What's new

Almost had Kashmir deal with Pakistan: Ex-PM’s envoy Lambah

Bang Galore

ELITE MEMBER
Joined
Feb 21, 2010
Messages
10,685
Reaction score
12
Country
India
Location
India
Almost had Kashmir deal with Pakistan: Ex-PM’s envoy Lambah
  • Harinder Baweja, Hindustan Times, New Delhi
    |
  • Updated: Oct 16, 2015 07:39 IST
india-afghan-lambah_1c44987c-7367-11e5-a2be-bd52c89c4a35.jpg

Former Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s special envoy Satinder K Lambah at The Partnership Summit 2002, organised by the Confederation of Indian Industries in Bangalore. (AFP File Photo)


Pakistan agreed to ditch its long-held position seeking a Kashmir solution through the implementation of a UN resolution for a referendum and agreed not to redraw borders during secret negotiations with India in 2007, former Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s special envoy revealed.

Satinder Lambah, India’s backchannel man on the secret talks between India and Pakistan, told HT in an exclusive interview, the leadership on both sides had firmed up an agreement but it was not finally signed because of domestic turmoil that led to Pervez Musharraf’s removal.

“What we were working on, agreed there would be no reference to the United Nations resolution or a plebiscite in Kashmir. Both sides had agreed that borders cannot be redrawn,” said Lambah.

Without going into the detailed specifics of the framework agreement between the two countries, Lambah revealed the military establishment in Pakistan -– the army and the ISI -- was on board and the agreement required discussions within the ruling party and with opposition leaders in India. The former special envoy has not shared his views on the negotiations apart from a speech he gave at Srinagar’s Kashmir University in May 2014.

“We had an assurance from the military government of that time (under President Musharraf). The negotiators from Pakistan could not have been finalised it if the establishment had not been on board,” he said.

Several leaders in Pakistan, who may have been privy to the agreement, said that India had agreed to the demilitarisation of Kashmir. But Lambah said, “We had agreed to the reduction of military troops, not paramilitary and that was subject to Pakistan ensuring an end to hostilities, violence and terrorism. That was a major prerequisite. There was no timeline by which the agreement was to be signed. The only time limit was that terrorism must end.”

Barely a year after the broad contours of the agreement had been painstakingly worked on by both sides, Mumbai saw a major attack in November 2008, despite the categorical assurance from Pakistan that it would not allow non-state actors to use its soil to export terror.

“Mumbai was a very unfortunate incident and that did stop the dialogue. There was a break but we had already finished most of the work by then. After the Mumbai attacks, there were limited (back channel) contacts but what was agreed on by the Musharraf government was not disowned by the successive governments (headed first by the PPP under Yousaf Raza Gillani and currently by Nawaz Sharif).”

The core agreements centered around the cessation of all hostilities and terrorism, a joint mechanism for socio-economic subjects only and an understanding that like all states, Jammu and Kashmir too would have autonomy in respect to revenue, finance and law and order.

Lambah maintains the agreement is a “win-win for Pakistan, India and the people of Jammu and Kashmir” and can be the basis for all governments, including the present one led by Narendra Modi.

“It was not negotiated keeping an individual or party in mind. Everyone has their own style. Pursuit of peace with Pakistan and a discussion on Kashmir has been undertaken by different prime ministers and I have no doubt that future governments will follow the same path.”

On the issue of Kashmiri separatists meeting Pakistani leaders, which has become a stumbling block in talks between India and Pakistan, Lambah said, “In the past, Vajpayee, Advani and Manmohan Singh have met Hurriyat leaders and also given them visas to visit Pakistan. As regarding Pakistan, I fail to understand why they want to talk only to the Hurriyat and not also to the elected mainstream leaders from Jammu and Kashmir.”

Almost had Kashmir deal with Pakistan: Ex-PM’s envoy Lambah | india | Hindustan Times
 
.
deosnt look Lambah to me, even while sitting he looks chotah
 
.
Manmohan on one side, ISI on the other ....something tells me that India was d@mn lucky that this deal fell through.
 
.
Almost had Kashmir deal with Pakistan: Ex-PM’s envoy Lambah
  • Harinder Baweja, Hindustan Times, New Delhi
    |
  • Updated: Oct 16, 2015 07:39 IST
india-afghan-lambah_1c44987c-7367-11e5-a2be-bd52c89c4a35.jpg

Former Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s special envoy Satinder K Lambah at The Partnership Summit 2002, organised by the Confederation of Indian Industries in Bangalore. (AFP File Photo)


Pakistan agreed to ditch its long-held position seeking a Kashmir solution through the implementation of a UN resolution for a referendum and agreed not to redraw borders during secret negotiations with India in 2007, former Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s special envoy revealed.

Satinder Lambah, India’s backchannel man on the secret talks between India and Pakistan, told HT in an exclusive interview, the leadership on both sides had firmed up an agreement but it was not finally signed because of domestic turmoil that led to Pervez Musharraf’s removal.

