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)

A momentous semi-final

Debashish Mukerji and Varghese K George, Hindustan Times

New Delhi, November 07, 2008

First Published: 01:11 IST(7/11/2008)

Last Updated: 01:13 IST(7/11/2008)

There is a key difference in the thrust of the Congress and the BJP as both parties go full throttle into their campaigns for the assembly elections to be held over the next six weeks in six states: Chhattisgarh, Madhya Pradesh, Delhi, Mizoram, Rajasthan and Jammu and Kashmir.

Since the BJP is in power in three of the six - Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh and Rajasthan - and the Congress only in Delhi, the latter prefers to concentrate on local issues, pointing to the various shortcomings in the performance of the incumbent BJP governments. The BJP, in contrast, is focusing largely on national issues, which would put the Congress led union government in the dock.

“A long season of electioneering has begun. The campaign is also for the next general elections,” said leader of the opposition and NDA prime ministerial candidate L K Advani. (see interview)

"We expect a resounding vote against the BJP's corruption, divisive politics and misgovernance in Rajasthan, MP and Chhattisgarh,” said Congress spokesperson Abhishek Manu Singhvi.

But as 10 crore Indian voters - almost the entire population of  the United Kingdom and Spain combined - prepare to vote, both parties are agreed that this is a significant semi-final before the grand final of Indian politics - elections to the 15th Lok Sabha in less than six months from now.

Seventy nine of India’s 543 parliament constituencies fall in these six states, with one seventh of India’s total electorate. It’s the first time during the tenure of the current union government that six states are voting together.

The BJP has been ruling Rajasthan, MP and Chhattisgarh for a single term, the Congress has held Delhi for two.  J&K, ruled by a Congress-PDP coalition, went under Governor’s Rule once the coalition came apart last July, while an MNF government has presided over Mizoram for two terms as well. Congress is fighting regional parties, the National Conference and the People’s Democratic Party in J &K, and Mizo National Front (MNF) in Mizoram.

“Local issues are important, but the current campaign will also involve a meaningful discussion on national issues,” said Arun Jaitley, BJP general secretary. Advani listed terrorism, inflation, and the agrarian crisis as the issues that will dominate (See interview).

A sharp focus on state issues will hurt the BJP. In MP, it had to change its chief minister twice in five years. Uma Bharati was replaced by Babulal Gaur, who in turn made way for Shivraj Singh Chouhan. The Chouhan ministry has seen its share of financial scandals too, notably one relating to the purchase of medical equipment and another where trucks belonging to the chief minister’s wife were involved

Dissensions within, and two major agitations by the Gujjars, in 2007 and again in 2008, demanding scheduled tribe status -  which saw more than  60 deaths, most of them due to police firing on violent mobs – have also chipped away at the image of the Vasundhara Raje led BJP government in Rajasthan. In Chhattisgarh, the government has not been able to rein in the Naxalites. “BJP’s attempt is to avoid discussions on these issues. But they won’t succeed,” says Sitaram Yechuri, CPM politburo member.

The J&K polls are of high national significance by themselves. In the Kashmir valley – reeling under a renewed demand for azaadi - the willingness of the electorate to participate in the poll itself is under question. A transparent election with wide participation will dampen the azaadi cries. "Pakistan has never been so flexible on the Kashmir issue as it is now," said Happymon Jacob, coordinator of Pugwash, an international NGO dedicated to resolving armed conflicts, which is also involved in  Kashmir. "It chose not to take advantage of the recent agitation in the valley. Mainstream parties like the PDP too are reinterpreting azaadi in a more nuanced way. This is good news."

The results of the semi-finals may not necessarily be a forerunner to what will happen in the final. In late 2003, convincing victories in Chhattisgarh, MP and Rajasthan had prompted the BJP to advance the national elections that they lost in May 2004!

But the outcome will influence the formation of national alliances – for instance, a BJP surge will entice AIADMK towards it, while the Congress and the Left would seek to renew their friendship.

Sourse: Hindustan Times, November 07, 2008. URL: http://www.hindustantimes.com/StoryPage/StoryPage.aspx?id=9fc078bf-9197-4f74-8995-eae63c0c3ac0&ParentID=64224c07-442b-4b61-84b6-6a78d8e3f99d&MatchID1=4816&TeamID1=6&TeamID2=1&MatchType1=1&SeriesID1=1212&PrimaryID=4816&Headline=A+momentous+semi-final

J&K Confronts New Delhi’s Electoral Delusions

STATECRAFT BY HAPPYMON JACOB

One is not sure if India and Pakistan have a grand strategy to resolve the Kashmir issue as they are too preoccupied with more pressing concerns - electoral and others. The recent start in cross-LoC trade cannot, therefore, be seen as a calculated strategy of conflict resolution, but rather an act under immense political pressure, at best. However, sometimes certain acts have positive unintended consequences, and so will this one.

Kashmir has been rife with both ideas and activities in the past week: the hustle and bustle of electoral politics, symbolism of cross-LoC trade, and the PDP’s attempt to fire the Kashmiri political imagination with its self-rule proposal. Despite arriving from three separate political vantage points, and compromising three unique combinations of political, economic and social calculations, they seem to have one thing in common: the potential to address the many complex political, economic and emotional demands of Kashmiris. 

