Indian response to Pakistan’s “maximum restraint” offer,Indian Subcontinent, News Analysis, India News Online

Although India has publicly said that the Pakistani announcement of ordering its troops along the Line of Control in Kashmir to exercise “maximum restraint” was “a good but not a substantive step” and ruled out tripartite talks involving the Hurriyat leadership as well. Informed sources say the Vajpayee will allow a Hurriyat Conference delegation to visit Pakistan and the talks with Kashmiri leaders will be held much before the Ramzan ceasefire ends. A team of All Party Hurriyat Conference leaders, including its chairman, Abdul Ghani Batt and his predecessor, Maulvi Omar Farooq as well as the JKLF leader, Yasin Malik, have been camping in New Delhi. While another senior Hurriyat leader Abdul Ghani Lone, who continues to be in Islamabad after the marriage of his son to the daughter of a Kashmiri militant leader, is in touch with the Pakistan government, the three-men Hurriyat team in New Delhi has consultations with the Pakistan High Commissioner in New Delhi. The Prime Minister, Mr. Vajpayee, said at an Iftar Party on Dec. 7 that his Government would consider allowing the Hurriyat leaders to visit Pakistan. Pakistan in his so-called maximum restraint had proposed that India and Pakistan hold separate talks with two Hurriyat teams before the tripartite talks could begin.

The Indian government officials are expected to be in touch with the three Hurriyat leaders camping in New Delhi any time from now to discuss the modalities of possible bilateral, if not tripartite talks. New Delhi is also said to have established contacts with Pakistan through emissaries with the sole objective of gauging Islamabad’s intentions before opening negotiations for a regular dialogue. The impression gathered from these parleys, held at levels quite distinct from the on going track-II diplomacy was that Pakistan is “too eager” to start a dialogue on Kashmir. The External Affairs Minister is expected to make a significant statement in Parliament shortly giving India’s response to resuming the dialogue with Pakistan and the Kashmiri leadership. Last week, Mansoor Ijaz, a New York-based American national of Pakistani origin, who was involved in back channel mediation efforts, claimed that Prime minister Vajpayee and Gen. Musharraf would hold a summit meeting some time after Id on the question of Kashmir. In an interview with the Gulf News, Mr. Ijaz, who has made five visits to India and Pakistan over the last one year in a bid to break the deadlock between the two countries over the Kashmir issue, however said, the summit depended on how the ceasefire holds. Pakistan has, however, described the report as “speculative”.

Although the government leaders like Home Minister Advani and Defence Minister George Fernandes have publicly said that the Pakistani announcement of maximum restraint does not meet the key Indian demands that Pakistan end its support to terrorism and stop anti-India propaganda, the Prime minister has already indicated that the month long Ramzan ceasefire could be extended. It is notable that Pakistan’s maximum restraint offer has no time limit unlike Mr. Vajpayee’s initiative and if his ceasefire offer is also extended indefinitely, there is bound to be a significant improvement on the ground situation, encouraging the Indian government to resume the talks with Pakistan government.

When India decided to suspend the talks, as many as eight contentious issues were taken up at the composite dialogue and a working group for each of the issues, including the one on Kashmir had been set up. Now, Pakistan is demanding tripartite talks involving both India and Pakistan and India as well as the Kashmiri leadership represented by the Hurriyat Conference leadership. The Pakistani response of “maximum restraint” carried a rider that India allow a team of Hurriyat leaders to visit Pakistan while New Delhi initiates a dialogue with another delegation of the group. Later the three sides should exchange notes to see how tripartite dialogue could get going. Although the External Affairs Ministry spokesman made it clear that there is no room for tripartite talks, the long stay of the three-man Hurriyat delegation in New Delhi has raised the possibility of a one-on-one dialogue between New Delhi and the Kashmiri groups. Both the Hurriyat Conference and the government spokesmen have not ruled out the possibility of an early dialogue.

