An analysis of the articles in the last couple of years would reveal the changing perceptions of Pakistani writers on Kashmir. To a large extent there is a realization, which has been amply expressed in the national English media, that Pakistan’s jihadi policy is not producing positive results. On the contrary, the jihad and jihadis in Kashmir have become a source of instability inside Pakistan. Senator Iqbal Haider comments (“In search of a solution for Kashmir” The News, 1 January 2004), “The so-called ‘jihad’ could not force India to budge an inch or motivate any country, including our closest allies, to pressurize India to resolve the issue peacefully. Nor was the Indian economy or its image damaged in any significant manner. On the contrary, Pakistan was at the verge of being declared a ‘Terrorist State’, our economy continued to suffer and religious extremism spread like a plague in Pakistan and brutalized our society. It is pertinent to note that Kashmiri Leaders, including All Parties Hurriyat Conference, have repeatedly declared that the struggle for liberation of Kashmir is not religious but political. Hence, there was no justification for declaration of this struggle as ‘jihad’”

More than admitting the ground reality that neither India nor Pakistan “can physically force each other to surrender the part of Kashmir under their control” what is striking is Iqbal Haider’s observation on a ‘viable solution’. He says it “could perhaps be to accept the Line of control, with some adjustments, as the international border.” However he adds a caveat. The acknowledgement of formal acceptance of the LoC into IB should be followed by a treaty between India and Pakistan, containing firm and sincere commitments: (a) That both the countries would desist from, discourage and prevent aggressive actions, policies or propaganda against each other and militancy or terrorism in any form, may it be at the hands of the arm forces or ‘jihadi’/religious fanatic organizations; and (b) Border between the two countries and between the two Kashmirs should be opened to the people at large with free access, free trade, exchange of cultural activities, academics, intellectual groups, sports events, free access to the electronic and print media etc.”

The realization that jihad is counter productive is not only reflected in the English press but is also voiced in the Urdu press. This is a welcome development. Of course, the process may be painstakingly slow, but it has started. Khaled Ahmed in his Urdu press review (Daily Times, 2 January 2004) comments on an article written by Chuadhry Fawad Hussain in Jang (12 December 2003).. Chaudhry Hussain is quoted writing that in the 1980s “Pakistan’s security perceptions became tied to religion in this period and worsened the situation. It is not possible now for Pakistan to come out of its extremist identity. In modern times, as a religious state, Pakistan had no future. As long as we delayed the delinking of religion from the state we will stray from our objective. If we can’t separate religion from the state then we should follow Allama Iqbal and let parliament do ‘ijtihad’ and suit religion to political needs.”

No doubt as Khaled Ahmed comments, this is heresy in Pakistan’s Urdu media. Though those who condemn Pakistan and prefer to see it as a failed state would not like to believe, certainly a change is taking place on the positive side. ‘Jihad’ and ‘Pakistan’ to the moderates inside Pakistan is clearly becoming antithetical. One wishes this tribe grows faster and spread the news. It is in India’s interest that they grow.

“Mother of All Deals”

The end of 2003 witnessed the MMA and military striking a deal, so that the Parliament that has been paralyzed for the last thirteen months could become functional. Mushahid Hussain (“Mother of all deals,” The Nation, 1 January 2004) observed three aspects of the deal as important; the establishment of “primacy of institutions over individuals, injection of political culture and the decision to talk to the religious parties.

Whatever are the implications of the military-MMA deal and the subsequent amendment, the significant result undoubtedly is an end to the internal political disorder and also the deal prevented a potential political disaster. The MMA was about to launch its street agitations, which has been thwarted by the deal. Sure, the MMA would always revert back to threaten with its “million men marches”, but in the short run, it is to provide stability. Besides, the deal has also provided the much needed breathing space for General Musharraf to concentrate on the SAARC summit and the subsequent meeting with the Indian Prime Minister Vajpayee.

In between, General Musharraf also “won a vote of confidence.” Dawn on this non-constitutional show staged in the Parliament commented in its editorial (“Vote of Confidence,” 2 January 2004): “The procedure adopted to gain legitimacy for Gen Musharraf’s president ship was not in accordance with the Constitution, and its validity was based on the 2002 referendum which itself was flawed. The best that can therefore be said about Thursday’s exercise is that it is an affirmation by a majority of the country’s legislators of the General’s already de facto position as President.” The News in its editorial (2 January 2004) commented on those who did not vote in favour of General Musharraf: “The number of voters who did not extend confidence in him by absenting or abstaining symbolises the robustness of democratic politics in Pakistan. It proves wrong all those soothsayers who claim that democracy does not suit the genius of the people and they need a system in which their right of choice is decided by others or their leaders are imposed upon them by others who claim to have a right to take all the decisions. The overall elections too reflected the same spirit with popular choice ruling the roost.”

The deal is also a positive development as it highlights the military’s willingness to accommodate opposition instead of undermining; the MMA’s willingness to take the process ahead instead of sticking to “No LFO No” and “Go Musharraf Go” slogans. What is also interesting is the response from the rest of the Parliament, which decided to stick to their ‘principled stand’, thanks to the pressure from their bosses abroad. Clearly, now it is advantage Musharraf in the Parliament. At least, for now.