Our entrenched positions are non-starters
There was a time when any statement on Kashmir, either by the prime minister of India or that of Pakistan used to create rumpus. Politicians and the media on both sides would dwell on for several days on what a particular remark tried to convey. Pakistan Prime Minister Yousaf Reza Gilani said the other day that his country would seek a solution on Kashmir through a dialogue, not hostilities.
I have not seen any comment in India nor have I found any Pakistani opposition leaders or the press taking notice of it. More significant has been the silence of pro-terrorist groups which are talking in terms of jihad against India all the time. The usual Pakistani reiteration that Kashmir would not be allowed to stay on the backburner is there. President Asif Ali Zardari has said this week that Pakistan has not forgotten Kashmir. But this does not change the ground realities which have recognised that the line of control is the border between India and Pakistan.
Gilani’s has reiterated what the late Zulfikar Ali Bhutto had enunciated in the Simla Agreement four decades ago. It says: “In Jammu and Kashmir, the line of control resulting from the ceasefire of December 17, 1971, shall be respected by both sides without prejudice to the recognised position of either side. Neither side shall seek to alter it unilaterally, irrespective of mutual differences and legal interpretations. Both sides further undertake to refrain from the threat of the use of force in violation of this line.” The agreement has stood the test of time for more than three decades and except for the Kargil misadventure there has been peace.
Perhaps leaders of the Pakistan government, including the hawks, have come to realise that there is no alternative to amity. Perhaps the peace lobby on both sides has got expanded for even the governments to notice and they refrain from giving ultimatums as it used to happen not until long ago. Therefore, Prime Minister Gilani’s observation not only makes sense but throws up another opportunity. Both the countries have to solve Kashmir or, for that matter, any other problem peacefully. It is a sort of no-war pact without the formality of signing one.
Yet Gilani’s statement should not lull India into complacency. Kashmir continues to be a problem. Every now and then there is an incident in the Valley to register the people’s discontent. Even the elected government, headed by Chief Minister Omar Abdullah, has said more than once that Kashmir cannot be sorted out without Pakistan’s participation. India’s armed forces too are not happy with the situation because the successive army commanders of Jammu and Kashmir have said that it is a political problem, not a military one. Yet India continues to station a large number of troops in Kashmir. It has been experienced again and again that they are not trained to deal with domestic troubles. The forces should be on the border, and not used for the law and order purpose. The stationing of forces within the state only confirms that the government has no solution to the situation and it does not know how to settle the problem.
True, New Delhi has tackled the international opinion effectively. There is hardly any adverse notice abroad. But this does not solve the problem. At best, it remains suppressed. Still, there is civil society in India which has certain obligations that a democratic polity has to carry out.
If the Kashmiris remain unhappy and the government they elect too feels that the problem has to be sorted out with Pakistan, New Delhi has to face the fact. The Valley, predominantly of Muslims, has gone its own way and has kept at distance, both the Hindu-majority Jammu and the Buddhist-majority Ladakh. Therefore, when President Asif Zardari, says that Pakistan would continue to support the Kashmir, he is only underlining the two-nation theory which India buried deep long ago. I do not think that even the intelligentsia in Pakistan has any faith left in that theory. But that is not the point at issue. It is Kashmir which I believe should get attention after Gilani’s olive branch.
I do not agree with those who argue that what Pakistan could not get through wars has no case to claim it on the table. What the two countries have to realise is that they have to give up their entrenched positions. Peace and friendship is more important than hostility. The extremists will continue to talk of hostilities because they have developed a vested interest in an unsettled situation.
I have a solution to offer. Both governments should transfer all subjects except defence and foreign affairs to the Kashmirs and soften the border so that the people of Jammu and Kashmir and the Azad Kashmir meet and plan jointly the development of their region. They can have their own air service and trade and cultural missions abroad. Visitors, not from the region, will seek visa to enter either Kashmir. Azad Kashmir will be part of Pakistan and Jammu Kashmir, of India. The case pending before the UN would be withdrawn. The part of my proposal is that the Lok Sabha’s elected members from Jammu and Kashmir should sit in Pakistan’s National Assembly and those of Azad Kashmir in India’s Lok Sabha. This is aimed at setting a pattern for the two countries to come closer in the future.
