Air of optimism on Kashmir

GIVEN the history of troubled relations between Pakistan and India, terms such as “optimism” and “pessimism” are best avoided. Recent events, especially in the context of the Kashmir issue have, however, given rise to a certain degree of expectation in both countries. This is a welcome development given the fact that most Pakistanis appear convinced that it is to the advantage of both to settle their differences peacefully and expeditiously.

Speculation arose in the wake of Indian Foreign Minister Pranab Mukherjee’s visit to Islamabad. Though most observers say that the visit did not produce any significant advance in the peace process, Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh gave a different impression, saying that the visit was successful because it contributed to the understanding between the two countries. He was reported to have informed journalists that Siachen and Sir Creek had figured in several rounds of the composite dialogue and that the two sides were “making progress”.

The Mukherjee visit was not meant to be significant because he came to Islamabad to deliver an invitation for the Saarc summit to be held in New Delhi in April. But obviously a visitor from India at such a senior level cannot come to Pakistan merely for protocol purposes. Mukherjee, therefore, held substantive talks with Foreign Minister Khurshid Kasuri and called on both Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz and President Pervez Musharraf. Coming as it did a week after Manmohan Singh’s offer to Pakistan of a peace and friendship treaty, his visit acquired added significance, although the Pakistan foreign office spokesperson rightly pointed out that engaging in the normalisation process, agreeing to confidence-building measures and resolving differences came before entering into a friendship treaty.

At the Kasuri-Mukherjee joint press conference, it was announced that several agreements were close to finalisation, including those on reducing the risk from accidents relating to nuclear weapons, the speedy return of inadvertent line crossers and prevention of incidents at sea. They also decided to expedite the liberalisation of visas and to work out procedures to facilitate the movement of diplomats to Noida and Gurgaon in India and to Taxila and Hassan Abdal in Pakistan.

The two sides decided to launch the fourth round of the composite dialogue in March in Islamabad and to hold the joint commission meeting next month in New Delhi. They also decided that the first joint anti-terrorism mechanism meeting would take place before the end of March. An agreement was reached to establish a committee on prisoners to visit jails in the two countries and propose steps to ensure the humane treatment and expeditious release of prisoners who had completed their term.

The two foreign ministers hinted that some headway had been made on the issue of Siachen. Mr Kasuri reiterated that, given the political will, it could be “resolved within days”, adding that “a detailed plan” had earlier been given to New Delhi. On the Sir Creek issue, he said that the concerned officials would be instructed to expedite their work.

Mukherjee refused to go into the specifics of the Musharraf proposals on Kashmir, but pointed to the comment made by the Indian prime minister that all issues should be discussed. In response to a question on India’s view of President Musharraf’s proposal on joint management and control of divided Kashmir, Mukherjee said any idea for resolving the issue could be considered and examined, and an attempt made to find a solution.

While in Islamabad, he said that India favoured “a step by step” approach on the question of Kashmir. While reiterating that India was willing to consider every proposal currently on the table, he made it clear that redrawing the boundaries was out of the question.

A delegation from the All Parties Hurriyet Conference (APHC), led by its chairman, Mirwaiz Umer Farooq, followed on the heels of Mukherjee’s visit. During its week-long stay, the delegation called on the president and prime minister, exchanged views with Azad Kashmir leaders and met political personalities. The Mirwaiz noted that the Kashmir issue had also entered a decisive stage and that the APHC wanted to involve political parties in both countries in the composite dialogue process.

When the Mirwaiz called on the president, he was assured that Pakistan would not agree to anything unacceptable to the Kashmiri people and their leadership in the settlement of the Kashmir issue and that the Kashmiri leadership would be involved in the peace process. The Mirwaiz supported President Musharraf’s recent ideas, including the four-point proposal on an interim solution, adding that the APHC wanted to go ahead with them as they had the potential of working out a common plan for the settlement of the Kashmir dispute.

He created something of a stir after his meeting with the president when he said that the time had come to give up the armed struggle to pave the way for negotiations leading to a lasting settlement of the dispute. Labelling the UN Security Council resolutions as “redundant”, he rejected the view of those who were still advocating an armed struggle and emphasised that “we are not prepared to sacrifice any more of our loved ones.”

Not surprisingly, there was a negative reaction to his call to give up the option of armed struggle from some quarters. A number of Mujahideen leaders criticised the statement, calling it “baseless” and “uncalled for”. Syed Salahuddin of the United Jihad Council accused the Mirwaiz and his colleagues of being “ignorant of the background and realities of the Kashmir issue”. Instead, the Council called for a “strongly coordinated state-wide armed struggle, enjoying the patronage of a sincere and representative leadership”.

Hurriyat leader Syed Ali Gilani accused the Mirwaiz of taking a U-turn on Kashmir, adding that the Kashmiri youth had not taken up arms as a “hobby” or out of “romanticism”. He also expressed his displeasure with the change in the attitude of Pakistani leaders but was confident that “the people of Pakistan will continue their moral support to us”. His views are not surprising, for he has become publicly disillusioned with Pakistan’s stand and also feels that he was ousted from the leadership of the APHC, primarily at the behest of Pakistan.

