India Against Itself

What is India’s biggest security threat? China? Pakistan? Terrorism? Indeed, these three items are most likely to top our list of the security threats faced by the country. I, however, do not think these are India’s biggest security threats. I am of the opinion that India’s biggest security threat is itself. For one, external threats such as China and Pakistan are likely to unite India while the internal threats could easily create deep schisms within the body politic of the country. Secondly, India seems to be well prepared to address the security threats emanating from the external sources, but is undoubtedly ill prepared to face the ones stemming from within.  Thirdly, I do not think that India is going to face any real existential threats from China and Pakistan in the days to come, but India’s internal threats are clear, present and imminent. 

The recent episode of how people belonging to Northeast India had to run back to their native states from ‘mainland India’ is illustrative of the kind of existential security threats that India will face in future. Why do I think that India’s future security complex will be dominated by threats emanating from its domestic sphere? Here’re some of the reasons why I think India’s biggest security threat is itself. 

Culture of Status Quoism
Our governments revel in status quoism, especially the Sonia Gandhi-led Congress party. The Congress Party’s view of India is mechanical, not political. In other words, its politics of governance is premised on the assumption that progress is a convenient byproduct of stability, defined as status quo. It forgets that India is an unmanageably huge country with massive problems and the only way we can begin to resolve the country’s problems is by initiating bold, large-scale and out-of-the-box policy initiatives, not by piecemeal, half-hearted and politically bankrupt initiatives. This ‘never-rock-the-boat’ culture of the Congress party is partly due to the inability of the Congress Chief to act in unconventional ways: she is a prisoner of her public images and perceptions. Hence status quoism is the best policy for a party whose leadership’s ability to continue in power depends on images conventional politics.When was the last time the Congress party made an effort to think out of the box?!

A related problem is the politics of deferment that the Indian state is so adept at practicing. It believes that it is always better to postpone the resolution of difficult problems rather then address them head on. The idea is that once the burn is taken out of a burning issue, you can afford to ignore it because no body is going to take about it thereafter. However, the problem lingers on only to blow up at a later point of time. 

The question of stakes 
The idea of India can exist only in so far as the citizens of India have stakes in its continued existence. The idea of India is dependent on our stakes in it. Hence lets ask the question: what are some of the possible stakes Indians can have in the idea of India? I can think of four: 1) instrumental reasons (political and economic benefits), 2) cultural reasons (a sense of togetherness, cultural bonds etc.), 3)fear of the other (external threat perceptions)and, 4) Political reasons(patriotism etc.). The question to ponder over here is whether these reasons are still valid and for who. In other words, how many Indians consider one or more of the above-mentioned reasons are still valid for them in order to be part of the idea and reality of India. The recent incidents of violence in the country show, at least to my mind, that the fear of the internal other is replacing the fear of the external other! Humans are greatly persuaded by ideas that give them a sense of meaning and purpose, but once they lose their faith in those ideas, their sense of meaning and understanding of reality also undergo changes.  

Misguided politics of the middle class 
It is true that the degree of state-society negotiations in India is deeply unsatisfactory. And the citizens of the country, in general, and the middle class, in particular, are unhappy about it, justifiably so. The extremely limited space forstate-society negotiations in India has resulted in an acute lack of healthy civil society activism in the country. The available space is now hogged by ‘god men’ of different kinds (Baba Ramdev, Sri Sri Ravishankar and Anna Hazare etc.) whose agenda cannot be considered as contributing to a healthy idea of India. 

Misplaced Aspirations 
Yet another reason why the country has not been able to manage its internal threats is due to its misplaced global aspirations. India has, for sometime now, been focusing on the potential role it could play on the global stage and therefore been directing its material, intellectual and political resources towards such an objective. To my mind, this is not just a story of misplaced aspirations but, more importantly, has resulted in the country’s inability to focus its various resources on tackling its ‘internal threats’. For instance, take a look at the ever-increasing defense expenditure of the country that is often referred to as ‘arming without aiming’ or ‘defense buildup without a grand strategy’. India finds it necessary to continue to increase its defence spending in order to cater to its global aspirations as well as to address its ‘external threats’. If only India had focused these resources on the domestic front, the country’s governance would have been much better and the idea of India would have many more takers. 

