On 06 Oct 2010, I was witnessing unfolding of democratic reforms on the BBC by Mr David Cameron, the Prime Minister of UK during his address to the Conservative delegates. He set his government’s agenda – power to the community groups, government local bodies including police persons being reported upon and held to account by the local communities, breaking down of so called “steel-frame” by the originators of the same.
It was a sign of a progressive society and how countries ought to move along with the time and attempt changes against all odds. In India, unfortunately we have sucked ourselves deeper into the statuesque oriented political class and ever obliging bureaucratic regime, who is always looking at the last file to approve a case. Thankfully, the ever expanding private sector players do not subscribe to the state dictate and business acumen. This precedence approach blocks all ideas of change and is the worst enemy of progress in any society. The problem of Jammu and Kashmir is like a wound, festering for the last 60 years, and we continue to pay a lip service year after year. Can the power to people as per the geographical and racial distribution be attempted, to get to a lasting solution? There is an urgent need to re-define it and fix it within our own house before asking Pakistan to fall in line or world community to accept our whining.
What forms Jammu and Kashmir?
Your browser may not support display of this image. Your browser may not support display of this image. Your browser may not support display of this image. Your browser may not support display of this image. India needs to tell the world that Jammu and Kashmir includes six distinct regions, which are under dispute since 14/15 August 1947/1962. Two are held by Pakistan, one illegally occupied by China (including a part donated by Pakistan) and three happened to be in India. Northern Areas and Pakistan occupied Kashmir (as for India), Azad Kashmir (as for the people of this area) and Pakistan held Kashmir (for international community). Aksai Chin area was illegally grabbed by China from India in 1962 and a small stretch of land at the northern tip of the state was donated by Pakistan to China. India has the Kashmir valley (18% of the total Jammu and Kashmir), Jammu region and Ladakh area. This forms Jammu and Kashmir and needs to be discussed separately or all at once to achieve a lasting peace. Politicians of all hues have memory lapses when we talk of Kashmir problem and tend to remove the entire landscape of this state in their discussions.
Before we find out what do the people want, we need to understand who and where they are? There are different communities and religious group in this state, which make even Bosnia-Herzegovina-Croatia-Macedonia-Albania-Serbia look like a more homogeneous region. Hindu (Dogra) population of Jammu is nearly 90% majority in this district, but has always lived in harmony with the other communities. The Buddhist-Muslim equation in Ladakh region has generally been amicable (except for the period from 1989 to 1992, which was strategically coincided with the violence in the Kashmir valley). The people of Ladakh have been demanding greater autonomy and perhaps a union territory status as they fear undue domination by the valley politics. There is a sizable Sikh community in all over this state barring Pakistan and China held portions, which strives to work hard in trade and commerce, leadership positions and infrastructure development.
The Gujjar and Bakerwal communities continue to be economically, socially, politically and educationally backward in Jammu as well as Kashmir regions. They were notified as the Scheduled Tribes vide the Constitution (Amendment) Act, of 1991. While Kashmir Your browser may not support display of this image. valley is dominated by Sunni Muslims, Kargil has a Shia majority. There were 2.5 lakh1 Hindus (Kashmiri pundits) in the Kashmir valley, who left their homes or were forced to flee in what was the biggest ethnic cleansing after Bosnia-Herzegovina. There are Hazaras, Dardi and Baltis – Muslim tribesmen of Your browser may not support display of this image. Northern Areas including Hunza, Gilgit and Skardu; who have been agitating against the Punjabi domination and rule by proxy from Islamabad. There are nomads Tibetan Buddhists in Aksai Chin area being driven out or hounded by the Chinese illegal occupation. It is ironical and unacceptable that the voices of all these social groups are being overwhelmed by the din of stone-pelters of Kashmir valley, a clear case of a minority section getting the entire international and media attention. Kashmir valley is being projected as Jammu and Kashmir, forgetting the fact is that there are six distinct regions when we talk of this state. How many communities and social groups out of these toe the separatist line is yet to be proved.
Who are the stakeholders?
Jammu and Kashmir has both internal and external stakeholders. All the local social and religious groups belonging to the area for centuries have a stake. The leadership is spread on the entire scale, from those considering whole of Jammu and Kashmir as an alienable part of India to the freedom wishers in the form of Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Front (JKLF) and some moderate Hurriyat leaders. Political parties, both national and those of Jammu and Kashmir have their positions also across this spectrum. In areas under China and Pakistan, democracy is a sham and therefore very difficult to assess. Given a chance, they would surely prefer breaking free.