This swift negative reaction of prominent Kashmiris led Mirwaiz Umer Farooq to modify his position, and he later clarified that the APHC felt that the president’s four-point formula could provide a foundation for the resolution of the Kashmir issue but “could not be accepted as a whole”.

All this would no doubt indicate that we have moved far away from the tension-filled days of last July, when in the wake of a series of bomb blasts in Mumbai, India decided to suspend the composite dialogue. It is, therefore, a welcome sign that not only is the peace process back on track but that the two sides have decided to launch the fourth round of peace talks in March.

It would thus appear that Pakistan-India relations are on the mend. More importantly, there is no longer the element of a roller coaster ride in bilateral relations which was the case for many years. This appearance of stability should be welcomed though one cannot rule out surprises such as Manmohan Singh’s decision after the Mumbai blast to suspend the composite dialogue process, especially after the peace process had been hailed as “irreversible” by both sides in the previous year.

It is also significant that the mainstream Kashmiri leadership in the occupied territory is now far more involved in the peace process than at any time before. This is a positive development that should help promote trust and confidence among the Kashmiris that nothing would be done behind their backs. After all, the leadership in the two countries must never forget that what they are negotiating is not control over a piece of disputed territory, but the destinies of millions of people. Any durable agreement will have to be sold first to the Kashmiris without whose endorsement there can be no real peace in the occupied territory.

These are all positive developments that create an ambiance of cordiality that should facilitate serious negotiations on the core political issues that continue to divide the two countries. For the past three years, they have been engaged in initiatives that have come to be known as confidence-building measures. While these have certainly helped to create the right conditions and encouraged the peace lobbies in both countries, the Indians have most skilfully kept Pakistan engaged in the CBMs and have refused to show an equal degree of commitment to the discussion of political issues. There has been an insistence on the creation of a sub-committee on anti-terrorism which is likely to be used by India as another pressure point on Pakistan. It was nevertheless gratifying to hear President Musharraf affirm earlier this week that the two countries had now moved into the conflict resolution phase.

This would be a welcome development, but we have to await credible evidence of this. In the meantime, Islamabad needs to tell the Indian leadership that while it is fully supportive of the CBMs and remains committed to them India has to show willingness to consider political issues, especially contentious ones, such as Siachen and Kashmir. The CBMs alone will not be able to sustain the dialogue process for long. Inevitably, there will be disappointment in Pakistan, where there is already scepticism regarding India’s long-term intentions. This disappointment could soon be transformed into anger that would make it difficult for the peace process to be maintained.

Happily, the peace process with India enjoys wide support in Pakistan that cuts across political and religious divides. War is not an option. Whatever doubts there may have been on this score were wiped out during the disastrous adventure in Kargil. There is, nevertheless, a school of thought that the alternative to confrontation with India is not abject surrender. Negotiations with India have to be conducted in a serious manner by professionals with inputs from institutions, not individuals. We must also eschew our proclivity for frequent media appearances and the tendency to announce fresh proposals with great flourish. Negotiations should not be conducted through the media, nor should major initiatives be conveyed through it.

It is equally important that the government take into confidence all the major political parties so that its credibility and negotiating position are enhanced. Negotiations with India will never be easy and the government must not project haste nor raise expectations that if dashed could generate frustration and anger. Any improvement of relations will be a long and tortuous process that will test our resolve and resilience. It is a marathon not a short dash to the victory stand.

The writer is a former ambassador.

Gandhi’s dreams turn sour

“THANK God, he is neither a Punjabi, nor a Muslim,” the then defence minister, Baldev Singh, told Lord Mountbatten, India’s first governor-general. They were talking about the assassin who had shot dead Mahatma Gandhi. This was on January 30, 1948. All India Radio broadcast the killer’s identity the entire day to stall riots.

What is the lesson that India should have learnt? Has it done so after 59 years? Has India developed the way Gandhi would have liked it to be? I cannot load the piece with instances of Gandhi’s love or infatuation because I am privy to none. That side of his life is left to his grandchildren who are at it with a vengeance.

Violence has increased and incidents involving this are like pimples that mar the beauty of an otherwise democratic face. That the number of violent incidents should increase is a matter of concern. What is alarming is that violence has become a mode of settling problems.

Both the state and the crop of militants growing by the day are using weapons to kill. Gandhi said: “Wrong means will not lead to right results.” That explains why he employed non-violence as an instrument to wage the freedom struggle to oust the British. If you have to cross a pool of blood to reach your destination, he would say, it is not worth doing.

Post-independence India has not given that message. It should have at least distanced itself from nuclear arms which epitomise violence. It should have pursued disarmament with conviction and vigour. Instead, the wrong done by Mrs Indira Gandhi in exploding the bomb was again committed by the Bharatiya Janata Party and institutionalised by the Congress through the Indo-US nuclear deal.

