Kashmir: My Perspective
Written: October, 1999
1.0 Introduction
In May 1974 India exploded a small nuclear device partly in response to geopolitical needs and a desire to show the world that it has come of age. It also wanted to let Pakistan know that the issue of Kashmir is practically dead (reference UN Security Council Resolution 47 Document No. S/726 dated 21 April 1948 and others) and that Pakistan should never think of confrontation with India ever again. The timing was particularly bad for Pakistan since the memories of the 1971 debacle of East Pakistan was fresh in the minds of Pakistanis. The leadership in Pakistan was now convinced that its independence is at stake, and the country will be exposed to the nuclear blackmail which was no longer an issue between the “super” powers. Pakistan began to work on its own program at a heightened pace. The United States was particularly opposed to the acquisition of such capability and Henry Kissinger had tried to persuade the then Pakistani Prime Minister, Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, of unforeseen consequences. However, in December 1979, Afghanistan was invaded by the Soviet Union, changing the political landscape altogether. The United States actually began to look the other way as Pakistan continued to acquire Uranium enrichment capability during the unfortunate war in Afghanistan by the Soviet Union. The Reagan Administration had decided to ignore the issue and President Reagan had himself made the point that Pakistan was surrounded by Atomic Powers and rouge states. Simultaneously, India was proceeding on its slow but steady program of nuclearization and wanted to test the Hydrogen Bomb.
During the Bush Administration it was apparent that Pakistan had the necessary materiel to explode the bombs and President Bush was convinced that “cold tests” have been conducted in late eighties. The US policy of non-proliferation including “Pressler amendment” (Nuclear Proliferation Prevention Act of 1994, Sec.902. Nuclear Non-Proliferation Conditions on Assistance for Pakistan, Section 620E of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961) and congressional pressure stopped the sale of crucial defense equipment needs of Pakistan. This however, had exactly the opposite effect, pushing Pakistan further towards reliance on the atomic arsenal. Despite all of these developments Pakistan did not want to explode the bomb for mostly economic reasons.
When India exploded its Hydrogen Bomb along with four smaller atomic devices in May, 1998, Pakistanis had no choice but to quickly respond with their own explosions of (six) Atomic Bombs “to even the account” (i.e. if you count the 1974 explosion by India). The Pakistani explosions had become essential strictly from a psychological perspective for the nation, since India and the world already knew the capability.
These explosions have pushed the world closer to the dooms day (nine minutes to midnight as fixed by the journal “Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists”, University of Chicago, June 1998) on the clock which has been maintained since 1947. This has come about due mainly to the disputed territory of Kashmir between India and Pakistan. Kashmir has thus emerged as a dispute not only to be resolved in the context of India and Pakistan but also essential to the peace and prosperity of the world at large.
2.0 THE NUCLEAR THREAT
2.1 The Nuclear-World View
There are four parties to the conflict as a result of both India and Pakistan becoming nuclear powers. These being the people of Kashmir, India, Pakistan, and now the world community at large which will be engulfed quickly in any nuclear confrontation. The most disturbing part of the problem is that India has steadfastly refused to allow the world at large (such as the United States and the United Kingdom) to play any part in bringing the parties together. This is because India continues to treat the problem as an internal issue. But more importantly it wants to solve the problem as though it is still standing in 1947 and applies all legalistic arguments in which the people of Kashmir have no say. Even though we all know that the partition of India would not have been possible if the people of Pakistan had not expressed their desires in an open ballot. Thus, for India to continue to insist on other pseudo legalistic annexation provisions just does not make sense.
Further analysis requires that we examine the political stance of certain countries. We will first examine the accepted five declared nuclear powers, at least before Indian and now Pakistani explosions. The United States has the honor of being the first nuclear and now the sole “superpower”, at least for a little while, but has never quite figured out on how to deal with India. It was clearly in favor of the United Nations resolutions in 1948 calling for a vote, and for the people of Kashmir to determine their fate on whether or not they want to live with India. While it believed in a certain balance of power between India and Pakistan, it could never allow Pakistan to become strong enough as it also thought of India as a counter to China. This was never more apparent than during the brief skirmish between China and India in 1962. The public posture continues to be on the non-proliferation of atomic weapons. It also continues to pay a lip service to the right of self-determination of the people of Kashmir. At the same time, though, it supports the Indian postulate that all matters are local and only dire circumstances such as one country taking over the other will trigger any real response. So it supports the Indian position of dialogue between India and Pakistan to resolve Kashmir and any other matter. India likes it this way and thinks that the people of Kashmir will forget and forgive India for all the atrocities committed by half a million troops and Pakistan will eventually give up as well. This is wishful thinking as history has proven itself time and again, be it the Middle East or the Balkans.
