With Ex-President Musharraf in the President's office in Islamabad

With President Zardai at the Zardari House, Islamabad

Manmohan, Zardari, Train, Trade, and Kashmir

STATECRAFT BY HAPPYMON JACOB

There is so much more happening in and around Kashmir these days than curfews and anti-India slogans. Some of these occurrences, if planned, managed and executed with political acumen and administrative imagination, could transform Kashmir for the better. Unfortunately, given the inherent difficulties, this is a scenario which may be unlikely to occur.  Zardari’s latest pronouncements on Kashmir and India, Manmohan Singh’s offer of dialogue and new sops for Kashmir, the AJK trade delegation’s visit to J&K, and the symbolism of the train to Kashmir have one thing in common: they have the potential, especially in combination with each other, to change the political climate in Kashmir. 

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s half-hearted invitation to Kashmiri separatists to come to the negotiating table at a time ‘to be decided in future’, may not mean much but for the fact that the separatist leadership too, has said that they are willing to talk to the government, though not in response to Dr. Singh’s invitation. While one would welcome Dr. Singh’s offer for talks, one, at the same time, also wonders about the sincerity and statesmanship in it. In other words, shouldn’t the Prime Minister be doing more than merely reciting a speech written by a nondescript speechwriter, especially in a state that has witnessed nothing but violence over the last two months? Yet the offer for dialogue may prove positive in and of itself, under the circumstances. 

President Zardari was much more forthcoming in New York, with his non-traditional comments on India, Kashmir and ‘freedom fighters’. Despite the otherwise inflammatory comments made by him in the US, such as branding the Kashmiri militants ‘terrorists’, and claiming that India was important for Pakistan’s growth, he did not (surprisingly) receive much flak from within Pakistan. Had a Pakistani leader made comments such as these a few years ago, he/she would have been virtually lynched by all sections of Pakistani society for being ‘anti-Pakistan’. Not this time. What this demonstrates is the deeper changes taking place in Pakistan, including its desire to make peace with India and to rid itself of extremism. It seems as though Pakistan is learning to be at ease with India. This is, perhaps, an indication of encouraging developments on the subcontinent and bodes well for the future of the region.  

The Kashmir Valley’s first train between the Budgam and Islamabad districts was inaugurated by Dr. Singh, even as there was a complete shut down in Srinagar. While the recent political overheating may have distracted attention from this historic event, and robbed it of some well-deserved fanfare, the train to Kashmir undoubtedly represents a new era in the politics and development of the Valley. Once operational, the many more promised trains from Kashmir to other parts of the country may well be seen as tangible evidence of development in a state with an otherwise depressing infrastructure, despite considerable financial investment by the Indian government.

The meetings held between the trade delegation from across the LoC and their counterparts in Srinagar and Jammu produced many encouraging and out-of-the-box plans, which if allowed to progress unhindered, may go a long way toward substantively addressing the Kashmir issue. Delegations from the Pakistan Administered Kashmir Chamber of Commerce and Industry, and the Kashmir Chamber of Commerce and Industry, have decided to recommend to their respective governments the implementation of some key measures. These include the formation of a joint business chamber, use of the dual currency of India and Pakistan for trade, and the opening of branches of their premium banks in one another’s regions in order to facilitate trade. Some of these measures are, in fact, only in keeping with those that had recently been under discussion by both the J&K Bank and the PDP. While the JK Bank had already mooted the idea of opening its branches in Pakistan, the PDP had pitched in for the use of dual currency within the state. The symbolic, as well as the concrete, impact of trade between the two sides of the erstwhile Princely State would be enormously beneficial for it, as well as for the region as a whole. 

Taken together, each of these four factors would have implications. Firstly, they would impact the pro-azadi movement in the state. The already faltering dissident movement for azadi may now run the risk of being overshadowed by the symbolism and political dynamics of these factors. While they alone would not result in the demise (even temporarily) of the azadi movement, they will, from now on, lessen its sheen somewhat. Secondly, these factors are also likely to overhaul the political discourse in Kashmir, with issues such as trade and economy becoming the mainstay of a new rhetoric. They are similarly likely to set in motion a process conducive for the ‘mainstreaming of the mainstream’ in Kashmir. The mainstream political parties that have been sidelined in the politics of Kashmir for the past few months now have a window of opportunity to return. Ultimately however, the biggest beneficiary of all of this is India-Pakistan relations. There is rapprochement in sight for Indo-Pak relations in general, and Kashmir in particular. A revival of back channel diplomacy between the two sides, equal to that which previously existed during the heyday of Musharraff and Manmohan Singh, is also likely in the months to follow. 

