India News Online » News Analysis » Indian Politics » 

Kashmir : Positive indicators

	June 18, 2001

Expectations have been building up over the next month’s summit meeting between Prime Minister Vajpayee and Gen. Musharraf. Positive indicators have been coming from the Pakistani side as well as from Hurriyat leaders. The Government of India has acknowledged these signals, but no chances are being taken to allow anybody to vitiate the atmosphere. The decision to detain two senior leaders of the All Party Hurriyat Conference, Prof. Abdul Gani Bhat and Syed Ali Shah Geelani is to be seen in this light. The Hurriyat leaders had given a call that the Friday namaz (prayers) at every mosque in the Kashmir Valley should be followed by a denunciation of “desecration” of mosques by security forces.

The Hurriyat’s decision to denounce the state “repression” was a response to pro-active role the security forces have embarked upon against the militants since the termination of the ceasefire. The security forces have not been deterred by the militants’ strategy to use mosque as hideouts. The Unified Command Headquarters has already warned the militants that they would not be allowed to misuse mosques to attack the security forces. The tough no-nonsense approach has restored the morale of the security forces who have gunned down almost one hundred militants in the month of June alone.



Hurriyat : seeking to be relevant

Earlier on June 10, the Hurriyat, reiterating its full support to the India-Pakistan summit, had decided to stop for the time being its “organised people’s movement” against the “atrocities” of the state. Even the pro-Pakistan Hurriyat leader, Syed Geelani criticised jehadi groups which spread hatred against India through their incendiary rhetoric saying it was un-Islamic to malign a people or a country. This was virtually an endorsement of Gen. Musharraf’s recent statement criticising Pakistan’s Islamic clergy for their anti-India propaganda.

Significantly, Abdul Majid Dar, chief commander of the Hizbul Mujahideen has also said that “if the talks can lead to a respectable and peaceful settlement, why should one stick to the gun” ? Dar had declared a ceasefire last July that was retracted by the Hizbul’s supreme commander Salahuddin from Pakistan.

Differences soon arose between hardliners and moderates at the 70-member executive committee meeting of the APHC on June 14. The meeting which discussed Kashmir situation was inconclusive. The APHC chairman, Prof. Bhat, said : “We have to chalk out our future strategy because we do not feel ourselves irrelevant to the political situation that has emerged after Mr. Vajpayee invited Gen. Musharraf for talks to Delhi.”

Syed Geelani announced his opposition to the statement that the Hurriyat has postponed its stir. Prof. Bhat was at pains explaining that by postponing the agitation he did not mean that the APHC had suspended its political movement. Earlier, Syed Geelani had rejected all possible solutions to the Kashmir issue within the ambit of the Indian constitution. He warned that if Pakistan agrees to India’s overtures, it will be responsible for weakening the “will” of the Kashmiri people and their “justified struggle for self-determination.” “Internal autonomy, easing tension at the borders, converting the LoC into international border and shifting of power base are solutions. We reject such moves because these overtures will not solve the 53 year old dispute.” Hurriyat executive member, Mirwaiz Umar Farooq had recently said that autonomy for the region could mark a good beginning in breaking the ice over the dispute.

There is obvious confusion in the ranks of the Hurriyat. But the media has generally welcomed its overture to suspend its protest plan. The feeling is that after Mr. Vajpayee’s decision to invite Pakistan’s Chief Executive for bilateral talks, the separatist umbrella outfit could not be seen as pursuing any activity that would vitiate the atmosphere. After all, such a direct engagement with Pakistan has been one of the major planks of its political platform; that, in the process, the Hurriyat found itself outmanoeuvred by the Vajpayee regime is a different matter. Another motivating factor could be pressure from the peace-craving people of the State and, perhaps, also the palpably positive signals from the official Pakistan establishment in the ‘summit’ context.

