April 2002 Issue

Another Offer

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.

--Editor in Jung

By KPS Gill

One truth that has established itself over the years in India’s political scenario is that, if you seek a short-cut to political prominence, all you have to do is pick up a gun, adopt some inchoate political ideology, identify a few “political violence”--killing, maiming or kidnapping according to personal preference or the dictates of profitability\. Sooner, rather than later, you will have the government talking to you, offering a multiplicity of benefits and sending down high-profile “negotiators” to secure a “political solution” that will give you a permanent and prominent position in the democratic processes of your State.

In case this is not sufficient, the option of entering into extended and inclusive negotiations with the government, even while you consolidate highly lucrative extortion and other criminal rackets, is always left open. The advantage of not allowing the “negotiations” to break down is that they confer a quasi-legal status on your activities, and leave security and police forces reasonably confused, so that no effective action is taken against your criminal networks. This is a pattern that has been repeated again and again, in Mizoram, Manipur, Nagaland, Assam (albeit substantially unsuccessfully at present), Jammu and Kashmir, and earlier in Punjab. Many “successes” have been proudly exhibited by their negotiators. Some of these, like Mizoram, have been conclusive. Others have been more limited, securing the surrender, pacification or containment of a particular militant faction, or sowing discord between or within such factions. What has never been assessed is the enormous and deleterious effect that these “successes” have had on the body politic in general.

The most obvious of such consequences is the demonstration effect on the unscrupulous, the impatient and the politically ambitious. Simply put, if murder, extortion and political violence can elevate one person to the legislative assembly, Parliament or even the chief ministership of a State, what prevents others from emulating such successes? And retaining the very substantial profits they make on the way after they have had their respectability officially restored.

To those who do not believe in the impact and efficacy of such a demonstration effect, one needs only point to the proliferation of militant groups in India’s North-East. General awareness tends to be limited to one or two groups active in each State, but the actual numbers are simply astonishing. Assam boasts of over 34 “liberation fronts and ideologies; Tripura has over 30 such groups and a thriving “kidnap industry” that accounts for over 70 per cent of all kidnappings in the entire North-East region, Manipur has 35 groups.

The “peaceful” States of the Northeast, Mizoram, Meghalaya and Arunachal Pradesh have also witnessed the recent emergence or consolidation of a number of militant groupings. Of course, in States such as Nagaland, where one or two gangs succeed in establishing a monopoly, this proliferation is impeded. But the route to political power through criminal violence under the garb of “revolutionary” activities remains the same--though in such cases eminence can only be secured through the organizational structure of the dominant groups.

One aspect that is common to all such groups, whether they have monopolistic position in a particular area, or whether they act in a “free market” of many minor players is that their activities are extraordinarily lucrative, and the incentives, both for existing players and for their imitators, to keep the “business” alive, are immense, and far outstrip anything that legitimate activities could offer. The tiresome route of conventional democratic politics, through social work and mobilisation, obviously has no comparable enticements.

The greater and more insidious impact of this regime of negotiation with terrorists and their ilk is the effect it has on the very fundamentals of democratic and constitutional governance. First, if a violent shortcut is available to the legislative assemblies, why bother with the more arduous journey of a real democracy? Related to this is the danger that those who are more principled democrats--or who lack the stomach for violence--will simply by muscled out of the political equation, by the threat of violence from these groupings, and by governments eager to negotiate a “peace” with them.

Most importantly, while reams of newsprint are dedicated to the discourse on the disastrous consequences of the creation of extra-constitutional centres of power, these arguments have never been consistently applied to the processes of negotiating with terrorists, which occur entirely outside the constitutional sphere and both create and endorse such extra-constitutional foci, which obstruct the implementation of the constitutional imperative of rule of law, and which undermine and destroy the basic principles and processes of constitutional democracy. Speaking of the impossibility of principled negotiations with terrorists, Yussef Bodansky writes. “There can be no reasonable outcome of negotiations under such circumstances. A government committed to the safety and well being of its citizenry and an organisation intentionally using the indiscriminate injuring of the same citizenry as a negotiations tactic do not speak the same language.” How is it then, that after more  than half a century of democracy, regime after regime in India chooses to initiate such unprincipled liaisons, and does so without any political opprobrium--indeed, does so with the general approval of most political parties?

Many factors contribute to the context of such contradictions. Among the more important of these is the persistent ambiguity that attaches to counter-terrorist policy and practice, and their legitimate limits. In the absence of a coherent and communally accepted counter-terrorism doctrine, ad hoc measures, and hence short-term expediency, is the only principle in play. Neither law nor logic, neither ethics nor the long-term interests of the nation, have a defining role in such determinations. Narrow and transient partisan political interests, the ambitions of individual bureaucrats, negotiators and political leaders, and the personal character and insecurities of the various players constitute the defining elements in such policy formulation.

Another crucial element is the character of India’s contemporary political leadership. It is the case that a large number of political parties do, if fact, overtly or covertly encourage or support terrorist groups, both on Indian soil, and those acting in friendly countries such as Myanmar and Sri Lanka. In a polity where a gentleman who tries to blow up a train becomes the hero of the Emergency, and then risen to eminence as a Minister in more than one Union Government, attitudes towards terrorism as a political weapon remain extremely ambivalent.

If this general political propensity is to be reversed, it is imperative that the present government take the initiative to define a clear and non-discriminatory counter-terrorism doctrine, one that places the national interest and the principles of constitutional governance and democracy above all other considerations. It must then work to secure a national political consensus on such a doctrine, and to define its own policies and practices strictly within its parameters. “Accords” with terrorists and their over-ground representatives have become the panacea of the day for extremist political violence. What is not remembered here is that these accords are signed with individual terrorist leaders, not with constitutional entities or agencies that would be bound by law or any ethical standard. Such accords constrain only individuals, and only to the extent that they perceive a greater benefit in adhering to their terms than resorting to violence. They do not prevent a return to violence even by these players, and place no constraint on any other free agent from seeking to replicate the success of those who have already risen to power along the route of terrorist violence.

(Courtesy: The Pioneer)

Making of an Afghan trained militant

By Yoginder Kandhari

Ghulam Mohammad Mir, 29 years old now, hails from a sleepy village in North Kashmir. Besides owning large terraces of agricultural land, Mir’s family runs a flourshing business in shawls. With a fairly comfortable living the in the village, lure to join militancy obviously came from some where else. So called Kashmir experts may like people to believe that insurgency in the Kashmir Valley is a direct result of past mistakes of Indian Govt. and economic deprivation of people, Mir’s story makes such claims appear hollow.

The Backdrop: Ghulam Mohammad Mir partook of the elixir of religious extremism, in 1989-90, in the then newly established madrasa in his native village. Sustained religious indoctrination of village youth was carried out by a molvi, who had travelled all the way to Kashmir Valley from western UP. Molvi’s discourses were full of venom against Hindus, India and her rulers in Delhi. That jehad was the only way to save Islam in Kashmir was the common refrain during such sessions. Entire village population, young and old alike, were swayed by these emotive lectures and an infectious undercurrent gripped the entire village in a frenzy. Prominent Pakistan returned militant leaders would frequent the village, brandishing newly acquired AK-47 rifles as an act of defiance against Indian establishment, to entice young boys to join their ranks. Songs eulogising mujahideen would rent the air till late in the night. There was an all round feeling that the golden era of freedom was just round the corner. The whole atmosphere presented a festive look which normally is associated with a nation’s independence eve.

Young and the middle aged  would go overboard whenever an invitation was extended to them to join the militant ranks. Ghulam Mohammad Mir was no exception. He too was excited at the prospect of becoming a mujahid and a chance to visit Pakistan-his dreamland. When militant leader Basharat made an offer, Mir seized the opportunity with both the hands.

Initiation into Militancy: Besides the molvi, village elderly and the respected folks took upon themselves the responsibility of motivating youngsters to join  militant ranks for waging a holy war against the ‘infidels’. Ghulam Hassan Shah and Mushtaq War, both well past their 60s, discharged this responsibility efficiently and with total dedication. The two formed the village screening committee and wielded enough influence on the final selection as well. Mir considered himself fortunate enough to get the final nod and was thrilled at his selection. He was ordered to report to mujahideen camp at Dignibal. There was nothing secretive about these recruitment rallies or camp locations.These activities were a common knowledge and the establishment appeared to be a mute spectator.

At Dignibal camp, twenty youngmen congregated with the common purpose of crossing over to Pakistan. Here the boys were given  administrative briefings and instructions about clothing and other equipment to be carried. Proper master rolls were prepared and records maintained by the camp organisers. Women folk, including mothers and sisters of the prospective mujahideen, made a beeline to the camp with warm clothing, hard variety of rations and to wish good luck to them for their ultimate mission. In all this hustle and bustle in the camp, Mir was fully convinced that he had achieved his dream of becoming a mujahid. He eagerly awaited marching orders to cross over to his dreamland.

Exfiltration: On 15th May 1990, the group finally left Dignibal camp for the launching camp at Shalkhud. This camp was tucked in a re-entrant and was better organised. Two other groups of youth, twenty each in number, simultaneously joined  the camp. Here the boys had the first feel of a regimented routine.

Immediately on arrival, code names were allotted to each individual and Ghulam Mohammad Mir was re-christened Moshin Khan.   The boys knew each other by these code names only and enquiring real particulars was prohibited.

Proper musters would be conducted twice daily. Sixty young mujahideen in the camp were devided into squads of six boys each and most vocal ones were made the squad leaders. Everyone was given a choice to select a buddy-a la army recruitment centre.

During their stay in the camp, boys were issued sports shoes, warm clothing, walking sticks, camp kits, rucksacks and hard variety of rations. Conversation in Urdu was encouraged. Detailed briefings were carried out about the route for exfiltration, likely problems and sustenance enroute, measures to avoid detection by the security forces etc. Latif and Mongru were introduced to the group as their guides for exfiltration. Their antecedents were neither revealed nor enquired. A whisper went around that the guides had been paid a hefty amount of rupees twenty five thousand each for the high risk job. Basharat accompanied the group as its leader.

From Shalkhud the entire group was lead over mountain tracks overlooking Kangan, Mamer and picturesque Telel in Gurez. Enroute the party encountered all impediments except the security forces. The boys had to negotiate snowbound peaks, circumvent frozen lakes and cross fast moving Kishen Ganga river using ropes. Training at Shalkhud camp came in handy in ensuring smooth exfiltration across the LoC. Exfiltration took its toll when Ashfaq slipped and rolled down Kaw Bal. No serious effort was made to trace the boy and he was presumed to have met his snowy grave.

After a fortnight’s track, one fine morning the group reached a Pakistani post in Gilgit. As soon as they stepped inside the post, the entire group knelt and kissed the holy-land. Pakistanis accorded them a warm welcome. A hot cup of tea was served to the guests. Within an hour two helicopters arrived to ferry the boys to Gultari. The long and arduous journey did not end here. Local buses had been pressed into service to transport the boys to the training camp at Gaddi Habibullah, commanded by Colonel Riyaz of Pakistan Army. The bus journey took about four hours and the boys were totally exhausted and hungry by the time they landed in the camp. Khajur were served to the group more as a token of welcome than to satiate their intense hunger.

Immediately, thereafter, each individual was put through a medical examination to confirm whether all the members were circumcised, probably to establish that no Indian agent had sneaked into the group. They were then served hot meals and were let off for the day. It is believed that Bashrat had been given an option to train mujahideen either in Pakistan or in Afghanistan. But the group leader opted for the first course. Training commenced on 01 June 1990 with all the seriousness.

Routine at Training Camp:

Training curriculum was well thought out and carefully structured. It had all the essentials elements of military training. Psychological toughening was done through sustained religious indoctrination and anti-India propaganda. A three month training schedule was drawn for the boys to make them expert insurgents. (See Table 1)

Table 1

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subjects                Weightage in terms of  training days

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

l   Field craft and minor tactics.     15 days

l   Physical endurance training which included regular 10 km runs   15 days

l   Skill at arms like stripping, assembling of weapons, removal of stoppages and live firing @5 rounds per head per day          30 days

l   Handling of explosives to include fabricating and planting IEDs                15 days

l   Training on support weapons like LMGs, RLs etc including firing practices  15 days

By the time training finished, all the boys grew confident to take on the might of Indian security forces in the decisive battle to liberate Kashmir from the clutches of  kafirs.

The younger lot in the group started growing home sick. Based on performance during training, five mujahideen were selected for advanced training in Afghanistan. The lucky ones were Moshin Khan, Molvi, Sher Khan, Commando and Bilal. Thrilled at the prospect of training in Afghanistan, they eagerly  waited for the onward journey while the rest, under Basharat, packed up to return to the Valley.

Training in Afghanistan: The chosen five were airlifed to an unknown destination in thick jungles of Afghanistan. The location of the camp was neither divulged to the trainees nor they dared to ask. The regime in the camp under captain Nurul Rehman, a Pakistani instructor, was very tough. The broad out-line of five month advanced training capsule is given in Table 2.

Table 2

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subjects                Weightage in terms of training days

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

l   Advanced tactical training with emphasises on raids, ambushes, road blocks, fighting in built-up areas, map reading etc.          30 days

l   Training in martial arts                30 days

l   Weapons training @ 10 rounds per head per day and training on RL, LMG, MMG, Rcls etc.                60 days

l   Training on use of radio sets and radio discipline 30 days

l   Training in handling explosives and fabricating IEDs     30 days

Besides military training, religious indoctrination continued unabated. Instructors at the camp were ruthless and severe with punishment. However, the group was so possessd that these rigours seemed to them as minor irritants.

Return to Pakistan: On completion of training in Afghanistan, the fully fired mujahideen returned to Pakistan but this time to a different training camp. Return journey from Afghanistan was not at all smooth. A short airlift was followed by six days continuous route march to roadhead before taking a bus ride to a new training camp called Jungle Mangal. Routine in this camp was bereft of any military content. It was confined to observance of religious rituals like offering nimaz five times a day and reciting Koranic verses.

Since winter had already set in, the group waited for the passes to open. Finally, in first week of May 1991, three guides appeared in the camp to lead the five fully trained mujahideen back to Kashmir Valley for their holy mission. The group readied for return journey. Each individual was handed over an AK-47 rifle, four magazines, 500 rounds of ammunition, two hand grenades, a new pair of sports shoes, two sets of shilwar kameez, a walking stick and rupees three thousand in cash.

Infiltration: A warm send off was given to the departing  mujahideen. The group was instructed to restrict movement to night for obvious reasons. Infiltration too took its toll. Bilal suffered frost bite and was proving to be a drag for the group. He was abandoned enroute and nothing is known about him since then. After crossing LoC they were received at Bandipur by Zaffar of Al Barq outfit. Further in the hinterland, they moved from bound to bound without much of a problem. The group halted at Shalbug and finally reached Malbag. At Malbag, the foursome was received by Basharat and stayed in the house of Idris. People thronged to have a glimpse of their Pakistan returned heros. The boys were instructed to shed their weapons and equipment at Malbag and were granted a month’s leave to meet their families.

On expiry of leave, the mujahideen quartet reported to their commander for further assignments to carry out their mission. But then that is an another story.

Erosion of will and vision

“Many people in our country today hold the views that any venture that we undertake should be broad-based...eschewing all narrow limitations of country, community or religion...that in this age of missiles and rockets distance has vanished, and the whole world has shrunk...the very concept of a country, nation etc. has become outdated”.

“Our country is not wanting in people who lightly say well give up, whenever there is an aggression or even a threat of aggression in parts of our motherland. If Chinese occupy portions of Ladakh, they say-let it go-not a blade of grass grows there. Some time back a subtle propaganda was carried on about NEFA insinuating that it was a God forsaken place, unfit for human habitation...the same story have been repeated in case of Rann of Kutch”

In the good old days these words of caution by Sadashiv Guru Golwalkar were often repeated  in RSS Shakhas and other Charchas organised by Sangh Parivar from time to time. These lessons in imbibing the nationalist spirit formed part of the essential training for a Swayam Sevak. Why has Sangh Parviar today embarked on an exercise of Jethisoning its own chequered legacy? How credible is the accusation that RSS is gradually abandoning its cherished principles for chasing elusive gains of power through its new pursuit of “pragmatic politics”?

BJP, in its role as the ruling party has drawn flak for comprising the national security and displaying confusion the national security and displaying confusion on the civilisational dimension of the nation-building process in the country. A Swayam Sevak was earlier told that civilisational battle was a necessity to build an India that is in harmony with its historical genius. Discarding cultural colonialism an extension of this thinking. During the past two decades Ayodhya and Kashmir became two issues on which BJP sought to widen its socio-electoral base and draw a line on the perceptions for nation-building. Of late Swadeshi was the third element incorporated that Sangh Parivar visualized would lead to an economically vibrant India.

The Ayodhya movement played a critical role that led to the sensitization of the nation on the issues of national  identity and Hindu political reaffirmation. It also paid rich dividends for catapulting BJP into the corridors of power. The critique of Sangh Parivar on the issue that it failed to lay even emphasis on Ayodhya and Kashmir is not without basis. It is a different matter that as its legislative base widened, and crossed a particular threshold, Sangh movement suffered. BJP’s yearning for sticking to power assumed its own dynamics and the partys’ stalwarts began demolishing the revolutionary content of Ayodhya movement.

BJP undermines national interests:

On the Kashmir issue, the much trumpeted peace diplomacy of BJP government has led to the deterioration of situation in Kashmir—both politically and military. Vajpayee govt has given a break to the traditional nationalist positions on Kashmir vis-a-vis Pakistan, fundamentalist terrorism and Muslim subnationalism. To which gallery Mr Vajpayee is playing when he asserts that India will not traverse on the beaten tracks on Kashmir issue and imperatives of ‘insaniyat’ get precedence over ‘within the framework of Indian Constitution’ rider in seeking solution with Kashmir separatists. Hasn’t BJP government given respectability and legitimacy to Hizb by describing rabid terrorists as political dissidents and Hizb, Jamaat Islami movement as an indigenous uprising. Hurriyat, which was recognised as an extension of Pak embassy in Kashmir has suddenly been conferred political respectability. The peace diplomacy has become a cover for undermining Indian position on Kashmir.

In its official discourse, BJP has been claiming that it is under no moral obligation to accept the Sangh Parivar diktat on key policy issues. If it is so, then why does Sangh Parivar plays the role of an apologist for BJP’s such positions which compromise national interest. How is Sangh Parviar relating itself to the BJP’s Kashmir policy. Does its own position and BJP’s Kashmir policy face convergence.

RSS defends Kashmiri Policy:

What the editor of Organiser, RSS weekly writes in the paper is taken by Swayam Sevaks as the Sangh Parviar line on the issue under focus. Endorsing the unilateral ceasefire, the editor of organiser wrote recently, “the Govt. decision on the ceasefire has come with a rider of hope. With the extension of ceasefire now India has successfully taken Pakistan on the ground of its own choice.” This rationalisation bordering on bravado betrays both the patriotic sensitivity as well as the strategic thinking. The heavy cost which India had to pay in Kargil was primarily a result of India taking on Pakistan on the ground of latter’s choice. The logic of taking Pakistan on the ground of its own choice has gradually pushed India to endorse various Pakistani positions on Kashmir.

On the fallout of July ceasefire with Hizb, Sangh Parviar’s position was equally apologetic. This ceasefire led to the gruesome killing of pilgrims during Amarnath yatra. There were as many as eight massacres immediately after the ceasefire with Hizb ceasefire coming into force. RSS found it wise not to offer any serious affront to the government through whatever maneuverability it had within the BJP. It resorted to only symbolic protestations. For the Sangh Parivar the area of concern with the NDA government is its economic policy. On the issues of national security, RSS prefers to go with the government line.

RSS’s position on Kashmir has not changed overnight. It has been visible for quite some time. On the recall of Governor Jagmohan in 1990, who had done a commendable job in so short a time, RSS accepted the government decision. Commenting on his recall, RSS’s Prant Pracharak had said, “Islamic fundamentalist forces and the secret agencies of America came together to see the exit of Jagmohan as the Governor of the state.” RSS did not put its foot down on his recall when the survival of VP Singh’s coalition government depended entirely on BJP. Was it because Kashmiri has never remained priority for it. BJP withdrew support few months later on the issue of Ayodhya.

Origins of Drift:

A senior activist of RSS from Kashmir unit could not restrain giving vent to his feelings in a RSS camp held at Jammu in the summer of 1990. Sh Dattopant Thengadi, top RSS ideologue and founder of Bhartiya Mazdoor Sangh was presiding over this meeting. The Swayam Sevak asked, “Will it serve any purpose convincing a Swayam Sevak as to how Nehru and Congress complicated the Kashmir issue? Hindus of Kashmir stand thrown out and destroyed. Who knows this better than the RSS activists of Kashmir? Infact, we should be asking ourselves equally other aspects of the national failure in Kashmir. Did anyone among the RSS echelons foresee such a situation? If not, what were the reasons. If RSS leadership was seized of it, what did it do forestall this situation. It is time when RSS goes for self-introspection”.

Such expressions were quite common those days among the Kashmir Swayam Sevaks. Kashmir was a national failure. How long we would go on indicting only Nehru and in the process absolve others, who were supposed to be the conscience-keepers of nation’s vital interests? This sentiment of dissatisfaction and the implications of a serious introspection caused alarm and disquiet. The state RSS leadership responded by dismantling the Kashmir Vibhag. The priorities the RSS and its allied units set for themselves during the critical days of 1989-90 were not only misplaced but also displayed utter naivety.

Top RSS leader of Anantnag, Prem Nath Bhat was shot dead by terrorists on December 27, 1989. This sent a wave of fear and demoralisation among Pandit community, which had not yet forgotten the communal violence inflicted on them in 1986. Nobody was sure whether even a proper cremation would be allowed. RSS activists in the district and elsewhere in the Valley stood confused as to what to do. Many of them had been issued threats to quit or face the consequences. Very recently, there had been contact drives conducted by them for Ram Shila Pujan. Spectre of inevitable displacement stared them in their face.

Somehow the RSS activists managed to attend the cremation. They were amazed when the RSS Pracharak, who also attended the funeral was more keen to follow his itenary (Pravas) of visiting different pockets in Anantnag with a message of Ayodhya. The then Sambhag Pracharak of J&K had stopped visiting Kashmir for a long time. With no priority for responding to the cataclysmic situation unfolding in Kashmiri and lack of direction on the part of RSS echelous, the local organisation had been abandoned to decide its own fate. RSS activists started leaving the Valley, with even no communication among themselves. The right hand not knowing what the left was doing. Such was the fear in those days—generated by the selective killings of Pandits and issuance of death lists by the terrorist operators. The Hindus started leaving the only Muslim majority province of the country. Why did RSS peripheralise these critical developments of far-reaching consequences in Kashmir in its agenda? With the Sangh Parivar chosing to remain blissfully non-indulgent on the issue, crucial questions of Pandit’s future in Valley and retrieval of Kashmir went into background.

