The Hindu Business Line : Kashmir Conference in Kathmandu — Showing the way to peace in the Valley

The Kathmandu conference provided ideas on how to move forward in the quest for restoring normalcy and promoting contacts and harmony across the State of Jammu and Kashmir. This process has to be complemented by strengthened security arrangements and efforts to persuade recalcitrant separatist elements that the road to peace lies through dialogue with New Delhi, says G. Parthasarathy.

KATHMANDU was a strange location for people to meet and discuss how to end violence and restore peace and security in Jammu and Kashmir. The Nepalese capital was under a virtual siege, surrounded by armed Maoists who can paralyse life in the capital whenever they choose. But, despite the Maoist violence, Kathmandu was seen as a convenient location for persons from both sides of the Line of Control in Jammu and Kashmir to meet, along with Indian and Pakistani security analysts, former diplomats and academics. The fact that such a conference, facilitated by the Geneva based Pugwash Conferences took place, was an achievement in itself.

Few could have imagined that it would be possible to arrange a get-together of people like Mirwaiz Umar Farooq, Sajjad Lone, Abdul Ghani Bhat, JKLF leader Ghulam Rasool Dar and J&K Panthers Party Leader Bhim Singh, from our side of the LOC, and such leaders from POK as Sardar Attique Ahmed of the J&K Muslim Conference, Abdul Majid Mallick, President J&K Liberation League and Khalid Ibrahim of the People's Party of J&K. But such a meeting did take place from December 11 to 14.

While no magical solution to the Kashmir issue could be found in such a gathering, there was agreement that it provided an opportunity for people across the LOC and the larger India-Pakistan divide to frankly discuss their concerns, look for ways to make life for people in J&K more secure and agree to meet again in the not-too-distant future.

Why was such a conference necessary? The international community has urged that any solution that emerges to the Kashmir tangle should be acceptable to India and Pakistan and also take into consideration the wishes of the Kashmir people. Pakistan and its protégés in the Hurriyat Conference have argued there should be tripartite talks between India, Pakistan and "representatives" of the people of Jammu and Kashmir.

But who is to determine who the "representatives" of the people of J&K are? Further, is there any consensus within Jammu and Kashmir between all sections of the people about what the contours of a settlement should be? Even though Pakistan may label its protégés in the Hurriyat Conference as "genuine" representatives of the people, the international community, apart from a few exceptions like Saudi Arabia, does not buy this assertion.

The legitimacy of the PDP-Congress Government in J&K is now acknowledged, as it was elected in a fair, free and transparent manner. There is no representative Government enjoying even a measure of autonomy in either Pakistan Occupied Kashmir or the Northern Areas. Arbitrary arrests, restrictions on freedom of speech and expression, and attempts at changing of demographic composition by bringing in Sunni settlers in Shia majority areas is common in the Northern Areas.

Despite initial scepticism in New Delhi about the Conference, wiser counsel prevailed. No individual from our side of the LOC was denied permission to attend. The Pakistan Government, however, prevented JKLF leader Amanullah Khan from participating.

The extent of repression in the Northern Areas was evident from the fact that not a single leader from this region under Pakistani occupation participated, despite the fact that leaders of popular organisations like the Balwaristan National Front (BNF) and the Gilgit-Baltistan United Action Forum have waged a long struggle for democratic rights and freedoms. Over 150 BNF workers are at present incarcerated and charged with treason, merely for demanding democratic freedoms. For too long have New Delhi and people in J&K been indifferent to the sufferings of the people of the Northern Areas, whose soldiers from the Northern Light Infantry were treated as cannon fodder and not even given honourable burials when they shed their lives in Gen Musharraf's Kargil misadventure.

Discussions within the conference were lively and often heated. But some positive results were achieved. There was universal acknowledgment that the cease-fire across the LOC was a welcome development and should be made permanent. There was also a demand that violence in all forms should end and that all concerned should refrain from statements and actions that incite and promote violence.

There was agreement that India and Pakistan could reduce their security presence on both sides of the LOC, as violence ends. It was felt that those detained without trial for long periods on booth sides of the LOC should be released. The trauma and the need to create conditions for early return of Kashmiri pandits to their homes in safety and dignity were discussed.

What I found most interesting was the desire of people from both sides of the Line of Control to promote movement of people and trade across the LOC. There was an equally strong desire to promote academic, social and cultural contacts and joint developmental and environmental projects across the entire State of J&K.

Some of those from our side, with knowledge of the ground situation in J&K, felt that we should consider establishing border markets in places like the Neelam Valley and at Uri-Chakroti. There were others who felt that people living along the LOC would feel safer if there could be coordinated de-mining in specified sectors along the LOC.

When residents of J&K from both sides of the LOC met separately there was near unanimous agreement that the ongoing peace process should result in a peaceful, honourable and feasible solution to J&K. There was call for an end to violence, respect for the Rule of Law and a continuing dialogue between different sections of the people of Jammu and Kashmir.

New Delhi's position on requiring passports for travel across the LOC appears illogical. Why should we insist on passports to travel to either POK or the Northern Areas when we regard both these portions of J&K under Pakistani occupation as Indian Territory? Surely there could be other options suggested, apart from passports, for facilitating such travel.

If we are genuinely interested in de-freezing the situation in J&K in human and diplomatic terms, we should devise innovative measures for travel across the LOC in both the Srinagar-Muzaffarabad and the Kargil-Skardu sectors. The argument that such movements would facilitate terrorism is far fetched. Terrorists do not cross boundaries with travel documents.

We should also seek arrangements for trade across the LOC and examine whether the situation could be improved by contacts between academic and other institutions in Jammu and Srinagar with counterparts in Muzaffarabad, Gilgit and Skardu. For too long has Pakistan isolated the people of the Northern Areas from the rest of the world.

The Kathmandu conference provided ideas on how to move forward in a quest for restoring normalcy and promoting contacts and harmony across the entire State of J&K. This process could be fostered if representatives of such parties as the National Conference, PDP, Congress and BJP participate in such efforts in future.

This has to be complemented by strengthened security arrangements that are not intrusive and efforts to persuade recalcitrant separatist elements that the road to peace lies through dialogue with New Delhi and not through propaganda that persons like Syed Ali Shah Geelani and Shabir Shah are now indulging in.

It has also to be made clear to Pakistan and the international community that there can be no meaningful progress in the dialogue process if General Musharraf persists with his policies of continuing to foster cross-border terrorist violence, despite the pledge he made to Mr Vajpayee on January 6 this year to end such terrorism. The Pakistan establishment should be made to realise that terrorism as an instrument of state policy is not a viable option in the 21st century.

(The author is a former High Commissioner to Pakistan.)

More Stories on : Terrorism | Foreign Relations | Politics

Article E-Mail :: Comment :: Syndication :: Printer Friendly Page

Stories in this Section
The trouble with outsourcing

Tsunami effect

Kashmir Conference in Kathmandu — Showing the way to peace in the Valley

Venture capitalists and biotech sector — Discovering the potential

Prognosis on the new patents regime

Search for explanations

Was it a human failure?

Warning systems

Politicians, keep off!