The Hurriyat cannot cut itself from the peace process. The organisation has to show to the people that it is part of the process, if not of talks. Calling off all forms of stir is its way of claiming it. It has also quietly dropped the idea of seeking an appointment with the visiting Pakistan military leader. It would be content to present a memorandum listing whatever it wants to list. It is ironical that in the tortuous course of the decades-old Kashmir problem the Hurriyat has not been able to carve out a role for itself. The silent rebuke it earned from Mr K.C. Pant says it all. Equally meaningful is the admission of the Hizbul leader, Abdul Majid Dar, that violence will end once there is progress in Indo-Pak talks. It is noteworthy that he does not link restoring peace in the valley to a final solution to the J & K problem.



Elections in Kashmir ?

The state of Jammu and Kashmir is bustling with political activity with almost all parties planning big events, especially in the Jammu region. Observers notice pre-poll fever ever since Chief Minister Farooq Abdullah and his son, Omar Abdullah, who is the Union Minister of State for Commerce, asked the people and political parties to get ready for an early Assembly polls. Omar Abdullah has, in fact, challenged the APHC to prove its representative character by participating in the coming elections. The Hurriyat has said it is ready to contest elections if held under the supervision of international observers. Even Shabir Shah’s Democratic Freedom Party has said it is prepared to contest elections if they are held under the direct supervision of SAARC. Shah is a prominent Kashmiri separatist leader who recently held talks with the Indian Government’s chief negotiator, K.C. Pant.

The Hurriyat Conference offer to contest elections in Jammu and Kashmir under international supervision has been turned down by Home Minister L.K. Advani. But analyst Neerja Choudhary sees two implications of the Hurriyat move. On the face of it, the 23-party conglomerate has indicated a willingness to test its popularity through the electoral process. So far the Hurriyat had been steadfast in its intent to boycott elections. Its leaders earlier also refused to talk to the government’s interlocutor in Kashmir, K.C. Pant, and one of the grounds cited was his refusal to deem them the real representatives of the people of J&K.

The Hurriyat’s offer throws up a fundamental question. Any person who contests elections has to swear by the Constitution of India, and does so under oath. Does this mean that the Hurriyat is inching towards acceptance of a solution to the Kashmir problem within the Indian Constitution? The Hurriyat will have to clarify its position.

However, if the Hurriyat makes a break from the past, the Government, the analyst says, should consider the second aspect of its demand: that there be international supervision of the polls. The Hurriyat’s stated concern to ensure a free and fair election in Jammu and Kashmir will attract overwhelming sympathy and support of the people of India.



A meaningful and fair solution

There is a strong view that Pakistan policy makers are obsessed with only Muslims of the valley. As things stand today, Kashmir lies dissected in five separate segments. One is the Valley and its surrounding areas, the focal point of the dispute. Second is Jammu and its nearby regions. Third is Ladakh. Fourth is Pakistan Occupied Kashmir (PoK). Fifth is the Aksai Chin area that was ceded to China by Pakistan. The total area of all these segments is 222,236 square kilometres. Pakistan occupies 78114 square kilometres (35.1 per cent). China has in her possession the balance 19.2 per cent, or 5180 square kilometres. India has only 45.7 per cent of the total territory. It is clear from this geographical data that there cannot be a lasting solution to the Kashmir issue if only a particular fragment of the dispute, blown up by vested interests, were to be resolved. The real issue is far wider and more complicated than what successive governments both in India and Pakistan have been harping about since 1947.

The Valley is not Kashmir. It is only a part, a small part, of the State called Jammu and Kashmir. There are equally needy, impoverished, and ambitious people living in Ladakh and Jammu also. Their demands should also be heard.

And times have changed. In the late 1980s or early 1990s, nearly everybody in the Kashmir valley had fallen foul of India, whatever the reasons, and had turned a votary of Pakistan. That, for most Pakistanis, confirmed the simple, or simplistic, logic that Muslims would always vote for Muslims, and hence, the demand for a plebiscite, which had been relatively dormant for many years, witnessed a strong revival. Most Pakistanis robustly hoped and most Indians secretly feared that in the event of a plebiscite, the whole of Kashmir might go to Pakistan.

