No SAARC Summit this year: Is war imminent?

India's Foreign Minister Sushma Swaraj may have appeared belligerent in her speech at the United Nations. But she represented India's exasperation over Pakistan's interference in Kashmir and elsewhere. After the killing of 14 soldiers in Uri, one widely supported demand is: retaliation.  

Prime Minister Narendra Modi has promised counter action at the time and the place that the armed forces chose. What would India's next step be is not yet known but the desire for retaliation is very much there. It is a sad option and to exercise it without action requires patience, which is getting exhausted. War cannot be considered as an option. Yet what is the way out?

Pakistan had admitted that some non-state actors have indulged in the killing of soldiers in Uri. But now after the whole world has expressed horror over the Uri incident, Islamabad claims that India had 'staged' the Uri incident, and Islamabad had no hand in it. But how does it explain that its soil was used by the forces who attacked Uri?

Pakistan has raised the Kashmir issue to divert attention from everything else. It expects New Delhi to participate in the talks which it would initiate.

  It's eyes were probably on the SAARC summit that was to be held in Islamabad. India's formal 'no' to participate has ended the meeting, because both Nepal and Bangladesh have expressed their inability to attend the Summit at Islamabad.

The question is where do we go from here? War is no option but talks also have not fructified.  Sushma's speech is another warning to Pakistan that India is tired of Pakistan's actions and may be driven to take some measures. All eyes are on New Delhi, because it has to decide what steps should be taken, as it is becoming increasingly clear that talks are no solution.

India has considered the revision of the Indus Water Treaty which was signed by Jawaharlal Nehru and Pakistan military chief Mohammad Ayub Khan in 1960. Sartaj Aziz, who represents Pakistan's foreign affairs, has said that anything done to revise the treaty without Pakistan's participation would be 'an act of war'. This has further complicated matters.

In view of this deadlock, no progress has been made. This should be told to the people of both sides. They have been urging their respective governments to sort out the matter through dialogues. Pakistan says again and again that some settlement over Kashmir is necessary for substantive peace in the subcontinent.

Thus, we come back to square one. By all means, concerned members should sit across the table to find a solution. But India and Pakistan cannot do this by themselves. The Kashmiris, after all, deserve to have their say.

Recently, when I went to Srinagar at the invitation of students, I found that the young Kashmiris wanted a country of their own - sovereign and independent. They do not realise that India does not favour another Islamic nation on its border, when it is exasperated by the one it has – Pakistan.

But the mood of the youth of Kashmir is that of anger, and they seem unwilling to compromise on their demand for azaadi. They do not realise that azaadi is an ideal, not a feasible proposition. When the British left India in August 1947, they gave the princely states an option to stay independent if they did not want to join either India or Pakistan. Maharaja Hari Singh, then ruler of Jammu and Kashmir, declared that he would stay independent. The land-locked state had to have the support of both India and Pakistan for access to the outside world. He did not want to depend on one.

With Muslims in majority in Jammu and Kashmir, Pakistan expected its accession. When it did not take place, Pakistan sent its irregulars, backed by the regular troops. The Maharaja sought the help of India which insisted on the accession before sending its troops. He had to sign the Instrument of Accession Act.

The two parts of the states are against azaadi. Jammu, the Hindu majority part, would like to join India. The Buddhist majority Ladakh, the other part, want to be a union territory of India. Therefore the demand for azaadi is essentially that of the valley which has nearly 98 percent of Muslims.

With India in the midst of an endeavour for polarisation and with the ruling political party playing the Hindutva card, it is difficult to imagine that Congress or any other political party, including the Communists, would support the azaadi demand. Even otherwise, all political parties are opposed to the demand for Kashmir's independence, although some may go be willing to go to great lengths to give powers to the state.

After 70 years of Partition, the wounds inflicted because of the division have not healed yet. How does anyone expect the people in India to reconcile to another partition, however genuine and strong the sentiments of the Kashmiris? If partition takes place again on the basis of religion, the secular state may not survive as it is. True, the 25 crore Muslims in India are equal citizens and they cannot be treated as hostages. But the valley's secession may have repercussions that are too dreadful to imagine. The Constitution, guaranteeing equality to all Indian citizens, may be of no avail.

India and Pakistan have fought two regular wars on Kashmir, apart from a mini misadventure in Kargil. Several thousand Kashmiris have died for the cause of azaadi. For India, they were insurgents. They were crushed by the security forces, which too lost thousands. Even now, some militants from across the border attack certain vulnerable areas but are rebuffed. For example, the day a Zubin Mehta concert was to be held, a post of Central Reserve Police Force in southern Kashmir was targeted with rockets. There was a hartal in Srinagar. But this exercise has taken place many a times in the past.

Sushma's warning may also go unanswered. But hers is yet only a warning, because the next step can lead to a war between the two countries.

The writer is an eminent Indian columnist.