‘Simhasan Chado’:

The flaw in the Sangh’s strategy could be a lack of grasp but it certainly was not an involuntary development. Till 1980s the essence of RSS activities was that ‘man and not the system’ was important. Total transformation and moulding of the people for an organised national life could primarily be achieved by ‘taking individual after individual’. In 1980s, the ‘Simhasan Chado’ directive in RSS indicated a major shift. The discourse in the Sangh Parivaar at that time reflected that capture of political power had become essential for bringing about the change in the nation. The Sangh by that tie had penetrated into all aspects of national life and needed a strategy to act as a force multiplier Ayodhya movement fitted this strategy. The grand failure of RSS lay in not understanding the conflict between a revolutionary change it wanted to bring about and the simultaneous desire to capture political power at any cost.

The analogy with Ayodhya movement has been brought here to grasp the logic behind the RSS’s inconsistency and absence of priority on Kashmir. After long dithering, Sangh Parivaar has begun realising the potentiality in-built in the demand for trifurcation of J&K State. It may be an outcome of the realisation within the Parivaar to incorporate Kashmir crisis into its agenda with a distinct priority. Hinting at this change, Mr SK Verma, Special Correspondent of the Statesman observed recently that, “the RSS which fed its cadres on the concept of Akhand Bharat and BJP with its hype of scrapping Article 370 appear to have realised the futility of continuing with the hype. Both have apparently conceded that for a permanent solution to the Kashmir valley, both concepts have to be given a go bye”. Inconsistency even when Kashmir tends to become a priority for RSS. its leadership seeks to rationalise it as a consequence of coalition politics and a tactical expediency. However, it is not only Article 370 or the partition of India on which Sangh Parivaar’s position indicates a drift. RSS responses towards Kashmir crisis, genocidal war against the non-Muslim minorities in the state and the national security show how RSS is losing its high moral stand it displayed in the earlier years.

Positive Attempts:

During the past ten years of turmoil in J&K, Sangh Parivar did make two attempts to introduce Kashmir crisis in the national discourse on the merit and weight it deserved, and not merely as a complementary argument to buttress its expositions on pseudo-secularism.

The first was the ‘Kashmir Chalo March’, undertaken by ABVP in September, 1990. It was the outcome of extreme sensitivity and understanding shown by RSS stalwart, late Bhau Rao Deoras towards the critical developments in the state. Bhauji, after visiting Jammu, in the wake of exodus from Kashmir, made his dissatisfaction obvious over the response of Sangh Parivaar to this extreme situation. In a reprimanding mood, in one of meetings of J&K Sambhag he asked the office bearers of RSS and its affiliate units like VHP, ABVP, Vidya Bharti Vikas Bharti etcetera, “Aap Kashmiri Vishthapiton Ke Liye Kya Kar Rahen Hain?” (what are you doing for the displaced Hindus from Kashmir). He spared none, including the Sambhag Pracharak in his outburst. :Aap Sab Ko Pracharak in his outburst. “Aap Sab Ko Malum Hona Chahiye, Mein In Visthapiton Ko Marne Ke Liye Nahin Chhor Sakta (I cannot allow these displaced people to become the cannon fodder,” the veteran leader accosted. Bhauroji showed that Kashmir crisis was if looked with sensitivitycan generate positive enthusiasm among Indians. The overwhelming response to the BVP Kashmir March provided substrate for another great campaign on Kashmir—Ekta Yatra led by Dr Murali Manohar Joshi. This yatra drew positive response even from such journalits, who had nothing to do with politics of BJP. Mr K.Sunder Rajan, the senior Editor of Times of India observed, “It was the first step towards donning a national image and identity that would enable it (BJP) to face critics who have so far been accusing it of narrowing its vision to the sectarian issues like Ayodhya dispute”. BJP has transcended its role. From a party seeking Hindu political reaffirmation it was now a party committed to national reaffirmation. This was the new assessment.

Internal Resistance:

But both these campaigns of ABVP and BJP were undermined and obstructed from within than without for reconciling the compulsions of the new obsession of Sangh Parivaar—the pragmatic politics.

Will the same ghost haunt the Sangh Parivaar again when there is a positive yearning within on the proposal for political reorganisation of J&K State. Does the RSS leadership possess the requisite vision and will to counter internal opposition on making Kashmir its priority and reorganisation of the state as its chief plank. Sangh Parivaar has to dispel the common impression that it is toeing the government line on national security and has relapsed into a give and take mode on the Kashmir issue. Nothing obverse than a thinking that the cease-fire diplomacy initiated by the Vajpayee-led coalition is a step towards a solution to Kashmir. This is precisely what the editor of RSS wrote “He has virtually drawn a road map to peace. Ceasefire is only the first phase of a long-drawn strategy for a lasting peace.”

A Dangerous Strategy:

Is support to the demand for trifurcation of J&K by Sangh Parivaar and full integration of Jammu and Ladakh into the Indian Union, a part of wider bargain on future status of Kashmir, as hinted by the Statesman Correspondent. Conversely, is RSS tired on Kashmir and ready to accept the demand for maximum autonomy or something beyond it for “lasting peace”. Why are separatists of different hues in Kashmir agreed on one point that “Vajpayee is the only leader who can solve Kashmir”. Is the trial ballon of autonomy district for displaced Hindus in Valley an attempt to deny the politico-administrative dispensation with unfettered flow of Indian Constitution to the displaced Kashmiris, who see it as the only viable option for perpetuating their existence in Kashmir. If RSS agrees to trifurcation, by what logic other than that of political expediency can it stop supporting the creation of Panun Kashmir with Union Territory status for all those people who reject the communally motivated provision of Article 370.

RSS is delinking the demand for trifurcation from the core issues of secular nation-building and national security. Its public expositions on reorganisation of J&K State display total naivety on the stabilisation of Northern Frontiers of India and reversal of genocide of the Hindus of J&K. Panun Kashmir is the only strategic thinking in India on Kashmir that links reorganisation of J&K State to the imperatives of secular nation-building and stabilising Indian defence in the Kashmir valley proper. There is a history of betrayal when Indian leadership acquiesced in surrendering strategic northern areas to Pakistan in 1947 under British directions. Apologists within RSS, who support trifurcation sanning nationalist consolidation in Kashmir argue that support to Panun Kashmir can lead to erosion of Muslim support to separate state of Jammu. Is it not a tacit admission that the apparent support to Jammu’s aspirations from a section of its Muslim population is quite fragile and borders on blackmail. RSS would do well to recall the prophetic words of its leader HV Sheshadri in the context of partition in 1947. The RSS general secretary talked about an attitude which smacked of investing ‘Muslim communalism with veto’. He made these remarks while deliberating on the tendency of Congress to pamper the ‘divisive tendencies’ of Muslims before 1947.

Erosion of will and vision:

Kashmir crisis has brought RSS to the very crossroads of history, where Congress once stood in the 40s. Around this time partition of India was being gradually rationalised in order to present it as a fait accompli. Quoting Krishna Menon on the failure of Congress to avert partition, Sh. HV Sheshadri writes, “The Congressmen so much coveted power and position that they had not heart to continue to fight and preserve the unity of the nation. The fight for United Bharat involved essentially a batle of wills and visions. It is small wonder that the Congress leadership with their will eroded and scuttled by exhaustion and temptation of power lost the battle.

The Peace Diplomacy and the attendant humiliation it brought in terms of worsening security and political scenario for non-Muslims of the state and the way Sangh Parivar is relating itself to these developments allow only one assessment. The Sangh Parivaar is tired on Kashmir. Has it suffered the erosion of will and vision, to quote the expression of its tallest leader, in its desire to hold on the power whatever be the consequences.

KS Correspondent

JAMMU, Apr 1: Soon after Assembly Elections of 1996, a counter-insurgent leader, compared role of counter-insurgents called Ikhwanis in local parlance to that of a ROP- Road Opening Party for conducting elections. The bitterness reflected in this comment was a reaction to the disowning of these people by the Indian state. This process was complete by 1998. The lack of direction for these groups which had played stellar role in forcing hard-core terrorist groups on the run, made Ikhwan leaders try their political ambitious individually. Some joined NC or Congress, while others probed BJP.

These Ikhwanis started their activities first as sources for the security forces and then as counter-guerrilla groups. This idea conceived by Mr Jagmohan was put into implementation by Mr G.C. Saxena while Gen. Krishna Rao reaped the credit for its success. Despite total apathy at political level, the Army continued its liaison with these groups for collecting information needed for CI operation, and in turn providing security to them.

Abandonment of counter-insurgent groups by the government was followed by reprisal killings of Ikhwanis by terrorists. Around four hundred Ikhwanis and their family members have been killed since 1998. During the past four months of unilateral. Cease-fire, more than a hundred Ikhwanis have been killed by Jehaid groups. Many Ikhwanis joined the militants again, while some manage their safety by living in security fortifications.

Last month three top leaders of a JKAC, an Ikhwani group were called for some meeting with Home ministry officials. It was immediately after the humiliation during the Panchayat elections, when there were hardly any candidates for contesting the elections. Polls had to be postponed in three districts. Fake nomination forms had invited criticism in the media.

After the meeting with Home Ministry officials, the counter-insurgency groups claimed that they have entered into an alliance to gain relevance in the present fluid political scenario. These groups are also activating their armed wings to regain initiative in view of the emergence of a fresh wave of militancy sweeping Kashmir valley.

What exactly is the new brief to the Ikhwanis remains a matter of speculation? one report said that the new role envisaged for Ikhwanis is an outcome of Indo-Israeli Cooperation on devising strategy to counter suicide attacks by Lashkar terrorists. Another report says that Home Ministry has realised, of late the role played by these groups. With ground-level situation worsening in Valley, there is no other option than to revive Ikhwan groups. These groups serve as sort of VDCs for Kashmir valley. Yet another version is that the revival is aimed at making future electoral process successful. As Pant dialogue is essentially primed to seek participation of Hurriyat in power politics through elections, reviving these groups comes handy. By delivering effective blows to militant groups, separatist groups yearning for political power would be more forthcoming. Secondly, the participation of Ikhwan groups in electoral process would invest elections with greater legitimacy. And lastly, the notching of a few seats by Ikhwanis, the only group which seeks fuller integration would convey a different message.

Some Hurriyat sections accuse Dr Abdullah for reviving, these groups to curb anti-NC groups during elections. They point to recent bonhomie between Kuka Parrey and Dr Abdullah. Out of different Ikhwan groups, the JK Awami Conference, headed by Liaqat Ali (Bilal Hyder) has across the board respectability. It, unlike other groups did not indulge in extortions, vendetta killings and has a definite political perspective  free from opportunistic trappings. Recently, it organised a one day convention at TRC, Jammu.

At the convention, Awami Conference leaders deplored the double standards of the governments at the Centre and criticized the role of both NC and the Hurriyat. Mr Liaqat Ali, charged Centre for patronizing those leaders who are responsible for making Kashmir a living hell. He questioned the rationale for holding dialogue with Hurriyat. About NC, Mr Liaqat said it was Dr Abdullah who sent the Kashmiri youth for arms training to Pakistan. On Autonomy demand raised by NC, the Awami Conference President remarked that it was a drama to befool the people. Mr Ali added that Farooq government came to power through rigging and when Hurriyat had boycotted elections. Demanding free and fair elections, Mr Ali declared that selfish, short-sighted and greedy politicians had to be removed from political scenario of Kashmir as an important step to find lasting peace there.

Mr Usman Majeed, vice-president of JKAC lamented that elections of 1996 was an immature step that led to the spread of militancy to all the districts of Jammu.

KS Correspondent

JAMMU, Mar 28: Poet Iqbal once said in a lighter vein to Prem Bhatia, the former Editor-in-Chief of the Tribune, that exile from homeland has given new meaning to the talent of Kashmiris. He argued that had he and Moti Lal Nehru stayed put in Kashmir, Nehru would have been a district level pleader, while he himself would have been a poet known at district level only. These remarks of the famous poet, who often prided in his ancestry from Saproo Pandit family, retain relevance even today.

In the field of languages Braj B Kachru (USA), Aga Shahid Ali (USA), ML Raina (Chandigarh), Suvir Koul (Delhi) etc have carved out a niche for themselves. The latest to join this club is Hari Kunzru, a 31-year old Kashmiri, who holds British citizenship.

Hari Kunzru, working as a Journalist for wired magazine and the Daily Telegraph suddenly shot into prominence, when he landed a massive contract worth $ 12.5 million for a two-book deal following the draft of a novel he submitted less than a month ago. The books are yet to be published. Hari secured $ 750,000 for the American rights (Dulton-a division of Penguin) and $ 50,000 for the European rights from Hamish Hamilton (Penguin). The draft manuscript was submitted to publishers in the first week of March 2001. Three days later he received the first offer. Three publishers competed in the British auction for the book. Without concealing his joy, Kunzru remarked, “I never expected anything like this and I’m overjoyed. I just hope the positive reaction from the publishers will translate into a positive reaction from the public”. Johnny Geller of Curtis Brown, an agent for the book commented, “This book has become a phenomenon. It has really caught the imagination of the book world and everybody wants to publish it. More popular fiction may have made more money but this is a huge payment for a literary novel. The book itself is accessible, funny and a great story.” Kunzru, whose manuscript became the subject of a transatlantic bidding war, has been quoted as having said that Hollywood filmmakers had expressed a lot of interest in buying the rights.

The draft manuscript is entitled “The Impressionist,” which Kunzru describes as “Midnight’s children meets Tom Jones”. It is his third attempt at writing a novel. Set in the 1920s, “the Impressionist” is the story of a half English illegitimate child who is disowned by his Indian family. The child travels to UK, where after getting trained as an anthropologist he moves on to Africa.

Hari Kunzru, who lives in South London belongs to the distinguished Kunzru family. He was born to a Kashmiri father and English mother. His father Dr Krishan Mohan Nath Kunzru, an Orthopaedician migrated from Agra to London in the mid 1960s. Hari was educated at Bancroft School in Woodford Green and later at Wadham College, Oxford. Hari’s illustrious grand-father, late Hriday Nath Kunzru was a leading legal luminary and a celebrated name in India’s anti-colonial struggle. Great institution builder, HN Kunzru helped set up Sapru House (Indian Council of World Affairs) for the research scholars from the country and abroad.

HN Kunzru loved his homeland and his community immensely. Every year he would visit Kashmir and stay with Sapru family. His concern over discrimination meted out to his community after 1947 in Kashmir was more genuine then that expressed by many of his other colleagues. HN Kunzru’s ancestors had also migrated around the same time as Nehrus’. As the surname indicates, this distinguished family migrated from Kunzar, a village in the Tang Marg area of North Kashmir.

KS Correspondent

JAMMU, Apr 7: Terrorists and their sympathizers in local media and among so-called human rights groups, NGOs have been engaged in a psy-war against the army. Terrorists have been using fatigues of Indian security personnel to conduct massacres and torture people. Subsequently, political mileage is sought to be extracted by implicating army. Another ploy is to attract international  glare by falsely accusing army of indulging in custodial killings and kidnappings. From time to time many would be terrorists have been disappearing regularly. Their family members of the terrorists have been including them in the ‘Missing Persons’ category. This is being done with a two-fold purpose--logistically it gives good leverage to the terrorist in operating and secondly attributing the disappearance to some foul play by Army puts Army on defensive. The Army, so far has been slow in countering the psy-war.

Punjab Police nabs keylink:

Two recent operations mounted by Kathua Police and Punjab Police throw enough light on how internal subversion aids the terrorist campaign in J&K.

On April 1, Punjab Police arrested one Mehmood-ul-Haq, a militant alongwith three other Harkat-ul-Mujahideen militants from Jammu--Sher Khan, Gouri Khan and Danish alias Dagga Khan from Batala town. Alongwith them, one Manjit Singh alias Fauji of Babbar Khalsa International (BKI), who was working as a conduit with Jammu-based militants, has also been arrested.

Twenty-five year old Mehmood, who hails from Behrot area (Thannamandi) of Rajouri was a M.Phil student of Urdu in Jammu University. He suddenly disappeared from his house on January 21. His family members and relatives were well aware of his contacts with militants. They deliberately instigated the people to shift the blame of Haq’s missing on Special Operations Group (SOG). People of Palangar had resorted to violent agitation in Rajouri alleging his arrest and custodial killing by SOG. The instigated mob ransacked an Information Department office and several government buildings in Rajouri. A NC leader, as per one report had also joined the protest.

During interrogation, Mehmood and his associates revealed that the driver of a Congress leader in Doda and a senior doctor had helped them forge links with Sikh militants so that militancy was revived in the border areas of Punjab. They also said that a hotel in Jammu, was being used as a ‘control room’ by ISI sleuths.

As per police sources, Mehmood-ul-Haq has confessed his links with several top militants of Hizb and Harkat-ul-Mujahideen. With the help of Sher Khan, Haq came in contact with Bashir Ahmed of Kathua a truck driver and Manjit Singh ‘Fauji’. Bashir was engaged in smuggling arms and explosives in his truck from Punjab to border districts of Jammu and vice versa. Other three militants--Sajjad Hussain (of Bhaderwah), Mohd Din (Samba) and Mohd Yousaf were already in contact with Bashir. Mohd Din used to smuggle arms consignment from across the border in his home district. Police sources added that Mehmood in his confessional statement revealed that his brother, Abdul Qayoom, working as ASI of Armed Police helped Mehmood and his group several times in smuggling of weapons and carrying out their subversive activities. Qayoom, suspended sometime back for his links with militants had been reinstated for want of sufficient evidence against him.

Cong-I leader implicated:

Sajjid Hussain, a front ranking militant had been working as a domestic servant in the house of a Congress leader and former MLA Gh. Qadir in Bhaderwah. He alleged that the house of former legislator was frequented by a number of hard-core militants, operating in Doda district Sajjad revealed that he joined militancy because of financial allurements and at the instance of Congress leader. He added that Gh. Qadir deputed a senior doctor of Bhaderwah to accompany him to meet Hizb militant, Majid Dar at Srinagar in his hideout. Dar took him to Kupwara from where he was taken across to PoK alongwith a group of 25 militants early last year.

A hotel in Jammu was being used by these militants as a hideout for dumping arms and ammunition and distributing these to militants operating in Rajouri, Poonch and Doda districts. The Key ISI man in these activities was one Major Tariq Ahmed, operating from Sialkot. Police has also identified a political leader from Rajouri with whom Mehmood-ul-Haque was in regular contact over phone.

Basohli attack:

In yet another break through, Kathua police worked out the mystery of an attack on a police matador carrying Rs 1 crore cash at village Marta, Basohli on March 1 this year. SOG arrested two militants, identified as Muzaffar Hussain son of Sub-Inspector Nazir Hussain, posted in Police Training School, Kathua, and Zahoor Hussain son of Head Constable Abdul Husain While Muzaffar belongs to Basohli, Zahoor hails from Billawar. The two militants involved in the attack were arrested near the house of a CPM leader in Bhatindi, while making telephone calls from a PCO. Two other militants arrested were Shafqat Ali and Shahid Hussain, both hailing from Bhaderwah. Zaheer Abbas and DK (Code name), involved in the attack are still at large at the time of filing this report and belong to Doda district.

The two constables injured in the encounter provided valuable leads, leading to the arrest of Muzaffar Hussain. He spilled the beans and SOG was able to nab other culprits. Shahid Hussain happens to be a close relation of a CPM leader, putting up in Bhatindi and had also stayed in his house for few days. The CPM leader hasn’t been arrested so far. The militants involved in the attack belonged to Harkat-ul-Mujahideen. The kins of two police officers had followed the matador from Kathua treasury to Basohli and picked up a wireless set on the way on which they informed the other militants waiting for the attack. Police also recovered arms and ammunition from the possession of militants.

KS Correspondent

JAMMU, Apr 6: An unseemly controversy has been created by some state-level politicians and a section of regional media to malign the image of the Indian Army. Following the sensationalizing of a report related to proposed recruitment on April 21 for Army, in a Jammu English daily, two MLAs belonging to CPM and BSP raised the issue in the ongoing session of State Assembly. The two members known for anti-BJP stand tried to link the recruitment advertisement to the BJP’s alleged anti-Muslim bias. Responding to the debate, the Chief Minister, Dr Abdullah assured that he would take up the matter with the Ministry of Defence and the Prime Minister. The advertisement had mentioned that in that particular recruitment rally there was no vacancy for Muslims and tradesmen categories. Controversy was uncalled for because it was self-explanatory. Since tradesmen also did not have any vacancy, there was no question of anti-Muslim bias. Neither the English daily nor the two MLAs bothered to seek clarification from the Army.

Indian Army, it may recalled, has still not discarded the colonial tradition of recruitment based on alloting vacancies categorywise. There is no bias against any one. Army had already conducted two rallies in Rajouri and Samba, in which recruits were only Muslims. Hindu and Sikh vacancies were not filled up. There were no vacancies left for Muslims and tradesmen candidate for Akhnoor rally. Recruitment in army is based on intake from all categories so that equal opportunities are provided to one and all. Vacancies are filled biannually and categories to be filled are advertised accordingly.

The army in its rejoinder clarified that the reference to the two categories in the ad was specifically intended to avoid inconvenience to candidates of particular categories who would otherwise have to travel from far flung areas to Akhnoor. It attributed the controversy to biased reporting in the press.

General Padmanabhan, who sought clarifications from Army recruitment authorities and the Northern Command, was told that during Rajouri and Samba rallies six months earlier not a single Sikh or Hindu candidate had been recruited in the Army. Akhnoor rally was meant to fill the vacancies in the Dogra Regiment and the Sikh Light Infantry unit and the quota for. On Sikh and Hindus had to be filled. Keeping tradesmen out of the recruitment, it referred to those who have come out from ITIs, because there is a separate recruitment.

Despite the aversion of Kashmiris for joining Army, the J&K Light Infantry has a sizeable number of Muslim soldiers and officers. Even during the last ten years of turmoil more than seventy percent of the surrendered militants from Kashmir valley were recruited in paramilitary organizations like CRPF and BSF. As on today, 3683 surrendered militants are serving in these two orgnisations. The process of enlarging recruitment of Kashmiri Muslims in Army, CRPF and BSF was started by former Governor Jagmohan in 1990. No security agency or belt force anywhere in the world can recruit people without ascertaining the individuals’s background and commitment to the country he intends to serve. Indian Army and the Paramilitary forces have never discriminated in recruitment.

KS Correspondent

JAMMU, Apr 6: In a major breakthrough, J&K Police have busted a funding racket linked to a Kashmiri separatist group, People’s League. On a tip off, district police, Kathua laid a naka party at Lakhanpur, which intercepted on March 27 a Maruti Car No: DL-7C-3147 and recovered Rs 1.05 lakh from the car occupants. Unable to explain the source of money, the police managed to lay their hand on a hidden box, fabricated inside the car. Over Rs 17 lakh were recovered from the box. This was for the first time that such a large amount of hawala money has been recovered in Jammu region. The arrested hawala conduits have been identified as Showkat Ahmed, R/o Shah Mohalla and Abdul Aziz, R/o Gowkadal, Srinagar, Srinagar. The two during interrogation, by the police revealed that the money was to be passed on to two terrorist groups operating from Srinagar.

