Washington: The United States on Wednesday made it
emphatically clear that it will not declare Pakistan a terrorist state
as it has been a very "stalwart ally" in America's fight against
terrorism.
"As far as putting Pakistan on the terrorism list, just to point out
again Pakistan has been a very stalwart ally in the fight against
terrorism," State Department spokesman Richard Boucher told
reporters here. His comment came close on the heels of Deputy
Prime Minister L K Advani's statement in the Lok Sabha on
Tuesday that if US had threatened to declare Pakistan a terrorist
state, Islamabad would have certainly taken effective steps to
dismantle militancy infrastructure within its territory Boucher said
that infiltration across the Line of Control has come down ever
since President Musharraf pledged to halt it, adding that further
steps needed be taken to stop it permanently. "President
Musharraf has announced some fairly bold measures within his
own society to try to move Pakistan on a more moderate course,
and our interest is in helping Pakistan move in that direction," he
added.
The participants of IFP have already begun working on peace
initiatives back in their home countries. The YIP movement is now
open to new members and is constantly growing
Last month (June 23-30), 38 young students from India and Pakistan
gathered at the United World College of South East Asia (UWCSEA) in
Singapore to participate in the first-ever IFP's Focus on Kashmir
conference. The Initiative for Peace (IFP) is an organization founded
by a group of students and teachers at the UWCSEA. The goal of IFP is
to create permanent conflict resolution programs around the world.
The Focus on Kashmir was the first such programme.
Facilitated by students and teachers of the UWC, the delegates, who
came from different countries -- the US, the UK, Germany and China --
engaged in a variety of activities during the eight-day conference,
building cross-border friendships as a first step in the search for
solutions to the Kashmir dispute. "Our goal is to foster good
communication, trust, respect and understanding between the peoples
of India and Pakistan. We believe that this is a vital step before
any tangible action to achieve a peaceful solution to the Kashmir
dispute can be undertaken."
Through these activities, the delegates addressed the following key
topics: the influence of history and the media in the conflict;
economic and social effects of the conflict upon the two countries;
the role of NGOs and governmental institutions; successful examples
of conflict resolution and youth leadership; and peace initiatives to
be implemented in the participants' home countries.
A number of prominent speakers also attended the conference and spoke
to the student delegates on several occasions. They included Gerson
Andrés Flórez Pérez, the 16-year-old Nobel Peace Prize Nominee from
Colombia, and soldier-turned-peace activists Admiral Ramdas, former
Chief of Staff of the Indian Navy, and Brigadier Rao Abid Hamid,
Coordinator of the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan. The High
Commissioner of Pakistan in Singapore Mr. Moiz Bokhari was also
present as a guest speaker.
Towards the end of the conference, the participants reached a
consensus on a number of crucial points
The only viable solution to the Kashmir dispute isthrough peaceful means. War is definitely not an option.
The first and foremost step towards a peaceful solution is dialogue - between the leaders and between the peoples.
For dialogue to ensue, good communication between Pakistan and India is essential. The governments must ensure and facilitate safe and convenient cross-border travel, unhindered access to air, land and sea facilities, re-opening of all telephone, radio and satellite links, trade and commercial activity, student exchange programmes, regional welfare projects and forums, cultural festivals, and so on.
Kashmiri representation is necessary in any future discussion or forum pertaining to this issue. The will of the Kashmiri people is of fundamental importance and must be taken into account for any practicable solution to occur.
Violence and human rights abuses in the disputed region must be stopped immediately. By 'violence' we mean the violence perpetrated by parties on both sides of the Line of Control. These points were incorporated into the 'Statement of Common Ground', which was the culmination of the efforts of the participants at the conference. The Statement of Common Ground also marked the formation of an independent peace movement, founded by the participants, called the Youth Initiative for Peace (YIP). According to its mission statement, YIP is "a youth movement united in its effort to build mutual trust and understanding for sustainable peace."
Education: The main aim is to remove misconceptions among students that are a result of being taught subjective history, and establish a common school network between India and Pakistan.
Social Action: The movement aims at establishing a coalition of NGOs and creating awareness by organizing social events such as fundraisers, street plays etc.
Media: The print and electronic media are the main tools to provide objective information to the public, sharing experiences and dispelling cross-border biases.
Influencing Public Policy: Campaigning for effective interaction between India and Pakistan and enlisting support from government and administrative officials are important objectives of the movement.
The participants of IFP have already begun working on peace
initiatives back in their home countries. The YIP movement is now
open to new members (www.initiativeforpeace.org) and is constantly
growing - "its power lies in the youth...so we encourage all young
people who have a strong commitment to working for peace in the
subcontinent to join us in our mission and help bring about a change,
a change for justice and freedom - a change for peace."
The writers are two young students from Pakistan and India
Kuka Parray, a counter-insurgent-turned-politician, has slammed Pakistan and its Inter Services Intelligence directorate for instigating innocent Kashmiri youth towards violence in the name of jihad.
The chairman of the Awami League and chief of the pro-India Ikhwan-surrendered militants said Pakistan's claim of supporting the Kashmiris in their fight against India was 'nonsense.'
In an exclusive interview to Onkar Singh in New Delhi, Parray -- who is planning to rope in other political outfits for the coming assembly election in Jammu and Kashmir -- pointed out that Pakistan was only interested in grabbing Kashmiri territory and was unconcerned about the Kashmiri people.
Pakistan has been aiding and abetting cross-border terrorism in the name of supporting the Kashmiri cause.
Everyone in the world knows that Pakistan has a hidden agenda behind the so-called jihad for the Kashmiri cause. I can tell you Pakistan only wants the land of Jammu and Kashmir minus the Kashmiris. The sooner the people of Kashmir realise this the better it would be.
Do you believe that the assembly election in Jammu and Kashmir should be held under governor's rule?
I definitely support this move. Because the present government of Jammu and Kashmir cannot be trusted. The people of Jammu and Kashmir should not only participate in the election but we must also ensure that only those [votes] which are cast by the people of the state come out of the boxes. People have lost faith in the present government.
But the 1996 election was held under governor's rule. What went wrong then?
It is true that the election in the state were held under governor's rule in 1996 and the National Conference swept to power. The people were happy that an elected government had come to power and the new rulers would take care of their needs. But what did Dr Farooq Abdullah do for the people of Jammu and Kashmir? You go and meet the people and they will tell you how angry they are with him. He has not done anything for the people of Kashmir. So much so that even the political parties have lost faith in him. That is why we want to have elections under governor's rule.
Will you participate in the election?
Of course, we will participate in the election. We participated in the 1996 election when most of the political parties were scared to contest the election.
