Has the Stalemate
Been Broken in Jammu and Kashmir
By
Praveen Swami
FOR
YEARS, efforts to bring about a negotiated end to carnage in Jammu
and Kashmir (J&K) have resembled what soldiers call the Kadam
Taal: the parade-ground art of marching briskly on one spot
without actually moving forward.
It
is generally easy to be a pessimist on J&K, but even hardened
skeptics concede that, this time around, there is at least the
appearance of progress.
Last
week, the secessionist All Parties Hurriyat Conference (APHC)
announced it was willing to open dialogue with the Union Government
as soon as it receives a formal written invitation. One of the
key proponents of dialogue within the APHC, Srinagar-based religious
leader Mirwaiz Umar Farooq, has been authorized to conduct negotiations.
Mirwaiz Farooq was, along with the assassinated centrist APHC
leader Abdul Gani Lone, a key figure in covert and overt contacts
with the Indian state since 1999 - a process of engagement that
has culminated in the current dialogue offer.
The
APHC's decision followed an October 22 announcement that Deputy
Prime Minister L.K. Advani was willing to hold direct talks with
the secessionist coalition. Officials in New Delhi have already
let it be known that they intend to issue an invitation soon,
perhaps after the end of the month of Ramzan. For once, the APHC
centrists have shown considerable flexibility.
They
have not, notably, demanded that they be allowed to travel to
Pakistan to consult armed groups there before dialogue commences
- a precondition that has, in the past, proved a spoiler. Lone
had fallen out with hardline Islamist leader Syed Ali Shah Geelani
over this precondition in the months before his assassination
on May 21, 2002, following which terrorist groups intervened to
settle the dispute directly.
But
is this a new dawn? Not quite yet. The APHC has demanded that
the coming talks be "unconditional and focused on the resolution
of the Kashmir issue." These are objectives Advani has, at
least in public, already rejected. On October 24, he insisted
that, "the unity, integrity and sovereignty of the country
cannot be compromised, adding, "We don't want that all the
powers remain confined to Delhi or for that matter to the State
capitals alone... we favor decentralization and are prepared to
take steps for that."
Quite
clearly, the Deputy Prime Minister's stated position falls well
short of even the demands for federal autonomy made by mainstream
regional parties like the National Conference - secession, he
seemed to make clear, is simply not on the agenda.
What
purpose, then, might the talks serve? Most in the APHC, notably
its chairman Abbas Ansari, believe Advani's posture was election-eve
polemic, and that the Union Government will prove considerably
more flexible behind closed doors than it is prepared to appear
in front of television cameras. It is also possible that Advani's
formulation was addressed as much to Prime Minister Atal Behari
Vajpayee as to the APHC.
On
May 8, Vajpayee had, in Parliament, raised the prospect of an
"alternate arrangement" in J&K, a term that some
read to mean one that in some fashion diluted India's current
structure of sovereignty. Vajpayee's perhaps casual use of the
term provoked considerable ire within and outside the Bharatiya
Janata Party (BJP), and has never been used in public discourse
since.
As
things stand, those in the Union Ministry of Home Affairs charged
with drafting the letter of invitation are grappling with a nightmarish
exercise in semantics. Their letter must use terms that allow
the APHC to claim all options, including independence, are open
for discussion, and that New Delhi acknowledges it to be a legitimate
arbiter of the fate of the people of J&K. At once, the Union
Government must be able to claim that secession is not on the
agenda, and that the APHC are not representative of 'a nation'.
Past
experiences in letter writing have not been heartening. A 2001
letter issued to the APHC by the then-Union Government mediator
on J&K, K.C. Pant, received no response. Another, to non-APHC
secessionist leader Shabbir Shah, led first to a desultory correspondence
and then an equally desultory dialogue. The current mediator,
N.N. Vohra, perhaps wisely, chose not to write letters to anyone
at all.
The
biggest problem, however, will be off the dialogue table. The
moderate APHC faction New Delhi is engaging is not a principal
to the conflict, and has no influence over armed groups. Indeed,
even some centrist groups like the Jammu and Kashmir Liberation
Front (JKLF), chose not to participate in the APHC meeting which
authorized dialogue.
The
Islamists, led by Geelani, have such influence, but will not use
it since they have not been invited to feast at the peace table.
Geelani has, in no uncertain terms, said that the centrist APHC
has "betrayed the trust of the people of Jammu and Kashmir",
and described its leaders as traitors. His sentiments have been
mirrored by the spokespersons of a wide range of terrorist groups,
including the Jaish-e-Mohammad (JeM), Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) and
Jamait-ul-Mujaheddin (JuM).
Without
a de-escalation of violence, the Union Government will obviously
find it very hard to sell even the smallest concession to a public
increasingly bewildered by the startling lurches in official policy.
Behind the scenes, it is possible the United States is doing what
it can to push the process along, though not necessarily to a
particularly clever plan.
Pakistan
has been pressured into imposing a ban on some terrorist groups.
As several Pakistani commentators have pointed out, however, the
ban is as half-hearted as the now-forgotten one imposed in 2001.
Major terrorist leaders have not been arrested, nor training camps
dismantled or military assets seized. Despite President Pervez
Musharraf's expression of concern about the bad press Pakistan
is getting, this is one jihad he seems unwilling to wind down
just yet.
Unless, by some miracle, violence
does deescalate significantly, it will sooner or later drown out
voices committed to dialogue. It is not without reason, after
all, that pessimists on J&K turn out to be right with depressing
regularity.
The
writer is Special Correspondent of 'Frontline'
