‘The BJP alone can find a solution to our problems with Pakistan,
because Hindus will never think whatever we have done is a sell-off,’
L.K. Advani said on March 13, 2004. Ousted from power, the BJP has done
its best to obstruct the peace process. A.B. Vajpayee wrote to Prime
Minister Manmohan Singh, on June 16, 2005, criticising the government’s
halting steps towards a rapprochement. It would be a great pity if the
PM were to allow himself to be deflected from course by the BJP.
The two-year-old peace process has reached a deadlock; but the Kashmir
issue has reached a stage from which, with skill and good will, it can
be brought to a finale fully consistent with the criteria which the PM
propounded in May 2004. He told Jonathan Power that “the Kashmir dispute
is stopping us from realising our potential” and “we have an obligation
to ourselves to solve the problem”. The correspondent reported: “I
pushed him on how far he himself would accept compromise with Pakistan
over Kashmir. ‘Short of secession, short of redrawing boundaries, the
Indian establishment can live with anything’.”
President Pervez Musharraf’s proposal for ‘self-governance’ ensures just
that. It marks abandonment of the 58-year-old demand for
‘self-determination’, which implies change of status, unlike
self-governance. The contrast is so glaring. Its nuances emerge clearly
when the record is recalled. Two years ago, on December 18, 2003,
Musharraf said, “We are for the UN Security Council resolutions,
whatever that stands for. However, now we have left that aside. We keep
saying that if we want to resolve this issue, both sides need to talk to
each other with flexibility... going beyond stated positions... and meeting
halfway.” This was said on the eve of the Saarc summit in Islamabad
where he met Prime Minister Vajpayee. The dialogue process was resumed
on January 6, 2004.
On October 25, 2004, he suggested a precise, if debatable, formula as “a
food for thought for you (the editors). Take Kashmir in its entirety. It
has seven regions. Two of the regions are in Pakistan and five are in
India... identify a region, whether it is the whole of seven or part. I
do not know. Identify the region forever and change its status.” Three
features stand out - tentativeness, tacit acceptance of the partition of
J&K and change of status, which India could not possibly accept.
A major step was taken this year on April 18 when the president said:
“The LoC cannot be permanent. Borders must be made irrelevant and
boundaries cannot be altered. Take the three together, and now discuss
the solution.” This was amplified on May 20 when ‘self-government’ was
first aired. “We need to find a via media where Kashmiris who may be
demanding independence, even their concerns are addressed.
Self-government must be allowed to the people of Kashmir.” More to the
point: “We do understand India’s sensitivity over their secular
credentials” and, therefore, “it cannot be, may be on a religious
basis”. On demilitarisation, he left open the question whether it
“should precede or follow cessation of militancy”. It was like “the egg
and the chicken conundrum”. Significantly, he suggested a regional basis
as part of which “maximum self-governance must be allowed and borders
rendered irrelevant”.
He was perceptibly inching towards acceptance of the status quo. The
Rubicon was crossed with an interview at Canberra on June 14 in which he
said: “Autonomous Kashmir is my earnest desire, but its complete
independence will not be acceptable to both Pakistan and India.” If
plebiscite under the UN’s resolutions is ruled out, as it was on
December 18, 2003, and so is independence, what else remained but
acceptance of the status quo - subject to negotiations on the
consequences of the accord? What more can Pakistan possibly concede? Do
we expect it simply to accept the LoC, and cry quits?
The interview was published just as the APHC leaders were set to return
to Srinagar from their trip to Pakistan. It is unlikely that the
president did not give them any inkling of his ideas. It was during this
promising phase that Vajpayee decided to throw a spanner in the works.
He did not want anyone but the BJP to receive credit for such a historic
accord.
Against this background, stretching over two years, the president’s
latest offer acquires particular significance. He told the BBC on
October 21 that it was necessary to identify exactly “what is Kashmir”;
demilitarise the identified region and then give self-government to the
people there. “I have always believed there is an opportunity of a
lifetime to solve the dispute,” adding. “Let’s make the LoC irrelevant.
Let’s open it out.”
He did not demand either abrogation of the LoC or a change in status of
any region as he had on October 25, 2004. He used the terms
self-government and autonomy synonymously. They both imply tacit
acceptance of the sovereignty of the State that administered the
territory. That on November 13, during the Saarc summit at Dhaka, Prime
Minister Shaukat Aziz mooted the proposal to Prime Minister Manmohan
Singh suggests that Pakistan is in earnest about it.
Musharraf’s proposal must be read in the context of his strong, repeated
encouragement to the APHC to parley with India, in total contrast to
Pakistan’s opposition to such talks in the past. In Kashmir, the
proposal has been welcomed by the APHC, the PDP and the NC. The Urdu
weekly, Chattan, published from Srinagar and edited by an upright
journalist, Tahir Mohiuddin, has over the past years been sharply
critical of all - Pakistan, India, the APHC, the NC, the PDP and the
militants. Its banner headlines on November 28 reflected some dismay in
Kashmir: ‘Is Musharraf trying to wash his hands off (Kashmir)?’ Most
unlikely. But he has been desperately seeking a solution, honourable to
all, so that he can concentrate on pressing problems at home.
The trend since July 16, 2001 is unmistakable. At the Agra breakfast, he
pleaded that each side should exclude extreme proposals. One concession
followed another thereafter.
Not churlish indifference but constructive exploration should be India’s
response. Ten questions are inescapable: will self-governance extend to
POK as well as the northern territories? With whom will Pakistan
negotiate its quantum? Will such an accord be subject to India’s
approval as well? Will India concede to Pakistan a voice in the quantum
of self-governance it accords to Kashmir? With whom will India negotiate
the quantum of autonomy? After a fresh poll?
Will this be part of an Indo-Pak agreement on the lines of the Aaland
and South Tyrol accords - bilateral accords whereby a State agrees with
its neighbour to respect the autonomy of a territory under its
sovereignty? Will the LoC be rationalised? And recognised as an
international boundary with free access to Kashmiris on both sides of
the divide? What mechanism will be set up to oversee this? Finally, if
Pakistan accepts the status quo, what concessions has India to offer to
it and to Kashmiris?
This is the most promising overture India has ever received from
Pakistan. The peace dividend will be enormous. It will be arrogant folly
to let such an opportunity slip from our hands.