Kashmir Saga


( Who will knock the conscious of pundits?)

The Jammu and Kashmir dispute is the core issue between Pakistan and India that has been bedeviling relations since August 1947. It’s another known fact that both countries  have variant perceptions about dispute. Pakistan regards it as  an unfinished agenda of partition and issue of granting self-determination to Kashmiris and India, on the other hand links it as territorial issue; both countries are holding their territories according to UN- recognized ceasefire agreement.  The state of  Jammu and Kashmir is landlocked region with a total area of 2,22,236 sq.km. Of this, 78,114 sq.km falls under Pakistan administered Kashmir and 37,555 sq.km under China. In addition to this, 5,180 sq.km of J&K territory were ceded to China by Pakistan under March 1963 Sino-Pak boundary agreement. The state shares a 221 km international boundary with Pakistan in the Jammu region and 365 km with China along Ladakh. The line of control, which divides Indian and Pakistan administered part of J&K, is 1001-km long border ( Jammu-205km, valley-460km and Ladakh/Siachen- 336km).

The modern state of J&K evolved from the Dogra heartland in Jammu, as the home of many different ethnic groups and a diverse set of cultures. In 1834, Ladakh was conquered and incorporated into state and Baltistan was annexed by Dogra in 1840 after conquering. The valley of Kashmir joined in 1846, when the British sold it to Gulab Singh for 7.5million rupees. In 1935, Gilgit was leased to the British for 60 years and they terminated the lease in 1947. After ceasefire agreement of January 1, 1949, Pakistan and India went to war in 1965 once again resulting into further zoning of territory. Ladakh, Jammu and Kashmir valley were encircled by India, Azad Kashmir and Northern area by Pakistan and Aksai Chin by China.

In the wake of 1971 war, Simla concordat was signed between Pakistan and India on July 2,1972, but still Indians accuse that under this agreement Pakistan accepted LOC  as an international border and dispute to be settled bilaterally. In 1987, following a controversial state election in Kashmir, Kashmiris rose up against Indian government and a people’s revolt began. During the 90’s, almost 100,000 people lost their lives and a vast majority of them were civilians. Currently 750 million Indians security personnel have been deployed that means one Indian solider for every 3 Kashmiris. Again Kargil conflict brought issue to limelight. Recently, Buran Wani’ s killing with many mores has initiated fierce tug of war at state level.

At the core of Indian  position on Kashmir is New Dehli’s claim that the decision of Maharaja Hari Singh to accede to the Indian union, regardless of its circumstances, is final and legal and it can’s be disputed. If there is any unfinished business of partition, it is the requirement that Pakistan relinquish control of that part of Jammu and Kashmir that it illegally occupies. India further mentions that the UN resolutions calling for the will of people to be accomplished are no longer tangible because Pakistan hasn’t imbued preconditions of withdrawal from the territory it occupied through aggression. To Indians, will of people does not need to be ascertained only through plebiscite as problem of Kashmir is one of terroristic act sponsored by Pakistan. Above descriptions are claimed by Indians and Pakistan used to mention J&K as a disputed terrain; the state’s accession to India in October 1947 was provisional and executed under pressure of Indian military presence. The disputed status of J&K is acknowledged in the security council resolution of August 13,1948 and January 5, 1949, to which both India and Pakistan  agreed. These resolutions remain fully in force today, and can’t be unilaterally disregarded by either party then where are the claims of Indians standing here?

Keeping to aside historical background of disputed terrain, Pakistani establishment concerned with civilian patched official invitation to the Indians once again in order to abolish barbarism being carried out by Indian forces in Kashmir valley. Could it be pondered that Indian diplomats would come to table over Kashmir issue, visualizing Mohdi’s sentiments on Indian independence day? If India is not willing even to join any organization, where regional and bilateral disputes are settled then how will Kashmir valley maintain its peace? Like SAARC and SCO, terms and conditions of both organizations are well known to everyone.

If India claims Kashmir as her territory moving with will of Hari Singh then all those sanctuaries were to be part of Pakistan, whose dynasts were muslims and craved to be affiliated with Pakistan and if Hyderabad Deccan and other muslim rulers’ states were linked with India owing to majority of non-muslims and territory encircled by Indian part then majority of Kashmiris were muslims and territory was annexed with Pakistan. In short, Indians never stood to single claim and brutalized through strong military presence in muslim states. Similarly, Mohdi’s nomination as PM has further aired agony and anarchy in Kashmir as he-man is trying to nip uproar of Kashmir through force and that’s his motto.

Self-determination and human rights violation are the slogans, which are replied by UN, but in context of Kashmir valley, UN is yet not being scouted trying for the best of Kashmiris. Perhaps, uncounted number of soldiers like Burhan Wani have passed urging the world, it means that India being emerging economy and crucial in regional politics has strong hearing at international arena. Such renaissance is needed like Sartaj Aziz and Lydan meeting oozed as latter being secretary general of OIC urged world to roost Kashmir dispute through plebiscite. For which, India is not ready as Kashmiris will not vote for pundits, but for their best concerns.

Amidst 49 different kind of solutions for Kashmir issue; Owen Dixon plan, Chenab formula, Musharraf four points formula and Nawaz Sharif four points formula even couldn’t settle dispute. In spite of these, there is no dearth of ideas on how to resolve the Kashmir dispute. Based either on analogical reasoning or historical experience of conflict resolution attempts involving other situations, most of these proposals emphasize the need for transforming dynamics of India-Pakistan conflict from a zero-sum competition over Kashmir to a positive sum situation in which both sides would gain from a settlement of dispute. Needless to say that none of these ideas can be pursued in earnest without a sustained and institutionalized India-Pakistan dialogue process centered on Kashmir, nothing will bring peace unless dialogue process will be vindicated by Kashmiris.