Tracing the hawala links further, the police arrested Ghulam Mohd Khan alias Khan Sopori of Channapora Srinagar, the acting chairman of the separatist People’s League (Farooq Rehmani Group). Some incriminating documents, reports said, were recovered from him which detailed how the hawala funding of militants was operating. Khan Sopori and his associates have been receiving large amounts of money from Pakistan for distribution among the militants in the Valley. Sources added that Sopori used to send boys to Delhi for collecting money after getting a message on internet that “aadmi tayar hai” (man is ready). The details of money paid to militant outfits were fed by him in the computer. Earlier the two conduits had brought Rs 12 lakh from Delhi to Kashmir. For this they were paid Rs 50,000 by Sopori. Showkat and Majid were sent by Sopori to contact a person in Delhi, who conveyed the instructions of Farooq Rehmani and also handed over the money. Showkat Ahmed is also reported to be a PL activist. The reports said that Showkat, an employee of the Sheep Husbandry department has already visited Pakistan twice and brought huge consignments of money for militant and political outfits. The same reports added that Showkat has been getting assistance in subversive activities from his close relations, serving in senior positions in the State government. Immediately after the busting of the racket, three more links in the chain Nazir Payami (Sonawar), Rashid of Kolpora (Pulwama) Rafeek-ul-Islam and Gh Mohd Gaash from Chrar-i-Sharif, as per official sources have gone underground. Sopori’s new house is located beside the headquarters of Hurriyat Conference in Rajbagh.

KS Correspondent

NEW DELHI, Apr 7: The publishing of the report on the comparative status of the nuclear capabilities of India and Pakistan by the prestigious Jane’s Intelligence Review has caused ripples in the political and bureaucratic circles. Fearing censure by its adversaries, the NDA government in post haste has decided to put into action the process for implementing the recommendations of the Group of Ministers’ on reforming the national security system. Barely two days after the publication of the Janes’ Report, Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee directed that the recommendations be placed before the cabinet for formal approval.

Jane’s Report says that India has moved at a slower pace in deciding and completing delivery systems, evolving procedures, tactics and doctrine for nuclear use as well as for ensuring effective control over nuclear forces. In all these areas Pakistan has fully implemented the lessons that it has learnt from already established nuclear powers. Pakistan’s nuclear forces are controlled by the Army and have been more fully incorporated into the country’s overall military strategy. Pakistan has nearly completed development of a solid-fuelled missile that could strike key Indian cities from deep within Pakistan territory. As per a report, carried by a Pakistani newspaper, The News, Pakistan will use its Ghauri series of liquid-fuelled missiles for offensive operations, while the Shaheen series would be retained for defensive purposes. Recently Pakistan conducted a weeklong “PAF Missile Firing Camp 2001” for test-firing of ground to air, surface-to-surface and air-to-air missiles (French-American make) for what it called “providing realistic practical training to air crew and weapon controllers.” Speaking at the PAF’s Sonmiani firing range, General Musharraf, the military dictator outlined Pakistan’s nuclear policy. He said, “we are always out-numbered.. We maintain a minimum deterrence, which we will always maintain.” Spelling out three stages of deterrence, he added that minimum deterrence, which could be quantified in comparison to the enemy’s strength, should be followed by “ability to threaten enemy’s such vulnerable targets which go beyond their tolerance threshold.” It would also mean “will and resolve of the force to defend and fight by challenging the enemy,” he concluded.

On the contrary, as per Jane’s Review India was yet to develop an effective missile-based nuclear deterrent and deploy a missile force in quantity. India’s nuclear delivery systems consist of assault aviation Mirage 2000H fighters, which will be supplemented by Sukhoi SU-30MK multi-role fighters, along with a limited number of Prithvi-I and II short-range ballistic missiles and Agni medium-range ballistic missiles. The report adds that none of the nuclear delivery systems possessed by India is capable of providing deterrence against China, it developed the long-range ICBM Agni, to fill the vacuum.

Pakistan, which has been using nuclear capability as an instrument of effective blackmail in the context of proxy war has put in place a command and control system. It has also established the nuclear command authority and the nuclear regulatory authority.

Political Indecisiveness:

Janes Review has attributed India’s slow pace to political indecisiveness and nuclear idealism in-built in country’s political culture. The report says, “India views nuclear weapons as necessary for their political utility, their ability to bring international prestige and provide deterrence vis-a-vis Pakistan and China”. But the political leadership has not fully thought through specifics of nuclear use or doctrine and does not view such weapons as possessing military utility and discounts the possibility of them being used on the battle field, it added.

Contrary to this, Pakistan’s nuclear forces are controlled by the Army and have been more fully incorporated into the country’s overall military strategy. In the wake of Kargil aggression, the GoI had appointed a review committee. The committee had pointed out that the successive Indian Prime Ministers had failed to take their own colleagues, the major political parties, the chiefs of staff and the Foreign Secretaries into confidence on the nature of Pakistan’s nuclear threat and the China-Pakistan nuclear axis. It had recommended that the post of National Security Adviser should be separate from the Principal Secretary to the Prime Minister. The committee had suggested that a second line of personnel be also inducted into the system as early as possible and groomed for higher responsibility and that India must bring out a white paper on the Indian nuclear weapons programme.

All this has not been done as yet, leave aside bringing out the Nuclear Doctrine. Political dithering has made India lose out in the field of defence preparedness. The recommendations of the Kargil Review Committee were sidelined. Defence experts have attributed this to the pressure from certain officials on the government. More surprisingly, the Prime Minister is still reluctant to separate the post of National Security Adviser from Principal Secretary to the Prime Minister. Concentration of powers in the hands of extra constitutional authorities has made National Security Council a defunct body.

Task Force Recommendations:

With Janes Report coming, on the heels of Tehelka expose, the NDA government does not want to convey an impression that it is compromising National Security by sitting on the recommendations of four task forces set up by a Group of Ministers (GoM), set up in May 2000. The task force was created to study the recommendations of Kargil Review Committee. The four task forces were to study intelligence, defence management, internal security and border management and address critiques made of India’s security establishment in the Kargil report.

Main recommendations, if accepted will mean:

1) India will have a Chief of Defence Staff (CDS), who will command a new intelligence service, the Defence Intelligence Agency (DIA), which in turn will be commanded by a Three Star Inspector General of Army. CDS will also get the control of the country’s nuclear arsenal, which essentially would be through the land delivery methods.

2) In recognition of the stellar role it has been playing in counter-insurgency operations, the Rashtriya Rifles, raised as a paraamilitary force in 1990, is to be designated as a part of the regular army and will rank as a ‘regiment’. Its manpower and budget provisions will continue as before. State-level joint intelligence task forces are to be set up, and specific proposals have been made to upgrade the capabilities of police anti-terrorist units. The J&K Police Special Operations Group (SOG) has been held out as an example of the kinds of anti-terrorist units that must now evolve.

3) The recommendations on intelligence by the task force, which included Governor Girish Chander Saxena, K Raghunath, former Foreign Secretary, MK Narayanan, former IB Chief, PP Srivastva, former Special Secretary Home, B.Raman, former Additional Secretary RAW etc. indicate a desire for a thorough revamping of the intelligence services.

The suggestions would mean:

a) The IB will have complete responsibility for internal security operations and its Director would be given wide and autonomous powers. The IB would now have a formal charter and would be the nodal organisation for counter-terrorist and counter-intelligence work. It has also been tasked with ensuring the security of information systems. IB has also been asked to prepare country’s first dedicated police computer network and terrorism database. Another change suggested in IB networking is that the gathering and generation of intelligence and its analysis will be separated. IB will also be empowered to conduct covert work relevant to its new charter, including deep penetration operations abroad.

b) RAW will be a lean organisation now, with more focused work in gathering external intelligence. SSB personnel will be inducted into ITBP. Responsibility for conducting transborder operations will now fall on the new DIA. The DIA will also participate in intelligence support groups, run jointly with the IB and RAW to provide coordinated information to Army Corps Commanders in areas where the Armed Forces Special Powers Act is in force. Governor Saxena says that “the concept of an intelligence community” will lead to greater harmonisation among the different intelligence agencies.

c) The task force report underlines the need for reviving Joint Interrogation Centres in States like J&K. The JIC concept had proved extremely useful in J&K for information-sharing among different agencies. Due to political expediency it was wound up in 1996 by the Farooq Abdullah Govt.

d) The Arun Singh-led report on defence restructuring has rejected the Army demand for overall control over the civilian administration in disturbed areas. The paramilitary forces and intelligence officials had resisted this idea mooted sometime back in 1998.

The Prospect:

If the recommendations are finally given stamp of approval by the cabinet in six months from now there will be a new national security system. During Deve Gowda led UF government also, late Inderjit Gupta, then Home Minister had suggested a workable scheme for deploiticisation of the post of DG Police and chief secretary at State government levels. The move was resisted by many state chief ministers, who wanted their own cronies for the posts. In many cases, intelligence officials have been frequently protesting about the unwillingness of the State governments to act on specific information on the presence of terrorists. The new National Security System, even if put to implementation would leave much to be desired. National Security Doctrine can be effective only in a new political culture, where political class and the bureaucrats would have greater accountability and security agencies enjoy wide-ranging autonomy in dealing with security threats, free from hassles of political interference.

Commented upon by Prof. M.L. Koul

Author: Pandit Rishidev, Zanipora, Anantnag

Pages: 256      Price : Rs. 100/-

Pandit Rishidev who is a native of Zainpora, tehsil Shopian, Kashmir has remained a political activist of long standing. The Muslim communalists were as cruel to him as to Kashmiri Pandits in general even though he had been deeply wedded to the cause of peasant welfare and upliftment. Rishidev’s role in the initiation and implementation of purposeful schemes and projects directly related to agricultural operations for increased yield has been widely acclaimed even by his adversaries with communal motivations. Like all Kashmiri Pandits he was driven out of his home and hearth and as a consequence has been wallowing in exile for the past eleven years. His house at Zainapora has been blazed by vandals drawing support from the local Muslim population. In his 155-paged book titled as ‘Zakhmoo Ki Zabani’, essentially a memoir, he has delved in the repertoire of his political experiences with an attempt to put it in perspective. It is pertinent to put that Rishidev in his political career spanning five decades, has had affiliations with National Conference, Indian National Congress, Communist Party of India, Democratic National Conference and Kashmiri Pandit organisations.

The ferocious loot, plunder and murder of Kashmiri Pandits in 1931 has found many proponents who have invented the spurious thesis of ‘political and economic oppression of Muslims by the ruling class and their henchmen’ and justified the loot as the struggle of enslaved people against the despotic rule, despite its aggressively communal complexion in its outward form. To cover up the role of marauders a researcher in his thesis has shifted the scene of bigotry and belligerence from Kashmir to Punjab with a view to tracing its communal hue and motivation. In his vivid account of 1931 happenings Rishidev has debunked the text-book formulations of ‘political and economic oppression’, ‘victimized and enslaved people’ and ‘despotic rule’ and has focussed on the communally tainted pathological mind that has been ruling roost in Kashmir seeking satiation in infliction of atrocities of loot, arson and murder on Kashmiri Pandit minority.

But, sad as it is, Rishidev, though having a bias for Marxist ideology, has not put the 1931 loot in its proper perspective by probing the role of political and communal forces that planned and executed the loot and murder. He has spared the Reading Room Party which had forged links and alliances with the British Political Department Ahmadiyas. The loot of Kashmiri Pandits was part of a bigger game. The Britishers wanted the Maharaja to abdicate his sovereignty over Gilgit which had emerged as a strategic point on the chess-board of British politics in the region. Through  loot Kashmiri Pandits were punished for the expression of their patriotic sentiment when they made a bonfire of foreign goods. The correspondence between BJ Glanay, L.E. Lang and other British spies and Sheikh Abdullah was first splashed by the Blitz issued from Bombay and found detailed analysis in the ‘Tragedy of Kashmir’, a book authored by H.L. Sexena and banned by the Government of Jammu and Kashmir. Ahmadiyas though hated and shunned as deviants from Islam had clandestine links with the leader of the Reading Room Party. Punjab being their main operational base they spent fabulous sums to fan out in Kashmir.

Despite giving some details about the horrendous loot of 1931, Rishidev has not probed the vicious role of Qadeer, a man from Peshawar and a waiter in the employ of an English army officer. His sudden appearance in the mosque of Mir Ali Hamdani, where Muslims had collected in considerable numbers for a political act of choosing their representatives for an audience with the Maharaja was not and could not be accidental. In fact, the whole game plan was pre-thought and pre-planned. Qadeer’s venomous oratory which M.J Akbar lauds ignited the communal trigger resulting in the loot, arson and murder of Kashmiri Pandits throughout the Valley. To be more precise, Qadeer was an Ahmadiya plant and the same was corroborated by Molvi Yousuf Shah, Mirwaiz of Kashmir, who was interviewed by Ghulam Hasan Khan, an author on post-1931 political developments in Kashmir.

Owing allegiance to communist politics Rishidev could be one of those Kashmiri Pandit political activists who ideologically believed in the efficacy of land reforms and liquidation of rural debts as twin measures for retrieval of peasantry from economic backwardness. That was how D.P. Dhar who rose to be a central minister was the first to surrender his lands to the Muslim tenants without any consideration. Jia Lal Taimiri who was known for his proverbial honesty and kept a vigilant eye on the corruption and kitties of National Conference leaders and hence detested had also surrendered his lands to the tenants much before the land grab had started. Taimiri was a socialist by conviction. The Muslim leaders of National Conference vintage never emulated or appreciated the extra-ordinary precedent set by the two prominent leaders of Kashmiri Pandits. Instead what they did was to project the Kashmiri Pandits as a community of exploiters.. The fact was that Kashmiri Pandits, not all, but some of them like Muslims, were petty chakdars who had sold their precious assets and ornaments to purchase land. In Mirpur the land was owned by the Muslim land-lords who had been more cruel to their co-religionist tenants than their counter-parts elsewhere. Curiously they were not projected as exploiters of Muslims. Instead Hindu Mahajans pursuing the indigenous system of banking were focussed as the ‘target group’ and ruthlessly harassed and looted by the ‘Jathas’ (groups) despatched from the Punjab by the Ahrars who had pretensions to secularism and deserted the Congress ranks in the wake of the formation of Muslim League for the avowed objective of a separate land for Muslims.

The Kashmiri Pandit communists and radical humanists as the innovators of land reforms in terms of an ideograph never controverted the malicious disinformation unleashed by the Muslim leadership of National Conference against Pandit minority in general. The fact is that they were rootless people mired in the quagmire of fantasy leagues away from any commitment to the weal and welfare of the community. Unthinkingly and myopically they pandered the politics of Muslim majoritarianism wedded to the idea of entrenching itself in the state power in perpetuity. Sad as it is, they were completely ignorant of their past history of gore and blood and failed to learn lessons from history with a view to shaping their reasonable responses to the challenges emerging for them as a vulnerable community. It was absolutely bad politics as to have lent unqualified support to the forces of Muslim sub-nationalism unfolding under an elusive facade of left-oriented programmes and sham slogans. As is known to all and sundry consistency was never a virtue of Sheikh Abdullah. He tried to draw maximum support from local communists and communist leadership at national level when he told such elements that he was following their road-map and implementing their cardinal programmes. In his meeting with Loy Handerson he allayed his fears about his radicalism when he told him that he implemented land reforms just to appease communists within National Conference.

It was not for nothing that Sheikh Abdullah divulged the land reforms plan in toto from the pulpit of National Conference much before it was put in practice. The purpose was to tip off in advance all the Muslim land-lords to negotiate with their Muslim tenants for showing their land-holdings under self-cultivation or distributing the lands in excess of standard ceiling among family kins. In the process religious affinities were exploited to the hilt. Kashmiri Pandits were at a disadvantage as they subscribed to a different faith. As a matter of prudence a Kashmiri Pandit land-lord had distributed his broad acres among his family kins much before land reforms gained momentum to dispossess a small minority. Later on the mutations attested by the competent revenue authorities were ordered cancelled on the intervention of Revenue Minister who was brazen in his religious prejudices.

The Land Reforms Committee nominated in April, 1948 was stuffed with members who were  rubber stamps. There was not a single member equipped with thorough knowledge of all the contemporary models that had been under experimentation in various countries of the world. Nor were the services of a reputed economist borrowed to make the exercise rational, fair, meaningful and purposeful. Why were not the Soviet-type co-operative and collective farms accepted as a model? Why were not the Brazilian and the Chinese models considered for implementation? In fact, no studies were made on scientific lines. No blue-print was spelt out. No long ranging discussions were held with respect to the whole exercise. The communists made a ridiculous suggestion to involve ‘peasant committees’ for the stipulated grab. The nominated members felt proud to mouth panegyrics to the new age lord donning the authority of the chairman of the committee. Dissent if any was dubbed as treachery. The chairman alone knew the contours and shades of the plan and  modalities of its execution. The members getting Rs 200/- p.m. were required to repose full faith in the omniscience of the chairman. The Pandits on the committee were silently told that in view of the plebiscite being held under UN supervision mass of peasants had to be won over for India and giving them land on a platter could be the best bait. This was how Pandit resistance if any to the absurdities of the executive fiat was eliminated.

The first secretary of the Land Reforms Committee, a Kashmir, a senior-most Revenue officer, took no time to resign from the committee when he was apprised of the content and methodology of the land reforms as the exercise was officially trotted out. He shocked the chairman of the committee by candidly telling him that he could not be a party to an act which prima facie was illegal. The Muslim policy as it was then, so it is now was to involve a Kashmiri Pandit for implementation of the executive fiat of a sensitive nature. A frantic hunt was launched and the man picked up was a mere matriculate, pliant and senile, career conscious and myopic. He slavishly followed the dictates of his new found masters. When he was asked to bend, he went whole hog for genuflection. The way land reforms were implemented, it virtually ended in the wresting away of land from Hindus and its transfer to the Muslims. To have his own pound of flesh, he meekly approached the powers that be for his elevation to the position and status of the Financial Commissioner. A vehement ‘no’ from the then Prime Minister of the state sent a chill down his spine. The Kashmiri Pandit, perhaps, was ignorant of the resolution of the Muslim Conference submitted to the Maharaja in which among other things it was clearly spell out that no Kashmiri Pandit should be appointed to the key-positions in the state administrative apparatus.

The Emergency Administration and the Interim Government lost no time in embarking upon the loot of the landed properties. Both were headed by Sheikh Abdullah who chose himself for the echelon and people were afforded no chance to express their pleasure or displeasure. The land grab process started when there was no elected legislature,  no supervening constitution spelling out a forum for redressal or restoration of basic rights if encroached upon. It was a total vacuum which was fraudulently exploited to snatch away landed properties that were either purchased or legally inherited. The new bosses having been appointed to the positions at the helm had yet to establish their representative character under a constitutionally spell-out democratic process. The loot of landed properties was nearly complete till 1952 when the constituent assembly was constituted under a facade of elections which did not grant any political space to the opposition groups present in the state. The bankruptcy of the political leadership in the country became evident when the list of fundamental rights as incorporated in the Republican Constitution was not allowed full-scale application to the citizens of Jammu and Kashmir with a view to facilitate the processes of loot being perpetrated on the bonafide citizens of the country. The State High Court as appointed by the highly detested ruler of the state dithered in establishing rule of law under a fear psychosis generated by the Emergency and Interim Government lineage-lords. In fact, the accession issue was used, as a weapon of blackmail to weaken the resolve of the Central government to establish the full-dimensional sovereignty of the Republican Constitution over the State of Jammu and Kashmir. The then Indian leadership was shaken in their roots when the five members of the J&K state refused to bring the state under the purview of the Republican Constitution. One of the five members was a Hindu from Jammu.

Rishidev is reticent on many issues which have been raised from time to time in relation to the content and methodology of the land reforms. He does not confess that the Land Reforms Committee as constituted under an executive fiat was a mere eye-wash. He does not even dilate upon the differences that had divided the leadership of the National Conference on some of the basic issues relating the land reforms. He does not even tell us that the will of the chairman of the Land Reforms Committee was the ultimate arbiter. He is silent on the issue of the standard ceiling which was fixed at 182 kanals of land and does not convey as to why and how it was kept open for future tamperings to destabilize a vulnerable minority. He does not seem to be aware of the fact that soon after the abolition of the Big Estates Act of 1952 no fewer than 10,000 Kashmiri Pandits bid adieu to their land of genesis in search for a pittance elsewhere.

There are some more vital issues which Rishidev has failed to ponder and clarify for guidance of the posterity. How was it that the ceiling was fixed With an individual as a unit of cultivation, not a family? Did he know its implications? It meant that a family was allowed to have as many times the amount of ceiling land as the number of sons in the family and their father. It also meant that they could possess as many times the portions of  exempted lands like bedzars, safedzars et al. It cumulatively meant that a family was deliberately allowed to own a big landed estate. Rishidev, Dr NN Raina, Moti Lal Misri, DP Dhar, Shyam Lal Saraf and those Kashmiri Pandits who declared.

Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, Akhil Bharatiya Partinidhi Sabha, Delhi (March 16, 17, 18 2001), Sewa Dham Vidya Mandir, Mandoli, Delhi.

Resolution No. 04

Jammu & Kashmir

The ABPS (Akhil Bharatiya Pratinidhi Sabha) feels extremely perturbed over the recent happenings in the state of J&K in general and in the Kashmir valley in particular. The governments’ decision of unilateral cease-fire did not, however, bring about the desired  results. It is true that hostilities on the LoC have declined but there was no let up in the terrorist activities in the Valley. Along with targeting the civilian population, as it is evident from the killings of the innocent Sikhs, terrorist groups have, during the intervening period, become so audacious as to strike at the security installations and forces. In fact, three months should have been a sufficient time for experimentation; but the government in its wisdom thought it fit to extend the time frame of the cease-fire. Though the ABPS has no reason to doubt the government’s assessment of the situation, it would like to emphasis that the ceasefire is not an end in itself. ABPS, therefore wants to emphasis, that a dialogue with  those outfits, that are really interested in peace through negotiations be started at the earliest, and at the same time insurgent terrorism he put down with an iron hand, giving the security forces the freedom of decision and action, including the destruction of the terrorist training centres in PoK.

The ABPS also takes note of the other dimensions of the problem in J&K besides insurgent terrorism. Acutely suffering from discriminatory and partisan policies of the State government, for the last more than half a century, a demand for Union Territory status for Ladakh and an agitation for the separate statehood for Jammu are getting stronger by each day. There is also problem of rehabilitating the Kashmiri Hindus who have been uprooted from their homes, because of a rabidly communal mindset of a large section of Kashmiri Muslims.

In view of the various aspects of this intricate situation, ABPS requests the Sarkaryavaha to set up a committee that will examine the problem in detail and in depth, and make recommendations to the ABKM (Akhil Bharatiya Karyakari Mandal) within two months. The committee’s recommendations will be placed before the ABKM meeting in coming July.

Following is the full text of the government statement on Kashmir:

“The Government of India had declared unilaterally a policy of non-initiation of combat operations in J&K with a view to lowering the levels of violence and creating an atmosphere conducive to commencement of a peace process in the troubled State.

