M I Khan May 17, 2006

Tags: intrakashmir dialogue , peace process ,

rel="tag" href="/tag/India">India and Pakistan’s foreign offices, and their worldview about the issue. This time it is also the people of the three divided parts of the former princely state talking among them and talking to Islamabad and Delhi. The intra-Kashmir dialogues are new dimensions in the process. The cautious dialogue process which began with the Hurriyat leaders’ visit to Pakistan a couple of years ago has since spurred a number of intra-Kashmir conferences, bringing together diverse shades of opinion that exists within Jammu, Kashmir, Ladakh, Gilgit Baltistan and Azad Kashmir. However, for the process to result in a substantive progress, at some point President Musharraf and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh will have to intervene, sit across the table, listen and moderate the intra-Kashmir expectations, and try to reconcile those with Pakistan and India’s national interest.

Well, yes there is a risk that President Musharraf, who is also a commando speaker, will overwhelm the soft-spoken Indian prime minister. But it’s a risk worth taking. First, a roundtable moderated by decision makers is likely to be more result oriented; secondly all stakeholders of the J&K conflict will share the burden of difficult decisions, which political leaders usually try avoiding. Above all, it will provide an opportunity for the two leaders to look at the dispute from the people’s standpoint. It will make them think more humanly, creatively and futuristically. It will help overcome historical legacies and legal complexities and will enable these two leaders to inculcate the human aspect of peace dividends. It will sensitise the leaders on ground realities, human sufferings, costs and also opportunities, which the outdated foreign office briefs, and inapt intelligence reports normally fail to provide.

Looking at the dialogue process up to this point, one key bone of contention has been the question of who should represent the people. Who should speak for such a diverse public opinion, which runs across five or seven distinct regions and at least three distinct administrative components that of Indian held Jammu & Kashmir, and Pakistan administered Azad Kashmir and Gilgit Baltistan (or the Northern Areas). Should it be elected members of the current legislatures in these three administrative entities? But were they elected with a mandate to discuss the Kashmir dispute; it is another matter if they have the capacity and vision to do so. Let us then turn to the Hurriyat Conference, do they represent the entire state. Hurriyat does have a good following in the Valley and partly in Azad Kashmir but it is non-existent in Jammu, Ladakh and Gilgit Baltistan. What else are the options? Should people look towards Dr Karan Singh as the male heir of Maharaja Hari Singh? Do jihadi organisations represent the will of the people? Perhaps they too represent a sentiment, but unfortunately have a language problem.

Some of the Kashmiri leaders have been proposing an election with a single point agenda to determine representatives for the dialogue process. But then who will hold such elections, who will ensure fairness, what if the Hurriyat and JKLF is routed, how does one assess credibility of such an election, what type of people win elections anyway, and is the election an alternate for the plebiscite theory, and so on? To avoid this trap, the organisers, particularly civil society ones, have thus far tried to involve individuals from the broad spectrum of the political divides. People who do represent various shades and sentiments, but ones who have the capacity to listen, talk and talk sense.

Kashmir is too dangerous and complex a dispute to be left at the mercy of the politicians and the army to settle. The tendency of politicians playing to the gallery makes it difficult to carry a serious and honest consultation. An ideal mix for a conflict resolution dialogue should bring representatives from the broad social strata including academia, media, diplomats, students, intellectuals, women, lawyers, farmers, and obviously politicians. In addition, the army, security agencies, and select representatives of jihadi organisations or other invisible forces should also be accommodated, if not directly then in an indirect and subtle manner. This will help foster an enabling environment for emerging solutions to take roots at the societal level.

Interestingly, there is more going on in India in terms of involving people of all three parts of Jammu & Kashmir into the dialogue process. So far, many Indian civil society organisations such as the Centre for Dialogue and Reconciliation, Delhi Policy Group, Panther Party, and Jammia Millia Islamia, have organised a number of intra-Kashmir dialogues. But here in Pakistan, except for the Pugwash Conference in Islamabad and a couple of symposiums on the sideline of the World Social Forum in Karachi, credit for which goes to international organisations, little has been done by the civil society or the government to promote an intra-Kashmir or ’Intra-Kashmir and India-Pakistan’ debate in Pakistan.

During a visit to Kashmir Valley last year, I was pleasantly surprised to see a large billboard carrying smiling pictures of President Musharraf and Prime Minister Manmohan at one of those busy intersections in the middle of Srinagar. The board also splashes a line in Urdu saying ’Let us bridge the divides and reunite the hearts -- a message from the messengers of peace".

Well, let us go beyond the semantics and do it. The two leaders can team up to guide people towards a final settlement. The two need to explain their ideas, and let others express theirs. They should take stock of the confidence building measures, they should discuss and define autonomy, self-governance and agree on ways to achieve those, for all three distinct administrative components of J&K.

Nonetheless, for such a dialogue based peace process to succeed the two leaders will have to first give importance to the viewpoint of those who differ with the standard positions. The dialogue should involve learned people and rational minds from all three disputed administrative components of the former state including Azad Kashmir and Gilgit Baltistan. India’s talking with only those who already agree with the Indian position, and Pakistan consulting those who only toe Islamabad’s line is not a dialogue -- it is a monologue.