Responses to my article "26/11 and India’s Pakistan dilemma", published in The Hindu.

Opinion - Letters to the Editor    

Dilemma

The article “26/11 and India’s Pakistan dilemma” (Jan. 5) provides an analysed reasoning of why, from a purely strategic point of view, helping Pakistan resolve the issue of terrorism is in our national interest. It can also draw strength from the news that Pakistan’s civil society has urged its government to come out of its denial mode and address the problem of terrorism.

The one-upmanship displayed by the media on both sides should be addressed by responsible sections, reducing the war hysteria and attending to the dismantling of the terrorist structures. This should be pursued by enlisting the people’s support in both countries and the global community at large.

Kasim Sait,

Chennai

***

Both countries should make efforts to avert a war. A war, besides failing to eliminate terrorism, will lead to the creation of more terrorists.

It is a stable and democratic Pakistan that India should work for, not a ruined, distorted Pakistan.

M. Parul,

New Delhi

***

I agree that the Indian government handled the diplomatic aftermath of the Mumbai attacks in an “inept” manner. Rather than resorting to diplomacy, it should have done what the U.S. or Israel does in similar circumstances: bombed the hideouts and offices of LeT and other terrorist outfits. India would have then proved its mettle to the world. I also think that by involving the FBI in the investigations and by preparing a dossier on the terrorist attack for the U.S. State Department and the Pakistan Foreign Ministry, India has surrendered part of its sovereignty.

M. Riaz Hasan,

Hyderabad

(Source: The Hindu, January 6, 2009. URL: http://www.hindu.com/2009/01/06/stories/2009010654570803.htm )

26/11 and India’s Pakistan dilemma

26/11 and India’s Pakistan dilemma

Happymon Jacob

From a grand strategic point of view it is in India’s national interest to help Pakistan resolve its terrorism puzzle.

The diplomatic aftermath of the 26/11 Mumbai attacks is being handled by the Indian government in an inept manner. Purposefully addressing the issue of terrorism in the region, and working to halt attacks against India in particular, are clearly in the wider strategic interest of the country and ought to be what the nation should strive towards. At best, however, all that India has managed to do is throw together a muddled ‘shaming campaign’ against Pakistan. India has missed the forest for the trees, and the world has watched it do that yet again. Dealing with Pakistan and its myriad actors in times of tension and crisis demands a more superior level of political imagination and diplomatic manoeuvring than what the Government of India has demonstrated thus far.

Failure of diplomacy

India’s most prominent failure since the catastrophe of 26/11 has been that it has patently failed to make use of diplomacy to ensure that the perpetrators of terrorism in Pakistan are held responsible in an appropriately comprehensive manner. We have failed to de-hyphenate Pakistan from India. In doing so we have failed, once again, to negate the pervasive belief that all that we two neighbours can engage in is immature, tit-for-tat, counterblow relations. New Delhi should have sent high-ranking diplomats and Track 2 negotiators to Islamabad to engage the various actors there. If this were done quietly and deftly, it may have been possible for New Delhi’s mediators to reason with Islamabad and Rawalpindi and to gain acceptance for India’s core argument: that by failing to rein in the terrorists who operate from within its borders, Pakistan stands to lose, and lose much more conclusively than India.

With the friendly Asif Ali Zardari regime more than willing to engage India through multiple-level negotiations, it would have been possible to turn the events of 26/11 into an opportunity to make diplomatic inroads into the Pakistani establishment. That many of the current Pakistani decision-makers, including Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi and National Security Adviser Mahmud Ali Durrani, have in the past been part of Track 2 dialogues with India should have made New Delhi more open to using this technique. Track 2 diplomacy can work in times of emergency, not just in times of peace.

Instead, India chose to fall into its traditional role of disciplinarian, behaving in such a way as to feed Pakistan’s already significant inferiority complex by getting Mr. Zardari’s regime to back into a corner with its ill-thought-out rhetoric and cumbersome actions. Once on the backfoot, Mr. Zardari (fearing a domestic backlash) was forced to react to, rather than engage with, New Delhi.

Moreover, not recognising the importance of smart diplomacy, New Delhi chose to outsource its responsibility to others, apparently thinking that foreign leaders were willing to do India’s work for it. The current game of brinkmanship between India and Pakistan can only achieve petty point-scoring. Instead of contemplating the downgrading of the diplomatic engagement with Pakistan, India should be focussed on strenuously stepping it up.

