Many developing countries are advised to have liberal democracies to achieve political stability and economic progress. A few countries such as South Korea, Singapore, and Malaysia are characterized as having a façade of democracy, since they do not fit in the model of Westminster type of democracy. In fact whenever there is a talk of applying democratic model, the only systems advocated are either Westminster type British system of parliamentary democracy or U.S. type Presidential system marked by bipartisan system. In these systems, there is a competition between two sets of political parties, which act as alternatives to each other. In these systems, in case there is an agreement on any issue, it is generally a result of bargaining. These systems of democracy also witness intense division in two or three competing blocks resulting in political acrimony. This model still works well when there is economic, social and political homogeneity in the country

Significantly, very often the above-mentioned system of democracy creates colossal wastage of public money, making the citizens wonder whether the members of the opposition are achieving anything at all by blocking government business. Rather than permitting political stability, it frequently results in pulling down the political party in power, followed by frequent and premature general elections. This creates repulsion among citizens and rather than voting by their hands they prefer to vote by their feet and turn away from voting. If a section of people are disenchanted permanently, they resort to violence in case of perception of injustice to them.

The unprincipled coalitions formulated after the declaration of election results obviously underline the greed of politicians to stick to power rather than interest in common good. Such coalitions end up very frequently over petty issues. The root cause for failure of this model originates in the divided societies. This division may be because of religious blocks, languages, regional and cultural identities distinct from each other, ethnic differences, or economic disparities in different areas. The competitive democracies also result in creating a feeling in the mind of minorities that the majority groups are perpetually going to overrule their genuine aspirations. This results in sharpening their divisions and a section of them resort to militancy or start shooting at each other. The majority group terms these activities as terrorist maneuvers, and suppresses the minority activities with ruthless force. Several areas in the world including Northern Ireland, Chechnya, former Yugoslavia, Spain, Palestine and Israel, Cyprus, Tibet in China, East Timor in Indonesia indicate that this contributes to vicious unending cycle of violence. Millions of innocent citizens have been killed in this violence in last fifty years. It is significant to examine whether there could be alternate model to resolve these problems of divided societies.

The alternative suggested by political engineers and of late accepted by world leaders is power-sharing theory technically known as consociational model of democracy.

Important characteristics:

Consociational theory provides an effective alternative to the competitive democracy. It provides a way to establish democracy in a divided society, where interests of each group are taken care. This becomes a guarantee to ensure that people in different blocks do not shoot at each other at the slightest chance of differences. Consociational theory is also called power-sharing theory. Important characteristics of this theory are proportionate representation, grand coalition, veto power and federalism. These measures ensure functional democracy. The purpose of this theory is to create stability and through it homogeneity in a heterogeneous society. If a country is not extremely divided, power-sharing model has some chances of success. This theory is based on the spirit of accommodation as expressed through deliberations as against bargaining power in Westminster model. Consociational model is also characterized by voluntarism.

Consociational model is based on the spirit of accommodation expressed through deliberations. As the society becomes increasingly homogenous, the four characteristics, namely, grand coalition, proportionality, federalism and veto power would disappear. As the consensus develops, there would be less consociationalism. This is significantly a dynamic concept. The four characteristics stated above may or may not be there at all times. If only some of them are present, that would be semi-consociationalism.

The spirit of accommodation is measured by looking at the extent, which people take into account interests of others. Interest of the people is formulated in terms of common good. In contrast to bargaining, during deliberations, the force of better argument prevails. Bargaining rests on economic thinking. It is done with the intention of maximizing profits. The underlying idea is to maximize political chances in elections.

There is a distinction between individual and collective rationality. The important principles, which indicate the level of deliberations, are as under:

• Participation,
• Justification,
• Truthfulness,
• Common Good,
• Respect and
• Force of better arguments.

Everyone concerned participates without constraints. Ideally, there is highest level of participation on important political matters in the family, among the neighborhood, business associations and with politicians. In reality it may not always happen accordingly. Rationality underscores that you should justify your arguments and give reasons and linkages in support of the same. Truthfulness suggests there is authenticity in the arguments. The speaker is not having any hidden agenda or is not trying to trick others. The speaker formulates his arguments as common good in terms of the reference group. Those who are having self-interest should ensure that it is compatible with the common good of the society. The speaker should be willing to listen to others and take them seriously suggesting he has respected the views of the other person. In constructive politics, the speaker does not have preferences and is prepared to yield. This is an ideal situation and may never be available in pure form.

