Opinion

Almost Communist: Fantasizing a Politics of Left in Gilgit-Baltistan

Published

3 years ago

July 12, 2021

The chaotic 20^th century accounted for an unparalleled wave of bloody carnages; statistics outrageously show that about 100 million people were lynched on the ideas of Class-Struggle or Class-Antagonism just under Lenin and Stalin, for many scholars, there was no difference between Nazism and Communism in practice. These figures are mostly and expectedly from anti-Marxist sources, but Hannah Arendt in the Origins of Totalitarianism and Umberto Eco in Ur-Fascism have had rigorously written against Stalinism and mentioned these figures. Yet, there is the tremendous possibility of prejudice and exaggeration.

Radical Marxists, presently, don’t want to revisit the authoritarian tendencies of the USSR under Stalin – obviously, Marxism cannot be accounted for the wrongdoings of some leaders. Nevertheless, Socialism still has an unprecedented magnetic attraction transcending space and time. German by birth, Marxism, like a liquidizing torrent, has now a global appeal, especially in the Global South just because of relentlessly proliferating inequality in economic, social, and ultimately political realms, and after disrupting Covid-19, market determinism has pushed working classes to the dens of abysmal poverty.

Just like other countries in the Third World, Pakistan is struggling, economically dependent on neoliberal institutions and neocolonial states for its ontological existence. The bail-out packages directly dogmatize the definition of a state. Anyway, the ambiguity in the political status of Gilgit-Baltistan has been a catalyst to political and economic alienation of the natives, and there is sheer pessimism about any future positive maneuvering to mainstream the area with the country or otherwise.

Although the nonexistence of industrial capitalism – in a classical way – negates the purpose of genesis, the surging corporate tourism and vicious tightening of indoor financial and political exploitations tip-off uncertain futures. Historical Recession is one of the Ten Commandments of postmodernists, perhaps the acute shortage of political philosophy in this region would lead to borrowing Socialism – there has never been an ideology more comprehensively encompassing the diversity, revolutionary, and evolutionary than Marxism – and then it would be a huge surprise to End of History.

Thus, this article strives to imagine unseen and utopian ideas in this region to anticipate probable surprises by History even though being a hotspot spanning from international to domestic interests, the meager status quo of Gilgit-Baltistan is immensely hard to maneuver with. And the future of GB is totally contingent on International geopolitical hanging interests. Thus, not the native forces but an international massive event might make revisionist progress in these mountains.

Guises of Capitalism have been prevalent and subtle simultaneously, we have to accept again that in a truly nihilistic world, Capitalism is really the ‘End of History,’ however; if the assumptions are otherwise then it is indispensable thinking about the future. Firstly, I would like to find out the genesis of Communism and see if it is suitable in Gilgit-Baltistan – perhaps this is the only alternative to the current world ‘order.’ And then Social Democracy or Egalitarianism, the synthesis of Socialism and Capitalism, which has a novel appeal in the country after mutated populism to check its compatibility.

Latin America, Asia, and Africa were loci of Marx’s ideas for decolonization. Contrastingly, the onset of class struggle was the aftermath of rapid industrial Capitalism, these regions had little experience in industrialization but revolutionaries deemed imperialism as domestic class antagonism. Gilgit-Baltistan is, unfortunately, the prey of domestic colonialism. International or indoor exploitations are prevalent in nuisance masquerades of detoxification, quasi-democracy, expropriating the natives, and passive attempts to craft a mythical identity.

The post-mature arrival of globalization has plunged headlong poverty, nevertheless, before that, people were, so to speak, living solely for basic survival necessities. Renaissance period initiated in the 1970s both economically and intellectually. People are now at the peak of political consciousness, Marx’s Dialectical Materialism proved to be relatable prepositions. Baba Jan’s abrupt appearance of his Left politics has triggered youth to be more conscious about communitarian complexities. Ehsan Ali Advocate and other veteran activists are still organized to make a change but Baba Jan made the headlines by extreme impatience of the state. The arrival of a new government and its rhetoric have appealed massively to both naïve minds and opportunists. The latter would not cease to exist, and the former would soon be out of false consciousness. Shortage of political ideas for change, as sooner or later the masses will be atomized to demand or be radicalized, either for political justice or new ideas, these inevitable circumstances will obviously lead clutching to the Socialist vocabulary.

