Subscribe To
Sustain Us

Popularise CC

Join News Letter

Read CC In Your
Own Language

CC Malayalam

Iraq

Peak Oil

Climate Change

US Imperialism

US Elections

Palestine

Latin America

Communalism

Gender/Feminism

Dalit

Globalisation

Humanrights

Economy

India-pakistan

Kashmir

Environment

Book Review

Gujarat Pogrom

WSF

Arts/Culture

India Elections

Archives

Links

Submission Policy

Contact Us

Subscribe To Our
News Letter

Name: E-mail:

 

Kashmir: Difference Of Opinion

By Kashoo Tawseef

08 January, 2008
Countercurrents.org

"Do not think you are dealing with a part of U P (Uttar Pradesh, Bihar or Gujarat. Yon are dealing with an area, historically and geographically, and in all manner of things, with a certain background. If we bring our local ideas and local prejudices everywhere, we will never consolidate. We have to be men of vision and there has to be a broad-minded acceptance of the facts in order to integrate really. And real integration comes of the mind and the heart and not of some clause which you may impose on other people. "

(From Selected Works of Jawahar Lal Nehru: Second Series; Vol. 18; p. 421).

Like the dispute of Kashmir on ground, the maps of the State used globally, also present a view of the dispute and ambiguity associated with Jammu and Kashmir. United Nations and this world body do not have separate maps of India or Pakistan. They have only South Asia and Kashmir area maps. In Kashmir map they clearly show line of control and mention a note at the bottom that "the status of Kashmir is not finalized by both the parties". To play further safe UN does not use word 'Disputed' anywhere. (http://www.etalaat.net/english Jan 02,08)

It is still untimely to talk about Kashmir, using the paradigm of the troubled Northern Ireland or the collapsed peace process in the Middle East. There is as yet, no resemblance of such a process in Kashmir involving India, Pakistan and the various factions within Jammu and Kashmir. Though there were few glimmers of hope on the horizon, which could have provided grounds for a cautious optimism, but that too has lost its essence.

Although the referendum demand is historically legitimate. But India never allows any such exercise to be held, and Pakistan on the other hand uses the same unfulfilled referendum promise as a stick to beat India with. Pakistan has always insisted at the official level for any plebiscite held should have only two choices: India or Pakistan, This means that a referendum loses meaning for the large pro-independence segment of the population in Jammu and Kashmir as their choice is not even accommodated on the ballot.

Neither India nor Pakistan seems to have any intention of giving up control of their respective parts of Jammu and Kashmir. That is probably an insurmountable hurdle to the realization of this independence, which has great romantic appeal among a large section of the population in Jammu and Kashmir. But more importantly, the advocates of the independence formula as a solution want an independent state within the original borders of Jammu and Kashmir as it existed in 1947, including what since then has became the Indian-controlled part of Jammu and Kashmir, the Pakistan-controlled part of Jammu and Kashmir, and one part which has actually been under Chinese rule for the last 40 years or so. India and Pakistan would have to be persuaded to give up territorial control. States with a strong sense of national interest and national identity are typically not the most willing parties to giving up territory that they control or they see as indispensable to their existence as states for both ideological and strategic reasons. Furthermore, China would have to be persuaded to give up its chunk of the former princely state of Jammu and Kashmir. So imagine how intricate it would be to persuade two and possibly three states to give up territory under their control.

Moreover, the population of Jammu and Kashmir itself is deeply divided. Although there are a lot of people who prefer independence as a first option, there is also a great number whose allegiance is to India. This number comprises not just Hindus and Sikhs, but a decent chunk of Muslims also include them and there is of course, a third group whose loyalty and identification is with Pakistan. So what realistic chances are there that these pro-India and pro-Pakistan groups among the citizenry of Jammu and Kashmir would happily agree to (if) being taken out of their respective countries? How realistic is it for them to agree being citizens of an independent state of Jammu and Kashmir?

The ongoing hot debate for replicating Northern Ireland peace building experience would be hypothetical Jammu and Kashmir peace process as it holds reverse in troubled waters of Jammu and Kashmir.

Any process of dialogue must be as inclusive and as broadly based as possible. That is, anyone who is willing to participate, regardless of their political orientation, should be invited to the discussion table, to participate. It is better that they shout at each other than fight each other with guns. This principle avoids a situation whereby any group that is left out of the peace-making process and has no stake in it, continues or perhaps even intensifies violence. The Northern Ireland peace process doctrine has no mysterious reasons for its success. Its relative success was based on the broad dialogue table and more importantly inclusion of people. They were considered as the political representatives. Everyone was invited to participate and make a contribution. That is a very useful guideline to be followed.

The lesson or principle to be gleaned from the Northern Ireland model of building peace is how difficult these processes inherently are and how many setbacks, ambushes and pitfalls there are along the way. Northern Ireland, of course, has been in a much more favorable situation compared to Jammu and Kashmir for a settlement to be reached and sustained. But the lesson to be learnt is that any peace process is necessarily a very gradual incremental step-by-step process. It is extremely unrealistic and can be very dangerous to expect results overnight, very soon, or even within a few years. A violent, protracted conflict has to be first de-escalated and some conditions of normalcy have to be reestablished from the ground and in the relationship of the different parties. Then only then can we contemplate a substantive political process that addresses the basic causes of the conflict:

Jammu and Kashmir needs a step-by-step approach to normalization and confidence building between the various parties, leading eventually to a solution which will be according to the aspirations of the people of Jammu and Kashmir.

[The author can be mailed at :[email protected]]



Leave A Comment
&
Share Your Insights

Comment Policy


Digg it! And spread the word!



Here is a unique chance to help this article to be read by thousands of people more. You just Digg it, and it will appear in the home page of Digg.com and thousands more will read it. Digg is nothing but an vote, the article with most votes will go to the top of the page. So, as you read just give a digg and help thousands more to read this article.



 

Syndicate CC Headlines On Your Blog

Subscribe To
Sustain Us

 

Search Our Archive



Our Site

Web

Online Users