is underlining the urgency for some urgent political initiatives to ensure that the trouble in Kashmir does not spill over to the larger South Asian region. That urgency would come if there are credible situation reports from a body like the OCHA, which are taken more seriously by the international community. Today Kashmir needs situation reports by impartial international actors who would depict the real humanitarian situation there.
Although the European Commission (EC) some days back announced an emergency aid of 2 million euros ($2.5 million) for the victims of the conflict in Jammu and Kashmir, it was not a special initiative in response to the current situation. The EU’s low scale humanitarian aid for Kashmir has been pouring in for some eight years now, addressing the longer term impacts of the conflict.
The UN Resolution 46/182 which serves as the basis of the OCHA mandate is clear that the “responsibility for people affected by emergency lies – first and foremost - with their respective states”. But it also says that the “states in need are expected to facilitate the work of responding organizations.” Given the UN’s recognition of Kashmir as a disputed territory, the definition of the governing ‘State’ cannot be normal in meaning and scope.
There are people who argue that since there is no UN OCHA office in India, its ambit of work cannot be extended to Kashmir. That is not a convincing argument. UN OCHA has directly and indirectly responded to many emergency situations in India. One example is the Gujarat earthquake.
Then there is a full-fledged UN OCHA office in Pakistan, whose area of work includes Pakistan Administered Kashmir (PAK). UN OCHA has played, and continues to play, a key role in the coordination of the government and the international emergency response efforts in PAK.
The UN OCHA has a strong presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (OPT) as well. Humanitarian actors, donors, and diplomatic missions alike rely on OCHA for its wide range of information and analytical products in the OPT. These include bridging the gaps in humanitarian needs, weekly and monthly humanitarian updates, briefings and field tours. One of its key functions is the regular reporting on the overall humanitarian situation, and routine monitoring, reporting on, advocating for, and facilitating humanitarian access in the OPT.
Looking at the dire humanitarian situation in Kashmir today, especially the highly inadequate infrastructure to treat the casualties, UN OCHA has a strong case in Kashmir. Its case is also strong for the fact that people are dying for lack of timely medical aid and treatment. The death of two women last week just because their travel to hospital was hindered by troopers serves as a grim reminder. There must be many more instances which go unreported.
The policy of widespread detainment of civilians, including children, on frivolous charges is also a matter of serious concern. These state actions raise serious questions related to juvenile justice. The detainment of prominent human rights defender and President of Kashmir High Court Bar Association, Mian Qayoom, on highly questionable charges, is a grave matter too.
All these matters where the rule of law has hit a low of unacceptable limits in international law deserve international attention. And UN-OCHA could just be apt to do that.
Arjimand Hussain Talib
A spokesperson for the United Nations (UN) Secretary General said last week that their office was closely monitoring the on-going situation in Kashmir. He further said they were in regular touch with the UN Military Observers’ Group (UNMOGIP) office in Srinagar. But what beyond that?
The unrest and the civilian killings in Kashmir over the last one month are colossal in scale. The state actions in containing demonstrations of unarmed civilians are extraordinary. The use of live ammunition on unarmed protesters, army deployment prolonged curfews, widespread detentions, media and communications curbs, etc. signal to an extraordinary political and humanitarian situation. Although the unrest has received some degree of international media attention, yet the international community remains as oblivious to the happenings in Kashmir as ever before.
There are basically two reasons why the international community is not so concerned about the current Kashmir situation. One reason is that there is almost negligible advocacy at international level for an international intervention. If at all there is some advocacy by a handful of groups that is symbolic and ill guided. Globally, Kashmiri Diaspora is largely ill-organized. Facebook activism is no substitute to other recognized methods of advocacy.
Another reason has surely something to do with 9/11. Kashmir has acquired an image of a place which is part of the “problem”, read “international terrorism”. There are fewer takers for the argument that Kashmir’s unrest is driven by a peaceful nationalist movement – seeking a change in political status quo and tight military control. There are hardly any takers for the argument that if unaddressed Kashmir will impact Pakistan and Afghanistan’s stability.
