Indo-Pak talks: Do they offer any hope?

What they have agreed in New Delhi are small steps that may be considered as "confidence-building measures." Among them are the bus services linking the holy city of Amritsar in India with the holy place Nankana Sahib in Pakistan. Another is the commencement of technical talks on a rail link between Rajasthan (India) and Sindh (Pakistan). The first one will certainly please the Sikhs who constitute about 19 million in India (Prime Minister Manmohon Singh is a Sikh). The second one may assist in the growth of trade and cultural interactions between the two countries.

One could say that the very fact that the two Ministers sat and discussed the Kashmir issue is more or less an achievement. No one expects that the long-drawn Kashmir dispute will be resolved so soon. However, observers expected a bit of movement on this core issue because it triggered two wars between them (1947 and 1965).

Indian Foreign Ministry spokesman Navtej Sarna told reporters: "There is a commitment …there is determination to take this process forward and make progress in whichever field we can."

It seems that the diplomatic jargon could not hide the fact that no real progress had been made on the core issue of the talks relating to the Kashmir dispute. The media reported that the division between the two remained as before as to how to handle the Kashmir territorial dispute, a principal cause of fracture in their relations during the 57-year history since the British left.

Some say the British left a poisoned chalice for both countries when Lord Radcliffe, while demarcating the international boundary between India and Pakistan, kept open a corridor to Kashmir from India's territory through Gurudaspur. It is through this territorial opening that India could dispatch its troops to Kashmir in 1947

Differences that divide them

There seems to be a conceptual difference between the two on how to proceed on the normalisation of relations. Both countries look at the resolution of bilateral issues from a totally different perspective.

India wants first a series of "confidence-building measures" with Pakistan before the Kashmir dispute is discussed. The reason they claim is that trust and confidence must be built up not only for the government but also among the people as well. Kashmir is an emotive issue for people in India and no solution can be arrived at unless people support the efforts of the government in reaching a compromise on this issue.

Pakistan, on the other hand, believes that the core Kashmir issue must be grappled first before other issues can move forward. Trust and confidence can only be built if India demonstrates its bonafide intention to resolve the Kashmir dispute. And that can only occur if the core issue is discussed and a positive movement on this issue will inevitably lead to make progress on other bilateral issues.

Second, India's concerns about the cross-border infiltration of Islamic militants and about training camps in the Pakistani-administered zone of Kashmir must be addressed by Pakistan. India accuses Pakistan of arming and training guerrillas in the territory. Pakistan denies very strongly the allegation, although it acknowledges that it lends diplomatic support to what it calls the Kashmiris' rightful struggle for self-determination.

Pakistan claims that it has made great efforts to stop militants coming to the Indian part of Kashmir and if some people cross over to meet their fellow Kashmiris, the government cannot fully control the porous border. However Pakistan says that India is building a fence along its border with Pakistan (the army reportedly said that 90 per cent of it has been completed) that will stop the unwanted infiltration. Pakistan also accuses India of serious violation of human rights by its troops of the Kashmiri nationals in the Indian-administered zone of Kashmir where the 15-year revolt against India has claimed about 40,000 lives.

Third, both countries perceive that control of Kashmir is a vindication of their very existence. For India, giving up Kashmir would be a serious challenge to its secular ideology, and perhaps more importantly, would send a strong message to other separatist groups in India, in particular in the seven northeastern states, bordering Bangladesh. Furthermore, India considers Kashmir a strategic barrier with China.

On the other hand, Pakistani nationalists see Pakistan incomplete without Muslim-majority Kashmir. No Pakistani government can afford to give away Kashmir as Pakistanis perceive that India has "stolen" Kashmir from them by force.

Finally, military remains a powerful institution in Pakistan and has a considerable say on how the Kashmir dispute is to be resolved. President Musharraf continues to be the Chief of the Army (it is reported that he will not relinquish the post at the end of December as earlier promised). It was the General Musharraf, India suspects, who led the Kargil war in 1999 in Kashmir. India, being a democratic country with a robust opposition parties including BJP, naturally wants to go slow on Kashmir.

Possible options on Kashmir

It is correct to assume that the Kashmir dispute cannot be resolved within days. Observers agree that confidence-building measures must take place between the two countries in order to eliminate friction and tension between them. Confidence-building measures may involve agreement in economic, cultural, and social areas. Progress on these issues is likely to contribute to a climate that could in the long run help leaders to take difficult decisions on Kashmir.

Eventually both the countries have to come to a compromise on Kashmir. Some suggest that the existing Line of Control on Kashmir, established in 1972, could be the international border with a few adjustments. The other two options, such as the self-determination by all Kashmiris or an independent Kashmir, may have to be abandoned at this point of time.

There is another daring option. Both India and Pakistan could jointly control and oversee a democratically-elected administration of the Kashmir territory. There is an instance in which two countries have joint sovereignty over a territory, such as in Andorra, a small country of about 453 square kilometers with a maximum length of 30 km and breadth of 20 km, sandwiched between Spain and France on the Eastern Pyrenees. Both France and Spain oversee the administration of Andorra, elected by its people.

Conclusion

It is good to see that both countries met at a Ministerial level in New Delhi and both sides have an upbeat assessment of the cordial meeting. Furthermore President Musharraf and Prime Minister Singh are expected to meet at the UN and are likely to hold talks on the sidelines of UN General Assembly in New York later this month. The resolution of the Kashmir dispute will be slow but it does not matter, if the two countries are engaged in a constructive dialogue. As Churchill once said that "jaw-jaw is always better than to war-war."

Barrister Harun ur Rashid is a former Bangladesh Ambassador to the UN, Geneva.