NEW
DELHI - India is greatly intrigued at what lies behind
Pakistan's soft approach and sweet talk in the peace
process, coupled with support for hardliners in
Kashmir's All Parties Hurriyat Conference (APHC),
continued support for cross-border militancy and
orchestrated praise for the sincerity of the previous
Indian government and statesmanship of former prime
minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee.
Asia Times
Online sources in the government point to several
developments after Pakistani Foreign Secretary Riaz Khokhar's
recent visit for scheduled talks with his Indian
counterpart. The alacrity with which Jammu and Kashmir's
APHC - a conglomeration of separatist organizations -
acquired its moderate chief's resignation and brought
estranged hardliner Syed Ali Shah Geelani into the fold
following the Pakistani foreign secretary's advice to
"set their house in order" underscores the influence
Islamabad continues to wield on Kashmir's secessionists.
When Pakistani President
General Pervez Musharraf telephoned the ousted Vajpayee after
the formation of Manmohan Singh's Congress Party-led
government in May, and sought his help in carrying forward
the peace process, the new government dismissed it as a case
of a bad hangover after the shock defeat, though
making it clear that it did not like it one bit. As the
former ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) was itself
having difficulty getting over the trauma of defeat, it
was felt that its counterparts across the border, too,
were having the same trouble. The BJP had even carried
Musharraf's pictures on its campaign coaches. A budding
relationship had been cut short by the unpredictable
Indian electorate. The United Progressive Alliance (UPA)
government of so-called secular formations decided to
ignore the undiplomatic behavior of the ruling general
in Pakistan.
But both Musharraf and the Hurriyat
again made it a point last week to praise the
statesmanship of Vajpayee and the sincerity and
seriousness of the previous government in seeking to
solve long-standing problems bedeviling the two nations.
Musharraf gave entire credit to Vajpayee for the present
peace process between the two countries. The Hurriyat,
too, praised the BJP-led government for its sincerity in
conducting a dialogue, while criticizing the
Congress-led government for being "insincere". Even the
Congress ally in the provincial government criticized it
for making it feel at every step that Kashmir was a
Muslim-majority province in a Hindu-majority India. This
has made India's foreign policy establishment sit up and
take notice.
The sources in the government point
to some other factors that they find intriguing. India's
army chief, General N C Vij, for instance, reported that
the number of infiltration attempts had increased from
eight in May-June last year to 12 in the corresponding
period this year. This alters the hyped picture of
bonhomie altogether.
This is not to say
that infiltration has not come down. Though Vij chose not
to mention this, it appears from all other accounts
that infiltration across Line of Control (LoC) that
separates the Pakistani- and Indian-administered sections
of Kashmir has come down sharply. But India credits this
to border fencing and a denser Indian cordon.
Indian government sources say that the
Pakistani military's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) is
still involved in "launching" militants, though now they
avoid coordinating openly with the Pakistani army posts as
they used to do.
In addition, while India has almost completely stopped
any adverse propaganda against Pakistan, the latter
is carrying on anti-India propaganda in its
official media. Also, while India trod softly on
such issues as Pakistan's membership in the ASEAN (Association of
Southeast Asian Nations) Regional Forum and its readmission to the
Commonwealth, trying not to create any problem for its
neighbor, Islamabad continued with its familiar
anti-India stance on the Kashmir issue at the
Organization of Islamic Conference foreign ministers'
meeting in Istanbul.
The feeling within the
Indian hierarchy is that a reappraisal of what is
actually going on is needed. On the one hand, Pakistan
appears quite sincere, and on the other it doesn't seem
to have changed one bit. What is going on behind the
scenes? they wonder. What is the ISI's game plan
in continuing to support the Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT),
for instance, which is trying to cash in on
disaffection among Indian Muslims created by the anti-Muslim
pogrom in Gujarat a couple of years ago? M K Narayanan,
former chief of the Intelligence Bureau and now
internal security adviser to the Indian prime minister, says the LeT has
created sleeper cells throughout northern India, including
Himachal Pradesh, a mountainous region bordering Jammu
and Kashmir, with little Muslim presence.
A source in the LeT confirmed this to
this correspondent in Karachi a couple of months ago. He said: "We
are just waiting for another Gujarat-like
anti-Muslim violence. Such massacres will not go unavenged
anymore." Significantly, he also claimed that the LeT was
reducing its presence in and focus on Kashmir while seeking
to build its influence in the wider 150-million-strong
Indian Muslim community. "Even if we succeed in wresting
Kashmir from India," he said, "it will just become
another part of the same ungodly Pakistan. What is the
point in augmenting the borders of 'un-Islamic'
Pakistan?"
Indian official sources
also point out that ISI has not reduced its level of
support for militancy in India's northeast.
Dialogue with Kashmiri separatists is an
important part of the ongoing peace process with
Pakistan. But the resignation of the central
government's key Hurriyat interlocutor, Maulvi Abbas
Ansari, as its chief last Wednesday, apparently on
Pakistan's dictates, has put the fate of the dialogue in
question. He told the Indian Express after his
resignation that the UPA government is "insincere" in
contrast to its predecessor, the BJP-led National
Democratic Alliance (NDA). He said: "This new government
has not shown sincerity towards the talks process. They
say one thing one day and the other the next day. They
have been putting conditions ... the previous government
[NDA] was, however, sincere. They had accepted us as the
representatives of the aspirations of Kashmiri people;
they didn't put any conditions and also agreed to hold
the talks at the highest level."
Apparently, while
Ansari was paving the way for the reunification of all
APHC factions on orders from Islamabad conveyed to him
by Foreign Secretary Khokhar, he wants to put the blame
on India for any delay in a third round of talks that
should be held shortly. Hurriyat's Ansari faction has
now named former chairman Mirwaiz Umar Farooq as its
interim leader, aiming to get the various factions on
board. "They [Delhi] want to talk to all. So we will try
to gather all together so that we can speak in one
voice," he said, hinting that the next round of talks
could be delayed.
A day after Ansari's
resignation, however, Mirwaiz refused to accept the
position of interim chief and said he would push forward
the unity efforts between the two factions. Mirwaiz, who
is also the founder-chairman of the organization, said:
"There has been some misunderstanding ... I will not
function as interim chairman. My responsibility would be
to talk to all the members of the erstwhile undivided
Hurriyat so that the constitutional shape of the body is
restored."
Diplomatic sources say the
emerging situation may force New Delhi to request
Pakistan to put pressure on the Hurriyat to continue
talks. Even though hardline pro-Pakistan Kashmiri leader
Gilani, who heads the breakaway Hurriyat group, has
refused to react to Ansari's resignation, saying it was
immaterial whether the other faction was headed by
Ansari or someone else, thus ruling out any possibility
of unity between the two factions, New Delhi is worried
about the future of the third round of talks and fears
it may be in jeopardy if hardliners prevail over
moderates.
The Pakistani chapter of the Hurriyat
had been in favor of a hardline leadership. With the
latest events, they will develop a greater say in
matters of the Indian chapter of the organization.
Gilani had alone opposed any talk with the Indian
government unless New Delhi acknowledged Kashmir as a
dispute. He also wanted Pakistan's inclusion in the
dialogue process on Kashmir.
(Copyright 2004
Asia Times Online Ltd. All rights reserved. Please
contact content@atimes.com for
information on our sales and syndication policies.)