There are six external stakeholders in the complex problem of Jammu and Kashmir. India being at the vortex of media attention and holder of major areas of the region obviously is the main stakeholder. India has a democratically elected government at the centre as well as the state who represents the will of people and articulates the viewpoints of the state. India constitution gives certain special privileges to the state, thus affirming it more autonomy than what is available to other states of the Union. Pakistan forms the other side of the external interest. It perceives itself as an aggrieved party, who lost out a majority Muslim state to Hindu ruler and Indian Union at a crucial stage in 1948. The question of Jammu and Kashmir raises huge passions among the ruling classes of Pakistan. China, though ignored by most is the third stakeholder by virtue of its illegality of occupation of Aksai Chin and Northern area. It continues to make inroads into the northern areas and seeks out a land connection to its port in Gwadar.
While the world intellectual opinion about Chinese occupation of Tibet is well known, Pakistan accepted it gleefully and Indian diplomacy and government fell to the Chinese guile of no equivalence of “suzerainty” to complete the sovereignty issue. The United Nation (UN) is the fourth external stakeholder as the case in 1948 was taken to the UN Security Council by India. UN Observation Group in India and Pakistan (UNMOGIP) is one of the oldest UN traditional peacekeeping missions in this area, confined to Jammu and Kashmir. Let us not forget that during 19th century, the great game used to be played amongst Russians, the British and Chinese in the same Northern areas of Hunza, Dardistan and Baltistan. US has willy nilly become a stakeholder due to its engagement in Afghanistan and impact of Talibans and other terrorist organizations on NATO operations. Notwithstanding the myriad of stakeholders, key players are the six regions and thus their leaderships, India, Pakistan and the UN. Any negotiated settlement has to be unanimously approved by all these nine parties to have a lasting solution.
The Problem and its genesis
On 15th August 1947, two independent countries ‘India and Pakistan’ were born on the basis of ‘Two Nation Theory’. The birth of Bangladesh in 1972 actually demolished this warped theory. On the very first day of their freedom, a dispute about the future of the State of Jammu and Kashmir arose between both. The independent princely states across India were given option to join either India or Pakistan, based on their social configuration or whatever they felt appropriate. Out of 560 states all but three joined the India Union. A police action in Hyderabad and subtle arms twisting in Junagarh removed these irritants. Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir, a Hindu ruler of the state with divided majority of religious groups – Muslims in Kashmir valley and Northern Areas, Hindu in Jammu and Buddhist in Ladakh and Aksai Chin area was vacillating in his decision. Seeing his likelihood of joining the Indian Union, Pakistan launched raiders and soldiers in the garb of raiders into the valley to make a grab at Srinagar before India could establish effective control after the accession. When was the instrument of accession signed (26 or 27 Oct 1947) is immaterial as Pakistan had realized that the ruler was in favour of India, and hence the attack. The signing of state into the Indian Union placed a responsibility on the Union Government to save the sate from marauding raiders, who pillaged villages and destroyed local livelihood. Indian Army has been the savior of the same state, which now has been asking for the repeal of Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA).
The world acknowledges (with an exception of Pakistan and Hurriyat – hardliner faction) that since 1948, six elections have been held in Jammu and Kashmir with India and popular governments have been formed barring one such election where massive voting frauds were reported. Elections brought up the popular leader Sheikh Abdullah to the centre-stage of National Conference Party (NC) and he supported India. The elected Constituent Assembly met in Srinagar on 31 October 19512. The State Constituent Assembly ratified the accession of the State to the Union of India on 6 February 1954 and the President of India subsequently issued the Constitution (Application to J&K) Order under Article 370 of the Indian Constitution extending the Union Constitution to the State with some exceptions and modifications. The State’s own Constitution was put into force on 26 January 1957 and elections to the State Legislative Assembly were held in 1957. Pakistan in the meantime, set up its own Kashmir, called Azad Kashmir (Pakistan Occupied Kashmir by India), in a tiny Western chunk that it controls.
