|
Ceasefire initiative : Hurriyat team may be allowed to visit Islamabad |
 |
The Vajpayee Government is understood to have finally decided to initiate a dialogue with the Hurriyat leaders over Kashmir even while deciding to allow it to send a team to Pakistan for consultations. This was what Pakistan is demanding as part of its own response to Mr. Vajpayee's Ramzan ceasefire. Its response, which came in the form of an announcement that it is asking its troops to exercise maximum restraint along the Line of Control in Kashmir, also contained a demand that India open talks with the Hurriyat leaders while simultaneously send another of its team for Islamabad for parallel discussions which will pave the way for tripartite talks between the three parties - India, Pakistan and the Hurriyat. India remains opposed to tripartite talks, but, sources in New Delhi say, the authorities are finalizing modalities to push forward the peace process, started with the Ramzan cease fire announcement by Mr. Vajpayee. The sources said, the Government is also sympathetically considering a request from Hurriyat leaders for permission to visit Islamabad to hold discussions with Pakistani leaders. It is pointed out that at lest two APHC leaders, Mirwaiz Umar Farooq and Abbas Ansari, have travel documents and eve Mr. Abdul Gani Lone's Pakistan-travel documents are valid for three months, if these people want to go to Pakistan, nobody is preventing them, the sources said. However, what is not acceptable is the Hurriyat leaders wanting 10 go to Pakistan to broker a peace between New Delhi and Islamabad or being allowed to go because Pakistan chooses to anoint the APHC as the recognized Kashmir group.
Hurriyat leaders, who were camping in Delhi have returned to Srinagar to discuss how to respond in case the Government invites them for a dialogue. Even though Hurriyat leaders are one on the issue of holding dialogue with New Delhi, there are sharp differences on whether to insist on involvement of Pakistan in the dialogue at the initial stage.
Pakistan is seeking more initiatives from India and said on Dec. II, New Delhi should follow up its unilateral ceasefire announcement by agreeing to a set of modalities for talks with all concerned parties to find an amicable solution to the Kashmir issue. In an interview to a private Indian TV channel, Pakistan's High Commissioner in New Delhi, Ashraf Jehangir Qazi said, India should follow up its ceasefire initiative to allow progress towards ultimate settlement of the issue.
Notably, at their two-day meeting, top military commanders of Pakistan, who form the highest decision-making body in the country have agreed to continue their support for the Indian peace initiative in Jammu and Kashmir. The week-end meeting which was presided over by Gen. Musharraf, concluded that a positive endorsement and elaboration of India's initiative would yield diplomatic and economic benefits.
The Hurriyat leader, Abdul Ghana Lone, on his return from Pakistan where his son got married to the daughter of another Kashmir Liberation Front leader, called on India and Pakistan to move beyond their stated positions.
There has been meanwhile a slight change in the Government's formulation, as spelled out by Home Minister Advani on Dec. 15 at the Consultative Committee of his Ministry. Mr. Advani opened a possibility by talking of the Centre's preparedness to talk to Pakistan if the violence ended or was reduced drastically. The insistence on an end to cross border violence is no more seems 10 be complete and total. India is already satisfied with the implementation of Gen. Musharraf's declaration of a maximum restraint and the Army chief, Gen. S. Padmanabhan, has said the ceasefire was holding unwell despite hiccups. He told newsmen on Dec. 12 that the hiccups related to the odd incident of grenade throwing by the militants. There is, however, perceptible decline in infiltration and terrorist violence in Jammu and Kashmir since the ceasefire came into effect. Mr.Advani told reporters in Silvassa on Dec. 16 that the Vajpayee Government could consider extending the Ramzan ceasefire in Jammu and Kashmir adding that a decision on this is likely to be taken before the end of the current session of Parliament.
Also, the Vajpayee Government seems to have overcome its inhibition about talking to a military regime. We have dealt with military regimes before and a General Saheb in Islamabad is no novelty for us, the argument goes.
The Indian Government's ceasefire initiative had evoked a positive international reaction that forced Pakistan to make a constructive response. After absorbing the unexpected surprise, Pakistan came forward with
a promise to demonstrate maximum restraint on the Line of Control. Its senior officials have followed up the promise of military restraint with a political clearance for the All Party Hurriyat Conference (APHC) to join negotiations with the Indian Government. These steps are indicative of the way Pakistan views its role in the final outcome of the Kashmir issue. It has indicated two things by these initiatives. It intends to use the APHC to speak for Pakistan in future negotiations, until the latter itself joins such talks at some indeterminate stage. This is important for Pakistan since there are few signs of tripartite negotiations with New Delhi.
