Farce in three parts

Amitabh Mattoo and Happymon Jacob

On May 24, 2012, the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) made public the report submitted to it by the interlocutors on Jammu and Kashmir appointed in the midst of the 2010 uprising in the Kashmir valley. The group of three interlocutors has produced a report that is rich in detail, based on extensive fieldwork, elegantly written, and apparently well meaning. However, we remain deeply sceptical that the public dissemination of such a report — or a public debate on the findings/recommendations — will help to build sustainable peace in Jammu and Kashmir. Not surprisingly, there are virtually no takers for the report among the stakeholders in the State and even the MHA has distanced itself from the work that it commissioned from the interlocutors, by adding the following caveat: “The view expressed in the Report are the views of the interlocutors. The Government has not yet taken any decisions on the Report.” In fact, we believe that the release of the report — instead of doing any good — will prove to be counter-productive and could further strengthen the sentiment in the State that the government of India is not serious about a resolution of the problems of Jammu and Kashmir. We have reason to believe that the recent ineptitude in dealing with the State stems from the decision that the Prime Minister would discontinue to have direct oversight over the affairs of the State. Contrast the “Naya” Jammu and Kashmir vision articulated by the Prime Minister in 2005 with the obtuse legalese articulated,ad nauseum, by the Home Ministry.

We have fundamental problems with almost all aspects of what has turned out to be a farcical exercise: beginning with the appointment of non-political interlocutors; and the structure and content of the report they have produced.

Ever since September 25, 2010, when the Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS) finalised the eight point political initiative on Jammu and Kashmir, at the height of the crises in Kashmir when over 100 people had been killed, expectations were raised that a seasoned politician would lead the panel of interlocutors. This perception was built on the successful all-party delegation that had visited the State. The announcement of a three-member non-political team provoked widespread anger and hostility and even invited ridicule. Although the three members were undoubtedly professionals, who had excelled in their respective fields, the impression was created that the panel had been finalised without due diligence or a serious application of mind by those who are quite oblivious to the complexities of the problems in the State and were insensitive to the sentiment of the people living there.

ON SYMBOLISM AND SUBSTANCE

In J&K, symbolism is almost as important as substance. Consider the history of the last half a century. Almost every political crisis and political agreement has been possible through initiatives led by heavyweights and backed by the political leadership of the country.

It was Lal Bahadur Shastri who was deputed by Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru in 1963 to help defuse the crisis following the theft of the Prophet's relic. While the chief of the Intelligence Bureau, B.N. Mullik, also played a vital role and enjoyed Nehru's confidence, it was Shastri who was the public face of the initiative.

THE THREE PARTS

The 1974 Kashmir accord was possible because of the confidence that G. Parthasarthi enjoyed of then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi. Similarly, in the 1990s, interlocutors like Rajesh Pilot and George Fernandes were able to make a difference because they created a perception that they were leading a serious political initiative backed by the highest political authority in the land. Indeed even the mandate of the panel of interlocutors had been defined in the most non-anodyne terms: “The three interlocutors appointed by the Govt. have been entrusted with the responsibility of undertaking a sustained dialogue with the people of Jammu & Kashmir to understand their problems and chart a course for the future.”

The Report, itself, as one of the interlocutors has suggested, needs to be read in three parts: a situation report, a set of political ideas for discussion, and a road map recommending confidence-building measures (CBM) and dialogue. Most informed observers of Jammu and Kashmir would gain little by reading the “situation report.”

The CBMs are well known and, in fact, do little to advance the work produced by the Prime Minister's Working Groups. Set up during the second round table conference of the Prime Minister in May 2006, the five working groups had a specific agenda: (i) confidence-building measures (CBMs) across segments of society in the State; (ii) strengthening relations across the Line of Control in Kashmir; (iii) economic development; (iv) ensuring good governance; and (v) Centre-State relations. Apart from the working group on Centre-State relations, all others submitted their reports in April 2007. The government had, in principle, accepted the recommendations and virtually committed itself to their implementation.

For instance, Hamid Ansari chaired the group on CBMs in the State, and it included representatives from all mainstream political parties and groups. The group's agenda included the following: measures to improve the condition of the people affected by militancy, schemes to rehabilitate all widows and orphans affected by militancy, issues relating to the relaxation of conditions which have foresworn militancy, an effective rehabilitation policy, including employment, for Kashmiri Pandit migrants, an approach considering issues relating to return of Kashmiri youth from areas controlled by Pakistan, and measures to protect and preserve the unique cultural and religious heritage of the State.

The group had recommended, among other things, a review and revocation of laws that impinge on the fundamental rights of common citizens, such as the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act (AFSPA), review of cases of persons in jails and general amnesty for those under trial for minor offences, devising effective rehabilitation policies for Kashmiri Pandits and a comprehensive package to enable them to return to their original residences and for the Kashmiri youth in Pakistan-controlled areas, who may have joined militancy for monetary considerations or misguided ideological reasons, measures to strengthen the State human rights commission, and setting up of a State commission for minorities. The interlocutors' report, in no way, improves on these recommendations.

