India News Online » News Analysis » Indian Politics » 

Kashmir : Musharraf message falls short of India’s expectations

	January 14, 2002

Addressing the nation in probably the most important speech of his career, Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf has announced the banning of two major outfits-Lashkar Toiba and Jaish-e-Mohammad, but ruled out the handing over of their leaders or all those who figure in the most wanted list of 20 given to Islamabad. In his much awaited address to the nation, Musharraf more or less stuck to his known views, but a radical departure was that he admitted that violence in Kashmir were acts of terrorism. Earlier, he had always referred to the unrest in Jammu and Kashmir as “freedom struggle.” He has once again reiterated that the Kashmir issue had to be resolved peacefully thorough dialogue in accordance with the wishes of the Kashmiri people and the UN resolution.

That Pakistan will continue to meddle in Kashmir was clear from his statement that “Kashmir runs in our blood and no Pakistani can snap ties with it.” He stated that Pakistan will continue to provide moral, political and diplomatic support to Kashmir. But he sought to distance himself from the terrorist outfits by warning that no organization will be allowed to indulge in terrorism in the name of Kashmir. In a ploy to involve third party mediation on the Kashmir issue, Musharraf wanted the international community to play an active part in solving the dispute. This was in keeping with his recent line welcoming any move by the US to send an envoy to talk to both India and Pakistan for talks on Kashmir. India has firmly ruled out any other country attempting a mediation on the issue. Musharraf, in fact, cracked down on the fundamentalist, religious and sectarian outfits that spew hatred on India as well as the “madrassas” (religious schools) where brainwashing is done to the young to support a jehad against India.



Official reaction by India guarded

India’s reaction has been that of cautious optimism. While welcoming the statement of intent, the foreign minister Jaswant Singh has made it clear that the General’s words will be judged by his actions. The government of India has noted positively his non reference to the struggle of Kashmiri as a freedom struggle, the banning of the two militant organisations responsible for the attack on India’s Parliament, and the statement that Pakistan will not be allowed to be used as a base for terrorist activity. But the foreign minister said that the true test for the President’s new approach to Kashmir will be whether the cross border terrorism stops, whether infiltration across the line of control stops and whether the writ of the Pakistani government runs in curbing the activities of the militant organisations within the country. Observers have noted that has not yet banned Kashmiri militant organisations like the Hizbul Mujahideen operating from Paksitan. This is one of the biggest Kashmiri organisation that has a substantial number of mercenaries, including Pakistanis, in its cadre. The organisation has some of the closest links with the Pakistani army and its intelligence agency, the ISI.

In a statement on the possibility of talks with Pakistan, the foreign minister said that they can be held on all issues, including on Jammu and Kashmir, under the Simla accord, if progress is visible on ground. Third party mediation has been rejected once again by India.

India has always maintained that Musharraf will be judged by his actions and not by his assurances. That holds good whether it is the arrest of leaders of the terrorist groups or what legal action is taken against them. The banned outfits could surface in some other name in the Valley and Pakistan can easily absolve itself of any blame. The same goes for either funds or arms supplied to the jehadi groups through the ISI network. Despite brave words, analysts do not believe that Musharraf will totally abandon the cause of the militants in Jammu and Kashmir. Pakistan rejected terrorism in all its forms and manifestations, he said adding it will not allow its territory to be used for any terrorist activity.

Political observers were of the view that considering the media hype that surrounded the Musharraf address, he should have gone more for a positive response from India. For instance, noted defence expert K. Subrahmanyam felt that if Musharraf was serious about tackling extremism afflicting Pakistan, which he termed as a disease, and succeeds in purging his nation of terrorism, the Kashmir problem will be automatically solved. Observers note that the ban on LeT and Jaish has come too late as the outfits have already changed their identities and relocated their offices. Musharraf’s resolve to continue to extend political and diplomatic support to Kashmir, was not much different from his earlier backing for the militants’ activities in the Valley. His demand for proof against the extremists wanted by India and ruling out the handing over of any Pakistani to India could mean that India cannot expect any speedy action on the issue. Chances are that the wanted men could even disappear by that time. Besides the Pakistanis in the list, there are criminals like Dawood Ibrahim, Tiger Mammon, Chotta Shakeel wanted for Mumbai serial bomb blasts and some Khalistani terrorists. Observers of Musharraf style of working feel it will be quite easy for the Pakistan President to go into hiding or even leave the country. It may be recalled that just before the Agra Summit, Dawood was asked to leave Karachi where he has a palatial house, to go to Dubai. As far as India is concerned even the handing over of the non-Pakistanis to India would go a long way in easing the current tension along the border.

