Kashmir - India extends Ceasefire

Patron Lt Gen (Retd) SARDAR F.S. LODI discusses the extension of the Kashmir ceasefire by the Indians.

The government of India has extended its unilateral ceasefire in Indian-held Kashmir following mounting foreign and domestic pressure demanding some headway in the peace process, which they feel is already underway in Kashmir and would ultimately lead to talks with Pakistan. The all-party conference called by Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee to consider the situation had all demanded an extension to the ceasefire in Kashmir. There was, therefore, a broad consensus and support for a peace process to begin in Kashmir right across the party lines. This amply reflects the political will in India for peace in South Asia.

After gaining political support for the peace process, which strengthened the Prime Minister’s hand in the face of some obstruction from the extreme elements in his coalition government the question of extension was discussed in the Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS). The meeting was presided over by the Prime Minister and unanimously decided to extend the ceasefire in Indian-held Kashmir. The Home Minister Mr Advani said that the Prime Minister would formally announce the decision in parliament the next day.

Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee announced a three-month extension in the ceasefire in Indian-occupied Kashmir while addressing Parliament on February 22, 2001. Politicians and diplomats in New Delhi were quick to note that Mr Vajpayee had successfully silenced his critics in the opposition and some within his own fragile coalition with the all-party meeting he had called on February 21, to endorse his ceasefire policy. This broad-based political support had emboldened the Prime Minister to extend the ceasefire for a longer period of three months, as compared to one month at a time as on previous occasions. This extension will be until the end of May 2001.

While announcing the extension of ceasefire in Parliament Mr Vajpayee added his normal bit for public consumption and to carry his fundamentalist coalition partners with him. He said: “Having examined all aspects of the question in its totality, the government has decided to further extend the period (of ceasefire) up till the end of May. Let this opportunity not be missed by all those that desire peace, for our patience is not infinite.” This was no doubt a veiled warning to Pakistan and the Mujahideen. He went on to say: “I wish to make it abundantly clear that the peace process is only for those that wish to benefit from it.”

Mr Vajpayee went on to warn, “We will not let this process be derailed or misused. For such organizations or elements, as have vowed to disrupt the peace process, or intend to continue with violence and the killing of innocents in J&K, my message is unequivocal and clear. If you inflict injury on any Indian citizen in the State of Jammu and Kashmir, or elsewhere, or commit any act of violence or terrorism then the security forces have clear instructions to act decisively and to defeat such intentions.” Despite the rhetoric for the domestic newspapers and the doubters the reference to the peace process is worth noting.

“Law and order will be maintained,” said the Prime Minister of India with some firmness, and went on to say: “Those who think that our security forces are less determined today to put an end to terrorism are only deluding themselves.” Here he was obviously on slippery ground and somewhat on the defensive. After two Chiefs of India’s large army General S. Padmanabhan, and the outgoing one General V.P. Malik had both recommended to the government to find a political solution to the Kashmir dispute the government’s military options had become limited.

Indian security forces are reported to be suffering 8 to 10 casualties on an average everyday in their skirmishes with the Mujahideen in Indian-occupied Kashmir. This is resulting in their opening of indiscriminate automatic fire on unarmed civilians. This has happened recently when the Indian Army fired on peaceful demonstrators in Haigam and Miasuma killing over 15 people and wounding many more. The Indian troops are also resorting to firing on their colleagues and superior officers in what is coming to be termed as “frustration killings”. This is obviously affecting their morale and fighting ability. Forcing their commanders to ask for a political solution.

The Indian Prime Minister Mr Vajpayee concluded his address to the Indian Parliament by saying: “Peace is our objective. To peace and dialogue we remain committed because that, above all, is what the people of Jammu and Kashmir need most.” The reference to ‘peace and dialogue’ is significant. This seems to be the domestic demand of all the political parties. This is also supported and demanded by outside powers who are interested in peace in the region.

Commenting editorially the daily DAWN in its issue of February 23, wrote. “Contrary to dark prognosis, it is encouraging that the ceasefire in Kashmir, which was to expire on the 26th. (of February) has been extended, after all. In some ways the move is more encouraging this time. The third extension announced by Prime Minister Vajpayee in the Lok Sabha on Thursday (February 22) is for three months — an improvement on the one-month-at-a-time pattern of the extension of the ceasefire so far since November last.”

The paper goes on to say, “another significant aspect is the consensus that has emerged among the political parties in the opposition in India which strongly favour a ceasefire extension. In fact, Mrs Sonia Gandhi has strongly demanded that Mr Vajpayee should take measures to follow up the truce with talks for a lasting solution in Kashmir.” The paper goes on to say that this climate in favour of a dialogue should, one would like to believe, induce the ruling coalition to proceed towards initiating a definitive peace process.

While extending the ceasefire the Indian cabinet had also decided to talk to the Hurriyat political leaders in Kashmir. This is a good sign as the political will of the Kashmiris is also being taken into consideration. This should be followed by allowing the Hurriyat leaders to travel to Pakistan for dialogue with the Kashmiris in Azad Kashmir and also the Government of Pakistan, which is a major party to the Kashmir dispute. By not allowing the Hurriyat leaders to travel to Pakistan, India is sending a wrong signal of her aims and intentions with regard to the settlement of the Kashmir dispute.

It should, however, be appreciated that a ceasefire or its repeated extensions is not an end by itself. It is at best a means towards the eventual settlement of a long standing dispute. India should, therefore, initiate some measures towards a permanent settlement. Even some indicators would be welcome that show India is moving in the right direction. At present no indicators are discernible that would give the people of Kashmir some hope in their future.

There is, however, no doubt that the ceasefire by India and the withdrawal of troops by Pakistan coupled with maximum restraint along the Line of Control (L of C) in Kashmir have had a suitable effect in the area. There is now less tension and killing of civilians on either side of the L of C. These are major confidence building measures and should be pursued to their logical conclusion, before their effects wear out as is likely to happen with prolonged inactivity or procrastination.

Another major confidence building measure could be for India to withdraw some of her troops from Indian-held Jammu and Kashmir. This will reduce tension in the area and bring down the number of civilians being killed by the security forces as is being done at present. This would automatically reduce the activities of the Kashmiri Mujahideen operating against the Indian Security Forces, leading to a more conducive atmosphere in the area. Bold steps are now required on both sides of the Indo-Pak divide if the tempo is to be maintained towards a peace process in South Asia.