In this week’s print issue of the New Yorker, there’s a long, satisfying piece by Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Steve Coll on India and Pakistan’s attempts to resolve the status of Kashmir over the past few years. The big surprise is just how close the two countries were to permanently resolving the seemingly insoluble problem. The agreement, which was in its final stages in the spring of 2007, was never put into effect or publicly revealed because it was being finalized just when Pervez Musharraf’s government began to unravel. Musharraf had hoped to simply postpone the public summit where the deal would have been announced, but instead the whole thing had to be shelved.
The article isn’t online at the New Yorker‘s web site, but you can read it here, at the New America Foundation:
By early 2007, the back-channel talks on Kashmir had become “so advanced that we’d come to semicolons,†Kasuri recalled. A senior Indian official who was involved agreed. “It was huge–I think it would have changed the basic nature of the problem,†he told me. “You would have then had the freedom to remake Indo-Pakistani relations.†Aziz and Lambah were negotiating the details for a visit to Pakistan by the Indian Prime Minister during which, they hoped, the principles underlying the Kashmir agreement would be announced and talks aimed at implementation would be inaugurated. One quarrel, over a waterway known as Sir Creek, would be formally settled.
Neither government, however, had done much to prepare its public for a breakthrough. In the spring of 2007, a military aide in Musharraf’s office contacted a senior civilian official to ask how politicians, the media, and the public might react. “We think we’re close to a deal,†Musharraf ’s aide said, as this official recalled it. “Do you think we can sell it?â€
Regrettably, the time did not look ripe, this official recalled answering. In early March, Musharraf had invoked his near-dictatorial powers to fire the chief justice of the country’s highest court. That decision set off rock-tossing protests by lawyers and political activists. (link)
And from there that it just went downhill for General Musharraf. Now, with weak and unstable new leadership in Asif Zardari, and a possible change in leadership coming in India as well this spring, it’s unclear whether anything can be done anytime soon.
The actual details of the almost-agreement aren’t spelled out entirely in the article, but we do get some promising inklings:
To outsiders, it has long seemed obvious that the Line of Control should be declared the international border between India and Pakistan–it’s been in place for almost forty years, and each country has built its own institutions behind it. Musharraf, however, made it clear from the start that this would be unacceptable; India was equally firm that it would never renegotiate its borders or the Line of Control. The way out of this impasse, Singh has said, was to “make borders irrelevant,†by allowing for the free movement of people and goods within an autonomous Kashmir region. For Pakistan, this formula might work if it included provisions for the protection–and potential enrichment, through free trade–of the people of Kashmir, in whose name Pakistan had carried on the conflict.
The most recent version of the nonpaper, drafted in early 2007, laid out several principles for a settlement, according to people who have seen the draft or have participated in the discussions about it. Kashmiris would be given special rights to move and trade freely on both sides of the Line of Control. Each of the former princely state’s distinct regions would receive a measure of autonomy– details would be negotiated later. Providing that violence declined, each side would gradually withdraw its troops from the region. At some point, the Line of Control might be acknowledged by both governments as an international border. It is not clear how firm a commitment on a final border the negotiators were prepared to make, or how long it would all take; one person involved suggested a time line of about ten to fifteen years.
One of the most difficult issues involved a plan to establish a joint body, made up of local Kashmiri leaders, Indians, and Pakistanis, to oversee issues that affected populations on both sides of the Line of Control, such as water rights. Pakistan sought something close to shared governance, with the Kashmiris taking a leading role; India, fearing a loss of sovereignty, wanted much less power-sharing. The envoys wrestled intensively over what language to use to describe the scope of this new body; the last draft termed it a “joint mechanism.†(link)
Though fragile, this seems to me to be potentially workable, as it gives most parties a little bit of what they had hoped to get from a final resolution. Indeed, this story makes me feel somewhat optimistic, for once, about Kashmir. (If they did this once, they could do it again if and when political conditions are right in both Delhi and Islamabad.)
