PEACE IN PARADISE CALLED KASHMIR??

A guide to Kashmir peace plans

Muzamil Jaleel examines some of the suggested solutions to the longstanding dispute between India and Pakistan

For centuries, poets and travellers called Kashmir a paradise on Earth. But the paradise has become a tragic problem - a problem so complex that two countries have fought three wars over it in 50 years. Nothing divides India and Pakistan as Kashmir does, and nobody has suffered more in the process than the people of Kashmir.

For the time being, India and Pakistan seem to have miraculously escaped from another war, with tensions apparently eased at the borders. But the threat of a nuclear conflagration in the subcontinent reminds the world of the urgency of a resolution to this vexed problem. There have been nearly 40 official proposals for a solution, but not a single plan has yet been acceptable to all parties.
Kashmir's fate is still locked into the story of India's partition in 1947, when Pakistan was carved out as a home for Indian Muslims. The first war between the two countries was fought within months of their independence, while their armed forces were still under the command of British officers. Kashmir was divided - and remains divided - between the two countries.
India claims that Muslim-dominated Kashmir is an integral part of the country, a cornerstone of its secular democracy. Pakistan sees Kashmir as its "jugular vein" and believes its merger into Pakistan is simply an unfinished task of partition. As for the Kashmiris themselves, most would like to be left alone by both sides.
International border
One option suggested for Kashmir is to put the current division of the area on a more official footing, by turning the line of control between India- and Pakistan-administered Kashmir into an international border.
There are indications that India might accept this solution. Several Indian political parties have backed it, as has the chief minister of Indian-administered Kashmir, Farooq Abdullah. However, such a plan would be unacceptable both to Pakistan and to many Kashmiris living on either side of the line of control.
Let Kashmiris choose
Another straightforward solution would be the implementation of United Nations resolutions on Kashmir, leading to a plebiscite which would give Kashmiris the choice of either Indian or Pakistani rule.
Fatally, for this plan, India is unlikely to walk into the almost-certain embarrassment of losing the vote. Equally importantly for India, there are fears that a plebiscite on Kashmir's future could set a precedent, fuelling the calls for similar referendums which are already being heard in north-eastern states, Punjab and even in the south.
Neither would all Kashmiris be happy to be given a choice of rulers. Many would want the third option of an independent Kashmir.
This raises the question of whether, although neither India nor Pakistan can afford to let the other side win Kashmir, could a solution be envisaged in which both would lose it?
Independence
The creation of an independent state of Jammu and Kashmir would have its own problems. The argument for self-determination is essentially that historically Kashmir was an independent entity until its incorporation into the Mughal empire in 1586.
The leader of the pro-independence Jammu Kashmir Liberation Front, Amanullah Khan, suggests a five-phase formula for independence, to be overseen by a UN committee.
The committee, comprising representatives from a wide variety of countries, would work towards a referendum in 15 years, following a phased withdrawal of troops by both countries and the disarming of Kashmiri militants.
Even within Kashmir, however, a plebiscite leading to independence would not be welcomed by all.
Kashmir is not a homogeneous ethnic or religious unit, and the political aspirations of its people vary widely. Neither independence nor Pakistani rule would be acceptable to the Hindu-dominated parts of Jammu and the Budhist Leh in Ladakh, for example, which would never be in favour of secession from the Indian state.
Similarly, the Kashmiri-speaking Hindus or Pandits who have migrated out of the Kashmir valley demand a homeland with a union territory status - that is, direct rule from Delhi.
Religious segregation
In 1950 the Australian diplomat Sir Owen Dixon put forward a plan to redraw the boundaries of Kashmir on religious lines. He saw the river Chinab as a natural border.
This would have meant that most of the Muslim-dominated areas of what is Indian-administered Kashmir would go to Pakistan, but the Hindu-dominated area would have remained with India.
The plan met with opposition from those with pro-independence sentiments, but it had a more serious flaw. The large wave of migration caused by the imposition of such a border would involve the displacement of many thousands of people, which could itself lead to violence.
It seems unlikely that the international community would back a plan of this sort, which would involve the segregation of Hindus and Muslims who have been living for a long time as neighbours in many areas. As many as 800,000 people might be uprooted as a result of such a partition.
Partition
According to British Foreign Office files declassified recently, the United States and Britain were urging India and Pakistan to search for a partition solution in the mid-60s, soon after the Indo-China war.
The United States supported the creation of an independent Kashmir valley, but Britain feared that Russia and China would immediately exert communist influence over the new sovereign state.
The Soviets were also against an independent Kashmir, fearing that the US would hold sway there and use it as a base.
The talks also discussed the partition of Kashmir valley, but ultimately failed. They were followed by the outbreak of war.
The Andorra model
In 1998, a Kashmiri American businessman assembled a group of western policymakers and academics to set up the Kashmir Study Group. The group soon published a set of possible resolutions, including an innovative arrangement on the pattern of Andorra, the tiny state which lies on the borders of France and Spain.
It involved the reconstitution of part of Jammu and Kashmir as a sovereign entity, in the same way as Andorra, with free access to and from both of its larger neighbours. The part of the state which was to be reconstituted would be determined through an internationally supervised agreement involving the Kashmiri people, India and Pakistan.
The resulting entity would have its own secular, democratic constitution; distinct citizenship; a flag; and a legislature which would pass laws on all matters other than defence and foreign affairs.
The proposal relies on India and Pakistan overseeing the defence of the Kashmiri entity, and jointly working out its funding.
There would be no change in the present line of control, but the whole entity would become a demilitarised zone.
The plan does not try to avoid a particularly important question which has dogged the Kashmir dispute: the politics of ego and prestige attached to the claim on the area. Any real solution to the Kashmir problem would have to be immune to the suggestion that it amounted to a defeat for either of the warring neighbours.
Involving as it does no movement of borders, the Andorra proposal has at least the potential to secure both sides a limited measure of control over the entire Kashmir region, and attain for both populations a sense of victory. The feelings of Kashmiris too would be assuaged to a great extent. It may be the only possible solution in sight.
· Muzamil Jaleel, a journalist with the Indian Express, is on attachment to Guardian Unlimited