New hopes and aspirations

Since hi-tech innovations transformed the world into a global village, the Earth has also been threatened by the inventions of deadly nuclear and thermonuclear warheads. The weapons of mass destruction (WMD), which were introduced and warehoused by the big powers in the name of security, dragged smaller nations into the race: developing the same deadly weapons to keep abreast of the superpowers.

Unfortunately the two key

 rival countries in South Asia, India and Pakistan, became competitors in the development of atomic warheads because of a reciprocal fear ensuing from 50 years of geo-political disputes.

During his last visit to Pakistan, US President George W. Bush said, “The best way for Kashmir to be resolved is for leaders of both countries to step up and lead”.

In today’s global situation it is hard to conceive that the United States would dictate to Pakistan or India on Kashmir. Pakistan is playing a vital role in the US global war on terrorism: on the other hand, the US needs India to be on its side to deal with the rising power of China in the region. Therefore, the US administration needs the support of both countries.

During his last visit to India, President Bush said, “India and Pakistan have an historic opportunity to work towards lasting peace. Prime Minister Singh and President Musharraf have shown themselves to be leaders of courage and vision. And I encourage them to continue making progress on all issues, including Kashmir.”

President Bush has spoken vigilantly about taking a firm stance on Kashmir but has not emphasised that India and Pakistan should attempt to resolve the dispute with bilateral negotiations.

South Asia, which is home to the most ancient civilisations, beautiful cultures, age-old traditions, an important trade market with major agriculture cultivation landscapes and pool of multi-skilled people, remains one of the most disadvantaged parts of the world.

The dispute between India and Pakistan over Kashmir and the political flux in other states of the region are the major causes of instability of South Asia. The Indo-Pakistani border skirmishes; ferocious religious and caste-based politics in India; corrupt and undemocratic ruling powers in Pakistan; Sinhala-Tamil ethnic violence in Sri Lanka; military dictatorship in Burma; political shakiness in Nepal and Bangladesh: these are the major obstacles to South Asian stability.

One-third of South Asia’s 1.4 billion people live on less than $1 per day. Only 55 per cent of the adult population is literate, with the literacy rate for adult females only 44 per cent.

Rather than working for the welfare of their people - by improving the quality of life, accelerating economic growth and social progress, and cultural development - the ruling forces spend public funds on defence. In particular both India and Pakistan spend part of their annual budgets on nuclear weapons instead of spending it on human development and maintaining a better environment. In 2005, India’s defence expenditure was $19.04 billion or 2.5 per cent of GDP, whereas Pakistan’s defence expenditure was $4.26 billion or 3.9 per cent of GDP.

The major stumbling block for regional stability is the unresolved issue of Kashmir, which originated when British rulers dismantled their Indian empire, during partition of the subcontinent in 1947, and departed the subcontinent with the creation of Pakistan and India.

Kashmir is historically a unique land where Muslims, Hindus and Buddhists once lived in relative peace and harmony. Kashmir is the most beautiful place on earth. It is home to a culturally tolerant and religiously hybrid people. Due to a Muslim-majority Pakistan claims that Kashmir should have been a part of Pakistan and consequently demands a decision over its fate based on the will of the people of Kashmir, whereas India argues that Kashmir belongs to India because of the instrument of accession signed by the Kashmiri Maharaja who handed over the powers of defence, communication and foreign affairs to Delhi in October 1947.

Kashmir has been in turmoil since India and Pakistan had their first war over it in 1948 and took their dispute to United Nations. The representatives for Belgium, Canada, China, Colombia, the United Kingdom and the US jointly submitted the dispute to the UN Security Council (UNSC). The UNSC passed resolution 47 at its 286th meeting on April 21, 1948 which states; "both India and Pakistan desire that the question of the accession of Jammu and Kashmir to India or Pakistan should be decided through the democratic method of a free and impartial plebiscite".

Initially, Pakistan and India agreed to the resolution, later India rejected implementing the resolution, calling it unfeasible but also refused to accept any third party arbitrator.

In 1949 the Security Council established a "line of control" (LOC) between that part of Kashmir forcibly seized by India in 1948 and the part under Pakistani influence (Azad Kashmir). On July 18, 1949, India and Pakistan signed the Karachi Agreement establishing a cease-fire line to be supervised by observers. These observers formed the nucleus of the United Nations Military Observer Group in India and Pakistan (UNMOGIP).

Since then India and Pakistan have not shown any flexibility and have had three wars. The divided people of Kashmir have been paying a huge cost for the prospect of freedom.

