The final settlement is about tremendous forces of fire, water and earth. Above all, the final settlement is about our identity, about us, about redefining the kind of people we want to be!

Both India and Pakistan will need to redefine their identity on a much higher plane than their current obsessions indicate. This redefinition of identity calls for the curbing of extremism.

It is necessary to do so for internal restructuring of the two nations, which is essential for the restructuring of relations between them into a positive and peaceful mould, a new book published by a leading Mumbai think tank has suggested.

Titled "The Final Settlement" and published by the Strategic Foresight Group of the International Centre for Peace Initiatives (ICPI), the book says India and Pakistan accuse each other of using neighbouring countries as platforms to assist secessionist movements in India's north-east and Pakistan's western and southern provinces. The final settlement will require an agreement to refrain from such subversive tactics and joint efforts to help stabilise the weak neighbouring countries, particularly Afghanistan and Bangladesh.
The following is the Executive Summary of the book: Since January 2004, India and Pakistan have initiated a cautious peace process. The year 2004 witnessed substantial improvement in the contact between the two societies, including unprecedented visits of media persons to Jammu & Kashmir on both sides of the Line of Control. Also, unusual was the experience of bilateral cricket matches where the spectators of both the countries cheered both the teams. There is already an agreement on a tentative schedule of official meetings until September 2005. However, it is important to note that despite the peace process arms race has increased at a hectic pace. In the last 15-16 months, India and Pakistan have conducted 20 missile tests.

The two countries are committed to reach a final settlement as per the Simla Agreement of 1972. At Simla, the final settlement was envisaged in the narrow context of the cartography of Jammu & Kashmir. The developments of the last 30 years compel the final settlement to be comprehensive if it really has to be final and enduring.
The crafting of the final settlement requires honest, though bitter analysis of the psychology and ground realities of the two countries. The conflict between India and Pakistan currently extends to the entire South Asian region, from Afghanistan to Bangladesh. It also engages sections of population in far-flung parts of the two countries. It is reflected in the strife in India's northeast and Pakistan's Balochistan. India accuses Pakistan of using Bangladesh as a platform to destabilise India's eastern sector. Pakistan accuses India of using Afghanistan as a platform to subvert Pakistan's western half. Of this widespread conflict, the Jammu & Kashmir component is known internationally. The Jammu & Kashmir issue itself has several dimensions. To India, it is a test of secularism. To Pakistan, it is a source of strategically important rivers. To the people of Jammu & Kashmir, it is a matter of living in peace with dignity.

The search for final settlement therefore must be predicated on the analysis of the three essential elements in the bilateral relationship - fire, water and earth. The final settlement must also be a basis for restructuring relations between the two countries, since a settlement will not be final, unless it paves the way for a new and healthy relationship between the two countries in the place of current hostility.

FIRE

The primary requirement of the final settlement is to accept the entirety of the India-Pakistan rivalry and to deal with it. At the deepest level, this confrontation can be traced to the identity crisis. India traces its origin to a civilisation of 4,000-5,000 years ago. Pakistan traces its nationhood either to the Lahore Resolution of 1940, or to the conquest of Sindh by Mohammad bin Qasim in 712 AD. If the Lahore Resolution is the basis of Pakistan's identity, the State of Pakistan is a protest against Indian dominance of the region. If Mohammad bin Qasim's conquest is the basis, the State of Pakistan is a representation of foreign conquest. The final settlement requires first and foremost, that Pakistan perceives itself not in terms of protest or conquest, but simply as a normal and progressive state. The people of Pakistan deserve that their leaders treat their state as Pakistan, and not as "non-India".

WATER

If India and Pakistan take a political decision to restructure their relations, they will have to ensure that water serves as a flow to bring them together, rather than taking them further on the course of conflict. Since 1999, every proposal made by Pakistan through track-two diplomacy, either directly or indirectly, refers to water as a core issue. The statements made by Pakistan's military officials, Kashmiri leaders and newspaper editorials describe Jammu & Kashmir as a supplier of crucial rivers, and project the bloodshed there as the sacrifice made by Kashmiri youth to ensure Pakistan's water security.

