The previous 1 part of the article can be accessed here: Part 1. This is the second part
Undermining sovereignty, promoting separatism
12. Reflecting on the outcome of the talks with Pakistani Foreign Secretary, Salman Bashir, at Thimpu, Indian Foreign Secretary Nirupama Rao, who was on extension, on February 6, 2011, among other things, said: “India is ‘cautiously optimistic’ on charting a way forward in the dialogue process with Pakistan and would like to see the process mature keeping in view ground realities…We had a good meeting, a useful meeting. We were able to discuss a number of issues of relevance with the (Indo-Pak) relationship…We talked about the (dialogue) process and charting the way forward, what the best modalities would be…All in all, it was a useful meeting…Both sides had adopted an open and constructive attitude. I’m satisfied…we need to wait and see…We have to wait for this process to mature. We should be optimistic, cautiously optimistic because there are many issues that remain to be resolved…(There is a) need for a vision for the future of the relationship…”
And the statements which emanated from Thimpu two days later indicated the Indian ambivalence or unclear stand on J&K and suggested that New Delhi had gone back to Sharm-el-Sheikh.
The joint statement issued by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Yusuf Raza Gilani at Sharm-el-Sheikh had dumbfounded and outraged India because it had de-linked the issue of terrorism from the dialogue process.
In fact, on February 8, 2011, Nirupama Rao told reporters that the dialogue process was back on track and “India and Pakistan will have a series of interactions to discuss outstanding issues like J&K, terrorism and Siachen over the next few months before Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi visits New Delhi in the middle of this year.”
It would be only appropriate to reproduce here what she said on February 8, 2011, to put things in perspective and show that she and Pakistan Foreign Minister, who a day earlier explained the Pakistani viewpoint during his interview with Gulf News, were on the same page.
Nirupama Rao, inter alia, said: “The two countries are in the process of bridging the ‘trust deficit’…The process of re-engagement should not be ‘killed’ by anybody through any statement or action. ‘Let it breathe’…For the next few months, things are not going to remain dormant. There will be activity…There will be a lot of activity, a lot of interaction that had in a sense been put in abeyance for many months now. The intention from both sides is to resume that process…The issues that would be discussed between the departments concerned on both sides include J&K, peace and security, terrorism, narcotics trafficking, Sir Creek, Siachen, trade, promotion of people-to-people contacts, and cross-LoC trade. There are issues to be discussed, and when you say all outstanding issues are to be discussed, obviously, you have to discuss all outstanding issues and who discusses these issues—a number of stakeholders, a number of government departments. It will be a comprehensive exercise…”
When asked “whether it would mean resumption of the composite dialogue, that was halted by India after the 2008 Mumbai attacks, as all the issues named were being discussed by departments concerned under that process,” she shot back and said: “I don’t want to get stuck in terminology. What is in a name…It is a ladder, we have to climb. There will be a sequence. Obviously, it will have to be a sequence. The things that need to be done quickly will be done first. The things that need more preparation will be done a little later. But we hope to have all this well in place before the visit of Foreign Minister Qureshi (to Delhi)…The two sides will have to build the ‘right atmosphere’ and ‘more confidence…”
What she said made things clear. She left no doubt that the composite dialogue process had been resumed for all practical purposes. It’s no wonder then that Pakistan Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani hailed the Thimpu outcome.
On February 10, 2011, Gilani “appreciated the progress made by Pakistan and India during talks between their Foreign Secretaries” after he was presented a report by Foreign Secretary Bashir regarding his talks with his Indian counterpart. The talks between the Foreign Secretaries were “a continuation of his meeting with the Indian Prime Minister (Manmohan Singh) at Sharm-el-Sheikh, Egypt” in 2009, Gilani said, and added that the “Foreign Secretary-level talks were fully in conformity with the spirit of his parleys held with Singh.” “Gilani hails Thimpu thaw” was the bottom line of the report filed from Islamabad and New Delhi by PTI on February 10, 2011.
As for Indian Foreign Minister S M Krishna, who had let down India umpteen times, he also hailed the Thimpu Talks.
13. Earlier on April 24, 2010, a report from Lahore suggested that the Manmohan Singh government and the Government of Pakistan had almost devised a solution to the so-called Kashmir problem. The report, inter alia, read like this: “For most people, Kashmir is an intractable problem dividing India and Pakistan. What they don’t know is that the two countries have actually had an accord on Kashmir ready and had almost unveiled it in 2007. Khurshid Mahmud Kasuri, who was Pervez Musharraf’s Foreign Minister from 2002 to 2007, told The Times of India of this hush-hush deal that was cobbled together through secret parleys held in India, Pakistan and several foreign capitals for more than three years and could have resolved the sub-continent’s thorniest security and political dispute, had not the anti-Musharraf upsurge triggered by the sacking of the Chief Justice convulsed Pakistan”.
