Turmoil in the region
As IoK, Afghan and the Middle East crises continue hitting the global front pages
The writer served as Executive Editor of The Express Tribune from 2009 to 2014
India-Occupied Kashmir (IOK), Afghanistan and the Middle East — three regional crises to hit the global front pages lately. Of the three, IOK is the immediate one for Pakistan. It is a problem for India and a dispute for Pakistan. A problem for India because even after 72 years, the biggest democracy in the world has failed to win the hearts and minds of the Kashmiris. Even when Articles 370 and 35(A) of the Indian Constitution were in force, New Delhi needed 700,000 troops to quell the Kashmiri intifada. That explains why even after the passage of over two months since his move, Modi dare not lift the lockdown with almost 100,000 troops enforcing the curfew.
The Indian PM is going about doing his “job” perhaps having deluded himself into believing that with time the world would accept as the new normal not only the continued lockdown but the territorial changes he brought about in IOK without consulting the people there.
The world at large and the people of IOK in particular, however, have rejected Modi’s new normal. It is taking time, but global pressure seems to be slowly gathering momentum against human rights violations in IOK. Even within India itself, the voices of dissent are growing louder. In a serious setback to Modi’s efforts to restart political activities in the disputed territory, India’s main opposition Congress has announced a boycott of local elections in IOK along with two other parties.
There is no way India can resolve its Kashmir problem without talking to IOK’s people. While doing so, Modi should advisedly keep in mind former BJP prime minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee’s promise of insaniyat, jamhooriyat and kashmiriyat to the people of Kashmir and also the setting of sky as the limit by another former Indian prime minister, PV Narasimha Rao, for Kashmir’s autonomy.
For Pakistan, Kashmir is a dispute. We could not settle it by going to wars with India — not even by sending non-state actors to IOK to turn the intifada into an armed struggle. Negotiations have also not helped because we had entered them with the sole purpose of getting India to offer us on a platter, what we could not win in the battlefield. For bilateral negotiations to reach an amicable settlement the two parties to the dispute need to enter talks prepared for trade-offs on the principle of give and take. We tested the limits of this principle when Manmohan and Musharraf negotiated a four-stage formula for resolving the Kashmir dispute. So, if and when the two countries meet next for bilateral negotiations, the Pakistani delegation should enter talks prepared with the maximum it is willing to concede and the minimum it will accept in return.
Afghanistan. The Soviets tried to make a socialist society out of a tribal one while the Americans have been trying to redesign it into a democratic one. Both failed because the graveyard of empires — British, Soviet and now one-in-the-making, the American — has ironically turned, lately, into a graveyard of Afghans themselves. Warning: there is no hope of lasting peace in tribal Afghanistan for decades to come.
America, a receding power trying desperately to hold on to its global hegemonic perch, has instigated the crisis in the Middle East. China, the ascending global power using geo-economics rather than geopolitics, is seen trying to promote economic well-being globally, and indirectly reducing the causes of global conflicts. China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) is therefore likely to influence positively, sooner rather than later, the happenings in the Middle East. China is already a member of the WTO and its currency is now part of the IMF’s Special Drawing Rights (SDR). The BRI with as many as six economic corridors covers as many as 70 countries, including in the Middle East. And since China consumes 12% of the world’s oil production and 50% of the world’s aluminum and steel productions, the yuan is likely to soon become a major settlement currency in place of the dollar.
Published in The Express Tribune, October 12th, 2019.
The Indian PM is going about doing his “job” perhaps having deluded himself into believing that with time the world would accept as the new normal not only the continued lockdown but the territorial changes he brought about in IOK without consulting the people there.
The world at large and the people of IOK in particular, however, have rejected Modi’s new normal. It is taking time, but global pressure seems to be slowly gathering momentum against human rights violations in IOK. Even within India itself, the voices of dissent are growing louder. In a serious setback to Modi’s efforts to restart political activities in the disputed territory, India’s main opposition Congress has announced a boycott of local elections in IOK along with two other parties.
There is no way India can resolve its Kashmir problem without talking to IOK’s people. While doing so, Modi should advisedly keep in mind former BJP prime minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee’s promise of insaniyat, jamhooriyat and kashmiriyat to the people of Kashmir and also the setting of sky as the limit by another former Indian prime minister, PV Narasimha Rao, for Kashmir’s autonomy.
For Pakistan, Kashmir is a dispute. We could not settle it by going to wars with India — not even by sending non-state actors to IOK to turn the intifada into an armed struggle. Negotiations have also not helped because we had entered them with the sole purpose of getting India to offer us on a platter, what we could not win in the battlefield. For bilateral negotiations to reach an amicable settlement the two parties to the dispute need to enter talks prepared for trade-offs on the principle of give and take. We tested the limits of this principle when Manmohan and Musharraf negotiated a four-stage formula for resolving the Kashmir dispute. So, if and when the two countries meet next for bilateral negotiations, the Pakistani delegation should enter talks prepared with the maximum it is willing to concede and the minimum it will accept in return.
Afghanistan. The Soviets tried to make a socialist society out of a tribal one while the Americans have been trying to redesign it into a democratic one. Both failed because the graveyard of empires — British, Soviet and now one-in-the-making, the American — has ironically turned, lately, into a graveyard of Afghans themselves. Warning: there is no hope of lasting peace in tribal Afghanistan for decades to come.
America, a receding power trying desperately to hold on to its global hegemonic perch, has instigated the crisis in the Middle East. China, the ascending global power using geo-economics rather than geopolitics, is seen trying to promote economic well-being globally, and indirectly reducing the causes of global conflicts. China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) is therefore likely to influence positively, sooner rather than later, the happenings in the Middle East. China is already a member of the WTO and its currency is now part of the IMF’s Special Drawing Rights (SDR). The BRI with as many as six economic corridors covers as many as 70 countries, including in the Middle East. And since China consumes 12% of the world’s oil production and 50% of the world’s aluminum and steel productions, the yuan is likely to soon become a major settlement currency in place of the dollar.
Published in The Express Tribune, October 12th, 2019.