|
Kashmir Must Be Resolved to Defuse Indo-Pak Tensions: Experts
 |
|
Experts say Kashmir issue must be solved to defuse rising tension |
By
Ayesha Ahmad, IOL Washington Correspondent
WASHINGTON,
May 31 (IslamOnline) – A panel of experts Thursday differed on what
needs to be done to defuse rising tensions between India and Pakistan.
But all agreed that the disputed Himalayan territory of Kashmir was
key to resolving the decades-old conflict now threatening nuclear war.
Speaking
at a press conference, hosted by American Muslims for Global Peace and
Justice (AMGPJ), most of the panelists, including a former U.S.
ambassador, an Indian, a Pakistani and a Kashmiri, said that Kashmir
was the core issue and therefore the people of Kashmir must be
included in any dialogues towards a peace process.
The
two primary ingredients for a settlement, according to panelist
Teresita Schaffer, former U.S. ambassador to India, included an
India-Pakistan dialogue covering all issues and “a dialogue between
India and the Kashmiris under their governance.”
Panelist
Ghulam Nabi Fai, president of the Kashmiri American Council, said that
while he commended the efforts of the international community, he
believed they all made a “fundamental mistake… [they] must first
settle the cause of the tension,” which is Kashmir.
A
ceasefire on both sides, he said, must be followed by negotiations on
four levels: an intra-Kashmiri dialogue among groups within the
territory; a dialogue between India and the All Party Hurriyat
Conference (APHC), a coalition of Kashmiri pro-independence
organizations; an Indian-Pakistani dialogue and finally a dialogue
between all three neighbors.
Fai
added that an “international facilitator” should also be present,
and he suggested “a person of international standing like Mr. Nelson
Mandela… he should be given the mandate.”
Rajesh
Kadian, a physician and author of many books on the region, also said
that peace talks would benefit from a facilitator such as the United
States. And the fourth panelist, Zahid Bukhari, the head of the
Washington-based Muslims in American Public Square (MAPS) project,
said that it was necessary for India to first concede that Kashmir was
indeed the central issue before talks could proceed.
Differences
between the panelists, however, arose for what exactly needs to happen
first. Schaffer and Kadian both emphasized the need for Pakistan to
put an end to what India calls “cross-border terrorism,” or
infiltration of Pakistani trained resistance fighters over the Line of
Control (LoC), the de facto border of Kashmir.
“Pakistan
really has to prevent infiltration across the Line of Control,” as
much as possible, Schaffer said, and “India has to see credible
evidence and then respond.”
She
said a likely trigger would be Indian military action in response to
the next high-profile or high-casualty attack attributed to
“militants in Kashmir.” Schaffer did not rule out the possibility
of such a war going nuclear, if Pakistan believed there was a major
threat to its existence, but added that she believed “that in all
likelihood you would see a frantic diplomatic effort first.”
Kadian,
who also said that as the first step, “the infiltration has to stop,
then the level of violence will automatically come down,” added that
the likelihood of war could not be ruled out entirely because “India
has been provoked immensely since 9/11.”
But
Bukhari insisted that India had a responsibility to accede to demands
the way Pakistan has done since the September 11 attacks, especially
regarding Kashmir.
“There
should be some agreement from India also to accept that Kashmir is the
issue,” he said, stressing that Pakistan had accepted countless
demands from the U.S., India and the international community since
last fall.
And
Fai attempted to disentangle the Kashmiri independence movement from
the web of “terrorism” that has been laid over it.
“Is
the issue of Kashmir terrorism?” he asked. “The nature of the
Kashmiri resistance movement – it is indigenous,” he said,
insisting that it was not controlled through Pakistan as India
alleges. He differentiated the sentiment of masses of Kashmiris who
had protested Indian rule peacefully from other violence, stressing
“there is no military solution to the issue of Kashmir.”
A
new suggestion was promoted by both Kadian and Bukhari, however,
emphasizing the importance of the large Indian- and Pakistan-American
communities in resolving tensions. Kadian said dialogue between groups
here was important, and Bukhari said that they could form a mechanism
to meet together and “compel their own leaders over there to lower
[their] temperature.”
Most
of the panelists also agreed that the role of the U.S. – especially
now, when relations with both nuclear-capable neighbors are active and
positive – was very important, but that ultimately they could only
advise and pressure, not solve the problem themselves.
Bukhari
said that U.S. media and policymakers needed a “more balanced and
just” approach to South Asia; the outreach coordinator for AMGPJ who
moderated the conference said that the group had held the conference
for precisely that reason, due to the volatile nature of the issue and
the threat of nuclear war.
“It
seems that people don’t have an understanding of a grasp of why
there is a conflict,” Raeed Tayeh told IslamOnline. “We wanted to
expose people to the background [of the conflict.]
|
