No Peace sans Kashmir's resolution

The News, Sun, April,18, 2004.

Pervaiz Iqbal Cheema



During the last few weeks the President of Pakistan highlighted the importance of resolving the ongoing Kashmir dispute specifically at four different occasions (India Today’s Conclave, PTV News Night, Kakul Speech, and interview with BBC Hardtalk). It is not only in the recent past that he has attempted to impress upon both the international community as well as the regional states the significance and the dire need to resolve the Kashmir dispute. This is something he has been consistently pushing forward. His continuous emphasis reflects both the desire and aspirations of the people for peace in the region.

The Indian leadership has also expressed somewhat similar sentiments though at times revised interpretation gave birth to different impression. Compared to Mr.Advani, the Indian Prime Minister Vajpayee has been far more consistent in expressing his desire for Indo-Pak normalization and regional peace. Following President Musharraf’s statement to India Today’s conclave that the two countries would revert back to familiar logjam if no progress over Kashmir were made, Mr Advani’s initial reaction was somewhat dismissive by referring to it as  ‘domestic compulsions’ but later he changed his stance and termed Pakistan’s concern about the pace of talks as a bad omen. Still later the Indian Prime Minister moved to play down his party’s aggressive stance and stressed that Advani was supportive of peace moves with Pakistan. He further explained that sometimes the leaders have to take full cognizance of domestic sensitivities.

Although there is no doubt that domestic considerations cannot be set-aside in any process but the nature of Indo-Pak relationships certainly augurs for extreme caution. However it needs to be highlighted that sometimes over enthusiastic and extremely inquisitive domestic observers tend to read too much into the event and unknowingly tread unconcerned and unconnected grounds and thereby create undesired hurdles. This, of course, does not mean that domestic considerations should be lightly dismissed. The underneath message is that the very complex nature of Indo-Pak relationships must be kept in view before issuing any controversial statement.

The above-mentioned four statements of the President amply clarify and adequately highlight three points that are directly linked with the ongoing Kashmir dispute. First, whether one likes it or not, it is indeed difficult to deny the centrality of the Kashmir dispute. Admittedly at almost all forums the Indians tend to put Kashmir as one of the many disputes or problems that require treatment in one-way or the other. They appear to be very satisfied and comfortable with a phrase that talks would cover all disputes including the ongoing Kashmir dispute. Preference for such a phrase clearly points towards a psychological hang-up rather than recognizing and confronting the ground realities.

If we just take all the baskets that have been employed in the past to discuss Indo-Pak issues/problems/disputes and are also now being considered for discussion purposes, one is struck with the oddity of arrangements. The issues that are part and parcel of the Kashmir dispute are being put in separate baskets such as the issues of Siachin and Wullar Lake barrage. Both Siachin and Wullar Lake are physically located on the soil of the state of Jammu and Kashmir-more specifically in the Kashmir valley.  These are minor irritants, which would automatically disappear once the main dispute over Kashmir is resolved.

To put them in separate basket and also discuss Kashmir separately does not make sense. The focus should be on Kashmir dispute. Even if you solve the Siachin and Wullar Lake issues, the main dispute would still continue to haunt. Treating them as totally de-linked issues from the main Kashmir dispute merely gives me to understand that the Indian may be willing to resolve these issues but would like to employ delaying tactics in dealing with the main dispute over Kashmir. To many, resolving Siachin issue merely implies a cleverly devised scheme to further remove irritants and to consolidate the LOC (Line of Control). Similarly a vast majority of the Pakistanis believe that if the Indians had strictly adhered to the clauses of Indus Water Treaty, the Wullar Lake issue would not have come into existence.

Judged by any yardstick, the issues relating to Siachin or Wullar Lake are not all that problematic. Indeed the real issue is the ongoing Kashmir dispute. The efforts of both India and Pakistan should indeed be concentrated on solving the real dispute rather than wasting too much time on peripheral irritants that emerge periodically because of the disputed nature of Kashmir. The Indian assertion that all disputes and issues including Kashmir appears to be a device to equate it with other issues and downplay its centrality and overwhelming importance.

Pakistan’s repeated assertion regarding the centrality of the Kashmir dispute not only tends to project it as the main dispute between India and Pakistan but also blunts the efforts to equate it with others. Would it be logical to equate it with Sir Creek or any other similar disagreements and minor issues? The answer would indeed be in negative. The projection of the main Kashmir dispute by the Indians as no different than other issue does indeed generate pleasant vibes for the Indians on one hand but also tends to confuse the outsiders on the other.

A neutral outsider looks at the Indian interpretations and views it as one of the many issues troubling Indo-Pak relations whereas when he looks at Pakistani interpretation, he find it as the main dispute. 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 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.

The second important point that needs to be discussed here relates to President Musharraf’s assertion to make the process move forward in his interview with BBC’s Hard Talk. The President reiterated Pakistan’s emphasis that both the confidence building measures (CBMs) and the dialogue process have to move forward. An enormous improvement in the overall atmosphere must pay dividends in terms of having the main dispute and other issues resolved. The dispute and the issues cannot be resolved unless the process moves forward. ‘The CBMs and the dialogue process must move in harmony and we must talk on Kashmir and move forward’, stated the President. In addition he also stressed that solution to the lingering dispute of Kashmir has to be acceptable to the Kashmiris as well to the Indians and Pakistanis.

One need not to discuss in detail the real purpose of the CBMs but it may be useful to remind us that main utility of the CBMs revolves around creating climate in which the two adversaries are able to thrash out their issues and disputes amicably. The CBMs minimize the dangerous drift towards war and create an atmosphere in which dialogue is possible. While there is no doubt that more and more CBMs should be introduced as has been recently suggested by both the Pakistani (Munir Akram) and Indian Ambassadors (Vijay Nambiar) to USA, it is also imperative that some progress is made on the dialogue process. The CBMs are merely means but the resolution of disputes and issues would be the product of a sustained dialogue.

The third important point deals with rapidly increasing realization among the people of both India and Pakistan to resolve their mutual disputes and issues. Not only the people in general have demonstrated their support for the peace process as has been evidenced by the instant goodwill gestures demonstrated during Indian cricket team’s Pakistan tour but also the leaders like President Musharraf and Prime Minister Vajpayee have been repeatedly extending their support to the peace process rather continuously.

Apart from minor irritants that crop up from time to time, there is no reason to believe that serious efforts would not be made to resolve dispute and issues after the Indian elections. Indeed Bush administration’s recent declaration that Pakistan had become a major non-NATO ally did produce unnecessary ripples in Delhi but caused neither major damage to Indo-American relations nor managed to affect adversely the nascent India-Pakistan peace process.

However one thing is becoming abundantly clear that the resolution of Kashmir can only herald the real peace in South Asia. To expect the desired advent of peace between India and Pakistan without resolving the Kashmir dispute is indeed an unrealistic pursuit. Being a core dispute, it has the capacity to pull back whatever advancements may have been made in other areas and is likely to corrode achievements of other areas if no progress is registered in the core dispute. Therefore it is imperative that efforts should be concentrated upon the resolution of the Kashmir dispute to the satisfaction of all the parties involved (the Kashmiris, the Pakistanis, and the Indians).