|
My Word
Hurriyat and Kashmir Solution
by Rajinder Puri
Next week Prime Minister Manmohan Singh
accompanied by Mrs. Sonia Gandhi is expected to visit Kashmir.
The visit should further the peace initiative of Home Minister
Chidambaram. Recently Chidambaram announced intention to
initiate a quiet dialogue for a Kashmir solution with all shades
of opinion in that state. His suggestion was widely welcomed by
various Kashmir leaders. Only the Hurriyat’s hard-line proponent
Syed Ali Shah Geelani debunked the offer. "The statement of
Chidambaram is meaningless unless India publicly admits the
disputed nature of Kashmir and agrees on the tripartite talks
aimed at giving right of self-determination to the people of
Jammu and Kashmir," he said. He added that all the three parties
- India, Pakistan and Kashmiris - should participate in the
talks. They should aim to finalize implementation of the UN
resolutions guaranteeing the right of self-determination to the
people of Jammu and Kashmir.
Earlier on July 26th Geelani had said that if not UN resolutions
the government should come forward with an "alternate solution"
to the dispute that reflects the aspirations of the Kashmiri
people. “The bottom line for a solution to the Kashmir solution
is the United Nations resolutions but if New Delhi suggests an
alternate solution that goes as per the wishes of the people,
Kashmiris may consider it.” He urged Pakistan to stick to its
stand regarding implementation of the UN resolutions as these
were "the pillars of our case."
Geelani’s views deserve attention.
Not only is he the most candid separatist leader who puts his
cards on the table, he is also the biggest hurdle to achieving
consensus among the separatist leaders.
What Geelani has said makes sense. One is not sure though if he
realizes why what he has said makes sense. His criticism of the Indian government for
periodically parroting the statement that there existed no
Kashmir dispute is unexceptionable. It is rather ridiculous to
claim that there is no Kashmir dispute when half the territory
claimed by the Indian government is occupied by another nation
which also claims the entire territory to be its own.
However it is the government’s stand on the UN resolutions on
the Kashmir plebiscite that is most mystifying. The UN
resolutions are the lynchpin of Geelani’s approach.
For over half a century the Indian
government has adopted a negative and defensive posture on UN
resolutions on the Kashmir plebiscite. Why? Nothing could be
more favorable to India than these UN resolutions.
There have been 14 UN resolutions on
Kashmir. The first was on 17 January, 1948 and the last on 21
December, 1971. Despite the periodic updating the core
provisions of the original resolution remained intact. These
were that all Pakistani troops and personnel must vacate the
entire territory of Jammu and Kashmir; the state must revert to
its original status before hostilities started; Indian troops
may operate in the entire state until a state of normalcy is
restored; after which Indian troops must also withdraw leaving
only a token Indian force sufficient to maintain law and order;
then, and only then, would a free and fair plebiscite be held
under the aegis of the UN Commission appointed for the purpose;
and in that said plebiscite the people of the state might vote
for either joining India or Pakistan. In August 2006 Kofi Annan,
then UN Secretary General, clarified while visiting Pakistan
that UN resolutions on Kashmir were not under Chapter 7 of the
UN charter and therefore not self-enforcing as they were on East
Timor and Iraq. The UN Kashmir resolutions required the
cooperation of both India and Pakistan for implementation.
Thus if in the future UN resolutions were
to be implemented and a plebiscite was to be held according to
its terms the following events would have to take place.
- First, all Pakistani troops would have to vacate
Pakistan Occupied Kashmir.
- Secondly, Indian troops would have to occupy the whole
of Kashmir until terrorism ends.
- Thirdly, China would have to vacate the territory
illegally ceded to it by Pakistan in order for Kashmir to
revert to its original status before hostilities started in
1948.
- Fourthly, if all these conditions get fulfilled the bulk
of Indian troops would withdraw except for a token force to
maintain law and order.
- Fifthly, the plebiscite organized by the UN Commission
would allow Kashmiris to choose joining either India or
Pakistan . The option to choose independence would be denied
to them.
Does anyone in his senses believe that
Pakistan could fulfill even one precondition of the UN
plebiscite without its government being overthrown by its own
people? And yet, India through all these years has stoutly
opposed these UN resolutions! Was this due to deliberate
subversion or monumental stupidity?
However, Geelani has also welcomed any
alternate solution by the government which reflects the
aspirations of Kashmir people. What could that solution be
except what I have been suggesting for decades? Let the
different areas of Kashmir be allowed self determination giving
voters the right to choose India, Pakistan or independence. In
order to avoid a repeat of aggression and war over Kashmir this
would have to be accompanied by the precondition that India,
Pakistan and Kashmir, whatever the status of Kashmir ’s
different parts, must be joined in a common community. Former
President Musharraf had suggested something vaguely similar in
spirit except for the all important provision that India and
Pakistan must be members of a joint community. Minus this
provision Musharraf’s plan became a non-starter. Today Pakistan
grapples terrorism. It faces an identity crisis. It might be
open to a more radical approach.
It is possible that Geelani and other Hurriyat leaders might
also accept this plan. Geelani held a negative and rigid view
when I suggested this plan to him in the company of Abdul Ghani
Bhatt and Abbas Ansari over a decade ago in a Sundernagar guest
house in New Delhi . Perhaps the implications of the UN
resolutions had not dawned on him. Perhaps subsequent events
after that meeting have led him to believe that the bulk of the
people in the Valley would prefer independence to joining
Pakistan. Whatever.
The time for the Hurriyat leaders to come
out of their closets and speak boldly and frankly has arrived.
If they reflect they have little choice except this plan if they
seek self determination. The Hurriyat leaders might recall that
before he died Pandit Nehru with the help of Sheikh Abdullah
attempted to make Kashmir the bridge between India and Pakistan.
Nehru had realized his earlier mistakes. Will the Hurriyat?
October 24, 2009
Top
| My Word
|
