Jihad Movement in Kashmir: Dangers and Prospects

The Jihad Movement in Kashmir has entered a critical and decisive phase. The signals that are coming from Indian rulers, American statesmen, and even our own rulers make it imperative to analyze the current situation in the light of global trends, twists and turns of colonial politics, and conditions prevailing in the country; to identify the dangers the Pakistani nation and the movement for independence in Kashmir are faced with. Moreover, it is also necessary to give an outline of the required strategy for facing these conditions so that future opportunities can be availed of.

The issue of Kashmir is not merely territorial. This is an issue of saving the jugular vein of Pakistan and a question about independence, security, and ideological and religious future of 12 million people. The principle and the formula under which Pakistan and India achieved freedom from the British rule in 1947 apply for determining the permanent status of the State of Jammu & Kashmir. India is in the occupation of a big portion of the State in violation of the United Nations’ Resolution and its own pledges and guarantees. For the last 53 years, it has been wreaking atrocities on the Muslims of the occupied Jammu & Kashmir under the yoke of injustice. The people of Jammu & Kashmir, whose overwhelming majority is devout Muslim and loves Pakistan, have never accepted this colonial occupation even for a moment. They have been waging a political struggle against this since the Day One. In July 1947, the Muslim Conference, which was the representative body of the people of Jammu & Kashmir, had openly announced for accession to Pakistan. When the Dogra rulers and the Indian leadership tried to conspire for establishing military control on the people, they revolted and got one-third of the State liberated. The popular political struggle continued even after UN intervention and cease-fire under the world body, until the system of oppression and suppression resulted in a situation where there was no option but to start Jihad. This Jihad is continuing since 1989 and this is the result of this Jihad that Indian rulers have now started talking about ‘some solution’. Efforts were made during this whole period to raise the world opinion and shake up and awaken the conscience of humanity, but the game of interests and colonial designs made the big powers and world bodies blind and heartless. No serious attempt was made to stop the savagery of 700,000 Indian troops. Pakistani nation and governments did what they could for their Kashmiri brethren by way of support to their struggle, and it is because of the sacrifices of Kashmiri mujahideen and patience and fortitude that India now talks about Ramazan and cease-fire. Otherwise, neither Ramazan had come for the first time nor had Jihad begun in 2000; nor is the APHC a new creation that is being discovered (in pieces and selectively).

Pakistani nation and Kashmiri Muslims are all for peace, but peace is not merely the absence of war. Peace can be achieved only on the basis of truth and justice. Cease-fire is not the issue, the issue is to remove those causes and conditions that have compelled the Muslims of Jammu & Kashmir to rise in arms against the Indian military onslaught. India is interested only in releasing the pressure of Jihad while Jihadi and popular forces have a judicious solution of the Kashmir issue as their target so that the people of Kashmir could decide about their political future with their free will to be ascertained through a plebiscite under the international auspices according to the UN resolutions. Thus, the start of talks is not the real issue. There have been scores of rounds of talks during the past 50 years, and all have been inconclusive. Only such talks could prove useful as focus the real problem and are held in such a framework as may lead to the solution of the problem. The 50-year long history of Pak-India relations is witness to the fact that India sought cease-fire or talks only when it became impossible for it to bear the pressure on it. It has used such tactics only to relieve itself of pressure. India had played the same game in 1949 and 1962, and the United Nations, America and Britain provided to it the umbrella for shelter. In Tashkent and Simla Accords solution of the Kashmir issue was promised through talks, but 35 and 28 years lapsed in vain hopes and no meaningful talks could take place. If, in spite of all these experiences, the pressure of Jihad is lessened or brought to a close under American pressure or on the basis of Indian pledges, then results cannot be different from those of the past. It is, therefore, needed to take into account the situation correctly and an effective strategy is drawn up in the light of experiences of our own and of the world.

REASONS FOR CONCERN: Refreshing the basic facts in mind is essential for developing an understanding of the current phase of the Kashmir issue, and dangers and prospects in the future.

