Daily Excelsior... Editorial

EDITORIAL

Mufti's dream on
Kashmir coming true
Men, Matters & Memories

By M L Kotru

Hurriyat Conference is relevant again
Men and Matters

By B.L. Kak

The on-going battle between the moderates and hard-liners within Kashmir's All -Party Hurriyat Conference (APHC) shows no signs of abatement. And the battle may intensify itself, with hard-liners under the stewardship of Syed Ali Shah Geelani openly . .......more

Growing introlerant
of the self!..
Yours Randomly,

By Dr. R. L. Bhat

EDITORIAL

Toppling threats

It is quite an irony that at a time when the guns have fallen silent on the Line of Control and an unexpected desire for peace has all of a sudden gripped the sub-continent, the political scenario in Jammu and Kashmir threatens to hot up. Ever since returning from his latest foreign sojourn, National Conference patron Farooq Abdullah is constantly handing out oblique threats that the days of the present coalition government, headed by Chief Minister Mufti Mohammad Sayeed, are numbered. He has accused the Government of tapping his telephone. Not only that. He is also reported to have publicly pulled up an officer for carrying out such an undesirable activity. Given the fact that the NC is the single largest party in the State Assembly, few can afford to ignore Dr Abdullah’s repeated signals that his organisation will not be averse to facilitate any bid to topple the coalition government. His assertions that his own party will not upset the Mufti’s applecart are meaningless and, certainly, can’t be accepted on face value. Whether or not the NC acts on its own, there is nothing that can happen in any toppling game without its overt or covert participation. The State’s premier political outfit alone has the requisite numbers to call the shots. It is quite possible that Dr Abdullah is merely indulging in theatricals. Having been out of power, he may be nursing the feeling that he is not getting the attention he deserves. That is why perhaps he is going around saying that it will be all over so far as the present ruling dispensation is concerned the day his son and NC president Omar Abdullah ‘opens his fist’. He has made no secret of his ambition that his son and political heir would be the next Chief Minister.

Doubtless, Dr Abdullah is entitled to his dreams. There also can’t be two opinions that he is in a formidable position to translate them into a reality. However, it will depend upon him whether he wants to achieve his objective in a democratically acceptable manner or through means, which are questionable and may boomerang on him in the long run. In our State invariably the personal agenda has taken preference over the political and parliamentarian niceties. Dr Abdullah’s own experience can guide him in this matter. His elevation as the self-appointed political heir of Sheikh Abdullah in the NC hierarchy was the outcome of at least two tough decisions by his father: first, the marginalisation of his oldest associate Mirza Afzal Beg and then, that of his son-in-law G.M. Shah. His exit from power in 1984 was again a sordid example of the sheer manipulation of numbers in the State Assembly. Even today quite a few observers believe that his dismissal at that time has weakened the State’s ties with the Centre. This is notwithstanding the fact that these observers in no way approve of Dr Abdullah’s ineffective performance during the peak of militancy. Nor are they appreciative of his style of governance. In assessing the situation, they are simply motivated by their concern for peace, stability and democratic values in the State. Viewed in the same context, if one goes back to the fifties, one will find that the arrest of the Sheikh in 1953 has been totally counter-productive. Since then, the seeds of suspicion have been sown deep in the State politics. Unlike the Sheikh who had shown total faith in Bakshi Ghulam Mohammad only to have been stabbed in the back, subsequent popular heads of the State have kept with them the prestigious Home portfolio that has the intelligence apparatus as its key and major part. Therefore, when Dr Abdullah hurls the allegation of phone-tapping, he does not leave anybody in doubt that he means to point his accusing finger at the Chief Minister himself. While these utterances may be part of a political diatribe, the NC patron’s varied experience should caution him to desist from taking a hasty and ill-conceived decision like the one of which he himself has been a victim in the past. It will be unfortunate, for instance, were the State to be plunged in a Constitutional crisis at a critical juncture in history when the scenario all around has just begun to look up.