Having said this, it is important for New Delhi to keep in mind that economic packages are no substitute for political packages. What J&K needs is an imaginative political package and not economic largesse by Indian taxpayers.

(Source: Greater KAshmir, OCTOBER 16, 2008, Source: http://www.greaterkashmir.com/full_story.asp?Date=15_10_2008&ItemID=3&cat=11 )

Questions for Kashmiris

What next and how? We need to answer

STATE CRAFT BY HAPPYMON JACOB

Now that there seems to be developing, for the first time, a no-holds-barred discussion by the Kashmiri intellectuals on their pro-azadi leaders, I wish to ask a set of questions to the people of Kashmir. Before I do so, I would like to clarify that I ask these questions as an Indian with left liberal political leanings and sympathies for the Kashmiri ‘cause’. Even as the Kashmiri cause is itself disputed and that there are indeed many meanings of azadi in the valley, let’s assume that Kashmiris’ demand for self-respect, dignity and their inalienable democratic rights constitute the basis of such a cause. While my questions themselves may in fact be biased given the socio-political context that I come from, I am hopeful that you will find these questions worth reflecting upon. 

A cursory glance at the events of the last three months in Kashmir would reveal that the movement in Kashmir had all the right ingredients for success: mass participation, willingness to defy state crackdown, ability to stand up to economic blockades by Jammu, crafty political moves, emotive slogans striking the right Kashmiri chords, timely political alliances and the ever-green romanticism of azadi etc. etc. In the past few months, you have lost many precious lives, lost out economically, your youngsters have missed their classes, and many of you are still in the hospitals and some in jails. Even as hundreds of thousands of people were on the streets protesting against the Indian state, the armed militants kept away from the scene not wanting to vitiate a people’s struggle for their rights. Indeed, there were many sympathetic voices from the Indian intelligentsia in support of the Kashmiri cause, even as their sympathy would not mean accepting independence for Kashmir (as many of us do not think that azadi means independence), and there was semblance of a mainstream political willingness within India to look at what went wrong in Kashmir, and not blame Kashmiris for everything that is going wrong in Kashmir. And all this, do bear in mind, was unprecedented, unexpected and, of course, welcome. You managed to resurrect a dead cause from the burial ground. But despite all this, my question is, what have you achieved in the last three months? 

Despite all the favourable factors, the recent uprising seems to have run out of steam despite the continuing claims by the dissident leadership that the struggle is still on and in full swing and that it will succeed, come what may. Notwithstanding their claims, the uprising seems to have failed to reach any logical conclusion. 

 The jury is still out, many might argue, as to whether the latest uprising is over or not. Whether it is to be termed a lost rebellion, dead cause, failed uprising or a temporary setback awaiting a revival, one can argue, is something only time can tell. Agreed, but the question remains unanswered: why did the last three months, in the final analysis, not achieve anything concrete? Why wouldn’t the last three months go down in Kashmir’s history as nothing but a lot of shouting about and venting out political frustrations? 

Why did this happen? Why did your biggest ever uprising fail to achieve anything concrete? Is it because of the successful handling of the situation by the government? Is it because the Indian state has, after all, learned to contain dissidence in its frontiers without relenting even a bit? I am convinced that these are not the reasons for that.

 

I have no definite answer to these questions either. This is for the Kashmiri mind to ponder on. I am not a Kashmiri and I, therefore, cannot think like one. A political introspection is warranted at this juncture just because any movement that is not guided by critical self-reflection and objective introspection about its goals, trajectory, strategies, leadership etc. is bound to doom. Today you are leading your leaders - who seem not only reluctant participants in this movement but also ill-equipped to lead - and that is precisely why there is still life in it; tomorrow you will go back to your daily chores, what will happen to your movement then? Does it have the strength to sustain itself and to win once the streets of Srinagar are empty and when dust settles in Lal Chowk? If not, this movement is on its way towards failure. Hate me for saying this, but that’s the anatomy of popular movements. Politics, after all, is determined by forces that are historically contingent. 

