Prof Sumantra Bose

Is settlement of the Jammu and Kashmir problem necessary for regional stability and development in South Asia? What are the objectives of India and Pakistan in Kashmir? Is the status quo acceptable? Should Kashmir be resolved first before dealing with other contentious Indo-Pak issues or should an incremental strategy be followed?

Bose believes that an incremental approach is the recipe for disaster. The issue is emotional, and has festered for more than a half-century. Dealing with the Kashmir issue first, according to India, would bog down the peace process. An incremental and gradual approach would be beneficial. Certain doubts, if not misgivings, on the incremental approach need being addressed to examine whether such an approach is desirable and advisable. The Oslo Process envisaged a gradual approach between Israel and Palestine, but failed to deliver. Though both parties agreed initially on a framework, difficult issues cropped up at a later stage, which sabotaged the peace process. Three issues in particular relating to the withdrawal of Israeli forces, resettlement of the refugees and the final status of Jerusalem proved very difficult to resolve. Besides, new issues may come up in pursuing an incremental approach, finally killing the process itself.

Second, in an incremental approach, the role of moderates cannot be relied upon. There may be changes in the regime; changes in the political structure; and some leaders may lose their popularity and even their lives. If the timeline is too long, spoilers might step in. Postponing the core issue to a later stage and pursuing an incremental approach is flawed reasoning. It is desirable to reach an agreement on hard issues, including the core ones first, and implement them in phases.

In South Asia, though so much is happening outside Jammu and Kashmir, both India and Pakistan seem focused only on Kashmir. A territorial settlement needs to be worked out on a priority basis. If France and Germany had still been fighting over Alsace, there would be no European Union today. Issues of integration, development and cooperation are substantial and real in South Asia, which India and Pakistan need to address.

Questions, Comments and Responses

• Incrementalism is a good approach, especially when the dispute is a long-standing one. India and Pakistan have acted as both status quo and revisionist powers at various stages and times on various issues.

• Sometimes two parties may be interested in resolving a conflict, but this may not be acceptable to others who are involved in the conflict. For example, London and Dublin were serious about reaching an agreement over the IRA, but the society was fractured. The EU, and even the US, supported the normalization efforts being made by London and Dublin; but a solution could not be reached.

• India's policy towards J&K over all these years was based on incrementalism. Why would it not work now?

• For many years, until the 1990s, the mainstream in Israel believed that the PLO was essentially bad and Yasser Arafat was an incarnation of the Devil. However, alternative thinking started emerging in the 1990s. The same could happen in J&K.

• An incremental approach may work if it is pegged to conditionality in the peace process. The spoilers, in the long run, may actually lose their relevance.

• Incremental processes may well work in a situation where there are only two parties. Would it work if there were multiple parties, especially non-state actors, as obtains in Kashmir?

• There are tremendous disparities between non-state and state actors, though this may not be true in some cases. For example, in Sri Lanka, the LTTE has the support of a powerful Sri Lankan Tamil diaspora, which has enabled it to sustain its efforts against the state, irrespective of Sri Lanka succeeding in getting the LTTE banned in several countries. In some cases, the role of external forces would strengthen the state, as happened with the US strengthening Israel.

• General Musharraf has successfully used the lack-of-any-other-option card while highlighting the threat from fundamentalists. In Palestine, Yasser Arafat used the same card; he tried to project that if Israel did not deal with him, it might have to deal with the Hamas. This did not work, however, in Musharraf's case.

• Much has changed in Kashmir. There were more changes in 1995, further changes in 1999, and now in 2005. But how real are these changes? Has the problem disappeared?

• Kashmir is a flashpoint and there is a need to deescalate the situation. The hostility between India and Pakistan would always remain, and manifest itself on different issues. Kashmir is the symptom and not the cause of Indo-Pak conflict.

• Would an incremental approach work, when there is a state of nuclear deterrence between India and Pakistan? It would depend on the actors, context and time. It worked between the US and the former Soviet Union. However, would it work between India and Pakistan?

Concluding Remarks
PR Chari

Kashmir, whether or not it is the core issue, embodies several other disputes including the Siachen glacier, Wullar barrage and Bagligar hydroelectric project, apart from the general issues of peace and stability and terrorism. If not the core issue, Kashmir is certainly an important issue between India and Pakistan. The international community will have to grasp the nettle of Pakistan at some time or the other. It heads the list of the world's current worries - non-proliferation, international terrorism, Islamic fundamentalism, democracy deficit and so on. The international community has to take a decision about this problem; and when that happens the geo-political situation facing India would change.