Need for a realistic approach

By Riyaz Punjabi

IT IS well accepted that one should not expect miracles from the forthcoming Agra Summit between Mr. Atal Behari Vajpayee and Gen. Pervez Musharraf. It cannot, however, be denied that this event has given rise to a new atmosphere, which, if sustained, could go a long way in generating goodwill in both the countries.

The summit has sparked a debate in Jammu and Kashmir and the common man is optimistically awaiting the turn in the events leading to peace and an end to the war of attrition. There is also a debate going on as to why the All Party Hurriyat Conference (APHC) failed to seize the opportunity of a dialogue with the Government of India. Moreover, the other political groupings as well as mainstream parties have also become assertive and can be wished away in the future course of events only at the cost of a new confrontation and turmoil.

It would be in place to analyse certain developments which took place in the runup to the summit. It is equally relevant to assess certain statements made by immediate advisers to Gen. Musharraf which have a bearing on the substance of the summit. This estimation would help in evolving a realistic approach to the summit.

Recently, Gen. Musharraf held a meeting with the political groupings of different hues in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir regarding his visit to India. It is interesting to note that he did invite APHC leaders, including the wavering supporters of an independent Kashmir, viz. Liberation Front and Peoples' Conference, based in PoK. However, he completely ignored other pro-liberation groups which include Mr. Amanullah Khan's Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Front, Mr. Abdul Khaliq Ansari's Plebiscite Front (active for the last 50 years), Mr. Shawkat Kashmiri's Peoples National Party and Mr. Shawkat Maqbool Bhatt's National Liberation Party apart from some other small groups campaigning for an independent Jammu and Kashmir. Gen. Musharraf also ignored the leaders of Gilgit and Baltistan.

In the meantime, in Jammu and Kashmir, a senior APHC leader, Mr. Abdul Ghani Lone, came out with a statement alleging that Pakistan was trying to create a parallel APHC with the objective of marginalising the Srinagar-based outfit. It seems that the letter of invitation sent to the APHC in Srinagar by Gen. Musharraf was a damage-control exercise. This letter has not ostensibly dissipated the confusion and misgivings about the role and status of the APHC in Jammu and Kashmir but it certainly has created a sense of bewilderment among the common people in India. More so when Gen. Musharraf had repeatedly made it clear through his pronouncements that he would give due regard to the sensitivity of the Government of India in this regard.

The tea-party invitation to the APHC has put a question mark on Gen. Musharraf's oft-repeated claim of ``adopting a flexible approach'' and ``coming with an open mind'' to the summit in Agra. He might have signalled to his chessmen that they would not be ignored but it is equally a signal to the other political formations, some of them with credible public support across Jammu and Kashmir, that they were not visible to the Pakistan establishment because they had refused to be its lackeys. Thus, the ``people of Kashmir'' in the comprehension of Gen. Musharraf seems to be only the Hurriyat Conference. The ground realities in Jammu and Kashmir indicate that this is a flawed perception and the Indian leadership cannot afford to go along with this perception.

In the Pakistani perception, Kashmir constitutes the core of the problem between India and Pakistan. This position needs to be recognised and it naturally involves the entire State of Jammu and Kashmir as it existed on August 15, 1947. It cannot be construed to mean the Indian State of Jammu and Kashmir alone, based on the pattern of confusing the Hurriyat Conference with the `people of Kashmir'. Moreover, a discussion on the core issue of Jammu and Kashmir involves the rights of the people of the State - their political, cultural and economic rights. India and Pakistan have had agreements at the cost of the economic rights of the people of Jammu and Kashmir.

India and Pakistan take credit for concluding the historic Indus Waters Treaty. The fact remains that it was concluded to the peril of the economic development of Jammu and Kashmir. The State remained economically backward and could not build its industrial infrastructure because its main resource of water was bartered away without taking into account its interests. Successive Governments at the Centre were blamed for neglecting Jammu and Kashmir in this regard - even accused of deliberately keeping the State completely dependent on the Centre.

This discussion is relevant today because the Tulbul Navigation Project described as Wullar barrage by Pakistan is again a subject of discussion. During the initial phases of militancy not only this project but even the Salal hydel project became the target of militant attacks. Two Swedish engineers working at Salal were kidnapped by militants. People claiming to be engaged in `liberation' targeted projects for the economic development of the very land and the people they professed to liberate. It needs to be recognised that the issues which have a bearing on the economic rights of the people of Jammu and Kashmir are not negotiable. The people of the State have a right to stand up and launch a struggle against this bargain, should it ever take place.

Pakistan's Foreign Minister speaks, off and on, about the U.N. resolutions and bilateral agreements and tries to equate the two. In a unique reinterpretation of international law, he argues that in case the U.N. resolutions on Jammu and Kashmir have become irrelevant or invalid (the position taken by U.N. itself through its Secretary-General) then the other bilateral accords, particularly the Shimla Agreement, too have become irrelevant.

The underlying message, not to be missed, is that Pakistan's strategy of raising new questions at international fora persists. Pakistan's hectic efforts to bring in a resolution on alleged human rights violations in Jammu and Kashmir at the U.N. Commission on Human Rights in its March 1994 session failed miserably. The move was basically aimed at invoking fresh U.N. General Assembly jurisdiction through the U.N. Commission on Human Rights. Mr. Vajpayee, as the then Leader of the Opposition, was present at the Commission during that period.

After this setback, Pakistan has been repeatedly demanding fresh resolutions on Jammu and Kashmir. The response of the U.N. was first to remove the issue from the agenda and later declare that the resolutions on Jammu and Kashmir had become irrelevant and that it had no role.

The forthcoming summit in Agra should not miss the point that the Indian State of Jammu and Kashmir is a legal and a constitutional entity consolidated and recognised by the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir as well as the Constitution of India. The territorial boundaries defined by the law and the Constitution are not negotiable. This is the position of U.N. fora as well as on this issue. In the context of Jammu and Kashmir, for reopening this issue, both India and Pakistan will have to revert to the Act of Independence of 1947. If it were possible to fly back in time, many a problem besetting the world would be easy to resolve.

(The writer, a Kashmiri, is president of the International Centre for Peace Studies, New Delhi, and visiting faculty, JNU.)

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : Opinion
Previous : Negotiating Kashmir
Next     : The dawn of hope