Kashmir: a paradigm shift
By A.R. Siddiqi
INDIAN-held Jammu and Kashmir governor retired Lieut. Gen. S.K. Sinha has come out with yet another recipe for a resolution of the Kashmir issue. He calls it a ‘win-win’ formulation for everyone ‘with no-one the loser’.
In the course of a lecture at the National Centre of International Security and Development Analysis (NCISDA) of Pune University in November on “Secessionist Threats in India”, he argued for the Line of Control in Kashmir “becoming irrelevant and turning into a line of peace with free movement from either side.”
Actually, Gen. Sinha might well have been echoing President General Pervez Musharraf’s repeated pleas about the ‘irrelevance’ of ‘borders’, in effect, the LoC, for an enduring settlement of the Kashmir issue.
In an interview with Reuters as far back as January 2004, President Musharraf had suggested that the UN resolutions on the dispute could be ‘set aside’ to achieve a final settlement.
According to press reports, General Sinha felt such a settlement would be ‘achievable’ with Saarc growing into another European Union in which national boundaries would not be of much consequence. In his own words, “Economics more than politics can become the determining factor in international relations.”
Interestingly enough, Professor Abdul Ghani Bhatt, former chairman of the Hurriyat Conference and now its chief spokesman, second only to Mirwaiz Umar Farooq, argues that ‘geo-economics’ regionally (in South Asia) as well as globally is replacing ‘geo-politics’.
The new paradigm gives the issue a more ‘global’ than an ‘international’ dimension beyond the UN. The impression is strengthened by the statements of Mirwaiz Umar Farooq during his recent visit to Pakistan and Azad Kashmir. The earthquake, the Mirwaiz said, had brought the Kashmir dispute into the ‘international limelight’.
Kashmir, said the Mirwaiz, was not a ‘political issue’. The quake ‘highlighted’ its ‘human dimension’ and needs to be viewed as such by India and Pakistan. “However, the opportunity has been lost,” he regretted without elaborating.
The staggering humanitarian disaster wrought by the traumatic visitation brought foreign military forces into one of the world’s most sensitive, high security areas. Even if only for relief work comprising medical and engineering support, the mere presence of foreign military forces outside the UN umbrella would have been utterly inconceivable in Kashmir/Pakistan in normal circumstance.
The ‘globalization’ of Kashmir as opposed to its unquestionably recognized and legitimized ‘international’ status will be hard to deny after the open-door access to foreign elements, NGOs and official agencies.
Nato and the American and other military forces deployed in Azad Kashmir bear no comparison to the United Nations Military Observers Group for India and Pakistan (UNMOGIP) deployed along the Ceasefire Line-turned-LoC.
Reverting to Gen. Sinha, he complimented Pakistan for proposing ‘what could be seen as internal autonomy’ to both sides of the divided state. Unfortunately, New Delhi has been quick to reject the Pakistani proposal.
Happily, however, India’s National Security Adviser, M. K. Narayanan, recently told a private TV channel that the idea of “self governance for divided Kashmir, as proposed by General Musharraf, was being discussed by Indian and Pakistani diplomats — through ‘back channels’.” Mr Narayanan said: “We have a back channel. We have experienced diplomats as part of the composite dialogue process and if they (Pakistan) come forward and give specifics about self-governance then we can probably look at it.”
Conditional but a concession nevertheless considering the deviation from India’s own rigid stand on the status quo on Kashmir as its integral part. There is some weight and wisdom, however, in India’s stated position that the issue be debated thoroughly in camera until a mutually agreeable solution is evolved and then offered for public debate.
‘Public posturing’, to use one of General Sinha’s phrases, may foster confusion even if it cannot ‘prevent the inevitable’. Two things stay beyond any shadow of doubt: one, that the issue must be settled sooner rather than later and, two, that it is a tripartite and not just a triangular issue. The Kashmiris are not just a part of the problem but also an integral part of the solution.
The issue, as the Mirwaiz puts it, involves 14 million people of Kashmir and no solution to the problem on the basis of status quo or a divided state will be acceptable to the Kashmiris.
Without rejecting the UN resolutions, the Mirwaiz has stated that they offered only a ‘legal justification’ to the issue, which was not enough. While staying within the orbit of the UN internationally, the issue has acquired a global dimension beyond the UN following the October earthquake. It is now global and a challenge to the world’s conscience beyond legalistic wranglings.
-The writer is a retired brigadier of the Pakistan Army.

