Why the �united states of Kashmir�?

By Dr Moonis Ahmar

The proposal for creating a �united states of Kashmir� as a solution to the lingering dispute, advocated by the chairman of All Parties� Hurriyat Conference (APHC), Mirwaiz Umar Farooq, during his June visit to Pakistan and then reiterated in a speech by him at the leadership summit of The Hindustan Times held in New Delhi in November, has received a mixed response from the major stakeholders.

The leadership summit was also addressed by Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Israeli leader Ehud Barak. While most of the pro-independence groups in Jammu and Kashmir operating on both sides of the Line of Control (LoC) support the idea, Pakistan maintains a soft but neutral stance whereas India has rejected it on the grounds that it seeks to change the territorial status quo.

Mirwaiz Umar Farooq, who along with two other APHC leaders Abdul Ghani Bhat and Bilal Ghani Lone recently visited Muzaffarabad to express solidarity with the earthquake victims, has in his meetings with the Pakistani and Kashmiri leaders rejected permanency of the Line of Control and made it clear that the APHC wants reintegration of the state of Jammu and Kashmir and not its division.

What exactly is the idea of the �united states� of Kashmir and why it has been raised at this stage? To what extent is it viable and what are its important fault lines? These are the questions which agitate the minds of people on both sides in Kashmir.

Since the outbreak of a popular uprising in the Indian-controlled Kashmir valley in 1989, several proposals to resolve the Kashmir conflict have been mooted from various sides. Some of these which called for converting the Line of Control into an international border lack any appeal for the people of Jammu and Kashmir. They, being a major party to the conflict, insist that their aspirations be taken into account in the ongoing dialogue.

Other proposals like turning the Kashmir valley into an independent state or the merger of Azad Kashmir with the Indian controlled Kashmir valley for the purpose of creating a single state are not acceptable to New Delhi and Islamabad. Another proposal, called the �Chenab formula�, which suggests division of a Kashmir along religious lines was rejected by India. The latest proposal calls for merger of all the seven regions of Jammu and Kashmir � two controlled by Pakistan and five by India � into a federation under the title of �The United States of Kashmir.�

Two factors form the core of this idea. First, the diverse nature of the Jammu and Kashmir state in which no single ethnic or religious group holds sizable influence in all the seven regions of the state. Although Muslims in the areas that fall under the control of both India and Pakistan are a majority group when one talks about the whole of the J&K state, there is a sizable non-Muslim population in Jammu and in Ladakh. In the northern areas of Gilgit, Baltistan and Hunza, which have a historic affiliation with J&K, the Shia population is larger than of the Sunnis and the Ismailis living there. In the Ladakh region too, most of the Muslims living there are Shias. Jammu has a non-Muslim population in the majority, whereas in the Kashmir valley Muslims are the dominant group and the Hindu population consists of Kashmiri Brahmins.

The total population of the Jammu and Kashmir region is 13.65 million out of which 9.45 million live in areas under Indian control and 4.20 million in Pakistan-controlled area. It is because of the ethnic, lingual, religious, sectarian and communal diversity of the region that the proposal of a federation of Kashmir has been found to be an appropriate solution. Second, almost six decades of Indian and Pakistani rule over various parts of the Jammu and Kashmir state has diluted the identity of these areas.

While the Kashmiri identity remains mute, the sub-identities of areas like Jammu, Ladakh, Gilgit, Baltistan and Hunza are in decline. Those who advocate the idea of a �united states� are mindful of the enormous ethnic and religious contradictions among the people living in different parts of the region and hence suggest that the proposed state should have a decentralized structure so that all the areas (states) are able to enjoy a sizable autonomy and flourish by promoting their mutual economic, trade, cultural and communication ties.

