The Kashmir Issue

The Kashmir Issue has been an unsolvable problem for Pakistan, India and the international community for a very long time. Apart from the pressing problem of Palestine and Israel that has reached no solution either, the Kashmir issue drags on, stalemated, begging for a solution. There have been numerous debates and articles suggesting solutions and roles of different countries. The following article is my attempt at the role of Pakistan. Your feedback is appreciated. 

The Kashmir Issue & Role of Pakistan

Kashmir is an 86,000 square miles area surrounded by Pakistan, Afghanistan, China and India located in central Asia. It has an approximate population of 13 million Kashmiris and is larger than 87 sovereign countries. However, despite its size it has still been a dependent state ruled by others for centuries; firstly the Mauryas, then the Mughals, the Maharajahs and so on.

Unfortunately with the independence of two of its neighboring countries, Pakistan and India, from the British colonial rule, Kashmir became a disputed territory under the rule of its neighbors. Though the Kashmir Liberation Army overthrew its Hindu ruler shortly after the subcontinent’s partition; thereby setting a provisional government for Jammu and Kashmir, the Indian army did not let it enjoy their freedom for long. India invaded and occupied two-thirds of Kashmir, leaving one-third as Azad Jammu and Kashmir. The situation has been the same ever since. Except now it is worse.

Sadly, the plebiscite, given by the United Nations, allowing the people of Kashmir to choose which country to join was never held. The reason Kashmir issue still has not be resolved is the hostility between Pakistan and India; where India still considers Kashmir an integral part of its own territory and so refuses to give it up while Pakistan does not want India’s control and insists the dispute be determined on the basis of plebiscite. Moreover, Indian forces residing in Kashmir are constantly captivated in a continuous movement of extreme violence causing thousands of deaths each day.

Truly, no nation can survive in perpetual slavery for long and the people of Kashmir, sooner or later, will inevitably need to take an action to resolve their fate. However, for Kashmir to obtain complete independence is an unlikely idea because of its strategic position in the region which makes its independence a destabilizing factor. Nevertheless, clearly, both India and Pakistan do not favor the total independence of Kashmir anyway.

Kashmir is a Muslim state like Pakistan and Kashmir’s association with the State of Pakistan seems more ideal than with India. This is due to the rampant activity of brutality Indian forces have engaged in Jammu and Kashmir that falls under their rule now. However, at the moment, Pakistan’s standing in the international world is poorer than that of India’s; the other option Kashmir has. Pakistan is faced with numberless problems of its own within its own territory as well as with the rest of the world. These include terrorism, religious extremism, political instability, unchecked corruption at all levels, poverty, unemployment and so on. Pakistan’s role in the Kashmir conflict is simply to improve itself in all aspects and become a stable country that can self-sufficiently stand on its own. Only in such a state of affairs will the people of Kashmir want to associate themselves with our country.

Kashmir, by and large constituting a population of Muslims, would more likely annex with the state of Pakistan provided the country can ensure its security. We have many examples from world history showing weak nations that joined stronger ones in search for security and dependence. Alaska, for instance, joined America in 1959 because of America’s more established and stable governance and security in economic and political aspects for its citizens. Pakistan needs to offer that to its citizens and rid itself of all its cultural, religious and even provincial differences. Unfortunately, on the other hand, Pakistan’s own province, Balochistan, which is the largest, wants to detach itself from the country. This uncertainty in Balochistan is clearly due to the negligence of the Pakistani government to the basic needs of the Balochis; their literacy problem, health issues, lack of infrastructure, jobs, law, order and security in such a vast undeveloped mountainous region. Similarly, Pakistan has been unable to resolve the depreciating situation of law and order in FATA and NWFP. Any country whose own provinces desire to separate from its sovereignty would only more repel any other nations that want to adjoin with it.

Owing to such a dilapidated image, Pakistan’s chances of getting more foreign investment like China and other investor-friendly countries, has suffered and this inability adds to the instability of Pakistan’s economic growth. Pakistan direly needs to end corruption within the nation and develop itself socially, politically and economically so Kashmir can find security and confidence in it. Pakistan, unfortunately, is considered the land of terrorist in the global media especially due to unfortunate events in the last decade. Despite holding some of the most beautiful and scenic areas in the world, its tourist industry is hardly attracting any foreigners because they are frightened to visit Pakistan. This adds to the poor economic situation of the country.

