The Kashmir challenge

October 26, 2018 in Daily Articles Leave a comment

Notice: Undefined index: tie_hide_share

in /home/jworldti/public_html/jwt2015/wp-content/themes/JWT2016/single.php o
n line 45

INDIA cancelled talks with Pakistan blaming it for ‘acts of terror’, along with a vicious
attack on the newly elected prime minister. Pakistanis and Indians back their own
versions regarding an alleged atrocity. Tragically, the truth is rendered irrelevant. The
prime minister, however, must ensure he gets to know the unvarnished truth.
Otherwise, like his predecessors, he will be systematically blindsided.
Pakistan wants dialogue. India says Pakistan must first stop ‘cross-border terrorism’.
Why did Modi first respond positively to the prime minister’s proposal and then change
his mind? Does he believe Imran Khan okayed an atrocity? Or that he is irrelevant?
Does India regard the Kashmiri freedom struggle as terror? There is a legal and a
political reality. The UN has acknowledged the Kashmiri right of self-determination in
1948-49. In 1974, it reaffirmed “the duty of States not to use armed force to
deprive peoples of their right to self-determination”.
Armed struggle and resistance against illegal military occupation and repression are
not terror.
In 1982, the UN “reaffirmed the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples for independence,
territorial integrity, national unity and liberation from colonial or foreign domination
and foreign occupation by all available means, including armed struggle”.
The UN has rejected India’s claim that Jammu and Kashmir is part of the Indian Union.
It remains disputed territory. The right of self-determination of the Kashmiri people
has been forcibly denied by the Indian military occupation of Jammu and Kashmir.
India blames Pakistan for not fulfilling conditions for the plebiscite. Even if this were so,
it could not derogate from the rights of the people of Jammu and Kashmir. The fact
that UN resolutions on Kashmir were adopted under Chapter 6 in no way reduces the
obligation of member states and of parties to the dispute to respect and implement
them. Nor does the Shimla Agreement affect Kashmiri rights.
Politically, however, India refuses to accept any of the above. Moreover, other than
expressing concern over the human rights situation in India-held Kashmir (IHK), the
international community is not prepared to press India on the subject of a Kashmir
settlement. This, despite the dispute having triggered three wars between India and
Pakistan which are today adjacent nuclear weapons countries.
This, and so much elsewhere, may underline the irresponsibility of the international
community. It certainly highlights the structural ineffectiveness of the UN whose
primary purpose is to preserve the peace and address situations that have led to war
and threaten far more devastating conflicts.
Nevertheless, acts of terrorism including torture and mutilation are unlawful and
unacceptable under any circumstances, including in the context of legitimate freedom
struggles. The rights of innocent civilians are inviolable. The terror of one party can
never justify that of others, including victims. However, armed struggle and resistance
against illegal military occupation and repression is not terror.
Despite all of the above, political realities cannot be wished away. Only UNSC
resolutions under Chapter 7 are enforceable. It is inconceivable that the UNSC will ever
pass a Chapter 7 resolution on Jammu and Kashmir against the wishes of India. None
of Pakistan’s friends would support such a development.
At best major powers will continue to encourage and try to persuade India to engage
with Pakistan on all outstanding issues, including Jammu and Kashmir. India may
agree to what passes for dialogue. It has done so in the past.
After several barren rounds on core issues it breaks down over one or more incidents.
Tensions rise. Conflicts happen. Hawks thrive. Peaceniks cower. Cynics laugh “all is for
the best in the best of all possible worlds!”
Should Pakistan abandon dialogue with India? The prime minister rightly rejects such
advice. Nor is it necessary for Pakistan to solicit dialogue if India is unwilling. Over time,
however, Pakistan must strengthen its credibility. If that happens, India will, sooner or
later, have to accept the reality that it can neither permanently crush the Kashmir
liberation struggle nor successfully blame Pakistan for its inability to do so.
Meanwhile, Pakistan needs to improve and intensify its Kashmir advocacy and
diplomacy. The prime minister’s offer to engage India in a dialogue process to resolve all
issues between the two countries is also, sooner or later, likely to be taken up. The
challenges of the 21st century, which threaten to further exacerbate Indo-Pakistan
tensions, will leave either country no choice.
However, Modi for the moment has chosen to accuse Imran Khan of being the ‘true
face’ of an ‘evil agenda’. He hopes to exploit Pakistan’s isolation in the international
community progressively brought about by the consistently incompetent
decision-making of the establishment.
It is not clear if Modi’s ‘U-turn’ was influenced by a reported atrocity, the approach of
the 2019 national elections, a major corruption scandal hanging over him, the usual
persuasion of influential anti-Pakistan lobbies or personal spite. Whatever it was, it has
discouraged sensible realists and encouraged right-wing ideologues in both countries.
Pakistan’s formal position on Kashmir does not need to change at all. But its strategy
does need to be revisited to ensure its own policies do not inadvertently harm
Kashmiris by allowing India to distract international attention away from its
repression. Pakistan should honestly inform its people there is no alternative to a
negotiated and principled compromise settlement with India that is verifiably
acceptable to Kashmiri opinion.
Once India cannot credibly accuse Pakistan of aiding ‘terrorism’ in IHK it will not be
able to portray its repression as ‘counterterrorism’. Nor will it be able to sustain its
obduracy on Kashmir forever. Pakistan will require imaginative and skilled diplomacy
and leadership of a high order. It will also need to make clear ‘red lines’ that cannot be
crossed and ‘vital interests’ that cannot be compromised.
The 21st century has one message for nuclear-armed India and Pakistan: cooperate or
perish. The seas are rising. Land, water and jobs will disappear. Populations cannot
cope. Stresses of every kind are increasing. Reason and moderation are giving way to
atavistic passions, insane hatred and self-destructive machismo. Cooperating to reverse
this fatal trend will provide a context for a Kashmir settlement.
By: Ashraf Jehangir Qazi
Source: https://www.dawn.com
2.Water management
October 25, 2018 in Daily Articles Leave a comment

