South Asia Terrorism Portal
"Food for Thought" Ajai Sahni Editor, SAIR; Executive Director, Institute for Conflict Management President and General Pervez Musharraf has successfully engineered another media storm over a new set of 'proposals' for the 'resolution' of the 'Kashmir issue', which he offers, with a studied air of insouciance, as 'food for thought'. The remarks were made at a gathering of editors and senior journalists at an iftar dinner hosted for him and Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz by Information Minister Sheikh Rashid Ahmed and State Minister Anisa Zeb Tahirkheli on October 25, 2004, at Islamabad. As was the case with the General's earlier proposals regarding the 'four steps process' [December 18, 2003], the new proposals are both arbitrary and nonsensical, though this has not prevented a number of informed commentators from taking them very seriously and beginning a debate on the exigencies of their translation into policy. In sum, Musharraf proposes:
There are several aspects of these proposals that are, at best, disingenuous. In the first instance, Musharraf adroitly transforms the three regions within Indian controlled Jammu & Kashmir (J&K) into five. At the same time, he cleverly notes that "The beauty of these regions is that they are still religion-based even if we consider them geographically." In other words, what Musharraf offers is, again, the principle of religious exclusivism - the unfinished agenda of the two-nation theory - which underpins the ideology of extremist political Islam and the creation of Pakistan, and which is in irreducible conflict with the pluralist democratic polity of India. Though the proposals are formulated in 'geographical terms', they remain at best, and by Musharraf's own admission, proposals for the communal vivisection of J&K - an outcome that cannot be acceptable to India. Further, Musharraf presents the geographical division of J&K as a fait accompli, making only the modalities of its realisation a matter of negotiation with India (India has consistently rejected the possibility of any territorial concessions in J&K). In this, he develops on his earlier 'four steps' thesis, in which 'Step 3' required that all those options for a solution of J&K that were not acceptable to either side be "eliminated from the dialogue". This is, in essence, a dog in the manger perversity masquerading as 'high policy'. The sheer audacity of what is proposed here is concealed by the 'reasonableness' of the language in which the proposition is cast. To take an analogy, if a usurper and a legitimate claimant, or a thief and his victim, are in conflict, our objective should not be to determine whose claims are supported by law and considerations of justice, but rather to equally deny the claims of either side, and to create an alternative structure of possession that offers conditional access to the goods, properties or rights in dispute to both parties - an option that quite naturally favours the usurper and the thief. Such an outcome cannot be consistent with any considerations of morality or law, which would require that competing claims be settled on the justice, the legality and the principles underlying respective claims, and at least in some measure, the methods by which these have been pursued. The fact that one party in the Kashmir 'dispute' has engaged in a murderous terrorist campaign for a decade and a half - a campaign that has already claimed nearly 38,000 lives in Indian-controlled J&K, and that still continues, and which has found a majority of victims among the very people, the Kashmiri Muslims, who it claims to seek to 'liberate' - cannot be irrelevant to such considerations of morality, justice and law. Nor, indeed, can the fact be irrelevant that the regions of J&K - 'Azad Kashmir' and the Northern Areas - which have been occupied by Pakistan for over half a century, have witnessed a complete denial of human and political rights, as of all vestiges of development. The mere fact that the aggressor in a particular case is unwilling to relinquish his claim cannot create moral or legal grounds for the rightful possessor to relinquish or dilute his entitlement. This, however, is precisely what Musharraf is proposing, and he is not alone in this logic. In recent years, terrorists, their various advocates, and their sponsors in different theatres have repeatedly advanced the thesis that the only 'solution' to terrorism is that its victim-societies offer its perpetrators some concessions - and much of the liberal democratic world has bought into this argument, with devastating impact on political will in the free world. The potential consequences of this policy of appeasement, and of Musharraf's 'options for control' of the various 'demilitarized regions' need to be examined in some detail, particularly in view of the fact that Musharraf's proposals build on or echo several 'solutions' that have been doing the rounds over the past years, including the Kashmir Study Group (KSG) formula, and some loose talk of an 'Andorra solution', and