Boon or bane

If there have not been many people at Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee’s first election meeting in the national capital recently, it is not because he has in any way lost his popular appeal. He remains a big crowd-puller by virtue of his proven oratorical skill. An added attraction is the high office he holds presently. Anybody would like to have a glimpse of the country’s Prime Minister. If the crowd has dwindled at his meetings it is only because people do see him too often on television news channels. In the half-hourly or hourly news bulletins his face is perhaps the only one that figures without fail. An increase in the number of these channels has enhanced the frequency of such appearances. If a stalwart like Mr Vajpayee can encounter problems, one can imagine the difficulties the less skillful orators among the politicians must be facing in view of the television revolution across the country. There are news channels not only in Hindi and English but also in every major language. Since they can’t immediately muster material enough to change every news bulletin, they keep repeating the same stuff that means that there is a multiplying effect. In quite a few cases, it is possible that one may hear Mr Vajpayee and Congress president Sonia Gandhi repeating the same point, albeit with minor changes to meet local requirements, in Bikaner in Rajasthan as they may have mentioned earlier in Raipur in Chhattisgarh. Since these repetitions are unavoidable, there is a negative impact on the viewership of the news channels also. Nevertheless, one can’t overlook the fact that television has added drama and colour to the country’s politics. Some times it adds to the despair of the politicians as we have seen in the case of Mr Bangaru Laxman and Mr Dilip Singh Judeo. Mostly, so far, it is full of reverence towards the political class adding to its status and making heroes out of non-entities by splashing their images half a dozen times.

Given this background, this is not surprising that the Election Commission has admitted the increasing relevance of television in our everyday life. It has withdrawn its earlier order banning political parties and candidates from advertising on electronic media. The restriction had been imposed in view of the fact that such advertisements could be afforded only by a few major parties. As a result, there were serious distortions in the electoral arena that could disturb democracy ‘in a poor country like India by money power’. One reason prompting the EC to reconsider its earlier order is a judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, which has said that there could not be any ban on advertising by political parties. Television plays an important role in the election times. It is not just like any other branch of media. Because of its reach, it is the most powerful tool for dissemination of information. It is a boon for those who learn its nuances well. Otherwise, it is a bane. One may find that one’s image or utterances repeated too often can kill the public interest. As they say, proximity breeds familiarity, which, in turn, breeds contempt.

Mufti's dream on Kashmir coming true
Men, Matters & Memories

By M L Kotru

There was this man wearing one of the broadest smiles one has seen on his face for a long time. And it was not a smile of smug satisfaction either. Nor for that matter did it reflect a ''Look, I had told you so'' attitude. The Kashmir Chief Minister, Mufti Mohammad Sayeed was smiling over the prospect of calm returning to his troubled State after many years of turmoil. It also reflected a sense of vindication. For many, including this column, had scoffed at his suggestions about bringing peace back to Jammu and Kashmir. His ''healing touch'' and ''talks with separatists'' had been ridiculed by many, not excluding his detractors in the ruling establishment in Delhi. But the man had persevered, which alone perhaps earned him the support of the Prime Minister. And the Chief Minister is now hoping to be able to persuade the Prime Minister to get the Advani-separatists' talks going before the SAARC summit in Islamabad.

The immediate cause for the Mufti to feel relaxed was the Pakistani announcement of ceasefire along the LoC, Siachen included. Of particular satisfaction to him must have been the acceptance in principle by Pakistan of the proposal to reopen the Muzaffarabad-Srinagar road. The Pakistanis had retreacted from the outright rejection of the road proposal, arguing that people travelling down the road would have to carry travel papers issued by the UN and that the UN would man the checkposts en route. That was what the Pakistan Foreign Secretary Riaz Khokhar had said.

Prime Minister Jamali in his telecast said that details could be worked out although his Foreign Minister Khursheed Mehmood Kasuri has explained differently why Pakistan would not accept Kashmiris living in the Indian part of the State as Indians. Their future, according to him, was yet to be decided. ''We suggested UN documents because Pakistan will not accept Kashmiris living in Indian-held Kashmir as Indian citizens. Our contention is that their future is yet to be decided'', Kasuri has said. That may not sound very helpful but then he himself has argued that such matter should be discussed. And in any case assertions by Khokhar and Kasuri do not alter Kashmir's status as a part of the Union.

Whichever you look at it the Pakistani response to the 12-point Diwali peace package offered by Atal Bihari Vajpayee is largely positive. One does not have to go into the causes of what made Gen Pervez Musharraf sound positive for once. You don't have to go far for an answer to that one. The Pakistani dictator had himself provided a telling backdrop to his predicament in the face of the US pressure on his regime to act more positively. It must have been a desperate General who while speaking to Pakistani editors last week confessed his virtual helplessness (not his words) in the face of American demands that he needs to do more to crack down on terrorist outfits. It had reached a stage when the Americans had threatened to bomb Pakistani territories bordering Afghanistan in NWEP and Balochistan he said. Even some of his own men in the Army he said did not approve of his bowing to American pressure but national interest required him to make the crackdown more purposeful. George Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair, during the former's visit to the UK, did not help either when both while referring to terrorism made specific mention of Mumbai (Bush) and Kashmir (Blair).

