Kashmir throughout the ages has remained another name for Paradise. Cradled in the lap of majestic mountains of the Himalayas, Kashmir is the most beautiful place on earth. For centuries, poets and travelers called Kashmir a paradise on Earth. But the paradise has become a tragic problem – a problem so complex that two countries have fought three wars over it in 50 years. Nothing divides India and Pakistan as Kashmir does, and nobody has suffered more in the process than the people of Kashmir.
Kashmir’s fate is still locked into the story of India’s partition in 1947, when Pakistan was carved out as a home for Indian Muslims. The first war between the two countries was fought within months of their independence, while their armed forces were still under the command of British officers. Kashmir was divided – and remains divided – between the two countries.
India claims that Muslim-dominated Kashmir is an integral part of the country, a cornerstone of its secular democracy. Pakistan sees Kashmir as its “jugular vein” and believes its merger into Pakistan is simply an unfinished task of partition. As for the Kashmiris themselves, most would like to be left alone by both sides.
Another straightforward solution would be the implementation of United Nations resolutions on Kashmir, leading to a plebiscite which would give Kashmiris the choice of either Indian or Pakistani rule.
Fatally, for this plan, India is unlikely to walk into the almost-certain embarrassment of losing the vote. Equally importantly for India, there are fears
that a plebiscite on Kashmir’s future could set a precedent, fuelling the calls for similar referendums which are already being heard in north-eastern states, Punjab and even in the south. Neither would all Kashmiris be happy to be given a
choice of rulers. Many would want the third option of an independent Kashmir. This raises the question of whether, although neither India nor Pakistan can afford to let the other side win Kashmir, could a solution be envisaged in which both would lose it?
The unfinished partition creates havoc and uncertainty among india and Pakistan and it affects the Kashmir most, they can’t even decide their fate.The right to self determination is an inalienable right of the Kashmiri people, and the issue is
pending final settlement through a free and impartial plebiscite under UN auspices as enunciated in numerous resolutions of the UNSC.Although there were many initiatives taken by both India and Pakistan but every time the anomisity increases, there seems no fruitful dialogue which can settle down the Kashmir dispute.There are grave obstacles which diverts the peace process in Kashmir,Primarily because India and Pakistan both possess nuclear weapons, the United States had a stake in resolving the Kashmir problem even before the 1998 nuclear tests. However, it has never been prepared to take the risk or spend the political capital necessary to do so, and no blueprints of a solution have emerged from successive U.S. administrations. The Bush administration pursues the traditional American position that India and Pakistan need to resolve the issue through bilateral negotiations—as suggested by the 1972 Shimla Accord, which followed the 1971 war, and the 1999 Lahore process, the most recent effort to normalize relations between the two countries— and that the United States will not mediate a dialogue between the two neighbors.
In july 2000,Hizbul Mujahideen, the most powerful Mujahideen Group operating inside Indian occupied Kashmir announced a unilateral ceasefire. This statement took the people in India, Pakistan and Kashmir somewhat by surprise, by its
suddenness and the uncertain future implications that were likely to flow from it. The announcement was certainly a move in the right direction and should have been welcomed by all those who favour a negotiated settlement of the long outstanding dispute between India and Pakistan that has cost the lives of thousands of innocent Kashmiri civilians.The then Indian Prime minister Mr Atal Bihari Vajpayee welcomed the ceasefire announced by Hizbul Mujahideen leader Abdul Majid Dar and said he was willing to talk with any group for resolving the Kashmir issue.The initial reaction of the United States government was that it will welcome any move that leads to a lowering of violence. The State Department official referred to President Clinton’s statement that there could be no military solution to the Kashmir problem and that any solution must be part of a process that took the aspirations of the Kashmiris into account.The Hizbul Mujahideen rejected the Indian government’s offer of talks within the Indian constitution explaining that they did not recognize the Indian constitution. New Delhi consequently was forced to radically change its former stance and offer talks without any preconditions. India also announced that it was suspending military operation against Hizbul Mujahideen. How the Indian Army would distinguish between the Hizb freedom fighters and its own underground militants was not explained. There were, however, encouraging signs discernible on both sides despite the diversity of their views, aims and objectives.Prime Minister of India, Mr Atal Behari Vajpayee, the top moderate in the BJP-led coalition government who initiated the Lahore peace process, was firm in his views. Mr Vajpayee said the main touchstone for peace talks should not be the Indian constitution -which precludes discussion of Kashmir’s secession — but “insaniyat” (humanity). “Leave the constitution.Talks should be held within the limits of insaniyat so that violence is stopped and no more blood is shed.” This was a most significant development and augured well for the future.It was unfortunate that over ninety civilians both Muslims and Hindus were killed on the eve of talks between the Indian Home Ministry officials and the Hizbul Mujahideen. This act of senseless killing should be condemned in the strongest terms by every peace loving person. The Indian Prime Minister Mr Atal Behari Vajpayee was statesman enough to announce that the talks with the Mujahideen would be conducted as scheduled despite the killings. He of course blamed Pakistan for the tragedy.