The former Soviet Union, like India itself, never quite understood the political division of India in 1947. Here, a shift is possible due mainly to the breakup of the Soviet Union. The former soviet states like Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, and others no longer give unqualified support to the Indian position. Russia, however, continues to give India the unqualified support at least publicly. It also continues to provide the most sensitive ballistic missile technology to India. It is this technological partnership between India and Russia that Pakistan and other countries such as the United States are worried about. India has other ambitions, falling in areas where space exploration blurs with military stuff such as espionage capabilities in any satellite technology. The Pakistanis, in the context of the former Soviet Union, also did not vigorously contest the salesmanship of India on the issue of Kashmir. The little thaw between Pakistan and the Soviet Union came in 1965 after President Ayub accepted the Soviet mediation in Tashkent after the seventeen days war between India and Pakistan. Pakistan never exploited this opportunity. The time is ripe for Pakistan to genuinely use the Central Asian states to its advantage to not only improve relations with the Russians, but also to let India understand that Pakistan has a choice and it can align its destiny with the states west of it. The recent visit (in April 1999) of the Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif may result in changing the Russian/Pakistani relationship. The cooperation, in primarily the economic sector, may lead up to a softening of positions on the Russian side to the point that Pakistan can trust the Russian position as well as its involvement in the Kashmir issue.
Next, China is playing an increasing role in the security arrangement of the Asian Continent Some think tanks in the West now regard China to be the superpower of the twenty-first Century. The historic relationship, which began with the recognition of the Chinese government by Pakistan in 1949, has continued to flourish and survived several tests of real and cold wars. The Chinese have also faithfully stayed with the Pakistani position on Kashmir from the beginning. The fact is that the Chinese for reasons that are both historical and geopolitical regard Pakistan’s view on Kashmir to be closer to the “just” position and in their own national interest. The 1962 war between India and China further cemented the Pakistani position on Kashmir in the minds of the Chinese. As we have indicated above, a new equation is in the process of being formulated. The former soviet republics bordering Afghanistan and China are far more interested in seeing the civil war in Afghanistan end. They are also beginning to look to the east and realize that the China/Pakistan relationship can be very beneficial to the development of the region, and want to see the Kashmir issue resolved. Their policy is perhaps tilting more towards the Pakistani position due mainly to the economic benefits for the region.
The United Kingdom has and continues to suffer from the guilt of the division of India as well as leaving Kashmir unresolved and running away from the scene. It remains essentially uninvolved and has shied away from any real mediation effort either on her own or in conjunction with the United States. Due to this guilt, and the fact that it is a significantly larger country than Pakistan, India continues to enjoy a more favorable stance with the United Kingdom. The other reason is of course economic and India is still looked as having a much larger potential than Pakistan even though the companies in the United Kingdom have been waiting for the last fifty years. It is indeed sad since United Kingdom still has immense influence in the context of the Commonwealth. For sure, the politicians know well that a vote for the self-determination in Kashmir will not go in favor of the Indian position. Perhaps the position of the United Kingdom can be best explained by simply saying that India does not consider the United Kingdom a first rate power anymore, and is unlikely to listen to it.
The fifth atomic power, France, never quiet got involved in this affair and simply remains happy by exporting Mirage fighter technology to both countries.
2.2 NATO - The New Role
Until now, NATO as a North Atlantic Treaty Organization had little or no real interest in what goes on in the Indian Ocean region. This was a treaty framed as a bulwark against the Warsaw pact countries and mainly for the defense of Western Europe. There are other alliances but not quite as powerful as NATO. The action it has taken against Serbia without the express approval of United Nations speaks for itself. This is important to note that the action against Serbia is not because Serbia committed an aggression against any of the NATO member countries. It is based upon non-tolerance of gross violations of human rights, which is what goes on in the valley of Kashmir. But even more important to note, is that NATO also worries about defending itself against those states, which have the potential of targeting member countries with nuclear missiles. It is therefore, now interested in what goes on in the Indian Ocean region. In particular, NATO countries are alarmed that both India and Pakistan are engaged in a tit for tat policy of increasing ballistic missile ranges, which will ultimately be able to target any point on the globe.
