:: Editorial

Is anybody in Pak listening?

Oct 31 : Speaking from the Kashmir Valley this week, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh probably pitched his message just right, although it might be realistic not to set expectations too high. On the political side, Dr Singh made it clear his government was ready to discuss all aspects with any shade of opinion in the Valley whose representatives were willing to foment an atmosphere of peace and development. This broad formulation is not new in essence. Therefore, a good deal might depend on the progress of the "quiet diplomacy" with various groups promised recently by Union home minister P. Chidambaram. The language he used —specifically referring to "political" issues — has enthused public opinion in Kashmir. But we would do well not to get carried away. Kashmiri separatist groups are known to talk big, but tend to flinch from dialogue with the Centre when threatened by Pakistan-based outfits. With pro-Pakistan hardliner Syed Ali Shah Geelani sticking to his now-familiar line of not entering into talks until Islamabad is also brought on board in a three-way conversation — whose purpose is to make India acknowledge that Pakistan has a decent enough claim to Kashmir — it is hard to see how the so-called moderate Hurriyat sections can sustain the momentum of a dialogue with Delhi even if some are so inclined. It is not even clear if Mirwaiz Omar Farooq can be said to be in the latter category as he is known to blow hot and cold and normally trims his sails to commandments from Pakistan.

It is all too evident, however, that it is important to address the ordinary people of Kashmir who have come out over and over again to vote in "Indian" elections despite intimidation from Pakistan and from Hurriyat sections. Although the Pakistani dimension cannot be overlooked, the Valley’s populace must develop enough confidence that the Centre is serious about approaching the subject of "autonomy". They are already persuaded that New Delhi is earnest about development, and also appreciate that several trans-border mechanisms — on trade, transport, communications — haven’t fully worked out due to Islamabad dragging its feet. This is why they quietly do what they can — go out and vote. But some day they might pull back if the government cannot ensure them security against Pakistan-based terrorists and their local cohorts.

This is why from Kashmir Dr Singh carefully calibrated his call to Pakistan to end succour to terrorist elements on its territory so that peace conversations can be restarted. But Islamabad has clearly not heard. It is breathtaking how obtuse the Pakistan foreign ministry has chosen to be. Its spokesman chose to read in Dr Singh’s remarks a "welcome reiteration of the understanding reached" at Sharm el-Sheikh. The tragedy of the situation — not responding to calls to end terrorism in Kashmir while all of Pakistan is being consumed by jihadist violence — clearly does not impress Islamabad. US secretary of state Hillary Clinton, who was in Pakistan when Dr Singh was in Kashmir, has advised the people and government of Pakistan to embrace trade and economic ties with India if they wanted to get anywhere. There has not been even a pro forma response. She also clearly expressed her surprise that no one in Pakistan seemed to know where Al Qaeda leaders were hiding in that country for seven long years. Ms Clinton also made it clear that Pakistan’s "military security establishment", clearly a euphemism for the ISI, came in the way of a "mature partnership" with Pakistan, not just for the United States but also other countries. India has been saying exactly this for three decades. The American tune can, of course, change opportunistically. But at least the secretary of state spelt out to Islamabad that it must sort out differences with India "bilaterally".