Don’t heed the hawks

Vajpayee, Musharraf must take it a step at a time

Kuldip Nayar

As the summit is approaching, Pakistan Chief Executive Pervez Musharraf is making statements I wish he had made earlier. That would have improved the atmosphere for talks and deepened liberal thinking in Pakistan. Musharraf’s statement that religion and politics cannot be mixed is an observation which would have taken the wind out of the fundamentalists’ sails.

The legitimacy which the forces of bigotry have got over the years may well be the reason why militants, though trained and sheltered by Islamabad, challenged Musharraf’s statement. They used some mosques and shrines in Kashmir in the last few days to fight their parochial battle, to prove they do not differentiate between religion and politics.

That their organisations have their headquarters in Pakistan intact does not give much credibility to Musharraf’s statement. Without any doubt, their purpose was to compel the security forces to damage the sacred places where militants had holed up. New Delhi should have kept this in mind while dealing with them. Maybe, storming is not the best of tactics. The Sikh community has not yet gotten over the trauma of Operation Bluestar.

Of course, the Hurriyat is most to blame. It has tarred the movement for Kashmiri identity with the Islamic brush. Some Hurriyat leaders have openly aligned themselves with religious elements that have killed Hindus and Sikhs in cold blood. Now the Hurriyat did ask militants to stop using mosques. But it was a belated reaction, after much damage was done. In fact, it should have shown the courage to condemn militants for demolishing Charar-e-Sharif, the shrine certain religious parties consider anti-Islamic.

During the Narasimha Rao regime, Yasin Malik, a Hurriyat leader, had brokered the agreement which resulted in the withdrawal of the militants from Hazratbal. He had gone on a fast unto death to make the two sides realise the gravity of the situation. Since he is abroad, some other leader should have come forward to persuade the militants now. This would have been proof of the Hurriyat’s new policy not to call for hartals against ‘‘state terrorism’’ in view of the forthcoming summit. But its leaders are sulking for having been left out. They should seriously consider revising their policy to mix religion with politics if they want to play any role.

The founder of Pakistan, Mohammad Ali Jinnah, wanted religion to be separated from politics. True, he played the Muslim card to muster support. But as soon as he found his dream of Pakistan coming true, he said that people in the subcontinent should cease to be Muslims and Hindus and consider themselves either Pakistanis or Indians. If Jinnah had lived a little longer, he would have established a secular state of Pakistan. This would have brought the two countries closer.

Not to mix religion with politics was also the call Gandhi gave during the independence movement. It remains the country’s ethos, notwithstanding the noise fundamentalists on this side make in the name of Hindu Rashtra. This basic belief in secularism ahideen feel so entrenched and powerful that they are ready to bite the hand that feeds them. Maybe they think that a regime which supports the Taliban in Afghanistan will not go far enough to take action against them. Since Islamabad has done little to stop cross-border militancy, they have reason to believe that they have the support of some in the Musharraf junta. Musharraf’s interview with The Herald, a monthly of the Dawn group, does not help. He has said that the ‘‘time has not yet come’’ for him to ask the Kashmiri militants to scale down their activities. ‘‘The time will come when the talks are held and they make progress.’’ How does this help the situation? One, it is an admission of what New Delhi has been all along saying - that Islamabad’s help goes beyond diplomatic and economic support. Two, it means that if the negotiations over Kashmir are protracted - they are bound to be - the Musharraf government would continue to hire, arm and send militants across the borders. Even if Musharraf is saying this to pacify religious groups, he is creating problems for Vajpayee who had the courage to invite him without waiting for Islamabad’s interference to stop.

In fact, the first announcement the two leaders should make after the meeting is that of a six-month ceasefire, meaning that no bullet would be fired, direct or indirect, open or hidden, at the LoC, the international border and within the Valley. When I met Musharraf at Islamabad last year, I found him receptive to the idea. It is true Vajpayee took some time to reciprocate because of his bad experience at Kargil. But when he gave his assent, Musharraf dragged his feet. The message sent through the Pakistan High Commissioner in Delhi was not acknowledged. Even a reminder and a letter to Musharraf elicited no reply. Although he subsequently ordered a ceasefire on the LoC and the international border, he did not stop militants from crossing into India.

As regards the solution, it would have to be worked out patiently and over a long period. Both countries will have go to away from the beaten path. What Jawaharlal Nehru told Zulfikar Ali Bhutto in November, 1961, in London is still true: ‘‘Zulfi, I know that we must find a solution for Kashmir. But we have got caught in a situation which we cannot get out of without causing damage to the system and structures of our respective societies.’’

What worries me is that even the announcement of summit has brought the hawks in the open in both countries. Past experience indicates that they become active when the two sides decide to sit across the table.

Some journalists, academics and experts among them have already dipped their pens in poison. They peddle hatred and they are the ones who will not allow a normal, peaceful atmosphere to prevail. They have a vested interest in hostilities. They do not want the war lobbies they represent to go out of business. It will be tragic if Vajpayee and Musharraf listen to them.