Sugar-coated warnings
Men, Matter and Memories

By M L Kotru

If you were one of those who watched President Mush trying to steal the show from President Bush, when the two went centre-stage at their New York Press conference, I am sure you wouldn’t have grudged the Pakistani military leader his five minutes of glory. A broad smile adorned his face, there was that bounce in his step as he mounted the podium, urging Bush to get up first, typical ‘pehle aap’. His tension had predictably eased with Bush saying all the nice things the beleagured military leader would have wished to hear and, of course, the goodies that were on offer. Mush soft- pedalled his country’s export of terrorism to India, and never mentioned that it was Pakistan that had fathered and mothered the Taliban before launching them on the fractious Afghan warlords in the mid 90s.

Musharraf, as the Pakistani's had pointed out, had dubbed the attack on Srinagar legislative assembly as a terrorist act. What more could one have expected of him! Bush for his part had gladdened Mush’s Pakistani heart by ''endorsing"resolution of the Kashmir dispute by Pakistan and India, in keeping with the wishes of the people of the State. Mush would, of course, like to miss out on what Bush said between the lines in his speech at the UN General Assembly the same day as Mush spoke. "We must unite in opposing all terrorists, not just one of them. Any gover-nment that rejects this principle, trying to pick and choose its terrorist friends, will know the consequences..." Further down the line Bush had that direct one, saying that "neither national aspirations, nor remembered wrongs" can justify terrorism.

But who cares about sugar-coated warnings as long as you are basking in the glory of having shared the podium with the commander-in-chief of the world’s lone super power. For a dyed in the wool soldier like Gen. Mush, this is a memory that will always stay fresh in his mind. Except that Commander-in Chief Bush is only the ex-officio chief, the symbolic office having coming to him after a gruelling electoral battle which he nearly lost to Al Gore. That thought, if at all, could not have occurred to Gen Mush at that most "glorious" moment of his life. Or, hopefully it may have given him some ideas about legitimising his own position at polls which he has been ordered to hold by the Pakistan Supreme Court by October 12, 2002. But can Gen Mush really risk a free democratic election? He has already banned the more notable political parties or sent their leaders out of the country, one in self-exile the other in a trade-off.

But Gen. Mush would certainly have relished the thought that he was treated by the American hosts at par with the Indian Prime Minister, Atal Bihari Vajpayee, a democratically elected leader of the world’s most populous democracy who, unlike Mush, cannot banish men and women or political parties into wilderness whenever they become inconvenient. Yes, Vajpayee might not have come across as well on the electronic media - that’s the few times the Western TV media including CNN and BBC thought if fit to mention him - as the bouncy Mush but the Indian Prime Minister was not in the US out to perform in a vaudeville act. He didn’t have to change his suits five times in a single day to appear dapper. Mush’s obsession with his apparel reminded me of the days Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto spent in Simla negotiating with Indira Gandhi. One frankly lost count of changes Zulfi effected during the course of a single day. But then Bhutto had his aristocratic background to show off, the son of a knighted zamindar, with vast properties stretched from Karachi to Junagadh to Bombay, blessed with an education in British and American universities. And he had this other obsession with that "other woman", Indira Gandhi, daughter of Jawaharlal Nehru, who in her own feminine way was an even nattier dresser. Remember how she had all the curtains ripped apart and the furniture replaced on the eve of Bhutto’s arrival in Simla, just to ensure that Bhutto did not miss the opulence he was used to?

Atal Bihari Vajpayee, by comparison, is an ordinary Indian, like all of us, coming from a lower middle class background, and well groomed in the arts and graces of civility and, importantly, of a democratic polity. Vajpayee is at his best when he is in direct contact with the people, face to face. Communication becomes a pleasure. And he amply demonstrated this side of his life at his meeting with the American Indians in New York. People who had given birth to the Taliban, Vajpayee told his select audience, cannot wrest Kashmir from us by going against their own creation. Gen Musharraf appeared to him to have only one song, one tune to play wherever he went and whatever the audience: ‘give me Kashmir’. In pursuit of this obsession Musharraf even had started calling Pakistani terrorists in Kashmir freedom fighters. He talked of Indian State terrorism and went on to accept that the attack on the Srinagar Legislative Assembly was an act of terror. If it is act of terror who is responsible for it? "This theory of his is ridiculous and will not be accepted by anybody". For once, Vajpayee’s Foreign Minister, Jaswant Singh, who seems to be setting up a new standard in garrulity, did make the significant point in New York, when he said it did not matter whether coutry A or Z agreed with the Indian view of the reality of terrorism, there was no question of India submitting to terror in that State. This rebuff had become necessary after Gen Musharraf, leaning heavily on the joint statement issued at the end of his talks with Bush, said that the US President had promised to facilitate the dialogue process between New Delhi and Islamabad. Now, if the American suggestion that the two countries to resolve the Kashmir issue peacefully is considered facilitation there are many other friendly countries which have preffered the same advice. But the song and dance the Pakistanis made over this one persuaded the US Secretary of State, Colin Powell to clarify that there are "limits" to such "facilitation".

