The trifurcation of Jammu and Kashmir has been the cause of wars with Pakistan in 1948, 1965,1971 and 1998. The present LOC, or the Line of Control between India and Pakistan, was negotiated by India, after it defeated Pakistan, in 1971.

Bangladesh was the direct result of this victory, which was essentially a war of liberation for Bangladesh, fought by Bangladeshis. It is the core of the Simla Agreement, which was signed between the Indian Prime Minister, Indira Gandhi, and the Pakistani Prime Minister, Bhutto, on July 2, 1972.

Broadly speaking, the agreement enjoins on both sides to respect the LOC. This is without prejudice to their respective positions on the status of Jammu and Kashmir. This agreement, no doubt, converted the LOC into an international border, though it was not specified in so many words, may be with a view to pander to the sensibilities of the people back home, more in Pakistan, than in India.

It was reported, according to some members of the then Indian delegation, among them, Principal Secretary to the Prime Minister, P. N. Dhar, that Bhutto wanted this part of the understanding kept out of the formal agreement. He feared that it would meet huge opposition back home in Pakistan. He wanted some more time to sell the idea to his people. The proposal was never formally and officially accepted.

Our Parliament has passed a resolution that claims the entire territory of Jammu and Kashmir, including the so-called Pakistan Occupied Kashmir. The idea, of making the LOC the international border comes up from various quarters from time to time. After India and Pakistan went nuclear, J & K Chief Minister Farooq Abdullah, publicly supported it. This was swiftly repudiated by the External Affairs Minister who reiterated the Indian claim to POK.

Conversion of the LOC to an international border is not a workable solution by itself for Pakistan as it will leave a large, and the most coveted part of Kashmir with India.

It appears that Kashmir will remain a problem for India for a long time to come. Management experts are very clear that the best way to solve a problem is to divide it into parts and tackle one part at a time. Dividing a problem into parts and conquering each part separately is not only less time-consuming, but also cost effective. Figures tell a grim story about Kashmir. Between 1990 and February 2000, over 20,000 AK rifles, 8,825 pistols, 958 UMGs, 757 RPGs, 308 sniper rifles, 615 rocket launchers, 1,687 rocket boosters, 75 LMGs and 25,000 kg of RDX have been recovered. In the same period, the death toll has been 7,284 civilians, 9,864 terrorists and 2,579 security personnel. Political parties too have not been spared. Over 200 members of the National Conference have been killed. The Congress has lost 49 persons, the BJP 9, the CPI (M) 5, the Janata Dal 10, and the Awami League 5.

The most violently affected part is that of the valley portion of J & K. The result is that the Government, located in Srinagar, is hardly able to pay any attention to other parts of the State. In fact, over 70 per cent resources allocated by the Centre are supposedly spent in the Valley. The result is a demand for separation of the areas of Ladakh and Jammu, converting them into separate States. The supporters of this proposal feel that the Valley itself can be constituted into a separate State. This proposal, for the division of Jammu and Kashmir, has found unexpected, but welcome support from the RSS. The RSS has supported the demand of conversion of Ladakh into a Union Territory, as desired by the Ladakhis . The people of Jammu think and feel that the solution to their problems, better administration and development, lies in separate statehood for the Jammu region. Trifurcation of the State into Jammu, Kashmir and Ladakh is also justified on the grounds that the three regions have their own separate cultural and religious identities. Jammu is largely Hindu, the Valley entirely Muslim after the Hindus and Sikhs were driven out by the terrorists and most of Ladakh is Buddhist. The demand has almost a complete acceptance, both in Jammu and Ladakh. The local people there argue that they are politically and administratively discriminated in favour of the Valley. While Jammu can be made into a separate State, Ladakh itself is keen on Union Territory status. There have been huge demonstrations in both regions from time to time pressing their respective demands and claims. The rationale for dividing J & K is also supported on the following grounds. It is said that though Jammu and Ladakh are rich in resources and have a large potential for tourism equal to that of the Valley, yet it is the Valley which has been singled out for development and advertisement of tourism. Jammu, as a region, has a larger population than the Valley. Still, it has been given fewer seats in the J & K Assembly.

There is a greater threat to India from double speaking politicians ruling the roost in the Valley who speak one language in Delhi and another in Srinagar. The more disruptive features in J & K, include the Autonomy Report of 1999-2000, which the Farooq Abdullah government brought out and got it passed in the State Assembly. The Report and the Assembly resolution implied and aimed at taking the State back to the pre-1953 position. Put simply, it meant granting autonomy to the State in all spheres, except defence, foreign affairs and currency. However, the responsibility for funding was left to the Central Government.

The justification for the recommendations, adopted by the J & K Assembly, was that they were in accordance with the original instrument of accession signed by Raja Hari Singh. The Farooq Abdullah government has been complaining, off and on, that over the years, the Centre has gradually eroded the autonomy of the State and has imposed its own writ on the Kashmiri people. This is nothing less than talk of secession. Fortunately, the Central Government rejected the J & K Assembly resolution in toto. It clarified that the move was secessionist and reverting to the pre-1953 position would mean ending the jurisdiction of the Reserve Bank, the Election Commission, the Comptroller and Auditor General and the Supreme Court, as well as deleting Articles 356 and 357 of the Constitution of India. It is the need of the hour to end the double game of some leaders who claim to be nationalists for the sake of the loaves and fishes of office not only in J & K, but also in Delhi. The same Chief Minister who wanted India to go to war with Pakistan, shed tears when he could not be accommodated as the President or Vice President of India. His son, a Union Minister, called it a great betrayal.

Some people fear that trifurcation may lead to communal division of the State. What is cited in support is the secular character of the State which is essential for preservation of India ‘s composite culture. Critics of trifurcation hold that the move will, in fact, justify the two-nation theory that formed the basis for the birth of Pakistan. This criticism is both ill conceived and ill founded. If in one State, Muslims become the majority, it does not mean that India has ceased to be secular. There are a number of States in the North East where Christians are in majority and Punjab itself is a Sikh majority State. It does not mean that India’s secular character, in any way, has been compromised or affected.