On Eve of 2 Years of Article 370 Move, Pak Slams India For Not Allowing Visit of Foreign Scribes

In Delhi, the unofficial assessment was that if Pakistan really wanted to offer journalists from India a tour, it could have used other, ‘third-country’ routes.

New Delhi: Ahead of the two-year anniversary of the reading down of Article 370, Pakistan has criticised India for not allowing Delhi-based foreign journalists to travel through the Wagah border for a sponsored visit that includes a journey to Pakistan Occupied Kashmir’s legislative assembly.

Two of Pakistan’s ministers and the country’s National Security Advisor issued statements through their official Twitter accounts, criticising India for paying lip service to freedom of press.

There was no official response from India’s Ministry of Home Affairs, which handles immigration issues. However, sources indicated that the Wagah border was closed following COVID-19 protocol, with the only exception made for ‘diplomats’.

Pakistani foreign minister S.M. Qureshi tweeted that India had denied permission to cross to five international journalists, which is “another damning indication of shrinking space for free speech and independent journalism under a dictatorial regime”.


Qureshi only noted that the journalists were scheduled to travel to an “Azad Kashmir assembly”.

The visit, of course, would have coincided with the second year anniversary of the change in constitutional status of Jammu and Kashmir by reading down Article 370 and bifurcating the erstwhile state into two Union Territories.

Also read: Between the Lines of Pakistan’s Kashmir Rhetoric is an Opening for Diplomacy

Pakistan information minister Fawad Chaudhary tweeted that the journalists would have attended a special assembly on August 5.


NSA Moeed Yusuf stated that India’s actions were that of an “insecure government” which did not want the world to be able to compare the situation between the two parts of Kashmir.


In Delhi, the assessment was that if Pakistan really wanted to offer journalists from India a tour, it could have used other, ‘third-country’ routes.

The input from officials also pointed out that Pakistan had been the first to close down all borders and travel from India. There were also no appetite to help Islamabad score points in time for the Article 370 decision’s anniversary.

A week ago, India had slammed the elections held in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir as an effort to “camouflage its illegal occupation”.

Pakistan’s ruling party, Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf had won a simple majority in the 53-member legislative body, whose elections were held in July. 

Also read: Pakistan Finalises Law to Award Provisional Provincial Status to Gilgit-Baltistan: Report

“India has lodged a strong protest with the Pakistani authorities on this cosmetic exercise, which has been protested against and rejected by local people. Such an exercise can neither hide the illegal occupation by Pakistan nor the grave human rights violations, exploitation and denial of freedom to the people in these occupied territories,” MEA spokesperson Arindam Bagchi said.

Pakistan has also planned to inaugurate a new Kashmir Premier League on August 6, which will comprise teams from cities in Pakistan-Occupied Kashmir. India’s cricket association, BCCI, has directed other foreign boards to not allow their players to participate in the tournament. If foreign players do take part in the new league, it would impair their commercial work in India, BCCI instructed, as reported by Indian media.

No Resolution in Sight, Kashmir’s Problems Are Being Increasingly Made Invisible

Who should Kashmiris turn to, the Supreme Court or the law of the land?

A month after Article 370 was revoked, how well is the Centre placed in the Union Territory?

All its claims for an incremental return to “normalcy” notwithstanding, it should now be obvious that the government of the day is engaged in a battle of attrition with fellow Indians in the Valley and in other areas of the new Union Territory.

Even if one were to discount “tendentious” reports about the situation in Kashmir “perpetrated” by foreign media agencies “hostile” to India under Modi, the question as to why the all-powerful government is still unable or unwilling to lift restrictions on the civic and democratic rights of citizens in the Valley remains unanswered.

As far as we can tell, the government’s self-congratulatory claim of good governance in Kashmir pertains to simply having ensured that there are no bodies on the ground.

That this has been achieved – if accurate – by locking an entire province up and cutting off inhabitants from one another seems like a poor gloss on the body-count idea. It resembles another familiar argument which always seeks to persuade us that nobody dies of starvation in India anymore. That lakhs die from a more insidious phenomenon of malnutrition is disregarded.

That Kashmiris are suffering a fate akin to slow-consuming malnutrition seems obvious. The great thing about malnutrition is, as we sadly know, that it can be made to remain invisible.

As the articulate ex-mayor of Srinagar city averred in an interview to NDTV, Kashmiris are not likely to resign themselves to the double whammy of having been deprived of “special status”— a covenant on which the erstwhile state had agreed to accede to the Indian dominion — and the added humiliation of having been diminished to the status of a Union Territory.

Kashmiri girls hold stones during clashes with security forces in Srinagar, on August 30, 2019. Photo: Reuters/Danish Ismail

Nor are they able to comprehend why they have been denied the democratic right to peaceful assembly and protest against the measures that have been taken without as much as a say-so from the people affected by them. Such denial, additionally seems not only to contravene fundamental democratic rights of peaceful expression and association, but the entire history of India’s freedom struggle against colonial rule. It also contravenes the subsequent tradition of many other popular demands granted in independent India to people agitating for their rights – be that the historic formation of Andhra Pradesh or the other states that have since followed.

Also read: Both Indian Democracy and Pakistan’s Militarism Have Failed Kashmir

The Centre’s bind seems to be that it cannot allow any such expression or popular demonstration till the matter blows over in the forthcoming UN General Assembly session, at the end of September; nor (in what is a clear Catch 22 situation) will it look “good” to remind people of the incarceration of political leaders and workers till the speechified triumph in the general assembly.

The  ground situation 

However this may be contested, it is the covenant of the “special status” which helped the mainstream political leadership in Kashmir keep their constituents aligned with the Indian republic since the state first negotiated the terms of its accession to India.

Having rescinded that covenant — one that was meant to be transitional only till the constituent assembly of the state had formally adopted it — the Centre has taken away from mainstream Kashmiri leadership that legitimation and plunged them into an existential crisis. Clearly, it would be idle to expect them to pursue politics now on a plank of abject acquiescence.

Nor may it be argued that the “separatists” had little love for Article 370. Separatists’ politics based itself on a demographic argument and thus they can hardly be expected to be pleased with a prospect now of a legitimised demographic influx.

If this is acknowledged, the shape of politics in the Valley – if and when the incarcerated leaders of mainstream parties are released – is likely to be one in which all sections will have no option but to find a common cause in resisting such influx. Surely, Assam ought to have been an instructive example here.

Addressing the view that new, collaborative leaderships are now spawning through the Panchayat system, the history of such dislodgement in other parts of the country does not paint an optimistic picture.

Equally, and this has been pointed out before with facts and figures, the “development” argument fools nobody, given that on most counts, the state remains ahead of many other states in the republic,  including Gujarat.  That this idea of “development” may, in fact, be fraught with very deleterious consequences for the ecology of Kashmir is already an anxious thought within Kashmiris who do not wish to see its forests destroyed by predictable cartels seeking oil and other resources.

