BEGIN:VCALENDAR
VERSION:2.0
PRODID:-//MP-IDSA - ECPv6.15.12.2//NONSGML v1.0//EN
CALSCALE:GREGORIAN
METHOD:PUBLISH
X-WR-CALNAME:MP-IDSA
X-ORIGINAL-URL:https://idsa.in
X-WR-CALDESC:Events for MP-IDSA
REFRESH-INTERVAL;VALUE=DURATION:PT1H
X-Robots-Tag:noindex
X-PUBLISHED-TTL:PT1H
BEGIN:VTIMEZONE
TZID:Asia/Kolkata
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:+0530
TZOFFSETTO:+0530
TZNAME:IST
DTSTART:20150101T000000
END:STANDARD
END:VTIMEZONE
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=Asia/Kolkata:20160222T053000
DTEND;TZID=Asia/Kolkata:20160222T053000
DTSTAMP:20261104T153037
CREATED:20231224T111012Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20231224T130739Z
UID:64465-1456119000-1456119000@idsa.in
SUMMARY:Round Table on Developments in POK: Choices for India
DESCRIPTION:A  roundtable discussion on “Developments in Pakistan occupied Kashmir: Choices  for India” was held at IDSA on February 22\, 2016. Eminent experts from cross  section including former diplomats\, academics and journalists were invited to  share their views on the subject. Following experts participated in the  discussion: Ambassador Satish Chandra\, Ambassador Satinder K Lambah\, Ambassador  Virendra Gupta\, Ambassador T. C. A Raghavan\, Ambassador P. Stobdan\, Shri Rana  Banerji\, Professor K. Warikoo\, Professor Navnita Chadha Behera\, Professor  Mathew Joseph C.\, \n  Dr Ashok K. Behuria and Shri Sushant Sareen. The meeting was attended by Shri  Gopal Baglay (JS PAI)\, Ministry of External Affairs\, two other officials from  the PAI (Pakistan Afghanistan Iran) division and two officers serving at the  National Security Council Secretariat (NSCS). The session was moderated by Shri  Jayant Prasad\, Director General\, IDSA. Deputy Director General Brigadier Rumel  Dahiya (retd.) and scholars within IDSA with expertise and interest in PoK also  participated in the roundtable. \nPoints for Discussion\n  The  roundtable was held in the backdrop of growing demand for Gilgit Baltistan’s  (GB) constitutional upgradation as a separate province of Pakistan. The demand  for absorption of GB into Pakistan as the fifth province has been doing the  rounds since September 2012\, when the GB Legislative Assembly passed a  resolution to this effect. Following are some of the pertinent questions\, which  the participants in the roundtable discussion sought answers to. \n\nWhat are the local demands in PoK (both ‘AJK’ and  GB)? How is the federal government responding to these demands?\nWhat could be the fall-out of the continuing  political disaffection in the PoK?\nWhat are the domestic or external compulsions  behind Pakistan’s move to consider change in the political status of GB?\nWhat are the legal and political implications of  GB’s constitutional absorption into Pakistan for India?\nWhat should be India’s position if the proposal  to make GB a province fructifies in near future?\n\nSignificant Takeaways  & Recommendations\n\nThere was near unanimity amongst the participants that India’s position is  defined and bound by the Parliament Resolution of 1994 which delineated India’s  claim on the entire state of Jammu and Kashmir including PoK\, and also urged Pakistan  to vacate areas belonging to former princely state which have been under its  control since 1947. Therefore\, it wass suggested that the policy makers in  India should stick to the mandate under the 1994 resolution while discussing  PoK.\nMost of the participants appreciated IDSA’s work on PoK and held that the  institute was playing a key role in spreading awareness on the subject among  the members of the strategic community within India. It was suggested\,  therefore\, that concerted efforts should be made to extend IDSA’s reach and  write about issues and developments in PoK\, in the mainstream media. The  participants agreed that there was an urgent need to keep sensitizing people  within India on the developments in PoKGiven the fact that overall public awareness  about PoK is rather poor\, the particiants held that the onus is on the  government to initiate measures to highlight the plight of the people of PoK  and also Chitral\, which was also a part of the erstwhile princely state of  Kashmir. . Relevant literature focussing on developments in PoK must be  compiled and circulated with special emphasis on vernacular literature in the  form of memoirs and comments in the media.\nOne of the recommendations from a 2010 IDSA PoK Project Report that India  should offer citizenship to people from PoK- both residents and members from  PoK diaspora\, settled mostly in the United Kingdom and the United States\, was  taken up for discussion in the round table. It was suggested that this proposition  was impracticable and and\, hence\, should be  dropped as a policy option. However\, India could  consider providing scholarships in education sector to students from PoK.\nThere was a consensus that India should bring out a white paper on PoK (in  sync with the concept note prepared by IDSA) where the sufferings inflicted on  the people of PoK should be highlighted/articulated in greater detail. There is  a need to draw international attention towards human rights violations in PoK.