December 10, 2005

CONFIDENCE-BUILDING measures undertaken by the governments of India and Pakistan have run their course. They have achieved what they were intended to accomplish. There is little doubt that the general mood generated by people-to-people contacts has brought about a sea-change in the atmosphere.

It may safely be said that people in both countries have ceased seeing each other as ogres, and that exposure to each other has led to a refreshing reappraisal of old perceptions. Now people know they can live with each other closely, with friendship and in peace. But yet the Indo-Pakistan peace dialogue seems to be floundering. The parrot-like repetition of statements by leaders of both nations is beginning to sound like a gramophone needle stuck on the record. Why?

No convincing headway has been made in the substantive issues that divide the governments of both nations. The visible barometer of the substantive issues that divide them remains the unresolved Kashmir dispute. Whatever spokesmen of the Indian government might say, people in India do recognize that President Pervez Musharraf is not far off the mark when he describes the Kashmir dispute as the core issue bedevilling Indo-Pakistan relations. They also fully endorse the Indian government’s retort that no progress towards a peaceful settlement can be made unless terrorism is brought to an end. And there is little doubt in the minds of people in India that much of the terrorist action in Kashmir can be sourced to elements inside Pakistan.

Those elements in India who are sensitive to the hardship suffered by people in Kashmir and responsive to their demands for more autonomy, in extreme cases even independence, are the ones most frustrated by terrorism in Kashmir. The mindless violence against innocents in Kashmir and elsewhere in India puts paid to all prospects of a breakthrough peace formula within the Indian policy establishment. The prospects of such a breakthrough, if terrorism were contained, would never have been so bright, thanks in good measure to the confidence-building measures undertaken by both governments.

However, beyond the impediments created by terrorism, there are other crucial aspects that negate a quick resolution of the Kashmir issue. Given the tortuous trail of events that brought Kashmir to its present impasse, what after all can be the peace formula that could satisfy the legitimate concerns of both nations? The time has passed for vague platitudes. Both governments must evolve the actual formula that might untie the knotty problem that defies solution. Again, it goes to the credit of President Musharraf that, for reasons of his own survival perhaps, he has floated the debate about a concrete formula for a Kashmir settlement.

The gist of the ideas floated by him and other leaders in Pakistan seems to be for some form of joint Indo-Pakistan control over all segments of Kashmir, with each segment enjoying a large measure of autonomy, without undoing the Line of Control, but allowing free movement of people and goods across the state. Clearly, these would form the broad principles for any lasting solution that could meet the concerns of both nations. This proposal is not unattractive to a large number of people in India, although there are many differences over details. Mr Omar Abdullah and Ms Mehbooba Mufti welcome autonomy. Some Hurriyat leaders seek full independence for a Kashmir that has good relations with both India and Pakistan. Mr. Amanullah Khan in Pakistan-controlled Kashmir thinks likewise.

That the two countries are finally engaged in the task of putting all their disputes behind them does not deter the commando in Musharraf from needling India endlessly and at the slightest opportunity. This is in addition to the rapid fire solutions he has on offer to get over Kashmir, the ever present riders included. One day it will be five demilitarized self- government regions (No mention made of Gilgit and Baltistan, part of the former princely State of Jammu and Kashmir, or the areas ceded by Pakistan to China).

The LoC cannot be a permanent border; next, borders will become irrelevant. Not directly, he even managed to set another balloon afloat the day US Congressman Dan Burton and his team was conferring with Kashmiri leaders of all hues, including Hurriyat, in New Delhi. Let us have five sovereign, self-governing regions each with a separate flag and constitution. The Balkanization of the state and the consequences of this simplistic solution is of no concern to the general.

Even more irksome is Gen Musharraf’s propensity to refer to Kashmir at the drop of his military hat, unmindful of the fact that his country is engaged in the serious business of resolving the dispute with India. Speaking at a meeting to mobilize international help the quake devastated people of Azad Kashmir, with the UN secretary-general and many major donors present, he made it a point to remind his audience that the greatest help they could render was to help him resolve the Kashmir dispute.

It doesn’t occur to him that he is thus seen as triviliazing both the quake disaster and the ongoing Indo-Pakistan initiative. He could instead continue to put pressure on India to quicken a mutually acceptable solution to Kashmir.

Serious strategists and policy-makers in the Indian government are, not surprisingly, cold to the ideas being floated by Gen Musharraf. Certainly not in the form the Pakistani president presents these. They will not openly express the source of their reservations. But it is important to state them so that members of the Pakistani establishment are left in no doubt. If Kashmir were to be ruled jointly by India and Pakistan, how will that be accomplished unless both nations have a clear and implicit understanding on cooperation between their governments at the central level?

If India and Pakistan were to jointly control Kashmir, what about the portion of Kashmir under China’s control? Would China too then join India and Pakistan in controlling and overseeing affairs in Kashmir? This brings one to the real unstated impediment that precludes any settlement on Kashmir ever emerging. Pakistan would of course welcome China joining the two countries in exercising ultimate control over Kashmir. Pakistan has already indicated its preference to see China as a full- fledged member of Saarc.

In other words, the Pakistan government believes that China as a member of Saarc would be a healthy development and would balance India’s influence in the subcontinent. The Indian government would never express it openly because it is busy improving its ties with China, and is succeeding in doing that. But this proposal would be totally unacceptable. If it comes to the crunch, and becomes unavoidable, in the opinion of this writer, India would prefer to walk out of Saarc. It is important to understand why.

Saarc is viewed by India as the modern expression of subcontinental unity that found expression in history as Hindustan. This nomenclature was given by Arabs to this region when it comprised various independent kingdoms. Today’s Hindustan comprises Bharat, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal, Bhutan and Sri Lanka. It represents what some people have described as cultural nationalism. Undeniably, though separate and sovereign nations, members of Saarc enjoy shared experience, culture and language.

History and geography give a distinctive and special flavour to the relationship that binds their peoples. No government can deny that. Friendship with China is welcome and inevitable for peace in the region, and India strenuously seeks to further it. But any intrusion by an outsider in the special relationship that should characterize the member states of the subcontinent would destroy the very purpose of Saarc. Why, then, should India opt for Saarc? It could more advantageously forge bilateral ties with all nations, not differentiating between China, US, Russia and South Asian nations.

If the special bonds that tie the nations of South Asia are not instittuionalized and exploited to make South Asia a force in global affairs, it would be a betrayal of South Asian interests. One critic in India summed it up: “If India and Pakistan continue to woo outside powers against each other, they would be no different from Mir Jaffar and Raja Jaichand, who facilitated the conquest of the subcontinent by foreign invaders.”

The writer is a former editor of The Statesman, New Delhi.

Please Visit our Sponsor (Ads open in separate window)