Aversion to Reforms
One of the major reasons, and often cited by a large number of informed commentators, for the absence of good governance in the country is the lack of reforms. Indian state has a fundamental aversion to reforms of any kind. Numerous commissions have been set up in this country to recommend steps to the government for reforming its police forces, judiciary, electoral process, Civil Services, CrPC and what not, all of which belong to an era that we don’t belong to anymore. The government has implemented hardly any of those recommendations either because there is no pressure from the civil society or because the political class is just not serious about it. It would not be an exaggeration to argue that the current state of India’s police forces, judiciary, electoral process, Civil Services, and CrPC symbolizes an ancient idea of India: not an idea of India that belongs to the 21st century.

(Source: Greater Kashmir, August 26, 2012. URL: http://greaterkashmir.com/news/2012/Aug/26/india-against-itself-22.asp )

Politics of Asylum

Should the Hindus from Pakistan be given asylum by the government of India?

Statecraft BY HAPPYMON JACOB

The Indian media has been feverishly advocating that Pakistani Hindus should be given political asylum in India. However, the Indian political class, barring the Hindu right wing BJP of course, has remained diplomatic over the issue, carefully avoiding from taking any stand on the issue. There is a snowballing sympathy wave for the Pakistani minorities who are crossing over into India due to the ill treatment that they have been facing in their own homeland. 

I have been closely looking at these developments in order to formulate my own position on the issue, and yet my own position is clearly a complex one with many shades of moral dilemma. First of all, there is absolutely no doubt that the minorities – Hindus, Christians etc. – face discrimination in Pakistan. Quite apart from the fact that Islamic extremists in Pakistan persecute the minorities, Pakistani minorities are also legally discriminated against. For instance, non-Muslims are not allowed to become either the President or Prime Minister of Pakistan. 

Much as I am deeply saddened at their plight, I would, from a policy point of view, argue that India should desist from the temptation to announce asylum or citizenship to Pakistani Hindus crossing over into India. The government of India should play down the issue in order to avoid the potential diplomatic complications. And that is precisely what New Delhi seems to be doing now. New Delhi should extend the visas of those who have already arrived in the country, if so requested. Indian authorities should perhaps take up the issue with Pakistan during confidential bilateral parlays. In the meantime, the Indian media should exercise restraint and the BJP should just shut up. 

Is India a Hindu nation?No it is not; it is a secular country and the Indian constitution is abundantly clear on that. India is not the homeland of Hindus but of Indians, however much the Sangh Parivar might try and interpret it differently. If so, why should the persecution of Hindus in Pakistan bother the Indian state anymore than the persecution of anyone in Pakistan or Sri Lanka or Nepal or China, for that matter? Making a hue and cry over the manner in which Hindus are treated in Pakistan and keeping mum when the same treatment is meted out to other minorities, like christens, there is not befitting a secular state. 

The question of implications 
It is true that India has a tradition of accepting refugees from different countries of south Asia into the country and so giving asylum to the persecuted Pakistani Hindus is the right thing to do from a purely humanitarian point of view. That said, we should not forget the unintended consequences of such an act of charity. If New Delhi does indeed make public offers of asylum to Pakistani Hindus, it will most certainly lead to unnecessary politicization of the issue by Pakistan. Pakistan is likely to make similar statements of concern and worry vis-à-vis Indian Muslims some of who are undoubtedly persecuted in various parts of India. Moreover, if India offers political asylum to some Hindus from Pakistan, who have managed to cross over, it is likely that the remaining members of the Hindu community in Pakistan will be further isolated and condemned by Pakistani religious bigots. In other words, India’s humanitarian gesture could potentially end up creating more difficulties for Hindus in Pakistan and, indeed, also for Muslims in India. 

