historical retrospect - Panun Kashmir

Editorial
Threshold of tolerance
Correcting Perspective
Pune blasts have brought to the fore the glaring contradictions of the
perspective of the Government of India on National Security. Immediately
after the blasts the concerned quarters in Government of India started a
concerted campaign of diversion to prevent the derailment of its
forthcoming dialogue with Pakistan. No time was wasted in concluding that
the attack was an act of Indian Mujahideen from within India, even without
a comprehensive investigation. Although many security experts opined that
the attack had a typical texture and hue which the ISI or LeT operations
have, yet Government of India went with a politically expedient premise.
The Foreign Minister of Pakistan had claimed that it was India which was
seeking for a dialogue and not Pakistan. He virtually presented a scenario
in which India had no choice but to come to the table and continue the
dialogue process inspite of terrorism conducted and orchestrated from the
soil of Pakistan.
Indian Diplomatic response to Pune blasts, like many other such acts after
the Islamabad declaration which Vajpayee Government claimed to be a high
achievement of its diplomacy, have once again underlined that terrorism and
dialogue have to go hand in hand. Indian claim of not talking under the
shadow of terrorist blackmail has once again been put to abject ridicule.
Robert Gates, the Defence Secretary of Government of USA, must be eating
his words when he claimed in India that Indian restraint against Pakistan
was not unlimited. He must have based his conclusions on unequivocal
statements by none other than Union Home Minister, many times in recent
past, that India will strike back in case of a repetition of 26/11.
The Union Home Minister has also suffered a setback to his prestige after
Pune blast because Government of India has responded in the same way as it
has done to so many gruesome Jihadi terrorist assaults during more than
last two decades.
India always appealed in the international fora for a comprehensive
delegitimisation of Terrorism whatever its motivation and value basis. Yet
India has continuously legitimised terrorism by engaging with it and
according it political legitimacy. India has always wanted the West and USA
to recognise Pakistan as the main epicentre of international terrorism and
pleaded to declare it as a rogue state. Yet India has never discontinued
the most favoured nation status to Pakistan.
India has always held that all terrorism is same and cannot be
compartmentalised. Yet India has always differentiated between indigenous
terrorism and Pakistan based terrorism, between the terrorism of JKLF and
Hizbul Mujahideen, between the terrorism of LeT and Hizbul Mujahideen or
Indian Mujahideen. These contradictions and the brazen display of diplomacy
of mendicancy has put India in a very weak position if it decides to
continue its ongoing dialogue with Pakistan. India has responded to Jihadi
terrorism by dissolving its threshold of tolerance. There is no perspective
of deterence and hence no effective doctrine of defeating terrorism.
It is high time the Indian State resolves the contradictions in its
National Security doctrine. If Indian state wants the International
Community to take its resolve on tackling terrorism seriously then it has
to cultivate a consistency in its outlook. It is also imperative that India
clearly declares its threshold of tolerance and demonstrates a firm
commitment to adhere to it ?
Giving Away Kashmir
Dr Ajay Chrungoo
for so many years we have concerned ourselves primarily with how Pakistan
seeks to take away Jammu and Kashmir. We are perhaps getting too late to
intensely involve ourselves with how a section of Indian State and the
political class have been, over the years, crafting the giving away of
Jammu and Kashmir. The unilateral submission of the report of the Working
Group on Centre-State Relations by its Chairman Justice Sagir Ahmad to the
Chief Minister of Jammu and Kashmir is only a reflection on the relentless
campaign to keep the Muslim Question in India alive and transform the
vision of secularism into an albatross around the neck of Indian nation,
fixing its limbs into inaction so that the Muslim Power continues to inch
eastwards through successive partitions of India.
