Author: Sanjay Jha
Publication: The Pioneer
Date: August 8, 2010
URL: http://www.dailypioneer.com/274617/Kashmir-not-for-talks.html
Will China hold talks with anyone on the future
of Tibet? Has Pakistan ever involved India on the issue of Baluchistan insurgency?
So, why should New Delhi engage Islamabad on Kashmir? K-word should be non-negotiable
for us
As I drove past the seedy-looking dilapidated
single-screen Edward Theatre near Princess Street, Mumbai, the irony was not
lost on me. It was playing the classic romantic film, Kashmir Ki Kali, even
as India remembered the fallen martyrs of the Kargil war valiantly fought
11 years ago.
The India-Pakistan bilateral relationship
has been mired in a complex, intractable web since 1947. But despite the woebegone
progress in 63 years (please ignore those celebrated cricket matches, frequent
photo-ops in international summits, fanfare-ridden bus rides and numerous
cosmetic gestures) and three hostile wars later, both countries continue the
same ham-handed, appalling job in bridging the cavernous divide.
As India and Pakistan take a deserved hiatus
after the Islamabad altercation, it is time to introspect and do some soul-searching.
And plain speaking.
The Islamabad Fiasco
The rigorous examination of the ill-fated
press conference of External Affairs Minister SM Krishna and Pakistan's Foreign
Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi in Islamabad is singularly unwarranted. It was
a sure-shot misadventure from the word go. No doubt, public opinion matters
and nervous politicians are justifiably worried about people's perceptions,
but media management cannot overtake subtle nuances of managing serious diplomatic
equations. What was the compelling urgency to have a press conference, when
a simple well-drafted joint statement expressing good intentions would have
sufficed? Which strategic analyst expected a miraculous "breakthrough"
anyway? It was pure tactlessness especially when you know you are treading
on treacherous ice.
Qureshi is not necessarily the personification
of nastiness, but he sure possesses the charisma of a flat tyre. Frankly,
Qureshi needs intense media lab sessions as he fails to realise that body
language is three-fourths of an effective communication, particularly in a
Truman Show's world. Also, in these bilateral media interactions there is
humongous competitive pressure to score brownie points over each other, as
if it is a quasi-presidential debate. Media cursorily evaluates: "Who
won?" Qureshi's irrational exuberance ensured that both Krishna and he
lost.
India scores brownie points for engaging in
diplomatic dialogue with a recalcitrant neighbour despite the wishy-washy
handling of 26/11. The despiteful masterminds of that orchestrated attack
today live in Pakistan. The Mumbai attack was not just a sporadic terrorist
assault by a handful of misled, malevolent young men wearing backpacks on
a suicidal mission, but a planned attempt by splinter terror outfits to wage
a proxy war against India. David Coleman Headley's testimony of the ISI's
involvement is a trenchant indictment of Pakistan's tacit institutional abetment
of that attack.
Changing Tactics
Global terrorism is the new, modern warfare
replacing cross-border conflicts of the World War II kind. Now deadly killers
destroy civilian lives and predetermined sensitive targets in a guerrilla
operation. There are no UN sanctions, no international condemnation either.
But a wounded India needs to emphatically tell the world that despite frequent
provocations it has resisted the mounting urge to counter-attack.
India has not been able to successfully ostracise
Pakistan by building a strong international lobby, essential to keep Islamabad
under constant surveillance. The 26/11 attack was promptly repositioned by
the much underrated President Asif Ali Zardari as an act of "non-state
actors", an ambiguous term wrapped in a fuzzy foil. Non-state actors
have given Pakistan a convenient pretext to walk away scot-free from both
the moral and criminal responsibility it otherwise would have faced. In fact,
it unwittingly legitimises cross-border terrorism. Quintessentially, Zardari
insinuates that if another 26/11 happens, so be it.
But why should India pay such a mammoth price
for Pakistan's internal challenges? And in any case, how can Islamabad thereafter
put up such a ludicrous pretension that it needs conclusive evidence despite
being presented several dossiers? Perhaps Pakistan's cocky demeanor emerges
from its peculiar stranglehold over the world's sole surviving superpower,
the blundering United States. But then that's another story altogether.
The External Affairs portfolio needs a savvy
sangfroid politician with deft negotiation skills, not an old party faithful
awaiting political resuscitation. Is Krishna the right man for the job? He
was resurrected from semi-retirement and offered a high-profile sensitive
portfolio despite the delicate geopolitical challenges confronting India.
It is one thing to manage Reddy brothers and Silicon Valley investors but
altogether another to handle artful, seasoned and even crafty adversaries
from across the border. Krishna will need to buck up quick as he could be
to the UPA II what Shivraj Patil was to the UPA I.
