Daily Excelsior... Editorial

EDITORIAL

By BL Kak

By Sreedharn

The flurry of diplomatic activity between India and its neighbours during the past one-year indicate that the security environment in South Asia is becoming peaceful. To understand this extraordinary phenomenon three major developments in the international order must be noted. First, the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Centre in New York and Pentagon HQs in Washington, D.C. on September 11, 2001 has brought a profound change ........more

Musharraf plan is a
year-end joke

By Samuel Baid

EDITORIAL

You can't clap
with one hand

Union Home Minister Shivraj Patil has come and gone. The only question that has been answered is that his oft-postponed visit to the State has finally materialised and gone off smoothly. For all other queries that may arise in mind and their suitable replies one may have to wait for Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's visit later this month. An interesting sidelight of Mr Patil's tour has been that what he left unsaid was made known via a Press release the thrust of which was that if the moderate faction of the Hurriyat Conference was unwilling to resume talks with the Central Government it was because of the pressure from Pakistan. Surprising? Isn't it? What was the dire compulsion for the Union Home Ministry to issue such a statement when its boss was present on the spot along with his two top aides? All of them could have clarified what was nothing short of an insinuation at a Press conference earlier at which they had virtually given a no-objection certificate should the Hurriyat leaders wish to go to Pakistan. Were they hesitant to make an oral assertion because they would have been hard put to respond to the searching questions that would have indisputably followed as a natural corollary about their own double role: holding talks with Pakistan on one hand and blaming any of separatist groups on the other hand for seeking to travel across the neighbouring country for the similar professed task of establishing peace and harmony in the region. If the idea of Mr Patil and his colleagues was to convey that they would like the Hurriyat leaders to talk to them first before heading for Pakistan they have not been able to drive it home effectively. Instead, they have created a clumsy situation for the only secessionist group that had held negotiations with New Delhi in the recent times and was willing to restart them in spite of change in the government at the Centre. In turn their flip-flop performance may well have caused a serious setback to the peace process. There can hardly be any doubt that the rational quartet of Mirwaiz Moulvi Umar Farooq, Prof Abdul Ghani Bhat, Moulvi Abbas Ansari and Mr Bilal Lone that had begun discussions against the tide would be more cautious about placing its trust in the Congress-led Union Government in the near future. As it is it all of them are already wary of the present Central Government's conflicting announcements that have left them wondering whether it was for the recommencement of the dialogue conditionally (within the limits of the Indian Constitution) or unconditionally (without any strings attached to it). Immediately on his arrival in Srinagar, Mr Patil had offered 'unconditional' conversation that found no takers. He and his colleagues in the North Block are perhaps not even aware that there is much mistrust in the Valley notably on account of the Congress's past record as well.

At the same time, one would like to advise the moderate Hurriyat foursome it should not give up its realistic approach. It has won a lot of sympathy for striving to achieve normalcy in the State. By insisting upon a tour of Pakistan or anything else as a pre-condition or a bargaining point it would only negate its good work done so far. How can it find a way out of its woes on the home turf by going elsewhere? There is no supernatural lamp across the Line of Control that can bring comfort to this land. Sheikh Abdullah, who was without doubt the tallest of them all in the Kashmir Valley, had led a delegation to Pakistan in 1964 to find the well-intended journey cut short by the unexpected demise of Jawaharlal Nehru in the national capital. There was a far bigger exercise undertaken by Abdul Ghani Lone in the winter of 2000: the charismatic leader was shot from close at Srinagar's Idgah ground after his return. In either case, it needs to be noted that no concrete formula emerged that could pave the way for lasting resolution of the problem. One does not want to sound superstitious but one can't shut eyes to the fact that both these attempts were cursed in their own way. Only the naïve would believe that the to-and-fro movement of a few leaders would dramatically alter the overall scenario. Since the days of the Sheikh, who was for long accepted as the State's and particularly the Valley's sole representative political voice, the number of leaders has been growing with each passing year to the extent that at the moment there can be a debate about who is the 'true representative' of the local people. One is constrained to say this because the greater possibility is that for the number of leaders who are seen enjoying a facility even by way of an excursion to another territory there would be an equal number feeling alienated for having been left out. In such a situation it is absolutely necessary for the moderate Hurriyat faction to first come to grips with the internal dimensions of the task in hand: it must prove beyond doubt that it is cut above the rest and unbending in its pursuit of tranquility. It can easily do this by carrying the talks with the Central Government to a logical conclusion (it seems that it has a grievance that the National Democratic Alliance Government has not fulfilled its promises with respect to, among other things, the release of the 'political prisoners'). How can two rounds of discussions, which this group had held with the previous government, be considered as enough to bury a bone of contention? In these exercises one should leave scope for longer debates. No State leader or group on both sides of the LoC can lose sight of another important argument: for their roles to be meaningful they can only act as facilitators at a time when both India and Pakistan are engaged in bids to establish mutual bonhomie.