Different scholars have used the word deliberation differently. In his work  “ assembly”, Rousseau envisages a situation when people do not discuss, but just vote. In his opinion, prejudices reflected during the deliberation would influence others. He apprehends special interests might be corrupting.  For Kant, everyone does the analysis individualistically, and there is practical reasoning with oneself. He believed that reason is prefect, and everybody has the capacity. The only thing required is that he reaches that level. Habermass uses the word deliberation in a communicative style. He feels that deliberation is good for itself. It has a potential for good consequences.

According to the critics, in the real world, everyone cannot be coherent. Deliberation is discriminatory against those who are handicapped. The alternative is emotional expression. Black Americans, for example, tell their story in church. Instead of making general arguments, personal testimony is given not only through words, but also through music, or street demonstrations. 

Deliberation demands equality, but it comes after deliberation. Is it an obstacle for bringing out social realities? Deliberation is only symbolic. Most of the things take place behind back. Protests need not be violent, they could be ridiculing. According to another scholar, deliberation is naïve since politics is power.

Deliberation consists of three logics: logic of arguing, logic of consequentialism (economics), and logic of sociological appropriateness (norms of behavior) .In reality there may a mix of these. Referring to rank and title shows less deliberation. Similarly, if you state things differently to different persons, there is less deliberation. There should be consistency in the arguments. When you change your opinion against your self-interest, then it is in common good. With shared worldview (lebenswelt) the chances of getting convinced by better arguments are brighter. Rather than a cost benefit analysis (consequential), force of intellectual arguments is more convincing.

Important lessons:

Important lessons from the implementation of consociational model in actual practice may be summarized as under:

• For a country with small region, if the differences are not very acute, power-sharing model can be ideal.
• The cleavages may be on account of culture, language or religion.
• Practicing this model creates homogeneity in heterogeneous societies, provided the citizens refrain from shooting at each other.
• Implementation of this model should be reexamined after certain period of time (it is not possible to specify the exact number of years as it would depend upon circumstances of each region or country where the model is being applied)
• The model can be successful when there is wide deliberation among citizens on important political and economic matters. Thus it presupposes very good awareness and interest among the people of that region or country where consociationalism is being implemented.
• Most importantly the elites of the different groups should have consensus on important matters and they should be visionary with firm belief that cooperation among them can create win- win situation, political stability and economic prosperity for all.
• The model requires favorable external environment. International community should be keen to have peace in the region and there should be no external factors interested in fomenting trouble in the region on account of religion or any other element. In case there are any such fissiparous groups, the wider international community shows enough courage to rein them.
• There should be firm belief among all sections in democratic model. If a section of the region or people were under military dictatorship or authoritarian rule, this model would not be adequate for that region.
• There should be no wide divergence in the economic situation of different parts in that place where implementation of consociationalism is proposed.

Before I take up the case of Kashmir, I would like to examine how this model has worked in some of the European countries.

Empirical Evidence:

Application of consociation model in actual situations would clarify many of the points mentioned above. The countries, which I propose to discuss, would include Netherlands, Belgium, Switzerland, Austria, Germany and European Union.

  Netherlands was marked by three pillars (zuilen) namely Catholics, Calvinism, and secularism. All the three had complete freedom in educational matters.  Through Grand coalition, all the three groups participated in the cabinet. The system also catered for proportional representation, strong veto and sectoral federalism. Though the three groups were antagonistic, there was no violence. History of last four hundred years particularly after the treaty of Betrecht in 1616 indicates Dutch was a peace loving society. There existed a spirit of accommodation and the same reflected through the fact that the leaders looked towards the future. Contact with other sects was only at the elite level. Citizens were having trust in their leaders. Internally, within the sects, there was citizens’ participation.  It was a very stable system.

After formulation of a political party by the students in the seventies, earlier pillars collapsed. Holland was characterized by most secular, modern to the extreme level society. In Netherlands drugs and prostitution were legalized, euthanasia was permitted and it became a loose society. Catholics and Calvinists merged into a centralist Christian party. The society has broken down. Today Holland has normal political parties. At the end of 90s, elites came together and agreed for reduction in wages. Today’s Holland has consociation model but driven by economic thinking. At the end of 2000, people in Holland are happy with their model

The lessons from the example of Holland are you may practice the model of accommodation, but occasionally people prefer eruptions to overcome the boredom. Holland has integrated Christians but not Muslims. Should Muslims be considered as pillars and permitted to be separate. The important lesson from the above discussion for conflict resolution is that if reasons for conflict are not very sharp, then enlightened leadership can make tremendous difference for future developments. In today’s situation, it is the public rather than the leaders who dominate.

