After the latest efforts by two American envoys it was announced that the threat of an immediate war between India and Pakistan has been averted. Therefore, the question remains: Will this lead to gradual withdrawal of troops from their borders? Will this lead to addressing some of the fundamental questions behind the conflict? Is there a better way to resolve the crisis between the two countries?

But are there any relations in international politics without conflict? Is the relationship between the U.S. and the U.K. void of conflicting interests? No. Yet these two countries are allies. Both India and Pakistan fought against British colonial administration and achieved independence. But Indian leaders never approved the idea of Pakistan. Yet Indian and Pakistani leaders were able to resolve their dispute over Indus water amicably and rationally. Can they do the same with Kashmir?

The Kashmir dispute has always been an emotional issue. India and Pakistan fought many wars, got involved in discussions, international bodies intervened, and yet the crisis persisted. How does one resolve this crisis? Here is what the international community has done so far…

In January 1948 both India and Pakistan complained to the U.N. Security Council about an armed conflict in Kashmir, which resulted from the two countries’ conflicting claims to the territory after the departure of the British from India. On January 20 the Security Council established the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan (UNCIP) for mediation between the two countries. Within one year the UNCIP arranged for cease-fire and decided to hold a plebiscite to decide whether Kashmir would join India or Pakistan. It also established the United Nations Military Observer Group (UNMOGIP), to check whether there were any cease-fire violations, and appointed U.S. Admiral Chester Nimitz to administer the plebiscite.

The UNCIP submitted its final report to the Security Council in December 1949, expressing its frustration for failing to ensure the free and fair conditions necessary for holding the plebiscite (i.e. withdrawal of troops). The Security Council then entrusted its General Andrew McNaughton of Canada to negotiate with the conflicting parties on the question of plebiscite. He too failed to make any progress.

In April 1950 the Security Council nominated Australia’s Sir Owen Dixon as the U.N. representative for India and Pakistan to do the job. In September he also reported failure to resolve the problem, and requested to be relieved of his duties.

A more thorough study of U.N. documents on the dispute suggests India’s irrational behavior being the reason for the continuous failure of international diplomats. However, the world community continued with its efforts to bring an end to the dispute. In April 1951 Dr. Frank Graham of the Unites States succeeded Sir Owen Dixon of Australia. Although Dr. Graham reported some progress in the beginning, he also failed to hold the long awaited plebiscite and the stalemate continued.

In January 1957 the Security Council again took up the matter on Pakistan’s request when India attempted to draw a constitution identifying Kashmir as its integral part. This, according to Pakistan, was a violation to U.N. resolutions, which had declared Kashmir a disputed territory. Security Council President Gunnar Jarring of Sweden himself assumed the responsibility to arbitrate. In April, three months after assuming the responsibility, Jarring submitted his proposals of arbitration; Pakistan accepted but India refused. And Jarring’s efforts collapsed. Any effort on the part of the U.N. to impose a decision by force was vetoed by the former Soviet Union. The dispute continued.

Since then Pakistan raised the issue in the Security Council several times, but the latter failed to resolve the crisis. In 1965 India and Pakistan fought a major war on Kashmir, but the issue remained unresolved. A small contingent of UNMOGIP (43 members) continues to check cease-fire violations.

The current volatile situation seems to have cooled down. But is that enough? The fundamental question is: Is there going to be a final settlement of the problem? Can they do it? How are they going to do it? Can the plebiscite be held? Are the people of Kashmir going to be involved in this process? Can the elections be held in all parts of Kashmir under the direct supervision of the United Nations?

The question of the involvement of the international community seems to be very sentimental for India. To India, the American role is no more than “fighting against terrorism.” And Pakistan views the U.S. as a mediator in the conflict. Pakistan wants to increase the role of UNMOGIP to monitor what India calls cross-border terrorism. But India is opposed to it. To India there is no international dispute in Kashmir; Kashmir is India’s international matter. To Pakistan, the people of Kashmir are fighting for self-determination, and it is morally committed to the cause. With so many differences in their perception of the problem, how could it even be addressed?

An Indo-Israeli Axis?

One interesting development is that India has received support from the pro-Israeli lobby in the United States. It has also received a lot of attention from pro-Israeli international media and research institutions.

Both India and Israel, although claim to be democratic, seem not to trust others; both are opposed to stationing international monitors along their lines of conflict. An “Indo-Israeli axis” is trying to create pressure on the Pakistani government to abandon its support for the people of Kashmir. But such a stand on the part of the government of Pakistan will only convince many Muslim activists that President Musharraf has not been rational and consistent in his definition of terrorism and the struggle for self-determination. And such an understanding will only lead to further escalation.

Therefore, one has to address the question rationally. And the rational method to resolve the crisis is to allow the people of Kashmir to decide their fate. This would be in accordance with the U.N. charter and in line with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted by the United Nations in 1948. But the process of self-determination has to be conducted under international supervision and, in order to minimize India’s sentiment about international involvement, perhaps Nepalese and Bangladeshi troops could be stationed to ensure law and order for the process of self-determination!