Briefly, both the Union Government and the moderate Hurriyat leaders should adopt just and sensible course. On its part, the former should reassure that the governments being a continuing entity --- unless, of course, some larger policy matters were involved --- it is committed to carrying out the discussion on the basis of the same principles on which its predecessor had done (it has openly claimed doing so vis-à-vis Pakistan). It must without any further delay put an end to its contradictory voices. On their part the Hurriyat leaders should give up the tendency to become jittery at the slightest provocation. Having positively reacted to peace overtures in the past there is no doubt that they would be prepared to act in a similar fashion again. If both the parties start trusting each other they would find that their job is more than half done. In realising this they can be helped by the simple truth that one can't clap with one hand.

Will NDA disintegrate?

By BL Kak

Even as the National Democratic Alliance(NDA) lost power during the epoch-making 2004 Election, the formation of the BJP-led groups did not cease to exist. In fact,the NDA managed to involve sections of the country’s population in animated discussions on the shape of events to come. More importantly, in the initial stages after the formation of the Congress-led coalition Government at the Centre,all partners of the NDA seemed keen on ensuring what was termed as the "unity of action and of purpose" amongst themselves and their respective groups or parties.

The situation,however,underwent a change with the change of leadership of the BJP. No sooner did LK Advani become the president of the panic-stricken party than the non-BJP partners in the NDA were taken aback as a result of the deliberate chanting of BJP old slogans like "Ramlalla hum ayengay, mandir wohi banayengay" and "Jo Hindu hit ki baat kareyga, wohi hi desh pur raaj kareyga".

True,the BJP and non-BJP partners of the NDA differ on quite a few issues,but they seem united on one thing— that is,to trigger confusion and chaos in and outside Parliament only to harass the present Government at the Centre and to keep boiling anti-Sonia Gandhi pot. What seems top have set non-BJP partners of the NDA thinking anew is the BJP’s return to the Hindutva corridors. The NDA,in fact,showed cracks soon after the BJP’s new president (Advani) sought to inject the tested elixir of 1985-92 vintage into the party cadres by invoking Hindutva and stressing on RSS-inspired basics.

The Janata Dal (United),widely known as JD(U),which is part of the NDA,clearly signalled that trouble was brewing and that the non-BJP partners of the NDA cannot afford to be led by the BJP in the altered scenario. The JD(U),in fact,openly and vehemently threatened to part ways with the BJP if it went back to hardcore Hindutva policies by reviving,among other things,the most emotive and controversial issue of building a Ram temple at the disputed site at Ayodhya. The JD(U) joined the NDA after the three controversial issues— Article 370 of the Constitution of India,Uniform Civil Code and Ayodhya— had been removed from the agenda.

That all is not well within the BJP-led NDA was borne out by the threat issued by the JD(U) that the party would contest forthcoming Assembly elections in Bihar on a separate manifesto. This party and the BJP had fought the last election on a common manifesto. Hard-liners within the Sangh Parivar have reasons to be pleased with LK Advani as the new president of the BJP. But most of the moderates within the NDA are displeased,particularly after Advani announced that building of a Ram temple at Ayodhya was inevitable and that if the BJP Government had returned to power at the Centre,the construction of the temple would have begun by now.

