Ashraf Jehangir Qazi*
*The author is a former Ambassador of Pakistan.
The new phase of oppression in IOK began with Narendra Modi becoming Prime Minister in 2014, five years before August 5, 2019, when he abolished Articles 370 and 35A of the Indian Constitution that guaranteed the autonomous status of IOK. On August 11, 2019, a week later, the world-renowned NGO, Genocide Watch, which supports the implementation of the Convention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide that was approved by the UNGA in December 1948, issued a Genocide Warning regarding IOK. It said the process of genocide in IOK was far advanced in many respects.
More than two years later, an India Genocide Warning was issued by Genocide Watch in December 2021. According to it, “India has positioned over 600,000 troops who are arresting, torturing, raping and killing Kashmiri citizens. Police encounters and forced disappearances are routine. Movement of people and freedom of the press are restricted. The government cuts off internet communications in Kashmir to stop news of atrocities from spreading. Hindutva leaders openly incite genocide against Indian and Kashmiri Muslims.” Arundhati Roy says the number of Indian troops and security personnel in IOK today is 900,000.
Genocide Watch defines genocide as a ten-stage process. According to its founder and director, Dr Stanton, the organization “does not wait to issue a Genocide Warning until it becomes a full out mass killing campaign.” The Genocide Warning described the Modi BJP government’s state sponsored attack on the Muslim community as comprising Stage 6 (i.e., Polarization); Stage 7 (i.e., Preparation); and Stage 8 (i.e., Persecution). Modi’s statements that his anti-Muslim laws were actually designed to “uplift the Muslim community,” were described as “perverse” and comprising Stage 10 (i.e., Denial) of the genocidal process.
Accordingly, Genocide Watch recommended: (i) the UN Special Rapporteur on Minority issues should investigate India’s discrimination against Muslims and report to the UN Human Rights Council; (ii) The Indian Supreme Court should appoint an Independent Commission to investigate the anti-Muslim pogroms of 2020 and incitements to genocide by Hindutva leaders in 2021; (iii) Indian Army troops and police who committed crimes in Kashmir should be prosecuted; (iv) Prime Minister Modi should order BJP leaders to stop stoking communal violence; and (v) Hindutva leaders who incite genocide against Muslims should be arrested and prosecuted.
In January 2022, Dr Stanton told a US congressional briefing that there were “early signs and processes” of genocide, adding, “we are warning that genocide could very well happen in India.” He drew parallels between the policies pursued by Modi and the discriminatory policies of Myanmar’s government against the Rohingya Muslims. He specifically referred to India’s Citizenship Amendment Act which granted citizenship to religious minorities but excluded Muslims. He said he warned the President of Rwanda of an impending genocide 5 years before 800,000 Tutsis and other Rwandans were massacred. Similarly, the time between Modi taking over as Prime Minister and the Genocide Alert on IOK was 5 years. Stanton warned the US ,“we cannot let what happened in Rwanda happen in India.”
Genocide in IOK actually began after partition when Muslim majority Jammu was transformed into a Hindu majority region through mass murder and organized expulsion. Much later, Genocide Watch began warning of a genocide in India in 2002 after the Gujrat massacre of more than 1000 Muslims, when Modi was Chief Minister. After Modi became Prime Minister, it noted “laws are being passed to criminalize Muslim religious practices, food habits and even businesses.”
Measures to progressively undermine the Muslim identity, culture and religion of IOK, to compel Muslim schoolchildren to sing Hindu religious songs, to alter the demographic structure of IOK, to increase the legislative representation of Jammu at the expense of the Valley, etc. are all parts of the ten-stage genocidal process. After August 5, 2019, Dr Stanton described the situation in IOK as “appalling” and very clearly “pre-genocidal.”
More than 1200 days have passed since August 5, 2019. There is no sign of political normalcy in IOK although India’s military yoke remains in place. How have the Pakistan leadership and the international community responded to this situation? What options need to be considered by Pakistan given the current context of climate change and its imminent and irreversible consequences; the risks of nuclear confrontation between India and Pakistan; the fragile economic situation, political unrest and insecurity in Pakistan; US policies of deepening strategic cooperation with India; and its dangerous confrontation with both Russia and China?
Pakistan’s policy stance on Jammu and Kashmir is in conformity with the UN Charter, UN resolutions, international humanitarian and human rights law, and the wishes of the majority of the Kashmiri people, especially with regard to the India and Pakistan options included in UN resolutions. Nevertheless, in IOK there is widespread support for a third option i.e., independence for which there is some support in AJK also. Pakistan and India have been in negative agreement against the third option for diametrically opposed reasons. Imran Khan, however, indicated indirect support for the third option when he was Prime Minister. Presumably he had consulted with the former Army chief.
India’s position and policies with regard to Jammu and Kashmir, however, are in violation of international law. Its unilateral change of the status of IOK violates UN resolutions and renders the Simla Agreement moot. It has thereby made restoration of a structured dialogue process with Pakistan next to impossible. This in turn renders an unstable peace between two hostile nuclear powers more fragile than ever.
