China's intention to become a stakeholder in Kashmir dispute is indicated by its assertions of not recognising Jammu and Kashmir as an integral part of India. This is evidenced by its insistence on issuing stapled visas to the Kashmiris intending to visit China and its growing activities in the Pakistan occupied Kashmir and in the vast stretches of the Kashmir's northern areas ceded by Pakistan to China. China's move to become a stakeholder in Kashmir indicates Pak-China's attempt to make Kashmir a trilateral issue to counter India's insistence that Kashmir is a bilateral issue between India and Pakistan not warranting any outsider's mediation to resolve it

Since its creation in 1947 Pakistan's successive rulers have been changing their strategy for usurping Jammu and Kashmir with force. They launched three armed invasions beginning with 1947's surprise tribal attack which enabled Pakistan to occupy some areas now called PoK. The two subsequent attacks ending with the failed Kargil misadventure were foiled.

After failing to grab Kashmir by force, Pakistan changed its strategy in 1989 when it started infiltrating the CIA-ISI trained jihadis into Kashmir after their getting relieved from Afghanistan in the wake of Soviet forces withdrawal. The blood-soaked unrest the jihadis terrorist activities created in Kashmir resulted in the killing of thousands of innocent Kashmiris. Indian security forces ultimately succeeded in containing terrorism and establishing virtual normalcy in the state by early 2010. The situation, however, again worsened four months ago after some misguided and self-seeking elements among the Indian security forces committed excesses killing some innocent youths. It was a godsend for Pakistan's agent provocateurs to incite people. The peoples anger over killings created a serious law and situation in the Valley. But the people later got fed up with the Geelani sponsored daily protests which snatched their means of livelihood. Their longing for normalcy has almost brought peace back to the state.

The contradictory stands the feuding separatist groups have been adopting are now proving to be self-defeating. The hardliner Syed Ali Shah Geelani does not want anything short of state's merger with Pakistan. Mirwaiz Umar Farooq's moderate faction wants azadi. Mufti Mohammed Sayeed's PDP is for self-rule. Congress's ruling partner National Conference favours more autonomy for the state.

Before further pressing his merger demand, Geelani must answer some crucial questions. Does he favour Jammu and Kashmir to be a united entity? If so, does he want the whole state to merge with Pakistan? If he favours merger of only the Valley of which he mistakenly believes to be the sole representative what about the state's other two regions Jammu and Ladakh which would oppose merger?

Geelani lives in a make-believe world if he thinks India would allow the state's merger with Pakistan. He perhaps forgets the fate Pakistan's earlier attempts to grab the state through armed invasions had met. He and his Pakistani bosses should not forget history's lessons that India would never allow its sovereignty over Jammu and Kashmir to be compromised.

The present Pakistani rulers have adopted a double-faced stance on India-Pakistan relationship insisting Kashmir should be the centre piece of the talks. On the one hand, they want the issue to be resolved through talks but on the other hand the ISI with the backing of the Army's top brass sends armed terrorists into India. The state of Pakistan is best described by Bruce Riedel, senior fellow at the Brookings Institution who chaired President Obama's policy review of Afghanistan and Pakistan in 2009. He says “Pakistan has become the most dangerous country in the world. Its weak civilian government may have good intentions but seems powerless to address the country's multiple crises”.

The present Pakistan government has reversed the sensible approach adopted by its two predecessor governments to resolve through talks the problems bedeviling the two neighbours relations. A glaring example of this attitude is reflected by its burial of the finalized peace formulas on Kashmir reached with India first by Nawaz Sharif and then by Pervez Musharraf.

So far as the PDP's self-rule concept is concerned, it has proved to be a non-starter raising doubts about its practicability.

The only viable proposal perhaps is giving more autonomy to the state within the framework of Indian Constitution. The aspects that would need elucidation and clarity are the nature and dimensions of the autonomy.

The attitude of some Indian political parties on the Kashmir issue is no less paradoxical. The latest example is of the BJP's taking exception to a statement by one of the Kashmir interlocutors Dileep Padgaonkar that a permanent solution to the Kashmir dispute would not be possible without the involvement of Pakistan. Does the BJP think that Atal Behari Vajpyee's successful bus journey to Lahore in 1999 was not his involving Pakistan for settling the Kashmir issue? An agreement between him and Nawaz Sharif was almost reached. Its formalization and announcement was thwarted by Pervez Musharraf's ousting of Nawaz Sharif from power. The BJP perhaps forgets that terms of an agreement to solve the knotty Kashmir problem were also nearly finalized after prolonged talks between Pervez Musharraf and Manmohan Singh. A settlement, however, failed to materialize due to Musharraf's replacement by the present civilian government. It is ironical whenever India and Pakistan have been on the verge of reaching an agreement on Kashmir, the Pakistani government is toppled or its successor backtracks from the settlement formulas reached by its predecessor government as has happened in the present case.

So far as New Delhi's attitude is concerned, it also needs to be more result-producing otherwise the credibility of its peace moves would suffer. Unfortunately the numerous committees it has set up in the past have failed to produce positive results.
(IPA Service)