Also read: Kashmir and I: Negotiating a New Reality After August 5

As for the Jammu province, there is already silent resentment brewing regarding the likelihood that the lifting of curbs on the acquisition of property and out-of-state influx into state jobs are more likely to affect the lives and prospects of Jammuites than of those in the Valley — a stinging thought that. As for Ladakh, voices are already being heard that they will not entertain outsiders wishing to acquire land in the region.

The apex court

Considerable interest surrounds what might or might not happen regarding the challenges to the revocation of Article 370 in the highest court of the land.

It has not gone unnoticed that the honourable court has seen some ground for deliberating on the constitutional merit of the measure taken by the government, refusing the political plea by the government that court proceedings in this matter may harm the national cause as the matter is articulated in the UN, etc.

Supreme Court of India

Supreme Court of India. Illustration: The Wire

A cynical view being voiced is that the court may take its own time in cogitating on the issues, leading to a fait accompli. But having decided to refer the matter to a five-judge constitutional bench, it is inevitable that many will attach hope to the deliberations of that bench.

Should, hypothetically, the honourable Supreme Court finally come to the view that the revocation of Article 370 may be said to have been consistent with the required constitutionality, the Modi government would have scored a victory of very far-reaching dimensions.

Given the penetration of the executive into the legislature now, the government may feel enthused to bring about more far-reaching amendments to the constitution, bearing on the nature of the Indian state itself.

Also read: Kashmiri Lawyer, Who Encouraged People to Vote, Detained to Prevent Protests

On the other hand, were the revocation to be held obnoxious to the required constitutional procedure, and struck down, a wholly new and consequential situation would have emerged that would not but generate a potentially decisive shift in the lop-sided equation between government and opposition, both within the legislature and on the street.

Indeed, few court judgments in recent times would match the fallout, one way or another, of what may emerge from the highest court in this one matter.

All in all, we are witnessing a very unenviable and uneasy time in the life of the republic.

Badri Raina has taught at Delhi University.

The Great Magic Trick in Kashmir

Public euphoria believes that the reading down of Article 370 will resolve the Kashmir issue once and for all. But a careless disregard of Kashmir’s history and reality means that the long-term consequences haven’t been factored in.

In March 1992, I interviewed Amanullah Khan, then Jammu Kashmir Liberation Front chief, in a Muzaffarabad hotel across the border. He told me that when he sent a few boys across in 1984 to enquire about kickstarting an Independence movement in Indian Kashmir, they had all returned to report there was indeed alienation – but no one was interested in violent rebellion.  

“The land was absolutely barren!” he said.  “No chance of taking up arms.”

Within just four years – after the toppling of yet another government (1986), communal tensions in Anantnag (1986) and a rigged election (1987) – a violent conflict burst upon an unsuspecting government with shocking speed. 

It shows no sign of ending three decades later. If there’s a lesson in there somewhere, it is that some things are best left to simmer on the back burner. 

For 30 odd years, the slow, hard work of thousands of people – state and Central government employees, the Armed Forces, politicians and ordinary people – had created an elaborate, careful web that demonstrated India’s secular and democratic credentials. Despite the violence and stone pelting, discreet conflict management and a hard working foreign policy kept Kashmir on a low-key trajectory.

It dodged the bullets of foreign interference, international resolutions and hostile international media and remained below the radar of international Islamist groups, including ISIS. 

Also read: What the Unveiling of IS’s ‘Wilaya al-Hind’ Branch Will Mean for Kashmir

The key to this conflict management was establishing the strong security grid that finally brought about peace from the raging mayhem of the early 90s; inserting permanent bunkers deep inside hostile villages and towns where handfuls of brave paramilitary jawans withstood endless barrages of bullets in the early days, yet stayed put, without shooting their way out. This establishment came with the sacrifice of literally thousands of soldiers and civilians. 

The reward was buying a delicate yet sturdy peace that withstood even the fearful years of uncontrolled street protests in an increasingly radicalised society and brought it limping back to a sullen ‘normalcy’. Prevention and deterrence worked even as freedoms to travel, trade, learn, pray and criticise multiplied. 

A protest in Srinagar, on August 12, 2019. Photo: Reuters/Danish Siddiqui

In taking a sledgehammer to Article 370 and 35A, the intricate spider’s web of these many threads that took years of sacrifice and effort to weave and maintain has been violently ripped. 

Like all sledgehammers, this has destroyed indiscriminately. The consequences will unfold gradually. Security will be its first casualty and the armed forces will bear the brunt of it. 

However, a month later, a confident public opinion still believes otherwise and asserts that all will be well soon. Like a magic pill, it has swallowed the notion that exterminating Article 370 will solve the Kashmir conflict “once and for all”. 

Also read: Echoes of China: Unpacking the Mythology of the End of Article 370

The soothing silence of 40,000 additional troops and a communication ban on Kashmir after 30 years of shrill, unabashed anti-Indian rhetoric doesn’t hurt. It means no news is good news. So the how-can-integration-be-bad, if-370-hasn’t-worked-why-have-it, it-was-temporary-anyway or once-they’re-integrated-the problem-will-be-over narrative, remains dangerously rampant. Any contrary noises are shut down by this narrative. 

The Armed Forces veterans too have a triumphant narrative that comes from the sacrifices of 30 years spent battling wily and obdurate state administrations (besides militants) and the Kashmiri Muslim-centric resistance to their security issues.

According to this narrative, Kashmiris have been exposed to Shock-and-Awe tactics. Belittled and humiliated, they have lost the chief ministership and command over Jammu and Ladakh. Threatened by the nuclear policy reversal from ‘No First Use‘ and the Balakot strikes, their ‘saviour’ Pakistan is in bad shape. Bifurcation limits the problem to five districts that the grid can handle easily. A new leadership amenable to India will replace the old. In time, the populations of Jammu and Ladakh will increase and balance things. The Kashmiris have no way out. This will be a game changer and bring eventual peace. 

Both these narratives have a missing X-factor. Just like the craftily plotted constitutional manoeuvres of August 5, the only thing left out is the Kashmiri and her identity, wrapped deep inside Article 370. 

Nothing else has the unwavering faith of the Kashmiri. Not loyalty to India, nor to Pakistan, nor even to the state of Jammu and Kashmir. Ruled by authoritarian, cruel outsiders including the Mughals, Afghans, Sikhs and Dogras, the special, signed, legally binding Article 370 deal, protected Kashmir’s identity and gave it for the first time in 400 years, a major say in its own future. It represented a fresh, empowering identity that, unlike in Pakistan, wouldn’t get lost in the larger entity it would join in 1947. 

This identity carries the weight of 400 years of betrayal, a narrative passed from generation to generation. Logically then, Article 370’s removal is another notch in this long history. 

