Beyond borders

Soon after her appointment as the first lady foreign minister of Pakistan, Hina Rabbani Khar had to face the tedious task of negotiations with the much more senior and experienced foreign minister of India. Her visit to Delhi was made easy by so many positive developments which took place during this year. Most importantly, the secretaries of the two countries had already met in a congenial atmosphere. Our Prime Minister availed the opportunity of meeting PM Singh, by attending the World Cup semifinal in India. Our interior minister also had a dialogue with his Indian counterpart in Bhutan. Now after a long gap of about 3 years, the first meeting between the foreign ministers of the two countries took place in Delhi last week.

It would be unfair not to appreciate the liberal and moderate image carried by our first lady foreign minister. Her confident statements, earnest approach, and graceful demeanour are commendable. Her prayers for peace at the shrines of Hazrat Nizamuddin Auliya in New Delhi and of Khawaja Moinuddin Chishti in Ajmair indicated her desire for peace in the region.

On her return to Pakistan, Ms Khar disappointed us by her emphasis, as a point of achievement, that “neither Pakistan nor India deviated from their stated legal and political positions”. This unfortunate ‘achievement’ may boost the ego of the establishments of the two countries, but it does not in any manner serve the interest of over 135 crores of people of India and Pakistan. The politics of rhetoric such as ‘stated legal and political positions’ has not helped Pakistan or India in resolving their issues over the last 63 years. In my view, talks that perpetuate the stalemate are a quite simply a failure.

We have to move forward and agree upon alternate solutions to resolve the Kashmir issue. In the SAARC Conference at Islamabad in January 2004, the leaders of the two countries had shown some flexibility on this issue. Mr Asif Ali Zardari, soon after his election as the President of Pakistan, in his address to the Times of India through satellite, expressed, in November 2008, very positive, much needed sentiments and objects for the future relations between India and Pakistan, as well as for the entire SAARC region. Unfortunately, just after a few days, the terrible tragedy of Mumbai on 26th November 2008, created a deadlock to allow any progress on the positive sentiments expressed by Mr Zardari.

I wish Ms Khar being an appointee of Mr Zardari had perused his speech before leaving for Delhi and pursued the same in her negotiations with the officials of India, for striking of the same objectives of peace, open borders, free access to the people, free trade, free access to the media, academic institutions, medical treatment and resolution of all disputes and issues through meaningful dialogues in a peaceful manner as well as for establishment of a regional block of South Asia on the lines of other nations like European Union or ASEAN countries, African Unity etc. Regrettably, instead of doing so, she preferred to adopt the same rhetoric, which is the real stumbling factor in resolving any issue between India and Pakistan.

The Kashmir issue will have to be resolved by the two countries themselves. The UN is not interested in implementation of their own resolutions on Kashmir, and members of the OIC offer no more than lip service – that even when pressured by Pakistan. Our four bitter wars are enough to prove that Indian and Pakistan cannot militarily force each other to surrender the part of Kashmir controlled by them. Further, it appears India and Pakistan are not inclined to accept Kashmir as an independent state. The Kashmir issue has become a precondition for any improvement on any front between the two countries. In the circumstances, flexibility on the stated positions of both countries on Kashmir is necessary for a solution.

A viable solution could perhaps be to accept the existing line of control, with some adjustments, as the international border. It may be argued that India has at least tacitly accepted this position. India inserted Article 370 in its Constitution on or about the 17th November 1952, which provides for annexation of only those territories of Jammu and Kashmir which were under the control of India. The prefix of “temporary provision” in the title of Article 370 does not bar this provision from becoming permanent.

In the circumstances, it appears that accepting the de facto line of control as the international border may be the only bloodless solution for the time being. This also appears to be the spirit and objective of the Simla Agreement of 1972. This acknowledgement must however be followed by a treaty between India and Pakistan, containing firm and sincere commitments that: (a) both countries would desist from and prevent aggressive actions, policies or propaganda against each other and militancy in any form, may it be at the hands of the armed forces or Jihadi/religious fanatic organisations; and (b) borders between the two countries and between the two Kashmirs should be opened with free movement of people and goods, exchange of cultural activities, academics, intellectual groups, sports events, free access to the electronic and print media, etc. I believe that peace can only be achieved by interaction of the masses.

If peace is established and borders are opened, then for all practical purposes what once was a bitter line of control may well become a mere geographical demarcation – and all this is achievable without surrendering an iota of respect or sovereignty.

No price is big enough for peace. It is for peace that Bengal and Punjab were divided. It is for peace that the Indian Punjab was further divided. As such, for peace, I find no hesitation in accepting division of Kashmir.

The writer is a senior advocate of the Supreme Court, former Attorney General and federal minister for law, justice, parliamentary affairs and human rights. He may be contacted at [email protected]