There is no such thing
as a great talent without great will-power.
Active Visitors: 263 Total Hits: 19640790 Since June, 2007
Adumbration of Kashmir policy
Mohammad Jamil
Email: mjamil1938@hotmail.com
PPP Co-Chairman Asif Ali Zardari recently had suggested setting aside
the Kashmir issue to focus on other aspects for improving relations with
India, emphasising that the relations between India and Pakistan should
not be held ‘hostage’ to the Kashmir issue and that the two countries
‘can wait’ so that future generations could resolve the dispute in a
mature manner in an atmosphere of ‘trust’. Now Mian Nawaz Sharif has
come out with the statement the other day that Kashmir dispute should
not be an obstacle in the way of trade and commerce between India and
Pakistan. Since 1948, for about five decades all Pakistani governments
had persistently pursed Kashmir policy, but when Pakistan became nuclear
power in 1998 the then government became ‘pragmatic’ rather docile. It
took U-turn on the stated policy not realizing that India would continue
with its intransigence.
In December 1998, the then Pakistan prime minister Nawaz Sharif and
India’s prime minister Vajpayee had signed the Lahore Declaration with
great fanfare but Kashmir dispute was not even mentioned in the
declaration. Of the record, they were reported to have promised to find
an ‘out of box’ or a compromise formula to resolve Kashmir dispute.
Whenever Pakistan tried to persuade India to hold talks to resolve the
Kashmir dispute, its leadership came out with sarcastic remarks stating
that the only outstanding dispute between India and Pakistan was Azad
Kashmir and not Indian held Kashmir. Previous government had, indeed,
tried to resolve the Kashmir dispute and President Musharraf had floated
some ideas and the focus was that the issue should be resolved to the
satisfaction of India, Pakistan and last but not the least the people of
Kashmir.
Now, after a decade, the new Chief of the Army Staff General Parvez
Kayani had reaffirmed the commitment of Pakistan Army to the Kashmir
cause in line with aspirations of Pakistani nation. It is true that
people of Pakistan want to live in peace with India and abhor war, but
at the same time they want peace with honour. It is not being suggested
that Pakistan should go to war with India with a view to wresting
Kashmir, but should not convey an impression that Pakistan would not
mind if the resolution of Kashmir is delayed especially when there are
UN resolutions in support of Pakistan and Kashmiris .
In January 2004, India and Pakistan started composite dialogue with a
view to resolving all outstanding issues between the two nuclear South
Asian neighbours including the core issue of Kashmir that had stymied
progress in trade and other bilateral relations. Despite two wars and
many rounds of dialogue during the last six decades, Kashmir issue
remained unresolved. But weakness shown by Pakistan leadership would
embolden India to continue its intransigence. It was perhaps in this
backdrop that Chief of Army Staff General Parvez Ashfaq Kayani wished to
set the record straight by reaffirming Army’s commitment to the Kashmir
cause. There is, however, little temptation for Pakistan to make a grab
for Kashmir, or for India to invade Pakistan, as the fear of nuclear
attack makes adventurism less appealing.
Having all said, India and Pakistan should try to find a way to resolve
the issue, which is acceptable to India, Pakistan and the people of
Kashmir. If the Kashmir dispute is resolved, the people of India and
Pakistan could live without trepidation and fear of war.
In May 1999, after about a year when India and Pakistan had come out of
the nuclear closet, “The Economist” in its survey/analysis of India and
Pakistan had rightly stated: “Neither country has a big enough
conventional edge over the other to win a reasonably short war. There
is, therefore, little temptation for Pakistan to make a grab for
Kashmir, or India to invade Pakistan. The fear of nuclear attack makes
adventurism less appealing.” In this backdrop, war does not seem to be
an option any more for both the countries.
During the course of the armed struggle that started in 1989, about
90000 Kashmiris have laid down their lives, and were determined to take
the struggle to the logical conclusion. In 2000, Mirwaiz had expressed
the hope that Kashmir would soon be liberated after which divided
families would be united. But 11th September 2001 had set the course for
a change in political landscape of the world that warranted a review of
the strategy, as the US had come out with the doctrine of pre-emptive
strike. India had been harbouring the idea of limited war, and in 2002
had deployed its forces close to the Pakistan’s borders. After having
realized that Pakistan would not be cowed down, it ultimately withdrew
to the original positions. One should remember that Tashkent Declaration
after 1965 War and Simla Agreement after 1971 War, both India and
Pakistan had agreed to resolve all disputes through bilateral dialogue.
Since then, India has always taken the position that Kashmir issue is a
bilateral matter, and thus refuses to accept a third party mediation.
The international community has to understand that Tashkant and Simla
agreements were signed by Pakistan under duress. Article 103 of Chapter
XVI of the UN Charter clearly states: “In the event of a conflict
between the obligations of the members of the United Nations under the
present Charter and any other international agreement, their obligation
under the present charter shall prevail”. India is focusing on
confidence building measures to enhance people to people contact,
cultural exchanges and economic cooperation, but these are not
alternatives to the resolution of the Kashmir dispute over which both
countries had three wars. International community should, therefore,
help resolve the Kashmir dispute to avert the impending disaster.
Indian leadership perhaps has realized that the Kashmir dispute has
stymied the progress with regard to trade between the seven members of
the SAARC. Pakistan always suspected that India would use commerce as a
way to undermine Pakistan’s fidelity to Kashmir. With Afghanistan
becoming the member of the SAARC, India wanted Pakistan to open land
route for Indian exports to Afghanistan. During Prime Minister Manmohan
Singh’s visit to Kabul in August 2007, President Hamid Karzai had called
on Pakistan to open transit routes to allow Indian aid to flow into
impoverished Afghanistan, but Pakistan knows that once the land transit
route is opened India would benefit from trade with Central Asian
Republics. And Pakistan should not give concessions to India without
resolving the Kashmir dispute.