I was one of those who can take credit for holding an election in Jammu and Kashmir in 1996. I lost a number of men during the election campaign. I have so far lost more then 600 surrendered militants who had joined hands with me in counter-insurgency operations against terrorists operating in Kashmir. The present government of Jammu and Kashmir is a dangerous government.
Why can't you have a free and fair election under Dr Abdullah's government?
Free and fair elections have been a major problem in Jammu and Kashmir. If we look at the rest of the Indian states then we will find that citizens of those states have a right to vote. This right is not being extended to the state of Jammu and Kashmir. If free and fair polls are held in the state then all those who are feeling alienated will come back to the mainstream. If that happens then it would be for the good of the country. But if that happens then President's rule should also be extended to the state of Gujarat. You have seen how the minority community was treated by the administration in the last few months. Because elections are scheduled to be held in Gujarat as well.
Why have you described the National Conference as a dangerous party?
Dr Farooq Abdullah's government has betrayed the people of Jammu and Kashmir. The rulers are plundering the state development money. Instead of using the money for the welfare of the people they simply pocket the money and use it for their personal ends. Ministers in the Abdullah government have bought properties not only in Srinagar, Jammu but also in Delhi.
There is another aspect to this. The major political parties are getting their rivals killed for the sake of getting some electoral gains here and there.
I have been asking the people of Jammu and Kashmir to participate in the state election. I have held several major rallies in Jammu and Srinagar in recent weeks. I have even asked the Hurriyat Conference to take part in the electoral process.
Pakistan claims they are the true supporters of the people of Kashmir.
Ask those who are living in so-called Azad Kashmir. The Mirpuris and the rest. Their plight is worse then us. I would say we are far better off than Kashmiris living across the Line of Control. We have got letters from those people who have been pleading with the Government of India to free them from Pakistan's clutches.
Kashmir is the crown of India. It would remain so in future as well. I would say the people of Kashmir would sacrifice anything to retain this crown with India.
Jamaat-i-Islami leader Syed Ali Shah Geelani claims a merger with Pakistan is the ultimate solution to the Kashmir problem.
Who is he to decide what is good for the people of Kashmir? He has been misleading young Kashmiris to take up guns in the name of jihad. But if you look at him, you will find that his sons and daughters have had a good education in the best of Indian schools. They are doing well in life. He has been totally exposed. People of the state know he has been misleading the people of Kashmir. They know his policies are anti-Kashmir and they do not want to follow him.
There are times when it is alleged that your men have indulged in looting and extortion. Is that true?
I categorically deny that any of my men have ever indulged in looting and extortion. I would like to tell you that the National Conference has a large number of trained youth who go by the name of surrendered militants and they indulge in extortion etc. They do the bad work and my organisation gets a bad name. Some of them work with the Border Security Force, some with the Jammu and Kashmir Police and the rest with the Special Task Force. My men are a disciplined lot and do not indulge in crime.
‘There’ll always be maverick groups that will try and cross the LoC. There’ll never be a total turning off the tap’.
British High Commissioner Rob Young, 57, came to India in ’99, at a time when the bilateral relationship was at its nadir. Britain’s reaction to India’s nuclear tests the year before and the Queen of England’s visit in 1997 had left quite a bitter taste in New Delhi’s mouth.
Midway through his tenure, the very understated Sir Rob seems to have returned a measure of professionalism to the business of diplomacy. Certainly, Britain and the US have been in the forefront, in recent months, of persuading General Musharraf to end cross-border terrorism. On the eve of the visit of British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw to India, he spoke to Jyoti Malhotra:
What is the agenda of Jack Straw’s visit to India?
He has been a fairly regular visitor to the region in the last few months which reflects the importance the British govt attaches to lowering tension (in the region).
He will be here to continue to ensure that appropriate action is taken to curb cross-border terrorism on the one hand and to encourage de-escalation on the other.
Do you treat this as a sequence? What action have both governments taken in this regard?
WE’VE seen a serious drop in cross-border infiltration and we warmly welcome India’s steps in June to de-escalate. We want that process to continue. It’s not going very well at the moment. We want to see if we can help induce greater momentum.
Why do you think the pace has slackened?
INDIA is saying there hasn’t been enough action to reduce cross-border infiltration or enough action on dismantling terrorist camps. We have been recipients of certain commitments from General Musharraf and it is extremely important that he delivers on those commitments. That is, a permanent end to infiltration, and dismantling the camps.
What exactly did Musharraf tell your government?
IT was very clearly spelled out by the US State Department spokesman the day after General Musharraf’s interview to the Washington Post on June 23, and we endorse that formulation. There has been real progress on the end to cross-border infiltration but there is also quite a way to go, to make that permanent and seriously complete the process of dismantling the camps which are on the other side of the LoC.
Has the dismantling of the camps begun?
I THINK there has been some movement, though we need to see further progress. At the same time, as the process of reducing support for cross-border terrorism develops, I know India is prepared to take further de-escalatory measures. What we want to see in the medium-term is a complete end to Pakistani support to cross-border terrorism leading to a resumption of dialogue so that India and Pakistan can resolve outstanding differences on Kashmir peacefully.
So, has Pakistan not permanently ended that infiltration?
I THINK ‘‘permanently’’ is a word that is inevitably time-related. So far we have seen a significant drop in cross-border, cross-LoC infiltration. We want to see that sustained and completed and camps in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir removed. We shall then be able to say that there has been an end to cross-border terrorism.
Should India and Pakistan start talks now?
OUR interest lies in creating the right environment in which cross-border terrorism is stopped, or virtually stopped...for talks to be resumed and sustained... I suspect there will always be maverick groups that will try and cause disruption, try and cross the LoC, that will try and mount violent attacks in Jammu & Kashmir independently.
We found that in Northern Ireland, renegade groups, splinter groups that have nonetheless managed to try to subvert the process by mounting violent attacks. There will never be a total turning off the tap.
Will the Kashmir polls be a watershed?
THE Kashmir elections will obviously be important in many ways. The Government of India is seeing the elections as a test of Pakistan’s intentions on the issue of cross-border terrorism.
Do you agree with that?
I THINK it will be important to try and show that these elections are held in as peaceful an atmosphere as possible. I know India wants to see an election which has the widest possible participation, to be free and fair, and inclusive as the international community would like them to be.
They are important, too, as part of the process of building a new political environment for Kashmir, developing a new process between Kashmiri groups, Srinagar and the Centre. The elections will not be an end in themselves.
How do you look at a post-poll scenario?