Trade and democracy appear to have the inherent capability to bring an end to militarized clashes between countries embroiled in protracted conflicts. Will this widely acclaimed wisdom of the liberal peace thesis, when combined with contemporary out-of-the-box grand ideas, prove the key to unlocking India-Pakistan relations and, as well, the tangle of Kashmir?

Elections and More

The forthcoming Assembly elections in J&K should not be seen as a conclusion in and of themselves, but instead as a means to a much higher end: addressing the core question of J&K in a more substantively responsible political manner. National Conference President, Omar Abdullah, has said unequivocally that this election will only be useful in forming a government equipped to deal with the day-to-day issues of the people of the state. Larger political issues, he clarified, need to be dealt with separately, at a different level. 

In other words, Omar’s argument goes against the long-held wisdom in New Delhi’s corridors of power that elections, ipso facto, are a solution to the problem in J&K. Today there are both dissident and mainstream parties articulating this new political argument: that the elections to the Assembly will provide for state administration only, yet fail to address deeper problems. The PDP has embraced this new line of thinking and will take into these elections a blueprint for the political resolution of the Kashmir issue. 

The Symbolism and Substance of Cross-LoC Trade

Thirteen decorated trucks plying the Jhelum Valley Road after a gap of sixty one years crossed over into Pakistan Administered Kashmir through the Kaman Post Bridge on the Line of Control. This image, one hopes, is indicative of improved times to come, even as it is at best symbolic and not yet substantive. Such limited, controlled, barter trade of select items between the two sides of the former Princely State does not make great economic sense at present. However, it represents the correct symbolic environment for deepening and reinforcing the liberal peace thesis: peace cannot lag far behind trade and the opening of borders. 

More importantly, despite the recent anti-India protests on the streets of Srinagar, the initiative taken by Governor N N Vohra has been received well by the people of the state. All sections of Kashmir opinion seem to have endorsed it, whether implicitly or explicitly. The militants have not directly opposed it, nor have dissident factions appeared uneasy about taking the credit for forcing the government to begin the trade.  In the end, cross-LoC trade should be seen as a litmus test for New Delhi’s sincerity towards the people of J&K. One genuinely hopes that the trade does not meet with the same fate as that of the Srinagar-Mzazaffarabad road, upon which traveling has become too cumbersome for the locals, thanks to a stubborn and unimaginative bureaucracy. 

PDP’s Self-Rule Proposal 

The recently unveiled self-rule proposal by the PDP is a compelling experiment by a mainstream political party in the state to think innovatively about Jammu and Kashmir. The document has worked usefully and creatively to reinterpret traditional conceptions of sovereignty. This document ought correctly to be seen as a significant addition to the equally important proposals put forth by various other J&K political parties: Sajad Lone’s Achievable Nationhood and Mirwaiz Umar Farooq’s ‘United States of Kashmir’ proposal. The importance of the PDP suggestion lies in the fact that this is perhaps the first time that a mainstream political party has dared to extend the meaning of sovereignty, and has demanded the restoration of the historical linkages with the Pakistani side of the State. Until now New Delhi had rejected and/or ignored similar proposals, including even Sajad Lone’s, citing the excuse that they had come from dissidents, who it does not recognize as legitimate representatives of the people. But circumstances have changed. How can New Delhi dismiss a proposal that has come from a political party, which has already ruled the state once, and is firmly mainstream?

Ideas and proposals such as dual currency, the roll-back of Central laws, an elected Governor, a Free Economic Zone, renaming of the titles of Governor and Chief minister as Sadar-i-Riyasat (President) and Prime Minister respectively, should not be considered as mere election gimmicks to gain more votes, but rather as the beginning of a new era of politics in the state: one that will revolve around significant issues of this kind. More importantly, there needs to be an in-depth comparative analysis of the various proposals, such as these, to delineate the common arguments they are making.

The political opponents of these proposals will raise the predictable and familiar objection of ‘erosion of sovereignty’. They need to understand that they are simply an initial attempt to re-imagine the concept of sovereignty, and that sovereignty should be creatively extended and, if necessary, redefined in order to meet the particular demands of the people and the unique needs of the time. In other words, make peace with sovereignty, not war. More importantly, if Manmohan Singh was serious when he said that while he is not ready to alter the borders between India and Pakistan, he is ready to help make them irrelevant, here is an opportunity for him to seriously engage Kashmiris on the basis of these ideas.

Ultimately, unhindered trade and other forms of connectivity between the two sides of the State, free and fair elections to the State Assembly, and grand new ideas such as the ones presented by the various parties to the people of J&K, have the potential to transform the political discourse in the State for the better.  The parties of J&K have initiated a tryst with liberal peace thesis, and for the good of the people of J&K, New Delhi had best accept it.

(Source: Greater Kashmir, October 29, 2008. URL: http://greaterkashmir.com/full_story.asp?Date=29_10_2008&ItemID=14&cat=11)

With Paolo, Mehbooba Mufti and Tariq Hameed Karra

With Mirwaiz Umar Farooq (While he was under House Arrest)

With Vice President of India, Hamid Ansari, and Paolo Cottaramusino