The Hindu : Opinion / News Analysis : In a dilemma

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Sunday, Nov 28, 2004

Opinion

Opinion - News Analysis

In a dilemma

In the Pakistani establishment, there is no clarity on what the talks with India are about, says B. Muralidhar Reddy.

ON NOVEMBER 20, the Pakistan President, Pervez Musharraf, served notice on India to either move away from its `maximalist' position on Kashmir or be prepared for a slide in India-Pakistan relations.

A day later, a spokesman for a twice-banned Pakistani militant outfit dropped in at the Lahore hotel where, at a conference organised by the South Asian Free Media Association, Gen. Musharraf took the hard line on Kashmir.

Alive, if not kicking

The appearance of the militant where some 60 Indian journalists were staying was obviously meant to send a message: the militant mindset is alive even if not kicking.

The informal chat between him and a small group of Indian journalists was fascinating for anyone trying to make sense of the Pakistani establishment's thinking on Kashmir.

Lying low

The spokesman insisted that his identity and that of his organisation be protected. He had stayed away from the hotel on the inaugural day of the conference because he did not want to embarrass the establishment, he said. The implication was obvious — the jihadis have not gone anywhere and are merely lying low at the behest of the establishment. The militants are following the script.

Asked whether the militants were delighted at Gen. Musharraf's "thunder," he said: "As we understand the peace moves are a result of U.S. and international pressure. The situation is unlikely to change in the near future. As of now the rapprochement cannot be reversed by either side. A negative statement in Islamabad or New Delhi cannot impact the process."

How had the process affected the ranks of militant outfits? "Several have become unemployed, thanks to the change in strategy and tactics. Crackdown is limited to outfits engaged in sectarianism," he said. "We went through this in the 1990s when the Soviets left Afghanistan. In the case of Kashmir we believe it is a period of transition though it is difficult to guess how long it will last."

Changed global scenario

The spokesman's remarks are reflective of the dilemma faced by the Pakistan military in engaging India on Kashmir. In the changed global situation post-9/11, should it continue with its Kashmir banega Pakistan (Kashmir would become part of Pakistan) stand or reconcile to the possible reality of converting the Line of Control into an international border?

There is no effort for a dispassionate and no-holds-barred debate on the pros and cons of the two extremes. With the result, Islamabad is clutching at any straw to make the people believe there is real movement on Kashmir. The confusion that sets in from time to time on the direction the dialogue with India should take is an outcome of hyped expectations.

This has been so since Atal Bihari Vajpayee extended the hand of friendship in April 2003. The initiative was marketed in Pakistan as India's acceptance of failure to browbeat Pakistan with military prowess.The January 5 meeting between Mr. Vajpayee and Gen. Musharraf, on the sidelines of the SAARC summit, was hailed by the Pakistan President as `historic'.

He claimed that for "the first time" India had conceded that Kashmir was a `dispute' and agreed to negotiate.

The bubble burst when Gen. Musharraf said Pakistan would have to re-think on talks if there was no tangible progress on Kashmir at the end of the first round of the composite dialogue.

Than came the September 25 meeting between Gen. Musharraf and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. The Pakistani establishment called the joint statement a `major breakthrough.' For the first time, India had agreed to examine "all options" on Kashmir.

Exactly a month later, Gen. Musharraf came up with his "new formula" of seven Jammu and Kashmir divisions as `food for thought' during the holy month of Ramzan.

Musharraf's statement

The hype came down when Gen. Musharraf, in an interview on November 19, complained that the "vibes" from India were not encouraging.

He was responding to Dr. Singh's assertion that Kashmir was an integral part of India during the course of his visit to Jammu and Kashmir.

The only consolation is that the dialogue process has survived the flip-flop.This was clear at the end of the visit of the Pakistan Prime Minister, Shaukat Aziz, to New Delhi.

But as long as there is no clarity on what exactly the military brass intends to achieve from its engagement with India, there is no hope of permanent peace.

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

Opinion

News Update

Stories in this Section

Kashmir: still in search of a policy

Where should the line be drawn?

In a dilemma