The Northern Areas of Jammu and Kashmir had no Pakistani laws and Constitution till 1982, when the Pakistan proclaimed that the people of the Northern Areas were Pakistanis. The insurgency started with the direct support of Pakistani establishment targeted Hindu Kashmiri Pandit minority and like in Bosnia or elsewhere, 2.5 lakhs Pandits left the valley. The exodus far exceeded the one, which took place under another Muslim ruler, Sultan Sikandar Butshikan in Kashmir in the late 14th century. The violent Islamic insurgency has specifically targeted this minority and estimated 300,000 have been murdered and 4,00,000 internally displaced to Jammu, Udhampur and Delhi or beyond. Stories of molestation of Kashmiri Hindu women, taking over and burning of their properties have come from all parts of the Valley. This has been widely condemned and called ethnic cleansing in a 2006 resolution passed by the United States Congress3.
On the diplomatic front, India went to the UN as an aggrieved party against the Pakistani intrusion. Prime Minister Nehru had his own compulsions, statesmanship, Lord Mountbatten and desire to be on the world stage; otherwise it was an avoidable action. To the dismay of India, the Security Council after thoroughly hearing India and Pakistan, ruled on 13 August, 1948, that people of the State of Jammu and Kashmir were the true Sovereign and in that they had the inherent right to decide about the future of their State in a just and fair Plebiscite to be held under the supervision of UNO. India and Pakistan have fought four major wars after 1947 – 1948, 1965, 1971 and Kargil. Apart from minor re-alignments of positions, and hundreds of deaths on both sides, nothing has been achieved. There had been three major agreements on the dispute after the UN resolution. Karachi pact of 1950, where both sides agreed to…….. In 1952, Delhi agreement was signed between Prime Minister Nehru and Sheikh Abdullah, which meant to provide Jammu and Kashmir a much wider degree of autonomy than that enjoyed by any other State of the Union but has never been fully implemented.
Post 1965 war came, Tashkent Agreement of 1966, where both sides vacated areas won by either side (a major disadvantage to India – thanks to the bungling bureaucrats in the Prime Ministers team and no defence representative!!!). Both sides agreed to maintain a Cease Fire Line. And last, the Shimla Agreement of 1972, where India returned 92,000 Pakistani Prisoners of wars for virtually no concession and taking Bhutto’s words for a guarantee – so much for our negotiating skills and diplomacy. Shimla also settled the question of CFL, by converting and naming it as Line of Actual Control; euphemism to a border. Pakistani establishment, especially military owes it survival to the Kashmir lobby, pathological India hatred and keeping India bogey alive. Kargil was another creation of this establishment, only to expose the belligerence and ugly face of the establishment to the world. People of Jammu and Kashmir have suffered horribly due to these wars and constant supply of Pakistani trained terrorist into the state. What do they want? They want amicable settlement and to get on with their lives peacefully.
The Possible Solutions by Key Players
Starting with the UN, as an international body, 14 UN resolutions have been moved or passed since 17 January 1948 till 21 December 1971. In August 2006 Kofi Annan, then UN Secretary General, clarified while visiting Pakistan that UN resolutions on Kashmir were not under Chapter 7 of the UN charter and therefore not self-enforcing as they were on East Timor and Iraq. The UN Kashmir resolutions required the cooperation of both India and Pakistan for implementation. UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon said the UN was willing to use its “good offices” in resolving the Kashmir issue if both India and Pakistan sought the assistance of the world body. “As far as this role of good offices is concerned, the UN normally takes that initiative when requested by both parties concerned,” Ban told journalists during his monthly briefing at the UN Headquarters.
The UN maintains a peacekeeping presence (UNMOGIP) on both sides of the Line of Actual Control. The UNMOGIP remains one of the most unproductive UN force deployed in this area, which suits Pakistan. It is termed at best as a UN front for the Pakistani establishment and an instrument to irritate India, and a diplomatic embarrassment to India. India has disallowed the UN Military observer to visit any of the tactical areas of LAC after December 1971 War, on the ground that it is no more a Cease-Fire Line as per 1972 Shimla Agreement. Many believe that India has a lot to gain internationally as also with the people of Jammu and Kashmir by supporting the UN Resolutions. If in a foreseeable future, UN resolutions are to be implemented (which India resolutely refutes for reasons best known to the establishment) and a plebiscite is to be held according to its terms (modified as per the prevailing situation), the following conditions need to be fulfilled:
* All Pakistani troops should vacate Pakistan Occupied Kashmir and implied in it is, Northern Areas.
