India News Online » News Analysis » Indian Subcontinent » 

Musharraf's visit : Cautious optimism

	July 16, 2001

With both the visiting Pakistan President, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, and Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee keeping their cards close to their chest, it will not be known until the end of the much-hyped Agra Summit, what formulae, if any, they have up their sleeve to launch the negotiation process on the long outstanding Kashmir issue. All that Gen. Musharraf has been repeatedly asserting before he came to New Delhi was that in any dialogue, Kashmir had to be the central and focussed issue. All other issues were peripherals. Although India is not averse to holding talks on Kashmir, it regards Kashmir as one of the many issues which remain to be resolved. For Pakistan, it is Kashmir and other outstanding issues, for India, it is all outstanding issues, including Kashmir. A joint statement, or a possible joint Press conference at the end of their third round of talks on July 16 [India is reportedly not enthusiastic about Gen. Musharraf’s desire for a joint conference] will throw any light whether the two leaders have achieved any breakthrough, or they have made any climbdown from their hard stands for the sake of getting the dialogue going.

At the end of the first day of Agra talks, the official spokesmen of the two countries described the talks as "frank and constructive". It was announced that Gen. Mussuraf has invited Mr. Vajpayee to visit Pakistan and the Indian Prime Minister has accepted the invitation. The two Foreign Ministers, it was decided, will meet to follow up the Agra discussions between the two leaders.

Since the crucial part of the three-day visit of Gen. Musharraf - the summit talks with Mr. Vajpayee - was set apart for Agra, the first day of his visit on July 14 which he spent in New Delhi, was mostly devoted to attending lunch by Prime Minister, tea party by Pakistan envoy and the banquet by the President K.R. Narayanan in addition to some other engagements like meetings with External Affairs and Home Ministers and Opposition leader the Sonia Gandhi, visiting a haveli where he was born, and paying floral tribute to Mahatma Gandhi at his Samadhi at Rajghat. Serious talks on what Gen. Musharraf calls the central and core issue of Kashmir were slated for their two rounds of marathon talks in Agra, the city of Taj Mahal, which was chosen to be the venue of their summit meeting. Two rounds of talks on July 15 will be followed by yet another one on July 16 before Mr. Musharraf visits Ajmer and then on his way back home.

Given their diametrically opposite views on Kashmir, and Gen. Musharraf showing no signs of compromise it seems unlikely that any major breakthrough can be there. Jehadis have already warned Gen. Musharraf “not to fall in Vajpayee’s trap” and Mr. Vajpayee is very cautious of his patriotic image. Even otherwise, in the coalition Government, the BJP is just a senior partner, and also within the Sangh Parivar, there are hardline elements who are not ready to do a deal with Pakistan which would make India making territorial sacrifices.

Gen. Musharraf’s mannerism on the first day of his visit to New Delhi has already turned cautious optimism into cautious pessimism. Gen. Musharraf himself was upset when a junior ranking Minister received him at the airport. Another surprise awaited him when, in a departure from practice, the three Services Chiefs were absent from the President’s banquet at Rashtrapati Bhavan. Usually, according to protocol, one of the three Chiefs represents the other two at formal banquets. However, in this case, all the three were conspicuous by their absence. And in another conspicuous departure from strict protocol requirement, Air Chief Marshal A.Y. Tipnis, Chief of the Air Staff, did not salute the Pakistan President at the ceremonial reception at Rashtrapati Bhavan soon after Gen. Musharraf’s arrival in the morning. He only shook hands with him. As per the rotation principle for ceremonial welcome, the Air Chief Marshal was representing the three Services. An official spokesman later said there was no breach of protocol. A controversy had erupted during the visit of Prime Minister Vajpayee to Lahore in 1999 when it was widely reported that the three Services Chiefs of Pakistan, including Gen. Musharraf, who was then the Army Chief, had refused to come to the Wagah border to greet the visiting Indian leader.

It is also notable that when Mr. Vajpayee crossed the Wagah border on his way to Lahore, the then Prime Minister of Pakistan, Mr. Nawaz Sharif, who was waiting on the other side of the border, locked him in almost a bearhug. This may have been the traditional style of a Punjabi meeting his friend [Sharif is from Punjab while Musharraf is a Mohajir], but then there was nothing wrong if the two leaders had embraced each other.

