Kashmir: The Way Ahead - I

15 Aug, 2001    ·   542

Interview with Prof Kanti Bajpai by Suba Chandran

D Suba Chandran
D Suba Chandran
 Director

 

 

Interview with Prof Kanti Bajpai, Jawaharlal Nehru University

 

 

 

 

What has the Pant Mission achieved until now?

 

 

The Pant Mission has initiated the basic framework for a dialogue with the Kashmiris. This should have been initiated much earlier. A lot of time has been lost. But it is still worthwhile to have a person at a high level dealing with political affairs in Kashmir .

 

 

What role should the Pant Mission play in Kashmir ?

 

 

There are a number of groups in Kashmir that need to be engaged. The Pant mission should basically consult a wide range of groups and make recommendations on the relationship between the Union government and Kashmiris. The mission should also attempt to define who should be involved in determining the above-mentioned relationship with the Centre. 

 

 

How should the All Party Hurriyat Conference (APHC) be handled?

 

 

Handling the APHC is very difficult. The APHC is incoherent and greatly divided. It would be better if a clear leadership emerged in the APHC. But the Union Government should not do anything in this regard. That would be self-defeating. At this stage, the Union Government should avoid showing any preference in dealing with the numerous leaders belonging to the APHC. 

 

 

India should engage the APHC and resist any temptation to split or delegitimise it. 

 

 

Should India allow the APHC to travel to Pakistan ?

 

 

Yes, the APHC should be allowed to travel to Pakistan . New Delhi should have done this a long time ago. India is a liberal country and must allow the APHC to travel to Pakistan . The APHC has already said everything that is ‘objectionable’; what else can they say in Pakistan , which they haven’t already said here? 

 

 

The APHC’s going to Pakistan may result in its finding out Pakistan ’s actual position on Kashmir . There is also every possibility of the differences between the APHC and the militants coming out into the open. All this is necessary for the peace process to move forward. India is too strong for the APHC, and if the Indian government is afraid of this group, then the case is already lost. Allowing it to go to Pakistan would increase the prestige of India at the international level, not derogate from it. 

 

 

At the governance level in Jammu and Kashmir , what should be done to improve the situation?

 

 

The governance issue (as distinct from the human rights issue) in Jammu and Kashmir is not worse than any other state in India . Like all other states, Jammu and Kashmir also suffers from corruption, a bad work culture, lack of leadership, etc. Obviously all these should be remedied, as anywhere else in India . The violence in Kashmir makes good governance even more difficult. Curbing the violence is therefore the core issue. 

 

 

What are your views about Regional Autonomy and State Autonomy?

 

 

Grievances in Jammu and Kashmir can be redressed only by giving the people of the state more autonomy. Regional autonomy is one part of the autonomy issue, and this needs to be worked out to the satisfaction of all people in Jammu and Kashmir . The criticism that providing regional autonomy would communalize the State is politically motivated and is not correct. All over India there have been a number of instances in which such measures have been taken (eg. the Autonomous Hill Councils). Why should the issue become communal only in Jammu and Kashmir ? 

 

 

On the question of State autonomy, Center-State relations must revert roughly to the 1950 position. The State may choose to maintain some structures such as the Chief Election Commission and jurisdiction of the national judiciary. Article 370 needs to be honoured in its original form. This would increase the confidence of the Kashmiris in the Center. 

 

 

On the various solutions suggested – plebiscite, trifurcation,conversion of LoC into international border etc…

 

 

Plebiscite as a solution is difficult. Had India used the plebiscite option in 1948, it would have gone in favour of India . There are a number of problems in holding a plebiscite. What are the modalities? What would be a decisive result (e.g. fifty-one percent, sixty percent, or seventy-five percent of the verdict)? Who would vote in the plebiscite – Kashmiris, Jammuites, people in Pakistan Occupied Kashmir? Who would conduct the plebiscite? What questions need to be asked? And, can an effective plebiscite be held? Given these factors, a plebiscite is not the answer. 

 

 

Conversion of the LoC into the international border is not acceptable to all three parties. India has a parliamentary resolution which is against such a decision and the people of India by and large do not approve of such a move. On Pakistan ’s side, conversion means maintenance of the status quo, hence they do not approve of the idea. For the Kashmiris, such a solution means a permanent division of Kashmir , and so they are against it. 

 

 

A suggestion towards a solution is to make the LoC into a soft border with municipal functions increasingly being shared by the two Kashmiri governments. Both Pakistan and India should grant maximum autonomy to the Kashmirs under their control. Kashmiris should be permitted to move freely and trade should be allowed between the two parts of the state. Jammu , Ladakh and Northern Areas could be given Union Territory status by New Delhi and Islamabad . The armed forces of both the governments could then be completely withdrawn, policing functions could be carried out by Kashmiris, and a joint defence council could be established to tackle any untoward situation.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

POPULAR COMMENTARIES