A remarkable convergence of views

By B. Muralidhar Reddy

ISLAMABAD, AUG. 9. Is Pakistan responsible for the decision of the Hizbul Mujahideen to call off its unilateral three month ceasefire declaration within a fortnight?

India has accused Pakistan of having twisted the arms of the Hizbul leadership to revoke the ceasefire and Pakistan in turn said it was an inevitable consequence of the ``negative and transparently insincere'' attitude of New Delhi. There is nothing unusual about the mutual mud-slinging given the tensions between the two countries.

Whatever the truth, it has become a highly subjective issue depending on from which side of the border one looks at it. There has been a remarkable convergence in the views of the Pakistan Foreign Office and the Hizbul leadership based in Islamabad since the July 24 announcement of a ceasefire by the outfit's leader in Srinagar.

The former Prime Minister and Pakistan People's Party leader, Ms. Benazir Bhutto, issued a statement here accusing the Foreign Office of having failed to ``use its good offices with the Hizbul to keep the ceasefire going'' and said hawks had prevailed over the moderates.

Extension of Foreign Office?

In the last two weeks it appeared as if the Hizbul had become an extension of the Foreign Office and vice-versa. Particularly over the last five days, the two spoke the same language on the steps New Delhi should take for the peace process to survive.

An extraordinary feature of the drama was that the statements from Hizbul headquarters here varied with those from the field commanders led by Mr. Abdul Majid Dar in Srinagar. To begin with, the outfit's high command took exactly 26 hours to own up the ceasefire declaration.

There were no conditions attached to Mr. Dar's declaration. In contrast, Syed Salahuddin said the ceasefire was subject to India's response to the demand for tripartite talks outside the framework of the Constitution. ``If they do not show a positive response, we will resume our activities. This time it will not remain restricted to Kashmir,'' he said.

The outfit set the August 8 deadline hours before the Indian authorities were to hold the first ever meeting with its commanders in Srinagar. Later in the evening, the Hizbul made it clear that the talks would be confined to the ``ceasefire protocol'' and that they would have nothing to do with the talks on substantive issues related to Kashmir.

Backing for APHC

The first statement of the Foreign Office here did not take cognisance of the Hizbul ceasefire. It said Pakistan recognised the All-Party Hurriyat Conference as the true representative of Kashmiris and endorsed the latter's demand for participation in any dialogue between India and Pakistan.

Then came the second statement when India responded to the ceasefire and offered talks after declaring cessation of hostilities against the Hizbul cadre. The Foreign Office termed India's offer a ploy to placate international opinion and urged New Delhi to initiate a ``meaningful and result-oriented dialogue'' with Pakistan.

The third statement, which followed the massacres of over 100 civilians in Kashmir, said the possibility of involvement of Indian troops in the incidents could not be ruled out. The Hizbul, on its part, denied the hand of its cadre. The fourth and last statement came on the day the Hizbul chief wrote to various Islamabad-based Ambassadors accusing India of having failed to give peace a chance. The letter of Syed Salahuddin and the briefing by the Foreign Office spokesman were unbelievably similar.

Benazir charge

In the words of Ms. Bhutto, the Hizbul chief was being insensitive to the situation by holding a press conference in Islamabad to announce revocation of the ceasefire. ``The press conference could have easily been held in Muzzafarabad thus preventing the perception that Hizbul is Pakistan based''.

Conceding that there could no solution of the Kashmir problem without Islamabad's involvement, the PPP chief said the tripartite meeting could have materialised after the bilateral talks. ``It is hoped that the moderates would reassert themselves and save the people of South Asia from the threat of a potential nuclear conflict''.

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : International
Next     : 13 killed in LTTE attacks