Kashmiri leadership behaves like the proverbial frog in the well: they think that the rest of the world has the patience to be continually worried about their struggle, their politics, and their timelines. They behave as if they and their protests can exist independent of whatever happens in the rest of the world – and so much is happening in the wider world and in the neighborhood - and that their people will always be out on the streets at their beck and call irrespective of whether they do their homework or not. 

The ongoing movement is overwhelmingly participated by a new crop of people among you who do not belong to the generation of the 1980s. The concerns, issues and dreams of this new generation are different from the earlier generation. The leadership has largely remained stagnant while the followers are mostly different. Those new ones among you should ask whether your leadership knows what lies ahead in this struggle. Do they know what their endgame is? Have they told you how they are going to achieve it, if they have one? Or are they using this unexpected outpouring of popular emotions to settle their petty scores, strengthen their leadership positions, rise to prominence, and take on the mainstream politicians without any vision or mission? Does the coordination committee or do the leaders therein have a futuristic blueprint of what a future Kashmir would look like? What an “azad” Kashmir would look like? Do you see this as a secular nationalist struggle or do you want to build an Islamised Kashmir? How are the dissident leaders different from the mainstream politicians and politics of Kashmir which they so fiercely fight to resist? 

(Source: Greater Kashmir, October 1, 2008. URL: http://greaterkashmir.com/full_story.asp?Date=1_10_2008&ItemID=3&cat=11 )

Does he mean business?

Zardari’s ‘Business Plans’ with India

STATECRAFT BY HAPPYMON JACOB

Asif Ali Khan Zardari, the newly elected President of Pakistan, lacks in popular legitimacy. He is still known to a large number of common Pakistanis and committed cadres of the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) as the widower of their favorite leader. In other words, President Zardai’s only claim to fame so far is his marriage to late Benazir Bhutto even as there are many reasons why he is infamous. As the President of Pakistan, he would like to do a radical make-over of his political and personal images and he knows that he can easily do so by making some radical political decisions. After all, politics is the game of the present. Pakistani leaders can make history by either whipping up passions against India or by making unprecedented peace moves towards India. While it may be too early to say that is what Zardari will do in the days to come, one can surely say that that is what he is aiming to do in the days to come. Let’s look at some evidence in this regard.

As soon as he was sworn in as the county’s 12th President in Islamabad, Zardari made three key foreign policy overtures all of which are important for India. First of all, contacts with the Indian government, he said, were underway and that the people would soon hear good news about Kashmir (possibly in a matter of months since he said that the good news will be there before UPA goes into elections next year). Secondly, he was unequivocally indicating that Pakistan needs to have a good friend in Afghanistan and he sent that message out by inviting the Afghan President for his swearing in ceremony. Hamid Karzai commented at the post-swearing in press conference, “I find in President Zardari a good will and vision not only for relations between the two countries but for the region that I have seen for the first time in this region” (emphasis added). That these comments came from someone who has been openly accusing the Pakistani government of sponsoring the militant attacks in his country shows the way ahead between the two countries. Thirdly, Zardari said the government now has a strategy in place to combat terrorism and added that he himself remained a victim of terrorism. He further said, “the challenge for us is to dismantle the militant cells so that they do not hold the foreign policies of two independent nations (India and Pakistan) hostage to their acts of terrorism.”

His recent comments on Kashmir as the president of Pakistan should be seen in continuation of what he had said earlier about Kashmir and his clarification regarding that later on. After the Zardari-led PPP had come to power in Pakistan, Zardari said that Kashmir should be kept on the backburner, that his government wants to improve its relations with India, and would not let the Jammu and Kashmir dispute become an obstacle in the friendly relations between the two countries: “We can be patient till everybody grows up further and leave the Kashmir dispute for the future generations to resolve in atmosphere of trust”. When this statement was criticized by pro-Kashmiri leaders in Pakistan he clarified that he is committed to the resolution of the Kashmir dispute. He made it clear, again, in March this year when some of us had met him at the Zardari House in Islamabad as part of the Pugwash delegation that he is ready to talk about Kashmir, ready to think out of the box in order to resolve the issue and that he is ready to ‘do business’ with India on Kashmir. He explained what he meant by doing business with India saying that his government will take steps to establish mutually beneficial commercial and economic projects in the erstwhile princely state of J&K in consultation with the government of India. He said that the future of Kashmir should be seen in terms of a bridge of commerce and trade and other mutually beneficial interactions between the two counties.

