Give Peace a Chance in Kashmir

Solving the Kashmir dispute

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/getarticle.pl5?eo20001231a1.htm

By RAMESH THAKUR

Special to The Japan Times

Three of the world`s most protracted conflicts are in Asia: the Palestinian-Israeli crisis in West Asia, Kashmir in South Asia and Korea in East Asia. The world`s interest is engaged in South Asia because of the fate of over 1 billion people, the importance of India as the world`s most populous democracy and the nuclearization of the subcontinent. Although not the most dangerous place on Earth, Kashmir is the most likely nuclear flash point.

Indian Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee announced a unilateral ceasefire in November for the Islamic holy month of Ramadan. The Indian Army was instructed not to initiate any combat operations, although they would still respond to attacks on security forces. Within Kashmir, the broadest grouping of militants, the All Party Hurriyat Conference, welcomed the ceasefire and responded positively. Some militant groups, including the Hizb-ul-Mujahideen and the Lashkar-e-Taiba, scoffed at the ceasefire. Still, a few days later Pakistan reciprocated with a policy of ``maximum restraint.``

On Dec. 20, Vajpayee announced in both Houses of India`s Parliament that the ceasefire was being extended by a month until Jan. 26, India`s Republic Day. Pakistan responded the same day with the announcement of a partial pullback of troops from the 700-km Line of Control, though the exact numbers and location were kept secret.

There were four reasons behind India`s decision. First, the government concluded that the ceasefire had been welcomed by the Kashmiri people worn down by 11 years of war, the political parties in Kashmir and some of the most important militant groups.

Second, Pakistan`s policy of maximum restraint had observable effects on the ground. For the first time since the 1999 Kargil war, there was no cross-border shelling across the LOC by Indian and Pakistani troops. Because the Kargil operation was planned even while Vajpayee had been talking peace in Lahore, trust in good faith negotiations was destroyed. It must be restored.

Third, India`s unilateral peace initiative had been praised by an international community also tired of the intractable conflict, and was generally well received within India. There were no critical comments in Parliament when the ceasefire was extended.

Fourth, as a consequence of all this, there was a palpably different, more optimistic mood in Kashmir. As in Northern Ireland, the experience of partial peace after a long descent into relentless violence proved satisfying enough to widen the constituency of peace significantly.

The immediate roots of the ceasefire are buttressed by a longer-term sense of exhaustion and blind runs. India and Pakistan have already gone to war three times, and the 10-year Kashmir insurgency has reportedly claimed over 30,000 lives. The subcontinent has been witness also to ongoing terrorist outrages in both countries, with each insisting that the needle of suspicion points to the other`s complicity.

The economic, military and political costs of intransigence and policy paralysis may be higher for Pakistan. Islamabad`s prospects of wresting Kashmir by force from India are slim. Obsession with Kashmir exists on both sides but it would likely destroy Pakistan before it destroys India.

As I have argued in the past, there are not many viable options for India either. Its democratic culture has been corrupted by electoral malpractices and heavy-handed security operations. To be sustainable, peace must incorporate the wishes of the people. Reconquest of Pakistan-occupied Kashmir would not be practical either in the short or the long term.

There is little support from inside or outside India for undertaking a massive program of resettling Hindus in overwhelmingly Muslim Kashmir. There would be fierce opposition within India to submitting the Kashmir dispute to international adjudication or arbitration, honorable though such a course might seem. Similarly, a resolution based on self-determination would reinforce India`s democratic credentials, strengthen its federalism and close a financial drain -- but this is also ruled out from the realm of practical politics.

There is thus no alternative to talks with Pakistan and the militants. Instead of holding their national security hostage for the sake of Kashmir, India and Pakistan must find a solution to Kashmir followed by greater attention to economic and social development.

The world into which the subcontinental twins were born has changed. Many Indians and Pakistanis realize that their history for the last 53 years need not be their destiny for the next half century. Because they cannot change their geography, they must take control of their destiny.

Vajpayee affirmed the commitment to a resumption of a ``composite dialogue process,`` which is code for a formula that can include Kashmir, but should not focus on it exclusively. The status of the province can be discussed within a wider framework. Pakistan in turn has said that its pullback is a manifestation of good will and a commitment to peace through dialogue.

