Why is peace in Kashmir so fragile?

The week-long protests by Kashmiris against the transfer of 800 kanals of forest land to Shri Amarnath Shrine Board (SASB) by the state government has proved true what many refused to understand for a long time: peace in Kashmir is too fragile to be taken for granted. Normalcy in Kashmir, one would have to say, managed to veil the discontent, uneasiness and disapproval of people at whatever was happening in and on Kashmir. It is this pent-up anger and uneasiness that is being vented out on the streets of Srinagar as I write these lines. Even as we hope for the speedy return of normalcy to the turbulent valley, we need to ask ourselves certain important questions: why is peace is Kashmir so fragile? Why has this otherwise relatively minor act of land transfer and the controversy surrounding it, which of course could have been pre-empted by some deft handling by the government, suddenly gone out of control? What factors have brought Kashmir to this state of affairs?

There are a number of obvious causes behind what is happening now and they call for some serious introspection on our part. Many analysts around the country tend to believe that the anger on the streets of Kashmir is communal in nature and the Kashmiri dissidents such as Mirwaiz Umar Farooq, Sajad Lone and Yaseen Malik and a large number of common Kashmiris are indulging in anti-Hindu politics. The truth, as I see it, is far from that. The current spell of protests, in fact, is the result of a series of fundamentally flawed policies in and on Jammu and Kashmir by the governments in Srinagar and New Delhi. There may indeed be some elements among the protesters too who would like to give it a communal color, but that is certainly not its key feature.

First of all, despite all their promises to the state of Jammu and Kashmir, what have the governments in Srinagar and New Delhi done to resolve the Kashmir issue to the satisfaction of the people of the state? Almost nothing. The Prime Minister’s Round Table Conferences and the reports which were produced subsequently by various Working Groups have been neatly archived and forgotten about, as usual. The reports and the contents were indeed very encouraging and one had hoped that the governments would act on them helping, thereby, improve the situation in the state. The change of guard in Srinagar in November 2005, in retrospect, was a grave mistake by the Congress party: it suddenly brought to a grinding halt all the good work that Mufti government was doing in the state even to the extent of being accused of as pro-militants by some. More importantly, the incoming political leadership lacked the political will and vision to implement the suggestions from the various Working Group reports. Even as People’s Democratic Party’s (PDP) ‘healing touch‘ was dismissed as mere rhetoric, it did have a great deal of symbolic effect. Therefore, one might say that the Mufti government would have organized the Round Tables better and worked towards implementing the suggestions from the Working Groups. More importantly, nothing substantial has been done to return the houses, schools and orchards to Kashmiris which the armed forces have been keeping with themselves for many years, despite assurances from the Central government in this regard.

Secondly, it is now apparent that the government was sleeping through the various phases of peace in Kashmir ignoring the daily demands and pleas from dissidents, activists, mainstream politicians and analysts to engage the state and the problems therein more proactively. Not only that there was willingness from the part of the dissidents and various sections of Kashmiris in looking for a solution to the state’s problems but more importantly many of these suggestions to conflict resolution were concrete and should have been taken into serious consideration. The governments’ dismissive attitude towards such gestures and proposals has now brought about this situation.

Bureaucracy in India, unfortunately, has a tendency to be insensitive towards the people and this is a widely recognized fact, be it in Kashmir or Bihar. Officers especially those belonging to India’s higher bureaucracy behave as if the country is still under colonial rule and this becomes more pronounced when it comes to Kashmir. When dealing with Kashmir the usual arrogance of the Indian bureaucracy combines with suspicion and a mere law and order approach to understanding issues and concerns. This is precisely what was evident from the acts and utterances of the bureaucrat who was in charge of the Shrine Board. The bureaucrats need to understand that they are servants of the public and that people are not their subjects. If they refuse to learn this fundamental truth of democracy, they will continue to land their political masters in situations such as the one we are witnessing in Kashmir today.