The diversion of water upstream has resulted in the decline of water downstream. As a result, the discharge of seawater into the sea is going down and the intrusion of seawater into the mainland is going up. Sea intrusion has destroyed 1.5 million acres of farmland, resulting in the evacuation of three commercial towns, extinction of certain species of fish, and the loss of revenue to large numbers of farmers and fishermen. About 75 percent of Sindh's groundwater resources are brackish. About 88 percent of agricultural land is affected by salinity and water logging.

Pakistan needs fresh sources of water in areas where dams can be constructed. As a result, Pakistan has been proposing, through track-two diplomacy, that it should be given parts of the Kashmir valley and Jammu, so that it can have physical control on the Chenab basin. India cannot oblige Pakistan since water availability in India's northern provinces has been declining, leading to conflict between Punjab and Haryana.
The final settlement will have to be based on realistic analysis of the water situation in the entire Indus River Basin.

There is a general misunderstanding that Pakistan wants to annex the Kashmir valley for political reasons. This option would mean major disaster for Pakistan, as it will lose Chenab resulting in up to 17pc reduction in water flows. Also, the Indus Waters Treaty may stand dissolved. Punjab will not be affected much as it will continue to draw water from Jhelum. As the flow of Indus will decline, Sindh will be compelled to start a civil war.

Water needs to be managed as a commodity. It is essential to jointly set up an organisation with representatives from both countries, whose functions would entail identifying short term and long term supply capacity of the basin and its integrated development, setting up of infrastructure and coordinating activities of the different technical agencies. The development of such a plan would require large financial and technical resources. It should be possible to mobilise such resources from around the world, perhaps with the World Bank agencies playing a lead role.

EARTH

The debate on Jammu & Kashmir has so far avoided public focus on water, concentrating on the political status of the area. The UN resolutions call for a plebiscite to determine accession to India or Pakistan. There is no provision for complete independence.

Once New Delhi, Islamabad and the groups in Jammu & Kashmir accept the framework of devolution, reconciliation and reconstruction, a set of new institutions will be required,
such as:

• A permanent body with the task of monitoring the efficient functioning of the autonomy. Teams negotiating the autonomy issue could form this body.
• Committees appointed by the assemblies of both sides of Kashmir should meet biannually to discuss various issues including economic, social and cultural.
• The governments of India and Pakistan should hold official meetings on a regular basis, specifically on Kashmir.

Most important, it will be necessary to establish Joint Economic Development Council of Jammu & Kashmir to promote trade, investment and joint ventures. The Council should also undertake the task of joint development of the Indus Water Basin, treating water as a commodity. The Council must set rules for a fast track visa process for all Kashmiris, who have bona fide business or family interest. Visa windows can be established in Srinagar and Muzaffarabad for this purpose. This fast track visa process can slowly move towards the free flow of people once:

• Terrorism subsides, as borders cannot be opened up if the violence persists.
• A similar arrangement for the free flow of all the citizens of India and Pakistan is reached, as it will not be feasible to open up the borders for the Kashmiri people and then prevent them from entering into the other parts of either India or Pakistan.

It is necessary to have joint patrolling of the Line of Cooperation by Indian and Pakistani troops to stop flow of criminals, drug dealers and terrorists who will be tempted to take advantage of the privileges offered under fast track visa system and the Joint Economic Development Council.

CONCLUSION

The agenda for containing fires spreading far and wide across the South Asian region, introducing joint water development, and converting the Line of Control into a Line of Cooperation is ambitious. It is impossible to implement such an agenda if the final settlement is perceived as a result of secret negotiations between ambitious men. It is not feasible to restructure relations between India and Pakistan if secret talks take place on the one hand and missile tests, terrorist training camps, and strategically planned dams and canals become the order of the day on the other.

The final settlement is about tremendous forces of fire, water and earth. Above all, the final settlement is about our identity, about us, about redefining the kind of people we want to be!