index
NEW DELHI, JULY 2. The Deputy Prime Minister, L.K. Advani,
today outrightly rejected the demand of the Rashtriya
Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) for the division of Jammu and
Kashmir, saying the Government would continue to focus on the
integration of the entire State and its people with the rest of the
country. "We have time and again made it clear that there was no
question of division of Jammu and Kashmir. This has been our
stand and there is no change in it," he said here. At its national
executive meeting in Kurukshe-tra this weekend, the RSS adopted
a resolution rejecting autonomy for Jammu and Kashmir, calling for
holding the October Assembly elections under President's rule and
demanding a separate State of Jammu and Union Territory status
for Ladakh. Asked if the Government was taking any initiative
towards holding talks with separatist leaders or outfits in the
Kashmir Valley, Mr. Advani said that efforts were on in that
direction though he did not name any organisation.
Attempts by India and Pakistan to repeatedly work up crises with nuclear underpinnings will lead to a range of adverse spin-offs.
NUCLEAR WEAPONS remained the central determining factor in the standoff between India and Pakistan. The deterrence effect of nuclear weapons has played a major part in both the creation and management of the crisis being played out between the two states. Public focus has remained on the steps taken by the two countries and the role played by the United States. The reality is that nuclear weapons with India and Pakistan determined the parameters of both the crisis and its containment. Nuclear deterrence was manipulated by all the three countries to serve their individual needs.
As the probability of war is lowered to becoming a possibility, positions are being taken on the gains made from manipulating nuclear deterrence. India and Pakistan have both claimed victory. The Indian Government has claimed a victory without fighting a war. It is believed in New Delhi that its nuclear weapons deterred Pakistan. Across the border, Pervez Musharraf and his Ministers had threatened a nuclear strike if India launched a military offensive. Later, under the pressure of being seen as a nuclear weapons brandisher, he said it was his conventional military capability that deterred India.
There are divergent voices in India about who deterred whom. The Prime Minister said war was imminent at a point of time, and that his Government was prepared for a nuclear war, if it were to come about. A. P. J. Abdul Kalam has stated that without nuclear weapons on the scene, war would have been a certainty. The former Army chief, V. P. Malik, disagreed and asserted that nuclear weapons neither eliminated nor reduced the risk of outbreak of hostilities. Some of India's strategic analysts are divided between two divergent positions. One group advocates getting out of the defensive trench mentality and calling the Pakistani nuclear bluff by going on the military offensive. Others point out that nuclear war cannot be a bilateral affair and would impact on other countries, who in turn will insist on a role in the standoff.
India has deployed its full military power for war against Pakistan. Pakistan chose to threaten a nuclear strike in the face of Indian military advantage. India has nuclear "no-first-use" as part of its doctrine. The Government therefore quite clearly chose to make Pakistan seek a nuclear exchange, if it did not wish to abide by Indian demands. If that was not the case, it was in fact manipulating the nuclear deterrent through fears of triggering a nuclear exchange from Pakistan. This effectively forced the U.S. and other major powers into playing a defining role to pressure Pakistan to change course on Jammu and Kashmir. Pakistan too similarly manipulated the deterrent to create massive nuclear war anxieties amongst major powers, to obtain for itself a firebreak from the escalating situation.
During the Cold War standoff between the two superpowers, a phrase often used by both sides was nuclear blackmail. Each accused the other of resorting to blackmail. The Soviets in deterring the West used the word sderzhivaniye which meant restraining, but called Western deterrence of them intimidation or ustrasheniye. Whether India and Pakistan bluffed or blackmailed or deterred each other, and did the same to major powers, would be speculated upon for a long while. This question is reinforced by India and Pakistan recently stepping back from their earlier positions. There are claims being put forward that war was never part of the plan in New Delhi. In Pakistan it is claimed that its military capability alone was adequate to deter India from going to war. After manipulating nuclear deterrence to raise fears of a nuclear exchange to gain a relative advantage, both sides have portrayed themselves as rational nuclear states.
Nuclear blackmail continues to be used both as rhetoric and reality even after the end of the Cold War. Nuclear blackmail need not any longer be one of using nuclear weapons. It is enough if conditions for their likely use are created, to bring about a response from the major powers. That was adequately demonstrated in the India-Pakistan standoff of the last six months.