Despite the continuing violence on the part of some predominantly non-Kashmiri terrorist groups, the Government is gratified to note that there is an unmistakable ground swell for peace among the people of J&K. In order to promote a vigorous movement towards establishment of peace and tranquility, the government has decided to embark upon a political dialogue with all sections of the peace loving people of the State including those who are currently outside it.

The dialogue from the side of the Government of India will be held by Sh. KC Pant, Deputy Chairman, Planning Commission. It is hoped that representatives of all walks of life from among the people of J&K will be partners in this dialogue.

More specifically, it is expected that, beside the J&K government, all political parties, Non-Government Organis-ations, Trade unions, social and religious bodies from all the regions of the State will participate. The government invites people of goodwill who desire restoration of peace and normalcy in the State to come forward to participate in the dialogue”.

‘The government notes that the APHC has all along taken the position that talks should be unconditional. Now that the government has agreed to hold talks in the interest of early restoration of peace, it is for the APHC to consider whether it would not be inconsistent for them to set preconditions for the dialogue. The doors are open for them to join in the talks. The doors are also not closed for Kashmiri organisations which are currently engaged in militancy in the State but are desirous of peace.

The agenda for the dialogue briefly stated is ‘peace and how it may be attained in the troubled State’. All aspects bearing on this theme will be relevant to the dialogue.

The Government of India takes notes of the frequently repeated requests from Pakistan that they are eager for a dialogue with India on J&K. The Government of India re-affirms its faith in such a bilateral dialogue and hopes that Pakistan will help in its resumption by curbing cross-border terrorism and putting an end to the vicious anti-India propaganda managing from Pakistan. This will be accordance with the Shimla agreement and the spirit of the Lahore declaration.

The road to pace is not without serious obstacles: one such is continuing violence against the innocent people of J&K. To reduce this violence security forces have been directed to vigorously conduct operations against those who disturb the peace and victimize the innocent people of J&K, while at the same time ensuring that the population at large is spared undue hardships or harassment.

The government expects that all right thinking people in the State will join hands with the government and march purposefully in quest of the peace which has eluded them for the last 12 years. It is only in an atmosphere  of peace that an agreed solution for the J&K issue can be evolved.”

Background: Focussed counter-insurgency operations against the Kashmiri terrorist sin early 90’s led to the fall of public support to militants. Pakistan then introduced a new feature in the proxy war--the systemic induction of international Islamist mercenaries to prop up what it called as Jehad (religious war)_. Master Ahsan Dar, the founder of Hizbul Mujahideen, the armed outfit of Kashmir Jamaat Islami, upon his arrest in 1993 disclosed that ISI was laying stress on the induction of highly trained and well-equipped alien mercenaries to effectively engage the Indian security forces.

The availability of trained Islamic fighters folowing the end of the Afghan war enabled Pakistan to keep militancy alive in Kashmir as also to eliminate the potential of social disaster that could follow the influx of thousands of battle-hardened fundamentalist fighters now rendered jobless. Induction of these aliens into Kashmir was a low-cost option. This induction changed the complexion of terrorist campaign in Kashmir. It led to upgradation in military training within Kashmir. The alien mercenaries provided cutting edge leadership to militant activities in J&K. New routes for infiltration, hitherto insurmountable, became available through these experienced fighters. Foreign nationals’ kidnappings were staged to draw international publicity. Minority community massacres with demonstrations of extreme brutality became a common affair. Demographic changes involving expulsion of Sikhs in Kashmir and Hindus from Muslim-majority districts of Doda, Poonch-Rajouri acquired urgency. They built an anti-west ideological framework. The new thrust for Talibanisation of Kashmiri became visible. There is global consensus that Pakistan funds, trains and equips the Islamic mercenaries. As per Indian government estimates around 40% of the militants in Kashmir are Pakistan or Afghan and some 80 percent are teenagers.

Fomenting subversion in Kashmir through Islamist mercenaries has led to the proliferation of Jihadi madrassas in Pakistan. According to a JKLF leader, there are more than five lakh Jehadi fighters in Pakistan. Though the destination of these Jehadists is primarily Kashmir, their role in Central Asia, Russia, China has also been significant.

Political activists and social scientists, concerned the Jehadi phenomenon have been trying to understand the rise of Jehadi groups to formulate a comprehensive response against these.

Curriculum and Poor Infrastructure:

Poor educational infrastructure, particularly in Pakistan countryside has facilitated the penetration of Jehadi groups into the rural populace. The World Bank estimates that only 40 percent of Pakistanis are literate, and many rural areas lack public schools. Islamic religious schools, madrasahs as they are called, are located all over the country. These not only provide free education but also free food, housing and clothing. In the poor areas of southern Punjab, madrasahs funded by anti-Shia sectarian group, Sipah-e-Sahaba Pakistan even pay parents for sending them their children.

In the 1980’s General Zia-ul-Haq promoted the madrasahs as a way to garner the religious parties’ support for his rule and to recruit troops for the anti-Soviet war in Afghanistan. Presently madrasahs are funded by wealthy Pakistani industrialists at home or abroad and by private and government funded NGOs in the Persian Gulf States and Saudi Arabia.

Madrasahs preach a narrow and violent version of religion. These equate Jehad with Waging armed war against non-Muslims. Jessica Stern, who teaches public policy at Harvard University writes, “these schools encourage their graduates, who often cannot find work because of their lack of practical education, to fulfill their “spiritual obligations” by fighting against Hindus in Kashmir or against Muslims of other sects in Pakistan”. Of an estimated 40,000 to 50,000 madrasahs in Pakistan, only 4350 are registered with the government.

Madrasahs have resisted the state demand for expanding the curricula. Some chancellors argue that madrasahs are older than Pakistan itself. The chancellor of Darul Uloom Haqqania, where mercenaries for subversion in Kashmir are churned out in thousands says that the broadbasing of the cirrucula would “destroy the spirit of the madrasahs”. Sipaha-e-Sahiba says Madrassahs are the supply line of Jehad and complains that where states have taken control of madrasahs, such as Jordan and Egypt, “the engine of Jehaddis extinguished.”

Financial Network:

Pakistani Jehadi groups describe hide donations on Eid-ul-Azha as significant source of funding for their activities in Kashmir. Intelligence officials say most of the militant groups’ funding, comes in the form of anonymous donations sent directly to their bank accounts. Lashkar-i-Toiba has been found raising funds on the Internet. So much money has been raised by Lashkar-e-Toiba and its parent organisation Markaz-al-Dawa-Irshad mostly from sympathetic Wahabis in Saudi Arabia that they are reportedly planning to open their own bank.

Individual Jehadists also benefit financially from this generous funding. Celebrated Pakistan expert on Central Asia, Ahmad Rashid says, “they are in this for loot.” Mid-level manager of Lashkar, as per one estimate earns 15,000 rupees a month, while the top leaders earn much more. These leaders live in mansions, which are staffed by servants and filled with expensive furniture. Operatives receive smaller salaries but win bonuses for successful missions.

Milt Bearden, CIA station chief in Pakistan from 1986 to 1989, disclosed that the US and Saudi Arabia funneled some $3.5 billion into Afghanistan and Pakistan during Afghan war. Jihad along with guns and drugs became the most important business in the region. Wealthy Arabs in the Persian Gulf region and members of the Pakistani Diaspora, thus came to develop stakes in prolonging ethnic and religious conflicts, in areas where Muslims formed religious minority. They contributed not only capital but also extremist rhetoric. Late Eqbal Ahmed, the Pakistani scholar has dubbed this enterprise as “Jihad International, Inc.” The prolongation of the subversive war in Kashmir, thus suits the interests of those involved in “Jihad International, Inc.” While many are dependent on Jihad for financial interests, others find Jehadist war intoxicating psychologically. A Harkat operative told a Wester scholar :

“We won’t stop--even if India gave us Kashmir... We’ll (also) bring Jihad here. There is already a movement here to make Pakistan a pure Islamic state. Many preach Islam, but most of them don’t know what it means. We want to see a Taliban type regime,”

Recruitment:

Wealthy Pakistanis donate their money than their sons to the “Jihad”. Poor families particularly in rural areas are exploited to send their wards for fulfilling the “spiritual duty”. So thorough is the brain washing that the parents, whose children die in terrorist acts do not lament. They believe that their sons have become martyrs. One lady, whose son died in Kashmir told a western journalist that she would be happy if her six remaining sons were also “martyred”. “They will help me in the next life, which is the real life,” she consoled herself.

Families with low social origin get respectability, when the funeral of their children killed in terrorist Jihad are attended by thousands of people. Jihadi groups manipulate funeral occasions in such a way that poor families get motivated to send their children for Jihad. Many of the families get financial assistance from the terrorist groups. The Shuhda-e-Islam Foundation run by Jamaat-e-Islami, claims to have dispensed 13 million rupees to the families, whose children got consumed in “Jihad” in 1995. To perpetuate a culture of violence, a practice common to gangs in inner-city Los Angeles and terrorist groups such as al Qaeda, Hamas etc, Lashkar-e-Toiba and Harkat reward the families of killed terrorists.

Collaboration with criminals:

Jehadis often hire criminals to do their dirty work and at time themselves turn to petty or organised crime. Criminals are typically hired to drop weapons and explosives or to carry out extreme acts of violence that a typical Jehadi may be reluctant or unable to perform. Members of the Dubai-based Dawood Ibrahim at the instance of ISI bombed the Bombay stock exchange in March 1993. Some of the members arrested subsequently told police that they had been trained in subversion by Jehadi groups.

Bizarre Designs:

Jihadi groups proclaim their plans to bring Jihad to India proper as well as to the west, which they believe is run by jews. Jehadists adore Hitler, the fascist supremo of Germany during Second World War. The students from Burma, Nepal, Chechnya, Bangladesh, Sinkiang, Afghanistan, Yemen, Mongolia, Kuwait, Uzbekistan etc. have been found undergoing subversion training in Jihadi schools in Pakistan.

Roots of Jihadi Culture:

Pakistan’s vulnerability to Jihadi culture is in-built in the ideology of the state it has pursued. Its quest for an identity and self-image based on religion and adversorial relationship with India has predisposed to the emergence of Jihadi culture. Pakistan journalists Khalid Ahmed and Najam Sethi have eloquently commented on this. Mr Ahmed in an article, “Mediavalisation on the Eve of 2000 AD” writes that Pakistan rulers, in particular General Zia to legitimise himself, medievalised the state through the constitution and the textbooks. These history books were written a fresh to popularise a purely Muslim version of events. He has described how the Pakistani state indoctrinated the masses in favour of a revival of the medieval state rather than a ‘modern’ state. Najam Sethi, Editor of the Friday Times,  in  a speech delivered at Delhi on April 30, 1999 characterised the mentality and outlook of Pakistani state as that of a historically besieged state. He said Pakistan was more a state-nation rather than a nation-state. It was the foreign policy which runs its domestic policy rather than the other way round. He suggested that the Pakistani State has come to be fashioned largely in response to perceived propaganda and real and imagined threats to its national security from India. Its conceptions of national security, defined in conventional military terms dominate the state thinking. All this has resulted in the lack of development of sustainable and stable democratic political culture, leading to the spawning of extra-state institutions espousing Islamic fundamentalism and Jehad.

Internal Sectarianism:

Promotion of Jehadi culture has recoiled back on Pakistan society, besides damaging Pakistan’s fragile international reputation. There is growing internal sectarianism militarisation of civil society, and deteriation of law and order. The problem of Musharraf is that it is difficult to promote the “Jehad” in Kashmir and the Taliban in Afghanistan without inadvertently promoting sectarianism in Pakistan. The movements share madrasahas, camps, bureaucracies, and operatives. The Jamaat-ul-Ulema-e-Islam, the founding party of anti-Shia outfit Sipaha-e-Sahaba, also helped create both the Taliban and Harkat. Deobandi madrasahs issue anti-Shia fatwas (edicts) and boys trained to fight in Kashmir are also trained to call Shi’a Kafirs. Jaesh-e-Mohammad, an off shot of Harkat, founded by Maulana Azhar and the newest Pakistani militant outfit in Kashmir, reports say, used Sipaha-e-Sahaba personnel during a fund-raising drive in early 2000. Sipaha-e-Sahaba cadres regularly join Taliban, Harkat or Jaesh-e-Mohd--all groups with Deobandi orientation. Sipaha-e-Sahaba (SSP) recently claimed that it has opened a branch in Kashmir. The emergence of SSP and Jaesh-e-Mohammad in Kashmir has been responsible for anti-Shia orientation among the new terrorists and attacks on them. Shia leaders and congregations have been the targets of attacks by terrorists in Kashmir. Attacks on Sikhs are also being linked to these new developments.

Inside Pakistan, thousands of Pakistani have been killed in sectarian clashes since 1990. The American scholar Vali Nasr, remarks that the largely theological differences between Shia and Sunni Muslims have been transformed into full-fledged political conflict, with broad ramifications for law and order, social Cohesion, and government authority.

Liberals blame America:

There is growing concern over role of America vis-a-vis of rise of Jihadi groups and towards Pakistan government. Pakistani officials accuse US, along with Saudi Arabia, of creating the first international “Jihad” to fight the Soviet Union during the Afghan war. They ask, “does America expect us to send in the troops and shut the madrasahs down? Jihad is a mindset. It developed over many years during the Afghan war. Your can’t change a mindset in 24 hours”.

America has also contributed to one of the most successful disinformation campaigns launched by Pak military Junta. The Pak army seeks to sell the entirely self-serving image of being the last bastion of liberalism to a people besieged by fanatical Islamists. The Army Junta has been using this campaign to two ends. One it has been trying to seek concessions from India over Kashmir on the plea that General Musharraf’s position vis-a-vis Islamists would be strengthened, and fallout of the dangers of a fundamentalist takeover in Pakistan prevented. Secondly, it has used the plausibility of denial that it is in no position to rein in Jihadi groups that operate autonomously. Buy allowing Jihadi groups to operate with impunity it has succeeded in maintaining pressure on ground in Kashmir. This is contested by Pakistan watchers. They argue that “the army and intelligence agencies, having created the Islamists, continue to wield enormous influence over them.” Prashant Sareen, the area specialist observes,” the problem, therefore, is not so much of the army’s declining capability in reining in the Islamists as it is of ideological and policy divisions within it that prevents such crackdown”.

The Prospect:

Can there be any solution which will root out Jihadi culture in Pakistan? Jessica Stern, who specialises on Jihadi groups says that “Pakistan must recognise the militant groups for what they are: dangerous gangs whose resources and reach continue to grow, threatening to destabilize the entire region”. She laments that “Pakistan’s continued support of religious militant groups suggests that it does not recognise its own susceptibility to the culture of violence it has helped create.” The Pakistani militants’ continued incursions into J&K escalate the conflict, greatly increasing the risk of nuclear war, Stern adds. With no solution aimed at making Pakistan give up this mindset stamping out corruption, strengthening democracy and broadbasing education will not help.

All parties must work for restoration of peace in Kashmir

SRINAGAR, Oct 7: The state secretary of CPI(M) Mohammad Yousuf Tarigami today demanded an unconditional unilateral cease-fire by Government of India (GoI) in the state.

Addressing a press conference here, he said Centre being the main party has primary responsibility for the restoration of peace and solution of Kashmir issue. “The government must not wait for the militants to announce the cease fire and should take a bold initiative by announcing an unconditional and unilateral cease-fire”, Tarigami said.

He observed that the announcement of cease-fire would create  appositive feeling among the Kashmiri masses and generate a good will towards the centre. “The image of union government continues to be tarnished on human rights and democratic fronts”, the CPI(M) leader said and added that it can raise it popularity graph not only here but at the international level also by the bold initiative.

Asked whether his demand will get a positive response from his party high command and at official level. Tarigami viewed that CPI(M) leadership has already been apprised about it and hoped that at official level the demand will be responded positively.

“The Government of India must treat Kashmir as a human problem and try to solve it through humanitarian means. Whosoever gets killed here-whether a militant, a security man or a civilian, they are all human being and this bloodshed must come to an end”, he said.

To a question as how the militants would respond once the GoI announces a cease-fire he said militants claim that they represent the aspirations of the Kashmiri people, who want restoration of peace and a political and dignified solution of the issue.

“If the militants are really concerned about the people, they will have to respond positively to Indian cease-fire”, he said. According to him the Hizbul Mujahideen cease-fire was not a coincidence, it represented the wish of the people, who want early return of the peace. “I will not go into details of its failure, but I would definitely say that people all over the Valley had a sigh of relief during the cease-fire period,” Tarigami said. The atrocities on people came down considerably. The farmers would remain out in their farms and orchards till late evening hours and same was the case with shopkeepers.

As the cease-fire ended lives of people in villages turned into hell again and they are suffering immensely. If the Central government has any concern about the people here, it should adopt a humanely approach and announce the cease-fire.

Tarigami urged the secular minded and peace loving people of the country to come to the rescue of Kashmiri people and pressurise the government to end the anti-people policies. “They must mount pressure on Centre to adopt a realistic approach towards Kashmir issue and treat the people living in this state as human beings”, he said.

The CPI(M) leader stated that since day one he was very keen to see this bloodshed coming to and end. He said he raised the issue at relevant fora a number of times. Tarigami wrote letters to chief minister Dr Farooq Abdullah and senior Hurriet Conference leader Syed Ali Shah Geelani asking them to work for ending the violence and solution of Kashmir issue through peaceful means.

“But they did not respond to the letters”, he said.

Tarigami stated that gun has played its role in projecting the Kashmir issue. “Now it is the time for ending this gun culture and solving the issue through political means”, he said.

Courtesy: The Kashmir Times

By K.Gomango

Third-Party Mediation

Has NDA-led coalition at Centre finally accepted US mediation on Kashmir? Why are Kashmiri separatists repeatedly emphasising that “all hopes for the solution of the Kashmir issue will be doomed if the Vajpayee government is destabilized.” Are the current initiatives on Kashmir the consequence of the road map chalked out by the Americans? To come directly to the issue-who is Mansoor Ijaz and what is his “Mission Kashmir”.

Mansoor Ijaz, a Pakistani American, is a nuclear physicist and a New York-based investment banker. His father played a crucial role in assembling the intellectual infrastructure of Pakistan’s nuclear programme. Ijaz nurses political ambitions too. He moves round in Democratic Party Circles and has contributed to the campaign funds of party candidates, including Hillary Clinton. He sees himself moving towards Congressional politics within the next five or six years. His present official position is that of a member of the influential US Think Tank Council on Foreign Relations.

Mansoor Ijaz made five visits to India and Pakistan during past one year to arbitrate Kashmir ‘dispute’. Govt. of India accords him a status that befits only high-profile emissaries of the Head of a State. At least on two occasions, he visited Delhi on special ‘out of passport’ visas, and full secrecy was maintained about his identity and itinerary. Ijaz kept Clinton’s national security team briefed at each stage of the process.

All the time he maintained, presumably keeping in view Indian public’s sensitivity on third party mediation on Kashmir, that he was not acting on behalf of the Clinton administration. Mansoor Ijaz claims he has been drawn to the Kashmir problem because” ‘oppressed’ people have no capacity to speak for themselves and stop violations that occur against them in the name of religion or politics or money”. As for official support, Ijaz adds, “the initiative (ceasefire) had backing from President Bill Clinton as an effective means for preventing the internal implosion of Pakistan at the hands of its Islamic Zealots”.

Three days before Ramadan ceasefire a symposium--”Next Steps in J&K: Give Peace a Chance”, was organised with blessings from PMO, at Gurgaon. Ijaz delivered the Keynote address at the seminar. The symposium was jointly organised by a Delhi-based organisation, Peace Initiatives, Institute of Regional Studies, Pakistan and Lord Avebury, a Liberal member of the House of Lords in Britain.

To gauge the reaction of people of the sub-continent to his “initiative”, Ijaz has been regularly interacting with media in US, Gulf States, India and Pakistan. The New-York based investment banker says he began his “Mission Kashmir”, sometime back in September 1999. Around the same time news was making rounds that a senior member of Vajpayee’s Cabinet had opened communication channels with leaders of Hurriyat and some militants groups through an influential Kashmiri political leader. A few months later, two separatist leaders, Abdul Ghani Lone and Sardar Abdul Qayum Khan were to claim that solution to Kashmir crisis was round the corner.

July Ceasefire

The July ceasefire, brokered by Ijaz failed to hold on. He has come out with full details in an article, published in International Herald Tribune (November 22). In the article titled, ‘The August Initiative’, he says that he had during his visit to the subcontinent proposed a framework for dialogue to the two Prime Ministers, that “envisioned empowering ordinary Kashmiris, ‘civilian and militant’ alike, as the Central partners for peace”. To Musharraf, he counselled that “Pakistan was in danger of losing the moral authority it once held in Kashmir by allowing, indeed encouraging, increasingly indiscriminate violent behaviour by Islamic radicals fighting there”. Ijaz implored him to “persuade the Mujahideen under his control to opt for non-violent means to put the onus for peace back in New Delhi’s court” and told Musharraf that Kashmiris were fatigued over continued violence. Ijaz claims that before this he had got a commitment from GoI on unconditional and immediate cessation of hostilities and negotiating permanent Kashmir solution. July ceasefire, as per him had ‘backing’ from both Gen. Musharraf as well as Syed Salahuddin. Musharraf developed cold feet when the ceasefire was “portrayed in fundamentalist circles as a “sell-out”. Ijaz had carried a letter from Salahuddin addressed to President Clinton. The Hizb chief had sought verification of the President’s direct backing of Ijaz’s peace initiative. Jehadi groups then threatened to replace Syed Salahuddin as head of United Jehad Council, an umbrella organisation of terrorist groups based in Pakistan.

Ijaz gives three reasons for collapse of July ceasefire. Musharraf failed to publicly embrace the cease-fire that he had privately initiated with Syed Salahuddin. Secondly, Salahuddin had not been able to develop consensus among Mujahideen groups when faced by threats from Pakistan’s Islamic fundamentalists. Thirdly, he blames Vajpayee for “succumbing” to hawks on the issue of ‘Constitution’ and ‘disputed’ territory. The Indian Prime Minister had drawn widespread criticism from nationalist quarters over his remarks on holding discussions with Hurriyat “within the framework of Insaniyat”.

Ijaz, however, presents an apologetic defence for Musharaff’s duplicity. He says, “on one side, he has failed economy and massive decay of political institutions, on another he has global economic and military sanctions that have forced him to rely on nuclear weapons as the primary deterrent, on the third he has enmity from India and on the fourth he has pressure from Afghanistan and Iran. He has the Kashmir problem on top of him and his Islamic fundamentalists closing in. It is easy to understand why he could not easily embrace a ceasefire on what is easily Pakistan’s most sensitive foreign policy problem.”

‘The August Initiative’

Despite the failure of July ceasefire, separatist leaders like Majid Dar and Fazl Haq Qureshi continued to claim that ceasefire process has been only delayed but not derailed. They said that renewed ceasefire would be in place within three months. The Defence Minister, Mr Fernandes went on record saying that GoI was in regular contact with Hizb.

