Likely solution: STATUS QUO, MIDDLE PATH or REFERENDUM? STATUS QUO

Converting the LoC, which was called ceasefire line before the Shimla agreement, into a permanent border and recognising Islamabad's legitimacy over territory it controls. What it would mean for India

- It dovetails with PM Manmohan Singh's "no-change-of-borders" solution

- It could allow India to focus on internal arrangements with the Kashmiris

- It all but nullifies Parliament's 1994 resolution seeking to reclaim PoK

What it would mean for Pakistan

- Goes against Islamabad's traditional stand on the implementation of the UN Security Council Resolutions to ascertain the people's will on final resolution

- Would enable it to concentrate on nation-building rather than embroiled in a draining conflict

What it would mean for Kashmiris

- Bad news for separatists

- Bad news for secular nationalists such as the JKLF, which seeks independent, sovereign status for undivided Kashmir

THE MIDDLE PATH

- Former Pakistan ruler Pervez Musharraf's 'out-of-the-box' formula, seeking to satisfy all parties and requiring all parties partially to step back

It seeks

- To demilitarize conflict-ridden parts of Kashmir

- Curb militant aspects of the "freedom struggle"

- Introduce self-rule and a joint management mechanism to oversee it

What it would mean for India

- In line with Delhi's stand that it wouldn't agree to change of the borders

- Fear of increased cross-border terrorism

- Would call for loosened hold over Kashmir

What it would mean for Pakistan

- Fits Islamabad's stand that it can't accept the LoC as a permanent border

- Would call for loosened hold over Kashmir

What it would mean for Kashmiris

- Acceptable to Kashmiri separatists

- Acceptable to chief minister Omar Abdullah

- Is seen to have elements of the state opposition People's Democratic Party's Self-rule formula

EUROPEAN MODELS

Solutions to Europe's many, successive 'Kashmir' disputes, such as Trieste, Northern Ireland, Sough Tyrol and Aaland. Each solution was based on

self-rule, greater economic access and open borders between the divided regions. Each conflict ended with the party in political control retaining this while the other was given economic access. In the

Kashmir dispute, New Delhi could have political control and Pakistan given economic access.

The state would have open borders

What it would mean for India

- Critics say it would mean more cross-border terrorism, difficult to sell domestically post-26/11

- In line with Prime Minister Singh's belief that greater people-to-people contact make borders irrelevant anyway

What it would mean for Pakistan

- Might be willing provided it continues with

Musharraf-era Kashmir policy

What it would mean for Kashmiris

- Might find it viable, especially after demonstrating

overwhelming support for the opening of trade and bus routes across divided Kashmir

REFERENDUM

A plebiscite, under UN auspices, offering the choice of merging with India or Pakistan

What it would mean for India

- An outdated, possibly unworkable option in the changed realities of the region today

- Goes against News Delhi's position on the issue

What it would mean for Pakistan

- This has been Islamabad's long-held position on the issue

- Pakistan might find it hard to fulfil one of the basic

conditions before a plebiscite is held -- vacating portions of Kashmir that it occupies

What it would mean for Kashmiris

- Anathema to Kashmiri nationalists because it does not offer the 'independence' option

ABROGATION OF ARTICLE 370

Stripping J&K of its special status for its "complete integration with India''

What it would mean for India

- A key demand of the opposition BJP

What it would mean for Pakistan

- Outright rejection

What it would mean for Kashmiris

- Well supported in Jammu's Hindu-dominated areas and addresses their resentment to deals between the Centre and Kashmiri Muslims, which they regard as a "fait accompli"

AUTONOMY

Revoking all legislation enacted by Delhi and made applicable to J&K from 1953; greater autonomy for the state; devolution of more powers to the state to address Kashmiri "alienation". The PM's Working Group on Kashmir recommended restoration of

autonomy "to the extent possible" earlier this year

What it would mean for India

- It's within the purview of the Indian constitution

- The Union Cabinet rejected the J&K Assembly's autonomy resolution in 2000, saying it sets "the clock back and reverses the natural process of harmonizing the aspirations of the people of J&K with the integrity of the nation"

What it would mean for Pakistan

- Rejects the formula as it has no stake in it

- What it would mean for Kashmiris Is the main election plank of the ruling National Conference

- Rejected by Jammu-based and separatist outfits

Sir Owen Dixon's Formula

The former UN Kashmir representative suggested the "disputed territory's" division into three and separate plebiscites

What it would mean for India

- J&K's division along religious lines unacceptable to New Delhi

What it would mean for Pakistan

- In line with Pakistan's stand on the issue

What it would mean for Kashmiris

- Unacceptable to Kashmiri nationalists and Jammu-based parties

Text: Sameer Arshad, Times of India



'Kashmir is too complex for a cut and paste solution. It's a multi-dimensional problem and needs a bit of most of the solutions'

Mehbooba Mufti, PDP Leader


"Every imaginable solution has been forwarded (but) India and Pakistan see themselves, as too weak to make significant concessions, fearful that to do so would lead to more demands, and a slippery slope"

Stephen Cohen South Asia Expert


Wednesday, May 05, 2010

Aman ki Asha's gift of life to six-year old Muzaffar Aman ki Asha and Rotary international's 'heart to heart' initiative saved Muzaffar's life - and will benefit 199 more under-privileged Pakistani children through free .....more