The General obviously continues to be under unrelenting pressure to do much more to prove his anti-terrorist protensions. Frankly, I, for once, felt sorry for Musharraf, particularly when he confessed before the Editors that he feared grave economic consequences for his country if Pakistan's anti-terrorist posture continued to be suspect. What a fall for a man usually, seen as an embodiment of self righteous arrogance.

The General has since attacked the terrorist/fundamentalist outfits within his country with severity. Bank accounts of these outfits which had acquired new identities after being banned in the first instance have been frozen and some of the major terrorists like Maulana Masood Azhar are on the run. Masood has been in the forefront of terrorist activities in Kashmir and has continued to recruit young Pakistanis and to collect funds in the name of Jihad in Kashmir long after his Jaishe Mohammad was banned.

The General is all to clearly worried about how the US views his conduct in the continuing war against terrorism and the commando that he is it is also likely that he has opted for a retreat, tactical or otherwise only time will tell. All said and done the Pakistani dictator has realised that easing tensions with India may be necessary to improve his distorted image in the West. He has continued to be suspect in the West despite his protestations to the contrary. Relations with India thus offer him an opportunity to proclaim his good intentions.

It is against this changed Pakistani backdrop one has to understand the smile on the Kashmir Chief Minister's face or the positive Indian response to the proposals made by Prime Minister Jamali. The Indian reference, in response to Jamali, to end cross-border terrorism needed to be made. There can be no disputing the fact that terrorists perpetuating the horror in Kashmir derive sustenance from Pakistan. Islamabad must put an end to it, if only for the sake of Kashmiris who continue to suffer as a consequence of the continuing terrorist depredations. A meaningful cease-fire, as suggested by Pakistan, must unavoidably cover its hired guns in Jammu & Kashmir. Unless that happens all the talk of guns falling silent along the LoC must remain meaningless.

Having said this, there is a body of opinion in New Delhi which wants the Pakistani offer to be taken with more than the proverbial pinch of salt. They draw attention to the fact that the acceptance by Pakistan of Vajpayee proposals was conveyed by Jamali rather than by the General himself. Can we be sure that Jamali is speaking for the military dictator as well, they ask. I do appreciate such concerns but it would be sensible to accept the proposals as an expression of the Pakistani political establishment's willingness to consider all issues. Again, it is suggested by the cynics that the Pakistani offer may be just a ploy to persuade Prime Minister Vajpayee to make the journey to Islamabad for the SAARC summit. It won't take Vajpayee any time to see through such a design, if it is there.

So, for the sake of the smile on the Chief Minister's face, which only reflects a sense of optimism for the future, let's for the present at least take the Pakistani offer at its face value. There is no harm in it. We must simultaneously go ahead- and without much ado- with the talks with the Hurriyat Conference. The mere outlandishness of some of the proposals which the Hurriyat is likely to make should not deter New Delhi from undertaking the task.

Hurriyat Conference is relevant again
Men and Matters

By B.L. Kak

Fire-brand Geelani, it is universally known, continues to enjoy support and cooperation from Pakistan for his toughened anti-India expression and activity. And Pakistan, happily for the Geelani group of the Hurriyat Conference, continues to be quite influential and assertive in Kashmir, even as India continues to hold Kashmir as ''an integral part'' of the Union of India.

Significantly, however, in the altered, or altering, scenario, the group headed by Maulvi Abbas Ansari has not been written off by Islamabad even after the group's 'yes' to the proposal for talks with New Delhi. At a time when Geelani is building public opinion against the Abbas faction of the Hurriyat Conference, there is a visible change in the mood of the moderates.

In plain language, the spread of disaffection by the Geelani faction against the faction led by Maulvi Abbas notwithstanding, there is a certain excitement among the moderates. This follows encouraging response to the announcement of talks with the Centre. The 2002 Assembly polls in Kashmir had literally left the Hurriyat Conference as a whole high and dry.

In fact, the Kashmiri electorate's verdict had shaken the Hurriyat leadership. It took almost one year for the Hurriyat leaders to recover from the shock. And during the period of eleven months or so after the Assembly polls, a series of important events took place on the Jammu and Kashmir scene. Two of these events did inject a new element into the situation.