SOME of those building blocks are already in place, after all, both the Centre and Srinagar have nominated people to talk about ‘‘autonomy.’’ Some people worry about the word ‘autonomy,’ but I think that’s what the talks are going to be about. I think that’s a sign the government realises there is a desire within J&K for progress on that issue and I personally welcome what has been done so far. Another element is (about) developing the economy in J&K, which Prime Minister Vajpayee talked about during his visit to the state. And all this can carry on, with whatever parallel dialogue is reestablished between Delhi and Islamabad.
Would you say there is a moment of truth on Kashmir?
I HOPE so. I think there is an unprecedented opportunity for the issue of terrorism in the region to be tackled actively and in a durable way. India seems to have grasped that opportunity in the last 6-8 months following September 11. There is also a far greater understanding today of the Kashmir issue...and the importance of the terrorism issue in connection with Kashmir.
That there is cross-border terrorism, from Pakistan into Kashmir...
Quite..
And that has a role to play in the problem in Kashmir?
Kashmir has been seen too often in the past through the eyes of the UN resolutions or the Shimla Agreement. But certainly for the last 12-13 years...(we have) come to realise what is going on on the ground and the way it’s affecting the politics.
Could the solution be to convert the LoC into the international boundary?
THAT’S up to the two countries. Certainly, as far as the international community is concerned, the notion of the LoC’s sanctity became very much accepted during the Kargil crisis.
Does the peace process in Northern Ireland have some lessons for Kashmir?
THERE is one big difference, that in the last 15 years the British and Irish governments have been working together, which India and Pakistan have not. Nevertheless there are certain ideas which merit further thought both on the process and the substance, (such as) in the way we conducted parts of the negotiation in secrecy.
Your views on international observers in the Kashmir elections?
WE welcome the announcement of the Election Commission. We could send individuals from this High Commission.
The bilateral relationship?
IT is very good. We have achieved a depth of understanding which is as good as it’s ever been. I cannot think of a single area in which we and India are not consulting and coordinating closely.
It’s a long way from Pokharan four summers ago?
YES, we’ve come a long way, indeed.
Rejecting Islamabad's persistent demand for a plebiscite in Kashmir in accordance with the UN resolution, the US on Friday said it favoured the settlement of the problem bilaterally between India and Pakistan in accordance with the Simla accord.
It also hoped the forthcoming assembly election in Jammu and Kashmir would lead to the resolution of the Kashmir issue.
"The US earlier did support the UN resolution calling for a plebiscite in Jammu and Kashmir. But in 1972, India and Pakistan reached an agreement that it would be a bilateral issue. We support India and Pakistan (for settling the issue bilaterally). We are working towards getting the two countries to the table," US Assistant Secretary of State Christina Rocca said.
In a hearing at the House International Relations subcommittee, she expressed for the first time the US belief that the forthcoming election in Jammu and Kashmir could serve as a first step towards resolution of the issue. Rocca also stressed the importance of Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf ending cross-border infiltration permanently.
She said in a prepared statement that the encouraging progress in South Asia toward prosperity and democracy is too often overshadowed by the spectre of war between India and Pakistan.
"We remain deeply concerned over the high levels of tension between India and Pakistan and in particular about the continued deployment of forces along their shared border and within Kashmir," she said.
A surge in violence could spark a military confrontation, with long lasting and devastating consequences for the entire region, Rocca said.
"The enemies of moderation in the region are aware of this fact and are trying to exploit it through high-profile terrorist attacks, such as that <13jk2.htm> outside Jammu this past Saturday," she said.
Rocca said that as Secretary of State Colin Powell, who is slated to visit India and Pakistan later this month, has put it, war is 'just not an option for India and Pakistan'.
"The only way forward that offers a prospect of genuinely resolving their differences is the path of dialogue and confidence-building," she said.
The US, she said, is working to help the two sides find mutually acceptable de-escalation process.
"President Musharraf," she pointed out, "has pledged that infiltration into Kashmir from his country will end permanently. Pakistan needs to keep that pledge in order to begin a process of resolution of the immediate crisis and of its more fundamental differences with India."
Once tensions begin to subside, said Rocca, the process should be continued by New Delhi agreeing to resume talks with Islamabad on all issues, including Kashmir.
PTI [ FRIDAY, JULY 19, 2002 9:51:12 AM ]
WASHINGTON: As India continues to demand a permanent end to cross-border terrorism, the United States said it has assessed that terrorists' infiltration into Jammu and Kashmir from Pakistan has come down.
The cross-border infiltration of terrorists from Pakistan is "down", State Department spokesman Richard Boucher told reporters here.
When pointed out "India continues to say it completely disagrees with your assessment that the infiltrations have stopped," Boucher said, "I did not say stopped, I said down."
When told that India does not think "it is down sufficiently," the spokesman said "I am afraid I am not in a position to discuss this any further because of the nature of the information we might have.
"That is our assessment and we will be looking forward to discuss with the Indian Government and the others their assessments on this very important issue."
Saeed Naqvi
It probably reflects on the maturity of Indo-US relations or possibly on India’s talent to acquiesce without too much fuss that all the murmuring against the Americans on the margins of seminars, in the corridors of power, among politicians of all hues, academics remains just that: murmuring.
Of course, there is annoyance, irritation, considerable sense of economic loss on account of the travel advisories issued by the US, the UK and others. Basically, the Indian elite is divided into categories with varying intensities of support for the Americans and this includes the ‘murmuring’ lot.
At one end of the scale are those who believe that uninformed spoilsports are making too much of American softness for Musharraf.
That there is a certain inevitability about economic and political linkages raising Indo-US relations to a height from where occasional carelessness by the world’s sole super power will become a sort of tolerable nuisance. This lot believes it has the inside track on the larger American gameplan by virtue of its access to powerful elements in the American establishment at seminars and think-tanks.
The second category, mostly the political class, including members of the ruling party who distrust Americans intrinsically, have not recovered from Cold War habits but believe that there is no alternative to building bridges with the sole super power.
This group also has in its ranks pragmatists who see long term salvation in a strategic partnership but without giving up on countless other foreign policy options. These options must be pursued vigorously. Take Britain’s relations with Iran, for instance. Despite being USA’s closest ally, Britain is pursuing an independent policy towards Teheran.
New Delhi’s relations with Teheran, likewise, are strong and improving despite the US counting Iran among the ‘axis of evil’. And yet these independent policy options are exercised by New Delhi with just sufficient caution.
When Petroleum Minister Ram Naik recently visited Iraq, the ministry of external affairs had to weigh the issue carefully. On the one hand is the consideration that Iraq has been the solitary Arab country which has consistently supported India’s case on Kashmir since 1973.