On another plane, the current international indifference has also something to do with the obsession of Kashmir’s political groups in looking exclusively at the UN’s political resolutions on Kashmir. It is a fact that the UN continues to portray Kashmir as a disputed region in all its maps. Its communications also recognize it as such. But there is a technical difference between depiction of a region as ‘disputed’ and ‘conflict affected’. The ‘disputed’ status, despite its own political significance, does not necessarily underline humanitarian urgency. Designation of Kashmir as a ‘conflict zone’ would do that.
The question here is why hasn’t such thing happened so far? Naturally, the governments in New Delhi and Srinagar would not do that. Those advocating for Kashmiri right to self determination and safeguarding of their human rights at home and abroad have missed an important point over the years: the role of UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) in Kashmir. And also the absence of the UN Cluster System and a Humanitarian Coordinator (HC) in Kashmir
The United Nations’ Military Observers’ Group in India and Pakistan (UNMOGIP), based in Srinagar and Muzaffarabad, has a limited mandate. Their primary work is to report any violations or change in the status quo of the Line of Control (LoC).
OCHA as an arm of the UN Secretariat which has a broader mandate - to “mobilize and coordinate effective and principled humanitarian action” to alleviate human suffering in emergencies, which includes conflict situations. Importantly, one of its missions is also to “advocate for the rights of people in need.”
Beyond humanitarian coordination, what is required in Kashmir today is underlining the urgency for some urgent political initiatives to ensure that the trouble in Kashmir does not spill over to the larger South Asian region. That urgency would come if there are credible situation reports from a body like the OCHA, which are taken more seriously by the international community. Today Kashmir needs situation reports by impartial international actors who would depict the real humanitarian situation there.
Although the European Commission (EC) some days back announced an emergency aid of 2 million euros ($2.5 million) for the victims of the conflict in Jammu and Kashmir, it was not a special initiative in response to the current situation. The EU’s low scale humanitarian aid for Kashmir has been pouring in for some eight years now, addressing the longer term impacts of the conflict.
The UN Resolution 46/182 which serves as the basis of the OCHA mandate is clear that the “responsibility for people affected by emergency lies – first and foremost - with their respective states”. But it also says that the “states in need are expected to facilitate the work of responding organizations.” Given the UN’s recognition of Kashmir as a disputed territory, the definition of the governing ‘State’ cannot be normal in meaning and scope.
There are people who argue that since there is no UN OCHA office in India, its ambit of work cannot be extended to Kashmir. That is not a convincing argument. UN OCHA has directly and indirectly responded to many emergency situations in India. One example is the Gujarat earthquake.
Then there is a full-fledged UN OCHA office in Pakistan, whose area of work includes Pakistan Administered Kashmir (PAK). UN OCHA has played, and continues to play, a key role in the coordination of the government and the international emergency response efforts in PAK.
The UN OCHA has a strong presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (OPT) as well. Humanitarian actors, donors, and diplomatic missions alike rely on OCHA for its wide range of information and analytical products in the OPT. These include bridging the gaps in humanitarian needs, weekly and monthly humanitarian updates, briefings and field tours. One of its key functions is the regular reporting on the overall humanitarian situation, and routine monitoring, reporting on, advocating for, and facilitating humanitarian access in the OPT.
Looking at the dire humanitarian situation in Kashmir today, especially the highly inadequate infrastructure to treat the casualties, UN OCHA has a strong case in Kashmir. Its case is also strong for the fact that people are dying for lack of timely medical aid and treatment. The death of two women last week just because their travel to hospital was hindered by troopers serves as a grim reminder. There must be many more instances which go unreported.
The policy of widespread detainment of civilians, including children, on frivolous charges is also a matter of serious concern. These state actions raise serious questions related to juvenile justice. The detainment of prominent human rights defender and President of Kashmir High Court Bar Association, Mian Qayoom, on highly questionable charges, is a grave matter too.
All these matters where the rule of law has hit a low of unacceptable limits in international law deserve international attention. And UN-OCHA could just be apt to do that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)