Several other irritants cropped up in the run-up to Gen. Musharraf’s visit adding sting to the tension. These were the Tea party invitation to Hurriyat leaders, the composition of the Pakistani delegation, which was pruned from sixty plus to just about two dozen and the dismissal of confidence-building moves announced by India as peripheral. What made things worse was Gen. Musharraf’s rejection of the Shimla accord and the Lahore Declaration as not a sound basis for talks in Agra. He later denied that he had repudiated the Simla and Lahore accords and disowned the reports which attributed the Indian invitation to him to US pressure. The Pakistan ruler through a newspaper interview had let it be known that he would not hurt the feelings of India if New Delhi did not like the idea of his meeting Hurriyat leaders and Pakistan High Commissioner Ashraf Jahangir Qazi had told the Foreign Secretary that it would be a touch-and-go handshake encounter rather than a structured meeting behind the curtains. In the end, it was an exclusive thirty-minute one-to-one meeting between the two sides and what demands the Hurriyat made and what offers the General made only these two parties know.

Gen. Musharraf, who landed with his wife, Begum Sehba and a 19-member delegation at about 8.30 in the morning, clad in a white Shervani, was driven to Rashtrapati Bhavan after an overcast sky and steady drizzle had cast doubts on whether the ceremony would have to be held indoors. He inspected a guard of honour and stood in salute as the national anthems of the two countries were played. Gen. Musharraf then set out for his other engagements, including the first informal round of talks with the Prime Minister. He became the first Head of State of Pakistan to place a wreath at the Samadhi of the Father of the Nation at Rajghat where he set the agenda for the Agra Summit by noting that the ideals of peace and non-violence propounded by the Mahatma were now required most for bringing peace to the sub-continent. “Never has the requirement of his ideals been more severely felt than today, especially in the context of Pak-India relations”, wrote Gen. Musharraf, who was presented with a set of books written by Mahatma Gandhi.

The Prime Minister hosted a lunch in honour of Gen. Musharraf at Taj Palace Hotel, which was attended, among others, by Cabinet Ministers, Chief Ministers, leaders of political parties and many other Indian celebrities and film stars. Separately, he met Opposition leaders, including Congress Party chief Sonia Gandhi and held talks with Home Minister L.K. Advani and External Affairs Minister Jaswant Singh. India’s concern over cross-border terrorism and the need for India and Pakistan to agree to an extradition treaty were conveyed by Mr. Advani. He told Gen. Musharraf that India under BJP rule and Pakistan under Musharraf were best suited to discuss Kashmir and the General should seize the opportunity. But, to create the right climate for talks, he must first rein in the Jehadis. He also put forward India’s position categorically that a composite dialogue alone can sort out the problems and the General cannot insist that the resolution of every other issue was contingent upon the resolution of the Kashmir issues.

Responding to Mr. Advani’s demand to extradite the leader of Bombay’s underworld, involved in extortions and wanted in the case of Bombay serial bombings, Gen. Musharraf denied his presence in Pakistan. Dawood, however, is said to be living in Karachi after having fled Dubai after India signed an extradition treaty with the UAE. Gen. Musharraf, however, welcomed India and Pakistan signing an extradition treaty on the lines India has recently signed with Turkey and Germany. Referring to Kashmir, Mr. Advani told Gen. Musharraf that peace should not be held hostage to the resolution of any one pending issue for which a dialogue must on to bridge the gulf.

The External Affairs Minister who had a 20-minute meeting with Gen. Musharraf, in a clear rebuff to his criticism of the Lahore and Simla peace accords, later cautioned against selective rejection of bilateral agreements. Emerging from the meeting, he told newsmen that the two countries needed to keep in touch with what they had learnt in the path of negotiations and dialogue traversed many times earlier.

Pakistan Foreign secretary Inamul Haq however, refuted reports that Gen. Musharraf had repudiated the Lahore and Simla agreements and maintained that his statements had been “misquoted”.

Gen. Musharraf also addressing a group of intellectuals who included former Prime Ministers V.P. Singh and I.K. Gujral, a few retired Generals, former diplomats, academics and journalists regretted the failure of India and Pakistan to build a cooperative relationship in the last five decades.

In an emotional homecoming, Gen. Musharraf, accompanied by his Begum, visited his birth place at Neharwali Haveli in Darya Ganj where he spent the first four years of his life before his father shifted to the newly-created Pakistan after Partition in 1947. On his arrival at the grand old haveli where he did not find the big iron gate he expected to see, he was received by Delhi’s Lt. Governor, Police Chief, the local MP and MLA and some residents of the haveli, including the 90-year-old Anaro Begum, who had served as a domestic help in his family. Gen. Musharraf hugged Anaro, asked her to pray for good relations between the two countries and presented her $200 and a suite. He was shown round the place by the Director of the Delhi Institute of Heritage Research and Management, Prof. Makkhan Lal, who also presented him a report on the haveli detailing its past and present ownership, architectural features and genealogy of the Musharraf family. The present owner of young Musharraf’s house, Mr. Raj Kumar Jain, gifted to the President a silver shield depicting the haveli as it stands today.