\nIt was suggested that India needed to vociferously oppose the China  Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC). There is a need to rake up India’s  concerns/opposition on the project not only within India but at all relevant forums.\nIndia must offer stiff resistance to Pakistan’s attempt to turn Gilgit-Baltistan  into its fifth province. Such a move by Pakistan militates against the 1994  resolution that whole of PoK belonged to India.\nThere was a view that Pakistan should be encouraged to make mistakes in PoK.  India must try to harness and use the prevalent discontent and disaffection amongst  Shias and the followers of Aga Khanis\, including other communities in PoK  towards the establishment. The Aga Khan family is very influential in PoK and  much of the development work in the region is funded by the family foundation. The Aga Khan foundation had been quite  active till 2007 and investing heavily in the education sector in the G-B  region. However\, after targeted attacks on them by groups belonging to Sunni  sect\, they have largely gone into hiding suspension mode. Now they  have shifted their focus from education to  tourism.\nIndia should engage with the ‘Nationalist’ groups in PoK in an innovative  way. At the same time\, it is necessary to constantly review the state of  politics amongst several ethno-nationalist groups operating in G-B for quite  some time. For example\, there are differences in approach between the  Balwaristan and Baltistan nationalist fronts\, and the local leaders have  misgivings about\, and distrustful of\, one another. This has to be factored into  any effort to work with them.\nIt was noted that that a fair amount of communication should be sustained between  the people on both sides of LoC. The number of travellers coming into Indian  state of Jammu and Kashmir from the other side has decreased during the last  few years and this is not a positive sign. Although there are security-related issues\,  the positive outcomes of an enhanced level of contact and communication cannot  be neglected\, especially because it involves exposure of the people from the  other side to the ground reality on the Indian side and contributes to their  disillusionment with the system of governance granted to them by Pakistan. Of  course\, during height of turmoil in Kashmir\, the government has to be cautious  about such exchanges.  \nIndia should be more assertive on PoK by continually claiming the entire  Jammu and Kashmir\, including Gilgit-Baltistan and the so called Azad Jammu and  Kashmir (AJK). This is important because it would enhance our negotiating  capability in case the issue of give and take on Kashmir arises in future. India  should not develop a sense of apathy and resignation towards PoK. At the  very least\, such posture needs to be avoided as=t all costs. Politically\,  India’s position with regard to Pok has been rather defensive since the 1950s and  the discourse on Kashmir\, particularly at international level\, is one-sided and  valley-centric. Through constant reiteration of Indian sovereignty over PoK\,  India should hope to change the existing lopsided narrative of J&K\, which  has virtually granted Pakistan’s hold over PoK as a given\, while India’s  legitimate territorial claim over the truncated J&K State on the Indian  side of LoC is being thrown open for debate and resolution.\nThere is a need to encourage more organizations and scholars talking and  writing about PoK within India. The example of Kashmir Study Group headed by  Ghulam Nabi Fai was taken up during the discussion In this regard. This  organization used to be very well funded\, well connected\, well-plugged into  international organisational circuits and had\, to a great extent\, successfully churned  out and disseminated a pro-Pakistan narrative on Kashmir. The counter-narrative\,  which is historically correct and pro-India\, however\, is missing. For instance\,  the view of US State Department as well as that of the strategic community in  the European capitals on the Kashmir issue is quite narrow and unsympathetic  towards the Indian viewpoint. There are not much resources (literature) on PoK available  either in MEA or at the IDSA and there is a need to bring out informative and  analytical volumes on PoK. \nIt is absolutely essential to generate interest within the people of the  Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir over the issue of PoK. There should be more  scholars\, belonging to that region\, working on the issue\, through whom  information and awareness about PoK could be disseminated. The body of  information generated by Kashmiris themselves is likely to be considered more  authentic and credible. There should be more conferences specifically dealing  with PoK should be held in India to generate awareness about the region long  neglected in our official as well as unofficial discourses on Jammu and Kashmir.  