Finally, the present crisis was also precipitated by a feeling among the people and dissident leaders that the peace process was going nowhere. Political crises in Pakistan one after the other, disenchanted dissident leadership in Kashmir, and vision-less Kashmir policies by New Delhi all disillusioned the people of the state and they have now grabbed an opportunity that came their way to vent their feelings. Giving the current spate of protests in Kashmir a religious colour and discarding it is being simplistic and counter-productive. Its time we learnt to read the signs of political frustration and act on them before it is too late.

That said, it is necessary also to point out that the argument that the transfer of land to SASB is part of a well-thought out Indian conspiracy to settle non-local Hindus in the valley in order to turn Muslims to a minority in the state is far from the reality.

(Happymon Jacob is Assistant Professor at the Department of Strategic and Regional Studies, University of Jammu, J&K.)

Source: Greater Kashmir, July 2, 2008. URL: http://www.greaterkashmir.com/full_story.asp?Date=2_7_2008&ItemID=3&cat=11

Hurriyat’s Unification Move

What next? Here lies the question of curiosity
STATECRAFT BY HAPPYMON JACOB

The luncheon meeting between the moderate leader Mirwaiz Umar Farooq and the hardliner Syed Ali Shah Geelani that took place last week is likely to provide the necessary impetus for the much-awaited unification of the All Party Hurriyat Conference. This crucial meeting comes after Mirwaiz recently called upon Ali Shah Geelani, Yasin Malik and Sajad Gani Lone from the martyrs’ graveyard to join hands to unify the Hurriyat conference that has remained a divided house ever since Geelani accused Bilal Lone of “proxy participation” in the 2002 Assembly polls and subsequently formed his own faction of the Hurriyat. Indeed, the break up had come much earlier: Shabir Shah was expelled from the Hurriyat 1998 when he had met the then American Ambassador to India Frank Wisner without taking the Hurriyat Executive into confidence. Later Yaseen Malik also left the group.

The meeting has reportedly emphasized the following issues: self-determination as the bottom-line of the Hurriyat’s struggle; support for Mian Qayoom committee which will coordinate the movement against Shri Amarnath Shrine Board (SASB) land transfer; no external proposals or road-maps would be acceptable for the resolution of the Kashmir issue; and set up a special committee comprising three members from each faction to work out a mechanism towards forging unity. The text of the agreement to meet, the meeting itself and the outcome of the meeting seems to be perfectly timed and neatly phrased.

A reading of the subtext, however, would make it clear that the unification move and its steam from here on are not so easy to sustain. There are far too many internal contradictions in this unification move of the two Hurriyat factions and ex-members of the Hurriyat. Consider the following. Mirwaiz Umar Farooq has been an important moderate voice of the valley whereas Ali Shah Geelani has no such illusions of moderation. A close reading of Mirwaiz’s statements at various points of time would make it clear that he is more pro-Kashmir than anti-India, willing to talk to and reason with New Delhi, and is flexible about what self-determination entails. ‘The United States of Kashmir’ proposal, the resolution formula put forward by Mirwaiz, does not seek complete independence of Kashmir from India. He also does not regularly invoke the United Nations Resolutions even though the 1993 Hurriyat constitution is committed to it. In other words, Mirwaiz is willing to make adjustments and see reason in talking to New Delhi. What about Ali Shah Geelani? Geelani has made it clear that resolution to the Kashmir problem lies in complete independence and nothing short of that. He rejects the need to have talks with New Delhi. This leaves us with the question: can the two leaders put up with each other’s stances and ideologies? Or will one succumb to the other’s views? Who among them is willing to be flexible and what does it mean for Kashmir, Kashmiris and the peace process between the two countries and New Delhi and Srinagar?

What about Sajad Lone? Reports suggest that talks are being held between the moderate and reasonable People’s Conference Leader and the Mirwaiz faction of the Hurriyat Conference. Will Sajad Lone be comfortable with Geelani’s hard-line views at a point in time when the former’s Achievable Nationhood has been acclaimed to be one of the finest and workable proposals to resolve the Kashmir issue? The participation of Muhammad Yasin Malik, yet another Kashmir leader respected both in India and Pakistan, in this unification move also does not look likely under the present circumstances. What about the Jamaat-e-Islami and Dukhtaran-e-Millat’s Asiya Andrabi? Will they also be part of a grand coalition that seems to be in the making? While a consensus among the Kashmiri leadership and a concerted effort by them is welcome, any ‘unity’ that destroys the moderate space in Kashmir would not be a welcome development in the longer run.

