The UK Foriegn and Commonwealth Office’s travel advice for Pakistan is full of complicated pointers and hair raising warnings. It advises against all travel to FATA and the NWFP, including Peshawar, travel to Northern and Western Balouchistan and non-essential travel to Quetta, advices caution in central Punjab and Karachi, keep a low profile and “vary your route” if you make regular journeys (i.e. to avoid kidnapping), avoid using hotels popular with ex-pats, etc etc. And then:
Pakistan Administered Kashmir
This area has remained largely trouble free.
Which is interesting. As a teenager with a knowledge of international relations I could fit on a postage stamp, Kashmir was the place that Pakistan and India were fighting over. In my eyes it was why they decided to make nuclear weapons, why they fought in the Kargil War, why they were enemies despite so many similarities. Kashmir was always synoymous with “flashpoint” – it was ironic that an area that remains a source of tension, terrorism and militancy, was infact OK to visit.
Not that the whole of Kashmir is without trouble. While by FCO advice Pakistani Kashmir is trouble free, the Indian-administered end is not worthy of such praise:
Jammu & Kashmir
We advise against all travel to or through rural areas of Jammu and Kashmir, other than to Ladakh, and against all but essential travel to Srinagar. If you intend to travel to Srinagar then you should only travel there by air. Despite an overall decline in violence in Jammu and Kashmir in recent years, there remains a high risk of unpredictable violence, including bombings, grenade attacks, shootings and kidnapping, and a substantial security force presence. More than 20 people were reportedly killed in encounters between security forces and militants in January 2009. There was widespread political unrest and violence across rural and urban areas of Jammu and Kashmir in July and August 2008
Just today AFP reported three rebels and an Indian solider were killed in gun battles in Kupwara and Rajouri. Yesterday the same agency said the high-court in J&K ordered the bodies of two young women, believed to be raped and killed by Indian security forces, to be exhumed. The alleged incident ignited protests leaving two people dead and 400 injured. In recognition of the tension in the Indian-administered region the centre has agreed to pull troops out of the state’s towns and cities, and to review a law allowing soldiers to do what they like with impunity. While for Pakistan Kashmir is first and foremost a political issue – Zardari commenting that he no longer even sees India as a military threat – for India it is an alive security problem with regular encounters between Indian security forces and militants.
So a layman might think it would be in India’s interests to get Kashmir sorted, and would be surprised that, as Kuldip Nayar noted in Dawn, India only wants to discuss terrorism at future meetings of the Pak and Indian foreign ministers in Egypt. Nayar lays out some pretty logical reasons for India’s approach to this:
That the Kashmir issue should be resolved needs no repetition. This has beleaguered the two nations for decades and has led to wars. New Delhi realises more than Islamabad that normalcy is not even thinkable without having Kashmir out of the way.
But that requires a proper atmosphere in India and it cannot be created without bringing the perpetrators of the Mumbai attack to justice. Pakistan has to create confidence in India that it is willing to take into account the thinking in New Delhi which feels that it has been wronged again and again.
India’s persistence on terrorism is understandable the wrath of the Mumbai attacks, and the widely agreed involvement of Kashmiri-based Lashkar-e-Taiba and their desire to have those responsible brought to justice. But while India waits for whatever reassurance it needs from Pak on terrorism, which maybe a long time coming, J&K will continue to be unstable. The idea that problems in Indian-controlled Kashmir can be split off while another country continues to claim the territory as their own appears somewhat naive. It’s sad, considering how close Musharaff came to a deal to normalize the area as recently as 2007, that Kashmir is so far off the table there are discussions about even discussing it.
The situation isn’t helped when parts of the Indian state go off half cock when it is suggested the only way militancy problem can be resolved is if the Kashmir problem is resolved. Back in January UK foreign minister David Miliband wrote in the Guardian that a “resolution of the dispute over Kashmir would help deny extremists in the region one of their main calls to arms, and allow Pakistani authorities to focus more effectively on tackling the threat on their western borders”. To which Indian external affairs spokesman Vishnu Prakash said: “We do not need unsolicited advice on the internal issues of India like Jammu and Kashmir”.
