Talks on Kashmir— Not a Half Deal

There is a ‘war’, inside Indian-held Kashmir; backed by the people, as a popular uprising indigenously. This fact cannot be denied. India has to face the bitter truth. Given the dangerous nature of the conflict, providing the reality of a nuclear flashpoint, the issue must be approached with wisdom and seriousness. Not only by India, but also internationally.

There are not many options in this respect. The option of ‘talks’ seems to be the dire need of the hour. Also it is the only logic serving as the light at the tunnels end. The other options are visibly.

1. A war without a solution.

2. Holding back territory by means of an occupation army.

3. The Indian government waiting to go for a ‘half-deal or a compromise on their own terms, employing dialogue:

There could have been another option, on India’s part i.e. ‘crushing the conflict. Conclusion: that is not possible ‘now’. This upsurge, of the Kashmiri people establishes, it is well organized, systematic, bearing legality (documented UN. Resolutions on it), possesses, a ‘do-or-die’ characteristic, thus moves towards achieving its goal.

The war possibility is still there, and the conflict is recognized internationally as a nuclear flashpoint. A conventional break out of war looms, and that could also be very disruptive. If so, there definitely could be a wider conflict. So, the question is, why should there be a war? Although, it could well happen.

The ‘talk about talks’ syndrome, keeps coming back with India, which makes it look like a bid for dialogue. If pursued with a sincere effort, it could prove positive and bring about real talks. It is a negation, because it can be used as a substitute for negotiations. Further such a procedure can only hold good, if it delivers in a reasonable time frame. Otherwise, it serves to enhance aspects of the conflict, while it contains it. And at the same time it plays the dialogue card. One cannot keep talking about the talks, for a long time. It can only be effective if it leads to ‘realistic talks’. But when it does ‘not’, it can also prove counter productive. This is when it suggests, ‘no talks’ can take place, it suffers the hurdles of preconditions, which could well be avoided. Then it benefits India when it is conveying internationally, that it wants to talk, and Pakistan is not doing so. This serves as a cover-up for India’s repression and appalling human rights abuses in Kashmir. While claiming to ‘talk about talks’, for a longer period, it could be seen as a ploy for buying time, by India. Since it is losing ground, both politically and militarily in held-Kashmir, without any other plan, apart from increasing the use of force. ‘Time’; is in fact becoming important presently. Because, this seems to be the time when something has to happen; which looks like the time has come for India to talk. And that it is avoiding by different strategies.

Of recent, some new moves, (proving to surprise), in respect to Kashmir, have come up. This is:

1. Farooq Abdullah’s brainwave of putting forth the autonomy question.

2. The ceasefire announced by the supreme commander of the Hizbul Mujahideen, Syed Sallahuddin.

Taking the second one first, because it proved more important than the autonomy drama, India stands exposed, with its charade for dialogue. It seems the sudden announcement of a ceasfire, by the largest Mujahideen outfit, took New Delhi by surprise. As they were comfortably poised, in playing the game of pretence for wanting to talk to the Kashmiris. Living with the hope, that they would not talk. The Hizb’s move must have got the Indian government, unexpected, therefore, there was no appropriate response. And in case they harboured any desire for causing disunity within the freedom movement, it has now been proved wrong.

The event of the ceasefire to promote talks, by the Hizbul Mujahideen, could be termed as a political gain, on their part, and was a setback for New Delhi.

It has brought to the fore, important dimensions, which prove a boost for the Kashmiri demand for self-determination.

1. Recognition internationally and establishing that the freedom fighting groups are a factor to reckon with. Not terrorist, as India would like to frame them.

2. A failure of the Indian attempt to exclude Pakistan from the talks. This means Pakistan will have to be  accepted, also India could not succeed in causing a discord in the freedom fighting groups.

3. It has shown, India is not sincere in positive talks. This when they stated, they want negotiations within the framework of the Indian constitution.

This means if talks have to come about, India would have to stop using this tactic.

With this India has reflected on an international level, that it has no policy on Kashmir. But to hold the territory by means of an occupation army. This ought to be a point of concern for the US and the west, who are keen to achieve a solution on the Kashmir dispute, politically, and not a military one.

