Kashmir, Chidambaram, and cheap politics

In a recent tweet, P. Chidambaram, former Home Minister of India, termed Indian government’s abrogation of Article 370 ‘(un)constitutional coup’. At other places he attributed religious motives to the policy and reasoned that India abrogated the Article because Kashmir is Muslim-dominated region, and argued India used its muscle power to keep Kashmir in its fold.

Many other things Chidambaram also uttered recently, with which I have no problem to agree – the abrogation has increased unrest in Jammu and Kashmir, that India should cultivate the people and leaders of Jammu and Kashmir and win their trust, and mere muscle power is not going to help resolve the problem in the valley. Mixing national interest with cheap politics might help his party score some points but the damage his utterances do to India can be far reaching.

Article 370 was supposed to be abrogated at some point of time. It was a temporary provision. Chidambaram can argue that in the abrogation process the government could have consulted the opposition parties but claiming that the abrogation was done for religious purpose is like arguing that Article 370 was incorporated in the constitution for a religious purpose. It is not necessary that one must search for communal motives in all policies. That was one of the reasons why India got partitioned in the very first place. The two-nation theory held that everything is communal, everything can be seen through two-nation, and Hindus and Muslims cannot coexist. By attributing a communal motive to India’s policy to abrogate Article 370, Chidambaram is just subscribing to this two-nation theory.

One can apply Chidambaram’s logic to the policies of leaders like Sardar Patel and Jawaharlal Nehru. Patel sent forces to Hyderabad to secure its integration with the Indian state. Chidambaram’s logic would tell us that Patel, a Hindu, was sending forces to integrate the Hyderabad, ruled by Nizam, a Muslim. This logic would also apply to Nehru, who sent forces to Kashmir after the Pakistan-supported forces invaded Kashmir after the partition and occupied significant portions of the princely state.

Mixing national interest with petty political goals, deliberate or not, has increasingly become a norm in recent years. When a seasoned politician, and a former Home Minister, succumbs to this temptation, one can imagine the herds that follow such leaders, and how social media and propaganda machines within and across borders ceaselessly circulate such confusing utterances.

It is true that there is unrest in Jammu and Kashmir, and India has not been successful in addressing the challenges posed by this unrest. The increasing fighting between the security forces and the disgruntled youth in recent years is a testimony to this unrest. As the conflict is entangled with religion (in the shape of two-nation), territorial claims, geopolitical ambitions, blaming one factor and ignoring other factors make a poor understanding of the conflict. Not only that, it does not help address the conflict, but rather provides ammunition to spoilers who will be happy to quote leaders like the former Home Minister to support their activities.

I have no problem in agreeing with Chidambaram that the people of India should stand with the people of Jammu and Kashmir. During my visits to border areas, I came across acute alienation among the people of the valley, and that needs to be addressed. As I argued elsewhere, it is necessary that India must initiate people-centric policies and make the people and local leaders of the region stakeholders in the policymaking process. In this direction, perhaps it will be useful to engage in dialogue with groups like the Gupkar alliance and other stakeholders in the Kashmir conflict. It will be useful to learn from previous governments to steer such a peace process. Atal Bihari Vajpayee and Manmohan Singh initiated many positive steps in this regard. ‘Round tables’ and ‘heart-to-talks’ could be organized in the valley and other parts of the region. The people must not feel left out from the developments happening in the region, nor must they feel that the policies are imposed from above without their consent. While engaging people and their leaders in a spirit of dialogue, the government must use its muscle power to address the spoilers.

It should be clear to the leaders of India that Jammu and Kashmir conflict is not a Congress party issue or BJP party issue, to be used against each other. It is a national issue and all political parties having a stake in national progress must put serious thought on how to bring peace and development to the region. As India is a democratic country, the opposition must play a positive role when the government does not perform its duty, and at the same time support government policies which are necessary for national unity and development. The difference between a petty politician and a visionary statesman is certainly wide, and the Indian leaders, including P. Chidambaram, are not only accountable to the political party of which they are members but also to the people of India and the posterity even after they are dead and gone.

(This article was earlier published in my TOI blogsite: https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/blogs/periscope/kashmir-chidambaram-and-cheap-politics/)

A New Low in Kashmiri Extremism and Lessons for Kashmiris

Shujaat Bukhari was gunned down by the militants on June 14, 2018. Bukhari was a well-known journalist in Kashmir due to his fearless views on Kashmir politics. He worked for the Indian newspaper The Hindu, before starting his newspaper Rising Kashmir. Not that he toed the line of the Indian state or the militants. He was at odds with both.

As I work on Kashmir issue since last two decades, I am aware of Bukhari’s work. In my research, I referred to many of his news pieces from The Hindu. During my research at JNU, New Delhi, and at Jammu University, Jammu and Kashmir, I closely followed his work, and referred to some of his views on Kashmir conflict and peace prospects. During my recent visits to border areas to study cross-border roads and their implications, I too followed his writings on the subject.

A journalist as we envision speaks truth, and speaks truth to power. He is free and fearless. We know press is the fourth estate of democracy, and for a smooth functioning of a democracy, it is necessary that press is free, there is no interference, and no killing. Killing a journalist, silencing a voice forever, is nothing but an act of cowardice. The people opposing the views of Bukhari could have opposed him in a democratic way, perhaps protesting against him, writing articles against him, or even filing a police case, if they think that is a proper action. Killing him is nothing but anti-religious, anti-peace, and anti-human. The killers or Bukhari are insane of the highest order, and any means adopted to bring them to justice must be welcome.

The killing of Bukhari reminds me the killing of another sane voice of Kashmir some 16 years ago, in 2002. Abdul Ghani Lone was a peaceful voice of protest in Kashmir. The only fault he had, and for which he paid with his life, was he advocated that Kashmiri people should take part in elections. His main argument was that let Kashmiris take part in elections, and bring their issues, including the voice of dissent and human rights issue to the legislature. A fine voice in Kashmir, he was silenced by the militants.

The same thing happened with Bukhari. An independent minded Kashmiri, a Kashmir-loving journalist was silenced, by the extremist Kashmiris. The loss of Bukhari was not only a loss of journalism, but also a loss of very Kashmiris. There are many instances in which Bukhari opposed Indian state’s policies in Kashmir. He could have an effective voice for the Kashmiris. The militants, who were brain-washed, who believed only in the power of the gun, did not hesitate to kill one of their fellow Kashmiris, who was wielding pen. They did not know that pen is much more powerful than gun.

The message is clear. That unless Kashmiris Rise (to imitate the title of Bukhari’s newspaper, Rising Kashmir), the senseless killings in Kashmir would continue. Pakistan might have sharpened its terror machinery and been getting ever ready to supply those machines to Kashmir, but those machines could not have been active with the support of very Kashmiris, whom the machines intended to kill. It is unfortunate that many Kashmiris do not see that they are killing their own brothers and sisters. Unless they realize that they are mere puppets in the hand of the puppeteers across the border, unless they realize that the gun they wield is meant to destroy their own beautiful Kashmir, the violence would continue.

I hope that the Kashmiris, particularly the militants of Kashmir and their supporters, would realize the futility of killings and counter killings. It would never solve the problem. They may have guns, and hide and kill sane voices like Shujaat Bukhari, but by doing they weaken their cause. The Kashmiri problem is partly due to the mistaken belief on part of the militant Kashmiris that they can solve the problem by guns, by killing people, and Pakistan is the big daddy across the border, who will take care of them. They do not need to go far to know the reality. They just look across the border on the Kashmir in Pakistan side. That will provide enough information to dismantle their mistaken belief,  and how Pakistan has treated Kashmiris in its side of the border. It is called so called Azad (free) Jammu and Kashmir, but its constitution says Kashmir Banega (will be) Pakistan (translating the whole thing into plain English – The constitution of free Kashmir says it will be part of Pakistan). An individual in that side can not get a government job unless he professes the ideology of Pakistan. The Kashmiris in that side are treated as second class citizens.

The sooner the Kashmiris, I particularly mean the Kashmiris of the Valley, understand and realize this, the better for peace and development. Religion is a matter of practice, but it is not a policy. Arguing that majority Kashmiris are Muslims and they must be part of Pakistan defies very logic. There are more Muslims in India than in Kashmir and probably more than in Pakistan. The idea of creating purely a Muslim state goes against the very idea of India, in which pluralism thrives. Living together is the idea of modern democratic state. Monotheistic states are not a practicable reality, particularly where people of multiple faiths live for hundreds of years together.

