Gul Shah, Shabir Shah and Hurriyat
Men, Matters, Memories

By M. L. Kotru

Old warhorse G. M. Shah, Farooq Abdullah's estranged brother-in-law, stated the obvious the other day, when he suggested that the Central interlocutor, K C Pant, come over to Srinagar for talks rather than expect him and others to make the trip(s) to Delhi. Gul Shah, used once by New Delhi to topple the then youthful Farooq from Chief Minister's gaddi, is no stranger to New Delhi and its ways. I remember him walking in and out of Delhi newspaper offices in the 50s and early 60s, a bag slung over his shoulders, canvassing support for his incarcerated father-in-law, Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah and his Plebiscite Front. He was living out of a room given to him by the late Mridula Sarabhai, herself an ardent Abdullah supporter. Gul Shah returned to Ministerial office alongwith his father-in-law, but felt let down in the end by the ageing Sher-e-Kashmir when the latter nominated his son Farooq as his political heir. Shah has lived with the slight, the only relief coming via yet another manouevre effected in New Delhi which saw then Governor Jagmohan stage-managing a coup which saw Farooq out, replaced as Chief Minister by Shah. Shah, well into his 80s now, may not be politically relevant any more but he could help Pant in coming to grips with the problems facing Jammu and Kashmir.

You don't solve the problem by merely referring it to as one of law and order as Shabir Shah and his Democratic Freedom Party pointed out in Srinagar on Monday. Gul Shah, like Shabir Shah now, somehow shares the Hurriyat's view that there's no point in Pant talking to pro-India parties who according to Shah are ''agents of India and believe in State's accession to India''. Is it his case the only pro-Pakistanis need to be consulted because they are ''Pakistani agents and opposed to accession to India''? Gul Shah, though, was clear in stating last week that he was for independence of Kashmir (shades of Dixon plan); he did not want the State to be part of either India or Pakistan. Shabir Shah's party would, regardless of its reservations on the scope of the dialogue outlined in Pant's invitation, be willing to talk to Pant unlike the Hurriyat. In fact he is sending a delegation for the purpose to Delhi. Which brings me back to Gul Shah's insistence on Pant visiting Kashmir rather than expecting people to present themselves in his court. The darbari style of negotiations will have to make way for a hands-on-approach with no effort spared to reach the middle ground. Both Gul Shah and Shabir Shah, as far I know, favour retention of that mythical thing called Kashmiryat which embraces all faiths and accepts the essential truth embodied in each and reflected in the verses of Lal Ded and Sheikh Nuruddin (Nund Reshi). Unfortunately Nund Reshi, respected by all Kashmiris as a sufi saint, has now been christened as Alamdar (standard bearer of Islam) which to my mind he was not). Never mind the two Shah's aversion to pro-India parties, Pant should get started even as the Hurriyat continues to shout ''No'', ''No''. The Hurriyat would in the end find itself isolated should it stick to its rigid stated position. The Hurriyat's is a split personality and that truth will surely be out sooner than most imagine.

For the present the 23-party Hurriyat Conference Chief, Abdul Ghani Bhat doesn't like crowds. A crowd, you see, can be annoying even if it comprises solely of your own people. Crowds can be meddlesome, prone to asking questions. Stealth and secrecy offer a far better way to plan, to conspire. A crowd is likely to ask uncomfortable questions. For instance a madcap may take into his head to ask ''please, Sir can you tell us how all of you have amassed so much wealth when the rest of us have been suffering these past 11 years''. Crowds have the knack also of turning up at your doorstep to demand the compensation you promised to next of kin- a father, a mother or even a widow- of some youngman who might have fallen either to the guns of the Security Forces or, who knows, may even have fallen foul of his own foreign mujahid chief.

