| KASHMIR ISSUE – THE ONLY WIN-WIN SOLUTION | ||||||||||||||||||||
| By | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Amanullah Khan, Chairman, JKLF | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||
| None of these proposals could be implemented as one or the other party opposed it openly or created hurdles in the way of its implementation. Let me elaborate a bit |
||||||||||||||||||||
| 1.
The UNCIP (UN Commission for India, Pakistan) resolutions of 1948 and
1949 agreed to and signed by both India and Pakistan provided for unilateral
withdrawal of all Pakistani forces from the State before the proposed
plebiscite and before India would even start withdrawal of her forces
which Pakistan later refused to do arguing that India would immediately
occupy the areas vacated by Pakistan. This created a deadlock which could
not be resolved even by subsequent UN suggestion that Pakistan be allowed
to keep a small force in Kashmir as India did not agree to its proposed
strength. After 1957 India started claiming of entire Jammu Kashmir to
be her integral part and refused to allow the promised plebiscite to be
held. As such, the UNCIP resolutions remained unimplemented. Today Kashmiri
nationalists also refuse to accept UNCIP resolutions as the final resolution
does not accept Kashmiris’ right to opt for independence of their motherland. |
||||||||||||||||||||
| 2.
Sir Owen Dixon, the UN representative appointed in early fifties, after
realizing that the UNCIP resolutions could not be implemented, evolved
a formula of his own suggesting that the territories of Azad Kashmir and
Gilgit Baltistan should go to Pakistan, the non-Muslim majority areas
of Jammu and Ladakh to India and the rest (Kashmir Valley and Muslim majority
areas of Jammu and Ladakh) be either given full independence or opportuned
to choose from independence, accession to Pakistan and accession to India.
This formula was rejected by both India and Pakistan for different reasons
though, hence could not be implemented. |
||||||||||||||||||||
| 3.
Division of Kashmir on religious lines, known also as Chinab Formula,
was first suggested by Pakistan during 1962-63 talks sponsored by the
United States and UK but India rejected the suggestion outright. |
||||||||||||||||||||
| 4.
India and Pakistan through their agreements of 1972, 1999 and 2004 AD
agreed to reach a ‘final settlement of Jammu Kashmir’ through bilateral
talks but have not succeeded so far mainly because these agreements were
closely followed by some aggressive actions from them (occupation of Siachin
by India violating Simla Agreement of 1972 and occupation of Kargil areas
by Pakistan after Lahore Declaration of 1999) which strained their relations.
Almost no progress has been made so far towards implementation of Kashmir
specific provisions of the Joint Indo-Pak Statement of January 2004. |
||||||||||||||||||||
| 5.
Complete independence of the whole State, though accepted by both India
and Pakistan during early stages, was later opposed by both. Both created
their own pets and puppets in Kashmiri leadership and used them to create
hurdles in the way of movement for independence. Both silenced the voice
for independence that arose occasionally, using carrot and stick recipe
and going to the extent of helping each other in doing so |
||||||||||||||||||||
| 6.&7.
The proposals of UN Trusteeship and Joint Control were rejected by
India or Pakistan. |
||||||||||||||||||||
| 8.
Converting the Line-of-Control (LoC) in Kashmir into permanent India-Pakistan
border has now become the most favorite solution of the Issue for effective
and interested sections of international community and also for Indians
whereas Pakistan may also agree to it with some re-adjustments in LoC.
But bulk of Kashmiris specially the nationalists will never accept it.
India and Pakistan may well succeed in silencing Kashmiri nationalists
temporarily, using their pet politicians and puppet governments in their
controlled parts of Kashmir. But that silence will surely be the proverbial
lull before the storm and a momentous independence movement will surely
emerge therefrom sooner than later. |
||||||||||||||||||||
| 9&10.
Self-rule for and demilitarization of both India and Pakistan controlled
parts of Kashmir was proposed by President Musharraf of Pakistan in 2005
but India took no notice of them. But Pak President announced that he
was ready to withdraw Pakistans claim on Kashmir, if India responded positively
and representatives of both countries are busy having secret parleys.
Nothing can however be said about the ultimate outcome of these parleys. |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
The aforementioned proposed solutions could not be implemented due to
opposition to them by one or the other party to the issue arguing, rightly
or wrongly, that they were detrimental to their national interests. None-the-less
there surely does exist a way to solve the Issue without hurting the national
egos or harming the legitimate interests of India, Pakistan or Kashmir |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
The solution of Kashmir problem that does not hurt the national egos or
harm the legitimate interests of any of the three parties hence cannot
reasonably be rejected by any of them, is that it should be peaceful,
equitable, honourable and democratic |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
The only solution that fully meets this criterion is to re-unite the divided
Jammu Kashmir State in several peaceful phases after simultaneous withdrawal
from there of all Indian and Pakistani armed and civilian
personnel and make it temporarily though, a
fully independent State with a democratic, federal and secular system
of government and having compulsory friendly relations with all its neighbours,
with India and Pakistan in particular, who should undertake not to violate
the borders or interfere in the internal affairs of Kashmir and the latter
should pledge not to let its territory to be used against any of her neighbours.
15 years after independence, there be a free and fair referendum under
international auspices in which Kashmiris will determine whether Kashmir
should perpetuate its independence, become part of India or Pakistan or
adopt any other course and that fair and democratic verdict of Kashmiri
people be accepted by all concerned i.e. India, Pakistan, all Kashmiris
and international community, as final settlement of the Issue and implemented |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
This is the only way Kashmir ‘imbroglio’ can be solved (1) without hurting
the national ego of India or Pakistan or giving either of them a sense
of defeat as neither of them will be required to hand over to the other
the part of Kashmir under her control, (2) without harming the legitimate
interests of either of them as Kashmir will be having compulsory friendly
relations with both of them, (3) without causing bloodshed, mass-migration
or communal disturbances and (4) on the basis of unfettered and freely
expressed whishes and aspirations of Kashmiri people. What is all the
more important, it will rid Kashmiris of their six decades long agony
and ensure a peaceful, honourable and prosperous future for all the three
i.e. India, Pakistan and Kashmir. In other words this will be a win-win-win
solution for all the three parties to the issue, the only possible and
practicable one to be so beneficial to all concerned. All that India and
Pakistan will have to do to have these most precious gains is to part
with the Kashmir territories now under their respective control and give
them to their real owners, the people of Kashmir |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
Although there are a few minor ifs and buts in the way of implementation
of this solution, a bit of selflessness, reasonability and far-sightedness
on the part of India, Pakistan and Kashmiri leadership can easily remove
these hurdles thereby heralding the dawn of an unimaginably bright future
for their present and coming generations. Only the most stupid and unpatriotic
among Indians, Pakistanis and Kashmiris can refuse to accept such a collossal
gain at such a small price |