On the other hand is the US planning to topple President Saddam Hussain. Ram Naik did meet Hussain but the visit was discreetly played down.
The extreme right wing of the Sangh Parivar sees America’s war against terrorism as a Godsend for India as well as Israel, two countries surrounded by Muslims and bound by that fact. It is here that General Musharraf emerges as the fly in the ointment, for this group.
Since September 11, Indo-US relations across the board have been afflicted by a paradox. Military and technical co-ordination (joint military drill in Agra recently is to be followed up by joint exercises in Alaska), intelligence sharing in the war against terror have raised the equation to an unprecedented level.
How does one square this with the fact that in the vanguard of America’s war against terrorism is Pakistan which has sponsored cross-border terrorism against India for 12 years at least?
Americans say they have extracted from Musharraf a commitment to end for ever cross-border terrorism.
Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage went public with the commitment the Pakistanis hoped would remain confidential for the time being. Hence Musharraf’s retraction in his Newsweek interview. This too has been rebutted by Washington. Moreover, India’s coercive diplomacy has paid off: the world now accepts India’s complaint and phraseology - cross-border terrorism.
The focus now is on Kashmir - the devolution package and free and fair elections. In the diplomatic community there is an optimistic acceptance of L K Advani’s elevation as deputy prime minister, just as there is considerable enthusiasm on Arun Jaitley’s appointment as the interlocutor for Kashmir.
If free and fair elections can be held in Kashmir, the way could well be paved for a general relaxation of tensions in the subcontinent. But who can ensure absence of violence?
Well, to the extent that Pakistan can help minimise violence in J&K, Musharraf must be leaned on. Can India give him some face saver? An Indian High Commissioner to Islamabad has been named.
This could pave the way for the three used Airbuses New Delhi is gifting Kabul to fly directly to Bagram, rather than skirt the Pakistani air space. External Affairs Minister Yashwant Sinha may travel to Kabul for the occasion.
But the hurt in New Delhi is deep. Western financial, political, military assistance to Pakistan grows and the travel advisory is in place. So, the ‘murmuring’ will continue harmlessly for a while but, who knows, over a period of time it will begin to take its toll.
PTI [ FRIDAY, JULY 19, 2002 6:10:46 AM ]
NEW DELHI: India on Thursday asserted that rollback of further measures announced by it in the wake of the December 13 attack on Parliament and sending a new high commissioner to Islamabad could be considered only when credible action was taken by that country to stop infiltration and cross-border terrorism.
"Any further rollback can be considered only if and when Pakistan takes action to stop infiltration and ends cross-border terrorism permanently," an external affairs ministry spokesperson told reporters.
Last night External Affairs Minister Yashwant Sinha told a television channel that "we had finalised a name (Harsh Bhasin as the new High Commissioner) when we took some important steps to reduce tension but these were termed as cosmetic by Pakistan".
Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf in interviews backtracked on his commitments to end infiltration and terrorism. "We also did not take any more steps and did not offically make any announcement of the new High Commissioner," he told Aaj Tak TV channel in Seedhi Baat programme.
Sinha said that the terrorist attack near Jammu on Saturday night had dealt a blow to normalisation of relations between India and Pakistan.
The minister dismissed the suggestion that his predecessor Jaswant Singh was pro-West. "This is a misconception. The country's foreign policy is based on national consensus. The policies pursued by Singh were those of the Government."
He also made it clear that India would not succumb to any outside pressure. "We will take decisions that are in our national interests and there is no question of bowing to pressure from any quarter".
Sinha said that there was no change in India's stand on joint patrolling of the borders with Pakistan but Islamabad was not agreeable to it.
TIMES NEWS NETWORK [ FRIDAY, JULY 19, 2002 6:48:06 AM ]
NEW DELHI: When British foreign secretary Jack Straw sits with external affairs minister Yashwant Sinha, on Friday, the message is going to be short but sharp.
Rather than explaining why it cannot take steps to de-escalate the tension with Pakistan, India is likely to ask Straw, who arrived here on Thursday night, what his government has done to ensure that Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf delivers on his pledges.
Officials disclosed rather than defending the decision to stall de-escalation at the current level, India would choose to go on the offensive, telling its western interlocutors that it was their promises, rather than Musharraf’s, to which India had responded initially.
‘‘We have already taken three steps: allowed overflights, withdrawn the Navy and announced the name of India’s next high commissioner to Islamabad. It is now Pakistan’s turn to take
steps,’’ highly placed official sources said.
While acknowledging that infiltration has shown an overall decrease, official sources said the sharp decline in infiltration had not been sustained.
Straw is likely to be confronted with the evidence of five new terrorist camps and two new infiltration routes that have been detected recently. ‘‘These could not have come up without the Pakistani government’s support,’’ says a senior official.
‘‘There is a visible co-relation between a spurt in incidents and Musharraf’s public utterances, therefore, even if we do not blame him for every act, we have to judge his actions by his reaction,’’ the sources said.
Claiming that India had given weightage to Musharraf’s promises only because they had been conveyed by trustworthy interlocutors, the sources said: ‘‘It is now upto these interlocutors to prove that they can get Musharraf to deliver on those pledges. Their reputation is at stake.’’
During his stay, Straw will call on national security adviser Brajesh Mishra, lunch with the CII and hold talks with Yashwant Sinha followed by delegation level talks.
Whether by design or default, Straw’s visit will not yield any feel-good joint Press conference as was the case in the past, when every Straw visit has seen a joint Press appearance at Hyderabad House.
The Vajpayee government has displayed some sobriety in not rushing
headlong into blaming Pakistan for the ghastly massacre of 27 poor,
innocent slum dwellers in Jammu, which has shattered the uneasy calm
since the May 14 Kaluchak killing. True, foreign minister Yashwant
Sinha pointed a finger at Pakistan's possible involvement. But his
statement preceded the Cabinet meeting, which adopted a cautious
tone pending investigation into the incident.
India's overall official reaction is markedly different from that
two months ago or after the December Parliament attack, when it not
only named "Pakistan-backed" terrorists, but threatened large-scale
military strikes. Islamabad too has condemned the incident without
ifs and buts, and said the "motivation" was to "escalate"
India-Pakistan tensions. Implied here is the two states' shared
interest in identifying and fighting a "common" enemy.
One can only hope that such non-coercive approaches prevail -
against domestic and external contrarian pressures. Such pressures
are not hard to identify. In India, there has been a further shift
to the Hindutva Right within the country's most conservative and
communal government since Independence. The dominant force in the
National Democratic Alliance is Deputy Prime Minister Advani whose
Hindu-sectarianism is inseparable from his viscerally anti-Pakistan
positions.
