Kashmir: consensus proposal?

Kashmir: consensus proposal?

written by Shams Rehman

While the process of exploring various “solutions” to Kashmir Issue was initiated soon after the birth of Kashmir “problem” out of the barrels of the Indian and Pakistani guns in October 1947, till recently the process was confined to a bilateral Indian and Pakistan official framework or to the UN and US circles.

Over the past few decades, especially after the explosion of a massive uprising in the Indian occupied Kashmir following the rigged elections of 1987, the process seems to have expanded and proposals are being mushroomed from a wide range of individuals and agencies including Yousaf Bach a veteran Kashmiri from Valley settled in US after working with UN since the birth of Kashmir Problem; Bava Krishan Dev Setti from Jammu who fought hand in hand with other Kashmiris against maharaja system and migrated from Mirpur when Pakistani tribes and troops invaded the State. The Kashmiri organisations that proposed different solutions include National Conference, JKLF, Hurriyat, Peoples League, PDP, APNA (All Parties National Alliance), International Kashmir Alliance, Association of British Kashmiris, Balawirstan (Gilgit-Baltistan) Front etc. Some Western Think Tanks, BBC and South Asia based NGOs have also forwarded various proposals for peaceful resolution of the issue.

The proposals presented so far have some distinguishing features in terms of their implementation and outcome as some presume Autonomy, others the division on ethnic and/or communal lines and still others independence of the state. However, a close reading of all the suggestions seemingly challenges the general and wide spread perception that there is no common ground on which Kashmiris of diverse viewpoints and India and Pakistan can agree to find a mechanism of solving Kashmir question with a space and potential to be acceptable to all the contesting parties.

Drawing on various proposals this article tends to highlight the grounds for consensus and proposes a mechanism through which possibly a most inclusive, democratic, just and peaceful solution can be achieved for the issue of Kashmir that is used as one of the major excuses by the rulers of India-Pakistan and their subordinates in divided state of Kashmir for keeping people apart and building destructive war machines rather than houses, schools, hospitals, roads, factories, in short – lives.

Consensus indicators

1. Almost all proposals recognise the distinct identity and entity of the State of Jammu and Kashmir by accepting that the problem of Kashmir is a problem of the entire state and not of any particular region of Kashmir.

2. That the problem is to determine the future of this state which implies that the future is not determined as yet. Indian official position is that the entire state belongs to her while Pakistan claims it is hers and Kashmiris are generally divided between the accession to either India or Pakistan and independence.

3. There also seems a general agreement, at least, amongst Kashmiris that for any solution oriented exercise to be meaningful the involvement of Kashmiri peoples is indispensable.

3. Almost all external and internal proposals recognise the ethnic diversity of the State and suggest for the diversity to be incorporated in the processes to develop any mechanisms for a solution.

4. The view that Kashmir is primarily a political problem that has to be addressed through a political mechanism also seems shared by various forces involved in efforts to resolve the issue.

5. It is largely recognised in India, Pakistan and internationally that the movement in Kashmir Valley has not been instigated from outside. However, it is also widely perceived that foreign involvement had been there for various interests that not necessarily have been compatible with the interests of the peoples of the State.

6. It is well documented and acknowledged fact that the Human Rights are widely violated by the Indian armed forces in the Indian Administered Kashmir and that the first and foremost priority for engaging the peoples of Kashmir in any peace process is to end all human rights violations in the Indian Occupied Kashmir.

7. The fact that a large number of political activists and civilians are kept in Indian prisons without substantial grounds or in some cases without any charges is also acknowledged. Some who were charged and tried are kept in even after they have spent their tariffs .

8. Human Rights are also violated by some of the militant activities carried out by several groups fighting the Indian occupation.

9. Human Rights of the Kashmiris under Pakistani occupied Kashmir including Gilgit Baltistan are also not respected by the Pakistani governments in these parts of the State. Pro-independence politics is suppressed in AJK and Gilgit Baltistan. Open violation of State Subject, restrictions on the participation in politics and employment of pro-independence Kashmiris are also the other most identifiable and quantifiable examples.

10. There is also an expressed desire that peoples of Kashmir State must have right to free movement, socio-economic, cultural and political interaction and rights of free speech and association that have to be assured in all parts of the state.

11. At present the right of the peoples of the State to participate freely without any restrictions in the existing administrations in Gilgit, Muzaffarabad and Srinagar-Jammu is not fully recognised and respected.

12. The wishes repeatedly expressed by the people of Jammu and Ladakh for their regional assemblies similar to those in Valley, Azad Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan carry significant support amongst the Kashmiris across the division line as well as amongst Indians and Pakistanis.

13. It is also very obvious that none of the existing political parties, alliances or assemblies can claim as true representatives of the state in its entirety.

14. An estimated three million strong Kashmiri Diaspora in India, Pakistan, Middle East, Europe, Britain, USA and Canada has multiple links and attachments with, and stakes in, the affairs of their “homeland” and can play positive and constructive role in finding the solution as well as in the development of the State.