The story further said: “Shah Mahmud Kasuri said he has never spoken of this track-II success earlier, other than saying that he knew of a possible way to resolve the Kashmir problem that was acceptable to both countries. Kasuri said in an exclusive interview that negotiations from Islamabad and New Delhi had quietly toiled away for three years, talking to each other and Kashmiri representatives from the Indian side, as well as Kashmiris settled overseas, to reach what he described as the ‘only possible solution to the Kashmir issue’. He said the two sides had agreed to full demilitarisation of both Jammu and Kashmir as well as Azad Kashmir (PoJK). In addition, a package of loose autonomy that stopped short of the ‘azadi’ and self-governance had been agreed on and was to be introduced on both sides of the disputed frontier…’ We agreed on a point between complete independence and autonomy…”
The disturbing story also read: “Both countries, realising the sensitivity of such a deal, had agreed not to declare victory or tom-tom the negotiations…Almost all the actors on the Kashmir stage, barring Syed Ali Shah Geelani, were on board the accord that was to be signed during the visit by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to Islamabad that was scheduled for February-March 2007, but never happened. ‘I advised the president (Musharraf) that inviting the PM at that time would not have been possible. And that we should wait for a more peaceful moment to announce the plan, otherwise all the hard work of three years by the two sides would be wasted,’ he said, referring to the time when Musharraf was under siege by a country-wide lawyers’ campaign that had transformed itself into an anti-dictator movement…Since the Opposition was on a roll against Musharraf at that time, any peace plan would have been rejected by them as a ‘sell-out to India’…He refused to give details of other aspects of the solution or name Indian officials involved in the deal, saying that since he felt it was the only way Kashmir could be resolved, it could be a starting point of the next round of talks…”
In January 2014, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh endorsed what Khushid Mahmud Kasuri revealed on April 23, 2010. Addressing a press conference on January 3, 2014, the Prime Minister replied to a query about reports that “India and Pakistan were on the verge of a historic deal” on Jammu and Kashmir. He said: “I have only tried to improve relations with all our neighbours to the best of my ability, and at one time it appeared that an important breakthrough was in sight.”
It is important to note that even Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s “special envoy”, Satinder Lambah, also admitted on May 13, 2014, that “almost had a Kashmir deal with Pakistan” while participating in an event, styled “Discussion between India and Pakistan on Jammu and Kashmir – A Historical Perspective.” The discussion was organised by the Institute of Kashmir Studies, University of Kashmir, Srinagar.
“Satinder Lambha, India’s backchannel man on the secret talks between India and Pakistan,” also told The Hindustan Times in an exclusive interview, “the leadership on both sides had firmed up an agreement, but it was not finally signed because of domestic turmoil that led to Pervez Musharraf’s removal. ‘What we were working on, agreed there would be no reference to the United Nations resolution or a plebiscite in Kashmir,’ and both sides had agreed that borders cannot be redrawn.” “Without going into the detailed specifics of the framework agreement between the two countries, Lambha revealed the military establishment in Pakistan – the army and the ISI – was on board and the agreement required discussions within the ruling party and with opposition leaders in India,” The Hindustan Times report also said.
Conclusion
All these 13 instances should help us clinch the whole issue and establish that the Congress-led UPA Government, like all other Congress and Congress-supported dispensations in the past, left no stone unturned between May 2004 and May 2014 to unsettle the settled in Jammu and Kashmir. The Congress never really considered Jammu and Kashmir an integral part of India.
Paradoxically, the story of the A B Vajpayee-led NDA government was hardly any different. It was only after May 2014, nay, particularly after May 2018, that the South and North Blocks under PM Narendra Modi started acting like any genuine State acts. It changed the whole Jammu and Kashmir policy. The first step that was taken was the dethronement of Mehbooba Mufti in June 2018. Her dethronement was followed by a series of pathbreaking/ epoch-making reforms, including abrogation of the State’s special status, abrogation of Article 35A, bifurcation of the State into two union territories, and introduction of all the nearly 1,000 Central laws in the State.
However, to say all this is not to suggest that PM Narendra Modi has achieved all the desired results. He has not. For example, the system in the region has remained almost unchanged. For example, many State powers are still with those in Kashmir who, in alliance with the Congress, the Congress-supported, the Congress-led, and the Vajpayee-led NDA governments, undermined the national sovereignty and promoted fissiparous tendencies in Kashmir. For example, Jammu, the nation’s backbone in the strategic region, continues to groan under the yoke of the oppressive Kashmiri ruling class belonging to a particular religious sect.
If PM Narendra Modi really wishes to achieve the desired results, he has to separate Jammu from Kashmir and grant statehood to the people of Jammu province and convert Kashmir into a Chandigarh-type Union Territory. He has no other option.
(Concluded)
Note:
1. Text in Blue points to additional data on the topic.
2. The views expressed here are those of the author and do not necessarily represent or reflect the views of PGurus.
For all the latest updates, download PGurus App.
- Why must separatist Yasin Malik’s August 25 Delhi HC affidavit not surprise us? – Part 2 - September 22, 2025
- Why must separatist Yasin Malik’s August 25 Delhi HC affidavit not surprise us? – Part 1 - September 21, 2025
- Rajiv Gandhi’s 1986 Special Assistance Programme was also anti-Jammu - July 18, 2025