Moreover, Indian offer of asylum will surely have negative implications for India-Pakistan bilateral relations. The recent strides in Indo-Pak relations are both positive and hold great promise for a grand reconciliation between the two sides. Very importantly, there is a clear willingness on both sides to deemphasize their differences and to focus on issues that are agreed upon by both the sides. The ‘politics of asylum’ can damage these bilateral gains. 

The moral question 
Allow me to be a little more provocative. Do we have a moral right to sit in judgment of the manner in which minorities are treated in Pakistan? Far from it, I would say. If Pakistan is guilty of persecuting its minorities, India’srecord is not far better. While the Constitution of India does not discriminate anyone on the basis of religion, there is no denying the fact that minorities, especially Muslims, are discriminated against in many parts of the country. In some cities, they even find it difficult to find accommodation just because they are from a minority community. Has the Indian media, now morally outraged and going hammer and tongs against Pakistan, forgotten what Narendra Modi’s government did to Muslims in Gujarat? Have they forgotten the fact that he has been elected back to office despite what the Muslims had to go through in Gujarat? I wonder how the mainstream Indian media, catering primarily to the Indian middle class’ delusions of grandeur, would react if Islamabad were to declare that they would give political asylum to the Muslims who are/were persecuted in Gujarat and other places in India! They would call it a conspiracy, just as Pakistan’s interior minister who thinks that it is an Indian conspiracy to give 250 visas to Pakistani Hindus. 

Many ‘realist’ analysts in India have argued in the past few weeks that India should ‘actively’ look after the welfare of the 4.5 or so million Hindus in Pakistan as doing so would be ‘strategically advantageous’ to India in the longer run. Pakistan has done it for a very long time vis-à-vis India and I fail to see how, in the final analysis, it has become strategically advantageous to Pakistan.

(Source: Greater Kashmir, 19 AUGUST 2012. URL: http://www.greaterkashmir.com/news/2012/Aug/19/politics-of-asylum-4.asp )

From the Munich Security Conference, 3-5 February, Munich, Germany

                          (Next to me is Matthias Gebauer, Chief Correspondent Berlin, SPIEGEL ONLINE, Berlin)

 (with Samer Naber, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Jordan and Georg Schulze Zumkley, CDU/CSU Parliamentary Group, German Bundestag)

              (With Besa Kabashi-Ramaj, Senior Advisor to the Minister for the Kosovo Security Force)
         

                                   (Meeting Senator John Mccain)

Character Certificates for Kashmiris!

Statecraft

BY HAPPYMON JACOB

How would you deal with injustice and discrimination? By equipping the victim of injustice to submissively evade it or by strongly dealing with the source of injustice? I presume your answer is the latter. If so, let me give you a similar scenario. 

When the Union Minister for Rural Development, Mr. Jairam Ramesh came visiting Kashmir last week, students of Kashmir University complained to him that they face discrimination in other parts of the country both from the police and the general public. I was deeply agitated to listen to the response of the Minister:“It has been observed that some of the trainees (Kashmiri youth who were given job training by the Jammu and Kashmir Entrepreneurship Development Institute) faced difficulty in getting accommodation outside the State. We are ready to issue a certificate in which it would be written that the trainee seeking accommodation is not linked with militancy.”

The media in Srinagar, Jammu and Delhi either chose not to comment on it or described it as an excellent example of the Union Minister’s concern for the Kashmiri youth. I am willing to admit that the Minister is most likely to have made this comment in all sincerity, wanting to help the hapless Kashmiri youth who get harassed from the moment he/she steps out of the state. However, the Minister’s assumed sincerity is no reason why anyone should overlook the potentially disastrous implications of his statement. I can either overlook the seemingly innocuous statement or critically ‘read into’ it. I am going to do the latter for that is precisely my job as an analyst. 

Deconstructing the Minister’s words 
One Jammu-based newspaper did carry a critique of the Minister’s statement arguing that the Minister’s statement does in effect challenge the unity of India because it would mean that Kashmiris would be carrying a certain letter from the government to ‘visit India’, which would effectively render them foreigners. This is hardly my concern here. 