First, the real issue is of the future of the State of Jammu & Kashmir and its permanent status. Though India may keep repeating ad nauseum that Kashmir is its integral part, Jammu & Kashmir is a disputed territory whose disputed nature UN, European Union, OIC all have accepted, and even India has admitted in the past that it needs a solution. Above all, the Muslims of Jammu & Kashmir have got this fact accepted with their blood-soaked witness. Then, the matter is not about the Line of Control (LoC) and making it an international border, it is about giving an opportunity to the entire State, which was a political unit and still is so, to decide its future. Thus, there are four parties to the conflict: India, Pakistan, Kashmiri people, and the United Nations. The UN Resolutions provide that legal, political, and ethical framework through which the Kashmiri people can decide their future. Tripartite talks are necessary, but their objective should be to do the needful for the implementation of the UN Resolutions, and not a start of a new debate.

Second, the basic point is that if India, especially its bigot BJP leadership, is showing its intention for talks, it is not because of change of heart or of aspirations. It is because of the circumstances that are the result of Jihad. This has three aspects:

1. Despite the forceful occupation for 53 years, unrestrained use of extraordinary military might especially for the last 12 years, and killing 70,000 – 80,000 innocent people, India has failed to suppress the will of the people of Jammu & Kashmir with its military power alone. It is now being admitted at every level that the Muslim people of Jammu & Kashmir are not ready to live with India in any situation or any condition. For India, therefore, there is no military solution to the problem. Its military leadership is openly saying this time and again, and the reports about the military itself tell quite clearly that rebellion, anxiety, psychological pressure, and dissatisfaction is increasing in the ranks and files of the military. Throughout the country, the feeling is that Kashmir can no longer be kept under occupation through mere use of force. Economically as well, this is proving to be a costly game. This is why there is all the clamor about finding a solution. But, instead of adopting a clear and straight path for the purpose, all effort is on releasing the pressure of Jihad and then finding a way that is politically beneficial to India and to catch the Kashmiris in yet another snare and Pakistan, too, cannot benefit from it. It is because of pressure of Jihad and becoming unbearable of the costs of keeping Kashmir under occupation that India is feeling compelled towards talks.
2. Pakistan’s principled stance and firm stand as well as its becoming a nuclear power along with India have forced India to thinking that it cannot achieve its objectives by increasing its war effort.
3. The new trend of the world opinion is forcing it to take interest in the Kashmir dispute just to make the region safe from the danger of nuclear war. World conscience was asleep, it was the show of nuclear capability that forced the P-5, G-7, and the UN Security Council to take interest in the issue. The U.S. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Henry Shelton has recently given expression to this when he said "the future of Asia would be decided on the high borders of Kashmir, on the floor of Tokyo stock exchange, and the economy regions of Shanghai and Hong Kong." In spite of this realization, the effort is not on seeing at the issue through its real perspective. Instead, the effort is to find out such an alternative way that may diffuse the issue. Nevertheless, international pressure is acting as a catalyst.

It is because of these three reasons that ‘some solution’ is being talked about and pressure on Pakistan is increasing with every passing day, which has assumed dangerous dimension especially for two accounts. One is that Pakistan’s economy is not in good health. Burden of loans, skyrocketing commodity prices, inflation, increasing unemployment, the stab of sanctions – extracting benefit from all these, the World Bank, International Monetary Fund, and the Asian development Bank are busy cornering the government. The military regime is doing all what it could for its international acceptability. Though the Chief Executive has repeatedly declared to stand firm on the principled stand on Kashmir, yet, along with this, begging India for talks, withdrawal of troops from the LoC for winning American pleasure, to announce ‘maximum restraint’ in reply to the so-called Indian cease-fire (though atrocities and oppression are continuing), to try to circumvent those organizations in the country that are engaged in Jihad, to coax APHC into holding bilateral talks with India, Foreign Office spokesman’s giving sort of mandate to the Hurriyet Conference, Foreign Minister’s lopsided statements, onslaught of retired armymen, intellectuals, and women of track II and track III diplomacy fame from India, and activities of people like Niaz A. Naik, and Dr. Mubashir Hasan and certain intellectual advice for ‘flexibility’ and ‘realism’ – add to the anxiety and worry and weaken the position on the principled stand.

