Kashmir Leaders: Nawaz Sharif Has His Own Game-

There is a lot of excitement in Pakistan on the resumption of dialogue with New Delhi. The thaw in the frosty relationship between the two countries ten days after the “chance” meeting between Prime Minister, Modi and his Pakistani counterpart Sharif in Paris is seen as “great diplomatic feat” in Islamabad. Compared to Pakistan, the reaction in Indian media has been overall subdued. The triumphant mood in Islamabad perhaps is because the joint statement issued by the two countries after meeting of Sushma Swaraj and Sartaj Aziz has largely annulled the Ufa joint statement. It had addressed only New Delhi’s concerns. Moreover, for not mentioning Kashmir it was seen in Pakistan not only as faux pas but also as a surrender by Nawaz Sharif government. The enthusiasm in Islamabad is also for the joint statement being a departure from the NDA government much trumpeted mantra ‘first address India’s concerns on terrorism then talks on another outstanding issues.’
The composite dialogue has now been given a new name ‘comprehensive bilateral dialogue (CCD). Nonetheless, the CBD will deliberate on all issues which were part of the ‘composite dialogue’- a phrase first coined in 1997 when then Prime Ministers Gujral and Sharif had agreed to hold more structured talks between their countries. The phrase was coined by New Delhi. True, to the history of relations between the two countries, the structured talks had their highs and lows- there were more of lows than highs. In 2011, these were put back on the track to be derailed just one year after. Seen in right perspective, minus some CBMs and few years comparative calm along the LOC substantially there has been no forward movement since 1997 towards the resolution of the Kashmir Dispute and ensuring perennial peace between the two neighbours.
Notwithstanding, scepticism that is inherent in the India and Pakistan engagements, the resumption of peace talks between New Delhi and Islamabad is welcome. These may help in reducing tension along the LOC and put a halt on cross-border firing. However, it will be too early to say if the two countries at any point of time in near future really seriously engage on Kashmir. Even, if the NDA leadership shows statesmanship and unlike its predecessors instead of using dialogue as a medium for procrastination decides to take the bull by horns, what could be the roadmap for talks on Kashmir?
Pakistan for past over two decades has been seeing coordinating its negotiating position with Kashmir opinion as essential. It has been talking to Kashmir ‘resistance leadership before talking to New Delhi. This position taken by Pakistan in September 2014 had become a reason for India drawing curtains on the NSAs level talks, much before they started. The question is will New Delhi agree to take the Kashmir resistance leadership on board during the talks or continue with the red lines it had drawn when at the time of the NSAs meeting in September 2014. Not speak of allowing Kashmir leadership on sitting on the negotiating along with Pakistan and India delegations, it is not ready even to involve them in proximity talks or in back channel dialogue.
The upbeat mood in Islamabad about the ‘ten-day diplomatic miracle’ and revival of the composite dialogue is understandable. Nonetheless, is there any reason for the Kashmir leadership to brag about these developments? And claim credit for the breakthrough. It is a truism that most intractable disputes are ultimately resolved at the negotiable table. Nonetheless, it is not a thumb rule that all disputes coming to the negotiable table get resolved. Instances are replete, once a dispute fails to be resolved bilaterally at the negotiated table the option available are third party mediation, arbitration or adjudication by an international organization like the International Court of Justice or the United Nations Security Council.
In 1947, after the birth of the Kashmir Dispute, India and Pakistan choose to resolve the dispute through bilateral talks. Four days after the Maharaja Hari Singh ‘supposedly’ signed a conditional ‘Instrument of Accession’ with an annexure delineating the relation between New Delhi and Srinagar and landing of Indian troops, India and Pakistan started a bilateral dialogue for resolving the Kashmir dispute. On November 1, 1947, the Governor-General of India and Pakistan Mountbatten and MA Jinnah met in Lahore for three hours. Mountbatten proposed a plebiscite under UN supervision for deciding future of Jammu and Kashmir. So far holding of the plebiscite is concerned the Governor Generals were in agreement. Instead of involving UN which he believed will be time-consuming M.A. Jinnah suggested demilitarization of entire Jammu and Kashmir and holding of plebiscite under the supervision of two Governor Generals. The bilateral meeting was followed by an exchange of suggestions and concerns through telegrams. Seeing, the march of events and Kashmir becoming ‘intractable’ British Prime Minister, Attlee suggested the two countries to put Kashmir under the supervision of an independent person and for speedy solution take recourse to the International Court of Justice. Believing, Kashmir cannot be resolved through bilateral negotiations India choose to seek adjudication through UN Security Council. Through its resolutions of the 1948 – 1949, Security Council awarded a verdict and disposed of the case filled by India. And what is pending is the execution of the decision given by the ‘arbitrator’ fixed by New Delhi. On the execution of the UN decision, the two countries had talks at all levels and also agreed upon modus operandi. The Proviso, 2 and 3 in Article 4, in the Simla Agreement also binds the two countries to the UNSC decision on India’ petition.
Seen in right perspective, Musharraf’s in December 2003 while proposing “to set aside the UN resolutions on Kashmir had perhaps forgotten that these resolutions were a verdict on India’s petition by the highest world body. He also had forgotten, as top former diplomat Qazi Ashraf Jahangir in an article in 2014 wrote, “Leave aside history, religion and the many other links, Pakistan as a legal party to the dispute has an obligation to uphold and promote the right of self-determination of the Kashmiri people. If it walks away from this obligation it diminishes itself as a nation.”
The future talks on Kashmir should be on execution of UN decision rather than finding a new formula.

Published in Greater Kashmir on 14-12-15