International
Kashmir is different from Palestine: Najma
By Kesava Menon
KUWAIT CITY, FEB. 5. The Arab world does not unanimously view the Jammu and Kashmir issue as a replica of the dispute between the Israelis and Palestinians. Nevertheless, with the Arabs being extremely exercised over the definition of terrorism, India is at some risk that the Arab judgment on what constitutes terrorism might become a loose generalisation that could subsume the difference between the Kashmir and Palestinian issues.
In the Arab judgment, which has been pretty solidly formed, action taken by people living under foreign occupation, no matter how indiscriminately violent, does not constitute terrorism. This judgment has been formed with their minds focussed exclusively on Israel's occupation of Arab lands and the plight of the Palestinians.
Other issues of the Islamic world such as Chechnya, southern Philippines and Kashmir figure at best peripherally. This intense desire to have the stigmata of terrorism detached from the struggle of the Palestinians (or of the Lebanese Hizbollah) has manifested in the demand that the international community, meaning the West, define terrorism precisely.
The strength of the feeling in the Arab street is so strong that the leadership has had to echo it, with Egypt's President, Hosni Mubarak, being one of those who has expressed the view.
Several efforts to hold international conferences to arrive at a precise definition have been made. Although these have not succeeded so far, they are not likely to abate. It does not necessarily follow that the Arabs will, in the course of the diplomatic give and take associated with these efforts, take on board Pakistan's efforts to get Kashmir-related terrorism excluded from the definition.
But with the Arabs having already made a judgment that the activities to promote self-determination or end foreign occupation do not constitute terrorism, India has to make the case that such conceptualisations do not apply with regard to Kashmir. The parliamentary delegations sent abroad have been mandated to do just that.
The Deputy Chairperson of the Rajya Sabha, Najma Heptullah, was in Kuwait over the past three days to further this project. At a press conference here, Dr. Heptullah set out the basic points that India has to make in this debate.
Starting with the point that the killing of innocents constituted terrorism, she pointed out that the Kuwaiti leadership as well as the Palestinian Authority President, Yasser Arafat, agreed with this view.
Reiterating the accusations against Pakistan that it exported terrorism and responded to Indian overtures with further acts of terror to subvert Indian democracy, she said the only problem was that Pakistan was occupying one third of Jammu and Kashmir which was legally and constitutionally a part of India.
The fact that the above points were made by Dr. Heptullah, the effective head of the upper chamber of India's Parliament who happens to be a lady and a member of the minority community, should have served as a telling subliminal message. But subliminal messages do not really get through when the
recipient's attention is focussed elsewhere.
The context is one in which concepts such as democracy and the rights of civilians are seen as rhetorical weapons that are being used against the concepts of independence and the right to resist occupation. It is, perhaps, time for the Indian diplomatic offensive to concentrate on the concept of self-determination.
Once self-determination is clearly defined as the right of an individual or group to determine his or their own future, the Palestinian issue can be seen as distinctly different from the Kashmiri issue. The Palestinians as a group are unable to determine their own future because neither Israel nor the Arab countries will give them adequate access to the institutions of the State.
The Palestinians, therefore, need a State of their own. For all the faults of misgovernance with respect to Jammu and Kashmir, the Indian Constitution does give the people their right to control their own future.
The telling subliminal message in Dr. Heptullah's statements, made stronger by an allusion to other Indian Muslims who have risen to high positions and contributed to the country's progress, was that India's minorities do have the wherewithal to determine their own future. Perhaps it is time to spell out this message directly to the Kashmiris and their sympathisers outside.
Send this article to Friends by
E-Mail
International
|
