Give Peace a Chance in Kashmir

It has been quite some time since I have had a chance to report or write an opinion on Kashmir. If memory serves me right, the visit of the APHC leader Mr. Abdul Ghani Lone to the San Francisco Bay Area City of Fremont in 1999 was the last opportunity that I had to both gather information and to reflect on this continuing tragedy. And it should come as no surprise to readers that during the past 11 years the sufferings on all sides have created an eagerness in many a passionate observer to actively seek an end to this mess as soon as possible. But any mess, no matter how much it begs for a clean up cannot be ended without some kind of solution. And after over a decade of what can only be described as wishful thinking I believe that we are once again closing in on something more permanent than a cease-fire.

The few that braved the attraction of “other pressing engagements” and actually showed up at that 1999 Abdul Ghani Lone meeting in Fremont arranged by the American Muslim Alliance (AMA) and United Muslims of America (UMA) may have been a bit puzzled during the question-answer session when I pointed towards the representatives of the Kashmiri Pandit Community and stressed to Lone Sahib that no Kashmir solution was possible without some accommodations for the Kashmiri Hindus who had to flee their homes since 1989.

The Pandits on the other hand also had to realize the intensity with which Lone Sahib presented his Kashmir case. One could only wish that more people from the Indian Community had been there to witness the calm and the seriousness with which the few attending participants interacted in the post Kargil India-Pakistan scenario. Thank god that some people have come to the conclusion now that all kinds of solutions should be discussed because war is no longer an option between India and Pakistan. But talks between whom? Can talks without Pakistan bring Kashmiri peace? The answer is obviously “No”.

Kashmir may be headed for some kind of “incremental peace” ala Palestine. But unlike the neighboring Arab powers to the Palestinians, Pakistan has not concluded that the Kashmiris of the Vale should be provided with only passive diplomatic support. Pakistan has been a very active participant in the Kashmiri quest for self-determination and has since 1989 been turning a blind eye to various private groups who have made it their mission to keep the huge Indian occupation force in Jammu and Kashmir militarily on the defensive. It is ironic that economically challenged Pakistan continues to play a more active role in Kashmir today then some economically affluent Arab countries in Palestine. OIC and Arab League meetings are great at issuing statements in the case of both Kashmir and Palestine, but these statements mean very little when the adversary knows that “business as usual” will not be interrupted by words alone.

As the influence of Washington grows in the Kashmiri solution, Pakistanis and Kashmiris need not be reminded that Palestinians have yet to show too many gains for negotiating at Oslo. And a South Asian Camp David, if it ever happens will need to take into account the voice of the Kashmiri people from the very beginning or else their abandonment in favor of the strongest party (India) is a strong possibility. And New Delhi knows very well that by sitting across the table at the same time with both Pakistan and the Kashmiris will not help it to steer a settlement to its favor. It is not sticking to its “internal problem” position for nothing. It now realizes that it will have to concede something, even at the bilateral negotiating table and has been waiting for a cold July day in Delhi to talk with Pakistan .

To digress somewhat, I just recently had the misfortune of watching a “Hindi’ movie called “Mission Kashmir” to see what signals the Indian movie industry is sending its viewing public today. Needless to say it was a bad movie even according to Indian standards in which Sanjay Dutt did a passable acting job as Police Officer Inayat Khan. Jackie Shroff was great as the Afghan mercenary villain Hilal, but the script was wishful thinking at best (except for the character of Neelima wonderfully played by Sonali Kulkarni). And for those of us not impressed by Hrithik Roshan’s biceps (India’s most recent Mr. Good Looks), “Mission Kashmir’s” cinematography was its strongest selling point. The continuing tragedy in one of the most beautiful geographic spots on earth moves even a distant observer. If director Vinu Vinod Chopra had “Kashmiriyat” in mind while making this movie, the story line exhibited too much selective amnesia to be taken seriously. If India’s only problem in Kashmir was Pakistan, and not the aspirations of the Kashmiri people, this issue would have been resolved years ago.

But now back to the real world and the backdrop of Prime Minister Vajpayee’s offer of a solution within “Insaniyat” (humanity). Both Pakistanis and Kashmiris should take Vajpayee Sahib up on this offer of an “Insaniyat” immediately because Kashmir is above all else a human problem left behind by some of the worlds’ most dishonest brokers. But now, after more than 50 years of utility derived by the West from this issue, it appears that even these brokers have somewhat woken up to the fact that after the nuclear summer of 1998 in South Asia, the possible danger from this conflict goes against their material interests. And it has been decades since events, the interests of the great powers, and the aspirations of the Kashmiri majority have been pointing in the same direction. One wonders about what the fortune tellers in India are predicting these days?

So aside from the Clinton theatrics in Pakistan during his short Islamabad stopover in March of 2000, and his appearance of a complete tilt towards India, it is possible that an “adequate” solution for the Kashmir problem may already have been found. And if all the parties play their cards correctly, the year 2001 may reveal much more about what this solution might be. At this point it appears that both the Pakistanis and the Kashmiris are ready for much flexibility in their positions today, and it is India that is having a very tough time dealing with the ground reality, being the strongest of the three parties in this dispute and being perceived as the one with the most to lose here. But let us move on.

Much has been reported recently on the efforts and presence of a Mr. Mansoor Ijaz in the thick of the otherwise very secretive Kashmir negotiations that may have led to the current Ramadan cease-fire on the Indian side. Of “Pakistani origins” Mr. Ijaz is appearing to be very Italian or specifically very Roman these days (When in Rome do as…), because he has the very difficult job of attempting to incorporate at least four points of view on Kashmir into his efforts. He appears to sympathize with the Indians on Rediff , Pakistanis in The Friday Times, tries to define an Americanized point of view on the PBS Newshour, Los Angeles Times and not to forget The International Herald Tribune, and yet maintains a deep leadership access within Kashmir. We all should wish him luck because Kashmir needs many tracks towards negotiations and away from military confrontation. But we need more information before jumping to any wild conclusions.

At the right time a magician, someone, possibly even Mr. Ijaz will have to pull a rabbit out of a hat as to what is currently going on? The Indian, Pakistani and especially the Kashmiri people are waiting for what the real deal is.

But everyone involved, especially Pakistan today, needs to support the current quest for long lasting peace in Kashmir (as long as it is based on justice). We all need to see where this current effort is heading without emotional or violent interruption. Because who knows when this opportunity will come again? Insaniyat (Humanity) is never a bad option to pursue in any conflict. India and Pakistan cannot afford to fight wars anymore. It is time to give peace a chance in Kashmir.