Another example is that of Soviet Union that collapsed in 1991 giving independence to five central Asian states namely; Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan. This collapse was expected due to the repression of their local cultures, negligence to the increasing ethnic tensions and environment troubles of the minor states in the Soviet Union. Seeing this, Pakistan’s role in the Kashmir issue is to become the appealing option that Kashmir would readily want to opt for. Then the people of Kashmir would press for a plebiscite themselves. On the other hand, Kashmir, seeing Pakistan’s current conditions, rather wants to have nothing to do with it despite it being the ideal option. India, which comprises of mostly Hindu population and one which has practiced major violence in parts of Kashmir falling under their control, seems a more attractive option for Kashmir to associate with according to the rest of the world. This is due to India’s better standing in the global world and India’s more established political and economical state of affairs.

Pakistan’s recent crises not only involve extreme political upheaval, socio-economic issues, security threats, foreign drone attacks but also energy crises, food and electricity shortages, inflation, overpopulation etc which have very much weakened Pakistan’s position in the global world. Pakistan needs to become self-reliant by stabilizing its industry and economic institution in order to improve its image in the world. Pakistan is capable of it all as our land is naturally gifted with all that it takes to be developed; the people of Pakistan just need to vote for the right leaders that can lead the enthusiastic people of Pakistan in the right direction to develop this country economically and resolve its minor differences at all levels. Pakistan is rich in minerals and has a land capable of yielding better produce for the entire nation’s basic needs and this should be done in a sustainable way. Pakistan can easily develop itself faster because it holds resources and a lot of capacity. When comparing it to India, which has a huge population and as many problems to handle, Pakistan just needs to prioritize its economic growth to succeed in

the world as India has been doing. The people of Pakistan should focus less on the religious turmoil rising around the Muslim world and especially within Pakistan and realize what is best for them at this point to improve their position in the world to hold up a valued image. All this can be attained with more economic growth, self-sufficiency, technological advancement, improved education, and less time wastage on non-productive activities or maximizing differences. Pakistan needs to bring absolute literacy so social awareness will address the problem of wrong leadership, cultural conflicts, justice, corruption and sectarianism.

India is continually considered an enemy to Pakistan. If Pakistan and India enter into a friendly relationship like Canada and USA and help each other, Pakistan will not need to go on with its proxy war politics with India and be able to reduce its participation in the US war on terrorism. With a peaceful relationship with its neighbors, Pakistan can then use its resources to focus more on its own people’s welfare and work on more useful goals. Hence, Pakistan needs to address its dilemmas from within and establish itself well economically, socially and politically so that the people of Kashmir would want to join hands with it.

The Paradox of Choice: Do you really have a choice?

The Paradox of choice is one bewildering concept that everyone of us has at least once definitely questioned.  Have you ever wondered about it? Well, I published an article on it. Check it out and feel free to share your views!

The Paradox of Choice.. Ever Wondered?

Since the creation of mankind, about 65 million years ago, man has discovered the limitless diversity of choices he has been exposed to. The ability to choose has been learned quite proudly by man though only experience has taught him its rather bitter paradoxical nature. If paradox is defined as “a statement that seems self-contradictory or absurd but in reality expresses a possible truth” and choice, as “a mental process of judging merits of the possible options available and choosing one of them”, then paradox of choice is the right to choose that does not actually exist.

While, the right of choice is every individual's domain, it has proven to be a far more complex enigma. According to Kathleen hall, “one's life is a product of choices". Man seemingly possesses freewill but his choices are seen to be rather a product of the circumstances providence creates for him; the limitations of the options he is presented with make the concept of free choice absurd. Ever since the beginning of time, man's actions have been influenced by social pressures such as his familial background, caste, societal norms, beliefs, physical constraints etc. Such external limitations have shaped his perceptions and life choices.

Although freedom of choice is meant to facilitate the lives of men; suiting their individual requirements, today’s highly commercialized world of information age and technology has rather driven the minds of men dizzy with far too many options. Ever since the end of communism and the advent of capitalism, the miraculous possibilities in the lifestyles of people have greatly affected human priorities from humanity to materialism. Now, man not only has the choice amongst uncountable hair products but he can also alter his physical features with cosmetic surgery and even change the sex of his child before it is conceived! The latest fashion trends have to be followed by the public and those unaware are looked down upon.

