Virtual Homeland of Kashmiri Pandits

Kashmir News Network

| Home | About Kashmir Herald |

Volume 3, No. 8 - January 2004

Email this page to a friend
Featured Article Printer-Friendly Page
Another Peace Gambit
K. P. S. Gill
Publisher, SAIR; President, Institute for Conflict Management

It would be tedious to list out how many times India and Pakistan have 'agreed to talk', and the disastrous record of failure and recurrent violence. The Indian Prime Minister, Atal Behari Vajpayee, noted rightly, at the South Asian Association for Regional Summit Cooperation (SAARC) at Islamabad last week, "History can remind us, guide us, teach us or warn us. It should not shackle us."

It is, however, not history that 'shackles' India and Pakistan to violence in Kashmir, but ideology: the unrelenting ideology of extremist Islam that underlies the creation and existence of Pakistan - expressed in the two-nation theory that holds that Muslims and non-Muslims cannot coexist within the same political order - and that fuels the jehad factories that continue to feed the supply lines of terror across much of the world. This ideology, and no other legal or historical entitlement, is the basis of Pakistan's 'claim' on Kashmir; this again, is why the violence does not end.

Cynicism, however, is not a particularly productive perspective, and it is useful to examine how the rhetoric of the unscheduled joint
Indo-Pakistan Press Statement, which hijacked the agenda at the SAARC Summit, is to be assessed. What, realistically, should be our expectations from the current 'peace process'?

An examination of the harsh realities of the ground in Jammu & Kashmir (J&K) provides insufficient evidence of a radical discontinuity with past trends in terrorist violence. Violence did, of course, decline in year 2003, as compared to 2002, even as 2002 represented a decline against 2001 (Total fatalities, 2001: 4507; 2002: 3022; 2003: 2542). This downward trend is overwhelmingly seen as a consequence of a radically altered international context, and the increasing difficulty of managing the internal contradictions of the situation in Pakistan. There is sufficient evidence in the actions and statements of the Pakistani state and its leadership, which demonstrates no fundamental change in ideology, perspective or strategic intent.

Nevertheless, for those who focus intently and exclusively on the 'ground realities', it is sometimes useful to remember that sentiment itself is part of this ground reality. And there are many, particularly in the English language Press in India and Pakistan, who believe that the sentiment has changed in South Asia, and that there is a genuine desire for peace and coexistence between the people of the two countries. Little of this was evidenced in the commentaries of the various Pakistani 'experts' who were allowed to swamp the Indian media during the SAARC summit, and who exhibited no dilution of the rigidity and stridency of their positions.

Nor, indeed, does the average Indian believe that there is a possibility of a lasting peace between the two countries, given the track record of the past over five and a half decades. Indeed, with the large number of security personnel who have been dying in action against the Pakistan-sponsored terrorists in J&K, anger against Pakistan is high particularly among the rural population, from where most of India's soldiers are drawn. With each returning coffin, stories about those who die are repeated in the villages and in marketplaces across the countryside, and these have deeply influenced the thinking of common folk.

There are, of course, some voices for peace in Pakistan, and the new 'doves' are most voluble in the English language media. But what is, again, ignored, is the sentiment of the masses, which finds more accurate expression in the vernacular Press. Thus, writing after the Islamabad Summit, one commentator in the Urdu daily, Nawa-e-Waqt, fumed: "We took a u-turn in Afghanistan to please America; we got our old friends killed by the Americans, and also killed them ourselves; but the whole advantage is going to India, and we are being pushed against the wall… we are going to take another (u-turn) on Kashmir, then, perhaps, our atomic programme (God forbid) will also be sacrificed to the u-turn. After so many u-turns, what will the people get?" The author's 'solution', in brief, was a 'thousand cuts', an old theme in the strategic community in Pakistan. These are sentiments that have been widely repeated in the Urdu media in that country. The assembly lines of the jehad, moreover, are still to be dismantled in Pakistan, and for the average Pakistani, the country's nuclear arsenal still remains its primary national asset, reflecting the degree of perversion the national psyche has undergone.

