Kashmir: The Way Ahead - III

10 Sep, 2001    ·   571

Interview with Prof Amitabh Mattoo by Suba Chandran

D Suba Chandran
D Suba Chandran
 Director
Interview with Prof Amitabh Mattoo, Jawaharlal Nehru University

 

 

Where does Kashmir stand today in the aftermath of the Agra summit?

 

 

Today there is an impasse in Kashmir . The Agra summit did not lead to a breakthrough between India and Pakistan . Inside Kashmir , Mr. KC Pant has achieved very little progress in constructing a meaningful dialogue. Militancy and the level of violence have increased. There is also a dangerous new attempt to introduce a culture of obscurantism and extremism in Kashmiri society. The administration of Farooq Abdullah is showing no signs of responding to the cry of the people. It neither has the capability nor the intention to provide good governance. In other words, we seem have to reached a dead end.

 

 

What has the Pant mission achieved until now?

 

 

Mr. KC Pant has not achieved much success in his attempt. There are at least three reasons for this. First, there was far too much media attention focused upon Mr. Pant’s mission which, given its sensitivity required discreetness. The publicity and the glare of the media meant that the main actors merely postured for the public, and rarely responded seriously. Second, the Pant mission did not take advantage of or build on the initiatives taken at the track-two level between the Union Government and the separatist groups. In fact, it has disrupted the ongoing unofficial dialogue. If New Delhi ’s efforts have to be taken seriously by the people of Kashmir , then there should be continuity in its policy and approach. By abruptly disrupting the track-two process between “unofficial representatives” of the Government and the separatist groups and simultaneously appointing KC Pant, the Union Government has given the impression that its approach is adhocist. Indeed, the track-two dialogue had developed lines of communication with the separatist leaders, besides creating an environment of understanding. Third, because of the above two reasons, Mr. Pant was forced to invite and consult representatives from the whole spectrum of public opinion, thus making a mockery of the real intention to engage the separatist groups.

 

 

If Pant’s mission has achieved very little, what needs to be done now?

 

 

There can be no substitute for a dialogue. There should be a dialogue at two levels. The first, internally with the Kashmiris, and the second, bilaterally with Pakistan . At the moment there are two wars that India is fighting in Kashmir - first, the proxy war by Pakistan and second, the war for the hearts and minds of the Kashmiri people. Winning the second war will make the war against the first much easier for India to fight.

 

 

There is also a lot of space for a healthy dose of unilateralism. The Government of India must constitute a special High Level Task Force which should be given the responsibility of taking up specific projects that can provide employment to the people, revive the economy, and assist the state in providing good governance. KC Pant should make an attempt to build a discreet dialogue on the lines of the track two dialogues that have existed. It is my belief that he should make it a point not to speak to the media on Kashmir , at least for the next six months. Simultaneously, the Union Government should announce that it is willing to transfer a large amount of power to a new elected state Government. If the word autonomy is not liked, let us term it devolution or decentralization. But let us be sure: they should be the maximum powers needed for self-governance within the constitution. Besides, the Union Government should also build on the announcement made by the Prime Minister and the Home Minister that free and fair elections would be held to the State Assembly in Kashmir . India should also announce that it has no objection in having local and international NGOs observe the elections.

 

 

The Union Government seems to be confused in dealing with the APHC (All Party Hurriyat Conference). What policy should it adopt?

 

 

The APHC is built on one common ground – anti-India – and it articulates the sentiment of people who are alienated from India . A distinction needs to be made among the APHC leaders who spread hatred and believe in the two nation theory and leaders who are secular and who do not advocate violence. The Government should talk formally to all its leaders but substantial emphasis should be given to the moderate ones.

 

 

On the issue of governance in Jammu and Kashmir – how to govern the state effectively if the administration is constantly facing threats, especially at the rural level?

 

 

In 1996, militancy had been almost totally wiped out. If Farooq Abdullah had been sincere and fulfilled the election promises he had made, matters would not have come to such a pass. Militancy can be controlled, but without adequate support from the political and administrative side, long term peace and stability cannot be achieved. Even the Army has been continuously emphasizing this. Farooq Abdullah can give no excuse for not fulfilling his election promises, especially in not conducting panchayat elections until last year.

 

 

Various suggestions have been made to resolve the crisis. Conversion of the LoC into International Border seems to be gaining momentum. How far would this resolve the problem between India and Pakistan ? Would Pakistan be happy with the status quo? 

 

 

As long as Pakistan thinks it can bleed India through Kashmir , there is little hope of permanent peace. But, given the fact that both countries are nuclear powers, no revision of the territorial status quo is possible between them. My solution is simple: Give more autonomy to both sides of Kashmir and make the border soft. Over time, this would de-emotionalize the issue. Kashmir will become a zone of economic opportunity and after a time, people may even forget the problem.

 

 

Can Pakistan , especially its Army, afford such a move?

 

 

Given the conditions that Pakistan is facing at present it has no choice. Pakistan will inevitably realize that the cost of bleeding Kashmir is not worth the benefits. I’m hopeful its leadership, including that of the armed forces, will realize this very soon.

 

 

Another suggestion is to trifurcate the state. What would be its implications? 

 

 

Trifurcation is a very dangerous and subversive idea. Trifurcation will mean dividing the state on religious lines. It would actually support the two-nation theory. Jammu and Kashmir is a microcosm of India . It is multi-ethnic and multi-religious. Trifurcation will mean accepting that Hindus, Muslims and Sikhs cannot live together, which will bring the whole idea of India into a question. But there is a need for decentralization of powers. From New Delhi to Srinagar , and from Srinagar to Jammu and Leh and from there on, to the panchayat levels. More autonomy to the various parts of the state is essential, and autonomy should result in really empowering the people. 

 

 

 

 

 

POPULAR COMMENTARIES