While the unification move could mean going away from its moderate agenda as far as the Mirwaiz-led Hurriyat is concerned, it certainly means that New Delhi has lost another opportunity to bring peace in Jammu and Kashmir. Indian government has been a mere passive spectator during the past few years that can easily be considered as the most important period for India-Pakistan relations that witnessed positive gestures from the Kashmiri leadership in Srinagar and Pakistan, and a popular urge for normalcy and peace in the region. There were a number of opportunities for New Delhi to resolve the conflict using of the relative calm and positive peace in Srinagar and between the two countries. Going by what is happening in Kashmir now, one may have to say that New Delhi has let the opportunity to make peace in Kashmir pass by. The unification move born out of frustration – caused by the compulsive inaction by New Delhi – could also be seen as a forerunner of the changing nature of politics in Islamabad and Srinagar. One only hopes that the time for peacemaking is not yet over, though that may easily (and unfortunately) be the case.

Source: June 25, 2008, Greater Kashmir; URL: http://greaterkashmir.com/full_story.asp?Date=25_6_2008&ItemID=3&cat=11)

India’s Obama Dilemma

What if Barack Obama is the next US President

STATECRAFT BY HAPPYMON JACOB

The charismatic and eloquent African-American, Senator Barack Obama, is likely to become the President of the most powerful state in the world. This is something to be watched with great interest, not just because he would the first black man to become the US president (if he does), but more so because he carries an important message for the world which today is deeply divided on the basis of religion, race, colour and ethnicity.

The importance of Obama comes not from an argument of affirmative action or positive discrimination, but from the urgent need of the hour to provide a healing touch to the American people: blacks and whites, right and left, young and old. Indeed, the significance of the Obama phenomenon is not to be restricted to the Americans alone but to all societies where we still, unfortunately, have racial, caste, religious and gender discrimination. The importance of Obama comes from the fact that he is willing to address one of the most vexed problems in the American society – race. At a time in his presidential campaign when rumour emails have been circulating claiming that Obama is a ‘Muslim‘ and that he refuses to salute the American flag, and at a juncture when opposition politicians were gleefully using his former pastor Mr. Jeremiah Wright’s statement that the US is racist, against him, the statesman and visionary in Obama spoke up and said that the US has to come out of the “racial stalemate we’ve been stuck in for years”. He further said, touching the hearts of many an American: “The anger is real; it is powerful; and to simply wish it away, to condemn it without understanding its roots, only serves to widen the chasm of misunderstanding that exists between the races”.

That said, the Indians seem to be uneasy of Barack Obama. The general feeling among foreign policy experts and US watchers in New Delhi is that he might end up as unfriendly towards India in his fervor to revive the Democratic agenda of liberal internationalism. New Delhi’s apprehension about Obama comes mostly due to the very close relationship it had with the Bush administration. Bush administration offered India membership in the nuclear club (through the backdoor though), made India one its key foreign policy priorities and stopped talking about the Kashmir issue. However, while the Indian government has been very close to the Bush administration (except perhaps when it invaded Iraq), the general Indian public has been clearly uneasy about the Bush policies. Like a large number of people in most parts of the world, Indian public also considered George Bush to be an insensitive administrator and a divider of communities and people.

New Delhi fears that an Obama administration could potentially go back on the nuclear deal with India or radically amend some of its provisions, ask India to sign the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) like the previous Democratic administration had done, push the Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty (FMCT), and revive the Kashmir issue. Some Indian analysts have said that in order to gain Pakistani sincerity for the war on terror on the Afghan border, US could stop talking about Pakistani support for militancy in Kashmir. While Obama will not have the neo-conservative religious fervor in his interventionist stances, he may not rule out intervention as a possible American foreign policy strategy. On the other hand, his Republican opponent John McCain has promised to implement the Indo-US nuclear deal in its entirety. He is also unlikely to push the FMCT or the CTBT and is likely to continue the strategic partnership with India.