India’s measured response to Pak offer : PM to extend ceasefire

Pakistan formally conveyed to India on December 2 its decision that its armed forces would exercise maximum restraint along the Line of Control when the Indian High Commissioner, Mr. Vijay Nambiar, was called to the Foreign Office in Islamabad to be informed about the decision. He was told to convey the decision to his government so that a Hurriyat Conference delegation could come to Islamabad during Ramzan.

Mr. Nambiar later flew to New Delhi and at a meeting with senior Foreign Ministry officials and the Home Minister, briefed them on Islamabad’s reaction to India’s unilateral ceasefire during Ramzan. He has been quoted by sources as saying that Pakistan wants peace in the sub-continent because of pressure both from home and abroad. In Islamabad on the other hand, Gen Musharraf had a crucial (inner circle) meeting of his Corps Commanders on December 8. The meeting is seen in New Delhi as crucial for defining Pakistan’s detailed response to the prevailing ground situation in Kashmir after the announcement of the Indian peace initiative and Islamabad’s initial response. Besides Gen. Musharraf, some of the key players whose opinion is expected to count are Lt. general Jamshed Gulzar and Lt. Gen. Mohammad Yusuf Khan. An old India hand and Chief of General Staff, Lt. Gen. Gulzar was Pakistan’s military attache at its High Commission in New Delhi in 1992-93 and has replaced the high-profile Lt. General Mohammad Aziz. The two-day meeting of the military commanders ended on Dec. 9 with an endorsement of the decision of the Government to observe “maximum restraint”. on the LoC and strengthen ceasefire. The commanders are reported to have deliberated at length on the implications of the two initiatives on Kashmir, first by India and then by Pakistan. The endorsement of the Government decision by the commanders assumes significance as it is they who will have to execute the restraint. The welcome of the meeting was being watched with great interest as the peace imitative in July did not last beyond two weeks. Part of it was attributed to differences within the military top brass on the merits of the ceasefire.

Army sources say, after Pakistan’s announcement that it has told its troops to observe maximum restraint, there is a ninety five percent drop in firing from the Pakistani side across the LoC. Whatever firing is being resorted to facilitate the infiltration of militants. In fact, the security forces on December 3 killed around 14 militants who are trying to sneak into the India side. After careful evaluation of the ground situation however, security analysts are veering to the view that infiltration may significantly reduce due to the onset of winter irrespective of Pakistani intent. With snows descending on the high mountain passes, several infiltration routes as in the past, will soon be wholly or partially chalked.

The government of India has given a measured response to Pakistan’s decision to tell its troops not to fire. While the Prime Minister has said the response was “good but not substantive” and yet he could order extension of the ceasefire, the External Affairs Ministry has ruled out tripartite talks involving Pakistan with the militant leaders. India was, however, committed to an early resumption of composite dialogue process with Islamabad, Foreign Ministry spokesman said on December 5. He however said, the government hopes this statement of Pakistan was “precursor of a meaningful change in its attitude” and it would address India’s concerns about cross border terrorism, infiltration into India and aiding and abetting violence. Asserting that there is no role of any kind for any third party, he said the government approach was very positive in taking the peace initiative forward. He said, the government has conveyed its readiness for talks with all parties and groups in Jammu and Kashmir, including the militants, the modalities of which will be decided by Government of India. But, he made it abundantly clear that there is no role for what he termed as tripartite talks.

Political observers note that in offering to hold talks with Kashmiri groups and the Pakistan government separately, the spokesman has made a distinction in talks with these two separate entities. In keeping with India’s sceptisism about Pakistan’s motives since Kargil, New Delhi’s statement tried to keep a delicate balance between sticking to its earlier stand on talks and not dismissing Pakistan gesture. But the message to Pakistan remains, “first prove your credentials”. The Vajpayee government predictably rejected suggestion of tripartite talks on Kashmir sticking to its well known position that it was entirely up to the Centre and the people of Kashmir to sort out the problem. Pakistan has no room in tripartite talks. India is also not sure whether the Musharraf regime is willing to return to the Lahore peace process. Musharraf had derailed the process in masterminding the Kargil intrusions barely three months after Vajpayee took the peace bus to Lahore.

