No durable peace sans Kashmir solution

Pakistan OBSERVER, Tue, Jul,17, 2007.

Pervaiz Iqbal Cheema

Speaking to a gathering of retired ambassadors the Prime Minister of Pakistan once again reiterated that the resolution of Kashmir is dispute in accordance with the wishes and aspirations of the Kashmiri people is vital for durable peace in South Asia. To bypass or to evade or to minimize the importance of Kashmir’s resolution amounts to an unrealistic pursuits and implies to be treading on the wrong path. Not only the Pakistanis been repeatedly highlighting the need to resolve the dispute but the international community have also been trying to impress upon the Indian authorities to recognize the ground realities and make concerted efforts to remove this major hurdle on the path to a durable peace in the region. 

Undoubtedly the major source of Indo-Pak hostilities is the continuing conflict over the Kashmir dispute. Pakistan’s frustration stems from its inability to influence India to hold the UN approved plebiscite in the past and the future does not hold much promise in this regard either. India has become extremely sensitive over references to the Kashmir dispute as such references depict an ugly picture of broken promises and unfulfilled pledges which, in turn, hurt their pride.  Aware of its weak case, India patiently and with meticulous care evolved a shrewd Kashmir policy that enabled it to hold on to a major portion of the state as well as maintain claims over areas that form Azad Kashmir. 

Most Pakistanis, 60 years after the partition, have perhaps now forgotten what happened to Junagadh, or even to Hyderabad; to the never delivered military stores, and to the financial assets which India withheld for several months in 1947-48. And such other quarrels as were the out come of the large‑scale refugee movements, and the sharing of the river waters, have proved soluble or partly so. However, the deadlock over Kashmir has remained almost where it was in its initial stages, this, being the view held by Pakistan although India would want the world community to believe that the dispute no longer exists. Poles apart while their respective positions are, the complexity of the dispute has enabled both sides to back their stands with long lists of arguments and counterarguments, with each believing that her case is absolutely irrefutable and fair. 

Pakistan stresses that her stand on Kashmir is not motivated by any considerations of territorial ambition, and that she asked for nothing more than the extension to Kashmir of the principles that were enunciated by Lord Mounbatten in his address to the gathering of the rulers of states. The principles included the considerations for geographic proximity and the aspiration of the people of the state. Further, pointing out that India had justified her annexation of both Junagadh and Hyderabad on the ground that their inhabitants desired to join the Indian Union, Pakistan demands that India should permit the people of Kashmir to decide their future through an internationally‑supervised plebiscite. To the holding of such a plebiscite, Pakistan argues, India is officially committed through the Indian Government's repeated pledges to Pakistan as well as the United Nations. 

While recognizing that a vast majority of Kashmiri people are the followers of Islam, India justifies her possession of Kashmir on the basis of the Maharaja's instrument of accession, of which the legality and validity cannot be questioned, least of all by Pakistan, since she, India emphasizes, had shown no hesitation to accept the accession of the Nawab of Junagadh whose more than eighty per cent subjects were Hindus. As regards her undertaking to ascertain the Kashmiris’ will through a plebiscite, India claims that she promised to do so "long before" the dispute was referred to the Security Council. Hence it was a promise "to the people of Jammu and Kashmir and not to Pakistan or United Nations and as such it does not involve any international commitment as far as the validity of accession is concerned. 

Pakistan of course does not accept the arguments advanced by India, and most other members of the United Nations thereon generally share her attitude. The Maharaja, it is pointed out, was in no legal position to execute the instrument of accession on 26 October. 1947, because two days previously his subjects had successfully ousted him from Kashmir, when they established the Azad (Free) Kashmir on 24 October. His decision to join India was therefore of a doubtful validity and as such could not be compared to the accession to Pakistan of the Nawab of Junagadh, who had signed the documents of accession as both the de-facto and de-jure ruler of his state. Furthermore, the Maharaja’s accession to India violated the standstill agreement between Kashmir and Pakistan whereby; Pakistan was made responsible for Kashmir communications, as well as defense and foreign affairs. This agreement, Pakistan claims, had never been repudiated and therefore was a bar to the subsequent accession of the State to India.

The developments during the last 60 years coupled with the policies pursued clearly frustrated hopes for any settlement of the dispute. However since the start of current peace process, signs of more realistic pursuits have been appearing. Undoubtedly once again it is the Pakistanis who are putting out proposal after proposal with the aim of reaching some kind of settlement over the ongoing Kashmir dispute. But the response so far from the Indian side has not been all that encouraging. 

Almost all neutral outsiders now look at the Kashmir dispute as the main dispute between India and Pakistan. Those outsiders who are sympathetic to India and Indian viewpoints and are somewhat unfamiliar with factual developments regarding the Kashmir dispute and the real nature of the issues involved tend to view it sometimes as a territorial dispute. But those who have taken pains to comprehend the real issues involved do regard it as part of the unfinished partition agenda and have already begun to refer it as the main dispute. Perhaps that is why some have also been referring to it as the possible nuclear flashpoint. The use of the phrase ‘the possible nuclear flashpoint’ clearly indicates the comprehension and recognition of the explosive potentials of the Kashmir dispute. 

There is no doubt that the advent of peace in South Asia is effectively prevented by the lack of desired resolution of the Kashmir dispute. The Indian leadership needs to realize the significance of its resolution. Some argue that they do recognize its significance but they don’t want to undertake any measure which can even remotely lead to a situation where they may be compelled to part with what they have or even part with a portion of what is called as the Indian Held Kashmir. However it would indeed be a wise course of action to come out with concrete proposals in response to Pakistani proposals than merely applying delaying tactics. Already 60 years have passed and the people of South Asia have paid enormous price for hostile relationships between India and Pakistan. Time has come to demonstrate flexibility and involve the Kashmiri in the ongoing dialogue. 

Given the existing state of affairs in which one side is putting out new ideas along with concrete proposals and the other side is merely paying lip service and applying delaying tactics, perhaps it would be an appropriate for international community to intensify its efforts to encourage and influence India to respond positively to Pakistani overtures. One thing is certain that the area will never have a durable peace until the Kashmir dispute is resolved.

The writer works for Islamabad Policy research Institute.