For decades, Pakistan has celebrated February 5 as Kashmir Day. In line with its stance on the Kashmir issue, it expresses support for the people of Indian-administered Kashmir and their right to self-determination. But this year, it was different. In spite of the claim by a number of columnists that Pakistan’s resolve has rejuvenated, there is a marked difference between the speeches made by Pakistan’s Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif in Muzaffarabad in 2015 and 2016. A number of political and even militant groups make their presence felt in Pakistan on Kashmir Day, but it is the prime minister’s statements that indicate the country’s policies.
On February 5, 2015, addressing a joint session of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Assembly in Muzaffarabad, Sharif said Kashmir “runs in my blood” and is “the jugular vein of Pakistan”. He accused New Delhi of not being sincere in carrying out meaningful talks with Islamabad to resolve the longstanding dispute, and of adopting delaying tactics. Despite his assertion that a dialogue could resolve the issue, his frustration was evident in his tone and tenor.
This year, Nawaz Sharif arrived at the same venue to speak about the same issue. But his body language and selection of words were in complete contrast with what he had said last year. There was little rhetoric, and he spoke the language of reconciliation. “The people of the two countries cannot prosper and progress until the lingering issue is resolved,” he said, expressing hope that the dialogue process between Pakistan and India would move forward in the days to come. Significantly, he said his government would cooperate with India on all issues including that of rooting out terrorism.
This change in his posture is obviously a result of the renewed goodwill between New Delhi and Islamabad that began with the surprise visit of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi to Lahore on December 25 last year. The two leaders agreed to continue the comprehensive bilateral dialogue. Sharif does not want to do or say anything that would harm the relations between the two countries, especially when the terrorist attack on India’s Pathankot airbase led to the postponement of talks between their foreign secretaries scheduled for January 15. The setback seems temporary though, because the two countries have not canceled the talks.
In this context, the speech made by Nawaz Sharif in Muzaffarabad this year is very significant, especially because of the importance of the venue that has been referred to as “the base camp for the freedom of Kashmir” in Pakistan’s parlance. When Sharif arrives in Muzaffarabad to make a speech on Kashmir Day, he is expected to reiterate Pakistan’s stated position on the issue. The only significant example of that was when he referred to the 1948 United Nations security council resolution on Kashmir, and said the UN’s prestige was at stake.
Three days before Sharif’s restrained Kashmir Day speech, the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs of Pakistan’s parliament asked its government to not encourage calls for active support for armed, and banned, militant groups in Kashmir. The committee, headed by the ruling Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) lawmaker Awais Ahmad Leghari, proposed that the government take action against “violent armed outfits” to dispel international concerns that Pakistan was not doing enough against groups involved in attacks in Kashmir. The panel suggested that Pakistan’s policy towards India should be based on four key principles – reciprocity, reduction, resumption and result.
“Pakistan should continue seeking comprehensive engagement with India on all outstanding issues,” the committee said. At the same time, the committee recommended that “Pakistan should continue to call for the resolution of the Kashmir dispute as the core issue between the two countries.” It also recommended “expansion of democratic space by tapping into civil society voices” in Kashmir on both sides of the Line of Control, “and seek reduction in state-sponsored violence against Kashmiris” referring to India.
While Sharif tried to walk a cautious path to avoid causing any damage to the renewed engagement with India, groups like Jamaatud Dawa organized powerful rallies calling for a violent resolution to Kashmir. A day before the Pakistani prime minister addressed the assembly in Muzaffarabad, Hafiz Saeed was in Mirpur, saying every Pakistani child should make a sacrifice for Kashmir’s freedom. “If the war in Kashmir prolongs, India will have to pay a heavy price for it,” he said. “On the occasion of Kashmir Day, I want more intensity in the freedom struggle.” He led another rally in Islamabad on February 5.
The biggest challenge for Sharif is to strike a balance between his peace overtures and to what India calls “continuously ignoring the likes of Hafiz Saeed and Masood Azhar”. The apparent support of Pakistan Army on his engagement with India gives him an advantage. But he also has to address the Kashmir constituency in Pakistan, that consists of political parties as well as extremist groups who have emerged more powerful than the traditional pro-Kashmir lobby.
After a statement by David Hadley – a suspect in the 2008 Mumbai attacks – that he had met Hafiz Saeed, and Pakistan’s denial of Masood Azhar’s involvement in the Pathankot attack, Sharif’s soft statements may not be enough to resume the dialogue between Islamabad and New Delhi. The BJP government seems hesitant to continue the engagement in absence of what it calls “concrete action” against Masood Azhar, Hafiz Saeed and their company. It is unlikely that the talks between the two foreign secretaries will resume soon.