Begum Sehba had a separate schedule when Gen. Musharraf was busy holding talks with Indian Ministers. She was taken around Janpath’s Central Cottage Industries Emporium and also spoke at a meeting organized by the Women’s Initiative for Peace in South Asia [WIPSA].

Gen Musharraf, however, could not find time to visit the dargah of Hazrat Nizamuddin Auliya. At many places, Kashmiri Pandits and various political parties and organizations staged sit-ins at Parliament Street and other places carrying slogans “Musharraf go Back”. They demanded that before India enters into talks, Gen. Musharraf should release prisoners of war in Pakistan and stop funding militant activity in India. The Kashmiri Samiti, the nodal agency for the displaced Kashmiris, burnt an effigy of Gen. Musharraf and also sat on a day-long dharna at Jantar Mantar.

A day after Gen. Musharraf reportedly criticized the Simla Accord and the Lahore process, President Narayanan asked the two countries to build up the agreement to open a new chapter in their relations. Speaking at banquet he held in honour of Gen. Musharraf, he expressed the hope that Agra talks would initiate a “structured dialogue” that would lead to lasting friendship between New Delhi and Islamabad. He set out two broad themes which should anchor such ties. First, the relationship should be defined by an economic agenda which also encompasses other South Asian countries under the framework of SAARC. Second, he said, friendship between India and Pakistan should be based on secular and democratic principles. The President recalled India’s secular traditions and said Jinnah himself had stressed the importance of goodwill and tolerance before Pakistan’s Constituent Assembly.

While President Narayanan avoided mentioning Kashmir, Gen. Musharraf said India and Pakistan must be bold enough to face the Kashmir issue squarely and resolve it once and for all to “open a new chapter” of fruitful bilateral relations. Replying to Mr. Narayanan’s banquet speech, Gen. Musharraf said there could be no military solution to this dispute and it could and must be resolved peacefully. Asserting that India and Pakistan must not allow the past to dictate the future, Musharraf said they owed it to their future generations to do their utmost to open a new chapter of goodwill and cooperation. He said the nuclear status imposed new responsibilities on the two countries. They must overcome the burdens of history like other nations have done. Recalling Mohammad Ali Jinnah’s vision of good relations between the two countries, he claimed that the vision is not beyond our grasp. He said he had come to India because he would like to realize the dream of Jinnah. In the same breath, he made fond references to Mahatma Gandhi who, he said, “laid down his life in the cause of non-violence and peaceful coexistence.”

Political observers say the Pakistan General’s speech could not have been better crated to clear the foul air generated by needless pre-summit polemics from either side of the border. He did not compromise on Pakistan’s fundamental stance on Kashmir. But, he drove home the message subtly and with abundant caution. And in the process, he also did, to some extent, endorse New Delhi’s quest for enhanced communications and trade ties between the two neighbours.

The most controversial engagement of Gen. Musharraf was his meeting with a delegation of Hurriyat Conference. Ignoring Indian sensitivities, he went ahead with his meeting with the leaders of All-Party Hurriyat Conference at a “high tea party” hosted by the Pakistan High Commissioner, Ashraf Jahangir Qazi, at his home. In fact, he added to the provocation by setting aside a full half an hour for them, even as two former Indian Prime Ministers, I.K. Gujral and other Opposition leaders waited to meet him. While the ruling NDA boycotted the tea party to in protest, and Congress Party only made a symbolic presence, leaders from parties like Samajwadi Party, and CPIM were present. The Hurriyat leaders later claimed that Gen. Musharraf assured them that as and when negotiations on Kashmir began, at some stage, they will be associated in what is being dubbed as trilateral dialogue, to which India is strongly opposed. Musharraf also reiterated “his full, moral, diplomatic and political support to Kashmiris in their struggle”. Six APHC Executive Committee members led by its chairman, Prof. Abdul Gani Bhatt, met Gen. Musharraf. Another executive member and JKLF chairman, Mr. Yaseen Malik, who is away in London, had announced a boycott of the meeting. Speaking to newsmen later, Mr. Abdul Gani Bhat described the meeting as “good and positive” and said, Gen. Musharraf “understands our point of view well. We are satisfied.” Mirwaiz Maulvi Omar said, Gen. Musharraf agreed that Kashmir was the core issue and a mechanism has to be evolved to involve the people of Kashmir in any solution.