The Manmohan Singh government is also buying arms left, right and centre while leaving fields like education and health famished for funds. In the realm of politics too, I do not know of any central or state government or party which has not resorted to wrong methods to gain power and then to sustain it by hook or by crook.

Whether it was Mrs Gandhi who imposed the emergency to suppress her opponents or P.V. Narasimha Rao who bribed MPs to save his government or Atal Behari Vajpayee who placated his allies through dubious methods, the purpose of the three prime ministers was the same: to stay in power. For all of them, no law was sacrosanct enough and no amount of money large enough for managing a majority in the Lok Sabha.

The present government may be a shade better but half its ministers are corrupt. Arrogance of power in the Congress is apparent from the appointments it makes or the prizes it doles out. In fact, the whole system is reeking with favouritism and corruption. Gandhi feared this and said four months after independence: “Today politics has become corrupt. Anybody who gets into politics gets contaminated. But in general there is so much corruption today that it frightens me.”

Gandhi has not been proved wrong. Men in high places can probably stop the rot to some extent, though not to the level of Gandhi’s expectations. They themselves are so much a part of the system that they cannot see the wood for the trees.

Gandhi could not have imagined that the nation to which he promised food, employment and shelter would one day have development for a few at the expense of millions. Special economic zones which have driven out farmers from their fertile lands could not have been on his agenda. Grasping industrialists and speculative builders have destroyed the agricultural economy.

Gandhi had talked about the self-sufficiency of villages but would have been shocked to hear that on an average 10 farmers have been committing suicide every day. They could not clear their debts or save the crop from drought. Success or wealth has become important, not how you attain it.

The apparatus of development is creaking and it is anybody’s guess what portion of public funds is finding its way to individual pockets or party coffers. Not more than one third of the funds reach the beneficiary, say official estimates. There are only a few bureaucrats who are above board. The right to information (RTI) may some day destablise the equanimity which the system of corruption has come to enjoy. But both politicians and bureaucrats are finding ways to make transparency opaque.

Gandhi said the last person came first. How can this be possible when the government’s policies are directed towards benefiting the organised sector, five per cent, in preference to the unorganised, which is 95 per cent? It is the first person who is getting fatter and fatter and the last one leaner and leaner, earning less than two dollars a day. The industry is becoming capital-intensive and the avenues of employment are lessening day by day. Official figures for unemployment are 10 per cent. But it is much more and increasing rapidly.

On the other hand, the state is withdrawing from the field of social welfare. Private schools and private hospitals are unaffordable. Public hospitals and government schools are very few and overburdened. What does the common man do when there is already a long queue ahead of him? Twenty million children have no school to go to.

Gandhi’s country has much that it should be ashamed of — poverty, disease and crime. Still more disconcerting is lack of sensitivity. Civil society does not want to even hear the word poverty. Their world of malls and plazas, built even at the expense of the environment, is stocked with foreign brands and eating places. The number of those who frequent them may not be more than 250 million which is only one-fifth of India’s population. But they control everything, politics, economics, government and even the media.

They would not know or recall that Gandhi died at the hands of a Hindu who represented fundamentalism which the Mahatma thought his country would not uphold. India is still grappling with the onslaught on its secular ethos. One editor rightly observed after the demolition of the Babri Masjid that Gandhi was shot on January 30, but he died on December 6 when the mosque was destroyed. Gandhi was re-assassinated in his home state, Gujarat, where its chief minister Narendra Modi saw to the killing of hundreds of Muslims and the uprooting of thousands of them from their homes in villages and cities.

The problem India faces today is that there is none except Gandhi who evokes respect. People can relate to him while discussing the future. Unfortunately, his values have been lost in that ‘Incredible India’ where survival is that of the fittest and where the poor are increasingly being pushed to the wall.

The writer is a leading columnist based in New Delhi.

Congress’s Iraq quagmire

ON TUESDAY nearly every member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee warmly endorsed Lt. Gen. David H. Petraeus, the new US commander in Iraq, and a number wished him success or "Godspeed" in his mission.

Some of the same senators voted for a resolution that opposes the increase of troops for Gen. Petraeus's command — even though the general testified that he could not accomplish his mission without the additional forces and hinted that such a resolution could encourage the enemy.

Such is the muddle of Congress on Iraq. A majority may soon go on record opposing the new offensive in Baghdad even while encouraging the commander who leads it.

That's not to say that senators who are piling on to bipartisan resolutions drawn up by Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. or Sen. John W. Warner don't have good reasons for scepticism.

We share some of their main concerns: that the Iraqi government won't deliver on the long list of "benchmarks" the administration has set and that US troops will end up fighting on one or both sides of an ugly sectarian war. Even if the objective of pacifying Baghdad with American troops were a good one, it's not clear that enough troops are being sent for long enough to succeed.

It doesn't help that accounts of the new plan given by its principal architects vary significantly.

— The Washington Post