'No War No Peace'

Columnist HUMERA NIAZI looks at the current Indo-Pak situation.

What is becoming important, are the ground realities, which have appeared in the aftermath of the situation arising with Indians wanting to have a prospective war, which it could not. This truth was made clear at the Almaty Summit recently. India faced a diplomatic setback at Almaty which it had to accept. This can be seen in the fact, that the war was averted.
The Almaty Summit could be seen as a diplomatic success for Pakistan, but it would have to show on the ground importantly. India, appears to have miscalculated, diplomatically but it bodes well that India did not miscalculate within the war perspective. The positive outcome are:
i. International opinion, proved at Almaty, that it was not in line with India's stance (pursuing a war).
ii. A reaffirmation for the right of self-determination. In light of this there should be action and substantive concern by the international community to the Kashmir issue, of self-determination bearing legality, documented at the UN.
iii. It has pointed out the issue of the need to observe the LoC. Furthermore, at Almaty there has been a reflection to some extent of an Indian expression for talks.
Then it was after the Almaty Summit 'a watch and wait period', to see if there were any positive steps on India's part. If the war possibility had dimmed out, there has not been any forward movement to de-escalation of the massive troops build up. As long as this confrontational posturing exists, tension with the 'mistake' factor is there. The significant question, which surfaces within the context of recent crisis; Is India waiting for the international concern which heightened recently (which also drew attention towards the Kashmir issue, when both nuclear armed countries were on the verge of war) to tone down? And further would the future course be, a more-of-the-same strategy by India?
Since then, India has been blowing hot and cold on the infiltration issue. Earlier, acknowledging the fact of a lessening in LoC infiltration. Then once again on Thursday, July 4, the rather out of tune remarks made by the Indian Army Chief, General. S. Padmanabhan reflect that tension is still there. This does not augur well for peace. The General stated that 'New Delhi' would be left with no option but to take 'some action' if Islamabad did not end infiltration into Indian occupied Kashmir; Pakistan has rejected the claim as baseless and stating Pakistan would hit back offensively if attacked. Further, a call for asking independent observers, media and United Nations to ascertain the facts in Kashmir.
It was even before the Almaty Summit, that analysts expressed their belief that India, would 'not' go to war, saying India was in fact looking for an 'exit strategy' that seems to have happened. In a follow up, there have been a lot of out-of-place and contradictory statements on India's part. Earlier, Prime Minister Vajpayee had said that India achieved what it wanted without having to go to war. Declarations, as such could do well to sober down a certain amount of war hysteria and save face. Then a statement like this could also be read, internationally that India's, so-called claim of LoC infiltration no longer holds. Also Vajpayee's statement is a contradiction, seen in line with the statement of India's President and father of the Indian nuclear programme Abdul Kalam, who says, 'Nuclear deterrence, helped India and Pakistan not to engage in a big war and avoid a nuclear exchange'. It now appears, India is indulging in a media war (instead), whereas it ought to be concerned about the ground situation in held-Kashmir. India is running out of options. What strategy is it going to employ in the context to the conflict of Kashmir in the near future?
There is a need for a reality check on India's part. It appears that it has no 'new' policy at present. Evidently from the recent visit of the British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, India was found using the 'infiltration issue' once again. India wanted to play the terrorism accusation card against Pakistan by trying to sell the recent incident of killing of Hindus on Saturday 13th July, at Jammu, Qasim Nagar. Jack Straw had mentioned, "We would continue to encourage India to improve its human rights record, including the investigation of abuses". India is trying to draw international attention that LoC infiltration is taking place and there would be no de-escalatory steps until it stops. In this context the British Foreign Secretary, did not mention that the Indian army, of recent had (twice) been accused of killing civilians and claiming them as militant infiltrators.
Then while India is adopting a line of claiming cross-LoC terrorism (supporting it with terrorist incidents) and an accusation of infiltration, it is unconsciously highlighting the conflict in Kashmir at the international level. This keeps the issue alive, which is contrary to the Indian desire to make the self-determination movement a dead issue. And when they keep insisting there is infiltration across the LoC it appears this would eventually put forth the logical demand of international mediation and observation of the LoC. How is it possible to verify this? - unless there is a proper arrangement.
It would be difficult for India to exclude the infiltration strategy (even if there is a zero level infiltration) because doing that it would have no excuse for them not to de-escalate and employ dialogue as the international community would see that as the next step. Therefore, infiltration is a shield for India's occupation.

Therefore, infiltration as put forth by India, when seen in a just manner, should be establishing the truth. To do that, it would mean international monitors to be employed. This is possible, as for India's harping on terrorist incidents (blaming Pakistan), the international community should take into account the case of the Chattisinghpura massacre. The recent revelation was made by Farooq Abdullah himself, in this context, that the forensic tests revealed that India had killed innocent civilians claiming them as Pakistani-based militants. Furthermore, recently (last month) the Indian army killed civilians from a village, as residents verified this, saying they were not militants. It is proven, that the Indian army wrongly stated they were infiltrators from across.
The visit of the US Secretary of State Colin Powell recently holds our assertion. Although, India has already stated that they would insist infiltration is there and they would not de-escalate. If the Powell visit is to be substantive, it should bring India to dialogue with Pakistan. It is important for the international community to understand the importance of Kashmir, which cannot merely be seen in a 'made to look better situation' i.e. improving human rights there and the holding of sham elections. The freedom movement in Kashmir bears legality and is a human issue, a just solution of which means peace in the region of Pakistan and India.