The United States Congress is again funding the old “Star Wars” project pushed by President Ronald Reagan during Cold War. This means that there is sufficient concern not only among the non-governmental organizations and think tanks but also in the US Congress that the missile race is on, and eventually this technology will find its way to any country bent on acquiring it. NATO will play a crucial role in the eventual deployment of any such technology. Unfortunately, the more advanced nations of the East will try to develop an anti-Star-War technology and the race will continue in the outer space making space exploration a dangerous game. It is for these reasons and others that the issue of Kashmir has acquired a much more center stage position than it was before the dual atomic explosions in May 1998 by India and Pakistan.
2.3 The Islamic Factor
Those countries where there is a majority Muslim population, the people (not necessarily the governments - see below) are naturally inclined to believe that India is suppressing the Muslims similar to what Slobodan Milosevic has been doing at a much larger scale in the former republic of Yugoslavia. The integrity of India, according to the Indian leaders must be maintained at all costs. The argument being that India is ethnically and linguistically so diverse that any crack in the alliance will result in a much larger bloodshed than just in Kashmir. Thus the political and military struggle (guerilla warfare) of the people of Kashmir continues facing India and Pakistan, with possible nuclear catastrophe for the world at large.
Whether we like it or not, whether it should be this way or not, the fact is that the explosions of the atomic bombs by Pakistan has had a tremendous psychological impact on the Muslim population throughout the world. When an Egyptian cleric leading the Friday prayers, in the United States, tells the parishioners coming from every part of the world, to be proud and celebrate this day, which elevates the “nation”, tells the story. Ordinary Muslims and many intellectuals have felt that there was a conspiracy against them in that Israel and India could possess any arsenal including the atomic bomb, and the only option available to the Muslims was to live as second class citizens in world politics. In their simplistic notion, the destruction of the Iraqi nuclear installation [under construction] by Israel was a clear proof. They were unwilling to buy the argument that the democracies of the world must ensure that countries ruled by dictatorships must be off limits to these instruments of mass destruction. In any case, the point here is that over time, some of these Muslim countries may look to Pakistan for a security umbrella. What impact it will have on India is unclear. But what is clear, is that, India can not improve its position vis-à-vis Pakistan in the battle of capturing the public opinion on the issue of Kashmir.
It should also be kept in mind that it is not just the majority Muslim countries where India faces an uphill battle for the minds of the people. But, in many western nations, Islam has propagated peacefully negating many myths and already become the largest religion after Christianity. Examples include England, France, as well as the first nuclear power, the United States. It is ironic that the Islamic thought and philosophy, despite unintended propaganda has had the opposite affect and Islam has become more popular in the west for a variety of reasons. For example, in the United States, the blacks have felt that their origins are Islamic and the “martyrdom” of people like Malcolm-X has produced sympathy for Islam. The immigrants from Pakistan to the United States have been at the forefront of such conversions to Islam. It is this factor as well that favors Pakistan and the people of Kashmir.
Finally, The other countries of the world are far too weak in the militarily/economic strength to tangle with either India or Pakistan especially now that both countries are arming themselves with the nuclear arsenal.
We can now quite confidently state that if a random sample of the world population were to be taken on the issue of self-determination, India will loose by a wide margin.
2.4 What Is At Stake
In an article published in the “Defense Viewpoint” (Volume 10, Number 10), William J. Perry, former US Secretary of Defense, writes “Today, each of them has the capability to build nuclear weapons. Because of this nuclear capability, a fourth India-Pakistan war would be not just a tragedy - it could be a catastrophe.” He further quotes John Kenneth Galbraith who was serving as the US ambassador to India in 1962 as having told President John F. Kennedy, that “Politics is not the art of the possible. [Rather, it] consists in choosing between the disastrous and unpalatable”. The stance of India and Pakistan on Kashmir is unpalatable (it is also unpalatable on the issue of nuclear proliferation, but that is a different issue). But, for the world to use it as a reason to disengage from the Kashmir issue will indeed be disastrous from the point of view of this author as well.
