Back How to Write Essays

Kashmir Dispute - Proposed Solutions in second phase

The Second Phase Solution: 1958-68 India - Pakistan Statement of Objectives — 1963

During the second round of Ministerial-level talks held in New Delhi, from January 16-19, 1963, Pakistani Foreign Minister Zulifkar Ali Bhutto and his Indian counterpart, Swaran Singh, signed a joint statement of objectives. According to this “secret” joint statement, both sides had agreed to the following points as a basis for potential solution to the Kashmir problem:

Proposals For Resolution of Kashmir Dispute

  1. “To explore political settlement of the Kashmir dispute without prejudice to basic positions of parties.
    a. Agree to examine proposals for honourable, equitable and final boundary settlement, taking into account;
    b. India and Pakistan seek delineation of international boundary in Jammu and Kashmir;
    c. Pakistan delegation urged territorial divisions taking into account composition of population, control of rivers, requirements of defense, and other considerations relevant to the delineation of international boundaries and acceptable to people of state.
    d. Indian delegation urged that any territorial readjustments necessary on national basis take into account geography, administration, and other considerations and involve least disturbance to life and welfare of people .
  2. Disengagement of Indian and Pakistani forces in and around Kashmir is essential part of settlement .2
  3. Settlement should also embody determination of two peoples live side by side in peace and friendship and to solve all other problems peacefully and to mutual benefit
  4. Ways and means of removing other major irritants and developing practical cooperation between two countries should be considered
    a. Delineating an equitable international boundary in Jammu and Kashmir. Because of the failure of Bhutto-Swaran Singh, this joint statement ultimately proved TI merely aspirational.

The Tashkent Declaration

Following the 1965 India-Pakistan war, President General Ayub Khan and Prime Minister Lal Bahadur Shastri were invited to Tashkent, Uzbekistan, by the Soviet government. After protracted negotiations brokered by Moscow, both sides agreed to issue a declaration ri January 1966. The Tashkent Declaration did not propose any concrete solution to the Kashmir problem, but merely stated that the interest of peace in the region end particularly in the Indo-Pakistan sub-continent arid indeed the interests of the peoples of India and Pakistan were not served, by continuance of tensions between the two countries. It was against this background that Jammu and Kashmir was discussed and each of the sides set forth its respective position.”

Selig Harrison’s Propose: The Trieste Mode

Selig Harrison, a noted American scholar, has suggested that Kashmir under Indian control should be partitioned. Jammu and Ladakh should become part of the Indian union, while the Kashmir valley would be “united with sizeable Muslim pockets in Jammu and Ladakh.” India may give to this “new state,” according to Harrison, “far-reaching autonomy as part of a Trieste-type solution,” and in return, Pakistan would “grant the same degree of autonomy to Azad Kashmir.” These new entities will be autonomous in all areas except defence, foreign affairs, communication, currency, foreign aid and trade.
Both India and Pakistan would withdraw their armed forces under UN supervision, retaining the right to reintroduce them under specified circumstances. Pakistan would to terminate its support of Kashmiri insurgents. The present LoC will become an international border. As in the Trieste settlement, it would be a porous border, with Kashmiris free to travel back and forth without Indian and Pakistani visas. Gilgit, Hunza and Baltistan would remain part of Pakistan, thus retaining Pakistan’s access to China.

As the first step, India would have to split the state, integrating most of Jammu and Ladakh with the Indian Union, while giving special autonomous status to a new state uniting the Kashmir Valley and the sizeable Muslim pockets in Jammu and Ladakh. India could then and offer to give this new state far-reaching autonomy as part of a Triestetype solution, under which Pakistan would grant the same degree of autonomy to Azad Kashmir.
Both New Delhi and Islamabad would surrender authority to these new entities, except in the area of defence, foreign affairs, communications, and currency. The new regions would gain the right to conduct independent foreign aid and foreign trade dealings. This settlement, if accompanied by large-scale economic inputs, would be acceptable to many Liberation Front leaders and a growing number of war-weary Kashmiris, However, India shows no signs of moving in this direction, as its current policy aims to militarily crush and the insurgency before pursuing a political solution.

New Delhi fears that giving Kashmir special autonomous status would set a art of precedent for demands by other potentially secessionist states. The controversy over what to do in Kashmir is part of the developing debate over whether the entire Indian federal system should be more decentralised. This debate is directly linked to the sensitive problem of Hindu-Muslim relations in India. Nominally, India is a secular state, but the secular principle is under attack from the Hindu right. Advocates of secularism fear that an autonomous, Muslim-majority Kashmir would end up seeking independence or accession to Pakistan, thus exposing the 90 million Muslims in other parts of India to continuing attack as potential traitors.

Other Topics