http://nation.com.pk/daily/today/editor/opi5.htm ©The Nation Group of Publications Pvt Ltd Opinion Pages
Ending the stalemate: thoughts on Kashmir
Manu Bhagavan
If there is a paradise on earth; it is this, it is this, it is this. -Jehangir, 17th century Mughal Emperor, on the Kashmir valley. Enough. The people of India and Pakistan have had enough. The people of Kashmir have had enough. Enough destruction. Enough mayhem. Enough death. We want peace. We demand it. To the governments of India, Pakistan, Jammu/Kashmir, and Azad Kashmir: listen to us. Please. Surely these are sentiments with which almost any person in South Asia will agree. And yet we continue to stumble, fighting and bickering away, relishing the thrill of emotional hatred of our enemy. Our enemy? Cannot we see that it is only ourselves we have destroyed? The blame is placed easily: it is the intransigence of India that prevents solution, cry Pakistanis. No, it is the intervention of the Pakistani ISI that perpetuates hostility, respond Indians. Meanwhile: tens of thousands of people have died, mostly Kashmiri, but also Indian and Pakistani. Of many faiths, of many ethnicities. It is an old story, but do we really know what has happened? The 1947 partition of the subcontinent created the new nations of India and Pakistan, but it left the matter of the nearly 600 princely states that made up approximately 40 percent of the subcontinent somewhat ambiguous. These regions were given a choice: they could accede to Pakistan, accede to India, or they could choose independence. Virtually every state understood this for what it was: a face-saving measure. In truth, independence was not really an option. Any state that was within the borders of new India would be merged therewith while any that lay within the boundaries of Pakistan would become part of that country. Three princely states were exceptions to the rule: Hyderabad, a Hindu majority state ruled by a Muslim Nizam in the central southern part of the subcontinent; Junagadh, a Muslim-ruled Hindu majority state in the West, and Kashmir, a Hindu-ruled Muslim majority state in the north that adjoined both India and Pakistan. The Nizam of Hyderabad declared his state independent and promptly faced police action by the Indian state. Led by Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, India took over Hyderabad. Junagadh declared for Pakistan, but as it too was land-locked by India, immediately faced military occupation. After a plebiscite was held, the state merged with the Union of India. This left Kashmir. The Hindu maharaja was uncertain as to what course he should pursue, as his state was unique in its border position. Pakistani tribesmen, supported by their government, forced the issue by crossing into the princely state, logic that seemed sound in light of India?s actions with Hyderabad and Junagadh. But the maharaja of Kashmir felt betrayed by the insurrection, and turned to India for assistance. India, under the direction of British Governor-General Lord Mountbatten, promised aid provided that Kashmir accede to India; it was agreed that later, the wishes of the people of Kashmir would be taken into account through a referendum to finalize the settlement. Pakistan cried foul, arguing that all of Kashmir was rightfully theirs (as it was a Muslim majority state with contiguous borders with their country) and the two countries went to war over the issue. In July 1949, the conflict ended with the Karachi Agreement, giving India control over 2/3 of Kashmir and Pakistan 1/3, dividing the state along a cease-fire line. While overt hostilities ended, tensions and tempers continued to simmer, with groups in both countries arguing that the 'partition' of Kashmir was illegitimate. Kashmir was given special status within the Indian constitution, granting it special privileges of autonomy. In 1950, the state went to the polls, and India has since claimed that these elections, taking place within India?s democratic system, established that the 'will of the Kashmiri people' was to remain with India. The United Nations passed several resolutions from 1948-1951 mandating international observation of the cease-fire line and calling for a plebiscite to be held in Kashmir, but stipulating that before the latter all Pakistani troops, nationals, and tribesmen had to first withdraw from Kashmir. Pakistan and India again went to war in 1965, and once more in 1971. Both conflicts resulted in renewed fighting in Kashmir. The Simla Agreement of 1972 technically negated the Karachi Agreement and created the Line of Control, a border between Indian and Pakistani controlled Kashmir that virtually duplicated the original cease-fire line. India and Pakistan also agreed at Simla to solve all differences through 'bilateral negotiations' or by any other mutually agreed upon means. India has since used the Simla accords to argue against any 'internationalization' of Kashmir. Pakistan, however, has continued to seek international intervention, arguing that if enough pressure were placed on it, India would have to accept third-party negotiators. An insurgency broke out in Indian held Kashmir in the late 1980s, and Pakistan almost immediately lent its support. India then turned around and claimed that its old enemy was stirring up trouble again. Several conflicts and a pair of nuclear detonations later, here we are. An international quagmire, a stalemate in which no one can act without attracting accusations of worsening the conflict. What are the possible solutions? There are four really, five if we allow ourselves to be imaginative. All of Kashmir becomes part of Pakistan. All of Kashmir becomes part of India. Kashmir becomes independent. Or, everything stays the same and the Line of Control becomes the official permanent border between India and Pakistan. OR: we think outside of the box. Maybe an arrangement along the lines of the Vatican in Rome. Or perhaps an autonomy agreement paralleling Scotland. Whatever the final answer, it is time we all faced some hard truths. Pakistan has been supporting indirectly and directly armed conflict in Indian held Kashmir. There is also an indigenous struggle within the state, critical of India?s handling of Kashmiri needs and desires. Both India and Pakistan have made horrible mistakes in the region, and both nations have blood on their hands. Like Macbeth, no amount of handwashing will free them of this burden. They-we-must confront our past and admit our mistakes. This is our first step. A joint resolution between India and Pakistan admitting these truths is called for. After that, we should have an immediate moratorium on all violence in the state of Kashmir. This can be maintained by a group of international observers, or perhaps a full-fledged peacekeeping force. Either of these two options can be done, if all have good faith, without stepping on India?s rejection of "international mediation" or further UN intervention. How? By drawing on SAARC, and calling on Nepal, Bangladesh, and Sri Lanka to act. Or perhaps a combination of Russian and Chinese organizations. The point is a mutually agreeable compromise can surely be found, if we have the will. Any acts of violence must immediately be reported not just to the governments, but to the public at large. And then the reality: the people of Kashmir have been facing 15 years of war. It is they who have paid the price for Indian and Pakistani lack of vision. And it is they who must be compensated. With a massive "Marshall Plan" of our own. Both India and Pakistan can commit to a five-year economic aid and stimulus package, and can make it work by providing this assistance to the part of Kashmir held by the other. Vaccines and health care clinics. Clean drinking water and food supplies. Literacy and job training programs. It can be done. After an interim period of no-violence, we can move to the next step, transitioning the region to final resolution. Kashmir has been the locus of Indo-Pakistani animosity. It can be the harbinger of mutual understanding and respect. Perhaps we can create a semi-autonomous united Kashmir, whose citizens are both Indian and Pakistani, with special provisions to protect the rights of all Kashmiris, regardless of religious faith or ethnicity. A joint commission between India and Pakistan, with directly elected representatives from Kashmir, could be created that would negotiate and administer joint government policy, dispersing federal funds from both countries. Kashmir would belong to both India and Pakistan, while having maximum autonomy. Idealistic? Maybe. But possible, if we have the vision. Remember: we want peace. The writer is an assistant professor in the Department of History and Political Science at Manchester College, Indiana, USA ©The Nation Group of Publications Pvt Ltd -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <../attachments/20020401/b796f6cb/attachment.htm>