Pant’s role passive, Jaitley’s is massive

By B L Kak

At last, the BJP-led NDA coalition at the Centre has set aside, if not fully abandoned, the process of the whomsoever-it-may-concern variety vis-à-vis Jammu and Kashmir. Call it compulsion of the altered, or altering, situation or conspiracy of circumstances, one thing has now become amply clear with the Vajpayee Government’s new initiative in respect of Kashmir-that is, Mr KC Pant, Deputy Chairman of the Planning Commission, who was appointed as interlocutor for J&K, has got the message to be passive after the appointment of former Law Minister, Mr Arun Jaitley, as the Centre’s ‘representative’ for holding talks with the J&K Government and political parties on the issue of devolution of powers to the State.

With Pakistan-engineered evolution of anti-Delhi ‘revolution’ in Kashmir, Mr Arun Jaitley’s role as the new ‘representative’ of the Government of India becomes massive, particularly when he has to decide on the devolution of powers to the troubled State. Mr Jaitley’s new role has been designed after the Deputy Prime Minister and Home Minister, Mr LK Advani, had made it clear in Parliament that he (Mr Jaitley) would talk to the J&K Government and other "relevant" groups and persons about "greater devolution of powers" to the State.

It can be said without any fear of contradiction that the J&K Chief Minister and the esprit de corps of the ruling National Conference party, Dr Farooq Abdullah, compelled the Vajpayee Government to take the meaningful initiative, after he raked up the highly emotive issue of greater autonomy in an apparent bid to woo the bulk of Muslim electorate in the wake of the coming Assembly elections in the State. The Vajpayee Government obdurately refused to countenance autonomy concerns of Kashmir for two years. With the crucial Assembly poll taking place in J&K in the near future, the Vajpayee Government chose to initiate a dialogue.

Could it be that the autonomy dialogue is in the nature of a trade-off for what the Centre proposes to demand of the National Conference leadership in the context of its commitment to free and fair elections? The word ‘autonomy’ is anathema to the ruling coalition’s lead partner, namely, Bhartiya Janata Party (BJP). However, with the appointment of Mr Arun Jaitley as the Centre’s new ‘representative’ for Kashmir, the Vajpayee Government appears inclined to have the question looked at.

Will it be on the basis of the Sheikh Abdullah-Indira Gandhi agreement of 1975? A precise answer is not forthcoming at this stage, simply because the situation has vastly changed in Jammu and Kashmir since 1975. What is clear now is that the Jaitley mission is more focussed than that of the KC Pant mission, floated in April 2001 with no clear target or purpose. According to a set of Kashmir specialists (the number of Kashmir experts has swelled in recent times), the 1975 agreement can be the best bet, as it reaffirmed Article 370 and vested residuary powers in the State with Parliament remaining empowered to make laws to protect the sovereignty and integrity of India.

Mr Arun Jaitley is an experienced negotiator. At 50-quite young for a politician-he is sauve, articulate and brings with him an enviable reputation of being a brilliant lawyer. With his appointment as the Centre’s representative for J&K, he has proved once again how indispensable he is for the BJP and the BJP-led Government. When the Vajpayee Government began its reform programmes in 1999, Mr Jaitley was there playing a major role in drafting the Convergence Bill to facilitate integration of technologies. As the Law Minister, he initiated several reform measures.

By the time the Goa conclave happened in march this year, the BJP was reeling under successive failures in State elections. Mr Jaitley not only offered his services to the party, he also played an active role and ensured party’s win in Goa. There was little doubt thereafter that he was heading for a major role in the organisation. On July 1, he was made the party spokesman and was subsequently appointed as one of the general secretaries. Within days after the development, the deputy Prime Minister sought his services as the Government’s representative for Jammu and Kashmir.

