Discovered by Socrates' pupil Plato, centuries-old dialogic and dialectic method works like an obstetrician's hands in that it works to divulge what may not be possible through simple diagnosis. The findings through it may not be perfect and permanent but putting them to rigorous test and vigorous analysis could make them evolve into solutions, which may be entirely different to the previous but remain applicable to several conditions. The same method can be used to discover solutions for conflict resolution but remaining inactive by holding dear to the traditional ideas and a denial of dialogue would only worsen the existing situations, leading to despair and desolation.
Hard Realities:
We will have to see the ongoing peace process between Pakistan and India beyond the apprehensions of idealistic minds which heap speculations on speculations by neglecting what is viable and incline to evade supporting dialogue. In that matter, we certainly need to shake off our myopic vision and explore horizons both distant and at hand. The successive UN resolutions from 1948 to 1957 had rightly suggested a peaceful resolution of Kashmir dispute as per Kashmiris' aspirations. But despite more than half a century has elapsed since these resolutions were passed, we, still standing at the zero point, are groping in the dark. We need to recognize the harsh facts about the world body, which has failed to implement its resolutions on Kashmir.
Adding to the already countless miseries of the inhabitants of the South Asian region by continuing with the course of confrontation would be unwise without considering that several Indo-Pak wars have already given them unprecedented miseries through death and destruction, hunger and disease. Also, more than ninety thousand Kashmiris, during the last 18 years, have laid down their lives in their struggle to get liberation from India's illegal occupation. Neglecting the promises of peace, progress and prosperity that a lasting resolution to Kashmir dispute through dialogue can offer would be wise by no means. The Kashmir dispute could not be resolved by the UN resolutions, previous Pak-India talks, wars and even by Kashmiris' unique struggle in which they offered unprecedented sacrifices. Why? The candid reply is that the parties remained bogged down to their entrenched positions.
Laurels of the Peace Process:
The negligible opposition to the dialogue process seems to be bent upon the rhetoric of misperceptions about it when Pakistan and India are still moving forward to reach a decisive stage where the ongoing dialogue would culminate in a final mechanism to resolve the Kashmir dispute. This much is also evident from the dividends of the dialogue process between India and Pakistan since January 2004 when President Musharraf and Prime Minister Vajpayee met in Islamabad. Take for example, the joint-statements issued after the meetings between the supreme leaders of Pakistan and India during the last three years of the dialogue process.
According to the joint statement issued after their meeting on the sidelines of 60th Session of UN's General Assembly in September 2005, Pakistan President General Pervez Musharraf and Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh “agreed that possible options for a peacefully negotiated settlement [of Kashmir] should continue to be pursued in a sincere spirit and a purposeful manner.” What does it imply except a categorical recognition on the part of India that Kashmir is a dispute, which is to be resolved by a process of considering various options. This, in itself, is an end to India's rhetoric that Jammu and Kashmir is its integral part.
Both the leaders in their meeting on the sidelines of NAM summit in Havana in September 2006 also agreed, “to build on convergences and narrow down divergences.” Isn't such a declaration by India a step forward? On the other hand, President Musharraf has reiterated several times that the borders have to become irrelevant to which Manmohan Singh conceded. The Confidence Building Measures were meant to forge the long misunderstandings between Pakistan and India and to serve as a prologue to an agreed resolution of the dispute. One of the most applauded (Kashmir-specific) CBMs was that of Srinagar-Muzaffarabad bus service, which, caused several split Kashmiri families to meet after more than half a century.
Could anybody imagine before the ongoing dialogue process that people challenging India's sovereignty over Kashmir like those of APHC leaders would be allowed by India to visit Pakistan and talk to the Pakistani and AJK leaders? The consultation process between Kashmiris from both sides of the Cease-Fire Line and their interaction with New Delhi and Islamabad in the wake of the peace moves is another achievement. Moreover, Indian governments' holding talks with the APHC leaders is significant in the sense that these leaders adhere to a constitution which in clear terms speaks of Kashmiris' right to self-determination. Isn't it encouraging for the Pakistanis as well as Kashmiris that their archrival is sitting with them on the negotiating table and ready to ponder over President Musharraf's proposals for the resolution of Kashmir dispute? India is the same country that used to harp the tune, “Kashmir is our integral part.”