One related to the split in the much-talked-about Hurriyat Conference. The second event related to the Centre's move culminating in the appointment of the Deputy Prime Minister, L K Advani, as the new interlocutor for initiating talks with the Hurriyat leaders. The response of the Abbas faction of the Hurriyat Conference was positive, even as functionaries of the faction insisted on a triangular dialogue with the Governments of India and Pakistan.

That this issue will be brought up by the Hurriyat leaders during the proposed talks with L K Advani has become quite clear with the latest statement by Maulvi Abbas Ansari. Syed Ali Shah Geelani has opposed the talks. All the more reason for the Centre to ignore him.

Pakistan, which is a party to the Kashmir issue, won't ignore Geelani. Pakistan has maintained that it recognises both factions of the Hurriyat Conference. But the fact remains that it has identified only Geelani as the chief of the All -Party Hurriyat Conference.

How will Islamabad react if New Delhi finally agreed to permit a Hurriyat delegation minus Geelani to visit Pakistan? After having recognised both the Hurriyats, Islamabad can't find it easier to look sideways once the Hurriyat team arrives in Pakistan. Islamabad's acceptance of the visit to Pakistan of the Hurriyat leaders (barring Geelani and likeminded men) will automatically result in a new development-- that is, recognising the Abbas faction over and above the Geelani faction.

The Abbas faction doesn't have an easy task, in view of the support from Islamic radicals to the Geelani faction. Syed Ali Shah Geelani, who continues to be an ardent supporter of what he terms as the ''on-going freedom struggle by the Kashmiri people'', doesn't oppose the on-going terrorism in his homeland. The Geelani faction treats the continued attacks on security establishments in Kashmir as ''part of the freedom struggle by the Kashmiri people''.

Whatever the Geelani faction's attitude towards India, there is no doubt that the attacks on security establishments is part of the same grim pattern and require an immediate and unified response. The various terror groups are obviously trying to pick on purported chinks in the elaborate cordon. A message requires to be sent across that the entire nation is vigilant and prepared to expose the militants' nation-wide links.

As a first step, the fidayeen groups that are dispersed across the whole country need to be unmasked. While national and State level political leaders have rightly perceived a dip in the overall pattern of militant strikes, they surely also know that, over the last few months, the various gestures made at the people-level between India and Pakistan have actually imparted a sense of increased desperation in terror outfits.

From infiltrating security establishments to targeting vehicles and convoys, the militants are trying everything that they can to spread panic. After the none-too-old Vaishno Devi attack (in Jammu region) and the attack on the Northern Command headquarters, what should have become clear was the militants' drive to push through a wedge between secured establishments and soft targets. The masterminds behind the diabolical ploy obviously seek to make as much dubious capital out of emotive issues that they can.

The various security establishments require to be specifically told by their bosses in New Delhi not to demoralise the general public by trying to show up the alleged weaknesses of each other. Plunging a wedding into a mourning and using other means to divide people's attention cannot be allowed to repeat themselves.

The failed attempt to storm a tourist handout next to a Border Security Force camp in Srinagar cannot be taken lightly. There have been a series of terror reminders since the Prime Minister, Atal Bihari Vajpayee, set the peace ball rolling. Merely encapsulating them enough.

There has been obvious pressure from Washington on New Delhi and Islamabad to restart the dialogue process expeditiously. US Assistant Secretary of State, Christine Rocca, recently described both India and Pakistan as two ''close allies'' in the fight against terrorism. Rocca and her colleagues have been insisting that Islamabad is a strong partner in the global war on terrorism.

At the same time, they have also been saying that Pakistan could crack down further on the movement of militants into Jammu and Kashmir. India's package of confidence building measures took Pakistan by surprise. No wonder Islamabad took some time to respond officially to the proposals unveiled by New Delhi. It is significant that since the failure of the Agra summit between the two countries, New Delhi has made it a point to sidetrack the Musharraf dispensation and appeal directly to Pakistani public opinion.

Those conversant with politics in South Asia are of the view that Atal Bihari Vajpayee's peace initiative from Srinagar in April was aimed at the international community while the October surprise was meant for domestic consumption. The October package was made public on the eve of elections to five Assemblies.