Therefore, to help in arranging talks on the Kashmir issue, a far greater effort is required. And the thesis of a half deal, or talks within the context of the Indian constitution, are not going to bring results. Any experimental action on this important conflict does not augur well. If the outgoing US president is for promoting the talks process on Kashmir, then he would have to put in a lot more. Because ‘too little, too late’, won’t do. As India is already going through a testing period (gauging international opinion). New Delhi is employing a watch and wait stance, as it wants to find out the US approach on Kashmir when a new government is elected. The Hizbs initiative has shown political maturity, and has made things clearer (for an international understanding) for any future action on talks.

A negative response by the Indian government, resulted in calling off the ceasefire. With that a very positive opportunity for peace was lost. Supreme Commander Hizbul Mujahideen stated: “we put our entire credibility of twelve years at stake for our (desire) to facilitate a peaceful resolution to the fifty three year old Kashmir dispute”. The international reaction though, is that it appreciated this move. As this manifests, that the Mujahideen want a just settlement through negotiations. Even after calling off the ceasefire, the Mujahideen showed a sensible and flexible approach by stating its options are open if India breaks the barrier of rigidity. Syed Sallahuddin stated, “the Indian constitution cannot become the basis of talks.”

The recent move by Farooq Abdullah, (Who heads his government on strings), was in a haste to get a resolution through, for full autonomy, except in the context of finance, defence and communication. This autonomy bid, sparked by Abdullah met its predictable fate of rejection by the Indian government.

Abdullah’s self-styled and unrepresentative notion is, that by reverting to the pre-1953 state of autonomy, the insurgency in Kashmir would be contained. It has in fact proved counter productive, serving a death blow to autonomy. Further, it conveys, at an international level, that the misconception of autonomy cannot become a part of any plan devised for a solution. On the other hand it has promoted the demand of the Kashmiri people, which is self-determination and not autonomy.

Another important factor is India’s efforts to float an impression internationally that Pakistan is causing, cross border terrorism. Then it is using this fabrication of cross border terrorism as a precondition for talks. Seen in Prime Minister Vajpayee’s statement- “the onus of resuming stalled bilateral talks was on Pakistan. It must stop cross border terrorism.” The truth is India does not want to talk at all, and is sending wrong signals to affect the talks in the offing, as the US and the West are constantly suggesting dialogue. For how long could such a tactic sell for influencing international opinion?

It only seems to delay talks and it should be realized by them. Also, how important talks seem to be now. India certainly has been caught on the wrong foot, when it attempts to talk about terrorism. This is because of the recent revelation that India narrowly escaped from being placed on the list of terrorist nations. This was stated by the New York Times, by UN correspondent Barbra Crosset. India’s cross border terrorism claim, stands undermined when it most recently failed to make grounds for peace and talks for a solution, with the most powerful Mujahiddeen group, the Hizbs offer of a ceasefire.

It is important to note, that a recent draft of the Indian Army’s Low Intensity Conflict (L.I.C) doctrine, awaits likely approval. With that it would provide strategies for low intensity conflicts, backed by legal cover. This should be a point of concern, to the international community. As it reflects on Kashmir an area which draws their attention, as they want talks to settle the dispute. International effort has to prove better. This is the difficult part. Because firstly they failed to bring the parties to the negotiating table. Secondly, the speed of trying to do that is extremely slow. And what becomes prominent is the will of the people of Kashmir. An attempt to push forward the half deal theory, appears to be more like the implementation of some other will and not that of the Kashmiri people. It signifies, an intervention of Indian aspirations. How could that be defined as the will of the Kashmiris?

India has tried almost everything to break the freedom movement in Kashmir. That is with its human rights abuses and state-sponsored crime. This covers killings of civilians, murder of prominent personalities (also intellectuals), siege and search operations, burning of houses and desecration of religious places, custodial killings, dishonour women serving as a weapon of war, sub-human acts i.e. the body of a Mujahid was tied to a vehicle and dragged in the streets, a desperate attempt of using air-power employing gunship helicopters, arranging fraudulantent elections, and last but not least, the arrest of senior A.P.H.C leaders and later releasing them. After all, India does not realize that it has totally failed to crush the demand for self-determination, by the people of Kashmir. Not accepting the ground-realities. So, where does India go from here? Talks are imminent ....