A former minister should know The Statesman 09 Jan 18
In an article 07 Jan 18 and subsequent tweets, Chidambaram, the former home and finance minister, wrote that the present strategy of a ‘hard stance’ adopted by the government in Kashmir will never lead to a political solution. His views were based on data indicating that terror strikes have not reduced, while the killing of terrorists and losses of security force have increased over the years.
He claimed that the appointment of Dineshwar Sharma as the interlocutor was only a political gimmick. In his view, the governments policy of ‘no talks’ with the Hurriyat or those who demand ‘Azadi’ or those arrested for stone pelting had doomed the mission to failure. He further stated that ‘no purpose will be served by pretending that there is no issue or dispute between India and Pakistan’.
He concludes by stating that while he supports the appointment of an interlocutor, but it must be part of a set of measures. The measures which he suggests are promulgating governor’s rule, announcing talks with all stake holders, reducing the presence of the army and para military in the valley and strengthening the defence of the border while taking deterrent action against infiltrators and militants.
The article appears to be more for gaining political brownie points and a few minutes of media glare, than for suggesting a genuine possible solution. He should have been aware, considering his heading critical ministries of the government, that the problem within Kashmir is neither homegrown nor internal, but has been created and fuelled by Pakistan. Pakistan has been projecting since its birth, that it feels bare without Kashmir and the sole reason for its survival, is Kashmir. This is well known on both sides.
They have always been seeking talks, in the present environment of continued support to terror groups, operating in the valley. If India agrees, then this would imply talks with Pakistan at a time when it feels it is in a position of strength. No nation, especially India, would seek to negotiate from a position of weakness. If Pak stops support to terror groups and moves forward for talks, then India would be the dominant party, which would not satisfy Pak. Thus, talks are presently ruled out.
The Hurriyat, whom he considers as major stakeholders, which is contrary to the present government’s views, did possess power and support, so long as hawala funding continued to flow from across. As soon as it stopped, so did violence and strife against the state. Presently, their calls for bandhs, strikes and violence has no takers. Chidambaram ignores the fact that the Hurriyat purchased properties worth millions, without doing a single day’s work, using money funded by Pak. Thus, they played on the blood of the youth for obtaining their wealth.
Militants within the state are largely from Pakistan, with a sprinkling from within. Those from within have joined to seek local power or to overcome a jobless environment, which the centre and state failed for decades to create. Majority of the state youth desire peace and development thus providing them employment avenues, which would allude them, unless security forces dominate the valley and eliminate militants.
Militancy and attacks on security forces would continue, so long as the Pak deep state is able to easily obtain cannon fodder militants, launch them across, befooling them that they are serving the interests of Islam. They can be controlled, restricted, eliminated but never stopped. Thus, security forces would suffer casualties, despite all precautions and firepower. This must be accepted as it is battling state sponsored terrorism, not simple violence. Hence reducing security forces presence in the valley would be detrimental to national security. The desperation within the Pak establishment on the success of our security forces was evident, when it pushed for the release of Hafiz Saeed from prison.
Chidambaram had suggested strengthening of the border and adopting deterrent action against infiltrators and militants. The culling of militants had touched a high of over two hundred in 2017, as per data in his own article. The number of infiltrators eliminated, and infiltration bids foiled have also been high last year. As a home minster he would have been aware that border management, despite every known gadget is never a zero-sum game. There are rivulets, jungles and ravines, which make monitoring every inch difficult. Yet, multiple layers adopted by the security forces have reduced infiltration to low levels.
His recommendation of promulgating governor’s rule is the most absurd suggestion coming from a former home minister. Imposition of governor’s rule, especially in J and K, sends very wrong signals across the globe. Firstly, it implies that the state has lost control over the valley. Secondly, the governor is employing the army to subdue the state, thus spreading false news of Kashmir being army controlled.
Thirdly, Pak’s propaganda machinery would have a field day projecting victory for the people of the valley as the Indian government had failed. It is for this reason, that even during the violent summer of 2016, the centre refused to consider governor’s rule, despite calls from many quarters.
The interlocutor, Mr Chidambaram, has been given full freedom to interact with any member of society. There is no rule of not taking to the Hurriyat, those seeking ‘Azadi’ and stone throwers. In fact, many of these groups including students, who led the 2016 violence, have interacted with him and would continue to do so. Interactions must necessarily be within the Indian constitution.
Kashmir needs a strong security presence to thwart Pak’s designs while opening doors for dialogue employing the interlocutor. It remains an issue, as Pak holds what was rightfully ours because your party leadership under Nehru, panicked and ran to the UN, rather than trusting the Indian army, which you also don’t. Let those in power today, attempt to solve, what the UPA could not for ten years, despite appointing three interlocutors and holding a collection of round table conferences.
About the Author
Maj Gen Harsha Kakkar
Retired Major General Indian Army