Musharraf has certainly yielded some ground, it is felt in Delhi’s political circles. His personal appeal to Prime Minister Vajpayee to find a negotiated settlement of the Kashmir dispute in accordance with the wishes of the Kashmir people will make the Indian Government rethink on the general mistrust of Islamabad’s intentions. The ban on LeT and Jaish could be interpreted as his response to India’s anger at cross-border terrorism. New Delhi is carefully analyzing the General’s speech for a suitable response, taking care not to give the impression to Washington, that India was being too obstinate and unmindful of a collision course in dealing with Pakistan. It is no longer possible for India to maintain that there could be no talks on Kashmir as the State was an integral part of the country and its status inviolable.



Dangers of a spurt in Valley violence

What’s the future of separatist violence in Jammu and Kashmir following Musharraf’s clear warning to militants operating from Pakistan? Is there a chance of attacks on security forces and civilians coming down or in a bid to keep up the mission of a separate Kashmir, the militants will get more active? Observers are of the opinion that notwithstanding the Musharraf denunciation of terrorism as a way to solve the Kashmir dispute, it will not be easy for the militants to abjure violence. To justify their cause, it is likely that attacks by the different outfits may go up. It has to be remembered that after their ouster from Afghanistan, many of the Taliban fighters had taken refuge in Pakistan and will soon sneak into Kashmir. The gun culture that the Taliban had been inculcated with cannot be wished away and the Kashmiri outfits would welcome them for attacks on security forces or target vital installations. The J&K assembly has been the favourite target of militants leading to many casualties. Flush with sophisticated arms, it will not be easy for the different outfits that operate in Kashmir to suddenly give up their way of life.

While the immediate effect of the shift in Musharraf stand could be more daring strikes in the Valley and a fall in the recruitment of Kashmiri boys by the outfits, in the long-term Hurriyat moderators could emerge stronger. The Lashkar in its first reaction has warned it was not worried about the ban and will step up suicide attacks. The danger is unless there is a de=escalation of tension on border, a rash and daring attack by either the Lashkar or Jaish could precipitate matters. A war could change the focus. For the militants know, in the long run, it is nor possible to survive without the covert support from the rulers in Islamabad.

Lashkar runs a small radio from PoK, while the leadership of both Jaish and LeT control their Kashmiri operations though a very strong communication network. This is likely to be severely affected. LeT has commented that the “holy war in Kashmir will continue.” The most interesting aspect of Musharraf’s speech has been his silence on indigenous Kashmiri groups like the Hizbul Mujahideen. This group is the only one which has both the infrastructure and support base inside Kashmir and Pakistan to sustain the militant movement. Hizbul was solely responsible for keeping the militant movement alive during the mid-90 s when militancy was on the verge of collapse under sever pressure from security forces. This was when the jehadi forces were introduced. There is one big question. What will happen to the Kashmir activists of these banned jehadi groups, especially as there are more than 2500 Kashmir boys who have joined their ranks in the past one year alone? They might join the Hizbul and return to Kashmir as part of an indigenous outfit. Although a staunch pro-Pak group Hizbul is not as radical as LeT or Jaish . Its agenda does not transcend the “right to self-determination” to Jehad and it does believe in dialogue as a means to resolution of the Kashmir dispute. The Hizbul did attempt to initiate a peace process with New Delhi in August 2000 when it declared a unilateral ceasefire but was forced to abandon it after jehadi outfits opposed it -violently.

Musharraf’s speech could also lead to realignments in separatist politics. Many will ask if Kashmir is not jehad, what is it? The first fallout will be on the All -Party Hurriyat Conference where pro-Pak Islamists have always enjoyed an upper hand thanks to support from jehadi groups and the Pak establishment. Now, when Musharraf has declared himself an enemy of the jehadis, the power balance inside Hurriyat will shift towards the moderates.



