Kashmir Affairs - Security & Conflict Analysis of Kashmir

Kashmir: From zone of conflict to zone of reconciliation

Amit Srivastava
24 September 2008

The fearsome possibility of the oil-peak and the rising nationalism and fundamentalism implicitly and partly supported by the communist regimes requires the urgent dispute control and management by the West, particularly by the US. The US also needs to turn some of the zones of conflicts into the zones of reconciliation not only to get political support for developing and deploying NMD but also to make world multi-polar shared regionalism. These conversions will not only affect the genetic pool and therefore technological innovations but also help reduce the population of the world resulting in the longevity of human race. The ongoing conflicts in the face of growing consumerism can make nationals more individualistic and make them imitate their Western counterparts. This slight homogenization in the form of the so called universal principles in the non-Western world can only harden their positions on any dispute. The subcontinent being former colony of the UK can expect this effect dramatically. This technology dominated age is not going to make people more rational rather it will make them more emotive on such issues. The more and more people will be born with nationalistic bias, this is true both for elites and for commoners. Even if elites, particularly those in India, show some heretic behavior, the common person on the street would make the life difficult for the political elites. The rise of fundamentalism in Islamic world is going to complicate things further in Kashmir. In the present circumstances, the Kashmiri Moslem living in Indian administered Kashmir would favor independent Kashmir while the non-Moslems would favor staying with India. An independent Kashmir is not a stable entity as one has to look at the manner in which it is hypothetically created. India is very unlikely to agree for referendum in Kashmir. Only the US has the might to intervene militarily in the region and force referendum. It is almost unlikely to happen but even if it takes place, the newly independent Kashmir would soon try to merge with Pakistan, a step which will be vehemently opposed by India making the region unstable once again. Even if the Kashmir tries to remain independent the Pakistani establishment would like to see it as part of Pakistan. The depression following oil crash and the related identity crisis would make the Kashmir merger with Pakistan almost certain. It is this possibility that stops the US led Western world to favor referendum in Kashmir. Pakistan itself is unstable and burning and any addition of territory is going to make region more unstable. Moreover, secession of Kashmir is going to induce centrifugal reactions in India and would weaken the Indian Union. A multicultural, multiracial but Hindu majority India balances monolithic Islamic world in the West and authoritarian China in the east to some extent. The unique pluralistic and somewhat amorphous religion can be taken as the source of stability. India as a country is also the best hope for the Western investment and democracy in Asia and the West is very unlikely to destabilize it. Part of Kashmir remaining with a pluralistic India does not offend the West at least in the short and middle term. But first of all it is not a permanent solution and it divides the people of Kashmir and is most certainly injustice to them.