Man is mostly a passive absorber in the face of persuasion of the dominant culture in his society. Seldom people venture to deviate from the general rule and prefer to fit in with the regular crowd. The capitalist world of today has inclined people's choices towards their projected products in order to favor their economic growth. Media has been an effective tool in brainwashing people and making the majority of the world's population conformists. This is how the right of choice has become non-personal and non-existent. Above all, the prevalent view of liberty of action and freedom of choice has been largely misunderstood. The numerous choices that the present world offers to man have crippled his decision making power and resulted in more dissatisfaction.

Although, in theory, commercialism presents more options to facilitate a better final decision; in practice, nonetheless, it has deprived man of his personal choice in the face of the dominant preference. Choice no longer remains personal and man subconsciously wishes he actually had his verdict in his choices. Therefore, the biggest paradox of choice is that we cannot choose what we want to choose.

Why You Shouldn't Stereotype.

Stereotyping is a human tendency that we all share to some extent. Following is a short article I once wrote about it. Feel free to give your feedback. :D 

Stereotyping? (< Click here to read)

Stereotyping?

Don't Underestimate Your Opponent.

Aerobic listening is a great skill to acquire. It is due to our poor listening most of the times that we tend to underestimate our opponent. Not a good idea at all. Check out the article I wrote about it given below. It might be useful for you.

Learning Not to Underestimate Your Opponent.  (< Click here to read)

Learning Not to Underestimate Your Opponent.  

What Makes a Suicide Bomber?

Sometime ago I was really interested in reading and writing about suicide bombers. That's when I wrote this post. It is different from other articles you may have read about terrorists, because this looks at the mindset of a suicide bomber.. Share your views if you read it. Will appreciate it.

Mind of a Suicide Bomber..

From the mind of a suicide bomber, things are very much different than how we perceive them. To understand the state of his mind and motives, it is necessary to view things from his lens by putting ourselves in his shoes, his social life and culture.

One opinion held by many thinkers attributes a terrorist’s extreme behavior to the miseries, poverty and a lack of sense of belonging in his life. The feeling of a lack of identity automatically attracts an impoverished person towards groups that are willing to form close ties with him. Psychological evidence suggests that terrorists are usually ordinary young boys from unremarkable backgrounds who join the radical terrorist comrades in hope of finding an identity, social status and an opportunity for action after a lifetime of rejection and dissatisfaction. In such close-knit groups, they are not only given a sense of belonging but a sense of meaning, connectedness and affiliation which was previously lacking in their lives. These motivating factors subjugate them enough that they will willingly go to any length to abide by the group’s norms, even if the truth projected to them is false.

Take the example of a young gullible boy who is not only deprived of education, especially proper religious education but also lacks an exposure to the outside world, being stuck in some remote northern area of Pakistan for his entire life. With his youth at its prime and a desire for action, he would certainly become the most suitable tool for a suicide attack. When this young boy is taken out of his poverty-stricken home and shown around the big cities of Pakistan; the dazzling lights of advertisements, developed infrastructure and the westernized dressing of the other citizens will inexorably strike this young boy as secular. Suppose within his little comradeship, the prevailing indecency in our local media is used to manifest a blatant rejection of the Qur’anic teachings by the westernized citizens in our society, who are then termed as “Kafirs” in front of him. Moreover, verses from the Holy Qur’an are cited to him that ‘literally’ order the killing of infidels in return for Heaven. This mentally poisoned boy will inevitably jump at carrying out the “sacred task” in search of acquiring the reward of salvation in the life hereafter.

The stark contrast in these two extremes of living, despite being in the same country, is bound to frustrate the weak-minded youth with its injustice and reinforce the feeling of misery in him. In such a state, he is undoubtedly susceptible to being brainwashed at the hands of any opportunists that attempt to exploit this weakness for their interests. Another incentive used may be the funding for his family after his death. In such a traumatic mental state, he will be unhinged enough to want escape from this world and if that can benefit his family with a handsome cash, he will be more than willing to do it. Thus to him, these suicide attacks are justified and noble. His actions stem more from his loyalty to his own group, reward in the hereafter and the religious culture that he is told is threatened and requires protection, than any personal hatred towards us.

