PM's new Kashmir plan

By Dr Golan Yazdani

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's proposal for a new Kashmir is a genuine and sincere attempt to keep aside the bitterness of the past and to look forward to a time of peace and hope for the people of Kashmir. With one stroke, the Prime Minister has attempted to open several windows to a brighter future in the Valley. For one, he has opened the doors for a dialogue with anyone or everyone who has rejected violence. His message is clear that firm. He is not willing to talk to those who indulge in violence. He is ready to talk to those who have the welfare of the Kashmiri people in mind.

This gives out a strong message to those who have been holding the State to ransom by either directly or by indirectly supporting acts of violence. This is also a subtle reminder to Pakistan to give up violence if it wants to have peace on its borders. The Prime Minister made it quite clear that it would be easier for him to take the next steps in peace if Pakistan stopped sending in terrorists across the border.

The marked difference in the Prime Minister's speech in Srinagar was his insistence on talking about peace and hope and not about violence alone. Often in the past, leaders from Delhi spoke about hot chases and cross-border terrorism and ended their brief visits with exhortations to Pakistan to give up violence. The Prime Minister's address was simple in contrast. His message was that of peace and hope and not violence. His argument was that peace could not happen without giving up violence.

Three clear indications can be drawn from the Prime Minister's speech about the Government's approach towards Kashmir in the days to come. First, violence will not be tolerated. Second, Pakistan will have to shed its hypocrisy and give up promoting cross-border terrorism. Third, instead of playing politics, the Government will ensure development of basic infrastructure and facilities for the people of Kashmir. By talking about providing schools, hospitals and other basic needs, the Prime Minister has laid out the parameters of his new Kashmir plan. He has also announced a scheme to open up Government jobs and provide employment opportunities to the youth of the region.

It is also, incidentally, an indication to the political and non-political actors in the State to start taking the welfare of the people more seriously than their own. The disappointment expressed by certain sections of the Hurriyat and political leadership in the valley clearly indicates that the Prime Minister's words have had its intended impact. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has made it known that he was not interested in finding a political solution as being demanded by several self-proclaimed leaders in the Valley and Pakistan. The only political solution in Kashmir was to hold a free and fair election and the Prime Minister has clarified, in no uncertain terms that he was not interested in bypassing or destabilizing the State Government. Those who were looking for a political formula were obviously disappointed.

So, in all probability, would be Pakistan. Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf had floated a trial balloon about segregating a particular zone in Kashmir and demilitarizing it. Though Pakistan had not made any attempts to formally place such a proposal before the Indian Government, as normally should have been, various sections of the establishment and its supporters in the media and academia have been projecting it as a panacea for all the ills that had befallen Kashmir and the region. Even before speaking at Srinagar, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh rejected the proposals outright, and in a more honest and sagacious manner, by announcing a unilateral troop withdrawal. Not only did he answer the General by identifying the area as Baramulla but he also ordered the Army to begin the de-induction programme within hours. There could have been no better way of rejecting President Musharraf's proposals. The ball now is in the court of Pakistan. President Musharraf has no the option but to annonce a similar troop withdrawal on his side to match Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's bold decision.

President Musharraf will now be forced to go beyond rhetoric and come out with formal proposals which reflect a genuine effort on his Government's part to put an end to violence and usher in an atmosphere of trust and peace. The formula is simple. He should order a crackdown on terrorist groups fomenting trouble in Kashmir. Jihadi leaders like Lashkar-e-Toiba chief Prof Hafiz Saeed and United Jehad Council chief Syed Salahuddin should be arrested and tried under anti-terrorist laws. Terrorist camps and recruitment offices should be dismantled immediately. Channels of guns and funds to these groups should be broken up and destroyed.

And it will do immense good to the climate of peace in Kashmir if President Musharraf were to shed his Army uniform by the year end and be a civilian head of Government like Prime Minister Manmohan Singh.

Prime Minister Manmohan, on his part, has shown him the way to bring in peace in the region. It is upto the General and his friends to see the light of the day.

Going beyond words

By S. K. Singh

One of the outcomes of the visit of the Prime Minister, Manmohan Singh, to The Hague for the India-European Union summit earlier this month was that the two entities entered into a "strategic partnership." The summit has been described as "historic" and the strategic partnership as symbolising "a qualitative transformation" of the relationship.

A fine weave of words but perhaps slightly far from the truth. There is a feeling among the Europeans that India still has little perception of the EU’s emergence as a new pole in international relations. The security concerns of India and Europe, they argue, border on the same region – from the Hindukush to the Mediterranean. These concerns are not only about nuclear, chemical and biological weapons but also about terrorism and relations with Islam. Yet, they think that India does not relate with the EU as a security entity.

