news details |
|
|
| Balakot-the bench mark for Indo-Pak parleys | | | M.M.Khajooria
Lot more that what meets the eye goes into the making of the on-going mischief in Kashmir. A combination of historical and contemporary factors produced and sustained the cycle of violence. Contrived confusion about political goals , credibility deficit of the political class and compulsions of Pakistan foreign policy thrust were the main drivers of the situation that made a vulnerable section of Kashmiri youth the proverbial Sacrificial goats.
After many mishaps and hiccups , three very significant elements have now emerged in the Indian position on Indio-Pak relations .First and perhaps the most important was the recognition that Indo-Pak negotiations were meaningless unless the fundamental road block of perennial Trust Deficit was removed. In practical terms,it meant reversal of Pak Military Doctrine that placed India as its enemy number Two. Termination of cross border terrorism as well as dismantling of terrorist infrastructure created for the purpose and discarding her terrorists strategic assets . Three. To discard its other military doctrine –the doctrine of strategic depth, crying halt to its machinations in Afghanistan in collaboration with the ISI managed segment of the Taliban. The billion dollar question is ,will Pak army do this? We will, obviously have to wait and watch.
Pakistan had a serious problem in crafting a “”Kashmir policy”” after the bashing in received in1971 war leading to creation of Bangla and In duplicating the Anti Soviet Afghan Jehad in Jammu & Kashmir. General Zia ul Haq the father , mother and the wet nurse rolled into one was faced with the dilemma of reconciling the two distinct anti India streams –one committed to accession with Pakistan and the other struggling for an independent Republic of Jammu & Kashmir comprising of territory as it existed on August 14, 1947.Realising the marginal support for the Pakistan option, a way had to be found to get “the Independent Kashmir Wallas” on board. It was at this point of time that his “Think Tank” came up with the nebulous concept of Azadi , meaning different things to different people. Since then the “Azadi ,Azadi “ shouting crowds have their own particular visions . When some shouted Azadi Ka Matlab Kaya—La Illaha Ill Illa”, the republicans looked the other way. Even men like Ali Shah Geelani, when asked to spell out options after “ Kashmir was liberated from India”, evaded a direct response by saying, “It was for the people to decide”, A totally absurd position for one was only recently honored by Pakistan for “”services rendered”” and who claimed to be the sole voice of Kashmiri Muslims and the supreme leader of the “struggle for independence”. - In fact each faction was ready with its own blue print of action to upstage and quell the other at the “dawn of freedom”.- a sort of Jehad after the success of the Jehad..
From the Indian side the discredit for perpetuating the confusion goes firstly to PM Inder Gujral who opened the ‘Pandora’s Box and secondly to Prime minister, Atal Behari Vaijpayee, He floated the nebulous concept of seeking the solution of the “Problem of Jammu & Kashmir in “INSANIYAT KAY DIARAY MEIN” a standing joke in the lexicon of state craft. His predecessor in office , Narshima Rao at least had the good sense to add the proviso of “Under the constitution “ when he spoke of sky being the limit for accommodating the dissidents in the border state
The credibility rating of the political class in Kashmir has never been lower. This fall from popular grace was the fate of the mainstream as well as the separatist camps. The leaders were perceived as lying , double speaking and riding in two boats. The mainstream parties were labeled as opportunist vying with each other to grab some separatist space . Similarly ,the dominant groups in the Hurriyat were accused of doing the bidding of Pakistan simultaneously maintaining “Good working relations” with government of India.
Thanks to lack of clarity and consistency in the main-stream parties, extremists wield disproportionate clout even though their support base was narrow and on the outer fringes of the Kashmir society. This noisy minority , however had the advantage of dedicated , motivated and disciplined cadres strongly reinforced by Terrorist back up, The force multiplying capability provided by Pak ISI also made a huge difference.
The position of mainstream politician was pitiable. In an attempt “to stay in tune with popular mood they spoke in separatist idiom and generally sought to convey the impression that they had an open mind on the fact and extent of accession with India . In the current political parlance they practiced “soft separatism .” As a consequence their cadres became confused and apathetic .There was a near total disconnect between the people and the traditional leadership .This was the context in which the ongoing violence in Kashmir had to be viewed.