In August Ijaz and US diplomats proposed a formula in which “Pakistan would be brought to the negotiating table at the outset of political discussions after the ceasefire had taken hold, first bilaterally and then, at the Kashmiris’ request trilaterally. India’s adamancy not to talk to Pakistan unless cross-border terrorism stopped, would disappeare in the Valley-wide ceasefire call from Salahuddin. He would receive critical support from Gen. Musharraf to bring unruly Islamists on board, and Gen. Musharraf in turn would get a nod from Washington along with much-needed IMF aid.”

Ijaz has thrown more light on the concessions which he sought from India. As the dialogue process proceeded, “India would agree to a significant, verification and permanent reduction of its forces in the Valley in exchange for a verifiable withdrawal of Pakistani militants. In the process, the Mujahideen voice would be strengthened and unified and Pakistan could take credit for having tangibly supported through its military advocacy of the Kashmiri Cause.” This reference to strengthening “the Mujahideen voice” seems to suggest that India would have to make significant concessions to attain that objective. In this context, influential Pakistanis and members of the US establishment have been peddling variants of Dixon Plan, with Kashmir valley attaining some form of quasi-independence.

Repeated use of the term ‘Kashmiris’ by Ijaz and Americans is meant to emphasise that Kashmiri Sunnis are the final arbites.

The above framework, Ijaz claims “was agreed to by the Indians and conditioned on Pakistan intelligence accepting it, by Salahuddin in late August.” Commenting upon this, Ejaz Hyder, the Pakistani Journalist wrote in the Friday Times, “that Salahuddin should seek guarantees from Pakistani intelligence rather than Islamabad sounds intriguing.. While the political leaders may opt for dialogue, the militants could always be made to scuttle any such effort.”

A revived ceasefire, was to have been followed by Vajpayee-Musharraf meeting on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly session in New York last September. Though the GoI was not averse to an impromptu summit meeting, it baulked at the venue fearing that this might legitimise the idea that the US or the UN had a role to play.

There was no public contradiction by GOI to the above claims made by Mansoor Ijaz. Political circles were intrigued when GoI went out of way to recommend release of IMF aid to Pakistan. However, on the question of reducing troops strength, Mr Fernandes reacted only when a section of the electronic media made repeated broadcasts that India would pull out its troops during the next five years. Mr Fernandes said the reports were untrue. Ijaz says the agreement worked out could not be implemented because of Pakistan’s “bleed India” policy. An effort was made by Bruce Reidel, the State Department’s pointman on South Asia, to exert pressure on Pakistan.

Musharraf’s Belligerence:

Gen. Musharraf instead became more belligerent. In an interview with BBC on Oct 16, he threatened, “we’ll nuke India if our security is in jeopardy”, and added that he was “fed up” with India. It was around this time in a diplomatic embarrassment for India, Saudi Arabia came with an announcement asking Mr Jaswant Singh, the Minister of External Affairs to defer his visit to Saudi Arabia. That Mr Jaswant Singh’s visit to Saudi Arabia was linked to Kashmir was confirmed by Mansoor Ijaz himself. In an interview to the News, (December 24) Islamabad, he claimed, “the Saudi government is taking an active role in finding a mechanism to moderate the Jehad movement in Kashmir. He added, “It is no accident that (External Affairs Minister) Jaswant Singh will visit Riyadh in early January just a week after militant leaders return from Jeddah and a week before Hurriyat leaders are scheduled to meet Hizbul Mujahideen Supremo, Syed Salahuddin and company in Islamabad.” The decision of GoI to allow the visit of two Hurriyat representatives, Mirwaiz Omar Farooq and Maulana Abbas Ansari to OIC meet at Doha on November 11 was unexceptionable. In which capacity there were allowed to participate in OIC meet?

Cease-fire II

November saw many interesting developments happening. GoI opened a line with Hizbul Chief Salahuddin through Shahi Imam of Jama Masjid, Delhi. Mr Salman Haider, former Foreign Secretary, GoI and Mr Mohd Yousuf Tarigami, involved in Track-II parleys demanded announcement of unilateral ceasefire by India. In fact, Mr Tarigami’s party, CPM had to denounce this statement in view of embarrassment it caused. Mr Haider also demanded resumption of dialogue with Pakistan and opposed India’s alleged support to Northern Alliance in Afghanistan. He questioned the nationalist consensus by saying, “I wonder what interests India is trying to locate in Afghanistan by helping Ahmad Shah Masood or belittling Talibans”. Mr Tarigami, the CPM leader from Kashmir valley, called for partial withdrawal of Indian troops. A train carrying 15,000 tons of Indian suggar rolled into the eastern Pakistani city of Lahore commenting on this, Muddassir Rizvi wrote in The Dawn, the Pakistani daily, “many observers saw the sugar deal as a move to break the ice-not that trade will bring lasting peace, but that the two countries will make peace so they can trade”. On November 23, Mr Abdul Sattar, Pakistan’s Foreign Minister told The Times of India that it has a duty to stop militants from crossing the LoC in Kashmir. He went on to say, “A state is not responsible for the views and actions of every one of its citizens. The State is responsible for actions by the organs of the State. Of course, individuals who engage in crimes should be tried”. The European Union Asstt. Secretary for South Asia and Oceania, Mr Dominique Girard told reporters in Islamabad on November 22 said that EU had conveyed its concern to India and Pakistan over the “tense and dangerous stalemate and there is need for some action to unblock the situation.” Girard added that EU did not want Pakistan to be isolated. “We value dialogue with Pakistan. Even, we don’t want to isolate Taliban to have dialogue with them,” he stressed. Subsequently, Mr AB Vajpayee came with his ‘Musings’ on relations with Pakistan and his stand on Kashmir.

He said, “India is willing and ready to seek a lasting solution to the Kashmir problem. Towards this end, we are prepared to recommence talks with Pakistan at any level, including the highest level, provided Islamabad gives sufficient proof of its preparedness to create a conducive atmosphere for a meaningful dialogue”. On Kashmir Mr Vajpayee added, that India will not traverse the beaten track.

On November 26, PTI quoted Saifuddin Soz as saying, “Even if we don’t have tripartite talks there could be triangular talks that is simultaneous talks between Delhi and Islamabad on the one hand and Delhi and Kashmiri leaders on the other”. In a seminar “Exploring Reconciliation,” organised by the Centre for Dialogue and Reconciliation, in which former Finance Minister of Pakistan, Mubashir Hassan and BJP chief Bangaru Laxman were star speakers, Mr Laxman hinted on the possibility of a loose Indo-Pak-Bangladesh confederation, focussed in particular on economic issues. Mr Hassan held the doctrine of Nation-State responsible for the trouble in the sub-continent.

Both in India as well as abroad, some of the statements made by Indian military commanders on Kashmir were received as unusual. Gen VP Malik the COAS on the eve of his retirement said, “ultimately there has to be a political solution to the problem.” He added that political initiatives were necessary “to counter the alienation of the local population”. Gen. Padmanabhan, his successor stated emphatically that “in the history of mankind no insurgency has been solved by any army” and called for a political solution to the Kashmir problem. The retiring GoC. C Northern Command, Lt. Gen. HM Khanna, said on January 15 that Army has done its job and, “the political leaders should now start the process towards a political solution during the ceasefire” What is the political solution they are talking about? The uncalled for statements were intepreted differently in Delhi, Islamabad and Washington. Gen. Padmanabhan openly defended the cease-fire decision, despite different perceptions by field level commanders. The General said, “the Army is never vulnerable because of a decision we ourselves have taken. We are also a party to the (ceasefire) decision. We are quite happy with the decision”. On the eve of second extension of ceasefire on January 14, when neither J&K Govt. nor the Home Ministry were willing to speak in favour of ceasefire, Gen. Padmnabhan supported ceasefire extension and dismissed escalation in attacks as sporadic actions and desperate attempts by terrorists to retain credibility. He said these were staged by groups which lacked popular support.

Vajpayee’s  Announcement

On November 28, Vajpayee government came with two announcements of significant import. One, it declared unilateral cessation of CI operations against all terrorists, inspite of the fact that not even Hizb accepted the ceasefire. Secondly, GoI agreed to allow Hurriyat delegation to visit Pakistan to hold talks there, knowing well that Hurriyat had not capacity to rein in militant groups.

On November 30, Mansoor Ijaz told Gulf News in Dubai that there was every possibility of a summit between Mr Vajpayee and Gen. Musharraf after Ramadan in New Delhi if the Indian Government’s unilateral ceasefire in J&K holds and the Pak military responds positively to it. He added that in that case, the Indo-Pakistani bilateral negotiations could--run simultaneously with Indo-Kashmir talks. Ijaz sought to “reconcile” conditionalities put by India and Pakistan. He said that “in making peace, it is essential to find face-saving mechanisms for all parties to come to the table ready for the tough task of making concessions aimed at a permanent solution”. Ijaz claimed, “If General Musharraf supports a Valley-wide ceasefire, which is glaringly easy to do since the winter snows are coming soon, cross-border conditionalities disappear in Delhi”. He, however, hastened to add that the key to Pakistani involvement in the Kashmir issue on a tripartite basis was the Kashmiri himself. “If Salahuddin, who heads the militant group Hizbul Mujahideen and Yasin Malik of JKLF want Pakistan at the table, India will agree,” he added. On Pakistan’s repeated assertion of tripartite talks on Kashmir, Ijaz said it demonstrated a complete lack of understanding by Islamabad of its own stated position”.

Indian Position

Mansoor claimed that GoI was fully supporting his efforts for permanent solution to Kashmir problem. He said the grave risk that Mr Vajpayee ran now was how long the Indian public could withstand the humiliation of attacks on its Army during the ceasefire. He added in his recent conversation with strategic planners in New Delhi, he sensed “a fundamental commitment to find peace, no matter the cost”. Ijaz said he believed, “If India is prepared to bleed through what many now believe is a pointless guerrilla war, they may be equally willing to bleed the same amount for peace--a strategy that will clearly pay greater dividends”.

Pak Response

Pakistan reciprocated with a gesture to observe “maximum restraint in border to strengthen and stabilise the ceasefire”. It followed a three-week lull on LoC. The Pakistani response came three days after a financially bankrupt Pakistan received the first disbursement of an IMF loan. Of a total of $538 million sanctioned by the IMF, $200 million was released in the last week of November. Pakistan had also to address the problem of rescheduling the debt by the end of 2000. By linking restraint on LoC to IMF loan, Pakistan was making a virtue out of necessity.

Ijaz Praises Musharraf

Reacting to this in a commentary titled “Peace Momentum in Kashmir”, in Los Angeles Times (December 9), Ijaz lavished praises on General Musharraf. He noted, “this decision could pay the way for a longer term ceasefire in Kashmir valley, lay ground for a trilateral summit between India, Pakistan and militant leaders in next month.” He praised General Musharraf for spending “considerable time in bringing hawks (in Military Intelligence) on board the peace train or moving them off the tracks”. Ijaz claimed that he has received assurance from the Indian leadership that Islamabad could eventually be involved in a dialogue to resolve the Kashmir dispute, if the militant leaders insisted on it. He also hinted that 596 million dollar aid from IMF to Pakistan was okayed after seeking commitment from General Musharraf to commit Pakistan to peace process”.

Referring to the implications of Pakistan’s restraint at LoC, Ijaz noted, “Islamabad’s response demonstrates the fusing of whatever fractures may have existed within the establishment over the question of how to respond to the Indian cease-fire offer. It seems that General Musharraf had controlled his hawks by either moving them out of the way or persuading them that limited compromise on terms for talks with Delhi is in Pakistan’s greater interest”.

Ijaz, however, hastened to add that Pakistan had very little time left to respond and General Musharraf had no control over the national security affairs or over the militant groups. He told the Friday Times (December 1) that the situation in Pakistan was deteriorating and Pakistan faces the threat of becoming “dysfunctional”. He maintained, “Pakistan was on the edge of a precipice facing economic bankruptcy and political disintegration simultaneously. It has a military within which the hawks and doves are fiercely competing to set the national agenda, often at conflict with one another’s objectives. The question to be asked is at what point do those who are entrusted with ensuring the life and longevity of the country find ‘Jihad’ a counterproductive strategy to ensuring national security”

American pressures

On December 4, State Spokesman, Richard Boucher called for resumption of Indo-Pak dialogue. Describing Pakistani offer of maximum restrain as a “positive development”, he said, “we have strongly favoured a resumption of dialogue between India and Pakistan and our belief that India, Pakistan and all residents of Kashmir region have to be part of the solution”. A few days later Michael Krepon, Head of Henry Stimson Centre, a US Think Tank involved on Kashmir, visited Srinagar as emissary of President Clinton. He had detailed parleys with Fazl Haq Qureshi and Musadiq Adil, the separatist leaders aligned to Majid Dar’s faction. In Jammu, Dr Abdullah went on record saying that there was US conspiracy to divide J&K and that final settlement would be around LoC. US establishment continued to maintain pressure on India and Pakistan. General Henry H. Shelton, Chairman of US Joint Chiefs of Staff, in an address to the National Press  stated that South Asia’s future may be decided on the ‘high frontiers’ of long-pending Kashmir dispute between India and Pakistan. On December 13, US threatened to brand Lashkar-e-Toiba as a terrorist outfit.

Ijaz Opens Cards

Subsequently what Mansoor Ijaz told Pakistan media is significant. He said India’s offer to start the long march was genuine and it was dead sincere about peace in South Asia. He added Pakistan was destroying its economy and the fabric of society by pursuing the “misguided concept of holy wars”.

Ijaz said he disagreed that J&K was India’s internal matter. He alleged that Delhi has always sought to marginalise Pakistan, but the Indian policy makers realise that there is no way to circumvent Islamabad. He said that India has to give “deep concessions” to find a comprehensive solution to the Kashmir problem. Mansoor Ijaz demanded that Hurriyat leaders be allowed to visit Pakistan and said, “this will have the effect of isolating mercenaries”. He claimed that even Salahuddin had contempt for “overly violent behaviour of paid mercenaries”, in his midst. Contrary to Ijaz’s claim, Salahuddin has been using more extremist language against India. He recently threatened to extend the subversive war beyond the Himalayan borders.

Nationalist Offensive

By the end of February, the dangerous implications of “Peace Diplomacy” pursued by GoI were clear. There was total deterioration of ground-level situation in J&K and terrorist groups were hitting targets outside J&K as well. Number of Fidayeen attacks by Jehadi groups increased appreciably. Far from isolating the hardline faction in Hurriyat, Syed Ali Shah Geelani emerged as the rallying point for all the terrorist groups and the separatist sentiment in Kashmir valley. Pakistan also failed to reciprocate beyond limited initial gestures. America while expressing its inability to rein in Pakistan over its brazen support to cross-border terrorism, continued to put pressure on India to resume dialogue with Pakistan. It also maintained its diplomatic support to Kashmiri separatist leaders.

The External Affairs Ministry, Home Ministry and Security Forces establishment now openly questioned the wisdom of pursuing the dangerous peace diplomacy, being pursued by PMO.

Mr LK Advani, the Union Home Minister said passports would be issued to only those APHC leaders whom Union government Considered appropriate. The External Affairs Minister, Mr Jaswant Singh supported Mr Advani and said APHC leaders’ visit would amount to according legitimacy to Hurriyat as representative of people of state. He added it would also mean that the trilateral negotiations were acceptable to India-which would imply reversal of a long-standing policy on Kashmir. Mr Jaswant Singh also went on record voicing serious opposition to tripartite talks, and autonomy. He said accession of Kashmir to India was irrevocable. On autonomy to J&K, he added it could open pandora’s box for a country with rich religious and ethnic diversity.

The assessments of Intelligence Bureau, Home Ministry, J&K government and security forces’, as reported in the media, ran counter to the claims made by supporters of ceasefire in PMO. They argued that terrorists were using it to consolidate their position. Even Brijesh Mishra, otherwise an advocate of extending ceasefire in the meeting of cabinet committee on security (January 22), expressed alarm at turn of events. Home Minister Advani said there was not much change in Kashmir valley except cessation of indiscriminate firing along LoC. He added that Pakistan was not exercising required level of control over military who continued to target security forces and sensitive installations and infiltration in Jammu had also shown an upward trend. Advani told reporters that there was a view in the government that security forces be allowed to resume counter-insurgency operations.

Pot Calling the Kettle Black

Having successfully derailed the initiatives of security forces in J&K, allowing Jehadi groups to consolidate for new offensive in summer, Mansoor now sought to put the blame for failure of his ‘Kashmir initiative’ on India itself. Sensing that larger sections of Indian establishment were seeing through his dangerous diplomacy, he managed to find ed-page space in the Times of India. He wrote, “Formulas for moving forward have been constructed and largely agreed upon. But dangerous signs have appeared in the latest extension move which could reduce a well-intentioned peace effort to rubble because of unnecessary obfuscation in New Delhi.”

Ijaz now demanded that India must ‘Involve the Islamist’s (Jamaat Islami in Pakistan) in peace process and allow Syed Ali Shah Geelani to visit Pakistan as part of Hurriyat delegation. “Unlocking Jamaat’s door and getting its hard-liners to the peace table was better than getting Mr Vajpayee and General Musharraf in the same room together,” he suggested to GoI. Ijaz claims he nearly worked out an acceptable formula between Jamaat hard-liners in Pakistan and a senior Indian government official, which incorporated political and religious sensitivities of Jehadists. These related to characterizing the “dispute” in Kashmir and addressing the triangulation problem. If Ijaz is to be believed, “New Delhi failed to respond to the crack in the door Jamaat opened that day”.

Blackmail

Ijaz resorts to his last weapon--blackmail and says if India fails to implement the formula “worked out”, Jamaat could use the ceasefire’s various complications to simply strengthen its grip on power in the Valley and set up the conditions for much more entrenched resistance this summer”. He adds that militant operations would then have a unified political and military command under the remote-controlled guidance of Qazi Hussain Ahmed, and General Musharraf would also take a harder line inside Pakistan.

The Prospect

GoI does not the need the advice of Salman Haiders and Mir Qasims to decide whether it should allow Hurriyat leaders to visit Pakistan or not. Possibly, Sheikh Abdul Aziz, the Hurriyat leader now touring Pakistan has already answered that question. It needs to muster courage to tell Mansoor Ijaz and his American patrons that Ijaz’s “Mission Kashmir”, strikes at the very roots of Indian sovereignty over Kashmir.

By Moti Lal Kemmu

Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah was arrested on 9th August, 1953. There was hartal and near blackout for seven days in Srinagar and other towns of the Valley. On the seventh day, with people indoors, a huge procession came from down-town led by a few Bakshiates shouting slogans-- “Azad Hindustan Zindabad”. Most faces in the procession were identifiable with those who were pro-Sheikh only a few days back. Normalcy returned soon after.

I had passed my graduation the same year. Being jobless, I used to attend all the meetings of the Cultural conference. Nadim Saheb, after return from his China tour was living at Magharmal Bagh. In the discussions ‘the 1953 episode’ was attributed to the imperialistic intrigue. Since the Cultural Conference was an organisation of progressive writers, artists, theatrists, and performing artists, it projected cultural programmes  reflecting unity of all peace-loving Kashmiris and exposing imperialistic manoeuvreing.

Mr Nadim had seen a Chinese Opera--’White Haired Girl’ and was highly impressed by it. He wanted to write similar one in Kashmiri. In a meeting held at his residence and attended by Mohan Lal Aima, Pran Kishore, GR Santosh, Roshan, Pushkar Bhan, Aziz Haroon, etc. and myself he explained the theme of the opera he intended to write. He gave us the legendery background of the Bombur Yambarzal as reflected in some of the verses of Kashmiri poetry of old poets. Yambarzal blossoms in the early spring alongwith Gilatoor. Bombur arrives in summer months and moves from one flower to another in search of Yambarzal which has withered away waiting in the summer months and moves from one flower to another in search of Yambarzal which has withered away, waiting for Bombur. Ultimately Bombur turns blind. In this belief Bombur and Yambarzal never meet. But Nadim’s Opera has an optimistic end.

After conceiving the story line of the Opera, Mr Nadim wanted to compose his poems on the popular folk tune. Only three songs were written keeping in mind such folk tunes but Mr Aima Saheb improvised the tunes and that made these popular musical compositions. Mr Nadim did not write the Opera in one-go. He would give us the scripts of songs one by one. The first song written by him was conceived as a duet, written on a popular tune broadcast over Radio Kashmir, Srinagar, on the poem by Abdul Ahad Azad, “Kazale Karinam Wozale Jamay Mea Nunam Kamdeevan Dil’ sung by Ghulam Mohammad Rah. On stage Nadim’s poem had to be sung by three characters, Gullala, Yambarzal and Maswal. For Gullala, Mr Ghulam Mohd Shah, a top male voice of the times, was selected for the role. Mr Aima Saheb, the Director of the Opera wanted to assign the role of Yambarzal to Miss Zia Durani, a handsome non-Kashmiri speaking enthusiast but the authorities decided the role for Zoona Begum, a popular Chakri singer-dancer.

Rest of the casting was done as follows: Gilatoor--Pran Kishore, Maswal--Omkar Nath, Agarwal-Kemmu, Tekabatani-Girdhari Dass, Irkyoam-Santosh, Bombur-Dwarika Nath Bakaya, Wav-Mohan Lal Aima, Harud-Pushkar Bhan. Excepting Rah, Zoona and Aima Saheb, none was experienced singer but were stage-actors. Perhaps none of us had seen any Opera, yet it was an experiment in pioneering the trend.

Bombur Yambarzal was a symbolic Opera. All the flowers represented Peace Loving Kashmiris. Wav and Harud (Wind and Autumn) represented Imperialistic agencies, dividing people.

There is an Opera house in Bombay, once constructed for presenting Operas for European audiences of Bombay. Now unused. In Europe Opera Houses had two parts, one for musicians, singers-performers and the other for audience. Music is the most important and dominating element of an Opera and for the perfect presentation,  to create emotional impact singers with attractive voices are needed. The performers may not have attractive, slim body shape or full talent to act but good voice and singing are very very essential. There could be more than hundred musicians on the stage playing different instruments with notation on board, playing in total harmony. Desired atmosphere is also created through voice, tunes and symphonic melody in harmony. Even at times, audience listens with rapt attention with closed eyes. During 17-18th centuries, some Indian themes were also tried in Italian Operas such as stories of Sita, Savitri etc.

Mr Mohan Lal Aima, as director and composer of music for the Opera had to work strenuously with majority of amateur singers. Similarly all the musicians and instrumentalists did not know the notation and had to remember the tunes and pieces by intuition. The Opera when produced and performed during Oct.-Nov.-1953 created a stir and the number of audience increased appreciably.

