India News Online » News Analysis » Indian Politics » 

Kashmir : No sharp fall in infiltration

	January 28, 2002

Despite Pakistan claims that it is cracking down on militant outfits and checking their movement into Indian territory, there is no let-up in counter-insurgency operations. According to the Chief of Army Staff, Gen. S Padmanabhan, the anti-terrorism operations in Jammu and Kashmir would be intensified further. The aim is to see that terrorists are put out of action wherever and whenever they may be encountered, he said. However, at the same time concerted military-civic action will also be undertaken to wean away the people from militancy. He said during winter, due to snowfall in the upper reaches of Jammu and Kashmir, terrorists tend to gravitate towards populated centres like the Jammu region and the lower reaches of the State. The Army intends to deny them this avenue of escape from the rigours of winter.

Further counter-infiltration was being strengthened and force multipliers like electronic devices were being deployed, the Army Chief said. Fencing along the international border should also help in counter-infiltration, he added.

The three Service chiefs, General S Padmanabhan, Air Chief Marshal S Krishnaswamy and Admiral Madhvendra Singh, also told a Parliamentary committee that the situation on the ground did not indicate any drop in infiltration of terrorists from Pakistan. The Service Chiefs gave a detailed audio-visual presentation on the situation on the Indo-Pak border during a meeting of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Defence presided over by its new Chairman Madan Lal Khurana.

The meeting lasted more than two hours during which the Service chiefs explained in detail the build-up of Pakistani troops in various sectors particularly the areas in India which could be threatened in case of any conflict.

Home Minister Advani has, in the meanwhile, stated that it would take at least “a couple of months” to judge whether there had been any let-up in cross-border terrorism.

“At the moment, the decision is that the present situation will continue,” Advani commented when asked if India would pull back troops massed on the border.

Advani also went before a RSS forum to convey to the West that it should never entertain any hope of India discussing with Pakistan the issue of finality of merger of Jammu and Kashmir with it. If Kashmir is to be treated as a dispute between India and Pakistan, there will be a domino effect in India. As far as India is concerned, Kashmir is an integral part of India, symbolising the unity of the country, he emphasised. Advani said there was no question of New Delhi ever discussing with Pakistan the issue of Kashmir’s merger with India. Kashmir’s accession to India was approved by the Provincial Assembly, which represented the people of the State and under the Constitution, he pointed out. It was seen as a categorical assurance from the Government to the RSS hawks, and intended to remove their misgivings, if any, about New Delhi buckling under international pressure.

The RSS’ worry is that the United States may eventually get New Delhi and Islamabad to sit down for talks on Kashmir if Washington succeeds in ending cross-border terrorism. Further, New Delhi has been repeatedly saying that it was ready to discuss all issues with Pakistan, including the Kashmir issue, if terrorism in Kashmir and the rest of India, directed from Pakistan, is stopped.



Need to solve problem

Does India want the Kashmir problem to be solved ? There may be some who may believe that there is no pressure on India to resolve the issue and that it can outlast Pakistan which, unable to sustain the burden for long, will eventually have to give in and abandon its ambitions in respect of Kashmir. This is an unrealistic assumption, feels Chinmaya R. Gharekhan, former Permanent Representative of India to the United Nations.

Without a solution of the Kashmir problem, India and the whole South Asian region will not enjoy peace and attain the levels of prosperity which should be within our reach. Prime Minister Vajpayee, in his “Musings from Kumarakom” last year, succinctly described the compulsions for working towards a solution of the Kashmir problem. Additionally, the loss of about 60,000 lives should be mentioned. No effort should be spared to find a solution.

Many analysts in India are convinced that Pakistan is not really interested in a solution of the Kashmir question. The argument is that Pakistan can sustain the low intensity, low cost proxy war almost indefinitely, causing India to bleed economically and in human lives, besides putting it on the defensive internationally on allegations of human rights violations, etc. This argument may or may not be valid, but it is irrelevant for India’s decision-makers. The relevant question is whether India wants a solution; if Pakistan does not, let it be so exposed.

It would be meaningless to State that India desires a solution if, at the same time, insist that it has to be entirely on its terms. That would be as unproductive as for Pakistan to declare its readiness for a solution on the basis of our handing over the entire Valley. To say that the only dispute is in respect of Pakistan’s illegal occupation of a part of Indian territory, while legally correct, is not of any help in finding a practical and political solution.

If Pervez Musharraf’s proclaimed stand against the jehadis is sincere and successful, it will greatly contribute to implementing programmes of good governance and economic development in Kashmir. But the basic problem would still have to be solved. Vajpayee, in his Musings, said : “In our search for a lasting solution to the Kashmir problem... we shall not traverse solely on the beaten track of the past.” It is significant that this is the only paragraph from the Musings that he has reproduced in his New Year message this year. It seems that he not only has the desire but also the commendable ambition to resolve the Kashmir imbroglio.