What have been the gains for India and Pakistan from the manipulative nuclear exercise. India has obtained a promise from Gen. Musharraf to the Bush administration on ending cross-border terrorism. It has obtained breathing space to proceed with its political initiatives towards elections in Jammu and Kashmir. It obtained U.S. commitments to keep Gen. Musharraf on track, to come down on terrorism in Jammu and Kashmir. Gen. Musharraf has obtained the critical advantage of India's plans on going to war being put on hold. He has already begun to chafe against the compulsions placed on him. The U.S. has obtained Indian willingness to accept it as a facilitator to finding a solution to the Kashmir question. It has certainly ended the high probability of war in the immediate future by its exertions. It has extended its presence in Pakistan and Afghanistan to that of a guarantor of peace between India and Pakistan.
If India does not have the option of war, its officially proclaimed policy of fighting a limited war stands repudiated. Pakistan apparently cannot fight such a war without triggering a nuclear exchange. The choice for the two Governments therefore gets extremely limited. Nuclear deterrence forces upon nuclear states only one choice. That is of confining the practice of war to a theoretical exercise. India and Pakistan have now been forced to admit that reality. That does not mean their geo-political compulsions will make them inactive. They will in all likelihood take recourse to crisis-making as a substitute for war-waging. In the present crisis, neither side wanted deterrence to fail even as each tried to manipulate it to its advantage. Crises will therefore become the future test of deterrence between India and Pakistan, unless of course deterrence fails both through dangerous manipulation.
Attempts by India and Pakistan to repeatedly work up crises with nuclear underpinnings will lead to a range of adverse spin-offs. India can ill afford to be seen as unpredictable or irrational in nuclear matters. Its claims to being a stabilising influence in and outside the South Asian region will come under doubt. Its ability to manage its strategic interests in cooperation with other major powers will be questioned.
Above all, its attractiveness as an economic, political and strategic partner would be substantially affected. As for Pakistan, it had paid that price through its Kargil fiasco, within a year of going nuclear. India needs to steer clear of that self-defeating model of military and nuclear brinkmanship.
Singapore, July 3: A standoff between an Indian soldier and a Pakistani Muslim fundamentalist ends in laughter and applause when a Microsoft investor threatens to pull funding for a documentary about their dispute over Jammu and Kashmir.
This unlikely scene was acted out by high school students from India and Pakistan participating in a conflict resolution conference at the United World College of Southeast Asia, which recently hosted a programme called "Initiative for Peace".
"There is no point in blaming each other for your troubles. After all, I have all the money," quipped the smiling Pakistani actress wearing a Muslim headscarf and playing an investment representative from the US computer giant.
The week-long educational programme was set against a backdrop of fears that nuclear-armed India and Pakistan would go to war over Kashmir. They were pulled back from the brink by US-led international diplomacy. The programme brought together some 40 students chosen from several hundred applicants from both countries to work to resolve their differences under one neutral roof.
There was a special twist. In the "meeting" with Microsoft, where students were training to articulate their positions to people of influence, the Pakistanis played the roles of the Indians, the Indians those of the Pakistanis. And both sides spontaneously showed compassion for the other’s predicament. "The soldiers are tired of deployment. Everybody’s sick of the violence. And what’s more, when I’m on the front, I miss my wife," improvised Ali Inayat, 17, of Lahore, Pakistan, in his role as the Indian soldier meeting the pretend executive.
With that remark, laughter erupted from Ali’s audience, but the point was not lost on anybody in the room, including the real-life former head of the Indian Navy, retired Admiral L. Ramdas, a peace activist and one of a few elder participants.
"Being young, they are not yet unduly polluted by external influences. They are spending this valuable time simply getting to know more about one another as humans with common hopes and fears," said Ramdas, a founder of the nine-year-old Pakistan India People’s Forum for Peace and Democracy. Though many of the students from India and Pakistan are already involved in peace efforts, most have never been to Kashmir. (Reuters)
One of the salutary lessons from the scary India-Pakistan standoff (which has still not ended) is that the political and military leadership of neither country can be trusted to desist from nuclear brinkmanship, even downright nuclear adventurism. More than a billion people in South Asia once again came close to the brink of a nuclear catastrophe during the six-months-long eyeball-to-eyeball confrontation.
