While India gained a lot of international sympathy the Indian attitude and its belligerence once more spelled out clearly that the relations between India and Pakistan are so tenuous and combustible that efforts will have to be made to help these countries solve the explosive Kashmir issue.
President Obama's statement that Kashmir remains a crucial and vital issue between India and Pakistan with a potential to destabilise the whole region if not settled amicably through negotiations and with a will to defuse it for the sake of regional and world peace created a furor in India. Britain too was quick to express similar views. It appeared that the issue which was off the centre stage ever since the signing of the Simla Agreement in 1972 shall now engage the US and the west to make efforts for its solution by facilitating talks between India and Pakistan on this issue and by exerting international pressure towards its solution. Obama had even suggested special US envoy in the person of Bill Clinton to be nominated to fast track the efforts towards its solution but the Mumbai attacks in November last year suddenly created a very tense atmosphere as India orchestrated vehement diplomatic offensive against Pakistan and unleashed venomous propaganda to malign Pakistan. While India gained a lot of international sympathy the Indian attitude and its belligerence once more spelled out clearly that the relations between India and Pakistan are so tenuous and combustible that efforts will have to be made to help these countries solve the explosive Kashmir issue.
There have been number of other proposals too each advocating the partition of Kashmir on linguistic lines or on the lines of making desirable territorial changes to the existing LoC keeping in mind the military and security concerns of both India and Pakistan. But the problem with these proposals is that they completely ignore the basic right of the Kashmiri people to choose their own destiny and further complicate the issue ignoring the genesis of the Kashmir problem.
It will be worthwhile to study the history of this problem and its possible solutions which have been suggested to date.
India lodged a complaint under Article 35 (chapter VI) of the UN Charter to the Security Council on January 1, 1948 accusing Pakistan of “aiding and abetting” the Pakistani tribal invasion in Jammu and Kashmir. India claimd that the state of Jammu and Kashmir legally belonged to her by virtue of the treaty of accession signed by the ruler of Kashmir with the Indian Union. The Security Council did not agree with India and passed a resolution (Resolution No. 39) on January 20 creating UNCIP (United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan) to investigate the dispute and mediate between India and Pakistan. India incorporated in its constitution a clause declaring the state of Jammu and Kashmir as part of the Indian Union in 1957 about which the UN said that it does not alter in any way the nature of the problem and that it still remains a dispute between India and Pakistan which needed solution. From 1948 till 1972 UN passed 23 resolutions affirming and reaffirming every time that the issue has to be solved through a plebiscite to be held under the United Nations to give the people of Jammu and Kashmir the right of self-determination by making their own choice to either join India or Pakistan. It took different steps which were not acceptable to India or in some cases to Pakistan. Since UN resolutions are not self- enforcing and are recommenda-tory in nature the UN has failed to resolve the issue. In 1972, Simla Agreement was signed between India and Pakistan stipulating that henceforth the two countries will resolve their disputes and solve their problems through bilateral talks and negotiations which effectively took the issue of Kashmir out of the UN although it still remains on UN agenda.
Number of proposals was made by the UNCIP as well as other sources to resolve the issue which has failed to make any headway because of Indian attitude and intransigence. Even the composite dialogue and other efforts through track two and track three diplomacy have only resulted in undertaking some symbolic confidence-building measures without achieving any major breakthrough. Some proposals are being discussed below.
UN resolutions: The plebiscite option
Resolutions passed on August 13, 1948 and on January 5, 1949 by the UN Security Council laid down the principles and procedures for a free and impartial plebiscite under UN auspices. Both India and Pakistan accepted these resolu-tions. Differences arose over the interpretation of various clauses in particular on the issue of demilitarisation and disband-ment/disarming of the forces from Azad Kashmir and from the Indian-held Kashmir. Even on the matter of plebiscite India did not agree to give the UN sole authority to hold it under UN supervision but wanted only non- binding advice of the UN. Various UN mediators were appointed to resolve this issue but no one could convince India on a compromise. Sir Owen Dixon and Dr. Frank Graham made proposals and submitted five reports but the logjam remained and India continued to thwart any efforts towards resolution of the dispute. Pakistan and the people of Kashmir still adhere to holding a plebiscite as the only way to let the people of Kashmir decide for themselves but India consistently refuses to hold a plebiscite.
The UN Trusteeship option
This option proposes that Kashmir should be placed under UN trusteeship and then plebiscite may be held for the final resolution of the dispute. This could provide a face- saving for India and give people of Kashmir on both sides of the LoC to come up with a joint option. This option too is rejected by India and even Pakistan does not support it on the plea that in the presence of so many UN resolutions stipulating holding of plebiscite the idea of placing the state under
UN trusteeship is unnecessary.