But the reality does not always follow a simplistic logic; many latent factors intervene. As the border between India and Pakistan was for a long time a soft border, Kashmiris from India kept going to Pakistan-held Kashmir and saw for themselves that India had been investing a good deal in Kashmir, though not enough, and that this had raised the economic levels perceptively. They also noticed that Pakistan had not made it its business to invest in its side of Kashmir (and the Northern areas) and hence, the levels of living there were awfully depressing. The visiting Kashmiris also observed that while the state under India’s control had a rough-and-ready democracy, Pakistan was in the grip of dictatorship.

The conclusions were too obvious. The most positive proof of this aversion to a link with Pakistan is that there is no migration of Kashmiris from the Valley to Pakistan-held Kashmir. Consequently, the Hurriyat, the torch-bearer of affiliation with Pakistan, has lost ground heavily and has declined to a weak position, with virtually no influence in the Valley.

The alternative idea of an independent Kashmiri state, which had many followers on the Pakistani side, had virtually no takers on the Indian side. In a kind of a survey conducted by A. M. Khusro and some others with all shades of opinion, they found not a single respondent advocating or even initiating a reference to an independent Kashmir. It was clear that the Kashmiris on the Indian side had, for good reasons, reconciled themselves to an Indian linkage and had discarded the other options. And the most glaring expression to this reconciliation was the two State Assembly elections in which the Indian Kashmiris had participated with more than a 50 per cent turn-out on each occasion. Of course, the declared and undeclared linkage with India was conditional upon the Central Government removing the various grudges and grumbles which they had.

These grudges as summed up by A.M. Khusro are: (a) Why doesn’t the Government of India promote autonomy for the State? (b) Why aren’t counter-guarantees given by the Central government to hydroelectric projects which would benefit other parts of India as well as Kashmir? (c) Why is the size of the Indian Army in Kashmir not reduced substantially? (d) Why are the numerous bunkers in towns and cities not removed to soothe public opinion? (e) Why do the Indian Army and paramilitary forces continue to be as insensitive, and arrogant even after the installation of a democratic and popular government as they were when terrorism and foreign incursions into Kashmir were the order of the day? (f) Why can’t the more than 1,50,000 unemployed people in the Valley be employed partly within the Valley and largely in public enterprises and other avenues in the rest of the country, in the manner of Tamils, Biharis, Maharashtrians etc.?



Advani vs Vajpayee

Home Minister L.K. Advani presided over a Cabinet meeting for the first time on June 14. Although the agenda was just to finalise the date for the commencement of the Monsoon session of Parliament, it sets to rest any doubts that Mr. Advani is the official No. 2 at the Centre.

Ever since Mr. Vajpayee became Prime Minister, speculation about a possible rift between him and Mr. Advani has persisted. Credited as being the man who built the BJP to its present stature, Mr. Advani has always been the organisation man, while Mr. Vajpayee is the acceptable-to-allies face of the party. Mr. Advani has also been seen as more in touch with the RSS hierarchy than Mr. Vajpayee.

Several reports had hinted earlier that former Defence Minister George Fernandes was No. 2 in the Government, particularly because he was the NDA convener. Mr. Advani’s supporters were uncomfortable with the situation and the Prime Minister did nothing to settle the issue. The uncertainty persisted during the Prime Minister’s first knee surgery in May last year. That time he did not nominate any cabinet colleague to preside over meetings in his absence. This time the Cabinet Secretary has issued an order to the effect that “urgent matters required to be disposed of at the Cabinet or Cabinet committees may be placed at the meetings to be presided over by Advani.” Things changed considerably particularly after the Tehelka expose. With Fernandes out of the Government, there is none among the NDA partners to claim the No. 2 slot. The only competitor within the BJP would have been Mr. Jaswant Singh. The development further clarifies that there is no immediate move to make the Home Minister Deputy Prime Minister also.



