South Asia Program

Kashmir: A Peace Initiative

Dr. Ghulam Nabi Fai

Everyone must work to live, but the purpose of life is to serve and to show compassion and the will to help others. Only then have we ourselves become true human beings.

                                                                              - Albert Schweitzer, 1952 Nobel Peace Prize Laureate

The conflict over the disputed territory of Kashmir is soluble only if a pragmatic, realistic and tangible strategy is established to help set a stage to put the Kashmir issue on the road to a just and durable settlement. Since we are concerned at this time with setting a stage for settlement rather than the shape the settlement will take, we believe that it is both untimely and harmful to indulge in, or encourage, controversies about the most desirable solution. Any attempt to do so at this point of time amounts to playing into the hands of those who would prefer to maintain a status quo that is intolerable to the people of Kashmir and also a continuing threat to peace in South Asia. We deprecate raising of quasi-legal or pseudo-legal questions during the preparatory phase about the final settlement. It only serves to fog the issue and to convey the wrong impression that the dispute is too complex to be resolved and that India and Pakistan hold equally inflexible positions. Such a impression does great injury to the cause.

The September 2004 joint statement issued by India and Pakistan in New York at the conclusion of the hour-long meeting between President Pervez Musharraf and Prime Minster Manmohan Singh gives us a fresh hope and new optimism. We note with satisfaction that the two leaders have undertaken to "explore possible options for a peaceful negotiated settlement of the Jammu and Kashmir issue in a sincere spirit and purposeful manner." We hope that the two leaders and their governments fully recognize that there can be no "peaceful negotiated settlement" without the full and active participation of the Kashmiris living on both sides of the Cease-fire Line as well as those belonging to the Kashmiri Diaspora.

Now, the urgent necessities to help put the issue on the road to a settlement are:

- To demilitarize the arena of conflict "the state of Jammu and Kashmir" through a phased withdrawal of the troops (including paramilitary forces) of both India and Pakistan from the area under their respective control.

- To take the sting out of the dispute by detaching moves towards demilitarization of the state from the rights, claims or recognized positions of the three parties involved: the governments of India and Pakistan and the people of Kashmir. In order to do this, it might be necessary to make the demilitarization of the State the first step towards the reduction of Indian and Pakistani forces on their borders outside of Kashmir. It is after the peace process is set afoot that the rights and claims of the parties can be considered in a non-violent atmosphere.

At times, various proposals have been made by different people for a settlement of the long-standing conflict over Kashmir. However, regarding solution, I would rule out one thing and that is doing nothing. Because time is not on the side of Kashmiris. Time will never heal this problem. Time has made things worse in Kashmir.

I believe that any future negotiations between India and Pakistan can be meaningful if all parties concerned take the following steps:

1. There has to be a cease-fire from all sides that must be followed by negotiations. Negotiations cannot be carried out at a time when parties are trying to kill each other. Negotiations should be initiated simultaneously at four different levels including:

a. An intra-Kashmiri dialogue between the leadership of All Parties Hurriyet Conference (APHC), Hindus, Sikhs, Dogras and Buddhists. [This kind of dialogue is not only desirable but also possible because the term "fundamentalism" is strictly inapplicable to the Kashmiri society. One of the proud distinctions of Kashmir has been the sustained tradition of tolerance, amity, good will and friendship between the members of different religious and cultural communities. It has a long tradition of moderation and non-violence. Its culture does not generate extremism. We hope to revive this tradition for the better tomorrow of our younger generation.]

b. Talks between the Government of India and the Kashmiri leadership. Without detracting from the necessity of trilateral negotiations, Kashmiri leadership should be ready for a preparatory dialogue with the Indian Government provided an environment of non-violence is established. This can be done by:

i. the immediate and complete cessation of military and paramilitary actions against civilians;

ii. withdrawal of the military presence from towns and villages;

iii. dismantling of bunkers, watch towers and barricades;

iv. releasing of political prisoners;

v. annulling various special repressive laws;

vi. restoring the rights of peaceful association, assembly and demonstrations;

vii. permitting Kashmiri leadership who favor a negotiated resolution to travel abroad without hindrance;

viii. issuing visas to the Diaspora Kashmiri leadership to visit Jammu and Kashmir to help sustain the peace process;

ix. creating necessary condition and providing facilities for an intra-Kashmiri dialogue embracing both sides of the Cease-fire Line;

c. Talks between the governments of India and Pakistan.