Although the more overt of the nuclear threats made since the Parliament House attack originated from Pakistan, especially during May, Indian leaders too delivered themselves of all manner of intemperate statements beginning with Defence Minister George Fernandes (in December) and army chief S. Padmanabhan (January this year).
There is reason to believe that threats were not empty, but backed by serious ground-level preparations in the form of bombs/warheads being readied for delivery within a time-frame ranging from minutes to some hours. (The second possibility arises from one interpretation of India's current nuclear doctrine, of keeping warheads and missiles separated and kept at some distance from one another - at least till such time as it has a substantially large arsenal, with a capability to attack mainland China).
There were reports too of special surveillance of each other's missile dispositions, and in the Indian case, of a rudimentary (but perhaps unreliable) command and control system having been put in place. There were also training exercises to fight in an NBC (nuclear, biological and chemical weapons) environment - with equipment whose utility is extremely doubtful. But let that pass.
The point is, the nuclear danger was, and probably remains, very, very, real. On the basis of a US official's (Bruce Riedel's) testimony, Pakistan had prepared to launch a nuclear strike on India during the 1999 Kargil war. It seems far more likely that both countries made similar preparations in the more recent - and potentially far grimmer - conflict, involving the largest military mobilisation anywhere since World War II.
There is an important lesson in this for everyone - including, I venture to say, supporters of nuclear weapons and advocates of deterrence. There is an urgent need for nuclear risk-reduction measures in South Asia - simply because we must do everything possible to prevent the use of nuclear weapons whether by miscalculation, accident or design. Even hawks will agree on the first two, unless they are certifiable imbeciles.
The likelihood of a nuclear conflict is higher in South Asia than anywhere else in the world. Nuclear weapons are most likely to be used in wartime or near-wartime conditions. That's when mutual suspicions and tensions are greatest. This condition applies, with a vengeance, to India and Pakistan, which have been at a hot-cold war for 55 years. Today, they are going through a particularly ugly phase in their rivalry.
MIND (Movement in India for Nuclear Disarmament), a peace group set up in 1983 in Bombay and then re-established in Delhi and Bombay in 1998, has proposed some highly realistic and modest nuclear risk-reduction measures (NRRMs). They are meant to address four potential risks, which are especially high in South Asia. These are: (a) use through miscalculation because of faulty information processing or flawed technologies; (b) unauthorised use; (c) accidents, fires and explosions in the vicinity of nuclear weapons; (d) rumours of imminent use, and hence, panic behaviour in crowded urban centres.
The first of these dangers is often underestimated. But it bears recalling that miscalculation, misperception, and technical glitches are extremely common in the handling or management of nuclear weapons systems. For instance, during the Cold War, just between 1977 and 1984, there were 20,000 false alarms, of which 1,000 were serious enough in the US to have to go to the next higher level of command for evaluation.
This happened despite the fact that the US and the USSR had invested something of the order of $900 billion in command and control systems designed to prevent mishaps and errors in information processing. The probability of miscalculation was high, but there was very little time to take remedial action - barely two to four minutes in the case of a critical Presidential decision in the US, and not even that in the USSR. The norm was "launch on warning".
The danger of unauthorised use grows directly in proportion to the dispersal of nuclear weapons (to protect them against strikes) and decentralisation of command. This could acquire worrisome proportions in South Asia, particularly in Pakistan, where fundamentalists have penetrated the armed forces. (There are also reports of the army's inclination to disperse nuclear weapons.)
Not to be dismissed is the possibility of nukes falling into the hands of vengeful or terrorist sub-state groups.
The third danger pertains to a South Asian speciality: propensity to accidents and fires. India and Pakistan have extremely high rates of industrial and military accidents - roughly 10 times than the world average. Such accidents can ignite the high explosive (HE) lens or "trigger" surrounding the nuclear core of a bomb. This vulnerability increases when nuclear weapons are kept on high alert and especially when rockets are liquid-fuelled - as are the Prithvi and the Ghauri.
Not to be dismissed are panic behaviour and stampedes. In South Asia, rumours can play a huge role. They are, typically, only poorly or belatedly (if at all) countered by our governments.