However, I wish to take a second look here at the Obama dilemma that we face in India. Obama’s election as the US President is significant and important for India for a variety of reasons. First of all, the Republicans are likely to follow the Bush policy of undermining the United Nations and international law. In other words, the unilateralism of the US hyperpower will only scale new heights under John McCain. No one wants the US do more Iraqs and make the already dangerous world more dangerous. Respect for the United Nations and international law is something that the world needs so badly. While the democratic liberal interventionism under Obama is likely to preach to the countries of the world how to govern, it is unlikely that an Obama administration will behave like Bush did in Iraq to impose its wishes. Democrats are likely to strengthen the hands of the UN. Secondly, I do not think that the Indo-US nuclear deal could have been the best thing that could have happened to India. We can do without the deal and can still continue our relationship with the United States. The US administrations had pressurized India to sign the CTBT even before (under Clinton administration), but despite not signing it India had maintained an excellent relationship with the US.

Thirdly, and perhaps more importantly, Obama will be able to send out a clear message that there is actually no civilizational conflict between Islam and the West (Obama doesn’t buy the argument that extremism in the name of Islam is what Islam teaches as a religion). Even as some Hindu fundamentalists in India would like to see a clash between Islam and the West, one needs to keep in mind that India will not only be a direct victim of such a clash, but more importantly this will have long-lasting implications for communal relations for a country which has the world’s second largest Muslim population. There may be some immediate and tactical gains from a McCain presidency but prudence lies in looking for strategic and lasting gains which an Obama presidency can offer.

While some sources of India’s Obama dilemma seem to be genuine, many of its fears seem to be misconceived or born out of a short-term approach to understanding and conceiving foreign and security policies of the country.
(Happymon Jacob is Assistant Professor at the Department of Strategic and Regional Studies, University of Jammu, J&K. Feedback at happymon@gmail.com).

Source: Greater Kashmir; June 18, 2008. URL: http://www.greaterkashmir.com/full_story.asp?Date=18_6_2008&ItemID=5&cat=11

The Northeast: India’s Achilles Heel

J&K hogs headlines, but here lies the real rub
STATE CRAFT BY HAPPYMON JACOB

The conflict in and on Kashmir tends to dominate the security discourse in India. Many Indians, Pakistanis, Kashmiris and people around the world tend to think that if Kashmir is resolved, then there will be no more issues in India (some even suggest that the Indian state doesn’t want to resolve the Kashmir issue so that it can continue to keep the Indian army engaged; an absurd argument at that). My recent visit to Manipur and Nagaland has dispelled this long-held conviction in me.

Northeast India is to the rest of India what Africa is to the World – far away and forgotten. Both in the cases of Africa and the Northeast, mainlanders witness these peripheral regions sliding into underdevelopment, uncertainty and anarchy. Since nothing much can be done to save them, safeguard the status quo, they believe, so that things do not go out of control. While it may be comparing the incomparable, the message is loud and clear that parts of Northeast India is close to near total collapse – from the points of view of governance, law and order, and development - and still the government policies have not gone beyond mere ad hoc measures aimed at maintaining the status-quo. Even as the governability of the state and governance therein are severely damaged, the parties - the governments both at the Centre and in the states, local politicians, the many Underground Organisations and the narcotics mafia – all seem safe in their comfort zones. The governance and development in these two states have been severely affected by a host of problems: narcotics, insurgency, corruption, and HIV/AIDS. Manipur and Nagaland lie physically next to what is referred to as the “Golden Triangle” comprising Myanmar, Thailand, Laos and the Yunnan Province of China which is World’s most prominent source of illicit heroin and opium. Burmese heroin is transported to Manipur through the border zone of Moreh (an Indian town in Manipur) from the Burmese town Thamu. Alternatively, narcotics also transits through Nagaland. Transit of drugs through these states leads to a) increase in drug addiction (Manipur is estimated to have around has around 50,000 drug addicts), b) local officials make their share of the profit from drug trade and 3) separatists in the two states aid, run or permit drug trade in order to make quick money. Reports suggest that the NSCN (IM), a prominent militant group in the region, controls most of the ganja trade in Manipur and Nagaland. They make sure that the consignment reaches the Assam-Nagaland border. It is interesting to observe that sometimes clashes among various insurgent groups take place not due to any ideological or political reasons, but for the control of routes and areas known for narcotics trade. While on the one hand this means general breakdown of law and order, this also means increased instances of HIV/AIDS in these two states. With hardly any development in the form of industries or other enterprises in these states, drug trade is today a booming business in the Northeast. Along with drug abuse, alcoholism is also becoming a social problem in the northeast. Alcohol is widely available in every nook and corner of the two states despite the fact that both of them are officially declared “dry” states (some call them the “wettest dry” states of the country!).

