Prickly questions
THE 18th Amendment has, quite unfortunately, become the elephant in the room in policy circles just because our political leaders refuse to engage in debate over the issues that divide them. Recently, the PML-N and PPP sparred extensively over the matter after some remarks from N-League leaders were interpreted by the PPP as being suggestive of a fresh conspiracy to roll back the amendment. Criticism of the 18th Amendment has picked up in recent years as the federal resource pie has shrunk in size, and is seen to have come mainly from ‘security’ circles and parties that have sought to curry favour with them. As the PML-N’s star shines bright these days, it was not really surprising, then, that comments on the 18th Amendment from its leaders raised hackles in the PPP, which has jealously defended it as one of its key legislative achievements. However, while the PML-N has since ‘clarified’ that it does not intend to do away with the 18th Amendment, just to see it implemented it in its original spirit — which, it argues, entails a further devolution of power to the local government level — the PPP has continued to insist this is another disguised attempt at reversing the law and revoking provincial autonomy.
Though the PTI and PML-N may not see it now, the PPP’s stout defence of the 18th Amendment has done a great service to both Pakistani democracy as well as other parties. At the same time, however, political discussions and debates over how democratic power may be further devolved to the grassroots level should be welcomed and not resisted. In this, the PPP must make itself available to hearing and debating the concerns of its rival parties, instead of simply shutting them all down as some ‘conspiracy’. Democracy, after all, flows from an empowered citizenry; therefore, any proposal that seeks to increase the public’s participation in the state’s decision-making processes should be encouraged. One way to gain greater control over the debate on the 18th Amendment may be to take the lead in discussions and steer them towards a direction that is acceptable to all. Ultimately, it is parliament that must decide the amendment’s fate. It would be far better if this were to be done through consensus and debate rather than by railroading changes through the legislature without fully understanding their long-term implications.
Published in Dawn, December 12th, 2023
A grave injustice
THE Indian supreme court has validated the great injustice committed by New Delhi against the people of held Kashmir in August 2019. Hearing a number of petitions challenging the abrogation of Article 370 of the Indian constitution over four years ago, the court on Monday ruled that the said article “was an interim arrangement”, and that the BJP-led government’s dubious decision to scrap the disputed territory’s limited autonomy was the “culmination of the process of integration”.
Pouring salt on the Kashmiris’ wounds, one of the justices observed that a ‘truth and reconciliation commission’ should be set up in the occupied region to probe rights’ violations.
The learned judge should know that successive Indian governments have systematically denied the Kashmiri people their fundamental rights, and no one believes that an administration that treats Kashmir as conquered territory will seriously look into the abuses perpetrated by its own troops.
Amongst the petitioners were parties that have always been loyal to New Delhi; the Indian state rewarded them for their ‘loyalty’ by reportedly putting Mehbooba Mufti and Omar Abdullah under house arrest before the verdict was announced.
The decision is likely to give the BJP’s Hindutva juggernaut a further boost in next year’s elections, while it is also an attempt to rewrite history. The world recognises Kashmir as a disputed territory, even though India is trying to create new facts on the ground.
The abrogation of Article 370 has allowed India to change held Kashmir’s demographics, and effectively turn Kashmiris into a minority in their ancestral land.
In a related development, Indian Home Minister Amit Shah recently told the Lok Sabha that “Nehruvian blunders” had hurt New Delhi’s case vis-à-vis Kashmir. The ‘blunders’ he was referring to were Jawaharlal Nehru’s acceptance of the ceasefire during the 1947-48 Pakistan-India war, and taking the dispute to the UN.
He added that if these ‘mistakes’ had not been made, Azad Kashmir would today be part of India. Again, these are reflections of the Sangh’s revisionist, revanchist thought, as other Indian ministers have also made irresponsible statements about ‘taking back’ Gilgit-Baltistan.
The court’s decision may strengthen India’s stranglehold over Kashmir, but it cannot extinguish the Kashmiris’ strong desire for freedom and dignity. No amount of Indian legal subterfuge, or brute force, can stop the Kashmiris from demanding their legitimate rights.
Though Pakistan has rejected the Indian court’s decision, unfortunately, successive administrations here have failed to adequately highlight the Kashmir issue diplomatically on the global stage, which has added to India’s brazenness.
Sadly, not all occupations are deemed equal by the ‘international community’, as evident in the fact that the occupation of Kashmir and Palestine is conveniently brushed aside, whilst the occupation of Ukraine is cast as an existential battle between democracy and authoritarianism.
Published in Dawn, December 12th, 2023