Solving Kashmir
Last week, a lot of attention was focused on Afghanistan and Pakistan, since the leaders of the two countries were visiting President Obama in Washington. But nobody seems to be talking about an obvious (if difficult) solution to at least part of the problem Pakistan finds itself in currently -- solving the Kashmir problem once and for all.
Pakistan certainly has enough problems on its plate, and without getting into their internal political and military situation too deeply, part of the problem with the Taliban and other extremist groups having a safe haven in northwest Pakistan is that the Pakistani military is reluctant to engage too many of their troops with the militants, because of their long obsession with India. The militant groups are expanding their influence from the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) to the Swat Valley and beyond. This is a little too close to the nation's capital city for comfort, and the Pakistani troops are now pushing back.
But reports are that they're only sending about 15 percent of their army to do the job. This is because most of the Pakistani army is busy with their traditional foe, India. And since the two nations are now both nuclear-armed, things can get tense along the border. This tension is at its highest point in the Kashmir region.
Kashmir is a valley in the mountain ranges at the skirts of the Himalayas. The entire region, now known as Kashmir and Jammu, was once a principality in the area where China, India, and Pakistan meet. Part of the problem is that just looking at a map doesn't accurately give a good picture of the region, because most people live in the area that India administers currently. The Pakistani area is very mountainous, and the Chinese area is primarily an ancient dead sea -- an alkaline desert. All three countries have claims on the region for differing reasons that stretch back to the 1800s (and earlier -- Kashmir is in a part of the world where territory and fealty has changed hands many times throughout history).
When Britain partitioned India following World War II (when Pakistan was created), the Kashmir region was supposed to hold a vote on which country they wanted to be part of (independence was even supposed to be on the table). This vote has never occurred. Pakistan and India both moved troops into the region. India says the ruler of the area signed a document putting them under Indian control. Pakistan says this document (if it even exists, they claim they haven't seen the original) was signed after Indian troops entered, under duress.
China, meanwhile, had never agreed to give up its claims on the region, and (while India and Pakistan were busy with each other) quietly built a military road through their section. For China, the mostly-worthless chunk they claim isn't important in and of itself, it is important for a route from one region to another within China.
Since then, many wars have been fought over the boundary lines. India and Pakistan have fought both on a large scale, and in small-scale low-level raids pretty much ever since the British left. India and China fought their own conflict over their dividing line as well.
In other words, resolving the issue and drawing final national boundary lines between the countries will be about as easy as getting Israel and Palestine to agree on a map. It's not going to be easy. But that doesn't mean the Obama administration shouldn't make the attempt (or may already be making the attempt, for all I know). Because getting everyone to agree over the issue would go a long way towards ratcheting down the half century of distrust and tit-for-tat military actions between India and Pakistan. Meaning Pakistan could free up some of their army to keep control of their own national territory.
In this case, border lines have already been drawn by the United Nations. Between India and Pakistan it is known as the "Line Of Control" (LOC) and between India and China the "Line of Actual Control" (LAC). The LOC has been in place since 1972. Pakistan, in this division, gets the Northern Areas, China gets Aksai Chin and the Trans-Karakoram Tract (or the Shaksgam Valley region), and India gets Jammu and Kashmir. The Siachen Glacier, which is kind of where all three countries' claims meet, is usually left as an area with no clear dividing line. India has even built a 460-mile-long fence (a double fence topped with concertina wire and mined in between) just inside their side of the LOC, to reduce infiltration and weapons smuggling into its region.
The real sticking point between India and Pakistan is the Kashmir Valley itself. This region was mostly Muslim before the British left, and Pakistan claims it on that basis -- that if an election had been held, it would have joined Pakistan. This is a reasonable argument, from the population data available. But India has held it since then (it's on India's side of the LOC). And this would be the major point of dissention in any negotiations over drawing final boundary lines in the region.
President Obama and the American media have managed to start the American public thinking of regional solutions to problems that span national boundaries in the area (although I refuse to use the current in-vogue term "AfPak" to describe Afghanistan and Pakistan, both because it is way too cutesy and because it is insulting... look into how "Paki" is used as a slur by the British to see what I mean). But Afghanistan and Pakistan are not the only countries in this region. And if we're going to seriously talk about the problems Pakistan faces, it is naive to leave India and Kashmir out of the equation, because that is Pakistan's main military concern (and not defeating the Taliban, no matter how happy it would make America if they did so).
Whether it is in public, with full diplomatic "summit" flourishes and pomp, or in quiet rooms in Switzerland exploring diplomatic back channels, getting Pakistan and India and China together to discuss finally resolving their border disputes in the Kashmir region once and for all would be a stunning diplomatic achievement for any president. The stakes -- obviously with three nuclear powers -- are enormously high. The chance for failure is also high, since this conflict has been going on for over half a century now. But if Pakistan and India could declare peace and accept a line through the region as their final national boundaries, it could pay off huge dividends in the fight against terrorists.
