There is now little doubt that regardless of the formal agenda of the forthcoming talks with Gen. Musharraf, the BJP-led Government is all set to discuss Kashmir with the Pakistani dictator. Indeed, this may well be the only issue that is discussed at all, since Islamabad is hardly anxious that its business community does trade with India, while India has no desperate need for a Pakistani market. It also seems likely that India will concede the Pakistani claim that Kashmir is disputed territory, or permit Pakistan to get away with such an assertion.
This dismal conclusion is based on two strange observations. The first is the bewildering fact that the Pakistani ambassador (and not the Indian Government!) is striving for a consensus with Indian political parties to recognize Kashmir as disputed territory. Mr. Ashraf Jehangir Qazi has notched up a notable success with the Communist Party of India (CPI) national secretary Shamin Faizi publicly agreeing with the motion and favouring negotiations with Islamabad on this basis.
Mr. Faizi has not deigned to enlighten us whether this means New Delhi should simply surrender the Valley, or more. The Communist Party of India-Marxist (CPI-M) has not, till the time of writing this article, informed us of its views on the matter, though it is known that a delegation did meet the envoy (Pioneer, 13 June 2001). What is more, even as Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee dodges the few queries tossed at him by opposition leaders regarding the proposed talks, Mr. Qazi’s mission has let it be known that the envoy will be meet all significant parties/leaders to manufacture an accord in favour of his country’s position.
My second observation is that there appears to be a dangerous, but unmistakable, convergence of left-wing and right-wing groups on the issue of scuttling the traditional consensus that Kashmir is an inalienable part of India. This is readily seen in the willingness of the two Left parties to discuss Kashmir with the High Commissioner even though former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto has scorned the General’s legitimacy and questioned his authority to discuss such sensitive matters with the Indian Government.
Leftist intellectuals have also started pleading for a soft, de-militarized border, without telling us how this will resolve the problem of militancy in the Valley (and the rest of the country). Of course, it is a different matter that some of us believe that the trouble in Kashmir is precisely because the border is so porous. It may also be borne in mind that legitimate trade between the two countries does not require a ‘soft’ border.
On the other side of the spectrum, the BJP, RSS, and allied organizations have maintained a studied silence. They have not responded to provocative talk about a plebiscite in Kashmir, nor raised any of the issues with which they have traditionally been associated, viz., the status of Occupied Kashmir and Aksai Chin. It is inconceivable that they believe Gen. Musharraf can rein in jihadi generals and mullahs and end the proxy war. The unhappy suspicion, therefore, grows that they are complicit in a plot to facilitate delinking the Valley. It is therefore imperative, as suggested in my previous article, that before the General comes, nationalist writers and politicians compel the Prime Minister to reveal the nature of his Government’s talks with third parties such as the Americans and Saudis regarding the future of Jammu & Kashmir.
A senior security expert’s contention that the Government cannot give assurances regarding the bottom-line for the talks since all give and take will happen spontaneously on the negotiating table, must be treated with contempt. All governments work out their negotiating positions in advance, and seek breaks when talks become ticklish. Mr. Vajpayee cannot refuse to take the nation into confidence about a course of action that he seems to have decided upon, and then present it with a nasty fait accompli. He should know that particularly since the uncalled-for overture to Pakistan, public confidence in his Government has eroded sharply.
As is only to be expected in the circumstances, the All Party Hurriyat Conference despite technically suspending its agitation for freedom is seeking political mileage from the emotive issue of the use of mosques as sanctuaries. After the sharp public reaction to the safe passage to hard-core militants three weeks ago, the army recently fought and killed six militants holed up in a mosque in Anantnag. In a classic instance of double-speak, Hurriyat’s Abdul Ghani Lone said militants should not use mosques for their activities as this amounts to desecration, but accused the army of destruction while dealing with such militants. The beleaguered army claims utmost restraint was exercised during the operation and only a portion of the mosque’s annexe was damaged.
I believe it is time to stop molly-coddling terrorists and their sympathizers; the Indian state is too grimly besieged for such luxuries. The state should declare that any place used by militants for hiding or fighting security forces is a “limited theatre of war,” and as such enjoys no sanctity or immunity. Morally, we can no longer justify security forces taking higher casualties while politicians pander to false religiosity. Whether temple or mosque, the desecration occurs when armed men occupy them for illicit purposes. Security forces come to end the desecration; it is indecent and unacceptable to treat them at par with the violators. In the specific context of the war of a thousand cuts, imposing punitive fines upon the community whose holy place is misused by anti-social elements would go a long way in curtailing the menace.
Even in its peculiar Indian incarnation, secularism is not just the separation of religion and politics. Its implies that the state (as receptacle of the community’s sovereignty) is above religion. Islamic states can be terrorized by mullahs precisely because the latter claim to be the source of legitimacy. The secular state, however, can intervene in the affairs of a religious place in the event of law and order problems (Golden Temple); mismanagement (Vaishno Devi) or to secure entry for devotees being discriminated on grounds of caste (Nathdwara).
Indeed, the state is perceived by all communities as having over-riding powers, which can be used for a higher good. This is why reformist Christians are requesting the state to intervene in the community’s affairs and abolish conditions causing grief and anguish to ordinary citizens. These include the right to legally adopt a child (as opposed to being a mere legal guardian), and greater egality and dignity in divorce provisions. Reformers of a small Islamic sect in western India had similarly clamoured for an end to the abusive powers enjoyed by the community head; but the fear of a backlash kept the Government at bay.
My point is that the then Prime Minister, Mr. P.V. Narasimha Rao, erred grievously in offering to rebuild Charar-e-Sharif at state expense after it was burnt down by foreign mercenaries (it has recently been attacked again). A secular state does not build mosques, particularly when they continue to be used for anti-national purposes. India has enjoyed the respect of the international community from time immemorial because of her civilizational ethos, which rests on adherence to Dharma (eternal law, justice, righteousness). Notwithstanding our modern passion for communal parity (legacy of Jawaharlal Nehru), we must appreciate that India cannot win the admiration of the civilized world by succumbing to Shariah.
The Pioneer, 19 June 2001