US opposed to separate homeland for KPs
Will Clinton’s ‘personal interest’ translate
into US mediation

From B L Kak

NEW DELHI, Oct 6: A sensational development has taken place, with the preparation of maps of a "new Kashmir" by a US think-tank. Identified as the Kashmir Study Group(KSG), known for its clout in Washington’s power corridors, the think-tank has discussed the events that forced the majority of Kashmiri Hindus to flee their homes and hearths in the Valley in the beginning of 1990, but its paper on the future administrative and constitutional set-up of different regions of Jammu and Kashmir has not supported the demand of Kashmiri Pandits’ organisation, Panun Kashmir, for a separate homeland for the Pandit community.

The KSG’s detailed paper has taken due cognizance of Muslims living in three regions of Jammu and Kashmir, namely, the Valley, Jammu province and Ladakh. The KSG functions an advisory body of the US State Department. Therefore, US-watchers in Delhi seem to have been prompted to take note of the KSG’s plans and perception vis-à-vis India’s "integral part", namely, Jammu and Kashmir.

Reports from Washington state that the US think-tank’s report on J&K was prepared on the basis of responses from both India and Pakistan. The responses had been invited from opinion-makers as well as Government officials in the two countries.

Precisely, the US body’s paper and maps pertain to a "new" Kashmir entity or entities, each with its own Government and constitution. And the US think-tank’s significant suggestion: Kashmir proper, Poonch and three tehsils of Rajouri district, Doda district, and Gool Gulabgarh in Udhampur district, known for their sizeable Muslim population, could be made part of the "new" Kashmir entity or entities acceptable to both India and Pakistan and the people of Kashmir.

Precisely, again, the US State Department’s advisory body has, for obvious political and strategic reasons, chosen to highlight the equally important party to Kashmir problem, namely, the people of Kashmir. And the advisory body’s paper has also highlighted three options. First, two Kashmiri entities on either side of the Line of Control (LoC). Second, one entity straddling the LoC. Third, just one entity on the Indian side of the LoC.

In another significant development, Washington has sought to insist on the "need" for its specific role in aiding Indo-Pakistan dialogue on Kashmir. Although Washington has, once again, informed New Delhi that the US State Department and President, Mr Bill Clinton, are distancing themselves from any mediatory role in the "larger" Kashmir issue, the American Government, it is pointed out, wants to be helpful in the context of a bilateral framework.

Washington’s fresh hints about its line of thinking vis-à-vis the ‘dispute’ between India and Pakistan over Kashmir have reached Delhi at a time when the Nawaz Sharief Government in Islamabad has appreciated the standpoint of Mr Bill Clinton, making it clear that he has no plans to abandon the message in the joint statement issued by him and Pakistan Prime Minister in Washington in the wake of Kargil war. The message: US President would take personal interest in encouraging an expeditious resumption and intensification of India-Pakistan bilateral talks, once the sanctity of the Line of Control(LoC) in the Kargil region has been fully restored.

Mr Bill Clinton’s latest message that his Government is interested in being helpful in the context of a bilateral framework has, according to diplomatic sources, been dashed off to Islamabad as well. In fact, that is the message Pakistan Government has also received from London, Moscow and Beijing.

The semantic jugglery has been necessitated by the phrase ‘personal interest’ to be taken by the US President in encouraging an expeditious resumption and intensification of India-Pakistan dialogue. And this phrase has already left room for interpretation. A US State Department official was, after New Delhi’s opposition to third-party mediation on Kashmir, forced to mark out this minimal position: "We are not being pulled in as a mediator. We are aware of people’s desire to have us involved, but we know we won’t be able to do anything if both parties don’t want us".

A large section of the ruling political class in Islamabad wants to get the US involved, although groups of Muslim fundamentalists in Pakistan are bitter against Mr Bill Clinton for having formed the country’s Prime Minister, Mr Nawaz Sharief to sign the statement at the end of his meeting with the former in Washington on July 4. Significantly, Mr Nawaz Sharief has not hitherto denied reports that he had to "agree’ to every single point raised and to sign the joint statement even before Mr Clinton had agreed to meet.

Be that as it may, the Government of India’s visible determination against third-party mediation on Jammu and Kashmir has resulted in a significant development: Both the United States and China have carefully avoided the idea of mediation in deference to New Delhi. In fact, by the time Washington’s message about its plan not to give up efforts to encourage an expeditious resumption and intensification of Indo-Pakistan bilateral talks, equally significant word poured in which explained: "Mediators try to set the lines and terms of a settlement and try to get the parties to agree to these. A facilitator wouldn’t set terms. This role would be better for the US".

Yet another significant development: At a time when Prof Robert Wirsing of the University of South Carolina has insisted that without a US role as "something akin to a mediator, there was virutally no possibility of resolution" of Kashmir issue. And senior White House officials have been quoted by the media as having stressed that Mr Clinton’s ‘personal interest’ was part of his ongoing monitoring of the South Asia situation.

MEN AND MATTERS
They can’t go beyond five rooms

From B L Kak

Defence Correspondents, based in Delhi, have not an easy job to perform. Reason: Identity cards issued to them specifically restrict their movement to the five room on the ground floor of the Ministry of Defence in the South Block. This measure continues to be in force, even as it was mooted by Mr Arun Singh when he was the Minister of State for Defence in the Rajiv Gandhi Government.

