In the second week of December 2004, Pugwash International organized a conference at Kathmandu, Nepal, with a view to find common grounds for a resolution of the Kashmir dispute. It was the first time that Kashmiri representatives from both sides of the LoC including some members of the Hurriyat, as well as other participants from India and Pakistan met together to discuss Kashmir. A notable omission was that there was no representative from Baltistan and the Northern Area. Nevertheless, Pugwash should be congratulated on making such a meeting possible.

The conference was held soon after the Indian Government announced a reduction of troops in J&K and the ceasefire across the LoC had also held for over a year. Yet the difficulties involved in resolving the dispute were well recognized, and even the most optimistic could only hope for a lowering of tensions and reduction in militancy.

It was generally conceded that greater people-to-people contacts will be beneficial. Towards this end, apart from the revival of traditional road/rail links and easing restrictions on cross border and cross LoC travel, it was also mooted that a continuous dialogue amongst the political or other groups in J&K should be facilitated. Undoubtedly, the people of J&K should have a say in their future, and first hand impressions and exchange of views will immensely help in better understanding of the complex issues involved. Again, such interaction could lead to recommendations on how to aid frequent meetings of displaced families, exchange of traditional goods, greater social and cultural contacts and, more importantly, the possible initiation of joint developmental projects. Interestingly, it was emphasized time and again that whenever Kashmir or J&K was mentioned, it implied the entire state of J&K, as it existed on 14 August 1947.

The conference was held in a cordial atmosphere in spite of the fact that the views were often in opposition. No harsh words were exchanged and good decorum was maintained throughout. Not a single uncharitable remark or anti-India statement was made although some papers submitted to the conference by non-participants were strident in language but short on logic and rationality. As is so often the case whenever Indians and Pakistanis meet and converse, the bonhomie was carried to informal interactions as well.

It was the first such conference and in spite of the friendly environment in which it was conducted, it would have been unrealistic to imagine that the different sides would radically move away from stated positions. Thus the Pakistanis were insistent that a large part of the Indian armed forces in J&K should be re-deployed, and that we must take urgent suitable measures to uphold human rights. The Indian side was equally insistent that cross border terrorism and support to terrorism in India must stop, and that the real human rights problem in Kashmir was the killing by terrorists of innocent civilians including women and children. It was also opined that whereas there was an electoral process and adherence to democratic norms in Indian controlled Kashmir, such was not the case in POK and, more particularly, in the Northern Area. All such statements were made without any rhetoric. Without doubt, there will be many who will welcome much greater freedom of political expression in all parts of Kashmir, as well as not only a continued ceasefire across the LoC, but an actual cessation of all types of violence throughout the area. In addition, if all parties also agreed that no inflammatory statements would be made, we could be on the way to controlling the situation in J&K.

In the real world, the problems will not disappear and there will always be a response to inimical acts. Some lateral thinking is called for. The natural aspirations of the people in the area cannot be divided regionally, and it will be both incorrect and difficult to impose a solution on the Kashmiris. Above all, for any positive movement towards some sort of a solution, the vexing issue of who represents the interests of the people of Kashmir has to be addressed. Maybe, a first step could be the release of all political prisoners.

The quest for Confidence Building Measures (CBMs) has its value, but it should be recognized that CBMs may be a temporary safety net but they are not a solution to the problem. Also, CBMs in the military or nuclear fields alone, whilst important, are inadequate. To add to the required feeling of greater security or less insecurity, the CBMs should be more broad based and cover aspects such as trade, development and other areas of national activities.

The Kashmiri dispute has remained an intractable problem for much too long. However, by the same token, a quick and lasting solution is unlikely. It should be our endeavour to contain the problem, and work towards lowering the prevalent mistrust. Such conferences will certainly aid the process.