Analysis: Making determined progress
2004/09/06
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/3631550.stm
By Sanjoy Majumder
BBC News Online correspondent in Delhi
The body-language was positive, the smiles wide and the hand-shaking vigorous.
Natwar Singh (left) and Khurshid Mehmood Kasuri smiles despite their obvious differences.
But when the Indian and Pakistani foreign ministers addressed the press in Hyderabad House, a grand colonial palace in the heart of Delhi, the details were sketchy and the outcome threadbare.
The two sides unveiled a host of committees and timetables for talks on a range of subjects - border security, railway links, maritime security and nuclear issues.
But they also publicly aired their differences over the long-running Kashmir dispute.
India's Natwar Singh said Delhi was still unhappy with the level of militant infiltration into Indian-administered Kashmir from Pakistani-controlled territory.
His Pakistani counterpart, Khursheed Mehmood Kasuri, said his country was very concerned about continued human rights violations in Kashmir (which is blamed on Indian security forces).
Maturity
Ironically, analysts believe that it is a sign of progress that the two sides were able to state their different positions in public but without letting it get in the way of their dialogue.
"The fact that the two have remained engaged and taken small incremental steps forward is something not to be dismissed as merely cosmetic" -Salman Haidar, Former Indian foreign secretary
"They were able to differ decently in public. That is a sign of maturity," says Amit Baruah, diplomatic correspondent of The Hindu newspaper.
Both sides were thus able to address their domestic constituencies and demonstrate that they had not changed direction and at the same time get on with the job of making peace.
It allows the two governments a protective shield against domestic criticism - from the hardliners in both countries, who may accuse the political leadership of a sell-out.
But for most observers, the most positive outcome of the talks is that they have not broken down.
Steady progress
The last time the two nuclear neighbours held such a protracted and structured dialogue was in 1998.
They made little progress and the process unravelled very quickly.
Indian soldier in Kashmir
Kashmir remains the main stumbling block
Leading the Indian team at those talks was the then foreign secretary, Salman Haidar.
He argues that the two-day talks should be taken as a very definite sign of progress.
"The fact that the two have remained engaged and taken small incremental steps forward is something not to be dismissed as merely cosmetic," Mr Haidar told BBC News Online.
Mr Haidar says the stage has been set for a meeting between the leaders of the two countries, due later this month at the sidelines of the UN general assembly in New York.
"What they decide today will have a bearing for what the heads [of state] do when they meet.
"It permits [President Pervez Musharraf and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh] to take the critical political decisions."
Mr Haidar pointed out that Manmohan Singh had signalled his strong commitment to the peace process by holding wide-ranging discussions with the opposition ahead of the talks, including one with his predecessor, Atal Behari Vajpayee, who had kicked off the present détente in January.
"The prime minister has clearly identified himself with a process that had been started by Mr Vajpayee," Mr Haidar said.
Increasing contact
Among the more significant decisions taken during the summit is a decision to discuss building an oil pipeline from Iran to India via Pakistan.
Ultimately, ordinary citizens of both countries will judge the progress of the peace process by the steps taken to help greater people-to-people ties
Amit Baruah
Diplomatic correspondent, The Hindu
It is the first time Delhi has agreed to hold talks with Islamabad on this issue - energy-deficient India stands to benefit greatly from the deal as does Pakistan.
But in the past, India has raised security concerns as its major objection to the plan.
The two sides are also believed to have begun discussions on demilitarising the Siachen glacier, the world's highest battlefield where both countries have stationed thousands of troops.
But perhaps the real progress has been made in continuing to place emphasis on bringing Indians and Pakistanis closer by encouraging greater contact.
While many people, particularly in Kashmir, will be disappointed that little progress has been made in establishing a bus link between the two portions of the divided territory, the sides have announced that they are well on their way to establishing a rail connection between the desert state of Rajasthan in India and Sindh province in Pakistan.
The two countries have also agreed to operate special bus services to allow Sikh pilgrims to visit the birthplace of the founder of their faith, Guru Nanak, which is in Pakistan.
"Ultimately, ordinary citizens of both countries will judge the progress of the peace process by the steps taken to help greater people-to-people ties," says Amit Baruah.
"That is real progress - the differences over Kashmir will remain. But if the two countries can allow Indians and Pakistanis to travel across the borders effortlessly, engage with each other, that is a major achievement."
Why Kashmir is again on a knife-edge
10 August 2010
By Amit Baruah Editor, BBC Hindi
Protesters burn an effigy of Chief Minister Omar Abdullah 2010 has been characterised by ongoing protests
Whether they are being listened to or not, the people of Indian-administered Kashmir have been making a point every day for the past two months - they are tired of the status quo.
Twenty years after massive peaceful protests on the streets of the Kashmir Valley were superseded by violence, the people have hit the streets again - and not without good reason.
About 50 people, mostly students, have been killed in sporadic police shootings since the death on 11 June of a Srinagar teenager, Tufail Ahmed Mattoo, who was killed by a tear gas shell as he returned home from class.