On the other hand, the Hizbul Mujahideen which has played a major role in the militancy over the years, is apparently being sidelined. There is message in it for other militant groups, about their allegiance to Pakistan's interests.
Second, the response from Pakistan indicates its unwillingness to stop armed militant activity. It has not asked the Hizbul Mujahideen or the Lashkar-e-Toiba and other groups to abide by the ceasefire. Pakistan quite clearly views the transborder terrorist activity as meaningful instrument in influencing the peace process, or, to abort, it if needed. The conditional response from Pakistan can be better understood if one heeds the views being expressed in the Pakistani media. India's ceasefire is described as an admission of the failure of its policy to crush the uprising. The ceasefire and the offer of talks are seen as means to engage the Kashmiri leadership while keeping Pakistan out. Indian initiatives are also viewed to be designed to create differences between the mujahidecn, Kashmiris and the Government of Pakistan. There are comparisons made between Pakistan’s role in Kashmir, and its being reduced to the status of Mr. Yasser Arafat as the leader of a local authority.
There are some other developments which can have an impact on the success or failure of the negotiations, as and when they start. The first is the possibility of change of opinion in Pakistan itself. General Pervez Musharraf had held talks with Mirwaiz Omar Farooq at the recently-held meeting of the organisation of Islamic Conference (01C) in Doha, Qatar. He is reported to have indicated that the UN resolutions on Jammu & Kashmir, and particularly the one about a plebiscite, are no longer practicable. This report has not been denied by Islamabad. Political observers say, if this is indeed a reflection of thinking in Pakistan's ruling establishment, it is a pragmatic position of considerable importance. When Juxtaposed against the Indian position of greater autonomy to Jammu & Kashmir in a future negotiated arrangement, the position offers real hope for constructive possibilities. It would also mean that Pakistan would need to do much more than to ensure the success of negotiations. It will need to offer matching constitutional rights 10 the portions of Kashmir under its occupation.
There can be no objection to a dialogue with the Hurriyat, but it is important that it should position itself as a voice of the Kashmiri people rather than as a mediator between India and Pakistan or as Islamabad's proxy. The Hurriyat leadership will sooner rather than later have to decide whether it wants to playa proactive role in the peace process by positioning itself as the voice of the Kashmiri people or whether it is content to be seen as Pakistan's puppet. However, there is another snag, namely, Pakistan has consistently remained suspicious of Kashmiri sentiments and would be wary of any dialogue between the Indian Government and the Kashmiris. Consequently, should the Hurriyat leaders, or a section of them, enter into talks with India alone, they would be doing so at considerable risk to themselves.
The Hurriyat could be looking for some further concessions from New Delhi, to enable the organisation to prevail upon militant groups to give peace a chance. The Government of India mayor may nor accept it, but the key to peace is ore in the hands of Pakistan and their front militant organisations. And they (Pakistani militants) want Azadi. Is the Government of India willing to talk about the modalities of the Azadi of entire Kashmir Is it willing to talk to Pakistan across the table? Has the Government obtained the consent of the people of India to do so? Assuming that General Pervez Musharraf intervenes, what is the guarantee that all the foreign-based militant organisations will listen to him? After all they are all running their shops. Will they give up just because Gen. Musharraf or Mr Vajpayee wants them to ?
The militants at the behest of Pakistan and some Western countries are now harping on one main precondition: That Kashmir be declared a disputed territory. If Mr Vajpayee agrees to this then Pakistan would cease to be an aggressor in Kashmir, thus equating the aggressor (Pakistan) with the aggressed (India). This wisdom has been exported to Pakistan by their benefactors in the west, which has always wanted play the mediator in their so-called disputed territory of Kashmir, enabling them to favour their one-time Kashmir, enabling them to favour their one-time stooge ally, Pakistan. More particularly, this helps in justifying the US's role as global policeman. It also gives the West the leverage to protect its strategic interests in this pan of the world. Therefore, Indian think tank should be cautious of US suggestions on the Kashmir issue.
|
