|
|
|
|
|
|
The way out Will Kashmir ever stop bleeding? If so, how? There is no consensus on the many proposed solutions to the Kashmir quagmire. But here are six of them, which can provide the blueprint for lasting peace in the strife-torn state.
|
|
|
UN Resolution | The Livingston Proposal | The Dixon Plan The LoC Plan | The JKLF Plan | The Autonomy Plan | The Chenab Plan |
|
|
After the invasion of a Pakistani irregular army and India's subsequent military intervention in Kashmir, New Delhi took its woes to the United Nations on January 1, 1948. After hearing both the Indian and Pakistani sides, the Security Council passed a resolution calling for a plebiscite in the whole of what used to be, in 1947, the princely state of Jammu and Kashmir, including Pakistan-occupied Kashmir. Accordingly, the people of J&K could, 'as per their free will', choose between India and Pakistan. The resolution, however, did not provide a third option: that is, independence for J&K. The resolution also instructed the Commission on India and Pakistan, appointed under an earlier resolution, to proceed at once to the Indian subcontinent and work with the Indian and Pakistani governments to facilitate the restoration of peace and order, and to hold a plebiscite. But to date, the plebiscite has not taken place. India considers the UN resolution on Kashmir obsolete. It says the question of a plebiscite just does not rise because the state acceded to the Indian union. And also that the demand for a referendum have lost relevance after the Simla Agreement in 1972, which provides for bilateral negotiations between India and Pakistan on all outstanding issues. Pakistan, for its part, wants plebiscite, which would allow the people of Jammu and Kashmir to choose between India and Pakistan. In December 1998 the Kashmir Study Group, a US based think tank headed by Farooq Kathwari, an American businessman of Kashmiri origin, came up with the proposal in Livingston, New Jersey. It recommends that a portion of the former princely state of Jammu and Kashmir be reconstituted as a sovereign entity, but without an international personality, enjoying access from both India and Pakistan. The proposal calls for an internationally supervised referendum, which would include Kashmiri people on both sides of the Line of Control, to determine the reconstitution. The sovereignty of the new state would be guaranteed by India, Pakistan and also appropriate international bodies. The plans propose a new entity with a secular, democratic constitution, as well as its own citizenship, flag, and a legislature. It leaves defence and foreign affairs and finance jointly to India and Pakistan. It envisages a Kashmir whose borders with India and Pakistan would remain open for the free transit of people, goods, and services in accordance with arrangements to be worked out between India, Pakistan, and the Kashmiri entity. The plan calls for the demilitarisation of the new Kashmiri entity by both India and Pakistan. It also provides for the return of the displaced Kashmiris. The proposal satisfies the aspirations of Kashmiris, but it is unlikely that either India or Pakistan would agree to it. Again, the practicality of sharing such crucial aspects like defence, finance and foreign affairs between two nations is questionable. Sir Owen Dixon, the special representative of the United Nations after arriving in India in May 1950, undertook a comprehensive tour of J&K state on both sides of the Ceasefire Line. He held discussions with local leaders and the prime ministers of India and Pakistan. Sir Dixon, who gave his report to the United Nations Security Council on September 15, 1950, believed there was no immediate prospect of India and Pakistan composing their differences. He was of the opinion that the various regions of J&K did not have much in common except having been under one monarch, Maharaja Hari Singh of Jammu. Dixon concluded that since the majorities in different regions belonged to different religions (Jammu is predominantly Hindu, the Kashmir valley Muslim, and Ladakh Buddhist) a plebiscite embracing everyone would cause refugee problems as the Partition of India did. And so, his remedy was: a "plebiscite by areas" and the allocation of each area to be made according to the result of the vote; plebiscite be held only where the will of the people was not clear (he considered Kashmir valley and certain adjoining areas as "uncertain territory"); and the areas that were clearly pro-India or pro-Pakistan be given to the respective countries. The plan called for the withdrawal of Indian and Pakistani troops from Kashmir on both sides of the Line of Control, and the appointment of United Nations officers headed by a plebiscite administrator to implement it. Dixon envisaged the international border to run broadly north of the Chenab river, separating the predominantly Muslim Doda, Rajouri and Poonch districts from Jammu and joining them to the Kashmir valley. The Hindu-dominated Kathua and Jammu would stay with India. The Pakistan government rejected the proposal arguing this was a breach on India's part of the agreement that the destinies of J&K state as a whole should be decided by a plebiscite taken over the entire state. India rejected it as the partition it envisaged was on communal lines and would be a blow to its secularity. Besides, India did not want the government in the Kashmir valley to be replaced by UN administrators. The UN did not ratify the Dixon plan. It sent another representative, Frank Graham, to India, Pakistan and Kashmir. Graham too did not make any progress. A common proposal in the Indian circles is to convert the Line of Control, which came into being through the Simla Agreement of 1972 signed by Pakistan's Zulfikar Ali Bhutto and India's Indira Gandhi, into a permanent border. That is, Pakistan-occupied Kashmir would become a part of Pakistan while India would retain the parts of Jammu and Kashmir that it controls now. But a consensus on the LoC plan is unlikely. Pakistan is not ready for a status quo, neither are the various separatist groups active in Kashmir. The solution was taken up during the Track 2 talks between Vajpayee's envoy R K Mishra and Nawaz Sharief's man Niaz Nayak, but