The growing chill

Despite the installation of a "civilian government" in Pakistan and the emergence of a new leadership in Jammu and Kashmir, mistrust between India and Pakistan remains and possibilities of a resumption of dialogue have all but receded.

AFTER more than three years of military rule, Pakistan has a `civilian' set-up, and for the first time since India's Independence the State of Jammu and Kashmir has a leadership that has nothing to do with the ruling power in New Delhi. Yet, ties between the two countries remain tense, though less hostile thanks to India's decision to withdraw its forces deployed on the international border with Pakistan.

Of course, the new dispensation in Islamabad, headed by Mir Zafrullah Khan Jamali, is the baby of the military. It cannot survive without the patronage of President Pervez Musharraf and the half-a-million strong military that he presides over. Also, given the various domestic and international factors that are at play, the new set-up is as close as one can get to a non-military government in Pakistan. In simple words, given the indispensability of General Musharraf to the Bush administration in its so-called war against international terrorism, small details such as democracy in Pakistan do not count.

It was hoped that despite shortcomings, the elections in Jammu and Kashmir and Pakistan would help India and Pakistan return to the dialogue table. Although there have been some concrete steps, such as the beginning of the demobilisation of armed forces from both sides of the border, there has not been any let-up in the war of words. The decision to withdraw troops is a major step in view of the fact that between December 2001 and October 2002, the two countries were on the brink of war at least twice.

A variety of factors and negative perceptions about each other are responsible for the current state of affairs. India sees the new government in Pakistan as an instrument designed to perpetuate Musharraf's rule. But independent observers believe that it is not New Delhi's business to sit in judgment on the nature of the dispensation in Islamabad. They point out that on several occasions India has dealt with military regimes. Pakistan is convinced that India is bent on cashing in on the sentiments that prevail in the international community, especially the United States and its allies, on terrorism and on isolating it from the rest of the world. The positive manner in which the international community responded to the recent Assembly elections in Jammu and Kashmir has added to Pakistan's fears that India is about to succeed in its designs to deprive it of its status as a party to the Kashmir dispute. India believes that Pakistan has not given up jehad (holy war) as an instrument of foreign policy and that it continues to inflict injuries on India's body politic through acts of terror.

This perception appears to have been strengthened after the series of terror attacks in recent days, including the attacks on temples in Jammu and Hyderabad and the release of some high-profile Islamist leaders such as the former chief of the banned Lashkar-e-Toiba, Prof. Hafeez Mohammad Saeed. In the last week of December, it would have been a year since the missions in New Delhi and Islamabad have remained without High Commissioners and at 50 per cent of their original staff strength. Rail, road and air links between the two countries remain suspended. Pakistan is yet to respond to the decision announced by India in June to allow over-flying facilities to its aircraft on a reciprocal basis. Islamabad insists that the measure announced by New Delhi was self-serving and that if it was really serious about mending fences it should lift the ban on air services between the two countries.

The distrust between the two countries is so great that the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) summit, scheduled to be held in Islamabad in the second week of January, is likely to be postponed. There have been enough indications from New Delhi that it is not excited at the prospect of a summit in the Pakistani capital. Meanwhile, Pakistan has accused India of putting "pre-conditions" for attending the summit and said that it will not "countenance" such moves from any quarter. In response to what was termed as statements by Indian leaders and officials placing pre-conditions for New Delhi's participation in the 12th SAARC Summit, Islamabad's Foreign Office spokesman said: "Pakistan had proposed the summit dates in good faith and in pursuance of decisions taken in SAARC forums. The Government of Pakistan will not countenance any preconditions from any quarters merely to ensure their participation in the summit". Speculation is rife that Pakistan might decide to postpone the summit if there is no confirmation of participation by India and Bhutan. According to Islamabad, Sri Lanka, Nepal, the Maldives and Bangladesh have intimated their readiness to participate in the summit.

Pakistan's latest missive seems to have been triggered by statements made by Brajesh Mishra, Principal Secretary to the Prime Minister, in the British Broadcasting Corporation's (BBC) `Hard Talk' programme. Mishra said that in the absence of progress on the agenda agreed upon at the SAARC summit in Kathmandu in January this year, it might be difficult for Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee to travel to Islamabad for another SAARC summit.

Ever since Jamali assumed office on November 23, there have been a spate of statements from various functionaries in Pakistan beginning with Musharraf, who appealed to Vajpayee to visit Islamabad for the summit. The day Jamali was sworn in, Musharraf urged Vajpayee to talk to the new government and meet the new Prime Minister on the sidelines of the SAARC summit. Foreign Minister Khurshid Mahmood Kasuri echoed similar sentiments in his interviews to the media and while interacting with officials of his Ministry.

As far as India's perception about Pakistan's continuing patronage to jehadi elements engaged in acts of terror is concerned, it appears that Musharraf is caught in the conflicting interests of the religious groups and parties on one hand and the U.S. on the other. After the October 10 elections, for the first time, religious groups in Pakistan have emerged as a force to reckon with. Despite charges that the military establishment has helped these forces emerge victorious in the polls, it is unclear whether it really wanted to hand over a sensitive province such as the North West Frontier Province (NWFP) to the Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal (MMA), an alliance of six religious parties.

In view of the U.S.' "war against terror" in Afghanistan, its stakes in Pakistan are indeed high. The manner in which New Delhi and Washington responded to news reports of nuclear cooperation between Pakistan and North Korea is revealing. U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell went out of his way to defend Pakistan and gave Musharraf a clean chit. While responding to India's charges that Islamabad was behind the attacks on temples in Jammu, a spokesperson of the Pakistan Foreign Office characterised the attacks as "terrorist" acts and said that "the motivation behind the attacks seemed to be to enhance tension in the region."

Significantly, the crux of a report brought out by the International Crisis Group (ICG), an independent multi-national non-profit organisation, is that while the elections in Jammu and Kashmir have raised hopes of peace, their positive outcome must be reinforced by concrete actions by India, Pakistan and the new leadership in Jammu and Kashmir. Titled "Kashmir: the view from Srinagar", the ICG report says that the elections were only the first step towards unravelling the long cycle of violence. It states that while India should take action to build the "momentum", Pakistan must prevent infiltration from across the Line of Control (LoC) and stop all support to militants. The report says that it was a welcome sign that for the first time since India's Independence, a leadership that is different from the ruling power in New Delhi has been elected in Jammu and Kashmir. "However, if the Indian government acts as if the election itself is enough to address Kashmiris' grievances, it will only be a matter of time before violence escalates," the report states.

The report is based on extensive field interviews in Jammu and Kashmir. In July, a related report of the ICG, titled "Kashmir: Confrontation and Miscalculation", addressed the issue of Pakistan's support to militants and urged Islamabad to stop supporting cross-border militants. The report says that Pakistan's support to cross-border infiltration by militants contributed directly to violence in the region. The report emphasises that Pakistan must prevent incursions across the Line of Control and stop all support to militant groups. It further states that Islamabad should facilitate a dialogue between Kashmiris on either side of the LoC. India, the report says "should end human rights violations by its security forces, investigate fully and impartially all reports of extra-judicial killing, disappearance, custodial deaths, rape and torture, prosecute those responsible and publish the investigations and court proceedings". India's Prevention of Terrorism Act, the report states, should be subjected to an annual review to make sure that it is not abused. India should also ratify the First Protocol to the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights and all Articles of the Convention Against Torture, the report says.

Emphasising the need for an early resumption of dialogue between the two countries at all levels, the report says that in the absence of political reconciliation and accommodation within Kashmir and serious political dialogue between India and Pakistan, there was no hope for an early end to the long-running conflict.