Spoilers in the peace process

Whether the Kashmiris should have an independent country or not is a serious matter which does not have to be bandied by a person after acquittal. Geelani is hardly the person to raise the question whose claim to fame is that the police slapped against him a case which it could not prove in the court. He has only raised doubts about his ambitions.

That the judicial system has become “a tool in the hands of fascists” to further their agenda is too sweeping a pronouncement. The same system has let him go free and the same system has reopened the Best Bakery case in Gujarat. People realise the shortcomings of system when it is pitted against unscrupulous, power-hungry politicians and the obliging police. Still they are not willing to throw out the baby with the bath water. Geelani’s bitterness after two years of confinement is understandable but not the ploy to use the court verdict for extraneous considerations.

I hope that Geelani’s statement does not become grist for the propaganda mills. A favourable ground for talks between Deputy Prime Minister L.K. Advani and the Hurriyat is getting prepared. Although Advani tried to queer the pitch by his statement that the talks would be confined to decentralisation of power, Maulvi Abbas, the Hurriyat chief, made light of the observation. When the state of Jammu and Kashmir joined the Indian Union, it gave Delhi only three subjects: foreign affairs, defence and communications. The talks on Kashmir should begin from there.

How I wish that Islamabad had agreed to New Delhi’s proposal for a bus service between Srinagar and Muzaffarabad. It would have connected the two portions of Kashmir to enable people to talk to each other. By asking that UN observers should oversee the bus service, Pakistan has spoilt an opportunity for the Kashmiris on both sides to meet and think jointly about the situation they face. The bus would have provided a contact of sorts. It is apparent that Pakistan’s agenda is different.

My impression is that even the overall people-to-people contact of the Indians and the Pakistanis have got caught between the Scylla of provocation and Charybdis of arrogance. The military junta at Islamabad believes that the more it rubs India on the wrong side, the better it goes go down with the fundamentalists and the chauvinists whose support it seeks. The BJP-led government at New Delhi labours under the impression that India has the size and strength to talk at Pakistan whenever it feels like.

The governments in both the countries have never allowed a free contact because they are not sure whether they can handle the fallout. Pakistan is afraid that its creation may come to be questioned if its Muslims realise that the Muslims in India are more in number and articulate their identity openly despite the Hindutva onslaught. India is scared lest its parochial policy behind the propaganda of pluralism be exposed or diluted by frequent contacts with the Pakistanis, meaning thereby the Muslims. The BJP’s allies, the Vishwa Hindu Parishad and the Shiv Sena, reflect such thinking when they oppose any opening with Pakistan.

Still, I have not been able to make out the logic behind New Delhi’s switch-on/switch-off policy. Vajpayee makes a statement on April 16 at Srinagar to offer Pakistan talks. Delegations of parliamentarians and teams of businessmen from both sides try to take Vajpayee’s initiative further. There is an outpouring of emotions. An effusive atmosphere of friendship comes to prevail in the two countries. Then New Delhi goes to sleep. Nothing happens except a measly bus service between Delhi and Lahore once a week.

Nearly six months later, New Delhi wakes up — this time to spell out steps for better contacts. Even then there is no relaxation in visa rules; visitors will still be confined to one or two cities with the obligation to call on the nearby police station within 24 hours of their arrival. There is no explanation why New Delhi allowed the feel-good atmosphere to dissipate between the middle of April and the third week of October. During the six months when the two indulge in usual rhetoric, Vajpayee does not respond to even individual or private effort to sustain the momentum of his initiative. It is as if the speech at Srinagar was a passing itch.

My main worry is about the mindset of the bureaucracy in both the countries. Take New Delhi. Only a few days ago did its retiring foreign secretary Kanwal Sibal pour cold water over the conciliatory efforts. At a Rotary meeting in Punjab, he said that people-to-people contact was futile and, as usual, scoffed at those who lighted candles on the night of August 14-15 to celebrate the birth of the two countries. His tone was contemptuous and his approach to any rapprochement negative. How do we change the attitude of such officials because they constitute the implementing machinery?