Chair: Hamid Ansari
Panelists: Rita Manchanda,  Lt Gen (retd) VG Patankar, BG Verghese, Maj Gen Dipankar Banerjee

The book discussion focused on the various chapters of the book that sought to address the Kashmir problem form various perspective. Both the national and international dimension of the Kashmir conflict elicited detailed engagement. The possible processes to settle the imbroglio were also examined. The central theme was to provide expression to the new voices and approaches constituted by the views of the people from the Pakistan occupied Kashmir.

Opening Remarks

PR Chari

The book discussion on Kashmir: New Voices, New Approaches edited by WPS Sidhu, Bushra Asif and Cyrus Samii is a joint event between the Institute of Peace and Conflict Studies and the International Peace Academy, New York. The unique selling point of this project and the book is that it has sought to bring together people from India and Pakistan with the international community having an interest in Kashmir. But more so, this project sought to bring together people from the two parts of Kashmir - the one in our possession and the other occupied by Pakistan. This latter group of people constituted the new voices. The conscious effort was to do some out-of-box thinking to come out with new approaches to a very old problem.

What is this book all about? The high-level panel, constituted by the UN Secretary General, identified three intractable security challenges in the world - Palestine, the Korean Peninsula and Kashmir. Kashmir has also been identified in the international literature as being the "most dangerous place on earth". It is also dramatized as a nuclear flashpoint. The Kashmir problem can be addressed at four levels - international, inter-state, intra-state and non-state. Perhaps the most unpredictable is the non-state level which contains the highest potential for tensions and instabilities. This problem is further aggravated by the existence of the Kashmiri diaspora and well meaning NGOs working in the area. As far as the chapterisation is concerned, the book is divided into three parts. The first part of this book deals with sub-national and national dimensions of the Kashmir conflict, militancy in the Kashmir conflict, gender issues permeating the conflict and inter-state dimensions of the conflict. On each of these issues, the book presents sets of two essays, reflecting the Pakistani and Indian perspectives. The second part of the book deals with the international dimensions of the Kashmir problem and the final part examine the processes towards seeking a settlement of the Kashmir imbroglio.

The Kashmir conflict can also be viewed as a contestation between sovereignty and the right to self-determination. The book also discusses the viability of using military force to resolve border disputes, especially those embedded in the Kashmir conflict. This aspect is significant as the Kashmir conflict exists in a nuclearized environment, alongside an area manifesting the globalization of terror. These factors points to the need for evolving new approaches to deal with this problem. The book deals with this issue as well.

Hamid Ansari

The book has been done comprehensively. What comes out of the exercise essentially is that the subject does not go away, either off the international agenda, national agenda or regional level. The Kashmir conflict has been referred to as the oldest conflict before the United Nations and it has gone through different stages. In 1963, when India was under pressure and agreed to sit with Pakistan and look at options, Pakistan chose to ignore this gesture and raised the Kashmir issue at the UN level. A status quo was reached with the Shimla Agreement which stipulated that India and Pakistan will discuss a final settlement on the Kashmir issue. However, as history shows, no corresponding initiative was taken by Pakistan to resolve the Kashmir imbroglio. Post 9/11, Pakistan has resiled from some of its earlier frozen positions. In the last few years the most optimistic thing that has happened is a willingness to search for options and to look at options by a non-Westphalian approach. The book emphasizes the significance of non-state actors, who are basically of two types - the destructive kind and the constructive kind. The first primarily refers to the militant groups while the latter pertains to a new awareness in the civil societies of J&K, India and Pakistan that we have had enough of conflict. There is an increasing eagerness to come up with a solution to the Kashmir conflict.

