India News Online » News Analysis » Indian Subcontinent » 

Pak cross-border terrorism : Musharraf’s concept of joint management of Kashmir

	August 28, 2006

Even as an alleged Pakistani terrorist was killed and another nabbed by Maharashtra Police investigating the Mumbai train blasts, Parliament has been told that the Government was not satisfied with Pakistan’s response to India’s concerns on cross-border terrorism. Home Minister Shivraj Patil told the Rajya Sabha [Aug 24] that India had handed over a list of wanted terrorists during the last round of Home Secretary-level talks, but Pakistan did nothing except denying their presence there. He claimed that one or two names from the list provided to Pakistan could be of those involved in the terrorist plot unveiled recently in Britain to bomb several US-bound airliners with liquid explosives. Patel said, there has been no information on Pakistan taking any step to dismantle the infrastructure of terrorism on its territory. But, as a mature democracy, India, he said, was committed to the dialogue process.



In its written reply on ISI activities in the Kashmir Valley, Minister of State for Home Sriprakash Jaiswal said, inputs suggested that the ISI continued to provide directions and logistics support, including recruitment, arms training and finances to the Lashkar-e-Taiba, the Jaish-e-Mohammed, the Hizbul Mujahideen and Al-Badr. There were indications that the ISI continued to reward terrorists for attacks on security forces and political leaders. The serial grenade attacks on April 14 and July 11, 2006 in Srinagar were reportedly the result of directives received by the terrorist outfits from across the border, he said.



Meanwhile, President Musharraf made some remarks in an interview with A.G. Noorani of India’s fortnightly FRONTLINE which have been interpreted as an admission that the ISI was engaged in meddling in India and supporting terrorism. In an admission that the ISI had been operating against India, Gen. Musharraf said, “It was time intelligence and security operatives from India and Pakistan stopped targeting each other”. If anything, this comment elicited smiles from the Indian security establishment. After all, they say, Pakistan’s policy on India has been guided by its intelligence establishment led by the ISI. It has been the ISI that has propagated Pakistan using terrorism as an instrument of State policy. In fact, officials say, most of the top terrorist groups in the world today have been created by the Pakistan intelligence agencies. The Lashkar-e-Taiba is a wholly owned subsidiary of the ISI as is the Jaish-e-Mohammed, both created to fuel the Kashmir militancy.



Political observers say the revelation of link between Rashid Rauf, a key suspect in the conspiracy to blow up passenger planes taking off from Heathrow airport in London and the Jaish-e-Mohammed, of which he was a member, the fact that he had married the sister-in-law of the JeM chief, as well as the reports that money raised for earthquake relief fund by the Jamaat-ud-Dawa, was used to buy tickets for the terrorists planning to bomb US-bound planes is vindication of India’s consistent position that Pakistan has done precious little to dismantle its terror infrastructure. This is despite Gen. Pervez Musharraf’s televised promise of January 12, 2002, which amounted to an unequivocal statement of departure from Pakistan’s practice of using State-sponsored terrorism as an instrument of foreign policy. He reiterated this during his bilateral meeting with former Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee on the sidelines of the January 2004 SAARC summit. Even during that interregnum, terrorists like Masood Azhar of the JeM, Hafiz Mohammed Saeed of the Lashkar-e-Taiba and Syed Salahuddin of the Hizb-ul-Mujahideen, instead of being incarcerated in high security prisons after disbanding their organisations, were treated with kid gloves and lodged in government guest houses. Even as Gen. Musharraf made a show of joining the war against terrorism by “cracking down” on Pak-based terror groups and their leaders, elements in his regime routinely kept the LeT, JeM and HuM informed about impending raids and moves to freeze their bank accounts, allowing them sufficient time and opportunity to hide their men and transfer their cash.





Pak terrorist killed in Mumbai

Meanwhile, the Anti-Terrorist Squad of the Mumbai Police is looking into the role of a Pakistani national who was killed on August 22. The police recovered a map from Abu Osma, who died in the encounter, which had five places marked in the city. The police closed in on Abu Osma after the interrogation of Mohammed Riaz Nawabuddin who was arrested at a barrier in Mumbai on August 21. An examination of his vehicle led to the recovery of a Chinese pistol, five live cartridges and 1.5 kg of a white powder as well as a set of registration number plates bearing Maharashtra and Gujarat numbers. A pocket dairy had some Bangladesh telephone numbers and three maps, including one of Mumbai. The five maps recovered from the car were of Western Railway line, Bycula station, BARC, Bandra and Siddhavinayak temple. During questioning, Nawabuddin told the police that he was from Pakistan. He also told the police that his accomplice was in an apartment in the deserted government colony of Antop Hill suburb. Nawabuddin led the police team to the apartment. But, on reaching, they were fired upon with AK-47 rifles. The hiding terrorist, Abu Osma, fired 18 shots before being killed. The Mumbai Police has also released the sketch of a suspected terrorist whose body lies unclaimed ever since the Mumbai train blasts.



