The events of 9/11 are important in the modern history. These events symbolized revival of gunboat diplomacy of cold war era. The difference related only in context of nature of the warfare. Previously it was pursued openly in the name of war against communism this time it is being done in a different pretext. Russia and China are re-emerging from the chaos in which they plunged while transforming from socialist economy to free market economy. Re-emergence of Russia and China is sought to be targeted indirectly. Different pretexts are used in different regions. NATO extended its membership to Eastern European Countries. Dismemberment of Yugoslavia was pursued with same intentions. Americans wanted to encircle its potential enemies while projecting terrorism as its target. The way Eastern Europe was brought under the umbrella of NATO same way Central Asia is also sought to be integrated with ‘free world’ of yester years. The reason for this expansion is to keep Russia away from Middle East and the Indo-Pak subcontinent. Whatever activity and deployment is taking place in Afghanistan and its vicinities is simply revival of Anglo-Russian rivalry of 19th century. While 9/11 provided a pretext for deployment of American troops within Afghanistan war on terror provides a justification for inflating their numbers and enhancement of their presence. After getting mauled and mutilated in Iraq, Americans have realized impossibility of their success without active and all out support of Pakistan. Pakistan on its part realizes weakness of NATO and its excessive logistic dependence upon it.
Safe perusal of American strategic objectives within Central Asia is impossible without active Pakistani involvement on two accounts. First Pakistani soil is needed for transportation of supplies to NATO forces in Afghan. Secondly Pakistani territory is indispensable for creating viable communication system from Central Asia to Arabian Sea. It is because of this realization of its indispensability that Pakistan has put a price for its cooperation with US in Afghanistan and Central Asia. The price tag is resolution of Kashmir problem. For quite some time, Pakistan did not convey it directly but elaborated it in terms of American strategic interests. For smooth transition of American logistics to Afghanistan the tribal areas of Pakistan are vital. Given the fact that these areas remain volatile on account of tribal culture and excessive presence of small arms the areas don’t remain safe without the presence of Pakistan army. Pakistan on its part pleads that it can’t deploy sufficient forces within these areas on account of presence of Indian army on its eastern borders. For having respite on eastern borders it pleads for resolution of Kashmir problem. The democratic party of United States seems to have developed receptiveness to the Pakistani point of view. It is because of this receptiveness that Obama and other democrats and their new administration have emphasized on resolution of Kashmir for the sake of peace in Afghanistan.
Miliband’s recent write up provides elaboration of the new Anglo-American understanding of the sub-continental polarization. Apart from this Miliband’s writings also reflect the realization of the mistakes committed by the Bush administration during its tenure. The war on terror was infested with an error of generalization. It treated every Muslim insurgency as manifestation of Osama bin Ladin’s Al-Qaida and responded to it on the same lines. Miliband in his article accepts this error of generalization and highlights the fact that all insurgencies within Muslim lands are because of local causes. These causes need to be addressed in order to overcome the insurgencies and block their transformation into breeding grounds for radicalization of Muslim youth. He has identified some of these local causes as occupation of Kashmir and Palestine. Miliband’s write up thus reflects transformation of Western understanding of Muslim issues. During Bush era Muslim world was perceived to be a monolith and sought to be dealt uniformly. Now Muslim world is understood in regional contexts and varying approach is contemplated to tackle it. Accepting writings of Milliband as reflection of policies of British foreign office is an indicator of the new approach.
After being taken by surprise by the level of dissent and alienation in Kashmir Indian state tried to deflect global attention from Kashmir through so called elections. It expected that this drama will work same way as it did in sixties. From Miliband’s write-ups it has become obvious that Indian efforts have not worked. The impact of demonstrations in Kashmir has not been erased and Kashmir continues to be in focus of the world community. This achievement has been facilitated by agitation during Amarnath controversy. Instead of treating it as an accomplishment some leaders and segments of civil society are opting a negative approach and creating hopelessness among masses. The leaders seem to be desperate for loosing chance of getting elected to legislature whereas confusion of some pseudo activists animates out of their passive collaborative attitude with the occupation. Instead of looking at the situation positively some seem to have been overtaken by the propaganda of Indian agencies. Negative portrayal on the part of some women political activists has little to do with realistic assessment of the situation. It might be reflection of individual frustration on account of indifference of Hurriyat towards the detained activists.
