Kashmir: Any Closer to Solution?

The recent resumption of trade after six decades, across the Line of Control in Kashmir has rekindled strong hopes of an Indo Pak “detente� on the issue of the Kashmir conflict.
Opinion leaders in the Valley as well as observers view the creation of “soft borders� allowing the free movement of goods and people as a symbolic first step towards a closer cohesion between the two units of the Himalayan state, which would ultimately lead to a permanent solution to the problem.

The reality of the situation as the Jammu and Kashmir Government termed it is that the trade between the divided Kashmir is currently “domestic� and not “international�. The present arrangement has also been referred to as a form of “barter�, a message that the two parts of Kashmir though politically divided are emotionally, culturally and ethnically single.

The crux of the problem which has impeded any kind of solution is the diametrically opposite stand taken by both Indian and Pakistan. While India’s dogmatic viewpoint is that Kashmir is an "integral part" of India, Pakistan claims that Kashmir is a disputed territory whose final status can only be determined by the Kashmiri people.

While India bases its claim on The Instrument of Accession signed by Maharaja Hari Singh on October 27, 1947, Pakistan quotes the UN Security Council Resolution of April 21, 1948, demanding a plebiscite to determine the future of the Kashmiri people. However, Pakistan did not withdraw its troops from Kashmir thus violating the basic condition for holding the plebiscite.

India further substantiates its claim stating that the Constituent Assembly of Jammu and Kashmir in 1947 had unanimously ratified the Maharaja's accession to India.Pakistan counters this on the grounds that the Maharaja was not a popular leader, and hence his action can not be interpreted as representing the will of the people.
Besides, Pakistan has been accusing India of applying double standards on Kashmir since it refused to recognise the accession of Junagadh to Pakistan as well as the independent status of Hyderabad. Both these states were occupied by India through military action.

A solution mooted soon after Independence, perhaps as an alternative to a plebiscite, was the division of the state into three parts. Jammu and Ladakh which have a Hindu and Buddhist majority respectively would be integrated into India while the Valley which is predominantly Muslim would go to Pakistan. This was not acceptable to either country and definitely has to be ruled out in today’s changed scenario. Interestingly, a political faction has emerged which supports complete independence for Kashmir and withdrawal of both India and Pakistan, a viewpoint which has gained tremendously in popularity.

The point remains however that the diametrically opposite and dogmatic stands taken by the Governments of India and Pakistan, have impeded any step towards the amicable settlement. A status quo, implying that the LoC is recognised as the international boundary has been mooted by international observers as being the most amenable way out of the deadlock. Both Pakistan and the Kashmiri political parties have opposed this on the grounds that it violates the UN resolution for a referendum.

The idea of both parts of the state uniting and Kashmir becoming an independent sovereign republic has appealed to the hearts of most Kashmiris. However, such an entity would not be economically viable. Also being totally landlocked, it would be heavily dependent on India and Pakistan.
According to a Kashmir Study Group (KSG) the “Way Forward to the Kashmir Deadlock would be the division of Kashmir into five entities. Three entities — Kashmir, Jammu, and Ladakh — would be established in the portion currently administered by India, and two — Azad Kashmir and the Northern Areas — would be established in POK. These three self-governing entities would each take part in a body either in India or in Pakistan as the case may be, that would coordinate issues of mutual interest like internal trade and transportation.

Above them an All-Kashmir body would be set up to coordinate areas of broader interest such as regional trade, tourism, environment, and water resources. This body would include representatives from each of the five entities as well as from India and Pakistan.

India and Pakistan would be responsible for the defense of the entities, the residents of which could use entity passports subject to endorsements by India or Pakistan as appropriate. The borders of the entities with India and Pakistan would remain open for the free transit of people, goods, and services in accordance with arrangements to be worked out between India, Pakistan and the entities. The entire region would have to be completely demilitarised. One contention against the KSG’s concept is that implementation would mean things getting too bogged down by administrative procedures.

Now with elections round the corner, the Peoples Democratic Party has also come out with a “self-rule� document, primarily a dispute-resolution model based on the concept of “earned sovereignty�. Its roadmap for the resolution of Kashmir dispute involves bringing the two parts of Kashmir politically, economically and constitutionally closer and foreseeing a “shared sovereignty� between India and Pakistan, of a united J & K.

The workability of such an arrangement cannot be judged at the moment but it needs to be examined carefully. For any solution to be arrived at, India and Pakistan need to meet on an equal footing without prejudice and shed their dogmatic stand. Representatives of various political parties both in J & K as well as POK need to be party to the meeting as well. If both India and Pakistan are willing to go into a compromise mode, the PDP’s dispute resolution model could well be a highly feasible option.