Rita Manchanda

The book is extremely interesting. It expands the field of intellectual engagement to include the constructive non-state actors, gender perspectives and to recognize value and validate the role of civil society. However, there remain certain add-ons. There are certain uneasiness in the introduction and the conclusions chapters. Why is it we feel a gender perspective is important? Why is the role of civil society important? The general feeling is that it was politically correct to include these issues but where is the real rationale for including them? Why are emphasizing gender perspectives? On gender perspectives, these chapters emphasize that women are the worst sufferers in war and hence are possible constituencies of peace. However, these two chapters are not really emphasizing these aspects rather it is more engaged in explicating the disintegration, brutalization of the society and the moral depravity that has emerged within the society. This is a different statement altogether. It is extremely vital to emphasize on these issues especially when we are dealing with a peace process that is plural. Iffat Idris talks about peace on all fronts. If we accept peace as a plural process then in the making of the peace process the importance of addressing certain issues like the revitalization and rehabilitation of society that has been corroded from within has been addressed in Idris's chapter. The author emphasizes that the Kashmiri society has been disintegrated. In fact, one of the objects of counter-insurgency is to destroy the society. Theme basic theme of this article could not have been built without addressing these issues and that is why the gender level narratives become critical in this context. The micro-level narratives are important because unless these issues are addressed the peace that will be negotiated at the inter-state or the intra-state level will not hold and these aspects have been included in the chapter. These aspects were found absent in both the introduction and the conclusion chapters.

Iffat Idris's article leaves one with a certain level of uneasiness. While it is extremely important to emphasize the internal dimensions of the Kashmir problem that needs to be addressed with priority, the author refers to it basically as a problem of the Kashmiri Muslims with the Indian State. Although, it is factually correct to assume that there has been an Islamization of the Kashmir or jehadization of the Kashmiri state but, at the same time, there also exists the Bhasins, Wangchus and Balraj Puris who are also part of the core Kashmiri discourse. The author has excluded them altogether in defining the problem of Kashmiri Muslims and the Indian state. Hence, there exists a problem with the conceptual framework. There is a reinforcement of a communal violence which is a factual reality but it is necessarily not a holistic way of addressing the issue.

Cyrus Samii's concluding essay talks about communal identity determining whether you are for autonomy or for integration with centralism. While at one level he is correct at another level he seems to be deemphasizing or deliberately ignoring the Kashmiri problem cuts at several levels including the regional level. After all the Balrajpuris are talking about regional issues, which is very much a part of the Kashmiri dialogue. While dealing with peace as a plural process these issues have to be engaged with. Hence, to use only the communal perspective would tantamount to limiting it and distorting and falsifying the real issue.

On the issue of the minority-majority relations, while this is a specific historical situation in Kashmir, there is similar situation existing in other parts of India. The author raises the question of how to inspire trust and commitment towards in a Muslim majority province to the Hindus and Hindu majority province to Muslims in Jammu. This issue has assumed the proportions of a challenge in Gujarat and Rajasthan, and while it is important for contextualizing in the case of Kashmir, it also has relevance for addressing the overall federal challenge in responding to the problem of minorities. By opening up Kashmir in a wider context we might be able to unlock communal Isalamatized prism in order to develop new approaches for dealing with the problem.

Iffat Idris in her article does not mention the aspect of demilitarization, which is not treated as part of the process of rebuilding trust with the Kashmiri society. Cyrus refers to demilitarization as withdrawal of forces. However, demilitarization essentially includes a package where self-governance is also to be integrated including high level of systemic and institutionalized intelligence sharing. It is not just about you withdraw and I withdraw. Hence the issue of an international dimension needs to be problematized. To assume that 9/11 has alienated the Kashmiris from the jehadis is incorrect. Actually, it is their behaviour which has alienated them from the jehadis. Women were symbolic in turning their back against the militants since 1992-1993. In addition, the political dynamics in India and Pakistan towards settling the Kashmir issue has also played a major role in alienating the Kashmiris from the militants. There is a strong drive also within Pakistan for restoring peace in the region.

Shaheen Akhtar's article is less ambitious. It presents a perspective on the lives of the Kashmiri women. However there are certain omissions, like a ceasefire at the LOC. However, there is a lack of awareness about the issue of militants stopping violence. She also does not mention the constraints in doing this survey. The author remains unclear on the distinction between Azad Kashmir and the concept of independence.

Kavita Suri's article has problems at the bibliographical level. Unlike Shaheen Akhtar's essay that cites common works on the subject, Suri's article is conspicuous by their absence. Suri's article consists of sweeping generalizations, and anecdotal evidence cited as facts. There is also a conceptual problem. Women in war situations are seen as mobilizing peace. However, women in conflict situations are located differently depending on their class and religious identities. In the North-eastern states women promote conflict and prohibit peace. This is because they are prohibited from joining the conflict. Hence, it would be wrong to assume that women in conflict situations mobilize peace. Suri also talks about the trauma produced by terrorism. But terrorism can also be produced by state sponsored action and state violence. The state cannot be absolved in this matter. Hence this kind of a contribution does not help.

