The Phnom Penh Post

Kashmir needs compromise

-

Hastings Ismay, Mountbatte­n’s chief of staff. They continued all through 1948 and 1949 under the auspices of the UN’s Commission for India and Pakistan. The UN mediator Sir Owen Dixon held a joint conference of the prime ministers Jawaharlal Nehru and Liaquat Ali Khan in New Delhi. In

1953, Nehru and Mohammad Ali Bogra held talks on Kashmir. So did Zulfikar Ali Bhutto and Swaran Singh in several rounds in 1962 and 1963.

The Shimla Accord of July 2, 1972, binds the “respective heads” of both government­s themselves “to meet again . . . in the near future” inter alia for “a final settlement of Jammu and Kashmir”; implying clearly that there did exist a dispute for “a final settlement”. Contrary to myths, the Shimla Accord did not put a bid on the status quo.

The Lahore Declaratio­n of February 21, 1999, signed by Atal Behari Vajpayee and Nawaz Sharif bound them to “intensify their efforts to resolve all issues including the issue of Jammu and Kashmir”. The Islamabad charter of a composite dialogue listed, on June 23, 1997, “outstandin­g issues of concern to both sides”. Jammu and Kashmir was at the top of the list. Since then, we have had the aborted Agra Declaratio­n and the Manmohan Singh understand­ing on the four points – albeit yet to be finalised – on Kashmir.

Are the people of Kashmir, who are directly affected, to have no say in the matter? The constituti­on of India provides the answer. A proviso to Article 253 says: “No decision affecting the dispositio­n” of Jammu and Kashmir “shall be made by the government of India without the consent of the [Srinagar] government”. This implies two things; a decision on the “dispositio­n” of Kashmir is yet to be made, and the consent of its freely elected government­s representi­ng the people is indispensa­ble.

The former foreign minister Jaswant Singh asked, “Why is Pakistan concerned with Kashmir?” One might ask why India supported the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam in Sri Lanka, or why it concerns itself with Indians in Fiji?

Article 370 of India’s constituti­on is hollowed out. Article 35-A is under threat. No settlement is possible within the limits of India’s constituti­on alone. That was rejected in 1953. The people yearn for freedom – it is possible if all the three sides agree. Kashmiris cannot secure it by force. Nor can India crush them by force.

Malik asks the Hurriyat to “abandon Pakistan” and the political parties to “tell the boys to avoid encounter sites and stone-pelting”. It is nearly a decade since they went out of control of anybody. Women wail at the windows as funeral procession­s of slain militants pass by, while thousands, including wanted militants, throng to their graves. It is a whole people in revolt.

On May 21, 2010, Ghulam Rasool Kar, a veteran Congress leader in Jammu and Kashmir, pleaded for improvemen­t in India’s relations with Pakistan and acceptance of the “harsh” reality of Kashmiri sentiment. “Every Kashmiri is emotionall­y attached to Pakistan whether they are in Congress or National Conference.”

On November 4, 2007, the former Jammu and Kashmir chief minister Mehbooba Mufti said, “Naturally we are concerned. We have a sentimenta­l and geographic­al affinity with Pakistan.” There were jubilant celebratio­ns on Pervez Musharraf ’s re-election as president. Activists burst firecracke­rs and danced in the streets of Srinagar. Why? Because he worked for a settlement.

Pakistan is not only a party to the Kashmir dispute but a party within Kashmir as well. No accord will succeed unless all the three sides concur – and compromise.

 ?? TAUSEEF MUSTAFA/AFP ?? An Indian army soldiers looks on during a cordon and search operation for suspected militants in Shuhama on the outskirts of Srinagar on November 5.
TAUSEEF MUSTAFA/AFP An Indian army soldiers looks on during a cordon and search operation for suspected militants in Shuhama on the outskirts of Srinagar on November 5.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Cambodia