ASSOCIATION FOR COMMUNAL HARMONY IN ASIA (ACHA)
www.asiapeace.org <
http://www.asiapeace.org/> &
www.indiapakistanpeace.org <../Templates/
www.indiapakistanpeace.org>
4410 Verda Lane NE, Keizer, OR 97303, USA
asiapeace@comcast.netSeptember 20, 2010: Kashmir News & Views
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/KashmirSolutionsForum <../../../../KashmirSolutionsForum>
IN THIS ISSUE
IN SEARCH OF A SOLUTION TO THE JAMMU & KASHMIR PROBLEM
*ACHA Proposal on settlement of the Jammu & Kashmir issue
*Solutions to the Jammu & Kashmir Dispute: Various Proposals, Sept 15,
2010
*In the throes of violence, Kuldip Nayar, KT News, September 18, 2010
__
*ACHA Proposal on settlement of the Jammu & Kashmir issue
Entitled " India And Pakistan: Ensuring Peace & Avoiding War,"
the following proposal was offered by the Association for Communal
Harmony in Asia (
www.asiapeace.org <
http://www.asiapeace.org/> ) at the
end of its Kashmir Forum, held at Portland State University, at
Portland, OR, USA, on May 15, 2002. This is a proposal, not a final
resolution. More detaIls can be viewed at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/KashmirSolutionsForum/message/3 <../../../message/3> Please, send comments to Pritam Rohila,
asiapeace@comcast.net <mailto:
asiapeace@comcast.net>
The Draft of a Comprehensive Agreement Between India, Pakistan & J&K
Organizations
(All parties must accept all parts)
1. Creation within one year of the following five autonomous
regions, with their foreign affairs to be conducted by the governments
of Pakistan or India as indicated below.
a. Azad Kashmir (P)
b. Northern Territories (P)
c. Jammu (I)
d. Kashmir (I)
e. Ladakh (I)
2. Creation within two years of Joint Governing Council of Jammu &
Kashmir (consisting of representatives of all the five regions as well
as India and Pakistan) to regulate inter-region affairs.
3. The Governing Council will develop a detailed plan for settlement
of all Jammu & Kashmir related matters, within five years.
4. Implementation of the above plan and final resolution of Kashmir
issue within 10 years. Until then, acceptance of the existing Line of
Control as the International Border between India and Pakistan, provided
India as well as Pakistan agree to cease all hostilities effective
immediately and implement the following steps governing their bilateral
relationship within one year:
A. Ban all hostile activities (including propaganda) against each other
by all government agencies,
B. Allow unrestricted travel between the countries,
C. Grant each other the Most Favored Nation status, and
D. Sign a No war/Friendship pact.
*Solutions to the Jammu & Kashmir Dispute: Various Proposals, Sept 15,
2010
Compiled from various sources and circulated by Dr. Shabir Choudhry
drshabirchoudhry@gmail.com <mailto:
drshabirchoudhry@gmail.com> , via
Kashmir Global Network
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/kashmir-global-network/message/41512<../../../../kashmir-global-network/message/41512>
Andorra Solution
Andorra is a princely state located on the border between France and
Spain and it was claimed by both Spain and France. In 1993, the two
countries reached an agreement and gave Andhora an independent
constitution and gave them autonomy bordering on complete freedom -
Andorra adopted Parliamentary democracy, but retains the titular heads
of state nominated by France and Spain.
Under the Andorra Proposal, Kashmir Valley would become a principality
with foreign policy, defence and financial support shared by India and
Pakistan. The Andorra proposal would result in the Kashmir Valley -
including Pakistan-occupied Kashmir - dominated by Muslims, being carved
out into a principality with its own Parliament. However, India and
Pakistan would have nominated representatives. It would have open
borders. It would also involve the tripartite partition of Jammu &
Kashmir
According to some experts, such an agreement was almost finalized in
1964 negotiations between President Ayub Khan and Prime Minister
Jawaharlal Nehru.
