US–India Deal and Kashmir

sorry wrong board

sorry wrong board

Inquirer -- thanks for pointing -- may be I misunderstood the hyphenated bit...

Khan Sahab, looks like you are a Pakistani, I congratulate you for your perfectly sensible article. You make very valid points so I am commenting upon them systematically.

``This is more than a Bollywood film could have scripted for them. ``

****I agree, since I was not fully aware of the background developments that you have very well indicated.****

``To some extent, Islamabad belittled its own self dignity by demanding a matching nuclear energy deal from President Bush, she should have been aware of her needs and of course her `history` before putting the respectable guest in a quandary. ``

****I agree.****

``In short, President Bush left Kashmir to the courage, vision and mercy of the two leaders. During his five days in South Asia, he did not even mention the `the people living in Kashmir`, which he amazingly did during his pre-visit remarks.``

****Your assessment is true, however, it needs to be noted that the South Asians are one people and Bush is really helping, howsoever indirectly, in the final rapprochement of the population of the entire subcontinent. It is incidental, though very important for Bush as an American leader, to ensure the benefits for the Americans.****

``If we look at Washington`s position on Kashmir it is clear that despite `India being in the Soviet camp` during the cold war, Washington`s policy on Kashmir has always sought a middle ground. The Dixon Plan, named after its author Sir Owen Dixon, who was the UN representative for India and Pakistan in the 1950s, envisaged a division of Kashmir between India and Pakistan on the basis of the existing divisions of the state. ``

****The essence of the Dixon Plan as summarized by you seems to be entirely valid , dooable and do-worthy.****

``Under a lease agreement Gilgit Agency was under British control months prior to the partitions, while Baltistan was carved out from the Ladakh wizarat. Gilgit and Baltistan border China, India, Afghanistan, Tajikistan and Pakistan, since, Indo-US understanding rests on grooming India as a counter balance to China; it is possible that US and Indian interest in the Northern Areas will grow in the years ahead, which of course is not good for Kashmiris seeking a valley centric Kashmir solution.

``Islamabad should have realized that beyond some public pronouncements concerning popular sentiments of the state subjects, Washington`s policy has demonstrated a broader understanding about the diversity of culture, interest and political aspiration of Gujjars, Bakkarwals, Kashmiri Pandits, Dogras, Ladakhi Buddhists in the Indian side, and Balti, Gilgiti, Shia, Sunni, Ismaili and Noorbukshi divides in the Northern Areas of Pakistan. ``

****Very perceptive. The facts recognized here would become increasingly important in the geo-politics of the subcontinent. And it behooves the Pakistani people and the leadership to learn the requisite lessons so that they do not align themselves in wrong and self-defeating corners.****

``One would also hope that Islamabad will not succumb to illusions and insecurities created by the Indo-US partnership, and will continue to seek a just, peaceful and realistic solution best suited to the beleaguered Kashmiris and wrongly `hyphenated` non-Kashmiris who live on both sides of the divided bits and pieces of the former State of Jammu and Kashmir. ``

****This would indeed be an equivalent of your first statement discussed above, for Pakistan. Let us call it Islamawood instead of Bollywood. Will this happen? I hope it would because, I have not lost hope in honest and sensible Muslims. All of the are not radical-terrorists. Proof? nasah, nazarhayatkhan and you.****

Real Politik does not work the way the author of this article wants. I do not think there is a great feeling about US on the Indian side. THe author is completely off the mark and is merely expresing the typical Pakistani fear of losing a powerful ally to its`s Army`s sworn `enemy`. I think that US has now unambigously distanced itself from the charge of duplicity in dealing with international terrorism. It has now comprehensively accepted the Indian view point that Kashmiri unrest was propagated by unleashing Jehadism and the Pakistan state was deeply involved in controlling the source and training of international terrorism..........US has now told the Paki General to lay off Kashmir and forget that US is going to support them ever diplomatically over Kashmiri Jehadism...............It is high time the Pakistanis understand that their years of investment in Jehadism for the purposes of annexing Kashmir has backfired and is infact killing itself silently.............Instead of bickering about it accept it and try to live peacefully with India than try exporting Jehadism!!!

Quote from Prem Shankar Jha March 2004:

High on the list, of course, will come the opening of the LoC between the two parts at various crossing points for travel and trade between the two Kashmirs. It will then be up to India and Pakistan to work out how this will be confined only to Kashmiris.

But why should it remain confined to the Kashmiris? Why should Pakistanis not be able to visit Indian Kashmir and Indians not be allowed to visit Azad Kashmir and the northern areas. The people of these regions can only gain from the increase in tourism that will result. Greater contact will also break down stereotypes and build friendships.

The next obvious step would be to extend freedom of trade and transit between the two Kashmirs to freedom of trade and transit for Kashmiris from each part of Kashmir with the whole of the other country. In practice this would be difficult to keep separate from a more general move towards full trading and consular relations between India and Pakistan. But that is something that civil society in Pakistan is already asking for with increasing assertiveness, for the simple reason that its benefits for Pakistan far outweigh its benefits for India.

The process outlined above will take several years to work out because it is immensely complex. But it is worth remembering that the European Union also came into being a full thirty years after the creation of the European Common Market. What we need to remember is that in the building up of trust, the first steps are the most difficult. If India and Pakistan agree, however tacitly, that the above road is broadly the only one that they can follow, then each step that they go down it will make the next step easier, and the process itself faster. In the end the benefits of a simultaneous resolution of the Kashmir dispute and the coming into being of a SAARC free market, will so far outweigh the costs that people will be left wondering why it all took so long.

This is the only solution possible. The North/South Tyrol example between Austria and Italy.The first part has already come true.

(Prem Shankar Jha has written extensively on the Kashmir issue. He was the editor of the Hindustan Times and author of Kashmir 1947- The Origins of a Dispute.)

Re: # 13,zeemax:
Can it be presumed that you agree with your presented quote without comment?

What pleasurable interaction this has been, so far.

#14 by Inquirer

I did the give the comment at the bottom i.e.

This is the only solution possible. The North/South Tyrol example between Austria and Italy.The first part has already come true.

Yes I really believe that.

#13 by zeemax on March 28, 2006 8:15am PT


This is the only solution possible.


I totally agree..It`s the move-on-with-life solution..It`s working well with India-China..