Pulp patriotism

The failure of Indian diplomacy to move beyond tit-for-tat point-scoring saw a concurrent rise in media-generated pulp patriotism. Newspapers ran headlines such as “ISI chief summoned to India,” as though Pakistan were somehow at New Delhi’s beck and call. This prompted even the most liberal sections of Pakistani civil society and media to react with anger and in denial. Simultaneously, Mumbai morphed into a celebrity circus thanks to the banter of page-three ‘experts.’ Pop culture personalities and hawkish experts flashed across television screens egging on the Indian government to carry out ‘surgical,’ ‘preemptive’ strikes against Pakistan in order to dismantle the terrorist infrastructure there.

To do so would be to emulate the current disintegration in the Gaza Strip and give weight to the argument that Israel has ‘successfully’ protected itself against terrorism by using precisely such tactics. The reality, however, is that the anti-terror strategies Israel uses are inapt and unsuitable for India. We do not want to find ourselves in the situation that Israel finds itself in today: encircled by disgruntled neighbours whose obvious distaste for the Jewish state does not allow it to have any real sense of security. As a result of its constricted, meandering domestic policies and unstable relations with its neighbours, Israel has isolated itself in its own region. Little wonder, it feels alienated and insecure. Using Israel’s technologies to combat terror is one thing, but following its counter-terror policies and politics is another matter entirely.

Need for a grand strategy

India has not yet evolved a forward-looking grand strategic approach that effectively addresses the question of how to deal with Pakistan. Most of India’s Pakistan policies have been reactionary in nature and serve only to achieve tactical short-term gains. It is thanks to the absence of a grand strategy that during the ongoing India-Pakistan stand-off India has so easily fallen in line with the wishes of the terrorists. These terrorists desire the end of the India-Pakistan peace process, civil society cooperation and media freedom in both countries. Their goal is to increase anti-India feelings amidst the common people in Pakistan and vice versa, and their ultimate aspiration must surely be armed conflict between the two countries, in whatever form. With every passing day, the ringmasters of Pakistan’s terror networks edge closer to achieving these horrifying aims.

To ask an oft-repeated question: what kind of Pakistan does India really want? One that is on the brink of total collapse, split into multiple centres of power, where jihadi terrorism and religious fanaticism rule the roost? Or a stable, democratic and economically powerful Pakistan minus the influence of the military, the militants and the mullahs? For many in India the answer to this question is not as straightforward as it should be. The traditional delusion still exists amongst some that a final victory for India lies in the withering away of Pakistan. Little do they realise that having a nuclear Somalia for a neighbour, as Pakistani peace activist Pervez Hoodbhoy once put it, would not be the end of India’s Pakistan problem, but rather the beginning of India’s woes. India cannot simply attempt to fence its vast borders and hide inside, especially if Pakistan becomes a failed state.

Thus, from a grand strategic point of view it is in India’s national interest to help Pakistan resolve its terrorism puzzle. In order to do that, India needs to behave like a responsible, emergent power and prove that it has the diplomatic mettle to be a great power. Diplomacy is harder to sell in times of crisis than in times of war-mongering. The use of crisis diplomacy requires a strong state and stronger political will. India has to ‘sell’ the use of diplomacy and negotiations, not only to the Pakistani leadership but also to the domestic audience in India. This task is not an impossible one. Crises such as this are a test of India’s strength as a rising power.

Road ahead

Not all is lost yet. We cannot afford to abandon the relative peace and stability that we have achieved vis-À-vis Pakistan in the recent past because of the wounds inflicted by Mumbai. That 26/11 should serve as a reason for India to strengthen its diplomatic footing vis-À-vis Pakistan. India must use more sophisticated and nuanced multi-layered mediation to reach out to the people who matter in the Pakistani state, and the various states within that state. Imaginative, targeted and high-level diplomacy helps in times of crisis: history has proved that time and again. Diplomacy and dialogue may be the road less travelled between India and Pakistan, but now is the time to travel it. India must read the past to understand the future: it must learn to avoid the mistakes of the past when dealing with Pakistan in the present.

(Sourse: The Hindu, January 5, 2008. URL: http://www.thehindu.com/2009/01/05/stories/2009010555110800.htm )

Time for change

Life after the J&K Elections

STATECRAFT BY HAPPYMON JACOB

To me, the key message that the J&K State Assembly election results announce is that the Kashmiris have overcome their fear of courting opposites, or apparent opposites. The politics of the state over the coming days will be marked by some interesting twists and turns. The people of Kashmir are learning to speak two contrasting languages at once: one of dissidence and anti-India sentiments, and the other of good governance and mainstream issues. Anyone therefore, who interprets the 2008 election result as the last nail in the coffin of separatist politics and azadi sentiments in J&K is mistaken. To reiterate an oft-repeated (yet essential) point, the overwhelming participation in the recent elections has been an expression of the popular desire for good governance in the state, not a verdict on the political problem that exists in Jammu and Kashmir. The politics of J&K will thus, in the days to come, be characterized by continued calls for the resolution of the Kashmir issue, and focused and detailed roadmaps for doing so, with increased support from a cross-section of actors. Srinagar-based separatists may be temporarily overshadowed and silenced in their demands for azadi (with its varying meanings), but they will bounce back to prominence sooner rather than later.