Prime Minister loses out

There is no surprise that Mr. L. K. Advani has been made number two in the Union Cabinet. In fact, analysts feel it is a bit late. A person, who built the BJP from scratch after parting company with the Janata in 1979, should have got his due when the party came to power more than three years ago. What is disconcerting, at least to analysts like Kuldip Nayar, is that Mr. Advani has got the position at a time when the Prime Minister has taken the initiative to build bridges with Pakistan.

Mr. Advani may not be a hawk but he is a hardliner who believes in the pro-active policy which neither Mr. Vajpayee nor the situation permits. The number two position will give Mr. Advani a niche from where he can ensure that Mr. Vajpayee does not go too far during his talks with Gen. Musharraf to accommodate Pakistan. Mr. Vajpayee’s image is better than any Indian leader has ever enjoyed in Pakistan. Till today his sting as the External Affairs Minister from 1977 to 1979 is remembered by the Pakistanis as the “golden period” of their relations with India.

Obviously, Mr. Vajpayee was under pressure. The RSS, the BJP’s mentor, has been working for the second-in-command position for Mr. Advani for a long time. His views tally with those of the RSS. The reason why Mr. Vajpayee did not designate him number two earlier, not even when he went for the first knee surgery, is the battering which his image has got in the recent past. True, he is still considered the most acceptable in the saffronised set-up that the BJP has. Yet, Mr. Vajpayee’s tendency to “compromise” and to let the RSS elements have their way has made him look weak and tentative. He is a “pale copy” of what he was some time ago.

The PMO is his Achille’s heel. It once stayed away from controversies but it is now in the public eye. Mr. Vajpayee has reduced the visibility of the PMO. But it is still considered too powerful. The number two position of Mr. Advani, the RSS believes, will balance the authority concentrated at the PMO.

Unfortunately, Mr. Vajpayee’s two closest colleagues, the External Affairs Minister, Mr. Jaswant Singh and the Minister for Parliamentary Affairs, Mr. Pramod Mahajan, have been of little help. The first, a clean man, does not mix much with people within or outside the BJP. His style of functioning evokes the royal-like awe, not popularity which Mr. Vajpayee needs. Mr. Mahajan is the worst PR man the Prime Minister could have. He scares away MPs by rubbing them on the wrong side, some through his abrasive manners and some through the imposition of his prejudices or preferences.

The Finance Minister, Mr. Yashwant Sinha, could have given Mr. Vajpayee the much-needed leeway if he had proved through the functioning of the economy that the reforms were the best way out for India to go forward. His budgets have evoked a positive response but they have been non- starters. India’s economic position has been sliding in the last three years. In such a situation, the RSS could have asked the Prime Minister to pay the price for not stoking fires of Swadeshi. Mr. Advani’s elevation was the minimum.

But all is not negative for the Prime Minister. The manner in which the political scene has developed at the Centre, the NDA constituents are more at the BJP’s mercy than the other way round. One can see the humiliation which Ms. Mamata Banerjee of the Trinamul Congress is going through to rejoin the NDA Government.

This scenario is to the advantage of Mr. Advani. At one time, it was discussed whether the NDA would stay together after Mr. Vajpayee. Now Advani’s number two position is the BJP’s answer. So far there is not even a whimper from powerful State leaders like Mr. Chandrababu Naidu of Andhra Pradesh. It is evident that power is the glue, not the liberalism of Mr. Vajpayee.

However, the number two position gives Mr. Advani a status, not acceptability. He has many hurdles to cross and the main one is that he has to live down his image.

Mr Advani may have become the second most important politician in the BJP and the NDA but Mr Vajpayee is still No 1, albeit with reduced influence. Indian polity has undergone significant changes during the eight months since Mr. Vajpayee had his first knee surgery at Breach Candy Hospital. Last October he had entered the hospital as an all-powerful leader who had successfully warded off all challenges to him whether from the allies, the party or the parivar (family of RSS). But soon after the surgery, he had suffered a series of setbacks which have left him considerably weaker. He had to repeatedly compromise on what he thought prime ministerial powers. He had to shunt out his trusted aides under duress. The powers of his most dependable aide were cut short to please his party and parivar detractors.