So when Abdul Ghani Bhatt explained the Hurriyat's decision to opt out of talks with interlocutor K C Pant last week he felt it necessary to draw a line between his party, a motley of some 23 parties, by itself a crowd, and the other parties that have existed in Jammu and Kashmir from even before the Hurriyat was born. He would rather Pant accepted the Pakistani line that Hurriyat is the sole representative of Kashmiri Muslims (the Hurriyat, it now finally seems, is happy with that description and has no use for others like the Ladakhis, the Jammu Hindus or the Kashmir Pandits). The rest, as he put it in his typical schoolmasterish style, constitute the crowd. ''We have not totally rejected the dialogue, but we want talks to be held with a purpose, and, obviously, with the objective of achieving a breakthrough''. The ''right direction'' for the talks to proceed was for the Hurriyat Executive Council to go to Pakistan (for fresh instructions, one presumes) and ''get back to talk to the Indians.'' The triangular dialogue (India, Pakistan and the Hurriyat) was not a condition of the Hurriyat but a ''direction''. So Mr Bhat has decided to take over as the Director of the show, with him providing the direction. The ever cautious former teacher Bhat then added ''I said and I repeat, we don't want to be guided by conditions. We want to be guided by the stark political reality.'' What he left unstated perhaps was that the stark reality was the Hurriyat had the God-given and Pak-endorsed right to speak on behalf of Kashmiris. To make sure that the Pakistani hand was more overpowering, we were also told that Syed Ali Shah Geelani, the undeclared Pakistani plenipotentiary on the Hurriyat, had only the previous day had a longish meeting with Islamabad's High Commissioner in New Delhi, Mr Moin Qazi.

Given the ''stark reality'' that the more vocal and strident elements within the Hurriyat would like to see Kashmir as part of Pakistan there appears to be little point in not letting them make the pilgrimage to that country. Picture in your mind's eye the figure of Abdul Aziz, one the Hurriyat leaders, stepping on Pakistani soil last month, ostensibly to attend a family wedding, kissing the soil, a gesture normally reserved by good Muslims the world over when they step for the first time on soil at the holy land in Makkah. Recall the VIP reception he got, with meetings with the Musharraf Ministers thrown in. Remember how he nearly cried when he told his audience how he had longed for this day for so long. Why not allow Mr Geelani and other as well to perform the journey. May be he will decide to stay back in Pakistan to provide the ''direction'' which the Hurriyat chief Abdul Ghani Bhat spoke of while spurning the Pant initiative. Or may be the ''boys''- the jihadis who are based in Pakistan- will ask him to shut up and allow them to carry on their jihad. Or, wlho knows, for tactical reasons, he may even be able to persuade them, with the blessings of Gen Musharraf, to halt their depredations in Jammu and Kashmir for a while, just long enough to persuade India to ask Musharraf over for talks. Geelani would, of course, want a place for himself at the high table. And one doesn't have to be a mind-reader to foretell what Geelani will say in Pakistan. He said it in Delhi earlier in the week while addressing a Islamic Students meeting: that Kashmir is an Islamic issue. For good measure he will repeat his earlier statement that Kashmir is an inalienable part of Pakistan. One Geelani, or ten of them put together, will not make a difference to the ground reality which can be altered, if at all, only when New Delhi and Islamabad agree to find an acceptable solution to the tangled issue.

The Pakistanis and the Hurriyat have other worries as well. The response to their shrill cries over ''Islamic Kashmir'' are getting ever so muted. Indian diplomatic initiatives in some of these countries, particularly in Iran and the Middle East, Gulf States included, have met with some success and this is not to the liking of the Hurriyat. In fact most of these countries are urging Islamabad to work for a negotiated settlement. The recent edict by one of Islam's great religious heads, condemening hijacking and suicide squads as weapons of jihad, must have come as a shock to the Hurriyat. One hopes that Mr Abdul Ghani Bhat does not consider the opinion, alongwith the peaceful urgings from Tehran and other Islamic capitals, as part of the rantings of the crowds he so dislikes. I don't know what New Delhi decides on whether to allow the Hurriyat men to go to Pakistan or not but the right thing for the conglomerate to do would be to accept. Pant's invitation for talks. They could put their cards on the table and if for some reason they believe thereafter that the exercise is useless their anger will carry far more weight. As of now they seem to be acting more of peevishness.

MEN AND MATTERS
Musharraf for a meeting with Vajpayee

From B L Kak

Once again, Pakistan’s military ruler, Gen. Parvez Musharraf, has highlighted the relevance of his idea of a summit meeting between him and Prime Minister, Mr Atal Behari Vajpayee. And Pakistan’s Foreign Minister, Mr Abdus Sattar, did a quick follow-up on Gen. Musharraf’s proposal and raised it to the status of a positive offer for the resumption of the derailed Lahore peace process.

