The Kashmir Dispute: Why A Resolution is Closer than Ever

Imane Drissi El-Bouzaidi
December 2, 2010
Given the acrimonious history of the issue, is negotiated settlement of the Kashmir dispute possible?

Since the independence and separation of India and Pakistan, disputes over border issues have remained a contentious issue and continue to create instability in South Asia. The cause of the most concern is the dispute over Kashmir, which has been responsible for two wars and the location of rising insurgent groups. Due to the fact that both India and Pakistan have nuclear weapons further amplifies anxiety over the matter.  Some argue that there are too many actors with different interests and a history of bloodshed in the region, which will ensure that a resolution is never achieved. Although these are legitimate concerns, the issues should be seen merely as challenges, which can be overcome with rational solutions. This paper will argue that a negotiated settlement is possible because of India and Pakistan’s mutual interests in resolving the issue, their potential willingness to allow a greater U.S. role, and if certain steps are taken into account.

To begin, it is important to note the history of the issue because a deeper comprehension of the problem is required in order to establish an adequate response. The conflict began when the Maharajah of the state of Jammu and Kashmir hesitated in choosing whether to accede to Pakistan or India. Despite the fact that the population was largely Muslim, the Maharajah agreed to join India in return for military aid to dispel tribesmen that invaded the region (Blank 39). Pakistan entered the region as well and conflict ensued. The United Nations became involved and a resolution was passed, which demanded the withdrawal of troops and the implementation of a plebiscite to determine to which nation Kashmir would accede. Rather than implementing the plebiscite, the region was partitioned so that one third went to Pakistan, one half went to India, and later in the 1950s China took the north-east portion of Ladakh. There have been two wars over the region and insurgent groups, leading to incidents such as the Kargil incursion. Kashmiris face routine intimidation and degradation by the security forces that are perceived to be “in the Valley not to protect Kashmiris, but to keep them in line” (Blank 43). Although the situation is fraught with conflict, this paper will argue that a solution is in fact possible.

A resolution can be achieved due to a variety of reasons and if certain considerations are taken into account. Firstly, it is in both their interests to resolve the issue and the actors involved are showing that they are serious in this attempt. Dealing with the issue has become a cost that neither country can bear. There are more prevailing issues in South Asia so it is problematic that “the governments have spent hundreds of millions of rupees on feeding and fighting the conflict rather than on alleviating poverty and improving literacy and health programs” (Limaye 159). Pakistan may be more willing to compromise because it is being ravished by economic issues, floods, war, terrorism and it has learned that “military adventurism backed by nuclear bluff is not the best way to salvage its failing economy” (Blank 38). India is showing the same willingness to prevent bloodshed because although it defeated Pakistan’s Kargil incursion, it did not launch a counterattack, which showed self-restraint. For India a resolution will help diminish the threat of terrorism, which arises from groups in Kashmir that are opposed to being under India’s rule, such as the Lashkar-e-Taiba. They were responsible for the 2008 terrorist attacks in Mumbai, which was said to have been for the purpose of driving out Indian forces from Jammu and Kashmir (Haberfield 314). It is not only states that are more serious about resolving the conflict but grassroots groups in Kashmir, such as the Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Front (JKLF). Many have adopted the idea of “kashmiriyat,” which is a “unique cultural sensibility shared by the region’s Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, and even some Buddhists” (Blank 41). This shows that the actors have not been so polarized but rather that living together in religious, ethnic, and cultural harmony is still a possibility in the future.

The second reason why a negotiated settlement is possible is because if the U.S. becomes involved then it can be more influential in the region than ever before. Pakistan has always been receptive to external involvement but it is especially willing to involve the U.S. because they have historically been allies and are now in collaboration to fight the war on terror. India has traditionally been against foreign powers intervening; however, America’s ties to India are strong at the present because of a strengthening of economic relations, the passage of an Indo-U.S. civil nuclear deal, and due to America’s support of India for its bid for a UN Security Council seat. U.S. involvement has already been apparent because India “recently relied on the United States to wring commitments from Pakistan to end infiltration permanently and then to verify its termination” in order to deal with increasing terrorism (Limaye 162). The fact that India is benefitting from a closer relationship with the U.S. might imply that it would accommodate U.S. involvement in Kashmir as a mediator in order to continue maintaining this relationship. The U.S. will also be willing to pressure both states because a resolution is in its interests as well. Both India and Pakistan have nuclear weapons so “Kashmir will remain on the U.S. agenda, primarily because analysts see it as a potential spark to an explosive wider conflict in South Asia” (Evans 181). Furthermore, America wants the conflict to be solved so that Pakistan can divert its attention back to fighting al Qaeda (Tehran Times). Therefore, the fact that the U.S. can become more involved might be more likely to lead to a resolution.

Lastly, if certain steps are taken then a settlement can arise. Both states need to work to involve Kashmiris themselves and grassroots organizations or else policies that are imposed will be rejected by the population. India especially needs to regain the trust of Kashmiris by not committing human rights abuses and by using its economic power to alleviate the situation by developing industries and providing jobs (Blank 50). Job creation is crucial because some Kashmiris are joining militant groups solely because they need employment. Industries need to be supported so that Kashmir is not reliant on the war so that people do not feel that “the war has to go on: it is all that keeps the province afloat” (49 Blank). After actors are involved and the environment is calm, a healthy negotiation can take place.

The optimal solution is to hold a plebiscite, which was advised by the U.N. Security Council resolution 21 in 1948. India and Pakistan would be more likely to accept it now to resolve the conflict because other issues are more prominent, such as Pakistan dealing with al Qaeda and India maintaining its relationship with the U.S. This is especially true if the United States is involved to put pressure on the talks. A plebiscite is recommended because finding a solution to the conflict “will not happen simply through government-to-government negotiations” or with domineering policies but it must involve the Kashmiris (38 Blank). Different from the previous U.N. resolution, this plebiscite should include the option of gaining independence. There are many other options available, such as a partition, sovereignty, or autonomy; therefore, it is fair to say that successful negotiations can arise as a result.  

In conclusion, a negotiated settlement can be achieved because it is in the interests of the parties involved, each actor shows that they are serious about resolving the issue, and the U.S. is in a better place than ever before to act as a mediator. This paper argues that a plebiscite is the optimal choice with the choice of joining with either Pakistan, India, or gaining independence. Steps need to be taken to resolve the issue because not reaching a resolution may be detrimental to the security of all of South Asia.