The recent declaration by the Pakistan Foreign Office that an Independent Kashmir could be the ideal solution of this intractable problem hanging fire for more than half a century has been welcomed by the leaders of the freedom movement. It is being claimed as the vindication of their stand. At the same time, the Hindutva forces are accusing the Indian Government of succumbing to American pressure just for agreeing to restart the dialogue process! This is especially so after the Shram-el Sheikh joint declaration de-linking terrorism from Indo-Pak composite dialogue. Kashmiris have been dreaming of an Independent and Sovereign country for centuries. It seems both the countries claiming this land as a coveted prize are reconciling to the fact that it basically belongs to Kashmiris who have been suffering for long and need to be left alone. However, there are many questions which need to be pondered over before the Kashmiris can get out of the logjam and breathe the fresh air of freedom. The first and foremost requirement is the establishment of genuine trust between the two countries. The basic problem has not been Kashmir but the trust deficit between these neighbouring countries. Kashmir is only the symptom and not the disease. They have fought many wars and have always been trying to run down each other. Any détente or bonhomie has always proved to be superficial. Mostly for diplomatic consumption and sometimes to keep their own people in the dark. In the end, the underlying enmity bursts out with vehemence. There has to be genuine reconciliation to the partition and acceptance of the countries as these exist now. One has to mentally move away from 1947 and come to the twenty first century which is the age of globalisation and information technology. The borders are everywhere becoming irrelevant. Emotions and sentiments are giving way to hard economic parameters. Amelioration of the lot of teeming millions to bring their lifestyle to the level of a welfare state is the primary consideration. If only both these countries could divert the billions they are spending on defence towards the welfare of their poor people, they could become the leaders of an emancipated and developed South Asia. The thorn of Kashmir in their flesh will continue to bleed them unless they tackle the basic problem of mistrust. Once they overcome this hurdle, the solution to all their problems will automatically follow.

After removing the trust deficit, the next essential premise for a solution to the problem is the sincerity of these countries towards the Kashmiri people who have been facing the brunt of their perennial conflict. So far both the countries have not been sincere as regards the Kashmiri people. They have had their own interests as the motivating factors. No doubt, the territory of Kashmir is of vital strategic importance to both, yet normally they should have been giving preference to the people inhabiting these areas for centuries as it is impossible to hold on to a territory without the consent of the people living in it. The water is the most important commodity and all the major Rivers of Pakistan flow through Kashmir which is under Indian control. Thus India holds the key to Pakistan’s survival. For India Kashmir is a symbol of “secularism” something with which they have been beating the two nation theory, the basis of creation of Pakistan. A Muslim majority area in a Hindu dominated India totally negates the theory of creation of a country on the basis of religion. Strategically, apart from holding the key to flow of waters, India overlooks Pakistan from Kashmir. Pakistanis have been claiming Kashmir to be their jugular vein and an unfinished agenda of partition. Pakistan is supposed to be incomplete without the merger of the Muslim majority Kashmir. Kashmiris also have stronger religious, cultural, and ethnic links with Pakistan than India. There has been a very strong emotional and sentimental attachment. In 1947, Kashmiris used to say that they would love to sacrifice their lives for India but their hearts were with Pakistan! However, the recent events have greatly disillusioned even the strongest supporters of Pakistan in Kashmir. Pakistan too has failed to demonstrate equal love and sincerity to Kashmiris when it was most needed. They would never tolerate the idea of total independence earlier. Any politicians or leaders expressing such views had to eat a humble pie and change their statements repeatedly to safeguard themselves. Had Pakistanis been sincere for the creation of an Independent Kashmir, they would have in 1947 itself declared the so called “Azad” Kashmir as an Independent Sovereign country under their patronage and ensured its membership of the United Nations. India would not have been able to resist the part under their control in joining the free Kashmir. Even now, the Pakistanis can show sincerity in the declaration regarding Independent Kashmir by making preparations for achieving the same with the part under their administrative control. Otherwise their declaration about Independent Kashmir seems to reflect some other compulsions. They have to practically demonstrate that they are now sincerely concerned about the future of Kashmiris and want to solve the issue to the satisfaction of Kashmiris.

On the Indian side too there has been lack of sincerity from the very start of the limited relationship which the erstwhile Maharaja had entered into with India by signing the instrument of accession. They convinced the popular Kashmiri leader Sheikh Abdullah on whom they had been working right from 1939 after the changing of Muslim Conference into National Conference to support Maharaja’s accession on the promise of a totally autonomous Kashmir. However, in less than six years they removed him from the scene to fully integrate Kashmir into the Indian Union. No doubt, Kashmir is at present a de facto part of India but de jure it continues to be a disputed territory accepted as such by even the United Nations which still has a large group of Military Observers here. The forced integration of Kashmir which has been resisted by the people from time to time has completely alienated Kashmiris from India. The last couple of decades which saw the worst ever rebellion against India with the onset of a violent struggle have been particularly hard for the people. Outwardly the things may appear normal but within their hearts Kashmiris harbour intense hatred of India which has been the result of the excesses committed by the security forces. Had Sheikh Abdullah not supported Maharaja’s accession to India, the things may have taken a totally different direction. Had the Indian authorities remained sincere and not deposed Sheikh Abdullah in 1953, the things may have been altogether different. They could have easily turned Kashmir into another Bhutan. They have always tried to manage the conflict in Kashmir rather than solve it by addressing the basic problems which are political in nature. Pouring of billions into Kashmir for development has not changed the Kashmiri mindset. In spite of these facts, the Indian authorities refuse to accept the ground reality. Their attitude is to keep Kashmir as long as they can do so with the might of their force. If Indians too are now sincere in resolving the issue to the satisfaction of Kashmiris, they too would have to practically demonstrate their intentions. The least they can do is to give some relief to the common people from the continuous harassment of the security forces by thinning out these especially in the civilian areas and curtailing their powers.

Assuming that the two neighbouring countries have developed mutual trust and are genuinely sincere towards Kashmiris for solving this most intractable problem supposed to be the oldest one in the world at present, the idea of an Independent Kashmir could be the only honourable solution for the both. There would be no winners and no losers from both the sides. However, the next question would be about the politico-geographical parameters of an Independent Kashmir.

(……to be continued)