STATECRAFT BY HAPPYMON JACOB
One of the major reasons, among a host of many others, why we are unable to resolve the Jammu and Kashmir conflict is because there are too many plans, proposals, formulas and ‘solutions’ put forward for its resolution. This multiplicity of proposals is explained by the fact that there isn’t just one conflict in Kashmir: there are many conflicts within the one conflict in J&K. The important question, however, is that while we have scores of proposals for resolution, do we have some sort of consensus among them? Not yet, or perhaps we haven’t done enough exercise in building one. Precisely because there are many actors and players in J&K with divergent views and stakes, politics and proposals, it is impossible to accept one of them as the ‘mater plan’ to resolve the Kashmir conflict, however good, sensible and accommodative that one plan may be. Accepting one proposal over the others will only further vitiate the political atmosphere, let alone contribute towards resolving it. If we are not waiting for a ‘master proposal’ to come down to us, what the different stakeholders in J&K need to logically do is to create a consensual roadmap from among the existing proposals. Creation of such a consensual document may ideally go through the following phases: 1) look for commonalities and differences in the existing proposals; 2) devise a mechanism/fora for discussing and resolving the outstanding differences, and; 3) propose to implement the most common denominators among the them. This is oversimplification, some might argue. But complicated processes of conflict resolution have to pass through various stages of simplifying the issues at hand so that the general public and even the actors themselves understand what the others are talking about and how to start negotiating with them. While identifying the commonalities is extremely important, no less important is understanding the differences among them. There are and will be differences. Obvious differences and contradictory positions should not stop us from understanding the significance and import of flushing out the common themes running through the various proposals for therein lies the solution for many ills of the state. But which are those important proposals we are talking about here? The most important ones that one might want to consider are: 1) JKLF Roadmap for J&K, 2) Musharraff Proposals, 3) Article 370 of the Indian Constitution and the Delhi Agreement, 4) KSG Proposals, 5) The United States of Kashmir Proposal by Mirwaiz Umar Farooq, 6) Peoples Democratic Party proposal, 7) People’s Conference (Sajad Lone) proposal, 8) J&K State Autonomy Committee Report (National Conference), 9) Balwaristan National Front proposal, and 10) Manmohan Singh’s ideas. And what are those commonalities? As a starting point, I would like to point out five common themes among them for further discussion. The most important theme running through all of these proposals is the issue of Self-Rule and autonomy. While some of the proposals delve at length into these two related yet different issues, some do not. But all of these proposals do realize the need to give greater autonomy short of independence to Jammu and Kashmir (except perhaps in the case of JKLF which demands no less than complete independence). The other key agreement among these proposals is that all of them realize the need for cross-border mechanisms for deliberating, consulting and deciding on a variety of issues concerning both sides of J&K. Even as there has been a heated debate on the issue of joint management of resources and certain mutually agreed upon sectors of governance and what it entails among other things (whether this means joint control or joint management etc.), what is pertinent to note is that the key stakeholders have realized that this is one possible way ahead in a world that is quickly going past the confines of borders not just for peace but also for benefits of a great variety. Interestingly, let us remember that both Manmohan Singh and Pervez Musharraf apart from Sajad Lone, Mirwaiz Umar Farooq and PDP have endorsed this idea. Despite such huge high-level support for this proposal, this truly great idea is lies mired in obscure details. The third important, if not entirely common, factor in these proposals is the emphasis given to sub-regional problems and aspirations. Valley politics and discourse, by default or design, tends to dominate over most other pressing problems in the whole of J&K state, including on the Pakistani side of the border: issues relating to Jammu and Kashmir have come to identify solely with what happens in the Kashmir valley. It is necessary, therefore, to address and attend to such regional aspirations and problems be it regional autonomy, highlighting their differences with the valley or addressing governance related issues in the peripheral regions. The fourth issue addressed by most of these proposals is also the much debated issue of demilitarization in J&K. While many actors are chary of addressing the issue, some have looked at it openly with a willingness to discuss it. Despite the differences in this regard due to its politico-strategic sensitivity, there seems to be some agreement on phased demilitarization. Demilitarization when adequately phased and timed well with a reduction in terrorist violence, even the hawks within the government of India would be fine with it. Another equally important common factor seems to be the need to accord the state a lot more autonomy regarding financial matters, recruitments into civil services etc. While much of this is easy to do, this involves a great deal of trust and flexibility apart from political will from the part of the government in Delhi. Implementing the common themes pointed out above would require a lot of political will, courage, wisdom, flexibility and deliberations. The primary responsibility in this regard lies with the separatist leadership who has to think together to put up a common set of demands for J&K. Let us not forget that it is easy to rule when the opposition is divided. New Delhi would also need to bring itself to accept the need to think out of the box on Jammu and Kashmir.