Belgium projects an example where nation state no longer exists. Reflecting future trend, it demonstrates that there is no national sovereignty. Today’s Belgium has different regional blocks. But in the midst of contradictions, there was no violence. On the one hand, crucial decision-making power has been given to different communities and on the other to European Union. In the nineteenth century French elite dominated Belgium. In the 20^th century, Flemish (Swiss German) developed their identity. Flanders, where Flemish mostly resided was economically better off than Wallochnia, a region consisting of French. Flemish were mostly Catholics. Flanders has Flemish, while Wallochnia has French. Brussels, which happens to be in the midst, is bilingual. Regional parties have developed in both regions.

In 1970, the country was divided in two blocks and three regional cultural communities (French, Flemish and German). Three separate legislative bodies were formed. Power to decide cultural matters, educational issues has been given to these three separate bodies, which meet at the national level in separate blocks. Though three economic regions were carved out, they remained on paper. Language groups got consociational guarantees. Firstly there was parity in Cabinet (Flemish and French had equal numbers without conducting a census). Both groups had considerable veto power. Belgium developed a concept of special majority known as double majority necessary for passing any amendment. It further provided alarm bell through a provision, which states that if ¾ of a group demand discussion, then it has to be considered. Working of Brussels was delayed, as there was no consensus. In Flanders, regional and cultural bodies were put together in one body, but this was not done in Wallochnia. In 1988 powers of regional and cultural bodies were expanded to include additional subjects such as transport. Belgium region came into existence in 1993.Thus Belgium became federal consisting of communities and regions. Representatives were elected directly. Regions and communities can make international treaties. The Center has retained only defense and justice besides some aspects of foreign affairs. Over forty years, gradually, in a step-by-step process, regions have developed lot of powers. Today there are multiple identities for citizens in Belgium, such as regional, national and at the level of European community.

The experiment in Belgium indicates that the concept of nation-state created by political engineers in the last 200-to300 years is artificial. Earlier the elite allows it to die natural death, several apparently intractable problems faced by the world today would vanish. The question of national sovereignty has become superficial. Borders have lost their relevance. By providing autonomy to regional and cultural identities, Belgium has harmonized aspirations of different groups satisfactorily.

Switzerland has successfully implemented the consociation theory in practice. Though there is majority of Germans, the German elite has taken precautions to ensure that unless it is absolutely necessary, it does not offend the French minority. From 15^th to 18^th centuries Switzerland witnessed four civil wars. The economy was not good and actions by Swiss people could be characterized as terrorist. Switzerland was a divided society consisting of Catholics and Protestants. In the civil wars, there were no clear winners as both groups had strong defenses.

In modern times conscious efforts were made to reconstruct history, by depicting a milk-pot shared by soldiers from Catholic and Protestant blocks. Education has played crucial role in bringing together the people from different sides. Protestants had liberal views and favored unified currency.  Catholics being in minority and poor, were interested in preserving the independence of cantons. To serve their self-interests, the Protestants preferred decentralization. Believing that the opponents would adopt modern ideas, the Liberals introduced the concept of referendum in 1891. But in practice, it was taken advantage by Catholics to block any changes. In 1918, as the Protestants wanted more allies in their opposition to Socialists, the constitution was amended from majority rule to reflect proportional representation.

World War II was an example of national unity. In the years post to the war, majority of Germans had admiration for French food, songs, movies and culture. Students underwent one-year experience on French side happily. Similar was the experience of French when they came over to German side. Though Switzerland was not a homogenous country, there was admiration for minorities. Though it was bilingual, speakers spoke in their native language, while translation was provided to other side. Italians preferred to speak in German, so that other s understood them well. In the modern times, English is becoming increasingly popular.

In today’s Switzerland, religion has become irrelevant and the state is secular. It appears that power sharing has brought the divided groups together. To promote tourism and banking, people stopped fighting and built Switzerland into a rich and prosperous country. Foreign policy is no longer neutral as it was. Frontlines have been extended. Large metropolitans have made borders redundant. Though Switzerland is not a member of European Community, there is nothing much to hold Switzerland together. Section of old people, technicians, less educated people intend to take the country back, and as such the nation state may continue to exist, but the present indicators suggest that it would become increasingly irrelevant.

