People's Democracy

INDO-PAK TIES

This Opportunity Must Not Be Lost

Harkishan Singh Surjeet

SINCE the Indian prime minister Vajpayee offered on April 18 his “hands of friendship” to Pakistan and said he wanted to see the bilateral issues solved “in his lifetime,” the process has definitely gone ahead. His statement from Srinagar and the statements coming from his Pakistani counterpart Mir Zafarullah Khan Jamali have been a testimony to their statesmanship. For, they do give the peace-loving people the hope that, despite all the calibrated responses and diplomatic if’s and but’s, the two neighbours would probably come to the negotiating table soon, without any preconditions, and make sincere efforts to solve all the pending bilateral issues to mutual satisfaction. 

As we mentioned in our April 27 issue, the Vajpayee offer came in sharp contrast to the jingoistic statements made by two of our union ministers, George Fernandes and Yashwant Sinha. It thus indicated a positive change in the government of India’s thinking about Indo-Pak ties and the situation in the subcontinent.

WELCOME ANNOUNCEMENTS

ON his part, Jamali has listed once again the eight bilateral issues that were earlier identified during the run-up to the aborted Agra summit three years ago. Apart from the knotty issues like Kashmir and cross-border terrorism, these include issues like trade ties, sports ties, people-to-people contacts, etc. Of late Jamali has also announced the decision to release the Indian fishermen who are incarcerated in Pakistani prisons. Restoration of rail, road and air links between the two countries and of the earlier strength in their respective high commissions are also likely to go some way in taking the détente process ahead.

Some of these confidence building measures are also related to the 7-member South Asian Association of Regional Cooperation (SAARC). These are concerned about pushing the SAPTA process ahead, holding the SAARC summit and organisation of the SAARC games that were scheduled to be held in Pakistan, but could not be held because of Indo-Pak tensions.

In view of the bitter experience three years ago, the two countries have also indicated that they are in favour of proper and adequate homework before the talks are held at the secretary, minister or the highest level. Hence the efforts to create a “congenial atmosphere” before a dialogue is held. This is quite natural and logical. “Hasten slowly!” These are the words The Hindu editorial (May 7) uses to describe this caution. The main thing at the moment is that, to use the words Jamali used at the beginning of the Islamabad all-party meet, the “ice has melted between India and Pakistan.”

But of all these welcome and positive announcements made by Jamali, the most important one is that Pakistan is in favour of a “composite dialogue.” He said his country was “for a composite dialogue on all issues, including the core issue of Jammu and Kashmir,” and that it “never meant exclusively discussing Kashmir.” Ignoring the use of words “never meant,” this does indicate a positive change in Pakistan’s thinking and hence deserves to be picked up for further pushing the dialogue process ahead. Jamali further said, “We want to enter the dialogue process with a positive frame of mind.” 

MASS SENTIMENT FOR PEACE

HOW pervasive the mass sentiment for peace is in the subcontinent, has been clear once again in the days following the Vajpayee offer. As the weekly Mainstream (May 3) editorially notes, “if J&K CM Mufti Mohammed Sayeed is to be believed --- and there is no reason to disbelieve him on this point --- it (the offer --- Surjeet) has had an electrifying impact on the public mind in the valley.” Barring a few outfits like the Shiv Sena, all political parties, representing overwhelming sections of public opinion in the country, have extended welcome to this offer and support for the resumption of Indo-Pak dialogue.

As for the people of Pakistan, there too a similar process is on. Jamali got an overwhelming support for his peace moves at the all-party meeting he called at capital Islamabad on May 4. As the Pakistani information and media development minister Sheikh Rashid Ahmed told the media on the same day, Jamali has the backing of all parties on the issue of future talks with India. It is thus clear that the two prime ministers have the solid backing of public opinion in the subcontinent and, let us say, in the world community that well realises the dangers any continuation of Indo-Pak tensions would pose to world peace. 

However, while extending support to Jamali’s moves, opposition parties in his country have also expressed apprehensions about the intentions of the Pakistan military that has scuttled such peace efforts in the past. The latest such instance was in 1999 when the Pakistan military not only planned the Kargil misadventure in order to scuttle the “bus diplomacy” but even overthrew the regime of Nawaz Sharif, arrested him and his family and finally sent him into exile. Hence the Pakistani opposition parties’ apprehension is not without ground. That is why they are demanding that both Nawaz Sharif and Ms Benazir Bhutto be allowed to return to Pakistan so that the consensus building process may be taken ahead.

In this regard, the situation facing the pro-peace people of Pakistan is more difficult compared to India where those opposing peace and détente constitute a small minority. As the above-quoted Hindu editorial says, in India “the only discordant note now emanates from the BJP’s obscurantist allies such as the Shiv Sena who might find it hard to realise that in a give-and-take you don’t take all and give nothing.” Happily, in India, the army too remains politically neutral and is in favour of a betterment of Indo-Pak ties.

