Peace on whose terms?

Pervaiz Iqbal Cheema

The recent statement by Prime Minister Vajpayee in Lok Sabha stressing that peace will not be on Pakistan's terms raises many questions. Is the statement meant to convey India's determination to slow down or scuttle the peace process? Is it an integral part of the ongoing damage control exercise? Is it part of delaying tactics and India's overall strategy of buying time? Does it mean that India would accept peace only on Indian terms?

It is little difficult to comprehend how PM Vajpayee got the impression that the Pakistanis were trying to secure the much desired peace on Pakistan's terms especially when President Musharraf have repeatedly expressed his determination to resolve all disputes and issues. Musharraf's assertion to maintain the centrality of the Kashmir dispute seem to have been misinterpreted and the impression is being generated that he only wanted the resolution of the Kashmir dispute. What most Indians fail to understand or deliberately avoid to recognize the ground reality that the resolution of Kashmir would not only resolve many of the linked disputes but would also pave the way for accelerated settlement of all other complex issues. Among the linked disputes that deserve to be mentioned include Siachin, Wullar, Working boundary and periodic upheavals around LOC etc.

Generally acclaimed interpretation of the Agra Summit is that while it remained inconclusive in terms of not producing an agreed document, it was and still is viewed in many quarters that it started the much desired dialogue process between the two nuclear neighbours. Harsh statements like the two recently given by Vajpayee and Jaswant not only pollute the atmosphere but also begin to nibble the hard earned goodwill at Agra. To assert that the onus for its failure to produce a declaration or its inconclusive nature is entirely upon Pakistan amounts to initiating a process of closing, hitherto, ajar gates of negotiations.

Both Vajpayee and Jaswant made frequent references to what they like to call cross-border terrorism but never once mentioned what many Kashmiris refer to as the state terrorism. Terrorism in any form is not really acceptable but one can't afford to look at terrorism selectively. The Lahore Declaration clearly mentioned that 'terrorism in all its forms and manifestation' is condemnable. Hardly any story is ever published in India regarding the state terrorism or a major action undertaken against the culprits. On the contrary more and more powers are given to the security forces to perpetuate what the innocent Kashmiris call as the 'state terrorism'.

Another intriguing aspect of the sordid drama in Kashmir is that instead of accepting the responsibilities for their own wrongdoings, the blame is always placed on either the freedom fighters or Pakistan. One of the most amusing aspect of recent statement of Jaswant Singh is his reference to cross border terrorism would cause social and political anarchy in Pakistan as it had done in Afghanistan. Nothing could be further from truth. Pakistan has repeatedly stressed that it is only extending moral, political and diplomatic support to the freedom fighters in Kashmir. Besides the situation in Afghanistan is the result of a combination of various factors including the American use of what they used to call the 'Great Islamic Warriors' against the Soviets and the subsequent civil war among the different factions of Afghan society. The anarchical situation is invariably the result of internal dynamics.

No effort is ever made to comprehend the ground realities of freedom movement. How come the militants are always blamed by Indian media even though the people who endure the brutalities in the occupied J & K have vociferously and frequently blamed the Indian security forces? How come the tragedies at Chittsinghpura, Pushpura, Charar-e-Sharif, and Allochabagh etc. in which the citizens themselves gave evidence never attracted a thorough coverage as well as deserving investigations? A freedom fighter is like a fish in the water. If there is no water, fish cannot survive. As long as the freedom fighters have the support of the population, their struggle is unlikely to cease. History is studded with examples clearly reflecting that no amount of suppression has ever been able to totally eliminate such struggles. It may temporarily subside only to surface again with greater vigour and enthusiasm.

One needs to take notice of the fact that for years the APHC has been raising voice against the continuous human rights violations, custodial killings, arbitrary arrests, indiscriminate burning of properties. While such brutalities has been highlighted and condemned by many concerned international organizations and have also been mentioned in parliaments of many powerful countries, the Indian authorities have not taken any tangible action against their own security forces. To brushed aside such happenings as trivialities and placing the blame on freedom fighters amounts to evading unpleasant realities.

Both Vajpayee and Jaswant are blaming Pakistan for what they call cross-border terrorism on one hand and also express their willingness to continue with the dialogue process on the other. Such accusations are likely to attract counter accusations, which may, in turn, affect the dialogue process. All that one can easily ascertain from such loaded and dual-natured statements is that the Indian authorities could have had decided to slow down the process. By implication it is not too far fetched to assume that Vajpayee is unlikely to come to Pakistan this year.

The second interpretation of such biting statements is that these undesired statements are part of the ongoing damage control exercise. Since the abrupt ending of Agra Summit Musharraf's ability to cope effectively with the experienced Indian politicians has been well appreciated both inside as well as outside the region. Enhanced Musharraf's image had made many Indian hardliners rather uncomfortable. These hardliners evolved a strategy of subjecting their own leaders to intense critical and embarrassing evaluation, which in turn seemed to have influenced even the most balanced politicians to step up criticism against Musharraf.

'Clearly upset by the perception that Musharraf won the media war at Agra, the Government has tried to hit back by questioning General's maturity and fineness to conduct delicate diplomatic negotiations on a complex issue like the Jammu and Kashmir dispute' wrote an Indian daily. One is extremely disappointed when the language employed to express resentment begins to degenerate into undiplomatic realms.
Compared to Jaswant's language, Vajpayee's choice of words appear to be reasonably better and balanced though extremely harsh. Accusations like that Musharraf was unprepared, was ignorant of history, lacked vision, had a mistaken perception about the will and determination of Indian army clearly reflect attempts aimed what an Indian daily wrote 'to puncture General Musharraf's larger than life image'.

Besides harping too much on selective aspect of terrorism merely amounts to not only evading the ground realities but also undertaking concerted efforts to undermine the genuine nature of the freedom struggle. Attempts to please few hardliners of the Sangh parivar at the cost of progress that was made at Agra does seem to be a wise move. The fate of more than 1300 million people should not be allowed to be held hostage by few hardliners of a particular group. Surely the damage control exercise could have employed more appropriate means and explored other more attractive avenues.

The third interpretation which is relatively more popular among many Pakistanis is that the current negative campaign against Pakistan's role at Agra is a product of a combination of factors; to strengthen already undertaken damage control exercise, to denigrate the freedom movement in Kashmir, and most of all to delay the resolution of the dispute. It is part of India's well-planned strategy based on delaying tactics. The Indians have demonstrated superb skill in delaying the resolution of even those disputes, which, could have been easily and quickly resolved.

India has never been able to swallow even a genuine and rational offer by the Pakistanis. It has even rejected those offers, which were originally the product of their own efforts like the No War Pact etc. Nothing could be straight and good if it comes from Pakistan. This type of attitude merely reinforces the notion that everything has to be finalized on Indian terms. Aspiring to play the role of a major power the Indians have to learn how to be rational, magnanimous and large hearted. A major power is expected to take cognizance of ground realities and demonstrate ability to ride above the regional irritants, issues and disputes. India does not seems to be moving at a desirable pace in order to acquire quickly the minimum requisites deemed so necessary for a major power role.