All this calls for several NRRMs. Arguably, the most important is de-alerting or taking weapons off the state of instant readiness for use. The most radical - and most recommended - form of this is to separate the warheads from the delivery vehicles and place them at a distance from one another. Incidentally, both India and Pakistan have endorsed resolutions at the UN (the latest one being A/56/24C of November 29, 2001) calling for de-alerting.
Another measure is to dis-assemble the warhead by separating the HE from the fission core. This will increase the time it would take to launch a nuclear attack, and thus lower the probability of an accidental initiation of nuclear war.
Equally important are transparency and verifiability of NRRMs, and the translation of certain doctrines into practical measures on the ground. For instance, India and Pakistan can both take technical measures to provide warnings that an unwarranted launch is being prepared, and at the same time provide enough time for this to be checked. This could prevent a panic-driven launch. India's No-First-Use pledge and its "minimum nuclear deterrent" doctrine should logically rule out tactical/battlefield nuclear weapons and a huge triadic (land, sea and air-based) arsenal.
Such NRRMs have now become imperative. But their role should not be exaggerated. NRRMs can make South Asia less unsafe in nuclear terms. But they cannot make it nuclear-safe. This can only happen if it becomes nuclear-free - i.e. it eliminates nuclear weapons. NRRMs are no substitute for disarmament.
NRRMs or kindred confidence-building measures have another limitation. They become most effective when located in a cooperative context and based on a predisposition to trust. But that is no excuse for NOT beginning a process to negotiate NRRMs for the safety and security of South Asia's peoples, and as a step towards the region's complete denuclearisation.
New Delhi: Scoffing at IsIamabad's claim that infiltration
across the Line of Control in J&K has come to a complete
halt, the Army says militants are still trying to sneak into
India under the cover of Pakistani shelling. "'There have
been several infiltration attempts in the last few days...the
Pak army assisted these bids by resorting to heavy
unprovoked shelling along the LoC," said an Army officer,
The latest infiltration attempt took place at Kupwara on
Monday morning. An Indian Army ambush party in Keran
sector, about 400 metres away from the LoC, detected
movement of the terrorists at around 3 a.m.
When the RSS posited the trifurcation of Jammu and Kashmir as the Sangh Parivar’s prescription for solving the Kashmir problem, there are many among the separatist camp who actually looked at it as a positive development. For, the resolution substantiates its belief that Kashmir is an unfinished agenda of the Partition, and a key to its resolution lies in the two-nation theory.
Although the RSS has suggested carving out separate states for Jammu and Ladakh, the aim actually seems to get rid of the main problem: the Valley. In the separatist camp, this is seen as an acknowledgement from India’s biggest politico-social organisation that the separatist sentiment in Kashmir is unmanageable.
The pro-Pakistan lobby among the separatists has always been suggesting a similar trifurcation, although on its own terms. It was the pro-Pakistani Hurriyat leader, Syed Ali Shah Geelani, who suggested a division of J&K as a compromise and thus, a solution, to the problem. He believes that since religion is at the core of the issue, the Hindu dominated regions of the state can
|
For nearly 55 years, the Kashmiris have been the victims of a power struggle between India and Pakistan. But in moving towards a solution to the problem, we need to consider at least three new developments. First, take the present operations by the US against the Taliban and Al Qaida. The tension between India and Pakistan has adversely affected US efforts to hunt down the Al Qaida elements seeking refuge in Pakistan. From the US viewpoint therefore the crisis between India and Pakistan is a setback to its operations.
Second, the US has its vast intelligence network focused on the Indian subcontinent and Afghanistan. It is in a position to provide real time data to either side in such a manner that the balance of military power will tilt dramatically in favour of the country that it decides to support. Keeping this in view, if India decides to carry out a military operation without the concurrence of the US, chances of its success will be minimal.
Third, hostilities between India and Pakistan would divert the world’s attention from the Al Qaida. For world terrorist organisations linked to the Al Qaida, a possible Indo-Pak war could prove an an important breather. There are other factors too. The Gujarat developments have adversely affected India’s secular credibility. Coupled with fighting in Kashmir, the jehadis now have an appealing cause to unite over.
