|

Kashmir: Urgency in dialogue process

Articles, Uncategorised

“All of us remain concerned that the issue of Jammu and Kashmir should be solved through peaceful negotiations and should be willing to lend all the strength we have to the resolution of this matter.” President Nelson Mandela at the NAM Summit – September 2, 1998

In matters of international conflict resolution, that can only imply the involvement of a third party mediator or facilitator. If Ashok and Ahmad can’t put Humpty Dumpty back together because they can’t agree on where the pieces go, then Sam, a specialist in eggshell reconstruction, should be called upon in order for differences to be resolved. Most importantly, without a third party’s impartial diligence in pursuing a settlement, breakdowns in lines of communication or other disputes that may arise will inevitably create barriers to resolution, and the process will fail. The side in the dispute which offers initiatives will always be seen as weak when both are out rattling their sabres; hence no progress can be made.

Although it seems that the UN would be the most ideal party to do so, it’s obvious that UN involvement needs acceptance from both Pakistan and India. India has made it clear that the UN’s monitoring of the Line of Control separating the two sides is itself unacceptable. Efforts to involve other major power brokers has achieved nothing, and most have alliances with one or the other of the two countries that would taint the process. The world powers can still persuade India and Pakistan to go back on their position in respect to the UN. Alternatively, they can suggest to both neighboring countries to simply agree that some other neutral party which perhaps professionally engages in conflict resolution might work between the two countries, creating an unbroken line of communication between them so that differences can in fact be resolved.

This mediator or facilitator should not be any party that is tied to any known national or international political agenda, whose funding should be derived independent of such interests, and which may pursue the resolution of this conflict objectively.

It would be the task of such an independent agency or a personality of an international stature to review solutions to the dispute which have garnered some attention and agreement in the past and to propose steps that would bring Pakistan and India together on points of alignment, with the full inclusion of the Kashmiris themselves. Since the future of Kashmir is at stake, it is vitally important that its own interests, however varied among Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs and others, be a party to any discussions that are to take place.

Numerous proposals have been made in the past for resolving the Kashmir dispute which the neutral agency might take into consideration, such as that proposed by Sir Owen Dixon’s Plan in 1950, Ambassador Yusuf Buch’s Proposal in 2003, to Ambassador Kuldip Nayar’s Proposition in 2014.

There are several key issues that have been addressed in such proposals that need to be taken into consideration again.

1. Should all military operations cease and all troops from both countries be withdrawn?

2. What political, economic, national defense or social interests do Pakistan and India have in their respective regions of control in Kashmir that are important to retain?

3. Is their involvement in the power structure of a future Kashmir necessary to preserve such interests?

4. Should the long-term objective be complete sovereignty and independence for such a state, or should a power-sharing arrangement be sought with the countries now involved?

5. Should communal interests that divide these regions culturally and religiously be used to establish provincial or federalized boundaries in order to separate them politically?

6. Should the Chanab River be used as a boundary in making such a division?

7. Should the Line of Control be dissolved?

8. Does land or territory make a country or do people make a country? Which has greater priority in deciding Kashmir’s future?

9. Should the interests of the people who now live in Kashmir be given greater priority than geographic considerations of proximity to Pakistan or India or any other interests of those who live outside its boundaries?

10. Is peace possible if the interests and desires of the population inhabiting Kashmir are not given the highest priority?

11. Should valuable resources within Kashmir, such as water, which provide an essential need to all countries involved, be managed by a board or coordinating committee composed of members from all who benefit with international guarantees?

12. What examples of international conflict resolution may be used to identify successful pathways to resolving the conflict?

13. What are the benefits that would accrue to both India and Pakistan in resolving this dispute?

It is clear that resolving this dispute requires a careful evaluation of its many points of contention and addressing them one by one in a carefully drawn out process in which coming to an agreement on each sets the stage for moving on to the next. The most basic set of principles must be established and adhered to regarding human rights, the interests of the Kashmiris themselves, and the preservation of vital interests that both India and Pakistan have at stake, and then to proceed with steps toward objectives that result in a win-win solution for all.

