An unnecessary controversy

The News, Sun, April,4, 2004.

Pervaiz Iqbal Cheema



An unnecessary controversy appears to have been started by the media regarding President Musharraf’s alleged remarks dealing with the ongoing peace process and the Kashmir dispute. A report published in Dawn (31 March, 2004) carried the headline that President Musharraf had set a deadline on Kashmir.  Another leading newspaper (The News) interpreted the remarks somewhat differently and carried the headline stressing no sell out on Kashmir.  The two headlines tend to generate different impressions and convey different messages. Being present in the meeting and having listened to President’s initial remarks and responses to questions, it was somewhat amazing and amusing for me to read the use of word ‘deadline’ as no such word was used (as far as I remember) within the contextual framework of the Kashmir dispute by the President. Later the Foreign Office spokesman also categorically denied stressing that the President  ‘did not use the word ‘deadline’ at all’.

It is not too far fetched to assume that enthusiastic media men sometimes employ phrases to attract readers without extending deserving considerations to possible consequences and implications. While media has every right to interpret the tone, manner and contents of the statements and speeches of leaders the way they want to do it, it would indeed be appropriate if no factual distortions are allowed to creep in and the facts are presented with extreme care.

It is quite easily comprehensible if something is added by mistake in a report or even in an article but when one reads such a mistake being projected in the form of a headline, and then one quite legitimately begins to entertain other interpretations. Inadvertent mistakes are often the product of somewhat sloppy proof reading and most of them are invariably discovered before the paper/magazines goes in for printing. 

Contrived interpretation, unintended interpretation and misinterpretation all have different rationale and meanings. While the contrived interpretation is always carefully calculated with a specific objective in mind, the unintended interpretation sometimes is the product of a certain frame of mind at the time of interpretation. It appears to me that headline published in the daily Dawn on 31^st March was more of the product of an enthusiastic fast moving mind (that tend to read too much) than of any carefully calculated pursuit.

Compared to contrived interpretations, both unintended and misinterpretations are somewhat harmless. It is not a very unusual phenomenon that mistakes creep in the newspaper and are often quickly rectified when discovered. However it become rather difficult if such mistakes are discovered in a research reports. One expects that a research report would be carefully prepared and efforts would be made to make it mistake free. But if one still finds factual distortion then, one is left with no option except to think that twist or distortion is the product of carefully contrived interpretation.

A recently published article under the title of ‘Propaganda in academic robes’ meticulously and admirably highlights the biased and prejudiced approach employed by a Brussels –based group International Crisis Group (ICG) in supporting India’s stand on Kashmir regardless of merits of the case. Dr. Ijaz Hussain, the author of the article, stressed in his article that if similar heavily biased reports had been published in India by ICG, they would have been thrown out of India almost immediately. He further points out a long list of shortcomings in the report including factual inaptitude, and terminological inexactitude.

As mentioned above that everybody has a right to formulate one’s own interpretation but no one is going to support factual distortion provided if one is familiar with the real facts. The facts must always be presented correctly and carefully. Even a minor distortion could generate a totally different impression than what was intended originally. A historian’s pen is often regarded as merciless primarily because one expects that a historian would try to present fact as correctly as humanly possible.

My own interpretation of President’s remarks on Kashmir was that he merely reiterated what he has been saying all along both inside as well as outside the country. In short he was once again stressing the need to resolve the ongoing Kashmir dispute. Indeed the centrality of the Kashmir was once again emphasized. An independent analysis of the various issues impeding Indo-Pak relations is bound to put Kashmir right on top of the list. In fact various baskets that have been suggested from time to time for negotiations, three are directly linked with the ongoing Kashmir dispute.

Siachin, Wullar, and Baghiliar are all situated in Kashmir. In my perception there is no need to deal with them separately unless you want to prolong the negotiations and delay the resolution of the Kashmir dispute. The most fruitful approach would be to concentrate on the Kashmir dispute itself. Once Kashmir dispute is resolved all these linked issues would automatically be resolved. However if the intentions are to delay the resolution of dispute, then one can expects such approaches, which would first concentrate on solving issues like Siachin, Wullar etc.

It is also a well-known fact that once we resolve the complex Kashmir dispute, all other issues would hardly take any time to be put on the right track. Sir Creek is not really as complex as Kashmir is. Similarly the cultural and sporting ties are something, which neither country really objects to. In fact a ready-made agreement may be found in archives of Indo-Pak negotiation processes. Both sides are well aware that the economic ties could be very useful for both of them after having sorted out certain minor issues in order to ensure that neither sides gains unfair advantage.

So then what is left that is effectively impeding progress. Obviously it is the ongoing Kashmir dispute, which not only takes a very heavy toll of the political climate but also has the ability to pull back whatever achievements have been made in other areas of interests to both India and Pakistan. Once the Kashmir dispute is out of the way, the two countries will quickly resolve all other issues. It is the existence and perpetuation of the Kashmir dispute, which generates suspicions rather regularly and consistently.

Since April 18, 2003 the overall atmosphere has been steadily improving. The resumption of High Commissioner level diplomatic contacts, communication and transportation links that were cut off in December 2001, visit of the Indian cricket team etc. all contributed towards the improvisation of atmosphere and facilitated return to the situation that existed in late 2001. Perhaps the most significant confidence building measure (CBM) was the unilateral ceasefire on the Line of Control that was introduced by the Pakistani Prime Minister Jamali.

It needs to be stressed here that the main purpose of CBMs is to arrest the dangerous drift towards war and reverse the trend if possible by introducing transparency, which may reduce tensions and make the atmosphere conducive to some form of cooperative behaviour. Openness can introduce qualitative improvement in the climate of distrust and apprehension, enhance understanding of the adversary’s perceptions and help establish working relationships between antagonistic states. Simply defined the term itself reflects a process of building confidence between adversaries. To generate confidence in an atmosphere of distrust is not an easy task. Even to begin negotiations in such a situation requires political will and recognition of the dictates of the time. Since it is easier to negotiate a CBM than an agreement or a formal arms control treaty, not only the popularity and efficacy of CBMs have been on the rise but they are emerging as essential means of preventing unintended escalation and minimising the dangers of accidental war.

The successful outcomes of the 12^th SAARC was not only the first tangible product of improved atmosphere but it also further contributed towards the improvisation of the atmosphere and injected confidence. Since then the initiation of the negotiation process has taken place which merely discussed procedural matters and the two sides agreed to hold the next meeting in late May and early June after the Indian general elections. It is quite natural that one would expect some tangible forward movement soon after the elections. However it needs to be stressed here that dramatic and sensational headlines can sometimes give birth to undesired perceptions, which, in turn, may initiate unnecessary controversy causing unwanted prolongation of the peace process.