Later under a forced compromise, Mr. Vajpayee had to devolve much of control he had earlier exercised on party matters to others. After the Tehelka expose and the poll debacle, Mr. Advani became more active both in the party and on crucial government decisions. Unlike the skyjack fiasco during which the country’s Home Minister was totally kept out, now he is at the centre-stage of the Kashmir strategy. Thus it was expected that in the changed scenario, Advani would be assigned the crucial role when the Prime Minister recuperates in the hospital. But this is not the end of the day for Vajpayee as he seems to reassert, time and again, that he would not like any senior colleague to share his prime ministerial responsibilities - whether on holiday or the operation table.

And one of the key responsibilities of a Prime Minister is to select his cabinet. The long promised Cabinet reshuffle is yet to materialise in view of various pulls and pressures. Take the case of George Fernandes. Every one knows that a reshuffle without him will be inviting troubles. Humiliated and without work, his party has already demanded his immediate reinstallation in the Defence Ministry. The Samata camp sees red in the speed with which Jaswant Singh is signing orders and agreements on defence. It is even alleged that he had reversed his predecessor’s proposals, and in some cases, forced a fait accompli so that Fernandes will be compelled to follow the decisions if he returns.

Vajpayee is the one genuinely keen on the early return of Fernandes. This is for two reasons. First, he thinks Fernandes is a unifying force and has tremendous capacity to troubleshoot and bring round recalcitrant allies. Second, he is a counter-balance to those seeking special status within the Cabinet and the NDA. After the exit of Fernandes, Vajpayee has been forced to depend more on those like L.K. Advani and Jaswant Singh.

The two leaders firmly believe that Vajpayee’s own integrity will suffer if he succumbs to the pressure to include Fernandes in the ministry before he is cleared by the Tehelka probe panel. The commission will begin day-to-day hearing only from July 2. This means it will be left with just 21 days to complete the work before the monsoon session begins on July 23. Thus Vajpayee will have either to reshuffle his Cabinet without Fernandes or put off the move altogether which itself will upset the calculations of other power aspirants.

Then there is the Mamata Banerjee problem. She had quit on the Tehelka bribery issue. If she or other Trinamul nominees were allowed in, it apparently means she has relented on the charges against Fernandes as well. This is the rationale for the simultaneous entry of both. Apart from this, the BJP finds itself sharply divided on the Mamata issue. The state BJP leaders are against her entry as she had betrayed the NDA at the crucial moment.

The UP Assembly elections will also have linkages with a Cabinet reshuffle. A badly shaken BJP is desperately wooing Rashtriya Lok Dal (RLD) leader, Ajit Singh, for an alliance in western UP. By this the BJP hopes to get a dozen MLAs. As price, Ajit Singh is asking for the Agriculture Ministry at the Centre, formation of a separate Harit Pradesh carved out of UP and a reasonable share of seats in the election. However, Haryana Chief Minister, Om Prakash Chautala, an NDA ally, strongly objects to the entry of his rival Jat. Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister, Chandrababu Naidu, too has warned against the formation of new states.

In UP, the Loktantrik Congress Party (LCP), a major ally of the government, has threatened to walk out if Ajit Singh is brought in. The LCP may or may not finally relent. But Vajpayee will have to take extra care not to push Ajit Singh into the Congress side in the wake of this desperately fought election in UP. A controversy is also raging about the ministership for the state BJP President Kalraj Mishra. There are also serious pressures from other allies for more berths and better portfolios.

Then Vajpayee has to pacify the claimants from his own party. Two days before he entered the hospital, Vajpayee had to face the ire of his ministers of state who have been neglected by the senior ministers. Some of them have alleged that they were totally “jobless”. The NDA’s poor performance in the recent elections and erosion of Vajpayee’s authority will make the exercise all the more tough.