Mattoo, who was just a few days shy of his 18th birthday, died after security forces opened fire on an anti-India demonstration, but locals say he was not involved in the protest.
He was one of many teenagers who have fallen victim to Indian policemen and paramilitaries in Srinagar and other parts of the Kashmir Valley in the last two months.
Religious tensions
There has been a depressing cycle of protests, death, violence at funerals and more deaths.
Continue reading the main story
“Start Quote
What we are seeing is a massive eruption of discontent that can turn into an insurgency ”
End Quote Wajahat Habibullah Former chief secretary of Indian-administered Kashmir
And across Indian-administered Kashmir ordinary people - children, women and men - have been taking on police personnel.
What are their grievances?
After elections to the state assembly at the end of 2008, where Indian Kashmir saw a turnout of 60%, a popular government headed by Omar Abdullah - grandson of modern Kashmir founder Sheikh Abdullah - took power.
Kashmiris, Delhi felt, were now part and parcel of Indian democracy.
The elections came soon after protests over the planned transfer of some land near the Amarnath shrine, one of the holiest shrines of the Hindu religion.
The state government proposed the transfer of forest land to organisers of pilgrimages to the site, triggering controversy and anger.
The authorities dropped the plan following Muslim protests, and then found itself subjected to Hindu demonstrations protesting that decision.
At least five people were killed in the protests.
The following year - in May 2009 - the Valley was rocked by allegations that two women had been raped and killed by the security forces.
Autonomy push
And this year has been characterised by a seemingly never-ending series of street protests.
The approaching month of Ramadan may be the only thing that will dampen violence that has been raging since June.
"What we are seeing is a massive eruption of discontent that can turn into an insurgency," Wajahat Habibullah, a former chief secretary of Indian-administered Kashmir, told the BBC.
Protester writes anti-Indian graffiti on a road Anti-Indian sentiment is growing stronger among young people in the region
"It shows that the leaders of Kashmir have lost contact with the people."
Sarwar Kashani, a young Kashmiri journalist based in Delhi, believes the sentiments which fuelled the Valley boycott of Indian elections in 1989 have not changed.
"The rejection of the status quo remains," he says.
For 20 years, the Indian state battled hard to deal with the militants. Now they have to deal with the people again.
This time they are confronted with a largely leaderless mob - very different from fighting an insurgency.
Over the last 20 years, many Indian prime ministers and leaders have promised the people of Kashmir different forms of autonomy.
In 2006, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh set up five different committees to address their problems.
But all these have come to nothing.
The dialogue with Kashmiri leaders is off and the peace process with Pakistan is in limbo.
'Insufficient troops'
"Not a single thing has come by way of autonomy to the people of Kashmir," Anuradha Bhasin, executive editor of the Kashmir Times newspaper, told me.
A masked Kashmiri Muslim protester In the past such tensions in Kashmir would have gained worldwide attention
"All of it has been put in cold storage. The government of India is not serious."
The khaki uniform and the bunker, Mr Kashani argues, are the only things that a new generation of Kashmiris, who grew up in the era of curfew and crackdown, know of India.
It is this generation that is now hurling stones at Indian security personnel.
Raouf Rasool, an analyst based in Srinagar, rejects the contention that the protests have been inspired from across the Line of Control (in Pakistan).
But he says that non-state actors could be trying to influence the protests.
E N Ram Mohan, a former Indian police official who dealt with militancy in the 1990s in Kashmir, told the BBC that Chief Minister Abdullah was incapable of handling the situation.
"Where are the 20-plus battalions of the state-armed police?" he asked. "We have not seen them on the streets - only the Central Reserve Police Force is visible."
A former Indian intelligence official, who preferred anonymity, said: "If you open fire at people who are throwing stones, you are asking for trouble."
International attention
The government of India is lucky that the international focus on Kashmir is virtually non-existent.
Some years ago, this would have been a big issue. British Prime Minister David Cameron did not use the K word (Kashmir) during his recent trip to India, but instead chose to talk about Pakistan.
In the 1990s, Western countries would often refer to the disputed nature of the entire territory of Jammu and Kashmir.
But, in the post-9/11 world, militancy has lost its sheen.
The one-time champion of the Kashmiri cause, Pakistan, whose intelligence agencies propped up militant groups in the 1990s, has also lost much of its international credibility.
In short, much of the world is not interested in Kashmir or the Kashmiris.
The expansion of the Indian economy is another reason why the world does not want to anger Delhi.
Indian officialdom can be quick to take offence and Western officials now seem to want to accommodate Delhi on Kashmir.
In the end, it is not international attention (or the lack of it) that should govern Delhi's Kashmir policy.
The world's largest democracy, and its civil society, must understand that stones cannot be met indefinitely by more bullets.
Further links:
Human Rights Violations in Kashmir:
Kashmir related:
沒有留言:
張貼留言