The writer is a senior Indian journalist.
The only solution to this problem is to concentrate on TRUTH. Pakistan was the aggressor. This fact cannot be overlooked.
The future of Hindus, Sikhs and Buddhists of J&K cannot be allowed to be the same as of the minorities in present day Pakistan. They cannot be thrown to the wolves. Even a moron can see that J&K cannot be a part of Pakistan.
The solution is simple. Pakistan should get out of the state of J&K and stop interfering through its proxies. Over a period of time, with improved relations and less hostility between India and Pakistan, the Kashmir valley will be available to all Pakistanis just as it is available to all Indians.
This is the only way India and Pakistan can both enjoy Kashmir, famous around the world as heaven-on-earth.
With all respect to Kuldip Nayar, the solution suggested by him is not workable.
The solution is simple. If India claimed Junagadh saying that it was a hindu majority state so it should naturally belong to India, then Kashmir being a Muslim majority state should naturally have come to Pakistan. If your India had not employed this theory in Junagadh, we would not used the same logic in Kashmir, it's your own fault so dont blame us, we're only following the policy you laid out. Then obtaining signatures from the Maharaja of Kashmir under the nose of the guns of your army makes your claim to Kashmir illegal and the UN has recognized it so and had ordered your prime minister Nehru to hold a plebiscite. Nehru who had promised in front of the entire world to hold referendum in Kashmir, for which there is clear evidence available, went back on his word, true to the Indian and Hindu nature, and thus the problem stays. In short, and in your own words, the simple solution to Kashmir is, do what your leaders promised, hold a plebiscite over there… sweet dreams
Please read the following carefully.
!) India lost no war in Junagarh. Pakistan lost at least two in Kashmir; in 1947/48 and 1965. What you lose on battlefield you do not get back on negotiating table, or by cheating and making a fool of your own population. Remember this.
2) The Maharaja acceded to India on the advise of Sheikh Abdulla, the most popular Muslim leader called The Lion of Kashmir, and his own free will. The version put out by you is a figment of your and Pakistani imagination with no basis in truth.
3) About Plebiscite, you should read UN Security Council Resolution No.47. India-Pakistan Question, 21 Apr.1948 – Go to this link: http://www.kashmiri-cc.ca/un/
Then open Resolution No. 47 and read A – RESTORATION OF PEACE AND ORDER Para 1. (a), and (b) carefully. This will show you that Pakistan refused to comply with its responsibility as per the resolution, and thus no further action could be taken to make Plebiscite possible. If you still want a plebiscite, get out of J&K first. Is Pakistan willing to fulfill its promise? Arey Bismillah to karo.
4) The UN resolution that Pakistan keeps harping upon is DEAD for the whole world and even the UN, and remembers, Pakistan is the murderer.
5) Spread this information all over Pakistan if you want to open the eyes of your countrymen
Cheers!
Dear PakiKaka Sir,
Please read the following carefully.
!) India lost no war in Junagarh. Pakistan lost at least two in Kashmir; in 1947/48 and 1965. What you lose on battlefield you do not get back on negotiating table, or by cheating and making a fool of your own population. Remember this.
2) The Maharaja acceded to India on the advise of Sheikh Abdulla, the most popular Muslim leader called The Lion of Kashmir, and his own free will. The version put out by you is a figment of your and Pakistani imagination with no basis in truth.
3) About Plebiscite, you should read UN Security Council Resolution No.47. India-Pakistan Question, 21 Apr.1948 – Go to this link: http://www.kashmiri-cc.ca/un/
Then open Resolution No. 47 and read A – RESTORATION OF PEACE AND ORDER Para 1. (a), and (b) carefully. This will show you that Pakistan refused to comply with its responsibility as per the resolution, and thus no further action could be taken to make Plebiscite possible. If you still want a plebiscite, get out of J&K first. Is Pakistan willing to fulfill its promise? Arey Bismillah to karo.
