India / Pakistan conflict, comments, 16 June 1999

Communalism Watch and Governance Monitor
16 Jun 1999

I think ciizens from both sides need to stand up and clearly announce that they want no war. They do not want to kill their own relatives nor destroy their own civilisation. They want this madness to finish for ever. We too need to chance for a better tomorrow. Perhaps when the night is over, and the children on both sides of the border wake up next morning, nothing would please them more than to be able to go back to their schools or simply play with their friends, not fully understanding that last night they all agreed that peace was a better option. Let us pause for a day and give peace a chance. naeem sadiq

KARGIL AND INDO-PAK RELATIONS
by Asghar Ali Engineer

The war like situation in Kargil is a matter of great worry. It is once again a turning point in the Indo-Pak relations. The bus diplomacy, as it has come to be known, after the Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee undertook journey to Lahore in a bus, seems to have failed. The Prime Minister's Lahore journey had created great deal of enthusiasm in both the countries. There was talk of further improvements and liberalization of visa regime. It was hoped that the bus diplomacy will prove quite decisive and there will be no turning back.

In the flush of enthusiasm hundreds of people came to India and hundreds went to Pakistan from our side of the border and peoples of India and Pakistan fraternized with each other. But the Kargil conflict has undone all that and once again there is great despair on both sides. Who is responsible for the Kargil situation? According to the Defence Minister, Mr.George Fernandes, neither Mr. Nawaz Sharif nor the ISI was responsible for infiltration from across the Line of Control at Kargil. It was only the deed of the Pakistani Army.

It is surprising how the Defence Minister can issue such statement and give clean chit to the Prime Minister of Pakistan and more surprisingly to the ISI which has repeatedly undertaken subversive activities in India. It is true that army has been all powerful in Pakistan but even then it cannot undertake, on its own, such a major operation in Kargil without knowledge and approval of the Prime Minister. The mandate the Nawaz Sharif Government received in last election was quite overwhelming and convincing. Such a Prime Minister cannot be impotent. Mr.George Fernandese alone knows the motive of giving such statement. To say the least, it is totally unconvincing and, what is more, quite undesirable.

But nevertheless it is true that the army in Pakistan would hardly rejoice when relations between the two countries improve. The army feels, it is very much against their raison d'etre. The army in Pakistan certainly thrives on intensifying conflict between India and Pakistan. The army top brass now tends to be from Punjab and hence more aggressive towards India. It is, therefore, true that the Pakistani Army could not have been favourably disposed of towards improving relationship between the two countries. But that does not mean that the Army can undertake such a major infiltration drive in Kargil without the knowledge, let alone approval, of Mr. Nawaz Sharif.

One more thing is to be borne in mind here. Mr. Nawaz Sharif had won the last election on the promise that he will improve relations with India. For variety of reasons there is great desire among the people of Pakistan for better relationship with India. Different sections of people have different reasons for that. Traders and industrialists have their own compulsions and they want increased volume of trade between the two countries. Common people watch T.V. everyday showing about the other country and have become more curious and desirous of meeting the people from other side. The Muhajirs, on the other hand, intensely desire better relationship with India as their near and dear ones are across the border. They want liberalization of visa regime and easy travel facilities.

It is in this light that one should see the importance of bus diplomacy. It gave opportunity to Mr. Nawaz Sharif to prove that he is keen to fulfill his election promises and is doing his best to act in that direction. He was under compulsion to do so more because he had exploded the nuclear device in May 1998 in response to India's explosion and that had created an impression that the relations between India and Pakistan were going down hill. Vajpayee Government also had its own compulsions to bring about a qualitative change in the relations between the two countries. Firstly, the explosion of nuclear device had created a strong impression that it is a chauvinist measure by a rightist Hindu party and mainly to intimidate the neighbour whom it looks down upon. Secondly, these were the only two countries in the SAARC region who have been hostile towards each other. Thirdly, Mr. Vajpayee also wanted to salvage his image which he had created during the Janta regime in 1977-79 by improving relat ions with Pakistan as the foreign minister then.

Thus Mr.Vajpayee seized the opportunity and declared that he would travel by bus to Lahore on its maiden run. This brought great relief to Mr. Nawaz Sharif also who too was looking for an opportunity to salvage his election promise. Thus both the prime Ministers had their own reasons to indulge in bus diplomacy and issue the Lahore declaration. But, it is obvious now that perhaps, it did not go well with the Army top brass. It even absented itself from the ceremonies in Lahore in the Governor's House. Many eye brows were raised then.

