Islamabad Conference
By M.K. Teng
August 2010
The
sudden outburst of anger with which the Foreign
Minister of Pakistan, Syed Mohamood Qureshi,
reacted to what happened in the Foreign
Ministers’ Conference in Islamabad, needs to be
considered more seriously. The acrimony which
pervaded the conference has brought to surface,
very wide differences in the perspectives of
Government, of India and Pakistan, in respect of
South Asia as a regional complex of inter-state
relationships and the future Asian balance of
power, which is taking shape with the emergence
of China as a major Asian military power. The
two countries also differ in their strategic
outlook and seek to achieve diametrically
diverse objectives from the dialogue they have
so eagerly continued for many more decade now.
Pakistan has been insisting upon the
structurisation of the composite dialogue
between the two countries in a way that ensures
the priority of the issues which it considers
vital to its interests, within a time-frame, it
believes, Pakistan has a right to lay down.
Obviously the Foreign Minister of Pakistan felt
uneasy, when S.M. Krishna stressed upon the need
to tackle the problem of terrorism on a basis of
priority. Perhaps Qureshi did not expect Krishna
to do that. And he had good reason to do so.
Infact, India never took a firm stand on
terrorism, which the Jehadi war groups in
Pakistan waged the Jammu and Kashmir and in the
other parts of the country. India always
resorted to invoke good neighbourly relations
with Pakistan and sought the cooperation of that
country to put a curb on the terrorist regimes
operating from its soil.
The Indian Foreign Minister did not invite
the jibe from his counter-part the Foreign
Minister of Pakistan on account of the statement
the India Home Secretary had made. For Qureshi,
the comment made by the Home Secretary was not
so uncommon a statement and was a repetition of
what the Indian officials of various stations
had been telling Pakistan, right from the time
the terrorist violence struck Mumbai. Qureshi
felt angry, because everyone in Pakistan was
angry on the insistence of India on the urgency
to deal with cross-border terrorism. The
government and the people of Pakistan never
budged from their stand that the settlement on
Jammu and Kashmir could not be subjected to the
fulfilment of their commitments to fight
terrorism. Everyone in Pakistan told the Indians
in unmistakable terms that a settlement on Jammu
and Kashmir, which was acceptable to them and
the Muslims of Jammu and Kashmir, was a
precedent condition for the successful
conclusion of the war on terrorism they were
waging in Afghanistan and their own country
alongside their allies.
One fundamental aspect of the cross-border
terrorism, the Jehadi war groups have been
incessantly carrying on in India, has received
much less attention in this country. The
terrorist violence Pakistan has been exporting
out of its borders, right from the time it
joined the Muslim resistance against the Soviet
intervention in Afghanistan to the time it
commenced the militarisation of the Muslim
separatist movement in Jammu and Kashmir in
1989, as well as the war of subversion the
intelligence agencies of that country has been
waging in the other parts of India, during the
last two decades, is an organised military
campaign committed to the Islamic Jehad. In
Afganistan, the Jehad was ideologically
committed to the liberation of the Muslims in
Afghanistan from the Soviet army of occupation.
In Jammu and Kashmir and the other parts of
India, the Jehad is ideologically committed to
the freedom of the Muslims in a Hindu
dominicated India, where they are sub-servient
to the law and order of a society, which is not
based upon the theological imperatives of Islam.
Jehad is not a political struggle. It is a
more profound and subtle prescription for social
change than a political struggle is. It is an
ideological commitment of the whole Muslim Umah
to a social and political order, which is based
upon the law and precept of Islam.
The Jehad in Jammu and Kashmir, the
leadership and the people in Pakistan including
the so-called civil society believe, cannot be
subjected to the process of a dialogue between
India and Pakistan, which is aimed at the
settlement of the issues between the two
countries. For any Islamic state, including
Pakistan, Jehad transcends all limitations on
national power imposed internally or externally.
