Hizb Ceasefire a moral victory

Contributing Editor Air Marshal (Retd) AYAZ AHMED KHAN analyses the positive after-effects of the surpressing ceasefire offer by the Hizbul Mujahideen to the Indians in Kashmir.

The 24th July decision of Hizbul Mujahideen to ceasefire was a serious attempt to give peace a chance in Kashmir. The objective was a purposeful dialogue between India, Pakistan and Kashmiris to find a way out of the impasse and save Kashmir from further carnage. India welcomed the Hizb ceasefire offer, but refused inclusion of Pakistan in the peace talks. Accepting Hizbul Mujahideen as genuine and indigenous Kashmiris was a moral victory for the militants. Delhi also offered dialogue with all Kashmiri jehadi groups without conditionalities. Even Farooq Abdullah forgetting his demand for autonomy stated that Hizbul Mujahideen’s were sons of the soil, and his government welcomed dialogue with them and other like minded militants. Farooq Abdullah said that the Indian government was ready for talks with seven other militant organizations, whose fighters he said were sons of the soil. He pleaded with them to ceasefire, and start negotiations. Mr Vajpayee responded positively to the Hizb offer of ceasefire and dialogue by saying that the only conditionality is “Insaniyat” i.e. humanism and civility and not the Indian constitution. Vajpayee invited all militant groups to talks. The recognition by India that all militant outfits except Lashkar-e-Tayyaba and Harkat-al-Mujahideen are indigenous Kashmiris is a moral victory for the Hizbul Mujahideen and Kashmiri youths fighting for freedom since 1989. India by accepting that the freedom fighters are native Kashmiris, has acknowledged its deception and propaganda that the freedom struggle was foreign sponsored. After the Amarnath Yatris massacre including forty Army and BSF soldiers on first August furious Vajpayee blamed Lashkar Tayibba but offered to redress the grievances of the militants. He also rejected solution of the Kashmir dispute outside the Indian constitution as demanded by Hizbul Mujahideen. Keeping the door open for dialogue with the militants with the conditionality of talks within the Indian constitution was a meaningless offer. Indian media while welcoming the Hizb move advised the government to show flexibility, take the Hizb initiative seriously, and not insist on isolating Pakistan. They said that with Pakistan out of the dialogue, no permanent solution of Kashmir was possible.

But there was no dearth of hardliners. Bal Thakaray advised dismissal of Farooq Abdullah and imposition of martial law on Kashmir. Some Indian dailies taken by surprise reacted differently. Several newspapers curtly remarked that it was ironic that the BJP government was ready to talk to terrorist outfits whose hands were red with the blood of Indian soldiers. From “Atoot Ang” to “Insaniyat” was a proof of flexibility in India’s Kashmir policy. This elasticity was because after eleven years the three quarter million Indian troops in Occupied Kashmir are stressed, and exhausted physically and mentally. It was evidence that inspite of the slaughter of eighty five thousand Kashmiris and loss of thousands of Indian military officers and troops India has failed to crush Kashmiris struggle for freedom. The release of APHC leaders from jails and offers of talks with the militants were moves to find a way out of the Kashmir stalemate and placate demoralised Indian forces who are suffering heavy casualties battling the militants.

Hizbul Mujahideen had proposed several confidence building measures. These were:

These were practical and humane suggestions, and their acceptance as a first step would have helped the guns to silence. Syed Salahuddin supreme commander of Hizbul Mujahideen had justified Central Commander Abdul Majid Dars initiative to give “peace a chance”. He said that the ball was in India’s court. But BJP leaders in league with the RAW made calculated moves to sow the seeds of discord between the militant outfits, and between the Hizb and APHC and Pakistan. Other militant groups who had condemned the Hizb ceasefire decision, were immediately labelled as non-Kashmiri outfits by New Delhi. Lashkar Tayyiba’s denials of conducting the August 1 attacks were rejected by Vajpayee and Advani. Vajpayee reiterated that Lashkar Tayyiba was to be blamed and vowed to isolate and destroy it. Secret offers were made to the Hizb fighters of highest offices in the Occupied Kashmir administration. The BJP leaders thought the Hizb had walked into a trap, and New Delhi would exploit the new development to its own advantage. The Kashmiri freedom fighters had fully understood the Indian mindset. The Hizbul Mujahideen ceasefire declaration was immediately denounced by all Jehadi organizations. They had rightly assessed that in view of Indian track record of massive repression, Indian objective would be to perpetuate its occupation through meaningless dialogue with the Hizb. India would try to buy time to neutralize Hizbul Mujahideen and all groups of United Jehad Council. Indian Premier Atal Behari Vajpayee went back on his promise of unconditional talks by insisting that that Indian constitution was a symbol of “Insaniyat”, and the talks must be within its confines. The implication being Mujahideen acceptance that Kashmir remains an integral part of India.

