Waiting for the General

In Kashmir, there is a feeling that a solution is possible only when hardliners are ruling both India and Pakistan. So, says Shujaat Bukhari, the hopes of the people have been revitalised.

IN THE Valley of distress and discontent, the Government of India (GoI) interlocutor, Mr. K.C. Pant's ``Mission Kashmir'' has been overshadowed by the Prime Minister, Mr. Atal Behari Vajpayee's peace talks invitation to Pakistan's military ruler, Gen. Pervez Musharraf.

Mr. Pant is seen more as the Deputy Chairman of Planning Commission and not as the Government's chief negotiator. People see him as dealing with development problems, and look to the Vajpayee-Musharraf Summit for a solution to the main political issue.

On the first day of his visit, Mr. Pant addressed a crowded press conference, on the second day, the media presence had fallen by half and the third day saw only a handful of journalists attending his briefing, confined to development issues. ``His mission is no different from a visit by any Central Minister issuing directions to departments and promising an information technology revolution,'' quipped a journalist.

The impression given on the first day of his visit was that Mr. Pant would be representing the Government of India in negotiating on the political issues in Jammu and Kashmir. But he started his day with a briefing on the development works, which had come to a halt because of delay in finalisation of the State's annual plan by the Planning Commission he heads. When Mr. Pant was talking about an IT revolution in the State starting with the setting up of cyber cafes, the newspapers in Srinagar carried reports that the Centre was yet to give security clearance for the multi-crore Software Technology Park at Rangreth inaugurated by the Union Minister, Mr. Pramod Mahajan,

this January.

Though Mr. Pant maintained that he was on a mission to understand, except for his informal meeting with the Democratic Freedom Party chief, Mr. Shabir Shah, and the Quami Mushawarti Council headed by Mr. Azam Inquillabi, one of the founders of militancy in Kashmir, he hardly got a feel of the disillusionment and discontent in Kashmir. Mr. Shah had also backtracked from his earlier stand and insisted that the 70-minute-long meeting

with Mr. Pant was an informal one.

Even the secret meeting between Mr. Inquillabi and Mr. Pant proved a damp squib. It was followed by Mr. Inquillabi's expulsion from the party. He had met Mr. Pant at the Nehru Guest House in Srinagar but wanted it kept a secret. Even as Mr. Pant confirmed the meeting, he tried to persuade the journalists who saw Mr. Inquillabi leaving through the backdoor not to publish the news.

Once the chief commander of the militant outfit, Operation Balakot, Mr. Inquillabi returned from Pakistan apparently disgusted with its Kashmir policy and bid adieu to guns. What transpired at the meeting was not known. But the secrecy involved showed that separatists in Kashmir, whatever their support base, are not ready to talk to the Government on the present terms.

Mr. Inquillabi ended up being expelled from the party he inherited from the late Sofi Mohammad Akbar who had differed with Sheikh Abdullah when he had an accord with Indira Gandhi in 1975. Mr. Inquillabi's party members maintain that he did not consult them before meeting Mr. Pant. Though the Quami Mushawarti Council, of which the Mahazi Azadi (which Mr. Inquillabi heads) and the former Chief Minister, Mr. G. M. Shah's Awami National Conference (ANC) are constituents, had a meeting with Mr. Pant, the alliance has not been going well for quite some time.

From the Shikarawalas on the Dal Lake to the ruling National Conference (NC) activists, no one in the Valley talked to Mr. Pant about the political aspect of the problem. Even the Srinagar-based editors stressed on opening job avenues for the unemployed youth as they all felt Mr. Pant's job was related to planning and development.

His meeting with Mr. G.M. Shah too was not encouraging. Mr. Shah, a mainstream politician, did not agree that Kashmir was an integral part of India. ``It is disputed,'' he said in Mr. Pant's presence.

``His visit lost significance since Mr. Vajpayee and Gen. Musharraf are going to talk on Kashmir,'' says Mr. Tahir Mohiuddin, editor of the mass-circulated Urdu weekly Chattan. And the rejection of the talks offer by the All-Party Hurriyat Conference (APHC) and militant groups active in Kashmir did not add to the sigfnicance of Mr. Pant's visit. In the last 12 years, any move on the part of the Government of India towards holding talks with those who do not challenge the accession has not helped in achieving any breakthrough. The APHC outrightly rejected Mr. Pant's appointment as chief negotiator and refused to talk to him.

