The elections to India's Jammu and Kashmir legislature will determine if a process of dialogue and reconciliation can begin in Kashmir.

The Kashmir Committee, headed by former law minister Ram Jethmalani, has the tacit backing of the Indian government and a brief to persuade the All-Party Hurriyat Conference, the main group of separatist organisations, to take part in the poll.

But the Hurriyat says it will not contest the elections and bestow legitimacy on a future Jammu and Kashmir government functioning under the Indian Constitution, which it rejects. It is ready to talk only if the talks' agenda focuses on the "future dispensation of the Kashmir dispute", to be determined by India, Pakistan, and the Kashmiri people.

Talks began informally Friday in Srinagar, capital of Indian-administered Kashmir, between the Kashmir Committee and Shabid Ahmad Shah, who leads the moderate Democratic Freedom Party in the state.

On Saturday, Shah, who is not affiliated with Hurriyat, accepted an invitation to hold talks with Deputy Prime Minister Lal Krishna Advani. Jethmalani is expected to hold talks with the Hurriyat later this week

Shah was quoted as saying after Saturday's meeting that he had asked the committee to get the government to stop human rights violations, including custodial killings, the release of all political leaders and withdrawal of the disturbed area Act and armed forces special powers act, which give security forces sweeping powers of search and detention.

Whether the talks with Hurriyat will actually get far off the ground is far from clear. What is plain is their backdrop -- a hardening of the officially stated positions of India and Pakistan, highlighted by the Independence Day addresses by President Gen Pervez Musharraf on Aug. 14 and Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee the next day.

Both speeches were restatements of "first positions": that Pakistan's support for Kashmiri "self-determination" is a "sacred trust", and in keeping with U.N. Security Council resolutions favouring a plebiscite; and New Delhi's position that Kashmir is an "inalienable part" of India, which remains committed to "free and fair" elections and to discussing limited autonomy with their winners.

The sole new element was Vajpayee's admission -- the first by an Indian leader -- that India committed "mistakes" in Kashmir in the past.

The speeches have sparked off an unseemly verbal duel, with India questioning the legitimacy of Musharraf's military regime and the Apr. 30 "rigged" referendum on his presidency, and Musharraf calling the Kashmir elections "farcical" and describing the Hurriyat as the valley's "credible voice".

The description has made Hurriyat leaders further harden their stand against contesting the elections. These leaders are not fully independent or neutral. A majority, but not all of them, are pro-Pakistan. Some have received funding from Islamabad's secret agencies.

Why, then, did the 23-party conglomerate Hurriyat agree to hold talks with the Kashmir Committee?

The short answer is pressure from the United States, Britain, and the European Union, which last week sent a delegation to the Hurriyat's Srinagar headquarters.

These states welcome the elections and urge the Hurriyat's participation U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell recently warned Pakistan against disrupting them.

The international pressure on the Hurriyat is supplemented by changed public opinion within Kashmir, which favours elections. According to a survey by 'The Week' magazine, 54 percent of Kashmiris want the Hurriyat to participate in the elections, although 73 percent think Pakistan "will try to disrupt them".

Many Kashmiris are deeply suspicious of Indian policy. But some are also sceptical about the Hurriyat, which is seen to be unable to offer an alternative, short of violent militancy.

But the Hurriyat is also under intense pressure from fanatical separatists such as Jaish-e-Mohammed and Lashkar-e-Toiba, and from sections of the Pakistan government, to refuse any electoral reconciliation with New Delhi.

Pro-election leaders risk being killed by militant groups that have no compunctions about assassinating opponents.

The Hurriyat has sought an awkward, messy way out of this dilemma by welcoming the talks, but opposing electoral participation. But unlike in the last election in 1996, it is not campaigning for a boycott.

To Srinagar-based analysts, this is only a tactical move. Tahir Mohideen, editor of the weekly 'Chattan', says the decision has the Musharraf government's approval.

The Hurriyat's heart is not in the talks. It is it approaching them from a position of strength. Its commitment to them is likely to be weak and tokenist.

This appears to be the case with the Indian government too. Although it is using the Kashmir Committee as a sounding or mediating agency, it is not sincere about "unconditional" talks outside the electoral process. Vajpayee on Thursday clarified India would only talk to Kashmir's elected representatives.

New Delhi's half-hearted effort at dialogue is also driven by external pressure, especially from the United States, which has been urging fair, free and "inclusive" elections.

by this, Washington means polls that encompass groups like the Hurriyat and international observers, after "political prisoners" in reference to two of the Hurriyat's seven executive members -- are freed.

The Vajpayee government too has made an awkward compromise. It rejects full-scale international monitoring with "official" observers, but will allow individual diplomats. It is silent on "prisoners". And it is trying to be nominally "inclusive".

The government is leery of allowing external observers for fear that this will "internationalise" the Kashmir issue, which, it maintains, is purely bilateral. But this is an unrealistic and paranoid attitude.

In reality, the Kashmir issue got internationalised when India and Pakistan crossed the nuclear threshold four years ago, and Kashmir became a likely flashpoint for an Atomic Armageddon in South Asia. This was underscored by the Kargil conflict in Kashmir in the summer of 1999.

Powell himself said a fortnight ago that Kashmir is now on "the international agenda".

India's recent moves are driven by a strategy: hold relatively free and fair elections in Kashmir, and present them as a substitute for a dialogue with Pakistan.

Its policymakers hope that its new "strategic" proximity with the United States, along with a degree of legitimacy for the elections, will take the heat off its back on extensive human rights violations in Kashmir.

Pakistan's calculations are no less devious. It too wants to cash in on its strategic value in the U.S. "war against terrorism" and as a staging post for Central and West Asia. It hopes it will not be deflected by the United States from disrupting the elections in Indian Kashmir.

Islamabad, especially its Inter-Services Intelligence agency, would be loathe to see really free and fair elections in Kashmir which, it fears, will cheat it of its legitimate claim to the territory.

India's failure to involve dissident groups in a democratic exercise could combine with Pakistan's cynical use of terrorist militants to create havoc in Kashmir -- unless there is reconciliation and confidence-building in South Asia. There are not many signs of this so far.

Related Links
SpaceDaily
Search SpaceDaily
Subscribe To SpaceDaily Express