India controls the Indian-side of Kashmir through its army and Pakistan controls the Pakistani-side of Kashmir by backing activists and influencing groups fighting for self-determination. In the last two decades there have been numerous reports and documentaries, released by many different international human rights organisations, about the thousands of incidents of brutal human rights abuses, extra-judicial killings, mass murders and gang rapes. Yet, no serious attempts have been made by the United Nations, or by any other power, to push India and Pakistan to implement the UNSC resolution and give the people of Kashmir their right to self-determination.

In fact, we are living in a world of double standards. On May 20, 2002 a new country, the Democratic Republic of East Timor, was created under the ruling of the UN and handed over to the East Timorese by the UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, in an historic world event with leaders from 92 countries present.

This new independent state was previously part of Indonesia. East Timor was a Portuguese colony until December 1975 when Indonesian forces invaded East Timor and declared it as the 26th province of Indonesia. Recognising 24 years of suffering and struggle for freedom by the East Timorese, in December 1975, the Security Council passed its resolution 384 for their self-determination and independence. It called upon Indonesia to withdraw its forces from the territory.

Eventually, on May 5, 1999, Indonesia and Portugal signed a landmark accord to hold a plebiscite in East Timor. This resulted in 78.5 per cent of the people supporting an independent East Timor.

East Timor was identical to Kashmir’s case. As a colonial territory, East Timor was invaded forcibly by Indonesia just as India attempted to occupy the entire Jammu and Kashmir with its armed forces. The United Nations also reaffirmed the right of self-determination for Kashmiris, the same as it did for the East Timorese. The case for Kashmir before the UN is even stronger than that of East Timor because the occupying power (India) took the issue to the United Nations. And both Pakistan and India agreed to have the UN intervention and the plebiscite - as stated in the 1948 UNSC resolution.

The world powers and the United Nations compelled Indonesia to implement the UN resolutions and sent peacekeeping forces and monitoring cells, finally leading to an independent East Timor. Why can’t the same measures be taken for the people of Kashmir? Why can’t India be pressurised to hold the plebiscite?

If the US doesn’t want to pressure India and Pakistan on Kashmir and the UN is unable to force India and Pakistan to comply on the UNSC resolutions, and India has always refused for any third party arbitrator on Kashmir, the only option left is for India and Pakistan to resolve the dispute through bilateral means.

A recent change in the attitude of India and Pakistan where both countries have established communications and opened borders for people-to-people contact along with renewed diplomacy has generated new hope, not only among the people of the region, but around the world. The demonstration by both nations of shared interests in sports, art, entertainment and trade, indicates a desire to live in peace. They want to enjoy sharing and promoting their common history and culture.

Corroborating their peoples’ aspirations, the government leaders of India and Pakistan are also ready to move forward in the direction of seeking a solution to the issue of Kashmir.

Both the countries will have to “give and take” with the prime focus being the interests of the people of Kashmir. So far, leaders of both countries have been unable to demonstrate any flexibility.

During his first visit to Kashmir the Indian Prime Minister, Manmohan Singh, loudly repeated the Indian stand by announcing Kashmir was an integral part of India. He refused to accept any Line of Control as a permanent border and he did not agree to hold the plebiscite.

On the other hand Pakistani President, General Pervez Musharraf, has led a far-reaching ideological change in Pakistan’s stand on Kashmir and is often found vocalising various options like demilitarising all or parts of Kashmir or parceling Kashmir into seven geographical regions (five currently under Indian control and two with Pakistan). However he seemed intractable on his insistence that the Kashmir issue should be resolved according to the will of the people of Kashmir by a plebiscite.

It is good to see India and Pakistan making efforts to build friendly relations. Nonetheless, a half-century of bitterness and enmity will require time to develop into a mature understanding of each others’ point of view. Therefore, there is still a need to obtain consensus from the people of India and Pakistan before their leaders commence bilateral talks.

There is also a need for both countries to provide a forum for thinkers, scholars, journalists and politicians to meet and discuss the Kashmir issue in a fair and free atmosphere and to then make their suggestions public.

Most importantly, there is a need to engage those parties and groups representing the people of Kashmir from both the Pakistani and Indian sides to help seek a solution.

The leaders of both India and Pakistan should realise that the stability on the borders of India, Pakistan and Kashmir will lead to the stability of South Asia. The social and economic development of the region is directly linked to peaceful relations between India and Pakistan.

The need for co-operation and political stability has never been appreciated to such an extent as it is today.

The entire South Asia region is going through great demographic changes. In the last 50 years the population of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh has almost doubled. This rate of population growth, between 6 to 8 per cent a year, leads to social unrest. Therefore, South Asia needs mcuh investment and reform. There is a need to diversify exports, modernise the industrial base, develope human resources and have better macroeconomic management.

Time is ripe to put meaningful regional co-operation into practice on the basis of “give and take” and in a purposeful manner achieve positive results. This would help to build a common future for the people of South Asia.