Mainstreaming of political dissent
The other important political implication of this election is that it has demonstrated a mainstreaming of Kashmir’s separatist politics, at least to some extent. Gone are the days when the Kashmiri separatists were an untouchable lot and azadi meant (at least in the popular parlance) total separation from the Indian Union.  Today, separatist politics and azadi sentiments are more nuanced, more complex, and take many forms, ranging from the Hurriyat Conference to the People’s Democratic Party (PDP). In order to accurately interpret the internal politics of J&K, the entire spectrum of understandings and the blurred shades of opinion about azadi that exist between these two actors, must be correctly understood. The PDP would object to being called ‘pro-azadi’, ‘separatist’ or even ‘soft-separatist’, yet the fact remains that it walks a very fine line. While on one hand the self-rule proposal put forward by them is about more than what the constitution of India guarantees J&K and is closer to the platform proposed by self-proclaimed separatist leaders (such as Sajad Lone), on the other hand, the PDP has a political constituency that speaks the language of both separatism and azadi.  This explains why the very same people who were shouting slogans against India two months ago decided to cast their votes in the recent elections. Their votes did not signal an acceptance, even a tacit one, of the situation in the region; but rather an extremely nuanced form of protest, and an extremely mature one.

What of the National Conference (NC), the ruling party of the state for the next six years? Has the Omar Abdullah-led NC spoken the language of self-rule and tried to address the azadi sentiment? Omar has made it clear that this election is about electing a government that can efficiently and successfully govern, in every sense of the word. It is not about resolving the Kashmir issue. In other words, in the new politics of J&K some of this staunchly pro-India party’s political positions will need to be viewed as catering to the pro-azadi sentiments, even if indirectly. The NC has, after all, traditionally held that New Delhi should give J&K greater autonomy as well as regional autonomy. Therefore, if the PDP and NC, to a lesser extent, are willing to negotiate their way through the maze of the ‘separatist politics of Kashmir’, this ‘separatist politics’ will soon start mainstreaming itself.

If this occurs, moderates such as Sajad Lone and even Mirwaiz Umar Farooq will be forced to reconsider their options about the kind of politics they will choose to engage in over the coming days. Do they desire to forever represent themselves as political dissidents, making dissent a career rather than merely a necessary sortie, or do they someday wish to transcend this somewhat inhibiting tag to enter into the newly-emerging ‘soft-separatist’ fold? To do so they will need to rethink their habitual positions about political processes in J&K and consider toning down their anti-India rhetoric. If they try this course of action, which I believe they are likely to, we will see the creation of a new political space in the state which will be populated by parties that ask for more political, administrative and financial concessions from New Delhi, and demand increased linkages with PAK. This ‘mainstreaming of political dissent’ will have implications for the Kashmir issue as we know it, as well as for relations between India and Pakistan in the longer term. Any attempts by New Delhi to ignore and undermine this dissident space will prove disastrous for J&K.

‘Good governance plus’
If the argument is that this election was about the desire for good governance in the state and not about resolution of the Kashmir issue per se, then the question remains as to what is really at the heart of the issue? If the Kashmir problem is not all about good governance, and the lack of it, it must inherently be about something much deeper. In other words, will the azadi sentiments in the state cease to exist if the elected government there ensures bijli, sadak, pani? Quite succinctly: No. The Kashmir issue is about more than merely good governance; it must be understood as a political problem. But can good governance go some way toward resolving the nagging political problems? Unfortunately ensuring bijli, sadak, pani will not resolve the political aspects under dispute here. Rather, there needs to evolve an all-embracing ‘good governance plus’ package that addresses both Kashmir’s material and its political troubles. This package must engage expansively with all the actors of this new ‘soft-separatist’ political fold, if it is to comprehensively address their various demands.

This election, therefore, also acts as a wake-up call for both the Valley-based dissidents as well as for the government of India. While the dissidents need to engage in some serious introspection over how to increase their relevance in these changing times and how to shed their anachronistic political rigidities, New Delhi must likewise devise some improved policies to effectively engage the new political forces and developments in the state.  The status-quo option becomes increasingly archaic with every day that passes. It is time for change.

