By Sarwar Kashani
European parliamentarian Baroness Emma Nicholson's "Report on Kashmir: Present Situation and Future Prospects" has been much deliberated upon through countless press reports on its controversial findings. Strongly criticised for being "biased", the report, after a few amendments, finally saw its way through the European Parliament in Strasbourg and was stamped as "credible".
News stories about it puzzled me a lot and aroused curiosity about what actually caused heartburns to pro-Pakistan lobbies (particularly in Europe) and a few leaders in Kashmir, who were hell-bent upon nullifying the report.
However, after I finally grabbed the copy of Nicholson's report recently, her findings didn't surprise me at all. What it stated sounded as obvious as the sun rising in the east and setting in the west.
What makes Nicholson's job a commendable one, however, is the fact she has been the first neutral interventionist who has documented – I repeat – documented the truth.
While the report in its subtlety and totality hits hard at Pakistan for the absence of representative democratic institutions and other political atrocities in Azad Jammu and Kashmir (as Pakistani Kashmir is known), particularly in the Northern Areas or Gilgit and Baltistan, it also criticises India for human rights violations and fake encounter killings by security forces in Kashmir.
The report regrets that Pakistan has consistently failed to fulfil its obligations to introduce meaningful and representative democratic structures in its Kashmir. It notes the fact that Azad Kashmir is governed through the ministry of Kashmir affairs in Islamabad, slapping Pakistani claims that its Kashmir enjoys more democratic rights than Indian Kashmir.
In Pakistani Kashmir, the chief secretary, the inspector-general of police, the accountant-general and the finance secretary are all nominated by Islamabad, which is enough to understand how 'azad' (free) Azad Kashmir is. Worse still, the 1974 interim constitution of so-called Azad Kashmir forbids any political activity that challenges the doctrine of Kashmir's accession to Pakistan – even as Pakistan keeps parroting that the whole of Kashmir is a disputed territory.
The situation in the Gilgit-Baltistan region, which doesn't elect its basic representatives, is for anyone to imagine. For 60 years, this strategically important area has been administered by Pakistan through imposed rulers. The Northern Areas has no political representation and no status under Pakistan's constitution. Instead, its affairs are subject to the control of non-elected ministers, selected by Islamabad.
Pakistan has been continuously crushing the growing resentment in this area, which borders Pakistan's North West Frontier Province to the west, Afghanistan and China to the north and Indian Kashmir to the east towards the Siachen glacier. However, a movement for independence there is now attracting a huge number of followers.
Pakistan has indeed supported Kashmiris for their right to self-determination but regardless of its lack of political representation, Islamabad has always regarded the Northern Areas as part of Pakistan.
Nicholson's documentation of this obvious truth was bound to cause heartaches to Pakistan and its loyal lobbies. However, the judicial crisis in Pakistan, the overwhelming support to suspended chief justice Iftikhar Mohammed Choudhary and the recent curbs on media have all validated her assertions and silenced the critics.
Drawing a fine balance and lending credibility to her suggestions, Nicholson deplores the human rights violations by the armed forces of India but hasn't forgotten to highlight the all too frequent incidents of terror and violence perpetrated by Pakistan-based armed militant groups.
Strongly urging both India and Pakistan to do all they can to address these violations, the report also asks Islamabad to take "much stronger and more effective measures" to curb infiltration across the line of control by militants operating out of territory under its control.
Fact-based criticism of India and Pakistan apart, the report also brings forward the little known longing of Kashmiris for economic development. Underlining the need to strengthen the economies of both the Kashmirs, it points out the "exceptional economic decline" of Jammu and Kashmir.
"…Jammu and Kashmir, in particular Azad Jammu and Kashmir, suffers from extreme poverty and neglect, with enormous deficiencies in basic literacy, access to healthcare…"
Bringing this reality home, the report urges India "to renew its focus on Jammu and Kashmir and including job creation and measures to promote tourism and examine how the EU-India partnership could help with the creation of new skill-based jobs, especially for youth" (in Kashmir). This is where the Nicholson report scores a point.
What the Kashmiri leadership, particularly the separatists, have been conveniently neglecting is the yearning of Kashmiri youths for economic freedom that has taken over their once dominant political aspirations. The point is indeed debatable but what draws me to this fact is my personal experience of talking to youth during an OXFAM-sponsored research project "Impact of Violence on Student Community in Kashmir" – undertaken during 2002-03.
The field-based interviews with students woke me up to the truth, which until then I was oblivious to. The students (male as well as female) – after being convinced of the apolitical intention of my research – shared their feelings and spoke their hearts out while pining for jobs.
Today when I read through the Nicholson report seeking economic development in the region, I remember what the students deep down yearned for. Many of them would ask me: "Are you registering us for employment? Will you guarantee us some job?"
What could better represent the aspirations of both Kashmirs than Nicholson's report? Whether she is anti-India or anti-Pakistan I don't know, but I say it with certainty that her report is pro-Kashmiri.
(Sarwar Kashani, a journalist from Jammu and Kashmir, can be contacted at [email protected]. The views expressed are personal.)