The Kashmir conflict continues to linger, unfortunately. Do you know why? The conflict resolution theory has the answer for it: the standard solutions are outmoded, and the Kashmir issue requires an unconventional panacea. Over the course, the traditional and potential solutions entail the United Nation’s famous resolutions on Kashmir 39, 47, and 80; the Dixon Plan; the Status-quo Model; the Chenab Line Formula; the Andorra Model; and the Musharraf Plan. The pragmatic approach hints at finding an out of box solution from within the traditional ones. Before we explore this approach, we need to assess the defects with the traditional ones.

Resolution 80 is more enhanced and comprehensive. It encourages both India and Pakistan to focus on demilitarization of Kashmir

Starting with three standard solutions from the UN platform: Resolutions 39, 47, and 80. Resolution 39 established the UN Commission for India and Pakistan (UNCIP) to investigate and mediate the dispute; Resolution 47 increased the membership of the UNCIP; Resolution 80 called for the solution through a plebiscite. All three resolutions deal with the Kashmir issue but Resolution 80 is more enhanced and comprehensive. It encourages both India and Pakistan to focus on demilitarization of Kashmir, limiting Indian troops, and international obligation to go for a plebiscite.

According to the UN resolution, the onus lies on both countries. Any one of the players should take the initiative to demilitarize, resulting in better advocacy on the UN platform. However, the prevalence of mistrust between India and Pakistan has led to an increased security dilemma, therefore, neither of the states is willing to demilitarize. Moreover, the Indian revisionist scholars opine that “India should not have gone to the UN forum,” hence reinforcing Indian leadership to be reluctant. Similarly, Pakistan, apart from speeches, also has not taken any tangible initiative.

In Conflict Resolution theory, time management in a conflict is paramount. Kashmir issue is a 77-year-old conflict, therefore, the implementation of former solutions in letter and spirit is nearly extinct now.

Pakistan should have de jure sovereignty over Gilgit Baltistan and Azad Jammu Kashmir; India to have de jure claims on Ladakh and Jammu; and a plebiscite to be conducted in Kashmir valley

According to Victoria Schofield’s book “Kashmir in Conflict”, the first pragmatic solution has been given on the UN platform, by one of the commissions formed on Kashmir. The commission was headed by Lord Dixon and submitted an independent report on the UN platform. According to this commission, Pakistan should have de jure sovereignty over Gilgit Baltistan and Azad Jammu Kashmir; India to have de jure claims on Ladakh and Jammu; and a plebiscite to be conducted in Kashmir valley. This panacea offered a win-win situation. Unfortunately, this too did not get any weightage despite being a sound solution.

Another solution “The Status-quo Model” prescribes for the Line of Control (LOC) to be declared as a permanent boundary. During the 1990s, Pakistan and India had somehow economic parity, in the context of forex reserves and per capita income. In 1990, both states had a per capita income of $390; however, post-2001 India’s economic trajectory outpaced Pakistan. The more the Indians are becoming stronger militarily and economically, they are denying this status quo (LOC) as well. Hence, the model of the status quo has also become non-existent in the current era.

The Chenab Line Formula, presented by Sardar Abdul Qayum, called for declaring Chenab as a permanent boundary. Much of the Kashmir valley and Indian-occupied areas were to be given to Pakistan

Besides these, two apt solutions were highlighted by the international press during the 1960s: independent Kashmir and Chenab Line formula. The independent Kashmir solution had been hailed by the Western bloc as it would have acted as a base to monitor China and Russia (USSR then). Both India and Pakistan rejected and opposed the scheme, China and the USSR too expressed stern opposition. On the other hand, the Chenab Line Formula, presented by Sardar Abdul Qayum, called for declaring Chenab as a permanent boundary. Much of the Kashmir valley and Indian-occupied areas were to be given to Pakistan. Till the 1990s this debate was alive. Allegedly, in the 1990s, the Indian leadership was agreeing on this formula. Presently, India has current projects on Jhelum and Indus, and this solution has also become outmoded in contemporary times.

Another solution, roaming the corridors of academic circles, lies in the case study of the “Andorra Model”. Andorra is a small country sharing a boundary with Spain and France. It is also a member of the European Union and NATO. Andorra’s government is collectively decided by Spain and France. The nominee for the government is given by Spain’s king and France’s President. These two countries have been running the government together for the past 1000 years. Although there have been claims by both parties but those have been addressed amicably. Therefore, this model can also be applied to Kashmir.

However, other side of the coin enlightens that this model in the EU context is understandable; Spain and France have not been rival states in the recent past. In the context of India and Pakistan, revisionist scholars are of the view that even if the Kashmir problem is solved, the bilateral relations would not be normalized, therefore, this solution too stands on the horns of a dilemma.

 Manmohan Singh said, “If there had been the best solution to the Kashmir conflict, it had to be the Musharraf plan.”

The last of all solutions is the “Musharraf Plan”. It had been the last yet the best solution to the issue. It was based on the idea of gradual demilitarization, idea of self-governance, free movement of the people, and mechanism for peace. The gradual demilitarization is to take place in phases, first in relatively peaceful areas and then in problematic areas. After scoring this, the idea of self-governance to be implemented followed by free movement of people on both sides of the LOC. The flourishing of businesses and human traffic would result in the softening of relations. When this has come to fruition only then dyad should devise a mechanism for peace on the issue. Even Manmohan Singh said, “If there had been the best solution to the Kashmir conflict, it had to be the Musharraf plan.” However, the plan failed to materialize into a formal agreement due to trust deficit on both sides of the LOC.

A remedy lies in the mix of Dixon and Musharraf plan under the patronage of Global leaders

This raises a serious question: will there be any lucrative solution for Kashmir? Well, the writing is on the wall; both sides need to first address the existing trust deficit. Additionally, the claimants need to get rid of zero-sum idea under the umbrella of global leadership. Twice it had been the case that global leaders took interest in solving the longstanding dispute: the US took interest during 2002-03; China’s interest after Gilgit became part of the CPEC corridor (2013-15). However, a practical solution was not established. In summation, the leaders on both sides have been vocal about peace but if wishes were horses beggars would ride. The Kashmir issue will remain entrapped in a vicious cycle of rhetoric without reconfiguration. There is a dire need of sincere political will to opt for rapprochement succeeded by an out of box remedy. Such a remedy lies in a mix of the Dixon and Musharraf plan under the patronage of Global leaders.

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author. They do not represent the views, beliefs, or policies of the Stratheia.