The only real value addition could have been on proposing new political ideas. And here, not only are there no novel ideas, even the proposals (borrowed mostly from other reports) are embedded in the “grand” idea of the establishment of a Constitutional Committee, to review all acts and articles of the Constitution of India extended to the State after the Delhi Agreement of 1952. In other words, the Report — on the most critical issue — passes the buck and recommends that New Delhi look for someone who is regarded in high esteem in the State and the rest of the country to do the job.

On other related issues too, the Report falls well short of expectations. The report does not give importance to delivering justice to those people wronged over the last two decades. The report also fights shy of identifying some of the other primary causes of the problems in the Jammu and Kashmir conflict: including the widespread rigging of elections, and the political high-handedness of New Delhi in J&K.

TRUTH AND RECONCILIATION

The report talks about the need to set up a Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC). However, the report treats the whole concept of a TRC in a very casual manner. It says, for example, “even if justice cannot be provided for all victims of violence, if some of those guilty of human rights abuses, including militants, were to ask forgiveness from the families of their victims, it would provide closure for many.”

The report also suffers from a serious lack of focus. The report's recommendations address issues that trivialise the real problems of the State. For instance, by recommending inter-regional dance and theatre competitions, cultural talks about inter-regional culture, and establishing “an art gallery in Srinagar,” the interlocutors undermine the gravitas that a report of this kind should have, if it is to be taken seriously.

Finally, how does one evaluate a report of this kind? It has not managed to reach out to important segments in Kashmir, it has not produced any sort of consensus in J&K or in New Delhi, and its impact is not likely to be felt in “grand” political terms. This report, at best, is an academic exercise of little policy consequence. The fact is there exist valuable documents and reports, which have, in great detail, explained the possible trajectories for building peace in the State. It was not yet another document that we needed to resolve the multiple conflicts in the State, but a genuine political process of reconciliation between the people of the State and New Delhi. Many dissidents from the State opposed this panel of interlocutors because they believed that the group did not have a mandate to negotiate peace, and that this was merely a diversionary tactic to buy time. One-and-half-years later, they stand vindicated.

(Amitabh Mattoo and Happymon Jacob are Professors at the School of International Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University.)

(Source: The Hindu, June 4, 2012. URL: http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/article3487152.ece?homepage=true )

Wise, but controversial

Statecraft

HAPPYMON JACOB

Professor Abdul Ghani Bhat has done it again. It was in January last year that he made another wise but controversial statement that Kashmiri dissident leaders such as Abdul Gani Lone and Mirwaiz Maulvi Muhammad Farooq were not killed by government forces but by “their own people”. This time around he has questioned the contemporary significance of the UN resolutions on J&K. The controversy kicked up by Prof. Abdul Ghani Bhat’s comments refuses to die down, leading to ideological, bordering physical, clashes within the moderate Hurriyat. I have known both Prof. Bhat and Mirwaiz Umar Farooq for a very long time: both are wise, visionary and able leaders and hence I would hesitate to dub the ongoing debate over the UN resolutions as a leadership struggle within the ranks of the Hurryat. I would see this as a genuine debate to explore the future directions of Kashmir’s embattled Azadi movement. 

Three ‘sins’of Prof. Bhat
Prof. Bhat made three inter-related arguments: one, it is not practical anymore to implement the UN Resolutions in Kashmir; two, the Kashmir formula suggested by former Pakistan President Pervez Musharraff is worth serious consideration and; three, it may not be a bad idea to think of forging a common minimum political agenda with the PDP and NC. In response to Prof. Bhat’s suggestions, Mirwaiz argued that the UN Resolutions form the bedrock of Kashmir’s azadi movement. Mirwaiz has a point, although it is a symbolic one. However, it may be recalled that Mriwaiz himself has been a fan of Musharraff’s ideas on Kashmir and so he is only opposing two of Prof. Bhat’s suggestions: of going beyond the UN Resolutions and forging alliances with NC and PDP. Let’s unpack to understand each of these two suggestions made by Prof. Bhat.

What do the Resolutions say?
What was the basic argument made by the UN Resolutions that the Mirwaiz argues forms the bedrock of Kashmir’s azadi movement? In fact, I would argue that many Kashmiri dissidents have often overstretched the significance of these Resolutions. Consider this: if one goes strictly by the sequence of the UN Resolutions, Pakistan will have to withdraw from Azad J&K (‘PoK’) and Northern Areas since it is referred to as the invading party, and before a plebiscite is held in Kashmir, Indian troops could potentially move into the part vacated by Pakistani troops to maintain law and order. Mind you, Pakistan had also ceded a small part of J&K to China decades ago which will have to be taken back from China so that the original Princely state in its entirety can be put through a plebiscite by the UN. Thereafter, even if there is a plebiscite, people of J&K will be able to choose between India or Pakistan. The UN Resolutions promise no azadi to Kashmiris, let’s be clear about it. I am not convinced that it is such a choice that forms the bedrock of Kashmir’s azadi struggle. 