Pakistan, on the other hand, has caught a man in his 50s, who the authorities claimed, was “Indian”, named Madan Lal who, the police in Karachi alleged, attempted to ram an engine into a passenger train. Madan Lal took control of an abandoned engine in Karachi, drove it at full speed for 45 kilometres before railway and police officials managed to derail it and avert a possible disaster on April 22. “We suspect that he stole the engine and drove it on the track to cause a terrorist attack”, a police spokesman said. However, Madan Lal told AFP while in custody that he was a Pakistani national and stole the engine just because he felt like taking a ride. But, the police said, he does not have anything to prove that he is a Pakistani citizen and they suspect that he was from the Indian State of Hyderabad.





Concept of joint management : Doubts in New Delhi

Pakistan President Musharraf once again elaborated on his idea of joint control and joint management of Jammu and Kashmir when he gave an interview to Noorani, constitutional expert and columnist for FRONTLINE magazine, published by the HINDU group of newspapers, in Islamabad. During the interview, the Pakistan President blamed the then Home Minister L.K. Advani, for the failure of the Agra summit and stressed the need to evolve a “joint framework for self-governance” and a “joint management mechanism at the top, consisting of representatives from Pakistan, India and Kashmir.”



Both in his interview with the FRONTLINE and CNBC television, he proposed demilitarisation, self-government and joint management as the “final solution” of the Kashmir problem. He told CNBC that this idea could be debated and modified.



Musharraf explained the idea more vividly in his interview with FRONTLINE. It is a four-point concept. In the first stage, he said, we have to identify the region which is in dispute. This is in reference to Pakistan’s sensitivities on Northern Areas and India’s possible unwillingness to bring Ladakh into the parameters of such a solution. Once the region is identified, he said, it should be demilitarized in the second stage. This is because, he said, the people of Kashmir have had enough and have been suffering due to militarization for the last 16 years. He especially mentioned three Kashmir cities – Srinagar, Baramulla and Kupwara for demilitarization. He said, as a General, he understands, tens of thousands of military personnel cannot be removed in one go. Demilitarisation can take place in phases and the military could be garrisoned in a few places, if not completely out. In the third stage, it would be self-governance after demilitarization. The Pakistan President said the people of Kashmir on both sides of the Line of Control (LoC) should be allowed to govern themselves. They should be given maximum autonomy which needs to be defined. Lastly, an infrastructure of joint management which gives comfort to both Pakistan and India, comprising their involvement, responsibility and commitments. Musharraf said joint management mechanism on the top will consist of representatives from Pakistan, India and Kashmir, which would also have a right to look into the residual aspects, whether it is foreign affairs, currency or whatever else. Noorani noted that a model for such a joint management exists: the Ministerial Council between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic. He noted that it did not have executive powers, but it holds regular meetings, builds up trust and they evolve joint policies by common consent without wielding executive powers. Agreeing with Noorani, President Musharraf recalled that this term “joint management” was first coined by the late J.N. Dixit, the then Indian National Security Advisor. He said these were not his words and he took these words from Dixit when he coined them and started insisting on joint management. The Pakistan President said both India and Pakistan could agree on a quantum of autonomy for the two parts of Kashmir and have a common model because none of the two countries is in favour of independence for Kashmir.



If an agreement is reached on Kashmir to the satisfaction of the three parties, the President concedes the possibility of an India-Pakistan Treaty of Peace, Friendship and Cooperation, as suggested by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, and the withdrawal of the dispute from the United Nations. Further clarifying his points on the criteria that he and Dr. Singh have been separately setting, Musharraf said the strategic implications of certain areas to each country [such as the Northern Areas of Pakistan and Ladakh for India] have to be entertained and demilitarization can take place in phases. He took a positive note of Dr. Singh’s statement of May 25 at the round-table conference on Kashmir in which he said that “the LoC can just be a line on the map” and also urged the setting up of “institutional arrangements” between the two parts of Kashmir.