Besides, many policy-makers feel they must press home the advantage
India currently enjoys over Islamabad within Western perceptions -
by extracting all they can from Musharraf without reciprocating his
commitment to end "cross-border infiltration". There are also
genuine fears that extremist militants, whether supported by
Pakistan or not, might disrupt the Assembly elections due in Jammu &
Kashmir, so India must keep up the military pressure. This calculus
is related to the strategy of some policy-makers to substitute free
and fair elections for a dialogue on Kashmir with Pakistan.
In Pakistan, there is growing resentment at the West's, especially
the United States', "pro-India tilt", compounded by the suspicion
that Washington is not playing fair in Afghanistan. The second
instalment of Musharraf's "reforms" has not mitigated the hostility
provoked by the first, which enormously concentrated powers in the
President's office.
A particularly odious measure is to limit national and provincial
Assembly contests to graduates alone - 1.3 percent of the
population. This is an extraordinary notion of democracy, in some
ways more obnoxious than "property-owning democracy".
As The Washington Post notes, "Musharraf is coming under fire not
just from Islamic militant groupsŠ but from middle-class Pakistanis,
including westernised intellectuals and professionals, many of whom
initially welcomed the military takeover". As Pakistan's national
elections near, Musharraf will have to do some fancy footwork to
regain a measure of credibility domestically and abroad. For
plainly, there has been a discernible shift in Western perceptions
of the India-Pakistan standoff and Kashmir.
I was personally struck by this during a visit earlier this month
to Germany. A majority of the people I met - diplomats, politicians,
academics and South Asia experts, including a couple from outside
Germany - now view Islamabad in a far more unflattering light than
before September 11. This would seem to be the case despite their
view that India is partly to blame for upping the ante at the border
and for not de-escalating adequately during the past four to five
weeks.
September 11's seismic shock - and perceived danger from "Islamic
fanatics" to world "order" - is only one part of the reason. A much
deeper factor is the view that radical changes in South Asia's
boundaries, especially when pressed with militant-group violence,
could have cataclysmic consequences which go beyond South Asia.
Within such a rationale, the status quo power, in this case, India,
is "naturally" favoured. As is gradualism and negotiated autonomy
within existing state structures.
Supplementing this view is the deeper premise that Pakistan won't
develop a modern and pluralist notion of the state and self-identity
unless it jettisons its religious baggage from the past, including
the Two-Nation Theory as applied to Kashmir. So long as Islam is the
sole foundation of Pakistan's claim to Kashmir, this view will
remain persuasive.
One can differ with this perception for a number of reasons. It
situates Kashmir purely within a statist, bilateral, context, as if
it could be settled to the exclusion of the Kashmiri people. It
minimises the degree of their alienation from the Indian state
(which does not translate into supporting accession to Pakistan)
because of New Delhi's betrayal of its own Constitutional and
political commitments, besides repression. It does not take enough
account of India-Pakistan bilateral and international agreements and
commitments, including for a dialogue on Kashmir. And it imagines
that converting the Line of Control into a permanent border -
without much ado about a dialogue - is a "solution" that can satisfy
a majority of Pakistanis.
Whatever one's reservations, there is simply no denying the changed
perception of the India-Pakistan rivalry in many Western capitals
and think-tanks. Besides recent statements by Jack Straw and Richard
Armitage, this is further corroborated by, among other things, a
setback to the effort to move a resolution at the European Union's
Seville summit focusing on a dialogue on Kashmir. The final
resolution sternly asks Pakistan to take "further action to prevent
terrorist groups operating in and from territory under its controlŠ"
and "stop infiltration" into Indian Kashmir.
This is also confirmed by a July 11 report of the International
Crisis Group, a "liberal" think-tank which figures former Finnish
president Marrti Ahtisaari, former Australian foreign minister
Gareth Evans, and US Congressman Stephen Solarz (www.crisisweb.org).
The report rightly says the basic dynamics of the India-Pakistan
conflict have not changed, and "the potential for strategic
miscalculations remains all too real Š (B)oth Pakistan and India have
sought to use the US-proclaimed 'global' war on terrorism to their
own tactical advantage, increasing the risk of military missteps."
It continues: "The immediate cause of (the) recent fighting has
been the cross-border infiltration of militantsŠ Pakistani President
Pervez Musharraf has yet to take decisive action to contain the
Pakistan-based Islamist extremists responsibleŠ".
Again, "India is eager to demonstrate that increasing numbers" in
J&K are willing to engage in a "dialogue with New Delhi about
fundamental issues of self-rule and governance and to participate in
the Kashmir ballot". But, "in contrast, Pakistan is eager to keep
the pressure on India by supporting more militant factions that
continue to urge either independence or annexing KashmirŠ Pakistan
clearly hopes that many political parties and groups in Kashmir will
boycott the coming elections. Its desire to deny legitimising
India's control of Kashmir could well be pushing it to encourage
cross-border incursions."
Thus, "in essence, the Musharraf government seems to be implying
that it is at the limits of the steps it can take against extremist
groups, and that the West should tolerate cross-border insurgency
operations in Kashmir or risk facing a new government that could be
far less accommodating."
This clearly marks a new set of parameters within which Musharraf
and Vajpayee will have to work, however unfavourable they might
seem. How ably they respond to Jack Straw's and Colin Powell's
nudging for more action during their coming visits will determine
whether they move towards serious reconciliation or yet another
confrontation.
There lies the litmus test of their sobriety.
As a gesture of honest intent, India and Pakistan must reduce the
levels of their security forces on the border.
FORTUNATELY, INDIA and Pakistan have stepped back from the brink of
war and nuclear holocaust. But the danger remains and the two sides
remain at the mercy of events they cannot fully control.
Fundamentalist elements in Pakistan bent on violence directed at
India and matched likewise by right wing groups in India, both of
whom aim to provoke war, hold the future of the region in their
hands. They will continue to do so unless the two Governments
institute measures to de-escalate the current confrontation and get
down to a dialogue.
The following objectives are interlinked and must be achieved: To
stop permanently infiltration from Pakistan into the Indian part of
Jammu and Kashmir; to stop all forms of human rights violations by
militants and security forces alike; to resolve the Kashmir issue
peacefully, keeping in mind the legacy of Partition and the ground
realities at present: the existence of the Line of Control as a
virtual boundary since the Shimla Agreement of 1972; to identify a
process for ascertaining the wishes of the people of Jammu and
Kashmir regarding their future; to defuse nuclear tensions and
eliminate the risk of nuclear war; and to open up the two countries
to normal movement of people and trade and create a climate, socially
and politically, that would promote good relations between the people
of India and Pakistan as well as in South Asia.