Equality or classlessness is a core theme of Socialism, Communism is rather ultimate statelessness. In GB, economically people are almost sharing the same financial status resulting in a priori or primitive socialism. Nonetheless, Concessions – leasing land to nonnatives – is institutionalizing financial exploitations and local people benefitting immensely from the lands in suitable environs to utilize for tourism purposes will, in the long run, create classes. The staggering populations and ad hoc tourism is breeding imminent claustrophobia. 3% of land suitable for agriculture is turning insidiously into colonies, the pastures and meadows are increasingly seized by mafias. These all indicators are alarming inevitable social turmoil; tourism will effectively be damaged and wealth concentrated in hands of few locals and nonnatives. In the middle of this lurking chaos, there will be an opportunity for revolutionary changes.

The old rhetoric to attract adult franchises by material development is becoming a logical fallacy. Youth are demanding mainstreaming with the country or implementation of provisions ushered in by UNCIP in the 50s. Politics is changing and so do the agendas and manifestos. Religious parties are adopting secular means and manifestos for success at the polls but space for them to even attract the populace is tightening.[1] New voters, as mentioned, are anticipating change brought about by federal parties, especially the newest, but their imminent coalition government won’t change anything as the real powers wield out of the barrel of a gun or are covert. Thus, this naive optimism will change into pessimism staring blankly into the future; the room for ‘neo’ theories would have a leap.

The success of Social Democracy is contingent on demographics, resources, and history. The Nordic countries have complementary and unique environs compatible with this model. Unfortunately, in Gilgit-Baltistan, there are no petroleum resources to complement the economy for the maximization of social packages. The only way to do it is the common ownership of the tourism industry. Much would have been achieved if the state rather than creeping on the lands had helped locals to build infrastructure and broaden the tourism spots.

Now, the only way to save this region from the wrenched economy is common ownership. Locals have not and of course would not passively extend the honor to the state because of acute trust issues. The local strong decentralized state would be a suitable institution just to regulate the economy and abolish private interest. As the community is a strong institution in scattered valleys of Gilgit-Baltistan, local welfare organizations with legislative powers can run the local businesses for the people specific to the area.

Uncertainty is prevalent but politics is in a state of metamorphoses. Economics is undeniably vital nevertheless politics and lending the natural rights to a state must be even more important businesses. Consensus and legitimacy must never be on the tables of compromise in the name of national ‘security and ‘sovereignty.’ The bleak epoch is having a synthesis; this is the right time for demanding – as Gradualism has never been historically a feasible approach – or otherwise, social, economic and political justice.

Irfan Kazmi

Irfan Kazmi studies politics and sociology at Forman Christian College Lahore. Eternally fascinated about the national question of Gilgit-Baltistan, writing has been his way of thinking and resistance. He aspires to cover themes like poverty, patriarchy, absurdism, and politics.

Comments

Opinion

Revamping the Kashmir Policy

Published

3 years ago

August 11, 2021

Justice Retired Muzaffar Ali

By the end of the British rule in the subcontinent, Congress was expecting rule over United India, exclusively. The struggle failed when the Muslim League hit the nail on the head. Lastly, under compulsion of the situation, the Hindu leaders agreed on the partition of the subcontinent half-heartedly. But, showed their true colors and attempted encroaches, captured Junagarh State, and intruded the Indian army into the State of J&K under the cloak of “accession deed” by Maharaja Kashmir. Kashmiris stood against with arms, liberated a portion of the State, and proceeded to repel the Indian army from occupied J&K. Nehru, facing the defeat, went to the UNO with a complaint. The matter was referred to Security Council to investigate under chapter-VI of the UN Charter.

