• PAGE ONE
• INDEX
• HOME

One more Kashmir summit

Rasheeda Bhagat

PERHAPS it is appropriate that the Prime Minister, Mr Atal Bihari Vajpayee, should have invited Pakistan's chief executive, Gen Pervez Musharraf, for a dialogue at the same time that an international conference on ``Conflict, ethnicity and nationalism'' was coming to a close in Northern Ireland over the weekend.

Organised by the British Council, the conference provided participants from around the world the opportunity to listen to some well-known voices _ from the Western world _ on what leads to a conflict, and the best and worst ways of dealing with it.

Textbook prescriptions alternated with concrete examples of how some of the world's most violent conflicts were resolved, and how some of them continue to rage. Derry, a small town in Northern Ireland, was indeed a fit venue for the meeting. On a walk ar ound the town, broken glass-panes, wire-mesh-protected buildings and prominently positioned searchlights were testimony to the bitter conflict that has raged there for decades.

While South Africa was a favourite region of most speakers, one was amazed by the total absence of any reference to the Kashmir conflict. Considering that the content of the conference was planned and conducted by INCORE (Initiative on Conflict Resolutio n and Ethnicity), set up in 1993 by the University of Ulster in Northern Ireland and the United Nations, this was vexing to an Indian participant.

Anyway, leaving aside the conflicts raging elsewhere and returning to the Kashmir problem, Mr Vajpayee's initiative is to be applauded. A few months after his historic bus trip to Lahore and talks with the then Pakistan Prime Minister, Mr Nawaz Sharif, c ame the Pakistan offensive in Kargil. And Mr Vajpayee became the butt of many a joke at home, not only by an Opposition which revelled in his discomfiture, but also by members of his own Sangh Parivar.

And yet, he has chosen to invite Gen Musharraf for talks. It would be naive to think of the exercise merely as a spontaneous gesture of warmth and friendship from India. Nor could it be totally voluntary. Somewhere, behind the scenes, there must be a US hand ensuring that a summit between the two leaders takes place. New Delhi _ which has for long been demanding that Pakistan stop sponsoring cross-border terrorism before any meaningful dialogue can happen _ cannot suddenly change tack.

But whatever the external pressures or international compulsions of a nation exhausted by the long-drawn-out conflict in Kashmir, this development is certainly welcome. Of course, there are the cynics. After all, what will they talk about, they ask. To I ndia, Kashmir is an integral part; and to Pakistan, it is a usurped territory. So, where is the meeting ground?

Unfortunately, at the Foreign Ministers' level too, bickering has begun even before the summit date can be finalised. At a recent press conference, Pakistan's Foreign Minister, Mr Abdul Sattar, said things that make India see red. He reiterated the Pakis tani stand that Kashmir is a disputed territory, that the ceasefire announced by India in the Valley was a sham, and that India has to stop its oppression and killing of innocent Kashmiris. Worse, he went on to add that the Pakistani delegation which acc ompanies Gen Musharraf plans to meet leaders of the All-Party Hurriyat Conference which, he believes, is the true representative body of the Kashmiris.

Naturally, the External Affairs Minister, Mr Jaswant Singh, had to respond to this barrage. So he, on his part, reiterated that Kashmir is an integral part of India and while India had extended the invitation to Gen Musharraf in a spirit of co-operation and reconciliation, Pakistan could not define the terms under which the two leaders would meet. There was little else he could say, as he was badgered by correspondents at his press conference, a day after Mr Sattar met the press.

Bickerings apart, the core question is: What will they talk about? The cynicism and scepticism is understandable because the Simla agreement and the Lahore Declaration have not taken us any closer to solving the contentious Kashmir issue. But just becaus e we have failed to address this issue and find a solution to it in the last 54 years, have we to keep flexing our muscles at each other for the next 54?

Rigidity and inflexibility of governments in addressing the core issues that lead to a conflict are often the worst obstacles to resolving that conflict, we were told at the INCORE workshop. But there comes a time when the conflict touches its peak, and the levels and intensity of violence come down. It then reaches the stage known as ``the ripeness stage''. And this is the best time to make that all-out effort to resolve the conflict.

This is, at best, a textbook prescription, but it comes from long and tortuous, often frustrating experiences in resolving conflicts. One does not know whether the Kashmir conflict has reached the ``ripeness stage,'' or if it has run its cycle. But one d oes know that the people of Kashmir are frustrated and exhausted by the constant threat of violence.

``We do not know when a bomb will go off; when the security people might pick us up for questioning, or when and whether our children will return home from their schools or colleges,'' is the oft-heard refrain in Srinagar, if you care to visit the place and engage in a dialogue with a Kashmiri.

If Mr Vajpayee is, indeed, keen on finding a reasonable solution to the Kashmir problem, and if Gen Musharraf is willing to meet him half-way, there will be plenty of issues to address at the forthcoming summit. But both leaders would do well to remember that, ultimately, it is the will and the preferences of the Kashmiris that will prevail.

And Gen Musharraf would be well advised to keep in mind that when the talk is of `Kashmiris', this homogeneous group includes Kashmiris residing in PoK too. If Pakistan hopes to beat the drum of self-determination on behalf of the Kashmiris, it will have to stand up and say that, if and when such an exercise takes place, the Kashmiris who will line up for the vote that will decide their fate will have to come from both the Indian and Pakistan sides of Kashmir.

On its part, India would do well to remember that if it wishes to retain its ``integral part'' it will have to do much more than hoist the Indian flag in the Valley at gun point. The total alienation an average Kashmiri feels will have to be dealt with b y a consistent and generous official policy as well as tangible proof that a Kashmiri is looked upon with the same trust, or distrust, as a Tamilian, a Bihari or a Kannadiga on a deserted street in the remotest part of India.

If we, the people and the Government, cannot convince the Kashmiri in the Valley that he/she is a part of us, we should be able to say goodbye to them. A Kashmiri Muslim might well argue that if, in a general election in Tamil Nadu, a convicted supremo o f the AIADMK can be returned to power with such a thumping majority and given the Chief Minister's chair with the argument that this is the will of the people, why can the Kashmiris not be allowed to decide their own fate.

This might sound outrageous when seen against such concepts as nationalism and sovereignty. But is it not better that people embrace such concepts out of choice and pride rather than fear or force?

(Feedback to this article can be sent to rasheeda@thehindu.co.in)

Picture: Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee

Picture by Kamal Narang