In fact it can be argued that, at stake is the future course of economic development of the world, space exploration, and beyond, and not just the strategic relationships of today. Even if sufficient understanding exists between India and Pakistan, the thorn must be removed and the infection cured. Otherwise, the cancer will eventually engulf the world at large. The entire planet must be regarded as one body when the cancer is nuclear.
3.0 THE NON-NUCLEAR OPTIONS
As we have said before, the nuclear option is not an option; it is merely a deterrent. It is indeed mutually self assured destruction doctrine being played all over again between the cold war rivals. While some analysts may go into an esoteric debate on whether or not a nuclear war is winnable by either side and try to calculate the cost of such stupidity down to ninth decimal place. It is not in the interest of a single soul capable of understanding the disaster. We are thus forced to take a look at the non-suicidal solutions. Wars, including armed revolutions, have solved some problems in the past including the overthrow of tyrannical governments. One such example on which most of us will agree is that of the defeat of Hitler’s Nazi Germany. But it would have been a disaster of grand proportions if Hitler had the atomic bomb long before the allies did. It would have taken centuries to reverse the direction of the dark side of the human progress. One must look to the future, far in the future, to figure out what is really important for the human race. The current NATO operation in Kosovo is a good example where ethnicity can not be allowed to be the basis of rule of law. And the United States and the allies have gone to war over that issue asserting the principle. War can not however be the vehicle in every case. One must examine the overall cost in terms of the human principle as well misery.
In Kashmir, the only principle involved is the forceful annexation of a territory regardless of the wishes of the people of that State. India has annexed several states into its territory forcefully. The examples include the States of Junagarh, the Sate of Hyderabad, and lastly the State of Sikkim. None of these states border Pakistan. But the main reason why India has gotten away with naked aggression is because the people of these states could identify themselves with the rest of India and the predominant culture, religion, and ethnicity could not be used as the basis of discrimination. It is sometimes argued that if the Congress Party lead by Pundit Nehru had agreed to properly safeguarding the rights of the Muslims in the undivided India, then the partition of India itself could have been avoided. The Muslim minority in India has suffered heavily at the hands of the majority since its independence. The people of Kashmir have seen it and rejected India’s claim over the State, regardless of what happened in 1947. The proof of this thesis lies in the very fact that India is afraid to let the United Nations take control over the territory and conduct fair and impartial polls. Pakistan has never objected to the salient features of such a proposal. Below we will examine and analyze the only five possible scenarios, which can be the basis for a lasting peace in the region and by inference in the world. We will also examine why and which parties are opposed to any of these solutions. Since the damage has already been done, it will take careful preparation and selling of any of these proposals to the people of Kashmir as well those of India and Pakistan. Any effort not sincere and carefully planned will fail miserably and create its own set of problems and have the potential of getting out of hand. As we shall see below different options have their own unique set of issues and carry with them plenty of opportunity for mischief both within and outside.
3.1 CURRENT LINE OF CONTROL SOLUTION
The most talked about option on the problem of Kashmir is to declare the current line of control as the international border between India and Pakistan. There have been rumors to the effect that once or twice the two countries have seriously talked about this option during the administrations of Rajiv Gandhi and President Mohammed Zia-ul-Haq, as claimed by Gandhi but not before Zia-ul-Haq died in a plane crash. Regardless, no leader, either in India or Pakistan will reveal the precise plan, as changes might be desirable by both sides to make minor adjustments from a population as well as defense perspectives. There are serious reservations about this proposal in both countries. The most important objection is really from the people of Kashmir who see their State being divided without their consent. In the current political atmosphere the people of Pakistan as well as of India are also opposed to the concept. There are two main reasons for this. In India, for over fifty years the people have been fed the party line, that Kashmir really belongs to India, and not just the part that it occupies but also the part that is under the de-facto control of Pakistan. And so if one speaks to Jon Doe (or better Raja Ram) in the Indian heartland, he thinks that people of Kashmir really want to live in India and that Pakistan has occupied this piece of land illegally. The Indian press and successive administrations have never told them that if there was an independent election held under the UN supervision, that in all likelihood the people of Kashmir would reject the Indian occupation.
