Peace in Kashmir

06 Feb, 2001    ·   459

Maj Gen Ashok Krishna, AVSM (Retd) says the extension of the cease-fire is a welcome sign that has to be reciprocated by Pakistan
Maj. Gen. Ashok Krishna (Retd)
If we are to give a fillip to the peace process in Kashmir it is necessary to place more emphasis on the future than the past. In this context there is a need to correctly view a few issues which often get distorted in various writings and on the Internet.

 

 

Plebiscite Plan

 

 

For instance, Dr Ghulam Nabi Fai, Executive Director, Kashmiri American Council, Washington D.C. writes: “In 1948, when a plebiscite plan was discussed India submitted that only 6,000-12,000 would be needed to maintain law and order and secure an electoral atmosphere of non-intimidation”. I am not sure of these figures, but any thinning out of troops by India was contingent on Pakistan withdrawing its troops from Pakistan Occupied Kashmir (POK). This she never did. Thus Pakistan (not India ) thwarted the plebiscite process. While saying that India has 700,000 troops in Kashmir (a figure which is grossly exaggerated), Dr Fai makes no mention of the presence of Pakistan’s 10 Corps in POK comprising three divisions, 6 Infantry Division and thousands of para-military forces.

 

 

Promises made by India

 

 

The same author states: “ India ’s promises to negotiate seriously over Kashmir were quickly broken after Tashkent in 1966, Simla in 1972 and Lahore 1999.” Who broke these promises? Even as the Lahore Declaration was being signed Pakistan had already initiated preparatory moves to seize territory in the Kargil sector. Had the agreements reached at Tashkent in 1966 and Simla in 1972 been honoured, Kashmir would have ceased to be a dispute long ago. But Pakistan violated these agreements by continuing with its policy of military build up, regular cross border infiltration and firing, and strained relations with India which it regards as being economically and militarily beneficial.

 

 

Self Determination 

 

 

Sheikh Abdullah made a concerted effort in 1938 to make his National Conference party secular in character. Jinnah and the Muslim League saw that this boded ill for the fortunes of the League. Abdullah and Jinnah split permanently when Abdullah realised that Jinnah’s strategy would only undermine his support among Kashmiri Hindus and weaken his party.

 

 

Meanwhile, in the pre-partition period, the League began to argue that the state should accede to Pakistan . Abdullah rejected this suggestion as premature: only after the Conference overthrew the Maharaja would it consider the question of accession. The Maharaja, wanted to head a completely independent state, an aspiration that turned out to be short-lived. The rulers of princely states had been given till 15 August, to decide which Dominion they wanted to join; they were also told in no uncertain terms that he could not possibly have an independent state. The Maharaja chose to join neither.  There was no pressure from India on the Maharaja or on Sheikh Abdullah and they were free to determine the state’s future according to the wishes of the people. On the other hand, it was Pakistan which imposed an “economic blockade” on Kashmir in the hope that this would make the state accede to Pakistan . 

 

 

Subsequently, Pakistan went ahead with its plan- Operation Gulmarg- designed to stampede the Maharaja into acceding to Pakistan and to follow up by moving a small force of regulars into the Valley to take control. If self determination is what Pakistan desired then where was the need to invade Kashmir on 22 October 1947 with  20,000 tribals from the North West Frontier Province bolstered by Pakistan ’s soldiers masquerading as tribesmen? It was in the face of this invasion that J&K acceded to India .  Furthermore, it was India , not Pakistan , which took the Kashmir issue to the UN on 01 January1948, even though it was getting the better of the fighting.  Hence, all that Pakistan has done in the past is to try and annex Kashmir .

 

 

The Future

 

 

The need to look to the future cannot be overstressed. In this context the words of Prime Minister Vajpayee are prophetic: “ In our search for a lasting solution to the Kashmir problem, both in its external and internal dimensions, we shall not traverse solely on the beaten track of the past. Rather, we shall be bold and innovative designers of a future architecture of peace and prosperity for the entire South Asian region. In this search the sole light that will guide us is our commitment to peace, justice and vital interests of. the region.”

 

 

The further extension of the cease-fire is a welcome sign that now has to be reciprocated by Pakistan . This is only possible if the leadership of the Pakistan Army thinks that peace with India is good for them, for their country and for the South Asian region as a whole. Long term peace with India will lead to some enfeeblement in the power, role and influence of the Army in Pakistani affairs. General Musharraf and his corps commanders have to give testimony of their sincerity. The actions of the Lashkar-e-Toiba, the Hurkat-ul-Mujahideen and the Jaish-e-Mohammed, that are fully controlled by this leadership, does not indicate any change in the Pakistani psyche as of now.

 

 

 

 

 

POPULAR COMMENTARIES