Though chances of the Hurriyat Conference leaders being called for talks when Mr. Vajpayee and Gen. Musharraf meet are bleak, Pakistan's Foreign Minister, Mr. Abdus Sattar's statement that the General would like to meet them is not discouraging for them. Since the APHC has enjoyed the backing of Pakistan in the past, Islamabad cannot afford to ignore the alliance when talks on Kashmir are held. It may not be possible for Pakistan to find a slot at once for the APHC, but it will try to keep it in the picture.

``The Hurriyat has a role to play. How can India and Pakistan ignore it. It talks about atrocities and repression against Kashmiris, whatever the ideologies its leaders have,'' says Mr. Mohammad Sulaiman, a student at the Kashmir University.

The Centre's sincerity on resolving the Kashmir issue has always been questioned in the Valley; and the rejection of the Assembly's autonomy resolution passed in 2000 further contributed to this feeling. ``When they are not ready to even have a cursory look at a resolution passed by the Assembly which they say is a legitimate body of public representatives how can they talk to those who challenge the basis of the State's relations with India,'' asked a senior teacher at the Kashmir University. That is perhaps why the N.C. leaders had not much to tell the chief negotiator about autonomy but complained that the Centre was not wholeheartedly supporting the State's rebuilding.

Whatever credibility the Pant visit had vanished with the tough statements from the External Affairs Minister, Mr. Jaswant Singh. For even people like Mr. Shabir Shah it was a setback.``It has hurt me and will not help in continuing with any kind of process,'' he says.

In the course of Mr. Pant's meetings, demands for trifurcation - people of Leh demanding a Union Territory status, some voices in Jammu asking for a separate State and a handful of Kashmiri Pandits wanting to carve out a homeland with Union Territory status within Kashmir - again came up which may help the Centre neutralise the demand for the ``right to self- determination''. In total contrast to the demand for grant of Union Territory status in Leh, those who met Mr. Pant in Kargil stressed that they wanted to be a part of Jammu and Kashmir. People in Kargil appeared more concerned over development of their region.

In Kashmir, there is a feeling that a solution is possible only when hardliners are ruling India and Pakistan. So, the hopes of the people have now been revitalised. With the BJP in power in New Delhi and a General ruling Pakistan, the possibility of a solution is not ruled out, even if it remains confined to an end to violence and adjustments here and there. However, the role of the APHC and the militants groups is not ignored in the talk of any kind of settlement.

The Hurriyat Conference is seen as being pushed to the background when Mr. Vajpayee talked of direct dialogue with Pakistan. But it has not become irrelevant and will not as long as it talks of the solution of Kashmir problem in accordance with the wishes of the people.

Its leaders also are not ready to accept their irrelevance. ``We cannot be irrelevant as we represent the wishes of the people,'' says one of the executive members, Mr. Abdul Gani Lone.

The role of the militants in achieving peace is not undermined in the whole process. It is, in fact, the militants who are calling the shots on the ground irrespective of what the politicians talk about. Even the people do not have two opinions about it. ``Yes it is the militants who have to lay down arms and agree to a solution,'' says Mr. Mohammad Ashraf, a businessman. Whatever the Hurriyat Conference says, the militants have to be taken into confidence. In fact, the shortlived ceasefire by the Hizbul Mujahideen which ended with a round of talks between the Union Home Secretary, Mr. Kamal Pandey, and Hizb commanders had led to euphoria in Valley.

The ceasefire at that time was in total contrast with the unilateral one announced by the Government in November and called off last month. Analysts believe that no ceasefire or a peace process is going to achieve desired results until it is accepted by both sides.

What gives people hopes about the planned high level summit is the fact that Pakistan's military establishment can use its influence over the militant organisations or the `Jehadi' groups. ``Pakistan has a say in the affair and if they are able to achieve a breakthrough they can convince the militant groups, only which can lead to a peaceful solution,'' says a senior lawyer in the Jammu and Kashmir High Court.

Even as bilateral agreements between India and Pakistan have not resolved the issue, and more recently the Lahore Declaration could not help in building confidence on both sides, people such as the Chief Minister, Dr. Farooq Abdullah, are of the opinion that only the two neighbours can hammer out a solution.

Whatever the outcome of the first round of talks by Mr. Pant with various groups in the State, people in Kashmir will wait and watch for the Vajpayee-Musharraf meeting whenever it is fixed.

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : Opinion
Next     : Valley voices