The Article’s regular erosion since 1947 happened for two critical reasons. First, to bring in beneficial laws and practical governance over the passage of time. Secondly, to signal to a headstrong population that used its religious kinship with the ‘enemy across the border’ to bargain – that New Delhi was unquestionably in charge. 

Yet this erosion was always carefully wrapped in state assent, by hook or by crook. The fig leaf of propriety was maintained to ensure this Muslim majority border state did not succumb to the easy lure of Pakistan and would still believe that a secular future was its best bet. 

A police officer crosses an empty road in Srinagar on August 12, 2019. Photo: Reuters/Danish Ismail

Snatching away the fig leaf itself was unthinkable. Seasoned Kashmir hands understood its import and effect on a Muslim majority state that chose a Hindu majority country only because of Article 370’s safeguards. Its removal would signal the very breakdown of secularism. A spotlight would be switched on for Islamists around the world to ‘avenge’ this betrayal. 

The key understanding of 370’s ‘temporary’ nature at birth in 1949 was that until the future unification of the divided state and its final assent, Article 370 would be the temporary article that held together J&K’s accession to India. If unification did not happen, the divided state’s constituent assembly could choose its final status, which it did by default on dissolution – as ‘permanent’. 

‘Temporary’ by any definition, never meant this fig leaf should be removed unilaterally when Delhi felt it was time without state assent. It is, therefore, the darkest betrayal of them all. 

Today, India has reneged on its lawful commitment – given in 1947 – to the Kashmiri of a special status.

Also read: Both Indian Democracy and Pakistan’s Militarism Have Failed Kashmir

It has also defaulted on the demographic stability it promised, impacting the state’s future land ownership, jobs, ethnicity, religion and cultural freedom. Even positives like delimitation that would equalise the power dynamics of the state – a longstanding, legitimate Jammu demand – come with the bitter humiliation to the Kashmiri of demographic change. His powerlessness could not be more acute. Why would he not be enraged?

The baffling public optimism across India, then defies logic. How will India control the rage once restraints are lifted and its exploitation by Pakistan’s jihadi players begins – as they did decisively in 1989? Is it ready to tie up its army like Israel for the next 50 years to protect settlements that will be instant targets? Or endure a hostile population that any enemy can prey on?

A public angered by 70 years of Kashmiri animosity and fed a muscular vision of primacy might want to believe things will be different ‘this time’. But for the Kashmiri, ‘development’ goodies have always come with stealth, repression, lockdowns, arrests and armed forces at her doorstep. Powerful memories of similar events in the past and a humiliation to beat all humiliations may well make him beyond caring now.

This gives him nothing to lose. And that is the most dangerous place to leave something you have tried to fix for years. Jihadis need only fertile soil and Kashmir is no barren field any more. It is fertile. Its resentment is tightly wound. It awaits release.

Alpana Kishore has covered Kashmir as a journalist, writer and researcher for over two decades. She has focused on the competing narratives of India and Pakistan since Partition and the effect on their rival identities on the region.

UN Releases Second Critical Kashmir Report, India Calls it Output of ‘Prejudiced Mindset’

MEA spokesperson Raveesh Kumar said that “it was a continuation of the earlier false and motivated narrative on the situation in the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir”.

New Delhi: In a second report on Kashmir in 13 months, the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) has reiterated its accusations about the rising graph of  human rights violations and the killing of civilians by state authorities over the past one year.

In June 2018, the then UN human rights chief Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein had released the OHCHR’s first report ever  on the human rights situation in both parts of Kashmir. While Pakistan welcomed it, India had dismissed the report, calling it biased.

Over a year later, an ‘Update’ published under new chief Michelle Bachelet has reached similar conclusions about continuing human rights violations in Kashmir.

Significantly, it also calls on the UN Human Rights Council, of which India is a member, to “consider… the possible establishment of a commission of inquiry to conduct a comprehensive independent international investigations into allegations of human rights violations in Kashmir”.

The latest report, which chronicles the period from May 2018 to April 2019, also refers to the Pulwama suicide bomb attack which killed about 40 Indian security personnel and how it led to further tension in Kashmir amidst additional strain on relations between India and Pakistan.

Also read: As UN Demands Details on Civilian Killings in Kashmir, India Stops Engagement on Topic

The report had been shared with both India and Pakistan on June 11. Following that, India’s letter to the OHCHR was delivered on June 17, with a request that the report not be published.

The latest OHCHR update has also been rejected by India as the output of a “prejudiced mindset” while claiming that it “legitimises terrorism”. MEA spokesperson Raveesh Kumar said that a “strong protest” has been registered with the OHCHR.

“The release of such an update has not only called into question the seriousness of OHCHR but also its alignment with the larger approach of the United Nations,” he said.

The report notes that Jammu and Kashmir civil society organisations have compiled a list of deaths of 160 civilians in 2018, “which is believed to be the highest number in over one decade”. Of the 160 civilians, 71 were allegedly killed by Indian security forces, 43 by members of “armed groups or by unidentified gunmen” and 29 due to shelling by Pakistan troops along the Line of Control.

The OHCHR report noted that the figures provided by the Indian ministry of home affairs are lower, listing the death of 37 civilians, 238 terrorists and 86 security forces personnel till December 2, 2018. In contrast, Kashmiri civil society groups also cited a higher number of deaths of 267 terrorists and 159 Indian security personnel.

The UN body also noted that there is no information of any new investigation into “excessive use of forces leading to casualties” or the status of the five investigations into extra judicial executions in 2016.

An Indian police officer fires a tear gas shell towards demonstrators, during a protest against the killings in Kashmir in May 2018. Credit: Reuters/Danish Ismail/Files

“The Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir did not establish any investigations into civilian killings in 2017. No prosecutions have been reported. It does not appear that Indian security forces have been asked to re-evaluate or change their crowd-control techniques or rules of engagement.” 

The report stated that despite international concerns, Indian security personnel regularly used shotguns as a means of crowd control, “even though they are not deployed elsewhere in India”.

The OHCHR report cited the case of a 19-month-old girl who was hit by pellets in her right eye in November 2018. “According to information from Srinagar’s Shri Maharaja Hari Singh Hospital, where most people injured by shotgun pellets are treated, a total of 1,253 people have been blinded by the metal pellets used by security forces from mid-2016 to end of 2018,”  it stated.

The report again criticised the return of “cordon and search operations” in 2017, which “enable a range of human rights violations, including physical intimidation and assault, invasion of privacy, arbitrary and unlawful detention, collective punishment and destruction of private property”. There was also criticism of the Armed Forces Special Powers Act remaining as a “key obstacle to accountability”.

The OHCHR report also noted that after the Pulwama attack on February 14, there had been an uptick in the number of attacks against Kashmiri Muslims living and working in different parts of India.

