Pakistan and Kashmir prospects

Pakistan and Kashmir prospects
The policies that Pervez Musharraf initiated with respect to Pakistan’s position on Kashmir may be reviewed but they are unlikely to be reversed.
That the new political leadership in Pakistan will review many of the retired General Pervez Musharraf’s actions and policies is almost certain, be it his dismissal of the Chief Justice, or the intimate relationship his regime had with the United States, or the federal government’s relationship with various troubled provinces of the country.
What about Kashmir and India-Pakistan relations? Will the approach to these be reviewed as well? A recent visit to Pakistan and meetings with some leading members of the new political leadership, academics and former officials have convinced this writer that even as General Musharraf’s policies towards India and Kashmir will be reviewed, they are unlikely to be reversed.
There are several reasons for this. First of all, the peace process between the two countries and the emerging Kashmir discourse have taken a life of their own. Having passed through ups and downs over the years, the peace process has now matured, enough to withstand the change of regime in Pakistan and any changes of regime in New Delhi and Srinagar. Since the peace process has started showing results on the ground — such as in Pakistan doing away with its insistence on U.N. resolutions, the reduction of militant violence in Jammu & Kashmir, and the popular acceptance of the People’s Democratic Party’s ‘healing touch,’ among others — it has also begun to get more and more supporters. It will not be out of place to say that the peace process has become a people’s movement today in both India and Pakistan. A popular government in Pakistan is unlikely to ignore the popular sentiment.
Secondly, it was interesting to note that the various parties in Pakistan were competing with one another to own up the peace process. Asif Ali Zardari made it clear to some of us who met him that it was Benazir Bhutto who had started the peace process with India in the early 1990s and that she championed peaceful co-existence with India. This was echoed by another PPP leader, Sherry Rehman. On the other hand, members of the PML(N) were of the opinion that it was indeed Nawaz Sharif who started the peace process with Atal Bihari Vajpayee. However, it is widely accepted that it was the Musharraf regime that set off the ongoing peace process and so there will be some soul-searching about it by the new political dispensation.
Sardar Attique Ahmed Khan, Prime Minister of Pakistan-occupied Kashmir, put forward a number of suggestions that he hoped would help institutionalise peace between the two countries. One of his out-of-the-box suggestions was to let any citizen of Jammu and Kashmir (from either side) to travel to the other side with a state subject certificate (at present, travel is limited to divided families). His party, he said, has been at the forefront of promoting peace with India and his state’s connectivity with the Indian side of Jammu & Kashmir. Political parties competing to own up the peace process point out that they are aware of the importance of sustaining it. This is good news.
Thirdly, whether or not Pakistan likes to make up with India, today it finds itself in a position in which it cannot afford to have continued enmity with India. Pakistan today faces a multiple-front security situation, and easing even one front would be a great relief for it. Many in Pakistan believe that the Kashmir issue has lived out its life and that Pakistan cannot afford to continue with it in the days to come.
Consider, for example, the fact that there was hardly any mention of Kashmir or India during the recent elections in Pakistan. This is unprecedented. Mr. Zardari candidly accepted that Pakistan would not be interested in any more bloodshed in the name of Kashmir and that the issue had to be resolved in a non-zero-sum manner. The war on terror, rising fundamentalism in the country, the troubled Afghan border, the uncontrollable tribal regions, insurgency in Balochistan, and more important, the ongoing formation of political institutions and associated power struggles, are proving to be too much for Pakistan to handle. For once, the biggest concern for Pakistan is itself, not India. Elite cohesion
Finally, for successful grand strategy-making, it is necessary for a country to have elite cohesion. Today’s Pakistan lacks any semblance of it. The Army and the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) are unlikely to see any merit in doing business with India which the political masters will push for in the days to come. The honeymoon of the two kingmakers — Mr. Zardari and Mr. Sharif — is unlikely to last long and this will be exploited by General Musharraf to secure his position. The civilian elite is divided between the aspiration for democracy and the associated need to review General Musharraf’s policies, and a realisation of the merit in the President’s policies regarding Kashmir and India. In such a sharply divided country, it will be next to impossible to formulate a grand strategy against India, considering the fact that it has realised that its past strategy vis-À-vis India has been faulty and counter-productive.
However, it is necessary to keep in mind that the ISI could play the spoilsport with respect to the civilian leadership’s policy towards India in the days to come. The conduct of the ISI depends a lot on whoever controls it. One question that no one seems to have an answer to is, who is going to be in control of the ISI: will it be the Army chief, the President, or the Prime Minister? A lot of what might happen between India and Pakistan, and in Kashmir, depends on this crucial factor. India needs to be vigilant because it is also possible that the new leadership in Pakistan could use the India card to divert public attention from the internal troubles so that it gets some breathing space.

(Source: The Hindu, April 10, 2008. URL: http://www.thehindu.com/2008/04/10/stories/2008041053531100.htm )