VG Patankar

This book is a beacon for bringing out the problems that lie ahead. The sentiment in the various chapters ranges from narrative to provoking thought. However, at places it is also in the form of documentary. What is evident in the texts of the authors is that mind-sets are hard to dislodge. It is very difficult to take a dispassionate view on the Kashmir issue. The timing of the book is near perfect with peace initiatives being made by both India and Pakistan.

Suba Chandran's article is a well laid out paper that talk about regional and international dimensions. The value of this paper lies in the fact that after making detailed analysis, the author suggested certain valuable approaches. His assessment of the tanzims is fairly accurate. This is as far as one can get without being a part of them. He highlights the divide between the militants and the Iqwans and this is very important because in any such analyses it is imperative to know where these people come from. He has also very correctly touched upon how the Congress Government is giving priority to engaging Pakistan rather than the non-state actors in Jammu and Kashmir. He says so because right from 1947 till now the way the problem has evolved over the years the number of participants has increased. He deals with the issue whether it would be right to just engage all the constituents instead of one while resolving the Kashmir conflict. In terms of solution he makes a very interesting observation. He harks back to the Punjab government. He observes it would bear fruit if the Punjab model is emulated and empower the J&K police forces. He also points out when there is a higher level of involvement of the security forces with the growth of the conflict, there must be an exit strategy just as there is a need for an entry strategy during the initial stages of the conflict. The exit strategy is a step towards normalization.

The author also speaks of the rehabilitation of the Iqwans. The theme of this problem is based on the fact that the Iqwan issue affects the Kashmiris the most. Hence it is important to rehabilitate those who are looking for an opportunity to return to the mainstream. In addition, the author observes that a politico-military option is better than either a totally political approach or totally military approach. Both these approaches are fraught with dangers.

Chandran's essay mentions Hethmathiyar factions operating in the area. There may be stray incidences of the groups but they are not significant enough to deserve merit as non-state actors. The idea of joint patrolling of the armies does not carry much relevance. After all how much can the joint patrolling of the armies who are interested in continuance of the conflict contribute in stopping the conflict?

Rizwan Zeb's article is more of a narrative and documentary in character. He has drawn heavily from the works of Amir Rana and Amir Mir. It is a good reading as it outlines the entire sequence of how the conflict started in Kashmir. But as one reads through this essay of how the jehadi groups are operating and why, one is left expecting a solution. Unfortunately to the reader's dismay, this is found only in the last paragraph. He also gives historical perspective of the genesis of the Jamaiti and the Wahabi groups operating as parties to the conflict. This is a valuable reading but it is conspicuous by the absence of the role of the Sufis. He has given a detailed account of the funding and recruitment of the jehadi groups and has mentioned why people from different sections are motivated to become part of the jehadi factions. The conclusion is a mix of narrative and solution.

Iffat Idris article is very disappointing because the author has chosen to tread a very narrow path. The focus is on the conflict between the Muslims in J&K and the Indian Government. This is a blinkered approach to a problem that has a far wider dimension.

Cyrus Samii's article provides some kind of an approach for the future. There are gaps which require more clarity and elaboration. It is a good closing article that summarizes certain comprehensive points. He has pointed that the elections in the 2002 was better than before. This is a gross understatement in view of the elections held in 1987 which were rigged. However, this was not as bad as it was made out to be. This was highlighted because it happened in the urban area areas where it got greater visibility. So the Election s of 2002 should have been highlighted as a turning point in the whole Kashmir affair.

On the issue of Azadi, This is a term that is being used frequently. Azadi in this context meant azadi from poor government and not from any particular government.

Authors have dealt with a macro issue wherein different sections of the society take advantage of the conflict situation. It is a kind of cottage industry who want the conflict to be fest. It is important to tap these cottage industries if the Kashmir is to be effectively resolved.

