|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A J&K Primer—From Myth to Reality Facts speak louder than analysis or laboured interpretations. The significance of this, sadly ignored by sections of journalists, is borne out by the 73-page narration of the Kashmir problem by B. G. Verghese, veteran journalist and author. A J&K Primer—From Myth to Reality does not purport to be elaborate history of Jammu and Kashmir or a scholarly critique. He merely quotes from the relevant documents, avoiding his personal opinions. Tracing the history of the
contentious issue in the immediate aftermath of Partition, he presents
clinically the various events of the last six decades—Pakistan’s
invasion, the state’s accession to India, the UN resolutions, the 1965
War, autonomy and integration, ceasefire line to the Line of Control,
rigged elections, rise of militancy and cross-border infiltration, the
2001-02 confrontation and moves for conciliation and finally the peace
process and Prime Minister Manmohan’s roadmap. It is an extended news
report for this period. The style is easy and direct. The description of
the major developments throws up significant points, which automatically
become the subjects of analysis. In commenting upon the substantive matters, it is useful to begin from the end—from the account of the peace process. The utterances of the two top leaders, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf, reveal a surprising convergence. However, its significance has not been gauged either in India or Pakistan. The two sides have moved away from their maximal positions—New Delhi from its commitment to achieve the integration of the entire princely state of Jammu and Kashmir, as it existed at the time of Partition, including the areas now controlled by Pakistan. Islamabad no longer insists on self-determination for the people of the state and on plebiscite as envisaged in the UN resolutions. Neither of the two sides says so publicly for fear of evoking sharp adverse reactions, but it is implied in the formulations. What is more important and not publicly known is that the "options" for a settlement, to use the words in one of the joint statements, are currently being considered in the back-channel diplomatic discussions. It is premature to predict the outcome, but the two sides are engaged in by far the most serious bid to find a way out. The non-papers, reported to have been exchanged by the two interlocutors, contain specific ideas for a possible solution which, it is safe to assume, are based on the core points made by the two leaders. According to the Prime Minister, the boundaries cannot be redrawn but made irrelevant. "Consultative mechanisms" could be set up to maximise the gains of cooperation in social and economic development sectors and both sides could improve the quality of governance in the areas under their control. General Musharraf, as is known (but not mentioned in the book), notes India’s opposition to any change of boundaries, emphasises Pakistan’s reluctance to accept the LoC as the international border and approvingly refers to the idea of making the border irrelevant. For him, a solution lies somewhere in the compromise. The narration of past events is intended to separate the myth from the reality and to remove the cobwebs of misinterpretation. The two sides are found to have committed serious mistakes and indulged in hypocrisy and double-dealing. Pakistan, while pleading innocence, engineered the tribal raid on the state in 1947 and later sent its troops for a full-fledged attack. It blamed India for shying away from a plebiscite, but ignored the essential prerequisites—withdrawal of tribal raiders and Pakistani troops from the state, administration of the evacuated by local authorities with necessary military assistance and return of those who had fled the state because of the fighting, and on its role in terrorism. India cannot escape the blame for having turned a blind eye to rigged elections in the state, for failing to check human rights violations, leading to acute alienation of the people and the strong trust deficit. On matters relating to autonomy, New Delhi dithered, despite its "sky is the limit" declaration, causing avoidable misunderstandings even among those supportive of its stand on Kashmir. It is a story of duplicity, deceit and doubletalk on both the sides.
|