So considering the fact that azadi-seeking Kashmiri nationalists won’t be the real beneficiaries of the UN formula, who is likely to benefit out of it? Will India benefit from it? I am not so sure. If one were to argue that India is very unpopular in certain parts of Kashmir, there is a possibility that while Jammu and Ladakh would vote for India, a large number of people in Kashmir are unlikely to vote for India. What about within Pakistan? I am equally unconvinced that everyone on the Pakistani side of J&K is in love with Pakistan either. That means that some people on that side are likely to vote for India as well, just because there are only two choices. The rest is a game of numbers. So if Pakistan gets more votes in the Plebiscite, which I am not so sure of especially after meeting scores of people form the Pakistani side of the state, Kashmiris will have to join the Pakistani state. In other words, the decades-long Kashmiri nationalism will find its final resting place within the ideological anarchy of contemporary Pakistan. Would the Mirwaiz like it that way? Unlikely. Then why fault the good old Persian Professor for what he said in simple words? 

More importantly, even though Pakistan would stand a chance, just as India would, to win from a game of numbers if the UN Resolutions are implemented in Kashmir, the former has indeed given up on the Resolutions. So has the United Nations. 

Let’s now take the other ‘objectionable’ part of the Professor’s argument. Prof. Bhat argued that alliances should be forged with NC and PDP. Forget the names ‘NC’ and ‘PDP’. The Professor’s message is that it’s time to try different, read ‘mainstream’, methodologies to take the azadi movement forward. It may look contradictory at the first instance but that is precisely what ‘former’ dissidents such as People’s Conference leader Sajad Lone are successfully doing: work for the ‘achievable nationhood’ even as keeping the ‘desirable nationhood’ as the guiding principle. In other words, joining PDP or NC is not the operative part of what the Professor said, rather it is using mainstream tactics and politics to achieve the goals of the azadi movement. 

I have often argued, in my columns and elsewhere, that Sajad Lone has indeed shown the way for the future direction of Kashmir’s azadi movement, but then that’s my personal opinion about a movement of which I am not personally part of, even as I am sympathetic towards it. It’s for the Hurriyat Conference and the people of Kashmir to decide which direction they would like to take. 

That said, one thing is pretty clear. The Hurriyat needs to better respond to new situations, new movements, new political demands and a whole new generation that has a lot of political innovation and vibrancy about them. For many years now, the Hurriyat has not shown exceptional leadership skills in spearheading the movement in Kashmir. So why not listen to the Professor? 

(Greater Kashmir, May 27, 2012. URL: http://www.greaterkashmir.com/news/2012/May/27/wise-but-controversial-16.asp )

Kashmir is happy. So what?

What makes Manu Joseph more qualified to talk about Kashmir?

Statecraft

HAPPYMON JACOB

This in response to Manu Joseph’s Open Magazine article entitled “Sorry, Kashmir is happy” (22 April, 2012). I have a number of reactions to his assertions on Kashmir as expressed in the article. Having read the piece many times over, I am of the opinion that Manu Joseph’s article is ahistorical, deeply ignorant of facts, shockingly simplistic and dismally under-researched. At best, it is a celebration of half-truths. Following are the reasons why I say so. 

One of Joseph’s key arguments is that “Trauma in Kashmir is like a heritage building—the elite fight to preserve it.” True, intellectual debates about the political resolution of Kashmir are mostly confined to the politically charged environs of urban Kashmir. Indeed, a lot of ordinary Kashmiris, more so in the rural areas of Kashmir, seem unconcerned about the political resolution of Kashmir. But what’s so surprising about that? Doesn’t Manu Joseph know that most revolutionary political movements have a vanguard that provides it with intellectual nourishment and political direction? This is true of most revolutionary political movements all over the world. What does he think the Indian national movement was like? Didn’t it have an urban, educated middle class that gave it the intellectual firepower to chase the British colonizers out of India? To expect every Indian in every remote corner of British India to have been motivated in equal measure by the freedom movement is unrealistic. 

Joseph also argues: “what Pakistan has become, politically and economically, has ensured that accession to that country is not part of popular sentiment here anymore”. This statement reflects the usual fallacy that a lot of Indian analysts commit when commenting on Kashmir. For them, the azadi movement in Kashmir is all about joining Pakistan or propped up by Pakistan. While they may be partly right, they are mostly wrong: Kashmir’s azadi movement has political, philosophical and nationalist underpinnings of its own irrespective of Pakistan’s intentions and designs. 