Admitting the reality helps. Despite all the problems, all the bad things, minorities in India are far better than minorities, say in Pakistan or Bangladesh. Look at what Jinnah of Pakistan had said in 1948. He promised that all people will have freedom to practice their religion. But we know what had actually happened. Few days back Charanjit Singh, a Sikh in Peshawar, was killed by Taliban. His fault – he was a Sikh, and active in society. The number of Sikhs and Hindus have radically dwindled in Pakistan. From about 20 percent of population of Pakistan at the time of the partition, now they are about 2 per cent. Look at India – each population has grown, irrespective of religions. There is no suppression of minorities, there is no religious law, as proclaimed by Zia, there is no invocation to Kashmiris to radicalize and to take up arms as was done by Benazir Bhutto in 1987. These are all for anybody to verify. This is the fact. The more the people of Kashmir go deeper into this, the better.

I am not saying that Indian state has no fault in Kashmir. It has committed many mistakes. I have articulated this in my book Conflict Management in Kashmir, available at www.cambridge.org/9781108423892. But most violence is cyclic. The militants and military are engaged in violence. Who would argue that the army suppressed Kashmiris before 1980s? Even before 1980s India had comparatively strong army, but there was no massive deployment of armed forces in Kashmir. But, why after 1980s, there was massive deployment of forces? The rational minds in Kashmir must think about it. Who kidnapped Rubiyya Sayed, and Why? Who created the militant organizations and supported them? Who used illegal ways like Hawala to supply money to militants and their leaders in Kashmir? Who orchestrated killings of moderate voices like Lone and Bukhari of Kashmir? Who suffered? The people of Kashmir. The Kashmir was shattered. The minorities of Kashmir were tortured and killed. Kashmiris – Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs died.

Why was all this done? It is the mistaken belief that Kashmir can be wrested by force that contributed to this mayhem. It is the mistaken belief that by massively radicalizing impressionable youth Kashmir can be wrested. It is the mistaken belief that by blasting bombs, throwing grenades, killing people, Kashmir can be wrested. The more the violence, the more the destruction in Kashmir. And that is the net result. The families of the militants who die suffer, and also suffer the families of the soldiers and members of paramilitary forces who die.

Kashmir was not like that three or four decades ego. There are stories that the very Kashmiris nabbed spies from Pakistan and surrendered them to Indian authorities during the 1965 war. The situation changed later. Pakistan failing to defeat India directly in the war, used proxy war, armed the youth of Kashmir, radicalized them with the poison of religion. And the youth fell into the trap. Now Al Qaeda, Islamic State, Lashkar e Toiba, Jaish e Mohammad, are players in the Kashmir conflict. How could they play a role in this conflict? Certainly many of the members of these organizations are not Kashmiris. Certainly, they do not represent Kashmiris. How come they became so important in Kashmir?

The moment the Kashmiris of the valley withdraw their support to these militant organizations, peace will dawn in Kashmir. The army will be redundant. The moment the youth of the Kashmir realize that they are puppets in the hand of Pakistan, and they are not masters of their destiny, the problem will be resolved. The moment the Kashmiris think rationally, separate religion from politics, the problem will be resolved.

Religion is no doubt a strong bond. Everybody loves his or her religion. There is no problem in it, and there should be no problem in it. But religion can not be politicized and radicalized as in Kashmir. That will invite disaster. Kashmir can not be a religious state as is Pakistan. Kashmir has its own identity – that is Kashmiriyat. Let Kashmiris realize this Kashmiriyat and revive this spirit. Let the Kashmiris know that one of their ancestors was called Noor-ud-din by Muslims and Nund Rishi by Hindus. Let Kashmiris study Kalhana’s Rajtaringini, and know their history. Let Kashmiris know how their history witnessed confluence of religions and cultures, and how Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam and Sikhism all flourished in Kashmir. Let them know how in the Shankaracharya mountain, the Hindu saint Adi Shankara meditated, before the onset of Islam in the valley. Let them know about Lalitaditya, Zainul Abidin, Lal Ded, Sufism, Ranjit Singh, and the deep history and culture of Kashmir.

It is foolish if religious radicals think they can erase this pluralistic identity of Kashmir. If the militants think that with the support of Pakistan, they can mute whole Jammu and Kashmir, they can defeat Indian state, they are in illusion. Yes, they can silence sane voices like Bukhari, and kill innocent civilians, tourists or pilgrims, or some state officials. But their killing will also be retaliated by the state. This is already going on for more than two decades. There are already thousands of killings. I hope better sense will prevail on the militants, and also on their leaders and their supporters.

Let the sacrifice made by Shujaat Bukhari not go in vain.

Restoring Peace in Kashmir

More than forty people were killed in Kashmir in exchange of violence between Indian security forces and Kashmiri people, after Indian forces killed the Hizbul Mujahideen commander, Burhan Wani early this month. Wani had emerged a youth icon and used social network sites to recruit fellow Kashmiris to fight against the Indian rule. Perhaps this is the most violent situation that Kashmir experienced after the 2010 upsurge during which about 100 people were killed.

The ongoing violence, unless addressed fast, may descend into a terrible chaos of the 1990s type during which Indian forces and Pakistan backed militants engaged in cycles of violence leading to killing of thousands of Kashmiris. Unless the current violence is contained, it may escalate and plunge the whole region into deadly cycle of violence with loss of civilian life and consequent economic destruction. The violence would help neither India nor Pakistan nor the people of Kashmir. It would only help the states to score some brownie points. Pakistan’s Prime Minister, Nawaz Sharif called Burhan Wani, “a leader of Kashmir.” Wani represented Hizbul Mujahideen in Kashmir. The terrorist organization was banned by many countries and organizations including the European Union. There is evidence that Wani was involved in violent activities in Indian part of Kashmir, and played a key role in recruiting youth to the terrorist organization. According to one report he recruited at least 30 youths to Hizbul Mujahideen.

During my visit to the Kashmir valley in July and August last year, I could see it brimming with enthusiasm with tourists from across the world flocking the beautiful city of Srinagar and Dal Lake. As I visited the border areas of Uri for my research on cross-border exchange, I could witness a similar picture. The local traders engaged in cross-border exchanges were brimming with confidence that flexible border would not only accrue economic benefits to two parts of Kashmir but eventually help make Kashmir borderless. Unless the violence is contained, all the positive capital of the past decade whether in terms of cross-border opening, meeting of divided families and decline in cross-border firing will be nullified, and Kashmir will be exposed to another cycle of violence, consequences of which may be difficult to comprehend.

The spoilers will benefit from the current turmoil. The spoilers – that include the terrorist organizations such as Lashkar-e-Toiba, Hizbul Mujahideen, Jaish-e-Mohammed, the hard line separatist leaders, the hard line political leaders, the international terrorist organizations such as the Islamic State and the Al Qaeda – would seize the opportunity. For the spoilers conflict is ‘normal’ and any attempt towards peace creates a ‘crisis.’ Hence, they work hard to derail peace process and create a ‘new normal.’ The Islamic State’s fledgling presence in the valley will be further strengthened. During my visit last year, I came across the youth in the outskirts of Srinagar city holding Islamic State flags. The dreaded organization may further exploit this volatile situation to its advantage. It may not be a surprise that the radical organizations across the border use their proximity to army and intelligence agencies to provoke large scale conflict. Furthermore a nuclear conflagration – the worst nightmare not only for the South Asian community but for the whole world – may not be ruled out. Such a catastrophe may help bring a cold, negative, stone-age peace. But, would that restore real peace to Kashmir?

In negotiation lexicon, there is an acronym BATNA – Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement. Parties to a negotiation weigh their BATNA, and if they find they have a better alternative than to the negotiated agreement, they prefer to break away from negotiation. In case of India and Pakistan, BATNA for each is worse. They have to negotiate. In fact, the past wars between them ended after the leaders of both the countries came to the negotiation table. Again to use the negotiation language, they have to expand their pie, implying they have to be flexible, in order to have a peaceful settlement of the Kashmir issue.