A Soft State
It is time we stopped living in denial, in
a land of dazzling illusions. Pakistan is pathologically obsessed with Kashmir,
and three decisive war defeats have not waned its contumacious intent to sustain
its vigorous territorial aggression. Maybe the creation of Bangladesh also
hurts deeply. Hence, beneath that rehearsed feel-good pretence lies a disgruntled
adversary in permanent sulk. That concealed antagonism frequently takes vicious
forms, like periodic Kashmir infiltration, a Kargil and casual decontrol of
non-state actors. It is the latter that Pakistan knows can create havoc in
India's essentially tranquil existence.
In India, it is an effortless task to create
complete maelstrom, hence the spasmodic terrorist attacks to remind us of
our unchanging vulnerability. Our intelligence systems and disaster preparedness
are riddled with bureaucratic inefficiencies. This is sadly enough not a state
secret. I believe it is this undeniable susceptibility that makes India a
soft state, and invariably forces us into the dialogue table. India needs
to replicate the Israeli security model, no matter how Herculean the task
of defence readiness may be.
We desperately need a Minister of Internal
Security. It is futile to stick to the flimsy pretext that terrorists can
strike anywhere, anytime. I agree they can. But should modern India live in
constant fear of lurking death? I think our canny neighbours know that very
well. It creates a lopsided advantage if your belligerent opponent knows how
unguarded is your backyard. It finally impacts diplomatic negotiations.
J&K Non-Negotiable
Despite handling Jammu & Kashmir for over
six decades we have steadfastly refused to loudly proclaim the obvious: Kashmir
is non-negotiable. A lot of water has passed since that October incursion
of 1947. It's time India cut out the politic pussyfooting on Kashmir, and
stated: Let's have great bilateral relations, but there will be no talks if
Kashmir is brought into the fore.
Territorial disputes are usually convoluted,
long-lasting stumbling blocks unless there is visionary leadership on both
sides. India and Pakistan are spending exorbitant resources in defence expenditure
they can ill-afford. The much-touted ploy of assuaging domestic vote-banks
reveals a myopic vision, determined by short-term political expediencies.
That is why the Israel-Palestine dispute also remains an interminable problem.
The most bizarre aspect is Pakistan's allegation
of Indian human rights violations in Kashmir. India's retort should be obvious:
Yes, there have been occasional indiscretions, but if Pakistan were to stop
its flagrant terrorist incursions into our territories India would gladly
withdraw/reduce its security forces, and then even the random assault would
dramatically drop.
Learn from China
In 1947, India was a poor country just overcoming
the nightmare of foreign subjugation. Six decades later, we are no longer
a bankrupt nation going around with a begging bowl. In 2010, Prime Minister
Manmohan Singh was the first foreign head of state invited to the White House
by US President Barack Obama. They also confabulate in G-20 Summits. India
is a gigantic trillion-dollar economy, the emerging labour-supply chain of
global manufacturers and service companies and along with China, the biggest
consumer market of the future. But we must convert our great commercial base
into measurable political gains. It is time for realpolitik.
India is a country that intrinsically does
not know how to "market itself". Our lobbying skills are pedestrian,
our confidence in building alliances woefully lacking in diplomatic finesse
and skilful stratagem. We are constantly "catching up". By contrast,
China uses a judicious mix of its military prowess and gargantuan economic
size to extraordinary advantage.
As for Kashmir, what can the impressionable
Kashmiri youth do if they are not gainfully employed and looking forward to
a secure future with bright sanguine expectations? What are India's leading
political parties doing to create livelihood options? That should be our national
agenda.
Kashmir also needs to benefit from India's
cultural diversity, as it is excessively cocooned in a security maze. Why
can't we truly make Kashmir the Switzerland of the East, a tourist haven like
no other? It is a Catch-22 situation. Unless the security climate improves,
Kashmir will suffer from the fear psychosis it emanates and the consequent
forced isolation. On the flip side, we only deny Kashmir its full economic
potential by delaying its inevitable integration into India which in turn
can neutralise militancy by nipping its growth in the bud. Why can't India's
global software majors be encouraged to set up their growing businesses in
Srinagar? A big push from all stakeholders is the need of the hour.
Secularism Works
Despite a few serious setbacks, India should
be proud of its secular credentials. We are home to 10.3 per cent of the world's
Muslim population. Of our 138 million Muslims in India, only about five per
cent live in Jammu & Kashmir. It is grossly unfair to believe that the
Indian political establishment treats 95 per cent of Indian Muslims with kid
gloves and those in the Valley with a rough iron rod.
We cannot be seen as a ruthless military regime
suppressing dissidents, reminiscent of Eastern Europe in the Cold War era,
every time there is stone-pelting in Srinagar. It is impracticable to believe
that Kashmir will not have disaffected elements attempting intimidation. Stray
incidents of violence take place in every city and town. The Valley cannot
be equated with the West Bank and Gaza Strip because of its scattered incidents.
