Tweet
OP-ED: Solving the Kashmir dispute —Ishtiaq Ahmed
Daily Times, Pakistan
June 20 2004
Controversial collective rights such as the so-called right of
self-determination should not be invoked to destabilise them. It is
not an ordinary principle of international law and was meant to apply
primarily to colonial empires
The contemporary international system is constituted by sovereign
states whose territorial claims are clearly defined, demarcated and
agreed upon in the form of international boundaries. However,
exceptions to the rule exist and the ensuing territorial ambiguity
can result in two or more states laying mutually exclusive claims to
the same territory.
The post-Second World War colonial withdrawals from Asia and Africa
and the collapse of the multinational Soviet and Yugoslavian
political systems have been typical occasions for such disputes to
emerge because the transfer of power, sharing of common resources and
the allocation of territories rarely correspond to the expectations
and ambitions of the contending political entities. The Kashmir
dispute, the Israel-Palestine imbroglio, Cyprus, East Timor, West
Sahara, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Kosovo and Armenia-Azerbaijan are some
cases in point, though each case has its own peculiarities and
dimensions.
Disputes over territories are exacerbated if the contending parties
do not trust each other. In such cases even the prospect of
significant economic ties and interests and help from regional and
international actors cannot resolutely compel them to negotiate a
peaceful and fair solution. This also applies to the India-Pakistan
impasse on Kashmir.
Apart from the legal fictions maintained by both sides, the problems
of identity and self-image complicate matters. India wants to hold on
to Kashmir as an essential feature of its secular-composite national
identity while Pakistan considers its Muslim identity incomplete as
long as Kashmir has not joined it.
Observers have put across several reasonable solutions. But unless
India and Pakistan abandon the combative nationalist mindset no
progress on the issue is likely. War is not an alternative. Three
full-scale and one confined war have been tried in 56 years but to no
avail. Neither side can win a war even when it has the advantage of
surprise. Both are likely to inflict irreparable damage on each
other. Consequently no zero-sum approach or ‘winner takes all’
solution is going to succeed.
The UN resolutions calling for a plebiscite have failed to work.
Since they are under Ch VI of the Charter, they require the
contending parties to agree to UN mediation. India has ruled out any
such possibility.
The third option of an independent Kashmir has no serious takers
among the Indian and Pakistani establishments. One can also wonder if
indeed the overall security concerns of India and Pakistan will
lessen if a weak state emerges in this volatile region bordering
Afghanistan, Iran and central Asia. Indeed, such a state could well
increase the sense of insecurity and set in motion another round of
confrontational politics between the two states. An independent state
will also be opposed tooth and nail by the Hindus and Buddhists on
the Indian side.
Similarly, the idea that Kashmir should be partitioned along
religious lines is a non-starter. The Muslims of Jammu and the Shia
minority of Ladakh would have their own reasons for opposing it. The
former would be left behind in India and become an even smaller
minority. They would thus be precariously placed and would very
likely face the anger of militant Hindus who would hold them
responsible for India losing much of its Kashmir to Pakistan.
Such a situation is already faced by Indian Muslims who stayed behind
in India after Partition. The Shias only have to look at the way
their sect is being targeted by terrorists in Pakistan. Neither the
Pakistani fundamentalists nor the Kashmiri militants present a
tolerant and peaceful image of Islam. It is futile to believe that
the spread of a terrorist political culture in the garb of freedom
struggle will impress the world or deter the Indian state.
There is also the proposal that the Kashmir Valley should be made
independent. The tiny but very vocal Kashmiri pandits who have been
driven away by the militants and now live in camps in Jammu and Delhi
would oppose any such idea. Also, India will never agree to grant
self-determination on the basis of religious differences.
Under the circumstances, the only workable solution is to convert the
Line of Control into a soft border with India and Pakistan retaining
sovereignty on their respective sides. The idea of a soft border
should be understood as a series of measures aiming to provide
substantial autonomy to the various sub-regions on both sides. Such
an approach would require both states to withdraw or at least
drastically reduce the number of troops stationed on both sides of
the Line of Control. Kashmiris on both sides should be permitted to
move freely across the border though without the automatic right to
settle on the other side.
But solving the Kashmir dispute is impossible without India and
Pakistan agreeing to a comprehensive peace and cooperation agreement.
The Kashmir issue is not the cause but a symptom of a deeper mistrust
between India and Pakistan. The two sides have to appreciate the fact
that they are two sovereign states and that is a settled fact of
history.
Under the circumstances, controversial collective rights such as the
so-called right of self-determination should not be invoked to
destabilise them. It is not an ordinary principle of international
law and was meant to apply primarily to colonial empires.
One may rhetorically argue that India is an imperialist Hindu state
or Pakistan heads a worldwide Islamic expansionist movement. But the
fact remains that the United States and other Western states remain
the real determiners of international economic and political
policies.
Therefore instead of wasting time on mutual recrimination and hostile
propaganda India and Pakistan should close ranks and along with the
other players in South Asia try to develop robust economic and social
ties. That is the only way this region can justly claim respect and
admiration from the rest of the world.
To recap the main arguments, the Kashmir dispute is a social
construction deriving from conflicting nationalist ambitions and
ideologies; it can be solved if we transcend the conflicting
nationalist agendas; both states need to confer maximum autonomy on
their Kashmiri citizens, including their right to interact with one
another legally and freely.
It is most important that extremists and militants are weeded out
from the whole of South Asia and especially from Kashmir. Similarly
India should withdraw its security forces and allow democracy to take
its own course as stipulated within Article 307 of the Indian
constitution.
