The peace process in Kashmir

Patron Lt Gen (Retd) SARDAR F.S. LODI who was physically present as a young student in Kashmir in 1947, studies the recent peace moves.

On November 19, 2000 India offered its first ceasefire to the Kashmir freedom fighters since the launch of their freedom struggle 13 years ago. The Indian Prime Minister Mr Atal Behari Vajpayee said: ‘The holy month of Ramazan during which Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) exhorted one and all to live in peace and harmony, is soon approaching. The government has, instructed the security forces not to initiate combat operations against the militants in Kashmir during this most pious month in the Islamic calendar.’

The Indian offer on the face of it looked genuine to a lot of religious and political leaders in India and Pakistan. These included the Imam of the great mosque in Delhi Syed Ahmad Bukhari and the veteran politician of Azad Kashmir Sardar Abdul Qayyum Khan, who was the first to raise the banner of revolt against the Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir at Nila Butt on August 27, 1947. These feelings were apparently based on certain indicators given by India, in allowing some Kashmiri leaders including Mirwaiz Omar Farooq to attend the OIC meeting in Doha, and Mr Abdul Ghani Lone a leader of the APHC to attend his son’s marriage in Pakistan.

An impression was created that India was working towards an eventual peace plan. The United States and Russia welcomed the Indian move. This impression was reinforced when the Indian Prime Minister Mr Atal Behari Vajpayee said in the Rajya Sabha on November 23 that there was no question of withdrawing the ceasefire declared in Jammu and Kashmir during the holy month of Ramazan. The decision not to initiate combat operations against the Kashmiri ‘militants’ during Ramazan had been taken after proper discussion and thinking, Mr Vajpayee said.

Pakistan’s reaction was somewhat cautious and more realistic in view of India’s past record and her dual-faced dealings with regard to the state of Jammu and Kashmir. A foreign office spokesman termed the Indian ceasefire move a ‘ploy’ and said ‘India must end its repression inside (Indian) held Kashmir and stop massive human rights violations.’ He went on to say ‘Otherwise, a short-term ceasefire offer such as the one made (by the Indian PM) could only be tactical and part of India’s effort to impose a military solution on Kashmir.’

The government of Pakistan felt that the views of the Kashmiri leadership, particularly of the APHC (All Parties Hurriyat Conference) would be of importance as they are the ‘main target and victims of Indian repression and machinations to stifle the Kashmiri struggle.’ The foreign office spokesman said: ‘We cannot overlook the fact that India had tried to exploit an offer of ceasefire by Hizbul Mujahideen last July, to sow dissension within the freedom movement and to try to exclude Pakistan from any negotiations for a solution of the Kashmir dispute.’

However, it was evident that even a ‘ploy’ should be taken at its face value, particularly when the fate and the future of a persecuted people was involved. Pakistan, therefore, decided to reciprocate in full measure by announcing on December 1 that its Armed Forces deployed along the Line of Control in Jammu and Kashmir would observe, with immediate effect, ‘maximum restraint’ to strengthen and stabilize the ceasefire in (Indian) occupied Kashmir. Maximum restraint amounts to a virtual ceasefire along the 700 km long Line of Control. It is a major confidence building measure provided India reciprocates with an open mind. The government of China appreciated Pakistan’s announcement of ‘maximum restraint’.

Pakistan also hoped that India would reciprocate the ceasefire initiative by Pakistan and ceasefiring across the Line of Control. Pakistan proposed a new and concrete process for the start of a dialogue involving not just Islamabad and New Delhi but the Kashmiri leadership as well. It was felt that after consulting the Kashmiri leaders separately by both India and Pakistan, tripartite talks could begin immediately after the holy month of Ramazan. In order to improve the atmosphere for a dialogue and to stabilize the ceasefire along the Line of Control, Pakistan offered India a system of impartial monitoring. This could be done, by the posting of United Nations observers on both sides of the Line of Control. India has disallowed this for the past many years.

Pakistan had already signed an agreement with India in good faith for a ceasefire along the working boundary between Pakistan and the state of Jammu and Kashmir in the Jammu-Sialkot sector. The agreement was signed at the Pakistan Rangers Headquarters at Lahore on November 23, 2000, between Major General Abdul Qadir Baloch, Director General Sindh Rangers; and A.S. Aulakh, Inspector General, Indian Border Security Force.

For a ceasefire in Indian-held Kashmir to be meaningful and effective, it must be followed by a purposeful dialogue, between India, Pakistan and the people of Jammu and Kashmir. This should be done with the sole object of solving the long outstanding problem, which has lingered on for over 53 years and caused untold suffering to the people. The object is not a mere ceasefire, which seems a tactical move at best, if it does not lead further towards an eventual solution.

