A
Guide To Kashmir Peace Plans
By Muzamil Jaleel
Guardian
22 January , 2002
For centuries, poets and
travellers called Kashmir a paradise on Earth. But the paradise has
become a tragic problem - a problem so complex that two countries have
fought three wars over it in 50 years. Nothing divides India and Pakistan
as Kashmir does, and nobody has suffered more in the process than the
people of Kashmir.
For the time being, India
and Pakistan seem to have miraculously escaped from another war, with
tensions apparently eased at the borders. But the threat of a nuclear
conflagration in the subcontinent reminds the world of the urgency of
a resolution to this vexed problem. There have been nearly 40 official
proposals for a solution, but not a single plan has yet been acceptable
to all parties.
Kashmir's fate is still locked
into the story of India's partition in 1947, when Pakistan was carved
out as a home for Indian Muslims. The first war between the two countries
was fought within months of their independence, while their armed forces
were still under the command of British officers. Kashmir was divided
- and remains divided - between the two countries.
India claims that Muslim-dominated
Kashmir is an integral part of the country, a cornerstone of its secular
democracy. Pakistan sees Kashmir as its "jugular vein" and
believes its merger into Pakistan is simply an unfinished task of partition.
As for the Kashmiris themselves, most would like to be left alone by
both sides.
International border
One option suggested for
Kashmir is to put the current division of the area on a more official
footing, by turning the line of control between India- and Pakistan-administered
Kashmir into an international border.
There are indications that
India might accept this solution. Several Indian political parties have
backed it, as has the chief minister of Indian-administered Kashmir,
Farooq Abdullah. However, such a plan would be unacceptable both to
Pakistan and to many Kashmiris living on either side of the line of
control.
Let Kashmiris choose
Another straightforward solution
would be the implementation of United Nations resolutions on Kashmir,
leading to a plebiscite which would give Kashmiris the choice of either
Indian or Pakistani rule.
Fatally, for this plan, India
is unlikely to walk into the almost-certain embarrassment of losing
the vote. Equally importantly for India, there are fears that a plebiscite
on Kashmir's future could set a precedent, fuelling the calls for similar
referendums which are already being heard in north-eastern states, Punjab
and even in the south.
Neither would all Kashmiris
be happy to be given a choice of rulers. Many would want the third option
of an independent Kashmir.
This raises the question
of whether, although neither India nor Pakistan can afford to let the
other side win Kashmir, could a solution be envisaged in which both
would lose it?
Independence
The creation of an independent
state of Jammu and Kashmir would have its own problems. The argument
for self-determination is essentially that historically Kashmir was
an independent entity until its incorporation into the Mughal empire
in 1586.
The leader of the pro-independence
Jammu Kashmir Liberation Front, Amanullah Khan, suggests a five-phase
formula for independence, to be overseen by a UN committee.
The committee, comprising
representatives from a wide variety of countries, would work towards
a referendum in 15 years, following a phased withdrawal of troops by
both countries and the disarming of Kashmiri militants.
Even within Kashmir, however,
a plebiscite leading to independence would not be welcomed by all.
Kashmir is not a homogeneous
ethnic or religious unit, and the political aspirations of its people
vary widely. Neither independence nor Pakistani rule would be acceptable
to the Hindu-dominated parts of Jammu and the Budhist Leh in Ladakh,
for example, which would never be in favour of secession from the Indian
state.
Similarly, the Kashmiri-speaking
Hindus or Pandits who have migrated out of the Kashmir valley demand
a homeland with a union territory status - that is, direct rule from
Delhi.
Religious segregation
In 1950 the Australian diplomat
Sir Owen Dixon put forward a plan to redraw the boundaries of Kashmir
on religious lines. He saw the river Chinab as a natural border.
This would have meant that
most of the Muslim-dominated areas of what is Indian-administered Kashmir
would go to Pakistan, but the Hindu-dominated area would have remained
with India.
The plan met with opposition
from those with pro-independence sentiments, but it had a more serious
flaw. The large wave of migration caused by the imposition of such a
border would involve the displacement of many thousands of people, which
could itself lead to violence.
It seems unlikely that the
international community would back a plan of this sort, which would
involve the segregation of Hindus and Muslims who have been living for
a long time as neighbours in many areas. As many as 800,000 people might
be uprooted as a result of such a partition.
Partition
According to British Foreign
Office files declassified recently, the United States and Britain were
urging India and Pakistan to search for a partition solution in the
mid-60s, soon after the Indo-China war.
The United States supported
the creation of an independent Kashmir valley, but Britain feared that
Russia and China would immediately exert communist influence over the
new sovereign state.
The Soviets were also against
an independent Kashmir, fearing that the US would hold sway there and
use it as a base.
The talks also discussed
the partition of Kashmir valley, but ultimately failed. They were followed
by the outbreak of war.
The Andorra model
In 1998, a Kashmiri American
businessman assembled a group of western policymakers and academics
to set up the Kashmir Study Group. The group soon published a set of
possible resolutions, including an innovative arrangement on the pattern
of Andorra, the tiny state which lies on the borders of France and Spain.
It involved the reconstitution
of part of Jammu and Kashmir as a sovereign entity, in the same way
as Andorra, with free access to and from both of its larger neighbours.
The part of the state which was to be reconstituted would be determined
through an internationally supervised agreement involving the Kashmiri
people, India and Pakistan.
The resulting entity would
have its own secular, democratic constitution; distinct citizenship;
a flag; and a legislature which would pass laws on all matters other
than defence and foreign affairs.
The proposal relies on India
and Pakistan overseeing the defence of the Kashmiri entity, and jointly
working out its funding.
There would be no change
in the present line of control, but the whole entity would become a
demilitarised zone.
The plan does not try to
avoid a particularly important question which has dogged the Kashmir
dispute: the politics of ego and prestige attached to the claim on the
area. Any real solution to the Kashmir problem would have to be immune
to the suggestion that it amounted to a defeat for either of the warring
neighbours.
Involving as it does no movement
of borders, the Andorra proposal has at least the potential to secure
both sides a limited measure of control over the entire Kashmir region,
and attain for both populations a sense of victory. The feelings of
Kashmiris too would be assuaged to a great extent. It may be the only
possible solution in sight.
· Muzamil Jaleel,
a journalist with the Indian Express, is on attachment to Guardian Unlimited