Habits Die Hard

As journalists were left aghast at the display of police brutality against Zardari’s supporters in Lahore, the establishment here reeled under confusion of another kind. Its senior members huddled together and asked: how will goodwill between India and Pakistan help resolve the Kashmir issue? As if in response, The Nation, an English daily from the Nawa-i-Waqt stable, noted, "If durable peace, as we understand, is not possible without the resolution of Kashmir in accordance with the wishes of the people, how progress could be claimed towards that end?" Again, the newspapers argued, Musharraf can scarcely claim that the peace process is "irreversible", pointing out that Islamabad has always maintained that "unless Kashmir, which is the real bone of contention, is resolved, the peace process cannot be sustained." It said the leaders cannot abandon the cause of the Kashmiris; "for it constitutes equally our own cause."

Political hardliners bristle with rage. The Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal, an alliance of religious parties, feels India has vanquished Pakistan in cricket diplomacy. Its leader Syed Munawar Hassan says, "India has reaped all benefits," adding acerbically that the foreign ministry should tell the nation the steps that have been taken to resolve the Kashmir issue.

Others feel the "irreversible peace process" has created a few problems for the government here. For one, what would be the fate of militants who, in league with the establishment, have been waging jehad in Kashmir? When this writer asked foreign minister Khurshid Kasuri this question, he brushed it aside without even taking recourse to diplomatese. But Dr Moonis Ahmar, director-general, Peace Studies and Conflict Resolution, Karachi University, forthrightly asks: what happens to the struggle of the Kashmiris, and their sacrifices? He adds, "There’s also a question mark over the future of the hardliners" not only in India and Pakistan, "but also in Jammu and Kashmir, who have in the name of religion, patriotism and national security plunged South Asia into a perpetual state of conflict."

Asked whether the establishment had a gameplan to tackle militants, most officials evaded a direct reply, providing answers like "India has to do a lot more to mitigate the oppression Kashmiris experience in their daily lives and pull out troops from the Valley." The closest Outlook came to receiving a reply on a gameplan was what one senior official said, "Please read carefully what the president told the Pakistani media on Monday. He has warned that unless the issue of Kashmir is solved, it will remain a flashpoint which could erupt in the future." So is the establishment hedging its bets? Could it renege on its promise of stopping cross-border terrorism?

Political analyst Ayaz Amir feels the establishment will simply annihilate the militants. "This fate stares them in the face. It is wrong that they have been abandoned in this fashion. Kargil was a tactical abandonment but this is conceptual abandonment. Imagine today it is not the K.P.S. Gills but Musharraf who is telling these fighters to use their brains," he says.

However, Gen Talat Masood, who wants the LoC to be converted into a Line of Cooperation, says the establishment will have to provide alternatives to the militants. It’s such a big industry in J&K that "we have to now look at the re-employment of these militants and engage them in other activities. Also, make sure that these militants join the political process through organisations like the APHC. How will they otherwise link up with the dialogue on Kashmir? Yes, the future of the militants is a complex issue; they now have to speak from a common platform."

Musharraf’s faulty policy of playing favourites in Kashmir has brought to the fore the shambles in which the Hurriyat finds itself. The president was palpably frustrated during his meeting with the Hurriyat leaders, who chose to speak in a babble of contradictory voices. Emerging as the new favourite of the establishment is Mirwaiz Umer Farooq, who pragmatically kept the lines of communications open with both New Delhi and Islamabad; he also accepts that all three parties—India, Pakistan, Kashmiris—have to relent from their positions. By contrast, Islamabad’s long-time favourite Syed Ali Shah Geelani, who’s opposed to the moderation that Musharraf has now embraced, has become an embarrassment for the establishment. The establishment’s choice of favourites in itself indicates the direction in which the wind is blowing in Kashmir.

However, Ayaz Amir defends Geelani, saying he can’t be faulted; it is the establishment which has chosen to sing a different song. "All that Geelani is asking is where is the old policy? The Mirwaiz was always the soft one who connected with the Indians. But the question to be asked here is: what are we getting in return after giving in to the Indians on everything? This makes no sense. Today, the most popular man in India is Pervez Muhsarraf," he adds.

Even in times of peace, as we all know, those who are popular in India are scarcely so in Pakistan.