There are roughly half a million Indian troops engaged in keeping their side of the territory under control. The actual army which faces the Pakistan army on the other side of Line Of Control is perhaps not even half that. There is no real government in Kashmir except what is imposed by India from time to time. Thus the biggest hurdle faced both by India and Pakistan is to convince the people of Kashmir that this option is the right long term option. In the opinion of this author, this option is the least attractive and does take into account the wishes of the people of Kashmir. And even if the two countries reach an agreement, the independence movement will continue with in the Indian occupied Kashmir. It will also be a hard sell in both the countries and the two parliaments may never ratify the agreements, toppling the governments. This would require longer term and proper democratic processes to bring the people of both countries along and admitting fifty years of propaganda and counter measures on both sides. What is also difficult is the fact that both countries are poor and any effort to rebuild the shattered economy of the region, in particular of Kashmir, will require massive capital influx under any solution.
3.2 SOLUTION BASED UPON THE WISHES OF THE PEOPLE OF KASHMIR
The second possibility for a solution in the State of Jammu and Kashmir is to accept the wishes of the people of the state. This can be accomplished in several ways. The most acceptable to India would probably be on the basis of a non-UN sponsored bilateral agreement between India and Pakistan. The most difficult part will be to determine the boundary in which the elections will be held under the watchful eye of a third party such as the United Nations. Note that the agreement can still be bilateral but certain parts of the execution of agreements may still require a third party to insure objectivity and honesty. The essential elements of such an agreement would require the inclusion of the “elected representatives” of the people of Kashmir. In broad terms there will be three phases of such an agreement. First, an agreement between India and Pakistan to accept the principle of “free elections” in the State and determine the boundary on both sides of the Line of Control for such an execution. Second, with the help of a third party preferably the United Nations conduct free elections in a multi-party environment using a census mechanism approved by the Election Authority (i.e. the United Nations), India, and Pakistan. Third, on the basis of the results, boundaries can be established once and for all between India and Pakistan. There might be a cooling off period before phase one, a kind of phase zero. In our judgement this cooling off period has to be part of a grand scheme of things. Measurable goals will have to be set up and a fixed timeframe imposed for the specifics of the peace plan to have completed in this timeframe. A mere cooling off period which does not deal with the Kashmir issue is bound to fail. Some Western Governmental officials and “think tanks” suggest a cooling off period, in which the issue of Kashmir simmers is not being proposed by us, since it merely prolongs the inevitable. The two countries must face this problem as part of the overall normalization. Next, the ballot should be totally objective. The three questions should be total independence, statehood within India or Pakistan. In case there is no majority on the first ballot, a second vote can determine the outcome with a majority vote. While this option might be the most undesirable for both India and Pakistan, but one that would be the fairest to the people of Kashmir. Both India and Pakistan need not fear the outcome (see 3.5 below for a longer-term view) of such a decision.
It should be noted explicitly that only a fair and equitable solution will usher an era of goodwill and prosperity for the people of the sub-continent. The last sixty years of distrust which began even before gaining independence in 1947 can not be wiped out if a significant population of both countries feels that the agreement is no good. And Kashmir is the one problem, which will not go away simply by wishing it. It has not happened in fifty years, and it is very unlikely to happen now. However, if the people of both countries are convinced that the solution reached is the best possible, then it very likely that over time they will forget the bad feeling of the last sixty years, not in a day of course. An agreement along these lines will also bring very good economic news for both countries. While India continues to insist that its nuclear program does not revolve around a security threat from Pakistan only. It looks north to China as not only a nuclear power but conceivably also a super power in the twenty-first century. It feels with some justification that India is a great nation in its own right, and it can not be treated as a backward nation in the same time frame. However, we feel that the psychological greatness can not be justified without India becoming a great economic power as well. This can not be achieved without a solution to the border problems that India has with China and Pakistan. And, of course, the biggest of these problems, and one which takes away most precious resources of India is the Kashmir problem, where an estimated half a million troops are tied down with the people of Kashmir. This is not just an armed conflict, but an entire population is sick of Indian behavior and human rights violations.