“On social media, individuals, journalists and even some political leaders were inciting hatred and violence against Kashmiri Muslims, people critical of the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party’s (BJP) Kashmir policies or those seeking accountability for human rights abuses in Jammu and Kashmir,” it said, adding that the “Central government-appointed governor of Tripura state” had called for Indians to consider a boycott of all things Kashmiri.

On  human rights violations by Pakistan in the part of Jammu and Kashmir across the Line of Control, the report said that residents, especially in Gilgit Baltistan were “deprived of a number of fundamental human rights, particularly in relation to freedoms of expression and opinion, peaceful assembly and association”.

Also read: Five Myths and Misconceptions About the UN Report on Kashmir

There was also continuing intimidation of journalists, nationalists and pro-independence political party activists in the state’s region under Pakistani control.

The UN Human Right commissioner’s office stated in the report that there was “credible information of enforced disappearances of people from Pakistan-Administered Kashmir including those who were held in secret detention and those whose fate and whereabouts continue to remain unknown”.

Reiterating the observations from 2018 report, the report said that despite “significant challenges”, civil society was able to operate in Jammu and Kashmir, while restrictions in PoK have “limited the ability of observers, including OHCHR, to assess the human rights situation there”.

India’s dismissal 

After the release of the second report in Geneva, MEA spokesperson Raveesh Kumar said in Delhi that “it was a continuation of the earlier false and motivated narrative on the situation in the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir”.

He said that the situation created by years of cross border terrorist attacks emanating from Pakistan has been “been ‘analysed’ without any reference to its causality”,

“The Update seems to be a contrived effort to create an artificial parity between the world’s largest and the most vibrant democracy and a country that openly practices state-sponsored terrorism,” Kumar stated.

He also asserted that it was of “deep concern that this Update seems to accord a legitimacy to terrorism that is in complete variance with UN Security Council positions”.

Kumar noted that terrorist leaders and organisations sanctioned by the UN are deliberately underplayed by the report as “armed groups”.

Also read: India’s Dismissal of the UN Report on Kashmir Is Short-Sighted

The latest OHCHR report had observed that “while in the 1990s there were reportedly over a dozen armed groups operating in Indian-Administered Kashmir, in recent years four major armed groups are believed to be operational in this region: Lashkar-e-Tayyiba, Jaish-e-Mohammed, Hizbul Mujahideen and Harakat Ul-Mujahidin”. All four, the report added, “are believed to be based in Pakistan-Administered Kashmir”.

However, Kumar protested that the “the legitimisation of terrorism has been further compounded by an unacceptable advocacy of the dismemberment of a UN member State”.

Stating that Jammu and Kashmir is an integral part of India, the MEA spokesperson said that the Update has undermined its own credibility by “distorting India’s policies, practices and values”.

“Its failure to recognise an independent judiciary, human rights institutions and other mechanisms in the Indian state of Jammu & Kashmir that safeguard, protect and promote constitutionally guaranteed fundamental rights to all citizens of India is unpardonable. Even more so, as it belittles constitutional provisions, statutory procedures and established practices in an established, functioning democracy,” said Kumar.

He further claimed that the “prejudiced mindset of the Update has also chosen to wilfully ignore the determined and comprehensive socio-economic developmental efforts undertaken by the Government in the face of terrorist challenges”.

Asserting that India follows a policy of zero tolerance towards terrorism, he noted that “motivated attempts to weaken our national resolve will never succeed”.

India’s reply

In its reply dated June 17 as seen by The Wire, India had highlighted the judicial structure and the human rights bodies in the state and the presence of a “free and vibrant media in Jammu and Kashmir”.

There was also a reference to “people of Jammu and Kashmir” having “repeatedly exercised their democratic rights” through elections.

“During the April-May 2019 general elections, 40% voters in six Parliamentary Constituencies in Jammu and Kashmir exercised their franchise,” stated India’s letter to OHCHR.

In fact, turnout in two Lok Sabha constituencies – Anantnag and Srinagar – were much lower, at 8.8% and 14.08% respectively.

On the issue of injuries suffered by civilians, India argued that there is an “absolute restraint in the use of pellet guns”.

Besides, India also asserted that the Indian army has investigated 1052 allegations of human rights violations and 70 personnel have been punished, since 1994. Investigations in several other cases are ongoing, said its letter.

A change in tone

While India has given a strident response publicly, there is also understanding in official circles that the current UN human rights commissioner Michelle Bachelet may not have had total control over the release of the report.

Last June, India’s protest had been more personalised with an inference that the then UN human rights commissioner was ‘biased’ against India. New Delhi had questioned the “intent” behind the report and hinted that“individual prejudices” had fuelled it.

This time, the MEA’s tone is a bit more nuanced.

Indian officials acknowledge that Bachelet had been quick of the mark in condemning the Pulwama attack in February. They also noted that her oral update at the start of the 41st session of Human Rights Council had made no mention of Kashmir.

She has only raised Kashmir once in her opening statement – at the 39th session of the Human Rights Council that opened just 10 days after she took over on September 1, 2018. Since then, she has opened two more HRC sessions – in February and June this year, but there was a conspicuous absence of Kashmir in her speeches.

Further, the June 2018 report was released several weeks before the start of the regular session of the Human Rights Council. This time, the update has been published in the last week of an ongoing session.

Sources claim that the UN human rights commissioner probably had to give a go-ahead to the publication, since a follow-up update had been mentioned in the original report. The current report does not mention that there will be any other updates.

Besides the lack of absence of Kashmir in the UN human rights chief’s statement, the other difference that Indian officials have noted is that there is more space allotted to the situation within PoK, both in the report and the press note.

Indian officials do not expect any adverse impact from this latest ‘Update’, pointing to the languishing state of the previous report. “It was not discussed in the Human Rights Council, rather some member states criticised the activism of the commissioner. At most, it will be used by Pakistan for point-scoring,” said an Indian official.

On its part, Pakistan welcomed the second report which called for setting up a “commission of inquiry” to investigate human rights violations in Kashmir.

However, Pakistan objected to the report drawing a parallel between the situation in Jammu and Kashmir and the “prevailing environment in Azad Jammu and Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan”.

“Unlike IoK, which is the most militarised zone in the world, AJK and Gilgit-Baltistan remain open to foreign visitors,” said the press release of the Pakistan foreign ministry.

IS Operative’s Killing Reveals Power Struggle in Kashmir Militant Ranks

Aadil Ahmed Dass’s murder comes at a time when radical pan-Islamist groups are desperate for a toe-hold in Kashmir.

Srinagar: Last Sunday, WhatsApp groups across the Kashmir Valley all received an unexpected video. In it, Syed Salahuddin, the leader of the Hizbul Mujahideen who is based across the Line of Control, made a surprising appearance.

