The Hindu : A new dawn in the Valley?

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Sunday, Jan 25, 2004

Opinion

Opinion - News Analysis

A new dawn in the Valley?

The Advani-Ansari talks should help the hand of all those who proceed with the assumption that international borders cannot be redrawn with blood, writes Harish Khare.

THE TALKS BEGIN: Deputy Prime Minister L.K. Advani with leaders of the Hurriyat Conference in New Delhi on Thursday.

LET US consider the reaction to the L.K. Advani-All Parties Hurriyat Conference talks from two most unlikely sources — army generals, one serving and the other retired. First, General Pervez Musharraf, President of Pakistan, says the talks were "a very good beginning." These are significant words of endorsement from a man who the jihadis regarded till recently as their patron-in-chief. Second, Lt. General (retd.) S.K. Sinha, Governor of Jammu and Kashmir, also says "it is a good beginning." Again, these are words of approval from a man who was sent to the Srinagar Raj Bhavan with the sole purpose of keeping an "eye" on the "pro-militant" Chief Minister, Mufti Mohammed Sayeed, as well as to provide aid and comfort to the army and other security hotheads.

And no less is the distance travelled by India's principal interlocutor, Mr. Advani, himself. Here is a man, who, not long ago, locked himself in his "iron man" image and refused to give the time of the day to the Hurriyat leaders. Indeed, only a year ago he had ordered that the Intelligence and security agencies should see to it that the Hurriyat was properly grounded, if not dismantled. But it was a warm and responsive Mr. Advani who talked for over two hours with the Hurriyat leaders on Thursday. As Maulvi Abbas Ansari, the leader of the Hurriyat delegation, told the BBC Hindi service: "I used to think that Vajpayee on this side and Musharraf on the other side were the only moderates. But yesterday, I discovered that Advani is also a moderate and wants peace in Kashmir." A remarkable statement by one adversary about another.

The very fact that the talks took place and ended on a positive and cordial note underlines a new fundamental dimension of the Kashmir problem. Whether New Delhi ever acknowledged it or not, the Hurriyat leadership does represent a sentiment and an untamed constituency behind that sentiment; call it the separatist point of view or denounce it as the secessionist constituency. The hopes, ideals, values, ideas, grievances, resentments and aspirations that went by the collective tag of azadi have not altogether disappeared. Pakistan made the strategic intervention when it saw to it that the disparate separatist elements came together under one umbrella and the APHC was born. The APHC, in turn, was able to elevate the "movement" into a political struggle, and managed to make the international community believe that Kashmir was witnessing a "freedom struggle" and that a brutal and over-bearing Indian state was putting it down with a heavy hand, with scant regard for the Kashmiris' human rights. On its part, New Delhi decided to see the APHC as Pakistan's cats paw and as a legitimiser of mindless forays into the world of terrorism.

By agreeing to sit across the table, the two sides de-politicised in one stroke the "struggle". This is no mean achievement. New Delhi has shown remarkable flexibility; and, the very fact that the Prime Minister of India readily agreed to meet the Hurriyat leaders is the biggest setback for all those who continue to believe in the efficacy of the gun.

It can be hoped that the dialogue will sustain itself because four major constituencies are in the process of re-examining the ways and means of dealing with the Kashmir problem.

First, it would appear that India as a whole has overcome its sense of insecurity vis-à-vis the vendors of terrorism. Today, India is a nation at ease with the outside world and at peace with itself. Never mind that it was the BJP that in the first place had instigated a sense of insecurity, as it had sought to appropriate the deshbhakti space. Never mind that the BJP establishment has also learnt the dubious — but nonetheless sophisticated — art of playing with the nation's emotions. It could, for example, engage General Musharraf's confidants in back-channel diplomacy while engaging the General himself in an unedifying verbal brawl in New York. Be that as it may, the BJP establishment feels that it can go beyond the bullet-for-bullet paradigm, without in any way appearing weak or appeasing.

It may be that the BJP leadership has fallen for its own hype over the economic recovery and prosperity. Nonetheless, this new sense of self-assurance has made the BJP establishment repose faith in the Indian state's capacity to listen to grievances and to accommodate the dissatisfied and the angry. The sight of the Hurriyat leaders visiting North Block and calling on the Prime Minister at his official residence has added to our own sense of collective equanimity that will enable New Delhi to look at the Kashmir problem in the eye.