the two could not arrive at an agreement. The proposal, put forward by the Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Front and to be implemented by an 11-member 'International Kashmir Committee', is that the former princely state of Jammu and Kashmir be reunited in five peaceful phases and made a fully independent country, initially for 15 years. It proposes a democratic, federal and secular system of government, which would have friendly relations with both India and Pakistan. The plans also wants its 'neighbours' not to violate its frontiers or interfere in its internal affairs. In return, Kashmir would undertake not to let its soil be used against any country. After 15 years, the plan calls for a referendum wherein the people could choose among India, Pakistan and independence. The popular verdict of that referendum, to be held along the lines of French system of elections, would be the final settlement of the Kashmir issue. Till the referendum, the state would be under the control of UN officials, who are nationals of neutral countries like Switzerland, Austria, Sweden, Norway etc. The 11-member IKC would comprise the UN secretary general, and one representative each of the UN secretary general, P-5 countries, Germany, Japan, the Islamic Conference two of the Non-Aligned Movement. The IKC would be helped by the UN Military Observers Group, already functioning in the state, which would be duly strengthened to cater to the implementation of the formula. The five phases of the implementation are: 1) Formation of IKC and acceptance of the formula by India, Pakistan, Kashmiris 2) Demilitarisation of Kashmir 3) Disarming of anti- and pro-India armed civilians in Kashmir 4) re-unification of the divided state and formation of an independent government, and 5) 15 years later, a UN-supervised referendum. The JKLF argues it would not hurt the national egos of India and Pakistan as neither would have to hand over the Kashmir territories now under their control to the other. It also does not disturb Indian secularism as it does not favour giving the part of Muslim-majority state now under India to Pakistan. But India and Pakistan are unanimous in rejecting the idea of an independent Kashmir. So are some of their neighbours like China, Russia and Iran, who believe an independent Kashmir would be a staging ground for the United States to keep them in check. The plan finds favour with a major chunk of Kashmiris. The western powers, including the US, too are sympathetic to it. This comes from the National Conference, the ruling party in J&K. It envisages the 'pre-1953 status to the state' -- that is, to be administered under Article 370 of the Indian Constitution, which gives the Indian government a say only in finance, defence and foreign affairs. As per the Instrument of Accession Maharaja Hari Singh signed with India, New Delhi had control of only these three subjects. This, the J&K Constituent Assembly ratified in November 1952. India had conferred the special status on Jammu and Kashmir through Article 370, under which the power of Indian Parliament to make laws for the state was restricted to defence, foreign affairs and communications. The state could extend any law operating in the rest of India if it wanted, but the assembly had to pass that law. So J&K enjoyed autonomy, self-governance, in all the central and concurrent subjects listed in the constitution except the three. In 1952, however, in one of the many political circuses J&K has seen, the central government replaced then prime minister Sheikh Mohammed Abdullah a puppet regime headed by Bakshi Ghulam Mohammed. Bakshi helped the centre get the Constitution (Application to J&K) Order, 1954 applied in the state. The Order extended New Delhi's rule beyond the three subjects. Many provisions of the Indian laws were extended to the state. >From 1953 to 1989, New Delhi amended the Indian Constitution 43 times, in the process destroying the autonomy promised India promised J&K under Article 370. The autonomy report presented by the J&K Autonomy Council proposes an internal autonomy law, which would give administrative freedom to Jammu and Ladakh from the Valley after readjusting some districts where the Muslims would like to be a part of the Muslim-dominated valley. Chief Minister Dr Farooq Abdullah put forward the suggestion before the Indian Parliament. But the Centre rejected his proposal outright. This pushes an arrangement where the six Muslim-dominated districts of the Kashmir valley -- Srinagar, Budgam, Baramulla, Kupwara, Anantnag and Pulwama - would be granted suzerainty, a near-sovereign status. This would leave the new entity with power over all areas of governance other than foreign policy. India will have to forgo all its claims to Pakistan-held Kashmir, and the Northern Areas of Gilgit and Baltistan. In turn, Pakistan would be called on to accept Indian sovereignty over the Jammu region, where Hindus are the majority. The Jammu region is made up of the six districts of Jammu, Doda, Kathua, Udhampur, Rajouri and Poonch. Variants of the Chenab Plan also call for a further division of Poonch, Doda, and Rajouri, all Muslim-majority areas. Pakistan would also forgo any claim over Ladakh, leaving a decision on the future of the region to be made between India and China at their mutual convenience. This formula claims to give both India and Pakistan the required face-saving space to avoid a possible public outcry and necessity of a change in their Constitutions. The Valley will be partially autonomous and there will be major changes on the border line to adjust tehsils and towns surrounding the valley between India and Pakistan. Pakistan may consider (the) Doaba, a narrow strip of land between Chenab and Ravi in the suburbs of Shakargarh, stretching up to Chhamb, Dhodha and Rajauri districts as (the) international border. Schemes for a partitioning of Jammu and Kashmir have been in the air for some years now. The track two negotiators Niaz Naik and R K Mishra had discussed it and reportedly exchanged papers on the Chenab Plan. Pakistan is interested in the Chenab Plan, and had reportedly asked for its implementation in exchange for its withdrawal from Kargil in 1999.
-Basharat Peer
|
|