Joseph claims that “Kashmir’s elite, especially those who live in Kashmir, believe that a sovereign Kashmir is an impractical idea and to continue the status quo with the newly prosperous and somewhat secular India is the best way forward”. The fallacious assumption made by Joseph here is that Kashmir’s dissident elite prefers nothing but the status quo. He is wholly unaware of the dynamic nature of politics in Kashmir and how much the politics and the positions of Kashmir’s dissident elite have changed over the years. Joseph should read more on Kashmir or observe Kashmir politics far more carefully so as to avoid making such erroneous broad-brush claims. 

Let's look at another one of his arguments. He, like a lot of conflict resolution specialists in New Delhi, seems to argue: “give them development, give them education and that’s the solution to the Kashmir problem”. Seriously?  In fact, even if one were to accept that prescription who would believe that New Delhi can give Kashmiris development, education and other forms of economic prosperity? Well, forget about Kashmir, New Delhi has not been able to deliver proper governance in any part of the country. 
Joseph contends that ordinary Kashmiris are only concerned about economic and governance considerations and not about the high politics of azadi. That is not completely incorrect but what’s so new about that argument? In fact, that is the case in all situations of enduring conflict – people always talk about their immediate problems. But that does not mean that there are no deeper, political problems in the society which should be resolved, not ignored.  

Put another way, just because Kashmiris seem happy (and I don’t think that Kashmiris as a species are an unhappy people), it doesn’t logically follow that there are no political problems in Kashmir; just because Kashmir’s hoteliers are looking forward to having more tourists in their properties next year does not mean that there are no political discontents in Kashmir. It is simplistic and naïve to argue that because people seem happy, everything is hunky-dory in Kashmir. Did Manu Joseph expect to see unhappy, unsmiling, un-hospitable, unkind, ungraceful Kashmiris when he went ‘sight-seeing’ Kashmir? Sorry to disappoint you Manu Joseph, but Kashmiris are a bunch of lively people who happen to love life.  You are right, Kashmir is happy (and they have a right to be happy) but their happiness is no reason why their political, civil and human rights should be trampled upon. 

So since Kashmir is happy, does it mean that they should ‘just move on’ forgetting the past? What about the thousands of widows, orphans, disappeared, and the kith and kin of the countless dead lying unsung in the many unmarked graves of Kashmir? If the answer is ‘lets go past it, look at tomorrow’, then I am sorry to say that your idea of justice needs to become more sophisticated.

Joseph seems to argue that protests in Kashmir are carried out by electricity-stealing young Kashmiris. Seriously? Were the tens of thousands of young Kashmiris who took to streets in 2008, 2009 and 2010 were none but electricity-stealing Kashmiri hooligans? Or were they Pakistani militants? Or Al-Qaeda terrorists?

Why is Joseph complaining that a host of writers, intellectuals and activists are the ones who keep talking about the Kashmir problem more than anybody else? Even if they do so and thereby contribute to keeping the Kashmir issue alive today, what’s wrong with that? Is that not what Manu Joseph is doing in Delhi - pontificating the government/society on the various political and social issues concerning the country? This kind of anti-intellectual tirade is not something we expect from someone like Manu Joseph who has actively been engaging in the country’s intellectual debates. 

Finally, why does Joseph have a problem with Kashmiri intellectuals and activists based in “North America, Europe, Dubai or Delhi”? What is the difference between Manu Joseph sitting in Delhi (with rare visits to Kashmir, hardly following the political developments in the state and still passing judgments on what is happening there) and the expat Kashmiris sitting in Dubai, London, US or Delhi (occasionally visiting Kashmir, closely following its political developments and passionately involved with what happens there)? How on earth is Manu Joseph more qualified to talk about Kashmir than the Dubai-London-US-New Delhi-based Kashmiri expats? 

(Source: greater Kashmir, 13 May, 2012. URL: http://www.greaterkashmir.com/news/2012/May/13/kashmir-is-happy-so-what--9.asp )

Hamid Ansari for President

The Indian public has largely remained disinterested as to who becomes the country’s Rashtrapati

STATECRAFT BY HAPPYMON JACOB

The election of India’s next President is scheduled to be held in July this year. Election to the Indian Presidency is normally not considered to be a politically significant affair since Indian Presidents are only titular heads of the State, not of the executive. The Indian public has largely remained disinterested as to who becomes the country’s Rashtrapati and hence political parties in the country also do not attribute much importance to the selection of an appropriate person to hold the country’s highest constitutional office. However, new India, the ‘post-Hazare’ India, should have a visionary and widely respected person in the Raisina Hill.
Even though the Indian President is not responsible for running the country on a day-to-day basis, there is still a lot that a visionary President can do for the country including in the comity of nations. While the President of India may only have symbolic power, let us not assume that symbolic power does not matter in domestic politics or international relations. A country’s image, stature and influence do not depend only on its hard, material power but also its ideational, soft, and symbolic power. Indeed, sometimes the power of symbols, ideas and visions matter more than the number of tanks and range of missiles. More importantly, states are also often known by the stature of their statesmen. Sometimes even when a state has the material capability to influence developments in world politics, it may not be able to do so primarily due to the lack of statesmen who can convert national power into international outcomes. In other words, in the era of soft power and media diplomacy where visions, norms and values have global presence, a visionary President can make a huge difference to the international standing of India.
India has had many Presidents who were looked upon with admiration for their vision and wisdom. The great Presidency of Dr. Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan, who was an internationally acclaimed philosopher and statesman, is remembered to this day. The incumbent Vice President of India, Mohammad Hamid Ansari, is a visionary and a true statesman who can bring much glory to this country and the President’s office and hence should be elected as the next President of India. Ansari has the potential of making a great President.