After the Second World War, Austria lost its empire and it became a tiny country. Catholics supported workers, who were in one camp Following the war; there was a coalition, which brought political stability and economic influence. Occupying powers imposed neutrality, while granting independence.  Neutrality removed many confrontationist issues. Secular trend accentuated. Economic affluence increased the pie. Social stratification became more fluid.

Austria has brought in some complex results for power sharing. Power sharing reduced elections to be redundant as Ministries were distributed in different groups. Power sharing led to power stability, opening doors to destruction of old model. Heider combined it with anti-foreign elements and authoritarianism.

If larger people are not actively expressing their opinion, and do not communicate the same to their leaders, elites form cartels. Deliberations need to take place in larger circles. The model requires that leaders discuss pros and cons in public and help them to formulate their opinions. In Austria, grand coalition should have been terminated in the 60s, but it continued for a long time. Leaders with vested interests did not want to change it. This gave rise to frustrations.

Germany had grand coalition till 1960s.For last four decades, there are highly competitive political parties ruling the State. While political parties are replaced, they have close collaboration in economic matters. This has enabled Germany to achieve the economic miracle. Last few years have, however witnessed recession marked by 10% unemployment. Germany heralded a model in which, unions had substantial share (50% votes) in the decision making of individual companies. Unions used this power to give larger welfare to workers. The present government is demanding reduction in many of these benefits. The net result is, however lockouts in many companies, as these programs cannot be financed. German model has raised the question of compatibility between consociation model (power sharing) and corporatism. Can the interests of these two groups go together? Instead of present competitive model, would it be appropriate to recommend grand coalition   at power again? As long as Germany was doing very well in economic progress, there was no difficulty in enlisting cooperation from different political parties. But today German economy is receding. Each political party cannot be provided what it wants. The alternative would be U.S. / British model, in which unions have no say in economic matters.

In the European Union (E. U.), there is diversity in geography, religion (including Muslims in France), but there is strong political stability. There have been some pockets in Spain and North Ireland where there have been some problems. West ministerial model would have required centralization of Europe with only two political parties. Nobody seriously thought of British model as relevant for Europe. European Union has all characteristics of power sharing. But there is democratic deficit and not enough efficiency.  Proportionality has been ensured in the European Union by having six members in the Parliament and adequate representation in the bureaucracy. There is Grand coalition and all countries have been represented.  In all-important matters, it is necessary to have consensus. The E.U. provides for veto power in important matters. The system is also characterized by federalism and decentralization. The British are against the use of the word federalism as it connotes the idea of central government. They demand that E. U. should be an inter-governmental organization. Thus the present political system is extremely decentralized with lot of veto points. This has been a strong force for all the countries to come together.

But the present system does not have participation from all citizens, and thus lacks deliberation. Absence of decision-making in the field of foreign affairs and military matters has been an important factor in permitting delays in decision-making and democratic deficit. There is also no immediate threat from any outside power. The presence of the U. S. is enough to suppress dominance of any individual power.

On the other hand, European Union is a significant model for many other regions in the world, as sovereignty has been broken in different places. With ten more countries joining in it shortly, conscious efforts would be required   to educate the citizens about this experiment. More liberal trade may be perhaps an answer to bring them together.

The model is also being tried in several trouble prone areas including North Ireland, South Africa, former Yugoslavia (Kosovo, Croatia and neighboring countries), Rwanda .It is being suggested that it would be useful in Afghanistan and Iraq as well because of the divided nature of societies there.

In the next few pages, I intend to examine, how far this model is applicable in Kashmir region.

Application in Kashmir:

Background

Brief background about the dispute in Kashmir is as follows.  Kashmir is situated in the midst of India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and China. Jammu & Kashmir is a state in India. It is a large state and was ruled by a Maharaja (Indian King) in the past. Jammu & Kashmir is made up of many regions but is called Jammu & Kashmir because the two most populous regions in the state are called Jammu and Kashmir. There are other distinct regions in the state including Ladakh, Gilgit, Baltistan and Skardu. Pakistan, grabbed many of these regions about 50 years ago. Some parts of the state were forcibly taken over by China. The largest portion of the original state of Jammu & Kashmir remains as a state within India.

In Kashmir valley, majority of the people are Sunni Muslims. There are also sizeable number of Kashmiri Pundits (Hindus) and few thousand Sikhs. All speak Kashmiri language. The state capital Sri Nagar is located in this part. Jammu has majority Hindus and they speak Dogri language. Ladakh has 52% Buddhists and about 48% Muslims. Majority of these Muslims are Shiites. Buddhists and Muslims in Ladakh speak Bodhi language. People in Gilgit area are Shiites and speak Bodhi language as in Ladakh.