The EU is the largest economic grouping in the world but it has not yet emerged as a unified security entity. India, therefore, relates with it essentially as an economic bloc. The EU is India’s largest trade and investment partner. But it is also quite protectionist. It has been raising difficult environment and labour issues at the WTO that go against India’s interests. It has also launched the largest number of anti-dumping investigations against India. There are some who believe that the EU is deliberately bloody-minded in entangling India in anti-dumping and anti-subsidy web.

Although the votaries of the EU complain that India still prefers to deal with its constituents on a bilateral basis, they also make use of the incompleteness of the federation to their advantage. "They shuttle you between Brussels and the national capitals on tricky issues" is the common perception in New Delhi.

Foreign policy essentially remains a national policy in the EU despite some coordination. India cannot deal with the EU as a state because it does not have a common foreign and security policy. India also prefers to deal with France and Britain, not because they are smarter but because they are permanent members of the United Nations Security Council. In the Security Council, their views are derived from their membership of that body and not as EU members. The other EU constitutents, especially Germany, do not think of the present Security Council as a democratic or representative body. The six-monthly rotating presidency of the EU has also contributed to the Security Council’s unsatisfactory relationship with the EU.

The new constitution of the EU envisages a foreign minister for the European Commission and the European Council of Ministers. Meanwhile, the differing views among the constituent countries have meant that the policy that emerges is the lowest common denominator on each issue. This may not be congenial to New Delhi’s interests.

That the EU is not a unified security organization becomes clear on the issues of nuclear proliferation. New Delhi finds it more pragmatic to deal with Britain and France on these issues, as they are nuclear weapon states. The other EU members, in India’s perception, end up taking an ideological position on nuclear weapons.

In the case of frontier technologies, especially the global positioning satellite project, Galileo, the EU would like India to invest nearly $300 million but refuses to share the military codes for the project. It claims that such codes have also not been provided to China. China may be a potential adversary but that cannot be the case with India. New Delhi is, therefore, right in trying to explore a similar GPS project called Glonass with Russia, which is more likely to share information. The project could, therefore, be more participative.

India is interested in participating in the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor project (nuclear fusion technology) but what good is it if the EU is going to remain bound by the Nuclear Suppliers Group? The technology may not be supplied to India at all.

There seems to be an apparent convergence of Indian and European interests on multipolarity. But Britain does not believe in multipolarity. It also does not see itself as European. Britain has always kept Europe divided and even today does not want it to become strong so that the continent remains digestible for its ally, the United States of America. France disagrees but its notion of multipolarity is different from Germany’s. Germany in fact seeks to work with the US and has no desire to make the EU a counterweight to Washington.

EU’s east European countries have a very pro-US mindset. They had a harrowing time during the Cold War and still suffer from the mindset of victims. They are not inclined to the re-emergence of Russia as a major power and do not believe in multipolarity. There is no consensus on the issue within the EU, despite the Franco-German leadership in the matter.

Under these circumstances, what does strategic partnership mean? It means that Europe is finally taking note of the conventional wisdom that in the next decade India will emerge as a regional and global power. Aware of their small size, both geographically and economically, the members of the EU see the economic potential of dealing with a population of over one billion and with an economic growth rate of 5 to 6 per cent becoming a huge market. The EU is developing a stake in that market.

Behind this, of course, is the fact that all the major players in EU support India’s membership of the Security Council – Britain and France directly, and there is an agreement with Germany of mutual support for each other’s candidature. There also seems to be a recognition that India’s nuclear capability means that it will have an important role to play in any non-proliferation regime, though not necessarily in the treaties.

Europe also feels the need to engage India, which has a huge Muslim population, on Islam. Europe is caught in the contradiction of building walls against Islam and mulling Turkey’s entry to the EU at the same time. It will be eventually unavoidable and perhaps Europe will realize that it is better to have a moderate state structure in Turkey than to leave the country to fend for itself. But to come to that unambiguous conclusion, Europe needs a dialogue with Islam to understand how its moderate tendencies can be encouraged.

However, New Delhi also has to reciprocate the logic of the relationship by giving content to the strategic partnership. However, it does not seem to be making the choices it needs to make to develop the special relationship it seeks with Europe. Concerns other than strategic seem to determine whether or not orders should be placed for Airbus or French Mirages and Scorpene submarines. Commercial and often corrupt considerations then supersede the strategic relationship that we seek.

New Delhi, therefore, must also take the blame for not giving Europe a stake in the relationship.

Otherwise, how can the strategic partnership with EU provide a balance to the US and Russia? If real content is not lent to the relationship, the annual India-EU summits are likely to remain only public relations events for the prime minister of the day. We Indians are superb with working on the basis of vocabulary. What is needed is action. (INAV)