I have several problems with the statement by Mr. Jairam Ramesh. First of all, this statement smacks of a complete lack of political imagination by the Union Minister. The minister has put forward an unworkable and unviable technocratic solution for a deeply political issue: of Kashmiris facing discrimination in other parts of India. But then I don’t particularly blame Mr. Ramesh for it; this is how the Congress party has dealt with the Kashmir issue all along, merely trying to maintain the status-quo without any political imagination. 

Secondly, a Kashmiri youngster bearing a certificate from a District Magistrate in J&K looking for a job or accommodation in other parts of the country will look like Bangladeshi or Tamil refugees who we often see in India looking for some material/financial help. That is not the status that a Kashmiri should have in India. Kashmiris are simply not refugees in this country, they are citizens and they should be treated like citizens. 

Moreover, I have deep reservations about people having to carry identity cards and letters of introductions in their own country to prove to others that they are harmless. I am reminded of the fate of the Jews in Nazi Germany who would have to carry identity cards for easy identification. We all know what happened to them after they were asked to carry identity cards or special identification marks. More so, Kashmiris already have to carry identification papers in their own state, and the Minister’s suggestion would effectively require Kashmiris to do the same in the rest of the country as well. Remember, this is not something that Indians from other parts of the country do. 

Furthermore, what message will the Kashmiri youth get when they have to carry documents certifying their non-participation in militancy for them to be treated like normal citizens in India? For sure it will make them feel that India is indeed an alien country where they are looked upon as terrorists and troublemakers, and that they are therefore unwanted there. Moreover, such certificates can and will solidify the false images that many people in the rest of the country have about Kashmiris. Those ‘Indians’ who are shown the certificate are likely to think that their impression about the Kashmirs as supporters of terrorism are indeed correct; or else why would the government take the initiative of certifying that some of them are not militants. In other words, if Omar Abdullah’s government takes the words of Jairam Ramesh seriously and issues ‘character certificates’ to Kashmiri youth ‘visiting India’ then it will surely mean that those who do not posses such character certificates are likely to be militants/terrorists. 

More importantly, this is simply not how a government deals with the issue of discrimination. If the government knows that some citizens and members of the police force in India do discriminate against the Kashmiri youth, then the government should sternly deal with such people rather than come out with unimaginative solutions of this kind. The Indian constitution is very clear on this: Article 15 under the section on Fundamental Rights prohibits ‘discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth’. Minister Ramesh should persuade his cabinet colleagues to make sure that the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Indian constitution to its citizens are indeed given to them, as a right, not as a favour, rather than offering to issue character certificates to the Kashmir youth ‘visiting India’. 

In any case, those who have been discriminating against Kashmiris either because they are Muslims or because they are Kashmiri Muslims will continue to discriminate irrespective of whether or not they carry a character certificate from Jairam Ramesh. What the Kashmiris need is not the Indian state giving them character certificates but rather uphold the laws of the land and attempt to bring about anattitudinal change in the minds of those people who have negative images about Kashmiris. 


(Source: Greater Kashmir, 29 July, 2012. URL:http://greaterkashmir.com/news/2012/Jul/29/character-certificates-for-kashmiris--9.asp )

Indo-Pak Cricket Diplomacy

Cricket does have the potential to create friendship between the two sides, but….

Statecraft BY HAPPYMON JACOB

Indo-Pak cricket diplomacy is back in action. India has announced that it will host the Pakistani cricket teamfor a seriesof matches in December 2012–January 2013. This decision by the Indian cricket administrators, duly supported by the government of India, is indeed a welcome one. One would imagine that this is another step in the direction of normalizing the Indo-Pak ties: but there is a need to ask a few more questions about the utility of cricket matches in promoting Indo-Pak normalisation. 

For the record, this is not the first time that the South Asian neighbours are engaging in cricket diplomacy. In 1987, Gen. Zia ul Haque visited India to ease tensions between the two countries: but the official explanation for the visit was to watch an Indo-Pak cricket match. In March last year Manmohan Singh invited his Pakistani counterpart Yousuf Raza Gilani at the Mohali cricket stadium to watch the Indo-Pak World Cup semi-final: they also talked bilateral ties on the sidelines.