Spoilers must be discouraged, and the gainers must be encouraged. Terrorist organizations such as Hizbul Mujahideen and Lashkar-e-Toiba must be deprived of patronage and resources. Historically the method of war and violence was usually applied by a strong state against a weak state. But in case of nuclear weapon states, this old method fails. Secondly, in the age of global connectivity and active international institutions, acts of war, or promoting proxy wars, are equally antithetical to international norms of peace and security. If past is any indication, violence has always failed to reach a solution in case of the Kashmir conflict. So, while discouraging spoilers, India and Pakistan must promote the gainers – the gainers are those who gain from engagement. For example, the opening of border in Kashmir helped thousands of people. Divided families met, the local traders gained. This constituency of gainers needs to be strengthened towards a durable and positive peace.

India and Pakistan must revive the peace process. The more they procrastinate, the more the stalemate would be hardened. The more they dry the channels of bilateral communication, the more it will be opportune for the spoilers to exploit the volatile situation. There were some movements in this direction, but it seems dead weight of animosity nullifies these attempts. Despite Indian Prime Minister Modi and Pakistani Prime Minister Sharif developing personal rapport, the state to state relations could not move forward. In case of Pakistan, army is a more powerful driver than the civilian government in determining the relations with India. Unless the two countries continuously engage constructively, they will fail to appreciate each other’s apparent position. But, for a full-fledged effective dialogue, it is necessary that spoilers must be contained. It is difficult to simultaneously continue dialogue and promote the spoilers.

One of the major lacuna of Modi’s policy in Kashmir is lack of engagement with the discontented people including the separatists. Modi’s mentor, Vajpayee had initiated talks with the separatists and their leaders had talks with high Indian officials and leaders including Vajpayee’s deputy, L. K. Advani. Not talking to separatist is not a better policy option than talking to them. The primary reason is that not engaging them further contributes to the alienation in the valley. The separatists’ influence might be confined to the valley, but even then it is not a small influence as the valley has millions of people and it is the place where alienation is sustaining. Like Vajpayee, his immediate successor, Manmohan Singh too had engaged the separatists and organized ‘Round Tables’ to engage the discontented people. Modi needs to engage the moderate separatists, and encourage them to play active messengers of peace.

Deprivation, and particularly the sense of deprivation, plays a major role in a conflict situation. It is not deprivation per se, but the perception of deprivation – that the ruling power deliberately undermines the group’s identity and culture – plays a major role in generating and sustaining conflict. Some of the marks of this deprivation, in the context of Kashmir, are presence of security forces, lack of trust between people and government, and arbitrary laws. India needs to craft a sensitive policy to address all these issues. And Pakistan needs to support the peace efforts, while simultaneously containing, along with India, the spoilers active in any part of Kashmir.

A Visit to Kashmir: Some Impressions

I visited Kashmir in July for my research. It was a research trip, hence there was little time to roam around the valley and enjoy its serene beauty. The valley, which was once the center of militancy related violence, was witnessing calm. There were sporadic incidents of violence such as the one in which a militant threw a grenade at a telephone communication facility, or a few young men displayed the Islamic State flags in the outskirts of Srinagar. But overall there was calm in the valley. It needs emphasis that in the vast landscape of undivided Jammu and Kashmir, or in the part that is in the Indian side of the Line of Control, the Kashmir valley was the most turbulent during militancy years. Now the violence has gone down.

One of the marks of declining violence was the rush of tourists to the valley to enjoy its cool climate to escape hot northern India, and enjoy the Dal lake and house boats on it, and beautiful gardens around the city. As I walked on the banks of the Dal Lake I saw hundreds of tourists from different parts of India roaming around the banks . One of the local businessmen, who was an owner of a hotel and also a houseboat, told me that the leaders of the militants now realize that targeting the tourists would hit the local economy and the local people. One of the major sources of income of the valley people is tourism, and the peak tourist season is summer. The militants were apparently aware of this economic dimension of the conflict. And in the case of the grenade attack mentioned above, one of the individuals who were present in the facility complex told me that the grenade thrower first ordered the office occupiers to leave the building before throwing.

About the display of Islamic State flags or shouting anti-India slogans, one professor from Kashmir University told me that these events are more for display and media consumption. These events usually take place after Friday prayers during which few young men from the congregation display their frustration at India’s policies by shouting anti-India slogans and, nowadays, by displaying Islamic State flags. The professor told me that Indian government in this situation behaves like a Spanish bull, which at the display of a red flag rushes towards it. Though the peace loving local people downplayed the importance of such events, the news that Indian government is establishing an agency to counter the spread of Islamic State influence has shown India’s seriousness towards the issue. I went to a place called Nowhatta, a suburb of Srinagar, to see the display of IS flags, but by the time I had reached, the protesters were dispersed by the police.

As I walked around the city, and particularly the areas surrounding the famous Hazratbal Mosque, I could see normal life all around. I could see women walking around the busy alleyways in the market, children from school queuing up for halwa puri in front of a sweet vendor, two individuals talking about Sufi poetry, and stray animals particularly dogs roaming around. Besides the local people, there were a large number of tourists enjoying the parks and gardens around the Mosque, buying souvenirs such as book stands or holy book. Against the conventional advice not to walk around in night, I enjoyed the cool breeze in the banks of the Dal Lake till late evening. It was full of life; there was least fear of militant attack. Though the environment, much more created by media and the past events of violence generated fear, I did not confront any such event. A student told me that a part of the university, with dense trees, was a site of regular cross-firing between India’s security forces and militants at the height of the militancy. But now there is total calm.

When I travelled towards the border at Uri to visit the trade center, I could not come across any unusual incident. I could see visible signs of alienation and protests. I found many stores and market complexes writing KMR, instead of J&K, on their sign boards. This was another sign of protest because J&K, implying Jammu and Kashmir, is the official name of the state, while KMR is unofficial and perhaps illegal from Indian state perspective. The driver of the vehicle informed me that KMR stands for Kashmir, which some of the local people preferred than the India’s abbreviated term for the state J&K. Though the sight of KMR was not frequent but that somehow brought the point that alienation is still a factor in the valley. As I visited the border areas crossing small towns and a district headquarter town called Baramulla, I could see the flow of life all around. While driving towards Salamabad trade center, the center of trade between the two parts of Jammu and Kashmir, I could see on the way power projects on the river Jhelum. For one of the projects, built jointly by UK, Sweden and India, the water was diverted 16 kilometers in a tunnel under mountain. I could come across an old Hindu temple in Uri, called Datta Mandir, selected as a UNESCO heritage site and one central school and a Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya.

The hospitality of people of Kashmir is without parallel. Whether it is my host in Srinagar, or in Uri, or in other places in the valley, I have always been enamored by their hospitality. They have emerged stronger from the shock of the flood that devastated the valley last year. I remember during my last visit after the flood, it was difficult to find a suitable place to stay as most of the hotels on the banks of the lake were damaged . Whether it is offer of Kashmiri bread, or salt tea, or Kahwah, the people are always forthcoming. Even the officials, at Uri or at Srinagar, were very helpful. As I talked to the traders and officials at the trade center, the traders expressed divergent views on cross-border trade. One trader told that the ex-militants have benefited from this trade, which in turn has helped address the alienation of the people. They also argued that the trade is not enough to address the alienation and the stakeholders to the conflict have to engage more effectively.

While walking around the trade center a consignment of trucks arrived from the Pakistani side of the LOC. I could see trucks with name plates Balochistan (see the photograph). The trucks carried apple, herbs and almond. One official took a handful of almond from one packet and offered me as a gesture of good will. I started chatting with people including the drivers from Pakistan. When I requested two drivers whether I can take a photo, they smiled and said, “why one, take two photos.” I could see through their genuine smiles, and felt in my heart that these drivers are not different from the people in this side of the border. I thought – it is the human folly that creates borders and divisions. Human being by nature is full of good will and friendship. 

A New Hope for Kashmir?

Early this month a new government was formed in Kashmir by two ideologically opposite political parties – Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), which runs the government in New Delhi, and People’s Democratic Party (PDP), a local formation in Kashmir. The coming together of the two political parties is widely viewed as “north pole and south pole coming together”. The coming together of the two different poles has also generated hope. If the two parties can shed their extreme positions and form a coalition to run the government, it is possible that they will collectively address the concerns of the people through harmonious means than through force.