4) The UN resolution that Pakistan keeps harping upon is DEAD for the whole world and even the UN, and remember, Pakistan is the murderer.
5) Spread this information all over Pakistan if you want to open the eyes of your countrymen
Cheers!
According to PakiKaka a plebiscite should be held in Kashmir.the saner could be yes if Pakistan can hold a plebiscite in Baluchistan which it annexed is 47.the same logic and standards hold.
You are right about Baluchistan, but there is no UN resolution on that issue. On Kashmir the UN resolution is there; no denying that. Pakistan is the only country is the whole world that keeps demanding plebiscite under the UN resolution, but they do not talk about what they have to do. Plebiscite would have been held under UN supervision if Pakistan had vacated its aggression. India also had to withdraw its troops after Pakistan, but India was allowed to keep some forces to maintain law and order. The whole Pakistani nation is being deliberately kept ignorant of this important matter.
The Kashmir and Baluchistan issues should be kept separate. There can be no plebiscite in J&K due to Pakistani intransigence, but Baluchis have a strong case for it.
In his analysis and espousal of the Kashmir issue,Mr.Kuldip Nayar has not a single word about the plight of Kashmirs' pandits who were unceremoniously chased out of their homelands and are now refugees in their mother land!!!
It will be a great day when Mr. Nayyar finally puts his pen down and saves us from more such lunatic observations. His solution to the Kashmir issue invites uncontrollable laughter in its simplicity and stupidity.
Pakistan needs to accept, given the current conditions of anarchy, murder and mayhem that has come to characterize it, that it is most ill-suited to add more territories to its own list of lawless provinces The sooner the Pakistanis accept that Kashmir is a lost cause and no land can be seized from by India by force, by terrorist mercenaries and daily rattling of sabress by the imams and mullahs, the better off they will be to clean up their own crime-racked house
Here we again! Digging the past and re interpreting again our entrenched positions. Mr
Kuldip Nayer is chasing a pye in the sky. What relevance or influence will Kashmiris from Azzad Kashmir will have in Lok Saba and vice versa. And how do you define the word Azzad? Who will be issuing the visas?What sort of passports will the kashmiris be carrying? What Mr Nayar seems to suggest is a sort of Bantuland with identity cards. It is a dead starter.
How about India taking the first peace step be ending the state of cold war on the international
border.Surely you don,t need over a million soldiers in perpetual eye ball to eye ball contact with the pakistani soldiers threatning a localised or general war esp. when pakistan,s army is stretched. A bad solution is worse than no solution. Just ask the palestinians.
If we had listened to the? lion of kashmir pakistanis would have become lambs. I do recollect his visit to pakistan when he suggested a confederation with india.
The problem is complex .The more peple to people contact we have the better it is. Let us concentrate on what unites us rather than what divides us. prime minister Gilani has extended a olive branch seize it with both hands. Let it not be said india did not prove equal to tha task.
Read the article and the comments by the Indians, you will see who has "entrenched" opinion? the word WAR is acronym for We Are Right. Indians have seen waves of invaders from the west conquering them over and over again. They want more of the same…
Which "entrenched" opinion is wrong, and why?
If you have no answer to this question, and are interested in bringing in the next "wave of invaders" you are most welcome.
India's entrenched position is that we will hold on to Kashmir at any cost – obvious from kuldip's rhetoric. A position which is not acceptable to the people of Kashmir who have seen india up close and personal, and they don't want any part of it. This has very little to do with Pakistan as india's position of trying desperately to cement the status quo of occupation of Kashmir is untenable in an era of human rights and freedom. Certainly Pakistan can and will do more to advance the rights of the Kashmiris as they move towards freedom.
Comments are closed.