With a chequered keffiyeh wrapped around his shoulders and a grey Hogan cap on his head, Salahuddin broke into a monologue, his voice thick with what appeared to be grief. His message was directed to the ‘jihadist’ community. For the most part, he urged it to avoid confrontation; offered his best wishes for militants to withstand the ‘travails of time’; and pleaded for unity.

It is not in Salahuddin’s repertoire to release video-taped appeals or announcements, so this was an unusual step. It is easy to surmise what could have spurred him. The Friday before, Aadil Ahmed Dass, a young militant affiliated with Islamic State Hind Province (ISHP) had died in Sirhama village of South Kashmir’s Bijbehara town. Rumours initially pointed the finger at ‘Indian agencies’ but now Aadil’s death appears to have been the result of fratricide, triggered by competing ideologies which have been increasingly fragmenting the militancy landscape in Kashmir. What could also have led to the murder is the competition for resources in the face of what many feel is a decline in Pakistani assistance.

Among observers here, Dass’s death is now being billed as a turning point for militancy in Kashmir. 

In Waghama village of south Kashmir, Dass’s brother Musaib sits reading from the Quran in his newly-constructed house. The walls are yet to be plastered. Mourners trickle in. Young boys, sitting in a circle around him, offer their condolences.

Also read: Behind the Spurt in Recent Encounters Lies the Flow of Recruits to Militancy in Kashmir

“We heard reports about his death in the evening. Then I was taken by the Army and stayed at their camp [Sirhama 16 RR] for the night. At 3:50 am, we left to get the body. When we approached the site, the army men took their positions. I walked for few metres and saw my brother’s body,” Musaib tells The Wire.

A few more metres away lay an injured Aarif Hussain, a Lashkar-e-Tayyaba militant, says Musaib. He broke down at the scene, he says, asking Aarif repeatedly why his brother had to be killed. 

“He told me that it was Zubair Wani, a Hizbul Mujahideen militant from Kokernag who killed my brother.”

Aadil Dass’s brother Musaib.

Aadil’s death has led to intense discussions in media circles. An investigation into the Telegram chats of pro-militant channels has cast light on the sequence of events which led to his murder.

The death appears to be the beginning of an internecine dispute between militant groups. A section has been gravitating towards pan-Islamist ideologies and this has fractured political opinion in Kashmir. His family says Aadil had appeared serious about his studies at the Degree College of Bijbehara until he disappeared from home on July 19, 2018 to join the LeT. His family had no idea that he had joined ISHP.  

A pro-ISIS march in Kashmir. Photo: Reuters

According to the detailed open-source investigation, militants from Lashkar and Hizbul had led Aadil into believing that they were defecting to the ISHP too. 

Hizbul’s Zubair and Lashkar’s Aarif and Burhan Ahmad lured Aadil to a secluded location at the Sirhama orchards. A fifth militant, Turaib, who was an associate of Aadil’s, was also present. Then, as the militants were praying, Zubair reached for his rifle and pumped a volley of bullets into Aadil, killing him. A bullet also accidentally hit his aide Aarif, who was hurt and incapacitated. While Turaib managed to escape, Zubair and Burhan grabbed Aadil’s weapons — the ones given to him by Lashkar — and fled.

The findings of the investigation matches the account given to The Wire by Musaib, who pins the blame squarely on Zubair. Aadil’s family also say that a few days before the Sirhama incident, two Lashkar militants had come to their house demanding money to the tune of Rs 12 lakh.

“They asked us to tell Aadil to either return the weapons or give them Rs 12 lakhs. This has all been done by Abu Talha, who currently heads Lashkar in the region,” Aadil’s mother told The Wire 

This incident comes at time when radical pan-Islamist groups are desperate for a toe-hold in Kashmir in the face of challenges in the form of pro-Pakistan groups like Hizbul.

Earlier this year, IS announced the formation of Wilayat al-Hind which will be dedicated to operations in Kashmir. Then there is the al Qaeda-affiliated Ansar Ghazwat-ul Hind which is also trying to carve a space for itself and has succeeded significantly in that regard, riding on the sympathy wave following Zakir Musa’s death on May 23.

Also read: Why Zakir Musa, Voice of a New Extremism in Kashmir, Survived as Long as He Did

On Monday, pro-ISHP social media outlets released a video showing three masked gunmen in uniforms bearing Islamic State insignia. In the video, the men can be seen boasting about having “succeeded” in establishing jihad on the basis of tauheed (the Islamic concept of monotheism) and tearing down the idols of “nationalism, democracy and politics of self-determination.” The words affirmed that theirs was not a fight on the Kashmir dispute but a fight on the question faith. The 38-second clip elicited a strong response from hundreds of Kashmiris on social media. Soon, the hashtag #RejectISIS began trending, as many expressed their strong denunciation of “perverted ideas of religion”. 

It is still not clear how Indian security officials view the unfolding developments — and whether this infighting offers scope for an intervention that could weaken militancy as a whole. But the episode bears strong resonances with a similar string of events that took place during the early 1990s, which gradually led to the total ouster of the indigenous Jammu Kashmir Liberation Front (JKLF) from the field of armed insurrection, thus setting the stage for pro-Pakistan and Islamist groups to wrest control of the mantle. 

The beginning

The first phase of the Kashmir insurgency was led by four men — Hameed Sheikh, Ashfaq Majeed, Javed Mir and Yasin Malik — all of whom, in one way or another, participated in the 1987 Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly election.

Together, they formed the nucleus of the JKLF which resolutely professed to be non-sectarian. The group led a host of attacks almost effectively paralysing the administration in Kashmir during the initial phases of militancy. The JKLF also commanded considerable support from the civil society of Kashmir. Doctors, engineers, intellectuals and lay people comprised its ranks.

Initially, the local guerillas far outnumbered those who would sneak in from across the border. For instance, in 1991, the number of local militants fighting the Indian forces was estimated to be 844. Only two were non-locals, according to official figures of that time. Formed in the 1960s, the JKLF had lived a frugal existence until then as much of the pro-independence mobilisation had been monopolised by National Conference – followed by the All Jammu and Kashmir Plebiscite Front.

Sheikh Abdullah. Credit: Wikimedia Commons

It was only after Sheikh Abdullah’s accord with the Centre in 1975 that his stock plummeted. The JKLF – harvesting support from the public disenchantment which followed – rose to popularity in the aftermath of the 1987 poll rigging. However, it was only a matter of time before Pakistan’s relationship with JKLF, committed as it was to the idea of an independent Jammu and Kashmir, ruptured.  

The ferocity with which the uprising erupted in Kashmir after the 1987 polls had surprised even those at the helm of affairs in Pakistan. 