This list of course is not exhaustive and more possibilities for a broader consensus can be traced in the proposals. However, the most significant task facing the peoples of the divided State of Kashmir at present is whether a mechanism can be developed through which a wider consensus and state wide representation can be achieved? For India and Pakistan are internationally recognised states with relatively established systems of electing representative governments but no such system is currently available to the peoples of Kashmir for the entire state.

The State is currently divided, since 1947, into three administrative structures namely

a) Gilgit-Baltistan Council;

b) “Jammu and Kashmir” Assembly and

c) “Azad” Jammu and Kashmir Assembly. There is also ‘Hill Council’ in Ladakh. While these assemblies are elected with varying degrees of people participation, none of these is representative of the people who they claim to represent even in the modest sense. Similarly, while none of the dozens of political groups operating outside of the “official political institutions” of the State represents the entire state, they actually are not allowed to operate in the entire state.

Only those parties have access to mainstream politics and employment that have developed under, or are product of, the Indian and Pakistani States’ civil and military machineries operating in the State or those who accept the status quo and state’s accession to India / Pakistan on their respective side of the division line.

Suggestions to Resolve Kashmir question

Against this background some preliminary suggestions are outlined below for consideration of the people of Kashmir and beyond who are interested in and striving for enhancing peace, progress, development, justice, democracy and equality across the globe.

1. the first and foremost requirement for moving towards any meaningful solution to the problem, as suggested in several proposals, is to open the traditional travel routes between all regions of the divided state namely Gilgit, Hunza, Yasin,Baltistan, Ladakh, ‘Azad’ Kashmir, Jammu, and Kashmir Valley. In terms of travelling documents, the State Subject to be issued in a card form by the regional or district officers seems the best option available. Alternatively, the regional or district offices perhaps could be authorised to issue other agreed documents.

2. The next step should be the release of all political prisoners in all parts of the State.

3. India and Pakistan should mutually withdraw their armies away from the populated areas across the division line and in case of India from the towns and cities of the Indian occupied Kashmir (IOK) or as it is called by the Indian officials “The Jammu and Kashmir”.

4. All restrictions currently imposed on the freedom of press and association in the

Indian and Pakistani administered Kashmir, should be lifted at once followed by necessary constitutional amendments in all three existing political setups in Gilgit, Muzzafarabad and Srinagar-Jammu to make these assemblies fully inclusive and democratic by lifting restrictions on Pro independence parties.

5. Steps should be taken to recognise the demands by Jammu and Ladakhi people for regional assemblies.

6. All personnel deputed or appointed by the Indian and Pakistani governments (also commonly called lent officers) in Kashmiri administration should be replaced with locals.

7. All restrictions on Human Rights organisations and media should be lifted in all parts of the state.

8. Elections for local municipalities should be announced spontaneously across the state.

9. The local municipalities should carry out a comprehensive survey and analysis of local needs;

10. International observers and media should be requested to monitor the process of forthcoming election of regional and State assemblies.
11. Date for the elections of all regional assemblies should be announced simultaneously with inclusive right of all peoples of the State to participate in elections. The regional assemblies should have mandate for policies and strategies on regional affairs including local resources, development, trade and investment etc.

12. If any of the regional assemblies wish to join with neighbouring regional assembly of the state they should have right to do so.

13. After an agreed period an inclusive, democratic, fair and free elections should be held for the Interim Government for the entire state. In order to make this assembly to reflect the diversity of the state, representation should be allocated to all five regions according to the population of each region. One way of electing the representations from Kashmir diaspora in India and Pakistan and in USA, Europe, Britain and Middle East can be to allocate certain percentage of representation for diaspora according to their population.

14. All armies of India and Pakistan should be withdrawn from the territory of Kashmir State.

15. This interim government should be recognised by the international community including India, Pakistan and China as the representative government of the State with the mandate to represent Kashmiris in all negotiations regarding the future status of Kashmir.

16. After an agreed period all state subjects should be given an opportunity to decide the future status of the entire Kashmir state through a fair and free referendum.

While there is certainly a room for improvisation in the plan, it seemingly incorporates almost all of the proposals presented so far, internally and externally, to move forward towards a peaceful, democratic, just and inclusive mechanism of resolving Kashmir question. This proposal while does not rule out any outcome, it gives locally elected assemblies to all regions with the potential to stay beyond the final determination of the future status of the state whatever that might be.

The proposal primarily speaks to the interested individuals and groups in Kashmir – Valley, Ladakh, Jammu, “Azad” Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan and the diaspora. For after all it is the peoples of Kashmir who although form the primary party in Kashmir “dispute” are not represented in the ongoing process of negotiating Kashmir and are also deprived of any mechanism to elect the representative voice of Kashmir State. Critical feedback from wider viewers and readers would also be of great value for the proposal to be developed or improvised further. It is however clearly understood that without the support of peoples in and from all parts of the divided state of Kashmir this proposal is going to become just another addition in the growing long list of such documents.

About author: Originally from Mirpur (‘Azad’) Kashmir settled in UK since 1980s trying to actually write up PhD on ‘transnationalism from below and British Kashmiris’. Can be reached through email: shamakashmiri@yahoo.co.uk