There’s a great deal of other interesting material in Coll’s article, including material related to the 11/26 attackers (definitely Pakistan backed, no surprises there) as well as India’s troubling history of “disappearing” Kashmiri separatists. Overall, he has a very balanced and informed perspective (neither pro-India nor pro-Pakistan); it’s well worth a read.
but how could have India trusted a Musharraf deal given the past experiences not withstanding his government’s legitimacy?
Could have, would have, should have after a deal falls apart just doesn’t do it. I doubt if the deals could have been reached. Don’t expect any deal for a long time.
but how could have India trusted a Musharraf deal given the past experiences not withstanding his government’s legitimacy?
Actually, according to Coll, Musharraf had been sending strong signals to Delhi that he was going to cooperate with them starting around 2003 (shortly after Jihadists had tried to assassinate him). In particular, Coll notes that he was mostly successful in clamping down on cross-border movements of militants up until around the time this all fell apart (in spring of 2007).
Coll argues that Musharraf after 2003 was quite different from the Musharraf who plotted Kargil and 1999.
All backroom drama and politics….The guy the Pak security services are now blaming for plotting Musharaff’s assasination is Omar Sheikh who is locked up in jail and has still not been hanged for supposedly killing Daniel Pearl because of his connections to ISI. At the same time there is controversy as to why US claims the 9/11 mastermind KSM is the culprit for Pearl’s killing (contradictory to Pak’s assertion ). I doubt Mushraff has changed. He is just playing the usual double-game with US and India ever since his infamous coup. If folks follow history there have been similar cycles of peace overtures and violence games. Pak knows that US pressure on the Afghan front is also temporary. US has to ultimately leave Afghan maybe after another ten years. So Pak’s hawkish establishment will wait it out. As long as the Soviet era people are present in the Pak establishment there will be no genuine sincerity by Pak vis-a-vis India.
Coll argues that Musharraf after 2003 was quite different from the Musharraf who plotted Kargil and 1999.
9/11, in all likelihood, was the catalyst of Musharraf discovering cooperation. Post 9/11 I am shocked that Bush/CIA did not put any restriction on the Pak army’s relations with Islamist groups other than Al-Qaeda/Taliban. Is the CIA that bereft of intelligence? All these Islamist groups inhabit the same geographical area!
Oops sorry about the messing up the hyper linking. Please hyper link to Omar Sheikh.
Here is Steve Coll in an interview on Fresh Air yesterday.
The interview is a good listen. One thing did bother me though, Terry Gross kept referring to India and Hindu India. Even at the time of partition, though the reason for it were communal, India never became a Hindu nation like Pakistan became a Muslim one.
8 · Ardy said
Hindu dharma accepts other religions and faiths. The Ram sene, bajrang dal and shiv sena might not, but they are not hinduism. Hinduism is not a faith that excludes others out, this is the main reason it is not a monotheistic faith. Hence the name, “hindusthan”.
Tangential but I should say that the way Steve Coll presents his article as a secret backroom diplomacy and then the Mumbai attacks is so very similar to the Jean-Charles Brisard and Guillaume Dasquie’s book – Forbidden truth which also talks about secret back-channel diplomacy between US and Taliban over and oil pipelines and then followed by 9/11 attacks….
Well, give peace a chance, and all that, but if Pakistan can’t control its own territory, how much is a deal with Pakistan worth? Won’t the Taliban just show up in Kashmir, and Pakistan will claim it’s not responsible for “non-state actors”?
Now now rob, don’t forget that Pakistan educated the taliban. So naturally, the liberal values that were inculcated in a generation of pakistanis will ensure that they will only seek out peace and understanding.
The real threat as always are those “saffron kooks” who advocate such extreme hindutva positions as india actually made contributions to world culture and civilization and there are indications that the AIT may not provide us with an accurate history of pre-islamic india. Eegads!
we’re workin’ on it. give us time.
(if 12 stands, i would think this should too).