The author is an associate professor of Political Science at
Stockholm University. He is the author of two books. His email
address is [email protected]
Daily Times, Pakistan
June 20 2004
Controversial collective rights such as the so-called right of
self-determination should not be invoked to destabilise them. It is
not an ordinary principle of international law and was meant to apply
primarily to colonial empires
The contemporary international system is constituted by sovereign
states whose territorial claims are clearly defined, demarcated and
agreed upon in the form of international boundaries. However,
exceptions to the rule exist and the ensuing territorial ambiguity
can result in two or more states laying mutually exclusive claims to
the same territory.
The post-Second World War colonial withdrawals from Asia and Africa
and the collapse of the multinational Soviet and Yugoslavian
political systems have been typical occasions for such disputes to
emerge because the transfer of power, sharing of common resources and
the allocation of territories rarely correspond to the expectations
and ambitions of the contending political entities. The Kashmir
dispute, the Israel-Palestine imbroglio, Cyprus, East Timor, West
Sahara, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Kosovo and Armenia-Azerbaijan are some
cases in point, though each case has its own peculiarities and
dimensions.
Disputes over territories are exacerbated if the contending parties
do not trust each other. In such cases even the prospect of
significant economic ties and interests and help from regional and
international actors cannot resolutely compel them to negotiate a
peaceful and fair solution. This also applies to the India-Pakistan
impasse on Kashmir.
Apart from the legal fictions maintained by both sides, the problems
of identity and self-image complicate matters. India wants to hold on
to Kashmir as an essential feature of its secular-composite national
identity while Pakistan considers its Muslim identity incomplete as
long as Kashmir has not joined it.
Observers have put across several reasonable solutions. But unless
India and Pakistan abandon the combative nationalist mindset no
progress on the issue is likely. War is not an alternative. Three
full-scale and one confined war have been tried in 56 years but to no
avail. Neither side can win a war even when it has the advantage of
surprise. Both are likely to inflict irreparable damage on each
other. Consequently no zero-sum approach or ‘winner takes all’
solution is going to succeed.
The UN resolutions calling for a plebiscite have failed to work.
Since they are under Ch VI of the Charter, they require the
contending parties to agree to UN mediation. India has ruled out any
such possibility.
The third option of an independent Kashmir has no serious takers
among the Indian and Pakistani establishments. One can also wonder if
indeed the overall security concerns of India and Pakistan will
lessen if a weak state emerges in this volatile region bordering
Afghanistan, Iran and central Asia. Indeed, such a state could well
increase the sense of insecurity and set in motion another round of
confrontational politics between the two states. An independent state
will also be opposed tooth and nail by the Hindus and Buddhists on
the Indian side.
Similarly, the idea that Kashmir should be partitioned along
religious lines is a non-starter. The Muslims of Jammu and the Shia
minority of Ladakh would have their own reasons for opposing it. The
former would be left behind in India and become an even smaller
minority. They would thus be precariously placed and would very
likely face the anger of militant Hindus who would hold them
responsible for India losing much of its Kashmir to Pakistan.
Such a situation is already faced by Indian Muslims who stayed behind
in India after Partition. The Shias only have to look at the way
their sect is being targeted by terrorists in Pakistan. Neither the
Pakistani fundamentalists nor the Kashmiri militants present a
tolerant and peaceful image of Islam. It is futile to believe that
the spread of a terrorist political culture in the garb of freedom
struggle will impress the world or deter the Indian state.
There is also the proposal that the Kashmir Valley should be made
independent. The tiny but very vocal Kashmiri pandits who have been
driven away by the militants and now live in camps in Jammu and Delhi
would oppose any such idea. Also, India will never agree to grant
self-determination on the basis of religious differences.
Under the circumstances, the only workable solution is to convert the
Line of Control into a soft border with India and Pakistan retaining
sovereignty on their respective sides. The idea of a soft border
should be understood as a series of measures aiming to provide
substantial autonomy to the various sub-regions on both sides. Such
an approach would require both states to withdraw or at least
drastically reduce the number of troops stationed on both sides of
the Line of Control. Kashmiris on both sides should be permitted to
move freely across the border though without the automatic right to
settle on the other side.
But solving the Kashmir dispute is impossible without India and
Pakistan agreeing to a comprehensive peace and cooperation agreement.
The Kashmir issue is not the cause but a symptom of a deeper mistrust
between India and Pakistan. The two sides have to appreciate the fact
that they are two sovereign states and that is a settled fact of
history.
Under the circumstances, controversial collective rights such as the
so-called right of self-determination should not be invoked to
destabilise them. It is not an ordinary principle of international
law and was meant to apply primarily to colonial empires.
One may rhetorically argue that India is an imperialist Hindu state
or Pakistan heads a worldwide Islamic expansionist movement. But the
fact remains that the United States and other Western states remain
the real determiners of international economic and political
policies.
Therefore instead of wasting time on mutual recrimination and hostile
propaganda India and Pakistan should close ranks and along with the
other players in South Asia try to develop robust economic and social
ties. That is the only way this region can justly claim respect and
admiration from the rest of the world.
To recap the main arguments, the Kashmir dispute is a social
construction deriving from conflicting nationalist ambitions and
ideologies; it can be solved if we transcend the conflicting
nationalist agendas; both states need to confer maximum autonomy on
their Kashmiri citizens, including their right to interact with one
another legally and freely.
It is most important that extremists and militants are weeded out
from the whole of South Asia and especially from Kashmir. Similarly
India should withdraw its security forces and allow democracy to take
its own course as stipulated within Article 307 of the Indian
constitution.
The author is an associate professor of Political Science at
Stockholm University. He is the author of two books. His email
address is [email protected]