The elements that would pave the way for resolving these
long-festering issues could be as follows, keeping in mind the
history of the various agreements that India and Pakistan have signed
or almost signed, but have so far failed to implement. The approach
also factors in the new and overwhelming reality in South Asia - that
the acquiring by India and Pakistan of nuclear arsenals means the
threats of conventional and nuclear war are now inextricably linked.
If Indian and Pakistani leaders want peace, which is more than the
absence of war, resolving the issues of the relationships between the
people and in the communities within countries with equality,
tolerance and friendship is necessary for a sustained peace.
Pakistan has pledged to stop the infiltration into Kashmir
permanently. This will require monitoring. India has proposed a joint
patrolling of the border. This has not been agreed to by Pakistan.
The situation is further complicated by India's `allergy' to any big
power/third party interference in the Kashmir question. However, a
substantial role is already being played by the United States and
others in facilitating a communication between the leadership of the
two countries. It is therefore proposed that a force drawn from among
the members of the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation
(SAARC) under a mutually agreed leadership could provide the
necessary compromise for the monitoring to be established. This force
could be provided with technical data gathered by other countries,
including the U.S., to better perform its duties. As a first step,
India should show its goodwill by beginning to reduce its forces
along the border and restoring all communication links including
road, rail and air traffic between the two countries. The aim should
be to bring the forces at the border to the pre-December 13 levels as
rapidly as possible.
There are three parties to the Kashmir question - India, Pakistan and
the people of Jammu and Kashmir, and it is essential that India
recognise this. By the same token, India and Pakistan must understand
the ground reality of a de facto partition of the erstwhile State of
Jammu and Kashmir by the acceptance of the Line of Control (LoC) as
the international border between the two countries. There is no
denying the fact that the people of Jammu and Kashmir have suffered a
great deal due to the India-Pakistan `tug of war' over five decades.
They seek peace and a cessation of all forms of violence. As a first
step in this direction and as a gesture of honest intent, India and
Pakistan must reduce the levels of their security forces on the
border in Kashmir. Pakistan should also close down all militant
training camps on its soil.
Central to any solution to the "Kashmir problem" must be a process of
ascertaining the wishes of the people of the entire erstwhile State
of Jammu and Kashmir, keeping in mind the ground realities of the de
facto partition of the State.
To facilitate the emergence of peace in the region as early as
possible, the following process as a via media could be considered:
First, Kashmiris on both sides of the border should be given the
choice of being the citizens of either India or Pakistan, and, if
they want to move from one side to another, be given the opportunity
to do so in peace and security. To implement this, both countries
should agree to some form of international supervision. This role
could be performed by a SAARC monitoring team as proposed earlier.
Second, the people displaced from their lands and homes by the
current conflict, such as the Kashmiri Pandits, should be allowed to
return in peace and security. Third, the border between India and
Pakistan in Kashmir should be kept porous to enable Kashmiris on both
sides to cross it for personal, family and business reasons without
too many hassles.
Both countries should reaffirm the pledges to negotiate all
outstanding issues between them peacefully and not resort to war,
proxy or otherwise. This formulation should meet the concerns of the
two countries adequately. This means, first of all, a ceasefire along
the LoC. Pakistan should agree to a policy of no-first-use of nuclear
weapons, which India has already adopted. This is the equivalent of a
nuclear ceasefire. India and Pakistan could tap their best and
deepest traditions and not only avert war but make a real peace
between themselves. They could verifiably de-alert all nuclear
weapons with bilateral or SAARC monitoring and, in that context,
invite all other nuclear weapons states to do the same and together
take up leadership in the cause of global nuclear disarmament.
Only sustained peace can lift the clouds of war and the threat of
nuclear incineration of South Asia. At the dawn of the nuclear age,
Albert Einstein called on humanity to develop a new way of thinking
or perish. Leaders in the West have recklessly failed to heed that
warning and remain on the edge of a nuclear abyss, with the U.S. and
Russia maintaining between them more than 4,000 nuclear warheads on
hair-trigger alert, though they claim to be friends and at peace.
In a recently concluded workshop 'Initiative for Peace - Focus on
Kashmir' at the United World College in Singapore, 40 young people
from India and Pakistan came together for a week, and agreed on an
inspiring Statement of Common Ground. The final paragraph of the
statement reads: "We believe that we have the power to make this
generation and the generations to come, the best ever in the history
of humanity, or the worst. The choice is entirely ours; we have made
the choice for a better and peaceful world." This, rather than the
perpetual state of quasi-war that the countries are now maintaining,
would befit the region that gave the world Badshah Khan and Mohandas
Karamchand Gandhi and the most unique freedom movement the world has
known.
In Khayar, a remote village in north Kashmir,
mourning has become a way of life. People meet more often at the
small graveyard in the middle of their dusty, rundown village than
for any other social occasion. The Muslim festival of Eid has lost
its charm; the laughter of children is missing; even the merriment of
a marriage party is dominated by the memory of the young men and
women who have lost their lives over the years.
The villagers had gathered to console the family of a 70-year-old man
who had died of a heart attack during an identification parade
conducted by the army. Crowded in a small, dingy room, the tales they
told were like postcards explaining Kashmir's complex tragedy in
miniature.
Abdul Raheem Malik is the only male member of his family alive. One
of his sons and a brother died in the last 10 years while another son
is missing after being picked up by the army. Malik lost his job in a
private factory because he had neither the time nor the energy to
continue working.
``I spent all these years either mourning my family's dead or
wandering from one army camp to another looking for my son," he said.
``Then I became scared to leave my three daughters alone at home. The
eldest one is a widow."
Blighted by misery and poverty, the Malik household has been selling
off its family land to survive. Malik's wife, Amina, has developed
acute cardiac trouble. ``Tears have dried in her eyes and she cries
silently all the time," Malik said.
Amina's only remaining treasures are the few photographs of her sons.
She carries them everywhere to show to strangers, hoping someone
might provide a clue as to the whereabouts of Mohammad Riyaz Malik,
her missing son.
Riyaz was 20 and preparing for a school examination when, late in the
evening on July 4 1998, a group of masked gun men knocked on his
father's door. ``We opened the door. They were Ikhwanis
(counterinsurgents working with the local army unit). They asked for
Riyaz and took him along, never to return," Malik recalled.
``I touched their feet. My wife and daughters were hysterical because
we had already lost one boy, and now only Riyaz was left. But they
didn't listen to my pleas. They promised that he would soon be back."
