[Reader-list] Kashmir - the elephant in the room

[Wali Arifi]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article5566533.ece

 January 22, 2009
 World Agenda: Kashmir - the elephant in the room In our latest daily
column, the Times' Delhi bureau chief says India must not ignore Kashmir
when searching for explanations for extremism
 Jeremy Page

Arrogant, ham-handed, startling, impertinent – these are the sort of words
used here, with reason, to describe David Miliband's comments on the Mumbai
attacks last week.

There is another word, though, that applies equally well: correct.

Of course it was impolitic to contradict Manmohan Singh, the Prime Minister,
by saying that Britain does not believe the Pakistani state directed the
Mumbai attacks.

As for suggesting that the root cause of such attacks is Kashmir, surely the
FCO recalls India's outrage in 1997 when Robin Cook suggested mediating on
that issue?

For the current Foreign Secretary of the former colonial ruler to make both
these points publicly, while on Indian soil, was either deliberately
provocative or incredibly naive.

Mr Miliband also managed to cause offence with his tone and body language –
a schoolboy error in dealing with a notoriously sensitive partner.

The fact remains, however: he was spot on.

Indian officials admit in private that there is no evidence yet of a direct
link between Mumbai and the Pakistani state, even if they are sure that it
played a role.

More significantly, most regional experts agree with Mr Miliband that
"resolution of the dispute over Kashmir would help deny extremists in the
region one of their main calls to arms".

For too long, Kashmir has been the "elephant in the room" in the
international discourse on security in South Asia – and a stain on the
copybook of the world's largest democracy.

In 1948-9, the United Nations passed resolutions calling for a plebiscite in
Kashmir on whether it should join India or Pakistan.

Ever since, India has refused to comply and blocked international efforts to
resolve the issue, over which it has fought two of its three wars with
Pakistan.

Now that both have nuclear weapons, Kashmir is a legitimate concern for the
whole world, yet foreigners who bring it up are invariably shouted down.

India's media rarely challenges government policy there, while the foreign
media has been understandably focused on Pakistan and Afghanistan since
9/11.

As a result, few outside the region are even aware that India still has half
a million troops in Kashmir, making it one of the most heavily militarised
corners of the planet.

Or that by official estimates, more than 47,000 people have been killed
there since an uprising against Indian rule began in 1989 (rights groups put
the toll nearer 70,000).

Or that that Kashmir's four million Muslims routinely suffer arbitrary
arrest, torture and extra-judicial execution by security forces, according
to most rights groups.

Last year alone, at least 42 people were killed by security forces in
protests against Indian rule. By comparison, 22 people were killed in the
anti-China riots in Tibet in 2008.

Kashmir's problems do not justify the Mumbai attacks.

But in trying to prevent more attacks in India and elsewhere, it is
ludicrous to continue to ignore Indian policy in the region. The fact is
that Kashmir is the primary motivation for most terrorists in India and
Pakistan. It is also why Pakistan's spies maintain links with such people.

The real reason India is so upset is that Mr Miliband's words reflect the
thinking of President Obama, who plans to appoint a special envoy on South
Asia.

The idea is for this envoy to take a more holistic approach to the region,
including Kashmir, to address the concerns of all the major stakeholders.

It is a good idea and Mr Obama and his allies should continue to promote it,
however loudly India complains.