BJP — humour is not allowed. It is unmutinous.
Good that it stayed almost. With the Swat valley deal, a soft border would’ve been an invitation for all the crazy mullahs to swarm into India. Especially with the Pak economy tanking.
The deal would make more sense after Pakistan disintegrates, and Kashmiris can think of a state with just other Kashmiris, without pressures from the Taliban, Saudi money, ISI, army interests, Islamic law, historical prejudice and all the other mess that the Pakistani entity brings with it. India should split Jammu and Leh off as another state before softening the border.
I disagree with people who say that Musharraf’s peace negotiations were just double dealing. Pakistan is in deep trouble, and for some years now there is growing awareness that finding a solution to the India issue is in the greater national interest. Not perhaps among everyone but it may well be a majority by now. Witness the ovation for the Indian cricket team in Karachi some years ago, this was entirely spontaneous. Punjabis would be delighted to trade across the border, Muhajirs want to deal freely with their relatives and Sindhi’s have many connections as well. India should learn from Pakistan’s tragic Afghan experiences that you need stable neighbors to ensure your own security, else their problems will drag you down.
I haven’t read the article yet, but given the number of actors in Pakistan with a complicated nexus of competition, conflict and cooperation between then, even if we believed that Musharraf had the right intent (a big if), how could India at all be sure that he’d be able to enforce anything reasonable, especially with a porous border?
And most importantly, what would happen to the daily frogmarch?
BJP — humour is not allowed. It is unmutinous.
Ikram, I don’t think “BJP” is joking. He means it. If it makes the “Hindus, yay! Muslims, boo!” commenters happy, I will refrain from deleting their comments for now.
However, the point of this post has nothing to do with people yelling about Hindutva, or with Hindutva at all. It has to do with a delicate series of diplomatic negotiations between India and Pakistan over the question of Kashmir.
If there is anyone reading this who a) has actually read the article, and b) wants to address some of the substantive issues raised by it, I would love to talk with you.
18 · Amardeep said
I was joking, but the fact that the two are indistinguishable makes me sad about the ascendancy of hindutva.
Omar. I see your point, but do you really think kayani and the other generals view the situation in the same light? I suppose the problem has always been that the pakistani people want peace, but those pakistanis in power (the generals) don’t. I guess, my question to you is, do you really think the isi has changed its position when most of the officers were actually helping the taliban fight and escape from Afghanistan in 2001-2002?
After all, as David Sanger wrote, this isn’t the old generation of sandhurst trained officers who once shared trenches with indian officers, but fundamentalists who break bread with hafeez sayed. the tragedy is that, whatever the various peoples within pakistan may truly dream of, the generals there aren’t on the same page. in any event, thanks for the perspective on pakistan’s aam admi.
I think the “Gaza solution” is an interesting case study for anyone willing to unilaterally give up territory to terrorists. Israel has and is still paying a huge price. I hope India learns something from this.ne who thinks that Pakistan is not a terrorist state is living in an alternate world.
Pakistan is almost a failed state and I hope India does not get into any long term commitments now.
Amardeep, sorry if i threw the discussion off topic. Yes, I read the entire article, but i think both sides have been down the road before. I think long-standing observers of both countries know that pakistan needs the kashmir issue to stay alive to keep itself together. Pakistan as it stands today is essentially a punjabi empire; they are the herrenvolk, as has been oft-pointed out. The mohajirs, sindhis, balochis, kashmiris, and baltistanis are all second class and lower citizens in that order. The only way to head off conflicts within these ethnic groups is a unifying bogeyman in India. If and when the kashmir issue is ever resolved, Pakistan will actually have to pay attention to real issues such as development and fair allocation of resources (see balochistan for one). The army isn’t the best institution to implement such things–and it certainly does not want to give up power.