Insurgency has become the mainstay of politics and all other aspects of life in the Northeast except perhaps in the case of Arunachal Pradesh and Mizoram. Not a single day passes without an incident related to insurgency in either Nagaland or Manipur nor are the general population free from the dictates of the insurgents who claim to fight for their liberation. While on the one the one hand, there is functional cooperation among many of these organisations, there are also feuds among many of them. Some of them even maintain links with Pakistani Inter Services Intelligence (ISI) and Chinese intelligence agencies, and have bases in Mynamar, Bangladesh, Thailand and Bhutan. Manipur alone has around 15 active insurgent organizations. Over the years, the insurgents have managed to infiltrate into the governing systems of the two states. Locals say that the insurgents not only take a share of their salaries/income from them, they do so directly from the concerned government department. Government servants at all levels are forced to give ‘tax‘ to the underground organizations. The insurgents impose their wishes in the local elections, police recruitment and development initiatives. Local politicians take the help of the insurgents to win elections and the insurgents make sure that their sympathizers are recruited in to the police service. Most industrialists run away from the two states when the insurgents demand a monthly share from them. There is hardly any industry in the state, nor is the state of basic infrastructure like roads and electricity any good. While the government of India is pumping a lot of money into the two states, most of it goes into the pockets of the politicians or local bureaucrats (corruption is so rampant in the two states) and the insurgent groups ask for a “cut” in whatever is left. Hardly anything is left for the actual development of the region.

The government of India thinks that the situation is not yet out of control and that it is too complicated to get into to find a resolution to the issues there; the insurgent organisations have a free hand in the affairs of the two states, and the people are too tired of expecting anything better and so they unwillingly listen to the insurgent groups. The result is a parallel government in Nagaland and Manipur, something not even heard of even in places like Jammu and Kashmir. Jammu and Kashmir may have captured the headlines across the world, but the real Achilles Heel of India is the Northeast.

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

Sports Need not be Divorced from Politics

Sports Need not be Divorced from Politics

STATECRAFT BY HAPPYMON JACOB

Politics should not spill over into sports; but that is no reason why sports should not spill over into politics. The former is negative and can have negative repercussions but the latter is healthy and progressive. When politics spills over into sports, politicians can use sports to settle their scores, promote their people and to make money etc. etc. On the other hand, if sports spill over into politics, it can carry the sportsman spirit into politics and can sometimes help society resolve its conflicts. One might, however, look at the sporting history of India and Pakistan and argue that cricket matches between the two countries, the most commonly played game between the two countries, have often been nothing less than battles. Losing a cricket match not only meant losing to an enemy country but also facing verbal and physical attacks back home.