However, according to sources close to the Hurriyat, the meeting between the two was not as successful as the Conference wanted it to be. Sources said, though the General agreed that no decision can be taken without the participation of the Kashmiris, he did not commit himself on many other issues raised by the Hurriyat. The Hurriyat is believed to have discussed the demilitarization of Kashmir apart from the release of Kashmiri youth detained for militant activities.

The APHC leaders, who have been suffering from a massive loss of credibility ever since they decided to stay away from Centre-sponsored talks, were naturally pleased about the assurances from their mentor. In fact, Pakistan hit upon the idea of inviting them to the tea to compensate for its failure to secure a berth for them in the dialogue. Pakistan had maintained all along that any effort to solve the Kashmir dispute must involve the representatives [read Hurriyat] of Kashmir.

Gen. Musharraf continued to harp on the centrality of Kashmir until a day before he left for New Delhi. At a five-hour meeting he chaired with a group of former Foreign Ministers, retired Generals and experts on South Asian affairs, he harped on the theme of “centrality of Kashmir” to improve Indo-Pak ties. Gen. Musharraf reiterated that while he was proceeding to New Delhi with an “open mind”, he was firm in his belief about the centrality of the issue of Kashmir. He once again asserted there would be no compromise on the “principled position” of Pakistan on Kashmir, when he took a meeting of the recently re-constituted National Security Council, the highest decision-making body in the military establishment. He used the opportunity to inform the members of the Council that his view on the need for resolution of the Kashmir dispute had been unanimously endorsed by the cross-section of the Pakistani society. The Online news agency quoted him as saying that delaying a solution to Kashmir will be very dangerous. He said, “Kashmir is the oldest dispute among two countries in the world history and the international community has also neglected it. But, further delay in this regard would be very dangerous”, he said.

It was left for the External Affairs Minister, Mr. Jaswant Singh, to Gen. Musharraf’s Kashmir rhetoric. He told newsmen that India was prepared to talk about Kashmir at the Agra summit, but he said, it would revolve around cross-border terrorism. Almost telling him to forget Kashmir, Mr. Jaswant Singh said, India could never accept Kashmir as a “core issue” in areas of dispute with Pakistan because it was “at the core of India’s nationhood”. He ruled out a referendum on the future of Kashmir. The message to Islamabad was, therefore, simple - a reiteration of India’s known position that the status of Kashmir is not negotiable. “How can I negotiate the Constitution of India?”, Singh said. A plebiscite in Kashmir, therefore, did not arise, he said, adding that the Valley alone is not Kashmir. Outlining India’s approach at the summit talks, Mr. Singh told newsmen that New Delhi had no set of proposals to lay on the table there. He said, at the Agra talks, India would stress on terrorism while discussing Kashmir. It was ready to take up the composite dialogue with Pakistan and improve people-to-people and trade relations with Islamabad.

Earlier, he told Opposition leaders that India would not make any concessions to Pakistan on cutting down its troops in Jammu and Kashmir or rush into a no-war pact if it did not envisage an end to cross-border terrorism.

At its meeting on July 11, the high level Cabinet Committee on Security [CCS] decided to raise the issue of terrorism at the talks if Gen. Musharraf insisted on talking only about Kashmir. It was also decided to have the condemnation of cross-border terrorism included in the joint statement to be issued at the end of the talks. For the inclusion of terrorism in the joint statement, India will cite the precedent of the Lahore declaration where both countries “reaffirmed their condemnation of terrorism in all its forms and manifestations and their determination to combat this menace.”



Dialogue mechanism under consideration

But, what India may be able to negotiate with Pakistan is a joint working group at the ministerial level on Kashmir on the lines of the Jaswant Singh-Strobe Talbott dialogue. Indications to the effect came from the Foreign Ministry spokesman when she said, India was looking to set up a “further dialogue mechanism” which would reflect the “core concerns” of both countries.

India is already committed under recent agreements with Pakistan to discuss the Kashmir issue, along with other problems, at the level of Foreign Secretaries. Gen. Musharraf apparently wants the talks on the Kashmir issue separated from the rest and elevated to a higher political level. Mr. Vajpayee would, on the other hand, expect Gen. Musharraf to give credible assurances on ending Pakistan’s support for cross-border terrorism and begin to put in place the building blocks of a cooperative relationship. India is unlikely to be satisfied with mere words or promises from Gen. Musharraf and would be interested in some kind of a mechanism that would help verify if the Pakistan army is serious about ending its dalliance with the jihadis.



