Columns: Kautilya

Columns

India Today, July 12, 1999
July 12, 1999

KAUTILYA
Entering the Valley of Talks

Very soon India will have to start a real dialogue on J&K.

By Jairam Ramesh

India's restraint so far in not crossing the Line of Control (LoC) with Pakistan has been widely appreciated. But once some sort of status quo is restored in Kargil we will undoubtedly come under great pressure on Kashmir itself, an issue that has domestic, regional and international dimensions.

Bilateral efforts have been made in the past to arrive at an amicable settlement. Between June and August 1953, the Indian and Pakistani prime ministers negotiated directly. It was agreed to appoint a plebiscite administrator by April 1954. But in November 1953 the US and Pakistan announced a security pact. This, along with agitations in India by the Praja Parishad, a protege of the Jan Sangh, vitiated the atmosphere and the talks broke down.

Then between December 1962 and May 1963 Sardar Swaran Singh and Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto had six rounds of detailed talks. These have been delightfully analysed by diplomat Yezdi Gundevia in his memoirs Outside the Archives. Just before his death, Sardar saheb himself was to tell Kautilya that his brief was just to keep the Pakistanis engaged in discussion to ward off American and British pressures.

A second track of negotiations involved the UN between 1948 and 1958. In January 1948 a five-member UN Commission for India and Pakistan was set up. India's nominee on this commission was Josef Korbel, a Czech diplomat whose daughter Madeleine Albright is the US secretary of state. Later Korbel was to write Danger in Kashmir, an indictment of the Indian claim.

In March 1949, Admiral Chester Nimitz was appointed the plebiscite administrator. In December 1949, proposals for demilitarisation and a plebiscite were prepared by General MacNaughton, president of the Security Council. In April 1950, Sir Owen Dixon was appointed the UN representative for India and Pakistan. Then in April 1951, Frank Graham was appointed to succeed Dixon. Between April 1951 and February 1953, Graham submitted five detailed reports to the UN and after a long gap made one last effort at mediation between February 1957 and March 1958.

Half a century of negotiations and thinking on Kashmir all over the world have thrown up 10 options.

Plebiscite under UN auspices for the entire state of Jammu and Kashmir as it existed on August 15, 1947.
Integration of Jammu and Ladakh into India and PoK into Pakistan and a plebiscite only in the Valley.
Conversion of the Kashmir Valley into a UN trust territory for 10 years and plebiscite thereafter.
Independence for the state of J&K as it existed on August 15, 1947, with its territorial integrity guaranteed.
Integration of Jammu and Ladakh into India and PoK into Pakistan and independence for the Valley.
Integration of Jammu and Ladakh into India and independence for a united Valley.
Condominium or joint sovereignty of India and Pakistan over J&K as it existed on August 15, 1947, with the maximum possible autonomy for the state.
A confederation of India, Pakistan and J&K as it existed on August 15, 1947.
Partition of the state with the Valley and large parts of Jammu in Pakistan and with Ladakh and the districts of Jammu and Kathua in India.
Recognition of the existing LoC as the international boundary, either sealed or "porous".

Clearly, independence or partition should never be agreed to by India. India's best bet is to negotiate to have the LoC declared the international border. The same applies to the Line of Actual Control. It must become the India-China border, particularly since China occupies part of Jammu and Kashmir. Pakistan won't agree but we can get the international community to put pressure on it. However, this will yield results only if we improve our own image.

We are not given credit for not doing in Kashmir what the Chinese have done in Tibet or what the Israelis have done in the West Bank. On the contrary, India is seen as the "oppressor". The propaganda has been fuelled by the influential overseas Kashmiris. But not all is propaganda. There is alienation in the hearts and minds of the young in the Valley. But our own experience has shown that alienation is not a permanent condition and with creative power-sharing agreements and regional autonomy as recently suggested by the Balraj Puri Committee, in Jammu and Kashmir itself, the divide can be bridged.

What needs to be done following the end of the Kargil crisis is for India and Pakistan to appoint two political personalities each to carry forward the dialogue on Kashmir. On the Indian side, the two must be acceptable to the BJP and the Congress and on the Pakistani side to the military and the political class. This dialogue can take months or years. But in a world where optics is as important as reality, this move will serve as a signal that new beginnings are being willed in south Asia as they have been elsewhere in the world like in the Middle East and Northern Ireland, where people have been long-suffering victims of a Kashmir-like cocktail of religion, geography, history and politics.

The author is secretary of the AICC's Economic Affairs Department.
The views expressed here are his own.

Issue Contents | Write to us | Subscriptions | Syndication