In an interview he gave to a private Indian television channel last Sunday, India's National Security advisor, M.K. Narayanan, made some inept comments about the Kashmir issue, and indirectly accused Pakistan of fomenting communal trouble in India.
The accusation, apparently, came in response to Pakistan's complaint that India was behind the ongoing unrest and incidents of violence and sabotage in Balochistan. But Narayanan's statement can easily become the grist to the Hindu extremists' mill, who blame their country's Muslim community of being Pakistan sympathiser and hence a legitimate target of violence, the kind of which claimed about two thousand lives in the anti-Muslim pogrom not long ago in Gujarat state.
On the core issue of contention between the two countries, Narayanan maintained that in order to reach an agreement there has to be a certain amount of give-and-take, which, it hardly needs saying, is crucial to the success of any negotiations process.
In fact, President Musharraf has been repeatedly stressing the need for both sides to show flexibility. But the Indian leader said that his government found Islamabad's proposals "confusing," and that "Pakistan's suggestions will not lead us forward."
For now, a suggestion emanating from his own interview has created a lot of confusion, adding to the frustration of those who already concerned over the slow progress of the peace process and perturbed over India's recent noisy objections to the construction of the Bhasha dam. He has been reported to have proposed making the LoC a permanent border.
Some pro-India observers have termed this a departure from India's traditional position - and hence a 'give' - that holds the entire state of Jammu and Kashmir as an integral part of India. But whenever New Delhi asserted its claim over all of Kashmir, including AJK, it was only in response to Pakistan's efforts to highlight the issue and seek its resolution.
Otherwise, it has never figured prominently in New Delhi's stated policy goals. Hence, by no means it is a 'give'. In any case, right at the outset of the present composite dialogue process, President Musharraf had made it clear that turning LoC into a permanent border is not an option.
Accordingly, the Foreign Office has reacted sharply to Narayanan's assertions, saying "any solution based on the status quo is not acceptable." Notably, however, Narayanan did not make a categorical statement on LoC. What he said actually lends itself to an optimistic interoperation as well.
His words were, "I suppose when people talk in terms of the Line of Control it is saying that all right, what has been the actual ground position in the last so many years, may be the starting point for an exercise to any changes that you might like to make."
The operative phrase might well be "the starting point for an exercise to any changes that you might like to make." That would be in line with New Delhi's new position, under which it announced not too long ago that the borders cannot be changed but they can be made irrelevant. In other words, rather than to make LoC a permanent border, it needs to be made irrelevant.
Which renders pertinent Pakistan's proposals of self-rule, demilitarisation, and joint management. Also, during the recent weeks, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has held meetings with Kashmiri leaders, including the pro-Pakistan members of the APHC.
Significantly, in his interview, Narayanan did not rule out the possibility of holding dialogue with the Chairman of the Pakistan-based United Jihad Council, Syed Salahudddin. It is plain that a solution agreed between the Kashmiri political leadership and the Indian government would not be viable unless it satisfies the Jehadi elements, and they cannot be expected to accept status quo over the dead bodies of more than 80,000 Kashmiris.
It is important to remember that India entered the peace process, compelled by self-interest. It wants to benefit from Pakistan's position as an energy and transport corridor to the resource-rich Central Asian republics as well as some West Asian countries. But its leaders find it difficult to overcome hostilities rooted in history.
Also, they are known to be hard bargainers, and hence may want to haggle on the smallest detail. It would be helpful, therefore, if the two countries' friends, who are interested in establishing durable peace and stability in the region, nudge the Indian leadership towards an expeditious resolution of the Kashmir problem.
Comments
Comments are closed.