The Security Council, on the basis of reports received, declared the situation “likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security”. It formulated a peaceful settlement and passed various resolutions from 1948 up to 1998, wherein, the Security Council rejected the contention of India to occupy Kashmir on the basis of so-called accession deed but, accepted the democratic right of people of J&K, and determined, “the future of the state of Jammu and Kashmir shall be decided through the democratic method of a free and impartial plebiscite conducted under the auspices of United Nations.”

All the resolutions and the reports of the Security Council witness that, India waived its contention of accession and accepted the democratic right of plebiscite in the State of J&K, as the right of self-determination of Kashmiris either to opt Pakistan or India. Waiver: is a legal term. The dictum amounts to “promissory estoppel.” Despite being estopped, India gave a broad hint in article-370 of its constitution. The plain reading of the same jolts a reader’s mind while reading the word “accession deed” in it and it sounds powers of the Indian president about the accession of the State to the dominion of India. In fact, article-370 in the constitution of India was the first step to digest the entire state of J&K.

India showed her true colors and the black day, 5th August 2019 reached. India trashed all the resolutions made by Security Council and also buried her own pledge to Security Council. Merged the entire J&K State and even region of Gilgit-Baltistan and Azad Kashmir is declared as an integral constitutional part of it. Denied working boundary and control line, dragged its international boundary with Pakistan up to the province of KPK in its “New Political Map” recently published.

The above illegal act of India is, in fact, a denial of the UN Charter and also, is a threat to world peace. The Security Council must, in all conscience, was to use its powers under chapter-VII of the UN Charter and, at least, had to impose sanctions under article-41 of the same but, the Security Council of UNO seems to be a spectator without any action which amounts implied acquiescence.

The Kashmir issue, in fact, is between India and Pakistan as an unfinished agenda of partition. Quaid-e-Azam called Kashmir as jugular vein of Pakistan. Both the countries were party before Security Council with their own contentions. India was standing as claimant of Kashmir State on the basis of accession by the Maharaja Kashmir but, the Security Council rejected India’s stance of accession while, Pakistan’s stance before the Security Council was that, the people of Kashmir are willing to be part of Pakistan which is still standing and the security council also accepted the contention of Pakistan after introducing the peaceful method of the plebiscite by Kashmiri people.

All the above stated illegal measures adopted by India are having no foundation as India has already abandoned its contention of succession deed in favor of India but Pakistan, it takes such measures to hold the State of J&K as an integral part of Pakistan, then neither the measures can be called against any resolution nor India has any right to object the scheme, because, since 1947, people of Kashmir have struggled and sacrificed their lives for Pakistan. Even, since 5th August 2019, the inhabitants in Kashmir did not accept their status of union territory given to the region. The occupied Kashmir is cordoned by the Indian army and facing severe atrocities but to my surprise, the government of Pakistan ceremoniously tackles the latest development in the State of Kashmir with some agitations.

The government of Pakistan needs to frame a think-tank committee consisting of intellectuals who have deeply studied the Kashmir issue since 1947 up-to-date. Required recommendations of well-versed institutes of Kashmir studies and serious decisions are needed to be made by revamping Kashmir policy. Otherwise, with the passage of time, the trickery India would be succeeded to gain the confidence of the world to pretend the State of Kashmir is its integral part and also, can attempt aggressive actions against Gilgit-Baltistan and Azad Kashmir, claiming the regions as an integral constitutional part of India.

In my opinion, after a thorough study of at least all the documents relevant to the Kashmir issue and to spike India’s guns, it is important to declare the entire J&K State, including the occupied J&K, as an integral constitutional part of Pakistan to catch the Modi in the net he knitted against Pakistan. The new constitutional amendments can be covered by a proviso with the effect that the new constitutional settlement would be operative pending disposal of Kashmir issue under the method of plebiscite in Kashmir introduced by Security Council in its resolutions. It is worth mentioning here that, just protests against the illegal occupation of Kashmir are not sufficient to awaken the conscience of superpowers unless a big serious action, like merging the state of Kashmir into Pakistan constitutionally, is taken.

Opinion

Plebiscite Then Referendum in Kashmir!

