RAWALPINDI - From
January this year dramatic developments in South Asia
generated a positive atmosphere in which India and
Pakistan took several steps to settle their differences,
starting with "confidence-building measures" to resolve
the Kashmir dispute [1] "halfway somewhere". However,
subsequent Indian elections brought in a new government
in Delhi which aims to set its own agenda, rather than
follow that laid out by the previous Atal Bihari
Vajpayee administration.
Thus, when a new round
of dialogue between India and Pakistan begins in the
last week of the month there is little hope for a
breakthrough, and the situation could go back to square
one, with potentially serious implications.
US-sponsored moves aimed at resolving the
dispute in South Asia so that Pakistan would disengage
its forces from its Indian borders and redeploy them on
its western Afghanistan border only achieved temporary
success.
Pakistan de-escalated tension by
declaring a ceasefire along the Line of Control (LoC)
[2]. Once the US furnished guarantees on India's behalf,
Pakistan reduced its troop presence here and moved them to the Afghan
border. Islamabad has accepted India fencing parts of
the LoC, but there has been no move from Delhi to "meet
halfway". It has even refused to accept the umbrella All
Parties Hurriyat Conference (APHC) as party to the
dispute and named Kiran Singh, Mehbooba Mufti and Omar
Abdullah as the real representatives of Kashmiris. The
upcoming talks, therefore, will likely be nothing but a
"courtesy" gesture.
"Yes, there are difficulties
and hesitation," retired Major General Sardar Mohammed
Anwar, president of Pakistani-administered "Azad"
(Free) Kashmir, told Asia Times Online in reference to
statements made by Indian Prime Minster Manmohan Singh.
"The Indian prime minister has taken a posture
which will slow down the peace process. It is necessary
for India to appreciate the ground realities of the
situation. The pro-India leaders in Kashmir, like Omar
Abdullah, Kiran Singh and Mehbooba Mufti have no
following at all. Had they been the real leaders, there
would not have been any question of an uprising against
the Indian administration in Kashmir. Elections held in
the past 14 years showed a voter turnout of about 2% to
6%, though India projected it as 40%. Even if we take
the India projection as correct, it shows the APHC
leadership has more than a 50% following, judged by the
number of people who boycotted elections under Indian
administration," said Sardar Anwar.
"If you
review the present situation and Indian behavior, you
will find that India is only adding to the confusion.
Pakistan has constantly extended its maximum cooperation
to end conflicts in South Asia. We came forward with
several proposals and options, but they [India] did not
reciprocate accordingly. This kind of behavior has
slowed down developments for the peace process."
In the past few months there has been much talk
of reopening a bus service between the capital Srinagar
in Indian-administered Kashmir and its counterpart
Muzzafarabad in Pakistan-administered Kashmir, as well
as other steps to make the borders "soft" to allow
families on both sides of the divide to meet.
"These are only proposals. I am not privy to any
information which would suggest any developments on
these issues. At present there is a need for bold
dialogue on core issues. India has completed fencing all
around the border and now there is no question of
cross-border incursions. They themselves admitted a
decline in cross-border incursions, but now what they
are speaking about shows their mindset in favor of the
status quo. I tell you that this will only increase
resistance in the Kashmir Valley against the Indian
presence," says Sardar Anwar.
"India should
learn from the past. They are talking of pro-Indian
Kashmir leaders like Kiran Singh, Mehbooba Mufti and
Omar Abdullah, but forget that their grandfathers [such
as Shiekh Abdullah] were also used by the Indian
government as 'Kashmiri leaders' - what result did they
achieve? They failed to win the hearts and minds of the
Kashmiris.
"At present, India is doing exactly
what it did after Shimla Accord in 1972. They aimed to
avoid discussion on solutions and tried to maintain the
status quo on Kashmir. The result was a deadlock in
dialogue and ultimately it resulted in the start of an
irrepressible armed struggle by Kashmiris in 1989," the
president says.
"The Kashmir dispute needs bold
steps for it to be resolved. Any deadlock will be
dangerous for the region. No cosmetic measures will be
enough to diffuse the tension. Apparently there appears
to be no chance of war between India and Pakistan, any
deadlock situation will increase violence in the Valley,
which ultimately will affect the region and lead to the
spread of the conflict, and thus we cannot rule out the
chance of war if concrete steps are not taken at the
right time," concludes Sardar Anwar.
Notably,
when he visits Pakistan he stays next to the army's
general headquarters in Rawalpindi and takes regular
briefings from the Inter-Services Intelligence, Kashmir
cell, and the directors general of military operations
and military intelligence.
[1] The territory of
Kashmir was bitterly contested even before India and
Pakistan won their independence from Britain in August
1947. Under the partition plan provided by the Indian
Independence Act of 1947, Kashmir was free to accede to
India or Pakistan. The Maharaja, Hari Singh, wanted to
stay independent, but eventually decided to accede to
India, signing over key powers to the Indian government
- in return for military aid and a promised referendum.
Since then, the territory has been the
flashpoint for two of the three India-Pakistan wars: the
first in 1947-8, the second in 1965. In 1999, India
fought a brief but bitter conflict with Pakistani-backed
forces who had infiltrated Indian-controlled territory
in the Kargil area.
In addition to the rival
claims of Delhi and Islamabad to the territory, there
has been a growing and often violent separatist movement
against Indian rule in Kashmir since 1989.
Islamabad says that Kashmir should have become
part of Pakistan in 1947, because Muslims are in the
majority in the region. Pakistan also argues that
Kashmiris should be allowed to vote in a referendum on
their future, following numerous United Nations
resolutions on the issue.
Delhi, however, does
not want international debate on the issue, arguing that
the Simla Agreement of 1972 provided for a resolution
through bilateral talks. India points to the Instrument
of Accession signed in October 1947 by the Maharaja,
Hari Singh.
Both India and Pakistan reject the
option of Kashmir becoming an independent state.
[2] The LoC is a demarcation line established in
January 1949 as a ceasefire line, following the end of
the first Kashmir war. In July 1972, after a second
conflict, the LoC was re-established under the terms of
the Simla Agreement, with minor variations on the
earlier boundary. The LoC passes through a mountainous
region about 5,000 meters high. North of the LoC, the
rival forces have been entrenched on the Siachen glacier
(more than 6,000 meters high) since 1984 - the highest
battlefield in the world. The LoC divides Kashmir on an
almost two-to-one basis: Indian-administered Kashmir to
the east and south (population about 9 million), which
falls into the Indian-controlled state of Jammu and
Kashmir; and Pakistani-administered Kashmir to the north
and west (population about 3 million), which is labelled
by Pakistan as "Azad" (Free) Kashmir. China also
controls a small portion of Kashmir.
Syed
Saleem Shahzad, Bureau Chief, Pakistan Asia Times
Online. He can be reached at saleem_shahzad2002@yahoo.com
(Copyright 2004 Asia Times Online Ltd. All
rights reserved. Please contact us for information on sales, syndication and republishing.)
PART 4: Talk of peace, and
war 
them to the Afghan
border. Islamabad has accepted India fencing parts of
the LoC, but there has been no move from Delhi to "meet
halfway". It has even refused to accept the umbrella All
Parties Hurriyat Conference (APHC) as party to the
dispute and named Kiran Singh, Mehbooba Mufti and Omar
Abdullah as the real representatives of Kashmiris. The
upcoming talks, therefore, will likely be nothing but a
"courtesy" gesture. 