“What we were working on, agreed there would be no reference to the United Nations resolution or a plebiscite in Kashmir. Both sides had agreed that borders cannot be redrawn,” said Lambah.

Without going into the detailed specifics of the framework agreement between the two countries, Lambah revealed the military establishment in Pakistan -– the army and the ISI -- was on board and the agreement required discussions within the ruling party and with opposition leaders in India. The former special envoy has not shared his views on the negotiations apart from a speech he gave at Srinagar’s Kashmir University in May 2014.

“We had an assurance from the military government of that time (under President Musharraf). The negotiators from Pakistan could not have been finalised it if the establishment had not been on board,” he said.

Several leaders in Pakistan, who may have been privy to the agreement, said that India had agreed to the demilitarisation of Kashmir. But Lambah said, “We had agreed to the reduction of military troops, not paramilitary and that was subject to Pakistan ensuring an end to hostilities, violence and terrorism. That was a major prerequisite. There was no timeline by which the agreement was to be signed. The only time limit was that terrorism must end.”

Barely a year after the broad contours of the agreement had been painstakingly worked on by both sides, Mumbai saw a major attack in November 2008, despite the categorical assurance from Pakistan that it would not allow non-state actors to use its soil to export terror.

“Mumbai was a very unfortunate incident and that did stop the dialogue. There was a break but we had already finished most of the work by then. After the Mumbai attacks, there were limited (back channel) contacts but what was agreed on by the Musharraf government was not disowned by the successive governments (headed first by the PPP under Yousaf Raza Gillani and currently by Nawaz Sharif).”

The core agreements centered around the cessation of all hostilities and terrorism, a joint mechanism for socio-economic subjects only and an understanding that like all states, Jammu and Kashmir too would have autonomy in respect to revenue, finance and law and order.

Lambah maintains the agreement is a “win-win for Pakistan, India and the people of Jammu and Kashmir” and can be the basis for all governments, including the present one led by Narendra Modi.

“It was not negotiated keeping an individual or party in mind. Everyone has their own style. Pursuit of peace with Pakistan and a discussion on Kashmir has been undertaken by different prime ministers and I have no doubt that future governments will follow the same path.”

On the issue of Kashmiri separatists meeting Pakistani leaders, which has become a stumbling block in talks between India and Pakistan, Lambah said, “In the past, Vajpayee, Advani and Manmohan Singh have met Hurriyat leaders and also given them visas to visit Pakistan. As regarding Pakistan, I fail to understand why they want to talk only to the Hurriyat and not also to the elected mainstream leaders from Jammu and Kashmir.”

Almost had Kashmir deal with Pakistan: Ex-PM’s envoy Lambah | india | Hindustan Times
bang galore what solution u see personally?
 
. .
bang galore what solution u see personally?

I don't know if there is a solution possible, we seem to have regressed since these "agreements". However I think that an overall peace settlement on these lines & a pull back from the Saltoro in a controlled manner when the overall settlement is agreed to is the best available option. However, even on this plan, there are differing perceptions in Pakistan & India with many Pakistanis talking about joint control & Indian commentators ruling out that option as being on table. I don't believe joint control will even be offered but we could work around it. However since most of this is dependent on Pakistanis completely cracking down on the militant networks & ending all cross border activity, it will be a big leap of faith that will be involved and I'm sceptical that Nawaz Sharif can pull that off. Even getting the military on board seems a difficult ask in Pakistan because the circumstances have changed somewhat- the American withdrawal from Afghanistan & the proposed CPEC being agreed as also a reasonably successful handling of much of the militant/terrorist groups targeting Pakistan.

There is also a problem in Pakistan of dealing with Modi. While a settlement between Musharraf & Manmohan Singh would have been moderately welcomed, I'm not so sure of one with NS & Modi. In any case, if NS cannot even sell a simple Ufa agreement in Pakistan, I see no way he is going to sell a deal on Kashmir. The reaction to Ufa also shows the PA's thinking which doesn't make any settlement look likely.

Imo, I think the only way for Pakistan & India to progress is to concentrate on issues other than Kashmir. The solution to Kashmir is not going to be much dissimilar to what has been said in the OP but I don't know whether that is a sell-able product now. In both Pakistan & India, though India might be the easier of the two.
 
.
I don't know if there is a solution possible, we seem to have regressed since these "agreements". However I think that an overall peace settlement on these lines & a pull back from the Saltoro in a controlled manner when the overall settlement is agreed to is the best available option. However, even on this plan, there are differing perceptions in Pakistan & India with many Pakistanis talking about joint control & Indian commentators ruling out that option as being on table. I don't believe joint control will even be offered but we could work around it. However since most of this is dependent on Pakistanis completely cracking down on the militant networks & ending all cross border activity, it will be a big leap of faith that will be involved and I'm sceptical that Nawaz Sharif can pull that off. Even getting the military on board seems a difficult ask in Pakistan because the circumstances have changed somewhat- the American withdrawal from Afghanistan & the proposed CPEC being agreed as also a reasonably successful handling of much of the militant/terrorist groups targeting Pakistan.

