Is there a light at the end of Kashmir tunnel?

The News, Sun, November,28, 2004.

Pervaiz Iqbal Cheema


An impression is gaining grounds in some quarters that the entire exercise of dialogue is going to meet the same fate that has been repeatedly experienced in earlier such talks. It can be argued both ways whether or not there is light at the end of Kashmir tunnel. Some see enormous merit in the continuation of the Indo-Pak dialogue while others have already begun to view it as another futile exercise.

Let us first deal with those who regard the Indo-Pak peace process especially its ability to resolve Kashmir dispute as an eyewash. The argument revolves around that while Pakistan has been consistently showing goodwill and demonstrating flexibility, the Indian response cannot be considered as a ‘matching response’. In fact the signals emanating from India are viewed as negative in nature. While Pakistani approach is sincere and clear, the Indian statement have been either loaded or double edged.

The latest statement by the Prime Minister Manmohan Singh that he is opposed to any redrawing of the Kashmir map is viewed by one eminent writer as ‘the moment of truth’. Admittedly he has proposed ‘self rule’ and ‘open border’ and has even committed to consider pre 1953 autonomy. The Indian Foreign Minister recently stressed that regional autonomy could be a solution to the Kashmir dispute. Not only this stance does not seem all too far away from the standard Indian position but it has already been repeatedly rejected by the Kashmiri hardliners. Besides this is not the first time that the autonomy offer has been offered and promptly rejected. Prior to the intensification of the freedom struggle during the late eighties and early nineties, autonomy offer was made frequently but the Kashmiris rejected it. No wonder many in Pakistan have begun to feel that India does not want to go even marginally beyond its regularly stated position.

All these signals clearly reflect Indian intransigence. The argument becomes even stronger when the Indian position is assessed in conjunction with Pakistan’s position. The Pakistan President, Prime Minister and other leaders have categorically rejected the LOC (Line of Control) as the permanent border. While Pakistan has repeatedly demonstrated flexibility in terms of approaches and solutions, the Indian appears to those who see the entire exercise as futile, as extremely negative attitude reflecting hardened intransigent.

Ostensibly the Indian leadership has been demonstrating its desire to resolve the Kashmir dispute in statements that are periodically issued but when it comes to suggesting new feasible solutions, the Indians so far have offered nothing. All their suggestions are designed either to refashion the internal governance of Indian occupied Kashmir or to maintain the status quo in one form or the other. Perhaps that is why the impression that the current round of dialogue amount to nothing more than adding another number to the existing long list of both bilateral and multilateral dialogues.

Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz has recently visited India in his capacity as the Chairman of SAARC and during his visit he had detailed discussions with not just the Indian leaders but also with the Kashmiri leaderships. While emphasizing that he want progress on all issues, he specifically highlighted the significance and importance of Kashmir’s resolution. He made it clear that while he wants good and friendly relations with India, but not at the cost of core dispute of Jammu and Kashmir.

Another factor that lends some credence to the belief that the current round is as futile as the others were revolves around the perception of this group that India was not all sincere right from the start. Many instances and loaded statements are quoted. They believe that India never proceeded in good faith in its quest for conflict resolution on Kashmir. They argue that India has demonstrated more interests in injecting confidence building measures (CBMs), trade and people to people contacts. A critical review of the first round of talks indicates some progress in the above mentioned areas have been made but not much progress was witnessed on areas which require conflict resolution like Sir Creek, Siachin, Water issues, Kashmir dispute etc. In consequence the impression that is gaining currency revolves around that if there was any light at the end of the tunnel, it is certainly diminishing.

As opposed to what can be termed as skeptics, there are those who believe that while the process is slow it is progressing and is likely to pay expected dividends. Cognizant of the complexities of the issues and dispute, the optimists do not expect that the desired dividends would soon be forthcoming. In support of their argument they regularly mention three specifically operative factors. First, they stress the increased interest of the international community in influencing the two countries to resolve their disputes started soon after the acquisition of nuclear weapon status by both India and Pakistan. Given the past unattractive record of their relationships, many thought that with nucleasrisation the region has become even more dangerous. Many optimists believe that the international community is well aware of not too attractive past of Indo-Pak relationships and therefore they are likely to maintain a certain amount of pressures which, in turn, would assure the continuity of the dialogue.

Second support argument stresses that there exists now a realisation that the existing economic conditions forces all of us to resolve dispute and focus more on improving economies. In addition the realisation that collective approach towards WTO could be more beneficial than individual country’s entry.  The end of the Cold War witnessed not only the decline of political imperatives but it also saw the gradual ascendancy of the economic imperatives. The economic considerations began to gain more attention than the political considerations in most cases. Since the early 90s both India and Pakistan has undertaken many reforms with a view to liberalise their economies.

Linked with desire of improvised economic conditions and craving for a better quality of life, there also exists a realisation that as the economies grow the demand on energy is also going to intensify. A peaceful region could work out many plans in order to satisfy region’s increasing demands on energy. In this connection talks on pipelines could be very useful for the regional countries. But if the region continues to face a persistent instability and tensions, the increasing demands on energy would eventually result in major setbacks.

Third, the most important argument of the optimists revolves around what is called peoples support. For the first time the people of both countries have demonstrated their desire to have normalised relationships. Admittedly there would be some difficulties in securing quick normalisation but the people appeared to have extended support for the normalisation process which both governments appears to be conscious of.  The frequent visits of almost all segments of both societies clearly reflect the increasing popularity of the normalisation efforts.

The optimists believe that the continuity of dialogue would eventually enable both sides to find common grounds upon which they can build peaceful South Asia. Undoubtedly there exist many impediments on way to the desired resolutions of issues and disputes, the slow progress should not discourage the people. Given the complexity of the disputes involved, to expect quick resolutions certainly amounts to being somewhat unrealistic.

A cursory glance at the arguments advanced by both the skeptics and the optimists, it is not too far fetched to assume that the light at the end of tunnel is certainly beginning to diminish. The drift towards extinction could be slowed or even stopped provided some tangible solutions appear on the scene. Two developments could contribution in slowing down or arresting the diminishing process; the quick involvement of the Kashmiri leadership from both sides on Kashmir related negotiation basket and some concrete and feasible solutions of at least Kashmir related contrived and deliberately created issues such as Wullar, Baghiliar, Fencing of LOC and Siachin etc. The history of earlier decades of Indo-Pak relationships appears to be totally unfamiliar with their existence.

The writer works for Islamabad Policy Research Institute.