Advani’s utterances did trigger an angry response from another NDA partner,Telugu Desam Party (TDP) of Andhra Pradesh. The TDP chief,N Chandrababu Naidu,said in a statement that his party did not agree with the views expressed by LK Advani. In plain language,turning for help to Advani simply spoke for the panic in the BJP.Advani is the man who,14 years ago,set the BJP on the belligerent path of Hindutva,thereby rewriting the course both of his party and the country.

LK Advani’s appointment as BJP chief was clearly prompted by the party’s abysmal showing in two successive elections— first to the Lok Sabha in May 2004 and then recently to the Maharashtra State Assembly. When the NDA was in power,Advani was so busy with the Home Ministry and later with the Deputy Prime Minister’s office that he did not have time for his party. But now that the BJP is out of office,its reins are with Advani. Atal Behari Vajpayee also endorsed Advani’s leadership and described it as "tried and tested". By making Nagpur his first port of call,after replacing Venkaiah Naidu, Advani sent a clear message to his core constituency that he would bring the BJP closer to the RSS and the Sangh Parivar.

It can be said without any fear of contradiction that nothing quite rouses the BJP’s rank and file as mention of that goal—a "magnificent" Ram temple at Ayodhya. And no BJP leader epitomises the temple as does LK Advani. Before the Lok Sabha elections (2004),through their `India Shining’ campaign,the BJP leaders had claimed that they had taken India to the 21st century. After losing power,the BJP,according to the party’s critics,wants to push the country back to the medieval ages. There is no doubt that the BJP came to power riding Advani’s Ram rath. But it is also true that the party readily sacrificed the mandir issue for the sake of power.

Under the compulsions of coalition politics,the BJP kept contentious issues like Ram temple,Article 370 and Uniform Civil Code on the back burner. Now when the party finds itself on Opposition benches,Advani has again raked up these emotive issues. It is now quite clear that whenever the BJP is close to power and in need of support of allies who are opposed to the Hindu ideology,the BJP pushes forward Atal Behari Vajpayee as its moderate face. And when the party is down in the dumps,it brings back Advani at the helm to galvanise the demoralised workers through his characteristic rhetoric.

Advan i will soon turn 77. And Vajpayee will be 80 next month. This means that five years hence neither might be in a position to muster the focus and attention required to fight an election. It stands to reason,then,that Advani has been seconded essentially for a fire-fightingoperation. It is an unenviable task,considering the mutual suspicion in the party’s second rung and the low morale among the rank and file.

True,there was not the usual sting in Advani’s references to "minorityism and vote-bank politics". But the BJP president did accuse the Congress of changing to a "more surreptitious and silent form" of minorityism so as to pre-empt counter-mobilisation by the other side. This,to say the least, is a plain admission that the Hindu-Muslim polarisation that helped the BJP in the past was no longer so easily achieved. Will Advani deliver? Time alone will unfold a real answer to this question.

Meanwhile,today with the Hindu Right in defeat mode and Vajpayee no longer active,Advani is caught in a strange ‘catch 22’ situation. If he heeds the RSS and Vishwa Hindu Parishad(VHP),he would return the party to its obscurantist past. If he desists from that path in order not to restrict the BJP’s vote base, he would make enemies of the Sangh Parivar,which as the architect of Hindutva he can ill afford. Advani’s road is bumpy; any hasty return to the past would further alienate the BJP’s allies.

And the middle classes are already offended by the BJP’s uncouth behaviour in Parliament and its churlish refusal to accept that the Congress-led alliance had won the 14th general election in a fair,issued-based contest.

Prospects of peace in South Asia

By Sreedharn

There is, thus a sudden realisation amongst the great powers that to counter their adversaries, they need to adopt a collective approach not only among themselves but also along with important power centres right across the globe. Such an approach automatically requires certain amount of coordination, with all the major actors in the international system and evolves a coherent approach on global security. This resulted in considerable amount of giving up pressure points on others and pressurising on friends and allies to do the same. For instance, to resurrect a withering state like Pakistan, its mentor, the US, forced Islamabad to give up its policy of confrontations with India and adopt a policy of cooperation and resolve all the issues through a bilateral dialogue process. This brought a qualitative change in Pakistan's attitude towards India.