In their desperation, the terrorist groups operating from Pakistan may also launch a few attacks on innocent people in a bid to scuttle the peace process. A consoling factor in this regard is the promise made by Jamali that he would take steps against these outfits, and one hopes that he would do something to fulfil his promise.

Be that as it may, the fact remains that the stage has been set for bettering the Indo-Pak ties to our mutual advantage and to the advantage of world peace. This has raised high expectations in the subcontinent and the world, and no leader of the two countries would probably like to take upon himself the ignominy of killing this opportunity. As the biggest country of the region, India has the main responsibility to see that the détente process forges ahead. To quote The Hindu again, “there is need for New Delhi to give up its rigidity which in a large measure led to the collapse of the Agra summit, (with) hardliners in the government working overnight to sabotage the talks which had looked promising till the last hour...... If compromise is at the heart of good-neighbourliness, India as the larger nation must be willing and ready to give more for the common good of the south Asian region.”

IMPERIALIST FACTOR

IN the meantime, US imperialists have further intensified their bid to intervene in the Indo-Pak relations. Though their aim of getting a foothold in the region by turning Kashmir into a separate country needs no reiteration, their latest moves in this regard do deserve a careful watch. Here, one would better see what the ISI-sponsored newspaper Khabarein said on April 28. According to The Asian Age (April 30), the ISI paper said the US is keen to get Kashmir placed under UN supervision. The ultimate aim of the US is to get both India and Pakistan dismantle their nuclear arsenals, in line with the old game of bringing both the countries under the US umbrella. According to the ISI paper, the US would also ask both India and Pakistan to withdraw their forces from the line of control (LoC) and give the Kashmiris on both sides of the LoC a chance to opt for total independence or to join either India or Pakistan.  

This is all in line with the interview recently given by Colin Powell to New York Times (and quoted in this paper earlier) that after its war against Iraq, the US would take up the Kashmir issue that is high on the country’s agenda. This poses a serious threat to the unity, integrity and sovereignty of both India and Pakistan. Incidentally, if an ISI-sponsored paper says such things about the US intentions, there is ground to believe that it is the US imperialism that is speaking through the mouth of the ISI. 

At the same time, there is nothing new in these ideas. A few years ago, Ms Benazir Bhutto too had made the same set of proposals at the US’s behest and we had commented upon them in these columns at that time. Here we can say only one thing. If India and Pakistan want to have a no-war pact among themselves or if they are afraid of each other’s nuclear arsenals and want to dismantle them, they can very well do so without any US mediation whatsoever. The US simply has no business to meddle in their affairs.

However, as we said in our April 27 issue, there are still lingering suspicions that whatever moves India and Pakistan have taken in the last three weeks or promise to take in the days to come, have been because of the US pressure. The US deputy secretary of state, Richard Armitage, is scheduled to visit both the countries, and will be here by the time this paper reaches our readers. Yet, leaders of the two countries have not so far made any attempt to dispel such suspicions. In this regard, it is worth quoting the Mainstream that says: “There has been no effort from the side of Vajpayee to deny such an impression. Only the BJP spokesperson has blandly dismissed the suggestion in reply to a query at his briefing on what the PM told the BJP parliamentary party on April 29, but from the tone and tenor of his refutation it was more than clear that he himself lacked conviction in what he was saying.”

On this point, not only the above-quoted weekly but several publications have stressed the point that both India and Pakistan would do well to sort out their mutual differences on their own (let us say, in the spirit of the Shimla accord), and not give any third party, however ‘benign’ it may look, a chance to meddle in our affairs. They have also stressed that the US may well try to use the issue of nuclear weapons as a handy tool in a bid to bring both the nations under its tutelage.

The Mainstream editorial is more outspoken on the issue. Warning that the US “motives are far from altruistic,” the weekly says, “we, both the people and governments of India and Pakistan, should do everything possible on our part to see that Washington does not become hyper-active to meddle in our affairs. In other words, instead of relying exclusively on the White House, we ourselves must solve our own problems” (emphasis in original).

(Incidentally, the use of word “exclusively” in this quotation is unfortunate and does not match the idea the editorial writer has in his mind.)

Here a matter of some satisfaction is the indication, emanating from Pakistan, that that country would not try to take the Kashmir issue to the Security Council. Pakistan’s foreign minister Khurshid Mehmood Kasuri has been reported saying that “at the international level we have some lessons to be learnt. If the countries cannot solve their problems and live in peace with each other, as a consequence other countries will start taking interest.” It is in this spirit that both India and Pakistan have to move ahead, come to the negotiating table without any precondition, take whatever confidence building measures are possible in the specific circumstances of today, and agree to move towards resolving all their disputes including Kashmir and cross-border terrorism, while maintaining constant vigil against imperialist manoeuvres.