The partition option
The option of partition is largely an academic debate and various scholars have suggested different proposals. First such proposal came from Sir Owen Dixon. It proposed holding regional plebiscite instead of a general plebiscite. It proposed division of Kashmir into four regions — Jammu, Ladakh, the vale of Kashmir including Muzzaffarabad, and Gilgit-Baltistan. The district of Poonch was to remain with Pakistan. Jammu and Ladakh to go to India uncontested and the Northern Areas to Pakistan. In the valley a plebiscite may be held to decide its future. Pakistan did not outrightly reject this proposal but was in favour of a general plebiscite. India rejected it on the ground that Kashmir was a part of the Indian Union and does not require any regional plebiscite.
Second partition proposal was based on Trieste type solution. It proposed that the valley with some adjoining parts of Jammu and the Pakistan side of Kashmir be made autonomous units under India and Pakistan, respectively. The remai-ning parts on both sides of the LoC to be merged with India and Pakistan. Since, India and Pakistan being parties to the dispute will continue to have clash of interest in the autonomous regions this proposal was not likely to bring stability in the region.
Third partition proposal considers the conversion of the LoC into an international border. This means maintenance of prevailing status quo. This option in principle is supported by India. The problem is that the LoC as accepted by India and Pakistan under the Simla accord does not exist anymore after Indian incursion into Siachen in 1984.
There have been number of other proposals too each advoca-ting the partition of Kashmir on linguistic lines or on the lines of making desirable territorial changes to the existing LoC keeping in mind the military and security concerns of both India and Pakistan. But the problem with these proposals is that they completely ignore the basic right of the Kashmiri people to choose their own destiny and further complicate the issue ignoring the genesis of the Kashmir problem.
The independence option
The impasse has resulted in the independence option which is also called the third option. This stipulates that the pre-partition status of Jammu and Kashmir is to
be restored and an independent state established. This is not viable as the new state will be land- locked and therefore permanently dependent on neighbours. This solution is not acceptable to India and even Pakistan is not very enthusiastic about it for obvious reasons.
The Irish model
This proposal is, in fact, based on the concept of granting autonomy for various regions of Jammu and Kashmir. Number of different formulas are proposed by Indian and international scholars but in these proposals the central aspects focusing on self-determi-nation and total disarmament after implementation of the agreement are ignored.
From above discussion it can be surmised that the issue of Kashmir defies any solution which can satisfy both India and Pakistan and that the issue cannot be solved unless the Kashmiris are brought on board and their acceptance is secured for any solution. The policy of solving Kashmir problem and other problems between India and Pakistan under the framework of a composite dialogue and associating Kashmiri leadership to finding a workable solution to the thorny issue of Kashmir is the only way forward. But after Mumbai attacks any hope of this happening soon is a distant dream. The international community and the US in particular will have to take active interest in solving this problem which is a flash point that could trigger disastrous regional war threatening to escalate into a nuclear war with horrendous consequences to the whole world. Innovative approach proposing out of the box solution coupled with a resolute will by the big powers can only move India and Pakistan towards an acceptable solution. Time has come for such will to be exercised specially when in parts of Pakistan Islamic militancy is taking roots and the region is witnessing the spread of terrorism with the potential to destabilise the region and the world.
India lodged a complaint under Article 35 (chapter VI) of the UN Charter to the Security Council on January 1, 1948 accusing Pakistan of “aiding and abetting” the Pakistani tribal invasion in Jammu and Kashmir. India claimd that the state of Jammu and Kashmir legally belonged to her by virtue of the treaty of accession signed by the ruler of Kashmir with the Indian Union. The Security Council did not agree with India and passed a resolution (Resolution No. 39) on January 20 creating UNCIP (United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan) to investigate the dispute and mediate between India and Pakistan. India incorporated in its constitution a clause declaring the state of Jammu and Kashmir as part of the Indian Union in 1957 about which the UN said that it does not alter in any way the nature of the problem and that it still remains a dispute between India and Pakistan which needed solution. From 1948 till 1972 UN passed 23 resolutions affirming and reaffirming every time that the issue has to be solved through a plebiscite to be held under the United Nations to give the people of Jammu and Kashmir the right of self-determination by making their own choice to either join India or Pakistan. It took different steps which were not acceptable to India or in some cases to Pakistan. Since UN resolutions are not self- enforcing and are recommenda-tory in nature the UN has failed to resolve the issue. In 1972, Simla Agreement was signed between India and Pakistan stipulating that henceforth the two countries will resolve their disputes and solve their problems through bilateral talks and negotiations which effectively took the issue of Kashmir out of the UN although it still remains on UN agenda.
Number of proposals was made by the UNCIP as well as other sources to resolve the issue which has failed to make any headway because of Indian attitude and intransigence. Even the composite dialogue and other efforts through track two and track three diplomacy have only resulted in undertaking some symbolic confidence-building measures without achieving any major breakthrough. Some proposals are being discussed below.
