Some fifty-nine years back Josef Korbel wrote, ‘India and Pakistan con-tinue to dissipate their wealth, their strength and their energy on a near fratricidal struggle in which the hitherto almost unknown State of Kash-mir has become the physical battleground.’ Trillions of dollars are spent on building arsenals at the cost of development of tens of millions living a sub-human life. People of the two countries have not been paying heavy prices for the wars and border clashes but even for standoffs. During 2002, only the army build-up across the LOC had cost 3.93 billion US dollars to India and 1.4 billion US dollars to Pakistan. The people of Kashmir prov¬ince and hilly districts of Jammu province have suffered the most- bullets, bombs have consumed more than a hundred thousand during past twenty years and figures of deaths and destruction during over past six decades have been more staggering. The dismal track record of human rights viola¬tions sends shudders down the spine. In fact, with Kashmir at the centre India and Pakistan relations are a sad story of troughs and crests- more of troughs and less of crests. The two countries, having had a chequered history of war of attritions and protracted diplomatic standoffs had started a new inning in 2004 by launching broad based talks named as composite dialogue. This process had set an optimistic note in the relations of the two countries after initiating some Kashmir related CBM’s in 2005. -Generating a hope of way forward in resolving the Kashmir depute it held promise for improving relations between New Delhi and Islamabad. In November 2008, after terrorist attack in Mumbai New Delhi put the dialogue process on a hold. After fourteen months of belligerence in statements, there was a thaw in the frozen peace process in January 2010. The two countries besides working on tract two met at various levels—generating hope for adding a new chapter to their relations. New Delhi was insisting on focusing on trade, increasing people -to-people contact, strengthening cultural bonds, discussing less controversial issues and very subtly suggested ‘no talks on Kashmir.’ Pakistan agreed to the terms and conditions set by India for carrying forward ‘composite dialogue’. The statements of President Zardari and Foreign Minister, Hina Rabbani testify it. In sixty-five years, history of the two countries Pakistan for die first time granted MFN status to India but for some top Pakistan business-houses seeing it to their disadvantage it got stalled. Seen in right perspective for three years Kashmir was never part of the dialogue process at the diplomatic or the political levels between the two countries—minus once or twice ritualistic reference. Going by the writings and columns in Pakistan a good number of Pakistani journalists, columnists including some English language newspapers had virtually turned lobbyists for New Delhi in Islamabad and Karachi and have been advocating for not making trade between the two countries subordinate to the resolution of outstanding issues between the two countries. On Friday, 15 March 2013, the relations between the two countries apparently suffered the biggest setback when Indian Parliament Unanimously rejecting the resolutions passed by Pakistan National Assembly one day earlier condemning the hanging of Mohammad Afzal Guru asked Islamabad not to interfere in India’s internal affair Speaker Meira Kumar in Lok Sabha and Chairman Hamid Ansari in Rajya Sabha- both the Houses asserted that the entire State of Jammu and Kashrnir, including the territory under illegal occupation of Pakistan, “is and shall always be an integral part of India”. Surprisingly, the resolution adopted by the parliament made no mention about Jammu and Kashmir territory under ‘occupation’ of China; The resolution in letter and spirit was replication of the resolution adopted by the Parliament on February 22,1994. The Indian Parliament adopted this resolution at the height of militancy in the state. Kashmir after having remained out of international gaze for decades together was once again making international headlines and Washington had once again started taking interest in the resolution of the problem- a nuclear flashpoint. The statements made by Assistant Secretary of State Rabin Raphael, Secretary Of State, Madeline Albright and President Bill Clinton at various international forums during 1993 and 1994 indicated that Clinton was more interested in resolving the Kashmir problem than his predecessor. Seen in historical context, the stated positions and Parliament resolution have not debarred the two Countries from holding talks, debating and discussing the resolution of the Kashmir problem. Despite the 1994 resolution passed by the parliament New Delhi and Islamabad held- talks for resolution of the ‘dispute’ at various levels including the track two. In 1997, the dialogue suspended in 1994 was reopened at the level of foreign secretaries. In May 1997 Prime Minister, Inder Kumar Gujral and Pakistan Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif met in Mali and discussed Kashmir-followed by a meeting at foreign secretaries level and another meeting between Prime Ministers at New York. In February 1999, Indian Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee travelled to Lahore and signed Lahore declaration. I am not to do debate here negative implications of this declaration on the Kashmir problem that in the words of former Pakistan Foreign Minister Abdul Sattar provided convenient alibi to world opinion and especially influential powers, to abdicate responsibility to promote a just settlement of Kashmir. ‘Prime Minister, Atal Bihari Vajpayee on new year day 2001 wrote an article highlighting the need for Indis to address two Outstanding issues ‘namely, Kashmir and Babari Masjid in Ayodha. Regarding Kashmir, he went on to suggest a meeting with the Pakistani President.’ To quote him: “India is hulling and ready to seek a lasting ‘solution ‘to the Kashmir problem. Towards this end, we are prepared to re-commence talks with Pakistan at any level, including the highest level, provided Islamabad gives sufficient proof of its preparedness to create a conducive atmosphere for a meaningful dialogue.”
to be continued
Z.G.Mohammad is a noted writer and columnist.