* Indian troops should remain till peace is established and thereafter withdraw leaving behind some presence for policing activities.
* Implied in the resolution is that China must vacate the territory illegally ceded to it by Pakistan as also vacate Aksai Chin areas; so that pre 1948 position is restored to the people of Jammu and Kashmir.
* The so called plebiscite to be organized by an UN Commission, should allow people of all six regions of Jammu and Kashmir to choose joining either India or Pakistan. (India on its own must move an amendment, now that India is becoming a non-permanent member of the high council) to include option of independence.
* The Plebiscite must be held in each region separately and simultaneously.
* The outcome need to be applied to each of the six region separately to avoid another Former Yugoslavia type of eruption, as any inter regional conflagration can easily turn into a civil strife sucking both India and Pakistani civil-military establishments.
Another set of formulation was advanced by former Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf in his “out of the box” solution to the dispute and advocated four key elements, which he presented in his 368-page book, “In the Line of Fire: A Memoir”, published by Simon & Schuster. The first is to identify the geographic areas of the erstwhile princely state of Jammu and Kashmir that need resolution. This means specifically addressing the question whether all five (or six) regions or `provinces’ are “on the table for discussion or are there ethnic, political and strategic considerations dictating some give and take.” The second element calls for the de-militarisation of “this identified region or regions” and curbing “all militant parts of the freedom struggle.” The third suggestion is the introduction of “self-governance or self-rule in the identified regions.” Power to the communities – that Prime Minister David Cameron was talking about.
This would enable people to “have the satisfaction of running their own affairs without having an international character and remaining short of independence.” The final step recommended by the former president is setting up “a joint mechanism with a membership of Pakistanis, Indians and Kashmiris (meaning people of Jammu & Kashmir I suppose) overseeing the self-governance and dealing with residual subjects common to all identified regions and those subjects that are beyond the scope of self-governance.” Interesting aspects are that bringing Northern Areas is to counter-balance Ladakh and Jammu. Thus balancing out two regions vs two and concentrating on the hot-bed of dissent – Kashmir valley. India has been opposing regionalization of the state, but time may have come to do exactly that.
Pakistani establishment has a different take on this. Some of the solutions simply rely on UN sponsored Plebiscite in its original form (option of either India or Pakistan), and for the state as a whole. Phases proposed by Pakistan start referendum with the Pakistan part to the valley and other Muslim dominated areas of Poonch and Rajouri and finally end up with Jammu and Ladakh. There are claims to have more than two million displaced people from Poonch-Rajouri-Nowshera areas and want them to vote. Who will ascertain their claim is a mute point! Pakistan has also been talking about the “Chenab Formula” wherein all areas North of River Chenab can be merged with Pakistan.
Indian responses are well articulated on these positions. Some well meaning people in Pakistan do hold a firm view that an equitable solution to the dispute lies only in declaring the State of Jammu and Kashmir as an Independent State. Local elections are recommended to be held under the joint control of Muzaffarabad and Srinagar administrations. In the result, a common government may be formed with a view to finding a just and sustainable solution to the dispute. A joint reference may be sent to the joint sitting of Supreme Court of Pakistan and Supreme Court of India with a request to give their opinion or to find out a solution acceptable to the people of Jammu and Kashmir. Big powers of the world should be requested jointly to act as facilitators between India and Pakistan for the settlement of the Kashmir dispute. This, of course goes against the establishment in that country, as there is an option of independence.
President Barack Obama forthcoming visit to India will raise the usual expectation on what do the US have to say on Jammu and Kashmir. For the records, the US has always “hoped that India and Pakistan can address and resolve the “important” Kashmir issue bilaterally”. “This is an issue that we hope that the two sides can address and resolve, but this is obviously an important bilateral issue between the two governments,” State department spokesman P J Crowley told reporters at his daily news briefing in Sep 2010. “This is an issue between Pakistan and India. It is important.
There have been successful discussions between Pakistan and India on this subject in recent years,” he said. “Some of those very fruitful discussions occurred between the former governments of India and Pakistan,” It is interesting to note that during the ongoing UN general Assembly discussions on the Millennium Development Goals, suddenly there was a talk of US linking UN Security Council seat to the resolution of Jammu and Kashmir problem. As we know, most of the UN decisions are taken in the corridors and coffee shops – not inside UN Security Council or the general Assembly. One should not be surprised if such a proposal was informally sounded.