The Prime Minister Mr. Vajpayee made his Ramzan ceasefire initiative more attractive when he said his government was willing to extend the month long ceasefire if Pakistan cooperated. Talking to newsmen at the Navy Day reception in New Delhi on December 4, he said, Pakistan’s “maximum restrain” response to his ceasefire announcement was good but not substantive. According to him, Pakistan must respond positively by ceasing cross border terrorism, abjuring violence and adopting is posture of peace and friendship towards India. “We are looking for reciprocation” he said.

The Home Minister, Mr. Advani also asked Pakistan to show sincerity to its declaration of maximum restraint by checking its anti-India activities, curbing infiltration across the border, give up its proxy war against India and stop training terrorists. Speaking in Ajmer while on a visit to the Durgah of Sufi saint Khwaja Moinuddin Chisti, Mr. Advani said, the Indian government was waiting and watching to ascertain the truth behind the Pakistani announcement. Defence Minister George Fernandes has also said, a dialogue with Pakistan could begun only if it genuinely stop influx of terrorists and firing across the border. Negotiations are not related only to stopping of firing from across the border, he told newsmen in Bangalore.

Pakistan which has denied there was any motive to make a propaganda issue of its offer exercise maximum restraint along the Line of Control, has played down India’s refusal to discuss Kashmir with Pakistan. Gen. Musharraf was quoted as saying “we are still waiting for a more positive response from higher quarters although the information is that they have rejected the call”. He maintained that the doors for talks with India were still open despite New Delhi’s rejection of the formulation suggested by his government.

Within hours of the Indian spokesman rejecting the idea of tripartite talks, Pakistan foreign Secretary Inamul Haq expressed disappointment. He said Islamabad had expected a more positive response by India to the initiative taken by Pakistan. Describing Pakistan’s declaration as a window of opportunity, he said the ball was now in India’s court and it would be securely held responsible if the opportunity was lost. In interviews with CNN and BBC, Pakistan Foreign Minister Abdul Sattar urged India to enter into tripartite talks to resolve the Kashmir dispute the before the end of Ramzan ceasefire on December 27. He dismissed the suggestion that Pakistan had ordered maximum restraint on the LoC under pressure from international community and said the decision had been taken after a thorough review. In another interview with the Indian English Daily, Hindu Mr. Sattar asked India to come up with its own ideas to resolve the Kashmir conflict if the formulation put forth by Pakistan was not acceptable.

Pakistan has meanwhile given green signal to the Hurriyat Conference to go ahead and talk peace with India to pave the way for tripartite talks. The Hurriyat Conference leaders have reasons to the happy with Pakistan’s statement as for the first time Islamabad have acknowledged the APHC as relevant to a resolution of the Kashmir issue. Its chiefs Mr. Bhat said, Hurriyat was prepared to participate enthusiastically in any comprehensive peace process. He thinks that the Prime Minister has to follow up his Ramzan ceasefire initiative with much bigger steps so to create an impression that the past has been buried and the future is being built on a firm solid basis. Mr. Bhatt’s expectation is the government to take the next big step by releasing prisoners, allowing the Hurriyat leadership to travel to Pakistan and to permit political activity freely in Jammu and Kashmir. Those officials who deal with Jammu and Kashmir are inclined to believe that the Centre would have no difficulty in constructively engaging the Hurriyat leaders provided they gave indication of disengaging themselves from Pakistan.

The Hurriyat Conference Chief Abdul Gani Bhatt along with another senior Hurriyat leader Mirwaiz Omar Farooq flew into New Delhi on December 3 where JKLF chairman Yasin Malik was already camping. They had a meeting with Pakistan High Commissioner in addition to establishing contacts with several intermediaries between the Hurriyat and government of India. Omar Farooq has described Pakistan’s response of exercising restraint along the LoC as “positive and encouraging development” which, he said can be used to create to conducive atmosphere for initiating peace talks. The Hurriyat Conference Chief Abdul Gani Batt has gone to the extent of predicting that the Kashmir dispute was on the verge of settlement. He denied that Hurriyat has withdrawn support to Mr. Vajpayee’s ceasefire announcement. Welcoming Pakistan’s offer of maximum restraint, he asked New Delhi to initiate dialogue involving Pakistan to settle the Kashmir dispute. Another senior APHC leader Abdul Ghani Lone, who is still camping in Islamabad after the marriage of his son with the daughter of Amanullah Khan, said announcement of restraint by Pakistan following India’s ceasefire offer has now put the ball in India’s court whether it is sincere in resolving the Kashmir dispute or not.