Another aspect being debated is the efficacy of launching strikes against terrorist camps in PoK. Such a venture if exercised by India will give Pakistan two options. One, to retaliate in J&K. Second, to open the front along the international border. Viewed in the context of having strong local support in Kashmir valley, Pakistan would prefer operations being restricted to Kashmir and some parts of the Jammu region. Remember, that in September 1965, when Pakistan had attacked in J&K, it was India that was forced to launch operations across the international border to offset the advantage that Pakistan had in J&K.
From all indications, therefore, this is the time for India to use its resources - military, political, civic and administrative - to deny local support to terrorists. For this to happen, the leadership must find ways to end the Kashmir imbroglio which are acceptable to the people there.
Indian leaders need to be reminded that in 1947 Maharaja Hari Singh arrested Sheikh Abdullah of the National Conference, an ally of the Indian National Congress. Nehru and Patel were keen to visit Srinagar in mid-1947 to sort out the accession issue, Hari Singh did not permit them to do so. However, Gandhiji visited Srinagar on August 1, 1947. Before leaving for Kashmir, he said that he was not going to ask the Maharaja to accede to India. He explained: ‘‘The people of Kashmir should be asked whether they want to join Pakistan or India...The ruler is nothing. The people are everything.’’
(The writer is a retired brigadier)
ANITA PRATAP
The BJP is good at spinning theories, but lousy at predicting their
outcome. They bragged nuclear bombs would bring an era of nuclear
deterrence, lasting peace in the region and global recognition of
India's new might. Instead, we find ourselves scurrying under a
mushroom cloud. Forget peace, our region has never looked more
unstable and dangerous. The nuclear bomb did not deter Pakistan from
flagrantly intruding into Kargil in 1999. Instead, it deterred us
from using our conventional superiority to lethal effect. We are
hamstrung now because we are victims of nuclear blackmail. Far from
winning global respect, we arouse consternation and panic. For the
first time, we proud Indians have to witness the shame of foreigners
departing because our country is no longer safe. This ancient and
peaceful civilisation, this land of Buddha, Asoka and Gandhi, is
almost like a volatile nation in Africa or Latin America from where
foreigners and capital periodically flee. Let's not forget in 1987,
when also Indian and Pakistani armies had an eyeball-to-eyeball
confrontation along the border, foreigners didn't flee.
We've seen how counterproductive the nuclear bomb has been. We cannot
allow ourselves to go through a war now to see how counterproductive
the BJP's theories on war are. Common sense tells us war is
disastrous. And this we knew before reading chilling media reports
that Pakistan's nuclear doctrine is more focused than ours, that
India's conventional military superiority is not what it's cracked up
to be and that army leaders have warned in private that even a
surgical strike in PoK can fail dangerously. Israelis and Americans
are learning that even successful wars on terrorism can't stop
suicide bombers in Jerusalem or Karachi. Only vigorous internal
vigilance, and not war, can safeguard nations from terrorist attacks.
The war threat, coming as it did after the Gujarat carnage, has
damaged India's reputation as nothing before ever has. So much for
the BJP's garbled theories. The tragedy is that India suffers this
shame and indignity just when it was soaring in global recognition.
India was seen as a mature, stable, peaceful democracy with
tremendous economic potential. Relations between India and the world
faltered after the nuclear bomb, but the software revolution, the
continuity of policies by successive prime ministers and India's
inherent strengths as a vibrant, slightly-chaotic-but-functioning
democracy, convinced foreigners about her potential. Assuming the BJP
could not fundamentally alter the nation, the west continued to woo
India. And so the BJP reaped the benefits, though they were by no
means the architects of India's improving status in the world.
But in the last six months, the BJP has severely damaged India's
reputation. The reason is obvious: instead of being guided by its NDA
partners, they are noseled by their hardliners, VHP and Bajrang Dal.
In doing so, they are loosening the very nuts and bolts that keep our
nationhood intact. Two principles have kept India united, rich and
vibrant: democracy and multi-culturalism. You undermine or damage
these two principles and India begins to unravel. Gujarat is a
classic example. The danger is that these two principles are anathema
to the VHP and Bajrang Dal, wedded as they are to fascism and
exclusive jingoism. Their hate pamphlets against Muslims prove they
suffer from persecution complex and paranoid delusions. The trouble
with this condition is that you cannot change their mind even if you
give ample proof to the contrary. The disaster is that the BJP is
institutionalising their brand of politics in our national life.