His emotional commitment to his cause and his comrades shows he is not psychologically deviant. Therefore I reckon that instead of simply antagonizing these groups, the state should arrange ways of educating these young boys of Pakistan living in such areas so that they are not easily picked by any terrorist group. The total neglect of the government towards the quality of life of these poor citizens and the insecurity in their area is only more conducive to the mission of the terrorist organizations. Pakistan is a dualistic state where the corrupted elite only focus on their own interests; the general public of Pakistan cannot be bothered for their lack of national character. Moreover, the growing propagation of secular ideologies in the capitalist media of today is creating an indifferent and shallow Pakistani youth that only seeks pleasure and leisure. Serious measures need to be taken to do away with their material deprivation in addition to at least a basic religious education from an authentic source. Moreover, being Muslims, every layman of Pakistan, irrespective of class or culture, should acquire a considerable knowledge about the real teachings of Qur’an, in its right context and learn about the life of the Holy Prophet (saw). This will not only help clear their doubts about their religion but also enable them to confront the global issue of “Islam being linked with terrorism”. A certain amount of communication maybe needed to acquaint these young boys with the innocent population of Pakistan that is usually targeted to create political upheaval.

The story of a young terrorist sent on a mission to Wah Cantt is great evidence that supports this argument. One of the three young terrorists, upon seeing the poor laborers of the factory realized he was falsely informed about his fellow citizens and gave up his mission. This is a tangible evidence of the fact that it is the socialization and the wrong information incorporated into their heads that arouses such an attitude in them. Instead of blowing up their innocent families to combat them, the state should not only cut down on the increasing indecency in our media and secularization in our society but also recruit and educate every individual of these areas. State’s attempt at conforming to religion will surely raise second thoughts in the minds of these young terrorists about the credibility of their exploiters.

Significance of Self-esteem, Self-Reliance and Integrity of Character.

Self-esteem is an integral part of human psyche. If we lack in this department, survival becomes challenging. Closely linked to it are self-reliance and integrity of character that aid in developing and enhancing self-esteem. Read the articles below to gain an in-depth insight into these qualities. They are written by me. :)

Benefits of Having Integrity of Character. (< Click here to read)

Benefits of Having Integrity of Character.

Benefits of Becoming Self-Reliant in Life. / Why We Need Self-Reliance. (< Click here to read)

Benefits of Becoming Self-Reliant in Life.

Why Do We Need Self-Esteem for a Healthy Survival? (< Click here to read)

Why Do We Need Self-Esteem for a Healthy Survival? 

How Your Level of Self-Esteem Can Affect Your Memory!  (< Click here to read)

How Your Level of Self-Esteem Can Affect Your Memory! 

If you found this post useful or would just like to comment, your feedback is welcome. :)

The Arabs & Israelis

The Arabs and the Israelis had always been in conflict owing to their struggle between Zionist and Arab Nationalism in the Middle East. The State of Israel came into being in 1948 when the United Nations partitioned the British colony of Palestine into Jewish and Arab states. The Arabs and the Jews have had clashes of interest over two main concerns since the late 19th century. Firstly, Jews wanted a state of their own within the Arab world, which they did achieve in 1948. Secondly, they wanted to hold their control over the Palestine territory as they believe it is a part of their historical homeland.

This clash has been the reason for the armed conflict that has occurred on and off between the Arab states and Israel in the form of 1948, 1956, 1967 and 1973 Arab-Israeli wars consecutively. In the Six Day war of 1967 between the Arab States and Israel, the latter not only managed to defeat the Arab world but also acquired control of Golan Heights from Syria, the West Bank from Jordan as well as Gaza and Sinai from Egypt. Following this war, United Nations Security Council passed Resolution 242 in which Israel was to pull out of all the occupied territories while a guarantee was given to secure borders to all nations. Hence, Israel was, for the first time, accepted as a sovereign country.