BJP’s position is that Kashmir is an integral part of India. It wants to abrogate special provisions granted to Kashmir under Article 370 of the Indian Constitution. On the other hand the PDP, popular in the valley, is considered soft in its approach towards handling separatism in Kashmir. Its leader Mufti Mohammed Sayeed became famous for his ‘healing touch policy’ while serving as Chief Minister. The policy aimed at addressing the alienation of the people and bringing the extremist elements to the mainstream. His people-friendly policies led to significant decline in militancy in the valley. Sayeed played a role in the opening of the roads between the two parts of Kashmir and called the opening “mother of all confidence building measures”. When Sayeed was the Chief Minister of Kashmir in 2000s, a BJP led coalition was in power in New Delhi.

The militancy that started in Kashmir in 1980s slowed down after the BJP led government, under Atal Behari Vajpayee, initiated dialogue with Pakistan and supported the policies of the Sayeed government. Vajpayee’s famous bus ride in 1999 from Delhi to Lahore to meet his counterpart, Nawaz Sharif, marked the beginning of a new relationship between India and Pakistan. Though Kargil war in late 1999 and the Indian parliament attack in 2001 created obstacles in the dialogue process, the relations picked up gradually. While Vajpayee initiated measures from New Delhi, Sayeed initiated measures from Kashmir towards a comprehensive dialogue between the people of Kashmir and India.

This is the first time BJP will be part of a government in Kashmir. In the elections held in November-December 2014, PDP swept the Kashmir valley and BJP the Jammu region. The results showed that the Muslim majority valley is not fond of the nationalist BJP, and the Hindu majority Jammu is not fond of PDP. After the elections results were declared, PDP and BJP emerged two major parties but each lacked the needed majority to form government. For the local people it was a surprise that BJP and PDP were engaged in negotiations to form government. The negotiations went on for more than two months. The two major contentious issues that stretched the negotiations were: Article 370 and Armed Forces Special Powers Act. BJP wanted to revoke the special provisions, which PDP resisted. PDP wanted to revoke the Special Powers Act, which BJP resisted. In the end of end of February, the two parties declared that they have developed a common minimum program to form government. The common program shelved the contentious issues. That was a big achievement as it demonstrated the readiness of the two parties to pursue a middle path.

Within one week of coming to power, Sayeed worked to implement his election-promises including setting free the political prisoners. His release of Masarat Alam Bhat, allegedly the mastermind behind the protests of 2010, within one week of coming to power, left BJP red faced. Before that on the occasion of the oath taking ceremony, Sayeed had praised Pakistan and the militants for the smooth conduct of the elections. BJP countered that the elections were conducted peacefully because of the support from the local people, the election commission and the security forces. There was ruckus in the Indian parliament, with opposition parties charging BJP of compromising national interest. The prime minister clarified that national interest is of supreme importance. The Indian government issued a directive to the Kashmiri government to monitor the movements of Bhat.

The recent militant attacks in Jammu region may not completely offset the hope generated by the new government. These attacks, however, will put to test the bond between the two coalition partners. An increase in these attacks may weaken the bond and impact the peace process, which is not in a good shape.

It is likely that the new government in Kashmir and its policies will prove beneficial for the people of Kashmir and for the relations between India and Pakistan. The understanding between the two political parties may lead PDP to address the concerns of the people in Kashmir, particularly those in the valley, and BJP to support policies of economic development in the region. PDP’s popularity in the valley will help it address the alienation of the people, and BJP’s control over the national exchequer will help alleviate the problems of unemployment and underdevelopment.

Kashmir Back in New Delhi’s Radar

Prime Minister of India, Narendra Modi, made his maiden visit to Jammu and Kashmir on 4 July 2014. While inaugurating the rail link from Jammu to Katra, the prime minister said, “Today Jammu and Kashmir will get both speed and energy. I am inaugurating this and a power project later today.” The prime minister’s emphasis on speed and energy is significant for peace and development in Kashmir.

The train from Jammu to Katra may symbolize speed but the deliberate choice of this term implies more. Modi is perhaps the first prime minister of India who visited the conflict-torn state even before completing two months in office. This is an indication of seriousness of the new government to prioritize Kashmir. Known for his pro-development initiatives and his passion for speedy implementation of development policies, Modi’s visit to Kashmir and emphasis on peace and prosperity in the region needs to be viewed in a new light. While the root causes of the conflict demands a deeper reflection and matching actions – understandably which will take more time and energy, the recent visit conveys the message that the development process needs to be expedited in the region. It should not be made hostage to rivalries between stakeholders to the conflict. The visit will add sinew to the scattered peace efforts initiated a decade earlier.

Modi appears determined to add energy to the peace process. At 63, he is younger than his predecessor. His pro-business policies may encourage the private business to invest in Kashmir, particularly in infrastructure projects such as roads and railways, and power. For sustainable development of the region, the participation of private players is an imperative. Violence has affected the prospects of development in the region, thereby discouraging private investment and creating obstacles against effective implementation of the developmental policies. Though people-centric development is not a sure shot for peace, it can help foster peace in a violence prone, and underdeveloped, region. It is indubitable that the protracted conflict needs more than development initiatives. But, undeniably, lack of development in the region has contributed to discontent and alienation in the region. This can not, and should not, be ignored.

Modi’s policies have demonstrated that he believes in speedy execution of even tough policies. The recent hike in rail fares by his government is such an example. His visit to J&K reflects the sense of urgency to address the complex issues the region has been seized with. Though his visit to the region was protested by the separatists groups in the region and his party’s demand for a debate on Article 370 (guaranteeing special status to the region) has drawn flak from many quarters, his government’s proactive nature in Kashmir is undeniable. Reports suggest his government is planning to evolve a framework to address the hitherto neglected issue of the return and rehabilitation of the displaced Kashmir Pandits. The displaced Pandits in the Kashmir valley left their native place in late 1980s with the onset of militancy. The extremist elements may not welcome the move as it will hurt their agenda of an exclusivist Kashmir (particularly the valley) though the majority of Kashmiri people including the separatists have welcomed the initiative.

It is no surprise that on the occasion of Modi’s visit, an umbrella group of radical organizations in Kashmir, Majlis Itihad-e-Milat, threatened to sabotage his government’s plan to rehabilitate the displaced Pandits. The issue is sensitive and it needs a proper assessment since any hasty resettlement may worsen the already fragile situation, particularly in the Kashmir valley. Akin to a speeding vehicle, Modi’s speed in Kashmir may go way ward if it does not follow the rules of road, i.e. overlooking the concerns of the local people and the issues that are deeply embedded in the conflict. The Chief Minister of the state, Omar Abdullah, in a veiled reference to India’s policies, argued, Kashmir cannot be won by money or muscle power. Abdullah’s utterance has a value as it reflects sentiments of sections of the people in the valley.

Modi’s attempts at simultaneously taking forward peace process and development programs in Kashmir will not be smooth. India has not only to address the concerns of the alienated sections within Kashmir but also to negotiate effectively with Pakistan. However, Modi’s peace and development initiatives have won him many supporters in and outside the region. Any sincere attempt, howsoever miniscule, to address the grievances of alienated people needs to be applauded. But, how far Modi led government in New Delhi will be able to sustain speed and energy and address the concerns of the people of Kashmir remain to be seen.

(Published in Transcend Media Weekly)

Will Modi and Sharif revive Lahore?

Pakistan’s Prime Minister, Nawaz Sharif was one of the first leaders to congratulate Narendra Modi when his Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) won the elections in May 2014. Modi invited Sharif to attend the swearing in ceremony at the forecourt of Indian Presidential palace in New Delhi on 26 May 2014. The national and international media widely covered the interactions between the two prime ministers.

Fifteen years ago, in 1999, Indian Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee had visited Lahore, the cultural capital of Pakistan, on the invitation of Prime Minister Sharif. During the visit both the leaders had signed the Lahore Declaration to promote bilateral relations. Sharif and Vajpayee shared a vision of peaceful and stable South Asia, only to be scuttled few months later due to the Kargil war and the military coup in Pakistan.

Will Modi and Sharif revive the spirit of Lahore?