UN resolutions: The plebiscite option
Resolutions passed on August 13, 1948 and on January 5, 1949 by the UN Security Council laid down the principles and procedures for a free and impartial plebiscite under UN auspices. Both India and Pakistan accepted these resolu-tions. Differences arose over the interpretation of various clauses in particular on the issue of demilitarisation and disband-ment/disarming of the forces from Azad Kashmir and from the Indian-held Kashmir. Even on the matter of plebiscite India did not agree to give the UN sole authority to hold it under UN supervision but wanted only non- binding advice of the UN. Various UN mediators were appointed to resolve this issue but no one could convince India on a compromise. Sir Owen Dixon and Dr. Frank Graham made proposals and submitted five reports but the logjam remained and India continued to thwart any efforts towards resolution of the dispute. Pakistan and the people of Kashmir still adhere to holding a plebiscite as the only way to let the people of Kashmir decide for themselves but India consistently refuses to hold a plebiscite.
The UN Trusteeship option
This option proposes that Kashmir should be placed under UN trusteeship and then plebiscite may be held for the final resolution of the dispute. This could provide a face- saving for India and give people of Kashmir on both sides of the LoC to come up with a joint option. This option too is rejected by India and even Pakistan does not support it on the plea that in the presence of so many UN resolutions stipulating holding of plebiscite the idea of placing the state under
UN trusteeship is unnecessary.
The partition option
The option of partition is largely an academic debate and various scholars have suggested different proposals. First such proposal came from Sir Owen Dixon. It proposed holding regional plebiscite instead of a general plebiscite. It proposed division of Kashmir into four regions — Jammu, Ladakh, the vale of Kashmir including Muzzaffarabad, and Gilgit-Baltistan. The district of Poonch was to remain with Pakistan. Jammu and Ladakh to go to India uncontested and the Northern Areas to Pakistan. In the valley a plebiscite may be held to decide its future. Pakistan did not outrightly reject this proposal but was in favour of a general plebiscite. India rejected it on the ground that Kashmir was a part of the Indian Union and does not require any regional plebiscite.
Second partition proposal was based on Trieste type solution. It proposed that the valley with some adjoining parts of Jammu and the Pakistan side of Kashmir be made autonomous units under India and Pakistan, respectively. The remai-ning parts on both sides of the LoC to be merged with India and Pakistan. Since, India and Pakistan being parties to the dispute will continue to have clash of interest in the autonomous regions this proposal was not likely to bring stability in the region.
Third partition proposal considers the conversion of the LoC into an international border. This means maintenance of prevailing status quo. This option in principle is supported by India. The problem is that the LoC as accepted by India and Pakistan under the Simla accord does not exist anymore after Indian incursion into Siachen in 1984.
There have been number of other proposals too each advoca-ting the partition of Kashmir on linguistic lines or on the lines of making desirable territorial changes to the existing LoC keeping in mind the military and security concerns of both India and Pakistan. But the problem with these proposals is that they completely ignore the basic right of the Kashmiri people to choose their own destiny and further complicate the issue ignoring the genesis of the Kashmir problem.
The independence option
The impasse has resulted in the independence option which is also called the third option. This stipulates that the pre-partition status of Jammu and Kashmir is to
be restored and an independent state established. This is not viable as the new state will be land- locked and therefore permanently dependent on neighbours. This solution is not acceptable to India and even Pakistan is not very enthusiastic about it for obvious reasons.
The Irish model
This proposal is, in fact, based on the concept of granting autonomy for various regions of Jammu and Kashmir. Number of different formulas are proposed by Indian and international scholars but in these proposals the central aspects focusing on self-determi-nation and total disarmament after implementation of the agreement are ignored.
From above discussion it can be surmised that the issue of Kashmir defies any solution which can satisfy both India and Pakistan and that the issue cannot be solved unless the Kashmiris are brought on board and their acceptance is secured for any solution. The policy of solving Kashmir problem and other problems between India and Pakistan under the framework of a composite dialogue and associating Kashmiri leadership to finding a workable solution to the thorny issue of Kashmir is the only way forward. But after Mumbai attacks any hope of this happening soon is a distant dream. The international community and the US in particular will have to take active interest in solving this problem which is a flash point that could trigger disastrous regional war threatening to escalate into a nuclear war with horrendous consequences to the whole world. Innovative approach proposing out of the box solution coupled with a resolute will by the big powers can only move India and Pakistan towards an acceptable solution. Time has come for such will to be exercised specially when in parts of Pakistan Islamic militancy is taking roots and the region is witnessing the spread of terrorism with the potential to destabilise the region and the world.
No comments:
Post a Comment