I WAS in Lahore at a dinner when a late-arriving guest broke the news that New Delhi had told the Hurriyar leaders not to travel beyond Azad Kashmir territory because, in doing so, they would violate an understanding between India and Pakistan. The understanding on the resumption of bus travel between Srinagar and Muzzaffarabad was that the passengers

from the state of Jammu and Kashmir would visit only Azad Kashmir and the ones coming from Azad Kashmir, Jammu and Kashmir alone.

Notwithstanding the understanding, the reaction of the guests at the dinner was that of disappointment. One harsh remark was that the “Hindu over-cleverness,” resented before partition, had come to the surface

again. It was apparent that the guests, leaders in their own profession, anxiously awaited a rapprochement between the two countries. They felt

cheated when the normalcy was delayed. One asked me rather ruefully: How long would it take for something concrete to emerge? This sort of remark is typical of the exasperated majority in Pakistan. They want to break the web of different compulsions woven around them for decades.

Not having any relationship with India is one of them.

There is denouncement of hostility and hatred fomented in the past. It appears that even the limited people-to-people contact has dispersed tension. Relations with India are considered a way out of the maze of shackles that the Pakistanis have got lost in.

It would be, however, wrong to infer that the lobby which is firmly opposed to India has been demolished. Still some quarters believe that in a neighbour they have a country ridden by Hindu chauvinism. But the

desire to make up with India is wide. People are keen to concretise the Confidence-Building Measures (CBMs) quickly so that they can travel to India freely and trade with it.

Foreign Minister Khurshid Kasuri’s threat that Pakistan could revive the UN resolutions on Kashmir showed how a collected person like him could lose his cool and point a finger at India’s “obduracy.” He, like the majority in Pakistan, feels that progress towards normalcy is slow and that the present is the best time to find a solution. Pakistan President General Pervez Musharraf’s statement, which represents his government’s stand, is that there exists a “fleeting moment” which India should seize. That is the reason why he is talking about timeframe.

Not that anyone in Pakistan has worked out how to connect the three points _ New Delhi, Islamabad and Srinagar _ but most jump at India if they see “a reverse in the peace process.” New Delhi’s warning to the Hurriyar leaders not to travel outside Azad Kashmir was seen from that point of view. People in Pakistan, however belatedly, are beginning to face the

reality that Kashmir would not be part of their country. The ruling establishment that has sold the idea since independence, does not want to touch the same chord again. It may well use the Hurriyat leaders’ visit to serve the purpose.

I recall Musharraf telling me at Islamabad a few months ago that he wanted the Hurriyat leaders to travel in the first bus from Srinagar so that “we can

give them a rousing reception.” What he probably had in mind been to utilise the Hurriyat leaders visit to let his people know from them that Kashmir’s integration with Pakistan was not on the cards. Their visit was important for him. Hence, his government came down like a ton of bricks, when New Delhi was seen to be restricting the Hurriyat leaders to Azad

Kashmir.

New Delhi’s stand was nonetheless churlish. It might be technically right. But it looked an impediment in the way of peace process. The heavens would not have fallen if India had kept quiet. Should it always be

seen under pressure of the BJP which raised the question of passports and visas? These days when a teleconference can take place anywhere with any personality, how does it matter if he or she is actually present? In fact, it was in India’s interest to let the Hurriyat leaders travel throughout Pakistan and face peoples’ questions. A leader like Yasin Malik may raise the demand for Kashmir’s independence. But this is one thing to which the Pakistan establishment is vehemently opposed. What the Hurriyat leaders stand for will come out to the fore. The opposition to the status quo in Kashmir is easy to pursue. This is what the organisation has been doing for many years. What they really stand for and have the consensus behind is yet to emerge.

The attitude of Syed Ali Shah Geelani has already shown how deep is the cleavage among the Hurriyat leaders. He has refused to go to Pakistan because he has realised that his stand of Kashmir’s integration with that country is not what even Islamabad supports.

The major part of Hurriyat has become more distant from Geelani. The division in the Hurriyat may damage the purpose for which Islamabad has undertaken the exercise. Religious parties in Pakistan are on the side of Geelani. Musharraf cannot ride the roughshod because they are also his best bet in Pakistan.

New Delhi remains clueless. It has no roadmap except to sustain the status quo. It might have followed Musharraf’s changed stand of “self governance” in Kashmir in place of autonomy but it does not know whether it is a trap to entangle India. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has assured that he would pursue Pakistan’s new line vigorously. But he may not be able to defeat the hardliners, led by Foreign Minister Natwar Singh. After the offer of soft borders in Kashmir, New Delhi should have responded positively. India should have at least opened new avenues in the field of people-to-people contact. The Pakistanis have hordes of complaints on the visa facilities.

Intelligence agencies reign here supreme. A hotel attendant asked me how could a Pakistani visit India if he had no relative there or no organisation to

invite him. New Delhi’s explanation is that it follows Islamabad’s example. The anti-Pakistan bureaucrats at New Delhi have played into the hands of Islamabad. A free democratic polity like India should have allowed the Pakistanis easy access because its selling point is its openness. Islamabad has seen to it that New Delhi remains as niggard in its approach as Pakistan is. To give at least one example that we are different, Jinnah’s house in Mumbai could be handed over to Pakistan to open a visa office. Strange, Natwar Singh as deputy foreign minister communicates to Islamabad in writing that India would give Jinnah’s house to Pakistan for the residence of its deputy high commissioner. The same Natwar Singh says ‘no’ to a similar proposition when he is foreign minister. Gestures move nations as much as individuals. Too bad such things have come to be sacrificed at the altar of false prestige.