Rethinking the Kashmir dispute post-Pahalgam

Listen to article

The recent cross-border hostilities between Pakistan and India earlier this month has re-internationalise the Kashmir crisis. The current moment provides a unique opportunity for both sides to try and address this festering problem in a manner which is not only of mutual interest to both nations, but which also keeps in mind the welfare of Kashmiris themselves.

Struggles over Kashmir have sparked all-out wars, and a series of major skirmishes between India and Pakistan over these past 78 years. Yet, after Pakistan managed to gain control of nearly a third of the territory of the former princely state, including the western districts of Kashmir, and Gilgit and Baltistan back in 1848, no significant territorial gains have been made by either side despite repeated conflicts, including the 1965 war, or the more recent confrontation in Kargil.

Over the past several decades, however, India worked hard to convince the international community that there is no need for international arbitration to address the Kashmir imbroglio. After the 1971 war, Pakistan signed Simla Agreement whereby it also agreed to address all outstanding disagreements with India bilaterally.

Pakistan has sporadically been referring to a 1948 UNSC resolution demanding a plebiscite in Kashmir. Yet, holding a plebiscite to decide the fate of Kashmiris seems a non-starter. The conditions for the UN proposal for a plebiscite in Kashmir require Pakistan to withdraw its forces from all parts of Kashmir on its side of the heavily militarised line of control. India, too, would need to reduce its forces to a minimum on its side of the restive region. It is unlikely that either side will be willing to do abide by such preconditions, or to even accept a new Kashmiri state being carved out from territories currently under their control.

Pakistan demanding that India should respect the UN resolution and hold a plebiscite in its side of Kashmir holds little weight. For its part, India needs to step back from nonsensical claims about trying to wrestle away the territories taken by Pakistan in the year following the bloody partition.

India has tried for years to discredit Pakistan for its use of proxies to inflame the restiveness in Kashmir. While Indian claims gained some traction within the post-9/11 era, its own support to militants in troubled areas of Pakistan, especially Balochistan, and its repressiveness within the Kashmir valley, have eroded the legitimacy of its claims. India's attempt to revoke the special status of Kashmir in 2019, and the subsequent use of increasingly draconian measures to quell separatist tendencies, have not won it much sympathy either.

The latest dangerous cross-border escalation on the heels of a terror attack on tourists in Pahalgam has been contained for now following hectic efforts by the current US administration, as well as several Arab states, Turkey and Iran. But the situation remains volatile given the disgruntlement within the Indian-held Kashmir, combined with India's increasingly aggressive posture which seeks to 'punish' Pakistan anytime there is a major act of violence in its side of the line of control. India's attempt to renege on the Indus Water Treaty is another serious issue, which could flare up into a more devastating conflict, if left unresolved.

One wonders if there is now going to be more serious debate within India and Pakistan concerning what can be done about this lingering problem.

Maybe it is time to revisit the four-point formula put forth during the Musharraf era, which aimed to respect the principle of self-governance within Kashmir and allow Kashmiris freedom of movement across the line of control, without altering the existing borders.

Such an arrangement may also include a robust mechanism to contend with other thorny concerns such as the need for equitable water sharing and joint efforts to contend with climate threats posed to the Indus tributaries. It would be ideal if Pakistan and India could hammer out such an arrangement between themselves. Or else, maybe someone can tweet this article to President Trump.