Militant outfits reject Ramzan ceasefire

While politicians are divided in their response to the Ramzan ceasefire, the armed groups seem to be united in rejecting it. The past two weeks have no doubt seen a significant decline in the overall violence, but the militants have managed to register their presence by targeting security forces.

From day one, the militants in the Valley have been rejecting the ceasefire as “mere eye wash” and an effort by the Union Government to sabotage the “Freedom struggle”. Apart from the Hizbul Mujahideen, which stunned everyone in July with the announcement of a shortlived ceasefire, the rest of the outfits are essentially pan-Islamic having a worldwide network. To them the month of Ramzan is sacred for waging a Jehad [holy war]. “Most of the wars in Islam have been fought in this month and the militants believe that getting killed in Ramzan will be more rewarding”, said a University teacher.

Organisations such as the Harkatul Mujahideen, the Lashkar-e-Toiba and the Jaish-e-Mohammed [JeM] have not only rejected the ceasefire offer but also taken in to the positive response of the All-Party Hurriyat Conference [APHC].

The Pakistan-based most powerful militant outfit, the Hizbul Mujahideen, which has said it has not yet outrightly rejected the Ramzan ceasefire, has however, threatened to continue attacks unless India meets three conditions, including the inclusion of Islamabad in the tripartite talks. Hizbe spokesman, Salim Hashmi said, besides accepting Pakistan as “natural party” to Kashmir dispute “two other conditions were : a reduction in the presence of Indian troops in Kashmir and release of Kashmiri leaders detained in Indian jails”. Lashing out at the Hurriyat Conference for its hasty welcome of Mr. Vajpayee’s ceasefire announcement, the Hizbe spokesman recalled that when Hizbe announced a similar ceasefire on July 24, it was subjected to a storm of criticism by the Hurriyat leaders. Hizb-ul Mujahideen has sought US guarantees that New Delhi will not betray after reaching any pact if the talks are held.

Another militant group, the Lashkar-e-Toiba, has not only rejected Pakistan’s ceasefire but also cautioned the military government against the possibility of getting caught in the Indian track.

In the APHC itself, opinion is divided. The hardliners lee by the Jamat-e-Islami leader, Syed Ali Geelani, insist that the Union Government should accept Kashmir as a dispute first. Though Mr. Geelani prefers to be called a “realist” rather than hardliner, he says, “no solution on Kashmir is acceptable within the purview of the Indian Constitution even if it is thrown up at a trilateral negotiations.” Prof. Abdul Gani Butt, Mr. Yasin Malik, Mirwaiz Umar Farooq and Mr. Abdul Gani Lone have gone ahead in expressing their readiness to enter into a dialogue particularly after Pakistan asked India o start bilateral negotiations with the APHC in the first phase.

The United States has on the other hand, welcomed Pakistan’s response to Vajpayee’s ceasefire offer. State Department spokesman described it as an important compliment to the suspension of military operations announced by the Vajpayee government. He said it was certainly a welcome development in the region.

At home, while the BJP chief, Bangaru Lakshman has said that Indo-Pak reconciliation was possible only if the latter stopped pipe-dreaming about Kashmir, the opposition parties particularly the Left and the Congress view the Pakistani offer of maximum restraint as a “positive development” which could be used to start parallel talks with Pakistan. The Left and the Congress feel that along with informal contacts with militant groups in the valley, the government should make attempts to start parallel talks with Pakistan at some level. Former Foreign Minister Natwar Singh, who is heading the Foreign Affairs Cell in the Congress party led by Mrs. Sonia Gandhi said Pakistan’s offer is to be welcomed and we should look at it within unprejudiced mind. The CPI General Secretary Mr. Ab. Bardhan, saw in the Pakistan response the process of inching forward towards talks. The CPIM leader Prakash Karat was of the view that at some level talks with Pakistan would have to begun. Jammu and Kashmir Chief Minister, Dr. Farooq Abdullah, who described Pakistan’s decisions to stop firing on border as a positive and welcome change, said any final settlement of the Kashmir problem will have to be around the Line of Control.