RAW note on Musharraf - “Don’t trust him”

The security and intelligence agencies have, however, warned the Government to beware of Musharraf. According to reports published in the media, in a terse, cogent note, the Intelligence Bureau [IB] informed the Prime Minister’s Office of its assessment that internal compulsions will prevent Gen. Musharraf from making any “concession” on the issue of cross-border terrorism and infiltration. The report said, the clout enjoyed by the jehadi groups in Islamabad are a major hurdle for Gen. Musharraf to open up on other relevant bilateral issues.

In another confidential note submitted to the PMO, RAW has alerted the Government to keep in mind the fact that deception and stealth have all along been the features of Gen. Musharraf. In other words, there should be no misgivings in the government about Gen. Musharraf’s fundamentalist streak, which will ensure that he does not yield to New Delhi’s demand for ending cross-border terrorism. The RAW note also disagrees with the popular interpretation of Gen. Musharraf’s June 6 address to the National Seerat Conference that it signalled a changeover to a more liberal and cooperative attitude towards tackling jehadi elements. RAW says the General’s “admonitions” were directed more towards those indulging in sectarian violence than in cross-border terrorism.

A secret dossier on Gen. Musharraf prepared by IB reveals that he displays traits of ultra-nationalism. Kashmir has been the core issue for him since 1965 when he saw action in the Chawinda sector of Punjab. During the battle, his gun battery was hit by an Indian artillery attack. Gen. Musharraf instead of retreating, off-loaded the ammunition from the burning gun before the fire could ignite. For this act, he was awarded the Imtiaz-e-Sanad. In an interview, he has admitted he was close to death five times in his life. In the Royal College of defence Studies in Britain, the General’s subject was “Arms race in the sub-continent”. He had concluded in his research that all outstanding disputes in Kashmir should be resolved in the Ziaul Haq regime. Gen. Musharraf was handpicked to crush the agitation in PoK. He volunteered to serve in the Special Service group, a commando unit and played a key role in Siachen.



Confidence-building measures

The unilateral confidence-building measures announced by the Prime Minister, Mr. Vajpayee even before waiting for the outcome of the Agra summit, make it clear that he will persevere with his new strategy of engaging Pakistan at many levels irrespective of Pakistan’s response. India’s positive unilateralism towards Pakistan does not expect immediate reciprocal gestures from Islamabad, but they are apparently directly addressed to the people of Pakistan who are fed on anti-India propaganda and are designed to chip away at the deep-seated hostility across the border. Pakistan, however, remains unimpressed by the CBMs and its Foreign Office spokesman said, these should “flow from the summit.” Pakistan views them as a unilateral diplomatic offensive by India aimed at inviting international attention rather than building “a positive atmosphere” for the summit.

In a historic Confidence-Building Measure, India announced on July 9 to lift barriers at specific locations along the Line of Control [LoC] so that Kashmiris living in PoK and those holding Pakistani passports could travel to Jammu and Kashmir. The decision, once implemented, will for the first time in 54 years, permit reunion of Kashmiri families living on either side of the 540 km long LoC. Highly placed sources say, the Government was inclined to open the old Srinagar-Muzaffarabad road for travel. Specifically, Pakistani passport holders may enter Jammu and Kashmir via Chakoti, which is on the other side of, and Uri, which falls on the Indian side of the LoC.

In another significant declaration, Mr. Vajpayee said that the Rajasthan-Sindh rail link would also be restored. According to a statement by the External Affairs Ministry, Munabao, situated in Rajasthan on the Indo-Pak rail map, would be opened up as yet another cross-border transit point. Munabao, which can be reached from the last Pakistani railhead of Khokraphar in Sindh, was open to traffic until the 1965 war.

With the aim of making travel, especially among Indian and Pakistani youth “as simple and easy as possible”, another CBM has been taken to issue visas at the border checkpoints itself. Apart from the proposed new locations, visa would also be issued at the Attari checkpost in Punjab. Besides, vehicles would be made available close to the transit points to the interior areas.

Prime Minister began the announcement of a series of CBMs with the announcement that the Director General of Military Operations [DGMO], Lt. Gen. G.S. Sihota, will be sent to Pakistan to help determine a road map for easing tensions along the Line of Control and the Siachen area. Gen. Musharraf has welcomed the proposal. But, although India wanted to send Gen. Sihota as soon as possible, a word came from Rawalpindi that the visit could take place only after the visit of Gen. Musharraf to India.