In 1947, when the British left India, leaders of Pakistan felt that they should rule all areas of India where people belonging to the Muslim faith were in a majority. The majority of people in Jammu & Kashmir were Muslims, while others were Hindus and Buddhists. Some Muslims in Jammu & Kashmir wanted to be part of Pakistan while most others did not want that. But the rulers of Pakistan felt that if they could capture Jammu & Kashmir by military force, then the people would have to accept their rule. That is why they attacked the state of Jammu & Kashmir in 1947. At that time, a Maharaja ruled Jammu & Kashmir. Pakistani troops overran most of the state and the Maharaja had to escape to India. He asked India for help and merged his state with India. This was called the accession of the state of Jammu & Kashmir to India. Some Pakistani leaders to this day are unhappy that the whole of Jammu & Kashmir is not part of Pakistan. Pakistan attacked India in 1949. The fighting ended with Pakistan retaining control of a large area of the state but India keeping a larger part.

The fighting ended in the beginning of 1949 because India did not want the war to drag on. India felt that other influential countries like the US and Britain would ask Pakistan to stop fighting and withdraw its soldiers from a State that had legally become part of India. India therefore went to the world body called the United Nations, or UN for short. India said that Pakistan had attacked a neutral State and that State had now become part of India. Therefore, Pakistan should withdraw its soldiers from the State. The United Nations agreed with the Indian demand and asked Pakistan to withdraw its forces from Jammu & Kashmir. It also told India to ask the people of Jammu & Kashmir whether they wanted to be part of India or part of Pakistan. This was because some people in the State wanted to join Pakistan while others wanted to stay with India. The Prime Minister of India agreed to ask the people what they wanted through a process known as a referendum or plebiscite. Pakistan did not agree and refused to vacate the areas of Jammu & Kashmir it had forcibly grabbed. Because of this a plebiscite could not be held. Powerful countries like the US and Britain did not force Pakistan to withdraw its troops from Kashmir. They simply termed the entire State as a ‘Disputed Territory.’

This was done essentially because both India and Pakistan claimed the state of Jammu & Kashmir. The big powers, like the US and Britain, did not want to take sides and might have felt that it would be best if the problem of the state could be settled between India and Pakistan. India wants to settle the problems once and for all. But Pakistan will only accept a solution under which it can keep the Kashmir Valley to itself. India cannot allow this. Therefore, the so-called “dispute” continues to this day.

Legally, Jammu & Kashmir is an integral and inseparable part of India. The British had ruled India as one undivided country made up of many provinces and princely states. When they left, India was partitioned into two separate countries. The new country, as mentioned earlier, was called Pakistan. The British as well as the leaders of both India and Pakistan had agreed to one basic principle – every inch of land must go either to India or to Pakistan. In other words, people living in India before the partition of 1947, had only two options: they could either join Pakistan or they could join India. They could not remain independent. Jammu & Kashmir was actually an exception. The Maharaja of the State had wanted time to decide whether he should join Pakistan or join India. But the rulers of Pakistan did not want to give him the opportunity to decide and instead attacked his state, killing hundreds of people and causing extensive damage to property. The Pakistani action forced the Maharaja to join India.

In the Indian side, since 1954 the Government of India held democratic elections at regular intervals. The state had democratically elected peoples’ representatives belonging to different political parties. The succession to different political parties have been smooth The State also enjoys certain autonomy different from other states in India. At the same time, people in this part enjoy fair degree of human rights including civil and political rights, freedom of expression and religion.

The Pakistani side of Jammu & Kashmir has been divided into two main parts. The largest part is called the Northern Areas. Here the people have no political or human rights and are ruled directly by Pakistan. They cannot express an opinion. But of late they have begun to rebel against Pakistan. The Pakistani Army has crushed these rebellions with brute force. The other part of Pakistan Occupied Kashmir is a tiny portion called Azad Jammu & Kashmir. Azad in the Urdu language means free. The people settled here are also not very happy with Pakistan but know that they cannot gain independence even though theirs is supposedly a “free” country. Their leaders are supported by Pakistan and given lots of money. These leaders are comfortable with Pakistan and want to remain in Pakistan. Others do not want to stay in Pakistan but most do not dare protest for fear of being killed or imprisoned.