Modi and Sharif share many common traits. Sharif is a businessman turned politician and Modi is known for his pro-business policies during his twelve year-old rule in the Western India state of Gujarat. Sharif returned to power after a gap of 14 years in 2013. Modi’s political party, BJP will be in power after a gap of 10 years. Both Sharif and Modi are in their early 60s. They are young, dynamic and perceived effective. Their support base differs from their previous regimes – the rule of Pakistan People’s Party suffered from bickering and opacity and the rule of Indian National Congress led United Progressive Alliance suffered from lethargy. Modi and Sharif enjoy a strong support base with an absolute majority in their legislatures and are capable of taking strong decisions.

But Modi is not Vajpayee. While Vajpayee was popular in Pakistan for his peace overtures, Modi is known for the communal riots that took place in Gujarat in 2002 during his rule. The riots killed more Muslims than Hindus. Though Indian courts have not found any evidence to convict him, he continues to be perceived anti-Muslim by sections of people. Modi throughout his electoral campaign stayed away from invoking religion and mainly won on a plank of development. His party gained 282 seats in 543-member lower house, a feat no party achieved since 1984. If his electoral utterances are taken seriously, Modi as Prime Minister of India will take an inclusive approach towards development and towards developing relations with Pakistan.

During an interview early this month to an Indian TV channel Modi argued that Pakistan must rein in extremist networks to revive the peace process. The hardliners in Pakistan dislike Modi and will use every opportunity to create havoc in Indo-Pak relations. It will be no surprise if the extremists in Pakistan repeat a 2008 Mumbai style attack to invoke a hard line response from the new government. Unlike his mentor, Vajpayee, who during the Kargil War of 1999, ordered the troops not to cross the Line of Control (the de facto border between India and Pakistan in Kashmir), Modi may react differently. Any hijacking of foreign policy by the hardliners in India and Pakistan brings to mind the horrors of war between the two nuclear weapon powered nations.

Modi and Sharif will prefer to cooperate than to conflict as the initial exchange between the two leaders indicates. In his reply to Sharif’s wishes, Modi talked about poverty, a common problem in the region, and his resolve to fight it. Both are known for pro-business and pro-development policies and this can be a common ground for developing bilateral relations. Modi during his rule in Gujarat made high profile invitations to business houses for investment. Some of the top Indian business houses invested in Gujarat during his rule. When Tata’s famous low cost car Nano’s proposed factory was stalled in the eastern state of West Bengal, Modi invited the industrial unit to Gujarat.

The businessman turned politician Sharif will be interested to cultivate the shared interest in bilateral trade. Pakistan in December 2013 postponed the granting of most favored nation status to India. Sharif may now consider the time ripe for granting the status. This can be a welcome gesture to start with. Before India’s elections, Sharif in February had made the case for flexible cross-border trade. Hence, it is likely that economics will dominate the relations between the two neighbors with eventual easing of tensions in areas of conflict such as Kashmir.

The lack of bilateral trust is a major roadblock against peace. Modi and Sharif can address the deficit. It is generally during election times that politicians ratchet up religious and nationalistic passions to win the electorate. As both the leaders are well ensconced in power, they can use the opportunity to nurture close relations.

Barring the 2002 scar, Modi’s image in India is that of a transparent and strong leader. Similarly, Sharif’s image in Pakistan is not sullied as that of some of his predecessors. Though adorned the post of prime minister for a decade, Modi’s predecessor Singh did not possess the actual power of the office as it was concentrated outside. Modi will not suffer from that handicap. He will be able to take decisions and implement them. During his election campaigns Modi harped on his vision of taking along all Indians to build a strong and developed India. If Modi is guided by this inclusive vision, it will be on expected lines that India-Pakistan relations will gain meat, and Modi will follow in footsteps of his mentor. But, if Modi cavorts to hard line tunes of sections of his party, the bilateral relations may plunge further low. The new mandate provides Modi the opportunity to bring on track the derailed relations between India and Pakistan. In this peace tango, Sharif can be his matching partner.

(Published in eposweb.org) 

Gender, Conflict and Peace: Women's Day Rumination

We celebrate Women’s Day on March 8 every year. Since the day was declared a day of celebration, we see processions, marches, posters and various activities highlighting women’s plights and progress around the world. This year the United Nations theme for the day is “Equality for Women is Progress for all.”

Have we really progressed on this front? Is there any real empowerment of women?

As I work in areas of conflict transformation and peacebuilding, my interest in the roles women play in conflict situations and in peacebuilding is natural. I prefer to look on this day the role women played in conflicts and peacebuilding. What better way to analyze this than to review a book on gender, conflict and peace in Kashmir, just out of the press last month? The book titled Gender,Conflict and Peace in Kashmir: Invisible Stakeholders is written by Dr. Seema Shekhawat and published by the Cambridge University Press. The book is the result of the author’s decades-long research in Kashmir.

The subtitle of the book says a lot about the status of women in Kashmir. It draws our attention to the real position of women in conflict and peace discourse in Kashmir. When the role of women in conflict is juxtaposed to their role in peace, there appears asymmetry. The author draws our attention to the militancy when it was at peak in 1990s. Women were everywhere. They took part in protests, fought security forces, and testified rape cases against the security forces in public. In a conservative society like Kashmir this participation could not have been possible without the patriarchal sanction. Women’s role as perpetrators, mobilizers, supporters, the author argues, sustained the militancy. Kashmir received international attention. The media flashed burqa clad women protesting on the streets of Srinagar, arguing with the gun totting security forces, shouting anti-India slogans.

The severe crackdown by the Indian security forces under the armed forces special powers act sent male militants and their leaders into hiding, leaving the movement in hands of the women. Women mobilized and spread the message of Azadi, encouraged their sons to participate in militancy, and sang bravery songs at the death of their sons. They were the main engines of the movement. They hid guns under their veils, carried letters for male militants, obstructed the path of the security forces to let the fugitive militant escape, nourished wounded militants, fed them, and even escorted  male militant under the cover of veil to escape security posts. Shekhawat devotes a full chapter to elaborate the roles played by the women in militancy. According to her, “The movement could not have received international attention on such a large scale had Kashmiri women not supported it.” (p. 78).

The militancy receded in 2000s. The violence went down in the Kashmir valley, the main site of insurgency. The governments and the separatists engaged in dialogue. Peace moves such as ‘round tables,’ ‘heart to heart talks,’ were initiated. Various confidence building measures were also initiated. Working committees were formed to carry forward the peace process.

“Where are women?” in this peacebuilding process, the author asks poignantly. She points out how Kashmir “provides ample evidence of prejudiced nature of conflict and peace making, which glorified women as linchpins of the movement for secession but later did not hesitate in pushing them to the fringes of the peace process”  (p. 145). There are many such moving arguments in the book. Hence, for anyone interested to learn the status of women in conflict situation and in peace processes the book is a must. The author provides us evidence from the field, drawing from her numerous interviews, how the women of Kashmir are sidelined in the peace process. They have no representation in peace committees. To add, they are not vocal in demanding their due share in the peace process.

Are there no women leaders in Kashmir to be part of the peacebuilding process? The author points out that there is no dearth of women talent in Kashmir. But either they have chosen to remain silent and acquiesce to the old patriarchal norms, or they think that the male leadership is naturally poised to lead the peace process; they have no role to play. Rather, they need to go back to their traditional domain of activity – taking care of family and being confined to the four walls of the house. Even the existing women’s separatist organizations are silent on this issue. The author rightly argues, “Kashmir seems to be an apt example where women’s organizations subjected women to a male-dominated order” (p. 101).

The author strongly argues unless women are part of the peace process, it will remain highly insensitive and exclusive. The central message of the book is: women must play a key role in peacebuilding. For Shekhawat, “the aim of sustainable peace (in Kashmir or elsewhere) cannot be realized when the process is exclusive and discriminatory” (p. 165). This book paints a vivid picture of the reality and unfolds before us the paradox that despite celebrating the Women’s Day with all fanfare, women’s status in society remains deplorable. Are women listening? They must rise and stake their claims. Perhaps this should be the message of the Women’s Day, which this book reinforces.

Music as a Tool of Conflict Transformation?

