People's Democracy

Harkishan Singh Surjeet

NOW that General Parvez Musharraf of Pakistan is scheduled to visit India in the early part of July, a heavy responsibility devolves on the government of India about fruitfully utilising this opportunity, so as to set in motion the process of improving the Indo-Pak relations on a sustainable basis.

The general has indicated that, during his India visit, he would hold talks with Indian leaders on a whole gamut of issues --- ranging from cricketing ties between the two countries to Indo-Pak trade to Kashmir. This is a positive sign as the importance of issues like water sharing or people-to-people contact between the two countries cannot be minimised. In fact, as one cannot expect that a vexing issue like Kashmir will be solved overnight, normalisation of diplomatic relations between the two countries and the development of people-to-people contact can go a long way in creating a conducive atmosphere in the subcontinent.

As for Kashmir, while holding discussions with Pakistan, one has to guard against any attempts to give the dispute a communal colour. It is a fact of history that, ever since the inception of Pakistan, its leaders have been staking their claim to Kashmir simply on the basis of religion. Even though baseless, this attempt of theirs was in accordance with their two-nation theory that led to the partition of India in August 1947.

Moreover, the claim was rejected by the people of Kashmir themselves. Even when the people of the princely state were fighting against the autocratic Maharaja, their struggle never displayed a communal trait; it was a struggle in which all communities took part to force the Maharaja to accede to the Indian Union after the British left the subcontinent. If anything, it was the Praja Parishad, the RSS’ incarnation in the princely state, that tried to give the whole issue a communal colour in order to break the fighting unity of the people against the Maharaja. Later, when Pakistan sent armed tribals into the Kashmir valley in order to capture it by force, the people fought like one man, irrespective of their religious affiliations. This was the height of the eminently secular Kashmiri culture in action and is still remembered as a golden chapter in Kashmir’s history.

The people of Kashmir reiterated their decision to merge with secular India on several subsequent occasions, and remained unmoved by the Pakistani claim even during the 1965 and 1971 war.

This also involves another weighty question. Even though Pakistan was carved out on the basis of religion, it could not maintain its unity and Bangladesh came into being as an independent nation in January 1972. The episode once again proved, if any proof was needed at all, that religion cannot serve as a basis of nationhood. It is therefore futile to expect that any satisfactory solution to the problem of Kashmir can be evolved on the basis of religion.

A second point to bear in mind is that it is the Shimla accord of 1972 that has to be the basis of any dialogue between the two countries. The accord, that followed the Indo-Pak war of December 1971-January 1972, has been a landmark in the history of Indo-Pak relations. When the accord was signed, late Z A Bhutto of Pakistan had even expressed his readiness to accept the line of actual control (LAC) as the de jure border between the two countries. At that time, his only contention was that this should be done at some later date as the situation in Pakistan was not yet congenial for it. However, before anything like that could happen, Bhutto was overthrown, jailed and then executed by the military clique of late General Zia-ul-Haque. His execution gave a body blow to the process of negotiations between India and Pakistan.

Even then, the efficacy of the Shimla agreement can be judged from the fact that it prevented a war between the two countries for more than a quarter of a century, and its value cannot be doubted even after the Kargil war.

The basic thesis and guiding spirit of the Shimla agreement was that the two countries would try to solve their mutual disputes through peaceful bilateral negotiations, without involving any third party whatsoever. The agreement was welcomed not only by the people of the two countries, in whose mutual interest it is, but by the international community as a whole which is interested in preservation of world peace.

One important aspect of the Shimla agreement was that it effectively nullified the UN resolution of 1948, in accordance with which UN observers were posted along the LAC. In fact, the Shimla accord has proved far more effective than the UN resolution that has become meaningless and could not prevent any of the three wars that took place after it was passed.

The importance of the Shimla accord also lies in the fact that it precludes the possibility of imperialist intervention in Kashmir and that is why the accord was never liked by imperialist powers. In this way it is a sort of guarantor of the sovereignty of both India and Pakistan, as in enjoins upon them to try settle their disputes like good neighbours. This is indeed what the people of the two countries and of the subcontinent as a whole have been yearning for during the last half a century.

This aspect of the Shimla accord becomes all the more relevant when US imperialists are itching to intervene in the dispute. The fact is that ever since 1947, in view of Kashmir’s strategic location in the world, US imperialism has always tried to get it separated from India so that it could have a puppet government there and turn the state into a site of US missile deployment. That is why, in his communique with the deposed prime minister Nawaz Sharif, Clinton promised that he would take "personal interest" in Kashmir. (Sadly, the text of the communique was okayed by Vajpayee before it was officially issued.) And that is why, only last week, Stephen Cohen of the US State Department’s thinktank asked the Bush administration to get ready for "intervention" in Kashmir. That is the reason the Kashmir issue must not be internationalised at any cost, and there must be no irresponsible statement of the type issued by important BJP leaders in the wake of Pokhran II.