Similar Posts

  • |

    Kashmir: Where the Truth Doesn’t Matter

    NPR’s Julie McCarthy was in Kashmir earlier in September and reported on how different the unrest seems now compared to previous years. “First of all, there’s this unprecedented kind of force being used. There’s these high-velocity pellet shotguns for crowd control. And it’s left thousands of people riddled with pellet injuries. And a lot of them have damaged eyesight. And some demonstrators have thrown stones, attacked police stations and government buildings. And, unusually, this started in rural areas. And it has spread throughout the Kashmir Valley. And it’s lasted over 60 days. That’s also unusual.”

    Perhaps it’s not enough to point out that the champion of this latest uprising, a person who was slain in a fashion frequently called “extrajudicial” by others in the press, and whose killing was the primary provocation for the current uprising, was a self-declared militant who had used social media to resist the Indian occupation. He was someone who had become a symbol of the true spirit of resistance in the hearts of all Kashmiris.

  • |

    Is Kashmir an Issue of Election of Self-determination?

    This is an opportunity to explore a vexing but significant topic in the field of human rights: self-determination. The right of self-determination has been celebrated for ages. It is a basic principle of the United Nation Charter which has been reaffirmed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and applied countless times to the settlement of international disputes. The concept played a significant part in the post-world war I settlement, leading for example to plebiscite in a number of disputed border areas, even though no reference was made to self-determination in the League of Nations Covenant.

  • |

    Why President Obama Ignores Human Rights in Kashmir

    Since the current uprising in Kashmir began with the killing of Burhan Wani on July 8, the unjustifiable and violent attack with bullets, birdshot from pump-action shotguns and extreme cane beatings by Indian military forces upon many of some 200,000 mourners who attended his funeral, who were in technical violation of a rigid curfew that was established by the police and armed forces, has provoked numerous demonstrations and violent clashes between residents. Demonstrations have occurred across the globe by non-resident Kashmiris and other human rights activists. The curfews and clashes have now been sustained for over five weeks, with limited or no access to the basic necessities of life, including food, power and fuel, and the protests have continued almost unabated, with injuries reaching close to 10,000, deaths over 85, and some 570 at last count left blinded, and many more maimed from what have been euphemistically called “pellet” wounds. While Kashmir has been under siege for many decades by the largest military occupation in the world, the recent uptick in what is nothing less than an effort to terrorize the population into submission and silence has been particularly brutal.

  • |

    Dr. Fai Addressed a Forum of Journalists in Washington

    WASHINGTON, D.C. June 27, 2012 (APP): Jammu and Kashmir is an internationally recognized disputed territory and has never been an integral part of India, a veteran Kashmiri leader said.

    “I want to debunk this myth created by India that Kashmir is an integral part of India —- this is a matter of historical record that India occupied the region on October 27, 1947 when the very first Indian soldier set foot on the soil of Kashmir —- the highest diplomatic forums including the United Nations and the United States have recognized the disputed nature of the region,” Dr Ghulam Nabi Fai told a forum of journalists in Springfield, Virginia.

    The Kashmiri-American activist said in the post-9/11 world, New Delhi has tried to weave a smokescreen with some unfounded myths, which seek to discredit the genuine struggle of the people. But these ploys will never be able to cover up the reality and sufferings of people in the Occupied Kashmir, he added.

  • |

    President Obama Can Help Bring Peace in South Asia

    “We should probably try to facilitate a better understanding between Pakistan and India and try to resolve the Kashmir crisis…” President Obama, October 30, 2008
     
    Your planned visit to India has inspired hopes, in the hearts of Americans of Kashmiri origin, that your global statesmanship may move the frozen dispute over the status of Kashmir towards a settlement based on justice and rationality. We would hasten to add that while we are fully aware of the multiplicity of issues that you will be devoting your time and attention during your forthcoming visit to India, you may perhaps like to remember that Kashmir is not a new issue, having been on the agenda of and in the cognizance of the United Nations for nearly 68 years.  Ironically, it is the only entity in the region of South Asia which has so far been denied the opportunity to determine its political future.
  • |

    Kashmir: Setting the Stage for the Settlement – Part 1

    “Let us remember here that the future of Jammu and Kashmir is not something that the governments of India and Pakistan can decide without involving the Kashmiri people. How this diverse people’s representatives should be identified, and then associated with the process toward a possible settlement, are crucial if difficult questions, but every human and democratic principle demands this association.” Professor Rajmohan Gandhi, grandson of Mahatma Gandhi, July 24, 2003.