Notice: Undefined index: tie_hide_share

in /home/jworldti/public_html/jwt2015/wp-content/themes/JWT2016/single.php o
n line 45

THE ushering in of a new government has generated excitement in Pakistan for a

political paradigm shift, with the promise of strengthening public institutions, good
governance and accountability to advance citizens’ social and economic well-being and
to protect our environment for future generations. Will we see a paradigm shift in the
water sector? What should such a shift look like?
In his Aug 19 address, Prime Minister Khan highlighted numerous
infrastructure-oriented solutions (the Diamer Bhasha dam, canal lining, etc) for our
water woes. This should not be the paradigm shift. While such measures are important
components of our water planning and management framework, they do not
adequately address the socioeconomic and environmental sustainability challenges we
face. In fact, romanticising infrastructure-oriented solutions shifts the focus from
long-standing issues of poor management, substandard water quality and inequitable
delivery. These problems are a consequence of our static water policies, poor
governance, institutional weaknesses and lack of accountability — and the magic wand
of infrastructure development is not the solution.
If the goals of the paradigm shift are socioeconomic well-being and environmental
sustainability, the focus of any water solution should be on i) provision of clean water
for drinking and domestic use to all Pakistanis, ii) equitable water supplies to all
farmers (and industrial users) as per predefined water rights, and iii) extraction of
water from the Indus basin to levels that are environmentally sustainable. The means
to these ends are revisions of key policy documents (especially the 1991 Water
Apportionment Accord and the 2018 National Water Policy) and institutional
reforms.
The magic wand of infrastructure development is not the solution.
The policy framework should first see a revamp of the 1991 accord between the
provinces. In his address, Mr Khan rightly pointed out that sustainable water supply to
large cities (especially Karachi and Quetta) is the foremost challenge. While introducing
new water treatment plants, desalination, etc, mentioned in the PTI’s Karachi plan,
may be important cogs of an urban water solution, explicitly introducing urban
budgets and entitlements in the provincial water accord is inevitable and will usher in
a sustainable, economically feasible source of water supply to large urban centres. A
city like Lahore, for instance, could then rely less on groundwater extraction. There is
already precedence for this: in 2016, all provinces agreed on allocating 200 cubic feet
per second of water to Islamabad and Rawalpindi from the Indus at Ghazi Barotha.
Reliable and equitable water delivery for farmers and industry is another key challenge
that requires a paradigm shift towards institutional reforms of water institutions.
There is a genuine lack of service-oriented accountability among our key water delivery
institutions. Water for agriculture, for instance, is to be delivered by irrigation
departments (within provinces) through an equitable distribution mechanism, also
referred to as the rotational plan. While ensuring delivery according to the rotational
plan is the prime responsibility of each department, are these institutions held
accountable for ensuring equitable delivery according to water rights and the
rotational plans? Are these institutions well equipped, in terms of human resources,
technologies for water monitoring, and systems and standards for accounting, to
ensure reliable and equitable water delivery? Unfortunately, no.
The 2018 National Water Policy is a landmark document that provides an opportunity
to initiate reforms for our federal and provincial water institutions. However, it needs
a major revisit if fostering water reforms is a key objective of the paradigm shift (the
name should also be changed to ‘national water reforms’). In its current form, the
policy highlights the importance of strengthening institutional capacity. However,
when tangible timelines and solutions are proposed for the next decade, the document
heavily leans towards infrastructure development, and the mention of institutional
reforms is negligible.
In this regard, we can definitely learn from Australia, who in 2004 proposed their
National Water Initiative, a blueprint of their water reforms. The foundation of this
reform was introduction of a standardised system for monitoring and accounting of
water rights. The blueprint pledged a timeline for incorporating this reform and
successfully did so by 2014.
Climate change and the drought of 2018 have compelled the nation to rally behind
our leaders in support of the Diamer Bhasha dam fund, and rightly so. However, there
is a great risk that a genuine paradigm shift will drown in the waters of the Bhasha
reservoir. Hopefully, this won’t be the case.
By: Taimoor Akhtar
Source: https://www.dawn.com