Chenab formula
Chenab formula is believed to have been proposed by Niaz Naik. The plan
seeks to divide the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir on communal lines
along the Chenab river and cede the western side to Pakistan. Under the
proposal, India would retain Hindu and Bddhist majority areas of Jammu
and Ladakh while Northern Areas, POK, Kashmir valley, and districts of
Muslim majority in Jammu and Kargil regions join Pakistan.
JKLF proposal
The JKLF has proposed the formation of an eleven member International
Kashmir Committee (IKC) consisting of one representative each from the
U.N., United States, Russia, France, Britain, China, Germany, Japan, and
the Organization of Islamic Conference, and two representatives from the
Nonaligned Movement. This committee will oversee a Kashmir settlement in
five phases, beginning with (1) the formulation of an agreement, (2) the
withdrawal of Indian, Pakistani and foreign militant forces from the
entire state, (3) the demilitarization of all Kashmiri militants, (4)
the opening of all roads between the two halves of Kashmir followed by a
secular, democratic constitution with representation from Kashmir,
Jammu, Ladakh, Pakistani Kashmir and the Northern Territories, and (5) a
U.N.-supervised referendum 15 years later where the residents of the
state will decide on whether to join India, Pakistan or remain
independent. The proposal is clearly loaded in favor of the independence
option.
KSG Proposal – I (1998)
The KSG proposal in its original version envisaged partition of Kashmir
in three parts: one comprising the Northern Areas and Pakistani Kashmir
to stay with Pakistan and the other consisting of Jammu and Laddakh
remaining with India whereas the Valley of Kashmir will be
reconstituted, through a plebiscite, as a sovereign entity (but one
without an international personality).
Since this proposal came under severe criticism in India, the KSG came
forward with a modified version recommending that "a portion of the
princely state of Jammu and Kashmir be reconstituted as a sovereign
entity (but one without an international personality).... through an
internationally supervised ascertainment of the wishes of the Kashmiri
people on either side of the Line of Control".
"This ascertainment would follow agreement among India, Pakistan and
representatives of the Kashmiri people to move forward with this
proposal. The sovereignty of the new entity would be guaranteed by
India, Pakistan and appropriate international bodies."
"The new entity would have its own secular, democratic constitution, as
well as its own citizenship, flag, and a legislature, which would
legislate on all matters other than defence and foreign affairs.
India and Pakistan would be responsible for the defence of the Kashmiri
entity, which would itself maintain police and gendarme forces for
internal law and order purposes. India and Pakistan would be expected to
work out financial arrangements for the Kashmiri entity, which could
include a currency of its own."
"The borders of Kashmir with India and Pakistan would remain open for
the free transit of people, goods, and services in accordance with
arrangements to be worked out between India, Pakistan, and the Kashmiri
entity.
"While the present Line of Control would remain in place until such time
as both India and Pakistan decided to alter it in their mutual interest,
both India and Pakistan would demilitarize the area included in the
Kashmir entity, except to the extent necessary to maintain logistic
support for forces outside the state that could not otherwise be
effectively supplied. Neither India nor Pakistan could place troops on
the other side of the Line of Control without the permission of the
other state"
KSG Proposal – II (February 2005)
KSG recommends that portions of the former princely State of Jammu and
Kashmir be reconstituted into self-governing entities enjoying free
access to one another and to and from both India and Pakistan.
1. Three entities — Kashmir, Jammu, and Ladakh — would be
established in the portion of the pre-1947 state now administered by
India. These three self-governing entities would each take part in a
body that would coordinate issues of interest to all of them, such as
internal trade and transportation.
2. Two entities — Azad Kashmir and the Northern Areas — would be
established on the side now administered by Pakistan. Like the entities
on the Indian side, they would each be represented in a coordinating
body that would consider issues in which they both had an interest.
3. An All-Kashmir body would be set up to coordinate areas of broader
interest such as regional trade, tourism, environment, and water
resources. This body would include representatives from each of the five
entities as well as from India and Pakistan
Each of the new entities would have its own democratic constitution, as
well as its own citizenship, flag, and legislature which would legislate
on all matters other than defense and foreign affairs. India and
Pakistan would be responsible for the defense of the entities, and the
entities would maintain police forces to maintain internal law and
order. India and Pakistan would be expected to work out financial
arrangements for the entities.
