Trading across the LoC

The POST, Sun, Oct,26, 2008.

Pervaiz Iqbal Cheema

After the passage of 61 acrimonious years trade between the Indian Occupied Kashmir and Azad Kashmir started on 201st October. After much discussion decision to allow limited trade, consisting of roughly 21 items, across the Line of Control (LOC) was taken by the Joint Working Group of India and Pakistan during last month. Decorated with flags and banners fourteen trucks laden with goods went across the Peace Bridge on the LOC to Srinagar and thirteen trucks came to Azad Kashmir.

Both sides appeared to have expressed somewhat exaggerated optimism. ‘I am quite confident that this beginning will lead us to proper and regular trade and commerce’ expressed the Prime Minister of Azad Kashmir. He further stated that all these steps such as cross LOC trade, communication, people to people contacts, talks, are slowly and gradually contributing towards the ultimate resolution of the ongoing dispute. Somewhat similar sentiments were also expressed by the Governor of the Indian Occupied Kashmir (IOK) N.N. Vohra who stressed that trade link was a major step in the slow moving peace process.

Kashmiri leaders like Mirwaiz Omar Farooq saw it as the first step towards achieving economic independence for Kashmir. However the leaders highlighted the need for India to address the issue of future of the region. The Azad Kashmir’s President Raja Zulqarnain reportedly dubbed it as a positive development but not the resolution of the ongoing dispute. Almost all the truck drivers appeared to have expressed their delight to have the opportunity to take the truck across the LOC.

By and large the reaction to the limited opening of trade can be grouped into two categories; those who saw it a positive move which could facilitate enormously in accelerating the much desired drift towards the eventual resolution of the dispute and those who regard it as part of the diversionary tactics. The optimists feel that such confidence building measures (CBM) could pave the way for making the borders irrelevant and enormously contribute towards the eventual normalization of relationships.

Cognizant of hardened positions of the two sides, they feel more and more CBMs could inject the necessary flexibility. The Indian leaders stress that there will be no redrawing of the boundaries and the Pakistanis refuse to accept LOC as an international border. Any deviation from the regularly drummed position could not only earn unpopularity but may even result in the erosion of their position. So neither side is willing to take unnecessary risks. However, the notion that more and more contacts with each other and regular injection of CBMs may eventually produce a situation where both sides may feel that the resolution of the disputes is in the interest of both.

The pessimists on the other hand feel that allowing limited trade between the two parts of Kashmir is nothing more than a diversionary move. They refer to the past somewhat similar tactics which India had employed and the desired resolution of the Kashmir dispute was pushed to the realms of uncertainties.

They also emphasize that no change on the ground has so far been witnessed. India continues to suppress the people of Kashmir with brutal tactics. Reference is frequently made to what happened during the last few months. During the past few months not only many Kashmiri people suffered at the hands of both the Hindu rioter as well as the Indian security forces. The economic blockade imposed by the Hindu militants not only made the life of the people miserable but also generated the feeling that the Hindu militants want to starve the people of Kashmir.

Many pessimists also argue that efforts to make the borders irrelevant amount to acceptance of status quo. They believe that there has been no qualitative change in the Indian position but they have been changing tactics periodically in accordance with changed regional and global environments. Over the years something like 100,000 Kashmiri people have been martyred for efforts aimed towards independence. The pessimists believe that initiation of trade between the two parts of Kashmir is no more than an act of betrayal.

It is not too difficult to comprehend the arguments of both the groups. If one analyses the pessimist’s argument in the light of past behavior of the Indian governments, then it becomes rather difficult to dismiss their claims. Undoubtedly for years the successive governments in India effectively ignored the ongoing dispute. On the contrary efforts were focused to project the dispute as an internal matter. At the same time the Indian government opted to use brutal tactics to suppress the increasing voices for freedom.

Despite being an established democracy, the violation of human rights in IOK was no different than what happened to the natives during the era of colonialism. Many Indian leaders have periodically vociferously promised to rectify the situation but the end results have so far remained the same. Therefore it is rather unrealistic to dismiss the views expressed by the pessimists.

The optimist also appears to be fully cognizant of Indian governments’ past behavior and repeated violations of their promises but they seem to base their argument on the assumption that giving space to the Indian government could and may motivate them to undertake corrective measures and live up to their commitments than confrontation. Confrontation tend to provide grounds for delay in the process and the delay itself can cause the advent of many undesired and unforeseen developments that may in turn further complicate the existing situation.

Given the existing situation and the slow movement of the ongoing peace process, CBMs like the initiation of trade between the Kashmiri people living on both sides of LOC is a welcome step that could further improve the overall atmosphere. However it needs to be stated here that there is no guarantee that such measures would be able to influence India to change its stance and agree to the participation of the Kashmiri people now in the ongoing peace process between India and Pakistan-especially in the basket that deals with Kashmir.

The writer works for Islamabad Policy research Institute.