Intellectual and thoughtful
Ansari is not a career politician. He is a retired Indian diplomat who, since his retirement, has been one of the influential intellectuals of the country. Anyone who has ever had an in-depth conversation with the Vice President, as has this author, will realize the greatness of the man and the magnitude of his knowledge and wisdom. Calm, composed and thoughtful, Ansari doesn’t jump to hasty conclusions but nudges his listeners to think rationally and form considered and wise opinions. Clearly, this Vice President could be India’s next ‘wise President’.

Diplomat, academic, strategic thinker, peacemaker…
Ansari is a man of many parts. He has been a distinguished diplomat with a sophisticated understanding of the world and India’s potential role in it (he was Ambassador in UAE, Australia, Afghanistan, Iran and Saudi Arabia) an outstanding academic (Visiting Professor at Jawaharlal Nehru University and Distinguished Fellow at the Observer Research Foundation), able administrator (Vice-Chancellor of Aligarh Muslim University), well-known strategic thinker (member of the National Security Advisory Board, and co-Chairman, India-U.K. Round Table) and a great scholar (author of a number of books). He has also been very active in the India-Pakistan track-two forums and has always put his best foot forward in advocating sustainable peace between the two countries. Ansari was seen as a sincere peacemaker and honest statesman in the Indo-Pak track-two circuits. While he always kept India’s national interest in mind in his interactions at the track-two meetings, he never came across as an irrational jingoist.  Ansari always had a solution whenever the two sides found themselves in a diplomatic impasse. He is a man of great intelligence who has exhibited exceptional skills at consensus building and excellent grasp of complex political debates, domestic and international.
My own interactions with Ansari were during my stint at the ORF and in the track-two circuits. Though far senior in age and stature, he always showed a sense of egalitarianism in dealing with his younger colleagues. With his intimate knowledge of international affairs especially the West Asian region, he was truly a fountain of wisdom and forward thinking at ORF. As a celebrated author of a number of academic books and scholarly articles, both the academic and the strategic communities hold him in high esteem. His caliber as a great statesman was once again witnessed by the nation in the manner in which he has been chairing the Rajya Sabha sessions with impartiality and great aplomb for the last five years.

The importance of a visionary Rashtrapati
We in India are accustomed to think that whoever becomes the President will not make much of a difference. That is a popular misnomer. At a time when India is passing through an era of political turbulence caused by widespread corruption and mal-governance, and political uncertainty created by weak coalition governments, this country deserves a Rashtrapati who can boost its morale and give it the much needed moral leadership and wise counsel. The people of India are in need of a Rashtrapati who they can look up to for inspiration and guidance. Indeed, it is the absence of such a visionary statesman in the Raisina Hill that drove the multitude of disillusioned Indians to Anna Hazare and the ilk. There is no doubt that Hamid Ansari is someone who can rise to the occasion and restore the lost stature of India’s Presidency and lead the country through these troubled and cynical times with his wisdom and vision. 

There is at the moment no clarity about the positions of various national and regional political parties regarding the Presidential candidate and the nuances of number games. Corridors of power in New Delhi keenly await the several political bargains that are likely to unfold in the days to come. Whatever may be the nature of such games that the political parties are gearing up to play, the need of the hour is for them to realize that they should do everything to restore the lost stature of the President’s office. Political parties should resist the temptation of making ‘rubber-stamp’ Presidents out of non-descript, undeserving and unknown entities so as to suit their petty political agendas. While the President may not be non-political, his/her politics should be of a higher stature. This nation deserves that and Hamid Ansari can bring to the office precisely that.

(Source: Greater Kashmir, May 6, 2012. URL: http://www.greaterkashmir.com/news/2012/May/6/hamid-ansari-for-president-66.asp )

Respond to Pakistan’s peace overtures

Pakistan is most likely looking for genuine strategic accommodation with India

STATECRAFT BY HAPPYMON JACOB

In response to Pakistan’s repeated calls and signals for peace-making, foreign policy mandarins in New Delhi seem to be behaving like a bunch of peace conservatives. This peace conservatism could be a result of a number of factors: lack of trust, dialogue-fatigue with Islamabad, domestic political preoccupations, or hard-nosed strategic considerations. At worst, New Delhi is ignoring Islamabad’s calls for peace; at best it is giving Pakistani peace initiatives a selective treatment wherein it wants to talk about one item and not another. 

