4. Editorials Related to the Ceasefire Offer
A column in The Hindu by Shujaat Bukhari argued that India should be faulted for the breakdown in talks for imposing conditions before momentum could begin. An editorial in the Times of India criticized the Indian government for not learning from Kargil and being taken by surprise when the ceasefire ended with more deaths. Militants were threatened by the prospect of peace and used violence to harder the stances of moderates who had been willing to negotiate.
"Dismay, shock in the Valley"
"Pakistan's Perfidy"
Editorials in The Dawn argued that Pakistan has shifted policy and now will not object to any decision the Kashmiri leadership reaches regarding the future of the Kashmir, which makes a Kashmiri solution dependent solely on India. An editorial in The Dawn argued that the Hizbul should have extended its deadline and India, as usual a victim of its muddled responses to Kashmiri peace, should have adapted its policy of no talks with Pakistan.
"Monitoring of Kashmir developments"
"A setback to peace in Valley"
A column by Radha Kumar in The Hindu argued that Pakistan should acquiesce informally to autonomy for the Kashmir to preserve a role as a monitor in its implementation. Measures should precede a plebiscite to determine whether they belong to Pakistan or India, but peace depends on the end to India-Pakistan hostilities. Attempts to create a new "religio-territorial arrangement," as in Bosnia, will be problematic.
"Making a peace process work - II"
An article in The Hindu argued that the ceasefire was designed, first, to project an image of militancy in the Kashmir as indigenous and independent from Pakistan. Second, to embarrass India, which had enjoyed the upper-hand internationally after the Kargil incident, and show it was "reluctant to explore a negotiated settlement."
"Pulls and pressures in Pakistan"
An editorial in the Times of India argued that it was naïve to expect the Hizbul Mujahideen ceasefire offer to bring a quick solution to the complex "geo-political equations in Kashmir." It argued that Hizbul supreme commander Syed Salahuddin and Pakistan Chief Executive Pervez Musharraf are unable to stand up to more orthodox groups, partly as many of the militant groups depend upon terrorism and the drug trade for financial solvency, and that as along as the orthodoxy and "feudal" constituents can dominate the undemocratic state, Kashmir will remain its obsession.
"Long Haul in Kashmir"
An editorial in the Times of India argued that the ceasefire offer, despite its being withdrawn, opened the way for dialogue. It further argued that the price of conflict is clear for India and Kashmir-based militant groups, but less so for Pakistan, which sees the conflict as "a low-cost option" to "bleed India." The All-Parties Hurriyat Conference could not rise to the occasion, and instead was focused on being marginalized in its influence over pan-Islamic groups and the direction of dialogue.
"Keep the Lines Open"
"The battle for peace"
An article in The Hindu argued that the post-ceasefire environment shows the Kashmiri people's desire to end the long conflict. It argued that as "the Kashmiri people must have by now realized as to who has developed a vested interest in the insurgency," India must mobilize popular sentiment against those who are against peace and must signal a commitment to negotiating peace in Kashmir regardless of attempts to sabotage talks.
"Peace dividend, conflict matrix"