But the strategy of a 'thousand cuts' against India has failed, and will hopefully fail wherever else it is tried. The truth is, there have been very significant transformations in South Asia, though the most momentous of these may not be the ones that the euphoria of the 'peace process' carries our attention to.

For one, Musharraf, it must be explicitly recognised, has for some time now, been in dire need of relief. The international pressure - particularly after a continuing succession of disclosures relating to Pakistan's role in nuclear proliferation in North Korea, Iran and Libya, as well as on the potential leakage of such technologies to non-state terrorist entities - was becoming unbearable. There is, at present, almost a report, editorial or article a day in some of the most prominent American newspapers focusing on Pakistan's transgressions, both in connection with nuclear proliferation and international terrorism, as well as on Pakistan's deceit and duplicity with regard to its purported 'cooperation' with America in the 'global war against terrorism'. Internally, moreover, a range of economic and political pressures have been acting on Musharraf, and these peaked in two apparent attempts at assassination, which seem to have shaken the dictator's confidence in staying the course on Pakistan's enterprise of strategic overextension and sponsorship of terrorism.

Under the circumstances, unfortunately, the deal at Islamabad has virtually let Pakistan off the hook, abruptly restoring a legitimacy that had steadily been eroded over the past more than two years. Indeed, the case that India had built against Pakistan over this period has virtually been dismantled through this single action, and it would be possible (though he may not choose this course of action in the immediate future) for Musharraf to continue his support to terrorism in J&K, even as he projects himself as the first target and victim of terrorism, creating an impenetrable veil of 'credible deniability' that will only be gradually worn away by repeated and extreme transgressions. Worse, it is now clear that, even if there are major acts of terrorism on Indian soil and their source identified to be located in Pakistan, the possibility or legitimacy of any strong reaction by India - including the suspension of talks and 'confidence building measures' - has substantially been eliminated. Musharraf would simply argue, as he has in the past, but more credibly now since his position has in some sense been validated by a 'peace process' with India, that these are lawless jehadis, acting without any official support, and that Pakistan and he personally were also targets of the same extremist elements.

In this, it is useful to understand the degree to which India has yielded its past position, starting from the 'hardline' adopted during Operation Parakram. The Prime Minister had said that there would be no negotiations till Pakistan demonstrably ended support to terrorism and stopped cross border infiltration; till the infrastructure of terrorism in Pakistan had been dismantled; till those who were on India's 'list of 20 most wanted' had been handed over by Pakistan. Not one of these conditions has been fulfilled. But India has entered into talks with Pakistan now.

Clearly, both parties in the process are, in the main, buying time, and there is little by way of a concrete strategy for resolution. The most significant element in this process, in fact, is not any possible set of 'solutions' that may be defined, but essentially the passage of time and the possible de-escalation of violence in the region while the two countries engage in 'confidence building measures'. Eventually, Kashmir will be resolved, not by good intentions and neighbourly values, but by the necessity of changing circumstances in a world that is growing impatient with terrorism. There is now at least some evidence of fatigue and fear in the Pakistani leadership, and an increasing conviction that the adventurism of the past is not only unsustainable, but would, indeed, attract extreme penalties. The very existence of Pakistan is, today, under threat. This, and not the absurd and artificial 'formulae' that have, from time to time, been proposed for the resolution of the 'Kashmir issue', is the key to the future.

Courtesy: South Asia Terrorism Portal


| Archives | Privacy Policy | Copyrights | Contact Us |
© 2001-2005 Kashmir Herald (A kashmiri-pandit.org Publication). All Rights Reserved
[Views and opinions expressed in Kashmir Herald are solely those of the authors of the articles/opinion pieces
and not of Kashmir Herald Editorial Board.]