When a song in chorus form in Bombur had to be conceived and written, Nadim Saheb asked for a tune which would be fit, attractive, vigorous and forceful. Many tunes and songs were sung and suggested. Finally, Nadim Saheb liked the Shamas Fakir’s song, “Shuniya Gachithay oas meyoan Oalooy--Amay ashq naran zooloyea” which is sung by popular Chakri singers and each line ends with broken Hay Hay Haay. Nadim wrote Bombro Bombro chorus with simple, forceful words and when set to tune by Mr Aima Saheb every actor and musician congratulated the director. Nadim had changed Hay Hay Hay with Ho Ho Hao commensurate with the word voice-image of last word of the each line. Bombro Bombro is sung in quicker pace than Chakri artiste’s traditional tune, which goes to the credit of Mr Aima Saheb, the first and foremost music composer Kashmir had produced.

This type of tune in Chakri style is called Sahrai. Patrons of Chakri singing must have listened to this type of songs numerous times, where sound like a soofiyana muqam. In this style abrupt pauses with short silences are considered embellishments. In olden days there were no transport facilities. After day’s toil villagers would go home in each others company. While crossing over the Karevas they would sing their favourite songs. While singing against the flow of winds, some impediment would cause pauses while one began to sing. Therefore a longer Ha will get broken into Ha Ha Ha. So this form of folk singing developed and was named Sahrai.

Aima Saheb gave us an improvised tune of Sahrai. When people would come out of Nedous Hotel, after having seen ‘Bombur Yambarzal’ every one would sing and mutter Bombro Bombro. Because of its popularity, it was sung in College entertainment programmes, and on Chakri by Kashmiri women.

The only one Rof song in the opera was also tuned after a popular Rof Tune which has been forgotten now. The song was led by Mr Rah and all other actors acting as flowers used to sing in two rows of Rof formation. Rest of the songs of the Opera were all composed in music by Aima Saheb with his creative effort and ability. Mr Pushkar Bhan maintained comic-satirical mood of the song Hu Hu Hu of Harud on a time beat. Since Aima Saheb acted Toofan himself, he sang the song of Toofan with wind like movements and the words, “Wah Wah Wah Wah Yam Bar Zal” would echo in the Hall.

Every musician has a background of classical semi-classical or folk music which enables him to compose new tunes and melodies. Mohan Lal Aima, as a producer-Composer in Radio Kashmir had done Yeoman’s service to Kashmiri music from 1949 to 1964. Most of his compositions are reported to have been erased from the tapes but the opera Bombur Yambarzal is said to be in tact. This opera was re-produced with some different cast during the time Kreshchov and Bulganian visited Kashmir. In 1964, I produced its shorter version and the shows were presented in Kerala, Tamil Nadu besides Jammu.

Bombur Yambarzal is relevant to present times as well. It is a classical piece for the stage performance. If produced on modern stage with the facilities available to us now, engaging good voices and dancers, it will prove its worth again. But, alas, no-one is interested in our cultural development in and outside Kashmir. It could be re-produced for TV for which  funds are needed.

J&K Academy of Art, Culture and Languages presented Robe of honour to Mr DN Nadim but Mr Aima Saheb was not fortunate enough to receive one for the services he rendered for popularising Kashmiri music, its melodies, composing music for Kashmiri operas, films and Radio features.. Ye he lives in our memory alongwith his compositions and melodies.

By P.K. Kothari

Western analysts attribute Pak involvement in Kashmir to attaining two objectives. One to avenge the defeat in 1971 war. Secondly, Pakistan seeks containment of India through the escalation of Islamist terrorism and subversion.

Through this Pakistan seeks to ensure its enduring centrality in an evolving regional strategic dynamic  in which Pakistan would have otherwise been marginalised if not outrightly ignored. The Pak military has been obsessed with concept of strategic depth. Seeking annexation of Kashmir and making Afghanistan a surrogate country is an extension of this militarized thinking.

To deter and contain India through terrorism and subversion has been a cornerstone of Islamabad’s strategic design that it would be next to impossible for an India pre-occupied with domestic instability and terrorism to launch a war against Pakistan or even react to major provocations.

Elite Endorses Jihadist Mindset:

Mr JN Dixit, the former Indian Foreign Secretary, recently interacted with highest decision-making Pakistani elite in Islamabad. He disclosed that Pakistani academics brazenly justified Taliban’s policies and objectives.  Charge of Taliban involvement in sponsoring cross-border terrorism in J&K and Central Asia was outrightly rejected. Reacting to international censure of Taliban’s domestic policies, the academicians said criticism was ill-informed and based on deliberate misrepresentations. They further argued that the world at large and India in particular was deliberately labelling the intensively spiritual and religious phenomenon of ‘Jihad’ to malign Pakistan. Rise of Pan-Islamic fundamentalism was described as the movement for Islamic religious resurgence in the world. Indian advocacies that Jehad in the religious sense is different from militant separatism and violence was polemically rejected. There was no intense anxiety among the Pakistan elite to restore democracy. Reacting to the internalizing of Jehadi culture by the highest decision-making elite in Pakistan, Mr Dixit remarks, “that such views were expressed by Pakistani academics who have had exposures to foreign universities and media, left one wondering about the vigour of conviction of the orthodoxy that influenced their thought processes”.

Power Disparity:

Pakistan has been able to sustain its subversion in Kashmir because there is broad convergence of views among the elite, the army and the mullahs. Mr Dixit adds, “There seems to be a widespread belief in these circles that India is getting exhausted in Kashmir and that it will not ot be able to hold on to Kashmir for long and therefore political and militant pressure should be continued on India. While there is an awareness about dangers of nuclear confrontation there is a parallel feeling that the threat of such confrontation will become an incremental pressure on India on the Kashmir issue.” Pakistanis are not concerned that the confrontationist policy they are pursuing is becoming economically unsustainable, politically destabilizing and diplomatically damaging. It is because they look at the campaign in Kashmir as a step towards balkanising India. Gen. Musharraf, in his address to the English Speaking Union in Karachi in April 1999, said that even if the Kashmir problem is solved, relations between India and Pakistan would continue to be hostile because Pakistan would continue to be an irritant in India’s ambition to play a global role. Ayaz Amir, the Pakistani columnist argues that the real issue between India and Pakistan is of growing power disparity and the only way Pakistan can counter this is by keeping India embroiled in domestic troubles. If it is Kashmir today, it can be Assam tomorrow. Pakistan only needs to ensure plausible deniability on its actions to avoid set-piece battles while at the same time engaging India in diplomatic niceties.

Jehadi Stakes:

Arif Jamal, an expert on Jehadi groups disagrees with the assessment that the proxy-war in Kashmir has peaked with Jehadi groups looking for a way out. He observes that Jehadi activities will continue inspite of any political settlement between Kashmiri groups and Indian state or between India and Pakistan. In his view Jihadi groups have far too much at stake to put an end to their campaign and even if the Pakistani state wanted it would not succeed. This despite the fact that most of the Jehadi operations are sanctioned with Pak army’s direct approval and Jehadis depend critically on the Pakistan Army for support. The army, and its agencies like the ISI, Intelligence Corps and Military Intelligence have near total control over the activities of Jehadi groups. Terrorist training facilities are all run under army supervision. Access to these facilities is tightly controlled and monitored. Jehadi cadres who disobey army instructions are subjected to brutal interrogation by the intelligence agencies and punished.

Dissecting the relationship between Pak Army and Jehadi groups, Prashant Sareen says, “Apart from training, the army provides crucial logistic support to these groups. The army decides on the kind of weapons to be used.. Probably the only area in which the army is not directly involved is in funding their activities...”. Army does help these groups indirectly by allowing them to raise funds through narcotics smuggling and gun-running.

The influence and effectiveness of Jehadi groups is also determined by the Army. Of late Harkat-ul-Mujahideen was split to raise Al-Badr with predominantly Pakistani cadres. It is reported that the floating of Azhar’s Jaish-e-Mohammad had blessings from the ISI. Kandhar hijacking was directly executed by Pak army for this. A substantial chunk of Harkat-ul-Mujahideen has moved over to JeM. This has been done partly because Harkat’s utility was reduced and it had been bypassing ISI with backing from a section of Taliban.

Mullah-Army Convergence:

This is not to say, that Jehadi groups play subservient role to Pak army. There is a symbiotic relationship between the military and mullahs on the issue of ‘Jihad’. The convergence of interests and growing public support for their activities have cemented this relationship. Hard-liners in Pak army use Jihadi groups to sideline liberals/moderates within Pakistan. By carrying out terrorist outrages in Kashmir, the Jehadists sabotage any reconciliation to serve the interests of hard-liners. The Jehadis serve as effective tool for hard-liners in the army.

Tanzeemul Ikhwan:

At the same time Jehadis are increasing their clout politically, financially and militarily. They are trying to assert. It is because a powerful section in the army has gone over to the Jehadi camp. Fed on Islamist rhetoric, the soldiery and low-rank officers are encouraged to think of themselves as soldiers of Islam. “Hindu” India is an enemy which must be destroyed in the service of Islam. This orientation of the army makes the soldiery identify itself very closely with the objectives of Jehadis. Many soldiers and officers feel that the Jehadis are doing the army’s Job in Kashmir. These sections of army resist any dilution in change over the policy on Kashmir, Afghanistan and nuclear programme.

There is another area where Pak army and Jehadis are closely collaborating i.e. Islamisation/Talibanisation of Pakistan itself. A former soldier Mohd Akram Awan has floated Tanzeemul Ikhwan, a radical Islamist group for this purpose. Its headquarter, Darul Irfan is located in Munra, a small village 90 kms away from Islamabad. Here retired Pakistani army personnel train cadres for a ‘future Islamic state’. The organisation is headed by Col. (retd.) Abdul Qayum, who served as an infantry officer for 32 years.

Mohd Akram Awan recently declared, “we can extend Jehad beyond our boundaries only after we have achieved our objective at home’? Tanzeemul Ikhwan has thousands of followers, majority drawn from retired military officers and soldiers. At its recent convention on December 27 at Munra, thousands of Zealots, including dozens of retd. army officers and hundreds of soldiers, camped in Khaki army tents, when Awan gave a call for storming Islamabad. Tanzeem openly declared its preference for a Taliban-type regime in Pakistan.

Zahid Hussain, the noted Pakistan journalist observes, “what makes the Ikhwan leaders more belligerent and confident is its strong network within the army. Not only does its entire leadership come from among retd. senior army officers, but hundreds of serving officers and soldiers attend the ideological training sessions”. Gen. Hamid Gul, the man who has played a critical role in inducing Jehadi orientation in Pak army observes with satisfaction, “Pakistani army soldiers have always been religious, but now a growing number of officers have turned Islamist”. Gul has been advocating a “soft Islamic revolution”. Pakistani press agrees that the government’s reluctance to curb militancy coupled with the absence of a democratic process provides a very conducive atmosphere for the extremists who are trying to fill the existing political vacuum.

Given these ground realities, the BJP-led NDA govt’s initiative on Kashmir have further emboldened Jehadi-Army hardliner lobby, who feel India is tired on Kashmir.

By Harish Gupta

NEW DELHI, Nov 30: Contrary to reports, the unilateral ceasefire proposal in Jammu and Kashmir by Indian security forces during the month of Ramzan was first mooted by Union Home Minister LK Advani in October last.

Advani, who also heads the Department of Kashmir Affairs told Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee that the second peace initiative was worth risking in view of the suggestions received from various sections of the Valley and outside.

He also informed the Prime Minister that Gandhian and former MP Nirmala Deshpande had come to him with Communist Party of India (Marxist) (CPM) MLA of Jammu and Kashmir Yousuf Tarigami.

They felt that if the Indian government declared unilateral ceasefire in the Valley during the month of Ramzan, it would send right signals, he said.

Nirmala Desphande also informed Advani that before making such a proposal, she had discussed the same with several groups in the Valley. They also felt that sincerity of the Indian government will be further strengthened if this initiative was taken.

It was in this back-drop that Advani took up the issue with Vajpayee. It is learnt that Vajpayee decided to call a meeting of the Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS) for a detailed discussion.

J&K Chief Minister Farooq Abdullah specially flew in here to attend a quiet meeting of the Cabinet Committee on Security.

The Army expressed certain reservations on the unilateral ceasefire. However, after two rounds of talks at various levels in the government, it was decided that the government must go ahead with the second initiative, after last year’s Lahore peace process.

The Cabinet Committee on Security’s resolution was cleverly worded. It said the forces will not take any initiative in the Valley to fight militancy during Ramzan. But they will not hesitate in retaliating.

When contacted, Deshpande confirmed that she visited Advani along with the CPM MLA and the initiative was expected to bring desired results.

Advani confirmed that Desphande had come to him with the proposal and the second peace initiative was taken by the government after detailed discussions at the CCS.

Islamabad had missed the opportunity given in February 1999. “This is the second one,” Advani said.

He told journalists yesterday that, “Militants can do what they want in Kashmir but now I am addressing Pakistan. What Pakistan can do now is to immediately stop infiltration by militants and their training camps as also the supply of weaponry and explosives like RDX to them.”

(Source: Indian Express)

NEW DELHI, Nov 17: Former Foreign Secretary Salman Haider has called for resumption of dialogue with Pakistan besides revival of the ceasefire in the Kashmir valley with the engagement of all parties to find a solution to the issue.

Delivering the keynote address at a seminar on “Towards understanding  the Kashmir crisis” at Jamia Milia Islamia here earlier this week, Mr Haider said, “the mismatch in the present stance of India and Pakistan with regard to dialogue had allowed the violence to continue.”

The former Foreign Secretary said the distinctive Kashmiri culture was under cloud because of the migration of Kashmiri Pandits from the Valley. Arguing that Kashmiris had developed a negative view of both India and Pakistan, he suggested alternative methods for overcoming the alienation of the people.

Insaaf party leader Syed Shahabuddin suggested that the Kashmri valley should be given maximum autonomy short of independence and Pakistan be challenged to share the sovereignty in Kashmir.

Besides autonomy to Kashmir on both sides of the Lime of Control (LoC), Prof Aijaz Ahmed said the LoC could be converted into a “soft” international border. He also talked of joint sovereignty as solution to the issue.

CPI (M) leader Prakash Karat warned that the Kashmri issue could not be taken lightly and observed that the ruling classes in the country never adopted democratic policies for the various nationalities.

Columnist Saeed Naqvi called upon the media on both sides of the border to play a more responsible role instead of serving as “repositories of national interest”.

A host of academics and diplomats presented papers and discussed the issue during the three-day seminar. Vice Chancellor of Jamia Milia Islamia Syed Shahid Mahdi said the Kashmir issue should not be left to the politicians alone and called for the intervention of the academic community in order to find an acceptable solution to the parties involved. (UNI)

(Source: Daily Excelsior)

Centre’s Role:

Intense socialization of Kashmiri Muslims with communal separatist politics over a period of time gradually alienated them from the Indian mainstream. Though this remains the fundamental cause, subsidiary factors at local, regional and international level got mixed up, leading to the emergence of the terrorist uprising.

Recently, frequent rigging of elections and political manipulation have received attention as a factors in alienation of Kashmiris. It has been suggested that in the post-independence period of Kashmiri Muslims have never been able to exercise their political rights freely and elect a government of their choice. For this blame is laid invariably at Centre’s doorstep.

Electoral malpractices in Kashmir cannot be seen in violation from the underdevelopment of India’s democratic institutions as such. India is still evolving as a democratic polity. Kashmiris are as much victims of the political manipulation and electoral malpractices as people in the rest of the country. Though rigging has been a feature of every election in Kashmir, including those held in 1977, it is not true that Kashmiris have been denied a government of their choice. It has always been the local political vested interests, who have been responsible for gigging and political manipulation. Whenever these vested interests became unpopular, they accused the centre of resorting to political manipulation and violating the democratic rights of people. However, Centre cannot absolve itself of the responsibility for not putting enough pressure on the local government in respecting the democratic process and allowing fair play to its political rivals. The result has been that secular-oppositional politics always received a back seat in the Kashmir Valley. Its another dangerous fallout was that Centre was left with no options also. It had to tolerate the blackmail of some Muslim subnationalist outfits, because the only other choice was rabidly secessionist groupings. The Centre never encouraged an alternative to emerge. Though occasionally, the nationalist opinion did stress the importance of constitutional integration, little was done to enthuse Kashmiris by making Kashmir an integral part of Indian democracy. The people of J&K have been subjected to one-party authoritarian rule, with its legitimacy derived from manipulated elections and political manipulation. Opposition parties have not been allowed to develop because of the  intimidation, political bribery and politics of defection. This is turn insulated Kashmiris emotionally and politically from the rest of India.

Local Leadership:

The character of the local political leadership, social psychology of Kashmiris and the constant international intervention has also inhibited the growth of a democratic system in the stater, with competitive politics as its chief virtue. The independence period national leadership committed a grave mistake in believing that Kashmir’s accession to India and its continuance was possible only through Sheikh Abdullah. To quote Stanley Wolpert, Nehru believed Kashmir was his garden and Sheikh Abdullah the only gardener. Partially, the rise of political authoritarianism with Sheikh Abdullah as the supreme leader of Kashmiris could be attributed to this skewed understanding. The question of having an alternate opposition party was anathema to the then political leadership. The country’s civil society and other segments of political opinion also shared this view. The Central government instructed the official and non-official media to build a larger-than life profile of Sheikh Abdullah, which projected him a great secular and a nationalist leader. The former Director of Information, late JN Zutshi is on record having said that he had special instructions from the Central government to do this. Having made this choice, the international intervention in Kashmir in the early years of independence made India more dependent on Sheikh Abdullah.

During these years absolute mandate to the Sheikh Abdullah was linked to Indian success during impending plebiscite and at UN. Indian leadership came to advocate that all pro-India forces should unite under the banner of a single party and recognize Sheikh Abdullah as the undisputed leader. Those who challenged this, were not helping the cause of the nation in Kashmir, was the new sermon to the political rivals of Sheikh Abdullah in Kashmir. Did not Nehru say to Mohiuddin Karra, the star figure of Quit Kashmir Movement (1948) that “Jab Mere Pas Khara Sikka Hai, To Khote Sike Ki Kya Zaroorar Hai”  and opposed his democratic right to oppose the Sheikh-led government and its acts of ommissions and commissions.

Nehru continued to route loyalty of Kashmiri leaders to the country through Sheikh Abdullah. Central government thus came to promote the concept of one leader, one party and one community’s (Kashmiri Sunnis) aspirations. In the “broader national interest”, the aspirations of all minority groups in Kashmir and the people of Jammu and Ladakh were made hostage to the whims and caprices of one party—National Conference, one leader-Sheikh Abdullah and one community—Kashmiri Sunnis. This not only narrowed the options of Centre for consolidating the nationalist forces but also undermined the scope for participatory democracy in the state.

Social Psyche:

Peculiar social psyche of Kashmiris and the historical factors also contributed in shaping the rise of political authoritarianism in Kashmir. The vast Plebeian Society and the absence of a strong middle class among Kashmiri Sunnis made the situation tailor-made for the emergence of a powerful, charismatic leader. Sheikh Abdullah gave a break to the conservative politics of the traditional Muslim leadership comprising land-owning aristocracy and top religious. He appealed to the vast Plebian mass, articulating their secular and communal grievances. Sheikh Abdulah forged links with the merc antile bourgeoisie, the ‘German Khojas’ and the emerging Muslim middle class. He weaned away the second and lower rungs of Kashmiri religious leadership and as life president of the Muslim Auqaf Trust he came to control most of the mosques and Ziarats in Kashmir. By making the sacred shrine of Hazratbal in Srinagar as his platform, Sheikh Abdullah symbolized political and religious leadership of Kashmiri Sunnis. This approach permitted little dissent and made secularization as the code of internal political behaviour an impossible task to fulfill. Kashmiris began looking to Sheikh Abdullah as their King-emperor. In an excellent study titled, “The Rise of authoritarianism in Peripheral Societies”, (Monthly Review Press), Clive Thomas has lucidly delineated factors leading to the emergence of authoritariansim e.g. Peronism in Latin America. This situation has a clear parallel in Kashmir.

Committed Bureaucracy:

Describing the scenario during the early years, Mr Balraj Puri comments, “Kashmir thus became an monolithic society led by an authoritarian leader who did not tolerate the slightest dissent. When Abdullah took over as the Head of the Emergency Administration, on 27 October, 1947, the Maharaja’s administration had almost completely broken down. His party filled the administrative vacuum. The National Conference workers not only manned the 23-member Emergency Council but were also appointed government officials. Many government officials also held positions in the party. The Abdullah administration functioned arbitrarily and without any defined constitutional powers-party workers assumed the de-facto authority to arrest and punish whoever they held guilty. With unchecked political power and controlled administration, Abdullah was able to further regiment all aspects of Kashmiri life”. The emergence of a committed bureaucracy was ill-suited to the growth of healthy competitive politics.

With sword of plebiscite hanging over their head, Indian leaders gave Sheikh Abdullah total license to butcher democracy in Kashmir. The seeds of a monolithic political system were sown, when in the Constituent Assembly in 1951, the National Conference “Won” all the 75 seats. In the Valley, no candidate was allowed to file a nomination paper, while the nomination papers of Praja Parishad candidates in Jammu province were rejected of filmsy grounds. The symbolic contest took place for only two seats. This drew lot of protestations, but Nehru maintained that nothing should be done to weaken Sheikh Abdullah.

Rise of Praetorian Guard:

Sheikh Abdullah’s alleged hobnobbing with Anglo-American powers, culminating in his dismissal in August 1953 hampered the growth of oppositional politics further. India now needed a political leader in Kashmir, who would not only fight the international intrigue but also the separatist politics of Sheikh Abdullah. How could this be accomplished without giving total mandate of the nation to the new political leader? Faced with external and internal destabilization, the Congress leaders declared that democracy and morality in Kashmir could wait.. Instead of considering democracy as complimentary to the national interest, it was counter-posed to it. Anti-government and anti-India sentiments became synonymous for the leadership of the country. Bakshi Ghulam Mohd used most unscrupulous methods to throttle the still fledgling democracy. He raised praetorian Guard (29-15) to physically intimidate the political opponents of his regime. Leaders of national stature like Ashoka Mehta were physically assaulted when he had gone to Srinagar to inaugurate a branch of PSP in November, 1954. Instead of censuring Bakshi regime for this, Nehru accused the PSP of “joining hands with the enemies of the country—in fact more than enemies of the country”. Bakshi also resorted to political bribery to neutralize his opponents.

The new political correctness was that challenging the fairness of the elections or insisting on their fairness was unpatriotic. In the assembly elections of 1957 and 1962, held under Bakshi regime, new records in electoral malpractices were set. The contest extended to 32 seats in 1957 and 41 in 1962, but this was mostly confined to the Jammu region. In the 1962 assembly elections only five seats out of 43 in the Valley were contested. Others couldn’t file nominations or had to withdraw at one stage or the other.

