news details |
|
|
| Umar Farooq runs faster than Kasuri | | |
BL KAK
Mufti Mohammed Sayeed, patron of Jammu and Kashmir People's Democratic Party (PDP) and former Home Minister of India, may differ with his "friend", Khurshid Mehmood Kasuri, currently Foreign Minister of Pakistan, on some issues, but they seem united one one thing--that is, "much progress has been made on Kashmir by India and Pakistan and that a solution is on the cards". Interestingly, Kashmir's head priest, Maulvi Umar Farooq, who heads the moderate faction of All-Party Hurriyat Conference (APHC), and who has had quite a few meetings with top Pakistani ruling personalities, including Gen. Parvez Musharraf and Khurshid Kasuri, in recent times, wants the people to expect a solution to the Kashmir issue in coming September.
Maulvi Farooq has, thus, left behind all others by stating that he hoped an announcement about a settlement of the Kashmir problem in September. Significantly, the moderate Maulvi's statement in the course of a media interview in Srinagar was not much different from the one made by the Pakistan President during his addres to the Foreign Affairs Committee of the Spanish Congress in Madrid. In fact, Gen. Musharraf announced that the Kashmir dispute may be resolved earlier than expected.
Earlier, Kasuri had sounded even morfe optimistic. However, this optimism needs to be tempered with what Indian Prime Minister, Manmohan Singh, said at a roundtable conference on Kashmir in New Delhi on Tuesday (April 24). He did say that President Musharraf's proposals to resolve the Kashmir dispute were being discussed at several levels internally by the Indian government and "possibly" with Pakistan as well. He, however, went on to add that "some public statements in this regard emanating from Pakistan do not give the correct picture" adding that peace would not come about through any "instant deals". This can only mean that Manmohan Singh sought to play down the optimism expressed recently by the Pakistani Foreign Minister who had quite remarkably said that much progress had been made on Kashmir by both countries and that a solution was on the cards sooner than many would have expected.
In fact, Manmohan Singh denied Pakistan Foreign Minister's claim that India and Pakistan had agreed top sign a deal on J&K within a couple of months. After some politcal leaders from Kashmir had sought New Delhi's response to Kasuri's statements, Manmohan Singh made it clear that he remarks were "incorrect". The question obviously then is, who is telling the truth, or does reality lie somewhere between the Pakistani assessment and that guarded approach of the Indian Prime Minister?
One thing is for sure: Pakistan will be required to be far more flexible than it has been ever, and the good thing is that much of this flexibility seems to be of its own choosing. And Islamabad wants India to show a tangible change from its oft-repeated position that any solution to the dispute must be within the framework of the Indian constitution and keeping in mind Jammu and Kashmir State's special condition vis-à-vis Article 370. Inaugurating the third roundtable conference on Kashmir in New Delhi, Manmohan Singh aired his vision of splitting the State into three: "Naya Jammu, Kashmir and Ladakh". He called it a “simple vision” which, he argued, must become “a model of real empowerment of the people and comprehensive security for them”. But he admitted that this vision could not materialise unless differences with Pakistan were resolved and the “trust deficit casting a shadow on our relations” overcome.
Manmohan Singh had aired his “simple” vision on Kashmir last year too at the Srinagar University. As he spoke in New Delhi, the Hurriyet Conference leaders from Kashmir were conspicuous by their absence: they had boycotted it because, they said, it promised “nothing new”. Knowing he was not saying something that would inspire the world with its originality, Manmohan Singh went into his general good wishes for the region where SAARC held out the only sane view of the future. He promised to reduce the troops in Kashmir “in proportion to the threat posed by the terrorists” and stated that India and Pakistan were discussing a number of proposals on how to solve the Kashmir dispute. But his preferred formulation was that conditions be created for the final solution through normalisation of relations: “Efforts for better relations between the two countries will not be fruitful unless a peaceful environment is created through honouring of commitments made to curb militant activities.” On the other side, for Pakistan “peace first” means resolving the Kashmir issue first.
The four working committees from the last conference were to be ready with their reports but the one dealing with Centre-State relations had not finished its work. In the given atmosphere, the “three part simple vision” of Manmohan Singh simply meant creating three small States out of the State of Jammu and Kashmir: the Valley of Kashmir would be 95 percent Muslim, Jammu would be 66 percent Hindu and Ladakh would be 50 percent Buddhist. So far, the Valley has been the centre of revolt, many of the “freedom-fighters” wanted to be independent by annexing the Indian and Pakistani parts of Kashmir. Some also wanted the Indian part to go to Pakistan. As the fighting went on with India and Pakistan repeatedly coming close to going to war again, Ladakh and Jammu appealed to New Delhi for a merger with the Union. The politics was clearly religious which was only natural after years of ‘jihad".
Then Pakistan thought up the Chenab formula. At first the rumours were that the Vajpayee government might buy it. But then the Indian side rejected it. President Pervez Musharraf reformulated the idea in 2004 in a clever “seven parts” vision. Five parts, he said, were with India and two with Pakistan. This is how he gave five “geographical” parts to India, separating bits that contained Muslims: Ladakh (the Ismaili part), Kargil/Dras (Muslim), Poonch (contiguous to Pakistan ocupied Kashmir), Jammu (Muslim-majority districts) and the Valley.
Once the “seven regions” are agreed, President Musharraf recommends the following course. First, identify the region at stake; second, demilitarise it; third, change its status, to be followed by Indo-Pak joint control, UN mandates, condominiums, etc. The interesting part is that he takes the Ismaili/Shia bits in Ladakh and Northern Areas without regard to the fact that the Gilgit Shias have been fighting against the Pakistan government for the last five years. And Ismailis are the next community in the crosshairs of the jihadis whom President Musharraf cannot control.
What President Musharraf did was to borrow the Chenab formula and embroider on it. This plan, first suggested in the 1960s, would see Kashmir divided along the line of the river Chenab. This would give the vast majority of land to Pakistan and, as such, a clear victory in its longstanding dispute with India. The entire Valley with its Muslim majority population would be brought within Pakistan’s borders, as well as the majority Muslim areas of Jammu. With the inclusion of Ladakh, which also lies north of the Chenab river, India would be left with approximately 3,000 square miles of territory out of 84,000 square miles.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