Before we discuss the possible solution let us discuss the region and the possible military, political and economic scenarios. The nations of India and Pakistan are the direct products of the British rule in the subcontinent though their origin can be traced back to Aryan rule and arrival of Islam in the region respectively. While for Pakistan their Indo-European origin in the form of Hindu past has become meaningless, India has a bitter memory of Islamic rule. If British had not arrived in the region India and Pakistan would not have the same geography as they are now. Their common rule by British made the dominant nationals of both the countries somewhat coupled. English is as mandatory as is Hindi and Urdu to provide glue to the so diverse people. It is this language and the culture and institutions associated with it that can unite the people of this region. The subcontinent was the biggest investment done by British in non-Western world and the West, particularly the US, would not like to see this region fail, neither by allowing secessionism in India nor by disfavoring Pakistan over Kashmir and fuelling fundamentalism there. Therefore, the West would favor a negotiated settlement preferably sharing Kashmir. The nuclear situation in the region complicates the resolution of the dispute further. The almost nuclear-parity is not a bad thing as far as Kashmir is concerned. A powerful and probably nuclear capable Pakistan is necessary for the resolution of dispute discussed later, as India was to be nuclear because of China factor. The nuclear-parity forbids the escalation of the tension in the region and checks the spread of conflict as was evident in the Kargil war. Moreover, the ability to annihilate each others’ regions may promote the wish to live longer as on earth the peace can not be brought upon without fighting wars. If India and Pakistan together have not fought enough wars till to date, then one or two future Kargil like wars would be good enough reason not to fight again and look for a peaceful and just solution acceptable to all the three parties. The result of such limited conflicts can not alter the boundaries of the region anyway as sanctity of Line-of-Control can not be violated. The use of nuclear weapons between India and Pakistan is highly unlikely and will not yield the desirable result. Other than the environmental concerns, the US would not allow a nuclear war to take place for the one simple reason, that both the economies of India and Pakistan are coupled with the West. On that ground Mumbai and Karachi are imaginary targets. Moreover, if India and Pakistan think about surviving after nuclear attacks, not only they will have to think about reducing the number of targets, they will also have to think about the quality of targets. In the worst realistic scenario four relatively smaller Indian cities and six Pakistani cities of comparable importance can be considered as military targets. If diplomatic and other efforts fail to stop the further escalation, then the US can take punitive measures to end the nuclear war, even if it means giving threat of second retaliatory strikes to the worst offender, either alone or jointly with Russia. In any case, destruction caused by even a mild nuclear attack can only harden their attitude and would not result in any significant gain for any country. Any attack and its retaliation which results in huge devastation will make both the countries heavily dependent technologically and economically on the West and they will have to ultimately roll back their strategic programs. Nuclear weapons in the South Asia have longevity as long as they are not used. The region after the attack may loose even independence. As boundaries can not be altered by any conventional mean either there is no military solution to the problem. The politics in the region also does not permit a solution favoring a single party. The only way such a diverse people can come to agreement over Kashmir is through symbiotic politics. There is not much difference among people of the region except those arriving from size and heterogeneity. On economic front India matters more but it can not be the sole reason for prolonging the resolution of the dispute indefinitely. In order to get a favor from the West Pakistan need to put its house in the order, but the moment it is able to achieve peace within it will achieve peace with India. The ongoing globalization can help the peaceful resolution as any coupling with the West will indirectly couple the economies of India and Pakistan. Any simultaneous increase in activity in bourses of both the nations is a positive sign for the region as a whole.

Both India and Pakistan have good reasons to sort out differences as early as possible because continued animosity not only threatens their existence but it has serious consequences for them internally too. India, if it drags the issue for long enough to see the end of oil, can expect relative decline in the power of the Moslem countries and therefore erosion of support to some extent for Pakistan. But the new fuel economy would likely to be dominated by the West and India, even if it becomes its ally, can not be expected to be completely dependent on it. If new fuel is scarcer and costlier, then India would struggle to maintain its demography and geography intact. The most likely opposition it may face is likely to come from its vast Moslem population. Emerging technologies can also affect the group behavior. As newer technologies are discovered, it can lead to various kinds of demands from different groups. The idea of India as a common market unite them but the technologies can make Indian more regional and it will definitely make Kashmiri demanding autonomy to the extent that it becomes useless to keep them under Indian control. Pakistan too has impending reason to settle the dispute peacefully with India. If Pakistan continues to prolong the settlement, it will face more serious internal problems than India. It can make Pakistan unstable and Pakistan may not have the necessary economic clout to maintain peace and stability in all its territory. Any rise in the fundamentalism will also make it more distant from the West. More the parts of Pakistan demand autonomy, more the demand for the same will come from Freed Kashmir and Northern Areas. Moreover, longer the conflict continues greater will be demand for the independence from both parts of Kashmir. The independent Kashmir is not a viable idea as both the countries will reject it. The acceptance of such demand by the West can only destabilize both India and Pakistan and such an independent Kashmir can exist as long as Western military presence is maintained. More importantly, the demand for independent Kashmir can not be considered as genuine because Kashmiri people do not represent any new nationality which is completely alien to both India and Pakistan simultaneously. At the best, Kashmir represents a submerged nationality and it is the demographic differences in certain statistical sense which favor Pakistan. But the fact is that all Kashmiri people have some commonality despite having religious and linguistic differences and they had been living together peacefully before the partition of state. They can be made to live peacefully together again in future, if India and Pakistan agree. India and Pakistan need to share sovereignty and resources with the SAT, both natural and human but with SAT becoming a point of unity between the two nations. This will unite Kashmiri people without affecting the sovereignty of either India or Pakistan. There are global reasons too for the shared sovereignty in Kashmir as dissent should not always be transformed into the creation of a new state. Diverse people should be encouraged to live together and should not always demand for secession, more so if the unity results in greater freedom and more prosperity of the territory, region and the world.