Topping this is their shameless disregard for what is ethical, decent
and honourable. Despite nationwide outrage, and even the PM's
admonishments, Narendra Modi's still in power.This lack of
accountability, this remorselessness is unprecedented in Indian
public life.
And then they pride themselves about their genius in having Abdul
Kalam as president! But they preach to the converted. Only BJP
supporters can believe this "masterstroke" will atone for their sins,
appease the anguished Muslims and is guided by lofty ideals and not
cynical, cold-blooded opportunism. This kind of tokenism will not
impress the people it is meant to impress. We are also seeing the
invasion of fascist functioning into the corridors of power,
curtailing our fundamental freedoms. The Gujarat ias lobby had to
cancel its meeting. People with dissenting and divergent points of
view-an absolute necessity in a multi-cultural democracy-are branded,
vilified and persecuted as "leftists", "pseudo-secularists" or
"anti-nationals".
The question is how are they able to get away with these patently
wrong, unfair and unethical manipulations-especially when civil
society has ratcheted public awareness and when the main opposition
party rules 14 states. The problem is Sonia Gandhi is diffident about
leading this fight because she feels defensive as a Christian and a
foreigner. Also, officials in key positions, even while they
disapprove of this subversion of democratic, pluralistic style of
functioning, are disinclined to court trouble, dare not risk losing
their jobs. Big business leaders who have the clout to protest prefer
to kowtow or turn ostrich. And that alone demonstrates the growing
stranglehold of these fascist forces on the levers of power. As the
history of Nazi Germany shows, disaster rumbles in when citizens
refuse to see the peril, let alone act against it. Each one thinks of
his self-interest and thus they collectively slide into hell. When a
Tarun Tejpal or an Anand Patwardhan is victimised, people abandon
these voices of conscience to their fates lest they invite reprisals
upon themselves. As the old saying goes, harm is done not by the
deeds of the evil, but by the silence of the good. Only fearless
intervention by influential, liberal Hindus can save India from the
ruinous clutches of Hindutva.
The Vishwa Hindu Parishad has made a case for the division of J&K but, thank God, the Shankaracharya of Kanchi has opposed it. The idea has been around for 50 years. Senior US politician Adlai Stevenson, when he had gone to Srinagar to meet Sheikh Abdullah in 1953, had suggested the division of the state and independence for the Valley. In recent years, the think tanks in America have mooted various permutations of the same idea.
When it was out of power the BJP had argued for separate statehood for Jammu and union territory status for Ladakh. The RSS brass had favoured the division of the state. What’s new about the VHP plan is the idea of carving out a union territory from the Valley for the Kashmiri Pandits.
The VHP proposal reflects defeatist thinking: the Valley has bled India enough, retrieve Jammu and Ladakh and if, ultimately, the Valley has to go at least you would have cut your losses. The proposal may also suit the RSS’s larger objective: a Hindu Rashtra and a theocratic Pakistan are two sides of the same coin. Allowing the Valley to secede because it is a Muslim majority area is tantamount to accepting the two-nation theory that India had rejected. This, in turn, will create a backlash in the rest of the country — if the Muslims of Kashmir want a nation on the basis of religion, why should Hindus tolerate Muslims elsewhere in India, or so the argument will go.
Only the loony fringe could argue like this, considering that there are 150 million Muslims in this country. There are Muslim-dominated islands in every state. There, too, will be demands for the creation of separate states and UTs. In time, the logic of separation will not be limited to religion — there will be divisions demanded along cultural, lingual and ethnic lines. In other words, this could be the beginning of the end of India as an integral whole.
The division of J&K will also destroy that entity called Kashmir. The culture of Kashmiriyat that had held it together has less to do with religion and more to do with the sense of being Kashmiri. Over the centuries, local rulers in Jammu sometimes declared independence from Kashmir but historically, culturally and politically, Ladakh and Jammu have always been an integral part of the larger Kashmiri state. The Hari Parvat in Srinagar symbolised Kashmir’s cultural and religious unity, with the ancient Chakreshwari temple on one side of the hill, the shrine of Sheikh Makhdoom on the other and the gurdwara where the Sixth Guru stayed at the foot of the hill.