I do not see Zardari’s statements on Kashmir as impulsive utterances of a shrewd politician trying to impress the audience of the day. Over the last few months he has elaborated on his plans for Kashmir on more than one occasion. He made two important statements recently prior to assuming the presidency of the country. “Pending a final settlement, we agree with the statement of your Prime Minister supporting an autonomous Kashmir running much of its own affairs”, Zardari said to an Indian media organisation. He further said that a Commission can be established between the two countries and the “leaders of Kashmir themselves to work out what should be done in foreign and defence affairs”. After he became President, he said that he has been consulting key leaders in Pakistan regarding Kashmir policy and that a parliamentary committee will soon be set up to discuss all possible solutions to resolve the Kashmir issue.

The timing of his statement, as president, on Kashmir assumes significance because he did not choose to lash out against India especially at a time when there are anti-India protests raging in the Kashmir valley. This is indicative of the political maturity of his vision for Kashmir and for India-Pakistan relations.

Should Zardari’s statements on Kashmir be taken seriously? If so why? First of all, he is a smart businessman and is keen to make his mark in Pakistan’s polity and so he is likely to think out of the box on Kashmir. Secondly, given the situation that Pakistan is currently in (fall from the US grace, dubbed by the international community as the epicenter of global terrorism, multiple insurgencies at home etc.), it is likely to adopt a conciliatory approach to India and other players in the region. Thirdly, and perhaps most importantly, he is a moderate, modern and progressive Muslim, and not a fanatic and so will understand the rules of the modern states system.

(Source: Greater Kashmir, September 17, 2008. URL: http://greaterkashmir.com/full_story.asp?Date=17_9_2008&ItemID=14&cat=11 )

Greater common good

Dissidents Need a Common Minimum Programme

STATECRAFT BY HAPPYMON JACOB

The question that many, including in J&K, are asking today is whether the dissident leadership in the state knows what it wants. One is not sure if they have indeed arrived at a consensual blueprint, behind closed doors, as to what their endgame is going to be. It doesn’t look they have a blueprint, going by the statements of various leaders, trajectory of the movement, shifting stances of the various dissident formations and the incongruence between the mood of the public and the deeds of the leaders. The leaders of the ongoing dissident struggle in Kashmir have come from a wide range of political formations, shades of opinion and political persuasions and have therefore shown no great deal of unity of purpose in the ongoing struggle. Added to this is the simmering dissent within the dissident camp that has now become fairly clear. First of all, Syed Ali Shah Geelani’s claim to ‘sole leadership’ has not gone down very well with the other leaders and they have expressed that in many words. Secondly, Geelani and his disciples are ostensibly spearheading the ongoing struggle for azadi. Moreover, his camp seems to be making both the grand strategy and tactics of the ongoing struggle. What this means is that even if others do not know what their endgame is, Geelani does.

More importantly, Geelani’s recent statements about other Kashmiri dissident leaders and questioning their credentials have not gone down well with the rest of them. What this dissent in the dissident camp will do, slowly but steadily, is to weaken the momentum of the ongoing agitations. One of the reasons why the other leaders do not seem to be contesting Geelani’s modus operandi is because it will not be tolerated by the common Kashmiris who are participating in the protests: they would like to see their leaders united and they see Geelani as the grand old patriarch who can provide the necessary symbolism to the ongoing agitations. Anyone who shows dissent in the dissident camp today would most definitely have his political career cut short.