The critics 
Apart from some security analysts based in Delhi, the Bhartiya Janata Party (BJP) and former Indian cricketer Sunil Gavaskar have criticized the government’s support for the decision to invite Pakistani team to India. Gavaskar said: “Being a Mumbaikar I feel what is the urgency when there is no cooperation from the other side."Maharashtra BJP state president Sudhir Mungantiwar argued that “there is a tremendous anger among the general public against Pakistan's role in fomenting terror in India and this decision to resume the cricket ties is against that sentiment”. We are still to hear from the Shiv Sena and the members of the other lunatic fringes! 

The thrust of the critics’ arguments is the following: India should not have anything to do with Pakistan till the latter punishes the perpetrators of 26/11 Mumbai terror attacks. This was precisely the ‘wisdom’ that guided the Indian response towards Pakistan in the wake of the Mumbai terror attacks. However, India slowly realized over time that a no-talk policy would not help India meet any of its declared objectivesvis-à-vis Pakistan nor does it force Pakistan to do India’s bidding. New Delhi’s realization came late, but it did come. It is the same logic that the critics are using today to run down the proposed visit of the Pakistani cricket team’s to India. These critics do not, however, dispute the underlying assumption that inviting the Pakistani team to India would contribute to normalizing Indo-Pak bilateral ties. The critics’ argument is that inviting the Pakistani team to India is not doing justice to the victims of Mumbai 26/11. In other words, how can you play cricket with your enemies?  

That said, if one were to argue that inviting the Pakistani cricket team to India might not necessarily contribute to normalizing Indo-Pak relations, there would be some merit in such an argument. Indeed, Pakistan team’s visit to India might increase the enmity between the two sides. Cricket is religion in both India and Pakistan. Cricket can create mass hysteria in both the countries like nothing else can. More so, India-Pakistan cricket matches are portrayed as ‘wars’ and ‘battles’ by media on both sides. This mass hysteria, created by TRP-seeking media houses and profit-seeking business houses, more often than not gets identified with patriotism, infantile nationalism and pan-Indianism when the Indo-Pak ‘war’ is organized either in India or Pakistan. There is no doubt that the patriotic feelings and anti-Pakistan/India sentiments generated by ‘cricket wars’ can sustain the adversarial relations that the two sides have with each other. 

In the India-Pakistan context, the biggest mistake was not getting the Pakistani players to play for the Indian Premier League (IPL) tournaments in India. The various team owners who did not select the Pakistani players for their teams put the blame on the government saying that they were not sure whether the Pakistani players would be given visa by the government. The government, in turn, put the blame on the teams saying that they were free to choose the players. The end result was that the Pakistani players felt humiliated and so did many cricket lovers in Pakistan. Why do I say that it was a mistake not to select Pakistani players in IPL teams? I say so because when the Pakistani players were part of the IPL teams in 2008, for the first time we saw ordinary Indians, patriotic or not, cheering for Pakistani players on Indian soil. Cheering for a Pakistani player on the Indian soil would have been unthinkable before the IPL began: IPL made it acceptable and normal. You could cheer for a Pakistani cricketer in full public view and go home feeling no less patriotic! Pakistani participation in IPL-2008 not only changed Indo-Pak cricketing history, but also had a positive impact on Indo-Pak relations, people-to-people to relations, that is. I had written way back in 2008 in this very column: “While the recent visit of the Indian foreign minister to Pakistan did not yield any results, the 44 day IPL cricket tournament has managed to change mindsets in the two countries.” 

I do believe that ‘cricket wars’ between India and Pakistan has the potential to create unnecessary tension between the two sides with implications, albeit indirect, for their bilateral relations. However, if the government and the media houses in India can resist from promoting anti-Pakistan feelings in the run up to and during the December-January Pak tour of India, cricket does have the potential to create friendship between the two sides. Multi-track contacts between India and Pakistan are the only way India and Pakistan can create peace between their nations: after all, it is not enough to make peace between the officials of the two sides but also between the common people of India and Pakistan. 