Second, in the international parley the ambiguity of what constitutes terrorism disappeared during the last five years. The acts of terrorism and violence are no longer being described as low-intensity conflicts, or liberation struggles and human rights. The mujahideen (holy warriors) violence in many parts of the World is no longer justified as freedom struggles or fighting for basic human rights, by the Great Powers. For instance, majahideen or jehadis attacks on civilian targets in 1980s like in Afghanistan will not be condoned now. The whole process of this shift got intensified in the post September 11, 2001 and the war against terrorism became an international agenda. Even the hard core Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, popularly known as LTTE and its leader Prabhakaran in Sri Lanka is forced to come to the conference table for negotiations. The LTTE suddenly realised that it can no longer operate with impurity in various capitals across the globe. Even its finances came under close scrutiny and were forced to make public of its so-called donations. In a way these developments crippled all the terrorist organisations to come into open and negotiate a peaceful resolution of their demands with the concerned State.

Lastly, the disintegration of the Soviet - Union in 1991 and the end of cold war politics put an end to most of the countries who want to exploit cold war politics and resolve their disputes through conventional wars or proxy wars. Even among the Great Powers there is a qualitative change in their perceptions as they realised that their policies with developing countries have to be pursued with certain amount of discretion and care. With the result conflict resolutions, through use of force, among the developing countries or by the developing countries against the developed countries has become obsolete.

Added to this, the concept of globalisation and revolution in information and communication technology, accessibility to information became easier. A Pakistani knows what is happening in India and understood the distortions in official propaganda. And no Government is able to deny the accessibility to information easily. Even a theocratic state like Saudi Arabia found it difficult to monitor the information sought by its people through Internet.

In the qualitative change of life style, the priorities of an average global citizen have also undergone a major shift. He is not only concerned with his economic prosperity but also ideological moorings, which became less important. This is quite visible in Afghanistan where the Great Powers literally purchased the former holy warriors to fall in line with the Karzai Government.

With these profound changes in the global security environment South Asia had its fall-out too. The South Block mandarins suddenly realised that their primary adversary in the region, Pakistan, can longer pose any direct military threat to India. From mid-1990s onwards Pakistan's effort to use terrorism and violence as a means to acquire a pressure point vis-a-vis India proved to be counter-productive. Even a last minute war of 999, thinking that it has their last chance, received widespread, condemnation from all over the world. In the post September 11, 2001, with the large-scale presence of the US in Pakistan, the situation underwent a further qualitative change. As one commentator puts it "Pakistan's foreign policy is no longer conducted by Pakistanis but by the Americans, and India must deal with the Americans to sort out all their problems with Pakistan". Suddenly, Pakistan too realised that until and unless it falls in line with the new global realities, it has no chance of survival as a nation state.

Some hardliners among the Pakistan's elite, who were displaced in political power structure and social standing due to the changing global order thought that since the environment at home is too difficult to sustain their position, they decided to shift their operations to India's other neighbouring countries like Bangladesh and Nepal. Their hosts looked upon this development as a unique opportunity to gain a pressure point over India.

However, these groups and their hosts in Bangladesh never realised that precise information of their activities will be available to every Government. The fall out has already started. The European Union started talking in terms of reviewing Bangladesh's export quotas and international financial institutions like the Asian Development Bank and World Bank started reviewing their financial assistance to Dhaka. Even India is talking in terms increasing economic activity from South East Asia for items like natural gas than depending on Bangladesh. This forced Bangladesh authorities to realise that their entire economic development can go into disarray if they pursue their policies of military adventurism. The forthcoming SAARC summit in January 2005 should see the evolving of a face saving formula for Bangladesh to extricate them from the awkward situation in which they have placed themselves.