The present flurry of activity may prove yet another false dawn. The fact remains that India is integral to the fate of all South Asian countries. In turn, however, India can never fulfill its global destiny until it first gets its relations right within its own region. South Asian relations rotate around the India-Pakistan axis. For peace to be grasped and held, both sides must make concessions and accept compromises. Maybe, like U.S. President Richard Nixon`s opening to China, it will take a ``Hindu-first`` party to cut a deal with a military-ruled Pakistan. The starting point must be the sanctity of the LOC, mutual troop pullbacks and a de facto demilitarization along the LOC.

Ramesh Thakur is vice rector of the United Nations University, Tokyo. These are his personal views.

The Japan Times: Dec. 31, 2000

...Suhail Malik of Sialkot, interviewed by a New York Times correspondent in an Indian prison, has said he had no regrets for participating in the massacre, which coincided with the US President Bill Clinton`s five-day visit to India from march 20.

Malik said he had opened fire on the Sikhs just because he had been ordered to do so by his commanders and that he knew nothing about the plot to kill the Sikhs until immediately as he stood in an orchard where the 35 people were killed. `` I used my weapons when commanded... We are told what to do and not why. Afterwards we were told not to talk about it,`` 18-year-old Malik said.

``The Koran teaches us not to kill innocents. (But) if Lashkar-e-Tayyeba told us to kill those people (Sikhs), then it was right to do it. I have no regrets,`` he added...

http://www.hindustantimes.com/nonfram/311200/dtlfor30.asp

Ras,

Sorry about the bewakoofi I started with Urstruly. On a serious note, I wish I could be optimistic about these peace overtures. Youre right ,though, that we ought to grasp at any straw because too many innocent people are suffering.

I think Najam Sethi`s editorial in the Friday Times said it best. The divisions between India & Pakistan run very deep. In order to get real peace in the region, both goverments will have to be extremely flexible & give up a lot more than they are willing to. If the leader of either India or Pakistan has the courage to be that flexible, the hawks in their country will demand their head (& probably get it).

I`m afraid that these talks will invariably breakdown & both sides will accuse the other about treachery & insincerity & start fighting all over again. The poor Kashmiris will be left holding the bag & feel betrayed again.

asking sophomoric questions like `what about the pundits` to lone sahib is pointless. the aphc is on record saying that they can not vouch for the safety of the pundits in the valley.

Urstruly,

I`m on to your treachery pal. If I let you help yourself, you`ll probably put me in that straight jacket:)

Shankar

oh i am shocked...dont need to call nurse, i will help myself.

Urstruly

#2

That does it ! Now youve done it pal! Youre the first one on my short list.

Nurse! Bring out the strait jacket!!! STAT!!!

I wonder why Indians start beating their drum of ``Insaniyat`` when winter comes.

I must admit that they are good at blowing their own trumpet though.

GIVE PEACE A CHANCE! The power of non-violence is far stronger than that of gun.

Statements made by Indian Airlines hijacker Hashim Qureshi (founder of the Jammu & Kasmir Liberation Front) upon his return to India:

In my three or four books, I have throughout pleaded against the use of violence. Even today, Indian and Pakistani politicians raise their eyebrow when I talk of peace and non-violence. They gauge my life not by thirty years of struggle against violence but by a few moments when I came under a spell of violence. Indian and Pakistani politicians are happy on seeing Kashmir burning and her youth getting destroyed.

Had I been born in South Africa like Nelson Mandela preaching coexistence with the white people, the whole world would lift me on its shoulders. If I had been a Yasser Arafat and preached peaceful coexistence with the Israelis, even if I would have been accused of the Munich massacre, I would have been honoured with the Nobel Prize. I come from an unfortunate people that have been under the yoke of slavery for last four hundred years whose political leadership never gave them one thought and one line of action. I cannot claim to be the peer of Nelson Mandela or Yasser Arafat. But I can say that in this century, I recognise two persons whose life influenced me and I think myself moving along their line. They are Mahatma Gandhi, Maulana Abul Kalam Azad and Martin Luther King. With these role models before me I want to settle the problems of my people in Kashmir through a dialogue. We know that violence cannot solve problems. My struggle is to put an end to hatred in the sub-continent.

Full story at http://www.rediff.com/news/2000/dec/30hashim.htm