The leadership too is not coming up to expectation of masses by formulating a viable strategy to build up upon its achievements. Instead of formulating a programme of its own it seems to be waiting for some initiative on the part of adversaries so that it gets a pretext to react. It gives posture of a reactionary force waiting from one election to another election to initiate a boycott campaign. At times it gets ready for an agitation in response to an act committed by Hindu communalists elsewhere. Instead of degenerating into a desperate lot the leadership needs to shun its dormant behaviour and come up with a programme to capitalize on the mobilization of our society and the world at large. It is not Kashmiri leadership rather Indian state which should be worried and frustrated. Indian state finds no takers of its electoral stance. It has failed to sell elections as a solution to Kashmir problem. The world in spite of our failure to project a unified posture continues to be receptive to Kashmiri point of view. Indifference and hopelessness are not the attitudes which are relevant at this juncture. Those who fail to come out of this stalemate will do it at their own cost. Neither Kashmir nor the world is going to wait for them. Their inaction and undue desperation will only invoke one judgment from history i.e.
woh nadan gir gaye sajde mein jab waqte qayam aaya
Or
zamana bade goar se sun raha tha,
hum hi so gaye dastaan kehte kehte.
Safe perusal of American strategic objectives within Central Asia is impossible without active Pakistani involvement on two accounts. First Pakistani soil is needed for transportation of supplies to NATO forces in Afghan. Secondly Pakistani territory is indispensable for creating viable communication system from Central Asia to Arabian Sea. It is because of this realization of its indispensability that Pakistan has put a price for its cooperation with US in Afghanistan and Central Asia. The price tag is resolution of Kashmir problem. For quite some time, Pakistan did not convey it directly but elaborated it in terms of American strategic interests. For smooth transition of American logistics to Afghanistan the tribal areas of Pakistan are vital. Given the fact that these areas remain volatile on account of tribal culture and excessive presence of small arms the areas don’t remain safe without the presence of Pakistan army. Pakistan on its part pleads that it can’t deploy sufficient forces within these areas on account of presence of Indian army on its eastern borders. For having respite on eastern borders it pleads for resolution of Kashmir problem. The democratic party of United States seems to have developed receptiveness to the Pakistani point of view. It is because of this receptiveness that Obama and other democrats and their new administration have emphasized on resolution of Kashmir for the sake of peace in Afghanistan.
Miliband’s recent write up provides elaboration of the new Anglo-American understanding of the sub-continental polarization. Apart from this Miliband’s writings also reflect the realization of the mistakes committed by the Bush administration during its tenure. The war on terror was infested with an error of generalization. It treated every Muslim insurgency as manifestation of Osama bin Ladin’s Al-Qaida and responded to it on the same lines. Miliband in his article accepts this error of generalization and highlights the fact that all insurgencies within Muslim lands are because of local causes. These causes need to be addressed in order to overcome the insurgencies and block their transformation into breeding grounds for radicalization of Muslim youth. He has identified some of these local causes as occupation of Kashmir and Palestine. Miliband’s write up thus reflects transformation of Western understanding of Muslim issues. During Bush era Muslim world was perceived to be a monolith and sought to be dealt uniformly. Now Muslim world is understood in regional contexts and varying approach is contemplated to tackle it. Accepting writings of Milliband as reflection of policies of British foreign office is an indicator of the new approach.
After being taken by surprise by the level of dissent and alienation in Kashmir Indian state tried to deflect global attention from Kashmir through so called elections. It expected that this drama will work same way as it did in sixties. From Miliband’s write-ups it has become obvious that Indian efforts have not worked. The impact of demonstrations in Kashmir has not been erased and Kashmir continues to be in focus of the world community. This achievement has been facilitated by agitation during Amarnath controversy. Instead of treating it as an accomplishment some leaders and segments of civil society are opting a negative approach and creating hopelessness among masses. The leaders seem to be desperate for loosing chance of getting elected to legislature whereas confusion of some pseudo activists animates out of their passive collaborative attitude with the occupation. Instead of looking at the situation positively some seem to have been overtaken by the propaganda of Indian agencies. Negative portrayal on the part of some women political activists has little to do with realistic assessment of the situation. It might be reflection of individual frustration on account of indifference of Hurriyat towards the detained activists.
The leadership too is not coming up to expectation of masses by formulating a viable strategy to build up upon its achievements. Instead of formulating a programme of its own it seems to be waiting for some initiative on the part of adversaries so that it gets a pretext to react. It gives posture of a reactionary force waiting from one election to another election to initiate a boycott campaign. At times it gets ready for an agitation in response to an act committed by Hindu communalists elsewhere. Instead of degenerating into a desperate lot the leadership needs to shun its dormant behaviour and come up with a programme to capitalize on the mobilization of our society and the world at large. It is not Kashmiri leadership rather Indian state which should be worried and frustrated. Indian state finds no takers of its electoral stance. It has failed to sell elections as a solution to Kashmir problem. The world in spite of our failure to project a unified posture continues to be receptive to Kashmiri point of view. Indifference and hopelessness are not the attitudes which are relevant at this juncture. Those who fail to come out of this stalemate will do it at their own cost. Neither Kashmir nor the world is going to wait for them. Their inaction and undue desperation will only invoke one judgment from history i.e.
woh nadan gir gaye sajde mein jab waqte qayam aaya
Or
zamana bade goar se sun raha tha,
hum hi so gaye dastaan kehte kehte.
No comments:
Post a Comment