Strong initiative needed to solve Kashmir dispute

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.