Mr Abdus Sattar told a foreign television network that Gen. Musharraf would join the process "honestly and sincerely", if and when India decided to re-launch it. Now the military ruler’s advisor on national affairs has taken the matter a step further by suggesting that the ball in in India’s court and New Delhi has to reciprocate Gen. Musharraf’s readiness to talk.

India’s response to these overtures has not been negative. India has some reservations. New Delhi has reasons to be cautious, after all that happened before and after the Kargil conflict. Hard-liners exist on either side of the India-Pakistan border. If the hard-liners in Pakistan are for Kashmir’s integration with that country, hard-liners in India do not want any dialogue with Pakistan until it agreed to vacate Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK).

Mr Atal Behari Vajpayee is not to blame when he recalls that he had gone to Lahore on a "goodwill mission" to strengthen bilateral ties, but Pakistan betrayed the process and thrust the Kargil conflict on India.

It was not very long ago when India was harping on the need for a sustained dialogue with Pakistan and issuing appeals to Islamabad to respond positively. It is this constant pressure, directly and indirectly, which can be said to have eventually resulted in Mr Vajpayee’s historic bus journey to Lahore.

The qualitative change in the post-Kargil and post-hijacking scenario had hardened Indian public opinion against Pakistan to such an extent that there is a feeling that resuming dialogue with it unconditionally will again prove counter-productive. Consequently, New Delhi’s insistence that cross-border terrorism and anti-India propaganda must cease and that Pakistan must create conditions conducive to talks won wide national , bipartisan endorsement.

The addition of one more proviso by hard-liners within the Bhartiya Janata Party (BJP), namely, the vacation by Pakistan of occupied territory, is bound to send a signal that India is shedding its hitherto flexible approach vis-à-vis Kashmir and is deliberately toughening its bargaining position.

It may be argued that having agreed in the Lahore Declaration to discuss with Pakistan all outstanding issues, including Kashmir, it makes little sense to make heavy weather of Pakistan’s occupation of India territory. Yet, New Delhi is perhaps justified in persisting with a rigid Pakistan policy since there is no evidence whatsoever that Islamabad is at all contrite over Kargil and its continuing and lately-intensified abetment of militancy in Kashmir.

On the contrary, Pakistan’s Foreign Minister levelled the fanciful charge against India of not adhering to the Lahore spirit and accusing Mr Vajpayee of interpreting the agreement contrary to Pakistan’s understanding.

Since the 1972 Shimla Agreement, New Delhi has persisted in its advocacy of bilateralism as the mode for sorting out differences with Pakistan. New Delhi’s stipulation that India will resume the dialogue only on the fulfillment of certain conditions must not been seen as India jettisoning the concept of bilateralism. Rather, it must be interpreted as testing the good faith of the present military dispensation in Pakistan in its desire to arrive at friendship with India.

If Kashmir is a bilateral issue between India and Pakistan, then perhaps India is better served by not flogging this horse one too often and give the new President of the United State, Mr George Bush, an opportunity to deliver yet another homily on how India and Pakistan must resolve their conflict over Kashmir peacefully. A sea-change in our approach will be needed if we are to move away from our pet obsession, and wider connotations of national interest embraced.

The mandarins in the South Block and the North Block will also need to shift gear in right earnest to meet the new objective. What constitutes national interest is often a matter of controversy, but it is important to recognize that these constitute vital building blocks on which a nation’s future is predicated. As important as defining out national interests is safeguarding these interests.

Many old shibboleths will clearly need to be jettisoned. Specialists and bureaucrats will have to rework their position papers and cannot any longer remain content with updating their past analyses. Cold War logic that has for long dominated the thinking in South Block will have to be avoided, as it has become irrelevant in today’s situation.

A plan requires to be presented on how India proposes to stem the rising tide of Islamist fundamentalism in the region, highlighting the danger this poses not only to countries and societies of the region but further afield as well. The insight that India has about the malignant presence of the Taliban and its radical Islamist leverage should prove invaluable.

On negotiations with Pakistan, India must be firm but not seen as intransigent. New Delhi should patiently explain that the predominance of ideological and militaristic elements at the helm of affairs in Pakisrtan precludes any hope of a revival of the Lahore spirit. Engaging Pakistan in the hope that this would help in strengthening moderate and peaceful elements within Pakistan can only be a chimera.