Sources in the Government said, the unilateral initiatives were not aimed at drawing attention away from the Kashmir dispute as many in Islamabad suspect. India, sources said, was ready to engage Pakistan in substantive discussions on the Kashmir dispute, but the Government wanted to locate it within a broader conversation between the two leaders on the “entirety of the relationship”.

But, given the perverse geopolitics of the subcontinent, some of India’s gestures may well end up killing - with kindness, i.e. - any prospect of reaching agreement with Pakistan on these issues. New Delhi does not appear to have taken into account other prospect of its gesture being seen by Islamabad as an attempt to pre-determine the focus of the Agra meeting between the two leaders. Indeed, observers say, by going public with the issue in this manner rather than allowing them to flow from the Agra summit, India could even be jeopardizing the possibility of Pakistan agreeing to open up the rail line through Rajasthan and allow border crossings along the LoC.

Already the intelligence and security agencies have not taken kindly to the decision to open the land route to Pakistan and feel it is a populist move but may jeopardize the security of the country as it will facilitate espionage activity at the behest of the ISI. For example, the inflow of passengers between India and Pakistan, according to a rough estimate, is more than one lakh annually. Pakistani passengers who entered India through Samjhauta Express in the last decide did not return and most are suspected to be indulging in espionage.



Agra failure will hurt Musharraf most - US view

Both the US and Russia have hailed the Agra summit. Whereas Russia called it a major move towards revival of dialogue between the States, the State Department spokesman in Washington, Richard Boucher, expressed the hope that the summit would establish “a base of cooperation” to produce a more peaceful and stable situation in South Asia.

But, as the US experts see it, the summit will be a flop if Pakistan harps on Kashmir. Washington’s leading think tanks do not think the Agra summit will produce any dramatic breakthrough. But, as they see it, the summit will mark the beginning of a long process towards building a political consensus on tackling outstanding issues.

South Asia watchers from three reputed bodies got together for a prognosis on the summit. One dominant theme advanced by Dennis Kux of the Woodrow Wilson International Centre was that Pakistan should show a little more flexibility on issues. If it stuck to its single point agenda of Kashmir, the summit would willy-nilly fail. Teresita C. Schaffar of the Centre for Strategic and International Studies expressed the view that India and Pakistan would have no option but to make strategic compromises if they wanted to get any closer towards resolution of the Kashmir tangle. On the other hand, Stephen P. Cohen of the Brookings Institution does not believe that Musharraf and Vajpayee will exchange their fundamental positions on Kashmir. Though they may agree on further talks, there does not appear to be any basis as of now for a long-term negotiation that is not shadowed by the threat of force.

According to a study by the Henry L. Stimson Centre in Washington, a failed summit will do much more damage to Pakistan than Prime Minister Vajpayee. According to this leading US think tank, even if the Agra summit is not successful, the two leaders need to avoid a negative outcome of it. It said, a failed summit would raise questions in India about Vajpayee’s surprise invitation to Musharraf and would also do more damage to Musharraf, compounding his already poor international standing. The Stimson brief said, Musharraf, like Vajpayee, “is quite capable of taking bold risks, as is amply evident from his biography”. But, it argued “dynamic Pakistani Generals who take over the responsibilities of governance usually shy away from subsequent risk taking, having no domestic mandate to pursue major course corrections.”



Kashmir issue : Genesis and resolution

In the wake of the three-day visit of the Pakistan President, General Pervez Musharraf, many formulae to resolve the Kashmir question are making the rounds and the coming days will see a lot of speculation on which of the several longstanding prescriptions will be tried as the panacea for this sub-continental trauma. While one of the formulae, apparently favoured by the Government of India, is to convert the present Line of Control into an international boundary on the occasion of Gen. Musharraf’s visit, two old proposals, one called the Owen-Dixon plan, and another called the Chenab formula, have been revived. Though the Dixon and Chenab formulae pre-date the LoC plan, the last named has around it a unique aura. Unlike Dixon, Chenab and the others, its authors are not academicians attached to western think-tanks, but very home grown. Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto and Mrs. Indira Gandhi, according to legend later confirmed by eyewitnesses, had agreed to divide Jammu and Kashmir along the LoC resulting from the ceasefire of December 17, 1971.

Both sides’ commitment not to alter the LoC unilaterally, irrespective of mutual differences and legal interpretations, was enshrined in the Simla Agreement. The LoC, barring the 1999 Kargil incursions by Pakistan, has remained sacrosanct since 1972. So, in recent years, there has been speculation that notwithstanding their maximalist positions on Kashmir, India and Pakistan should work towards implementing the unwritten sub-text of the Simla Agreement.

