news details |
|
|
| One more J&K specialist on the scene | | Kashmir issue not confined to Valley: Navnita | | NEW DELHI | JAN. 27
Navnita Chadha Behara is an Indian academic. She teaches at New Delhi's Jamia Millia Islamic University. She went all her way to Washington to pronounce that the issue of Jammu and Kashmir is not confined to the Valley and any solution will have to taken into account the "aspirations of all the people of the State, not just the majority".
The prestigious Brookings Institution had, on Jan. 25, organised a function to unveil Navnita's new book titled 'Demystifying Kashmir'. Hence, all the more reason for the author (Navnita Chadha Behara) to be there. And having emerged on the scene as yet another specialist on Jammu and Kashmir affairs, Navnita made yet another important point: She saw a new peace process unfolding, although it still had a long way to go.
She noted that, for the first time, Pakistan was no longer looking at a plebiscite as the means of resolving the dispute. She said that Pakistan President, Gen. Pervez Musharraf's statement that religion needed no longer be a factor in determining a settlement was significant. She let it be known that India too has changed its position and now acknowledges Pakistan's locus standi in the dispute. Grudgingly but irreversibly, both governments, she opined, were now listening to people from their side of the divided State of Jammu and Kashmir. She said that the Northern Areas (now under the control of Pakistan) constituted a huge landmass and had close historical links with Laddakh region, including Kargil district, in east of Kashmir.
Navnita, in her study of the areas that came to be occupied by Pakistan in the wake of the 1947-48 war with India, said that people of the Northern Areas had varying demands, from incorporation into Pakistan to union with Pakistan occupied Kashmir (PoK) to autonomy. And her verdict on PoK: Kashmir under Pakistani control has no constitutional rights. In effect, each part of the Jammu and Kashmir State had different aspirations, which should be reconciled, she added. She seemed to favour the soft Line of Control solution, with the two parts gaining a certain amount of autonomy and putting in place certain joint arrangements, including trade, tourism and development projects. She said that it was clear that force had not worked and was not the answer, something both India and Pakistan realise.
A report received in New Delhi from Washington revealed that, at the book releasing function, a panel discussion followed, in which former US diplomat Robert Pickering, Carnegie scholar Ashley Tellis, Brookings scholar and head of its South Asia programme, Stephen Cohen, and Pakistani academic Prof Hassan Askari-Rizvi took part. Pickering's finding: The role of outside powers in bringing about a solution of the Kashmir dispute is going to be minimal. The focus has shifted to bilateral negotiations between India and Pakistan, and a military solution has been ruled out by both.
Pickering was quoted as sayin g that the US role was now "one-on-one", meaning that it offers its advice or persuades the two governments separately because that is more effective. On the US list of international priorities, Kashmir comes in somewhere between No 25 and No 50. He said that the Northern Ireland model could be followed in Kashmir. He said there should also be intra-Kashmiri dialogue and the two governments should talk to their Kashmiris, which he already sees happening. Large-scale internal autonomy was now recognised as a potential solution, he added.
Pickering's advice: Under majority rule, there must be protection of minority rights. He said that full independence to Kashmir "is not possible and there should be no transfer of populations". He said that there should be demilitarisation and with a depoliticised boundary, trade, commerce and travel would flourish. An open-door customs union between the two parts of Jammu and Kashmir State could lead to similar arrangements between India and Pakistan, he added.
Prof Rizvi agreed that there had been a shift of focus in the last couple of years and both India and Pakistan had moved away from their traditional positions on the Kashmir issue. While he recognised Navnita's thesis about the existence in Jammu and Kashmir of "multiple identities", he said that it should not mean that Kashmir was to be kept "perpetually divided". He said what were being viewed as multiple identities were "overlapping identities". Kashmir's diversity, on the other hand, should be built into a solution, he said, adding that India and Pakistan remained the "primary players", but they had to bring realism into play.
He pointed out that as early as the 1950s, Sir Owen Dixon had recommended regional plebiscites in J&K to resolve the problem. He also referred to President Musharraf's identification of the State's seven zones. Prof Rizvi saw a dichotomy between military and political forces in Kashmir. In his view, there remain a large number of people in Pakistan who are "fence sitters" when it comes to Kashmir, but he was confident that if there was movement towards a resolution of the issue, they would come down from their fences and add to the momentum for a lasting settlement. He said that the Pakistani military had its own reasons for seeking peace with India.
Tellis said this was a time for optimism on Kashmir and for the first time since 1947 there had been a fundamental change in attitudes on both sides. However, he said a solution was neither imminent, nor was it going to be easy.
He also agreed that both countries had come to the conclusion that force could not resolve the Kashmir issue. He said the use by Pakistan of low-intensity conflict in Kashmir had to be abandoned, as it was no longer an acceptable option. The promotion or backing of jihadis, he said, could jeopardise Pakistan's own stability. Therefore, a structural change is necessary.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
