Washington Report, December 2005, pages 30-31

The Subcontinent

Massive Earthquake Underscores Artificial Nature of Kashmir Boundaries

By M.M. Ali

Nearly three weeks after the area was struck by a devastating earthquake, survivors wait for relief supplies Oct. 28 at Hatian Bala, some 25 miles from Muzzafarabad, the capital of Pakistan-administered Kashmir. Thousands of survivors still remained at risk (AFP Photo/Asif Hassan).

WORLD attention was still focused on the devastation caused by Hurricane Katrina in the United States when a deadly earthquake measuring at 7.6 on the Richter scale hit Kashmir and northern areas of Pakistan Oct. 8, killing tens of thousands and affecting the lives of millions. According to official figures released from Islamabad on Oct. 21, at least 57,000 people have died. On the Indian side of Kashmir, Delhi reported that 1,200 deaths had been recorded by then. With its epicenter at Muzzafarabad, the capital city of Pakistan-administered Kashmir, the quake’s impact reached into parts of India-occupied Kashmir, as well as northern areas of Pakistan, including Islamabad.

That city, it will be recalled, was built as Pakistan’s new capital near the old city of Rawalpindi in Punjab province, because the area was determined to be outside the seismic belt. Today the thinking is different. Virtually the entire area in the Himalayan foothills of Pakistan and India now is considered to be within the seismic region. According to the Oct. 15 Times of India, The Geological Survey of India described the hill stations such as “Shimla, Mussoorie, Nainital and Almora in the north and Darjeeling further down…[as] sitting on a ticking bomb.”

Not only is the extent of the current devastation huge—several villages and cities have been razed to the ground, with many bodies buried under the debris—but much of the affected area has been rendered inaccessible, as the roads leading to them no longer exist. Winter rains and snow have set in as well, greatly complicating relief efforts. While the domestic response has been encouraging, international assistance has been slow to arrive. The short-term cost alone was estimated at over $1 billion, of which, according to U.N. figures, $352 million had been raised or pledged by the international community. An additional $550 million was pledged at an Oct. 26 meeting. The next phase of rehabilitation and reconstruction could take years, and cost an estimated $5 billion.

The earthquake underscored the obstacles caused by unsettled political boundaries in tackling the human tragedy. Pakistan declined to allow Indian helicopters manned by Indian pilots to cross the Line of Control (LoC) to bring relief supplies into Muzzafarabad. Similarly, Tel Aviv’s offer of aid was asked to be sent through the international Red Cross or the U.N. because, despite recent overtures, Pakistan does not have diplomatic relations with Israel. It is doubtful, however, if Indian and Israeli help would have made a significant difference. India did agree to Musharraf’s proposal to allow Kashmiris to cross the LoC to meet their relatives, but before traffic can begin paperwork must be completed and land mines removed from the area.

Back to Basics

Recent exchanges between India and Pakistan that had taken on a soap operaish character were disrupted by an Oct. 6 statement by Pakistan’s Kashmir Affairs Minister Faisal Saleh Hayat, who disclosed that among other proposals being discussed was joint control of Indian- and Pakistani-controlled Kashmir on either side of the LoC. According to the plan under discussion, the area would be treated as a single entity with “limited sovereignty” over provincial (state) matters, while new Delhi and Islamabad would assume responsibility over “defense, currency and foreign affairs.” Also included in the formula is a “devolution plan” granting a greater administrative role to local government. Although Mir Waiz Omar Farooq of the Hurriyat Conference said talks were heading toward some kind of an agreement, New Delhi has maintained total silence on the subject. While the U.S. has declined to intervene directly unless both India and Pakistan request its assistance, it is believed that Washington was pushing for such a proposal.

Today, however, as far as Islamabad is concerned, further talks on the settlement of the Kashmir question will be put on hold so it can attend to the massive relief, rehabilitation and reconstruction needs of Azad Kashmir. Unfortunately for the Kashmiris, the delay suits India and may even perturb the United States. In an Oct. 20 speech delivered at the Asia Society in New York, U.S. Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns said: “These are two very proud, very rich countries in terms of their history, culture and the sense of themselves and they are going about this rapprochement in their own way…neither country sees us as an intermediary.”

India-U.S. Ties

Burns proceeded from New York to India to pursue the implementation of the nuclear agreement signed by George Bush and Manmohan Singh in July. The U.S. agreed to allow India to import nuclear technology for civilian energy use, which it must keep separate from its military nuclear program. Defending the U.S. offer, Burns said: “If you look at India’s record, it is actually the reverse of Iran’s record. India has been a responsible country in safeguarding its nuclear technology over the past 30 years.”

Indian opposition parties attributed the U.S. move to India’s “surprise” vote at the September meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) board of governors, when it reversed its earlier stand and joined the U.S. in recommending that Iran’s case be sent to the U.N. Security Council. Other Indians consider the vote “pragmatic” and “proper.” The IAEA is scheduled to hold a final vote on the matter in November.

There is concern in India, however, that the deal will enable the U.S. to inspect both its civilian and military nuclear programs. “The India-U.S. agreement on civilian nuclear cooperation is not going anywhere,” said India’s Pioneer press agency, warning that New Delhi “may end up severely compromising India’s nuclear program without getting anything in return.”

Washington provided no specifics to the G-8 countries when the latter asked for details of the plan, and reports from Delhi indicate that Burns did not hit a home run as he had hoped. Lawmakers on Capitol Hill also must be convinced that an exemption should be made for India. America’s pro-Israel lobby undoubtedly will be more than happy to help with that assignment.

Prof. M.M. Ali is a specialist on South Asia based in the Washington, DC metropolitan area.