After two weeks Hizbul Mujahideen cancelled the ceasefire offer, and soon after started reprisal bombings and land mine explosions in Srinagar and Jammu provinces killing dozens of Indian Army and para-military personnel and injuring hundreds. The threat given on August 26 by Hizbul-Mujahideen to carry out major attacks against the Indian Army in Kashmir is a grave development. It is because of Indian obduracy that the situation is back to square one. In a press statement a Hizb spokesman said that, “We plan to conduct major operations against the Indian forces shortly, and would continue with such actions until the freedom of Held Kashmir. India would not be allowed to prolong its imposed rule in the Valley any longer. The brutalities and atrocities meted out on Kashmiris had left no room for the illegal Indian occupation of Kashmir. India had opted for war and the freedom fighters were well equipped and trained to rise to the challenge. We offered them ceasefire, but they responded negatively. War is their selected option and we are not to be blamed for this. Hizb was still ready for ceasefire but not on Indian terms. Hizb has signed no secret deal with India and was committed to jehad for freedom. We have made a deal with the Kashmiris to free Kashmir from Indian occupation, and we are committed to it.” With Indian refusal to include Pakistan in a tripartite dialogue, and talk without conditions, the situation is back to square one. India is now a loser diplomatically and militarily. By offering ceasefire and peace the Hizbul Mujahideen has convinced the West especially the US that it is serious about a peaceful dialogue for lasting peace in Kashmir. Hizb’s ceasefire offer has helped internationalize the Kashmir dispute and has created a distinct impression among officials of US Department of State that the armed struggle in Kashmir is indigenous, and dialogue is the only valid method for a peaceful solution. The repeated appeals of the US Department of State and of President Clinton and Vice President Al-Gore that the path of dialogue for peace must be pursued to settle the Kashmir dispute has thrown the ball in Delhi’s court once again. Indian efforts to keep Pakistan out of the dialogue on Kashmir are futile. Along with the Kashmiris Pakistan is the most important party to the Kashmir dispute. And this has been acknowledged by the UN, the US and by all world capitals, and especially by the Kashmiris, who have rejected dialogue with India without Pakistan.

Indian militancy and state terrorism to keep Kashmir in chains has failed. After eleven years of slaughters India has failed to break the spirit for freedom in Kashmir. Indian aim to impose a military solution on Kashmir has failed. Kargil proved that Kashmiri freedom fighters could impose prolonged battles and massive casualties and damage on the Indian Army. The recent eight simultaneous ambushes and bombings including the terrorist attack on Amarnath Yatris proves the erosion of Indian Forces capabilities. Indian refusal to investigate the Amarnath Yatris massacre has enhanced the suspicion that like the Singpura massacre of the Sikhs this was the doing of the infamous BSF and Black Cat Commandos in league with the RAW. Indian Army had assumed that its brutal terrorism would succeed in crushing Kashmiri dissent because it could kill at will. The dangerous assumption of GHQ New Delhi that the Indian Army could maintain an attrition rate of eighteen to one i.e. kill eighteen Kashmir’s for the loss of one Indian trooper has failed. Indian generals reckoned that with dwindling numbers the freedom struggle would die down. Even after the February 22, 1999 Lahore Declaration there was no let up in Indian atrocities in Kashmir. But after Kargil the situation has changed. The Kashmiri resistance reorganized itself into Jihad Council comprising sixteen (16) Jehadi groups. The command and control setup of each jehadi outfit is better than before. They are all highly motivated, trained and disciplined.

Indian plan to subvert the Kashmir jehad by taking out Hizbul Mujahideen out of the Jehad Council has failed. Indian military now is concerned that the attrition today is five to two i.e. two Indian troopers die when five Kashmiris are killed in encounters. The truth is that the rate of attrition now is one to one i.e. India loses one soldier or one Army officer for every Kashmiri Shaheed. During the past one month in fact the Indian Occupation forces have suffered an attrition rate of three to one i.e. three Indian soldiers have died for the killing of one Kashmiri Mujahid. The Indian Army cannot sustain such high attrition and heavy casualties. The uproar in the Indian Parliament and Bal Takhray’s demand that Farooq Abdullah be dismissed and martial law be imposed on occupied Kashmir is a consequence of the heavy losses being suffered by Indian forces in Kashmir. But Indian martial law in Kashmir will not solve the Kashmir problem? Refusal to talk to Pakistan will neither help nor solve the Kashmir dispute. Indian military option in Kashmir has failed. Hizb peace initiative has collapsed but it was a moral victory. It signified courage, honesty and sincerity for a peaceful and amicable solution of the Kashmir dispute.