However, if India’s cricket administers and government are seriously considering Indo-Pak cricket ties as a confidence building measure, then they must do more than inviting the Pakistani team to play in India. They must do what they did in 2008: create conditions for Pakistani players to be part of the next edition of IPL. What better Indo-Pak CBM can you have than Indian cricket fans cheering for Pakistani players on Indian grounds at the cost of iconic Indian players!

(Source: Greater Kashmir, July 22, 2012. URL: http://greaterkashmir.com/news/2012/Jul/22/indo-pak-cricket-diplomacy-5.asp )

Spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak

There is hardly any consensus about anything in today’s Pakistan

Statecraf

HAPPYMON JACOB

Fifty nine per cent of Pakistanis consider India to be the biggest threat to Pakistan as opposed to the Taliban or al Qaeda, according to the results of a recent survey carried out by the Pew Research Centre’s Global Attitudes Project. However, 62% of Pakistanis believe it is important to improve relations with India. The survey also shows that 59 per cent Indians do not have a positive opinion of Pakistan (by the way, in Pakistan’s traditional ally China, 52 per cent of people have an unfavourable view of Pakistan!). A great deal of Indians, 70 per cent, would also like to improve their relations with Pakistan. What this survey shows is something we have always known: Indians and Pakistanis have long-held complaints vis-à-vis each other but would like their relations to improve. And this is the philosophy that guides India-Pakistan dialogues on various issues, or so we thought. 

The Siachen Talks Fall Through 
Despite the stated good intentions that both sides seem to have at the moment to improve their bilateral relations, official India-Pakistan bilateral talks do not seem to be going anywhere. Consider this: every major Pakistani politician/statesman has in the recent past said that he/she would like to see the Siachen glacier standoff with India is resolved amicably. Some even argued in Pakistan, after the recent Siachen avalanche that killed over 100 Pakistani soldiers, that Pakistan should even consider the option of unilateral withdrawal from Siachen. The Pakistani negotiators, in their recent bilateral meeting with India, however, took positions no way helpful in resolving the Siachen dispute. Indian side, for instance, argued that there should be a phased approach to resolving the Siachen conflict and hence both sides should first demarcate and identify the existing positions and thereafter disengage and demilitarize. This of course comes from the Indian fear that Pakistan could, in future, do to India what it did to Pakistan in 1984. The Pakistani side, led by Pakistan’s Defence and Cabinet Secretary Nargis Sethi, refused to go by this and restated Pakistan’s traditional line: “Both sides would vacate their troops from the triangular area between Indira Col in the west, Karakoram Pass in the east and NJ 9842”. This, given India’s uneasiness about Karakoram due to the Chinese presence in the region, essentially killed the negotiations. While Pakistan stalled this round of negotiations, there is a growing constituency in New Delhi today that argues that there is no need to make any concessions on Siachen. 

Even on Kashmir-centric CBMs, Pakistan seems to be adopting a slower approach today. India has been pushing a number of Kashmir CBMs with Pakistan but Pakistani government is going slow on them insisting that the focus should not merely be on confidence building but also on the political question of Kashmir. 

All Talk, No Action
What explains this lack of willingness to take action by India and Pakistan despite their stated desire to resolve their conflicts? Pakistan’s current lack of progress on making peace with India can best be described by the age-old adage “spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak”. Here is a state with multiple existential exigencies. Pakistan has in the recent past been facing a great deal of political uncertainty and has even had its Prime Minister, who was definitely a supporter of Indo-Pak peace, dismissed by the judiciary. There is hardly any consensus about anything in today’s Pakistan, be it about its own domestic political choices and trajectories, about the alliance with the US, or relations with India and Afghanistan. Today’s Pakistan, given that its elite and society are deeply fractious, is simply unable to decide for itself who its enemies and friends are. At a more practical level, Pakistan now has a new Prime Minister who is yet to be ‘socialised’ into the Indo-Pak relations. 

