Asghar Ali Engineer is a rights activist and heads the two organisations, Institute of Islamic Studies and Centre for Study of Society and Secularism. He has authored or edited 44 books on such  issues  as  Islam and communal and ethnic problems in India and South Asia in general.  For links to his other articles, please go to the top page of this site.

The Prime Minister s offer of cease-fire on the eve of  Ramadan was, undoubtedly, a good move and needed to be  reciprocated. However, it was not to be. It thoroughly exposed the  Kashmiri militants on one hand and the Pakistani rulers, on the  other. The militants, with the full backing of Pakistani rulers,  want to make peace in Kashmir conditional. If India accepts those  conditions   that Kashmir is a disputed territory and that India  will agree to talk to people of Kashmir on one hand, and to  Pakistan, on the other   right at the outset, what will be India s  locus standi then? Peace should be top priority in Kashmir today.  Everything else can be settled during negotiations. And only if  negotiation fails due to unreasonable attitude of either party  fighting can be resumed.

 Holy month of Ramadan is the month of engrossing  oneself in prayers and fasting. It is known as sharullah i.e. month  of Allah, a month which should be devoted to all causes dear to  Allah, and dearest to Allah is salam - peace. Some militants argued  that even the Prophet fought the battle of Badr during the month of  Ramadan, so what is wrong in fighting during this month? The  Prophet fought a short battle to avert danger to the existence of  Muslims in Madina and this battle was inevitable. It is not that he  was fighting for years and that he did not cease to fight even  after offer of peace by the other side. The very parallel cited is  wrong. And in Kashmir the violence has degenerated into mere  killing to terrorise needlessly.

 Every time there is move for peace, terror killing  starts. This time too innocent Sikh drivers were pulled out of  their vehicles and shot. Does it deserve to be called Jihad?  Certainly not. I would also like to point out here that extremist  violence in Kashmir cannot qualify for Jihad. Firstly, the Qur an  does not use the term Jihad for war or violence or killing, for  that matter. For that other word qital has been used or its  derivatives. Jihad in Qur an means utmost efforts to promote  justice, goodness, benevolence and controlling base desires.  However, what we witness in Kashmir is mockery of Jihad. There it  has degenerated into wanton and selfish killing. As far as Jihad is  concerned one makes strenuous efforts not to harm anyone  unnecessarily. There are several instances during the Prophet's  time when Muslims did not kill their enemy when they felt it would  amount to killing the enemy for selfish reason.

 Apart from the fact whether it is Jihad or not what is  important is to note that violence will not solve the Kashmir  question. What has happened is enough of violence. Ultimately it is  political solution which will bring about the final resolution of  the Kashmir problem. In an age of democracy and human rights,  violence has very limited role. If it was resorted to draw world  attention to the problem it has served its purpose. The Kashmiri  people have made enough sacrifice of their lives. More than 50 to  60 thousand people have already been killed in this senseless  violence. How many more will have to lose their lives? And with all  this can Kashmir achieve its freedom through violence? Then losing  all these lives could have been worth it. Ultimately it will have  to be resolved through negotiations. Then why not negotiations now  to save many more innocent lives?

 The people of Kashmir are also tired of this violence.  They desire peace intensely. Any survey in the valley will  establish this. But due to terror they cannot speak out freely. If  the extremists are fighting   as they claim - for freedom of the  people of Kashmir, why this terror.  Even the newspapers from  Kashmir valley cannot publish what they want. If they do, their  editors are abducted and killed or their papers are not allowed to  be sold in the market. They are ostensibly fighting for freedom and  making people unfree. With this culture of violence and extremism  what will be the quality of freedom in Kashmir if it is  subsequently won? Violence brutalises human conscience. Those  countries in Asia and Africa who won their freedom through violence    for example Algeria   have legacy of violence and brutal  killings. The people of Algeria never enjoyed real freedom. They  have witnessed highly authoritarian rule right from the beginning.  There are many more such examples.

 India won its freedom through involvement of the masses  and through democratic means and it developed a culture of  democracy and this political democracy has survived in India  despite many hurdles. The people of Kashmir had an excellent  opportunity in 1990 to fight for their demands democratically as  there was a mass uprising there against injustices perpetrated  against them for all these years by the Central Government. But  they lost that excellent opportunity by taking up guns. They  thought, 'we will take up guns and azadi (freedom) will be now and  here'. It was, to say the least, a gross miscalculation. Freedom  for them is as far away as it was in 1990 when they took to guns  though more than 50,000 lives have been lost and so many women have  been compelled to lose their chastity and are living a life of  mental torture.