The “uncontested elections” earned bad reputation for Indian internationally. At the behest of Nehru, PSP decided to enter the fray in 1962. Such was the terror generated by Bakshi regime that PSP had to import a candidate from Jammu for a symbolic contest in Srinagar. Mr Om Prakash Saraf, who stood on PSP ticket from Amirakadal was thrashed physically, while Thakur Devi Dass, candidate from Banihal, was attacked when he was addressing a meeting, Mr Bahauddin, the DNC candidate from Khanyar was waylaid and mercilessly beaten near the court premises on the nomination day. His companions, including his proposer were kidnapped and were released in bare condition 14 miles away (Indian Express Feb. 9, 1962). The atmosphere of fear that prevailed would be obvious from two simple indicators. Firstly, even those who voted for the opposition carried the identity slips issued by the National Conference, and secondly not a single postal ballot was cast against it. The permit system, for plying vehicles, was used exclusively to reward party men and purchase opponents. Those government servants who failed to meet the political requirements of the local National Conference bosses were penalized.

When votes were counted, opposition candidates of Poonch and their agents were under detention, while the Darhal opposition candidate had no information about the place and date of counting. Ballot boxes in most of the cases, were without seals and locks. In Jammu city alone, 10,000 objections were filed on the electoral rolls.

Bakshi’s corrupt policies and political repression against his rivals alienated an important section of his party. GM Sadiq, No: 2 in Bakshi cabinet left the party and floated Democratic National Conference in 1957. The new party pleaded for a clean government and greater constitutional integration with India. The historic resolution passed at DNC Conference in Vinayak Bazar, Jammu in 1958 is a landmark in Indian nation-building process. Never before Kashmiri political leadership has been so articulate in espousing secular nation-building in Kashmir as during this conference. “The new party inspired new political talent, and made its own contribution towards the secularization and democratization of the politics of the state by exposing the corrupt and repressive acts of the Bakshi regime,” observes a political commentator. The leadership and the cadre of DNC toured the length and breadth of Kashmir Valley, raising awareness of people against the secessionist politics of Plebiscite Front and the corrupt practices of Bakshi regime. At one time DNC had a cadre strength of one thousand. So unnerved was the Plebiscite Front led by Sheikh Abdullah that they described DNC as “White Dogs” and Bakshi’s NC as “Black Dogs”. A number of foreign journalists who visited Kashmir around this time observed that “the Bakshi-Sadiq rift had made a considerable dent in the formidable following of the Plebiscite Front”.

National Press Role:

The so-called national press and the country’s political leadership, which has invariable undermined the long-term nationalist interests in Kashmir read their own meanings in Bakshi-Sadiq rift. They felt alarmed over what they called “—disunity in the ranks of the nationalist forces”. Nehru who visited, Srinagar said at Tourist Centre that formation of DNC was a 110 percent mistake. He used his influence over CPI leadership to disown DNC. The glimmer of hope that appeared in the form of DNC was snuffed out in 1960 and it was pressurized to reunite with the parent organisation. The event was hailed as the triumph of national interest. How distanced the national press has always been from the ground realities and the nation’s stakes in Kashmir can be assessed from its comments in the wake of merging of DNC with its parent organisation. The Hindu argued that “a stray victory of there DNC in the coming elections would have been interpreted as demonstration of anti-India feeling (3 November, 1960). The Indian Express sermonized that the “function of an opposition party can be little more than academic in a state whose main task is to fight economic backwardness and age-old poverty” (3 November, 1960). Security was quoted as the ground for justifying one party system in Kashmir by The Hindustan Times (30 November, 1960). The Hindustan Times went a step ahead and commented that those who did not hail the dissolution of the DNC were “fostering narrow, parochial and fissiparous tendencies” (7 December, 1960).

In mid-sixties when Bakshi began playing the role of secular opposition, the ‘nationalist lobby’ again mounted pressure to “create unity among the ranks of nationalist forces”. Bakshi, despite rigging was elected to Lok Sabha from Srinagar and his eight partymen were elected to the State Assembly from the Valley. Late Indira Gandhi, who campaigned against Bakshi, publicly stated at an election meeting that there was no need for an opposition party in Kashmir, expressing fears that the opposition Kashmir was likely to go astray. The state administration geared up and openly said that Bakshi had to be defeated in the national interest. Pressure mounted on Bakshi to wind up his outfit and he was readmitted into Congress. The entire national press welcomed the event as a “consolidation of the nationalist forces”.

Sadiq regime also continued the practice started by Sheikh Abdullah and Bakshi Ghulam Mohd. In 1967 elections Bakshi was in opposition. There was large scale rejection of the nomination papers of his party, detection of duplicate votes and other malpractices. When the issue of duplicate ballot papers was brought to the attention of the Chief Education Commissioner, K Sundaram, he argued that Bakshi also used to do the same and threatened to take action against those who raised the issue. The message the people of Kashmir got was that even in limited and safe choices, fair play in electoral contest was not possible.

Pakistan’s defeating 1971 Indo-Pak war made Sheikh Abdullah try the option of sharing political power. His senior workers had already formed (Khariji Mahaz) and wanted to participate in the forthcoming assembly election. Sadiq regime, which represented urban Kashmiri Sunni wanted to align with GM Karra (Political Conference) and Sheikh Abdullah’s Plebiscite Front to defeat the rural lobby led by Mir Qasim. The latter had already formalized a secret alliance with Jamat Islami. Mir Qasim, the new chief minister extended Political Conference and Plebiscite Front leaders from the J&K State. The members of the two secessionist organisations, who wanted to joint the political mainstream were thus debarred from taking part in elections. With Mir Qasim’s patronage Jamaat Islami won five seats. For the first time in State’s political history constitutional recognition and political legitimacy was conferred on Jamaat Islami. Centre, recently has, as per media reports, enlisted services of Mr Qasim, to re-establish “dialogue with Hurriyat”.

Another dark day in the democracy in the state, was when flouting all democratic norms Sheikh Abdullah was installed as the Chief Minister of J&K State, through back-door in 1975.

JAMMU, Apr 30

Hurriyat retracts from Dialogue:

Prof Ghani Bhat, Chairman of Hurriyat Conference, after the conclusion of the special session convened for deliberating Centre’s offer for talks, told reporters that Hurriyat has rejected the offer. He said that Hurriyat will enter into dialogue only if its leaders were allowed to Pakistan and was accepted as the only representative body in J&K. Bhat demanded plebiscite in state and said people in Jammu and Ladakh would submit to the decision of the majority. He claimed, “we even represent Farooq Abdullah”.

Hurriyat decision followed a meeting between Pakistan High Commissioner and Syed Ali Shah Geelani in New Delhi. A day before Geelani, while speaking at the convention of the Students Islamic Movement of India had debunked the offer. Dissenting voices, if any, were silenced when there was a grenade attack on APHC headquarters at Raj Bagh on April 23. At the time of attack Hurriyat’s general council session was in progress. Hizb supremo Syed Salahuddin had also warned Hurriyat leaders to fall in line by issuing a statement, asking them to keep in mind the “wishes” of the people of the state while “devising a response to New Delhi’s talks offer”.

The Centre had already been embarrassed by the conduct of Sheikh Abdul Aziz’s visit to Pakistan. ISI in order to make the visit of Hurriyat leader a major event arranged a big crowd at the airport and ensured the presence of U.S. Counsul also. Aziz made theatrical gestures--Kissing the Pakistani soil and called for the accession of J&K to Pakistan. The former ISI chief and an Islamist hardliner, General Hamid Gul hosted a party in honour of the visiting Hurriyat leader. Intriguingly, Pakistan had earlier rejected his appeal for grant of visa. The presence of U.S. Counsul has also been interpreted in political circles as open interference by U.S. in India’s internal affairs.

Role of Hizb:

Vajpayee, while announcing unilateral ceasefire had hinted that the terrorist outfit Hizbul Mujahideen had been neutralized. Since every other outfit had rejected the ceasefire gesture, neutralised Hizb group would help in bringing down the violence. There is hard evidence which points that Centre’s claims on having neutralised Hizb were untrue. Since ceasefire came into force, more than a score of attacks have been staged by Majid Dar’s Hizb. Nearly fifty cadres of Hizb have been killed in retaliatory action by the security forces. Recently intelligence and security agencies have found evidence that Hizbul Mujahideen was involved in subversive acts outside J&K and was organising training camps for Muslims in cities like Agra, Aligarh, Kanpur and Shahjahanpur. Police also linked Hizbul Mujahideen to the abortive attempt to bomb North Block.

If even Hizb was not reciprocating the ceasefire gesture, against whom was this ceasefire aimed at? Home Minister sprang a surprise in Lok Sabha on February 17 by stating that there was no ceasefire in Kashmir but only non-initiation of combat operations against terrorists. “We did not use the word ceasefire because such a term implies reaching an understanding with the other side,” he added.

Pak rejects peace diplomacy:

How Pakistan has responded to India’s ceasefire diplomacy has been answered by the annual report of the Ministry of External Affairs (March, 2001). It says that Pakistan has stepped up its sponsoring of cross-border terrorism in J&K and other parts of India by “qualitative improvement in weapons, communication equipment and training given to terrorist groups such as Jaish-e-Muhammed, Lashkar-e-Toiba and Harkat-ul-Mujahideen. It also accused it of pursuing its negative policy, specially manifested in its sponsorship of cross-border terrorism and its vicious anti-India propaganda. There has also been increased support by Islamabad to infiltration attempts by Pakistan--based terrorist groups. The report maintained that the Prime Minister’s Ramazan ceasefire announcement was “sought to be eroded through on escalation of violence” and cited attacks on Red Fort, Srinagar Airport, Dr Abdullah and threats to attack the office of the Prime Minister. Describing Pak’s announcement of “maximum restraint” and “troop withdrawal” as self-serving measures which did not address India’s concerns relating to cross-border terrorism sponsored by Pakistan. It added Pakistan “continues to support cross-border infiltration and terrorist operations in India”. The report also referred to the incitement of Sikh pilgrims visiting Pakistan by ISI.

Intelligence agencies also unearthed a conspiracy recently, by Lashkar-e-Toiba to once again storm the Red Fort. In a major breakthrough on April 18, the STF of U.P. Police gunned down 3 Pak militants affiliated to Jaish-e-Mohammed. Referring to Pakistan’s patronage of sponsoring terrorism, The Friday Times (April 8), the Pakistani weekly wrote that Pakistan was making no attempts to rein ultras. It added that “irresponsible statements by various (militant) groups have served to deprive Pakistan of the element of plausible deniability”.

Ceasefire diplomacy loses credibility:

Cease-fire diplomacy has failed in its primary objective of engaging terrorist groups, Hurriyat and Pakistan. It has derailed the major security initiatives undertaken by security forces after the abortive July ceasefire. Security situation has worsened all over in J&K. Violence graph has gone up four-fold. In the 139 days since ceasefire the fidayeen attacks have registered six times increase (17:3). The civilian (384:358) and security forces (200:171) killings show an upward trend. Killings of political workers have gone up three times (36:11). The terrorists have been targeting police personnel. In the past four months twent nine of them were killed. In the same period prior to ceasefire there were only six killings. The militants’ killings have gone down by 45 percent from 734 to 387 out of these more than 160 militants (97 Lashkar) were killed in retaliatory action. A comparison with 1999-2000 also indicates level of deterioration in situation on ground. Between November 28, 1999 and March 29, 2000 there were only 257 incidents of violence. This year, in same period there were 1156 incidents.

Summing up the ground situation in Kashmir, the noted security expert Mr Brahma Chellaney writes, “India’s hold over Kashmir has never looked more tenuous than today. India’s unity, territorial integrity and decision-making freedom are under pressure. The four ‘K’s--Kargil, Kandhar, Kashmir and now kickbacks--have earned Vajpayee an unenviable place in history...Kashmir is an unending story of blunders under Vajpayee--all in the name of people, and all undermining India’s hold over the Valley. For the first time, the army is at the receiving end in Kashmir. If the policies since the Lahore Declaration are repeated for another two years, India will certainly hand the Jehadies a victory on Kashmir.

Mr P.S. Jha another columnist observes, “Despite killing the top commander of LeT, Salahuddin Ayubi, the Vajpayee government is on the verge of achieving the near impossible. it has all but delivered the Kashmir movement for self-determination into the hands of the Lashkar”.

Terrorists’ Regroup:

Terrorist have utilised the cessation of combat operations and thinning of troops by government to regroup and re-enter the urban areas. Militancy has now become an overground phenomenon. On December 22, the armed activists of Hizb addressed an open press conference outside Jama Masjid after Friday prayers. They fired shots in the air and shouted pro-Pak slogans. Since then the armed activists of Hizb and Lashkar have regularly appeared in public, often at Friday prayers’ gatherings.

All terrorists groups are now operating in co-ordination. Lashkar and Jaish groups have entrenched themselves in Srinagar city, where even Al-Umar, Jamiat-ul-Mujahideen and J&K Islamic Front have resurfaced. Terrorists have been operating in Bollywood style in the summer capital. The Police recently unearthed a network of hitmen. As per police a group of 22 hitmen had been organised to eliminate civilian and Police targets in Srinagar. The hitmen, mostly surrendered and released militants had fanned out in subgroups of two or three each. Hitmen, as per these reports were being paid Rs 1000 for hitting a civilian target and double the amount for killing a policemen or soldier. These hitman have been moving on two-wheelers, hitting the target and escaping in Bollywood style. Reports indicating that renegade militants were joining back militant ranks appeared last month. Both money and muscle power/threats were being employed by ISI to enlist them. Renegades were being preferred because they were well-trained in handling of sophisticated weapons and explosives.

Militant Ranks Swell:

As a result of ceasefire, there has been sudden swell in the ranks of militants, both local and foreign mercenaries. There is increase in concentration of foreign mercenaries in Kokernag--Daksum, Traal, Bandipore, Tang Marg and Ganderbal-Safapur-Kangan belts. Locals observe that never before during the past ten years have they seen mercenaries in such numbers. The stoppage of night patrolling has allowed the local people to buy peace with ultras. In Lolab, Handwara, Rajawar and upper parts of Kishtwar, Poonch, Rajouri it is the writ of the militants which runs. Many locals are joining the militancy. Earlier the parents were resisting and many even dared to refuse food and shelter to militants. With no security cover, these people have become vulnerable. Militants have created new hideouts by constructing bunkers and trenches even at higher attitudes.

Of late, ISI has concentrated on recruiting locals in large numbers. Foreign mercenaries are operating as many as 36 training camps in different parts of J&K for imparting religious indoctrination and armed training to local youth. Many of foreign mercenaries operating in the state have acquired passports to pass as bonafide visitors. An intelligence agency in March identified seven Pak nationals, who have been installed in some mosques as preachers. These Moulvis who sneaked in recently, have been assigned the task of indoctrinating local youth to join Jehadi campaign.

There has also been mushroom growth of Madrassas in Kashmir and hilly belts of Jammu province during the past few months. Here under the garb of religious education youths were being motivated to join the armed struggle against India. Many parents, whose wards have crossed over to PoK, have managed to seek passports and visited Pakistan.

Recently six groups of militants infiltrated into J&K. Of these, three belonged to Lashkar, two to Hizb and one to Al Badr. These groups, as per official sources, carried bags full of arms and ammunition. More than 1000 militants, most of them foreign mercenaries, have been brought to the launching pads in Kupwara, Uri, Bandipore, Poonch and Rajouri sectors to infiltrate into the state, reports added. Alarmed over high rate of infiltration a senior military operations general flew in to convey South Block’s concern to the then 16 Corps commander, Lt Gen. A.S. Khanna. Ironically Lt. Gen .Khanna had claimed on January 15 that jawans’ hard work had restored normalcy in the state and, “it is now for the politicians and diplomats to do rest of the job”.

Ferocity in Attacks:

The ferocity in the fidayeen attacks has also increased and every wing of security forces is being attack. The fidayeen members have escaped after inflicting serious damage on personnel of security forces. The prolonged encounters they engage in have alarmed security forces. The purpose who lower down the moral of the jawans and reduce the credibility of the security forces in civilian population. The other objective is to show that the army was battle-filmed and cassettes are then shown to motivate people to join fidayeen squads. As per official reports, presently there are 160 fidayeen members operating in the state.

Upgradation:

Terrorists have also upgraded communications system and weaponry. They are using e-mail to send and receive instructions/information to and from their patrons across the border. Trained experts work under assumed names and devise coded messages, which can be understood only by the militants or separatists familiar with the coded language. Terrorists use purely religious vocabulary or commercial terms making the task of security officials frustrating. The Minister of State for Home, Mr V. Rao informed Rajya Sabha on December 20 that militants were in possession of Stinger missiles, and attacks on aircrafts/helicopters could not be ruled out.

Pro-India Elements:

In the early months after ceasefire the terrorists have been eliminating sources of the security forces to demolish the intelligence network of government and tilt the balance of terror. Death rate of sources has tripled since ceasefire. To instil terror in the population unsympathetic to them, militants have been inflicting barbarities reminiscent of medieval ages. In scores of cases victims have been slaughtered and burnt alive. In many cases limbs like tongues, ears, noses, hands and legs have been chopped off and eyes gouged out. Lady SPOs are the latest targets of terrorists. Till March 21 nearly three hundred pro-India elements have been gunned down by the militants. On March 13, Lashkar-e-Toiba threatened to execute those who took up contract work for MES or ASC wings of the army.

With terrorists on the prowl, cadres of the mainstream organisations have been coerced into submission. On February, 75 year old Wali Mohd, NC activist was dragged out of his home in Sadal Magam and executed infront of members of his family. Conducting Panchayat elections in worsening security scenario made NC workers more vulnerable. Eight people, who had filed nomination papers or had taken office in States since aborted local body elections have been shot dead. More and more NC men have been issuing paid ads or Ishtehar-e-Latalukat in local dailies, disowning any association with elections or NC. At least five hundred NC activists have so far announced their resignation from the party. Prior to ceasefire dozens of NC activists would come to occupy the position of a Block President killed by militants. This kind of fear had earlier been witnessed only in 1989-90.

Pro-Pak Euphoria:

What has caused serious concern in security circles is that local protests have been staged against the killings of Pak nationals. More than six-thousand people protested over the “delay” in handing over the dead bodies of six Lashkar terrorists killed in abortive attack on Srinagar Airport on January 16. It is a wholly new development. Locals also accompanied a Lashkar squad when it attacked PCR in Srinagar. There have been as many as 32 major public protests in two months, a phenomenon not seen during the past few years.

Ceasefire has allowed terrorists and their overgound sympathisers to assert their influence over civil society once again. The general impression is India has succumbed to international pressure and is fatigued and people believe Indian capitulation is imminent. Geelani has emerged as the rallying point of the separatist sentiment and the terrorist groups. His supporters have been yelling during public protests, “Lashkar se nataa kya, la illaha illalla’ and ‘Jeeway Jeweway Pakistan”, Geelani has been projecting himself, of late, more as member of Saudi-Arabia based world Islamic League, rather than as that of Hurriyat.

Minority Killings:

The terrorists have been idulging in brutal atrocities against the Hindu community. On April 22 in village Hicor in Kishtwar area, two women Vargi D/o Paras Ram and Hardevi wife of Prem Nath had gone to collect firewood in the forest. Two armed militants after overpowering them outraged their modesty. Later one of the victims was hanged to death from the tree and threw away the other from the mountain after pumping bullet in her body.

Nationalist Concern:

There is growing concern in the country that ceasefire decision is pushing country to a dead end. Mr G. Parthasarthy said, “these Jehadis have also utilized the moratorium on offensive operations to muster local support and threaten and intimidate the human assets of the security forces’. Manoj Joshi, who specialises on defence affairs commented, “The bigger problem seems to be the mindset of the military and police leadership, which does not apply its mind to the professional consequences of the politico-administrative decisions, it endorses. In the case of the ceasefire, it is apparent that no one thought through all the consequences of asking the Army and police to halt combat operations and their checking operations on the highways. This has enabled the militants to move around freely across the state, while the army remains in camps. Before putting the Army units in such an invidious position, the authorities should have provided some quick-fixes by way of preparing these camps as defensive redoubts.”

The Prospect:

With formation commanders also expressing apprehension on continuing the ceasefire and not countering Jehadi agenda through immediate steps, review of Kashmir situation has started in South Block. As per reports, in one of the meetings Army in J&K has got nod for surgical strikes against Lashkar and Jaish groups on the basis of hard intelligence.

At the beginning also the proponents of ceasefire had roughshod the nationalist concern that unilateral cessation of operations would undermine the security apparatus and bring in no real or diplomatic dividends in short to medium-term. Ceasefire protagonists had drawn unrealistic analogies with Oslo process without looking at what happened to all the diplomatic agreements on the ground. All eyes are now focussed to how Vajpayee government responds to extending the ceasefire, which ends later this month.

KS Correspondent

POONCH, Apr 24: The 10 years old militancy has now begun to cast its evil shadow over the functioning of Border Road Organisation (BRO) in the Jammu region. This became apparent when the road construction and maintenance activities on Surnakote--Poonch road had to be suspended recently due to sustained terror campaign unleashed by foreign mercenaries against 2000 unarmed local casual labourers employed in this project.

“Till last year the threats were confined to occasional incidents of intimidation and confrontation by foreign militants, but in the past three months there have been serious threats of physical  elimination of workers coupled with attempts to blow up isolated culverts and construction equipment lying unattended at the work sites,” stated a labourer hailing from a neighbouring village. Loca sources have revealed that the violent incidents perpetuated by foreign militants, in the past few months are due to the simmering discord which has surfaced between the local and foreign militants over sensitive issues affecting the local population.

Targeting an organisation like BRO by foreign militants is understandable as it is one of those premiere institutions which is not only involved in the maintenance and upkeep of thousands of Kms of roads in the Jammu region, but also contribute significantly to the socio-economic upliftment of the remote and inaccessible areas by utilisation of local resources and employment of thousands of local labourers.

“BRO employ 9000 to 10000 local labourers and spends upwards of Rs 5 to 6 crores each month on its various undertakings like maintenance of roads, construction of new roads/bridges and snow removal operations in winter months in the Jammu region alone: actions which are not in consonance with the ideology of militant groups; otherwise manifested through acts of wanton destruction of property, killing of innocent civilians and ensuring untold miseries to the local population by preventing infrastructural development by them”, said an officer on the condition of anonymity.

Whatever may be propagated reasons for their actions, it is apparent that these foreign militants or hired mercenaries have neither any sympathy for the poverty ridden poor labourers nor any care for the sentiments of the local population. By these acts they are simply ensuring their aim of taking Jammu region back to the medieval times.

KS Correspondent

JAMMU: The Rashtriya Swayam Sewak Sangh today declared that conditions were conducive for an Indo-Pak dialogue to resolve all contentious issues, including Kashmir.

He indicated that the conversion of the Line of Control (LoC) into the international border could form basis for the dialogue between the two countries.

RSS spokesperson M.G. Vaidya told newspersons in Jammu on Sunday that the “borders have become silent and these are sufficient conditions for resuming the dialogue with Pakistan”. He saw no change in the level of militant violence after the ceasefire announcement.

Though he maintained that the RSS advocated taking back the portion of Jammu and Kashmir under control of Pakistan, “the ground realities and the US proposal indicated that talks may be on the basis of conversion of LoC into international border.

Asked whether the RSS would accept the LoC conversion, Mr Vaidya avoided a direct answer.

He said that the RSS supported dialogue with secessionists. He said that there was no harm in sending All Party Hurriyat Conference leaders to Pakistan.