Mirwaiz Umar Farooq, a former head of the All Parties Hurriyet Conference and an important religious leader of Kashmir said emphatically while being interviewed on the Indian Zee TV that the ceasefire in Kashmir must be followed by a dialogue. It was his opinion that there are now four parties to the dialogue; India, Pakistan, people of Kashmir as represented by the Hurriyat (APHC) and the freedom fighters who have made tremendous sacrifices for Kashmiri rights.

India had been adamantly refusing to open a dialogue with Pakistan to solve the Kashmir problem. Mr Omar Abdullah an Indian minister, said in Mumbai on November 29. ‘There will be no tripartite talks, we will talk to Pakistan separately when they create conditions conducive for a dialogue.’ Omar Abdullah is the son of Mr Farooq Abdullah Indian-occupied Kashmir’s chief minister, allied to the present BJP led government, who reflected the Indian government thinking on the subject.

If the Indian government is not prepared for a dialogue as a follow up of the ceasefire, what are the Indian intentions with regard to Kashmir. An analyst in India remarked that the government’s ceasefire policy may well be a tactical move only as it does not seem to form part of an overall strategy for peace in the area. The compulsion behind the move is probably to provide some urgently needed relief for the beleaguered Indian security forces in Kashmir, rather than a quest for lasting peace in the region.

It should not be overlooked that the Indian Army Chief General Ved Prakash Malik had said in Chandigarh on September 11 that ultimately only a political solution was the answer for solving the Kashmir problem. This was a forthright statement from a man who was using maximum force to curb the freedom movement in Kashmir. His message was clear for all to see that the army had failed despite the spate of killings and torture to control the situation. The Indian army according to analysts was starting to show signs of fatigue.

The incoming Army Chief General Sunderrajan Padmanabhan who took over on September 30 talked of training and preparing for a nuclear war. As for Kashmir he vowed to defeat the freedom movement. He felt there were only a few incidents and the Army had a good grip on the situation. He went on to say that he was determined to crush the freedom struggle of the Kashmiris. In October the General took a four-day trip to Indian-occupied Kashmir, and it seems was amazed to see the state of the army and the thousands of para-military troops on the defensive in their heavily fortified camps.

Another visit to India’s eastern provinces convinced General Padmanabhan that there was no military solution to Kashmir. The problem had to be solved politically, in other words by dialogue and negotiations. The constant trickle of military casualties could not be sustained any further, as it was adversely affecting military morale and constantly eroding the fighting ability of the officers and troops. Analysts are of the opinion that in the one-sided struggle in Palestine had Israeli soldiers been constantly killed, the Prime Minister of Israel would also have declared a unilateral ceasefire to end the fighting. Military compulsions have a baring on political decisions.

After the Kargil episode Indian political leaders created a wave of hatred against Pakistan, which certainly helped them in winning the elections, but left the Indian people in an adversarial mood and an unrelenting attitude. The government of India is now finding it difficult to channel their public opinion into a constructive and peaceful direction. It will take time for the turn-around and should be acceptable as long as the overall aim is to move towards some form of settlement of the long outstanding dispute.

On December 3, Pakistan took another step forward towards a settlement of the Kashmir dispute in conformity with the wishes of the Kashmiri people. Pakistan called on India to enter into tripartite talks to resolve the Kashmir dispute before the end of the ceasefire announced by New Delhi for the month of Ramazan. Pakistan foreign minister said this during a telephonic interview with CNN. He further suggested that a delegation of the Kashmiri people should visit Islamabad for talks with the Government of Pakistan. Later the delegation should visit New Delhi for talks with the Government of India. This should be followed by three-way talks aimed at settling the dispute.

India’s defence minister George Fernandes while addressing a news conference in Bangalore on December 3, did not find Pakistan’s offer of military restraint along the Line of Control in Kashmir, ‘good enough for launching peace talks with Islamabad.’ Mr L.K. Advani the Indian Home Minister on the other hand said the government would watch the situation on the ground before it can think in terms of a formal dialogue with Islamabad.

The next day on December 4 India showed its willingness to extend the ceasefire in Indian occupied Kashmir. The Indian Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee said the unilateral ceasefire could be extended if Islamabad ‘cooperated’ with New Delhi. He went on to say: ‘Islamabad’s response has been good but not substantive.’ An Indian foreign ministry official Raminder Singh Jassal said the prime minister’s comments were ‘reflective of our desire for peace.’ The Hurriyet conference representing over 20 political parties welcomed the peace moves and Islamabad’s offer to exercise ‘maximum restraint.’