International relations, however, are conducted on the basis of pragmatism and perceived national interests to a much greater extent than on principles, morality and international law. While the international community has made clear its distaste for India’s policies in IOK, none are prepared to sanction it for its crimes against humanity.
Moreover, the Kashmir dispute cannot be settled through war of any kind. The valiant people of the Valley continue to heroically and successfully resist Indian occupation in every possible way, including the sacrifice of well over 100,000 precious lives and the incarceration, rape, torture and murder of many, many more. But they know better than anyone that their sacrifices and their refusal to surrender can at best pave the way to a principled compromise settlement they can live with rather than inflict an outright military defeat on a gigantic military adversary such as India.
No matter what India’s provocations in IOK, none of the western powers will materially support Pakistan in a war with India, even if unilaterally provoked by India. This reluctance apparently extends even to our Arab brethren. As for China, it has no desire to be dragged into a war on behalf of Pakistan which would irretrievably push India into the US strategic camp. However, it will also not sit idly by if India launches an unprovoked attack on Pakistan which is an important strategic partner of China and hosts CPEC, the flagship of BRI.
India tries to influence Chinese perceptions that both Xinjiang and Kashmir are confronted with the challenge of “Muslim terrorism” – a core concern that led to the establishment of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO.) As for western powers, even in the event of an unprovoked Indian attack on Pakistan, they will at most confine themselves to criticizing Indian actions. They will be reluctant even to consider limited, temporary and ineffective sanctions. India is just too valuable a market and investment and strategic partner. Moreover, Indian communities in the US and UK are obviously extremely influential.
Pakistan’s nuclear deterrence is to an extent a strategic equalizer. But given Pakistan’s conventional vulnerability vis-a-vis India, its nuclear deterrent is seen by the international community as more likely to be resorted to and therefore more dangerous than India’s.
Nevertheless, Pakistan’s diplomacy has elicited stringent criticism and condemnation of India’s policies in IOK and towards its Muslim minority by many countries, in international forums and from international human rights organizations. This has, to a limited extent, moderated India’s repressive policies in IOK in order to minimize its international isolation which could complicate its strategic cooperation with the US and NATO countries. US criticism of Indian policy in Kashmir, however, has been muted. The US embassy in Delhi refers to IOK as ‘The Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir’. The US accuses Russia of genocide in Ukraine but refuses to do the same with respect to Indian atrocities in IOK.
The US, moreover, says Kashmir is a bilateral dispute between India and Pakistan to be settled through bilateral negotiations. However, it ignores the fact that when Pakistan tries to raise the Kashmir issue with India the latter claims it is an internal affair of India thereby precluding any possibility of negotiated progress. But to be absolutely blunt and truthful Pakistan’s poor international image has also assisted India’s success in escaping the consequences of its criminal policies in IOK. Even the finest diplomacy cannot compensate for a poor international image made worse by a poor domestic economy and the unfortunately widespread perception of a failing state. The current political situation in Pakistan sadly contributes to this perception. Our Kashmiri brethren know this only too well.
Where do we go from here? War cannot provide a solution. The absence of dialogue impedes peace. Kashmir inflames public opinion in both India and Pakistan. A managed public opinion in both countries harbours utterly negative mutual perceptions that do not make rational and principled compromise easy or politically rewarding. As long as India refuses to revisit its decision of August 5, 2019, and end its genocidal policies in IOK meaningful, sustained and structured dialogue will remain unlikely.
Nevertheless, given the state of the world, the climate imperative, and the ticking of the Doomsday Clock, Track 2 or Track 1.5 conversations must continue even if they do not initially contribute to any progress on Kashmir. Some trade, travel, tourism, cultural, sporting and people to people exchanges should, however, continue. By and large Indians know next to nothing about Pakistan, its people, and why they think the way they do about India and Kashmir. Much the same for Pakistanis about India. The influential urban middle classes of both countries are probably most remiss in this respect.
Bilateral and regional talks on issues of regional and bilateral concern are essential if the people of South Asia and neighbouring regions are to survive the 21st century in any viable shape. Climate imperatives, nuclear doctrines, malicious misinformation, negative narratives and stereotypes, etc. need to be addressed through confidence and security building measures which can pave the way towards constructive dialogue on outstanding issues, including Jammu and Kashmir.
It will be equally imperative for the leadership of Pakistan to maintain the confidence of the Kashmiri people in the credibility of Pakistan’s Kashmir policy. This will not be easy because of the difficulties of communication with the Kashmiri leadership in IOK. Even so, the confidence of the Kashmiri people cannot be strengthened through empty posturing or communicating back-channel assurances to the Indians that contradict publicly stated positions. Such doings can neither fool nor assure Kashmiri opinion. On the other hand, Pakistan must ensure that it does not inadvertently or irresponsibly add to the suffering of the Kashmiri people by allowing the Indians to claim their repression in IOK is counter-terrorism. The credibility of Pakistan’s commitment to the goal of a principled compromise settlement of the Kashmir dispute that is verifiably acceptable to the majority of the Kashmiri people must at all times be maintained.