Citizenship of the entities would also entitle individuals to acquire
Indian or Pakistani passports (depending on which side of the Line of
Control they live on). Alternatively, they could use entity passports
subject to endorsements by India or Pakistan as appropriate.
The borders of the entities with India and Pakistan would remain open
for the free transit of people, goods, and services in accordance with
arrangements to be worked out between India, Pakistan and the entities.
While the present Line of Control would remain in place until such time
as both India and Pakistan decided to alter it in their mutual interest,
both India and Pakistan would demilitarize the area included in the
entities. Neither India nor Pakistan could place troops on the other
side of the Line of Control without the permission of the other state.
All displaced persons who left any portion of the entities would have
the right to return to their home localities.
Asia Society Proposal
According to one report by the Asia Society, India and Pakistan should
jointly control both parts
Trieste formula
Under an agreement signed between Italy and the Slovenian Republic of
former Yugoslavia in 1954, the disputed city of Trieste (disputes since
WW-II) was divided between the two countries along the existing
demarcation line, with some changes. The city's inhabitants were
given free access to both sides of the partition line. Going by this
model, India will end up keeping Ladakh, Jammu and other parts of
Kashmir, except the valley, which will go to Pakistan. With this
transfer, Pakistan will have almost half the total land area of J&K as t
already has POK with it. Residents on both sides will have access to
both sides of the dividing line.
Dixon proposal
The Australian Jurist, Sir Owen Dixon proposed to trifurcate the State
in 1950. he suggested that the disputed territory be divided into three
zones and plebiscites be conducted separately for the three zones. The
three zones were to be 1) Kashmir valley plus the Muslim areas of Jammu
– Poonch, Rajori and Doda. Moreover, Kargil would form part of the
Valley. 2) Jammu with the remaining district of Ladakh. 3) POK plus the
Northern Areas.
Musharraf formula – October 2004
Musharraf suggested in October 2004 that India and Pakistan could
consider identifying seven regions of J&K on both sides of the Line of
Control, demilitarise them and grant them independence or joint control
or govern them under the aegis of the United Nations (change their
status).
Jagat Mehta's Proposal
Ex-Foreign Secretary Jagat Mehta proposed the following steps to solve
the Kashmir issue:
1- Pacification of the Valley
2- Restoration of an autonomous Kashmiriyat
3- Conversion of LoC into a soft-border permitting free movement and
facilitating economic
exchanges.
4- Immediate demilitarization of LoC to a depth of five to ten miles
with agreed methods of
verifying compliance.
5- Conduct parallel democratic elections in both parts of Kashmir.
The governments elected
therein may facilitate more and more exchanges.
6- Final suspension of the dispute between the two countries can be
suspended for an agreed
upon period.
7- Pending final settlement, there should be no internationalization
of the Kashmir issues or
demands for Plebiscite.
*In the throes of violence, Kuldip Nayar, KT News, September 18, 2010
http://kashmirtimes.com/ <
http://kashmirtimes.com/>
I recently interacted with some Kashmiri young men in Delhi. There was
no doubting their indignation and exasperation. The killings in the
valley, almost 90 since June, were very much on my mind and I wanted to
know what could be done.
"Why don't you leave us?" one said. Another was more
specific. "We want azadi." What is the population of the valley?
"Please include Muslim areas in Jammu and Ladakh." This would
come to about one crore or a little more. They said: "It is not a
question of numbers but one of feelings. We just do not want to be part
of India." Yet another said, "We do not want to be part of
Pakistan either."
I vainly argued how a country with one crore population could sustain
itself without any help from either India or Pakistan. "There is the
entire Muslim world to help us," they said.
I told them that this bothered me and that bringing religion into their
protests showed that they wanted to establish another Muslim state on
India's border.
