Interlocutors’ Report: Recipe for a phased surrender of
sovereignty?
The
recent submission of the interlocutors’ report is now to be seen in this
strategic backdrop. The interlocutors’ mission was born out of the sheer panic
in New Delhi that followed the stone-pelting intifada that was engineered by the
ISI. The failure to anticipate this next logical progression in Pakistan’s proxy
war was regrettable. Emotions in the Kashmir valley tend to be intense. However,
they are seldom deep or long lasting. The engineers of the intifada had
correctly gauged the intense local anger at the tendency of the nervous CRPF
troopers to be abrasive and somewhat rude in their roadside manners. This led to
the flash of public anger. Failure to induct nonlethal weaponry led to needless
casualties, which were used to fuel further stone pelting. It was an intense
boil of public anger against bad roadside manners of the CRPF and, in any case,
was not sustainable. However, this was seized upon by the capitulationist lobby
in New Delhi to force the Indian state into abject surrender.This showed a clear
lack of any grasp of the ground situation in J&K.
The
ground reality is that the Indian army has largely broken the back of the
terrorist movement in J&K. From a peak strength of 3,500–4,000 armed
terrorists that Pakistan used to maintain in J&K each year (to keep the pot
boiling at a precise temperature that would remain within Indian tolerance
thresholds), the number of terrorists in the state has been reduced to just
around 300. These 300 are mostly engaged in just trying to survive and have kept
a very low profile. Having lost the terror battle, the ISI had then tried to
generate a Palestinian-style intifada in the valley. Major sums of money were
spent to mobilise stone pelters.
…we must not lose sight of the fact that 36 out of the 42
Pakistani terrorist training camps are very much active and churning out
recruits.
However,
after the initial hysteria, the security forces arrested Andrabi and other
lynchpins organisers and money conduits for supporting the stone pelters. Use of
dye sprays helped to identify principal ringleaders. Improvement in the roadside
manners of the CRPF and the highly calming influence of Lieutenant General Ata
Hasnain, the new GOC 15 Corps, rapidly helped to diffuse the situation. The
interlocutors meanwhile were totally out of touch with the rapidly changing
ground realities. Some of them had been the recipients of the seminar circuit
largesse of Fai and his ISI cohorts. They produced a blueprint for surrender.
They called for a return to the pre- 1953 status, reinstallation of a prime
minister of J&K, appointment of a local governor, repeal of central
legislations and, in fact, the putting in place of a secessionist architecture
that after a decent interval would orchestrate a walk out of J&K from the
Union of India. It would go out lock, stock and barrel, complete with its
colonial adjuncts of a largely Hindu Jammu, a Budhist Ladakh and a Shia
Kargil.
In the
light of the sharply escalating threat envelope of a combined Chinese– Pakistani
threat to J&K, it would be suicidal for India to loosen the hold of the
centre in any manner—unless the Indian state is truly determined to lose on the
negotiating table what it has won at such great cost on the battlefield. Of a
piece with its capitulationist agenda was the interlocutors’ suggestion to do
away with the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act (AFSPA). This act is not half as
draconian as the patriot legislation of the United States or what some European
countries have adopted to defend themselves against the twenty-first-century
threat of jihadi terrorism. Frankly, this act provided the legal cover for the
army to save the Northeast and then J&K. Though the ground situation has
improved dramatically, we must not lose sight of the fact that 36 out of the 42
Pakistani terrorist training camps are very much active and churning out
recruits. After the conclusion of the jihad against the Soviets in Afghanistan
in 1989, the ISI had trained its guns on Kashmir. We must wait and watch
patiently for the turn of events the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan will bring
after 2014. Any indecent haste to dismantle our defences before that could
result in a dangerous backslide we can ill afford.
The Peace-at-Any-Cost
Argument
There
was a school of thought in the United States, primarily led by Bruce Reidel,
that felt that the only way to get Pakistan to act decisively against the
Taliban–al-Qaeda combine was to arm-twist India into surrendering Kashmir.
