Searching the Kashmir solution

Pakistan OBSERVER, Tue, Jun,05, 2007.

Pervaiz Iqbal Cheema

Since 1947 efforts have been undertaken to find an acceptable formula to resolve the ongoing Kashmir dispute. Even after the passage of 60 years, the involved parties have been unable to find a way out of this imbroglio. At different times different solutions have been put forward but no agreement has been reached. Not only have the involved parties modified their stances periodically but additional factors have come into play. The problem now is that we are seeking a solution to a problem that surfaced 60 years ago. 

Two approaches could be easily employed in order to secure an acceptable solution; idealistic and realistic. The idealistic approach implies that the Kashmir dispute should be resolved in accordance of UN resolutions which were accepted by both India and Pakistan. Unfortunately one of the involved parties was determined to either get the entire Kashmir or at worse agree to finalization of the existing situation which implies that both Pakistan and India continue to adhere to the existing situation. So far the idealistic approach has not paid the desired dividends. 

During the initial phase the UN was active and tried hard to secure the settlement of the Kashmir dispute. The acceptance of UN resolutions by both India and Pakistan generated encouragement for the UN. The reality began to dawn on the UN representatives directly engaged in securing an amicable solution that India is unlikely to accept any proposal from them as it was merely buying time to make the issue un-resolvable. 

A realistic approach implies that all the ground realities must be taken into considerations in order to tackle age old dispute. As mentioned above that already 60 years have passed and solution is not visible even today. Besides, other factors have come into play now that were absent at the time of the origin of this dispute. Among new factors that deserve attention include the death of the cold war and consequent ascendancy of the economic imperatives, the intensification of freedom struggle by the Kashmiri people, the advent of the Non Governmental Organizations (NGO), the revolution in communication and transport technologies etc. 

The initial Indian stance was that entire Kashmir was part of India as the Maharaja was alleged to have signed the instrument of accession in India’s favor and Pakistan has illegally occupied parts of Kashmir. However the passage of time and having fought so many wars over it, the Indian leadership began to change their stance and began to throw feelers that Pakistan can retain AJK and Northern areas in order to have a settlement. Grand phrases were being employed to justify this change of stance. However India categorically and repeatedly refused to acknowledge the local indigenous leadership apart from those who supported Indian viewpoint. 

The Indian leaders refused to talk to the leadership of Kashmiri people and frequently employed suppressive tactics to choke the voice of the new generation of the Kashmiri people. However the passage of some time and the enormous sacrifices of the Kashmiri youth more or less compelled them to take cognizance of their existence. While the Indians agreed and somewhat reluctantly acknowledged their existence, refused to talk to them and projected them as terrorist groups. It is only recently that the Indians have begun to engage them in dialogues only to influence them in order to secure their adherence to the Indian viewpoint. 

Compared to India, Pakistan has been far more realistic in its attitude towards the Kashmir dispute. Not only it has taken full cognizance of the Kashmiri groups deeply engaged in freedom struggle but has also been repeatedly stressing that Kashmiris should be associated with the ongoing composite dialogue. The involvement of the indigenous Kashmiri leadership could indeed be beneficial for both India and Pakistan in searching a feasible solution. 

The UN resolutions clearly stated that the wishes of the Kashmiri people be ascertained through an impartial UN supervised and conducted plebiscite. The idea of associating the Kashmiri leadership with the ongoing peace process may not be able to replicate exactly the UN resolutions’ conditions but it certainly comes very close to the spirit of the resolution. This implies that the Kashmiri leadership would be consulted and may even be able to make important input to resolve this complex dispute. 

The Kashmiri leadership has also been changing their stances in order to secure some acceptable solution. Initially the Kashmiri leadership in IHK (Indian Held Kashmir) vehemently opposed the idea of demilitarization but in recent times many Kashmiri parties including those which ruled the state have begun to support and stress the merit of the proposal. In fact the initial demand within IHK is the withdrawal of Indian security forces.

Apart from the Congress Chief Minister of the state, its coalition partner PDP and National Conference have in many ways become supportive of the withdrawal of Indian security forces. 

Another change that appears to be intriguing revolves around the latest statement of All Party Hurriyat Conference (APHC) leader Syed Ali Geelani who stated that independent Kashmir could be considered as an option to solve the Kashmir dispute. He said, ‘For us the bigger evil is the presence of Indian troops in Jammu and Kashmir. And if one has to choose between two evils, Islam teaches us to go for lesser evil. Opting for independent Kashmir would be choosing the lesser evil’. 

Responding to a question that what could be the solution of Kashmir issue if the demand for right of self determination was turned down, Mr. Geelani stated that the ‘best solution is to let the people of state decide what they want and if this right is not granted, then we can think of about independent Kashmir that existed before 1947’. ‘Both nations should withdraw their troops from and Kashmir. This will be a compromise but it can be acceptable to us’. 

What appears to be interesting that all the involved parties are moving towards realistic approach except the Indian successive governments? The Indian policy currently is generating vibes that it is only engaged in buying time as the prevalent belief is that further delay could bring all involved parties to the Indian interpretation of a desired solution. While every one recognizes that not only the times have changed but more and more involved parties are also recognizing and accepting the ground realities generating the impression that their search is on realistic lines, the Indian leadership appears to be still content with their age old policy shackles.

It is not too far fetched to assume that if the Indian leadership would also begin to recognize the need of the time and may even begin to work on realistic lines. This implies the role played by the Kashmiri freedom fighters need to be openly recognized and their leadership be engaged in a constructive dialogue. Perhaps the best way to engage them is to agree to associate the Kashmiri leadership from both sides of the LOC to the ongoing composite dialogue between India and Pakistan at least in the negotiating basket that deals with the Kashmir dispute.

The writer works for Islamabad Policy research Institute.