Mr Vaidya said he supported the ceasefire also.

He declared that the RSS supported the trifurcation of the state and disagreed that any such division of J&K would lead to communal flare-up. “There have been divisions of the states in the past. Why should there by any violence?”

India must not endorse any proposal to sort out the Kashmir issue that may lead to another PartitionBy Anand K.Sahay

There is a developing unease in political circles that the government may be bucking a course of action in respect of Jammu and Kashmir that may seriously prejudice the country’s interests and, in particular, have an impact on its defence autonomy.

For close to a year, official moves have tended to place a premium on interfacing with organisations and individuals on both sides of the divide in Kashmir--jehadis mostly--whose stated aim is to effect a second Partition of the subcontinent this time in Jammu and Kashmir. Traditional entities participating in the country’s established political process in Kashmir have naturally felt left out as a consequences. Since Pakistan’s past--and the past of its relations with India--have a close bearing on the context in Kashmir, the current effusion in diplomatic as well as back-channel traffic in respect of India and Pakistan seeds to be weighed in the light of experience.

Despairing of a ‘solution’ emerging from the battlefield, in recent years Pakistan has embarked on ‘a war of a thousand cuts’--to use the expressive formulation coined by Islamabad’s military establishment and its cohorts--in order to bleed this country into surrendering Kashmir through sustained low-intensity conflict. The Indian response has been one of ‘a thousand dressings’, as senior official once privately put it.

However, bumbling this may have appeared to be, it was adequate enough in its own humble way. It obliged all the macho meant the helm in Pakistan, General Zia-ul-Haq downward, to seek dialogue and face-saving accommodation with this country even as they abelted terrorist jehad against it.

In the main, this was because the Pakistani State had itself begun to suffer grievously from ‘aggression fatigue’. Thus, instead of making Indian pay an unacceptability high price for retaining Kashmir (which came about through a happy configuration of history, cultural linkages and the attempt to weave the political thread of democracy), in course of time Islamabad itself came to feel the heat of trying to keep New Delhi on the run.

Pakistan’s dilemma was, indeed, acute. On the one hand, a State founded on a purely communal basis found it impossible not to push for Muslim Kashmir’s integration with itself. This meant disregarding the historical terms of Partition, namely, that only territories of British India, and on of the Princely States such as Jammu and Kashmir, were to be divided on the sectarian religious principle. But, equally, it was impossible for this urge to reach fruition, given Pakistan’s long-term economic, social and political crises which even today threaten to unravel its fundamental organising principles.

General Pervez Musharraf inherits Pakistan’s frightening dilemmas in as great a measure as any of his recent predecessors did. Indeed, he may be worse off than them in some respect, although, to be fair, this situation is not all of his own making. By now Pakistan’s political institutions look comatose. Its economy literally breathes from day to day, and gasps for foreign aid.

Much of its civil society has plunged into medieval chaos, thanks to the pervasive jehadi stranglehold on the system. Modernizing influences have long had their day, and the impetus of democracy has all but run aground. Even the Pakistan army, that pride of institutions, has had its vitals eaten into by an over-exposure to politics, and through the sustained diet of the ‘holy warrior’ ideology.

Not to put too fine a point on it, Pakistan is sitting on a tinder box. At the best of times it has found itself unable or unwilling to honour Kashmir or border (ceasefire line/LoC) related agreements made with India. The record speaks for itself. Just look at the events leading up to the 1965 fighting, the Simla Pact, the Lahore agreement, and the Kargil intrusion--not to mention the breaching in 1947 of the Standstill Agreement made with Maharaja Hari Singh.

In the circumstances, how realistic is it to expect that today’s Pakistan is any better placed to observe agreements that may be made following the dialogue that it so loudly seeks?

Pakistan’s reason for not adhering to commitments is quite simply this--it would not counterance anything less than the detaching of Kashmir from India, whatever may be the Valley’s subsequent fate. Given this background, there can be little assurance that General Musharraf, presiding over an especially messy situation, can make a steady interlocutor, even if his intentions are deemed to be peaceable.

In the circumstances, it is nothing if not extraordinary that the Indian government should have invested so much in the relationship with Pakistan--via direct or indirect talks with the multifarious mujahideen groups and through the agency of US based personalities of Pakistan or Kashmir origin. It is also noteworthy that the contacts were established when the members of Kargil had barely died down, and were kept up even as the government officially declared right through this period that dialogue with Pakistan cannot commence unless cross-border terrorism was ended.

What is more, whenever the unofficial interaction--which cannot occur without official sanction--seemed to be at risk of floundering on account of stepped-up terrorist violence and killings, it was sought to be boosted by appropriate pronouncements from the top. This turned out to be the case with Prime Minister Vajpayee’s musings wherein he promised to meet the Pakistan dictator anywhere, any time, if jehadi terror ceased.

This once again revived hopes of official dialogue being opened, possibly in the not too distant future. The pattern so far is clearly indicative of an inexplicableanxiety on India’s part that the momentum of back-channel contacts not be lost. The recent massacre of the Sikhs in the Valley appears to have done little to stem this sentiment. When transparency is a casualty, it is difficult to fathom the government’s objectives.

But whatever its aims in dealing with terrorist groups and their political representatives--or indeed Pakistan officially--it needs to be clearly understood that the fulcrum of these exchanges is the Pakistani belief that if there is any giving to be done, it must be done by India (though this is not openly asserted). The exchanges would automatically collapse if India were to make it internationally clear that it does not plan to part with anymore territory than it already has in 1947-48, signified by the establishing of Pakistan occupied Kashmir.

The alternative of accepting the LoC as the international boundary was adumbrated at Simla, though neither side is as yet in a position to openly canvass the idea. But Kargil has decisively shown that this is not a solution palatable to Pakistan. Ordinarily, for India, then, this should have been a moment to mark time or to be developing practicable negotiating positions without fanfare, rather than engage in advertising dialogue-oriented gestures.

Internally, within Jammu and Kashmir, India can easily hold its own as the incredible support for the panchayat elections recently showed. But despite this hugely favourable factor working in its favour, the political class is deeply worried that the government has given in to entertaining some astounding ideas on the back-channel networks.

These are said to include variants to the so-called Chenab solution’. One of these visualizes the combining of all Muslim-majority areas of Jammu and Kashmir on the India side, including, the Shia-dominated Kargil district, with Pakistan’s northern areas (the old Gilgit Agency), and setting up this entity as an independent state with soft borders with both India and Pakistan. Whatever the direction of the back-chennelwork, the government owes it to the country to disclaim endorsement of any proposals to sort out the Kashmir issue that may involve another partition.

Mistakes lead to a messy situation

By T.V. Rajeshwar

The Gujarat earthquake is, no doubt, the most important challenge facing the country since January 26, and the attention of the entire nation is focused on it. Kashmir, however, is not far behind and it looms large more than ever, calling for constant attention.

India fought wars with Pakistan in 1948, 1965, 1971 and 1999, after the Kargil intrusion. Though the 1971 war was not linked to Kashmir, the other wars were indeed so. The 1971 war concluded with the Simla Agreement between Indira Gandhi and Z.A. Bhutto on July 2, 1972, where, inter alia, “a final settlement of J&K” was mentioned as one of the items of the pending agenda between the two countries. Bilateral negotiations were agreed upon, and for India at least bilateralism became a sort of mantra. However, the bilateral discussion during the next two decades took the Kashmir dispute nowhere near a solution. Because of the perennial impasse in the bilateral process President Zia-ul-Haq of Pakistan hit upon the idea of arming the Kashmiri youth and brainwashing them with Islamic fundamentalism along with military training and funding through the ISI. The explosion of violence in the Kashmir valley has continued ever since.

Prime Minister Vajpayee undertook the pathbreaking Lahore bus trip in 1998. The understanding reached there on the various issues between Mr Nawaz Sharif and Mr Vajpayee was not fully endorsed by Pakistan’s powerful military machine represented by the three Service Chiefs and the several intelligence agencies headed by the ISI. During the brief post-Lahore phase, Track-II diplomacy was active and it was whispered by some of the Indian participants that Mr Nawaz Sharif had almost agreed to accept the LoC as an international border, which Bhutto had promised in 1972 but refused to talk about it later. That this was a daydream was demonstrated soon after by the Kargil intrusion by the Pakistan army and foreign mercenaries. Later events made it clear that Mr Nawaz Sharif was fully aware of General Musharraf’s Kargil operations and his attempt to shift the entire responsibility on the top General, followed by the withdrawal of the armed forces behind the LoC on President Clinton’s pressure, was something the army could not put up with.

General Musharraf, who took over after ousting Mr Nawaz Sharif, has followed a tough policy towards India from day one. He has carried forward ahead, with no qualms in supporting “jihad” in Kashmir. India’s stand on General Musharraf’s frequent pleas for the resumption of talks on Kashmir is well known. However, the talks cannot be permanently stalled on the ground that General Musharraf has not agreed to arrest the infiltration of militants like those of the Lashker-e-Toiba and Jaish-e-Mohammad have the “fidayeen” elements consisting of suicide squads and human bombs. Intelligence agencies have unearthed a number of plots and arrested several militants and infiltrators but all this would not be adequate to prevent the “fidayeen” attacks on their chosen targets in Delhi and elsewhere.

After the brief phase of cease-fire announcement by the Hizb-ul-Mujahideen in Kashmir and its abrupt cancellation at the instance of its Pakistani counterpart as well as the Pakistan government, the Hurriyat leadership in Kashmiri has come into increasing focus. The All-Party Hurriyat Conference (APHC) has been invited by the Pakistan government for consultations, and Hurriyat spokesman Mirwaiz Umar Farooq has stated that the APHC has its own agenda aimed at evolving a policy of coordination with the Mujahideen and Pakistan after holding discussions with PoK leaders and militant elements who constitute the United Jihad Council. Any impression that the Hurriyat is going to Pakistan to tell the Mujahideen to surrender in response to the cease-fire call is totally incorrect, the Mirwaiz added. The question, therefore, is: why is the APHC being allowed to go to Pakistan, and more importantly, what does India expect out of the Hurriyat’s deliberations with these militant groups and General Musharraf?

Do we also concede that the APHC is the sole representative of the people of J&K? Are we not thereby conceding that the problem is almost exclusively of the Kashmir valley and the Muslim majority areas of J&K? Why did India not think of asking some representatives from Jammu and Ladakh to be included in the delegation of the APHC? That the APHC might refuse to include them is a different issue, but at least an effort could have been made to make the delegation a more representative body of various sections of the J&K people.

The APHC will come back with nothing that could give any hope of a peaceful settlement between India and Pakistan. What the militants and fundamentalists in Pakistan and General Musharraf expect of India, before hard negotiations begin between the two countries on Kashmir’s future, have already been spelt out by Syed Salahuddin, the Hizb-ul-Mujahideen Commander-in-Chief, based in Pakistan: “India should publicly declare that Kashmir is disputed territory, stop all forms of operations by security forces in Kashmir, release all jailed militants and political prisoners and reduce troop deployment in Kashmir to the 1989 level”. Salahuddin added that the militants would end their attacks in case all these were implemented. And what would be the agenda during the trilateral discussions between India, Pakistan and Mujahideen? He said the people of Kashmir, namely the Muslim-majority areas, should be given the option to merge with Pakistan or India or choose to become an independent country, and this dispensation would also apply to the people of PoK. Slahuddin concluded with the threat that if New Delhi did not agree to all these demands militants would take the war out of Kashmir to the rest of India, that India was surrounded and was fighting the last battle and could not sustain the Kashmir war.

All this is very ominous but real. We have pushed ourselves to this stage and there are no clear prospects of getting out of this messay situation. On reflection, have we not moved far away from the 1972 Simla Agreement which contemplated the resolution of the Kashmir dispute by bilateral discussions between India and Pakistan? The proposition of treating the LoC as an international  border to settle the Kashmir dispute between India and Pakistan is now almost dead. The issue of the will of the people of Kashmir has come to the forefront, and it is this factor which is going to decide the fate of the people of J&K. It is so particularly because of the American political establishment, whether of Mr Bill Clinton before, or of Mr George W.Bush now, which insists on the will of the people of Kashmir being taken into account before a final settlement of the dispute. Eventually, it could indeed be the replay of the proposals of Sir Owen Dixon of 1950-51 which effectively suggested the partition of J&K into three parts on communal lines.

The Track-II participants who returned from Pakistan last month, after their aborted attempt to discuss nuclear strategy concepts of the two countries, had declared their bewilderment over Pakistan’s all-pervasive obsession with Kashmir. Indeed, the impression there seems to be that Kashmir is almost within their grasp and that there is no way for India to hold on to it much longer. In this context, the brief announcement on February 4 from Washington that a bipartisan US Congressional delegation would visit India and Pakistan to discuss the Kashmir issue is important. The delegation is likely to visit Kashmir and meet local leaders. Their visit to Kashmir would no doubt be met with processions, protests and demonstrations against Indian security forces and their alleged abuse of human rights and indiscriminate violence against the common people.

The way events are unfolding, the Kashmir scenario is clearly heading, sooner or later, towards a UN-supervised referendum in J&K, most probably on the Dixon lines. What would follow thereafter could be foreseen, but I would rather desist from mentioning it in so many words.

*The writer is a former Governor of West Bengal and Sikkim

Sources: The Tribune

JAMMU, Apr 30: In a major success, 11 foreign mercenaries including Abu Rizqan, Lt Div. Commander, Toofan Khan of HMDPR (area commander) and Gazi Abdullah, Lt Commander of Surankote area have been eliminated in a joint operation by the security forces near Surankot on 29 April, 2001. Huge quantities of arms and ammunition have been recovered.

After receiving specific information, the security forces launched an operation in the upper reaches of Surankot on April 29, 2001. After the troops encircled the terrorist hideout, the holed up terrorists opened indiscriminate fire. In the retaliatory fire two terrorists were killed. The other terrorists attempted to run away but were chased by the troops. In the five hour operation the terrorist toll rose to eleven. The five terrorists, who managed to escape, as per reports, were critically injured. Among the killed terrorists two belonged to Al Jehad, two to HM, Two to HM PPR (Hizbul Mujahideen Pir Panchal Regiment) and one each to Tehrik Mujahideen, HUJI Jesh Mahmadi, Hizb Islami. This confirms the earlier reports that different terrorist outfits are coordinating their activities through a Unified Command. The news of the killing of the terrorists has been welcomed by the local people in Surankot. They have been suffering because of the atrocities committed by the terrorists.

Dear Sir,

Culture is portrayal of a civilized society. It, though abstract, is something that unfolds the nature and the character of a human being; irrespective of religious affinity and the place of birth. The word civilisation itself connotes sense of decency and excellence in behavioural attitudes of a person. Mother tongue is one of its constituents that gives recognition of a person and his person is known by his culture i.e. his way of speech, his mode of living and the mannerism in his dealings in every day life. There is, however, no disadvantage in learning other languages provided one is proficient in one’s own language, especially his mother tongue.

In this context I would not hesitate to comment that the Kashmiri Hindus (conspicuously known as Kashmiri Pandits) are becoming hypocrites in the sense that they (myself not excluding) encourage children to talk and conerse in a language other than the Kashmiri. I have every apprehension that if we continue this practice, our children will be deprived of the fullness, the very taste of our own language whose lineage descends from Sanskrit. Simultaneously we shall also disturb our old age ethos and the beauty of our community, which otherwise combines us together.

Shall my sincere advice be heard in every Kashmiri Hindu house-hold; be they here in Jammu Region or in any part of our Great Bharat, so that we do not lose our identity like the ones who were driven out from the Homeland since 1320 AD. We are as good Hindustani as other communities of the country are. It is the language only that perpetuates the existence of any community of the land. Let us be very cautious about this fact.

--R.K. Sher

Sarwal, Jammu.

KS playing a vital role

Dear Sir,

Kashmir Sentinel is playing vital role, I wish good luck good healths to all those connected with this paper and progress of Kashmir Sentinel day in day and day out.

--Omesh Koul (BIRA)

Bhawani Vihar,

Trikuta Nagar, Jammu

‘There can be Compromises and Adjustments.....’

Special Correspondent

True to its legacy of always toing the government line, its symbolic protestations now and then notwithstanding, All India Kashmiri Samaaj has come out vociferously against the demand of reorganisation of Jammu and Kashmir state. “The demand for trifurcation of Jammu and Kashmir State into separate enclaves is viewed by our community as an acceptance of division of Kashmir along communal lines...”, states the memorandum of All India Kashmiri Samaj dated 7th April 2001.

The memorandum also makes a vieled attack on the Panun Kashmir demand of homeland by describing that,  “the enclave for Pandits is yet another variant of notorious Dixon Plan which envisaged a division of the state along the communal lines...”

AIKS position on the entire gamunt of issues concerning the displacement of Kashmiri Pandits has traditionally been reconciliatory and pro-establishment bordering on some sort of compromise with the Muslim communalism. In the past when it made utterances violative of general consensus of the community they were usually ignored by the displaced Pandits. However, this time its stand has surprised many and caused severe resentment amongst the Kashmiri Pandits.

Even the active members of AIKS consider the memorandum as a volte face because it was only recently that President of All India Kashmir Samaaj Sh JN Koul had come out in support of the homeland demand. Addressing a function organised at Gole Gujral by Prem Nath Jyotshi Karyalaya Sh. J.N. Koul had said in November 2001 that homeland was the only viable option to all the problems being faced by the community at the present. He told the assembled audience that in view of the trifurcation demand gaining ground in Jammu and Ladakh regions the Kashmiri Pandits should also project their demand before the government.

He had added, laying extra emphasis, as reported by the local press, that now was the opportune time to put forth the homeland demand vigorously before the government. At that time many did not believe that Sh JN Koul would  follow another Pandit leader Sh AN Vaishnavi to support the homeland demand. Sh J.N. Koul again reiterated his stand of support to the homeland demand in the programme organised by Kashmiri Samiti Delhi and shocked even his close confidants who had seen Sh J.N. Koul always avoiding comments of political nature. As per reports Sh J.N. Koul also initiated a dialogue with Panun Kashmir leaders asking them to close their ranks and pursue their political objective vigorously. What prompted Sh J.N. Koul to shift his stance suddenly?

Insiders in the AIKS believe that the present opposition to the reorganisation of Jammu and Kashmir by AIKS is more due to the intrigue unleashed by another AIKS leader Sh M.L. Koul who was recently brought to head a steering committee ‘to go into various aspects of working of AIKS and extending AIKS activities in areas other than welfare programme that formed the main focus for last few years”. They believe that in the name of extending the ‘scope of activity’ Sh M.L. Koul has virtually assumed the role of the political ideologue of AIKS. Sh M.L. Koul had for last few years been working with the Trust created by All India Kashmiri Samaj and as per reports nurtured serious resentment after being changed as the general secretary of AIKS the post which he held perpetually for a long time. In fact he had as per reports serious differences with Sh J.N. Koul.

However, this view amongst some AIKS insiders appears to be more an attempt to shield Sh J.N. Koul. Investigations of KS reveal that Sh J.N. Koul was fully aware of all the aspects of functioning of the steering committee and in fact had not only supported the memorandum but also endorsed the entire spectrum of activities launched by Sh ML Koul as the convener of steering committee. “Convener of the steering committee Sh M.L. Koul forwarded to the affiliates an Action Programme that included an interaction at local executive level and with Apex Body on matters of importance to the community, inviting their valuable suggestions. I hope this is receiving your attention,” Sh JN Koul writes to various representatives of AIKS on 26/3/2001.

Observers of Kashmir scene do not give much credence to the internal squabbles of AIKS and attribute their sudden opposition to the demand of reorganisation of Jammu and Kashmir state to the severe marginalisation which AIKS had suffered in the political discourse of Kashmiri Pandits. With Panun Kashmiri, Ladakh Buddhist Association, Jammu Joint Students Federation and Jammu and Kashmir Nationalist Front actively collaborating on the major issues like autonomy, human rights and reorganisation. AIKS was feeling slighted.

AIKS as per these analysts is desperate to create a political space for itself which in the present scenario could be ensured by making gestures which would please Congress, National Conference, sections of BJP opposed to RSS and even the separatist leadership of Kashmir. Making itself amenable to such political forces would help AIKS circumvent its marginalisation and lack of political credibility and catapult itself into the central stage particularly when KC Pant has started the process of dialogue in the state.

AIKS claim that its opposition to trifurcation of Jammu and Kashmir and Panun Kashmir demand of homeland is the representative view of Pandits becomes ridiculous as its most active constituents have supported homeland demand. In the meetings in which AIKS was deliberating on the issues of trifurcation and Homeland Sh C.L. Gadoo, President of Kashmiri Samiti, as per reports, had expressed open dissent with the contents of the memorandum prepared. Sh C.L. Gadoo alongwith the Vice-President of Kashmiri Samiti Sh Sunil Shakhder and Dr Shakti Bhan have time and again supported the homeland demand.

Another important constituent of AIKS, The All State Kashmiri Pandit Conference headed by Sh. A.N. Vaishnavi has also come out openly to support the reorganisation of Jammu and Kashmir state demanding the creation of Kashyap state.

Given the composition of AIKS it appears only a select group who are non-displaced and have been either supportive of Congress or NC line on Kashmir is involved in the effort to oppose the political consensus which has emerged amongst Kashmiri Hindus.

Surprisingly these efforts of AIKS are being supported by a select group of RSS activists who have constituted a socio cultural outfit JK Vichar Manch. As per reports its leader who aspired to become the member of National Minority Commission is presently estranged from RSS top brass for not putting its foot down to support his candidature. As per reports JK Vichar Manch with support from certain quarters of BJP is trying to mobilise the opposition within RSS against trifurcation and Panun Kashmir. Sources within RSS have noted with apprehension their activities. A reported meeting which they conducted at the official residence of a BJP MP to mobilise support against RSS line on Jammu and Kashmir is being viewed seriously in certain quarters of RSS.

AIKS has in the meanwhile launched a contact drive. On one hand it is pleading with RSS leadership to retrect from its support to trifurcation of Jammu and Kashmir and on the other had it is trying to rebuild its relationship with Congress. Sh M.L. Koul was seen openly bragging in the Press Club Jammu in front of some journalists that AIKS has been able to re-establish its contacts with Congress leadership. Besides these activities AIKS has also started establishing contacts with separatist leadership of Kashmir. A meeting with Shabir Shah was held on February 20, 2001.

The mindset of compromise and duplicity which has gripped AIKS cannot be revealed better than the concluding paragraph of its own memorandum. “There are hard tasks ahead facing us. The majority Muslim community which also controls the state machinery has to take an initiative in fulfilling this task. Pandit minority can only extend support and cooperation. What is important is not to  project ourselves as disrupters but as unifiers without being apologetic about our basic demands whose acceptance should in fact from as essential ingredient of democratic solution of Kashmir issue. There can be no solution which seeks to alter the present borders of India whether in Jammu and Kashmir or elsewhere. There can be compromises and adjustment here and there, but Indian Nation will never allow anyone to succumb to the designs of foreign interventionary forces”.