“I have waited and dreamt of this moment for years…We only want to do good. Music must go out from here to all our friends everywhere… To all Kashmiris,” said world renowned conductor, Zubin Mehta on 7 September 2013 while leading the orchestra in the famed Mughal Garden in the heart of Srinagar, the summer capital of Jammu and Kashmir on the Indian side.

The concert, organized by the German embassy in New Delhi, was perhaps the first of its kind in the troubled Kashmir, in which the famous Bavarian State Orchestra of Germany played Beethoven, Haydn and Tchaikovsky. The orchestra also played Kashmiri music in conjunction with a Kashmiri ensemble, led by Abhay Sopori. The concert titled Ehsaas-e-Kashmir (the feel of Kashmir) can be watched here.

Expectedly, the music program received opposition from separatist leaders, who called for protests against it. Some opposition groups organized a parallel concert titled Haqeeqat-e-Kashmir (the reality of Kashmir) in the city. The good thing that can be observed is that the protests took the shape of another music concert, not violent demonstrations and bloodshed.

Can music be an instrument of conflict transformation? Putting it in another way, can music like other forms of art such as dance and drama, literary fests, etc. play an effective role in changing the mind of leaders and their followers who seek resolution of conflicts through violent methods? Particularly in the case of Kashmir, which has a rich Sufi culture and various musical traditions, how far can such an occasion can be a catalyst in moderating the violent positions of the parties?

Before the start of the program, German Ambassador John Steiner told the audience that the concert is a tribute to the people of Kashmir and their culture. In his words, “The distance between Munich and Srinagar is 7,756-km. Today, the distance reduces to zero. German and European cultural heritage bow to Kashmir, to its history, to its beauty and to its difficult reality and journey.”

Such a program also took place in 1955 when the Soviet leaders Khrushchev and Bulganin visited the valley. However, in the 1990s the separatism took a violent turn with support from across the border and also with repressive measures by the Indian security forces. The violence led a whole generation of Kashmiris, who were born and brought up in those years, to question the very status of Kashmir and turn towards violence under the guidance of radical leaders.

But one can notice that even the separatist leaders were divided on this concert. Some of them questioned the very organization of the program by Germany in a disputed territory and called the move a ploy to showcase that everything is normal in Kashmir. While some others described the expensive event as a waste of resources which could be diverted for poverty eradication or development purposes. The Nawaz Sharif government of Pakistan, a party to the conflict, remained muted concerning the concert. This indicated the moderate approach of the newly elected government to the conflict, and its interest in cultivating friendly relations with India.

Music, which is not essentially religious, has often been a victim of radicalism in Kashmir. Radical groups in Kashmir like Lashkar-e-Toiba, Dukhteren-e-Millat, Jaish-e-Mohammad, etc. perceive music as antithetical to religion. Besides music, they perceive freedom of expression and gender equality in the same way. In that sense, they share same values and ideas with other radical groups like the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Pragaash, an all-girl rock band in Kashmir, which was getting popular in the region due to its avant-garde music, had to vanish within months of its emergence due to threats from these radical groups. In contrast, another girl of Kashmir origin in Pakistani city of Karachi, Maha Ali Kazmi has become popular due to her romantic song Nazar, which can be watched here.

Any observer with having a sense of reality of the Kashmir conflict, and an understanding of the reality of national, regional and global politics in the post-cold war globalized world will be comfortable in arguing that neither the rigid positions of India and Pakistan, nor the separatists are going to be realized. The official Indian position that undivided Kashmir is an integral part of India, and Pakistan’s official position of supporting Kashmir’s right to self-determination (with the hope that it will merge with Pakistan), are matters of the past. This was realized in the early 2000s when both countries decided to make the border flexible, allow people- to- people contacts and commence cross-border trade. I have argued in my monograph ‘ Making Kashmir Borderless‘ that a borderless Kashmir with free flow of goods, ideas and people across the border (while retaining the symbolic division to satisfy national egos) will perhaps be the most feasible solution to the protracted conflict.

The South Asian subcontinent, which includes India, Pakistan and the undivided Kashmir, shared a common history and many aspects of culture. This is no truer than in case of music and drama. Noted Bollywood actors like Balraj Sahni, Dev Ananad, Dilip Kumar, Sunil Dutt, Kapoors and a host of others hailed from Pakistan, while noted Pakistani singers like Mehdi Hassan, Munni Begum, Reshma and many others hailed from India. The history of cross-cultural linkages is indeed legendary. The famous Sikh shrine Nankana, the birth place of Sikh religion founder Nanak, lies in Pakistan, while the famous Sufi shrine in the name of Chisti, frequented by Pakistani Muslims, lies in India. As a friend from Pakistan told me, it is the vested interests that create most of the problems. Common people, busy in the daily routines of life, want to live in peace and enjoy themselves. The concert early this month sends this message. More such events should be organized in both parts of Kashmir with support from New Delhi and Islamabad.

Published in http://blogs.umb.edu/paxblog/ on 29 September 2013

Reading Speeches

I watched three events in youtube yesterday: the speeches of three successive Indian prime ministers: Jawaharlal Nehru, Lal Bahadur Shastri, and Indira Gandhi. All the three speeches were incidentally related to Kashmir conflict. I watched these video clips to divert my attention from hectic schedule, but found myself involved thinking about the speeches and related dimensions: what the leaders spoke, their style of speaking, their tonal expressions and implications. All these I have referred in this piece reading speeches. I am aware that I am a novice in this disciple, and many universities have special departments to study and analyze speeches. But there is nothing, I suppose, in hazarding this analysis in a blog, which for me an open space to express myself. In this adventure, I do not mind considerations of specialization, expertise, and all those stuff.

All these three clips hardly continued more than 20 minutes. These clips were random selections. As I was thinking of ways of comforting myself, a random thought appeared that I should listen to Shastri’s speech. And when I watched the video of Tashkent summit and his brief speech there, I could come across other video clips in the same webpage containing speeches of father-daughter duo – Nehru and Indira. To my amusement all the speeches were related to Kashmir conflict. Nehru was speaking at the UN and at a press conference in New Delhi and Indira was speaking to press during her whirlwind world tour during Indo-Pak crisis in 1971.

Let me start with Indira Gandhi. She was visibly tense during interviews. I could fathom her visible frustration. While speaking at the Panos show, or at other interviews, mainly in the UK, her face was stiff, at time contorted, as she was confronting barrage of questions from journalists. Journalists were perhaps delighted to see India’s prime minister in such a tense posture. And they bombarded with questions: will India attack Pakistan? Will India initiate a dialogue with Pakistan to bring peace in West Pakistan? Will India support Mukti Bahini of Shiekh Mujibur Rehman in its war against Pakistan? Indira was visibly upset, and trying to articulate Indian position that India has nothing to do with Pakistan crisis. But what about millions of refugees crossing over to Indian territory, she asked journalists? What about if Pakistan in order to persecute Mukti Bahini crossed international border and follow the refugees, she argued? My point is she could have articulated this point without displaying her frustration at non-support from the Western powers to her diplomacy. At one point she said, Kashmir is not our problem; it is created by Pakistan.

Shastri at Tashkent was forthcoming. I saw in video clip that he displayed at the same time a child-like innocence and statesmanlike demeanor. The meeting was organized by the Soviet Premier Alexi Kosygin, who introduced Shastri and Ayub Khan at the round table. As I could identify Shastri was accompanied by Sardar Swaran Singh, then Foreign Minister of India, and Jagjivan Ram, and Ayub was accompanied by Zulfikar Ali Bhutto. Shastri read out the printed speech, it was clear and audible. His manner was straightforward, without any trace of gullibility, and simple. He was wearing dhoti and kurta. His small physical stature was sufficiently compensated by his demeanor. After the summit, he went to an educational center and glimpsed over some of the old texts and talked to the staff of the institute. It was a great opportunity to see Shastri walking and talking. The government dominated public media display speeches of Nehru and Indira, but I have never come across Shastri’s speeches, not even on his birthday which falls on the same day as that of Mahatma Gandhi. This video was created by the Soviet government.

