Strong initiative needed to solve Kashmir dispute

By G.S. Edwin

JAKARTA (JP): Kashmir, a princely state under British rule, became a state of India when the Maharaja of Kashmir signed the Instrument of Accession in 1947.

This was not recognized by Pakistan. Consequently, a tug-of- war broke out between India and Pakistan which ended up in a war. The UN Security Council ordered a cease-fire in 1949 and proposed a plebiscite to resolve the issue as per the wishes of the people of the state.

It is since fifty years and the plebiscite still has not taken place. Yet, flogging a dead horse, each side pressures itself to do the utmost damage to the other. Both countries have fought three wars. Both are poised on the brink of building nuclear weapons. An arms race is on, taking its toll.

It is strange that both countries are arming themselves, one blaming the other, when both of them know that a plebiscite will not take place and a war will not resolve the issue.

Commitments to plebiscites, perishing through attrition, are not unprecedented. Rahmatullah Khan, in his book Kashmir and the United Nations, says: "The characteristics of these plebiscites (minor ones) were that they were held immediately after the decision was made and they were of inconsequential nature. The plebiscites which were of graver significance, however, were marked by procrastination leading ultimately to abandonment".

By way of suggesting a right perspective, to judge the fate of a plebiscite not acted upon for fifty years, it would not be out of place to mention that a person reported missing for seven years is presumed dead. Meaning, he can't hold up getting ahead.

War is not an option, though saber-rattling in aid of foreign and domestic policies is not uncommon. Even where it is, either it is a last resort or countries just stumble into it. As for the Kashmir issue, it is a good augury that both countries are against war.

The question that arises is: If the plebiscite is dead and war is not a solution, is it necessary to remain a hostage to the Kashmir issue and wantonly sacrifice a future brimming with prospects? The answer is no.

Indeed, it is time that both break out of the impasse. The world is dismayed that both India and Pakistan, who are the key to peace and prosperity in South Asia, are mired in conflict, misdirect their potential and do not realize their responsibility to their people, region and world.

Economic integration with the region and the world is the route to prosperity. The South Asian Regional Cooperation (SARC) is the chosen regional network and the vehicle. However, it languishes as the political stock of both countries is low. They are seen as a threat to stability when stability is the most important requirement for economic progress.

ASEAN, with its splendid track record, is a good role model for SARC to promote and reap gains from growing regional prosperity. India and Pakistan have a per capita income of US$360 and $465, respectively; Indonesia and the Philippines, both ASEAN members, come in at $940 and $1130.

This glaring gap not only raises the doubt of whether India and Pakistan can catch up but also confirms that posturing, confrontation and needling mean heading towards bankruptcy.

The Kashmir issue is the thorn in the relationship and the chief culprit for the current state of affairs. There is no hope unless and until this issue is buried for good. Apparently there seems to be no way it can be done. A deal which will not alter the status quo, which anyway cannot be altered, has a chance, however faint and distant.

Nehru had agreed to a referendum in Kashmir. It was not a light or a time-serving commitment. This commitment was not fulfilled, (India fulfilled it in the Junagadh State), because the Kashmir issue got obfuscated into an Indo-Pak dispute. So it can only be redeemed. This is a must if there is to be an exit out of a dead end.

What the Kashmiris would probably like is for their country to be rehabilitated, set on the path of economic progress and see prospects for improving their lot. India and Pakistan could jointly work out the amount required as initial investment. India should agree to pay, from the adjudged composite amount, the share pertaining to Azad Kashmir to Pakistan.

In exchange, Pakistan should unequivocally recognize the accession of Kashmir to India and India recognize Azad Kashmir as part of Pakistan. In the interest of the long term, both countries should agree to abide by a model good-neighborly code of conduct.

Money-for-peace is suggested because all other alternatives were considered and shot down.

Peace treaties have insisted on reparation. Dowries have been given and taken by countries. Money (aid) played a constructive role in the peace-making between Egypt and Israel. Money-for- peace is not much different from the current land-for-peace exchange. Politics has always been ruled by interests, good neighbors are one of the most important.

Only now, the situation in the Kashmir front is most conducive for an unorthodox solution.

With the Cold War gone and the advances in missile-delivery technology Kashmir is no longer strategically important to any power.

India's disillusionment with the Security Council is complete and painful. A genuine complaint, unprovoked aggression, made by a trusting and conscientious member of the UN was deliberately castigated as a gripe and made a pawn through a diabolic inter- play of power politics. India should have no qualms settling the matter outside the Security Council.

Pakistan, on the other hand, was plagued by its fragile sense of security in the forties. It needed the Kashmir issue to scream to the world that India, never reconciled to partition, was out to destroy the fledgling Moslem state and helpless Moslems. Thanks to Sir Zaffrula Khan (Pakistan UN delegate). He upstaged India and Pakistan adroitly used Kashmir to raise a high-decibel plaintive cry for help, and systematically built up its military power. Thus Kashmir has served its purpose. It has been squeezed dry, so Pakistan can now be persuaded to look at it differently and look ahead too.

Both countries are aware: that the world will respect them only if this issue is resolved and the time has come to implement what the leaders of both countries have almost incessantly preached - "in the interest of peace some solution must be found" and "the sub-continent needs a turning point".

There is a worthy precedent too. In a more or less similar situation America (president Jimmy Carter) played a vital role. Subtly dangling aid, it was able to make both Egypt and Israel accept a down-to-earth peace that has endured and yielded peace dividends. It made Begin and Sadat statesmen.

Likewise, the Kashmir dispute also needs a God father to take a bold and strong initiative and guide the parties through a successful walk on the eggs, saving the face of both and securing the interests of all Kashmiris.

Now it is the turn of the British to wipe out a bitter and an explosive relic of the Empire. When all is said and done, Britain successfully transferred power to a tinderbox India: 11 provinces and 565 Princely States, with no fallout, barring the singular and solitary exception of Kashmir.