In Kashmir every minor instance is hurriedly escalated to alarming levels,
drawing international coverage and giving Pakistani intransigence a kick-start.
Sure, local police need to gradually replace military presence and human rights
violations need to be promptly addressed. It will be naïve to expect
100 per cent normalcy in the Valley. That is being both optimistic and immature.
We need to give Kashmir some breathing space, and we will get better results.
Diplomacy vs Politics
The truth is that Home Secretary GK Pillai's
statements on the ISI's role in 26/11 was factually correct and publicly known,
so how is its "timing" at all germane? Krishna's open rebuking of
Pillai is a manifestation of how India lives in some strange state of renunciation
of realities. Pillai committed no diplomatic gaffe, only Qureshi masterfully
politicised it. Qureshi forgot that diplomacy is the art of jumping into troubled
waters without creating a splash. The ripples are still being felt.
I now enter a hitherto forbidden zone, the
sacrosanct territory (literally) of Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK). Both
India and Pakistan have actually arrived at a convenient status quo of sorts
but are unwilling to publicly acknowledge it as they apprehend a domestic
backlash. PoK remains an unofficial line of control despite its "illegal
status". But for heaven's sake, aren't Pakistanis holding elections in
that disputed zone for decades? Who are we fooling? In effect, India believes
that it is making a significant territorial concession to Pakistan (a quid
pro quo for the remaining Jammu & Kashmir) by letting the ceasefire line
become the new border, virtually ensuring PoK a reality. It is time Pakistan
reciprocated by accepting the inevitable - that the rest of Jammu & Kashmir
is rightfully Indian - and keeps a distance from Srinagar.
Willy-nilly, political leadership in both
countries will have to pass the litmus test on this; the delay is costing
a humongous resource-drain in both nations.
The Way Forward
The politicians on both sides who spew virulence
and pseudo-nationalism need to realise that they represent the common man
on the streets of Karachi and Kanyakumari, Rawalpindi and Ranchi. I believe
that neither a Pakistani nor an Indian really hate each other. Given a choice,
they would love to move on.
The two countries can take a cue from two
fairly unheralded tennis players - Aisam Qureshi of Pakistan and Rohan Bopanna
of India. They are a wonderful doubles combination, partners in one of the
most competitive sports in the world. They play together as a team and travel
from one city to another, even as their political leaders continue to squabble.
Neither come from countries that have good tennis playing facilities. And
yet they have won titles in the ATP tennis circuit and even entered the Wimbledon
quarter-finals this year, not for once allowing the inimical relations between
their nations to derail their friendship, partnership and faith in each other.
Therein lies a story. Of hope. Of opportunity.
Of possibility. Of a tomorrow.
Futile engagement:
India suspends composite dialogue with Pakistan
after the November 2008 Mumbai attack. Tensions run high for months, but the
UPA Government gradually agrees to hold talks with Islamabad.
Six months after 26/11, Prime Minister Manmohan
Singh and Pakistan President Asif Ali Zardari meet on the sidelines of a regional
summit in Russia on June 6, 2009. Singh tells Zardari he has come with a "limited
mandate of how Pakistan can deliver on its assurances that its territory would
not be used for terror attacks on India".
On July 16, 2009, Singh meets Pakistan Prime
Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani at Sharm el-Sheikh in Egypt. A joint statement
de-linking Islamabad's action on terror to resumption of dialogue and reference
to terrorism in Baluchistan kicks up a storm in New Delhi, thus ensuring no
improvement in relations.
Pakistan Foreign Secretary Salman Bashir meets
Indian counterpart Nirupama Rao in New Delhi on February 25, 2010. Both sides
promise to "stay in touch", but Bashir defends Lashkar-e-Tayyeba
chief Saeed Hafiz. No wonder
chill remains.
India-Pakistan talks taste success in Bhutan
on April 29, 2010 on the sidelines of the Saarc summit. Foreign Ministers
are asked to work on modalities to restore trust and confidence.
Foreign Secretaries of the two countries meet
in Islamabad on June 24, 2010. Home Minister P Chidambaram visits Pakistan
to meet Interior Minister Rehman Malik the next day. Chidambaram emphasises
India had no role in Baluchistan and says Pakistan must back its intent to
act against terror with real action.
SM Krishna goes to Pakistan for July 15 meeting
with his Pakistani counterpart Shah Mehmood Qureshi. He says he would like
to see action taken on LeT terrorist David Headley's evidence on Pakistan
links to 26/11. Pakistan insists on resuming dialogue on Kashmir without specific
action on terrorism. Talks end amid acrimony.
Shah Mehmood Qureshi is due to visit India
in December 2010
- Sanjay Jha is author and consultant, who
co-runs the blog, HamaraCongress.com. The views expressed here are his own
