Kashmir compromise - Brian Cloughley

PM Nawaz Sharif should be applauded for his attitude and initiatives in regard to maintaining peace and improving relations with India. (Little did I imagine I would ever write about him in such a manner, but credit must be given where credit is due). His approach is sensible and potentially of benefit to the peoples of both countries. There are problems along the way, of course, not the least of which is the festering sore of Kashmir which has caused so much discord, death and destruction for over 60 years.

The mutual suspicion and even hatred that has resulted from the majestic error in 1947 will probably never be eradicated, but at least there is a possibility that goodwill and common sense might apply. Time is running out, however, for there is likelihood of an ultra-nationalist, sabre-brandishing, nuclear-threatening regime obtaining power in India. If Dr Manmohan Singh and Nawaz Sharif cannot come to an agreement very soon, then all bets are off, because the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) is anxious for power and is spoiling for confrontation with Pakistan.

Recently there was an incident along the Line of Control in Kashmir in which five Indian soldiers were killed. India’s defence minister, the sensible and pragmatic Antony, first told parliament that those who killed the soldiers were “terrorists along with people dressed in Pakistan army uniforms.” This was a carefully-worded statement, based on facts, and it was obvious he did not believe that the Pakistan Army itself was involved.

Unfortunately, political extremists, mainly of the BJP, seized the opportunity to proclaim that the government was being soft on Pakistan and, in a wonderfully idiotic phrase, announced that Antony “impeached upon national security.” As there is to be an election next year, the Congress Party can't afford to look soft. So Antony had to play politics and changed his tune to blaming Pakistan officially for the killings. That’s politics, as all over the world, and I doubt that influential and sensible people were much influenced by the tub-thumping, but the fact remains that the present Indian government, headed by the Congress, is having to box cleverly in order to attract voters. And dialogue with Pakistan is not a vote-catcher at the moment, given the dreadful state of India’s economy.

The solution to the Kashmir entanglement is in essence simple. It would be very easy to abide by UN Security Council Resolution 47 which includes the statement that “The Government of India should undertake that there will be established in Jammu and Kashmir a Plebiscite Administration to hold a Plebiscite as soon as possible on the question of the accession of the State to India or Pakistan.”

After all, this only reflects what was promised by Nehru when he said, “We have declared that the fate of Kashmir is ultimately to be decided by the people . . . We will not, and cannot back out of it.” But we have to be realistic: there is no possibility that India will abide by UN Resolutions, and there is no prospect of the Security Council acting to have it do so. This is realpolitik, and however regrettable it may be, it is only common sense to accept it. So what can be done?

The territory is disputed in international law, but in spite of the powerful Security Council countries responsible for enforcing such law failing to take any action, there are possible courses of action which, although likely to be regarded with less than favour by both Pakistan and India, could reduce tension and actually solve the problem.

As an interim measure, the Security Council should order that its representation in Kashmir, the long-standing UN Military Observer Group, must carry out its duties as originally laid down. It is at the moment emasculated because India does not permit movement by UN observers on its side of the Line of Control dividing disputed Kashmir and has achieved closure of some UN field stations. (Ironically, if India had cooperated with the UN, the Kargil war would never have happened because UN Observers would have crossed regularly between the former UN Field Station in Kargil and that in Skardu in Pakistan and thus detected military movement and reported it to the Security Council.)

The impotence of the UNMOGIP stems from unilateral interpretation by India of the Simla Agreement of 1972, in that Delhi chose to construe it as excluding the UN from the dispute. It did no such thing, of course – but the UN meekly accepted India’s stance. So it would make sense for the UNMOGIP to be increased in size, to about 150 observers, to patrol the LoC and impartially report on alleged ceasefire violations.

But the most important initiative that could be taken would be for Pakistan to offer to accept, formally, in the forum of the UN General Assembly on September 25, the Line of Control as a border between the countries – providing India declared Indian-administered Muslim Kashmir to be a State of India, separate from Hindu Jammu. (There would have to be minor territorial adjustments which could be handled by a UN Commission.)

This would not in any way alter the de facto circumstances that have obtained for over sixty years. But the people of both Kashmirs would know exactly where they stand, and in the case of Pakistan’s slice of territory would probably welcome being properly included in central governance. In former Indian-administered Kashmir the 95 percent Muslim population would no longer be second-class citizens and would have no need to rebel against a patently antagonistic administration. They would have at least a modicum of self-government.

And, of most importance to both countries, the cause for war would disappear. Isn’t that something to aim for? And there might be a Nobel Prize for Manmohan Singh and Nawaz Sharif if they pulled it off.

The writer is a South Asian affairs analyst. Website: www.beecluff.com

Source: www.thenws.com.pk