AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

GUEST ARTICLE

        On 6 December, 2006, Pakistan's President Pervez Musharraf made an out-of-box offer for the settlement of the Jammu & Kashmir issue that stunned many of his countrymen and even reduced Delhi to an enigmatic silence. It took Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Singh a fortnight to respond to it. Briefly put the Musharraf offer contained the following ingredients: (a) Pakistan has never claimed that Kashmir is an integral part of it and does not make that claim now. (b) The Kashmir dispute is about the aspirations of Kashmiris; it is for the Kashmiris to decide where their future lies. (c) Pakistan is giving up on its demand for a plebiscite in Jammu & Kashmir and (d) Pakistan rejects the 'independence' option for the Kashmiris.

        Even earlier, in his book In the Line of Fire: A Memoir, Musharraf had identified four 'key elements' for the solution of the J & K dispute. The first element was identification of the geographic regions of the erstwhile state of Jammu & Kashmir consisting of the northern areas of 'Azad Kashmir' and what is known as PoK ( Pakistan Occupied Kashmir ), Ladakh, the Kashmir Valley and Jammu.

        The second component of the Musharraf 'solution' was demilitarisation of the identified regions by both India and Pakistan and curbing 'all militant parts of the freedom struggle'.

        The third was 'self-governance or self-rule in the identified regions', enabling Kashmiris to have the satisfaction of running their own affairs without having an international character and remaining short of independence.

        The fourth was setting up a joint mechanism with a membership of Pakistanis, Indians and Kashmiris overseeing the self-governance and dealing with 'residual subjects common to all identified regions and those subjects that are beyond the scope of self-governance' - presumably meaning Defence, Foreign Affairs and Currency.

        Musharraf never made that clear but it is self-evident and relevant. For a full fortnight Delhi remained silent. On 20 December, Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Singh, speaking in Amritsar said that he, too, had a vision, that he 'welcomed all ideas, as they contribute to the on-going thought process', that India, too, is willing to move beyond its 'stated position' and that the two countries needed to put the past behind them and think of their 'collective destiny' in which both countries could work jointly towards a better future for their peoples.

        Dr Singh hoped that the two countries can generate such an atmosphere of trust between each other that the two nations would be able to agree to 'a Treaty of Peace, Security and Friendship'. All very well, but let us face some facts.

        One, Jinnah wanted to capture J & K under any circumstances and was only halted in his track by the British Army Commanders who threatened not to obey his orders and leave Pakistan for good.

        Two, in recent months both Britain (which hardly counts any longer anyway ) and the US have been increasingly finding that they have, in the post Cold War years, no need for Pakistan as an ally and that India is a better bet.

        The high praise showered on India and Prime Minister Singh by George Bush in his last press conference bears ample testimony to this. Three, Pakistan has belatedly realised that it can win the undeclared war it has been waging against India through terrorism, no matter how hard it tries and four, the Pakistanis have themselves grown out of their sponsored anti-India feelings and want peace that will explain the new approach to the re-writing of Pakistani history text books cleansed of anti-India and anti-Hindu sentiments.

        Under the circumstances what should India do? The first thing to remember is that there is still a substantial segment of Indian opinion that distrusts Musharraf and is wary of accepting any offer he makes, howsoever beguiling. But having taken that into account, India can demand the following: (a) Stop playing the ISI-sponsored terrorist card and dismantle, to India's complete satisfaction, the terrorist camps Pakistan has for long set up not far from J & K's borders. (b) Allow the Kashmiri Pandits to return to the vale and to get back their property and self-respect. (c) Settle the Siachin conflict (d) Agree to the unification of PoK with the territory now part of India (e) Accept the concept of confederation, which would include Pakistan, India and an 'autonomous' J & K. (f) Once a confederation is formed, secession of any part is completely ruled out (g) In a confederated South Asia, there will be one President (who will have one term of five years, the post being held consequentially by an Indian, Pakistani and Kashmiri ), one currency - the Rupiya - and one foreign policy. Defence will also be a common subject and the Armed Forces again will be alternately headed by a Pakistani and an Indian General. What this would do to the peace not only of South Asia but to the well-being of the world would then be incalculable. Defence expenditure of both countries would come down drastically. Economic progress would take place by leaps and bounds. A Confederated South Asia would automatically become a Super Power and neither India nor Pakistan will then need any kind of support from any one nation, be it the US, China, Russia or the European Union. It will be a power in its own right, respected and honoured by every one. If, in course of time, Sri Lanka, Nepal and Bangladesh want to join the Confederation, they should be welcomed with open arms. If East and West Germany can unite, if former enemies in Europe can agree to the formation of a European Union, there is no reason why India and Pakistan cannot similarly unite. There need be no quarrel over the name: India and Pakistan can retain their separate named and identities but the new grouping will be called Confederation of South Asian States.

        Rules and regulations can always be worked out and a new body will have to be elected to draw up a new Constitution and a new South Asian Parliament. If Partition was possible, confederation too is not only possible but necessary and even inevitable in a globalised economy. There has been enough of mistrust, bloodletting and attempts at undoing each other, in a confederation Baluchistan and Waziristan too will have their place, and Maoists and ULFA will become irrelevant. It will be one huge joint family. Let us, at least, discuss the subject. A confederation is in everybody's interests and can be the forerunner of the setting up of the mightiest nation in the world. Is this all unreal? Is the European Union? The people both in India and Pakistan must think big if they want to go anywhere. And now is the time.

        A secular, democratic South Asian Confederation will attract foreign investment, and keep every power - China, the United States and any other aspirant - in their place. South Asia would then have truly arrived. Think of that, General Musharraf.