 It is in view of all this that Prime Minister  Vajpayee s offer of Ramadan peace should have been accepted to  build peace in the valley. The four ex-prime ministers Sarvashri  V.P.Singh, Deve Gawda, I.K.Gujral and Chandra Shekhar have also  welcomed the Ramadan offer of cease-fire. When the offer was made  even the Hizbul Mujahideen Chief Syed Salahuddin went into huddle  with his top commanders to consider its consequences. Some Hizbul  sources said   though off the record   that majority of those at  the strategy meeting viewed the offer as exactly what they had  wanted to get the negotiation process started and that Hizbul  should respond positively. But the fear was that if any such public  statement was issued it might split.

 It was also reported that the valley based commander,  Abdul Majid Dar, was pressing Salahuddin to take a stand, but the  latter had been saying that the Indian government should take the  lead and hold out something more than a  tame surrender . If the  latest offer had come with a package that could meet some of the  Pak- based Hizbul leadership s concerns, the group could have  welcomed it.

 But if the package was announced, then what is there  for India to negotiate? Most important thing is cease-fire and this  opportunity should have been seized by the militants to build peace  and also negotiate for durable solution. The offer by Vajpayee  won  him support from other world leaders also, and the militants would  also have gained prestige, had they accepted the offer. It was an  opportunity lost. Nevertheless India should not in any case  withdraw the offer which is unlikely, at least until the end of the  holy month of fasting. Not only that India should seriously  consider extending the cease-fire. It will earn even greater  prestige internationally.

 Indian military and para-military forces have been  alleged to have indulged in excesses and killed innocent people and  raped women in several instances. If government of India puts a  stop to these gross violations of human rights of people of Kashmir  it will earn further support not only internationally but also from  the people of Kashmir themselves. The people of Kashmir by now know  fully well that the militants cannot be their saviours, as now they  are fighting for their own survival rather than for freedom of  people of Kashmir. If there is any honourable solution within  framework of Indian union they will welcome it. But the very first  condition for this is to stop  excesses at the hands of the  military and para-military forces. Today people of the valley are  deeply alienated from the Government of India. It is for anyone to  verify. It is not a secret.

 The offer for cease-fire is a necessary but not a  sufficient condition for restoring permanent peace in Kashmir. For  the sufficient condition the Government of India will have to  reflect deeply on its now policies in Kashmir, not only in respect  of behaviour of armed forces but also in respect of political  solution. By now it should be at least clear that there is a great  deal of dissatisfaction with the status quo. For a permanent  solution the status quo in Kashmir must change. Whether it is  complete autonomy as was demanded by the Kashmir Assembly and going  back to pre-1953 position is matter for detailed negotiation. But  the Central Government cannot insist that permanent solution can be  found without seriously rethinking the present policy framework.

 The people of Kashmir have intensely suffered in the  last one decade. The price had been too heavy for them, and they  cannot be expected after such sacrifices to accept too little. As  Mr. Vajpayee has displayed statesmanship by offering unilateral  cease-fire, he should show further magnanimity by offering a  package to the people of Kashmir which will be in keeping with the  honour and dignity of the people of Kashmir. It will go a long way  to reduce the feeling of alienation from the Central Government, if  not eliminate it altogether.

 Of course it is easier said than done. Mr. Vajpayee s  own party the BJP may not go all the way with him. Dissidence is  already surfacing in the RSS. Many hard-core elements in the RSS  are not happy with the Vajpayee Government on several issues,  including the appeal to Muslims to support the BJP. On top of it if  he crosses the Laxman Rekha on the Kashmir question there may be  virtual revolt. In fact it is such dilemmas which continue the  conflict in the valley. It is so difficult to overcome them. The  militants also face similar dilemmas. They would split if they  accept solution lesser than what they have been fighting for all  these years. But both sides will have to take risk. No one ever  achieves what one fights for. Our social stability is built on the  complex set of compromises. World would have been full of conflicts  and bloodshed without these compromises. South Asia today runs the  risk of nuclear flash, if a bold compromise is not made from both  sides in the interest of peace.

 ------------------------------------------------------

 Centre for Study of Society and Secularism  Mumbai:- 400 055.