Thus the army was waiting for an opportunity to strike against India and it chose the Kargil area to do so. If all this is true, the Pakistani army has succeeded in creating tension between the two countries again. What was achieved by bus diplomacy seems to have been undone and the two countries are, as if, back to square one again. But, it does not mean that the army in Pakistan could do it, as Mr. George Fernandes claims, without the knowledge of Mr. Nawaz Sharif. What is more probable is that Mr. Nawaz Sharif succumbed to the army pressure to undertake this operation in Kargil. Mr. Nawaz Sharif, in a way 'fulfilled' his election promise, and now also pleased the army generals by succumbing to their pressure to intensify tension in Kashmir. After all given the situation in Pakistan, no Prime Minister, whatever his or her stature, can survive without the army support. Zia-ul-Haque has created a constituency for the army, and the army in Pakistan has much greater say in political affairs tha n in any other country. The democracy in Pakistan is yet to strike strong roots.

The Pakistani Army has one more reason to be hostile to India. It perceives India as one who humiliated the Pakistani army in Bangla Desh war. It has not, and perhaps cannot, forget this episode. It would also like to see India dismembered, sooner than later, or at least a part of it in Kashmir, to be separated from it. Kashmir, in its perception, is the weakest part of India. Any political settlement of the problem of Kashmir will be resented by the Pakistani army. It will deprive it of the opportunity it is waiting for. The ISI and the Army has been creating trouble in Kashmir for long. First it incited trouble in the valley. When that potential was exhausted it chose certain areas in Jammu like the Doda district. When it exploited it to the full it has shifted its operational area to Kargil.

Thus it will be seen that the Kashmir problem is at the centre of the relations between India and Pakistan. Our weakness is that there is strong sense of disaffection towards India among the Kashmiri people. We have to do our best to remove this sense of disaffection. But unfortunately, for variety of reasons, we have done otherwise. The Kashmiri Muslims had rejected, under the leadership of Shaikh Abdullah, the concept of Muslims being a separate nation and consciously threw their lot with secular democratic India. It is obvious that they had greater faith in secular India because they thought their Kashmiri identity will have better chances of flourishing in secular dispensation than a theocratic dispensation with emphasis on the overarching Islamic identity.

The Kashmiris thus welcomed inclusion of the article 370 in the Constitution guaranteeing full autonomy. But their disillusionment with India began when they found that their aspirations were being thwarted and the Article 370 was gradually diluted so much so that it retained only a symbolic status. It lost all its substance. Kashmir is important for India for more than one reason and we should do everything possible to preserve its identity and regional personality.

Kashmir endorsed secular foundations of our nationhood by resisting the Pakistani attempts to annex it. Secondly, Kashmir is a rich symbol of our composite culture. The sufi Islam of Kashmir found itself closer to monotheistic Shaivite Hinduism of that region. Nund Rushi (Sufi Nuruddin ) and Lalded or Laleshwari of the Shaivite tradition represented this syncreticism and rich composite nature of Kashmiri culture. These Kashmiri traditions not only underpins our secularity but also strengthens our rich composite culture which is so essential for our nation building efforts.

Of course, it is not easy to induce strong sense of affection for India among the Kashmiri Muslims after all that has happened since 1947 when the Kashmiris chose to affiliate themselves with India. But, certainly, it is not a hopeless task either. The very first step in this direction is that the people of Kashmir should be made to feel that they will have say in any solution to the problem. Their aspirations should not be ignored in any case. Secondly, the dilution of the article 370 should be undone and greater degree of autonomy, albeit within an agreed time-frame, should be restored. Mr. Faruque Abdullah was demanding, during Mr. Narsimha Rao's prime ministership that Sheikh Abdullah-Nehru agreement of 1953 should be restored. However, he conveniently dropped this demand after he was reelected the chief minister of Kashmir in the state elections of 1996. But his election has brought no relief to the Kashmiris.

The demand to restore the Nehru-Abdullah agreement of 1953 is not unreasonable. It will strengthen the hands of those elements in Kashmir who want to remain with India. The Hurriyyat will lose all its legitimacy once that happens. The Hurriyyat leaders who essentially stand for merger with Pakistan have no popular support even today and hence they shun contesting elections. They will lose the limited degree of support if the Kashmiri Muslims feel reassured that their aspirations will be fulfilled by India. Even after insurgency in Kashmir and widespread violations of human rights at the hands of Indian Army and para-military forces, the alienation with India is not total and irreversible.

Once voluntary accession replaces coercion, our position in the international fora will be much stronger and we will have much greater degree of legitimacy to retain our claim over Kashmir. Then the international dimension of the problem can be taken care of with much greater confidence. In the meanwhile our efforts to improve relations with Pakistan should continue unabated despite what has happened in Kargil.

Return to main page on India/Pakistan.

Action Alerts	PMA's newsletter	What's on where	Peace links	Help PMA grow	How PMA can help you	Petition Forms	Site Map