Kashmir: The Pursuit of the Possible

Franklin was also an inventor. Inventors cannot stand confusion. They look for ways to simplify, to turn what is thought to be unrelated into a unity of parts that mean something or that can be used in a practical way. No doubt he viewed war as stupidity, a useless way of dealing with problems. As an ambassador for the colonies to Great Britain between 1767 and 1775, he sought constructive relations between the two countries. He was in fact a loyalist, a man who believed that the king should have more power (it was simpler), but became a patriot and ultimately a believer in liberty and the self-determination of those who wanted to escape tyranny,

It was through Franklin’s agency, his power of persuasion, and perhaps France’s discomfort with growing British strength, that France aided the American colonies and brought balance to what might have been a lost cause for the American Revolution.

Franklin obviously believed that resistance by the colonies was a preferable route to capitulation. “They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety ” he wrote, “deserve neither safety nor liberty.” With sufficient resistance one has the strength to demand negotiations if winning outright isn’t in the cards. A man who is weak can demand nothing.

The need for both resistance and arbitration in the case of Kashmir is obviously needed, but we have a balance of power problem just as the colonies did in the beginning. India’s 700,000-plus troops stationed in Kashmir combined with its control over local law enforcement presents a difficult if not insurmountable challenge to those willing to resist the foreign occupation. The presence of such a large number of troops plus sixty-eight years of conflict would seem to most observers a clear indication that Kashmir’s differences with India are intractable and irresolvable given the persistent resistance, despite the serious imbalance of power between the two.

While a lot was said during the 70th session of the United Nations General Assembly about international peace and security on one side and conflict resolution on the other, all emphasized the need for cooperation and not confrontation. However, in the end, it was clear that every member nation wanted cooperation that will serve only its own national interest and not cooperation that will serve humanity or the interests of other nations or peoples.

Danish Prime Minister, Lars Løkke Rasmussen’s vision, “Today the world again faces a situation, where cooperation and dialogue is all too often replaced by force and violence” can hardly be disputed by anyone.
President Obama repeated what he has mentioned at other international fora. He said, “It is these international principles that helped constrain bigger countries from imposing our will on smaller ones…On this basis, we see some major powers assert themselves in ways that contravene international law.”
Quite true, obviously. But of course he is subtlety pointing fingers at Russia and perhaps it would be well if President Obama’s own foreign policy advisors gave heed. U.S. intervention militarily in numerous countries in the last decade, whether directly or indirectly, such as in Syria, are a matter of history. Zbigniew Brzezinski, a national security advisor to President Carter, has proposed that we “disarm” the Russian ships supporting Assad. President Putin has however suggested that Russia’s presence in Syria should lead to negotiations to settle the political differences involved. None of this bloodshed and the millions of displaced Syrians would have occurred if that had been the policy to begin with.
Ban Ki-Moon, the Secretary General of the UN and the custodian of human rights said on 28 September 2015. “What counts now is translating promises on paper into change on the ground.”
I fail to understand who prevents these world leaders to use their moral authority to persuade the violators of the international laws to abide by these principles. Perhaps international arms sales and the general military industrial complex that seems to have a firm grip on foreign policy priorities might offer a clue, and when world leaders are complicit, it is rather difficult for them to hold any high ground in any moral prerogative that might be addressed toward one’s partners. Observing democratic process and civility in international affairs seems too great a request for people who lack both the will to act responsibly and the maturity to understand the proper role of civil servants of society.
The peace initiative offered by Nawaz Sharif, the Prime Minister of Pakistan that could pave the way for the peace and stability in the region on South Asia needs to be pursued further by the world leaders. The initiative encompasses much of the deliberations that took place at the United Nations in late 1940’s. This initiative proposes: i). Expansion of UNMOGIP’s mandate to monitor the observance of the ceasefire; ii). Reaffirmation by both India and Pakistan not to resort to the use or the threat of use of force under any circumstances; iii). Demilitarization of Kashmir; iv). an unconditional mutual withdrawal from Siachen Glacier, the world’s highest battleground.

A similar initiative was also proposed by Adlai Stevenson, the American Ambassador to the United Nations on June 15, 1962 when he said, “I refer of course to the resolutions which were accepted by both parties and which in essence provide for demilitarization of the territory and a plebiscite whereby the population may freely decide the future status of Jammu and Kashmir.”

Ms. Sushma Swaraj, the foreign minister of India, could not get an answer from the United Nations when she said “If we ask whether we were able to find permanent solution to these conflicts, the answer is no.”

To me the best answer that could be given to Ms. Swaraj was given by Greg Anderson, a National Basketball Association forward/center for the San Antonio Spurs and Atlanta Hawks, when he said, “The Law of Win/Win says, ‘Let’s not do it your way or my way; let’s do it the best way’.”

I believe the best way to resolve the conflict which directly affects the peace and stability of India and Pakistan – the Kashmir conflict – is through listening to Mahatma Gandhi, the father of the nation of India who said on 29 July 1947 in Delhi, “I am not going to suggest to the Maharaja (Ruler of Kashmir) to accede to India and not to Pakistan. The real sovereign of the state are the people. The ruler is a servant of the people. If he is not so then he is not the ruler. This is my firm belief, and that is why I became a rebel against the British – because the British claimed to be the rulers of India, and I refused to recognize them as such. In Kashmir too the power belongs to the public. Let them do as they want.”

That visionary Mahatma Gandhi made it easy for us to understand what the Kashmir conflict was all about when he said, ‘Kashmir would belong to the Kashmiris.”

Now the time has come that India should reciprocate to the peace initiative of prime minister of Pakistan and initiate a serious and sincere peace negotiation with Pakistan along with the leadership of the people of Kashmir.

The refusal by India to sit down to the table with Pakistan or those who represent the Kashmiris indicate that India is not even close to addressing the realities of Kashmir and the will of the people. This must change. Peace in the region would benefit not only those who are directly impacted by this conflict but India as well, whose economy is seriously drained by the maintenance of such a massive amount of troops in Kashmir, and the diversion it creates from other challenges it faces in raising the living standards of its population. Sounder minds must prevail. More rational methods of dealing with differences must be sought. Repeating the same mistakes while expecting different results has long ago been found to be the path of failure. Sixty eight years should demonstrate a need for a change in policy, a policy that accepts the need for coming together in a process that accepts the right of all people to determine their own destiny.

President Obama should support the right of self-determination of the Kashmiri people as it is in conformity with the statement made at the same United Nations General Assembly by President John F. Kennedy on September 25, 1961 “That continuing tide of self-determination, which runs so strong, has our sympathy and our support…My Nation was once a colony, and we know what colonialism means; the exploitation and subjugation of the weak by the powerful, of the many by the few, of the governed who have given no consent to be governed, whatever their continent, their class, or their color.”

Without such support, the likelihood of this conflict dissolving into open warfare again, as it has in the past, with a cost of hundreds if not thousands of lives, seems unavoidable. Intervention is of paramount importance by those who have a stake in the future of India, of Pakistan, the Kashmiris, and all parties involved.