Saarc meet and Indo-Pak relations

If the BJP firebrand L K Advani threatened to draw the sword from the scabbard, President Musharraf had threatened to draw blood. In this volatile situation the necessity of Confidence Building Measures (CBM) between the two arch-rivals cannot be overemphasised. Pakistan continues to harp on the Kashmir issue as the casus belli of Indo-Pak tensions and thereby arrests any development of intra-Saarc growth as a cohesive politico-economic regional arrangement. Pakistan's portrayal of the Kashmir issue being a diasporic quest for identity of the Kashmiri Muslims distinct from the "domination" by Hindus, based on the two nation theory which formed the basis of the partition of the sub-continent in 1947, has lost relevance because India houses as many Muslims as Pakistan does.

One must, however, agree that religions have too often being used to justify the violation of human rights, in part through hierarchical and selective use of role ethics and postponement of temporal justice to divine judgement. The carnage in Gujarat, if one were to be amnesiac about the slaughter of millions of people in Punjab and Bengal as a consequence of the partition of India, is the harshest reminder of the result of religion based politics. Indeed one of the reasons of the defeat of BJP in the recently held general elections in India could be attributed to popular disillusionment with Hindu nationalism as a social movement and as reflective of majoritarian nationalism.

Tap here to add The Daily Star as a trusted source

Amrita Basu (of Amherst College) in her study of the dialectics of Hindu nationalism concluded that by opposing the safeguards of minority rights, the BJP had effectively redefined democracy as majoritarianism, and minority rights as a case for special bargaining. BJP also redefined Nehruvian nationalism by excluding Muslims from majoritarian definition of the nation. Such polarisation of the electorate along Hindu-Muslim lines paid BJP rich electoral dividend in the past on several occasions, but the party's umbilical relationship with RSS and VHP, both intolerant of political pluralism, cost BJP the last election in India.

But then BJP's religious alignment should not be cited by Pakistan as a reason for seeking a solution of the Kashmir problem just because the people in the valley practise Islam. Such projection of an external problem citing internal political policy of BJP would be asinine. The emergence of Bangladesh as a sovereign independent state and the disintegration of Yugoslavia constitute impeccable evidence, if one is needed at all, that religion alone cannot be the basis of nationalism. India itself is a shinning example of being a country that is multi-ethnic, multi-cultural, multi-religious, and multi-linguistic. Indeed most of the developed and developing countries have among them citizens who pray to different divinities but salute the same flag.

It has been argued that the importance of self-determination is accepted as a right in Articles 1 and 73 of the UN Charter. But the discrepancy between this right and the right of the state to self-defence and to the preservation of territorial integrity has never been clearly resolved since both the rights are equally enshrined in the UN Charter. One can, perhaps, explain away UN Charter's inclusion of the right of self-determination on the ground that the framers of the Charter had in mind the inevitable process of de-colonisation which was to follow the end of the Second World War and the West's continued subscription to this right was embedded in its expectation for eventual realisation of the aspirations for freedom by then occupied units of the Soviet Union.

Though it is difficult to argue for a totally secularist basis for nationalism in the post 9/11 era, strengthened by sociologist Peter Berger's contention that the world today is massively religious and it is any thing but a secularised world that had been predicted by so many analysts of modernity, one can not give in to the devilish forces of religious extremism which would partition the world along the lines of bigotry and hatred and tear asunder the global architecture which had served the world well, albeit with occasional tremors of fear and unease, for the greater part of the last century. Equally, as pointed out by James Hoge (editor of Foreign Affairs magazine) one should be cognisant of a global power shift in the making. This time, asserts Hoge, the populous states of Asia are the aspirants seeking to play a greater role. Like Japan and Germany, these rising powers are nationalistic, seek redress of past grievances, and want to claim their place in the sun. Asia's growing economic power translated into increased political and military power raises the spectre of conflict.

