Author: Sandhya Jain
Publication: The Pioneer
Date: June 19, 2001
There is now little doubt that regardless
of the formal agenda of the forthcoming talks with General Musharraf, the
BJP-led Government is all set to discuss Kashmir with the Pakistani dictator.
Indeed, this may well be the only issue that is discussed at all, since
Islamabad is hardly anxious that its business community trades with India,
while India has no desperate need for a Pakistani market. It also seems
likely that India will concede the Pakistani claim that Kashmir is disputed
territory, or permit Pakistan to get away with such an assertion.
This dismal conclusion is based
on two strange observations. The first is the bewildering fact that the
Pakistani Ambassador (and not the Indian Government!) is striving for a
consensus with Indian political parties to recognise Kashmir as disputed
territory. Ashraf Jehangir Qazi has notched up a notable success, with
the Communist Party of India National Secretary, Shamin Faizi publicly
agreeing with the motion and favouring negotiations with Islamabad on this
basis.
Mr Faizi has not deigned to enlighten
us whether this means New Delhi should simply surrender the Valley, or
more. The Communist Party of India-Marxist (CPI-M) has not, till the time
of writing this article, informed us of its views on the matter, though
it is known that a delegation did meet the envoy (Pioneer, June 13). What
is more, even as Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee dodges the few queries
tossed at him by opposition leaders regarding the proposed talks, Mr Qazi's
mission has let it be known that the envoy will meet all significant parties/leaders
to manufacture an accord in favour of his country's position.
My second observation is that there
appears to be a dangerous, but unmistakable, convergence of left-wing and
right-wing groups on the issue of scuttling the traditional consensus that
Kashmir is an inalienable part of India. This is readily seen in the willingness
of the two Left parties to discuss Kashmir with the High Commissioner even
though former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto has scorned the General's legitimacy
and questioned his authority to discuss such sensitive matters with the
Indian Government.
Leftist intellectuals have also
started pleading for a soft, de-militarised border, without telling us
how this will resolve the problem of militancy in the Valley (and the rest
of the country). Of course, it is a different matter that some of us believe
that the trouble in Kashmir is precisely because the border is so porous.
It may also be borne in mind that legitimate trade between the two countries
does not require a 'soft' border.
On the other side of the spectrum,
the BJP, RSS, and allied organisations have maintained a studied silence.
They have not responded to provocative talk about a plebiscite in Kashmir,
nor raised any of the issues with which they have traditionally been associated,
viz, the status of Pakistan Occupied Kashmir (POK) and Aksai Chin. It is
inconceivable that they believe General Musharraf can rein in jihadi generals
and mullahs and end the proxy war. The unhappy suspicion, therefore, grows
that they are complicit in a plot to facilitate delinking the Valley. It
is therefore imperative, as suggested in my previous article, that before
the General comes, nationalist writers and politicians compel the Prime
Minister to reveal the nature of his Government's talks with third parties
such as the Americans and Saudis regarding the future of Jammu & Kashmir.
A senior security expert's contention
that the Government cannot give assurances regarding the bottom-line for
the talks since all give and take will happen spontaneously on the negotiating
table, must be treated with contempt. All governments work out their negotiating
positions in advance, and seek breaks when talks become ticklish. Mr Vajpayee
cannot refuse to take the nation into confidence about a course of action
that he seems to have decided upon, and then present it with a nasty fait
accompli. He should know that particularly since the uncalled-for overture
to Pakistan, public confidence in his Government has eroded sharply.
As is only to be expected in the
circumstances, the All Party Hurriyat Conference (APHC) despite technically
suspending its agitation for freedom is seeking political mileage from
the emotive issue of the use of mosques as sanctuaries. After the sharp
public reaction to the safe passage to hardcore militants three weeks ago,
the army recently fought and killed six militants holed up in a mosque
in Anantnag. In a classic instance of double-speak, Hurriyat's Abdul Ghani
Lone said militants should not use mosques for their activities as this
amounts to desecration, but accused the army of destruction while dealing
with such militants. The beleaguered army claims utmost restraint was exercised
during the operation and only a portion of the mosque's annexe was damaged.
I believe it is time to stop molly-coddling
terrorists and their sympathisers; the Indian state is too grimly besieged
for such luxuries. The state should declare that any place used by militants
for hiding or fighting security forces is a "limited theatre of war," and
as such enjoys no sanctity or immunity. Morally, we can no longer justify
security forces taking higher casualties while politicians pander to false
religiosity. Whether temple or mosque, the desecration occurs when armed
men occupy them for illicit purposes. Security forces come to end the desecration;
it is indecent and unacceptable to treat them at a par with the violators.
In the specific context of the war of a thousand cuts, imposing punitive
fines upon the community whose holy place is misused by anti-social elements
would go a long way in curtailing the menace.
Even in its peculiar Indian incarnation,
secularism is not just the separation of religion and politics. Its implies
that the state (as receptacle of the community's sovereignty) is above
religion. Islamic states can be terrorised by mullahs precisely because
the latter claim to be the source of legitimacy. The secular state, however,
can intervene in the affairs of a religious place in the event of law and
order problems (Golden Temple); mismanagement (Vaishno Devi) or to secure
entry for devotees being discriminated on grounds of caste (Nathdwara).
Indeed, the state is perceived by
all communities as having overriding powers, which can be used for a higher
good. This is why reformist Christians are requesting the state to intervene
in the community's affairs and abolish conditions causing grief and anguish
to ordinary citizens. These include the right to legally adopt a child
(as opposed to being a mere legal guardian), and greater egality and dignity
in divorce provisions. Reformers of a small Islamic sect in western India
had similarly clamoured for an end to the abusive powers enjoyed by the
community head; but the fear of a backlash kept the Government at bay.
My point is that the then Prime
Minister, PV Narasimha Rao, erred grievously in offering to rebuild Charar-e-Sharief
at state expense after it was burnt down by foreign mercenaries (it has
recently been attacked again). A secular state does not build mosques,
particularly when they continue to be used for anti-national purposes.
India has enjoyed the respect of the international community from times
immemorial because of her civilisational ethos, which rests on adherence
to Dharma (eternal law, justice, righteousness). Notwithstanding our modern
passion for communal parity (legacy of Jawaharlal Nehru), we must appreciate
that India cannot win the admiration of the civilised world by succumbing
to the Shariah.
