Dr. Sheikh Waleed Rasool.
To bridge the gap between the speculative intellect and the practical intellect demands fresh emphases in Pakistan India relationship with respect to Kashmir in order to blaze the trail. In thrust of the global narrative of war on terror and its spillover effects upon the Pakistan and Kashmir dispute is gray area which boosted to halt the talks in 2014 by India unliterary. It is just to bite the bullet to know how Kashmir can be put on global radar needs bone up when Islamabad is caught in catch-22 situations and Kashmir keeps boiling. To carry the ball of peace rolling in present era of globalization, it is compulsion that people who are at the helm of affairs need to understand the dynamics of world order in post 9/11 scenario and geography, therefore, in current geopolitical order Pakistan has to go extra miles while as Kashmir’s expectations are high which is all but natural because Pakistan is not only moral, diplomatic and political supporter of dispute but a legitimate party as per UNSC resolutions.
It is not cock and bull story that interpretation of terrorism in post 9/11 have engulfed Kashmir though initially its side effects were kept at bay in Kashmir but did not sustained the Indian perusal in long run in corridors of world power. Terrorism is global phenomena so Pakistan was not having enough resources to cap its spillover effects because the successive governments proved fluid to understand the dynamics of international narrative and its effects on Kashmir issue. It is million dollar question on the bases of inductive knowledge what Islamabad can do at eleventh hour when present PML-N regime is about to expire in few months. On the canvass of geopolitical setting it is not enough what we assume in domestic environment as world as cool as cucumber because morality should not confused with state behavior.
“Kashmir and Kashmir’s need prompt diplomatic support at this odd hour when twenty Kashmir’s people had been massacred in single day”
It is absurd to confuse the reality with emotionalism when one knows that interpretation of peace had been changed globally its immediate result was that none of the peace brokers took the notice when India halted the talks in 2014 taking the plea that Ambassador shall not meet resistance leaders in New Delhi though it was routine practice. Aristotle defined that there is mega distance between knowing and doing particularly when the matter falls in state domain and foreign policy making. It do not need any rocket science to understand that Indian state terrorism is now routine practice in Kashmir and Kashmir’s need prompt diplomatic support at this odd hour when twenty Kashmir’s people had been massacred in single day. How human rights violation committed by occupational forces can be put in global radar demands an institutional organized mechanism and back up run by state who understand the sensitivities of global order. “David hume” had drawn a linear relationship between knowing and doing. Kashmiris and Pakistanis Know Kashmir is disputed territory having legitimacy in 5th Jan 1949 UNSC resolutions and absolute majority of Kashmir’s are against the Indian rule in occupied Kashmir.
The logicality and morality supports Kashmir’s position but territorial control is in hands of India which matters when she is interested in land not its habitants therefore how to achieve an objective in presence of other intervening variables had deep roots in geopolitics. Therefore you need to fine tune the things in harsh reality though it is entirely the domain of state. Though, 9/11 episode had no direct relationship with Kashmir issue however India succeeded to club it. India invested in manipulation of 9/11 scenario in her favor to give the freedom movement the bad name. Pakistan afghan relations added fuel to fire and gave India wide room to manipulate. Therefore to seek the deductive reasoning has logical and necessary truths like that of mathematics or metaphysics. In the canvas of geo-political regional compulsions it is speculative intellect that one will seek the same methods of the resolution which were tried in 1947, 1965, and 1971 when nukes were not the in stockpile of India and Pakistan. Now both speculative and the practical intellect had strong relationship that none among India and Pakistan are in position of war, therefore, the only route is to negotiate which is unilateral desire of Pakistan and Kashmir’s because present circumstances favor India and she knows it.
“Pakistan is non NATO ally and frontline state against terror and victim of terrorism but could not manage to keep these side effects away from Kashmir struggle”
It is evident that atomic deterrence bridged the equilibrium which brought the statuesque initially it favored Pakistan because she could have never been bridged the parity in conventional warfare but it also favored India in Kashmir because statuesque manages the resistance though by compulsion. Experts here need the empirical knowledge to get the result on the bases of deduction. Now, current spell of indigenous resistance of the Kashmir is between the forces of statuesque and the actors of anti- statuesque. The statuesque at India and Pakistani level has strong relationship with the actors in Kashmir, though legal legitimacy favors the right to self determination but Indian insistence of statuesque has stimuli in present global order in post 9/11 scenario which raised the quantum of hype to fight war on terror at optimum level. Though, Pakistan is non NATO ally and frontline state against terror and victim of terrorism but could not manage to keep these side effects away from Kashmir struggle. Therefore, the value judgments which derive from an accumulation of historical facts have always affected the human emotions and the intuitions but politics is game of opportunity India successfully fished in troubled waters of Kashmir. In terms of “Hume”. Politics and morals must be always inextricably bound with values judgments and hence both deductive and empirical knowledge fills the gap. We need to think beyond conventional wisdom as policy makers usually are concerned with empirical, inductive knowledge derived from the primary data.
“To bring India on negotiation table has remote chances in current expired regime of Pakistan and coming elections in India”
It is ground reality that India has more levers in hand and while as indigenous freedom struggle has lone leverage i.e. support of Pakistan. Indian main thrust is to manage the conflict in Kashmir and to keep Pakistan at bay while making LoC hot and balancing Pakistan in Baluchistan and Afghanistan. Containing resistance with iron fist and putting Kashmir’s in pressure cooker of ruthless war machine and milking 9/11 scenario by robust foreign policy while enhancing the political constituency in domestic politics of Kashmir.
The question on the bases of the inductive knowledge arises what Islamabad can do in catch-22 situation at eleventh hour when present PML-N regime is about to expire in few months. The engagement between India and Pakistan is not in cards in present circumstances because the new alignment had changed the regional dynamics as Pakistan US relations are all time low which is compulsion of Pakistan to balance. To bring India on negotiation table has remote chances in current expired regime of Pakistan and coming elections in India.
Therefore the outlook of Kashmir needs to be shaped in new regional realities while keeping hamming on human rights and humanitarian grounds with consistent lobbying by indigenous people since Kashmiri is not global actor therefore she is not simply unit of analysis. Again responsibility lies on sole legal party who shall emerge as regional actor while fetching her dividend against war on terror to cream up the crop or getting rid of it, therefore, she shall focus on Kabul is pragmatic approach as it has strong correlation with Kashmir issue who are in deep water particularly in post 9/11 scenario. At present date all routes of peace passes through Kabul to Kashmir because geographical location determines its problems therefore geography is conditioner of countries foreign policy.
The writer hails from Srinagar.
MSc, Mphil(MC), PhD (IR) Scholar
Accredited Journalist/Freelance Columnist, and can be reached at firstname.lastname@example.org