India's nuclear power and decisive superiority in conventional weapons over Pakistan could not deter incursions into Kargil and the increase in militancy in Kashmir after India's victory ..
The importance of diplomacy has been duly conceded in the contest of Kargil. But Pakistan's international isolation that forced it to withdraw its infiltrators is not entirely due to better diplomatic skill of the present government or the belated appreciation by the USA and other foreign powers ... Pakistan could not justify the sending of armed intruders, mostly of its army, across the internationally recognised LoC, in support of freedom fighters who did not exist. In contrast, the restraint shown by the Indian Army won India universal acclaim.
That the international support to India was Kargil-specific and not a paradigm shift is obvious from the fact hat lack of restraint by India while shooting down the Pakistan surveillance plane put it at par with Pakistan in international opinion which greeted India's draft nuclear doctrine also critically ...
Nor has India adequately appreciated the way liberal opinion in Pakistan sharply criticised Nawaz Sharif's Kargil policy. No doubt its humiliating end caused a fundamentalist backlash but it does not serve India's security interests to write off the other rational opinion. Fundamentalism cannot be met with fundamentalism. One brand strengthens the other. Only å secular India can effectively meet the fundamentalist challenge from across the border and help similar forces there to meet it whereas a jingoist or communal response would weaken India's ideological defences against Pakistan. India's most vulnerable security point in relations to Pakistan is, of course, Kashmir ... When a politically naive ruler of J&K State aspired for independence in 1947, Pakistan sponsored tribal raids ...
In 1965, the same people were angry over a series of hasty steps to erode the autonomy of the state and Pakistan found another opportunity for an armed intervention. The seventies and eighties remained trouble free as alienation of the people had subsided mainly because of the Indira- Sheikh Abdullah accord ... The Rajiv-Farooq accord which brought Farooq to power after he agreed to share power with the Congress and manipulated the elections of 1987 revived the sense of alienation to such an extent that Kashmiri youth crossed the LoC and returned after getting arms and training for a militant revolt. Pakistan was then able to engage India in a costly "proxy war".
A really secular democratic country and a satisfied state of Jammu & Kashmir should therefore be the most vital components of national security against any threat from Pakistan ... "Let us remember", as President Narayanan reminded us in his Independence Day message, "that a country is defended not by arms alone but by wise policies and the strength of its economy; by the justice and cohesion of its society; by the unity of its people." (Source: The Hindustan Times, 12 October, 1999)
Saifuddin Soz On Post-Election Scenario in Kashmir 5 November, 1999
It is not possible to ignore the fact that the elections in Kashmir held in September/October, 1999, have been a total farce. It was decidedly a situation of mass rigging within the space that was not affected by the boycott call and the ruling party manoeuvred to procure necessary votes to send its "representatives" to the 13th Lok Sabha.
That the Election Commission of India failed miserably to respond to the situation is common knowledge in the State. The people of Kashmir are convinced that the Election Commission of India indulged in double-standards and ignored all complaints filed with it regarding mass rigging, booth capturing and other malpractices ... Knowledgeable people say that the Election Commission of India and the intelligentsia thought that a totally sham election in Kashmir, after the Kargil situation, was better than no election at all. They are absolutely wrong ... An average 12-15% of the electorate would vote on its own volition, despite the Hurriyat's call for a boycott. And, that would be a fair election, indeed, acceptable all around. It appeared to the people of Kashmir that nobody in Delhi, much less the caretaker Government, was interested in normal, free and fair elections.
That the Hurriyat's call has helped the ruling party in Kashmir is true and for that consequence both the Hurriyat and the National Conference appeared in public eye to be following the same goal ...
Government of India would be well-advised to initiate an effective dialogue with the Hurriyat leadership. It is in nobody's interest to lodge the Hurriyat leaders in jails and deepen the communication gap with them further.
I ... urge the Government of India to talk to the Hurriyat without any further.loss of time ... I think 'as a group' (they) are pre-eminently suited to talk to Government of India decisively.