Coming back to Nehru he appeared articulate and at ease while speaking to journalists or while speaking at the UN. His long years of experience during freedom struggle and also in post-independent politics must have been assets for him. While speaking to journalists in Delhi, in the context of Kashmir, he said Kashmir has acceded to India. It is Pakistan which should withdraw its forces, and make peace with India. He argued that he went to the United Nations because he wanted to tell the world the aggression of Pakistan. He squarely blamed Pakistan, and said the onus lies on Pakistan how to make peace in the region. He said India has not occupied Kashmir illegally; rather Pakistan has occupied parts of it by invading it. Indira too echoed her father during one of her interviews with a journalist named Chris Panos. Nehru, I think, can be graded the best speaker among the three. His foreign upbringing, his mastery over language, and his casual approach are his assets. In case of Shastri, it is his straightforwardness that can be considered his asset. He had not upbringing as that of Nehru, he rose from the grassroots. Perhaps he was the most upright politician India ever witnessed in its post-independent history. In case of Indira, she was perhaps not that astute in political affairs by that time (1971) as was her father in early 1960s. She was known as a ‘mute’ politician in her early political career (one socialist thinker Rammanohar Lohia described her as ‘ghunghi gudiya’). She might have unsurpassed shrewdness as a politician, but she was less articulate in comparison to her father and Shastri. I have not seen clips of her later speeches, which, I am sure, must be better in terms of composure. 

Statist India-Pakistan Dialogue

India-Pakistan dialogue at foreign ministers level in Islamabad can be justly called statist as it added nothing substantial to bilateral relations except meetings and press conferences bordering acrimony. Anyone who viewed the joint press conference of the ministers on 16 July 2010 could conclude nothing but precisely this: the post-Mumbai terror attack relations are surviving on a vague optimism that relations will get better in due course. Despite this optimism expressed opulently by the political leaders of both the countries, the fact remain unless some substance is added to the relations, South Asia will further plunge into another bout of crisis. In international politics diplomacy and dialogue are good things to salvage bad relations, but these can not sustain long in a vacuum.

Since February 2010 when direct official talks started between India and Pakistan after a gap of about one and a half year, hopes have gathered momentum among the civil society members who love peace and stability that something positive will come out gradually. While the constituent of peace is squeezed after the Mumbai attack, nonetheless this constituent has never dithered in advocating peace at whatever cost. India-Pakistan relations have to be guided by the principles of peace and co-existence, and no matter how furious and degenerating the extremist elements with extremist agenda, India and Pakistan with nuclear weapons can not but promote dialogue and deliberation to arrive at any amicable solution to the vexed issues including the issue of Kashmir. The hard line elements in both the countries are not interested in peace as they promote hatred and animosity, in which there interest is served at the cost of peace loving citizens of both the countries.

The meeting of prime ministers of both the countries in the Bhutanese capital Thimpu in April 2010 further increased the peace constituency and raised the hope that something positive will come out. Both the prime ministers emphasized on the initiatives to bridge ‘trust deficit’ between the two countries. Prime Minister Singh of India, known for his peace overtures to Pakistan despite criticism from sections at home, has promised to ‘walk extra mile’ to promote friendly relations with Pakistan. The radical elements do not like these overtures. They call the prime minister ‘evil’ and want to punish India by promoting terrorist violence for its positions on contentious issues. While the civil society of India and Pakistan want peace and stability, the extremist elements always want to see both the country at loggerheads. Whether it is Al Qaeda or Lashkar-e-Toiba or Jaish-e-Mohammad, they are pronounced opponents of India-Pakistan dialogue.

The point that needs emphasis that both the countries need to come out of rigid frameworks of policy making and think in broader terms. Two particular issues that drag the peace process in South Asia are the following. While India insists that Pakistan must punish the culprits of Mumbai attack, Pakistan demands that the issue of terrorism has to be dealt separately and India has to bring to table other contentious issues like Kashmir. In fact after the revelations of David Coleman Headley India’s demand for action from Pakistan has become further emboldened. The recent foreign ministers’ meeting discussed all the contentious issues including that of terrorism and Kashmir but without any conclusive outcome. Both the parties did not issue any joint statement and as the joint press conference showed, both the ministers disagree on a bitter note on various issues. On a question to Pakistan foreign minister about the hate speech of the Lashkar chief, Hafeez Saeed, the foreign minister delivered elusive statements with overtones implicating India for the similar activities.

Despite allegations and counter allegations, complains and counter complains, the overall agreement that could come out is that both the countries will meet again in near future. Pakistan foreign minister alleged that his Indian counterpart did not come fully prepared and that he will not be going to India for some picnic, referring to India’s unpreparedness. Indian foreign minister countered by saying that he was not in Pakistan for sightseeing and did not invite his Pak counterpart for any such activities but some serious engagements. The only succor was that the Pakistan leadership took the dialogue in a positive note and expressed hope that dialogue and deliberation is the only way forward. It remains to be seen how far this resolve will be supported by the army, which plays a decisive role in the decision making process in Pakistan. The Indian leadership too is optimistic that peace and dialogue is the only way forward to resolve the contentious issues.

The point that needs emphasis is: how far the dialogue will continue without any substantive outcome? Mere exercise in dialogue without breaking the trust deficit will lead nowhere but ensconce the radical spirit that all these exercises are niceties in vain and these are ploys to divert attention from core issues, and the only way to solve the issues is war and violence. Besides, the patience of the civil society in both the countries may wear thin in passing days, which may give rise to pessimism that nothing positive will happen in bilateral relations and the political leaders are at best can fix dates for dialogue, but without any substantial result. Such a development will be precarious as it will put the framework and the spirit behind the composite dialogue into jeopardy, and goad extremist elements into action.

On a wider front the India-Pakistan relations are more complex as these are not confined to the issues of terrorism or Kashmir, but also issue of strategic rivalry, sphere of influence in Afghanistan, and also the issue of control over natural resources like water. Both the foreign ministers attended the Kabul conference on 20 July 2010, but again the bilateral differences and more so the inherent distrust and acrimony pulled back the leaders towards achieving any concrete result, and thus weakening the constituent of peace and dialogue in South Asia.

Published in Transcend Media Service Weekly, July 26-August 1, 2010

Kashmir and the Demilitarization Debate

In the last week of March 2010 a new dimension hitherto unknown to demilitarization debate in Kashmir came to picture. One of the premier Indian TV channels, NDTV, showed in its news the popular protests in Khurhma village in northern Kashmir against the shifting of the camp of Rashtriya Rifles, a part of paramilitary force of India. The interesting thing is that all the protesting people were Muslims. This development adds a crucial dimension to the demilitarization debate in Kashmir as it makes enough dent in the separatist argument for the immediate withdrawal of Indian forces on the pretext that the people of region want it.

The video footage showed clearly how the people including old and young opposed the shifting of the camp. Hence, it is the people who want the forces to be in their areas. It is these people, who have suffered in the hands of the militants in the heydays of militancy, are scared that once the paramilitary forces withdrew the rule of militants will return back with all impunity. The 75 year old Ghulam Ahmad Sheikh while protesting against the shifting lamented how the militants killed two of his daughters in the 1990s, when Kashmir was passing through a very violent phase. Hence, when Ayaz Akbar, spokesperson for the Syed Ali Shah Geelani-led hard line faction of the Hurriyat Conference argues that Kashmiri are not ‘cowards’ (to quote his word) that they need security forces and this is all propaganda by security forces, it falls flat as the video footage clearly reflected the popular voices of the people, and not one or two persons, but a huge number of people. In fact, the statement by the spokesperson further makes the separatists more separated from the very people whose cause they claim to espouse.

The new development also dents the Pakistani argument, particularly vigorously forwarded by the Musharraf government, that at least the border districts in Kashmir should be demilitarized. There were two sets of arguments floated to support this proposal. First militancy has gone down in the region. Hence there is no need to retain the camps of forces mainly intended to check militant violence. Second, such a measure will further strengthen confidence building among the two rivals India and Pakistan, and work as a step further towards transformation of the conflict in Kashmir. India appeared to have agreed to such a formulation. Prime Minister of India Manmohan Singh declared on many occasions that depending on the situation the government will think of demilitarize Kashmir and take steps in that direction.