A Sinister Course Correction
The report submitted by Justice Sagir in the name of Working Group on
Centre State Relations was done without completing the agenda of the
Working Group; without taking most of the members of the Working Group into
confidence; without seeking the opinion of the members on the draft of the
report; and last but not the least without formally winding up the
proceedings of the Working Group. It seems that the entire exercise is
aimed at some sort of a course correction crafted by those who have
prefixed the direction and the outcome of the internal dialogue on Jammu
and Kashmir. There are pertinent reasons to think so.
The delay in submission of the report by Justice Sagir was certainly
causing worry which found expression once in a while in the public sphere.
On March 10, 2008 a prominent local daily reported NC patron Farooq
Abdullah blaming New Delhi as not being serious towards the resolution of
the Kashmir dispute and quoted him making direct and almost indictory
references about the Working Group on Centre-State Relations, "appointment
of a Muslim Judge to give report on the contentious issue of centre state
relations reflects their whimsical approach.... The report could have
catastrophic consequences for Justice Sagir." As per the report of Kashmir
Times (KT), Dr Farooq maintained that reluctance of Justice Sagir in
convening another round of meeting of the working group reflects his
understanding of "how the contents of the report could impact his career
prospects." KT further quotes Dr Farooq as having said, "...in a country
where the minorities are under suspicion all the time, expecting Justice
Sagir to give a report which could maintain his image of being a
nationalist would be a little irrational." In his expressions Dr Farooq
referred to the population dynamics in the country, "If the centre would
have been serious, Justice Sachar would have been the best choice" He
openly confessed about his resentment on the appointment of Justice Sagir
at the time when the heads of the working groups were being chosen and
frankly said, "I resisted his name, since I knew the repercussions of (his)
heading this crucial working group on centre-state relationships..."
The statement clearly brings out that persons of the stature of Dr Farooq
Abdullah had a clear cut expectation from the Working Group on Centre State
Relations and an apprehension whether the person of Justice Sagir be able
to deliver the same. Dr Farooq had the full realization that the content of
this expectation had a 'catastrophic' bearing on the secular fabric in rest
of the country and hence he nurtured a lack of confidence about the wisdom
of having a 'Muslim Judge' from outside the State as the head of the
Working Group reflecting upon the relationship of Jammu and Kashmir with
the Union of India.
It is relevant to quote what Prof Amitabh Mattoo was saying months before
Justice Sagir submitted his report given the fact that he has been one of
the more visible backchannel actors in the engagement between Pakistan,
India, separatists and the so called moderates in Kashmir. He wrote in
early October, "An important working group of the Prime Minister on J&K
dealt with centre state relations but it was unable to arrive at a
breakthrough. This doesn't mean that we have a cul-de-sac. There are many
proposals on the table including those on autonomy, self rule, self
governance and achievable nationhood....These internal discussions must
flow into the backchannel which can then attempt to work out a non-
territorial India-Pakistan settlement on J&K based on providing a similar
political architecture on both sides of the line of control working towards
converting the LoC into Line of Peace, that allows free movement of people,
goods, services and ideas."
The way Justice Sagir submitted his report has some resonance in the way
National Conference submitted the Greater and Regional Autonomy Reports.
Like the constitution of Working Group on Centre and State Relations, the
Farooq government constituted the Committees on Greater Autonomy and
regional Autonomy after coming to power in 1996 giving an impression of
adopting a non-partisan and inclusive process. He made Dr Karan Singh the
Chairman of the Greater Autonomy Committee and made another non Muslim
Balraj Puri to function as Working Chairman of the Regional Autonomy
Committee. Sooner than later Dr Karan Singh resigned and Balraj Puri was
forced out. The reports of the State Autonomy committee was suddenly
finalized, submitted to the government and then pushed into the State
assembly for adoption.
The Regional Autonomy report of NC envisaged the division of the State
along the same lines as Mushraff did later on. It put the division of Jammu
province into Muslim and Hindu majority domains firmly on the agenda for
the settlement of the Kashmir issue. Balraj Puri later wrote about the
proposed breaking of the existing regions in the State: "Though
redemarcation or creation of a region or a district was not included in the
terms of refer