[nukkad] Miles to go for a durable peace(for Kashmir problem)

[Parag Dharmadhikari <>]

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tip of the day:  Pepperoni is not pepper. It is meat.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

This article may be the eye lash for those who thinks that giving up the
Kashmir is the solution of the Kashmir tangle.

Miles to go for a durable peace!
Colonel (retd) Anil Athale
There has been much optimism about peace in Kashmir of late. The Government
of India's move to talk to the Hurriyat (freedom) leaders a month ago was
followed by an offer of cease-fire by the Hizbul Mujahideen, by far the
largest militant group (in terms of numbers if not effectiveness) in the
valley. Farooq Abdullah's ruling National Conference party has jumped into
the fray with its demand for autonomy. All this while, the military ruler of
Pakistan with the incredible title of chief executive, continues to offer
talks with India on Kashmir. 
Right at the outset it must be admitted that the central government's offer
to talk to the Hurriyat or to the Hizb is a logical step in the right
direction. Many analysts of the Kashmir issue have been puzzled at the
earlier stand that while India talked to Pakistan or even the US on Kashmir,
it refused to have any dialogue with its own people. 
But having said that, it must be clear that unlike the Jammu and Kashmir
Liberation Front which wanted an 'independent' Kashmir, the Hizb is all for
merger of the state into Pakistan. There is no indication that it has given
up or even softened its stance. This clearly shows that behind the Hizb's
offer of a cease-fire, it is Pakistan that is calling the shots. That Hizb
chief Syed Salaluddin continues to stay in Pakistan further reinforces this
feeling. 
Possible Motivation 
Farooq Abdullah's autonomy resolution and exertions are clearly motivated by
electoral considerations. An assembly election is due next year. It is also
an attempt by the NC to hoodwink people and divert their attention from the
lack of development and good governance. Farooq got an excellent chance to
do some good but has blown it. The central government's overtures to the
Hurriyat only increased his insecurity. 
The Hizb's, and by extension Pakistani motivations, are a little more
complex. Certainly, this move will put increasing pressure on Vajpayee to
hold talks with Musharraf when they are in the US in September. Also, the
IMF is to review the Pakistani request for debt rescheduling next month. It
is not unlikely that the US is using the economic stick to force Pakistan
into a conciliatory approach to India and Kashmir. 
But by far the biggest motivation appears to be to save the Hizb from the
Indian army's relentless offensive. The Hizb may well have feared it will
meet the same fate as the JKLF. If one is to even glance at the statistics
of encounters in Kashmir, the Hizb has been losing on an average 10 men a
day. No insurgent outfit with a strength of not more than 3,000 can take
these kind of casualties for much longer than three months without suffering
from a loss of morale. The visible distancing of the US from its
pro-Pakistani stand has also had had its fallout. 
It is true that the Indian army has also been losing lives. But while a
regular army can and does replace the losses, it is much more difficult for
an insurgent group to do so. The induction of a new recruit to take the
place of a fallen guerrilla is a time consuming process at the best of
times. When the borders are active, it becomes even more difficult. 
The cease-fire may well have been the Hizb's tactic to get a breather. With
the international opinion favoring peace, it must have calculated that the
Indian government could not afford to reject this offer. On his way to visit
the US, Prime Minister Vajpayee would also like to present an image of
reasonableness. 
Understanding the insurgency 
Insurgency warfare using tactics of guerrilla war is thus a low cost, low
risk option for a weaker power like Pakistan to change the territorial
status quo. In addition, in the post Cold War world, protection of human
rights has emerged as an issue of global concern. 
Since the guerrillas operate with the support of the masses, it is often
impossible to distinguish between an innocent and a guerrilla fighter. In
the era of instant media coverage and omnipresent television, counter
insurgency forces are at a distinct disadvantage as they cannot clearly
identify the guerrilla while the guerrilla can identify them. Often, the
guerrillas can provoke a fire fight in a crowded area and virtually paralyze
the reaction capability of the security forces. 
Mao Zedong, undoubtedly the greatest theoretician of this form of warfare,
divided it into three distinct phases. The first phase is the creation of
organization and infrastructure, the second phase consists of military
actions like ambushes and raids. 
After successful completion of the second phase and when the guerrillas have
obtained sufficient strength, the revolutionaries are organized into
orthodox units and resort to open fights and are ready to give a decisive
blow. This phase can be a protracted one followed by a series of
negotiations. 
Mao is clear that the purpose of these negotiations is to merely gain time
and wear down the enemy. The purpose of the revolutionary war does not lend
itself to compromise. 
Possible outcome 
Mao's Pakistani pupils seem to have learnt their lesson well and used the
cease-fire as a part of their tactic to weaken Indian resolve and also gain
international exposure and support. 
The struggle in Kashmir is not over territory. It is an ideological struggle
between the two-nation theory of Pakistan that asserts that Muslims of the
subcontinent are a 'nation' and Pakistan is their homeland. This is opposed
by India which believes in secularism and in a multi-religious,
multi-cultural and multi-linguistic identity. Any compromise on this
principle will invite 'Bosniaisation' of the Indian subcontinent. 
In 1947, India ought to have fought a civil war to preserve unity. All the
world's great powers have done so, US under Lincoln, the British (King Vs
Cromwell) , the French, the Russians and the Chinese (Communists vs.
Kuomintang). Kashmir is the continuation of the civil war of 1947. For the
sake of future generations we ought fight this one to the finish. Any
compromise would spell doom for India as we know it. 
With the battle lines drawn thus, it is unlikely that peace will return to
Kashmir so easily. 
The author is coordinator of the Pune-based Inpad -- Initiative for Peace
and Disarmament. 

PARAG DHARMADHIKARI



------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To Subscribe [Unsubscribe] send a blank message to 
        nukkad-list-request@mumbai-central.com 
with the word 'subscribe' ['unsubscribe'] (without quotes) in the Subject 
of your message.
The list is archived at  http://www.mumbai-central.com/nukkad/archive.html