Pakistani peace initiatives 
Recent meetings between Indian and Pakistani Commerce ministers Anand Sharma and Makhdoom Amin, respectively, have resulted in a number of trade-related agreements between the two sides. While India has decided, in principle, to allow foreign direct investment from Pakistan, Pakistan is taking steps to finalise a system of “negative list” for trade with India.  Both the sides have agreed to open branches of banks in each other’s countries, set up the India-Pakistan Business Council with co-chairs from both sides, and to ease visa rules for business travel. 

Rawalpindi’s signaling 
Increasing trade ties may be seen by ‘security-traditionalists’ as secondary issues between the two sides. Lets therefore look at some recent security-related developments.  Consider the recent statement of Pakistan’s Army Chief immediately after the Siachen avalanche that killed over 135 Pakistani soldiers. He is reported to have said: “All issues should be resolved and peaceful co-existence is very necessary for both countries. There is no doubt about that," he also hoped that the Siachen issue is "resolved so that both the countries don't have to pay the cost". Kayani’s statement assumes significance for two reasons: he is not known to be a very India-friendly Pak General, and, more importantly, his words count in Pakistan. Hence the statement on the need to have “peaceful coexistence” with India coming from Kayaniis of great significance.  After all, Rawalpindi is not known for pitching for Indo-Pak peace. 

Sharif, Khar and Zardari…and Agni 
Indeed, even before Kayani made the above statement, Pakistan’s former Prime Minister and leader of the Opposition, Nawaz Sharif, had gone even further in his recommendation. He had said that Pakistan should lead the withdrawal from Siachen Glacier, and that India would then automatically follow suit. Pakistan foreign minister Hina Rabbani Khar also reportedly said that Pakistan should review troop deployments in Siachen.  Indeed, she also went on to argue, to quote The Nation newspaper of Pakistan, “Islamabad now trusts New Delhi more than ever before and believes the Kashmir dispute cannot be a roadblock”. 

Pakistan president Zardari’s day-long visit to Indian on April 8 should also be seen as part of this growing chorus in Pakistan to better relations with India. While nothing greatly substantial may have been achieved during his brief visit, it was symbolic of Islamabad’s intentions vis-à-vis India. I was also surprised to note that there weren’t any aggressive reaction from Pakistan when India recently test-fired its nuclear-capable ICBM, Agni-V. 

How to view these developments? How should we put these developments in proper perspective? Considering that the Indian response to most of these peace overtures from Pakistan has been lukewarm, if not disinterested, I imagine that ‘peace conservatism’ is the dominant tendency in today’s New Delhi. This ‘peace conservatism’ could be due to three inter-related reasons. One, New Delhi may reason that Islamabad’s peace initiatives are tactical in nature and they do not reflect a real change of strategic thinking in Islamabad, and certainly not in Rawalpindi. They are just buying time. Secondly, Pakistani peace initiatives are also likely to be seen by peace conservatives in New Delhi as an embattled country’s desperate moves. Given Pakistan’s continuing fall from glory in the eyes of the comity of nations, one way to convince the international community that Pakistan is serious about peace and stability is to talk peace with India. This is seasonal at best and when things get better at the international front, Pakistan will be back to its old games. Thirdly, it could also be argued that by talking peace with India, Pakistan is indulging in its age-old trick of creating a political smokescreen for strategic advantages. In other words, talking peace with India is a Pakistani ploy to lull India into complacence: remember what the Pakistani army was doing when the peace deal was being put together in Lahore in 1999? 

However, I think the opposite is true.  I tend to think that Pakistan is most likely looking for genuine strategic accommodation with India. It has realized that many of its anti-India grand strategies have terribly failed and hence it wants to resolve its outstanding conflicts with India. Also Pakistan is faced with a two-front situation and hence wants to lessen the security burden on itself. I also believe that these Pakistani peace initiatives will have long-term strategic implications. However, even if one were to think that these are tactical (hence to be reversed in the long-term) measures from the Pakistani side, which I believe is the worst-case scenario, there is no reason to think that tactical measures will have absolutely no strategic implications at all: indeed, often it so happens that the tactical measures states adopt do lead to strategic outcomes. Hence even if New Delhi wants to go by the worst-case scenario argument, it should positively respond to Pakistani peace overtures and get them to sign peace deals with it on all outstanding issues. And if Pakistan, in future, reverses its peace deals with India, it would have disastrous consequences for itself, as is witnessed by history. 

The moment is ripe for some definitive action on the India-Pakistan front and so why not start from Siachen? New Delhi should positively respond to the Siachen “offers” by Kayani, Sharrief and Khar. It should not heed to the ever-pessimistic analysis of peace conservatives in New Delhi. The fact is that both Islamabad and Rawalpindi have signaled India that they want to make peace with India. Remember, it is not often that we hear both Islamabad and Rawalpindi talking to India in one voice.