A considered second look at the cricketing history between India and Pakistan would make it clear to us that the matches were played like battles because politics interfered with sports, because they were not playing cricket but fighting wars by extension, not because sports spilled over into politics. The cricketers were given briefs to fight for the honour of religion, nation and country: not to enjoy the game or to entertain the crowds, the two principal aims of any game. That sports can have positive effects on politics is also borne by the history of ‘Cricket Diplomacy’ between India and Pakistan and ‘Ping Pong Diplomacy’ between the United States and China in the 1970s. That is history. Welcome to the new era of cricketing between the two ‘unfriendly’ neighbours. The widely-circulated images of Indian crowds cheering Pakistani cricketer Sohail Tanveer‘s winning shot in Mumbai (the shot that defeated the Chennai team led by the Indian captain M S Dhoni) in the final match of the DLF Indian Premier League (DLF IPL) tournament indicate that Indian crowds do not necessarily hate Pakistani cricketers. The recently concluded DLF IPL tournament that went on for 44 days was not only immensely popular all over the country but also first confused and then redefined cricketing loyalties in India and Pakistan. Thirteen Pakistani players had been members of the eight Indian teams that participated in the tournament. The Calcutta team made extraordinary efforts to get iconic Pakistani speedster Shoaib Akhtar play for the team. Saurav Ganguly, Ishant Sharma, Salman Butt and Shoaib Akhtar (Kolkata Knight Riders) were up against Sohail Tanvir and Munaf Patel (Jaipur Rajasthan Royals). Crowds in various Indian cities where the games were played were seen cheering Pakistani players of their team and refusing to cheer for the iconic Indian players belonging to the opposing team. This is perhaps first of this kind in India and Pakistan. We have had instances where Pakistanis cheering Indian players and vice versa but not at the cost of their own players. What it shows is that labeling someone as an enemy or friend by the media and the government has a deep impact on the collective psyche of the general public. Crowds generally tend to go by what is fed to them by the media and those in power. The responsibility of changing those labels, therefore, lies with them. The famous test match played between India and Pakistan in 2004 in Lahore’s Gaddafi stadium had also witnessed unprecedented warmth shown to Indian players by Pakistani fans. That was good hospitality. What differentiates between what IPL has done and what had happened in Lahore in 2004 is the following. In Lahore, Pakistani fans were being nice and hospitable to the Indian players and fans; in the IPL tournament, the nationality of the players were surpassed and forgotten, loyalties were blurred and the spirit of the sport won the day. Pakistani players were all of a sudden no more representatives of an enemy country, and were as likable as the Indian players, and sometimes even more. The media, for a change, played down the objections raised by the Shiv Sena against the Pakistani participation in the game, and realizing that the public and the media were not concerned about their gimmicks anymore, the Shiv Sena stopped airing remarks against the Pakistani players. This is in stark contrast to what they had done in 1999 on the eve of an India Pakistan match when they had dug up the Ferozshah Kotla pitch in Delhi. The media in Pakistan and India were also facing up to the changing times – no one made any jingoistic remarks. In fact, the media in India was not even talking about ‘Pakistani players’ but as mere players of the team they were hired for, and the Pakistani media was covering and discussing the tournament (with the Geo TV live telecasting the tournament in Pakistan) as if it was happening in Lahore or Islamabad and as if the Pakistani team was playing in the tournament. Cheering for a Pakistani player in the Indian soil would have been unthinkable before the IPL began; today this has become acceptable and natural. Indian celebrities embracing Pakistani players in full view of the spectators in a cricket stadium would have been unacceptable before the IPL began; today they do it with Indian crowds cheering them. Promotion of sports as a confidence building mechanism between ‘unfriendly’ countries is an important aspect of multi-track diplomacy which many say is the way ahead between the two ‘unfriendly’ neighbors in the subcontinent. While the recent visit of the Indian foreign minister to Pakistan did not yield any results, the 44 day cricket tournament has managed to change mindsets in the two countries. It is high time the two countries gave more importance to sports as a Confidence Building Measure (CBM).

(Happymon Jacob is Assistant Professor at the Department of Strategic and Regional Studies, University of Jammu, J&K. Feedback at happymon@gmail.com).

The Valley livens up

The Valley livens up

I
f normalcy is understood as pas-
sivity and calm then one might
say there is no semblance of
normalcy in the militancy-hit
state of Jammu and Kashmir.

However, if the state is today witnes...read more...

A Tale of Three Visits

STATE CRAFT BY HAPPYMON JACOB
Pranab Mukherjee’s visit to Pakistan.