In this entire perspective, the need is to understand that what is meant by the so-called ‘Oslo Process’, and what are its implications for the Kashmir issue.

Like the Kashmir issue, the issue of Palestine is also a gift of the United Nations and 53 years old. Both issues precipitated in war for three times. This is quite another thing that in the case of Palestine, Israel got complete upper hold in 1956, and 1967 and partial one in 1972 whereas Pakistan though faced defeat in 1971 but because of defense in 1965 and then because of war-games of 1987 and then with going open about its nuclear capability in 1998, our performance remained quite different from that of Arabs. By the grace of Allah, Pakistan’s is a strong position and maintains a détente against any aggression.

The Camp David process was started in 1978 and the Oslo process in 1993, it came to a close in 2000 and the Palestinians had to launch Intefada al-Aqsa that has infused a new spirit in the Palestine issue and Israeli tanks and helicopters are becoming quite helpless before the stone-throwing youths. It seems appropriate that important aspects of this process are explained so as to benefit from the Palestine experience. The main points of what is called the Camp David / Oslo process are:

1. Instead of a comprehensive and all-inclusive solution to the Palestine problem, the main issue(s) are sorted out through an incremental and piecemeal approach. The main issue and its permanent nature are taken in the last. Confidence Building Measures are taken, peace is achieved in exchange of pieces of land, and thus a solution is arrived at slowly and in a long time.
2. The United Nations Resolutions are put on the back burner, and new solutions are discovered through talks.
3. International institutions and other governments are kept out, only Israeli and Palestinians try to find a solution with American assistance. Other Arab countries are excluded one by one, though they all should separately enter into agreements with Israel. They have peace agreements with Israel and accept Israel’s existence as legitimate. They, however, should have no role in resolving the Palestine issue, which should be resolved through bilateral talks.
4. The establishment of Palestine State and the issues of the status of Jerusalem and sovereignty are delayed while the issues of limited powers, partial control, economic development, and trade are solved first.
5. ‘Elimination of Terrorism’ is made the most important issue. The Palestinian Authority is, thus, obligated to guarantee Israel’s protection and reign in Jihadi forces. The freedom movement is likened to ‘terrorism’, and peace and Israel’s security are brought under a joint sovereign strategy.
6. During this long peace process, Israel had the opportunity to erect new settlements in Arab lands and while it could retain control and sovereignty over 78 percent of Palestine (i.e. since before 1976), the control of only 3 percent and then of 27 percent of the remaining 22 percent, which consists of the Gaza Strip and West Bank, was to be handed over (without sovereignty) to Palestinians. Practically however, Palestinians have achieved only 40 percent of the West Bank and 80 percent of the Gaza Strip from the 22 percent of what is left of Palestine. The rest is still occupied by Israel. Since the Camp David and Oslo Accords, almost 200,000 Jews have inhabited Israeli settlements. This is the practical shape of the incremental approach!
7. Extraction of new concessions from Palestinians at every new phase, and Palestinians’ political, military and economic dependence on Israel.
8. Delaying final stages by 3 to 6 years and keeping suspended the real issue of Palestine’s sovereignty, status of Jerusalem, and the return of five million Palestinian refugees.
9. New ideas were presented continually throughout this entire process. For example, ‘control without sovereignty’, ‘joint sovereignty’, ‘divided sovereignty’ – though these are mere well-sounding words and illusions.

Palestinians and even the Western nations are now admitting after the experiments for two centuries that this all was in the interest of Israel and that Arabs could achieve nothing except defeat and humiliation. Recently, Sharon himself said: "Oslo is dead." The opinion of two other Western analysts is also worth pondering.