The Hurriyet Chairman Prof. Abdul Gani Bhat said: ‘It appears that India and Pakistan have started setting out on a journey towards resolving disputes, restoring peace and improving relations.’ He went on to say, ‘what matters is that talks should begin and we should make a good beginning. And if a good beginning is made, whom we talk to first and whom next, the sequence could be worked out.’

India’s vacillating attitude continued when she rejected on December 5, a widely-backed proposal for talks over Kashmir, involving Mujahideen and Pakistan, but said it was prepared to meet the two separately provided key conditions were fulfilled. The Indian External Affairs Ministry said in a statement that New Delhi was committed to an early resumption of a ‘composite’ dialogue with Pakistan within the ambit of the Simla Agreement and the Lahore Declaration. This statement was originally scheduled to be read out by External Affairs Minister Jaswant Singh in the Parliament on December 4, but the parliament was adjourned due to the Babri mosque crises.

India continued its battle of words in an effort to create a national consensus. It seems she wanted to make some headway in the Kashmir dialogue but felt the constraint of the extremist public opinion in the country. Indian Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee said in New Delhi on December 17, that India was ready for talks with Pakistan, ‘provided Islamabad put an end to violence and terrorist activity.’ He said ‘our image in the international arena is very good. Pressure is being put on Pakistan to have talks. We are ready but violence and terrorism must stop. It was conveniently forgotten that Pakistan has been offering a dialogue to India for solving the Kashmir dispute ever since the present government took power in October last year.

On December 18, Mr Vajpayee held a meeting with his senior cabinet colleagues to consider an extension of the ceasefire in Indian occupied Kashmir beyond the month of Ramazan. The Press Trust of India reported that Home Minister Lal Krishen Advani, Defence Minister George Fernandes, National Security Adviser Brajesh Misra and Army Chief General S. Padmanabhan took part in the meeting. A decision was expected to be taken by the full cabinet meeting on security and later announced in parliament.

The next day on December 19, the Indian Prime Minister talked of the possibility of the resumption of talks with Pakistan. Mr Vajpayee said a dialogue with Pakistan was possible if the situation improved. He said his government would soon decide on whether to extend the ceasefire in Indian occupied Kashmir beyond Ramazan. ‘The ceasefire decision has proved correct. The people of (Indian occupied) Jammu and Kashmir want peace,’ Vajpayee said. ‘We are prepared to hold talks with all groups to resolve the problem.’ Indian military officials said that Indian forces had suspended cordon-and-search, seek-and-destroy and ambushes as part of the truce.

On December 20, Pakistan took another bold initiative by announcing a unilateral withdrawal of part of its forces deployed along the Line of Control in Kashmir. It was described as a follow-up of the policy of exercising ‘maximum restraint’ along the Line of Control. The official went on to say that ‘this action manifests Pakistan’s earnest and genuine desire to de-escalate the situation in order to facilitate the process of meaningful dialogue on the issue.’ It was hoped that ‘India would also reciprocate in a similar manner and de-induct part of its 700,000 strong force deployed in Indian occupied Kashmir.’

This is the second occasion that Pakistan has unilaterally withdrawn its forces to reduce tension in the area. On the first occasion the present government pulled back its forces from the international border where both sides had concentrated their troops after the Kargil episode. Reduction of forces along the Line of Control will certainly reduce tension and prevent any chance of cross border firing incidents. It will also act as a strong confidence building measure in the area. This should act as an incentive for India to follow suit in the larger interest of peace in the region. The presence of a large number of troops in Indian held Kashmir is a reminder to the people of the military occupation of their land and brings back memories of atrocities, killings and torture that these troops perpetuated on the civilian population.

On December 20, the Indian Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee announced in parliament the extension of the month old ceasefire in Indian occupied Kashmir. He said his government would initiate ‘exploratory steps’ to seek a resumption of dialogue with Pakistan.  The ceasefire would now be extended until January 26, 2001. He said the talks with Pakistan would be under the aegis of Simla Agreement and Lahore Declaration. Observers noted that the Indian Prime Minister’s statement was shrewdly worded and referred to ‘our citizens from Jammu and Kashmir.’ Would this mean talks within the Indian Constitution, it is too early to tell.

It is, however, evident that both sides are moving towards a dialogue to settle all disputes. The progress is bound to be slow, owing to the mutual suspicion and lack of trust. The delay should be accepted as long as there is movement towards a peace process. The political will is obviously present and the results are forthcoming. The people on both sides of the divide have by and large welcomed the peace process and end to the hostilities. The leaders should now rise to the occasion and fulfil the aspirations of the people.