The Owen-Dixon plan of 1950, named after the United Nations Representative for India and Pakistan, envisaged a division of Jammu and Kashmiri along communal lines. To India, Pakistan and the Kashmiris, this suggestion is unpalatable. Accepting that would go against the grain of secularism for India. For Pakistan, the Dixon plan offers little. It would be left with only the Muslim majority areas of the Valley and the southern part of Ladakh. The Chenab Formula, offered by a Washington-based think-tank in the 1950s but one that has resurfaced quite frequently over the subsequent decades, suggested a division of Kashmir using the river Chenab as the border. The reputed journalist-MP, Mr. Kuldip Nayyar, has suggested the application of the “Trieste solution”. The ownership of this Central European port city had been contested between Italy and Yugoslavia. After World War II, under United Nations mediation it was agreed to make it an international city offering citizens of both countries equal access.

The PoK-based chairman of the Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Front, Mr. Amanullah Khan, who contrary to Pakistan’s demand for merger of Kashmir into the country, stands for the independence of the State consisting of the two parts under the administration of India and Pakistan, has proposed a formula which he says will re-unite the divided Jammu and Kashmir State in several peaceful faces and then Kashmir will be made a fully independent country, initially for 15 years, with a democratic, federal and non-communal system of government. It will have friendly relations with both India and Pakistan and will not allow its soil to be used against any country. The formula has to be implemented by an 11-member international Kashmir committee to be formed by the UN Secretary-General. The committee will comprise one representative each of the UN, P-5 countries, Germany, Japan, and the OIC and two of the NAM. Fifteen years after reunification, let there be a referendum under UN auspices in which the Kashmiris will determine whether Kashmir should perpetuate its independence or become part of India or Pakistan. The popular verdict has to be accepted by all concerned as a final settlement of the issue and implemented. The biggest advantage of solving the issue as per this formula is that it will not hurt the national egos of India and Pakistan. It will save them from a sense of defeat since neither of them will have to hand over the territory now under their control to the other. Since the formula does not give the part of the Muslim-majority State now under India to Muslim Pakistan, it will not disturb or harm Indian secularism.

As far as the question of converting the Line of Control into a permanent Indo-Pak international boundary is concerned, a military analyst, Brig. V.R.P. Sarathi, says the LoC has practically been serving as the international border since 1971 and India and Pakistan can negotiate and settle for a process of fresh delineation of the borders with adjustments. Each considers some areas/features of strategic/tactical importance as vital for its security, which can be negotiated and agreed upon by senior military commanders from both sides, as was done after the 1971 war.

For a long time tow, India seems to have reconciled to the existing ground reality of the divided Kashmir, and the delineated LoC. India’s acceptance of the LoC despite being in a most advantageous bargaining position after its decisive military victory in the 1971 war with 92,000 prisoners, its return of captured PoK territory after past wars, its self-imposed restraint not to cross the LoC during the Kargil war and the construction of order fence in Jammu and Kashmir along the LoC (similar to border fencing along the International Border in Punjab) are clear indications of our thinking on this issue. India’s occasional claim to PoK appears to be essentially a talking point, and may well be used as a bargaining chip for getting a fair deal in any ultimate settlement of the issue. Hence for India, the conversion of the LoC into an international border should be the minimum acceptable “bottomline” solution. From the Pakistani perspective, this may be resisted as there is nothing more to gain in terms of territory in Kashmir, after all the struggle and the heavy “investment” made so far. Pakistan fails to see the changed circumstances and the existing ground reality as was evident during the Kargil conflict, when not only the US but even China, Pakistan’s “all weather ally”, advised Islamabad to withdraw behind the LoC. Pakistan will harp on the Security Council resolutions on Kashmir but should be made to see the ground reality that the last such resolution was adopted in the UN 44 years ago in 1957, and has not been admitted since then.



Pakistan’s plebiscite trump card

Pakistan is playing her trump card, “self-determination for the people of Kashmir”, self-determination restricted to opting for India or Pakistan, ruling out an independent option for undivided Jammu and Kashmir. For the sake of argument if the independence for Kashmir became an option to be discussed, would Pakistan place its part of Kashmir, including Gilgit and Baltistan (parts of J&K merged into Pakistan despite an adverse ruling of their Supreme Court) and 5,180 sq. km. ceded to China, as negotiable on the conference table. It is highly unlikely and the APHC, and other Kashmir parties should realize that it would only be a matter of time before an “independent J&K” is annexed by Pakistan. Pakistan has recently stated that an independent J&K is not part of the UN resolution. The external “jehadi” forces fighting in J&K are interested not only in expelling India from Kashmir but also in “Islamising” its people, on the Taliban model, regardless of whether or not they desire it. It is highly unlikely that the APHC, and other parties have not given a thought to all these aspects, and if their aim, hidden or otherwise, is to merge with Pakistan, then where is the need in wasting time in “talks” with them. We may as well directly talk to Pakistan.