So while this apparent ‘unity’ will sustain, under the circumstances, the ongoing agitations in the days to come without any serious ruptures, what this will deprive the ‘movement’ is a unity of purpose. First of all, they need to have a commonly worked out scheme on how to talk with New Delhi and secondly, what to demand from New Delhi. At present there does not seem to be any serious formal or backchannel efforts to engage New Delhi. If the dissidents believe that they can sustain the momentum of the agitations for as long as they wish, they are mistaken: popular movements invariably have their lifespan. It is advantage dissident camp at this point of time, but then the ball is in their court too: they need to make their demands loud and clear. One of the reasons for this lack of common demand is that different leaders in the dissident camp believe in different things. While Geelani may be having a field day with his leadership, ideas, and ideology, ruling the roost today, there are other equally competing ideologies within Kashmir’s dissident camp. Consider for example: one of the slogans that one gets to hear rather frequently during the ongoing agitations is: Ham Pakistani Hain, Pakistan Hamara Hai (We belong to Pakistan, and Pakistan belongs to us). Apart from Geelani, not many would agree with this slogan but even then they don’t seem to be in a position to speak up against that.

If the aim of the agitations so far was to create conditions to force New Delhi to listen to the Kashmiris regarding innovative and out-of-the-box solutions to resolve the issue, they have undoubtedly achieved that and now the time has come for them to reach a consensual and workable solution. Can the dissident camp continue the present momentum and have a unity of purpose at the same time? They can, provided they decide upon a ‘common minimum programme’ while the agitations are in their prime. This requires a willingness on the part of the dissident leadership to do some collective and realistic strategising. As this writer has pointed out in earlier columns in GK, there are indeed many common themes in the opinions of the Kashmiri dissident leadership regarding what the future of Kashmir should be. While it is true that the wide range of dissident opinions ranging from merger with Pakistan to greater autonomy, the middle-of-the-road solution between the two extremes seems to be the restoration of the provisions of an undiluted Article 370.

The significance of ‘Achievable Nationhood’

One of the key documents that need to be carefully examined by the dissident camp today is the much acclaimed Achievable Nationhood produced by People’s Conference led by Sajad Lone. Lone’s document not only makes a realistic assessment of the situation in J&K but also proposes innovative methods to address the feelings and needs of the people of J&K. While some of his solutions might be beyond the brief of Article 370, one must understand that, this is a document that is open to be put to discussion, deliberations and, perhaps, amends to suit the needs of the various constituencies in the state. The importance of this document lies in its inherent flexibility to address the aspirations of various actors and so the dissident leadership needs to give serious consideration to this document in order to lay out a common minimum programme which is perhaps a must at this point of time.

An afterthought

Even as the anti-India protests are gaining in strength in Kashmir, India’s National Security Advisor M K Narayanan was sent by New Delhi’s political leadership to assess the security situation in Srinagar and report back. Those accompanied included the Defence Secretary, Chairman of the Joint Intelligence Committee, Director of Intelligence Bureau and a Joint Secretary at the Prime Minister’s Office. There were no politicians in this high level delegation and, for that matter, no senior political leader from New Delhi has visited the valley ever since the protests began there. This shows that New Delhi still prefers to look at it as a law and order and security problem and not a political problem. More importantly, why do New Delhi’s politicians shy away from engaging the people and dialoging with them when it matters the most? Politics, our politicians need to understand, is not a bed of roses.

(Source: Greater Kashmir, September 3, 2008: URL: http://greaterkashmir.com/full_story.asp?Date=3_9_2008&ItemID=3&cat=11)

Responses to my article "Need to rethink our Kashmir Policy", The Hindu, August 22, 2008

Letters to the Editor, The Hindu, August 25, 2008

Kashmir issue
This refers to the article “Need to rethink our Kashmir policy” (Aug. 22) and the letters published in response to it (Aug. 23). It is a matter of serious concern that a grave issue such as the Kashmir imbroglio has not been resolved by successive governments for 60 years.
There is no doubt that Jammu and Kashmir is an integral part of the Indian Union. Being a border State, it is strategically important for us. We cannot discard it under any circumstance. The immediate thing to do is to abolish Article 370 and encourage people from neighbouring States to settle down in Kashmir.
Yohannankutty Mathai,
New Delhi

The article says that despite all their promises to the Kashmiris, the governments in Srinagar and New Delhi have done almost nothing in the last four years to resolve the problem to the satisfaction of Kashmiris. As citizens of India, I think we ought to shoulder the responsibility for the actions of the governments we voted to power. It is “our” promises, made to a particular section among us.
Sanjoe Tom Jose,
Mumbai

