A welcome move

THE GOVERNMENT OF India's decision to extend the unilateral ceasefire in Jammu and Kashmir by one month, up to January 26, 2001, is a welcome development, made possible by a perceptible reduction in the scale of terrorist violence as also in cross- border firing and infiltration. The limited ceasefire initiative announced by the Prime Minister, Mr. Atal Behari Vajpayee, on November 19, to be in operation during the month of Ramzan - seemed to be shaky initially, what with sections of the All-Party Hurriyat Conference sending conflicting signals and the pro- Pakistan militant groups, like the Laskhar-e-Taiba and the Harkat-ul-Mujahideen, threatening to scuttle the peace endeavour. It is to the credit of the security forces and the peace-craving people of the State that, despite provocative attacks by these terrorist elements on soft targets and the security forces, the ceasefire could hold. To a considerable extent, Pakistan's response by way of exercising ``maximum restraint'' along the Line of Control - even if under international pressure stemming from the all-round appreciation India's Ramzan initiative had received - has contributed to the improved situation on the ground. And this is apparent from the statement Mr. Vajpayee made in Parliament on Wednesday announcing the extension of ceasefire, where he acknowledged a ``marked improvement'' in incidents of exchange of fire and the prevalence of ``relative peace'' along the LoC.

What is profoundly significant, albeit implicit, in the Prime Minister's statement is the recognition of the intrinsic link between the search for an enduring solution to the vexatious Kashmir problem and a substantive engagement with Pakistan. While reiterating New Delhi's commitment to the Shimla Agreement and the Lahore Declaration, he said the Government would ``initiate exploratory steps'' as are considered necessary, ``so that the composite dialogue process'' between India and Pakistan could be resumed. All along, the Vajpayee regime had been maintaining that insurgency in Kashmir was an issue strictly between the Indian state and some `misguided' elements in the Valley and, for that reason, any peace effort would necessarily have to involve only such militant groups, implying there is no role for Pakistan. Given this context, Mr. Vajpayee's declared commitment ``as the initiator of the dialogue process with Pakistan'' marks a distinct and salutary attitudinal shift, which if sustained and pursued in all seriousness, could well make for a breakthrough. At this stage, however, optimism has to be tempered with caution.

Basically, `ceasefire' is an opportunity to build trust among the adversaries and create an atmosphere conducive to the initiation of the dispute-resolving process. Making it hold for a long enough period is undoubtedly a far more complicated and trickier task where the militant elements constitute an amorphous lot working independently and at cross purposes, as in Jammu and Kashmir. Even the APHC, which is recognised by Pakistan as a true representative of the Kashmiris, seems to be riven by serious differences at the leadership level - not surprising perhaps for an umbrella outfit encompassing as many as 23 groups, some pro- independence and others pro-Pakistan. There are, of course, the mainstream political parties like the National Conference which cannot obviously be shut out of any negotiation process. Considering that the current ceasefire initiative has come at a time when the people are longing for peace and at least many of the militant groups have turned pragmatic, no effort should be spared to make a success of it. Complex as any dialogue process is, it could undergo changes at different stages, but one has to be absolutely firm about what is sought to be achieved, and this has necessarily to be a solution that fulfils the aspirations of the people in regard to political empowerment, peace and development. Above all, the principal interlocutors should be unflinching in their commitment to that objective.

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : Opinion
Next     : Misappropriating authority