A noted expert on terrorism and counter insurgency, Rohan Gunaratna, has said India will have to negotiate with Pakistan on the Kashmir issue sooner or latter as it has reached the limit of what he called “military options”. Delivering a lecture on “Emerging trends in South Asian terrorism” organised by the Institute for Conflict Management in New Delhi, he said, the recent attempts to negotiate peace with certain militant organisations in Kashmir will fail. India, he said, should negotiate with Pakistan which directly or indirectly controls insurgency in Kashmir.

Two initiatives - an assessment

Political observers in New Delhi feel, Islamabad’s announcement of maximum restraint will not signal a real change in the ground situation in Jammu and Kashmir even if Pakistan genuinely exercises restraint on the LoC unless it is backed by a ceasefire by the militant groups, especially those manned by Pakistanis, and financed and trained by Islamabad. Not even the most naive observers accept Pakistan’s propaganda that militancy operates autonomously and that it has little control over the terrorist groups that are wreaking havoc in Jammu and Kashmir. It is clear that the United Jihad Council a conglomerate of extremist groups for instance, cannot continue its tirade against India without the support and acquiescence of powers that lie at the heart of the Pakistan’s establishment. Recall also that Pakistan has, several times in the past, made declarations of intent that have rarely lead to a real change in policy. In any case, Islamabad is bound by bilateral agreements signed over the last three decades in Tashkent, Simla and Lahore to respect the LoC, and explicitly committed itself to exercising restraint in the Washington communique of 1999.

Under the circumstances, observers say, India must respond with characteristic caution to Pakistan’s latest declaration. New Delhi must reiterate that a resumption of a dialogue will be possible only once all the three conditions that it has spelt out repeatedly are met. First, there must be a de-escalation of the tension along the LoC. Although Islamabad’s announcement suggests that this may have started, India’s armed forces too must certify that this has indeed happened. Second, there has to be a significant reduction in the infiltration of militants into Jammu and Kashmir. This can only happen when Pakistan takes steps to not let its armed forces provide logistical support to militants, and begins a process of closing down of training camps. Finally, Pakistan must end its support to cross border terrorism.

Although Gen. Musharraf will be under intense pressure from the international community, particularly President Bill Clinton, to lend a helping hand for the success of the Vajpayee initiative, it would not be easy for him to oblige. The ground realities in his country appear to be far too complex to let him act positively. For one, Gen Musharraf was not only the architect of the Kargil misadventure but also came to power at the head of the group of Generals opposed to the peace process initiated by Mr Vajpayee and the then Pakistani Prime minister Nawaz sharif through their Lahore statement. For another, as reported by Arif Bhat in the August 9 issue of the Pakistani weekly “Takbeer”, it is no secret that there are two lobbies in Gen.Musharraf’s government that are engaged in a struggle to dominate each other. One of these lobbies is against the government’s stand on militancy, both in Kashmir and Afghanistan, as also on the Osama bin Laden problem, and wants to either eliminate it or confine it. The other lobby is in a favour of giving more and more strength to militancy.

While the Pakistan Chief Executive Officer Gen Pervez Musharraf, is himself in favour of ceasefire, majority of the Corps Commanders and religious parties like Jamaat-ul-Ulema-Islam (JUI) and Jamaat-e-Islami (JI) are reportedly angry at this sudden about turn by the Government of Gen Musharraf. They have raised the issue that over 70,000 Pakistanis have sacrificed their lives in the last 10 years for the Kashmir cause. And they are asking if we are going to discuss the ceasefire offer then w happens to their cause and sacrifice. Diplomatic sources underline the fact that accept that cautious positive response from the Hizb-ul-Mujahideen, none of the top militant leadership have endorsed the Musharraf Government’s stand.

