General Musharraf's declared resolve to make Pakistan a nontheocratic state is a step towards Pakistan's transformation from an ideology-based to a territory-based nation. Unfortunately there is a growing trend among some sections in India to give a Pakistan-type ideological orientation to India's nationhood. But the tendency to purify Indian culture from 'alien' accretions poses a threat to the security of the country by weakening national unity and the unique civilisational experiment that is India.
A realistic policy on the response to the December 13 terrorist attack on parliament demands that we consolidate the significant diplomatic gains that have already been made and evolve a well-considered, multifaceted strategy, make an intelligent assessment of the pros and cons of the different options and act with a degree of self-confidence and faith in our national values.
India's positions and postures in the post-September 11 period have neither promoted the national interest nor raised the country's moral and political stature in the world.
India's foreign minister has described the war against terrorism as between a coalition of democracies and terrorism. But that does not isolate terrorism. There are many countries which are not democratic or are semi-democratic whose support needs to be enlisted. India's main enemy today is not Pakistan, or Afghanistan, but terrorism. It should contribute in building the broadest possible anti-terrorist coalition.
For better India-Pakistan relations, of which Kashmir is undoubtedly a critical component, and peace in South Asia, good intentions are no substitute for intimate knowledge of the ground realities. The case of Stephen Cohen's 'Moving Forward in South Asia'.
The incapacity to debate the demand for autonomy raised by Kashmir's chief minister Farooq Abdullah in a mature and rational manner has exposed major weaknesses in Indian democracy, federalism and media.
Like Indira Gandhi at the time of the Emergency, the current prime minister has no dearth of democratic collaborators. The difference is this: the absence today of countervailing forces and alternative ideology in the opposition. A ruling class may find values of freedom and dissent incompatible with its uniform commitment to nationalism.
The Farooq Abdullah doctrine on Kashmir's relations with New Delhi denies to the people of Kashmir the fundamental right of citizenship to change, choose and oppose the government in Delhi. By denying this right to them, Farooq reminds the people of Kashmir that they are less than full citizens of the country.
It is not easy for the leaders of the Kashmiri people's movement to show the courage that Gandhiji showed in Chaura Chauri. The risk too is far greater for them, most of all from the pro-Pakistan, Muslim extremist terrorists. But they have hardly any alternative except to seriously think of alternatives to violence.
The policy on Kashmir needs a thorough review. No policy can afford to ignore the role of the people and their genuine aspirations in Jammu and Kashmir which implies recognition of all ethnic identities, including the Shina-speaking community of Drass and a reconciliation of the diverse needs.