The fact of the matter is that India as a mature democracy will have to stop comparing itself with Pakistan or worry about the kind of chord Pakistan strikes with a particular country. New Delhi will have to stop whining everytime someone says something that is not to our liking. That’s why I liked Jaswant Sigh’s observation in the New York. It does not really matter how well or poorly someone views our genuine concerns. there are visible signs of a measure of disappointment in certain circles in New Delhi with the way Vajpayee’s first face-to-face meeting with George Bush may have gone. Yes, the bonhomie of the Clinton visit, palpable as it was, may have been absent this time over but Bush is a different kind of person; he certainly is not a Clinton and his need at the moment is entirely different. He needs Pakistan, a country which is plagued by political and economic instability, and whose military government is willing to go any lengths to play to the hilt to the role assigned to it. To expect George Bush to publicly give precedence to Indian concerns over Pakistani terrorism in Kashmir at a time when the US has so much at stake in Afghanistan would be unrealistic. George Bush, in fact, made it clear that he is not willing to be pushed beyond a certain point at this stage. When at their joint Press conference in Washington he was asked whether US lives were more precious than Indian ones when it came to terrorism, Bush observed that there was universal law and "that’s terrorism is evil", whether it was the September 11 attack in New York or the October 1 storming of the J&K Assembly. He consciously preferred not to carry the issue to its logical conclusion, namely, condemn Pakistani sponsors of the outrage in Srinagar.

While this may have disappointed the Indians in his audience, the truth is that he could not have attacked Pakistan and yet expected the country’s beleagured President to stand by the US. Vajpayee’s pique that those who breed terrorism cannot be among those who fight it is understandable but then our reponsibilities as a mature democracy are different. As the war in Afghanistan enters a decisive phase, it’s in India’s interest to bide its time, even as it continues to be supportive of the US-led initiative, and strike only when the time is ripe.

And now, a Hurriyat ceasefire!........
Yours Randomly

Dr R L Bhat

Koley grazaan kyazi chhakh? aagur vuchhith.
('Hey, rivulet, why art thou so boisterous?'
'My eyes, I fix, on my source'.)

A survey of Hurriyat and its responses to ceasefire would be more than sufficient to show that this 'true representatives of Kashmir' has it eyes fixed closely on its source. It ebbs and flows, gets belligerent and peaceful.... all in conformity with the 'home country'. Indeed, there is rising opinion both within the State and the nation that far from acknowledging it as representing any voice of the people of this nation, roundly question the credentials of this foreign managed, foreign tuned and foreign turned organization and it right to speak to the Indian people and its Government. But so hard has this nation got the misfortune, of listening to its detractors more than its supporters, pasted on its fate that it is always the anti-national or a national people who get all the ears in this realm. These elements even question the right of the nationalists to speak. And, that perversion too gets not only heard but even respected and implemented.

Thus when this very Hurriyat said that the central interlocutor on Kashmir should not speak to the various pro-India groups, K C Pant did not turn many ears to the anti-terrorist, anti-Pakistan forces here. In fact one lasting grouse of the nationalist elements in this State, particularly the Valley of Kashmir, has been that the nationalist voice has always been given a short shrift by the national leadership and the Government. So it was in the time when the Congress ruled the roost and so it is with BJP. That, probably, is one reason why no Government makes any difference to the situation in the State. The interlocutors are the same, the opinions are the same, and the solutions are the same ones that have failed so often. Kashmir is not a case for Pakistan but a case for Kashmiris living there who are Indians. For the Pakistanis let them speak out to their mentors and controllers. Let them seek solutions there. They should not be allowed to prevail upon the opinions of the Indians in the nation of India.

Indeed, this nation is so given to listening to the other point that it is plainly forgetting what its own point has been. There is a high dispute here. That dispute is with Pakistan. It is over the half of the land of this State that Pakistan has held in illegal occupation for the past half a century. Yet we have the spectacle of the Indian Government leading a new round of 'talks' with ...... who, but Hurriyat, the mouthpiece of Pakistan. Wouldn't India be better off taking to Pakistan over the dispute instead of having herself harangued by Pak loyalists within her territory? And, India must shake off the misconception that Hurriyat is anything but a setup of Pakistan. Call them pro-Pak elements and that still leaves the question what exactly are the Pak-elements doing in the nation of India? Why should they be here; why should they be listened to? Have they ever tried to sympathize with the aspirations of the people they claim to 'truly represent'? When the Pakistan sponsored terrorists over-ran Kashmir in the early nineties they rose to 'be the representatives' of Kashmiris. When the people welcomed the Ikhwanis cadres for freeing them from the Pak-terrorists' yoke the Hurriyat actually opposed them.

When the outfit of Kashmiri militants, 'after careful consideration' declared a ceasefire, they were the first ones to oppose it. Of course, on directions of Pak establishment whose interests and aspirations they represent. When Vajpayee declared the Ramadan ceasefire and even Qayyum Khan from across the border welcomed it, they opposed it just as did the Pak establishment. They opposed everything, till the head of Pak establishment decided to come to Agra; then, they even 'suspended their struggle' evidently on dictation of those very sources. There, at the infamous tea party the Hurriyat actually declared its Pakistan character, in those very words. It even entered into an altercation with the Shahi Imam of Delhi on the point. When the terrorist organizations called for a bundh against this same Pak establishment, they opposed it. And, proved how false their 'true representation' was. And now that establishment has been shamed in the eye, the Hurriyat comes not only with a 'ceasefire' but also 'talks'. Pray, whose interest, whose viewpoint, whose pleasure, is this setup representing?

It certainly is not an organization of Indians who want to put across some grievances. It is not talking for the people of Kashmir who have given them no mandate of any sort for the purpose. It is not even talking for itself for its self and soul is all vouched to that master across the border. Who is there to talk, then? If India intends to talk to Pakistan through this mouthpiece it is committing a diplomatic blunder, because it is giving Pakistan leverage from within its own territory, from within her own people. When Sheikh went to talk to Ayub in sixties he went there as an emissary of Nehru. Would Vajpayee call any of the Hurriyat men who go to Pakistan an amissary of his? Certainly not. It would be a Pak lactotum going to talk to his Pakistan masters! That is the weakest point of India, pleading the Indian case. From the Indian perspective there should be no talking to, no talking with, no talking through the Pak agents. Yet, how hard it is making this India understand that!