Many people in Pakistan are sick and tired of the painfully slow moving Pak-India peace process. It is a futile endeavour, they say, nothing will come out of it.
We have tried everything to appease New Delhi --- from unilateral concession to offers of compromise but no move appears to have evoked a positive Indian response on the question of addressing Kashmir , the core issue of dispute between the two countries. The Indians would wish to tell us “forget about” Kashmir and go ahead with normalising ties. We should coexist as friends and live in peace and harmony with each others has been the constant Indian advice to Pakistan. If we cooperate with each other as good neighbours we will reach a state in our relations when all outstanding problems are ipso facto resolved. To cut long story short, Pakistan is expected to legitimise the LoC Kashmir as the quid pro quo, without bothering about the right of self-determination of the Kashmiris. But then this is the limit of Pakistan’s tolerance level. Whatever the “compromise” or a “give and take” deal, Pakistan can never afford to abandon Kashmir to their present state of affairs.
The Kashmiris have been demanding that their will should be ascertained before their future is decided. There could be several ways of ascertaining their will and necessarily a UN-held plebiscite. The APHC has been demanding that the Kashmiris should be associated with Pak-India peace talks, so that India and Pakistan unilaterally look for a solution which is not acceptable to the bulk of Kashmiri people. Proposals being currently put forth talk about a gradual move forward towards the final settlement with an intervening ‘interim period’ when the Indians are not asked to ‘surrender their sovereignty’ on any part of Kashmir under their control. Needless to say there are several ways of striking a compromise deal, provided the two sides are prepared to show enough flexibility that they do not stick to as gospel truth their officially stated policy.
Islamabad has shown it was willing to entertain all options for a viable Kashmir solution, the onus of reciprocity is on New Delhi. Nevertheless there are wise people in the country who want us to see the difference between what was desirable and what is achievable. Before we condemn the peace process as a wild-goose chase, we must take into account the options we have to secure a Kashmir solution. We have in the past tried whatever means were possible to secure a Kashmir settlement but no results were produced. We went to war with India at least three times on a Kashmir related conflict, we have tried to sponsor insurgency in the Indian held Kashmir, we have tried to do the best we could on the diplomatic front in an effort to mobilise international opinion or seek UN intervention, we have been seeking third-party mediation and urging world powers to use their good offices to pressure the Indians. But despite more than half a century of consistent effort we have failed to advance the Kashmir cause. We have been rather cynical about the slow pace of composite dialogue saying we have not moved an inch in addressing the Kashmir question. We must be generous enough to admit that the net result of a more than five decades of pursuing the Kashmir cause prior to the beginning of the current peace process have virtually been similar  --- we did not move an inch in advancing the Kashmir cause. What is the difference between the past efforts and the present scenario of bilateral engagement? Critics allege it has been a U-turn in our strategic stance on Kashmir, but they conveniently overlook the bitter reality that sticking to the UN-led plebiscite position would have only given us a measure of emotional satisfaction, but were least helpful in facilitating any chance of give-and-take with New Delhi.
Many Pakistanis do not have any faith in outcome of the peace process and lot could be said to justify their concerns. But the key question is what is the alternative for Pakistan? Is there any other scheme of things through which Pakistan could do better in promoting chances of a possible Kashmir solution? When people want to know the way out for the Kashmir problem, the answer should be that there is no ‘ready-made’ solution for a durable Kashmir settlement. It has to be a long process of negotiations and accommodations of each others concern that may eventually create a situation conducive for a Pakistan-India accord on Kashmir. Some eminent analysts in Pakistan, including late Agha Shahi, were of the view that if Pakistan does not have enough leverage to pressure India on Kashmir, it would be advisable to put the Kashmir issue on the backburner rather than being forced to condescend to an ‘unfair and unjust’ deal in Kashmir. The logic behind the suggestion is that if we are not strong enough to make India listen to us and the international climate is unfavourable to our cause we should defer the Kashmir question for the time being and wait for an opportune moment to renew our campaign.
Ironically there are quite a few optimists in the country who see hope in the peace process. ‘If we are talking to each other we are not fighting: is they say, a positive development. From all  accounts the two countries have put their faith in the peace talks being irrevocable, thus ruling out was as an option for settling issues of discord. This orientation shifts focus from ‘guns to development’, and paves the way for concentrating on the progress and prosperity of the region and its people. If Pakistan and India were to shift their focus on the development of human resources and join hands to ensure the development of the South Asian region they would do a good turn to the underdeveloped and underprivileged people of the region. As it has been rightly said, peace promotes cooperation and cooperation promotes peace. If India and Pakistan decide to live in peace, their collaboration in enhancing trade investment and joint ventures may eventually be helpful in producing a group of people or a lobby which has a vested interest in promoting friendship with Pakistan. The emergence of such a lobby would be crucial in facilitating a move towards resolving the Kashmir issue.
There is no way to rush through the peace process. We are in no position to dictate terms to the Indians. Nevertheless it would be real breakthrough if the composite dialogue could agree on how to address the Kashmir issue. Once the bases for dialogue on Kashmir are agreed by the two countries, the talks can go on with some hope of a positive outcome.
Asif Ali Zardari has recently proposed that the Kashmir state be given ‘autonomy’ till the final settlement, and a commission of the two countries and leaders of Kashmir may be set up to work out what should be done with foreign and defence affairs. Zardari’s idea is in line with a multi-phased gradual process and aims at setting up an ‘interim arrangement’. The idea is somewhat similar to President Musharraf’s suggestion for self-governance of Kashmir state. On the eve of the fifth round of composite dialogue Mir Waiz Umar Farooq, Chairman APHC arrived in Islamabad to exchange notes with the new government in Islamabad. Mir Waiz had the Huriyat mandate (of both factions) to tell Islamabad that they want the ‘tripartite’ talks to be held, by associating Kashmiris with the Pakistan India peace talks and the Kashmiris would henceforth not directly talk to New Delhi. Islamabad is likely to raise this issue at the fifth round of composite dialogue and also sessions held thereafter, but the Indians will certainly not like it, as they do not recognise Kashmiris as the ‘third party’ to the dispute which should be treated at par with India and Pakistan.