Also, if we really want an indication of where things are headed, watch the isi and the army chief. even with swat down, the focus remains india. and the telling remark was the LeT’s chief who still sticks to his time tested clarion call of pakistan seeking out india’s destruction. Zia unleashed his program of islamization to protect against issues such as pashtunistan and to create a support amongst the common people for war against india. hence the education issues as i pointed out above (which actually came from a pakistani institute).
Ultimately, the ugly truth is that Kashmir isn’t the cause of indo-pakistani troubles–it is only a symptom.
What is this charade about peace talks between India and Pakistan?. every now and then we get news reports about being close to a deal. It is better to call things off and do the things in open.
It is common knowledge that Pakistan tries to support various insurgent movements within India and India is probably doing the same.
I would be curious to know what the Bangladeshis think about Kashmir. When they were part of Pakistan they probably supported the Kashmiri cause, but now I guess they hardly care. So it is better for India to work for dividing Pak, and it is better for Pak to work for dividing India. I don’t think if Tamilnadu / Kerala becomes independent they’d give a damn for Kashmir. Even now it is a pity that a lot of soldiers from all over the country go and die there unsung. Atleast in US they make a big show of soldiers deaths. In India no one cares.
It is common knowledge that Pakistan tries to support various insurgent movements within India and India is probably doing the same.
Thats what the Pakistanis say all the time. I am not sure if its common knowledge outside Pakistan. Any evidence that India is supporting insurgents in Pakistan?
I have no idea. I have read reports that India used to support such groups before I.K.Gujral shut that off. If Pakistan keeps training folks who set off bombs in various places in India, i don’t think Indians would sit quiet.
Amardeep – that article is long and am halfway. The intent was not to digress, I did not want to comment till I was finished reading. Actually thanks for linking that, I was planning on going down to a nearby B&N to read the New Yorker since it was restricted.
That said, I am not convinced any such peace process would have much meaning till Pakistan becomes stable able. The illustration of why it never happened is as good as any. Plus, Pakistan has a lot of money flowing in from Saudi Arabia spreading the Wahabi form of Islam. A count of the rise of number of such madrassas in the last few years shows this. Thus support for extremist tendencies is rising. This is evident from the way the JUD is accepted despite the name change and there is so much reluctance to destroying them.
There is also suspicion that the ISI was instrumental in the Mumbai attacks. If so, then till such elements are present in the army and ISI, the moderates cannot do much. But of course, for that to happen Pakistan needs to realize that it is much to their benefit to have peace with India, only then would such elements become less powerful. For that to happen, Pakistan needs to feel it and maybe a threat of disintegration and economic collapse as its happening today is the right catalyst for it. Pakistanis – I am not hating.
Gujral did indeed make the RAW toothless and since then the RAW is in bad shape.
If Pakistan keeps training folks who set off bombs in various places in India, i don’t think Indians would sit quiet.
I am not sure about that. India is a functional democracy with checks and balances. Sure, you have periodic bouts of mass minority killing (Delhi 84, Gujarat 02) but to set up bombs in Pakistan will require a quasi-renegade intelligence service, someone to authorize that and some level of a criminal enterprise at an institutional level. I can see India doing things similar to the US, for example arming the contras, propping up bad actors, but I think its not very likely that Manmohan Singh is authorizing the bombing of the Marriott in Pakistan.
Plus, Pakistan has a lot of money flowing in from Saudi Arabia spreading the Wahabi form of Islam. A count of the rise of number of such madrassas in the last few years shows this. Thus support for extremist tendencies is rising.
I think the role of Saudi money in Pakistan is overstated. Most of the Saudi aid is at a governmental level. Since the Afghan war ended, direct Saudi aid to madrassas where they arm jihadis is minimalist at best.
I don’t think so either, I mean no direct support. Pakistan’s dream is to exploit the Hindu Muslim faultlines / various regional faultlines (Assam/Nagaland / etc..) and make sure that creates a lot of hell for the Indian govt. i don’t know if India can play a similar role between Shia/Sunni or Sindhi/Punjabi/Mohajir faultlines in Pakistan.
