Skip to main content

A Good Friday Agreement for Kashmir


[Also published on Open Democracy, London]


[Also published on The Muslim Institute, London]

[Also published on Counter Currents]


"The prospect for peace in Kashmir lies, according to Naveed Qazi, in an adaptation of an arrangement similar to the one that brought peace to North Ireland."



Fatalities in Kashmir are fast reaching a six-digit figure, yet the levels of fatalities do not seem to stimulate desire for a genuine peace process on the part of both hostile neighbours. In spite of this unfortunate fact, the world has seen civilized solutions to conflict and one of the prime examples is vested in the Good Friday Agreement. It has been held up as good practice in resolving the Kashmir dispute, principally by Sumantra Bose, not least because the arrangement respects the variance of overall sentiment. The Good Friday Agreement allowed genuine negotiations to replace guns in the resolution of a political conflict over self-determination and ended fighting on a mass-scale.


The transformation of the conflict from a violent mode to a political mode owes credit to the dedication shown by Irish Republican and British government actors, advisors and the population in pursuing peace. India and Pakistan, contrarily, are not devoted to a sincere analysis of this efficient arrangement in recent times nor have they tried to resolve the dispute with a firm and heartfelt belief.
The Good Friday Agreement set up new institutions and a higher degree of cooperation across the Irish Republic, Northern Ireland and United Kingdom. The theme of the arrangement was based on various stages which included decommissioning paramilitary forces resulting in demilitarization (pdf), police reform, reforms in social/political and productive/economic institutions. It also set out a plan based on stability on an inclusive basis and provided grounds for the rolling out of human rights mores and the release of political prisoners. The dynamics of the Irish-British dispute match those of Kashmir dispute, and it could help in providing an evolutionary model for Kashmir.


Twelve years down the line since April 1998, and despite repeated violent incidents, the agreement still stands out as a successful model of conflict resolution. On the contrary, calling off a peace process after an incident of violence is supported by both India and Pakistan. This has resulted as a wretched failure in statesmanship which both countries try to conceal from international forums.

The process of the Good Friday Agreement was based on inclusiveness. The success of this agreement is enthroned in its pattern phases- formal elections were held under an electoral system drawn up to determine negotiates and this resulted in a sincere attempt to make talks as inclusive as possible. It was based on sincere negotiations endorsed by a popular referendum finally accepted by the people of Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic. It resulted in a permanent co-operation between both governments. It was also openly supported by the international community as it encouraged mutual respect, equality and peaceful means of peace reconciliation in the region. The most remarkable feature of this arrangement was the ubiquitous role of the respective leadership and it proved that leadership is an imperative variable star for any conflict resolution. It transferred the conflict from the streets to genuine debating chambers, and focused on constitutional aspirations. It draws upon equal power sharing and was durable, creative and competent enough to forge national interests to find an acceptable compromise.
There are lessons to learn for India and Pakistan. They could try to resist practices which suit their interests, design a valid democratic process rather than installing leaders directly. The most unfortunate part is that there is no evidence that India and Pakistan have followed any pattern or stages of implementation worth emulating in resolving the dispute. Starting a resolution and then ending up with a blame game, signing irrelevant pacts and empty talks cannot resolve any dispute. In Kashmir, there is only one concept of genuine leadership; self-determination. If India and Pakistan think that they have the competence to install leaders, then that unfortunately neglects the thousands of sacrifices rendered. Timing in any conflict resolution is very important which unfortunately is already passed for the people of Kashmir. Parties to a dispute try to negotiate only when they have a bargaining advantage. The bargaining advantage was higher in the early nineties than at present. Unlike India and Pakistan, the time factor is not an advantage to the people of Kashmir.


Belfast today is almost unrecognizable from the violent and incendiary place of two or three decades ago. An agreement like this could change the fate of Kashmir as well, where violence, oppression and psychological warfare have destroyed every facet of our society.





© Naveed Qazi, Insights: Kashmir

Popular posts from this blog

Kashmir's Geo-Strategic Position

Also published on viewpoint, Rising Kashmir

Kashmir is gifted with strategic leverages for emerging nations. That’s why, it’s is a vale of caged aspirations. The current geo strategic position for Kashmir is dictated by three emerging nations, which are bred with Secular, Islamic and Communist ideologies.
Kashmir is a mountainous valley and is surrounded by a hilly and mountainous terrain. The land of Jammu, Muzafarabad, Gilgit, Baltistan and Ladakh constitute an area of highlands. They border Pakistan, Afghanistan, Xinjiang, and some parts of Chinese administered Tibet. Kashmir also has proximity to Central Asian Republics. With the nature of increased arm strengths developed by India, Pakistan and China, the geo strategic position of Jammu and Kashmir continues to get importance.
Throughout history, all the political changes that have occurred outside of Kashmir, have had a direct strategic impact on the territorial integrity. The wars of foreigners throughout centuries intensified th…

Scanning The Dixon Plan

Sir Owen Dixon was a judge from the Australian High Court, whose meticulous report drafted to UN in 1950 received a commendation for the obstinacy of his analysis of the Kashmir resolution from the Security Council. He is regarded as an Australian scholar of impeccable credentials. 

Infact Major William Alan Reid, who was an observer with the U.N Military Observers Group in  Kashmir (UNMOGIP) got inspired by his work for his B.A Honours thesis titled “Sir Owen Dixons Mediation of the Kashmir Dispute” (July 2000) for which the writer is greatly indebted.  Reid is currently working on the doctoral thesis for the same subject. He has even consulted his notes, some of his fifty interviews, his diary and personal correspondence as well as the Australian archives, besides other published works.  To add more facts, there has been a tradition of Australian scholarship on India represented by Professors like Robin J Moore, Ian Coplan and B. Millar to name a few. 
Academia studying Kashmir confl…

Calling Off Kashmir Dispute

There has been no transparency in discussions arising from bilateral talks on Kashmir. From the last few years, calling off the Kashmir dispute has been the favourite argument arising out of Indian media commentators and political leaders. It is because of existing narration of implanting fervent Indian nationalism inside Kashmir valley.
Economic development, financial incentives and being part of India’s GDP growth have been other reasons given to call off Kashmir dispute. But is it fair? Why did India and Pakistan make attempts to reconcile through international agreements in the past at the first place, despite several wars fought on the borders?
British research has also deemed instrument of accession controversial. Importantly, what makes India run away from its moral responsibility when thousands of innocent civilians have been killed in the conflict? When were economic grants more sacrosanct than human lives? Maybe, when it comes to Kashmir, all humanist ideals, which Indian poli…