The Kashmir conundrum
It is time for a plebiscite to be held in Kashmir and determine what the Kashmiris want.
The writer, a native of South Waziristan, has a master’s degree in conflict resolution from the Monterey Institute of International Studies in California and blogs at http://coffeeshopdiplomat.wordpress.com/
In February, the United Nations (UN) Secretary General, Ban Ki-moon, urged India and Pakistan to exercise restraint and resolve issues peacefully after the incidents that occurred along the Line of Control in Kashmir. Statements like these do nothing to resolve the ongoing injustices in the disputed territory. India has put significant effort into gaining support from developed nations and appears to still have a strong pull within the UN. As long as the UN remains on the sidelines, terrorists will continue to flourish in the region.
In Pakistan, it is becoming unacceptable to mention Kashmir for fear of being branded an ultra-nationalist and being excluded from the ‘India friendship’ club. While pursuing better relations with our neighbour is indeed noble, it should not come at such an expense. In reality, there has been no political resolve to fix the issue due to India’s determination to keep branding it as an internal matter and then ignoring it. There has been no constructive conflict resolution and, instead, the Kashmir issue is held hostage every time an incident occurs between India and Pakistan.
Article 370 of the Indian Constitution accorded Kashmir a special status within the union and clearly states: “All subjects of the state ... shall be safe and free in expressing their views and in voting on the question of the accession of the state to India or Pakistan”. According to the 1949 UN resolution, both India and Pakistan agreed that the accession of the state of Jammu and Kashmir to India or Pakistan would be decided through a plebiscite. The resolution also states that all persons (other than citizens of the state) who have entered it after August 15, 1947 for other than lawful purpose, shall be required to leave the state. This requires Pakistan to withdraw its military, while India is allowed to maintain its forces (currently numbering 500,000) in Kashmir to preserve law and order. Consequently, the Indian Army declared a defacto martial law and became excessively violent. Thousands of Kashmiris have disappeared and their whereabouts remain unknown. A police investigation in 2011 by the Jammu and Kashmir State Human Rights Commission found 2,730 bodies dumped into unmarked graves at 38 sites in northern Kashmir.
India’s position on Kashmir appears to be hypocritical. The state of Junagadh had originally acceded to Pakistan on August 15, 1947 but was occupied by the Indian military in November, which ultimately led to its accession to India after a referendum was held in February 1948. Likewise, the Nizam of Hyderabad had declared his intention to remain independent rather than be a part of the Indian Union. On September 17, 1948, however, Indian forces invaded Hyderabad and the Nizam had to sign the instrument of accession. Keeping these two events in mind, is Pakistan’s position that the Maharaja of Kashmir signed the instrument of accession under duress so unbelievable?
The 1972 Simla agreement binds India and Pakistan to settle their differences (including Kashmir) through peaceful means using bilateral negotiations. However, India has refused to make a genuine effort to find a solution to this conflict. This dispute will not go away and clearly, the usual mechanisms, peace dialogues and such are not working.
UN resolutions have been implemented in Kosovo, East Timor and South Sudan. It is time for a plebiscite to be held in Kashmir and determine what the Kashmiris want. The first step towards ensuring a fair plebiscite would be a step-by-step mutual demilitarisation of the region. Accordingly, India should allow the UN Military Observer Group to conduct its mission on the Indian side of the LoC without restrictions. Finally, Pakistan needs to do everything within its means to motivate the international community to get serious about the conflict before people take matters into their own hands. A fairly conducted plebiscite, which was already mutually agreed to, will remove a significant source of extremism and erase a blockade to lasting peace with India.
Published in The Express Tribune, April 4th, 2013.
In Pakistan, it is becoming unacceptable to mention Kashmir for fear of being branded an ultra-nationalist and being excluded from the ‘India friendship’ club. While pursuing better relations with our neighbour is indeed noble, it should not come at such an expense. In reality, there has been no political resolve to fix the issue due to India’s determination to keep branding it as an internal matter and then ignoring it. There has been no constructive conflict resolution and, instead, the Kashmir issue is held hostage every time an incident occurs between India and Pakistan.
Article 370 of the Indian Constitution accorded Kashmir a special status within the union and clearly states: “All subjects of the state ... shall be safe and free in expressing their views and in voting on the question of the accession of the state to India or Pakistan”. According to the 1949 UN resolution, both India and Pakistan agreed that the accession of the state of Jammu and Kashmir to India or Pakistan would be decided through a plebiscite. The resolution also states that all persons (other than citizens of the state) who have entered it after August 15, 1947 for other than lawful purpose, shall be required to leave the state. This requires Pakistan to withdraw its military, while India is allowed to maintain its forces (currently numbering 500,000) in Kashmir to preserve law and order. Consequently, the Indian Army declared a defacto martial law and became excessively violent. Thousands of Kashmiris have disappeared and their whereabouts remain unknown. A police investigation in 2011 by the Jammu and Kashmir State Human Rights Commission found 2,730 bodies dumped into unmarked graves at 38 sites in northern Kashmir.
India’s position on Kashmir appears to be hypocritical. The state of Junagadh had originally acceded to Pakistan on August 15, 1947 but was occupied by the Indian military in November, which ultimately led to its accession to India after a referendum was held in February 1948. Likewise, the Nizam of Hyderabad had declared his intention to remain independent rather than be a part of the Indian Union. On September 17, 1948, however, Indian forces invaded Hyderabad and the Nizam had to sign the instrument of accession. Keeping these two events in mind, is Pakistan’s position that the Maharaja of Kashmir signed the instrument of accession under duress so unbelievable?
The 1972 Simla agreement binds India and Pakistan to settle their differences (including Kashmir) through peaceful means using bilateral negotiations. However, India has refused to make a genuine effort to find a solution to this conflict. This dispute will not go away and clearly, the usual mechanisms, peace dialogues and such are not working.
UN resolutions have been implemented in Kosovo, East Timor and South Sudan. It is time for a plebiscite to be held in Kashmir and determine what the Kashmiris want. The first step towards ensuring a fair plebiscite would be a step-by-step mutual demilitarisation of the region. Accordingly, India should allow the UN Military Observer Group to conduct its mission on the Indian side of the LoC without restrictions. Finally, Pakistan needs to do everything within its means to motivate the international community to get serious about the conflict before people take matters into their own hands. A fairly conducted plebiscite, which was already mutually agreed to, will remove a significant source of extremism and erase a blockade to lasting peace with India.
Published in The Express Tribune, April 4th, 2013.