Time For A Rethink

A Role For Pakistan

The simultaneous announcement of the withdrawal of the ceasefire and theinvitation to General Musharraf from Mr. Vajpayee has established an unequivocalrelationship between the Kashmir issue and Pakistan. This amounts to an implicitadmission by India that Pakistan has a role to play in the establishment ofpeace in Kashmir as well as the resolution of the problem. 

The fortitude of theKashmiris played a decisive role in securing the elusive invitation forPakistan. However, ad interim the message for the Kashmiris is detrop. Theirfate will be discussed in absentia.

New Delhi has had various mechanisms at its disposal for resolution of theKashmir issue. It could look for an internal solution involving the Kashmirileadership, or an external solution involving Pakistan. A more realisticsolution could have been a mix of both with a balanced trade off between thetwo. 

The Indian perception in search of a solution has come a full circle.Pre-invitation efforts to seek peace in Kashmir were overtly biased in favour ofan internal solution. The APHC was the focus of attention. Involvement ofPakistan at a later stage was subject to fulfillment of certain conditions. Anend to crossborder terrorism was a prominent pre-condition. The APHC has no rolein the new scenario. The variables are the same. The intensity of militantactivity has shown no signs of abating. Yet, there is a complete u-turn in NewDelhi's policy. 

The shift may have been dictated by exigencies at home orexternal considerations, and left New Delhi with little room for manoeuvring.Whatever little manoeuverability New Delhi may have had, it has used to elbowout the Kashmiri leadership, with Pakistan quietly acquiescing.

The absence of any strand of Kashmiri representation at the negotiating tableneeds to be analysed. The main topic under discussion is supposed to be Kashmir,the brunt of military action from either side is being faced by the Kashmirisand, yet, they have no representation. India and Pakistan view the issue as aterritorial dispute and will at the most discuss Kashmir (the land), but whowill discuss the Kashmiris (the people)? 

Crowded Out

The Kashmiri leadership has beencrowded out from the talks. India and Pakistan in pursuit of their own interestshave aided and abetted the crowding-out process. The Kashmiri leadership has attimes been a mute spectator and at times intentionally aided this process.

The role of India in excluding the Kashmiri leadership from talks is veryexplicit, whereas Pakistan has played an implicit role. India has managed toportray the Kashmiri leadership as a proxy of Pakistan, with no independentdecision-making capabilities. The frequent visits of the Kashmiri leadership tothe Pakistan High Commission in New Delhi and the servile pandering totelephonic calls from Islamabad have only helped India in this. 

Pakistanblatantly makes the Kashmiri leadership dance to its tune, thereby lendingcredibility to the impression created by India. The Kashmiri leadership,especially the APHC, has augmented the Indian portrayal by its actions. Theseactions have conjured up a sterotyped image of theKashmiri leadership, dependenton Pakistan for every move.

The First Ceasefire

The quixotic behaviour instrumental in the banishment of the APHC from thetalks finds its chronological origins in the unilateral ceasefire announced bythe Hizbul Mujahideen commander, Abdul Majid Dar. It was a unique opportunity toportray a more humane face, and to convey the message that Kashmiris dounderstand the language of peace, if an honourable settlement is made.

Theceasefire was announced from Srinagar for a period of one month. It was calledoff after 15 days by a fellow Kashmiri, Syed Salahuddin, from the safe confinesof Islamabad. Throughout these 15 days, Mr. Salahuddin indulged in provocativeflummery, making it blatantly obvious that he was against the ceasefire. 

Thenon-combatant APHC was not too happy either. Far from welcoming the ceasefire,it termed the step hasty. 

India played its cards well. It welcomed the ceasefireand termed the Hizb its very own people. But it cleverlyprocrastinated under the garb of framing the modalities of the ceasefire toallow the differences among the Kashmiris to grow. 

An enervated, maliciouslyisolated Majid Dar quietly withdrew in his shell. Pakistan was never happy withthe ceasefire. It worked cleverly behind the scenes through Syed Salahuddin, andsaw to it that the ceasefire was called off. India earned its share of browniepoints, Pakistan escaped unscathed and the Kashmiris got the flak.

The Second Ceasefire

If the APHC faltered at the first ceasefire call, it did not do any better atthe second ceasefire call. The APHC was caught in a muddle and waffled around.It was tardy in its response and very grudgingly gave a cautious welcome miredwith conditions. 

Pakistan welcomed and reciprocated the ceasefire along the LoC.Covertly, the militants upped the ante and recorded the highest number of hitsduring the ceasefire period. True to its "fault-finding tendency" theAPHC was quick to point out the high number of casualties as a result ofretaliatory action taken by the Indian military authorities. 

The APHC chose tokeep silent on the increased intensity of the strikes by militants. Pakistanensured peace along its side of the LoC and earned some desperate grace marks.India succeeded in conveying its yearning for peace. And what did the Kashmirisconvey? India was addressing an international audience through the ceasefirewhile the APHC was busy playing to the galleries across the border. The Kashmirisonce again came out the lone losers.

The Visit That Never Was

Not content with the earlier forays into disaster, the APHC now wanted tovisit Pakistan, on the invitation of its foreign office. For the first time, itseemed that the APHC was playing its cards right. A visit by the Kashmirileadership to discuss Kashmir, cleared by Indian authorities by issuing traveldocuments, and facilitated by Pakistan by issuing visas, would have been animplicit official endorsement of the Kashmiris as a basic party to the dispute. 

Too good to be true. New Delhi created a miasma by cleverly making an unofficialleak, indicating that a particular member of the APHC would not be given traveldocuments. An attempt was made to lionise this particular member, whoserabble-rousing demagoguery had invariably gone against the interest of theKashmiris. 

The APHC ignored the importance of the visit and instead joined issuewith India over the composition of the delegation. In the melee of claims andcounter claims, the visit could not take place.

Defining The Kashmiris

In the run up to the summit, another piece of theatre involving the Kashmirisis being enacted. General Musharraf in a recent press conference expressed hisresolve to consult Kashmiris, before going to India. This was in stark contrastto the earlier assertions wherein the APHC was almost synonymous with theKashmiris.

The definition of Kashmiris has been broadened for the purpose of thetheatre. The General did invite Kashmiris. The Pakistan unit of the APHC,and  some other Kashmiris around the globe have been invited to confer withthe General. And what does the APHC  'Srinagar' have to say about it? Mum is theword. 

The same APHC indulged in blustery and taunted, mocked and jeered at Mr.K.C. Pant for collecting an unrepresentative crowd. The crowd collected by Mr.Pant was at least present in Kashmir.

Time For A Rethink

The APHC has to rethink its priorities. It has to make up its mind, whetherit is pro-India, pro-Pakistan, anti-India or pro-Kashmir. It has to recognisethat Pakistan has international compulsions and its own interests whichunfortunately do not coincide with the interests of the Kashmiris. A tinyminority may subscribe to Pakistani advocacy on Kashmir, but an overwhelmingmajority of Kashmiris would want the Kashmiris pleading their own case. There isa lurking danger, that the two powers might draw up the contours of a solution,and the Kashmiris may be saddled with a Hobson's choice. It is too early to callPakistan an adversary but clash of interest does not fit Pakistan in thecategory of a friend either.

(The writer is the son of Abdul Gani Lone, Chairman of the J&KPeople's Conference, and son-in-law of the JKLF leader, Amanullah Khan. Theseare his personal views.)