Share this story!            

EDITORIAL: APHC visit and the normalisation process

The leaders of the moderate faction of the All Parties Hurriyat Conference (APHC) currently visiting Pakistan have rejected claims by India and Pakistan that the ongoing normalisation process is “irreversible”. They have contended that the process will become meaningful only if it takes into consideration the aspirations of the Kashmiris and only when a solution is not “imposed” on the Kashmiris, the major party to the dispute. In terms of the mechanism of such a dialogue, the APHC leaders insist, at the minimum, on triangular talks, if not a trilateral framework. (Incidentally, they refuse to consider the current process as a dialogue.) What should we make of this?

Three factors need to be studied. The first relates to their rejection of the claim by India and Pakistan that the normalisation process is irreversible. The hidden assumption in this contention is that since Kashmir is the core dispute between the two sides, without any substantive movement on it the process cannot become irreversible. The other implication is that so far there has been no substantive movement on Kashmir.

We don’t agree with this assessment. While Kashmir indeed is the core dispute, the normalisation process is about creating an atmosphere in which Kashmir and other disputes can be resolved. Furthermore, the process relates to an understanding on the two sides that fighting is not going to solve anything. To that extent it is more a realisation that India and Pakistan have to live peacefully and create mutual dependencies. To do this, both need to resolve the issues, primarily Kashmir. Then the very fact that the APHC leaders are in Pakistan — something that could not happen four years ago — shows that the normalisation process has advanced to a level where India and Pakistan have begun to appreciate the importance of the primary stakeholders and are prepared to create space for them. As for including the Kashmiris in the process, Pakistan has constantly been pressing India on this point. This is also why Pakistan has done everything it can to get the APHC to re-unite. The last such attempt was made by General Pervez Musharraf himself when he went to India in April and met with leaders of both factions. However, so far such efforts have failed.

The second factor relates to what the APHC leaders have said regarding representation of the Kashmiris. Representation means including those leaders in the process who represent the Kashmiris. The APHC has so far not been tested at the hustings. This is because it has refused to contest elections under the Indian constitution. That was technically correct but does raise the issue of how to determine who represents the Kashmiris. It is for the APHC to devise the strategy to work out the modalities of representation, especially if it refuses to accept elections under the Indian constitution. Certainly, both the Mufti government and the Abdullah opposition are ground realities, which cannot be ignored by the APHC and Pakistan.

The third point pertains to whether the current process has any meaning. We think that it depends on how one looks at it and what is expected of the process. The visit of the APHC leaders proffers new opportunities and, before we begin to talk about substance, more such visits should certainly help Kashmiris make up their mind about what kind of strategy they want to devise to deal with the situation. It is also heartening to see that no Kashmiri, regardless of his political affiliation, wants a division of the state. This puts paid to solutions that focus on turning the Line of Control into an international border. What is required at this moment is to increase contacts among Kashmiri leaders and groups and continue to push for the opening of the Line, not only for the purpose of travel but also for trade. The economic integration of Kashmir via soft borders will help clear some of the cobwebs and push the process further down the road to a resolution. The important point is to help establish an atmosphere where the comfort level for all sides can increase. From that point onwards, the stakeholders could begin to tackle the more difficult sides of the problem. *

EDITORIAL #2: Gohar Ayub’s cat among Indian pigeons

Former foreign minister Gohar Ayub Khan seems to have set the proverbial cat among the pigeons. In an upcoming book he says that Pakistan bought Indian military plans from an Indian brigadier, then Director of Military Operations, for Rs 20,000. The reason the Indian brigadier allegedly committed high treason was because he needed the money to keep his wife happy. The wife was very fond of eating canned vegetables and fruits, claims the book, and the only way the brigadier could meet her expensive taste was to sell his country’s operational plan to its arch-enemy, Pakistan!

The initial revelation, to which Mr Khan is incrementally and tantalisingly adding information, has predictably caused a storm in the teacup of Indian General Headquarters. The Indian army is now trying to find the ‘traitor’ who was more loyal to his spouse than the country. In the middle of this brouhaha, there are also reports that Mr Khan might just have played a prank on the Indians. Be that as it may, one thing is clear: the revelation comes at a time when India and Pakistan are chugging along the peace track, not exactly the most propitious moment to dig up such old issues. On top of this, such a revelation is clearly very embarrassing for the Indian army which is already dogged by various scandals, including the Tehelka expose. A similar book by a former Indian intelligence officer revealed sordid details of the nocturnal activities of some Pakistani diplomats posted in New Delhi.

Something needs to be said about cultural sensibilities in this part of the world. While the West thrives on such scandals, here we have traditionally been more prone to burying them. Perhaps there is merit in this also; both for reasons of cultural sensibilities and the need not to revisit the past, especially when it interferes adversely with the future. We would advise former insiders on both sides to refrain from making public those ‘facts or fiction’ which are of no real relevance today. *

Home | Editorial

Share this story!