Facing a crisis of initiative

INDIA'S INTRACTABLE PUZZLE of winning the confidence of the alienated sections in Jammu and Kashmir as also breaking the barrier of an escalating estrangement with Pakistan calls for political courage and diplomatic finesse. Having taken the surprisingly firm steps of declaring and sustaining a unilateral ceasefire in Jammu and Kashmir, New Delhi is now beginning to make no secret of its despondency. At stake is what can only be seen as a crisis of initiative. The stark reality is that there is no transparent sign of a new sense of direction in the President, Mr. K. R. Narayanan's latest traditional address to a joint session of Parliament. However, the President, who by convention outlines the policies of the Government on such occasions, has done well to reaffirm the Centre's readiness to hold talks with any disaffected group in Jammu and Kashmir that might be willing to abjure violence. This does not of course indicate any way out of the crisis, especially when the threshold of trust between the Centre and the Kashmiri separatist groups remains very high despite the current ceasefire in the State. All the same, the President's statement can still serve as a marker for a meaningful effort towards a dialogue with the various groups in Jammu and Kashmir, including the All-Party Hurriyat Conference (APHC). Of negative significance in this context is New Delhi's proclivity to insist on conditionalities of an ideal ambience for the resumption of dialogue with Pakistan. This attitude is not rooted in the reality that the bilateral estrangement, which needs to be addressed through a diplomatic re-engagement, is in part related to the issues covered by New Delhi's conditionalities. There is no sign as yet that the Vajpayee administration wants to get off the beaten track as the Prime Minister indicated around the beginning of the year.

Two aspects of Mr. Narayanan's presentation about Pakistan merit particular attention. He noted that ``there has been no let up in, much less an end to, cross-border terrorism and vicious anti- India propaganda originating from Pakistani soil''. As a result, the argument goes, Pakistan's ``protestations about its eagerness to resume talks with India will not carry conviction so long as it allows the terrorists' guns and bombs to do the talking''. The eloquence of the words chosen mirrors the President's deep-seated anguish. Yet, a point missed by the mandarins in India's foreign policy establishment is that the Centre's unilateral ceasefire in Jammu and Kashmir was primarily an aspect of India's internal dynamics in regard to that State. All the same, the Vajpayee administration does not seem to have made a serious evaluation of Islamabad's apparent responses to New Delhi's cessation of security-related operations in Jammu and Kashmir.

In one sense, New Delhi's case is that Islamabad continues to sponsor and stoke ``cross-border terrorism'' despite its declarations about observing ``maximum restraint'' along the Line of Control (LoC) and pulling out some Pakistani troops from the same sector in Jammu and Kashmir. However, the point that New Delhi needs to address is whether Islamabad has indeed kept its word in regard to these two ostensible responses to New Delhi's ceasefire inside Jammu and Kashmir. The message from official Pakistan is that the LoC itself has remained unusually calm (in a relative sense, of course) in recent weeks. Diplomatically more challenging is Islamabad's argument that a de-escalation of the level of violence within Jammu and Kashmir may really depend on whether and, if so, in what manner the Government of India will talk to the separatist militants concerned. It is not in India's interest to dismiss this as a disingenuous ploy. The Centre's conditional offer to hold talks with all the groups will first face the more immediate test regarding how New Delhi resolves the issue of the APHC leaders' wish to travel to Pakistan.

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : Opinion
Next     : A.P.'s financial agony