Diplomatic sources in Delhi feel that since July offer by Hiz-ul-Mujahideen had a tacit approval by Gen Musharraf Government and was sabotaged by the United Jehad Council, the same story can be repeated now. Since August this year both JI and JUI have been consistently criticising Musharraf Government as “spineless, directionless and government that failed to achieve agenda even partially”. It is well-known secret that JUI and JI are patronized by a section of Pakistani Armed Forces and they coming out publicly against Gen Musharraf clearly indicate that the disenchantment among the Corps Commanders in the Pak Army with Gen Musharraf has started.

The anti-Musharraf army commanders do not want a settlement with India because their reason d’etre is based on stocking the fires of differences. Kashmir is their cat’s paw, which they use to keep India on tenterhooks. Cross-border militancy is one method, Kargil was a bigger operation with the same purpose in view. But Musharraf and his military junta also know that India can absorb all this, not only because it has more resources but also because it has a firmer belief insetting the Kashmir issue peacefully. Yet Islamabad has used violence, again and again, to solve the problem. AT Tashkent, following the 1965 war, Pakistan promised not to resort to arms to settle disputes with New Delhi. At Shimla again, Islamabad gave an undertaking not to alter the Line of Control (loC)” unilaterally, irrespective of mutual differences and legal interpretations”. Still it is fact that Pakistan has trained, armed and sheltered those who came from the Valley. Islamabad also encouraged foreign mercenaries from Afghanistan and beyond to fight in Kashmir. Before Musharraf, is was proxy war, now it is jihad. How can Kashmir or any problem between India and Pakistan be settled when the present rulers at Islamabad are imbued with such motives?

The infighting between the two lobbies in the military naturally makes it difficult for General Musharraf to dismount the fundamentalist tiger he rode to power. Particularly because the hawks reportedly include senior army generals and have widespread influence among the fierce fighting tribes of Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK). Not only that. Another factor that inhibits the anti-militancy lobby is the immense clout the fundamentalist jehadis enjoy throughout the country, particularly in he largest province of Punjab. Cadre-based Jamaat Islami and Jamiutual Ulemai Islam (JUD), who were not only behind the militant organisations like the Taliban, Lashkare Tayyaba, Al Badr and Harkatul-Mujahideen, but are well entrenched in Punjab and the NWFP. The reach of these organisations its made easier by the prevalence of what has come to be called the Kalashnikov culture in Pakistan.

A peace process in Kashmir, however, cannot be based on such tenuous factors. There have, of course, been reports about differences even among the Hizb leaders about their response to the Vajpayee initiative and about going it along in the teeth of opposition by the All-Party Hurriyat Conference (APHC). This may give the Vajpayee Government a tactical advantage to isolate the non-Kashmiri terrorist groups like Lashkare Tayyaba, Al Badr and Harkatul Mujahideen, and push them out of the state and strive for a deal with the Hizb leaders. This could be followed by engaging Pakistan and striving for a negotiated settlement with the country.

Such a policy, however, could succeed only if Pakistan cooperated by firmly holding back Lashkar, Al Badr, Harakat and other foreign-based terrorists from entering Kashmir from across the LoC. That appears highly unlikely just yet, particularly with such leaders as former APHC chief Syed Ali Shah Geelani calling the shots. The APHC as also the terrorist groups are sharply divided over their response to the Vajpayee initiative. And the Pakistan government apparently is in no position to either help units them or make a meaningful positive response on its own. Hence the difficulty about identifying the other party to make the next move in response to the bold Vajpayee gambit.

One, therefore, wonders if the Vajpayee Government has drawn the right lessons from the failure of the earlier Hizbul Mujahideen initiative. The talks then floundered on the rock of the Hizb’s insistence to include Pakistan as a party to the talks, which New Delhi could not accept. What followed was a massacre of over 100 people. Things do not once to have changed much since.

India News Online » News Analysis » Indian Subcontinent »