HVK Archives: Sister moves : The Americans in Kashmir
Sister moves : The Americans in Kashmir - The Asian Age
Seema Mustafa
()
18 January 1997
Title : Sister moves : The Americans in Kashmir
Author : Seema Mustafa
Publication : The Asian Age
Date : January 18, 1997
It is a game of chess. But with a difference. The stakes are very
high. The strategy is sinister.
There are two players, but one does not even know the game has
begun. The other, meanwhile, is slowly and very deliberately
putting the pawns into position. The king is Kashmir. One gets to
retain it, but is happily oblivious of the serious determination
and the brilliant moves of its opponent. The other gets the
leverage it so desperately wants in the region and is working
assiduously to make the final move that puts it in a position of
control.
One is India. The other the United States of America. And it does
not need a very intelligent mind to figure out which is the one
sitting with the chess board in front, completely unaware that the
game has begun. By the time India wakes up, it might just be too
late. The opportunity that has come its way in the Valley for
which all the politicians are still, months after the elections,
patting themselves on the back might just be snatched away. All
agree. Every single political leader from the Prime Minister
downwards is of the same view. "We have this opportunity" they say
ponderously, "if we lose it we can lose Kashmir (not territorially
of course, but of course) forever." After having said this they nod
off, and Kashmir is forgotten. It seems really that the clock is
ticking away and all those supposedly concerned about the situation
in the Valley are in reality just waiting for the situation to
flare up before, as our esteemed bureaucrats in the Home Ministry
would say, "seized of the situation."
The United States, however, is making no such mistake. Kashmir
remains an area of primary concern for the United. States
establishment for which the elections in Kashmir are important only
in terms of revising their strategy. US intellectuals and
Congressmen have, almost to a person, ignored the elections that
were held in Jammu and Kashmir as if the process just did not
occur. If some have referred to it, it is merely to insist that
the elections do not resolve the Kashmir issue, that the dispute is
open to arbitration as it remains "unresolved." The Indian reaction
to the elections, the fact that 50 per cent persons voted for a
popular government led by the National Conference, the stark
reality that the people of Kashmir want peace, normalcy and
development is not even an appendix in the US "strategy" on
Kashmir. It is as if nothing has changed. The elections are
merely an inconvenience, compelling the United States to merely
review its strategy of de-stabilisation for this region. US
experts on Kashmir are busy evolving strategies to counter the
impact of the elections in the state, not in deciphering the
message of the elections. For the last would put them out of
business, limit their role in the region simply by making it clear
even to the hawks that seem to dominate the US establishment that,
despite the difficulties in the past, the ordinary person in the
Valley is now willing to resolve his problems of unemployment,
abject poverty and total neglect in the Indian framework. The
message of the elections, which no serious and well meaning
political analyst can afford to ignore, is that the people of
Kashmir have given the rest of India another opportunity, and if
the Indian government is sensitive to this the issue can be
resolved.
The US intention is to keep the pot boiling. That the people of the
Valley united to put out the fire has come as a setback but with a
"new strategy" the mighty power of the West clearly hopes to ignite
the embers again. All in for the cause of peace and democracy, of
course. No one can or should question the commitment of the US of
A to these high values, that the underdeveloped world has only just
about learnt to spell.
So what happens after a popular government comes to power in Jammu
and Kashmir, without the expected violence and with more than
expected support? The United States starts evolving strategies and
putting its pawns into position. In November 1996 the Kashmir
Study Group is formed. It is led by a Kashmiri, former JKLF man,
who has resurfaced in United States as a wealthy and obviously
influential businessman. The list of members reads like a Who's Who
of US academic circles. The Group organises a meeting in which
members express concern over Kashmir. The KSG makes it clear that
it is willing to fund intellectuals from India to participate in
seminars and meetings on Kashmir. Assistant Secretary of State Ms
Robin Raphael addresses a closed door meeting of the group, in
which only the members are present. All part of strategy
formulation?
The US Council of Foreign Relations sets up a Task Force which has
several members in common with the KSG. Like Rodney W. Jones who
has lived in India and Pakistan "as a scholar" writing on security
and non-proliferation issues; Paul H. Kreisberg who is a retired
Foreign Service Officer with "extensive experience" in India and
Pakistan and has been moderating something called "The Neenarana
Dialogue" between Indians and Pakistanis; Robert B. Oakley who is
also a retired foreign service officer who was US Ambassador to
Pakistan from 1988 to 1991; Robert G. Wirsing who has written books
on South Asian politics. All scholars of repute, one is sure, and
well-equipped to re-strategise the US approach now that Kashmir has
a popular government.
The Kashmir Study Group and the Task force have much in common.
