The recent upswing in violence in Indian-held Kashmir is unfortunate. But it needs to be put in a context. Despite the peace initiative and some moves along the path to normalisation, it does not seem that India and Pakistan are prepared for a basic review of their policies relating to each other. This is how the land lies. India says it is ready for a peace dialogue with Pakistan. But the fact is that it has shown no inclination so far to take any bold steps in addressing the basic issues. Indeed, with the dust settling down on Mr Vajpayee’s hand-of-friendship speech, it appears that New Delhi is merely interested in offsetting the costs of non-engagement. The old mantra of ‘‘cross-border terrorism’’ is again being voiced even as the two sides have begun to recover lost ground. This hardly portends well for any serious peace efforts. Pakistan, too, cannot be absolved of its share of blame. General Pervez Musharraf had made a commitment to curb infiltration but not enough has been done on this score. Now we have to deal with the blowback effect of jihadi attacks on activists of Mufti Sayeed’s ruling party in Indian-held Kashmir. The Mufti won the elections and is trying his best to convince New Delhi of the need to streamline its policy on Kashmir. The APHC, too, while staying out of the electoral process, has called for a political dialogue. Thus there is absolutely no need for anyone in Pakistan — officially or otherwise — to muddy the waters. And this is regardless of whether New Delhi is prepared to make a move on Kashmir or not at this stage. Peace is too important for the region to be sacrificed at the altar of immediate tactical moves. Policies always run their course and latching on to them well after they have been exhausted shows an inability to perceive the correct exit point. There was some sense that Pakistan was coming round to appreciating the logic of working around the problem. That would have involved engaging India on multiple fronts, including trade and other exchanges, rather than simply focusing on Kashmir. But if violence is to continue or show an upswing, as it has done in the last two days in Indian-held Kashmir at the behest of the jihadis, the whole exercise could fall by the wayside. This is the catch 22. Both states seem to be caught in the dynamics of their own making. The only way out of this cycle is to fundamentally alter perceptions on both sides. India being the bigger of the two should have been bold enough to alter the paradigm but despite its desire to be accepted as a big power it has failed so far to get rid of the pathology of a small power. In South Asia we seem to think that conceding ground to an adversary shows weakness. Nothing could be further from truth. Yet, both sides think that the other is merely buying time even as both ultimately fail to review policies substantively. The reality in Kashmir may also be changing. There is clear indication that Kashmiris are sick of the way the two countries have treated them. The Indian security forces have acted shamelessly and there is absolutely no doubt in any Indian’s mind that the Kashmiris have had to bear the full brunt of India’s military might and its excesses. Yet, there should also be no doubt in any Pakistani’s mind that the Kashmiris equally abhor the extremist Islamist groups whose cadres say they are fighting for Kashmir’s independence from India but want to chain the state in a literalist exegesis of Islam that is anathema to the Kashmiris and does not jibe with the traditional moderation of Kashmiri Muslims. (The Daily Times Editorial on July 1, 2003)