Don’t know what is in the deal but if the breakthrough deals are with respect to the so called “muslim majority kashmir” then any concessions to Pak cannot and shouldn’t apply to Hindu-Jammu (in fact Hindus who were driven out have to relocated) and Buddhist-ladakh. If LOC is to be renegotiated then Pak army has to wthdraw from POK and go back to its pre-1947 level. I am sure this is what BJP will say to kill any Congress enthusiasm for peace. And btw it is absolutely senseless idea to allow free movement of people without the Afghan problem being solved first because American troops will squeeze from the other side and most jihadi elements from the entire region will start percolating into Kashmir. Kashmir may very well become like the lawless tribal lands of FATA/NWFP. It will be a repeat of history when the Soviet war drove all Afghans into Pak border areas and became a breeding ground for Taliban.
India’s troubling history of “disappearing†Kashmiri separatists. Overall, he has a very balanced and informed perspective
Well he forgot to mention the innumerable Hindus who have been killed or driven out from Jammu. Innocent non-Muslim villagers continue to massacared at regular intervals and not to mention the Army family members. This was not highlighted in the article.
25 · Ponniyin Selvan said
Gujral did worse. Allegedly he shared information on RAW’s human assets with Pakistanis.
Bane of India is lack of strong leaders. Indira Gandhi tough but a she was intellectually diminished and later on in her life suffered from paranoia. Vajpaye seemed to have the right combination of knowledge of geo-politics and in statesmanship – but he by the time he became PM he was too old.
The present one is just warming the chair for the hair apparent, however, he has kept economic reforms on track, also (per Mr. Coll) his phuddu instincts inadvertently saved India from what could have been a disastrous peace treaty with Pakistan.
The generation next is also not very promising, ‘the prince’ Rahul Gandhi is even a bigger idiot (google Miliband + Rahul). Advani is too much of a radical and is way too old.
Wrong. Britain may very well have been to blame for a hasteful division plan which they probably did in many other places like Palestine, Iraq etc. etc. after WW2. If my reading of history is correct the real demand for separation was by the rich Muslim nawabs and political leaders from India who felt they/Muslims would become powerless/marginalized under a Hindu majority (not a completely untrue since there was no way the Mughal’s power era would have been restored after independence). So it is not Britain’s imperial crime it was a strategic play by the Muslim establishment pre-partition.
Sulabh–you are all too right.
I will say this though. Narasimha Rao, who never gets credit, was actually the best pm… From liberalization to strong response to jihadis in kashmir to the Look East Policy, he was responsible for all of it. he was even responsible for programs in ( to answer questions above) baluchistan. Of course, the congress couldn’t stomache a non nehru-gandhi getting credit so they smeared him with corruption charges (he certainly was no more guilty of cash for votes than MMS) and refused to even give him a state funeral (his family was forced to cremate him in hyd rather than delhi as is customary). but it’s india, so the traitors are honored and heroes besmeared…
from the article –
inspiration from Germany..huh ? Those days were the days of socialism and govt. controlled single media channel all over the country (including Pak perhaps). I doubt those folks in Kashmir knew anything abt the international news far away in Germany. At the most they may have heard of Muslim jihad going in across the border in Afghan-Pak region.
From the article –
All eye-wash…. Pak knows that the jihadi elements are “out of control” and will carry out attacks on its soil as long as American keeps operating on the Afghan border. Once the American troops leave, Pak will have full control over them. Look how easily the Pak army could achieve peace deals with Taliban leaders like Nek Muhammed, Baitullah Mehsud, Maulana Qazi Fazlullah, even during US strikes. It will become all the more easier after American troops leave so Pak has to just wait it out. And once America finishes it business to its satisfaction, Pak will naturally be an ally like Georgia for US strategic interests in Central Asia. This is another reason why US cannot turn the screw on the Pak too much right now….. Bottomline don’t forget OIL and Central Asian interests driving politics in the region as according to journalist Ahmed Rashid’s writings.
