It's no capitulation

It's no capitulation
Kuldip Nayar

Home Minister L.K. Advani has the reputation of not changing his decision. It has merit in the sense that there is finality about what he says. But who is to blame if and when his inputs for reaching a decision are not correct? Not allowing the Hurriyat leaders to go to Pakistan is one such case.

The home minister's plea -- he has repeated it in the Rajya Sabha -- that the Hurriyat wants to act as a mediator between India and Pakistan and that his government would not allow it to play that role. If this is the Hurriyat's stand, few would disagree with Advani.

The Hurriyat leaders, after a joint meeting in Srinagar a few days ago, said that they wanted to go to Pakistan to bring about `a multi-ceasefire.' They explained that after the unilateral ceasefire by India, their task in Pakistan would be to meet the various groups of militants and persuade them to stop violence and militancy to create an atmosphere for talks. They specifically mentioned that their role was not that of a go-between.

Advani can argue that he has no faith in them. He can also say that the information he possesses indicates that the Hurriyat leaders would try to be mediators. But he has not taken that stand. All that he has said is that when New Delhi decides to hold talks with Islamabad, it would do so on its own.

There can be no exception to this approach because it is the government, which has to decide when and where to sit with Pakistan across the table. Again, it is the government, which has the authority to decide how far it wants to go in the matter relating to Kashmir. This problem is too serious to be left to the mediators. The government has always rejected the idea of a third party. How can it now accept the Hurriyat to act that way when even the offer by a country like the USA has been rejected outrightly?

In the face of a categorical statement by the Hurriyat executive, it is clear that it wanted to talk to the militants in Pakistan to persuade them to reciprocate Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee's unilateral ceasefire. Advani's refusal to allow them to visit Pakistan shows an attitude that is not based on facts. He looks like going against the general opinion in the country, which favours the Hurriyat's trip to Pakistan.

This does not, however, mean the nation supports the Hurriyat stand on Kashmir. Nor does it in any way reflect the government's weakness. All this means is that New Delhi wants to explore every possible avenue to ensure peace. Vajpayee's expectation is that the ceasefire will eventually act as pressure on Pakistan to respond positively.

All the Indian groups, which have gone to the other side in the last few weeks, have demanded in their statements that restrictions on the Hurriyat visit should be lifted. There was a delegation of former Indian diplomats, some of whom are hand in glove with the BJP, who proposed the same thing on their return. Even some senior retired officers from the army and the navy came back with a similar feeling that the efforts towards conciliation would be strengthened if the Hurriyat leaders were to visit Pakistan. In fact, General Pervez Musharraf, Pakistan's chief executive, complained to some members of the delegation that the Indian government had unnecessarily stalled the visit of the Hurriyat leaders. ``We were prepared to talk to them and so were some militant groups,'' Musharraf has reportedly told the delegates. Why Advani is adamant is not understandable. It shows he and Vajpayee have distanced themselves on matters relating to Kashmir. But where Advani has gone wrong is that the talks for peace do not inany way impinge on our stand. It also does not mean that any understanding beyond cessation of violence, which the Hurriyat may bring about, will be binding on us. The visit is only to silence guns from the other side. The Hurriyat is conscious of its limited role and it has not made any statement to the contrary.

Advani is quite right when he says that there are several points of view within the Hurriyat. Indeed, it is a divided house. One or two members are openly pro-Pakistan in their stance while some are pro-independent. A couple of them have India as their center of attention. But their views or leanings are not the point at issue. Their visit has a limited purpose. If New Delhi were to allow them to go to the other side, it would help the country know how far the Hurriyat could influence the militants in Pakistan to respond to the ceasefire. This will come in handy in the days to come when the real negotiations would begin.

There is a possibility that some Hurriyat leaders may say something in Pakistan that may not be to our liking. So what? They have said so many things, on so many occasions, which are not palatable to the country. The press has printed them all. They may have been criticised for upholding certain views but none could punish them because the Constitution provides freedom of expression to all its nationals. What new would they say in Pakistan now? We have heard them all before. Their views are their own and are at variance with the country's stand. People and the government there already know from the press and TV networks their oft-repeated thinking. One more round will not weaken New Delhi's policy.

Maybe, Pakistan will also see chinks within the Hurriyat. They are under one umbrella, no doubt, but they differ on the concept of tomorrow's Kashmir -- most of them believing in a secular state and a few supporting the Islamic order. It is possible that after their visit to Pakistan, some of them would return disillusioned. Even the hardcore among them might begin to realise that the Pakistan society was not fanatic enough to their liking.

By blocking the visit of the Hurriyat, New Delhi may also be hurting international opinion that supports our cause. Islamabad stands isolated because of the impression that it is training, arming and sending militants to Kashmir. Still the world wants hostilities to end. New Delhi's refusal may create the impression that India is not willing to compromise on even an innocuous step like the Hurriyat's visit to Pakistan.

Advani has done well to give an assurance in Parliament that the government will soon be talking to various groups in Kashmir. It shows that the ceasefire is not an end in itself but an opportunity to sort out things in the state. It also shows that for the first time all political elements will be invited for talks. Strange, Advani should mention the Hurriyat among the groups on the government list for talks but refuse permission to its leaders to go across the border.

Pakistan will also see chinks within the Hurriyat. They are under one umbrella, no doubt, but they differ on the concept of tomorrow's Kashmir