The Union Home Ministry’s notification, which has confirmed the role of Mr Jaitley for holding talks with the J&K Government and political parties on the issue of "devolution of powers with regard to the State and matters related thereto", does not give any time-frame for carrying out the exercise. Signed by Mr Rakesh Hooja, Joint Secretary in the Ministry of Home Affairs, Mr Jaitley’s appointment order was made public on July 24, the day when the Lok Sabha was informed by the Minister of State for Home, Mr Vidyasagar Rao, that the issue of devolution of powers for J&K was discussed by the State Chief Minister, Dr Farooq Abdullah, with the Prime Minister, Mr Atal Behari Vajpayee, on June 24, when it was decided that a representative of the Central Government will have discussions with the Government in J&K. It was subsequently decided that Mr Arun Jaitley would be holding discussions as the representative of the Union Government.

Significantly, the wording of the order allows both the Centre and the National Conference in J&K to interpret the scope of the Jaitley mission as per their political convenience. Mr LK Advani first made the announcement of the Centre’s decision to appoint Mr Jaitley as the new representative on July 16. Four days later, on July 20, Mr Jaitley met officials of the Jammu and Kashmir Department in the Ministry of Home Affairs. Obvious purpose: He required to be briefed on the history of negotiations on the crucial issue of autonomy for Kashmir.

Mr Jaitley’s meeting with a set of officials took place at a time when Mr Advani talked of ‘greater devolution of powers’, while the Farooq Abdullah Government pressed for autonomy. Mr Jaitley is an important office-bearer in the BJP hierarchy. His party boss, Mr Venkaiah Naidu, will obviously want him to conform to the BJP stand, which rejects the autonomy demand of the National Conference Government.

Mr Venkaiah Naidu sought to reiterate that while there would be no Cabinet berth for Mr Jaitley, his (Mr Jaitley’s) services would be required in the organisation and his job as a Government representative would be a "part-time responsibility". Mr Naid, in fact, chose to highlight the "fact" that it had been clarified in a meeting he had with the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister that Mr Jaitley’s role "will be limited to speak to the J&K Government on behalf of the Centre". Mr Naidu also referred to yet another fact: "See the notification, it does not mention the word interlocutor".

Is there a possibility of the Centre providing yet another panel to talk to the non-National Conference parties and groups? Will Mr Ram Jethmalani head such a panel? Did Mr Jethmalani receive Mr Vajpayee’s blessings when he recently visited Srinagar to talk to certain politicians and groups? These questions just cannot be dismissed as ‘mere gossip’, if one were to analyse broad indications from a set of behind-the-scene players in Srinagar and Delhi.

Is war between India and Pakistan inevitable?

By Lt Col Mukund Singh Jamwal (Retd)

Human race is supposed to have evolved itself from the days of stone age when might used to be right. We are now more civilised and are expected to settle our disputes in a civilised manner without resorting to force. Right? Wrong, if we go by the history of mankind, which, despite all holy ministerations to the contrary, has never ceased to use force, either physically or as a deterrent to resolve matters, even till this progressive century, the twenty first, since the year of the Lord.

World without conflict or peaceful resolution of all conflicts is a dream scenario which dwells only in the domain of idealists. Such a concept presupposes that every human being is logical, rational, amenable to reasoning and more importantly, every human being's concept of rights and wrongs as well as of being logical and reasonable is absolutely same. In other words, unless God creates all human beings with the same customs made brain, it is not possible to eliminate illogic and unreasonableness from this world.

As long as illogic and unreasonableness remain, as long as human being's ideas of rights and wrongs differ, conflicts would be there between human beings and between nation states. To make matters worse, humans of the species have divided themselves into various races, religious and sects etc with differing ideologies which are often in conflict with one another. Add the kingsize human ego to all this and we have a sure enough recipe for continuous conflicts which defy all solutions.

While a particular individual or a nation state may feel it abhorrent to use force in resolving a conflict, the other may find nothing wrong in taking such a path especially when it feels that the adversary could be coerced by force or the threat of use of force to resolve the conflict to its own advantage.