Under these circumstances, it is not surprising that Pakistan does not want to be seen as giving into Indian demands on their bilateral conflicts as doing so would add fuel to the jihadi fire in that country. 
What are the Indian constraints with regard to improving relations with Pakistan? On Siachen, there is a certain sense of hubris in New Delhi. The Indian strategic elite thinks that it is speaking from a position of strength with Pakistan on Siachen and hence there is no need to be very flexible on Siachen as it is pretty comfortable with the status quo. It also thinks that given the advancements in technology, there are today fewer Indian causalities (compared to more Pakistani casualties) in Siachen and more importantly, at least some members of the strategic community in New Delhi think that there are strategic advantages of being in Siachen. The Indian army is one of those actors that think that it loses nothing in continuing to be in possession of Siachen and it is pushing that position with the political class. That said, at least some members of the strategic elite in New Delhi also think that Pakistan can’t be trusted on Siachen. Given what happened in Kargil in 1999, there is absolutely no guarantee that Pakistan will not try and reoccupy Siachen once both sides withdraw fromthere. 

On Kashmir too, New Delhi believes that Pakistan has lost its case in Kashmir both in front of the Kashmiris as well as the international community. If so, why talk to Pakistan on the political aspects of the Kashmir problem. At best, New Delhi should talk to Pakistan on ‘soft’ CBMs with Islamabad. This, of course, is driven by the fear, as I have often written in Greater Kashmir, that Pakistan’s change of attitude on Kashmir is tactical in nature and not strategic and hence Pakistan might focus its destructive energies again on Kashmir once its domestic problems are over and the Afghan question is settled in its favour. 

Under these circumstances, and due to the impending elections in Pakistan and India, the only way the Indo-Pak dialogue can achieve some credible dividends now is by a visit by the Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to Pakistan. Such a visit could reignite the hope and optimism for peace in both the countries and force the bureaucracies and militaries on both sides in resolving at least some of their outstanding conflicts.

(Source: Greater Kashmir, July 8, 2012. URL: http://greaterkashmir.com/news/2012/Jul/8/spirit-is-willing-but-the-flesh-is-weak-15.asp )

Facilitate the return of Salahuddin

Statecraft

HAPPYMON JACOB

The burden of sins in Kashmir cannot be put solely on the shoulders of those who took to guns and those who gave them the guns (i.e. Pakistan); forces in New Delhi and Srinagar who drove them to take to guns should also share this. If so, the governments in Srinagar and New Delhi have a moral responsibility to rehabilitate those who crossed the border into Pakistan for armed training. And the authorities should rehabilitate them not as petty criminals but as ex-combatants who fought for a political cause and treat them with dignity. The Indian state can either choose to go the Sri Lankan way and kill them all till they finish or try and resolve the conflict by addressing the genuine concerns of the aggrieved people and rehabilitating the ex-combatants into the mainstream Kashmiri society. Welcoming Hizb-ul-Mujahideen chief Muhammad Yusuf Shah aka Syed Salahuddin back to Kashmir will be a major step in this direction of reconciliation and contribute to lasting peace in the state. Let me explain why. 

In my column last week I talked about the diminishing intensity of the Indo-Pak dimension of the Kashmir conflict and emphasised the need to put more focus on the New Delhi-Srinagar aspect of the conflict. I also argued that there is a great need today for reconciliation between the ruling elite in New Delhi and the Kashmiris. Rehabilitation of ex-combatants is an important step in the reconciliation process of any conflict-ridden society. 

But why Salahuddin? Engaging Salahuddin is important for a variety of reasons. There is no doubt that he is a genuine Kashmiri who took to guns for what the Indian security forces and government did in Kashmir from the mid-1980s onwards. He felt wronged by the government of India and hence decided to fight against the perceived injustice with the help of guns. However, Salahuddin has often made conciliatory gestures towards India in the past few years especially by promising non-interference during elections in Kashmir (remember he himself wanted to be an elected politician in the Kashmir valley!). More importantly, informed highly placed sources in India and overseas say today that Salahuddin himself is looking out for a place in the future politics of Kashmir, a political space with dignity.  In any case, his political future in Pakistan is extremely limited where he is almost a captive of the Pakistani ISI. 