For the Foreign Minister of Pakistan, Shah
Mohammad Qureshi, the priority therefore was not
the end of the cross-border terrorism the Indian
Foreign Minister sought to take up for
consideration. The priority was the discussion
on Kashmir, where the Muslim separatist mobs
were actively engaged in an anti-India
agitation. Qureshi sought to send the Muslim
separatist mobs a message. He did that
effectively. The Muslims in Kashmir quickly
erupted, into a widespread ding dong battle with
the Indian security forces and left about thirty
five protestors dead. S.M. Krishna, who bore the
insult hurled on him by Qureshi with a stoic
indifference, rued the indiscretion of the
Indian Home Secretary unmindful of what his
counterpart had accomplished.
The intolerance of the Foreign Minister of
Pakistan, to the Indian way of carrying on the
dialogue, manifest in his anger, reflected his
eagerness to pin down India on Jammu and
Kashmir. For Pakistan, the composite dialogue
with India is aimed to achieve one political
objective : secession of Jammu and Kashmir from
India and its eventual inclusion in the Islamic
Republic of Pakistan. Once India is pinned down
to a discussion on Jammu and Kashmir, Pakistan
will repeat its star performance to coax India
to handover Jammu and Kashmir to that country on
account of the Muslim majority composition of
its population, or more conveniently, handover
to that country the Muslim majority regions of
the state situated to the west of the river
Chenab. Infact, all the proposals which Pakistan
has agreed to discuss as a basis for a
settlement of the Kashmir dispute so far, have
revolved round the secession of the Muslim
majority region of the state, situated west of
the river Chenab from India, while Pakistan
retained its hold on the occupied territories of
Pak occupied Kashmir, the Northern Areas, now
renamed as Gilgit-Baltistan province of Pakistan
along with the tribal Dardic dependencies of the
state, which were annexed by Pakistan to its
territories in 1947.
The much-hyped Manmohan Singh-Musharraf plan
too underlined the same proposals of delinking
of the Muslim majority regions of the state from
India, under the cover of self-rule,
demilitarisation and joint control. Musharraf
knew what he had accomplished. Manmohan Singh
unaware of what he was asked to give away,
groped in the dark.
Manmohan Singh walked the proverbial
“extra-mile”, but Musharraf was cast aboard by
the so-called civil society in Pakistan which
was backed by the Muslim fundamentalist flanks
in that country as well as its army command.
Neither the Jehadi war groups nor the armed
forces in Pakistan approved of the Manmohan
Singh Musharraf plan. This plan did not receive
the approval of Jehadi war-groups operating
inside Jammu and Kashmir as well.
The present Government of Pakistan has no
need for the Musharraf proposals. Qureshi’s
demand for a “time-bound” and “result oriented”
dialogue” between the two countries, reveals the
real intentions of the Government of Pakistan to
carry the dialogue process further. Pakistan
seeks to confront India with the apparently
simplicitic demand of a settlement on Jammu and
Kashmir, which is acceptable to the Muslims in
there. Further Pakistan wants India to take the
initiative to re-shape the composite dialogue
and put up the Kashmir issue on the top of its
agenda.
That is the message, Qureshi actually sent to
India, when he told the the Indian Foreign
Minister that Pakistan wanted the talks between
the two countries to be meaningful and
effective. In carefully chosen words the Foreign
Minister of Pakistan told S.M. Krishna to convey
to his government in Delhi that, (a) Pakistan
considered the dispute between India and
Pakistan over Jammu and Kashmir central to the
composite dialogue; (b) Pakistan would not agree
to subordinate the Kashmir dispute to the Indian
complaint on terrorism or any other extraneous
issue, including Siachin and Sir Creek; (c)
Pakistan would accept a settlement on the
Kashmir dispute which is approved by the Muslims
in Jammu and Kashmir; and (d) Pakistan would
want the dialogue to be time bound, to ensure
that it is result oriented.
Qureshi left no one in India in doubt that in
case India refused to shape the dialogue process
the way Pakistan wanted to, the blame for
obstructing purposeful talks, would fall upon
India. Qureshi did not tell the Indian people
that Pakistan would use the refusal of India to
negotiate a settlement on Kashmir, to legitimise
the Jehad against India. The Indian office
missed to pick up the signal. The ongoing strife
and violence in the State cannot be delinked
from the acrimony in which the Islamabad
conference ended.
*(The author heads Panun Kashmir
advisory)