BG Verghese

Any discussion on Kashmir gives a description of the two sides of the LOC - the Indian Jammu and Kashmir and the Azad Jammu and Kashmir. This is a wrong premise - independence from what and how. There is a flawed reference to the Indian government that in 1948 it rejected the suggestion of plebiscite on the Kashmir issue and mandated the Kashmir imbroglio to the UN. This is incorrect. The plebiscite issue was discussed by the Congress but was strongly opposed by the Muslim League. So Pakistan was also involved in blocking the plebiscite. In some of the chapters, exaggerated reference has been made to the APHC. They should have been invited to the talks and treated at par with the other constituents of the Kashmir conflict. However to say that they are the only authenticated voice on Kashmir is an exaggeration. This volume suggested that initiatives should be made improve the situation but does not mention what these should be.

The Indus Water treaty is one of the most successful treaties in the world. However, if anyone has reasons to complain it is India who has faced opposition from Pakistan at every stage to meet the growing demands of the North-Western India and climatic conditions.

Samii's article reflects that both India and Pakistan needs Kashmir fron an ideological point of view. India requires Kashmir from a secular point of view while Pakistan needs it in justification of its two-nation theory. This is incorrect. If India had lost Kashmir in 1947, it would not have been a major blunder. Similarly to say that in Pakistan Musharraf would have been thrown out of power if Kashmir is lost is equally debatable.

In the next few years there will be tremendous transforming effect within J&K. There will be improvement in roads and railways going to J&K; Srinagar will transform into an international airport and twenty-four hour power supply will be provided in the country. These infrastructure will be the prime target of the militants. Within this volume many myths have been shed but many remains to be dealt with.

Dipankar Banerjee

It is important to address the issue of Kashmir periodically. Unfortunately, it has not been possible for the Institute to obtain sustained interest and receive project funding for this. Hence my congratulations to Sidhu for developing this interesting book project on Jammu & Kashmir.

First of all, anybody seriously interested in studying Kashmir should read the recent monograph on myth-making in Kashmir by Verghese. The Book highlights the basic fundamental issues of the Kashmir question and the myths that have developed from it, which have clouded our understanding of the situation. But, on the current question relating to J&K, the point of departure should be the 9/11 attack on the Twin Towers. The issue now is terrorism in all its international manifestations and linkages.

The chapter 'How independent is Azad Jammu and Kashmir?' by Bushra Asif is quite impressive. It brings out the constraints in the administration of PoK and how the region has been directly administered by Islamabad. In turn it has been handled directly by the Pakistan military. There are some attempts to loosen the system but all for all practical purposes success has been very limited. The whole problem of the Northern Areas remains and has been very well brought out in the chapter. For many Indians the Chapter provides very important information which will enable them to understand the true nature of Pakistani politics today as it relates to POK. Also, it brings out the importance of the Muzzafarabad - Srinagar axis. There is no doubt that Srinagar-Muzzafarabad bus route is important for the peace process. The bus route was opened after the first round of dialogue in April 2005 and the violence that preceded the opening should be taken note of. In spite of initial difficulties, it brought enormous promise to the region and a qualitative change in the environment for the dialogue to be taken forward. But unfortunately, reviewing the situation today we realize that its impact has been limited and it has not been a substantial confidence building measure as was initially expected. Pakistan's reluctance to accept aid from the Indian side after the earthquake that winter demonstrated once again the mindset that is working in Pakistan. These remain major challenges to a lasting solution.

I would recommend everybody to read Chari's chapter on 'Sources of New Delhi's Kashmir Policy' to have a balanced perspective of how Indian policy has evolved in J&K. I have been an admirer of Chari's work and his analysis along with Steve Cohen on the Shimla process is a landmark work. Recent proposals from Musharaff thinking out of the box and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's suggestion of democratization and making the Line of Control irrelevant after a while both have promises. But, it has also to be seen in the larger context of cessation of terrorism. For, that alone will address the international concern of seeing an end to terrorism spreading elsewhere. The seriousness of these issues and the importance of dealing in a comprehensive counter-terrorism mode is a serious challenge for the strategic community.