This is best exemplified by Indo Pak relations ever since Pakistan has come into being. That country, ever since its birth more than fifty years ago has been in a state of continuous conflict with India over Kashmir. Any logical mind which negates two nation theory would find Pakistan's claim over Kashmir rather tenuous and lacking any substance. Once the ruler of the state, who incidentally was the only one authorized, under the Government of India Independence Act under which both India and Pakistan got their independence to decide about the accession of the State either to India or Pakistan, had signed the instrument of accession in favour of India, the matter should have ended. Not so with Pakistan, the basis for whose creation was the two nation theory only.

Earlier, even when the ruler of the State had signed a standstill agreement with both India and Pakistan, till a final decision with regard to accession was taken, Pakistan felt no qualm in trying to grab the state by force. That action of Pakistan resolved the dilemma of Maharaja Hari Singh with regard to accession and he promptly signed the instrument, acceeding his state to India. This accession was subsequently ratified by the Constituent Assembly of J&K State but that hardly made any difference to Pakistan's mindset which has remained obsessed with Kashmir ever since.

The fact is that Pakistan has come into being as a result of hatred. With hatred as its foundation, it is no wonder that it has become an accepted instruments of its state policy. Pakistan survives and thrives on its hatred against India so much so that it would be left without any motive to exist were there to be peace between India and Pakistan.

Being the new member of the club of Muslim countries, it had of necessity to prove itself more loyal than the king. There was an urgent requirement for it to convince itself that it was indeed a Muslim country which was more Muslim than other Muslim countries. This necessitated inventing a culture of its own. There was a problem here because the new Muslim nation did not have any history culture of its own, its culture and history was linked with India.

In its anxiety to distance itself from its common culture with India, the state of Pakistan deliberately took the road towards radical Islamisation of itself. History of the Sub Continent was rewritten in Pakistan and the country decided to pursue the militant version of Islam through out the world. It became a jehad factory and started exporting its own version of jehadis. We thus find the so called jehadis from Pakistan in all the Muslim trouble spots of the world whether it is Chechenaya, Bosnia, Afghanistan or even Timbactoo.

India, of course, has acquired a special enemy status for Pakistan. As it is, it was quite embarassing for the new Muslim nation when a majority of Muslims- infact more than the population of Pakistan-opted not to be become part of that country. Pakistan's ire became all the more intolerable when it tried to annex Kashmir by force and found to its dismay that Kashmiri Muslims were least interested in the philosophy of that country and refused to be part of it. It was fated to rediscover this fact once again in 1965 when the so called guerillas sent by it inside J&K state before the war, to merge with population and acquire their support to further Pakistani designs, were rebuffed by the populace, apprehended and were handed over to Indian authorities.

The war of 1971 with India which resulted in the separation of the Eastern wing of Pakistan from the mainland, making a mockery of two nation theory, fuelled Pakistan's animosity towards India especially since it had to suffer additional humiliation of having nearly one lakh of its troops being held as prisoners of war by India. Now all Pakistani soldiers are reportedly required to take an oath at the time of their passing out that they would avenge their defeat of 1971.

During a discussion held in 1999 on PTV between a retired army General a retired civil servant and the host of the TV programme, the retired civil servant was heard asking as to what was the rationale behind creation of Pakistan, if they were to have peace with India. President Musharraf, as Army chief in 1999 is no record having said that even if Kashmir issue was settled, there could never be peace between India and Pakistan.

Given the foregoing history, it is no wonder that Pakistan is in a state of continuous conflict with India. Rationalists would argue that this is an extreme viewpoint and that there would be enough reasonable persons- by our standards of course-- in that country, who would be holding a contrary viewpoint, and would be craving for peace with India. That may be true, but in such cases it is the extreme viewpoint which matters and holds good because the silent majority does not count anywhere. It is the extremists whose writ holds forth in that country so much so that they have been able to manipulate a great religion like Islam, which is a religion to peace, to suit their nefarious designs. They have overturned the concept of holy jehad on its head and we hardly hear any reasonable voice in that country in opposition to that.