the fact that these various formulae have been eagerly embraced by many among the weak-willed and weak-minded among the regional and global leadership. First, another communal partition of India - and that is precisely what is being proposed by all these 'alternatives' - simply cannot be 'sold' in India, politically. Any sundering of territories in Kashmir will be politically volatile, and will unleash a backlash of violence across the sub-continent. The 'Andorra formula' had a peculiar and benign history in Europe, and will find little resonance here. This is South Asia - where passions run deep and long histories of hatred and mutual slaughter have been compounded by ideologies of envy, exclusion and communal polarisation that inflame every sore into a cancerous wound. Moreover, even if such a 'solution' was hypothetically possible, the area of 'joint control', the 'condominium', or whatever else may be created, would remain a region in which Indo-Pak squabbling and covert efforts for domination would be a permanent feature, and would intertwine continuously with the larger enterprise of Islamist extremist terrorism that currently plagues so much of the world. Such a 'solution' would, in other words, fail altogether to address the basic conflict between the two countries - and this conflict, as has been repeatedly emphasised, is a conflict of irreducible ideologies, the one committed to exclusionary religious identities and quasi theocratic-domination, and the other to liberal, secular and democratic values. Both on grounds of justice and considerations of the future stability in the region, it is, consequently, a survival imperative for South Asia that no further part of it be transformed by vivisection into another communal ghetto, and that those who have long harnessed terrorism to secure this end be comprehensively defeated, not appeased. On a diplomatic level, India has refused to respond to Musharraf's new proposals on the ground that these have not been formally presented, though many a feather has obviously been ruffled. The proposals have, moreover, been widely rejected both within Pakistan and in Indian circles. Significantly, this is a time when Musharraf is alienated from virtually every element of his domestic political constituency as a result of his engagement with the US in the 'war against terrorism', of holding on to the uniform, proclaimed madrassah reforms, reforms for the protection of women and prevention of 'honour killings', the military campaigns in Baluchistan and the NWFP, etc. However tardy or tentative his reform initiatives may be, each has won him a different set of enemies in the country. He has, of course, consolidated his position within the military hierarchy through the reshuffle on October 3. But, his dilution of Pakistan's demand for a plebiscite, virtually gospel for the Army and a sheet anchor of the Pakistani position for over five decades, can only create more enemies in key institutions. What, precisely, could Musharraf have hoped to gain by articulating these proposals at this time and in this manner. Taking the negotiations process with India forward cannot have been an objective: the hard core of diplomatic negotiations is never advanced through media posturing, and is often obstructed by ill conceived proposals aired in public fora at the highest levels of leadership. The rare occasion on which such announcements serve a positive purpose are cases where diplomatic relations have broken down or are so strained as to make meaningful discourse impossible - as was the case with then Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee's 'offer of friendship' to Pakistan at a public meeting in Srinagar, which eventually translated itself into the present dialogue process. Such a situation clearly does not prevail at present, and an institutional process of negotiations has been established and has widely been proclaimed to be 'moving forward'. Despite their air of spontaneity, there is evidence that Musharraf's statements are part of a considered strategy. For one thing, they elaborated on earlier statements that he made during an interview with an Indian journalist, published on October 13, 2004. Moreover, past experience suggests that Musharraf's public declarations are often of the nature of establishing new goalposts, and he can be relied on to follow his declared ends, albeit with a great deal of tactical flexibility. Clearly, then, the new 'formulae' are intended to be pursued as goals of national policy over the foreseeable future. It is evident, now, that the processes of jehadi attrition, which Pakistan had deployed against India, cannot be sustained indefinitely at required levels of intensity. As a result, a process of political and diplomatic attrition would need to be intensified if even limited Pakistani objectives with regard to J&K are to be secured. Musharraf's proposal for a resolution of the 'Kashmir issue' in 'geographical terms' remains part of the continued effort to fulfil his country's communal mandate and agenda 'through other means'.