Source: Greater Kashmir, December 31, 2008. URL: http://www.greaterkashmir.com/full_story.asp?Date=31_12_2008&ItemID=23&cat=11

The war rhetoric

Why War is no Solution Against Pakistan

STATECRAFT BY HAPPYMON JACOB

There seems to be no let up of the war frenzy that is being promoted by sections of the Indian political elite, intelligentsia and the media. The Indian media, especially the many television channels, has been consistently promoting ‘pulp patriotism’ and egging on the government in New Delhi to carry out ‘surgical’, ‘preemptive’ strikes in Pakistan Administered Kashmir (PAK) in order to dismantle the terrorist infrastructure there. Similar arguments have been put forward by the nationalist Indian media after every major militant attack in this country. Thankfully, in the past, wisdom prevailed and the nationalist NDA government did not choose to go to war against Pakistan, even after the 2001 militant attacks on the Indian parliament when passions were running equally high.

That said, aren’t preemptive surgical strikes against terrorist training camps in PAK an option that India can safely exercise? Forget about ethics: isn’t victory that which defines the contours of morality in times of war? After all, many major world leaders have said that the Mumbai attackers were all Pakistanis and were trained in Pakistan. Even US President-elect Obama has gone on record saying that every country has the right to defend itself. So why not make use of this situation and attack the terror networks in Pakistan to get rid of the menace of terrorism once and for all? If India conducts smart, stealthy, successful military raids into PAK, don’t we stand to gain in every respect? Hasn’t Israel ‘successfully’ protected itself against terrorism by using precisely such preemptive tactics?

But beware the rhetorical question: matters of war and peace are never that simple. They are never merely about translating such simplistic nationalistic feelings into blind action. Despite being wounded by what happened in Mumbai and being pained by what continues to be perpetrated in India by Pakistan-based terrorists, it is clear to me that fighting a war against Pakistan in order to bring an end to terrorism against India is not a viable option for Indian policy makers. First of all, to state the glaringly obvious: India is not Israel. The anti-terror strategies that the seven-and-a-bit-million-people strong Israel uses cannot be emulated by India lest it find itself in the situation that Israel finds itself in today: encircled by disgruntled countries whose obvious distaste for the Jewish state fails to permit it any real sense of security. Despite claiming to be a democracy modeled on the western idea of a state, Israel remains without a constitution and with a polity dominated by orthodox religious ideologies. As a result of its constricted and meandering domestic policies and unstable relations with its neighbors, Israel has succeeded in isolating itself within its own region. Little wonder it feels alienated and insecure. India cannot, and should not, try to emulate Israel. Using their technologies to combat terror is one thing, but emulating Israel’s counter-terror policies is another matter entirely.

Having said this, let us examine the feasibility of taking the military option against Pakistan. I am convinced that there will not be a victor, at least in hard military terms, in any Indo-Pak conflict especially under the shadow of nuclear weapons. The conventional superiority that India had vis-à-vis Pakistan became redundant when the two countries became nuclear powers in 1998. Even surgical strikes are unlikely to reap India any clear dividends, primarily because Indian strikes deep inside Pakistani territory will only provoke comparable retaliatory action. In other words, surgical strikes may not remain at the less then limited level, they run the risk of graduating into a limited war, which in turn has the potential of escalating into an all-out war. Let us not forget that at its most basic level, a surgical strike is nothing more than an invitation to war, the military equivalent of a taunt, or an insult. It is an indignity that few states can turn a blind eye to. The 1999 Kargil limited war was not fought on Pakistani territory, but rather in defense of Indian ground. As such we were able to claim that our only desire, our only impetus for battle, was to evict hostile invaders; it was not to invade Pakistani territory. Also importantly, during the war the international community firmly sided with India. It may not be the same this time if India trespasses across the borders of Pakistan. The rules of international solidarity are different for aggressors; it is the invaded, not the invader, that engenders sympathy and support.