Pervez , the tactician

In a manner typical of him, he has tried to carry conviction to India and the rest of the international community that his determination to act against terrorism in all its manifestations was a definitive change of policy and not just a change of posture. At the same time, he has sought to ensure his own survival in power by reassuring his people that his denunciation of religious extremism and terrorism did not indicate a change of his country’s J& K policy.

It must be said to his credit that no other Pakistani leader, political or military, had ever condemned the activities of religious extremist and sectarian parties and highlighted their devastating effect on the Pakistani State and society in such strong terms as he did. It did require some courage. So far as India is concerned, his speech only partly met the concerns of New Delhi. He banned the Jaish-e-Mohammad and the Lashkar-e-Toiba, but attributed the ban to their activities inside Pakistan and not to their acts of terrorism in India. He has spared the Harkat-ul-Mujahideen (HUM), which, of all the organisations, has the largest following in the Pakistani Arm and had close links with the Taliban and Al Qaida. Similarly, he has spared the Al Badr, another Pakistani organisation active in J&K, and was silent on the activities of Kashmiri organisations such as the Hizbul Mujahideen from Pakistani territory.

On the terrorists wanted by India, he has taken the traditional Pakistani position that while Pakistan would try Pakistani nationals under its own laws provided credible evidence was forthcoming, it would be willing to consider the extradition of non-Pakistanis if they are found in Pakistani territory. Significantly, he did not try to justify jehad in J&K as he had done in the past and refrained from referring to acts of terrorism in J&K as acts of resistance to Indian occupation. Of course, he condemned India’s alleged state terrorism in J&K and called for an active role by UN observers and international human rights organisations. While it was not a positive speech from the point of view of India, it was not a totally negative statement either.

His long address was not only meant for the religious and fundamentalist groups that had contributed to a large extent in Pakistan being brought under the US terrorism-scanner. But also at India and the Western nations, notably the US and UK. He freely mixed Hindi, Urdu and even English words to make it clear to his audience everywhere. The tough talk to the sectarian outfits as well as those using mosques and madrassas for misusing the teachings of Islam may not be to the liking of the religious leaders who have been accusing Musharraf of playing into the US hands, but certainly sent the right signals to the West of his serious intent to combat terrorism in Pakistani soil. It is another matter why he did not choose to act against them all these months, if he was aware of their activities which were detrimental to the country’s interests.

It must be admitted that Musharraf has succeeded in pushing the ball in India’s court. Now New Delhi’s reaction and moves will be watched with interest in the US, where Home Minister L.K. Advani is currently on a visit. Though it will be tempting for India to dismiss Musharraf’s speech as of little significance to the current tension between the two nations, the Prime Minister has to play his cards carefully. Coming so soon after the surprise handshake at Kathmandu’s SAARC summit, Musharraf has placed the onus of a matching gesture on Prime Minister Vajpayee.



Reactions

Hurriyat leader Syed Ali Geelani was happy that Musharraf did not change Pakistan’s long-standing policy on Kashmir. Geelani said Musharraf had reiterated his political, diplomatic and moral support to “our movement.” Shabir Shah another separatist leader said Musharraf had represented their case in an honest and upright manner.

Among, the Indian parties, the BJP commented Musharraf’s televised address has failed to respond to the feelings of Indians after the December 13 attack on Parliament. Referring to Musharraf’s refusal to hand over Pakistani citizens included in the list of 20 terrorists wanted by India, BJP spokesman Sunil Shastri said: “He (Musharraf) has not said anything which can satisfy the feelings of Indians after the December 13 attack.”

Pakistan, he said, should hand over immediately all the terrorists wanted by India “irrespective of their nationality.” “Terrorists are terrorists. They do not have any citizenship or nationality,” Shastri added. Asked about the ban imposed on Jaish-e-Mohammad and Lashkar-e-Toiba, the BJP leader said, merely imposing a ban has no meaning. These outfits have to be completely curbed and finished.

The Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP), sticking to its Hindutva ideology, said India should take a cue from Musharraf’s speech and regulate the establishment and functioning of mosques and madrassas in the country. “Musharraf’s speech should be an eye opener for the country. He has explained how mosques and madrassas are misused. Our governments too should take similar regulatory steps,” VHP senior vice-president Acharya Giriraj Kishore said. He expressed hope that Musharraf’s action will certainly prove helpful in checking violence both within Pakistan and outside. He, however, demanded that Pakistan should hand over all the terrorists wanted by India.



Seizing the opportunity

What effect the speech of President Musharraf has on the politics of Jammu and Kashmir remains to be seen. But even if the President is serious in implementing what he has pronounced, it will take some time for the effect to be visible on ground. One day after the Presidents’s speech two Islamic militants of Dutch origin are reported to have made a suicide attack on a Border Security Force (BSF) post. Carrying knives, they injured one soldier before they were both killed. There are unconfirmed reports that they were perhaps members of the Al Qaeda.

Such attempts are yet another reminder that the Kashmir problem is far from being even addressed. It also underlines the unsentimental reality that nothing that has happened on September 11 or October 1 or December 13 overrides the obligation to explore peace and reconciliation in Kashmir. Nor does that obligation become any less obligatory just because of India’s new willingness to use the threat of force against Pakistan. Nor would the requirement to seek peace and reconciliation become any less relevant even if we do manage to get the better of Pakistan in a short or long military confrontation.

To be fair, the Vajpayee establishment has, in the last two years, exhibited a remarkable willingness to travel away from the “beaten path” to explore the possibility of bringing a measure of peace and civility to Jammu and Kashmir. Even in his latest New Year reflections, the Prime Minister had reiterated his commitment to “search for a lasting solution to the Kashmir problem, both in its external and internal dimensions”. What needs to be noted is that Vajpayee has not used the provocation of December 13 to renege on that commitment.

The onus, according to analyst Harish Khare, in the days and months to come, would primarily be on the leaders of the “Kashmiri movement” to break out of their own paradigm of victimhood. After the December 13 outrage, the Kashmiri “leaders” should have no doubt on two counts: (1) whatever the so-called “historic commitment” to the “people of Kashmir”, the idiom of violence will not yield results as long as India remains a democratic, pluralistic and inclusive polity; nor is Pakistan ever going to be in a position to tilt the balance of violence so unfavourably against India that New Delhi will have no choice but to pack its bags from the Kashmir Valley; (2) Pakistan’s use of terrorism as an instrument of state policy has run its course. If Islamabad persists in this decade-long folly, the cost would be borne primarily by the people of Kashmir. Therefore, it is willfully unwise for the “Kashmiri leaders” to continue to believe that somehow Pakistan can create conditions that will force New Delhi to recognise the force of “separatist” movement.

Only New Delhi and a democratic India can cut a “deal” on Kashmir. Because only a democratic India can have the collective self - assurance to concede that “militancy” was a response to an indifferent kleptocracy that ruled in Srinagar. The Kashmiri helplessness was further aggravated by the inability as well as unwillingness of the “mainstream” political opinion in the rest of the country to recognise, leave alone correct, the excesses of the Abdullah dynasty. A democratic India can empathise with the alienation and anger that the people of Kashmir feel towards the inefficient and corrupt governance that the National Conference provides. A democratic India can acknowledge and accommodate demands made in the name of “Kashmiri nationalism” within the framework of a creative federal structure. At the same time, democratic India can, will and must insist that those who insist on anointing themselves as “leaders” give evidence of their own interest in good governance and ethnic plurality. It is a sad fact that none of the “leaders” who claim to speak in the name of the “oppressed” people of Kashmir can withstand a close scrutiny. Yet the deficiencies of these leaders are not sufficient reason to deny the harsh realities of alienation and separatist sentiment among a segment of the citizens in Jammu and Kashmir.