America could help draw the final lines, or the United Nations could take another crack at it if need be, or even long-delayed elections could be held in the region, as initially promised by the British. China probably wouldn't go along with elections (nobody lives in their claimed area), but the Chinese/Indian line is a lot less contentious than the Pakistan/India line to begin with, so perhaps that part of it could be taken off the electoral table.
But whatever peaceful resolution turns out to be the best for all concerned would be discussed in a summit or in those back channel dialogs. It wouldn't happen overnight, no matter what was agreed upon. And while in general it's in America's interests to not have a nuclear war anywhere on the planet, we don't really have a dog in this fight. America doesn't really have an invested stake in what happens in any particular place in Kashmir, in other words. But if Pakistan and India could finally "stand down" militarily from the border regions, it would free up the Pakistani military and make it easier for them to clean up their own back yard in the FATA. Which is indeed an American objective. Meaning the effort -- even if ultimately fruitless -- to finally resolve the Kashmir problem would be worth the attempt by the Obama administration, because it could pay off big dividends in another fight -- one that we are much more invested in than the Kashmir situation.
Cross-posted at The Huffington Post
-- Chris Weigant
Chris,
I think you hit the proverbial nail squarely on the head!
We have gone from an intervention into Afghanistan to a quasi-regional focus on Afghanistan/Pakistan in about eight years. (I never use the AfPak shorthand, either, for the very reasons you state...well, that and the fact that I'll take the long version over the short version of everything, all the time!) I trust that expanding the focus to include India, not to mention Iran and others, won't take the same length of time.
I'm pretty sure that Obama/BIDEN get that this thing has truly regional dimensions and that the time has come to implement a regional strategy based on the latest proposals out of the International Crisis Group...although, the ICG paid scant attention to India in what they are now advocating that US policy should be. Perhaps they'll cover that dynamic in another report.
http://www.crisisgroup.org/home/index.cfm?id=6007&CFID=49125225&CFTOKEN=60427182
I'm guessing there are effective ways for the US and international community to work in concert to coerce the Pakistani military to step up to the plate and act against the jihadists in their midst without solving the Kashmir problem. But, better relations between India and Pakistan can't help but improve the chances for success.
Elizabeth -
I will check the link out, thanks.
Over at HuffPost, reading comments, I realize I wasn't as precise in my language as I could have been. The next-to-last paragraph should not (but read a certain way, certainly can) imply that the people in Kashmir haven't had any elections since 1947. They have indeed been part of the Indian election process during this time. But I was talking (in this paragraph in particular) about a referendum of the people who live in the entire region as to what they want for their own land -- to be a part of India, a part of Pakistan, or even their own independent nation. I realize (after re-reading) that this wasn't made clear enough in the language I used, which is why I'm clarifying it here. Such a referendum has never, to the best of my knowledge, taken place.
-CW
You may be interested in these documents on Kashmir:
http://www.kashmir-information.com/LegalDocs/index.html
Though the nail has been hit on the head, but not hard enough, as the solution proposed by you still is murky and not sync with the ground realities.
Can we reproduce this article at pakspectator.com?
Ghazala
pakspectator.com
Ghazala -
Thanks for your request. You certainly may reproduce this article, the only thing I ask is that you credit it by providing a link back to this site. I am no expert on the region, but I think it is a discussion worth having by those who are experts on the situation.
-CW
At the link above there are 140+ legal documents on Kashmir, but if you only have the time to read a few historical documents, these would be ones to read which can be found at this link
http://www.jammu-kashmir.com/documents/documents.html :
-Maharaja Hari Singh's Letter to Mountbatten
-Accession Of Jammu And Kashmir State To India
-Text of India's Indian Complaint to the Security Council, 1st January 1948
-Sheikh Abdullah's speech to the UN
-U.N.RESOLUTION August 13, 1948
-Resolution on Assurances adopted by U.N. Commission for India and Pakistan(UNCIP) 1948
-Article 370 of the Indian Constitution
-Excerpts from Sheikh Abdullah's Opening Address to the J&K Constituent Assembly
-The Tashkent declaration 10th February 1966
-The Kashmir Accord 13 Nov 1974
-Simla Agreement, 2 July 1972
-Text of Memorandum submitted by 14 Muslim leaders of India
to Dr. Frank P. Graham, United Nations Representative,14 August, 1951 at this link http://www.kashmir-information.com/LegalDocs/MuslimLeaders.html
To further understand what is going on there you may want to read the following articles:
http://www.kashmir-information.com/Bodansky/Bodansky1.html
http://www.kashmir-information.com/Bodansky/Bodansky2.html
http://www.kashmir-information.com/Bodansky/Bodansky3.html
http://www.kashmir-information.com/Bodansky/Bodansky4.html
http://www.freeman.org/m_online/bodansky/beijing.htm