Musharraf is holding the Prime Minister to what he said at the Kathmandu SAARC meet about jettisoning historical mindsets and baggage. What new avenue is available? Which piece of old baggage can be got rid of?

One possibility is to discard the mantra of exclusive bilateralism. It is extremely unlikely that bilateral talks, if and when held, by themselves can yield a solution. Help by a third party can make a crucial contribution to breaking the stalemate. Bilateralism should not be allowed to become a dogma closing all doors to a rapprochement. The advantage of third party facilitation is that it gives the parties to the conflict the possibility of sounding out the other side before making a proposal and of disowning it, should the need arise. Politically, it would be suicidal for either side to make a formal offer to settle the issue on the basis of the LoC. One must not worry too much about drawing a fine distinction between good offices and mediation. For the exercise to have any chance of success, the line between good offices and mediation will have to be kept blurred. For political reasons, “facilitation” might best fill the bill.

As so many have pointed out, the U.S. is already heavily involved in the affairs of the subcontinent. Both India and Pakistan have sought an American role in support of their agendas. The people, at least in India, have raised no voice in protest or even unhappiness at this development. In fact, the only complaint of Indians has been that the Americans have not put enough pressure, on behalf of India, on Pakistan.This does not mean we have to blindly trust America. Ronald Reagan was fond of quoting, in the context of arms control, a Russian saying: “trust, but verify”. Our line could be: “verify, and trust as necessary”.

There are basically two, possibly three, parties to the Kashmir conflict - India, Pakistan and perhaps the Kashmiri people. There is no scope for a solution unless all three are persuaded to give up their illusions. India’s illusions will have to be defined by others. Pakistan’s illusion was, and perhaps still is, that India, being a soft State, will not be able to withstand the onslaughts launched in the form of proxy war, and/or that, by successfully internationalising the issue, India would be compelled by the international community to agree to a plebiscite or to tripartite negotiations.

As for the people of Kashmir; they are the worst victims of illusions. They were made to believe by Pakistan that India did not have the staying power, that the international community would compel India to agree to implement the U.N. resolutions, and so on. It has not been explained to them that the U.N. resolutions in any case provided for only two choices - to go with India or Pakistan; there was no mention of the so-called third option of independence. The Kashmiris should have no illusion that Pakistan will ever give up PoK or that India will give up the Valley, whatever the cost. A third party can play a most useful role in disabusing the three parties of their illusions.

Nearly all sensible people in India have come to accept that an eventual resolution of the Kashmir problem will have to evolve around transforming the LoC into some kind of a permanent border, much like what Nehru had envisaged 50 years ago. It seems that a few intellectuals in Pakistan also have realised that this is the only possible solution. . . Musharraf declared in his speech on January 12 that he wants a peaceful solution of the Kashmir problem. Since he has quoted with approval. Vajpayee’s statement in Kathmandu about jettisoning historical mindsets and baggage, he too must be presumed to be ready to try out new possibilities.



Defeating terrorism through democracy

In his first public pronouncement after Secretary of State Colin Powell left Islamabad, Musharraf, in his address to the Muslim clerics, argued that “we should adopt the middle path” between ultra-modern westernisation and radical Islam. Coming from the architect of the Kargil war and the man who rubbished the Lahore Declaration, this is indeed a path-breaking move.

At the same time the long marginalised Hurriyat is reportedly trying to persuade militant groups to declare a ceasefire. This would be a welcome initial step in restoring peace in a tortured State, wracked by jehadi terrorism for the past 13 years. The main casualty of that violence has been not just innocent citizens, but the traditions and culture of Kashmiriyat. The State which had been rapidly moving up on the human development index during the previous two decades, suffered serious setbacks, especially in human terms. Abjuring violence is a long overdue initiative that the Hurriyat should have taken ages ago; but it should still be welcome if it places the militant political leaders on the side fighting terrorism.

While attention is focused on the electoral processes in UP and Punjab, one needs to think of the elections in Jammu and Kashmir, which would follow in a few months. At the same time it is clear that India, and for that matter even the US, would continue to monitor the progress Pakistan makes along the newly promised middle path. Prudence would demand that the military mobilisation on the borders would stay in place well into the summer, when the real impact of promised policies on infiltration and terrorism will start to become clearer.

At the same time, the political process in the State must now seek to firmly establish the democratic principle and a polity that can look forward to bringing peace, reconciliation and reconstruction in the State. The Hurriyat must play a responsible role in this project if it has to be relevant in the future as a dissenting entity to the existing political parties. We have seen separatist groups and leaders wedded to the violent path return to the middle path and democratic politics in the Northeast. The Hurriyat has the opportunity of the century to shift gears and we would urge that it should not waste any more time in chasing mirages.