35 · SecularPlease said
Spare us the sangh propaganda. Narasimha Rao tried to destroy the Nehru Gandhi family as a force in Indian politics by allowing the Babri Masjid demolition to proceed. Congress has never recovered from the damage done to it by Narasimha Rao.
India, on the other hand, has enjoyed unparalleled prosperity.
So what have we learned today?
38 · Cali said
I don’t know about agendas (your theory might be plausible because Narasimha Rao was quite machiavellian), but, as an Indian citizen the long afternoon when Advani and his bunch of Hindutva goons destroyed Babri – with the connivance of Kalyan Singh in the state, and some combination of incompetence/weakness/malice (which I haven’t figured out) by Narasimha Rao at the center – was one of the most shocking and horrific days in Indian politics from my perspective. I was 16 then, and still feel the pain from the endless TV clips that were played in news channels all evening vividly – not least because I had relatives who were actually happy to see this happen. It has been a progressive spiral of degradation since.
Cali
http://www.sepiamutiny.com/sepia/archives/005649.html#comment232081
Spare us the sycophantic drivel. It’s because of the Nehru-Gandhi family that the indian army wasn’t allowed to finish the job in 48, was defeated in 62, was used as a tool to install indira a dictator in 75, and has to deal with the humiliation of an uneducated italian babysitter as the unchecked ruler of India who has cut their pay grade and has done everything possible to underfund and underarm it. Gee, I wonder who’s the boon and who’s the bane? What’s your next step, a lawsuit on the behalf of your videshi, madam?
Re: India supporting rebels/militants in Pakistan, I believe RAW (Research and Analysis Wing — India’s often incompetent version of the CIA) is widely understood to have assisted the Balochi independence groups in Baluchistan.
And there’s also the chess game India and Pakistan played/playing out in Afghanistan with the Taliban and the Northern Alliance and Hamid Karzai as their respective pieces. So, I wouldn’t say India hasn’t been playing its own strategic games either..
jackal, true. but there is a difference between pulling a contra game in baluchistan and launching mass murderers with the sole aim of butchering and savaging civilians in mumbai. so i don’t think there’s a moral equivalence here.
Sorry jackal—comment 43 was me…
41 · SecularPlease said
I agree. We need to rid ourselves of our national shame by having an efficient administrator lead us out of the darkness.
It’s funny to me how attacks on the Congress party have been responded to, not with a defense of the Congress party, but attacks on the BJP. The best was when SecularPlease tried to explain why Narsimha Rao was good for India, Cali decided to challenge him by pointing out that PVN Rao was bad for the Congress. Is there a discount on red herrings somewhere?
Let’s try the flipside and see where it goes. Take BJP’s post #45, for example:
Yes, we certainly wouldn’t want to undermine our secular values. Or send the economy down the drain!
46 · PJ said
Yep! Haj Subsidy. Pogrom. Same difference.
PJ, I am agreeing with you. I really don’t understand why Modi is considered a genocidal murderer just because he arranged for a pogrom, it is terribly unfair. And Advani considered a right wing fundamentalist just because he organizes a mosque demolition program? Is there no justice? We are on the same side here. There’s nothing more I would love than to see majoritarian violence unleashed by Hindutva fundamentalists, what else could make the Indian social fabric stronger?
47 · bjp said
Here we are again. When you can’t come up with an actual defense against the charges, just shout “tu quoque!“.
Never mind that Modi isn’t even running for any position outside of Gujurat. . . making that an even redder herring.
48 · bjp said
Oh and strawmen too! We’re just swimming in fallacious argument today aren’t we?
It’s astounding though. We weren’t even speaking in the context of an election (being as how this being an ABD focused blog, most of us don’t vote in India) and yet people still feel the need to shill for a political party. So someone critcizes something the Congress does and all of a sudden it’s “OOGA BOOGA BJP! MODI! RUN!” Is it that terrifying to look in the mirror or are partisan flacks more like vampires who just don’t see anything when they do?