Since 1989, due to several reasons including disenchantment with Indian government, corruption in the state government, increasing unemployment a section of people in Kashmir valley has launched insurgent activities against the Indian Government. The movement has seen many rise and declines in the last fifteen years. Several young men from Kashmir valley have crossed borders and entered in Pak occupied Kashmir side, where they have been provided shelter, weapons and training, besides funds by Pakistan government. Several mercenaries from Afghanistan, and many other Muslim countries are also facilitated to reach this place. Following the senseless violence more than 80,000 people including army personnel, civilians – Muslims as well as Kashmiri Pundits, have died till 2003 after the militancy began in 1989. Efforts to enter in any dialogue with separatist leaders from Indian government side are being repeatedly opposed by vested interests. People claiming to be interested in attaining freedom from Indian side continue to indulge in violence. Indian Deputy Prime Minister, L.K. Advani has clarified more than once that India is prepared to grant autonomy to Kashmir within the framework of Indian Constitution. What should be the format of the proposed autonomy? The reply could be found in the format of consociation model.

The situation in Kashmir is at the crossroads. It would be therefore appropriate to consider an alternative solution to this problem in the form of applying power sharing theory.

The state has demarcated geographical areas dividing people on the basis of religion. Still all of them are having loyalty to Kashmir and claim having special characteristics since they belong to Kashmir. All people are equally poor, some perhaps poorer than others. Militancy has impoverished the state badly.  The different groups namely Sunni Muslims, Shiite Muslims, Hindus and Buddhists are almost equal in numbers if we calculate them in the entire region. These communities are homogenous and would like to preserve their identities. Geographically the boundaries of these communities are clearly marked. Muslims of this region have very little in common with Muslims in Pakistan and have consistently indicated their preference to be independent from Pakistan.  Graphically the position may be summarized as under:

Factors favorable and unfavorable to power sharing model in Kashmir:

The sum total of all factors indicates that there are several conditions favorable for implementation of power sharing model in Kashmir. Application of this model would create stability for the region, essential for growth.

The factor, which may agitate against this suggestion, is the issue of sovereignty. Whether India has the sovereignty over this area or Pakistan has been the contentious issue for last several years. Both countries have lost enormous resources in establishing their suzerainty over the area in last fifty years. There appears to be no end to this fight. Rather than deciding who is correct or otherwise, it would be sensible to create institutions devised on the basis of power sharing theory contributing to stability.

  Application of power-sharing model through Grand Coalition of different groups based on religion, region and language, federalism, veto power on important issues, and proportional representation in the legislative assembly, bureaucracy, judiciary and police would satisfy aspirations of all different ethnic groups. The integrity of the region should be guaranteed by Pakistan, China and India besides USA and Russia. All these states and multinational and international organizations would need to furnish financial contributions for the reconstruction of this region for at least next twenty years.  

Success of this proposal would be greatly advanced with installation of democratic regime in Pakistan, and decrease in the role of army in decision-making in Pakistan’s government. As in the Middle East, U. S. can take lead in ushering democracy in the region by terminating its support to army dictators in Pakistan. Army in Pakistan has usurped the political power several times. To ensure its perpetuation, army officers have kept the issue of Kashmir simmering. The European Union has taken stern position in this regard and demanded free and fair elections along with end to the army rule in Pakistan.

At present, there is wide discrepancy characterized by free fair and democratically elected government on Indian side, while military dictatorship and perpetual violation of human rights in Pak Occupied Kashmir. Hence the situation in Kashmir poses great challenge for the international community. Conscious efforts by leaders as well as opinion makers towards consociation model of democracy for the region would provide the necessary breakthrough in the present impasse.

There are very little chances that Pakistan would agree to the proposal. Even then, India can take initiative in this direction and unilaterally create power-sharing model of democracy in the existing parts of Jammu and Kashmir. This can be an agenda item for discussion with Kashmiri separatists during forthcoming negotiations between Indian government and Kashmiri separatists. This would largely demonstrate to the world India’s sincere intentions. Meanwhile the rest of the world community led by U S can continue to pressurize Pakistani authorities to follow suit and provide a chance for world peace. This is highly imperative to curb terrorist activities from Muslim fundamentalists owing their allegiance to Al Qaeda and its ilk.

References:

Jurg Steiner and Thomos Ertman (eds) Acta Politica:  An International Journal of Political Science; Consociationalism and Corporatism in Western Europe, Special issue, 2002, Amsterdam

Jurg Steiner: European Democracies

For details about facts on Kashmir:

http://www.jammu-kashmir.com

http://www.jammu-kashmir.com/basicfacts/basics.html