Robert G Wirsing, a political scientist, observed, “While the People’s Party was yet in power, Pakistani leaders became aware of the need to assert more Pakistani control on the uprising…. In early February 1990, a meeting was held in Islamabad, with prime minister Benazir Bhutto in the chair and the chief of army staff, General Aslam Beg and the president and prime minister of Azad Kashmir in attendance. They decided they had to curb the Azaadi forces, meaning they would not equip them and not send them into the Valley.” 

By the end of 1989, the internal clout of Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence had swelled enormously, primarily by way of its status as the sole implementing agency of the United States’ proxy war against the Soviets in Afghanistan. It was an “army within an army” which enjoyed an outsized “partnership with the CIA with periodic access to the world’s most sophisticated technology and intelligence collection systems. The service had welcomed Pakistan legions of volunteers from across the Islamic world, fighters who were willing to pursue Pakistan’s foreign policy not only in Afghanistan but also across its eastern borders in Kashmir,” journalist Steve Coll writes.

The slow fall of JKLF

From 1991 onwards, however, the ISI downgraded its aid to the JKLF, promulgating a two-pronged strategy to reorient the uprising in the Valley to its favour. First, it weakened the JKLF by inciting defections out of the group. Second, it engineered a rise of a pro-Pakistan jihadist superstructure spearheaded by the Hizbul Mujahideen.

A newspaper survey recorded that there was sudden spurt of at least 150 tanzeems countering JKLF. “Pakistan feared that a single body will settle with India as Sheikh did,” legal jurist A.G. Noorani has observed. 

Those who volunteered to take up this new role to fragment the movement were recruits looking for adventure, petty criminals, earnest Kashmiri youth who nursed a grouse against India and also foreign jihadists. For the next few years, the Indian state responded in a relentless, iron-fisted manner. It is estimated that between 1990 and 1992, 2,213 militants were killed – a majority of whom were JKLF fighters.

As for the four who began it all, Ashfaq Majeed died on 30 March 30, 1990 and Yasin Malik was detained on August 6 of the same year. Hamid Sheikh was also captured but released in 1992 by the Border Security Force which had, by then, realised that the JKLF might be instrumentalised to counter the Hizb. The Indian Army, which was against this decision, killed him in November of the same year.

April 1991 saw the first public confrontation between the JKLF and the Hizb. In February, 1992, the JKLF made an attempt to reclaim its space in the popular imagination when it called for a cross-LoC march to emphasise the unity between the two sides of Kashmir. Close to 30,000 people marched to the LoC, where Pakistani troops fired from their positions, killing 21 of them. 

This led pro-freedom demonstrators across the Valley to gather near the Hazratbal shrine in Srinagar ‘defying Indian curfew’ in an expression of solidarity. India Today magazine described the episode as “the first major victory for JKLF groups operating in the Valley over Pakistan-sponsored factions like Hizbul Mujahideen.”

Yet JKLF’s influence continued to suffer until Yasin Malik’s release from prison on May 17, 1994, after which he, as part of a last ditch effort to salvage the group’s importance, declared a ceasefire. 

In his book Kashmir: Roots of Conflict, scholar Sumantra Bose quotes a veteran Kashmiri journalist who says, “A total of 300 surviving JKLF members were killed by Indian counterinsurgency forces after the group’s unilateral ceasefire in 1994. Often Hizb members would provide information on their identity and whereabouts, thus completing the decimation of JKLF’s field presence.”

Hizb takes the mantle

These events pushed Kashmir to come under the direct influence of a pro-Pakistan fighting force, which was ironically leading a struggle for a population overwhelmingly pro-azadi in its outlook.

This was followed by the Hizb’s effort to recklessly weed out any opposition. Its fighters started assassinating members of civil society who were ideologically allied with the JKLF and those whose competing definitions for self-determination did not correspond with its own. The venerable human rights activist Hriday Nath Wanchoo and cardiologist Abdul Ahad Guru were some of the prominent individuals who became victims of Hizb hitmen.

The Hizb also brought a brand of narrow puritanism to the interpretation of faith and mounted attacks on local Sufi shrines. In June, 1994, its militants allegedly killed Qazi Nissar, a preacher revered in south Kashmir. Nissar had accused the group of “holding Kashmir to ransom, to hand over to Pakistan on a plate.”  At the qazi’s funeral, angry agitators shouted slogans like ‘Hizbul Mujahideen murdabad’ (‘down with Hizbul Mujahideen’).  

A paramilitary soldier patrols a deserted street during restrictions a day before the death anniversary of Burhan Wani, a commander of the Hizbul Mujahideen militant group, in downtown Srinagar July 7, 2017. Photo: Reuters/Danish Ismail

Scholar Paula Newberg observed in 1995, “Pakistan’s heavy influence on the movement is deeply resented especially among JKLF supporters. India clearly hopes to exploit this sentiment, once the Kashmiris find the fight is futile. In the long run, Pakistan’s powerful intervention may prove to have undermined the very uprising it sought to fortify.”

It was therefore the combined force of Indian counter-insurgency and Pakistan’s support for rival factions opposing the JKLF that caused the group’s downfall and led to the emergence of the Hizb, that then established its almost complete monopoly over the Kashmir insurgency.  

Resentment against Hizbul Mujahideen

The current crisis, however, seems to have been prompted by Pakistan’s sudden decision to cut off patronage to militant groups as it stares at the potential of being blacklisted by the Paris-based terror-funding watchdog Financial Action Task Force (FATF). It has banned several Islamic seminaries and seized assets that belong to militant groups over the last few months.

Also read: When Pro-Plebiscite Kashmiris Found Common Cause with ‘Hindu Nationalists’

Amid mounting global pressure, Pakistan has also renewed, at least as far as public optics are concerned,  its crackdown on Hafiz Saeed and charities owned by him. The lack of aid from Pakistan has led the Hizb’s operational chief in the Valley, Riyaz Naikoo, to concede that militant groups have now been forced to fight with small pistols. “While the enemy’s technology is increasing and they are armed with modern weapons, our weapons are decreasing,” he said last year, in a statement. Which brings us back to the Sirhama incident which seems to have been partially motivated by a duel between two groups over weapons.

Besides, Pakistan’s recent decision to tip Indian officials off on an IED attack in south Kashmir has cemented the belief among the young in the Valley that Islamabad may perhaps be self-seeking and opportunistic. It is this realisation that has bred a politics of despair in the region in which more radical forms of expressions are incubating. 

At his house in Waghama, Musaib and his family say they will not settle for anything less than retribution. “We want the killers of my brother to be punished,” he says.

Aadil’s funeral is the first in a while where no Hizb flags were raised. No pro-Hizb slogans were shouted either. Only Ansar Ghazwat-ul Hind and Islamic States flags were seen.

In fact, there is noticeable resentment against the Hizbul Mujahideen and Lashkar across Waghama. “It isn’t lost on us how Aadil’s murder at the hands of the Hizb received very little media coverage. The Hizb’s domineering attitude will soon end,” a student from the same village, who attended the funeral, says.