Growing introlerant of the self!..
Yours Randomly,

By Dr. R. L. Bhat

Once upon a time the Assamese wanted to turn the otusiders out. Their hopes to oust the outsiders died a slow death, just the way the high-pitched slogan of erstwhile BJP against the Bangladeshis died down. The first were craftily swindled out of their resolves, as Bodo and other insidious agitations were engineered to deflect the high horses of erstwhile AASU from their very pointed goal. Though nobody may say openly as to who did that bit of social engineering, almost everybody in the nation seems to know where that finger of suspicion points. BJP's slogan died in a more mundane way, getting lost in the high-flautin poll-politics which this once-value-based party has now learned is the only way to real-politic in this country. That real-politic also teachers that you are not to find solution in this country, not to build bridges in this country but to play one sect against the other, to strike one part against the other and warm your poll-prospectus with this all-around friction.

So Laloo goes to Assam and tells the CM of the State not to worry that it is all the politics of the NDA that is getting Biharis killed in that State.By corollary it is NDA that is getting Assamese attacked in Bihar, too. And so while the two Governments are free of any role on responsibility, the death toll of the innocent Biharis is rising. The insecurity of Assamese in Bihar would also be rising by the same degrees. But, of course, that is not the concern of players of real politic. Meanwhile the tempers are rising in other places too. Incidentally it is also against Biharis. But that hardly seems to matter so long as it is not against the foreigners. Once that happens you can be sure that people-conscientious, rational, upright, thinking people-would get to work, damn India and Indians, and tell the whole world that it is the communalist Government at centre, and the communalist majority at core, that is making this nation intolerant. There are two very insidious dimensions in all this, which either get disregarded or misinterpreted. One is that while the intolerance against the foreigners is condemned all through that violence against the nationals is seen and shown as being the right way to behave with your fellow citizens.

What is more alarming is that nobody seems to be bothered that in-between this country is being seriously imperiled. Now why shouldn't people from Bihar have a right to live and earn a living in Assam? Or, the vice versa? Our, why should'nt Biharis be going to Mumbai and living there with full rights and privileges and, of course, duties of a normal citizen? The answer is simple. We have been following up a reverse nationalism all along. Mumbai people have a prior right to Mumbai, and so the Maharastraians to Maharashtra and Biharis to Bihar. In that one prescription the nation and nationalism of India is decimated without the worst enemies of the nation moving a finger. And, what rights do Bangladeshis have here, there or anywhere in this nation? Everybody would say 'none' on paper or the spokesman's mike. But in reality they are a pampered, favored lot. Two years ago when there were attempts by one Government to oust them there was a nationwide hue and cry. By whom? By these very people who 'support' their outer on papers and media mikes! It is votes; it is secularism; it is tolerance: it is any of the thousands of values this land has always preached that get invoked whenever these foreigners turned special causes and vote-banks are touched or even talked of.

So what do you have it you can't oust the foreigners? You have the nationals. You have Biharis in Assam, Marwaris in Orissa, Punjabis in deeper south, anybody in any other place-they all can be 'legitimately' fought but not the people who do not belong to this nation, who do not regard this nation as theirs, who do not revere the traditions and ethos of this land. They stay put. They have a right to the hospitality, the goodies, the privileges, the employments, everything. But the conationalists are not to be tolerated. Then all ethnic and racial principles are invoked. Regionalism and 'sons of soil' become divine principles. And these principles lead to interstate, intrastate and internecine frictions. But instead of seeing the danger and remedying it the neo-enlightened fan these intolerant fires as surges of identity, the flowering regional objectives and local aspirations. Bengal for Bengalis, Orissa for Oriyas, Tamil Nadu for Tamils: tell these manipulators masquerading as emancipators. And, the result is that the Andhras are fighting Telengana people and Vidharbis are spewing venom against Maharastraians!

With this kind of poison of intolerance being handed around as amrita of identity you cannot blame Assamese for fighting Biharis, or any other State ousting other linguistic groups. These are the glaring cracks in our natinalism. All of them have been wedged into this monolith of ages during recent past. Whoever did it-whether it was the frustrated communist who wanted to carve out pockets of influence with whatever instrument they could get hold of, or misguided socialists who misunderstood and misinterpreted the equality theories coming out from a rabidly uniform Europe and America, or plain politics that employed every usable weapon to slice off nickes of the nation for themselves-the need today is to beat the growing notions of exclusivity out and drum it into every state, ethnic and linguistic era that this country belongs to all citizens, all nationalists, all Indians equally and unconditionally. For that India and Indians have to assert that India does not -cannot-belong to anybody who is not of this nation and for this nation. Let this nation know itself and know its adversary; let it stand by and for those of the nation. Then there won't be any Assams or Bihars threatening the sons and daughters of India. But, do we want that? Rather, why don't we?