The talks India proposes to hold with Mujahid
leaders in Kashmir “very soon”, according to Indian Home Minister LK
Advani, might as well not beheld because the conditions set for the talks
will defeat their purpose. His disclosure that India has decided “who
will hold talks and how to proceed with it. But peace talks will proceed
with groups in India” is puzzling as it is not clear whether the talks
will deal with issue the Kashmiris favour. Such an exercise will serve no
purpose other than to keep up appearances of a dialogue underway in held
Jammu and Kashmir. His corollary that “We do not propose at the moment
to hold talks with Pakistan” further adds to the futility of the talks.
In any case, the All Parties Hurriyat Conference (APHC)
had earlier made it clear that it will not enter into any dialogue with
India until its leaders were allowed to visit Pakistan, has made the idea
of talks redundant. The visit to Pakistan, which was initially approved
ran into difficulties when Delhi selected the team it will allow to go to
Pakistan, excluding a leader whom it described as a “hardliner”. This
was unacceptable to the APHC leaders who had already named their five
member delegation, and the whole programme was ultimately shelved.
Advani’s talks offer comes against the backdrop of this situation and
probably was designed to exploit the position adopted by the APHC. The
selection of a senior Indian bureaucrat to lead the Indian side to the
“talks” is merely meant to show that India is all set to initiate a
serious dialogue in Kashmir and its the APHC which is dragging its feet.
Another reason for the Indian minister’s
announcement is to further a covert division in the APHC leadership.
Differences have erupted among the leaders on several issues, but till now
their debate has remained low key and within manageable limits. Efforts
are being made to resolve the contradictions and maintain the unity that
has withstood all Indian threats. APHC’s announcement suggests that its
leadership remains firm on the position it has already adopted on the
visit to Pakistan.
United States, which at present strongly supports
the idea of talks between the Kashmiris and India, should understand
India’s gameplan. Delhi’s repeated offer of talks should not be seen
to mean that the invitation is sincerely meant and that it is the
Kashmiris who are placing obstacles in the way of the dialogue. India has
a poor record of fulfilling the promises and it is not expected that the
talks it proposes to hold will go beyond the opening stage if at all these
are held. Washington would do well to press for talks between India and
Pakistan if it wants to ensure peace in the region.