How strong can the pro-Islamic State winds blow, this reporter asked him. He smiled. “It’s already here and will grow stronger.” 

Shakir Mir is a Srinagar based journalist.

Facebook Page Helps Reunite Families From Poonch Separated During Partition

Writer and social activist Romi Sharma’s page has thousands of followers from across the world with Poonchi roots.

In one of the remotest districts of Jammu and Kashmir, a social media initiative started by writer and social activist Romi Sharma has been helping reunite families separated during the 1947 Partition. The creation of the Line of Control divided the state’s Poonch district, displacing many and separating thousands of families as two-and-a-half tehsils of the district fell on one side of the border, in Pakistan-administered Kashmir.

Sharma started the Facebook page, called ‘Romi Sharma Poonchi-Apna Poonchi Parivaar’, last year in October. Like the people she wished to reunite, Sharma too is originally from Poonch. The idea for the page came after she shared a poem written in Poonchi — the language spoken on both sides of the border in the region. The poem caught the attention of quite a few people, many of whom turned out to be of Poonchi origin and were delighted to read a poem in their language.

Romi Sharma

Romi Sharma. Image: Special arrangement

Slowly, people of Poonchi origin from the other side of the border, in Pakistan, too started following the page. More and more people began posting information on their long-lost relatives who they had not heard from in all these decades. Soon, people who had relatives in undivided Poonch began reaching out as well. Video messages began pouring in too. Now, a 13,000-strong community has helped reunite members of as many as 28 families.

“The main aim of this initiative is to help reunite families from this region who were separated and promote our Poonchi language and culture. Despite the forced division of Poonch in 1947, our language and culture have remained the same on both sides of the border,” says Sharma, whose ancestors were from what is now the Palandri district of Pakistan-administered Kashmir’s Poonch region.

Recently, a senior citizen from Pakistan-administered Kashmir reached out with a video which was shared on the community’s page and WhatsApp group. In the video he talked about his sister who had been separated from him from the Sunderbani area of Rajouri district in 1947. He had never heard of or from her since.

Group members began looking for her, and soon found her living in one of the remotest villages of Poonch on this side of the border. Now brother and sister are in constant touch through the internet and speak to each other through WhatsApp video calls.

“They just want to meet each other once before they leave this world,” says Sharma.

Also read: Letter From a Pakistani to an Indian Friend: Can We Please Have a South Asian Union?

As the page got more followers, even those of Poonchi origin who are now based in the Gulf countries and Europe began reaching out, hoping to reconnect relatives lost during Partition. The page is populated with grandchildren of people who once had to let go of their friends and relatives.

“I get many video and text messages from divided families on either side of the border. We share these details and videos on the page and on the WhatsApp group so that group members can check their respective areas,” says the 42-year-old.

The WhatsApp group has hundreds of Poonchi members from either side of the border and those living miles away in foreign countries.

Sharma’s endeavour has not been without hateful comments. Some, in Pakistan-administered Kashmir, have accused her of being a RAW agent and a spy. The activist, however, remains undeterred.

“Those people whose business is hatred do not want people on both sides of the border to reunite,” she says, adding, “But there are only few such people, the rest appreciate and support this humanitarian initiative.”

Sharma is clear that she is not interested in ‘politics or blame games‘ and only wants more divided families to reach out and get help from the group’s members to reconnect with their loved ones.

The effort has also helped her reconnect with her roots. Like the group members, Sharma too has a story of her own. “My grandfather always spoke about a person called Shanawaz who helped him and gave him shelter during the turbulent times of the Partition. But he never heard from him after the boundaries were drawn,” she says.

Poonch

Poonch is one of the remotest districts of Jammu and Kashmir. Source: Apna Poonchi Parivar Facebook page

Appreciation for Sharma’s efforts pour in from either side of the border. Javid Iqbal, from Pakistan-administered Kashmir writes on the page that he is “very hopeful that one day, by the grace of God, all communities will be able to live in harmony again,” adding that the “Poonchi and Pahari language and culture need to be passed on to future generations.”

Matloob Ahmed, a resident of the Kotli Sarsawa area in Pakistan-administered Kashmir, also had encouraging words. “India and Pakistan need to soften the crossing points for affected families to let them meet each other,” he writes.

Sharma agrees. She says that every time relations between India and Pakistan deteriorate and there is the talk of war, it is the people in the remotest border districts like Poonch who suffer the most.

Also read: The Existential Questions of an Exiled Kashmiri Pandit

The division, she says, is only physical. “The divide is not in the hearts and minds of people. We are the same people, after all, sharing the same culture and language on both sides of the border despite decades of forced separation imposed among our people,” Sharma says.

The several hours of work which she puts into the page everyday, Sharma hopes, will lessen the pain of separated families. “No one has helped them in all these years. They say that they just want to die in peace after reuniting with their loved ones,” she says.

“Let the two nations work towards peace now and open their borders so their wishes can be fulfilled,” she adds.

From the Other Side of Kashmir, a Tale All Too Familiar

An excerpt from the book ‘Between the Great Divide’ by Anam Zakaria.

Traveling through Pakistan-administered Kashmir, Pakistani writer Anam Zakaria breaks the silence surrounding a people who, despite being stakeholders, are often ignored in discussions on the present and future of Jammu & Kashmir. Here is an extract from her book Between the Great Divide, from which a critical perspective for understanding the Kashmir conflict emerges and will surprise and enlighten Indians and Pakistanis alike.

Sharjeel returns and we sit back in the car, driving towards the village where we are meant to conduct the first interview. I can see young boys playing cricket on the road that was crammed with displaced civilians last year. Up ahead, there are women sitting by the river, chatting amongst one another. We slow down and Sharjeel asks them if they can point us towards the house of the woman who died last year. Without hesitation, they point us to the left. We pass a small market where shopkeepers are busy selling goodies right before Iftar time. Sharjeel laughs and says, “You can see people today. Last year when I came, I couldn’t see a single person in the market. It was an abandoned area … all the stores were closed. Do you see the holes in those shutters? They were caused by the splinters.” As he says this, I notice the small holes that gape at us as we drive by. I wonder if they will meet the same fate this August. Will the firing resume with the same intensity?

Between the Great Divide by Anam Zakaria, Harper Collins India (August 2017).

Before I can ask Sharjeel, he tells us to stop the car. He points towards an elderly man walking on the street ahead of us and says, “It’s his house we are looking for. He lost his wife to firing last year.” We roll down our windows and Sharjeel greets him. I step out of the car and meet the elderly man, telling him I’m very sorry about his loss. Shaukat (the name has been changed to protect his identity) says he is humbled to know that we came all the way from Islamabad to enquire about his wife and insists that we come over to his house and meet his daughter. “She will tell you everything.”