Foreign Minister Pranab Mukherjee’s visit to Pakistan last week was a much needed one and should have been made much earlier. The high profile visit was badly timed and the visiting foreign minister was caught in the midst of Pakistan’s internal political uncertainty and didn’t know who he should talk to or rather who all he should talk to. The content, the format and the outcome of the meetings were modest but, one should admit, it was impossible to expect more radical outcomes under the political circumstances prevailing in Islamabad. The visit ended with both the countries signing an agreement to grant consular access to prisoners from either country held across the border. The other positive outcome of the visit was Pakistan’s statement that it wants to have a ‘grand reconciliation’ with India through dialogue to resolve all outstanding issues “with self-respect and dignity.” While the Pakistan Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi who coined the term ‘grand reconciliation’ did not explain what it meant, this is one way of telling that India-Pakistan relations will not be held hostage to the issue of Jammu and Kashmir and that there needs to be a comprehensive approach to peaceful existence between the two countries – piecemeal approaches to peace are not desirable and would not work. The emphasis on “with self-respect and dignity” is also significant here as Pakistan is clearly hinting that a zero-sum end to conflicts between the two countries is unacceptable to Pakistan – it is not enough that conflicts should end but that Pakistan can not be seen as having lost out on its claims and interests. It is in this context that the Indian policy makers and security ‘think tanks’ have to keep in mind the fact that India can not make sustainable peace in the subcontinent by defeating Pakistan: peace between the two countries can only be sustainable by accommodating each other. The much talked about Iran-Pakistan-India ‘peace pipeline’ also found reference in the Pakistan Prime Minister’s statement wherein he suggested that two countries are committed to take it forward. The importance of the visit has to be seen in the context of the recent statements by Pakistan on Kashmir and the increase in cross border infiltration and the bomb attacks in Jaipur. If India were to respond to Pakistan Prime Minister’s statement that whatever has been achieved by Manmohan Singh and Musharraf for J&K is “half-baked”, the talks would have failed and the peace process stalled. In other words, India could have sounded jingoistic and lost the peace process. Fortunately, better sense prevailed and the peace process is safe. One only hopes that the peace process goes ahead full steam and regains its lost momentum as and when political certainty returns to Pakistan.

Presidential visit to Kashmir

President Pratibha Patil’s five day visit to Kashmir, still in the process as I write this, and concluded by the time it appears in print, has already attracted a lot of criticism though not for any political reasons. The President has been criticized for brandishing an AK-47 - apparently captured by the troops from the militants – which critics find aggressive, amusing and not befitting the stature of the President in a conflict ridden state. That said, the visit is to be seen as part of New Delhi’s attempts to give increased political attention to J&K and the state’s problems. The president has claimed that “New Delhi and State governments are making all efforts to put Jammu and Kashmir on the fast track of development and progress”. One doesn’t distrust that. New Delhi is arguably giving more attention to the state of Jammu and Kashmir than any other state in the federation: no arguments with that. But there seems to be an apparent lack of well thought-out political strategies and policies for the state. The economic and developmental measures, well-meaning they may be, lack a consistent and logical political vision for the state. In other words, New Delhi’s Kashmir policies seem to be designed and executed in ‘fits and starts’ with no grand vision for political reconciliation behind it. More importantly, wise statecraft demands that if you do something, you should be seen as doing it with commitment and a vision behind it.

Concert for Peace

The third important visit of the week was by the Pakistani Junoon rock band to Kashmir. The famous Pakistani band came to the Dal Lake with a message – a message of peace, reconciliation and change. Cultural CBMs like this is will go a long way in bringing peace not just to Kashmir but to the two countries as well. Junoon’s lead singer Salman Ahmad’s words to an excited audience on the banks of the Dal Lake were symbolic of the changing times and moods of the common man in the state: “We are all one. Beware of the people who divide”. How long will the two countries be able to resist and discard the surge of emotions that the bonds of culture, music and films can evoke in the minds of ordinary citizens in the two countries? The two governments can not stop this spontaneous outpouring of emotions by the people who they represent. The earlier we realize this the better it is for our countries and our societies.

(Source: Greater Kashmir, May 28. URL: http://www.greaterkashmir.com/full_story.asp?Date=28_5_2008&ItemID=30&cat=11 )