BANGLADESH
INDIA
Assam
Jammu & Kashmir
Left-wing extremism
Manipur
Meghalaya
Nagaland
Tripura
Total (INDIA)
NEPAL
PAKISTAN
SRI LANKA
Next round of talks with Naxalites linked to laying down of arms, says Andhra Pradesh Director General of Police:The Director-General of Police in Andhra Pradesh, S.R. Sukumara, has stated that the laying down of arms by left wing extremists (also known as Naxalites) will be the key to holding the second round of talks with them. In an interview to a national daily on October 27, the senior police official said that the Government had made its stand clear and was awaiting a response from extremists. Depending upon the extremists' reply, the Government would take a final decision on holding the next round of talks or, in the extreme, "resume combing", he added. To a question whether the Government was heading towards a situation where the ceasefire would be violated by taking up 'combing', Sukumara said there was never a ceasefire agreement with the Naxalites. It was only a "no first fire agreement". The Hindu, October 28, 2004 Assam Government asks National Democratic Front of Bodoland to depute representatives: The Assam government, on October 25, asked the National Democratic Front of Bodoland (NDFB) to depute representatives to finalise the ground rules of ceasefire. Addressing a press conference in Guwahati, Chief Minister Tarun Gogoi said that the State Government has written to the NDFB 'chairman' Ranjan Daimari alias D.R. Nabla to nominate a few leaders who would represent the organization during formulation of the ceasefire ground rules and in the peace talks that would follow. Sentinel Assam, October 26, 2004
Pakistan bureau of Al Jazeera received latest Bin Laden tape: The Pakistan bureau of Al Jazeera television received the latest videotape of Osama bin Laden, in which he warned the United States of more attacks like those on September 11, 2001, its bureau chief said on October 30 in Islamabad. "Someone came on Friday and dropped an envelope at our gate. When I opened and played it, it was a great scoop," Ahmad Muaffaq Zaidan told Reuters, adding that he did not know who had delivered the tape. Zaidan, a Syrian, had reportedly met bin Laden several times before the September 11 attacks and had published a book based on his interviews with him in 2002. The News, October 31, 2004 17 tribesmen killed in South Waziristan: 17 tribesmen of the Mahsud jirga were killed and many were injured in a rocket attack near Jandola, 65 kilometres east of Wana in the South Waziristan agency on October 26 afternoon. Army spokesman Maj. Gen. Shaukat Sultan blamed militants for the incident that occurred in Sheikh Ziarat near Jandola and said, "Militants fired a 107mm rocket at the jirga". However, resident tribesmen disputed the spokesman's claim and accused the security forces of targeting the tribesmen. Daily Times, October 27, 2004 President Pervez Musharraf proposes new solutions for resolving Kashmir issue: Addressing a gathering of editors and senior journalists at an iftar dinner in Islamabad on October 25, President General Pervez Musharraf said a stage had come to move forward for a solution to the Kashmir issue since a great deal of progress in this direction had been made already. Rejecting the Line of Control (LoC) as a permanent border, he explained the geographical status of Kashmir, which, he said, was divided in seven regions - five with India and two with Pakistan. "The beauty of these regions is that they are still religion based even if we consider them geographically." President Musharraf offered "food for thought" by suggesting that the debate could be initiated in the context of a three-pronged discourse. First, identify the region at stake. Second, demilitarize it. Third, change its status. He suggested there were many options which could then be considered, and legal experts on both sides could then look at the pros and cons of ideas for joint control, UN mandates, condominiums, and so on. He added Pakistan had proposed demilitarization of 'held Kashmir' and if India came up with a similar proposal asking Pakistan to do likewise in 'Azad Kashmir', then these issues would need to be discussed and Pakistan would have to build a consensus for moving forward. Dawn, The News, Daily Times, October 26, 2004
LTTE has not abandoned the 'right to secede', states Anton Balasingham: Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) 'ideologue' and chief negotiator, Anton Balasingham has remarked that Tamil Tigers have not abandoned their 'right to secede' despite agreeing to explore a federal solution, amid fresh diplomatic moves to salvage a faltering peace bid. "The Liberation Tigers' decision to explore federalism ... does not entail an unconditional abandonment of the Tamils' right to external self-determination and secession," he stated. Balasingham's remarks has been taken from his yet unpublished new book "War and Peace". The H indu, Tamil Net, October 28, 2004
The South Asia Intelligence Review (SAIR) is a weekly service that brings you regular data, assessments and news briefs on terrorism, insurgencies and sub-conventional warfare, on counter-terrorism responses and policies, as well as on related economic, political, and social issues, in the South Asian region.
SAIR is a project of the Institute for Conflict Management and the South Asia Terrorism Portal
To receive FREE advance copies of SAIR by email Subscribe. Recommend South Asia Intelligence Review (SAIR) To A Friend