Kashmir Watch, Nov 4
BY: Sumera Reshi
A new dawn of Kashmir chapter has begun with another phase of troop withdrawal from the regions of Rajouri and Poonch districts of Jammu & Kashmir. This step is been deemed as a major move that will meet foremost demands of separatists. The troop withdrawal is being also seen as a gigantic step towards confidence building measures in order to get separatists whether soft or hardliners on board for talks. For the first time throughout the course of militancy have at least 15,000 troops been moved out from Rajouri and Poonch where insurgency was at its peak during the early days of Intifada.
Quite recently Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has declared his intentions to talk to the people of all shades of opinions. His intentions have been endorse by the Home Minister P. Chidambaram by saying that “everything would be on (negotiation) table”. However, there are other demands echoing from APHC quarters on confidence building measures such as release of political prisoners, gradual demilitarization, more people to people contact between two parts of Jammu & Kashmir on either sides of the border and the abolition of Armed Forces Special Powers Act, Public Safety Act and Disputed Areas Act.
The troop withdrawal is surely a significant step and it had has a dramatic effect on the domestic politics of Kashmir. With the announcement of “quiet diplomacy” and ‘quiet dialogue’ by home minister P. Chidambaram, separatist camp, APHC (M) hurried without any delay. Senior leaders of Mirwaiz faction ware allegedly reported to have met Prime Minister of India and other officials in Srinagar. Why and what was discussed there is better known to them and their lord. And what was the logic have this 'secret diplomacy' speaks volumes about changing face insurgent politics in Kashmir’s landscape.
The moment Indian Premier and Home minister announced the initiation of dialogue, Mirwaiz Umar Farooq without holding up further welcomed India’s offer on talks and termed it as a good step. Without losing this golden opportunity Mirwaiz showed his readiness to resume unconditional dialogue process with India. He even went on record by admitting that dialogue is the best option left for the resolution of Kashmir issue. Hurriyet (M) had been out of media glare than was expected by them. With the bitterness between India & Pakistan after 26/11, Hurriyet (M) also went into hibernation and Indian readiness to initiate dialogue process once again came as a sigh of relief for them. They felt jolly with the idea that once again they matter and once again they will be invited for a photo shoot and not any final resolution on Kashmir.
In December 2007, same Mirwaiz admitted that the talks between the Kashmiri leadership and government of India in the past proved unproductive. In an interview with the Kashmir Times, Mirwaiz said, “We are disappointed with the outcome of talks with government of India, which has showed that it is not for the meaningful and result oriented dialogue process. It seems that New Delhi engages the Kashmiri leadership in talks not for the solution of Kashmir and political decision but for stop gap arrangements in Kashmir.”
The cardinal question is that if the dialogue proved infertile way back in 2007, then what made Mirwaiz to declared dialogue with Indian leadership ‘the best option left’. It shows a paradigm shift in the separatist strategy. Yet this is only the one side of the coin. The other faction led by Syed Salahuddin and Syed Ali Shah Geelani has opted out of the dialogue process and has opposed any unconditional dialogue between separatists with India rather has demanded tripartite talks between India, Pakistan and Kashmiri separatists without any pre-conditions by India.
Also mainstream political parties will try their best to stay in a fray and steal the show by giving credit for the reduction of troops and resumption of dialogue to themselves and their leadership. In such a gloomy situation, as is prevalent in Kashmir, ruling party National Conference will try to cash on it for near future.
However, India in the past has argued that Pakistan’s demand on troop withdrawal to build the “impetus for peace” has no concern for the people of Kashmir but Pakistan has a rationale of mass infiltration. Analysts from India deem that troop withdrawal in the border areas in past has proved traditionally a gateway of terrorism in the Kashmir valley.
India believes that troop reduction has been central to Pakistan’s long standing demands on Kashmir. This demand by Pakistan in the past has been projected as a pre-condition for talks with India. India concurs that during Musharraf’s regime he has impressed upon the US administration to influence India into agreeing to a troop reduction. If India is so much sure of Pakistan’s designs then why they are withdrawing forces from the areas which witnessed heavy infiltration and serious bloodbath between armed forces and separatists. I wonder what is the logic behind this move and what message does India wants to convey to the International community, to its immediate neighbours and more so to the people of Kashmir.
The districts of Rajouri and Poonch are militancy prone and were brought under Disturbed Areas Act along with Kashmir Valley in July 1990. With a 200 km stretch running along the line of control with the Pakistan administered Kashmir, the area is considered vulnerable to infiltration. Despite the steps taken by India as a part of CMBs for resumption of a meaningful dialogue, yet India does have some concern vis-a-vis withdrawal of troops. Moreover, India considers troop reduction would undermine the internal security grid that might facilitate infiltration into the valley.
India has some deepest lurking concerns that the troop withdrawal would prove risky and pave way for militants and destabilise internal security again in the valley which India believe has come down after a massive electoral participation by the people of the valley in November Assembly elections last year. In the past, India further argues that Musharraf had pressed hard on India to withdraw troops in Kashmir to reciprocate Pakistan’s ‘peace overtures’ and if India fails to do so then the confidence building measures taken by both sides would lose their impact. Then the question arises if India is sceptical about Pakistan and the resultant of troop withdrawal then why have they decided to withdraw 15,000 troopers. Again it is a moot question to answer.
It is also true that Kashmir is at the core and determines the fate of Indo-Pak relations. Kashmir can either make or break a good Indo-Pak relation. Since the event of 9/11, India has used war on terror to shift International focus from Self-Determination to Terrorism vis-a-vis Kashmir. In a situation where India is pressing hard on International community regarding the role of Pakistan in Kashmir and what they in their own terminology call as terrorism, a good neighbouring relations unlikely exist even though India has started reducing troops in two districts of Jammu.
It is pretty difficult to say whether there will be a major impact of troop withdrawal on Indo-Pak relations or on insurgency but it is likely that domestic landscape might change by bringing in new faces on the forefront to defeat Pakistan. It is what India is working on hard and what she is about achieve.
Author can be reached at: sumera.reshi@gmail.com
Posted on 04 Nov 2009 by
Webmaster