A little before the 1973 war, Anwar Sadat of Egypt showed a slight interest in making a peace deal with the Israelis provided they return the occupied territories. The opportunity was lost when the United States showed lack of interest. This culminated in Egypt and Syria preparing for a surprise attack on Israel in 1973. The 1973 Arab-Israel war also known as the Yom Kippur war clearly roused the two superpowers to find a permanent solution to the Arab-Israel conflict as it started tensions between the United States and the Soviet Union. As a result, the United States and USSR agreed to call for meetings in Geneva where all the representatives of the Arab States were to decide a solution for the Arab-Israel conflict with Israel. However, Israel was more in favor of bilateral negotiations with an Arab country rather than the Geneva conference where the outnumbering Arab states would belittle Israel’s position. The Geneva Conference of 1973 did not prove fruitful towards resolving the Arab Israel conflict.

The Geneva conference that occurred in 1975 also failed because both the parties could not reach an agreement on the issue of Palestine’s representation and the fate of the occupied territories. In 1976, the president of the United States at the time, Jimmy Carter strategized another Geneva conference with the support of Soviet Union. However, this time both the Israelis and the Egyptians preferred bilateral negotiations and hence resisted the idea of another Geneva conference. It was these bilateral negotiations that both countries were interested in that paved the way for Camp David accords that happened on 17th September, 1978, almost a year later.

What catalyzed the peace treaty that Egypt and Israel finally signed was Anwar Sadat’s significant trip to Jerusalem on November 19th to November 21st, 1977 where he spoke before the Knesset. This was significant because it was a move on the part of Egypt to show that it finally recognized Israel as a sovereign country, a move no other Arab State had taken. Historians suggest many reasons why Anwar Sadat took this step and one is that Sadat wanted Egypt to regain its power in the Arab World which he thought was diminishing as the leader of the Arab world. Also, apart from not wanting to deal with the Soviets by having a Geneva Conference, he also feared that Egypt would otherwise not be able to regain its control of Sinai. On the other hand, Israel was also not interested in a multilateral Geneva conference for several reasons. Firstly, they feared the possibility of America inviting PLO to the conference and hence leading to the establishment of a sovereign Palestine state. Secondly, just like the Egyptians, they did not want the involvement of the Soviets and thirdly, like before, they resented the idea of being outnumbered by the Arab states at the conference table.

Following Sadat’s visit to Jerusalem, Menachem Begin, the presidents of Israel, agreed to withdraw Israeli troops from the disputed territory of Sinai and hence return Egyptian sovereignty over that region. It was easy to do as this region was not as significant to Israel as was the obstructing of the establishment of a Palestinian state in the West Bank. The agreement to withdraw from the territory of Sinai was a diplomatic act on the part of Begin to distract the international world from the issue of Palestine and hence also gain the favor of the United States for making concessions geared towards achieve a peace treaty with the Arab world. For the next half year, both Egypt and Israel continued bilateral negotiations. However, little was achieved. Dreading a conclusion was not being reached, Jimmy Carter invited Anwar Sadat and Menachem Begin to the United States to hold secret talks in Camp David in the month of September, 1978.

The Camp David Accords were to deal with four basic issues. Firstly, these talks would work at reaching a peace treaty between Egypt and Israel and normalize their relations. Secondly, these would deal with the matter of Israel’s demilitarization and withdrawal of its troops from Sinai. Thirdly, these would discuss the future of the West Bank and Gaza and lastly, these would discuss the withdrawal of Israeli troops from all occupied territories and the right of Palestinians to self-determination.

Factors that increased Sadat’s interest in the invitation to Camp David Accords by the United States, at that time, were mainly to regain Arab support by ensuring Israel’s withdrawal from all the occupied territories, establishing a sovereign state for the Palestinians while signing a peace treaty with Israel which would reduce the Israel threat and allow him to lower the defense budget for Egypt. Also, the involvement of the United States increased the hope of the realization of Sadat’s strategy at Camp David.

On the other hand, although, Israel had defeated the Arab world singlehandedly with its trained military, Begin still wanted regional security among all Arab states in the Middle East region. Hence, Israel wanted a peace deal with Egypt, which was the largest member state of the Arab coalition. This way Israel would afford to reduce its defense expenditure and reduce the threat of any attack from any other Arab state as it would be on peaceful terms with Egypt. However, Israel was not ready to discuss the issue of Palestine or commit anything regarding the self-determination of the Palestinians. The involvement of the United States, for Begin too, was seen as a catalyst to such a deal.