What was the background to his move ? Mr Arun Singh was then under a virtual siege due to the Bofors controversy, and took umbrage at the Defence Correspondents having unfettered access to the entire Ministry of Defence by virtue of possessing the identity cards issued by the Dirtectorate of Public Relations, Defence, after due clearance from the Chief Security Officer.

A senior correspondent of The Times of India, covering the Defence beat, had, it may be recalled, turned up at the South Block office of Mr Arun Singh to seek some clarifications. But the Minister did not oblige him. Mr Arun Singh obviously felt that journalists would be praying for more information about defence deals like the Bofors.

Another Delhi-based journlaist, Mr AK Chakraborty, who also covers the Defence beat, has this description about Mr Arun Singh: "A case was built up for this purpose and the Chief Security Officer issued instructions to DPR (Defence) that with effect from 1988, that their movement would be restricted only to the five rooms on the ground floor of South Block office of the Defence Ministry. The identity cards thereafter carried the endorsement: "Valid for DPR office only".

Mr Chakraborty’s description is contained in his book titled "Dismissal of the Naval Chief: Arms Deals Expose". Indeed, "Valid-for-DPR-office-only" move led to protest from the Defence Correspondents. The Government did not budge. The media had to pay a price for highlighting the Bofors kickbacks. Even the subsequent short-lived Government of Mr VP Singh and Mr Chandra Shekhar did nothing to bring about transparency in defence matters or to lift the curbs on the Defence Correspondents’ movement in the offices of the Defence Ministry.

Mr Chakraborty’s correct assessment: "It is of course a different matter that Mr VP Singh was the biggest beneficiary of the Bofors controversy and before assuming office as Prime Minister he had vowed to bring about greater transparency in the work culture of the Defence Ministry". His successor, Mr PV Narasimha Rao, was too engrossed with his own battle for survival to find time for defence matters, although he kept the portfolio with him for quite some time.

Mr Sharad Pawar, who then took over the Defence portfolio, proved to be a flamboyant Defence Minister and could not appreciate the plight of the journalists covering the Defence Ministry. He, however, sought to build up his own political image by taking a large number of correspondents on visits to border areas and exercises. Mr Mulayam Singh Yadav, who had a stint of 18 months in 1996-97 as Defence Minister, was too busy fighting political battles with the BJP on his home turf in Uttar Pradesh. The charge levelled against him in respect of the use – rather misuse—of Defence aircraft and helicopters incurring an expenditure of a whopping Rs 42 crores from the public exchequer was taken cognizance of by Delhi High Court.

At a press conference at Kota House in December 1997, Mr Mulayam Yadav admitted that due to his political preoccupations in UP, there was a "communication gap" between the Defence Ministry and the journalist fraternity. He wanted to be pardoned for the lapse and appealed to newspersons to write about the Air Force agitation with certain amount of circumspection. And Mr Mulayam Yadav, according to Mr Chakraborty, seemed to be the least concerned about reviewing the facilities, or lack of these, to Defence Correspondents to enable them to discharge their professional duties and to keep the nation informed.

Mr George Fernandes, who projected himself as a champion of the downtrodden and a fighter for the cause of the oppressed people of the world, virtually dictated to the Prime Minister, Mr Atal Behari Vajpayee, to give him the Defence portfolio, when the BJP-led coalition formed the Government in March 1998. He began assiduously cultivating the media in general and select group of Defence Correspondents in particular.

During his whirlwind tours to the border areas, especially the Siachen glacier and Jammu and Kashmir, Mr Fernandes saw to it that the print and electronic media accompanied him in good numbers. Every thing was hunky-dory for him till the ‘Bhagwat dynamite’ blew off in the first week of December 1998. Mr George Fernandes, who always preferred to be in the limelight, suddenly withdrew into a shell as it were. Mr Chakraborty’s book contains correct information: "Interviews were not granted to newsmen on one pretext or the other. Some selective interviews were granted with an obvious angle".

Equally correct is Mr Chakraborty’s assessment: The upshot of these developments unfortunately has been to target the media, especially those covering the Defence Ministry, and make them once again a scapegoat. The situation seemed to that created when the Bofors kickbacks controversy erupted in 1987, leading to curtailment of movement of Defence Correspondents on the specious plea of security.

It is relevant to recall that the Chief Security Officer of the Ministry of Defence wrote to the DPR(Defence) that some journalists had ‘misused’ the identity cards given to them. According to the CSO, even though these cards were valid only for five rooms on the ground floor some journalists were taking advantage of their PIB accreditation passes to move freely in the Ministry and gain access to any room they want.

It was obvious that the CSO’s complaint must have emanated from some higher quarters and somebody in the bureaucracy wanted the journalists to be debarred from getting the identity cards which are issued on yearly basis. As a result, till March 1999, the identity cards for 1999 were not issued.

Inquiries later revealed that the main complaint of the Chief Security Officer purportedly related to ‘misuse’ of passes by two journalists, one of The Indian Express and another of Indian Today. Both of them reportedly visited offices other than the DPR(Defence) located in the South Block on the basis of the validation cards issued to them.

If at all, the Chief Security Officer had any grouse, he could have asked the DPR(Defence) to tick off the two concerned journalists. To stop the identity cards of all Defence Correspondents on this score for three months from January 1 to March 31, 1999 smacks of vindictiveness on the part of someone who is out to teach a lesson or two to the media.