Any real solution to the Kashmir problem would have to be immune to the suggestion that it amounted to a defeat for either of the warring neighbours.
Pakistan has denied the accusation and demanded an impartial international inquiry to confirm the facts. This is a reasonable demand and should have been acceded to.In view of India’s uncertain attitude and her government’s changing policy of talks within the constitution, altered to talks outside the constitution under ‘Insaniyat’ or humanity, changed again to the constitution after the first round of talks. The Hizbul Mujahideen called off their ceasefire on August 8.2000.The hope of further talks ended because “Vajpayee’s statements had been contradictory. In one breath he talked about dialogue on the basis of humanness, but in the same breath he spoke about negotiations within the framework of the Indian constitution” Another reason given by the Hizb commander was India’s “rigidity” in not accepting tripartite dialogue with Kashmiris and Pakistan. Therefore increased mistrust have faded away the ray of hope, the Andorra model which was proposed in 1998 to publish a set of possible resolutions, including an innovative arrangement on the pattern of Andorra, the tiny state which lies on the borders of France and Spain. It involved the reconstitution of part of Jammu and
Kashmir as a sovereign entity, in the same way as Andorra, with free access to and from both of its larger neighbours.
The part of the state which was to be reconstituted would be determined through an internationally supervised agreement involving the Kashmiri people, India and Pakistan. The resulting entity would have its own secular, democratic constitution; distinct citizenship; a flag; and a legislature which would pass laws on all matters other than defence and foreign affairs. The proposal relies on India and Pakistan overseeing the defence of the Kashmiri entity, and jointly working out its funding. There would be no change in the present line of control, but the whole entity would become a demilitarised zone. The plan does not try to avoid a particularly important question which has dogged the Kashmir dispute: the politics of ego and prestige attached to the claim on the area. Any real solution to the Kashmir problem would have to be immune to the suggestion that it amounted to a defeat for either of the warring neighbours. Involving as it does no movement of borders, the Andorra proposal has at least the potential to secure both sides a limited measure of control over the entire Kashmir region, and attain for both populations a sense of victory. The feelings of Kashmiris too would be assuaged to a great extent. It may be the only possible solution in sight.
In short the change of interest results in mismanagement of the problem same is true with the Jammu and Kashmir dispute. When all is said and done it is the will of the nation that will count. At present there seems to be a political will on either side of the border to settle the Kashmir problem and bring peace to South Asia. Will the leaders rise to the occasion and forge a lasting peace with honour and dignity for the people of Jammu and Kashmir, which is acceptable to them.
India and Pakistan are parties to the dispute and, therefore, cannot shirk their responsibility. It is incumbent on them to open a meaningful dialogue and initiate a move even though slowly, towards a peace process. This is the desire of the peoples of South Asia and that is the direction in which their salvation lies.
(The author is presently doing PG in International Relations (Peace and Conflict Studies) in Islamic University of Sciences & Technology-IUST Awantipora. The views are his personal)