What would be the repercussions in India which was trying to stay above
the waters of communalism and remain secular? Their reply: "We want
azadi."
I have not visited Kashmir for more than six months. Yet I have kept
myself quite up to date by watching on television several incidents of
stone-pelting, burning of government buildings and firing by security
forces. (The Indian media has been covering the events in detail.)
It looks as if the whole valley has come on to the streets, the angry
young men leading the mob. Maybe it is a particular group of people
which is instigating them but whatever its number it is a determined
lot. And it would be foolhardy not to take into account their anguish,
particularly of those who have lost their dear ones in the firing.
New Delhi and Kashmir's chief minister Omar Abdullah believe that
anger could be assuaged if the Armed Forces Special Power Act (AFSPA),
which gives extraordinary powers to the military in a disturbed area, is
amended suitably or abolished.
The problem has been politicised and New Delhi has known it all along.
That it should have been sorted out by this time goes without saying.
The more a solution is delayed the more knotty the problem will become.
Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's remark that there was need to
address issues of trust deficit and government performance cannot remedy
the situation.
By shifting the responsibility of its follies to the ruling National
Conference, which with all its limitations has stood by New Delhi from
day one, New Delhi is only proving that it has committed one mistake
after another, without realising that it would have to pay for its
lapses some day.
Each time an economic or employment package is considered a panacea for
all troubles. The challenge from the days of Sheikh Abdullah is how New
Delhi gives Srinagar a sense of identity without letting Kashmir
translate that status into independence?
That there is no alternative to talks goes without saying. But the talks
with the type of fundamentalists who are in the forefront will be
difficult to conduct because they are the ones who incite people in the
name of religion. They have pushed Kashmirayat, a pluralistic concept,
to the back burner and brought fundamentalism to the fore.
Yet New Delhi has to separate these elements from those who want to rule
democratically and in a pluralistic way. But this does not mean that
India has all the time to sort out the fundamentalists. Ultimately, it
depends on what New Delhi is willing to offer in terms of political
power.
The Bharatiya Janata Party is the biggest impediment. It has politicised
the issue and refurbished parochialism. At the back of its mind is the
Hindutva philosophy which, it believes, cannot cope with a
Muslim-majority territory.
Already Narendra Modi of the Gujarat carnage notoriety has started
attacking New Delhi for not being tough on Kashmir. The world knows what
his toughness means.
He is also preparing the Hindus for the verdict on the Babri Masjid-Ram
Janmabhoomi dispute scheduled to be announced on Sept 24. Both
communities are on the edge.
Some argue that the panacea is to concede the right of
self-determination. Today's world which is a witness to economic
unions and common markets does not recognise any group of people or area
which raises the standard of separation.
No state can accede to this principle because it gives sanction to
centrifugal forces and fissiparous tendencies. Were the principle of
self-determination to be applied in Southeast Asia, many states in the
region would face the prospect of disintegration.
New Delhi's mistake is that it has left the Kashmir problem
unattended to for such a long period. It proves the charge that many
elements have come to develop a vested interest in the status quo.
Manmohan Singh is quite right when he says that he is willing to talk to
any party or group so long as it does not project or support violence.
However, the hard-liners have spelled out certain demands. Talks have to
be held without prior conditions.
Once New Delhi and Srinagar have come to terms, they should talk to
Islamabad. Even otherwise, all three can sit across the table. The
participation of Pakistan is necessary because all agreements, beginning
from the one at Tashkent to that at Shimla, mention Pakistan as one of
the important parties.
Moreover, not long ago, India and Pakistan had almost clinched the issue
if former Indian prime minister Atal Behari Vajpayee and former Pakistan
foreign minister Khursheed Kasuri are to be believed.
__
EXPLANATION/DISCLIMER: The above is a selection of news stories
pertaining to Jammu & Kashmir. ACHA does not approve of or subscribe to
any disharmonizing language" (including terms such as POK or IOK) used
in these items selected from various publications. Readers may exercise
their linguistic judgment and ignore any biased language.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
No comments:
Post a Comment