After December 13, it should be abundantly clear to the Shabir Shahs and the Abdul Gani Lones and the Syed Geelanis that they have to give up their tired and frayed shibboleths and pretensions. The idiom of the gun has outlived its historic usefulness; while it has helped unfreeze frozen perceptions and persuasions, the gun has created new anger and new resentments. The Hurriyat Conference leaders have the option of allowing themselves to be continuously manipulated by their pay-masters from across the border; they also have the excuse to remain captive to the “excesses of security forces” mantra. But they also owe it to the people of Kashmir to break away from their self-hypnotising formulations. They have been shown the way by Pervez Musharraf, who, under blatant arms-twisting from Washington, declared one fine morning that all those who spoke in the name of Islamic fundamentalism represented only a very small minority of public opinion in Pakistan. This is the argument Dr. Abdullah has been making about the Hurriyat Conference crowd all these years. It is now for the Hurriyat Conference leaders to prove their democratic credentials in a democratic exercise under the watchful international eye. Only after demonstrating their willingness to get their acceptability ascertained can the Kashmiri leaders explore the accommodative possibilities of the Indian experiment. The true test of leadership is to understand what is workable and what is not.



Farooq Abdullah’s game

Jammu and Kashmir Chief Minister Farooq Abdullah speaking recently on television, showed his nationalism to the hilt. “Fight or perish” was his theme throughout. In other words, he was sending the message to the public that enough is enough. Be ready to fight. This was before his reaction to the speech of President Musharraf in which he welcomed Pakistan’s resolve to fight extremism on its soil. Farooq felt that if terrorism and fundamentalism was curbed by Islamabad by cracking down on the extremist outfits, violence in Jammu and Kashmir too would come down.

Coming back to his earlier statement, why is Abdullah adopting such a line? According to political analyst Kalyani Shankar, both India and Pakistan are on the same global coalition to fight terrorism. Abdullah has ruled the State for six years now, and elections are round the corner. He does not have much to show on the ground as he has himself admitted. On the contrary, the situation of late has become worse. There is no progress, militants are running riot, violence is unabated, cross-border terrorism is on the rise, the tourism industry is totally down, people are living in fear and, above all, there are no solutions in sight. The silver lining is that Kashmir has come to be the focus of international attention after the September 11 and December 13 incidents. The US is keeping a direct watch and US Secretary of State Colin Powell is conversing daily with both the Indian and Pakistan leaders, urging restraint.

In this scenario, Abdullah knows he is in the hot seat right now. He has only two options before him. One is to lead his party to the elections and try and win the State back. The second is to move to the national scene. It is said he would like to be made the President or the Vice President of India. Both the posts are falling vacant this year. Occupying Rashtrapati Bhawan or 6 Maulana Azad Road would give him relief from problems of governance. However, the second option depends on various political parties and whether they are willing to support him while the first one depends entirely on himself and his party, the National Conference.

It is not a flattering comment that Prime Minister Vajpayee had to send word to Abdullah to come back from his holiday in London while violence in Kashmir was escalating. No other Chief Minister could have dreamt of holidaying abroad when his State is literally burning. However, that is his own inimitable style of functioning. The BJP, be it the local unit or the national party, is not in a mood to support Abdullah for President or Vice President’s position. The BJP’s allies in the NDA, including the Shiva Sena, are not in his favour either. The Congress-led opposition too would like to push its own candidates. Any way, after Abdullah made public statements on the foreigner issue against Sonia Gandhi, it may be difficult to get her to support him. Under the circumstances, it is unlikely that he may be elevated to either post.

So the other option is to fight and win the State Assembly elections. That is why Abdullah is singing the “let us go for war against Pakistan” line so often. He is doing it effectively too with emotional speeches whenever possible. Home Minister Advani and Defence Minister George Fernandes too are singing the same tune, but with restraint, using ifs and buts. But Abdullah is desperate as he has to address his home constituency first.

Interestingly, for the Centre, there is no option but to support him. There is no other alternative on the horizon. Abdullah’s son, Omar Farooq, is Minister of State for External Affairs. He is shaping up exceedingly well but he needs time to handle a State like Kashmir. The Centre would not like to encourage the Hurriyat leaders to come to power, as it would mean handing over the State to Pakistan. If there are free and fair elections, and if these groups want to contest, they are bound to get some seats. However, Pakistan may not want the Hurriyat to fight elections, as it does not suit its interests. Moreover, it is not a homogenous party as it has various shades of interests.

Between now and September when the J & K Assembly elections are likely to be held, it is going to be a crucial period for the people of the state. If by any chance war breaks out or even a limited war is forced upon the country, then it is the Kashmiris who will be affected more than anyone else. If, on the other hand, Pakistan sees reason and bows down to the pressure of the US and other Western powers, and sits down to talk, then it is a different scenario.