Even if India manages to take out key terrorist targets in PAK without igniting all-out nuclear war, what will we gain from it? Indian strikes inside Pakistan will swell the terrorist ranks with even more recruits committed to save the ‘pride of Islam’, they will underscore the necessity of having a ‘true’ Islamic republic of Pakistan and Pakistan will be rendered nothing less than a jihad factory. The Pakistani army, which has temporarily receded into the background, will come back to prominence and the ISI will be given a free hand to do whatever it pleases. The section of Pakistani civil society that has a great deal of admiration for India will turn completely antagonistic and will ask the Pakistani state to answer India in the same coin. Of course, a sustained war with India will prove disastrous for the beleaguered Pakistan, which is already reeling under massive economic, political and social pressures. The Pakistani state would find itself fighting wars both inside and outside of itself, and the various secessionist parts of the country would only contribute to its destabilization. India will eventually have, as Pervez Hoodbhoy once said, a nuclear Somalia for a neighbour. The great irony is that this would only be the beginning of our woes, though it might seem like the culmination of them all. You cannot, as they say, change your neighbours; they will continue to exist by your side in peace or in war.

In the final analysis, can India ‘win’ a war against Pakistan from a grand strategic point of view? No, it cannot. India will lose more than it will gain from a war with Pakistan. From a grand strategic point of view, India’s success lies in sustaining its economic growth, from being a responsible nation considered able to play a leading role in the management of the international security system and from building itself a stable, sympathetic neighborhood. All the diplomatic gains that India has achieved vis-à-vis Pakistan will go down the drain with one surgical strike across the Line of Control. In one fell swoop, India risks erasing years of carefully constructed legitimacy, as well as its (apparently steady) position as a responsible stakeholder in the international system. One reckless decision will mean the end of India’s moral high ground.

It is naïve, and it undermines the greater national interest of the country, to believe and behave as if all is lost on the Pakistan front. India must use more sophisticated and nuanced behind-the-curtain diplomacy to reach out to the people who matter in the Pakistani state, and the various states within that state. Imaginative, targeted and high level diplomacy helps in times of crisis; history has proven it time and again. Sadly however, Indo-Pak relations are littered with mistakes made by hasty and irresponsible, ill-informed and unbalanced, and quite simply ignorant, decisions. India must read the past to understand the future; it must learn the lessons of the history of international relations and behave accordingly.

Source: Greater Kashmir, 17 December 2008. URL: http://www.greaterkashmir.com/full_story.asp?Date=17_12_2008&ItemID=13&cat=11

India’s Fight Against Terror

Strong, sensitive and responsible leadership needed

STATECRAFT BY HAPPYMON JACOB

India is gearing up to fight terrorism tooth and nail. Heads are rolling, new measurers are being announced, and more resources are being allocated to strengthen the national security apparatus. A lot of noise is being made. However, amongst the din there seems to be more anger than resolve, more clamor than commitment. Our problem is clear: in India we think we can resolve our troubles by shouting accusations from the rooftops and generally dissolving into uproar and outcry each time something goes amiss. Time and again, we rush to hold others responsible for what happens to us and revel when newspapers confidently run headlines such as: ‘Manmohan Singh Summons ISI Chief to New Delhi’. One thing is obvious to me though, whether it is fighting terrorism, weeding out corruption or preventing communal and regional conflicts from erupting, today this country faces two extreme choices: clean up its house and exist as a unified and secure nation, or refuse to do so and cease to exist. I do not want to sound presumptuous in trying to predict which of these two scenarios I think most likely to play out. Rather, I simply wish to comment upon a few key factors that may well hamper our fight against terrorism.

Shocking lack of accountability
This country’s security establishment has never been made accountable to the taxpayers, nor have they shown any respect for the responsibility vested in them. With an elitist tilt, they continue to behave as though they are colonial masters, owing no explanations or answers to anyone. While it is true that many of the principle sources of terrorism lay outside India, the fact remains that we ourselves are to blame for the way in which we have been successfully targeted by terrorists. If we don’t have a security apparatus that is transparent and accountable, there is nothing to prevent terrorists from repeatedly striking this country; lack of accountability leads to irresponsible behavior. It took more than one terrorist strike in the country for the Union Home Minister to be held accountable for his shoddy performance. One wonders why National Security Advisor M K Narayanan’s resignation has been rejected, despite the fact that he is as accountable as the Home Minister is, and more so: Narayanan has a history of being at the top when things go horribly wrong. Let us not forget that he was Director of the Intelligence Bureau when Rajiv Gandhi was assassinated, an event which is now widely understood to be at least partly the result of intelligence failures, both in coordination and response capacity.