But before we get into the pros and cons of welcoming Salahuddin to Kashmir let’s ask a general question as to how do we treat former Kashmiri militants once they decide to start new lives upon their surrender and rehabilitation? It is no secret that hundreds of Kashmiri militants based in Pakistan would like to return to their homeland to start a new life. The Jammu and Kashmir government in February 2012 announced an amnesty plan for Kashmiris who had crossed over to Pakistan for arms training and are now keen to return to their families. While the union home ministry is publically supportive of this policy, it has not been very enthusiastic about it which is evident in the manner the ministry has gone about processing and clearing the names of militants wiling to surrender. The home ministry’s response has been no more than reluctant enthusiasm. 

There are two major problems with the current policy of the rehabilitation of ex-combatants. One, there is no legal framework to take care of the families (who would return with the surrendering militants from the other side) of the rehabilitated militants; two, the militants have often felt that the surrender process is a one-sided affair and that they are treated without any dignity once they surrender. Indeed, this is one issue that Salahuddin has also flagged on many occasions. 

Benefits of Salahuddin’s returnOf course, one would not expect Salahuddin to limit himself to his household if he returns to Kashmir. He is likely to get active in the politics of the state. The more important question to ponder over is whether his return would make any difference to the resolution of the Kashmir conflict and the process of reconciliation there? 

First, if at all Salahuddin returns he is likely to return with a certain level of mainstream political agenda. In other words, Salahuddin is unlikely to return if the ‘return-deal’ (I am consciously not using the term ‘surrender-deal’) does not involve a political package that he can then use to consolidate his political fortunes in Kashmir. This political package is most likely to enable him to take up (moderate) Hurriyat-style politics with the possibility of mainstreaming himself in the subsequent years. Under such conditions, he is likely to strengthen the moderate faction of the Hurriyat. Indeed, he has often clarified that he would not be against working within a united Hurriyat. His return will also isolate extreme dissident tendencies of the likes of Ali Shah Geelani. With the tremendous respect that Salahuddin has in the valley, he is also likely to become a widely respected Kashmir leader. 

What does New Delhi benefit from this kind of a deal? New Delhi will look more serious in the eyes of the Kashmiris and the international community in resolving the Kashmir conflict and reconciling its differences with the Kashmiri militants based in Pakistan who are desirous of returning home. Moreover, New Delhi should simply not follow the Sri Lankan example: it must make peace with Kashmiri militants rather than trying to exterminate them. Such a gesture would also be instrumental in New Delhi owning up a lot of mistakes it made in Kashmir.  The return of Salahuddin to Kashmir would also generate an unprecedented amount of symbolic value and such symbolism will go a long way in resolving the many layers of the conflict in Kashmir. That will usher in a new era of peace and reconciliation in the Kashmir valley. 

But how will New Delhi go about doing it? Given the stature that Salahuddin enjoys among the Kashmiri militants based in Pakistan, the call has to be substantial and public. However, such public pronouncements have to be preceded by a great deal of back-channel efforts. Such back-channel negotiations should not only be conducted between New Delhi’s representatives and Salahuddin but also New Delhi and Islamabad. The public call for the return of Salahuddin into Kashmir should be choreographed to mark the beginning of a new era of reconciliation in Kashmir for, as pointed out above, if organized with care and wise statesmanship, it will have the potential of changing Kashmir political landscape for the better with positive fallouts for India-Pakistan relations as well. Salahuddin is a genuinely aggrieved Kashmiri son of the soil; welcoming him back to his homeland can only be doing the right thing. 

(Source: Greater Kashmir, 17 JUNE 2012. URL: http://www.greaterkashmir.com/news/2012/Jun/17/facilitate-the-return-of-salahuddin-4.asp )