The proposed solution is unique in the sense that it also fulfills the aspirations of people of Kashmir from both sides. The solution calls for two stage referendum for all Kashmiri people to decide their political future san independence from India and Pakistan. It will grant genuine autonomy to the people of Kashmir as negotiated by the governments of India and Pakistan and by the Kashmiri people. The Kashmiri people will not have defense and foreign matters under their control and neither will they have the freedom to print their currency, but they will have all other freedoms available in a political democracy. The solution also calls for a post-referendum in India and Pakistan to decide about the future of an integrated South Asia as well. The symbiotic relationship between two hostile neighbors can have implications felt far beyond the region and can lead to a solution of the intricate dispute between Israel and Palestine. It is assumed that both India and Pakistan will agree for verified decommissioning in their territories done by the US or by the EU troops.

The actual solution consists of total of three referendums, two of them to be held in both sides of Kashmir and one of them to be held in the rest of India and Pakistan. The most important among them is the pre-referendum which will ask people of Kashmir to vote for a peaceful, democratic and secular Special Administered Territory of Jammu and Kashmir to be jointly administered by governments of India and Pakistan and also by future democratically elected government of SAT. By voting in favor of pre-referendum people of Kashmir would give up the right to seek independence from either India or Pakistan. This will unite all people of Kashmir. The precondition of the pre-referendum will be the return of Pundits to the valley and other people who migrated during 1947-48 and reduction in the number of troops in Kashmir on both sides. The pre-referendum will be preceded by homogenization of Kashmir politically and institutionally. This homogenization may take several years. As a rule only limited number of political parties should be allowed to contest elections from both sides of Kashmir. There should be merger among various parties across Kashmir and there should be no place for any national parties either in India or Pakistan to contest assembly elections in SAT. The national parties are deliberately kept out of contesting local elections in SAT so as to keep the local politics somewhat independent of the national politics of India and Pakistan. The national parties can contest the parliamentary elections, with the members belonging to the respective national parliaments. The members of the parliaments can meet separately and jointly with the members of legislative assembly regularly. There should also be provision of joint annual meeting of elected head of states, MPs from both sides of Kashmir, key ministers and bureaucrats of both the countries and the legislators of SAT. Once the pre-referendum is approved by the people of Kashmir, the actual referendum can take place.

The actual referendum calls for people of Kashmir to decide the constitution of SAT though it can be ignored and once the pre-referendum is approved both countries can decide about the constitution. The referendum will seek to vote for principles of political dualism and proportionate representation. The principle of political dualism states that the politics of the SAT should be such that it simultaneously meets the interests of the majority and the minority. It is binding on all three parties. The simultaneity in meeting the interests of both majority and minority has deep theoretical as well as practical reasons. Theoretical, because with the help of the US a union of various identities, many of them separated in time and space, has to be amalgamated in to one single but dependent unit. Practical, because India would not agree unless Hindus’ and other minorities’ interests are met. The principle of proportionate representation states that all interests and stakes should be linked to proportionate population. Whenever majority and minority are in conflict, the governing parties should resort to Western concepts. It also involves collective individualism in the sense that both India and Pakistan will consider each Kashmiri as an individual bound by a collective identity and they should regulate in a manner so as to benefit the maximum number of individuals for most of the time. Both the principle of political dualism and proportionate representation assumes a relative stable population of different communities in the proposed SAT as should be the case for all disputed territories. Once the principle of political dualism and proportionate representation is accepted by the Kashmiri people, efforts should be made to somewhat homogenize the SAT by making people more mobile in both side of Kashmir. Some of the Indian and Pakistani nationals should be allowed to do business and even stay permanently in SAT. The SAT will be a special territory and therefore it should be appropriately regulated to make the best possible use of resources available. The regulation can vary from extreme to mild to none. The guiding law should be the betterment of the people of Kashmir. The biggest freedom in the whole process is the ease with which the constitution of the SAT can be written. The idea should be to create an administrative beauty which can include all ethnicity. It is like transforming dissatisfied individuals into participants of the state who compete with each other for gains in economic and political sphere. The constitution should be written in such a manner so as to create aspirations to excel in life among the majority of population of all ethnicity. For this reason, the constitution should be quantitative in nature and should include prosperous Kashmir as its future goal. All efforts should be made to improve the economic lot of a common Kashmiri. Since the constitution is wish driven, assisted by the US, it should allow the SAT assembly to be as potent as is required while at the same time it can make SAT completely impotent when it is agreed that the assembly is either incompetent or its opinions are not required.

