Asia Times: India: The two corners of A B Vajpayee's mouth


	December 9, 2000	atimes.com

Editorials

India: The two corners of A B Vajpayee's mouth

At the beginning of the Muslim holy month of Ramadhan, the government of India declared a unilateral cease-fire in violence-torn Kashmir and expressed its hope that this might lead to meaningful peace talks with Muslim militants and ultimately the resolution of the over 50-year-long Kashmir conflict. On December 6, The Hindu newspaper cited "authoritative sources within the [Prime Minister Atal Behari] Vajpayee establishment" saying that the government is "prepared to take bold steps" and if need be is "ready to explore unexplored avenues to restore normality in Jammu and Kashmir". Reportedly, the same sources also said that it was certain that barring some "spectacular disaster" the current cease-fire would remain operative even after Ramadhan.

In light of Pakistan's declaration that for its part it will observe "maximum restraint" at the informal border (Line of Control or LoC) that divides the Indian and Pakistani-controlled parts of Kashmir, these are hopeful signs. But as so often in the religiously-divided subcontinent, religious and nationalist passions and loose mouths, little over a week later, are threatening to undo well-considered and - we assume - well-intentioned peace initiatives.

What exactly beset Vajpayee for him to say on Wednesday, in Hindi, "Ayodhya mein Ram mandir ka nirman ek rashtriya bhavna ka prakatikaran ka kaam tha, weh abhi poora nahin hua" (In Ayodhya, the Ram temple construction project is the expression of nationalist feelings, the work has not yet been completed), we don't know. What is known, of course, is that December 6 marked the eighth anniversary of the razing of the Babri Masjid (mosque) - in the presence of three current Vajpayee cabinet ministers, including Home Minister L K Advani - in the town of Ayodhya in northern Uttar Pradesh state by more than 100,000 Hindu fanatics, sparking widespread Hindu-Muslim riots. Hindu nationalists insist that the 16th century Babri Masjid had been built over an earlier temple to the Hindu god Ram and demand that a new Ram temple be constructed on the ruins of the mosque. What is known as well is that the prime minister's statement follows a dinner meeting with top leaders of the RSS (Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, the radical Hindu nationalist organization that supports the governing BJP) at his residence last week where the issue will have been discussed at length. Apparently, Vajpayee believes that he must shore up his political support in such circles.

Strictly speaking or from a diplomatic standpoint, there is no connection between developments regarding Kashmir and Ayodhya. But that's not how the human mind works, and Pakistani leaders and militants in predominantly Muslim Kashmir will obviously be asking themselves just how much trust they can put into a peace move by a man who so openly sides with radical anti-Muslim sentiment. Predictably, Vajpayee's comment made front-page headlines in the Pakistani press and gave rise to the obvious editorial commentary. In India itself, the Congress party-led opposition in parliament has strongly condemned Vajpayee's statement, and unruly protests by its MPs have forced parliament to be adjourned.

As regrettable as Vajpayee's ramblings is his government's refusal to see Pakistan included in any talks with the main Kashmiri separatist alliance, the All Parties Hurriyat Conference (APHC), on the grounds that three-way talks are impossible as long as Pakistan provides military support to the "terrorists" operating in Indian-controlled Kashmir. Quite apart from the question of the veracity of such accusations, that's an absurd position. We have always been at pains not to take sides in India-Pakistan disputes, but note the obvious logic in an editorial in the Pakistani newspaper The Nation, which said it was odd that India wanted dialogue with the militants but not Pakistan, as it led to the "self-evident implication that Pakistan is not a party to the indigenous uprising in Kashmir". As self-evidently true is the paper's further comment that, "If India's motive is to bypass Pakistan, or present Pakistan with a fait accompli by having a separate deal with the Kashmiris ... then it is not likely to work."

Meanwhile, Pakistani Foreign Minister Abdul Sattar told the BBC on Thursday he was still hopeful that Pakistan's offer of talks with India over Kashmir will be reciprocated: "We have made proposals, which we hope will lead not merely to further extension of the suspension of military operations, but hopefully bring that thing to an end and instead begin a peace process," Sattar said. Pakistan has also outlined a plan for the APHC to hold separate talks in Islamabad and New Delhi to pave the way for a formal tripartite dialogue.

What exactly does India have to lose in agreeing to such proposals? The Kashmir conflict from its beginnings has been a Pakistan-India conflict - though it has now been further complicated by Kashmiri groups demanding independence. Short of having the major parties to the conflict sit down together, no conflict resolution is possible and India merely opens itself to charges of insincerity in its peace efforts by refusing Pakistan's participation - which brings us back to the Ayodhya issue.

What are Vajpayee's true intentions? To what extent can Muslims, whether in India, Kashmir, or Pakistan, trust a man who, as head of government of a secular nation, sees fit to intervene on one side of a highly divisive, emotionally charged religious controversy - and that at a time when the trial of his ministers charged with wrongdoing in the Ayodhya affair is yet to take place? How can anyone believe in the earnest desire of a man to make peace at home or abroad who defends ministers who participated in a religiously-inspired riot and alleged criminal acts by saying that, though they were present at the site, they had gathered there to protest, not to pull down the structure, and were trying to control the crowd?

The abiding tragic irony of the Babri mosque controversy is that much like the Kashmir conflict it represents the legacy of British colonial rule still being played out 53 years after that rule ended. In 1855, after they had consolidated their hold on Bengal and Bihar, the British were keen to occupy Oudh. However, they were facing united resistance from Hindus and Muslims of the region. So, in tried-and-true colonial masters' fashion, they set out to incite conflict between them, over the Babri Masjid, and for the first time in history to anyone's knowledge, the communities of Oudh clashed, facilitating the occupation of North India by the British. Perhaps Mr Vajpayee should get out a history book and inform himself more closely about that cynical mid-1850s colonialist strategy before he plays into such games that could put his country's unity at risk and at the same time undermine his Kashmir peace effort.

back to the top

©2000 Asia Times Online Co., Ltd.

Asia Times Online is designed and produced by Multimedia Asia Co., Ltd.