Creating stakeholders in the nation
Again, this is an oft-repeated statement but like it or not, stakeholders are the key to stability and peace in a pluralist country such as India. If India the state and India the nation, separate yet unified concepts that they are, are to be embraced by their citizens, then simplistic and frenzied chanting of ‘bharat mata ki jai’ or ‘vande mataram’ will not suffice. Common people should feel that they are as much a part of this nation as anybody else, and they should benefit from being part of it just as anybody else does. Being a conscientious citizen involves a two-way process of giving and taking. Equally, if the state requests undivided legitimacy from its members, it has a responsibility to see that the citizens benefit from the bargain. When those that receive no benefits from being a so-called ‘citizen’ become aggrieved, is it fair to accuse them of ‘unpatriotism’? When a North Indian is chased away from Mumbai by the ‘marathi manus’, when a Kashmiri Muslim is made to feel like an alien at Delhi airport, when some poor bihari laborers are sent back from Kashmir, and when the minorities of this country are repeatedly told by the unnerving nation-wide diffusion of fundamentalists that the former exist in this country at the mercy of the latter, it becomes imprudent of us to ask them to be patriotic. When the state and nation oppress someone, why would that someone feel obliged to safeguard the interests of that nation and state? The scenario is obviously illogical. I am not suggesting that oppressed people have a right to violence. What I am arguing is that when and if they do resort to it, we must be mature enough as a nation to perform some honest soul searching in order to see where we have gone wrong.

Political leadership 
This country desperately needs a strong, sensitive, responsible, visionary and pan-Indian political leadership that can think and act beyond narrow and petty political confines. Sadly, the majority of our leaders lack even the basic necessary qualities required to competently occupy the political offices of the country. Our leading politicians don’t seem to be able to think holistically, in terms of an integrated ‘India’. They apparently think only along narrow ideological, regional and religious lines; appeasement and partisan politics are the current order of the day. Our opposition leader did not even deem it necessary to attend the important all-party meeting that was held in the wake of the horrific Mumbai attacks. There is simply no cohesion of any kind among our political elites. This climate of political opportunism cannot be expected to give birth to national consensus. How can such a political class empower itself to fight terrorism credibly and responsibly? 

Members of contemporary India’s ruling class behave like thieves stealing all they can from a burning building before it is razed to the ground. While our country burns, the mad scramble of our political class for power and resources reaches new heights. If ‘thinking for India’ becomes nobody’s business, this country can expect nothing better than a swift slide into disintegration and destruction, and in truth, it will deserve nothing better.

(Happymon Jacob is Assistant Professor at the Department of Strategic and Regional Studies, University of Jammu, Jammu and Kashmir, India)

Source: Greater Kashmir, December 3, 2008. URL: http://greaterkashmir.com/full_story.asp?Date=3_12_2008&ItemID=27&cat=11 )

Jammu University farewells the inimitable Prof. Mattoo

FAREWELL BY HAPPYMON JACOB

A University stands for humanism, for tolerance, for reason, for progress, for the adventure of ideas and for the search for the truth."  - Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, Speaking at the Allahabad University in 1947
 
If it was one illustrious son of this state who spoke some six decades ago of the ideals that a university must stand for and live up to, today one can say with conviction that it is another son of the same soil who has successfully materialized Nehru's vision to its fullest; making the University of Jammu (JU) scale new heights of academic, professional and intellectual life. Today, the University of Jammu is increasingly seen as a burgeoning destination for quality research, imitable professional standards, and where intellectual tolerance coexists with relentless efforts towards engaging with the wider society beyond the university. JU's shepherd for the last six years is now primed to return to his parent institution, New Delhi's Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU), after having successfully taken, among other things, the valuable lessons learned with university classrooms outside and beyond them, to the people of this conflict-ridden state. 
 
Six Years Ago…
As was to be expected of a member of the New Delhi-based "Indian Foreign Policy Community", Amitabh Mattoo was reluctant to leave JNU and New Delhi and come to the then not-so-high-profile JU. Many of his friends and students- this author included- believed this act would be the beginning of the end for one of Indian television's most famous faces on foreign policy related issues. We were scared that Mattoo would be pushed to the peripheries of the Indian strategic community and would lose his intellectual imagination, not to mention expertise, in the narrow confines and petty politics of a regional university. Looking back now at the last six years of Mattoo as VC and the influence his tenure has had on himself and the University, we are convinced that the out-of-the-box-thinking-Mattoo has proven us wrong, yet again. What Amitbah Mattoo has done for JU and the education sector of this state for the last six years is too well-known to need to be recounted here. From setting up new and ambitious academic centers, to establishing the many much-needed off-site campuses, to garnering international recognition and collaboration for JU, to providing high-quality infrastructure, to getting professional recognition from the ISO, Mattoo has been a tireless crusader for quality, excellence and innovative forward-thinking. 
 
