Islamabad/New Delhi, Aug 17

India on Wednesday rejected Pakistan’s proposal to hold Foreign Secretary-level talks on Kashmir and asserted that it would like to discuss aspects related to cross-border terrorism which are central to the current situation in Jammu and Kashmir.Responding to Pakistan Foreign Secretary Aizaz Ahmad Chaudhry’s invitation, India’s Foreign Secretary S Jaishankar expressed his willingness to travel to Islamabad but maintained that Pakistan had no locus standi in addressing any aspect of the situation in Jammu and Kashmir, which is an internal matter of India, except to put an end to cross-border terrorism and infiltration.The response was handed over to Pakistan by Indian High Commissioner to Islamabad Gautam Bambawale.“Since aspects related to cross-border terrorism are central to the current situation in J&K, we have proposed that discussions between the Foreign Secretaries be focused on them.“We have also conveyed that the Government of India rejects in their entirety the self-serving allegations regarding the situation in J&K, which is an integral part of India where Pakistan has no locus standi,” sources added.Pakistan on Monday had invited India for talks on Kashmir, saying it is the “international obligation” of both the countries to resolve the issue.The invitation was extended amid tension in bilateral ties due to the war of words between the two nations over the issue.Last week, while reacting to a statement by Pakistan Prime Minister’s Adviser on Foreign Affairs Sartaj Aziz regarding the invitation, India had made it clear that it would talk on “contemporary and relevant” issues in the Indo-Pak relations and at this time it included stoppage of Pak-supported cross-border terrorism. PTI

The I-Day speech

What Modi says, and what he doesn’

Prime Minister Modi’s Independence Day speech invited an immediate comment of disapproval from none other than the Chief Justice of India. This is unusual. After Raghuram Rajan, Chief Justice TS Thakur is the second dignitary who speaks out his mind regardless of consequences. The CJI’s grouse is that the PM did not speak on the delay in judges’ appointments, which is leading to a pile-up of cases and denial of justice to citizens. The CJI may not be alone in expressing disappointment. Prime Minister Modi left many crucial things unsaid. It was an incoherent speech that was so long that it put to sleep friends and foes alike — Arun Jaitley, Manohar Parrikar and Arvind Kejriwal, among them — all caught on camera.The PM’s silence on certain issues is not without a purpose. The I-Day speech is carefully crafted. If the focus is on achievements, then ugly things go under the carpet. Attacks on Dalits is one such ugly reality. Given the VHP annoyance with Modi’s reference to fake gau rakshaks, the PM skipped the issue. The President of India, however, spoke against ‘forces of divisiveness and intolerance’. Lack of anything concrete to show up in terms of progress half way through his term may explain Modi making no mention of ‘Make in India’, ‘Swachh Bharat’, black money and job creation.Inflation fell under the NDA due to a sharp decline in prices of oil and other commodities. Modi claimed credit for this. If any institution is responsible for lower inflation, it is the RBI, and not the government. On GST, the PM could have justifiably patted himself. Instead, he chose to brag about the faster delivery of railway tickets and passports. He told the nation about the turnaround in Air India but did not tell the whole truth. Air India has made a Rs 100-crore profit, but the profit happened not due to any government intervention but because of cheaper fuel. The airline’s accumulated losses of Rs 44,000 crore should worry Modi. On a solemn occasion like Independence Day the minimum the nation expects from its Prime Minister is to display statesmanship and national leadership.

 

Eroding the moral edge

Unveiling India’s designs may harm Baloch cause

Unveiling India’s designs may harm Baloch cause

With one swoop, Prime Minister Narendra Modi may have undercut India’s moral superiority over Pakistan during his Independence Day speech by indicating New Delhi’s willingness to meddle in Balochistan by way of retaliation for Pakistan’s sponsorship of unrest in Kashmir. India has been able to enlist the West’s support on Kashmir because it was never seen to be giving Pakistan an eye for an eye. At best, the West views India as a ham-handed manager of the troubles in Kashmir. During the worst of times, when foreign jehadis had poured into the Valley, New Delhi had adroitly exposed the neighbour’s role. But it kept its counsel on the Baloch unrest, be it the nationalist movements or armed struggles.Balochistan underwent severe convulsions in 2006-07 following the killing of Nawab Bugti and Nawabzada Balach Marri (oddly in a NATO strike). The Pakistan army has undoubtedly cracked down hard, leading to thousands of missing Baloch activists, now presumed murdered. But none of them subscribed to, even actively opposed, the communal politics practised by the State in Pakistan. Therefore, it is hard to believe that but for a few tutored statements, Baloch activists would feel gladdened by the Hindutva brigade’s support. Modi’s attempt to highlight the Baloch struggle for autonomy may have created a constituency here but may embarrass the largely secular Baloch nationalists.Modi’s non-diplomatic utterances are at variance with the sophistication with which Manmohan Singh tried to tackle the Baloch issue in 2009. To set the record straight, it was the Pakistan PM who raised the issue and Dr Singh responded by agreeing to discuss ‘all outstanding issues’, without once mentioning Balochistan. In fact the Sharm-el Sheikh communiqué was a victory of sorts for India because it did not mention Kashmir even once. But a large section of the media here raised a shindy, forcing Dr Singh to disown the statement. There is misinformation being peddled about India not supporting the Baloch struggle. The moral backing has always been there. Baloch leaders have openly interacted with the Indian leadership. The only difference is this was never announced from the ramparts of the Red Fort.