During the gone by decades, the political scene in the Kashmir valley has been muddied beyond recognition The once neat delineation between those committed to reality of the state’s accession with India and others opposed to it had been rendered vague or obliterated. ”The days of integrity of political commitment. When every one knew where the other stood were gone. The Congress and National conference leadership who openly and proudly claimed credit for forging the accession of Jammu & Kashmir with secular India under the leadership of Sher-I-Kashmir. were today ambivalent. . “There are no real Hindustanis in Kashmir today”, commented an old National Conference worker of pre- Plebiscite Front vintage. “Even people in power or those who were running the government till the other day chose to be vague on the basic issue of accession.”. And what about the horde of ex. MLAs including Geelani (Ali Shah Geelani) who line up before treasuries every month to collect pensions for having sworn loyalty to India? he quarried. And said “SAB JHOOTHEY HAIN., PAR AWAM SAB KO PEHCHANTAY HAIN”.
The Pak design to subvert the spirit of accession with India and reopen a settled fact through internationalization of the issue could not have succeeded without help from the Indian establishment. The Vajpayee led government not only bent backwards to accommodate US interest in placating Pakistan but also tactically conceded its role as the back seat driver under the garb of a “facilitator”. “The Kashmir” Issue was reopened by Gujral was thus internationalized in blatant defiance of the 1994 unanimous resolution of the parliament mandating the GOI to have the territory of Jammu & Kashmir under forcible occupation of Pakistan vacated. The gains of victory in 1971 war enshrined in Shimla Agreement were also compromised .The recent commitment by PAK army to implement all agreements could open a new chapter if the sincerity of the Islamic Republic holds for a change.This is a million dollar question
The Peace Parleys of Vajpaee-Manmohan singh eras commenced with the sanctity of LoC, equating the aggressor and the victim of aggression. It practically implied the exclusion of the POK and Gilgit –Baltistan from the ambit of negotiations. In fact What remained on the table for negotiations was the part of J&K labeled as the Indian Administered Jammu & Kashmir. The Indian position was thus turned on its head and the national and international perception of the issue distorted to the disadvantage of this country.
Mercifully. the developments in Pakistan fallowing the overthrow of that Juggler named Mushaaraf radically changed the content and direction of Indo-Pak relations. In a statement in the Pak national assembly, Foreign Minister Qureshi’s debunked and disowned all floating of Ideas on resolution of the Kashmir tangle ( borrowed second hand from US Think Tanks ) and Musharraf’s diplomatic acrobats . He went to the extent of accusing the deposed Dictator of harming the interests of Pakistan on the Kashmir issue and reiterated his countries’ classical position.
Now there had to be some method behind the current madness of senseless violence, rioting and attacks on Security establishments In Kashmir In which young boys were being fielded in situations only to get hurt. The determination with which the cycle of violence was being kept spinning had to have a strong and urgent motivation.
The demands put forth by, the separatist bosses and surprisingly supported by some elements within the “mainstream” parties gave away the game. Accept Kashmir as disputed territory, demilitarize and talk to Pakistan were the ingredients of the bottom line. Yes, talk to Pakistan in good time but why was cycle of terror kept rolling in Kashmir even ignoring the Indo-Pak agreement brokered by the Pak army? Aren’t’ the young innocent Kashmir boys being cruelly “sacrificed” at the alter of Pakistan establishment’s vested interest to maintain pressure to gain brownie points. ? Obviously some section in Pak establishment has failed to grasp the enormity of the change that has taken place in the Indian leadership and Kashmir policy during last 5 years or so. If even Balakot has not opened their eyes to the reality of Indian position they need to be pushed into a nut-house Obviously even a nit wit will not expect India to exit from Jammu & Kashmir because of the current turmoil, how so long ever it may last. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
STOCK UPDATE |
|
|
 |
| BSE
Sensex |
 |
| NSE
Nifty |
|
|
| |
CRICKET UPDATE |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