The Centre needs to adopt a people-centric approach to the J&K crisis, failing which the situation in the State may escalate further. Kashmir is not a colony of India. It is as much an integral part of India as any other State and the Centre cannot allow anyone to manipulate this.
The ISI and some sections in Pakistan are trying their best to present a view that does not reflect true public opinion.
Sarvesh Kumar Dubey,
Jamshedpur

The Kashmir issue has been hanging fire for 60 years and more, and no solution is in sight. The peace initiatives and dialogues have not produced the desired results. The agitation which started over the Amarnath land transfer issue has flared up beyond control. The conflict is now between Hindus in Jammu and Muslims in the Kashmir Valley. The clamour for azadi is growing louder in the Valley. How long can the government allow the stalemate to continue? It should allow the people of the State to decide their fate.
E. Sivasankaran,
Coimbatore

Since 1947, India has espoused a self-righteous attitude and pretended to know everything from democracy and secularism to modernity, and rejected all good advice even from its best friends to let Kashmiris live peacefully. It has continued to militarise J&K. A basic shift in the Indian approach to the Kashmir issue would mean letting Kashmiris have their sovereignty. Demilitarisation and force withdrawal should begin now.
Reehana Kabeer, Dharapuram

URL: http://www.hindu.com/2008/08/25/stories/2008082555551001.htm

******

Letters to the Editor, August 23, 2008

Kashmir policy
The article “Need to rethink our Kashmir policy” (Aug. 22) is one of the best articles I have read on the situation in Jammu and Kashmir. It rightly points out that even though Kashmir is legally part of the Indian Union, Kashmiris do not feel part of it and that it is the flawed policies of the Indian state for 60 years that are to blame. Although shouting slogans of azadi is no solution to the problem, implementation of an undiluted Article 370, which was the basis of Kashmir’s accession to India, is one of the best practical solutions.
Azhar Yasin,
Srinagar
* * *
The article rightly pointed out that Kashmiris feel let down by the Indian government. Much of this sentiment can be traced to an aspect of the conflict that is generally overlooked: lost economic opportunities due to misguided policies in the region since Partition. The epicentre of the present insurgency and the regions most affected by it are marked by low levels of development and governance. There are many potential solutions but unless India and Pakistan abandon the combative mindset, no progress is possible.
A. Bhagavathi Meena,
Valliyur
* * *
While various explanations such as the ISI hand, the communal divide, and the strengthening of the separatist movement are being advanced for the unrest in J&K, the fact is India’s political leadership has lost the confidence of the average citizen of the State.
The people feel that the Central leadership lacks credibility and moral authority. The UPA government will be blamed by history if separatists have their way in Kashmir. It should immediately constitute a team of senior people who enjoy credibility, and are not in politics, to visit J&K to find a solution.
N.S. Venkataraman,
Chennai
* * *
Ever since the accession of J&K to India, the demand to hold a plebiscite has been turned down. Article 370 which promises a special status for Kashmir has become a political tool for the BJP, which is bent on abolishing it. The Amarnath land transfer row and the economic blockade have given enough fodder to the separatists to sway the Kashmiris to demand azadi. It is time a political consensus was evolved to grant de facto autonomy to Kashmir within the framework of the Indian Constitution.
Syed Sultan Mohiddin,
Kadapa
* * *
The problem in Kashmir is deep rooted. Roundtable conferences and formation of working groups won’t do. Kashmiris feel alienated and betrayed because the Centre has reneged on many promises made to them.
Faizan Qadir,
Srinagar
* * *
A special status, economic packages and other blandishments are mere palliatives and do not address the deeper malaise afflicting the Kashmiri mindset. If the Indian leadership makes a bold attempt to find a meaningful solution to the Kashmir issue, it is sure to have the backing of the people. It will make way for durable peace in the subcontinent and give a fillip to the confidence-building measures between India and Pakistan.
R. Ravichandran,
Chennai

Source: The Hindu, August 24, 2008.

URL: http://www.thehindu.com/2008/08/23/stories/2008082355351000.htm