Of all the states, the Sufi culture was the strongest here. The Sufi saint, Sheikh Nooruddin Noorani, is revered as much by the Hindus as by the Muslims. Even today Muslim midwives deliver Hindu children and the Muslim Kawuj cremate the bodies of Hindus. The upkeep of the cave at Amarnath has traditionally been looked after by Muslims.
Muslim rulers in Kashmir, like Zainul Abedin in the 15th century, did their bit in nurturing the tradition of religious tolerance. He persuaded the Pandits who had fled during his father’s reign to return to the Valley and had rebuilt their temples. Communalism was hardly a problem in J&K, which is the only Muslim majority state in the country.
Therefore, any solution to the problem has to be based on J&K’s integrity as a state and much depends on the sincerity of the effort to keep it that way. For a start, the government should reopen a dialogue with the Kashmiris — and it cannot be that of the K.C. Pant variety. Let the government select a group of interlocutors who may have greater credibility with the Kashmiris. There is no dearth of names: I.K. Gujral, P. V. Narasimha Rao — who had once said the sky is the limit as far as autonomy went — Krishan Kant, Rajmohan Gandhi, Mir Qasim, Hamid Ansari, former chief justice A.M. Ahmadi. This is only a possible list.
The government has been harping on a free and fair election in the state, as if that is all its Kashmir policy boils down to. A free poll is every Indian’s birthright; the government is doing the Kashmiris no favour by offering this to them. But, certainly, the government can help to make a fresh start in the state by conducting elections there properly, whether under President’s rule or not.
The RSS and the VHP talk about the need for a strong nation but what they are advocating will only weaken India. The idea of a divided state is impractical, it negates everything that India stands for. J&K mirrors the pluralist ethos of India and it may well decide whether India survives as a united entity or not.
On June 23, when the National Conference-the most credible and trustworthy political party that runs in the blood of sensitive Kashmiris-shifted the baton of leadership to the young and forward-looking Omar Abdullah, the broad-based cadre of the party felt a sense of satisfaction. The rise of the great son represents a renaissance. When Omar Abdullah wore the traditional qaraquli cap, symbolising supremacy in the organisation, the party General Secretary Shaikh Nazir Ahmad, remembered the thousands of NC leaders, workers and partymen who sacrificed their lives during the 13-year conflict in the State. They all laid down their lives to keep the flag of the organisation high.
Omar has taken over the reins of a party that played a historic role in making the Muslim-majority State of J&K a unit of the Union of India. The union was a well-thought out decision of Sher-e-Kashmir Sheikh Muhammad Abdullah. As a consequence of this decision, we live in a democratic setup in which the Constitution and the rule of law prevails. Democracy respects established norms and principles and the peoples' will forms its core. Omar has a party behind him and the party has the people. He is the rightful heir to a legacy that is people-specific.
Omar's inception as party President is destined to revolutionise not only the party structure but also the entire map of the State's politics and its relations with the Centre. He is in politics for four years now. During all these years, he has had ample exposure to domestic, national and international relations as well as politics. I see in him a public man who might transcend the boundaries of our small State and be known not as Sher-e-Kashmir's grandson or Dr Farooq Abdullah's son, but on his own merit. Of course, while Sheikh Sahib represents the past and Dr Farooq Abdullah the present, Omar is our man of tomorrow.
The NC did not take the decision to bring Omar to the State in haste. The unanimous decision had to be taken sooner or later. And we did it now for two reasons. One, Omar would lead the party in the forthcoming elections with his new vision for the 21st-century. Elections would be the greatest challenge for him to exhibit his calibre and also give him a chance to reach out to the common masses. Two, Dr Farooq Abdullah had to be relieved from his present engagements to make him available to fight for a bigger cause-restoration of autonomy to the State.
If Omar becomes Chief Minister tomorrow, it will be in conformity with democratic conventions. The NC does not and will not want power with the help of Kalashnikovs. Omar is definitely CM material; he also represents the making of a great leader. He has already made an impression internationally at a young age and should be a boon for our State in the days to come. He has a clean image and clarity of perceptions. He is highly focussed, an achiever and, above all, a committed family man. Aren't these the qualities our rulers must possess? And with all these exceptional qualities, if the people endorse his mandate to rule, why should we call it a coronation?
