Ceasefire and perceptions

JOHN CHERIAN

THE decision to extend the ceasefire in Kashmir for the second time was not an unexpected one. There were indications from the Indian Foreign Office and the Army regarding an extension. External Affairs Minister Jaswant Singh's high-profile visit to Saud i Arabia was a pointer to the decision. Riyadh had come out strongly in support of the ongoing peace process in Kashmir. Besides, there are reports that the Indian government has been trying to get Riyadh to exercise its perceived clout with militant org anisations such as the Lashkar-e-Toiba, the Harkat-ul-Mujahideen and the Jaish-e-Mohammad, which have all rejected the ceasefire.

There has also been a noticeable mellowing of the attitude of the Indian Foreign Office towards the Pakistani military leadership. For instance, senior officials in the Foreign Office now say that they were never opposed to the holding of the SAARC (Sout h Asian Association for Regional Cooperation) summit last year on the grounds that Pakistan's civilian government had been overthrown in a military coup. New Delhi seems to have given up the policy of trying to ostracise the military regime in Islamabad. Jaswant Singh said recently that he was willing to travel to Islamabad, provided Pakistan stopped supporting cross-border terrorism.

Besides, the ceasefire announcement had received plaudits from all over the world. Many people in India and Pakistan are of the view that Washington had some role to play in the new peace initiatives. Former U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for South As ia Karl Inderfurth, in one of his last statements before the Clinton administration bowed out of office, said that the U.S. government is encouraged by the recent steps taken by the Indian and Pakistani governments and "by the fact that the various parti es are moving in the direction of establishing a dialogue".

The international community in general has welcomed New Delhi's unilateral declaration of ceasefire and its extension. At the same time, statements from the U.S., western European governments and the European Union (E.U.) have praised the Pakistani decis ion to withdraw part of its troops stationed along the Line of Control (LoC). The E.U., reflecting the views of most European governments, has said that a peaceful solution can be achieved only if terrorist acts are brought to a halt and the LoC strictly maintained and confidence-building and security measures implemented.

New Delhi may find it difficult to justify calling off the ceasefire at a time when the international community is praising the Musharraf government for showing restraint. Another factor being cited for the ceasefire extension by India is the assumption of charge by the new Bush Administration in Washington. The new U.S. Secretary of State, Colin Powell, has talked about giving India a special peace-keeping role in the South Asian region and about the inefficacy of international sanctions. However, Powe ll has not given any explicit assurance of lifting the U.S. sanctions against India imposed in the wake of the Pokhran-II nuclear tests.

Prior to the second extension of the ceasefire, there was an obvious hardening of attitudes in Kashmir among sections of the government on the issue of the ceasefire. Home Minister L.K. Advani's statements following the attacks by Lashkar militants on th e Red Fort and the Srinagar airport, reflected this hardline stance. Bharatiya Janata Party president Bangaru Laxman said in the third week of January that the militants should be "crushed with an iron hand". The Home Ministry under Advani's instructions dragged its feet on the issue of passports to the All Parties Hurriyat Conference (APHC) leaders and tried to dictate the composition of the team that would go to Islamabad. The External Affairs Ministry made it clear that it had no objections to the is sue of passports to the APHC leaders and said that the onus in the matter was on the Home Ministry.

Advani was of the view that not much had changed in the Kashmir Valley except for the cessation of indiscriminate firing along the LoC. The Home Ministry's opinion was that Pakistan was not exercising the required level of control over the militants, who continued to target the security forces and also sensitive installations in the Valley. Home Ministry officials, while admitting that the level of infiltration into the Valley has dropped sharply, say that the same is not true in the Jammu region. But a s the time for an extension of the ceasefire neared, Advani fell in line and indicated that he was not averse to the idea of extending it.

Advani admitted to the media in the third week of January that Kashmir was experiencing relative calm after a long time and that the international community had realised the fact that India's stand was in favour of peace. But he held on to his view that the attack on sensitive installations by militants would not have been possible without the help of the Pakistani establishment. He said that there was a view in the government that the security forces should be allowed to resume counter-insurgency opera tions in the Valley.

But the leadership of the armed forces evidently did not fully share the views of the Home Ministry. The Chief of the Army Staff, Gen. S. Padmanabhan, said in the second week of January that he would prefer an extension of the ceasefire. The Army evident ly viewed the attacks by the pan-Islamist Lashkar-e-Toiba and Jaish-e-Moham-madi as sporadic ones and as desperate attempts to retain their credibility. The Army establishment feels that these groups do not have much popular support in the Valley. Pakist an's observance of "maximum restraint" along the LoC and on the Siachen Glacier is also seen as a positive development.

There have been reports that the Indian Army has decided to reduce its troop strength in the Valley in a phased manner. This has been a long-standing demand from Pakistan, which is of the opinion that only such a meaningful step would expedite the peace process. However, Defence Minister George Fernandes, who is said to share Advani's perceptions about the peace process, said that the Cabinet Committee on Security which met on January 23 to clear the extention of ceasefire, had not decided to pull out troops from the State in a phased manner. "It is absolutely wrong to suggest that the government will pull out troops in the next five years," said Fernandes.