INDIAN PROPOSALS TO PAKISTAN

Sincere Action A Must To Normalise Relations

 Harkishan Singh Surjeet

THERE is no doubt that the government of India has taken a very positive step towards normalisation of Indo-Pak relations, in the form of 12 proposals it sent to Pakistan on October 22. Without going into the details of these proposals, which are well known, one can safely say that their implementation would go a long way in strengthening the people to people relations and lessening the tension between the two countries. That was why our party, the CPI(M), did not hesitate for a moment in welcoming these proposals.

FOR BUILDING CONFIDENCE

THERE is one more thing to be noted about this move. Most of these proposals are concrete and do not leave scope for diverse interpretations. Yet another advantage is that virtually all of them are in the nature of interim measures and most of them can be implemented without delay. For example, the capacity of the Delhi-Lahore bus can be increased and the convoy made bigger. If senior citizens of the two countries are allowed to cross the Wagah border on foot, that would only lessen their difficulties. Sporting links between the two countries can be immediately restored and an Indo-Pak cricket match is what the cricket lovers in these two countries and all over the world are eagerly looking for. A ferry service between Mumbai and Karachi can be started without a hitch, the Coast Guards of the two countries can have regular contacts, and the sea can be made safer for fishermen from the two sides. Another welcome announcement is that the government of India would bear for the next 20 years the full cost of treatment of such Pakistani children in Indian hospitals as are suffering from serious cardiac diseases. After all, the case of Baby Noor, who was successfully treated in a Bangalore hospital, has already demonstrated what deep sense of love and goodwill the common people of the two countries have for one another.

No doubt some of the October 22 proposals create in one’s mind a sense of uneasiness. For instance, making the restoration of rail links incumbent upon restoration of air links simply defies understanding. Running a bus service between Srinagar and Muzaffarabad may also be problematic, more so due to constant firing across the line of control. Moreover, in their desperation, some of the terrorist groups have termed this proposal as a “recognition of two Kashmirs” and threatened to attack the buses if they ply. While their claim that such a bus service would legitimise the idea of two Kashmirs does not have much of a substance, their threat is real and cannot be ignored. Implementation of this measure may not take place right now. There may also be minor problems in having visa camps in several cities and in increasing the mission staffs in Islamabad and New Delhi. Yet, given political will, these proposals too can be acted upon. 

In sum, the implementation of such proposals can go a long way in building mutual confidence between the two countries, and thus creating a congenial atmosphere in which more knotty issues can be taken up for resolution at a later date. That is why several commentators have correctly called them confidence building measures (CBMs).

PAKISTAN’S RESPONSE

BY the time we were to go to press, Pakistan’s detailed response to the government of India’s proposals was in the process of coming. This is understandable, as Pakistan too needed time to properly evaluate these proposals and frame its response accordingly. But whatever cursory remarks the Pakistani side had so far made could only be called unfortunate.

For instance, there was no point in what a Pakistan foreign ministry spokesman, Mr Masood Khan, has said on the issue. He reportedly said at a press meet that India’s proposals are a rehash of what the Pakistan prime minister Mir Zafarullah Khan Jamali has already proposed. However, granting that what he said is true, this was all the more logical that Pakistan gave a positive response to these proposals at the earliest. In fact, Khan’s contention “only led to a barrage of questions from correspondents that in such a case what was holding back a response from Islamabad” (The Hindu, October 28).

Another worrying point was that Pakistan does not seem to realise the importance of CBMs for normalisation of relations. Mr Khan is on record saying that “We are disappointed to note that India has sidelined Kashmir.” The logic defies comprehension. For, as we said, if the latest proposals are acted upon, they can go a long way in creating a conducive atmosphere for resolution of knotty issues like “Kashmir, Siachin and nuclear security” too, which Mr Khan has raised. The fact is that raising the Kashmir issue before everything else may be to the liking of General Parvez Musharraf, but this is certainly not going to take us any further. One may well recall that one of the major reasons, if not the sole reason, for the failure of the Agra summit was the general’s insistence that the Kashmir issue be taken up first.

Mr Khan’s idea that there should be yet another summit meeting, also lacked substance. For, it is agreed that no proper homework was done before the Agra summit and, therefore, in the absence of homework, yet another summit can only suffer the same fate. But the fact is that an implementation of the CBMs can be no less important as homework than any secretary or minister level talks.    

