THE roots of the India – Pakistan rivalry lie in the two visions of state hood that arose within the context of the nationalist movement in the Indian sub continent. The Indian National Congress, spearheaded by Gandhi and Nehru, sought to unify country built around the principles of secularism and liberal democracy. Although the majority of the Congress party membership came from the mainstream Hindu population, the party embodied all major ethnic groups of India and had a vision of a state not supporting any single religion. Many Muslim leaders were wary of majority rule which they viewed as tantamount to Hindu rule and demanded safeguards by way of separate electorates.
 To press for their demands with the colonial rulers, they formed the Muslim league party in December 1906. Their claim to have a separate electorate was accepted by  British in the Government of India act 1909, which offered limited political rights to the Indian subjects. The British rulers were sympathetic to separate constituencies for Muslims which they hoped would weaken the incipient nationalist movement, spearheaded by the Congress party. However, over time this policy helped to unify the Muslim community in a communal and political sense and so would the seeds for the idea of Pakistan. Although, the Congress party initially accepted the separate Muslim electorates in 1916, but it subsequently rejected the idea in the constitutional proposals it made in 1928. Alienation from both the British and the Congress party led to the proposal for a separate Muslim home land by the league, which was first put forward by the poet Sir Muhammad Iqbal in 1930 (Stanley Wolpert, A New History of India). However, again the Govt of India Act 1935 was pivotal in the rise of Muslim separatist nationalism, with the league under Mohammad Ali Jinnah deciding to contest elections for limited self governing provincial Governments in 1937. Also, in 1946, the cabinet mission sent by British proposal that a union between British India and the princely states be established and a constitution drafted. Accordingly, the two independent states of India and Pakistan were born on august 15, 1947, with Pakistan gaining the Muslim majority British- administered in the north - west and east Bengal and India obtaining the rest of British India, while the fate of the 500- odd princely states remained undecided. 
      The Indian Independence Act of 1947 contained a provision that the 562 princely states- scattered throughout the sub content and partially autonomous under British rule- had the option to join either India or Pakistan. Almost all the states either joined Pakistan or India, only three princely states decided to stay independent from both India and Pakistan; Jammu and Kashmir in the north, Hyderabad in the south and Junagadh in the west. While the rulers of the latter too were Muslim, the majority of their population Hindu and their accession to India occurred through internal revolt or Indian police actions. New Delhi legitimized these accessions through subsequent popular referenda. Only Jammu and Kashmir emerged as the most contentious, given its geographical proximity to Pakistan and a majority Muslim population (concentrated largely in the northern areas and Kashmir valley) even as a substantial Hindu population inhibited the Jammu area and a Buddhists population lived in the Ladakh region. The Hindu ruler of Kashmir, Maharaja Hari Singh, first chose to remain independent from both India and Pakistan, but in reaction to an invasion in October 1947 by tribal forces, he sought India’s help, following his signing of an instrument of accession to India.
 However, without delving into the past, the most important issue at present that seriously confronts and threatens peace in the whole south Asian region in general and Kashmir in particular is unmistakably Kashmir issue. People have already suffered three destructive wars. Ever since the fateful partition of the sub continent, the leadership in both the countries has been both physically and mentally pulling its full weight against each other in a war – like situation, with no gain other than wasting their national  resources in keeping the tension alive. Doing this generates hatred not only between India and Pakistan but also even among three regions of Jammu and Kashmir- Jammu, Ladakh and Kashmir. That is what we are seeing in Kashmir today. A paralyzed life. It is all because of long pending Kashmir issue which stands unresolved.
 Therefore, the overall impression from the current situation in Kashmir valley compels us to call for peace and take measures to settle the Kashmir issue. Also, there is a tremendous desire for ending the violence and reviving attempts for peace building. But it needs unity. stability and peaceful dialogue form all the shades of opinion to settle the long pending Kashmir issue honestly and objectively. I propose some points to be considered by all parties to the dispute i.e. government of India and Pakistan and the Kashmiri leadership (the all parties Hurriyat conference) if peace is to be restored in Kashmir. 
1) The Kashmir dispute can not be and must not be resolved militarily. There can be no progress in talks if they are not accompanied by practical measures to restore an environment of non–violence in Kashmir. Negotiation can not be carried out in an atmosphere of violence and uncertainty. Therefore, all military activities must come to an end.
2) There can not be and should not be any conditions imposed on any party other than commitment to negotiations. 
3) All shades of opinion or all parties to the dispute must get seriously engaged in the search for a final settlement. Talks can only be useful if they reflect a sense of urgency and prepare the ground for an earnest effort to frame a step by step plan of settlement. Mere continuance of talks, that too at a leisurely pace, will in no way diffuse the situation. Unintentially though, it will mock the urgency of the people of Kashmir rather than assuage it.
4) Neutral outside – mediation has to be considered. Since bilateral negotiations between India and Pakistan have proven meaningless, I strongly believe that third party mediation and intervention is absolutely essential to resolve the conflict and save the entire region from a nuclear holocaust. It is a basic right of the people of all zones in Kashmir to decide their future according to their own will, and it is impossible to ascertain the will of the people of Kashmir except through a fair impartial referendum.
6) It is both untimely and harmful to indulge in or encourage controversies about the most desirable solution. Any attempt to do so at this point of time amounts to playing into the hands of those who would prefer to maintain the status quo which is unacceptable to the people of Kashmir.
7) Last and perhaps the most deciding factor is that peace will not come in Kashmir without justice and justice shall not prevail without sacrifices. Each party to the dispute will have to be ready to make some concessions and compromises to find a lasting and long – awaited solution of the tragic dispute.
 Once these points will be thought over, there is every chance that peace in Kashmir can be restored. We can put an end to the dispute provided we have a will to do it.

(Sahil Showkat is a Research Scholar in the Department of Political Science, University of Kashmir. Feedback at sahilshowkat@gmail.com)

Lastupdate on : Fri, 30 Jul 2010 21:30:00 Mecca time
Lastupdate on : Fri, 30 Jul 2010 18:30:00 GMT
Lastupdate on : Sat, 31 Jul 2010 00:00:00 IST