The missing link
India and Pakistan seem poised to move towards peaceful relations, but what about the Kashmiris? Mahmoud Murad* comments
Click to view caption |
A Pakistani Ranger (right) shares a word with an Indian Border Security Force soldier after a "Beating the
Retreat" or flag-off ceremony at the India-Pakistan joint border check post of Wagah
|
India and Pakistan have agreed to normalise relations. While officials from both countries, who met on the sidelines of the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC), did not reach a full-blown peace deal, they did at least succeed in creating a cold peace.
But while the tip of the iceberg may have thawed amidst the warmth of the much- anticipated meeting between Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf and Indian Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee, the submerged portion of that iceberg, Kashmir, remains dangerously intact.
I returned from Islamabad a few days ago with the impression that India and Pakistan both realise that given current regional and international circumstances, the two countries must mend fences; especially before a third party gets further involved in their affairs under the pretext of combating terror.
With Afghanistan in the vicinity, the mujahideen active in Kashmir, and Bin Laden on the run -- that is, when he's not busy sending threatening audiotapes to the Americans -- peace seems a sensible choice.
Behind-the-scenes talks between India and Pakistan were already well underway in preparation for the SAARC summit, which welcomed leaders from 10 Southeast Asian states on 4 January in Islamabad. These talks were not easy; relations between the two countries remain tense following their last meeting in June 2001. In February 2001, I was interviewing Musharraf for Al-Ahram and he told me then of his intention to visit India later that year. When Musharraf went to Delhi, he visited the home in which he was born, but the visit did not bring about any substantial progress in improving relations.
This time, things might be different. India and Pakistan have recently abstained from making hostile remarks about each other, both countries renewed their commitment not to use nuclear weapons against one another, and Delhi and Islamabad even exchanged ambassadors.
When Vajpayee announced his willingness to participate in the SAARC summit, optimism soared. In late December, the Pakistani president announced that he was ready for peace talks with the Indian prime minister without prior conditions and was even willing to drop United Nations (UN) resolutions on Kashmir. His announcement was received with approval in India, but it irked Kashmiris as well as some of Pakistan's political parties.
Musharraf's announcement must be understood in a broader historical context. When both India and Pakistan gained independence in 1947, Kashmir's future remained in dispute. In 1948, the UN Security Council passed a resolution granting the Kashmiris the right to self-determination. Pakistan agreed to that resolution, but India rejected it, claiming that Kashmir was a part of its territory and that there was therefore no basis for allowing intercession from a third party in the peace talks. India today controls two-thirds of Kashmir, leaving Pakistan with one third in its control. The conflict in the disputed region often escalates into open hostilities, with both countries having gone to war over Kashmir in the past. Given this history, it is a small wonder that India was greatly pleased by Pakistan's offer to set aside UN resolutions.
Two days after his announcement, Musharraf met with four of their leaders in order to appease their anger and concern over his dramatic proposal. He reassured the leaders that no permanent solution of the Kashmir problem would take place without the consent of the Kashmiris, which is just as well. The Kashmiri leaders whom I met in Islamabad warned that no peace would last unless it was a just and comprehensive peace acceptable to the Kashmiris.
It is against this backdrop that Indian Prime Minister Vajpayee was given a warm reception in Islamabad, where he held talks with President Musharraf as well as Pakistani Prime Minister Mir Zafrallah Khan Gamali.
While the two countries promised to normalise their relations and live in neighbourly peace, the question remains: how can lasting peace be reached without resolving the issue of Kashmir? According to the Pakistani and Indian officials I met, it seems that the two countries have agreed to "freeze" the Kashmir problem, for now. In other words, both sides intend to keep their respective areas under their control, while at the same time refraining from assailing the other side or assisting the armed groups that are involved in the conflict.
How long can this last? Indefinitely, my interlocutors seem to believe, so long as normal relations are restored and the two countries become fully active in SAARC. The two countries hope to maintain peace and stability until such time as a solution, acceptable to all parties, is found for Kashmir.
What is unlikely, however, is that the Kashmiris will wait patiently as the two sides settle the dispute at their expense. The Kashmiris will find it hard to accept a continued period of no war and no peace. A leader of a Kashmiri group told me that most Kashmiris want a state of their own. Kashmir is small but rich in resources and industry, and there is no reason why it cannot maintain neighbourly relations with India, Pakistan, and the rest of the region. Accordingly, the "freezing" of the Kashmiri problem raises the possibility that Kashmiris may try and seek independence on their own. The Kashmiris may even try calling on the international community to intercede on their behalf.
* The writer is deputy editor in chief of Al- Ahram.