Robert Fisk, who is correspondent of the daily Independent, London, for the Middle East and is considered expert on world politics, writes:

It was the year the lies ran out; the year the words "peace process" and the phrase "back on track", the word "disputed" and the phrase "sort of sovereignty" period to be as meretricious as their overtures by state department diplomats and journalists. Against the injustice of Oslo "peace" agreement the continued occupation of Arab land, the refusal of Israel to give East Jerusalem back to the Arabs, and the ferocious extension of Jewish settlement building on Arab land, the Palestinian rose up. (The Independent, Dec. 29, 2000)

And Prof. Edward Said, a Christian-Palestinian author and intellectual, was to say:

Our first duty as Palestinians is to close this Oslo chapter as expeditiously as possible and return to our main task, which is to provide ourselves with a strategy of liberation that is clear in its goals and well defined in practice. South Africa apartheid was defeated only because black as well as whites fought it. (Dawn Jan 8, 2000)

The solution to the Palestine issue is not through Oslo, but through Intefada. The correspondent of the Guardian for the Middle East thus sums up the resolve of the Arab world:

This second Intefada has allowed the Palestinians to seize the initiative from the Israelis for the first time in years. The Palestinian leadership is thus both stronger and more constrained in what it can do than before. Palestinians in general, and some of the younger more radical leaders in particular, as well as the fundamentalists are more determined, after their sacrifices of recent months, not to accept anything that might be deemed a sell out. (The Guardian, Martin Woollacott. Dec. 29, 2000)

The doomed Oslo process and the rejuvenating Intefada in Palestine serve as a warning to the freedom movement in Kashmir as well as clairvoyance for the protection and growth of Jihad movement. Leah Rabin, widow of the slain Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, has admitted in clear words in her husband’s biography "Rabin: Our Life, His Legacy" that as Commander-in-Chief Rabin employed every method of oppression and suppression against the Intefada but ultimately reached the conclusion that Israel can not subjugate a nation that is not willing to live under it, and that this was the thing that led him to recognize the Palestinians’ right to self-determination.

It is the verdict of history that only those who can offer sacrifices for freedom can achieve and protect it. According to an Arabic adage ‘it takes iron to cut iron’. Talks after giving up Jihad prove futile. By weakening Jihad, you can only become easy prey to your enemy. But when your military pressure is effective, your principled stance is firm, your ranks are united, and your vision is mature, then you remain dominant and victorious on the negotiation table as well. Otherwise, the victory that is achieved in the battlegrounds could turn into defeat on the negotiation table.

In the backdrop of the ever increasing American interest in the Kashmir issue and, along with this, its friendship with India and fast growing ‘strategic partnership’, softening of sanctions that were imposed after the nuclear tests (while the same have been further hardened for Pakistan), Indo-Israel relations and rapid increase in not only economic but also in military and secret affairs, visits by important figures, and cooperation and joint strategy against so-called terrorism, dangers of imposing ‘Oslo process’ are imminent. The irony is that while Palestinians are burying the hatchet of Oslo, some Kashmiri and Pakistani intellectuals have become its preachers.

If the Pakistan government, the nation, and Kashmiri leadership take this lesson and resolve to secure their rights through the force of Jihad, and not through Oslo-like agreement with India, then they would emerge successful. An Arab News correspondent has quoted a comment of one Altaf Hussain, a 21-year old student from Srinagar, which outweighs hair-splitting reviews of our Foreign Office and many of the intellectuals:

Altaf Hussain applauded the Kashmiri groups snub to New Delhi’s initiative. It is a very good move to counter the Indian plan of sabotaging our ongoing freedom struggle. History teaches us not to trust India. (Arab News, Nov. 24, 2000)

Our advice to the government, Foreign Office, leaders of mujahideen, and Hurriyet Conference leaders would be that they enter must into talks with India, but keeping in mind the Palestinians’ experience of Oslo, keeping the pressure of Jihad at certain level, by consolidating their unity and political force, by being firm on their principled stance, without deflecting from their legal and political base, by taking their people into confidence, focusing on the real and central issue instead of any piecemeal or incremental approach, and eyeing for a comprehensive package through trilateral and not bilateral talks.

                          Index Isharat               Top

Translation and adaptation of the editorial of Tarjuman Ul Quran February 2001.