The most commonly discussed topic in different political as well as intellectual forums of the sub-continent these days is the General Musharraf’s proposal for “Demilitarisation and Self-Governance” in Kashmir. However, no one is absolutely clear as to what these words stand for? Firstly, the General himself has been very general and vague in outlining the proposals. He first mentioned seven regions. Then specified two towns and recently three towns for demilitarisation. Neither has he specified what kind of demilitarisation he has in mind? Is it the total recall of armed forces from various areas by both sides? If so, who is going to replace them to keep order in the most volatile area of South Asian Region? This demand for total withdrawal has been already included in the Security Council Resolutions directing holding of a Plebiscite to decide the future of Kashmir. However, this withdrawal has not been possible for more than half a century in spite of tremendous global pressure. How can this be achieved now in a simple and straightforward way? It seems some sort of a wishful thinking or a diplomatic attempt at finding an escape route from this most vexed problem. As per the Security Council Resolution, Indian had to decrease its troops to the bare minimum required for maintaining law and order, and Pakistan had to completely withdraw these. This logjam could never be sorted out and the only direct sufferers all these years have been Kashmiris whose homes got divided into two parts. Now the same story has come up again. It seems the two countries are playing some type of diplomatic games to keep their people guessing. Let us take the practical possibility of implementing the proposal for total demilitarisation on ground. Indian Army and Air Force are so well entrenched all over Kashmir that it would take them ages to dislodge even on a voluntary basis. They have permanent establishments virtually in the form of cantonment “Towns” and “Bases” complete with family housing, schools, hospitals and so on. The cost of building as well as maintenance of these establishments amounts to billions of rupees. Moreover, the logistics involved in maintaining these establishments right from Srinagar to Delhi with support bases all over the country are mind-boggling. The vested interest of the people spread all over the country as well as abroad involved in this huge enterprise will never allow its peaceful dismantling. Similar is the story on the other side. Pakistan Army and Air Force are equally strongly entrenched in their part and a massive enterprise is involved in sustaining them. They too would have a vested interest in keeping the status quo. The two Armies can physically dislodge each other through a conflict, which in the present scenario of the nuclear-armed sub-continent is totally ruled out. Even when it was possible, it could not happen as both are equally strong and it was practically impossible for the one side to over run the other. The next possibility is third party intervention. Some neutral force has to make the two armies withdraw from a specified area of Kashmir. However, no such third force either exists or even if it existed would be willing to get involved where it has to take cudgels with both sides. Kashmiris are neither Jewish, nor Christian nor have any oil or gas like the Arabs! The only chance of total demilitarisation is the realisation on both sides that the cost involved in maintaining this situation of conflict is too heavy to pay, which is ultimately going to force them to look for an escape route. The abnormally slow pace of economic development on both sides especially that of India compared to its neighbour China indicates that the time for such a realisation may have reached. The economists very well know that the bulk of Indian Budget earmarked for Defence if diverted to other sectors could work wonders. The situation of conflict is not only preventing the use of local resources but also discouraging outside investment. However, the decision for total demilitarisation gets into conflict between the politicians and bureaucrats on one hand and the field commanders facing the actual music on the other. This has been amply demonstrated by the Siachin example where the continued presence of troops of both countries for the sake of ice, rocks and snow is a sheer madness!
If the “Demilitarisation” means withdrawing the armed forces to barracks and leaving civilian areas free of all types of soldiers then the process has to be universal and not piecemeal for specific towns. Moreover, the first requirement to make such a step practical and effective would be to withdraw the legislations, which have given absolute draconian powers to these security forces for dealing with civilians. Even if the troops are withdrawn to barracks but continue to enjoy these powers, they can anytime come out to exercise these once again in a harsher way. Secondly, during last decade and a half a number of local Police outfits such as Special Operations Group (the notorious “Task Force”) have been set up by the local Government who enjoy a worst reputation than even the Army or Para Military Forces. They too will have to be disbanded. That leaves the problem of day to day policing and maintaining order in an area where lethal arms and men are freely flowing in and out. Even if we forget about the over all demilitarisation, we would still need a neutral force to keep order on day-to-day basis. Because of the past reputation and experience, people may not have full faith in the local Police also unless it is completely overhauled. Here again the question of a neutral third party comes in. In any situation of conflict the warring parties can only separate when they are both exhausted and tired or when a third party separates them. India has always been very allergic to the mere mention of the word third party even though it took the dispute itself for resolution to a third party in the first instance. It backed out only when it became certain that the third party decision was going against its interests. Pakistan had always been clamouring for a third party intervention on the premise that Kashmir was a “bearer” cheque for them. However, when the cheque became a “crossed” one, their enthusiasm started waning and they started looking for an “honourable” compromise. The present proposal seems to be a pointer in that direction.

Now let us consider “Self-Governance”. Both sides claim to have popularly elected Governments in place. However, the whole world knows about the elections being held on the Indian side. When the majority of the population boycotts an election and only 10% or less people vote that too under Army compulsion, it cannot be termed to be a popular Government. The present mess has resulted from the massive rigging of elections in 1987. On the Pakistan side, the “popular” Government is on the goodwill and mercy of a Federal Cabinet Minister sitting in Islamabad. Genuine “Self-Governance” can only exist when the true and honest representatives of the people hold the reigns of power, which they are allowed to exercise without fear or favour.

One feels it is time for both parties to give up political and diplomatic games. They should remove all Military and Para Military forces from the civilian areas and withdraw their draconian powers. Allow neutral observers from a third country to supervise maintenance of law and order. Ensure under neutral observers election of true and genuine representatives of the people on both sides to hold reigns of power. Interact with these genuine representatives to discuss and work out a mutually agreeable and practical solution of the problem by general consensus. This seems to be the only realistic way out.