Daily Times

Since the partition of the subcontinent in 1947, Kashmir has been on the edge, sometimes burning, sometimes smouldering. However, after the 1989, freedom movement by the Kashmiris on both sides of Line of Control took off, and has not abated since. Conservative estimates are that over 95,000 people have been killed, with countless injured, and more than 8,000 “half-widows” in Kashmir. 5,000 Indian soldiers have also been killed. Kashmir is, no doubt, South Asia’s Palestinian equivalent.

With India unwilling to acknowledge the demands of the people for freedom, and therefore avoiding debate on resolution of the Kashmir issue, and Pakistan’s standard narrative that it has tried to talk to India but with no positive response from India, it seems that Kashmir’s future will remain in limbo for years to come. But with the recent massive protests witnessed in the valley on Burhan Wani’s killing, and the biggest ever congregation of mourners on his funeral, will India take notice and give the people of Kashmir the right to self-determination? Or will it continue to arm itself with Israeli weapons, and turn a blind eye to the just demand of the Kashmiri people?

700,000 Indian troops are in Kashmir, the biggest military presence in the world anywhere, twice the American troops that were in Iraq at the peak of conflict. That is one soldier for every 16 citizens. Armed with the Armed Forces Special Power Act, the law enforcement agencies can kill anyone on mere suspicion. More than 2,700 mass graves have been found in Kashmir, and that is the biggest number of mass graves found anywhere in the world. No one has been charged or found guilty for all these killings, and there has been no accountability. India’s Lieutenant General Syed Ata Hasnain, ex-GOC 15 Corps Srinagar, said in 2011 that if the AFSPA were revoked, Kashmir would be independent by 2016.

Indian government led by Narendra Modi, who has a grim record of human rights himself, has no solution to offer, other than beating the old track of throwing money at the problem. He has failed to anticipate the disaffection among the major part of the population of Kashmir. Kashmiris do not want more money; they want their rights.

Another bogey used time and again by India is that Kashmiris take part in elections in large numbers, proving that they have accepted Indian occupancy. The fact cannot be far from being true. Kashmiris take part in elections to resolve local issues like water, road, governance etc. A chief minister of the Indian-occupied Kashmir once said that these elections are like local bodies’ elections, and not for solving the Kashmir dispute.

What is the way forward? India’s claim that Kashmir is its integral part is not a legitimate one on the simple fact that as per the United Nations Security Council Resolution 47, Kashmir is a disputed territory, guaranteeing the right of self-determination to the Kashmiri people. So can the UN resolution be implemented? Under the present circumstances where public mood is very tense both in India and Pakistan, and no force available acceptable to both sides that can implement the UN Resolutions — which were otherwise passed under Chapter VI of UN charter and are considered non-binding and have no mandatory enforce-ability mechanism — the idea of a plebiscite seems impractical.

Another solution is that of accepting the Line of Control as the permanent boundary. And that is also not a practical one, as it would split the families living alongside the boundary, and would not be accepted by local citizens, as in the case of the Durand Line between Afghanistan and Pakistan that is still disputed.

One more solution is maintaining the status quo, but that cannot be accepted as both the countries are nuclear-armed, and any tension arising in either part of Kashmir can escalate into an armed conflict between the two, which could only bring massive devastation to the area.

Lastly, an independent Kashmir is also a farfetched idea, as it must be understood that it would not be acceptable to both Pakistan and India. In addition, an independent Kashmir would not be economically viable as the region is landlocked, and would have to depend either on Pakistan or India for survival.

There is one more solution that seems practical to some people: the “two-state solution,” the same that is suggested for resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which calls for “two states for two groups of people.” Jammu and Kashmir could be divided among two groups of people: Hindus and Muslims: areas like the Kashmir valley with Muslim majority to join Pakistan, and areas like Jammu with Hindu majority to join India. Drawing of boundaries, with this principle in mind, can be carried out under UN auspices.

Killing of Burhan Wani has brought the oft-forgotten and unreported conflict to international attention, and it is high time the Muslim world and the western powers supported the people of Kashmir, and urged India to resolve the decades old problem peacefully. Hidden inside the present crisis is a window of opportunity: to implement a long-lasting solution. Not taking advantage of this can be a golden opportunity lost. I wish that the Indian government does not adopt a wait-and-see policy with a hope that public anger would lose steam and an air of calm would be restored.

The writer is a freelance columnist