Published

3 years ago

July 28, 2021

Justice Retired Muzaffar Ali

A statement was given by the Prime Minister of Pakistan Mr. Imran Khan, during his last address to an election audience in Azad Kashmir. The statement is queer in the context of the Kashmir issue. The historical studies of the issue reveal the complicity of the same as it has not only caused wars between the two countries but also, involved the Security Council of UNO.

The Security Council, realizing the threatened issue which “might, by its continuance, endanger the maintenance of international peace and security”. Keeping in view the urgency, the Security Council recognized the right of plebiscite in Kashmir in its resolutions. Unfortunately, the Security Council failed to implement its resolutions, and India recently invented a false device to digest the entire Jammu & Kashmir in derogation of resolutions passed by.

Though the Modi government has made the J&K is an integral part of the Indian constitution both, Kashmiris and Pakistan, rejected the one-sided decision of the Modi government. Kashmiris denied the sovereignty of India over Kashmir and are continuously in a state of agitation. The deplorable aspect of the new situation is that the permanent members of the Security Council except for China, do not take care of the defaming attitude of Modi’s government, rather they show a criminal silence on the breaching of Security Council resolutions by India.

Dormant world attitude strengthened Modi to retain its illegal occupation over J&K and also, to make malafide plans against Azad Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan. Indeed, Pakistan struggled diplomatically to awaken the sleeping conscience of world powers with full strength. In this regard, our prime minister’s address, before the general assembly, can be cited as the strongest version before the world at large about the Kashmir issue, but it seems difficult to jolt the collective conscience of the world.

In the supra situation, the task seems difficult to circle India to agree for a plebiscite in Kashmir unless the superpowers do not make India realize the chips are down. I have no option but to be stunned on how the Prime Minister gave the sweeping statement about plebiscite in Kashmir and if, I come out of my astonishing state of mind, feeling optimistic about backdoor diplomacy which compelled Mr. Modi to double back on its tracks Honestly speaking, if the statement of Prime Minister is not only for the sake of winning the elections in Azad Kashmir but if, it is a policy statement on the Kashmir issue, then the same is a big achievement of the present government on the diplomatic front, same can be appreciated as a solution of chronic issue of Kashmir.

Still, the second part of the statement about the referendum in Kashmir after the plebiscite strikes the mind of a common prudence person. A plebiscite in Kashmir can be made only under the auspices of UNO and there is no other option for the Kashmiris but either to vote for Pakistan to integrate with or to vote in favor of India.

The Kashmir issue between India and Pakistan is as old as the United Kingdom wrapped, its colonial rule over, from the sub-continent. Indian army illegally occupied Jammu & Kashmir valley under the cloak of giving a false color to the accession of Kashmir by Maharaja, but the people of Kashmir never accepted the sovereignty of India over their motherland.

The second part of the statement given by the prime minister about the referendum in Kashmir, after taking place the plebiscite under the supervision of UNO, seems more difficult to understand and quake once mind with some difficult questions which are as under; (a). If the plebiscite is conducted, it is obvious that the people of Kashmir would choose Pakistan for being its integral part and consequently, the J&K state would be merged into Pakistan.

India has to quit from occupied Kashmir, then, under what circumstances a new referendum needs to be made to offer the people of Kashmir to reaffirm the option, either they want to live with Pakistan as its integral part or they want a newly independent state to establish, particularly, when the people of Kashmir would have given their option to remain with Pakistan as its integral part under the constitution in the plebiscite? (b).

After the plebiscite, the people of Kashmir become citizens of Pakistan and the J&K territory comes within the ambit of the constitution and even then if they are given the option to establish a new independent state then would it not strengthen the other separatists in various constitutional units of Pakistan?

Nothing is secret today as the enemy countries, particularly, India and Israel have succeeded to make small pockets of separatists which, although, have no strength to damage the unity of Pakistan but, if Kashmiri people are given an option either to remain with Pakistan or to establish an independent state, might be a strong illustration for them to work for their ulterior motive of separatism in other parts of the country. These questions raised in this article demand critique from intellectuals.