Jimmy Carter, then again, wanted to succeed in reaching any agreement at all between Egypt and Israel in order to save his presidency as the next presidential elections were nearing and there had been no fruitful results with regards to Egypt-Israel peace process.

The Camp David Accords lasted for thirteen days where the talks between Begin and Sadat, mediated by the U.S president Jimmy Carter were held secret from the press or the outside world at all.

Soon in the Israeli-Egyptian negotiations, personality conflicts of Sadat and Begin became very obvious where according to Telhami, the meetings even turned into shouting matches between Begin and Sadat showing that the leaders “could not interact constructively on a personal level”. In the aftermath, Begin and Sadat had to be kept apart where Jimmy Carter and his assistants used a kind of “shuttle diplomacy” where Carter played the role of a real mediator. He went to each delegation to talk to them separately and then move to the other cabin to discuss the matter.

Progress appeared in a couple of days where the U.S delegation managed to come up with a draft proposal concerning the major issues to be resolved. Every version of the draft proposal written by the United States was criticized and rewritten to improve in the light of their critique which ended up resulting in deadlock in a few more days.

The deadlock was mainly due to Begin and Sadat’s differing demands regarding the issue of Sinai and the settlements in the West Bank and Gaza. After ten days, when the Israeli Foreign Minister Moshe Dayan was unable to come to a resolution, Carter felt sure the Camp David talks were going to fail.

However, Carter did not give up at this point for the sake of presidency. He strategized a way to solve the issue by going to its root. The reason the Sinai issue was not coming to a conclusion was because Begin did not abandon the Israeli settlements and air basis there for which Carter offered a solution. He offered to guarantee Israel’s continued access to oil supplies as well as to build two new air bases in the Negev Desert to make Israel agree to the peace treaty. As this issue was settled, the deal was finalized on 17th September, 1978, the thirteenth day of the Camp David Accords and signed by all three parties.

The first issue dealt in the Camp David Accords was the future of the Sinai and a peace treaty between Israel and Egypt to be concluded within three months. Israel, in the Camp David accords, agreed to withdraw from Sinai within three years while also consented to demilitarize it by destroying its air bases near the Gulf of Aqaba and Yamit. In return, Egypt offered full diplomatic relations with Israel and allowing Israel to pass through the Suez Cana, the Strait of Tiran as well as the Gulf of Aqaba. Though peace treaty between the two countries was very clear in addition to the demilitarization of Sinai and withdrawal of the Israelis from there, the issue of the future of Palestinians’ right to sovereignty was not clear. The language used in the Camp David Accords for this issue was, “a self-governing authority (administrative council) in the West Bank and Gaza” which seemed to favor both parties.

This play of diplomacy at the Camp David Accords greatly revealed the personality differences between Sadat and Begin where Sadat was proving to be too accommodating and trusting than Begin was. In fact, Sadat, during the meetings, offered Carter a written document explicitly outlining Egypt's position which only one other member of the Egyptian delegation was aware of at the time. Shortly following this, Carter had been willing to reveal the Egypt’s position to Begin as he really wanted to reach an agreement between Israel and Egypt in order to sustain his presidency. On the other hand, the Israeli delegation was very cautious and hesitant in trusting the United States delegation with their position, motives or any possibility of a compromise on their part. Furthermore, Begin was also very good at embellishing the only accommodation that Israel did make regarding Sinai which proved him to be more diplomatic in dealing with Egypt and the United States than Sadat was and thus Israel had an advantage in the Camp David agreement.

The impact of this agreement mainly was that the result of this bargaining fairly went in favor of Begin. Begin accomplished his goal of signing a peace treaty with the most important of the Arab countries, which was Egypt, by only demilitarizing Sinai while also skillfully diverting the international attention from his bigger concern; the issue of Palestine. On the other hand, all Sadat achieved was a peace treaty with Israel and some other minor concessions but could not settle the Palestine issue. It was also after the Camp David Accords that the Egyptian-Israeli Peace treaty was signed on 26th March, 1979 a year later. According to some historians, it was perhaps the security and confidence that Israel gained from this agreement that led to the Israel attack on Lebanon in 1982. After this agreement, Egypt, not only regained its control of Sinai but also held prestige among the Arab countries for enjoying closer diplomatic relations with the United States.