Peace iron’s hot, Delhi should strike

On its part, India now appears to have dropped its long-standing objection to letting the Hurriyat leaders travel to Pakistan.

Musharraf’s willingness to take political risk in changing the terms of Pakistan’s domestic debate on Kashmir and India’s willingness to cut some slack for the Hurriyat appear to be direct consequences of the Indo-Pak summit in New Delhi last month.

Diplomatic observers in Islamabad say Musharraf’s public affirmation of his “complete understanding” with Prime Minister Manmohan Singh on how to accelerate the peace process, confirms the productive nature of the conversation between the two leaders in Delhi.

Musharraf’s recent statements, observers say, appear part of a conscious effort to reveal the broad direction the Delhi summit had set for the peace process and prepare public opinion across the border for a reasonable negotiations on the Kashmir question.

In both countries there will be forces calling the latest moves in Islamabad and New Delhi as unacceptable concessions. In talking of a non-religious solution and accepting India’s contention that borders cannot be changed, Musharraf will be accused of selling out the Kashmiri cause. In reality, Musharraf is merely making a bow to reality.

India’s decision on Hurriyat might be construed by many across the border as accepting a “trilateral” framework for Kashmir talks.

In fact India is only accepting three different tracks of engagement—India-Pakistan, India-Kashmir and Pakistan-Kashmir. This again is a long awaited pragmatic adjustment on Delhi’s part.

Musharraf’s emphasis on the importance of finding a solution within the limits of the two conditions laid down by Manmohan Singh—no change in borders and boundaries should be made irrelevant—is a huge political advance on Pakistan’s part.

It also suggests that Musharraf is not posturing when he promotes a four-fold approach to the resolution of the Kashmir question-identify a particular region of the state, demilitarise it, incorporate maximum self-governance and soften the Line of Control.

While India would want clarification on many elements of Musharraf’s proposal, it is apparent that a basis for the first purposeful negotiation on Kashmir since decades has been laid in New Delhi last month.

Musharraf’s new focus on “maximum self-governance” for an agreed region of Kashmir stands in contrast to the earlier mantra on “self-determination.”

The gap between “maximum self-governance” and India’s own repeated promises to offer significant autonomy within the Indian Union is surely not unbridgeable in an impending negotiation on Kashmir.

It does not take a rocket scientist to figure out a script for the current engagement between India and Pakistan. Frequent summits hold the key to a faster and irreversible peace process. They maintain pressure on reluctant bureaucracies in both capitals.

Musharraf wants an early visit by Manmohan Singh to Pakistan. India needs to quickly set the dates for the Prime Minister’s visit, possibly in the next couple of months.

On substance, New Delhi and Islamabad have an opportunity this week to clinch, if not announce, agreements on the Siachen and Sir Creek disputes. The two leaders, in their joint statement issued in Delhi, have demanded “expeditious solutions” to the two problems.

Equally important are reciprocal actions that will improve the political conditions in Kashmir. India apparently is examining the options for altering its military disposition in Jammu and Kashmir.

Additional steps by Pakistan to curb Kashmir-related terrorism on its soil should match early Indian decisions on a ceasefire inside Kashmir as well as troop reduction. Together these steps will reinforce the peace process.

Whether there is a pre-set political script or not, both leaders are aware of the next steps that need to be taken. The question now is merely one of sequence and timing.

Sceptics in both capitals will advise Manmohan Singh and Musharraf to wait and watch. Manmohan Singh and Musharraf have everything to gain by acting soon and a lot to lose if they adopt a “do-nothing” strategy.