Riyaz did not return, and a neighbour told them he saw him being
carried to the army camp at Dobban, up in the mountains. ``Abdul Ahad
Mir, a road coolie, had seen him and he came running to us. Even the
army first accepted he was with them. For 15 months they kept us
hanging and finally denied any knowledge of his arrest," Malik said.
Malik says that he approached everybody from army officers to the top
brass of the civilian government. ``Everyone promised an
investigation but nothing happened. Finally the government issued a
death certificate and closed the file.
"Every day we hear something that rekindles our hope that our son is
alive. I wanted to end this uncertainty permanently and ascertain his
fate. I filed a case in the court, but last February the army picked
me up and forced me to declare in writing that my son was not missing
in army custody. I could do nothing and now my family has to live
with this uncertainty for the rest of our lives."
The first tragedy to befall the Malik family came right at the
beginning of the turmoil. On October 4 1990, Malik's 30-year-old
brother, Ghulam Mohammad Malik, and 20-year-old son, Shakeel Ahmad
Malik, were killed in an army shootout.
As Malik was talking about his family, Amina was silent.
Occasionally, she would hide her face and sob but she did not utter a
single word. ``She has become dumb. She hardly reacts to anything
now," Malik said.
As he stopped talking, silence descended on the crowded room, but
another man was desperate to tell his story. Ghulam Hassan belongs to
same clan as Malik and his tale is equally tragic. Ghulam is a
50-year-old farmer and used to live in the neighbourhood. ``I fled
the village for the safety of my family," he said.
In Ghulam's case the perpetrators were militants. ``I and my
23-year-old daughter, Tahira, were picked up by the army last year. I
was released immediately, but my daughter was kept in custody for 11
days," he said. ``She was booked under the Prevention of Terrorism
Act, but was released because of massive protests".
Life for this branch of the Malik clan went relatively smoothly after
that, until May 6 of this year. ``We were about to have our dinner
that evening when there was a knock at the door," he said. ``It was a
group of Pakistani militants. I identified them because they used to
come to the village often for food and shelter. They didn't say a
word and immediately opened fire. Tahira was at the door and she was
hit in the chest. I jumped out of the window and saved myself but
Tahira died crying for help."
``I have no idea why they did it. What had my daughter done? She was
full of life. Did she deserve to be killed just because she was
arrested by the army?"
As Ghulam fell silent, there was a commotion. It seemed everyone in
the room had a story to tell and every tale had a different villain,
explaining and also confusing the larger story of Kashmir. Amid this
din, a young boy crawled up to me to whisper his story. He introduced
himself as Altaf Ahmad Khan, a school student.
``I live in a neighbouring village and I have lost three cousins," he
said. "Please mention them as well. They were killed in a firefight
between the army and the militants. The militants had barged into the
house. After a few hours the army came and there was a fierce
encounter. Nobody bothered about my cousins and, when the debris of
the house were searched next morning, their charred bodies were
recovered, too."
A little girl, sitting in the corner, was listening carefully to all
the stories. She did not even blink, and her face was devoid of
emotion. Who was this girl?
``She was one of six siblings; the eldest is just 12. Their father,
Ghulam Nabi Malik, was killed by unidentified gunmen and their mother
left them. There is nobody to support them and they are dependent on
neighbours," a village elder explained. Nobody in the village is sure
who killed their father. Nobody even wants to guess because to do so
is deemed too dangerous.
The story of Khayar village is nothing unusual. If you wander around
remote hamlets or even the wealthy parts of the Kashmiri city of
Srinagar, such stories repeat themselves everywhere. Kashmir's daily
death toll is 20, and it is a Kashmiri who dies by the bullet of
either side.
The separatist movement, which started as an indigeneous struggle for
Kashmir's freedom from both India and Pakistan, has been hijacked by
pan-Islamic jihadis, whose agenda runs counter to the very basis of
Kashmiri aspiration. As social rather than political change has
become the priority, religion has gained centre-stage in the struggle
and violence has become an end itself rather than a means to an end.
Why are Kashmiris fighting? For whom are they fighting? If the choice
is between Kashmir's becoming a jugular vein of Pakistan or a rose in
the bouquet called India, then the struggle is already over. They are
fighting in a struggle they cannot control. If they wish to hold a
dialogue with New Delhi, they have to seek permission from the
jihadis, who ironically do not believe in achieving their goals
democratically. If they want access to the remote controls in
Pakistan, to negotiate directly, they become caught up in the
political quagmire in New Delhi.
Some people protest against the killing of a militant by the security
forces one day and the next shout slogans against the militants for
perpetrating a murder. The case of two brothers in Srinagar who laid
down their lives for opposite causes, but were mourned by the same
people, is a glaring example of this confusion.
When a Hizbul mujahideen militant, Hamid Dar, died fighting security
forces in 1994, thousands of people protested and mourned his death.
After eight years, his elder brother Imtiaz Dar also died a violent
death, but this time at the hands of the militants. His death was
mourned with matching intensity. The family, however, is unable to
draw lines and is confused over which side to favour. They are
victims of both.
What will happen in Kashmir in the next 20 years? Ghulam Rasool Bhat,
an old gravedigger, pointed towards one of the security force's mud
bunkers in Srinagar. ``Soon that will be made from concrete," he said.
He may be right. Nobody in Kashmir wants war, but nobody pursues
peace either. The vested interests thrive on violence and hamper any
movement towards reconciliation and healing, leaving the wounds wide
open.
· Muzamil Jaleel is a Srinagar-based journalist with the Indian Express
The very talk of separating Jammu, Kashmir and Ladakh is falling in line with the two-nation theory,' said Omar Abdullah to PTI as reported in The Asian Age, Mumbai, of July 1, 2002. He also said, 'These leaders [of the RSS and VHP] do not know anything of Kashmir.'
Well, well, well, Abdullah III, 32, has a lot of reading to do. And if he only yields his acidic tongue to the printed words of history, he will learn of three major realities --
With a view to facing the threatening storm of Sheikh Abdullah's separatist postures for J&K state, some RSS workers founded a political party, by the name of Praja Parishad, in November 1947. Among their demands were:
one flag and one constitution for the entire nation, including J&K,
ending of the discrimination against Jammu and Ladakh regions (Page 42 of RSS: A Vision In Action, Sahitya Sindhu Prakashan, second edition, June 1998)
Immediately after the accession of J&K to India in October 1947, the Ladakhis took the stand that their future was linked to India though culturally, racially and linguistically they were closer to Tibet. While [Sheikh] Abdullah was fighting for a separate flag for J&K state, the Ladakhis glowed with pride on seeing the Ashoka wheel on the Indian flag (Claude Arpi, The Land of the Passes.
