By Mohd Ishaq Begh    

Although the word “Kashmir” was totally missing in the whole electoral process of Pakistan but now when the elections are over and political power is going into democratic hands, new faces have started to utter words in favour of its resolution. This points out the reality and nature of Kashmir dispute that no political dogma in Pakistan can survive with ease and sustain hope without talking or dealing with Kashmir issue. Elections in Pakistan brought that very ideology back in power which ruled it in early nineties. It is very important to mention here that early nineties witnessed the creation of an armed struggle in Jammu and Kashmir. This is the era which shook the whole Indian state and proved to be the bad omen for its rulers because after a long span of time the controlling authority of India in Kashmir was rejected and denied with strapping intensity.

After the creation of armed struggle in early nineties, it prospered during the reign of Nawaz Sharif and continued in full swung. Until now this struggle has not ended despite some international issues which attested its decline to some points. At this juncture it would be a foolishness to say that in near future it will meet with an immediate end.
Right from 1947, this problem continued to be the top most escalating agent of detestation not only between India and Pakistan but it also entangled China in its flames. No doubt, many rounds of negotiations were held; (only after the wars) the outcome was intentionally never invented. This is an issue which nourished the leaders of both the nations with nothing less than the elixir. They preferred the taste of power over the human values and fundamental rights. Before 1947, who could have assumed such fate of a princely state called Jammu and Kashmir? But it is the partition of British Empire which has to be blamed for this mess because the dividing principles were sidelined and a non egalitarian approach was handled. At that very moment, politics full of imposture was played and the whole innocent generation of Jammu and Kashmir was made hostage of this politics. It can be also said that this dispute always found a fully developed mindset on its back which not only kept it alive but also portrayed it according to their wishes. Their impotence and greed for power kept this issue unresolved. They played this game with great folly because some domains of power kept changing with time.

Being a princely state, Jammu and Kashmir was supposed to join either India or Pakistan or remain independent. But negative role played by some leaders including Mounbatten made it a dispute. Nehru despite declaring a free plebiscite in Jammu and Kashmir never pulled its forces back hence made Indian occupation in Kashmir strong. He being a head of the state tried to focus on this new born issue but was confined to be far from any solution. If any progress for a peaceful settlement of Kashmir issue had started then the current situation might have not taken place.

Indian denial mode for a peaceful settlement of this tragic issue during early fifties can be put in words by mentioning a round of direct Indo-Pak discussions in January 1951 in presence of common wealth prime ministers in a conference in London. Here in this meeting, Nehru clearly rejected an offer made by the Australian Prime Minister Robert Menzes that Commonwealth forces would be deployed while conducting a free and fair plebiscite in Jammu and Kashmir. So India keeps changing the tracks for a settlement. Pakistani leaders are also there to be blamed because they failed to maintain pressure on India through international organizations and by their own they never intended to come forward with hope and delight. It is obvious that where talks fail wars take place. Same is the case with Kashmir issue; Nehru era failed and war of 1965 took place. War ended and it was announced by the Pakistani leaders that “State of Jammu and Kashmir is not, and never has been, recognized as a part of Indian territory and therefore Government of India have no locus standi to lodge any protest with the government of Pakistan”.

Then the two nations with the support of Russia sat across the table and tried to find a solution in Tashkent, but unfortunately nothing special came out. In Shimla Agreement, again the two countries sat for reconciliation but all in vain because two needed serious steps were not taken. So we must understand that after taking birth as a dispute with major intensity, Jammu and Kashmir witnessed nothing other than the reluctance showed by its stake holders.

Present scenario of this Kashmir conflict is known to everyone all over the world, as it acted as an escalating agent for wars which destroyed the humanity and property of both India and Pakistan. Now, when the world politics is going to see another phase after the withdrawal of western forces from Afghanistan, Kashmir has either to act as bridge for friendship or has to be a battle field again. Many leaders link peace in Afghanistan with Kashmir issue and they believe Kashmir resolution is gateway for all conflicts across the world. Yes, this is a fact but if ancient processes will lead the future again then friendship is far away as compared to wars.

Status quo if maintained may again turn Kashmir into a major hell. Only a solution that convinces India and Pakistan along with Kashmiris, has a spirit to bring rivals closer. Otherwise both the nuclear powers have no option other than to see the humanity at the edge of destruction.

Leadership in Pakistan (Nawaz Sharif) should confine itself to resolving efforts because only a democratic government can find a better solution. Velocity of negotiations must be increased by the leadership of these two nations. They should not cage this issue for their political benefits. They have to be serious in resolving efforts otherwise the future generations will not pardon them. Every leader will be counted among the defaulters of peace and progress unless they try to see an everlasting solution. A general will need to be generated, which should lead all the developments for reconciliation, as without it, solution of a dispute is not possible.

Keeping the nature of this dispute in mind all the parties have to shun their rigidness and come closer with a solid determination for its better resolution. They have to work for a better future of sub continent and try to blow out the existing fire, on mutual understanding and a general will.