Elaborating his idea of united states of Kashmir during his speech at the Leadership Summit in New Delhi, Mirwaiz Umar Farooq said: �Let it not be said that the Hurriyat does not recognize the diversity within the state. It has repeatedly acknowledged and advocated the representation of these diversities and in such recognition has mooted a United States of Kashmir. This may or may not be acceptable to the state�s diverse population. But to verify that we need an atmosphere in which we, the diverse people of the state, can meet freely without fear of labels, talk amongst ourselves, understand each other and determine what is practicable. Clearly the governments of India and Pakistan need to be generous to allow this internal dialogue amongst ourselves.�

The road to a �united states of Kashmir�, is, however, not smooth because of three reasons. First, Pakistan may be receptive to the idea but for India it is entirely non-negotiable. For Pakistan, any idea or a proposal which assures some betterment for the people of Jammu and Kashmir is acceptable. President Gen Pervez Musharraf, in his path-breaking speech, which he delivered on October 25, 2004 in Islamabad, also called for resolving the Kashmir conflict by identifying the regions, de-militarizing them and changing their status before looking for possible options to resolve the dispute.

His proposal, which called for self-governance of different regions of Jammu and Kashmir, is also an indication of Pakistan�s possible soft approach as far as the idea of a �united states� is concerned. For India, any proposal which seeks to question its rule over the areas of the J&K administered by it is like a red line which no government, whether of the Congress or the BJP or any other party, can afford to cross at this stage.

Second, the biggest impediment in realizing the idea of a �united states� is the slow process of inter- and intra-Kashmiri dialogue over the future of their state. Till 2005, the dialogue between the political and other groups from the two sides of the Line of Control was almost non-existent. It was only after the holding of a composite dialogue between India and Pakistan under the renewed peace process in 2004, the launching of the Srinagar-Muzaffarabad bus service in 2005 and the visits of Kashmiri leaders from one side to the other that some sort of communication linkage was established between the divided region.

The proposed federation includes not only the valley and Azad Kashmir but also other regions like Jammu, Ladakh and the Northern Areas controlled by Pakistan. At present, discussion on this option is limited to among the Kashmiri-speaking people and has yet to include other areas. Unless, the whole of Jammu and Kashmir is brought in the process of a dialogue over this proposal, it will be very difficult to make a significant headway in this regard.

Third, the viability of this proposal will remain questionable unless it gets full support of the two major stakeholders in the Kashmir conflict, i.e. India and Pakistan. China�s backing of this idea also matters because it has borders with both the Pakistani and Indian controlled parts of the J&K. But, it seems, China may have some reservations about this proposal because of its perceived suspicion of possible American/western designs behind it to have a foothold in the proposed state. More importantly, the majority/minority issue also puts a question mark on the viability of the proposed federation. Although, the APHC Chairman has assured maximum autonomy to all the regions becoming part of the �united states� of Kashmir, there exists historical basis of suspicion and mistrust of at least three regions � Jammu, Ladakh and Gilgit/Baltistan. These regions still recall the past domination of Muslim Kashmiris in their affairs. How will the proposed federation deal with the issue of deprivation of certain regions of the J&K vis-�-vis the valley needs to be examined. Currently, the issue is the control/domination of India and Pakistan on certain parts of Jammu and Kashmir, but in the event of an independent state of the J&K, the minority areas can also rise against the majority area�s rule or, in other words, of the Kashmiri-speaking people.

In its essence, the idea of having a united states of Kashmir has some merit because of prolonged sufferings by its people and the erosion of their identities. But, in reality, those who subscribe to this idea must keep in mind the Pandora�s box, which will be opened if the idea is materialized even under a decentralized structure.

The new thinking on Kashmir must support a triangular dialogue between India, Pakistan and Kashmiri groups , speeding up of a healing process with gradual demilitarization of all the regions of the J&K, softening of the Line of Control, eliminating violence and terrorism in all forms and providing self-governance to the Indian and Pakistani controlled areas of Kashmir. After all, there is no military solution to the 57-years old conflict and it is only through purposeful negotiations that one can hope to find a fair, respectable and pragmatic way out. Thus, under a symbolic, rather than direct, control of New Delhi and Islamabad, all the regions of the old Jammu and Kashmir state can have an opportunity to emerge as a unified state as a final resolution of the dispute.