The Hizbul Mujahideen (HM) has offered a “conditional” ceasefire” to India: hold your fire and then hold unconditional talks with Pakistan, HM and the All Parties Hurriyat Conference (APHC) on the future of Kashmir and on peace in the region. On the other side, the BJP government is ready to talk to the HM and the APHC but not to Pakistan. Also, it insists that the talks with the two Kashmiri parties must be within the framework of the Indian constitution.
Not everyone in India agrees with the BJP’s initial response. Editorials in leading English-language newspapers in India have advised the BJP not to belabour the constitutionality or otherwise of the proposed exercise. In fact, the Congress-I, India’s leading opposition party, has recommended that talks with Pakistan should be initiated. Even Mr Farooq Abdullah in Srinagar has now supported the idea of an Indo-Pakistan dialogue.
On the face of it, this seems to suggest that there is some agreeable change in the ground reality in Kashmir. Coupled with General Pervez Musharraf’s unilateral ceasefire along the LoC, and his call for a resumption of the peace dialogue with India, this is a significant development. If the BJP government ignores or scuttles this diplomatic opening, it may find itself isolated in India and censured abroad. Indeed, the consequences of missing the bus on this occasion might be most unpleasant.
If the Indian government thinks that the change is owed to weakness in Pakistan, and that New Delhi can reap further unilateral dividends by simply waiting it out, it should think again. If the ceasefire offer is withdrawn, India is bound to face a far more intractable situation on the ground than it has experienced so far. As it is, its rejectionist attitude has already caused its client government in Srinagar led by Farooq Abdullah, to bend in favour of the APHC because the march of events is bringing the divided forces of Kashmir together again – APHC leader Mirwaiz Farooq’s visit to the house of chief minister Farooq Abdullah to condole the death of the latter’s mother is a pointer in this direction. Therefore the BJP, which kicked off the process by releasing several APHC leaders and asking for an abatement in “cross-border terrorism”, is now morally bound to move forward rather than recoil to the dark days of Governor’s Raj simply to leash Farooq Abdullah.
Is the change brought about by HM’s ceasefire more far-reaching than the orthodox forces on both sides of the border realise? In Pakistan the most die-hard advocates of jehad concede that HM is responsible for 60 percent of the Kashmir jehad and remains the mainstay of resistance inside Held Kashmir. This accounts for the support its ceasefire decision has been able to enlist from Mr Salahuddin, the HM chief based in Pakistan, despite the outrage among the other more radical outfits. Furthermore, the new leader of the APHC, Mr Gani Bhatt, has inclined to the stance taken by HM, followed by his Muslim Conference counterpart in Azad Kashmnir, the shrewd Sardar Abdul Qayyum. These facts lead to the conclusion that the stage might be more thoroughly set for a change in the status quo than many observers and activists realise. But how optimistic should one be?
The government of Pakistan has acted wisely by declaring that it will not interfere in the politics and policies of the jehadi forces in Kashmir. At any rate, it is difficult to imagine how, if the government of Pakistan was not behind the move, it could have actually rejected the HM ceasefire and then expected to remote-control 60 percent of the jehad from Islamabad. Interestingly enough, in an interview to TFT, Pakistan’s Jama’at-i Islami leader, Qazi Hussain Ahmad, has rejected the extreme policy prescription advocated and adopted by some leaders of the jehadi organisations. Although he too has rejected the HM ceasefire, his stance has become less intense and more cautious. Meanwhile, the extremist Deobandi outfit, Harkatul Mujahideen, has split, clearing the way to some extent for the return of the non-sectarian and relatively moderate Jama’at-i Islami to the fore.
If Pakistan is not yet ready to effect a change in its policy vis-a-vis Afghanistan by controlling terrorism at home, the implied pledge by General Pervez Musharraf to lower the temperature in Held Kashmir has certainly been fulfilled. That explains why the CP(M) and the Congress-I in India have responded by asking Indian prime minister Atal Behari Vajpayee to talk to Pakistan even if that means talking to its military ruler.
Pakistan has always tended to imitate India and thereby harmed itself in the past. But what if this Pakistani-initiated move leaves India stranded on the back-foot? In the event, even if the world cannot bring itself to punish India, it can certainly offer some rewards to Pakistan, including bailout funds for Pakistan’s blighted economy.
The international community should jump into the breach offered by the HM ceasefire and compel India to see the wisdom of departing from old, unworkable policies. But it would be tragic if this window of opportunity is lost in the cynical world of cold-war strategists on both sides.