In Indian side of the Kashmir Valley, the first organization to talk about freedom was Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Front (JKLF). Established in 1977 in UK, it still holds some sway over the locals but has been discarded or eliminated by the hard-line terrorist groups operating from Pakistan. Hizb-ul-Mujahideen was once a militant arm of Kashmiris, till it was also taken over by the foreign organizations. Others like Jaish-e-Mohd, Lashkar-e-Taiba and Dukhatren-e-Millat are paid mercenaries and products of Pakistani terrorist factories in various madarasas, ably supplied and trained by Pakistani military and Inter Services Intelligence (ISI). Former President Parvez Musharraf has recently accepted to have trained and sent such groups to India to force India to talk on Kashmir.
All Parties Hurriyat Conference (APHC) (formed March 10, 1993) is a political front formed as an alliance of 26 political, social and religious organizations in Kashmir valley (represents mainly the Valley – one of the six areas). It was formed achieving the right of self-determination according to UN Security Council Resolution 474. Hurriyat Conference was split after the 2002 Assembly elections when some of its constituents participated in the Assembly elections violating the Hurriyat constitution. Now there are two factions – one lead by the hard-line octogenarian, Syed Ali Shah Geelani and the other by young Mirwaiz Umer Farooq. Syed Ali Shah Geelani insists on the right to self-determination to the people of Jammu and Kashmir. He also insists on all the three parties – India, Pakistan and Kashmiris – to participate in the talks and is generally viewed by insiders to be playing to the tune of Pakistan. Other Hurriyat faction is more for the independence or self determination and for a negotiated settlement with India. Of late perceptible change is visible in Geelani’s rhetoric, as he has been asking the Union government to come forward with an “alternate solution” if the UN resolutions are not effective.
At the state political party level – National Conference (NC), Congress (INC), Bhartiya Janata Party (BJP), Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and Panthers Party are some other political groups with a sizable following of the first four. They are representative in character in the entire state and have moderate and unionist approach to a larger extent. BJP on the extreme right along with panther’s party and Ladakh Buddhist Association have an unequivocal stand of the state being an inalienable part of India. NC and INC have vacillated in their stand to please the vote banks in Jammu and Kashmir separately.
PDP is getting closer to the stance of full autonomy and may be keeping an option to take in moderate Hurriyat leaders and become a champion of the cause at political level. Former Jammu and Kashmir chief minister Dr Farooq Abdullah on Tuesday said there can be only one solution to the Kashmir problem of Jammu and Kashmir wherein the line of control disappears and the two regions continue to remain parts of India and Pakistan respectively. Abdullah told a delegation of politicians and intellectuals from Pakistan-occupied Kashmir led by former PoK prime minister Sardar Abdul Qayyum Khan, “The two Kashmir regions should remain with India and Pakistan respectively and the line of control between the valley and PoK disappears so that we can have a life of peace and tranquility,” he said.
The stand of Indian Parliament and mainstream political establishment was witnessed by the world, when an all-party delegation was sent to the Jammu and Kashmir in the wake of recent upsurge of demonstration by Kashmiri youths. Again the point to be noted is that none of the other areas, at least three under India have shown any concern to this group. It was also noted that the Valley itself is not all about stone throwers and running battles. There are many parents who want to get out of this vicious cycle and want to send their children to study to the schools. The 39-member delegation of Indian politicians met almost 1,000 people from a cross- section of society in the state during their three-day trip and heard people. Among these parties, right wing parties want the state to have no special powers and become an equal state of the union, while some in Communist parties believe in rapprochement and talking to even the hear-liners.
Congress and allied government (United progressive Alliance) headed by Dr Manmohan Singh proposed as they called an acceptable Kashmir solution, though it still remains Kashmir centric. India is to provide autonomy to Jammu and Kashmir and expects Pakistan to reciprocate on Pakistan occupied Kashmir. There will be no “border” between the east (Pakistan) Kashmir and west (India) Kashmir. India will hold authority over currency, defense, election process and judicial system. The Kashmir Government will manage the rest. Same reciprocation will be required from Pakistan on eastern Kashmir. The central government had rejected former Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf’s formula on Kashmir and instead proposed a self rule and open borders to both parts of Jammu and Kashmir. The formulation was based on a similar bill passed in Jammu and Kashmir Assembly. Dr Manmohan Singh and his officials went with greater autonomy bill adopted by the Jammu and Kashmir Assembly during the chief minister ship of Dr. Farooq Abdullah.
