A case for third party mediation on Kashmir

Abdul Majid Zargar

Kashmir is in national and international news once again. This time the hornet's nest has been stirred up by Foreign Minister of Finland, Alexander Stubb. He has suggested third party mediation between India and Pakistan over the issue, a festering wound which is eating into vitals of both the countries along with Kashmir.

India has been paranoid at the thought of third party mediation, international interference or even a remote interest in Kashmir issue. Any such act is looked at as interference in its internal matters. India does not bear any international gaze in its dealings in Kashmir. Not even from international human rights organizations like Amnesty International or similar other organizations.

Before the reasons for such an Indian attitude are analyzed, it may be worthwhile to note a few reactions to Alexander Stubb's suggestion of third party mediation. Writing in Hindustan Times of 5th May 2010, Rajesh Kalra, an eminent writer, has suggested Indians to stop purchasing Nokia phones, if Finland does not retract its Minister's statement. Since Nokia phones are manufactured by a company based in Finland, Kalra, in other words has proposed "Economic sanctions" on Finland as quid-pro-quo for its Minister's audacious suggestion. The views of the writer are bizarre, to say the least. An internationally recognized dispute like Kashmir, stands good chance of being solved by some give and take method but certainly not by adopting an intrastagient attitude as suggested by Kalra. Adopting that stand certainly means a foreign policy disaster for India.

Why does India oppose a third party mediation or international interference on Kashmir issue. Firstly India has never really been sure that the world, by and large, accepts the legitimacy of its control over Kashmir. There are other reasons for India's hesitation which have been articulated often by different representatives of the government. Some of these are:

1. That Kashmir being an integral part, is India's internal issue which brooks no outside interference. The reason that this is reiterated at any given opportunity is essentially because New Delhi worries that the United States might use its might as the world's superpower to impose a solution to Kashmir.

2. India being a pluristic society is afraid that it might follow the fate of the Soviet Union once it is compelled to offer concessions on Kashmir. Indian elite considers Jammu and Kashmir, the only Indian state where the majority of the population is Muslim, to be the weakest link in a Hindu-majority country.

3. India is also apprehensive that any concessions given to Kashmir will, in turn, open the floodgates for demands in other states.

Are India's above concerns or apprehensions genuine? The last decade has witnessed India making a big leap forward. It is not just a regional player. It is now being counted as one among giant world powers. Its views and opinions about various global issues are being taken with respect. It plays an important role in multilateral organizations and is a major contributor to UN peacekeeping missions. It is an aspiring candidate for a permanent seat in UN Security Council and major world powers are receptive to this wish. If we link these to the fact that it is a big democracy, there is need for a strategic relationship. It is, therefore imperative that its ties with Pakistan are improved, its thinking on Afghanistan rational and its relationship with other neighbourers warm and cordial.

It is in this context that India needs to solve Kashmir issue, sooner the better. Since attempts to solve it bilaterally with Pakistan has not yielded any result for last more than sixty years, the attention should move to alternative methods and one of them certainly is a third party mediation. Adopting this methodology has many benefits, some of which are listed below:

1. It is an accepted fact that both in India and Pakistan, no political party can expect to survive in power, if it is perceived, even slightly, offering concessions on Kashmir. Third party decision on the issue will rule out any such possibility.

2. Two agreements between India and Pakistan, mediated by third parties, have already stood test of time. One is "Indus Water Treaty" mediated by World Bank in 1960 and the other is "Rann of Kutch agreement" mediated by British sponsored Tribunal in 1968. It is worth mentioning here that in India, a no-confidence motion was moved against Indira Gandhi's government in February 1968 for entering into such an agreement with Pakistan but was defeated by 203 to 72 votes. She carried the day by asserting the Indian government should not always proceed on the basis of hostility towards Pakistan and no matter how torturous the road, India and Pakistan must learn to walk together.

3. Another issue is that a lasting bilateral approach can only work between equals. Two nations do not necessarily need to be of the same size but they have to have political and constitutional systems that are comparable in their stability and consistency. This situation is absent in case of India and Pakistan. The former is a democracy and the later a hybrid system of democracy and dictatorship where Army exercises a veto power over all decisions of the Govt.

It is therefore in India's interest to engage Pakistan over Kashmir through a third party. Pakistan still reiterates its demand for such mediation on Kashmir, and thus would be hard-pressed to reject this approach. Third party mediation or facilitation on Kashmir can move forward only if there is a mutual will to settle the issue. Both India and Pakistan have everything to gain and nothing to lose in the event of third party mediation.

(The author is a practicing chartered Accountant & can be mailed for feed back at amzargar1@indiatimes.com)