So is the case with Nepal. The Maoists made a hue and cry by indulging in arson and looting and demanding that Nepal's Constitution must be redrafted. Every Country in Nepal's neighbourhood and extended neighbourhood quietly warned the Maoists that they would not look upon their actions with any favour. Even the Great Powers made their displeasure known to Maoists. With the result there is a sudden lull in Maoists fury and their leadership is looking for peaceful means to keep up the initiative with them vis-a-vis Kathmandu. Even Nepal-Bhutan strained relations suddenly looked frozen.

These developments accompanied by quiet changes in the policies pursued by various nation-states in South Asia. Suddenly economic developments and cooperation became the watchword in all the capitals. What cannot be construed about five years back, like importing Iranian natural gas by land route via Pakistan is debated intensely and may become reality in not so distant future. Similarly, India exporting petroleum products to Pakistan is on the cards. Bangladesh is quietly sounding India for exporting its natural gas. In same breath. Tata, one of India's most trusted members of the corporate sector, is talking in terms of investing $2 billion in Bangladesh. The decision makers in the region have started dusting the earlier plans of a hydroelectric power-grid among India, Bhutan and Nepal.

According to present assessments made by various international agencies, India is on a accelerated growth curve for the next two decades, and the international investment community looks India as a safe and profitable destination. Since there is a common bond prevailing in all South Asian nations of attracting foreign direct investments, no nation-state in the region wants to spoil the show. Besides, India's economic incentives are looking for more all attractive than acquiring puressure points to gain perceived political gains.

Therefore, India's efforts to involve the international community too in South Asia subtly put an end to the continued cold war politics in the region. The immediately question that arises is how long this newfound cooperation and development will continue? At this point of time in history one can say with reasonable amount of optimism, that his newfound spirit will continue for quite sometime say up to 2025. As the cooperative spirit continues, the interdependency of each of the nation-states on others will increase. As the inter-dependency increases no nation-state would like to provide a jarring note. But with development leavels among the nation states, India, as a pre-eminent player in the region, has to take the responsibility to ensure that others do not spoil the party. CNF

Musharraf plan is a year-end joke

By Samuel Baid

Three military rulers of Pakistan made three sensational offers to India during their respective rules: Ayub Khan offered a joint defence pact; Zia-ul-Haq mad a no-war pact offer and now Pervez Musharraf has floated an idea of resolving the Kashmir problem by dividing it into seven regions with separate status. As for the genuineness of these proposals (i) Ayub Khan told an Urdu journal Lail-o-Nihar before his death in 1974 that his joint defence proposal was meant to trap India to let Pak troops be deployed in Kashmir and once it was done ''we would have forced India to hold plebiscite.. But the Pandit (Mr Jawaharlal Nehru) didn't bite the bait.'' (ii) Zia was preparing a blue print of aggression in Kargil when he proposed a no-war pact (iii) Now let us see what Musharraf has up his sleeves. But we know his role in Kargil.

As has been widely reported and commented upon both in India and Pakistan, Gen Musharraf asked editors at an Iftar Party in Islamabad on October 25 to start a debate on his latest musings on Kashmir. The stunned editors heard him rejecting plebiscite in Kashmir in favour of his new recipe for peace with India. He said plebiscite or accepting the LoC as border offered no solution of the Kashmir problem. Instead, he suggested both countries should identify regions on their side of Kashmir; demilitarise them and give them either independence or let them be under United Nations' mandate or under a joint control. He said the State had seven regions- two under his country's occupation and five in India- and it didn't form a single unity. Here he was obviously thinking of Sir Owen Dixon, whom the Security Council had appointed as a mediator between India and Pakistan in April 1950. Sir Owen considered an overall plebiscite in Jammu and Kashmir as impractical and favoured partition as a settlement. The State, according to him, had no economic and ethnic unity. His recommendations were rejected both by India and Pakistan. The latter would agree to any proposal that gave the Valley to it.