Both emphasise on the need for a "final solution" to Kashmir. Both
want an international contact group of the US, Europe and other
such civilized parts of the world to influence India and Pakistan.
The Council of Foreign Relations speaks of autonomy as the first
step towards this "final solution." Comparisons between Kashmir and
the Middle East, Kashmir and Bosnia liberally sprinkle their notes
and documents. Ms Robin Raphael, always concerned, hopes "that the
government of India remembers that it has made a commitment to
maximum autonomy in Kashmir and does not let that slip to the back
burner.
He press conference at Washington in December is full of advice to
the Indian government and the people of Kashmir as to how they
should get on with their lives but, "the election in Kashmir is not
going to resolve the underlying question of Kashmir as a disputed
territory. That needs to be sorted out between India and Pakistan,
so that question still remains."
It is left to the US Secretary of State designate Ms Madeleine
Albright to speak of her concern about Indo-Pakistan relations in
the fiftieth year of Independence. Not at a seminar but before the
Senate Foreign Relations Committee meeting held to consider her
confirmation as secretary of state. This makes it more than obvious
that along with the other areas, such as China, specified by her,
this region is of primary interest to the US administration. Ms
Albright was not talking of market economy but sheer politics.
In the midst of all this comes a draft strategy prepared for the
Kashmiri American Council of lobbyist Ghulam Nabi Fai by Davis,
Manafort, Stone Inc. which spells out the US strategy on Kashmir.
This draft was made available to this columnist by highly placed
sources in United States.
It is an ominous draft couched in friendly language but with the
undertones that can spell disaster for the Indian state. The
strategy was formulated in November just when the front
organisations were being set into position.
The focus is on Kashmir. The draft is of the view that the time is
not right for the US to play a direct and leading role in the
region, but that the same can be more effectively done through
NGO's, seminars, meetings, people to people contact (like the
Pakistan-India People's Forum for Peace and Democracy set up in
this country). This can be supplemented by congressional
delegations visits to Kashmir, use of the media to highlight the
dispute and international support through other countries. The
draft talks of the Indian popular opinion that support the
objectives outlined by the Kashmiri American Council as a special
item in its listing.
The revised strategy which seems to have been put into motion
judging from the developments outlined earlier, makes it clear that
the effort should be to use the secondary forces to strengthen what
will ultimately be a direct US effort in the region. An aggressive
role by the US is for the present ruled out as being
counterproductive, and although state department support is thought
of as necessary it is not described, in the draft, as being
essential to the successful projection of US interests in Kashmir.
The Council is determined to not just plan but execute an
aggressive start for this year in the region.
The points in the strategy developed by the US planners is sinister
for three basic reasons. One it wants to generate congressional
support that will reduce the international support for the
elections in Kashmir, and by creating doubts within ensure that the
Congressmen themselves turn to the Kashmiri American Council for
information and advise. Two, its focus on NGO's coming out of the
realisation that these can testify before the Congress, furnish
latest information about the situation in Kashmir, generate
pressure on die Indian government from within (again the
Pakistan-India People's Forum for Peace and Democracy is one such
obvious outfit set up for "people to people" contact) and act as
catalysts, when required, for political dialogue between the
concerned parties. In this scheme of things the Kashmir Study Group
and the Task Force assume tremendous importance. Three, the
Kashmiri American Council being of a lower profile than the US
administration can continue with its work even if the latter is
under attack for its posturing on Kashmir and the region. It has
also decided to change tactics as and when necessary by projecting
the more moderate Kashmir leaders.
The KAC gives full recognition, incidentally, to the All Parties
Hurriyat Conference which in Its view has brought together
"moderate" leaders from the Valley who are committed to peace and
dialogue. In this connection a recent visit by Syed Nazir Ali
Gilani of the Jammu and Kashmir Human Rights Council in London to
Kashmir assumes significance. He is based in the United Kingdom.
His visit here seems to suggest the search for an alternative, and
perhaps even more controllable, Hurriyat leadership.
The Americans are in Kashmir. They are just biding their time. The
Pakistan elections will be a turning point, and might even result
in another strategy reversal putting the US administration back
into the direct line. The Indian government, following the Prime
Ministers' footsteps, is dozing. There is no effort to strategise
an approach to Kashmir. There is no realisation that the Valley can
explode any minute. The Prime Minister can spend a week in
Karnataka but does not have the time for a day in Srinagar.
The Prime Ministers' Office which is supposedly handling Kashmir
seems to have left everything to Farooq Abdullah. For myopic
politicians and bureaucrats, Kashmir has become just another state
to be treated with the same degree of mismanagement, callousness
and indifference. The Americans are making no such mistake.
Checkmate.
Back
Top
|