(Source: Greater Kashmir, April 22, 2012. URL: http://www.greaterkashmir.com/news/2012/Apr/22/respond-to-pakistan-s-peace-overtures-16.asp )

Non-violent state and not-so-non-violent society

The fact is that tolerance to violence is thinly separated from its actual commission

STATECRAFT BY HAPPYMON JACOB

Perhaps all societies have internal contradictions; perhaps human beings themselves have contradictory steaks in them. I do not know that for sure yet, but I do know that there are a lot of internal contradictions within our society, the Indian society. For one, we have a self-proclaimed non-violent state, which has consistently maintained a defensive posture towards the international system, and yet the state of non-violence inside the state is not very laudable. Two recent instances triggered me to reflect on this issue in a more self-critical manner: India’s vote against Sri Lanka at the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC), which I justified in my column last week, and the controversial child custody case in Norway involving an Indian family.

The non-violent state
India is a self-proclaimed non-violent and defensive country. It has been averse to the use of aggression against other states - both now and historically. Our conventional as well as nuclear weapons are guided by defensive intentions, doctrines and postures. Modern India has never, with the honorable exception of 1971, projected force outside its territorial boundaries even when it had clear incentives, reasons and international encouragement to do so. Indeed, India even refused to use force against a particular neighboring country even when aggressively provoked by it, time and again.

The Indian state has also historically condemned all acts of aggression against small powers by big ones in the international system. India is convinced that imperialism and colonialism are bad ideas and has been consistent in its disapproval of them. We are also against any form of discrimination in the international system and we have always spoken up against human rights violations elsewhere. That said, there is a clear domestic-international divide in our discourse on non-violence.

The blinders of our mind and domestic violence
We are very upset about the violation of Tamil people’s human rights in Sri Lanka and hence voted against Colombo in UNHRC, and yet we did almost nothing when over 100 people were killed in Kashmir by our own security forces. Some people did react, but I would call that a much toned-down reaction for it was much less in intensity in comparison to how we have reacted to what happened in, say, Sudan, Egypt or Somalia. We look the other way when the Indian state wages a war against the Maoist-infested central Indian jungles even though we know that one of the major reasons why a lot of tribals there take to arms is because the state has provided them with nothing but many forms of structural violence. We are often tolerant towards custody killings, police brutality and often ask for public – extra-judicial – hangings/punishment of criminals without a trial forgetting that societies cannot wish away their responsibility in creating the social environment in which a crime gets committed.

How many of us are aware of the dehumanizing living and psychological conditions inside our prisons that often house more under-trials than convicts? Many of us believe that it is ok for ‘criminals’ to be treated like that for they are criminals after all, aren’t they? I often remind myself of what Dostoevsky once said: “The degree of civilization in a society can be judged by entering its prisons”.

The fact is that tolerance to violence is thinly separated from its actual commission. The state of non-violence within us and in our society is appalling and yet we preach to the international community on the need to avoid violence. We voted against Colombo: what would be the reaction of our society – forget the state – if some country were to table a resolution in UNHRC against New Delhi on human rights violations in Kashmir?

We do have an image problem. We just don’t like anyone telling us that we are wrong. We sit in judgment of the US about the condition of prisons in Guantanamo bay (apart from its legality etc.). What if they were to tell us improve your prisons first!

The castes of our mind and the double-talk on discrimination
We talked about nuclear apartheid that the west was practicing against us for a long time. However, today the West accepts India as part of the global non-proliferation regime and so we don’t invoke the term ‘nuclear apartheid’ when the West metes out the same treatment to Iran. Isn’t the age-old caste system – widely prevalent in the Hindu society and even in the Muslim and Christian societies even though in smaller measure – the most abhorrent kind of structural violence existing in the contemporary Indian society? We know that and yet we still proudly flaunt our caste (or hide them with shame)!

There are also other castes of mind that are in operation in our societies. We still live bounded by our “dear” feudal social structures even in the most modern of our cities. We talk about the need to pump in more and more resources into our IITs and IIMs to make them more and more world-class but hardly anyone is talking about the poor Sarkari schools. Our castes of mind are stronger than we think they are!

The non-self-reflective moral outrage
When the Norwegian child protection authorities recently took away two children from their Indian parents alleging that they were not being well-looked after by their parents, the high and mightly in New Delhi got involved with the case and the Indian media and civil society seethed with anger. They cried foul and even accused the Norwegian government of racial discrimination.

I wish our politicians, officials, media, page-three celebrities and civil societies give our children at least a fraction of the focus they gave to the two “Indian” children in Norway. If only we spent some more resources to take care of our children begging in the streets, if only we gave proper education and shelter to our child labourers, if only we showed more outrage when we see the millions of uncared for children in our midst!