Leader, Teacher, Friend
Mattoo has been more than a Vice Chancellor for all of us: He has been an extremely talented leader who finds it important to engage with everybody, even those few disgruntled personalities within the university community. His talks on various topics at the University were great lessons in learning for the University community; Mattoo behaved like a friend, and not an all-powerful boss, with his colleagues.  People joked that he knew all the peons and drivers of the university by name and would take special care of their needs. In his own words, a university is perhaps one of the last remaining colonial institutions of our country, where the VC has such overarching powers as to enable him to do almost whatever he pleases to. And yet it was enlightening for us to watch him make responsible decisions in a much-needed and irrefutably democratic way. 
 
A Visionary  
Amitabh Mattoo likes to think out of the box – the importance of inventive and original thinking has been one of the many important pieces of wisdom that he has imparted to generations of his students at JNU – and not many people, even to this day, know of his unorthodox stances on almost everything, from the Kashmir issue, to Pakistan, to India as an emerging power. When it comes to intellectual curiosity and creativity, he doesn't care for the "correctness" (read: orthodoxy) of arguments. Even the most obstinate of New Delhi bureaucrats, who are not in the habit of listening to academics, take time out to listen to him, as they believe that Mattoo has something important to say about leading this country to its rightful destiny. This is precisely what made Prime Ministers belonging to political parties as fiercely opposed to each other as the Congress and the BJP call upon Mattoo for advice.
  
A Personal Journey with Him
For me, my personal journey with Mattoo has so far been one of intellectual exploration, academic pursuits and, to a great extent, intellectual transformation. Seven years ago when I arrived as a young and starry-eyed M. Phil student at JNU, my motivation was driven by nothing more than mere provincial intellectualism, with all its attendant limitations. Be it as his student at JNU, fellow-peacemaker in the Pugwash Conferences, faculty colleague at JU, co-author of books and articles, or even critiquing each others arguments, it's been an ongoing learning experience. Journeying with Mattoo through the intellectual minefields of J&K, the absurdities of India-Pakistan relations, and seeing and helping people build peace, I realized the importance of visionary teachers in one's life. That is why I am convinced that the students and faculty of the University of Jammu will miss him in the days to come. 
 
Looking ahead 
Mattoo has been a unifying force and was always happy to take everybody on board with him on all issues and initiatives.  Yet there were elements that did not quite like his style of operations and tried to malign his many initiatives with their multiple baseless allegations. Again as Nehru rightly said, "[ b]ut if the temple of learning itself becomes a home of narrow bigotry and petty objectives, how then will the nation prosper or a people grow in stature?" 
 
I sincerely hope that the University of Jammu will realize the importance of all that Amitabh Mattoo has contributed to it and in doing so, that it will grow to understand the worth of the man in the days, and years, to come.

(Source: Greater Kashmir, OVEMBER 20, 2008. URL: http://www.greaterkashmir.com/full_story.asp?Date=17_11_2008&ItemID=48&cat=11 )

Rethinking Obama’s Kashmir Musings

Let’s understand the statement in the right perspective

STATECRAFT BY HAPPYMON JACOB

It is always inspiring to witness the power of speech and words. Many amongst us have for too long subscribed to the dictum that actions always speak louder, but US President-elect, Barack Hussein Obama may yet prove us all wrong: Words are no less actions - they truly can match the healing power of deeds.

Obama’s recent words about Kashmir have many sections of the Kashmiri leadership, as well as people all across the state, in a jubilant mood…and New Delhi up in arms. The debate over the true nature of his inner ruminations has already begun, with New Delhi responding to the US President-elect’s statements with a knee-jerk reaction, and Kashmiri dissident leadership blowing their significance far out of proportion. Differing reactions from New Delhi and Kashmir notwithstanding, we must be clearheaded, maintain our sense of history, and consider cannons of realpolitik, when analyzing the complexities of Obama’s words. What does Obama really mean when he talks about Kashmir? Does he really intend to delve into Kashmir’s many conflicts? Even if he is serious, how much can he really achieve? Will the liberal interventionist stance of the Democratic Party bear fruit in an increasingly anti-American world? When all is said and done: How should Indians and Kashmiris interpret Barack Obama’s statements? 