It can also be safely argued that Japan has more clout than India in global terms. It is certainly a great economic power. Japan’s greatness under the security umbrella of the United States and slow movement to account for its own defense will be a check on the Chinese power at least in the next century. The theory that India can somehow do it alone just does not make sense. In the known history also, the Chinese have never marched on to the Indian Territory. Tibet is more of a religious freedom issue and deals with the intricacies of separation of Church and State, valid for all of China, than any “border dispute” with India. The problems of border dispute with China are relatively easy since almost no populations are involved. It is therefore, our opinion that economic greatness of India can not be achieved (and India can not become a super power without being also an economic super power) without being friendly with both Pakistan and China. The journey begins by solving the Kashmir problem.
3.3 THE 1948 UITED NATIONS RESOLUTIONS
The main difference between section 3.2 and this section is the timing of the United Nations involvement. It is India’s insistence that all matters including the key issue of Kashmir be settled bilaterally. Pakistan has been talking about the United Nations resolutions on Kashmir simply because it wants to show that it is on a higher moral ground. The fact also is that Pakistan agreed to a bilateral possibility during the so-called “Simla agreement”. This agreement was reached at an hour when Pakistan had been defeated in the war in which East Pakistan became Bangladesh. This was partly a civil war in which India did its best to insure, including formal help to the Bengali insurgents as well as sending Indian Army to force Pakistan into surrender. Pakistan army had no choice, as it was unable to supply itself separated by hostile one thousand miles of Indian Territory. Thus Pakistan, while continues to abide by the essentials of the Simla Accord, it has no real affinity with it. In fact, it can be argued that this agreement is in the way of true friendship between the two countries, if such a thing is possible. Thus the chances of a United Nations brokered deal are almost zero. However, as in section 3.2, if India and Pakistan can reach a bilateral agreement on the crucial issue of getting a free and impartial arrangement of a referendum, the United Nations resolutions can then serve as the basis for a vote.
The crucial point of these resolutions, which were agreed both by India and Pakistan is that the wishes of the people of Kashmir should be the basis for any settlement. The other powers in the world can perhaps point to yet another success for the UN. The problem with the United Nations as we all know is that nothing gets done in the Security Council unless and until it suits all the permanent members. This is perhaps a major shortcoming, which can not be eliminated without taking away the Veto Power itself of the permanent members, something very unlikely to happen. It is partly this reason that India feels very uneasy about giving the United Nations the role of brokering a peace agreement on Kashmir. India with some justification feels that a great country should be able to resolve its differences on its own terms. Fortunately for Pakistan, the acquisition of atomic weapons has forced India to deal with it on at par basis. Otherwise, a full-scale and a bloody war would have ensued by now, and Pakistan would be fighting for its independence.
Another difference between 3.2 and this section is how India feels about “internationalization” of the Kashmir dispute. It continues to recite the mantra to its own population that Kashmir is an inseparable part of India. In a bilateral arrangement, it does not have to give up that claim while it continues to hope that may be militarily, the ground conditions can be changed forever, and thus the insistence of bilateral arrangements with Pakistan will pay off. The issue has been internationalized anyway. Commenting on the recent skirmishes, between the two countries, Bruce Riedel of the National Security Council of the United States said on June 8, 1999, "President Bill Clinton, in his communications to the Prime Ministers of India and Pakistan stressed that point. The conflict between India and Pakistan over Kashmir has many origins and a long history. It is long past the point where it needs to be resolved by the two sides directly”. If, India continues to de-internationalize it, Pakistan will continue to support the people of Kashmir at least politically, and raise the ugly Indian head in every forum it can at the international level. The freedom struggle, which is more latent and political than armed, rages on. However, there are enough of killing fields within the Indian held Kashmir that the State is no longer the tourist Mecca, it could be. In fact, the only means for sustenance are the mountainous crops. And there are serious flares of hostilities as India continues to maintain half a million troops, blaming mostly Pakistan. Again fortunately for Pakistan, the nuclear arsenal continues to deter India from launching a full-scale war.
In terms of this particular option (UN resolutions) as a basis for conflict resolution, the author does not insist on ruling out bilateral agreements as a new leaf to resolve the matter. However, as indicated earlier, mechanism must be set up to conduct and monitor the outcome of the elections under those bilateral terms. We will end this section with news brief from Reuters, in which it is plenty clear that the people of Kashmir must be included in any settlement.
