Harsha Kakar
Prior to the commencement of the holy month of Ramazan, Mehbooba Mufti had requested the centre to announce a unilateral ceasefire within the valley. In her opinion, this ceasefire would reduce levels of violence and could be a gamechanger. It took some prodding, before the same was announced by the Home Minister, a day before the PM was to visit the state. This announcement was also welcomed by the main state opposition party, NC.
As per terms of NICO (Non-Initiation of Combat Operations), the army would not initiate anti-militancy operations, unless fired upon or based on specific intelligence. Mehbooba simultaneously appealed to militants and Pak to respond similarly. The LeT was the first to reject the offer. No other militant group made any statement.
On Tuesday last week, the fixed day for the DGMOs of India and Pak to speak on the hot line, Pak proposed reverting to the ceasefire agreement of 2003, to be effective immediately. The ceasefire as suggested by Pak had nothing to do with the suggestionofMehbooba nor was it in response to India’s internal decision, it was separate and for its own reasons.
The Financial Action Task Force (FATF) meeting is looming large and could place Pak on its ‘Grey or Black’ list, depending on its analysis of Pak’s action. By offering a ceasefire, Pak was seeking to project a change in its approach. It would also for the time being, reign in militant groups and reduce infiltration attempts, as without an active LoC, infiltration becomes difficult.Those infiltrated would remain. There would also have been pressure from China to normalize relations with India, as it was aware of the financial crises within Pak.
India’s retaliation to Pak firing had been brutal and did impact them. Elections in Pak are around the corner and with an interim government is in place, all foreign and security policy decisions are that of the army. Hence, the ceasefire was a message to India that they were willing to talk peace, but for doing so, India would need to talk to the Pak army.
How effective would be the ceasefire and would it hold is another issue. There would be violations, as had occurred over the weekend and is the norm, however if they are few and far between, then it may be beneficial. The fact that the offer came from Pak does imply that it is seeking to signal peace.
However, presently the valley seems to be on a receding mode of violence, with ceasefires both internally and externally. The external ceasefire would benefit the populace residing on the borders, while the internal, the valley.
Internally, despite some hiccups and incidents including the recent attack on a police vehicle and death of a protestor, NICO is proving to be a partial success. While operations against local militants, who remain within the confines of their home region has witnessed a drop, operations against infiltrated militants continues. The emphasis of security forces has shifted from the interior to the exterior seeking to prevent Pak infiltrated militants from establishing contact with their local counterparts. Success has begun to flow.
There have been reports of attempted weapon snatching, grenade attacks and stone throwing, but in the overall context, violence across the valley has witnessed a decline. This should have been the period when surrenders should have risen, as peace within provides the family with an opportunity to convince wayward members who recently joined militant ranks to surrender.
This drop-in violence has also infused a sense of confidence within the government, enabling it to consider moving forward towards a lasting solution, including initiating dialogue with the Hurriyat for the first time in four years.The Home Minister taking advantage of the improving situation stated that the centre is willing for talks with the Hurriyat. Sushma Swaraj at the same time, addressing her annual press conference repeated the strong government stand on Pak, ‘Talks and terror cannot go hand in hand.’ Amit Shah in his comments mentioned that NICO is not for militants but for the people of the state.
The Hurriyat rejected the Home Minister’s call, stating, ‘The stakes for the people of Kashmir are very high. We have invested heavily in our struggle for our right to self-determination and cannot afford to be part of an ambiguous efforts that has no clarity and direction.’ The Hurriyat has always insisted that Pakistan, Kashmir and India are stakeholders and need to resolve the issue together.
However, it has been this lopsided approach that has compelled the government to ignore the Hurriyat and it would, once again. The Hurriyat, rather than being a supporter, has become a spoke in the wheel for peace. The youth should by now have realized that the Hurriyat does not seek peace, rather seeks to continue having the valley on the boil.
The comment by the ex-Pak DG ISI, Durrani, in his co-authored book ‘Spy Chronicles’ with Dulat, the ex-RAW chief, that one of the best decisions of the Pak government was the creation of the Hurriyat clearly indicates its bias. Further, India as a nation can never consider tripartite talks involving Pak and the Hurriyat, since the Hurriyat is an internal party, hence can never be involved in dialogue at the international level. India could consider talking to both separately, never together. If the Hurriyat continues to insist with its unacceptable demands, it would be ignored completely.
Externally, the army would monitor Pak actions and its commitment to adhering to the ceasefire. Simultaneous would be monitoring the LoC for attempts at infiltration. In case the ceasefire remains steadfast and infiltration attempts are negligible, then clearly the Pak deep state is seeking to send a message of peace and reconciliation.
However, this message would be with the rider that the agency to initiate dialogue would be the Pak army, not the government. It is for our government to consider, whether it would accept this offer. India, as a policy has never engaged with the Pak army, but if the ceasefire holds, then it may need to change its stance.
The valley is presently witnessing a spell of calm, both from within and outside. For the within, stakeholders must avail this opportunity to commence dialogue, setting differences aside, seeking a solution. If the Hurriyat is unwilling, then political parties can become the platform. From the outside, if Pak is serious, then it opens additional doors for India. Would India bite, remains a question?
(The author is a retired Major General of the Indian Army)
feedbackexcelsior@gmail.com
Trending Now
E-Paper
Follow our WhatsApp channel