Daily Times

Kashmir is one of the most intractable international territorial disputes. For 70 years, there is no resolution in sight as neither India nor Pakistan is willing to recognise the other’s claims. British Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond recently said in Islamabad that Kashmir should not be a precondition to the Pakistan-India dialogue. Predictably, there were howls of protests in the country over Hammond’s remarks. But realistically can Pakistan afford to keep its head permanently buried in the sand on Kashmir? Self-deception can lead to delusional beliefs. This essentially explains Pakistan’s plight caught in its Kashmir squeeze.

Hammond’s remarks should not come as a surprise to Pakistan’s policy makers. They ought to have come to terms with global realities by now. It is quite evident that Pakistan’s insistence that Kashmir is at the core of its relationship with India does not resonate with the international community. Countries like the U.S. recognise that India has a stake and responsibility in finding a resolution to the Kashmir dispute. They understand that the dispute has bedeviled relations between Pakistan and India and its resolution would certainly reduce regional tensions. This does not mean, however, that they agree with Pakistan’s near-fatal obsession with Kashmir. The fact is that Pakistan is unable to force a military solution in Kashmir, and there is a lack of international interest in third-party mediation. Mostly for domestic consumption, Pakistan can continue to ignore reality and hope it can force India to the negotiating table through international pressure, but this does not seem feasible with India’s growing international clout.

Arguably the Kashmir dispute has added to Pakistan’s political and economic dysfunctionality. Keeping Kashmir central in its bilateral relationship with India has cost Pakistan dearly. Successive political leaders and generals have sought to exploit Indian belligerence on Kashmir as a strategic threat to Pakistan. This has masked the rampant problems of patronage, corruption and incompetence of the country’s governing structures. These are the real threats to a prosperous and stable Pakistan. Moreover, Pakistan’s average growth rate has been about three percent in the last twenty years and its tax: GDP ratio is nine percent. By this measure — GDP growth and tax: GDP ratio — Pakistan’s annual defence budget should be no more than one to two billion dollars and certainly not the staggering almost eight billion presently. Pakistan needs huge foreign investment and sharply lower its defence spending to attain high growth rates that will stabilise the country and create a barrier to internal violence. Being drawn into an unsustainable arms race with a stable and growing India over Kashmir is a certain recipe for disaster for Pakistan. Focusing on growing trade and commerce with India seems the more logical way forward for Pakistan.

On its part, India cannot ignore the genuine alienation of the people of Kashmir from years of Indian misrule. This is reflected in the Kashmiri people periodically revolting against the brutal repression by Indian forces. However, in the present day, the calls for independence and revolution in Kashmir have little to do with Pakistan. Pakistan’s own poor human rights and democratic record, the failed Kargil adventure, which nearly resulted in another Pak-Indo war and state support for terror groups operating in the region, have diminished Pakistan’s moral standing on Kashmir.

Ultimately, the policymakers in Pakistan and India must find the political will and have a vital role to play in any Kashmir solution. Probably, the first step towards the resolution of the dispute is for both Pakistan and India to abandon their past power-centric approach to the conflict and involve the people of the territory in dispute resolution. Secondly, the proxy war between Pakistan and India in Kashmir must come to an end. Security cooperation between Pakistan and India should sustain the present abatement in cross-border terrorism and ensure that terrorist elements are not able to re-establish the environment of fear and violence. This should remove the need for large permanent deployments of Indian troops to provide security in the region, a major cause of friction with the local population.

While the forces in Pakistan and India that have benefited from decades of violence in Kashmir will create maximum obstacles, the peace dividend from the resolution of the longstanding dispute will accrue to all parties. With its near-mortal preoccupation with Kashmir removed, Pakistan can focus on better controlling its borders, improving its economic fundamentals and regaining the trust of the international community. A resolution of the Kashmir issue would help in bringing about a stable and prosperous Pakistan, which would be in India’s interest as well. It remains to be seen whether Pakistan will continue to contest the status of Kashmir, spend significant resources on conventional deterrence, and posit India as a major threat or that it will accept that a fundamental change in its Kashmir posture is in the national interest, and not merely a response to international cajoling.

The writer can be reached at shgcci@gmail.com