No doubt Kashmir needs to be demilitarized, and no civic society can grow healthily in a tense atmosphere. But the question is when and how? In one of my publications, I strongly argued that the demilitarization process should begin in earnest in a phased manner. My surveys in the past years in the border areas in Kashmir showed that there are instances when public places like schools and primary health centres are taken over by the armed forces. Undoubtedly these places need to be vacated by the forces on an urgent basis. But, what about the places, under control of the forces, which do not have any direct bearing on public life? Tents in open places, or makeshift buildings, or other government houses not directly related to public services do not pose any urgency for vacation. However, as the reports suggest, over the past one year about 35,000 troops have been withdrawn from the region that include 39 Mountain Division forces from Rajouri, a battalion in Vilgam area of Handwara and 1,000 men of 49 Rashtriya Rifles in Qazigund in Anantnag.

Some of the factors must be taken into account while talking about total demilitarization of Kashmir. Perhaps, the idea could have been feasible in 2007-2008 (till the Mumbai terror attack in November 2008), when there was almost complete tranquility in the landscape of Kashmir and people under the influence of ‘irreversible’ peace process and composite dialogue thought that the solution of the vexed problem was appearing near. The Mumbai terror attack created a big bang in the sense it completely shattered all the achievements of the past decade and brought back the tense atmosphere to the region.

The recent Kashmir Day celebrations in Muzaffarabad did not add any good thing to the whole scenario rather it further led to spiraling down the situation into the pit of chaos and radicalism. One radical leader named Abdur Rehman Makki on the occasion called Manmohan Singh ‘evil’ and promised revenge on India. If Manmohan Singh, the incumbent Prime Minister of India, who always talks about going extra mile in talks with Pakistan, and who is mostly criticized at home for soft attitude to Pakistan, is the real evil or culprit of Indo-Pak talks, then probably it is an impossible dream to see peace returning to the subcontinent. Another development also needs to be factored in the context of demilitarization. The recent reports suggest that there are about 400 militants waiting across the Line of Control to cross over India and play havoc in the lives of innocent people. Hence, keeping these factors in mind, the government must initiate a much calibrated programme towards the demilitarization.

It is true that there are instances when the security forces are found guilty of violating human rights of innocent civilians in Kashmir. Hence, the anger and frustration of a Kashmiri who has experienced this violation, or has witnessed or come across this violation, is understandable. And that explains why the security forces may not be very popular in the valley. As India is a democracy, and everything happens in media glare, nothing can be hidden, and particularly in sensitive areas like Kashmir valley, and also when they do not enjoy support of the local leaders. The militants also commit gross violation of human rights but that seldom come to light. The militants are still active in the valley, and recently, they have killed innocent civilians including girls. But their crimes are either undervalued or under reported. The last year one premier news channel of India was displaying in prime time news how the militants were brutally torturing people because they committed crimes. What were those crimes? They were not following the Sharia code of law.

The protests in the Khurhma village last week show that what the separatists say is not all truth, and it is not the whole people of Kashmir, including the Kashmir valley, that want the exit of security forces soon. It will be an ideal situation when all security forces pack their bags and leave the valley, and all militants in the undivided Kashmir shun violence and embrace peace. Then Kashmir will reflect its true character as paradise on earth. But ideal situations are scarcely feasible in a situation which becomes playground of dangerous games at the cost of the innocent many.

Saudi Arabia as Interlocutor in South Asia?

Mediating in conflicts in South Asia particularly between India and Pakistan since the inception of bilateral animosities has become a prize catch in international politics since long. In the list of players as mediator the name that has emerged recently is that of Saudi Arabia. Indian Prime Minster visited Saudi Arabia on 27 February 2010 on a three day state visit. The visit at the highest level that took place after 28 years has evoked optimism in bilateral relations, but at the same time it has raised apprehensions as the discussions during the visit bring to the fore.


India signed about ten bilateral agreements with Saudi Arabia during the visit of the Indian Prime Minister. The last time any Indian Prime Minister visited the most powerful country in the Gulf was in 1982 when Indira Gandhi was in the Gulf country. It can be mentioned here that Saudi Arabia is the largest supplier of oil to India. During the visit of Singh, many agreements in the fields of regional security, terrorism, money laundering, etc. were signed. A prominent agreement was the signing of the extradition treaty between the two countries. The spirit of the Delhi Declaration signed during the visit of the King Abdullah to Delhi in January 2006 was further bolstered with the signing of the Riyadh Declaration during the visit of Singh.


But, the visit and its outcome have been virtually overshadowed by a controversial statement by the Indian Minister of State in External Affairs, Shashi Tharoor, who was also part of the delegation led by the Prime Minister. Tharoor to a question from media on 28 February 2010 said that Saudi Arabia can play the role of a ‘valuable interlocutor’ between India and Pakistan to ease tensions in bilateral relations. It is yet to be unclear whether the utterances by the Indian Minister were gaffe or part of a deliberate policy intention but the opposition in India took umbrage at the Minister’s statement. Most of the Indian political circles have expressed reservation at such an idea of South Asian amity at the behest of Saudi Arabia. Bhartiya Janata Party, the main opposition party in the Indian parliament called the statement ‘utterly irresponsible’. The Left parties also criticised the statement on the same ground. Almost all opposition parties have urged the Prime Minister to clarify in the Indian parliament on his return the true nature and spirit of the statement of his minister. There were also references to the recently held foreign secretary level talks in New Delhi on 25 February 2010, which concluded without any tangible results. Pakistan during the talks called Indian dossier on Hafeez Saeed, allegedly the master mind behind 26/11 Mumbai attack, as ‘literature’, not evidence. The acrimonious tone in bilateral relations got further highlighted when the bilateral talks ended without any joint statement.


Undoubtedly Saudi Arabia is a major player in the regional politics. Reportedly, the United Nations officials had met the leaders of moderate Taliban in the Saudi capital Riyadh in January 2010 to broker peace in the trouble-torn Afghanistan. Saudi Arabia has enough clout in ruling establishment in Islamabad thus the fact remains that it enjoys special relations with Pakistan. Its influence on Pakistan in terms of economic, religious and cultural sphere is enormous. Pakistan’s civilian rulers and army, both enjoy special rapport with the ruling establishment in Saudi Arabia. The two major religious places in Islam- Mecca and Medina- are situated in Saudi Arabia. However, there is also a point of view that the powerful Gulf country has used its influences to spread radical Sunni Islam called Wahabbism in Pakistan, and surrounding regions. It is argued that the Taliban in Pakistan and Afghanistan and other radical organisations draw inspiration heavily from the Gulf country. Credence to these arguments also stemmed from the fact that Saudi Arabia recognised Pakistan-supported Taliban regime in Afghanistan that emerged in the mid 1990s with its radical agenda.


Expectedly, the Pakistan press immediately pointed out the minister’s statement as Indian keenness to involve Saudi Arabia in the peace negotiations between the two countries. But, the statement of Shashi Tharoor contradicted the official position of Indian government. Indian official position since long, particularly after the 1972 Shima Accord between the two South Asian neighbours has been that all bilateral and contentious issues between India and Pakistan must be resolved through peaceful bilateral dialogue without any third party interference. The only and once successful initiative by any third party in moderating tense relations between the two countries took place in 1965-1966 when then Soviet Premier Alexi Kosygin took the initiative to call both the leaders of both countries to the dialogue table in Tashkent in the wake of a full fledged war between India and Pakistan. This Soviet gesture had led to the return of peace in the subcontinent. The whole episode was declared as being successful by the then Indian Prime Minister, Lal Bahadur Shastri due to ‘noble intentions’ of the Soviet Union.


The potentials of Saudi Arabia as a player in India-Pakistan dialogue can be a matter of debate. However, the fact remains the Saudi royal kingdom can use its levers in Pakistan to tame the radical elements sprouting from its soil. How far that is possible will depend on the will power of Saudi establishment, as well as the will of the Pakistan establishment to curb these elements. Besides India, Pakistan of late has also become a victim of terrorism and religious fundamentalism. In this background, the best case scenario for India, Pakistan as well as Saudi Arabia will be that the Saudi establishment pulls the right strings in Pakistan in right direction so that the violent, radical elements can be curbed. In that way Saudi Arabia can serve to the best for peace and amity in South Asia. This is what Prime Minister Singh intended while replying to a question on 1 March 2010 in which he asked the Saudi King Abdullah ‘to use his good offices’ to persuade Pakistan to desist from the path of terror.

Published in Strategic Culture Foundation (Msocow) online magazine on 8 March 2010