Meanwhile, Prime Minister Vajpayee has hinted about a political package to be given to the Hurriyat on board, but talks have been going nowhere with these militant groups. Deputy Chairman of the Planning Commission K.C. Pant is making efforts to talk to these groups but December 13 has been a serious setback. The PMO too is directly involved in the Kashmir policy. The national political parties have to get ready to face elections. The BJP and the Congress are right now too busy with the Assembly elections in UP, Punjab, Manipur and Uttaranchal. Once these are over, attention would shift towards Kashmir. Any way, none of these parties have much hold except perhaps the Congress.



Behind-the-scenes talks with Hurriyat?

The Centre seems to have reactivated its channels of communication with the separatist All Party Hurriyat Conference. A senior bureaucrat and director of the Lal Bahadur Shastri Academy of Public Administration (Mussoorie) Wajahat Habibullah is reported to have held a series of meetings with the Hurriyat leaders last week. Habib met Hurriyat chairman Abdul Gani Bhat, senior leaders Mohammad Yasin Malik and Abdul Gani Lone separately. He also had a meeting with Democratic Freedom Party chief Shabir Ahmad Shah, in Delhi.

Bhat has confirmed that Habibullah met him and other Hurriyat leaders but as if to underplay the meeting’s significance said there was nothing unusual in it. However, sources close to the amalgam said Hurriyat leaders had told Habib that they were not averse to dialogue but complained to him that the Government of India was not displaying the ‘required’ seriousness and sincerity in holding the dialogue. Hurriyat leaders as well as Shabir Shah are reported to have described the much-hyped Pant mission as ‘farcical’ and aimed at an international audience. The Hurriyat Conference has also formed a team of leaders, who are likely to leave for Delhi in a few days.



Security situation reviewed, no let-up in violence

While the situation on the border remained tense, with the Chief of the Army Staff reiterating that India was quite capable of handling a conflict with Pakistan, Defence Minister George Fernandes reviewed the border situation on a visit to Srinagar. He held talks with senior army officers on the deployment of the troops and the general preparedness. Even as Pakistan shelled Indian positions and there was an exchange of light arms fire along the border in Jammu and Kashmir, 15 persons, including 11 terrorists and one soldier, were killed in different terrorism related incidents in the State. Pakistani troops fired mortar shells on Indian positions in the Poonch and Rajouri areas and exchanged light arms fire in Jammu and Kathua districts along the border

Meanwhile, there was an attempt to blast a security vehicle in Srinagar. A powerful grenade, aimed at the vehicle, missed the target and exploded in the compound of the heavily-guarded J&K High Court in the centre of the city. Security forces killed six Hizbul Mujahideen terrorists during an encounter in Anantnag. In a similar encounter, the forces killed two terrorists belonging to Jaish-e-Mohammad at Kokernag in Anantnag district. One soldier and a civilian were also killed in the encounter. .

In a search operation, one of the two militants holed up in a mosque in Baramulla district was killed and the other surrendered after an encounter with security forces. The encounter followed when security forces surrounded the mosque in which militants fleeing a search operation had taken refuge.

After a series of similar incidents, the authorities had warned last year that they would neutralise any militants using mosques as a place of refuge during encounters with the security forces. The warning came after six militants, holed up in a mosque in southern Kashmir, were killed on June 12 at the end of a 36-hour siege On May 30, three Muslim militants who had barricaded themselves inside a mosque for more than 12 hours following a shootout with Indian security personnel were “allowed” to escape when the army withdrew a police cordon rather than launch an assault. In May 1995, a two-month siege of the Charar-i-Sharif shrine ended with 40 militants escaping. But most of the surrounding town was heavily damaged in a fire, which both sides accused the other of starting. In March 1996, 17 militants were killed after they were forced out of the lakeside Hazratbal Mosque in Srinagar. The militant outfit, Jaish-e-Mohammad, has warned that its next targets will include the Indian Air Force and the Navy besides the army and the paramilitary forces. India has named Jaish militants as being involved in the Dec 13 attack on Parliament complex.