It would be a folly to expect an overnight solution of more than a half-century old international dispute. Keeping in view the tiring international peace processes such as English-Irish, Chinese-Indian and other conflicts, we need to wait patiently till all the sides come to a workable solution. The Wall of Berlin was not demolished in a day or a year rather, it took decades to reach that destination. Similarly, we have to wait before the peace process reaches a stage where the international community as well as India would not help realizing the need to resolve the Kashmir dispute in accordance with Kashmiris' aspirations.
Positive Reception of the Process:
The endeavors of resolving the Kashmir dispute through talks is becoming all the time so popular with international community at large and the people in occupied Kashmir in particular that even the pro-India circles in Kashmir too have been impelled to favor the talks' process. The statements of IHK-based Jammu and Kashmir National Conference, led by Omer Abdullah and Peoples Democratic Party, led by Mehbooba Mufti in support of President Musharraf's proposals are ample proofs of the same. It would be wrong to assume that the efforts for a peaceful resolution are limited to Pakistan and the people of Kashmir, rather the people in India too are concerned about the Kashmir dispute, the sole cause of disharmony in the region. APHC Chairman, Mirwaiz Umar Farooq recently said in a TV interview in Pakistan that in India different circles particularly Indian media are holding hot debates about the future status of Jammu and Kashmir.
International community, mindful of the enormous economic benefits that a lasting resolution to the dispute would bring forth for the people of South Asia as well as the entire globe, has also strongly favored this process. In this regard, the interest of US, EU, China, Japan, ASEAN, Shanghai Cooperation, SAARC and other international and regional organizations is fully spelt out in their statements.
In the fast globalzing and increasingly becoming inter-dependent world, all the Muslim countries and their Organization of Islamic Countries (OIC) too have equally buttressed the peace process. Aligning their views with the entire international community, they also believe that the key to breaking stalemate on Kashmir dispute lies in the dialogue. Like all others, they don't find sanity in endearing stated positions for a time in which many judicious nations have passed through several phases of prosperity and progress.
Doing in Rome as the Romans do, neither Pakistan has to live in isolation by ignoring international community, nor abandon universal principles of justice. At the same time, it also has to feel the pulse and hear the heartthrob of the suppressed people living inside the occupied territory. With the growing momentum created by Kashmiris themselves, Pakistan, international community and the voices within, India will have to put an end to its reluctance to show flexibility and bring an end to its status-quo position in Jammu and Kashmir. Talks, not the militarism, are the only resort to resolve rotting international issues in a world, which has gone ahead half a decade in the post-9/11 period. The 'Paradise Lost' can now be saved from agony, if we have the competence to strike a balance between Idealism and pragmatism.
Last but not the Least:
The dialogic nature of opposition and resistance, throughout history, has played a pivotal role in improving the human conditions by coming up with better ideas about life through conflict resolutions. But, the opposition to a process merely for the sake of opposition would do nothing but support the regressive trends. Coming out with alternatives and better ideas, constructive opposition would certainly have accelerated the peace process. Those who feel uncomfortable with the ongoing dialogue process are genuinely expected to come with alternatives to resolve Kashmir dispute. If they don't have any, their criticism will become counterproductive. India is the status-quo power in the conflict over Kashmir, having no urgency to keep the ball rolling. Stagnation goes in its favor whereas Pakistan and Kashmiris, in need to change this status quo, have to explore avenues one after the other.
The above reason fully explains India's procrastination and Pakistan's need to quicken the process of finding a just resolution to the Kashmir dispute. How long would the mayhem continue to rule in Jammu and Kashmir. This is the question that haunts the leadership of Kashmir and provokes it to support Pak-India peace process. After all the APHC leaders visiting Pakistan are the same who have witnessed the bloodbath of their kin during their liberation struggle against India. Brutal killings of Mirwaiz's father, Prof Abdul Ghani's brother and Bilal Ghani Lone's father are the glaring examples in point. Being the heirs of the martyrs, how can they barter their blood? Ends