How to give Kashmiris a right to self-determination? -- a conceptual perspective.

It is impractical to assume that a referendum can be conducted. I argue that even if a referendum can be conducted, it is unjust, so it can’t be supported with democratic values. While there are thousands of opinions on both sides, none really model the interests of all three sides, i.e., two countries and Kashmiris, and propose a solution space, where everyone can win something.

There are a lot of vested interest, and we are not modeling those interest here. In the current set of solutions, no solution currently exists, besides what we already have, i.e., a very expensive status quo.

Let us understand why referendum is not a good way to find a solution, without blaming anyone. Let us say, a referendum is conducted and results in 60/40 decision of Kashmir to join one of the countries. What happens to those 40% who were against that decision? These 40% will want another referendum to demand partition, and the opposite country would be supporting that demand on moral grounds. So even if referendum was conducted, Kashmir would still have remained an unsolved problem, until a partition was done. But partition is already done, therefore we have already advanced the solution beyond what a referendum could have accomplished. Therefore, at this point, UN resolution of referendum in Kashmir is not useful.

We do need Kashmiris to have a right of self-determination, not just as a group of all Kashmiris, but individually. For that to happen, I introduce transfer of interest as an additional solution space. ("Interest" is an economic term, which roughly corresponds to “ownership”.)

There are about 12 million Kashmiris on Indian side and about 4 million on Pakistan side, together they roughly correspond to about 4 million families. So, each family has about 0.000025% interest in Kashmir. India offers $X to each family, purchase of their immobile assets, and $Y to Pakistan, if they want to relocate to Pakistan. Therefore, each family is given a right a of self-determination and made whole financially for their inconvenience. These families will be provided homes, jobs or business opportunities on the Pakistan side. These $Y will aggregate in $Z billions of dollars for Pakistan, and additional jobs for Pakistanis will be created to relocate these families. Pakistan will guarantee that no terrorism will be exported from their side to India. For that India does not handover these $Z billion to money to Pakistan on day 1. Instead, a bench of international arbitrators (countries) is formed. $Z billion is given as 50 years loan, while India will service the loan as long as no terrorism is exported from Pakistan to India. In case India reports any terrorism to Pakistan, until the Pakistani courts resolve the case, India will stop servicing those monthly installments. In 50 years, India would have serviced the entire loan, and a generation of peace is the best bet for subsequent peace. In case of disagreement, the bench of arbitrators can make a final determination.

Politicians on each side have been successful in conveying victory to their own citizenry of any event in the past. Indian politicians will sell to Indians that they got the Kashmir. Obviously, some Kashmiris moved, India can portray that it is good that they moved, and the payments made are expensive, but totally worth it.

Pakistani politicians will claim that, they got a great deal to those Kashmiri families, who loved Pakistan. They were able to sell their interest at above-market price. This is a weak position, but they can also claim moral superiority too, that they finally got the right of self-determination for Kashmiris. Selling of their interest will actually be welcome by Pakistanis at this point given they are in a deep financial crisis. The $Z billion will pull Pakistan from this crisis, and allow Pakistanis to transform their country in a more prosperous country.

A bigger question is why is this a just solution? If a family decides to relocate, the family is made whole with $X, which pays for inconvenience and relocation cost. They get additional money by selling their immobile properties, such as their home, boat, farms, or shop. India will be obliged to buy these properties, or conduct an open auction when peace is established, at the choice of these families. So, these families can opt to earn the peace-premium. Why should Pakistan get $Y for accepting each family? In a just solution, a family does not only own their immediate belongings, but they also have ownership of the public space of Kashmir. They are giving up that public space but getting the ownership of the public space of Pakistan, therefore Pakistan is given $Y to provide the ownership of their public space.

I know it is theoretical, but buying Kashmiri interest from Kashmiri family is really the only just solution. Pakistan can’t afford it; therefore, I propose India to buy that interest, and in the process pull out Pakistan from the current financial crisis too. It will be expensive for India, but the expense is nothing in comparison to peace dividend the people of both countries will enjoy. It is inconvenient for families to relocate their homes, but people do relocate their homes for many reasons. In this solution it is their choice whether they love the other country more than the inconvenience, and they have also been made whole for their inconvenience.