Till Manmohan Singh made the offer from Amritsar, Pakistani authorities had been blaming India for slow pace of progress on the resolution of what they say the ‘core issue of Kashmir’. In that sense, Manmohan Singh’s treaty can be seen as a response to General Pervez Musharraf’s earlier proposals of “self-governance, demilitarization and joint management.” And in a limited sense it must have given some solace to Islamabad and its GHQ

Notice the tone of official spokesperson Islamabad. “We believe”, said the spokesperson, “the speech (of Prime Minister Singh) reflects many positive sentiments and a strong acknowledgement of the need to move forward on Jammu and Kashmir and other issues”. Obviously, the Pak establishment has factored in Manmohan Singh’s remark that India is not ‘afraid’ of discussing Jammu and Kashmir (with Pakistan) on finding a ‘pragmatic and practical solution to resolve this issue as well’.

The All-India Muslim Majlis-e-Mushawarat, a conglomerate of top Muslim organisations, has welcomed the Prime Minister’s peace offer. It has asked both militant and non-militant Kashmiri groups to support PM’s ‘road map’ for Kashmir and asked Pakistan to reciprocate.

There has been a plenty of debate in India and Pakistan on General Musharraf’s proposals of ‘self-governance, joint management and demilitarization’. Barring a few leaders of consequence, like former Jammu and Kashmir Chief Minister Mufti Mohammad Sayed, no one, not even the extremists and hardcore militants on either side of the LoC have welcomed Musharraf’s suggestions. It is India’s contention, and also of National Conference and other political parties, that Jammu and Kashmir already enjoys ‘self-rule’, which in fact is lacking in PoK and the Northern Areas.

Utilising his image as an economist-administrator, Manmohan Singh has succeeded in putting a new spin on the Musharraf proposal and make his own fine tuning. Hence, his insistence on ‘good governance’, ‘open borders’ and ‘cooperative mechanism’ in Jammu and Kashmir. There is no reference to conventional ideas like ‘exchange’ of territory. Instead Prime Minister says simultaneous progress on Kashmir and normalisation of bilateral relations between the two countries could culminate in a treaty of ‘Peace, friendship and security’, to give ‘meaning and substance to our quest for shared goals’.

As if on cue, General Musharraf has issued his first formal warning to all foreign militants to leave Pakistan, ‘wherever they are hiding’, or ‘get crushed’. Hitherto, he would not accept even the existence of these militant outfits or terrorist camps set up by ISI. The change of ‘heart’ is evident, or can we say ‘change of policy’? Whether there is ‘pressure’ on Musharraf to crack down on militants, or not, is not the question. What is germane to our discussion is the fact that the General has willy-nilly, come to realize that militancy is not going to pay. Rather it will ruin Pakistan and further divide that country.

Musharraf wants peace with India. It is understandable. Because borders with Afghanistan are offering no strategic depth and the US is increasingly becoming weary of mollycoddling the General. It is not hiding its displeasure, notwithstanding the periodical tribute to Pakistan as a front line ally in the war on terrorism.

But what is not understandable is Musharraf’s eagerness to push the peace agenda with India and his quest for quick results to settle the Kashmir issue during his tenure. Frankly, it is unclear whether he has been able to crush the enemy within. The Army, his lifeline, is still divided on ‘annexing’ Kashmir by proxy.

If Musharraf is to establish his credentials as a ‘new dove’ vis-à-vis Kashmir, he should not stop with warning to foreign militants to leave Pakistan. He should name the militants sent into Kashmir by his own agencies, and put them on notice. Simultaneously, the General, who has decided to remain in power beyond 2007, should warn Syed Ali Geelanis and Yaseen Maliks, who are against any kind of peace bid.

While the octogenarian Jamaat-e-Islami leader, Geelani, heading a breakaway group of the Hurriyat Conference, continues to harp on plebiscite, which is a dead issue even for Pakistan, Malik, heading JKLF, stands for independence of Jammu and Kashmir, which is also not a theme Pakistan officially favours. Malik is at loggerheads with Amman Ullah Khan, his counterpart in PoK. Kashmiris have rejected independence theory in the 1990s when Pakistan-sponsored the line and JKLF-supported ‘liberation struggle’.

Malik has now threatened to launch fresh liberation struggle. He is being openly blamed by his own cadre for ‘confusing the issue (of Kashmir) and ‘dividing’ the people of Jammu and Kashmir. When he took the floor in Karachi at a plenary session on Kashmir, (during the recent World Social Forum meetings), fist fights broke out between various JKLF outfits. His cause found no takers.

The independence issue has become unpopular both in Pakistan and Kashmir. People are worked up, as they understand that it is neither feasible nor in their own interest. More over, Pakistan will never allow it (independence) to happen.

People understand that raising such issues by the likes of Maliks and Geelanis is creating impediments in creating a conducive atmosphere for a turn around in India-Pak relationship. Hence people on either side of the LOC feel that Pakistan should warn them, since they were its own proxies, to desist from their nefarious activities. They should be told that enough is enough and the peace process should be allowed to continue for the good of the subcontinent.


Courtesy : Syndicate Features

Printer-Friendly Version