'Jammu and Ladakh must be fully integrated with India according to the wishes of their people. Let me repeat and state categorically that I do not want Jammu & Kashmir to be partitioned. But if Sheikh Abdullah is adamant, Jammu and Ladakh must not be sacrificed, but Kashmir valley may be a separate state within the Indian Union.' (From the presidential address of Dr Shyama Prasad Mookerjee at the first all-India session of the Bharatiya Jana Sangh in Kanpur on December 29, 1952.)
Half a century and more after these events, things have hardly changed for the people of J&L in J&K. They still find Article 370 separating them from complete economic and emotional integration with the rest of India; they still complain of discrimination against them by the rulers in the valley. Nehru first and successive Congress party regimes in Delhi thereafter have so appeased the Abdullah dynasty with its satraps of the National Conference that the entire state is lorded over by the nawabs of the teeny Kashmir valley ensconced in Srinagar. The governments of Morarji Desai, V P Singh, Chandra Shekhar, Deve Gowda and Inder Gujral were all too brief in tenure to make a difference, while the current NDA government is far too hemmed in by circumstances to do what its BJP component knows needs to be done.
That is why the PTI report in The Asian Age, Mumbai edition, dated November 27, 2000, wherein Abdul Rouf Ganai, co-convener of the Jammu Kashmir National Front, denied that his organisation's demand for the state's trifurcation was 'communal and RSS-backed'; in fact, in support of that denial, Ganai stated, 'Both Hindus and Muslims of Jammu are treated as second-class citizens by the Srinagar-based elite.' Equally important was his belief that 'Jammu Muslims are ethnically and culturally different from the Kashmiri Muslims. We are closer to the Hindu Paharis, Gujjars, Dogras and Punjabis.' So what is all that cock and bull about 'Kashmiriyat' that we've been brainwashed with all these years by cunning politicians and two-penny pen-pushers?
Another outcome of Srinagar's domineering suzerainty over J&K all these long, long years is the PTI report in The Asian Age, Mumbai edition, of June 19, 2000, which announced the Ladakhi Buddhist Association's plan for observance of a 'black week' to oppose the 'rule from Srinagar'. That report also quoted a senior leader of the LBA as saying, 'The Ladakhis are apprehensive that the proposed step for greater autonomy for the state or to restore the pre-1953 position will ruin the interests of Ladakh people who have been clamouring for Union territory status for a long time.' So what is behind all this clamour of the Abdullahs for 'greater autonomy short of azadi?'
This Ladakhi agitation against Srinagar's domination dates back to 1952 when Sheikh Abdullah presented the state's budget to its Constituent Assembly, forgetting Ladakh altogether; when Kushok Bakula Rinpoche, head lama of Ladakh, protested in a strongly worded speech, Abdullah asked his speech to be expunged from the records on the ground that it was in English and not in Urdu. Bakula was the one who recently retired as India's ambassador to Mongolia. The reader -- and Abdullah III -- will discover that fact and more in Arpi's above-referred Rediff Special that is as much a succinct narration of Ladakh's tribulations as it is a tribute to the courage of the Ladakhis and to their love-cum-loyalty for the Indian nation.
It should be clear to the impartial observer that the latest RSS resolution advocating J&K's trifurcation is not rooted in communal soil, but in the discrimination practised against the Jammu and Ladakh regions by the long line of Wazir-e-Azams ruling from the seat of the Kashmir valley. Below is evidence of that discrimination as spelt out in two signed newspaper articles: one in The Tribune of August 27, 2000, written by Hari Om, history professor at Jammu University, and the other in Tarun Bharat of July 7, 2002, by M G Vaidya, chief spokesman of the RSS.
The valley has 46 state assembly segments as against 41 of Jammu and Ladakh although the latter two are much bigger in terms of population and land area. The valley also has three Lok Sabha seats out of the six allotted for the entire state.
Kashmiris hold over 2,30,000 out of the nearly 2,40,000 positions in government and semi-government organisations in the valley besides cornering about 25 per cent of jobs in the regional services of Jammu and Ladakh. A corollary: out of the total of 35 positions of state government commissioners and secretaries, 31 go to the valley. Another corollary: out of the 1,55,000 absorbed in government service since 1996, only 15,000 are from Jammu.
All the professional and technical institutions, universities and big public-sector units located in the valley are the sole preserve of Kashmiris.
More than 50 per cent of the seats in Jammu's ill-equipped and understaffed medical and engineering colleges go to the students from the valley. Ditto for the Sher-e-Kashmir Agricultural University. The position in Ladakh? No such institutions exist there!
Jammu and Ladakh contribute over 90 per cent to the state exchequer. Only a small part of that is spent on the underdeveloped Jammu and backward Ladakh.
During the last 55 years, not a single person from Jammu region has become chief minister of the state.
Abdullah III may pounce on the last facet to reiterate his accusation that the demand for trifurcation is, in fact, communal, because the Jammu region has long been perceived as being one of Hindu majority. The 'secularists' will readily buy that accusation and fuel it in the popular media they command. They will ignore, out of ignorance or intent, the fact that Poonch district (area 1,674 sq km), Rajouri district (area 2,630 sq km) and Doda district (area 11,691 sq km) are all part of the Jammu region and have a Muslim population of 85, 55 and 61 per cent, respectively. And, believe it or not, Vaidya says 20 Muslim leaders from those districts who met him on the 20th of last month were firm and insistent on their demand for statehood to Jammu.
Why, Vaidya says the RSS report recommending the trifurcation of J&K is based on the views of 48 delegations expressed to the Sangh's three-man committee headed by the chief justice of the Punjab and Haryana high court.
In fact, when Abdullah III alleges that the demand for trifurcation is communal because it gives the signal to Pakistan that the valley is up for grabs, it is he who is hoist with his own petard. His reaction mirrors his belief that the Muslims of the valley are all pining to be gobbled by the fundamentalist, India-hating neighbour of ours, and that we, the people of India, will meekly comply. It would seem then that apart from ignoring the 55-year history of our nation's blood, toil, tears and sweat lost in defending Srinagar against the evil designs of Pakistan, the young man hasn't studied even the recent MORI poll of J&K. Tsk, tsk.
Abdullah III has the democratic right to oppose the trifurcation of the state that has become his dynasty's monopoly. We are not Pakistan to fetter that freedom of his. But may we have some logic, not rhetoric, for that opposition? And some explanations, if not solutions, for the half-century of woes of J&L?
index | HOME Landelijke India Werkgroep | pagina KRUITVAT INDIA-PAKISTAN |