Kashmir — a win-win Confederal Solution

Columnist MALIK AYAZ HUSSAIN TIWANA gives ideas for solving an intractable dispute between two great neighbours.

Whenever I reflect on the history of our South Asian Sub-Continent, the thought which strikes, amazes and ashames me most is the ease with which the British (the ‘West’ — all colonial powers) fooled, deceived and cheated our ancestors. This they achieved by pitting us against each other. They managed it, not that they were any superior in thought or intellect, but because we were so stupid that we kept falling into the trap of their conspiracies. In the same spirit and scheme of things, even when they were ultimately forced to leave, as a parting kick, they left behind an unjust partition plan resulting in untold human misery, bloodshed and perpetual enmity between the two new countries, Pakistan and India.

In the last fifty-four years, the two countries have fought three wars and unless the Kashmir issue is resolved, their uncompromising rigid attitudes can easily lead to a devastating conflict, where no one would be the winner.

One feels all the more sorry when one sees the misery all over, stretching from the Khyber Pass, in Pakistan, all the way to the eastern most reaches of India. It makes one feel so sad that a people, inheritors of two great civilizations, having so much in common, are at each other’s throats, over an issue purposely left over by a hostile colonial power and yet we expect that the same Western powers (or their likes) should now act as intermediaries. As it is, the final solution, whatever it is, is to ultimately grow from the hearts and minds of the Indian and Pakistani leadership. So, why not settle our issues ourselves. Till now, the decisions to go to war were also taken within the sub-continent. Similarly, decisions for peace can also be taken within our own wisdom. Outsiders are only likely to confuse the issue, fish in troubled waters and promote their own hegemonistic interests. So let there be a ‘Desi’ solution.

Kashmir cannot be wished away and also cannot be put on the backburner. Delaying tactics would yield extremely negative results in the long run. If justice had been done in the early years, there would have been no operation ‘Gibraltar’ no ‘Grand Slam’ (1965) no ‘Kashmir uprising’ (1989) and no ‘Kargil’ (1999). Each time Kashmir rebounds with greater ferocity, each time it freshens the wounds of partition and brings the subcontinent closer to amagadden. Half hearted attempts and halfway solutions, aiming only at confidence building, will not stand the test of time. Confidence building measures without concrete steps is hypocrisy. In 1964, with Sheikh Abdullah shuttling between the two countries, the atmosphere was so good that Indian movies, music and magazines/newspapers were popular stuff even in Pakistani military cantonments, while Indo-Pak trade thrived both ways. But the opportunity was lost and then came the Rann of Kutch followed by Kashmir of 1965.

We have had many suggested solutions being aired from time to time (the plebiscite solution, the Chenab river solution, the L.O.C solution, the communal solution), but all have been put in the dustbin for one reason or the other. While Pakistan keeps harping on the UN resolutions (Passed before the Indian constitution was passed), India spurns the very idea of even talking about Kashmir because of the fear of the break up of the Indian Union. While the Kashmiris suffer untold physical, political, economic and social misery, the issue has taken emotional dimensions.

The success of any solution will ultimately depend on the intentions, honesty and sincerity of purpose displayed by the parties concerned. One of the solutions most likely to draw favourable response is the one which does not impinge on the national sensitivities of either country and yet produce a result. Here a lead can be taken from the ‘Cabinet Mission Plan, of 1946, the last sane chance for a United India. The plan stipulated a confederal set up with the Centre holding only defence, foreign affairs and currency. It was unfortunate that the plan was scuttled by Mr Nehru and Mr Patel though Mr Gandhi and Mr Jinnah approved it. In the same way, a confederal set-up for the whole  of Kashmir (Azad Kashmir Plus Indian occupied Kashmir) can be set-up with a joint commission comprising of six Kashmiri representatives plus three each from India and Pakistan, forming a higher governing body and looking after all affairs (of united Kashmir) except for defence and foreign affairs, which would be the responsibility of another joint Indo-Pakistan committee in Delhi and Islamabad. Currencies of both countries could be made acceptable in Kashmir (maybe with slightly different weightages — depending on their strength against the ‘Almighty’ dollar). The Indian and Pakistani members could be nominated by their respective countries while the Kashmiri members of the commission could be elected. Under this higher Kashmir body would be an elected Provincial/State Assembly along with a cabinet and a Chief Minister. A Governor (like the ‘Resident’ of pre-partition British days) could be nominated alternately by India and Pakistan for a two-year period each term.

The plan could be a forerunner of many other openings. Kashmir could become an open window for the two countries to further develop and even renew their old historical relationships. An ‘Our Kashmir’ concept. If Hong Kong could be with one country having another system, Kashmir could be with two countries but having one system. The conceptual plan safeguards the interests of all three concerned parties. It does not threaten the unity of the Indian Union and allows an Indian ‘Say’ in the governance of Azad Kashmir as well. Similarly, it would allow a Pakistani ‘Say’ in the governance of Indian occupied Kashmir and would safeguard Pakistan’s vital riverine interests in the catchments areas. Foremost, it would enable the Kashmiris to be masters of their own fate after a long period of division, destruction and death. Above all, it may be a harbinger of peace and prosperity for the whole region and is likely to have many spin off benefits. It would be a win-win situation for all three parties. Pakistan can then even back India’s quest for a permanent Security Council seat.

8.         The forthcoming meeting between the two leaderships may have detractors on both sides. The most obdurate would be the religious right and some from the establishments, in both countries. It is mainly because for the last so many years, they have been brainwashed and trained to look at the problem only from one perspective. Some political elements may also try to mar the atmosphere due to their vested interests without realizing the dangers. Both countries must understand their limitations and the costs of a long running conflict, if left unresolved. They must cash the present opportunity. Pakistan and India, both would have to show flexibility, foresight and accommodate not only each other’s viewpoint, but also of the party most concerned, i.e. the Kashmiris. The ultimate agreement must establish a just and comprehensive peace otherwise any peace would be only temporary and dangerous.