The Indian government, both at the Centre and in the State, has responsibilities to discharge in shaping the political process without overly trying to do more of the same. The world would start to take a renewed interest in the political process in J&K and, in some ways, Indian democracy would be under global scrutiny like it has never been before. This throws up fresh challenges as well as new opportunities, not the least of which is to demonstrate the resilience and validity of the great Indian experiment of giving shape to the democratic principle. Democratic countries may be the most vulnerable to terrorist violence as the events of the past indicate; but there is little doubt that democratic practice is also the ultimate instrument to defeat terrorism.



Can devolution of power resolve the tangle?

Although there is nothing new in L.K. Advani’s comment about the granting of more powers to Kashmir, it is bound to arouse more than the usual interest in the present context when attention is again focused on the State. The Home Minister has also said that Kashmir’s history called for a greater devolution of powers. Analysts feel that coming as they do from a perceived hardliner of a party which favours the abrogation of Article 370, these observations are of significance.

In the aftermath of the Prime Minister’s call for a “fair” elections in Kashmir and the interest which sections of the Hurriyat have shown in participating in them, the importance of Advani’s request to the authorities in Srinagar to identify the areas where they wanted to exercise greater powers cannot be denied. True, he has categorically ruled out any return to the pre-1953 status with its provisions for designating the chief minister as prime minister, permitting the State to have a separate emblem and so on. Even if a demand on these lines was made by the J&K Assembly in 1999, it was seen as something of a bargaining ploy by the ruling National Conference, intended to secure the political high ground vis-a-vis the Hurriyat.

In fact, the resolution was adopted by the Assembly soon after the Centre had released several Hurriyat leaders from jail with the objective of reopening a dialogue with them. Anyway, it is clear enough that no one even then could have seriously contemplated turning the clock back by nearly half a century. However, what can be considered, as Advani has pointed out, is an expansion of the federal arrangement in line with the concept of increasing decentralisation.

It is an idea which has the support of several of the BJP’s allies such as the Akali Dal and the DMK. Indeed, both have occasionally underlined their preference for a system where the Centre will be in charge of only Defence, External affairs and Communications. The rest will be under the jurisdiction of the states. Such a system may not be on the anvil at present, but there is little doubt that if and when a genuine devolution of powers takes place in Kashmir, the other States will not be far behind in demanding similar privileges for themselves. However, in the event of a gradual return to normality in Kashmir and the holding of elections, the move for decentralisation is bound to gather pace.



Steps that can possibly lead to peace

Even as Pakistan insists that it wants to talk about Kashmir before anything else and India reiterates that there must be clear evidence that cross-border terrorism has ended, one thing is clear—some steps have to be taken to reduce tension and ensure peace.

What are the measures that can bring about a resolution of the Kashmir problem? There are five possible solutions that can achieve this. These are -

* LoC as international border: The Line of Control was negotiated between India and Pakistan after the Bangladesh liberation war in 1971. Broadly the agreement signed in Simla on July 2, 1972, enjoins on both sides to respect the LoC, without prejudice to their respective positions on the status of Jammu and Kashmir. But any suggestion of accepting the LoC as international border is totally opposed by Pakistan as well the separatist groups operating in J&K, The Pakistanis see in the idea a complete pro-India bias.

* Plebiscite: While this does not find many takers in India, it is welcomed by Pakistan and parties in Kashmir, which see nothing wrong in the concept.

* Independent Kashmir: There are many inherent problems in this. Both India and Pakistan may have to give up all of Kashmir in their possession, In fact PoK is more integrated into Pakistan’s politic than the Kashmir areas in India’s possession. This can be possible only when both India and Pakistan guarantee that they won’t interfere in is internal affairs.

* Trifurcation: Dividing the State into Jammu, Kashmir and Ladakh on the ground that the three regions have separate cultural and religious identities—The Hindus of Jammu, the Muslims of Kashmir and the Buddhists of Ladakh has some takers. This has been actively promoted by a section of BJP leadership as a way out of the current mess.

* Autonomy: This is favoured by Chief Minister Farooq Abdullah, though negatived by the Centre which is ready for devolution of power. The J&K assembly had even passed a resolution for restoring the pre-1953 status to the State but it has not found favour with the Central Government. At present, autonomy, under the constitutional framework, seems the best bet to meet the aspirations of the people. This will also deter the militants from exploiting the sense of alienation and neglect.



Two NC leaders escape attack

Two National Conference leaders, including a former legislator, escaped unhurt when militants attacked their houses in Baramulla district in Kashmir last week.Heavily-armed militants first fired two rifle grenades on houses of NC leader and former member of the Legislative Assembly Ghulam Mohiuddin and his close associate Ghulam Rasool Khan.

The militants attacked the houses of NC functionaries after they came to know that the two had organised a meeting of party activists in connection with coming Assembly elections in the State.

Meanwhile, the police repulsed militant attacks on two of their pickets set up for protection of minority communities in south Kashmir. Two militants fired at a police picket in Anantnag district’s Qazigund area.