Seek out of the box solution

The POST, Sun, December,10, 2006.

Pervaiz Iqbal Cheema

No one in the history of Pakistan appears to have made so many efforts to resolve the ongoing Kashmir dispute as has been done by the incumbent President Musharraf. Compared to his efforts, the Indian government seems to have only dabbled into what one can appropriately call as play of words. A close examination of all the Indian initiatives and responses merely reflect a rigid and non-innovative approach. While the Indian leadership has repeatedly asserted that the resolution of this complex dispute requires out of the box solution but on the practical side one fails to see any tangible or concrete proposal. All that has been put forward is the same old argument in different clothes and almost all responses to Pakistani proposals are nothing but a sugar coated negativism.

Despite being an aggrieved party Pakistan has been continuously churning out proposal after proposal with the sole objective of securing peace between India and Pakistan. One does not have to stress over and over again that South Asia will never see the real peace unless and until India and Pakistan resolve the ongoing Kashmir dispute. Admittedly not only overall global environment has changed but the political imperatives that were dictating policy pursuits during the Cold War era have gradually been replaced, in most parts of the world, by economic imperatives. However one should also take cognizance of the fact that a festering dispute if not resolved could again resurface with increased intensity at some appropriate future time.

In a recent interview with an Indian TV channel NDTV President Musharraf once again reiterated his earlier proposals of same borders with free movements of people, demilitarization of the state with phased withdrawal of troops, self governance or autonomy but not independence, and joint management of the disputed state. As usual the Indian response was no different than their past utterance. A junior minister for external affairs Mr. Anand Sharma stated that India did not believe in redrawing of boundaries.

The recent past has witnessed repeated assertions from the Pakistanis, the Indians and the Kashmiris regarding their well entrenched stances. The Pakistanis have frequently and consistently stressed that under no circumstances the Line of Control (LOC) would be accepted as a permanent border. Similarly the Indians have repeatedly asserted the non-acceptance of redrawing of the boundaries. Most of the Kashmiri have also stated in the recent past that they would not accept the division of the state.

Given the tri-directional pursuits of involved parties how does one secures an acceptable solution is indeed not an easy task. However the debate that was started because of President Musharraf’s seven region proposal rages on. While this is indeed a good omen, India needs to get out its own straitjacket and begin to seriously consider out of the box solution. Delhi’s belief that its close links with the Americans along with its rapidly growing economic strength would enable India to impose its own solution is somewhat based on wrong assumption. Such as attitude would neither secure a solution that is acceptable to all parties nor would pave a way for desired peace in South Asia. Besides, it is likely to strengthen the hands of hardliners especially in Pakistan.

Critics of Pakistani President’s latest interview mostly focus on two aspects; his response to a question whether or not Pakistan would consider to withdraw the case from the UN and the low level Indian response as neither the Indian Prime Minister nor the Foreign Minister has come forward and commented upon President’s interview. The low level Indian response could be viewed within the context of time required by the Indians to thoroughly assess the proposal and then formulate their position and they may have asked the junior minister to repeat India’s often quoted position. To quote or repeat the traditional stance amounts to playing safe and buying some time.

As far as the withdrawal from UN is concerned, two aspects need to be mentioned here. First the case was taken to UN by India but both India and Pakistan agreed to implement the UN resolutions of 13^th August 1948 and 5^th January 1949.  These resolutions meant three things; first to secure ceasefire, demilitarization of the entire state and to hold a plebiscite which would only have two choices either to join Pakistan or India. It needs to be mentioned here that the UN resolution do not permit what is often called as the ‘Third Option’. It is not too difficult to ascertain that the third option is neither popular with the Indians nor with the Pakistanis nor with certain section of the Kashmiris. Besides it is also stated frequently that even China has reservations about the independent option. If a compromise is worked out which is acceptable to the parties in conflict, only then move towards the removal of resolution could be undertaken jointly.

Another objection that has been raised by one of the senior Indian journalist revolves around joint supervision mechanism. The journalist Kuldeep Nayyar while talking on a Pakistani TV talk show stressed that the joint supervision aspect is not going to be accepted. If the four stage proposal is subjected to thorough academic investigation and close scrutiny, it becomes quite evident that this is the only aspect which gives the proposal a flavor of out of the box approach. The other aspects have been periodically discussed. Joint mechanism not only maintains some form of linkage between the two Kashmirs but also enables all parties to deal with problem that may come up from time to time.

It is not the first time that concepts like joint mechanism have been employed in order resolve a dispute. In many ways the idea of joint mechanism is similar to what is called ‘Andorra solution’. This leaves both parts of Kashmir with large measure of autonomy but without full independent status. Both the neighbors would have a guaranteed right to say in its affairs as France and Spain have in Andorra and each would renounce its claim to sole control. Even to withdraw the case from UN both India and Pakistan have to make a joint request.

It is a foregone conclusion that if the parties involved are determined to resolve this dispute they will all have to not only express their willingness to accept a compromise but also demonstrate some degree of flexibility in some practical form. No compromise can be worked out without a give and take approach. So far, apart from Pakistan, nobody has come forward openly as Pakistan has. It is interesting to note that those who advanced the idea of out of box approach are lagging behind and has not put forward any tangible proposal which could even have mild coloring of an out of the box approach.

It would not be too far fetched to assume that the latest initiative of the Pakistani President could meet the same fate as his previous efforts. What one needs to comprehend is that he is trying very hard to secure a desired level of peace deemed to be conducive for accelerated development of the entire region. Not only must the Indians realize that time has come to practically adopt an innovative approach towards this extremely complex and thorny dispute but the international community should also intensify its efforts to facilitate its resolution. While one could easily understand the hesitancy of the incumbent government of India, it is imperative to opt for an out of box approach, if the objective is to secure peace in the region.

The writer works for Islamabad Policy research Institute.