But it’s not an internal issue – it’s an international one shared by Pakistan, India and China. And it’s one that looks increasingly ridiculous and antiquated. Several commentators noted Pakistani Aisam ul-Haq Qureshi and Indian Prakash Armitraj’s doubles team and the implications, if only symbolic, for signs of increasing co-operation between the two countries. Faisal.K said he feels India and Pak will never go to war again:
Personally speaking whenever I come across someone from Gujrat anywhere in the world, I feel like they are from across the road rather than across the neelam valley. Infact most of the conversations I have had over this blog and others with our neighbors have all ended with “so why the hell are we fighting”. Its quite stunning that two cultures which basically derive themselves from the same roots have been so actively involved in wars in the past, but then politics is a dirty game.
If Faisal is right, Pak and India are at the beginning of a long road – like in Northern Ireland in the mid-1990s when the war was coming to an end but the parties were not quite at the table – where the desire not to fight anymore is a major first step.
July 5, 2009 at 22:57
thanks for reminding me what the Kashmir issue was about, had kinda forgotten the story. i’d agree on the note that “why are we fighting” Why o Why?
Interesting travel advise though. i guess the travel advise shudnt be only for ex-pats for Pakistanis too… i mean would have the same considerations while traveling around.
What come to mind after reading your article is Musharraf replying to all the questions coming from the Indian side while he visited for that conference.. what was the conference called? i think it happened this year or last year?
July 6, 2009 at 14:17
thanks for this piece.
i’ve lived in srinagar and it is simply beautiful there. can’t ever forget those red apples, cherries and strawberries growing in our garden, the shikaraas in dal lake, those lush green meadows of gulmarg and sonmarg.
a chinar leaf ~ a sign of peace!!
July 6, 2009 at 14:23
A friend of mine has done some very nice pictures of the valley… Looks lush and green. Thanks for the comment
July 7, 2009 at 11:00
Informative piece, i love that its got quotes for various sources.
July 9, 2009 at 10:14
Indo-Pak relationships keep blowing hot and cold. Just when it looks like both the countries will forget the past and come up with a peace treaty, some military general/politician from either side will shoot their mouth of and jeopardize the whole treaty.
Kashmir is one of the few places in India that I really really really want to visit. If not for the infiltration and the occasional firing, I would have gone too. I don’t understand organisations like LeT, I mean people in Kashmir could be making more money and living a better life, thanks to tourism. If they want a separate country/autonomy whatever, why can’t they protest in some other way. Why a jihad?
July 9, 2009 at 13:21
Cheers for the comment Balu.
I think Kashmiri’s can hardly be accused of not protesting in other ways. I think the full spectrum is there – from boycotting elections to street protests to even people like Omar Abdullah who call for autonomy but are happy to partake in the institutions of the Indian state.
But there are always going to be people who see violence as their only resort, politically.
July 10, 2009 at 03:56
Nice piece, interesting about the travel advisory extending to J&K and not Azad Kashmir. It would be interesting to see what some other foreign offices and embassies have to say about the whole Kashmir area. Yes, I could go and google it right now, but am in a rather lazy mood. In any case, it would be interesting to compare them.
As far as Pak-India relations go who knows. It would be nice to see the international community doing more to force the two sides to deal with the issue proactively. If it is up to just Pakistan and India, every little bump in the path (such as Mumbai bombings and the like) can give either side justification to halt the process. And these halts in the process are usually just used by either side to gain some leverage in the next round of talks, all the while the Kashmiris suffer. Or the halt in the process allows one side to settle a score unrelated to Kashmir. I am not saying that the conflict needs an international mediator, but it definitely needs to do its part to get the two sides to the table more often and more productively. They don’t seem to have the political will to do so on their own.
July 15, 2009 at 07:11
No, think this Faisal K guy is wrong. But it’s late and I need sleep, so I will explain why later. Or maybe write a post of my own on the subject.
July 15, 2009 at 21:48
Look forward to seeing it