Author: Vivek Gumaste
Publication: Rediff News
Date: October 26, 2010
URL: http://www.rediff.com/news/column/kashmir-pakistan-is-the-problem-not-the-solution/20101026.htm
Pakistan has thrust itself into the equation,
not by dint of moral virtue or legal principle, but by illicit force as epitomised
by its shameless support of blatant terrorism. As long as Pakistan remains
in the equation, a solution is impossible, says Vivek Gumaste.
It is always a dicey proposition when the
establishment recruits apolitical personnel to resolve a political crisis.
The United Progressive Alliance government's
latest decision to send a trio consisting of an academic, a journalist and
an information commissioner as interlocutors to tackle the complex Kashmir
issue is nothing short of committing national hara-kiri and must list as another
one of those hare brained schemes of this floundering government that excels
in lurching from one disastrous mishap to another.
Well equipped on paper but challenged in terms
of practical experience, these individuals lack the political savvy and discretionary
acumen necessary to deal with seasoned manipulators. This was evident on their
first day in Kashmir, when the chief interlocutor, Dileep Padgaonkar shot
his mouth off without any thought for the ramifications of his speech. He
averred: "We are here to look for a permanent solution to the Kashmir
issue… but a permanent solution is not possible without the involvement
of Pakistan."
There is one simple reason why Pakistan cannot
be a catalyst for the solution because Pakistan is the problem, period. Pakistan
is the single hurdle standing in the path of a successful resolution to the
Kashmir conundrum.
Moreover, Padgaonkar's myopic contention is
historically flawed, politically and diplomatically inept and morally unsustainable.
In 1947 when India was partitioned into India
and Pakistan, the princely states were given the option to choose either Pakistan
or India or even remain independent. Initially, the Maharaja of Kashmir, Hari
Singh, chose to remain independent, but when Pakistan sent hordes of Pathan
tribesmen (razakars) to forcibly take over Kashmir, Hari Singh hastily changed
his mind. He signed the Instrument of Accession and asked for India's help.
Sheikh Abdullah, the undoubted leader of the
Kashmiri masses then, also ratified this agreement. A great deal of confusion
surrounds the Instrument of Accession and the conditions detailed in it. Some
indicate that it was unconditional; others suggest that the right of self-determination
was built into it. However, one thing is clear: there is no mention whatsoever
of merger with Pakistan. If that is the case, then where did Pakistan get
the idea that it had a claim to Kashmir?
Further, in 1947 the UN had pronounced Pakistan
as the violator of international law when it invaded J&K. Subsequently,
the will and wishes of the people of J&K were lawfully enshrined in the
state's Constitution of 1957 that irrevocably bound the state to India from
that year forever. There is no historical obligation to make Pakistan privy
to the negotiations.
Does Padgaonkar's suggestion reflect the aspirations
of the Kashmiri people vis-à-vis Pakistan? The answer is in the negative.
A survey conducted by Robert W. Bradnock, a senior research fellow at King's
College, London which was published recently is an eye-opener. Only a negligible
2 per cent of the residents of J&K would like to see Kashmir become a
part of Pakistan. Even when the Valley was analysed separately the number
did not exceed 7 percent of the population. So it appears illogical to designate
a role for Pakistan in light of this information.
Additionally, co-opting Pakistan in the discussions
would mean caving in to the irrational demands of a vocal minority of hardline
Pakistani backed separatists and according them a status far beyond their
actual strength. A statement like this only adds fuel to the fire emboldening
the hardliners to pursue their agenda with increased vigour. It is essential
that interlocutors exhibit restraint and common sense in their utterances.
Pakistan's role in Kashmir so far has been
destructive rather than constructive. By its unashamed support for continued
brutal terrorism in Kashmir that has resulted in the loss of thousands of
innocent lives Pakistan has forsaken any moral right to be included in the
dialogue process. Bad behaviour cannot be rewarded.
India's disastrous Kashmir policy so far has
been a jumbled mixture of self defeating propositions that include misplaced
generosity that allows Hurriyat leaders to freely travel to Islamabad to openly
confabulate with Pakistani conspirators about the dynamics of sustaining the
insurgency. Such nonsensical naiveté must end. Separatists have exploited
these conciliatory gestures to magnify the problem instead of responding favorably,
testifying to the futility of such an approach.
The present impasse calls for serious introspection
and a shift in trajectory from a placatory modus operandi to a more direct
and decisive approach. First, let us do away with the notion that this is
a tripartite dispute involving Pakistan, the Kashmiris and India; only PoK
is and not the state of Jammu and Kashmir.
Sixty years of trying to engage Pakistan in
a civilized conversation on Kashmir has not yielded tangible results and has
only aggravated the problem. It would be futile to persist with such ineffectual
measures. India must delete Kashmir permanently and categorically from the
bilateral agenda and rusticate Pakistan's status as a legitimate party to
this negotiation.
Pakistan has thrust itself into the equation,
not by dint of moral virtue or legal principle, but by illicit force as epitomised
by its shameless support of blatant terrorism. As long as Pakistan remains
in the equation, a solution is impossible. The sooner we realise this, the
easier will it be for us to find a panacea to the Kashmir imbroglio.
Interlocutors like Padgaonkar are only making
a bad situation worse. Call them back before they do irreparable damage to
India's locus standi in Kashmir.