And now that both India and Pakistan have become nuclear powers and, as a result, South Asia has become a sensitive point of international diplomacy, the value of the Shimla accord has grown manifold. In fact, it is the only instrument available today that can prevent a nuclear conflagration in this part of the world. Abiding by the letter and spirit of the Shimla accord is thus in the mutual interest of both the countries and of the whole world.

At the same time, as the Vajpayee-Musharraf summit is going to take place soon as a first step towards the resumption of negotiations, all support to terrorist activities in the state must stop.

It is in view of these factors that our party, the CPI(M), and other parties welcomed the invitation extended to General Musharraf for talks.

But, yet, where the Vajpayee government is sadly lacking is about taking concrete steps to overcome the alienation that has gripped the Kashmiri masses and to restore their confidence in the Indian Union. Even after a welcome ceasefire was unilaterally announced by the government of India (GOI) in November 2000 and it was extended on a monthly basis for six months, the GOI failed to take any such steps and sadly squandered the opportunity the ceasefire offered. As said in these columns time and again, restoration of maximum possible autonomy to the state, initiation of developmental measures in the state whose economy lies in a shambles due to the terrorist depredations for over a decade, and taking the political parties of the country into confidence can go a long way in evolving a credible solution to the Kashmir imbroglio.

Here, the GOI would do well to remember that it is the same people who had foiled the Maharaja’s game of carving out an independent Kashmir and who, with guns in their hands, also fought the armed raiders to defend their decision to join the Indian Union. As late as in 1996, the people of Jammu & Kashmir defied the extremist boycott call and participated in the state assembly elections in sizeable numbers. Their own preference is thus clear. What is needed is a clear and correct diagnosis of why the same people stand alienated today, and to initiate a proper method to tackle the problem. Moreover, the people of Kashmir are also aware of the miserable plight of their brethren in that part of the state which is on the other side of the LAC.

The situation in the state is extremely delicate today. Through its interlocutor, K C Pant, the GOI is trying to hold talks with the All Party Hurriyat Conference (APHC), a motley conglomerate of over two dozen extremist groups, some of whom want to merge with Pakistan while some others want to remain independent from India as well as Pakistan. There is certainly no harm in holding talks with the APHC if it gives hope about solving the Kashmir problem. But the GOI must not ignore that there are, undoubtedly, forces in the valley who want that the state must remain a part of the Indian Union, though their voice has grown weak due to the GOI’s centralisation drive and myopic policies. Initiation of concrete positive steps will certainly give strength to these forces and they can well assert themselves. This is particularly important at a time when constituents of the APHC are badly divided among themselves.

At the same time, attempts to communalise the issue must be eschewed. The cultural identity of the state, called Kashmiriyat, is basically a secular identity and must not be injured. Quite recently, while in Leh, Pant discovered that the majority of the people there are against the trifurcation of the state; they did not even approve of the union territory status for Ladakh. The same can be said of people in other parts of the state. In fact, Kashmiriyat can well be a guarantee of our national integrity in this part of the country.

It is with these aspects in mind that the GOI must initiate a dialogue with Pakistan. The invitation extended to General Musharraf was welcomed by the PPP as well as Jamaat-e-Islami in Pakistan, and this is a positive sign. The people of both the countries want deeper and cordial relations among them. Not very long ago they were citizens of one single country, and had a common history and culture for several millennia. Pakistani literature is highly cherished in India, and so are Indian films in Pakistan. This desire of the people for peace in the region is a solid ground to build upon.

This is also necessary for the progress and well-being of the whole region. Barring sub-Saharan Africa, South Asia is perhaps the poorest region of the world. On all social indicators and most of the economic indicators, like food, housing, health care, education, literacy and so on, the countries of the region have a very dismal record. This is proved by the UNDP’s Human Development Reports over the years. Peace in the region and good-neighbourly relations between the two biggest SAARC countries, that is India and Pakistan, are therefore a conditio sine qua non for effectively tackling the vital problems facing the people of the region. Moreover, cooperation in these fields will definitely create a congenial atmosphere in the region, an atmosphere in which vexatious issues like Kashmir can also be solved eventually. This is a fact that must not be lost sight of, at any cost.