Omar spoke his mind in his first address after taking over when he struck an aggressive note, warning party members against lobbying and dissension. He categorically said nobody was above the party which was not of leaders but of the workers who represent the real NC. I believe he is going to set difficult standards for party workers and leaders. If and when he takes over as CM, many of his ministerial colleagues will face nervous breakdowns. Sluggish approach and complacency will not be in conformity with the dynamism of the younger generation. Omar has the resolve to modify his grandfather's dream of Naya Kashmir and he wants to author its 21st-century edition.
Omar is aware that today's voters-youngsters especially-want results and cannot be lured by promises only. Therefore, his priority would be to oil the party's wheels, instill dynamism and earn the confidence of the masses through action rather than theorising. He has definitely taken over at a time the percussions of the Kashmir issue are heard globally. His stint as Union Minister of State gives him a better perspective on Kashmir and a good understanding of the international dimensions of the imbroglio.
He has the advantage of not being angry like we all are. He comes with a freshness of mind, not having been witness to what happened in 1947, 1953 and 1975. His mind was still forming in 1984 when Delhi injected yet another virus into our body politic by causing defections. I am sure like all of us he too must wonder where peace vanished and why the gun surfaced.
Almost 60 per cent of the State's population comprises youth. You need new vision, a different mindset and an obsessive will to deliver. In the present political scenario, no one comes anywhere near Omar as far as these qualities are concerned. His party is deeply entrenched in peoples' hearts. He is our only hope. If he fails, nobody will succeed. Take my word.
JAMMU, JUNE 30. The people who fled across the Line of Control, into Pakistan-occupied Kashmir because of intermittent shelling and the apathy of the State Government, are far from
happy in their new habitat. The Toronto-based Council of Advocates International, in its report circulated to journalists through the Internet, said the refugees and migrants living in PoK were forced to transport arms across the LoC. Most of the time they get killed by Indian security forces.
Citing the fate of Mushtaq Ali, Nassir Khwaja, Javed Abu and Samir Shaik, who, according to the report, were killed in firing by the Indian forces when they tried to cross the LoC, while smuggling arms, the report urged the international human rights groups to intervene and check 'human rights violations'. The Council secretary appealed to India and Pakistan to ensure the safety of the people living near the LoC.
New Delhi, June 30: Terming the 'RSS demand for trifurcation of Jammu and Kashmir as a "prelude to handing over of Kashmir to Pakistan," newly-elected National Conference president Omar Abdullah on Sunday said his party would oppose any move in this direction. "The very talk of separating Jammu, Kashmir and Ladakh is falling in line with the two-nation theory, which our party has been opposing and will continue to oppose," he said, commenting on the RSS resolution. "National Conference has no other option than to believe that such resolutions adopted by the VHP and now by the RSS are a prelude to handing over Kashmir to Pakistan," a visibly annoyed Abdullah, who is also the Union minister of state for external affairs, said before leaving for Srinagar. His statement comes in the wake of a resolution adopted by the RSS demanding trifurcation of the state to resolve the vexed Kashmir issue, rehabilitation of the displaced Kashmiri Pandits and compensation to the farmers in the frontier areas who suffered losses due to military build-up along the borders.
Kurukshetra: The Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) has demanded the trifurcation of Jammu and Kashmir (J&K) to carve out a separate state of Jammu and a Union territory of Ladakh, on the basis of findings and suggestion of three-member committee it formed in March last. It also demanded imposition of President's rule in J&K for holding peaceful and impartial elections there. On the concluding day of the Sangh's two-day Akhil Bharatiya Karyakari Manch (all-India executive) meeting held here, RSS spokesperson Madav Govind Ved told reporters that any doubts about the impartiality of forthcoming assembly elections in J&K could be removed by imposing President's rule there. The resolution on J&K alleged that the National Conference government headed by Farooq Abdul-lah was "discriminatory" and had "sinister motives" against the Hindu community in the state. Hence, according to the executive, the people of Jammu believed that the only solution to their problems lay in separate statehood for the Jammu region. The executive also demanded UT status for the Ladakh region. It also announced it support for the forces in the Kashmir valley that were for full integration with the country.
index |  HOME Landelijke India Werkgroep | pagina KRUITVAT INDIA-PAKISTAN |
Landelijke India Werkgroep - 12 juli 2002