SRINAGAR, June 10, 1999: Kashmir's leading separatist alliance said today that it rejected the line dividing the region between India and Pakistan. "The state's Line of Control, which divides Kashmir, is like a blood line and we reject it," A senior leader of the All Parties Hurriyat Conference told a news conference. Abdul Ghani Lone also dismissed talks set for Saturday June 12th, 1999 between India and Pakistan and said they would have no meaning without the Hurriyat's participation. The group includes nearly two dozen political, religious and separatist groups in the Indian held Kashmir.
"This is our problem, we have offered sacrifice of thousands of people and the dispute is on our land.... Whenever there is dialogue on Kashmir it should be trilateral," Lone said. "Our boys have crossed this line since 1990 because they don't respect the sanctity of the line and consider the whole part (Indian and Pakistani controlled Kashmir) their land. We appeal to people of Kashmir not to respect Line of Control but reject it," he added. Police and hospitals say more than 25,000 people including Kashmiri mujahideen and Indian security forces have been killed and thousands wounded in Jammu and Kashmir since 1990. (Reuters) 3.4 THE SEPERATION OF JAMMU FROM THE VALLEY
There have been newspaper reports that some “think tanks” and United States government officials believe that in the State of Jammu and Kashmir, there is majority within a larger majority. In Jammu, which is a small part of the State, a slight majority of Hindus may want to stay with India. Perhaps, the thesis can be explained using the Irish example. There is a Protestant majority within Northern Ireland, but in the context of larger Ireland, this protestant majority is a small minority. The situation would be hopeless if United Kingdom were to insist on ruling the entire island of Ireland. Thus the argument put forward by some in the United States that perhaps the State of Jammu and Kashmir can be carved out between India and Pakistan. And, in such a manner that the Valley of Kashmir becomes part of Pakistan, while the area around Jammu can continue to be part of India. While on paper, it appears to go along with the wishes of the people of Jammu and Kashmir there is no certainty. If indeed the thesis is correct, it can easily be tested in a vote. India has once rejected this as a basis for solution. Recently some life has been put into it. The issue again will be one of India even acknowledging that there is more to it than Pakistan simply sending mercenaries to fight and create an artificial armed struggle.
There are also suggestions that a Camp David style marathon parley should be held and the issue resolved once and for all with the United States supplying the “environment” as the two sides work out their differences. Neither India’s nor Pakistan’s entrenched interests will allow that to happen. But the larger issue remains the basis upon which a parley would occur. If the basis is to simply declare the current Line of Control as the international border, then they need not come to Camp David. The people of Kashmir will simply reject this solution and the struggle will continue. On the other hand if the basis is the United Nations resolutions, both the people of Kashmir and Pakistan will welcome that. This will, however, be vetoed by India; again no need to come to Camp David. The only possibility is to start the negotiations without a basis and in the presence of the United States officials who would presumably be more objective, as no one in the US wants to see the two sides destroy world peace based upon nuclear Armageddon. It is clear also that India will never agree to any of these possibilities. In effect, the Indians want to use their nuclear power status to keep status quo. If indeed this is correct, then Pakistan as well as the people of Kashmir will continue their course. In fact, even if Pakistan were to agree to a Line of Control based solution, the people of Kashmir will reject it. It will merely prolong the agony of the people struggling in Kashmir, and in the next upheaval, things will be back to square one.
4.0 CONCLUSIONS
We will summarize our thought process by noting that given a very real nuclear threat, it is incumbent upon India and Pakistan to bring themselves together to resolve the long and complex issue of Kashmir. It might seem farfetched but even if India ends up relinquishing control over Kashmir either as an independent entity or some accommodation with Pakistan with the help of the legitimate representation of Kashmiris, India still ends up the winner in the longer-term. As we have indicated earlier, the Earth is poised for a larger world peace, as we prepare to take the human legacy in the Space and beyond. As part of this conclusion, we are also proposing a scenario, which is very likely to happen if India and Pakistan fail to bring themselves and the Kashmiris together. The example of cold war and communism is in front of us. It took over seventy years for communism’s bulwark to finally disintegrate quickly. The internal pressure along with continuous external poking burst the bubble.
