The dispute between India and Pakistan with regard to the future of the State of Jammu and Kashmir has strained the relations of the two countries for the last 17 years and now and again has been leading to (such) an aggravating situation that at any time its continued tension may burst into a shooting war, leading to devastating consequences in that region of the world. Moreover, this situation has saddled both the countries with huge military expenses which has crippled both economically. Yet another tragic aspect of this situation is the continued agony for the 5 million people of the State, whose economy and well-being is completely paralysed, due to the resultant uncertainty and insecurity.
The urgency and importance of an early settlement of this dispute cannot therefore be over-emphasised. Many statesmen and friendly countries have, during the past 17 years, made a number of proposals, suggesting a peaceful settlement of the dispute. No doubt the best and most democratic solution could be through a plebiscite, to which not only both the countries but also the UNO is committed. Should however, holding of a plebiscite not be feasible, there are other practicable solutions suggested in the past. One such solution was made by Sir Owen Dixon, the UN Representative appointed to negotiate a settlement between India and Pakistan. Broadly speaking,
Sir Owen Dixon proposed that:
(a) The Southern parts of the State comprising Kathua, Jammu and parts of Udhampur districts (now being predominantly Hindu areas) may be annexed with India
(b) The area, now known as Azad Kashmir, and Gilgit Baltistan being exclusively Muslim, be annexed with Pakistan.
(c) The Valley of Kashmir, along with the adjoining areas across Banihal (i.e. the district of Doda and the Naibat of Arnas, Gulab Garh) to be allowed to decide its future through a plebiscite. Leh is to follow the result of plebiscite, held in this territory (Kargil being exclusively Muslim in population to go with the Valley).
'Sir Owen Dixon took a detached view of things and considered this as the best practicable solution under the circumstances. It appears to be a fair method of resolving the present tangle. In order to avoid a number of complications that might arise by holding a plebiscite immediately in the territory referred to in clause (c) above, a reasonable way can be found in keeping the said territory under UN Trusteeship for a specified period (i.e. 5 to 10 years) .. The people of the territory can be given an opportunity for the exercise of the right of self-determination in a suitable way after that period. In the interim period, it is hoped that tempers will cool down and much of the emotional factor, now surcharging the situation, will die out. Further, the interim 'period can be utilised for the development of these areas towards which the two countries, as well as the UNO will suitably contribute.
The above proposal can be a very good basis for discussion between India and Pakistan and Kashmir. It is hoped that friendly countries, interested in a settlement, will take up this proposal for extensive lobbying at the diplomatic levels as well as the international conferences.
Needless to say that an earnest effort in this direction will be the greatest service to the cause of peace in the world.
Kashmir Question Internationalised Bharat Bhushan in the Hindustan Times, 4 June, 1998
Up to now, Pakistan had not been able to invite the intervention of the big powers in the Kashmir issue despite exerting enormous diplomatic and political efforts. Now, suddenly the prospects of third party mediation seem to have brightened ...
... What Pakistan could not do for years the BJP Government seems to have achieved for Islamabad in a short period
... In late 1996, Jang Jemin during his visit to the subcontinent had advised Pakistan to set aside the Kashmir issue and normalise its relationship with India. But it would not be unreasonable to expect that after last month's developments, China would harden its stand vis-a-vis India.
To stave off international pressure on Kashmir, India may need to do more than merely harping on the Dhaka proposals of January 1998 ... India is in a position to offer unconditional talks with Pakistan on all outstanding issues including Kashmir. And it should do so without any further loss of time ...
India is also unlikely to win many friends on account of its latest nuclear doctrine ... A no-first-use offer made unilaterally and without any negotiations would have carried much more conviction with the international community.
The BJP Government ... needs to explore possibilities beyond the position it is locking itself in. Having demonstrated Indian's nuclear capability, the Vajpayee Government ... might consider declaring that it will never deploy or use nuclear weapons ... The Indian Parliament could consider passing a resolution that India would not carry out any more nuclear tests ...
... The Government has said that the global elimination of nuclear weapons will enhance India's security as well as that of the rest of the world. If this were indeed the case, would it consider announcing a unilateral moratorium on the production of fissile material for weaponisation purposes? But it remains unclear whether this would be in consonance with the BJP scheme of things.