India and Pakistan should transfer significant portion of their state-owned properties to SAT. They should also swap some of their properties and should try to create buffer economic zones in each other’s Kashmir. The SAT should have an independent treasury but it can not publish currency. Indian and Pakistani central banks should transfer some of their wealth into SAT treasury. The initial amount deposited in the SAT treasury should be mutually agreed by all the three parties. The Indian and Pakistani should see that no currency is flushed out of market and should try to maintain the exchange rate at a level which suits both the country. They can even maintain a separate exchange rate for the region. The guiding principle for the economic management should again be based on dualism. The economic interests of SAT should be positively coupled simultaneously with the economic interests of both India and Pakistan. There should be no taxation on the people of Kashmir by the governments of India and Pakistan though SAT should be economically rational in the sense that it should return to governments of India and Pakistan in proportion to their resources whenever it is in surplus. Whenever the SAT is in deficit the governments of India and Pakistan should fill the gap, contributing again in proportion to the population of Indian Kashmiri and Pakistani Kashmiri. Instead of charging tax both the governments should try to manage their assets efficiently and in the process should try to become investors. They should invest heavily in hospitality and farming businesses. Both should not only try to enhance and improve the traditional skills of Kashmiri people but also redirect their skills into new age technology economy. Joint Indo-Pak stock and commodity exchanges should be created so as to allow people of one country to buy and sell stocks and commodities of other country. SAT should promote FDI in all sectors.

Once the SAT is formalized and its constitution is implemented, the people of the rest of India and Pakistan should be asked to vote on post-referendum seeking the approval of the cooperative mechanism between their respective governments. Its approval will not only pave the way for the common people of both the countries to invest in SAT but it will also open way for the creation of confederation of South Asian States and its ultimate economic integration. If drafted carefully, the post-referendum can also seek public’s opinion regarding relationship with other countries based on the same principles and also regarding international treaties. Even before post-referendum is sought the central banks of both countries can issue development bonds to their public.

Once the whole agreement is put into practice the steps should be taken to drastically reduce the number of troops, India and Pakistan should also sign the no-war pact and denuclearize the border between them. They should also reduce the number of live warheads. There should be no place for treaty withdrawal but treaty violations can take place. Jingoistic feelings and religious hatred may very well resurface as no constitution can force people to think in a particular way though it can force them to live in a particular way. There should be economic punishments and international isolation, if treaty is violated by either side. If the SAT authorities try to violate the agreement then they should be dealt with severely. Under no circumstances, the hatred should be allowed to resurface. In order to see that the Line-of- Control is not violated by any side, the quartet of the US, the EU, Russia and the UN can buy the one kilometer stretch along the Line-of-Control with no right or jurisdiction over the area. The cost of the land would be determined by politics. Any violations of the area by any side should be considered as the violations of the treaty by that side and quartet has the duty to punish the offender, once the other side complains about it. This measure is not binding and India and Pakistan are free to ignore it. As a precautionary measure, the US and other major military powers should make air force of India and Pakistan more competitive while asking for reduction in respective armies’ capabilities along the border.

It should be mentioned that the solution does not ignore the ground realities of the region. All this may sound impossible considering the present state of Indo-Pak relationship. While humans are definitely the products of history, they sometimes can make a completely new history through innovations and interventions. The proposed solution is one such attempt considering that there is no military solution to the dispute. It is very difficult to arrive at the solution and it may take even a decade to implement it, but once agreed it will be the beginning of a new history in the world of politics.