India’s failure to stand up to this American pressure resulted in the
orchestration of a capitulationist chorus in the Indian media and a somewhat
sincere but rather misplaced attempt on the part of the Indian leadership to
negotiate peace at any cost with Pakistan. The military–ISI complex retaliated
with an IM offensive in the cities of India and then the major assault of 26/11
in Mumbai that left 166 Indians killed and some 700 wounded. After initially
adopting tough postures seeking action against the terrorists, the Indian state
seemed to cave in completely to foreign pressure and exhibited a pusillanimous
stance that seemed to indicate the Indian state wanted to resume peace talks
even if a few thousand more Indians were killed in the process by Pakistani
terrorists. Indian public pressure forced the state to resile from such patently
capitulationist postures.
The long-suffering Americans have apparently lost patience at long
last and are seemingly all set to dump
Pakistan.
Meanwhile, the Pakistanis two-timed their American
allies. They swindled the Americans of some $20 billion and had the temerity to
keep bin Laden in an ISI safe house some 800 metres from the Pakistan Military
Academy Kakul. Pakistan had the chutzpah to express outrage at the U.S. raid
that killed bin Laden in Abbottabad. Pakistan showed its hand by cutting off the
U.S.–NATO supply lines to Afghanistan. As always, the Pakistani generals had
overreached themselves. This military establishment has traditionally suffered
from very high levels of subjectivity. In Afghanistan, they had gambled that the
Americans would be routed and Pakistan would simply reimpose the Taliban after
hanging Karzai from a lamp post a la Najibullah. The long-suffering Americans
have apparently lost patience at long last and are seemingly all set to dump
Pakistan. It was precisely at this pathetic juncture that Zardari made his peace
overtures. The peace-at-any-cost lobby in Delhi concluded that this was their
historic opportunity to do a “Munich” with Pakistan. It had seemingly been
dumped even by the Americans and now, apparently, was the time to embrace this
pariah and erratic state that had killed thousands of Indian citizens and would
continue to do so in the future.
Hopefully, American pressure on India to do a
pusillanimous peace deal with Pakistan will abate greatly after the recent
bitterness in their relations with Pakistan. We only have to rein in the very
misplaced zeal of our home-grown Munich lobby. India had rationalised that the
peace overtures were from the civilian establishment in Pakistan and that we
must strengthen the democratic elements against the military–ISI combine. The
recent soft coup by the army via the judiciary in Islamabad shows that this view
was rather naïve and subjective.
The
right stance to adopt is a wait-and-watch stance to see which way the
post-U.S.-withdrawal scenario in Afghanistan will pan out. It would not be
prudent to dismantle our internal security structures in J&K that have
succeeded in containing the situation quite well so far. Hence, it would be
imprudent to remove the AFSPA, wholly or partially, and the interlocutors’
report needs to be consigned to the deepest dustbins of the archives. We should
avoid for the time being any attempts to dilute the boundaries or permit any
large-scale move across the LoC that could be exploited by the
ISI.
It would not be prudent to dismantle our internal security
structures in J&K that have succeeded in containing the situation quite well
so far. Hence, it would be imprudent to remove the AFSPA, wholly or
partially…
The Ideological
Battle
In the
meantime, the onset of normalcy will initiate its own logic and peace dividend
constituency in J&K. The Indian state must consolidate its hard-won gains by
facilitating the spread of liberal, secular and humanist education. That was one
of the prime purposes of Op Sadbhavana, under which the army built hundreds of
quality schools and computer-literacy centres. Kashmir was once a syncretic
paradise where the tolerant Sufi version of Islam flourished. Kashmir had its
tradition of the Nuynda Rosh, or the Nund Rishi tradition of Sufi saints who
were revered alike by both the Hindus and the Muslims. It would be essential to
revive these tolerant traditions and syncretic mores.
As part of
their ideological battle, the Salafi–Wahabi ideology was sought to be spread in
J&K by the jihadi elements sent in by Pakistan. The first casualty was the
tradition of tolerance. This saw the exodus of the Kashmiri Pundits and the
burning of Charar-e-Sharief, a shrine. The latest torching of Dastagir Sahib, a
Sufi shrine, is part of that same diabolical ideological offensive to poison
mindsets and harden identities along polarised and communal lines. Modernist
education and a revival of the traditional Sufi culture of Kashmir would be
essential to fight the battle at the ideological level. It would be essential to
emphasise that the Lord of the Quran is not just the Lord of the Musalmeen but
the Lord of the whole quainat (universe) per se. The very word “Islam” comes
from “shalom,” which means peace—hardly the interpretation that the extremists
have tried to impose upon it.
No comments:
Post a Comment