Let us first begin by trying to deconstruct the comments Obama has made about Kashmir, and discuss how his words can be interpreted. To summarize, he has said that Pakistan must concentrate more on confronting militants along its Afghan border, and that resolution of the Kashmir issue would help Pakistan to focus on this extremely important task. Additionally, Obama has asserted that to help resolve the Kashmir issue, Bill Clinton could potentially be sent in the role of a special envoy. What does this mean, in essence? It could be understood as suggesting, contrary to the various interpretations flowing out of New Delhi and Srinagar, that Pakistan will be asked to ‘forget’ about Kashmir, and get its own house in order. It may also mean that the US would work to persuade Pakistan and India to think in terms of the newly emergent set of ideas about Kashmir that I wish to term as a ‘quasi-consensus’ regarding a potential solution to Kashmir (with items such as cross-LoC institutions and trade, non-alteration of borders, phased demilitarization, and the eradication of militancy etc.). Such a set of ideas may not be rejected out of hand by India. These feats could all potentially be accomplished through the good offices of a special envoy. Overall, Obama’s words might be construed as meaning that America’s primary concern is militancy in Pakistan and Afghanistan. As such, it will seek to ‘help Pakistan out of Kashmir’, in order to allow the direction all of Pakistan’s effort towards the, apparently more pressing, matter of Pakistan/Afghanistan instability. 

Would this be such a bad arrangement for New Delhi? Perhaps not, substantively speaking; a liberal reading of what Manmohan Singh, Musharraff and Zardari have articulated over the years regarding a possible Kashmir resolution formula may indeed result in something like this, minus direct US mediation of course. But what of this possible US mediation? America has refereed between the two neighbours in the past, most prominently during the Kargil War, and its actions were apparently acceptable to India at this time. Therefore, if the Kashmir solution and US mediation can follow the path of the above ideas, New Delhi might be talked into accepting it.

Now, how might the Kashmiris react if Obama has indeed meant the above, and nothing more? The aforementioned strategy may not be such a bad deal for them either. After all, a significant number of mainstream and dissident Kashmiri leaders, and in fact, many people in general, are talking along these lines. Have they realized that this is perhaps the most realistic way of getting what they want? 

A number of fears have found voice as a result of Obama’s recent words: What if Obama intends to make Kashmir the next target and laboratory of his Party’s traditional liberal interventionist agenda? What if he is talking about becoming aggressive with India and Pakistan to resolve Kashmir in a US-designed manner? What if the US puts pressure on India to hold a plebiscite in Kashmir? Quite simply, he is unlikely to make any such types of decisions. Additionally, despite UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon’s gentle reminder that “[i]f and when both parties (India and Pakistan) to this issue (Kashmir) request ... ask me to provide my good offices, I am willing to do that”, in reality the UN resolutions concerning a plebiscite in Kashmir are long forgotten. Thirdly, if the US was naïve enough to exert too much pressure on New Delhi, this would most likely backfire. India’s leadership, and citizens in general, are unlikely to accept any such pressure from Washington. Following this course of action would only increase the already prevalent anti-American feeling among many sections of Indian public. More importantly, hardball diplomacy from the US would almost certainly cause New Delhi to harden its stated position on Kashmir, and the forward momentum that has been gained so far would be lost. In other words, a belligerent liberal interventionist Obama administration would do more harm than good to Kashmir, and to the political arguments of the Kashmir cause.

So how should New Delhi, and the Kashmiris themselves, respond to Obama’s proclamations about Kashmir?  New Delhi should have been, and still can be, more nuanced, cautious, reflective and statesmanlike in its reactions to Obama’s statements. It needs to find the political maturity and diplomatic self-confidence to see the merit in what the US might be saying, and in doing so, it may be able to turn the argument in its favour. This would be true statecraft. New Delhi must stop believing that it can prevent the countries of the world from recognizing and discussing Kashmir. If India truly desires a conclusion to the Kashmir imbroglio it must listen to the ways powerful world leaders are suggesting it could be resolved, especially given that these suggestions are very much along the lines promoted by New Delhi in the recent past. Why not see reason and move forward? 

Having said this, those who would like to see US mediation in Kashmir, in whatever shape or form, should also remember that US interventionism has a turbulent and controversial history. It has frequently had ulterior motives, and has rarely benefited the nations that have experienced its full force. On most occasions US intervention, for all its good intentions, has only made things worse. However, if Obama has genuine and peaceful intentions vis-à-vis Kashmir, he must be willing to work hard to initiate constructive dialogue between the many stakeholders involved in the conflict. To do this, he must get all parties on board (Pakistan has yet to respond to Obama’s remarks with any sort of coherency) by clarifying the basic parameters and starting points, and by being cautious and careful. In short, by employing some seriously smart diplomacy. The final question remains, though: Is the US really ready, willing and able to take on a challenge as grand as this one?

(Source: Greater Kashmir, NOVEMBER 12, 2008. URL: http://greaterkashmir.com/full_story.asp?Date=12_11_2008&ItemID=12&cat=11)