Dousing The Border Fires - (Indolink.Com, 10/06/2002)

-- By Dasu Krishnamoorty

Euphoria has replaced fear. Diplomacy has pushed back the threat of another Kashmir war. This time a nuclear war. All credit to the Anglo-American peripatetic mediation. India has dismounted the high horse. Pakistan has caved in to White House pressures. The general has promised to permanently put an end to cross-border terrorism. But India is cautious and is waiting for concrete evidence of sanity from the other side. If results begin flowing from the concerted efforts of the world community, India will have a breather helping her to address pressing domestic problems. The constant American prodding of the General shows who started the game on the border. That is a gain for India.

Once India is convinced of Musharraf´s commitment, she could begin to ease the military pressure on the border. This is likely to follow Donald Rumsfeld´s visit to Delhi and Islamabad this week. Things may acquire a semblance of normalcy when New Delhi sends back its High Commissioner to Islamabad and reopen the transport arteries. India also seems to attach credence to whatever evidence the U.S. and Britain would offer of Pakistani measures to check cross-border infiltration. She has also rejected the idea of a joint Anglo-American patrolling of the Line of Control.

So peace is preparing to return to the paradise on earth. Really? Or is it, as some wag has said long ago, the interval between two wars? The parent problem remains a thorn in the side of both the countries. India and Pakistan fought three wars earlier. All these and probably the next one are part of a series that began in 1946. Mohammed Ali Jinnah won the war and took Pakistan as trophy. As the Governor-General of the new Islamic republic, he sent his army and Pushtun tribals into Kashmir in 1947 to pressure Maharaja Hari Singh to integrate Kashmir with Pakistan. He held on to a large chunk of its territory now known as Pak - occupied Kashmir.

Many people believe that the author of the problem is Jawaharlal Nehru. Indian soldiers reoccupied a lot of area taken by Pakistani troops and Pushtun raiders. The army asked Nehru for just 48 hours to retrieve the remaining land. In a bizarre gesture, Nehru declared a unilateral cease-fire and referred the problem to the Security Council. This is how India found herself in a mess. Kashmir has been burning ever since.

Pakistani rulers, elected or otherwise, began deriving legitimacy from constant sniping of the border with India. They have a considerable constituency of sympathy in India and of collaboration in Kashmir. India does not have such presence in Pakistan. In short, India has two enemies, one inside and another on its borders. Every time there is a threat of war, you can count on Kashmir being its spark. Gen. Musharraf needs Kashmir as much as his predecessors did. It is Pakistani rulers´ lifeline, not only strategic but also political.

Imagine the permanent Five of the Security Council trying to bring peace between the warring nations. But all of them are in search of a solution for a problem that defies definition. Is the Kashmir problem about Maharaja Hari Singh´s accession to India? Is it about Pakistan occupying a large chunk of Indian territory? Is it about infiltration of terrorists from across the borders? Even if answers are found to these questions, how do you define Kashmir? Is it only the valley? Does it include Jammu and Ladakh? If these questions are answered, what do India and Pakistan expect from each other?

The new element confounding the scenario is the nuclear arsenal at the command of the two combatants. This is what alarmed the western interlopers trying to get a foot into the door of Kashmir impasse. From the beginning, Kashmir has been a disaster, not a problem. It is a foreign policy disaster from the time Jawaharlal Nehru wrote to the United Nations. A purely domestic matter became an international issue. There is no doubt that Nehru regarded foreign affairs as his personal fief and kept wiser counsels at bay. Pakistan thus gained the status of a party to the dispute and outsiders a foothold.

But pledges made to the United Nations do not bind us forever. Nor do succeeding generations have a duty to respect the indiscretions of Nehru. Look at the history of the countries of the globetrotting diplomatic crowd. The UN does not exist for them except as an agency to legitimise their misadventures. With a hoary history of recognition of Pakistan as a party to the dispute, India cannot pretend Kashmir is a domestic affair. But there are countries that are concerned about the fallout of this bilateral standoff on regional peace in South Asia.

Let us assume that the high-flying envoys have the diplomatic finesse to bring the two contestants to the negotiating table. What are the rivals supposed to agree to? Cease-fire? The last half a century has seen such exercises by the dozen. Defining moments have come and gone without bringing peace. If you can discover why peace is eluding Israel or Palestine, that discovery will help solve the Kashmir problem.

In my view, the dispute is between two communities that alternated roles as rulers and the ruled in the last millennium. The Muslims cannot forget that they were once the rulers of the country and feel cheated that the British did not transfer power to them, who were the country´s previous rulers. This is now part of the psyche of Pakistanis and a sizeable number of their cohorts in India. In the partition, Muslim dominated areas went to Pakistan and the rest of the country to India. The 564 princely states became part of the Hindu India, including Hyderabad and Junagarh, two Muslim-ruled states.

Even before Maharaja Hari Singh, ruling a Muslim majority Kashmir, could decide on accession, Pakistan´s Governor General Mohammed Ali Jinnah sent his own troops and tribal raiders into the state. His idea was to annex Kashmir before the Maharaja signed the accession to India. The Maharaja sought India´s help ready to sign the instrument of accession. Lord Mountbatten accepted the accession on the condition that the Maharaja would elicit public opinion on the accession after the return of peace to the valley. But none of the 564 states held a plebiscite before signing accession with India.

Granted that a nuclear collision is averted. What next? What should a proposed solution address? Assume that India agrees to keep in peace whatever area is under its control and no more. Also assume that it will free us from our obligation to hold a plebiscite. Will the problem disappear? Has anyone found what satisfies Pakistan? It maybe that what is acceptable to Pakistani rulers may not find favour with their people.

Terrorism is only a decade old but has its origins in the theory that Muslims alone can rule Muslim majority states. Agreed. From the time of accession in 1947, it is Muslims alone who have headed the administration in Kashmir. In contrast, large Hindu dominated states like Bihar, Maharashtra, Assam and Rajasthan had Muslim chief ministers. The constituent assembly and the several elections held in the state amount to more than a plebiscite. If what the Kashmiri Muslims want is independence and win it, in no time they will lose it to Pakistan.

There are two major reasons why India should put its foot down on secessionist demands: A free Kashmir will mean an extension of Pakistan´s southern border bringing more Indian cities into the orbit of its nuclear strikes. Second, agreeing to the theory of independence to Muslim majority areas would mean an encouragement to the border districts in West Bengal and Assam to repeat the Kashmir game there. Districts of Kerala will not be far behind.

India has every right to demand the return of occupied areas that formed part of Kashmir that acceded to India in 1947. Today, Indians are not ready to accept the kind of sacrifices Nehru made. The problem in Kashmir is the invisibility of a solution