The Hindu : Give realism a chance

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Wednesday, Dec 04, 2002

Opinion

Opinion - News Analysis

Give realism a chance

By Sajad Gani Lone

The process of conducting elections in Jammu and Kashmir is over. These elections were truly hyped. It made the headlines in the national and international media over a prolonged period of time. The elections were linked to peace in the State. Did India indulge in a systematic and wilful distortion of information by grossly exaggerating the importance of the elections or did the separatists fail to understand the importance of the elections? Will these elections help achieve durable peace?

The concept of elections in J&K is similar to that in any other State in India. Elections are held to choose an administrative team. It is not an institution to accept or reject accession to India. The electoral process is under way in Gujarat. We are yet to come across a statement which implies that voter participation would endorse Gujarat's accession to India. However, in the case of J&K, India has blatantly tried to project the participation of people as a proof of the endorsement of India's accession. India has marketed and packaged the elections as a decisive process meant to elect a group of representatives capable of representing the people of J&K in any dialogue process, eventually leading to peace.

A strong political section in the State, spearheaded by the APHC, did not subscribe to this and refused to participate in the elections. The technical objection was the mandatory constitutional ritual of taking an oath under the Indian Constitution. The political objections were far more serious and compelling. The Kashmiris started a movement aimed at attaining eternal political salvation. They feel that accession to India is not permanent but an interim arrangement. A solution is most likely to fall outside the ambit of the Constitution. Is the Assembly powerful enough to enforce a political solution outside the limits of the Constitution? Assuming the Indian perception of elections is politically sincere, these elections should culminate in the resolution of the Kashmir issue. Translated into practice, the Indian portrayal of the peace process and elections would mean that dialogue should start between the elected Assembly and New Delhi. Elections, partly violent and partly coercive, have been held and an Assembly has been elected. New Delhi should fulfil its international pledge and start a dialogue process with the new Assembly. The APHC should sit on the sidelines and not impede a solution. The Assembly does not represent the moral majority and is a `confirmed political minority'. New Delhi should not prolong the agony and instead should try to ascertain the representative status of political groups outside the Assembly. A direct process involves asking the people to elect a group to represent them at the negotiating table. An indirect method is to analyse the political signals on the ground. The dialogue process should be exhaustive and involve all the parties. The APHC demand to visit Pakistan should not be construed as a desperate attempt by every Kashmiri to merge with Pakistan. After all, Pakistan is a political reality. A large portion of the State is under its administration. If exhaustive talks do not come up with a solution, one can safely assume that the two countries are not capable of sorting out their problems in a civilised manner. In that case, India and Pakistan should have the moral courage to accept that the resolution is beyond their capabilities. This would mean that the international community would have to intervene. Notwithstanding the impoverished state of both the countries, their nuclear status dictates a politically palatable and phased intervention.

The first step could be `international facilitation' wherein the international community will try to convince India and Pakistan to sit alongside the Kashmiris to reach a solution. If this fails, the next step could be that of `international supervision'. This would entail monitoring the dialogue process and implicit prescription. Both these are informally in practice now. If the present rhetoric of India and Pakistan is any indication, both these steps are unlikely to succeed. The next move could be that of `international participation'. A nominee of the international community could formally help them arrive at a mutually-acceptable solution. Should this fail, the international community would then have to resort to `international coercion'. This would mean exercising the cumulative clout and forcing the hostile parties to arrive at a solution. Legally, politically and on humanitarian grounds there are enough reasons for coercion. Does India and Pakistan have an eternal right to hold peace and prosperity hostage in the South Asian region? Can the citizens of India and Pakistan dare to dream of a prosperous future? When will the army of orphans stop swelling in Kashmir? Will the extremist elements threatening world peace be allowed to strengthen their foothold in Kashmir? Pakistan's help against the Al-Qaeda or the potential benefits from the Indian economy or stopping the daily dance of death in Kashmir: the international community will have to choose one option? It is a matter of morality. Will the international community muster enough moral courage and intervene and end this futile bloodbath at the cost of its own interests? Will the Indians, Pakistanis and Kashmiris in a rare exhibition of moral character allow Bollywood romanticism make way for realism?

(The writer is chairman of the Jammu and Kashmir People's Conference.)

Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Opinion

Stories in this Section

Resorting to jingoism

Attitudinal change required

Social equality: Lessons from the U.S.

GM mustard

Give realism a chance

War rhetoric bodes ill for peace

Late Prof. Swaminathan