Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee’s current offer of a unilateral ceasefire in Kashmir has so drastically and qualitatively altered the ground reality against India that one cannot but fear that the countdown to the formal annexation of the state by Pakistan has begun. Unless discerning citizens, political scientists, strategic analysts, generals and former generals speak out loudly against this bartering of national interests in return for nothing tangible, India’s political map could soon loose its distinguishing capstone.
The danger is very real as the Congress, headed by rank outsider Sonia Gandhi, whose miniscule comprehension of the Indian reality is legendary, cannot be expected to play the role of a responsible opposition. In any case, the Signora’s current preoccupation is to consolidate her hold on the party organization by winning over the disgruntled Jitendra Prasad faction.
Most parties in the NDA alliance have an insular outlook (barring the Tamil parties’ emotional attachment to the Sri Lanka situation), and the Shiv Sena has unfortunately agreed to moderate its opposition to the move. Yet, given the deafening silence of the otherwise vociferous Sangh Parivar on an issue of such momentous import, the inference is unavoidable that a major compromise of Indian interests appears to be underway. The RSS’ controversial proposal to trifurcate Jammu & Kashmir, which critics decried as a move to separate the Valley, suggests that the Parivar may have been acting in concert with the government. Mr. Bal Thackeray would therefore do well to reconsider his position on both the ceasefire and continued support to the regime, while other political parties should give Kashmir the attention it deserves.
What the BJP has done – for which it shall be culpable in the bar of history – is to quietly abandon without debate or warning the existing national consensus that Kashmir is an inalienable, non-negotiable part of India, and that the only thing we have to discuss (or fight) with Pakistan about is the recovery of Occupied Kashmir. During the premiership of Mr. P.V. Narasimha Rao, Parliament passed a unanimous resolution to this effect. That resolution, it may be recalled, was initially proposed by the BJP (then in opposition), but ultimately moved and adopted at the instance of the Rao Government as it reflected the overwhelming national consensus on the issue. If memory serves me right, even Mr. Mulayam Singh Yadav was a Member of that House. My point is that the national consensus is still with that resolution, and no one has honestly put another alternative before the country.
The BJP has violated that consensus stealthily. And it has added insult to injury by virtually permitting third party mediation through the Clinton administration-backed Pakistani-American Mansoor Ijaz. Newspapers give hints and suggestions about a magical breakthrough in the form of trilateral talks between the Indian Government, Pakistani Generals and Pak-sponsored militants. The Kashmiri Pundits – those still in the beleaguered state, those in refugee camps, and those in exile in other parts of the country – figure nowhere in these talks. Nor does the will of the Indian people. For whom then, are these talks proposed, to what end, and at whose instance?
This is the heart of the matter. Under the foot soldiers of Akhand Bharat, Kashmir has been virtually transformed into an issue of the Muslims and for the Muslims (whether of India or Pakistan). A ceasefire offered during Ramzan when it is well known that the fundamentalist groups always escalate violence in this month is not just poor strategy, but a horrible betrayal of the blood of Kashmiri Hindus and Hindus in the rest of the country who are still being targeted by ISI-funded militants. The government has compounded its folly by persisting with the ceasefire even after hardline militant outfits ridiculed it on the ground that the first battle between Muslims and infidels was fought in Ramzan. Security forces are looking forward to the coming days with dread and foreboding.
Despite this being the grim reality, the new Imam of Jama Masjid, a player in the Track II diplomacy, has launched a tirade against former Governor Jagmohan for the developments in Kashmir, while not uttering a single word against Pakistan and the terrorists. He has spoken of peace, but not voiced a word of sympathy for the Kashmiri Pundits who have been driven from home and hearth, or for Hindus and Sikhs massacred since the ceasefire (The Indian Express, 1 December 2000). Till date, not one Hindu of stature, in Government or otherwise, has come forward to explain the peace initiative to the Indian people. On the other hand, there are disturbing attempts being made at the instance of the United States, to discredit the institution of the Indian Army through stories insinuating that the Army is trying to resist civilian control. We need to rebuff these reports sharply.
Given the alacrity with which the United States has greeted the peace initiative, there is, to my mind, little doubt that it is at the back of this foolish escapade. The trouble with America is that notwithstanding its military might, it is a poor strategic thinker, and frequently commits itself to a course of action inimical to its own long-term interests. Its current troubles with Osama bin Laden and the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, for instance, are in large measure due to its funding and arming Pakistan to the teeth in the wake of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Pakistan, as is well known, used those funds and arms to create the Taliban in Kabul and sponsor insurgency in India. While it would be understandable if the United States sought India’s help in containing the Taliban and saving the Northern Alliance, it beats me how it can imagine that whetting Pakistan’s appetite in Jammu & Kashmir will serve to contain the Taliban and other mullahs, either in Afghanistan or in Islamabad.
What is pertinent to us, however, is why India has agreed to and embarked upon the current course of action. The nation has a right to know what the trilateral talks, or even initial talks with the terrorists, are expected to accomplish. In the case of the militants, we need to know why the State is discussing anything other than the terms of surrender. This is imperative since it appears that more than a general amnesty to bring misguided youth back to the national mainstream is being considered.
In the case of Pakistan, we need to know if the Indian Government has conceded that Islamabad has a legitimate claim to Kashmir. India cannot be so naïve as to believe that this is not the way talks will be interpreted across the border. It follows that if we nevertheless negotiate with Pakistan behind the backs of the Indian people, we would be willing to concede something to it. The nation has the right to know what; it also has the right to know what India would get in return.
Something is seriously wrong. India is being asked to disregard the failure at Lahore, the treachery at Kargil, the humiliation at Kandahar, the cocktail of human prawns at Amarnath, the streams of blood of selectively slaughtered Hindus, Sikhs, police and military personnel in the Valley, for ‘peace’ with an incorrigibly hostile neighbour. Even the audacious intrusion into the New Delhi residence of the Chief of Naval Staff has not deterred the government from pursuing its inane and ill-conceived ceasefire initiative. Chamberlain lives in many guises.
The Pioneer, 5 December 2000