http://www.freeman.org/m_online/bodansky/chechnya.htm
http://www.ikashmir.net/slides/refugees/index.html
http://www.ikashmir.net/turmoil/doc/turmoil.pdf
http://www.ikashmir.net/storm/doc/storm.pdf
http://www.ikashmir.net/whitepaper/doc/whitepaper.pdf
http://www.ikashmir.net/slides/doc/kashmirfactsheet.pdf
http://www.ikashmir.net/slides/doc/flashpoint.pdf
http://www.ikashmir.net/exodus/doc/exodus.pdf
-all the legal documents in the first post are readable as pdf here: http://www.ikashmir.net/historicaldocuments/doc/historicaldocuments.pdf
http://www.ikashmir.net/afghanistan/doc/afghanistan.pdf
http://www.nytimes.com/1999/06/20/weekinreview/the-world-the-world-takes-notice-kashmir-gets-scarier.html?scp=50&sq=kashmir&st=cse
http://www.nytimes.com/1990/06/16/opinion/l-pakistan-fans-flames-of-kashmir-violence-659490.html?scp=60&sq=kashmir&st=cse
http://www.nytimes.com/1993/08/24/world/afghans-joining-rebels-in-kashmir.html?scp=59&sq=kashmir&st=cse
http://www.nytimes.com/1991/09/15/world/hindus-who-fled-kashmir-bitter-over-fate.html?scp=11&sq=kashmir&st=cse
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/12/24/international/asia/24STAN.html?scp=32&sq=kashmir&st=cse
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/25/world/kashmir-massacre-may-signal-the-coming-of-widespread-violence.html?scp=35&sq=kashmir&st=cse
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Saudi-Pakistani+Nuclear+Linkage+Marks+The+Opening+Of+A+Sunni+Muslim...-a0109943802
http://www.freeman.org/m_online/jul98/bodansky.htm
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/015/888cnuxk.asp
http://articles.latimes.com/2008/dec/08/world/fg-militants8
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2008/12/let-usa/
http://www.slate.com/id/2200134/
RKT,
Wow! I think you may deserve some kind of award.
Thanks Elizabeth, but others compiled the documents (my posts 1 and 2) together and put them online, others did the in depth research and wrote the articles (my post 3).
What I found is that not many people have read the documents of the time on Kashmir by the people involved. I think it helps for laymen to better analyze articles written on the subject. So those documents are a good place to start.
Things are going to be hairy for a while, even longer than the 6 decades it has been since partition. Not just between India and Pakistan, or among India, Pakistan, China and Afghanistan (http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2009/05/pipelineistan-goes-af-pak). As they say in the region, people fight for "Zameen, Zar, Zen" - Land, gold, and women.
Also from the Pakistani Jihadist view the fight in Kashmir is not about Kashmir, and that threat from Jihadist is what India has to cope with: Indictment of 11 Lashkar-e-Toiba terrorists by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia (Alexandria Division) http://www.satp.org/satporgtp/countries/india/states/jandk/documents/papers/LeT_US.htm
"...The Jihad is not about Kashmir only. It encompasses all of India including Junagarh, Mavadar, and Hyderabad, etc. .
About 15 years ago, people might have found it ridiculous if someone had told them about the disintegration of the USSR. Today, I announce the break-up of India, insha-Allah. We will not rest until the whole India is dissolved into Pakistan… May Allah bestow martyrdom on us and enter us into the higher ranks of Paradise by His mercy...."
That website above, South Asia Terrorism Portal (http://www.satp.org) is a comprehensive site if you want to learn more about all the terrorists groups operating in South Asia like in Kashmir.
FYI the British had not only divide and conquer motivations for partition, but also this: "[Turkey] had lost her leadership of Islam and Islam might now look to leadership to the Muslims of Russia. This would be a most dangerous attraction. There was therefore much to be said for the introduction of a new Muslim power supported by the science of Britain ... It seemed to some of us very necessary to place Islam between Russian communism and Hindustan.
- Sir Francis Tucker, General Officer-Commanding of the British Indian Eastern Command." http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/GC23Df04.html. Look up how many Indians on both sides died and were uprooted because of partition.
The last link doesn't seem to work, so I'll try to post it again...
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/GC23Df04.html
You may also want to check out this book:
The Shadow of the Great Game: The Untold Story of India’s Partition by Narendra Singh Sarila
Rushdie's article:Salman Rushdie, in “‘Brutality, Incompetence And Cynical Duplicity,’†http://www.outlookindia.com/full.asp?fodname=20081219&fname=Salman+Rushdie&sid=1&pn=3
"….But the point I want to make is that I do not believe that the terrorists such as these — I do not believe that their project has anything to do with justice.
Ask yourself the question that if the Kashmir problem were resolve tomorrow, if Israel-Palestine reached a lasting peace, do we believe that al-Qaeda would disband? Do we believe that Lashkar-e-Toiba and Jaish-e-Mohammad would put their guns down and beat them into plough-shears and say we would now be farmers because our job is done.
I mean the point about is that is laughable, right? And the point about that is that that is not their project. Their project is power. This is a power grab by the most obscurantist, revanchist, old-fashioned, medievalist idea of modern culture that attempts to drag the world back into the middle ages at the point of modern weaponry … â€