It is not clear whether Pakistan wants a plebiscite in the entire undivided J&K, or Indian J&K. Pakistan is confident that a plebiscite in undivided J&K would guarantee the merger of the entire State into Pakistan, with its Muslim majority in PoK offsetting the Jammu and Ladakhi dissident votes. In Indian J&K, the Hindu citizens have been driven out of the State by Pak-sponsored terrorism, and are scattered all over India (and abroad) as refugees, and Ladakh is sparsely populated, as against the Muslim domination in the Valley. Unlike Pakistan, the Indian government(s) did not annex parts of disputed J&K, or permit Indians from other parts to migrate into J&K. Hence a plebiscite will be fraud on our people in J&K. Besides, a prerequisite for a plebiscite is the total vacation of Pakistan from PoK, a condition Islamabad has not implemented to date.

Pakistan has been continuously talking about seeking a solution to the Kashmir problem under the UN resolution of August 13, 1948. India’s stand is that the entire State of Jammu and Kashmir - including Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK) - is an integral part of India. The Hurriyat is also depending on the UN resolution, which, in Part C, talks about asserting the will of the people of Jammu and Kashmir to determine the future status of the State. But, according to former Union Minister Vasant Sathe, under the UN resolution certain conditions have to be met, which Pakistan is conveniently ignoring before self-determination is to be conducted.



UN resolutions on Kashmir - an analysis

The UN resolution is in three parts. Part I: Paras A, B,C,D and E deal with the ceasefire agreed upon by both India and Pakistan. Both parties agree to ensure that all forces under their command shall refrain from taking any measures that might augment the military potential of the forces under their control. It makes it clear that this includes all forces organized and unorganized - fighting or participating in hostilities.

Part II: After the implementation of Part I, both parties agree that a truce agreement based on the principles mentioned in this part shall be worked out by both the parties and the UN Commission for India and Pakistan mentioned in the resolution. The important sections of Part II are sub-parts A, B and C. Sub-para A of Para 1 states that the Government of Pakistan has agreed to withdraw its forces from the State of Jammu and Kashmir. Para 2 states that the Government of Pakistan will use its best endeavour to secure the withdrawal of tribesmen and Pakistani nationals from the State of Jammu and Kashmir. Para 3 states that the territory so vacated, pending a final solution shall be administered by the local authorities of Jammu and Kashmir.

In sub-part B, the United Nations resolution states: “(1) When the commission shall have notified the Government of India that the tribesmen and Pakistani nationals....... Have withdrawn, thereby terminating the situation which was represented by the Government of India to the Security Council as having occasioned the presence of Indian forces in the State of Jammu and Kashmir, and further, that the Pakistani forces are being withdrawn from the State of Jammu and Kashmir, the Government of India agrees to begin to withdraw the bulk of its forces from that State in stages to be agreed upon with the Commission.” Thus, it is clear from the specific language that unless steps and conditions are carried out and met, further measures as required by the resolution cannot be taken. “The Government of India and the Government of Pakistan reaffirm their wish that the future stature of the State of Jammu and Kashmir shall be determined in accordance with the will of the people and to that end, upon acceptance of the truce agreement, both governments agree to enter into consultations with the Commission to determine fair and equitable conditions whereby such free expression will be assured”.

During the discussion and correspondence, the UN Commission for India and Pakistan had specifically given assurances to New Delhi that the plebiscite proposals would not be binding on India if Pakistan does not implement Part I and II of the resolution - that is, the total vacation of the occupied territory and its restoration to the authority of the Jammu and Kashmir Government. Pending the vacation of Pakistan-occupied Kashmir and its restoration to the Jammu and Kashmir Government, Pakistan should allow the establishment of a secular democratic government in PoK after holding a free and fair election under the supervision of the UN Commission for India and Pakistan.

Pakistan is only misleading its people that the UN resolution was its victory, and that the resolution imposed no conditions as if the world body merely ordered India to simply hand over Kashmir to Pakistan on a platter. This is a travesty of the truth. The people of Pakistan for the last over 50 years have been fed on the propaganda that Kashmir belongs to them and the United Nations too has recognized this fact. By not giving up Kashmir, India, according to Islamabad, was going back from its commitment.