John Thompson's, 'Kashmir: "The Most Dangerous Place in the World?' reflects many of the anxieties and assumptions of the western world which theoretically looks impressive. Linking various aspects of the problem to nuclear weapons was the basis of the Clinton non-proliferation agenda and therefore, the statement of 'Kashmir being the most dangerous place on earth'. But seen objectively, this myth too has been conclusively demolished. Afghanistan, Palestine and Iraq are the dangerous places on earth today and remain so for many years hence. To place Kashmir among them is to distract the world and substitute it through non-essential and non-consequential issues of proliferation. However, it must be stressed that the region does require substantive 'nuclear risk reduction measures.' The failure to bring this about is a major failure of both India and Pakistan and peripherally of the US. There is no doubt about this argument and India and Pakistan should try to alleviate this concern of nuclear war. Track II level talks had addressed this issue but official level dialogue has made little progress.

A realistic solution to J&K will have to emerge from a non-Westphalian approach; an approach that will not consider the state as the apex and territories as sacrosanct, instead of seriously accepting the Prime Minister's proposal attempt to make borders irrelevant. It will have to put people first. Their concerns and interests will have to be uppermost in decision making and address fundamental aspirations of the people. It will also call for effective corruption-free government that quickly meets specific human development aspirations of the people. The same is applicable to the North-East as well. Fundamentally, we should evolve a system that is meaningful for the people to make democratic governance on both sides of the LoC possible. Civil society on both sides will inevitably have a major role in all this.

Discussion

Comments

• An approach of a moral equivalence between India and Pakistan in this particular situation is not right because India was subjected to aggression in 1947. But in the introduction to the book, Sidhu mentions that the accession was followed by a war over the control of the territory. This is a very neutral statement. There is no hint that one side was in violation. Similarly, saying that India and Pakistan had fought three wars over Kashmir. A kind of total balance in a judicial approach but the war was initiated by Pakistan. Indian J&K is reflected as Indian J&k and Pakistan's administration is AJ&K. To be evenhanded, AJ&K should have been mentioned as PJ&K.
   

• Gender issues are addressed but there is no mention of ethnic cleansing that has taken place. The Kashmiri pundits were displaced and there has been an ethnic cleansing in Kashmir since then. Similarly terrorism does not figure in the chapters of the book.
   

• The non-Westphalian approach is highly utopian as it cannot start in a contentious environment. It has to start in a peaceful setting. It is fashionable pooh-poohing the idea of sovereignty without realizing the fact that we are still in a Hobbessian world. As someone said, statecraft is a cruel business and good-nature is a bungalow in it.
   

• What is the effect of radicalization that is taking place all over the world? What will be the effect of this radicalization on the people of Kashmir? A large section of civil society might be silent and isolated on such issues but a small section of the civil society might erupt as has happened in United Kingdom.
   

• Islamic world fares rather badly when it comes to minorities. The minority population is dwindling in Pakistan and Bangladesh and the process is on. The same situation can be seen in the Kashmir valley where Pundits have been thrown out. What does the future hold for them? Why don't we apply the same yardstick and accept the fact that Pundits will never be welcome? How does it affect the ethos of the people in Kashmir?
   

• The Kashmiri pundits are not going back because they know they are not going to be accepted. Kashmiri Pundits who have been away from home for many years and have found their roots in other parts of the country. Young boys and girls from Kashmir no longer worry about what is happening in Kashmir but would want to carry on with their lives.
   

• The book does great injustice by adapting the same nomenclature as is used by BBC and CNN. The people in the Northern areas do not know what Azadi is. They are anti-Pakistan and not pro-India, but certainly pro-China. And I would always love to call it Jammu and Kashmir and would not hyphenate a country with that term.
   

• Things must be placed in perspective regarding the casualty figures in Kashmir. Demilitarisation will cause a security vacuum in J&K. What would be its security implications?
   

• I think among the subjects that needs to be discussed is the seriousness of the future of J&K. An acceptance is that there is no military solution. The military in both countries are clear that is a major development. What are the difficulties for a constructive approach in J&K? Gen. Musharaff proposes demilitarization and the Prime Minister wants to make the borders irrelevant. These are constructive approaches. Demilitarization is only possible if both countries take steps and there is assurance that neither country would take offensive measures and resort to military action. India and Pakistan should adopt a balanced and proportionate policy on demilitarization and work towards it.
   