Gen Musharraf's musings at once kicked up protests within Pakistan. The Government of India frowned: ''The State of Jammu and Kashmir is not the issue on which we can discuss through media,'' was New Delhi's immediate reaction. In Islamabad Foreign Office spokesman Masud Khan tried to do damage control by saying that whatever Gen Musharraf said was not a proposal. Army spokesman Maj Gen Shaukat Sultan called it ''food for thought''. Foreign Minister Khurshid Mehmood Kasuri told newsmen in Islamabad that the objective of Gen Musharraf's suggestion was to kick off a debate. This objective, he said, had been achieved because both in India and Pakistan a debate on the subject had started. One can notice the Pak Government was now fighting shy of Musharraf's formula. But if anybody in India believed that Pakistan had given up its 56-years old stand on Kashmir, he or she must first agree that a leopard can change it spots. Subsequent to Gen Musharraf's Iftar statement Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz and Foreign Minister Kasuri reasserted their country had not given up its stand on Kashmir.

Pakistan's core Kashmir policy has a false coating of its insistence on the right of self-determination for the Kashmiris in accordance with the United Nations resolutions. That helps the Pak Establishment generate support for its stand in a section of Pakistanis, Kashmiris and even abroad. The core underneath this coating is the objective of grabbing Kashmir by gun or by guile. In 1947, 1965 and 1999 (Kargil aggression) Pakistan tried its gun and failed. In 1966, then Foreign Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto told his Indian counterpart Swaran Singh very candidly that Pakistan would be willing to forget about the right of self-determination for Kashmiris if India ceded some parts of Kashmir to it. Bhutto was interested in the Valley. He had often said he wanted to drink tea in Srinagar. What Gen Musharraf offered on October 25 at an Iftar party looks like a polished version of that objective. The gist of his ''loud thinking'', ''food for thought'' or whatever you call it, is that as a first step towards peace with Pakistan, India must forget that Maharaja Hari Singh ever ceded whole Jammu and Kashmir to it. Putting it crudely, Gen Musharraf is asking India: hands off Kashmir- and break up.

A section of peace-loving Indians have advocated consideration of Gen Musharraf's ''proposal''. If India agrees to consider this scheme under whatever pressure, it must be ready for one pre-condition and its consequence. The pre-condition is that it cannot consider it without first making up its mind to discard the Instrument of accession signed by Hari Singh in favour of India. It must be remembered that the United Nations despite its unfriendly attitude towards India at that point of time, never questioned the validity of this instrument. This instrument was accepted by then Governor-General of India Lord Mountbatten on behalf the British Crown. However, this world body did a great disservice to the sub-continent by avoiding to name Pakistan as the aggressor although its aggression in Kashmir was very naked. But Sr Owen had agreed in one of his notings that Pakistan had violated the international law by moving its forces into the territory of Jammu and Kashmir. The bloody wars and tension in the sub-continent in the past 56 years have been the result of that tragic failure of the UNO, then dominated by Britain and the United States.

The consequence of India's gesture of considering Musharraf's scheme may be dangerous for its unity. It will certainly have a chain-reaction. And Pakistanis know it very well. Ayub Khan had told Lail-o-Nihar that without the break-up of India the glory of Islam could not be restored in the sub-continent. In the early 1990s when terrorism was at its peak in Kashmir, many Pakistanis were convinced that India would lose Kashmir and consequently break-up.

Pakistan Government leaders often accuse India of harping on the ''atoot ang'' (inseparable part) tune while Gen Musharraf has shown so much flexibility in Pakistan's policy on Kashmir. The latest flexibility is his suggestion to break-up Kashmir in seven regions. That reminds one of the story of two women, who came to King Solomon with an infant, each claiming the motherhood. The fake mother at once agreed when the King ordered the infant be cut into two parts each to be given to the two women. The real mother screamed ''No''. The King now knew who the real mother was.

India cannot change its stand on Kashmir because this State joined it according to the law that was in force at the time of partition. Pakistan occupied a part of Kashmir by violating the international law, as Sir Owen said. With this ill-gotten part of the State, frequent changes in its policy in Kashmir does not matter to Pakistan. If Pakistan is serious in showing flexibility it must work hard to disabuse the minds of its people of the fallacies they have been taught from their childhood about Kashmir. Before going to Islamabad for the SAARC summit in January this year then India Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee had told a Pakistani news agency that Pakistan must change its mind set on Kashmir. Without this, Musharraf's musings will sound like a big year-end joke.