Bring back Shimla spirit

WITH the announcement of dates for the India-Pakistan July summit, General Musharraf has changed his designation from chief executive to President, thereby endowing himself with a formal political status.

There have been statements from Vajpayee and Musharraf indicating that there is no basic change in their negotiating stances on Kashmir: Vajpayee has claimed that Jammu and Kashmir is an integral part of India and that the issue of Pakistan Occupied Kashmir has to be on the agenda of the summit. Musharraf has stated that resolving the future status of Kashmir is an unfinished task of the Partition.

One would begin with the proposition that there is no place for euphoria about, either India entering into these negotiations from a position of strength, or a presumption that Musharraf is coming to this summit under tremendous pressure. The Vajpayee government came to the conclusion that the peace initiatives, which originated in the declaration of the unilateral ceasefire in November, had reached saturation point without any concrete results.

The invitation to Musharraf clearly states India’s willingness to discuss the Kashmir issue. The Indian assessment is that to sustain international understanding and support for Indian concerns on Kash- mir, a resumption of a high level and multi-pronged dialogue is necessary. There are sceptics who do not anticipate any concrete results from the dialogue but majority of the people are supportive of the Vajpayee initiative.

Musharraf agreed to the invitation because of the following reasons: first it helps him acquire legitimacy. Second, a summit with Va- jpayee will help remedy Pakistan’s image as a state supporting Islamic terrorism.

It must also be noted that Pakistan’s foreign minister Abdul Sattar was in Washington during the third week of June. With Secretary of State Colin Powell and President George Bush he would no doubt have utilised the opportunity to convey not only Pakistani concerns, but also expectations, about J&K.

In a manner, the speech given by General Musharraf at the National Seerat Conference in Islamabad, on June 6, was remarkable. He admonished leaders of the Islam-pasand parties and extremist organisations to refrain from adventurist and irresponsible statements about their militant inten- tions regarding India. He emphasised that their activities tarnished the image of Pakistan. He contradicted their claims that they are committed to Pakistan’s identity and dignity.

What are the prospects from the summit? A limited achievement would be the revival of the Lahore Process. There are possibilities that the two leaders will decide on the follow up action to be taken, especially on the Memorandum of Understanding on avoidance of nuclear conflict and the working on nuclear risk reduction. Although other issues like the military stand- off at Siachen, the border demarcation on Sir Creek and the need to enhance mutual confidence building measures may be discussed, the central issue would be Kashmir.

It is significant that the Pakistan High Commissioner in New Delhi Ashraf Jehangir Qazi has made a special effort not only to interact with the BJP and its associates in the ruling coalition, he has also contacted Opposition parties, including Communist leaders, in order to persuade them to accept that the future status of Kashmir should be discussed between the two heads of government. In this he has achieved marginal success. The prospect of any qualitative break through in the summit in July is unlikely. The Indian public is firmly opposed to any territorial alienation of J&K from India. The people of Ladakh and Jammu share the same view.

Political groups in the Kashmir valley have contradictory positions regarding solutions. There are some who want to join Pakistan, others want J&K to be an independent state, with appropriate security guarantees from India and Pakistan and the UN. There are some who advocate a trifurcation of Kashmir into three territorial entities: Ladakh, the Kashmir valley and Jammu, with the valley having links with Pakistan. One has also come across a radical suggestion by the Kashmiri Hindus, who have become refugees in India. They suggest that Kashmir should be divided into four entities: Ladakh, Jammu, the Valley west of Jhelum to be given to Pakistan, and the Valley east of Jhelum to become homeland for Kashmiri Hindus.

Pakistan has not signalled that there is any change in its basic stand on the Kashmir issue. In a recent interview, General Musharraf said ‘‘a solution is possible if both India and Pakistan become flexible enough to move away from their stated positions.’’

Musharraf reasons that once a dialogue starts, a movement forward could be possible. However, he firmly believes that a solution should be based on the UN resolution, the Security Council Resolution on Plebiscite. Elaborating his perception on the Kashmir issue, Musharraf stated that the situation in Kashmir is characterised by a ‘‘freedom struggle’’. He feels that India should take note of this reality in dealing with the issue, both with Kashmiris and Pakistan.

In recent months, neither India, nor Pakistan, have referred to the solution visualised at Shimla in 1972. In other words, the conversion of the Line of Control into an international frontier with some necessary adjustments. Such a solution may even have the support of the international community. The people of J&K may accept this solution, if it is combined with autonomy and guarantees of access to Pakistan.

The initiation of a personal dialogue, however, is bound to project the image that India and Pakistan are capable of interaction with each other. This summit must generate the process of continuous discussion. Though there may be no break through, there should be no abrupt termination of the dialogue process simply because it did not lead to concrete results. The summit provides an opportunity for India and Pakistan to decide whether the future of the peoples of two countries should be held hostage to the Kashmir issue.

Earlier Columns