• The Army is not really interested in the task of maintaining peace in J&K. If the jihadis and militants were not there, the Army would come back. Mr. Vajpayee made a sincere effort to see that the army was not involved, but unfortunately that could not happen.

Rita Manchanda

Demilitarization must be achieved in a much more holistic and integrated way. The approach involves several dimensions and obligations on the part of Pakistan and India. Musharaff's statement implicitly accepted that responsibility. It is not a one-shot affair and that is not how demilitarization works. The real space for civil society will emerge only after demilitarization. The police force in Kashmir has to be humanized, if the Kashmiris have to decide their own future.

WPS Sidhu

Let me start by saying a few words about the International Peace Academy (IPA). It was set up in the 1970s by an Indian General, who was then the military adviser to the UN Secretary General, U Thant. Its objective was very narrow and simple, to provide a peace doctrine for the UN Peace Keeping operations. The International Peace Academy, like its parent body, the United Nations, was set up with a different objective in mind. It is in the nature of the organisation, both like the international system it was born in, to have evolved over a period of time. And today both the UN and the International Peace Academy look at very different aspects than what they were originally set up for in their respective spheres.

One of the things IPA was to address was to reexamine the complex issues that are posing a challenge to international peace and security and so the notion of neutrality which was there in the past is something that the UN has also started to reexamine like the notion of dealing with only the nation-states. The UN has recognized that there are parts of the world where they have to get into the sub national and the non-state level, both the benign kind and the not so benign kind. It is in that context that the International Peace Academy took on this project on Kashmir. I would rather that IPCS or some organization in Pakistan would have done this, but unfortunately that didn't happen. But we had a fairly pragmatic and really visionary funder in IDRC, which provided the support for this kind of a project. If I had any doubts that this exercise was redundant or superfluous, the discussions today have proven that our approach was correct.

One of the things is that the volume still has is a particular status-bias. This comes both from the UN itself which looks at states rather than civil society, although it is trying to move in that direction. I think that the role of women has been pointed out to be a disconnect in the introduction and conclusion. Hence there is this status bias both from the editors and the organizations from which we come, and it is important to revisit this issue.

Patankar was talking about the entry and exit policy, something the military is aware of. The Indian Army has been aware of this as part of UN operations. The exit policy is absolutely vital. The Indian Army has to look at it from the perspective of Kashmir. The whole notion of Disarmament, Demobilization and Reintegration (DDR) is been dealt by the UN in a different context. Some effort is needed in the context of Kashmir. The issue of spoilers and the role of the political economy to perpetrate the conflict for some groups have also to be looked into.

The objective of this project was two fold: The first was to look at and provide a platform for voices in the region to articulate their concerns, which cannot be heard in Islamabad and New Delhi. The challenge lay in identifying some of these voices. Although we have made a good start, we have a long way to go. Some key voices are missing in this volume. For example, there is no voice accorded to the Muslim majority in Kashmir and certainly from AJK as well. I would like to encourage that as a follow up.

The second step was to push the process forward and try and engender a greater role for the civil society both within and outside Kashmir. Though various agencies are involved it is very important that civil society holds the governance process responsible. The notion of an international community has also changed over time with the international civil society becoming a huge actor in some of these areas.

Hamid Ansari

We have had a diverse and detailed discussion. One perception of the conflict is that the tenacity of the players has been admirable. But there is a creeping realization within that tenacity that an alternative system has to be looked for. It would be human to do so. The point that comes out is that some of them are external and some internal. It should be tried out. The perception is dawning on our side and on the other side that we need non-conventional approaches to look at the problem. Non-Westphalian approaches are making the world work now. The whole experience of globalization demonstrates that fact. There is precious little we can do autonomously as part of the new world. Our tenacity has upheld our position and the international dimension have receded. But others remain. The relative weight of the component is flux and the challenge is to channel that flux to our advantage.

Concluding remarks

P R Chari

We have had a very interesting discussion. A book of this kind is a very difficult enterprise. It is much easier to write it oneself than squeeze and cajole the chapters out of several authors and see that these chapters conform to the overall design. It is a difficult exercise to evaluate such a book for the same reasons. I would like to thank the panelists for having made this exercise a success.