India and Kashmir looms large on Hoge's radar screen. Though India and Pakistan have recently softened their hawkish rhetoric towards each other, James Hoge apprehends that economic and political instabilities within Pakistan could easily ignite another Indo-Pak conflict. Hoge advises the ruling Congress party to follow its secular tradition in governance which would assist the US campaign to counter the influence of radical Islamists because aberrant religious ideology of al-Qaida variety is yet to contaminate the large Indian Muslim population. The mid-July visit to Delhi by Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage, "the first visit at broad policy level from the US after the assumption of office by the new government in India," was seen by the Indian authorities as a "renewal of the commitment to maintain the momentum of bilateral relations" and as "an opportunity of going beyond the purely bilateral framework and discuss regional issues and concerns." Bangladesh, inter-alia, figured in the discussions Armitage had with Indian leaders in which "concerns were expressed about rising fundamentalist forces (in Bangladesh) and their support for terrorism." Obviously Armitage visit covered at length Indo-Pak relations and he was briefed on CBMs that are being expanded as well as widening of the areas of cooperation.

Most recently, German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer endorsed India's growing global role during his recent visit to Delhi. On the question of the reform of the UN Fischer and his Indian counterpart agreed that enlargement of the UN Security Council should include permanent membership for countries of the South and industrialised world that make key contribution to international peace and security. Germany and India, both declared, should be natural candidates for permanent seat in the UNSC, and both pledged support to each other.

Realisation of India's growing importance is not fragmentary. Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin has embraced the idea of elevating to heads-of-state level the meetings of G-20 that is composed of ten industrialised and ten emerging economies (including India). Similar sentiment was harboured by President Bill Clinton who felt that "Cold War and clumsy diplomacy" had kept India and the US apart for too long and with the Cold War being over he felt an obligation to improve Indo-US relations. Kashmir, however, remains the sticking point. President Musharraf has made it abundantly clear about the centrality of a solution of Kashmir issue for any fundamental improvement in Indo-Pak ties. That is why it is so difficult to see how the Indo-Pak differences can be bridged in the talks now being held and ones that will follow. Roads and air links have already been restored. Pledge has been made to restore the original strength of the diplomatic missions at Delhi and Islamabad. Discussions are taking place to start bus service between the capitals of the disputed territory.

While these actions augur well, more important CBMs relate to nuclear weapons. Dr. Subash Kapila (of South Asian Analysis Group) points to the striking differences between South Asian nuclear weapons environment from that of the Cold War. Dr. Kapila's apprehension has found echo in President Clinton's autobiography in which he spoke of the American national security people's conviction that unlike the US and Soviet Union in the Cold War, India and Pakistan knew little about each other's nuclear capabilities and policies for using them. Besides the US and then Soviet Union were separated geographically by thousands of miles while India and Pakistan are contiguous. Additionally while India has announced "no first use" policy of nuclear weapons Pakistan refuses to follow suit. Then again Pakistan's nuclear weapons remain under the control of the army and given Pakistan's fifty odd years' history it would be unrealistic to believe that there would ever be total civilian control of the nuclear weapons and their use. Assumption of civilian control is irrelevant at best and arrogantly stupid at worst. In such tremulous situation that contains animosity towards India as an inherent factor in Pakistani power structure, American engagement in Indo-Pak dispute should remain robust.

On this, one cannot but agree with the conclusion of K.S. Bajpayee (former Indian ambassador to Pakistan, China and the US) that whatever name Washington's role might be given, it has become a crucial player and will remain so. What distinguishes the US role today, adds Bajpayee, is the virtual impossibility of seeing any lasting Indo-Pak tranquillity without US efforts. The US at the same time should rein in Pakistan because India's overwhelming economic and technological endowments can impose on Pakistan an arms race that would spell disaster for Pakistan's economy. Therefore for the sake of sustained peace and security in this region the Bush administration should not let its immediate interests now being served by Pakistan's tactical support to the US war on terror to cloud its vision and ignore the quest for peace and development by people living in the world's hottest nuclear flash point.

Kazi Anwarul Masud is a former Secretary and Ambassador.