(Source: Greater Kashmir, February 6, 2008. URL: http://www.greaterkashmir.com/full_story.asp?Date=6_2_2008&ItemID=6&cat=11)
One of the major reasons, among a host of many others, why we are unable to resolve the Jammu and Kashmir conflict is because there are too many plans, proposals, formulas and ‘solutions’ put forward for its resolution. This multiplicity of proposals is explained by the fact that there isn’t just one conflict in Kashmir: there are many conflicts within the one conflict in J&K. The important question, however, is that while we have scores of proposals for resolution, do we have some sort of consensus among them? Not yet, or perhaps we haven’t done enough exercise in building one. Precisely because there are many actors and players in J&K with divergent views and stakes, politics and proposals, it is impossible to accept one of them as the ‘mater plan’ to resolve the Kashmir conflict, however good, sensible and accommodative that one plan may be. Accepting one proposal over the others will only further vitiate the political atmosphere, let alone contribute towards resolving it. If we are not waiting for a ‘master proposal’ to come down to us, what the different stakeholders in J&K need to logically do is to create a consensual roadmap from among the existing proposals. Creation of such a consensual document may ideally go through the following phases: 1) look for commonalities and differences in the existing proposals; 2) devise a mechanism/fora for discussing and resolving the outstanding differences, and; 3) propose to implement the most common denominators among the them. This is oversimplification, some might argue. But complicated processes of conflict resolution have to pass through various stages of simplifying the issues at hand so that the general public and even the actors themselves understand what the others are talking about and how to start negotiating with them. While identifying the commonalities is extremely important, no less important is understanding the differences among them. There are and will be differences. Obvious differences and contradictory positions should not stop us from understanding the significance and import of flushing out the common themes running through the various proposals for therein lies the solution for many ills of the state. But which are those important proposals we are talking about here? The most important ones that one might want to consider are: 1) JKLF Roadmap for J&K, 2) Musharraff Proposals, 3) Article 370 of the Indian Constitution and the Delhi Agreement, 4) KSG Proposals, 5) The United States of Kashmir Proposal by Mirwaiz Umar Farooq, 6) Peoples Democratic Party proposal, 7) People’s Conference (Sajad Lone) proposal, 8) J&K State Autonomy Committee Report (National Conference), 9) Balwaristan National Front proposal, and 10) Manmohan Singh’s ideas. And what are those commonalities? As a starting point, I would like to point out five common themes among them for further discussion. The most important theme running through all of these proposals is the issue of Self-Rule and autonomy. While some of the proposals delve at length into these two related yet different issues, some do not. But all of these proposals do realize the need to give greater autonomy short of independence to Jammu and Kashmir (except perhaps in the case of JKLF which demands no less than complete independence). The other key agreement among these proposals is that all of them realize the need for cross-border mechanisms for deliberating, consulting and deciding on a variety of issues concerning both sides of J&K. Even as there has been a heated debate on the issue of joint management of resources and certain mutually agreed upon sectors of governance and what it entails among other things (whether this means joint control or joint management etc.), what is pertinent to note is that the key stakeholders have realized that this is one possible way ahead in a world that is quickly going past the confines of borders not just for peace but also for benefits of a great variety. Interestingly, let us remember that both Manmohan Singh and Pervez Musharraf apart from Sajad Lone, Mirwaiz Umar Farooq and PDP have endorsed this idea. Despite such huge high-level support for this proposal, this truly great idea is lies mired in obscure details. The third important, if not entirely common, factor in these proposals is the emphasis given to sub-regional problems and aspirations. Valley politics and discourse, by default or design, tends to dominate over most other pressing problems in the whole of J&K state, including on the Pakistani side of the border: issues relating to Jammu and Kashmir have come to identify solely with what happens in the Kashmir valley. It is necessary, therefore, to address and attend to such regional aspirations and problems be it regional autonomy, highlighting their differences with the valley or addressing governance related issues in the peripheral regions. The fourth issue addressed by most of these proposals is also the much debated issue of demilitarization in J&K. While many actors are chary of addressing the issue, some have looked at it openly with a willingness to discuss it. Despite the differences in this regard due to its politico-strategic sensitivity, there seems to be some agreement on phased demilitarization. Demilitarization when adequately phased and timed well with a reduction in terrorist violence, even the hawks within the government of India would be fine with it. Another equally important common factor seems to be the need to accord the state a lot more autonomy regarding financial matters, recruitments into civil services etc. While much of this is easy to do, this involves a great deal of trust and flexibility apart from political will from the part of the government in Delhi. Implementing the common themes pointed out above would require a lot of political will, courage, wisdom, flexibility and deliberations. The primary responsibility in this regard lies with the separatist leadership who has to think together to put up a common set of demands for J&K. Let us not forget that it is easy to rule when the opposition is divided. New Delhi would also need to bring itself to accept the need to think out of the box on Jammu and Kashmir.
No comments:
Post a Comment