Travelling to Pakistan is always a momentous experience. It begins with the offer to participate in an event – this time it was the international NGO Pugwash that was holding a conference on Kashmir – as it is still not possible, after 67 years, to apply for a tourist visa. Then comes the excruciating wait for a visa, which finally arrives. (There are those in the conference who have been refused a visa as well as those who thought it better not to come even when they got a visa.) The ultimate joke is the huge infrastructure that has been built at Wagah border, at least on the Indian side, in anticipation of the opening of tourism and trade. Last Saturday morning, there were only two of us, foreigners, while bored immigration officials drank endless cups of tea and smoked the hookah.
Inside Pakistan, the talk is about Nawaz Sharif government’s offer to talk to the Tehreek-i-Taliban Pakistan and other militant outfits who are challenging the writ of the state on Pakistan’s north-western borders. The dialogue offer is so violently contested that cries of selling out to militants dominate the sound waves. The government defends its dialogue offer to talk to “our people” – the militants are citizens of Pakistan too, it argues – before using force to bring them around. The opposition cries foul, asking why the conditions for dialogue are so weak and infirm and indeed, wishy-washy?
The state of affairs is called ‘déjà vu’, a French term to describe a state of mind that, literally, means “already seen.” For a visiting Indian journalist, like me, attending a conference on Kashmir, it is surprising that the war on terror, now in its 12th year, is still dividing Pakistan’s intelligentsia down the middle. As for Kashmir, what’s that?
The reason for the ‘deja vu’ is to do with the way the Indian government has dealt with both militants and insurgents, whether in Kashmir or north-eastern India or across the central Indian heartland where Naxals have challenged the writ of the Indian state. In Kashmir for example, since the insurgency began 24 years ago, thousands have been killed and tortured, while thousands are still missing. And how has the Indian state dealt with this insurgency? With such a heavy hand that Kashmir, said to be this most beautiful paradise south of Heaven, continues to reel with the prolonged dose of injustice.
Watching Pakistanis criticise their own government for not immediately launching a military operation in Waziristan reminds me of the time Pakistanis criticised the Indians when they cracked down on the militancy in Kashmir.
The Indian state’s terrible record of human rights abuse in Kashmir will never stand up in a court of law, no matter in whose defence these were perpetrated. But as one participant in the Pugwash conference pointed out, why did Pakistan motivate and stoke the insurgency in Kashmir only to abandon it as it got mired in its own militancy nexus within? And as a second participant asked, why did Pakistan intervene in what was a spontaneous Kashmiri uprising against the Indian state?
According to the second participant, Kashmiris were already moving against their own government, especially after the fraudulent elections of 1985, but why did the Pakistani state interfere and intervene? By going beyond its brief in Kashmir, the Pakistanis gave the Indian army and paramilitary an excuse to hit back so much harder and consolidate its control over Kashmir, he argued.
Published in The Express Tribune, October 7th, 2013.
Like Opinion & Editorial on Facebook, follow @ETOpEd on Twitter to receive all updates on all our daily pieces.
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
just becoz some individual got visa and try to impress across the border that they are intellectual should remind one thing "truth will emerge in any case". that is our country's motto satyameva jeyete" truth alone triump..the so called non state actors,jehadis,lashkar,TTP will swallow the whole Pakistan infront of our eyes.Thank god ordinary citizen of india understood very well about the nexes between the pak agencies and terror outfits,our politician cannot deny or fake the real pak threat.
ICC also means " International Criminal Court".
@jagars - LOL!!! That was hilarious!!!
@bashir: If you are so impressed, it would be encouraging if someday Pakistan can send in some of its journalists to India highlighting the plight of Balochistan to an Indian Audience or misuse of colonial FCR in their tribal lands.
@Ali Tanoli: ICC? Cricket? Tho I am convinced that BCCI is like Al-Qaeda as far as putting its profit motive above all else is concerned, not sure what ICC can do about Kashmir problem.
Funny but truth is where is ICC in the world they cant see human rights abuses or dont wanna see, or might be what big criminals show them.??
in a recent interview, Hafiz Saeed responding to a question on how many jihadis have died on the Kashmir front since 1989 said without hesitation - 6000. While my heart definitely goes out to innocent kashmiris caught in the crossfire, a concerted infiltration from Pakistan's side had to be met with a heavy hand - or would you have preferred the mess Pakistan finds itself in today?
JUST ask an average Indian or Indian middle class what does he think of pakistan.......u all pakistanis will get the answer....and am not joking am giving u straight forward answer.......just go anywhere in India and say i am a pakistani..then u will see the love of people of India...it might be u might never see pakistan again..as Indians are very good a giving respect to MEHMAN.....
Those who got the visa and didn't go seem to be the smartest of the lot. Such casual intra-bourgeoisie conferences are nothing but a waste of time and money.
I am impressed that the Author has called a spade a spade - that the Indian State's record of human abuse in Kashmir will never stand in a court of law (their reign of terror continues to this day). Equally well said, that the Pakistani nation is divided to the middle, in their response to militants on our side. What we need is a true leader to combine a strategy of combined dialogue and armed action(because there will be no peace, if we stick to only one of these options).