It may not necessarily be organized by IDSA alone but could be held  collaboratively with other institutions or organizations.\nThe issue of water is completely missing from the Kashmir discourse\, which  otherwise is the key\, given the resentment in Mirpur over the Mangla dam royalty  and the growing demand for people in the state of Jammu and Kashmir for more  rights to harness and use water which flows through their territory. There is a  strong view emerging from J&K that Indus Water Treaty has sacrificed the  genuine interests of the people and bartered away their right to use the water  flowing through their territory for the sake of improving relations with  Pakistan. Such views need to come to the fore to buttress the Indian case over  IWT\, at a time when Pakistan is raising false alarms and baseless allegations  over ‘stealing’ of water by India. An assertive and indigenous Kashmiri voice  over the issue will certainly have a deterring impact on Pakistan’s belligerent  approach to the water issue.\nOn the issue of Pakistan taking a decision to declare Gilgit-Baltistan as  its fifth province\, it was noted that for India\, it could serve as a double-edged  sword. While it can be publicly contested by India\, the proposition could widen  the gulf between Pakistan and the Hurriyat and wider separatist constituency in  the Kashmir valley. Moreover\,  not  meeting the demands of the people of the region for G-B’s status equivalent to the  provinces of Pakistan\, would lead to greater alienation of the people with  Islamabad. The study of the whole issue of absorbing the region as a province reveals  that Pakistan is highly tentative over the issue and even set up a committee to  look at various alternatives to satisfy the people of the region without  undermining Pakistan’s stated position on Kashmir. However\, if it decides to  bring about necessary constitutional revision and declare G-B as a province\, under reported  pressure from China to alter the ‘disputed’ status of PoK to facilitate  implementation the CPEC project\, it would signal a significant departure from  the well-known Pakistani position on the Kashmir issue. \nSome of the participants believed  that India should sternly oppose any change of status of Gilgit Baltistan by  Pakistan.  It was suggested that the  voices of the nationalists and the left-wing activists in G-B were being drowned  in the over-advertised clamour for fifth province\, needs to be gleaned and  given adequate space in media. Besides this\, the overarching concerns of the  local Shias about growing state-sponsored intrusion of the Sunnis into the area  need to be monitored regularly and this can be utilized to serve India’s  interests in the region.  \nIt was argued that with regard to Kashmir\, Pakistan has its military and intellectual  fronts always ready for use\, while India has neither of these. There is  episodic interest in India in the Kashmir issue\, especially limited to the time  of turmoil in the valley. However\, the diplomatic and intellectual capital  being invested by Pakistan has made the discourse on Kashmir skewed  against India and\, hence\, there is a greater need  to change this situation. Instead of referring to the region as “Pakistan occupied  Kashmir”\, which lends a negative dimension to the issue and indirect legitimacy  to Pakistani hold over the terrain\, India could think in terms of altering the  nomenclature and reclaim the region by calling it “West Kashmir” or something  similar having a geographical connotation.\nWhile it is important that we evolve a clear set of objectives on PoK\,  before we set out delineating a roadmap\, freewheeling discussions would be always  helpful- to weigh available options for Idnia on PoK\, and proceed with the most  suitable objective in mind. We cannot have a static PoK policy and it has to be  dynamic to respond to changing local and geo-political situation in the region.   It may not also be a bad idea to hold on  to our claims and shape the international narrative in such a manner that it  accommodates the legitimate position of India over the issue. At the same time\,  in the face of stiff\, inflexible and maximalist position adopted by Pakistan\,  India should focus on strengthening its economic and military power and make it  easier for the next generation to deal with the issue in future. India needs to  be both cautious and proactive on PoK. It has to be understood\, nevertheless\,  that putting pressure on the military of Pakistan by exploiting its faultlines and  engaging the civilian government for normalization of relations are not  mutually exclusive propositions.\n\n(Report  prepared by Priyanka Singh and Manzoor Turabi)
URL:https://idsa.in/idsa-event/round-table-on-developments-in-pok-choices-for-india
CATEGORIES:ROUND TABLES / WORKSHOPS
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://idsa.in/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/no_photo-200x150-2.jpg
END:VEVENT
END:VCALENDAR