OFFICIAL (!) JINGOISM

INSOFAR as the Indian side is concerned, the jingoistic statements issued by some of the ministers were also unfortunate. On October 26, foreign affairs minister Yashwant Sinha made the sad remark that the October 22 proposals had put India in a “win-win” position --- as if the issue at hand was not of creating trust between the two countries but of scoring a point over Pakistan. This is also evident from the fact that Sinha once described the 12 proposals, which he had himself conveyed to the world, as but “a tactical move.”

And then came the windbag called George Fernandes who even went to the extent of saying that Pakistan must come either to the negotiating table or to the battlefield. One wonders whether it is really the way the present regime at New Delhi would like to ensure a tension free subcontinent! 

There have been mixed reactions to the government of India’s proposals on both sides of the Indo-Pak border. Back home, hawks like Praveen Togadia have sharply criticised these proposals and the Shiv Sena has even threatened that it would not allow an Indo-Pak cricket match anywhere in India. But the strange thing is that neither the government of India has dissociated itself from what Sinha and Fernandes have said nor any BJP leader has denounced these rabble-rousers. Some media reports are full of speculation to the effect that the government's proposals are but a move to diplomatically outsmart General Musharraf and put Pakistan in a quandary. Then there is also a view that these proposals have been timed with the impending assembly elections in five states, and there are indeed many takers of this theory. However, the government of India has so far not taken trouble to put such speculations to rest. This is causing a sense of uneasiness to all those who are sincerely in favour of a betterment of the Indo-Pak relations. Anyway, one thing is certain. If the regime at New Delhi only tries to derive electoral mileage from its proposals instead of earnestly striving to ensure a tension free subcontinent, it will only give a further boost to the hawks on both sides of the border. And the blame for it will be squarely on its own shoulders. That it may also have to face the people’s wrath for its gimmick, goes without saying.

At the international level, the Indian proposals have evoked utmost support. All the foreign governments have welcomed them, including Russia and China. And this is understandable. For, South Asia is currently one of the regions where the danger of a nuclear conflagration is most serious. Therefore, any move to ease the tensions in this region will only make the world peoples heave a sigh of relief. This favourable world opinion too is a solid foundation on which both India and Pakistan can build up mutual trust and open a new chapter in their relations.

DIALOGUE ON KASHMIR  

SYNCHRONISING with its proposals given to Pakistan, the government of India also expressed willingness to open dialogue with the All Party Hurriyat Conference (APHC) and other groups in Kashmir about the latter’s future. The government also announced that now the deputy prime minister L K Advani would hold talks with various Kashmiri groups. It was also clarified that N N Vohra, so far the centre’s interlocutor in Kashmir, would continue with his work and assist Advani in the talks.

No doubt this too was a positive move and the Hurriyat moderates led by Maulvi Abbas Ansari welcomed it initially. It was also given to understand that talks with APHC factions and others would take place unconditionally. As for hardliners like Ali Shah Geelani and the Hizbul-Mujahideen, their rejection of the offer was not unexpected. But it was also clear that, given the changing mood of the Kashmiri people, these hardliners would not be able to carry the masses along with them.

But then, on behalf of the government of India, Advani suddenly made an unfortunate statement on October 24, to the effect that the proposed talks would be on the issue of decentralisation of powers to the state. This seems to be an unwise move as it appeared that the centre was setting a precondition for talks. This angered even the moderates in the Hurriyat who had expressed willingness to talk to the centre. Their leader, Maulvi Abbas Ansari, said decentralisation of powers could not be the focus of negotiations, while former Hurriyat chairman Abdul Ghani Bhat reacted by saying that “this is not our agenda.” He then added: “We seek the resolution of the Kashmir issue. The dialogue should revolve around that issue only.”

It is true that the differences between the centre and the Kashmiri groups (barring those who want the merger of Kashmir with Pakistan) on the issue of agenda are, to a significant measure, semantic and could well be resolved once the two sides came to the negotiating table. But what Advani has done by his statement is that he has given various outfits a chance to speak in the same language. The Advani statement is not likely to be palatable to the common Kashmiri mass either.

But, whatever other problems such an attitude on part of the centre regarding Pakistan and Kashmir may cause, one big problem it will cause is that the issues of dispute between the two countries may remain unresolved. But this can only go in favour of the imperialist powers who are waiting in the wings. According to an Asian Age report on October 25, US president George Bush now plans to talk to the leaders of both India and Pakistan in a bid to get their mutual differences resolved. But this means a subtle or not so subtle imperialist intervention in the subcontinent, something India had always been trying to avoid till a few years back. US imperialists have already got a foothold in our neighbourhood, in Afghanistan, they are active in Nepal too, and there is news that they are striving to get a foothold in Bangladesh as well. All this would evidently pose a serious threat to our own security and sovereignty and this is what our people would have to beware of.