New Delhi has, however, said concepts such as “joint control” or “joint management” put forward by Pakistani President “cannot be the basis of a settlement of the Kashmir issue as the State is an integral part of India”. Minister of State for External Affairs E. Ahamed told the Lok Sabha on Aug 23 that there can be no compromise on the sovereignty of India over Jammu and Kashmir.



Political analysts say Musharraf’s idea would founder on two rocks. The first is that the idea presumes and requires that the two sides of the State have more or less comparable levels of autonomy. Otherwise, the Government which controls its side of the State more tightly can use the “joint management” as a paw in the affairs of the other country. The second is a sequel to the first. It also presumes and requires that the two sides have comparable levels of democracy. The more autocratic rulers of one side would be an unacceptable incongruity at a “joint management” table. That equivalence too is not available at present. Above and beyond all that is the ever present question of terrorism, and that has become a more serious problem today than at any time during the past five years or so. Developments were taking place in Kashmir at the start of 2000 which held promise for the future, with Majid Dar at one level and Lone and G.M. Bhatt at another, stirring new thoughts and possibilities in New Delhi and Kashmir, and Prime Minister Vajpayee opening doors which had been shut for more than a decade. But, the bullets of assassins extinguished some possibilities and some others were shut by turns in the wheel of politics, both in New Delhi and Srinagar.



Musharraf’s solution has, however, been welcomed by Mirwaiz Umar Farooq, the leader of the All-Party Hurriyat Conference. He said in an interview that the Pakistan leader’s proposal makes sense. He said demilitarization and self-governance [which means that independence and autonomy has to be outside the constitutions of both countries] is the answer for solving the problem. Calling for withdrawal of troops from Kashmir, he said once demilitarization on both sides is complete, we can talk of joint management which is a workable solution.



The three issues which should figure under joint management, according to Mirwaiz, are: defence, foreign affairs and finance. As for security, he said, Kashmir does not need a defence force. Only Police will do.

Opposing the idea, Maj Gen. Afsir Karim [Retd] has said the very idea of self-rule questions the legitimacy of the elected Government and the election process in Jammu and Kashmir. Gen. Musharraf seems to be insinuating that the State should be handed over to the so-called moderate Hurriyat leaders who have regularly echoed the views expressed by him on demilitarization and self-rule in the State. The concept of joint management is absurd in the current environment because the support provided to Jehadi terrorists in J&K by Pakistan continues to vitiate the atmosphere making the peace process itself redundant at times. There is little or no trust between India and Pakistan as the lack of agreement on several issues like Siachen and Sir Creek indicates.



Given these circumstances, the proposal can be considered only as a bid to change the status quo in favour of Pakistan and political kite flying to appear reasonable and flexible to the international community. Gen. Karim says President Musharraf will look more convincing if he gives self-rule to those areas of Kashmir which are under his control first.



Prospects of Singh-Musharraf meet in Havana

As of now, there is little chance of India and Pakistan exchanging views on the Musharraf proposal, not to talk of settling down to discuss it. Ever since the Mumbai train blasts, India is refusing to resume the next round of composite dialogue with Pakistan. India had cancelled the Foreign Secretary-level talks to discuss the next round which were to take place within days of the Mumbai blasts. India also ruled out the possibility of the Prime Minister holding a bilateral meeting with Musharraf when they go to Havana, capital of Cuba, in mid-September to attend the NAM summit. Pakistan Foreign Minister Khurshid Kasuri has said [Aug 27] that the possibility of a meeting between Musharraf and Dr. Singh on the sidelines of the NAM summit in Havana depended on India. “One cannot clap with one hand. If India wishes, it would be possible”, he said in response to a question from reporters at a seminar in Islamabad.



If the two leaders meet in Havana at all, the possibility of which is not being ruled out, restoring mutual political confidence and reviving the peace process are expected to be on the top of their agenda. In their talks, the two leaders are likely to reassess the core political assumptions of the peace talks that were launched in January 2004. That process had three mutual understandings – ending cross-border terrorism, purposeful talks on Jammu and Kashmir, and movement towards the normalization of bilateral relations. For Dr. Singh, the focus will be on Musharraf’s word in 2004 to create a violence-free environment and prevent terrorists from using Pakistani soil against India. A series of violent incidents since last year have shattered India’s political confidence in Musharraf’s ability and willingness to keep promises on cross-border terrorism. India also has complaints on the slow pace of progress on economic cooperation and people-to-people interaction. Musharraf, in turn, is likely to express disappointment that Pakistan’s own expectations for an early and decisive movement on Jammu and Kashmir have not been met over the last two years. Dr. Singh and Musharraf in Havana will have to reassure each other on the implementation of their respective political commitments.