Indo-Pak Relations at Crossroads

by M.M. Khajooria

The meeting between Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and his Pakistani counterpart, Yousuf Reza Gilani, on the sidelines of the last SAARC conclave in the Bhutanese capital Thimphu was billed as “routine†. It was largely seen as a concession to the world community’s concern for the continuation of the India-Pak peace process. To everyone’s surprise the meeting identified “the trust deficit†as the core obstacle in successful pursuance of the Indo-Pak peace process and promotion of good and stable neighbourly relations. It was recognised that no headway in the Indo-Pak peace process had been possible because of the persisting lack of trust between the two governments from day one of the creation of the Mumalkat-i-Khudad, Pakistan. They also took the courageous decision to first overcome this critical roadblock and then proceed further. Whether this was the outcome of a serious concerted search for factors responsible for failed parleys over the decades or a providential intervention will, perhaps, never be known. In any case here was a ray of light across the dark tunnel of hostile Indo-Pak relations that well-meaning people in both countries had been waiting and hoping for. The decision to make the Indo-Pak peace process genuine, meaningful and result-oriented by removing the fundamental roadblock of perennial Trust Deficit was welcomed on both sides of the divide.

The removal of trust deficit implied that the Pak Military Doctrine, which placed India as its enemy number one, be discarded, her terrorists’ strategic assets be dissolved, cross-border terrorism terminated and the terrorist infrastructure created for promoting and sustaining the cross-border terror dismantled. This was not going to be easy considering the history of India-Pak relations and contemporary realities.

The two-nation theory that spawned the state of Pakistan was rooted in the mistrust between Hindus and Muslims of the Indian subcontinent. This perceived or fabricated incompatibility was Jinnah and co’s plank for the demand of a separate homeland for the Muslims of India. It may be said to Jinnaha’s credit that he did attempt at course correction and impart a secular character to the new country but fate intervened to cut short the span of his life. After his demise the new-born state was rocked by a series of crisis finally ending up with a military dictator-ship. The Pakistan Army had by now developed a huge vested interest in India-bashing that justified its relevance and clout in state power. To sustain this vested interest they had to promote and sustain mistrust and animosity between the two countries. The dawn of an era of friendship and peace between the two neighbours would sound the death-knell for the tremendous vested interest and authority they had assiduously built into the management of the state apparatus and economy. As of today, the Army has the decisive say in determining the country’s policies and vital areas in affairs of the state. Obviously, any India-friendly shift in national policy was unacceptable. More about it later.

The Indian diplomacy, derailed after Vajpayee’s Lahore Bus Yatra, appeared to be back on the rails. The era of floating of ideas on the “resolution of the Kashmir tangle†(borrowed second-hand from US think-tanks) had mercifully come to an end and consigned to the dustbin of history.

The good deed was done by none other than the Foreign Minister of Pakistan, Shah Mehmood Qureshi, who categorically debunked and disowned all back-channel and media-driven acrobats of the disgraced dictator. In his address to the Pakistan National Assembly, Qureshi went on to accuse the deposed dictator of “harming the interests of Pakistan on the Kashmir issue†. He reiterated his counter’s classical position of continued “diplomatic and moral support to the Kashmiri struggle for freedom†. After more than two decades of cross-border terror and brutal killings of thousands of innocent victims no one in the world community and certainly no one in Jammu and Kashmir needed to be enlightened about what this homily implied. However, the fact was that the reversal of the Musharraf doctrine and initiatives taken by him brought the Indo-Pak relations back to square one. This was the worst news for the Pakistan military establishment.

The reaction of the Army Chief, General Kayani, and the ISI was sharp and instantaneous. The formulation, they argued strongly, compromised the “Pak national Interests†(read interests of the Pak Army) and was totally unacceptable. Damage control measures were immediately devised and operationalised. The political class was in no position to resist and meekly acquiesced.

The next Foreign Secretaries meeting predictably witnessed Pakistan sidestepping the issue of ‘trust deficit’ and instead was back harping on the urgency for a “meaningful dialogue on Kashmir†. The command performance by Foreign Minister Qureshi in the following Indo-Pak Foreign Ministers Conference gave the game away. Qureshi was uncharacteristically rude, deliberately aggressive, and grossly undiplomatic. He even chose to disregard his obligations as the host. The die was cast. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh responded by reiterating that Jammu and Kashmir was an integral part of India and any resolution of internal difficulties had to be found within the framework of the Indian Constitution.

¨

Over the decades Pakistan had perfected a technique of engineering or/and escalating trouble in Kashmir through her collaborators, both terrorists and overground operatives, thereby compelling the state authorities to use force to quell the disturbances. The situation was thus used as an excuse for breast-beating the world over, making wild allegations of state terrorism and human rights violations against India in Kashmir. The object was to defocus attention on the so-called Kashmir issue and project Kashmir as the flash-point between two nuclear powers.

The recent stone-pelting phase was of this kind. The aim was to compel India to hold negotiations on Kashmir outside the Thimphu framework. The pliable sections of the Kashmiri youth were incited, excited, cajoled and even hired to attack the security forces’ bunkers/installations wielding stones and brickbats procured, transported and supplied at strategic points in organised, synchronised and well-planned episodes. Policemen were beaten up, vehicles set ablaze and situations created in which the use of extreme force by the security forces became inevitable. The level of sadism may be gauged from the stipulation that the bigger the pile of dead bodies, the greater would be the international pressure on India. Kashmiri young men were, therefore, deliberately pushed into the firing line to be sacrificed at the altar of the Pak strategic interest. And when the state authorities took steps to minimise the loss of life, the 82-year-old supremo of the “angry gen next†ordered them to target military installations which were sure to yield a larger crop of fatalities. Fortunately there were not many takers for the suicide mission which had to be called off.

The truth is that a noisy, violent and riotous minority, backed by the terrorist’s gun, holds the Kashmiri society hostage. The voices of reason and sanity are suppressed with threats of reprisals. It, however, seemed that people have had enough. The opening of schools in defiance of Geelani’s diktat is a clear and vital indicator. However, it will be prudent to watch the developing situation in the Valley.

Interestingly, the Pakistan National Assembly and Senate woke up to the significance of the unanimous resolution of Indian Parliament of 1994 which required the Government of India to have the State territory under forced and illegal occupation of Pakistan vacated. And it passed a resolution on September 20, 2010. The resolution condemned the violence in Jammu and Kashmir, calling on the international community to ensure the implementation of the UN resolutions on Kashmir. Was it talking about the UN resolutions of the pre-Shimla Agreement vintage which, as a first step, required Pakistan to vacate occupied territories, including Gilgit Baltsitan, withdraw its Army and irregulars from the occupied territory, hand over its control to India etc.? Is the Pakistan Government even today ready to fulfil these conditions which are the prerequisite to forward movement? If not, please stop befooling your own people and your cronies in Kashmir.

The Pakistan Foreign Office spokesman carried forward the anti-India tirade and called upon the Government of India to “stop treating Jammu and Kashmir as its integral part and stop harping on seeking solution within the Indian Constitution†. He must have had a shock of his life when the Indian Foreign Minister, S.M. Krishna, responded by asking Pakistan “to end its illegal occupation of some parts of the State before advising New Delhi†. Tit for tat. This response was not only unusual but also unexpected by Pakistan. For once, India has spoken in the language that Pakistan understands.

Indo-Pak relations today stand at the cross-roads. The million dollar question is: who blinks first. Let us hope good sense prevails and the parties get down to the task assigned in Thimphu because that is the only way forward.

The author, a retired Director-General of India, J&K, is the Chairman, J&K Ex-Policemen’s League.