Pakistan claims that 52 of its citizens were killed in 1300 Indian violations of the Line of Control (LoC) in 2017. The latter claims that Pakistan violated the LoC 780 times during the same period. We hear of civilians killed on our side of the border but tend to forget that the retaliatory fire often results in civilian casualties across the border as well. Ironically, most of the people killed and suffering on both sides are the people of Kashmir who are really paying a heavy price for their struggle as compared to the sacrifices that our forefathers made to gain independence. The British colonialists were far more civilized than us.
The Kashmir dispute may a difficult issue to resolve but the impasse should not be at the cost of the people of Kashmir. Millions have sacrificed since 1947 and the whole Kashmir region has suffered immensely. India and Pakistan off and on hold talks but they usually revolve around semantics and have failed to decide the many outstanding issues including Kashmir. Just the inclusion of Kashmir in the agenda of the talks generates so much heat that it takes the charm out of the negotiations. And if and when we agree to talk about Kashmir, India starts to harp on the theme of returning Azad Kashmir to it instead of talking about the Valley and the whole process ends up once again in a quagmire.
One solution to solve this imbroglio is to involve third party in such talks. India opposes such a move probably due to the fear that it would once again internationalize the issue and avoids making the mistake it made in 1948 by referring the dispute to the United Nations on the advice of its Viceroy Mountbatten.
Last year in June, Antonio Guterres, UN Secretary General, had suggested his help to resolve the ongoing conflict by meeting the Pakistani and the Indian Prime Ministers. Predictably, the Indian government in so many words told him to mind his own business since agreements like the Simla one had long been in place establishing the conflict as strictly a bilateral issue while Pakistan welcomed the offer.
It is known to all of us that India claims that Kashmir is its territory based on the Instrument of Accession signed by the Maharajah in order to obtain India’s military help against the tribal invasion instigated by Pakistan. It ignores the fact that the accession was conditional on a reference to a popular vote under impartial auspices. Any reference to violations of human rights in Kashmir is accordingly rejected by India as interference in its internal affairs.
A solution to the issue has to be found if we desire to live in peace in this part of the world. If we cannot agree on the involvement of other states in helping us to resolve the issue, then the least that can be done is for both the countries to implement what was agreed upon at the United Nations Security Council when the Kashmir dispute was first internationalized.
What the Security Council recommended was nothing out of the blue: it was the inescapable principle that the future status of the State of Jammu and Kashmir should be decided by the will of the people of the State as impartially ascertained in conditions free from coercion. The two elements of a peaceful settlement thus were, first, the demilitarization of the State (i.e. the withdrawal of the forces of both India and Pakistan) and a plebiscite supervised by the United Nations.
Pakistan missed the boat at that stage. It should have grabbed the ball at that very point to insist upon ascertaining the wishes of the people. There is now no point sawing the sawdust. However, a way must be found to opt for such a resolution with such modifications as are necessitated by the passage of time. India insists that Kashmir is its integral part and now apprehends that the current developments inside the State make its chances of winning such a plebiscite very slim.
Despite the passage of decades, the principle that the disposition of the territory in dispute must be in accordance with the will of its people can still be implemented as truly as it would have been when the Security Council passed the resolutions.
The first step the two sides can take in this regard is demilitarization. Pakistan should take the initiative in this respect and show its willingness to take the first steps. Incidentally, demilitarization within the Kashmir Valley will immediately result in the improvement of the state of human rights. If and when this is accomplished, the two countries can take the next steps to hold a referendum or call it whatever you wish to determine the wish of the people of Kashmir.
The two sides can avoid the above suggested course of action and continue with the status quo. Seven decades have already passed in agony and we can easily pass another seven decades exchanging fire at the LoC. But is this what we want? Don’t the people of India and Pakistan and the people of Kashmir deserve a better deal? Can’t we travel across the borders not just in Kashmir but throughout across the India and Pakistan border the way the French and Germans do despite being involved in two World Wars resulting in the deaths of millions?
The Last Stop 