What it will take
The elections in Jammu and Kashmir are over, and the new government, led by the Chief Minister Mufti Mohammad Sayeed, is in place. What is more interesting in the whole saga is the comment by the chief minister on Pakistan’s “positive role” in the conduct of the Kashmir’s elections. Although his comments have brought much furore in Indian politics, yet it cannot be denied that Pakistan had “exceptional leverage” in Kashmir through its support to “pro-Pakistani” political leaders in Kashmir. Also, Pakistan has always been alleged to have had leverage in the state through its support to separatism and militancy. How far these allegations are true is yet to be seen, but every political leader in India from Nehru to Manmohan Singh has had to deal with this “alleged-Pakistani-support” that gives Kashmir an external dimension.
The agreement between the BJP and PDP of sharing a common approach towards Pakistan is nevertheless surprising, given the anti-Pakistan rhetoric of Indian government under Prime Minister Narendra Modi. The agreement implies the recognition of Pakistan as an important player in Kashmir politics. Also, it signals that India recognises the importance of engaging Pakistan. The Indian government, in recognition of the importance of engaging Pakistan, has recently initiated steps to normalise ties with Pakistan. And the Indian foreign secretary has visited Pakistan to talk with his counter-part for continuing the talks that had been suspended by India last year. In this regard, the coalition government in Kashmir will seek to support and strengthen the initiatives taken by India to normalise its relationship with Pakistan by creating a conciliatory environment, so that both states can have a stake in peace and development within the subcontinent.
In dealing with the externalisation of Kashmir, Modi is following the path of Atal Bihari Vajpayee, which was taken up by India during the tenure of the first NDA government
It is no coincidence that the new understanding between PDF and BJP for initiating peace talks with Pakistan came just a few days before Foreign Secretary S Jaishankar visited Pakistan. It can be said that Modi’s decision to revive the foreign secretary level talks with Pakistan, that once looked quite unrealistic, has certainly helped to bring BJP and PDF together. Also, it seems that Obama’s visit to India this year might have helped in changing Modi’s policy towards Pakistan, as peace between the neighbours would be an essential ingredient for the success of “South Asian vision” as proposed by Obama and Modi.
In dealing with the externalisation of Kashmir, Modi is following the path of Atal Bihari Vajpayee, which was taken up by India during the tenure of the first NDA government. The same path was also followed by Manmohan Singh. However, Modi is in a much stronger position than either Vajpayee or Singh. India is now much better placed than it was in the late 1990’s, when Vajpayee initiated the peace process with Pakistan which culminated in the Lahore Declaration. This time, too, Pakistan has Nawaz Sharif and India is ruled by BJP albeit under Modi. Given the rising Indian share in a peaceful subcontinent, particularly when India is among the greater economies of the world, the Modi government is in a better position to take bold steps towards building peaceful ties with Pakistan. On Pakistan’s side, it is more vulnerable to terrorism than it was in the 1990s, and the same phenomenon of “terrorism” could halt India’s progress as well. In this regard, it seems that Jaishankar’s visit gave him a new sense of possibilities for a sustained dialogue as there is more room for convergence than a divergence between India and Pakistan.
For India, the externalisation of Kashmir is due to Hurriyat, which has long been close to Pakistan. Before the state elections in Kashmir, the hard stance of Modi against Pakistan was also, somehow, due to the Hurriyet’s voice in Kashmir for Pakistan. The expression of Modi’s dilemma came on the forefront when India stalled foreign secretary level talks with Pakistan after Pakistan’s High Commissioner in India met Hurriyat leaders before the talks. However, the joint Kashmir agenda, as envisioned by BJP and PDF after some hard negotiations in recent weeks, notes that “Vajpayee had initiated a dialogue process with all political groups, including the Hurriyat Conference, in the spirit of ‘Insaniyat, Kashmiriyat aur Jamhooriyat’”. Promising to seek a comprehensive peace process, the two parties said that their coalition government in Srinagar “will facilitate and help initiate a sustained and meaningful dialogue with all internal stakeholders, which will include all political groups irrespective of their ideological views and predilections.”
On the Line of Control, the shared vision of BJP and PDF called for “enhancing people-to-people contact on both sides, encouraging civil society exchanges, taking travel, commerce, trade and business across the LoC to the next level and opening new routes across all three regions to enhancing connectivity”
These statements are very significant. As noted above, Modi’s decision to break off the talks was due to his objection to Pakistan’s engagement with Hurriyat. For Modi, the concept of negotiations on the external dimension (Pakistan) must be bilateral, leaving no room for Hurriyat. However, by de-constructing the joint statement, we see that the Modi government has taken some bold decisions. It has recognised Hurriyat as an “internal stakeholder” in the Kashmir dispute. Also, it has adopted the policy of having separate talks with Pakistan and Hurriyat. Although some hard line factions in Hurriyat are not enthusiastic about talking to India, yet it doesn’t matter as long as India and Pakistan agree on a formula for future negotiations.
On the Line of Control, the shared vision of BJP and PDF called for “enhancing people-to-people contact on both sides, encouraging civil society exchanges, taking travel, commerce, trade and business across the LoC to the next level and opening new routes across all three regions to enhancing connectivity”. However, the shared vision does not include “ceasefire along the LoC” as it was negotiated by Vajpayee with Pakistan in 1990s. If the Modi government can restore the ceasefire, as it has been the obstacle to normalisation, the external dimension of Kashmir could change for better and create an environment for the agenda of peace and development, not only within Jammu and Kashmir as articulated by the BJP and BDP, but also between Pakistan and India.