4.1 A LONGER TERM VIEW
The people of this planet are preparing to move to space for a number of reasons, and it is not for us to fully document them here. But as we all know, the new Space Station is an example of how America and Russia (the old rivals) are cooperating with several other countries to build this “first joint colony”. Ultimately, there will be just a few major blocks in the world (the North American, the European, and at least one Asian) that will be in the forefront of this race, and we might add, peacefully. In order for India to join this race, it has to choose one of these blocks. Therefore she needs to join hands with all the countries of the region including China and Pakistan to move ahead. The first step towards such a goal is to strengthen the economic alliance of all the “nations” of the sub-continent itself. Even if Kashmir were to become independent, it has to exist within that alliance. India being the largest entity within this economic alliance would logically assume the necessary leadership, if it chooses to do so. Thus in the end, economic interests will overcome any short-term political as well as defense based alliances, as the future of the sub-continent lies together. There is a small start in the form of SARC (South Asian Regional Council) designed to promote economic cohesion of the region. Pakistan despite unfavorable conditions due mainly to the high Indian import tariff rates has joined the Council to show that it is interested. But any real progress can not be made until the killings stop and the politically charged issue of Kashmir is resolved. India knows this well, but believes that using such vehicles as the World Trade Organization, it can move ahead and forge the economic alliances by hook or by crook. Again, fortunately for Pakistan its trade with the United States, Europe, the Middle East, and China have essentially shielded it from the Indian economic hegemony.
Let us also assume that India does not want to exercise the option of solving the Kashmir problem. In that case Pakistan, unlike India, still has an option and its future can still be very bright. It will just take slightly longer, and may in fact be a better option. It has the option of joining hands with the countries to its West and the North namely China, Iran, the former Soviet Republics, Afghanistan, and others. In approximately one hundred years, Pakistan can integrate its economy with this larger alliance, countries with rich natural resources. It can provide the necessary security umbrella as well as human talent to create a block sufficient in size both in terms of area, population, and the resources. In this manner it can successfully compete in any space race vis-à-vis any other world block. And, it can keep the Kashmir issue alive. There is clearly no loss of cultural identity for Pakistan in joining hands with the people of these countries. Except for China, the other countries mentioned have had close linguistic and cultural ties for hundreds of years with what is now Pakistan. As far as China is concerned, as we have indicated earlier, Pakistan was one of the first countries to recognize China in 1949. The political friendship has stood the test of time for fifty years now. In fact, Pakistan played a key role in bringing China and the United States together, and the historic visit of Henry Kissinger occurred from Islamabad to Beijing. Clearly, the Chinese also value Pakistan’s friendship. They have even shared in defense related technology. It will only be natural, if the alliance of Pakistan, China, and the West Asian States began to develop their own airplanes, shuttles, and commercial rockets with joint marketing agreements to bolster their chances of competing in the space age with the North American and European blocks.
It is therefore clear that it is not in the longer-term interest of India to drag its feet on the issue of Kashmir. It simply prolongs the agony and the inevitable will occur. What is sad is that it will create such a rancor that for decades there will be no real progress and the loss of life will continue. We fail to see the logic behind a failed tactical plan and continually ignoring the strategic and obvious goals for India. The fear that India will fall apart if Kashmir is allowed to “breakaway” and potentially create twenty two countries is just that. In any case no country can be held together for long on the basis of armed forces and India knows this from its own example. The example of East Pakistan is a sad one as well. And, in our judgement, the case of political struggle in Indian Punjab, as well as Northeast India may show resurgence if the Kashmir issue is not resolved. This is because the economic element in any uprising is a very important factor and every penny that India spends against the military struggle in Kashmir is the penny it does not have for the betterment of its people.
4.2 OUR RECOMMENDATION
As indicated above, we are clearly recommending the salient points of the solution proposed in section 3.2 above. We are confident that it is the only morally, politically, and militarily sound thing to do. We also recognize that both sides have to show flexibility. Thus we are clearly for a bilateral arrangement. The basis of such an arrangement must however be the wishes of the people of Kashmir. We are also in favor of what we have referred to as the phase zero, a kind of cooling off period. But the cooling off period has to be part of a comprehensive agreement, a scheduled affair in which specific measurable items such as census for the eventual referendum would occur. Merely improving cooperation elsewhere while a war like situation continues to exist in Kashmir is a fancy in which some “think tanks” duck, while the Atomic Clock continues ticking.
© Copyright 2001 Sifwat Ali. All Rights Reserved