As we drive to his house, he tells me, “I was praying at night when I heard the firing. I told my family not to step out. The next morning, the firing started again at about 5:20 and went on till 9 am. Then it completely stopped. Eid-ul-Azha was round the corner and we had tied the goats for slaughter outside. When the firing stopped, my mother and wife went out to make sure the animals were okay. Right then a mortar hit the goat and split it into two; the top half of the goat was just sliced off. The splinter from that mortar hit my gharwali’s (homemaker’s) face. Firing continued for two hours after that and we just held her as she bled. No one was willing to give us a ride. People were asking for lakhs of rupees just to cross the road amidst the firing. Finally someone agreed to take us to Nakyal Hospital in the city (Nakyal is a tehsil – administrative unit – of Kotli district). The doctors there told us to take her to the CMH (Civil Military Hospital) in Rawalpindi for proper treatment but she died on the way.” His voice breaks and for a moment we are all silent; the only sound is of the engine vibrating as we drive up the steep road. Then he says, “We were lucky the firing stopped the next morning and we were able to hold her funeral in peace. It started again at 6 pm, but at least we got to bury her properly…”

We park our car and walk out. He guides us through the wild landscape towards his house, telling us to step carefully as there might be snakes hiding in the grass. Petrified of reptiles, I hold my breath as we walk through the thick undergrowth. The route is steep and we have to make our way through rocks, wet mud and thorns. I wonder how difficult it must have been for Shaukat to carry his injured wife on this route, especially during the firing. Walking ahead of us, Shaukat mentions in passing that during the Kargil conflict, a bomb fell right here, crushing four young children from his neighbourhood.

A small open space, surrounded by trees, greets us at the entrance to his home. “Do you see those holes in the trees? That’s where the splinters hit. The goat was tied to this tree.” He bends forward and removes a rock from the foot of the tree. Underneath it is a sharp rusty piece of metal, the splinter that had hit his wife. This is the first time I am seeing one and Haroon and I lean forward to touch it. He quickly tells us to move back – “It’s poisonous!” he exclaims. I wonder why he has not thrown the lethal piece that killed his wife, especially given that he has children in the house, but he tells me he keeps it well hidden.

Perhaps it serves as the last reminder of his wife, one he is unwilling to let go of.

We have to climb a small rock before we enter another open space. On the left, I can see a few rooms. A couple of young girls, presumably his daughters, are busy making Iftari in a long hallway in front of the rooms. They come to greet us and drag a couple of chairs out on to the verandah. One of his daughters comes and sits with me. The girls had a number of reporters come and interview them last year about the incident and seem to have become used to answering questions surrounding one of the most traumatic events in their lives. She was fifteen and completing her matriculation when the incident took place.

“I had to leave school and take care of the home after my mother’s death. I couldn’t complete my education.” She assumes I am a reporter from one of the news channels and speaks to me with a straight face, her emphasis on making sure I understand and convey her demand for a hospital and better roads to the government (she says her mother could have been saved if there had been a good hospital in her area). She almost seems to have been hardened by the loss of her mother, by having to give up her education (so as to look after her siblings), by living amidst the firing, year in and year out.

She tells me that she has heard firing ever since she was a young child. In school, the headmaster would tell the children to huddle together and hide until it stopped. At home, her father would tell them to rush inside. The uncertainty, the constant state of emergency, the loud explosions, have shaped her childhood and now her adulthood.

China, Pakistan to Look at Including Afghanistan in $57 Billion Economic Corridor

The Chinese attempt to broker talks comes in the background of Af-Pak ties being poisoned, due to Kabul accusing Islamabad of supporting Taliban insurgents fighting US-backed Kabul, to limit New Delhi’s influence in Afghanistan.

(L to R) Afghan Foreign Minister Salahuddin Rabbani, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi and Pakistani Foreign Minister Khawaja Asif attend a joint news conference after the 1st China-Afghanistan-Pakistan Foreign Ministers' Dialogue in Beijing, China, December 26, 2017. Credit: Reuters /Jason Lee

(L to R) Afghan foreign minister Salahuddin Rabbani, Chinese foreign minister Wang Yi and Pakistani foreign minister Khawaja Asif attend a joint news conference after the 1st China-Afghanistan-Pakistan Foreign Ministers’ Dialogue in Beijing, China, December 26, 2017. Credit: Reuters/Jason Lee

Beijing: China and Pakistan will look at extending their $57 billion China-Pakistan Economic Corridor to   to Afghanistan, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi said on Tuesday, part of China‘s ambitious Belt and Road plan linking China with Asia, Europe and beyond.

China has tried to position itself as a helpful party to promote talks between Pakistan and Afghanistan, both uneasy neighbours ever since Pakistan‘s independence in 1947.

Their ties have been poisoned in recent years by Afghan accusations that Pakistan is supporting Taliban insurgents fighting the US-backed Kabul in order to limit the influence of its old rival, India, in Afghanistan.

Pakistan denies that and says it wants to see a peaceful, stable Afghanistan.

Speaking after the first trilateral meeting between the foreign ministers of China, Pakistan and Afghanistan, Wang said China hoped the economic corridor could benefit the whole region and act as an impetus for development.

Afghanistan has an urgent need to develop and improve people’s lives and hopes it can join inter-connectivity initiatives, Wang told reporters, as he announced that Pakistan and Afghanistan had agreed to mend their strained relations.

“So China and Pakistan are willing to look at Afghanistan, on the basis of win-win, mutually beneficial principles, using an appropriate means to extend the ChinaPakistan Economic Corridor to Afghanistan,” he added.

How that could happen needs the three countries to reach a gradual consensus, tackling easier, smaller projects first, Wang said, without giving details.

Pakistani foreign minister Khawaja Asif said his country and China were “iron brothers”, but did not directly mention the prospect of Afghanistan joining the corridor.

“The successful implementation of CPEC (ChinaPakistan Economic Corridor) projects will serve as a model for enhancing connectivity and cooperation through similar projects with neighbouring countries, including Afghanistan, Iran and with central and west Asia,” he said.

India has looked askance at the project as parts of it run through Pakistan-administered Kashmir that India considers its own territory, though Wang said the plan had nothing to do with territorial disputes.

China has sought to bring Kabul and Islamabad together partly due to Chinese fears about the spread of Islamist militancy from Pakistan and Afghanistan to the unrest-prone far western Chinese region of Xinjiang.

As such, China has pushed for Pakistan and Afghanistan to improve their own ties so they can better tackle the violence in their respective countries and has also tried to broker peace talks with Afghan Taliban militants, to limited effect.

A tentative talks process collapsed in 2015.

Wang said China fully supported peace talks between the Afghan government and Taliban and would continue to provide “necessary facilitation”.

The Belt and Road infrastructure drive aims to build a modern-day “Silk Road” connecting China to economies in Southeast and Central Asia by land and the Middle East and Europe by sea.

(Reuters)