For more than 50 years, I have observed and written about Indian and Pakistani spokesmen utilising every available platform in the world to demonise the other side, leaving no scope for compromise. This was true even on occasion when leaders seemed to try to reach out, as at Tashkent, Lahore and Agra. Aides working in the wings soon found scope, sometimes in the interpretation of words, to recreate suspicion about the other side. Foreign office functionaries have worked consistently to perpetuate distrust. Media has usually gone along.Even at the least acrimonious of times, differences have seemed unbridgeable. They go back to the founding of India and Pakistan as independent countries. Both are convinced their case is just but have failed to convince the UN over the decades. Pakistan cannot afford to give up its stand that since the majority of the residents of the former princely state of J-K were Muslims, it should have gone to Pakistan. India’s case is based on the Instrument of Accession signed by the ruler, Maharaja Hari Singh, when the state was invaded by tribal lashkars facilitated by Pakistan, and more important, by the support of the National Conference, the premier political party in the state led by Sheikh Mohammed Abdullah.For India, Kashmir is the symbol of secularism. The conflict has led to war, repeated mobilisation of forces, more recently to a nuclear stand-off. Against this half-century old background, to express confidence that President Pervez Musharraf and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh have found a way out of a seemingly irreconcilable conflict seems fraught with risk. But I believe that they did lay the foundations for a new non-confrontational approach to Kashmir. The confidence is not based so much on the agreements listed in the joint statement signed by the two leaders and its cordial phraseology but in specific commitments made by both in response to questions from the press. More significant were their repeated references to each other’s sincerity and commitment to making the peace process ‘‘irreversible’’ together with the body language in which these sentiments were conveyed. In effect, both leaders have publicly laid their confidence in the other on the line. They will be held responsible if something goes wrong. The only caveat from Musharraf was that leaders don’t last for ever, so solutions should be found while Manmohan Singh and he are in office. Manmohan Singh warned that a major terrorist attack like that on Parliament and others planned on the IMA in Dehra Dun and elsewhere could derail the process. But he hastened to add that Pakistan may not be the culprit.The outlines of the new approach to Kashmir were drawn by both Musharraf and Manmohan Singh. At his meeting with newspaper editors, Musharraf specified three preconditions for agreement. One was to repeat the condition laid down earlier by Manhohan Singh that boundaries must not be altered. The second was his own precondition that the Line of Control not become permanent. It was the third that provided the basis for future collaboration — that borders should become ‘‘irrelevant.’’ He did not shoot down my question whether the two sides were heading towards some kind of joint administration, but said much would depend on new proposals.Manmohan Singh went further in filling in the contours. At his meeting with editors soon after the breakfast with Musharraf, he emphasised that the approach initiated by him and Musharraf was a process designed to lead to a situation in which ‘‘it should not matter for a Kashmiri whether he lives in Srinagar or Muzaffarabad.’’ This suggested not only free movement between Indian and Pakistan-held Kashmir, but also some form of collaborative administration. It also left room for far greater autonomy for Kashmiris, on either side, to rule themselves. In the words of the joint communique, they ‘‘were conscious of the historic opportunity created by the improved environment in relations and the overwhelming desire of the peoples of the two countries for durable peace.’’ But progress towards an agreement on Kashmir must accompany the list of confidence building measures described in the communique if mutual trust is to be built upon.In any event, it is their future that is at stake. They must be involved to be convinced that Kashmir will get enough autonomy to satisfy their demand for azaadi in the new dispensation.The writer is a veteran journalist
