New turn in Indo-Pak relations?

The tectonic shift in Indian policy has been startling given the face off at the NAM summit at Kuala Lumpur when President Musharraf raised a bilateral issue Kashmir -- at multilateral forum which invited a sharp retort from the Indian Prime Minister. In early April Foreign Minister Jaswant Sinha thought Pakistan to be "a fit case" for preemptive attack like that on Iraq because Pakistan had WMD, lacked democracy and sheltered international terrorists. Colin Powell, however, did not find any "direct parallel to the two cases". In February Sinha told an Indian periodical (OUTLOOK- 24th February) in reply to a question about the dangerous possibility of Pak nuclear weapons falling into wrong hands that in his view "nuclear weapons in the hands of Pakistan are already in wrong hands". He insisted that Pakistan must abandon its approach of compulsive hostility and use of cross border terrorism with impenitent and ferocious regularity as an instrument of policy towards India. In March Vajpayee strongly criticised the US for showing weakness towards Pakistan. On other occasions he castigated the West for following a double standard in combating terrorism.

Pursuant to the Srinagar olive branch positive developments to date have been naming of high commissioners by the two countries; political decision reached on the resumption of bus, rail and air links; and decision to restart talks. Understandably having been bitten twice -- bus visit to Lahore and failed summit at Agra -- India has become cautious and would like to take a "step by step process and resume the dialogue process in a calibrated and well prepared manner" in order to normalise relations with Pakistan (Jaswant Sinha to Hindustan Times 6th April). Indians felt betrayed that when Vajpayee was talking to then Pak Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif at Lahore Pak military was preparing for Kargil misadventure presumably keeping the civilian administration in the dark. While Indian caution is understandable the question arises what prompted the Indian Prime Minister to take the peace initiative now. Though dismissed by India that her overture to Pakistan was due to US pressure it is difficult to totally disregard the possibility of foreign pressure in view of frequent visits to South Asia by Richard Armitage and Cristina Roca of the US State department and British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw.

Tap here to add The Daily Star as a trusted source

Indians would like to describe their policy change was due to some positive steps taken by Pakistan such as actions taken against Hijbul Mujaheddin and lessening of Pak governmental sponsorship and support of cross border terrorism and no less due to Indian Prime Minister's "initiative and statesmanship" which have earned US admiration and appreciation of India's step by step policy of augmenting relations with Pakistan. Indian leaders and policy makers are generally reluctant to admit of doing things under duress. India is very conscious of her unique position as being the largest democracy in the world; hosting second largest (after the US) talent pool of IT specialists; second largest populated (after China) country; as a fairly large economy (GDP $ 448 billion in 1999); more than a million strong defense force armed with nuclear weapons etc. India feels that she should be a permanent member of the UNSC. She feels happy over President Bush's commitment to develop a fundamentally different relationship with India by opening a strategic dialogue which encouraged Prime Minister Vajpayee to declare that USA and India were "natural allies" both being victims of international terrorism.

Indian confidence as a critical presence in Asia was recently buttressed when Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld called on the visiting Indian Deputy Prime Minister L.K.Advani within hours of his arrival at Washington. This was seen by Indian officials as a very rare gesture shown by senior US government official to visiting foreign dignitaries and an extra-ordinary honour extended to Advani. Reportedly Rumsfeld was keen to know about Indian reaction to the US request for Indian troops for Iraqi reconstruction to which Indian DPM reportedly replied that his country was still considering various aspects of the issue before taking a final decision. Advani took this opportunity to express Indian disappointment that enough US pressure was not being put upon Pakistan to stop cross border terrorism.

It is also possible that Vajpayee extended his hand of friendship towards Pakistan to facilitate holding the next SAARC summit in Islamabad. It would not have helped India's image to have been seen as obstructing indefinitely holding of the SAARC summit.

As it is one wonders about the depth of India's interest in the SAARC. Perhaps, India has reached the conclusion that given the abysmal depth of Indo-Pak distrust and her neighbours' misgivings about India's treatment of bilateral relations with them SAARC would not become a robust organisation any time soon. India is a dialogue partner of ASEAN, a regular participant of ASEM and APEC processes, valued by the EU and the US. Therefore SAARC may not have the same priority for Delhi that it has in other South Asian capitals. This thesis, however, becomes debatable when one looks at the speech delivered by Indian Foreign Minister at the Panteion University at Athens (India-EU relationship15th January 2003) in which he spoke of the remarkable process by which the European Union came to acquire a political and strategic dimension becoming virtually a United States of Europe, an example Sinha felt, could be emulated by Asia.

If India truly has become disenchanted with the SAARC process it could be because the fundamental issue in Indo-Pak relations has remained unresolved. As late as early June Pak Foreign Minister Khurshid Kasuri reiterated that as far as Pakistan was concerned the whole of Jammu & Kashmir was disputed territory and its status was yet to be determined as required by UNSC resolutions. Pak Foreign Secretary Riaz Khokar told the Disarmament Conference at Geneva on 26th May that Pakistan hoped that a resumed dialogue between India and Pakistan would address " the core issue of Kashmir without which there cannot be any realistic hope of enduring peace and security in the region". A position paper issued by the Pak Foreign office clearly states that Pakistan will continue to extend full political, diplomatic and moral support "to the legitimate Kashmiri struggle for their right of self determination as enshrined in the relevant UN resolutions". The position paper adds that in the context of bilateral dialogue Pakistan calls on India to translate its commitments into reality. On the Indian side Foreign Minister Sinha was asked in an interview( with RADIFF.COM-4th June 2003) under what conditions, if any, would India be amenable for dividing Kashmir formally along the Line of Control(LOC) and accept it as an international border. In reply he said that the constitution of India and the Resolution adopted in Parliament in 1994 clearly lay down that the entire state of Jammu& Kashmir was an integral part of India.

Where then is the scope to bridge the vast gap without which no lasting solution of the Kashmir problem and by extension of Indo-Pak relations can be resolved? The positions stated above are not new but reiteration of the old ones totally devoid of any imaginative new elements. One could perhaps consider the advice given by Ambassador Richard Haas of the US State Department who spent almost three decades working on regional conflicts that the inability to resolve big issues should not stop progress on the little ones because the path to large breakthrough was often paved with agreements on small issues. He further advised that since the status of LOC could neither be changed unilaterally nor through violence the two countries should work on issues which could be solved so that bilateral relations could be improved.

Whether one likes it or not the world has irrevocably been changed by the tragic events of nine-eleven when the US lost its innocence regarding its invincibility and realised to its horror that small states can cause as much damage to the most powerful nation on earth as big states can. The other lesson learnt was that non-state actors can also cause immense harm to the innocent as recent events at Bali, Riyadh and Morocco have horribly demonstrated. It is therefore essential that Indo-Pak differences be resolved peacefully as the Europeans have done by moving away from centuries of conflict laden history. c In sum, South Asia has more urgent wars to fight, the wars on the grim triad of poverty, ignorance and disease than wage military wars. To emancipate about a billion people from the vortex of poverty and under development South Asian leaders have to shed their politicians' robe and put on the garb of statesmen. The heritage of love or hate they leave for the future generation will affect the fate of teeming millions in the years to come.

Kazi Anwarul Masud is a former Secretary and Ambassador.