What is even sadder is that we even go to the extent of justifying child labour saying, “if these children work they can at least find something to eat and get a place to sleep”. How many of us have young children working in our own homes? I think it is a ridiculous and hypocritical argument to say that by letting children work we are doing them a favour. The fact is that we must force our governments to spend more resources on taking care of these children rather than sending diplomats to Oslo to take care of the ‘Indian’ children there or buying more and more weapons every year.

(Source: Greater Kashmir, April 15, 2012 URL: http://www.greaterkashmir.com/news/2012/Apr/15/non-violent-state-and-not-so-non-violent-society-6.asp )

Implications of India’s UNHRC vote

If India wants to be counted as a major power it will have to make up its mind on important global issues

STATECRAFT BY HAPPYMON JACOB

For some time I was unable to make up my mind regarding my own personal response to India’s vote against Sri Lanka at the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) on March 22nd. Frankly, I was debating what kind of national interest I should keep in mind when framing my response - enlightened national interest or strategic interest of the country? After much debating, I have now made up my mind. New Delhi did the right thing by voting against Colombo. Let me tell you why.

First of all, let me examine the rationale of those who vehemently argued that New Delhi should side with Colombo especially at a time when the Euro-Atlantic political community seemed to have been clearly all out against the Sri Lankan government on the issue of Human Right abuses and war crimes.

India would, proponents of such a view argued, lose its traditionally strong diplomatic relationship and strategic leverage with the Sri Lankan government if it voted against Colombo. Being on the right side of the Sri Lankan government is of great significance at this point of time all the more because of the Chinese forays into Sri Lanka. I was in Colombo recently and the increasing Chinese presence there should be seen to be believed. Not only do they have an economic presence in the island nation but also strategic presence. India’s vote against Colombo (and Chinese vote in favour) is likely to deepen this Sino-Sri Lankan strategic partnership. Conspiracy theorists have also argued that it is the Chinese closeness to the Sri Lankan regime that the Americans wanted to target and hence the UNHRC resolution..

The other argument made by critics of the Indian decision is that India should not abide by the western (read American) human rights standards. They argue that the Indian vote shows that New Delhi has finally started acting under the directions of Washington on key international issues where India’s voice matters. What else, they ask, can explain the fact that India did not respond in the same manner when it had to make up its mind on human rights issues in Sudan, Belarus, Turkmenistan, North Korea etc? And this vote has now created a precedent for India and whenever a similar situation arises again it will be forced by the West vote as per their directives. Bad precedent it is, the argument goes.

More importantly, the fact that India has now taken a stand on human rights issues with regard to other countries will mean that India will be bound by the same standards on human rights situations from now on. In other words, other countries will now talk about human rights abuses in Kashmir, and India will not be able to hide under the classic argument of “non-interference in internal affairs”.

I am not going to critique each of the above-mentioned reasons. Rather, I will explain my reasons for arguing that Indian decision to vote against Sri Lanka is laudable. First of all, let’s look at the vote from an enlightened strategic interest. The fact that India has been pushing hard to become a permanent member of the UN Security Council and wants to be treated as an emerging global power simply means that India has to adopt a new behavior pattern – increased power presupposes increased responsibilities. If India wants to be counted as a major power it will have to make up its mind on important global issues. It would be impossible to be a free-riding great power.

It is also important to note that a country’s foreign policy can not be based only on material considerations. Normative considerations need to form an important aspect of India’s external outlook and policy. Respect for human rights is a good normative consideration irrespective of whether or not the western countries have been talking about it. Sure, India can have its own version of human rights. But you can’t be criticizing the western notions of human rights standards just because they are western. Do we have an alternative conception of human rights? If so, please bring them on board and discuss it with the rest of the world. India can not afford to go on criticizing the western human rights standards when it is unwilling to articulate its alternative version of human rights standards.

The fact is that the Sri Lankan government grossly violated human rights and killed thousands of Tamil civilians in the final stages of the anti-LTTE campaign. There is no denying of that. And that needs to be condemned. More importantly, there is only triumphalism in today’s Colombo rather than remorse or any attempt at bringing justice and succor to the Tamil population in the country. Even to this day those speaking against the Sri Lankan government’ policies continue to disappear in “white vans without number plates”. This should not be allowed to continue.

Does India have the moral standing to sit in judgment of human rights violations in other countries when there are number of commissions of such acts within India itself? Of course, if India judges other countries on the basis of certain human rights standards, it will also be judged by others on the same standards. You can’t get away from that. But so what? I think it is time that India as a nation acknowledged that we have violated human rights of our own people on many occasions and that we regret it. And let’s say that we will make sure that such instances will not be allowed to repeat in future, rather than trying to find cover under the vague and much-embattled notion of sovereignty and the principle of “non-interference in the internal affairs of other counties”. Its time India adopted new standards of human rights for itself and others.

(Source: Greater Kashmir April 8, 2012. URL: http://greaterkashmir.com/news/2012/Apr/8/implications-of-india-s-unhrc-vote-28.asp.