Second, the North Block dialogue is bound to have a crucial impact in the most critically relevant constituency, the people of Jammu and Kashmir. In particular, the talks have reinforced Prime Minister Atal Bihar Vajpayee's credibility as a man deeply committed to peace and reconciliation.

The process that began with Mr. Vajpayee's Kumarakom message of open hearts and open doors stands reinforced. In other words, for the first time in a long time the people of Jammu and Kashmir have reason to believe that dialogue could still be the instrument to address their quest for "peace with honour".

This also happens to be a time when Pakistan, the other model and the other counter-pole of attraction, has lost its shine. As it is, people in Jammu and Kashmir probably realised years ago that the militants/terrorists/mujahideen/jihadis would not be able to drive the Indian army out; they have also understood, at much cost to themselves, that Pakistan would not be able to intervene militarily to tilt the balance in favour of the "boys". Pakistan itself is in a state of disarray. It is neither a showcase for Islamic purity nor a model of "democracy"; President Musharraf's ambivalence on terror as a legitimate instrument in a holy cause has disheartened the jihadis and has diluted Pakistan's appeal in the Valley.

Moreover, dialogue has permitted a relatively painless transition from disillusion to hope, without feeling helpless and abandoned. There is a new and younger leadership — the Omar Abdullahs, the Umar Farooqs, the Mehbooba Muftis, the Lone brothers, the Yasin Maliks — which is not a prisoner of the past and is willing to explore the possibility of peaceful routes to honour and dignity. The North Block dialogue has strengthened the potential of this possibility.

Third, the dialogue is sure to have considerable impact on the likes of Syed Ali Shah Geelani and other recalcitrant elements. These hard-line elements have thrived because New Delhi's hard-liners too had been muscle-bound and unimaginative in their responses to the azadi constituency; now suddenly New Delhi has demonstrated itself capable of creative flexibility.

In particular, the ISI middle-rank operatives must be impressed with the Indian side's capacity to change gears, even change not just the rules of engagement but also the game itself. The Indian side has shown tactical finesse in controlling and influencing the timing as well as posturing of the Kashmiri players. "If Pakistan can play the subversion game, we can also play the conversion game," pointed out a key bureaucratic player.

It is only a matter of time before the non-Hurriyat Kashmir leaders would start calculating for themselves whether there was any "percentage" for them in joining the dialogue process, a process that has the support of internal and external public opinion. On trial is also New Delhi's seriousness and sincerity; if Mr. Advani and others are able to establish a reputation of honesty and credibility as interlocutors, then the idea of dialogue would become an option for all those who for now have decided to stay out. And, if Maulvi Abbas Ansari and others want to go to Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir, New Delhi should post haste let them go there, putting the onus on Pakistan to grant them visas, thereby conferring "recognition" on the pro-talks Hurriyat faction.

Lastly, the international community is bound to take note of the dialogue with the Kashmiri groups. All these years, India has been seen as stridently opposed to any kind of middleman, any mediation, any third party intervention, etc.; we were seen as cussedly opposed to any dialogue with Pakistan.

The global community, for better or worse, was no longer prepared to see Kashmir as an internal matter, if New Delhi did not find the imagination to deal with the issue on its own. The Advani-Ansari talks should help the hand of all those who proceed with the assumption that international borders cannot be redrawn with blood. The international community can now demand of the Hurriyat and other "Kashmir leaders" to be realistic and responsible.

There is thus a new opportunity for the Kashmir leaders — moderates, hardliners, pro-Pakistanis and pro-Indians — as well as for all those who have a stake in a peaceful South Asia. The challenge is not to let the professional conflict-entrepreneurs have the last laugh, once again; both in India and Pakistan there is an entrenched constituency for permanent confrontation. Political and bureaucratic leaders have made careers for themselves out of this antagonism. The answer to this backward-lookingness is Mr. Vajpayee's most original innovation: "talks may not be bound by the parameters of the Constitution, but the talks can only be bound by insaniyat (humanity)."

Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Opinion

News Update

Stories in this Section

A new dawn in the Valley?

The dissenters remain defiant

NC for inclusive dialogue

A good beginning, says PDP

Opportunism, not ideology

Politics, siblings and dynasties