There is also a problem in Pakistan of dealing with Modi. While a settlement between Musharraf & Manmohan Singh would have been moderately welcomed, I'm not so sure of one with NS & Modi. In any case, if NS cannot even sell a simple Ufa agreement in Pakistan, I see no way he is going to sell a deal on Kashmir. The reaction to Ufa also shows the PA's thinking which doesn't make any settlement look likely.

Imo, I think the only way for Pakistan & India to progress is to concentrate on issues other than Kashmir. The solution to Kashmir is not going to be much dissimilar to what has been said in the OP but I don't know whether that is a sell-able product now. In both Pakistan & India, though India might be the easier of the two.
by saying solution given in op was suitable ,u mean musharrafs proposed formula? i dont think joint administration wud have worked. Dont take it as my personal opinion, sharing a fact ,people from gb and ajk are actually the people who physically fought dogras to liberate their areas ... and for decades having watched what has happened to the other side , they wud have raised storm over such decision.

i am all for demilitarization of siachen, soltoro, etc withdrawal from both sides. its a massive human suffering, atleast for our men it is.
Many indians here say accept the border as it is, turn it into IB. but this the view of general public... what exactly indian gov thinks ... does an av indian know abt it?

if we make ib , then obvsly pak will not raise issue of jk as disputed region but similarly the off and on statements that appear in indian media from indian gov abt what they call p.ok will also have to stop. The whole objection raising on gb elections, mainly objection on Cpec passing thru gb ,ajk , making 'chinese troops deplyed in ajk and gb' kind of silly statements and every other statement that appears will also have to be completely stopped. its more like both sides will lose entire claims on territories on both sides.

Will indian whole heartedly accept that
 
. .
by saying solution given in op was suitable ,u mean musharrafs proposed formula? i dont think joint administration wud have worked. Dont take it as my personal opinion, sharing a fact ,people from gb and ajk are actually the people who physically fought dogras to liberate their areas ... and for decades having watched what has happened to the other side , they wud have raised storm over such decision.

i am all for demilitarization of siachen, soltoro, etc withdrawal from both sides. its a massive human suffering, atleast for our men it is.
Many indians here say accept the border as it is, turn it into IB. but this the view of general public... what exactly indian gov thinks ... does an av indian know abt it?

if we make ib , then obvsly pak will not raise issue of jk as disputed region but similarly the off and on statements that appear in indian media from indian gov abt what they call p.ok will also have to stop. The whole objection raising on gb elections, mainly objection on Cpec passing thru gb ,ajk , making 'chinese troops deplyed in ajk and gb' kind of silly statements and every other statement that appears will also have to be completely stopped. its more like both sides will lose entire claims on territories on both sides.

Will indian whole heartedly accept that


India will accept LoC as IB. No doubt about it.
 
.
India will accept LoC as IB. No doubt about it.

I've noticed that there's now an Indian push to declare Azad Kashmir as disputed territory belonging to India, which is being widely commended by most Indians. I don't think India accepting the LoC as IB is much of a reality in the future.
 
.
I've noticed that there's now an Indian push to declare Azad Kashmir as disputed territory belonging to India, which is being widely commended by most Indians. I don't think India accepting the LoC as IB is much of a reality in the future.
yes true . thats y iwas asking the question. indian gov will never accept ajk and gb as paks legit parts. She will never. these ppl write it but thats not their govs agenda etc. gb's strategic location is something that india wud never want to let go of.
its not a recent push , india always off and on used to mention but now as we spoke on kashmir , to divert attention they started propaganda on ajk and gb, but it wasnt forgotten by them even before.
 
.
I've noticed that there's now an Indian push to declare Azad Kashmir as disputed territory belonging to India, which is being widely commended by most Indians. I don't think India accepting the LoC as IB is much of a reality in the future.

No its just a strategy to make Pakistan realise that if you can claim our side of Kashmir than we can claim Pak Occ Kashmir as well. That way its a bargaining chip to settle for the IB as LOC.
 
.
I've noticed that there's now an Indian push to declare Azad Kashmir as disputed territory belonging to India, which is being widely commended by most Indians. I don't think India accepting the LoC as IB is much of a reality in the future.

As long as the LoC is not made into IB, this claim will remain. The claim can only be renounced as part of a simultaneous announcement by Pakistan releasing its claim on Indian Kashmir as part of an overall agreement.

yes true . thats y iwas asking the question. indian gov will never accept ajk and gb as paks legit parts. She will never. these ppl write it but thats not their govs agenda etc. gb's strategic location is something that india wud never want to let go of.
its not a recent push , india always off and on used to mention but now as we spoke on kashmir , to divert attention they started propaganda on ajk and gb, but it wasnt forgotten by them even before.


India will only ever accept any release of its claim as part of an agreement. Minus that, what India says on Pakistani Kashmir & GB is the correct position as per its claim.
 
.

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Country Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom