Shutting the window of opportunity on Kashmir

Pakistan OBSERVER, Tue, January,18, 2005.

Pervaiz Iqbal Cheema


The roundtable on Kashmir dispute which was organized by the Pakistan Observer not only proved to be an eye opener but also confirmed the disappointment of almost all the Kashmir leaders living on this side of the LOC. Not only the Kashmiri leaders expressed their desire to be associated with the peace process but also highlighted the trends which are fast closing the window of opportunity.

One admires the repeatedly expressed desire by the Indian leadership to resolve Kashmir dispute but one does not find any concrete proposals aimed to match their desires especially to resolve the Kashmir dispute. Instead one is confronted with clever play of words. While the recent statement by the Indian Prime Minister stressing that he wants ‘out of the box solutions to settle his country’s long standing disputes with Pakistan and China is a welcome expression of intent, his assertions that no redrawing of boundaries as his bottom line particularly in Kashmir makes a  mockery of expressed intent especially if read in the context of Pakistan’s often expressed view that LOC is part of the problem and not part of the solution.

The question whether or not the leaders are fully cognizant of the creeping adverse trends that are gradually shutting the window of opportunity along with the question whether or not there exists a solution to this complex dispute continue to haunt the South Asians.  The answer to these questions revolves around yes and no. Yes if the involved parties are sincerely determined to remove this complex impediment on road to peace and stability of South Asia. There is no denying of the fact that South Asia will never be able to acquire peace and harmony unless and until this dispute is resolved. This has been repeatedly recognized by both India and Pakistan. 

There are three parties involved in the Kashmir dispute, India, Pakistan and the Kashmiris. Each of these parties has objectives which contradict with others. Given the conflicting nature of objectives pursued, it appears that the dispute may linger on for quite sometimes obstructing the advent of desired peace. Perhaps one would comprehend better the intricacies that surround the dispute if one analyses each party’s objectives.

The original two parties involved are India and Pakistan. The hasty surgical partition of India by the British left the integration process of princely states into India or Pakistan incomplete. The British departure left this painful legacy to the inheritors of the British Indian Empire. Since then both India and Pakistan have been deeply engaged in securing the disputed state.

The British could have resolved the dispute by announcing that those states which do not exercise their option to join either India or Pakistan by the 10^th August, the British would decide fate of those states on the basis that were given to the rulers of the states to facilitate their decisions. Lord Mountbatten in his address to the rulers had categorically stated that the decision must be based on the principles of geographic proximity and the aspiration of the people involved.

Initially India argued its case on the basis of Maharajas decision to join India whereas it did not apply the similar argument when it dealt with Junagadh and Hyderabad’s absorption. In recent times the argument has been revolving around the fact that so much has happened during the last 57 years and the Kashmir dispute should be resolved keeping view the ground realities. Thus the emphasis is on the recognition of LOC (Line of Control) as the permanent border. To disturb the existing LOC may unleash many complex problems.

Compared to the Indians the Pakistanis have been arguing its case on the basis of UN resolutions which secured commitments from both India and Pakistan to hold a plebiscite in order to determine the fate of the state. Cognizant of ground realities (domestic, regional and international) the Pakistanis have generated the impression that they are willing to consider other options. This of course does not mean that they have abandoned the UN resolutions. However not only they want to give chance to all those possibilities that can facilitate the resolution of the ongoing dispute but also prevent the quick closure of the current window of opportunity.

The third involved party is that of Kashmiri people. While there is no doubt that the Kashmiri groups engaged in freedom struggle appeared to be divided in their adopted approaches and objectives but it would be difficult to ignore their aspirations now especially in the light of sacrifices they have made. Therefore it is somewhat essential to have their input in the ongoing dialogue over the Kashmir dispute.

The incumbent peace process was initiated by Indian Prime Minister Vajpayee’s April 18, 2003 offer and strengthened by subsequent steps taken to normalise communication and transportation. The success of 12^th SAARC summit and the joint statements of Jan.6, further injected strength to the process. Following the end of the first round another joint statement was issued in New York. on September 24, 2004 reiterating the resolve of the two governments to take the process forward with sincerity of purpose.

While the first round of Indo-Pak dialogue has yielded some dividends but not much progress has been registered with regards to the Kashmir dispute, Siachin, Sir Creek, Baglihar etc. Apart from optimistically orientated statements that Kashmir would not be put on back burner, not much progress has been made. Admittedly both sides issue statements asserting the need for further negotiations and reflecting that some forward movement has taken place, the delay in making tangible progress especially with regards to the Kashmir dispute is giving birth too many apprehensions and misgivings.

Undoubtedly the Kashmir dispute is a complex dispute and it may take more time compared to other relative less complicated issues, but the people on both sides are eagerly waiting for some tangible out come. So far it has not come. Even the second meeting of the Foreign Secretaries has not been able to generate hope for tangible results. In fact the Indian Foreign Secretary alleged to have even expressed that there exist no common grounds as far the Kashmir dispute is concerned. Such statements tend to dampen optimistic streaks.

This is indeed not a right approach. The two sides should seriously consider the two key words that have been expressed by the leaders of India and Pakistan. President Musharraf has repeatedly highlighted the need to employ the principle of flexibility whereas Prime Minister Manmohan Sign has asserted importance of the principle of sincerity. If both these principles are purposefully employed, the chances of resolving even the most complex dispute would intensify rather rapidly.

The key to move forward and to prevent the window of opportunity from shutting down is to demonstrate the sincerity of purpose and employment of principle of flexibility. To extract maximum benefits from sincerity and flexibility, both sides need to properly comprehend the importance and need for reciprocity. If serious and sincere efforts are made along with the injections of flexibility, then it would be difficult to deny the possibility of an optimistically orientated out come. However if the application of these principles is effectively impeded and dwelling upon play of words continues, then pessimism would indeed engulf the process and the window of opportunity may soon be closed down.

The writer works for Islamabad Policy Research Institute.