This is an article from "Dawn" which could be of interest.
Mediation may prove disastrous
With A.A. Salaria
Time and again, the top-notchers in Pakistan, including the prime minister, dealing with the official Kashmir policy, are making fervent appeals to foreign powers to mediate in the Kashmir dispute dragging on tediously between India and Pakistan. It is argued that, without intercession by a third party, no headway is likely to be made in the on-going bilateral talks.
These appeals have now become a routine, and almost every country, from Japan to Nepal and from US, UK to the United Nations, has been requested to act as a mediator to resolve the deadlock. This is being done without considering the consequences which are likely to prove disastrous and unacceptable to all the parties, India, Pakistan and Kashmir, involved in the dispute. The award, when announced by the mediator, will probably be rejected by all the three parties.
GIVE AND TAKE: Mediation by a neutral third party will inevitably lead to arbitration which, in turn, has to be based on the principle of 'give and take'. The mediator will probably turn down the claims and demands of both India and Pakistan, as well as the Kashmiris, and steer a middle course. India's claim of Kashmir being an 'Atoot-Ang' of India will be rejected and Pakistan's demand for holding a plebiscite or Kashmiris' demand for 'independence' will also probably be cold-shouldered. The most likely formula evolved would be based upon the existing ground realities, probably suggesting a partition of the state to be effected in relevance to the present position.
Unfortunately, half a century of bickering, three bloody wars and the vicious propaganda carried on by the concerned parties have inflated this dispute into an alarmingly emotional and highly explosive issue, which has acquired international importance following the nuclearization of the region. So, while the world in general is keen to get it resolved, the governments concerned are reluctant to relax their rigid stances for fear of violent public reaction. As such, either government which accepts a rational solution faces public wrath and may lose its seat of power.
INDIA'S STANCE: India, which is in occupation of the bulk of the State, has a very weak case and as such is extremely averse to mediation and has repeatedly ruled out any participation of a third party in the talks. Offers of mediation made by several countries, including USA, UK and UN, have been turned down by it. There is no chance of India accepting mediation as long as the BJP remains in office.
Though officially the BJP's stand is the recovery and integration of the entire state with India, including Azad Kashmir, Northern areas and the strip which is under control of China, off and on, its leaders have let it be known that it might relax its stance and let the status quo continue with some modifications and adjustments in the existing position.
Earlier this year, Mr K.L. Advani, the Indian Minister for Interior and Kashmir Affairs, spelled out the outlines of India's 'national agenda' for Kashmir in a press conference held at Amritsar. Rejecting outright the demand for a plebiscite, he expressed his party's willingness to implement some of the provisions of the Simla Accord, on the basis of bilateral negotiations, for the restoration of peace and amity in the sub-continent. Elaborating India's stand on Kashmir, he enumerated the conditions which must be fulfilled for this purpose.
He said that since the 50-year-old UN resolution on Kashmir is now time-barred and the Kashmiris have ratified the State's accession to India through numerous elections, the demand for holding a plebiscite has become irrelevant. In the interest of peace, India might consider foregoing its claim on the territories held by Pakistan. As such, the only practicable alternative is the conversion of the existing Line of Control into an international border. India would be prepared to agree to this solution on certain conditions:-
(a) Pakistan should acknowledge India's suzerainty over Kashmir which has since become an integral part of India.
(b) Pakistan should call a halt to terrorism in Kashmir and stop its proxy war against India. It should withdraw its terrorists from Kashmir and setup special posts on the border to stop their infiltration into the Indian territory.
(c) Pakistan should officially recognize the province of Laddakh, including Siachen, as an integral part of India. In return, India will recognize Pakistan's control over Azad Kashmir.
BALKANIZATION: Barring another Indo-Pakistan war, which would be nuclear and dreadfully disastrous, the inevitable peaceful solution of the dispute, which can be concluded through mediation or arbitration, is partition of Kashmir with minor adjustments of the present positions. This maintenance of the virtual status-quo might be acceptable to India but cannot be accepted either by Pakistan for obvious reasons or by Kashmiris who are averse to any Balkanization of the State.
Similarly if the Third Option is exercised, a very awkward situation would develop for Pakistan. In case the entire Kashmir State is declared 'independent', Pakistan will be required to vacate Azad Kashmir and the Northern Areas and entrust their control to a weak and suspect administration. It would imply not only the surrender of the control of Mangla Dam, which would jeopardize the irrigation of vast areas in the Punjab, but also shrinking of the borders of Pakistan down to the G.T. Road in Punjab and cutting off the link of Pakistan with China in the North, available at present through the Northern areas. Even China may be required to vacate the strip of Kashmir territory which is under its control.
Because of these grim options, Pakistan would be well advised not to insist on mediation. On the other hand, it should demand the presence of a third party as an observer to monitor the talks to ensure that they are making satisfactory progress.
There has been a fatal omission in the format of the talks which is bound to affect their end-result and probably doom them to a failure. The party most intimately concerned, the Kashmiris, are not being associated with the negotiations. In fact it is the Kashmiris who, by their tremendous sacrifices, have created the present crisis and forced the holding of talks. The APHC and other Kashmiri organizations have repeatedly declared that they will not be bound by any decision taken in the on-going talks, unless they are associated with them. So, it is imperative that the Kashmiris' representatives should participate in the exercise.