India has been faithfully providing Pakistan the requisite alibis and excuses allowing it to meddle with its internal affairs. Even when Maharaja of j&K had legally acceeded his state to the Indian union, Pt Nehru, the Prime Minister of India, chose to negate this accession by bringing in the wishes of the people, totally against the provisions of Govt of India Independence Act which had given this option only to the Maharaja of the State.

When Indian army was well on its way to retrieve the present POK from Pakistan, it was stopped dead in its tracks by virtue of a resolution of United Nations Organisation, where we had gone running to complain even when we were winning back our own territory from Pakistan.

When constitution of India was written, the Govt introduced article 370 in it according special status to the State of J&K. This article has been the biggest obstacle in state's integration with India. It has always given an impression to the unscruplous political leadership of the State, the pro Pakistani elements and to Pakistan itself that the Indian Govt does not consider the issue of accession of J&K as closed. This article has all along created a feeling among the population of valley that the accession of state with India was not final.

Since the article grants complete autonomy to the State by giving it a separate constitution, separate flag and a separate penal code, initially Sheikh Abdullah tried to circumvent it by treating the state as his fiefdom and dreaming of independence. As a result he remained in the wilderness for 22 years from 1953 to 1975. After the Indira Sheikh accord of 1975, when he became Chief Minister of the State again, he took up the issue of erosion of article 370. However, after a thorough review of the so called erosion by Thakkar commission, he felt satisfied that self respect of Kashmiris had not been compromised.

The matter should have rested there but another 21 years after 1975, his son Farooq Abdullah chose to rake up this issue again in 1996, as an election plank. Since special status of the State continues under article 370, which was a temporary provision in Indian constitution, it provides a standing excuse to politicians like Farooq Abdullah to raise the issue of Kashmiri self respect- whatever that may mean in the context of this article- whenever it suits them or whenever they want to extract something from the Centre. The issue of autonomy, which is solely the demand of National Conference needs to be viewed in this context.

Even if the issue of autonomy is settled for the time being, as long as special status of the State under article 370 remains, there is no guarantee that Farooq's successors will not foment trouble on this point, once again in future, whenever they find that they have no worthwhile agenda for winning elections. This also gives enough scope to Pakistan to fish in troubled waters. The only logical way to deal with autonomy demand of National Conference is to first bring J&K state in line with other states of the union by abolishing article 370 and then granting more powers to the state alongwith other states within the framework of Indian constitution.

Having failed to grab Kashmir by force, Pakistan unleashed the so called proxy war against India in 1989. Thirteen years later Kashmir is still as far away from Pakistan as it was in the beginning but that has still not deterred that country. Any other country in place of India would by now have gone to war with Pakistan, but we have apparently endless patience. We expect Pakistan to come around sooner or later, more under pressure from international community rather than through any action on our part.

All along we have proved ourselves to be a soft state. This has enabled Pakistan to become a local bully. Everytime its leaders sense a threat from India, they raise the bogey of nuclear war. The cowering reactions of India as well as the international community over this threat seem to convey the impression that while the whole world including India would be affected by the nuclear war, nothing will ever happen to Pakistan. Nobody seems to realise that it is Pakistan which has to fear the nuclear war the most because it stands the chance of being wiped out completely from the face of this earth.

Instead of calling the bluff of Pakistan, all concerned start running here and there like a terrified herd, encouraging the bully even more. This was clearly apparent recently when during the height of mobilisation between India and Pakistan, the latter first resorted to issue of nuclear threats through its representative at the United Nations and simultaneously carried out missile tests. This had a rare sobering effect on Indian leadership who opted instead to hold the hand of Uncle Sam.

Here is a case of a nation state fully convinced that it can resolve its dispute with India over Kashmir- a dispute of its own making- by use of force or simply by threatenng the use of force. That a war between India and Pakistan has not taken place so for is not courtesy Pakistan. It is courtesy, the restraint shown by India coupled with pressure from Uncle Sam, whose only interest in the whole rigmarole is its own self interest. It does not want to be distracted from its own operations against Al Qaida. And there the matter rests for the moment.