The author is a veteran journalist from Srinagar and the editor-in-chief of
Rising Kashmir
On February 5, 2015, addressing a joint session of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Assembly in Muzaffarabad, Sharif said Kashmir “runs in my blood” and is “the jugular vein of Pakistan”. He accused New Delhi of not being sincere in carrying out meaningful talks with Islamabad to resolve the longstanding dispute, and of adopting delaying tactics. Despite his assertion that a dialogue could resolve the issue, his frustration was evident in his tone and tenor.
This year, Nawaz Sharif arrived at the same venue to speak about the same issue. But his body language and selection of words were in complete contrast with what he had said last year. There was little rhetoric, and he spoke the language of reconciliation. “The people of the two countries cannot prosper and progress until the lingering issue is resolved,” he said, expressing hope that the dialogue process between Pakistan and India would move forward in the days to come. Significantly, he said his government would cooperate with India on all issues including that of rooting out terrorism.
This change in his posture is obviously a result of the renewed goodwill between New Delhi and Islamabad that began with the surprise visit of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi to Lahore on December 25 last year. The two leaders agreed to continue the comprehensive bilateral dialogue. Sharif does not want to do or say anything that would harm the relations between the two countries, especially when the terrorist attack on India’s Pathankot airbase led to the postponement of talks between their foreign secretaries scheduled for January 15. The setback seems temporary though, because the two countries have not canceled the talks.
His body language and word selection were completely different
In this context, the speech made by Nawaz Sharif in Muzaffarabad this year is very significant, especially because of the importance of the venue that has been referred to as “the base camp for the freedom of Kashmir” in Pakistan’s parlance. When Sharif arrives in Muzaffarabad to make a speech on Kashmir Day, he is expected to reiterate Pakistan’s stated position on the issue. The only significant example of that was when he referred to the 1948 United Nations security council resolution on Kashmir, and said the UN’s prestige was at stake.
Three days before Sharif’s restrained Kashmir Day speech, the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs of Pakistan’s parliament asked its government to not encourage calls for active support for armed, and banned, militant groups in Kashmir. The committee, headed by the ruling Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) lawmaker Awais Ahmad Leghari, proposed that the government take action against “violent armed outfits” to dispel international concerns that Pakistan was not doing enough against groups involved in attacks in Kashmir. The panel suggested that Pakistan’s policy towards India should be based on four key principles – reciprocity, reduction, resumption and result.
“Pakistan should continue seeking comprehensive engagement with India on all outstanding issues,” the committee said. At the same time, the committee recommended that “Pakistan should continue to call for the resolution of the Kashmir dispute as the core issue between the two countries.” It also recommended “expansion of democratic space by tapping into civil society voices” in Kashmir on both sides of the Line of Control, “and seek reduction in state-sponsored violence against Kashmiris” referring to India.
While Sharif tried to walk a cautious path to avoid causing any damage to the renewed engagement with India, groups like Jamaatud Dawa organized powerful rallies calling for a violent resolution to Kashmir. A day before the Pakistani prime minister addressed the assembly in Muzaffarabad, Hafiz Saeed was in Mirpur, saying every Pakistani child should make a sacrifice for Kashmir’s freedom. “If the war in Kashmir prolongs, India will have to pay a heavy price for it,” he said. “On the occasion of Kashmir Day, I want more intensity in the freedom struggle.” He led another rally in Islamabad on February 5.
The biggest challenge for Sharif is to strike a balance between his peace overtures and to what India calls “continuously ignoring the likes of Hafiz Saeed and Masood Azhar”. The apparent support of Pakistan Army on his engagement with India gives him an advantage. But he also has to address the Kashmir constituency in Pakistan, that consists of political parties as well as extremist groups who have emerged more powerful than the traditional pro-Kashmir lobby.
After a statement by David Hadley – a suspect in the 2008 Mumbai attacks – that he had met Hafiz Saeed, and Pakistan’s denial of Masood Azhar’s involvement in the Pathankot attack, Sharif’s soft statements may not be enough to resume the dialogue between Islamabad and New Delhi. The BJP government seems hesitant to continue the engagement in absence of what it calls “concrete action” against Masood Azhar, Hafiz Saeed and their company. It is unlikely that the talks between the two foreign secretaries will resume soon.
The author is a veteran journalist from Srinagar and the editor-in-chief of
Rising Kashmir