The BBC Formulations
Interestingly, BBC ran a formulation on the same subject and analyzed various possible scenarios and solutions. Coming from this respected media, the options deserve a mention as they take in all the combinations from all sides. 1. Maintain a status quo, formalize the boundary (LAC) but Pakistan and people of Kashmir valley reject it. 2. Jammu and Kashmir (meaning all six areas) fully joins India or Pakistan. Pakistan desires it but unlikely. India may also not get this wish fulfilled unless Pakistan goes through some cataclysmic events (a possible and nightmarish scenario for the region and world). 3. Independent Kashmir is a potential solution but requires India and Pakistan to give up territory, which they are not willing to do. Any plebiscite or referendum likely to result in a majority vote for independence would therefore probably be opposed by both India and Pakistan.
It would also be rejected by the inhabitants of the state (POK, Northern Area, Jammu and Ladakh) who are content with their status as part of the countries to which they already owe allegiance. 4. An independent Kashmir could be created in two Kashmir (POK and Kashmir valley). This would leave the strategically important regions of the Northern Areas and Ladakh, bordering China, under the control of Pakistan and India respectively. 5. Independent Kashmir Valley has been considered by some as the best solution. But critics say that, without external assistance, the region would not be economically viable. 6. Chenab Formula, first suggested in the 1960s, would see Kashmir divided along the line of the River Chenab. This would give the vast majority of land to Pakistan and, as such, will be unacceptable to India.
So, what do the people of Jammu and Kashmir want?
Many loyalists as well as the so-called hardliners in the loop, lost ground in Kashmir, because the Indian state and its polity have refused to find any worthwhile alternative to the UN resolutions. Whatever is put forward – Musharaf’s proposals were perhaps a refreshingly bold Pakistani view, closest to the Indian position, but rejected by Indian Government. Manmohan Singh’s re-iteration of what the Jammu and Kashmir Assembly had passed a long time ago is also closest to the optimum solution; but has been given a go-by by Pakistan. None of the leaders of the six disputed areas have given any proposal which is even acceptable to the majority of the three major stakeholders. Within India and Pakistan itself, we have Vajpayee and Manmohan proposals or Nawaj Sharif and Musharaf proposals…competing for the political mileage, thus negating the very essence of non-partisan approach.
It is an accepted fact that, in the 21st Century world, there is a greater acceptability and adherence to the UN sponsored peace solutions than the bilateral or regional ones. In India-Kashmir-Pakistan case; it may be underscored that we had a Karachi-Tashkent-Shimla agreements, waived as a red flag to the Plebiscite or UN resolutions of the Pakistan side. These agreements after the wars moved the ‘cease-fire line’ closer to an universally acceptable ‘international border’. But publically, all agreements fell short of any political acceptability on the both sides of border.
The people of Jammu and Kashmir want peace and development. Kashmir valley has a yearning for freedom from the cycle of violence, bandhs and bunkers. Jammu and Ladakh regions want complete autonomy, removal of Srinagar domination and increased Indian support for their development. People in Pakistan Occupied Kashmir want education, development, meeting with their families across the LOC and freedom from the Islamabad politics. Northern areas are tribal belts, fiercely independent and traditional to the core. They yearn for freedom from the proxy sham democracy of Islamabad, military rule on ground and non-development in the areas.
Now Chinese are worrying them to no extent. Chinese occupied Aksai chin and illegally acceded Northern areas need to be restored to the original occupants, the Ladakh Buddhists and Dardis of Chitral. People want space amongst themselves – away from the politics of India and Pakistan, to ponder over their fate. For our political parties, I can only say that think of hundreds of soldiers killed in the frozen glacier and LOC; they may build a national consensus on the problem. Not only Pakistan is a party to the problem, China too has a big chunk of this state under it and requires a resolution.
For over half a century the Indian governments of all hues, have adopted a negative, ostrich-like and defensive posture on UN resolutions on the plebiscite. Nothing could be more favourable to India than these UN resolutions with the suggested amendments. Let the eminently qualified interlocutors be allowed freedom to visit all the six areas and confirm above hypothesis.
Writer K K Sharma is retired Colonel.