d. Finally tripartite talks between India, Pakistan and the genuine leadership of the people of Kashmir. The history of the past fifty-seven years testifies to the fact that the bilateral talks between India and Pakistan have always been fruitless. In fact any attempt to strike a deal between any two parties without the association of the third party will fail to yield a credible settlement. The agreement between Sheikh Abdullah and Jawaharlal Nehru in 1952; and the pact between Sheikh Abdullah and Indira Gandhi in 1975; and an agreement between Farooq Abdullah and Rajiv Gandhi in the 1980s sought to bypass Pakistan, leaving the basic issue of Kashmir unsettled. Likewise, the Tashkent Agreement of 1966 between India and Pakistan; the Simla Agreement of 1972; and the Lahore Declaration of 1998 sought to bypass the people of Kashmir and it resulted in a failure. So the time has come that talks need to be tripartite. The reason that talks must be tripartite is that the dispute primarily involves three parties: India, Pakistan and the people of Kashmir. But the primary and principal party is the people of Kashmir, because it is ultimately their future, the future of 13 million people of Kashmir that is to be decided.

2. There cannot be and should not be any condition from any party, other than commitment to non-violence and to negotiations.

3. There should be third party facilitation to make sure that the talks between India and Pakistan remain focused. Third party facilitator could be a person of an international standing, like President Nelson Mandela or Bishop Desmond Tutu.

4. Peace and justice in Kashmir are achievable if all parties make some sacrifices. Each party to the dispute will have to modify his position so that common ground can be found. It is almost impossible to find a solution of the Kashmir conflict that respects all the sensitivities of Indian authorities; that values all the sentiments of Pakistan; and that keeps intact the unity of the State of Jammu and Kashmir and safeguards the rights and interests of the people of all the different zones of the State. Yet this does not mean that we cannot find an imaginative solution. But a workable solution will demand some concessions from each of the parties.

5. Finally, win-win solutions are further important because they safeguard against prospective bitterness or humiliation that are the fuel of new conflict. If one party to a solution feels exploited or unfairly treated, then national sentiments to undo the settlement will naturally swell. We must not belittle, embarrass, or humiliate any party. Every participant should be treated with dignity and humanity. Charity, not triumph, should be the hallmark of the negotiating enterprise. Also, we should not sacrifice the good on the altar of the perfect. Compromises are the staple of conflict resolution. To achieve some good is worthwhile even if not all good is achieved.

Dr. Ghulam Nabi Fai
Executive Director
Kashmiri-American Council

• Access Information By
• Topic
  African Union Alliances Arms Control and Disarmament Arms Transfers Biological and Chemical Weapons Border Security Catastrophe Response Civil Military Relations Civilian Police Civilian Protection Codes of Conduct Confidence Building Measures Conflict Prevention Congress Cooperative Threat Reduction Defense Budget Domestic Preparedness Economic Sanctions ECOWAS Emergency Incident Response Energy European Union Export Controls Foreign Policy Global Health Homeland Security Human Rights and Humanitarian Issues Intelligence International Criminal Court International Law International Organizations Military Force Missile Defense Nation Building National Security National Security Budget NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) Non-governmental Organizations Nonproliferation Nuclear Weapons Peacekeeping Public-Private Partnerships Radiological Weapons Refugees and Displaced Persons Responsibility to Protect Rule of Law Satellites South Asia Space Stabilization and Reconstruction Terrorism Theater Missile Defense Threat Assessment Treaties United Nations USSR-US Relations
• Country/Region
  Afghanistan Africa Angola Australia Côte D'Ivoire China, People's Republic of Congo, Democratic Republic of Darfur East Asia Europe FSU (former Soviet Union) Haiti India Iran Iraq Israel Japan Kashmir Region Korea, (North-Democratic People's Republic of) Korea, (South-Republic of) Latin America Lebanon Liberia Middle East and North Africa Northeast Asia Pakistan Persian Gulf Russia Sierra Leone Somalia South Asia Southeast Asia Sudan Taiwan Thailand Timor-Leste United States Vietnam

Join our mailing list