| |
EDITORIALS
Surviving Agra
The challenge is to make the best of a rather bad beginning
 So
there was no miracle in Agra. But President Pervez Musharraf is not alone
in feeling "disappointed" and "hurt" by this historic
let-down. A large section of the media and those who have made peace with
such an elastic state of mind, independent of history or geopolitical
reality, are equally devastated. As if two days in the shadow of Taj Mahal
should have undone 54 years of institutionalised hate and mistrust. Maybe
it was because of the pre-summit mood of great expectations and overuse
of the adjective "historic". Something that should have ideally
been a business-like affair was turned into a larger-than-reality occasion.
That is why the Day After has become the day of subcontinental depression.
That is why a word like "failure" is being used to describe
a one-dimensional reality. "The commencement of a process" and
the "beginning of a journey", so read the pre-summit poetry
of the Indian Foreign Ministry. And its post-summit conclusion? "The
destination of a joint statement has not been reached." For the prosaic
guest there was only one destination and it was Kashmir.
Two nations and two different attitudes. Agra
was all about knowing each other. Now India has a clear idea of what the
General wants. Also, he has shown to his countrymen what he is bargaining
with India for on their behalf. Certainly an intelligent commando, Musharraf,
in his heart of hearts, must have known there would be no bilateral agreement
on his destination. The General wanted to be specific and the host wanted
to be general, and a two-day summit without enough diplomatic preparations
or an agenda could not have authored a miracle. The challenge is to make
the best of a rather bad beginning. The summit of eternal peace is an
illusion, and India and Pakistan have miles to ascend.
Still, Let's Talk Kashmir
Tackle the growing political apathy and vanishing confidence
in the Valley
 All
right, let the General from the other side of the loc talk Kashmir-as
a dispute, an issue, a problem or as whatever. That is his existential
expediency. It's time India also talked Kashmir-not to the General but
to itself. For India, unlike for the General, Kashmir is not a dispute
but a situation, a bad domestic situation. True, there is an elected government
in the state led by Farooq Abdullah whose administrative record is, to
say the least, inadequate. The so-called Kashmiri alienation, to a great
extent, cannot be attributed to a misplaced sense of nationalism. Most
of the blame should be borne by the rulers of Kashmir. Kashmir, like the
Northeast, is far away and has been given a special status. Which means
more dollops but less political will to make a qualitative difference
to the lives of the people. Kashmiris deserve a better deal from Srinagar
and Delhi, not a ridiculous-and often barbaric-deal from across the border.
No nation can afford to lose its people's hearts.
Delhi seems to be overlooking this simple truth at a time when Kashmir
is part of the international glossary of flashpoints. What is required
are political confidence-building measures. Kashmiris seem to have no
respite from self-serving political leaderships, and the totally detached
National Conference Government shows no signs of being different. When
the elected government works towards losing legitimacy, self-elected saviours
come to the fore as pseudo spokesmen of Kashmiri conscience. Hence the
over-visibility of the Hurriyat, the national credibility of some of whose
members is questionable. Kashmir should not be subordinated to India's
problems with Pakistan. It should be treated as a domestic urgency. It
deserves liberation from political apathy.
|
|
METRO TODAY
Web
Exclusives