 

Getting tougher with Pak

Vivek Katju
The traditional narrative has given way to a strict stance — for the better

Vivek Katju
The traditional narrative has given way to a strict stance — for the better

IN a television interview, after the all-party meeting on August 12 on Kashmir, CPM general secretary Sitaram Yechury made significant observations regarding Delhi’s policies and actions in the state and Pakistan’s role. He said, “Remember always that the other factor of Pakistan’s interference and infiltration, etc. always is a constant… and there the point is, on that we have told today as well, all of us are unanimous that as far as Pakistan’s interference is concerned, we stand together and we will not permit it. But solve your internal problem.” Mr Yechury also agreed with the interviewer that some actions of past governments had “badly damaged” the trust that the Kashmiri people had in Delhi. Mistakes have been made by many governments in handling Kashmir. Equally, fingers can be pointed at the Kashmiri leadership. However, the real issue that the Indian political class and security managers need to ask themselves is this: can the internal Kashmir situation ever be fully and satisfactorily addressed without eliminating Pakistani interference? It is here that Mr Yechury’s comment that Pakistani interference is a “constant” is deeply troubling; it indicates an almost helpless resignation and acceptance that the Indian state can (and perhaps should) do nothing to staunch the flow of a hostile neighbour’s contaminant and root out its malignant influence engineered through pervasive intrusiveness, backed by violence.This writer had, in a recent contribution to these columns, sought to show how Pakistan’s interference over the past few decades through its proxies had ensured that the situation in Afghanistan will remain unsettled. Pakistan’s Afghanistan strategy is in many respects similar to its approaches in Kashmir: to keep the pot simmering through calibrated actions.India has traditionally taken a laissez-faire attitude to Pakistani contacts in Kashmir. This is seen, for instance, in the approach to the Hurriyat. Far from ensuring that separatists’ activities are eliminated, it has allowed them to publically propagate their views, meet foreign representatives in India and travel abroad where they have promoted their cause, though, at times, it has held them in custody. It has also permitted the separatists to meet Pakistani leaders. Former R&AW chief AS Dulat has revealed that the original decision to do so was taken by Prime Minister Narasimha Rao and successive governments have followed it. PM Narendra Modi drew a line on the meeting of Pakistani representatives with the Hurriyat only effectively to erase it. The message that went out to the Pakistani generals and the international community was that Modi, like his predecessors, was willing to accept Pakistani interference in Kashmir affairs. Thus the Indian state has itself virtually, in complete violation of its basic stand that J&K is a constituent state of the Union, allowed Pakistan to openly propagate its position through its proxies. It has accepted, as Mr Yechury states, that Pakistan’s interference is a “constant” and yet has hoped to settle the internal situation in Kashmir!Implicitly, India has distinguished between Pakistani influence and its sponsored terrorism in the state. It has tenaciously fought the latter and continues to do so. Pakistan officially maintains that it has only provided moral, diplomatic and political support to Kashmir. However, some of its leaders now publically acknowledge that it has given arms training to disaffected Kashmiri youth who went to POK and that tanzeems such as the LeT play a “heroic” role in Kashmir. The sponsorship of these groups continues despite assurances to the contrary. Indian policy, however, has taken somersaults on the whether talks and terrorism can go together. This has sent out signals that for bilateral engagement, India is willing to live with not only Pakistani influence, but also overlook its terrorism.It is instructive to look at India-Pakistan bilateral engagements on J&K. There have been three serious endeavours. The first two followed traditional approaches and essentially related to territorial arrangements. In 1962-63, during Swaran Singh-Bhutto talks, the question on the table was not of Kashmiri self-determination, but the territorial division of the state. In his recent book, India vs Pakistan, Husain Haqqani writes that according to “one account” of the talks, when the Indian delegation asked Bhutto how would Pakistan wish to modify the map, he leaned over a map and pointed to the little town of Kathua on the Kashmir-Himachal border, drew a circle somewhere there with his forefinger and said, “You can have this part of Kashmir. We want the rest.” Haqqani goes on to note, “Half a century later, Pakistan’s attitude does not seem to have changed.” It simply wants the Muslim majority areas of the state.During the 1972 talks, leading up to the Simla Agreement, it is believed Bhutto had tacitly agreed that the Line of Control would become the international border. The natural corollary is that neither side would seek to influence or intervene in the other’s territory.The third India-Pakistan engagement,  through the Manmohan-Musharraf back channel talks, sought to skirt the issue. Hence, it dwelt on borders becoming irrelevant or soft through increasing contacts between the J&K and the POK. It envisaged common statewide mechanisms on some issues. The Pakistanis, however, assert that they wanted joint management of these issues; this would have impinged on Indian sovereignty. Demilitarisation was also under consideration. All this went far beyond a clean territorial agreement. In the present very difficult period in the Valley, Delhi, Srinagar and the Indian political class needs to reach out to different sections of Kashmiri opinion, especially the youth who are getting swayed by extreme Islamist thought. They need the assurance that all political and developmental concerns will be addressed through constitutional and democratic processes. These assurances have to be followed by quick and tangible actions to overcome the cynicism that has developed about Delhi. Yet a message has also to go through that the Indian state cannot accommodate any extra-constitutional demands. That message can only go through by action to stop Pakistani intrusiveness.At the all-party meeting, Mr Modi made a beginning which he followed up in his Red Fort address by referring to the rights situation in Balochistan and the POK. He has given a clear indication to Pakistan that it should not assume India’s traditional approach would continue. No PM has done so till now. He has broken ground but he will have to show stamina to persevere. His comments will also draw international attention and pressure for the world community is used to flexible Indian approaches. These will have to be resisted. — The writer is a former Secretary, Ministry of External Affairs